😎👍🏼GOOD NEWS @ JUSTICE, EVEN AS LATEST REPORT SHOWS MASSISIVE FAILURE 👎🏽🤮 @ EOIR! — Poor Judging, Politicized Practices, Unhelpful Precedents, Uncontrollable Backlogs, Lousy Technology — Can Lucas Guttentag, New Senior Counselor To DAG Lisa Monaco Get Garland, Monaco, & Gupta To Make The Personnel Changes & Other Long-Overdue Progressive Reforms Necessary To Save This System From Collapse? — “”How can you have a fair game when the referee is unfair,” Asks Asylum Expert Professor Karen Musalo!

Dean Kevin Johnson reports for ImmigrationProf Blog:

https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/immigration/2021/08/immigration-law-professor-named-senior-counselor-on-immigration-policy-in-bidens-justice-department.html

Immigration Law Professor Named Senior Counselor on Immigration Policy in Biden’s Justice Department

Monday, August 2, 2021

By Immigration Prof

Good immigration news from Washington D.C.!Immigration law professor Lucas Guttentag has been named senior counselor on immigration policy and report to the Department of Justice’s Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco. Guttantag served in the Obama administration as a senior adviser on immigration policy, including as senior counselor to the secretary of Homeland Security.Anita Kumar for Politico states that “Guttentag will not only help dismantle Trump-era policies but will coordinate Biden policy among various agencies and departments.”

Kumar writes that “[p]rior to entering the administration, Guttentag served as law professor at Stanford Law School and lecturer at Yale Law School. He launched the Immigration Policy Tracking Project in 2017 to develop and maintain a complete record of Trump administration immigration actions.

In total, Trump made more than 400 alterations to immigration policy during his time in office, according to the Migration Policy Institute, a think tank with staffers across the political spectrum that provides data and analysis on immigration policy. The Immigration Policy Tracking Project put that number closer to 1,000.”

KJ

Current Affairs | Permalink

Comments

Post a comment

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

Meanwhile, Tyche Hendricks reports @ KQED News on the ongoing mess @ EOIR:

https://www.kqed.org/news/11883227/backlogged-immigration-courts-could-get-help-from-biden-plan-but-some-want-a-total-overhaul

If you are an immigrant requesting asylum or fighting deportation before the federal immigration court in San Francisco, it’s likely to take nearly three years for your case to be resolved — the average processing time, as of June, was 1,057 days.

That’s because the San Francisco court’s 26 judges are working their way through close to 76,000 cases — the third highest number of pending cases in the country, after New York and Miami. Nationwide, the backlog has grown to an unprecedented 1.3 million cases, more than twice what it was when President Donald Trump took office.

What’s at stake, says Doris Meissner, a senior fellow at the Migration Policy Institute in Washington DC, is the credibility of the entire immigration system — both for the individuals whose futures are on the line, and for broader public confidence.

. . . .

The epic case backlog results from a convergence of factors.

Immigration enforcement, which had increased under President Barack Obama, ballooned during the presidency of Donald Trump. Trump ended Obama-era prosecution priorities that focused on immigrants with serious criminal histories, and instead pursued deportation of any undocumented immigrant. As of last December, more than 98% of the cases in immigration court were for people whose only charge was an immigration violation, according to an analysis by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse at Syracuse University.

Also in the past several years, a much larger share of the migrants arriving at the U.S.-Mexico border are people requesting asylum, rather than trying to evade border authorities to come work or join family in the U.S. And if migrants can establish a “credible fear” of persecution in a screening interview with an asylum officer, they can’t be quickly removed from the country. Instead, their cases go straight into the immigration court system.

RELATED STORIES

US to Expedite Immigration Cases of Families Arriving at Southern Border

Immigration Court Fees Set to Jump Dramatically Unless Judge Intervenes

San Francisco DA Joins Calls to Release ICE Detainees During Pandemic

But that court system is chronically underfunded, with not enough judges or support staff, according to a 2019 report by the American Bar Association. While the Trump administration hired more judges and imposed a case completion quota on judges meant to speed up their work, neither made a dent in the backlog. Meanwhile the ABA report found that hiring practices became politicized and the administration’s policies threatened due process.

On top of all of that came the COVID-19 pandemic, which led to months of closed courts, suspended hearings and delayed processing.

While many state and federal courts moved quickly to conduct hearings over video conference calls, the Executive Office of Immigration Review, as the immigration court system is known, was behind the curve, according to longtime San Francisco immigration judge, Dana Leigh Marks, who is the executive vice president of the National Association of Immigration Judges.

“What the pandemic and quarantine restrictions revealed is just how abysmally prepared EOIR has been from the technology aspect,” said Marks, speaking in her role with the NAIJ, the judge’s union. “And we do not have universal electronic filing… so there’s roughly a million cases or more that are still paper-based. And that really makes hearings from a judge’s home much more problematic.”

. . . .

Advocates for asylum seekers are also looking forward to seeing new regulations from the Biden administration in another area: establishing clear eligibility standards for asylum so as to prevent future instances where an attorney general can override decades of case law, as Sessions did in the case of a Salvadoran woman fleeing domestic violence, known as the Matter of A-B-.

Karen Musalo, director of the Center on Gender and Refugee Studies at UC Hastings in San Francisco, said she was relieved when Garland reversed that ruling in June, but she called that just a first step in restoring fairness to the asylum system.

“What is much more important is asylum regulations that specifically look at aligning U.S. law with international norms,” she said. “We need to get the law back on track.”

‘What is much more important is asylum regulations that specifically look at aligning U.S. law with international norms. We need to get the law back on track.’Karen Musalo, Center on Gender and Refugee Studies at UC Hastings

That regulation is being drafted jointly by the departments of Justice and Homeland Security and is expected by late October, she said.

Musalo also called on the Biden administration to improve training and oversight for immigration judges, who are appointed to the bench by the U.S. attorney general. The fact that asylum grant rates vary wildly between judges suggests that rulings can be influenced by political leanings more than an impartial application of the law, she said.

“You could have very good rules and laws, but if you don’t have fair, unbiased, competent, professional individuals applying the rules in the law, you don’t solve the problems,” she said. “How can you have a fair game when the referee is unfair?”

. . . .

Legal organizations including the American Bar Association, the American Immigration Lawyers Association and NAIJ, the judges’ union, have long called on Congress to overhaul the immigration courts by taking them out of the Department of Justice altogether. And this summer there’s a move to do just that.

Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-San Jose, the chair of the House immigration subcommittee, will soon introduce a bill to make the immigration court system a so-called Article I court, akin to federal tax court or bankruptcy court. Staff involved in drafting the bill say the new system would better protect due process of law and would be shielded from political pressure from presidents, be they Democratic or Republican.

Some observers, including Meissner and Musalo, say such a change is needed but they aren’t convinced the bill could win enough support to pass.

But Marks, the immigration judge, says the current dysfunction shows how badly the immigration courts are compromised and how urgently they need independence from the Department of Justice.

“It’s an uncomfortable and inappropriate placement for a neutral court system. And that’s the inherent structural flaw that we need Congress to fix,” she said. “I really feel like it is an idea whose time has come… now.”

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

You can read Tyche’s complete article at the link.

With deep experience in advocacy, Government, academics, senior management, and scholarship, Lucas is definitely the person for this job! A proven problem solver, to be sure! Many congrats, Lucas! Your appointment is like a breath of fresh air at what has been a mostly “stale show” at Justice so far!

Nevertheless, as Professor Karen Musalo cogently points out, without better judges and leaders at EOIR — high caliber, proven progressive experts “in the Guttentag-Musalo mold,” — any favorable regulatory or even legislative changes will likely founder. As currently staffed and led, EOIR simply lacks the expertise, independence, moral/intellectual leadership, courage, and “judicial firepower” to achieve a progressive, practical, due-process-compliant immigration and human rights system. Due process, fundamental fairness, and a correct application of U.S. asylum law — one that honors Cardoza-Fonseca and Mogharrabi — can only be realized by replacing “Club Denial @ EOIR” — actively encouraged and promoted by Sessions and Barr, with competent, expert, progressive judges committed to fair and humane treatment of asylum seekers and other migrants under law.

Simply adding more judges to an incredibly broken system, without correcting the legal, personnel, and judicial administration issues that led to this massive (largely self-created) dysfunction will not solve the problem! Lucas knows this as well as anyone! So does Judge Dana Marks, who actually litigated and won the landmark “well-founded fear” case INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca before the Supremes!

Hon. Diana Leigh Marks — Hon. Dana Leigh Marks
U.S. Immigration Judge
San Francisco Immigration Court
Past President, National Association of Immigration Judges

But even with experts like Lucas at DOJ, Ur Jaddou, John Trasvina, and Judge Ashley Tabaddor in place at DHS, it’s going to take a huge additional infusion of progressive expertise at EOIR, DHS, HHS, and throughout Government to get immigration and refugee policy under control.

GOP Administrations have proved willing to make the bold, often-criticized personnel and policy moves necessary to carry out a nativist, restrictionist, anti-immigrant agenda. Their “response” to criticism has basically been: “We’re in power, you’re not! So, go pound sand!”

Will the Biden Administration “break the Dem mold” and be bold and visionary enough to make the available, necessary, yet potentially controversial, moves to restore and improve due process and efficiency to the Government immigration bureaucracy? Will Lucas finally be able to get Team Garland to see and realize the cosmic importance of developing a progressive Immigration Judiciary: One that will eventually provide the “Article III ready” judicial candidates who will bring balance and quality to the Article III system perverted by four years of Trump-McConnell extremest right-wing, ideological, far out of the mainstream, judicial picks? Contrary to the timid, ineffective, ultimately destructive Obama Administration approach, EOIR is “a boat that needs to be rocked” — big time!

It’s an ambitious task to be sure. But, those with the vision and courage to accomplish it might well go down in history as the saviors of American democracy. It’s that important!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

08-03-21

⚖️🗽THE DEVIL 👹 IS IN THE DETAILS! — Biden’s New Plan For Asylum Seekers: Long On Bureaucratese, Short On Specific Details — Questions Human Rights Advocates Should Be Asking!

I found the White House “Fact Sheet” to be largely a mix of bureaucratic doublespeak, shame, blame, and few details about how it’s actually going to work. Also, not much about who is going to be responsible (and accountable) for making it work!

