⚖️OLD NEWS FOR “COURTSIDERS” — Garland Names Former BIA Chair & Chief IJ Hon. David L. Neal As New EOIR Director! — Can He Fix America’s Most Dysfunctional Court System?

https://www.justice.gov/eoir/pr/attorney-general-merrick-b-garland-announces-appointment-david-neal-director-executive

Department of Justice

Executive Office for Immigration Review

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Friday, September 24, 2021

Attorney General Merrick B. Garland Announces Appointment of David Neal as Director of the Executive Office for Immigration Review

WASHINGTON – Attorney General Merrick B. Garland today announced the appointment of David L. Neal as the Director of the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) at the Department of Justice.

“The Justice Department’s commitment to a fair and efficient immigration court system, governed by due process and the rule of law, is exemplified by recent policy changes and our pursuit of significant additional resources,” said Attorney General Garland. “David Neal brings invaluable experience that will help further EOIR’s mission.”

The EOIR director is responsible for the supervision of the Chairman of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), the Chief Immigration Judge, the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer and all agency personnel. EOIR has more than 2,300 employees in its 69 immigration courts nationwide, at the BIA and at EOIR headquarters in Falls Church, Virginia. As provided in the President’s Budget Request for FY 22, EOIR anticipates increasing its immigration judge corps from 535 today to 734 by the end of the next fiscal year.

Most recently, Mr. Neal was a consultant specializing in immigration policy and practice. Previously, he held positions at EOIR over two decades. From 2009 to 2019, he served as Chairman of the BIA at EOIR, where he was chief judge of the appeals board and managed judicial and administrative operations. Mr. Neal served in multiple other capacities at EOIR, including as Vice Chairman of the BIA, Chief Immigration Judge, Assistant Chief Immigration Judge, Immigration Judge and Assistant to the Director.

Prior to his tenure with EOIR, Mr. Neal served in the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee as chief counsel of the Subcommittee on Immigration. Mr. Neal began his legal career as the Director of Policy Analysis at the American Immigration Lawyers Association and also worked for a law firm in Los Angeles, representing immigration cases before the former Immigration and Naturalization Service, the State Department, the Department of Labor and EOIR.

Mr. Neal received his Bachelor of Arts from Wabash College in Crawfordsville, Indiana, Master of Divinity from Harvard University’s School of Divinity and his Juris Doctor from Columbia Law School. Mr. Neal is a member of the District of Columbia and New York bars.

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

David thus becomes the first EOIR Director to have served as both BIA Chair and Chief Immigration Judge, as well as briefly as an Immigration Judge.

Congratulations and good luck to David in his new position! It’s going to take a monumental effort, extraordinary management ability, creativity, and lots courage and determined due-process-best-practices-oriented leadership to straighten out the godawful legal, professional, and administrative mess in America’s most unfair and dysfunctional court system, now running a largely self-created 1.4 million case backlog.

Will he be able to hold off the politicos at DOJ and finally put an end to the DOJ-generated “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” (“ADR”) that has been the major cause of the 1.4 million case backlog at EOIR that has gown up over the last two decades of mismanagement at DOJ and EOIR? Will he be able to end the reprehensible officially-sanctioned “victim shaming” and cowardly “blame shifting” that has been heaped by the DOJ and EOIR on those suffering from its defective administrative practices over the past two decades?

If, as Garland claims, 200 new Immigration Judge positions will be added by the end of FY 2022, will David be able to institute merit-based Immigration Judge hiring that 1) involves public input from those who actually practice before the Immigration Courts, e.g., the private bar; 2) gives appropriate credit to “practical scholars” in immigration, human rights, and civil rights with clearly-established records of independent thinking and unswerving commitment to due process for individuals; 3) appropriately honors and weighs experience gained actually representing individuals, particularly asylum seekers, in Immigration Court, and 4) removes demeaning “production quotas,” limitations on docket management, and unnecessary restrictions on public scholarship, writing, and teaching which have made the job intentionally unattractive to many of the “best and brightest” progressive candidates from the private immigration and human rights sector. Will he actually go out and actively recruit a broader, more diverse, and more representative candidate base for IJ hiring, rather than using “insider procedures” that don’t reach or encourage many of the best candidates for these important jobs?

HINT: More “gimmicks,” like “dedicated dockets,” continued “Mickey Mouse” 🐭 uber enforcement “production quotas,” and appointments of judges who have never represented an individual in Immigration Court won’t do the trick! That is being proved every single day, beyond any reasonable doubt!

Nor will being at war with the National Association of Immigration Judges (“NAIJ”) and their leadership further due process. NAIJ leaders are the only ones at EOIR who have been providing meaningful professional training over the past four years of darkness and ignorance at EOIR.

They, along with the Private/NGO/Clinical Bar and OPLA Assistant Chief Counsel have the best and most practical ideas on how to fix EOIR! David would be wise to give them all “seats at his table,” and listen carefully to their views, rather than attempting to “lock them in a dark cellar,” as was the practice of the Trump immigration kakistocracy that effectively destroyed EOIR!

Since “built to fail” enforcement-generated non-solutions are the things EOIR appears “wedded to,” David is going to have to persuade Garland and his lieutenants to radically change course. Can he get them to treat Immigration Courts as “real courts,” controlling the lives of “real human beings,” folks like you and me, in dire need of real judicial administration and real progressive expert judges, to get out of EOIR’s current “death spiral.”☠️ Or, will we see a continuation of “Dred Scottification” of women and people of color, along with substandard trial judging, defective appellate review, and lousy biased precedents that end up creating more problems than they solve? 🤮 Only time will tell!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

09-24-21

⚠️MORE PROBLEMS LIKELY LOOM FOR GARLAND’S TOTALLY DYSFUNCTIONAL 🤡 EOIR AS EN BANC 9TH REJECTS “GOOD ENOUGH FOR GOVERNMENT WORK STANDARD” FOR CREDIBILITY REVIEW — “Any Reason To Deny Gimmicks” Fail Again As Court Requires EOIR To Comply With REAL ID! — Alam v. Garland

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

Here’s “quick coverage” from Dan Kowalski over at LexisNexis Immigration Community:

https://www.lexisnexis.com/LegalNewsRoom/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/ca9-en-banc-on-credibility-alam-v-garland

CA9, En Banc, on Credibility: Alam v. Garland

“We voted to rehear this case en banc to reconsider our “single factor rule,” which we have applied in considering petitions for review from decisions by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”). The single factor rule, as we have applied it, requires us to sustain an adverse credibility finding if “one of the [agency’s] identified grounds is supported by substantial evidence.” Wang v. INS, 352 F.3d 1250, 1259 (9th Cir. 2003). On rehearing en banc, we hold that the single factor rule conflicts with the REAL ID Act of 2005, Pub. L. No. 109-13, 119 Stat. 231 (2005), and we overrule our prior precedent establishing and applying it. We remand this case to the three-judge panel to re-examine the petition for review in light of our clarification of the standard for reviewing the BIA’s adverse credibility determinations. … Given the REAL ID Act’s explicit statutory language, we join our sister circuits and hold that, in assessing an adverse credibility finding under the Act, we must look to the “totality of the circumstances[] and all relevant factors.” § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). There is no bright-line rule under which some number of inconsistencies requires sustaining or rejecting an adverse credibility determination—our review will always require assessing the totality of the circumstances. To the extent that our precedents employed the single factor rule or are otherwise inconsistent with this standard, we overrule those cases. We remand this case to the three-judge panel for reconsideration in light of the newly articulated standard for reviewing adverse credibility determinations.”

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

Even with Article III Courts, including the 9th Circuit, generally “drifting right,” “good enough for Government work” has been rejected! That ought to help Garland boost the EOIR backlog!

The EOIR/DOJ policy right now appears to be “give any reason to deny,” hope that OIL can make at least one of them stick, and count on righty Circuit Judges to “swallow the whistle.” While that has certainly happened in the 5th Circuit, and to some extent in the 11th Circuit, there still appear to be enough Article IIIs out there critically reviewing EOIR’s too often patently substandard work product to make Garland’s indolent “look the other way” approach to the EOIR mess highly problematic.

Analyzing all the factors also might be inconsistent with mindless, due-process-denying three or four per day “merits quotas,” invented and imposed by Jeff “Gonzo Apocalypto” Sessions (someone with zero (0) Immigration Court experience and a well-justified lifetime reputation as a racist xenophobe — how does Matthews v. Eldridge allow a guy like that to pick and “run” judges — the Article IIIs might choose to look the other way, but most L-1 students know this is wrong and unconstitutional).

Just aimlessly listing common testimonial problems and hoping OIL will find one or more of them actually in the record is much faster (if you don’t count the impact of Circuit remands!) That it’s inconsistent with the statute, the Constitution, and, actually, BIA precedent seems to be beside the point these days. Of course, EOIR’s “assembly line jurists” also get “dinged” for remands.

Is there is anybody left at EOIR HQ today who could properly teach “totality of the circumstances” under REAL ID?

My observation from Arlington was that the number of adverse credibility findings and asylum denials went down substantially once the Fourth Circuit, and even occasionally the BIA, began enforcing “totality of the circumstances and all relevant factors” under REAL ID. As lawyers “got the picture” and began providing better independent corroborating evidence and documentation, the ability to “nit-pick” testimony, find the respondent “not credible,” and make it stand up on review diminished, as its well should have!

Of course, in my mind, REAL ID and the Fourth Circuit were just “re-enforcing and adopting” observations that members of our deposed “Gang of Four or Five” had made in numerous dissents from our BIA colleagues “undue deference” to poorly reasoned and thinly supported adverse credibility determinations, particularly in asylum cases.

More careful analysis of the record as a whole, often with the help of JLCs, became the rule at Arlington. And, after a few initial setbacks in the Fourth Circuit, ICE in Arlington generally stopped pushing for unjustified adverse credibility rulings and adopted approaches that actually complied with Fourth Circuit law.

The antiquated “contemporaneous oral decision format,” put on steroids by Sessions and Barr, is particularly ill-suited to the type of careful analysis required by the current statute, not to mention due process. And, having far too many newer Immigration Judges who have no immigration background and who have never had to represent an individual in Immigration Court is also a formula for failure, particularly when combined with inadequate training and idiotic “quotas.”

I’m not sure that the famous Rube Goldberg could have created a more convoluted, inefficient, and irrational process than exists at today’s EOIR. It simply can’t be fixed without leadership and assistance from outside experts who understand the problems (because they and their clients have “lived them”) and who aren’t wedded to all the mistakes and failed “silver bullet solutions” of the past!

By contrast with the EOIR mess, it’s amazing what changes an expert appellate body that actually takes its job and due process seriously can effect. Imagine if we had an expert BIA that made due process and treating individuals fairly “job one,” rather than operating as a “whistle stop on the deportation railroad.”

The ongoing EOIR clown show 🤡 just keeps getting exposed. But, nobody in charge seems to care! That’s a shame, 🤮 because “human lives, ⚰️ and perhaps the survival of our democracy, 🇺🇸 hang in the balance here!”

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

08-09-21

🇺🇸CELEBRATE HISPANIC HERITAGE MONTH WITH SOME “REFORM EOIR NOW” ACTIVISM: “NO MORE PATIENCE” FOR GARLAND’S DYSFUNCTIONAL EOIR THAT DEMEANS AND MISTREATS HISPANICS & OTHER MIGRANTS OF COLOR! — Where’s The New Progressive Hispanic Leadership Who Could Fix A Disturbingly “Whitewashed” Immigration Court System That Ignores The Human Impact Of Their Horrible, Tone-Deaf, One-Sided Decision-Making On Communities Of Color Throughout America!

