Category: Article I Court

From LexisNexis Immigration Community:

https://www.lexisnexis.com/legalnewsroom/immigration/b/newsheadlines/posts/geoffrey-hoffman-eoir-needs-better-immigration-judges

Geoffrey Hoffman: EOIR Needs Better Immigration Judges

Prof. Geoffrey Hoffman, Nov. 24, 2015 – “It is important, I think, to note the import but also the paradox behind the BIA’s latest precedent decision, Matter of Y-S-L-C-, 26 I&N Dec. 688 (BIA 2015) that admonishes IJ’s not to bully minors. In the decision, the Board discusses conduct by an Immigration Judge that can be construed as “bullying or hostile” behavior and says it is “never appropriate,” particularly in cases involving “minor respondents,” concluding such behavior may result in remand to a different Immigration Judge. I am glad that the Board is finally taking to task this kind of egregious IJ behavior. On the one hand, we should applaud the Board for pointing out this behavior and finally holding it up to the light of day in an important new precedent decision. On the other hand, it is a sad commentary on the behavior of some judges that the appellate body of the EOIR has to even say this publicly. Of course judges should not behave this way, and the fact that recusal is mandated by the BIA in such situations is something to congratulate the Board for now getting behind. But, one wonders whether this response is at all sufficient. Whether, as an IJ, I can now say, “Well, the worst that will happen is that I will have the case taken away from me on remand, and therefore I do not have to deal with this mess anymore.” It doesn’t seem like much of a deterrent.

In a case which I handled on appeal, the IJ denied the respondent’s attorney the opportunity to call a psychologist to testify about the respondent’s mental condition and disease (bipolar disorder), a fact which went directly to the particular social group and seemed particularly relevant to me. When the attorney respectfully requested permission to put on the expert witness, and specially whether the witness could testify about any medications the respondent had taken or was taking the IJ in response asked the attorney whether she was on any medications. Was she on any medications? I read and re-read that line again and again as I prepared the appeal thinking perhaps I had missed the joke. But this wasn’t a joke. It was simply intemperate behavior by an IJ. Thankfully, the BIA correctly and compassionately remanded the case but based on the bipolar condition, recognizing that it could form a valid PSG. No mention was made of the issue of judicial impropriety I had raised in the brief. In other appeals I have done before the Board, I have noticed that when raising issues with the Board about IJ’s missing evidence or even misconstruing the factual background, the Board does not seem to deal with these issues head-on but instead bases their decisions on some other ground, preferring to adjudicate the appeal on a legal ground rather than on the basis of judicial misconduct or judicial mistake. And there is nothing surprising here, with the Board insulating IJ’s from admonishment and not highlighting their misunderstandings of the record, but there is I think a cost which has been underreported or perhaps not even appreciated. The cost is that IJs become used to behaving in a way that can be described as intemperate at best and demeaning or demoralizing and abusive, at worst.

This said, I do have a lot of sympathy for many IJs, having worked very hard myself for a federal judge for two years after law school, and seeing and appreciating the incredible stress and responsibilities of being a judge. The IJs, it should be mentioned, have it worse: they have to juggle a case load of hundreds and hundreds of cases, while at the same time maintaining compassion and composure at all times, and at the same time providing a clear, cogent and correct legal analysis in all cases and contexts. However, and this needs to be said, I think some IJs should not be IJs and should not have been selected to be IJs. If we want to make the immigration court system work we need to do a better job in vetting these judges, choosing based on temperament and suitability to deal with the rigors of handling all these cases with compassion and professionalism.

This is the time now (at this very moment) to make this statement as loudly and boldly as possible, since EOIR right now is advertising for 50+ new judgeships across the country. Since we have approximately 250+ judges, this represents an approximate 20 percent increase. I implore EOIR to make these decisions with due regard to how the judges might act in future, not just whether they have experience deporting people, working for the government in other capacities, or experiences such as being in the military. While those are factors, let’s draw from the ranks of those with proven compassion, like the YMCA directors, legal aid attorneys, and people who will never belittle a child, never lose themselves in the power and prestige, and be resilient and persevere in one of the hardest jobs imaginable.”

Geoffrey A. Hoffman

Director-University of Houston Law Center Immigration Clinic

Clinical Associate Professor

4604 Calhoun Road

TU-II, Room 56

Houston, TX 77204-6060

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

Unfortunately, the Obama Administration ignored Geoffrey’s plea. Instead of creating a well-qualified, independent, progressive judiciary that could achieve the “EOIR Vision” of: “Through teamwork and innovation becoming the world’s best tribunals, guaranteeing fairness and due process for all,” the Obama Administration handed out immigration judgeships like they were service awards for DHS prosecutors, DOJ attorneys, and other government lawyers.

The Obama selections appeared designed primarily to avoid appointing anyone who might have the background, backbone, and courage to “rock the boat” and stand up for immigrants’ rights even when it meant rejecting ill-advised and legally questionable Administration enforcement policies and procedures. In other words, truly independent judging and thinking was discouraged in favor of a “go along to get along” atmosphere mischaracterized as “collegiality.” 

Sure, collegiality has its benefits. But, in the end, independent judging is about justice for the individuals coming before the courts, not about institutional survival, job preservation, making friends, achieving bureaucratic performance goals, or pleasing political “handlers” who don’t want to read about their “subordinates” in the “funny papers.” When I was ousted from the BIA as part of the so-called “Ashcroft purge,” I noticed that those those judges who were “collegial” but outspoken about immigrants’ legal rights got punished right along with those who were perceived as “less collegial” in standing up for the same rights.

Moreover, the Obama folks designed an unwieldy and astoundingly inefficient “Rube Goldberg selection system” that took more than two years to fill an average IJ vacancy — much longer than the Senate confirmation process! This was at a time when backlogs were building and the NAIJ and the “line IJs” were begging “EOIR management” for help. “Management” could have achieved comparable results simply by throwing darts at a board containing the names of government attorneys. And, it would have cut the red tape. 

Inept as the Obama Administration might have been, the Trump kakistocracy of course proved to be our worst nightmare. They “weaponized” the EOIR immigration judiciary into a tool of White Nationalist nativist enforcement, racial injustice, and misogyny. Here are some of the things Sessions and Barr did at the behest of Stephen Miller:

• “Packed” the BIA with judges known as “asylum deniers” — some with denial rates in excess of 90%;
• Appointed IJs from the Atlanta Immigration Court, which had generated Matter of Y-S-L-C-, to the BIA in an overt attempt to replicate the “Asylum Free Zone” as Atlanta was known throughout the private bar;  
• “Rewarded” with BIA appointments several judges who had complaints lodged against them for their rude and unprofessional in-court behavior, open hostility to asylum seekers (particularly women), and unprofessional treatment of private attorneys; 
• Issued bogus EOIR and BIA precedents, some on their “own motion,” that were almost 100% against respondents and in favor of DHS Enforcement while undoing long-standing rules that had promoted fairness to asylum seekers and sound docket management;
• Appointed almost all government/prosecutorial background Immigration Judges, many without immigration qualifications, others associated with anti-immigrant or anti-gay groups;
• “Decertified” the National Association of Immigration Judges (“NAIJ”) as punishment for speaking out against gross mismanagement at EOIR and DOJ;
• Imposed due-process-denying unprofessional “production quotas” on IJs intended to increase deportation rates;
• Deprived IJs of effective management control over their dockets, while engaging in endless “Aimless Docket Reshuffling;”
• Unethically exhorted IJs to treat the DHS as their “partners” in enforcing immigration laws;
• Gave the Director — essentially a political appointee disguised as a career executive — authority to interfere with BIA decision making in certain cases;
• Basically reduced Immigration Judges to the status of “deportation clerks” while falsely claiming that they were “management officials” to “bust” the union;
• “Dumbed down” immigration judge training;
• Artificially “jacked up” the Immigration Court backlog to an astounding 1.3 million cases — even with twice the number of IJs on the bench.

As one of my esteemed Round Table colleagues said, “since [Geoffrey’s article] was written, record numbers of good IJs resigned over the past 4 years, many good candidates wouldn’t apply (or if they did, likely weren’t chosen) over the past 4 years, and then just the general drop in quality that comes with that degree of expansion [in the absence of competent planning].”        

The lack of compassion, glaring disregard for the protective purposes of refugee law, and absence of human understanding as to what it means to be a refugee seeking salvation simply screams out from the last four years of perverse AG and BIA precedents as well as from some of the elementary mistakes made by EOIR judges at all levels in the numerous cases reversed by Courts of Appeals over the past four years.  

And, this is just the “tip of the iceberg.” Many seeking protection are denied any hearings at all, railroaded out without understanding what’s happening, or simply give up without appealing wrong decisions and denials of due process — worn down by the abusive and unnecessary detention that EOIR helps promote and the intentionally “user unfriendly” procedures developed to discourage individuals from asserting their legal and human rights. 

While the broken and reeling Department of Justice presents many challenges, I predict that Judge Garland’s tenure will be remembered largely by how he deals, or doesn’t deal, with the total disaster in the U.S. Immigration Courts. The Trump regime’s attack on democracy and people of color began with immigration, and the effort to dehumanize and degrade migrants continued until the final day. 

Will Judge Garland leave behind a reformed, progressive, due-process-oriented system that is a model judiciary? One that finally fulfills the vision of — “Through Teamwork and innovation action becoming the world’s best tribunals, guaranteeing fairness and due process for all?” A court that can easily transition out of the DOJ intro an independent Article I Judiciary? Or will he leave behind another disgraceful mess and the dead bodies, broken dreams, and visible betrayals of American values to prove it?

Only time will tell! But, the NDPA will be watching. And, there isn’t much patience out here for more of the “EOIR Clown Show!”🤡🦹🏿‍♂️

🇺🇸🗽⚖️Due Process Forever! Better judges 🧑🏽‍⚖️👩‍⚖️👨🏻‍⚖️ for a better America. And that starts (but doesn’t end) with the U.S. Immigration Courts!

PWS

02-14-21