Backlogs – Page 28 – immigrationcourtside.com

⚖️🇺🇸👍🏼🗽DEAN KEVIN JOHNSON’S SUCCINCT RESPONSE TO GREG ABBOTT’S PREDICTABLE SOUTHERN BORDER BS IS WORTH A READ! — PLUS: ARELIS HERNANDEZ OF WASHPOST WITH SOME MUCH-NEEDED TRUTH & PERSPECTIVE FROM THOSE ACTUALLY LIVING ON THE SOUTHERN BORDER: “We need more lawyers and judges, not more troops or technology.”

https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/immigration/2021/03/texas-governor-abbott-statement-on-unaccompanied-minor-crisis-created-by-biden-administration.html

There, of course, are pressing humanitarian issues to address along the U.S./Mexico border. But to say that this issues are a result of “open border policies” is simply wrong. No major party political leader to my knowledge is calling for “open borders.” Rather, the “open borders” mantra is something that Republican politicians invoke to attack immigration policies that they do not like.

Democrats have another explanation for the current situation at the border. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told ABC News’ “This Week” that the policies of the Trump administration, which radically transformed immigration enforcement from 2017-21, are to blame for the recent increase in unaccompanied migrant children at the southern border,

“This is a humanitarian challenge to all of us,” Pelosi said. “What the administration has inherited is a broken system at the border and they are working to correct that in the children’s interests.”

To address humanitarian concerns, Homeland Secretary Alejandro N. Mayorkas has directed the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to support an effort over the next 90 days to safely shelter unaccompanied children who make the dangerous journey to the U.S./Mexico border.

KJ

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

Thanks, Kevin, for adding some reality and perspective to the discussion. You can read Abbott’s statement at the link. Notably, the Republicans have offered no constructive solutions to this humanitarian issue, either in or out of power, other than to engage in child abuse and continually violate the laws, both international and domestic.

The criticism from the likes of Abbott, who as “Governor” of Texas has presided over a power grid disaster that actually killed and threatened the health of Texas residents and who has thumbed his nose at public health recommendations that save lives, is particularly disingenuous. And, naturally, the dangerous and deadly results of Abbott’s and the GOP’s mis-governance of Texas have fallen disproportionately on Latinos and other communities of color. The Abbott/GOP response has been to attempt to disenfranchise citizens of color in Texas!

The same can be said of GOP House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy whose main contribution to America’s safety and security has been to whitewash the deadly assault on our Capitol that his “supreme leader” orchestrated. Again, a person with no credibility.

Those seeking a more nuanced and accurate picture of what’s really happening at the Southern Border should read the lengthy report of Arelis Hernandez in the WashPost:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/immigration/migrants-are-not-overrunning-us-border-towns-despite-the-political-rhetoric/2021/03/15/b193f3f2-8345-11eb-ac37-4383f7709abe_story.html

Migrants are not overrunning U.S. border towns, despite the political rhetoric

Leaders in Texas border towns say their economies are suffering because of pandemic restrictions on cross-border travel.

. . . .

City officials and nonprofit organizations can’t force families to stay in the hotels but Darling, the McAllen mayor, said so far no one they track has left isolation prematurely.

“We tell them if they want to leave on our buses, they need to follow our rules,” he said. The city has spent nearly $200,000 of taxpayer money it hopes will be reimbursed by the federal government, but Abbott’s rejection of Federal Emergency Management Agency funding from the Biden administration will complicate matters for localities.

Darling said his city is full of compassionate people, and they are doing the rest of the country a favor in taking care of migrant families on the front end of their journeys.

Along the border, faith organizations, local emergency managers and immigration advocates say they have learned from previous surges how best to coordinate. They are preparing to receive flights and buses full of asylum seekers, mostly recently released families with small children, to ease capacity issues that critics say the Department of Homeland Security officials should have anticipated.

Coronavirus restrictions have put capacity limits on shelters run by community organizations on the U.S. side of the border, but so far the numbers are not at 2019 levels, said Pastor Michael Smith of the Holding Institute in Laredo. Shelters and temporary detention facilities operated by the U.S. Health and Human Services’ contractors, however, are over capacity.

But without more orderly intervention, the numbers could overwhelm. The Biden administration plans to deploy FEMA to the border to help with the migration surge as the administration tries to quickly scale up space to temporarily hold and process migrants and unaccompanied children — many between the ages of 13 and 17.

“The failure to have an administrative process is causing a humanitarian crisis,” Smith said during a news conference organized by Laredo activists. “There are solutions to the issues, but they are not solutions that call for militarizing the border.”

“We need robust infrastructure at our ports of entry to handle people seeking asylum,” said Tannya Benavides, of the No Border Wall coalition. “We need more lawyers and judges, not more troops or technology.”

Arelis R. Hernandez
Southern Border Reporter
Washington Post

Great article by Arelis! I highly recommend it. My only caveat is that we need not just more lawyers and judges, certainly correct, but better Immigration Judges who are experts in asylum law, have experience representing asylum seekers, and can fairly, efficiently, and consistently identify those with valid claims to protection under the law before it was perverted by the Trump regime. Also, the Government could use more qualified Asylum Officers who could screen and finally adjudicate the grantable cases, under correct legal criteria set forth by better-qualified Immigration Judges and a completely new due-process-human rights-oriented BIA without even having to send the cases to court.

These are the bold steps necessary to get out of the cycle of “same old, same old” — which inevitably ends with harsh measures directed at asylum seeking families and children that do nothing to address the causes of forced migration. “Enforcement-only deterrent measures” never have solved, and never will solve, the long-term problem in a constructive manner. The cycle of failed, yet expensive and inhumane deterrents, just keeps repeating itself Administration after Administration.

I have already suggested tapping into retired Asylum Officers and other retired USCIS Adjudicators with the necessary asylum expertise. I’m betting that my retired Round Table colleague, and former Asylum Officer and UN Official, Judge Paul Grussendorf would be available to help lead such an effort.

To solve this problem, the Biden Administration must put some experts who understand the practicalities of refugee and asylum situations in place and let them solve the problem. It should come as no shock that the current gangs at DHS and EOIR —largely holdovers who participated in the Trump regime’s cruel, failed, and illegal “enforcement only” policies at the border — are not going to be able to get the job done. At least they can’t without some effective “adult supervision” from those committed to humane, legal, and timely processing of asylees and other migrants in full compliance with due process and best practices.

The Trump regime eschewed any attempt to build a fair, effective, timely asylum adjudication system that complied with domestic and international law as well as due process. Instead, they concentrated on eradicating the entire U.S. refugee and protection system through regulations (many enjoined), Executive Orders (some enjoined), bogus administrative “precedents,” and stacking the Immigration Courts with overtly anti-asylum or “go along to get along” “judges.” Right now, the entire system is in shambles — the most obvious example being the totally dysfunctional mess at EOIR!

To “win the game,” the Biden Administration needs to get the right players on the field. While there has been some notable progress, that hasn’t happened to date. And, with politicos like Abbott and McCarthy stirring the pot daily, time is running to get the “A Team” in place to combat their lies, distortions, and nonsense.

🇺🇸🗽⚖️Due Process Forever!

PWS

01-16-21

⚖️👨🏻‍⚖️ THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION SHOULD “RE-CERTIFY” THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF IMMIGRATION JUDGES (NAIJ) — Will They? ❓❓— Marcia Brown Reports For American Prospect

https://prospect.org/justice/one-union-biden-has-not-supported-immigration-judges/

. . . .

The union is hopeful that President Biden will reverse the decision, but they have yet to see action. “I know the new administration is extremely busy; I think this is a very important and significant issue,” said Paul Shearon, president of the International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers, a union that represents many high-skilled federal employees.

As the administration begins to process asylum seekers in the “Remain in Mexico” program and otherwise roll back Trump’s asylum blockades, the court system will need to run efficiently and fairly. As it is, the immigration court backlog—largely created by Trump policies—is at 1.3 million cases.

Trump’s decertification of NAIJ “was to retaliate against NAIJ for our strong voice and our strong call to demand transparency and accountability,” said Amiena Khan, NAIJ president. The union’s previous president, A. Ashley Tabaddor, is now chief counsel at U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. The union is hopeful that Biden will take action, though nothing has yet been forthcoming.

“We are very supportive of the current Biden administration and appreciate his strong support for unions and collective bargaining,” said Khan.

Biden’s position on unions in other contexts has been clear. Some labor historians have said he is the most pro-labor president in their lifetimes. In an executive order in January, Biden directed the Office of Personnel Management to make recommendations concerning raising the minimum wage for federal employees to $15 per hour. In February, Biden voiced support for Amazon workers’ right to organize, an unprecedented level of support from a sitting president.

Almost immediately, the immigration judges’ union asked if he would follow up by voluntarily recognizing their union. No action has been taken. A White House spokesperson has not yet responded to a request for comment.

Merrick Garland has now been confirmed as attorney general, perhaps setting the stage for quicker movement. But the union says that, despite immigration judges being part of the Justice Department, an attorney general appointment isn’t needed to reverse the decision. The administration can voluntarily recognize the union.

. . . .

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

Over the last four years, the NAIJ was was one of the few “inside sources” of truth about the Trump Administration’s misconduct and gross mismanagement — “malicious incompetence” — at the DOJ. Obviously, in the Trump Administration speaking truth to power was a punishable offense. NAIJ was no exception.

This union representing Immigration Judges was illegally “decertified” in an absurd decision by the FLRA finding that IJs were now “management officials” on the basis of actions that had reduced them to little more than “deportation clerks” carrying out the regime’s White Nationalist, xenophobic agenda.

