"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.
Chelsea Naylor NDPA Stalwart Board Member, Equal Justice Foundation PHOTO: Linkedin
My friend, NDPA star Chelsea NAYLOR writes:
Today, I’m writing on behalf of an organization on which I sit on the board – WCL’s Equal Justice Foundation (EJF). Each year we raise money to provide stipends for students doing unpaid, public interest, summer internships. This year, we’ll be hosting a networking event with a silent auction so students can meet more professionals in the field/mingle with professors in a different setting, while we also raise those funds!
The event is at WCL’s campus on Thursday, March 30th, 6:30pm-8:30pm and will have food, drinks, trivia, and music!
“I was working at the Justice Department on immigration issues largely related to enforcement, figuring out how to make our laws more just, more fair, more humane. . . . But the Board of Immigration Appeals also has jurisdiction over dealing with regulations. It’s the highest administrative agency dealing with immigration issues—not only one-off cases, but we set national precedent for things like asylum, dealing with children who are detained in the United States. It’s a very powerful agency. Not a lot of people realize how much influence it has. And so that’s significant because when Trump was elected, we saw such a marked change in the direction of the work, where the focus of the policies seemed to be cruelty for the point of cruelty. And I couldn’t continue to work there and uphold my oath to protect and defend the Constitution, let alone maintain my own moral compass. And so I took a stand and I left.”
Rep. Hillary Scholten (D-MI) Visit Creator: Ike Hayman Credit: Ike Hayman SOURCE: WikipediaMary Harris Host & Managing Editor What Next PHOTO: Slate.com
Not just a thing of the past. Unsplash [In fact, it’s Arkansas GOP Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders’s “vision of the future” now that she has eliminated those pesky “burdensome and obsolete” child labor laws!]BY MARY HARRISMARCH 09, 20233:40 PMCongresswoman Hillary Scholten remembers exactly where she was when she realized her new job on Capitol Hill was about to get a lot more complicated. “My heart just sank,” she said. “I couldn’t believe what I was reading.”Scholten was reading the New York Times, a big investigation into immigrant child labor. The very first anecdote in this 5,000-word opus is about a 15-year-old girl bagging cereal on the graveyard shift in the Hearthside Food Solutions plant in Grand Rapids, Michigan. Scholten is a third-generation Michigander. She’s from Grand Rapids. And it wasn’t just that companies in Scholten’s hometown were employing kids. It was that many of these kids seemed to be living without their parents. And a lot of them were falling asleep in school because they had full-time jobs. The machines they were working on? They had been known to slice off workers’ fingers.Congresswoman Hillary Scholten remembers exactly where she was when she realized her new job on Capitol Hill was about to get a lot more complicated. “My heart just sank,” she said. “I couldn’t believe what I was reading.”Scholten was reading the New York Times, a big investigation into immigrant child labor. The very first anecdote in this 5,000-word opus is about a 15-year-old girl bagging cereal on the graveyard shift in the Hearthside Food Solutions plant in Grand Rapids, Michigan. Scholten is a third-generation Michigander. She’s from Grand Rapids. And it wasn’t just that companies in Scholten’s hometown were employing kids. It was that many of these kids seemed to be living without their parents. And a lot of them were falling asleep in school because they had full-time jobs. The machines they were working on? They had been known to slice off workers’ fingers.
“Especially as an attorney who has worked on these issues her entire career, it felt like a personal attack,” Scholten said.
On Wednesday’s episode of the show, I spoke with the former immigration attorney–turned–congresswoman about the broader powers she has now that’s she in D.C. and whether she will be able to use them. Our conversation has been condensed and edited for clarity.
Mary Harris: Rep. Hillary Scholten says the nuances of immigration have always been important to her. Before she was an attorney, she worked as a migrant advocate. But once she got her law degree, she took that experience one step forward, joining the DOJ.
Hillary Scholten: I was working at the Justice Department on immigration issues largely related to enforcement, figuring out how to make our laws more just, more fair, more humane.
You were working on immigration appeals, right?
Yeah, exactly. But the Board of Immigration Appeals also has jurisdiction over dealing with regulations. It’s the highest administrative agency dealing with immigration issues—not only one-off cases, but we set national precedent for things like asylum, dealing with children who are detained in the United States. It’s a very powerful agency. Not a lot of people realize how much influence it has. And so that’s significant because when Trump was elected, we saw such a marked change in the direction of the work, where the focus of the policies seemed to be cruelty for the point of cruelty. And I couldn’t continue to work there and uphold my oath to protect and defend the Constitution, let alone maintain my own moral compass. And so I took a stand and I left.
Scholten soon got a new job at the Michigan Immigrant Rights Center. But almost as soon as she arrived, her work—and the work of many other immigration attorneys across the country—was thrown into chaos. Things got especially bad as it became clear the Department of Homeland Security was separating migrant children from their parents at the border, leaving lawyers and advocates to figure out what to do next. That’s when Hillary Scholten started seriously considering a run for Congress.
At the height of the family separation crisis, our agency was responsible for helping reunite and represent so many children. Imagine a legal services waiting room that turned into a virtual day care center overnight with kids who didn’t know where their parents were. And there were a lot of reasons I raised my hand to run, but no doubt I can pinpoint the moment when I was like, “Oh, hell no, I got to do more.” It’s the height of the summer. My dear husband came to visit me at work. It was going to be a late night, and he brought me an iced coffee. And we were chatting, and we walked through our waiting room. He’s normally a pretty stoic guy, and he fell silent. And I turned and looked at him, and his eyes had just filled with tears. And I realized that we had walked past a set of three siblings, all dressed in their Sunday best, between the ages of 5 and 7. That’s how old our children were at the time. And he just said, “Hill, you see this stuff on the news. It is an entirely different level to look these children in the eye.”
One of our youngest clients was separated from his parents at 4 months old. You’re not just walking away from a parent. You’re being taken from their arms.
Five years later, this investigation by the New York Times has Scholten thinking about different ways to help migrant children. Just this past weekend, she returned to her district to connect with constituents and think about how she can intervene, now that her community’s child labor problem is no longer a secret. She can already see the way the news has rippled outward.
One of the saddest things about the fallout of all of this is that there has continued to be some real discontent within the immigrant communities here, where shining a light on the exploitation of children has also shined a light on the fact that there have been so many other individuals working without authorization in these factories. And as companies have started to look into who’s actually working here, their labor pool has vanished. Hearthside, after the Times ran the investigation, said they were going to be doing inspections on the manufacturing floor, and 75 percent of their workforce didn’t show up the next day.
. . . .
**************************
Read/listen to the full interview at the above links.
As Hillary says, the BIA is “a really powerful agency.” That’s exactly why the Trump Administration “packed” it with unqualified restrictionist “Appellate Judges” known for their anti-asylum bias and astronomical asylum denial rates!
That’s also why Biden, Harris, and Garland’s near-complete failure to “clean up the BIA” and the rest of the failed EOIR “judiciary” and bring in the “best legal minds in the business” to establish a model progressive expert judiciary is such a scandal and indicator of the repeated failure of Dem Administrations to take advantage of the transformational opportunities given them.
By contrast, whether we like it or not, the far right extremist GOP knows exactly how important the Immigration Courts are and accordingly acts decisively to weaponize, pack, “dumb down,” and co-opt them in their nativist battle to dehumanize and demonize migrants. This was a key “first step” in the GOP’s attack on all of the “others” in America! Transgender youth, African Americans, women, Asian Americans, Hispanic Americans, and others being targeted by the GOP’s nationwide assault on their rights, humanity, and the truth about our history might look to the Biden Administration’s fecklessness in dealing with immigrants’ rights and human rights to understand how they are being “left out on a limb” by a Dem Administration — more interested in its re-election than in serving those who helped put them in office.
Hillary had the guts and moral courage to take a stand. Yet, Biden, Harris, Garland, Mayorkas and others in this Administration, not so much! Frankly, that’s appalling! 🤮
“It is an entirely different level to look these children in the eye.” This encapsulates the problems of immigration, human rights, child abuse, and racial injustice! Unlike Hillary, very few legislators, Federal Judges, Biden politicos, or GOP nativist Governors and AGs have ever had to get their “hands dirty” by “looking . . . in the eyes” of children and others whom they abuse, dehumanize, and bully on a regular basis!
Attribution: ROLLING BACK CHILD LABOR PROTECTIONS by Randall Enos, Easton, CT Republished under license.
Contrast Hillary’s “hands on” experience and search for bipartisan practical solutions with the predictable stupidity and abuse by GOP Arkansas Governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders, a living incarnation of the “Peter Principle,” who recently and gleefully signed into law an insane provision reducing child labor protections in Arkansas while incredibly claiming that protecting children was “burdensome and obsolete!”
The law eliminates requirements for the state to verify the age of children younger than 16 before they can take a job.
Sanders believes the provision was “burdensome and obsolete,” spokeswoman Alexa Henning said in an emailed statement.
Ark. Gov. Huckabee Sanders’s MAGA “child welfare plan” has its Anglo-Saxon roots firmly planted in the famous British workhouses that many GOP politicos admire! Public Realm
As part of their “willful blindness” to the deterioration of American democracy, the so-called “mainstream media” often likes to falsely portray GOP Governors as presenting a “saner” alternative to America’s leading liar/insurrectionist “The Donald.” But, as Sanders, DeSantis, Abbott, Youngkin, and others remind us on a regular basis, there are some REALLY BAD GOP Governors out there who are every bit as much a threat to America’s future as Trump!
The anti-woke crusade is rooted in fear and ignorance, a mnemonic placeholder for the bigoted things most people wouldn’t dare say aloud. Black Americans have been using the term “woke” since the 1940s to describe a state of awareness toward racist policies and worldviews that negatively impact the Black community. However, many White people now use the term as a derogative slur, a cowardly way of spilling the beans while denying any beans were spilled.
. . . .
Saying you are anti-woke is a way of admitting you are anti-Black without feeling the backlash many outspoken racists receive. Likewise, anti-woke crusaders are promoting anti-democratic policies by controlling what topics schools and businesses can read and discuss without getting labeled a fascist for circumventing the First Amendment of the Constitution. America was founded by White men interested in securing their rights while denying that same access to Black people, women, and racial and ethnic minority groups. We don’t have to worship the founding fathers blindly, nor should any American. It seems many conservatives are afraid of saying the quiet part out loud, of admitting that their crusade on “woke” is really an attempt to diminish the gains made by the Civil Rights Movement, of framing progress as regressive. Americans should challenge more conservatives to define “woke” on their own terms because the more descriptions they provide, the more we can see through the smoke and mirrors.
*******************
Those with Medium access can read the complete article at the link.
Here’s one of my favorite comments on this article, from Walter Rhein: “When people say they are ‘anti-woke,’ I interrupt them and say ‘You mean ‘anti-black.’ They become enraged and act like they’re the victims (like racists always do).”
Cowardly insurrectionist racist oppressors and chronic liars bogusly claiming they are “victims,” perhaps of “the biggest witch hunt on history?” Sound familiar?
The far right’s war of hate directed against the “other” started with the White Nationalist war on immigrants. It’s called “Dred Scottification” of the other. Yet, the mainstream media downplays the real message and “normalizes” these vile attacks on our democracy. They “whitewash” the dangerous message of hate being promoted by DeSantis, Abbott, and their ilk.
Ron DeSantis Dave Grandlund PoliticalCartoons.com Republished under license Ron DeSantis and Donald Trump are “campaigning” on an agenda of racism, hate, and White Supremacist grievance not seen since the late Gov. George Wallace. Yet, mainstream media has largely “normalized” that which would have been unacceptable and unthinkable only a few years ago!
Even the Biden Administration fails to “connect the dots” between the White Nationalist restrictionist war on asylum seekers of color they have adopted from Trump and Miller and the extremist right’s attack on Blacks, Asians, Hispanics, LGBTQ, women, teachers,Jews, Muslims, health care professionals, journalists, and everyone else “White Supremacist nation” perceives as a threat to their kakistocracy. In that way, this Dem Administration becomes part of problem, not the solution.
Immigration Court can be a daunting experience even for veteran litigators. For folks like this, alone with no representation, it’s “mission impossible.” Yet Biden A.G. Merrick Garland has done little to fix the systemic “user unfriendliness” and sometimes outright hostility to pro se litigants in his totally dysfunctional “courts in name only!” (“CINOs”). PHOTO: Victoria Pickering, Creative Commons License
Clearly, gimmicks rolled out by Garland and the Biden Administration, including stunts like “dedicated dockets,” “expedited dockets,” “Aimless Docket Reshuffling,” detention courts in the middle of nowhere, unregulated bond procedures, lousy precedents, wasteful litigation against practitioners, proposed regulations irrationally “presuming” denial of asylum, abuse of Title 42, assigning asylum seeker resettlement to GOP nativists like DeSantis and Abbott, and refusal to bring in qualified experts with Immigration Court experience to fix this disasterous system have made the already horrible plight of the unrepresented worse! See, e.g.,https://trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/674/.
With respect to DHS detainees awaiting hearing, a few are subject to so-called “mandatory detention without independent review” as a result of statutes. Others are imprisoned because ICE claims that they are so-called “arriving aliens” (a designation that even some IJs struggle with, but that has huge consequences for a respondent), “likely to abscond,” or ”security risks!”
But, a significant “unstated purpose” of immigration detention, often in substandard conditions, is to coerce detainees into giving up legal rights or waiving appeals and to punish those who stubbornly insist on asserting their rights.
When the almost inevitable “final order of removal” comes, officials in Administrations of both parties believe, without much empirical evidence, that detainees will serve as “bad will ambassadors,” carrying back woeful tales of wonton cruelty and suffering that will “deter” others from darkening the doors of “the world’s most generous nation.”
In spite of this overall “institutionalized hostility,” there is a small, brave cadre of “due process/fundamental fairness heroes” known as the Office of Legal Access Programs, or “OLAP” at EOIR!Forced into “the darkest corners of the EOIR Tower dungeon” during the reign of terror of “Gonzo Apocalypto” Sessions and “Billy the Bigot” Barr, they have finally been released into daylight.
The Dungeon Former A.G. Jeff “Gonzo Apocalypto” Sessions had a special place in the EOIR Falls Church Tower for those trying to assist pro se litigants in Immigration Court. Public Realm
But, make no mistake about it — these courageous folks at OLAP aren’t helping to “drive the train” at EOIR under Biden and Garland, as they certainly should be! No, as was the case before Trump, they are racing down the station platform to catch the train as it departs without them.
How do I know? It’s actually pretty obvious. If Garland & the Administration were actually serious about promoting representation, they would:
Require a positive report from the OLAP before opening any new Immigration Court;
Subject all existing detained “courts” (that aren’t really “courts” at all, within the common understanding of the term) to an OLAP analysis, involving input from the pro bono bar, and close any location where pro bono counsel can’t be made reasonably available to all detainees who want it;
Make part of the IJ hiring process input from the OLAP and the public into the demonstrated commitment of each “finalist” for an Immigration Judge position to working to maximize representation; and
Work with outside programs like Professor Michelle Pistone’s innovative “VIISTA Villanova Program” for training accredited representatives to “streamline and expedite” the Recognition & Accreditation process housed within OLAP.
To my knowledge, none of these obvious “first steps” to address the representation crisis at EOIR have been instituted. Tells us about all we need to know about the real importance of the OLAP in Garland’s galaxy.
Recently, I had the pleasure of meeting with Alicia de La O, her attorneys, and interns at the ABA who are helping the OLAP “staff” the “pro se hotlines” for detainees in immigration proceedings. Of course, they can’t provide “legal advice,” although they can direct pro se litigants to available “self help” materials prepared by OLAP and reliable pro bono NGOs. But, as I pointed out, just being available to speak with isolated detainees, listen sympathetically, and direct them to available resources is a “big deal” from both a human and a practical perspective.
Alicia de la O Senior Attorney/Chief Counsel, ABA Commission on Immigration PHOTO: Linkedin
Remarkably, the amazingly talented, informed, and energetic undergraduate internsworking with the ABA had a far better understanding of the corrosive effect on democracy and America’s future of the mocking of due process, fundamental fairness, racial justice, and human dignity in Immigration Courts than inept and often clueless Biden Administration so-called “immigration policy officials” have acknowledged with their words and deeds. Indeed, one of the undergraduate interns had already completed the VIISTA program. He therefore probably knows more about the Immigration Courts at the “retail level” than some of the clowns Garland has running EOIR!
The energy and commitment of these interns to take on existential challenges that our “leaders” from both parties have shunned, gave me some hope for America’s future. That is, if democracy can survive the overt attacks from the right and its tepid defense by Democrats, by no means an assured outcome.
This opportunity to meet with those working on the front lines of helping the most isolated, vulnerable, and intentionally neglected among us got me thinking about what I might say to a pro se litigant stuck in the “EOIR purgatory,” based on my experience. I note, with some pride, that during my time on the trial bench, almost every pro se individual who wanted to appeal one of my orders was able to file timely with the BIA based on the detailed instructions I gave them at the end of the hearing.
So, as promised, here’s “my list!”
PRO SE CHECKLIST
Judge (Ret.) Paul Wickham Schmidt
March 1, 2023
1) Be careful in filing out the I-589. Everything in the application, including mistakes, omissions, and failure to answer questions can be used AGAINST you at the hearing. Filing a fraudulent application can have severe consequences beyond denial of your case.
2) Do NOT assume that significant omissions or errors in the I-589 can be corrected or explained at the hearing without adverse consequences.
3) If you use a translator, ask that the application be read back to you in FULL for accuracy, before signing. Generally, there is no such thing as an “insignificant error” on an asylum application. All inaccuracies can and will be considered by the IJ in determining whether you are telling the truth.
4) Obtain any relevant documentation supporting the claim and attach to the application. All documents in a foreign language MUST be translated into English. A certificate of accuracy from the translator must also accompany the document. DO NOT expect the court interpreter to translate your documents during the hearing.
5) Understand NEXUS to a “protected ground;” merely claiming or even proving that you will suffer harm upon return is NOT sufficient to win your case; many pro se cases fail on this basis.
6) Any pro se case claiming a “Particular Social Group” will need help in formulating it. Do NOT expect the IJ or ACC to assist in defining a qualifying PSG.
7) Keep a copy of the application and all evidence submitted.
8) Sign your application.
9) Make sure that the original signed copy goes to the Immigration Court and a copy to the ACC.
10) Keep documents submitted by ICE or the Immigration Court.
11) Do NOT rely on your translator, friends, relatives, or “jailhouse lawyers” for advice on filling in the application. NEVER embellish or add incorrect information to your I-589 just because someone else tells you to or says it’s “the only way to win your case.”
12) DO NOT let friends, detention officers, the IJ or anyone else (other than a qualified lawyer working for you) talk you out of pursuing a claim if everything in it is true. You must “tune out chatter” that everybody loses these cases, and therefore you are wasting your time.
13) Do NOT tell the IJ and/or ACC that everything in your application is true and correct if it is not true!
14) If you discover errors in your application before the hearing, ask the IJ at the beginning of the hearing for an opportunity to correct them. Do NOT wait to see if the ACC brings them up.
15) If you will be testifying through an interpreter, ask the IJ for a brief chance to converse with the interpreter before the hearing to make sure you understand each other. If there is any problem, tell the IJ BEFORE the hearing begins.
16) The Immigration Court hearing is a formal, adversary hearing, NOT an “informal interview” like the Asylum Office.
17) Be courteous and polite to the Immigration Judge, the ICE Assistant Chief Counsel, and the interpreter at all times, BUT BE AWARE:
1) The IJ and the ACC are NOT your friends;
2) They do NOT represent your interests;
3) The ACC’s basic job is to urge the IJ to deny your application and enter an order of removal;
4) The IJ is NOT an independent judge. He or she works for the Attorney General a political enforcement official. Some IJs function with a reasonable degree of independence. But, others see themselves largely as assisting the ACC in in denying applications and rapidly turning out removal orders.
5) The interpreter works for the court, NOT you.
18) YOU will be the only person in the courtroom representing your interests.
19) Don’t answer a question that you don’t understand. Ask the IJ to have it repeated. If it is a complicated question, ask the IJ if it can be broken down into distinct parts.
20) If you really don’t know the answer to a question, don’t “guess!” “I don’t know, your honor” is an acceptable answer, if true.
21) If the ACC introduces evidence at the hearing — say a copy of the Asylum Officer’s notes — ask the IJ for a full translation through the interpreter before answering questions.
22) If documents you submitted support your claim, direct the IJs attention to those documents.
23) When it is time for the IJ to deliver an oral decision, make sure that you are allowed to listen through the interpreter.
24) Bring a pencil or pen and a pad of paper to the hearing. Try to take notes on the decision as it is dictated by the IJ.
25) If the decision goes against you, tell the IJ that you want to reserve an appeal and request copies of the appeal forms. You can always withdraw the appeal later, but once an appeal is waived it is difficult, often impossible, to restore it.
26) If the IJ rules in your favor, and the ACC reserves appeal, understand that the order in your favor will have no effect until the appeal is withdrawn or ruled upon by the BIA. For detained individuals, that probably means remaining in detention while the appeal is resolved, which might take months.
27) If you appeal, fill out the forms completely according to instructions and file with the BIA as soon as possible, the same or next day if you can. That is when your memory will be best, and it maximizes the chance of the BIA receiving your appeal on time. Do NOT wait until the last minute to file an appeal.
28) Be SPECIFIC and INCLUSIVE in stating why you think the IJ was wrong. Attach a separate sheet if necessary. Just saying “The Judge got it wrong” or “I disagree with the decision” won’t be enough and might result in the BIA rejecting your appeal without further review.
29) Remember to file the separate fee waiver request form with the Notice of Appeal.
30) Assume that all filing deadlines will be strictly applied and that pro se applicants will NOT be given any breaks or special treatment, despite mailing difficulties and other problems.
31) DON’T count on timely mail delivery. The Notice of Appeal, brief, or any other document is not “filed” with the BIA until they actually receive it. Merely placing it in the mail before the due date will NOT be considered a timely filing if the document arrives late. Mail early!
32) If you are not in detention, use a courier service to deliver filings to the BIA so you have solid evidence of timely filing.
33) If you check the box on the appeal form saying you will file a brief or additional statement, you MUST do so, even if short. Failing to file a brief or written statement after checking that box can be a ground for the BIA to summary dismiss your appeal without considering the merits.
34) Info about the BIA Pro Bono Project.
NOTICE: The ideas above are solely mine. They are not legal advice, and have not been endorsed or approved by any organization or any other person, living or dead, born or unborn.
UNIVERSITY PARK, Pa. — Shoba Sivaprasad Wadhia, associate dean for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion, Samuel Weiss Faculty Scholar, clinical professor of law, and director of the Center for Immigrants’ Rights Clinic at Penn State Law in University Park, will be appointed to the position of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Officer (CRCL) in the Department of Homeland Security. This is a presidential appointment during which Wadhia will take a leave of absence from Penn State Law.
The Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties supports the Department of Homeland Security in providing security for the nation while “preserving individual liberty, fairness, and equality under the law.” CRCL also includes civil rights practices in the Department’s activities and takes step to advance them within the Department.
“This is a full circle moment for me,” said Wadhia, reflecting on her career as an immigration attorney, policy advocate where she engaged in legislative advocacy surrounding the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, and her work at Penn State where she teaches students about the role of federal agencies and the intersection of immigration and administrative law.
Victor Romero, interim dean of Penn State Law and the School of International Affairs, Maureen B. Cavanaugh Distinguished Faculty Scholar, and professor of law said, “We’re deeply proud of Shoba and all her accomplishments at Penn State Law, and we’re excited to see what she achieves in her new position as the Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Officer. She’s a shining example of excellence and leadership in the legal community. We wish her the best of luck during her appointment and eagerly wait for her to share her experiences with the students at Penn State Law upon her return.”
Wadhia looks forward to bringing her experience as CRCL Officer back to the classroom and sharing her work in Diversity, Equity and Inclusion, and contributions more broadly to Penn State Law and beyond. Her teaching courses include Asylum and Refugee Law, Center for Immigrants’ Rights Clinic, Immigration Law, and Law and (In)equity.
“Bringing back my experience at DHS will help me enrich the classroom experience for my students and broaden my lens on the internal work of agencies, and how institutions can respond or reform issues through an equity lens,” said Wadhia.
Her work has been published in numerous law journals, including Duke Law Journal, Emory Law Journal, Texas Law Review, Washington and Lee Law Review, Harvard Latino Law Review, Administrative Law Review, Howard Law Journal, Georgetown Immigration Law Journal, and Columbia Journal of Race and Law.
Wadhia is the founder and director of the Center for Immigrants’ Rights Clinic (CIRC), which has earned a national reputation for its high-quality work product and impact in the community. CIRC was honored with the Excellence in Legal Advocacy Award in 2017 by the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee and named legal organization of the year in 2019 by the Pennsylvania Immigration Resource Center.
Prior to joining Penn State, Wadhia was deputy director for legal affairs at the National Immigration Forum in Washington, D.C., where she provided legal and policy expertise on multiple legislative efforts, including the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, comprehensive immigration reform, immigration enforcement, and immigration policy post 9-11. Wadhia has also been an associate with the immigration law firm Maggio Kattar of P.C. in Washington, D.C., where she represented individuals and families in asylum, deportation, family, and employment-based immigration. She is a 1999 graduate of Georgetown University Law Center.
LAST UPDATED MARCH 1, 2023
*****************************
Many congrats, Shoba, and thanks for taking on this important challenge! Like your PSU Law colleagues, we’re all proud of you!
As one member of our Round Table quipped upon hearing the great news about Shoba: “Love Shoba! And then for comparison, look at who EOIR has running its agency.”
All the best to you in your new position, Shoba! And, thanks again for doing this for the cause of justice in America!
“Juana,” a client of the Asylum & Convention Against Torture Clinic and Annunciation House in Texas, after she won asylum and was released from detention in spring 2019.
Asylum and Convention Against Torture Appellate Clinic Celebrates 20th Anniversary
February 17, 2023
Twenty years ago, Cornell Law School established its Asylum and Convention Against Torture Appellate Clinic. Since then, some 200 students have represented close to 100 clients. In a system where the vast majority of asylum seekers lose their appeals, the clinic has won an estimated sixty-six percent of its cases.
“Because of the complexity of immigration law, it is very hard to win asylum for someone,” says clinic codirector Stephen Yale-Loehr, professor of Immigration Law Practice. “We are fortunate that we have excellent students who work tirelessly to save their clients from persecution or torture.”
Emily Rivera ’23, who is taking the clinic for a second year, writes, “This has been the most rewarding experience of my law school career. From working on federal court appeals to submitting request releases on behalf of detained clients, I have had the chance to engage in work that I am deeply passionate about.”
The experience has inspired careers in immigration law—and also deeply informed alumni’s work in other areas. Neethu Putta ’19, who took the clinic for two years as a student and now contributes to its work as an adjunct professor, observes, “The clinic taught me how to artfully frame issues and tell a client’s narrative in a way that leaves the court no choice but to find for them. As a practicing commercial litigator, I now use those skills daily.”
Clinic codirector Estelle McKee, clinical professor of law (Lawyering), notes that the clinic offers students a unique glimpse into the lives of individuals whose paths they would otherwise never cross. “Our clients are brave; many have undergone unspeakable persecution and torture, and have embarked on treacherous journeys to protect their families,” she says. “Their experiences and persistence offer students deep insight into the importance of zealous advocacy.”
McKee shares some comments sent to her by clinic clients. A Salvadoran asylum-seeker wrote, “I sincerely want to thank you for all your willingness, commitment, responsibility, and the respect with which you offer me your help. Few people do what you did for me, so I will be forever grateful to you.” [translated from Spanish]
Another reflection comes from a Cameroonian client who had been found “not credible” by an immigration judge and was ailing in a for-profit prison when the clinic took up his case. Against the odds, McKee and her students were able to get the case reopened and will represent this asylum-seeker as he returns to court. He says, “I continue to appreciate your care and concern and effort to my case… [Y]ou have really been a blessing to me… I will never forget you.”
For the professors as well, the experience has been unforgettable. Says Yale-Loehr, “The clinic has been a highlight of my legal career. I feel honored to have worked with so many excellent students over the years to help persecuted people win asylum and start a new life in the US.”
McKee adds, “There is nothing like clinical teaching. Not only does it present the opportunity to provide the representation so desperately needed by underserved populations, but it also enables a teacher to help shape the next generation of lawyers while also having an impact on the development of the law.”
*******************
Clinical education has been the biggest development in modern legal education — applied scholarship, practical skills, changing lives, problem solving, and developing the law, all before students join the bar! No better way to learn than at the chaotic, high-stakes “retail level” of our justice system. As I often tell students, “If you can win one of these cases, in this environment, everything else in law and many of the challenges of life will be a piece of cake!”
Immigration and human rights clinics, like Cornell and many others, have been at the very forefront of innovation and the clinical teaching movement. That’s why many of the “superstars” of clinical teaching are now being “tapped” by their institutions for leadership positions as Deans, Associate Deans, Assistant Deans, etc.
Where U.S. law remains “behind the eight ball:” Bringing these extraordinarily well-qualified “practical scholars,” leaders, and administrators onto the Federal Bench and in key leadership positions within the Government’s struggling legal bureaucracy, particularly in the dysfunctional agencies responsible for immigration, human rights, racial justice, due process, and equal justice. And, what passes for “policy making” on these issues in the Biden Administration is nothing short of a preventable and embarrassing humanitarian disaster!
Nowhere is this glaring disparity more obvious than between the dynamic talent and creativity in the private sector and the “backward looking, stuck in a rut, timid, uninspired” leadership inflicted on the public by these downward-spiraling, hugely wasteful and inefficient USG bureaucracies and the poorly-conceived and too often disingenuous “policies” (actually cruel “recycled Stephen Miller Lite gimmicks”) coming out of the West Wing!
🇺🇸 America needs change. And that requires some new faces, courage, innovation, and better solutions from the USG!The talent is available! Why are we being subjected to “Amateur Night at the Bijou” — or worse?
The Biden Administration has looked in some mighty strange places to assemble its amazingly inept human rights/immigration team. Why didn’t they try clinical programs and NGOs where the “real talent” is? That’s a question that the ghosts of dead and damaged legal asylum seekers might be asking for a long time to come! PHOTO: Thomas Hawk Creative Commons Amateur Night
“I’m gone, but my ‘evil spirit’ lives on in the West Wing! They have even ‘one-upped’’ me with a ‘family separation app’ called CBP One! Never has inflicting gratuitous cruelty been so easy!” Attribution: Stephen Miller Monster by Peter Kuper, PoliticalCartoons.com
The Biden proposal has picked up somewhat tepid endorsements from the likes of Trumpsters DHS official Chad Wolf and leading GOP insurrectionist Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH). Tells you all you really need to know about just how cruel and counterproductive these harebrained proposals are!
These are the folks that the Biden administration is pandering to while ignoring and disrespecting experts and asylum advocates who have centuries of collective experience working on asylum and the border. They also have plenty of good ideas for real asylum/human rights/border reforms that will combat cruelty and promote orderly compliance with the rule of law. The Biden Administration just isn’t interested in, or perhaps capable of, “doing the right thing.”
***********************
Here’s the text of my “custom revision” of the standard comment posted on the website:
I am a retired US DOJ attorneywith more than 35 years ofgovernment experience, all of it in the immigration field, mostly in senior positions. I have been involved in immigration and human rights, in the public and private sectors, for five decades
My last 21 years were spent as an EOIR Judge: eight years as an Appellate Immigration Judge on the BIA (six of those years as BIA Chair), and 13 years as an Immigration Judge at the (now legacy) Arlington Immigration Court. I was involved in the enactment of the Refugee Act of 1980 as well as developing implementing regulations and setting precedents thereunder.
I state unequivocally that these unnecessary proposed regulatory changes are a disavowal of more than four decades of U.S. (and international) asylum law as well as a shocking betrayal of the promise by the Biden Administration to stand up for the rights of legal asylum seekers and end the White Nationalist attempt by the Trump Administration to kill asylum without legislation.
The proposed rule is contrary to well-established United States law regarding the right to seek asylum in our country. There is absolutely no basis in law for the proposed “presumption of denial” for those who seek asylum outside a port of entry or who have transited other countries (as most have) without seeking asylum.
Indeed, the Administration’s approach is in direct contravention of the INA, which establishes rigorous criteria for designating “safe third countries” for asylum seekers. Only Canada has met those rigorous criteria to date, and even then only for a very limited class of applicants.
The idea that Mexico or other countries in Central America that asylum seekers customarily transit on the way to our southern border are “safe havens” for asylum seekers is patently absurd and counterfactual! Indeed, all legitimate experts would say that these are some of the most dangerous countries in the world — none with a fairly functioning asylum system.
Individuals are specifically entitled by the RefugeeAct of 1980, as amended, to access our asylum system regardless of how they enter, as has been the law for decades. They should not be forced to seek asylum in transit to the United States, especially not in countries where they may also face harm. The ending of Title 42—itself an illegal policy—should not be used as an excuse to resurrect Trump-era categorical bans on groups of asylum seekers.
As you must be aware, those policies were designed by xenophobic, White Nationalist, restrictionists in the last Administration motivated by a desire to exclude and discriminate against particular ethnic and racial groups. That the Biden Administration would retain and even enhance some of them, while disingenuously claiming to be “saving asylum,” is beyond astounding.
The rule will also cause confusion at ports of entry and cause chaos and exacerbate backlogs in our immigration courts. Even worse, it will aggravate the already unacceptable situation by making it virtually impossible for most asylum seekers to consult with pro bono counsel before their cases are summarily rejected under these flawed regulations.
People who cannot access the CBP One app are at serious risk of being turned away by CBP, even if the rule says otherwise. Additionally, every observer has noted that the number of “available appointments” is woefully inadequate. In many cases, observers have noted that this leads to “automated family separation.” Rather than fixing these problems, these proposed regulations will make things infinitely worse.
Additionally, as was demonstrated by the previous Trump Transit Ban, the rule is likely to create confusion and additional backlogs at the immigration courts as individual judges attempt to apply a complicated, convoluted rule.
Under the law, the U.S. Government has a very straightforward obligation: To provide asylum seekers at the border and elsewhere, regardless of nationality, status, or manner of coming to the U.S., with a fair, timely, opportunity to apply for asylum and other legal protections before an impartial, expert, adjudicator.
The current system clearly does not do that. Indeed,EOIR suffers from an “anti-asylum,” often misogynist “culture,” lacks precedents recognizing recurring asylum situations at the border (particularly those relating to gender-based persecution), and tolerates judges at both levels who lack asylum expertise, are not committed to due process and fundamental fairness for all, and, far from being experts, often make mistakes in applying basic legal standards and properly evaluating evidence of record, as noted in a constant flow of “reversals and rebukes” from Circuit Courts.
We don’t need moremindless“deterrence” gimmicks. Rather, it’s pasttime for the Administration to reestablish a functioning asylum system.
🇺🇸Due Process Forever! The treachery of an Administration that abandons humane values, and fears bold humanitarian actions, never!
Heidi Altman Director of Policy National Immigrant Justice Center PHOTO: fcnl.orgRev. Craig Mousin Ombudsperson Refugee and Forced Migration Studies, Grace School of Applied Diplomacy DePaul University PHOTO: DePaul Website
FEBRUARY 23, 2023 CRAIG B. MOUSIN SEASON 1 EPISODE 34
Lawful Assembly Podcast
Episode 34: Support Humanitarian Asylum Welcome
00:00
|
24:29
Rewind Speed Forward
Info
LAWFUL ASSEMBLY PODCAST
Episode 34: Support Humanitarian Asylum Welcome
FEB 23, 2023 SEASON 1 EPISODE 34
Craig B. Mousin
In this interview, Rev. Craig B. Mousin, an Adjunct Faculty member of DePaul University’s College of Law, Refugee and Forced Migration Studies Program, and the Grace School of Applied Diplomacy interviews Heidi Altman, the Policy Director of the National Immigrant Justice Center (www.immigrantjustice.org). Ms. Altman discusses a proposed rule that will effectively preclude most asylum-seekers from safely and effectively applying for asylum in the United States. She advocates for humanitarian asylum welcome. She previously served as the legal director for the Capital Area Immigrants’ Rights Coalition and was a Teaching Fellow in the immigration clinic at Georgetown University Law School.
ACTION STEPS
1. Invite friends and family to learn how the proposed rule will undermine refugee protection and encourage them to respond to their elected representatives and the Biden administration urging withdrawal of the proposed rule.
2. The Sanctuary Working Group of the Chicago Religious Leadership Network currently serves and advocates alongside newly arrived asylum seekers in the Chicagoland area. There are many impactful ways you can help asylum seekers, from providing sponsorship and temporary housing to covering legal fees and advocating for policy change. Interested individuals, faith communities, or organizations may contact CRLN staff/consultant David Fraccaro at davidfraccaro99@gmail.com to talk about ways to partner together in supporting and protecting our newest neighbors.
Craig Mousin volunteers with the National Immigrant Justice Center. We welcome your inquiries or suggestions for future podcasts. If you would like to ask more questions about our podcasts or comment, email us at: mission.depaul@gmail.com
Thanks, Craig and Heidi for a very interesting and informative session!
T. Swift. Loss of chance to attend her latest concert due to Ticketmaster SNAFU caused immediate bipartisan Congressional outrage and hearings! Loss of chance to plead for life because of DHS CBP One App SNAFU, not so much! Dehumanization of our fellow humans degrades our society. LOS ANGELES – Swift at 2019 iHeartRadio Music Awards on March 14, 2019 in Los Angeles, California. (Photo by Glenn Francis/Pacific Pro Digital Photography) Creative Commons License.
Here are “my takeaways:”
Asylum seekers have a legal right, established by the Refugee Act of 1980 and international conventions, to seek asylum at our border or in the U.S., regardless of status and/or nationality;
The Trump and Biden Administrations have abrogated this right without legislation;
The Trump Administration’s anti-asylum actions and intentional dehumanization of asylum seekers was rooted in White Nationalist nativism;
Despite recognition during the 2020 campaign of the invidious motivation for Trump’s anti-asylum policies, the Biden Administration has retained, or even enhanced, the dehumanization and denial of rights to asylum seekers at the border;
Over the past two Administrations, acceptance of the basic rights and obligations of the U.S. toward asylum seekers, incorporated in the Refugee Act of 1980, has been eliminated or reduced to a superficial “shell” (“asylum in name only,” as some advocates have termed Biden’s latest proposed anti-asylum border policies);
By abandoning the framework set forth in the Refugee Act of 1980, the Trump and Biden Administrations have re-injected the ad hoc approach,disorder, nationality bias, and ideological preferences at the border that the Refugee Act of 1980 was specifically enacted to eliminate;
There is much under-appreciated support for welcoming, fairly treating, and helping refugees and asylum seekers among Americans in communities throughout our nation;
NGOs and experts have dozens of great ideas for restoring and improving the legal right to seek asylum in fair, humane, non-discriminatory ways which they have shared or are happy to share with the Biden Administration;
The Biden Administration to date has shown little if any interest in adopting and implementing better humanitarian solutions for asylum seekers at the border;
Both parties lack leaders with the integrity and courage to stand up for the legal and human rights of asylum seekers;
We must continue to discuss ways to break the cycle of dehumanization, cruelty, and scofflaw treatment of asylum seekers and replace it with enhanced humanitarian procedures and a welcoming culture, in accordance with the Refugee Act of 1980, the U.N. Convention and Protocol, and the very best traditions of our nation of immigrants.
Legal asylum seekers from Central America might have thought that cruelty, illegality, and stupidity went out with the Trump Administration. They were wrong! Now Biden proposes to lawlessly “presume denial” of asylum — with no legal basis — and dump legal asylum seekers of color from his “disfavored nations” back into Mexico, whose asylum system is dysfunctional and where abusive treatment of asylum seekers has been well documented and recognized by a Federal Court! Women suffering from gender-based persecution are particular targets of this Administration’s campaign against humanity! Artist: Monte Wolverton Reproduced under license
Many groups issued immediate statements of outrage and protest at this cruel, lawless, and intellectually dishonest betrayal! I set forth two of them here:
From the American Immigration Council:
PRESS RELEASE
Department of Justice and Department of Homeland Security Release Details of Dangerous New Asylum Transit Ban
WASHINGTON, Feb. 21, 2023—Today, the U.S. Department of Justice and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security released a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) that will implement a new asylum transit ban—one of the most restrictive border control measures to date under any president. The policy will penalize asylum seekers who cross the border irregularly or fail to apply for protection in other nations they transit through on their way to the United States.
As described in the NPRM, the proposed asylum transit ban rule would all but bar asylum for any non-Mexican who crosses the U.S.-Mexico border between ports of entry, unless they had previously applied for—and been denied—asylum in another country before arrival.
Specifically:
The rule would apply to all non-Mexican migrants (except unaccompanied minors) who had not been pre-approved under one of the Biden administration’s parole programs, which are currently open only to certain nationals of 5 countries; pre-register at a port of entry via CBP One or a similar scheduling system (or arrive at a port of entry and demonstrate they could not access the system); or get rejected for asylum in a transit country.
During an asylum seeker’s initial screening interview with an asylum officer, the officer will determine whether the new rule applies to them. If so, they will fail their credible fear screening unless they can demonstrate they were subject to an exception such as a medical emergency, severe human trafficking, or imminent danger—which would “rebut the presumption” of ineligibility.
Migrants subject to the rule, who do not meet the exceptions above, would be held to a higher standard of screening than is typically used for asylum (“reasonable fear”). If a migrant meets that standard, they will be allowed to apply for asylum before an immigration judge—although the text of the proposed regulation is unclear on whether they would actually be eligible to be granted asylum.
Migrants who do not meet the credible or reasonable fear standard can request review of the fear screening process in front of an immigration judge.
Once the regulation is formally published in the Federal Register, the public will have 30 days to comment on the proposal. The administration is legally required to consider and respond to all comments submitted during this period before publishing the final rule, which itself must precede implementing the policy. Given the Biden administration’s expectation that the new rule will be in place for the expiration of the national COVID-19 emergency on May 11, and the potential end of the Title 42 border expulsion policy at that time, the timeline raises substantial concerns that the administration will not fulfill its obligation to seriously consider all comments submitted by the public before the rule is finalized.
Furthermore, the sunset date for the new rule, two years after it becomes effective, is after the end of the current presidential term—making it impossible to guarantee it will not be extended indefinitely.
In 2020, a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals panel blocked the Trump administration’s asylum transit ban from being applied to thousands of asylum seekers who were unlawfully prevented from accessing the U.S. asylum process. The ban was later vacated by the D.C. District Court.
The American Immigration Council was a part of the Al Otro Lado v. Wolf class action lawsuit on behalf of individual asylum seekers and the legal services organization Al Otro Lado (AOL), which challenged the legality of the previous asylum transit ban as applied to asylum seekers who had been turned back at the U.S.-Mexico border.
Jeremy Robbins Executive Director American Immigration Council PHOTO: AIC websitel
The following statement is from Jeremy Robbins, Executive Director, The American Immigration Council:
“President Biden committed to restoring access to asylum while on the campaign trail, but today’s proposal is a clear embrace of Trump-style crackdowns on asylum seekers, many of whom are fleeing from globally recognized oppressive regimes. For over four decades, U.S. law has allowed any person in the United States to apply for asylum no matter how they got here. The new proposed rule would all but destroy that promise, by largely reinstating prior asylum bans that were found to be illegal.
“Not only is the new asylum transit ban illegal and immoral, if put into place as proposed, it would create unnecessary barriers to protection that will put the lives of asylum seekers at risk. While the rule purports to be temporary, the precedent it sets—for this president or future presidents—could easily become permanent.
“For generations, the United States has offered a promise that any person fleeing persecution and harm in their home countries could seek asylum, regardless of how they enter the United States. Today’s actions break from his prior promises and threaten a return to some of the most harmful asylum policies of his predecessor—possibly forever.”
###
For more information, contact:
Brianna Dimas 202-507-7557 bdimas@immcouncil.org
******************************
From the Lutheran Immigration & Refugee Services:
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
February 21, 2022
Contact: Tim Young | tyoung@lirs.org
Washington, D.C. – In preparation for the end of Title 42 asylum restrictions, the Biden administration announced a new proposed rule severely limiting asylum eligibility for those who did not first seek protection in a country they transited through to reach the United States, or who entered without notifying a border agent. The proposed rule will be subject to a 30-day period of public comment before it can take effect.
The new rule mirrors a transit asylum ban first implemented under the Trump administration, which was ultimately struck down by federal judges in multiplecourts. The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) provides that people seeking protection may apply for asylum regardless of manner of entry, and does not require them to have first applied for protection in another country.
Krish O’Mara Vignarajah CEO Lutheran Immigrantion & Refugee Service
In response to the proposed asylum eligibility rule, Krish O’Mara Vignarajah, President and CEO of Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service, said:
“This rule reaches into the dustbin of history to resurrect one of the most harmful and illegal anti-asylum policies of the Trump administration. This transit ban defies decades of humanitarian protections enshrined in U.S. law and international agreements, and flagrantly violates President Biden’s own campaign promises to restore asylum. Requiring persecuted people to first seek protection in countries with no functioning asylum systems themselves is a ludicrous and life-threatening proposal.
While the Biden administration has launched a smartphone app for asylum appointments and expanded a temporary parole option for an extremely limited subset of four nationalities, these measures are no substitute for the legal right to seek asylum, regardless of manner of entry. It is generally the most vulnerable asylum seekers who are least likely to be able to navigate a complex app plagued by technical issues, language barriers, and overwhelming demand. Many families face immediate danger and cannot afford to wait for months on end in their country of persecution. To penalize them for making the lifesaving decision to seek safety at our border flies in the face of core American values.
We urge the Biden administration to reverse course before this misguided rule denies protection to those most in need of it. Officials must recognize that decades of deterrence-based policies have had little to no impact in suppressing migration. Instead, they should focus on managing migration humanely through expanded parole programs, efficient refugee processing in the hemisphere, and an equitably accessible asylum system.”
**************************
Lest anyone believe the absolute BS coming from the Biden Administration that they “had no choice” and that this “wasn’t the choice they wanted,” here’s an article setting forth the many southern border solutions that the Administration ignored or was too incompetent to carry out in their dishonest, immoral pursuit of the anti-asylum “vision” of Stephen Miller and other White Nationalists.
💡💡”There’s many things Biden could do. We published a resource called “Forty-Two Border Solutions That Are Not Title 42.” We could have done 142,” says immigration expert Danilo Zak in The Border Chronicle! The Biden Administration has ignored, failed, or is prepared to shrug off most of them!🤯
Danilo Zak Associate Director of Policy and Advocacy Church World Service PHOTO: The Border Chronicle
Zak was interviewed by Melissa Del Bosque of The Border Chronicle:
There are many changes that the Biden administration and Congress could make to alleviate suffering at the southern border. Immigration policy expert Danilo Zak recently published a report that offers several solutions, from rebuilding the refugee resettlement program to expanding nonimmigrant work visas to more countries in the Western Hemisphere.
Zak, formerly of the National Immigration Forum, is Associate Director of Policy and Advocacy for the nonprofit Church World Service. He spoke with The Border Chronicle about the increase of forcibly displaced people in the Western Hemisphere and the current situation at the border. “For many, there is no line to get into—no ‘right way’ to come to the U.S.,” Zak says.
Melissa Del Bosque Border Reporter PHOTO: Melissadelbosque.com
Notably, better, more robust, use of Refugee Programs established by the Refugee Act of 1980 is among Zak’s “top three.” This is something that I have been “touting” since Biden was elected, but where the Administration has failed to meet the challenge.
And, contrary to what the Administration and others might say, there is nothing unachievable about using refugee programs to deal with emergency humanitarian situations. Also, with respect to cases taking forever to process, no need for that nonsense. It’s a matter of poor bureaucratic execution rather than a defect in the legal authority.
The Refugee Act of 1980 (“RA 80”) is basically a modified version of the “emergency parole, resettle with NGOs, and petition Congress to adjust status” that was used on an ad hoc basis to resettle Indochinese refugees and others on an emergency basis prior to the RA 80. Except, that the criteria, resettlement mechanisms, and adjustment process were all “built in” to the statute. Consequently, although Congress was to be consulted in advance, that process was designed to run smoothly, efficiently, and on an emergency basis if necessary.
While “Congress bashing” is now a favorite pastime of the Executive, Judiciary, and media, in 1980 Congress actually provided a mechanism to regularize the processing of type of refugee flows now facing the U.S. The statutory flexibility and the legal tools to deal with these situations are in RA 80.
A subsequent Congress even added the “expedited removal” and “credible fear” process so that initial asylum screening could be conducted by expert Asylum Officers at or near the border and those “screened out” would be subject to expeditedremoval without full hearings in Immigration Court. Clearly, there was never a need for the Title 42 nonsense for any competent Administration.
Basically, if an Administration can run a large-scale parole program, which the Biden Administration did for Afghanistan and is doing now for Cuba, Nicaragua, Venezuela, and Haiti, it can run a legal refugee program beyond our borders, even in a “country in crisis” if necessary.
The idea that a statutory scheme specifically designed to have the flexibility deal with future mass refugee situations couldn’t be used to deal with the current humanitarian situation in the Western Hemisphere is pure poppycock!
Also unadulterated BS: The Biden Administration’s proposal to make the “end of asylum” at the southern border “temporary,” for two years! In 2025, the Biden Administration might not even be in office. If there is a GOP Administration, you can be sure that the demise of asylum at the border will become permanent, with or without legislation.
Also, what would be an Administration’s rationale for resuming asylum processing at the southern border in two years. Surely, there will be some other “bogus border crisis” cooked up to extend the bars. And, if there is no such crisis, the claim will be that the bars are “working as intended” so what’s the rationale for terminating them.
The argument that complying with the law by fairly processing asylum seekers regardless of race, ethnicity, religion, or manner of arrival, as the law requires, might actually encourage people to apply for protection will always be there — hanging over cowardly politicos afraid of the consequences of granting protection. Fact is, the current Administration has so little belief in our legal system and their own ability to operate within in, and so little concern for the human lives involved, that they are scared to death of failure. That’s not likely to change in two years — or ever!
The ordeal of Farooqi, who covers politics and national news for News One in Pakistan, exemplifies a global epidemic of online harassment whose costs go well beyond the grief and humiliation suffered by its victims. The voices of thousands of women journalists worldwide have been muffled and, in some cases, stolen entirely as they struggle to conduct interviews, attend public events and keep their jobs in the face of relentless online smear campaigns.
Stories that might have been told — or perspectives that might have been shared — stay untold and unshared. The pattern of abuse is remarkably consistent, no matter the continent or country where the journalists operate.
Farooqi says she’s been harassed, stalked and threatened with rape and murder. Faked images of her have appeared repeatedly on pornographic websites and across social media. Some depict her holding a penis in the place of her microphone. Others purport to show her naked or having sex. Similar accounts of abuse are heard from women journalists throughout the world.
. . . .
This article is part of “Story Killers,” a reporting project led by the Paris-based journalism nonprofit Forbidden Stories, which seeks to complete the work of journalists who have been killed. The inspiration for this project, which involves The Washington Post and more than two dozen other news organizations in more than 20 countries, was the 2017 killing of the Indian journalist Gauri Lankesh, a Bangalore editor who was gunned down at a time when she was reporting on Hindu extremism and the rise of online disinformation in her country.
New reporting by Forbidden Stories found that shortly before her slaying, Lankesh was the subject of relentless online attacks on social media platforms in a campaign that depicted her as an enemy of Hinduism. Her final article, “In the Age of False News,” was published after her death.
. . . .
Until news organizations recognize the purpose of harassment campaigns and learn to navigate them appropriately, experts say, women will continue to be forced from the profession and the stories they would have reported will go untold.
“This is about terrifying female journalists into silence and retreat; a way of discrediting and ultimately disappearing critical female voices,” Posetti said. “But it’s not just the journalists whose careers are destroyed who pay the price. If you allow online violence to push female reporters out of your newsroom, countless other voices and stories will be muted in the process.”
“This gender-based violence against women has started to become normal,” Farooqi said. “I talk to counterparts in the U.S., U.K., Russia, Turkey, even in China. Women everywhere, Iran, our neighbor, everywhere, women journalists are complaining of the same thing. It’s become a new weapon to silence and censor women journalists, and it’s not being taken seriously.”
********************
“Not being taken seriously” aptly describes the attitude and actions of the Biden Administration toward some women seeking asylum on the basis of gender-based violence. Certainly, our Government could and should do better at recognizing and prioritizing refugee and asylum status for this vulnerable group.
Yet, even this “slam dunk” case took nearly six months to adjudicate. Seems like it could and should have been granted at the interview in a well-functioning system. Better yet, most Afghan refugees could have been screened overseas and admitted in legal refugee status, thus avoiding the backlogged asylum system and freeing both USG and private bar resources for more difficult cases.
Once, America was in the forefront of setting precedents that protected female refugees. See, e.g., Matter of Kasinga, 21 I&N Dec. 357 (1996) (FGM, opinion by Schmidt, Chair). Now, not so much, despite our nation’s heavy involvement with Afghanistan. Apparently, the “powers that be” are afraid that consistently and aggressively supporting refugee protection for women fleeing Afghanistan and other dangerous countries would “encourage” them to actually seek legal protection here thereby upsetting right-wing nativists and misogynists.
Yet, incredibly, the Biden Administration proposes to send up to 30,000 rejected NON-MEXICAN border arrivals per month to Mexico without fair examination of their potential asylum claims. To date, BIA precedents, regulations, and policy statements have NOT recognized the well-documented, clear and present dangers for journalists, women, and particularly female journalists, in Mexico. Consequently, I’d say that there is about a 100% chance that some female journalists seeking asylum will be illegally returned to death or danger, whether in Mexico or their native countries.
Just can’t make this stuff up. Yet, it’s happening in a Dem Administration!
AG Merrick Garland did vacate former AG Jeff “Gonzo Apocalypto” Sessions’s lawless and misogynistic decision in Matter of A-B-. That action “restored” the BIA’s 2014 precedent decision in Matter of A-R-C-G-, recognizing that gender-based domestic violence could be a basis for granting asylum.
However, the BIA didn’t elaborate on the many forms that gender-based persecution can take, nor did they provide binding guidance to Immigration Judges on how these cases should be handled in accordance with due process, fundamental fairness, and best practices.
Garland and his BIA have failed to follow up with any meaningful guidance or amplification of A-R-C-G- for Immigraton Judges. That’s even though many women fleeing Latin America come from countries where gender-based violence is rampant and the governments make little or no effective efforts to control it — sometimes police and other corrupt officials even join in the abuses.
Consequently, life or death protection for female asylum seekers remains a disgraceful and wholly unacceptable “crap shoot.” Outcomes of well prepared and copiously documented asylum cases often depend more on the attitude of the Immigration Judge or BIA Appellate Judge hearing the case than on the law and facts.
Also, without a knowledgeable lawyer, which the Government does not provide, an applicant has virtually no chance of winning a gender-based protection case in today’s EOIR. Additionally, those in immigration detention or placed on Garland’s “accelerated/dedicated” dockets are known to have particular difficulty obtaining pro bono counsel.
Anti-asylum IJs, some of whom were known for their negative attitudes toward female asylum seekers — many of those who actually “cheered” Sessions’s biased and wrong reversal of hard-won asylum protection for women in EOIR courts — remain on the bench under Garland at both levels.
To their credit, some have changed their posture and now grant at least some gender-based cases. But, others continue to show anti-asylum, anti-female bias and deny applications for specious reasons, misconstrue the law, or just plain use “any reason to deny” these claims, without any fear of consequences or meaningful accountability.
Many advocates and experts would say that female asylum applicants still face “trial by ordeal” in Garland’s “overly Trumpy” EOIR. Despite campaign promises, the Biden Administration has done little to champion the cause of gender-based refugees and asylum seekers — at the Southern Border or elsewhere. Woman Being “Tried By Ordeal” 17th Century Woodcut Public Realm Source: Ancient Origins Website https://www.ancient-origins.net/history/trial-ordeal-life-or-death-method-judgement-004160
Whether or not such egregious errors and non-uniform applications of asylum law get reversed at the BIA again depends on the composition of the BIA “panel” assigned to the case. (Not all “panels” have three Appellate Judges; some are “single member” panels). Significantly, and inexplicably, a group of Trump-holdover BIA Appellate Judges known for their overt hostility to asylum applicants (with denial rates approaching 100%) and their particular hostility to gender-based claims, remains on the BIA under Garland. There, they can “rubber stamp” wrong denials while sometimes even reversing correct grants of protection by Immigration Judges below! Talk about a broken and unfair system!
With an incredible backlog of 2.1 million cases, approximately 800,000 of them asylum cases, wrongly decided EOIR cases can “kick around the system” among the Immigration Courts, the BIA, and the Circuits for years. Sometimes, a decade or more passes without final resolution! Imagine being a pro bono or “low bono” attorney handling one of these cases! You “win” several times, but the case still has no end. And, you’re still “on the hook” for providing free legal services.
It’s no wonder that, like his predecessors over the past two decades, Garland builds EOIR backlog exponentially — without systematically providing justice or instituting long overdue personnel and management changes! It’s also painfully clear that, also like their predecessors, Garland and his political lieutenants have never experienced the waste and frustrations of handling pro bono litigation before the dystopian “courts” they are now running into the ground!
Meanwhile, Biden’s promise and directive that his Administration promulgate regulations containing standards for gender-based asylum cases that would promote fairness and uniformity within his OWN courts and agencies remains unfulfilled — nearing the halfway point of this Administration! Apparently, some politicos within the Administration are more fearful of predictable adverse reactions from right-wing nativists and restrictionists than they are anxious to “do the right thing” by listening to the views of the experts and progressives who helped put them in office in the first place!
Thus, abused women and other refugees and asylum seekers, and their dedicated supporters, many of whom have spent “professional lifetimes” trying to establish the rule of law in these cases, face a difficult conundrum. In America today, neither major political party is willing to stand up for the legal and human rights of refugees, particularly women fleeing gender-based persecution.
As an “interested observer,” it seems to me that something’s “got to give” between so-called “mainstream Dems” and progressive immigration/human rights advocates. The latter have devoted too much time, energy, courage, and expertise to “the cause” to be treated so dismissively and disrespectfully by those they are “propping up.” And, that includes a whole bunch of Biden Administration politicos who were nowhere to be found while immigration advocates were fighting, often successfully and against the odds, on the front lines to save democracy during the “reign of Trump.”
That was a time when immigrants, asylum seekers, people of color, and women were the targets for “Dred Scottification” before the law. I have yet to see the Biden Administration, or the Dem Party as a whole, take a strong “active” stand (rhetoric is pretty useless here, as the Administration keeps demonstrating) against those who would use misapplications of the law, ignoring due process, demonization, and refusal to recognize the humanity of migrants as their primary tool to undermine and ultimately destroy American democracy!
Immigrants, including refugees, are overall a “good story” — indeed the real story of America since its founding. That Dems can’t figure out how to tell, sell,advance, and protect the immigrant experience that touches almost all of us is indeed a national tragedy.
BIA panel gets ready to “gun down” — in “cold blood” — another meritorious appeal by immigrant! Court orders are no match for this gang that “shoots from the hip.” PHOTO: Republic Pictures (1957), Public Domain
Dan Kowalski reports from LexisNexis Immigration Community:
“For the second time, petitioner Irma Aguilar-Escoto, a native and citizen of Honduras, asks us to vacate the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA” or the “Board”) rejection of her claim for withholding of removal. When this case was last before us, we vacated the BIA’s prior order and instructed the Board to consider the potentially significant documentary evidence submitted in support of Aguilar’s claim. See Aguilar-Escoto v. Sessions, 874 F.3d 334, 335 (1st Cir. 2017). Today, we conclude that the BIA again failed to properly consider significant documentary evidence. Consequently, we vacate the Board’s removal order and remand for further proceedings.”
[Hats off to Kenyon C. Hall, with whom Jack W. Pirozzolo, Sidley Austin, LLP, Charles G. Roth, National Immigrant Justice Center, and Carlos E. Estrada were on brief, for petitioner!]
*******************
This case is a microcosm of everything that’s wrong about EOIR, a “captive,” denial-biased “court” system operating within the DOJ, an enforcement agency within the Executive Branch, over three different Administrations — two Dem and one GOP! But, there is more to this story!
THE REST OF THE STORY:
In 2013, this respondent appeared before an IJ and presented a well-documented claim for withholding of removal to Honduras based on domestic violence. Among the respondent’s documentation were a psychological report, three police reports, a medical report from Honduras, a protection order from a Honduran court, the respondent’s declaration, and affidavits from family members. In the first flawed decision, in 2014, the IJ denied the claim.
The respondent appealed to the BIA. In another flawed decision, entered in 2016, the BIA denied the appeal. In doing so, the BIA denied an asylum claim that the respondent did not make and ignored key documentary evidence that went to the heart of the respondent’s claim. This suggests that the BIA merely slapped a “form denial” on the case which reflected neither the nature of the case below nor the actual record before them. Immigration practitioners say this type of performance is all too common in the dystopian world of EOIR.
Consequently, the respondent, represented pro bono by NDPA stalwart Carlos E. Estrada, a solo practitioner, sought review in the First Circuit. That petition succeeded! In 2017, the First Circuit vacated the BIA’s erroneous decision and directed the BIA to redo the case, this time considering the material, independent evidence of persecution that the BIA had previously ignored.
At this point, the respondent and her attorney had every reason to believe that their ordeal was over and that justice, and potentially life-saving protection, was “just around the corner.” But, alas, those hopes were dashed!
The BIA botched it again! In 2018, in what appeared to be one of the BIA’s “standard any reason to deny” opinions, the BIA purported to “affirm” the 2014 flawed decision of the IJ. In doing so, “the BIA erred by failing to follow this Court’s [1st Circuit’s] instruction to independently consider on remand the documentary evidence and to determine whether that evidence sufficed to establish past persecution.” Basically a “polite description” of “contempt of court” by the BIA.
Among the problems, the BIA failed to mention or evaluate one of the police reports that went directly to the basis for the BIA’s denial. Indeed, in a rather brutal example example of just how un-seriously the BIA took the court’s order, they erroneously stated that there were only two police reports. Actually, the record contained THREE such reports — since 2013!
Faced with the need for yet a second trip to the First Circuit, pro bono solo practitioner Carlos Estrada was “stretched to his pro bono limits.” Fortunately, the amazing pro bono lawyers at Sidley Austin LLP and National Immigrant Justice Center (“NIJC”) heeded the call and assisted Estrada and his client in their second petition for review.
With help from this “team of experts,” for the second time, the respondent “bested” EOIR and DOJ in the Circuit! While conceding that the BIA had errored in not complying with the court order, OIL, now under the direction of Dem A.G. Merrick Garland, advanced specious “alternative reasons” for upholding the BIA’s second flawed decision. These were emphatically rejected by the First Circuit! That court also noted that the (supposedly “expert”) BIA had applied the wrong legal standard in the case!
A rational person might think that after nearly a decade, this “charade of justice” would finally end, and the respondent would get her long-delayed, thrice-erroneously-denied relief. But, that’s not the way this dysfunctional and disreputable system works (or, in too many cases, doesn’t).
The First Circuit “remanded” the case to EOIR a second time, thus giving the BIA a totally undeserved THIRD CHANCE to improperly deny relief. Who knows if they will, or when they might get around to acting.
But, within Garland’s dystopian system, which lacks quality control, doesn’t require recognized expertise in human rights from its “judges,” and tolerates a BIA dominated by Trump-appointed appellate judges known for their records of hostility to asylum and related forms of protection from persecution and/or torture, a result favorable to the respondent, within her lifetime, is far from guaranteed.
As Attorney Carlos Estrada summed it up to me, “I just couldn’t do it [the second petition for review] pro bono by myself. I’m a solo practitioner. Such a waste of time and effort.”
Indeed, Garland’s failure to institute even minimal standards of due process, fundamental fairness, impartiality, expertise in his EOIR “court” system is unfairly stretching scarce pro bono resources beyond the limits, as well as denying timely, often life-saving or life-determining justice to individuals.
In a fair, functional, professional system, Estrada, Sidley Austin, and NIJC could be helping others in dire need of pro bono assistance. The respondent could have been enjoying for the last decade a “durable” grant of protection from persecution instead of having her life “up in the air” because of defective decision-making at EOIR and ill-advised “defenses” by OIL. The system could be adjudicating new cases and claims, instead of doing the same cases over and over, for a decade, at three levels of our justice system, without getting them right.
If you wonder why Garland’s broken EOIR is running an astounding 2.1 million case backlog, it’s NOT primarily because of the actions of respondents and their lawyers, if any! It has much to do with “Aimless Docket Reshuffling,” in “full swing” under Garland, incredibly poor judicial administration by DOJ/EOIR, poor judging by too many incumbents who lack the necessary expertise and demonstrated commitment to due process and fundamental fairness, poor administrative and judicial practices, inadequate training, and a toxic “culture of denial and disrespect for immigrants’ rights” that has been festering for years!
Do YOU think that sagas like this represent a proper approach to “justice in America at the retail level.” I don’t! But, incidents like this occur on a daily basis at EOIR, even if most escape the public spotlight!
“Out of sight, out of mind!” But, sadly, not so for the individuals whose lives are damaged by this system and their long-suffering attorneys, whose plights continue to be studiously ignored by Garland and his lieutenants. (Has Garland EVER offered to meet with the private, pro bono bar to find out what really is happening in “his” courts and how he might fix it? Not to my knowledge!)
Hats way off to Carlos E. Estrada, Esquire; Kenyon C. Hall, Jack W. Pirozzolo, and the rest of the folks at Sidley Austin, LLP (I note that Sidley generously has provided outstanding pro bono briefing assistance to our “Round Table” in the past); and Charles G. Roth and his team at the National Immigrant Justice Center for this favorable outcome and for insuring that justice is done. Garland and the Dems might not care about justice for persons in the U.S. who happen to be migrants, but YOU do! That, my friends, makes all the difference in human lives and in our nation’s as yet unfulfilled promise of “equal justice for all.”
“We innovate a lot in this department,” DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas told reporters at a news conference this month. “This is a very novel approach to building lawful and safe pathways premised on a foundational point — which has historically been proven true — that people will wait if we deliver for them a lawful and safe pathway to come here.”
“Tell it like it is” quote of the day:
Heidi Altman, director of policy at the National Immigrant Justice Center, a nonprofit that provides legal services to immigrants, said the Biden administration is “prioritizing speed over justice and fairness.”
“If the administration moves in this direction, they’re doing so with very clear knowledge that they will be returning people to dangerous situations,” she said. “Migrants who are returned to Mexico are extremely and particularly vulnerable to rape, assault, kidnappings and other violence. This has been so well-documented. The administration knows that this is a reality.”
“The Biden Administration lies about the cruel, disasterous, illegal, and deadly effects of ‘farming out’ asylum policies to Mexico. Unlike Mayorkas, Heidi Altman of NIJC has the courage and expertise to ‘speak truth to power’ — obviously something no longer valued in the Democrats’ failing, cowardly approach to human rights and racial justice.” Heidi Altman Director of Policy National Immigrant Justice Center PHOTO: fcnl.org
“Lowlights” of Biden’s proposal:
Mass deportation of non-Mexican asylum seekers to Mexico in circumvention of “safe third country” provisions of law;
Illegal return of asylum seekers to documented dangerous, degrading, and life-threatening conditions in Mexico;
“Many asylum seekers placed into MPP experienced extreme danger in Mexico. Individuals sent to the Laredo or Brownsville courts had to reside or pass through the Mexican state of Tamaulipas, which the State Department classifies as the same level of danger as Syria, Afghanistan, and Iraq. Many asylum seekers and families were kidnapped and assaulted after having been sent back to Mexico, sometimes within hours of crossing back over the border.”
“According to Human Rights First, through February 2021 there were at least 1,544 publicly documented cases of rape, kidnapping, assault, and other crimes committed against individuals sent back under MPP. Multiple people, including at least one child, died after being sent back to Mexico under MPP and attempting to cross the border again.”
“The U.S. government did not provide support to individuals sent back to Mexico, leaving people to fend for themselves. Many were homeless during their time in Mexico. In some locations on the border, the Mexican government created shelters that could house some—but not all—of the people sent back. Private shelters also provided housing for some individuals sent back under MPP. In Matamoros, a tent camp sprang up in 2019 where thousands of asylum seekers eventually resided along the Rio Grande in squalid conditions with no running water or electricity.”https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/migrant-protection-protocols
Feeding women and other vulnerable individuals to cartels, gangs, criminals, and corrupt officials carrying out widespread, endemic, gender-based violence in Mexico;
“In general, women who are trying to either find work or [who are]…commuting to and from their jobs, [are] exposed…to the risk of being followed. It is already known that in border cities, or at least in Ciudad Juarez, people know how to identify migrants and go after them for extortion, often to kidnap them in order to get what little money they have. They are…very clear targets for certain criminal groups in Mexico, many of which are dedicated exclusively to extorting migrants. And well, women are a more vulnerable target…And if we add to that the issue of sexual violence? I think this is a very big challenge for women: how to survive during the time it takes for the resolution of their [asylum] processes.” https://www.tahirih.org/news/u-s-asylum-deterrence-policies-increase-risk-of-gender-based-violence/
Creating a “presumption of denial,” applied largely to asylum seekers of color, in a mal-functioning asylum system already suffering from anti-asylum bias and racial bias;
Increased use of criminal prosecutions (known to be a waste of resources and an ineffective deterrent) against those merely seeking to exercise their legal rights to seek protection under domestic and international law (will “family separation” be next for Biden/Harris?);
Mass use of discriminatory, arbitrary “parole,” untethered to the legal “refugee” definition, driven by extralegal considerations such as availability of U.S. sponsor and refusal of native country to accept U.S. deportees, as a substitute for orderly overseas refugee programs and circumventing legally required advance “consultation” with Congress;
Feeding “parolees” intro hopelessly backlogged, biased, dysfunctional asylum adjudication systems at USCIS and EOIR without taking steps to address the glaring problems plaguing asylum adjudication in these agencies;
Leaving other “parolees” to “wander America in limbo” without any clear path to residency and at the complete mercy of the political whims of the Administration in charge;
Providing no opportunities for “in country” or “beyond the border” parole for those fleeing the Northern Triangle, one of the largest sources of recent flows of refugees and forced migrants;
Basically, replacing the current legal, statutory framework for refugee and asylum adjudication, derived from international conventions and years of experience handling refugee and humanitarian crises, with an “ad hoc,” non-statutory, array of politicized restrictionist gimmicks adapted from Trump/Miller and arbitrary, non-statutory benefits handed out to certain groups — but not others — in an attempt to fend off criticism for jettisoning the Refugee Act of 1980 and related laws.
Progressives and advocates, this is a Democratic Administration basically, even gleefully and proudly, stomping on human rights and the rule of law. They call it “innovation.” I call it degradation of humanity and annihilation of the Refugee Act of 1980.
I’m not sure I have any great alternatives, given the racist/xenophobic/nativist policies of the GOP toward refugees and other immigrants. But, I think that progressives and others who believe in human rights, fair treatment of refugees, immigrants’ rights, and racial justice, long mainstays of the Dems, are going to have to reevaluate their support of a Democratic Party that will no longer stand up for these fundamental values and that takes advocates and progressives for granted.
Way above my pay grade, for sure! But, I do know that democracy, humanity, moral courage, and intellectual honesty are failing here, and that the Democratic Party under Biden and Harris is a big part of that betrayal and failure!
“The DOJ issues a hollow statement condemning FGM. But, when it comes to building on a 27-yr-old precedent to help gender-based refugees, they have been largely indifferent to suffering and the dire need for protection.” PHOTO: Creative Commons 4.0
Dan Kowalski from LexisNexis Immigration Community sent in this recent asylum victory from the Denver Immigration Court:
Hats off to Judge Burgie and Attorney Alexandra Katsiaficas for showing how effective advocacy and good judging can save lives and “move” cases at the “retail level” of EOIR.
This decision is comprehensive, straightforward, understandable, and logical. This is exactly the type of precedent that the BIA should be (but isn’t) issuing and enforcing on a consistent, nationwide basis! Why isn’t EOIR getting the job done under Garland?
While Judge Burgie didn’t cite Matter of A-R-C-G- on asylum based on domestic violence, she did cite a number of my “favorite precedents” from the long-gone but not totally forgotten “Schmidt-Board:” Matter of Kasinga, Matter of O-Z- & I-Z-, Matter of D-V-, and Matter of S-P-, as well as the BIA’s oft-cited but seldom followed “seminal” asylum case Matter of Acosta, which was the starting point for Kasinga and other favorable asylum precedents of the past.
Judge Burgie also cited and followed favorable 10th Circuit precedent. She got the “unwilling or unable to protect,” “internal relocation,” and “nexus” issues correct. She used the regulatory presumption based on past persecution effectively. Significantly, she also included a correct additional analysis of why this case, and others like it, should be granted based on “egregious past persecution” (“Chen grant”) even in the absence of a current well-founded-fear. Most of these cases should be “easy grants” preferably at the Asylum Office, but if not, at EOIR.
Instead, some IJs and many BIA panels “invent” reasons to deny that mock asylum law and distort the reality of conditions for women in the Northern Traingle and elsewhere!
I recently commented elsewhere on the irony of Garland’s DOJ issuing a “pro forma declaration” endorsing “Zero Tolerance for FGM Day,” while doing such a poor overall job of actually protecting those who have suffered that and other forms of gender based persecution. Action over hollow rhetoric, please!
Seems to me EOIR didn’t do a very good job of “building on the saving potential” of Matter of Kasinga, 21 I&N Dec. 357 (BIA 1996), my “landmark” opinion finding that FGM could be a basis for granting asylum. Indeed, after the “Ashcroft purge” removed those of us BIA judges committed to protecting refugees suffering from gender based persecution, the BIA intentionally misconstrued Kasinga and shamefully tried to limit it.
So transparently horrible was this effort that one of Ashcroft’s Bush II successors, AG Mukasey, hardly a voice for progressive jurisprudence and women’s human rights, finally had to intervene to put a stop to the BIA’s deadly nonsense. See Matter of A-T-, 24 I&N Dec. 617 (A.G. 2008). This was only after after blistering criticism of the “post-purge” BIA’s disingenuous approach by some of Judge Mukasey’s “former Article III superiors” on the Second Circuit.SeeBah v. Mukasey, 529 F.3d 99, 124 (2d Cir. 2008) (“The BIA refers, in passing, to the act of female genital mutilation as “reprehensible,” . . . but its entirely dismissive treatment of such claims in these cases belies any sentiment to that effect.” Straub, Circuit Judge concurring).
Judge Staub’s criticism of the BIA’s shallow and disingenuous treatment of too many asylum claims, particularly those based on gender persecution, remains just as true today under Garland as it was then. “Throwaway lines” — basically “boilerplate” —disingenuously expressing sympathy, but then misconstruing facts and law to deny life-saving protection, are no substitute for competent, fair judging at EOIR!
More than a quarter-century after Kasinga, I still don’t see much commitment at DOJ/EOIR to consistently protecting women from gender-based persecution. That being said, some IJs, particularly (but not only) those with expertise gained by representing asylum seekers, like Judge Burgie, are doing a good job of applying Cardoza, Kasinga, A-R-C-G-, D-V-, O-Z-&I-Z-, the regulatory presumption, expert testimony, and an honest reading of country conditions to grant desperately-needed protection in gender-based cases. The BIA, not so much.
Also, while issuing this statement, DOJ is “sitting on” gender based regulations, promised by President Biden on “day 1” to be delivered by the Fall of 2021! Reportedly, there is considerable “Miller Lite” restrictionist opposition within the Administration to treating protection claims for gender-based refugees fairly, generously, and consistently. See, e.g., https://www.cbsnews.com/news/immigration-biden-asylum-limits-us-mexico-border-arrivals/.
Kind of makes me wonder what, if anything, Dems REALLY stand for when the chips are down, human lives are at stake, and courageous, informed, bold leadership is required! GOP White Nationalist nativist bullies are only too happy to express their disdain for the rights and contempt for the humanity of all vulnerable refugees. They specifically target women.
But, when it comes to standing up for the legal and human rights of asylum seekers, most of them already written into our laws, Dems often “hide underneath the table.” That’s particularly true of this Administration’s incredibly poor and spineless approach to asylum at the Southern Border and their failure to address the asylum disaster at EOIR.
And, it’s not that Biden’s morally and legally vapid approach to asylum seekers has won any support from the right, progressives, or independents. Almost everyone is suing or threatening to sue the Administration about some aspect of their hapless, mushy, often self-contradictory handling of asylum. It’s a traditional, perhaps endemic, problem that once elected, Dems have a hard time distinguishing friends from foes. At least on immigration, they spend far too much time catering to the views and bogus criticisms of the latter while ignoring the informed views and experiences of the former.
Judge Burgie is a Barr appointee, but has a diverse background that includes not only service as an EOIR JLC and fraud and abuse prevention counsel, but also time representing and advocating for refugees and asylum seekers. Her asylum grant rate has gone up steadily over three years on the bench and currently stands at approximately 75%, well within the range I’d expect from a competent, expertIJ handling a non-detained docket.
That’s about 2X the national average grant rate of 37.5%. And, the latter is “up” from its artificially suppressed rate under Trump! Better EOIR judges at the “grass roots level” can make a difference and save lives even in the absence of leadership from Falls Church and “Main Justice!”
As this case confirms, there is “substantial judicial potential” on the the EOIR bench, most of it at the trial level. That’s particularly true of some of Garland’s most recent appointments who are widely-recognized and universally-respected asylum experts — “practical scholars” if you will.
But, EOIR still has not reached the “critical mass” of outstanding jurists necessary to “turn this broken system around” in the absence of leadership, positive examples, and operational reforms “from the top!”
That’s why I advocate for “change from below as the way to go” to save some lives and institutionalize fair judging and best practices at EOIR. So, NDPA heroes, keep those applications flowing forupcoming vacancies on the Immigration Bench, at all levels. I want YOU to bring justice to the broken “retail level” of our legal system! See, https://immigrationcourtside.com/2023/01/12/-i-want-you-to-be-a-u-s-immigration-judge/.
Immigration Courts across the U.S. have been randomly rescheduling and advancing cases without regard to attorney availability or whether we have the capacity to complete our cases. The very predictable result of this fiasco is that lawyers are stressed and overworked, our ability to adequately prepare cases has been reduced, and–worst of all–asylum seekers are being deprived of their right to a fair hearing. Besides these obvious consequences, the policy of reshuffling court cases is having other insidious effects that are less visible, but no less damaging. Here, I want to talk about some of the ongoing collateral damage caused by EOIR’s decision to toss aside due process of law in favor of reducing the Immigration Court backlog.
As an initial matter, it’s important to acknowledge that the Immigration Court backlog is huge. There are currently more than 2 million pending cases, which is more than at any time in the history of the Immigration Court system. To address this situation, EOIR (the Executive Office for Immigration Review – the office that oversees our nation’s Immigration Courts) has been working with DHS (the prosecutor) to dismiss low-priority cases, where the non-citizen does not have criminal issues or pose a national security threat. Also, the U.S. government has been doing its best to turn away asylum seekers at the Southern border, which has perhaps slowed the growth of the backlog, but has also (probably) violated our obligations under U.S. and international law.
In addition, EOIR has been hiring new Immigration Judges (“IJs”) at a break neck pace. In the past few years, there has been a dramatic increase in the number of IJs nationwide, though some parts of the country have received more judges than others. In those localities with lots of new IJs, EOIR has been advancing thousands of cases. The goal is to complete cases and reduce the backlog. Why EOIR has failed to coordinate its new schedule with stakeholders, such as respondents and immigration attorneys, I do not know.
What I do know is that EOIR’s efforts have created great hardships for attorneys and respondents (respondents are the non-citizens in Immigration Court). Also, I expect that this whole rescheduling debacle will have long-term effects on the Immigration Courts, as well as on the immigration bar.
The most obvious effect is that lawyers and respondents simply do not have enough time to properly prepare their cases. When a hearing was set for 2025 and then suddenly advanced to a date a few months in the future, it may not be enough time to gather evidence and prepare the case. Also, this is not occurring in a vacuum. Lawyers (like me) are seeing dozens of cases advanced without warning, and so we have to manage all of those, plus our regular case load. So the most immediate consequence of EOIR’s policy is that asylum seekers and other respondents often do not have an opportunity to present their best case.
Perhaps less obviously, lawyers are being forced to turn work away. We can only competently handle so many matters, and when we are being assaulted day-by-day with newly rescheduled cases, we cannot predict our ability to take on a new case. In my office, we have been saying “no” more and more frequently to potential clients. Of course, this also affects existing clients who need additional work. Want to expedite your asylum case? Need a travel document to see a sick relative? I can’t give you a time frame for when we can complete the work, because I do not know what EOIR will throw at me tomorrow.
One option for lawyers is to raise prices. We have not yet done that in my office, but it is under consideration. What we have done is increase the amount of the down payment we require. Why? Because as soon as we enter our name as the lawyer, we take on certain obligations. And since cases now often move very quickly, we need to be sure we get paid. If not, we go out of business. The problem is that many people cannot afford a large down payment or cannot pay the total fee over a shortened (and unpredictable) period of time. The result is that fewer non-citizens will be able to hire lawyers.
Well, there is one caveat–crummy lawyers will continue to take more and more cases, rake in more and more money, and do very little to help their clients. Such lawyers are not concerned about the quality of their work or doing a good job for their clients. They simply want to make money. EOIR’s policy will certainly benefit them, as responsible attorneys will be forced to turn away business, those without scruples will be waiting to take up the slack.
Finally, since EOIR is increasing attorney stress and burnout to untenable levels, I expect we will see lawyers start to leave the profession. I have talked to many colleagues who are ready to go. Some are suffering physical and mental health difficulties due to the impossible work load. Most immigration lawyers are very committed to their clients and have a sense of mission, but it is extremely difficult to work in an environment where you cannot control your own schedule, you cannot do your best for your clients, you cannot fulfill your obligations to your family and friends, and where you are regularly abused and treated with contempt. Long before EOIR started re-arranging our schedules, burnout among immigration lawyers was a serious problem. Today, that problem is exponentially worse, thanks to EOIR’s utter disrespect for the immigration bar. I have little doubt that the long term effect will be to drive good attorneys away from the profession.
For me, the saddest part of this whole mess is that it did not have to be this way. EOIR could have worked with attorneys to advance cases in an orderly manner and to ensure that respondents and their lawyers were protected. But that is not what happened. Instead, EOIR has betrayed its stated mission, “to adjudicate immigration cases by fairly, expeditiously, and uniformly interpreting and administering the Nation’s immigration laws.” Respondents, their attorneys, and the immigration system are all worse off because of it.
***********************
Jason Dzubow The Asylumist
“For me, the saddest part of this whole mess is that it did not have to be this way.” Amen, Jason! Me too! And, I think I speak for most, if not all, of my esteemed colleagues on the Round Table of Former Immigration Judges and BIA Members.”⚔️🛡
In addition to betraying its mission “to adjudicate immigration cases by fairly, expeditiously, and uniformly interpreting and administering the Nation’s immigration laws,” EOIR has trashed its noble once-vision: “Through teamwork and innovation be the world’s best administrative tribunals guaranteeing fairness and due process for all!”
The use of the word “uniformity” in EOIR’s “mission” is an absurdity given the “range” of asylum denials fostered and tolerated by Garland’s dysfunctional system: 0-100%! It’s also understandable, if unforgivable, that EOIR no longer features words like “due process,” “fundamental fairness,” “teamwork,” and “innovation” prominently on its website!
A Dem AG is attacking our American justice system and the legal profession at the “retail level” and causing real, perhaps “irreparable,” damage! What’s wrong with this picture? Everything! What are we going to do about it? Or, more appropriately, what are YOU going to do about it, as my time on the stage, and that of my contemporaries, is winding down?
All of these particularities matter, because once all available options have been exhausted, cases generally end up inside an immigration court before an immigration judge. The administrative snarls that predate a case before it arrives in immigration court are thus a result of policy from the top, for better or worse.
On paper, courts are supposed to be independent bodies. They are supposed to be immune from the political agendas of other government operatives or serve as independent mediators that can rectify previous errors.
But immigration courts are not. As a part of the Justice Department, at the end of the day, they work under the attorney general. While other courts function under a de jure practice of independence, immigration courts are held to the same standard despite not possessing the same protections that allow other judges to carry out their basic job functions. This creates an impossible work environment for immigration judges to fairly adjudicate every case with the attention it deserves. Instead, their measurements of success are based on accomplishing the president’s goals, which are translated into quotas for immigration courts. For example, Biden administration officials touted removing 1.3 million migrants last year.
As the Prospect has previously reported, immigration judges have long pointed out the tenuous environment they must work in.
But later this month, the Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA) will be hearing from the National Association of Immigration Judges (NAIJ) over whether or not their union will be reinstated. The FLRA will now have a majority of Biden appointees.
A dysfunctional immigration system can only start to work with independent courts. But that change can only happen through congressional action. In the meantime, a never-ending crisis at the border can be exploited by one party, as the other expands the needlessly punitive immigration practices of the previous administration.
*******************
Many thanks to prodigious immigration commentator Nolan Rappaport for passing this along to me.
There is consensus among experts that an independent Article I Immigration Court is urgently needed and long overdue. There is also a consensus that the chance of achieving this critical legislative change with a GOP-controlled House is zero. At the same time, we must remember that Dems didn’t exactly give any priority to this essential and far-reaching reform when they had “unified control” over the political branches.
There is also consensus that in the absence of Article I there are things that Garland and the Biden Administration could and should have done administratively that would have drastically improved the due process, expertise, quality, efficiency, “customer service,” and professionalism of EOIR.
Gee whiz, a Harvard Law student figured it out! They haveconstructive suggestions for administrative reforms to change culture, improve training, place docket control in the hands of judges not politicos and bureaucrats, increase independence, improve quality, and insulate IJs from the political whims and enforcement agendas of each Administration. Seehttps://wp.me/p8eeJm-8hE?
But, a Harvard Law grad, long-time Federal Judge, and Supremes’ nominee, and his band of supposedly smart and high-powered political lieutenants couldn’t or wouldn’t get it done for a Dem Administration? Gimmie a break!
A Dem Administration that was supposed to get us beyond the cruelty, White Nationalism, xenophobia, and “malicious incompetence” of the Trump Administration falls flat on its face on a critical and achievable part of immigration reform and racial justice in America! Go figure!
Meanwhile, the cries of pain keep coming from those subjected to Garland’s dystopian “courts!”
Had an “interesting” IH today with this IJ. [IJ] denied my motion to continue the case by email the evening before the 8:30 am hearing, even though I had four IHs scheduled in the same time slot and had filed a motion to continue a month before the hearing. [IJ] refused to grant me a few minutes to speak with OPLA counsel before the hearing to narrow issues, saying that discussion should have already taken place. [IJ] spent an inordinate amount of time on housekeeping issues. [IJ] read a list of “rules.” [IJ] would insist that counsel stand when they spoke. [IJ] would routinely deny motions for webex hearings. [IJ] went through the biographical information excruciatingly slowly, including having the respondent spell the names of all the riders, provide their birth dates, etc.
It was a case where DHS had stipulated to 42b and the only issue would’ve been discretion but the IJ didn’t care. [IJ] told me to let everyone know that [IJ] reads each and every single document submitted in . . . court from back to front and . . . has a lot of questions . . . . [IJ] went on to conduct a full hearing, chastised DHS for stipulating, made a big deal of every little thing, asked irrelevant questions about medicaid forms that [client] may have filled for her children (not included as part of evidence), insinuated that she committed medicaid fraud, and made the ACC change position on each and every issue.
[The IJ] denied the asylum application of a young gay man from El Salvador. This is a first for me, in my 20+ years of asylum practice. We’ve never lost such a case that I can recall.
The facts are pretty typical – the kid lived a life of humiliation and abuse in El Salvador due to his sexual orientation; tried to commit suicide several times; and ultimately left the country when the Mara 18 tried to get him to deliver marijuana for them. Arguably, not a strong case for past persecution, but such cases typically prevail where a judge fairly evaluates a claim of well-founded fear of future persecution and considers the country condition reports and articles about the horrendous human rights abuses against the LGBT community in El Salvador. This didn’t fly with IJ. [IJ] simply said “there is no meaningful evidence in the record to demonstrate that the Respondent would experience harm amounting to persecution in El Salvador” and then went on to say that the client would likely experience more bullying and discrimination, but that doesn’t mean it would be persecution. [IJ] did not mention any country conditions report or article from the record to support his ruling.
[T]he DHS attorney called me directly after the hearing to empathize and tell me that it’s well-known even on their side that this judge is a piece of work and it’s always a good idea to take PD if offered.
[T]his judge is a menace. I don’t know what to do to protect my clients from [IJ] other than prepare strong BIA appeals.
This is the third email I have received to schedule MORE cases. No one will tell me what the goal is. I’ve put them on notice of the health issues this is/has been causing me.
Please tell the higher ups that this practice of overscheduling the private bar is taking a serious toll on practitioners’ health. Medical documentation is below and attached. I’m really not sure why the court has felt the need to overschedule practitioners to this level, but it is really taking a serious toll on everyone. Can someone please shed light on this urgent need to overwhelm the limited number of defense attorneys we have in the area?
Another outstanding Immigration Court practitioner told me that they had left courtroom practice and taken a “research and writing” position because the EOIR courtroom “experience” under Garland was so dehumanizing, demoralizing, stressful, and life consuming!
A different attorney called me with concerns that an IJ’s “over the top” abuse of pro bono counsel would discourage others from taking cases in Immigration Court.
IJ’s wasting time; discouraging negation and stipulation by parties; taking over hearings; abusing continuance discretion; failing to abide by Cardoza & Mogharrabi; showing bias; producing wildly inconsistent anti-immigrant results; showing thin knowledge of law; rudely treating counsel and clients; over-scheduling; abusing power; endangering the health of those appearing before them; driving practitioners to leave the EOIR courtrooms; discouraging pro bono!
Everything that is NOT what a fair, independent, court of law should be is present and allowed, perhaps even encouraged, in Garland’s broken EOIR! Why is this type of grotesque mismanagement, bad judging, unprofessional conduct, and disregard of fundamental due process “business as usual” under a Dem Administration?
This “star chamber” system needs new, expert, progressive, due-process-focused, free from political hackery and inane gimmicks, “kick-ass” management! Garland isn’t getting the job done!
These younger progressives are exactly the “core support” that Dems will need to win future elections! How does “dissing” them with inept leadership and ineffective nativist-derived immigration policies help the cause?
Honestly, what a mess! Garland’s dystopian EOIR is the Democratic Party’s shame!
