"The Voice of the New Due Process Army" ————– Musings on Events in U.S. Immigration Court, Immigration Law, Sports, Music, Politics, and Other Random Topics by Retired United States Immigration Judge (Arlington, Virginia) and former Chairman of the Board of Immigration Appeals Paul Wickham Schmidt and Dr. Alicia Triche, expert brief writer, practical scholar, emeritus Editor-in-Chief of The Green Card (FBA), and 2022 Federal Bar Association Immigration Section Lawyer of the Year. She is a/k/a “Delta Ondine,” a blues-based alt-rock singer-songwriter, who performs regularly in Memphis, where she hosts her own Blues Brunch series, and will soon be recording her first full, professional album. Stay tuned! 🎶 To see our complete professional bios, just click on the link below.
GW Law Immigration Clinic Director Professor Alberto Benítez & Co-Director Paulina Vera
Professor Alberto Benitez at the GW Immigration Clinic reports:
Friends,
Our friend, colleague, and alum Paulina Vera shared this story. Congratulations Daniel!
“A current Immigration Judge shared that he spoke to his colleague, another Immigration Judge (“IJ”), about a recent virtual hearing handled by student-attorney, Daniel Fishelman ’22. IJ complimented the Clinic’s preparation and Daniel’s performance, stating that even though it was for a short matter, she was impressed by the Clinic. This was the Clinic’s first appearance before IJ. Please join us in congratulating Daniel on completing his first hearing and getting positive feedback from Immigration Judges!”
******************
Many congrats to student-attorney, Daniel Fishelman ’22 on his first engagement as a member of the NDPA!👍🏼😎
Also, congrats to my friends and “due process role models” Alberto and Paulina! So proud that part of Paulina’s “immigration justice journey” went through the Arlington Immigration Court, where she served as an intern.
Alberto and Paulina tell me that after their “standard rigorous prep session” with Daniel, he definitely was “QRFPT” — “Quite Ready For Prime Time!” 😎 That’s as opposed to “NQRFPT” (“Not Quite Ready For Prime Time”) ☹️ — something to be avoided in Immigration Court or any other type of litigation!☠️
This case illustrates what I found on the bench: that “short cases” are almost always the result of superior scholarship, meticulous preparation, and informed dialogue by counsel for both parties before getting to court.
That’s why one grossly underutilized tool for reducing backlogs is investing in and encouraging more and better trained representation for individuals appearing in Immigration Court.
As statistics have shown time after time, universalrepresentation is also the key to achieving high appearance rates.
Additionally, constructing court dockets and scheduling cases locally with input from both counsel is a way of reversing the backlog building “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” (“ADR”) produced by attempting to manage dockets from “on high.” ADR usually results from EOIR unilaterally attempting to satisfy DHS enforcement aims or to accommodate “disconnected political agendas and ill-advised gimmicks” generated by DOJ and White House politicos — invariably clueless about the realities of Immigration Court practice!
The three things always left behind by ADR: due process, fundamental fairness, and practical efficiency!
“The question presented in this appeal—one which has led to a circuit split—is whether a conviction for falsely representing a social security number, see 42 U.S.C. § 408(a)(7)(B), is a CIMT. … The BIA explained that § 408(a)(7)(B) requires intent to deceive, and as a result Mr. Zarate’s conviction was for a CIMT. Noting that the circuits were divided on the issue, it quoted our decision in Walker v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 783 F.3d 1226, 1229 (11th Cir. 2015), for the proposition that, “[g]enerally, a crime involving dishonesty or false statement is considered to be one involving moral turpitude.” The BIA did not, however, address whether a violation of § 407(a)(7)(B) is inherently base, vile, or depraved. And that, as we will later explain, is a significant omission. … Our holding today does not foreclose the possibility that a conviction for a violation of § 408(a)(7)(B) may be a CIMT. But if the BIA is going to hold that it is, it will need to do what it has so far failed to do in Mr. Zarate’s case—it will have to apply its two-pronged moral turpitude standard in toto and decide whether the statute, under the categorical approach, involves conduct that is “reprehensible,” i.e., conduct that is “inherently base, vile, or depraved, and contrary to the accepted rules of morality and the duties owed between persons or to society in general.” Silva-Trevino, 26 I. & N. Dec. at 833–34 (internal quotation marks omitted). See also Simon-Kerr, Moral Turpitude, 2012 Utah L. Rev. at 1007–08 (criticizing courts for “ignor[ing] community moral sentiments when applying the [moral turpitude] standard”). We remand to the BIA for that purpose.”
Hon. Jeffrey S. Chase Jeffrey S. Chase Blog Coordinator & Chief Spokesperson, Round Table of Former Immigration Judges
My colleague Hon. “Sir Jeffrey” Chase of the Round Table 🛡⚔️ offers the following cogent “instant analysis:”
Besides from what this says about the BIA being too lazy and hellbent on affirming removal orders for even the 11th Circuit’s liking, this is really interesting in its addressing the issue of applying “community moral sentiments”.What community are we talking about, and at what period of time?
There’s also a concurring opinion that does a very deep dive into the process for determining whether a statute is divisible.Could you even imagine the BIA engaging in the necessary analysis?
“Deep analysis” isn’t exactly in the “BIA playbook” under Garland. No, Garland’s “good enough for government work culture” at the DOJ tolerates the “whatever it takes to get to ‘no’” standard that was instilled by Sessions and Barr and, remarkably, still permeates much of the BIA’s work that is being rejected by the Article IIIs.
I note that the “deep dive” concurring opinion referenced by “Sir Jeffrey” was written by Senior Circuit Judge Gerald B. Tjoflat, a 92-year-old Gerald Ford appointee whose intellectual engagement and analytical work product puts the Garland BIA to shame!
Tal Kopan @ SF Chron reports on latest public miscue:
A California lawyer tweeted what she saw in immigration court. The DOJ demanded she delete it
By Tal Kopan
WASHINGTON — On Feb. 1, attorney Monika Langarica was in a San Diego courtroom watching as the Biden administration resumed hearing cases on a controversial immigration policy that requires migrants to wait in Mexico while they plead their case to enter the U.S. That evening, she wrote a series of tweets describing what she saw.
The next day, she received an email from the Justice Department that shocked her: The administration asked her to delete the tweets. They claimed she violated a policy against making a record of immigration court proceedings and threatened potential criminal penalties if she committed “further violations.”
The Justice Department retracted its request and apologized to Langarica after The Chronicle inquired about the threat, saying further review confirmed she was not tweeting from the courtroom and thus did not violate any policies.
Still, the surprising episode raised several issues, including First Amendment concerns, issues of transparency in the often secretive immigration courts as well as criticisms of the policy at the heart of the dispute.
“It (was) shocking, because we are in our right to observe these proceedings, we are in our right to share with the public what is happening in these court rooms,” Langarica said in an interview before the apology had been issued. Langarica is an attorney with the UCLA Center for Immigration Law and Policy and formerly with the San Diego American Civil Liberties Union.
Why would an agency with failure, problems, and valid criticism “coming out it ears” 👂 be wasting official time monitoring the Twitter accounts of court observers?
Assuming that were some legitimate reason, why wouldn’t the first reaction to Ms. Langarcia’s tweets be “Hey, let’s sit down with you and your friends and figure out how to fix this?”
Instead of having more “flackies” in their bloated bureaucracy to suppress the public trappings of failure and to “massage the message,” why not put the resources into getting better bodies out there to FIX THE MYRIAD OF PROBLEMS crippling the agency and making it a parody of justice? It’s going to take more than a band of public apologists in the PIO to outsmart brilliant, informed investigative reporters like Tal!
It’s little wonder that EOIR doesn’t want light shed on what’s really happening in their “Star Chambers!”
“Scream as loud as you want. Nobody’s going to hear you!”
Reminds me of one of my favorite “EOIR War Stories.” My Arlington colleague Judge Wayne “Tell It Like It Is” Iskra once truthfully said in open court said what most experts and his colleagues privately had been saying for ages: “This system is broken!” Unknown to Judge Iskra, however, a reporter was sitting in the audience and the comment received publicity, the thing that EOIR fears most!
Coming from a former two-time Chief Judge of the U.S. Army Criminal Courts, hardly known as a “bleeding heart liberal,” one would anticipate that Iskra’s blunt assessment might have spurred some immediate corrective action and internal reforms. But, the only action it created at EOIR was basically to tell Iskra to “sit down and shut up.”
As always, EOIR was more concerned about “protecting itself” from a judge speaking truth than dealing with the consequences of that truth. As a result, the system is even more broken now than it was when Iskra had the audacity to “speak truth to power!”
New arrivals in South Portland schools bring challenges and joy
With asylum seekers arriving in Portland housed in South Portland hotels, South Portland schools gear up for more English language learners and celebrate the excitement they bring.
Divine Nsimba Lukombo 12, left, an 8th grader from the Democratic Republic of Congo, and 7th grader Odett Mavezo Junizi 12, also from the Congo, work together in a science class at South Portland’s Memorial Middle School.
When classes started this year at Memorial Middle School in South Portland, there was just one humanities class for students beginning to learn English. Now there are three.
The school has rearranged the schedules of English language teachers, added an additional part-time English language teacher and upped the hours of a second teacher.
It has limited new enrollments because it has no more space and is relying on the middle school on the other side of the city to absorb any additional students who come into the district.
“We’re just supporting way more kids in those English language learning classes,” said Principal Rebecca Stern.
The changes are necessary because the school district is seeing an influx of English language learner students driven by the arrival of asylum seekers from African countries. It’s hard to know exactly how many of the students are asylum seekers, but officials in South Portland say the increases they’re seeing stem from the placement of many asylum-seeking families in emergency shelter in local hotels.
Since the start of the school year, the South Portland School Department has served 305 homeless students. That’s up from 180 last school year and just 34 in 2019-20. The school system has 522 English language learner students, compared to 328 last year. And overall enrollment now is at 3,021 students, up from 2,887 in October.
English Language Learner teacher Kara Kralik works with students at Memorial Middle School in South Portland last week. Shawn Patrick Ouellette/Staff Photographer
South Portland is one of five communities where the city of Portland is placing asylum seekers in hotels because of a shortage of shelter space and housing.
Portland officials reported earlier this month that new arrivals had driven the highest ever nightly averages of people in need of shelter. In the first three weeks of January, 39 families needing shelter arrived in Portland – about one-third the number the city saw in all of 2020.
School officials in Portland and some surrounding communities like Old Orchard Beach and Brunswick, which are currently housing asylum seekers or have in the past, said they aren’t seeing increases in new students. Freeport, which is housing some new arrivals from Portland, has seen a small one.
“I would argue that right now we are the most impacted school district in the state when it comes to new families, many of whom do not speak English and are housing vulnerable,” said South Portland Superintendent Tim Matheney.
Schools across the district – from elementary to high school – have mobilized to welcome the newcomers. Most come from Angola and the Democratic Republic of Congo and have spent months or even years traveling to the United States to escape violence or instability in their home countries. And many have missed long periods of school as a result.
Teaching the students English, enrolling them in classes and making sure basic needs such as housing, food and warm clothing are being met present challenges. Schools need to hire more staff – English language teachers, social workers.
But the new students are making their schools far more diverse and filling them with excitement during a challenging year.
“In America right now, as we go through the pandemic and how education looks post-pandemic, people are really sad,” said South Portland High School Principal Michele LaForge. “The anxiety of our students and our staff is really high. This has been a really hard time and it continues to be hard.
“Our new Mainers, in a lot of ways, the hardest thing they’ve ever experienced is behind them. So there’s this energy around these new students. They’re just so delighted to be here. They’re never absent. They’re excited every second of every day.”
FILLING IN THE LEARNING GAPS
At Memorial Middle School on a recent morning, English language learner teacher Elizabeth Dawson worked with a dozen students in a math class for newcomers. Just the week before, Dawson had been assigned a new sixth-grade student who hadn’t been in school for five years. She said it’s not unusual for students to have large gaps in their education, and it’s her job to catch them up.
“In all of our classes we have this philosophy of addressing language skills and gaps, but we also know these students are 14,” Dawson said. “They’re cognitively and developmentally middle school students, so we also need to make sure our content is challenging them on a seventh-grade level.”
Tanya Nsumu, 12, left, originally from the Democratic Republic of Congo works with Maria Bikuma, 14, from Angola during math class last week at Memorial Middle School in South Portland where there is an influx of asylum-seeking students. Shawn Patrick Ouellette/Staff Photographer
Maria Bikuma and Tanya Nsumu, two students in Dawson’s class, sat in the back munching on breakfast as their teacher led them in a word problem that everyone read aloud together. Bikuma, who is from Angola and arrived in Maine over the summer, said she is enjoying making new friends and being in school.
“I like America because it’s a good country,” said the eighth-grader. “I can study here and the teachers are good.”
Because she speaks English well, Bikuma often acts as a translator between teachers and her fellow students who are new to the country and whose first language is most often Portuguese or French. She said the teachers are patient and more involved in helping students than in Angola, where students were more self-directed.
“People understand quickly because the teachers explain very good,” Bikuma said.
Nsumu also arrived over the summer, from the Democratic Republic of Congo. She left her home country when she was just 6 years old and spent time in South America, Mexico and Texas. When she arrived in Maine, she spoke no English, though that has quickly changed.
“Here is different because I have a new teacher that teaches good,” said the seventh-grader. “I have an iPad. I have a new life.”
. . . .
*******************
Read the rest of Rachel’s article at the link.
When I was a judge, I was often inspired by the amazing young people who came before me. Some of them had literally walked to the US, on perilous journeys, encountering unimaginable, sometimes unspeakable, hardships and trauma.
Their courage, life skills, and problem solving abilities were truly remarkable. Once here, many were helping their families while going to school and assisting their lawyers with their cases. Some were also involved in sports, music, or other extracurricular activities. (When I heard applause from my colleague Judge John Milo Bryant’s courtroom, I knew that was for another student-athlete or academic achievement.)
I often could see both English language proficiency and school grades improve from one court appearance to another. I invariably asked students about their progress in school. Many brought report cards to the next hearing to show me how they were doing.
I always told kids that no matter how their cases eventually came out, their education was theirs for life. So, I challenged them to take full advantage. And, most appeared to do so!
I saw some of them literally grow up and come of age in court and go on to contribute to our country and our communities while continuing to take outsized responsibilities for families. Many came from homes where the parents were both working two jobs to help forge better lives for their children.
Many of these cases eventually had happy endings. When they did, I always encouraged the younger generation to pay it back by helping their parents and insuring that they had the time, encouragement, and support to meet the requirements for naturalization so that they could become full participants in their communities and our nation.
Please thank them all on my behalf. I’m extremely grateful for what each of them did on my case.” This is what our client, E-K- said upon receiving well wishes from several of his former student-attorneys after he was sworn in as a U.S. citizen yesterday. Please see the attached photo of E-K- with Prof. Vera after his oath ceremony. E-K- authorized our use of his picture.
E-K- became a Clinic client in 2009 after an unsuccessful interview at the Arlington Asylum Office. In February 2010, E-K-, a native of Cameroon, had his first Individual Calendar Hearing based on his political opinion and imputed political opinion following his involvement in a sit-in and his presence during a protest. DHS appealed the initial grant of asylum and on remand the Board of Immigration Appeals instructed the Immigration Judge to pay attention to credibility. However, the Immigration Clinic and E-K- prevailed again in 2013 and the asylum grant was finalized! The Clinic then assisted E-K- with his green card application, naturalization application, and naturalization interview. Next up: his wife’s green card application!
Please join me in congratulating Alexa Glock, Anca Grigore, Rebekah Niblock, Victoria Braga, Alex North, Jonathan Bialosky, and Paulina Vera, who all worked on the case.
Real life success stories from real life humans represented by well-trained law students in a “Surreal Immigration Court System!”
Brings to mind the disgraceful incident when former Trump-Era EOIR Director James McHenry created a bogus “Fact Sheet” with a ludicrous narrative in a dishonest attempt to show that lawyers and knowing individual rights in Immigration Court were irrelevant to success.
McHenry’s lies, myths, and intentional distortions were universally panned by immigration experts as reported by Courtside at the time.
Under Judge Garland, the DOJ claims to recognize and promote representation in Immigration Court. But, leaving aside the mushy rhetoric, their actions say otherwise:
“Dedicated Dockets” and sloppy mail-out notices established without consultation with the private bar;
Proposed asylum regulations almost universally opposed by the private bar;
Failure to slash the overwhelming, due process inhibiting, 1.5 million case backlog;
Continued “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” fueled by changing and misplaced administrative “priorities”that totally ignore the needs of the pro bono bar;
Continuing support for “imbedded Immigration Courts and TV Courts” established in or near DHS Detention Centers located in obscure places where attorneys are not easily obtainable;
Overly restrictive and widely inconsistent bond determinations in Immigration Court that inhibit effective representation;
Ridiculous backlog of Recognition and Accreditation applications that impedes new opportunities for well-qualified pro bono representatives in Immigration Court (See, e.g., VIISTA Program, Villanova Law);
Failure to “swap out” a legally substandardly performing BIA and some Immigration Judges for “real, well-qualified Judges with immigration and due process expertise;”
Long-delayed e-filing, making pro bono representation more difficultand less efficient;
Overall lack of dynamic court management and appropriate professional dialogue with the private bar;
Substandard EOIR “judicial training” that puts undue burden on private attorneys, particularly those operatingpro bono;
Lack of positive precedents, particularly on asylum, that would help parties and judges move many “grantable” asylum cases through Immigration Courts fairly, efficiently, and consistently with due process and “best practices;”
Continuing lawless use of Title 42 @ Southern Border causing diversion of legal resources that could otherwise be channeled into representation!
In other words, the DOJ under Garland has failed to deliver on the promise of restoring the rule of law and promoting representation in Immigration Court. Seems like nothing short of Article I will “get the job done!”
It’s painfully obvious that the politicos running the dysfunctional Immigration Courts @ DOJ have never actually had to practice before them, particularly pro bono! So, they just go on repeating many of the uninformed mistakes of their predecessors!
By Maya P. Barak, University of Michigan-Dearborn:
This quote sums it all up for me:
. . . .
Ultimately, perceptions of justice within immigration court merit examination not despite the fact that due process can be used to manipulate images of fairness, but because of it.
This study highlights just some of the many problems running deep within the US immigration system. Current interpretation and technology practices reveal the promise of justice in immigration court is little more than a façade—at least from immigration attorneys’ perspectives. Further exploration of due process within immigration court is needed to determine whether or not addressing existing interpretation and technology problems through the reforms proposed here would improve immigrants’ access to justice in a meaningful way. Drawing inspiration from movements to abolish the death penalty, prison, and the police, meaningful immigration court reform efforts should also reduce the need for an immigration court altogether.
***************************************
When I arrived at the Arlington Immigration Court in 2003, I found the contract interpreters to be excellent — some truly outstanding. A key part of the “Due Process Team.”
Before I retired in 2016, however, EOIR “re-competed” the interpretation contract and awarded it to a company that did not appear to have sufficient qualified interpreters already on staff to perform the functions. That company offered to employ most of the interpreters of the “deposed contractor,” but evidently at lower salaries and less favorable terms. The predictable result: Some of the best interpreters left and went to Article III Courts, State Courts, or other types of interpretation offering better wages and working conditions.
“[T]he promise of justice in immigration court is little more than a façade!” This bears repeating, over and over, until we get the radical due process reforms and long overdue personnel changes we need at EOIR.
This isn’t exactly “new news” to Garland and friends! Shortly after the “Ashcroft Purge of ’03,”Peter Levinson wrote a scholarly, yet scathing, expose’ of the “farce of justice at the BIA” entitled “The Facade Of Quasi-Judicial Independence In Immigration Appellate Adjudication.”
“Eyore In Distress” — Some believe that Attorney General Merrick Garland could be charged with “cruelty to stuffed animals” for his callous failure to heed the desperate cries for help from poor abused, long suffering EYORE.
Nearly two decades later, now almost a year into the second “post-Ashcroft” Dem Administration, and still no effective corrective actions at EOIR! Indeed, whatever remnants of due process might have existed in 2003 have deteriorated steadily since then, despite nearly nine years of Dem Administrations and enough weighty evidence to sink a battleship. During that time, thousands of lives and American families have been ruined and several generations of immigration attorneys driven to despair (some quitting the field) by a system any first year law student could see is totally out of compliance with Constitutional due process and fundamental fairness!
After an extremely disappointing start, Attorney General Merrick Garland is finally bringing some much needed balance and immigration expertise to his broken, dysfunctional, hopelessly backlogged, and overall reeling Immigration Courts. He appears to be at least partially heeding the advice of experts and tapping into the deep pool of private sector, NGO, and clinical program talent to improve the balance, professionalism, fairness, and efficiency of the U.S. Immigration Courts.
After years of a toxic combination of neglect, mismanagement, outright “weaponization,” and poor to haphazard judicial selections biased against well-qualified immigration and ImmigrationCourt experts from the private/NGO/academic sectors, the latest round of judicial hiring by Garland shows a more appropriate and diverse balance of private sector experts, government employees with relevant immigration experience, and those with other types of judicial experience.
Here’s the complete list of 24 new Immigration Judges from EOIR:
For me, personally, two names particular “jumped out.” First, “NDPA All-Star”🌟 JudgeRebecca J. Walters, until recently the Managing Attorney at nonprofit AYUDA’s Virginia Office, will be Assistant Chief Immigration Judge at the Arlington Immigration Court! (Full disclosure: I am on the AYUDA Advisory Board.) Her “specialty” at AYUDA was litigation on behalf ofSIJS applicants before both immigration agencies and the Virginia State Courts.
Hon. Rebecca J. Walters Assistant Chief Immigration Judge Arlington, VA PHOTO: AYUDA
Rebecca and her colleagues appeared before me at the Arlington Immigration Court. Among many other things, she was legal intern at our court while a student at the Washington College of Law at American University. We’ve all come a long way since the days when Rebecca and her fellow interns and JLCs used to “run the stairs” with Judge John Milo Bryant and me when our court was at Ballston, VA!
The second notable appointment is JudgeLouis Gordon, until recently of Los Angeles, now at the San Francisco Immigraton Court. He is the son of the late beloved ImmigrationJudge Nate Gordon. As I mentioned in an obit for his father in Courtside,Louis, then a highly regarded private attorney, argued before the BIA when we visited Los Angeles during my tenure as BIA Chair.
Congrats to Judge Walters, Judge Gordon, and the other recent selections.
Don’t get me wrong! It’s going to take more— much, much more — than a few better judicial appointments to right the rapidly sinking ship at Garland’s EOIR. But, at least it appears to be progress. And, every voice of expertise, fairness, due process, and humanity in a system seriously lacking in all the foregoing qualities helps save lives and generate some energy for systemic improvements, in both “culture” and actual judicial performance, that have long been missing at EOIR.
Yes, although the honchos at the top of EOIR’s “Management Pyramid” would have you believe otherwise, practical, positive change can often come from below in any organization, even one as totally and completely screwed up as EOIR!
Amazingly, the guys at the bottom of this structure sometimes know more about fixing problems than those sitting at the top! Kheops-Pyramid Wikipedia Commons License
Adrift on a sea of endless incompetence, Garland’s “Dedicated Dockets” won’t save EOIR! U.S. Coast Guard photo by Petty Officer 1st Class Sara Francis Public Realm
Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse
Immigration Court Struggling to Manage Its Expanding Dedicated Docket of Asylum-Seeking Families
During the month of August, the Biden administration stepped up the assignment of asylum-seeking families arriving at the border to the Immigration Court’s new “Dedicated Docket” program. As of August 31, 2021, Immigration Court records indicate that a total of 16,713 individuals comprising approximately 6,000 families are now assigned to this program.
But alongside the growing number of asylum-seekers assigned to the new Dedicated Docket, new questions emerge about whether these cases will be completed fairly and within the promised timeline, whether Immigration Judges will be able to manage large Dedicated Docket caseloads, and whether the Court is reliably tracking these cases as promised.
While EOIR has set up Dedicated Docket hearing locations in eleven cities, cases assigned thus far have been unusually concentrated in just a few cities. As of the end of August half of the 16,713 cases were assigned to New York City and Boston.
With the rapid influx of cases at a number of these Dedicated Docket hearing locations, half of the currently scheduled initial master hearings are not being held until after mid-November 2021, and fully one in ten are not currently scheduled until mid-February 2022. In addition, these hearings are largely to be held via video. Only eleven percent of all scheduled hearings are set as in-person hearings.
It also continues to be a relatively small number of judges who are assigned to hear these cases. Six judges now account for nearly two-thirds (63%) of the assigned Dedicated Docket cases. Each of these six judges has already been assigned over a thousand cases just during the first three months of this initiative. Judge Mario J. Sturla in Boston has thus far been assigned the most Dedicated Docket cases for any judge—3,178 cases.
Some basic arrangements are still not in place to ensure that cases assigned to the Dedicated Docket are clearly identified in the Court’s database system which is relied on to manage the Court’s workload. As of the end of August, fully 38 percent of cases assigned to the special hearing locations set up to exclusively handle Dedicated Dockets were not flagged as “DD” cases.
To examine a variety of Immigration Court data, including asylum data, the backlog, MPP, and more now updated through August 2021, use TRAC’s Immigration Court tools here:
TRAC is self-supporting and depends on foundation grants, individual contributions and subscription fees for the funding needed to obtain, analyze and publish the data we collect on the activities of the US Federal government. To help support TRAC’s ongoing efforts, go to:
The Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse is a nonpartisan joint research center of the Whitman School of Management (https://whitman.syr.edu) and the Newhouse School of Public Communications (https://newhouse.syr.edu) at Syracuse University. If you know someone who would like to sign up to receive occasional email announcements and press releases, they may go to https://trac.syr.edu and click on the E-mail Alerts link at the bottom of the page. If you do not wish to receive future email announcements and wish to be removed from our list, please send an email to trac@syr.edu with REMOVE as the subject.
*********************
I’m not aware of any “courtroom” at EOIR that actually could hold 129 respondents, their family members, and attorneys (if any). It’s a high volume court with a “mini-court” infrastructure. Our Masters were shut down several times by the Arlington Fire Department for unsafe conditions and blocking handicapped access.
Also, building new “gimmick dockets” without e-filing is totally insane!
I once did a 100-case TV Master in Cincinnati. I had no files! ICE sent their files to Cleveland while sending the Assistant Chief Counsel to appear in person in Cincinnati. They probably crossed “in transit.” EOIR provided a Spanish interpreter. However most of the non-English speakers on the docket were from Mauritania and spoke French or Wolof. It was a complete circus.
Afterwards, I told the then Chief Immigration Judge that it was “friggin’ Clown Court!” He was not amused. Nor was I!
Probably not a “career enhancing” move, but I was “working my way down the ladder” by that time.
Creating more unnecessary “gimmick dockets” at EOIR — just like hiring more new IJs, is NOT going to solve the extreme structural, organizational, personnel, and competence issues infecting the Immigration Courts. Actually, if anyone had bothered to check, “dedicated dockets” were tried during the Obama Administration. They inevitably failed — adding to the “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” while undermining due process, efficiency, and best practices!
It’s not “rocket science.” 🚀 Anybody who actually practices (as best they can, under these near-impossible circumstances) in Immigration Court these days could tell Garland exactly what the problems are.
Nobody in their right mind would suggest that the “answer” is a “Dedicated Docket” or infusing a large number of additional judges into this mess, although the solution definitely involves replacing some existing judges, starting with the BIA, and includes bringing in real progressive, expert judicial leadership. So, why is Garland rolling out more gimmicks and proposed personnel increases without addressing the REAL problems at EOIR?
Fix the system! Bring in expert progressive judges who know the law and are committed to best practices! Stop the politicized interference! Figure out what the real system requirements are! THEN go out and do additional merit-based hiring, if more judges are really part of the answer! (Hint: The vast majority of the 2+-year-old non-detained, non-priority cases should be administratively closed or referred to USCIS, or both. They are bogging down the system without promoting justice.)
Alas, poor EOIR seems to be adrift on a sea of endless incompetence, mismanagement, and neglect with no safe port in sight.
“We voted to rehear this case en banc to reconsider our “single factor rule,” which we have applied in considering petitions for review from decisions by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”). The single factor rule, as we have applied it, requires us to sustain an adverse credibility finding if “one of the [agency’s] identified grounds is supported by substantial evidence.” Wang v. INS, 352 F.3d 1250, 1259 (9th Cir. 2003). On rehearing en banc, we hold that the single factor rule conflicts with the REAL ID Act of 2005, Pub. L. No. 109-13, 119 Stat. 231 (2005), and we overrule our prior precedent establishing and applying it. We remand this case to the three-judge panel to re-examine the petition for review in light of our clarification of the standard for reviewing the BIA’s adverse credibility determinations. … Given the REAL ID Act’s explicit statutory language, we join our sister circuits and hold that, in assessing an adverse credibility finding under the Act, we must look to the “totality of the circumstances[] and all relevant factors.” § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). There is no bright-line rule under which some number of inconsistencies requires sustaining or rejecting an adverse credibility determination—our review will always require assessing the totality of the circumstances. To the extent that our precedents employed the single factor rule or are otherwise inconsistent with this standard, we overrule those cases. We remand this case to the three-judge panel for reconsideration in light of the newly articulated standard for reviewing adverse credibility determinations.”
********************
Even with Article III Courts, including the 9th Circuit, generally “drifting right,” “good enough for Government work” has been rejected! That ought to help Garland boost the EOIR backlog!
The EOIR/DOJ policy right now appears to be “give any reason to deny,” hope that OIL can make at least one of them stick, and count on righty Circuit Judges to “swallow the whistle.” While that has certainly happened in the 5th Circuit, and to some extent in the 11th Circuit, there still appear to be enough Article IIIs out there critically reviewing EOIR’s too often patently substandard work product to make Garland’s indolent “look the other way” approach to the EOIR mess highly problematic.
Analyzing all the factors also might be inconsistent with mindless, due-process-denying three or four per day “merits quotas,” invented and imposed by Jeff “Gonzo Apocalypto” Sessions (someone with zero (0) Immigration Court experience and a well-justified lifetime reputation as a racist xenophobe — how does Matthews v. Eldridge allow a guy like that to pick and “run” judges — the Article IIIs might choose to look the other way, but most L-1 students know this is wrong and unconstitutional).
Just aimlessly listing common testimonial problems and hoping OIL will find one or more of them actually in the record is much faster (if you don’t count the impact of Circuit remands!) That it’s inconsistent with the statute, the Constitution, and, actually, BIA precedent seems to be beside the point these days. Of course, EOIR’s “assembly line jurists” also get “dinged” for remands.
Is there is anybody left at EOIR HQ today who could properly teach “totality of the circumstances” under REAL ID?
My observation from Arlington was that the number of adverse credibility findings and asylum denials went down substantially once the Fourth Circuit, and even occasionally the BIA, began enforcing “totality of the circumstances and all relevant factors” under REAL ID. As lawyers “got the picture” and began providing better independent corroborating evidence and documentation, the ability to “nit-pick” testimony, find the respondent “not credible,”and make it stand up on review diminished, as its well should have!
Of course, in my mind, REAL ID and the Fourth Circuit were just “re-enforcing and adopting” observations that members of our deposed “Gang of Four or Five” had made in numerous dissents from our BIA colleagues “undue deference” to poorly reasoned and thinly supported adverse credibility determinations, particularly in asylum cases.
More careful analysis of the record as a whole, often with the help of JLCs, became the rule at Arlington. And, after a few initial setbacks in the Fourth Circuit, ICE in Arlington generally stopped pushing for unjustified adverse credibility rulings and adopted approaches that actually complied with Fourth Circuit law.
The antiquated “contemporaneous oral decision format,” put on steroids by Sessions and Barr, is particularly ill-suited to the type of careful analysis required by the current statute, not to mention due process. And, having far too many newer Immigration Judges who have no immigration background and who have never had to represent an individual in Immigration Court is also a formula for failure, particularly when combined with inadequate training and idiotic “quotas.”
I’m not sure that the famous Rube Goldberg could have created a more convoluted,inefficient, and irrational process than exists at today’s EOIR. It simply can’t be fixed without leadership and assistance from outside experts who understand the problems (because they and their clients have “lived them”) and who aren’t wedded to all the mistakes and failed “silver bullet solutions” of the past!
The EOIR process is so “user friendly” that any unrepresented two-year-old can easily navigate it! Rube Goldberg (1883-1970) — 1930 Public Realm
By contrast with the EOIR mess, it’s amazing what changes an expert appellate body that actually takes its job and due process seriously can effect. Imagine if we had an expert BIA that made due process and treating individuals fairly “job one,” rather than operating as a “whistle stop on the deportation railroad.”
The ongoing EOIR clown show 🤡 just keeps getting exposed. But, nobody in charge seems to care! That’s a shame, 🤮 because “human lives, ⚰️ and perhaps the survival of our democracy, 🇺🇸 hang in the balance here!”
Trumpy nativists, posing as fiscal conservatives, want you to question whether the United States can afford to take in Afghan allies and refugees.
The better question is whether we can afford not to.
The Republican Party has cleaved in recent weeks over the issue of Afghan refugees, specifically those who served as military interpreters or otherwise aided U.S. efforts. On the one hand, Republican governors and lawmakers around the country have volunteered to resettle Afghan evacuees in their states. Likewise, a recent CBS News/YouGov poll found that bringing these allies to the United States is phenomenally popular, garnering support from 76 percent of Republican respondents. Influential conservative constituencies are invested in this issue, too, including veterans’ groups and faith leaders.
On the other hand, the Trump strain within the GOP has been fighting such magnanimous impulses with misinformation.
Xenophobic politicians and media personalities have been conspiracy-theorizing about the dangers of resettling Afghan allies here — even though we had previously entrusted these same Afghans with the lives of U.S. troops and granted them security clearances. And even though they go through additional extensive screening before being brought to our shores.
No matter; if you listen to Tucker Carlson and his ilk, you’ll hear that these Afghans are apparently part of a secret plot to replace White Americans, and that untamed Afghan hordes are going to rape your wife and daughter.
Often these demagogues try to disguise their racist objections to refugee resettlement (and immigration more broadly) as economic concerns. Their claim: that however heartbreaking the footage from the Kabul airport, compassion for Afghan refugees is a luxury Americans simply cannot afford.
Refugees are somehow responsible for existing housing shortages, proclaims Carlson. (This is demonstrably false; the reason we have too little affordable housing is primarily because people like Carlson oppose building more and denser housing.) More refugees would sponge up precious taxpayer dollars, according to Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.). And in general, refugees — like all immigrants — are a massive drain on the U.S. economy, alleges Stephen Miller.
This is nonsense.
. . . .
***********************
Read Catherine’s complete op-ed at the link!
Thanks, Catherine, for once again standing up to and speaking truth against disgraceful, neo-Nazi, nativist racists like Stephen Miller, Tucker Carlson, and Marjorie Taylor Greene!
By contrast, one might well ask what “value added” folks like Stephen Miller and his buddies, (Miller has largely sponged off of taxpayer funds while looking for ways to inflict misery on others and destroy America) bring to the table. None, that I can see!
Moreover, even beyond the undoubted value of robust refugee admissions, there is good reason to believe that large-scale migration presents our best opportunity for salvation and prosperity, rather than the “bogus threat” posited by Miller & Co.
As Deepak Bhargava and Ruth Milkman recently, and quite cogently, wrote in American Prospect:
. . . .
A “Statue of Liberty Plan” for the 21st century could make the United States the world’s most welcoming country for immigrants. Right now, the foreign-born share of the U.S. population lags behind that of Canada, Australia, and Switzerland. In order to surpass them, the United States would have to admit millions more people each year for a decade or longer. We currently admit immigrants to promote family integration, meet economic needs, respond to humanitarian crises, and increase the diversity of our population from historically underrepresented countries. Under this plan, we could dramatically expand admissions in all four categories and add a fifth category to recognize the claims of climate migrants. As a civic project of national renewal, with millions of people playing a role in welcoming new immigrants, such a policy could reweave frayed social bonds and create a healthier, outward-looking, multiracial national identity.
The politics of immigration, however, lag far behind the moral and economic logic of the case for a pro-immigration policy. The immigrant threat narrative has become so pervasive that many liberals have embraced it, if only because they hope to fend off threats from right-wing nationalists. President Obama not only deprioritized immigration reform in his first term but deported record numbers of immigrants, hoping that such a display of “toughness” might win support for legalization of the undocumented immigrants already here. Hillary Clinton advocated liberal immigration policies in her 2016 presidential campaign but later tacked toward restrictionism. Liberals and leftists across the global North, from Austria to France to the U.K., have offered similar concessions to nativism. But mimicking right-wing appeals is a losing gamble that only serves to legitimize the anti-immigrant agenda and its standard-bearers.
There are promising signs of potential for shifting the debate, however, if progressives lean in. Polling shows that Americans increasingly reject the immigrant threat narrative, largely due to Trump’s shameless cruelty. Last year, for the first time since Gallup began asking the question in 1965, more Americans supported increased levels of immigration than supported reduced levels. A telling barometer of how the sands are shifting is that President Biden’s proposed immigration bill is far to the left of what Obama proposed.
The work of shifting gears toward a more welcoming policy can begin right now by fully welcoming immigrants who already reside in our country. A crucial starting point would be to include a path to citizenship for essential workers, Dreamers, farmworkers, and Temporary Protected Status holders in the American Jobs Plan Congress is considering. This is not only a humane approach, but it also will stimulate economic growth and thus help finance other parts of the plan. A separate campaign by the Biden administration (not requiring congressional action) to simplify the naturalization process for nine million eligible green-card holders would help make the nation’s electorate more reflective of its population.
Getting the politics of immigration right isn’t just important for immigrants. Nativism, built upon the sturdy foundation of racism, remains among the most potent tools in the arsenal of right-wing authoritarians. Any program for economic equity or democracy will be fragile in the absence of a coherent immigration agenda. The antidote to authoritarianism is not to duck, cower, or imitate the nativists, but rather to make the case for opening the door to millions more immigrants.
If slavery and genocide were the country’s original sins, its occasional and often accidental genius has been to renew itself through periodic waves of immigration. Once we expose the immigration threat narrative as the Big Lie that it is, it becomes plain that immigration is not a problem to be solved but an opportunity and necessity to be embraced.
This, of course, also casts doubt on the wisdom of our current, wasteful and ultimately ineffective, policy of illegally rejecting legal asylum applicants at our Southern Border, rather than attempting in good faith to fit as many as qualify under our current system, as properly and honestly administered (something that hasn’t happened in the past). Additionally wise leaders would be looking for ways to expand our legal immigration system to admit, temporarily or permanently, those whose presence would be mutually beneficial, even if they aren’t “refugees” within existing legal definitions. In this respect, the proposal to modernize our laws to admit climate migrants is compelling.
Remember, as stated above:
Getting the politics of immigration right isn’t just important for immigrants. Nativism, built upon the sturdy foundation of racism, remains among the most potent tools in the arsenal of right-wing authoritarians. Any program for economic equity or democracy will be fragile in the absence of a coherent immigration agenda. The antidote to authoritarianism is not to duck, cower, or imitate the nativists, but rather to make the case for opening the door to millions more immigrants.
NDPA members, keep listening to Catherine and the other voices of progressive wisdom, humanity, practicality, and tolerance. The key to the future is insuring that the “Stephen Millers of the world” never again get a chance to implement their vile, racist propaganda in the guise of “government policy.”
Happily, many Northern Virginians have listened to our “better angels.” Humanitarian aid and resettlement opportunities for Afghan refugees are pouring in, as shown by this report from our good friend Julie Carey @ NBC 4 news:
Julie Carey NOVA Bureau Chief, NBC4 Washington PHOTO: Twitter
The local couple interviewed by Julie emphasized the impressive “human dignity” of the Afghan refugees! (I also observed this during many years of hearing asylum cases in person at the Arlington Immigration Court.) Compare that with the lack thereof (not to mention absence of empathy and kindness) shown by the nativist naysayers!
Garland’s “right hand man” on EOIR matters is eerily familiar, in a Himmleresque way! Attribution: Stephen Miller Monster by Peter Kuper, PoliticalCartoons.com“Miller’s Mob” is still alive and well at Garland’s EOIR. Legal asylum seekers — not so well, not so alive! https://www.flickr.com/photos/rasputin243/ Creative Commons LicenseBIA Asylum Panel In Action — At Garland’s BIA, a “Miller-trained and inspired” Asylum Panel can, and does, kill dozens of unarmed asylum seekers in a single day to “make quota.” Despite being thoroughly discredited for judicial use, Garland has inexplicably continued due-process-denying, corner-cutting, quality-killing “production quotas” for his assembly line worker/judges in Immigration Courts! Albrecht Dürer, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons.
Dan Kowalski reports for LexisNexis Immigration Community:
“Ms. Munyuh’s case concerns us. From our reading of the record, the IJ seemed determined to pick every nit she could find. Besides erring procedurally, the IJ discounted probative evidence on flimsy grounds and displayed a dubious understanding of how rape survivors ought to act. Although we give great deference to the IJ as factfinder, substantial-evidence review does not require us to credit the credibility finding of an IJ who cherry-picks from—or misconstrues—the record to reach it. The IJ must consider the “totality of the circumstances, and all relevant factors.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii) (emphasis added). At the very least, the two legal errors we have identified warrant remand. The IJ erred by failing to give specific, cogent reasons for rejecting Ms. Munyuh’s reasonable, plausible explanations for the discrepancies tied to her declaration that the police truck broke down after only four or five kilometers. And she further erred by discounting the supporting documentation without giving Ms. Munyuh adequate notice and opportunity to provide corroborative evidence. We therefore vacate the removal order and remand the case to the Board for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. PETITION GRANTED; VACATED and REMANDED.”
Congrats to Attorney Ronald D. Richey, who appeared before me many times at the Arlington Immigration Court.
Ronald D. Richey, Esquire Rockville, MD
Here’s a quote from the opinion by Senior Circuit Judge Danny Boggs, a Reagan appointee “on loan” from the 6th Cir., that shows the appallingly unprofessional performance of the Immigration Judge and the BIA in this “life or death” case:
On this point, the IJ made findings with which no reasonable factfinder could agree. She found Ms. Munyuh’s testimony that “the truck had traveled over two hours” to conflict with her earlier estimate that it had traveled “over an hour.” And she found Ms. Munyuh’s redirect testimony that “the truck [had] traveled approximately four to five hours before breaking down” to be “clearly in conflict with each of [Ms. Munyuh]’s prior estimations.”
But these time estimates are all consistent with each other. Indeed, assuming the truck really had traveled for four to five hours, Ms. Munyuh had no other choice but to give those answers. The IJ asked her if the truck had traveled more or less than an hour, to which Ms. Munyuh said more than an hour. Then the IJ asked whether the truck had traveled at least two hours, to which Ms. Munyuh answered in the affirmative.
No reasonable factfinder could find those two statements to conflict with Ms. Munyuh’s later testimony that the truck traveled for four to five hours. The IJ’s contrary finding is therefore unsupported by substantial evidence.
Wow! Is this what constituted “acceptable performance” when Judge Garland was on the D.C. Circuit? And, don’t forget, OIL actually defended this garbage product in May 2021, well after Garland took office and after experts had advised him to “clean house.”
The bad judges at EOIR whose lack of competence and/or bias unfairly condemn asylum seekers to persecution, torture and death, or all three, do NOT have life tenure and should NOT be on the Immigration Bench. Period! It’s not rocket science!
“No reasonable fact finder.” Isn’t that a problem in life or death cases? So-called “judges” who time after time stretch and misinterpret facts, ignore due process, and misapply basic asylum law to unfairly sentence asylum seekers to death! Why isn’t this grounds for removal from the bench? Or at least removing them from all asylum cases!
While Judge Boggs and his colleagues are rightfully “concerned” with EOIR’s performance in this case, Garland doesn’t appear to share those concerns. This is “business as usual” at Garland’s EOIR, just as it was when Stephen Miller was calling the shots! Obviously, Garland isn’t taking the human lives at stake here with even a modicum of seriousness. That’s totally unacceptable! Maybe Judge Boggs needs to pick up pen ✒️ and paper 📜 and express his outrage in writing to his former Circuit Court colleague, attaching an annotated copy of the garbage being turned out by his EOIR Star Chambers!
Just look the other way, it’s the Garland way! “Justice” Star Chamber Style
Also, don’t think that cases like this are an “aberration.” No, they aren’t! The only “aberration” is that this is one of a tiny sliver of injustices that was actually caught and corrected by the Article IIIs. How many unrepresented or under-represented individuals do you think that this judge and this BIA panel “railroad” in a week?
🏴☠️⚰️THEATER OF THE ABSURD: Incredibly, Garland & Mayorkas are now proposing to put this “Miller-Lite” EOIR infested with many incompetent, poorly trained, asylum-denying “judges,” with no credible leadership, totally lacking in professionalism and quality control, “in charge” of establishing precedents, insuring, and enforcing due process in their proposed “streamlined” asylum system! In other words, the solution for those who have repeatedly demonstrated an outrageous inability to conduct fair hearings and whose ignorance of asylum law and best practices is often stunning is to put them in charge of doing “paper reviews” of applications denied by Asylum Officers!
Good luck with that! Could there be a more insane proposal under current conditions? Making Stephen Miller the new “Asylum Czar” at EOIR? Perhaps, don’t be surprised!
Of course, in the nutsos world of Garland and Mayorkas, their fatally flawed proposal arguably would be a better than the current illegal and immoral use of Miller’s bogus Title 42 scheme to return legal asylum seekers to torture or death WITHOUT ANY PROCESS WHATSOEVER.
It’s simple. A complete “housecleaning” at EOIR, starting with the BIA, new progressive leadership and professional expert training at EOIR and the Asylum Office, new progressive asylum precedents and guidance, and an operating program for universal representation of asylum seekers are ABSOLUTE PREREQUISITES for fair and efficient regulatory reform of the asylum system! In the meantime, allow Asylum Officers to grant asylum to those who pass credible fear, but continue to give full Immigration Court hearings to any who can’t be granted. Get rid of Title 42 and start processing legal asylum seekers in an orderly fashion through ports of entry!
More than seven months into the Administration, Garland and Mayorkas could, and should, have had these needed progressive personnel, leadership, and structural changes in place, producing due process, and most important, actually saving lives! Instead, they have wasted time and squandered goodwill by continuing to run Stephen Miller’s White Nationalist system with Miller’s personnel in place! Simply incredible!
And, the bumbling, highly predictable weakness of the team of DOJ lawyers trying to defend the Administration’s few humanitarian immigration initiatives has become patently obvious. How can you expect lawyers who have spent the last four years misrepresenting asylum seekers as less than human and a threat to society suddenly start setting the record straight and effectively advocating for their human and legal rights? Obviously, they can’t! While EOIR is clearly the most glaringly dysfunctional part of DOJ, it’s obviously not the only problem and the only place Team Garland needed to (but didn’t) “clean house.”
I “get” that this isn’t Judge Bell’s, Ben Civiletti’s, or Janet Reno’s DOJ any more! But, remarkably, and tragically for the poor souls and their lawyers involved, Garland doesn’t!
Here’s the link to 1) sign Neela’s petition; 2) watch her very impressive video; and 3) donate (only if you choose, of course, not required to do 1 & 2):
Neela is the daughter of my friend, Northern Virginia Immigration Lawyer Yousef Nesari, whose firm appears in the Arlington Immigration Court on a regular basis.
I’ve helped lawyers with some cancellation cases since retirement. The unnecessary delays, inconsistent decisions, and human toll caused by failure to do better is simply appalling. An obvious example is the Government’s dilatory actions and litigation that took the “stop time” rule unsuccessfully to the Supremes twice, rather than just dong things fairly, correctly, and according the law in the first instance. Talk about “low hanging fruit” among the ways the Biden Administration and Congress could “declutter the Immigraton Courts” while making America a better place by allowing more immigrants to reach their full potential!
Congrats to Ted, and thanks for passing this along! (I never tire of having an excuse for using this picture from the “Courtside Archives!”)
”Well, he never was one to “‘go along to get along!’” Hon. Thomas “Frosty the Snowman” Snow, flanked by Hon. John Milo “JB” Bryant (in the funny looking dark, non-conforming suit) and by Judge Rodger B. “Marine” Harris and me departing for my last “Thursday Judges’ Lunch” on the day of my retirement, June 30, 2016.
WASHINGTON – Jose Sanchez and Sonia Gonzalez have lived in the United States legally for two decades under a program that lets immigrants from nations enduring natural disasters and armed conflict temporarily avoid returning to their native countries.
But when the New Jersey couple applied for green cards – which would let them remain permanently – they were denied because they initially entered the country illegally.
The Salvadorans sued in 2015 and the Supreme Court will hear their appeal Monday in a case that has drawn little attention in Washington even as it has raised significant questions about the Biden administration’s approach to immigration – not to mention the status of hundreds of thousands of immigrants living in a state of limbo.
. . . .
“Look, this is a no brainer,” said Paul Wickham Schmidt, a Georgetown University law professor and former immigration judge. “Why waste time on it? The administration has indicated they’d like to regularize many [TPS beneficiaries] and…instead they’re defending a gimmick cooked up by Stephen Miller,” Trump’s onetime policy adviser.
. . . .
“Integrate them into our society rather than leaving them in permanent limbo – in theory, that’s what the Biden administration says it wants to do,” said Schmidt, the former immigration judge. “Only here’s their first chance to make it happen and they don’t connect the dots.”
****************
Read John’s complete article at the above link.
Yeah, I know this brain-dead position originated in the Obama Administration. I’d never accuse the Obama Administration of overall having a wise, informed, or consistent approach to immigration. But, the “precedents” at issue here were issued under Trump. SeeMatter of H-G-G-, 27 I. & N. Dec. 617 (AAO 2019); Matter of Padilla Rodriguez, 28 I. & N. Dec. 164 (BIA 2020).
Any time you see folks like Ira Mehlman @ FAIR or Christopher Hajec @ Immigration Reform Law Institute endorsing a position you can bet that there is a link to the cruel, White Nationalist policies of Stephen Miller and his cronies in the Trump Administration. If you had any doubt that the position being taken by the Garland DOJ was stupid policy, Mehlman’s and Hajec’s endorsements, and the organizations they represent, should resolve them.
Ignoring your potential friends and supporters; embracing the “racist right.” Interesting way to get started on what was promised to be a “smarter, kinder, more humane” approach to immigration policy. Can anyone really tell me what Judge Garland is doing over @ DOJ? The once highly regarded jurist who testified before Congress and was only a Mitch McConnell away from a seat on the Supremes seems to have all but disappeared into a bureaucratic fog of incompetence, bad lawyering, and missed opportunities @ the DOJ!
Look, after four years of senselessly, wastefully, and disgracefully trying to dump on long-time, contributing members of our society in TPS, like Jose & Sonia, the Trump Administration (thankfully for America) never removed any of them. The idea that the Biden Administration will do so is absurd.
So these folks are here for the duration. With Congress in deadlock, the most practical, legal, readily available way of getting tens of thousands of hard-working residents like Jose and Sonia fully integrated into our society and on their way to citizenship is simply by following the clear statutory language as other Circuit Courts have done. These are individuals who actually have met all the criteria of our legal immigration system! Most now have families with U.S. citizens. Why on earth would we want to keep those we should welcome in limbo? It’s cruel, counterproductive, and stupid!
For a much more scholarly and nuanced approach to DOJ’s wrong-headed handling of this case, check out this article in Just Security by my friend, renowned immigration expert, former senior executive in the Clinton and Obama Administrations (we actually met while working on the Refugee Act of 1980 in the Carter Administration — back when we were young), emeritus Professor David A. Martin:
I also note with pleasure that counsel of record for Jose and Sonia is Jamie W. Aparisi, who appeared before many times at the Arlington Immigration Court.
All this being said, the Supremes still mightpreserve this couple’s future and save the Garland DOJ from themselves. In past cases, faced with clear statutory language, the Supremes have required the Government to do something radically sensible:follow the law!See, e.g., Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S.Ct. 2105 (2018) (notice to appear).
So, who knows? Justice (not to be confused with the Department of “Justice”) as well as common sense and human decency could again prevail!
Is this Judge Merrick Garland’s Vision Of Justice For Refugee Women @ EOIR? If not, what’s he doing about it? Amazing StoriesArtist Unknown, Public domain, via Wikimedia CommonsJamie Gorelick American Lawyer & Public Servant PHOTO: Creative CommonsLayli Miller-Muro Founder & Executive Director, Tahirih Justice Center PHOTO: Creative Commons
Jamie Gorelick is a partner at Wilmer Hale. Layli Miller-Muro is founder and CEO of the Tahirih Justice Center, a nonprofit that serves immigrant survivors of gender-based violence. Both were involved in Fauziya Kassindja’s asylum case in 1996: Gorelick was deputy attorney general during the Clinton administration and Miller-Muro was Kassindja’s student legal counsel, representing her in immigration court and at the Board of Immigration Appeals.
With the issue of migration in the news again, a glaring omission in U.S. asylum law should get more attention: The statute does not name gender as a possible ground for protection.
To be granted asylum in the United States, an applicant must be facing persecution by their government or someone that government cannot or will not control. The applicant must show that the persecution is on account of race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership in “a particular social group.” Persecution on account of gender is not included.
This makes sense when considering that the global treaty that obliges state parties to protect refugees was adopted 70 years ago, in 1951, when the legal rights of women were barely recognized. The treaty — called the Refugee Convention — says that countries have an obligation to protect those who have no choice but to flee or risk death in the face of injustice.
It is unsurprising that the needs of women facing persecution were not considered in 1951. It is also not surprising — though it is disappointing — that Congress wrote this outdated framework into the Refugee Act of 1980.
In the mid-1990s, some light was shined on this problem. Fauziya Kassindja, a 17-year-old from Togo, sought protection both from forced polygamous marriage to a much older man and from female genital mutilation. She was granted asylum after proving that she was a member of a “particular social group” — and thus covered by the Refugee Act. We were both involved in this case, which helped to crack open the door for women to argue that gender-based asylum claims should be granted under the “particular social group” category in the statute.
But progress for women has been slow and painful under a statute that does not explicitly recognize gender-based persecution. It took 14 years for the United States to grant asylum to a Guatemalan woman, Rodi Alvarado, who endured unspeakable brutalization by her husband, a former soldier. Regulations proffered by then-Attorney General Janet Reno in 2000 to protect women under the social-group category were never finalized, leaving women in the lurch. So much variance exists in the likelihood of success from court to court that filing a claim can feel like playing Russian roulette.
. . . .
This situation has been made much worse in recent years. Under Attorney General Jeff Sessions, decades of progress were nearly wiped out by the stroke of a pen. Because the highest immigration court is part of the Justice Department, he was able to single-handedly reverse key legal precedents favorable to women’s claims and issue guidance to judges limiting gender-based asylum. As a result of these changes, the safety of many immigrant women hangs by a thread. The Refugee Act urgently needs to be changed to clearly protect women who would otherwise meet the stringent requirements for asylum.
. . . .
***************************
Read the full op-ed at the link.
The Rest of the Story
I wrote the decision granting asylum in Matter of Kasinga, 21 I&N Dec. 357 (BIA 1996). Jamie Gorelick was the Deputy Attorney General during part of my tenure (1995-2001) as Chair of the BIA. Layli Miller-Muro worked for me as a BIA Attorney-Advisor for a time.
Following Kasinga, some of my colleagues and I put our careers on the line to vindicate the statutory, constitutional, and human rights of refugee women who suffered egregious persecution in the form of domestic violence. One of those cases was Rodi Alvarado (a/k/a “Ms. R-A-“), where we dissented from our majority colleagues’ misguided denial of protection to her following grotesque, clearly gender-based persecution. Matter of R-A-, 22 I&N Dec. 906, 928 (BIA 1999) (Guendelsberger,Board Member, dissenting with Schmidt, Chair, Villageliu, Rosenberg, and Moscato, Board Members). Alvarado had properly been granted asylum by an Immigration Judge, building on Kasinga, before being unjustly stripped of protection by the majority of our colleagues.
The incorrect decision in R-A- was vacated by Attorney General Reno. Finally, after a 14-year struggle, Ms. Alvarado was granted asylum in an unpublished, unappealed decision based largely on the rationale of the dissenters. In the meantime, the “gang of four” dissenters (minus Moscato) had been exiled from the BIA by Attorney General John Ashcroft, assisted by his sidekick, Kris Kobach (the infamous “Ashcroft Purge” @ the BIA).
In 2014, in Matter of A-R-C-G-, 26 I&N Dec. 388 (BIA 2014), the BIA finally recognized domestic violence based on gender as a form of persecution. They did so without acknowledging the pioneering work of the R-A- dissenters 15 years earlier. By this time, domestic violence as a basis for asylum had become so well established that it wasn’t even contested by the DHS (although, curiously, the case was remanded by the BIA for additional findings on issues that were beyond reasonable dispute)!
In the meantime, at the Arlington Immigration Court, my colleagues and I had consistently granted domestic violence asylum cases based on a DHS policy position known as the “Martin Memo,” after former INS General Counsel and later DHS Deputy General Counsel Professor David Martin (who, incidentally, argued the Kasinga case before the BIA in 1996 — famous gender-based asylum expert Professor Karen Musalo argued for Kasinga). Most of those grants were unappealed by DHS. Indeed, many were so compelling and well documented that DHS joined Respondents’ counsel in moving for asylum grants following brief testimony. These cases actually became staples on my “short docket,” promoting efficiency, fairness, and becoming one of the few “working parts” of the Immigration Courts.
Tahirih Justice Center, founded by, Layli Miller-Muro, was counsel in some of these cases and served as an essential resource and inspiration for attorneys preparing domestic violence cases. It also functioned as a training center for some of the “new all-stars” of the New Due Process Army. For a time, the progress in recognizing, documenting, and vindicating the rights and humanity of female asylum seekers, at least in the Arlington Immigration Court, was one of the few shining examples of the courts, DHS, and the private/NGO bar working cooperatively to improve the quality and efficiency of justice in Immigration Court. It should have been a model for all other courts!
Sadly, in 2018, Attorney General Jeff “Gonzo Apocalypto” Sessions, unilaterally intervened and undid two decades of progress for women refugees of color with his grossly incorrect and disingenuous decision in Matter of A-B-, 27 I&N Dec. 316 (BIA 2018), overruling Matter of A-R-C-G- on completely specious grounds while intentionally misconstruing the facts of record. Significantly, Sessions’s intervention was over the objection of DHS, which had expressed continuing agreement with the A-R-C-G- framework for deciding domestic violence cases.
“Hanging by a thread,” as stated by the op-ed, unfortunately vastly understates the war on the legal rights and humanity of asylum-seeking women, particularly targeting women at color, being carried out at EOIR today. This effort is led by a BIA that has long since lost its way, basically “weaponizing” the legal distortions and vicious, openly misogynist dicta set forth by Sessions in Matter of A-B- to dehumanize, degrade, and deport vulnerable refugee women.
In numerous cases, the BIA actually intervenes at ICE’s request to reverse proper grants by courageous and scholarly Immigration Judges below. It’s all about churning out final orders of removal as a deterrent –a vile, disgusting, perverted “philosophy” advanced by Sessions, Barr, and Whitaker, and not yet effectively rejected by Judge Garland.
Judge Merrick B. Garland Official White House Photo Public Realm
Judge Garland is in the job because he is not only an experienced DOJ senior executive, but a long-serving Federal Judge who was admired for his sense of justice. It shouldn’t take an army of “spear-carriers” and subordinates for a true leader of Judge Garland’s experience to seize control of the situation and start getting the “ship of justice” sailing in the right direction. Judge Garland’s political and bureaucratic travails are of no moment to, and pale in comparison with, the additional, unconscionable abuse and “Dred Scottification” being heaped on refugee women and their courageous representatives by his dysfunctional and unconstitutional “star chamber courts.”
“Refugee women get ‘special treatment’ in accordance with the ‘traditional values’ applied to their cases in Judge Garland’s Immigration Courts!”
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-004160Woman 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
Please, Pick Up The Phone & Your Pen, Judge Garland!
Not rocket science, Judge Garland! All it takes is six calls and a signature to start ending misogyny at EOIR and achieving racial justice in the America.
First three calls: Call Judge Dana Marks (SF), Judge Noel Brennan (NYC), Judge Amiena Khan (Newark) and tell them that they are detailed to the positions of Acting EOIR Director, Acting BIA Chair, and Acting Chief Immigration Judge, respectively. (The first position is vacant and the other two positions are filled by Senior Executives subject to transfer at the AG’s discretion. The current Acting Director already has an SES position to which she could return, or she could be re-installed as the
EOIR General Counsel, a job for which she is well-qualified.)
Fourth call: Call the the head of of the Justice Management Division (JMD). Ask her/him to find suitable DOJ placements for the two current incumbents mentioned above and all current members of the BIA (all of whom are either SES or “Management Officials” subject to transfer at the AG’s discretion) in other DOJ positions at the same pay level where they can do no further damage to our justice system. Ask him/her to arrange for the temporary appointment of former DOJ employees Jamie Gorelick and Layli Miller-Muro as Acting Appellate Judges at the BIA.
Calls five and six: Call Jamie Gorelick and Layli Miller-Muro. Thank them, tell them you agree with their Post op-ed, and ask (or beg) them to come to DOJ on a temporary basis to help Judges Marks, Brennan, and Khan solve the current problems with asylum adjudications and take the necessary actions to get EOIR functioning as a legitimate, independent, due-process-oriented court system. In other words, turn their cogent op-ed into a “real life action plan” for restoring due process, humanity, and common sense to the Immigration Courts, with a focus on the now totally unprofessional, wrong-headed mis-adjudication of asylum cases.
Finally, sign this order:
All precedent decisions issued to EOIR by former Attorneys General Sessions and Barr, and former Acting Attorneys General Whitaker and Wilkinson, and all their pending actions certifying cases to themselves are hereby vacated. All cases shall be returned to the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) for reconsideration. In the reconsideration process, the BIA shall, among other things, honor the letter and spirit of these binding precedents:
INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421 (1987)
Matter of Mogharrabi, 19 I&N Dec. 439 (BIA 1987)
Matter of Kasinga, 21 I&N Dec. 357 (BIA 1996)
In the reconsideration process the BIA shall also be guided by the principle of “through teamwork, innovation, and best practices, become the world’s best tribunals, guaranteeing fairness and due process for all.”
See, it’s not that complicated. By the end of this year, women will get the protection to which they legally are entitled from the Immigration Courts. We all will see dramatic changes that will lead the way toward “equal justice for all’” in America and become a blueprint for the Immigration Courts to fulfill the above-stated principle.
It would also be a far better legacy for Judge Garland to be viewed as the “father of the fair, independent, expert Immigration Courts,” than to be remembered as running the most dysfunctional, unfair, and misogynistic court system in America, his current path. And, as an extra added bonus, Judge Garland, you will have a great start on building a premier source of “battle tested,” due-process-oriented, progressive jurists for future Article III appointments!
It’s a “win-win-win” that you no longer can afford to ignore, Your Honor!