Not only did IJs continue to have no control whatsoever over their staff and working conditions, but they were unceremoniously stripped of their already-limited authority to professionally manage their dockets and to exercise independent discretion. They were subjected to due-process-killing “deportation quotas” and bogus “performance evaluations” by unqualified and largely out of touch “supervisors” — few, if any, of whom handled full dockets themselves — that would have been more suited to entry level deportation officers than supposedly independent and impartial “judges.” Meanwhile, the real primary cause of uncontrollable backlogs and endless delays at EOIR — “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” by politicos at EOIR HQ and the DOJ, and horrible, anti-due process, out of touch with reality “precedents” by biased AGs and the BIA — continued unabated.

Always subject to control by their “handlers” at EOIR HQ and DOJ, IJs were further humiliated by being barred from teaching at professional seminars and writing for scholarly publications. Their dockets and roles were defined by highly unqualified politicos who had never presided at an immigration hearing in their careers! Talk about screwed up!

Who ever heard of a “judiciary” that operates like a totally dysfunctional bureaucratic agency — that has most recently been run by non-judicial personnel who lack expertise, experience, and a commitment to due process — but were focused on carrying out an overtly anti-immigrant, anti-human rights, anti-due-process White Nationalist political agenda!

To add to this outrageously politically-biased scenario, to reach its ludicrous result the FLRA had to steamroll both their prior precedent on the same issues and overrule the decision of their own Regional Director.

Presently, the NAIJ is the only organization providing due-process oriented training directly to Immigration Judges. The leadership of the NAIJ stand out as some of the most qualified, courageous, and talented judges on the immigration bench.

Judge Garland and the Biden Administration simply can’t afford to leave the NAIJ out in the cold if they intend to fix the now totally-screwed-up EOIR and bring constitutionally-required equal justice under law to the broken and reeling DOJ. You simply can’t promote racial justice in America while running a “court” that has institutionalized racial biases and mocks, tramples, and ignores due process and equal justice on a daily basis!

FULL DISCLOSURE: I am a proud retired member of the NAIJ!

🇺🇸⚖️🗽Due Process Forever!

PWS

03-15-21

⚖️🗽PROFESSOR DAVID A. MARTIN EXPLAINS HOW BIDEN ADMINISTRATION COULD ADVANCE ITS IMMIGRATION AGENDA BY ABANDONING THEIR WRONG-HEADED POSITION BEFORE THE SUPREMES! — Don’t Let Sanchez v Mayorkas Become a Lost Opportunity!

David Martin — Professor (Emeritus) David A. Martin
UVA Law
PHOTO: UVA Law

https://www.justsecurity.org/75295/removing-barriers-to-family-unity-for-holders-of-temporary-protected-status-an-opportunity-for-biden-administration/

David writes in Just Security:

Currently before the Supreme Court is a little-noticed immigration case with profound significance. Sanchez v. Mayorkas offers the Biden administration an opportunity to make major progress, without waiting for legislative action, on one of its central humanitarian goals – providing durable status to long-resident noncitizens.

A straightforward change in the government’s policy and its litigation stance could help remove a barrier blocking critical relief to several tens of thousands of noncitizens who have resided in the United States with official government permission under Temporary Protected Status (TPS). Because of a longstanding but misguided agency reading of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), these noncitizens are stuck in limbo and practically unable to get the permanent resident status for which they are independently eligible based on family or employment relationships. Those most affected are TPS recipients married to U.S. citizens. The case turns on a highly technical question of statutory interpretation over which six courts of appeals have so far split evenly, but the human stakes are substantial, and a change of position by the administration would have significant impact.

The plaintiff TPS holders in Sanchez may well win the case based on the plain language of the relevant statutes, as ably argued in their brief and by supporting amici. But until now, the government has argued, to the contrary, that the language of the statute compels the agency’s current restrictive interpretation. This essay contends that the administration could provide crucial support for the TPS holders under a different legal framework that, for understandable reasons, neither side has given much emphasis.

The alternative approach is for the administration to acknowledge – in light of the statutory text, the deep and abiding circuit split, and a surprising November ruling by the Justice Department’s own Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) – that the statutory language is ambiguous. On that foundation, the government has the discretion to adopt a new (and better) interpretation that would permit eligible TPS recipients to make use of adjustment of status to obtain a green card.

In 2019, the Trump administration entrenched the restrictive interpretation through an obscure process rather clearly invoked to complicate a later policy change. The Biden administration should nonetheless undertake immediate reconsideration of the government’s position and seek to defer the pending Supreme Court briefing schedule to allow that agency process to proceed. A more refined position by the new administration would promote family unity and avoid compelling spouses of U.S. citizens to return to the very country from which they have escaped in order to seek the immigrant visa for which they already qualify.

. . . .

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

Read the rest of David’s article, explaining his suggestions, at the link.

This issue came up before me at the Arlington Immigration Court. After holding “oral argument,” I simply followed the statutory language and granted adjustment of status to the TPS holder.

In that case, following the literal statutory language produced the most reasonable policy result. As I pointed out to DHS counsel, the mis-interpretation they were pushing would not only violate the statutory language, but also result in a long-time TPS resident with work authorization who was paying taxes and supporting an American family being deprived of the legal immigration status to which he was entitled.

The result desired by DHS would have been highly nonsensical. Why make individuals who fit the legal immigration system established by Congress, and who actually have been contributing to our nation and our economy for many years, remain in limbo? In many cases, lack of a green card limits the both the earning and career potential of such individuals, plus adding unnecessary stress and uncertainty to the situation of their U.S. citizen family members.

The DHS reserved an appeal. I don’t believe it was ever pursued, however. And, of course, as a mere Immigration Judge (even before the position was “dumbed down” by the Trump DOJ) my decision only affected that particular case. It wasn’t a precedent.

But, it does illustrate my oft-made point that having “practical scholars” in immigration and human rights as Immigration Judges, BIA Judges, Article III Judges, and policy officials would be a huge positive change, making our immigration system fairer, more efficient, and more responsive to our national needs, even without major legislative changes. Also, these adjustments could be handled at USCIS, promoting uniformity while eliminating unnecessary litigation from the bloated Immigration Court docket.

Certainly, both the Solicitor General’s Office and the Office of Immigration Litigation (“OIL”) urgently need new leadership with practical experience in immigration and human rights policies and litigation. It’s definitely out here in the private/NGO/academic sectors. The only question is whether Judge Garland and his team will go out and get the right talent in the key jobs.

Even today, as I often point out, defending “boneheaded” anti-immigrant positions, horrible mis-interpretations, and stupid policies before Federal Courts, often with false or misleading narratives about the practical effects, is a huge drain on our justice system and is wasting the time of the Government, Federal Courts, and the private bar, as well as often producing counterproductive or inconsistent results. https://immigrationcourtside.com/2021/03/12/%e2%9a%96%ef%b8%8f%f0%9f%97%bdjennifer-doherty-law360-analyzes-judge-illstons-massive-takedown-of-eoirs-anti-due-process-regulations-i-speak-out-on-why-judge-garlan/

Talk about taking a potential win-win-win-win and converting it to a lose-lose-lose-lose! But, the latter was a “specialty” of the Trump regime and their DOJ.

As David astutely points out, cases such as Sanchez v Mayorkas might appear “hyper-technical” to some; but, to those who truly understand our current broken immigraton system, they have huge implications. We need the expertise of the “practical scholars” of the NDPA throughout our governing structure — starting, but not ending, with a complete “housecleaning” at the disgracefully dysfunctional EOIR.

The only question is whether Judge Garland, Secretary Mayorkas, and the others in charge of the Government’s immigraton bureaucracy will (finally, at long last) bring in the right talent to solve their problems!

🇺🇸⚖️🗽Due Process Forever!

PWS

03-14-21

⚖️🗽JENNIFER DOHERTY @ LAW360 ANALYZES JUDGE ILLSTON’S MASSIVE TAKEDOWN OF EOIR’S ANTI-DUE-PROCESS REGULATIONS — I Speak Out On Why Judge Garland Needs To Pull Plug On The EOIR Clown Show 🤡 Sooner, Rather Than Later! — PLUS, BONUS COVERAGE: My “Open Letter” To Judge Garland!

https://www.law360.com/articles/1363797

Here’ what I had to say to Jennifer:

. . ..

Retired Immigration Judge Paul Wickham Schmidt, a former chairman of the Board of Immigration Appeals who was also general counsel to the Immigration and Naturalization Service at the time of the EOIR’s creation, likewise praised Judge Illston’s order in an interview with Law360 Thursday.

Judge Schmidt, a vocal opponent of the Trump administration’s management of the EOIR, characterized the rule as part of a larger effort to discourage immigrants by stacking the courts against them, rather than a good-faith effort to reduce ballooning backlogs.

“When your docket is 1.3 million, it’s not the fact that someone is getting a few extra days in a continuance, it’s the fact that DHS is adding more cases,” he said.

As for whether the DOJ under President Joe Biden would continue defending the rule — as it is for one of the Trump-era asylum rules — Judge Schmidt said it was hard to say. But newly confirmed Attorney General Merrick Garland should prioritize changing the EOIR, as he stated his mission would be to restore nonpartisanship and defense of civil rights as pillars of the department, the judge said.

“If Garland wants to straighten out the Department of Justice, he’s got to straighten out EOIR. EOIR is a living refutation of everything Garland says he stands for,” Judge Schmidt told Law360.

Representatives for the DOJ did not respond to a request for comment Thursday.

The immigrant advocates are represented by Jingni (Jenny) Zhao, Anoop Prasad and Glenn Michael Katon of Asian Americans Advancing Justice — Asian Law Caucus, Seferina Young Berch, Stephen Chang, Naomi Ariel Igra, Michael O McGuinness, Scott T. Nonaka and Irene Inkyu Yang of Sidley Austin LLP, and Judah Ben Lakin and Amalia Margarete Wille of Lakin & Wille LLP.

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

Thankfully, Jennifer is operating “outside the paywall” on this particular article. So, all of you can get full access to her outstanding reporting on this case at the above link.

Dear Judge Garland:

Congratulations again and best wishes on your recent appointment as our Attorney General. I write to beg you, as a former DOJ colleague, Senior Executive, and administrative judge to deal immediately with a festering problem undermining the entire U.S. Justice system that is unfolding right under your nose, whether or not you have had time to focus on it.

A number of the individuals and organizations whose help you will need to fix EOIR and achieve equal justice for all in America are instead having their time and precious resources diverted to defending our justice system and the Constitution from absurdly illegal and obscenely counterproductive decisions and actions now being taken in YOUR NAME, such as the illegal EOIR regulations in this case. Indeed, these regulations and many other travesties still being pursued by EOIR at the behest of the former regime should have been on the chopping block long before you were even sworn in.

Not only are you now squandering Executive Branch and private sector resources that could better be devoted to solving problems, you are also wasting the time and trying the patience of thoughtful Federal Judges like U.S. District Judge Susan Illston. Certainly, as a former highly admired and respected Federal Judge, you know the value of judicial time in our system.

Additionally, failure to take immediate steps to end the dysfunction, disorder, and nonsense still streaming from EOIR on a daily basis is not only destroying vulnerable human lives, but also costing you goodwill with the very NGOs and talented, dedicated, often pro bono advocates whose assistance and support will be absolutely necessary for you to succeed in your stated objectives of returning integrity to the DOJ, eradicating institutionalized racism, and finally, finally achieving long overdue equal justice under law for all in America.

As I told Jennifer, EOIR is a “living contradiction” of everything you said in your confirmation hearing. It’s also a repudiation of the values that I have always seen and respected in you, even if mostly from afar.

I beseech you to “pull the plug” on today’s EOIR and put someone in there who can start getting it back on track: A “Due Process/Human Rights/Immigration Guru,” if you will. In terms to which we both can relate, you must find a judicial leader in the image of our late great colleague from the Carter DOJ, and your former colleague on the D.C. Circuit, Judge Patricia M. Wald. As we both know, she was was brilliant, energetic, yet highly practical, well-organized, and unswervingly committed to realizing social justice on both the national and eventually international stages.

Put someone who can run a real due-process-oriented court system in charge of the EOIR mess and let ‘er rip. You can cement your legacy to American Justice by achieving EOIR’s once noble, now discarded, vision that many of us who once served there established to guide our actions: “Through teamwork and innovation, be the world’s best tribunals guaranteeing fairness and due process for all.”

With my very best wishes for your continued success,

Your former DOJ colleague from decades past,

Paul

🏴‍☠️🤡SLOPPINESS, POOR ANALYSIS, MISCONSTRUING RECORD, CONTEMPT FOR COURTS CONTINUE TO PLAGUE BIA’S DENIAL CULTURE!

Kangaroos — Anybody remember the last time we interpreted the law or facts in favor of a human?
https://www.flickr.com/photos/rasputin243/
Creative Commons License

Here are four more recent screw-ups:

Misinterpreting “Realistic Possibility” — 8th Cir.

https://www.lexisnexis.com/legalnewsroom/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/ca8-on-realistic-probability—lopez-gonzalez-v-wilkinson

CA8 on “Realistic Probability” – Lopez Gonzalez v. Wilkinson

Lopez Gonzalez v. Wilkinson

“The question in this case is whether the categorical approach requires a petitioner seeking cancellation of removal to demonstrate both that the state offense he was convicted of is broader than the federal offense and that there is a realistic probability that the state actually prosecutes people for the conduct that makes the state offense broader than the federal offense. We conclude that it does not. … Because the BIA’s decision relied on a misinterpretation of the realistic probability inquiry, we grant the petition for review, vacate, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”

[Hats off to Jamie Arango!]

2) Wrong Interpretation Of Child Status Protection Act — 2d Cir.

Cuthill v. Blinken

https://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/05b681bb-4767-4cf6-b370-6f0ee77ad5d2/3/doc/19-3138_opn.pdf

D. Chevron Deference

Lastly, the government argues that we should defer to the decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) in Matter of Zamora-Molina, 25 I. & N. Dec. 606, 611 (B.I.A. 2011), in which the BIA adopted the same interpretation as the Department of State. Even assuming, without deciding, that Chevron deference applies when one agency (the Department of State) seeks to rely on the interpretation of another agency (the Department of Justice), we agree with the district court and with the Ninth Circuit that Chevron deference does not apply here because “the intent of Congress is clear.” Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 842 (1984); see also id. at 842–43 (“If the intent of Congress is clear, that is the end of the matter; for the court, as well as the agency, must give effect to the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress.”); Tovar, 882 F.3d at 900 (declining to apply Chevron deference to Zamora-Molina because “traditional tools of statutory construction” and “the irrationality of the result sought by the government” combine to “demonstrate beyond any question that Congress had a clear intent on the question at issue”). As discussed above, the text, structure, and

33

legislative history of the CSPA conclusively show the “unambiguously expressed intent of Congress” to protect beneficiaries like Diaz. Chevron, 467 U.S. at 843.7

3) Ignoring Previous Circuit Ruling On Related Case — 10th Cir.

https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/20/20-9520.pdf

Ni v. Wilkinson, unpublished

After we determined that conditions in China had materially worsened for Christians, Mr. Ni moved again for reopening. Despite our opinion in his wife’s case, the Board of Immigration Appeals concluded

2

again that Mr. Ni had failed to show a material change in country conditions.

This conclusion is unsupportable. Mr. Ni’s evidence of worsening

conditions in China largely mirrored his wife’s evidence, which had led us

to grant her petition for review. Mr. Ni’s evidence was even stronger than

his wife’s because China had recently adopted a regulatory crackdown on

practicing Christians. We thus grant Mr. Ni’s petition for review.

4) Misconstruction Of Record — 1st. Cir.

https://www.lexisnexis.com/legalnewsroom/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/ca1-on-albania-changed-circumstances-lucaj-v-wilkinson

CA1 on Albania, Changed Circumstances: Lucaj v. Wilkinson

Lucaj v. Wilkinson

“To support his case for reopening, Mr. Lucaj submitted an affidavit complaining in particular about two events that occurred after his removal proceeding in 2006: The Socialist party took power in 2013, and then in 2019 the Socialists’ corruption and connections with organized crime deterred the opposition party from even participating in the 2019 elections. Mr. Lucaj provided, among other things, the State Department’s 2018 Human Rights Report on Albania, the Freedom House “Freedom in the World 2018” Report on Albania, and articles from 2018 and 2019 about corruption in Albania and the Socialist Party’s success in recent elections. We do not know whether those submissions show materially worsening conditions for Democratic Party members in Albania, however, because the BIA refused to compare those reports to available evidence of conditions from 2006, claiming that Mr. Lucaj had not “explained how the proffered . . . country condition documentation show[s] qualitatively different conditions from 2006.” Plainly, though, he did so by pointing out the two cited, post-2006 events as evidence of changed conditions. The BIA’s failure to assess whether those changes were sufficient was arbitrary and capricious. … Therefore, we reverse the decision by the BIA and remand Mr. Lucaj’s case so that the BIA can review available evidence to examine whether conditions for members of the Democratic Party in Albania have deteriorated since 2006 and, if so, whether Mr. Lucaj has established a prima facie case for relief.”

[Hats off to Gregory G. Marotta!]

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

America and humanity deserve better from a supposed “expert tribunal” which actually functions more like a “denial factory” without much, if any, “quality control.” No wonder these guys are running an out of control, ever-expanding 1.3 million case backlog!

Denying continuances, not closing cases that belong at USCIS, rushed briefing, IJ’s “certifying” BIA remands to the Director (who should have no judicial role), dismissing applications for failure to fill in irrelevant blanks, raising fees, and a host of other nonsensical proposals that EOIR has had shot down by the Article III Courts recently won’t reduce the backlogs. They actually will make it worse, as have all the other “gimmicks” tried by EOIR to eradicate due process and dehumanize migrants over the past four years!

See, e.g., https://immigrationcourtside.com/2021/03/11/%e2%9a%96%ef%b8%8f%f0%9f%97%bdu-s-district-judge-susan-illston-nd-ca-shreds-enjoins-eoirs-anti-due-process-%e2%98%a0%ef%b8%8f%f0%9f%a4%aemidnight-rules-judge-p/

Who ever heard of lower court judges providing “quality control” for appellate judges, working through a bureaucrat who (at the time the proposal was supposedly “finalized”) had never presided over a case in Immigration Court? And, let’s remember, these are haphazardly selected trial judges, a decidedly non-diverse, non-representative group, whose own qualifications, expertise, judicial temperament, and training have been widely criticized by experts in the field. Few of today’s Immigration Judges and BIA Judges would be “household names” among immigration, human rights, and constitutional law experts and scholars!

See,e.g., https://immigrationcourtside.com/2021/03/08/%f0%9f%8f%b4%e2%80%8d%e2%98%a0%ef%b8%8finside-a-failed-and-unjust-system-reuters-report-explains-how-the-trump-administration-destroyed-due-process-fundamental-fairness-humanity-in-the-u-s-immig/

The current mess is largely the result of Aimless Docket Reshuffling imposed on the Immigration Courts by unqualified politicos at the DOJ and their equally unqualified toadies at EOIR HQ. Also, DHS has more often than not ignored the realities of good docket management and the prudent exercise of prosecutorial discretion. It is not the fault of the vulnerable migrants and their lawyers victimized by this absurdly politicized, biased, and mal-administered system!

Restoration of justice at EOIR will require radical due process oriented changes starting with new, professional leadership from “practical scholars” in immigration and human rights as well as replacing BIA Judges with better qualified jurists selected from the ranks of those “practical scholars.” Quality control, expertise, competence, common sense, and human understanding are all lacking at today’s EOIR!

Judge Garland must “clean house!” Now!

🇺🇸⚖️🗽Due Process Forever!

PWS

03-12-21

⚖️🗽U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE SUSAN ILLSTON (ND CA) SHREDS, ENJOINS EOIR’S ANTI-DUE-PROCESS ☠️🤮“MIDNIGHT RULES” — Judge Praises, Cites Round Table’s 🛡⚔️ Amicus Brief!

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

https://www.courthousenews.com/judge-likely-to-block-trump-era-changes-to-immigration-court/

Here’s an excerpt from a report by Nichols Iovino @ Courthouse News:

. . . .

The judge added that she found an amicus brief submitted by 37 former immigration law judges particularly illuminating because it helped illustrate some of “real-life consequences” of the rule.

The former immigration judges wrote that the rule “makes it more difficult for applicants and defense counsel to brief relevant issues and present evidence, creates new challenges for immigration judges to consider extraordinary changes in circumstances and to control the timing of their own docket, and severely limits the [Board of Immigration Appeals’] authority to make legally sound decisions and remain an apolitical rung in the immigration system.”

A motion for a preliminary injunction is also pending in separate lawsuit challenging the same Trump-era rule in the District of Columbia.

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

Yesterday, Judge Illston issued a blistering 73-page order enjoining EOIR’S illegal rules: https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.372189/gov.uscourts.cand.372189.59.0.pdf

The case is CENTRO LEGAL DE LA RAZA v. EOIR.

“Sir Jeffrey” Chase reports:

Judge Illston referenced our brief four times throughout the opinion (p.5, n.2, and pp. 39, 52, and 55).

Jeffrey also added:

The brief (drafted by Steven Schulman and his team at Akin Gump) was based on our Round Table’s comments to the proposed regs. [Judge] Ilyce [Shugall] organized and filed the comments, and the drafting committee was made up of [Judges] Ilyce [Shugall], Rebecca [Jamil], Joan [Churchill], Cecelia [Espenoza] and myself.

So proud to be part of this team that is “making a difference for the NDPA,” and more importantly, for the vulnerable human lives at stake in the EOIR Star Chambers. 🏴‍☠️ And thanks so much to Steven Schulman and his pro bono team at Akin Gump for making this happen.

So, here’s my question: Why is the Biden Administration defending this totally illegal, disingenuous, not to mention stupid, attempt by EOIR to deny due process and fundamental fairness while implementing the “worst practices imaginable?”

Judge Garland must get a handle on the awful, festering mess 🤮🤡☠️ at EOIR sooner rather than later!

🇺🇸⚖️🗽Due Process Forever!

PWS

03-11-21

🏴‍☠️INSIDE A FAILED AND UNJUST SYSTEM: Reuters Report Explains How The Trump Administration Destroyed Due Process, Fundamental Fairness, & Humanity In The U.S. Immigration Courts!

Mica Rosenberg
National Immigration Reporter, Reuters

Four Horsemen — BIA Asylum Panel In Action
Albrecht Dürer, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-immigration-trump-court-special-r/special-report-how-trump-administration-left-indelible-mark-on-u-s-immigration-courts-idUSKBN2B0179

Reade Levinson, Kristina Cooke, & Mica Rosenberg report for Reuters:

(Reuters) – On a rainy September day in 2018, Jeff Sessions, then U.S. attorney general, addressed one of the largest classes of newly hired immigration judges in American history.

“The vast majority of asylum claims are not valid,” he said during a swearing-in ceremony in Falls Church, Virginia, according to his prepared remarks. If judges do their job, he said, “the number of illegal aliens and the number of baseless claims will fall.”

It was a clear message to the incoming class: Most of the immigrants who appear in court do not deserve to remain in the United States.

As U.S. President Joe Biden works to undo many of the restrictive immigration policies enacted by former President Donald Trump, he will confront one of his predecessor’s indelible legacies: the legion of immigration judges Trump’s administration hired.

The administration filled two-thirds of the immigration courts’ 520 lifetime positions with judges who, as a whole, have disproportionately ordered deportation, according to a Reuters analysis of more than 800,000 immigration cases decided over the past 20 years.

Judges hired under Trump ordered immigrants deported in 69% of cases, compared to 58% for judges hired as far back as the administration of President Ronald Reagan. Because hundreds of thousands of immigrants have cases before the court each year, that 11 percentage-point difference translates to tens of thousands more people ordered deported each year. Appeals are rarely successful.

Biden has promised to dramatically expand the courts by doubling the number of immigration judges and other staff. That’s a worthwhile effort, said Stephen Legomsky, a former chief counsel of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services who is now a professor emeritus at Washington University School of Law in St. Louis. “But the challenge is going to be tremendous.”

Although there are no statutory limits on the number of judges who can be hired, expanding the court would be costly and could take years, immigration law experts said.

“The fact that these (Trump-era) judges are already in place inhibits him a great deal,” Legomsky said of Biden.

Stephen Miller, the key architect of Trump’s immigration agenda, told Reuters that the administration had aimed to hire more immigration judges as part of an effort to “create more integrity in the asylum process” and quickly resolve what he termed meritless claims to cut down on a massive backlog.

“Most of the people that are coming unlawfully between ports of entry on the southwest border are not eligible for any recognized form of asylum,” Miller said in an interview. “There should be a very high rejection rate.”

Under U.S. law, immigrants are eligible for asylum only if they can prove they were being persecuted in their home countries on the basis of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group or their political opinions. Miller said many migrants arriving at the border are coming for economic reasons and present fraudulent asylum claims.

Sessions, who as attorney general had the final say in hiring immigration judges, told Reuters that “the problem is not with the Trump judges. The problem was with some of the other judges that seemed to not be able to manage their dockets, or, in many cases, rendered rulings that were not consistent with the law.

The Trump administration’s successors to Sessions, who was forced out in 2018, did not respond to requests for comment.

. . . .

“There has been a significant lack of basic understanding of immigration law and policy with many – not all – but many of the new hires under the Trump administration,” said Susan Roy, an attorney and former immigration judge appointed during the administration of President George W. Bush who has represented immigrants before some new judges.

Reuters spoke with eight other former immigration judges, five of whom served under Trump, who generally echoed her view. Sitting immigration judges are not permitted to speak to the media.

Even for judges with immigration backgrounds, the type of experience they have has been controversial. In 2017, a report commissioned by the Justice Department found a lack of diversity of experience among judges hired, due to an excess of former prosecutors here from Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

. . . .

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

Read the rest of the report at the link.

Hon. Sue Roy is a distinguished member of our Round Table of Former Immigration Judges 🛡⚔️ now in private practice representing asylum seekers and other migrants in Immigration Court.

Hon. Charles Honeyman, quoted elsewhere in the article, is also a member of the Round Table who actually was removed from a case for failing to carry out what he believed to be improper instructions from his “supervisors” who were implementing Sessions’s anti-immigrant policies.

Stephen Legomsky is a former USCIS Senior Executive and esteemed retired Professor who generally is acknowledged as one of American’s leading scholar-experts on immigration and human rights.

Judge Dana Leigh Marks, quoted elsewhere in the article, is a former President of the National Association of Immigration Judges who also successfully argued the landmark Supreme Court case INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, which established the generous well-founded fear standard for asylum.

Sessions and Miller are notorious White Nationalist xenophobes who have neither represented asylum seekers nor been Immigration Judges. Their efforts to eradicate international norms and legal protections for vulnerable asylum seekers, and their particular bias against female asylum seekers, have been widely criticized and panned by human rights experts throughout the world, as well as enjoined or overruled by some U.S. Courts. They were architects of the widely condemned child separation policy and the New American Gulag (“NAG”).

EOIR is the failed DOJ agency that houses the dysfunctional Immigration Courts.

🇺🇸🗽⚖️Due Process Forever!

PWS

03-08-21

⚖️“THERE’S A BIGGER CHALLENGE FACING THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION!” — Broken Immigration Courts 👎🏻⚖️ — It’s Not Just Dumb & Inhumane Rules Imposed By The Trump Regime — It’s A Toxic “Mindset” Among Some EOIR Judges That Mirrors & Reinforces The Dehumanizing Actions Of ICE Enforcement!☠️

https://www.chicagotribune.com/opinion/commentary/ct-opinion-immigration-deportation-biden-20210304-ftq7zit5j5altchueuwm3rjxny-story.html

Stephen Franklin in the Chicago Tribune;

. . . .

The Biden administration has signaled that it would like to narrow arrests and deportations to those persons convicted of national security threats and other serious felonies. That would keep many of those, like the fast-food worker in Indianapolis, from immigrant court.

But there’s a bigger challenge facing the Biden administration.

Can it wipe away rules that have fed into a mindset that seemed to take root nationally among some court and immigration enforcement officials?

The rules were meant to erase an immigrant presence in the U.S. And they came to life far away from the nation’s borders in the daily grind of the immigration courts. For well over two years, I sat in Chicago’s immigration court watching, reporting and wondering how his could be happening.

Day by day I watched as the crowds huddled anxiously in the Chicago court’s major waiting room grew. Judges’ caseloads, as listed on the waiting room walls, eventually doubled for some to as many as 100 a day.

Why?

When Trump took office there were 542,411 deportation cases in the nation’s immigration courts. When he left, the number was 1.29 million. The backlog grew as arrests grew, as more were detained, as bonds went up, and new rules raised new hurdles for immigrants in the courts. The average wait for a case in Chicago’s court was 945 days in 2016, and that grew to 1,014 in 2021, 14% higher than the national average.

The long wait perplexed a judge one day as she scanned her computer looking to schedule a new hearing. The best she could find, she told an Iraqi woman in her 80s, was a date four years down the road. The long delay was not lost on the woman’s lawyer’s face. The woman’s husband was not in court because he was facing brain surgery.

A series of canceled hearings left a middle-age Palestinian’s life dangling in the court for seven years. The long delay left him anxious and panicked about the fate of his family back home, where they faced the threat of violence that had already taken several relatives’ lives. He won asylum but several months later, and before he could bring his family to the U.S., his teenage son was killed, a targeted victim of the violence that had haunted him and his relatives.

I took note after the Trump administration said in August 2019 it would push older cases back in 10 courts across the U.S., including Chicago, so that cases involving newly arrived immigrant families could move more rapidly through the courts. It was a clear warning that the U.S. would deal quickly with immigrants arriving at its borders.

. . . .

**********

Read the complete op-ed at the link.

The solutions are not rocket science. As many of us have suggested they include:

New leadership at EOIR firmly committed to judicial independence, due process, best practices and competent judicial Administration;
New judges at the BIA — “practical experts” in asylum and immigration laws committed to due process, fair application of the law, and humane treatment of individuals;
Slash the docket immediately to manageable levels by removing aged cases that would fit the legalization proposals in the Biden Bill or where relief could be granted by USCIS;
Get recent arrivals represented and decide their cases on a fair, reasonable, timely, predictable schedule (e.g., end “Aimless Docket Reshuffling”);
Establish and implement merit-based criteria for recruitment and retention of judges.

It won’t happen without new personnel and different attitudes. There’s plenty of talent out here to rebuild a high-quality, expert, due-process oriented immigration judiciary. Judge Garland and his team just have to move out those who have created and furthered dysfunction and replace them with better-qualified pros who can get the job done for American justice and the millions of individuals whose lives, hopes, and futures are tied up in the EOIR mess !

Article I is the ultimate solution! But, Judge Garland can start making long overdue changes the day he is sworn in as AG (probably later this week). The only question: Will he?

A Better EOIR For A Better America!🇺🇸It’s not rocket science!🚀

🇺🇸⚖️🗽Due Process Forever!

PWS

03-08-21

⚖️BIDEN ADMINISTRATION TAKES INNOVATIVE APPROACH TO KEEPING ICE ENFORCEMENT HONEST — “ICE Case Review Process” Lets Those Affected Seek Review!

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/hamedaleaziz/ice-immigrants-new-appeals-process

Hamed Aleaziz reports for BuzzFeed News:

Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials have created a new appeals process that will allow immigrants and their advocates to challenge arrests, detentions, and deportations as the Biden administration continues to focus enforcement actions on certain populations, officials said Friday.

The new program, which establishes the ICE Case Review Process led by a senior reviewing officer based in Washington, DC, is part of President Joe Biden’s efforts to overhaul the agency and reform not only how it works but which immigrants are arrested and detained.

. . . .

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

Read Hamed’s complete article at the link.

Shows that somebody in charge in the Biden Administration understands the scope of the problems they face in bringing ICE under control.

Compliance with agency policies has always been an issue at ICE, going all the way back to the days of the “Legacy INS.” Both on and off the bench, I observed that most policies applied only to the extent that local directors and agents chose to follow them.

I can remember essentially being told “We don’t follow that policy here,” or words to that effect. Or the time that an ICE Assistant Chief Counsel cheerfully told me in court: “Judge, you can enter any order you want. But, our deportation officer will decide whether this respondent actually gets released from custody.”

No wonder that ACC didn’t feel it necessary to appeal my custody decision after I had ruled against him. Of course, DOJ regulations (actually enacted by the Clinton Administration) give ICE Counsel unilateral authority (“The Clamper”) to stay compliance with IJ release and bond orders pending appeal. So, ICE always holds the “trump card” in bond proceedings.

Fortunately, represented respondents can threaten to go to U.S. District Court to force ICE compliance with an administrative order, if necessary. (The respondent in my case was represented.) But, for unrepresented individuals facing ICE intransigence, not so much.
That’s probably why a culture of disdain for immigrants’ rights and dislike of lawyers has grown up in so many ICE operations.

I also recollect that even in the Obama Administration, under pressure from ICE Enforcement, EOIR Management pushed Immigration Judges to “keep out of” the manner in which ICE complied with things like the “Morton Memo” or “PD” that should have been keeping certain cases out of court. And the BIA has traditionally stayed away from commenting on or reviewing prosecutorial policies, even when they directly affect court workloads or individual outcomes.

There were creative ways of skirting many of these bureaucratically-imposed blinders and pushing ICE, at least in court, to act in accordance with their own policies. But, it had to be done subtilely. EOIR was usually eager officially to announce its own fecklessness when it came to getting compliance from ICE.

I often marveled at the BIA’s ability to explain why it didn’t have authority to solve problems or do justice. In some instances, the Article III Courts actually had to instruct the BIA that they had authority to do things that they had claimed to be powerless to do.

In addition to the ICE policy described in Hamed’s article, there are other obvious ways in which compliance could be strengthened. Judge Garland could create a “New EOIR” dedicated to the original vision of due process, fundamental fairness, and best practices. He could also empower Immigration Judges to hold ICE accountable for following its own policies. As part of this, he could confer the long-existing but never implemented authority of EOIR judges to hold attorneys on both sides in contempt of court.

An independent Immigration Judiciary could be an important part of enforcing the rule of law and holding DHS accountable for its actions. But, that’s not possible with the current structural, personnel, and cultural defects that have corrupted EOIR and prevented it from being a progressive force for due process, equal justice under law, and best practices.

Indeed, under the departed regime, lack of accountability, irrationality, open bias, scofflaw behavior, and “worst practices” were institutionalized and celebrated from top to bottom! This was in a “system” already heavily weighted in favor of ICE Enforcement and against individual rights.

It will require “radical due process reforms @ EOIR” from Judge Garland and his team. We’ll soon see whether or not that will be forthcoming.

Folks who have been happily assisting in abusing and dehumanizing asylum seekers, other migrants, and their lawyers for the past four years are not lightly going to be able to “switch over” to insuring due process and fundamentally fair adjudications under the best interpretations and practices — which actually favor the granting of relief in a timely and efficient manner in many cases. Indeed, in some cases, those serving as “judges” at EOIR appear to lack the capacity, expertise, and will to treat those coming before them fairly, impartially, and humanely, even these requirements are at the heart of constitutionally required due process!

🇺🇸🗽⚖️Due Process Forever!

PWS

03-07-21

🏴‍☠️BIA CONTINUES TO SPEW FORTH ERRORS IN LIFE OR DEATH ☠️ ASYLUM CASES, SAYS 4TH CIR. — “Three-In-One” — Improperly Disregarding Corroborating Evidence; Incorrect Legal Standard On Past Persecution; Wrong Nexus Finding! — Arita-Deras v. Wilkinson

https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/191978.P.pdf

Arita-Deras v. Wilkinson, 4th Cir., 03-05-21, Published

PANEL: GREGORY, Chief Judge, and AGEE and KEENAN, Circuit Judges

OPINION BY: Judge Barbara Milano Keenan

KEY QUOTE:

Maria Del Refugio Arita-Deras, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions for review of a final order of removal entered by the Board of Immigration Appeals (the Board).1 The Board affirmed an immigration judge’s (IJ) conclusion that Arita-Deras was not eligible for asylum, withholding of removal, or protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The Board: (1) agreed with the IJ that Arita-Deras failed to support her claims with sufficient corroborating evidence; (2) found that Arita-Deras failed to prove that she suffered from past persecution because she had not been harmed physically; and (3) concluded that Arita-Deras failed to establish a nexus between the alleged persecution and a protected ground.

Upon our review, we conclude that the Board improperly discounted Arita-Deras’ corroborating evidence, applied an incorrect legal standard for determining past persecution, and erred in its nexus determination. Accordingly, we grant Arita-Deras’ petition and remand her case to the Board for further proceedings.

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

After eight years of bouncing around the system at various levels THIS “Not Quite Good Enough For Government Work” error-fest is what we get from EOIR! As I keep saying, no wonder they are running a 1.3 million case backlog, clogging the Circuit Courts with incredibly shoddy work, and in many cases sending vulnerable refugees back to death or torture under incorrect fact findings and blatantly wrong legal interpretations!

Again, nothing profound about this claim; just basic legal and analytical errors that often flow from the “think of any reason to deny” culture. EOIR just keeps repeating the same basic mistakes again and again even after being “outed” by the Circuits!

This case illustrates why the unrealistically high asylum denial numbers generated by the biased EOIR system and parroted by DHS should never be trusted. This respondent, appearing initially without a lawyer, was actually coerced by an Immigration Judge into accepting a “final order” of removal with a totally incorrect, inane, mis-statement of the law. “Haste makes waste,” shoddy, corner cutting procedures, judges deficient in asylum legal knowledge, and a stunning lack of commitment to due process and fundamental fairness are a burden to our justice system in addition to being a threat to the lives of individual asylum seekers.

Only when she got a lawyer prior to removal was this respondent able to get her case reopened for a full asylum hearing. Even then, the IJ and the BIA both totally screwed up the analysis and entered incorrect orders. Only because this respondent was fortunate enough to be assisted by one of the premier pro bono groups in America, the CAIR Coalition, was she able to get some semblance of justice on appeal to the Circuit Court!

I’m very proud to say that a member of the “CAIR Team,” Adina Appelbaum, program Director, Immigration Impact Lab, is my former Georgetown ILP student, former Arlington Intern, and a “charter member” of the NDPA! If my memory serves me correctly, she is also a star alum of the CALS Asylum Clinic @ Georgetown Law. No wonder Adina made the Forbes “30 Under 30” list of young Americans leaders! She and others like her in the NDPA are ready to go in and start cleaning up and improving EOIR right now! Judge Garland take note!

Despite CAIR’s outstanding efforts, Ms. Arita-Deras still is nowhere near getting the relief to which she should be entitled under a proper application of the law by expert judges committed to due process. Instead, after eight years, she plunges back into EOIR’s 1.3 million case “never never land” where she might once again end up with Immigration Judges at both the trial and appellate level who are not qualified to be hearing asylum cases because they don’t know the law and they are “programmed to deny” to meet their “deportation quotas” in support of ICE Enforcement.

Focus on it folks! This is America; yet individuals on trial for their lives face a prosecutor and a “judge” who are on the same side! And, they are often forced to do it without a lawyer and without even understanding the complex proceedings going on around them! How is this justice? It isn’t! So why is it allowed to continue?

Also, let’s not forget that under the recently departed regime, EOIR falsely claimed that having an attorney didn’t make a difference in success rates for respondents. That’s poppycock! Actually, as the Vera Institute recently documented the success rate for represented respondents is an astounding 10X that of unrepresented individuals. In any functional system, that differential would be more than sufficient to establish a “prima facie” denial of due process any time an asylum seeker (particularly one in detention) is forced to proceed without representation.

🇺🇸⚖️🗽🧑🏽‍⚖️VERA INSTITUTE RECOMMENDS FEDERAL DEFENDER PROGRAM FOR IMMIGRANTS — Widespread Public Support For Representation In Immigration Court!

Yet, this miscarriage of justice occurs every day in Immigration Courts throughout America! Worse yet, EOIR and DHS have purposely “rigged” the system in various ways to impede and discourage effective representation.

To date, while flagging EOIR for numerous life-threatening errors, the Article IIIs have failed to come to grips with the obvious: The current EOIR system provides neither due process nor fundamental fairness to the individuals coming before these “courts” (that aren’t “courts” at all)!

Acting AG Wilkinson has piled up an impressive string of legal defeats in immigration matters in just a short time on the job. It’s going to be up to Judge Garland to finally make it right. It’s urgent for both our nation and the individuals whose rights are being stomped upon by a broken system on a daily basis!

🇺🇸⚖️🗽Due Process Forever! Failed Courts Never!

PWS

03–05-21

🇺🇸🗽NEW VISION: Biden Administration Reportedly Plans To Turn Gulags Into “Rapid Processing Centers!”

https://apple.news/A_66ulAuzRTeEZzT59d_vTw

Celine Castronuovo reports in The Hill:

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is reportedly drafting plans to transform family migrant detention centers in South Texas into screening hubs as the Biden administration faces a growing number of migrants at the southern border.

The Washington Post, which obtained internal DHS draft documents outlining the plans, reported Thursday that senior ICE official Russell Hott informed staff in an email this week that the number of unaccompanied minors and families arriving in the U.S. in 2021 is “expected to be the highest” recorded “in over 20 years.”

According to the Post, Hott added that with more than 500 family members arriving per day, the shift from detention to Ellis Island-style processing centers “may not be sufficient to keep pace with apprehensions,” with the potential for some migrants to be housed in hotels.

DHS officials, who spoke to the Post on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly, said the transition to rapid processing and release centers has already begun.

The reported change comes as the latest move in President Biden’s efforts to reform the U.S. immigration system and keep up with the rising number of migrants crossing into the country amid shortages of bed space and personnel at detention centers.

The reported plans also mark a shift from policies under the Obama and Trump administrations, when most migrant families were quickly released or deported upon arriving in the U.S., with some being held in dormitory-style centers for extended periods of time as they awaited immigration proceedings.

The Biden administration has publicly said it is reviewing how family detention facilities are used, though the Post noted that the administration last week told a federal judge that the policies had not yet changed.

. . . .

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

Read the full article at the link.

The three keys are: 1) screening for COVID, background, and credible fear of persecution; 2) matching asylum applicants with representation, which promotes nearly “perfect attendance,” at hearings; 3) radically and rapidly reforming the Immigration Court system so that the Immigration Judges are “practical experts” on asylum law and eliminating the huge number of “deadwood” cases clogging dockets so Immigration Judges can conduct asylum hearings for recent arrivals on a timely, consistent, predictable basis, with an emphasis on due process and getting the result correct at the initial merits hearing.

🇺🇸⚖️🗽Due Process Forever!

PWS

03-05-21

🏴‍☠️PERSECUTED IN TWO COUNTRIES, SOMALIAN REFUGEE FEELS FULL BRUNT OF EOIR’S INCOMPETENCE 🤮 — Firm Resettlement, NGA Persecution, Past Persecution, Nexus, Misconstruction Of Regulations, Failure To Apply Circuit Precedent Among The “Comedy Of Errors” Inflicted By Imposters Masquerading As “Expert Judges” 🤡 — Aden v. Wilkinson, 9th Cir.

Aden v. Wilkinson, 9th Cir., 03-04-21, published

https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2021/03/04/17-71313.pdf

PANEL: Before: Richard A. Paez and Johnnie B. Rawlinson,

Circuit Judges, and George H. Wu,** District Judge. Opinion by Judge Paez;

Concurrence by Judge Rawlinson

* The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

** The Honorable George H. Wu, United States District Judge for the Central District of California, sitting by designation.

SUMMARY BY COURT STAFF:

Immigration

Granting Abdi Ali Asis Aden’s petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ dismissal of his appeal of an Immigration Judge’s denial of his applications for asylum and withholding of removal from Somalia, and remanding, the panel held that the Board erred in concluding that Aden did not qualify for an exception to the firm resettlement bar, and that the evidence compelled the conclusion that he suffered past persecution in Somalia on account of a protected ground.

Aden asserted that he suffered persecution in Somalia by members of Al-Shabaab, a militant terrorist organization affiliated with Al-Qaeda and the Islamic State, after his brother refused their orders to shut down his theater showing American and Hindi movies and sports, which Al-Shabaab viewed as “Satanic” movies. The Board concluded that Aden was ineligible for asylum because he was firmly resettled in South Africa, and that he failed to establish that he suffered past persecution in Somalia on account of a protected ground.

The Board noted that Aden presented “ample evidence” of persecution in South Africa, but nonetheless determined that he failed to qualify for the restricted-residence exception to the firm resettlement bar because the persecution he faced was at the hands of private individuals, rather than the South

*** This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader.

ADEN V. WILKINSON 3

African government. The panel concluded that the Board erred in doing do, holding that the restricted-residence exception applies when the country’s authorities are unable or unwilling to protect the applicant from persecution by nongovernment actors.

The panel held that the evidence compelled the conclusion that Aden suffered past persecution in Somalia, where in addition to physically beating Aden, members of Al-Shabaab kept tabs on him by contacting his brother and warned they would kill Aden and his brother if they continued to disobey Al-Shabaab’s command to close their theater. The panel wrote that the chain of events revealed that Al-Shabaab intended to coerce Aden to submit to its new political and religious order, and used offensive strategies— beatings, destruction of property, and death threats—to achieve this goal. Further, the panel explained that continuing political and social turmoil caused by Al- Shabaab provided context for the harm and death threats that Aden experienced, which together with the past harm, compelled the conclusion that he suffered past persecution in Somalia.

The panel held that substantial evidence did not support the Board’s determination that Aden failed to establish that he was targeted on account of a protected ground because Al Shabaab was motived by their own political and religious beliefs, rather than Aden’s. The panel explained that Al- Shabaab’s accusation that the brothers were featuring Islamically forbidden, “Satanic” films provided direct evidence of their political and religious motive, and that even if the brothers did not feature the films out of their own political or religious convictions, Al-Shabaab at the very least imputed those beliefs to them. The panel wrote that the only logical explanation for Al-Shabaab’s treatment of Aden

4 ADEN V. WILKINSON

and his brother was that their actions were subversive to Al- Shabaab’s political and religious doctrine.

The panel remanded for the Board to consider, under the appropriate framework, whether Aden was firmly resettled in South Africa, and to give the government an opportunity to rebut the presumption of future persecution triggered by Aden’s showing of past persecution on account of a protected ground.

Concurring, Judge Rawlinson agreed that the case should be remanded for reconsideration of the firm resettlement issue. Judge Rawlinson noted that despite the fact that the IJ never addressed the issue of whether persecution by private actors may prevent application of the firm resettlement bar, the Board concluded that the firm resettlement bar applied to Aden because he did not introduce any evidence that the South African government imposed any restrictions on his residency such that the restricted-residence exception applied. Judge Rawlinson wrote that the Board’s conclusion was not supported by substantial evidence in the record, as reflected in the IJ’s factual findings. Judge Rawlinson also agreed that the Board erred in concluding that Aden failed to establish a nexus to a protected ground because, based on binding precedent, an applicant such as Aden, who disagrees with Al Shabaab’s view of the proper interpretation of Islam, can establish persecution on account of a protected ground by showing that others in his group persecuted him because they found him insufficiently loyal or authentic to the religious ideal they espouse.

ADEN V. WILKINSON 5

COUNSEL

Emery El Habiby, El Habiby Law Firm, Sun City, Arizona, for Petitioner.

Stephen J. Flynn, Assistant Director; Lynda A. Do, Attorney; Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.; for Respondent.

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

This case has been pending six years! Should have been granted by the IJ. No wonder EOIR is running a 1.3 million backlog! Attempts to turn “easy grants” into bogus denials is killing this system, not to mention the asylum seekers suffering the “triple whammy” of EOIR’S lack of expertise, lousy training, and a “denial culture.”

My good friend, colleague, and former NAIJ President Judge Dana Leigh Marks, who actually is an asylum expert, once told The NY Times that asylum cases are like the death penalty in traffic court. But, I suspect that many folks appearing in traffic court get significantly MORE due process than those on trial for their lives in our broken, biased, and dysfunctional Immigration Courts.

Judge Garland needs to fix this! Sooner, rather than later!

🇺🇸⚖️🗽Due Process Forever!

PWS

03-05-21

🗽BIDEN IMMIGRATION BILL: Here’s The National Immigration Law Center’s (“NILC”) Analysis Of The Key Provisions Of The U.S. Citizenship Act!

https://www.nilc.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/USCA-key-provisions-summary.pdf

Here’s the section relating to the Immigration Courts:

Title IV: Immigration Courts, Family Values, and Vulnerable Individuals

We are facing a due process crisis in the immigration courts. Nearly 1.3 million cases are currently pending in a structurally flawed system housed within a

prosecutorial agency, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ).4 While this bill

4 https://trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/637/.

10

falls short of creating an independent Article I immigration court,5 provisions in the bill would improve court operations and enhance due process protections for individuals facing highly complex immigration court proceedings that

often raise issues of life and death.6 Even though representation is often

the single greatest factor in determining whether an individual will obtain relief in removal proceedings,7 low-income immigrants and people in immigration detention face significant barriers to obtaining counsel. This bill calls for expanding alternatives to detention and authorizes funding for the appointment of counsel for children and vulnerable noncitizens. Provisions in this bill also provide for an expansion of DOJ’s Legal Orientation Program and greater access to legal information for immigrants who are not

detained. These are important steps in the right direction, but the bill falls short of ending civil immigration detention and establishing a much-needed universal representation program.8

Judicial diversity encourages fair decision-making, but DOJ’s Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) has a long history of politicized

hiring,9 resulting in a supermajority of judges on the bench who have prosecutorial backgrounds. This bill calls for the hiring of additional immigration judges (IJs) and Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) members who are experts in immigration law, and it encourages the hiring of IJs who have diverse experience, including people from the private sector. The bill also requires EOIR to conduct mandatory continuing legal and diversity training for IJs and BIA members. Additional steps must be taken to ensure critical oversight into the hiring process, promote diversity, and eliminate harassment in the immigration courts.10

Also included in this bill are provisions to protect vulnerable individuals. The bill eliminates the one-year filing deadline for asylum claims and increases access to employment authorization for people seeking asylum and for U and T visa applicants, ensuring that vulnerable populations seeking refuge in the U.S. will be able to work and support their families while their immigration cases are pending.

5 https://www.aila.org/advo-media/aila-correspondence/2020/advocates-call-on-congress-

establish-independent.

6 https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/im-an-immigration-judge-heres-how-we-can-fix-our-

courts/2019/04/12/76afe914-5d3e-11e9-a00e-050dc7b82693_story.html.

7 https://bit.ly/3q310Uh.

8 https://www.vera.org/advancing-universal-representation-toolkit/the-case-for-universal- representation-1.

9 https://www.whitehouse.senate.gov/news/release/senators-press-barr-on-politicization-of- justice-department-administration-of-immigration-courts.

10 https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/Sexually-inappropriate-behavior-runs-rife-

in-15889003.php.

FEBRUARY 2021

11

The bill calls for expanding alternatives to detention and authorizes funding for the appointment of counsel for children and vulnerable noncitizens.

X Provides for appointing counsel for children and vulnerable noncitizens. Authorizes funding for and requires DOJ to appoint or provide counsel

for children, vulnerable individuals, and other people where necessary. Requires DHS to provide copies of their immigration files to individuals who are in immigration court proceedings.

X Requires access to legal orientation programs and access to counsel. Requires legal orientation programs to be available for all noncitizens in immigration detention. DHS must provide access to counsel inside all immigration detention facilities and border facilities.

X Increases access to legal information. Expands the help desk program

to all immigration courts, providing non-detained individuals who have pending asylum claims access to information related to immigration status. Requires DHS to provide copies of their immigration files to people who are in immigration court proceedings.

X Expands alternatives to detention. Expands the family case management program and requires DHS to develop additional community-based programs. People enrolled in these programs will receive legal orientations.

X Increases immigration court hiring. Requires DOJ to increase the number of IJs on the bench, hire additional BIA staff attorneys, and provide sufficient support staff. In hiring the new IJs and BIA members, DOJ is instructed to select people from diverse backgrounds, including from the nonprofit sector and the private bar and people with academic experience.

X Expands training for IJs and members of the BIA. Requires the EOIR

to conduct mandatory training for IJs and members of the BIA, including continuing legal training and training on age, gender, and trauma sensitivity.

X Directs EOIR to modernize technology. Requires the EOIR director to modernize electronic systems, including by allowing electronic filing, to improve court proceedings.

X Eliminates barriers to asylum and protects vulnerable populations. Removes the one-year time limit for filing an asylum claim. Increases protections for U visa, T visa, and VAWA applicants by providing them with a rebuttable presumption of release from detention and prohibiting the removal of these applicants from the U.S. while an application is pending. Increases the number of U visas, which are available to some crime victims, from the current cap of 10,000 to 30,000 per year.

FEBRUARY 2021

12

In hiring new IJs and BIA members, DOJ is instructed to select people from diverse backgrounds, including from the nonprofit sector and the private bar and people with academic experience.

X Increases access to employment authorization for people seeking U and T visas and protection under VAWA. People seeking U and T visas shall and must be granted employment authorization on the date their application is approved or a date to be determined by the DHS secretary within 180 days of submitting their petition, whichever is earlier. Employment authorization is issued for two years, with the possibility of renewal.

X Increases access to employment authorization for people seeking asylum. Provides that DHS shall grant employment authorization to bona fide and non-detained asylum-seekers within 180 days after they file their asylum application with DHS or DOJ.

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

The improvements to the Immigration Courts are all helpful. But, as the NILC points out, they fall short of what’s really needed: An independent Article I Immigration Court. One thing the bill does address, lack of diversity and immigration/human rights expertise among EOIR judicial hires (over the past three Administrations) is a glaring problem and hinderance to achieving due process and fundamental fairness.

Thanks to my friend and NDPA superstar Laura Lynch, Senior Immigration Policy Attorney at the NILC for passing this along.

⚖️🗽🇺🇸🧑🏽‍⚖️Due Process Forever!

PWS

03-03-21

☠️WITH LIVES ON THE LINE, BIA CONTINUES TO GET BASIC ASYLUM ANALYSIS WRONG! — We Need Change!

https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/memoranda/2021/02/24/19-71375.pdf

Here’s a recent unpublished decision from the 9th Circuit in Deepak Lama v. Wilkinson, (Feb. 24, 2021):

Before: HURWITZ and BRESS, Circuit Judges, and FEINERMAN,** District Judge.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

**

The Honorable Gary Feinerman, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Illinois, sitting by designation.

Deepak Lama, a citizen of Nepal, petitions for review of a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal of an Immigration Judge (IJ) order denying his claims for asylum and withholding of removal.1 We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We grant the petition and remand.

The IJ found that Lama had suffered past persecution on account of his political activity and was entitled to a presumption of a well-founded fear of future persecution. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1). But, the IJ also found that the government had rebutted the presumption, and the BIA then dismissed Lama’s appeal on the sole basis that Lama could safely and reasonably relocate within Nepal, to Chitwan, where he previously resided for five years without incident. Our review is limited to the ground on which the BIA relied. Qiu v. Barr, 944 F.3d 837, 842 (9th Cir. 2019).

When the presumption of a well-founded fear of future persecution applies, the government bears the “burden of showing that relocation is both safe and reasonable under all the circumstances” by a preponderance of the evidence. Afriyie v. Holder, 613 F.3d 924, 934 & n.8 (9th Cir. 2010), overruled on other grounds by Bringas-Rodriguez v. Sessions, 850 F.3d 1051, 1070 (9th Cir. 2017). “Relocation analysis consists of two steps: (1) ‘whether an applicant could relocate safely,’ and (2) ‘whether it would be reasonable to require the applicant to do so.’” Singh v. Whitaker, 914 F.3d 654, 659 (9th Cir. 2019) (quoting Afriyie, 613 F.3d at 934). We

1 The BIA found that Lama forfeited his claim under the Convention Against Torture. Lama does not challenge that ruling in this court.

2

conclude that the BIA’s limited relocation analysis does not satisfy the applicable legal requirements.

First, the agency “failed to take into account the numerous factors for determining reasonableness outlined in 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(3).” Knezevic v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 1206, 1215 (9th Cir. 2004). Relying on Lama’s stay in Chitwan between 2003 and 2008, the agency provided no analysis of whether it would be reasonable for Lama to relocate there at the time of his hearing, in 2017. Lama demonstrated that he experienced persecution in Nepal both in his hometown and later in Kathmandu, and that this persecution took place both before and after he lived in Chitwan. While his time in Chitwan appears to have been without incident, he last lived there many years ago. The government presented no evidence that Lama could safely and reasonably return there now, considering both the current political situation in Chitwan and Lama’s personal circumstances. See Singh, 914 F.3d at 661.

Second, the BIA’s analysis rests on an apparent misapprehension of the record. The BIA stated that “[t]he record contains no evidence that it would no longer be safe or reasonable for [Lama] to once again return to [Chitwan] where he had previously voluntarily relocated and resided for approximately 5 years without incident.” (Emphasis added.) But the record contains a 2016 letter written to Lama from his uncle, with whom he lived in Chitwan, indicating that Lama would not be

3

safe there. The BIA did not consider this evidence. And to the extent the BIA “erroneously presumed that relocation was reasonable and improperly assigned the burden of proof to [Lama] to show otherwise,” Afriyie, 613 F.3d at 935, it erred in that respect as well. See also 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(3)(ii) (burden of proof).

Gomes v. Gonzales, 429 F.3d 1264 (9th Cir. 2005), does not support the government’s position that because Lama once resided in Chitwan without incident, “it is axiomatic that he can do so again.” In Gomes, unlike this case, the petitioners had not shown past persecution and thus bore the burden to show that relocation was unreasonable. Id. at 1266–67 & 1266 n.1. In addition, unlike Lama, it appears that the petitioners in Gomes had safely resided in the area in question immediately prior to entering the United States. See id. at 1267. Gomes also did not involve the BIA failing to address evidence (here the letter from Lama’s uncle) indicating that relocation to the designated area could be unsafe.

For the foregoing reasons, we grant the petition and remand this matter to the BIA for further proceedings consistent with this decision. Any relocation analysis must comport with the governing regulations and this court’s precedents. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(3); Singh, 914 F.3d at 659–61. We also dismiss as moot the portion of Lama’s petition challenging the BIA’s denial of his motion to remand.

PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED IN PART AND DISMISSED IN PART; REMANDED.

4

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

Once again, this is nothing profound, difficult, or controversial. Just basic application of EOIR’S own regulations, consideration of all the evidence presented by the respondent, and basic analysis, with some fundamental fairness and common sense thrown in. That’s probably why the panel didn’t deem it worthy of publication. But, it does further illustrate a disturbing pattern at the BIA and the Immigration Courts.

During my time as an Immigration Judge, I was sometimes involved in the nationwide judicial law clerk (JLC) training program. One of my key points to the JLCs was that many Immigration Judges, even then, continued to get basic “burden shifting” and further analysis wrong once the respondent established past persecution, thereby invoking the regulatory presumption of future persecution.

The DHS then has the burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence either 1) fundamentally changed conditions that would eliminate any well-founded fear of individualized persecution; or 2) a reasonably available internal relocation alternative under the applicable regulations.

Because conditions seldom materially improve in most refugee-sending countries, and reasonable relocation alternatives that would eliminate a well-founded fear of persecution (not hiding in someone’s basement or in a cave in the forest) can seldom be established, in my experience, the DHS almost always failed to rebut the presumption. This was particularly the case because then, as now, the ICE counsel usually presented no testimony or other evidence to rebut the presumption beyond that contained in the State Department Country Report, which seldom was definitive on this type of highly individualized analysis.

Even where the DHS rebuts the regulatory presumption, the respondent still can win protection if she or he shows 1) compelling reasons for not returning arising from the past persecution, or 2) a reasonable possibility of other serious harm if returned.

These regulatory standards are consistent with the generous intent of the refugee definition as described by the Supreme Court in INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca. They should result in rather easy grants of protection in most cases involving past persecution,

However it appears that EOIR judges haven’t improved in this area. If anything, result-oriented decision-making geared to make denial of asylum the “administrative norm” evidently has been substituted for careful, professional, expert analysis. Indeed, correct analysis by expert judges knowledgeable in asylum law would probably result in most cases like this being granted at the Immigration Judge level, or even the Asylum Office, thus discouraging the DHS from taking largely meritless appeals to the BIA and reducing the workload in the Circuit Courts.

Instead the sloppy, biased, “any reason to deny” attitude that infects today’s EOIR means that justice for asylum seekers requires skilled lawyers, a “lucky draw” on judges at some level of the system, and, all too often, endless remands and time spent on “redos” to correct elementary errors. No wonder this system is running an astounding 1.3 million case backlog, even with many more IJs on the bench at both the trial and appellate levels!

This is a “system designed to fail.” And, failing it is, at every level, spilling over into the Article III Courts and placing the foundation of our entire U.S. justice system — due process for all under law — in jeopardy.

Quality, expertise, understanding, and a fair and humane attitude toward asylum seekers is much more important than quantity in asylum adjudication! This the exact opposite of the message delivered by the last Administration.

Here’s my basic thesis:

- Granting relief wherever possible and at the lowest possible levels of the system speeds things up and promotes best practices and maximum efficiency without stomping on anyone’s rights. (And, it saves lives).
  - En masse denials and trying to run a “deportation railroad” eventually leads to gross inefficiencies and systemic failure. (And, it kills innocent individuals).

I’m not the only one who believes this. As one of my esteemed Round Table colleagues recently quipped: “The sloppiness of the BIA in case after case is alarming.” Indeed it is; but, sadly, not particularly surprising or unusual.

🇺🇸⚖️🗽Due Process Forever!

PWS

03-01-21

⚖️🗽CREAMED AGAIN! — 1st Circuit Finds Errors Galore In BIA’s Denial Of Withholding To Honduran Woman: Credibility; Corroboration; Following Precedent; CAT Claim! — Molina-Diaz v. Wilkinson

Star Chamber Justice — “Justice”
Star Chamber
Style

http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/15-2321P-01A.pdf

Molina-Diaz v. Wilkinson, 1st Cir., 02-25-02

PANEL: Howard, Chief Judge, and Kayatta, Circuit Judge.**Judge Torruella heard oral argument in this matter and participated in the semble, but he did not participate in the issuance of the panel’s opinion in this case. The remaining two panelists therefore issued the opinion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 46(d).

ATTORNEYS: Nancy J. Kelly, with whom John Willshire Carrera and Harvard Immigration & Refugee Clinic of Harvard Law School at Greater Boston Legal Services were on brief, for petitioner.

Stratton C. Strand, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, with whom Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Douglas E. Ginsburg, Assistant Director, and Derek C. Julius, Senior Litigation Counsel, were on brief, for respondent.

OPINION BY: Chief Judge Howard

KEY QUOTE:

Petitioner Olga Araceli Molina- Diaz is a Honduran native and citizen who twice entered the United States without authorization. The government ordered her removed to Honduras, and an immigration judge (“IJ”) denied her subsequent application for withholding of removal (“Application”). Molina appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), which affirmed the IJ’s order and denied Molina’s motion to reopen and remand. Molina now petitions this court to review the BIA’s decision. Because we agree that the IJ and BIA made legal errors, we grant the petition, vacate the removal order, and remand for further proceedings.

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

Folks, we’re not talking about obtuse principles of international law, complex statutory interpretation, or “cutting edge” legal concepts. No, this is about credibility, corroboration, following your own precedents (even when they might produce a result favorable to the respondent), and adjudicating a CAT claim.

These are the “bread and butter” of basic asylum and withholding adjudication that is the staple of most Immigration Court dockets. Not rocket science! Yet, once they got below the “caption line,” the BIA, a supposedly “expert tribunal,” got pretty much everything else wrong. With human life at stake, no less!

This isn’t just an “outlier.” It reveals deep systemic problems in a dysfunctional system that has been programmed to cut corners and deny relief. After 21 years as an EOIR Judge at every level, I know an “autopilot denial” when I see one.

This is clearly the product of a judge and a BIA panel that approached the case with a “we deny almost all Hondurans, it’s just a question of how” attitude. Because “the bottom line got to no,” obviously nobody paid much, if any, attention to what was above it. I suspect that if the staff attorney had drafted this as a grant or a remand, the BIA panel would have given it a more thorough and searching review.

Following your own precedents isn’t a matter that requires profound knowledge or amazing analytical skills. It just requires some level of basic expertise and an open mind — things that appear to be sorely lacking throughout today’s broken EOIR.

The flawed EOIR approach to claims for asylum and withholding, particularly those involving the Northern Triangle and women, is very costly, not only to the humans involved, but also to our justice system. This respondent reentered the U.S. in 2009, and her merits hearing before the IJ took place in 2012. A careful, proper analysis could well have resulted in a grant at that time.

Instead, this “plethora of errors,” created by EOIR’s corner cutting and obsession with denying claims, bounced around the system for nearly a decade before being “outed” by the Circuit Court — obviously the only judges involved who took the time to actually analyze the case in accordance with the law, the facts, and the arguments made by counsel. So, after nearly a decade, at three different levels of review, we’re basically back to “square one” with this case.

The case will be returned to the BIA who inevitably will return it to to the IJ for a new hearing that actually complies with the law and due process. Given the total dysfunction in the EOIR system, it’s could easily be around for another decade.

Getting it right at the first level is critically important in a high volume, yet life determining, system like the Immigration Courts! That’s why it’s so absolutely essential that Judge Garland replace the current BIA and many of the current trial judges with “practical experts;” judges selected on a merit-basis because of their understanding of immigration and human rights laws, demonstrated analytical skills, and who by experience and reputation are overwhelmingly committed to due process, fundamental fairness, treating respondents and their lawyers with respect and dignity, and getting the right result the first time around. “The best and the brightest,” if you will!

As this case that began well before Trump shows, the deterioration at EOIR has been underway across Administrations over the past two decades. It greatly accelerated and became more acute under Trump. That’s particularly true because “Trump AGs” drastically expanded the Immigration Courts and the BIA (while exponentially increasing the backlog), and now have appointed the majority of judges in the system — after just four years!

Compare that with the Obama Administration’s practice of taking an mind-boggling average of two years to fill IJ vacancies! And, then filling them almost all with “government insiders and former prosecutors” rather than some of the many renowned “practical scholars,” experienced clinicians, and notable litigators in the private/academic/NGO immigration/human rights sectors. They actually left behind unfilled judicial vacancies for Sessions to “pounce on.” Says all you really need to know about the “priority” of immigrant justice in the Obama Administration. The “good enough for government work” attitude that has replaced “guaranteeing fairness and due process for all” as the “EOIR Vision” needs to go, now!

🇺🇸⚖️🗽Due Process Forever! Achieving it in the Immigration Courts will be the “litmus test” of whether Judge Garland succeeds or fails in his new role as Attorney General! You can’t improve justice for all in America while running a “court system” that denies justice, often ignores the law, mocks due process, eschews best practices and common sense, and routinely disrespects the humanity of those appearing before it! All while running up a stunning 1.3 million case backlog! As Justice Sotomayor would say: “This is not justice!”

PWS

02-26-21

🇺🇸🗽⚖️Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

🇺🇸⚖️🗽Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

🇺🇸⚖️🗽Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Related posts:

Misinterpreting “Realistic Possibility” — 8th Cir.

2) Wrong Interpretation Of Child Status Protection Act — 2d Cir.

3) Ignoring Previous Circuit Ruling On Related Case — 10th Cir.

4) Misconstruction Of Record — 1st. Cir.

🇺🇸⚖️🗽Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

🇺🇸⚖️🗽Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

🇺🇸🗽⚖️Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

A Better EOIR For A Better America!🇺🇸It’s not rocket science!🚀

🇺🇸⚖️🗽Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

🇺🇸🗽⚖️Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

🇺🇸⚖️🗽Due Process Forever! Failed Courts Never!

Related posts:

🇺🇸⚖️🗽Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

🇺🇸⚖️🗽Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

⚖️🗽🇺🇸🧑🏽‍⚖️Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

🇺🇸⚖️🗽Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Molina-Diaz v. Wilkinson, 1st Cir., 02-25-02

Related posts: