"The Voice of the New Due Process Army" ————– Musings on Events in U.S. Immigration Court, Immigration Law, Sports, Music, Politics, and Other Random Topics by Retired United States Immigration Judge (Arlington, Virginia) and former Chairman of the Board of Immigration Appeals PAUL WICKHAM SCHMIDT and DR. ALICIA TRICHE, expert brief writer, practical scholar, emeritus Editor-in-Chief of The Green Card (FBA), and 2022 Federal Bar Association Immigration Section Lawyer of the Year. She is a/k/a “Delta Ondine,” a blues-based alt-rock singer-songwriter, who performs regularly in Memphis, where she hosts her own Blues Brunch series, and will soon be recording her first full, professional album. Stay tuned! 🎶 To see our complete professional bios, just click on the link below.
DISCLAIMER: While I have been inspired by, and drawn on, the work of my friends Nolan & Michele, this posting is my view and does not necessarily represent either of their views on MPP, its merits, and/or the litigation challenging it.
INA section 1229a(b)(4)(A) prohibits the government from paying for lawyers to represent immigrants in removal proceedings. The pertinent part of this section states that, “the alien shall have the privilege of being represented, at no expense to the Government, by counsel of the alien’s choosing who is authorized to practice in such proceedings” (emphasis added).
But there is an alternative. EOIR has a program for recognizing organizations and accrediting their non-attorney representatives to represent aliens in removal proceeds for a nominal fee, and INA section 1229a(b)(4)(A) does not prohibit the government from providing these organizations with the funds they need to expand their immigration operations.
The government established the recognition and accreditation program to increase the availability of competent immigration legal representation for low-income and indigent persons, which promotes the effective and efficient administration of justice.
Two levels of accreditation are available. Full accreditation authorizes the accredited representative to represent immigrants in proceedings before DHS, in proceedings before an immigration judge, and in appeals to the Board of Immigration Appeals. Partial accreditation just authorizes them to assist immigrants in proceedings before DHS, such as in applying for an immigration benefit.
Aliens needing low-cost legal representation for removal proceedings or to apply for asylum can find recognized organizations and accredited representatives in their area on the roster of Recognized Organizations and Accredited Representatives. Currently, there are 761 recognized organizations and 1,970 accredited representatives, but only 300 of them have full accreditation.
An organization applying for recognition must establish that it is a Federal, tax-exempt, non-profit religious, charitable, social service, or similar organization; that it provides immigration legal services primarily to low-income and indigent clients; and that, if it charges fees, it has a written policy for accommodating clients who are unable to pay the fees.
And it must establish that it has access to adequate knowledge, information, and experience in all aspects of immigration law and procedure.
An organization applying for the accreditation of a representative must establish that the representative has the character and fitness needed for representing immigration clients; that he has not been subject to disciplinary proceedings or been convicted of a serious crime; and that he has the necessary knowledge in immigration law and procedures.
Professor Michele Pistone Villanova Law
Excellent training programs are available to provide representatives with the knowledge they need to represent immigrants in removal proceedings before an immigration judge, such as the Villanova Interdisciplinary Immigration Studies Training for Advocates (VIISTA) — a university-based online certificate program that was established by Michele Pistone, a law professor at Villanova in August 2020, to provides the training immigrant advocates need to become accredited representatives.
VIISTA covers all of the topics needed to become an effective immigrant advocate — such as interviewing, how to work with an interpreter, how to work with migrant children, trial advocacy and, of course, immigration law.
Biden’s promise to maximize legal representation
Biden included maximizing legal representation in his “Blueprint for a Fair, Orderly, and Human Immigration System.” His plan to achieve that objective includes providing $23 million to support legal orientation programs — but orientation programs do not provide legal representation. In fact, the statement of work for the LAB contract solicitation requires orientation presenters to explain that they do not provide legal advice or representation.
Accredited representatives with full accreditation do provide legal advice and legal representation — but there aren’t nearly enough of them now to meet the need for such assistance.
Biden could use the funds he has earmarked for the legal orientation program to provide recognized organizations with the money they need to increase the number of accredited representatives — but a better solution would be for congress to provide the necessary funding.
For many asylum-seeking immigrants, an accredited representative with immigration law training may be their only hope for representation when they appear at their asylum hearings.
**********************
Thanks for this timely and informative piece, Nolan! Amazingly, this “accessible” analysis of an under-publicized opportunity is Nolan’s 300th published op-ed on The Hill! Congratulations! 🎊🍾
Go on over to The Hill to read the full article! The excerpt published above also contains helpful links to the VIISTA Program @ Villanova.
The extraordinary, innovative VIISTA Program began with Michele’s dinner table conversation with Judges Larry “The Burmanator” Burman, Mimi Tsankov (now NAIJ President), and me following an FBA Conference in DC several years ago. I doubt that any other lawyer in America could have turned it into reality. Michele got all the grants for seed money herself — winning a prestigious Kaplan Family Foundation Grant for Innovation in the process!
Because VIISTA is modularized, available online, constantly evaluated (including, of course, by students), and updated, it is “built for rapid expansion” throughout America, as suggested by Nolan. Even now, Michele is actively looking for “partners.”
My Round Table 🛡⚔️ colleague Judge Jeffrey Chase and I were privileged to have had modest roles in VIISTA’s curriculum development and review. Additionally, our Round Table colleague Judge Ilyce Shugall is one of the exceptional VIISTA faculty.
Hon. Ilyce Shugall U.S. Immigraton Judge (Retired) A “Fighting Knightess of the Round Table,” she’s also one of VIISTA’s talented expert faculty members who knows exactly what asylum seekers need to prove to win in what currently is “America’s most dysfunctional court system!” She has “lived life on both sides of the bench!”
Recently (pre-omicron) Jeffrey and I were fortunate enough to be invited to a “VIISTA Anniversary Celebration” @ Villanova. We had a chance to meet not only folks from the Kaplan Foundation and Villanova (which has been totally supportive), but also to meet and hear from some faculty and members of the “Inaugural Class” about their achievements and their plans for the future.
This is truly “making the law better” and “delivering justice” at a grass roots level! And, as Nolan points out, expanded programs like this might be asylum seekers’ best chance of getting great representation that could be “outcome determinative.” Michele’s goal is 10,000 new representatives in 10 years! Who could doubt her ability to pull it off!
By now, it should be clear to both advocates and the Biden Administration that “Remain in Mexico” is here to stay, at least for the foreseeable future. No matter what the lack of merits to the Fifth Circuit’s decision might be (I’m sure that its tone-deaf, disconnected from reality and humanity approach will be the subject of numerous critical commentaries and law review articles), no relief can be expected from either the right-wing Supremes or the feckless Dems in Congress.
Given that the MPP program is going to be judicially imposed, the Administration and advocates can still get together to make it work in compliance with due process. It’s well within their power and not rocket 🚀 science:
A Better Due-Process- Focused Approach To “Remain in Mexico:”
Better BIA. Appoint a new BIA with appellate judges who are practical scholars in asylum and will establish coherent, correct legal guidance on domestic violence claims, gender based asylum, gang-based claims, nexus, “failure of state protection,” credibility, corroboration, the operation of the presumption of future persecution, the DHS’s burden of rebutting the presumption, “rise to the level,” right to counsel, fair hearings, fair notice, and other critical areas where the current “Trump holdover” BIA’s guidance has been lacking, inadequate, or defective. They can also insure consistency in asylum adjudications, something that has long escaped EOIR.
Better Judges. Get a corps of Immigration Judges with established records and reputations for scholarly expertise in asylum, demonstrated commitment to due-process, practicality, and fairness to asylum seekers to handle these cases.
Better Representation. Work with pro bono, advocacy groups, VIISTA, and the UNHCR to insure that every person applying under this program has access to competent representation and adequate opportunities to prepare and document cases. Another one of Nolan’s good ideas for VIISTA-type programs would be for Congress to provide scholarships for students (beyond those already available from Villanova). I have also gotten “anecdotal reports” that EOIR has built up an unconscionable backlog in processing of applications for Accreditation & Recognition. If confirmed, this must be immediately addressed.
Better Conditions. Work with the Government of Mexico and the UNHCR to guarantee the health, security, safety, and welfare of those waiting in camps in Mexico.
Indeed, the Biden Administration could and should already have put this very straightforward, achievable program in place during its first year in office, instead of “treading water” (or worse, in many cases)!
The first three lessons learned from the BIA’s recent decision in Matter of Laparra1 are: (1) the Board knows only one tune; (2) that tune is the “Falls Church Two-Step,” and (3) the tune does not improve with repeated listening.
As background, Congress in 1996 passed a statute creating a document called a Notice to Appear, or “NTA” for short, which is used to commence removal proceedings before the Immigration Court. Congress defined an NTA to require that it include the time and place of the first hearing; the document is, after all, called a “notice to appear.”
However, for many years, the Department of Homeland Security cut a corner by leaving that crucial information out of hundreds of thousands of NTAs. The courts (which are not part of DHS, the entity issuing the NTA) would later send a different document telling the person when and where to appear. That second document might be sent weeks, months, or even years later.
As an aside, in other areas of immigration law, EOIR has applied a literal approach to interpreting statutory terms. An unfortunate example is found in the asylum context, where the BIA felt a strong need to add “particularity” and “social distinction” requirements for particular social group recognition, creating significant obstacles for asylum seekers. Yet the government’s defense of those terms has been based on the argument that every word in the term “particular social group” must be accorded a very literal meaning.
However, when it comes to the term “Notice to Appear,” the Board inexplicably doesn’t seem to think meaning should matter. According to the online version of the Cambridge English Dictionary, “notice” is defined as “(a board, piece of paper, etc. containing) information or instructions.” A “Notice to Appear” would therefore be a piece of paper containing information or instructions about when and where to appear. However, that is exactly the information or instructions that DHS saw fit to leave out of this particular document. The BIA nevertheless long stood firm in its conviction that a document which provides as much information or instruction about an upcoming hearing as a take-out menu from L&B Spumoni Gardens meets the legal definition of a “Notice to Appear.”
Not surprisingly, this government shortcut was successfully challenged by noncitizens wishing to seek a path to legal status in this country called cancellation of removal. One can’t apply for cancellation of removal unless they’ve been present in the U.S. for ten years,2 but once one is served with a Notice to Appear, the accrual of time towards that ten years stops.3 So whether or not what ICE was handing out met the definition of an NTA would determine whether hundreds of thousands of people would be eligible to apply for legal status. In a case called Pereira v. Sessions,4 the Supreme Court resoundingly held that an NTA without the time and place of hearing was not an NTA, and therefore did not stop the noncitizen from accruing time to reach the 10 years of presence necessary to apply for cancellation of removal.
The BIA’s response was to issue a precedent decision, Matter of Mendoza-Hernandez,5 in which it held that in spite of the Supreme Court’s clear view to the contrary, the combination of the non-NTA and a later-sent document that is also not an NTA containing the missing information together form a valid NTA, which stops the noncitizen from continuing to accrue time towards the ten years.
The matter again reached the Supreme Court, where, at oral argument, Justice Gorsuch referred to the case as “Pereira groundhog day,” and actually asked counsel for the government why it was pursuing the case in light of the Court’s 8-1 decision in Pereira.6 In its 2021 decision in that case, Niz-Chavez v. Garland,7 the Court held that an NTA must be a single document containing all of the required information, and that the two-step method endorsed by the Board does not constitute one valid NTA, and thus will not stop the accrual of time.
Although Pereira and Niz-Chavez involved what is known as the “stop-time rule” described above, the question of proper service of an NTA also arises in other contexts. For those who missed their initial removal hearing and were ordered removed as a result, the Supreme Court decisions seemed to offer a new opportunity.
The reason is because the statute provides for in absentia removal orders only where the noncitizen failed to appear for their hearing “after written notice required under paragraph (1) or (2) of section 1229(a) of this title has been provided” to the noncitizen or their lawyer.8 Section 1229(a) is the section of the law that lists the requirements for an NTA to actually be an NTA; it was the specific section interpreted by the Supreme Court in Pereira and Niz-Chavez. Pursuant to those decisions, no one who was issued an NTA lacking a time and place of hearing received proper notice under section 1229(a) of the Act, which specifically requires that the time and place information be provided in a single document. Where notice was not proper, the law allows the filing of a motion to rescind an in absentia order, and further permits the motion to be filed at any time.9
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit addressed this issue of proper notice in a published decision issued in September, Rodriguez v. Garland.10 The decision cited the Supreme Court’s holding in Niz-Chavez, and determined that a single document containing all of the required information (including the time and place) is required in the in absentia context as well. The Fifth Circuit made clear that where the NTA did not contain the time and place, it could not be cured by the mailing of a subsequent notice for in absentia purposes.
Anyone unable to guess the BIA’s response has not been paying attention. The BIA issued Matter of Laparra in order to say that the recipient of an in absentia removal order did in fact receive proper notice pursuant to section 1229(a) even if their NTA lacked a time and place of hearing, as long as the court subsequently sent an entirely different paper days, months, or years later containing the missing information.
How did the BIA believe it could reach this same conclusion yet again in spite of the Supreme Court decisions to the contrary? Please try to follow along as we review the Board’s explanation.
First, the Board emphasized that the statute governing in absentia orders (8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(5)(A)) states that such order may be entered “after written notice required under paragraph (1) or (2) of section 239(a) has been provided.” The Board emphasized the words “written notice,” which it distinguished from “a written notice,” which the Supreme Court interpreted to indicate a single document.11 The Board’s position seems to be seriously undermined by the fact that “written notice under paragraphs (1) or (2) of section 239(a)” is subsequently referred to twice more in the same section of the law as “the written notice.”
The Board employed a novel approach here. It dropped a footnote in which it admitted to the two subsequent mentions of “the written notice.” But the Board then said that it reads those two subsequent uses of “the” as simply referring back to the initial “written notice” (without the definite article).12 And apparently, because they are referring to the first mention of “written notice,” the definite article “the” can just be ignored in those other two usages. Why is that? To explain, the Board cited a Supreme Court decision in a non-immigration case decided in 2015, Yates v. U.S.13
Yates involved a fisherman apprehended at sea with a catch containing a large number of undersized fish. However, by the time the ship reached shore, only fish of legal size remained on board. After a long delay, Yates was charged and convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 1519, prohibiting tampering with a “tangible object” in order to impede a federal investigation.
Fish would meet the dictionary definition of “tangible objects.” However, in a decision authored by the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the Supreme Court employed a canon of statutory interpretation called noscitur a sociis, under which aid in determining a term’s meaning can derive from the meaning of surrounding terms used in the same section of law.14 As the term “tangible object” in 18 U.S.C. § 1519 is preceded by “makes a false entry in any record, document…,” the Court determined that “tangible object” was meant to refer to items containing records or documents. So tampering with an external hard drive would be covered by the statute; tampering with a fish would not.
This approach has been employed by the BIA (using the closely-related concept of ejusdem generis) in its 1985 decision in Matter of Acosta15 to determine that the term “particular social group” should be defined by an immutable characteristic, the same common denominator found in the surrounding terms of race, religion, nationality, and political opinion. It bears noting that what the Board did in Laparra bears no similarity to the manner in which the canon was applied in either the Board’s earlier usage in Acosta or by the Supreme Court in Yates. In Laparra, there was no comparison to the meaning of surrounding terms; instead, the Board seemed to make a random decision to ignore two usages of the definite article. The only similarity I can see to Yates is that what the Board did seems fishy.
However, even if we do as the Board would like and look only at the first usage of “written notice” contained in section 1229(a)(1), there is still a fatal flaw in the remainder of the Board’s argument. As noted above, the statute in that first usage requires not just any written notice, but specifically, written notice under paragraph (1) or (2) of section 1229(a), i.e., the section titled “Notice to appear.” Paragraph (1) of that section begins: “In removal proceedings under section 1229a of this title, written notice (in this section referred to as a “notice to appear”)…” A notice to appear! Paragraph (1) thus clearly refers to a single document, which as the Supreme Court has now told us twice, must contain the time and place of hearing.
Paragraph (2) of that same section says that “in the case of any change or postponement in the time and place of such proceedings,” then a written notice shall be provided specifying the new time and place of the proceeding, and the consequences of a failure to appear.
The meaning of paragraph (2) was by no means a matter of first impression for the Board to interpret in Laparra as it saw fit. In its decision in Pereira, the Supreme Court said:
If anything, paragraph (2) of § 1229(a) actually bolsters the Court’s interpretation of the statute. Paragraph (2) provides that, “in the case of any change or postponement in the time and place of [removal] proceedings,” the Government shall give the noncitizen “written notice . . . specifying . . . the new time or place of the proceedings.” § 1229(a)(2)(A)(i). By allowing for a “change or postponement” of the proceedings to a “new time or place,” paragraph (2) presumes that the Government has already served a “notice to appear under section 1229(a)” that specified a time and place as required by § 1229(a)(1)(G)(i). Otherwise, there would be no time or place to “change or postpon[e].”16
We know that the BIA is well aware of this; the above language from Pereira was specifically quoted in the six-judge dissenting opinion in Matter of Mendoza-Hernandez, under the heading “Plain Language.”17
Also, in its later decision in Niz-Chavez, the Court stated that “the government could have responded to Pereira by issuing notices to appear with all the information §1229(a)(1) requires—and then amending the time or place information if circumstances required it. After all, in the very next statutory subsection, §1229(a)(2), Congress expressly contemplated that possibility.”18
Thus, the Supreme Court left no doubt in its two decisions that paragraph (2) involves a change in the time and place of hearing that was previously included in the NTA, as the statute requires. Paragraph (2) in no way, shape, or form allows ICE to serve the noncitizen with the L&B Spumoni Gardens menu and then have the immigration court send a second paper that provides a time and place for the first time.
Somehow, the Board chose to ignore this clear and obvious reading twice affirmed by the highest court in the land. Instead, it focused on only one word – the “or” in “paragraph (1) or (2) of section 1229(a).”19 The Board then pretended (can we find a more appropriate word than this?) not only that the “or” somehow allowed paragraph (2) to be read as if paragraph (1) didn’t exist, but also as if the words “any change or postponement in the time and place of such proceedings” could somehow be read as “change or postponement? What a poor choice of words! What we really meant to say was, ‘the absolutely very first time and place ever set.’ Wasn’t that obvious? We feel so foolish. Please just interpret this any way you see fit.”
The Board did acknowledge the Fifth Circuit’s contrary view in Rodriguez, but attributed it to that court’s failure to focus on the “paragraph (1) or (2)” language.20 Apparently, in the Board’s view, had the Fifth Circuit also focused on that word “or,” it would have reached the same twisted conclusion as the Board. Perhaps realizing how unrealistic this might seem, the Board quickly pointed out that “[i]n any event, Rodriguez does not apply here because this case arises in the First Circuit.”21
Speaking of other circuits, it bears noting that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit recently stated for the second time in a published decision that the BIA’s analysis was “more akin to the argument of an advocate than the impartial analysis of a quasi-judicial agency.”21 I believe that the same can be said of the Board’s decision in Laparra. It will be interesting to see if this issue reaches the Supreme Court for a third time. If so, one should wonder why the Board might expect a different result.
Notes:
28 I&N Dec. 425 (BIA Jan. 18, 2022).
8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(A).
8 U.S.C. § 1229b(d)(1), often referred to as the “stop-time rule.”
To be clear, the government is capable of providing all required information in a single NTA. EOIR had provided DHS access to schedule Master Calendar hearings through the agency’s Interactive Scheduling System (ISS), which was employed between those agencies until May 2014. And in a memo issued shortly after the Supreme Court’s Pereira decision, then EOIR Director James McHenry stated that EOIR had begun providing hearing dates to DHS in detailed cases, and was working to again provide it access to ISS for scheduling non-detained cases.
Matter of Laparra, supra at 430.
Id. at 436: “The court reasoned that section 240(b)(5)(C)(ii) requires ‘notice’ under ‘section 239(a),’ which Niz-Chavez held must be a single document in the form of a notice to appear. However, the court based this reasoning on a recitation of section 240(b)(5)(C)(ii) that omitted the disjunctive phrase ‘paragraph (1) or (2)’ from the statute and relied solely on a reference to ‘section 239(a).’”
Id.
Nsimba v. Att’y Gen. of U.S., No. 20-3565, ___ F.4th ___ (3d Cir. Dec. 22, 2021) (slip. op. at 10).
Copyright 2022 Jeffrey S. Chase. All rights reserved.
Republished by permission.
*************************
As Jeffrey points out, the legal and practical problems with notice at EOIR and DHS are chronic, well-documented, and consequential! Yet, given a golden opportunity to make a new start while complying with due process and establishing “best practices” Garland has miserably failed!
Instead of appointing a BIA consisting of “practical scholar expert judges” and competent, professional judicial administrators to clean up this awful mess it’s “same old, same old” under Garland’s poor leadership. Indeed, not only has Garland chosen to retain the very folks who created and aggravated the notice problems, he has actually made it worse! How many times do I have to say it: EOIR is supposed to be a “court of law,” not a highly bureaucratic, “headquarters bloated,” “agency” modeled on and “operating” (a term I use lightly with EOIR) like the very worst aspects of the “Legacy INS.” For Pete’s sake, even DHS has done a somewhat better job of automating files than EOIR!
Tal Kopan Washington Reporter, SF Chronicle. She exposes Garland’s mismanagement of EOIR!
At best, these bogus orders require burdensome motions to reopen, rescheduling, and “restarts” that unnecessarily build backlog. They also generate more bogus statistics and false narratives, more endemic problems at EOIR that Garland has ignored or aggravated.
At worst, improper in absentia orders generate improper arrests, detention, and illegal removals of individuals who were clueless about their actual hearing dates!
Having “supervisors and managers” supposedly in charge of operating a fair hearing system engineer and then “cheer” the absence of any hearings at all shows the depths to which EOIR has plunged under Garland’s poor leadership. But, perhaps that shouldn’t surprise us! It comes from an AG who has failed after nearly a year to re-establish a fair hearing system for asylum applicants at the border and who mounts ethically-challenged defenses of Stephen Miller’s complete eradication of asylum at the border based on a bogus, pretextual rationale rejected by almost all migration and public health experts! Why is this acceptable performance from an alleged Democratic Administration?
Judge Merrick B. Garland, U.S. Attorney General Official White House Photo Public Realm. Appointed by a Democrat, he runs the DOJ largely with Trump holdovers, no accountability, and as if Stephen Miller were still looking over his shoulder. The result corrodes the “retail level” of justice in our Immigration Courts and threatens to de-stabilize our entire legal system!
No wonder Garland is building the already incredible 1.6 million case EOIR backlog at a ”new record” pace!
The speculation on Biden’s Supreme Court pick is “sucking all the air out of the room.” But, Garland’s disgraceful failure to counter the Trump AGs’ “packing” of the BIA with unsuitable judges and filling EOIR “senior management” with unqualified individuals who lack the requisite expertise and consistently tilt in favor of DHS Enforcement and against Due Process, fundamental fairness, immigrants’ rights, and best practices will have more immediate corrosive effects on racial justice in America and individual human lives than any court in America outside the Supremes!
And, unlike the Supremes, Garland “owns” all the picks for the “Supreme Court of Immigration!” Rather than standing up for progressive reforms, and giving new progressive judicial talent a chance to shine, he has chosen to enable and empower regressive forces and to frustrate progressive experts, further undermine the rule of law, and thwart best practices!
But, even these somewhat “understated” critics of Garland don’t fully grasp the catastrophic consequences for our entire justice system and our democracy of Garland’s unwillingness and/or inability to prioritize the creation of a progressive due-process/equal-justice-oriented judiciary of experts to replace his regressive, oppressive, deadly, and beyond dysfunctional immigration judiciary at DOJ!
As Jeffrey cogently relates, “same old, same old” failed approaches by “holdover judges” doesn’t “cut it!” Sessions and Barr recognized the cosmic importance of the immigration judiciary and the imperative to “weaponize it for evil” and to use their limited time in office to maximize and further a White Nationalist agenda developed and promoted by Stephen Miller. It’s a pity that Garland has failed to act on the legal and moral imperatives to “mine and realize EOIR’s ‘counter-potential’ for good!”
That potential was memorialized in the long-forgotten “EOIR vision of yore:” “Through teamwork and innovation, be the world’s best administrative tribunals guaranteeing fairness and due process for all!” Remarkably, that “noble due process vision” was once displayed in bold letters on EOIR’s internal website. Now, folks like Garland are too embarrassed and spineless to even admit that such a goal ever existed.
Funny how right-leaning supposed “textualists” and “strict constructionists” have difficulty following clear statutory commands when the result might favor the individual while holding the Government accountable for intentionally violating the law. Also, strange how an Administration that got into office in no small measure by promoting its competence and strong commitment to humane values and equal justice for all, particularly racial justice, continues to fail on all counts! Go figure!
At ICE, there’s no need to bother presenting evidence, arguments, or making a record below because we know we can “rack up” victories before our stooges at Garland’s BIA!
“In 2019, the Department of Human Services (“DHS”) sought to remove Ilir Osmani, a refugee of the Kosovo War, based on his criminal convictions and crimes of moral turpitude. An Immigration Judge (“IJ”) granted Osmani’s petition for an adjusted status under 8 U.S.C. § 1159(a) and for waiver under 8 U.S.C. § 1159(c). The Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) reversed the IJ’s ruling based on new arguments the government, after failing to take any position before the IJ or to provide any notice to Osmani, raised for the first time on appeal and denied Osmani’s motion to remand for additional factfinding on the conditions in Kosovo. We find the BIA legally erred by considering arguments the government did not present to the IJ, put Osmani on notice of, or develop any record evidence to support. In denying Osmani’s motion to remand, the BIA also abused its discretion by engaging in impermissible factfinding. Accordingly, we grant Osmani’s petition for review and remand to the BIA. … Accordingly, we GRANT the petition for review; VACATE the Board’s decision in this case; and REMAND to the BIA for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
[Hats way off to pro bono publico counsel Illyana A. Green, Chuck Roth and Matthew E. Price! Query: ICE removed Osmani in 2021…will they bring him back? Listen to the oral argument here.]
*******************
The outrageous errors, pro-DHS bias, gross incompetence, and lack of judicial qualifications reflected by this BIA decision is absolutely stunning, as is the Biden Administration’s:
Deportation of the respondent while this court challenge to this error-fest was pending (the respondent was removed based on this illegal order in April 2021, well after the Biden Administration took office and a month after Garland was sworn in as Attorney General);
The DOJ’s prima facie unethical defense of the BIA’s denial of due process, failure to follow precedent, clear abuse of discretion, and legally indefensible actions here;
Continuing abuse of scarce pro bono resources and Article III judicial time by not bringing in fair, expert, new, due–process-dedicated BIA judges who would get these right in the first place, set proper precedents, and follow them (rather than avoiding them when they spell victory for the individual);
Also, who at DHS authorized an improper appeal on this record? (Obviously, DHS recognized that given the BIA’s pro-DHS bias, they could “mail it in” before the IJ, take a frivolous appeal, andSTILL HAVE THE BIA HAND THEM A TOTALLY UNDESERVED VICTORY!)
Folks, this is a Democratic Administration enabling this pattern of biased, unprofessional, and illegal conduct against immigrants which should bring a smile to Stephen Miller’s face! It’s also unfair and demoralizing to Immigration Judges who take the time to get it right and grant relief only to be arbitrarily and illegally reversed by Garland’s unqualified BIA on appeal!
Garland should have replaced leadership at EOIR and OIL, and also replaced the BIA, on “day one.” Instead, more than a year into a supposedly due-process-oriented Administration, the garbage continues to flow into the Article IIIs from Garland’s EOIR unabated, while the indefensible continues to be defended by OIL, like it’s “business as usual.” This happens because Garland’s message is that “Dred Scottification” of “the other” will be tolerated, defended, and protected at his DOJ.
Why is Garland being allowed to get away with running this system into the ground, ignoring due process, “blowing off” judicial and legal ethics, treating migrants unfairly, and building the unnecessary backlog at record levels?
Immigration Court Backlog Now Growing Faster Than Ever, Burying Judges in an Avalanche of Cases
The U.S. Immigration Court system is currently staring up a mountain of pending cases that at the end of December 2021 reached 1,596,193 — the largest in history. If every person with a pending immigration case were gathered together it would be larger than the population of Philadelphia, the sixth largest city in the United States. Previous administrations — all the way back through at least the George W. Bush administration — have failed when they tried to tackle the seemingly intractable problem of the Immigration Court “backlog.”
Yet a disturbing new trend has emerged during the Biden administration that demands attention: since the start of the Biden administration, the growth of the backlog has been accelerating at a breakneck pace.
Quarterly growth in the number of pending Immigration Court cases between October and December 2021 is the largest on record. In just this short period, the backlog increased by almost 140,000 cases. This far exceeds any 3-month increase during the most dramatic period of growth of the Trump administration. These findings suggest that the Immigration Courts are entering a worrying new era of even more crushing caseloads — all the more concerning since no attempt at a solution has yet been able to reverse the avalanche of cases that Immigration Judges now face.
The partial Court shutdown during the COVID-19 pandemic has, of course, contributed to the backlog’s growth. However, the main contributor is the recent deluge of new cases filed by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). If the current pace during the first quarter of FY 2022 of newly arriving Notices to Appear (NTAs) continues, the Court will receive 800,000 new cases — at least 300,000 more than the annual total the Court has ever received during its existence.
For full details, including a review of the history leading to this juncture, read the full report at:
TRAC is self-supporting and depends on foundation grants, individual contributions and subscription fees for the funding needed to obtain, analyze and publish the data we collect on the activities of the US Federal government. To help support TRAC’s ongoing efforts, go to:
The Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse is a nonpartisan joint research center of the Whitman School of Management (https://whitman.syr.edu) and the Newhouse School of Public Communications (https://newhouse.syr.edu) at Syracuse University.
*****************
What’s Garland’s next target: a backlog bigger than Chicago, New York, Los Angeles?
Garland was warned in advance about the extreme dysfunction in his courts and the urgent need to make fixing it one of his highest priorities. Instead of immediately bringing in progressive experts, replacing the BIA, hiring better judges and innovative administrators to address the backlog, attack poor judicial quality, and curb abuse of the system by DHS, Garland has simply failed to take due process, fundamental fairness, and best practices seriously. He has also compounded the disaster by using “proven to fail” enforcement and deterrence gimmicks and retaining poor quality managers and judges packed into the system by Sessions and Barr.
The worse the dysfunction gets under Garland, the harder it will be to convince the “best and brightest” to undertake the challenge of fixing it!
Also, time’s a wasting. The first year of any Administration is the time to get things done. Garland has already squandered that precious time!
This system is totally out of control and crushing the lives and futures of those caught up in it. Sadly, nobody in power in any of the three branches seems interested, motivated, or courageous enough to fix it. That’s bad for our democracy!
But these are, mostly, obscure policy changes or unrealized proposals. When Miller et al. condemn Biden’s “immigration record,” they zero in on his decisions at the Southern border.
Which is, frankly, odd. You’d never know it from the right-wing hysteria about Biden’s supposedly “open borders,” or Biden’s own campaign promise to “end Trump’s detrimental asylum policies.” But Biden has continued Trump’s most restrictionist, inhumane and possibly illegal border policies.
In some cases Biden has even expanded them.
As evidence of Biden’s supposedly lax border policies, Republicans sometimes cite his attempt, on Day One of his presidency, to end the program informally known as “Remain in Mexico.” This Trump-created program forced asylum seekers to wait in dangerous camps in Mexico while their U.S. cases were processed; there, vulnerable immigrants have been frequent targets for rape, kidnappings, torture and murder.
If Biden had terminated the program, that would have been a good thing, from a human rights perspective (not a Republican priority, apparently). But Biden did not succeed. After a legal challenge, a federal judge ordered the program to be resurrected — and the Biden administration not only obeyed but also expanded the program’s scope to cover even more categories of immigrants.
[Catherine Rampell: Joe Biden is president. Why is he maintaining Trump’s immigration agenda?]
Worse, Biden has maintained Trump’s Title 42 order. This likely illegal order involves automatically expelling hundreds of thousands of people encountered at the border without ever allowing them to apply for asylum, in contravention of rights guaranteed under both U.S. and international law. Both Trump and Biden have cited a little-used public health provision as pretext for this policy, even though legions of public health experts have argued that it doesn’t protect public health.
Perversely, continuing this Trump policy has also given ammunition to the hard-right nativists, because it has the unintended consequence of inflating the count of U.S. border crossings. Many of those expelled immediately turn around and attempt another crossing; in fiscal 2021, 27 percent of individuals were apprehended multiple times by Border Patrol, nearly quadruple the share in 2019.
The disconnect between GOP claims about “open borders” and Biden’s actually-quite-Trumpy border policies, is enormous. Two of Biden’s own political appointees who resigned last fall lambasted his actions as “inhumane” on their way out the door; six other high-level immigration officials have recently announced they were leaving the administration, without much public explanation.
It’s unclear why Biden has maintained his predecessor’s policies. One possibility is politics — that these choices were intended to stave off right-wing attacks about lax enforcement. If that was the motivation, though, it failed. Instead, Biden has delivered the worst of all worlds: inhumane, immoral, potentially illegal policy — and bad-faith political blowback about “open borders” all the same.
***********************
Yup! It’s what “Courtside” has been saying all along!Read her complete article at the link!
Catherine sees much more clearly than any member of the Biden Administration the ridiculous failings of their so-called “immigration policies” (actually a series of disjointed, often self-contradictory, knee-jerk responses that sometimes undermine each other and reflect a total lack of thoughtful, morally courageous, informed leadership).
And, Catherine doesn’t even highlight the single biggest failure — one that cuts across every failure she mentions and also goes to the heart of our legal system!
That’s, of course, the abject failure of Biden AG Merrick Garland to bring due process reforms and better judges to his totally dysfunctional, grotesquely unfair, wholly-owned U.S. Immigration Courts. These “courts” — that function more like 21st Century Star Chambers than anyone’s concept of a “real court” — were “weaponized” by Garland’s Trumpy predecessors, Sessions and Barr.
They filled the courts at all levels with less than well qualified judges, many with no immigration experience or prosecutorial experience only, who were intended to help carry out the White Nationalist, anti-asylum, anti-immigrant policies developed by Gauleiter Stephen Miller. Garland has not replaced these unqualified judges with better talent, selected in a open, transparent, merit-based process with “outside input.” He has failed to make the substantive and procedural reforms necessary to bring order and some semblance of efficiency to his hopelessly backlogged “courts.”
He has declined to remove poor leaders appointed by his predecessors; nor has he tapped the large supply of progressive, expert human rights/immigration talent who could begin the process of restoring due process. He has continued to promote enforcement “gimmicks” — like “Dedicated Dockets” and the illegal use of Title 42 — that accelerate “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” and have led to even higher backlogs.
His refusal to bring common sense, achievable reforms, and better judges to the Immigration Courts has demoralized lawyers and made pro bono representation even more difficult.
He has ignored the pressing need for better judicial training implemented by qualified outside experts. He hasn’t bothered to engage with those like the VIISTA Villanova program turning out exceptionally well-trained potential “accredited representatives” who could help reduce the staggering representation gap in his courts. Worse yet, he has allowed EOIR bureaucrats to create entirely new backlogs in the agency process for recognizing pro bono organizations and accrediting their representatives.
Garland’s horrible failure to energize and attract the progressive leadership and judicial talent who know how to begin solving these problems (rather than aggravating them) might eventually go down as one of the biggest “blown opportunities” for due process reforms in modern American legal history! This is the “low hanging fruit” that Garland and the Biden Administration has allowed to “rot on the tree.” What a (needless and deadly) tragedy!
Yilun Cheng Immigration Reporter, Columbus Dispatch PHOTO: TwitterAttorneys who complain about misbehaving judges in Merrick Garland’s dysfunctional Immigration “Courts” might well find themselves in uncomfortable positions! Amazing StoriesArtist Unknown, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
In the fall of 2020, “Juan” had trouble falling asleep whenever he thought about his upcoming court appearance in Cleveland, where the only immigration court in Ohio is located.
The 43-year-old father of three from Mexico, who asked to remain anonymous for fear of retaliation, had already gone through three hours-long hearings for his application to obtain permanent residency. He said he was nervous and exhausted when he stepped into the court on Oct. 16, 2020, for his fourth hearing.
Juan expected from experience that he would once again face a series of aggressive questions from Judge Teresa Riley, whose intimidating style almost made him give up on his case altogether, he said.
But it still astounded him when Riley called Mexican immigrants “illegals” while cross-examining his wife about the subcontractors that Juan employed at his construction business.
Citing the experience of six anonymous immigrants, including Juan, the complaint accuses Riley of biases against Latino immigrants, bullying and hostile questioning, a lack of professional competence and other alleged misconducts.
But complainants like complainants like Juan and their attorneys said they have been disappointed that their efforts did not lead to any lasting changes or that there was little transparency in the investigation process.
Riley stopped hearing cases for a few weeks in July and August, but returned shortly after, according to hearing schedules shared with the Dispatch. It is unclear why the judge was absent.
. . . .
Because these complaints rarely generate substantial disciplinary actions and there is a fear of retaliation from the judges, immigration attorneys and their clients often hesitate to report misconducts, said Austin Kocher, a research associate professor at the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse, a research institute at Syracuse University.
“Immigration attorneys don’t file these complaints often enough because they still have to practice in front of these judges,” said Kocher, whose research focuses on immigration policies. “You can’t file a complaint one day against a judge and the next day come in with your client and expect the judge to treat them well. There’s just a real lack of systematic accountability.”
. . . .
Emmanuel Olawale, a Westerville-based immigration attorney, said he has faced this dilemma firsthand. In October 2020, when he received a notice from the Cleveland Immigration Court that the asylum case of one of his clients was denied, he was disturbed by the language that Judge Jonathan Owens used in the decision.
In the asylum application, Olawale’s client, a 22-year-old asylum seeker from Cameroon, said armed officers from that country sexually assaulted her when she was a minor while they were searching for English-speaking dissidents like her family.
In an attempt to establish that the abuse did not happen due to the client’s identity, Owen stated that it is likely that officers raped the teenage girl not because she was a member of the English-speaking minority but because “they wanted to do so and thought that the respondent was a pretty virgin,” according to court documents shared with The Dispatch.
“If someone’s a ‘pretty virgin,’ is that a good reason for them to rape her in any context?” Olawale said. “That statement is misogynistic and very shocking to me.”
Instead of submitting a complaint against Owen, however, the immigration attorney opted to voice his concerns in an appeal, which is currently pending.
“Filing a complaint against the judge is something on the table,” Olawale said. “But it won’t really change anything in my client’s case. There’s also an imbalance of power in the courtroom and the fear of retaliation. I’ll have to weigh my options and consider how bad it is before I stick my neck out there.”
. . . .
Judges are not always made aware of the existence of a complaint in a timely fashion, and there is no transparency or consistency when it comes to sanctions imposed in a particular case, according to Dana Marks, president emerita at the National Association of Immigration Judges who spent 35 years on the bench in San Francisco, California, before retiring in December.
“It’s not consistent because a complaint usually starts out with the person’s immediate supervisor being told,” Marks said. “Some of the supervisors discuss the complaint with the judge immediately and others don’t. There’s a wide spectrum of when judges are notified, how much information they are provided, and whether they are allowed to give their side of the story before decisions are made.”
There is a fine line between judges’ taking a harsh stance on immigration and their exhibiting unprofessional behaviors, said Paul Schmidt, a former immigration judge based in Arlington, Virginia, who retired in 2016. While judges should not be punished for making a good-faith legal decision, using terms like “illegals” seems to be a clear violation of professionalism, he said.
“There are complaints that were made because someone is not happy that they lost a case, and those claims need to be taken with a grain of salt,” Schmidt said. “But at the point where judges are using racially charged terms or demeaning people, then that seems to me that it goes beyond what they should be allowed to do.”
. . . .
The Cleveland Immigration Court, much like the rest of the country, saw dramatic personnel changes during Donald Trump’s presidency.
The court used to have only three judges, all of whom have since left their posts. The Trump administration filled the openings and expanded the size of the bench, appointing 10 judges who currently make up the court. Most of them are former government attorneys, and five used to prosecute immigration cases on behalf of the Department of Homeland Security.
The lack of a transparent complaint process is especially concerning given an influx of new judges, who tend to come from enforcement backgrounds and lack experience on the bench, [Attorney Julie] Nemecek said.
“I think about the hundreds of thousands of immigrants across the country who have been wronged by the misconducts of Trump-appointed judges,” she said. “There are still good judges out there. But we have to address these bad judges.”
. . . .
Yilun Cheng is a Report for America corps member and covers immigration issues for the Dispatch. Your donation to match our RFA grant helps keep her writing stories like this one. Please consider making a tax-deductible donation at https://bit.ly/3fNsGaZ.
ycheng@dispatch.com
@ChengYilun
******************
Read Yulin’s full article at the link.
First, congrats to Yulin Cheng! Last time I published her work, she was an aspiring student journalist.
Now, she’s a Report for America member carrying out her dream and commitment to report truth and hold immigration officials, regardless of party affiliation, accountable for their mockery of the rule of law and shunning of best practices!
So, why might a private practitioner hesitate to file a complaint against an Immigration Judge in Garland’s system still “packed” with a majority of judges hand-selected by White Nationalist nativists Sessions and Barr?
The complaint would go not to an independent, objective panel containing public representation. No, it would be treated as a “supervisory matter” in an agency (not a real “court”) where the ranks of supervisors are still stacked with Barr & Sessions appointees that Garland hasn’t replaced.
Stunningly, the “top judge” in this bizarre, abusive, and dysfunctional system is Chief Immigration Judge Tracy Short — a hard line DHS prosecutor with no prior judicial experience elevated by Barr because of his commitment to the Stephen Miller White Nationalist, anti-asylum, anti-attorney agenda! Remarkably, Garland hasn’t replaced Short with a competent, expert, due-process-oriented “real judge,” notwithstanding unanimous urging from immigration experts that he do so!
Pursue as an alternative a legal appeal to Garland’s BIA? Well, amazingly, that body also remains “packed” with 23 of 24 appellate judges who are holdovers from the Trump Administration. Several of these judges were themselves members of the “90% asylum deniers club” and some were renowned for their disrespect for immigrants (particularly asylum seekers) and their lawyers while on the trial bench.
Look for some binding BIA precedents on improper IJ conduct? Won’t find those either, save for a mild, pre-Trump rebuke of an Atlanta IJ (without identifying the judge) for abusing a juvenile in court.
Then, there’s Garland himself. For heaven’s sake, even Bush crony former AG Alberto Gonzales (“Gonzo I”) finally got so embarrassed by the misbehavior of his IJs that he had to publicly “call off the dogs.”But, from Garland, not a peep or decisive action demanding that his “wholly-owned judges” put due process and fundamental fairness first and treat the individuals coming before them and their lawyers with professionalism, dignity, and respect!
Judge Riley, appointed by Barr in May 2019, without any significant immigration or human rights background, has a TRAC asylum denial rate of 87.7%.
Judge Owens, appointed by Sessions in August 2018, also without any significant immigration or human rights background, has a TRAC asylum denial rate of 94.5%. That’s 58th highest out of 558 Immigration Judges!
The TRAC “national average” for asylum denials by IJs during this period was 67.6%.
So, even in the virulent, officially-sanctioned “anti-asylum era” @ EOIR during the late Obama Administration and the entire Trump Administration, these two judges are “outliers.”
As someone familiar with the Ohio Immigration Bar, there are dozens of much better qualified judicial candidates out there in the private sector. Some of them even applied in the past and were rejected in favor of these judges who, whatever else you might think, no expert would find to be among “best and brightest minds in immigration and human rights,” deserving of elevation to the bench.
All Immigration Judges are “DOJ attorneys,” serving “at the pleasure of the Attorney General” and therefore subject to replacement and/or reassignment at his discretion. Judge Riley was “in probation” until May 20121, so Garland could have terminated her, essentially for any reason, or at least “re-competed” her position under a fair process that would have been open, welcoming to immigration experts in the private sector, and involved private sector input.
Owens and the other Trump-era appointees should also have been required to re-compete for their positions under revised procedures. It’s unlikely either Owens or Riley would have been selected in such a merit-based process.
Of course, Garland has not actively recruited from among better-qualified diverse expert immigration practitioners, established transparent merit-based procedures, or re-competed the disgracefully inadequate selections of his White Nationalist, anti-immigrant predecessors!
Additionally, Garland has failed to address, in any manner whatsoever, the quality control, bad attitude, lack of professionalism, and anti-immigrant bias problems in his dysfunctional Immigration Courts. Poor precedents continue to be issued by his BIA, and sloppy work by his judges at all levels continues to be “outed” by the Article IIIs notwithstanding the substantial (undue) deference given to EOIR decisions by the Article IIIs. Backlog building “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” and “mindless gimmicks” continue to proliferate under Garland’s disconnected leadership.
The disciplinary system remains opaque and highly ineffective. Illegal retaliation by IJs against those filing complaints remains a realistic possibility that actually deters and improperly discourages reporting of misconduct. An ineffective, “rubber-stamp” appellate review process of removal orders by the BIA almost never holds IJs accountable, even for the most egregious legal errors and the grossest misconduct on the bench.
While Circuit Courts point out the deficient performance of EOIR judges on a remarkably frequent basis, one will search in vain for any recent BIA precedent “calling out” inappropriate and biased treatment of respondents and their lawyers in Immigration Court. Likewise, while Jeff Sessions was outspoken in encouraging anti-asylum and anti-lawyer bias among “his judges,” I’m not aware that Garland, in word or deed, has ever insisted that Immigration Judges at all levels give primacy to due process, fundamental fairness, and treat all coming before them with dignity and respect. In other words, Garland has failed to use his “bully pulpit” to demand an end to bullying of the most vulnerable among us in his Immigration Courts.
He also has failed to repudiate the “DHS Enforcement is our partner” statements by Sessions. (Perhaps not surprisingly, since, as noted earlier, Garland employs a DHS prosecutor, Tracy Short, as his “top judge” notwithstanding Short’s glaring unsuitability for the position. And, Garland continues to defend many “Miller Lite” policies in Federal Court.)
Pro-DHS biases, mistreatment of migrants and their attorneys, lack of basic scholarship, and failure of impartial judging continue to run rampant in Garland’s broken system!
Indeed, a full year the SF Chron’sTal Kopan exposed the misconduct by Immigration Judges throughout the nation, the DOJ has taken no known actions despite Deputy AG Lisa Monaco’s “promise to investigate.”
From top to bottom, this broken, unfair, and out of control system needs reform, redirection, integrity, a focus on due process, and decisional excellence. It certainly isn’t coming from Garland and his senior political team at DOJ. So where IS it going to come from?
Chair Lofgren and her Subcommittee need to find out why Garland has failed to address the ongoing disaster in his courts, and what needs to be done to bring due process, fundamental fairness, equal justice, and respect for humanity to the forefront at EOIR, the DOJ, and the rest of our legal system! And, if anyone in the Administration stubbornly claims that the “primary answer” is to randomly throw more judges into this toxic mess, Lofgren should laugh in their face(s)! We need to replace bad judges and reform the existing system into something fair and functional before seeking to expand it, even assuming that expansion is warranted somewhere “down the line.”
As being run by Garland right now, EOIR is an affront to American democracy! That needs to stop!
Sadly, a couple of correct decisions, no matter how welcome, aren’t going to solve the systemic due process deficiencies in Ohio or elsewhere in Garland’s dysfunctional nationwide “Clown Courts.” 🤡
There are some pressing problems in America that Dems and the Biden Administration can’t solve on their own. Garland’s dysfunctional Immigration Courts are NOT one of those!
The Immigration Courts are the biggest most consequential national problem that is totally within the Administration’s power to fix. That Garland has failed to do so should be of existential concern and a cause for unrelenting outrage from all who believe in the future of American democracy!
Hon. Jeffrey S. Chase Jeffrey S. Chase Blog Coordinator & Chief Spokesperson, Round Table of Former Immigration Judges
From our leader and spokesperson “Sir Jeffrey” Chase:
Round Table Brief cited today in Oral Argument
Hi all:To end the week on a positive note, in oral arguments today before the Second Circuit, one of the judges asked the OIL attorney the following:
“What are we to make of the amicus brief filed by so many former IJs who stress the importance of in person hearing in the special role of Immigration Judges in developing the facts before rendering an opinion, particularly in something as factually heavy as this, as undue hardship to the children?They emphasize the importance of hearing in person testimony and suggest that it is an abuse of discretion to not permit it when it is requested.How do you respond?”
The case is Martinez-Roman v. Garland.
. . . .
The IJ wouldn’t let two witnesses testify: the medical expert, and a 13-year-old child of the respondent.So when the judge asked that question, the OIL attorney claimed that the IJ was trying to protect the child from the psychological trauma of testifying.The judges pointed out that the IJ had actually said he wouldn’t allow the testimony only because it would be duplicative.In the child’s case, it was supposedly “duplicative” of a one-page handwritten statement written by the child.In the expert’s case, the IJ admitted that he hadn’t actually read the expert’s written statement, causing the circuit judges to ask how the IJ could have known the testimony would be duplicative of a statement he hadn’t read.
Wishing all a great, safe, and healthy weekend! – Jeff
*************
Garland’s “amazing” EOIR “judges” can divine the content of statements they never read, while Prelogar’s “equally amazing” DOJ lawyers just “make it up as they go along” when arguing before Article IIIs! https://www.flickr.com/photos/rasputin243/ Creative Commons License
So, Merrick, it’s an “A-OK” judicial practice for your judges to deem live testimony “duplicative” of a statements they never read! That’s some feat of clairvoyance!
“Clairvoyance” appears to be more of a qualification for your “judges” than actual expertise and experience vindicating due process in Immigration Court!
Also, when your attorneys are confronted with the defects in your judges’ performance by Article IIIs who have actually read the record and familiarized themselves with the evidence, (something you apparently deem “optional” for both your IJs and the attorneys defending them) it’s also “A-OK” for your attorneys to fabricate any bogus pretextual excuse, even one that is clearly refuted by the record.
Perhaps, SG Liz Prelogar should take a break from losing cases before the Supremes and pay attention to what nonsense DOJ attorneys are arguing before the lower Federal Courts.What, Liz, is the legality and the morality of defending a broken system, wholly owned and operated by your “boss,” that dishonestly denies due process to the most vulnerable among us?
Harvard Law might have spared Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar from having to work in the “legal trenches” of Immigration Court, unlike the lawyers who have been fighting to keep democracy alive over that past five years! Apparently, she took a pass on the Ethics class too, as DOJ lawyers under her overall direction “make it up as they go along” in defending the dysfunctional Immigration Courts before the Article IIIs! PHOTO: Twitter
Is this what they taught you at Harvard law? Did you miss the required course on ethics and professional responsibility? Why is the Round Table doing the work YOU should be doing as a supposedly responsible Government official who took an oath to uphold the Constitution and the rule of law?
Yeah, I know that Prelogar, like her other elitist political appointee colleagues, operates in the “legal stratosphere,” has clerked for two liberal Supremes, and otherwise “punched all the right tickets” in Dem politics. But, the problem here is that like it or not, Immigration Courts are the “retail level” of American justice that affects everything else! Right now, that effect is stunningly and unacceptably adverse!
The GOP White Nationalist nativists, like Sessions, Barr, and their hand-selected toadies, “got that.” That’s why they used their time in office to weaponize EOIR and degrade due process and humanity, while using “Dred Scottification” developed in immigration to diminish and degrade the rights of “the other” throughout our legal and political systems! The dots aren’t that hard to connect, unless, apparently, you’re a Dem Politico serving in the DOJ!
For whatever reason, perhaps because Dems keep appointing politicos who haven’t had to personally confront the mess in Immigration Court, folks like Garland, Monaco, Gupta, Clarke, and Prelogar entertain the elitist belief that standing up to the “nativist appeasers” in the Biden White House, getting rid of bad judges and incompetent administrators at EOIR, and bringing our dysfunctional (“killer”) Immigration Courts into conformity with Constitutional Due Process, international standards, and simple human dignity are “below their pay grade.” Not so!
Have to hope that the Chairman Lofgren and her staff are paying attention and will start throwing more light on Garland’s deficient handling of EOIR and the disgraceful, intellectually dishonest, arguments his attorneys are making before the Article IIIs!
This system is BROKEN, and going into the second year of the Biden Administration, Garland has NOT taken the necessary bold, decisive, yet quite obvious and realistically achievable, steps to FIX it! What gives?
Since Liz has never been a judge, let me provide an insight. No judge, life-tenured or “administrative,” liberal, conservative, or centrist, likes being played for a fool, misled, or “BS’ed” 💩 by counsel. (I actually remember “chewing out” attorneys in open court for failing to acknowledge controlling precedent in arguing before me.)
They particularly hate such conduct when it comes from lawyers representing the USG! Because Federal Judges often come from a bygone generation, many still retain the apparently now long outdated concept that DOJ attorneys should be held to a “higher standard.” Your predecessor, Trump shill Noel Francisco, certainly mocked that belief during his disgraceful tenure at the DOJ, particularly in his disingenuous and aggressive defense of the White Nationalist, anti-immigrant, anti-asylum agenda! Do you REALLY want to follow in HIS footsteps? Sadly, At this early point in time, that answer appears to be “yes.”
So, that leads to another question. Why do progressive human rights and immigration advocates continue to turn out the vote and loyally support a Dem Party that, once in office, considers them, their values, and the human souls they represent to be “expendable” — essentially “fungible political capital?” It’s something I often wondered when I was on the inside watching Dem Administrations screw up EOIR and immigration policy. I still don’t know the answer, and perhaps never will.
The nation’s immigration court system is a mess. Rep. Lofgren is teeing up an effort to overhaul it
WASHINGTON — South Bay Rep. Zoe Lofgren will convene a congressional hearing on the immigration courts next week, The Chronicle has learned, likely laying the groundwork for the introduction of her bill to overhaul the troubled system.
The hearing may also provide the first critical look by Congress at how the courts, which are under the control of the Department of Justice, have been running under the Biden administration. Though President Biden came into office pledging to turn the page from his predecessor’s hardline immigration stance, advocates say progress has been slow, especially at the Department of Justice.
…
Lofgren, a San Jose Democrat, chairs the immigration subcommittee of the House Judiciary panel and is a longtime leader on immigration policy in Washington. She has been working on legislation that would make the nation’s immigration courts an independent system. In theory that change, which has been called for by the major pro-immigrant and immigration law organizations, would insulate the courts from the political whims of different administrations, and allow them to function more as a justice system.
Committee staff said Lofgren was still working on the bill and offered no timeline for its introduction, but an informational hearing such as the one scheduled for next week typically serves as a precursor to the unveiling of legislation.
Welcome and long, long, long overdue news! But, is it too little, too late?
Subcommittee Chair Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) is one of the few legislators who understands the full extent of the disaster in Garland’s deadly and broken “courts,” the missed opportunities by Garland to initiate meaningful due-process and practical efficiency reforms, and the debilitating effect of the disorder countenanced by Garland at EOIR on our entire legal system and the future of democracy.
Unlike Garland and his ineffectual lieutenants, the Subcommittee will actually hear from expertswho understand the full legal and human effects of Garland’s complacent and ineffectual leadership.
The hundreds of judges at the roughly 70 immigration courts nationwide decide the fate of immigrants seeking to stay in the U.S., many of whom fear for their lives if they are deported. But the system has long faced criticism for its enormous backlog of more than 1.5 million cases, inconsistency across judges and courts, antiquated bureaucracy and labyrinthine structure that’s difficult for immigrants without lawyers to navigate.
In many ways, the above quote from Tal “says it all.” A year after finally being spurred into action by Tal’s reporting on a well-known, long-festering problem, the DOJ has “studied” without actually taking corrective action. A serious lack of transparency remains a chronic problem!
The “culture” at EOIR remains sick. Those in the EOIR system who survived the Trump disaster without giving in to the anti-immigrant corruption had reasonably expected Garland to embrace common-sense, progressive reforms and root out the White Nationalists opponents of due process. Instead they find themselves abandoned and disheartened by his inept and tone-deaf performance.
Incredibly folks like Barr’s hand-selected, anti-immigrant, “Stephen Miller acolyte” Chief Judge Tracy Short remain in their positions while progressive experts have been totally shut out of EOIR leadership by Garland. Only one “practical expert” has been appointed to the BIA, where she remains hopelessly outnumbered and effectively “marginalized” by the overwhelming number of “Trump Holdovers” who “packed” the BIA during the last Administration.
Progressive experts had given the incoming Biden Administration “practical blueprints” and recommended personnel changes for rooting out the deadwood and the many less-than-qualified judges and officials at EOIR and bringing in a team of outstandingly well-qualified due-process-committed “practical experts” to begin fixing the system — with a sense of urgency and priority. Those actions would have included an entirely new BIA with real expert judges who would by now not only have vacated White Nationalist precedents imposed under the Trump DOJ, but actually have issued proper precedents interpreting the immigration laws that would facilitate and enforce due process, and promote uniformity and efficiency, rather than undermining it.
The backlog could have been slashed by decisive actions removing from hopelessly overcrowded and mismanaged dockets, “low-priority” cases and those many that could better have been resolved initially by USCIS. Poorly performing anti-immigrant judges could be brought under control, “Asylum Free Zones” eliminated, training drastically improved, working automated systems implemented, a merit-based hiring system for judges instituted, affirmative recruiting for diverse expert candidates undertaken, representation increased, and a collaborative relationship with the private bar and ICE counsel established.
Instead, Garland has retained Sessions and Barr “holdovers,” embraced “Aimless Docket Reshuffling,” accepted sloppy, unprofessional work product surfacing in the Article IIIs on an almost a daily basis, treated the immigration advocacy community with indifference and disrespect, used “gimmicks” instead of standing up for due process and immigrants’ rights, argued in favor of upholding some of the worst “Miller Lite” policies left behind by Trump’s White Nationalist advisor, and built more unnecessary backlog at a rate that would make “Gonzo Apocalypto” Sessions and “Billy the Bigot” Barr envious.
In other words, Garland has been a disaster for those committed to due process, racial justice,equal treatment under law,and a diverse, welcoming, stable American democracy.
Given Garland’s failures and disinterest in achieving justice for asylum seekers and other migrants, an Independent Article I Immigration Court free from the inept (Democrats) and toxic (GOP) mismanagement of the DOJ is the answer. But, like the rest of the Dem agenda, it’s hard to see a legislative solution anywhere on the horizon. And, those counting on Garland to finally grow a backbone and start reforming the system are likely to be left “throwing punches in the air.” Again!
“Record, what record? Here at the BIA, we don’t need no stinkin’ record to deny asylum! The assembly line would break down if we took time to look at all the evidence and research the law! It’s about ‘numbers,’ not ‘justice!’” https://www.flickr.com/photos/rasputin243/ Creative Commons License
“Tarlishi Emmanuel-Tata, a native and citizen of Cameroon, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision affirming the Immigration Judge’s denial of his claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. We GRANT the petition for review and REMAND for further consideration. … Emmanuel-Tata challenges both the BIA’s factual determinations and whether it gave his claims full and fair consideration. We begin by examining Emmanuel-Tata’s argument that the BIA failed to consider all the evidence. This argument relies on a BIA statement that the record “does not contain any country conditions evidence indicating that Anglophones are regularly subject to persecution,” and that “[t]he record does not contain any country conditions evidence indicating the type of punishment the respondent may face as a result of his criminal charges.” There is such evidence, though. … The significance of the overlooked evidence is clear. … Because the BIA erroneously found there was no record evidence about relevant country conditions, Emmanuel-Tata did not receive “meaningful consideration of the relevant substantial evidence supporting” his claims. See Abdel-Masieh, 73 F.3d at 585. We therefore reverse the BIA’s decision. We need not further consider the BIA’s factual determinations. The petition for review is GRANTED and we REMAND to the BIA for further consideration.”
[Hats off to Brian Plotts! Brian, make a motion to publish!]
*********************
As any “immigration pro” knows, the DOJ has to work hard to lose immigration cases in the “ultra-conservative” 5th Circuit. But, even judges not very sympathetic to migrants don’t like being “played for fools” by a DOJ where “quality, integrity, and due process” definitely are “NOT job one.”
Highlighting the constant stream of bogus findings, “canned” decisions, ignored records, and chronic contemptuous sloppiness is a great way to for the NDPA to make inroads with even the most unsympathetic Circuit panels. While some Article III judges are willing to overlook the BIA’s endemic shortcomings, hiding behind the “bogus deference” doctrine, they might be less willing to “do the BIA’s dirty work for them.”
As asylum applicants, other migrants, and their lawyers, receive grievous mistreatment by the “judges of his EOIR Star Chambers,” “Teflon Merrick” Garland has avoided accountability for the ongoing, systemic degrading of humanity and American justice carried out in his name!” Why? PHOTO: Wikipedia Commons
“Bob Lupini Nsimba petitions for review of a December 8, 2020 decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals affirming the Immigration Judge’s denial of his application for asylum. In affirming that decision, the BIA misapplied and misinterpreted controlling precedent and imposed requirements on those seeking relief that would require petitioners to first endure torture or arrest. Accordingly, for the reasons that follow, we will grant the petition for review, vacate the ruling of the BIA and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
[You MUST read the entire opinion; the panel really goes to town on the IJ and the BIA. Hats off to Valentine Brown!]
*****************
Not news for anyone who (unlike Garland) has even passing familiarity with the daily mockery of justice being carried out by Garland’s “wholly-owned bogus ‘court’ system.” These AREN’T aberrations or isolated incidents! They are “business as usual” in Garland’s totally dysfunctional and out of control Immigration “Courts.”
These aren’t “courts;” they are “adjuncts of DHS enforcement, masquerading as courts,” redesigned as such by Sessions and Barr with Stephen Miller’s influence and enabled to continue their disgraceful degradation of American justice by Garland!
DRC cases, if credible and documented, should be “slam dunk grants of asylum.” They could be put on the “30 minute docket.” Instead, EOIR has been allowed and encouraged to engage in this type of obscene, dilatory nonsense, with obvious racial overtones.
This case is a microcosm of how EOIR and the DOJ have built astounding due process denying backlog! The solution is NOT more Immigration Judges! It’s better Immigration Judges.
Congrats to NDPA Star Valentine Brown!
Obviously Garland has neither standards nor any shame!
Dishonest, biased, and incompetent decisions like this should long ago have resulted in the removal from the BIA and reassignment of the BIA “judge(s)” involved.
When are the Circuits going to catch on that this entire charade is a grotesque denial of due process, pull the plug, and hold Garland accountable for this unconstitutional (not to mention unethical) degradation of American justice?
BIA judges and EOIR judges AREN’T Article IIIs, and they DON’T have life tenure in their particular jobs.
When are Dems in both Houses going to start demanding accountability and competence from Garland? How long are the Article IIIs going to allow this mind-boggling misfeasance that materially affects millions of lives in America, and squanders an unconscionable amount of legal resources, to continue before finally “pulling the plug” on Garland’s “quasi-judicial farce?”
For “respondents” (non-citizens in removal proceedings) and their lawyers, Individual Hearings in Immigration Court are a big deal. Evidence must be gathered. Affidavits have to be prepared, checked, and re-checked. Witnesses must be identified, convinced to attend the hearing, and prepared for trial. Respondents practice their testimony. In most cases, the noncitizen has been waiting for many months or years for the trial date. The result of the trial determines whether the applicant can remain in the United States or must leave. When a respondent receives asylum, he is permitted to stay in the U.S. If he loses, he may be deported to a country where he faces danger. In many cases, respondents have family members here or overseas who are counting on them, and the outcome of the case affects the family members as well as the respondent. All of this provokes anxiety and anticipation. In short, Individual Hearings are life-changing events that profoundly effect respondents and their families.
So what happens when the Individual Hearing is canceled?
“Sorry boys and girls, the ‘nice’ list is too long. We’ll reschedule Christmas for next year… or maybe the year after that.”
The first thing to know is that cancellations are common. Cases are canceled weeks, days or even minutes before the scheduled time. Indeed, we often cannot be sure that a case will actually go forward until the hearing begins.
Why does this happen?
There are many reasons, some more legitimate than others. The most common reason these days is the pandemic. Sometimes, courts close due to potential exposures. That is understandable, but as far as I can tell, these represent a small minority of Covid cancellations. I have had 50% or more of my Individual Hearings canceled over the last year and a half, and none of those was caused by a Covid exposure. I suspect that the large majority of these cancellations are due to reduced capacity to hear cases–since judges and staff are often working from home. Indeed, most pandemic cancellations seem to occur a week or two before the Individual Hearing. By that time, we’ve already completed and submitted the evidence, witness list, and legal brief, and have usually started prepping the client for trial. The client is also psychologically gearing up for the big event.
And then we check the online system and find that the case is off the docket.
What’s so frustrating about these cancellations is that we’ve been living with the pandemic since early 2020. The Immigration Courts should have adjusted by now. If cases need to be canceled, why not do that several months in advance? At least that way, applicants would not build up hope, only to have that dashed when the case is cancelled at the last minute. Also, it wastes attorney time–since we will have to submit updated country condition evidence (and perhaps other evidence) later, re-prep witnesses, and potentially prepare new legal briefs, if the law changes (which is more common than you’d like to think). For attorneys who charge hourly, this additional work will involve additional costs to the applicants. So all around, last minute cancellations are harmful, and it’s hard to understand why they are still so frequent.
“I’m double booked today, so let’s put off your heart surgery until 2023.”
Besides the pandemic, court cases are cancelled for a host of other reasons: Immigration Judges (“IJs”) are out sick, hearings get bumped to accommodate “priority” cases or sometimes cases are “double booked,” meaning that they are scheduled for the same time slot with the same IJ, and so only one can go forward. To me, all these are weak excuses for canceling individual hearings. Most courts have several judges, and so if one judge is out sick, or if a priority case must be scheduled at the last minute, another judge should be able to help out (in all but the most complicated cases, judges need little time to prepare for a hearing, and so should be able to adjudicate a case on short notice). Also, there is no excuse for double-booking cases. IJs should have a sense of their schedules and simply not overbook. In addition, all courts are overseen by Assistant Chief Immigration Judges (“ACIJs”), who should be available to hear cases if need be. Finally, given the ubiquity of video conferencing equipment and electronic records, judges can adjudicate cases remotely, and so there should almost always be a judge available to fill in where needed.
Of course, there are times when case cancellations are unavoidable, due to inclement weather, for example. But in an ideal world, these should be rare.
“Oy vey! I have to give priority to a better-looking couple. Let’s reschedule this wedding for later. Are you free in 2024?”
If the delay caused by case cancellations was measured in weeks or even months, the problem would not be so severe. But in many cases, hearings are postponed for one or two years–or even longer! This is obviously distressing for the applicant, as the long-anticipated end date is pushed back to who-knows-when. It is particularly devastating for applicants who are separated from family members. The long postponements are also a problem for the case itself, as evidence becomes stale and must be replaced with more up-to-date information, and laws change, which can require a new legal brief. In short, these delays often force the applicant (and the applicant’s lawyer) to do significant extra work on the case, and this can add additional costs in terms of legal fees.
It seems obvious to me that courts do not fully appreciate the damage caused by last minute cancellations. If judges and staff (and management) knew more about the harm these cancellations cause, perhaps they would make a greater effort to ensure that hearings go forward, and that any delayed hearings are rescheduled as quickly as possible.
*************
Readers of “Courtside” are familiar with the “toxic culture” of EOIR — actively encouraged by some Attorneys General, enabled and abetted by others.
The real problem here is that Immigration Courts are “led” by “managers” beholden to political agendas rather than the public they should serve. Also, since far too many EOIR “managers” and Immigration Judges have never represented individuals in Immigration Court, they are basically clueless as to the human and practical effects of their actions on individuals as well as on the dedicated, often pro bono or “low bono” lawyers who must guide their desperate and often re-traumatized clients through this morass.
At a time when the need for pro bono assistance has never been greater, the disgraceful dysfunction, mismanagement, and “studied user unfriendliness” of EOIR under Garland is actually discouraging attorneys from donating their time and endangering their emotional well-being! Could there be any worse public policy?
With so many extraordinarily talented, creative, courageous, independent legal minds out there in the private/NGO/academic sector of human rights/immigration/racial justice/due process this “intentional mediocrity (or worse)” is inexcusable. Yet, this massive failure of the U.S. justice system at the most basic level gets scant attention outside of Courtside, LexisNexis, ImmigrationProf Blog, Jeffrey S. Chase Blog, The Asylumist, and a few other specialized websites.
This “leading disintegrator of American justice and cosmic threat to our entire democracy” is largely “shoved under the carpet” by “mainstream media,” leaders of the legal profession (outside of immigration/human rights), politicians, policy makers, and the general public. Will they only “wake up” when it is too late and their own rights and futures have been diminished, dehumanized, and de-personified as if they were “mere migrants, not humans?”
In other words, who in America will always be immune from the “Dred Scottification of the other” now practiced, tolerated, and often even encouraged at the highest levels of our government? Don’t think it couldn’t happen to you! If immigrants, asylum seekers, and migrants in the U.S. are not “persons” under the Fifth Amendment, what makes YOU think that YOUR “personhood” will be honored by the powers that be!
In defense of today’s IJs, they actually have remarkably little control over their own dockets which are incompetently “micromanaged” from on high or by non-judicial “administrators.” Sound like a formula for an incredible, largely self-created, 1.5 million case backlog?
Cutting to the chase, the Immigration Courts are controlled by the Attorney General, a political official and a chief prosecutor to boot. Beyond that, no Attorney General has actually had to experience practice before the totally dysfunctional and intentionally user unfriendly “courts” he or she runs.
Foreign Service Officers must initially serve as consuls — the basic operating level of an embassy. Hotel managers usually start by working the front desk, where the “rubber meets the road” in the industry.
But, we enthrone those who are supposed to be the best, wisest, and fairest in the legal profession as Attorneys General and Article III Judges without requiring that they have had experience representing individuals at the “retail level” of our legal system — the U.S. Immigration Courts.
It doesn’t make sense! But, what does figure is that a system run by those without expertise and relevant experience, haphazardly “supervised” by Article III Judges who almost invariably exhibit the same blind spots, indifference to injustice, and lack of practical knowledge and expertise as those they are “judicially reviewing” has devolved into the worst court system in America. It’s an oppressive catastrophe where “liberty and justice are not for all” and survival is often more about the mood, mindset, or personal philosophy of the judge, or the “whim of the day” of DOJ politicos, than it is about the facts of the case or the most fair and reasonable applications of the law by experts! Is this really the way we should be determining who lives and who dies, who thrives and who will struggle just to survive?
These “courts” are not fair and impartial courts at all. They are places where service to the public comes last, poor leadership and mismanagement are tolerated and even rewarded, backlogs are out of control, due process, fundamental fairness, scholarship, and best practices scorned, and precious lives and human dignity routinely are ground to dust and scattered to the wind.
We deserve better from our legal system!
Once, there was a court system with a dream of a better future for all in America — a noble, if ambitious, vision, if you will: “through teamwork and innovation, become the world’s best administrative tribunals, guaranteeing fairness and due process for all.”😎
Now, sadly, that enlightened vision has disintegrated into a nightmare of dedicated dockets, biased precedents, endless backlogs, sloppy work, due process denying gimmicks, bogus statistics, mediocre judicial selections, secrecy, customer unfriendliness, dishonest blame shifting, and ridiculous Aimless Docket Reshuffling.☠️
Attorney General Merrick Garland’s “limited vision” for EOIR is a continuing nightmare for those sentenced to appear and practice before his stunningly dysfunctional and “highly user unfriendly” Immigration “Courts.” Isn’t it high time to insist that those given responsibility for stewardship over America’s largest — and probably most consequential — Federal “Court” system actually have represented humans before those “courts?” PHOTO: Thomas Hawk Creative Commons Amateur Night
Where there once was the promise of “light at the end of the tunnel,” now there is only “Darkness on The Edge of Town:”
Well lives on the line where dreams are found and lost
I’ll be there on time and I’ll pay the cost
For wanting things that can only be found
In the darkness on the edge of town
In the darkness on the edge of town
The BIA’s blunders in trying to help out their “partners” @ DHS Enforcement can sometimes seem almost comical. But, they are no laughing matter to those facing persecution or torture as a result! Why is Garland indifferent to life-threatening injustice in his courts? Amazing StoriesArtist Unknown, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
Given the strength and rigor of the IJ’s underlying opinion, along with the BIA having exceeded its proper scope of review, we will vacate the BIA’s final order of removal and remand with instructions to reinstate the IJ’s opinion.
******************
There is the good, the bad, the ugly, and the absurdly horrible. This latest BIA travesty falls in the latter category.
Not surprisingly, the Circuit opinion quotes liberally from the BIA’s insipid, mealy-mouthed “bureaucratic double-speak” language! To paraphrase my BIA colleague the late Judge Fred Vacca, thank goodness the 3rd Circuit finally put an end to this “pathetic attempt at appellate adjudication.”
Interesting that rather than remanding to give the BIA a chance to deny again on some newly invented specious basis, the court just reinstated the IJ opinion. There should be a message here! But, Garland and his lieutenants aren’t “getting it!”
This case illustrates deep systemic and personnel problems that Garland has failed to address. Instead of summarily dismissing the DHS’s frivolous appeal with a strong warning condemning it, these types of bad BIA decisions contribute to the unnecessary backlog and both encourage and reward frivolous actions by the DHS.
Additionally, reversing, for specious reasons, a well-done and clearly correct IJ decision granting relief, just to carry out the wishes of DHS Enforcement and political bosses, is intended to discourage respondents and their attorneys while unethically steering Immigration Judges toward a “norm of denial.”
Abused women of color from the Northern Triangle have been particular targets of the EOIR’s seriously skewed anti-immigrant adjudications. This makes the Garland DOJ’s claims to be a “champion of racial justice” ring all the more hollow and disingenuous in every context. There will be no racial justice in America without radical EOIR reform!
What ever happened to our first ever woman of color Veep? Hypothesize that one of the BIA Appellate Immigration Judges responsible for this mess had come before the Senate Judiciary Committee for confirmation. Wouldn’t you have had some questions about judicial qualifications? So, why is it OK to continue to employ them in untenured Executive Branch quasi-judicial positions where they exercise life or death power over many of the most vulnerable among us, overwhelmingly persons of color, many women, lots of them unrepresented! Kamala Harris, where are you?
It’s all part of an improper “culture of denial” at EOIR, led and “enforced” by the BIA. Garland has disgracefully failed to come to grips with the “anti-due process” that he fosters every day that the “Miller Lite Holdover BIA” remains in their appellate positions.
For heavens sake, with unnecessary “TV Adjudication Centers” coming out EOIR’s ears, reassign these purveyors of bad law and appellate injustice to those lower “courts” where they can do less cosmic damage and real, better qualified appellate judges can “keep on eye” on them!
I keep thinking (or perhaps hoping) that eventually Circuits will tire of continually redoing the BIA’s sloppy work product and then having the cases come back again, sometimes years later, denied on yet another bogus ground!
On the flip side, Judge Garland seems to have infinite “patience” with well-documented substandard performance and painfully obvious anti-immigrant, pro-DHS bias on the part of his BIA.
Wrongful denial of CAT costs lives and can improperly condemn individuals to gruesome and painful death! This is no way to run a court system! I guess it’s easier to “tolerate” lousy judicial performance when you aren’t the one being unfairly and illegally condemned to torture!
“Mario Rene Lopez Troche (“Lopez Troche”), a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) that affirms the denial of his application for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We vacate and remand. … [T]he record does not reveal the claimed inconsistency between the testimony and the reasonable fear interview as to Lopez Troche’s reporting to police that the BIA identified. The BIA cited to three portions of Lopez Troche’s testimony in support of its determination that the IJ did not clearly err in finding an inconsistency between what Lopez Troche told the asylum officer during his reasonable fear interview and how he testified as to the reporting of past abuse. But, none of those passages supports the BIA’s determination. … Nor is it possible to read either the BIA or the IJ to have inferred from Lopez Troche’s failure to report to the police the specific incidents that he discussed in his testimony that he was asserting in that testimony that did not report any incidents of abuse ever. Neither the IJ’s opinion nor the BIA’s expressly purports to premise its ruling as to adverse credibility on the basis of such inferential reasoning, see Chenery, 318 U.S. at 95, and we do not see what basis there would be for drawing that inference on this record, given that, in his reasonable fear interview, declaration, and testimony, Lopez Troche discussed a series of traumatic physical and sexual assaults that he had experienced that appears to have stretched back to a time when he was eight years old and that thus encompassed many more incidents than those addressed specifically in the portions of his testimony on which the BIA focused. As a result, we must vacate and remand the BIA’s order affirming the denial of Lopez Troche’s request for withholding of removal.”
Law students and attorneys of the NDPA are out there helping refugees every day. Meanwhile, over at Garland’s dysfunctional EOIR, Immigration Judges and BIA Appellate Immigration Judges strain to improperly “diddle the record” to deny relief to asylum seekers! Then, OIL defends them!
Essentially, in this case, the BIA “made it up and misrepresented the record” in an effort to deny asylum for specious reasons! Then, OIL tried to “blow it by” the Circuit!
“[T]he record does not reveal the claimed inconsistency between the testimony and the reasonable fear interview as to Lopez Troche’s reporting to police that the BIA identified.” That’s “judgespeak” for: The BIA invented non-existent “inconsistencies” to unfairly deny asylum. Then, OIL defended that fabrication and denial of due process! What does this say about Garland’s leadership at DOJ?
Whatever happened to legal and judicial ethics? Clearly they were “deep sixed” under Sessions and Barr. But, why is Garland continuing to operate DOJ as an “ethics and quality free zone?”
This is a bad system with the wrong folks in too many judicial and leadership positions and presenting an overwhelming need for robust, bold change in how decisions are made and defended in Circuit Court. So far, Garland has not made the fundamental personnel changes and “quality upgrades” necessary to bring due process and some semblance of expertise and order back to his broken Immigration Courts! Why not?
Why are the kind of individuals who should be Immigration Judges and EOIR judicial leaders, talented lawyers like Elena and Irene, still “on the outside” rather than being actively recruited and brought in to replace those unable to perform judicial, administrative, and litigation duties in a fair, expert manner, that enhances due process? Why is EOIR still operating with a “judiciary” the majority of whom were installed by the Trump regime at Justice to “dehumanize, deport, and deter” without regard for due process? Why is OIL continuing to “defend the indefensible?” Why isn’t Congress asking Garland these questions?
Government lacking in expertise, intellectual honesty, professional ethics, and accountability is “bad government.” That’s true no matter which party holds power!
Guest blogger: Kelsea Villanueva, law student, University of San Francisco
Not all judges should be immigration judges. Sometimes being a judge is just not for everyone, period. Bad attitudes and questionable decision making within the immigration courts often cause the most noise because the impact is often more than a rude remark. While I do not believe problematic judges make up the whole picture of immigration courts, just one bad judge can be enough to impact the lives of many, and I only wonder whether it is the system that perpetuates behavior, the history and beliefs of immigration, or both that give rise to bad experiences.
Surprisingly in our own city, San Francisco Judge Nicholas Ford was the subject of a complaint that was sent to the U.S. Justice Department for being hostile and having biased treatment of immigrants in the courtroom. The accusations stated that he belittled migrants’ stories and struggles by making inappropriate comments. One account stated that he said “I can tell an indigent person when I see one, and you can afford an attorney” in response to someone who claimed they could not pay. Many accounts also made it a point to mention that he had previously been criticized for jailing a pregnant woman without bail for a nonviolent crime – this gives an idea of his character in court. When he was first appointed by the Attorney General under the Trump administration, Ford had been a judge in the criminal justice system and apparently had no prior immigration law experience. Other judges that have similar backgrounds can take biases from the criminal justice system and bring them into the immigration law field. There is the risk that the treatment of criminals becomes synonymous with the treatment of immigrants.
Even if judges like Ford represent a minority, the behavior exhibited by him is not unusual in immigration courts. In Jacinto v. INS, 208 F. 3d 725 (9th Cir. 2000), it was difficult for the respondent to even answer basic questions about her family’s struggles; she was constantly faced with interruptions by the immigration judge and a blatant lack of patience. Most people regardless of being an immigrant or not could become overwhelmed during questioning or lack of information about legal procedures. Lacking compassion and basic manners, whenever Jacinto was asked a question regarding why she was seeking asylum, the immigration judge or government attorney would interrupt her midsentence and not allow her to ask any clarifying questions. The transcripts reveal a sense of confusion and urgency, as they treated her as if they were in a rush and like she was wasting their time.
. . . .
*************************
Kelsea Villanueva, a law student, “gets” it! So why don’t Garland and his lieutenants?
Perhaps, because they are too far removed from the human trauma and and the practical problems in the broken and unfair “courts” for which they are responsible! They obviously have become indifferent to the unnecessary human suffering they cause by tolerating this systemic stain on American justice.
It’s not that there aren’t lots of exceptionally well-qualified immigration lawyers, practical scholars, and effective litigators in the Bay Area (and most other areas where Immigration Courts are located) who would make great Immigration Judges. Therefore, it has taken a concerted effort over the past four Administrations, including the Biden Administration, NOT to recruit, attract, and hire the “best andbrightest” for these life or death judicial positions.
One “key to building dysfunction” has been the childish, demeaning, and disrespectful treatment heaped upon the “IJ Corps” by DOJ politicos and EOIR “Management” trying to appease their “handlers.” Attempts to enforce “assembly line justice,” lousy technology, poor training, screwed up and always changing “priorities,” micromanagement by non-judges, and favoring “quick numbers” over thoughtful high quality judicial work product obviously discourages many of the most talented and well-qualified lawyers in the business from even applying.
Some of those who do make the effort are then demoralized and discouraged when clearly inferior candidates, some lacking even basic immigration and asylum knowledge, are hired by a DOJ bureaucratic system that too often seeks and rewards complicity and “following orders” over intellectual excellence, proven immigration and human rights expertise, and the courage to make the right decisions even in the face of political pressure from above to “go along to get along” with each Administration’s enforcement agenda.
Surely, no panel of immigration/human rights experts would have recommended hiring someone like Judge Ford for the job! So, why was he even on the Immigration Bench in the first place?
In every way, Judge Ford was EOIR’s self-created problem! It tied up both private resources and Government investigative resources that could have been better used. It further damaged EOIR’s reputation and ruined human lives. In the end, the “Ford brouhaha” produced no transparent results, thus further eroding public confidence in Government. It prompted neither accountability nor reforms to insure a better judicial selection process!
The best way to limit the administrative nonsense, unnecessary and inappropriate meddling, and time and resources wasted building a needless, ineffective bureaucracy to “monitor performance” and investigate complaints is to hire exceptionally well-qualified judges in the first place — good judges need neither much supervision nor significant monitoring. All they need is support, independence, professional training, continuing judicial education, and some inspirational encouragement from dynamic, well-qualified judicial leadership — things that generally have been in short supply within the EOIR bureaucracy, particularly over the past four years!
Leaders should be sitting judges— not just disconnected bureaucratic “managers” — who continue to handle regular dockets so they have the necessary perspective and first-hand experience to lead this broken system back to functionality. In what other “real” judicial system do the “chief judges and chief justices” largely or completely cease to perform judicial duties?
For example, Chief Justice John Roberts has no shortage of administrative and leadership tasks. Yet, somehow, he finds time to participate in every merits case coming before the Court!
Almost every day, we see Court of Appeals decisions in which the Chief Judge of the Circuit was a panel member, sometimes even writing the opinion. Chief U.S. District Judges hear cases and sometimes author lengthy opinions in notable and controversial cases.
There are few, if any, examples of successful judiciaries in which those in leadership positions isolate and insulate themselves from the judicial tasks of their colleagues! Yet, this has become “standard operating practice” at DOJ/EOIR. This is despite “clear and convincing evidence” that DOJ/EOIR’s bloated “Vatican style” (a/k/a “Legacy INS style”) bureaucracy is incapable of practical problem solving and has presided over the demise of a court system that once aspired to greatness, even if the efforts sometimes fell short!
The taxpayer money wasted on ludicrous “Immigration Judge Dashboards,” unnecessary “supervisors” who almost never go to court, ineffective and inefficient “Dedicated Dockets,” establishing “TV Adjudication Centers” in strange places, and running “kangaroo courts” embedded in the DHS Gulag could be repurposed into funding legal representation programs, a functioning e-filing system, more Judicial Law Clerks, judicial training by experts, and other badly needed and long overdue improvements and reforms. These things would actually help the system achieve justice with efficiency, rather than aggravating existing problems!
EOIR’s “customer service,” transparency, and engagement with the public get consistently low marks from Government watchdogs. I see no improvement under Garland.
Any legitimate system for judicial tenure or retention relies on robust public input and some peer involvement — things that are foreign to the DOJ/EOIR model which, if I do say so myself, bears a disturbing resemblance to the Byzantine bureaucracy of the “Legacy INS” (although the there are only a few us still around who experienced the latter “first hand”).
Ironically, EOIR was originally established as an independent agency within DOJ to “free” it from the “Legacy INS;” over the years it has come more and more to look, feel, and operate like the worst aspects of that long-disbanded agency.
In particular, it has “retaken on” the image of “being just another appendage of immigration enforcement” — a complete abandonment of the original goal of increased judicial independence in both fact and appearance!
Numerous private lawyers have related to me that being in an EOIR “courtroom” is too often “like facing two prosecutors.” Some say that their already traumatized clients are “re-traumatized” by the rude, disrespectful, and inhumane treatment they receive in Immigration Court as they attempt to plead for their lives and their families’ futures! What kind of judiciary “operates” in this manner?
For heaven’s sake, even former AG Alberto “Gonzo I” Gonzalez, hardly a “due process warrior,” spoke out publicly against demeaning treatment of migrants by Immigration Judges! Article III Courts continue to document instances of bias, incompetence, and cavalier treatment of human lives in Garland’s Immigration Courts at both trial and appellate levels. Yet, he says nothing and has taken few actions to solve the myriad of festering problems! We deserve better, much better, from the “people’s top lawyer!”
It’s also worth contemplating why law students understand the systemic problems and potential solutions better than the senior Government lawyers and officials we are employing and paying to mismanage it!
You can read the rest of Kelsea’s excellent piece at the above link!
Number of New Deportation Cases Far Outpaces Completed Cases in FY 2021
(14 Oct 2021) According to TRAC’s updated Quick Facts tools, the number of new deportation cases filed with the Courts in FY 2021–over 315,000–is more than double the number of completed cases over the same period which, according to Immigration Court records, currently sits at less that 145,000. When incoming cases exceed the capacity of the Courts to adjudicate those cases, the Immigration Court backlog continues to grow. At the end of September 2021, the end of FY 2021, the total number of pending cases reached nearly 1.5 million total cases, larger than the population of San Diego, the eighth largest city in the United States.
The Transactional Research Access Clearinghouse (TRAC) a research organization at Syracuse University created ‘Quick Facts’ tools to provide a user-friendly way to see the most updated data available on immigrant detention and the Immigration Courts. The tools include easy-to-understand data in context and provide quotable descriptions.
Highlights from data updated today on immigrants facing deportation in court include the following:
Immigration Courts recorded receiving 315,491 new cases so far in FY 2021 as of September 2021. This compares with 144,654 cases that the court completed during this period.
According to court records, only 2.0% of FY 2021 new cases sought deportation orders based on any alleged criminal activity of the immigrant, apart from possible illegal entry.
At the end of September 2021, 1,457,615 active cases were pending before the Immigration Court.
Los Angeles County, CA, has the most residents with pending Immigration Court deportation cases (as of the end of September 2021).
So far this fiscal year (through September 2021), immigration judges have issued removal and voluntary departure orders in 29.7% of completed cases, totaling 43,031 deportation orders.
So far in FY 2021 (through September 2021), immigrants from Mexico top list of nationalities with largest number ordered deported.
Only 20.6% of immigrants, including unaccompanied children, had an attorney to assist them in Immigration Court cases when a removal order was issued.
Immigration judges have held 22,712 bond hearings so far in FY 2021 (through September 2021). Of these 6,997 were granted bond.
TRAC is self-supporting and depends on foundation grants, individual contributions and subscription fees for the funding needed to obtain, analyze and publish the data we collect on the activities of the US Federal government. To help support TRAC’s ongoing efforts, go to:
Being able to say “toldya so” to the crowd in the Biden Administration is of little consolation to those of us in the Round Table of Former Immigraton Judges ⚔️🛡and the NDPA who have had to witness the unfolding (yet preventable) human disasters caused by the Biden Administration’s inept, tone-deaf, frankly spineless approach to EOIR and the rest of the dysfunctional USG immigration bureaucracy!
An operationally independent EOIR under dynamic progressive leadership and a BIA of judges who are practical experts in asylum and immigration could have cut the backlog by eliminating non- priority cases (most of what is in the EOIR backlog) and showing that fair, legal, timely, and generous administration of asylum laws can work and produce efficient, yet humane, correct, and consistent results!
Instead, the disgraceful mess at EOIR promotes human suffering and dysfunction, waste, and abuse in government. Backlog building “Aimless Docket Reshuffling,” (“ADR”), continuing to move cases around to meet administrative objectives unrelated to the needs of the parties and the input of the sitting Immigration Judges, continues to plague Garland’s failed courts.
Indeed, if Garland’s EOIR were a country, it would be considered a “failed state!”
A reformed EOIR also could have exposed and perhaps corrected some of the continuing systemic abuses at DHS (see, e.g., “Baby Jails,” “Family Gulags,” and absurdly inconsistent and irrational bond procedures)!