View the latest edition of “Tea’s Coffee” featuring the amazing Tea Ivanovic @ Immigrant Foods:

https://youtu.be/dY_-Ep2skAg

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

Thanks, Tea!

Immigration Courts are the “living, breathing repudiation” of racial justice in America!🏴‍☠️

Repeatedly, Federal Courts at all levels say that foreign nationals are entitled to due process under the Fifth Amendment.

Then, they often go on to convert that to an insulting platitude by approving legal travesties and substandard performance by EOIR inflicted on migrants of color, their attorneys (if any), and their communities. Maybe, it’lls because talented Hispanic judges with actual experience representing asylum seekers and other migrants in Immigration Court are so few and far between. Maybe it’s because Garland has failed to actively recruit judges from among immigration and human rights attorneys of color and has continued to employ a flawed “insider-tilted” selection process that was designed and implemented to “slam the door” on experts from the non-governmental advocacy and academic communities.

Whatever the reason, EOIR has become the “living refutation” of the assertion that Hispanics and other communities of color are treated fairly and equally under our laws and that that race-based decision-making and jurisprudence have vanished from our legal system.

Maybe it’s time for Hispanics and their allies to stop being “tolerant of inequity and bias” and start taking a more aggressive and less compromising position on Garland’s disgraceful, disorderly, dysfunctional, non-diverse, tone-deaf Immigration Courts! Your voices are NOT being heard by those running the Star Chambers and cranking out “assembly line injustice.”

Why does the Hispanic community put up with being demeaned, dehumanized, and degraded by Garland’s “Clown Courts”🤡 and also by a Democratic Party that promised change but has delivered “same old same old” at EOIR?

Recent Supreme Court mockeries of justice show that the rights of minorities are under assault by a radically right-wing Article III Judiciary stocked with GOP appointees. The Immigration Courts, by contrast, are under the total control of the Administration and present an unparalleled opportunity for minority communities to both showcase their judicial skills and to start winning back their legal rights after four years of unrelenting assault by the White Nationalist right.

Why is this perhaps once-in-a lifetime opportunity for long overdue, radical reform of a broken, biased, and incompetent system being squandered and buried by Garland as if Stephen Miller and his cronies were still calling the shots? How many Hispanic and other lives will be sacrificed to EOIR over the next three plus years? How many attorneys of color will continue to be abused, misused, and under-appreciated by an Administration pledged to “do better?” What will be left of racial justice in America if entrusted to a DOJ that doesn’t even believe in the concept in their own court system?

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

09-02-21

👎🏽🏴‍☠️🤮PAIR OF NEW 3RD CIR. DECISIONS SHOWS GARLAND’S EOIR IN “DUE PROCESS FREE-FALL” & CONTINUING INEPTNESS @ OIL — “The government’s position requires some suspension of disbelief.” (That’s “judgespeak” for “freaking off the wall!”) — Why Is Garland Allowing America’s Most Dysfunctional Judiciary To Abuse Due Process With Impunity?

Dan Kowalski reports for LexisNexis Immigration Community:

https://www.lexisnexis.com/LegalNewsRoom/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/ca3-on-due-process-language-barriers-b-c-v-atty-gen

CA3 on Due Process, Language Barriers: B.C. v. Atty. Gen.

B.C. v. Atty. Gen.

“We hold that B.C. was denied due process because the IJ did not conduct an adequate initial evaluation of whether an interpreter was needed and took no action even after the language barrier became apparent. Those failures resulted in a muddled record and appear to have impermissibly colored the agency’s adverse credibility determination. We therefore vacate the BIA’s decisions and remand for a new hearing on the merits of B.C.’s claims. On remand, the agency must also remedy other errors B.C. has identified, which include dealing with the corroborative evidence he submitted.”

[Hats off to Benjamin J. Hooper, Arthur N. Read, Sozi P. Tulante (argued) and many amici!]

– Sozi

https://www.lexisnexis.com/LegalNewsRoom/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/ca3-on-costello-chevron-singh-v-atty-gen

Daniel M. Kowalski

1 Sep 2021

Chevron

CA3 on Costello, Chevron: Singh v. Atty. Gen.

Singh v. Atty. Gen.

“Baljinder Singh achieved what many immigrants to our country seek: he became a naturalized citizen. Unfortunately, he did so through willful misrepresentation, and, as a consequence, his citizenship was revoked. Before that revocation and while he was still a citizen, he was convicted of conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute illegal drugs. That led the government to initiate removal proceedings against him, and he was in fact ordered to be removed. Singh now petitions for review of that final order of removal, arguing that the pertinent statutory provisions, by their terms, permit removal only of individuals who were “aliens” at the time of their criminal convictions, whereas he was a naturalized citizen when convicted. The government responds that we must defer to the interpretation given by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) to those statutes and therefore must deny the petition for review. In the alternative, the government contends that Singh should be treated as if he had never been naturalized and was actually an “alien” at the time he was convicted. We disagree with both of the government’s arguments and will grant Singh’s petition for review.”

[Hats off to Gintare Grigaite and John Leschak!]

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

Who would have thought that nearly eight months into the Biden Administration, Garland would still be living in this guy’s house and cranking out some of America’s most unabashedly horrible “jurisprudence” that actually threatens human lives! This is competence? Attribution: Stephen Miller Monster by Peter Kuper, PoliticalCartoons.com

So many systemic problems here! So many obvious solutions! So much progressive expert talent out here who could get this system back on track and save lives in the process! So few excuses for Garland’s gross mishandling of the ongoing EOIR disaster!

The “culture of sloppiness, denial, and anti-immigrant bias” remains at EOIR almost eight months into the Biden Administration! Major personnel (new expert progressive judges committed to due process) and structural changes are necessary and long, long overdue!

The BIA needs to be replaced. Yesterday! Not rocket science! 🚀 Garland and his DOJ have no credibility whatsoever on civil rights, voting rights, or other racial justice issues as long as they run “star chambers” targeting primarily migrants of color (not to mention their long-suffering and dedicated lawyers, many acting pro bono).

Star Chamber Justice — “Justice”
Star Chamber
Style — Garland’s star chambers look and function disturbingly like those of Stephen Miller! Is this REALLY the “progressive humanitarian change” progressives voted for?

Immigrant justice IS racial justice IS equal justice for all! I’m certainly not the only person to have observed this!

⚠️WARNING TO PROGRESSIVE ADVOCATES: There can be no legitimate “asylum reform” without a strong, courageously progressive EOIR to set proper precedent, insure consistency, establish best practices, train judges and adjudicators, and police both the Immigration Courts and the Asylum Offices, including ordering corrective action to be taken in cases of those judge and officers repeatedly and demonstrably “not up to the job.” In simple terms, the culture of anti-asylum bias, racial dehumanization, and sloppy anti-immigrant decision-making that was promoted and institutionalized at EOIR under Sessions and Barr must be eradicated!

Do you seriously think that “this version” of EOIR, poorly trained, weakly staffed, and led by a BIA custom designed and packed by nativists to deny asylum and tilt in favor of DHS enforcement, will insure fairness and due process to asylum seekers in a “streamlined system?” No way!

Yet, beneath all the legal gobbledygook surrounding the proposed asylum regulation changes is the ugly reality that inflicting a “Miller-Lite” EOIR on asylum seekers and their advocates is EXACTLY what Garland and Mayorkas are absurdly proposing!

Advocates need to make their voices heard for immediate EOIR reforms from Garland and establishment of a new well-qualified, well-trained, progressive EOIR as an absolute, non-negotiable prerequisite to any more “gimmicks,” including most of the proposed asylum regulations.

As proved, beyond any reasonable doubt, day after day, Garland’s EOIR is “not quite ready for prime time” — not by a long shot! JUST SAY NO TO STREAMLINING & YET MORE “GIMMICKS” (see, e.g., “Dedicated Dockets”) WITHOUT RADICAL PROGRESSIVE EOIR REFORMS!⚖️🗽

The main problem with the current asylum system isn’t the law. It’s the unqualified folks charged with interpreting and applying it, those “defending the indefensible” (also an abuse of our legal process), and the spineless politicos unwilling to stand up for due process and the rule of law for migrants — at the border and elsewhere!

The failure of effective progressive leadership on EOIR reform at DOJ is simply appalling! And, OIL isn’t exactly covering itself in glory either! You can’t win the game without new and better players on the field. Right Casey?

“Casey Stengel might understand Judge Garland. The rest of us not so much.” Not going to win many games for humanity and the rule of law with Stephen Miller’s “nativist team” on the field. Is that fundamental truth really too deep for Garland and his “spear carriers” to grasp?
PHOTO: Rudi Reit
Creative Commons

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

09-02-21

🤮☠️ GARLAND’S EOIR STAR CHAMBERS CONTINUE TO GRIND OUT ANTI-ASYLUM TRAVESTIES! — Read What Passes For “Justice” In Garland’s Deadly Parody Of A Court System!

Kangaroos — “Miller’s Mob” is still alive and well at Garland’s EOIR. Legal asylum seekers — not so well, not so alive!
https://www.flickr.com/photos/rasputin243/
Creative Commons License

Four Horsemen — BIA Asylum Panel In Action — At Garland’s BIA, a “Miller-trained and inspired” Asylum Panel can, and does, kill dozens of unarmed asylum seekers in a single day to “make quota.” Despite being thoroughly discredited for judicial use, Garland has inexplicably continued due-process-denying, corner-cutting, quality-killing “production quotas” for his assembly line worker/judges in Immigration Courts!
Albrecht Dürer, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons.

Dan Kowalski reports for LexisNexis Immigration Community:

https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2021/08/25/19-72890.pdf

CA9 on Credibility: Munyuh v. Garland

Munyuh v. Garland

“Ms. Munyuh’s case concerns us. From our reading of the record, the IJ seemed determined to pick every nit she could find. Besides erring procedurally, the IJ discounted probative evidence on flimsy grounds and displayed a dubious understanding of how rape survivors ought to act. Although we give great deference to the IJ as factfinder, substantial-evidence review does not require us to credit the credibility finding of an IJ who cherry-picks from—or misconstrues—the record to reach it. The IJ must consider the “totality of the circumstances, and all relevant factors.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii) (emphasis added). At the very least, the two legal errors we have identified warrant remand. The IJ erred by failing to give specific, cogent reasons for rejecting Ms. Munyuh’s reasonable, plausible explanations for the discrepancies tied to her declaration that the police truck broke down after only four or five kilometers. And she further erred by discounting the supporting documentation without giving Ms. Munyuh adequate notice and opportunity to provide corroborative evidence. We therefore vacate the removal order and remand the case to the Board for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. PETITION GRANTED; VACATED and REMANDED.”

[Hats off to Ronald D. Richey!]

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

Congrats to Attorney Ronald D. Richey, who appeared before me many times at the Arlington Immigration Court.

Here’s a quote from the opinion by Senior Circuit Judge Danny Boggs, a Reagan appointee “on loan” from the 6th Cir., that shows the appallingly unprofessional performance of the Immigration Judge and the BIA in this “life or death” case:

On this point, the IJ made findings with which no reasonable factfinder could agree. She found Ms. Munyuh’s testimony that “the truck had traveled over two hours” to conflict with her earlier estimate that it had traveled “over an hour.” And she found Ms. Munyuh’s redirect testimony that “the truck [had] traveled approximately four to five hours before breaking down” to be “clearly in conflict with each of [Ms. Munyuh]’s prior estimations.”

But these time estimates are all consistent with each other. Indeed, assuming the truck really had traveled for four to five hours, Ms. Munyuh had no other choice but to give those answers. The IJ asked her if the truck had traveled more or less than an hour, to which Ms. Munyuh said more than an hour. Then the IJ asked whether the truck had traveled at least two hours, to which Ms. Munyuh answered in the affirmative.

No reasonable factfinder could find those two statements to conflict with Ms. Munyuh’s later testimony that the truck traveled for four to five hours. The IJ’s contrary finding is therefore unsupported by substantial evidence.

Wow! Is this what constituted “acceptable performance” when Judge Garland was on the D.C. Circuit? And, don’t forget, OIL actually defended this garbage product in May 2021, well after Garland took office and after experts had advised him to “clean house.”

The bad judges at EOIR whose lack of competence and/or bias unfairly condemn asylum seekers to persecution, torture and death, or all three, do NOT have life tenure and should NOT be on the Immigration Bench. Period! It’s not rocket science!

“No reasonable fact finder.” Isn’t that a problem in life or death cases? So-called “judges” who time after time stretch and misinterpret facts, ignore due process, and misapply basic asylum law to unfairly sentence asylum seekers to death! Why isn’t this grounds for removal from the bench? Or at least removing them from all asylum cases!

While Judge Boggs and his colleagues are rightfully “concerned” with EOIR’s performance in this case, Garland doesn’t appear to share those concerns. This is “business as usual” at Garland’s EOIR, just as it was when Stephen Miller was calling the shots! Obviously, Garland isn’t taking the human lives at stake here with even a modicum of seriousness. That’s totally unacceptable! Maybe Judge Boggs needs to pick up pen ✒️ and paper 📜 and express his outrage in writing to his former Circuit Court colleague, attaching an annotated copy of the garbage being turned out by his EOIR Star Chambers!

Also, don’t think that cases like this are an “aberration.” No, they aren’t! The only “aberration” is that this is one of a tiny sliver of injustices that was actually caught and corrected by the Article IIIs. How many unrepresented or under-represented individuals do you think that this judge and this BIA panel “railroad” in a week?

🏴‍☠️⚰️THEATER OF THE ABSURD: Incredibly, Garland & Mayorkas are now proposing to put this “Miller-Lite” EOIR infested with many incompetent, poorly trained, asylum-denying “judges,” with no credible leadership, totally lacking in professionalism and quality control, “in charge” of establishing precedents, insuring, and enforcing due process in their proposed “streamlined” asylum system! In other words, the solution for those who have repeatedly demonstrated an outrageous inability to conduct fair hearings and whose ignorance of asylum law and best practices is often stunning is to put them in charge of doing “paper reviews” of applications denied by Asylum Officers!

https://immigrationcourtside.com/2021/08/18/%F0%9F%97%BDcourtsides-instant-analysis-bidens-proposed-asylum-regs-advocates-beware-%E2%9A%A0%EF%B8%8F%E2%98%B9%EF%B8%8F-despite-a-potentially-workable-framework-adminis/

Good luck with that! Could there be a more insane proposal under current conditions? Making Stephen Miller the new “Asylum Czar” at EOIR? Perhaps, don’t be surprised!

Of course, in the nutsos world of Garland and Mayorkas, their fatally flawed proposal arguably would be a better than the current illegal and immoral use of Miller’s bogus Title 42 scheme to return legal asylum seekers to torture or death WITHOUT ANY PROCESS WHATSOEVER.

It’s simple. A complete “housecleaning” at EOIR, starting with the BIA, new progressive leadership and professional expert training at EOIR and the Asylum Office, new progressive asylum precedents and guidance, and an operating program for universal representation of asylum seekers are ABSOLUTE PREREQUISITES for fair and efficient regulatory reform of the asylum system! In the meantime, allow Asylum Officers to grant asylum to those who pass credible fear, but continue to give full Immigration Court hearings to any who can’t be granted. Get rid of Title 42 and start processing legal asylum seekers in an orderly fashion through ports of entry!

More than seven months into the Administration, Garland and Mayorkas could, and should, have had these needed progressive personnel, leadership, and structural changes in place, producing due process, and most important, actually saving lives! Instead, they have wasted time and squandered goodwill by continuing to run Stephen Miller’s White Nationalist system with Miller’s personnel in place! Simply incredible!

And, the bumbling, highly predictable weakness of the team of DOJ lawyers trying to defend the Administration’s few humanitarian immigration initiatives has become patently obvious. How can you expect lawyers who have spent the last four years misrepresenting asylum seekers as less than human and a threat to society suddenly start setting the record straight and effectively advocating for their human and legal rights? Obviously, they can’t! While EOIR is clearly the most glaringly dysfunctional part of DOJ, it’s obviously not the only problem and the only place Team Garland needed to (but didn’t) “clean house.”

I “get” that this isn’t Judge Bell’s, Ben Civiletti’s, or Janet Reno’s DOJ any more! But, remarkably, and tragically for the poor souls and their lawyers involved, Garland doesn’t!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

08-26-21

⚖️🗽👩‍⚖️ U.S. CIRCUIT JUDGE BEVERLY MARTIN 🌟 “OUTS” TRUMPY COLLEAGUES’ INTELLECTUAL DISHONESTY, BIA’S MALICIOUS INCOMPETENCE IN STINGING DISSENT FROM BOGUS ASYLUM DENIAL! — Garland’s Failure To “Pull Plug” On “Miller-Lite BIA” Continues To Cost Innocent Lives,☠️⚰️ Undermine American Justice, 🏴‍☠️ Outrage Human Rights Experts!🤮

https://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/201913715.pdf

Murugan v. U.S. Atty Gen., 08-24-21, published

PANEL: MARTIN (Obama), NEWSOM (Trump), and BRANCH (Trump), Circuit Judges.

OPINION BY: Judge Branch

DISSENT: Judge Martin

KEY QUOTES FROM DISSENT:

The majority opinion gives no more consideration to Mr. Murugan’s claims

and individualized evidence than did the Board of Immigration Appeals and the Immigration Judge. That is to say not much consideration at all.

Mr. Murugan produced evidence that in October 2018, the Sri Lankan government changed drastically when the former president, who had been accused of authorizing war crimes and other human rights abuses against Tamils “blindsided” political observers and “sudden[ly]” returned as prime minister. Because Mr. Murugan is a member of the Tamil ethnic group, his attorney brought up these facts at the hearing before the IJ. But the IJ took no notice of this evidence, finding that Mr. Murugan’s country conditions evidence was outdated because it included materials related to the former president’s rule from 2014 to 2016. Mr. Murugan argued to the BIA that the IJ improperly disregarded these new facts, because they were relevant to what treatment the Tamils could expect from the newly returned prime minister. Even so, the BIA mechanically adopted the IJ’s decision that Mr. Murugan’s evidence was outdated. Mr. Murugan has now tried a third time, pointing out the significance of this evidence in his brief before this Court.

The majority opinion, like the IJ and the BIA, fails to engage with this

evidence. But I see it as substantial and highly probative evidence of a pattern or 19

USCA11 Case: 19-13715 Date Filed: 08/24/2021 Page: 20 of 34

practice of government persecution of Tamils. Because I believe Mr. Murugan met his burden of showing he had a well-founded fear of future persecution based on the Sri Lankan government’s practice of persecuting Tamils, I would grant him relief on this claim.

. . . .

When this Court is tasked with reviewing a decision of the BIA, we must

actually review it, albeit with deference. This majority opinion may condemn Mr. Murugan to extreme persecution in Sri Lanka because it failed to actually examine the evidence of recent political changes in that country. When a dictator with a well-documented history of persecuting an ethnic group returns to power, surely

33

USCA11 Case: 19-13715 Date Filed: 08/24/2021 Page: 34 of 34

our law does not require a member of that group wait to again experience persecution before he can claim asylum. Mr. Murugan has met his burden here. I respectfully dissent.

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

I encourage everyone to read Judge Martin’s complete dissent. By contrast, Judge Elizabeth Branch’s majority opinion is a vapid, disingenuous, piece of right-wing legal sophistry. As my colleague, Hon. “Sir Jeffrey” Chase observed, Branch was “Associate General Counsel for Rules and Legislation, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, in 2004-2005,” during the Bush II Administration.

Judge Martin will retire from the bench on September 30, 2021, thus giving President Biden a chance to appoint her replacement. So, this might be her last immigration opinion.

Judge Martin calls out her intellectually dishonest Trumpy colleagues and accurately characterizes BIA review as no review at all. (Actually, it’s worse than no review, because the BIA sometimes reverses correct IJ asylum grants and rewrites decisions to make it easier for OIL to defend bad denials.)

No matter how poorly they perform their judicial duties (the majority decision in this case certainly stands out as one of many low points in recent American jurisprudence) Trump’s and McConnell’s far righty Article IIIs enjoy lifetime sinecures.

But, EOIR “judges,” particularly after the last two decades of political interference with any semblance of “judicial independence,” enjoy no such exalted lifetime protection. As DOJ keeps pointing out, they are “mere Government attorneys” who can be reassigned to a wide range of attorney positions at the discretion of the Attorney General.

Thus Garland could, and should, remove and reassign poorly qualified judges and replace them with real, well-qualified expert progressive judges who understand asylum law, will fairly apply it, will issue some positive asylum precedents, and will control the “Asylum Deniers Club” operating in Immigration Courts throughout America. The dysfunction, institutionalized unfairness, and “worst practices,” are particularly acute after four years of poor judicial selections, a BIA packed with anti-asylum zealots, and defective training by biased, anti-asylum AGs under fatally flawed and discriminatory selection procedures

Judge Martin “gets it.” How come nobody on Team Garland does?

As we can see, from the Supremes to the “retail level” at the Immigration Courts, the consequences of poor right-wing judging fall most heavily on migrants, women, children, and people of color. Progressives could change that around at EOIR. But, Judge Garland doesn’t seem up to the job, as the opportunity for long overdue, systemic, life saving changes at EOIR continues to slip through his fingers!

But, I repeat myself, obviously to no avail.

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

08-24-21

🗽COURTSIDE’S INSTANT ANALYSIS: BIDEN’S PROPOSED ASYLUM REGS: Advocates Beware! ⚠️☹️ — Despite A Potentially Workable Framework, Administration’s Inconsistency On Human Rights, Lack Of Realistic Implementation Plan Led By Progressive Asylum Experts, Absence Of EOIR Judges Qualified To Fairly & Efficiently Decide Asylum Cases, & A BIA Completely Unsuited To Establishing Favorable Asylum Precedents & Holding “Asylum Deniers Club” Accountable Likely To Derail System In Practice & Lead To Further Chaos & Injustice 🏴‍☠️ — You Don’t Entrust “The Gang That Can’t Shoot Straight” With A New Program That Requires “Expert Marksmanship” To Succeed! — “Casey” Remains Perplexed By The Biden Administration, Particularly Garland!

Garland’s Unwillingness To Install Progressive Competence @ EOIR Continues to Drag Down the Ship Of State!
PHOTO: Thomas Hawk
Creative Commons
Amateur Night

Here’s a link to the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, courtesy of Dan Kowalski over at LexisNexis Immigration Community:

https://public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2021-17779.pdf

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

And, here’s my “quick take:”

At first glance, this could potentially be a workable system, with some favorable aspects:

* Restores properly generous credible fear standard;

* Allows AO to grant well-established cases in first instance, even at the credible fear level, without referral to EOIR;

* Retains EOIR review of both credible fear and asylum denials;

* Doesn’t appear to affect pending and affirmative cases;

* Retains access to Circuit review of denials.

But, as with most things, the devil 👹 is in the details. And, personnel, leadership, direction, and accountability are absolute keys to success.

Without:

1) More and better Asylum Officers;

2) Far better training at the AO and EOIR (see, Michele Pistone);

3) Better IJs with proven expertise in asylum law and a demonstrated willingness to grant relief to worthy cases;

4) An entirely new BIA of progressive asylum experts to provide leadership, positive precedents, and accountability for both credible fear reviews and de novo asylum reviews;

5) An agreement with the private bar as to where and on what schedule these cases are to be heard, to achieve universal representation (see, Michele Pistone and VIISTA); and

6) Agreements with NGOs re housing, care, employment assistance to take pressure off particular communities;

this proposal appears to be “headed for failure.”

I can’t glean any of those essential characteristics from this NPR.

In their absence:

1) There are likely to be huge discrepancies in AO decisions;

2) Many current IJs, particularly from border areas, will simply “rubber stamp” both credible fear and asylum merits denials from the AO to keep the EOIR dockets moving and “make quota” (Lucas Guttentag, where are you?);

3) “Rubber stamping” of asylum denials is also endemic at the BIA, as currently comprised;

3) The current BIA will be reluctant to issue positive asylum precedents (not sure they even know how or have the ability to do so) and will likely concentrate on instructing AOs and the IJs on how to deny asylum or credible fear and have it stand up on review;

4) The private bar will be unable to keep up with the pro bono demand, causing many applicants to be unrepresented or underrepresented;

5) Asylum applicants will be concentrated in particular communities, often near the border, who will complain about the burdens being inflicted upon them by the Feds.

In other words, without better, expert, progressive leadership at both DHS and DOJ, and without major changes in personnel and training, this program will rapidly become a disaster, like other “streamlining” efforts that do not deal realistically with the practical aspects of implementation, particularly the qualifications, attitude, “culture,” and training of those making the actual decisions! A continuing lack of progressive leadership and expertise at the “retail level” will likely lead to widespread injustice, inconsistency, and eventually protracted litigation.

I am also concerned that the NPR appears to take the current 1.4 million case EOIR backlog (actually under-stated in the NPR as 1.3 million — Garland has grown it almost as rapidly as Barr-Sessions) as a “given.” But, there are readily available ways to dramatically slash this backlog by perhaps as much as 90% (see, Chen & Moskowitz plan) which would allow both IJs and the BIA to work on these cases “in real time” WITHOUT creating yet more “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” at EOIR (as the NPR, without the changes outlined above, is highly likely to do).

This leads me to reiterate Casey’s cosmic question: “Can’t anybody here play this game?” Ironically, there are many “all-star players” out here in the real world who can and would be “winners.” But, for whatever reason, to date, this Administration has unwisely chosen to leave most of them “on the sidelines” rather than giving them bats and gloves and putting them in the game. ⚾️ That’s painfully obvious at DOJ! Not a recipe for a “winning campaign” in my “preseason prediction.”

🇺🇸DPF,

Best,

PWS

08-18-21

⚖️🧑🏽‍⚖️ WHY BETTER IMMIGRATION JUDGES MATTER — New Study Shows That Who Your Judge Is, Where He Or she Is Located, & What Administration Is In Power Makes A Big Difference In Favorable Outcomes For Migrants — Even Universal Representation Might Not Be Able To Overcome Bad Judging At EOIR!

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3885995

Represented But Unequal: The Contingent Effect of Legal Representation in Removal Proceedings

Law & Society Review

63 Pages Posted: 15 Jul 2021

Emily Ryo

University of Southern California Gould School of Law

Ian Peacock

University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA)

Date Written: July 13, 2021

Abstract

Substantial research and policymaking have focused on the importance of lawyers in ensuring access to civil justice. But do lawyers matter more in cases decided by certain types of judges than others? Do lawyers matter more in certain political, legal, and organizational contexts than others? We explore these questions by investigating removal proceedings in the United States—a court process in which immigration judges decide whether to admit noncitizens into the United States or deport them. Drawing on over 1.9 million removal proceedings decided between 1998 and 2020, we examine whether the representation effect (the increased probability of a favorable outcome associated with legal representation) depends on judge characteristics and contextual factors. We find that the representation effect is larger among female (than male) judges and among more experienced judges. In addition, the representation effect is larger during Democratic presidential administrations, in immigration courts located in the Ninth Circuit, and in times of increasing caseload. These findings suggest that the representation effect depends on who the judge is and their decisional environment, and that increasing noncitzens’ access to counsel—even of high quality—might be insufficient under current circumstances to ensure fair and consistent outcomes in immigration courts.

Keywords: access to justice, immigration courts, removal proceedings, judicial decisionmaking

Suggested Citation:

Ryo, Emily and Peacock, Ian, Represented But Unequal: The Contingent Effect of Legal Representation in Removal Proceedings (July 13, 2021). Law & Society Review, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3885995

Download This Paper

Open PDF in Browser

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

Some things to consider:

Sessions and Barr appointed over half of the current approximately 550 U.S. Immigration Judges;
Many of those appointed had little or no immigration experience — almost none had actual experience representing asylum seekers or any other migrants in Immigration Court;
With 27 IJ appointments since taking office, AG Garland now has appointed approximately 5% of the Immigration Judiciary;
Only one of Garland’s first 27 appointments has impressive progressive immigration credentials and experience;
The balance of Garland’s appointees to date profile much like Sessions’s and Barr’s — not surprising, because Garland used the same flawed recruiting and selection criteria that Barr had been using;
The average U.S. District Judge completes approximately 250 civil matters annually (including immigration matters), https://trac.syr.edu/tracreports/judge/501/;
An Immigration Judge is required to complete 700 cases annually, just too retain his or her job;
Unlike most civil cases in U.S. District Courts, lives and futures are at stake in almost all Immigration Court cases, with the family, communal, economic, and societal effect of each decision often extending far beyond the individual migrant whose life and/or future is at stake.

Members of the NDPA, let AG Garland, VP Harris, and President Biden know that we need a better and more aggressively progressive system for recruiting (virtually “null” right now — “Sir Jeffrey” Chase and I, along with other members of our Round Table, do more “recruiting” among “practical scholars and progressive experts” in the private sector than the Administration!), selecting, training, and retaining Immigration Judges for these life or death determining positions that, in a better functioning and wiser Administration, would be the door to, and training ground for, a better, more diverse, more representative, more progressive Article III Judiciary!

Lack of creative and aggressive recruiting for a better and more diverse expert Immigration Judiciary is a particular sore point! We now have our first immigrant family, African-American, AAPI, female Vice President, Kamala Harris, a talented lawyer! She has an important immigration and human rights portfolio!

So why isn’t she out there aggressively encouraging diverse, well-qualified, progressive “practical scholars and immigration advocates,” many of whom might not have seen themselves as potential Immigration Judges and BIA Members to apply for these critical jobs? Why aren’t the recruiting and selection criteria for IJs and Board Members both more transparent and involving of some outside expert input!

As VP Harris knows, the key to changing the composition of the power structure is for progressives, particularly female progressives of color, to see others like them in these positions to act as role models. It’s going to take aggressive positive actions by individuals like VP Harris, AAG Gupta, and Assistant AG Clarke to “change the face” of the Immigration Judiciary and the power structure for the better!

With the recent hiring of NDPA superstar Professor Cori Alonso Yoder, VP Harris’s alma mater, Howard University Law, now has it’s most high-profile “immigration and human rights presence” ever! Why isn’t VP Harris over there aggressively encouraging Howard Law grads to seek careers in immigration and human rights, eventually aspiring to the the Federal Judiciary, including the Immigration Judiciary? That’s how real change in the power structure happens!

This is becoming a totally inexcusable “blown opportunity” for progressives! Who knows if or when it will come again?

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

07-30-21

⚖️🗽THE DEVIL 👹 IS IN THE DETAILS! — Biden’s New Plan For Asylum Seekers: Long On Bureaucratese, Short On Specific Details — Questions Human Rights Advocates Should Be Asking!

I found the White House “Fact Sheet” to be largely a mix of bureaucratic doublespeak, shame, blame, and few details about how it’s actually going to work. Also, not much about who is going to be responsible (and accountable) for making it work!

Here it is, so you can judge for yourself:

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/07/27/fact-sheet-the-biden-administration-blueprint-for-a-fair-orderly-and-humane-immigration-system/

Here are some of my questions:

Will those whose cases are denied by an Asylum Officer still have a right to IJ/BIA/Judicial Review?
How will they set up dedicated dockets without pushing back cases already on the docket?
What steps will be taken to insure that Judges assigned to these dockets aren’t members of the “90% Denial Club?”
How will they screen asylum cases with Title 42 still in effect?
What will be the role of detention? If detention is used, how will reasonable access to counsel be be guaranteed in detention centers?
Who will be training the CBP Agents, Asylum Offices, and Immigration Judges to recognize asylum claims, even those that might not be well-articulated by migrants or that might involve novel applications of protection laws?
What advance coordination will take place with legal services groups to maximize representation.
How will positive asylum guidance be issued (given that the BIA has issued almost none in the past four years, and a number of negative precedents have been vacated by the AG or rejected by various Circuits)?
How will the success of this program be measured, particularly with respect to insuring full due process and fundamental fairness to all asylum applicants?
What type of resettlement opportunities or assistance will be made available for successful asylum, seekers and who will provide and fund it?
Will there be any role for the UNHCR? If so, what?
How will DHS and EOIR solve the “effective notice problems” that have plagued the Immigration Court system for years and resulted in far too many “bogus in absentia removal orders.”
Who will insure the accuracy of statistics and that “gamed” or manipulated statistics are not used (as the Trump regime did) to create false narratives about “success” by the Administration or to promote unfair and inaccurate “myths” about asylum seekers.

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

07-29-21

GARLAND’S BIA, OIL “TAKE IT ON THE NOSE” AGAIN: 2d Cir. “Slam Dunks” Matter of J.M. Acosta, 27 I&N Dec. 420 (BIA 2018) (finality of conviction): “The BIA’s burden-shifting scheme and its accompanying evidentiary requirement amounts to an unreasonable and arbitrary interpretation of the IIRIRA.”

Here’s the full decision in Brathwaite v. Garland:

https://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/1284dac9-6e02-4262-ae63-657649702452/1/doc/20-27_opn.pdf#xml=https://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/1284dac9-6e02-4262-ae63-657649702452/1/hilite/

Court summary:

Petitioner Aldwin Junior Brathwaite petitions for review of an order of removability, entered by the Honorable Joy A. Merriman, U.S. Immigration Judge (“IJ”), on June 11, 2019, and approved by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) on December 11, 2019. Because the BIA’s decision is premised on an unreasonable construction of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (“IIRIRA”), we GRANT the petition for review and REMAND the matter to the BIA for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

PANEL: CALABRESI, RAGGI, AND CHIN, Circuit Judges.

OPINON BY: Judge Calabresi

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

Man, even with all the ridiculous “built in tilt” favoring Executive interpretations in Chevron, the BIA still blew it! Normally, in their attempt not to burden their comfortable lives with difficult questions of law, the Article III’s will find that any minimally rational interpretation of an ambiguous provision is “good enough for Government work” under Chevron. But, the BIA couldn’t even clear that “low hurdle!” Simply amazing!

Particularly so when you think that one of the (bogus) justifications often given for “Chevron task avoidance” by the Article IIIs is the “superior expertise” of the Executive adjudicators, clearly a mirage in the case of the BIA and EOIR! At least over the past four years, the primary “expertise” for being selected for an EOIR judgeship has been past government experience, preferably in prosecution, a willingness to check the “deny box,” and ability to crank out the required minimum number of final orders of removal without thinking too much, rocking the boat, or, heaven forbid, actually vindicating the rights of migrants over the wishes of “The Partners” at DHS Enforcement! What a total sham that Garland is now presiding over!

Two years of litigation to “get back to ground zero!” And, you wonder why Garland’s Immigration Courts continue to careen out of control and generate backlog faster than they do positive legal guidance and best practices?

At core, courts are about problem solving, and judges are supposed to be “expert practical problem solvers.” Try to unearth those essential qualities in the disgracefully flawed “judicial” hiring practices at EOIR since 2000!

I note that no “outside expert” has been appointed to the BIA since before the 2000 election. Those few who were there in 2000 were rapidly “purged” by Ashcroft, sending the strong message that “expertise and independent voting” will be “career limiting and threatening” at the BIA.

That was followed by thoroughly rotten “jurisprudence” from the BIA that actually provoked widespread outrage among the Article IIIs at the time. The outcry became so loud, that finally even the Bush II Administration had to “tone down” the anti-immigrant rhetoric and abusive treatement of migrants and their attorneys in Immigration Court that Ashcroft’s “purge” engendered and encouraged. Of course, in doing so, DOJ officials disingenuously blamed the Immigration Judges rather than the “perps” in their own ranks who had declared “open season” on migrants’ rights and human dignity.

Not surprisingly, bad, biased hiring practices, which have intentionally excluded and grossly undervalued the most promising expert problem solvers from outside government bureaucracy, have produced a dysfunctional morass at EOIR. The lack of that basic recognition, even from a recently retired Federal Appellate Judge who should know better, is destroying the foundations of our justice system! Enough already! We need, American Justice needs, progressive reforms at EOIR! NOW, not sometime off in the indefinite future!

Yup, there might be problems with an appellate board that almost always tries to skew things against individual applicants. Rushing to crank out those final orders of removal and pushing already overwhelmed IJ’s to “just pedal faster” might not be a very good “strategy.” And, the lack of professional training, competent judicial administration, expert guidance from the BIA, and unwillingness to implement best practices further deteriorates the Immigration Courts every single day.

While fundamental improvements in personnel and administration at EOIR are well within Garland’s reach, he seems relatively uninterested in taking the bold, courageous actions necessary to restore due process. So, litigating his ludicrously broken, unfair, and dysfunctional system to a standstill, while supporting legislation to get an independent court, appear to be progressive advocates’ only viable options at this point.

This issue is likely to end up in the Supremes. In the meantime, however, there should be lots of backlog-building remands in the Second Circuit. And, who knows whether the BIA will get it right this time around. Even after court remands, their record isn’t particularly encouraging.

The BIA probably will have to wait for OIL, their political handlers at DOJ, and DHS enforcement to “signal” what the “preferred result for litigating purposes” is before venturing forth on another precedent. Does this sound like “fair and impartial adjudication” under Matthews v. Eldridge? No way! So why is EOIR continuing to operate as a “Constitution free zone” under Garland?

It’s past time for Garland to pull the plug and give progressive experts a chance to rescue his dysfunctional court system and save many of the individuals caught up in this never-ending due process nightmare! When will they ever learn, when will they ever learn?

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

06-25-21

‘SIR JEFFREY” CHASE: Garland’s “First Steps” To Eradicate Misogyny & Anti-Asylum Bias @ EOIR Are Totally Insufficient Without Progressive Personnel Changes — Regulations Will Only Be Effective If Drafted By Progressive Human Rights Experts Of Which There Currently Are NONE @ DOJ Save For Some Immigration Judges In The Field Whose Expertise, Intellectual Integrity, & Moral Courage Has Been Ignored By Team Garland! — There Will Be No Gender, Racial, Or Immigrant Justice @ Justice As Long As Garland Mindlessly Lets “Miller’s Club Denial” Operate @ BIA! — Progressives Must Turn Up The Heat On Garland To Reform & Remake EOIR With Qualified Expert Judges & Dynamic, Independent, Progressive Leaders!

https://www.jeffreyschase.com/blog/2021/6/21/first-steps

The latest from the Hon. “Sir Jeffrey:”

JEFFREY S. CHASE | OPINIONS/ANALYSIS ON IMMIGRATION LAW

Blog Archive Press and Interviews Calendar Contact

First Steps

On June 16, Attorney General Merrick Garland finally, mercifully vacated three decisions that formed a key part of the Trump administration’s unrelenting attack on the law of asylum.1 Matter of A-B-, issued by Jeff Sessions in June 2018, took aim in particular at victims of domestic violence.2 Matter of L-E-A-, issued the following year by William Barr, sought to undermine protection for those targeted by gangs due to their familial ties.3 And on January 14, 2021, six days from the end of the Trump Administration, acting A.G. Jeffrey Rosen issued a second decision in A-B-, gratuitously criticizing the method for determining nexus in asylum claims employed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, while conveniently evading that court’s review of the original decision in the case through remand.4

Garland’s action restores the law to where it stood prior to June 11, 2018, but only for the time being. Proposed rules on the subject (which Garland referenced) are due by October 30, when they will first be subjected to a period of public comment. If final rules are eventually published, it will occur well into next year.

As we sigh in collective relief and celebrate the first steps towards correcting our asylum laws, let’s also take note of the imperfect place in which the case law stands at present.

As to domestic violence claims, the BIA’s 2014 decision in Matter of A-R-C-G- (which Matter of A-B- had vacated) has been restored as binding precedent.5 That decision was issued at a time when (as now) regulations addressing particular social groups were being contemplated by DHS and EOIR.6 While A-R-C-G- was an extremely welcome development, the Board used it to recognize a rather narrowly-defined group: “married women in Guatemala who are unable to leave their relationship.” In a footnote to the decision, the Board declined to address the argument of several amici (including UNHCR) that a particular social group may be defined by gender alone. Although A-R-C-G- led to many grants of asylum, some immigration judges relied on the limited scope of the group’s definition to deny claims involving slightly broader variations, in particular, where the victim was not legally married, but nevertheless in a domestic relationship that she was unable to leave. While the BIA reversed some of those denials in unpublished decisions, it declined to speak to the issue through binding precedent.

As to Matter of L-E-A-, Garland’s recent action returns us to the BIA’s original opinion in that case.7 While the decision acknowledged that families constitute particular social groups (a point that was not in dispute, having been universally recognized for some 35 years and stipulated to by DHS), the BIA still denied asylum by invoking a legally incorrect standard for establishing nexus that it has continued to apply in all family-based asylum claims.

For these reasons, the content of the forthcoming regulations will be extremely important in determining the future of asylum in this country. While a return to the test for social group cognizability expressed in the BIA’s 1985 precedent in Matter of Acosta tops most regulation wish lists, I will focus the discussion here on a couple of more specific items necessary to correct the shortcomings of Matter of A-R-C-G- and Matter of L-E-A-.

First, the regulations need to explicitly recognize that a particular social group may be defined by gender alone. In its 2002 Gender Guidelines, UNHCR identified women “as a clear example of a social subset defined by innate and immutable characteristics, and who are frequently treated differently than men,” and whose “characteristics also identify them as a group in society, subjecting them to different treatment and standards in some countries.”8 However, over the nineteen years since those guidelines were issued, the BIA has consistently avoided considering the issue.

The peril of defining gender-based groups in the more narrow manner employed by the BIA has been addressed by two distinguished commentators, who explain that such practice results in “constant re-litigating of such claims,” sometimes creating “an obstacle course in which the postulated group undergoes constant redefinition.”9 And of course, that is exactly what has happened here, as A-R-C-G- gave way to A-B-, which led to differing interpretations among different courts until Garland’s recent reset. The above-mentioned commentators further decried the “nitpicking around the margins of the definition” resulting from the narrow approach when the true reason for the risk of persecution to the applicant “is simply her membership in the social group of ‘women.’”10 Regulations recognizing gender alone as a particular social group would thus provide clarity to judges and asylum officers, eliminate the wastefulness of drawn out litigation involving “nitpicking around the margins,” and bring our laws into line with international standards.

But as L-E-A- demonstrates, recognition of a group alone does not guarantee asylum protection. In order for a group’s recognition to be meaningful, the regs must also address an ongoing problem with the BIA’s method for determining nexus, or whether persecution is “on account of” the group membership.

The BIA is accorded deference by Article III courts when it reasonably interprets immigration laws, provided that the meaning of the language in question is ambiguous. However, the “on account of” standard included by Congress in defining the term “refugee” is quite clear; its meaning is long established, and in fact, is not particular to immigration law.

The Supreme Court referenced this standard last year in a non-immigration case, Bostock v. Clayton County. The Court explained that the test

incorporates the “‘simple’” and “traditional” standard of but-for causation…. That form of causation is established whenever a particular outcome would not have happened “but for” the purported cause….In other words, a but-for test directs us to change one thing at a time and see if the outcome changes. If it does, we have found a but-for cause.11

In a 2015 decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit applied this exact test in the asylum context to conclude that persecution was on account of family, determining that the petitioner’s “relationship to her son is why she, and not another person, was threatened with death if she did not allow him to join Mara 18.”12 But for some reason, the BIA has felt entitled to reject this established standard outside of the Fourth Circuit in favor of its own excessively restrictive one.

Had the proper test for nexus been employed in L-E-A-, asylum would have been granted. Under the facts of that case, once the familial relationship is removed from the equation, the asylum-seeker’s risk ceases to exist. However, the BIA instead imposed an incorrect test for nexus requiring evidence of an “animus against the family or the respondent based on their biological ties, historical status, or other features unique to that family unit.”13

As a former circuit court judge, Garland is particularly qualified to recognize the error in the Board’s approach, as well as the need to correct its course. The problem is compounded by the particular composition of the BIA at present. For example, of the ten immigration judges who were promoted to the BIA during the Trump administration, nine denied asylum more than 90 percent of the time (with the tenth denying 85 percent of such claims). Three had an asylum denial rate in excess of 98 percent.14

This matters, as those high denial rates were achieved in part by using faulty nexus determinations to deny asylum in domestic violence claims, even before the issuance of Matter of A-B-. This was often accomplished by mischaracterizing the abuse as merely personal in nature, referencing only the persecutor’s generally violent nature or inebriated state. The analysis in those decisions did not further examine whether gender might also have been one central reason that the asylum seeker, and not someone else, was targeted.

One BIA Member appointed under Trump recently found no nexus in a domestic violence claim by concluding that the persecutor had not targeted the asylum seeker because of her membership in the group consisting of “women,” but rather because she was his woman. There is no indication in the decision that the Board Member considered why the persecutor might view another human being as belonging to him and lacking the same rights he seems to enjoy. Might it have been because of her gender?

Without a correction through published regulations, there is little reason to expect different treatment of these claims moving forward. Let’s hope that the Attorney General views his recent action as only the first steps on a longer path to a correct application of the law.

Copyright 2021, Jeffrey S. Chase. All rights reserved.

Notes:

Matter of A-B-, 28 I&N Dec. 307 (A.G. 2021) (“A-B- III”); Matter of L-E-A-, 28 I&N Dec. 304 (A.G. 2021) (“L-E-A- III”).

27 I&N Dec. 316 (A.G. 2018) (“A-B- I”).

27 I&N Dec. 581 (A.G. 2019) (“L-E-A- II”).

28 I&N Dec. 199 (A.G. 2021) (“A-B- II”).

26 I&N Dec. 388 (BIA 2014).

The regulations under consideration at that time were never issued.

27 I&N Dec. 40 (BIA 2017) (“L-E-A- I”).

UNHCR, Guidelines on International Protection: Gender-Related Persecution within the context of Article 1A(2) of the 1951 Convention and/or its 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees (May 2002) at para. 30.

James C. Hathaway and Michelle Foster, The Law of Refugee Status, Second Edition (Cambridge University Press, 2014) at 442.

Hathaway and Foster, supra.

Bostock v. Clayton County, 140 S.Ct. 1731, 1739 (2020).

Hernandez-Avalos v. Lynch, 784 F.3d 944, 950 (4th Cir. 2015).

L-E-A- I, supra at 47.

See TRAC (Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse) Immigration Judge Reports https://trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/judgereports/.Republished with permission.

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

Without progressive intervention, this is still headed for failure @ EOIR! A few things to keep in mind.

- Former Attorney General, the late Janet Reno, ordered the same regulations on gender-based asylum to be promulgated more than two decades ago — never happened!
- The proposed regulations that did finally emerge along the way (long after Reno’s departure) were horrible — basically an ignorant mishmash of various OIL litigation positions that would have actually made it easier for IJs to arbitrarily deny asylum (as if they needed any invitation) and easier for OIL to defend such bogus denials.
- There is nobody currently at “Main Justice” or EOIR HQ qualified to draft these regulations! Without long overdue progressive personnel changes the project is almost “guaranteed to fail” – again!
- Any regulations entrusted to the current “Miller Lite Denial Club” @ the BIA ☠️ will almost certainly be twisted out of proportion to deny asylum and punish women refugees, as well as deny due process and mock fundamental fairness. It’s going to take more than regulations to change the “culture of denial” and the “institutionalized anti-due-process corner cutting” @ the BIA and in many Immigration Courts.
- Garland currently is mindlessly operating the “worst of all courts” — a so-called “specialized (not) court” where the expertise, independence, and decisional courage is almost all “on the outside” and sum total of the subject matter expertise and relevant experience of those advocating before his bogus “courts” far exceeds that of the “courts” themselves and of Garland’s own senior team! That’s why the deadly, embarrassing, sophomoric mistakes keep flowing into the Courts of Appeals on a regular basis.
- No regulation can bring decisional integrity and expertise to a body that lacks both!
- Any progressive who thinks Garland is going to solve the problem @ EOIR without “outside intervention” should keep this nifty “five month snapshot of EOIR under Biden” in mind:
  - Progressive judges appointed to BIA: 0
  - Progressive judges appointed to Immigration Court: 0
  - Progressives installed in leadership positions @ EOIR permanently or temporarily: 0
  - Billy Barr Selected Immigration Judges Appointed: 17
  - “Miller Lite” holdover individuals still holding key positions @ EOIR: many (only two removed to date)
  - Number of BIA precedents decided in favor of respondent: 2
  - Number of BIA precedents decided in favor of DHS: 9

That’s right, folks: Billy Barr and Stephen Miller have had more influence and gotten more deference from Garland at EOIR than have the progressive experts and advocates who fought tirelessly to preserve due process and to get the Biden Administration into office. How does that a make sense?

“Miller Lite” – Garland’s Vision of “Justice @ Justice” for Communities of Color — Finally vacating two grotesquely wrong anti-female, anti-asylum precedents hasn’t ended the “Miller Lite Unhappy Hour” for migrants and their advocates at Garland’s foundering DOJ!

Progressives, advocates, and NGOs must keep raising hell until we finally get the “no-brainer,” long overdue, obvious, personnel, legal, structural, institutional, and cultural changes at EOIR that America needs! Waiting for Judge Garland to get around to it is like “Waiting for Godot!” Perhaps worse — I don’t recollect that anyone died waiting for Godot!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever! The BIA Denial Club, Never!🏴‍☠️

PWS

06-22-21

🆘🤮IS 11TH CIR. GROWING WEARY OF GARLAND’S SCOFFLAW BIA? —Two Trips To The Circuit, & The BIA Still Violates Own Regulations, Ignores Precedent, Spouts Gibberish While OIL’s Defense Of This Nonsense & Malfeasance By EOIR Raises Serious Ethical Questions! — THAMOTAR v. U.S. ATT’Y GEN. — Garland’s Dysfunctional & Systematically Unjust Courts Undermine OUR Democracy☠️ — Demand An IMMEDIATE End To The Scofflaw Nonsense🤡 🧹 At OUR Justice Department! 🏴‍☠️

Circus — This appears to be Judge Garland’s vision of “justice” for migrants and people of color @ Bailey’s Crossroads. Isn’t it time to put the past behind us and move forward with housecleaning and reforms at EOIR? Ask Judge Garland “What are you thinking, man?” Is this YOUR vision of due process and expert “judging?” — Public Realm

https://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/201912019.pdf

Thamotar v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 11th Cir., 06-17-21, Published

PANEL: WILSON, JILL PRYOR and LAGOA, Circuit Judges.

OPINION: JILL PRYOR, Circuit Judge

KEY QUOTE:

Visavakumar Thamotar, a Sri Lankan citizen of Tamil ethnicity, seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order affirming an Immigration Judge’s discretionary denial of his application for asylum and grant of withholding of removal. Mr. Thamotar argues that because removal was withheld, federal regulation 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(e)1 required reconsideration of his asylum claim, which the Immigration Judge and BIA failed to give. We agree with Mr. Thamotar that the agency failed to conduct the proper reconsideration. When an asylum applicant is denied asylum but granted withholding of removal, 8 C.F.R.

§ 1208.16(e) requires reconsideration anew of the discretionary denial of asylum, including addressing reasonable alternatives available to the petitioner for family reunification.2 And where the Immigration Judge has failed to do so, the BIA must remand for the Immigration Judge to conduct the required reconsideration.

Here, the Immigration Judge failed to reconsider Mr. Thamotar’s asylum claim under § 1208.16(e). The BIA’s failure to remand on this issue was therefore

1 Mr. Thamotar refers to both 8 C.F.R. §§ 208.16(e) and 1208.16(e) in his briefing. The two provisions are identical in substance, but § 1208.16(e) specifically applies to the BIA (and Immigration Judges) because of the enactment of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-296, tit. IV, subtits. D, E, F, 116 Stat. 2135, 2192 (Nov. 25, 2002) (as amended), and the promulgation of final rule 68 Fed. Reg. 9823, effective February 28, 2003. 68 Fed. Reg. 9823, 9824–25, 9834 (Feb. 28, 2003); see Huang v. INS, 436 F.3d 89, 90 n.1 (2d Cir. 2006) (discussing this legislative history). For consistency, we will refer only to 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(e).

2 Because we vacate the BIA’s order on this ground, we do not address Mr. Thamotar’s additional challenges to the order, which included that the BIA erred by affirming the Immigration Judge’s adverse credibility determination, which he contends was not supported by substantial evidence, and relying on his method of entry into the United States when affirming the Immigration Judge’s decision.

2

USCA11 Case: 19-12019 Date Filed: 06/17/2021 Page: 3 of 32

manifestly contrary to law and an abuse of discretion. It is clear that neither the Immigration Judge nor the BIA conducted the proper reconsideration because the record contained no information about Mr. Thamotar’s ability to reunite with his family, information that the agency must review under § 1208.16(e). Thus, the BIA should have remanded the case for further factfinding. We grant the petition, vacate the BIA’s order, and remand to the BIA with instructions to remand to the Immigration Judge for reconsideration of the discretionary denial of asylum.

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

Lots of work for a bogus asylum denial by EOIR! And the utter nonsense isn’t over! Just a “remand” to give EOIR yet another chance to deny for specious reasons (as they have already done twice). This idiocy will continue until Judge Garland replaces the BIA with real judges who will properly, fairly, and timely apply the law and regulations!

The poor analysis of the IJ, mindlessly affirmed by the BIA, failed to come anywhere close to the “most egregious adverse factors” requirement of the BIA’s own precedent in Matter of Kasinga, 21 I&N Dec. 357, 367 (BIA 1996):

A grant of asylum to an eligible applicant is discretionary. The final issue is whether the applicant merits a favorable exercise of discretion. The danger of persecution will outweigh all but the most egregious adverse factors. Matter of Pula, 19 I&N Dec. 467, 474 (BIA 1987).

Get this, folks! The IJ and the BIA both found that meeting the higher standard for withholding of deportation based on probability of persecution somehow was an “adverse factor” that outweighed family separation! That’s right, an “adverse factor!”

I can’t imagine how this gang of so-called “judges, got through law school and admitted to the bar! Maybe “imposters” took their exams for them! THIS is the best American justice has to offer? If not, why are they making life or death decisions and imposing potential permanent family separation on refugees?

Notwithstanding the assembly line climate and lackadaisical approach to law in Garland’s Immigration “Courts,” these are NOT TRAFFIC COURTS! They are more like “death penalty courts” or “courts of last resort” and those humans appearing before them and their representatives deserve better.

Judge Garland and his team should hypothesize that this type of inferior justice were being meted out in life or death cases to THEIR FAMILY MEMBERS AND LOVED ONES — actual human beings, NOT “just migrants” who, according to Garland’s EOIR, appear to exist in a twilight zone beneath the rest of humanity. That’s what the ongoing “Dred Scottification of the other” still being permitted and promoted by Garland at DOJ is all about!

A fitting celebration of the first Federal Juneteenth Holiday would have been to remove the entire BIA so that they can no longer inflict “Dred Scottification” on migrants of color, their families, their friends, and their communities, among others! Symbolism is only effective if followed by action. And, so far, Garland’s actions on wiping out the “vestiges of Dred Scott at Justice” have fallen woefully short!

This raises serious, unaddressed questions of why such weakly qualified individuals are on the bench in the first place when there are many immigration experts out there who can and would do better. Much better! And it wouldn’t take them years and multiple hearings, appeals, and trips to the Circuit to grant asylum.

This isn’t a “deep” case except that it represents the “deep dodo” 💩 at EOIR, the stench of which is fouling our entire justice system and shaking the foundations of our democracy! This case is about following the Code of Federal Regulations, properly applying precedent, and fairly treating asylum seekers. It’s “Law 101” — things L-1s would have to know to get to L-2! I can’t begin to think what the paper would look like like if one of my students gave me this kind of garbage on a final exam. Fortunately, to date, nobody ever has!

Nor is this a Circuit renowned for critical analysis or holding the Government to a high standards in immigration cases. Indeed, the Eleventh Circuit itself bears some responsibility for this mess! They are well aware of the anti-asylum bias and poor decision-making emanating from the Atlanta Immigration Court, within their jurisdiction, and have chosen to ignore it. See, e.g., https://immigrationcourtside.com/2019/04/22/11th-circuit-judge-adelberto-jose-jordan-outs-the-atlanta-immigration-court-for-equal-protection-charade-in-a-dissenting-opinion-in-my-view-ms-diaz-r/

Those who want a more complete run down of the ongoing “Atlanta disgrace” — a cancer on our justice system — should just go to the “Atlanta Immigration Court” tab on immigrationcourtside.com. There is more than enough compiled to have triggered an investigation, removals from office, and corrective action in a functioning Government! And my collection is just “the tip of the iceberg” on what has been written about the disgraceful, systemic denial of fairness, impartiality, and justice in Atlanta!

And, why was OIL defending this ridiculous mess in the first place? It’s a “comedy” of errors, questionable ethics, and amateurish legal work that the DOJ should be ashamed of and which Garland should end — NOW! No wonder this ridiculous national embarrassment has created an unnecessary 1.3 million case backlog that continues to grow under Garland!

Don’t let Garland or anyone else in the Administration tell you that this self-created backlog justifies a truncation of due process or more “bogus attempts to expedite” asylum cases. NO! What it requires is for Garland to bring in real judges and experts from the private/NGO sector to fix the Immigration Courts so they comply with due process and fundamental fairness!

Judge Garland, “come on man!” These deadly robed clowns and their “defenders” represent YOU — “the top legal officer in our Executive Branch!” YOU have a responsibility to the American people (NOT just the failed DOJ or the President) to “get out the big hook” and “yank” these anti-due process, anti-immigrant, anti-asylum, anti-racial-justice clowns 🤡 off YOUR bench and replace them with competence and fairness. A little (now missing) diversity wouldn’t hurt either! It’s called fulfilling the promises made by Biden and Harris during the election!

It’s not going to improve until Garland replaces the BIA with qualified judges, hires only Immigration Judges who know how to fairly adjudicate asylum cases, (with outstanding public reputations for fairness, scholarship, timeliness, teamwork, and respect), and AAG Vanita Gupta brings in better leadership at OIL to put an end to this tragic, totally unnecessary, disgracefully wasteful abuse of our Federal Judicial system and the resulting human carnage!

NDPA warriors, don’t be fooled or lured into complacency by this week’s long overdue positive developments in A-B- and L-E-A- — things that experts said should have been done by Judge Garland on “Day 1.” Keep showing your total dis-satisfaction and disgust with the glacial pace of reform at DOJ and the myriad of highly unqualified “judges” still being allowed to continue to inflict racial injustice and “worst imaginable practices” on vulnerable individuals (and their lawyers) who are entitled to due process and justice — not a continuing deadly ☠️ clown 🤡 show! Keep letting Garland, Monaco, Gupta, Clarke, Biden, Harris, Congress, the Article IIIs, and the American people know that “The EOIR Clown Show Has Got To Go!” NOW! There will be neither racial justice nor equal justice for all in America (wake up, Vanita Gupta and Kristen Clarke) while Garland operates his “star chamber courts” at EOIR!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever! Garland’s “Asylum Free Zones,” Never!

PWS

06-19-21

⚖️🧑🏽‍⚖️🗽NBC NEWS: IMMIGRATION JUDGES KHAN, MARKS, HONEYMAN, & DORNELL SPEAK OUT ON STRESS, MESS, IN GARLAND’S BROKEN IMMIGRATION COURTS 🆘 🏴‍☠️ — Gabe Gutierrez Reports!

Judge Amiena Khan is the executive vice president of the National Association of Immigration Judges (NAIJ) — Judge Amiena Khan, President National Association of Immigration Judges (NAIJ)

Hon. Diana Leigh Marks — Hon. Dana Leigh Marks
U.S. Immigration Judge
San Francisco Immigration Court
Past President, National Association of Immigration Judges

Hon. Charles Honeyman — Honorable Charles Honeyman
Retired U.S. Immigration Judge
Member, Round Table of Former Immigration Judges

Honorable Lisa Dornell
U.S. Immigration Judge (Retired)
Member, Round Table of Former Immigration Judges

https://www.nbcnews.com/nightly-news/video/immigration-judges-speak-out-on-rise-in-u-s-border-crossings-114715205902

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

Judges Khan and Marks are already on the DOJ payroll. Garland should have brought them in to Falls Church, on at least a temporary basis, to start cleaning up the mess and instituting long overdue due process and judicial independence reforms! The NAIJ which they represent should have been reinstated to represent Immigration Judges.

FULL DISCLOSURE: I am a retired member of the NAIJ.

Recent retirees on the Round Table like Judges Honeyman and Dornell could have been rehired on a temporary basis under available authority to help root out and change the inane quotas, bad precedents, terrible exclusionary hiring processes, and mind-boggling “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” that continues to build backlog, deny due process, and promote reactionary White Nationalist policies in the failed and flailing Immigration “Courts.”

The continuing problems at Garland’s DOJ start with EOIR, but by no means end there! Apparently, Garland’s lackadaisical, permissive attitude toward corruption at DOJ under Trump & his cronies doesn’t get the Hill Dems’ attention unless they and their families were personally targeted by the illegality and misconduct. Otherwise, it’s just the lives of immigrants, asylum seekers, and “the others,” mostly people of color and abused women and children, so who cares?

It’s worthy of noting that it has largely fallen to the press and public interest groups to expose the corruption allowed to fester at Trump’s DOJ. Only then does Garland make tardy and half-hearted efforts to investigate or take action. Cleaning up corruption, changing bad and illegal policies, and rooting out those who carried out such abuses should have been “job one” for the incoming Attorney General. Instead, it’s an “afterthought,” at best!

And, of course, good government and ethics aren’t part of the “institutional culture” @ DOJ that Garland is so anxious to defend. Does every Administration have a “right” to have its illegal actions and corruption covered up and defended by its successor? Will it really deter “good government” if you believe that you might be held accountable by the next Administration for acts of unconstitutionality or illegality?

How come using the law as a “deterrent” is fine as applied to migrants of color, but “deterring” present and future DOJ bureaucrats and politicos from abusing the law in support of a corrupt Administration’s illegal policies isn’t?

Sure, I recognize that guys like Sessions and Barr have a perverted view of what’s unconstitutional. But, the object is to make it difficult for horrible opponents of American democracy like them to become Attorney General in the future and to insure that there will be institutional resistance to any future efforts to corrupt our justice system.

“Normalizing” the unprecedented overtly corrupt behavior of theTrump regime is a continuing problem! We need to fight it all levels of our society and government!

Dishonesty appears to be the main “bipartisan institutional value” at DOJ. No wonder it was so easy for Sessions and Barr to get their corrupt agendas carried out by career lawyers and bureaucrats!

Unless and until Congress finally lights a fire under Garland and his team, and creates an independent Article I Immigration Court, that’s unlikely to change.

Our DOJ is quite obviously broken and reeling. Why isn’t fixing it one of our highest national priorities?

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

06-13-21

⚖️HOPEFUL SIGN ON ARTICLE 1? — At Oversight Hearing, Garland Expresses Modest Endorsement Of Judicial Independence & Open Mind On Article 1 — “As independent as possible,” whatever that means.

Judge Merrick Garland — Attorney General Merrick B. Garland — “Is he open to Article I? It would be nice to think so, but still plenty of reason to be skeptical about his intent for EOIR!’
Official White House Photo
Public Realm

Here’s the audio:

https://www.appropriations.senate.gov/hearings/a-review-of-the-presidents-fiscal-year-2022-funding-request-for-the-us-department-of-justice

The relevant remarks are at 1:59.

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

While it’s always good to be optimistic, to date, “as independent as possible” has meant “as independent as four years of White Nationalist weaponization and meddling from Trump, Miller, Sessions, Barr, Whitaker, Hamilton, McHenry, et al, left them.” That’s NOT independent at all! Quite the OPPOSITE. In many ways there is less judicial independence and more political interference at EOIR now than there was when it was located within the “Legacy INS” before EOIR was created in 1983.

I personally will believe it to the extent that it’s reflected in actions. That means things like vacating restrictive anti-immigrant precedents, restoring asylum for gender-based violence, re-instituting and encouraging Administrative Closing, slashing the backlog by working with parties to remove the vast majority of “non-priority” cases that could be handled in alternative ways, installing e-filing, eliminating bogus “performance work plans,” repudiating “production quotas,” replacing Trump’s BIA with better-qualified judges, revising judicial recruiting and hiring practices to attract more diverse expert candidates from the private/NGO sector, considering stakeholders’ views and recommendations on important policies BEFORE announcing them, establishing a transparent complaint and tenure review process involving the private bar, re-establishing a robust asylum system at the border, upgrading judicial training and using “outside DOJ” experts to conduct it, eliminating the unnecessary “Office of POlicy” from the bloated bureaucracy, hiring experts in judicial management for administrative positions, encouraging written over oral decisions on cases likely to be appealed, expanding the number of judicial law clerks assigned to judges, eliminating agency bureaucracy and redirecting resources to improving local courts and furthering independence, re-recognizing the NAIJ and listening to their suggestions, working cooperatively with the pro bono bar to increase representation, rethinking the overuse of televideo and the presence of “courts” in detention center settings (e.g., prisons in the “New American Gulag”), selecting and retaining only judges who will treat all parties, counsel, and court personnel with respect and professionalism, actively working to overcome the “culture of denial, White Nationalism, and misogyny” that has permeated EOIR over the past four years and still exists, ending docket meddling from Falls Church and DOJ and returning control to local judges, eliminating “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” by politicos and their enablers, reducing the use of single-judge orders at the BIA, selecting expert Appellate Judges for the BIA who will issue some positive as opposed to only negative precedents, refusing to open and closing “courts” located in obscure, out of the way prison locations selected by DHS in large part because of the absence of pro bono lawyers, returning full authority to grant continuances to local judges, no longer referring to DHS (but not respondents’ counsel) as “our partners,” ending the use of derogatory terms and false claims by DOJ officials to Immigration Judges about private lawyers, stopping the intentional manipulation of statistics bv DOJ and EOIR management to further political agendas, ending the “muzzle” on Immigration Judges and encouraging them to participate in public professional activities, promoting best practices rather than institutionalizing worst practices, and again making “through teamwork and and innovation, guaranteeing fairness and due process for all” the absolute touchstone at EOIR, for starters.

To date, NONE of the things on the foregoing list has been accomplished or proposed by Garland and his team. Indeed, a number of his actions, like engaging in “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” by establishing a “Dedicated Docket” for new asylum cases without consulting the stakeholders in advance, and appointing 17 new judges selected by Barr under defective and flawed procedures that discouraged diversity and “disfavored” private sector candidates, are in direct contravention of due process and best practices and serve to discourage, rather than nurture, judicial independence.

Moreover, as I have previously said, I see no evidence that Garland has hired or reached out to any of the types of progressive experts who could actually implement these reforms necessary to achieve judicial independence and promote due process. You can’t get the job done for judicial independence and due process without a radical personnel shakeup at EOIR! The current group at both DOJ and EOIR just doesn’t cut it, as ever a casual observer could tell Garland.

So, until I see some ACTUAL progress, beyond mushy rhetoric, color me skeptical about Garland’s plans for EOIR.

🇺🇸🗽⚖️Due Process Forever!

PWS

06-10-21

AS TOTALLY DYSFUNCTIONAL IMMIGRATION COURTS 👎🏽 CONTINUE THEIR DESCENT INTO THE ABYSS, 80 EXPERTS AND ORGANIZATIONS ASK GARLAND TO UNDO BARR’S ILLEGAL “BANISHMENT” OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF IMMIGRATION JUDGES (“NAIJ”)🧑🏽‍⚖️

June 7, 2021

The Honorable Merrick Garland Attorney General

U.S. Department of Justice Washington, DC 20500

RE: Department of Justice Should Support the National Association of Immigration Judges and Withdraw the Petition to Decertify its Union

Dear Attorney General Garland,

We, the undersigned unions, organizations, immigration law professors and scholars, and other immigration court stakeholders call your attention to the urgent need to preserve and protect the National Association of Immigration Judges (NAIJ) and support collective bargaining by Department of Justice (DOJ) career civil servants. We are heartened by President Biden’s announcements on January 22, 2021, that both overturned his predecessor’s policies limiting employee rights to collectively bargain and also implement a wide-ranging policy to protect, empower, and rebuild the career federal workforce. President Biden’s announcements specifically encourage union organizing and collective bargaining.1

After four relentless years of union-busting, decisive leadership is needed to refortify the federal workforce. NAIJ and its 500+ bargaining unit members—immigration judges who are DOJ attorney employees—are in need of protection right now! NAIJ has been the collective bargaining representative for immigration judges since 1979. Yet, in 2019, the Trump administration filed a petition to strip immigration judges of their statutory right to be represented by a union and decertify NAIJ.

The Trump administration targeted NAIJ in retaliation for NAIJ’s criticism of both the unreasonable working conditions that DOJ managers imposed on its members and the sweeping curtailment of due process rights in immigration court.

While the decertification attempt was initially and thoroughly rejected in a decision by a career employee of the Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA), the decision was abruptly reversed

1 Executive Order 14003, on Protecting the Federal Workforce. 1

in a politically-motivated decision by the FLRA. That FLRA decision ignored the detailed fact-finding of the career employee and reversed long-standing FLRA precedent that 20 years earlier had found that immigration judges were not in a position to influence agency policy.

The FLRA decision is devoid of any reasoned analysis and creates an extremely dangerous precedent for professional workers throughout the federal government. Future administrations could wield this decision like a sword to preclude other professional employees such as physicians, scientists, engineers, and others from unionizing. Indeed, this ill-conceived anti-union precedent could have devastating repercussions for decades to come.

At this moment, a motion to reconsider is currently pending at the FLRA, and we call on the DOJ to withdraw its opposition to that motion, withdraw its decertification petition, and take all steps to restore collective bargaining rights for NAIJ members. President Biden has committed to restoring labor unions and fair working conditions for federal employees. We ask the DOJ to do its part in supporting that objective by taking all necessary actions to ensure that the NAIJ remains a union so that it can continue to represent its members in support of fair working conditions. Doing so will be a service to Immigration Court stakeholders and the public at large.

We seek your immediate review and leadership in this matter. Sincerely,

Amiena Khan

Amiena Khan, President

National Association of Immigration Judges

Unions: AFL-CIO

American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), AFL-CIO American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), Local 511

American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), Local 3525

American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees American Federation of Teachers

Asian Pacific American Labor Alliance, AFL-CIO

Association of Flight Attendants-CWA

2

Communications Workers of America (CWA)

Department for Professional Employees, AFL-CIO

Federal Education Association

International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers (IFPTE) International Union of Painters and Allied Trades

Labor Council for Latin American Advancement National Association of Government Employees National Education Association

National Federation of Federal Employees National Nurses United

National Treasury Employees Union

National Weather Service Employees Organization Patent Office Professional Association

Service Employees International Union (SEIU) The International Brotherhood of Teamsters UNITE HERE

United Mine Workers of America

United Power Trades Organization

Organizations:

African Services Committee

Alliance for Justice

American Immigration Lawyers Association AsylumWorks

3

Bellevue Program for Survivors of Torture Brooklyn Law School Safe Harbor Project Catholic Labor Network

Catholic Legal Services, Archdiocese of Miami Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc. Center for Gender & Refugee Studies

Columbia Law School Immigrants’ Rights Clinic Disciples Immigration Legal Counsel

Florence Immigrant & Refugee Rights Project Immigrant Defenders Law Group

The Legal Aid Society

Migrant Center for Human Rights

Minnesota Interfaith Coalition on Immigration Mississippi Center for Justice

National Immigration Law Center

National Network for Immigrant & Refugee Rights The Right to Immigration Institute

Round Table of Former Immigration Judges

Law Professors and Scholars with Institutional Affiliation for Identification Purposes only:

Sabi Ardalan

Clinical Professor of Law

Harvard Immigration and Refugee Clinical Program Harvard Law School*

Roxana C. Bacon

4

Adjunct Professor of Law Arizona State University* University of Arizona* University of Miami*

David Baluarte

Associate Clinical Professor of Law Washington & Lee University School of Law*

Jon Bauer

Clinical Professor of Law and Richard D. Tulisano ’69 Scholar in Human Rights University of Connecticut School of Law*

Lenni B. Benson

Distinguished Chair of Immigration and Human Rights Law New York Law School*

Matthew Boaz

Professor

Washington & Lee School of Law*

Stacy Caplow

Associate Dean of Experiential Education & Professor of Law Brooklyn Law School*

Rose Cuison-Villazor

Vice Dean and Professor of Law Rutgers Law School*

Ingrid Eagly

Professor of Law

University of California Los Angeles School of Law*

Lauren Gilbert

Professor

St. Thomas University College of Law*

Lindsay M. Harris

Associate Professor & Director, Immigration & Human Rights Clinic University of the District of Columbia, David A. Clarke School of Law*

Katie Herbert Meyer

Associate Professor of Practice and Director of the Immigration Law Clinic Washington University*

Geoffrey Hoffman

Clinical Professor and Immigration Clinic Director

5

University of Houston Law Center*

Alan Hyde

Distinguished Professor of Law and Sidney Reitman Scholar Rutgers Law School*

Erin Jacobsen

Professor and Director at Vermont Law School’s South Royalton Legal Clinic Vermont Immigrant Assistance

Vermont Law School*

Hiroko Kusuda

Clinic Professor and Director of Immigration Law Section

Loyola University New Orleans College of Law*

Stuart H. Smith Law Clinic and Center for Center for Social Justice

Vanessa Merton

Professor of Law

Immigration Justice Clinic Elizabeth Haub School of Law*

Karen Musalo

Professor and Founding Director, Center for Gender & Refugee Studies and the Refugee and Human Rights Clinic

U.C. Hastings College of the Law*

Lori A. Nessel

Professor

Seton Hall University School of Law*

Michael A. Olivas

Wm B. Bates Distinguished Chair (Emeritus) University of Law Center*

Maria Mercedes Pabon Professor of Law

Loyola University New Orleans*

Carrie Rosenbaum

Lecturer in Legal Studies University of California, Berkeley*

Faiza Sayed

Visiting Professor of Clinical Law and Co-Director Safe Harbor Clinic

6

Brooklyn Law School*

Gemma Solimene

Clinical Associate Professor of Law Fordham University School of Law*

Elissa Steglich

Clinical Professor and Co-director Immigration Clinic University of Texas School of Law*

Mark E. Steiner

Professor of Law

South Texas College of Law Houston*

Enid Trucios-Haynes Brandeis School of Law University of Louisville*

Irene Scharf

Professor

Immigration Law Clinic University of Massachusetts*

Doug Smith

Lecturer in Legal Studies Brandeis University*

Paul Wickham Schmidt Immigrationcourtside.com

Erica B. Schommer

Clinical Professor of Law

St. Mary’s University School of Law*

Michael J. Wishnie

William O. Douglas Clinical Professor of Law Yale Law School*

*Institutional affiliation for identification purposes only

7

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

FULL DISCLOSURE: I am a retired member of the NAIJ.

Thanks to my friend Judge Amiena Khan and the rest of her leadership group at the NAIJ for all they do to fight for due process for individuals in Immigration Court!

To date, Garland and his team have been busy defending Billy Barr’s and Trump’s corruption from legal accountability, appointing Barr’s hand-picked “judges” to their overtly non-progressive judiciary, attempting to intimidate the press (until the White House finally had to intervene), and carrying out pre-existing Stephen Miller inspired precedents and policies. Oh yeah, and engaging in their own mindless unilateral round of “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” (a/k/a yet another designed to fail “Dedicated Docket”) in Immigration Court while continuing to build on the pre-existing 1.3 million case backlog. They have also been occupied with ignoring every progressive and expert suggestion and NOT appointing progressives to leadership and judicial positions. Wow! That’s a very full plate (of unappetizing food)!

So, I’m not holding my breath for a favorable response to the latest request for the injection of some legality, common sense, and decency into EOIR. Nor am I expecting Biden and Harris to honor their commitment to Federal Employee Unions, after watching their performance to date on immigration and human rights. Additionally, given the continuing abysmal performance of EOIR and its ongoing waste and incompetence, I doubt whether they want any “internal critics” speaking truth to power.

So far, Garland is on course to be “Billy Barr, Jr.” While that might help Barr to avoid legal accountability for his corrupt administration of justice @ Justice, it’s not so good for progressives who would like to see (and once believed they would see) some “justice from Justice” particularly for racial minorities, women, children, asylum seekers, and other migrants.

They also would like to see at least minimally professional and respectful treatment of those appearing and representing individuals in Immigration Court. While Garland, Monaco, Gupta, and Clarke are all being paid comfortable “top of the line” USG salaries for ignoring long-overdue progressive reforms @ EOIR, many attorneys representing individuals in their “Star Chambers” are operating pro bono or low bono in their attempts to keep Garland’s failing and flailing system afloat.

Just more reasons why we need an independent Article I Immigration Court to deliver due process, racial, and gender justice to individuals, regardless of status.

Barr Departs — Lowering The Barr by Randall Enos, Easton, CT
Republished By License. Guess Garland forgot to flush!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

06-08-21

Attorney General Merrick B. Garland Announces Appointment of David Neal as Director of the Executive Office for Immigration Review

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Here’s “quick coverage” from Dan Kowalski over at LexisNexis Immigration Community:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

View the latest edition of “Tea’s Coffee” featuring the amazing Tea Ivanovic @ Immigrant Foods:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Dan Kowalski reports for LexisNexis Immigration Community:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Here’s a link to the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, courtesy of Dan Kowalski over at LexisNexis Immigration Community:

And, here’s my “quick take:”

🇺🇸DPF,

Related posts:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Here are some of my questions:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Here’s the full decision in Brathwaite v. Garland:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

The latest from the Hon. “Sir Jeffrey:”

🇺🇸Due Process Forever! The BIA Denial Club, Never!🏴‍☠️

Related posts:

Thamotar v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 11th Cir., 06-17-21, Published

Get this, folks! The IJ and the BIA both found that meeting the higher standard for withholding of deportation based on probability of persecution somehow was an “adverse factor” that outweighed family separation! That’s right, an “adverse factor!”

🇺🇸Due Process Forever! Garland’s “Asylum Free Zones,” Never!

Related posts:

FULL DISCLOSURE: I am a retired member of the NAIJ.

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Here’s the audio:

🇺🇸🗽⚖️Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

FULL DISCLOSURE: I am a retired member of the NAIJ.

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts: