"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.
A few “takeaways” from one of America’s leading “practical scholars:”
Think about a new start with a “clean slate;”
Deportation is “state violence;”
Immigration Courts are constructed to provide Gov. with an unfair advantage;
No rules, no due process, no justice;
Kudos to the NDPA & the Round Table;
Trump Administration spent inordinate effort improperly skewing the law to insure everything is denied and remove equible discretion from IJs;
Good provisions that provided discretion in the past to alleviate hardship and injustice have been eliminated by Congress: suspension of deportation, JRAD, 212(c), 245(i), registry (not repealed but now virtually useless b/c of 1972 cutoff date).
Hon. Thomas “Frosty the Snowman” Snow, flanked by Hon. John Milo “JB” Bryant (on right, in the funny looking dark suit) and by Judge Rodger B. “Marine” Harris and me (on left) departing for my last “Thursday Judges’ Lunch” on the day of my retirement, June 30, 2016.
Here’s what the W&M Clinic Website had to say:
Retired Immigration Judge Speaks to Students and Community Members
On March 9th, Retired Immigration Judge Thomas Snow spoke to a group of over fifty community members and students about the immigration court system. His presentation focused on practical tips and information regarding immigration court proceedings, what puts someone at risk of removal from the United States, and information about immigration detention.
Judge Snow’s remarks put into context many issues that have been across the headlines, including what happens when someone is in immigration detention, access to counsel, and criminal charges or convictions that put someone at risk of removal. He discussed a wide range of reasons why individuals with different immigration statuses may be put in deportation proceedings, ranging from green card holders who stay out of the country too long to asylum seekers fleeing violence in their home countries. Attendees were able to hear firsthand the importance of immigrants showing up to court, and the importance of having an attorney.
Judge Snow also discussed the role of immigration judges. He viewed his role as someone who applies the law as it is written, not as he hopes or wants it to be. He told stories about cases where he found immigrants to be sympathetic, but how the law would not protect them from removal because of how it is currently written.
Community members posed several questions to the retired judge, ranging from advice for professors serving as expert witnesses to thoughts on policy. Perhaps most important to the community members in attendance, the Judge discussed how letters from community members can be helpful to an immigrant’s case. “I only spend a few hours with someone in their individual hearing,” the Judge said. “It helps to hear from someone who really knows the person.”
Attendees where effusive with their praise for the presentation. “Judge Snow really did a great a job of explaining things so clearly,” said Professor Jennifer Bickham Mendez, Professor of Sociology at William & Mary. “It was an incredibly valuable session.”
“We are so grateful to Judge Snow for sharing his expertise and practical information with our students and community, and for being such an engaging speaker,” said Professor Stacy Kern-Scheerer, Director of the Immigration Clinic. “His presentation brought together so many organizations and individuals in the community who work with and support immigrants, and now we are all better equipped and more informed.”
The William & Mary Law School Immigration Clinic plans to host more events in the future to educate the Hampton Roads community on issues related to immigration law and policy. Please contact us to discuss presentations to your group or organization, and check out our Clinic Events page to learn about other upcoming presentations.
*************************
This is just the first of many performances! “Frosty” ☃️ has already “played” the Law Schools at GW, W&L, George Mason, and of course his alma mater UVA! What a great start to “the next phase” of an already-distinguished career!
After four years of obfuscation, myths, lies, blame shifting, and misdirection from EOIR “management,” folks are hungry for truth, transparency, and humanity. Judge Snow certainly embodies those three characteristics, and he can can “deliver” in an entertaining and engaging manner that “connects” with audiences eager for knowledge.
Sitting Immigration Judges who actually hear the cases were muzzled by the DOJ. Eventually, they weren’t even allowed to participate as speakers at CLE and other educational and training events. Or, if they were allowed to participate, their remarks were censored and heavily edited by “handlers” in Falls Church to ensure compliance with the “party line.”
Naturally, withholding vital information about what really happens in court is a key way of building dysfunction throughout the system and stymieing informed and productive dialogue that might actually solve problems. It’s also a way in which the true scope of the ongoing disaster and demoralization at EOIR has been kept “under wraps.” While the real “victims” of this inexcusably and intentionally broken system are the migrants and their long-suffering attorneys, many serving pro bono or low bono, this dysfunction has also adversely affected judges, staff, interpreters, and ICE counsel.
Of course, my friend is sort of a “ringer.” He taught as an Adjunct Professor at UVA in the field of international criminal law before joining our bench in Arlington in 2005. And, “behind the scenes,” he introduced the “professor sweater look” to our chambers.
Next spring, after COVID is lifted, I suspect that if he hasn’t been “inked” to an academic contact or a “TV judge” show, “Frosty” might be found doing the “Florida Law School Circuit” and taking in some Nats spring training.⚾️ In the meantime, to quote a long-departed WFT coach, “Frosty” remains “cheap and available” to speak to your class, organization, or event! He also does weddings, funerals, and bah mitzvahs. (All future bookings, of course, through his “exclusive agent” — here at “Courtside”).
Thanks for your continuing contributions to truth, justice, and the American way, my friend!🦸♂️
Currently before the Supreme Court is a little-noticed immigration case with profound significance. Sanchez v. Mayorkas offers the Biden administration an opportunity to make major progress, without waiting for legislative action, on one of its central humanitarian goals – providing durable status to long-resident noncitizens.
A straightforward change in the government’s policy and its litigation stance could help remove a barrier blocking critical relief to several tens of thousands of noncitizens who have resided in the United States with official government permission under Temporary Protected Status (TPS). Because of a longstanding but misguided agency reading of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), these noncitizens are stuck in limbo and practically unable to get the permanent resident status for which they are independently eligible based on family or employment relationships. Those most affected are TPS recipients married to U.S. citizens. The case turns on a highly technical question of statutory interpretation over which six courts of appeals have so far split evenly, but the human stakes are substantial, and a change of position by the administration would have significant impact.
The plaintiff TPS holders in Sanchez may well win the case based on the plain language of the relevant statutes, as ably argued in their brief and by supporting amici. But until now, the government has argued, to the contrary, that the language of the statute compels the agency’s current restrictive interpretation. This essay contends that the administration could provide crucial support for the TPS holders under a different legal framework that, for understandable reasons, neither side has given much emphasis.
The alternative approach is for the administration to acknowledge – in light of the statutory text, the deep and abiding circuit split, and a surprising November ruling by the Justice Department’s own Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) – that the statutory language is ambiguous. On that foundation, the government has the discretion to adopt a new (and better) interpretation that would permit eligible TPS recipients to make use of adjustment of status to obtain a green card.
In 2019, the Trump administration entrenched the restrictive interpretation through an obscure process rather clearly invoked to complicate a later policy change. The Biden administration should nonetheless undertake immediate reconsideration of the government’s position and seek to defer the pending Supreme Court briefing schedule to allow that agency process to proceed. A more refined position by the new administration would promote family unity and avoid compelling spouses of U.S. citizens to return to the very country from which they have escaped in order to seek the immigrant visa for which they already qualify.
. . . .
*********************
Read the rest of David’s article, explaining his suggestions, at the link.
This issue came up before me at the Arlington Immigration Court. After holding “oral argument,” I simply followed the statutory language and granted adjustment of status to the TPS holder.
In that case, following the literal statutory language produced the most reasonable policy result. As I pointed out to DHS counsel, the mis-interpretation they were pushing would not only violate the statutory language, but also result in a long-time TPS resident with work authorization who was paying taxes and supporting an American family being deprived of the legal immigration status to which he was entitled.
The result desired by DHS would have been highly nonsensical. Why make individuals who fit the legal immigration system established by Congress, and who actually have been contributing to our nation and our economy for many years, remain in limbo? In many cases, lack of a green card limits the both the earning and career potential of such individuals, plus adding unnecessary stress and uncertainty to the situation of their U.S. citizen family members.
The DHS reserved an appeal. I don’t believe it was ever pursued, however. And, of course, as a mere Immigration Judge (even before the position was “dumbed down” by the Trump DOJ) my decision only affected that particular case.It wasn’t a precedent.
But, it does illustrate my oft-made point that having “practical scholars” in immigration and human rights as Immigration Judges, BIA Judges, Article III Judges, and policy officials would be a huge positive change, making our immigration system fairer, more efficient, and more responsive to our national needs, even without major legislative changes. Also, these adjustments could be handled at USCIS, promoting uniformity while eliminating unnecessary litigation from the bloated Immigration Court docket.
Certainly, both the Solicitor General’s Office and the Office of Immigration Litigation (“OIL”) urgently need new leadership with practical experience in immigration and human rights policies and litigation. It’s definitely out here in the private/NGO/academic sectors. The only question is whether Judge Garland and his team will go out and get the right talent in the key jobs.
Talk about taking a potential win-win-win-win and converting it to a lose-lose-lose-lose! But, the latter was a “specialty” of the Trump regime and their DOJ.
As David astutely points out, cases such as Sanchez v Mayorkas might appear “hyper-technical” to some; but, to those who truly understand our current broken immigraton system, they have huge implications. We need the expertise of the “practical scholars” of the NDPA throughout our governing structure — starting, but not ending, with a complete “housecleaning” at the disgracefully dysfunctional EOIR.
The only question is whether Judge Garland, Secretary Mayorkas, and the others in charge of the Government’s immigraton bureaucracy will (finally, at long last) bring in the right talent to solve their problems!
Thanks for speaking out Andrea!Andrea is a former Arlington Immigration Court intern and one of the “charter members” of the NDPA. As captured on this video, she was assaulted by ICE while trying to assist her child client in reuniting with his mother! A civil suit against the agent involved is pending.
Hon. Thomas “Frosty the Snowman” Snow, flanked by Hon. John Milo “JB” Bryant (on right, in the funny looking dark suit) and by Judge Rodger B. “The Marine” Harris and me (on left) departing for my last “Thursday Judges’ Lunch” on the day of my retirement, June 30, 2016.
Today is Judge Snow’s final day on the bench!
Judge Snow was appointed as an Immigration Judge in October 2005. He received a Bachelor of Arts degree in 1977 from the College of William and Mary, a Master of Arts degree in 1980 and a Juris Doctorate in 1982, both from the University of Virginia. From 1991 to October 2005, Judge Snow served as principal deputy director for the Office of International Affairs, Criminal Division, Department of Justice (DOJ). He also worked as an adjunct professor of law at the University of Virginia Law School from 1995 to 2005 where he taught international criminal law. In 1989, Judge Snow served as an attorney advisor in the Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State. He was a trial attorney from 1984 to 1989 in the Office of International Affairs, Criminal Division, DOJ. Judge Snow served as a trial attorney in the voting section of the Civil Rights Division, Department of Justice, DOJ, from 1982 to 1984. He is a member of the District of Columbia and Virginia Bars.
— From TRAC Immigration
In addition to all of the above achievements, Judge Snow served as the Acting EOIR Director, the Acting Chief Immigration Judge, and as a Temporary Appellate Immigration Judge at the BIA. He is also a Nats fan, a great lunch companion, involved father, mainstay of “senior baseball,” political aficionado, and, as illustrated above, a very sharp dresser. He is widely respected for his fair hearings and thoughtful, scholarly opinions. Hedid it all with unfailing class and good humor. He will be missed by all.
While no future plans have been announced, he now becomes eligible for membership in the ever expanding “Round Table of Former Immigration Judges.” 🛡⚔️ We would welcome your collegiality and practical scholarship, “Frosty,” ☃️ my friend! Congratulations, and thanks for your decades of distinguished service to our nation and the causeof justice!
A finding of ‘probation before judgment’ should never lead to deportation | COMMENTARY
By JOHN F. GOSSART JR.
FOR THE BALTIMORE SUN |
FEB 05, 2021 AT 5:31 AM
“May God forgive you, because I cannot.”
These words were written to me in a letter while I was a United States immigration judge at the Baltimore Immigration Court, where I presided for 31 years. The letter was written by the wife of a man I had ordered deported. In so doing, I had permanently separated a father and husband from his wife and children. These words will stay with me for the rest of my life.
Michelle Jones’ husband, Daryl, was charged with a minor offense in Maryland. Like many first-time offenders and individuals charged with minor violations, he was given probation before judgment (PBJ). This meant that Daryl, a lawful permanent resident of the United States was not convicted under Maryland state law. For United States citizens, a Maryland PBJ poses no further consequences unless they violate the terms of their probation. But for non-citizens like Daryl, the legal consequences can be far more dire.
Although a PBJ is not considered a conviction under state law, it is considered a conviction under federal law and therefore triggers immigration consequences, such as detention and deportation. I have witnessed countless non-citizens be ordered deported as a result of a PBJ and the devastation to their families that follows. I myself have ordered the deportation of hundreds of Maryland residents like Daryl because of a PBJ. It didn’t matter that these individuals had been deemed worthy of a second chance and not convicted under Maryland law. Their PBJs condemned them to the gravest punishment — deportation under federal immigration law — leaving me with no judicial discretion. My hands were tied by the law.
The Maryland General Assembly has the opportunity, and the responsibility, to correct this unjust system by amending the PBJ statute. That is why I am asking the Maryland General Assembly to pass legislation (House Bill 354/Senate Bill 527) that would make probation before judgment accessible to all Maryland residents, regardless of citizenship status. The amendment would merely change the process by which a PBJ is entered; the impact of a PBJ would remain unchanged.
This bill ensures that the consequences of PBJs are the same for citizens and non-citizens alike, narrowing the disparities in our criminal justice and immigration systems, which disproportionately affect people of color. And for someone like Daryl, it would have been the difference between deportation and staying in the country to be with his family and watch his kids grow up.
. . . .
******************
Read the full op-ed at the link.
All of us who have served on the immigration bench have had cases like Daryl’s where the result is unjust and there is no sensible explanation for what we were forced to do.
The time for rationalizing and humanizing our immigration laws is here. As my long-time friend and colleague (we were “present at the beginning” of EOIR) John says, we must seize and act on every opportunity to make due process and equal justice under law a reality for all persons in America!
Thanks, my friend and colleague!
Historical trivia: I made one of my rare Immigration Court appearances before Judge Gossart in a pro bono case when I was at Frogomen DC. It was an asylum case, and we won at the preheating conference! I do remember that Judge Gossart was pretty peeved at me because I refused to concede removability, asserting my client’s right to be in and remain in the U.S. as a refugee/asylee. He “ripped me” on that issue, but we won on everything else. The INS Attorney didn’t contest it, as I remember.
One of my other pro bono appearances was before my friend and Round Table colleague Judge Joan Churchill in Arlington. Won that one too — recollect it was a withholding of removal case, also resolved through pretrial agreement with the INS Attorney at the suggestion of Judge Churchill.
Didn’t get to show off my “litigation skills” in either case. Probably just as well. A “W” is a “W,” and a life saved is a life saved!
President-elect Joe Biden will name Katie Tobin as the senior director for transborder security on the National Security Council, according to multiple sources familiar with the appointment.
. . . .
That Tobin would be offered a job that usually prioritizes border security over the plight of asylum seekers or refugees could signal how the Biden administration sees that role. It could mean a Biden White House will emphasize helping the world’s refugees instead of giving them the cold shoulder like the Trump administration did. Personnel, as they say, is policy.
. . . .
*****************
Read Alex’s complete report at the link.
Katie is a friend and one of my “personal heroes.” A true “Renaissance person,” leader, and inspiration to the “new generation” of public policy/good government advocates, she has accomplished so much good in such a short time!
One of the many things I appreciated about about Katie was her willingness to return to Arlington regularly for our “summer brown bag career series” and inspire the upcoming generation of interns and aspiring lawyers to embrace careers in furthering sane, rational, empirically-soundpolicies that melded immigration with human rights, due process, social justice, and public service!
News like this makes me believe that under President Biden, America is finally back on track for a better and brighter future where courage, expertise, humanity, and practical problem solving for the common good will be respected and encouraged. Real leaders like Katie, with so much to offer America, the world, and humanity willpave the way for a better, brighter future for all!
As one mutual friend and colleague said on learning of the appointment, “The new Administration’s best pick yet!” I concur!
Congrats, Katie! You make us all proud and hopeful for America’s future!🇺🇸🗽⚖️👍🏼
The BIA fatally erred in deciding that Officer Bedoya had not established past persecution because the various threats were merely “written” and because Bedoya was never physically approached by FARC members. See Zavaleta-Policiano, 873 F.3d at 247; Crespin-Valladares, 632 F.3d at 126-27. We have recognized that “the threat of death alone constitutes persecution,” see Tairou v. Whitaker, 909 F.3d 702, 708 (4th Cir. 2018), and we have never required that a petitioner be physically harmed or personally approached
10
in order for the threats to qualify as persecution.4 Moreover, our precedents in Zavaleta- Policiano and Crespin-Valladares demonstrate that death threats may be written. Indeed, written home-delivered death threats and text messages can easily be more menacing than verbal threats, in that they show that the writer and sender knows where his target lives and the relevant personal cellphone number.
The BIA also emphasized the period of time between the threats that Officer Bedoya received in 1996 and those he received in 2013. That period, however, is not dispositive of Bedoya’s asylum claim, in that he has clearly shown past persecution on the basis of the threats he received in 2013. The earlier incident in 1996 — where Bedoya’s friend Correa was killed for trying to protect Bedoya from FARC — simply bolsters Bedoya’s asylum claim and highlights FARC’s “penchant for extracting vengeance.” See Crespin-Valladares, 632 F.3d at 126-27. Moreover, if FARC is targeting former Colombian police officers for their past actions, there is inevitably going to be a time gap between the actions of such officers and when an officer retires.
In sum, Officer Bedoya received multiple threats of death and harm to himself and his family, and the BIA’s determination that Bedoya had not suffered past persecution was manifestly contrary to the law and constituted an abuse of discretion. See Tairou, 909 F.3d
4 Notably, in a recent unpublished opinion, we emphasized that “[w] Lopez-Orellana v. Whitaker, 757 F. App’x 238, 242 (4th Cir. 2018).
11
e have never
adopted a requirement that an [asylum] applicant suffer physical harm [in order] to show
past persecution.” See
at 708; Crespin Valladares, 632 F.3d at 126. We therefore reverse the BIA’s ruling that Bedoya failed to establish that he was subject to past persecution.
*******************
Notably, the key 4th Circuit precedent that the BIA ignored here, Crespin-Valadares v. Holder, was my case at the Arlington Immigration Court. I had granted asylum, the BIA reversed me, and the 4th Circuit reversed the BIA. In other words, I was right and the BIA was wrong! But hey, who’s keeping score?
The continuing abuses by the BIA of asylum law and controlling Circuit precedents favoring asylum grants is in the “when will they ever learn” category. Instead of carefully and forcefully building a body of case law amplifying Crespin-Valladares and applying it broadly to insure more expeditious asylum grants at the “retail level” of our system — the Asylum Office and the Immigration Courts — the BIA insists on the illegal (not to mention immoral) “any reason to deny” approach improperly promoted by White Nationalist racist restrictionist AGs Sessions & Barr.
EOIR could function, as it was intended, as a model of scholarship, due process, fundamental fairness, and equal justice insuring the granting of the generous protection described by the Supreme Court in Cardoza in many more cases. EOIR could become a model of humane, practical, efficient, best practices jurisprudence that would reduce dockets by promoting correct results at the Asylum Office and trial levels and taking pressure off of the Circuit Courts by minimizing improper denials of relief that engender unnecessary litigation.
But, that’s not going to happen until the current group of deficient, biased EOIR Executives and BIA Judges is replaced by qualified “practical scholars” from the NDPA who are experts in asylum law and will ensure that necessary, life-saving protection is granted wherever possible.
“Eyore In Distress” Once A Symbol of Fairness, Due Process, & Best Practices, Now Gone “Belly Up”“Justice” Star Chamber StyleBIA Members: “Hey, let’s celebrate! We just sent a refugee to death for not being able to describe some obscure insignia irrelevant to the case. But, the big thing is we found ‘any reason to deny’ asylum making our handler ‘Billy the Bigot’ happy! He’s out to set new killing records before Jan. 20! Maybe he’ll find us jobs at Breitbart then!” https://www.flickr.com/photos/rasputin243/ Creative Commons LicenseHon. Jeffrey S. Chase Jeffrey S. Chase Blog Coordinator & Chief Spokesperson, Round Table of Former Immigration Judges
On November 24, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued an unpublished decision in Malonda v. Barr. In that case, the asylum-seeker was attacked by armed soldiers when they raided his family’s home in the Democratic Republic of Congo. The soldiers raped and killed three of his sisters, and abducted his father and brother, all due to the father’s membership in an opposition political party.
The Immigration Judge acknowledged the voluminous documentation and detailed testimony in support of the claim. However, asylum was denied because Malonda couldn’t identify the soldiers’ uniforms with absolute certainty, although he stated “they were working for the government, I can say.” And because he did not credit the attackers as working for the government, the judge did not find that the attack was necessarily motivated by the family’s political opinion, but could have simply been an act of random violence not protected under asylum law.
Malonda was not the only recent agency decision to employ this thought pattern. In the BIA’s precedent decision in Matter of O-F-A-S-, an applicant for protection under the Convention Against Torture testified that he was beaten, robbed, and threatened by five men wearing police uniforms bearing the insignia of a government law enforcement agency, who were armed with high-caliber weapons and handcuffs. The Immigration Judge determined that the respondent had not met his burden of establishing that the five were police officers, as the uniforms could have been fake, and criminals also carry weapons. The IJ further noted that the five did not arrive in an official police car, and immediately departed when they heard that a police car was en route in response to the disturbance. Of course, real police officers engaging in extracurricular criminal activity would behave the same way. Nevertheless, the BIA found no clear error on appeal.
In another recent decision presently pending at the Second Circuit, asylum was denied because the applicant was unable to state with certainty from the details of the uniform he wore that one of his persecutors was certainly a police officer, although he believed that he was. The IJ therefore did not conclude that police were involved, instead considering the persecutors to be non-state actors, from whom the respondent hadn’t proven that the police were unwilling or unable to protect him. The BIA affirmed in an unpublished decision. Obviously, a finding that a police officer participated in the persecution of the asylum applicant could well have led to a different finding as to the government’s willingness to protect.
In each of the above cases, the respondent was found to be a credible witness. There are only two types of witnesses in court proceedings: fact (or “lay”) witnesses and experts. Asylum applicants are fact witnesses, describing what they experienced. Although the Federal Rules of Evidence are not binding on immigration judges, they provide the best guidance available, as the Immigration Courts have no such evidentiary rules of their own. Rule 701 of the FRE allows a lay witness to express an opinion provided that it is (1) rationally based on their own perception; (2) helpful to clearly understand the testimony or to determine a fact in issue; and (3) not based on scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge reserved for expert witnesses. In the above cases, the asylum seekers’ opinions that the uniformed, armed attackers were government officials fit clearly within the parameters of Rule 701.
Of course, asylum applicants are not experts on uniforms worn by the various government forces in their home countries. I doubt most country experts who testify in asylum cases would possess such specific expertise. Even if they did, those experts weren’t present to witness the event in question to be able to affirm that the uniform was in fact the official government issue. So what is the solution in cases in which the Immigration Judge harbors doubt regarding the attackers?
The UNHCR Handbook at para. 196 advises that despite all efforts, “there may also be statements that are not susceptible of proof. In such cases, if the applicant’s account appears credible, he should, unless there are good reasons to the contrary, be given the benefit of the doubt.” The following paragraph adds that evidentiary requirements should not be applied too strictly to asylum seekers. But the Handbook sets limits on this practice, adding that “[a]llowance for such possible lack of evidence does not, however, mean that unsupported statements must necessarily be accepted as true if they are inconsistent with the general account put forward by the applicant.”1
It would seem that requiring absolute confirmation of the authenticity of the attacker’s uniform (which psychologists have testified is not one’s focus during a traumatic experience) places an insurmountable burden on asylum applicants. Given the purpose of asylum laws, where an asylum applicant expresses the reasonable opinion that attackers who look and behave like government officials are in fact government officials, in the absence of the type of inconsistencies flagged by the Handbook, the benefit of the doubt should be allowed to carry the day.
Addressing this issue in Malonda, the Second Circuit focused on the fact that the identity issue was tied to the question of political opinion. The court referenced its decision from earlier this year in Hernandez-Chacon v. Barr, in which it cited language from the BIA’s excellent 1996 decision in Matter of S-P- holding that political opinion is established by direct or circumstantial evidence.
The Second Circuit pointed to circumstantial evidence in Malonda’s testimony that the attackers were government soldiers motivated by the family’s political opinion. Such evidence included the facts that Malonda’s home was the only one attacked, and his father was the only resident of the street who was an active opposition party member. Furthermore, the likelihood of the attackers being anti-government rebels was undermined by Malonda’s testimony that the rebels ability to reach his neighborhood was impeded by the presence of state security forces, and that his brother, who was abducted by the attackers, was brought to a camp where he was trained to fight against (rather than for) the rebels.
In a footnote, the court noted that the BIA had added its own insinuation to the contrary by referencing general reports of rebel involvement in “widespread violence and civil strife” in the country. But the Second Circuit pointed out that such general information failed to consider that Malonda’s own region was protected by the government, and “more importantly, does not explain why the rebels would have targeted only Malonda’s house for such violence.”
The Second Circuit’s opinion in Malonda emphasizes the starkly different approaches of the 1996 BIA and its current iteration. In Matter of S-P- (an en banc decision which remains binding precedent on immigration judges and the BIA), the Board noted the difficulty in determining motive where “harm may have been inflicted for reasons related to government intelligence gathering, for political views imputed to the applicant, or for some combination of these reasons.” But the Board emphasized the importance of keeping “in mind the fundamental humanitarian concerns of asylum law,” which are “designed to afford a generous standard for protection in cases of doubt.”2
S-P- also included a reminder that a grant of asylum “is not a judgment about the country involved, but a judgment about the reasonableness of the applicant’s belief that persecution was based on a protected ground.” As the scholar Deborah Anker has emphasized, such reasonableness determinations require “that the adjudicator view the evidence as the applicant – or a reasonable person in his or her circumstances – would and does not simply substitute the adjudicator’s own experience as the vantage point.”3 In its decision in Sotelo-Aquije v. Slattery, the Second Circuit similarly emphasized the importance of vantage point by describing the standard as what a reasonable person would find credible “based on what that person has experienced and witnessed.”
Applying this standard, what reasonable person who had experienced and witnessed what Malonda did would say: “You know, I was pretty certain the attackers were government soldiers punishing us for my father’s political activities. But since you pointed out that I’m not completely certain about the uniforms, I guess I was mistaken. It was probably just a random incident. In which case, I can’t see any reason to fear return?”
Remarkably, that appears to have been the BIA’s approach in Malonda. Its decision lacked any indication of adopting the asylum applicant’s vantage point or applying the benefit of the doubt as described above. And while Matter of S-P- set out a rather complex set of elements for identifying motive through the types of circumstantial evidence pointed to by the Second Circuit, the present BIA pointed instead to whatever generalized information it could find in the record to justify affirming the asylum denial.
Although an unpublished decision involving a pro se petitioner that could easily evade our attention,4 Malonda underscores the need for a uniform application of the principles emphasized in the BIA’s decision in Matter of S-P-, instead of a “uniform” approach based on the ability to identify uniforms.
Notes:
Although not binding, the Supreme Court has recognized that “the Handbook provides significant guidance in construing the Protocol, to which Congress sought to conform [and] has been widely considered useful in giving content to the obligations that the Protocol establishes.” INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421, 439 n. 22 (1987). The BIA reached a similar conclusion in Matter of Acosta, 19 I&N Dec. 211 (BIA 1985) (finding the Handbook to be a useful tool “in construing our obligations under the Protocol”).
The majority opinion in Matter of S-P- was authored by now retired Board Member John Guendelsberger. Three current members of the Round Table of Immigration Judges, Paul W. Schmidt (the BIA Chairperson at the time), Lory D. Rosenberg, and Gustavo Villageliu, joined in Judge Guendelsberger’s opinion.
Deborah E. Anker, Law of Asylum in the United States (2020 Edition) (Thomson Reuters) at 76.
Thanks to attorney Raymond Fasano for bringing this decision to my notice.
Copyright 2020, Jeffrey S. Chase. All rights reserved.
Reprinted With Permission.
***********************
Obviously, the BIA could resume court-like functions, provide scholarly, rational guidance and enforce uniformity for Immigration Judges (too many of whom lack true expertise in asylum laws), help cut backlogs, increase efficiency, and put an end to frivolous litigation by DHS which too often these days seeks to encourage IJs to deny cases where asylum grants clearly are warranted. (There was a time, at least in Arlington, when DHS Counsel actually worked cooperatively with the private bar and the Immigration Judges to promote fairness and use court time wisely on asylum cases. Those days are now long gone as the system has regressed horribly and disgracefully under the maliciously incompetent, White Nationalist, nativist, leadership of the current regime at DHS and DOJ).
But, due process, fundamental fairness, and best practices, can’t and won’t happen until the current “BIA Clown Court” 🤡 is replaced with a new group of expert Appellate Judges ⚖️👨🏻⚖️🧑🏽⚖️ from the NDPA who are “practical scholars” in immigration and human rights laws.
“EOIR Clown Show Must Go” T-Shirt Custom Design Concept
HERNANDEZ-CARTAGENA v. BARR, 4th Cir., 10-15-20, published
PANEL: THACKER, RICHARDSON, and QUATTLEBUAM, Circuit Judges
OPINION BY: JUDGE STEPHANIE THACKER
KEY QUOTE:
Contrary to the BIA’s conclusion in this case, the record does not support the conclusion that Petitioner’s own conflict with the gang precipitated any of the events in question. Indeed, substantial evidence in the record compels the conclusion that at least one central reason Petitioner was targeted was her membership in the Hernandez-Cartagena family. The unrebutted evidence in the record demonstrates that the threats and violence against Petitioner, her child, and her siblings were designed to get her parents to pay up. Pursuant to Hernandez-Avalos, it is therefore unreasonable to conclude that the fact that Petitioner is her parents’ child — a member of their family, concern for whom might motivate additional payments to the gang — is not at least one central reason for her persecution.
11
IV.
For the reasons set forth herein, the petition for review is granted, the decision of
the BIA is reversed, and we remand to the BIA for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
********************
Why this is important: It delivers a totally deserved “double whammy” to two of the worst and most biased precedents issued during the Trump White Nationalist “kangaroo court era” at the BIA.
First, in Matter of L-E-A, 27 I&N Dec. 40 (BIA 2017), (“L-E-A- 1”) the BIA recognized the “nuclear family” as a “particular social group.” Yet, to produce the necessary asylum denial sought by their “Trump handlers” at DOJ, the BIA erroneously found that the threatened harm had no “nexus” to the PSG.
To reach this improper and illogical result, the BIA disingenuously trashed the “normal” rules of causation. Those say that nexus is established if the harm would not have occurred “but for” membership in the protected group. Of course, there could be multiple “but fors” in a particular case, recognizing the “at least one central reason” statutory language for nexus.
That respondent was targeted for harm by gangs because his family owned a drug store that the gangs wanted to access to distribute illegal drugs. Had the respondent not been a member of his particular family, there is no reason to believe he would have have been targeted for any harm, or indeed have been of any interest to the gangs at all.
In other words, “but for” his membership in that particular family PSG, the threats would not have occurred. Essentially, a “no brainer” asylum grant that could have been quickly granted by a competent adjudicator. Any DHS appeal should have been a strong candidate for summary dismissal.
Instead of doing the obvious, the BIA invented new rules of causation. Contrary to the record, they found that family membership was essentially irrelevant to the threatened persecution. No, according to the BIA, the threats against the respondent were motivated solely the gang’s desire to sell illegal drugs through the family store, not a protected ground.
By searching for “any other motivation” and then basically substituting it to the exclusion of the clear family PSG motivation, the BIA bizarrely and erroneously concluded that the PSG was not “one central reason” for the persecution. This allowed the BIA to deny asylum to a respondent who fit squarely within the “refugee” definition.
Although the decision might have been cloaked in garbled legalese and irrational, result-oriented analysis, the overall message to Immigration Judges and BIA Appellate Judges was clear: faced with facts that demanded an asylum grant to a Central American refugee, the adjudicator should manufacture “any reason other than a protected ground” to deny protection. The BIA will have your back.
Let’s play out the BIA’s intentionally perverted analysis on a larger scale. The leaders of the Nazi movement stood to profit mightily from the eradication of the German Jewish community. Stolen artwork, confiscated wealth and property, and even the proceeds of the gold and silver obtained from collecting and melting down the dental fillings of gassed Jews found their way into Nazi bank accounts, many abroad. Thus, the BIA could view the Holocaust not as religious, nationality, or racial persecution, but rather part of an overall criminal scheme to enrich Nazi leaders by stealing from prosperous or vulnerable individuals. No persecution there!
Happily, in Hernandez-Cartagena, Judge Thacker and her colleagues blew through the type of bogus analysis set forth in L-E-A- 1. Although not specifically citing the BIA’s defective precedent, the court applied “normal rules of causation” rather than the BIA’s “any reason to deny” approach.
The petitioner was a “conduit” In the gang’s scheme to extort money from her parents. The court recognized that “it is therefore unreasonable to conclude that the fact that Petitioner is her parents’ child — a member of their family, concern for whom might motivate additional payments to the gang — is not at least one central reason for her persecution.”
Good bye and good riddance L-E-A- 1. Hello, rational analysis and well-merited protection, although sadly only within Fourth Circuit, for now.
But, that’s not the end of the tale of woe from America’s most blatantly biased, unprofessional, deadly, and totally unconstitutional “21st Century Star Chambers.” Not satisfied with the BIA’s illegal denial of protection in L-E-A- 1, two years later, Attorney General “Billy the Bigot” Barr “certified” that case to himself. That became Matter of L-E-A-, 27 I&N Dec. 581 (A.G. 2019) (“L-E-A- 2”).
“Justice” Star Chamber Style
His purpose? To reverse the only correct part of L-E-A- 1: the BIA’s recognition of the “nuclear family” as a “PSG.” As we all know, the nuclear family is one of the oldest, most well-established, well-defined, and universally recognized social units in human history. Not surprisingly, then, it has been recognized as a “PSG” under the Refugee Act of 1980 in numerous judicial and BIA decisions as well as by a myriad of human rights and international law scholars.
Bill Barr Consigliere Artist: Pat Bagley Salt Lake Tribune Reproduced under license
No matter to Billy! In an exercise in disingenuous legal gobbledygook and counter-rationality, he tried to explain why it was wrong to recognize the obvious: that the nuclear family” is a “cognizable PSG” for asylum adjudication purposes.
Instead, Billy substituted what I call the “Kardashian rule.” Only those families who have some sort of widespread recognition in society as a whole should be considered to possess the “social distinction” (the characteristic formerly known as “social visibility”) to qualify as a “cognizable PSG.”
Billy Barr’s Vision Of A “Cognizable Particular Social Group” By hotrock pictures – Vimeo: Kardashian Kollection at Sears (view archived source), CC BY 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=82871460 Creative Commons License
Again, without specifically citing L-E-A- 2, (perhaps the OIL was too embarrassed to argue it) Judge Thacker and her colleagues “blew away” its bigoted and irrational nonsense:
We have repeatedly held “a nuclear family provides a prototypical example of a particular social group” cognizable in our asylum framework. Cedillos-Cedillos v. Barr, 962 F.3d 817, 824 (4th Cir. 2020) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Indeed, the Fourth Circuit has been a leader in recognizing the nuclear family as a PSG, going all the way back to a case where they reinstated some of my rulings as an Immigration Judge that had been wrongfully reversed by the BIA: Crespin-Valadares v. Holder, 632 F.3d 117, 128 (4th Cir. 2011). But, hey, who remembers stuff like that from nearly a decade ago where I was once again proved right and the BIA was wrong?
Yeah, I’ll have to admit that after eight years of regularly getting “stuffed” by my BIA colleagues at en banc, there were few things in my professional life more satisfying than having a Court of Appeals “stuff” the BIA on a case where I had dissented as a BIA Judge or been reversed as an Immigration Judge!
So Billy the Bigot’s attempt to impose the absurdist “Kardashian rule” (sorry Kim, Kourtney, and Khloe) in L-E-A- 2 bites the dust, at least in the Fourth Circuit. I hope it will serve as a “blueprint” to eradicate the “twin travesties” of L-E-A- 1 & 2across the nation!
Exhilarating as this case is, it’s just one step in the right direction. The unconstitutional White Nativist bias and abuse being heaped upon refugees and other migrants by a “Star Chamber” beholden to the likes of “Billy the Bigot” Barr and his predecessor Jeff “Gonzo Apocalypto” Sessions won’t end until EOIR is abolished and replaced with a real court system that complies with 5th Amendment Due Process. If the Article III Courts don’t have the guts to get the job done, then its up to future better Congress to make it happen!
🌟First and foremost, Aaron Caruso, Esquire, of Abod & Caruso, Wheaton, MD. He appeared before me in Arlington. He’s the “total pro,” a “judge’s lawyer:” scholarly, unfailingly courteous, prompt, well-prepared, practical, wrote outstanding “to the issue” briefs that didn’t waste my time, took tough cases, and never gave up on his clients. In a “better world,” he’s definitely someone I could see on the Federal Bench at some level. A member of the NDPA, for sure!
Honorable Stephanie D. Thacker U.S. Circuit Judge Fourth Circuit Photo From Ballotpedia
🌟Judge Stephanie Thacker of the Fourth Circuit. I haven’t studied all of her judicial opinions. But, based on this opinion and her outstanding and totally correct dissent in Portillo-Flores v. Barr where she cogently castigated her fellow panel members for “going along to get along” with the BIA’s “at worst nonsensical and cursory at best” asylum denial, she appears one of a painfully small number of Article III Judges who both understand the mockery of justice going on in our Immigration “Courts” and have the guts to take a strong stand against it. https://immigrationcourtside.com/2020/09/04/%E2%80%8D%EF%B8%8F%EF%B8%8F%EF%B8%8Finjustice-watch-4th-cir-judge-stephanie-thacker-cogently-castigates-colleagues-for-misapplying/
Interestingly, this is the same panelas in Portillo-Flores. And, the BIA’s sloppy and incompetent analysis, including ignoring the evidence of record, presents largely the same issues. Only, this time Judge Thacker’s colleagues paid attention to what she was saying!
That says something about both her persuasiveness and her colleagues’ willingness to listen and take a better approach to judicial review. That’s also what’s known in the business as “making progress every day, one case, one life at a time.”
Unfortunately, Trump and the GOP right wing pols have turned Federal judicial selection into a race to control justice until at least 2060. That has forced the Dems to finally wake up and do likewise the next time they get the chance. The upshot: At 55, although still in the “prime years” of her career from a professional standpoint, Judge Thacker has probably “aged out” of the sweepstakes to be the “heart and soul” of the Supremes for the next four decades.
The good news: She should be around to continue saving lives, speaking truth to power, and serving as a great role model for younger, aspiring jurists and public officials of all races and genders for many years to come.
Compare Judge Thacker’s clear, concise, cogent analysis in this case with the wandering legal gobbledygook and pure nonsense put forth by the BIA and Barr in L-E-A- 1 & 2.
🌟Judge Julius N. Richardson and Judge A. Marvin Quattlebaum, Jr., of the Fourth Circuit also deserve stars. I really lambasted these two Trump appointees for their tone-deaf performance in Portillo-Flores. But, here they surprised me by joining fully in Judge Thacker’s analysis. Shows a capacity for teamwork, listening, adjusting views, and taking judicial review seriously, all really good things!
Additionally, it’s really important and significant when Trump appointees “do the right thing” and uphold due process, fundamental fairness, and recognize asylum seekers as “persons” entitled to equal justice under our Constitution.Given the large number of fairly young Trump appointees on the Federal Bench, it’s critical that as many of them as possible join their colleagues in resisting the White Nationalist assault on the rights and human dignity of people of color, particularly migrants and asylum seekers, being orchestrated by Trump, Miller, Barr, Wolf, and the rest of the regime’s gang of bigots.
Don’t know if this will be repeated in the future, but the votes of Judge Richardson and Judge Quattlebaum in this case are an encouraging sign for the American justice system. Will it be a trend or an aberration? Can’t tell, but stay tuned.
🌟Finally, and perhaps most importantly, hats off for Sandra Marleny Hernandez-Cartagena. In the face of a bogus “court” system controlled and operated by White Nationalist racist bigots for the purpose of wiping out asylum laws, demoralizing applicants through dishonest procedures and rules meant to discourage them from seeking protection, and to “send a message” that they aren’t wanted in our country, she persisted for herself, her family, and others similarly situated. Her victory in this case is a victory for American justice and for every one of us who believe in due process, fundamental fairness, and equal justice for all.
Thanks, Sandra, for inspiring us with your courage and unrelenting persistence in the face of evil and institutionalized, illegal, bias!
Hannah Albarazi Federal Courts Reporter Law360Hon. Jeffrey S. Chase Jeffrey S. Chase Blog Coordinator & Chief Spokesperson, Round Table of Retired Immigration JudgesMe
Ex-FAIR Research Director Among 46 New Immigration Judges
“It would be impossible for one to receive a fair hearing before Matthew O’Brien,” Jeffrey Chase, a New York City immigration lawyer and former immigration judge, told Law360. Chase said O’Brien has expressed a view of asylum law that is at odds with the controlling circuit case law that he would be tasked with applying from the bench.
Chase said O’Brien has “basically spouted propaganda for an organization openly hostile to immigration.”
His appointment, Chase said, shows that the Trump administration doesn’t want a fair and independent immigration court and is proof that the Executive Office for Immigration Review needs to be taken out of the control of the Department of Justice, an enforcement agency.
The administration “has repeatedly emphasized to classes of new immigration judges that they are above all employees of the attorney general, who does not believe most asylum seekers are deserving of protection,” Chase said.
These appointments could negatively impact the immigration courts for decades, Chase said.
Paul Wickham Schmidt, a retired U.S. immigration judge who chaired the Board of Immigration Appeals in the Clinton administration, also slammed the recent wave of appointments.
“The idea that these are the 46 best qualified individuals in America to discharge these awesome responsibilities in a fair, impartial and expert manner, in furtherance of due process of law and with recognition of the human rights and human dignity of the individuals whose lives are at stake, is beyond preposterous. It’s a fraud on American justice,” Schmidt told Law360.
Schmidt didn’t mince his words about O’Brien’s appointment either.
“As someone who has helped FAIR spread its racially biased, anti-immigrant, and anti-asylum propaganda and false narratives, O’Brien is not qualified to be a fair and impartial quasi-judicial decision maker as required by the due process clause of our Constitution,” Schmidt said.
. . . .
**********************************
Those with Law360 access can read Hannah’s complete article at the link.
The U.S. Justice system, once the envy of free nations throughout the world, is disintegrating before our eyes. If there is no justice for those whose lives are at stake, there will be no justice for any of us in the Trump/Barr Third World kakistocracy.
Due Process Forever! Corrupt & Feckless Institutions Parodying Justice, Never!
Born in 1993, Marica was raised in Maryland and earned a B.A. in Sociology from Rice University. Marica worked in the past as a paralegal at Hudson Legal in Ann Arbor and most recently explored eGovernance based infrastructure projects on the Dorot Fellowship. In the past, she received the Wagoner Fellowship, from the Higher School of Economics in Saint Petersburg, Russia, where she completed a year long ethnographic research project. She is fluent in Russian and proficient in Spanish and Hebrew.
Hon. Paul Wickham Schmidt U.S. Immigraton Judge (Ret.) Adjunct Professor, Georgetown Law Blogger, immigrationcourtside.com
Judge (Retired) Paul Wickham Schmidt
Judge Schmidt was appointed as an Immigration Judge at the U.S. Immigration Court in Arlington, Virginia, in May 2003 and retired from the bench on June 30, 2016. Prior to his appointment as an Immigration Judge, he served as a Board Member for the Board of Immigration Appeals, Executive Office for Immigration Review, in Falls Church, VA, since February 12, 1995. Judge Schmidt served as Board Chairman from February 12, 1995, until April 9, 2001, when he chose to step down as Chairman to adjudicate cases full-time. He authored the landmark decision Matter of Kasinga, 21 I&N Dec. 357 (BIA 1996), extending asylum protection to victims of female genital mutilation.He received a Bachelor of Arts degree from Lawrence University in 1970 (cum laude), and a Juris Doctorate from the University of Wisconsin School of Law in 1973 (cum laude; Order of the Coif). While at the University of Wisconsin, he served as an editor of the Wisconsin Law Review. Judge Schmidt served as acting General Counsel of the former Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) (1986-1987; 1979-1981), where he was instrumental in developing the rules and procedures to implement the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986. He also served as the Deputy General Counsel of INS for 10 years (1978-1987). He was the managing partner of the Washington, DC, office of Fragomen, Del Rey & Bernsen (1993-95), and also practiced business immigration law with the Washington, DC, office of Jones, Day, Reavis and Pogue from 1987-92 (partner, 1990-92). Judge Schmidt also served as an adjunct professor of law at George Mason University School of Law in 1989 and at Georgetown University Law Center (2012-14; 2017–). He has authored numerous articles on immigration law, and has written extensively for the American Immigration Lawyers Association. Judge Schmidt is a member of the American Bar Association, the Federal Bar Association, and the Wisconsin and District of Columbia Bars. Judge Schmidt was one of the founding members of the International Association of Refugee Law Judges (“IARLJ”).In June 2010, Judge Schmidt received the Lucia R. Briggs Distinguished Achievement Award from the Lawrence University Alumni Association in recognition of his notable career achievements in the field of immigration law. Since retiring, in addition to resuming his Adjunct Professor position at Georgetown Law, Judge Schmidt has established the blog immigrationcourtside.com, is an Americas Vice President of the IARLJ, serves on the Advisory Board of AYUDA, and assists the National Immigrant Justice Center/Heartland Alliance on various projects, as well as speaking, lecturing, and writing in forums throughout the country on contemporary immigration issues, due process, and U.S. Immigration Court reform.
So, what now? Will the intentional cruelty, “Dred Scottification,” false narratives, and demonization of “the other,” particularly women, children, and people of color, by presidential advisor Stephen Miller and his White Nationalists become the “future face” of America? Or, will “Our Better Angels” help us reclaim the vision of America as the “Shining City on the Hill,” welcoming immigrants and protecting refugees, in good times and bad, while “leading by example” toward a more just and equal world?
The Refugee Act of 1980 feels like a huge success…for a short amount of time. The first test of the act comes when Fidel Castro opens Cuba’s borders (and Cuba’s prisons) and hundreds of refugees arrive on Florida shores. The Mariel Boatlift Crisis forced the U.S. government to realize that not all asylum processing can happen abroad. Unfortunately, it also left the public with the impression that “Open arms and open hearts” leads only to crisis.
The year is 1980 and the war in Vietnam has displaced hundreds and thousands of people. The system of presidential parole doesn’t seem like it can handle the growing global refugee crisis. What is the answer to this ballooning need? Process most refugees abroad to streamline their entrance to the U.S. Codify asylum in the U.S. in legislation that puts human rights first. Increase prestige, improve overall government coordination, provide a permanent source of funding, and institutionalize refugee resettlement programs and assimilation. Have Ted Kennedy be the face of the effort. For once, things are actually working out for humanity.
In the 1990s, Judge Schmidt was BIA Chairman Schmidt. With the support of then Attorney General Janel Reno, he aspired to “open up” appellate judgeships to all immigration experts, and to lead the BIA to much-needed progressive steps towards humane asylum law, better scholarship, improved public service, transparency, and streamlined efficiency to reduce the backlog. However, progress seemed to stall at several points and certain types of behavior tended to be rewarded. The Board sits at the intersection between a court and an agency within the administration, which means its hurdles come both from structural issues with the U.S. Justice System and with entrenched government bureaucracy.
In the 1980s, critics claimed that the federal agency in charge of immigration enforcement, the “Legacy” Immigration and Naturalization Service (“INS”), could not process quasi-judicial cases in a fair and just manner due to limited autonomy, non-existent technology, insufficient resources, haphazard management, poor judicial selection processes, and backlogs. The solution? Create a sub-agency of the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) just for the immigration courts, focused on “due process with efficiency” and organizationally separate from the agency charged with immigration enforcement. The Executive Office of Immigration Review (“EOIR”) was an ambitious and noble endeavor, meant to be an independent court system operating inside of a Federal Cabinet agency. Spoiler: despite significant initial progress it did not work out that way in the long run.
In 1986, the United States was facing an immigration crisis with an overwhelmed INS and a record number of undocumented folks in the country. IRCA, a bipartisan bill, was created to solve the immigration crisis through a three-pronged approach: legalization, enforcement and employer accountability. However, it soon became apparent that some parts of IRCA were more successful than others. IRCA taught us relevant lessons for going forward. Because while pathways to citizenship are self-sustaining, enforcing borders is not.
Judges are meant to be impartial; but, U.S. Immigration Judges have political bosses who are willing and able to fire them while making little secret of their pro-enforcement, anti-immigrant political agenda. What are the public consequences of an Immigration Court with limited autonomy from the Executive Branch? We begin the podcast at one of the “turning points,” when Attorney General John Ashcroft fired almost all the most “liberal” Board Members of the BIA, all of whom were appointed during the Clinton Administration. What followed created havoc among the U.S. Courts of Appeals who review BIA decisions. The situation has continually deteriorated into the “worst ever,” with “rock bottom” morale, overwhelming backlogs, fading decisional quality, and the “weaponized”Immigration Courts now tasked with carrying out the Trump Administration’s extreme enforcement policies.
************************
Many, many thanks to Marica for persuading me to do this project and for doing all the “hard stuff.” I just “rambled on” — her questions and expert editing provided the context and “framework.”And, of course, Marica provided all the equipment (the day her brother “borrowed” her batteries) and the accompanying audio clips and written introductions.
Also, many thanks to my wife Cathy for the many hours that she and “Luna the Dog” (a huge “Marica fan”) spent trying not to listen to us working in the dining room, while adding many helpful suggestions to me, starting with “you sound too rehearsed” and “lose the ‘uhs’ and ‘you knows.’” She even put up with me playing some of the “original takes” while we were “on the road” to Wisconsin or Maine.
Small Acts of ThanksI would like to share a nice story (for once). It illustrates how a postscript can sometimes prove far more meaningful than the main story.
A friend and colleague in the DC area, Eileen Blessinger of Blessinger Legal, planned a series of training lectures via Zoom during the pandemic. When I initially agreed to present one of the sessions on asylum law, I was told it would be for an audience of eighteen people.
Somehow, the number of attendees increased significantly. Because meetings of more than 100 people require an upgrade on Zoom, Eileen asked participants for a small donation. I believe the training went well, and that seemed to be the end of the story.
Later that night, Eileen informed me that because the number of attendees was well over 100, there was a surplus of donations beyond what was needed to cover the Zoom upgrade. After a brief exchange, we agreed that the surplus should go to pandemic first responders.
Realizing the virtue of what was initially an unintended consequence, the next speaker, Louisiana-based attorney Glenda Regnart, also agreed to open her session to a wider audience, who were invited to make a small donation to treat first responders. Subsequent speakers Kelly White, Himedes Chicas, Anam Rahman, Julie Soininen, Danielle Beach-Oswald, Heain Lee, and Jennifer Jaimes agreed to follow suit. Over $1300 was raised.
Eileen took over from there, inviting suggestions for recipients from her staff. So far, she has provided meals to nurses at Mass General Hospital in Boston; to employees at supermarkets in Louisiana and Virginia, and to preparers of meals for those in need in Alexandria, VA. Plans are also in the works to provide a meal for DC-area sanitation workers.
Those of us able to quarantine comfortably and work from home owe an unimaginable debt to those putting themselves at risk to keep our cities and towns running, keeping us all fed and safe. And as most of us read of infection and death rates as impersonal statistics, the nurses and other medical workers who are battling the disease on the frontlines on a daily basis, putting their own health at risk in the process, are far beyond our ability to properly thank.
It was a donation to another group that touched me in an unexpected way because of its connection to an earlier unspeakable tragedy. Eileen forwarded me the accompanying photo of FDNY firefighters enjoying the meal provided for them from the training surplus. Looking at the photo, I was suddenly transported back to the fall of 2001. My wife and I, who both worked in lower Manhattan, were physically very close to events on 9/11. What we saw still triggers traumatic memories. Among the horrible and tragic statistics is the heartbreaking fact that 343 firefighters died that day. More than 200 more have died as the result of illnesses they subsequently contracted in the rescue effort.
I walked past the firehouse on Duane Street every day on my way to and from work when I was an immigration judge. I remember the feeling of grief when passing by in the months following 9/11, and of stopping there one day in October to make a donation, and of words completely failing me as I tried to express my sadness and gratitude.
In the present pandemic, 15 firefighters in the unit pictured here (Engine 286/Ladder 135) had contracted COVID-19 as of last week. As early as April 7, 500 of New York’s Bravest had contracted coronavirus. Many more continue to be exposed as first responders to emergency calls from those stricken with the disease. And the firefighter who took the photo, Jerry Ross, was also a 9/11 responder.
So once again, we are reminded of the great debt we owe to so many. Thanks again to Eileen and all of the other speakers, and of course to all who contributed. Hopefully, these small acts of thanks will bring a little joy to these most essential and selfless heroes.
*************************
Go to Jeffrey’s blog at the above link for the accompanying photo of Engine 286/Ladder 135 enjoying their meal!
Thanks Jeffrey & Eileen!
So proud that in addition to Eileen, of course, so many of the wonderful pro bono attorneys highlighted in this article were “regulars” before us during my time at the Arlington Immigration Court: Kelly White, Anam Rahman, Julie Soininen, Danielle Beach-Oswald, and Jennifer Jaimes. Also, Jennifer is a former Legal Intern at the Arlington Immigration Court who was part of our daily “run the stairs challenge” (at the former Ballston location) with then Court Administrator Judges Bryant and Snow, and me. Ah, those were the days!
Jennifer Jaimes Esquire Jaimes Legal, LLC Baltimore, MD
Have an asylum case in Immigration Court and wondering what to do while the courts are closed? My friend David L. Cleveland has a suggestion: Get a copy of your file from the Asylum Office. David is a lawyer in Washington, DC. He has secured asylum or withholding for people from 48 countries. He can be reached at 1949.david@gmail.com.
In most cases, when an asylum applicant has their case denied at the Asylum Office, the case is referred to Immigration Court. There, Immigration Judges sometimes deny asylum because the applicant is deemed incredible. The applicant has told the Asylum Officer one thing, but then tells the Judge something different. There are many examples of Judges being annoyed by inconsistent asylum applicants–
In a New York case, the applicant was inconsistent concerning the location of children and where she was raped. Kalala v. Barr,2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 8320 (2nd Cir. 2020).
in a California case, the applicant was inconsistent concerning the name of a police station. In this case, the Asylum Officer’s notes were shown to applicant for the first time during the Individual Hearing. Sun v. Barr, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 5397 (9th Cir. 2020).
In an Ohio case, the applicant testified to being beaten inside a church. When she asked about how many members of the church were present at the time, she first said 15. Later, she testified that six church members were present. Onoori v. Barr,2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 21310 (6th Cir. 2019).
David Cleveland ESQUIRE
Now that he has a copy of his client’s file, David Cleveland is finally able to relax.
More generally, Immigration Judges are very interested in what Asylum Officers do and write. In a case decided in 2019, the phrase “Asylum Officer” is used 32 times. Qiu v. Barr,944 F.3d 837 (9th Cir. 2019). In a 2018 case, the phrase “Asylum Officer” is mentioned 57 times, and “notes” (referring to the Officer’s notes from the asylum interview) was mentioned several times. Dai v. Sessions,884 F.3d 858 (9th Cir. 2018). In another case, from 2014, an Asylum Officer named “Kuriakose” is mentioned 15 times. Li v. Holder,745 F.3d 336 (8th Cir. 2014).
In these cases, asylum applicant’s were deemed not credible because their Court testimony was inconsistent with their testimony at the Asylum Office. Most likely, the applicants did not have a record of what they told the Asylum Officer, and of course, since years pass between an asylum interview and an Individual Hearing, it is difficult to remember what transpired at the Asylum Office.
How can I prevent surprise in Immigration Court?
When an Asylum Officer interviews an applicant, the Officer takes detailed notes. Often, these run to 10 pages or more. Later, in consultation with his supervisor, the Officer writes an “Assessment to Refer” or an “Assessment to Grant.” This document is usually three or four pages long. If the case is referred to Court, these notes do not go to the Immigration Judge. However, they are sent to the DHS attorney (the prosecutor), who can review them and look for inconsistencies. At the Individual Hearing, the DHS attorney can use the notes to impeach an applicant’s credibility (“At the asylum interview, you testified that there were 15 people present in the church when you were beaten, but now you say there were only six. Were you lying then, or are you lying now?”).
Asylum Officers sometimes make mistakes or include unexpected information in their notes. They find some sources of information important and ignore other sources. In short, there is a subjective element to these notes that can sometimes work against the applicant and cause surprises in Immigration Court. And, as any attorney will tell you, surprises in Court are usually bad news.
To avoid a surprise in Court, and to find out what the officer wrote, the advocate should make a Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) request for the notes and the Assessment. Asylum Officer notes are easily available via FOIA. To obtain this information, type your request on a single piece of paper: “Give me the notes and assessment of the asylum officer.” State your name, date of birth, place of birth, address, Alien number, and sign under penalty of perjury. You do not need a lawyer; you do not need Form G-639, although you are allowed to use that form. Send your request via email to: uscis.foia@uscis.dhs.gov
In January 2020, I received the entire Asylum Officer assessment for an asylum applicant from Congo. The client and I are now more relaxed and confident about the case. We will not be surprised in Immigration Court. You can read this assessment at the FOIA page of the Louise Trauma Center. A model FOIA request can also be found at the same page.
******************************
Take it from me, as someone who has presided over hundreds of asylum hearings, this is great advice from two of the best to set foot in my courtroom!
As I always said in my my “mini lectures” on “Presenting an Asylum Case in Immigraton Court:” “Beware and Be Prepared!” Preparation, preparation, preparation! It’s what wins cases (and appreciation from “the bench”).
Before Trump, Arlington was a “model court” where Immigration Judges, with the help of the ICE Chief Counsel and the private bar, developed “best practices” and asylum seekers got a fair shake. In just a few short years under the Trump regime, it has moved steadily in the other direction toward the type of “denial factory” that the Trump regime wants to be the model for all Immigration Courts. Of course, Arlington isn’t close to the 100% denial rate that the regime wants and that is close to realization in some other courts. But, the deterioration of due process and fairness in Arlington is still disheartening.
We should always remember that the unconstitutional “weaponization” of the Immigration Courts is continuing to happen right under the noses of a feckless Congress and Article III Judges who should long ago have ended this abomination. Everyone responsible for this life-threatening mess will have much to answer for in the “Court of History.”
In the meantime, congratulations and appreciationto those judges who keep interpreting and applying asylum law in the generous way dictated by Cardoza-Fonsecaand Mogharrabi. You are heroes in an age that where all too many show cowardice and a willingness to “go along too get along” in the face of great tyranny!
Due Process Forever! Judges Who Won’t Stand Up For Asylum Seekers, Never!
