"The Voice of the New Due Process Army" ————– Musings on Events in U.S. Immigration Court, Immigration Law, Sports, and Other Random Topics by Retired United States Immigration Judge (Arlington, Virginia) and former Chairman of the Board of Immigration Appeals Paul Wickham Schmidt. To see my complete professional bio, just click on the link below.
Due Process is a true team effort! PHOTO: Tahirih Justice Center
Maria Daniella Prieshoff writes on LinkedIn:
Maria Daniella Prieshoff Managing Attorney Tahirih Justice Center Baltimore, MD PHOTO: Tahirih
Want to level up your #advocacy skills for your #genderbased #asylum cases in #immigrationcourt?Want to learn from a real immigration judge the basics of presenting your case before the immigration court?Then join me for Tahirih Justice Center’s”Advancing Justice: Gender-Based Violence Asylum Litigation in Immigration Court” webinar series!
Part 1 of the series is on April 23, 12-1:30pm. It will focus on the case law and strategy you’ll need to present your best gender-based asylum case, including how to handle credibility, competency, and stipulations.Monica Mananzan from CAIR Coalition will join me in this webinar. To register for Part 1: http://bit.ly/3xvwPyt
Honorable Lisa Dornell U.S. Immigration Judge (Retired) Member, Round Table of Former Immigration Judges
Part 2 of the series is on April 25, 12-1:30pm. Retired Immigration Judge Lisa Dornell will explain the best practices of litigating gender-based asylum cases before an immigration judge, as well as recommendations for direct examination, cross-examination, and how to handle issues with a client’s memory, trauma, or court interpretation.To register for Part 2: https://bit.ly/3PXJqRn
Please share with your networks!Our goal for this webinar series is to help pro bono attorneys and advocates enhance their the advocacy for #genderbasedviolence to have #immigrationjustice – we’d love for you to join us!
Wonderful learning opportunity! Many thanks to everyone involved in putting it together!
Litigating gender-based asylum cases can still be an “ordeal” at EOIR, despite some decent precedents. Learn how to avoid this fate for your clients! 17th Century Woodcut Public Realm Source: Ancient Origins Website https://www.ancient-origins.net/history/trial-ordeal-life-or-death-method-judgement-004160
Wonder whatever happened to the “gender-based regulations” that Biden ordered to be drafted by Executive Order issued shortly after taking office? At this point, given his “lobotomized/running scared/retrograde/Trumpy Lite” position on asylum seekers and immigrants’ rights, probably just as well that they died an unheralded bureaucratic death (just as similar assignments have in the last three Dem Administrations over a quarter century).
Outside of a few Immigration Judges, who, because they understand the issue and have worked with asylum-seeking women, would never be asked anyway, I can’t really think of anyone at DOJ who would actually be qualified to draft legally-compliant gender-based regulations!
GOP are misogynists. Dem politicos are spineless and can’t “connect the dots” between their deadly, tone-deaf policies and poor adjudicative practices aimed at women of color in the asylum system and other racist and misogynistic polities being pushed aggressively by the far right! While, thankfully, it might not “be 1864” in the Dem Party, sadly, inexplicably, and quote contrary to what Biden and Harris claim these days, it’s not 2024 either, particularly for those caught up in their deadly, broken, and indolently run immigration, asylum, and border enforcement systems!
Nevertheless, Cruz argues correctly that Isidro-Zamorano, 25 I. & N. Dec. 829, leaves open the possibility for adjudication of the merits of a cancellation application where the qualifying relative aged out of qualifying status because of undue procedural delays. As explained below, the facts are unclear as to why briefing and decision were delayed. As such, we remand for the BIA to address in the first instance whether the delays on appeal in this case were undue and attributable to the agency, and if they were, for the BIA to review the IJ’s denial of cancellation of removal in the first instance.
**********************************
This is yet another in a long list of examples of how the Circuit actually did a better job than the BIA of locating, understanding, and following binding BIA precedent potentially favorable to the respondent!
I wouldn’t bet on today’s BIA adopting on remand an interpretation favoring the applicant, even though, as pointed out by the Second Circuit, such an interpretation would be legally possible. Perhaps, this is a case where amici need to “weigh in” before the BIA on remand.
In my mind, it also raises questions of whether the numerous unnecessary delays, backlogs, and confusion caused by the BIA’s failure to follow the statutory language on the “stop time rule” for 42B cancellation, as twice found by the Supremes, could be categorized as “unnecessary — and totally foreseeable — delay?” Both courts and advocates warned the BIA — in vain — that ignoring the clear language of the statute was a huge mistake that would create more unnecessary disorder in the already dysfunctional EOIR system! But, in their haste to rule in favor of DHS Enforcement, the BIA once again ignored the experts.
🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!
PWS
04-07-24
******************************
ADDENDUM FROM “SIR JEFFREY:”
“Thanks, Paul (and hi to everyone!), but credit to Ray Fasano for flagging this.
Best, Jeff”
Thanks, Ray!
H. Raymond Fasano, Esquire PHOTO: Super Lawyers Profile
“Singh experienced multiple physical attacks and death threats over an eight-month period, from November of 2014 to June of 2015. No reasonable factfinder would conclude that Singh did not experience serious harm rising to the level of persecution. … For all these reasons we find that the record compels a finding that Singh suffered harm rising to the level of persecution. … [T]he BIA did not independently analyze relocation and determine that the government met its burden. Rather, the BIA expressly adopted the IJ’s reasons for finding that internal relocation was safe and reasonable. In doing so, the BIA adopted the IJ’s flawed relocation analysis, which did not afford Singh the presumption of past persecution or shift the burden to the government to prove that Singh can safely and reasonably relocate within India. … In sum, because the BIA erred in its relocation analysis, we grant Singh’s petition to review his claim for asylum and remand to the BIA for consideration in light of Singh v. Whitaker, 914 F.3d 654. … For the reasons set forth above, we GRANT Singh’s petition in part and REMAND to the BIA to consider (1) whether Singh is eligible for asylum because he suffered past persecution on account of statutorily protected grounds by the government or individuals whom the government was unable or unwilling to control; (2) if so, whether the DHS rebutted the presumption of a well-founded fear of future persecution; and (3) whether Singh is entitled to withholding of removal.”
“The agency entirely overlooked evidence material to the hardship determination in this case: evidence regarding Mendez’s serious back injury and its implications for his ability to support his qualifying relatives through work in El Salvador. … The BIA’s decision is VACATED and the case is REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this order.”
H. Raymond Fasano, Esquire PHOTO: Super Lawyers Profile
—Daniel M. KowalskiEditor-in-ChiefBender’s Immigration Bulletin (LexisNexis)
******************
What if a brain surgeon or a heart surgeon were routinely engaging in “surgical malpractice?” Wouldn’t it be a cause for grave concern?🤯
Almost every week, sometimes multiple times, the BIA mishandles the basics in potential “life or death” cases. Yet, Garland somehow shrugs it off! This not only adds to the “dehumanization” of migrants (their lives don’t count), but also badly skews the statistical profile that undergirds much of the misguided immigration (non) dialogue.
If the anti-immigrant, anti-asylum, huge “over-denial” problem at EOIR were addressed with better qualified judges and adjudicators, it would become apparent that many more, probably a majority, of those caught up in the dysfunction at EOIR and the Asylum Office are qualified to remain in the U.S. in some status. And, proper positive precedents would guide practitioners, ICE Counsel, Immigration Judges, and Asylum Officers to correct results without protracted litigation that eventually burdens the Courts of Appeals, causes avoidable remands, fuels “Aimless Docket Reshuffling,” and contributes mightily to the mushrooming EOIR backlog!
As a result, these cases could be prepared, prioritized, granted, and individuals could get on with their lives and maximize their human potential to help our nation — just as generations before them have done including the ancestors of almost all Americans! How soon some of us forget!
The real, largely self-created, “immigration crisis,” is NOT insufficient “deterrence, detention, and cruelty” at the border! It’s the grotesque failure of all three branches of Government to insist on a fair, timely, well-staffed, professionally-managed, due-process-compliant adjudication, review, and resettlement system for asylum seekers and other immigrants. It’s also the ongoing attempt to “cover up” and minimize our Government’s mistreatment of asylum seekers, particularly those asserting their legal right to apply at our borders and in the interior regardless of status!
The racially-driven “targeting” of asylum seekers at the border is a ruse designed to deflect attention from the realities of human migration, what drives it, and the failure of governments across the board to come to grips with them and to fulfill their legal responsibilities to treat all persons fairly, humanely, and in accordance with correct interpretations and applications of the law!
Hon. Jeffrey S. Chase Jeffrey S. Chase Blog Coordinator & Chief Spokesperson, Round Table of Former Immigration Judges
Here’s additional commentary on Singh from my Round Table ⚖️⚔️ colleague “Sir Jeffrey” Chase:
The IJ was really determined to deny on this one. And I guess Vandyke had filled his quota of once in a lifetime for finding fault with the government, and thus had no choice but to dissent.
How would YOU like to face a system “determined to deny” with your life on the line? How would Garland like it?
Actually, under the generous “well-founded fear” standard applicable to asylum (Cardoza-Fonseca/Mogharrabi) and the authoritative guidance in the U.N. Handbook on adjudication, applicants like Singh who testify credibly are supposed to be given “the benefit of the doubt.” Garland has, quite improperly, like his immediate predecessors, allowed this key humanitarian legal principle to be mocked at EOIR! Instead, as cogently pointed out by “Sir Jeffrey,” here the IJ and the BIA actually went the “extra mile” to think of “any reason to deny” — even totally specious ones!
Also, half-baked, legally deficient “reasonably available internal relocation analysis”is a long-standing, chronic problem at EOIR, despite a regulation setting forth analytical factors that should be evaluated. Few, if any, such legitimate opportunities are “reasonably available” in most countries sending asylum applicants!
Moreover, once past persecution is established, the DHS has the burden of showing that there is a reasonably available internal relocation alternative, something that they almost never can prove by a preponderance of the evidence! Indeed, in my experience, the DHS almost never put in such evidence beyond rote citations to generalized language in DOS Country Reports!
The “judicial competency/bias” problems plaguing EOIR are large and well documented. Yet, Garland pretends like they don’t exist!
Has Alfred E. Neumann been “reborn” as Judge Merrick Garland? “Not my friends or relatives whose lives as being destroyed by my ‘Kangaroo Courts.’ Just ‘the others’ and their immigration lawyers, so who cares, why worry about professionalism, ethics, and due process in Immigration Court?” PHOTO: Wikipedia Commons
Hon. Jeffrey S. Chase Jeffrey S. Chase Blog Coordinator & Chief Spokesperson, Round Table of Former Immigration Judges
Hon. “Sir Jeffrey” Chase reports:
Hi all: The Supreme Court just issued its opinion in Wilkinson v. Garland, in which our group filed an amicus brief. The Court held that the exceptional and extremely unusual hardship determination in cancellation B cases (involving non-LPRs) is a mixed question of fact and law, and is thus reviewable by circuit courts on appeal. The Court thus reversed the Third Circuit’s determination that it lacked jurisdiction.
The decision was 6-3. Sotomayor wrote the majority opinion; Jackson wrote a concurring opinion, and Roberts and Alito wrote dissenting opinions.
Our amicus brief argued:
In amici’s experience, whether the facts of a particular case satisfy the “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” eligibility criteria for cancellation is a mixed question of law and fact.
This decision will have a major impact on cancellation B cases, as the Board’s hardship determinations will now be subject to wide circuit court review.
This case makes a huge difference! Circuit review will ratchet up the pressure on the BIA to cut the “any reason to deny” BS 💩 and start doing a quality review in every case! If not, given the number of cancellation cases in the system, there are going to be lots more Circuit remands that will jack the backlog even higher!
As put by one “Round Tabler,” this will “impact the scholarship and often times lack of analytical rigor by the Board, knowing that it is no longer completely insulated from review of its hardship determinations.” You betcha!
And don’t ever underestimate the adverse impact on due process and justice that occurs when, knowing that its decisions are “immune” from judicial review, the BIA is “pushed by the political powers that be” to cut corners, “crank the numbers,” and “keep the removal assembly line moving!” That’s why political control over the BIA’s decision-making has such an outsized adverse impact on justice for immigrants and undermines the key constitutional due process principle of “fair and impartial justice for all.”
Hon. Jeffrey S. Chase Jeffrey S. Chase Blog Coordinator & Chief Spokesperson, Round Table of Former Immigration Judges
A Victory before the BIA!
Hi All: I hope you are not getting tired of all the winning. Today, the BIA issued a precedent decision on the whole Pereira and Niz-Chavez jurisdictional issue involving service of a defective NTA (link attached) in which our Round Table submitted an amicus brief drafted for us by our own Sue Roy.And the BIA actually agreed with us!!!
The holding:
The Department of Homeland Security cannot remedy a notice to appear that lacks the date and time of the initial hearing before the Immigration Judge by filing a Form I-261 because this remedy is contrary to the plain text of 8 C.F.R. § 1003.30 and inconsistentwith the Supreme Court’s decision in Niz-Chavez v. Garland, 593 U.S. 155 (2021).
Of course, our brief was not acknowledged in the Board’s decision.
A thousand thanks to Sue and to all in this group who have repeatedly signed on in support of due process.
As a reminder, we still await a decision from the Supreme Court on whether Pereira and Niz-Chavez extend to in absentia orders of removal. Oral arguments in that case were heard earlier this month, and our brief was mentioned in response to a question by Chief Justice Roberts.
Best, Jeff
********************
“Our Hero” 🦸♂️ Hon. Susan G. Roy Law Office of Susan G. Roy, LLC Princeton Junction, NJ Member, Round Table of Former Immigration JudgesKnightess of the Round Table
Want to meet Judge Sue Roy in person and learn from her in a small group setting? You’re in luck! (HINT: She’s not only a very talented lawyer and teacher, but she’s also very entertaining and down to earth in her “Jersey Girl Persona!”)
“Don’t mess with Jersey Girls! They’ll roll right over you — in or out of court.” Creative Commons License
The Round Table 🛡️ will be well-represented by Judge Roy, Judge Lory Diana Rosenberg, and me at the upcoming Sharma-Crawford Clinic 7th Annual Immigration Court Trial Advocacy College in Kansas City, MO, April 24-26, 2024! We’ll be part of afaculty of all-star 🌟 NDPA litigators who are there to help every attendee sharpen skills and reach their full potential as a fearless litigator in Immigration Court — and beyond!
Rekha Sharma-Crawford ESQUIRE Partner and Co-Founder Sharma-Crawford Law Kansas City, KS
Rekha writes on LinkedIn:
A major step towards acknowledging that the best interest of the child must play a critical role in immigration cases. This was an idea I raised over 10 years ago with my friend and colleague, the brilliant Lory Rosenberg. Later the idea again was put forward with two additional brilliant colleagues, Paul Schmidt and Susan Roy. Sometimes it takes a very long time, but the right approach can’t be hidden forever.So pleased to see it is finally seeing some daylight.
Here’s the Memorandum from EOIR Director David L. Neal:
As noted by my Round Table colleague “Sir Jeffrey” Chase, our Round Table has spoken out about the need for a separate Immigration Court system for children:
As you know, our Round Table signed on to a letter of support for proposed legislation to create a Children’s Immigration Court.
[Director Neal’s statement is] a positive administrative development.
Here’s my take:
While progress is always welcome, this statement shrouds the concept of “best interest of the child” (“BIC”) with legal gobbledygook and bureaucratic doublespeak. (P. 3 of Neal Memo under “Legal Standards”).
Here’s what a clear, correct statement on BIC would look like:
BIC, regardless of whether or not presented by a “Child Advocate” or incorporated in a “Best Interests Determination” (“BID”), can be directly relevant to issues of removability. For example, evidence of removability obtained by methods that clearly conflict with the BIC could be found unreliable or the result of “egregious misconduct” for the purposes of determining removability.
The BIC can also be highly relevant to issues of eligibility for relief. For example, a government or society that deprives certain children of all meaningful educational oportunities might well be engaging in persecution.
In addition, in NLPR cancellation cases, the BIC could be persuasive, even determinative, evidence that removal of a parent will result in “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” to a USC or LPR child or children.
3) Finally, since the EOIR Director is an administrator, not a quasi-judicial official, his or her policies have a distinct “you can take it or leave it” effect in Immigration Court. Therefore ameliorative statements from the Director, no matter how well-intended, are only effective if the BIA is willing and able to insist on and enforce “best practices” on Immigration Judges, preferably through precedent decisions and reassigning cases away from those IJs who show repeated contempt for due process and best practices.
Unfortunately, the current version of the BIA has, as a body, shown neither much sympathy nor concern for the substantive and due process rights of asylum seekers and other immigrants in Immigration Court. Unless and until Garland “cleans house” and appoints a BIA where all Appellate Judges are immigration/human rights experts laser focused on due process and best practices in Immigration Court — and not afraid of enforcing them uniformly in individual cases and incorporating them in binding precedents — the Director’s latest somewhat ameliorative statement is likely to be as toothless in practice as past efforts.
To a large extent, that’s a “nutshell” of why Garland’s Immigration Courts are in dire failure that threatens our entire democracy.
Unfortunately, that we are three years into this Administration and Garland is still bumbling along with a BIA that largely represents the mistakes and shortcomings of his predecessors suggests that waiting for him to “get religion” on the need for expertise, due process, fundamental fairness, and best practices at EOIR will continue to be an exercise in “Waiting for Godot!”
Immigration practitioners waiting for Garland to institute “due process, fundamental fairness, and best practices” as the sole mission of his EOIR “courts.” It could be a long wait. Very long! Too long! Naseer’s Motley Group in The Rose Bowl Merlaysamuel Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Waiting for Godot in Doon School.jpg Copy [[File:Waiting for Godot in Doon School.jpg|Waiting_for_Godot_in_Doon_School]] Copy December 8, 2011
Rae Ann Varona Legal Reporter Law360 PHOTO: Linkedin
Dan Kowalski over at LexisNexis Immigration Community helpfully forwarded the pdf’s of Rae Ann’s article and the three briefs. You can access them here:
Our Round Table, with the help of some of the greatest litigators and law firms out there, continues to provide key support for the NDPA and timely expertise to the Federal Courts and father Executive on all levels!
Former AG Jeff Sessions openly despised immigrants and their attorneys and encouraged “his judges” at EOIR to help out their “partners at DHS Enforcement.” That attitude lives on even under AG Merrick Garland! This caricature of Jeff Sessions was adapted from a Creative Commons licensed photo from Gage Skidmore’s Flickr’s photostream. DonkeyHotey Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0
AMICUS INVITATION (NOTICE TO APPEAR) DUE August 31, 2023
AUGUST 1, 2023
The Board of Immigration Appeals welcomes interested members of the public to file amicus curiae briefs discussing the below issue(s):
ISSUE(S) PRESENTED:
Pursuant to Matter of Fernandes, 28 I&N Dec. 605 (BIA 2022):
1. Should an Immigration Judge allow DHS to remedy a non-compliant Notice to Appear?
2. To remedy a non-compliant Notice to Appear, is either (1) issuing an I-261, or (2) amending the Notice to Appear, permitted by the regulations, and would either comport with the single document requirement emphasized by the United States Supreme Court in Niz-Chavez v. Garland, 141 S. Ct. 1474 (2021)? If not, how can a non-compliant Notice to Appear be remedied?
Request to Appear as Amicus Curiae: Members of the public who wish to appear as amicus curiae before the Board must submit a written request labeled “REQUEST TO APPEAR AS AMICUS CURIAE” pursuant to Chapter 2.10, Appendix A (Directory), and Appendix E (Cover Pages) of the Board of Immigration Appeals Practice Manual. The Request to Appear as Amicus Curiae must explicitly identify that it is responding to Amicus Invitation No. 23-01-08. The decision to accept or deny a Request to Appear as Amicus Curiae is within the sole discretion of the Board. Please see Chapter 2.10 of the Board of Immigration Appeals Practice Manual.
Filing a Brief: Please file your amicus brief in conjunction with your Request to Appear as Amicus Curiae pursuant to Chapter 2.10 of the Board of Immigration Appeals Practice Manual. The brief accompanying the Request to Appear as Amicus Curiae must explicitly identify that it is responding to Amicus Invitation No. 23-01-08. An amicus curiae brief is helpful to the Board if it presents relevant legal arguments that the parties have not already addressed. However, an amicus brief must be limited to a legal discussion of the issue(s) presented. The decision to accept or deny an amicus brief is within the sole discretion of the Board. The Board will not consider an amicus brief that exceeds the scope of the amicus invitation.
Request for Case Information: Additional information about the case, including the parties’ contact information, may be available. Please contact the Clerk’s Office at the below address for this information prior to filing your Request to Appear as Amicus Curiae and amicus brief.
Page Limit: The Board asks that amicus curiae briefs be limited to 25 double-spaced pages.
Deadline: Please file a Request to Appear as Amicus Curiae and amicus brief with the Clerk’s Office at the address below by August 31, 2023. Your request must be received at the Clerk’s Office within the prescribed time limit. Motions to extend the time for filing a Request to Appear as Amicus Curiae and amicus brief may not be entertained. It is not sufficient simply to mail the documents on time. We strongly urge the use of an overnight courier service to ensure the timely filing of your brief.
Service: Please mail three copies of your Request to Appear as Amicus Curiae and amicus brief to the Clerk’s Office at the address below. If the Clerk’s Office accepts your brief, it will then serve a copy on the parties and provide parties time to respond.
Joint Requests: The filing of parallel and identical or similarly worded briefs from multiple amici is disfavored. Rather, collaborating amici should submit a joint Request to Appear as Amicus Curiae and amicus brief. See generally Chapter 2.10 (Amicus Curiae) and Chapter 4.6(i) (Amicus Curiae Briefs) of the Board of Immigration Appeals Practice Manual.
Notice: A Request to Appear as Amicus Curiae may only be filed by an attorney, accredited representative, or an organization represented by an attorney registered to practice before the Board pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1292.1(d). A Request to Appear as Amicus Curiae filed by a person specified under 8 U.S.C. § 1367(a)(1) will not be considered.
Attribution: Where more than three attorneys or representatives sign an amicus brief or filing, the Board will name only the first three individuals in the published case. If you wish a different set of three names or have a preference on the order of the three names, please specify the three names in your Request to Appear as Amicus Curiae and amicus brief.
Clerk’s Office Contact and Filing Address:
To send by courier or overnight delivery service, or to deliver in person:
Amicus Clerk
Board of Immigration Appeals Clerk’s Office
5107 Leesburg Pike, Suite 2000 Falls Church, VA 22041
Business hours: Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
Fee: A fee is not required for the filing of a Request to Appear as Amicus Curiae and amicus brief.
*****************************
Seems like the obvious “remedy” would be to require that DHS issue a new compliant NTA!
Respondents don’t get to “remedy” all mistakes, even inadvertent ones! Why should the USG be allowed to weasel its way out of a situation they intentionally created in a misguided effort (aided and abetted by EOIR “management”) to cut corners and generate statistics to please their political masters?
Ever since the “Ashcroft purge,” the BIA has functioned less and less as an independent quasi adjudicative body and more and more as an apologist for, enabler, or justifier of each Administration’s immigration enforcement agenda! In other words, the BIA’s role has become largely to slap a “quasi-judicial veneer” on DHS enforcement policies and priorities so that OIL can argue Chevron deference or even “Brand X” in the Article IIIs!
Of course, using EOIR as a “deterrent” and “enforcer” over the past two decades has been a spectacular failure! It has led to “Aimless Docket Reshuffling on Steroids,” absurdly insurmountable backlogs, and frequent rebukes from the Article IIIs.
Indeed, having helped create and magnify exponentially the mess at EOIR, many of the Trump and Biden Administration’s “gimmicks” appear aimed at avoiding or sidestepping the EOIR process altogether.
It’s the height of disingenuousness! At the urging of the White House, DOJ and DHS “break” the fair hearing system at EOIR. They then use their own misconduct and mismanagement as an excuse to deny asylum seekers and others access to the fair and impartial adjudication system to which they are legally entitled!
And, while the Article IIIs, even the Supremes, have “called out” EOIR on frequent, particularized errors, they have been happy to sweep the obvious “big problem” under the rug in a monumental exercise of “judicial task avoidance!”
That problem is that as currently operated, the EOIR system is a clear violation of the Constitutional principle that individuals facing removal, an often irreparable, even deadly, loss, are entitled to a reasonable decision from a fair and impartial decision-maker. See, e.g., Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254 (1970). While justice is served in some EOIR decisions, the systemic failures push in the exact opposite direction.
Without the necessary systemic safeguards in place, life and death decisions are largely an arbitrary and capricious “crap shoot” where wildly inconsistent results on the same or similar facts too often depend on the attitude of the judge, the whimsical decisions by “management” on whether to interfere in decision-making, and the location and circumstances of the hearing.
This is NOT the way to run a legitimate court system in compliance with due process and fundamental fairness!
For now, advocates should continue to vocalize their strong opposition to “how can we help our partners at DHS Enforcement” adjudication passing for justice at EOIR!
“Petitioner Christian Alberto Santos Garcia, a native and citizen of El Salvador, has twice travelled unlawfully into the United States — first in 2012, and again in 2016. In both instances, Garcia fled threats to his life and attacks carried out against him by the 18th Street Gang and the Salvadoran police. After seeking protection from removal before an immigration judge (the “IJ”) in 2016, Garcia was afforded relief — in the form of asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (the “CAT”) — by three separate IJ rulings. On each occasion, the Board of Immigration Appeals (the “BIA”) reversed the IJ rulings. Garcia, for his part, was removed to El Salvador in May 2022, and has awaited further developments in these proceedings from his home country. In this appeal, Garcia challenges and seeks reversal of three rulings made by the BIA — those being: (1) that the “particular social group” relied upon in connection with Garcia’s application for withholding of removal is not legally cognizable; (2) that Garcia was not persecuted in El Salvador on account of his political opinions; and (3) that Garcia failed to establish eligibility for CAT protection. As explained herein, we grant Garcia’s petition for review and reverse the BIA rulings in part, affirm them in part, and vacate them in part. We otherwise remand to the BIA for such further proceedings as may be appropriate.”
“Petitioner Juan Pablo Paucar petitions for review of a January 22, 2021 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision (1) affirming an Immigration Judge’s denial of his application for cancellation of removal and (2) denying his motion to remand. The BIA rejected Paucar’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim, declined to remand for consideration of additional hardship relating to his cancellation application, and declined to remand to await adjudication of his U visa application. Paucar argues that the BIA (1) applied an incorrect standard when reviewing his ineffective assistance of counsel claim, (2) overlooked and mischaracterized his new hardship evidence, and (3) failed to follow precedent when denying his request for remand while awaiting the adjudication of his U visa application. We are persuaded by Paucar’s arguments. Accordingly, we GRANT Paucar’s petition for review, VACATE the BIA’s decision, and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
In Santos-Garcia v. Garland, the BIA’s 6-year quest to wrongfully deny protection to Santos has been thwarted, for now. But, the matter remains far from finally resolved, even though an IJ has now properly granted Santos relief three separate times, only to be wrongly reversed by the BIA on each occasion!
Rather than insuring that individual justice is done, the BIA has acted to promote injustice, create needless delay, and demoralize IJ’s who are getting it right! In the meantime, the respondent has been removed to the country where he has a well-founded fear of persecution to await his fate. This is because the 4th Circuit denied a stay they should routinely have granted in an exercise of truly horrendous judicial misjudgment.
Now, the court majority fecklessly pontificates about the need for timely resolution (you’ve got to be kidding) while hinting, but not requiring, that the “Gang That Can’t Shoot Straight” should return the respondent now. Don’t hold your breath!
Here are three of my favorite quotes from Judge King’s majority opinion in Santos Garcia v. Garland.
Put simply, the BIA declined to “interact seriously” with the record before it in reviewing Garcia’s claim for CAT protection, and its failure in that regard requires a remand.
Should we not expect a supposed “expert tribunal” like the BIA should be to “seriously interact” with the record in life-or-death cases?Why aren’t Dems in Congress and everywhere else “all over Garland like a cheap suit” to stop this kind of judicial misbehavior in his “wholly owned courts?”
In closing, we recognize that Garcia’s removal proceedings have languished before the IJ and the BIA — and now this Court — for more than six years, leaving him in limbo and presently in harm’s way in El Salvador. We are also mindful that Garcia was only 15 years old when he sought to protect his cousin from the 18th Street Gang’s advances, setting off more than a decade of hardship and uncertainty. With that, we emphasize the “strong public interest in bringing [this] litigation to a close . . . promptly.” See Hussain v. Gonzales, 477 F.3d 153, 158 (4th Cir. 2007). And although we do not direct the affirmative award of any relief, we acknowledge the compelling case for protection that Garcia has made. If, on remand, the BIA affirms either the IJ’s award of withholding of removal or the award of CAT relief, the DHS and the Attorney General should swiftly “facilitate [Garcia’s] return to the United States” from El Salvador. See Ramirez v. Sessions, 887 F.3d 693, 706 (4th Cir. 2018) (directing the government to facilitate previously removed petitioner’s return to the United States pursuant to an Immigration and Customs Enforcement Policy Directive). Moreover, if the BIA determines that Garcia’s “presence 24 is necessary for continued administrative removal proceedings” on remand, the authorities should see to his prompt return. Id.
So, after six years bouncing around the system and three separate grants of asylum by an Immigration Judge, the 4th Circuit essentially “begs” the BIA to get it right this time! This is after the court itself curiously denied the respondent’s application for stay notwithstanding the rather obvious risk of irreparable harm (e.g., death, torture) and the equally obvious substance of his timely filed appeal.
What a way to run a “justice system” (or, in this case, not)! Both the Executive and the Judiciary should be totally embarrassed by their gross mishandling of this case! But, I see resolve from neither Branch (nor the ever-absent Legislature) to put an end to this systemic mockery of due process, fundamental fairness, and simple common sense!
Here, discovering the BIA’s error in rejecting Garcia’s proposed social group of “young male family members of his cousin Emily” is no herculean task. Social groups based on family ties have been consistently approved by this Court as providing a sound basis for asylum or withholding of removal applications. See, e.g., Salgado-Sosa, 882 F.3d at 457; Hernandez-Avalos v. Lynch, 784 F.3d 944, 949 (4th Cir. 2015); Cedillos-Cedillos v. Barr, 962 F.3d 817, 824 (4th Cir. 2020). Indeed, our pivotal 2011 decision on the matter — Crespin-Valladares v. Holder — recognized in no uncertain terms that “the family provides a prototypical example of a particular social group.” See 632 F.3d at 125. In tossing out Garcia’s proposed social group in March 2021, however, the BIA largely disregarded our precedent, providing no citation to or discussion of Crespin-Valladares. The BIA instead relied chiefly on its own then-existing precedent, set forth in the Attorney General’s 2019 L-E-A- II decision. As described above, L-E-A- II — which was vacated by the Attorney General in June 2021 and thus “lacks legal force” — “conflicted with [this Court’s] well-established precedent” recognizing families as cognizable social groups. See Perez Vasquez v. Garland, 4 F.4th 213, 227 n.11 (4th Cir. 2021). Surprisingly, the BIA paid little mind to L-E-A- II’s vacatur in its Reconsideration Order of 2022, doubling down on its earlier “particular social group” ruling and again inexplicably declining to apply Crespin-Valladares and its progeny.7
Notably, the “rule of Crespin-Valledares” — my case where the BIA erroneously reversed me — continues to have an impact! A dozen years post-Crespin and the BIA is still getting it wrong! Why are these guys still on the appellate bench, setting negative precedents and ignoring favorable precedents? In a Dem Administration? Seriously!
Michelle N. Mendez, ESQ Director of Legal Resources and Training National Immigration Project, National Lawyers Guild PHOTO: NIPNLG
My friend Michelle Mendez, Director of Legal Resources and Training over at National Immigration Project offered some commentary on the Second Circuit’s decision in Paucar v. Garland.
Congratulations and thank you for your superb work, Lindsay! This case offers so much and seems like the CA2 delivered.
Here are a couple of excerpts from the decision that stood out to me:
“In a January 14, 2020 written decision, the BIA dismissed Paucar’s appeal and denied his motion to reopen and remand. Three months later—after Paucar filed a petition to review the BIA’s decision in this Court—the BIA sua sponte reinstated Paucar’s appeal and motion, noting that it had not “consider[ed] all of the evidence submitted by [Paucar].” Id. at 124.” [Do we know why the BIA sua sponte reinstated the appeal and motion?] LINDSAY NASH RESPONDS: “The BIA only sua sponte reopened the appeal and motion because Paige Austin (co-counsel extraordinaire, copied here) filed a PFR and identified the missing evidence early on, prompting OIL to agree to a remand.”
“Finally, the BIA concluded that remand to await the adjudication of Paucar’s U visa petition was unnecessary because Paucar could request a stay of removal from USCIS.” [Does anyone know what the BIA was referencing here? Later on the decision says DHS and not USCIS so perhaps it is a typo.] LINDSAY NASH RESPONDS: “I think that the reference to USCIS that you flag was a typo and that it should have said DHS.”
“We conclude that the BIA should have applied the Sanchez Sosa factors in considering Paucar’s motion to remand as it pertains to his U visa or explained its reasoning for not doing so. [This is the first time that the CA2 answers the question of whether Sanchez Sosa applies to motions to remand or reopen filed during the pendency of an appeal where the noncitizen did not previously request such a continuance before the IJ].”
There is a great discussion on the BIA improperly applying Coelho (which they love to throw around in correctly) to the prejudice assessment and a paragraph discussing how the CA2 and other courts of appeals view unpublished BIA decisions.
Again, really great work and outcome! Thanks for sharing with all of us, Dan!
For a case distinguishing Coelho and applying a “reasonable likelihood of success” standard to a MTR, see Matter of L-O-G-, 21 I&N Dec. 436 (BIA 1996), written by me! The BIA ignores it or misapplies it in many cases. But, it’s still “good law!” Just another instance in which the BIA evades “older” precedents that could produce favorable outcomes for respondents!
In this case the IJ denied the respondent’s applications and ordered removal in May 2018, five years ago. Nobody contests that the respondent was ineffectively represented at that time.
Through new pro bono counsel, respondent Paucar filed a timely appeal with the BIA. Less than two months following the IJ’s decision, new counsel filed a copiously documented motion to the BIA to remand for a new hearing because of the ineffective representation.
Rather than promptly granting that motion for a new hearing, the BIA set in motion five years of dilatory effort on their part to avoid providing a hearing. Obviously, several new merits hearings could have been completed during the time occupied by the BIA’s anti-immigrant antics!
Along the way, according to the Second Circuit, the BIA “improperly imposed a heightened standard,” “erred by discounting the impact of counsel’s ineffectiveness,” “improperly relied] on the IJ’s tainted findings,” “overlooked and mischaracterized the record evidence,” “erred by overlooking or mischaracterizing evidence,” “overlooked and mischaracterized material evidence,” and failed, without explanation, “to follow its own precedent.” What else could they have screwed up? The file number?
This would be highly unacceptable performance by ANY tribunal, let alone one entrusted with making life or death decisions about human lives and whose decisions in some instances have been unwisely insulated from effective judicial review by Congress. Individuals appearing before EOIR deserve better! American justice deserves better! How long will AG Garland continue to get away with failing to “clean house” at America’s most dysfunctional court system and bring order, due process, fundamental fairness, legal expertise, and judicial professionalism to this long-overlooked, yet absolutely essential, foundation of our entire U.S. justice system!
Wasting time and resources looking for bogus ways to deny that which better, more expert, fairer judges could easily grant his had a huge negative impact on the EOIR backlog and is a driver of legal dysfunction throughout the immigration bureaucracy, and indeed throughout our entire legal system, all the way up to and including the Supremes!
Start by fixing “that within your control!” That’s a simple message that Dems, unfortunately, don’t seem to get when it comes to immigration, human rights, and racial justice in America!
The 2022 Term ended last week but there already are new immigration cases on the Supreme Court’s docket for the 2023 Term.
Law 360 reports that the Supreme Court on the last day of the 2022 Term agreed to review 1) if Board of Immigration Appeals decisions denying cancellation of removal for exceptional hardship are subject to judicial review and 2) consolidated cases on the sufficiency of notice in removal proceedings.
Issue: Whether an agency determination that the statutory standard of “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” is a mixed question of law and fact reviewable under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D), or whether this determination is a discretionary judgment call unreviewable under Section 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) (and not subject to judicial review).
The Court continues to deal with the ripple effects of Pereira v. Sessions (2018), which addressed the sufficiency of notice in removal proceedings.
Issue: Whether the government provides notice “required under” and “in accordance with paragraph (1) or (2) of” 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a) when it serves an initial notice document that does not include the “time and place” of proceedings followed by an additional document containing that information, such that an immigration court must enter a removal order in absentia and deny a noncitizen’s request to rescind that order.
KJ
*******************************
Aleksandra Gontaryuk ESQ Managing Partner AG Law Newark, NJ PHOTO: AG Law
From: Aleksandra Gontaryuk
Sent: Monday, July 3, 2023 4:29 PM
To: AILA New Jersey Chapter Distribution List <newjersey@lists.aila.org>
Subject: Precedential Decision — 3rd Circuit
Hot off the presses. No supplemental notice allowed to cure defective NTA unless there is a change or postponement of time and place in NTA. In this case, my client had a defective NTA, so 3rd Circuit ruled there can be no change or postponement from a defective NTA in the first place when DHS didn’t issue new NTA!! In absentia remanded.
[The case is Madrid-Mancia v. AG, available in full text at the above link.]
Aleksandra N. Gontaryuk, Esq.
AG Law Firm
*******************
Actually, Dems need an AG who WILL WORRY about systematic denials of due process, fundamental fairness, and failure to install best-qualified progressives in the disastrously dysfunctional Immigration Courts! PHOTO: Wikipedia Commons
The notice issue presented by Campos-Chaves and Singh has been to the Supremes, albeit in different forms, twice before recently. The BIA/DOJ position has been emphatically “stuffed” by the Supremes both times! Yet, here we are again with the same backlog-enhancing, due-process-denying nonsense, this time from a Dem AG who was supposed to act like a “real” Federal Judge, not a “stooge” for DHS Enforcement.
The long and short of it is that this third trip to the Supremes on the notice issue was avoidable. That is, if Garland had appointed immigration experts, individuals not afraid to enforce the statute even where it benefits the individual, as it often will if properly and fairly interpreted, to the BIA, long a hotbed of anti-immigrant interpretations of law. Garland continues to enable a system “packed” with anti-immigrant and anti-asylum judges promoted under Trump and largelyretained by Garland. This should outrage all progressives!
Dems continue to fecklessly “wring their hands” about the sharp right turn of the Supremes and the lower Article IIIs and the predictable decimation of individual rights. It all occurred in plain sight and with plenty of advance warning from the GOP as Dems diddled away their chances to stop it.
Dems aren’t going to be able to expand the Supremes, nor are term limits likely to happen. Both would require GOP support, which will not be forthcoming now that they have achieved their long-promised “takeover!” Discussing it is a waste of breath and brain cells. It also diverts attention from the Dems ongoing failure at EOIR.
The Dems best practical chance of reforming the Federal Courts would be to start “at the critical retail level” with what they control and could change tomorrow:The U.S.Immigration Courts housed (however improperly) in the DOJ. Right now they are an embarrassing mess of bad judging, anti-immigrant bias, worst practices, grotesque mismanagement, insurmountable backlogs, and hare-brained gimmicks.
Every day, in this and other forums, we see inspiring examples of the type of extraordinary progressive, creative, courageous legal talent available “in the marketplace.” They are the ones Garland should be recruiting and putting on the EOIR bench at both appellate and trial levels.
We would get an immediate, long overdue, improvement in the quality and efficiency of justice at EOIR. Correct, scholarly precedents would have carry-over into other areas of law and even gain international traction.
And, Dems would be building a “long bench” of “tried and true” candidates for Article III positions in the process! Who knows if and when a chance like this will come again? Yet, Garland and the Dems are squandering it, damaging democracy and humanity in the process! Talk about turning a “win-win” into a “lose-lose!” It’s something that Dem politicos excel at!
Dems failure to institute progressive reforms and bring in expert progressive judges at the court they do control makes the rest of their pronouncements on Federal Court reform meaningless babbling!
Dems “babble on” about Federal Court reform as GOP scores “real life” victories over individual rights and equity. It’s a waste of time, and “task avoidance” by Dems that diverts attention from the major Federal System they own 100% and operate (very badly): The U.S. Immigration Courts @ EOIR! — “Towel of Babel” By Pieter Bruegel The Elder Public Domain
Pay no attention to Dems disingenuous complaints about the Supremes and “Trumpy” lower court judges until they demonstrate the ability and willingness to reform EOIR!
Cinder F. Rella Direct Sharma-Crawford Trial College Johnson County Community College May 5, 2023Trial College Faculty Celebrates Another Day of Teaching Extraordinary Lawyers To Be Strong, Smart, Fearless! May 5, 2023Trial College Grads Produce Happy Endings and Grateful Clients!After just three days of intensive study and engagement at the Sharma Crawford Trial College, immigration litigators actually look and feel different!
******************************
Such an honor and pleasure to be a part of this distinguished and dedicated group.
To quote my faculty colleague Sarah Owings, “The world and the work are less lonely knowing you are all out there!” I think everyone else feels the same way, Sarah, my friend!
Sarah Owings, Esquire Partner Owings MacNorlin Atlanta, GA PHOTO: Firm
Hernandez v. Garland, 2d Cir., 04-21-23, Walker, Pooler, Park, Circuit Judges
POOLER, Circuit Judge, dissenting:
2 Standards matter. A standard of review is the essential mechanism that
3 defines an appellate court’s proper role in reviewing the record presented. All
4 appellate courts must adhere to the proper standard of review. The Board of
5 Immigration Appeals (“BIA” or “the Board”) is no exception. Here, the BIA
6 applied a standard that substantially deviated from the clear error standard and
7 improperly made factual findings that contradicted those made by the
8 Immigration Judge (“IJ”). The BIA’s failure to adhere to the proper standard is
9 “the type of error that requires remand.” De La Rosa v. Holder, 598 F.3d 103, 108
10 (2d Cir. 2010). Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.
11 This Court lacks jurisdiction to review purely discretionary decisions by
12 the BIA, see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii), but we retain jurisdiction over
13 “constitutional claims or questions of law,” Noble v. Keisler, 505 F.3d 73, 77 (2d
14 Cir. 2007) (quoting § 1252(a)(2)(D)). When reviewing decisions, “[t]he Board will
15 not engage in de novo review of findings of fact determined by an immigration
16 judge. Facts determined by the immigration judge, including findings as to the
17 credibility of testimony, shall be reviewed only to determine whether the
18 findings of the immigration judge are clearly erroneous.” 8 C.F.R. §
1
1 1003.1(d)(3)(i). “[W]hen the BIA engages in factfinding in contravention of 8
2 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(3)(iv), it commits an error of law, which [the Court has]
3 jurisdiction to correct.” Padmore v. Holder, 609 F.3d 62, 67 (2d Cir. 2010); see also
4 Rizal v. Gonzales, 442 F.3d 84, 89 (2d Cir. 2006) (explaining that the Court will
5 vacate BIA decisions “that result from flawed reasoning or the application of
6 improper legal standards”). Though the BIA “may review questions of law” and
7 “all other issues” on appeal de novo, see § 1003.1(d)(3)(ii), it is explicitly barred
8 from “engag[ing] in factfinding in the course of deciding cases” aside from
9 taking “administrative notice of facts that are not reasonably subject to dispute,”
10 § 1003.1(d)(3)(iv)(A).
11 Here, the BIA recited the precise legal standard at the beginning of its May
12 2019 decision. Special App’x at 7 (citing § 1003.1(d)(3)). But we do not simply
13 “rely on the Board’s invocation of the clear error standard; rather, when the issue
14 is raised, [the Court’s] task is to determine whether the BIA faithfully employed
15 the clear error standard or engaged in improper de novo review of the IJ’s factual
16 findings.” Rodriguez v. Holder, 683 F.3d 1164, 1170 (9th Cir. 2012); see also Chen v.
17 Bureau of Citizenship & Immigr. Servs., 470 F.3d 509, 514 (2d Cir. 2006) (noting that
18 despite “cit[ing] the proper legal standard at the outset of its decision, [the BIA]
2
1 failed to apply this deferential standard of review”). Despite its invocation of the
2 clear error standard, the BIA did not ultimately apply this standard of review to
3 Oscar Hernandez’s case. Merely reciting the standard does not transform the
4 BIA’s impermissible factfinding into a permissible exercise of discretion. Such lip
5 service should not suffice.
6 The majority opinion characterizes the BIA’s impermissible factfinding as a
7 simple “de novo reweighing of the equities based on the facts found by the IJ.”
8 Maj. Op. at 3. That is not the case. Without identifying any of the IJ’s findings as
9 clearly erroneous, the BIA implicitly rejected the IJ’s factual findings and
10 substituted the facts found by the IJ with its own factual findings. If the BIA
11 rejects the IJ’s findings, we expect it to “supply cogent reasons for its rulings,”
12 which the BIA failed to provide. See Lin v. Lynch, 813 F.3d 122, 129 (2d Cir. 2016).
13 The BIA completely disregarded the IJ’s credibility determination when it
14 concluded, contrary to the IJ’s findings, that it “d[id] not find [Hernandez’s]
15 explanation convincing” regarding the circumstances of his 2016 arrest. Special
16 App’x at 10. This divergence in characterization of the 2016 incident was central
17 to the BIA’s decision. In its attempt to parse out the definition of “convincing,”
18 the majority claims the BIA did not overturn the IJ’s factual findings, arguing the
3
1 BIA’s intended use of the word meant it was not “persuaded” by Hernandez’s
2 explanation, not that his testimony was not “truthful.” Maj. Op. at 11. This is an
3 unconvincing distinction. Next, the majority suggests the BIA doubted that
4 Hernandez warranted discretionary relief, not the truthfulness of his testimony.
5 Id. at 12. That clarification, however, does not do much to support the majority’s
6 argument. The BIA’s “de novo” reconsideration of whether Hernandez merited a
7 favorable exercise of discretion was premised on its factual determination that he
8 had “continued to engage in violent behavior” following his first arrest and
9 conviction in 2009. Special App’x at 10. The only evidence cited for this
10 determination was that Hernandez’s “most recent arrest in 2016 . . . included
11 abusive behavior toward his spouse”—a characterization directly at odds with
12 the IJ’s findings. Special App’x at 10.
. . . .
*******************************
You can read the full decision, including Judge Poolers’ full dissent, at the link.
As Judge Pooler points out, manipulation of the standards of review can be used either to improperly substitute judgement on fact-findings (BIA) or too avoid critical review of BIA’s actions (Circuit majority).
Thanks to Dan Kowalski over at LexisNexis for passing this along.
“Good enough for government work” might be the mantra for Garland’s EOIR — but, it doesn’t ‘cut it’ with Article III Courts, even the conservative, non-immigrant-friendly 5th Circuit!” https://www.flickr.com/photos/rasputin243/ Creative Commons License
Dan Kowalski reports for LexisNexis Immigration Community:
“Francis Zamaro-Silverio petitions for review of the denial by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) of cancellation of removal and voluntary departure. The BIA held that Zamaro-Silverio had been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude (“CIMT”) and thus found her ineligible for those forms of discretionary relief. Because the BIA did not perform the proper analysis, we grant review, vacate, and remand for determination of whether Zamaro-Silverio’s conviction was for a CIMT. … The BIA found that Garcia-Maldonado controlled the outcome for Zamaro-Silverio. But in the wake of Mathis, that analysis is incorrect. The proper focus is now on the minimum conduct prohibited by the statute, not on Zamaro-Silverio’s particular actions. The minimum conduct that can trigger liability under ZamaroSilverio’s statute of conviction is the failure to remain at the scene of the accident and provide one’s name and other information. See Tex. Transp. Code § 550.021(a)(4). Thus, Zamaro-Silverio’s deportability hinges on whether failure to share information is a CIMT. Villegas-Sarabia, 874 F.3d at 877. Garcia-Maldonado does not reach this question, and, similarly, the BIA did not answer it. Given that “our ordinary rule is to remand to ‘giv[e] the BIA the opportunity to address the matter in the first instance in light of its own expertise,’” we go no further. Negusie, 555 U.S. at 517 (quoting Orlando Ventura, 537 U.S. at 17) (alteration in original). Therefore, the petition for review is GRANTED. We VACATE and REMAND to the BIA with instruction to determine whether the failure to share information under § 550.021(a)(4) is a CIMT.”
The Fifth Circuit precedent that the BIA failed to apply here, Villegas-Sarabia v. Sessions, 874 F.3d 871, 877 (5th Cir. 2017), was issued in 2017, before this respondent was even convicted. Yet, the BIA erroneously applied the pre-2017 version of Circuit law to deny her application. How is this competent adjudication from what is supposed to be a “specialized court” of expert adjudicators?
Remarkably, the BIA was even given a chance to correct its obvious error through a motion to reconsider filed while this petition for review was pending with the Circuit. Astoundingly, the BIA denied the motion to reconsider and “stuck with” a decision that violated Circuit precedent. What a way to (not) “run the railroad.”🚂
The Fifth Circuit panel in this case, Judge Jerry E. Smith (Reagan) (opinion), Judge Edith Brown Clement (Bush II), and Judge Cory T. Wilson (Trump) are all GOP appointees, among the most conservative Federal Judges in America — right out of “The Federalist Society Hall of Fame!”
Even the most far-right GOP Federal Judges have a “bottom line” that the BIA can’t manage to remain above.
Somewhat ironically, Dem Attorney General Merrick Garland, once nominated for the Supremes by President Barack Obama, appears to have no such bottom line for the BIA’s sloppy, unprofessional “any reason to say no and deny” judging! Unfortunately, it’s symptomatic for a Dem Administration that just doesn’t care very much when it comes to due process, fundamental fairness, and justice for migrants! Garland’s tolerance for bad judging is also clogging the Circuit Courts with unnecessary litigation generated by the BIA’s substandard performance!
Although he famously has reassigned most of the “high profile” work of the DOJ to various “Special Counsel,” curiously, Dem AG Merrick Garland, a former Article III Judge, doesn’t seem to have the time or the skills to fix the festering due process, bias, quality control, and professionalism problems in “his” wholly-owned “court” system — EOIR! So, the systemic injustice and chaos continue, unabated! PHOTO: Wikipedia Commons
When Judge Jerry E. Smith and his colleagues have the integrity to stand up for the legal rights of a respondent, even one who has committed a crime, but a Democratic AG doesn’t have the courage to bring fair and professional judging and quality control to EOIR (after two years on the job), progressives and advocates ought to be asking what the heck they voted for in 2020? I doubt that it was this awful, entirely preventable, mess!
“This appeal arises from the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) denial of Karla Yadira Lara Canales’s motion to reopen her removal proceedings. The BIA denied her motion to reopen as untimely, leaving the order of removal in place. We now VACATE the BIA’s denial of Lara Canales’s motion to reopen and REMAND so that the BIA may properly consider whether Lara Canales is entitled to equitable tolling. … [E]ach of the BIA’s bases for determining that Lara Canales had not accrued the continuous physical presence required for eligibility of cancellation of removal was legal error. We now hold that Lara Canales is statutorily eligible to seek cancellation of removal. However, this holding does not automatically entitle Lara Canales to have her motion to reopen heard on the merits. The BIA must, upon remand, engage in the fact-intensive determination of whether the 90-day deadline on motions to reopen should be tolled because of the extraordinary circumstance presented by Pereira. If the BIA determines Lara Canales satisfies the requirements for equitable tolling, she may then present her motion for a determination on its merits. We therefore VACATE the BIA’s denial of Lara Canales’s motion to reopen and REMAND this case for further consideration not inconsistent with this opinion.”
[Hats off once again to superlitigator Raed Gonzalez!]
Thanks Raed for continuing to lead the fight for justice in “America’s worst ‘court’ system” in America’s most right-wing Circuit!
THIS “any reason to deny mentality” at EOIR, still being promoted by Garland’s BIA, combined with incredibly inept and unprofessional “administration” of EOIR by DOJ, is why the Immigration Court is broken and being crushed by unending backlogs, daily chaos, and a travesties of justice and sound government!
The Biden Administration pretends like the problem doesn’t exist and/or isn’t important enough to fix. But, I can assure you that they are WRONG! “Dead wrong” in some cases!
In addition to the public manifestations of dysfunction and unprofessionalism like this case, I get regular e-mails from NDPA members relating their own EOIR horror stories and venting their frustrations with the arrogant “above the fray/what me worry about humanity and those defending it” attitude of Garland and the rest of the Biden Administration responsible for the ongoing EOIR catastrophe!
I strongly doubt that Garland, Monaco, Gupta, Prelogar, and the rest of the DOJ “clueless crew” responsible for this indelible blot on American justice would last 60 days if required to practice exclusively before EOIR under the unfathomably horrible, due-process-denying conditions they have promoted and enabled over their past two years of horrible legal “leadership!” As aptly stated by one practitioner who recently contacted me:
“Things in Immigration Court will never be the same, but I at least expected attention to due process. Nope, IJ’s are more interested in getting the cases done.”
How is this appropriate conduct from a Dem Administration that claims to value human lives, racial justice, and the rule of law, but whose actions at EOIR (and elsewhere in immigration and human rights) say the exact opposite? Poorly functioning as EOIR was when I retired in 2016, the “anecdotal consensus” from practitioners seems to be that it’s measurably worse now under Garland’s inept leadership! “Come on man,” this just isn’t right!
After all this time (17 years since the BIA’s supposedly “final” order), this case is still not complete! It’s back at the BIA for yet another chance for them to deny on specious, legally incorrect grounds. One possibility is to misapply the “equitable tolling” concept mentioned by the 5th Circuit. The BIA has a long, disgraceful record of resisting and mis-applying equitable tolling.
Or, perhaps they will attempt to invoke their recent precedent in Matter of Chen, 28 I&N Dec. 676 (BIA 2023) https://www.justice.gov/eoir/page/file/1561876/download to deny reopening for “failing to make out a prima facie case for relief on the merits.”
Chen is a case where the the respondent moved to reopen to apply for NLP cancellation having attained the required 10 years of physical presence by reason of the BIA’s two wrong-headed precedents overruled by the Supremes in Pereira v. Sessions and Niz-Chavez v. Garland. Having twice screwed up in a way that created tens of thousands of potential remands and reopenings, someone not familiar with the BIA might have expected them to set forth clear, practical, generous criteria that would encourage IJ’s to consistently reopen cases where the respondent now had the qualifying time and relative(s) in light of the problems caused by the BIA itself. After all, that’s basically the direction in the BIA’s long-standing precedent Matter of L-O-G-, 21 I&N Dec. 413 (BIA 1996) (reopening where the record“indicate[s] a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits, so as to make it worthwhile to develop the issues at a hearing”). https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjWzY36pdn8AhVgF1kFHTcxChEQFnoECBkQAQ&url=https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/eoir/legacy/2014/07/25/3281.pdf&usg=AOvVaw2Ntzlp4MuxfupmjaDIn7i6
Since “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” is inherently a fact-bound issue requiring a hearing to develop those facts, one might expect most cases to be routinely reopened.
But, the BIA took a different tack in Chen. While acknowledging that the hardship asserted by the respondent fell within the zone of those “recognized” by the BIA, they found “she has not identified and documented heightened hardship beyond that which would normally be expected to occur in such circumstances.”
While the BIA claimed to be “following” Matter of L-O-G-, they actually appear to have violated the teaching of that case that: “In considering a motion to reopen, the Board should not prejudge the merits of a case before the [respondent] has had an opportunity to prove the case.”(21 I&N Dec. at 419). That should particularly be true when the BIA itself has had a major role in creating the situation where reopening is sought.
By providing only a negative precedent (they didn’t even botherto “bookend” this with a precedential example of a grantable motion) to a system already suffering from a “culture of denial,” the BIA aggravated an long-festering problem. One can expect many IJ’s to view Chen as an “invitation to deny” the many Pereira/Niz Chavez motions to reopen in the offing for specious reasons or indeed for “any reason at all.” I expect talented NDPA warriors like Raed to make mincemeat out of the BIA’s wrong-headed attempt to minimize the “Pereira-induced damage” they have generated.
Like most of the misguided efforts of the 21st Century BIA, this attempt to cut corners, summarily deny, and NOT provide full due process and real hearings is likely to take more time and waste more resources than simply giving respondents the fair merits hearings to which they are legally entitled in the first place.But, that’s exactly what this Dem Administration has wrought at EOIR. “More of the same, instead of the promised change!”
Hon. Lory Diana Rosenberg Senior Advisor Immigrant Defenders Law Group, PLLCRekha Sharma-Crawford ESQUIRE Partner and Co-Founder Sharma-Crawford Law Kansas City, KSHon. Susan G. Roy Law Office of Susan G. Roy, LLC Princeton Junction, NJ Member, Round Table of Former Immigration JudgesMe
Here it is “Time for a Child Welfare Approach to Cancellation of Removal:”
So honored to collaborate with my colleagues Lory, Sue, and Rekha on this. Grateful to AILA for publishing. This resulted from lively conversations and brainstorming when we served as faculty at the Immigration Trial College sponsored by Rekha’s firm in Kansas City in April 2022!
We all hope that this “practical scholarship” will give ideas to practitioners on how to argue for a “child centered approach.” That the BIA is one of the American authorities NOT following this better approach, supported by compelling empirical evidence, is a testament to how badly broken and in desperately needing reform our Immigration Courts are today. They aren’t going to change on their own. So, start arguing for a better approach, now!
There’s also some “insider BIA history” in here from those of us “expelled” for our aggressive, progressive judicial views on due process, fundamental fairness, and best practices! Namely, Lory and me!