Here it is, so you can judge for yourself:

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/07/27/fact-sheet-the-biden-administration-blueprint-for-a-fair-orderly-and-humane-immigration-system/

Here are some of my questions:

Will those whose cases are denied by an Asylum Officer still have a right to IJ/BIA/Judicial Review?
How will they set up dedicated dockets without pushing back cases already on the docket?
What steps will be taken to insure that Judges assigned to these dockets aren’t members of the “90% Denial Club?”
How will they screen asylum cases with Title 42 still in effect?
What will be the role of detention? If detention is used, how will reasonable access to counsel be be guaranteed in detention centers?
Who will be training the CBP Agents, Asylum Offices, and Immigration Judges to recognize asylum claims, even those that might not be well-articulated by migrants or that might involve novel applications of protection laws?
What advance coordination will take place with legal services groups to maximize representation.
How will positive asylum guidance be issued (given that the BIA has issued almost none in the past four years, and a number of negative precedents have been vacated by the AG or rejected by various Circuits)?
How will the success of this program be measured, particularly with respect to insuring full due process and fundamental fairness to all asylum applicants?
What type of resettlement opportunities or assistance will be made available for successful asylum, seekers and who will provide and fund it?
Will there be any role for the UNHCR? If so, what?
How will DHS and EOIR solve the “effective notice problems” that have plagued the Immigration Court system for years and resulted in far too many “bogus in absentia removal orders.”
Who will insure the accuracy of statistics and that “gamed” or manipulated statistics are not used (as the Trump regime did) to create false narratives about “success” by the Administration or to promote unfair and inaccurate “myths” about asylum seekers.

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

07-29-21

⚖️☹️A GOOD MAN IN THE WRONG JOB — The Last Two GOP Administrations Cut Through The “Levi-Civiletti” Post-Watergate Institutional Reforms @ Justice Like A Hot Knife Through Soft Butter — Garland’s “Old School” Approach Is Likely Doomed To Failure, & Might Take American Democracy With It! — The “St. Louis Gets Pushed Back Put To Sea” Every Day @ Garland’s Broken & Dysfunctional DOJ!☠️⚰️

Judge Merrick Garland — Attorney General Merrick B. Garland — His poignant recollection of the inability of his great aunts to find refuge in the U.S., and their resulting deaths in the Holocaust, haven’t stopped him from daily “pushing the St. Louis back out to sea” and denying legal protections and full due process to asylum seekers at our Southern Border and at EOIR — his “wholly owned court system” that functions more like a branch of DHS enforcement than a court of law!
Official White House Photo
Public Realm

https://www.washingtonpost.com/magazine/2021/07/19/merrick-garland-justice-department-catharsis/

David Montgomery writes in the WashPost:

. . . .

“Garland believes that a thorough de-Trumpification of the Justice Department would … be called partisanship and would call into question the institution of the Justice Department, but the institution has already been called into question,” says Jeff Hauser, executive director of the Revolving Door Project of the Center for Economic and Policy Research. “Sessions and Barr came in with a goal of assaulting and undermining the institution of the Justice Department, and it’s just weird to presume that they failed. We presume that they succeeded. They were in the building. They hired their minions. They assessed people. They politicized everything. Garland presuming that the previous Department of Justice was behaving in good faith requires the same suspension of disbelief as believing dragons are real in a fantasy novel.”

. . . .

And so, we’ll also be judging Garland by another standard: how well his approach fortifies the institution against a future administration that once again disrespects norms and politicizes the rule of law.

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

These quotes go to the heart of the problem with Garland’s stewardship and his naive, ivory tower, ineffectively timid approach to restoring the rule of law at Justice. “By the book” is NOT an effective strategy against opponents who seek to burn the book, bury the ashes, and lie about it! It’s basically no “strategy” all!

I’d be shocked, as would most knowledgeable observers, if the next GOP Administration doesn’t “disrespect the norms and politicize the rule of law.” Not only have the past two GOP Administrations done exactly that, in spades, but that’s basically what today’s GOP stands for: neo-fascist, anti-democracy rule based on big lies and a cult of personality.

To the extent the modern GOP believes in anything, it’s the exercise of power without restraint of law or morality. “Why? Because we can, and you can’t stop us. We’re in power, and you aren’t,” was largely the Trump McConnell mantra, particularly when it came to judges. How did the dying plea of RBG and the appeals of Dems for fairness and consistency in Supremes’ appointments work out? It was a classic “heads I win, tails you lose” that once again left the Dems grasping at thin air.

So, these folks are going to respect long-gone “norms” from the 1970s? “Norms” that couldn’t and didn’t stop Ashcroft, Gonzalez (“Gonzo I”), Mukasey, Sessions, or Barr? You have to be kidding? I don’t know what universe Garland has been living in for the past four plus years, but it doesn’t appear to be this one.

Contrary to Garland’s approach, there is absolutely nothing wrong with:

Coming clean on recent abuses at DOJ;
Replacing lawless immoral intentional misconstructions of law with better progressive ones that adhere to and further both the rule of law and “good government;” and
Replacing political hacks who furthered the White Nationalist agenda or other personnel who “went along to get along” with abuses, to keep their jobs, with progressive experts committed to due process and best practices who’ll get the job of restoring the rule of law, respect, and human dignity done.

Not only is there nothing wrong with the foregoing, but they are moral and practical imperatives if lives are to be saved and our democracy preserved! For Pete’s sake, these are actually the things that Biden and Harris campaigned upon and won! Why is Garland reticent to act upon truth?

This isn’t an “academic exercise!” It’s an actual life or death moment for migrants and for our democracy! And, the opponents are not folks who intend to honor norms established by Garland or any other Dem.

Indeed, they will characterize all of his actions as “radical socialism,” as they already have, regardless of the truth. In many ways, Garland’s incremental, largely passive, approach to “de-Trumpifying justice @ Justice” has been a huge gift to GOP anti-democracy insurrectionists and restrictionists. But, if I were him, I wouldn’t wait for the “thank you note.”

To shrink from the bold decisive actions necessary to clean up the disgraceful mess at the DOJ and its most grotesque manifestations at EOIR shows not only a lack awareness, but a lack of belief in the progressive, democratic, humane values that got Biden and Harris elected in the first place and got Garland his job.

And, it’s not as if the problem with the values and institutional integrity at DOJ started only in the Trump regime. Under Bush II, Ashcroft and his advisor, notorious White Nationalist xenophobe Kris Kobach, had their plan to dismantle due process and fundamental fairness in the Immigration Courts, through compromising the BIA, in action before they even set foot in the building 10th & Pa. Ave. Those changes have actually cost some migrants their lives, and some DOJ attorneys their jobs (for the “crime” of standing up for due process for migrants) even before the Trump kakistocracy arrived.

And, al la Garland, the Obama Administration’s failure to either acknowledge the historical truth or take the obvious and necessary corrective actions sent our Immigration Courts and justice for migrants into a steep decline that became a “death spiral” under Sessions (“Gonzo Apocalypto”) and Barr and continues its accelerated downward trajectory under Garland. It’s a contributing factor in the largely self-created 1.3 million case Immigration Court backlog generated by Sessions and Barr at EOIR.

Indeed, the lack of quality, intellectual honesty, practical guidance, humane values, common sense, expertise, and legitimacy at EOIR has spread to and adversely affected other areas of our beleaguered justice system and now threatens to take down everything in a messy heap. Why a former Article III Appellate Judge can’t grasp that reality and act accordingly is beyond me.

Maybe its because he didn’t personally experience enough of EOIR’s deadly, failed, corner-cutting “work product” at the D.C. Circuit because DC has no “resident Immigration Court.” Maybe it’s because he can’t “connect the dots” between his relatives who died in the Holocaust and having no legal asylum system for those arriving at our Southern border and denying asylum seekers full due process every day @ EOIR.

For the reasons set forth in the article, it seems that Judge Garland is philosophically and by personality incapable of leading and implementing long overdue, critical progressive changes at this point in his otherwise distinguished career. The only hope would be that one of his advisors could light a fire and get him out of his inept centrist institutionalist funk.

But, the two best hopes to do that, Associate Attorney Vanita Gupta and Assistant AG for Civil Rights Kristen Clarke, who should be personally familiar with the practical and racial justice disaster at EOIR and its overall adverse effects on justice in America, have failed to make a visible impact.

Garland needs a practical expert like Dean Kevin Johnson at U.C. Davis Law, Professor Karen Musalo at the Center for Gender and Refugee Studies at Hastings Law, Jaya Ramji-Nogales, Associate Dean at Temple Law, Judy Rabinowitz at ACLU, Marielena Hincappie at the National Immigration Justice Center, or someone of equal expertise and stature in civil and human rights to advise him and lead the reform effort at EOIR. Sadly, he does not appear interested in surrounding himself with such capable, talented individuals who could “save him from himself” while saving the lives of those like his great aunts who perished in the Holocaust for want of a viable refugee and asylum system.

Like Garland, I was at the DOJ during the Levi-Civiletti post-Watergate reform era. I once knew him and certainly helped out his “boss” Ben Civiletti on several occasions.

Somewhere in the “archives,” I have a handwritten note from Ben Civiletti expressing his gratitude that he never had to use the “administrative subpoena” and “designation as an “immigration officer” that I had drafted for him in the midst of one of a number of “immigration emergencies” involving a plane on the tarmac.

Somewhere along the line, Merrick seems to have forgotten that even Civiletti was willing to take bold actions when necessary to advance the cause of immigration justice! There was no “precedent” for the Attorney General personally serving an INS subpoena. But, Civiletti was on the verge of doing it, until “Plan A” prevailed, and the crisis was resolved without resorting to “Plan B” or even “Plan C.”

I was also there and directly affected when the likes of Ashcroft, “Gonzo I”, Kobach, and Mukasey cut through those post-Watergate reforms at EOIR as though they never existed, with little resistance except for a few of us “survivors” who adapted and continued to fight for due process and individual justice in a deteriorating system.

I watched in disgust and disbelief as the Obama Administration (“change?” — not so much in immigration) completely “blew” the opportunity to make life and democracy saving corrections at EOIR. I then saw from the outside as “Gonzo Apocalypto” and Barr aggressively and systematically dismantled American justice, starting with the Immigration Courts. Their job was made infinitely easier by the indolence of the Obama Administration in failing to systematically bring progressive reforms and appoint more progressive judges at EOIR.

But, those of us “on the outside” were not just “passively outraged” by the due process and human rights abuses flowing from DOJ, we took action! Among many groups forming the New Due Process Army (“NDPA”), our Round Table of Former Immigration Judges, some of whom had resigned or retired as an act of conscience, helped lead the charge against the Trump regime’s inhumane, scofflaw policies and bogus legal interpretations.

We filed over 100 amicus briefs in tribunals from the Supremes to the BIA, many of them successful in helping to correct and reverse the regime’s anti-due process, anti-immigrant, racially driven policies. We also wrote, educated, did media interviews, organized, inspired others to join the resistance, and voted for change!

Even assuming, as I do, that any future GOP Administration would move to undo progressive reforms and replace progressive judges, their job would be made much more difficult if Garland creates the progressive judiciary that he should at EOIR. Moreover, even if exiled, “true progressive practical scholars” will form the expert backbone of the resistance to neo-fascism in the “next generation” of the Round Table and the NDPA.

Some “graduates” of a progressive Immigration Judiciary could be elevated to the Article III Judiciary where they will have continuing beneficial influence beyond the ability of the next GOP Administration to change. Others could use their knowledge of the system to fight the forces of nativism, restrictionism, White Nationalist myths, and mindless cruelty. Others will run for office and improve our moribund legislative branch! Who knows, we could even get Article I during the Biden Administration, giving a progressive immigration judiciary yet another degree of protection from right-wing political shenanigans!

Garland’s “stuck in the irretrievable past” approach to EOIR and the DOJ generally is blowing a golden, perhaps never-to-come again, chance to finally create an effective progressive judiciary at EOIR and, perhaps most important, to save lives and stop “pushing the St. Louis” back out to sea! It’s something that Biden can’t fully achieve in the Article IIIs. It’s painful to watch him squander the opportunity.

Merrick Garland might well have been a great Supreme Court Justice had Mitch McConnell and the GOP had a serious interest in institutional integrity and preserving norms. They didn’t (which should have been “signal” that got Garland’s attention)! Garland might also have been great Attorney General in a bygone era.

Sadly for both Garland and America, he’s not the “right fit” for the job under today’s realities. Not only will that forever tarnish his reputation, but it could well cost the rest of us our democracy.

🇺🇸Due Process Forever! Timidity and false “restraint” in delivering equal justice for all, never!

The meek might well inherit the earth in the next world. But, they won’t restore the rule of law to the Department of Justice in this one!☠️

Come on, Judge Garland, take off the blinders and show that you are smart, flexible, and capable enough to get beyond the limitations of your past experiences and take the bold, aggressive, courageous, potentially controversial, yet absolutely necessary and long overdue, actions necessary to restore the rule of law at Justice in the 21st year of the 21st Century. And, that starts with progressive due process reforms and major personnel changes at EOIR!

PWS

07-26-21

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

HISTORICAL ADDENDUM FROM HON. “SIR JEFFREY” CHASE:

I actually had Civiletti’s desk at the BIA (I was told that Tony Moscato had brought it with him from Main Justice).

PWS

07-27-21

🗽ASYLUM IS OUR LEGAL OBLIGATION, NOT AN “OPTION” OR SOMETHING TO BE “DETERRED” — “For many migrants in peril, waiting in their home countries for a better time to seek asylum in the U.S. is not – nor could ever be – a viable option. . . . ‘I want to live. I want to be somebody. Nobody wants to die.’”

“Floaters” — “Floaters — How The World’s Richest Country Responds To Asylum Seekers” — The Biden Administration’s continuation of the Trump regime’s illegal and deadly anti-asylum policies at the border is totally unacceptable!
EDS NOTE: GRAPHIC CONTENT – The bodies of Salvadoran migrant Oscar Alberto Mart??nez Ram??rez and his nearly 2-year-old daughter Valeria lie on the bank of the Rio Grande in Matamoros, Mexico, Monday, June 24, 2019, after they drowned trying to cross the river to Brownsville, Texas. Martinez’ wife, Tania told Mexican authorities she watched her husband and child disappear in the strong current. (AP Photo/Julia Le Duc)

FROM SPLC:

The message was loud and clear: “Do not come.”

This would be the Biden administration’s initial attempt to deter migrants who fled danger in their home countries from seeking protection in the U.S.

First, President Biden in March discouraged migrants from trekking north to the U.S.-Mexico border to seek asylum. He suggested they stay in their home countries – where many face violence and persecution – as the administration addressed an increase in the number of unaccompanied migrant children crossing the southwestern border.

Then, the administration continued to rely on the contested Trump-era Title 42 order by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to reject migrants at ports of entry and expel those who cross the U.S.-Mexico border without authorization, thereby denying their legal right to seek asylum.

And in June, the administration delivered another warning to would-be asylum seekers from Guatemala: “Do not come,” said Vice President Kamala Harris during a news conference alongside Guatemalan President Alejandro Giammattei. “The United States will continue to enforce our laws and secure our borders. If you come to our border, you will be turned back.”

Sarah Rich, senior supervising attorney with the Southern Poverty Law Center’s Immigrant Justice Project, said the vice president’s comments were strikingly similar to rhetoric employed by the Trump administration.

“Seeking protection from violence and persecution is a fundamental human right, and the right to seek asylum is protected by U.S. and international law,” Rich said. “These remarks fly in the face of the right to seek asylum in the U.S. and indicate a disturbing continuity between the Trump administration and the Biden-Harris administration.”

For many migrants in peril, waiting in their home countries for a better time to seek asylum in the U.S. is not – nor could ever be – a viable option.

“I fled my country because I wanted to survive,” Emiliana Doe, whose name has been changed in this story to protect her identity, told the SPLC in Spanish. “I want to live. I want to be somebody. Nobody wants to die.”

READ MORE

In solidarity,

Your friends at the Southern Poverty Law Center

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

Speak out against the Biden Administration’s continuation of Trump’s illegal, inhumane, anti-asylum policies at the border! Demand that AG Garland replace unqualified “Miller Lite” anti-asylum Immigration Judges, who happily furthered the past regime’s xenophobic, anti-due-process policies, with far better qualified progressive experts! Demand a BIA that will be a courageous leader in granting legal protection and reducing backlogs through best practices and full due process! Demand that Garland stop dragging his feet and finally fulfill the original EOIR vision of “guaranteeing fairness and due process for all.” Demand an Attorney General with the backbone and integrity to tell Biden, Harris, & Mayorkas that their continued abrogation of asylum laws and international obligations, not to mention Constitutional protections, is grossly illegal and must end NOW!

By contrast with Garland’s timid, dilatory, and often apparently indifferent approach to the rule of law for migrants, not to mention human lives, Jeff Sessions had absolutely no problem intervening, without invitation, in any agency’s programs and policies to advance his White Nationalist, nativist, xenophobic mis-interpretations of the law!

🇺🇸⚖️Due Process Forever!

PWS

07-25-21

☠️🤮🏴‍☠️TRUMP REGIME’S MINDLESS CRUELTY, XENOPHOBIA, MALICIOUS INCOMPETENCE, SHAFTED 60,000 MIGRANTS!

Dan Kowalski reports on LexisNexis Immigration Community:

https://www.lexisnexis.com/legalnewsroom/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/district-court-approves-settlement-in-lawsuit-challenging-immigration-agency-s-unlawful-rejection-of-over-sixty-thousand-humanitarian-applications

District Court Approves Settlement in Lawsuit Challenging Immigration Agency’s Unlawful Rejection of Over Sixty Thousand Humanitarian Applications

NILA, NWIRP, July 20, 2021

“Today, a federal district court judge in Oakland, California, approved a final settlement in the case of Vangala v. USCIS, providing relief to over sixty thousand applicants for humanitarian immigration benefits. The lawsuit, filed on November 19, 2020, against U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), challenged an agency policy adopted under the Trump administration specifically targeting humanitarian benefits for survivors of domestic violence and human trafficking and asylum seekers. Under the policy, USCIS rejected applications that left any question in the application unanswered, even where the question was not applicable—for example where the applicant failed to include a response for middle name because they have no middle name. Additionally, USCIS rejected applications where the applicant wrote “none” or “not applicable” instead of “N/A.”

The lawsuit was filed by Northwest Immigrant Rights Project (NWIRP), the National Immigration Litigation Alliance (NILA), and the Van Der Hout law firm, on behalf of three applicants who sought to represent a nationwide class of individuals whose applications were rejected under the policy. They alleged that the policy was nothing more than a pretextual basis for denying applicants the opportunity to obtain humanitarian benefits provided by Congress.

On December 22, 2020, the agency agreed to suspend the policy, and the parties then entered settlement discussions to address the tens of thousands of applications that USCIS previously rejected. The U.S. district court adopted and approved the final settlement agreement on July 20, 2021.

Under the settlement agreement, USCIS will accept the original submission date of the more than sixty thousand applications it has identified as having been rejected under the policy. USCIS will send notices to these applicants explaining the steps they can take to ensure that their applications for humanitarian benefits are recorded as having been filed as of the date they were originally submitted. Without this relief, these applicants not only would suffer the delays caused by USCIS’ rejection of their applications, but many applicants or their family members would be rendered ineligible because they were unable to file the required forms by timelines specified in the statute.

In addition, the settlement agreement prevents the agency from adopting a similar rejection policy with respect to other immigration forms unless authorized by statute or lawfully implemented through regulations.

“It was an outrageous policy clearly aimed to impede individuals from obtaining the humanitarian benefits that Congress has provided,” said Matt Adams, Legal Director for NWIRP. “It aptly demonstrates the Trump administrations’ utter disregard of the law.”

“USCIS’ rejection policy served no legitimate purpose,” said Mary Kenney, Deputy Director for NILA. “Tens of thousands of applicants will now, finally, be able to move forward with applications that the agency should have accepted in 2020.”

The settlement agreement is here and order approving the settlement agreement can be found here.

#####

Media contacts:

Trina Realmuto, National Immigration Litigation Alliance

(617) 819-4447; trina@immigrationlitigation.org

Matt Adams, Northwest Immigrant Rights Project

(206) 957-8611; matt@nwirp.org”

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

Cruelty, stupidity, illegality, wasting Government resources! So, what else is new about the Trump kakistocracy’s immigration policies and procedures? Wonder why all immigration agencies are running out of control backlogs? Don’t blame the victims — the migrants exercising their legal rights!

In direct contravention of the intent of Congress in structuring DHS so that the “customer services” to migrants and their families would be separate, and no longer subordinate to, immigration enforcement, the Trump kakistocracy turned USCIS into a semi-useless branch of their corrupt, yet inept, White Nationalist enforcement agenda. So incompetent and inappropriate were Trump’s actions that his lackeys managed to “repurpose” USCIS, once one of the few self-sustaining independently funded agencies within Government, into a deficit promoting, bankrupt, money pit.

And, it was a cesspool that failed miserably in its primary mission of serving those seeking legal immigration status, their families, and their employers. A primary reason why the Biden Administration is having difficulties with immigration and human rights is the illegal eradication by the Trump regime of the U.S. legal immigration system, particularly our refugee and asylum systems.

That leaves those suffering from persecution and torture in need of legal protection with no choice but to use the “extralegal system.” Far from their stunningly false claim to have “enhanced” immigration enforcement, the GOP nativists have also destroyed rational, practical, targeted enforcement with their nonsense. Don’t let them get away with blaming the Biden Administration and the victims of their cruel and often illegal behavior which produced the results that many of us predicted!

The next time you hear Ted Cruz, Tom Cotton, or some other GOP nativist restrictionist disingenuously blabbering on about “rewarding lawbreakers” or “doing it the right way,” remember that largely because of them and the Trump regime, America has no functional immigration system for refugees, asylees, or any other type of legal immigrants, nor do we have a functioning Immigration Court system!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

07-23-21

⚖️EXPERTS TO DISCUSS FUTURE OF IMMIGRATION COURTS ON JULY 23! — Join Judge Amiena Khan (NAIJ) & Julia Preston (Marshall Project, former NY Times) For An Enlightening Discussion From Two “Practical Scholars” Who Have Seen The Harsh Realities Of Today’s Broken & Dysfunctional EOIR “Up Close & Personal!”

Judge Amiena Khan is the executive vice president of the National Association of Immigration Judges (NAIJ) — Judge Amiena Khan Executive Vice President National Association of Immigration Judges (NAIJ)

https://www.lexisnexis.com/legalnewsroom/immigration/b/outsidenews/posts/the-future-of-the-immigration-courts-free-webinar-july-23-2021

The Future of the Immigration Courts: Free Webinar, July 23, 2021

Documented Talks: The Future of the Immigration Courts

“The immigration courts were completely upended by the Trump administration, but what awaits them under this new administration? Join Immigration Judge Amiena Khan, President of the National Association of Immigration Judges, and Julia Preston, Contributing Writer at The Marshall Project, for a discussion on the future of the immigration courts.

The two will discuss where the judge’s union stands in its decertification fight; what judges are hoping to see from this administration and what the lasting impacts of the past 4 years will be.

Join us at 1 pm on July 23rd, 2021

Panelists:

Hon. Amiena Khan:

Judge Khan is the President of NAIJ. Judge Khan was appointed as a United States Immigration Judge in New York by Attorney General Eric Holder in December 2010. In her personal capacity, she is a member of the Federal Bar Association (FBA) and is the Vice-Chair of the Federal Bar Association Immigration Law Section.

Judge Khan is appearing in her capacity as President of NAIJ. Her views do not represent the official position of the Department of Justice, the Attorney General, or the Executive Office for Immigration Review. Her views represent her personal opinions, which were formed after extensive consultation with NAIJ membership.

Julia Preston:

Julia Preston is a Contributing Writer at The Marshall Project. Preston previously worked for 21 years at The New York Times. She was the National Correspondent covering immigration from 2006 through 2016, and a correspondent in Mexico from 1995 through 2001, among other assignments. She is a 2020 winner of an Online Journalism Award for Explanatory Reporting, for a series by The Marshall Project on myths about immigration and crime. She was a member of the Times staff who won the 1998 Pulitzer Prize for reporting on international affairs, for a series on the corrosive effects of drug corruption in Mexico.

Time

Jul 23, 2021 01:00 PM in Eastern Time (US and Canada)

* Required information

First Name *

Last Name *

Email Address *

Confirm Email Address *

Information you provide when registering will be shared with the account owner and host and can be used and shared by them in accordance with their Terms and Privacy Policy.

Register”

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

Should be a great panel from two real experts from the NDPA!

Sadly, however, it’s not clear that Judge Garland, Lisa Monaco, Vanita Gupta, Kristen Clarke, and others who are supposed to be fixing the dysfunction will be among the audience. Nor do I see much concrete evidence that they have established a meaningful dialogue with those, like Amiena and Julia, who have the expertise and creative problem solving ability to fix the DOJ’s embarrassingly broken “courts” before more migrants and their attorneys are abused.

In my view, and the view of many others, the “destructive phase” of the last four years moved much more rapidly and with more purpose than the “reconstructive and improvement phase” that was promised by the Biden Administration.

There are still far too many of those who were “part of the problem” in key positions, and far, far too few, if any, dynamic new faces who have been brought in (or promoted from within) with the capability and the mandate to fix the mess, establish progressive values, and return to a due process/fundamental fairness/best practices focus!

There are “reliable rumors” of some better appointments in the offing. But, it hasn’t happened till it happens.

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

07-20-21

⚖️🧑🏽‍⚖️☹️GARLAND’S 10 NEW IJ APPOINTMENTS CONTINUE TO HEAVILY FAVOR GOVERNMENT OVER PRIVATE PRACTICE, CLINICS, ACADEMIA — Only 3 Came Directly From Private Practice — Biden Administration “Disses” Progressive Immigration/Human Rights Experts Who Helped Put Them In Office!

https://www.justice.gov/eoir/page/file/1412741/download

NOTICE

U.S. Department of Justice

Executive Office for Immigration Review

Office of Policy

5107 Leesburg Pike

Falls Church, Virginia 22041

Contact: Communications and Legislative Affairs Division

Phone: 703-305-0289 Fax: 703-605-0365

PAO.EOIR@usdoj.gov @DOJ_EOIR www.justice.gov/eoir

July 16, 2021

EOIR Announces 10 New Immigration Judges

FALLS CHURCH, VA – The Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) today announced 10 new Immigration Judges (IJs), including one Assistant Chief Immigration Judge (ACIJ). ACIJs are responsible for overseeing the operations of their assigned immigration courts. In addition to their management responsibilities, they will hear cases. IJs preside in formal judicial hearings and make decisions that are final, unless formally appealed.

After a thorough application process, Attorney General Merrick B. Garland appointed Megan R. Jackler, Justin S. Dinsdale, Alexander H. Lee, Loi L. McCleskey, Edwin E. Pieters, Artie R. Pobjecky, Jodie A. Schwab, Kenneth S. Sogabe, Lydia G. Tamez, and Romaine L. White to their new positions.

Biographical information follows:

Megan R. Jackler, Assistant Chief Immigration Judge, New Orleans Immigration Court

Megan R. Jackler was appointed as an Assistant Chief Immigration Judge to begin supervisory immigration court duties and hearing cases in July 2021. Judge Jackler earned a Bachelor of Arts in 2003 from Barnard College and a Juris Doctor in 2008 from the American University Washington College of Law. From 2009 to 2021, she served as a U.S. Navy Judge Advocate, in the following locations: Norfolk, Virginia; Pearl Harbor, Hawaii; Gulfport, Mississippi; Mazar- e-Sharif, Afghanistan; and Yokosuka, Japan. From 2003 to 2005, she was a Litigation Paralegal with Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP, in New York. Judge Jackler is a member of the District of Columbia Bar, New Jersey State Bar, New York State Bar, and Virginia State Bar.

Justin S. Dinsdale, Immigration Judge, Houston – Greenspoint Park Immigration Court

Justin S. Dinsdale was appointed as an Immigration Judge to begin hearing cases in July 2021. Judge Dinsdale earned a Bachelor of Arts in 2000 from Texas Christian University and a Juris Doctorate in 2004 from South Texas College of Law Houston. From 2015 to 2021, he served as an Assistant U.S. Attorney with the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Texas, in Brownsville. From 2011 to 2015, he was in private practice with the Law Office of Justin S. Dinsdale, in Brownsville. From 2008 to 2010, he was an Associate Attorney with Rodriguez, Colvin, Chaney & Saenz LLP, in Brownsville. From 2004 to 2008, he served as an Assistant District Attorney with the Cameron County District Attorney’s Office, in Brownsville. Judge Dinsdale is a member of the Idaho State Bar and the State Bar of Texas.

Communications and Legislative Affairs Division

EOIR Announces 10 New Immigration Judges

Page 2

Alexander H. Lee, Immigration Judge, Houston – Greenspoint Park Immigration Court

Alexander H. Lee was appointed as an Immigration Judge to begin hearing cases in July 2021. Judge Lee earned a Bachelor of Arts in 1997 from Kenyon College and a Juris Doctor in 2002 from Chicago-Kent College of Law. From 2017 to 2021, he served as an Assistant Chief Counsel, Office of the Principal Legal Advisor, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Department of Homeland Security, in Pearsall and San Antonio, Texas. From 2011 to 2017, he served as a Staff Attorney for the Washington State Department of Health, in Tumwater, Washington. From 2005 to 2011, he was in private practice in Olympia, Washington. Judge Lee is a member of the Washington State Bar.

Loi L. McCleskey, Immigration Judge, San Francisco Immigration Court

Loi L. McCleskey was appointed as an Immigration Judge to begin hearing cases in July 2021. Judge McCleskey earned a Bachelor of Arts in 1996 from Capital University and a Juris Doctor in 1999 from Capital University Law School. From 2013 to 2021, she served as an Administrative Hearing Officer Supervisor; from 2011 to 2013, Senior Administrative Hearing Officer; and from 2003 to 2011, Administrative Hearing Officer for the State of Ohio in Columbus. From 2000 to 2003, she was in private practice in Columbus. Judge McCleskey is a member of the Ohio State Bar.

Edwin E. Pieters, Immigration Judge, New York – Federal Plaza Immigration Court

Edwin E. Pieters was appointed as an Immigration Judge to begin hearing cases in July 2021. Judge Pieters earned a Bachelor of Science in 1987 from State University of New York at New Paltz; a Master of Political Science/Governmental Law in 1992 from City University of New York at Brooklyn College; a Master of Public Administration in 2000 from City University of New York at Baruch College; a Juris Doctorate in 2002 from the City University of New York Law School at Queens College; and a Master of Law in 2005 from the State University of New York at Buffalo Law School. From 2018 to 2021, he served as a Hearing Officer for the New York City Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings. From 2006 to 2017, he served as an Assistant District Attorney at the Kings County District Attorney’s Office, in Brooklyn. Judge Pieters is a member of the New York State Bar.

Artie R. Pobjecky, Immigration Judge, Houston – Greenspoint Park Immigration Court

Artie R. Pobjecky was appointed as an Immigration Judge to begin hearing cases in July 2021. Judge Pobjecky earned a Bachelor of Arts in 1997 from the University of Central Florida and a Juris Doctor in 2001 from Baylor University School of Law. From 2007 to 2021, she was a Partner with Pobjecky & Pobjecky LLP, in Winter Haven, Florida. From 2015 to 2017, she served as Chair of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, Central Florida Chapter. From 2002 to 2007, she was an Associate Attorney with J. David Pobjecky PA, in Winter Haven. Judge Pobjecky is a member of the Florida Bar, Pennsylvania Bar, and the State Bar of Texas.

Jodie A. Schwab, Immigration Judge, Houston – Greenspoint Park Immigration Court

Jodie A. Schwab was appointed as an Immigration Judge to begin hearing cases in July 2021. Judge Schwab earned a Bachelor of Arts in 1990 from the University of Texas at San Antonio and a Juris Doctor in 1993 from St. Mary’s University School of Law. From 2018 to 2021, she served as an Assistant Chief Counsel, Office of the Principal Legal Advisor, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Department of Homeland Security, in Houston. From 2017 to 2018, she was Senior Counsel with Greer, Herz & Adams LLP, in League City, Texas. From 2006 to 2017,

Communications and Legislative Affairs Division

EOIR Announces 10 New Immigration Judges

Page 3

she served as a Law Clerk to the Honorable Magistrate Judge John Froeschner, with the U.S. District Courts, Southern District of Texas. From 2005 to 2006, she served as a Deputy Attorney General, California Office of the Attorney General, in Sacramento, California. From 2004 to 2005, she was a Litigation Attorney for a Staff Counsel Office with Farmers Insurance Exchange, in Stockton, California. From 1994 to 2003, she was Counsel at United Services Automobile Association, in San Antonio. Judge Schwab is a member of the State Bar of California and State Bar of Texas.

Kenneth S. Sogabe, Immigration Judge, Seattle Immigration Court

Kenneth S. Sogabe was appointed as an Immigration Judge to begin hearing cases in July 2021. Judge Sogabe earned a Bachelor of Arts in 1995 and a Master of Arts in 1996, both from San Francisco State University, and a Juris Doctor in 2001 from Golden Gate University School of Law. From 2018 to 2021, he served as Associate General Counsel, Office of General Counsel, Department of Defense Education Activity, in Okinawa, Japan. From 2014 to 2018, he served as an Attorney Advisor, Office of Chief Counsel, Customs and Border Protection, DHS, in San Francisco. From 2007 to 2014, he served as a Staff Attorney for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco. From 2001 to 2006, he served as an Assistant Chief Counsel, Office of the Principal Legal Advisor, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Department of Homeland Security (DHS), in San Francisco. Judge Sogabe is a member of the State Bar of California.

Lydia G. Tamez, Immigration Judge, Houston – Greenspoint Park Immigration Court

Lydia G. Tamez was appointed as an Immigration Judge to begin hearing cases in July 2021. Judge Tamez earned a Bachelor of Arts in 1981 from Yale University and a Juris Doctor in 1985 from Yale Law School. From 2019 to 2021, she served as an Associate Judge for the City of Houston Municipal Courts. From 2016 to 2021, she was in private practice in Houston. From 2015 to 2016, she was a Counselor at Law with Graves and Graves LLP, in Houston. From 2012 to 2015, she was a Partner with Foster LLP, in Houston. From 2003 to 2011, she was an Associate General Counsel; from 1999 to 2003, a Senior Attorney; and from 1995 to 1999, an Attorney for Legal and Corporate Affairs, with Microsoft Corporation, in Redmond, Washington. From 1986 to 1995, she was an Attorney for Tindall and Foster PC, in Houston. Judge Tamez is a member of the State Bar of Texas and the Washington State Bar.

Romaine L. White, Immigration Judge, Houston – Greenspoint Park Immigration Court

Romaine L. White was appointed as an Immigration Judge to begin hearing cases in July 2021. Judge White earned a Bachelor of Arts in 1983 from the University of Virginia and a Juris Doctor in 1986 from the University of Georgia School of Law. From 2012 to 2021, she served as an Administrative Law Judge for the Louisiana Division of Administrative Law, in New Orleans. From 2004 to 2021, and previously from 1999 to 2001, she was a sole practitioner with the Law Office of Romaine L. White LLC, in Houma, Louisiana. From 2001 to 2006, she served as an Assistant Parish Attorney for the Terrebonne Parish Consolidated Government, in Houma. From 2001 to 2004, she was an Associate Attorney with McNabb and Associates, in Houma. From 1997 to 1998, she served as Deputy General Counsel for the State Bar of Georgia, in Atlanta. From 1991 to 1997, she served as a Senior Assistant City Attorney for the City of Atlanta. From 1986 to 1991, she was an Associate Attorney with Griffin, Cochrane, & Marshall, in Atlanta. Judge White is a member of the State Bar of Georgia and the Louisiana State Bar. Communications and Legislative Affairs Division

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

The three appointments from private practice include Judge Linda G. Tamez of Houston who appears to have served as a Municipal Judge in Houston while in private practice from 2019-21. Similarly, Judge Romaine L. White of Houston Greenspoint appears to have maintained a private practice while serving as a Louisiana State ALJ from 2012-21.

The sole new IJ to list AILA experience is Judge Artie J. Pobjecky of the Houston Greenspoint Immigration Court, who served as Chair of the AILA, Central Florida Chapter, from 2015-2017. She is also the only new appointee who appears to have been working primarily in the private practice of immigration law at the time of her appointment.

Several other appointees did have some type of private sector experiences, although they were serving in various government positions at the time of appointment. None, however, stood out as having much, if any, experience representing individuals in Immigration Court in this broken and dysfunctional system.

It’s super critical for NDPA members to 1) keep applying en masse for these jobs, and 2) let your extreme dis-satisfaction with Garland’s tone-deaf, one sided appointments to the Immigration Courts be known to the Biden Administration.

We need to keep attacking until the walls of anti-expert, anti-advocate, anti-private-sector, anti-diversity bias that has been “baked into” the DOJ IJ and BIA selection process for the better part of several decades is finally broken and excellence and practical scholarship in immigration, human rights, and due process finally break through and prevail. Also, continuing to pummel the Garland EOIR’s substandard work product in the Article IIIs will keep illustrating the point that something has got to change here!

In the meantime, keep pushing Congress for an independent Immigration Court that will be free of the DOJ bureaucracy and will require a merit-based selection system with input from “outside experts!”

🇺🇸Due Process Forever! Status quo, never!

PWS

07-19-21

⚖️😎👍🏼AFTER FOUR YEARS OF BACKLOG-BUILDING NATIVIST NONSENSE & XENOPHOBIA @ DOJ, JUDGE GARLAND RETURNS THE TOOLS IMMIGRATION JUDGES & PARTIES NEED TO MANAGE & REDUCE IMMIGRATION COURT DOCKETS — “Micromanagement” From DC & Falls Church By Politicos & Toadies Doesn’t Work! 🤮☠️ — Julia Edwards Ainsley 🌟 Reports For NBC News!

Julia Edwards Ainsley
NBC Correspondent
Justice & DHS
Outside Justice Dep’t
Photo: Victoria Pickering https://www.flickr.com/photos/vpickering/

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/immigration/garland-reverses-trump-era-immigration-order-move-will-cut-huge-n1274077

IMMIGRATION

Garland reversesTrump-era immigration order in move that will cut huge backlog of asylum cases

The move will cut the ballooning backlog of 1.3 million immigration cases in the U.S. It is Garland’s third such reversal of Trump policy.

July 15, 2021, 1:28 PM EDT

By Julia Ainsley

WASHINGTON — Attorney General Merrick Garland on Thursday reversed an order from Trump’s Attorney Generald Jeff Sessions that barred immigration judges from closing cases and removing them from their docket if they deem them low-priority.

The move will cut down on the ballooning backlog of immigration cases in the U.S., now surpassing 1.3 million, according to data compiled by TRAC out of Syracuse University.

Garland said in his order that immigration judges’ ability to administratively close cases previously allowed “government counsel to request that certain low-priority cases be removed from the immigration judges’ active calendars,” thereby allowing judges “to focus on higher-priority cases.”

Garland previously overturned two other immigration court decisions by his Trump-era predecessors that had made it harder for victims of gang and domestic violence to win asylum.

. . . .

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

Thanks, Julia, for highlighting the “cosmic importance” of this decision and its “good government” potential! Read the rest of Julia’s article at the above link.

🇺🇸⚖️🗽Due Process Forever!

PWS

07-18-21

⚖️YET ANOTHER “WAKEUP CALL” FOR JUDGE GARLAND, AS 3RD CIR. CASTIGATES THE “HASTE MAKES WASTE, FORM CHECKER, DEPORTATION ASSEMBLY LINE CULTURE” @ EOIR! — “We cannot allow an IJ or the BIA to dispense with an adequate explanation of a final decision merely to facilitate or accommodate administrative expediency.”

EYORE — “Eyore In Distress”
Once A Symbol of Fairness, Due Process, & Best Practices, Now Gone “Belly Up”

https://www.lexisnexis.com/legalnewsroom/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/ca3-on-something-to-review—valarezo-tirado-v-a-g

Dan Kowalski reports for LexisNexis Immigration Community:

CA3 on “Something to Review” – Valarezo-Tirado v. A.G.

Valarezo-Tirado v. A.G.

“We have previously granted a petition for review in which the alleged basis for the BIA’s denial of relief was that “the evidence is insufficient” and “the arguments made by the [government] on appeal . . . are persua[sive]” because we could not “perform meaningful review of [such an] order.” Here, we have even less to work with. … The most fundamental notion of due process must include an opportunity for meaningful judicial review. We reiterate that “judicial review necessarily requires something to review and, if the agency provides only its result without an explanation of the underlying fact finding and analysis, a court is unable to provide judicial review.” The required review is simply not possible when we are provided with nothing more than the kind of one-line checklist that is relied upon here. We cannot allow an IJ or the BIA to dispense with an adequate explanation of a final decision merely to facilitate or accommodate administrative expediency. Since “the [IJ]’s failure of explanation makes it impossible for us to review its rationale, we [will] grant [Valarezo-Tirado’s] petition for review, vacate the [IJ’s] order, and remand the matter to [the IJ] for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.” … A 2019 study found that “on average each [immigration] judge currently has an active pending caseload of over two thousand cases.” Nevertheless, we cannot allow incredibly difficult logistics to give license to IJs to skirt their responsibilities. This includes the obligation to inform the petitioner of the reasons for the IJ’s decision and provide an adequate explanation of the decision that does not require us to parse through the testimony in search of evidence that supports it. A two-sentence recitation on a bullet-point form will rarely, if ever, provide sufficient reasoning for a decision. A decision, such as the one here, that does not refer to record evidence will never suffice. Because, here, the IJ’s decision was not supported by substantial evidence, we will vacate the decision and order and remand to the IJ for proceedings consistent with this opinion.”

[Hats off to pro bono publico counsel Robert D. Helfand and Charles W. Stotter!]

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

Hey, Jeff “Gonzo Apocalypto” Sessions said it: “Volume is critical. It just is.” For him, and then Barr, it was “all about numbers,” never about quality, fairness, or judicial independence!

SESSIONS USES SPEECH TO U.S. IMMIGRATION JUDGES TO SPREAD LIES, MOUNT ALL OUT ATTACK ON US ASYLUM LAW AND INTERNATIONAL PROTECTION LAWS – Targets Most Vulnerable Refugee Women Of Color For Latest Round Of Legal Abuses – Orders Judges To Prejudge Applications In Accordance With His Rewrite Of Law – It’s “Kangaroo Court” – The Only Question Now Is Whether Congress & Article III’s Will Let Him Get Away With Latest Perversion Of Justice @ Justice!

Interestingly, this was a “reasonable fear review” proceeding following “reinstatement” of a removal order. Even before the Trump kakistocracy, Immigration Judges once were told that there was no need for a reasoned decision because their actions were “non-reviewable” by the BIA or the Circuits. Later, in the Obama Administration, as some Circuits took an interest in these cases, judges were encouraged by EOIR HQ to enter brief decisions so that OIL could defend them on appeal, if their “no jurisdiction to review” argument failed.

There is a serious defect in a system that provides no meaningful review or appellate direction in cases with life or death consequences. Obviously, this is a system focused on something other than fairness, scholarship, quality, and justice!

After years of being told (even forced, through bogus “production quotas’) to “cut corners” and “move ‘em out” by their political “handlers” at the DOJ, neither EOIR “management” nor the current BIA is capable of providing the bold leadership, progressive “fair but efficient” scholarship and direction, quality control, and positive precedents and systemic changes necessary to insure that EOIR’s “once and future vision” of “through teamwork and innovation, becoming the world’s best tribunals guaranteeing fairness and due process for ALL” is finally realized. After four years or intentional degradation and movement in exactly the OPPOSITE direction by Sessions, Barr, and their “Miller Lite” cronies and toadies, it’s time for a change!

Obviously, the due-process-denying and demeaning (to both IJs and those seeking justice) “production quotas” and equally bureaucratic and bogus “performance work plans” should already have been revoked by Garland. They could replaced with a meaningful system of appellate supervision and judicial professional responsibility and training modeled on that of “real courts.” For example, check out the system used by the DC Court system to maintain professionalism, provide constructive feedback, and make recommendations for tenure decisions on judges, with both public and peer participation.

As the Third Circuit points out, high volume is not an excuse for sloppy work and denial of due process! The backlog can be slashed and justice restored, and even improved, while maintaining high standards of quality and implementing and enforcing best practices. EOIR indeed could become a “model progressive court system.” But, it’s going to take a new team of progressive judges and qualified progressive Administrators, folks with experience in the “horrors of today’s Immigration (not) Courts” and an unswerving commitment to due process and best practices to get the job done!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

07-16-21

☠️🤮⚰️DUE PROCESS MOCKED: UNDUE POLITICAL INFLUENCE IN IMMIGRATION COURT LEADS TO IMPROPER DENIAL OF LIFE-SAVING PROTECTION TO KIDS! — “Political influence from the executive branch combined with local environmental pressures can affect how immigration judges rule. Most importantly, these influences can lead to some children not receiving asylum when they might otherwise be entitled to it.”

Unaccompanied immigrant minors wait on July 2, 2019 in Los Ebanos, Texas to be transported to a U.S. Border Patrol processing center after entering the U.S. to seek political asylum. John Moore/Getty Images

US immigration judges considering asylum for unaccompanied minors are ‘significantly influenced’ by politics

July 13, 2021 8.30am EDT

Authors

Daniel Braaten Associate professor of Political Science, Texas Lutheran University

Claire Nolasco Braaten Associate Professor, Criminology, Texas A&M-San Antonio

Disclosure statement

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Partners

Texas A&M San Antonio provides funding as a member of The Conversation US.

View all partners

We believe in the free flow of information

Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.

Republish this article

Email

Twitter5

Facebook

LinkedIn

Print

The news over the past months has been saturated with stories about another “surge” of unaccompanied minors crossing the southern border of the U.S.

In March 2021, the number of unaccompanied minors apprehended in the U.S. reached an all-time monthly high of 18,890. This surpassed the previous monthly high of 11,681 in May 2019.

One question not addressed in many of these stories is: How many of these children actually receive asylum and are allowed to stay in the country?

The people who make those decisions are immigration judges. Their decisions are supposed to be based on whether these children have fears of being persecuted in their home countries and whether these fears are realistic.

But our research examining the period from early October 2013 until the end of September 2017 shows that these judges were influenced by factors outside of the case. Political factors such as ideology, political party of the president who appointed them and who was president at the time they decided the case significantly influenced whether these children were allowed to stay in the country.

Aside from political factors, immigration judges are also influenced by local contexts, such as unemployment levels, the number of uninsured children and size of Latino population in the places where they work.

Unaccompanied minors and asylum

Under U.S. law, an unaccompanied minor is a child under 18 years old who does not have lawful immigration status and no parent or legal guardian in the country who can provide care or custody.

Unaccompanied minors cannot be refused entry or removed from the country without legal process because of the 1993 Supreme Court case Reno v. Flores. In 2008, new legislation allowed asylum officers to grant these children asylum at the U.S. border. If the asylum officer denies asylum to the minor, the minor may request asylum before an immigration judge.

Because immigration judges are not appointed under Article III of the Constitution, as federal judges are, they have less independence than those federal judges. According to current Justice Department rules, immigration judges are appointed by the attorney general and they act as his or her delegates.

Political pressure

In order to learn what factors affect the grant of relief to unaccompanied minors, we obtained data on their asylum applications from Oct. 2, 2013 to Sept. 29, 2017, covering over 10,000 cases from 280 different judges in 46 counties and 27 states.

Only 327 of the unaccompanied minors actually received asylum; 2,867 were deported and 455 chose to voluntarily leave.

An additional 6,645 children were allowed to stay in the country. Of those, 3,589 had their case administratively closed, which allows judges to suspend the case indefinitely without hearing and deciding on it. The remaining 3,056 had their case terminated, which means that the case against the child was dismissed.

The fate of unaccompanied minors entering the US

A review of about 10,000 asylum applications for unaccompanied minors from October 2, 2013 to September 29, 2017 found the majority of the minors were allowed to stay (in green), most because a judge either dismissed or indefinitely suspended the case against them. Only 327 were granted asylum.

Bar charts grouped to show significantly more unaccompanied minors were allowed to stay.

2,000 cases

2,867

455

3,589

3,056

327

Removed

Voluntarily Departed

Administrative Closure

Case dismissed

Received asylum

Chart: The Conversation/CC-BY-ND Source: Daniel Braaten and Claire Nolasco Braaten Get the data

We ran a statistical analysis of political factors that may influence immigration judges’ decision: judicial ideology, political party of the appointing president and whether the decision was made before or during the Trump administration.

Following previous research on immigration judge’s ideology, we determined a judge’s ideology by considering their prior work experiences. Based on this research, we determined that some experiences, such as working for immigration agencies, are associated with more conservative views on immigration and asylum issues.

Conversely, work experiences in an immigration or non-immigration-related nonprofit or academia are associated with more liberal views. Our analysis showed that immigration judges with more liberal judicial ideology were more likely to rule in favor of granting asylum to these children.

Judges’ ideology can influence asylum decisions

Immigration judges who are more liberal tended to allow unaccompanied children to stay in the U.S. more often, compared to more conservative judges. Ideology was determined from each judge’s prior work and ranges from 1-11, most conservative to most liberal.

Area chart showing how children allowed to stay rose with more liberal judges.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

0

50

100%

Likelihood unaccompanied minor is allowed to stay

Data from 2013-2017

Chart: The Conversation/CC-BY-ND Source: Daniel Braaten and Claire Nolasco Braaten Get the data

We also found that judges who were appointed by a Democratic attorney general were more likely to rule in favor of the minors.

Political party of attorney general who appointed the judge

Immigration judges appointed by Democrats were more likely to allow unaccompanied minors seeking asylum to stay in the U.S. than those appointed by Republicans.

Bar charts showing judges appointed by Democrats were more like to allow unaccompanied children to stay in the U.S., but GOP-appointed numbers were also above 62%.

Republican

62.9%

Democratic

69.5%

Data from 2013-2017

Chart: The Conversation/CC-BY-ND Source: Daniel Braaten and Claire Nolasco Braaten Get the data

Finally, statistical analysis showed that immigration judges were less likely to grant relief during the eight months of the Trump administration compared to the last three years of the Obama administration.

President at the time the case was decided

Immigration judges were more likely to allow unaccompanied minors seeking asylum to stay in the U.S. during the Obama administration than during the Trump administration.

Trump

54%

Obama

67.7%

Data from 2013-2017

Chart: The Conversation/CC-BY-ND Source: Daniel Braaten and Claire Nolasco Braaten Get the data

Why did politics and judges’ ideology play into their decisions?

We believe it’s because immigration judges are subject to political pressure from the president, indirectly, because they are appointed by the attorney general, who is also a presidential appointee and carries out the president’s policies and wishes.

Local environment

Pressure from the executive branch was not the only factor we concluded had influenced whether these children got to stay in the U.S. or were turned away. Aside from political and ideological values, judges may also have been influenced by their local contexts.

For example, we found that immigration judges in places with more Latinos were more likely to let these children stay. Conversely, immigration judges in states with lots of poor children were less likely to let these children stay than judges in states with relatively fewer poor kids.

Latino population in the county

In counties with larger Latino populations, judges were more likely to allow unaccompanied minors seeking asylum to stay in the U.S. The horizontal axis shows the percentage of the county’s population that is Latino.

20% Latino

40

60

80

0

20

40

60

80

100% likelihood unaccompanied minor is allowed to stay

Data from 2013-2017

Chart: The Conversation/CC-BY-ND Source: Daniel Braaten and Claire Nolasco Braaten Get the data

Asylum decisions can be life-or-death matters. Although immigration judges consider the requirements of asylum law, they are also influenced by nonlegal factors when making decisions.

Political influence from the executive branch combined with local environmental pressures can affect how immigration judges rule. Most importantly, these influences can lead to some children not receiving asylum when they might otherwise be entitled to it.

[The Conversation’s Politics + Society editors pick need-to-know stories. Sign up for Politics Weekly.]

Immigration

Asylum

US Supreme Court

Borders

Donald Trump

Obama administration

Unaccompanied minors

Trump administration

Political influence

President Barack Obama

We need your help

The Conversation is a nonprofit organization working for the public good through fact- and research-based journalism. Nearly half of our budget comes from the support of universities, and higher education budgets are under unprecedented strain. Your gift can help us keep doing our important work and reach more people. Thank you.

Republished under Creative Commons license.

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

Go to this link for the original article with pictures and graphs: https://theconversation.com/us-immigration-judges-considering-asylum-for-unaccompanied-minors-are-significantly-influenced-by-politics-160071

This article confirms two things I have said over and over:

Garland’s failure, to date, to replace the BIA with better qualified progressive judges with expertise gained by representing asylum seekers; plus
His “giveaway” of 17 critical Immigration Judge positions to those selected by “Billy the Bigot” Barr under badly flawed procedures;

will unquestionably cost some children and other refugees their lives. Immigration Judge positions are life or death — we need an Attorney General who treats them that way!

Immigration Judge appointments, particularly those at the appellate (BIA level), need to be treated by Democratic Administrations with the same care, seriousness, and strategy as Article III judicial appointments, perhaps more! Few Article III Judges, including the Supremes, affect more lives and have a bigger impact on America’s future than Immigration Judges.

The last two GOP Administrations “got” the negative power for destruction and dehumanization inherent in a “captive” court system that actively pursues misguided nativist policies and receives only sporadic supervision and attention from the Article IIIs. By contrast, the Obama Administration failed to “mine EOIR’s potential” for progressive due process advancements and building a corps of dynamic, courageous progressive judges.

So far, while perhaps exceeding the passively inept approach of the Obama Administration, the Biden Administration has also failed to achieve the radical, yet logical and obvious, reforms and decisive personnel actions necessary to undo the damage caused by the White Nationalist xenophobia of the Trump kakistocracy.

The Immigration Courts have the potential to become “model progressive courts” that could lead the way to better practices and more constitutionally and legally sound jurisprudence throughout the Federal Judiciary. Whether the Biden Administration grasps and acts boldly on that potential, or squanders it as past Democratic Administrations have done, remains to be seen.

But, that question is far from “academic.” The survival of our democratic republic is likely to depend to a great extent on whether the Biden Administration can bring in the progressive experts who finally will “get EOIR right!”

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

07-16-21

😎👍YES! IN A HUGE WIN FOR DUE PROCESS, EFFICIENCY, JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE, & SANE GOVERNMENT, AG GARLAND OVERRULES SESSIONS’S IDIOTIC MATTER OF CASTRO-TUM PRECEDENT & RESTORES IJs’ AUTHORITY TO ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSE CASES — Matter of Cruz-Valdez, 28 I&N Dec. 326 (A.G. 2021)

The Attorney General has issued a decision in Matter of Cruz-Valdez, 28 I&N Dec. 326 (A.G. 2021).

(1) Matter of Castro‑Tum, 27 I&N Dec. 271 (A.G. 2018), is overruled in its entirety.

(2) While rulemaking proceeds and except when a court of appeals has held otherwise, immigration judges and the Board should apply the standard for administrative closure set out in Matter of Avetisyan, 25 I&N Dec. 688 (BIA 2012), and Matter of W‑Y‑U‑, 27 I&N Dec. 17 (BIA 2017).

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

Sessions’s Castro-Tum abomination had to be one of the stupidest and most maliciously incompetent aspects of his White Nationalist, anti-asylum, anti-due-process agenda! Not surprisingly, that decision and the illegal attempt to convert it into a regulation have mostly been losers in the Article III Courts.

Hats 🎩 off to Judge Garland for doing the right thing (even if it did take longer than some of us thought it should)! This also ties in perfectly with the recent common sense restoration of enforcement priorities and prosecutorial discretion at ICE by OPLA head John Trasvina! https://immigrationcourtside.com/category/department-of-homeland-security/immigration-customs-enforcement-ice/office-of-principal-legal-adviser-opla/john-d-trasvina/

After four years of virtually unrelenting illegality, mismanagement, and outright idiocy at DHS and DOJ, that has caused “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” and generated ever-mushrooming court backlogs, finally some much-needed and long overdue teamwork and reasonability in restoring to Immigration Judges and the parties the necessary tools for rational, cooperative docket management. Presumably, the hundreds of thousands of cases “waiting in the wings” to be “re-docketed” pursuant to “Sessions’s folly” can now remain administratively closed or be “re-closed” and removed from the EOIR docket!

Hon. Jeffrey S. Chase
Jeffrey S. Chase Blog
Coordinator & Chief Spokesperson, Round Table of Former Immigration Judges

Along those same lines, “Sir Jeffrey” Chase reports some more good news:

More Good News!

Ms. A-B- (i.e. the respondent in Matter of A-B-) was granted asylum yesterday.The BIA granted pursuant to a joint motion from DHS and respondent’s counsel to grant asylum.

It took far too long, but justice prevailed.

Best, Jeff

That’s the type of cooperative action among the parties and EOIR that, if repeated on a larger scale, could restore functionality and some semblance of justice to our broken Immigration Courts!

Also, many congrats to my friend Karen Musalo and her team at the Center for Gender and Refugee Studies at Hastings Law for their outstanding, persistent, and ultimately successful defense of Ms. A-B- against Sessions’s misogynistic “war on asylum seekers of color.”

It’s a telling commentary that finally getting the law back to where it was in 2016, “pre-Sessions,” now seems like a major victory! Just think of what might have been accomplished if all the effort expended on combatting the Trump immigration kakistocracy’s illegality, nonsense, and wasteful gimmicks had instead been devoted to advancing and promoting due process and fundamental fairness for all persons in America!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

07-15-21

⚖️5TH CIRCUIT BELATEDLY “OUTS” IJ AGNELIS REESE (NOW RETIRED) FOR 99.5% ASYLUM DENIAL RECORD — “We find it likely that a ‘reasonable man, were he to know all the circumstances, would harbor doubts about the judge’s impartiality.’” Inexplicably Garland & Co. Let Other “Asylum Deniers Club” Members Continue to Wreak Havoc On Asylum Seekers, Their Lawyers, & The Entire U.S. Justice System!🤮

“Miller Lite” – Garland’s Vision of “Justice @ Justice” for Communities of Color — As asylum seekers and their fearless advocates suffer and the Immigration “Courts” disintegrate, there appears to be no end to “Garland’s Miller-Lite Happy Hour” @ DOJ!

Dan Kowalski Reports for LexisNexis Immigration Community:

https://www.lexisnexis.com/LegalNewsRoom/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/rare-ca5-stay-grant-singh-v-garland#

Rare CA5 Stay Grant: Singh v. Garland

Singh v. Garland

“Daljinder Singh applied for asylum and protection under the Convention Against Torture, claiming that he feared persecution in India based on his membership in the Akali Dal Amritsar (“Mann Party”), a Sikh-dominated political party. The presiding immigration judge (“IJ”) denied his application, finding Singh not credible. The Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissed Singh’s appeal. Singh filed a petition for review and moved for a stay of removal. We granted Singh an emergency stay of removal pending further order. We now grant Singh a stay pending review of his petition. … Singh raises two principal arguments in his petition for review. First, he contends that the IJ’s near total denial rate for asylum applications reflected a bias and violated Singh’s due process rights. Second, he challenges the BIA’s conclusion that the IJ adhered to the procedural safeguards the BIA adopted in Matter of R-K-K-, applicable when an IJ relies on inter-proceeding similarities for an adverse credibility determination. We conclude that Singh has made the requisite showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits of both claims. … The IJ here [Agnelis Reese] denied relief to asylum seekers in 203 of the 204 cases she presided over from 2014 to 2019, a denial rate of 99.5%. … … Given the accounts of multiple witnesses to the attacks on Singh, medical records, images of the attacks on his father, and witness testimony regarding the BJP’s continued pursuit of Singh, Singh has made the requisite showing that the totality of the evidence does not support the IJ’s credibility determination. The appearance of bias painted by the denial of 203 of 204 asylum applications and the IJ’s adverse-credibility determination, informed by her noncompliance with the procedural safeguards of Matter of R-K-K-, are here interlaced. We do not suggest that a high percentage of denials is sufficient to avoid an IJ’s otherwise valid credibility determinations. Indeed, patterns in applicants’ presentations are likely and may necessarily result in a higher denial rate if the shared basis for relief is inadequate. But here, the incredibly high denial rate, when coupled with the IJ’s noncompliance with Matter of R-K-K-, presents a substantial likelihood that Singh will be entitled to relief upon full consideration by a merits panel. … Accordingly, we GRANT Singh’s motion for a stay pending review of his petition.”

[Hats way off to Peter Rogers!]

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

So, if the 5th Circuit and a “reasonable man” could figure out this isn’t “justice,” by any stretch of the imagination, why on earth 1) can’t Garland do likewise, and 2) does he continue to have his lawyers defend this disgraceful nonsense and waste of taxpayer money? Reese has previously been “featured” in Courtside for her “Kafkaesque” approach to “justice” for asylum seekers. Several years ago, I spoke at a Louisiana State Bar CLE event where attorney after attorney shared their “horror stories” about Reese. Yet, she managed to last for more than two decades over four different Administrations, two Democratic and two Republican.

Thankfully for American justice, Judge Reese retired in 2020, after more than two decades of abusing asylum seekers and disgracing the Immigration Courts! But, she was by no means the only unqualified Immigration Judge who helped create disgraceful and illegal “Asylum Free Zones” in Immigration Courtrooms throughout America.

A number of members of the “Asylum Denial Club” remain on the bench @ EOIR. Outrageously, some of them were even “rewarded” with appointments to the BIA by the previous Administration!

Rather than swiftly moving to replace the BiA and then commencing a thorough, long overdue “housecleaning” of unqualified judges and managers at EOIR, Garland, Monaco, Gupta, and Clarke have dawdled as asylum seekers continue to be abused, mistreated, denied due process, and justice mocked at EOIR. A civil rights/racial injustice/due process crisis of gargantuan proportions is going on right under their noses, and they have done very little to acknowledge or address it!

Not to mention that under Garland’s lackadaisical leadership the Immigration Courts continue to build unnecessary backlog at “Trumpian” rates. It’s not like experts haven’t brought the grotesque injustices and defects of EOIR to the attention of the Biden Administration and Garland!

One might ask just what Garland and his top lieutenants are doing to earn their pay? The answer is “not much” to date from a progressive standpoint!

Experts and advocates should be “raising hell” with the Biden Administration about the deficient due process and racial justice leadership at the DOJ! American justice deserves better! Much better!

And, the other Circuit Courts (particularly the 11th Circuit) that have looked the other way at the biased decision-making and other unconstitutional travesties of justice going on in Immigration Court on a regular basis don’t look so good either!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

07-14-21

⚖️MATTER OF A-B- REMAND: Many More To Follow! — But, Without Progressive Reforms By Garland, Due Process, Fundamental Fairness, & Best Practices Will Remain Elusive!

Dan Kowalski reports on LexisNexis Immigration Community:

https://www.lexisnexis.com/LegalNewsRoom/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/unpub-ca6-on-honduras-social-group#

Daniel M. Kowalski

7 Jul 2021

social group

Honduras

matter of a-b-

asylum

Unpub. CA6 on Honduras, Social Group: u

Corea Escoto v. Garland (unpub.)

“Given the BIA’s repeated reliance on A-B-, briefing on the effect of A-B-’s overruling is necessary. We remand to the BIA to reconsider Corea’s asylum claim in the first instance, this time under pre-A-B- caselaw.”

[Hats off to Sally M. Joyner!]

$pastedGraphic_1.png$

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

Garland has failed to :

Get rid of the “Miller Lite Denial Club @ EOIR;”
Bring in progressive immigration experts at the BIA and the Immigration Courts;
Generate long-overdue positive precedents on granting asylum to those persecuted by domestic violence and other forms of gender-based persecution.

Consequently, these remands (of many cases that should have been granted years ago) are likely to be yet another “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” disaster. The BIA was “all over the place” on A-R-C-G- domestic violence cases even prior to Session’s racist, misogynistic, intellectually dishonest atrocity in A-B-. Without a better qualified, courageous, expert BIA committed to due process and positive precedents on how to efficiently recognize and grant “gender-based” asylum cases, the backlog-building, due-process-denying, equal-justice-eroding deadly farce known as “refugee roulette” @ EOIR will continue!🤮☠️

Tell Garland you’ve had (more than) enough. Fix EOIR with real progressive judges and competent judicial (not bureaucratic) administrators! 🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

07-08-21

🏴‍☠️☠️⚰️👎🏽DOJ DISCONNECT: Garland Hits Pause Button On Trump/Barr 🤮 Kill-Fest, While Operating “Traffic Courts” That Can Impose The Death Penalty ⚰️ Without Due Process Or Impartial Judges!

In the strangely disingenuous world of Judge Garland’s DOJ:

This is unacceptable treatment of convicted felons:

Death Penalty
By Dave Granlund
Reprinted by license

But, this is “A-OK” treatment of those seeking asylum @ EOIR:

Star Chamber Justice — “Justice”
Star Chamber
Style

Pausing the Trump/Barr Federal killing spree makes sense. In addition to Garland’s “due process concerns,” there is the larger problem that the death penalty is unconstitutional under the 8th Amendment.

One would think that AG Garland’s concern for due process would extend to individuals being railroaded through his broken, biased, dysfunctional, due-process-denying Immigration “Courts” (that aren’t courts at all) who often face removal to places where they face abuse, torture, and/or death. Heck, at the border they are illegally removed without any process at all, as Judge Garland and his lieutenants look the other way. They might pretend not to see what’s happening. But, we see it!

Apparently, in Garland’s system due process is only a requirement for convicted felons, not for vulnerable individuals fighting for their lives in a process intentionally skewed against them. His is a system staffed largely with “Miller-Lite judges” selected by his two immediate predecessors who prided themselves on creating a “due process free zone” at EOIR and “partnering” with DHS Enforcement!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever,

PWS

07-05-21

⚖️🗽🇺🇸TEA IVANOVIC @ IMMIGRANT FOOD INTERVIEWS ME ON DYSFUNCTIONAL IMMIGRATION COURTS: “They are not the courts that you think of when you think of our judicial system. . . . He’s pretty blunt about the ways in which the immigration court system is highly dysfunctional,” Says Tea In Her Intro!

Editor’s Note – July

Dear Reader,

For this month’s Think Table issue, we delve into the dysfunctional U.S immigration court system. The U.S. constitution states that our judicial system is a ‘separate but equal part’ to our democracy. But immigration courts have nothing to do with that. They fall under the Department of Justice, and immigration judges have a boss, the Attorney General. As we’ve seen in recent times, that can be a highly politicized position. Additionally, the lack of technology and the ever-growing backlog of cases leave many immigrants and asylum seekers waiting an average of two years just to schedule a court proceeding!

For this issue, we spoke with Judge Paul Schmidt, a former federal immigration judge. He’s pretty blunt about the ways in which the immigration court system is highly dysfunctional.

We hope you enjoy this issue as much as we do.

Téa

Here’s a link to the “video short:”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QDDV83vSuHY

Here’ the “complete issue” which contains a reprint of an article from Sarah Pierce“Obscure but Powerful: Shaping U.S. Immigration Policy through Attorney General Referral and Review.”

https://immigrantfood.com/the-think-table/

And here’s the terrifically talented Tea:

Tea Ivonovic — Tea Ivanovic
Chief Operating Officer
ImmigrantFood.com
PHOTO: Immigrant Food

Born in Belgium to parents from the former Yugoslavia and recruited to the United States by Virginia Tech’s Division 1 Varsity tennis team, Téa calls herself an immigrant squared. She still can’t figure out if Serbian, Flemish or English is her native language – she speaks all of them equally. Her professional career includes creating and implementing strategic communications for international policy and politics at a Washington D.C. think tank, and global financial matters at a financial public and media relations firm. Téa was the first Washington Correspondent for Oslobodjenje, Bosnia and Herzegovina’s oldest newspaper and leading news outlet in the Western Balkans. She graduated with a master’s degree from the Johns Hopkins’ School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS).

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

Yeah, I’m pretty blunt! But, this is a totally screwed up system that threatens our democracy!

So, many of us out here in the NDPA think it’s a dire emergency, even if Judge Garland and the Biden Administration prefer to ignore the obvious and shun the immediate solutions!

Judge Garland’s failure to implement basic constitutional, personnel, and management reforms @ EOIR is undermining justice in America and tarnishing his reputation. Also, it’s potentially killing innocent folks. Sure sounds like a “national Constitutional emergency” to me!

Thanks to Tea for making this “accessible” report on a huge, largely unaddressed, democracy threatening problem. Tell Judge G to fix EOIR now!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

07-01-21

Dean Kevin Johnson reports for ImmigrationProf Blog:

Meanwhile, Tyche Hendricks reports @ KQED News on the ongoing mess @ EOIR:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Here are some of my questions:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

David Montgomery writes in the WashPost:

HISTORICAL ADDENDUM FROM HON. “SIR JEFFREY” CHASE:

Related posts:

FROM SPLC:

🇺🇸⚖️Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Dan Kowalski reports on LexisNexis Immigration Community:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Related posts:

Garland reversesTrump-era immigration order in move that will cut huge backlog of asylum cases

The move will cut the ballooning backlog of 1.3 million immigration cases in the U.S. It is Garland’s third such reversal of Trump policy.

🇺🇸⚖️🗽Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Dan Kowalski reports for LexisNexis Immigration Community:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Dan Kowalski Reports for LexisNexis Immigration Community:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Dan Kowalski reports on LexisNexis Immigration Community:

Tell Garland you’ve had (more than) enough. Fix EOIR with real progressive judges and competent judicial (not bureaucratic) administrators! 🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

In the strangely disingenuous world of Judge Garland’s DOJ:

This is unacceptable treatment of convicted felons:

But, this is “A-OK” treatment of those seeking asylum @ EOIR:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever,

Related posts:

Here’s a link to the “video short:”

Here’ the “complete issue” which contains a reprint of an article from Sarah Pierce“Obscure but Powerful: Shaping U.S. Immigration Policy through Attorney General Referral and Review.”

And here’s the terrifically talented Tea:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts: