"The Voice of the New Due Process Army" ————– Musings on Events in U.S. Immigration Court, Immigration Law, Sports, Music, Politics, and Other Random Topics by Retired United States Immigration Judge (Arlington, Virginia) and former Chairman of the Board of Immigration Appeals Paul Wickham Schmidt and Dr. Alicia Triche, expert brief writer, practical scholar, emeritus Editor-in-Chief of The Green Card (FBA), and 2022 Federal Bar Association Immigration Section Lawyer of the Year. She is a/k/a “Delta Ondine,” a blues-based alt-rock singer-songwriter, who performs regularly in Memphis, where she hosts her own Blues Brunch series, and will soon be recording her first full, professional album. Stay tuned! 🎶 To see our complete professional bios, just click on the link below.
A robust asylum system is essential to national security. A closed border is as dangerous as an open border. If you close the asylum system, they will just cross illegally. Republicans need the border out of control. This is a trap!
*****************
That’s it in a nutshell! Reality and practicality have nothing to do with it. It’s about the GOP creating chaos and fanning hate! Unhappily, Dems fall for it — every time! That’s why American democracy is on the ropes!
The Dems have ready access to the greatest “treasure trove” of real life expertise and truth about the border in history. Yet, they routinely ignore it and let themselves be “hoodwinked” by GOP nativists peddling lies, hate, and myths. It’s seriously undermining our democracy while squandering human lives and potential!
There’s deep irony in “national security” being disingenuously parroted by a party lead by a demagogue who encouraged actual insurrection against the U.S. Government! Yet Dems and the “mainstream media” fall for it! Gimmie a break!
WASHINGTON (AP) – President Joe Biden is taking a more active role in Senate negotiations about changes to the immigration system that Republicans are demanding in exchange for providing money to Ukraine in its fight against Russia and Israel for the war with Hamas.
The Democratic president has said he is willing to make “significant compromises on the border” as Republicans block the wartime aid in Congress. The White House is expected to get more involved in talks this week as the impasse over changes to border policy has deepened and the money remaining for Ukraine has dwindled.
Republican Sen. James Lankford of Oklahoma, who is leading the negotiations, pointed to the surge of people entering the U.S. from Mexico and said “it is literally spiraling out of control.”
But many immigration advocates, including some Democrats, say some of the changes being proposed would gut protections for people who desperately need help and would not really ease the chaos at the border.
Connecticut Sen. Chris Murphy, the top Democratic bargainer, said the White House would take a more active role in the talks. But he also panned Republican policy demands so far as “unreasonable.”
. . . .
Critics say the problem is that most people do not end up getting asylum when their case finally makes it to immigration court. But they say migrants know that if they claim asylum, they essentially will be allowed to stay in America for years.
“People aren’t necessarily coming to apply for asylum as much to access that asylum adjudication process,” said Andrew Arthur, a former immigration court judge and fellow at the Center for Immigration Studies, which advocates for less immigration in the U.S.
Some of what lawmakers are discussing would raise the bar that migrants need to meet during that initial credible fear interview. Those who do not meet it would be sent home.
But Paul Schmidt, a retired immigration court judge who blogs about immigration court issues, said the credible fear interview was never intended to be so tough. Migrants are doing the interview soon after arriving at the border from an often arduous and traumatizing journey, he said. Schmidt said the interview is more of an “initial screening” to weed out those with frivolous asylum claims.
Schmidt also questioned the argument that most migrants fail their final asylum screening. He said some immigration judges apply overly restrictive standards and that the system is so backlogged that it is hard to know exactly what the most recent and reliable statistics are.
. . . .
WHAT MIGHT THESE CHANGES DO?
Much of the disagreement over these proposed changes comes down to whether people think deterrence works.
Arthur, the former immigration court judge, thinks it does. He said changes to the credible fear asylum standards and restrictions on the use of humanitarian parole would be a “game changer.” He said it would be a “costly endeavor” as the government would have to detain and deport many more migrants than today. But, he argued, eventually the numbers of people arriving would drop.
But others, like Schmidt, the retired immigration court judge, say migrants are so desperate, they will come anyway and make dangerous journeys to evade Border Patrol.
“Desperate people do desperate things,” he said.
*****************************
Ignoring both the powerful forces that drive human migration and folks who actually work with migrants at the border and in foreign countries seems like a totally insane way to “debate policy.” But, then, whoever said this “nativist-driven debate” on enhanced cruelty, dismantling the rule of law, and de-humanization is rational?
You can read Rebecca’s full article, with an “accessible” explanation of what’s at stake and what’s being proposed at the above link.
Hon. Thomas Lister Retired Jackson County (WI) Circuit JudgeHon. Paul Wickham Schmidt U.S. Immigration Judge (Ret.) Adjunct Professor, Georgetown Law Blogger, immigrationcourtside.com
We graduated from UW Law School in 1973. As retired judges we have been searching for ways in which individuals like us and our many retired judicial colleagues can use our unique legal skill sets to aid in addressing the humanitarian crisis at our borders. In that spirit, we propose to Congress, the Administration, and other decision-makers involved, the creation of “Judges Without Borders.” First, here is a brief summary of our respective backgrounds.
Paul Wickham Schmidt served as a U.S. Immigration Judge, U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) in Arlington, Virginia (2003-16), after being an Appellate Judge of the Board of Immigration, Appeals (1995-2003), where he was Board Chair for six years. He authored the landmark decision: Matter of Kasinga, extending asylum protection to victims of female genital mutilation. He previously served as Acting General Counsel and Deputy General Counsel (1979-87) of the former Immigration and Naturalization Service, and was instrumental in developing the rules and procedures to implement the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, as well as establishing the modern Immigration Court system in the DOJ. His experience also includes being a partner in two major law firms, Jones Day and Fragomen.
Paul is retired, and now is an Adjunct Professor of Law at Georgetown University Law Center. He has authored numerous articles on immigration law and speaks, lectures, and writes in forums throughout the nation on contemporary immigration issues, due process, and U.S. Immigration Court reform. He publishes the blog immigrationcourtside.com and is a member of the Round Table of Former Immigration Judges and BIA Appellate Judges.
I am a former district attorney, county corporation counsel, trial lawyer, and circuit court judge. While serving as a judge, I formed a collaborative justice coordinating council, and received one of only two national multi-year grants designed to create family treatment courts, addressing not only the needs of drug and alcohol dependent individuals, but their families as well through a holistic approach and diversion programming. I worked closely with the Ho-Chunk Nation to help create its Healing to Wellness Courts. Upon retiring, I led a successful litigation effort to stop the proliferation of frac-sand mining in Wisconsin’s Driftless region, utilizing anticipatory private-nuisance doctrine.
For the last several years, we have sought to find ways to help those who legally seek to gain asylum in the United States. Initially we proposed an initiative whereby retired State, and Federal judges would volunteer to attend a multi-week program to become trained in the laws and procedures governing eligibility screening; then potentially, aiding the overwhelmed corps of Immigration Judges by pre-filtering hundreds of thousands of potentially meritorious asylum claims, while at the same time advising those who likely will not qualify, that they probably will, potentially after many months of detention, be deported to their native country, or a safer alternative destination. We contemplated that retired judges could also be available to take some of the routine procedural and adjudicative burdens off of Immigration Judges so that they could concentrate on adjudications such as asylum, requiring their specialized training and experience.
Most of those seeking asylum at our border have experienced some type of trauma in their home countries. However, because the international refugee definition that the U.S. has adopted covers only harm resulting from race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group, and the evidentiary burdens can be daunting, some of those who have been harmed or reasonably fear harm will not be able to meet the legal criteria for asylum in the U.S. In such cases, individuals will have risked their, and perhaps their family’s lives, and their limited resources on a dangerous journey to the U.S. border, that can only end in rejection, perhaps detention, prosecution, separation from family, and ultimately expulsion to their home countries or to potentially dangerous conditions in Mexico.
To better and more constructively address this untenable and inhumane situation, we now propose “Judges Without Borders.” This group would consist of trained volunteers with prior judicial experience who are willing to dedicate some time to the task of going into venues south of our border, as well as resettlement centers in the U.S., to meet, consider and screen those claiming a right to asylum, to assess their likelihood of success, and to address and advise them accordingly, humanely, and realistically, regarding what most probably lies ahead for them. We also see an opportunity to be of service to overwhelmed NGOs and legal services providers in the United States in screening potential asylum cases and advising those unlikely to succeed on what, if any, other options they might have in individual circumstances.
Ideally, our review panels would consist of three judges: one Democrat, one Republican and one Independent for a balanced, realistic, and comprehensive approach. Interviews would be held in venues that are outside the applicant’s native country, to protect potential asylum seekers from retribution. The information gathered would be confidential, so that it could not be used against the potential applicants.
We believe that by using the skills of retired jurists with high level practical experience in assessing legal claims, Judges Without Borders, could go a long way to relieving the swamped immigration system, providing accurate helpful information about the realities of the U.S. asylum and immigration systems so that individuals can make informed life decisions, reducing the flow of immigrants dangerously entering or attempting to enter the U.S. with false hopes, and correcting misinformation about the U.S. system provided by human smugglers and other illegal operatives who exploit the predicament of desperate individuals. Volunteer judges, who generally are on pensions or some other type of pre-existing retirement income, would serve without pay, receiving only travel food, and lodging expenses.
If our elected leaders really want to solve the humanitarian crisis at the border, we believe that they ultimately must consider other practical and potentially expansive reforms to deal more realistically and humanely with the realities of 21st century migration, and to constructively reform our currently dysfunctional asylum adjudication system and our legal immigration systems which were developed to deal with past realities in worldwide migration that might no longer apply. However, in the interim, we believe that everything possible, including some new, creative, budget-friendly approaches, must be used to alleviate the humanitarian crisis and unnecessary suffering (even death) at our borders.
We recognize that practical solutions will not be easy as there are many corporate interests profiting from private immigration detention, wall-building, river barriers, and all sorts of so-called “border, security technology,” much of which is expensive, yet ultimately ineffective in dealing with the root causes of human migration. The money saved would be better spent on honoring our nation’s solemn pledge to support our allies, with whatever it takes, for as long as it takes, while also honoring our legal and humanitarian commitments to refugees. We must remain a nation that demonstrates humanitarian leadership and can be trusted by the world, to keep our promises, particularly to some of the world’s most vulnerable humans.
Thank you for considering our proposal. We stand ready to help in any way possible.
Respectfully submitted,
Hon. (Ret.) Thomas E. Lister, J.D.
Hon. Paul Wickham Schmidt
U.S. Immigration Judge (Retired)
*********************
Five decades after our graduation from U.W. Law, we’re still thinking “outside the box” of ways to improve our legal system. Retired American judges represent a societal investment in high-level decision-making and problem-solving! Why not keep using those talents in creative ways after regular service on the bench ends?
Unlike ramping up permanent, or even temporary, government hiring, volunteer retired judges, from all systems, are a flexible, low-cost, high-return potential resource that can be quickly deployed and adjusted, redeployed, or “un-deployed” as emergencies arise and are resolved!
BIA Asylum Panel In Action — After three years of ignoring experts on how to fix asylum and the border, the Biden Administration appears ready to join GOP nativists in throwing vulnerable legal asylum seekers and their supporters “under the bus.” Cartels and criminal smugglers undoubtedly are looking forward to “filling the gap” left by the demise of the legal asylum system! They will be “the only game in town’” for those seeking life-saving refuge! There is no record of increased cruelty and suspension of the rule of law “solving” migration flows, although an increase in exploitation and death of migrants seems inevitable. Perhaps, that’s just “collateral damage” to U.S. politicos. Albrecht Dürer, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
Dan Kowalski reports for LexisNexis Immigration Community:
[T]he Board found that Sebastian-Sebastian failed to demonstrate a nexus between her particular social groups and the harm she faced. In its denial of CAT protection, the Board found that Sebastian-Sebastian failed to demonstrate that she is more likely than not to be tortured if removed to Guatemala. On appeal, Sebastian-Sebastian argues that the Board’s conclusions were not supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole. Because the Board’s failure to make necessary findings as to the asylum and withholding of removal claims is erroneous, but its conclusion as to Sebastian-Sebastian’s CAT claim is supported by substantial evidence, we GRANT Sebastian-Sebastian’s petition for review in part, DENY in part, VACATE the Board’s denial of her application for asylum and withholding of removal, and REMAND to the Board for reconsideration consistent with our opinion.”
[Hats off to Jaime B. Naini and Ashley Robinson! N.B., the motion for stay of removal was denied. I have a call in to the attorneys to find out if she was removed…]
Rather than looking for ways to restrict or eliminate asylum, Congress and the Administration should be concerned about quality-control and expertise reforms in asylum adjudication, including a long-overdue independent Article I Immigration Court! Once again, the BIA violates Circuit precedent to deny asylum.
The answer to systemically unfair, (intentionally) unduly restrictive interpretations, and often illegal treatment of asylum seekers by the USG should not be to further punish asylum seekers! It should be fixing the asylum adjudication system to comply with due process, fundamental fairness, best practices, and professionalism!
Casey Carter Swegman Director of Public Policy at the Tahirih Justice Center PHOTO: Tahirih Justice Center
Here’s a statement from the Tahirih Justice Center about the disgraceful “negotiations” now taking place in Congress:
The Tahirih Justice Center is outraged by the news that the administration appears willing to play politics with human lives. These attacks on immigrants and people seeking asylum represent not simply a broken promise, but a betrayal and we urge the President and Congress to reverse course.
“I am gravely concerned that, if passed, these policies will further trap and endanger immigrant survivors of gender-based violence. Selling out asylum seekers and immigrant communities under the guise of ‘border security’ in order to pass a supplemental funding package is absolutely unacceptable,” said Casey Carter Swegman, Director of Public Policy at the Tahirih Justice Center. “And we know the impact of these cruel, deterrence-based policies will land disproportionately on already marginalized immigrants of color. I urge the White House and Congress not to sell out immigrants and asylum seekers for a funding deal.”
Every day, people fleeing persecution – including survivors of gender-based violence – arrive at our border having escaped unspeakable violence. Raising the fear standard, enacting a travel ban, putting a cap on asylum seekers, and expanding expedited removal nationwide (to name just a few proposals that have been floated in recent days) will do nothing to solve the challenges at the southern border and serve only to create more confusion, narrow pathways to humanitarian relief, increase the risk of revictimization and suffering, and punish immigrants seeking safety and a life of dignity.
These kinds of proposals double down on the climate of fear that many immigrants in this country already face on a day-to-day basis and will disproportionately impact Black, Brown and Indigenous immigrant communities.Immigrants should not be met with hostile and unmanageable policies that violate their humanity as well as their legal rights. We can and must do better.
These are “negotiations” in which those whose legal rights and humanity are being “compromised” (that is, tossed away) have no voice at the table as politicos ponder what will best suit their own interests.
U.S. immigration law and policy, including border security and asylum, have nothing to do with Ukraine, NATO, Russia and Putin. Right?
Wrong, if you are a Republican in Congress. Here, let Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) explain: “I think … Schumer will realize we’re serious … and then the discussions will begin in earnest.”
Thanks for reading Dan’s Substack! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.
Subscribe
If you are still having trouble with the concept, I’ll translate for you: “Yes, we understand and agree that Russia cannot be allowed to take over Ukraine, and we will fund aid to Ukraine, but in exchange, we insist on fundamental changes to our immigration laws to make sure no more Brown people come to America, starting right effing now.” (“Brown,” in this context, means anyone who is poor, Latin American, Asian, African, non-Anglophone…you get the idea.)
How will this play out in the next few weeks? I see three options: 1) Biden and the Dems cave, so the 1980 Refugee Act is scrapped, Dreamers get deported, the southern border is further militarized, and the economy tanks because a good chunk of the workforce is afraid to come to work; or 2) the GOP does a Tuberville and caves; or 3) the Unknown Unknown.
Stay tuned…
Thanks for reading Dan’s Substack! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.
********************
Thanks for telling it like it is, Dan! There is no validity to the GOP’s attempt to punish asylum seekers by unconscionably returning them to danger and death with no process.
The cruelty and threat to life from forcing desperate seekers to wait in dangerous conditions in Mexico, pushing them to attempt entry in ever more deadly locations along the border, detaining them in inhumane substandard prisons in the U.S., and or returning them without meaningful screening by qualified independent decision-makers is overwhelming. That Congress, the Administration, and much of the “mainstream media” choose to ignore, and often intentionally misrepresent, truth and reality about the horrible human and fiscal wastefulness of “border deterrence” doesn’t change these facts!
The Administration’s three year failure to build a functional, robust asylum system at the border with humane reception centers, access to legal assistance, a rational resettlement system, and sweeping, readily achievable, administrative reforms and leadership changes at EOIR and the Asylum Office (as laid out by experts, whose views were dismissed) is also inexcusable.
Yet, the media misrepresents this farce as a “debate.” It’s a false “debate” in which neither disingenuous “side” speaks for the endangered humans whose rights and lives they are bargaining away to mask their own failures and immorality.
Some Article III Judges recognize that “deport at any cost” at EOIR is a “bad look” for American justice! https://www.flickr.com/photos/rasputin243/ Creative Commons License
In this case, involving a woman and her two children, EOIR engaged in “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” by unilaterally moving the respondents hearing to an earlier date — arguably a due process denial in and of itself given the coordination and preparation necessary to competently present merits cases in Immigration Court. Then, EOIR failed to give legally sufficient notice of the arbitrarily accelerated hearing — a common occurrence in this dysfunctional and poorly administered system, as most practitioners would tell you.
Indeed, the defective notice was returned to EOIR, so the IJ knew that the respondent was never properly notified of the hearing. Nevertheless, ICE improperly moved for an in absentia order and the the IJ erroneously granted it.
Upon learning of the illegal “in absentia” order entered against her, the respondent promptly moved to reopen, providing unrebutted evidence of non-receipt of notice. The IJ erroneously denied the motion.
On appeal, the BIA compounded this farce by wrongfully affirming the IJ’s clearly wrong decision. Instead of confessing error, OIL advanced frivolous arguments for dismissal, falsely claiming dilatory action by the respondent, even though there is no “time bar” on a motion to reopen for defective notice.
The Ninth Circuit summarily reversed in an (unfortunately) unpublished decision. Circuit Judges Friedland and Paez, obviously and justifiably upset by this totally preventable travesty, were motivated to enter a separate concurring opinion commenting on the unprofessional “clown show” 🤡 operating at EOIR:
FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judge, with whom Circuit Judge PAEZ joins, concurring:
When the date of a removal hearing changes, the Government is required to provide a Notice of Hearing (“NOH”) containing the new date and time. 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a)(2)(A). If a person fails to appear for her hearing, she shall be removed in absentia only “if the Service establishes by clear, unequivocal, and convincing evidence that the written notice [of the hearing] was so provided.” Id. § 1229a(b)(5)(A).
Here, when Ontiveros Lozano’s removal hearing date was moved up, the Government mailed her an NOH, but it was returned as undeliverable over a month before her scheduled hearing. Ontiveros Lozano therefore indisputably did not receive the required notice, and the Government knew this. Yet the Government requested and received an in absentia removal order against Ontiveros Lozano when she did not appear for her scheduled hearing. In doing so, the Government violated the explicit statutory requirement in § 1229a(b)(5)(A).
The Government now argues that Ontiveros Lozano’s removal proceedings should not be reopened because she was not diligent in discovering the Government’s conduct and because she has forfeited her challenge to the entry of the in absentia removal order.
The Government’s duty should be to seek justice, not to deport people at any cost. In my view, it lost sight of that duty here.
The full ugliness and dysfunction of EOIR and the DOJ are on display here:
Aimless Docket Reshuffling in action;
Defective notice;
Violation of statutory requirements;
Defective administration of justice;
Unethical actions by ICE counsel in requesting an in absentia order knowing full well that the respondent had never received notice;
Stunningly poor trial judging (2X);
Horrible appellate judging;
Frivolous defense of an unjust decision by OIL.
This system is broken! It’s promoting injustice and clogging the Article III Courts with poor quality work product by USG “judges” and attorneys who aren’t up to or well-qualified for their jobs. The focus on “removal at any cost” rather than due process and justice is unconstitutional and unethical. It comes from poor leadership from the Attorney General on down! The only question is why isn’t anybody in charge motivated to fix it!
A quarter century ago, the “EOIR vision” was a noble one: “Through teamwork and innovation be the world’s best administrative tribunals, guaranteeing fairness and due process for all!” It was even posted on the website! Not only has that noble vision disappeared, both literally and figuratively, but over the last two decades Administrations of both parties have degraded justice and functionality at EOIR — some intentionally, some negligently, sometimes a toxic combination of the two.
In the absence of Article I legislation, what EOIR and the DOJ immigration bureaucracy need is a thorough housecleaning, new dynamic, due-process-focused expert leadership, and better judges at both levels. Letting EOIR continue its “death spiral,” as the Biden Administration has done, is totally unacceptable!🤯
Many thanks and appreciation to one of our newest Round Table 🛡️ members, Judge Sandy Hom, recently retired from the New York Immigration Court, for spotting this unpublished opinion and forwarding it! It’s the kind of common purpose, collegiality, and teamwork that is largely absent from today’s dysfunctional EOIR!
The agency is still considering referred applicants from the previous announcement posted September 25, 2023, under announcement number, IJ-12116877-23-VG. If you applied under that announcement and were referred for consideration, you need not reapply under this announcement.
This is an Excepted Service position. Upon completion of the required trial period, the position will be permanent. Additional positions may be filled from this announcement within 90 days of certificate issuance.
This position is in the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), Office of the Chief Immigration Judge. EOIR seeks highly-qualified individuals to join our team of expert professionals who serve as immigration adjudicators in this important Agency.
EOIR plays a pivotal role in the administration of the Nation’s immigration system. EOIR’s mission is to adjudicate immigration cases fairly, equitably, and efficiently at the trial and appellate level, governed by due process and the rule of law. Under delegated authority from the Attorney General, EOIR conducts immigration court proceedings, appellate reviews, and other administrative hearings, applying the immigration laws while ensuring that adjudicators are impartial, that laws are applied humanely and equitably, that all parties are treated with respect and dignity, and that cases are resolved expeditiously and in accordance with the Administration’s priorities and all applicable laws and regulations.
EOIR consists of three adjudicatory components: the Office of the Chief Immigration Judge, which is responsible for managing the numerous immigration courts located throughout the United States where immigration judges adjudicate individual cases; the Board of Immigration Appeals, which primarily conducts appellate reviews of the immigration judges’ decisions; and the Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer, which adjudicates immigration-related employment cases. EOIR’s Headquarters is located in Falls Church, Virginia, about 10 miles from downtown Washington, DC.
As the federal agency whose mission is to ensure the fair and impartial administration of justice for all Americans, the Department of Justice is committed to fostering a diverse and inclusive work environment. To build and retain a workforce that reflects the diverse experiences and perspectives of the American people, we welcome applicants from the many communities, identities, races, ethnicities, backgrounds, abilities, religions, and cultures of the United States who share our commitment to public service.
Job Description
Immigration Judges preside in formal, quasi-judicial hearings. Proceedings before Immigration Judges include but are not limited to removal, and bond adjudications, and involve issues of removability as well as applications for relief such as asylum, withholding of removal, protection under the Convention Against Torture, cancellation of removal, and adjustment of status.
Immigration Judges make decisions that are final, subject to appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals. In connection with these proceedings, Immigration Judges exercise certain discretionary powers as provided by law, and are required to exercise independent judgment in reaching final decisions. Immigration Judges may be required to conduct hearings in penal institutions and other remote locations
Qualifications
In order to qualify for the Immigration Judge position, applicants must meet all of the following minimum qualifications:
Education: Applicants must possess a LL.B., J.D., or LL.M. degree. (Provide the month and year in which you obtained your degree and the name of the College or University from which it was conferred/awarded.)
AND
Licensure: Applicants must be an active member of the bar, duly licensed and authorized to practice law as an attorney under the laws of any state, territory of the U.S., or the District of Columbia. (Provide the month and year in which you obtained your first license and the State from which it was issued.)
AND
Experience: Applicants must have seven (7) years of post-bar admission experience as a licensed attorney preparing for, participating in, and/or appealing court or administrative agency proceedings at the Federal, State or local level. Qualifying trial experience involves cases in which a complaint was filed with a court or administrative agency, or a charging document (e.g., indictment, notice of violation, or information) was issued by a court, administrative entity, a grand jury, or appropriate military authority. Relevant administrative experience includes cases in which a formal procedure was initiated by a governmental administrative body.
NOTE: Qualifying experience is calculated only after bar admission.
IN DESCRIBING YOUR EXPERIENCE, PLEASE BE CLEAR AND SPECIFIC. WE MAY NOT MAKE ASSUMPTIONS REGARDING YOUR EXPERIENCE. If your resume does not support your assessment questionnaire answers, we will not allow credit for your response(s). Ensure that your resume contains your full name, address, phone number, email address, and employment information. Each position listed on your resume must include: From/To dates of employment (MM/YYYY-MM/YYYY or MM/YYYY to Present); agency/employer name; position title; Federal grade level(s) held, if applicable; hours, if less than full time; and duties performed. In addition, any experience on less than a full time basis must specify the percentage and length of time spent in performance of such duties.
Additional information
This is an Excepted Service position, subject to a probationary period. The initial appointment is for a period not to exceed 24 months. Conversion to a permanent position is contingent upon appointment by the Attorney General.
Additional positions may be filled from this announcement within 90 days of certificate issuance.
Alternative work schedule options are available. Immigration Judges’ tour of duty may include Saturdays and Sundays.
There is no formal rating system for applying veterans’ preference to Immigration Judge appointments in the excepted service; however, the Department of Justice considers veterans’ preference eligibility as a positive factor in Immigration Judge hiring. Applicants eligible for veterans’ preference must claim their status when completing their application in the online application process and attach supporting documentation. (See the “Required Documents” section.)
Many vacancies (see below vacancy link for locations): Location Negotiable After Selection
Travel
50% or less – You may be expected to travel for this position.
Relocation Expenses
Not authorized
* * *
Department Policies
Equal Employment Opportunity: The U.S. Department of Justice is an Equal Opportunity/Reasonable Accommodation Employer. Except where otherwise provided by law, there will be no discrimination because of race, color, religion, national origin, sex – including gender identity, sexual orientation, or pregnancy status – or because of age (over 40), physical or mental disability, protected genetic information, parental status, marital status, political affiliation, or any other non-merit based factor. The Department of Justice welcomes and encourages applications from persons with physical and mental disabilities. The Department is firmly committed to satisfying its affirmative obligations under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, to ensure that persons with disabilities have every opportunity to be hired and advanced on the basis of merit within the Department of Justice. For more information, please review our full EEO Statement.
Reasonable Accommodations: This agency provides reasonable accommodation to applicants with disabilities where appropriate. If you need a reasonable accommodation for any part of the application and hiring process, please notify the agency. Determinations on requests for reasonable accommodation will be made on a case-by-case basis.
Outreach and Recruitment for Qualified Applicants with Disabilities: The Department encourages qualified applicants with disabilities, including individuals with targeted/severe disabilities to apply in response to posted vacancy announcements. Qualified applicants with targeted/severe disabilities may be eligible for direct hire, non-competitive appointment under Schedule A (5 C.F.R. § 213.3102(u)) hiring authority. Individuals with disabilities are encouraged to contact one of the Department’s Disability Points of Contact (DPOC) to express an interest in being considered for a position. See list of DPOCs.
Suitability and Citizenship: It is the policy of the Department to achieve a drug-free workplace and persons selected for employment will be required to pass a drug test which screens for illegal drug use prior to final appointment. Employment is also contingent upon the completion and satisfactory adjudication of a background investigation. Congress generally prohibits agencies from employing non-citizens within the United States, except for a few narrow exceptions as set forth in the annual Appropriations Act (see, https://www.usajobs.gov/Help/working-in-government/non-citizens/Links to other government and non-government sites will typically appear with the “external link” icon to indicate that you are leaving the Department of Justice website when you click the link.). Pursuant to DOJ component policies, only U.S. citizens are eligible for employment with the Executive Office for Immigration Review, U.S. Trustee’s Offices, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Unless otherwise indicated in a particular job advertisement, qualifying non-U.S. citizens meeting immigration and appropriations law criteria may apply for employment with other DOJ organizations. However, please be advised that the appointment of non-U.S. citizens is extremely rare; such appointments would be possible only if necessary to accomplish the Department’s mission and would be subject to strict security requirements. Applicants who hold dual citizenship in the U.S. and another country will be considered on a case-by-case basis. All DOJ employees are subject to a residency requirement. Candidates must have lived in the United States for at least three of the past five years. The three-year period is cumulative, not necessarily consecutive. Federal or military employees, or dependents of federal or military employees serving overseas, are excepted from this requirement. This is a Department security requirement which is waived only for extreme circumstances and handled on a case-by-case basis.
Veterans: There is no formal rating system for applying veterans’ preference to attorney appointments in the excepted service; however, the Department of Justice considers veterans’ preference eligibility as a positive factor in attorney hiring. Applicants eligible for veterans’ preference must include that information in their cover letter or resume and attach supporting documentation (e.g., the DD 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty and other supporting documentation) to their submissions. Although the “point” system is not used, per se, applicants eligible to claim 10-point preference must submit Standard Form (SF) 15, Application for 10-Point Veteran Preference, and submit the supporting documentation required for the specific type of preference claimed (visit the OPM website, www.opm.gov/forms/pdf_fill/SF15.pdfLinks to other government and non-government sites will typically appear with the “external link” icon to indicate that you are leaving the Department of Justice website when you click the link. for a copy of SF 15, which lists the types of 10-point preferences and the required supporting document(s). Applicants should note that SF 15 requires supporting documentation associated with service- connected disabilities or receipt of nonservice-connected disability pensions to be dated 1991 or later except in the case of service members submitting official statements or retirement orders from a branch of the Armed Forces showing that their retirement was due to a permanent service-connected disability or that they were transferred to the permanent disability retired list (the statement or retirement orders must indicate that the disability is 10% or more).
USAO Residency Requirement: Assistant United States Attorneys must reside in the district to which appointed or within 25 miles thereof. See 28 U.S.C. 545 for district specific information.
* * *
This and other vacancy announcements can be found under Attorney Vacancies and Volunteer Legal Internships. The Department of Justice cannot control further dissemination and/or posting of information contained in this vacancy announcement. Such posting and/or dissemination is not an endorsement by the Department of the organization or group disseminating and/or posting the information.
Updated December 1, 2023
*****************
Yes, I’ve been highly critical of EOIR, particularly the BIA. But, to change the system for the better, we need the “best and brightest judges” at the “retail level” — the U.S. Immigration Courts!
In the process of denying asylum to a family targeted by gangs in Mexico, the BIA says:
The Immigration Judge’s finding that the cartel was motived by a desire to control the respondents’ land rather than their family membership is a permissible view of the evidence and is not clearly erroneous.
This negative finding by the IJ was “permissible,” not “compelled.” That language admits that other fact-findings on the same evidence could also be “permissible.” Much depends on the individual Immigration Judge’s frame of reference and willingness to look for “reasons to protect” rather than defaulting to “reasons to reject.”
So, what if the IJ were able to see and understand asylum from the standpoint of the applicant, rather than defaulting to the EOIR “any reason to deny” approach? Fairer fact-findings below would require more careful review by the BIA. Rather than just being able to mindlessly affirm adverse findings below, the BIA would basically be legally bound to uphold more positive findings unless “clearly erroneous.”
Of course in their haste to deny some BIA panels are prone to violate the “clearly erroneous” standard to “get to no.” But, that increases the chances of Circuit reversal. See, e.g., Crespin Valladares v. Holder, 632 F.3d 117 (4th Cir. 2011) (my case from Arlington).
Additionally, DHS can’t and doesn’t appeal every asylum grant, particularly when they are “fact bound.” I actually had ICE Assistant Chief Counsel say on the record in waiving appeal that while they respectfully disagreed with my fact-findings, they recognized that they were not “clearly erroneous” for purposes of appeal. (Other times they actually agreed after I had stated my detailed findings and analysis, sometimes actually repeating during closing arguments the basic analysis I would have reached on the record we had just made.)
Better judging below can actually cut off and discourage backlog building “let’s spin the bottle” appeals by DHS encouraged by the BIA’s systemic failure to consistently uphold the rights of asylum seekers and their “unduly restrictive” interpretations of asylum law!
Buried amongst the morass of poor administration and bad appellate judging at EOIR, many “true expert” IJs are making great decisions and saving lives on a daily basis. One of the “best kept secrets” at EOIR — often intentionally obscured by both EOIR and the media (not to mention GOP White Nationalist nativists) — is that as of this summer over half of all those who passed “credible fear” — 55% — received asylum grants if they were actually able to get to merits hearings at today’s backlogged EOIR!See, e.g., https://humanrightsfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/Asylum-grant-rates-fact-sheet-August-2023.pdf.
That’s an impressive rate, given that the system is stacked against asylum applicants! It also highlights the total insanity of today’s discussions on the Hill of how to artificially heighten standards to bar asylum seekers and promote more arbitrary wrongful denials of life-saving protection. What’s needed is better judging and more realistic and humane policies, NOT more cruelty and misapplications of asylum law!
As I have pointed out along with others, asylum grant rates would be much higher with better judges at EOIR and better precedents from the BIA. Better guidance would mean more cases granted at the Asylum Office and Immigration Court levels and a more timely and efficient system that advances and promotes due process, rather than inhibiting it!
But, it can’t all be done “from the outside!” Better Immigration Judges — true asylum experts with “hands on” experience representing applicants before EOIR and the Asylum Office — are essential to rebuilding EOIR as a functional court system.
For example, one of the expert recommendations from the very recent Women’s Refugee Commission study of asylum reception, resettlement, and processing was that: “One pro se assistance goal is to incentivize immigration judges to take a closer look at pro se asylum cases.”
But, this laudable goal presupposes Immigration Judges who are experts in asylum law and able to “work their way through” some of the inherent barriers to justice in pro se Immigration Court cases rather than submitting to the “artificial production pressures and any reason to deny culture” that still exists at much of EOIR. Sadly, not all current IJs have this ability. Moreover, the BIA has provided defective leadership and guidance. EOIR judicial training on asylum does not measure up to much of that readily available in the private/NGO sector. See, e.g.,VIISTA Villanova.
Many practitioners who have contacted me here at “Courtside” lament that their lives and their client’s futures would be better if they only were appearing before Immigration Judges who actually understood asylum law from a protection standpoint. They are frustrated by having their fine presentations and great arguments “shrugged off” with “predetermined boiler plate denials” citing negative language from the BIA — often ignoring what actually happened or was proved at trials.
Instead of being destined to forever be frustrated by EOIR’s shortcomings, YOU now have a chance to “be that judge” — the one who understands asylum law, has seen the defects in EOIR decision-making, who doesn’t view denial as “preordained,” and will require both parties fairly to meet their burdens. (Ironically, there are many places where the asylum regulations still place the burden of proof on DHS, even if many IJs and BIA panels are unwilling to enforce them.)
So, get in those applications for EOIR judgeships! It’s a great way to show leadership by improving the system from the inside while saving lives in the process! Better judges for a better America — starting at the “retail level!”
BIA Asylum Panel In Action. The BIA’s “take no prisoners” approach to asylum law has endangered asylum seekers lives without deterring them from applying! The BIA’s convoluted approach to asylum law is one factor making hearings for unrepresented applicants inherently unfair! Albrecht Dürer, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
BIA HEADNOTE:
If a persecutor is targeting members of a certain family as a means of achieving some
other ultimate goal unrelated to the protected ground, family membership is incidental or
subordinate to that other ultimate goal and therefore not one central reason for the harm.
Matter of L-E-A-, 27 I&N Dec. 40 (BIA 2017), reaffirmed.
1) In any “mixed motive” case, EOIR will find that the “non-covered motive” is primary and all others are “tangental” so that the claim will be denied.
2) EOIR will ignore “but for,” “proximate cause,” and any other established legal rules of causation to maximize asylum denials.
3) Facts are irrelevant unless they support denial.
In its rush to deny, the BIA basically invents a “presumption” that family based persecution is “tangential” to some other non-qualifying ground. The respondent then must “establish, by direct or circumstantial evidenc, that their family membership is more than incidental, tangential, superficial, or subordinate to other motives.”
When Congress added the “at least one central reason” language in 2005, they clearly intended to preserve a robust “mixed motive” doctrine by indicating that there could be “more than one” central motive. The BIA, however appears to be strangling the “mixed motive” language by intentionally, and often artifically, “subordinating” qualifying motives to non-qualifying ones!
And, of course, faced with a choice of adopting Circuit law that protects or that which rejects, the BIA invariably chooses the interpretation least favorable to the asylum applicant, as they did here.
I’m not the only member of the Round Table to remark on the BIA’s questionable performance.
Hon. Jeffrey S. Chase Jeffrey S. Chase Blog Coordinator & Chief Spokesperson, Round Table of Former Immigration Judges
Judge “Sir Jeffrey” Chase says:
“This holding is contrary to asylum law generally and to multiple Fourth Circuit holdings to the contrary. I would also argue that it contradicts Second Circuit case law, and the Supreme Court’s holding regarding the meaning of “on account of” in Bostock v. Clayton County.”
The poor performance of the BIA in establishing asylum precedents is a major contributing factor to disorder at the border and a dysfunctional, overly complicated, unduly restrictive, hopelessly backlogged, fundamentally unfair asylum adjudication system!
Professor Mary Holper Associate Clinical Professor Director of the Immigration Clinic Associate Dean for Experiential Learning Boston College Law PHOTO: BC Law
Here’s the brief expertly prepared for us by NDPA All-Star Mary Holper and her team of student attorneys at Boston College Legal Services LAB Immigration Clinic:
As we argue, the BIA’s action here violated their own precedent in Matter of Morales-Morales, 28 I. & N. Dec. 714 (BIA 2023). As stated in our brief:
In Morales-Morales, the case in which the BIA first held that it could equitably toll a notice of appeal deadline, the BIA stated that the quintessential example of an extraordinary circumstance warranting equitable tolling is when “a party uses a guaranteed delivery service, and the service fails to fulfill its guarantee.” See Morales-Morales, 28 I. & N. Dec. at 717. When presented with exactly those facts, however—FedEx’s Priority Overnight service failed to deliver Ms. Diaz-Valdez’s notice of appeal on time, violating its guarantee—the BIA arbitrarily and capriciously refused to equitably toll the deadline.
One could well ask why Garland is spending Government time and resources defending the BIA’s erroneous and unjust actions. No wonder EOIR can’t help building more and more backlog — much of it through poor quality, anti-immigrant decision-making that causes unnecessary delays, confusion, gross inconsistencies, and contributes to the dreaded “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” — an endemic problem at EOIR!
Thanks again to Mary and her team for their outstanding help. Also, as pointed out in the intro to the brief, I joined in my individual capacity, NOT as a representative of the Round Table, Georgetown Law, or any other group or entity with which I am associated.
Camille J. Mackler Executive Director Immigrant ARC PHOTO: JustSecurity
Camille writes on Linkedin:
I truly believe that when we look back on the evolution of migration trends and responses, 2022 will be remembered as the year we entered a new era of policy making. What began as a political stunt by the Texas Governor has turned into a full-on, ad-hoc secondary resettlement system, fueled by the seeming inability of the Federal Government to take meaningful responsibility to support a cohesive response.
We’ve been seeing this since the first buses began arriving in New York City, when City staff and local non-profits would walk people directly to ticket counters in the bus terminal and help them continue onward travel. This has of course expanded into a full-on operation here, but we’ve also seen similar efforts – all carried out with very little coordination between local governments – in other cities including Washington, DC, Denver, and Chicago.
But its not just within the US – countries in Central America are also getting into the business of transporting migrants “anywhere but here.” Nicaragua, ostensibly to spite the US and to force better policy solutions for the region, is allowing and likely even encouraging charter flights from Cuba and Haiti to help individuals from those countries travel North (making money off tourist visa applications and other concessions along the way). Costa Rica, Panama, Honduras, and Mexico are busing individuals and families North to speed their passage through those countries.
The Los Angeles Declaration, which came out of the 2022 Summit of the Americas, promised to create a regional framework and approach to migration in the Americas, but national governments are moving so slowly that cities are getting ahead of them out of pure necessity. Existing networks (such as Cities For Action, e.g.) turned out to be insufficient to help create the necessary connectivity, so instead we are seeing ad hoc attempts with varying levels of engagement by local non-profits.
And regardless of the level of cooperation from local government, civil society is looking for ways to get involved and minimize the harm caused by this perverse game of “hot potato”. A webinar Immigrant ARC and the National Partnership for New Americans is organizing next week on best practices for rapid responses to new arrivals had over 250 sign-ups within three days of announcing registration was open.
So I guess what I’m trying to say is.. What are we going to do? I can’t remember a time that more clearly highlighted how immigration – at its core – is a local issue. But this is our new normal. Migration is natural and, if global trends are any indication, is not abating any time soon. So our challenge is – how do we treat this as an opportunity, not a challenge? And how do we get our elected officials – from local government all the way to the White House – to remember that we are dealing with human lives, full of promise and courage, and not political pawns to be played with at the whims of those currently in power.
*****************************
Follow Camille on LinkedIn.
The “problems” are short term, very visible, and over-hyped by nativist politicos and the media — mainstream as well as far right. Folks wading the river, sleeping in the streets, camping in tents, crowded schools, overwhelmed social services, angry and frustrated local officials are all very much in the public eye and easy to sensationalize for the media.
By contrast, the overwhelming benefits of migration — including refugees and other forced migrants — are more abstract and in the future. Expansion of the the workforce, supply chain improvements, innovations, opportunities created by enriching culture, economic expansion, and robust increases in tax revenues don’t happen overnight. In today’s “instant gratification/instant news” culture, people tend not to pay much attention or give credence to things that aren’t happening in “real time.”
So, the solution is to make the tangible benefits of immigration to everyone in society happen more rapidly and more obviously. “Real life concrete examples” of benefits connect with individuals more than projections and statistics about the future. The challenge would be to:
Get asylum applicants to places where food, shelter, education, legal assistance, and job placement are available;
Concentrate on welcoming locations;
Do it in an orderly fashion so that the benefits of migration are rationally distributed and no particular community feels overwhelmed;
Assist individuals to get them through the legal asylum more rapidly so that those who are successful achieve full legal status, work authorization, and can progress toward green cards and citizenship. Those who aren’t eligible won’t “wander the U.S. forever.”
Neither Congress nor the Administration appear to be interested in making this happen. Indeed, the nativist GOP “border proposals” now being debated would make things demonstrably worse in every way! Yet, too many Senate Dems lack the guts to “just say no” to what are basically “enhanced human rights abuses!”
Therefore, it would be up to NGOs working with receptive state and local governments and taking advantage of things like “public-private partnerships.”
NGOs could set up a “national clearinghouse” and a network of local organizations in welcoming communities where migrants could be placed. In that way, they would be “emulating” that which the Federal Government should, but isn’t, doing, as well as obviating the problems caused by GOP governors who are weaponizing migration to support their nativist “invasion” myths.
It could also provide concrete examples of success in enhancing the quality of life and economic opportunities in communities that welcome migrants. Conversely, it could also take some of the pressure off communities who believe (whether correctly or not) that they are overwhelmed or overburdened.
As to Camille’s question:
And how do we get our elected officials – from local government all the way to the White House – to remember that we are dealing with human lives, full of promise and courage, and not political pawns to be played with at the whims of those currently in power.
Unfortunately, I don’t see that happening without a different set of elected officials. The facts are out here. Politicos primarily on the right, but also too many Dems, have gone out of their way to ignore the truth about asylum seekers because they believe it suits their short-term political interests. That’s a tough nut to crack without a new political movement and some new faces of power.
Even now, too much of the “border debate” is vociferous, but one-sided and ill informed. As one successful NGO at the border recently said:
If you really want to know what’s happening on the Mexican side of the border, follow the humanitarian groups like the Sidewalk School, who are working there,” [Felicia] Rangel-Samporano says. “We are there every day, seven days a week.”
Felicia Rangel-Samparano Director The Sidewalk School PHOTO: The Sidewalk School
Fat chance for a visit to the Sidewalk School or any other humanitarian organization at the border from those in power, or, for that matter, for the “mainstream media” to show much interest in injecting truth and expertise into their border reporting. Organizations like TheSidewalk School appear to have the keys to successful border and asylum policies. But, they will need help from their friends — lots of it!
Don’t expect it from Dems on the Hill. As cogently pointed out by Greg Sargent in today’s WashPost, they are tuning out experts like Camille and Felicia Rangel-Samparano — folks with real solutions that would improve border security while actually furthering human rights — in favor of “negotiating” (for war funding abroad) with those driven by the neo-fascist anti-human-rights agenda of Miller and Trump. As stated by Greg:
Sen. Thom Tillis wants you to know that he’s very “reasonable.” That’s the word the North Carolina Republican used with reporters this week while describing immigration reforms that the GOP is demanding from Senate Democrats in exchange for supporting the billions in Ukraine aid that President Biden wants. But the demands from Tillis and his fellow Republican leading the talks, Sen. James Lankford of Oklahoma, are not reasonable at all — they’re following Donald Trump’s playbook. Under the guise of seeking more “border security,” they’re insisting on provisions that would reduce legal immigration in numerous ways that could even undermine the goal of securing the border. According to Democratic sources familiar with the negotiations, Republican demands began to shift soon after the New York Times reported that in a second Trump term, he would launch mass removals of millions of undocumented immigrants, gut asylum seeking almost entirely, and dramatically expand migrant detention in “giant camps.” As one Senate Democratic source told me, Republicans started acting as though Trump and his immigration policy adviser Stephen Miller were “looking over their shoulders.”
How vile is this “debate” about “sacrificing” other (vulnerable) humans’ lives and rights — things that neither party has a right to use as “bargaining chips?” The GOP, a far-right party that basically has never seen a bomb it didn’t want to drop or a weapon it didn’t want used on some “enemy,” is threatening to withhold weapons for a war against Russian aggression abroad unless Dems agree to kill more folks seeking refuge (ironically, many fleeing from the far-left government of Venezuela) at our border!
In “normal” times, Dems would stand firm for humanitarian assistance, better border processing, and reasonable resettlement assistance (to end the Abbott/DeSantis travesty). But there’s nothing “normal” or remotely “reasonable” about the farce going on in Congress!
It’s remarkable how little attention the “mainstream media” focuses on those working hard and solving problems, on a daily basis, at the border, like the folks running the Sidewalk School! Compare publicity for the “good guys” who are actually solving problems and saving lives with the amount of time and attention given to GOP nativist politicos spreading anti-immigrant myths and demanding yet more cruelty and expensive, deadly, proven to fail, deterrence!🤯
Jennifer Habercorn and Burgess Everett report for Politico:
A growing number of Senate Democrats appear open to making it harder for migrants to seek asylum in order to secure Republican support for aiding Ukraine and Israel.
They are motivated not just by concern for America’s embattled allies. They also believe changes are needed to help a migration crisis that is growing more dire and to potentially dull the political sting of border politics in battleground states before the 2024 elections.
“Look, I think the border needs some attention. I am one that thinks it doesn’t hurt,” said Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.), one of the Senate’s most vulnerable Democrats in next year’s midterm election.
Tester said he’s eager to see if a bipartisan group of negotiators can come up with an agreement on a policy issue as elusive as immigration. While he refused to commit to supporting a deal until he sees its details, he didn’t rule out backing stronger border requirements. And he’s not alone.
“I am certainly okay with [border policy] being a part of a national security supplemental,” said Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), another Democrat facing reelection next year. On changes to asylum policy, she said: “I would like to see us make some bipartisan progress, which has eluded us for years. The system’s broken.”
. . . .
******************
Professor Karen Musalo Director, Center for Gender & Refugee Studies, Hastings Law
Meanwhile, the GOP’s proposal to essentially end asylum — going well beyond the unfair and unduly restrictive policies already imposed by the Administration — has been condemned in the strongest possible terms by human rights and immigration experts. For example, here’s what Professor Karen Musalo, Founder & Director of the Center For Gender & Refugee Studies at Hastings Law, and an internationally-renowned human rights expert, said yesterday:
CGRS Urges Senators to Reject GOP Push to End Asylum
Nov 28, 2023
As negotiations over President Biden’s supplemental funding request continue, the Center for Gender & Refugee Studies (CGRS) urges lawmakers to reject Republican-led proposals that would upend the U.S. asylum system and eviscerate life-saving protections for people fleeing persecution and torture. If enacted, they would erase our longstanding tradition of welcoming asylum seekers and lead to the wrongful return of refugees to countries where they face persecution or torture, in violation of international law.
“These radical proposals amount to a complete abandonment of the U.S. government’s legal and moral obligations to extend protection to refugees fleeing persecution,” Karen Musalo, Director of the Center for Gender & Refugee Studies (CGRS), said today. “In practice, they would result in the persecution, torture, and deaths of families, children, and adults seeking safe haven at our nation’s doorstep. It is utterly shameful that Republican lawmakers are attempting to exploit the budget negotiations process to advance an extremist, anti-immigrant and anti-refugee agenda. The lives of people seeking asylum are not political bargaining chips. We urge lawmakers to join Senator Padilla and other congressional leaders in rejecting these cynical proposals.”
Read the complete Politico article at the first link above.
To me, expressions like “attention” and “bipartisan progress” used by Dem politicos in connection with the Southern border are “code words” for appeasing the GOP nativist right by agreeing to “more border militarization” and “abrogation of the human rights of refugees and asylees!”
I see little “attention” or “bipartisan progress” being discussed on measures that, unlike the GOP “end of asylum/uber enforcement” proposals, would actually address the humanitarian situation on the border (and elsewhere) in a constructive and positive manner:
More, better trained, expert Immigration Judges and Asylum Officers;
Organized resettlement assistance and expedited work authorization for asylum applicants;
Legal assistance for asylum seekers;
An independent Article I Immigration Court;
Revision of the refugee definition to more clearly cover forms of gender-based persecution;
Increased DHS funding for sophisticated undercover and anti-smuggling operations targeting smugglers and cartels;
Adjustment of status for long-term TPS holders.
These are the types effective measures that have long been recommended by experts, yet widely ignored or even directly contravened by those in power. The negative results of “enforcement only” and “extreme cruelty” at the border are obvious in today’s continuing humanitarian situation.
The idea that a forced migration emergency will be “solved” by more draconian enforcement, eradication of human rights, and elimination of due process, as touted by GOP nativists, is a preposterous! Yet, many Dems seem ready, even anxious, to throw asylum applicants and their advocates under the bus — once again!
Unhappily, Congress and the Biden Administration have paid scant attention to the views of experts and those actually involved in relieving the plight of asylum seekers at the border. The politicos continue to dehumanize and demean forced migrants while stubbornly treating a human rights emergency as a “law enforcement crisis” that can be solved with more cruelty and repression.
As experts like Karen Musalo continue to point out, experience shows us that more deterrence and harshness will only make things worse, squandering resources and attention that could more effectively be used to address and alleviate unnecessary human suffering and finally making our refugee and asylum systems function in a fair and efficient manner.
Yet, politicos are more interested in grandstanding, “victim shaming,” and finger pointing than in achieving success and harnessing the positive potential of forced migration for countries like ours fortunate enough to be “receivers” rather than “senders!”
Ending asylum will NOT stop refugees from coming — at least in the long run. Every Administration manipulates or misrepresents statistics to show immediate “deterrent” effect from their latest restrictionist gimmicks (some ruled illegal by Federal Courts). But such “bogus successes” are never durable!
As the current situation shows, decades of failed deterrence merely creates new flows, in different places, piles up more dead migrant bodies, and surrenders the control of border policies to smugglers and cartels. That, in turn, fuels calls by restrictionists and their enablers for harsher, crueler, and ever more expensive (and profitable to some) sanctions imposed on some of the world’s most vulnerable humans.
If asylum ends, America will find itself with a larger, less controllable reality of a growing underground population of extralegal migrants. Contrary to nativist alarmism, this population has remained largely stable recently.
But, that will change as the legal asylum system contracts. Right now, most asylum seekers either apply at ports of entry (often undergoing unreasonable and dangerous waits and struggling with the dysfunctional “CBP One App”) or voluntarily surrender to CBP shortly after entering between ports. The GOP and Dem “go alongs” are determined to change that so that those seeking refuge will have no choice but to be smuggled into the interior where they can become lost in the general population.
This, in turn, will fuel demands by GOP White Nationalists and their Dem enablers for even more expensive and ultimately ineffective border militarization. It will also turn DHS into an internal security police.
Unable to “ferret out” and remove the underground population — because, in fact, they look, act, and are in many cases indistinguishable from native-born Americans and often perform essential services — they will concentrate on harassing and spreading fear among minority populations in America. Also, Trump has also promised that if re-elected, he will abuse his Executive authority to punish his critics and political opponents. Further empowerment of DHS in the interior would be handy in this respect.
Underground populations are also more susceptible to exploitation — another unstated objective of GOP restrictionist policies. What’s better for employers than a disenfranchised workforce who can be fired and turned over to DHS if they demand fair wages or better treatment?
Senate Dems appear to be on the verge of doing precisely what Karen and other experts have repeatedly warned against: using the lives and rights of asylum seekers as a “political bargaining chip” to appease the GOP right and secure military funding for Israel and Ukraine. It’s exactly what happens when experts and those with “on the ground” experience dealing with forced migrants are “locked out of the room” where decisions are made!
While White Nationalist neo-fascists like Stephen Miller and his cronies have remained “at the heart” of GOP policy making on eradicating human rights and punishing asylum seekers, lifetime experts on human rights and asylum find themselves reduced to the role of “outside critics” and “kibitzers” as the Dem Administration and Senate Dems bumble along on the border and human rights. That’s a shame that will certainly diminish and threaten the future of American democracy! And, it’s hard to see how appeasing the GOP restrictionist right will help Dems in 2024!
Katharina Obser Director of Migrants Rights and Justice Women’s Refugee Commission PHOTO: Women’s Refugee Commission website
Close to San Diego, California, hundreds of people seeking asylum are being held in deplorable conditions. So-called open-air detention sites are desolate areas in the US at or close to the US-Mexico border, where men, women, and children seeking protection wait outside, exposed to the elements. Nonprofit organizations and volunteers do their best to provide desperately needed water, meals, snacks, first aid, diapers, clothing, and blankets.
Last month, the Women’s Refugee Commission traveled to San Diego and Tijuana, Mexico, to assess the conditions that people seeking asylum at the US-Mexico border face. Our short report, released today, is heartbreaking. We heard about families being separated. About people scared to go to hospital for treatment in case they aren’t reunited with their loved ones. And about rampant exploitation of people seeking asylum as they travel through Mexico to reach the United States.
We will use our findings to advocate that the Biden administration rescind its asylum ban; ends the use open-air detention sites; and that Congress significantly increase investment in organizations providing short-term aid, housing, and services. And we will continue to call for those seeking asylum to be treated humanely and with dignity.
Katharina Obser
Director, Migrant Rights and Justice Program
Compare this with the “border BS” spread by the GOP and the media that ignores the human and legal traumas at the border and falsely insists that competently administering domestic and international refugee and asylum laws is “mission impossible” for the world’s most prosperous superpower.
It appears that the politicos are too busy spreading lies and myths about the most vulnerable among us to solve problems in a humane, reasonable, and efficient manner!
Is this REALLY the “look” that Dems want at the “retail level” of the U.S. justice system. What if Garland and his lieutenants had to face this every day of their professional careers?
Received in the “Courtside mailbox:”
Hello. I just came across your page. What great work you are doing. This is awesome. I have a few topics that it would be nice to see a discussion about regarding IJ demeanor and how immigration lawyers are treated by IJs:
1. IJs are unchecked in many instances. When a lawyer is sick and unable to appear, there is no established method for informing the court.You just hope that the IJ has a responsible and reliable legal assistant [note: high turnover and understaffing of legal assistants is a chronic problem at EOIR] who will inform the IJ of your illness. Oftentimes, IJs become enraged that you do something human like “become too sick to appear.” They take it out on the respondent who has courageously appeared, without a lawyer, to avoid an in–absentia order. They oftentimes display bullying and rude behavior towards the client and the office staff of the lawyer when they learn that the lawyer cannot appear, even in instances where the lawyer or lawyer’s staff members have taken measures to inform the court of said illness. This bullying behavior may cause the client to lose faith in the attorney’s representation.
In years past, I can probably count upwards of several dozen occasions when I have traveled over 2 hours for a PreCovidafternoon individual hearing only to find out that the IJ was out sick. [“Aimless Docket Reshuffling (“ADR”) in action.] No one called to inform my office, and there was no recourse or reimbursement of travel funds. It would have been inappropriate to express any anger at the time I was informed at the pre-COVID hearing. Yet some IJs take it out on lawyers, the respondent, and the lawyers’ staff for the being too ill to appear. There is no human response. This behavior pressures some lawyers to perform even in instances where they may not be competent to perform. Yet IJs cancel court hearings, from the privacy of their homes, by calling out of work, providing lawyers and respondents with absolutely no notice or explanation.
2. Some IJs are unreasonably denying Webex hearings. How can the private bar join the DHS to make a statement regarding their newest fight to challengeIJs seeking to force them to travel from other states and far-away locations for hearings?
3. IJs need to stop yelling, rolling eyes, bullying, and mistreating lawyers and respondents.
4. One time I appeared in court with high fever and a bad cough, and asked for a continuance. Instead, the judge forced me to conduct the 3-hour individual hearing anyway. I was surely not competent to represent the respondent that day.
5. OPLA apparently is now being forced by EOIR to appear in person at the court. OPLA’s position is that its attorneys shouldn’t be forced to travel hours each way to and from to conduct hearings, and that it is essentially a waste of resources when WebEx is available. I believe that the private bar should join OPLA in its battle to preserve the ability to appear by WebEx, since it concerns us too.
6. We should not be arbitrarily and capriciously dragged in to court for in person appearances when technology affords otherwise. We have been using virtual technology for almost four years now, with the lesson of efficiency at the forefront. Traveling numerous hours each way is costly and ultimately unproductive for both the government and private bar members not living in close proximity to courts. With the advent of WebEx, attorneys get more work done by cutting down the number of hours sitting in traffic, leaving more time for case management and preparation. Most importantly, the benefit of WebEx hearings is an improvement of mental health of attorneys on both sides. It is important to mention that the pressure associated with dealing with temperamental adjudicators, a lack of productivity from daily travel, and overwhelming pressure to perform one’s duties for fear of being found ineffective ultimately leads to depression and anxiety.
7. One can also imagine the overall benefits for IJs and EOIR personnel. Having an efficient process for disposal of cases also gives IJs more time for case review and case management. One might also surmise that IJs may find relief in having fewer people in their courtrooms.
****************************
This unduly harsh treatment of the legitimate needs of private attorneys by some IJs contrasts sharply with the recent “policy position” of OPLA that, essentially, ICE attorneys only have to appear in cases where “they feel like it.” https://www.ice.gov/about-ice/opla/prosecutorial-discretion.
I can testify from years on the bench that there are many occasions when as an IJ, I needed information and positions that only the Assistant Chief Counsel could furnish. This basically contemptuous approach to Immigration Court by DHS effectively converts IJs into Asylum Officers, perhaps less than that because IJs don’t have ready access to key information in the DHS databases. Moreover, I actually learned useful things about the strengths or weaknesses of a case by having an opportunity for a face-to-face dialogue with bothcounsel.
I wonder if OPLA would dare conduct business in this highly insulting and unprofessional manner if the DOJ had actually implemented the statutory contempt authority granted to IJs by Congress decades ago but improperly withheld by DOJ over Administrations of both parties.
This isn’t to minimize the observations of the anonymous attorney who related their experiences above that both counsel, and the cause of justice, suffer from lack of minimum professional judicial standards at EOIR.
I wonder how AG Merrick Garland and his political lieutenants would like it if, rather than moving on to cushy jobs after their DOJ tenure, they were required to spend the rest of their careers making a living representing individuals before the dysfunctional and irrationally “user-unfriendly” courts that they thus far have failed to materially reform? Until the Immigration Courts are finally removed from DOJ into an independent Article I structure, the appointment of AGs who lack significant “hands on” experience representing individuals before EOIR will remain problematic for justice in America. In the interim, Garland could and should make reforms administratively! Why hasn’t he?
Some Republican lawmakers are flagging Hamas’ attack on Israel as an example of why more security is needed at the southern U.S. border. Hamas militants breached a border fence and attacked Israeli villages bordering the Gaza Strip on Oct. 7.
“Potential terrorists are attempting to cross our southern border. In September alone, 18 illegal immigrants on the terror watchlist were caught at the border,” U.S. Sen. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., posted Oct. 21 on X. “The attack on Israel should serve as a warning as to why we must secure the border.”
The next day, U.S. Rep. Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., also mentioned the terrorist watchlist on NBC’s “Meet The Press.”
“We just caught 18 people, just last month, on the FBI terrorist watchlist, coming across our border,” McCarthy said. “More than 160 have done it this year, a record breaking.”
U.S. immigration officials have encountered rising numbers of people on the watchlist. But not everyone on the list is a terrorist, and not everyone encountered is allowed to enter the country.
Terrorism and immigration experts say that the threat of attacks in the U.S. and Israel are incomparable.
“They both involve borders, but the comparison ends there,” David Bier, an immigration expert at the libertarian Cato Institute, previously told us. “People aren’t crossing the border to conduct terrorist attacks or take over parts of the United States. A very small percentage may come to commit ordinary crimes, like selling drugs, but overwhelmingly, they are coming for economic opportunity and freedom.”
McCarthy’s office did not respond to our query for more information. A Blackburn spokesperson pointed us to a Fox News reporter’s post on X. Customs and Border Protection did not confirm whether 18 people were stopped in September.
Here’s what we know about who is on the terrorist watchlist, and what the data can and can’t tell us.
. . . .
*********************
Read Maria’s complete article which includes comments from real experts like Professor Stephen Yale Loehr, Professor Denise Gilman, Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, and others in addition to David Bier. They stand in sharp and long overdue contrast with the GOP’s alarmist, out of context, claims.
It’s little wonder that a party of anti-democracy activists, insurrectionists, and election deniers would want to deflect attention from themselves onto folks who are overwhelmingly coming to save their lives and to work hard and contribute to our economic growth!
I have previously “called out” Kristen Welker and NBC’s Meet the Press for giving McCarthy an unnecessary public forum for his alarmist narrative. See, e.g.,https://immigrationcourtside.com/2023/10/23/🚩politics-gops-bakuninist-clown-show-sows-american-chaos🤮☠️/. Worse yet, there was no effective “pushback” from Welker on McCarthy’s attempt to blame vulnerable asylum seekers for the political disorder and threats to our democracy that he and his righty GOP buddies helped sow!
Many thanks to Maria for setting the record straight and to the experts who were interviewed from her article!You actually did the “due diligence” that Welker and others often brush off when “doing immigration.”
Of course border security is important! A significant, achievable improvement would be to establish a fair, timely, functional asylum screening and adjudication system at ports of entry so that those seeking asylum will be motivated to use it (rather than attempting to “punish” and “deter” those who can’t use the current dysfunctional DHS/EOIR “system.”) That would give CBP a chance to concentrate on the real law enforcement challenge: identifying and stopping those who seek to harm the U.S. That’s going to take even better intelligence and more sophisticated efforts.
I also wouldn’t minimize that, as pointed out by the experts, CBP has been able to identify and deny entry to individuals on their list. That’s a sign of success, not failure!
To state the obvious, further cutting or restricting asylum (as many in the GOP disingenuously advocate) would only force even more of those seeking refuge into the hands of smugglers and push them into the dangerous lands between ports of entry. Misdirecting enforcement resources to fruitlessly and improperly trying to “deter” and “apprehend” those legitimately seeking refuge will only further dilute the attention that CBP can pay to any real dangers lurking at the border!
WASHINGTON — An immigration judge and lawyer told a U.S. Senate Judiciary panel on Wednesday that an independent immigration court would help ease a backlog of more than 2 million pending cases.
Because the immigration court system is an arm of the U.S. Justice Department — the Executive Office for Immigration Review — each presidential administration has set immigration policy, and often those courts are subject to political interference, said Mimi Tsankov, an immigration judge, and Jeremy McKinney, an immigration attorney.
In the immigration court system, judges hold formal court proceedings to determine whether someone who is a noncitizen should be allowed to remain in the United States, or should be deported.
“Every administration has interfered with the courts. This undermines the courts’ integrity, and many of the executive branch’s manipulations of judges and their dockets simply backfire,” said McKinney, the former president of the American Immigration Lawyers Association.
Tsankov, the president of the National Association of Immigration Judges, said in order to alleviate the backlog of immigration court cases, Congress should establish an independent immigration court under Article I of the U.S. Constitution.
. . . .
“An independent board will begin the process of healing this broken system,” she said.
The witnesses also argued that many people going through the immigration system lack legal representation, which can greatly impact their outcome.
The top Republican on the Senate panel, John Cornyn of Texas, argued that most cases are without merit, as opposed to asylum cases, which are based on a credible fear of death or harm. He said that people are “clogging the courts” and are aware the severe backlogs will allow them to stay in the country. Some courts have backlogs until 2027.
Sen. Mazie Hirono, Democrat of Hawaii, pushed back.
“People who have attorneys are 10.5 times more likely to be granted relief,” she said. “So it is when they have attorneys that they can proceed with their asylum claims.”
She added that another issue is that many children who are unaccompanied, even some toddlers, are expected to legally represent themselves.
“There is no guarantee that children will also have a lawyer, and this is alarming because children are some of the most vulnerable people in our immigration system,” she said.
Cornyn said he did not believe that “the taxpayer should be on the hook” for paying for legal fees and representation.
McKinney said that those who have representation and are not detained are five times more likely to gain relief. Immigrants who are detained and have legal representation are 10 times more likely to be granted relief than those who do not have representation.
“The point is that representation ensures due process,” he said. “It also makes the system more efficient when all the parties know the rules and know how to present a case. Cases move faster.”
***********
Read the full article at the above link. You can also check out the full video of the hearing here:
In his opening statement, ranking GOP Sen. Cornyn made it very clear that fixing the Immigration Courts is a nonstarter for the GOP.
Instead of engaging on this critically important initiative, he wasted much of his introduction disingenuously repeating the oft-debunked claim of a connection between asylum seekers and fentanyl smuggling. See, e.g., “Who is sneaking fentanyl across the southern border? Hint: it’s not the migrants,”https://www.npr.org/2023/08/09/1191638114/fentanyl-smuggling-migrants-mexico-border-drugs.
Obviously grasping at straws, in the absence of any empirical support for his nativist “scare scenario,” Cornyn went so far as to suggest — of course without a shred of evidence — that perhaps “go-arounds” were smuggling fentanyl.
This theory appears particularly questionable in light of evidence that most fentanyl is successfully smuggled through ports of entry by U.S. citizens and legal residents. Why would cartels abandon proven successful methods of port of entry smuggling to entrust their cargos to individuals who might not even survive the border crossing and, if apprehended, would certainly be searched? Cornyn had no answer.
What does seem likely is that by concentrating border law enforcement largely on “apprehending” and fruitlessly trying to “deter” those merely seeking to turn themselves in to exercise legal rights, the USG has diverted attention and resources from real law enforcement like an anti-fentanyl strategy. That almost certainly would require undercover infiltration of smuggling rings — dangerous and sophisticated law enforcement operations far removed from “apprehending” folks who WANT to be caught because they were forced to leave their home countries, are unsafe in Mexico, and can’t wait to schedule asylum appointments at ports of entry through the badly flawed and inadequate “CBP One App!” Building a fair and efficient asylum system should even help CBP apprehend more of Sen. Cornyn’s “go arounds!”
But, Cornyn’s misdirection isn’t just a distraction; it’s actually dangerous! As the GOP has shown over and over, if you repeat a lie or myth enough times, folks start to believe it. Witness the demonstrably totally frivolous claims of election interference that drive much of the GOP’s agenda and has become “truth” for their misguided “base.”
A case in point is the outrageous political boondoggle recently carried out by Virginia’s right-wing Governor Glenn Youngkin. In response to Texas Gov. Greg Abbott’s White Nationalist plea, Youngkin wasted two million taxpayer dollars on a bogus detail of the National Guard to the Texas border, ostensibly to “protect Virginians from the scourge of fentanyl.”
What if Youngkin had spent the same amount of money supporting NGOs in Virginia struggling to resettle and represent migrants aimlessly bussed to the DMV by Abbott and DeSantis as part of a political stunt? Community social justice NGOs generally use funds more carefully and efficiently than GOP blowhards like Youngkin and co.
The GOP claim that most asylum claims are frivolous also is misleading. For those who can actually get a merits hearing on asylum at EOIR — often in and of itself no mean feat given the prevalence of “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” — TRAC statistics for FY 2022 show that 46% are granted. Seehttps://trac.syr.edu/whatsnew/email.221129.html#. And, this is in a system that is still heavily tilted against asylum seekers. EOIR still has many “holdover judges” from the Trump years who were hired not because of their expertise, qualifications, or reputations for fairness, but because their backgrounds indicated that they were likely to be unsympathetic to asylum seekers!
Admittedly, the manner in which EOIR keeps asylum statistics can make meaningful analysis difficult. For example, more than half of asylum “dispositions” are listed as “other” — which covers“abandoned, not adjudicated, other, or withdrawn,” a facially, at least partially, circular definition! Seehttps://www.justice.gov/media/1174741/dl?inline.
Moreover, since EOIR procedures generally require that all potential relief be stated at the time of pleading or presumptively be waived, prudence requires that the right to appply for asylum be protected, even if it is unlikely that the case will proceed to the merits on that application.
Also, it’s worth remembering that the Government already has a powerful tool for both identifying and quickly tossing frivolous asylum claims and expeditiously granting clearly meritorious claims to keep them out of the Immigration Court. It’s called the Asylum Office at USCIS! That despite much ballyhooed regulatory changes, DHS has failed to obtain “maximum leverage” from the credible fear/Asylum Office process is not a reason for eschewing EOIR reform!
What we can tell from the available data is that, rather than wasting more money on expensive and ineffective “deterrence gimmicks,” the best “bang for the buck” for the USG would be to invest in representation for asylum seekers and in a better, professionally-managed EOIR with better, independent judges, acknowledged experts in asylum law, who could “keep the lines moving” without denying due process or stomping on individual rights.They could also set helpful precedents for the Asylum Office. That’s what Congress and the Administration should be investing in.
Reforming the Immigration Courts and creating an independent Article I Court should be a high national priority. While no single action can bring “order to the border” overnight, fixing EOIR is an achievable priority that will support the rule of law and dramatically improve the quality and efficiency of justice at the border and throughout the U.S.
As Chairman Padilla (D-CA) said, this should be a bipartisan “no-brainer.” Just don’t look to today’s White-Nationalist-myth-driven GOP for help or rational dialogue on the subject.
