"The Voice of the New Due Process Army" ————– Musings on Events in U.S. Immigration Court, Immigration Law, Sports, and Other Random Topics by Retired United States Immigration Judge (Arlington, Virginia) and former Chairman of the Board of Immigration Appeals Paul Wickham Schmidt. To see my complete professional bio, just click on the link below.
“This court grants a petition for review of an agency denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief only under the most extraordinary circumstances. See Gutierrez-Alm, 62 F.4th at 1194; Sharma v. Garland, 9 F.4th 1052, 1060 (9th Cir. 2021). This is one of those rare instances. For the reasons discussed above, the agency’su adverse credibility determination is amply supported by substantial evidence. But the IJ failed to properly consider and evaluate the evidentiary weight of multiple documents Kalulu offered into the record independent of her testimony, and the BIA made clear factual errors when it reviewed those documents. Because the agency’s decision therefore “cannot be sustained upon its reasoning,” this case must be remanded for the IJ or BIA to reconsider its decision. De Leon, 51 F.4th at 1008 (internal quotation marks omitted). On remand, the agency must reexamine the three declarations and medical document discussed in section III(b) to consider whether they, when properly read alongside other nontestimonial evidence in the record, independently prove Kalulu’s claims for asylum or withholding of removal. This court takes no position on whether those documents provide such proof or whether Kalulu merits any of the relief for which she applied.”
Dissent: “The majority ignores our precedent and instead concludes that the agency would have reached the same adverse credibility determination in the absence of these unsupported findings. That approach contravenes the REAL ID Act, binding circuit precedent, and fundamental principles of administrative law. I respectfully dissent.”
Many congrats to Amalia, Judah, and their NDPA team!
As my friend Dan often says about EOIR, “you can’t make this stuff up!”🤯
Well, the panel judges all agree that the BIA is wrong! It’s just a question of HOW wrong.
Note Van Dyke is a Trump appointee, and one of the most far-right judges on the bench. Murphy is a Bush II appointee. Sanchez (concur/dissent) is a Biden appointee.
The BIA has to have worked overtime to do such a miserable job that even Van Dyke couldn’t paper it over, although he took a stab at it!
The majority decision is basically a restatement of the 4th Circuit’s pre-REAL ID precedent Camara v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 361 (4th Cir. 2004). That case materially affected practices, changed results, and saved lives during my tenure at the “Legacy”Arlington Immigration Court!
So, it’s not that requiring that testimony be evaluated along with independent, non-testimonial evidence is something “new” or “rocket science!”🚀 Heck, it’s even incorporated in the REAL ID Act. This is “Immigration 101!” Yet, theBIA came up woefully short while Garland ignores fundamental flaws in his judicial system.
It’s well worth looking at a bit more of Judge Gabriel Sanchez’s vigorous separate opinion:
Petitioner Milly Kalulu, a native of Zambia, alleges she
was persecuted because she is a lesbian in a country that
criminalizes same-sex relationships. When her relationship
with a woman was discovered by her girlfriend’s brothers,
she was beaten, whipped, injected with an unknown
substance, stabbed in the chest, doused with gasoline, and
threatened with death over several violent encounters.
Kalulu submitted documentary evidence corroborating her
claims, including a copy of her medical report, a declaration
from her aunt in California, and declarations from several
Zambians who witnessed the attacks on her. The agency,
however, dismissed this evidence based on unsupportable or
trivial grounds.
I agree with the majority that the agency failed to
consider whether Kalulu’s supporting evidence
independently proves her claims for asylum, withholding of
removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture
(CAT). “Where potentially dispositive testimony and
documentary evidence is submitted, the BIA must give
reasoned consideration to that evidence.” Cole v. Holder,
659 F.3d 762, 772 (9th Cir. 2011); see also Antonio v.
On the basis of his robust SOTU performance, I have every confidence that President Biden can more than adequately defend himself from the “Hur report.” Sadly, the same can’t necessarily be said for all the asylum seekers and other immigrants harmed by Garland’s indifference to systemic injustice in his “courts!”
This is the real “immigration crisis” that threatens our legal system and our democracy!
SAN DIEGO (AP) — A 53-year-old union of immigration judges has been ordered to get supervisor approval to speak publicly to anyone outside the Justice Department, potentially quieting a frequent critic of heavily backlogged immigration courts in an election year.
The National Association of Immigration Judges has spoken regularly at public forums, in interviews with reporters and with congressional staff, often to criticize how courts are run. It has advocated for more independence and free legal representation. The National Press Club invited its leaders to a news conference about “the pressures of the migrant crisis on the federal immigration court system.”
The Feb. 15 order requires Justice Department approval “to participate in writing engagements (e.g., articles; blogs) and speaking engagements (e.g., speeches; panel discussions; interviews).” Sheila McNulty, the chief immigration judge, referred to a 2020 decision by the Federal Labor Relations Authority to strip the union of collective bargaining power and said its earlier rights were “not valid at present.”
The order prohibits speaking to Congress, news media and professional forums without approval, said Matt Biggs, president of the International Federation of Professional & Technical Engineers, an umbrella organization that includes the judges’ union. He said the order contradicted President Joe Biden’s “union-friendly” position and vowed to fight it.
“It’s outrageous, it’s un-American,” said Biggs. “Why are they trying to silence these judges?”
. . . .
**************************
Read the complete article at the above link.
Ukase Public Domain
Courtesy of my friend Dan Kowalski over at LexisNexis, here’s the text of what is being called the “McNulty Ukase:”
From: Chief Immigration Judge, OCIJ (EOIR) Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2024 11:53 AM To: Tsankov, Mimi (EOIR) ; Cole, Samuel B. (EOIR) Cc: Weiss, Daniel H (EOIR) ; Luis, Lisa (EOIR) ; Young, Elizabeth L. (EOIR) ; Anderson, Jill (EOIR) <
Subject: Public Engagements and Speaking Requests
Dear Judges Cole and Tsankov:
From recent awareness of your public engagements, I understand you are of the impression that your positions in the group known as the National Association of Immigration Judges (NAIJ) permit you to participate in writing engagements (e.g., articles; blogs) and speaking engagements (e.g., speeches; panel discussions; interviews) without supervisory approval and any Speaking Engagement Team review your supervisor believes necessary. The agency understands this is a point of contention for you, but any bargaining agreement related to that point that may have existed previously is not valid at present. Please consider this email formal notice that you are subject to the same policies as every EOIR employee. To ensure consistency of application of agency policies—and prevent confusion among our staff—please review the SET policy and work with your supervisor to ensure your compliance with it, effective immediately.
Thank you,
Sheila McNulty
Chief Immigration Judge
Executive Office for Immigration Review • Department of Justice
*******************
It’s perhaps no surprise. EOIR is a badly failing agency with an incredible ever-growing backlog of over 3 million cases, no plan for reducing it, antiquated procedures, a disturbing number of questionably-qualified judges (many holdovers from the Trump era), grotesque decisional inconsistencies, poor leadership, a tragic record of ignoring experts’ recommendations for improvements, and that produces a steady stream of sloppy, poorly-reasoned, or clearly erroneous decisions on the “nuts and bolts” of asylum and immigration law that are regularly “roasted” by Circuit Judges across the political spectrum.
In this context, their desire to strangle criticism from those actually trying to provide justice and due process, against the odds — the sitting Immigration Judges who see the management and systemic problems on a daily basis — is perhaps understandable, if not defensible.
At least where immigration is involved, the Biden Administration’s rhetoric and promises on being “labor friendly” and supportive of Federal workers is unfortunately reminiscent of its pledge to treat asylum seekers and immigrants fairly and humanely and to distance themselves from the racially-driven xenophobic policies of the Trump Administration.
While the NAIJ may be “gagged,” the fight about working conditions and the unrelenting dysfunction at EOIR is far from over!
Sources close to the NAIJ’s parent union, the IFPTE, tell me that the “campaign to call out this atrocity” is “just getting started.”
In statement issued yesterday, IFPTE President Matt Biggs expressed outrage and raised the possibility that the Administration could face tough Congressional questioning on the gag order, which also applies to communications with legislators and legislative staff:
“Just because a highly partisan decision by the FLRA’s board, that is likely to be reversed, limited NAIJ’s ability to collectively bargain, doesn’t mean that NAIJ and its national union IFPTE can’t meet and confer with the DOJ, provide legal services to our members, have officers serve on professional committees, speak to the media, offer training and other services a union provides,” says Biggs. “In fact, for the past four years, NAIJ, with assistance from IFPTE, has provided all of that. We give judges a voice. Judge Tsankov regularly speaks to reporters and recently testified before Congress. This is an attempt to limit what the press and public know by placing a gag over the mouths of the judges on the front lines. The only thing that has changed in the past four years is an overreach by a federal bureaucrat.”
NAIJ has repeatedly sounded the alarm on the size of the backlog, the need for translators, raised courtroom security concerns and other issues related to immigration adjudication. It has been a strong advocate for judicial independence and questioned why the immigration courts are attached to the Department of Justice, rather than being placed in an independent agency. The National Press Club recently invited both Tsankov and Cole to speak at a news conference on “the pressures of the migrant crisis on the federal immigration court system.”
“We believe that this order and un-American, anti-union act of censorship by McNulty will lead to Congressional hearings,” said Biggs. “Until this matter is resolved, the judges’ national union, IFPTE, will act as the voice for the immigration judges. McNulty may try, but the nation’s immigration judges won’t be silenced.”
As noted by Biggs, over the years, NAIJ leadership has frequently been asked to testify before Congress and meet with staff as an independent counterpoint to the “party line, everything is under control” nonsense that has become a staple of DOJ politicos and EOIR bureaucrats in administrations of both parties in dealing with the Hill as the backlog continued to explode in plain view!
Although the Biden Administration has curiously shown little hesitation in throwing asylum seekers, human rights, and advocates who were a key support group in 2020 “under the bus” in an ill-advised attempt to “out-Trump-Trump” on stupidity and inhumanity at the border, the IFPTE could be a different animal. Representing more than 80,000 government professionals, the union endorsedBiden/Harris in 2020.
With a hotly-contested, close election underway, Biden can ill-afford to alienate more key support groups, particularly among organized labor. Why the “geniuses” in the White House and the Biden/HarrisCampaign think that going to war with your base is a great, “winning” strategy, is beyond me! Even Donald Trump recognizes the benefit of energizing behind him a loyal and committed (although horribly misguided) “base!”
*****************
Tellingly, and illustrating this issue’s cosmic importance, the Ohio Immigrant Alliance just released its blockbuster report documenting systemic racism at EOIR entitled “The System Works As Designed: Immigration Law, Courts, & Consequences” —
This report is based on the experiences of immigrants, lawyers, and immigration court observers, as well as external research. “The System Works as Designed” reveals how U.S. immigration laws, and the courts themselves, were planted on a foundation of white supremacy, power imbalance, and coercive control. For those reasons, they fail to protect human dignity and lives on a daily basis.
While the operations of the immigration courts have frequently been ignored, their outcomes could not be more consequential to immigrants and their loved ones. This report lifts the curtain.
Racism in Immigration Law and Policies
It is clear from the congressional record, and laws themselves, that the Chinese Exclusion Act, Undesirable Aliens Act, Immigration and Nationality Acts of 1924 and 1952, and other laws played on racial and ethnic stereotypes to limit mobility and long-term settlement of non-white immigrants.
The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 attempted to address some imbalances, but the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act basically broke the already contradictory set of laws, making them a landmine for immigrants attempting to seek safety or build new lives here. The REAL ID Act and other post-9/11 laws and policies tightened the vise.
Policy choices made by presidents from every modern administration have attempted to coerce, repress, and reject migration, a basic human survival act, instead of building safe paths people can use.
Death Penalty Consequences, Traffic Court Rules
The U.S. immigration courts were designed to offer the illusion of justice, while failing the people they purport to protect. Dysfunctional elements include:
A quasi-judicial structure that answers to the U.S. Attorney General in the Executive Branch and is not an independent judiciary; is blatantly influenced by ideology; and promotes quantity over quality decision making.
Power imbalances, such as the fact that the government is represented by attorneys 100% of the time, while immigrants often argue their cases without a legal guide. Detained immigrants are forced to “attend” their hearings via grainy video feed, while judges and counsel are together in courtrooms miles away. Yet immigration judges frequently deny requests for expert witnesses to appear remotely, citing challenges with communication and credibility. The deck is stacked.
4
Also, by detaining someone in jail for the duration of their civil immigration case, the government makes it harder for them to get a lawyer to help. The government is also using the psychological, financial, and physical toll of detention to try to break someone’s spirits and get them to give up.
Subjective “credibility determinations,” rife for bias and abuse. A case can be denied based on a judge’s feeling about the immigrant’s testimony, not facts. This is the barn door through which all manner of ignorance, bias, and ideology storm in.
Legal landmines make it harder for people who qualify for asylum to receive it, such as the one-year filing deadline; illogical definition of material support to terrorism; and the Biden asylum ban.
Differing standards of accuracy. Immigrants may be furnished interpreters who speak the wrong dialect. Judges and DHS attorneys may make inaccurate statements about an individual’s evidence or the political conditions of their country. The hearing transcripts can be riddled with gaps instead of key facts. Yet life-altering decisions are made based on this record, and an immigrant has little to no opportunity to object, correct, or explain.
Consider the experience of M.D. a Black Mauritanian man seeking asylum in the U.S. after the late 1980s/early 1990s genocide. An immigration judge questioned his credibility because M.D. did not provide “evidence” that he is Black and Fulani, a persecuted group in Mauritania. M.D. addressed the court, speaking in Fulani, and said, “I am the evidence. I speak Fulani and I am Black.”
The English transcript of M.D.’s hearing is riddled with “(unintelligible)” in place of the names of relatives and locations where important events, such as the murder of his father, took place. There was an interpreter in the room who could have spelled the words out to make the record more accurate and credible. Instead, the record shows big holes in place of material facts, while M.D. was accused of not providing “proof” that he is Black, deemed not credible, denied asylum.
In another case, a Black man seeking asylum was found “not credible” because his interpreter first used the word “canoe” when describing his method of escape, and later said “little boat.” But in his language and, one can argue, in common English, they are the same thing.
Situations like these, memorialized in the case record, are carried into the appeals process where rehearings typically do not take place, compounding the injustices of these mistakes.
Many of the report’s observations echo some aspects my own writings and public speeches over the years since I retired from the bench in June 2016. For example, here’s my speech “JUSTICE BETRAYED: THE INTENTIONAL MISTREATMENT OF CENTRAL AMERICAN ASYLUM APPLICANTS BY THE EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW“ from from an FBA Conference in Austin, Texas in May 2019:
While I was speaking during the Trump Administration, sadly, many of my observations remain equally true today, as the Biden Administration and AG Garland have quite inexcusably failed to rise to the occasion by instituting long-overdue due process and quality control reforms at EOIR. Yet, I am struck by how even then, as today, I found reasons to continue to be proud of the accomplishments of the “New Due Process Army” (“NDPA”) and to urge others to continue tobelieve that the “light of due process will eventually be relit” at EOIR and that history will deal harshly with the xenophobic urges and anti-asylum attitudes that too often drive policy in administrations of both parties:
Today, the Immigration Courts have become an openly hostile environment for asylum seekers and their representatives. Sadly, the Article III Courts aren’t much better, having largely “swallowed the whistle” on a system that every day blatantly mocks due process, the rule of law, and fair and unbiased treatment of asylum seekers. Many Article IIIs continue to “defer” to decisions produced not by “expert tribunals,” but by a fraudulent court system that has replaced due process with expediency and enforcement.
But, all is not lost. Even in this toxic environment, there are pockets of judges at both the administrative and Article III level who still care about their oaths of office and are continuing to grant asylum to battered women and other refugees from the Northern Triangle. Indeed, I have been told that more than 60 gender-based cases from Northern Triangle countries have been granted by Immigration Judges across the country even after Sessions’s blatant attempt to snuff out protection for battered women in Matter of A-B-. Along with dependent family members, that means hundreds of human lives of refugees saved, even in the current age.
Also significantly, by continuing to insist that asylum seekers from the Northern Triangle be treated fairly in accordance with due process and the applicable laws, we are making a record of the current legal and constitutional travesty for future generations. We are building a case for an independent Article I Immigration Court, for resisting nativist calls for further legislative restrictions on the rights of asylum seekers, and for eventually holding the modern day “Jim Crows” who have abused the rule of law and human values, at all levels of our system, accountable, before the “court of history” if nothing else!
Eventually, we will return to the evolving protection of asylum seekers in the pre-2014 era and eradicate the damage to our fundamental values and the rule of law being done by this Administration’s nativist, White Nationalist policies. That’s what the “New Due Process Army” is all about.
That brings me back to two of my “key takeaways” from the Ohio Immigrant Alliance Report.
First: “Withholding is a true limbo status, though better than being sent back to certain death.” Skillfully and aggressively using the system to save lives, in any way possible, is job one. A life saved is always a victory!
Second, as the report concludes:
Solutions exist, but they require policymakers and legislators to listen to the people with direct, personal experience. Ramata, cited earlier in this report, suggests quicker approval of cases found credible at the outset. Aliou wants judges to put more stock in migrants’ testimony, understanding that persecuting governments are not credible sources about their own abuse. Jennifer, one of the immigration lawyers we interviewed, suggested that Black immigrant organizations and the American Immigration Lawyers Association be involved in crafting a new direction, citing their extensive expertise with how the system works—and fails people.
Bill, another immigration lawyer interviewed for this report, suggests taking a page from the refugee resettlement program when it comes to verifying facts about a case. “Social workers and private investigators [could] interview people and research documents and try to … verify whether [they’re] telling the truth or not,” he said. Bill suggests employment counselors, ESL teachers, and others with specialized expertise could also assist in the processing of cases.
Most importantly, the asylum and immigration system must be reoriented toward prioritizing safety and resettlement, rather than deportation as the default outcome. The forthcoming report, “Behind Closed Doors: Black Migrants and the Hidden Injustices of US Immigration Courts,” will explore these and other solutions.
As I have observed many times, despite the “national BS” on asylum and immigration being traded by Trump and Biden, and the legislative gridlock, there are still plenty of readily available, non-legislative solutions out there that would dramatically improve due process, justice, and the life-saving capacity of the EOIR system. While no single one of them is a “silver bullet” that would solve all problems overnight, each is an important step in the right direction. Taken together, they would substantially improve the quality and quality of justice overall in our U.S. legal system and, perhaps, in the process, save our republic from demise.
🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!
PWS
03-06-24
This article has been revised to include an excerpt from the IFPTE press release.
FULL DISCLOSURE: I am a proud retired member of the NAIJ.
“The IJ’s conclusion that Gao failed to meet her burden of proof is based on the lack of sufficient corroborating evidence. As mentioned above, where, as here, the petitioner’s testimony is deemed credible, but the IJ finds that additional corroborating evidence is necessary to satisfy the burden of proof, the IJ is required to “(1) point to specific pieces of missing evidence and show that it was reasonably available, (2) give the [petitioner] an opportunity to explain the omission, and (3) assess any explanation given.” Wei Sun, 883 F.3d at 31; see also Pinel-Gomez, 52 F.4th at 529. Because the IJ failed to comply with these requirements here, we remand for the agency to reconsider Gao’s claim that she will be singled out for persecution if she returns to China.”
“Berhe asserted that the Eritrean military detained and beat him because he complained about conditions during his mandatory military service and because of his perceived anti-government political opinion. The agency’s adverse credibility determination is not supported by substantial evidence. … Respondent’s motion to transfer venue is DENIED, the petition for review is GRANTED, the BIA’s decision is VACATED, and the case is REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this order.”
“Based on the statutory language, structure, and context of § 1252, we conclude that a reinstated order of removal is not final for purposes of judicial review until the agency has completed withholding proceedings. Only when those proceedings conclude, if the noncitizen is eligible for that review, has the agency finalized all mandatory review and “fully determined” the noncitizen’s fate. Arostegui-Maldonado, 75 F.4th at 1140 (quoting Luna-Garcia, 777 F.3d at 1185). A contrary conclusion would contravene the express intent of Congress. Our own circuit’s precedent is consistent with this interpretation, having long treated reinstated orders of removal as final once withholding proceedings are complete. We see no reason to upset that precedent. Because F.J.A.P. filed his petition within 30 days of the completion of his CAT proceedings, we have jurisdiction to hear his petition and proceed to the merits. … Here, the Board did not just declare an absence of evidence; it actively ignored the evidence relied upon by the immigration judge. … The Board reweighed and discounted evidence in F.J.A.P.’s case instead of properly disputing that evidence with contrary facts from the record. … The Board did not explain how the immigration judge’s conclusion that F.J.A.P. would likely be tortured for having “the audacity to file a police report” is illogical, implausible, or lacks support. The Board did not explain why, in a country where gangs control much of the government—an assertion which was supported in the record by the State Department’s country report—an individual complaint about the gang made to the gang-controlled police would not put a target on someone’s back. … For these reasons, we find that the Board erred by failing to apply the required clear error standard of review. Because the Board failed to apply the correct standard of review, we need not reach whether substantial evidence supported its conclusion. In light of this error, we grant F.J.A.P.’s petition and remand to the Board of Immigration Appeals for reconsideration of the immigration judge’s decision under the correct standard of review consistent with this opinion.”
Harry S. Graver, Esquire Jones Day D.C.Chuck Roth, Esquire NIJC
*****************
Great, if disturbing, examples of the “culture of any reason to deny” that flourishes in too many places in Garland’s EOIR and the poor leadership from the BIA! All these respondents were “garlanded,” and only saved by their outstanding lawyers and the Circuits!
Congrats to the attorneys involved in all these cases. Gerald Karikari appeared before me at the “Legacy” Arlington Immigration Court. Ben Winograd is a superstar appellate litigator. Harry S. Graver is an attorney in the DC Office of Jones Day, where I was a partner in the 1990s. Chuck Roth is a “superlitigator” for the NIJC!
The season’s outlook for justice in Manager Merrick Garland’s EOIR:
Gloomy 😪😢
In the often other-worldly, fact-free, one-sided “debate” about immigration and asylum, we must remember that severe over-denial, abuse of in absentia orders, “courts in prison,” and lack of positive precedents in Garland’s EOIR badly distort the success rate for asylum seekers that the Government often throws around. Because of Garland’s failure to legitimize EOIR asylum adjudications by cleaning house, replacing unqualified leadership, and insisting on judges with demonstrated asylum expertise and reputations for fairness, we actually have little idea how asylum seekers would fare in a fair and functional system where due process and decisional excellence were required.
Suffice it to say that significantly more asylum cases would be granted in a more timely manner. We just don’t know how many more!
Rekha Sharma-Crawford ESQUIRE Partner and Co-Founder Sharma-Crawford Law Kansas City, KS
Rekha writes on LinkedIn:
A major step towards acknowledging that the best interest of the child must play a critical role in immigration cases. This was an idea I raised over 10 years ago with my friend and colleague, the brilliant Lory Rosenberg. Later the idea again was put forward with two additional brilliant colleagues, Paul Schmidt and Susan Roy. Sometimes it takes a very long time, but the right approach can’t be hidden forever.So pleased to see it is finally seeing some daylight.
Here’s the Memorandum from EOIR Director David L. Neal:
As noted by my Round Table colleague “Sir Jeffrey” Chase, our Round Table has spoken out about the need for a separate Immigration Court system for children:
As you know, our Round Table signed on to a letter of support for proposed legislation to create a Children’s Immigration Court.
[Director Neal’s statement is] a positive administrative development.
Here’s my take:
While progress is always welcome, this statement shrouds the concept of “best interest of the child” (“BIC”) with legal gobbledygook and bureaucratic doublespeak. (P. 3 of Neal Memo under “Legal Standards”).
Here’s what a clear, correct statement on BIC would look like:
BIC, regardless of whether or not presented by a “Child Advocate” or incorporated in a “Best Interests Determination” (“BID”), can be directly relevant to issues of removability. For example, evidence of removability obtained by methods that clearly conflict with the BIC could be found unreliable or the result of “egregious misconduct” for the purposes of determining removability.
The BIC can also be highly relevant to issues of eligibility for relief. For example, a government or society that deprives certain children of all meaningful educational oportunities might well be engaging in persecution.
In addition, in NLPR cancellation cases, the BIC could be persuasive, even determinative, evidence that removal of a parent will result in “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” to a USC or LPR child or children.
3) Finally, since the EOIR Director is an administrator, not a quasi-judicial official, his or her policies have a distinct “you can take it or leave it” effect in Immigration Court. Therefore ameliorative statements from the Director, no matter how well-intended, are only effective if the BIA is willing and able to insist on and enforce “best practices” on Immigration Judges, preferably through precedent decisions and reassigning cases away from those IJs who show repeated contempt for due process and best practices.
Unfortunately, the current version of the BIA has, as a body, shown neither much sympathy nor concern for the substantive and due process rights of asylum seekers and other immigrants in Immigration Court. Unless and until Garland “cleans house” and appoints a BIA where all Appellate Judges are immigration/human rights experts laser focused on due process and best practices in Immigration Court — and not afraid of enforcing them uniformly in individual cases and incorporating them in binding precedents — the Director’s latest somewhat ameliorative statement is likely to be as toothless in practice as past efforts.
To a large extent, that’s a “nutshell” of why Garland’s Immigration Courts are in dire failure that threatens our entire democracy.
Unfortunately, that we are three years into this Administration and Garland is still bumbling along with a BIA that largely represents the mistakes and shortcomings of his predecessors suggests that waiting for him to “get religion” on the need for expertise, due process, fundamental fairness, and best practices at EOIR will continue to be an exercise in “Waiting for Godot!”
Immigration practitioners waiting for Garland to institute “due process, fundamental fairness, and best practices” as the sole mission of his EOIR “courts.” It could be a long wait. Very long! Too long! Naseer’s Motley Group in The Rose Bowl Merlaysamuel Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Waiting for Godot in Doon School.jpg Copy [[File:Waiting for Godot in Doon School.jpg|Waiting_for_Godot_in_Doon_School]] Copy December 8, 2011
“Zhi Bo Chen petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming a decision of an Immigration Judge (IJ) that denied his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture, and ordered him removed from the United States. The IJ’s decision was based, in part, on its finding that Chen was not credible. Because certain reasons for that credibility finding were erroneous, and because we cannot be confident that the IJ would have made the same determination absent those errors, Chen’s petition for review is GRANTED, the BIA’s decision is VACATED, and the case is REMANDED to the BIA for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
Gary Yerman, Esquire Managing Partner The Yerman Group NY, NY
*****************************
My favorite quote from the Circuit’s decision by Judge Raymond J. Lohier (Obama appointee): “We conclude that the IJ misidentified part of Chen’s testimony as inconsistent, improperly relied on trivial inconsistencies, and misconstrued as an omission a part of Chen’s testimony that comported with his Form I-589 asylum statement.”
But, even with all these glaring defects, the IJ’s findings were affirmed by the BIA without much, if any, critical analysis. What does this say about EOIR under AG Garland?
Credibility should be “bread and butter” for EOIR Judges and particularly the BIA. But, when the “culture” is “any reason to deny,” bad things happen!
As my Round Table colleague Hon. “Sir Jeffery” Chase commented: “You have to wonder what percentage of all BIA decisions contain significant errors.”
I think that’s a particular concern in unrepresented cases, which are much less likely to reach the Circuits. Additionally, the unduly restrictive legal standard for judicial review means that marginal BIA adverse credibility findings will often get “rubber stamp” affirmances from the Circuits.
Essentially, EOIR often denies the respondent “the benefit of the doubt” in close credibility cases and then the Courts of Appeals give the BIA “the benefit of the doubt.” So, it ends up being a “double whammy” for the respondent!
That’s why it is critical to have individuals effectively represented at the trial level!At each level thereafter, the law skews heavily in favor of the Government!
That also supports the position that “dedicated dockets” and “expedited dockets” that discourage and impede (one could argue intentionally) effective representation and full presentation of all the evidence should be held to be prima facie denials of due process!
It’s also why I argue that it’s so important that exceptionally well qualified experts with experience representing asylum seekers be appointed to these hugely important (yet widely ignored and under-appreciated) EOIR judgeships! Better judges would make the entire EOIR system fairer and more efficient, without sacrificing due process!
That’s also why appellate victories like this by Attorney Gary Yerman are so impressive and telling about the continuing dysfunction at EOIR!
Additionally, given the “loading of the system” against the respondent on credibility, the BIA has to REALLY screw up to get reversed, as they did in this case! That, in turn, raises a fundamental unresolved issue: Why is a Dem Administration running a specialized court system that all too often lacks the expertise and judgement to get “bread and butter” issues like this correct in the first instance?
It’s obvious that a BIA that goofs up cases like this is NOT providing the type of clear, expert guidance to IJs necessary to achieve due process and fundamental fairness on a continuing systemic basis! That should be of huge concern to everyone who values justice in America!
BIA Asylum Panel In Action — Asylum experts and advocates question the wisdom of the BIA’s “take no prisoners” approach to asylum! Albrecht Dürer, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
Gebra v. A.G., 3d Cir, 07-19-23, unpublished (unfortunately)
PANEL: AMBRO, RESTREPO, FUENTES, Circuit Judges
OPINION: JUDGE RESTRO
KEY QUOTE:
i. The BIA applied an overly rigorous standard to the new evidence.
Gebra argues that the BIA applied an “overly rigorous standard” when analyzing the new evidence presented when determining whether he established a new claim. Pet’r Br. 44 (citing Tilija v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 930 F.3d 165 (3d Cir. 2019)). In Tilija, we held that unless the new evidence is inherently unbelievable, it must be taken as true. 930 F.3d at 172; see also Shardar, 503 F.3d at 313 (“Facts presented in the motion to reopen
are ‘accepted as true unless inherently unbelievable.’”) (cleaned up). If the BIA fails to accept new evidence as true, then it applies an “overly rigorous standard.” Tilija, 930 F.3d at 172. Furthermore, not accepting such evidence as true is an abuse of discretion if the petitioner would have established a prima facie case for eligibility with the rejected evidence. Id. (citing Shardar, 503 F.3d at 313).
Here, the BIA did not find that the new evidence was inherently unbelievable but nevertheless refused to accept new evidence, such as Gebra’s medical report after the 2009 attack, as “persuasive” or true because it “provide[d] little specificity or detail with respect to the alleged attack.” JA4; cf. Tilija; 930 F.3d at 172 (finding that where the BIA asked for “more details” and questioned the veracity of the evidence, it impermissibly failed to accept the evidence as true). By requesting that the medical record, on its own,
corroborate that the injuries were caused by “Islamic fanatics,” the BIA imposed an
overly rigorous standard. JA4; Tilija, 930 F.3d at 172. Similarly, the BIA’s conclusion that the report from the Egyptian Union of Human Rights Organization (“EUHRO”) pro- vides “no details” with respect to when, where, how, nor “any other details surrounding the circumstances of the alleged incident,” was an abuse of discretion. JA4; Tilija, 930
11
F.3d at 172. The BIA treated the new evidence with the same “overly vigorous standard” that it applied to the new translation of the 1993 police report that was previously dis- credited.
Having concluded that the BIA held Gebra to an excessively rigorous standard, we next determine whether Gebra established a prima facie case for asylum.
ii. Gebra’s new evidence established a prima facie case for asylum.
Gebra’s new evidence, accepted as true, establishes a prima facie case for asylum. A motion to reopen an asylum case must establish prima facie eligibility for relief. Se- voian v. Ashcroft, 290 F.3d 166, 173, 170–71 (3d Cir. 2002). This standard requires an applicant to produce objective evidence that shows a “reasonable likelihood” that they can establish eligibility for relief. Id. at 173. In this context, to “establish” means that the evidence in favor of asylum outweighs the evidence against. Guo v. Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 556, 564 (3d Cir. 2004), as amended (Dec. 3, 2004). A “reasonable likelihood” merely means showing a realistic chance that the applicant can later establish that asylum should be granted. Id. Prima facie “would lack meaning” if it required that evidence submitted at the prima facie stage conclusively establish eligibility for asylum. Id. Thus, Gebra need only provide objective evidence that shows a reasonable likelihood that he is
entitled to asylum relief. Tilija, 930 F.3d at 172. Specifically, Gebra would need to
demonstrate that he suffered past persecution, or has a well-founded fear of future perse- cution, on account of his religious beliefs. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B) (enumerating reli- gion as a protected ground).
12
Here, Gebra provided objective evidence in the form of medical records and hu- man rights reports regarding his 2009 attack. For example, a December 8, 2009, medical report from Victoria Hospital in Egypt corroborates the statement in his affirmation that, due to the attack, he was “wounded and sent into the Victoria Hospital due to multiple contusions and dermal bleeding on [his] back and different parts of [his] body.” JA167, 175; see Doe v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 956 F.3d 135, 145 (3d Cir. 2020) (holding that a single
beating, “if sufficiently egregious,” may constitute persecution, such as where petitioner was beaten by a mob, causing him to bleed and suffer injuries to his head and back). Ge- bra also included medical reports of the psychological trauma he experienced and therapy sessions he attended as a result of the attacks. Doe, 956 F.3d at 145–46 (“Persecution may be emotional or psychological, as well as physical.”) (citation omitted). Further- more, the December 30, 2009, report from EUHRO stated that they independently “veri- fied” Gebra was “attacked by some [Islamic] fanatics” who thought Gebra was behind demonstrations for the rights of Coptic Christians due to his work as a cameraman for Fa- ther Zacharia Botros, a Coptic Christian priest known for critiquing Islam. JA173.
Taken together, this evidence demonstrates a reasonable likelihood that Gebra could es- tablish he was persecuted due to his religious beliefs.
In sum, the BIA abused its discretion when it did not accept Gebra’s evidence ask true and concluded that he did not establish a new claim for asylum in his third motion to reopen.
**************************
Let’s apply a tiny bit of common sense here, in contravention of the BIA’s current practices. How likely is it that a guy would pursue asylum claims for 30 years, even after being denied, deported, and actually persecuted in Egypt upon return, if there weren’t some merit in the claim? At least enough to earn him a new hearing! It’s not rocket science to know that Coptic Christians often face persecution in Egypt! Was it really wise to push this clearly flawed (one could say “scofflaw”) denial all the way to the Circuit, thus wasting even more time and further undermining the BIA’s credibility? What are they thinking at Garland’s DOJ?
Think what efficiencies, not to mention due process and fundamental fairness, a BIA of well-qualified judges who were actual experts in asylum law — focused on legal protection, not specious rejection — could bring to our broken asylum system! Why not give due process and justice a chance at DOJ?
Federal law says anyone fleeing persecution may request asylum once they reach U.S. soil, no matter how they got there. Successive administrations have attempted to restrict that simple rule, however, desperate to reduce record numbers of crossings that have overwhelmed the immigration system, leaving many to live for years in the United States without a decision in their cases.
. . . .
One border, two realities
The perceived success of Biden’s approach depends on which side of the border the migrants are on.
Brownsville, an American city of 200,000 on the other side of the Rio Grande from Matamoros, Mexico, is officially under a state of emergency. But that emergency has dissipated in recent months.
The streets are quiet, thanks to a 70 percent drop in illegal border crossers since the new asylum rule and other Biden policy changes took effect. City workers greet the relatively small number of newcomers released from holding facilities and escort them to a curtained-off parking garage and to the first bus out of town.
In Matamoros, however, migrants trying to navigate the new rules are squeezing into shelters, sharing hotel rooms, curling up in a large camp on the dry riverbank or under pop-up tents at a grimy former gas station.
On a pedestrian bridge one hot morning in late June, Mexican authorities shooed away those who did not have an appointment through the app — including some Mexicans, even though the rule change is not supposed to apply to them.
“Let’s go, please,” one officer said to migrants who gathered at the Matamoros edge of the bridge. “Now.”
Advocates for immigrants say it is unlawful for officials to block migrants from crossing borders in search of protection — and unfair to presume they can easily navigate U.S. asylum law and appointments via smartphone apps. The process of requesting asylum is supposed to be simple, they said, because lives are at stake.
But advocates are powerless to navigate around the new rules until the court case is resolved.
In the sweltering heat one recent day, Christina Asencio, a lawyer with Human Rights First, tried to explain to migrants in the Matamoros camps how the system is supposed to work.
. . . .
**************************
Read Maria’s full article, one of the more balanced treatments I have encountered, at the link.
A few thoughts:
Even this fine article misses the biggest point: Most asylum seekers want to “do things the right way.” But there has been no “right way” for years because ofthe unlawful and bogus use of Title 42 by both the Trump and Biden Administrations. It’s still being unlawfully restricted by the arbitrary Biden Administration regulations. Yet, remarkably, asylum seekers are willing to risk their lives waiting in Mexico for an opportunity to apply in an orderly, legal manner under a broken and biased system unfairly “rigged” against them!THAT’S the “real big takeaway” about the reduction in unauthorized border crossings. It’s one that that nobody except experts and advocates are willing to fully acknowledge! Indeed, during the Title 42 charade, an asylum seeker’s only chance of getting into the system was to cross without authorization. Otherwise, they would have been summarily returned without any chance to present their claims.
Some asylum seekers will qualify for protection, some won’t. That’s what the legal, asylum system is supposed to determine — in a fair, expert, and timely manner. That our asylum system has become dysfunctional and ludicrously backlogged lies squarely with poor performance by Congress, the Executive, and the Courts, in many cases “egged on” by right-wing nativists’ myths and distortions. Blaming the victims — asylum seekers — for massive USG failures over decades is totally disingenuous!
Statistically, it’s true that most asylum applicants from the Southern Border do not achieve asylum under our current dysfunctional system. But, the question we should be asking is why aren’t more qualifying, given the horrible conditions in “sending countries” and the generous legal standards — including a presumption of future persecution based on past persecution — that are supposed to apply, but often don’t in practice.
One of the most egregious EOIR-led anti-asylum “scams” is abuse and misuse of the “nexus” requirement for asylum to send legitimate refugees back into harm’s way.See, e.g., immediately preceding reference. “Persecution” must relate to race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. But, the asylum statute does NOT require that that be the sole or even the primary motivation for the persecution. It just has to be “at least one central reason.” And, usually, persecution is carried out by the persecutor for a variety of reasons. It’s called “mixed motive analysis” and EOIR Judges, particularly at the precedent-setting BIA, routinely ignore or mis-apply it to deny grantable claims.
Harm resulting from things like “work, poverty, natural disaster, and bad governments” does not automatically qualify an individual for asylum. But, contrary to what many suggest, neither do these circumstances preclude asylum. For example, while a “natural disaster” might not make an individual a “refugee” under law, if that individual were forced to live in a known danger zone or denied life-saving assistance at least in part because of religious, ethnic, or political identity, that WOULD qualify. Was the infamous “Kristallnacht” in Nazi Germany systemic persecution of Jews for ethic and religious reasons? Or was it “mere vandalism, random violence, and hooliganism?” I would say clearly the former. But, I can imagine today’s BIA attributing it to the latter, to deny protection to a large group of individuals. I adjudicated thousands of asylum cases as both a trial and an appellate judge during 21 years at EOIR. I found that harm where a “protected ground” was “at least one central reason” was the rule, not the exception as EOIR tries so hard to make it.
Other often “trumped up” methods EOIR uses for denying valid asylum claims include bogus “adverse credibility” findings; unreasonable “corroboration” requirements; fabricated “reasonable internal relocation” opportunities; nonsensical, ahistorical “changed circumstances” conclusions; ignoring or misconstruing expert testimony; “selective reading” or mis-reading of country background reports; coercive detention in substandard conditions; and restricting or limiting access to counsel. If you think this sounds like a national disgrace on “Garland’s watch,” you’re absolutely right!
Undoubtedly, under a properly functioning system, with true expert adjudicators and judges — those whose career experiences demonstrated sound scholarship and understanding of the life-threatening circumstances of asylum seekers and the inherent limitations of both the Asylum office and EOIR — many more asylum cases from those applying at the Southern Border and elsewhere would be granted.So, Government policies based largely on “deterrence” or on the self-fulfilling prophecy that “few will qualify” should be viewed as fatally flawed. Without a better EOIR and an asylum adjudication system run by well-qualified experts, we can’t possibly formulate rational and humane border policies or indeed workable immigration policies at all. Tragically, we’re a long way from that right now!
Eliza C. Klein, a retired immigration judge, said the asylum case backlog “creates a second class of citizens.”Credit…Taylor Glascock for The New York Times
Eliza C. Klein, who left her position as an immigration judge in Chicago in April, said the latest increase in illegal border crossings will strain the understaffed work force as they prioritize migrants who crossed recently.
That will leave some older cases to languish even longer, she said.
“This is a great tragedy because it creates a second class of citizens,” Ms. Klein, who started working as an immigration judge in the Clinton administration, said of those immigrants who have been waiting years for an answer to their case. The oldest case Ms. Klein ever adjudicated had been pending in the court for 35 years, she said.
“It’s a disgrace,” Ms. Klein said. “My perspective, my thought, is that we’re not committed in this country to having a just system.”
While crowds of migrants continued to seek refuge in the United States after the lifting of Title 42, U.S. officials said the border remained relatively orderly. About 10,000 people crossed the border on Thursday, a historically large number, but that dropped significantly to about 6,200 on Friday.
Tens of thousands of migrants continued to wait in makeshift camps on both sides of the border for a chance to request sanctuary in the United States. The administration remained concerned about overcrowding; Border Patrol held more than 24,000 migrants in custody on Friday, well over the agency’s maximum capacity of roughly 20,000 in its detention facilities.
. . . .
Mimi Tsankov, the president of the National Association of Immigration Judges, said that to truly address the backlog, the Biden administration would need to do more than simply hire more judges. She said that the government should increase funding for better technology and bigger legal teams, and that Congress should reform the nation’s immigration laws.
“The immigration courts are failing,” said Samuel B. Cole, the judge association’s executive vice president. “There needs to be broad systemic change.”
. . . . .
Judge Charles Honeyman, who spent 24 years as an immigration judge and retired in 2020, said he came away from his job believing the United States would need to do a better job of deterring fraud while protecting those who would be harmed in their home country.
When handling an asylum case, Mr. Honeyman said he would assess the person’s application and examine the state of their home country by reading reports from the State Department and nonprofits. Many of the applicants lacked attorneys; he believes some cases that he denied might have turned out differently if the migrants had had legal representation.
In trying to root out fraud, he would compare a person’s testimony with the answers they had given to an asylum officer or Border Patrol agent.
. . . .
*******************************
Read the full article at the link.
EOIR ABUSES ASYLUM SEEKERS — The Problem Goes Deeper Than The Number Of Judges: Quality & Culture Matter!
By Paul Wickham Schmidt
U.S. Immigration Judge (Retired)
Courtside Exclusive
May 16, 2023
While the NYT article notes that the majority of asylum cases are eventually denied on the merits, this data is often presented in a misleading way by the Government, and unfortunately, sometimes the media. According to TRAC Immigration, during the period Oct 2000 to April 2023, approximately 43% of asylum seekers who received a merits decision were granted asylum or some other type of relief. Approximately 57% were denied. https://trac.syr.edu/phptools/immigration/asylum/
Even in an overall hostile system, where individuals are often required to proceed without lawyers, and grant/denial rates among Immigration Judges vary by astounding levels (so great as to present prima facie due process issues), asylum seekers succeed on the merits of their claims at a very respectable rate. In a properly staffed and administered system where the focus was on due process and fundamental fairness for individuals, that number would almost certainly be substantially higher.
Moreover, the data suggests that toward the end of the Obama Administration and during the entire Trump Administration, the asylum system was improperly manipulated to increase denials.
I think there are three reasons for the precipitous decline in asylum grant rates, largely unrelated to the merits of the claims. First, Attorneys General Jeff Sessions and Bill Barr overruled some of the leading administrative precedents supporting grants of asylum. In the process, they made it crystal clear that they considered Immigration Judges to be their subordinate employees within the political branch of Government and that denial, deportation, and assistance to their “partners” at DHS Enforcement (actually DHS is a party before EOIR, not a “partner”) were the preferred results at EOIR.
Second, in greatly expanding the number of Immigration Judges, Sessions and Barr appointed almost exclusively from the ranks of prosecutors and government attorneys, even elevating an inordinate number of individuals with no immigration and human rights experience whatsoever. Not only were well-qualified individuals with experience representing individuals in Immigration Court largely passed over and discouraged from applying, but some of the best Immigration Judges quit or retired prematurely as a matter of conscience because of the nakedly anti-immigrant pro enforcement “culture” promoted at EOIR.
Additionally, the nationwide appellate court and precedent setter, the BIA, was expanded and “packed” with some Immigration Judges who denied virtually all of the asylum cases coming before them and had reputations of hostility to the private bar and asylum seekers. Remarkably, Attorney General Garland has done little to address this debilitating situation at the BIA.
Third, since the latter years of the Obama Administration, when a vastly overhyped “border surge” took place, political officials of both parties have improperly “weaponized” EOIR as a “deterrent” to asylum seekers, focusing on expeditious denials of asylum rather than the due process and expert tribunal functions the agency was supposed to serve. The result has been a “culture of denial and deportation” with particular emphasis on finding ways to “say no” to women and individuals of color seeking asylum.
The NYT Article also mentions that asylum merits decisions require a higher standard of proof than “credible fear determinations.” That’s true. But the suggestion that the standards are much higher is misleading. In fact, the standards governing merits grants of asylum before the Asylum Office and EOIR are supposed to be extremely generous.
In the seminal case, INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, the Court said that “well-founded fear” is a generous standard, one that could be satisfied by a 10% chance of persecution. In implementing this holding, the BIA found in Matter of Mogharrabi that asylum could be granted even where the chances of persecution were substantially less than probable.
There is as also a regulation, 8 C.F.R. 208.13, issued under the Bush I Administration, that creates a rebuttable presumption of future persecution based on past persecution.
The problem is that none of these generous and remedial provisions relating to asylum has ever been properly, consistently, and uniformly applied within EOIR. As someone who during my time on the bench took these standards to heart, I found that a substantial majority of merits asylum cases coming before me could and should be granted under a proper application of asylum law.
Consequently, I am skeptical of judges who deny virtually all asylum claims. Likewise, I question the claims by political officials of both parties who pretend, without actual knowledge, that almost all asylum applicants at the border are “mere economic migrants” who deserve to be quickly and summarily removed.
Actually, under some circumstances, severe economic hardships can amount to persecution. Moreover, under the legally required “mixed motive” analysis for asylum, an economic aspect does not automatically obviate other qualifying grounds.
So, at its root, “credible fear” is actually an even more generous application of what is already supposed to be (but often isn’t in reality) a very generous standard for asylum. The alleged “disconnect” between the number of individuals found to have credible fear and the number actually granted asylum on the merits appears to be more a function of defective and overly restrictive decision-making at EOIR than it is of unjustified generosity of Asylum Officers screening for credible fear. It’s also important to remember that at the credible fear stage, individuals haven’t had time to marshal the substantial corroborating evidence eventually required (some would say unrealistically and unreasonably) in formal merits asylum hearings before EOIR.
Finally, just aimlessly increasing the number of Immigration Judges, without solving the systemic legal, logistical, management, quality control, training, and “cultural” problems infecting EOIR creates its own set of new problems.
Recently, a veteran practitioner before EOIR wrote the following:
In about eleven years, our local DMV went from twelve (12) judges in Baltimore and Arlington in 2012 to a hundred (100) judges in 2023 (8 BAL, 18 HYA, 30 WAS, 9 FCIAC, 14 RIAC, 21 STE). That’s an increase of 733.33%. This seismic expansion has resulted in many attorneys being overscheduled for individual hearings, which has an adverse effect on our clients, our ethical obligations, due process, and mental health.
Well-prepared attorneys, many serving pro bono or “low bono,” are absolutely essential to due process and fundamental fairness in Immigration Court, particularly in cases involving asylum and other forms of protection. For EOIR to schedule cases in a manner that does not take into consideration the legitimate needs and capacities of those practicing before their courts is nothing short of malpractice on the part of DOJ leadership.
There is a silver lining here. The EOIR judicial hiring program gives NDPA stars a chance to get on the bench at the retail level level, bring much needed balance and perspective, and to develop the credentials for future Article III judicial appointments. Since change isn’t coming “from the top,” we need to make it happen at the “grass roots level!” Keep those applications coming!
Injustice Public Realm Dems spend lots of time whining about the destruction of the Federal Judiciary by GOP right-wing extremists. However, after two years in charge, they have done little to bring due process, fundamental fairness, and judicial expertise to America’s worst courts — the Immigration Courts — which they totally control!
The 5th Circuit didn’t mince any words in its latest (inexplicably) unpublished, 24-page takedown of EOIR’s ridiculous “judicial” failure with lives at stake!
Based on all of the evidence as a whole, and in light of the applicable caselaw, Reyes-Hoyes has made a compelling case of persecution. Nevertheless, we find a remand is necessary because the BIA did not make a determination as to Reyes-Hoyes’s credibility. The BIA did not mention credibility in its decision or express any doubts about the truth of Reyes- Hoyes’s testimony. The IJ did express some doubts about Reyes-Hoyes’s credibility, although he did not explicitly find her uncredible and ultimately stated he was not denying relief “based on a lack of sufficiency of proof.” However, the BIA did not adopt the IJ’s decision and thus did not incorporate any of the doubts the IJ had. “Generally speaking, a court of appeals should remand a case to an agency for decision of a matter that statutes place primarily in agency hands.” I.N.S. v. Orlando Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16 (2002). If Reyes-Hoyes is credible, she has shown persecution, but the credibility determination must be made by the factfinder, not by this court on appeal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Avelar-Olivia v. Barr, 954 F.3d 757, 767 (5th Cir. 2020). Accordingly, the decision of the BIA is vacated in part, and we remand to the BIA for a determination on credibility.
. . . .
In sum, we conclude that, if Reyes-Hoyes is credible, the record compels the conclusion that Reyes-Hoyes suffered harm rising to the level of past persecution, but we remand for the BIA to consider her credibility in the first instance. We also conclude that the record compels the conclusion that safe internal relocation to parts of Guatemala—Mesata and Raul—was not possible. Additionally, we hold that the BIA procedurally erred in the remainder of its analysis concerning whether internal location was reasonable and whether Reyes-Hoyes had shown state action by not meaningfully considering the relevant substantial evidence.
. . . .
**************************
Here is my immediate reaction when Dan Kowalski at LexisNexis sent me the decison:
Wow! This is an EOIR/OIL error fest — replete with misrepresentations and mischaracterizations! Totally sloppy work! Why won’t they publish this? It’s a perfect example of how Garland has failed to get the job done!
And, here’s the reaction from my friend and Round Table Colleague “Sir Jeffrey Eagle Eyes” Chase:
24 pages; very detailed analysis of recurring asylum issues. Should certainly have been published.
BTW, please note footnote 9, an example of the ongoing problem with the government’s online regs continuing to list the enjoined “death to asylum” regs that the previous administration tried to push through. The Fifth Circuit continues to believe that the internal relocation reg was amended effective January 19, 2021. Have cases been decided based on this erroneous belief?
Lest you doubt the “complete FUBARness” of EOIR, check these out:
Worst of all the small and mid-sized agencies ranked;
While the “curve” for “subagencies” has gone up since 2007, EOIR’s score has cratered, plunging dramatically during the Trump years;
EOIR ranked at or near the bottom on key metrics, including, significantly, “leadership style” (some of the “credit” for this abysmal score should go to DOJ, which has failed to provide dynamic, due-process-oriented leadership over the last six years);
GAO study just cited EOIR for a number of management deficiencies including “blowing off” “our [GAO’s] 2017 recommendation to develop a strategic workforce plan to address current and future staffing needs, EOIR hasn’t done so—even though it had a significant and growing backlog of 1.8 million pending cases at the start of FY 2023, more than triple the number that it had in FY 2017.”
The NAIJ continues to raise technology and health and safety defects with EOIR “management;”
Notably, during this period of abject failure, EOIR has found time and resources to waste (and potential “goodwill” to squander) on unneeded nonsense like “IJ Dashboards,” “production quotas,” “expedited dockets,” more layers of bloated headquarters bureaucracy, and, perhaps the biggest boondoggle of all, a totally absurd and duplicative “Office of Policy” for an agency that has demonstrated a disturbing inability to carry out its “core function:” Providing Due Process for all through fair, timely, expert, correct adjudications!
“Eyore In Distress” Once A Symbol of Fairness, Due Process, & Best Practices, Now Gone “Belly Up” — As Dems founder in their commitment to restore justice, could new Immigration Judges from the NDPA — unswervingly committed to due process, fundamental fairness, and best practices — get this poor little fella back on his feet and improve the culture and atmosphere at the “retail level” of EOIR, even in the face of indifference and incompetence from those in charge? Lives and futures — perhaps the future of our democracy — are at stake!
What we really need is a “lean, not mean, due process machine” @ EOIR. Why can’t the Dems deliver? That’s the age-old question among human rights experts!
“Hipppity, hippity, hop! Deny, deny, deny! For any reason, in any season, or for no reason at all! Hippity, hippity, hop!” https://www.flickr.com/photos/rasputin243/ Creative Commons License
Dan Kowalski reports for LexisNexis Immigration Community:
Fwd: CA2 Vacates Matter of Y-I-M-, 27 I. & N. Dec. 724 (B.I.A. 2019)
“Petitioner, a native and citizen of Ukraine, seeks review of a December 12, 2019 decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming the denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Based on ostensible inconsistencies in Petitioner’s testimony and a purported failure to submit corroborating evidence, an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) entered an adverse credibility finding. However, we conclude that the adverse credibility finding is not supported by substantial evidence and that the IJ unjustifiably refused to allow Petitioner to present readily available witness testimony, thereby depriving him of a full and fair hearing. As such, we GRANT the petition for review, VACATE the BIA’s decision, and REMAND the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
First, many congrats to NDPA super lawyer John Giammatteo! Obviously (to everyone but Garland), experts like John belong on the Immigration Bench, not just in front of it!
Something is horribly wrong with a system that designates fabrications and denials of due process as “precedents” to guide other judges! Something is also disturbingly wrong with an Attorney General, a former Article III Federal Appeals Judge no less, who has failed to bring in real expert progressive judges to run EOIR, redo defective precedents as proper legal guidance, eradicate the disgraceful anti-asylum bias, and enforce due process, fundamental fairness, and decisional excellence in America’s most important “retail level” court system!
There currently are opportunities for better judges to get into the system, start eradicating bad judging like this, and replacing it with expert, due process focused, efficient, “real judging” by better judges. Get those applications in!
The “message” of Matter of Y-I-M- is clear: make it up, ignore it, cut it off, hustle off to lunch — whatever it takes to “get to no” — we’ll have your back!
“The decision is scorching,” says Dan Kowalski. And, well it should be! This is a disgusting,institutionalized travesty of justice 🤮, in life or death cases ☠️, going on right under AG Merrick Garland’s nose! It’s undermining American democracy! And, it’s totally preventable!
Remarkably, the BIA selected this pathetically bad adjudication — one that raises questions as to whether anyone at EOIR even read the record — combined with a horrendous denial of due process, and an IJ who obviously felt “empowered” to elevate time over fairness and substance — as a precedent! That means it was supposed to be a “model” for IJs — essentially a message that you should go ahead and deny asylum for any reason — even if largely fabricated — and the BIA will give you a “pass.” This actually raises some serious ethical problems with the whole EOIR mess and Garland’s indolent stewardship over this critical part of our justice system!
The IJ actually said this: “So, don’t get frustrated if I shutdown your arguments. It’s just that —we’re now at 12:00, and we’re nowhere . . . near done in the case.”
Amazingly, this IJ “touted” that cutting off relevant testimony, actually “helped” the respondent by giving him more possible reasons to appeal! Does this sound like a system that encourages “efficiency” and “excellence?”
No wonder they have backlogs coming out the wazoo! Yet, rather than slamming this IJ and using it as a precedent of how NOT to handle an asylum case, the BIA basically “greenlighted” an egregiously defective performance and made it a “model” for other judges! Outrageous!
It’s an example of why this system needs progressive, due process oriented leadership and radical reforms! Now!
A competent IJ could have granted this corroborated case and still have made their “noon lunch date!” Recognizing and institutionalizing consistent grants of relief is what “moves” the Immigration Court system without violating anyone’s rights and without tying up the Article III Courts!
Instead, because of the unchecked “culture of denial” and the incompetence allowed to flourish at EOIR, after four years this case is still bouncing around the system. That’s a key reason why EOIR is dysfunctional and their backlogs are out of control!
Correct, positive precedents establishing and enforcing best practices are essential to due process and fundamental fairness — once, but no longer, EOIR’s “vision.”
One of the “uninitiated” might logically expect that having exposed and eliminated this disingenuous “any reason to deny asylum” precedent, advocates for due process and fundamental fairness have “won this battle.” Not so in the “parallel universe” of Garland’s EOIR!
As pointed out by Hon. “Sir Jeffrey” Chase of the Round Table:
If they follow past practice, the BIA will continue to apply this decision as a model for IJs in every circuit but the 2d.
Come on, man!
The author of the Second Circuit decision, U.S. District Judge Gary Brown has an interesting background, according to “Sir Jeffrey:”
Also, the judge who wrote the decision for the panel, Gary Brown, is a Trump appointee to the Eastern District of NY sitting by designation on this panel. When John’s argument was being mooted, we actually discovered that Judge Brown is also a renowned magician, who invented an effect called the Viking Spirit Trumpet.
Actually, Judge Brown was nominated for the bench by both President Obama and President Trump! Wonder if he has any magic spells up his sleeve that would make EOIR disappear and reappear as a real, due-process-focused court!
Magic Hat & Wand Could U.S. District Judge Gary Brown, also a famous magician, conjure up a spell that would make due process “reappear” at EOIR? PHOTO: Public Realm
Amazing how busy Article III Judges can take the time to read and understand records in asylum cases, but the BIA can’t! This system is broken!
Meaningful reform starts with a new, better qualified, expert BIA focused solely on due process, fundamental fairness, and decisional excellence. It’s very straightforward! Why doesn’t Garland “get it?” How many more will be wrongfully denied while our disconnected AG floats around in his surreal, yet deadly, “intellectual never never land?”
Lost in an intellectual fog, and far removed from the “retail level of justice,” AG Merrick Garland can’t be bothered with the injustices heaped on asylum seekers and their dedicated representatives in his dysfunctional, deny for any reason, Immigration Courts! PHOTO: Wikipedia Commons
Every time I read this decision I get more and more outraged about the continuing horrors of EOIR! Attorneys could face sanctions for making material misrepresentations in briefs. Yet, nothing happens to EOIR Judges who “make it up as they go along” to deny asylum!
I was told by some withknowledge of the EOIR disaster that, at least until recently, those at higher levels of the Administration who (curiously) are “pulling the strings” at EOIR were unaware that Immigration Judges are not automatically “packaged” with Judicial Law Clerks! Duh! Anybody who has actually worked at the “line level” of EOIR as well as a whole bunch of widely available reports and studies could have told them that!
So, according to my sources, in at least some locations “flooded” with new IJs, the already poor IJ to JLC ratio has gotten much, much worse!
Just another piece of “low hanging fruit” that Garland has failed to “harvest.” I’ve also been told that problems with grade levels discourage individuals from making a career out of working in the law clerk program.
All of this makes it critical that new Immigration Judges be experts in immigration law with “hands on” experience. So, NDPA practical scholars, get those applications for judgeships in NOW! Indolence about due process at the top creates opportunities for spreading and institutionalizing due process at the “retail level!” But, that requires great judges with the right experience. So, don’t wait! Apply today!🗽⚖️👨🏾⚖️👨🏼⚖️👩🏾⚖️🧑🏻⚖️
A.G. Merrick Garland’s continuing operation of the “EOIR Clown Show,” at taxpayer expense, is costly in more ways than one! “Any reason to deny” proves too much even for the hyper-conservative 5th Circuit! PHOTO: Public Domain
Dan Kowalski reports for LexisNexis Immigration Community:
“On May 18, 2022, this court granted Giscard Nkenglefac’s petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’s (BIA) dismissal of petitioner’s appeal from the immigration judge’s (IJ) denial of his application for relief from removal. See Nkenglefac v. Garland, 34 F.4th 422, 430 (2022). Because the IJ’s adverse credibility determination was not supported by evidence in the record, we determined that the BIA erred in affirming it and remanded the case to the BIA. The petitioner filed a timely application for attorneys’ fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA). We find that petitioner is entitled to attorneys’ fees under the EAJA and award $56,169.79.”
Homero Lopez, Jr. Director & Co-Founder Immigration Services & Legal Advocacy New Orleans, LA PHOTO: ISLA websiteEmma Morley Paralegal Immigration Services & Legal Advocacy New Orleans, LA PHOTO: ISLA website
******************
Wouldn’t it be cheaper and better for everyone if Garland finally “cleaned house” at EOIR, appointed and retained only well-qualified expert judges at both the trial and appellate level, replaced incompetent administrators, and ended the toxic — and costly — “any reason to deny culture” at EOIR?
When the DOJ is being “pasted” on wrongful decisions denying asylum by the 5th Circuit, everyone but Garland knows that “the EOIR Clown Show has got to go!”🤡
Make no mistake about it! Garland’s failure to reform EOIR into a due-process-focused expert tribunal willing to stand up for the legal rights of asylum seekers and to require “best practices” with respect to access to representation at the border and elsewhere is a major contributing factor to the Biden Administration’s deadly humanitarian disaster and abrogation of the rule of law for asylum seekers at the Southern Border. It didn’t have to be this way!
Why is this “preventable disaster” happening under a Dem Administration that ran on an (apparently false) pledge to restore due process and the rule of law for asylum seekers and other migrants? How can we stop it and prevent it from happening again in the future?
I daresay that many humanitarian experts warned the Biden Administration that without fundamental positive changes, better, courageous, expert, inspirational leadership, and long-overdue administrative reforms at DOJ, DHS, and the White House, disasters would unfold across the board. That’s exactly what has happened! It’s also infecting the entire legal system and inhibiting social justice in America.
But , unless and until social justice advocates come up with a better political approach to the disturbing lack of integrity and values in both political parties when it comes to immigration, they will continue to be vilified and attacked by the GOP and “consistently kicked to the side of the road” by Dems!
I wish I knew the answer! I don’t! But, I do know that human rights and social justice disasters will continue to unfold unless and until social justice advocates figure out how to get some “political clout” behind their intellectual power and store of (largely ignored) great ideas!
“Any reason to deny, any reason to deny, any reason to deny, any reason to deny, any reason to deny, any reason to deny, any reason to deny . . . .” https://www.flickr.com/photos/rasputin243/ Creative Commons License
Dan Kowalski reports for LexisNexis Immigration Community:
“For decades, the authoritarian regime in Cuba has utilized its police force to intimidate and physically assault political dissidents and peaceful demonstrators throughout the island. Ignacio Balaez Serra, a Cuban immigrant seeking asylum in the United States, maintains he experienced this abuse first-hand after multiple arrests, imprisonments, and beatings by the Cuban police. Serra seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) final order affirming the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of Serra’s application for asylum, withholding of removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), and relief under the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel Inhumane or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (“CAT”) (together, “Application”). The IJ denied Serra’s Application, finding Serra’s testimony “not credible.” In reaching this adverse credibility determination, the IJ cited two inconsistencies between Serra’s hearing testimony and Application. The first purported inconsistency dealt with the timing of Serra’s passage of a kidney stone; specifically, whether he passed it on the day he was beaten by Cuban police or several days thereafter. The second pertained to the number of countries Serra passed through en route to the United States; he listed ten countries in his written Application but later testified that he traveled through “about 11 or 12.” The IJ also reached his adverse credibility determination based on Serra’s perceived non-responsiveness to certain questions. On appeal, the BIA rejected the IJ’s finding that Serra was non-responsive but affirmed the IJ’s adverse credibility determination based on the two inconsistencies alone. After careful review and with the benefit of oral argument, we conclude the record lacks substantial evidence that would allow us to affirm the adverse credibility determination. We therefore reverse and remand. … [T]he IJ perceived two instances of non-responsiveness and two discrepancies in the record, resulting in an adverse credibility determination. The BIA rejected the IJ’s findings of non-responsiveness. Thus, the IJ’s adverse credibility determination hinged only on two purported inconsistencies in the record. But upon consideration of the totality of the circumstances, it is clear these inconsistences are unsupported by reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence—and thus cannot form the basis for an adverse credibility determination. Therefore, we grant Serra’s petition. We further vacate the BIA’s decision and the IJ’s opinion and remand this case to the IJ to rule on Serra’s applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under CAT in accordance with this opinion. In doing so, the IJ must ensure that all relevant factors are considered—and the totality of the circumstances ascertained—before reaching a conclusion as to credibility. PETITION GRANTED, VACATED and REMANDED.”
[Hats off to Marty High and Joshua Carpenter and Jonathan Morton for amici American Immigration Council and Immigration Justice Campaign!]
**************************
Super congrats to NDPA superstar litigators Marty High, Joshua Carpenter, and Jonathan Morton.
This respondent was a unrepresented before the IJ. Thus, we see another example of how EOIR routinely mistreats pro se litigants and why counsel is a due process necessity even in a very straightforward asylum case like this. Obviously, here, the IJ played the role of “co-counsel” to the ICE Assistant Chief Counsel. Yet, AG Garland has intentionally established “dedicated dockets” and bogus “adjudication timelines” that have been shown to reduce opportunities for representation and diminish the chances of success for asylum seekers.
To borrow a memorable phrase used by my late BIA colleague Appellate Judge FredW. Vacca, “this pathetic attempt at an adjudication” by EOIR was actually defended before the Circuit by the DOJ’s OIL. The glaring problems with immigration and asylum adjudication at DOJ begin at EOIR, but by no means end there.
This case isn’t “rocket science,” nor is it legally or factually complicated. It’s a very straightforward asylum grant to somebody persecuted by Cuba, where, in the words of the 11th Circuit, “[f]or decades, the authoritarian regime . . . has utilized its police force to intimidate and physically assault political dissidents and peaceful demonstrators throughout the island!”
I also note the statutory provision on credibility that the IJ completely bolluxed here and the “any reason to deny” BIA then “rubber stamped” (in part, even while noting that some of the IJ’s analysis was wrong) was part of the REAL ID Act, passed in 2005. That’s 15 years before the the IJ hearing in this case! Heck, I used to give training classes for incoming EOIR JLCs where decisions very much like this IJ’s were used as “teaching examples” of how NOT TO APPLY Real ID! EOIR not only isn’t making “progress,” it’s actually stuck in reverse!
Having spent eight years as an Appellate Judge at the BIA and having reviewed thousands of records, I know that when an IJ goofs up one part of the analysis it’s often indicative of an overall careless, flawed analysis that should be viewed with considerable skepticism. Yet, here the IJ’s “clear error,” acknowledged by the BIA, in basically inventing “unresponsiveness” doesn’t appear to have inspired the BIA to critically examine the rest of the adverse credibility ruling below. On the contrary, it appears to have spurred the BIA to find “any other reason to deny” despite the indication that this was an inaccurate and unreliable analysis by an IJ having a bad day.
It also appears from the Circuit’s decision that there might have been interpretation issues before both the IJ and the Asylum Office. That makes the IJ’s “cherry picking” and “excessive focus on insignificant testimonial inconsistencies” particularly egregious.
The 11th Circuit decision here was written by U.S. District Judge Rodolfo A. Ruiz II, SD FL, sitting by designation. Judge Ruiz is a Trump appointee. He was joined on the panel by Judge Jill Pryor (Obama) and Judge Charles R. Wilson (Clinton) of the 11th Circuit. Thus, apparently the abysmal performance of EOIR is one of the few things capable of uniting and creating “bipartisan agreement among Article III Judges!”
Perhaps Senator Gillibrand is right, and she will be able to obtain sufficient bipartisan support for her Article I Immigration Court bill, which would remove this system from the DOJ’s chronic mismanagement. Seehttps://immigrationcourtside.com/2023/02/17/⚖️🗽-teas-coffee- Because the current situation at EOIR, the continuing indifference to injustice, and its damage to human lives and the law is totally unacceptable!
Also, what about the legal and judicial resources consumed on this and similar cases? Wouldn’t it be great if both the USG and the private sector could “redeploy” them to making the immigration justice system work, rather than correcting sophomoric, yet life threatening, errors? (Admittedly, describing the errors made by DOJ attorneys at all three levels here as “sophomoric” could be viewed as a slight to sophomores everywhere.)
Not only is EOIR’s “any reason to deny” system patently unjust, it’s a colossal waste of public resources! “Bureaucracy 101” — “Get it right at the initial level of the system.”
Of course the battle here hasn’t concluded. The remand gives EOIR yet another opportunity to screw up. Given EOIR’s current indifference to quality and fairness, I wouldn’t count on them to “get it right this time around” — even with Judge Ruiz basically providing them with the correct answer!
“Those of us who care about people on the wrong side of history just have to help case by case, person by person.” – Anne Pilsbury, quoted in Francisco Goldman, “Escape to New York,” The New Yorker, Aug. 9, 2016.
Anne Pilsbury is well; she continues to work at Central American Legal Assistance (“CALA”), the organization she founded almost four decades ago. She was recently awarded the Carol Weiss King Award by the National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild. She remains most generous in sharing her knowledge with the immigration law community in New York.
However, as of January 1, Anne has stepped down from CALA’s helm, passing the Directorship of the organization to the extremely talented Heather Axford.
It thus seems like an appropriate time to honor Anne’s extraordinary career. Her path from Washington, D.C. to Maine “country lawyer” to representing asylum-seekers in Williamsburg, Brooklyn is a fascinating one. It began with Anne’s role as plaintiff’s counsel in Hobson v. Wilson,1 a remarkable case having nothing to do with immigration law.
Hobson involved a top-secret FBI operation of the late-1960s to early-1970s called COINTELPRO, which targeted civil rights groups seeking racial equality, and another set of organizations actively opposing the Vietnam war. COINTELPRO specifically listed the Southern Christian Leadership Conference led by Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., and the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee as primary targets.
In the words of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, COINTELPRO focused on “(1) efforts to create racial animosity between Blacks and Whites; (2) interference with lawful demonstration logistics; (3) efforts to create discord within groups or to portray a group’s motives or goals falsely to the public; and (4) direct efforts to intimidate the plaintiffs.”2
From December 1963 until his death in 1968, Martin Luther King, Jr. was the target of an intensive campaign by the Federal Bureau of Investigation to “neutralize” him as an effective civil rights leader. In the words of the man in charge of the FBI’s “war” against Dr. King:
No-holds were barred. We have used [similar] techniques against Soviet agents. [The same methods were] brought home against any organization against which we were targeted. We did not differentiate. This is a rough, tough business.3
Beginning her work on the case as a law student in D.C. and continuing with the case while in private practice in D.C., Anne and her co-counsel brought suit against the FBI for systemically violating their clients’ “constitutional rights, individually and through conspiracies, while plaintiffs engaged in lawful protest against government policy in the late 1960’s and in the 1970’s in the Washington area.”4 After a 17 day trial, Anne and her colleagues won the suit. In my view, that case alone earned Anne membership in the Due Process Army Hall of Fame.
During the time Hobson was being litigated, Anne moved to Maine, opening her own practice there in the town of Norway (pop. 5,000), traveling back and forth to D.C. for the Hobson trial. So then how did she end up in Brooklyn representing asylum seekers?
Anne explained to me that the government appealed the Hobson decision to the D.C. Circuit (in 1982), after which Anne began traveling to the New York City offices of the Center for Constitutional Rights, who served as her co-counsel on the appeal. And finding some time on her hands during the two-year pendency of that appeal allowed Anne to pursue her interest in helping those fleeing civil war in Central America, which was an issue very much in the news at the time. Although Anne found groups dedicated to the issue itself, she was less successful in locating organizations actually providing representation to immigrants from Central America.
Anne continued that INS was detaining Central Americans at that time in the Brooklyn Navy Yard.5 Anne learned that a local Catholic priest and nun, Father Bryan Karvelis and Sister Peggy Walsh, were visiting those detainees, sometimes paying the bond for their release; they even housed those who had nowhere to stay in the rectory of their Brooklyn church. And Sister Peggy had obtained accredited representative status, allowing her to represent individuals before the government.
In Anne’s words, after litigating against the FBI in Hobson, she naively thought that by comparison, dealing with INS “would be a piece of cake.” Between briefs in Hobson, Anne organized a group of pro bono lawyers to represent Central Americans in applying for asylum under the brand-new 1980 Refugee Act. Anne spent the first year working out of her car, after which Father Bryan offered her space in the Transfiguration Church on Hooper Street, where CALA remains located to this day.
Anne thus began CALA with no funding, paying a secretary herself, and working without a salary for about two years. In a wonderfully ironic twist, CALA’s first funding came from Anne’s attorney fees in Hobson, thus making the FBI CALA’s first major benefactor.
Interestingly, Anne explained that it took a few years before the newly created EOIR began to hear Central American cases in earnest; in the early 1980s, the federal government somehow believed that the problems in the region would be over in a year or two.
Once they did begin hearing Central American cases, the Immigration Judges of that time denied virtually all of their asylum claims, generally doing so by incorrectly classifying the feared harm as “random violence.” In spite of the new asylum law intended to make adjudications fairer and free of political influence, it took years before Anne won her first asylum case.
And yet Anne persevered, building a model program and recruiting and mentoring outstanding lawyers. Anne also challenged EOIR’s misguided decisions and policies in the federal courts.
I want to make it clear that I had not included this next anecdote in my initial draft; it is being added at Anne’s own request. But while fighting to prevent the deportation of factory workers illegally arrested in a workplace raid, a March 1988 conference before U.S. District Court Judge Mark A. Constantino apparently became quite heated, resulting in the judge holding Anne in criminal contempt of court. That order was overturned by the Second Circuit in Matter of Pilsbury.6 The Second Circuit decision contained the following quote directed at Anne by Judge Constantino:
You go practice your shabby law somewheres [sic] else. Don’t you dare practice it in the Eastern District. You no longer will be permitted to practice in any part of this court. You will not be able to practice in this court or the immigration service. This court will see to it.7
Judge Constantino’s words turned out to be about as accurate as the Department of Justice’s belief that the turmoil in Central America would settle down after a few months. Some thirty-five years later, Anne’s impact on asylum case law has been nothing less than remarkable.
In 1994, in the case of Osorio v. INS,8 Anne prevailed in challenging the BIA’s determination that a labor union leader’s fear of persecution in Guatemala was not on account of his political opinion because, as a labor union leader, his point of dispute with the Guatemalan government was economic, not political.
In reversing the BIA’s conclusion, the Second Circuit quoted a statement made by Anne at oral argument, which became one of the most famous lines in asylum law history: that according to the BIA’s view, the Nobel Prize winning Soviet novelist and renowned dissident “Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn would not have been eligible for political asylum because his dispute with the former Soviet Union is properly characterized as a literary, rather than a political, dispute.”9
The court agreed with Anne that “Regardless of whether their dispute might have been characterized as a literary dispute, it might also have been properly characterized as a political dispute.”10 The Osorio decision remains extremely relevant today for its expansive view of what constitutes “political opinion” for asylum purposes, and for recognizing that nexus can be satisfied where the persecution is on account of mixed motives, a concept later codified by Congress.
A month earlier, in the case of Sotelo-Aquije v. Slattery,11 Anne had won a Second Circuit victory for a community leader from Peru who was denied asylum by the BIA in spite of being at risk of violence for speaking out against the Shining Path.
Also in 1994, Anne prevailed before the Ninth Circuit in a case called Campos v. Nail,12 challenging an Immigration Judge’s pattern or practice of denying all motions for change of venue filed by Salvadoran and Guatemalan asylum seekers who had not established a U.S. address prior to their arrest by the INS. In applying this policy without consideration of the individual’s circumstances, the IJ forced respondents who had long settled thousands of miles away to return at no small expense to Arizona for their hearings, or face an in absentia deportation order if unable to do so. The Ninth Circuit agreed with Anne that the policy violated the petitioners’ “statutory and regulatory rights to be assured a reasonable opportunity to attend their deportation hearings and to present evidence on their own behalf,” which “in turn interfered with the plaintiffs’ statutory and regulatory rights to apply for asylum and to obtain representation by counsel at no expense to the government.”13
Anne later won two cases before the Second Circuit creating important protections for asylum seekers in establishing their credibility before Immigration Judges. The precedent decisions in Alvarado-Carillo v. INS,14 and Secaida-Rosales v. INS15 rejected the application of an inappropriate standard relying on speculation or conjecture in rejecting an asylum applicant’s credibility, and required that such determinations be based on facts material to the claim. However, in noting how difficult keeping such gains can be, Anne pointed to the fact that both of these decisions were specifically cited with disapproval by Congress in its subsequent amendments contained in the 2005 REAL ID Act giving Immigration Judge greater leeway to deny asylum based on credibility or corroboration.
In 2006, Anne won an important case recognizing that a different standard applies when determining persecution to children. In Jorge-Tzoc v. Gonzales,16 the Second Circuit held that harm that had not been found to rise to the level of persecution to an adult “could well constitute persecution to a small child totally dependent on his family and community.” The court also cited INS’s asylum guidelines for children recognizing that “The harm a child fears or has suffered, however, may be relatively less than that of an adult and still qualify as persecution.”17
I’ve just mentioned some of the highlights from Anne’s career. From her office inside the Transfiguration Church, the entity Anne founded has assisted thousands of immigrants over the years. And CALA has very much remained focused on the community it serves; as Anne says, that is very much by choice. Among those serving on the organization’s Board of Directors are early clients of CALA, along with former staff.
The community connection is not limited to people. The CALA website lists among its staff, photo and all, “Oscar Gerardi Caceres the Cat,” an actual cat rescued by Anne (as opposed to an attorney with a cat filter), whose responsibilities are listed as “greeting clients, inspecting files, and prowling the office as our security guard.” It must be pointed out that this whimsical entry also carries a far more serious meaning, as the office cat has been named to honor the memory of three fallen leaders of the decades-long violence in Central America: Msgr. Oscar Romero (killed in 1980 in El Salvador), Berta Caceres, an environmental activist and indigenous leader killed in Honduras in 2016, and Bishop Juan Gerardi, killed in Guatemala in 1998 right after releasing the church’s devastating truth commission report on military atrocities.
Over the years, I have left every conversation with Anne having learned something important. Anne has a casual, often direct way of speaking; her words can be simultaneously remarkably simple and deeply profound.
I offer as an example this quote of hers from the same 2016 New Yorker article quoted above:
“I never expected it to take so long for our government to wake up to what was happening in Central America, and to stop funding militaries and wars, and stop blaming immigrants for trying to save their own lives….Thirty years later, I’m no longer so optimistic, I don’t expect people here to learn from history anymore. Of course, you never stop hoping they will, when the lessons are so obvious.”
In 2006, the block of Marcy Avenue on which the Transfiguration Church sits was named “Msgr. Bryan J. Karvelis Way.” I found online remarks made by City Council Member Diana Reyna during the meeting at which the naming was voted upon. Those remarks included the following:
Brooklyn parishes, like their neighborhoods, have gone through a lot of changes over the years. But one thing remains constant: in a Diocese of Immigrants, they continue to reach out to the latest newcomers, and make a home for them. Transfiguration parish is a superb example of this, and today is a good day to celebrate its history.
In paying tribute to Father Bryan, those remarks are no doubt also a tribute to the work of Anne and CALA over the past 40 years.
Please join me in thanking Anne Pilsbury profoundly, and wishing her all of the best her future pursuits.
Hobson v. Wilson, 556 F. Supp. 1157, 1163 (D.D.C. 1982).
Just to give out-of-town readers a sense of change over Anne’s career, the Brooklyn Navy Yard presently includes the largest movie studio outside of Hollywood; a large number of innovative tech start-ups, and a Wegman’s Supermarket.
866 F.2d 22 (2d Cir. 1989).
Id. at 22.
18 F.3d 1017 (2d Cir. 1994).
Id. at 1028-29.
Id. at 1029.
17 F.3d 33 (2d Cir. 1994).
43 F.3d 1285 (9th Cir. 1994).
Id. at 1291.
251 F.3d 44 (2d Cir. 2001).
331 F.3d 297 (2d Cir. 2003).
435 F.3d 146 (2d Cir. 2006).
Id. at 150.
Copyright 2023 Jeffrey S. Chase. All rights reserved. Republished by permission.
*********************************
Congratulations, Anne, on an amazing career — one that continues on in a different role! You are what real leadership and courage are all about!
Building a better America, “case by case, person by person.” I used to say that to folks in court during my days on the bench. It was a “team effort” that included everyone in the courtroom.
Also, thanks to Jeffrey for such a moving and elegantly written portrait of a real American patriot. Giving thanks and recognizing those who have “paved the way” and supported our common values and ideals is an oft-overlooked value in and of itself.
The Biden Administration and Dems generally are notoriously bad in this area. That’s particularly and painfully evident when it comes to those who “held the line” on our Constitution, democracy, and human rights — at a time when many of those leaders and politicos who would benefit were nowhere to be found “in the trenches” of defending and promoting social justice in the face of the Trump/GOP onslaught.
This is my favorite quote from Jeffrey’s profile of Anne:
“I never expected it to take so long for our government to wake up to what was happening in Central America, and to stop funding militaries and wars, and stop blaming immigrants for trying to save their own lives….Thirty years later, I’m no longer so optimistic, I don’t expect people here to learn from history anymore. Of course, you never stop hoping they will, when the lessons are so obvious.”
Clearly, Biden, Harris, Mayorkas, Garland, a number of Dem politicos, Federal Judges at all levels, and many members of the so-called “mainstream media” neither learned nor heeded the obvious lessons of history. They also ignored the law in their disgraceful “rush to reject rather than protect!”
They keep “blaming the victims” for saving their own lives, ignoring our nation’s failure to live up to our humanitarian commitments, and violating our statutes and Constitutional guarantees of the right to apply for asylum and receive a fair adjudication of claims. It’s as if World War II, Hitler, the Holocaust, and its aftermath have been “written out” of our history — mainly by the GOP but also disturbingly by some Democrats and members of the Biden Administration.
Also, many congratulations to “rising NDPA superstar” Heather Axford on her appointment as the new Director of CALA! Heather has already “creamed” the DOJ in the notable case of Hernandez-Chacon v. Barr. See, e.g., https://wp.me/p8eeJm-52n. That case is basically a compendium of why EOIR is failing, both legally and operationally.
Heather Axford Director Central American Legal Assistance Brooklyn, NY
Yet, disgracefully, rather than “tapping into” the expertise and organizational talents of Heather, Anne, and their NDPA colleagues, Garland and his team are presiding over the “death spiral” of EOIR — endangering our entire U.S. justice system and threatening and degrading human lives!
I’m proud to say that Heather “got her start” practicing before the “Legacy” Arlington Immigration Court with the Law Offices of Alan M. Parra following her graduation from UVA Law! I know that Heather will carry on and build upon Anne’s humanitarian legal legacy and leadership example at CALA!
For some (not all) EOIR judges, ignoring the record and making up reasons to deny asylum has become “business as usual.” The BIA, dominated by notable asylum deniers, often ”papers over” or “doubles down” on mistaken denials. There are no consequences for wrongfully endangering the lives of vulnerable asylum seekers. How would YOU (or for that matter Judge Garland) like YOUR life and future to be in the hands of an organization that has lost sight of its due process and fundamental fairness mission? Why isn’t fixing this unfair national disgrace (which falls disproportionately on individuals of color and other minorities) “job one” at the Biden/Harris/Garland DOJ? https://www.flickr.com/photos/rasputin243/ Creative Commons License
Dan Kowalski reports for LexisNexis Immigration Community:
“Mariana Ndudzi, a native and citizen of Angola, petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision denying her appeal of an immigration judge’s (IJ) denial of her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). She argues that the Agency erred in finding her not credible and failed to review her corroborating evidence. We vacate and remand. … The main issue in this appeal is whether the BIA erred in upholding the IJ’s adverse credibility finding. That decision is largely based on perceived contradictions between Ndudzi’s alleged statements in her CFI and her sworn testimony in her removal hearing. Ndudzi makes two arguments against the adverse credibility finding. … [N]one of the inconsistencies the Agency relied on are in fact inconsistent. … In sum, the BIA and IJ’s adverse credibility determination rests largely on “inconsistencies” in the record that are not actually inconsistent. … In summary, the BIA and IJ relied heavily on an unsupported conclusion that Ndudzi is not a credible witness. At the same time, there appears to be little dispute that, if Ndudzi’s claims are true, she would be entitled to asylum under 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(A). Because the adverse credibility finding is not supported by specific and cogent reasons derived from the record, we GRANT the petition for review, VACATE the decisions of the BIA and IJ denying Ndudzi’s application for asylum and CAT relief, and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
“Because the adverse credibility finding is not supported by specific and cogent reasons derived from the record:”The 5th Circuit states the correct standard for adverse credibility findings, derived from BIA precedents! But, neither the IJ nor the BIA applied it! How is this professionally acceptable “judging” from supposed (but not really) “experts? Why is it tolerated at Garland’s DOJ?
Folks, stripped of the legal niceties, the most conservative Article III court in America just spent 16 pages analyzing and finding that the IJ and the BIA invented bogus “inconsistencies” to deny an otherwise clearly “grantable” asylum application from a woman who fled Angola.
Why is this type of unprofessional judicial performance, at both the trial and appellate levels of EOIR, acceptable in “life or death” cases? Why is it “OK” to submit asylum seekers to a “crap shoot” for their lives rather than giving them fair hearings before expert judges committed to great scholarship, careful analysis, and, most important, “getting it right the first time around?” Both the IJ and the BIA actually “went to some lengths” to invent reasons to disbelieve credible testimony. Isn’t unwillingness to fairly and routinely grant asylum to qualified applicants a major contributing factor in EOIR’s uncontrolled backlog? Wouldn’t getting it right at the “first level” promote efficiency and reduce the need for appellate litigation?
Also worthy of note: The 5th Circuit’s “footnote 2” punches huge holes in the myth of demeanor as an indicator of credibility:
Such deference is perhaps unfounded, however, given the wealth of contemporary psychological research suggesting that subjective perception of a witness’ demeanor is an unreliable indicator of the witness’ veracity. E.g., Mark W. Bennett, Unspringing the Witness Memory and Demeanor Trap: What Every Judge and Juror Needs to Know about Cognitive Psychology and Witness Credibility, 64 AM. U. L. REV. 1331, 1332 (2015) (“[C]ognitive psychological studies have consistently established that the typical cultural cues jurors rely on, including averting eye contact, a furrowed brow, a trembling hand, and stammering speech, for example, have little or nothing to do with a witness’s truthfulness.”); Liz Bradley & Hillary Farber, Virtually Incredible: Rethinking Deference to Demeanor When Assessing Credibility in Asylum Cases Conducted by Video Teleconference, 36 GEO. IMMIGR. L.J. 515, 535 (2022) (“Decades of research by social scientists have shown that the nonverbal ‘cues’ commonly associated with deception are based on false assumptions,” and cultural differences between an asylee and an IJ can “lead to cross- cultural misunderstandings of nonverbal cues,” especially when testimony is mediated through an interpreter).
Conscientious judges and advocates take note! In plain terms, “demeanor” is a largely bogus device used by bad judges to deny potentially valid claims. Obviously, in a “deny and deport oriented culture” like today’s EOIR (the very antithesis of the generous approach the Supremes in Cardoza and an earlier BIA in Mogharrabi said should apply to asylum adjudication), “bogus demeanor findings” become just another “device to deny protection.”
🇺🇸Due Process Forever!
PWS
07-23-22
Revised on 07-23-22 to reflect the panel’s revised opinion.
Michelle N. Mendez, ESQ Director of Legal Resources and Training National Immigration Project, National Lawyers Guild PHOTO: NIPNLG
Michelle writes:
Sent: Wednesday, July 6, 2022 7:38 PM
While the facts were definitely bad in this case, I do think the decision provides a helpful framework for a fairly common issue–impeachment leading to adverse credibility– whereas before we did not have a framework and relied on the Federal Rules of Evidence. Through this decision, we now know and can argue that impeachment evidence may contribute to a credibility determination only where the evidence is probative and its admission is not fundamentally unfair, and the witness is given an opportunity to respond to that evidence during the proceedings. It is up to us to enforce these limitations. Furthermore, note a few helpful footnotes. Footnote 3 notes that proceedings were continued after DHS submitted impeachment evidence and both parties were given the opportunity to provide evidence and argument. This is what should happen. Footnote 4 refers to DHS correctly using the evidence as impeachment evidence as opposed to submitting late-filed evidence under the guise of impeachment, which is what usually happens and we must object to. Footnote 5 reminds us tochallenge the IJ’s determination that the border official’s notes are accurate and reliable pursuant to Matter of J-C-H-F-, 27 I&N Dec. 211, 216 (BIA 2018), which is a case we cover during our trial skills trainings. All in all, a bad outcome for this respondent, but a helpful case to the rest of us who want to avoid a similar outcome.
Michelle
N. Méndez | she/her/ella/elle
Director of Legal Resources and Training
National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild
Thanks Michelle, my friend!Please note that Michelle is now Director of Legal Resources & Training at NIPNLG and has provided her new contact information above.
NDPA advocates should also check out these other recent practice advisories from Michelle and her terrific team that transitioned from CLINIC to NIPNLG, two of which were in partnership with ILRC:
Practice Advisory: Understanding and Overcoming Bars to Relief Triggered by a Prior Removal Order (June 29, 2022):
I always offered the respondent a continuance to examine the impeachment evidence. However, few took my offer. I think that was because:
For those in detention, it meant further extending the period of detention;
For those on the always backlogged non-detained docket, continuances often meant months before the hearing could resume.
Instead, most counsel just took my offer of a short recess to examine the evidence and discuss it with the respondent.
As Michelle points out, it will be up to counsel to insure that these rules are enforced. In the “rush to deny for any reason” — still a major “cultural” problem at EOIR that Garland has failed to systemically address — precedents and aspects of precedents favorable to the respondent are too often ignored, glossed over, or distinguished on bogus grounds. It’s up to the NDPA to “hold EOIR Judges’ and ICE ACCs’ feet to the fire” on these points!
Garland had a chance to bring in folks like Michelle and other NDPA superstars to “clean up” EOIR and restore first class scholarship, due process, and fundamental fairness as the mission, but failed to do so. The results of his failure are pretty ugly, especially for those individuals seeking justice in a dysfunctional system where fair, legally correct results are a “crap shoot” 🎲 — at best! It doesn’t have to be that way!
