"The Voice of the New Due Process Army" ————– Musings on Events in U.S. Immigration Court, Immigration Law, Sports, and Other Random Topics by Retired United States Immigration Judge (Arlington, Virginia) and former Chairman of the Board of Immigration Appeals Paul Wickham Schmidt. To see my complete professional bio, just click on the link below.
Michigan Stadium, America’s largest, holds 107,601. It would take approximately 20 Michigan Stadiums to hold all the 2,000,000 + folks waiting for hearings in Garland’s dysfunctional and backlogged Immigration Courts! And, that doesn’t include their families, communities, employers, co-workers and others affected by their fates! If Garland were the managing partner of a law firm or the CEO of a business, he would be “long gone.” Why aren’t competence and accountability “minimum requirements” for America’s chief lawyer? Michigan Stadium Photo by Andrew Horne, Creative Commons License
Even at this accelerated completion rate, on an annualized basis, I calculate thatEOIR will still be building backlog at a rate of nearly 300,000 annually, based on 800,000 new receipts from DHS.
At approximately 700 completions/year/judge (EOIR’s figure), EOIR would need approximately 400 additional, fully trained, fully productive IJs on the bench just to “break even” and stop creating more backlog.
Nearly 800,000 asylum cases are sitting in the backlog, many ready to try and pending for years. With a better BIA and better trained IJs who actually applied Cardoza-Fonseca, Mogharrabi, and the regulatory presumptions of well-founded fear properly (instead of being “programmed to deny”) the vast majority of these old asylum cases could be prioritized and granted in short hearings.
Even with today’s broken, biased, and unconstitutionally inconsistent Immigration Courts, migrants prevail against deportation in approximately 60% of cases! This suggests that the majority of the Immigration Court’s cases could be prioritized and resolved in the migrant’s favor without lengthy hearings IF the system had a better BIA, better IJs, better training, better practices, and a better working relationship with the private bar and DHS.
Far too few bonds are being granted, and insufficient attention is being paid to inconsistencies in the bond process.
Only an infinitesimally small percentage, .56%, of new cases filed by ICE involve allegations of criminal conduct. This suggests continuing problems with the way ICE allocates enforcement resources and chooses to use Immigration Court time.
Earlier this year, I had predicted that Garland would top the 2 million backlog mark by the end of August 2022.https://wp.me/p8eeJm-7dT
I was off by 3 months, as it actually took him until the end of November 2022 to achieve this negative landmark.
Nevertheless, some things are clear: This system is “beyond FUBAR!” It needs professional leadership, a new appellate board, better judges, better training, better utilization of the private bar, smarter, more creative and innovative practices, and authority to “rein in” in out of control ICE Enforcement. All the same things experts said were needed back at the time of Biden’s election! Ignoring expert advice has resulted in just the continuing, mushrooming disaster at EOIR and in our legal system that experts predicted!
Over two years, Garland has shown that he is not the person for the job. Nor have his political subordinates shown any aptitude for addressing the festering management, legal, and quality control problems @ EOIR!
Experts and advocates should be pushing the Administration and Dems in Congress for a change in leadership at the DOJ! Every day of failure means more backlog, more injustice, more frustration, more lives endangered, and a growing threat to American democracy — from those sworn to protect and uphold it, but aren’t getting the job done!
🗽DISSENTING OPINION: TRADING AWAY REFUGEE RIGHTS & DUE PROCESS FOR LONG OVERDUE DREAMER PROTECTIONS IS “NOT OK!”
By Paul Wickham Schmidt
Courtside Exclusive
Dec. 6, 2022
I dissent.
I was outraged when I read in this morning’s Washington Post about the horrible “Sinema/Tillis misnamed immigration compromise” (actually a “sellout”) being negotiated during the lame duck session of Congress. In short, that proposal apparently would trade long overdue protection for “Dreamers” for the rights and lives of refugees and asylum seekers.
Incredibly, in the face of U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan’s findings that the intentional illegal use of Title 42 had resulted in countless clear violations of the legal rights of asylum seekers, subjecting them to a litany of horrors and abuses that he described as “dire harm,” these legislators would extend those abuses for an indefinite period! That’s notwithstanding evidence not only of the irreparable harm that Title 42 has caused, but also the rather obvious fact that once we “normalize” those abuses, they will never end.
There will always be another fabricated reason for extending the Title 42 charade. Indeed, once we start mischaracterizing abuse as “law,” we can’t even call it “abuse” and hold the abusers accountable! That’s all part of the dehumanizing or “Dred Scottification” process!
Additionally, in the place of a functioning working asylum and refugee system, the proposal would eventually substitute so called “processing centers” and “expedited procedures” to railroad asylum seekers out of the country without due process. And, it wouldn’t address the total dysfunction and denial of due process in our Immigration “Courts” by enacting another long overdue provision: the “Lofgren Article I Immigration court bill!” What a farce!
Let’s be clear about what’s happening here! The legal and human rights of refugees and asylum seekers are not “ours” to trade away for relief for another deserving group that has long been irrationally denied! “Processing centers” are a euphemism for “immigration prisons” — part of the “New American Gulag.” “Expedited processing” is a euphemism for “railroading.” Both detention and artificially expediting dockets have been proven to be ineffective and unjust, over and over. Yet, here we go again!
My outrage turned to shock and dismay when I learned that some erstwhile defenders of due process, human rights, and racial justice for asylum seekers (incredibly) thought that this type of immoral compromise was a “good idea!” Not me!
Restrictionist/nativist Dems masquerading as “moderates” are a huge problem. They play right into the GOP’s hands.
When committing crimes against humanity or giving away refugees’ rights becomes a “strategy,” “option,” or “bargaining chip,” we’re lost as a nation. And, that’s exactly where we’re heading with horrible, immoral proposals like this.
Human rights and due process are non-negotiable! And, I guarantee that extending Title 42, building additional Gulag (rather than making the existing legal asylum and refugee systems work), and railroading asylum seekers will empower smugglers and lead to further growth of our underground population.
Human migration won’t be stopped by ineffective and immoral “deterrence.” And, although many hate the idea, refugees basically “self-select” and are driven by forces beyond our immediate control.
Refugees are, by definition, folks who can’t return! So, there is no reason to believe that true refugees (of which there are many) are going to be “deterred.” They might be “incentivized” to seek refuge in particular, relatively safe, places; but, nobody seems interested in a “carrot” approach — even though the “stick approach” has failed and continues to do so!
Look at the folks who continue to die in vessels in the Mediterranean even though they are fully aware that they are unwanted and that the EU will stop at no cruelty to keep them out.
And, examine the wealth of documentation that folks forced to “remain in Mexico” — and apply under what we know to be a corrupt and inadequate system — are systematically abused and exploited.
This time, we’re not just “pushing the St. Louis out to sea.” We’re torpedoing her and watching the passengers drown. And Dems are a huge part of the problem!
Other (soon to be former) progressive Democrats might choose to “go along to get along” with heaping additional abuses on largely defenseless refugees and asylum seekers. But, not me! I dissent!
Elizabeth Gibson Managing Attorney National Immigrant Justice Center Publisher of “The Gibson Report”
Weekly Briefing
This briefing is designed as a quick-reference aggregation of developments in immigration law, practice, and policy that you can scan for anything you missed over the last week. The contents of the news, links, and events do not necessarily reflect the position of the National Immigrant Justice Center. If you have items that you would like considered for inclusion, please email them to egibson@heartlandalliance.org.
Texas Observer: But as the case of Felipe shows, immigration officials have continued to separate parents and children in violation of the policy. From the start of the new administration to August 2022—the latest month for which data has been published—U.S. authorities have reported at least 372 cases of family separation.
AP: Within hours, the Justice Department asked the judge to let the order take effect Dec. 21, giving it five weeks to prepare. Plaintiffs including the American Civil Liberties Union didn’t oppose the delay.
Politico: Party leaders are pushing hard for legislation aiding the undocumented population known as “Dreamers” before Republicans take the House. But GOP senators have little interest. See also House Judiciary GOP Highlights First Oversight Targets.
TRAC: The outcome for asylum seekers has long been influenced by the identity of the immigration judge assigned to hear their case. This continues to be true as documented by TRAC’s just released judge-by-judge report series, now updated through FY 2022. In Arlington, Virginia, judge denial rates ranged from 15 percent to 95 percent. In Boston, judge denial rates varied from 17 percent to 93.5 percent. In Chicago, they ranged from 16 percent to 90 percent, while in San Francisco one judge denied just 1 percent of the cases while another denied 95 percent.
NPR: Individuals held in immigration detention were barred from visits with relatives and friends for more than two years during the pandemic — far longer than federal prisons. In May, ICE lifted the ban, but immigrant advocates and people in detention centers argue that social visits have not been fully nor consistently reinstated.
Philly Inquirer: A second bus carrying immigrants from Texas arrived in Philadelphia Monday morning, a twice-in-six-days sequel that propelled the city to offer fresh welcome to more weary, uncertain travelers from the border.
AP: U.S. immigration authorities didn’t do enough to adequately vet or monitor a gynecologist in rural Georgia who performed unnecessary medical procedures on detained migrant women without their consent, according to results of a Senate investigation released Tuesday.
Intercept: According to ICE’s Performance-Based National Detention Standards, whenever there is a “calculated use of force,” staff are required to use a handheld camera to record the incident. The Intercept, with Kumar’s consent, requested the video through the Freedom of Information Act. After ICE refused to turn over the footage, The Intercept filed a lawsuit and ICE subsequently agreed to turn over the footage, but the agency redacted the faces and names of everyone who appears in it, aside from Kumar.
Guardian: A multi-country investigation by the Guardian finds at least 6,500 migrant workers from south Asia have died in Qatar in the 10 years since it was awarded the right to host the World Cup.
AG: (1) Matter of S-O-G- & F-D-B-, 27 I&N Dec. 462 (A.G. 2018), is overruled. (2) Pending the outcome of the rulemaking process, immigration judges and the Board of Immigration of Appeals may consider and, where appropriate, grant termination or dismissal of removal proceedings in certain types of limited circumstances, such as where a noncitizen has obtained lawful permanent residence after being placed in removal proceedings, where the pendency of removal proceedings causes adverse immigration consequences for a respondent who must travel abroad to obtain a visa, or where termination is necessary for the respondent to be eligible to seek immigration relief before United States Citizenship and Immigration Services.
Law360: The Biden administration on Thursday swept aside a Trump-era decision that mostly stripped immigration judges of their power to end removal proceedings, restoring immigration courts’ ability to terminate some deportation cases while it devises new policy.
Law360: A federal judge on Wednesday granted “with great reluctance” the Biden administration’s request for a five-week stay of his previous day’s order to end expulsions of migrants under Title 42, a public health provision the Trump administration began using at the start of the pandemic.
Law360: A split Fourth Circuit panel ordered the U.S. Board of Immigration Appeals to reconsider a Jamaican man’s removal order, criticizing the agency’s reasons for rejecting his claims that he diligently sought reversal of his order following a Supreme Court ruling.
LexisNexis: Michael Shannon writes: “I wanted to share a very good written decision from IJ Barbara Nelson, who granted asylum to my client based on her actual and imputed feminist political opinion under Hernandez-Chacon v. Barr.”
Law360: The federal government got the green light from an Arizona federal judge to conduct psychological examinations of asylum-seeking parents suing for damages for the alleged emotional trauma from being separated from their children at the southwestern U.S. border.
AILA: AILA and partners sent a letter to USCIS, EOIR, and OPLA addressing the unnecessary hurdles non-detained people in removal proceedings face in securing a biometrics appointment prior to their merits hearing.
AILA: USCIS notice of the automatic extension of the validity of TPS-related documentation for beneficiaries under the TPS designations for El Salvador, Haiti, Nicaragua, Sudan, Honduras, and Nepal set to expire on 12/31/22, through 6/30/24. (87 FR 68717, 11/16/22)
You now can change your email settings or search the archives using the Google Group. If you are receiving this briefing from a third party, you can visit the Google Group and request to be added. If you receive an error, make sure you click request access.
Elizabeth Gibson (Pronouns: she/her/ella)
Managing Attorney for Capacity Building and Mentorship
National Immigrant Justice Center
A HEARTLAND ALLIANCE Program
224 S. Michigan Ave., Suite 600, Chicago, IL 60604
T: (312) 660-1688| F: (312) 660-1688| E: egibson@heartlandalliance.org
After two years of “drinking the koolaid,” the party might be over for Mayorkas & Garland, as McCarthy & his insurrectionist/White Nationalist zanies “move in for the kill.”
Two years of ineptness, failure to clean house at DOJ and DHS, unkept promises to advocates, lack of guts to quickly reverse Trump’s massive scofflaw program of racist-inspired human rights abuses, arrogant “tuning out” of experts, lack of engagement and presence at the border have been largely ignored by Dems in both Houses. Indeed, other than a hearing on the Article 1 bill before Chair Lofgren (at which Garland was not required to appear and explain his due-process-denying mess and abject failure to reform EOIR), Dems failure to conduct meaningful oversight of the Administration’s mishandling of refugee programs, asylum, detention, asylum seeker resettlement, and Immigration Courts will be “coming home to roost” as insurrectionist, racists from the House GOP take aim at “snuffing” humanity and abolishing the rule of law!
Two years of inept, immoral, “Miller Litism” from the Administration leaves Dems with no defense and no supporters of their actions. Nativist restrictionists wanted “100% kill” @ border! Experts wanted a return to the rule of law, orderly processing, and due process. The Biden Administration delivered neither!
We tried to tell them, but they wouldn’t listen! No,McCarthy and his insurrectionist White Nationalist zany-haters have the floor. Just have to hope that historians are fully documenting the lies and Neo-Nazi views that these GOP hacks will be promoting — to help future generations understand how America “went off the rails” in the 21st century! Understandably, the GOP would rather focus on Biden’s failed immigration policies than on the rampant gun violence, hate crimes, child abuse, forced births, and dumbing down of America at the heart of their vile agenda!
🇺🇸Due Process Forever! The GOP’s “New McCarthyism,” Never!
Kathleen Guthrie Woods American Journalist & Writer San Francisco, CA PHOTO: GoodreadsHon. Dana Leigh (“NanaDana”) Marks U.S. Immigration Judge (Ret.) San Francisco Immigration Court Past President, National Association of Immigration Judges; “Founding Mother of U.S. Asylum Law”
By the time she retired from San Francisco’s Immigration Court on December 31, 2021, Judge Dana Leigh Marks* had built an inspiring reputation as a leader, mentor, and advocate. She is known for her fierce advocacy for the court. She is known for her compassion and fairmindedness. She is known for her intelligence and wit, having coined oft-repeated, appropriate zingers that help people better understand the challenges of immigration court, including “Immigration judges do death penalty cases in a traffic court setting” and “Immigration is more complicated than tax law. How do I know this? Because there is no TurboTax for immigration law.”
Talking with her former colleagues—many of whom are now also her friends—is an uplifting experience. They speak of a woman who broke through barriers, applied the law fairly and compassionately, fought hard fights, and inspired others to join her. “She’s the GOAT of immigration judges!” declares Francisco Ugarte, Manager of the Immigration Defense Unit of San Francisco’s Public Defender’s Office.
Who is Judge Marks, and how did she positively influence and impact so many lives?
. . . .
Judge Marks also thrived in this arena because she saw beyond the expectation that her role was solely to facilitate deportations; she saw the humanity inherent in the proceedings. “Every story is individual,” she says, and every person deserves to be heard.
. . . .
“She showed us all how to be fierce advocates for justice—for what is true and right and just—without crossing over lines,” says Judge King. Jamil adds Judge Marks’s “tireless” work for the union and “giving a professional, female voice to immigration judges” to her list of accomplishments. “When she started, she was one of few women. After her, all these really amazing women came to the bench,” says Shugall, women Judge Marks mentored and encouraged to apply for the bench. That roster includes Judges Jamil, King, Miriam Hayward, Stockton, Webber, and Laura Ramirez. “She helped start that trajectory,” says Shugall.
“She helped create an inspiring model for how courts can be,” says Ugarte, and Judge Webber states, simply, “She inspires people all the time.”
“While she has had some limelight in her career, the vast majority of her work has been thankless,” says Judge King. “She perseveres solely because she believes it is important to make a difference wherever you can.”
*Today Judge Marks is known as “NanaDana,” a title that celebrates her role as caretaker for her granddaughter and helps people correctly pronounce her name (“dan-uh,” not “day-nuh”).
Kathleen Guthrie Woods is a long-time contributor to San Francisco Attorney magazine. She first interviewed Judge Marks, then-president of NAIJ, for “Understanding the Crisis in Our Immigration Courts” (Spring 2015).
**************************
Every judge, lawyer, and law student in America, and particularly AG Garland and his lieutenants, should read Kathleen’s interview with Judge Marks (full version at link) about what “American judging” should, and could, be — all the way up to the Supremes!
Dana, my friend and colleague, your inspiring career is yet more evidence of the “then-available” talent who could have led long-overdue change at EOIR and the BIA. Like you, much of that talent has moved on to our Round Table, and we’re stuck with the dysfunctional mess at EOIR. But, others are arising in your image to fight for justice, sanity, and humanity from “the retail level on up” in our Federal Courts.
I will always think of you as the “Founding Mother of US Asylum Law” because of your stellar advocacy in Cardoza-Fonseca and your unending, unapologetic, and highly vocal commitment to due process, independent thinking, and judicial excellence.
As you probably remember, I was in Court for your OA in Cardoza-Fonseca, sitting at the SG’s table as you won the day for your client. My “client,” INS, “lost” that day. But, American justice, due process, and human rights won!
As it was for you and those many you inspired, “realizing the promise of Cardoza-Fonseca” became the “guiding light” of my subsequent judicial career at EOIR, on both the appellate and trial benches. Despite the more than quarter-century since Cardoza, the battle to make judges at all levels actually follow its dictates, and perhaps more importantly, its generous humanitarian spirit, is far from won!
Congrats on your new position as “NanaDana.” 😎 I always look forward to working with you and our amazing Round Table colleagues to give due process and fundamental fairness an unyielding voice before courts throughout America, and to continue the unending fight for best judicial practices in a life-determining system that has “lost its way” as millions needlessly suffer!”
We “Knightesses and Knights of our Round Table” 🛡⚔️ will “never let the bastards grind us down!” You continue to inspire all of us in our never ending quest for justice for the most vulnerable individuals among us!
“NanaDana’s” fierce fighting spirit continues to inspire our Round Table of Former Immigration Judges to new heights in the never-ending pursuit of “due process and fundamental fairness for all!” (Ironically, the latter was actually EOIR’s long-abandoned “vision!” )
I would like to discuss a concept related to asylum, involving protection under Article 3 of the U.N. Convention Against Torture (commonly referred to as “CAT” for short). Although lacking the benefits afforded to those granted asylum or admitted as refugees, the importance of CAT as a protection from deportation has increased in recent years due to the complex nature of current asylum claims, which require greater effort to interpret causation than claims that were more commonly decided decades ago.
Whereas asylum requires a connection between the persecution and the applicant’s race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion, CAT protects those who are at risk of torture for any (or no) reason. CAT therefore can (and has) saved lives where the person at risk could not demonstrate to the adjudicator’s satisfaction a sufficient connection to one of the five mandatory asylum grounds.
While not requiring specific causation, CAT does require that the torture be “by, or at the instigation of, or with the consent or acquiescence of, a public official…”1 When (as is often the case) the torturers are a gang or drug cartel, what is required of an applicant to establish government acquiescence?
According to federal regulations, “Acquiescence of a public official requires that the public official, prior to the activity constituting torture, have awareness of such activity and thereafter breach his or her legal responsibility to intervene to prevent such activity.”2 Thus, the regulations make it clear that acquiescence is a two-step test for (1) awareness, and (2) breach of responsibility to intervene.
Back in 2000, the BIA addressed the meaning of “acquiescence” in a precedent decision, and managed to get it very wrong. In its en banc decision in Matter of S-V- , the majority defined “government acquiescence” as a government’s willful acceptance of the torturous activity.3 How it managed to look at the above two-step test and come up with “willful acceptance” (which, incidentally, is only one step) is anyone’s guess.
Not surprisingly, the Board’s standard was universally panned by the circuit courts. With the recent decision of the First Circuit in H.H. v. Garland 4, nine circuits have now outright rejected the BIA’s take as overly restrictive, holding that the proper test is satisfied where the government in question remained “willfully blind” to the commission of torture. The remaining two circuits, while not directly overruling the Board’s take, have nevertheless applied the “willful blindness” standard. No circuit has deferred to the BIA’s interpretation.
However, until just recently, only one circuit – the Second – clarified that acquiescence requires a two-step test as described above. The remaining circuits were content to correct the language of the Board’s one-step standard from “willful acceptance” to one including “willful blindness” and then leave it at that.
Last year, Prof. Jon Bauer at the Univ. of Connecticut Law School wrote an excellent article that did a wonderful job of explaining the proper standard and the shortcomings of existing case law on the topic.5 I believe that Prof. Bauer’s article (available at the above link) should be required reading for Immigration Judges.
In summary, Bauer’s article flagged several flaws in the common view of acquiescence. The first is the mistaken belief that “willful blindness” is the entire test for acquiescence. Bauer points out that the circuit courts have held that the “awareness” step (step one) may be met either through a government’s willful blindness or through its actual awareness. But willful blindness is neither an absolute requirement nor a minimum standard for establishing both awareness and breach of legal duty elements; it simply expands the manner in which the awareness prong may be satisfied.
Importantly, in most cases, actual awareness can be established without the need to rely on a government’s willful blindness. As Bauer points out in a footnote, at least two circuits recognize government awareness as being satisfied where the government is “aware that torture of the sort feared by the applicant occurs.”6 In other words, awareness doesn’t require the government to have specific knowledge of a plan to torture the CAT applicant; it is enough that ts agents are aware that, e.g., MS-13 is engaging in this sort of conduct within the country to satisfy the awareness prong.
Bauer additionally emphasized that acquiescence remains a two-step test, and that “willful blindness” is relevant to only the first step. The standard for satisfying step two, the breach of duty to intervene, remains a blank slate. Neither the BIA nor the circuit courts have stated what is required to establish a likelihood that the government will breach its responsibility to intervene.
Bauer points out that the confusion concerning willful blindness has caused some adjudicators to view any action (no matter how ineffectual) by the government in question as precluding a finding of acquiescence, regarding even a minimal response as proof that the government was not being “willfully blind” to the torture. But as Bauer notes, willful blindness has nothing to do with the obligation to intervene. Once awareness is established (either through actual awareness or willful blindness), the focus turns to the separate question contained in step two of whether the duty to intervene was breached.
As to the breach prong, Bauer opined that the test applied under international law, requiring states “to exercise ‘due diligence’ to prevent, investigate, prosecute, and punish acts of torture by non-State actors,” is the correct one for adoption as the domestic standard for step two. Bauer explains how this interpretation is consistent with the CAT’s text and drafting history, as well as the legislative history of US ratification and implementation of the treaty.7
The confusion cited by Bauer as to the proper standard to be applied is exacerbated by the fact that the Board has never vacated its precedent decision in S-V- setting out the incorrect standard. And it was that failure to fix what was obviously broken that led to the First Circuit’s recent lesson on the topic in H.H. In that case, an Immigration Judge denied CAT by applying the Board’s incorrect “willfully accepting” standard. And perhaps because the case arose in the First Circuit, which at the time had yet to directly refute the Board’s approach in a published decision, the BIA affirmed the Immigration Judge’s decision applying the erroneous standard.
Fortunately, the petitioner in that case was represented on appeal to the First Circuit by SangYeob Kim and Gilles Bissonnette of the ACLU of New Hampshire. Petitioner’s counsel did an excellent job of explaining the state of confusion on the topic, and of presenting the clear solution in line with Bauer’s approach. Counsel also enlisted the Round Table of Former Immigration Judges to weigh in on the topic with an amicus brief drafted for us by the law firm of Cooley LLP.8
The result was an excellent published decision deserving of our attention. First, the circuit panel found that the BIA “failed to meaningfully address H.H.’s alternative theory that MS-13 itself is a de facto state actor.” The court found that in simply labeling the argument “unpersuasive,” the Board provided an insufficient degree of analysis to facilitate appellate review. That argument remains one that practitioners should continue to raise in both the CAT and asylum contexts.9 And practitioners may now wish to cite to the language in H.H., which is the first published decision to demand a detailed explanation from adjudicators as to why they find such argument unconvincing.10
In addressing Matter of S-V-, the court joined the list of circuits rejecting the Board’s standard. Specifically, the court found the term “willful acceptance” to clash with Congress’s clear intent for awareness to be satisfied through both actual knowledge and willful blindness. As the court pointed out, willful acceptance “necessarily includes knowledge of the matter one is ‘accepting,’ and excludes the concept of willful blindness.”
Finding that the BIA applied an improper standard of review by treating the acquiescence issue as clearly factual, when the inquiry regarding “‘whether the government’s role renders the harm ‘by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official,”’ is legal in nature and is subject to de novo review,” the court remanded for the Board to consider under a de novo review standard “the question of acquiescence, understanding that a showing of willful blindness suffices to demonstrate an “awareness” of torture under the CAT.”
However, the court did not stop there. It continued on to the question of the breach of obligation, observing that the regulations set out a two-step inquiry, yet noting that “most of the courts that have adopted the willful blindness standard have not consistently distinguished between the ‘awareness’ and ‘breach of duty’ steps.”
On remand, the court left it to the Board to address the proper standard for the breach requirement in the first instance. But the court advised “that we join the Second Circuit in expressing skepticism that any record evidence of efforts taken by the foreign government to prevent torture, no matter how minimal, will necessarily be sufficient to preclude the agency from finding that a breach of the duty to intervene is likely to occur….Rather, on remand, the agency’s determination about breach of duty, to the extent such a determination is necessary, must be made after carefully weighing all facts in the record.”11
It is puzzling why it took 22 years for the Board to be given that direction by a circuit court. And from experience, it will take the Board some time to respond in the form of a precedent decision. As many lives will be on the line in the meantime as claims are heard by Immigration Judges (and in some instances by USCIS asylum officers, under new procedures for claims arising at the border), those deciding CAT cases are respectfully urged to reference the full decision in H.H. as well as Prof. Bauer’s article, which practitioners should also file, cite, and discuss in their briefs and arguments. Litigants and judges should work together towards getting this important standard right. Lives depend on our doing so.12
Copyright 2022 Jeffrey S. Chase. All rights reserved.
Notes:
8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a)(1).
8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a)(7).
22 I&N Dec. 1306 (BIA 2000) (en banc). I am happy to announce that all three members of the Round Table of Former Immigration Judges who participated in that decision disagreed with the majority’s interpretation of acquiescence in separate opinions. See Concurring Opinion of Board Member Gustavo D. Villageliu; Concurring and Dissenting Opinion of BIA Chair Paul W. Schmidt, and Dissenting Opinion of Board Member Lory D. Rosenberg.
J. Bauer, “Obscured by Willful Blindness: States’ Preventive Obligations and the Meaning of Acquiescence Under the Convention Against Torture,” 52 Col. Hum. Rts. L. Rev. 738 (2021).
Id. at 749, fn. 34 (quoting Diaz-Reynoso v. Barr, 968 F.3d 1070, 1089 (9th Cir. 2020) (citing two earlier decisions in agreement); and additionally citing Myrie v. Att’y Gen., 855 F.3d 509, 518 (3d Cir. 2017) (similar statement).
Id. at 750.
The Round Table expresses its appreciation to attorneys Adam Gershenson, Zachary Sisko, Marc Suskin, Valeria M. Pelet del Toro, and Samantha Kirby of Cooley LLP for expressing our arguments so articulately in their brief on our behalf. Our brief can be read here.
For persuasive presentations of the de facto state actor argument, see Deborah E. Anker, Law of Asylum in the United States (Thomsen Reuters) at § 4:9; and Anna Welch and SangYeob Kim. “Non-State Actors ‘Under Color of Law’: Closing a Gap in Protection Under the Convention Against Torture,” 35 Harvard Hum. Rts. J. 117 (2022).
The Second Circuit case cited to was De La Rosa v. Holder, 598 F.3d 103, 110-111 (2d Cir. 2010) (holding that the preventative measures of some government actors does not foreclose the possibility of government acquiescence).
My sincere thanks to Jon Bauer and SangYeob Kim, who provided valuable input in reviewing this article.
NOVEMBER 17, 2022
Republished by permission.
**************************
I’m proud to say that, as kindly noted by “Sir Jeffrey” in FN 3, Round Table ⚔️🛡 members, Judge Gustavo D. Villageliu, Judge Lory D. Rosenberg, and I, each filed separate opinions distancing ourselves from various aspects of our majority colleagues’ specious, and eventually proved to be wrong, views in Matter of S-V-, 22 I & N Dec. 1306 (BIA 2000) (en banc). My BIA colleagues Judge John Guendelsberger and Judge Anthony C. Moscato also joined my separate opinion, in addition to Judges Villageliu and Rosenberg.
As a hint to what’s wrong with this politically-biased “charade of a court,” operating within a prosecutorial agency, I note that all of us except Judge Moscato were ultimately “exiled” from the BIA by John Ashcroft. Our “offense” was doing our jobs by standing up in dissenting opinions for correct interpretations of law and the legal and constitutional rights of migrants in the context of a “go along to get along” BIA majority who too often chose job security over justice for the individuals coming before us.
That a number of our dissents, particularly Judge Rosenberg’s, were prescient as to what Federal Circuit Courts and the Supremes would hold, and also predicted some of their vociferous criticisms of EOIR’s poor performance under Ashcroft, are also telling of the lack of legitimacy and impartiality that Ashcroft ushered in. That has continued to plague EOIR over subsequent Administrations of both parties, including the present Administration.
In my conclusion, I highlight the majority’s unseemly haste to “get to no, with the interpretation least favorable to the respondent.”
The issue whether the respondent’s situation fits within Article 3 of the Convention Against Torture requires factual determinations about conditions in Colombia and the respondent’s own situation considered in the con- text of international legal principles. We have little United States jurisprudence to guide us in this area. Before deciding such important and potentially far-reaching issues, we should have a fully developed record and the benefit of the Immigration Judge’s informed ruling on the positions of the parties.
The respondent has established a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits so as to make it worthwhile to develop the issues at a hearing under Matter of L-O-G-, supra. His motion to reopen and remand should therefore be granted. Consequently, I respectfully dissent from the decision to deny the motion.
Over the years, the pro-government/anti-immigrant bias and “haste makes waste gimmicking” has progressively gotten worse at the BIA, culminating in the disgraceful “packing” of the BIA with notorious asylum deniers and “hard liners” during the Trump Administration.
Poll human rights experts on how many of the Trump holdover BIA judges would be considered “leading asylum experts?” How many have ever represented an asylum seeker in Immigration Court? So, why would this body have a “stranglehold” over American asylum law and be given deference by the Article IIIs to boot?
One would have expected Garland to address this obviously unacceptable situation on an urgent basis by reassigning most holdover BIA Appellate Judges and replacing them with real, expert judges from the deep private sector talent pool. EOIR needs qualified appellate jurists who will correct the many mistakes of the past, change the one-sided, overwhelmingly anti-immigrant and often misleading “precedential guidance,” enforce some consistency, eliminate disreputable “asylum free zones” pretending to be “courts,” and lead EOIR (and indeed the entire Federal Judiciary) into high-quality, best-scholarship, 21st century jurisprudence.
That means a body of scholarly, practical, transparent precedents that properly guide and advise Immigration Judges on the correct and efficient adjudication of many cases stuck in this dysfunctional system where individuals deserve to win. Instead, Garland has allowed EOIR to continue its downward spiral with sloppy work, bad decisions, and incompetent judicial administration in a system where all of these problems are potentially life threatening. Not surprisingly, this failure to fundamentally reform and improve EOIR has also led Garland to increase the backlog to a jaw-dropping almost two million cases.
Lack of judicial excellence, grotesque inconsistencies, worst practices, and administrative incompetence have also unfairly, unprofessionally, and unnecessarily increased the difficulty and already sky-high stress levels for immigration practitioners, many serving the system in a pro bono or low bono capacity. With lack of adequate immigration representation one of the festering problems undermining our entire American justice system, Garland’s poor stewardship over EOIR can (charitably) be described as totally unacceptable.
So, in answer to Jeffrey’s question as to why after 22 years legallywrong precedents still rule at EOIR and correct guidance remains elusive, I have the answer. Because, Merrick Garland has ignored the advice of experts and failed to make achievable, long-overdue reforms and critical upgrading of judicial quality at EOIR.
That’s a growing cancer on our justice system that won’t be cured without better, due-process-dedicated, leadership — at all levels!
“Judge” Roy Bean (1825-1903) American Saloon Keeper & “Jurist” Public Realm His reputation for “rough justice” in the West would be right at home in the “Asylum Free Zones” of Garland’s EOIR. Bean “was once trying a Mexican on a charge of horse stealing and his charge was the shortest on record: Gentlemen of the Jury, there’s a greaser in the box and a hoss missing. You know your duty, and they did.”
Here’s the latest analysis of Garland’s ongoing abuse of his office from Austin Kocher, PhD, at TRAC:
Has Alfred E. Neumann been “reborn” as Judge Merrick Garland? “Not my friends or relatives whose lives as being destroyed by my ‘Kangaroo Courts.’ Just ‘the others’ and their immigration lawyers, so who cares, why worry about professionalism, ethics, and due process in Immigration Court?” PHOTO: Wikipedia Commons
If someone NOT Merrick “What Me Worry” Garland (the “Alfred E. Neumann of Biden’s immigration bureaucracy”) took a look at the data, one major thing would jump out! There are likely more than 400,000 refugees entitled to asylum sitting in Garland’s 770,000 case asylum backlog (52% x 770,000). (The asylum backlog at EOIR is a “subset” of Garland’s largely self-inflicted, ever mushrooming, nearly 2 million case EOIR backlog — more judges have produced more backlog, so that’s likely NOT the answer here).
And, this is in a system currently governed by skewed anti-asylum BIA “precedents” and a chronic “anti-asylum culture” actively encouraged and fed by the Trump Administration. In a properly staffed and functioning court system with qualified, due-process oriented, judges and an expert BIA that enforced some decisional consistency and properly and generously interpreted asylum law, a “grant rate” of 75% or more would be a plausible expectation.
Given the obvious (and I would argue intentional) lack of reliable data on how a legitimate asylum system, one consisting at all levels of judges with well-recognized expertise in asylum law and human rights, and overseen by competent, due-process-oriented judicial administrators, might function, the 75% figure is just an “educated guesstimate.” But, it matches my own personal experience over 13 years on the bench in the (now defunct) Arlington Immigration Court.
It’s also in line with my recent conversations with the head of one of the largest NGOs in the DMV area involved in meeting busses and counseling those “orbited” from the Southern border by the racist/nativist GOP Govs that Biden, curiously, has chosen to run our domestic refugee resettlement program. This is a person who, unlike Garland, his lieutenants, and most of the other politicos and nativist blowhards participating in the “border travesty,” actually spent years of a career representing individuals in Immigration Court. They estimated that “at least 70%” of the “arriving bus riders” had very viable asylum claims.
This is a far cry from the nativist, restrictionist myths promoted by both the Trump and Biden Administrations — obviously to cover up their gross human rights violations in knowingly and illegally returning hundreds of thousands of legal refugees to danger zones! Many human rights experts would consider such gross misconduct to be “crimes against humanity.” Consequently, it doesn’t take much imagination to see why self-interested scofflaw officials like Garland, Mayorkas, and White House advisors seek to manipulate the system to keep the asylum grant rates artificially low while eschewing proper, realistically robust use of the overseas refugee program to take the pressure off the border — by acting legally rather than illegally!
Almost all the EOIR asylum backlog consists of “regular docket” (I use this term lightly with EOIR where “normalcy” is unknown) cases. Those are refugees who have had time to get lawyers, adequately prepare, document their cases, but are stuck in Garland’s chronically dysfunctional system. Consequently, they are “denied by delay” legal immigration status, a chance to get green cards, and to eventually qualify for citizenship. The American economy is denied an important source of legal workers who should be part of our permanent workforce and well on their way to full participation in our political system and society!
An expert looking at this system would see a “golden opportunity” to move most of the backlogged “easily grantable” asylum cases out of the system with stipulated grants or short hearings (the kind you actually might be able to do 3-4 a day without stepping on anyone’s due-processrights or driving the private bar nuts). These cases would also avoid the BIA’s appellate backlog, as well as eliminating unnecessary workload in the U.S. Circuit Courts (which already have their own inconsistency, rubber stamp, and bias issues in the human rights/racial justice area that seem to be getting worse, not better).
Knocking 400,000+ cases off the backlog wouldn’t completely solve Garland’s 2 million case backlog problem — only a complete “house cleaning” at EOIR, replacing many of the current bureaucrats with competent leaders and expert Immigration Judges well-versed in asylum law, will do that. But, cutting EOIR’s backlog by 20% (and the asylum backlog by over 50%) without stomping on anyone’s rights, while bolstering much-needed legal immigration, and harnessing the strengths of the private/pro bono bar, is nothing to “sneeze at!” That’s particularly true in comparison with Garland’s two years of mindless “designed to fail” gimmicks and astounding mismanagement, which have produced exactly the opposite results!
How bad has Garland’s leadership been at on human rights, due process, and racial justice at DOJ. A number of seasoned asylum practitioners have told me that today’s EOIR, also suffering from a tidal wave of Garland’s“Aimless Docket Reshuffling” — is actually significantly worse than it was under Trump! That’s right, Garland’s tone-deaf incompetence has exceeded the disorder and systemic unfairness caused by overt xenophobia, anti-asylum bias, misogyny, “dumbing down,” and enforcement-biased “weaponization” of the Sessions/Barr years.
As for Dr. Kocher’s cogent observation that input from the Immigration Judges who actually decide these cases is a “missing ingredient,” good luck with that, my friend! Perhaps understandably in light of his unseemly failures at EOIR, Garland has taken EOIR’s traditional opaqueness and “muzzling” of Immigration Judges to new heights — even barring their participation in CLE events aimed at improving the level of practice before his courts.
Apparently, “studied incompetence” in a Democratic Administration can be even worse than the “malicious incompetence” of the Trump Kakistocracy — at least where immigrants rights/human rights/racial justice/ women’s rights are concerned at EOIR. That’s an astounding observation! One that I actually never thought I’d hear from practitioners!
The only way for human rights and racial justice experts and advocates to “communicate” with Garland in his “ivory tower” is to ‘“sue his tail” in court! Judge Sullivan’s recent opinion finding Title 42 illegal incorporates the very facts and law used by human rights experts and advocates in years of fruitless pleading and begging Garland to “cease and desist” his support for unlawful conduct and “just follow the law.” The latter seems like a modest “no-brainer” request to a guy once nominated by an Dem President for the Supremes.
Waiting for Merrick Garland to fix the mess at EOIR to provide even a bare minimum of due process and rational administration is like waiting for the guy pictured below. Frustrated and “Garland-weary” as they might be, human rights advocates should take it to heart and act accordingly!
Waiting for Merrick Garland and his “clueless crew” at DOJ to fix the dysfunctional Immigration Courts will be an exercise in futility. He only pays attention when ordered by a Federal Judge, which, somewhat ironically, he used to be. But, he’s proven “beyond a reasonable doubt” that he is unqualified to run one of the most important and life-determining Federal Judiciaries — one where due process has been buried beneath an avalanche of expediency, incompetency, intellectual dishonesty, and dumb gimmicks. When will “enough be enough?” https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0
“Dulce Zaragoza, a native and citizen of Mexico and a lawful permanent resident of the United States, pleaded guilty to the Indiana offense of criminal neglect of a dependent after locking her six-year-old son in a closet for six hours. She was sentenced to one year in jail suspended to time served plus 30 days, with the remainder of the sentence to be served on probation. After completing her sentence, she traveled abroad and presented herself for admission when she returned. The Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) found her inadmissible based on the neglect conviction, which the agency classified as a “crime involving moral turpitude.” 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(I). She was placed in removal proceedings. Zaragoza fought removal on several grounds, with her arguments expanding as the proceedings progressed. Before the immigration judge, she argued that the Indiana neglect offense does not qualify as a crime involving moral turpitude. The judge disagreed and entered a removal order, and Zaragoza appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA” or “the Board”). In the meantime, she petitioned the state court to modify her sentence. Her purpose was to bring herself within the so-called “petty offense” exception to inadmissibility, which is available to first-time offenders sentenced to six months or less. Id. § 1182(a)(2)(A)(ii)(II). The state court obliged and reduced her one-year sentence to 179 days. With that order in hand, Zaragoza argued before the BIA that Indiana’s neglect offense is not a crime involving moral turpitude, and regardless, the petty-offense exception applies. The BIA rejected both arguments, agreeing with the immigration judge that the Indiana offense is categorically a crime involving moral turpitude, and further holding that the sentence-modification order was not effective to establish Zaragoza’s eligibility for the petty-offense exception. For the latter conclusion, the Board relied on a recent decision of the Attorney General declaring that state-court sentence modification orders are effective for immigration purposes only if based on a legal defect in the underlying criminal proceeding. Matter of Thomas & Thompson (“Thomas”), 27 I. & N. Dec. 674, 690 (Att’y Gen. 2019). Zaragoza sought reconsideration, this time adding two more arguments: (1) the phrase “crime involving moral turpitude” is unconstitutionally vague; and (2) the Attorney General’s decision in Thomas is impermissibly retroactive as applied to her. The BIA disagreed on both counts. Zaragoza petitioned for review in this court, reprising the entire array of arguments she presented to the Board. We agree with the BIA’s resolution of all issues but one: applying Thomas in Zaragoza’s case is an impermissibly retroactive application of a new rule. We therefore remand to the BIA for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
***********************
Commentary from Kevin A. Gregg, ESQ:
Kevin A. Gregg
• 1st
Partner at Kurzban Kurzban Tetzeli & Pratt P.A. & Host of Immigration Review Podcast
2d • Edited •
2 days ago
Crimmigration attorneys, get your motions ready.
At least in Chicago! Matter of Thomas and Thompson CANNOT be applied retroactively in the Seventh Circuit!
Sentence modifications/clarifications/European vacations obtained pre-T&T and that comply with Matter of Cota Vargas/Song/Estrada must be recognized for immigration purposes!
Also, when will A.G. Garland weigh in on Matter of Thomas and Thompson? The time is now.
*******************
When the BIA starts not with the correct legal concept that retroactivity is disfavored in the law, but rather with “how can we best help DHS Enforcement and/or curry favor and job security from our political ‘handlers’ at DOJ,” “bad things are going to happen.” And, they do, over and over!
There are plenty of well-qualified “practical scholars” out here who understand retroactivity in the immigration context and would get these basic questions right in the first instance without bothering the Courts of Appeals or generating disorder, inconsistency, and unnecessary backlog! Why hasn’t Garland recruited them to be the “New and Improved BIA” that would actually be driven by legal expertise, practical scholarship, due process, and fundamental fairness? The latter are qualities that EOIR and DOJ claims it seeks in Immigration Judges. But, it’s not the reality that practitioners too often actually face in todays dysfunctional, inefficient, and hopelessly backlogged EOIR.
The public and those subject to substandard judging and often dehumanizing treatment by EOIR are suffering — amazingly, now more than ever! When will Garland do his job and reform his courts to conform to due process, fundamental fairness, best interpretations of law, and best practices?
The latter desirable qualities, actually necessary for any legitimate judiciary, are certainly NOT descriptive of today’s broken EOIR! Garland and his lieutenants might consider themselves “above the fray!”
But, my already over-stuffed e-mailbox is “lighting up” with EOIR horror stories from experienced, long-time practitioners who are questioning whether they can continue practicing in the hostile, lawless, “no due process,” “no customer service,” “no common sense,” “blame the victim” environment that Garland has allowed to mushroom, and sometimes even encouraged, at EOIR.
I mentioned the term “Dedicated Docket” at an Executive Session of a major NGO recently. The anger and disgust that it provoked from those actually “doing the job” of fighting for justice in Garland’s broken system was palpable!
Why is a Democratic Administration that is, despite beating expectations in the midterms, still hanging on by a thread, inflicting this type of disrespect, pain, and suffering on its own loyal supporters? How will this self-created legal, Constitutional, human rights disaster play out moving toward 2024!
“The EOIR HQ Tower” needs a complete shake-up and replacement ofthose who have demonstrated their inability to get the job done with those who can! The latter are out here. But, the worse Garland lets his system get, the harder and most costly (dollars and lives) it will be to fix it!
Asylum seekers and lawyers must cross hostile territory, with a dearth of naturally-occurring due process, to successfully negotiate Garland’s dysfunctional EOIR. Most never make it! Death Valley Creative Commons
INSIDE THE NUMBERS FOR THE TRAC 10-09-22 IJ REPORT
NOTE: Does not account for: IJs no longer on the bench; IJs appearing in more than one location; differences among detained, non-detained dockets; profiles of high and non-high-denying courts excluded locations with fewer than four IJs listed. No guarantee of accuracy for my “hand count” — but, in accordance with the old government motto, “I did the best I could under the circumstances.”
Precipitous unexplained rise in nationwide denial rate since FY 2012, from 44.5% to 63.3%, even though human rights conditions in most so-called “sending countries” remained horrible and in some cases significantly deteriorated.See for FY2012 stats, https://trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/306/
Lots of “Nay-Sayers” on the Immigration Bench:
92 IJs denied asylum 90% or more of the time.
Another 94 IJs denied 85-90% of the time.
Total of 186 “High Deniers” — those who denied 85% or more — significantly (21.7% or more) above already inexplicably high 63.3% national rate.
High Denying Courts (majority of IJs listed denied 85%+)
Atlanta (including ATD-Detained) (10 of 10 IJs)
Charlotte (6 of 8 IJs)
Conroe (5 of 9 IJs)
Houston (19 of 22 IJs)
Houston-Greenspoint (4 of 5 IJs)
Jena (6 of 6 IJs)
LA – North (8 of 11 IJs)
Los Fresnos (5 of 6 IJs)
Lumpkin (5 of 7 IJs)
Memphis (6 of 11 IJs)
Miami (20 of 31 IJs)
Miamii – Krome (7 of 9 IJs)
Non-High-Denying Courts (all, or almost all, listed IJs denied less than 85%)
Adelanto (5 IJs)
Arlington (3 of 25 IJs High Deniers)
Bloomington (1 of 13 IJs High Denier)
Boston (1 of 15 IJs High Denier)
Baltimore (1 of 16 IJs High Denier)
Batavia (1 of 4 IJs High Denier)
Chicago (1 of 16 IJs High Denier)
Denver (2 of 8 IJs High Deniers)
Detroit (4 IJs)
Elizabeth (5 IJs)
Imperial (5 IJs)
New York (46 IJs, 0 High Deniers) **
New York Detained (17 IJs, 1 High Denier)
Newark (3 of 16 IJs High Deniers)
Otay Mesa (7 IJs)
Pearsall (5 IJs)
Philadelphia (8 IJs)
Portland OR (4 IJs)
San Francisco (2 of 27 High Deniers)
Seattle (8 IJs)
Tacoma (5 IJs)
Van Nuys (1 of 7 IJs High Denier)
Telling stats:99.1%, 97.4%, 94.3% 90.4% — Asylum denial rates for four BIA Appellate Immigration Judges listed in the chart who continue to serve on Garland’s BIA. No wonder asylum seekers are saddled with bad law and sloppy, one-sided appellate review within Garland’s dysfunctional EOIR.
Best courts for asylum seekers: Generallyin the Northeast and Northern California: Arlington, Boston, Baltimore, New York, Philadelphia, Newark, San Francisco, Chicago.
Worst places for asylum seekers: Atlanta, Miami, Charlotte, Houston, Louisiana.
Mind-blowing stat: Compare the performance of IJs in Arlington and Baltimore with those in Charlotte, all within the 4th Circuit.
Observations:
New York, followed by San Francisco, appear to be the largest and best functioning courts with respect to actually following the generous standards for asylum seekers set forth by the Supremes in Cardoza-Fonseca, enunciated (but seldom followed) by the BIA in Mogharrabi, and to a large extent incorporated into sporadically enforced regulations.
In NY, 46 IJs, 0 High Deniers, 24 listed IJs granted at least 50% or more of the cases, denial rates ranging from 7.1% to 83.5%, still a rather mind-boggling range.The 24 IJs in the 50% or more grant range would seem like a good place for Garland to look for a model for rebuilding EOIR as a fair, due-process-oriented, subject matter expert court. He doesn’t seem interested in doing that, but it could be done with better leadership.
Although generally one would expect Detention Courts to be in the “High Denier” category, that’s not always the case. Courts like NY-Detained, Elizabeth, Adelanto, Otay Mesa, and Pearsall, all had some significant asylum grant rates. Conversely, several predominantly non-detained courts like Atlanta, Charlotte, Miami, and Houston were unseemly “dead zones” for asylum seekers. Garland’s failure to address the gross inconsistencies and abuses of asylum law going on in those and other “High Denier Courts” is disgraceful.
Overall, this is a statistical picture of a failed and dysfunctional court system where critical life or death decisions depend more on where you are and who your judge or BIA “panel” is than on the quality of the evidence or the state of the law. It has failed to deliver on its promise of being a court of widely acknowledged subject matter experts who will guarantee due process, fundamental fairness, and best judicial practices for all on some of the most important and life-determining decisions in American jurisprudence. It’s bad; and not significantly improving under the Dems!
Hon. Scott E. Bratton U.S. Immigration Judge New York – Broadway Immigration Court PHOTO: lawyer.com
Judge Scott E. Bratton of the NY Broadway Immigration Court was a “regular” before me when I was assigned to the Cleveland docket. Always well-prepared, collegial, and an outstanding brief writer and oral advocate, he had no hesitation in going to the Article III Courts when necessary on behalf of his clients. He also has a sense of humor and perspective. This great appointment should have come long ago. But, better late than never!
Hon. Denise M. Hunter U.S. Immigration Judge Sacremento Immigration Court PHOTO: Linkedin
Judge Denise M. Hunter of the Sacramento Immigration Court collaborated with now GW Law Professor Cori Alonso Yoder and me on “hands-on CLE in immigration” for the DC Bar. Following my retirement, she, Cori, and I met for lunch to “strategize” ways to make due process, fundamental fairness, and best practices the “norm” in Immigration Court, rather than the exception it continues to be! She’s now in a position to lead and teach by example to make that happen in a system where justice too often continues to be a mere “afterthought,” if that!
Hon. Becca A. Niburg U.S. Immigration Judge Hyattsville Immigration Court PHOTO: Linkedin
Judge Becca A. Niburg of the Hyattsville Immigration Court is a “self described immigration nerd” — in other words, a distinguished practical scholar in immigration, human rights, and due process for all! In addition to private practice and serving with two of the premier human rights NGOs in the DMV area, Catholic Charities & Kids in Need of Defense (“KIND”), Becca has a rich background as an immigration adjudicator at the appellate level of USCIS and as a litigator in the Office of Immigration Litigation at DOJ. She combines “insider knowledge” of the failing Government immigration bureaucracy with the skills, courage, determination, and “outside perspective” to make bureaucracy work for the common good, often in spite of itself. Can’t think of an organization more in need of that perspective these days than Garland’s dysfunctional EOIR!
Here’s a complete list of appointments with bios from EOIR:
12 Judges from predominantly private sector backgrounds;
20 Judges from predominantly government sector backgrounds (primarily DHS & DOJ, but also state and local governments and other Federal agencies);
26 Judges with known immigration experience;
6 Judges with no obvious immigration experience on their resumes — all 6 from government sector backgrounds.
This is a marked improvement over the Obama and Trump Administrations where EOIR judicial appointments ran approximately 9:1 in favor of those from government! It’s also a needed improvement over the Trump Administration’s oft-criticized tendency to place too many individuals without significant immigration experience on the EOIR bench in the apparent belief that they would be more willing to “follow orders, shut up, deny, and deport.” The precipitous drop in asylum approvals during the Trump years, despite worsening conditions for refugees worldwide, proved that there was some basis for this anti-asylum assumption.
Nevertheless, Garland’s selections tend to remain significantly “over-weighted” toward those from government.I always believed that the excuse of DOJ officialsfor the over-appointments from government given during the Obama Administration — that the applicant pool from government was so much better — was pure unadulterated BS!
Since retiring and having an opportunity to work more closely with super talented private practitioners on Round Table briefs, CLE, articles, litigation strategy, proposals for legislative reform, and clinical and classroom teaching, I can say without a doubt that the talent level out here in the private/NGO/academic section is “through the roof” — astounding — particularly compared with the intellectual and legal output of EOIR! If more of these “leading lights” — of American law (NOT “just Immigration law”) aren’t on the “short list” for the Immigration Court and replacing most of the current BIA, that’s a problem with Garland’s recruiting process, NOT with the non-government “talent pool.”
Did the Federalist Society and the Heritage Foundation just “wait to see who might apply” for Federal Judge positions — starting with the Supremes! Hell no! They “groomed” their “preferred judicial selections” for years, decades even, far in advance of any known vacancies.
If you remember, Brett Kavanaugh believed that a seat on the Supremes was his “birthright” — since about age 10 or something like that. He bemoaned the fact that nasty Dems questioning his qualifications might deprive him of his “preordained destiny.” One can never accuse right-wing zealots of not having a well-developed “sense of entitlement.” They act on it, and apologize to nobody! Compare that with Dems!
By contrast, Dems are absolutely clueless about both the importance and potential of the Immigration Courts — including the BIA, a nationwide appellate court, essentially the “12th or 13th Circuit” depending on how you count.With absolute control of these important “retail level” courts for 10 of the past 14 years, the Dems have done an extraordinarily poor job of filling judgeships with the best-qualified, progressive, most due-process-committed candidates — scholarly, practical judges who would take equal justice and racial justice in America seriously! Additionally, such individuals would be “primed, experienced, and ready” for Article III appointments when the opportunities arose!
By contrast, in the four years they controlled EOIR, Sessions, Barr, and their “acting fill-in flunkies” did an extraordinary job of weaponizing and reshaping the Immigration Courts — starting with the BIA — in “Stephen Miller’s image.” In the process, they created total dysfunction and chaos at EOIR, heaped abuse and injustice on vulnerable asylum seekers ( predominantly individuals of color, many women and children), twisted immigration law into a “Milleresque” anti-immigrant mess, demoralized and punished lawyers, busted the judges’ union, forced some of the best most qualified judges off the bench, and undermined our entire justice system. They even got EOIR to “cook” their statistics to support the nativist myth that “nobody qualifies for asylum” — ergo, all asylum seeks and their lawyers are fraudsters!
I’m on the record, many times over, as being no fan of Stephen Miller! But, his aggressive, energetic, focused, “take no prisoners,” “ignore the opposition” approach to de-constructing our immigration and justice systems certainly was more effective than anything else I have witnessed over my decades in and out of Government! He understood that time could be short, and he had to do as much damage as possible in that allotted to him. He literally was totally engaged in killing asylum and asylum seekers until the exact minute he left the White House! Dems, on the other hand, disturbingly, exhibit no leadership, urgency, sense of purpose, dynamic energy, confidence in the rightness of their cause, or plan when it comes to immigration.
“You can’t do that” was a challenge to Miller — not a deterrent! He not only did it, but got away with it!
He didn’t “study” things or fool around attempting to build support outside his “base.” If nothing else, Miller “gave lie” to the off-repeated “bureaucratic mantra” that “change takes time.”
He undid decades of hard work by those engaged in making the “Refugee Act of 1980” functional in a matter of weeks or months! And, the inept immigration bureaucracy and non-existent immigration leadership under the Biden Administration has been stymied, or simply “contented no-shows,” on undoing much of Miller’s damage!
Faced with this exceptionally well-documented disaster, and it’s undeniable corrosive impact on our democracy, Garland has been largely MIA, or AWOL might be a better term. “Action” isn’t a word readily associated with Merrick Garland.
Garland’s glacial, largely disengaged, timid, ineffective approach to EOIR reform and reconstruction is perhaps typical of Democrat Administrations and their overall approach to immigration, human rights, and racial justice in the 21st Century. But, that doesn’t make it the RIGHT approach, for the party, the Federal Judiciary, our nation’s future, and, most important, for the individuals seeking justice in Garland’s EOIR wasteland and their long-suffering attorneys.
As someone who has not represented asylum seekers in his “Houses of Horror” and who disdains engaging with those who have, Merrick Garland has shown that he is unqualified to be Attorney General of the US. His “Clown Courts” are now “Houses of Horror” that are no joke, particularly for those who have to deal with his beyond dysfuntional mess on a daily basis! Reaper Image: Hernan Fednan, Creative Commons License
I received this from a practitioner in response my earlier post about Garland’s ongoing scheduling and due process fiasco @ EOIR:
Glad you wrote this. It has been so hard. I am working 7 days a week and feel like I am losing my mind. Hopefully they start making changes, because how this is currently going is just not sustainable. Many of the Judges are not granting the continuances or making you go to the IH and giving you a hard time about it. Multiple Judges told me a month or even less notice was “plenty of time.” O boy!
Garland’s approach to immigrant justice in his courts harkens back to “the bad old days.” Yet he remains impervious — and unaccountable! The Wasp 1882-01-06 cover Slow but sure.jpg Slow, but Sure. Cartoon depicts Lady Justice riding a tortoise, about to hang a man. George Frederick Keller Public domain
Dean Kevin Johnson @ ImmigrationProf Blog previews upcoming book by Professor Maya Pagni Barack:
The publisher’s description of the book reads as follows:
“Each year, hundreds of thousands of migrants are moved through immigration court. With a national backlog surpassing one million cases, court hearings take years and most migrants will eventually be ordered deported. The Slow Violence of Immigration Court sheds light on the experiences of migrants from the “Northern Triangle” (Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador) as they navigate legal processes, deportation proceedings, immigration court, and the immigration system writ large.
Grounded in the illuminating stories of people facing deportation, the family members who support them, and the attorneys who defend them, The Slow Violence of Immigration Court invites readers to question matters of fairness and justice and the fear of living with the threat of deportation. Although the spectacle of violence created by family separation and deportation is perceived as extreme and unprecedented, these long legal proceedings are masked in the mundane and are often overlooked, ignored, and excused. In an urgent call to action, Maya Pagni Barak deftly demonstrates that deportation and family separation are not abhorrent anomalies, but are a routine, slow form of violence at the heart of the U.S. immigration system.”
KJ
**************************
The ongoing national disgrace called “EOIR” continues to mete out injustice and inane bureaucratic nonsense under a DEMOCRATIC Administration that pledged to return the rule of law and humanity to our broken Immigration Court system!
That system is “headed and controlled” by a DEMOCRATIC AG, Merrick Garland. He is a former Federal Appellate Judge who certainly knows that what passes for “justice” in his broken “court” system is nothing of the sort! Also this ongoing debacle doesn’t say much good about Garland’s “lieutenants:” Deputy AG Lisa Monaco, Associate AG Vanita Gupta, Assistant AG for Civil Rights Kristen Clarke, and Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar.
They have all “looked the other way,” defended, or failed to condemn this travesty undermining our entire justice system, unfolding under their collective noses at EOIR every day! At some point in the future, all these guys will be “making the rounds” of major law firms, NGOs, universities, mainstream media, and corporations — seeking to “cash in” on their DOJ “experience.” Then, folks should remember how they ACTUALLY PERFORMED (or didn’t) when they had a chance to fix “America’s worst courts” — hotbeds of racial and ethnic injustice, purveyors of bad law, and a haven for ridiculously dysfunctional procedures!
Perhaps a suitable future for these willfully blind “public servants” would be to require them to spend the balance of their careers practicing on a pro bono basis before the “star chambers” they inflicted on others! See how they like being “scheduled,” with no or inadequate notice, to do 15 or 20 asylum cases per month; appearing before too many ill-qualified “judges” who have already decided to deny regardless of the law and facts; appealing to a captive “appellate court” dominated by individuals, working for the Executive, whose main “judicial qualification” was that they denied close to 100% of the asylum claims that came before them in Immigration Court and were known for their rude and dismissive treatment of asylum applicants and their lawyers! See, e.g., “Confronting The American Star Chamber . . .,” https://wp.me/p8eeJm-4Vm.,
Here’s Professor Barak’s bio from the U of Michigan-Dearborn website:
Maya Barak, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Criminal Justice Studies
Maya P. Barak, PhD Assistant Professor of Criminal Justice Studies U. of Michigan -Dearborn PHOTO: UM-D Websitew
Teaching Areas: Arab American Studies, Criminology & Criminal Justice Studies, Master of Science in Criminology and Criminal Justice, Women’s & Gender Studies
Research Areas: Capital Punishment, Criminal Justice, Criminology, Gangs, Immigrants / Crimmigration, Legal Sociology, Procedural Justice, State-Corporate Crime
Biography and Education
I am an Assistant Professor of Criminology and Criminal Justice at the University of Michigan-Dearborn. I hold a PhD in Justice, Law and Criminology from American University (2016), an MA in Criminology and Criminal Justice from Eastern Michigan University (2011), and a BA in Social Anthropology and Peace and Social Justice from the University of Michigan (2009). My research brings together the areas of law, deviance, immigration, and power, utilizing interdisciplinary approaches that span the fields of criminology, law and society, and anthropology.
Gould, Jon B. and Maya Barak. 2019. Capital Defense: Inside the Lives of America’s Death Penalty Lawyers. New York: NYU Press.
Selected Articles
Barak, Maya. 2021. “Can You Hear Me Now? Attorney Perceptions of Interpretation, Technology, and Power in Immigration Court.” Journal on Migration and Human Security (https://doi.org/10.1177/23315024211034740).
Barak, Maya. 2021. “A Hollow Hope? The Empty Promise of Rights in the U.S. Immigration System”/ “¿Una promesa vacía? La ilusión de “los derechos” en el sistema migratorio de los Estados Unidos.” Las Cadenas Que Amamos: Una panorámica sobre el retroceso de Occidente a todos los niveles.
Barak, Maya. 2021. “Family Separation as State-Corporate Crime.” Journal of White Collar and Corporate Crime Vol. 2(2), 2021, pp. 109-121 (https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2631309X20982299). (2021 Outstanding Article or Book Chapter Award, Division of White-Collar and Corporate Crime, American Society of Criminology)
Barak, Maya. 2017. “Motherhood and Immigration Policy: How Immigration Law Shapes Central Americans’ Experience of Family.” In Forced Out and Fenced In: Immigration Tales from the Field, edited by Tanya Golash-Boza. New York: Oxford University Press.
Advocates and all Americans committed to racial justice and equal justice under law need to keep raising hell — and supporting progressive candidates — until this horrible system is replaced by a real court system, with subject matter expert judges, totally focused on delivering due process, fundamental fairness, and best judicial practices to all!
What’s happening to individuals (fellow humans, “persons” under our Constitution) and their lawyers at EOIR is NOT OK, nor is it acceptable from a DEMOCRATIC ADMINISTRATION!
Yeah, “there’s trouble, right here in River City!” And, it begins with “E,” ends with “R,” and rhymes with “EYORE!”
“Eyore In Distress” Once A Symbol of Fairness, Due Process, & Best Practices, Now Gone “Belly Up”
In 1984, the Supreme Court in Strickland v. Washington announced the standard for determining when the Constitution’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel requires the overturning of a criminal conviction due to ineffective assistance of counsel.1 Strickland involved a death penalty case; on its winding path to the Supreme Court, a circuit court panel found in the defendant’s favor. That ruling was later overturned; the defendant was executed two months after the Supreme Court’s decision established a standard that the defendant could not satisfy.
A commentator writing years later could find no record of a malpractice claim or disciplinary complaint of any type having been filed against the attorney impugned in that case.2 The commentator cited this example in making the point that attorneys who are found to be Constitutionally deficient in criminal defense cases very rarely face disciplinary complaints.3 And the standard for establishing ineffective assistance laid out in Strickland does not require the filing of any such complaint.4
By contrast, the requirements for claiming ineffective assistance of counsel in immigration proceedings were set forth by the Board of Immigration Appeals in its 1988 decision Matter of Lozada.5 As immigration proceedings are civil in nature, the Sixth Amendment right to counsel was found not to apply; the Board determined that a right to counsel in the removal context “is grounded in the fifth amendment guarantee of due process.”6The BIA thus created its own standard in Lozada that requires (1) filing an affidavit attesting to the relevant facts; (2) informing prior counsel of the allegations, and providing any response received; and (3) if claiming “a violation of ethical or legal responsibilities” by prior counsel, indicating “whether a complaint has been filed with appropriate disciplinary authorities regarding such representation, and if not, why not.”7
A practice advisory of the American Immigration Council points out that requirement number three “on its face…does not require filing a bar complaint in all circumstances.”8 The AIC advisory cites circuit decisions excusing the filing of disciplinary complaints, including Fadiga v. Att’y Gen., 488 F.3d 142, 156-57 (3d Cir. 2007) (allowing no bar complaint “where counsel acknowledged the ineffectiveness and made every effort to remedy the situation”), and Correa-Rivera v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1128, 1131-32 (9th Cir. 2013) (holding that Lozada only requires an explanation of whether a bar complaint was submitted, not proof that the complaint was filed).9
Nevertheless, a 1996 BIA precedent, Matter of Rivera,10 underscores the risk of not filing a bar complaint. In that case, the requirements of Lozada were satisfied. As to the third requirement, new counsel indicated that a disciplinary complaint was not filed against prior counsel because “if any error was made in this case it was a postal error or an error of inadvertence by [former counsel].”11 Although this explanation accorded with Lozada, as it was explained both whether a bar complaint was filed and why, the Board rejected the explanation as insufficient.
The majority opinion in Rivera went on to provide a list of reasons why it considered “[t]he requirement of a bar complaint” important in ineffective assistance claims. A dissenting opinion written by then-BIA chair Paul Schmidt addressed the issue far more sensibly:
I do not need a Lozada motion or a state bar complaint to find that ineffective assistance has occurred here. The respondent’s affidavit and that of former counsel are sufficient to establish that former counsel’s duties to the respondent were not properly discharged. There is no hint of collusion between former counsel and the respondent. Under these circumstances, I see no basis for making the filing of a state bar complaint the determinative factor…12
Thus, in Rivera (and in a subsequent precedent, Matter of Assaad,13 the Board reframed the need to file a disciplinary complaint as a categorical requirement under Lozada. But in its circumstance-specific approach, Judge Schmidt’s dissent raised the question of whether this requirement is really necessary.
Nearly six years after Rivera, the answer to that question came from an unlikely source. Matter of Lozada was briefly vacated in the final days of the Bush Administration by then Attorney General Michael Mukasey.14His decision reframed ineffective assistance claims from a due process right into a discretionary agency action, and in doing so, created a new, tougher standard for establishing ineffective assistance that far fewer respondents would be able to satisfy. But interestingly, the A.G.’s decision felt the need to rethink the Board’s disciplinary complaint requirement:
By making the actual filing of a bar complaint a prerequisite for obtaining (or even seeking) relief, it appears that Lozada may inadvertently have contributed to the filing of many unfounded or even frivolous complaints. See, e.g., Comment filed by the Committee on Immigration & Nationality Law, Association of the Bar of the City of New York (Sept. 29, 2008), in response to the Proposed Rule for Professional Conduct for Practitioners—Rules and Procedures, and Representation and Appearances, 73 Fed. Reg. 44,178 (July 30, 2008) (“Under the Lozada Rule, an ineffective assistance of counsel charge is often required in order to reopen a case or reverse or remand an unfavorable decision. The practice of filing such claims is rampant, and places well-intentioned and competent attorneys at risk of discipline.”). Such unfounded complaints impose costs on well-intentioned and competent attorneys, and make it harder for State bars to identify meritorious complaints in order to impose sanctions on lawyers whose performance is truly deficient. The new approach is intended to avoid these problems by requiring only that the [noncitizen] submit to the Board a completed and signed but unfiled complaint…15
In light of these concerns, the new Compean standard still required the preparation of a disciplinary complaint against prior counsel, but (perhaps in a bizarre nod to Moses E. Herzog) added that the respondent “need not actually file the complaint with the appropriate State bar or disciplinary authorities, as Lozada had required.”16
Less than five months after its issuance, Compean was vacated by Mukasey’s successor, Attorney General Eric Holder, thus restoring the Lozada standard, along with its mandatory bar requirement.17 Holder’s decision further directed EOIR to draft proposed regulations on the topic for public comment “as soon as practicable.”18
When the agency finally published those proposed regulations more than seven years later, they retained Rivera’s mandatory complaint requirement.19 In its comments to the proposed rule, the American Immigration Lawyers Association opined that the mandatory complaint requirement should be eliminated, stating that “rather than centering on attorney discipline, the rules governing ineffective assistance of counsel should focus on assisting and protecting the noncitizen victim…” The comment continued that “EOIR already has ample existing procedures to police the immigration bar without requiring the filing of a formal complaint.”20As no final rule was ever published, we don’t know EOIR’s reaction to the comment.
Another six years later, the question first raised in the Rivera dissent, and to which a Bush Administration Attorney General and leading bar groups seem in agreement on the answer, remains unresolved.Recently, immigration law experts have revived the issue.21As those experts again point out, the purpose of reopening a proceeding in which attorney error occurred is to remedy a harm that was beyond the respondent’s ability to control. The focus on correcting the harm (as opposed to punishing the lawyer) is why in the criminal context bar complaints rarely if ever accompany ineffective assistance claims. The lack of sucha requirement allows attorneys to admit to their occasional errors without fear of retribution.
In its unique approach to the contrary, the BIA discourages attorneys from being forthcoming about their errors, and further forces counsel to turn on their own colleagues for acts that would not warrant the extreme action of a bar complaint in any other context. It seems remarkable that even an Attorney General decision issued during the Bush Administration acknowledged that most bar complaints filed pursuant to Lozada are “unfounded” and “impose costs on well-intentioned and competent attorneys,” while also hampering state bars from identifying and disciplining genuine incidents of malpractice.
According to one proponent of amending the standard, attorney Rekha Sharma Crawford, the current Lozada requirement pits members of the private bar against one another in a very destructive way, and adds unnecessary stress on the immigration removal defense counsel who are often at the forefront of these claims-many which are meaningless and done only to comply with Lozada.22
Hopefully, this will be the year that the agency finally gets around to resolving this issue by removing the mandatory complaint requirement of Lozada, and thus bringing the standard in immigration proceedings into alignment with those required in other civil and criminal courts and tribunals.
Copyright 2022 Jeffrey S. Chase.All rights reserved.
Notes:
466 U.S. 668 (1984).
Joseph H. Ricks, Raising the Bar: Establishing an Effective Remedy against Ineffective Counsel, 2015 BYU L. Rev. 1115, 1120 (2016).
Id.
The Strickland standard requires a finding that (1) counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness; and (2) there was a reasonable probability that the result would have been different if not for counsel’s inadequate performance.
12.Id. at 608. It bears noting that Judge Schmidt, and two of the three Board Members who joined in his dissent (Lory Rosenberg and Gustavo Villageliu) are presently members of the Round Table of Former Immigration Judges.
20.Comment filed by the American Immigration Lawyers Association (Sept. 26, 2016), in response to the Proposed Rule for Motions Reopen Removal, Deportation, or Exclusion Proceedings Based Upon a Claim of Ineffective Assistance of Counsel, 81 Fed. Reg. 145 (July 28, 2016).
21.See, e.g., an October 3 AILA Roundtable, “Changing the Bench: A New Narrative on Lozada and Bar Complaints.”
22.Private email to the author.
*****************************
Republished by permission.
As “Sir Jeffrey points out,” in Matter of Compean, Bangaly, & J-E-C-, 25 I&N Dec. 1 (A.G. June 3, 2009), AG Eric Holder directed EOIR to promulgate new regulations providing guidance on ineffective assistance of counsel. More than seven years later, in 2016 — essentially the entire Obama Administration — DOJ/EOIR issued flawed “proposed” regulations. Not surprisingly, no final regulations were ever issued. A dozen yers after the AG directed EOIR to take action — a big “nothingburger.”
This by no means is the only example of EOIR/DOJ’s unsuitability to the task facing it. It’s reminiscent of the tortured history of the “gender based asylum” regulations ordered by former AG, the late Janet Reno, but issued only as a badly flawed proposal and never finalized.
Additionally, incoming President Joe Biden made issuing “gender based regulations” one of his Administration’s highest priorities, ordering action by October 2021. A year later — nothing!
Meanwhile, EOIR Judges’ applications and interpretations of the governing precedent on gender-based asylum — Matter of A-R-G-G- — are wildly inconsistent. Beyond that, the 5th Circuit has taken the right-wing misogynistic “liberty” of simply ignoring the law on gender-based asylum.
“Lozada reform” is long overdue. But, so is meaningful EOIR reform!
Ultimately, America needs and deserves an independent U.S. Immigration Court with exceptionally well-qualified judges, at all levels, who are recognized experts in asylum law and unswervingly committed to due process and best judicial practices.
Until then, those appearing in Immigration Court — disproportionately individuals of color and women — and their hard-working attorneys — will continue to receive grossly substandard “justice” from “Justice!”
Garland’s “vision of justice” for asylum seekers and other migrants at EOIR leaves something to be desired:
Folks with wrong-headed “take no prisoners” views on asylum law were “rewarded” with “ judgeships” at both the trial and appellate levels of EOIR under the Trump Administration. Many continue to serve and discriminate against legitimate asylum seekers under Garland. Just check out the number of “sitting IJ’s” with outrageously high “asylum denial rates” near or in excess of 90%, according to TRAC Immigration. Why haven’t these important, non-life-tenured positions been “merit re-competed” to place the “best, brightest, and most qualified” on the Immigration Bench? Albrecht Dürer, Public domain, via Wikimedia CommonsJaundiced attitudes about women (particularly those of color) and gender-based asylum claims among EOIR judges have neither been “rooted out” nor effectively addressed by Garland. As we can see, de-humanization of women and stripping them of dignity under asylum laws carries over into other legal arenas! Targeted, endemic. societal persecution of women is often intentionally minimized and mis-characterized as “random violence,” “personal disputes,” “mere jealousy,” or “not that serious” in Immigration Court! “Fictionalized accounts” of the ability of abused women to seek protection from authorities in countries where femicide and rape are rampant are sometimes employed to deny legitimate asylum claims in Garland’s broken courts. Amazing StoriesArtist Unknown, Public domain, via Wikimedia CommonsWrong , “unduly restrictive,” asylum precedents and discredited methods (“Aimless Docket Reshuffling” — on steroids under Garland — is a key example) continue to harm asylum seekers in Garland’s dysfunctional “courts.” — Public Realm
on WANTED: Examples of racism and other bias in US immigration court
. . . .
The nation’s Immigration Courts have—thus far—flown under the public’s radar screen. Yet these are the places where life-or-death decisions are made, often for subjective and even racist reasons. That is why the Ohio Immigrant Alliance is collecting examples of racist, misogynistic, Islamophobic, and other biased statements and decisions made by Immigration Judges from across the country. We are working with a research team to analyze the cases and produce a report in early 2023. Here are a few examples.
Contact Lauren Hamlett (hamlett.15 AT buckeyemail.osu.edu) for more information or to share examples. This can be in the form of court documents and judges’ decisions or an interview with an immigrant or attorney. We will adhere to all privacy requirements requested by the immigrant and not publish anything without their consent.
The report, to be published in 2023, will shine a light on how racism shows up in Immigration Court using real-life examples. These findings will enrage anyone who believes the U.S. should work toward becoming a nation that guarantees “justice for all.”
See this testimony for more information, and contact Lauren to share your experiences.
*******************
I was struck by the undeniable truth — scandalously ignored by Garland, his lieutenants, and Biden Administration policy officials — contained in the January 20, 2022 statement by Lynn Tramonte, Ohio Immigrant Alliance, to the House Judiciary Committee considering the need for an independent, professionally-administered, merit-based Immigration Court.
The U.S. Is Deporting People Who Qualify for Asylum
The current U.S. immigration system is not designed to function fairly, but to fail. There are many examples of this, but today I will focus on examples from the U.S. Immigration Court.
Lynn’s full statement is available at the “this testimony” link above. I’ve made this point over and over!
Because the current system is purposely biased against asylum seekers, particularly those of color arriving at our Southern border, the “statistics” purportedly showing that few will qualify for asylum are totally bogus! Then, they are inexcusably cited by so-called “mainstream media” who haven’t done their homework! This perpetuates the “nativist myth” of the “illegitimate asylum seeker” which is then used to dehumanize refugees and deny them their legal and human rights!
Fact is, because we don’t have a legitimate, expert asylum adjudication system, we don’t really know how many qualified refugees are being illegally turned away or denied. But, it’s a safe bet that a fair, expert, professionally administered asylum system would grant legal protection to many more — probably a majority — of those who pass credible fear!
The problem is NOT, as Sessions and other nativists claimed, that too many individuals pass “credible fear.” It’s that a biased, anti-asylum, mal-administered, and constitutionally flawed system wrongfully denies far, far, far too many legitimate claims! And, Garland’s incredibly dysfunctional EOIR is at the heart of this problem!
Fixing EOIR is an essential first step in “re-legitimizing” our entire floundering justice system. But, Garland isn’t up to the job!
Asylum is an important form of legal immigration and an opportunity for America to put its best foot forward by properly, fairly, and timely screening and admitting those who can qualify for refuge and will be key contributors to our nation’s future. The babble of GOP nativists like DeSantis, Cruz, Abbott, and others about “illegals” is total BS!
It’s an ongoing national disgrace that Garland has failed to reform his Immigration Courts, eliminate bias and invidious discrimination from his judiciary, install quality, expertise, and professionalism, and insist that the Biden Administration abandon “Miller Lite,” nativist policies and mis-interpretations of the law that are diminishing our nation and endangering our future; that he also has ridiculously chosen to “go to war” with experts, NGOs, attorneys, and others seeking to change and improve his disgraceful mess at EOIR!
What’s the purpose and function of an Attorney General who operates broken and biased “courts,” defends the indefensible, and refuses to stand up for the fair application of the law to some of the most vulnerable among us?
In the meantime, submit your “real life” examples of what really happens to vulnerable humans in “America’s worst courts” to Ohio Immigrant Alliance at the above link.
Garland’s bureaucratic minions keep close watch over their “captive” Immigration Judges. “Galley Slaves” Public Realm
As one of my esteemed colleagues says, “You can’t make this stuff up!”
I got this message from one of my Round Table colleagues involved in planning in a well-respected CLE event where local Immigration Judges had been invited to participate. “Things [for local IJ’s participation in CLE conference] were going pretty smoothly until EOIR Ethics came back with a NO.NO, the Judges cannot participate, and NO we’re not going to tell you why.”
One Round Table member noted: “As [Hon. “Sir”] Jeff [Chase] has said, our main legacy will be to educate the next generation of immigration lawyers.”
“EOIR in Exile” (“a/k/a “The Round Table”) appears to be “the only game in town” when it comes to educating practitioners about what really happens in Immigration Court.
Under Garland, EOIR inflicts unprofessional and humiliating treatment not only on the parties and lawyers appearing it, but also on its own judges!
Way back in the “good ol’ days @ EOIR,” Immigration Judges were actually allowed, even occasionally encouraged, to participate in CLE and other educational events. Of course, advance permission, at several levels, extensive disclaimers, and an occasional dose of censorship (had to stick to the “party line” – no criticism of EOIR) were part of the equation. That was enough to discourage a number of my judicial colleagues from engaging in public speaking. But, I was one of those who accepted as many invitations as possible.
I remember being on a panel with a U.S. District Judge. I delivered my “standard elaborate disclaimer” — basically providing “plausible deniability” for my remarks for everyone in the universe. Then, the USDJ got up and said something like this: “I asked nobody’s permission to be here today, although I did notify the Chief Judge of my whereabouts as a matter of professional courtesy.” That summed up the difference between “independent” and “captive” judges, and why an independent Article I Immigration Court is long, long overdue. But, in the meantime, there is no excuse for the ongoing and worsening disorder and dysfunction in Garland’s “courts!“
Elizabeth Gibson Managing Attorney National Immigrant Justice Center Publisher of “The Gibson Report”
Weekly Briefing
This briefing is designed as a quick-reference aggregation of developments in immigration law, practice, and policy that you can scan for anything you missed over the last week. The contents of the news, links, and events do not necessarily reflect the position of the National Immigrant Justice Center. If you have items that you would like considered for inclusion, please email them to egibson@heartlandalliance.org.
Bloomberg: Nearly half of US-asylum seekers returned to Mexico under the “remain-in-Mexico” program to await a US immigration court hearing said they’d been abused by local officials, according to a Human Rights First report released Thursday. See also Biden urges Mexico to take migrants under COVID expulsion order he promised to end.
TRAC: Immigration Court case completions have been rapidly increasing. During the first eleven months of FY 2022. Immigration Judges have closed over 375,000 cases — a historical record. If the pace continues, closures should top more than 400,000 by the end of the fiscal year. This is nearly three times as many case closures as last year. It is also roughly 50 percent higher than the previous high in FY 2019 during the Trump administration.
NYT: Mr. McGuire cited the city’s failure on Monday to offer beds to 60 migrants who arrived at the men’s intake facility on East 30th Street in Manhattan, where homeless men are assessed when they first enter the shelter system — the first major such lapse in over a decade.
Vice: Since the beginning of September, over 1,100 migrants have been arriving every day in El Paso, more than 90 percent of them from Venezuela, according to the city’s CBP authorities. The influx has completely overwhelmed the city’s immigration shelters, and since most have no U.S. sponsor—support to get a visa to stay lawfully in the U.S.—immigration authorities have to release nearly 500 migrants a day into the streets of El Paso. And about 1,000 stay there to sleep every night.
America: A majority of Americans—52 percent—now believe the nation is experiencing an “invasion” on the southern border, and 49 percent say that migrants are responsible for an uptick in U.S. drug overdoses because they are transporting fentanyl and other drugs.
BuzzFeed: The Tech Transparency Project found that human smugglers advertise their services on Facebook Marketplace and in local buy-sell groups, with third-party ads for bona fide businesses embedded within the posts that allow Facebook to make money every time a potential immigrant looks for smuggling services on the platform. Some of the listings even featured an ad for a scholarship run by Meta.
AILA: EOIR final rule on limited representation of pro se individuals, which permits practitioners to provide document assistance to pro se individuals by entering a limited appearance through new Forms EOIR-60 or EOIR-61. The rule is effective 11/14/22.
LexisNexis: In denying his petition for CAT relief, the agency acknowledged that Santiaguez is an indigenous gay man and LGBT activist and that there is widespread violence against members of the LGBT community throughout Mexico. Nonetheless, the agency concluded that Santiaguez failed to satisfy his burden for CAT relief because he did not establish a likelihood that Mexican authorities would either torture him directly or acquiesce to his torture by private actors. In reaching this conclusion, the agency erred in several respects.
Law360: The Second Circuit on Thursday revived a Mexico native’s bid to cancel his deportation on grounds that his children would experience extreme hardship without him, saying he should have been allowed live witness testimony to support his case.
Law360: The Third Circuit on Thursday in a precedential opinion resurrected a Dominican man’s request for asylum, finding that the lower courts interfered with his right to an attorney by denying a request to reschedule a hearing so that the lawyer he retained just 24 hours before would be better prepared.
LexisNexis: One of those circumstances requiring review by a three member panel is when the IJ’s decision “is not in conformity with the law or with applicable precedents.” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(e)(6)(iii). Petitioner’s appeal of the IJ’s decision therefore should have been adjudicated by a three member panel of the BIA. … In conclusion, we grant the petition for review so that the IJ may reconsider the police report in light of In re Arreguin de Rodriguez, 21 I. & N. Dec. 38 (B.I.A. 1995).
Law360: A split Sixth Circuit appellate panel has denied the asylum bid of a Salvadoran couple fleeing the gang MS-13, saying the U.S. Board of Immigration Appeals did not err when it found the couple had not shown the Salvadoran authorities were incapable of protecting them from the gang.
Law360: The Board of Immigration Appeals did not go through with an analysis that would have shown an Indian man was persecuted for his political affiliation, a split Ninth Circuit panel ruled Wednesday in reviving the man’s asylum bid.
Law360: The Ninth Circuit on Friday held that a Mexican man who was tortured and harassed in his home country should get another shot at avoiding deportation, ruling that the Board of Immigration Appeals erred in how it went about overturning an immigration judge’s decision in the man’s favor.
LexisNexis: The BIA failed to correctly apply the clearly erroneous standard. While the BIA indicated disagreement with the IJ’s findings, it did not explain why the IJ’s decision was illogical, implausible, or without support. … Clear error review requires the BIA to “explain how these alleged errors showed lack of logic, plausibility, or support in the record on the part of the IJ.”
Law360: The Eleventh Circuit on Tuesday denied a petition from a Honduran man seeking asylum over claims that narcotics traffickers targeted his family, saying the dispute with the traffickers stemmed from a private “vendetta,” making him ineligible for asylum to avoid persecution.
USCIS: This notice is intended to provide information for individuals who (1) may be an AOL PI Class Member; (2) had the “third-country transit rule” applied to their immigration case; (3) were ordered removed from the U.S. under an “expedited removal order”; and (4) currently reside in the United States.
EOIR: As part of EOIR’s “Access EOIR” initiative, the agency is seeking to revise its Form EOIR-26, Notice of Appeal from a Decision of an Immigration Judge, to include a section for unrepresented respondents to consent to have their case be considered for inclusion in the BIA Pro Bono Project.
You now can change your email settings or search the archives using the Google Group. If you are receiving this briefing from a third party, you can visit the Google Group and request to be added. If you receive an error, make sure you click request access.
Elizabeth Gibson (Pronouns: she/her/ella)
Managing Attorney for Capacity Building and Mentorship
National Immigrant Justice Center
A HEARTLAND ALLIANCE Program
224 S. Michigan Ave., Suite 600, Chicago, IL 60604
T: (312) 660-1688| F: (312) 660-1688| E: egibson@heartlandalliance.org
Merrick Garland ignores the existential threat from the avalanche of dangerous and defective decisions by his Trump holdover BIA. But, the rest of us see exactly what’s happening. PHOTO: Creative Commons
I count no fewer than seven Circuit rejections of wrong-headed BIA decisions in Elizabeth’s report this week. The legal incompetence of EOIR under Garland is astounding!
Disturbingly, several reversals involve outrageous denials of routine continuances. Garland runs a system where cases languish for years, sometimes decades, because of poor judicial decisions and inept docket management by EOIR. Yet, some IJ’s and the BIA are “programmed” to deny well-justified continuances in clear violation of Due Process. What a disgrace!
Garland has failed miserably to bring enough well-qualified judges and competent administrators into his dysfunctional Immigration Courts. Yet, he wanders around America giving clueless speeches about the wonders of the American justice system and the greatness of immigrants!
Meanwhile, a nationwide rebellion among practitioners is brewing against Garland’s latest round of mindless, due-process-denying “Aimless Docket Reshuffling.” It’s going to take more than a few cosmetic “regional stakeholder meetings” to get things back on track at EOIR. Everyone except Garland and his lieutenants knows that!
And, the continuing meltdown at EOIR helps “fuel” disgraceful stunts by nativist racists like DeSantis and Abbott.
