⚖️🗽🇺🇸🦸‍♂️ NDPA SUPERLITIGATOR RAED GONZALEZ DRUBS GARLAND AGAIN! — “Who else could persuade CA5 to agree with CA9, and get an award of costs,” asks Dan Kowalski of LexisNexis Immigration Community? — When will the unconscionable failure of immigrant justice at Garland’s Department of “Justice” finally end? When our nation’s democracy goes down in flames?🔥 ♨️

Raed Gonzalez ESQUIRE
Chairman, Gonzalez Olivieri LLP
Houston, TX
PHOTO: best lawyers.com

From Dan:

Another CA5 Pereira / Niz-Chavez Remand: Parada v. Garland (unpub.)

https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/unpub/19/19-60425.0.pdf

https://www.lexisnexis.com/LegalNewsRoom/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/another-ca5-pereira-niz-chavez-remand-parada-v-garland#

“[T]he BIA’s decision to deny Parada’s motion to reopen was based on a legally erroneous interpretation of the statutes governing Notices to Appear and the stop-time rule. The Supreme Court has since reinforced the holding of Pereira and held—again— that to trigger the stop-time rule, a Notice to Appear must come in the form of “a single document containing all the information an individual needs to know about his removal hearing.” Niz-Chavez v. Garland, 141 S. Ct. 1474, 1478, 1486 (2021). That did not occur in this case, as the Notices to Appear served on Parada and her daughter did not contain the time or date for their removal proceedings. Thus, because “[a] putative notice to appear that fails to designate the specific time or place of the noncitizen’s removal proceedings is not a ‘notice to appear under section 1229(a),’ and so does not trigger the stop-time rule,” Pereira, 138 S. Ct. at 2113–14 (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(d)(1)(A)), the deficient Notices to Appear received by the Paradas did not stop the clock for the Paradas. … [O]ne of two keys must fit before the stop-time rule can be unlocked: service of a valid Notice to Appear or commission of an enumerated offense. The latter has not occurred here as no one has asserted that either of the Paradas has committed such an offense. And we have already concluded that the former has not occurred because the Notices to Appear served on the Paradas lacked the time and date of their hearing. Thus, the stop-time-rule box remained locked, the Paradas’ clock never stopped, and they accrued the necessary 10 years to satisfy the physical-presence requirement for cancellation of removal. In so concluding, we agree with the Ninth Circuit [emphasis added] which also held that “[b]y its terms . . . the stop-time rule applies to only the two circumstances set out in the statute, and a final order of removal satisfies neither.” Quebrado Cantor, 17 F.4th at 871. … To return to the analogy above, when Congress provided the two exceptions to the physical-presence requirement, it created all the keys that would fit. It did not additionally create a skeleton key that could fit when convenient. To conclude otherwise “would turn this principle on its head, using the existence of two exceptions to authorize a third very specific exception.” Quebrado Cantor, 17 F.4th at 874. Instead, “the ‘proper inference’ is that Congress considered which events ought to ‘stop the clock’ on a nonpermanent resident’s period of continuous physical presence and settled, in its legislative judgment, on only two.” Id. (quoting Johnson, 529 U.S. at 58). Lacking either here, the BIA committed a legal error in concluding otherwise and finding that the Paradas did not satisfy the physical-presence requirement to be eligible for cancellation of removal. For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is GRANTED and the case is REMANDED to the BIA for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. … IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that respondent pay to petitioners the costs on appeal [emphasis added] to be taxed by the Clerk of this Court.”

[Yet another victory for Superlitigator Raed Gonzalez! Who else could persuade CA5 to agree with CA9, and get an award of costs?]

Daniel M. Kowalski

Editor-in-Chief

Bender’s Immigration Bulletin (LexisNexis)

cell/text/Signal (512) 826-0323

@dkbib on Twitter

dan@cenizo.com

Free Daily Blog: www.bibdaily.com

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

Male Superhero — Due Process Superheroes like Houston’s Raed Gonzalez are standing up for the rights of EVERYONE in America!
PHOTO: Creative Commons

Kudos to Raed for “taking it to” America’s worst “courts” in America’s most “immigrant-unfriendly” Circuit!

Tons of “rotten tomatoes” to Garland for his horrible mismanagement of EOIR, OIL, and the legal aspects of immigration policy at DOJ!

Immigration expert Professor Richard Boswell of UC Hastings College of Law asks: “Can someone explain why the government has been so obstinate on these cases? I like the fee award but I doubt that it has much impact on their behavior.”

I wish I knew, my friend, I wish I knew! There is no rational excuse for Garland’s abject failure to: put EOIR and OIL under progressive expert leadership committed to human rights and due process; replace the many weak “Trump holdover appointees” at the BIA with expert real, professionally competent judges; weed out more of the “deadwood” on the immigration bench; bring in qualified experts as EOIR Judges who could potentially create an existential improvement in the composition, performance, and procedures of the entire Federal Judiciary that would go even beyond the essential task of saving the lives of migrants; and finally make Constitutional Due Process and equal justice for all real at the “retail level” of our American Justice system!

If our democracy fails — certainly an unhappy possibility at this point in time — future historians will undoubtedly dissect the major responsibility stemming from Garland’s inexplicably weak, disconnected, and inept performance in ignoring the dangerous dysfunction in our Immigration Courts and Immigration Judiciary.

The scurrilous attack on our democracy by far-right demagogues started with racist lies about immigrants, continued with the weaponizing of the Immigration Courts, and evolved with the compromising of the Article III Judiciary! But, it certainly hasn’t ended there!

Getting rid of the leftovers of the “Trump Kakistocracy” at DOJ and EOIR should be one of the top priorities of the Biden Administration’s “campaign to save American democracy!” Why isn’t it?

The unconscionable failure of Garland’s chief lieutenants, Lisa Monaco, Vanita Gupta, Kristen Clarke, and Elizabeth Prelogar — all of whom supposedly have some experience and expertise in constitutional law, human rights, civil rights, racial justice, and legal administration (talk about a shambles at EOIR!) — to get the job done for immigrant justice at DOJ also deserves to go “under the microscope” of critical examination.

How do they glibly go about their highly paid jobs daily while migrants suffer and die and their attorneys are forced to waste time and struggle against the absurdist disaster at EOIR? Can any of these “out of touch” bureaucrats and politicos even imagine what it’s like to be practicing at today’s legally incompetent, insanely mal-administered, intentionally anti-due-process, overtly user unfriendly EOIR?

By the grace of God, I’m not practicing before the Immigration Courts these days! But, after recent conversations with a number of top practitioners who are being traumatized, having their precious time wasted, and seeing their clients’ lives threatened by EOIR’s stunning ongoing incompetence and dysfunction, I don’t understand what gives high-level political appointees and smug bureaucrats the idea that they are entitled to be “above the fray” of the godawful dysfunction, downright stupidity, and human trauma at EOIR for which they are fully accountable!

One practitioner opened their so-called “EOIR Portal” to show me how they were being mindlessly “double and triple booked,” sometimes in different locations, even as we spoke. Cases set for 2024 were “accelerated” — for no obvious reason — to October 2022 without advance notice to or consultation with the attorney — a clear violation of due process! Asylum cases that would require a minimum of three hours for a fair hearing were being “shoehorned” into two-hour slots, again without consulting the parties!

Long a backwater of failed technology, the “powers that be” at EOIR and DOJ are misusing the limited, somewhat improved technology they now possess to make things worse: harassing practitioners, discouraging representation, and further undermining due process with haste makes waste “Aimless Docket Reshuffling.” Because of EOIR’s gross mismanagement, more Immigration Judges are actually producing more backlog, issuing more wrong decisions, and generating more unnecessary non-dispositive time-wasting motions. It’s an abuse of power and public funding on a massive, mind-boggling scale that undermines our entire justice system!

It seems that the “malicious incompetence” of the Trump DOJ has been exchanged for “just plain incompetence and intransigence” at Garland’s DOJ. Is this “change we should embrace?” Hell no!

Let’s hope that the real superheroes like Raed Gonzalez, folks working in the trenches of our failed justice system, can bail the rest of us out and inspire others to use all legal and political means at our disposal to rise up against Garland’s intransigence on immigration, human rights, and racial justice at DOJ!

I agree with President Biden that the extreme, insurrectionist far-right is the greatest threat to American democracy at this moment. But, it is by no means the ONLY one! It’s time for everyone committed to our nation’s future as a constitutional democracy to look closely at the deadly EOIR farce that threatens humanity, undermines the rule of law in America, and squanders tax dollars and demand positive change! Now!

It’s not rocket science, 🚀 even if it is inexplicably “over Garland’s head!”

Has Alfred E. Neumann been “reborn” as Judge/AG 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

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

09-03-22

💨 FROM THE ROCKIES & THE HIGH PLAINS, THE WINDS OF TRUTH BLOW AWAY THE BS & SHOW HOW GARLAND’S BIA & THEIR SCOFFLAW INTERPRETATIONS HAVE BUILT BACKLOGS — “This petition for review represents the latest chapter in the Government’s ongoing efforts to dig itself out of a hole it placed itself in,” says 10th Cir. in Estrada-Corona v. Garland!

Kangaroos — It’s easy guys, we just do what DHS Enforcement and our political bosses want and we can keep hopping around forever! Backlogs! Ha, the bigger the bigger they get, the more “secure” our jobs!
https://www.flickr.com/photos/rasputin243/
Creative Commons License

Dan Kowalski reports for LexisNexis Immigration Community:

CA10 Stop-Time Victory: Estrada-Cardona v. Garland

Estrada-Cardona v. Garland

“The Attorney General may allow otherwise-removable aliens to remain in the country if, among other things, they have accrued 10 years of continuous physical presence in the United States. We call this form of discretionary relief “cancellation of removal.” Under the statutory “stop-time rule,” the period of continuous physical presence ends (A) when the alien is served with a notice to appear, or (B) when the alien has committed certain criminal offenses. 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(d)(1). Nothing more, nothing less. In the latest installment of “What Triggers the Stop-Time Rule?” the Government asks us to hold that the issuance of a final order of removal is a third, extra-statutory event sufficient to stop the clock. The plain language of the statute supports no such conclusion. Declining to read ambiguity into a statute where none exists, we hold a final order of removal does not stop the accrual of continuous physical presence. … This petition for review represents the latest chapter in the Government’s ongoing efforts to dig itself out of a hole it placed itself in. … After years of statutory short-circuiting, the Government finds itself in the uncomfortable position of being wrong. … Because Congress unambiguously replaced the final-order rule with the stop-time rule, the BIA’s application of the final-order rule was legal error. Petitioner continued to accrue continuous physical presence after the immigration judge issued the order to voluntarily depart. … [W]e hold that because the BIA seems to have considered change-in-the-law equitable tolling arguments before, the BIA abused its discretion in this case by failing to “announce its decision in terms sufficient to enable a reviewing court to perceive that it has heard and thought and not merely reacted.” … We cannot discern why the BIA found no extraordinary circumstance which would warrant equitable tolling, so the BIA abused its discretion. … On remand, the Government is free to argue that Petitioner should not be granted sua sponte reopening or equitable tolling. This opinion is expressly limited to two conclusions. First, the BIA’s application of the final-order rule was legal error. Second, the BIA’s explanations for denying sua sponte reopening and equitable tolling constituted, as a procedural matter, an abuse of discretion. For the reasons stated herein, we GRANT the petition for review and REMAND to the BIA for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.”

[Hats way off to Jennifer M. Smith and Mark Barr!]

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

“For years, if not decades, the Government sent aliens “notices to appear” which failed to include all the information required by § 1229(a)—like the “time and place at which the proceedings will be held.” 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a)(1)(G)(i). For countless aliens, the only obstacle to being eligible for cancellation of removal was the Government’s position that a time-and-place-to-be-set notice to appear still triggers the stop-time rule. In Pereira, the Supreme Court rejected the Government’s atextual interpretation and held a “putative notice to appear that fails to designate the specific time or place of the [alien]’s removal proceedings is not a ‘notice to appear under section 1229(a),’ and so does not trigger the stop-time rule.” 138 S. Ct. at 2113–14. In one fell swoop, the Supreme Court cleared the way for many aliens, like Petitioner, to seek cancellation of removal.

But the Government quickly erected a new hurdle.”

The BIA could and should have prevented this debacle by insisting from the git go that the statute (“the law”) be followed by DHS and EOIR. Instead, at the behest of DHS, and perhaps to prevent tens of thousands of long-term residents who had received statutorily defective notices from seeking relief, the BIA misinterpreted the statute time after time.

The real stupidity here is that the requirement the BIA was pretzeling itself to avoid was hardly “rocket science” or burdensome: Serve a notice containing the actual date, time, and place of the hearing! One might ask what purpose is served by a so-called “Notice to Appear” that doesn’t notify the individual of where and when to appear?

Moreover, when the BIA started issuing their incorrect precedents, DHS and EOIR had a then-existing system — called “interactive scheduling” — that would have complied with the statute. The problem was that the “powers that be” at DOJ, EOIR, and DHS consciously decided NOT to use that system.

The apparent reason was the belief that complying with the law might have interfered with DHS arbitrarily filling the Immigration Courts with large “numbers” of cases to meet various enforcement “priorities” set from “on high.” Rather than doing its job, the BIA chose time and again to “go along to get along” with this nonsense!

Over and over, EOIR lets bogus DHS or Administration “enforcement priorities” or “improperly using the legal system as a deterrent” subvert due process, fundamental fairness, best interpretations, and practical solutions!

And, although Biden and Harris campaigned on a platform of bringing the rule of law and rationality back to immigration, the absurdity and illegality continues under Garland. He even sent OIL in to waste the time of the Article IIIs by mounting essentially frivolous defenses to the BIA’s malfeasance.

Perhaps worst of all, in addition to being denied timely justice, individuals and their lawyers dealing with Garland’s dysfunctional EOIR often are falsely blamed for causing the backlogs that are the primary result of DHS/EOIR incompetence and political meddling by unqualified bureaucrats. The latter don’t understand what really happens in Immigration Court and how to properly, fairly, and efficiently administer such a large and important court system.

The backlogs will continue to grow and the US justice system will crater because of bad immigration decisions generating skyrocketing litigation. Garland must replace the BIA with real expert appellate judges committed to fair, humane, and reasonable interpretations of immigration and human rights laws — without regard to whether those correct interpretations will be “career enhancing” or “career preserving.” In other words, judges who put justice before personal or institutional “survival.” Competent, expert, independent-minded judicial administrators with the guts to keep DOJ and DHS bureaucratic meddlers “at arm’s length” are also required.

Folks who could do the job are out here. But, that’s the problem! They belong in the key judicial judicial and administrative positions at EOIR where they can put any end to the due-process denying, backlog building dysfunction.

EOIR Clown Show Must Go T-Shirt — “EOIR Clown Show Must Go” T-Shirt Custom Design Concept

Everyone committed to the future of American justice should be asking themselves why Garland hasn’t recruited and hired the right “Team Due Process” for EOIR! American justice can’t afford more of Garland’s inept, “go along to get along,” “afraid to say no to DHS enforcement” BIA and the rest of the EOIR “Deadly Clown Show” largely left over from past, failed Administrations!

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

08-20-21

⚖️GARLAND PROMOTES INSTITUTIONALIZED SLOPPINESS @ EOIR🤮: BIA’s Cancellation Denial Untethered To Record, Ignored Appellate Arguments, Defended By OIL, Rejected By 3rd Cir!

Check out the remand in Cruz-Garcia v. AG, 03-31-22, 3rd Cir., unpublished, here:

Cruz-Garcia – 3rd

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

For all the world, it looks like the BIA just signed off on a “canned language, rote denial” that had little or nothing to do with the actual record and the arguments raised on appeal. Apparently, as long as the bottom line is to “dismiss” the respondent’s appeal, what goes above it is largely irrelevant to the “Deniers’ Club” that Garland employs as “appellate judges.”

In a system already struggling with a largely self-inflicted backlog of 1.7 million cases, unnecessary remands caused by poor BIA performance are NOT a “no harm, no foul” proposition. Moreover, how in good faith can Garland propose to “expedite” asylum cases at the border when many of his trial judges possess neither the expertise nor the temperament to fairly and efficiently decide asylum claims and the Trump holdover appellate body charged with providing guidance, enforcing best practices, and guaranteeing fairness is itself a major part of the problem? That’s what “designed for disaster” is all about!

Wouldn’t it be refreshing to have an AG who made due process, fundamental fairness, correct results, and careful, “practical scholarly” analysis the touchstone of “his courts” and who cared enough about our justice system to appoint a BIA of real, expert judges — “practical scholars, if you will, of which there are plenty outside of EOIR — capable of focusing on and achieving the foregoing values?

Apparently, in his comfy 5th floor office at DOJ where he thinks great thoughts and does little to achieve them, Garland can’t put himself in the unnecessarily frustrating position of actual human beings and their lawyers who are subjected to EOIR’s incompetent nonsense and “judicial malpractice” on a regular basis! He doesn’t even seem capable of relating to the Courts of Appeals Judges who are constantly called upon to correct fundamental mistakes and clear injustices that Garland ignores and his DOJ attorneys mindlessly defend! Perhaps this “blind spot” is because on the DC Circuit, Garland was absolved from the task of reviewing individual petitions for review emanating from the dysfunctional Immigration Courts that he inherited from his White Nationalist predecessors.

Whatever the reason for his lackadaisical performance, America needs and deserves an AG who takes immigrant justice, racial justice, due process, and equal justice for all seriously!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

03-31-22

😎⚖️🗽 NDPA SUPERSTAR 🌟 ELSY M. RAMOS VELASQUEZ WINS ANOTHER ROUND FOR THE SIAHAAN FAMILY! — “Temporary” BIA Appellate Immigration Judge Elise Manuel Issues Helpful Correct Guidance On Equitable Tolling, Ineffective Assistance In 4th Cir. MTR Context! — Why Is This The Exception, Rather Than The Rule @ Garland’s Dysfunctional EOIR?

Elsy says “It is truly an honor to represent this family.” Here is a copy of Judge Manuel’s excellent decision:

Siahaan, Binsar_BIA Order Granting Motion to Reopen

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

For more on Elsy’s previous efforts on behalf of this family, see https://immigrationcourtside.com/category/pro-bono-representation/clark-hill-plc/elsy-m-valasquez-esquire/

Clear, concise, helpful, and correct. This is the type of guidance that should be in BIA precedents! It has the potential to “move” large number as of cases through Garland’s backlogged system.

It would also deter ill-advised “bogus oppositions” to meritorious motions such as the one woodenly advanced by DHS in this case. They do it because sometimes they are rewarded by lousy EOIR judging. At worst, it’s a crap shoot as EOIR currently functions (or, in too many cases, malfunctions).

Start consistently granting meritorious motions like this and the dilatory tactics from DHS will stop! In any system, particularly one as backlogged as this one, getting the Government to stop wasting judicial time and promoting bad results in a big step forward!

The prior Administration made an all-out effort to institutionalize bias and bad judgment. Garland has been far, far too slow in exposing and rooting out this bad behavior!

Just look around for some helpful, positive “precedential” guidance from the BIA on equitable tolling in the Fourth Circuit. Let me know if you find any!

So what aren’t cases like this precedents? Why does Garland’s BIA instead keep publishing a steady stream of obtuse, poorly reasoned, anti-immigrant precedents written by Trump holdovers. These push IJs in the wrong direction, lead to prolonged wasteful litigation, reinforce the toxic “culture of denial,” create a “false narrative” that denies the merits of many respondents’ claims, and, worst of all, abrogate the BIA’s duty to insure fundamental fairness and due process for all!

Where’s the positive guidance on how to grant gender-based and family-based asylum cases, building on the restoration of A-R-C-G- to clear out meritorious old cases?

Where’s the positive guidance on how to “leverage” PD and administrative closing to reduce backlogs?

Where’s the positive precedent on expeditiously granting reopening in the many non-LPR cancellation cases mishandled by EOIR in light of Pereira and Niz-Chavez?

Where’s the common sense workable rule on nexus that reflects “mixed motive” and incorporates ordinary concepts of causation while jettisoning the prior Administration’s bogus “look for any motivation that doesn’t qualify, no matter how attenuated or contrived” approach?

Where’s the reasonable bond guidance that would promote consistency and end the routine practice of setting absurdly high bonds in some Immigration Courts?

Garland’s “Miller Lite Holdover” BIA continues to fail, flail, and betray the Administration’s promise to appoint better, more broadly experienced, representative Federal Judges at all levels, including the “retail level.” However, a number of his “Temporary” Appellate Immigration Judges continue to outshine and outperform their holdover colleagues. See, e.g., https://immigrationcourtside.com/2022/02/26/%f0%9f%91%a9%f0%9f%8f%bb%e2%9a%96%ef%b8%8f-temporary-appellate-judge-beth-liebmann-gets-it-right%f0%9f%98%8e-but-garlands-bia-majority-steamrolls/

With the available talent to reshape the BIA into a body that would actually fulfill the vision of “through teamwork and innovation be the world’s best tribunal guaranteeing fairness and due process for all” why does Garland continue to screw immigrants and build more backlog by treating “Miller Lite Holdovers” as if they were life-tenured judges? They aren’t!

Although Garland appears to be in denial, “immigration judging” is some of the most consequential and important decision-making in the entire Federal Judicial System! Many, probably the majority, of those languishing in Garland’s out of control, largely self-created 1.6 million case EOIR backlog have strong claims to remain in a fair and efficient system. Yet, you would never know it by the indolent way Garland has handled the BIA mess (82,000 pending appeals) and his failure to speak out and lead by example on due process, fundamental fairness, racial justice, and human rights.

A new, functioning, expert, star-studded BIA, dedicated to due process, fundamental fairness, equal justice, human rights, and best practices, would be a great starting place! A year into an Administration that should know better, it’s long, long overdue!

Meanwhile, Elsy and other talented, motivated, committed members of the NDPA will continue to pound and expose Garland’s dysfunctional “courts” at all levels of the judicial system until we get the change that we need and that was (falsely) promised!

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

03-10-22

⚖️ “WINNNG SHOULDN’T BE LOSING” — Cancellation & Life After Winning (“CLAW”) Project Kicks Off With “Keynote Remarks!” — End The Inhumane & Irrational “4,000 Cap” On Cancellation!

Clawmobile — The CLAWmobile — America’s First Due Process Powered Vehicle, Piloted by Attorney Yousof “Joe” Nesari, will be spreading the message to the Commonwealth and beyond!

CANCELLATION & LIFE AFTER WINNING: The CLAW Campaign Kicks Off

Delivered by Paul Wickham Schmidt

CLAW Headquarters, Reston, Virginia

February 27, 2022

Thank you for inviting me this afternoon. I’m honored to be here. Beyond that, I wish to congratulate and thank Neela Nesari and the rest of you for your courage, dedication, and humanity in standing up and speaking out for social justice in America.

Of course, I will start out by giving you my “standard comprehensive disclaimer.” What I’m about to tell you represents solely my views and not the views or opinions of any individual, institution, organization, or group with which I am associated, have been associated in the past, or might associate with in the future!

My time on the stage is winding down. But yours, my friends, is just beginning. You are the ones who control your destinies and must decide what kind of world you want to live in and what you want to leave behind for the next generations.

Relief for families granted cancellation of removal is a “just cause” that should be a “no-brainer” in a fair, well-functioning, human-values-based society. That neither such badly-needed specific remedial changes nor long overdue “big picture” reforms to fix our broken and dysfunctional Immigration Courts, restore fairness and functionality to our shattered refugee and asylum programs, and make our legal immigration system robust, realistic, workable, and serving the national interest says something about our current national mood and our political leadership that should be quite concerning to you as the upcoming generation!

My friends, both our Immigration Courts and our democratic republic are in a grave existential crisis. There are powerful and well-organized forces with a very dark, exclusive, intolerant, sometimes belligerent vision of America’s future: one that reverses generations of human progress and knowledge and actively promotes intolerance, misinformation, dehumanization, and deconstruction of our democratic institutions and fundamental human values.

They actively promote an intentionally “whitewashed” version of American history: One that denies the ingenuity, creativity, and forced labor of generations of African Americans who literally built our country! It disregards the courage, tenacity, skill, and strength of Asian Americans who built our Transcontinental Railroad and literally brought our nation together. And, of course, it dismisses the legions of Hispanic Americans who have been “making America great” since before “America was America,” with their culture, hard work, determination, and commitment to the “real” American dream, not the “whitewashed” version. It basically devalues the essential contributions of almost all non-Western-European immigrants!

The future envisioned by these dark forces “x’es out” many, probably the majority, of you in this room. It says that their so-called individual rights to do as they please outweigh the common interests of society and humanity as a whole. Yet, few seem willing to challenge them and stand up for the rights and human dignity of “the others” which are being demeaned, devalued, and, in some cases, erased. Don’t let their darkness, willful ignorance, and often threatening demeanor be your future and that of generations to come.

Look around you here at the real history and the real America represented by this audience. The future is yours! Don’t let the forces of darkness and a “past that never was” deny your destiny!

Now is the time to take a stand for Due Process, fundamental fairness, human rights, human dignity, social justice, and human decency! Become the “next generation leaders” of the New Due Process Army and fight to make equal justice under law and the constitutional and human rights of everyone a reality rather than an unfulfilled promise! Due process forever!

Thanks again for inviting me and for listening.

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

It was great to see in the audience some of the former students from my last “pre-pandemic in-person speech” to Professor Dree Collopy’s class at Washington College of Law at American University there as lawyers in the ranks of the NDPA!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

02-28-22

⚖️🗽🇺🇸 SUNDAY, FEB. 27: SUPPORT THE “YOUTH BRIGADE” OF THE NDPA IN THEIR INSPIRING EFFORT TO “CLAW” A BETTER FUTURE FOR AMERICAN FAMILIES WHO WON THEIR CASES, BUT STILL AWAIT STATUS! — They Met The Highest Burden In Court, But The Arbitrary 4,000 Numerical Limit Keeps Them “In Limbo” & From Fulfilling Their Full Potential For America!

Visit us at clawcampaign.org

Instagram

Facebook

Twitter

WhatsApp Image 2022-02-24 at 1.32.05 AM.jpeg Invitation twitter.jpeg

From: Anam Aasem <aasem@leyruta.org>

Date: Thu, Feb 24, 2022 at 12:36 PM

Subject: [washdc] Invitation to CLAW “cancellation and life after winning” launch party

To: AILA Washington DC Chapter Distribution List <washdc@lists.aila.org>

Good Afternoon fellow colleagues,

We would like to cordially invite you to the launch party of CLAW, “Cancellation and Life after Winning” at the CLAW headquarters located at 11710 Bowman Green Drive, Reston, VA 20190 on Sunday, February 27, 2022 at 4 pm.

What is CLAW?

CLAW is a campaign initiated by teenager and immigration activist, Neela Nesari. The campaign aims to bring about a change to increase the 4000 limitation cap on 240A cancellation cases.

Neela is initiating an awareness month about this issue in March of 2022 and needs your help. The goal is to educate, organize and advocate for legislative changes to the immigration system with respect to the defense of cancellation of removal.

We are very excited to announce that CLAW has secured the enthusiastic support of renowned former immigration judge and former chairman of the BIA, Honorable Judge Paul Schmidt, who will be the guest of honor at CLAW’s launch party.

We look forward to your support for this worthy cause. As immigration attorneys and advocates, we know too well that a 42b cancellation case doesn’t just end at the Individual Hearing and our clients face a long road ahead before they can become permanent residents. Why not do something about it?

Please RSVP to support@clawcampaign.org.

Refreshments will be provided.

Regards,

Anam Aasem, Esq.

Supervising Attorney

Leyruta & Associates, PC

(Offices in Herndon, Falls Church, Richmond, Harrisonburg)

Office: 703-796-0801

Fax: 703-796-0802

www.leyruta.org

*Admitted to the New York State Bar.

*Practice outside of NY limited to Federal Immigration Law.

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

Unfortunately, in the bizarre and counterintuitive world of U.S. immigration law and our broken Immigration Courts, winning your case, no matter how satisfying, is “only half the battle!” These amazing young people understand how unfair and counterproductive that is and are “walking the walk, not just talking the talk.” Come be inspired by folks who believe in and act for a “Better America” for all of us!

Hope to see you there on Sunday!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

02-24-22

🗽⚖️HON. JEFFREY CHASE: GARLAND BIA’S “DOUBLE STANDARD” — “STRICT COMPLIANCE” FOR RESPONDENTS, “GOOD ENOUGH FOR GOVERNMENT WORK” FOR DHS & DOJ — MORE “MILLER LITE” THAN DUE PROCESS! — “Somehow, the Board chose to ignore this clear and obvious reading twice affirmed by the highest court in the land.” — Matter of LAPARRA Analyzed & Excoriated! — As Garland’s Failures @ DOJ Mount, Why Aren’t More Folks Demanding Change?

https://www.jeffreyschase.com/blog/2022/1/31/stuck-on-repeat

JEFFREY S. CHASE | OPINIONS/ANALYSIS ON IMMIGRATION LAW

Blog Archive Press and Interviews Calendar Contact

Stuck on Repeat

The first three lessons learned from the BIA’s recent decision in Matter of Laparra1 are: (1) the Board knows only one tune; (2) that tune is the “Falls Church Two-Step,” and (3) the tune does not improve with repeated listening.

As background, Congress in 1996 passed a statute creating a document called a Notice to Appear, or “NTA” for short, which is used to commence removal proceedings before the Immigration Court. Congress defined an NTA to require that it include the time and place of the first hearing; the document is, after all, called a “notice to appear.”

However, for many years, the Department of Homeland Security cut a corner by leaving that crucial information out of hundreds of thousands of NTAs. The courts (which are not part of DHS, the entity issuing the NTA) would later send a different document telling the person when and where to appear. That second document might be sent weeks, months, or even years later.

As an aside, in other areas of immigration law, EOIR has applied a literal approach to interpreting statutory terms. An unfortunate example is found in the asylum context, where the BIA felt a strong need to add “particularity” and “social distinction” requirements for particular social group recognition, creating significant obstacles for asylum seekers. Yet the government’s defense of those terms has been based on the argument that every word in the term “particular social group” must be accorded a very literal meaning.

However, when it comes to the term “Notice to Appear,” the Board inexplicably doesn’t seem to think meaning should matter. According to the online version of the Cambridge English Dictionary, “notice” is defined as “(a board, piece of paper, etc. containing) information or instructions.” A “Notice to Appear” would therefore be a piece of paper containing information or instructions about when and where to appear. However, that is exactly the information or instructions that DHS saw fit to leave out of this particular document. The BIA nevertheless long stood firm in its conviction that a document which provides as much information or instruction about an upcoming hearing as a take-out menu from L&B Spumoni Gardens meets the legal definition of a “Notice to Appear.”

Not surprisingly, this government shortcut was successfully challenged by noncitizens wishing to seek a path to legal status in this country called cancellation of removal. One can’t apply for cancellation of removal unless they’ve been present in the U.S. for ten years,2 but once one is served with a Notice to Appear, the accrual of time towards that ten years stops.3 So whether or not what ICE was handing out met the definition of an NTA would determine whether hundreds of thousands of people would be eligible to apply for legal status. In a case called Pereira v. Sessions,4 the Supreme Court resoundingly held that an NTA without the time and place of hearing was not an NTA, and therefore did not stop the noncitizen from accruing time to reach the 10 years of presence necessary to apply for cancellation of removal.

The BIA’s response was to issue a precedent decision, Matter of Mendoza-Hernandez,5 in which it held that in spite of the Supreme Court’s clear view to the contrary, the combination of the non-NTA and a later-sent document that is also not an NTA containing the missing information together form a valid NTA, which stops the noncitizen from continuing to accrue time towards the ten years.

The matter again reached the Supreme Court, where, at oral argument, Justice Gorsuch referred to the case as “Pereira groundhog day,” and actually asked counsel for the government why it was pursuing the case in light of the Court’s 8-1 decision in Pereira.6 In its 2021 decision in that case, Niz-Chavez v. Garland,7 the Court held that an NTA must be a single document containing all of the required information, and that the two-step method endorsed by the Board does not constitute one valid NTA, and thus will not stop the accrual of time.

Although Pereira and Niz-Chavez involved what is known as the “stop-time rule” described above, the question of proper service of an NTA also arises in other contexts. For those who missed their initial removal hearing and were ordered removed as a result, the Supreme Court decisions seemed to offer a new opportunity.

The reason is because the statute provides for in absentia removal orders only where the noncitizen failed to appear for their hearing “after written notice required under paragraph (1) or (2) of section 1229(a) of this title has been provided” to the noncitizen or their lawyer.8 Section 1229(a) is the section of the law that lists the requirements for an NTA to actually be an NTA; it was the specific section interpreted by the Supreme Court in Pereira and Niz-Chavez. Pursuant to those decisions, no one who was issued an NTA lacking a time and place of hearing received proper notice under section 1229(a) of the Act, which specifically requires that the time and place information be provided in a single document. Where notice was not proper, the law allows the filing of a motion to rescind an in absentia order, and further permits the motion to be filed at any time.9

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit addressed this issue of proper notice in a published decision issued in September, Rodriguez v. Garland.10 The decision cited the Supreme Court’s holding in Niz-Chavez, and determined that a single document containing all of the required information (including the time and place) is required in the in absentia context as well. The Fifth Circuit made clear that where the NTA did not contain the time and place, it could not be cured by the mailing of a subsequent notice for in absentia purposes.

Anyone unable to guess the BIA’s response has not been paying attention. The BIA issued Matter of Laparra in order to say that the recipient of an in absentia removal order did in fact receive proper notice pursuant to section 1229(a) even if their NTA lacked a time and place of hearing, as long as the court subsequently sent an entirely different paper days, months, or years later containing the missing information.

How did the BIA believe it could reach this same conclusion yet again in spite of the Supreme Court decisions to the contrary? Please try to follow along as we review the Board’s explanation.

First, the Board emphasized that the statute governing in absentia orders (8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(5)(A)) states that such order may be entered “after written notice required under paragraph (1) or (2) of section 239(a) has been provided.” The Board emphasized the words “written notice,” which it distinguished from “a written notice,” which the Supreme Court interpreted to indicate a single document.11 The Board’s position seems to be seriously undermined by the fact that “written notice under paragraphs (1) or (2) of section 239(a)” is subsequently referred to twice more in the same section of the law as “the written notice.”

The Board employed a novel approach here. It dropped a footnote in which it admitted to the two subsequent mentions of “the written notice.” But the Board then said that it reads those two subsequent uses of “the” as simply referring back to the initial “written notice” (without the definite article).12 And apparently, because they are referring to the first mention of “written notice,” the definite article “the” can just be ignored in those other two usages. Why is that? To explain, the Board cited a Supreme Court decision in a non-immigration case decided in 2015, Yates v. U.S.13

Yates involved a fisherman apprehended at sea with a catch containing a large number of undersized fish. However, by the time the ship reached shore, only fish of legal size remained on board. After a long delay, Yates was charged and convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 1519, prohibiting tampering with a “tangible object” in order to impede a federal investigation.

Fish would meet the dictionary definition of “tangible objects.” However, in a decision authored by the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the Supreme Court employed a canon of statutory interpretation called noscitur a sociis, under which aid in determining a term’s meaning can derive from the meaning of surrounding terms used in the same section of law.14 As the term “tangible object” in 18 U.S.C. § 1519 is preceded by “makes a false entry in any record, document…,” the Court determined that “tangible object” was meant to refer to items containing records or documents. So tampering with an external hard drive would be covered by the statute; tampering with a fish would not.

This approach has been employed by the BIA (using the closely-related concept of ejusdem generis) in its 1985 decision in Matter of Acosta15 to determine that the term “particular social group” should be defined by an immutable characteristic, the same common denominator found in the surrounding terms of race, religion, nationality, and political opinion. It bears noting that what the Board did in Laparra bears no similarity to the manner in which the canon was applied in either the Board’s earlier usage in Acosta or by the Supreme Court in Yates. In Laparra, there was no comparison to the meaning of surrounding terms; instead, the Board seemed to make a random decision to ignore two usages of the definite article. The only similarity I can see to Yates is that what the Board did seems fishy.

However, even if we do as the Board would like and look only at the first usage of “written notice” contained in section 1229(a)(1), there is still a fatal flaw in the remainder of the Board’s argument. As noted above, the statute in that first usage requires not just any written notice, but specifically, written notice under paragraph (1) or (2) of section 1229(a), i.e., the section titled “Notice to appear.” Paragraph (1) of that section begins: “In removal proceedings under section 1229a of this title, written notice (in this section referred to as a “notice to appear”)…” A notice to appear! Paragraph (1) thus clearly refers to a single document, which as the Supreme Court has now told us twice, must contain the time and place of hearing.

Paragraph (2) of that same section says that “in the case of any change or postponement in the time and place of such proceedings,” then a written notice shall be provided specifying the new time and place of the proceeding, and the consequences of a failure to appear.

The meaning of paragraph (2) was by no means a matter of first impression for the Board to interpret in Laparra as it saw fit. In its decision in Pereira, the Supreme Court said:

If anything, paragraph (2) of § 1229(a) actually bolsters the Court’s interpretation of the statute. Paragraph (2) provides that, “in the case of any change or postponement in the time and place of [removal] proceedings,” the Government shall give the noncitizen “written notice . . . specifying . . . the new time or place of the proceedings.” § 1229(a)(2)(A)(i). By allowing for a “change or postponement” of the proceedings to a “new time or place,” paragraph (2) presumes that the Government has already served a “notice to appear under section 1229(a)” that specified a time and place as required by § 1229(a)(1)(G)(i). Otherwise, there would be no time or place to “change or postpon[e].”16

We know that the BIA is well aware of this; the above language from Pereira was specifically quoted in the six-judge dissenting opinion in Matter of Mendoza-Hernandez, under the heading “Plain Language.”17

Also, in its later decision in Niz-Chavez, the Court stated that “the government could have responded to Pereira by issuing notices to appear with all the information §1229(a)(1) requires—and then amending the time or place information if circumstances required it. After all, in the very next statutory subsection, §1229(a)(2), Congress expressly contemplated that possibility.”18

Thus, the Supreme Court left no doubt in its two decisions that paragraph (2) involves a change in the time and place of hearing that was previously included in the NTA, as the statute requires. Paragraph (2) in no way, shape, or form allows ICE to serve the noncitizen with the L&B Spumoni Gardens menu and then have the immigration court send a second paper that provides a time and place for the first time.

Somehow, the Board chose to ignore this clear and obvious reading twice affirmed by the highest court in the land. Instead, it focused on only one word – the “or” in “paragraph (1) or (2) of section 1229(a).”19 The Board then pretended (can we find a more appropriate word than this?) not only that the “or” somehow allowed paragraph (2) to be read as if paragraph (1) didn’t exist, but also as if the words “any change or postponement in the time and place of such proceedings” could somehow be read as “change or postponement? What a poor choice of words! What we really meant to say was, ‘the absolutely very first time and place ever set.’ Wasn’t that obvious? We feel so foolish. Please just interpret this any way you see fit.”

The Board did acknowledge the Fifth Circuit’s contrary view in Rodriguez, but attributed it to that court’s failure to focus on the “paragraph (1) or (2)” language.20 Apparently, in the Board’s view, had the Fifth Circuit also focused on that word “or,” it would have reached the same twisted conclusion as the Board. Perhaps realizing how unrealistic this might seem, the Board quickly pointed out that “[i]n any event, Rodriguez does not apply here because this case arises in the First Circuit.”21

Speaking of other circuits, it bears noting that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit recently stated for the second time in a published decision that the BIA’s analysis was “more akin to the argument of an advocate than the impartial analysis of a quasi-judicial agency.”21 I believe that the same can be said of the Board’s decision in Laparra. It will be interesting to see if this issue reaches the Supreme Court for a third time. If so, one should wonder why the Board might expect a different result.

Notes:

28 I&N Dec. 425 (BIA Jan. 18, 2022).

8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(A).

8 U.S.C. § 1229b(d)(1), often referred to as the “stop-time rule.”

138 S. Ct. 2105 (2018).

27 I&N Dec. 520 (BIA 2019) (en banc).

Transcript of Supreme Court Oral Argument in Niz-Chavez, https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2020/19-863_k5gm.pdf, at pp. 25-26, 63-64.

141 S. Ct. 1474 (2021).

8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(A).

8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(C)(ii).

15 F.4th 351 (5th Cir. 2021).

Matter of Laparra, supra at 431.

Id. at 431-32, n.6.

574 U.S. 528 (2015).

Id. at 543.

19 I&N Dec. 211, 233-34 (BIA 1985).

Pereira v. Sessions, supra at 2114.

Matter of Mendoza-Hernandez, supra at 538.

To be clear, the government is capable of providing all required information in a single NTA. EOIR had provided DHS access to schedule Master Calendar hearings through the agency’s Interactive Scheduling System (ISS), which was employed between those agencies until May 2014. And in a memo issued shortly after the Supreme Court’s Pereira decision, then EOIR Director James McHenry stated that EOIR had begun providing hearing dates to DHS in detailed cases, and was working to again provide it access to ISS for scheduling non-detained cases.

Matter of Laparra, supra at 430.

Id. at 436: “The court reasoned that section 240(b)(5)(C)(ii) requires ‘notice’ under ‘section 239(a),’ which Niz-Chavez held must be a single document in the form of a notice to appear. However, the court based this reasoning on a recitation of section 240(b)(5)(C)(ii) that omitted the disjunctive phrase ‘paragraph (1) or (2)’ from the statute and relied solely on a reference to ‘section 239(a).’”

Id.

Nsimba v. Att’y Gen. of U.S., No. 20-3565, ___ F.4th ___ (3d Cir. Dec. 22, 2021) (slip. op. at 10).

Copyright 2022 Jeffrey S. Chase. All rights reserved.

Republished by permission.

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

As Jeffrey points out, the legal and practical problems with notice at EOIR and DHS are chronic, well-documented, and consequential! Yet, given a golden opportunity to make a new start while complying with due process and establishing “best practices” Garland has miserably failed!

Instead of appointing a BIA consisting of “practical scholar expert judges” and competent, professional judicial administrators to clean up this awful mess it’s “same old, same old” under Garland’s poor leadership. Indeed, not only has Garland chosen to retain the very folks who created and aggravated the notice problems, he has actually made it worse! How many times do I have to say it: EOIR is supposed to be a “court of law,” not a highly bureaucratic, “headquarters bloated,” “agency” modeled on and “operating” (a term I use lightly with EOIR) like the very worst aspects of the “Legacy INS.” For Pete’s sake, even DHS has done a somewhat better job of automating files than EOIR!

As recently exposed by Tal Kopan in the SF Chronicle, under Garland’s new wave of “Aimless Docket Reshuffling,” and “mindless deterrence gimmicks” EOIR has unconscionably created entire dockets made up of probable “defective notice cases” to “gin up” illegal, bogus “in absentia” removal orders! https://immigrationcourtside.com/2022/01/20/tal-kopan-sf-chron-no-due-process-here%e2%98%b9%ef%b8%8f-garlands-despicable-star-chambers-cheered-engineered-in-absentia-deportation-orders/

At best, these bogus orders require burdensome motions to reopen, rescheduling, and “restarts” that unnecessarily build backlog. They also generate more bogus statistics and false narratives, more endemic problems at EOIR that Garland has ignored or aggravated.

At worst, improper in absentia orders generate improper arrests, detention, and illegal removals of individuals who were clueless about their actual hearing dates!

Having “supervisors and managers” supposedly in charge of operating a fair hearing system engineer and then “cheer” the absence of any hearings at all shows the depths to which EOIR has plunged under Garland’s poor leadership. But, perhaps that shouldn’t surprise us! It comes from an AG who has failed after nearly a year to re-establish a fair hearing system for asylum applicants at the border and who mounts ethically-challenged defenses of Stephen Miller’s complete eradication of asylum at the border based on a bogus, pretextual rationale rejected by almost all migration and public health experts! Why is this acceptable performance from an alleged Democratic Administration?

Judge Merrick Garland — Judge Merrick B. Garland, U.S. Attorney General
Official White House Photo
Public Realm. Appointed by a Democrat, he runs the DOJ largely with Trump holdovers, no accountability, and as if Stephen Miller were still looking over his shoulder. The result corrodes the “retail level” of justice in our Immigration Courts and threatens to de-stabilize our entire legal system!

No wonder Garland is building the already incredible 1.6 million case EOIR backlog at a ”new record” pace!

The speculation on Biden’s Supreme Court pick is “sucking all the air out of the room.” But, Garland’s disgraceful failure to counter the Trump AGs’ “packing” of the BIA with unsuitable judges and filling EOIR “senior management” with unqualified individuals who lack the requisite expertise and consistently tilt in favor of DHS Enforcement and against Due Process, fundamental fairness, immigrants’ rights, and best practices will have more immediate corrosive effects on racial justice in America and individual human lives than any court in America outside the Supremes!

And, unlike the Supremes, Garland “owns” all the picks for the “Supreme Court of Immigration!” Rather than standing up for progressive reforms, and giving new progressive judicial talent a chance to shine, he has chosen to enable and empower regressive forces and to frustrate progressive experts, further undermine the rule of law, and thwart best practices!

I’m not the only observer to recognize Garland’s failure of leadership, accountability, and progressive values at DOJ. See, e.g., Biden must fix riven guardrails of democracy, https://edition.pagesuite.com/popovers/dynamic_article_popover.aspx?guid=3686d1bd-1c2f-402e-afe8-ad86040534f8&v=sdk

Indeed, just this week, Garland’s DOJ put on another stunning display of professional incompetence by botching the plea bargain in the Ahmaud Arbery case so badly that a Federal Judge took the highly unusual step of rejecting it! https://ktar.com/story/4865811/plea-deal-in-hate-crime-case-in-the-killing-of-ahmaud-arbery/

But, even these somewhat “understated” critics of Garland don’t fully grasp the catastrophic consequences for our entire justice system and our democracy of Garland’s unwillingness and/or inability to prioritize the creation of a progressive due-process/equal-justice-oriented judiciary of experts to replace his regressive, oppressive, deadly, and beyond dysfunctional immigration judiciary at DOJ!

As Jeffrey cogently relates, “same old, same old” failed approaches by “holdover judges” doesn’t “cut it!” Sessions and Barr recognized the cosmic importance of the immigration judiciary and the imperative to “weaponize it for evil” and to use their limited time in office to maximize and further a White Nationalist agenda developed and promoted by Stephen Miller. It’s a pity that Garland has failed to act on the legal and moral imperatives to “mine and realize EOIR’s ‘counter-potential’ for good!”

That potential was memorialized in the long-forgotten “EOIR vision of yore:” “Through teamwork and innovation, be the world’s best administrative tribunals guaranteeing fairness and due process for all!” Remarkably, that “noble due process vision” was once displayed in bold letters on EOIR’s internal website. Now, folks like Garland are too embarrassed and spineless to even admit that such a goal ever existed.

For my equally critical if less scholarly analysis of the Laparra travesty, see https://immigrationcourtside.com/2022/01/19/garlands-bia-sidesteps-supremes-again-statutorily-defective-notice-is-good-enough-for-in-absentia-deportation-matter-of-laparra/.

Funny how right-leaning supposed “textualists” and “strict constructionists” have difficulty following clear statutory commands when the result might favor the individual while holding the Government accountable for intentionally violating the law. Also, strange how an Administration that got into office in no small measure by promoting its competence and strong commitment to humane values and equal justice for all, particularly racial justice, continues to fail on all counts! Go figure!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

02-01-22

⚖️🤯🤮GARLAND’S OHIO JUDICIAL MELTDOWN — “High-Asylum-Denying” Immigration Judges Appointed By Barr & Sessions Remain On Garland’s Bench In Cleveland Despite Referring To Migrants As “Illegals” & “Pretty Virgins!” — EOIR Disciplinary System Remains As Opaque As Ever Under Garland!🏴‍☠️ Yulin Cheng Reports @ Columbus Dispatch!

Yilun Cheng
Immigration Reporter, Columbus Dispatch
PHOTO: Twitter

Woman Tortured — Attorneys who complain about misbehaving judges in Merrick Garland’s dysfunctional Immigration “Courts” might well find themselves in uncomfortable positions!
Amazing StoriesArtist Unknown, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

https://www.dispatch.com/story/news/2022/01/15/discipline-system-immigration-judges-lacks-transparency/9157927002/

In the fall of 2020, “Juan” had trouble falling asleep whenever he thought about his upcoming court appearance in Cleveland, where the only immigration court in Ohio is located.

The 43-year-old father of three from Mexico, who asked to remain anonymous for fear of retaliation, had already gone through three hours-long hearings for his application to obtain permanent residency. He said he was nervous and exhausted when he stepped into the court on Oct. 16, 2020, for his fourth hearing.

Juan expected from experience that he would once again face a series of aggressive questions from Judge Teresa Riley, whose intimidating style almost made him give up on his case altogether, he said.

But it still astounded him when Riley called Mexican immigrants “illegals” while cross-examining his wife about the subcontractors that Juan employed at his construction business.

Juan is not alone in his grievances. In May 2021, the Ohio chapter of the American Immigration Lawyers Association submitted a group complaint against Riley to the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), an agency within the Department of Justice that oversees immigration courts.

Citing the experience of six anonymous immigrants, including Juan, the complaint accuses Riley of biases against Latino immigrants, bullying and hostile questioning, a lack of professional competence and other alleged misconducts.

But complainants like complainants like Juan and their attorneys said they have been disappointed that their efforts did not lead to any lasting changes or that there was little transparency in the investigation process.

Riley stopped hearing cases for a few weeks in July and August, but returned shortly after, according to hearing schedules shared with the Dispatch. It is unclear why the judge was absent.

. . . .

Because these complaints rarely generate substantial disciplinary actions and there is a fear of retaliation from the judges, immigration attorneys and their clients often hesitate to report misconducts, said Austin Kocher, a research associate professor at the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse, a research institute at Syracuse University.

“Immigration attorneys don’t file these complaints often enough because they still have to practice in front of these judges,” said Kocher, whose research focuses on immigration policies. “You can’t file a complaint one day against a judge and the next day come in with your client and expect the judge to treat them well. There’s just a real lack of systematic accountability.”

. . . .

Emmanuel Olawale, a Westerville-based immigration attorney, said he has faced this dilemma firsthand. In October 2020, when he received a notice from the Cleveland Immigration Court that the asylum case of one of his clients was denied, he was disturbed by the language that Judge Jonathan Owens used in the decision.

In the asylum application, Olawale’s client, a 22-year-old asylum seeker from Cameroon, said armed officers from that country sexually assaulted her when she was a minor while they were searching for English-speaking dissidents like her family.

In an attempt to establish that the abuse did not happen due to the client’s identity, Owen stated that it is likely that officers raped the teenage girl not because she was a member of the English-speaking minority but because “they wanted to do so and thought that the respondent was a pretty virgin,” according to court documents shared with The Dispatch.

“If someone’s a ‘pretty virgin,’ is that a good reason for them to rape her in any context?” Olawale said. “That statement is misogynistic and very shocking to me.”

Instead of submitting a complaint against Owen, however, the immigration attorney opted to voice his concerns in an appeal, which is currently pending.

“Filing a complaint against the judge is something on the table,” Olawale said. “But it won’t really change anything in my client’s case. There’s also an imbalance of power in the courtroom and the fear of retaliation. I’ll have to weigh my options and consider how bad it is before I stick my neck out there.”

. . . .

Judges are not always made aware of the existence of a complaint in a timely fashion, and there is no transparency or consistency when it comes to sanctions imposed in a particular case, according to Dana Marks, president emerita at the National Association of Immigration Judges who spent 35 years on the bench in San Francisco, California, before retiring in December.

“It’s not consistent because a complaint usually starts out with the person’s immediate supervisor being told,” Marks said. “Some of the supervisors discuss the complaint with the judge immediately and others don’t. There’s a wide spectrum of when judges are notified, how much information they are provided, and whether they are allowed to give their side of the story before decisions are made.”

There is a fine line between judges’ taking a harsh stance on immigration and their exhibiting unprofessional behaviors, said Paul Schmidt, a former immigration judge based in Arlington, Virginia, who retired in 2016. While judges should not be punished for making a good-faith legal decision, using terms like “illegals” seems to be a clear violation of professionalism, he said.

“There are complaints that were made because someone is not happy that they lost a case, and those claims need to be taken with a grain of salt,” Schmidt said. “But at the point where judges are using racially charged terms or demeaning people, then that seems to me that it goes beyond what they should be allowed to do.”

. . . .

The Cleveland Immigration Court, much like the rest of the country, saw dramatic personnel changes during Donald Trump’s presidency.

The court used to have only three judges, all of whom have since left their posts. The Trump administration filled the openings and expanded the size of the bench, appointing 10 judges who currently make up the court. Most of them are former government attorneys, and five used to prosecute immigration cases on behalf of the Department of Homeland Security.

The lack of a transparent complaint process is especially concerning given an influx of new judges, who tend to come from enforcement backgrounds and lack experience on the bench, [Attorney Julie] Nemecek said.

“I think about the hundreds of thousands of immigrants across the country who have been wronged by the misconducts of Trump-appointed judges,” she said. “There are still good judges out there. But we have to address these bad judges.”

. . . .

Yilun Cheng is a Report for America corps member and covers immigration issues for the Dispatch. Your donation to match our RFA grant helps keep her writing stories like this one. Please consider making a tax-deductible donation at https://bit.ly/3fNsGaZ.

ycheng@dispatch.com

@ChengYilun

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

Read Yulin’s full article at the link.

First, congrats to Yulin Cheng! Last time I published her work, she was an aspiring student journalist.

https://immigrationcourtside.com/2021/01/18/⚖%EF%B8%8F🗽🇺🇸slavin-benitez-kowalski-schmidt-speak-out-on-broken-courts-yilun-cheng-reports-for-borderless-magazine/

Now, she’s a Report for America member carrying out her dream and commitment to report truth and hold immigration officials, regardless of party affiliation, accountable for their mockery of the rule of law and shunning of best practices!

So, why might a private practitioner hesitate to file a complaint against an Immigration Judge in Garland’s system still “packed” with a majority of judges hand-selected by White Nationalist nativists Sessions and Barr?

The complaint would go not to an independent, objective panel containing public representation. No, it would be treated as a “supervisory matter” in an agency (not a real “court”) where the ranks of supervisors are still stacked with Barr & Sessions appointees that Garland hasn’t replaced.

Stunningly, the “top judge” in this bizarre, abusive, and dysfunctional system is Chief Immigration Judge Tracy Short — a hard line DHS prosecutor with no prior judicial experience elevated by Barr because of his commitment to the Stephen Miller White Nationalist, anti-asylum, anti-attorney agenda! Remarkably, Garland hasn’t replaced Short with a competent, expert, due-process-oriented “real judge,” notwithstanding unanimous urging from immigration experts that he do so!

Pursue as an alternative a legal appeal to Garland’s BIA? Well, amazingly, that body also remains “packed” with 23 of 24 appellate judges who are holdovers from the Trump Administration. Several of these judges were themselves members of the “90% asylum deniers club” and some were renowned for their disrespect for immigrants (particularly asylum seekers) and their lawyers while on the trial bench.

Look for some binding BIA precedents on improper IJ conduct? Won’t find those either, save for a mild, pre-Trump rebuke of an Atlanta IJ (without identifying the judge) for abusing a juvenile in court.

Then, there’s Garland himself. For heaven’s sake, even Bush crony former AG Alberto Gonzales (“Gonzo I”) finally got so embarrassed by the misbehavior of his IJs that he had to publicly “call off the dogs.” But, from Garland, not a peep or decisive action demanding that his “wholly-owned judges” put due process and fundamental fairness first and treat the individuals coming before them and their lawyers with professionalism, dignity, and respect!

Judge Riley, appointed by Barr in May 2019, without any significant immigration or human rights background, has a TRAC asylum denial rate of 87.7%.

Judge Owens, appointed by Sessions in August 2018, also without any significant immigration or human rights background, has a TRAC asylum denial rate of 94.5%. That’s 58th highest out of 558 Immigration Judges!

The TRAC “national average” for asylum denials by IJs during this period was 67.6%.

So, even in the virulent, officially-sanctioned “anti-asylum era” @ EOIR during the late Obama Administration and the entire Trump Administration, these two judges are “outliers.”

As someone familiar with the Ohio Immigration Bar, there are dozens of much better qualified judicial candidates out there in the private sector. Some of them even applied in the past and were rejected in favor of these judges who, whatever else you might think, no expert would find to be among “best and brightest minds in immigration and human rights,” deserving of elevation to the bench.

All Immigration Judges are “DOJ attorneys,” serving “at the pleasure of the Attorney General” and therefore subject to replacement and/or reassignment at his discretion. Judge Riley was “in probation” until May 20121, so Garland could have terminated her, essentially for any reason, or at least “re-competed” her position under a fair process that would have been open, welcoming to immigration experts in the private sector, and involved private sector input.

Owens and the other Trump-era appointees should also have been required to re-compete for their positions under revised procedures. It’s unlikely either Owens or Riley would have been selected in such a merit-based process.

Of course, Garland has not actively recruited from among better-qualified diverse expert immigration practitioners, established transparent merit-based procedures, or re-competed the disgracefully inadequate selections of his White Nationalist, anti-immigrant predecessors!

Additionally, Garland has failed to address, in any manner whatsoever, the quality control, bad attitude, lack of professionalism, and anti-immigrant bias problems in his dysfunctional Immigration Courts. Poor precedents continue to be issued by his BIA, and sloppy work by his judges at all levels continues to be “outed” by the Article IIIs notwithstanding the substantial (undue) deference given to EOIR decisions by the Article IIIs. Backlog building “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” and “mindless gimmicks” continue to proliferate under Garland’s disconnected leadership.

The disciplinary system remains opaque and highly ineffective. Illegal retaliation by IJs against those filing complaints remains a realistic possibility that actually deters and improperly discourages reporting of misconduct. An ineffective, “rubber-stamp” appellate review process of removal orders by the BIA almost never holds IJs accountable, even for the most egregious legal errors and the grossest misconduct on the bench.

While Circuit Courts point out the deficient performance of EOIR judges on a remarkably frequent basis, one will search in vain for any recent BIA precedent “calling out” inappropriate and biased treatment of respondents and their lawyers in Immigration Court. Likewise, while Jeff Sessions was outspoken in encouraging anti-asylum and anti-lawyer bias among “his judges,” I’m not aware that Garland, in word or deed, has ever insisted that Immigration Judges at all levels give primacy to due process, fundamental fairness, and treat all coming before them with dignity and respect. In other words, Garland has failed to use his “bully pulpit” to demand an end to bullying of the most vulnerable among us in his Immigration Courts.

He also has failed to repudiate the “DHS Enforcement is our partner” statements by Sessions. (Perhaps not surprisingly, since, as noted earlier, Garland employs a DHS prosecutor, Tracy Short, as his “top judge” notwithstanding Short’s glaring unsuitability for the position. And, Garland continues to defend many “Miller Lite” policies in Federal Court.)

Pro-DHS biases, mistreatment of migrants and their attorneys, lack of basic scholarship, and failure of impartial judging continue to run rampant in Garland’s broken system!

Indeed, a full year the SF Chron’s Tal Kopan exposed the misconduct by Immigration Judges throughout the nation, the DOJ has taken no known actions despite Deputy AG Lisa Monaco’s “promise to investigate.”

From top to bottom, this broken, unfair, and out of control system needs reform, redirection, integrity, a focus on due process, and decisional excellence. It certainly isn’t coming from Garland and his senior political team at DOJ. So where IS it going to come from?

Chair Lofgren and her Subcommittee need to find out why Garland has failed to address the ongoing disaster in his courts, and what needs to be done to bring due process, fundamental fairness, equal justice, and respect for humanity to the forefront at EOIR, the DOJ, and the rest of our legal system! And, if anyone in the Administration stubbornly claims that the “primary answer” is to randomly throw more judges into this toxic mess, Lofgren should laugh in their face(s)! We need to replace bad judges and reform the existing system into something fair and functional before seeking to expand it, even assuming that expansion is warranted somewhere “down the line.”

As being run by Garland right now, EOIR is an affront to American democracy! That needs to stop!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

01-15-22

UPDATE:

The news isn’t all bad from Cleveland. Dan Kowalski over at LexisNexis reports that Cleveland Judge Jennifer Riedthaler-Williams (also a “high asylum denier — 94%) terminated without prejudice a removal case based on a defective Notice to Appear. https://www.lexisnexis.com/legalnewsroom/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/cleveland-ij-terminates-proceedings-defective-nta

Sadly, a couple of correct decisions, no matter how welcome, aren’t going to solve the systemic due process deficiencies in Ohio or elsewhere in Garland’s dysfunctional nationwide “Clown Courts.” 🤡

There are some pressing problems in America that Dems and the Biden Administration can’t solve on their own. Garland’s dysfunctional Immigration Courts are NOT one of those!

The Immigration Courts are the biggest most consequential national problem that is totally within the Administration’s power to fix. That Garland has failed to do so should be of existential concern and a cause for unrelenting outrage from all who believe in the future of American democracy!

⚠️BIA’S GRUDGING ACCEPTANCE OF SUPREMES’ RULING ON “STOP TIME RULE” MASKS ATROCIOUS ANTI-ASYLUM PRECEDENT TARGETING INDIGENOUS REFUGEES! — Garland Ignores Bad Law, Anti-Immigrant Precedents Flowing From His Court!”🤮 — Matter of M-F-O-, 28 I&N Dec. 428 (BIA 2021)

https://www.justice.gov/eoir/page/file/1446396/download

“Floaters” — Garland, Mayorkas, and other Biden honchos appear unable to get beyond this “Stephen Miller vision” for legal asylum seekers. “Floaters — How The World’s Richest Country Responds To Asylum Seekers”
EDS NOTE: GRAPHIC CONTENT – The bodies of Salvadoran migrant Oscar Alberto Mart??nez Ram??rez and his nearly 2-year-old daughter Valeria lie on the bank of the Rio Grande in Matamoros, Mexico, Monday, June 24, 2019, after they drowned trying to cross the river to Brownsville, Texas. Martinez’ wife, Tania told Mexican authorities she watched her husband and child disappear in the strong current. (AP Photo/Julia Le Duc)

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

“Inside Baseball”⚾️ — The human, administrative, and taxpayer costs of the BIA’s unwillingness to uphold the statute in the face of DHS and EOIR “Management” intransigence — and their disregard for clear warning signals from the Supremes — are unfathionable to anyone outside this totally dysfunctional and out of control system! See, e.g., https://www.lexisnexis.com/LegalNewsRoom/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/ca9-on-stop-time-rule-quebrado-cantor-v-garland.

Could there be any clearer example of the need to take this mess out of the DOJ and create a competent, expert, independent Article I Immigration Court with real judges?

The asylum/withholding portion of this decision appears to be an atrocious misconstruction and intentional misapplication of asylum law by the BIA!

In fewer than five minutes of “internet research,” I found three authoritative pieces of evidence that should have been sufficient to show an endemic, ongoing racial and psg persecution of Indigenous Guatemalans and a total failure of state protection. See, e.g., https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-ca6-18-03500/pdf/USCOURTS-ca6-18-03500-0.pdf; https://monthlyreview.org/2020/09/01/a-violent-guatemala/; https://minorityrights.org/trends2018/guatemala/.

This, in turn, should long ago have been adequate for a BIA of better-qualified appellate judges who have asylum expertise and are willing to to stand up for the legal rights of asylum seekers to issue a precedent finding a “pattern or practice” of such persecution in Guatemala. See, e.g., 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(2)(iii)(A).

With such a precedent, cases like this could be expeditiously granted at the Asylum Office or in focused Immigration Court hearings, instead of “kicking around the system” for more than three years and then being wrongly decided at both the trial and appellate levels. Wonder why our immigration system is a mess? Look no further than Garland’s anti-immigrant EOIR!

The panel’s conclusion that indigenous status wasn’t even “a reason” for gang persecution is preposterous — proof of institutional bias against asylum seekers, particularly those from the Northern Triangle!

The improperly and intentionally skewed asylum denial rates at our Southern Border feed the nativist fiction that asylum seekers are illegally seeking entry into the US. In reality, they appear to be victims of systemic racial, ethnic, and xenophobic bias fueled by both DHS and DOJ even under this Administration.

We currently have no functioning legal asylum system at ports of entry, nor have we had one for several years. “Gimmicks” like “Remain in Mexico” and “Title 42” have illegally replaced our legal protection system.

Why WOULDN’T folks seek refuge through irregular entry in such an insane situation? Who in their right mind wouldn’t?

This system further generates bogus “apprehension” numbers used by DHS, DOJ, and politicos of both parties to generate false panic about the arrival of persons seeking legal status that we have unlawfully suspended!

Many of these individuals deserve to be legally admitted and allowed to contribute to our society! Instead, they are demonized, demeaned, dehumanized, and otherwise mistreated by our Government.

Indeed, GOP politico-restrictionist-alarmists are already trying to inflame public opinion by raising the manufactured “specter” that a slow moving so-called “caravan” of unarmed, desperate, and vulnerable migrants seeking to apply for legal refuge from some of the most repressive and dangerous countries in the world are an existential threat to the security of what is supposed to be the most powerful nation on earth! Letter asking BIden to enforce laws at brder 11.4.21 What poppycock!

They mischaracterize the group as having “nonexistent asylum claims.” But, how would they or anyone else know, since we currently have no system to fairly adjudicate such claims and no reliable information about the individual circumstances on which they are based?

Instead of engaging in racially charged panic and lawless enforcement, why not just direct them to report to legal ports of entry where they could be properly screened by trained Asylum Officers in a prompt and fair manner? 400 well-trained Asylum Officers doing two cases per day could complete the screening in a matter of days or several weeks at most!

Those who pass credible fear could be referred to Immigration Court in cooperation with legal aid and NGO groups to help them prepare and insure appearance. Represented asylum seekers appear for Immigration Court at a rate approaching 100%! Why wouldn’t an Administration truly interested in a fair and orderly asylum system concentrate on increasing representation rather than imposing more “guaranteed to fail” enforcement-only gimmicks?

Those who do not pass credible fear could be returned, provided that can be done in a safe and humane manner, perhaps working with the UNHCR and other international aid organizations to insure safe and orderly acceptance in the home nations.

And, unlike the current lawless system, we would actually have some empirical information about the claims of those applying at the border. It seems likely that under a fair and legal application asylum law, many would have valid asylum claims. But, without a fair hearing system and more Immigration Judges and BIA judges who are experts in asylum law and will fairly apply it, who knows? Right now, everyone is just “guessing” about the potential merits the claims because we don’t now have, and haven’t for some years had, a fair system for deciding those individual cases!

Here’s a still-timely article from Professor Bill Hing (ImmigrationProf Blog) about how we are repeating our past mistakes of mistreating Central American asylum seekers. https://repository.uchastings.edu/hastings_race_poverty_law_journal/vol17/iss2/5/

The same is true of Haitians seeking asylum. https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/immigration/2021/11/biden-is-replaying-a-forgotten-us-atrocity-against-haitian-refugees.html

An Administration unwilling to stand up for values, justice, and the rule of law for the most vulnerable among us doesn’t stand for much of anything at all. Maybe cowardice and lack of moral compass is the reason why Dems can’t govern and keep losing elections they should have won!

The GOP long ago “cornered the market” on dishonesty, immorality, and anti-democratic behavior. The Dems can gain nothing, and lose much, by emulating them!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

11-05-21

🍅MORE ROTTEN TOMATOES FOR GARLAND, SESSIONS: NDPA SUPERSTAR 🦸🏻‍♂️🌟 BEN WINOGRAD CREAMS GARLAND’S BIA, OIL IN 4TH CIR! — Sessions’s Wrong Matter of S-O-G- & F-D-B- (Illegally Denying Authority To Terminate) Falls, As OIL Argues Nonsensical Position — Garland’s Continuing Wasteful Failure To Get Control Of Immigration Bureaucracy @ DOJ Squanders Time & Resources, Puzzles Article IIIs, Promotes Arbitrary & Capricious “Justice” @ Justice! — Chavez-Gonzalez v. Garland

Here’s the complete opinion by Judge Thacker, joined by Judges Floyd & Harris:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1MwZtKE73ucoEVTR9HOZcqUWxTB6RfyxK/view?usp=sharing

Here’s my favorite quote from Judge Thacker’s opinion, highlighting Garland’s out of control DOJ immigration bureaucracy!

This case was argued on September 21, 2021, more than two months after Matter of Cruz-Valdez, 28 I&N Dec. 326 (AG 2021), where AG Garland had refuted Sessions’s legal reasoning! Moreover, the 4th Circuit itself had pointed out the legal flaws in overruling Session’s abominable Castro-Tum, his abuse of AG authority that began this whole sorry episode in American jurisprudence. Yet, OIL argued this case as if nothing had happened and “Gonzo” Sessions were still in charge!

Looking to the character and context of the Government’s litigating position — in stark contrast to its recent regulatory position explained below — we are quite frankly puzzled that the Government currently stands in support of Attorney General Sessions’s decision in Matter of S-O-G-, particularly in light of the fact that Matter of S-O-G- relies heavily on Castro-Tum, which is no longer good law.

To begin with, this court has overruled Castro-Tum in Romero, in which we relied on the broad language of 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.10(b) and 1003.1(d)(1)(ii) to hold that the immigration courts possess the authority to administratively close cases. Indeed, the fact that Castro-Tum has been overruled should not only begin the analysis here, but it should definitively end it.

But, beyond the fact that Castro-Tum is now defunct, Attorney General Garland no longer takes the position set forth in Castro-Tum and has since disavowed the idea that the IJs and BIA cannot administratively close proceedings. In Matter of Cruz-Valdez, Attorney General Garland decided, “Because Castro-Tum departed from long-standing practice, it is appropriate to overrule that opinion in its entirety and restore administrative closure” authority to the agency. Matter of Cruz-Valdez, 28 I. & N. Dec. 326, 329 (A.G. 2021). In doing so, Attorney General Garland noted “three courts of appeals have rejected Castro- Tum” and held that administrative closure is “‘plainly within an [IJ]’s authority’ under Department of Justice regulations.” Id. at 328 (citing Arcos Sanchez v. Att’y Gen. U.S. of

Am., 997 F.3d 113, 121–22 (3d Cir. 2021); Meza Morales v. Barr, 973 F.3d 656, 667 (7th 18

USCA4 Appeal: 20-1924 Doc: 54 Filed: 10/20/2021 Pg: 19 of 26

Cir. 2020) (Barrett, J.); Romero, 937 F.3d at 292). Indeed, “[o]nly one court of appeals has upheld Castro-Tum.” Id. (citing Hernandez-Serrano v. Barr, 981 F.3d 459, 464 (6th Cir. 2020). “[B]ut even that court subsequently ruled that [IJs] and the [BIA] do have authority to grant administrative closure in order to permit a noncitizen to apply for a provisional unlawful presence waiver.” Id. (citing Garcia-DeLeon v. Garland, 999 F.3d 986, 991–93 (6th Cir. 2021)). Attorney General Garland’s position on administrative closure in Matter of Cruz-Valdez (and the reasoning behind it) calls into question the Government’s position in this matter and Matter of S-O-G- that IJs and the BIA do not have the inherent authority to terminate proceedings.3

The obvious answer here is that Garland has failed to take the necessary steps to replace the BIA and bring new leadership to OIL.

This should have been “Week One Stuff” after Garland assumed office! Instead, the EOIR system continues to careen out of control, clog the Article III judiciary with semi-frivolous litigation, and destroy human lives!

How many wrongly-treated respondents are fortunate enough to have Ben Winograd take up their cause, or indeed to have any legal assistance at all? How many can even get to the Court of Appeals to correct Garland’s errors?

The continued dysfunction at EOIR & DOJ is a humanitarian crisis and a threat to our legal system and American democracy! It’s high time for Judge Garland to wake up and treat this mess like the existential crisis it is!

Congrats again to Ben Winograd! Obviously, Garland should have recruited real immigration experts like Ben to be on the BIA or supervise OIL to get this system back on track. Why hasn’t he?

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

10-20-21

🇺🇸🗽⚖️NDPA ALERT: ELIMINATE THE CANCELLATION OF REMOVAL CAP! — Join Neela Nes’s Petition To Lift the Cap & Donate To Immigration Reform — Watch Neela’s Inspirational Video About “American Families In Limbo!” — End Injustice To Our Immigrant Communities!

Here’s the link to 1) sign Neela’s petition; 2) watch her very impressive video; and 3) donate (only if you choose, of course, not required to do 1 & 2):

https://www.change.org/p/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-remove-the-green-card-annual-cap

Neela is the daughter of my friend, Northern Virginia Immigration Lawyer Yousef Nesari, whose firm appears in the Arlington Immigration Court on a regular basis.

I’ve helped lawyers with some cancellation cases since retirement. The unnecessary delays, inconsistent decisions, and human toll caused by failure to do better is simply appalling. An obvious example is the Government’s dilatory actions and litigation that took the “stop time” rule unsuccessfully to the Supremes twice, rather than just dong things fairly, correctly, and according the law in the first instance. Talk about “low hanging fruit” among the ways the Biden Administration and Congress could “declutter the Immigraton Courts” while making America a better place by allowing more immigrants to reach their full potential!

🇺🇸🗽Good luck, Neera, and Due Process Forever!

PWS

08-21-21

⚔️🛡ROUND TABLE FILES LATEST AMICUS ON NIZ-CHAVEZ ISSUE @ BIA!

Here’s the full brief, drafted by our fearless leader “Sir Jeffrey” Chase:

BIA Niz-Chavez Amicus18078 Final

HERE’S A “KEY QUOTE” FROM THE CONCLUSION:

For the reasons provided above, in absentia orders involving proceedings commenced through a defective NTA are rendered invalid by Niz-Chavez. This is true whether the Board ultimately determines that the decision impacts the Immigration Courts’ jurisdiction, or is in the alternative a claim-processing rule.

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

Thanks so much, “Sir Jeffrey,” my friend and colleague!

Unfortunately, the recent practice of the BIA has been to construe Supreme Court decisions favoring respondents narrowly against them in Immigration Court. Thus, the BIA has needlessly protracted litigation, produced conflicting results, and lessened justice, all while dramatically increasing backlogs. We’ll see whether that practice, apparently designed to appease and please DHS Enforcement and litigators at the DOJ, holds true here.

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

08-11-21

⚠️FIFTH CIRCUIT REMAND IS JUST FIRST OF MANY THAT WILL RESULT FROM BIA’S TOTALLY AVOIDABLE NIZ-CHAVEZ SCREW-UP! — Garland’s Backlog Likely To Mushroom Until He Cleans House @ EOIR! — “Culture of Denial” At BIA Crippling American Justice! — Garland Needs Qualified Judges & Professional Court Administrators @ EOIR, To Replace The “Continuing Clown Show!”🤡

https://www.lexisnexis.com/legalnewsroom/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/unpub-ca5-niz-chavez-remand-villegas-de-mendez-v-garland

Dan Kowalski
Online Editor of the LexisNexis Immigration Law Community (ILC)

Dan Kowalski reports on LexisNexis Immigration Community:

Immigration Law

Daniel M. Kowalski

18 Jun 2021

Niz-Chavez

Unpub. CA5 Niz-Chavez Remand: Villegas de Mendez v. Garland

Villegas de Mendez v. Garland

“The NTA sent to Villegas de Mendez does not contain the information required to trigger the stop-time rule. See id. at 1478-79, 1485; see also § 1229(a)(1)(A)-(G). Neither does the subsequent notice of hearing sent to her. Thus, she did not receive the “single compliant document” required by statute. Niz-Chavez, 141 S. Ct. at 1485. The BIA consequently abused its discretion by committing an error of law. See Koon v. United States, 518 U.S. 81, 100 (1996); Ramos-Portillo v. Barr, 919 F.3d 955, 958 (5th Cir. 2019); Milat v. Holder, 755 F.3d 354, 365 (5th Cir. 2014). Therefore, the petition for review is GRANTED and the case is REMANDED to the BIA for further consideration in light of Niz-Chavez, 141 S. Ct. 1474, and consistent with this judgment.”

Hats off to Raed Gonzalez!

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

One major problem with constantly going with DHS interpretations is that many are both legally wrong and practical disasters. After the initial Pereira v. Sessions debacle the BIA had a chance to solve the problem. Instead, undoubtedly spurred on by the “deny everything culture” promoted by the Trump regime’s White Nationalist agenda, the BIA chose the worst possible legal interpretation with disruptive practical implications. Any real immigration expert could have seen this coming!

When was the last time in a potential “Chevron-type” situation that the BIA or the AG adopted the migrant’s proffered interpretation rather than DHS’s? Yet even with all the (in my view highly inappropriate) advantages conferred on the Government by the Supremes’ intellectual indolence in Chevron and its absurdist companion “Brand X,” Article III Courts, including the Supremes, reject BIA/AG interpretations on a regular basis. Pereira and Niz-Chavez are just two of the most prominent recent examples.

Moreover, because neither the AGs nor the BIA are respected experts in immigration and human rights, and, shockingly, none have significant experience representing individuals in Immigration Court, the mis-interpretations that they choose are often impractical and unworkable. This, in turn leads to confusion, unnecessary remands, and unmanageable backlogs, not to mention patent injustice and deadly results for the mere humans caught up in this ongoing disaster! This is what “Dred Scottifcation” is all about!

The case highlighted above should have been reopened in 2017. In a “real” court system, with qualified judges, professional administration, and no political interference, it could have been completed by now. Instead, it’s no closer to completion than it was four years ago!

But, lots of time and resources have been wasted in defending the BIA’s wrong attempt to deny reopening! This nonsense by the Government, NOT dilatory tactics by migrants and their attorneys trying to navigate this intentionally user-unfriendly and often illegal and illogical system, is what “builds backlog!”

Indeed, a wiser system would have turned preliminary adjudication of these cases over to USCIS so that only those that could not be granted and were not appropriate for prosecutorial discretion (“PD”) would have been sent to Immigration Court. Virtually none of the “non-LPR cancellation” cases are legitimate enforcement priorities. A similar approach was used with the NACARA program under better overall management.

Instead, as a result of poor BIA decision-making and even worse “leadership” at the Trump DOJ, this case is no closer to a final resolution than it was in 2017. And, DHS and EOIR still haven’t systemically corrected the completely fixable practical problems that generated Pereira and Niz-Chavez in the first place. Nor have Garland and Mayorkas announced systemic plans for removing the unnecessary “cancellation backlog” from Immigration Court dockets even though they would be “low priorities” for ICE under the criteria announced by OPLA’s John Trasvina!

That’s why we have unmanageable backlogs! And they will continue until Garland cleans house at EOIR, brings in a diverse group of qualified expert judges, and empowers them to act independently, stand up to the frequent nonsense pushed by DHS, and “laser focus” on due process for individuals and instituting and enforcing best practices!

One of the most obvious of those “best practices,” totally missing from Garland’s mismanaged Immigration Courts to date, would be returning “docket control” to local Immigration Courts and ending the “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” by EOIR Headquarters and DOJ politicos that has helped generate the out of control backlog.

Many cancellation of removal cases could and should be “administratively closed.” But, inexplicably, Garland has yet to revoke Sessions’s ridiculously wrong Matter of Castro-Tum, and restore to Immigration Judges their power to administratively close cases. That’s notwithstanding that Castro-Tum has been rejected in whole or in part by every Circuit Court of Appeals to consider it.

How long is Garland going to continue to “sponsor” inferior, non-independent, pro-DHS “judging” and amateurish, politicized mismanagement that is destroying our entire legal system?

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

06-20-21

⚖️👍🏼😎LAW YOU CAN USE: Professor Geoffrey Hoffman Tells Us How To Use Niz-Chavez v. Garland To Fight DHS/EOIR’s “Fake Date NTA” Travesty!

https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/immigration/2021/05/another-twist-on-niz-chavez-by-geoffrey-hoffman.html

Geoffrey writes on ImmigrationProf Blog:

Geoffrey Hoffman previously has blogged about the recent Supreme Court decision in Niz-Chavez v. Garland. Here is the sequel.

Another Twist on Niz-Chavez . . . by Geoffrey Hoffman

A fascinating twist on the factual scenario in Niz-Chavez is what to do if your client had an NTA with a so-called “fake date.” The “fake date” problem is one you will remember well if you practice immigration law before EOIR, and it garnered national attention in 2019 when ICE issued these fake dates for thousands of immigrants, many of whom showed up in court only to find that there was nothing on any judge’s docket to indicate they were scheduled for a hearing that day. Reports of fake dates were prevalent in Dallas, Orlando, Miami, Seattle, and I am sure other places as well. See news articles such as this one. In addition, and as a separate matter, there was a well-known so-called “parking date” (November 29) issued on thousands of NTAs and that was also never a “real date” as everyone knew.

There is an interesting theory about why the “fake dates” were issued in the first place: that the government was trying to respond to Pereira v. Sessions itself. Despite its argument in federal court to try to restrict Pereira as much as possible, in practice ICE tacitly was affirming, so the argument goes, that in Pereira the Supreme Court had defined, as we have argued all along, what is and what is not a proper and valid NTA. In an effort to immunize itself from responsibility for defective NTAs without any time or place of hearing, ICE thought it might make sense to input “fake dates” in their NTAs, thus (at least superficially it would seem) immunizing itself from the argument that the NTAs were defective for “lack” of a real date and place. Then the “real date” – according to the argument – could be issued as a follow-up in the form of a notice of hearing by EOIR.

The question now arises whether clients with fake-date NTAs can utilize Pereira and now Niz-Chavez to defeat the “stop-time” effect for cancellation of removal, where such fake NTAs existed, even where there is a subsequent notice of hearing with a “real date” from EOIR. The short answer is “Yes” – and I will discuss in the rest of this article why this should be the case and why it should not come as a surprise for several reasons.

It is arguably a much stronger case for the application of Niz-Chavez because the issuance of a “fake date” that was never intended to be used by EOIR in any way is affirmatively wrong. It is not just mere negligence by leaving “TBA” with a blank date and place of hearing on the NTA. ICE should not be able to hide behind an NTA where the information is filled in on the NTA but the information is patently false and made up or fabricated. Just as an asylum seeker who fabricates a date or other information on their forms cannot benefit from such information in applying for relief before the court, the government should get no benefit either from their incorrect and misleading actions. The counter-argument from the government will be that the NTA was valid “on its face” since it had some “date and place” in the document and therefore (a) stopped time for cancellation purposes and (b) conferred jurisdiction because it was “facially” valid.

This counter-argument is flawed. To embrace such a rationale would exalt form over substance. It also would allow an agency to game the system. It would also defeat the very mechanism that the Supreme Court set out in Pereira and now Niz-Chavez. Respondent should be entitled to reopen their proceedings in all “fake date” cases since a valid NTA was not filed in the immigration court. The only remaining issue will be proof. The respondent and his or her attorney will have to prove there was no hearing that was actually held on that day. If no hearing existed at all, then the stop time rule should not apply and the fake NTA cannot be “cured” by a subsequently issued notice by a different agency, that is EOIR, as per Niz-Chavez.

Finally, in reopening a client’s case it would be helpful if there were a showing of some effort on the part the respondent to check. Proof may be difficult and EOIR FOIA and other investigation will be important. Ideally, the client or the their attorney or both went to court but no hearing was on the docket that day, and there was an effort to check that was documented in some way. If there never was receipt of the NTA at all, whether containing a fake date or not, and an in absentia order was issued, then the question becomes whether jurisdiction could have vested at all in such a case. As I have argued, if the NTA is defective it cannot result in the vesting of jurisdiction. A fake date and place arguably cannot confer jurisdiction, even if the NTA was filed with the court. Since there was no hearing actually scheduled the NTA should be found defective under Pereira and Niz-Chavez.

K[evin] J[ohnson]

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

Sure sounds to me like ‘affirmative misconduct” by the USG that should stop them from relying on the “fake dates. In the “old days,” INS actually used to settle potential “affirmative misconduct” cases, rather than litigate.

By contrast, today’s DOJ seems perfectly willing shamelessly to defend a wide range of legally and ethically questionable conduct and then “blow off” criticism from the Article III Judiciary. Recently, a frustrated U.S. District Judge referred to Bureau of Prisons officials as “idiots.”

One might have thought that would have spurred some type of apology and corrective action from the DOJ. But, that doesn’t seem to have registered with Garland. He just keeps rolling along with Barr’s “Miller Lite” appointments while dissing advice from progressives who actually helped put him in his current job. About the only thing you can count on from Dems is that when it comes to progressive immigraton reforms and EOIR, they’ll blow it!

Thanks, Geoffrey, for your timely and creative “practical scholarship.” Of course with better leadership, the Biden Administration could solve this problem without protracted litigation that often takes years and produces inconsistent results before the Supremes or Congress can resolve them. In the meantime, lives unnecessarily are ruined and the system becomes more inefficient and unfair.

Garland should appoint progressive practical scholars like Geoffrey to the BIA and senior management at EOIR, OIL, OLP, and the SG’s Office and let them “lead from above” — rather than having to fight bad interpretations and worst practices from the outside.

In this case, the DHS/EOIR “fake date policy” was both fraudulent and unethical. Remember that some folks actually showed up at Immigration Court buildings, often with families in tow, after having traveled hundreds of miles, @ 3:00 AM on Sunday mornings (or on a Federal Holiday or some other bogus date) only to find out that the “joke” was on them.

And, let’s not forget folks, that thanks to the BIA’s permissive attitude (when it comes to the Government, but not with individual rights), under the now “being phased out” “Remain in Mexico Program” (a/k/a “let “em Die In Mexico”), folks basically got NTAs with the equivalent of this: “Maria Gomez, somewhere on some Calle in Tijuana, Mexico.” But, the BIA said that this was basically “good enough for Government work.”

We should also remember that the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause guarantees the individual’s rights against the Government, not the other way around! But, you sure wouldn’t know that from reading BIA and AG precedents issued under the Trump kakistocracy.

Meanwhile, IJs and the BIA under Garland continue to “in absentia” folks for being a few minutes late for a hearing or misreading an NTA in a language they can’t understand. Anybody had a problem with their U.S. Mail lately? We have, in our “upper middle class neighborhood” in Alexandria, VA. Yet, EOIR and some Article IIIs continue to promote the “legal fiction” of a “presumption of proper (and timely) delivery” of notices sent by regular U.S. Mail.

Until, Garland has the backbone to restore ethics and the rule of law at EOIR and the rest of the DOJ, particularly by reassigning or otherwise removing those who “went along to get along” and replacing them with ethical, qualified, experts from the NDPA who will speak truth to power and hold immigration enforcement bureaucrats accountable, our justice system will continue its tailspin!

🇺🇸⚖️🗽🧑🏽‍⚖️Due Process Forever!

PWS

O5-15-21

⚖️🇺🇸🗽👍🏼👨🏻‍⚖️JUSTICE GORSUCH LEADS 6-3 SUPREMES’ MAJORITY IN HANDING MIGRANTS HUGE VICTORY OVER DHS & EOIR INTRANSIGENCE/INCOMPETENCE IN “STOP TIME RULE” CASE — Niz-Chavez v. Garland — “Round Table” Amicus Plays A Role In Success! — “A single notice—rather than 2 or 20 documents!”

Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch — Associate Justice Neil M. Gorsuch; photograph by Franz Jantzen, 2017.

Niz-Chavez v. Garland, U.S. Supreme Court, 04-20-21

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/19-863_6jgm.pdf

SYLLABUS BY COURT STAFF:

Syllabus

NIZ-CHAVEZ v. GARLAND, ATTORNEY GENERAL CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR

THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

No. 19–863. Argued November 9, 2020—Decided April 29, 2021

Nonpermanent resident aliens ordered removed from the United States under federal immigration law may be eligible for discretionary relief if, among other things, they can establish their continuous presence in the country for at least 10 years. 8 U. S. C. §1229b(b)(1). But the so- called stop-time rule included in the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA) provides that the pe- riod of continuous presence “shall be deemed to end . . . when the alien is served a notice to appear” in a removal proceeding under §1229a. §1229b(d)(1). The term “notice to appear” is defined as “written notice . . . specifying” certain information, such as the charges against the al- ien and the time and place at which the removal proceedings will be held. §1229(a)(1). A notice that omits any of this statutorily required information does not trigger the stop-time rule. See Pereira v. Ses- sions, 585 U. S. ___. Here, the government ordered the removal of pe- titioner Agusto Niz-Chavez and sent him a document containing the charges against him. Two months later, it sent a second document, providing Mr. Niz-Chavez with the time and place of his hearing. The government contends that because the two documents collectively specified all statutorily required information for “a notice to appear,” Mr. Niz-Chavez’s continuous presence in the country stopped when he was served with the second document.

Held: A notice to appear sufficient to trigger the IIRIRA’s stop-time rule is a single document containing all the information about an individ- ual’s removal hearing specified in §1229(a)(1). Pp. 4–12.

(a) Section 1229b(d)(1) states that the stop-time rule is triggered by serving “a notice,” and §1229(a)(1) explains that “written notice” is “re- ferred to as a ‘notice to appear.’ ” Congress’s decision to use the indef- inite article “a” suggests it envisioned “a” single notice provided at a

2

NIZ-CHAVEZ v. GARLAND Syllabus

discrete time rather than a series of notices that collectively provide the required information. While the indefinite article “a” can some- times be read to permit multiple installments (such as “a manuscript” delivered over months), that is not true for words like “notice” that can refer to either a countable object (“a notice”) or a noncountable abstrac- tion (“sufficient notice”). The inclusion of an indefinite article suggests Congress used “notice” in its countable sense. More broadly, Congress has used indefinite articles to describe other case-initiating plead- ings—such as an indictment, an information, or a civil complaint, see, e.g., Fed. Rules Crim. Proc. 7(a), (c)(1), (e); Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 3—and none suggest those documents might be delivered by installment. Nor does the Dictionary Act aid the government, as that provision merely tells readers of the U. S. Code to assume “words importing the singular include and apply to several persons, parties, or things.” 1 U. S. C. §1. That provision means only that terms describing a single thing (“a no- tice”) can apply to more than one of that thing (“ten notices”). While it certainly allows the government to send multiple notices to appear to multiple people, it does not mean a notice to appear can consist of mul- tiple documents. Pp. 4–9.

(b) The IIRIRA’s structure and history support requiring the govern- ment to issue a single notice containing all the required information. Two related provisions, §§1229(e)(1) and 1229a(b)(7), both use a defi- nite article with a singular noun (“the notice”) when referring to the government’s charging document—a combination that again suggests a discrete document. Another provision, §1229(a)(2)(A), requires “a written notice” when the government wishes to change an alien’s hear- ing date. The government does not argue that this provision contem- plates providing “the new time or place of the proceedings” and the “consequences . . . of failing . . . to attend such proceedings” in separate documents. Yet the government fails to explain why “a notice to ap- pear” should operate differently. Finally, the predecessor to today’s “notice to appear” required the government to specify the place and time for the alien’s hearing “in the order to show cause or otherwise.” §1252(a)(2)(A). The phrase “or otherwise” has since disappeared, fur- ther suggesting that the required details must be included upfront to invoke the stop-time rule. Indeed, that is how the government itself initially read the statute. The year after Congress adopted IIRIRA, in the preamble to a proposed rule implementing these provisions, the government acknowledged that “the language of the amended Act in- dicat[es] that the time and place of the hearing must be on the Notice to Appear.” 62 Fed. Reg. 449 (1997). Pp. 9–13.

(c) The government claims that not knowing hearing officers’ avail- ability when it initiates removal proceedings makes it difficult to pro-duce compliant notices. It also claims that it makes little sense to re- quire time and place information in a notice to appear when that in- formation may be later changed. Besides, the government stresses, its own administrative regulations have always authorized its current practice. But on the government’s account, it would be free to send a person who is not from this country—someone who may be unfamiliar with English and the habits of American bureaucracies—a series of letters over the course of weeks, months, maybe years, each containing a new morsel of vital information. Congress could reasonably have wished to foreclose that possibility. And ultimately, pleas of adminis- trative inconvenience never “justify departing from the statute’s clear text.” Pereira, 585 U. S., at ___. The modest threshold Congress pro- vided to invoke the stop-time rule is clear from the text and must be complied with here. Pp. 13–16.

789 Fed. Appx. 523, reversed.

GORSUCH, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which THOMAS, BREYER, SOTOMAYOR, KAGAN, and BARRETT, JJ., joined. KAVANAUGH, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and ALITO, J., joined.

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

This is the type of case where I had hoped that Justice Gorsuch would “stick to his interpretative guns” by stopping the Government from basically redesigning clear statutory requirements “willy nilly” to suit their own purposes and disadvantage respondents. And, he came through! Big time! I’ve been critical of Justice Gorsuch in the past and am likely to be so again in the future. But, in this case, he did the right thing, and I, for one, am grateful!

Most encouraging, Justice Gorsuch “got” the way that the DHS and EOIR, with the deck already unfairly stacked in their favor, manipulate clear legal requirements for their own nefarious purposes and to the disadvantage of those struggling for justice in an inherently unfair system. There is absolutely no doubt that receiving “piecemeal notice” — incomplete and often sent to incorrect addresses or “personally served” without the proper reading and explanations — works to further disadvantage respondents.

Indeed, illegal, ineffective notices — some setting hearings on “phantom dates” and “imaginary times” — lead directly to an over abundance of “in absentia” orders and consequent illegal removals. Some unrepresented individuals understand how to reopen their hearings for lack of notice — but many are clueless; the Government system strives to keep them that way to “jack up the numbers,” meet “quotas,” and improve stats. Worse yet, Congress sometimes uses the “bogus stats” generated by DOJ and DHS to write legislation, conduct oversight, and establish policy. This is an astoundingly broken, dysfunctional, and intentionally unfair system — a disgrace to our entire justice system and our national conscience each day it is allowed to continue to operate in its abusive ways!

The majority in this case was both very interesting, and at least mildly encouraging, for those of us who believe in due process and fundamental fairness for all persons, including migrants, under law. In addition to Trump appointees Justice Gorsuch and Justice Barrett, another GOP conservative appointee, Justice Thomas, joined Justices Breyer, Kagan, and Sotomayor in the majority!

And, although this case has (incorrectly) seemed “hyper technical” to some Supremes’ watchers unfamiliar with immigration, it will have huge impact — forcing reopening and “redos” in tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, of cases in the already backlogged (1.3 million cases) Immigration Court. That will be the direct result of poor jurisprudence by the BIA, lousy court administration by EOIR, and horrible policy decisions by DHS.

Just another prime example of how “haste makes waste” enforcement gimmicks continue to cause unnecessary chaos in the system. Why not just appoint progressive experts as Immigration Judges and BIA Appellate Judges. Qualified jurists who will understand immigration law, due process, and “get in right” in the first instance? Certainly seems like a reasonable approach. What is Judge Garland waiting for?

This, in turn should add to the already loud cries (from virtually everywhere outside Judge Garland’s universe and the restrictionist right) for sensible, readily available backlog reductions and accelerated movement toward better judges and independence in the Immigration Courts, not to mention better management in the DHS enforcement programs.

Here’s my favorite quote from Justice Gorsuch’s majority opinion:

In the end, though, all this speculation is beside the point. The dissent tries to predict how the government will react to a ruling that requires it to follow the law and then pro- ceeds to assess the resulting “costs” and “benefits.” Post, at 17, 20–21. But that kind of raw consequentialist calcula- tion plays no role in our decision. Instead, when it comes to the policy arguments championed by the parties and the dissent alike, our points are simple: As usual, there are (at least) two sides to the policy questions before us; a rational Congress could reach the policy judgment the statutory text suggests it did; and no amount of policy-talk can overcome a plain statutory command. Our only job today is to give the law’s terms their ordinary meaning and, in that small way, ensure the federal government does not exceed its statutory license. Interpreting the phrase “a notice to ap-pear” to require a single notice—rather than 2 or 20 docu- ments—does just that.

*

At one level, today’s dispute may seem semantic, focused on a single word, a small one at that. But words are how the law constrains power. In this case, the law’s terms en- sure that, when the federal government seeks a procedural advantage against an individual, it will at least supply him with a single and reasonably comprehensive statement of the nature of the proceedings against him. If men must turn square corners when they deal with the government, it cannot be too much to expect the government to turn square corners when it deals with them.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Cir- cuit is

Reversed.

And, here’s some “immediate commentary” by Round Table spokesperson “Sir Jeffrey” Chase:

Victory! This was the case in which our Round Table amicus brief was specifically referenced in oral argument.

Congrats to all involves, and Due Process Forever!

PWS

04-29-21

From Dan:

Another CA5 Pereira / Niz-Chavez Remand: Parada v. Garland (unpub.)

Related posts:

Dan Kowalski reports for LexisNexis Immigration Community:

CA10 Stop-Time Victory: Estrada-Cardona v. Garland

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Check out the remand in Cruz-Garcia v. AG, 03-31-22, 3rd Cir., unpublished, here:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

CANCELLATION & LIFE AFTER WINNING: The CLAW Campaign Kicks Off

Delivered by Paul Wickham Schmidt

CLAW Headquarters, Reston, Virginia

February 27, 2022

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Hope to see you there on Sunday!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Here’s the complete opinion by Judge Thacker, joined by Judges Floyd & Harris:

Here’s my favorite quote from Judge Thacker’s opinion, highlighting Garland’s out of control DOJ immigration bureaucracy!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

🇺🇸🗽Good luck, Neera, and Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Here’s the full brief, drafted by our fearless leader “Sir Jeffrey” Chase:

HERE’S A “KEY QUOTE” FROM THE CONCLUSION:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Dan Kowalski reports on LexisNexis Immigration Community:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

🇺🇸⚖️🗽🧑🏽‍⚖️Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Congrats to all involves, and Due Process Forever!

Related posts: