"The Voice of the New Due Process Army" ————– Musings on Events in U.S. Immigration Court, Immigration Law, Sports, and Other Random Topics by Retired United States Immigration Judge (Arlington, Virginia) and former Chairman of the Board of Immigration Appeals Paul Wickham Schmidt. To see my complete professional bio, just click on the link below.
The Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) at the Department of Justice (DOJ) is seeking a highly-qualified individual to join our team of expert professionals who serve as Appellate Immigration Judges.
This is an Excepted Service position, subject to a probationary period. The initial appointment is for a period not to exceed 24 months. Conversion to a permanent position is contingent upon appointment by the Attorney General.
This position is in the Board of Immigration Appeals, within the Executive Office for Immigration Review. The incumbent reports to a Deputy Chief Appellate Immigration Judge, who in turn reports to the Chief Appellate Immigration Judge.
Appellate Immigration Judges must apply immigration laws impartially, humanely, and equitably and ensure that all parties are treated with respect and dignity. They also must resolve cases expeditiously, in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations, and consistent with the Department’s priorities and policies.
Appellate Immigration Judges are commissioned to serve in formal, quasi-judicial proceedings to review the determinations of immigration judges in removal and related proceedings, and of certain officers of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security in visa petition proceedings and other matters. All Appellate Immigration Judges review the record on appeal, including briefs, exhibits, and transcripts, and hear oral argument when appropriate. An Appellate Immigration Judge may concur or dissent based on their view of any given case. The majority of the Appellate Immigration Judges’ duties fall into the general categories of removal proceedings, discretionary relief, claims of persecution, stays of removal, visa petitions, administrative fines, and bond and detention.
The majority of an Appellate Immigration Judge’s duties will be dedicated to the appellate work, but an Appellate Immigration Judge must also be qualified, and may be called upon, to conduct trial level proceedings in the role of an immigration judge.
Appellate Immigration Judges make decisions that are final, subject to appeal to the Federal courts. In connection with these proceedings, Appellate Immigration Judges exercise certain discretionary powers as provided by law and are required to exercise independent judgment in reaching final decisions.
Employment is contingent upon the completion and satisfactory adjudication of a background investigation.
Selective Service Registration is required, as applicable.
Moving and Relocation Expense are not authorized.
You must have relevant experience (see “Qualifications” below.)
Qualifications must be met by the closing date of the announcement.
If selected, you must file a financial disclosure statement in accordance with the Ethics in Government Act of 1978.
You must receive your Federal salary by Direct Deposit (to a financial institution of their choosing).
Qualifications
In order to qualify for the Appellate Immigration Judge position, applicants must meet all of the following minimum qualifications:
Education: Applicants must possess a LL.B., J.D., or LL.M. degree. (Provide the month and year in which you obtained your degree and the name of the College or University from which it was conferred/awarded.)
AND
Licensure: Applicants must be an active member of the bar, duly licensed and authorized to practice law as an attorney under the laws of any state, territory of the U.S., or the District of Columbia. (Provide the month and year in which you obtained your first license and the State from which it was issued.)
AND
Experience: Applicants must have seven (7) years of post-bar admission experience as a licensed attorney preparing for, participating in, and/or appealing formal hearings or trials involving litigation and/or administrative law at the Federal, State or local level. Qualifying litigation experience involves cases in which a complaint was filed with a court, or a charging document (e.g., indictment or information) was issued by a court, a grand jury, or appropriate military authority. Qualifying administrative law experience involves cases in which a formal procedure was initiated by a governmental administrative body.
NOTE: Qualifying experience is calculated from the date of your first admission to the bar.
In addition, successful applicants will have a strong combination of experience demonstrating that they will perform at the level of competence, impartiality, and professionalism expected of an Appellate Immigration Judge. For more information about relevant experience and knowledge, please see the “How You Will Be Evaluated” section.
Additional information
This is an Excepted Service position, subject to a probationary period. The initial appointment is for a period not to exceed 24 months. Conversion to a permanent position is contingent upon appointment by the Attorney General.
Additional positions may be filled from this announcement within 90 days of certificate issuance.
Alternative work schedule options are available.
There is no formal rating system for applying veterans’ preference to Appellate Immigration Judge appointments in the excepted service; however, the Department of Justice considers veterans’ preference eligibility as a positive factor in Appellate Immigration Judge hiring. Applicants eligible for veterans’ preference must claim their status when completing their application in the online application process and attach supporting documentation. (See “Required Documents” section.)
Conditions of Employment: Only U.S. Citizens or Nationals are eligible for employment with the Executive Office for Immigration Review. Dual citizens of the U.S. and another country will be considered on a case-by-case basis. All DOJ applicants, both U.S. Citizens and non-citizens, whose job location is with the United States, must meet the residency requirement. For a total of three (not necessarily consecutive years) of the five years immediately prior to applying for a position, the applicant must have: 1) resided in the United States; 2) worked for the United States overseas in a Federal or military capacity; or 3) been a dependent of a Federal or military employee serving oversees.
As the Federal agency whose mission is to ensure the fair and impartial administration of justice for all Americans, the Department of Justice is committed to fostering a diverse and inclusive work environment. To build and retain a workforce that reflects the diverse experiences and perspectives of the American people, we welcome applicants from the many communities, identities, races, ethnicities, backgrounds, abilities, religions, and cultures of the United States who share our commitment to public service.
Additional Information: The COVID-19 vaccination requirement for Federal employees pursuant to Executive Order 14043 does not currently apply. Some jobs, however, may be subject to agency- or job-specific vaccination requirements, so please review the job announcement for details. To ensure compliance with an applicable preliminary nationwide injunction, which may be supplemented, modified or vacated, depending on the course of ongoing litigation, the Federal government will take no action to implement or enforce the COVID-19 vaccination requirement pursuant to Executive Order 14043 on Requiring Coronavirus Disease 2019 Vaccination for Federal Employees. Therefore, to the extent a Federal job announcement includes the requirement that applicants must be fully vaccinated against COVID-19 pursuant to Executive Order 14043, that requirement does not currently apply.
Read more
Benefits
How You Will Be Evaluated
You will be evaluated for this job based on how well you meet the qualifications above.
You will be evaluated for this job based on how well you meet the qualifications above.
Applicants meeting the minimum qualifications stated above will be further evaluated to determine those who are best qualified. This determination will be based, in part, on the following Quality Ranking Factors (QRFs), which need to be addressed as part of the application package.
Ability to demonstrate the appropriate temperament to serve as a judge. Appellate Immigration Judges need to possess traits such as compassion, decisiveness, open-mindedness, courtesy, patience, freedom from bias, and commitment to equal justice under the law. Additionally, individuals in this role are expected to exercise discretion, and articulate how that discretion is being exercised, in complex, sensitive, high-pressure and/or emotional situations. A strong candidate demonstrates excellent analytical, decision-making, and writing abilities.
Litigation or adjudication experience, preferably in a high volume judicial or administrative context. Appellate Immigration Judges often must balance a variety of skills that can include managing a high volume of cases, drafting decisions, and reviewing an administrative record at the appellate level. It is vital that a candidate is able to manage a high-volume docket under tight deadlines without compromising quality.
Experience conducting administrative hearings or adjudicating administrative cases. Appellate Immigration Judges are expected to decide difficult or complex issues, particularly those that impact people’s lives. Prior adjudication experience in other tribunals – Federal, state, local, military or other court systems – is ideal, however, adjudications experience may be drawn from non-courtroom settings. For candidates who have limited adjudications experience, significant litigation experience before EOIR or extensive litigation experience in settings comparable to an immigration court setting may be considered.
Experience handling complex legal issues. Immigration law often involves handling complex legal issues. This role requires being able to work through complicated fact patterns and issues, novel areas of the law, as well as learning, adapting to, and incorporating changes in the law.
Knowledge of immigration laws and procedures. In this role, depth and/or volume of immigration law experience is important. Candidates should have meaningful experience applying complex immigration law, which can include representing non-citizens or the Federal government in matters involving complex or diverse immigration laws, adjudicating immigration matters, legislative or administrative advocacy on immigration policy issues, academic or clinical experience, and other similar work that involves routine analysis and application of immigration law.
To apply for this position, you must provide a complete Application Package by 11:59 PM (ET) on 04/12/2024, the closing date of this announcement, which includes:
Your Resume documenting seven (7) years experience since being admitted to the bar.
A complete online Assessment Questionnaire.
Document(s)addressing the Quality Ranking Factors (QRFs) listed above.
A Writing Sample demonstrating your ability to author legal documents (10 pages, maximum; an excerpt of a longer document is acceptable).
Current or former Federal employees must provide copies of their most recent and their latest SF-50, Notification of Personnel Action.
Other Supporting Documents, if applicable:
Veterans’ Preference Documentation: Although the veterans’ preference point system does not apply to this position, we accept preference claims and adjudicate such claims per the documentation provided. Note: If claiming 5-point veterans’ preference, include a DD-214 or statement of service. If claiming 10-point veterans’ preference, include an SF-15 and documentation required by that form, VA or military letter dated 1991 or later, and DD-214.
Any other supporting documentation required for verification as described in the announcement.
Tips for your resume:
Ensure that your resume contains your full name, address, phone number, email address, and employment information.
Each position listed on your resume must include: From/To dates of employment (MM/YYYY-MM/YYYY or MM/YYYY to Present); agency/employer name; position title; Federal grade level(s) held, if applicable; hours, if less than full time; and duties performed.
In addition, any experience on less than a full time basis must specify the percentage and length of time spent in performance of such duties.
Tips for addressing QRFs:
Applicants should use narrative form to address each of the five (5) QRFs. They must be written in a separate document indicating the by-number of the specific QRF being addressed.
Successful applicants will address all of the QRFs. If you do not have the specific experience addressed in a QRF, we encourage you to write about a similar skill, ability, knowledge, or experience.
Applicants should be thorough in addressing each QRF. This includes:
Approximate number of cases or matters handled in a given period of time.
Applicant’s specific role (e.g., adjudicator, first chair, co-counsel, responsible for the written brief only, etc.).
Length of time involved in a given role (e.g., lead counsel in 20 immigration proceedings in 10 years).
Specific examples of the types of cases (asylum application, pleas, settlement, bench trial, jury trial, etc.).
The number of court and/or administrative appearances made in those cases.
The case dispositions (ruling on the merits, plea or similar resolution, settlement, trial, jury trial, etc.).
Failure to submit the documents listed above with your application package will result in your application package being removed from consideration.
If you are relying on your education to meet qualification requirements:
Failure to provide all of the required information as stated in this vacancy announcement may result in an ineligible rating or may affect the overall rating.
You must submit a complete application package by 11:59 PM (EST) on 04/12/2024, the closing date of the announcement.
To begin, click Apply Online to create a USAJOBS account or log in to your existing account. Follow the prompts to select your USAJOBS resume and/or other supporting documents and complete the occupational questionnaire.
Click the Submit My Answers button to submit your application package.
It is your responsibility to ensure your responses and appropriate documentation is submitted prior to the closing date.
To verify your application is complete, log into your USAJOBS account, select the Application Status link and then select the more information link for this position. The Details page will display the status of your application, the documentation received and processed, and any correspondence the agency has sent related to this application. Your uploaded documents may take several hours to clear the virus scan process.
To return to an incomplete application, log into your USAJOBS account and click Update Application in the vacancy announcement. You must re-select your resume and/or other documents from your USAJOBS account or your application will be incomplete.
If you are unable to apply online or need to fax a document you do not have in electronic form, view the following link for information regarding an Alternate Application.
We will evaluate the qualifications and eligibility of all applicants, and then assess those who meet the minimum qualifications. All candidates who meet all the minimum requirements will be referred to the hiring official for further consideration. We will notify you of the final outcome after all of these steps have been completed.
Fair & Transparent
The Federal hiring process is set up to be fair and transparent. Please read the following guidance.
Beginning of a dialog window for the agency announcing this job. It begins with a heading 2 called “Learn more about Field Operating Offices of the Office of the Secretary of the Army”. Escape will cancel and close the window.
Learn more about
Executive Office for Immigration Review
If you are interested in a rewarding and challenging career, this is the position for you!
The Executive Office for Immigration Review seeks highly-qualified individuals to join our team of expert professionals in becoming a part of our challenging and rewarding Agency. The primary mission of the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) is to adjudicate immigration cases by fairly, expeditiously, and uniformly interpreting and administering the Nation’s immigration laws. Under delegated authority from the Attorney General, EOIR conducts immigration court proceedings, appellate reviews, and administrative hearings. EOIR consists of three adjudicatory components: The Office of the Chief Immigration Judge, which is responsible for managing the Immigration Courts where Immigration Judges adjudicate individual cases; the Board of Immigration Appeals, which primarily conducts appellate reviews of these Immigration Judge decisions; and the Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer, which adjudicates immigration-related employment cases.
Learn more about what it’s like to work at Executive Office for Immigration Review, what the agency does, and about the types of careers this agency offers.
Yes, EOIR is a mess! But, it’s not going to get any better without better judges, particularly at the BIA which sets precedents and should (even if it now doesn’t) maintain nationwide consistency among Immigration Judges and articulate and implement “best judicial practices.”
Quite disappointingly and outrageously, the Biden Administration and A.G. Garland have failed to “clean house” and bring long overdue due process and judicial reforms to EOIR. So, the NDPA will have to go about it “the old-fashioned way:” one judicial vacancy at a time!
What if we had a BIA that:
Believed due process and fundamental fairness are “job one;”
Insured correctness and quality over “generating numbers;”
Institutionalized protection, not rote rejection, of asylum seekers;
Built on past precedents for properly generous treatment of asylum seekers like INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, Matter of Mogharrabi, and Matter of Kasinga, rather than ignoring, or looking for artificial ways to limit them;
Issued precedents insuring early identification and consistent granting of many current and repetitive asylum applications;
Looked for ways to simplify, rather than overcomplicate and obfuscate, legal guidance;
Had “zero tolerance” for anti-immigrant, anti-asylum, racial, gender, and other biases among Immigration Judges (e.g., no more “asylum free zones”);
Refused to allow the Immigraton Court system to be misused and abused as a “deterrent” or “an adjunct of DHS Enforcement;”
Developed and enforced “best judicial practices;”
Prioritized facilitating pro bono representation as a key element of due process;
Aspired to make the “former vision of EOIR” — “through teamwork and innovation be the world’s best administrative tribunals guaranteeing fairness and due process for all” — a reality, rather than a cruel hoax!
Of course, one judge can’t do it all! But, there are plenty of great judges in the current EOIR system, at both levels, who need reenforcement and reaffirmation! Rebuilding the EOIR system so that it is a real, due-process-oriented, subject-matter-expert court that insures justice — rather than institutionalizing injustice — has to start somewhere! Fixing EOIR would also help save the entire faltering Federal Judicial system.
If the NDPA doesn’t do it, who will? Certainly not Biden, Harris, Garland or their minions— or at to least not without being pushed from within and dragged kicking and screaming from without.
Waiting for Godot (a/k/a Merrick Garland) to fix EOIR isn’t going to cut it! Naseer’s Motley Group in The Rose Bowl Merlaysamuel Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Waiting for Godot in Doon School.jpg Copy [[File:Waiting for Godot in Doon School.jpg|Waiting_for_Godot_in_Doon_School]] Copy December 8, 2011So, don’t “wait for Godot” to fix this broken system! Clue: He’s not coming! Get those applications in now!
Better judges for a better America! Sooner, rather than later!
“This court grants a petition for review of an agency denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief only under the most extraordinary circumstances. See Gutierrez-Alm, 62 F.4th at 1194; Sharma v. Garland, 9 F.4th 1052, 1060 (9th Cir. 2021). This is one of those rare instances. For the reasons discussed above, the agency’su adverse credibility determination is amply supported by substantial evidence. But the IJ failed to properly consider and evaluate the evidentiary weight of multiple documents Kalulu offered into the record independent of her testimony, and the BIA made clear factual errors when it reviewed those documents. Because the agency’s decision therefore “cannot be sustained upon its reasoning,” this case must be remanded for the IJ or BIA to reconsider its decision. De Leon, 51 F.4th at 1008 (internal quotation marks omitted). On remand, the agency must reexamine the three declarations and medical document discussed in section III(b) to consider whether they, when properly read alongside other nontestimonial evidence in the record, independently prove Kalulu’s claims for asylum or withholding of removal. This court takes no position on whether those documents provide such proof or whether Kalulu merits any of the relief for which she applied.”
Dissent: “The majority ignores our precedent and instead concludes that the agency would have reached the same adverse credibility determination in the absence of these unsupported findings. That approach contravenes the REAL ID Act, binding circuit precedent, and fundamental principles of administrative law. I respectfully dissent.”
Many congrats to Amalia, Judah, and their NDPA team!
As my friend Dan often says about EOIR, “you can’t make this stuff up!”🤯
Well, the panel judges all agree that the BIA is wrong! It’s just a question of HOW wrong.
Note Van Dyke is a Trump appointee, and one of the most far-right judges on the bench. Murphy is a Bush II appointee. Sanchez (concur/dissent) is a Biden appointee.
The BIA has to have worked overtime to do such a miserable job that even Van Dyke couldn’t paper it over, although he took a stab at it!
The majority decision is basically a restatement of the 4th Circuit’s pre-REAL ID precedent Camara v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 361 (4th Cir. 2004). That case materially affected practices, changed results, and saved lives during my tenure at the “Legacy”Arlington Immigration Court!
So, it’s not that requiring that testimony be evaluated along with independent, non-testimonial evidence is something “new” or “rocket science!”🚀 Heck, it’s even incorporated in the REAL ID Act. This is “Immigration 101!” Yet, theBIA came up woefully short while Garland ignores fundamental flaws in his judicial system.
It’s well worth looking at a bit more of Judge Gabriel Sanchez’s vigorous separate opinion:
Petitioner Milly Kalulu, a native of Zambia, alleges she
was persecuted because she is a lesbian in a country that
criminalizes same-sex relationships. When her relationship
with a woman was discovered by her girlfriend’s brothers,
she was beaten, whipped, injected with an unknown
substance, stabbed in the chest, doused with gasoline, and
threatened with death over several violent encounters.
Kalulu submitted documentary evidence corroborating her
claims, including a copy of her medical report, a declaration
from her aunt in California, and declarations from several
Zambians who witnessed the attacks on her. The agency,
however, dismissed this evidence based on unsupportable or
trivial grounds.
I agree with the majority that the agency failed to
consider whether Kalulu’s supporting evidence
independently proves her claims for asylum, withholding of
removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture
(CAT). “Where potentially dispositive testimony and
documentary evidence is submitted, the BIA must give
reasoned consideration to that evidence.” Cole v. Holder,
659 F.3d 762, 772 (9th Cir. 2011); see also Antonio v.
On the basis of his robust SOTU performance, I have every confidence that President Biden can more than adequately defend himself from the “Hur report.” Sadly, the same can’t necessarily be said for all the asylum seekers and other immigrants harmed by Garland’s indifference to systemic injustice in his “courts!”
This is the real “immigration crisis” that threatens our legal system and our democracy!
“The IJ’s conclusion that Gao failed to meet her burden of proof is based on the lack of sufficient corroborating evidence. As mentioned above, where, as here, the petitioner’s testimony is deemed credible, but the IJ finds that additional corroborating evidence is necessary to satisfy the burden of proof, the IJ is required to “(1) point to specific pieces of missing evidence and show that it was reasonably available, (2) give the [petitioner] an opportunity to explain the omission, and (3) assess any explanation given.” Wei Sun, 883 F.3d at 31; see also Pinel-Gomez, 52 F.4th at 529. Because the IJ failed to comply with these requirements here, we remand for the agency to reconsider Gao’s claim that she will be singled out for persecution if she returns to China.”
“Berhe asserted that the Eritrean military detained and beat him because he complained about conditions during his mandatory military service and because of his perceived anti-government political opinion. The agency’s adverse credibility determination is not supported by substantial evidence. … Respondent’s motion to transfer venue is DENIED, the petition for review is GRANTED, the BIA’s decision is VACATED, and the case is REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this order.”
“Based on the statutory language, structure, and context of § 1252, we conclude that a reinstated order of removal is not final for purposes of judicial review until the agency has completed withholding proceedings. Only when those proceedings conclude, if the noncitizen is eligible for that review, has the agency finalized all mandatory review and “fully determined” the noncitizen’s fate. Arostegui-Maldonado, 75 F.4th at 1140 (quoting Luna-Garcia, 777 F.3d at 1185). A contrary conclusion would contravene the express intent of Congress. Our own circuit’s precedent is consistent with this interpretation, having long treated reinstated orders of removal as final once withholding proceedings are complete. We see no reason to upset that precedent. Because F.J.A.P. filed his petition within 30 days of the completion of his CAT proceedings, we have jurisdiction to hear his petition and proceed to the merits. … Here, the Board did not just declare an absence of evidence; it actively ignored the evidence relied upon by the immigration judge. … The Board reweighed and discounted evidence in F.J.A.P.’s case instead of properly disputing that evidence with contrary facts from the record. … The Board did not explain how the immigration judge’s conclusion that F.J.A.P. would likely be tortured for having “the audacity to file a police report” is illogical, implausible, or lacks support. The Board did not explain why, in a country where gangs control much of the government—an assertion which was supported in the record by the State Department’s country report—an individual complaint about the gang made to the gang-controlled police would not put a target on someone’s back. … For these reasons, we find that the Board erred by failing to apply the required clear error standard of review. Because the Board failed to apply the correct standard of review, we need not reach whether substantial evidence supported its conclusion. In light of this error, we grant F.J.A.P.’s petition and remand to the Board of Immigration Appeals for reconsideration of the immigration judge’s decision under the correct standard of review consistent with this opinion.”
Harry S. Graver, Esquire Jones Day D.C.Chuck Roth, Esquire NIJC
*****************
Great, if disturbing, examples of the “culture of any reason to deny” that flourishes in too many places in Garland’s EOIR and the poor leadership from the BIA! All these respondents were “garlanded,” and only saved by their outstanding lawyers and the Circuits!
Congrats to the attorneys involved in all these cases. Gerald Karikari appeared before me at the “Legacy” Arlington Immigration Court. Ben Winograd is a superstar appellate litigator. Harry S. Graver is an attorney in the DC Office of Jones Day, where I was a partner in the 1990s. Chuck Roth is a “superlitigator” for the NIJC!
The season’s outlook for justice in Manager Merrick Garland’s EOIR:
Gloomy 😪😢
In the often other-worldly, fact-free, one-sided “debate” about immigration and asylum, we must remember that severe over-denial, abuse of in absentia orders, “courts in prison,” and lack of positive precedents in Garland’s EOIR badly distort the success rate for asylum seekers that the Government often throws around. Because of Garland’s failure to legitimize EOIR asylum adjudications by cleaning house, replacing unqualified leadership, and insisting on judges with demonstrated asylum expertise and reputations for fairness, we actually have little idea how asylum seekers would fare in a fair and functional system where due process and decisional excellence were required.
Suffice it to say that significantly more asylum cases would be granted in a more timely manner. We just don’t know how many more!
Where a State court order granting a respondent’s motion to vacate a conviction does not indicate the reason for the vacatur, and there is no other basis in the record to independently establish the reason, the respondent has not satisfied his burden to show that the court vacated his conviction because of a substantive or procedural defect in his criminal proceedings.
FOR THE RESPONDENT: William M. Sharma-Crawford, Esquire, Kansas City,
Missouri
BEFORE: Board Panel: HUNSUCKER, PETTY, and CLARK, Appellate Immigration
Judges.
PETTY, Appellate Immigration Judge: [Opinion]
******************************
SCHMIDT, Judge of the Round Table, dissenting:
I dissent.
This respondent moves to reopen and terminate proceedings. His motion is biased on a valid order of a Kansas State Judge vacating the conviction that was the basis for his removal. I would grant the motion and terminate proceedings.
Contrary to the panel’s claim, the basis for the respondent’s motion to vacate the conviction in state court is clear on this record: the respondent was ineffectively advised by counsel during his criminal proceedings where he pled guilty. Notably, the U.S. Supreme Court has found that failing to properly advise a defendant of the immigration consequences of his conviction is ineffective assistance under the sixth amendment to the Constitution. Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010).
According to the record, the prosecuting attorney agreed with the respondent’s assertion. On the basis of that agreement and his review of the record, the state judge granted the motion. Thus the record shows that the reason for the action was a violation of the respondent’s sixth amendment rights during his criminal proceedings. There is no evidence that the state court acted “solely for immigration purposes” as the BIA found in Matter of Pickering, 23 I&N Dec. 621, 625 (BIA 2003), rev’d on other grounds, Pickering v Gonzales, 465 F.3d 263 (6th Cir. 2006).Therefore, the panel’s reliance on Pickering is wrong.
Because there is no conviction supporting the DHS’s charge of removability, they have failed to meet their burden of proof. Consequently, these proceedings must be terminated.
Even if there were ambiguity in the state judge’s order, I would reach the same result. The INA places the burden of establishing removability on DHS by a very high “clear and convincing evidence” standard. INA section 240(c)(3)(A). Consequently, any ambiguities in the DHS’s proof must be construed against them. Therefore, even if I found some ambiguity as to the reason for the state judge’s order, the DHS would still fail to sustain their burden and proceedings should be terminated.
There is no evidence in this record that the state judge acted solely to eliminate immigration bars or for other rehabilitative purposes as was the case in Pickering. Therefore Pickering does not control. To get around this defect, the panel essentially invents a “presumption of immigration rehabilitative purposes” to fill the gap in their reasoning and save the DHS’s case. This attempt to overrule the statutory burden placed on DHS is clearly inappropriate.
For the foregoing reasons the DHS has not established the respondent’s removability by clear and convincing evidence. Therefore, I would grant the respondent’s motion to reopen and terminate proceedings. Consequently, I dissent from the panel’s unjustified denial of the motion.
Merrick Garland doesn’t worry about injustice in his courts! But, YOU should PHOTO: Wikipedia Commons
THIS WEEK IN “GARLANDING” — True Tales From The “Twilight Zone” Of American Justice!
By Paul Wickham Schmidt
Courtside Exclusive
February17, 2024
garland ( gar’ land) v.t. [garlanded, garlanding] [dv. USAG Merrick Garland via Prof. Laurence Tribe] m. inflict injustice by one in charge, often through inattention, inaction, or dithering. (Ex 1. I pray the judge won’t garland my case. Ex 2. My client was garlanded and deported to death. Ex 3. They will be garlanding asylum applicants at the U.S. border.)
By all accounts, President Biden and his White House were outraged this week when they were garlanded by the “Hur report.” Ironically, three years of complaining by some of Biden’s core supporters who helped elect him in 2020 about being systematically “garlanded” at EOIR brought not so much as a raised eyebrow from the WH. Indeed, they might now be viewed as just a preview of Biden’s “Miller Lite” dissing of his supporters and human lives at the border with his inanely enthusiastic support of an attempted human rights “fire sale” by Senate Dems! Obviously, it’s quite a different story when things come full circle and the “chickens finally come home to roost.”
You might think that’s hard to top! But, you would be wrong! Let’s get started on this week’s trip around “the land where due process and fundamental fairness fear to tread!”
The project focused on pretrial hearings that can encompass pleadings, scheduling and other technical matters. The average observed hearing ran under four minutes, a rapid-fire pace to cover all of a hearing’s required steps.
Judges advised people of their rights in only 18% of the observed hearings. Most often, this involved reading rights to everyone in a group instead of individually.
Immigration courts are required to provide interpretation in the preferred language of the individual appearing at a hearing at no cost to the individual. The court frequently failed to provide Central American Indigenous language interpretation. This impacted roughly four out of five individuals who preferred to speak in a Central American Indigenous language.
In about one in five observed hearings, the individual was not represented by an attorney.
Of course, one might wonder why it is the responsibility of the ACLU to ferret out things that Garland should have discovered and corrected himself. But, no matter. Those poor souls whose lives and future are in the hands of the Omaha Immigration Court can expect to be garlanded.
2) Shenanigans in Chicago
Dan Kowalski reports:
IJs hide the ball; find the secret list or lose your case
Friends,
Immigration court practitioners in many cities now face a new hurdle: find, and adhere to, a secret list of IJ procedural preferences (requirements, actually)…posted, in one case, in the “pro bono room” of one court. NOT online anywhere. Oh, and it changes frequently, and without warning. See the attached sample from Chicago.
Practitioners have complained to EOIR, so let’s see what happens.
I have a funny feeling that PWS may have a thing or two to say about all this.
Indeed I do, my friend, indeed I do. This one hits “close to home.”
Back in 2006 my friend and Round Table colleague Judge John Gossart of Baltimore headed a group of IJs who took on the monumental task of writing the first Immigration Court Practice Manual (“ICPM”). Based on Judge Gossart’s own “local court rules and best judicial practices” developed over decades, the ICPM built on the success of the award- winning BIA Practice Manual, created and issued during my tenure as BIA Chair.
One of the key features of the ICPM is thatIt superseded and erased all then-existing “local rules.”
Those few of us IJs who did public education events — under the watchful eye of our HQ “handlers” — were encouraged to tout and promote the ICPM as the “definitive guide” to successful practice before the courts, which, of course I dutifully did as reflected in my speeches from those days. I believe we even had “Q&A” sessions with the local immigration bar to promote and explain the ICPM.
Now, after years of gross mismanagement under Trump and Biden, things have come full circle. The oft-conflicting, idiosyncratic, and frequently inaccessible or counterintuitive “local rules” that the ICPM was created to eliminate evidently have returned with a vengeance.
Meanwhile, the very substantial amount of time, resources, credibility, and effort that went into creating, distributing, and implementing the ICPM has been a colossal waste of taxpayer resources because the last two Administrations have failed in their duty to competently and professionally administer EOIR!
And let’s not leave out Congress! If ever there were a need for a new, independent, professional, expert Article I Court System it’s EOIR. Yet, although Dems have introduced bills, the GOP has expressed no interest in Article I, nor has it been a priority for Congressional leadership and the Administration. It wasn’t even “on the radar screen” during the failed Senate “debate” on the immigration system.
Both Chicago Immigration Court practitioners and those IJs, current and past, who devoted their professional time and energy to the ICPM have been garlanded.
3) ADR On Steroids In Virginia
A long-time DMV immigration lawyer told the “Courtside I-Team” this week:
I routinely have MCHs listed as “in person” that are actually by Webex (I had one today). I also have an Individual on Thursday listed as Webex, but I received an email at 4:00 PM today stating that this was an error, and it was actually in person. I replied that I could not attend in person, as I have too many other cases and family issues to rearrange my schedule at the last minute. We’ll see what happens, but all this is typical of an agency that could care less about applicants, practitioners or due process of law. Take care.
For decades, practitioners and experts had been begging DOJ and EOIR to enter the 21st century with automation. Dishearteningly, now that automation has belatedly arrived at EOIR, it’s being used to severely diminish customer service rather than improve it!
It seems that every whim, irrationality, inefficiency, and inconvenience that developed at EOIR over years has now been “automated” to maximize the trauma and stress inflicted on those appearing before these broken courts. As this example points out, that has led to “Aimless Docket Reshuffling (“ADR”) on steroids!”
And here’s why automated ADR is such a powerful tool! Some practitioners have told me that it allows EOIR to unilaterally schedule them to be in three or four different courts at the same time, with almost no notice. Then, it’s up to the lawyer to file individual“motions to reschedule” to clean up EOIR’s mess.
Sometimes they are granted, sometimes denied without any rationale. All of this leads to more work and case shuffling but, importantly, without ever getting to the merits of any case!
Meanwhile, the backlog grows exponentially and the stress levels on the private bar and the staff ratchet up.
There might be surer ways to destroy a court system, but none come immediately to mind. This is garlanding at its best!
4) Another “F” In “Immigration Law 101” From The 3rd Circuit
“[W]e conclude that the BIA, in deciding his CAT claim, failed to consider evidence favorable to Herrow. For that reason, we will remand his petition as it applies to that claim. … Herrow claims that the BIA and IJ erred in denying his CAT claim and in finding that (1) he is unlikely to face torture and (2) the Somali government would not acquiesce in such torture. Because the BIA and IJ ignored evidence favorable to Herrow, we will grant his petition in part and remand for a more comprehensive review of the evidence. … To establish a likelihood of future torture, the record must demonstrate an aggregate risk of torture to the noncitizen that exceeds fifty percent. In making this determination, the IJ must address what is likely to happen to the petitioner if removed, and whether “what is likely to happen amount[s] to the legal definition of torture.” In answering these questions here, the BIA and IJ found that Herrow did not demonstrate a likelihood of torture. We conclude, however, that this determination could not have been made if all the evidence presented by Herrow had been properly considered.”
Being wrongfully denied CAT is no small matter, particularly if the USG is threatening to send you to Somalia. Lets get a glimpse of what happens in Somalia, courtesy of the latest report from our State Department:
Government security forces, including NISA and the Puntland Intelligence Agency (PIA), detained boys and adult men in the same facility and threatened, beat, and forced them to confess to crimes, according to Human Rights Watch. There were reports of rape and sexual abuse by government agents, primarily members of the security forces. The Human Rights Center, a local nongovernmental organization (NGO), reported two Somaliland police officers, area commissioner Hassan Ismail and Mustafe Yusuf Dheere, raped Nimo Jama Hassan on June 4 in Caynabo (see sections 1.g. and 6).
Al-Shabaab imposed harsh treatment and punishment on persons in areas under its control (see section 1.g.).
Torture and other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment at the hands of clan militias, some of which were government-affiliated, remained frequent. A strong and widespread culture of impunity continued, due mainly to clan protection of perpetrators and weak government capacity to hold the guilty to account.
You might think that would lead Garland and his subordinates to take extra care to get these cases right. But, you would be wrong. Dead wrong in many cases. “Good enough for government work” is the touchstone of garlanding.
By all accounts, Garland was a stellar student during his Harvard Law days. But, not so much some of his EOIR judges at the trial and appellate levels, particularly some of the “Sessions/Barr holdovers” who appear to have been appointed to the bench primarily because they were viewed as likely to deny protection without regard to law or facts. (I’ll concede that Barr and Sessions were wrong about some of their appointments who turned out, perhaps againstthe odds, to be fair judges.)
Far too many EOIR judges receive “Fs” from the Courts of Appeals on the basics of immigration and asylum law, even though most mistakes never get to the Article III Courts or manage to otherwise wend their way through the system, thereby endangering lives.
Mr. Herrow was garlanded, but survived (at least for now) thanks to the work of his lawyers and the Third Circuit.
Well, folks, that’s this week’s wrap from Gar-Land, “the land that justice forgot!” But, stay tuned to Courtside for future updates on garlanding and its victims!
What’s on the horizon: In March, a final report expected from AILA Ohio on systemic racism at EOIR! Should be a great read!
Sarah Jessica Parker will NOT be appearing in the Garland/Monaco production of “Sex And The Courthouse!” Photo by Shawn Miller/Library of Congress. Public Domain.
Law360 (February 5, 2024, 6:23 PM EST) — The U.S. Department of Justice will pay $1.2 million to resolve a suit from a former staff assistant who said a California immigration judge routinely subjected her to explicit, lewd comments and once told her he would “make her straight” if they had sex.
By Grace Elletson
This article is “paywalled.” Those with Law360 access can get all the details.
But, the final settlement agreement is public and should give you a picture of what’s happening inside Garland’s often-secretive and dysfunctional “courts.”
On January 22, 2021, two days after President Joe Biden’s inauguration, then SF Chron reporter Tal Kopan ran an extensive, well-documented expose of the widespread sexual harassment problems at EOIR, the home of the U.S. Immigration Courts at the USDOJ. The story was picked up by other publications. Also, it was highlighted in that day’s edition of “Courtside,” along with a strong suggestion for immediate action addressed to incoming AG Judge Merrick Garland and AAG Vanita Gupta (a former, now very former, “civil rights maven”), both of whom had been nominated but not yet confirmed. Seehttps://immigrationcourtside.com/2021/01/22/🇺🇸⚖%EF%B8%8Fnote-to-judge-garland-and-vanita-gupta-misogyny🤮-is-running-rampant-in-the-eoir-courts-soon-to-be-your/.
Tal Kopan, Deputy Washington Bureau Chief for the Boston Globe. As a reporter for the S.F. Chron in 2021, she ripped the covers off massive sexual harassment problems at EOIR.
Lisa Monaco, Deputy AG. In apparent response to Kopan’s expose, Monaco established a committee to look into sexual harassment at EOIR and the rest of DOJ. But, not surprisingly, the recent $1.2 million settlement with a former EOIR female staff member shows that complaints languish, resolutions are opaque, and wronged individuals have to force action by suing in Federal Court! Official USG Photo, Public Realm
It now appears that Monaco’s efforts at reform have been just as lackadaisical as her implementation of Biden’s Executive order on regulations improving the treatment of gender-based claims at EOIR and elsewhere in Government, and her and her boss’s disturbingly inept approach to EOIR reform generally!
Yet, even with clear notice of the festering problems and an opportunity to address them in a way that would “change culture,” it required the institution of a Federal lawsuit by the plaintiff to obtain action and an effective remedy, almost three years after her termination.
After years of overt anti-asylum bias and misogyny from Sessions and Barr, long suffering respondents, practitioners, and many EOIR employees expected a “due process/good government renaissance” under former Federal Judge and Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland. However, despite a few improvements, Garland has “floated above” the chaos and lack of quality control that daily vex and plague those trapped in his dysfunctional, hopelessly backlogged “courts.” PHOTO: Wikipedia Commons
It’s difficult to quantify the actual costs of EOIR mismanagement by Garland and his political lieutenants. After all, how do you put a money value on wrongful deportations, denial of constitutional rights, being subjected to substandard anti-immigrant decision making, bad precedents, “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” (“ADR”) on steroids, poorly trained judges, years stuck in limbo without the relief to which you are entitled, the effect of statistics manipulated to downplay the number of legal refugees stuck in EOIR’s hellish 3 million+ backlog, “courts” intentionally located in obscure inaccessible locations within the “New American Gulag” (“NAG”) run by DHS, and the overall “customer unfriendly” and often intentionally coercive mess to which those who practice before EOIR and those whose fate is in EOIR’s hands are subjected every working day? You can’t!
Nor is the waste of finite USG resources on chronic structural inefficiencies, boneheaded schemes to expedite dockets as “deterrents,” and ill-advised “defenses of the indefensible” in Federal Courts easy to value. But, in this case, we can quantify the cost to taxpayers of Garland’s and Monaco’s poor leadership — $1.2 million!
I wonder how many qualified accredited representatives a real problem solver and due process innovator like Professor Michele Pistone at VIISTA Villanova could train with that kind of money?
The poor leadership of Garland on immigration matters and the lousy performance of EOIR continue to be drags on the Biden Administration and our justice system. It didn’t have to be this way!
No Longer in the Cast: Former Associate AG Vanita Gupta, who left DOJ after three years of “failing to connect the dots” among civil rights, the rule of law, and the glaring violations of human rights and due process taking place at EOIR and the rest of the immigration bureaucracy. Literally, these abuses took place right under her nose, but apparently below her radar screen!
During Gupta’s tenure, the already horrible treatment of asylum seekers and other migrants of color within EOIR and the immigration bureaucracy actually deteriorated in many ways. Gupta is a sad, yet classic, example of what routinely happens to progressives once they are invited into the “halls of power” within the Government: They get co-opted into defending the status quo and the dangerous fiction of “revolution by evolution.” See, e.g., Perry Bacon, Jr., https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/02/06/equity-diversity-inclusion-progressivism-limits/.
Just ask neo-Nazi Stephen Miller how “revolution” really works! He spent every day of his tenure in the Trump Administration single-mindedly working to dehumanize and demonize immigrants, particularly those of color and women, and to strip them of their already overly-limited rights. He paid no attention whatsoever to criticism, naysaying, and resistance from within or without. He took every “defeat” in Federal Court as an invitation to do something even worse and more outrageous.
While Gupta, despite her lofty position and civil right creds, was unable to materially improve the situation of migrants, Miller undid decades of progress on due process, racial justice, gender justice, and good government. Much of the damage he inflicted remains imbedded in the system, at DOJ, DHS, and elsewhere, as do many of those who willingly and enthusiastically assisted him.
The contrast between Gupta’s and Miller’s accomplishments and government “legacies” is a stunning illustration of the difference between Democrats and Republicans when it comes to immigrants’ rights, human rights, and racial justice — the fundamentals of governing. Democrat “political strategists” are belatedly “wondering and wandering” what to do about an “enthusiasm gap” with their core progressive voters who put Biden and Harris in office. The answer is staring them right in the face: Results matter!
Liz Mineo, Staff Writer, interviews Professor Neuman in The Harvard Gazette:
. . . .
What should be done about border security, enforcement, and the immigration court backlog?
In terms of enforcement, there is no easy solution. A border fence is merely a symbol and no solution. Clearly, the adjudication system needs more resources, and adjustments to improve both efficiency and fairness. For both sides, justice delayed is justice denied, and that should be an important part of the focus.
Another priority, contrary to some claims, is to reduce reliance on detention. The U.S. is engaged in arbitrary detention of migrants who really don’t need to be detained; they could be subject to surveillance.
The country should also respect its international obligations not to send people back to countries where they will be persecuted, tortured, or killed. It cannot suspend its international obligations on that front, and it should not openly violate them, as it did under COVID.
What measures should be taken to reduce the flow of migrants into the U.S?
In terms of enforcement, the important point to stress is that this is not an issue that the U.S. can solve unilaterally. There must be a regional solution. It’s obvious to anyone who looks at the logistics of the problem that the solutions depend on cooperation with Mexico. Congress can’t just impose a solution and assume that Mexico will go along with it. More broadly, there are other countries that need to be involved in protecting refugees and in solving some of the problems that lead to migration.
Some experts say the asylum system is a parallel immigration system and that it should be revamped. What’s your take on this?
I’d like to use the term asylum broadly, not legalistically, to cover forms of protection from persecution, killing, and torture. The U.S. asylum system is too opaque and too inconsistent: Valid claims may be rejected, and claims that are made in perfectly good faith may turn out to be invalid.
On the other hand, some people seek desperately to come to the U.S. for reasons that are not covered by asylum, such as poverty, loss of livelihood, or to join family members. The system needs to winnow those claims out while remaining open to valid claims for protection. It would also benefit from greater clarity on which claims are valid, and from more consistent adjudication, but now, the system is not meeting its obligations to persecuted people.
Finally, what are your realistic hopes for changes in immigration policies?
For now, my hopes would be that any new legislation would increase funding and would help give the public the sense that the border situation is being addressed.
And meanwhile that the executive would use the authority that it already has to manage the situation better, including by negotiating with other countries. The executive should resist efforts that obstruct its compliance with its obligations.
There is danger that any new legislation would decrease protection, which would mean that we would be taking no steps forward, and several steps backward, and that nonetheless, issues about migration would remain just as divisive as they are now.
*************************
Read the full (edited) interview at the link.
“Decrease protection” seems to be a toxic bipartisan goal of Congress and the Administration. What’s preventing it? They can’t agree on the amount of cruelty, suffering, and dehumanization to inflict on vulnerable forced migrants who overwhelmingly seek only to have the USG process their legal claims for protection in a fair and timely manner! That reality has clearly been lost in the rancid, one-sided, often secret “negotiations” in Congress; the insipid statements of the Biden Administration promising more border closures, cruel, inhuman, degrading, expensive, and wasteful detention; and treacherous “bipartisan” abrogation of well-established “life or death” legal rights to fair consideration of claims!
Professor Neuman says “this is not an issue that the U.S. can solve unilaterally.” There is general consensus among migration experts on this fundamental truth! Yet, Congress and the Administration keep pretending otherwise, with little critical, informed “pushback” from the media.
Why isn’t Kristen Welker interviewing Professor Neuman and other migration experts, rather than making “Meet the Press” a “Foxlike Forum” for those promoting White Nationalist lies about the border and national security? Welker hasn’t bothered to inform herself about the human lives and human rights involved with forced migration at the border. Therefore, her feeble attempts to stop GOP nativist politicos from rambling on with their border myths are somewhere between ineffective to pathetic, but certainly must be maddening to anyone involved with assisting the actual humans seeking protection under our dysfunctional legal system!
Garland’s inexcusable failure to fix EOIR and get it working fairly, professionally, expertly, and in real time is a drag on the Biden Administration immigration policies and an existential threat to our democracy!
NDPA “Four Star General” ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️ Charles Kuck reports:
My partner Danielle Claffey won yet ANOTHER Russian Asylum case the belly of the beast Atlanta Immigration Court.THIS is why lawyers are essential in asylum cases!
Danielle says:
Earlier this week, I had the great fortune of securing asylee status for a young Muslim girl from Russia, before an Atlanta immigration judge. Though she is young and was so quiet for the last year I was handling her case, in court, she was strong, confident, and provided vivid detail of what she went through for the entire 19 years of her life in Russia before fleeing for America. After the judge formally granted her asylee status, and the government waived appeal, the judge told her she was sorry for everything she went through in her home country. When the judge granted her case, and the interpreter translated the judge’s words, it was the first time I saw my client smile, followed by a big deep breath. She has carried a lot in her 21 years, but can now rest easy and pursue all of her dreams here in the U.S.
*************************
Danielle M. Claffey, Esquire Partner Kuck Baxter LLC Atlanta, GA PHOTO: Kuck Baxter
Many congrats, Danielle, and thanks so much for sharing! With great representation, anything is possible, even in Atlanta!
THIS is actually the way Immigration Court could and should work on a regular basis from all involved! Teamwork for justice! Note that:
No appeal;
No petition for review;
No remand;
No “aimless docket reshuffling;”
No need to keep renewing work authorization;
Respondent feels welcomed and understood by U.S. justice system;
Respondent leaves courtroom on the way to a green card, eventual U.S. citizenship, and can fulfill full potential in society;
Models and rewards best practices and professional cooperation (by EOIR, ICE, and the private bar) in achieving “justice with efficiency;”
As Charles says, representation is essential; you bet; so, why hasn’t Garland worked WITH the pro bono bar, NGOs, and clinical educators to facilitate representation in every asylum case? (HINT: “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” and its derivative “Expedited Dockets” — both “Garland specialties” — are major, DOJ-created, impediments to effective representation and are particularly discouraging and problematic for pro bono representatives!
“The BIA erred in affirming the IJ. The entirety of the BIA’s analysis about the motion to reopen was that Davis “has not established that evidence of his mental health issues and of his past and feared harm if returned to Liberia are new, previously unavailable, or would likely change the result in his case.” This one sentence alludes to the elements of a motion to reopen, but does not explain how they apply to Davis’s case. Neither the IJ nor the BIA met the requirements of reasoned decision-making. … Without an adequate explanation, this Court cannot conduct a meaningful review of the BIA’s September 30, 2022 order. … This Court grants Davis’s petition for review in case no. 22-3262, denies the petition for review in case no. 23-1229, and remands for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
[Hats off to Colleen Mary Cowgill, Joseph N. Glynn, Elaine Janet Goldenberg, Keren Hart Zwick, Zachary Scott Buckheit, Golnaz Fakhimi, David R. Fine, Kira Michele Geary, Haarika R. Reddy, Cynthia Louise Rice and Kate Thorstad!]
****************
Congrats to the NDPA team from Immigration and Disability Law Scholars.
But, this is an example of how Merrick Garland’s DOJ is failing the basics of American justice! Note that:
Two levels of EOIR flunk “Judging 101” — badly;
Inappropriate “defense of the indefensible” (and easily correctable) by Garland’s DOJ (OIL) asserting semi-frivolous jurisdictional argument;
Wastes Court of Appeals time on something Garland could and should have corrected and prevented from reoccurring;
Failure to follow Circuit precedent by both EOIR and OIL;
Failure to apply established standards;
Likely use of mindless “any reason to deny boilerplate” at EOIR;
Generates needless motion to reconsider;
After four years, two IJ hearings, two administrative appeals, a motion to reopen, a motion to reconsider, a trip to the Court of Appeals, case remains unresolved;
Competent EOIR Judges could have reopened the case and ruled on the merits in less time and using fewer resources than trying to mindlessly avoid providing the respondent with a reasoned decision;
In a system with three million pending cases these types of easily avoidable, sophomoric mistakes from supposedly “expert” judges are repeated over and over again— not always caught and corrected — leading to denials of due process and fundamental fairness and promoting backlog-building “aimless docket reshuffling!”
What if the the wonderful team at “Immigraton and Disability Law Scholars” could devote 100% of their time to representing vulnerable individuals at merits hearings in Immigration Court rather than having to correct avoidable mistakes by EOIR and OIL?
After three years in charge of EOIR, why hasn’t Merrick Garland, a former Court of Appeals Judge nominated to the Supremes:
Cleaned house at EOIR;
Brought in new, expert, dynamic, due-process-focused leadership;
Institutionalized best practices (see example 1 above);
Attacked system-wide anti-immigrant culture, lack of quality control, and unprofessional decision-making that continues to plague this critical “retail level” of American justice (see example 2 above);
Fixed OIL so that it will stop undermining justice in America by raising specious arguments and defending indefensible EOIR mistakes in the Article III Courts?
Merrick Garland’s “Alfred E. Neumann Approach” at EOIR: Indolent, inappropriate, ineffective! PHOTO: Wikipedia Commons
It’s not rocket science; it doesn’t require legislation (although Garland certainly should have been publicly pushing for Article I); it just takes a laser-focused commitment to due process, fundamental fairness, best practices, and efficient delivery of justice from what continues to be America’s worst “court system!”
Why that leadership and action isn’t coming from Garland is a question that everyone who cares about the future of American🇺🇸⚖️ justice should be asking every day! Fix the fixable! Model the best! That’s “Good Governing 101!”
The long-awaited bipartisan Senate deal on immigration contains no real reforms, such as a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants. It’s all about “securing” the border.
Biden and Senate Democrats have caved to Senate Republican hardliners. Among other restrictions, the bill would make it much harder for people to apply for asylum.
On Friday evening Biden called the bill “the toughest and fairest set of reforms to secure the border we’ve ever had in our country.”
Then Biden went further — endorsing a full border shutdown. He said the bill “would give me, as President, a new emergency authority to shut down the border when it becomes overwhelmed. And if given that authority, I would use it the day I sign the bill into law.”
I very much doubt Biden would shut the border if he signs this bill into law.
So what’s going on here? The underlying politics here has nothing to do with funding Ukraine. It doesn’t have to do with reforming immigration. It doesn’t even have much to do with the practical challenge of securing the border.
It has everything to do with the 2024 election, in which border security has become a big issue.
The nation does have to take reasonable action to stem the illegal flow of immigrants. But Trump has stoked American’s fears with lies (see below).
Trump and Biden are engaged in a giant pre-election kabuki fight over the border.
Biden wants to take the border issue away from Trump and figures this bill will do it. Which is exactly why Trump doesn’t want the bill enacted. “As the leader of our party, there is zero chance I will support this horrible, open-borders betrayal of America,” Trump said on Saturday. “It’s not going to happen, and I’ll fight it all the way.”
Trump says he welcomes criticism from GOP senators. “Please, blame it on me. Please, because they were getting ready to pass a very bad bill.”
House Speaker Mike Johnson, Trump’s lapdog-in-chief, says the bill is “dead on arrival” in the House. Besides, he now says, it isn’t needed because Biden already has all the authority he needs to close the border.
Um … just last year, Johnson argued that Congress must tighten immigration laws to strengthen the president’s hand. When he was president, Trump sought similar additional authority from Congress.
Meanwhile, House Republicans are about to begin impeachment proceedings against Alejandro Mayorkas, homeland security secretary, for allegedly being too soft on border security — even though Mayorkas worked with Senate Republicans to come up with this hardline border deal.
We need to deal with the border, but Republicans are now the ones sitting on their hands because they’re beholden to Trump. We also need to deal with immigration in a humane way by offering a broad and reasonable path to citizenship, but Democrats seem to have forgotten this basic goal.
The public, meanwhile, is utterly confused by Trump’s demagoguing. Here are Trump’s biggest lies, followed by the truth.
Trump claims Biden doesn’t want to stem illegal immigration and has created an “open border.”
Rubbish. Since he took office, Biden has consistently asked for additional funding for border control.
Republicans have just as consistently refused. They’ve voted to cut Customs and Border Protection funding in spending bills and blocked passage of Biden’s $106 billion national security supplemental that includes border funding.
Trump blames the drug crisis on illegal immigration.
Trump claims that undocumented immigrants are terrorists.
Baloney. America’s southern border has not been an entry point for terrorists. For almost a half-century, no American has been killed or injured in a terrorist attack in the United States that involved someone who crossed the border illegally.
Trump says undocumented immigrants are stealing American jobs.
Nonsense. Evidence shows immigrants are not taking jobs that American workers want. The surge across the border is not increasing unemployment. Far from it: Unemployment has been below 4 percent for roughly two years, far lower than the long-term average rate of 5.71 percent. It’s now 3.7 percent.
Trump claims undocumented immigrants are responsible for more crime in America.
More BS. In fact, a 2020 study by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, cited by the Department of Justice, showed that undocumented immigrants have “substantially” lower crime rates than native-born citizens and legal immigrants. Despite the recent surge in illegal immigration, America’s homicide rate has fallen nearly 13 percent since 2022 — the largest decrease on record. Local law enforcement agencies are also reporting drops in violent crime.
Since he entered politics, Donald Trump has fanned nativist fears and bigotry.
Now he’s moving into full-throttled neofascism, using the actual language of Hitler to attack immigrants — charging that undocumented immigrants are “poisoning the blood of our country” and saying they’re “like a military invasion. Drugs, criminals, gang members and terrorists are pouring into our country at record levels. We’ve never seen anything like it. They’re taking over our cities.” He promises to use the U.S. military to round up undocumented immigrants and put them into “camps.”
The parallels with Nazi Germany are chilling. In 1932, the canny Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels called for “a thick wall around Germany,” to protect against immigrants. “Certainly we want to build a wall, a protective wall.”
Trump and his enablers want us to forget that almost all of us are the descendants of immigrants who fled persecution, or were brought to America under duress, or simply sought better lives for themselves and their descendants.
Immigration has been good for America. As the median age of Americans continues to rise, we’ll need more young people from around the world.
The central question shouldn’t be how to secure our borders. It should be how to create an orderly and humane path to citizenship.
“Kabuki Theater” with human lives! The REAL “national security threats” — Trump, Abbott, DeSantis, and their MAGA toadies like MAGAMike — subvert our democracy in plain view! ATTRIBUTION: Creative Commons 2.0
Lost in the overheated and too often misleading media hype of this issue is a simple truth: Congress and Administrations of both parties have failed to fulfill our Government’s duties under international and domestic laws (which are based on international requirements) to establish a fair, generous, expert, timely asylum adjudication system — one that complies with due process and actually gives asylum applicants the required “benefit of the doubt.”
Now, in a show of supreme political cowardice, egged on by the White Nationalist right and their lies, politicos of both parties and in all three branches of Government seek to cover up their failure by punishing and endangering the lives of their victims! The latter are legal asylum seekers — human beings — who overwhelmingly present themselves to authorities at the border in an orderly fashion to get a fair adjudication of their claims. Our Government routinely denies them that fundamental right through ridiculous delays, bad precedents, poor quality adjudications, underfunding, deficient leadership, and coercive gimmicks like bogus prosecutions, imprisonment, denial of access to counsel, and illegal and immoral family separation.
Meanwhile, Dems are failing to stand up for the human and legal right to seek asylum, which is being violated right and left and which the “Senate compromise” promises even more scofflaw violations of human rights and basic human dignity.
We can diminish ourselves as a nation, but it won’t stop human migration — particularly forced migration!
🇺🇸🗽⚖️😎 THERE’S STILL SOME INSPIRING NEWS TO REPORT: 1) CHICAGO PASTORS WELCOME BUSSES; 2) GW LAW CLINIC STUDENTS HELP NEW ARRIVALS; 3) W&M LAW CLINIC WINS 27 CASES; 4) NDPA STAR KIM WILLIAMS, ESQ, TRIUMPHS OVER GARLAND DOJ’S “NEXUS NONSENSE” IN 1ST CIR; 5) HRF’S ROBYN BARNARD CALLS OUT BIDEN’S THREAT TO TRASH ASYLUM; 6) CEO BILL PENZY LIKES & APPRECIATES IMMIGRANTS!
Locals and migrants attend a banquet at First Presbyterian Church of Chicago on Nov. 30, 2023. (Photo by Max Li)
(RNS) — Chicago was already facing a homelessness crisis before Texas’ Republican governor, Greg Abbott, began directing thousands of migrants entering his state to Democratic bastions that had declared themselves migrant-friendly sanctuary cities.
Since the transfers began in April 2022, more than 20,000 migrants, many of them destitute Venezuelans, have arrived, and many Chicagoans have expressed concerns that the city’s resources are being drained and have accused government officials of failing to communicate about the migrants’ cost and their fates.
At the same time, advocates for the migrants, especially community organizers in more vulnerable neighborhoods, have pushed back against attempts to pit two marginalized groups against each other. These groups have stepped up to support the new arrivals and in many cases have found allies in local faith leaders.
. . . .
Black said the majority of community residents want to find a way to both support the migrants and build support for a part of Chicago that has been historically underserved and underresourced. At the banquet at First Presbyterian, a speaker from Southside Together Organizing for Power, a community organizing group, talked about what it means to have Black and brown unity.
“It’s basically founded on this idea that there’s no scarcity,” Black said. “Not only is there enough for everybody — for the asylum-seekers, and the historically disenfranchised populations of South Side Chicago.”
He added, “We have so much more to gain from our unity than from the division which is being manufactured and orchestrated by interests that don’t want these communities to get the resources they need.”
Newcomer Fair at Langdon Elementary for families who have recently arrived from Texas and Arkansas via bus
I report that today Immigration Clinic student-attorneys Raisa Shah, Jennifer Juang-Korol, and I participated in the Newcomer Fair that the District of Columbia Public Schools sponsored at Langdon Elementary for families who have recently arrived from Texas and Arkansas via bus, primarily Venezuelans living in DC shelters. We shared immigration and social services information, GW swag, and met lots of cute kids. We were the only law school that participated. Please see the attached.
Professor Alberto Benítez & GW Immigration Clinic Student-Attorneys Raisa Shah & Jennifer Juang-Korol Staff The Table @ Newcomer Fair!
3) W&M Law Clinic Wins 27 Cases
Professor J. Nicole Medved reports on LinkedIn:
Over the holidays, the Immigration Clinic received approval notices in TWENTY-SEVEN applications that we’ve filed in the last calendar year. 🎉Among those 27 approvals were approvals for #asylum, #lawfulpermanentresidency, #DACA, #TPS, and #workpermits. It has been so exciting to see–and share–the fantastic news with our clients, students, and alumni who worked on these cases!
Clinic students prepare Temporary Protected Status and work permit applications. (Spring 2023)
4) NDPA Superstar Kim Williams Triumphs Over Garland DOJ’s “Nexus Nonsense” In 1st Cir
“Ricardo Jose Pineda-Maldonado (“Pineda-Maldonado”) is a native and citizen of El Salvador. He petitions for review of the decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) that denied his application for asylum and claims for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We grant the petition, vacate the BIA’s decision, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this decision.”
[Please read the entire 31-page decision. It is a solid beat-down for the IJ and the BIA. Hats way off to Kim Williams and team! Listen to the oral argument here.]
Kim Williams, Esquire Rubin Pomerleau PC PHOTO: LinkedIn
5) HRF’s Robyn Barnard Calls Out Biden’s Threat To Trash Asylum
Robyn Barnard Associate Director of Refugee Advocacy Human Rights First PHOTO: Linkedin
Robyn writes on LinkedIn:
Have been thinking a lot about this statement & questioning how we got here. Anyone who works in this space knows just how complicated our laws & system are, the challenges global crises present, all compounded by recent attempts to totally destroy our immigration system. We know this is hard. However, the President has had at his service very smart ppl, experts, not to mention those in NGO space w decades of experience who have provided him reams of recommendation papers from before he was elected President, all wanting to help him to succeed at making the immigration system more efficient, more fair, but I’d guess most also came out of 4 yrs of Trump wanting to ensure we treat ppl w dignity & respect their basic human rights. If only he would listen.
How did the President go from vowing to “restore asylum” & “stop kids in cages” to essentially trying to out-Trump Trump? I wish we had a President who had the political courage to stand by immigrants, to stand in public & declare why detention, border walls, & summary deportations don’t work, & to invest in humane & smart solutions. The truly enraging thing about this is he will never win in his gross political posturing despite throwing migrants under the bus, or more aptly–literally to the cartels–the Right will never be satisfied & now he has put himself on record as in favor of Trump’s policies.
Shame. Shame on whoever had a hand in this hateful declaration and shame on the leader who put his name to it.
6) CEO Bill Penzy Likes & Appreciates Immigrants
Penzys Logo FROM: Facebook
Penzy, CEO of Penzy’s Spices in Wauwatosa, WI (my home town — graduated from Tosa East in ‘66) writes:
And despite all the Republican anger, it really is okay to say you like what immigrants do and have always done for this country. So much hard work. So much tasty food. What’s not to like? They need somewhere their hard work can amount to something, and we have plenty of space, and more work to do than we can do ourselves..
Immigrants give us the chance to be kind, decent humans. Let’s be kind, decent humans.
Thanks for caring enough to cook and caring about so much more.
Even in a time of “politicos’ bipartisan national fear-mongering, irresponsibility, and trashing of human rights,” courageous NDPA “freedom fighters” still stand up for human dignity and the right to asylum!
MIAMI (AP) — Eight months after crossing the Rio Grande into the United States, a couple in their 20s sat in an immigration court in Miami with their three young children. Through an interpreter, they asked a judge to give them more time to find an attorney to file for asylum and not be deported back to Honduras, where gangs threatened them.
Judge Christina Martyak agreed to a three-month extension, referred Aarón Rodriguéz and Cindy Baneza to free legal aid provided by the Catholic Archdiocese of Miami in the same courthouse — and their case remains one of the unprecedented 3 million currently pending in immigration courts around the United States.
Fueled by record-breaking increases in migrants who seek asylum after being apprehended for crossing the border illegally, the court backlog has grown by more than 1 million over the last fiscal year and it’s now triple what it was in 2019, according to government data compiled by Syracuse University’s Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse.
Judges, attorneys and migrant advocates worry that’s rendering an already strained system unworkable, as it often takes several years to grant asylum-seekers a new stable life and to deport those with no right to remain in the country.
. . . .
Experts like retired judge Paul Schmidt, who also served as government immigration counsel while the last major reform was enacted nearly forty years ago, say the broken system can only be fixed with major policy changes. An example would be allowing most asylum cases to be solved administratively or through streamlined processes instead of litigated in courts.
“The situation has gotten progressively worse since the Obama administration, when it really started getting out of hand,” said Schmidt, who in 2016, his last year on the bench, was scheduling cases seven years out.
. . . .
******************
At the above link, read Giovanna’s excellent full article, based on interviews with those who actually are involved in trying to make this dysfunctional system function. Thanks, Giovanna, for shedding some light on the real, potentially solvable, “human rights crisis” enveloping and threatening the entire U.S. legal system. Contrary to “popular blather,” fulfilling our legal obligations to refugees is not primarily a “law enforcement” issue and won’t be solved by more border militarization and violations of individual rights of asylum seekers and other migrants!
There are lots of ways to start fixing this system!Gosh knows, most of them have been covered here on Courtside, sometimes several times, and they are all publicly available on the internet with just a few clicks. See, e.g.,
The “debate” on the Hill defines “legislative malpractice!” The voices of legal integrity, experience, and practicality aren’t being heard! Also, lots of great ideas from experts on fixing EOIR are stuffed in the “Biden Transition Team” files squirreled away in some basement cubbyhole at Garland’s DOJ.
But most politicos aren’t interested in listening to the experts, nor do they seem motivated to understand the real human problems at the border, in the broken Immigration Courts, and how many of the things they are considering will make the situation worse while empowering smugglers and cartels! Those are real human corpses piling up along the border, carried out of immigration prisons, being abused in Mexico, and floating in the river — mostly due to the brain-dead “enforcement only” policies now being given an overdose of steroids by congressional negotiators.
So, things just keep deteriorating. Many in the backlog who deserve a chance at a permanent place in our society, and the ability to contribute to their full abilities and potential, remain in limbo! That’s bad for them and for us as a society!
Turning this group loose on asylum seekers is an act of gross legal, judicial, and political malpractice by the Biden Administration and Merrick Garland! https://www.flickr.com/photos/rasputin243/ Creative Commons License
Dan Kowalski reports for LexisNexis Immigration Community:
“Here, the IJ and BIA found, and the government does not dispute, that Espinoza-Ochoa credibly testified that he experienced harm and threats of harm in Guatemala that “constitute[d] persecution.” But the agency concluded that Espinoza-Ochoa was still ineligible for asylum for two reasons. First, it held that Espinoza-Ochoa had failed to identify a valid PSG because the social group he delineated, “land-owning farmer, who was persecuted for simply holding [the] position of farmer and owning a farm, by both the police and gangs in concert,” was impermissibly circular. Second, the IJ and BIA each held that, regardless of whether his asserted PSG was valid, the harm Espinoza-Ochoa experienced was “generalized criminal activity” and therefore was not on account of his social group. We conclude that the BIA committed legal error in both its PSG and nexus analyses. We first explain why Espinoza-Ochoa’s PSG was not circular and then evaluate whether his PSG was “at least one central reason” for the harm he suffered. Ultimately, we remand to the agency to reconsider both issues consistent with this opinion. … For all these reasons, we agree with Espinoza-Ochoa that legal error infected both the PSG and nexus analyses below. Accordingly, we GRANT the petition, VACATE the decision below, and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
[Hats way off to Randy Olen!]
***********************
You’ve been reading about this damaging, deadly legal travesty going on during Garland’s watch:
How outrageous, illegal, and “anti-historical” are the Garland BIA’s antics? The classic example of Marxist-Leninist revolutionary persecutions involve targeting property owners, particularly landowners. Indeed, in an earlier time, the BIA acknowledged that “landowners” were a PSG. See, e.g., Matter of Acosta, 19 I&N Dec. 211 (BIA 1985).
But, now in intellectually dishonest decisions, the BIA pretzels itself, ignores precedent, and tortures history in scurrilous attempts to deny obvious protection. These bad decisions, anti-asylum bias, and deficient scholarship infect the entire system.
It makes cases like this — which couldand should have easily been granted in a competent system shortly after the respondent’s arrival in 2016 — hang around for seven years, waste resources, and still be on the docket.
This is a highly — perhaps intentionally — unrecognized reason why the U.S. asylum asylum system is failing today. It’s also a continuing indictment of the deficient performance of Merrick Garland as Attorney General.
Obviously, these deadly, festering problems infecting the entire U.S. justice system are NOT going to be solved by taking more extreme enforcement actions against those whose quest for fair and correct asylum determinations are now being systematically stymied and mishandled by the incompetent actions of the USG, starting with the DOJ!
AG Merrick Garland’s methods for treating allies and friends of America when they apply for asylum in his “courts” are highly questionable and demonstratively counterproductive. Did the DC Circuit use “trial by ordeal” during Garland’s tenure? If not, why is it OK for EOIR?
HELPING AN AFGHAN INCARCERATED IN THE UNITED STATES EARN ASYLUM
Mohammad[1] is an Afghan citizen of the Hazara ethnic minority and Shi’a religion, who fled Afghanistan after repeated threats to his life following the Taliban’s consolidation of power in 2021. He escaped by traveling through the treacherous and only available route to the United States to seek asylum.
In Afghanistan, Mohammad was a professor with a history of advocacy for women’s rights and for victims of the Taliban and other extremist groups. Mohammad’s wife, who worked for a U.S. government-funded nonprofit organization in Afghanistan. Due to her work, she has an initially approved Special Immigrant Visa application that also gives Mohammad a path to permanent residence in the United States.
Despite this, Mohammad was criminally prosecuted for entering the United States to seek asylum. He spent 7 months in prison before he was transferred to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) custody, where he could only then begin to pursue his asylum claim. ICE repeatedly denied Mohammad’s release into the community despite his having permanent resident family in the United States ready to sponsor and receive him.
Mohammad was forced to undergo his asylum case without an attorney while detained in immigration jail. After being held for one year, an immigration judge denied Mohammad’s asylum claims despite extensive evidence that he survived multiple attacks on his life by the Taliban and ISIS-K, and that the Taliban continue to search for him. The judge also dismissed irrefutable evidence of the significant risk he would face due to his ethnic and religious minority status if forced to return to Afghanistan, and the escalating violence imposed by the Taliban.
Mohammad’s story was detailed by the Associated Press. The article provided “a rare look inside an opaque and overwhelmed immigration court system where hearings are often closed, transcripts are not available to the public and judges are under pressure to move quickly with ample discretion” and highlights Human Rights First’s efforts to find justice for Mohammad.
The United States should not deport Afghan allies—especially not those like Mohammad, who have courageously fought for human rights in Afghanistan, are members of ethnic and religious minority groups, and have family eligible for SIV status—all factors that would lead to certain risk of persecution and torture at the hands of the Taliban if forced to return.
We argued that Mohammad was subjected to unreasonably prolonged incarceration. He deserved to live freely in the United States and be reunited with his family while he sought asylum.
As Human Rights First acted on Mohammad’s case, we updated this blog with details of that effort. Please follow this link for more on Mohammad’s story.
December 22, 2023
Mohammad’s journey has been long – he traveled from Afghanistan to South America, through the Darien Gap to the border, to ICE detention, and more – but it has come to a successful conclusion.
Our attorneys were successful in stopping the Department of Homeland Security from deporting Mohammad back to Afghanistan. We filed a Motion to Reopen Mohammad’s case and then filed a new asylum application. We made multiple parole requests to get Mohammad released. We filed for Temporary Protected Status for Mohammad, arguing that it is the U.S. government’s long-standing policy to release any individual who is prima facie eligible for TPS. We contacted government officials and advocated for Mohammad’s release for his sake and for his family — two small children and his wife, whose application through the Special Immigrant Visa program has long been approved. Our request to have his TPS application expedited was denied.
With our partners at the law firm of Akin LLP, we prepared Mohammad for his December 13 Individual hearing before a new judge in Dallas Immigration Court. We gathered additional evidence, spoke with eyewitnesses, consulted with an expert, and filed all necessary filings.
Finally, on December 20, 2023, 602 days after he first arrived in the United States, Mohammad was granted asylum. The immigration judge found that Mohammad had suffered persecution due to his political opinions and ethnicity.
Mohammad was released from detention on December 22, 2023, and will soon reunite with his niece in Michigan. Human Rights First and Akin LLP will now work to reunite Mohammad with his wife and children and help him to pursue a dignified life in the relative safety of the United States.
December 12, 2023
Mohammad is scheduled for an Individual Hearing on December 13. We are very concerned about the possibility of his facing more detention even though he has an incredibly strong case with multiple claims to asylum.
Mohammad is an ethnic Hazara Shia Muslim who was an outspoken law professor and advocate on behalf of victims of Taliban terrorist attacks. His wife was employed by a U.S.-funded organization, and was granted COM approval for her Special Immigrant Visa. Mohammad’s two brothers converted to Christianity, a crime punishable by death; Mohammad fears retribution by the Taliban due to their close family relationship and because they lived in the same building unit. In recent months, the Taliban have visited their home in Afghanistan multiple times.
We continue to believe and will argue that Mohammad should have never been detained in the first place.
December 2, 2023
On December 1, USCIS denied Human Rights First’s request to expedite Mohammad’s application for Temporary Protected Status (TPS). At the time of our request, Mohammad had been in detention for over 550 days.
We argued for expedited processing of his TPS application based on urgent humanitarian reasons — he survived an ISIS-K bombing and an attempted gunpoint abduction by the Taliban — and the national interest of the United States.
We anticipated that the filing of Mohammad’s TPS application would be sufficient for DHS to release him, as he clearly meets the prima facie eligibility requirement. It is a long-standing U.S. government policy that “once granted TPS, an individual cannot be detained by DHS based on their immigration status in the United States.”
Unfortunately, our parole requests have repeatedly been denied, even after the submission of proof of TPS filing and of Mohammad’s wife’s COM approval for her Special Immigrant Visa (SIV).
September 25, 2023
Following the immigration judge’s erroneous denial of Mohammad’s asylum claim, he was connected with a pro bono attorney at Human Rights First to timely appeal that decision. Although ICE argued that Mohammad waived his right to appeal during the final immigration court hearing, experts, including former immigration judges, have reviewed the court transcript and agree with Human Rights First that Mohammad did not receive a fair hearing or knowingly waive his right to appeal. Unfortunately, the Board of Immigration Appeals summarily dismissed Mohammad’s appeal due to that purported waiver.
Human Rights First then filed a motion to reopen his removal proceedings directly with the Immigration Court. With the assistance of Akin Gump LLP, Mohammad also filed a petition for review of the BIA’s decision.[2]
On September 21, Mohammad’s motion to reopen before the immigration court was granted, despite the government’s continued opposition, winning him the opportunity to present his evidence for asylum again but this time with the assistance of an attorney and a new judge. That same day, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced that the Secretary has redesignated Afghanistan for Temporary Protected Status, which will provide an additional path to temporary protection from deportation for Mohammad. Human Rights First will continue to defend Mohammad’s case until he secures protection for himself and his family.
[1] full name withheld due to security concerns for his family
[2] this petition will be voluntarily dismissed as Mohammad’s motion to reopen removal proceedings was separately granted by an immigration judge
And, “bingo,” Garland and his inept minions at EOIR and DOJ furnish a great example of a backlog-building, due-process denying, expertise-lacking, dysfunctional, illogical“court” system that is damaging humanity while undermining U.S. justice and democracy in so many ways!
The full scope of USG failure is on display in this saga:
Prosecutorial abuse;
Coercive detention;
Denial of counsel;
Bad judging at both trial and appellate levels of EOIR;
Lack of asylum expertise;
Absence of positive precedents granting asylum in recurring situations like Afghanistan;
Mistreating those we eventually will be welcoming and relying upon in our society;
Generating unnecessary litigation;
Promoting arbitrary and inconsistent results.
The HRF report also notes the supportive role of former Immigration Judges in obtaining justice for Mohammad.
As renowned asylum expert Eleanor Acer, Refugee Protection Director at HRF, said of this case on X:
So relieved that he was finally granted asylum, but I continue to be appalled that people seeking asylum in the US often face so many obstacles & injustices.Senators & Biden officials should focus on staffing & steps for accurate & just decisions, not more barriers & cruelty.
Yup! Our leaders “just don’t get it” when it comes to human rights, immigration, and the reality of forced migration. The costs to humanity of their failures is incalculable!
Institutionalizing “accurate and just decisions” is something that has largely eluded Garland — despite his long service as an Article III Judge and his near-elevation to the Supremes. Many of us, obviously incorrectly, believed that with his judicial background and reputation — and few other real priorities on his plate given his recusal from the Trump prosecutions — Garland would be the AG who would finally fix EOIR and push the transition to Article I status. Instead, he has allowed EOIR to drift and deteriorate on his watch, with destruction of human lives and the undermining of justice in America as consequences!
All the punitive measures Congress is discussing will make things worse! The legislators and the politicos “running” this dysfunction are completely detatched from reality! (Reportedly, Secretary Blinken and other Administration politicos are now in Mexico looking for more “ guaranteed to to fail yet cause more human misery” ways to “enforce their way” out of a humanitarian crisis that is not at core a law enforcement problem at all!)
EOIR and the BIA require senior leaders who are practical experts in asylum law, who put due process and fundamental fairness first, and who are proven problem solvers — not part of the problem as is now the case. Unless and until we get an AG and senior DOJ leaders who recognize both the problems and the (now unrealized) opportunities at EOIR, American justice and democracy will continue to suffer! And human lives will continue to hang in the balance!
“Sir Jeffrey” tells us how to use “the law as a sword” to defend against the BIA’s anti-asylum precedent in M-R-M-S-. Don’t let yourself and your clients be “shredded and trampled” by BIA panels wielding deadly, hyper-technical, counterintuitive, overly restrictive asylum precedents designed to promote and support “any reason to deny!” Albrecht Dürer, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
In 2017, while Matter of L-E-A-1 was pending before the BIA, I attended an immigration law conference at which Professor Jon Bauer posed the following “thought experiment”:
A Nazi official threatens to kill all the Jews in a town unless a Jewish criminal, who has committed several robberies and murders and is suspected to be hiding in the area, is turned over to the authorities or turns himself in.
Is this persecution on account of religion?
The answer is obviously yes. Those in the town find themselves at risk of persecution on account of their religion. It would seem impossible for anyone possessing knowledge of our asylum laws (or just plain common sense) not to understand this.
However, with its decision in Matter of M-R-M-S-,2 the Board of Immigration Appeals has managed to create a test for nexus that would lead to the opposite conclusion.
One reaction to this decision would have involved explaining that the Board’s illogical holding was reached not by error but by design, in furtherance of a restrictionist agenda; asking why the current administration hasn’t changed the makeup of a BIA specifically constructed to do exactly that; bemoaning the fact that regulations that are more than two years overdue could have prevented this; and suggesting that the correct course of action for the Attorney General to take at this point would be to vacate this decision in anticipation of said forthcoming rulemaking.
But such talk would be of no practical help. What those representing asylum applicants and those in government deciding those claims need now is a path to negotiate this latest obstacle and still reach the correct result. I hope that some of what follows will prove helpful, and that it will encourage further thought and conversation on this topic.
Legal Strategies in light of M-R-M-S-
Distinguish your case based on the facts
In M-R-M-S-, the Board chose for its precedent a case surprisingly devoid of facts. The entire factual summary consists of three sentences. A criminal cartel forced the respondents off of their land “because the cartel wanted the land for its own purpose. The cartel killed the lead respondent’s grandson for unknown reasons, although the respondents believe it was related to the cartel’s efforts to obtain their land. The cartel also forced other families off of land in the same area.”
This summary makes no mention of how family membership might have been a factor; it only says the cartel wanted the land for its own unstated purpose. It can be argued that the decision simply establishes that cases asserting mixed motives need to present more than one motive.
Instead, the Board leaped to a much broader and more damaging conclusion that wasn’t even suggested by the above facts, namely, that targeting members of a family for purposes of achieving another non-protected ground renders the family membership “incidental or subordinate,” and thus lacking the nexus required for asylum or withholding of removal protection.
Tip: Distinguish your facts from those in M-R-M-S-.
Emphasize how family or another protected ground played a significant role in the applicant being targeted for persecution. Note that merely mentioning that other family members were also harmed does not in itself establish a nexus on account of family membership.
Tip: Employ the Board’s test in Matter of S-P- when applicable.
In Matter of S-P-,3, the BIA looked at when government prosecution might actually be persecution on account of political opinion. And one of the warning signs it mentioned occurs when the punishment is clearly out of proportion to the conduct in question. So under S-P-’s test, if someone charged with jaywalking is detained at length and beaten by the police, the reasonable conclusion is that the punishment wasn’t actually about the jaywalking.
One can transpose this approach to the particular social group consisting of family by arguing that the same logic applies to gang punishment for failing to pay extortion. Particularly where the amount being sought by the gang or cartel isn’t that much, when the response to the failure to pay is to threaten to severely harm or kill a family member of the target of extortion, a reasonable conclusion under S-P- would be that this isn’t simply about the money. A gang or cartel can seek a financial goal, but at the same time can develop an animosity against a family resistant to its demands.
Moving on, the use of the word “subordinate” in the Board’s most recent holding is of interest, for the following reasons.
The fall and rise of the Board’s “subordination” criteria for nexus
In its first attempt to define the “one central reason” language adopted by Congress in 2005, the BIA in Matter of J-B-N- & S-M-4 recognized in the last paragraph of page 212 of that decision that the standard did not require a central reason to be “dominant” in relation to other reasons for persecution. In fact, in a footnote, the Board further explained: “The problem in classifying one motive as “dominant” or “central” is that it renders all other motives, regardless of their significance to the case, secondary and therefore ultimately irrelevant.”
Yet two pages after rejecting a hierarchical approach to nexus, the Board defined the new standard as a reason that “cannot be incidental, tangential, superficial, or subordinate to another reason for harm.”
The problem with the inclusion of the word “subordinate” is obvious. It means that once an adjudicator finds a reason they consider to be the dominant one, their inquiry is over, and, as the Board itself warned, all other motives become irrelevant.
The Third Circuit, in Ndayshimiye v. Attorney General of U.S.5 rejected the Board’s standard for precisely this reason: its use of the word “subordinate” was found by the court to be no different from the “dominance” test that the Board purported to reject. To quote the Third Circuit:
This plain language indicates that a persecutor may have more than one central motivation for his or her actions; whether one of those central reasons is more or less important than another is irrelevant. The BIA acknowledged this in refusing to define a central reason within the meaning of § 208 as a “dominant” motivation. Id. at 212. The same logic forbids an interpretation that would impose a mirror image of the rejected “dominance” test: the requirement that a protected ground, even if a “central” reason for persecution, not be subordinate to any other reason.
Interestingly, following this rejection of its standard, the BIA reacted by dropping the word “subordinate” from its stated legal standard. For example, in a subsequent (2011) precedent, Matter of N-M-, 6 the Board cited its earlier decision in J-B-N & S-M-, but made no mention of that case’s incidental/tangential/superficial/subordinate language at all. Rather, the Board said:
In cases arising under the REAL ID Act, the “protected ground cannot play a minor role in the alien’s past mistreatment or fears of future mistreatment.” Matter of J-B-N- & S-M-, 24 I&N Dec. at 214. Instead, a [noncitizen] must demonstrate that the persecutor would not have harmed the applicant if the protected trait did not exist.7
The italicized sentence states a “but for” causation standard which we will discuss further below. In fact, it seems to be an identical standard to that employed by the Fourth Circuit, whose approach the Board criticized in M-R-M-S-.
Years later, in the aforementioned Matter of L-E-A- (decided in 2017), the Board amended its earlier language in J-B-N- & S-N- as follows:
The protected trait, in this case membership in the respondent’s father’s family, “cannot play a minor role”—that is, “it cannot be incidental [or] tangential . . . to another reason for harm.”8
Notice how an ellipsis is used to drop the word “subordinate” from the definition. So the Board seemed to understand for quite some time that the legal standard it enunciated could not include a dominance test (although it would then proceed to apply a dominance test in practice, as numerous circuit court reversals have demonstrated)
But now, without explaining the reason for its sudden reversal, the Board has in M-R-M-S- reverted to its original flawed standard. Here’s the quote:
A protected ground that is “incidental, tangential, superficial, or subordinate to another reason for harm” does not satisfy this standard. Matter of J-B-N- & S-M-, 24 I&N Dec. at 214. 9
Furthermore, the Board chose to reassert its dominance requirement in a case in which the facts mention only one reason, and a vague one at that – that “the cartel wanted the land for its own purpose.” A dominance test is meaningless where there is only one reason asserted for the persecution.
But what if the revived dominance test were to be applied to Prof. Bauer’s hypothetical? Presumably, the Board would find the dominant reason for the threatened persecution to be the Nazi authorities’ desire to bring a criminal to justice. The targeting of the suspect’s coreligionists as a means to achieve that primary objective would, under the Board’s test, become “subordinate” to that goal, and would thus render the murdering of the town’s Jews “irrelevant.” Applying the Board’s “logic,” religion would not be one central reason for the murders.
As the above example demonstrates, the Board’s test will lead to truly absurd results. It is therefore not surprising that the Board’s standard is at odds with the approach of most circuits.
The reinstituted dominance test conflicts with most circuit case law
Tip: Argue the inapplicability of M-R-M-S- where it conflicts with prevailing circuit law.
While not exhaustive, the following selection of circuit court case law should provide a basis for arguing that the Board’s standard for determining nexus is inapplicable in many courts located within the jurisdiction of those circuits
Third Circuit
It should certainly be argued in cases arising within the jurisdiction of the Third Circuit that the new decision’s reiteration of the exact legal standard that was rejected in Ndayshimiye (as discussed above) means that M-R-M-S- cannot be followed. The BIA actually recognized the conflict in footnote 6 of its decision, stating:
Although the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit generally agrees with the Board’s interpretation of the “one central reason” standard, it has rejected the requirement that a protected ground not be subordinate to another reason for harm. See Ndayshimiye v. Att’y Gen. of U.S., 557 F.3d 124, 130–31 (3d Cir. 2009).
The Board thus seemed to acknowledge by way of this footnote the inapplicability of its decision in the Third Circuit.
Fourth Circuit
The BIA in M-R-M-S- does not contest that its requirement for nexus is at odds with the long-established “but for” standard employed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
In Hernandez-Avalos v. Lynch,10 the Fourth Circuit explained that even though a gang threatened the petitioner for the purpose of recruiting her son, the applicant was nevertheless targeted “on account of” her family ties because her “relationship to her son is why she, and not another person, was threatened….” The court has repeated the “why she, and not another person” test in other decisions.11
The Fourth Circuit has more recently pointed to an oft-repeated error of the Board in “incorrectly focusing on why the gang targeted Petitioner’s family, rather than on why they targeted Petitioner herself.”12 In another published decision, the Fourth Circuit stated that “‘once the right question is asked’ — that is, why was Petitioner being targeted — the conclusion is quite clear: ‘whatever [the gang]’s motives for targeting [her] family, [Petitioner herself] was targeted because of [her] membership in that family.’”13
The fact that the Board in M-R-M-S- states that it prefers the approach of the Tenth Circuit, which “does not agree with the Fourth Circuit’s approach,”14 does not change the fact that the standard enunciated in the above-captioned Fourth Circuit decisions remains the standard for nexus applicable in Immigration Courts and Asylum Offices located within that circuit’s jurisdiction.
Cases being heard remotely by an IJ located within the Fourth Circuit
A decision of the Fourth Circuit issued last year provides a strong argument for applying that court’s nexus standard in lieu of the M-R-M-S- approach in cases geographically outside of the circuit’s jurisdiction which are heard remotely by Immigration Judges sitting in Virginia, Maryland, or North Carolina.
In Herrera-Alcala v. Garland 15, the Fourth Circuit held that under a plain reading of the statute, jurisdiction is determined by the geographic location of the immigration judge at the time the judge completed the proceedings.
The BIA subsequently issued a conflicting precedential opinion, Matter of Garcia.16 But as the Fourth Circuit’s ruling in Herrera-Alcala was based on its clear reading of the statutory language, the lack of a finding of statutory ambiguity would preclude deference to the Board’s view under either Chevron or Brand X.
In cases in which the Immigration Judge is sitting within the Fourth Circuit while the respondent is appearing in an immigration court elsewhere, the argument should be made that Fourth Circuit case law should apply. Claims constructed using Fourth Circuit precedent should be presented below, as in case the claim is denied by the agency, the applicant will ultimately be able to seek review before the Fourth Circuit.
Cases arising under the jurisdiction of other circuits
Fifth Circuit
Outside of the obvious examples of the Third and Fourth Circuits, be highly aware of the case law of the prevailing circuit regarding nexus. Most circuits have rejected the Board’s approach to some degree. Furthermore, the BIA misrepresented the holdings in some of the circuit decisions it cited in M-R-M-S-, a point that should be brought to the attention of judges or asylum officers.
The Fifth Circuit provides us with an example. In M-R-M-S-, the BIA cited the Fifth Circuit’s decision in Guevara-Fabian v. Garland17 as an example of a court employing an analysis of nexus consistent with its own approach.18 However, the court in Guevara-Fabian simply found that there was substantial evidence that the petitioner was targeted “because she owned a profitable business,” and not due to her family membership. This is quite different from the Board’s holding that being targeted due to one’s family membership is insufficient to establish a nexus where such family-based targeting is used as a means to achieving another non-protected goal.
Furthermore, four days after the issuance of M-R-M-S-, the Fifth Circuit published its decision in Argueta-Hernandez v. Garland.19 The facts in that case did not involve a family-based particular social group, but in addressing the subject of nexus, the court’s opinion rejected the agency’s general approach of rejecting all but the dominant reason for persecution.
Specifically, the Fifth Circuit found that in concluding threats by MS-13 were motivated “by criminal intent, personal vendettas, or monetary gain, which do not establish the required nexus,” the BIA disregarded that the petitioner “needed only to present ‘some particularized connection between the feared persecution’ and the protected ground in which his application for relief relies.” The court then referenced an earlier decision in which it had rejected the Board’s employment of an “either-or” approach to nexus in a mixed motive case, and said that the Board had acted similarly here by suggesting that Argueta was targeted for economic reasons “instead” of for a protected ground.20
So in cases arising in the Fifth Circuit, it should be argued that Guevara-Fabian did not support the Board’s approach in M-R-M-S-, as it was distinguishable on its facts, and that the court’s subsequent rejection in Argueta-Hernandez of the type of dominance approach and “either-or” test employed in M-R-M-S- puts the Board’s view of nexus in conflict with circuit law.
Sixth Circuit
On December 8 (i.e. 7 days after the publication of M-R-M-S-), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit issued its decision in Sebastian-Sebastian v. Garland 21. In that case, the petitioner, who suffered domestic violence at the hands of her husband, and, following his death, at the hands of his mother, claimed persecution on account of particular social groups which included “Guatemalan Chuj [w]omen in domestic relationships who are unable to leave,” and “Guatemalan Chuj [w]omen who are viewed as property by virtue of their positions within a domestic relationship.” But the IJ found, and the Board affirmed, that the abuser acted based on a personal vendetta, and therefore found no nexus to a particular social group.
As the record contained ample evidence that “cultural expectations dictated that a Guatemalan Chuj woman in her position—both viewed as property and unable to leave by virtue of her domestic relationship—must stay with her in-laws and have nowhere else to go,” the Sixth Circuit determined there was “sufficient evidence for the BIA to conclude that Sebastian-Sebastian’s membership in these groups ‘underlay[s] all of [her persecutors’] actions.’”22 The court thus concluded that the Board’s failure to consider whether, in light of the above, the personal motives and particular social group membership were “inextricably intertwined” constituted reversible error.
The Sixth Circuit thus held (post-M-R-M-S-) that even where the primary reason for the persecution is a non-protected one (in this case, personal animosity), the fact that membership in a particular social group put and kept the asylum applicant in harm’s way is sufficient to render it sufficiently intertwined to satisfy the “one central reason” test. I believe a strong argument can be made that applying this approach to a family-based PSG would require a finding that even if the ultimate motive is extortion, if family membership is what put and kept the asylum applicant in harm’s way, there is sufficient nexus.
Seventh Circuit
In Gonzalez Ruano v. Barr,23 the Seventh Circuit explicitly rejected an approach essentially the same to that underlying the Board’s decision in M-R-M-S-. The petitioner suffered persecution by a criminal cartel whose leader viewed the petitioner’s wife as “property” that he sought to “possess.” The petitioner thus argued that his familial relationship to his wife was at least one central reason for his persecution.
On review, the Seventh Circuit specifically rejected the government’s argument that the persecution of the petitioner “was simply a ‘means to an end,’ making [the petitioner]’s relationship to his wife incidental.”24 The court found support in the Fourth Circuit’s decision in Hernandez-Avalos v. Lynch, adopting the Fourth Circuit’s test under which a nexus exists because the petitioner’s “relationship to his wife was the reason he, and not someone else, was targeted.”25
As the Seventh Circuit is in accord with the Fourth Circuit’s test that specifically rejects the Board’s approach to nexus (a conflict readily admitted by the Board in M-R-M-S-), the Board’s nexus standard is necessarily inapplicable in cases in which Seventh Circuit case law applies. It should be emphasized that the Fourth Circuit’s decision in Hernandez-Avalos which the Seventh Circuit positively cites is the specific decision mentioned by the Board in M-R-M-S- as an example of how the Fourth Circuit’s approach differs from its own.26
Eleventh Circuit
The Eleventh Circuit in Perez-Sanchez v. U.S. Att’y Gen.27 also applied a “but for” approach to nexus in a case involving family, determining that the persecutor’s monetary motivation did not render the petitioner’s family membership merely incidental where a criminal cartel targeted the petitioner because his father-in-law owed the cartel money. This is the exact scenario the Board rejected in M-R-M-S-, in which a family member is targeted as a means to a monetary end.
However, exactly as the Fourth Circuit had done in Hernandez-Avalos, the Eleventh Circuit stated that “In Mr. Perez-Sanchez’s case, it is impossible to disentangle his relationship to his father-in-law from the Gulf Cartel’s pecuniary motives: they are two sides of the same coin.” The court concluded that “the family relationship was one central reason, if not the central reason, for the harm.”28
Thus, the M-R-M-S- standard is at odds with Eleventh Circuit case law as well.
Ninth and Second Circuits
The approach of these two circuits relates to the “but-for” standard. The Ninth Circuit applies a “but-for cause” test in determining nexus. As that court recently noted, to satisfy that standard, an asylum applicant “must first show that ‘the persecutor would not have harmed [her] if such motive did not exist,’… that is, but-for cause, see But-for Cause, Black’s Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019) (“The cause without which the event could not have occurred.”).29
Interestingly, in M-R-M-S-, the BIA quoted this but-for cause language from Parussimova without mentioning that the standard was in conflict with its own.30
It should therefore be argued in cases arising in the Ninth Circuit that applying that court’s “but-for cause” test would lead to a quite different result than the standard enunciated in M-R-M-S-.
The Second Circuit’s standard is less clear, but the court seems to view the “one central reason” requirement an even lower bar for establishing nexus than a but-for cause test. In Quituizaca v. Garland,31 the court noted the need to predict future persecution in withholding of removal claims, as opposed to other areas of law that employ a but-for causation test to past actions only. The court noted that where an adverse action has already occurred, there is an implication that “whatever evidence to establish but-for causation or refute it exists too.”
By contrast, the court noted that because of the predictive nature of future persecution in withholding claims, “[a] but-for standard in this context would seemingly require the applicant have insight into the motivations of the hypothetical future persecutor that sufficiently removes any doubt that the persecutor would be motivated by anything else,” adding that “[a]t a minimum, the proof that can be marshalled to rectify past conduct appears to us distinct from that which would be needed to establish a persecutor’s potential future conduct.”
While the Quituizaca decision is not even mentioned in M-R-M-S-, the Board does reference another Second Circuit case, Garcia-Aranda v. Garland,32 but essentially misrepresents that decision’s holding. In Garcia-Aranda, the facts established that although family members had also been harmed, the petitioners were targeted for persecution because of their own perceived wealth. Whether or not they were related to others who suffered harm would not change the outcome. Thus, in Garcia-Aranda, the court did not address, much less reject, the proposition that no nexus is established under a Hernandez-Avalos type of fact pattern.
A quick note regarding the Tenth Circuit
M-R-M-S- arose within the jurisdiction of the Tenth Circuit, and the Board lauded that court’s decision in Orellana-Recinos v. Garland33 as setting forth its preferred standard for nexus.34
It is worth noting that in Orellana-Recinos, “Petitioners did not challenge, or even cite, Matter of L-E-A- in their brief to this court. And at oral argument they cited it as authority. As previously noted, they dispute only the BIA’s factual findings in their case, not the legal framework it applied.”35
What about the standard applied in discrimination cases?
The Supreme Court recently addressed the question of nexus outside of the asylum context in Bostock v. Clayton County,36 a case involving employment discrimination under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The Court explained in Bostock that the statutory term in question, “because of,” carries the same legal meaning as “on account of,” (i.e. the standard used in asylum cases).
The Court continued that the standard requires a court to apply the “simple” and “traditional” “but-for” test. As the Court explained, “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.”37
The Court recognized that the “but-for” standard is a “sweeping” one, acknowledging that “[o]ften, events have multiple but-for causes.” The Court further observed that “[w]hen it comes to Title VII, the adoption of the traditional but-for causation standard means a defendant cannot avoid liability just by citing some other factor that contributed to its challenged employment decision.”38
This leads to the following question: if “on account of” is not a term specific to asylum, and if the Supreme Court has told us that there is a simple and traditional test for “on account of” that is none other than the “but-for” test being applied by several circuits as described above, can the BIA simply ignore this in creating its own definition for the term “on account of” applicable to asylum claims? M-R-M-S- makes no mention of Bostock. If the Board doesn’t believe that case to be applicable, why not explain its reasoning for reaching that conclusion?
Tip: There is thus an argument to be made in all jurisdictions that the Supreme Court’s standard in Bostock should be the prevailing one.
I have discussed Bostock and offered my views on its applicability to asylum in more detail here.
Emphasize other BIA precedents
Even in the absence of conflicting circuit or Supreme Court case law, an Immigration Judge or asylum officer is left to sort through the several BIA precedents mentioned above. Matter of S-P- (which has not been overruled) did not conclude that because an asylum applicant faced criminal prosecution, there was nothing further to consider. Instead, the Board in that case set forth a test requiring adjudicators to continue their inquiry, taking into account circumstantial evidence and applying common sense to see if another motive for the persecution might be inferred from the facts of record.
As noted above, Matter of N-M- set out a “but-for” standard that seems identical to the one employed by the Fourth Circuit. And even Matter of L-E-A- dropped the word “subordinate,” and thus the application of the dominance test, from its stated legal standard.
Tip: Note that these other BIA precedents remain binding as precedent.
These other cases should therefore be cited and explained, and the degree to which they conflict with M-R-M-S- should be emphasized. It can be argued that M-R-M-S-’s applicability should be limited to cases in which family members are merely mentioned in passing, without further elucidation from the record as to why family membership might have served as a reason for past or future persecution.
Conclusion
As the above hopefully demonstrates, there are plenty of bases to challenge the Board’s recent decision. In M-R-M-S-, the Board presented an approach to nexus that is at odds with the case law of the majority of circuits. The Board mischaracterized the holdings in a number of circuit court decisions, championed a decision of the Tenth Circuit in which the Board’s standard was conceded and thus not in dispute before that court, and completely ignored the Supreme Court’s analysis of the “on account of” standard without explaining why what the Court termed the traditional standard for nexus was distinguishable in the asylum context.
To reiterate, the proper thing for the Attorney General to do at this point is to certify the decision to himself, and vacate it pending anticipated rulemaking. In the meantime, it is hoped that some of the above points will receive serious consideration from asylum officers, Immigration Judges, ICE attorneys, and federal appellate courts.
Copyright Jeffrey S. Chase 2023. All rights reserved.
Notes:
27 I&N Dec. 40 (BIA 2017).
28 I&N Dec. 757 (BIA 2023).
21 I&N Dec. 486 (BIA 1996).
25 I&N Dec. 208 (BIA 2007).
557 F.3d 124, 129-30 (3rd Cir., 2009).
25 I&N Dec. 526 (BIA 2011).
Id. at 531 (emphasis added).
Matter of L-E-A-, supra at 44.
Matter of M-R-M-S-, supra at 759 (emphasis added).
784 F.3d 944, 950 (4th Cir. 2015).
See, e.g., Alvarez-Lagos v. Barr, 927 F.3d 236, 250 (4th Cir. 2019); Cruz v. Sessions, 853 F.3d 122, 129 (4th Cir. 2017).
Id., slip op. at 16-17 (citing Rivas-Martinez v. I.N.S., 997 F.2d 1143, 1145, 1147-48 (5th Cir. 1993) (remanding to BIA for consideration of mixed motives).
No. 23-3059 (6th Cir. Dec. 8, 2023).
Id., slip op. at 22 (quoting Al-Ghorbani v. Holder, 585 F.3d 980, 998 (6th Cir. 2009).
922 F.3d 346 (7th Cir. 2019).
Id. at 355-56.
Id. at 356.
See M-R-M-S-, supra at 761 (stating that the Tenth Circuit does not agree with the Fourth Circuit’s approach in Hernandez-Avalos, and adding its opinion that the Tenth Circuit’s is the proper approach).
M-R-M-S-, supra at 761 (stating “In our view, the Tenth Circuit’s approach is the proper way to analyze whether membership in a family-based particular social group is one central reason for harm.
Sign up with your email address to receive news and updates.
SIGN UP
We respect your privacy.
Jeffrey S. Chase is an immigration lawyer in New York City. Jeffrey is a former Immigration Judge and Senior Legal Advisor at the Board of Immigration Appeals.He is the founder of the Round Table of Former Immigration Judges, which was awarded AILA’s 2019 Advocacy Award.Jeffrey is also a past recipient of AILA’s Pro Bono Award.He sits on the Board of Directors of the Association of Deportation Defense Attorneys, and Central American Legal Assistance.
Reprinted by permission.
******************************
It’s very satisfying to see Jeffrey’s positive use of Matter of S-P-, a “Schmidt era” precedent in which I joined and which remains good law despite the current BIA’s often ignoring or misapplying it. It’s also a great example of the useful guidance flowing from “positive precedents” — those illustrating and promoting proper asylum grants — as opposed to the overwhelmingly negative tenor of today’s unduly restrictive BIA asylum precedents.
This approach is far more consistent with the Supreme Court’s generous guidance in INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca and the BIA’s own initial implementation of that standard in Matter of Mogharrabi, both of which are routinely ignored at EOIR today. (Indeed, if someone with the exact same facts as Mogharrabi applied today, it’s highly likely that the BIA would invent a host of bogus reasons to send him packing!)It’s also a much more practical approach that can actually “streamline” the granting of more “first instance” cases by the Asylum Office, greater consistency, and lessening the need for petitions for review and “Circuit specific” strategies.
While there is no “silver bullet” that will eliminate overnight a backlog built over years of neglect, active mismanagement, and poor performance at EOIR and DOJ, a new, functional, well-respected BIA of asylum expert judges unswervingly committed to due process, fundamental fairness, and best practices is an absolutely necessary first step toward regaining control over our asylum system without sacrificing the legal rights of asylum seekers. The system can’t start eliminating backlog until it ceases doing those things that build unnecessary backlog in the first place.
In the meantime, this example of “law you can use” from “Sir Jeffrey” promises to be the “gift that keeps on giving” during what is sure to be a difficult upcoming year for refugees, asylum seekers, migrants, and their dedicated attorneys and representatives!
Rekha Sharma-Crawford ESQUIRE Partner and Co-Founder Sharma-Crawford Law Kansas City, KS
Rekha writes on LinkedIn:
A major step towards acknowledging that the best interest of the child must play a critical role in immigration cases. This was an idea I raised over 10 years ago with my friend and colleague, the brilliant Lory Rosenberg. Later the idea again was put forward with two additional brilliant colleagues, Paul Schmidt and Susan Roy. Sometimes it takes a very long time, but the right approach can’t be hidden forever.So pleased to see it is finally seeing some daylight.
Here’s the Memorandum from EOIR Director David L. Neal:
As noted by my Round Table colleague “Sir Jeffrey” Chase, our Round Table has spoken out about the need for a separate Immigration Court system for children:
As you know, our Round Table signed on to a letter of support for proposed legislation to create a Children’s Immigration Court.
[Director Neal’s statement is] a positive administrative development.
Here’s my take:
While progress is always welcome, this statement shrouds the concept of “best interest of the child” (“BIC”) with legal gobbledygook and bureaucratic doublespeak. (P. 3 of Neal Memo under “Legal Standards”).
Here’s what a clear, correct statement on BIC would look like:
BIC, regardless of whether or not presented by a “Child Advocate” or incorporated in a “Best Interests Determination” (“BID”), can be directly relevant to issues of removability. For example, evidence of removability obtained by methods that clearly conflict with the BIC could be found unreliable or the result of “egregious misconduct” for the purposes of determining removability.
The BIC can also be highly relevant to issues of eligibility for relief. For example, a government or society that deprives certain children of all meaningful educational oportunities might well be engaging in persecution.
In addition, in NLPR cancellation cases, the BIC could be persuasive, even determinative, evidence that removal of a parent will result in “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” to a USC or LPR child or children.
3) Finally, since the EOIR Director is an administrator, not a quasi-judicial official, his or her policies have a distinct “you can take it or leave it” effect in Immigration Court. Therefore ameliorative statements from the Director, no matter how well-intended, are only effective if the BIA is willing and able to insist on and enforce “best practices” on Immigration Judges, preferably through precedent decisions and reassigning cases away from those IJs who show repeated contempt for due process and best practices.
Unfortunately, the current version of the BIA has, as a body, shown neither much sympathy nor concern for the substantive and due process rights of asylum seekers and other immigrants in Immigration Court. Unless and until Garland “cleans house” and appoints a BIA where all Appellate Judges are immigration/human rights experts laser focused on due process and best practices in Immigration Court — and not afraid of enforcing them uniformly in individual cases and incorporating them in binding precedents — the Director’s latest somewhat ameliorative statement is likely to be as toothless in practice as past efforts.
To a large extent, that’s a “nutshell” of why Garland’s Immigration Courts are in dire failure that threatens our entire democracy.
Unfortunately, that we are three years into this Administration and Garland is still bumbling along with a BIA that largely represents the mistakes and shortcomings of his predecessors suggests that waiting for him to “get religion” on the need for expertise, due process, fundamental fairness, and best practices at EOIR will continue to be an exercise in “Waiting for Godot!”
Immigration practitioners waiting for Garland to institute “due process, fundamental fairness, and best practices” as the sole mission of his EOIR “courts.” It could be a long wait. Very long! Too long! Naseer’s Motley Group in The Rose Bowl Merlaysamuel Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Waiting for Godot in Doon School.jpg Copy [[File:Waiting for Godot in Doon School.jpg|Waiting_for_Godot_in_Doon_School]] Copy December 8, 2011
