Immigration Judge Training – Page 24 – immigrationcourtside.com

ATTENTION ALL JUDGES (ACTIVE & RETIRED): THE CANADIANS ARE COMING (Along with Judges From Other Western Hemisphere & EU Countries)! – MEET, GREET, SHARE NOTES, AND LEARN ALONG WITH YOUR INTERNATIONAL COLLEAGUES – HEAR KEYNOTE SPEAKER DORIS MEISSNER, ONE OF THE “ALL TIME GREATS” OF U.S. MIGRATION LAW, & MANY OTHER “SUPERSTAR” SPEAKERS FROM AROUND THE WORLD! – THERE’S STILL TIME TO REGISTER FOR THE AMERICAS’ CHAPTER CONFERENCE OF THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REFUGEE & MIGRATION JUDGES @ THE BEAUTIFUL CAMPUS OF GEORGETOWN LAW IN WASHINGTON, D.C., AUGUST 1-5, 2018!

HERE’S A LINK TO MY PRIOR BLOG WITH ALL THE REGISTRATION INFORMATION:

HERE’S FORMER INS COMMISSIONER DORIS MEISSNER’S PROFESSIONAL BIO:

Doris Meissner

Senior Fellow and Director, U.S. Immigration Policy Program

Doris Meissner, former Commissioner of the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), is a Senior Fellow at MPI, where she directs the Institute’s U.S. immigration policy work.

Her responsibilities focus in particular on the role of immigration in America’s future and on administering the nation’s immigration laws, systems, and government agencies. Her work and expertise also include immigration and politics, immigration enforcement, border control, cooperation with other countries, and immigration and national security. She has authored and coauthored numerous reports, articles, and op-eds and is frequently quoted in the media. She served as Director of MPI’s Independent Task Force on Immigration and America’s Future, a bipartisan group of distinguished leaders. The group’s report and recommendations address how to harness the advantages of immigration for a 21st century economy and society.

From 1993-2000, she served in the Clinton administration as Commissioner of the INS, then a bureau in the U.S. Department of Justice. Her accomplishments included reforming the nation’s asylum system; creating new strategies for managing U.S. borders; improving naturalization and other services for immigrants; shaping new responses to migration and humanitarian emergencies; strengthening cooperation and joint initiatives with Mexico, Canada, and other countries; and managing growth that doubled the agency’s personnel and tripled its budget.

She first joined the Justice Department in 1973 as a White House Fellow and Special Assistant to the Attorney General. She served in various senior policy posts until 1981, when she became Acting Commissioner of the INS and then Executive Associate Commissioner, the third-ranking post in the agency. In 1986, she joined the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace as a Senior Associate. Ms. Meissner created the Endowment’s Immigration Policy Project, which evolved into the Migration Policy Institute in 2001.

Ms. Meissner’s board memberships include CARE-USA and the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation. She is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, the Inter-American Dialogue, the Pacific Council on International Diplomacy, the National Academy of Public Administration, the Administrative Conference of the United States, and the Constitution Society.

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

Colleagues:

My good friend and colleague Ross Pattee, Executive Director of the Immigration & Refugee Board of Canada just told me that the “Canadian Delegation” to the upcoming IARMJ conference will be 30 strong!

Never in my lifetime has the role of Immigration Judges and other judges involved in asylum, refugee, and immigration adjudication been more in the news or more important than now! We all know the stress, tension, and pressure, as well as excitement, that comes from such constant public attention.

Now is the perfect time to take a few days off from the bench to share notes, helpful suggestions, best practices, and otherwise get to know and appreciate your colleagues performing similar functions elsewhere in the world. Knowing that “you are not alone” and that many others share and are dealing with the same challenges as you are has been one of the best features of IRMJ membership and participation for me throughout the years. You’ll also be learning from, and in dialogue with, world-class speakers and scholars, like my long-time friend and “fellow Badger” Doris Meissner, in one of the best legal learning environments in America — the facilities at Georgetown Law.

As one of the original “founding members” of the IARMJ, I know that it has been many years since we have had an event of this magnitude and caliber here in the United States. Who knows when another such opportunity will come our way?

I sincerely hope that you can and will join me and my colleagues from the IARMJ in August.

All the best in solidarity and due process,

Paul

HON. JEFFREY CHASE: Speaking Out Against The “Notable Minority” Of U.S. Immigration Judges Who Demonstrated Bias Against Women & Asylum Seekers – “Think about that: some federally appointed immigration judges cheered the fact that women who had been violently raped and beaten in their country can no longer find refuge here, and will be sent back to face more violence, and possibly death. Will there be any consequences for their actions? Were the many outstanding immigration judges who have been proud to grant such cases in the past, who were saddened and sickened by this decision, able to openly jeer or weep or curse this decision? Or would that have been viewed as dangerous?”

Jun 14 Women Need Not Apply

Those looking for legal analysis should read no further. The following is a cry from the heart.

The respondent’s personal nightmare began the year after her marriage. For the next 15 years, she was subjected to relentless physical, sexual, and emotional abuse.

It is most apt that Donald Trump became president by beating a woman. His campaign historically provoked millions to march in angry protest of his denigration of women on his first full day in office.

“The violence inflicted on [her] took many forms. Her husband beat her repeatedly, bashing her against the wall and kicking her, including while she was pregnant. He raped her on countless occasions.”

On Monday, Trump’s Attorney General announced that women who are victims of domestic violence should no longer be deemed to merit protection from our government in the form of political asylum.

Sessions’ action was shockingly tone deaf. As the wonderful Rebecca Solnit wrote in her 2013 essay “The Longest War:” “We have an abundance of rape and violence against women in this country and on this Earth, though it’s almost never treated as a civil rights or human rights issue, or a crisis, or even a pattern. Violence doesn’t have a race, a class, a religion, or a nationality, but it does have a gender.” The year after Solnit wrote those words, our Department of Justice took a step in the right direction. In recognizing domestic violence as a basis for asylum, our government was finally recognizing such gender-based abuse as a human rights issue, at least in the limited forum of immigration law.

“He also frequently threatened to kill her, at times holding a knife to her neck, and at other times brandishing a gun or, while she was pregnant, threatening to hang her from the ceiling by a rope.” The above were supported by sworn statements provided by the respondents’ neighbors.

It is only very recently that our society has begun to hold accountable those who commit gender-based abuses against women. #MeToo is a true civil rights movement, one that is so very long overdue. In opposing such movement, Jeff Sessions is casting himself as a modern day George Wallace. It bears repeating that no one, no one, was challenging the settled precedent that victims of domestic violence may be granted asylum as members of a particular social group. When the precedent case was before the Board of Immigration Appeals, the Department of Homeland Security, i.e. the enforcement agency prosecuting the case, filed a brief in which it conceded that the group consisting of “married women in Guatemala who are unable to leave their relationship” satisfied all of the legal criteria, and was therefore a proper particular social group under the law. No one has appealed or challenged that determination in the four years since. Who is Jeff Sessions, who has never practiced immigration law in his life, to just toss out such determination because he and only he disagrees?

The respondent’s “husband controlled, humiliated, and isolated her from others. He insulted her ‘constantly,’ calling her a ‘slut’ or ‘dog.’ He did not want her to work outside the house and believed ‘a woman’s place was in the home like a servant.’ When he came home in the middle of the night, he forced her out of bed to serve him food, saying things like ‘Bitch, feed me.”

Like Wallace before him, who in 1963 stood in front of the door of the University of Alabama trying in vain to block the entry of four black students, Sessions is trying to block a national movement whose time has come. As with Wallace and the Civil Rights Movement, justice will eventually prevail. But now as then, people deserving of his protection will die in the interim.

“Although [her] husband frequently slept with other women, he falsely accused her of infidelity, at times removing her undergarments to inspect her genitals. He also beat their children in front of her, causing her serious psychological damage.”

The AG’s decision was intentionally released during the first day of the Immigration Judges’ Training Conference. There have been ideological-based appointments of immigration judges under both the Trump and Bush administrations. Several persons present at the conference reported that when the decision was announced, some immigration judges cheered. It was definitely a minority; the majority of immigration judges are very decent, caring people. But it was more than a few; one of my sources described it as “many,” another as “a noteworthy minority.”

Think about that: some federally appointed immigration judges cheered the fact that women who had been violently raped and beaten in their country can no longer find refuge here, and will be sent back to face more violence, and possibly death. Will there be any consequences for their actions? Were the many outstanding immigration judges who have been proud to grant such cases in the past, who were saddened and sickened by this decision, able to openly jeer or weep or curse this decision? Or would that have been viewed as dangerous?

The respondent “believes her life will be in danger” if returned to her country, “where her ex-husband, supported by his police officer brother, has vowed to kill her. She does not believe there is anywhere” in her country “she could find safety.

Victims of domestic violence will continue to file applications for asylum. They will argue before immigration judges that their claims meet the legal criteria even under the AG’s recent decision. Unfortunately, some of those applicants will have their cases heard by immigration judges who, when they heard that the woman whose claim was described in the italicized sections was denied asylum by Jeff Sessions, and will now likely be deported to suffer more such abuse or death, cheered.

The sections in italics are the facts of the asylum-seeker in Matter of A-B-, (including quotes from her appeal brief) who was denied asylum on Monday by Jeff Sessions.

Copyright 2018 Jeffrey S. Chase. All rights reserved.

JEFF CHASE

Get out the vote! Remove the kakistocracy!

PWS

06-13-18

HOW TOXIC IS THE ATMOSPHERE AT THE DEPARTMENT OF “JUSTICE” UNDER SCOFFLAW SESSIONS? – Highly Honored Long-Time Career Attorney, In Line for Promotion, Quits After Sessions Tosses Constitution Under the Bus With Politically Motivated Change Of Sides in ACA Litigation!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/senior-justice-dept-lawyer-resigns-after-shift-on-obamacare/2018/06/12/b3001d7c-6e55-11e8-afd5-778aca903bbe_story.html?utm_term=.702fb5e91011

Devlin Barrett & Matt Zapotosky report for the Washington Post:

A senior career Justice Department official has resigned in the wake of the Trump administration’s move to stop defending a key provision of the Affordable Care Act, a departure that highlights internal frustration generated by the decision, according to people familiar with the matter.

Joel McElvain, who has worked at the Justice Department for more than 20 years, submitted his resignation letter Friday, the morning after Attorney General Jeff Sessions notified Congress that the agency will not defend the ACA — the 2010 law known as Obamacare — against lawsuits brought by Republican-led states challenging its requirement that most Americans carry health insurance.

As a presidential candidate, Donald Trump campaigned on the promise of repealing Obamacare, but that effort faltered in Congress. Last year, lawmakers amended the law, nullifying the provision requiring people to carry insurance. That takes effect in 2019.

[Trump administration won’t defend ACA against suit from GOP states]

The Justice Department’s decision last week reversed years of legal work McElvain and the Justice Department had performed on the issue.

McElvain and his team were honored in 2013 with the Attorney General’s Award for exceptional service defending the legislation in court. A Justice Department spokeswoman confirmed his resignation takes effect in early July. McElvain declined to comment.

Those who know McElvain described him as an expert lawyer and a well-liked boss.

“This is the first I’m hearing it, and it’s a gut punch,” said one person who worked with McElvain for years and spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss a sensitive personnel issue. “That will be a very big blow to the morale of the [agency’s] civil division, a really sad day for the Department of Justice and a loss for the country.”

Several colleagues said McElvain was in line to become director of the Justice Department’s federal programs branch, which handles complex government policy questions pending before the courts. It is not known for its politics but for the tenacity with which its lawyers defend the law — any law — passed by Congress.

“Joel is just phenomenal. He’s just such a terrific lawyer and a great person,” said a former Justice Department official who knows McElvain. “ . . . It’s a lot of institutional knowledge and a great deal of experience walking out the door.”

It was previously reported that shortly after the Justice Department reversed itself, McElvain and two other Justice Department lawyers who had been defending the ACA withdrew from a case pending in a Texas court.

. . . .

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

Read the rest of the article at the link.

I suspect that some stressed out U.S. Immigration Judges left this week’s so-called “training” conference (more like a “brainwashing session”) thinking about whether this also would be their future.

Sessions delivered a shockingly lawless and xenophobic lecture in which he abandoned the Due Process role of the Immigration Courts, trashed judicial independence, treated them like junior immigration enforcement officers, encouraged “worst judicial practices,” told them it’s “all about the numbers,” minimized the compelling human plight of asylum seekers, lied about EOIR statistics, and ordered them to follow his rewrite of established asylum law that essentially could make U.S. Immigration Judges members of a “shooting squad” sent out to execute women and children refugees from the Northern Triangle without Due Process.

Some must have also found being a “delegee” of the “Chief Official Child Abuser of the U.S.” at least somewhat troubling. Not a great way to round out a career with the pathetic remains of the once-proud DOJ (now widely regarded as a bastion of White Nationalism, legal incompetence, and overt political bias).

PWS

06-13-18

KATIE BENNER @ NYT: SESSIONS USES IMMIGRATION JUDGE “TRAINING” CONFERENCE TO INSTILL FEAR AND UP ALREADY ASTRONOMIC STRESS LEVELS ON IMMIGRATION JUDGES – IMPROPERLY TOUTS “VOLUME” WHILE FAILING TO PROMOTE IMPARTIALITY, FAIRNESS, AND DUE PROCESS!

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/12/us/politics/immigration-judges-jeff-sessions.html

Katie writes:

TYSONS, Va. — As the nation’s immigration judges gathered here for training this week, Attorney General Jeff Sessions had a message: They needed to help “end the lawlessness that now exists in our immigration system.”

But to many of the judges, Mr. Sessions’s hard-line immigration agenda is increasingly standing in the way of their ability to mete out justice.

In interviews, some objected to quotas he imposed on them this spring of 700 cases per year, as well as his ban on a bureaucratic tool they used to reduce their caseloads. Others expressed concern about the impact his zero-tolerance policy on illegal immigration could have on their dockets, and his push for faster rulings. They viewed those together as leaving them at risk of creating a system that sacrifices due process for efficiency.

“Sessions is treating them like immigration officers, not judges,” said Paul Schmidt, a former judge in the immigration courts, which count more than 300 judges in their ranks and another two dozen or so on an immigration appeals board.

Mr. Sessions’s carrying out of his immigration agenda has reignited a long-running debate about the independence of immigration judges, who are part of the Justice Department, not the judicial branch. Some of the judges fear that they could be used to help fulfill the administration’s priorities, endangering their independence.

“The Justice Department is the premier law enforcement agency, but the role of law enforcement is different from that of a neutral court,” said Dana Leigh Marks, the president emeritus of the immigration judges’ union. She said the organization believes the time has come to separate immigration courts from the department.

. . . .

In a speech on Monday at the judges’ conference outside Washington, hosted by the Justice Department, Mr. Sessions asked them to look for inefficiencies to finish cases more quickly.

“We have to be very productive,” he said. “Volume is critical.”

Three judges said they were struck by his emphasis on speed, prosecutions and policy matters without acknowledgment of the need to balance those demands with ensuring due process for immigrants. They said they feared the focus on metrics and closing cases would make it harder to sort through complicated cases and easier to simply deny applications for entry into the United States.

Scores of attendees wore American flag pins in support of “judicial independence and integrity in our courts,” according to a note accompanying the pins.

Dozens of judges who gathered early Monday evening expressed anxiety over their treatment, according to one person present who was not authorized to share the details of the private meeting.

They said they lacked specifics on which cases would count toward their quotas. They pointed to Mr. Sessions’s ban on their use of administrative closure, the tool that effectively allowed them to close cases. And they worried that his zero-tolerance policy on illegal immigration would flood the system with new cases and make it hard for them to decrease the system backlog of about 700,000 cases.

The potential impact of Mr. Sessions’s zero-tolerance policy toward immigration has been of particular concern to judges who are already grappling with a large caseload. “It’s as if local police and prosecutors decided to prosecute every traffic ticket of anyone going 2 miles per hour over the speed limit and filled the court system with those cases,” Mr. Schmidt said.

Judges are also resigning in large numbers, Ms. Marks said, a pattern she expected to continue. As of last year, 39 percent of immigration judges were eligible for retirement, according to a study conducted by the Government Accountability Office. Many immigration judges were sworn in during a wave of hiring in the 1990s.

The Justice Department has said it is on pace to hire 100 more judges this year, and its data shows that the department has never filled every slot. Currently there are 336 judges out of the 484 authorized slots.

In a conference session on Tuesday afternoon with Mr. McHenry, one judge asked if they could delay disciplining judges on the attorney general’s directives about metrics and streamlining the system. The room erupted in applause, but the question went unanswered.

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

Read Katie’s full article at the above link!

Immigration is an incredibly complex area of the law — often compared with the Tax Code. And, it almost certainly has more direct and potentially life-threatening and life-changing effects than does tax law (with due apologies to my tax lawyer colleagues). For better or worse, when they have an opportunity to get together at annual conferences (which aren’t necessarily held annually), most Immigration Judges love to “talk shop.”

Normally, you’d expect to hear things like questions about pending Supreme Court cases, the latest BIA precedent decision, immigration reform legislation, or how to constructively react to some of the criticism dished out by Circuit Courts, as well as sharing “best practices” to achieve fundamental fairness with efficiency.

But, while I was waiting in the lobby to meet my “dinner group” of some former colleagues, the “hall chatter” was all about things like “judicial dashboards,” “production quotas,” “what counts as a completion,” “docket rearrangement without consultation,” “required retraining” (sounded very much like a judicial version of the former Soviet “re-educaton camps”), “stress relief,” “not losing it in court,” “retirement estimates,” and, perhaps most tellingly “how can I remain true to my oath of office and job description without getting harassed, fired, or reassigned?”

Not much room for talk of law, Due Process, best methods and practices, and how to insure that folks, including the unrepresented, get the relief they might be entitled to under the immigration laws.

Appropriate for a judicial conference? Of course not! But, when your “keynote address” is delivered by a totally non-judicial Enforcement Cheerleader in a tone and with content more appropriate to a class of new Border Patrol officers than a group of supposedly independent, senior, quasi-judicial officers of the U.S. Government, that’s what you’re going to get. What must newly appointed U.S. Immigration Judges — some who gave up other good jobs to serve in these positions — have thought?

What made it even worse was the misuse of the judicial conference as a “platform” to release a “personal rewrite” by Sessions (although I suspect some outside group actually drafted it for him or gave him the outline) of established asylum principles in a way that dripped with overt hostility to legitimate asylum seekers, most of them desperate abused women, and was accompanied by unsupported statements about asylum fraud and bogus statistics that could have come right out of a “restrictionist group’s backgrounder.” The message to the judges was very clear — most asylum seekers are fraudsters, so you should cut corners, prejudge cases, look for any reason to deny asylum, preferably at the preliminary stage without wasting time on a full hearing, and crank out those denials to deter folks from fraudulently seeking refuge under our laws — or start looking for a new job!

From a legal, ethical, moral, and intellectual honesty standpoint, the Attorney General’s speech to the Immigration Judges was simply jaw-droppingly inappropriate! How is a quasi-judicial officer sworn to uphold the U.S. Constitution and charged by regulation with “exercising independent judgment” supposed to “negotiate” a system where the “boss” is basically saying “to heck with fairness, respect, and quality — just crank up the volume.”

Contrary to what Sessions said, DHS isn’t EOIR’s “partner.” No, DHS is a party in interest to every adversary proceeding in Immigration Court! They are legally entitled to no better treatment or consideration than any foreign national respondent, even an unrepresented one!

Indeed, the Due Process Clause of our Constitution applies to respondents but not to the DHS! The “founding fathers” weren’t trying to protect the rights of the Government under the Bill of Rights. They were seeking to protect individuals against Govenment overreach and abuses. Jeff Sessions is just the type of overbearing Government official that the founding fathers might have envisioned abusing the power and authority of his office.

“Rumored” assertions by some EOIR management officials that “we don’t care how you decide these cases” are patently absurd! Of course, Jeff Sessions cares about the results! He wants removal orders — fast and by the truckload!

He certainly wasn’t talking about racing through hundreds of thousands of cases to grant 43%-56% of the asylum cases that are decided on the merits, which is what should happen based on past performance had Sessions not reached in to “tilt” the law against asylum seekers and to use detention and family separation to coerce individuals into giving up potentially winnable claims. Anybody who perceived Sessions’s remarks to the judges on Monday as an encouragement to treat asylum applicants fairly, impartially, humanely, respectfully, and to insure that the generous interpretation of well-founded fear set forth by the Supremes in Cardoza-Fonseca was followed would need their head examined!

Even though immigrants, both legal and undocumented, forced and voluntary, built America and are primarily responsible for our success as a nation, I can’t remember ever hearing Jeff Sessions say anything kind or nice about any foreign national! Indeed, it’s hard to think of any public occasion when Sessions addressed immigration without providing some false narrative, ethnic slur, bogus or misleading statistic, denigrating the contributions of immigrants, dehumanizing them, or seeking to drum up xenophobia by touting false links between migrants and crime.

Sessions’s other message to the judges: By the way, folks, this backlog mess that we and our predecessors have created and are now intentionally aggravating by aimlessly reshuffling dockets, cranking up needless detention, poor enforcement policies, lousy management and hiring practices, absurdly inadequate technology, and attempting to use the Immigration Courts as “deterrents” is your fault (along with the respondents and their attorneys) because you don’t work hard enough or smart enough! You’re going to “take the fall” when we aren’t able to stop human migration by using the Immigration Court as an enforcement tool! We’re giving you “mission impossible,” and if you can’t carry it out, you’re not doing your job!

Congress — which is ultimately responsible for this mess — and the Article III Courts who have knowingly and intentionally swept the glaring Due Process deficiencies, stunning ethical conflicts, lack of quality control, and failure to consistently provide fundamental fairness under their “Ivory Tower carpets” for far too long are going to have to step up and put an end to this parody of justice or accept responsibility for the implosion of the Immigration Courts and Constitutional Due Process that are looming on the horizon.

One thing is for certain: You can’t run a Due Process, fundamentally fair court system under Jeff Sessions. He proved that this week — beyond any reasonable doubt! Anybody who doubts that, isn’t being reasonable — or isn’t paying attention!

PWS

06-13-18

“GANG” OF RETIRED US IMMIGRATION JUDGES IMMEDIATELY CONDEMNS LATEST OUTRAGEOUS ATTACK ON ASYLUM LAW, DUE PROCESS, & HUMAN RIGHTS BY SESSIONS IN MATTER OF A-B-!

http://www.aila.org/infonet/retired-ijs-and-former-members-of-the-bia-issue

Retired Immigration Judges and Former Members of the Board of Immigration Appeals Statement in Response to Attorney General’s Decision in Matter of A-B-.

As former Immigration Judges with decades of experience at the trial and appellate level, we consider the Attorney General’s decision an affront to the rule of law. As former judges, we understand that in order to be fair, case law must develop through a process of impartial judicial analysis applying statute, regulations, case law, and other proper sources to the facts of the case.

The life-or-death consequences facing asylum applicants makes it extremely important to keep such analysis immune from the political considerations that appointed cabinet members are subject to.

The BIA’s acknowledgment that a victim of domestic violence may qualify for asylum as a member of a
particular social group was the culmination of a 15 year process through the immigration courts and BIA. The issue was certified by three different Attorneys General (one Democrat and two Republican), who all chose in the end to leave the final determination to the immigration judges and the BIA. The private bar, law enforcement agencies (including DHS), the BIA, and the circuit courts all agreed with this final determination.

What is more, a person who suffers persecution that is perpetrated by private parties whom their government cannot or will not control, is equally eligible for asylum protection under both US law and international refugee treaties.

For reasons understood only by himself, the Attorney General today erased an important legal development
that was universally agreed to be correct. Today we are deeply disappointed that our country will no longer offer legal protection to women seeking refuge from terrible forms of domestic violence from which their home countries are unable or unwilling to protect them. We hope that appellate courts or Congress through legislation will reverse this unilateral action and return the rule of law to asylum adjudications.

Sincerely,

Honorable Steven R. Abrams

Honorable Sarah M. Burr

Honorable Jeffrey S. Chase

Honorable Bruce J. Einhorn

Honorable Cecelia Espenoza

Honorable Noel Ferris

Honorable John F. Gossart, Jr.

Honorable William P. Joyce

Honorable Carol King

Honorable Elizabeth A. Lamb

Honorable Margaret McManus

Honorable Susan Roy

Honorable Lory D. Rosenberg

Honorable Paul W. Schmidt

Honorable Polly A. Webber

1
AILA Doc. No. 18061134. (Posted 6/11/18)

List of Retired Immigration Judges and Former BIA Members
The Honorable Steven R. Abrams served as an Immigration Judge in New York City from 1997 to 2013 at JFK Airport, Varick Street, and 26 Federal Plaza. From 1979 to 1997, he worked for the former Immigration and Naturalization Service in various capacities, including a general attorney; district counsel; a Special U.S. Attorney in the Eastern District of New York and Alaska. Presently lectures on Immigration law in Raleigh, NC.
The Honorable Sarah M. Burr served as a U.S. Immigration Judge in New York from 1994 and was appointed as Assistant Chief Immigration Judge in charge of the New York, Fishkill, Ulster, Bedford Hills and Varick Street immigration courts in 2006. She served in this capacity until January 2011, when she returned to the bench full-time until she retired in 2012. Prior to her appointment, she worked as a staff attorney for the Criminal Defense Division of the Legal Aid Society in its trial and appeals bureaus and also as the supervising attorney in its immigration unit. She currently serves on the Board of Directors of the Immigrant Justice Corps.
The Honorable Jeffrey S. Chase served as an Immigration Judge in New York City from 1995 to 2007 and was an attorney advisor and senior legal advisor at the Board from 2007 to 2017. He is presently in private practice as an independent consultant on immigration law, and is of counsel to the law firm of DiRaimondo & Masi in New York City. Prior to his appointment, he was a sole practitioner and volunteer staff attorney at Human Rights First. He also was the recipient of the American Immigration Lawyers Association’s annual pro bono award in 1994 and chaired AILA’s Asylum Reform Task Force.
The Honorable Bruce J. Einhorn served as a United States Immigration Judge in Los Angeles from 1990 to 2007. He now serves as an Adjunct Professor of Law at Pepperdine University School of Law in Malibu, California, and a Visiting Professor of International, Immigration, and Refugee Law at the University of Oxford, England. He is also a contributing op-ed columnist at D.C.-based The Hill newspaper. He is a member of the Bars of Washington D.C., New York, Pennsylvania, and the Supreme Court of the United States.
The Honorable Cecelia M. Espenoza served as a Member of the Executive Office for Immigration Review (“EOIR”) Board of Immigration Appeals from 2000-2003 and in the Office of the General Counsel from 2003- 2017 where she served as Senior Associate General Counsel, Privacy Officer, Records Officer and Senior FOIA Counsel. She is presently in private practice as an independent consultant on immigration law, and a member of the World Bank’s Access to Information Appeals Board. Prior to her EOIR appointments, she was a law professor at St. Mary’s University (1997-2000) and the University of Denver College of Law (1990-1997) where she taught Immigration Law and Crimes and supervised students in the Immigration and Criminal Law Clinics. She has published several articles on Immigration Law. She is a graduate of the University of Utah and the University of Utah S.J. Quinney College of Law. She was recognized as the University of Utah Law School’s Alumna of the Year in 2014 and received the Outstanding Service Award from the Colorado Chapter of the American Immigration Lawyers Association in 1997 and the Distinguished Lawyer in Public Service Award from the Utah State Bar in 1989-1990.
The Honorable Noel Ferris served as an Immigration Judge in New York from 1994 to 2013 and an attorney advisor to the Board from 2013 to 2016, until her retirement. Previously, she served as a Special Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Southern District of New York from 1985 to 1990 and as Chief of the Immigration Unit from 1987 to 1990.
The Honorable John F. Gossart, Jr. served as a U.S. Immigration Judge from 1982 until his retirement in 2013 and is the former president of the National Association of Immigration Judges. At the time of his retirement, he was the third most senior immigration judge in the United States. Judge Gossart was awarded the Attorney General Medal by then Attorney General Eric Holder. From 1975 to 1982, he served in various positions with the former Immigration Naturalization Service, including as general attorney, naturalization attorney, trial attorney, and deputy assistant commissioner for naturalization. He is also the co-author of the National Immigration Court Practice Manual, which is used by all practitioners throughout the United States in
2
AILA Doc. No. 18061134. (Posted 6/11/18)

immigration court proceedings. From 1997 to 2016, Judge Gossart was an adjunct professor of law at the University of Baltimore School of Law teaching immigration law, and more recently was an adjunct professor of law at the University of Maryland School of Law also teaching immigration law. He has been a faculty member of the National Judicial College, and has guest lectured at numerous law schools, the Judicial Institute of Maryland and the former Maryland Institute for the Continuing Education of Lawyers. He is also a past board member of the Immigration Law Section of the Federal Bar Association. Judge Gossart served in the United States Army from 1967 to 1969 and is a veteran of the Vietnam War.
The Honorable William P. Joyce served as an Immigration Judge in Boston, Massachusetts. Subsequent to retiring from the bench, he has been the Managing Partner of Joyce and Associates with 1,500 active immigration cases. Prior to his appointment to the bench, he served as legal counsel to the Chief Immigration Judge. Judge Joyce also served as an Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, and Associate General Counsel for enforcement for INS. He is a graduate of Georgetown School of Foreign Service and Georgetown Law School.
The Honorable Carol King served as an Immigration Judge from 1995 to 2017 in San Francisco and was a temporary Board member for six months between 2010 and 2011. She previously practiced immigration law for ten years, both with the Law Offices of Marc Van Der Hout and in her own private practice. She also taught immigration law for five years at Golden Gate University School of Law and is currently on the faculty of the Stanford University Law School Trial Advocacy Program. Judge King now works as a Removal Defense Strategist, advising attorneys and assisting with research and writing related to complex removal defense issues. The Honorable Elizabeth A. Lamb
Judge Margaret McManus was appointed as an Immigration Judge in 1991 and retired from the bench after twenty-seven years in January 2018. She received a Bachelor of Arts degree from the Catholic University of America in 1973, and a Juris Doctorate from Brooklyn Law School in 1983. Judge McManus was an attorney for Marion Ginsberg, Esquire from 1989 to 1990 in New York. She was in private practice in 1987 and 1990, also in New York. Judge McManus worked as a consultant to various nonprofit organizations on immigration matters including Catholic Charities and Volunteers of Legal Services from 1987 to 1988 in New York. She was an adjunct clinical law professor for City University of New York Law School from 1988 to 1989. Judge McManus served as a staff attorney for the Legal Aid Society, Immigration Unit, in New York, from 1983 to 1987. She is a member of the New York Bar.
The Honorable Lory D. Rosenberg served on the Board from 1995 to 2002. She then served as Director of the Defending Immigrants Partnership of the National Legal Aid & Defender Association from 2002 until 2004. Prior to her appointment, she worked with the American Immigration Law Foundation from 1991 to 1995. She was also an adjunct Immigration Professor at American University Washington College of Law from 1997 to 2004. She is the founder of IDEAS Consulting and Coaching, LLC., a consulting service for immigration lawyers, and is the author of Immigration Law and Crimes. She currently works as Senior Advisor for the Immigrant Defenders Law Group.
The Honorable Susan Roy started her legal career as a Staff Attorney at the Board of Immigration Appeals, a position she received through the Attorney General Honors Program. She served as Assistant Chief Counsel, National Security Attorney, and Senior Attorney for the DHS Office of Chief Counsel in Newark, NJ, and then became an Immigration Judge, also in Newark. Sue has been in private practice for nearly 5 years, and two years ago, opened her own immigration law firm. Sue is the NJ AILA Chapter Liaison to EOIR, is the Vice Chair of
was appointed as an Immigration Judge in September 1995. She received
a Bachelor of Arts degree from the College of Mt. St. Vincent in 1968, and a Juris Doctorate in 1975 from St.
John’s University. From 1983 to 1995, she was in private practice in New York. Judge Lamb also served as an
adjunct professor at Manhattan Community College from 1990 to 1992. From 1987 to 1995, Judge Lamb
served as an attorney for the Archdiocese of New York as an immigration consultant. From 1980 to 1983, she
worked as senior equal employment attorney for the St. Regis Paper Company in West Mark, New York. From
1978 to 1980, Judge Lamb served as a lawyer for the New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services in
New York. She is a member of the New York Bar.
3
AILA Doc. No. 18061134. (Posted 6/11/18)

the Immigration Law Section of the NJ State Bar Association, and in 2016 was awarded the Outstanding Pro Bono Attorney of the Year by the NJ Chapter of the Federal Bar Association.
The Honorable Paul W. Schmidt served as an Immigration Judge from 2003 to 2016 in Arlington, virginia. He previously served as Chairman of the Board of Immigration Appeals from 1995 to 2001, and as a Board Member from 2001 to 2003. He authored the landmark decision Matter of Kasinga, 21 I&N Dec. 357 (BIA 1995) extending asylum protection to victims of female genital mutilation. He served as Deputy General Counsel of the former INS from 1978 to 1987, serving as Acting General Counsel from 1986-87 and 1979-81. He was the managing partner of the Washington, D.C. office of Fragomen, Del Rey & Bernsen from 1993 to 1995, and practiced business immigration law with the Washington, D.C. office of Jones, Day, Reavis and Pogue from 1987 to 1992, where he was a partner from 1990 to 1992. He served as an adjunct professor of law at George Mason University School of Law in 1989, and at Georgetown University Law Center from 2012 to 2014 and 2017 to present. He was a founding member of the International Association of Refugee Law Judges (IARLJ), which he presently serves as Americas Vice President. He also serves on the Advisory Board of AYUDA, and assists the National Immigrant Justice Center/Heartland Alliance on various projects; and speaks, writes and lectures at various forums throughout the country on immigration law topics. He also created the immigration law blog immigrationcourtside.com.
The Honorable Polly A. Webber served as an Immigration Judge from 1995 to 2016 in San Francisco, with details in Tacoma, Port Isabel, Boise, Houston, Atlanta, Philadelphia, and Orlando Immigration Courts. Previously, she practiced immigration law from 1980 to 1995 in her own private practice in San Jose, California, initially in partnership with the Honorable Member of Congress, Zoe Lofgren. She served as National President of AILA from 1989 to 1990 and was a national officer in AILA from 1985 to 1991. She has also taught Immigration and Nationality Law for five years at Santa Clara University School of Law. She has spoken at seminars and has published extensively in this field, and is a graduate of Hastings College of the Law (University of California), J.D., and the University of California, Berkeley, A.B., Abstract Mathematics.
4
AILA Doc. No. 18061134. (Posted 6/11/18)

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

The AP already picked up our statement in this article:

https://townhall.com/news/us/2018/06/12/sessions-excludes-domestic-gang-violence-from-asylum-claims-n2489683

U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, a California Democrat, said the decision was “despicable and should be immediately reversed.” And 15 former immigration judges and Board of Immigration Appeals members signed a letter calling Sessions’ decision “an affront to the rule of law.”

“For reasons understood only by himself, the Attorney General today erased an important legal development that was universally agreed to be correct,” the former judges wrote. “Today we are deeply disappointed that our country will no longer offer legal protection to women seeking refuge from terrible forms of domestic violence from which their home countries are unable or unwilling to protect them.”

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

Also, I was quoted in this article by Alan Pyke posted yesterday in ThinkProgress:

https://thinkprogress.org/jeff-sessions-asylum-domestic-violence-5e1a3e1aa996/

Marching orders, not friendly advice

The attorney general also took care to remind the judges that his decisions aren’t advice from a fellow lawyer but binding instructions from their one true boss. Though they are termed “judges” and wear robes behind a bench in court, the immigration judiciary is essentially a staff arm of the Attorney General rather than the independent arbiters that most envision when hearing their job titles.

Sessions’ frank expression of expectations was jarring to retired immigration judge Paul Schmidt. When attorneys general addressed the training conference in the past, Schmidt said, they stuck to the kind of collegial rah-rah stuff common to executives addressing underappreciated staff — but also stressed an expectation of careful, diligent, and independent professional conduct.

“I’ve never seen an AG come and basically tell the judges they’re part of the border enforcement effort. It’s outrageous,” Schmidt said. “Whether they’re inside DOJ or not, this is supposed to be an administrative court that exercises independent judgment and decisionmaking. And he’s reduced to to where they’re little enforcement officers running around carrying out the AG’s border policies.”

Sessions did go briefly off-book on Monday to offer one conciliatory note, looking up from his notes after calling the current backlog in immigration courts“unacceptable” to acknowledge that it’s been a tougher problem than he expected. “We thought we could get those numbers down, but they’re not going down yet,” Sessions said, before returning to his prepared remarks. He did not acknowledge that his own policies have contributed to the swelling of the backlog, which hit an all-time high in May.

Immigration court backlog hits all-time high, days before Sessions speech to immigration judges

Sessions is redrawing lines more tightly atop an already perversely narrow system.

A separate ruling last Friday helps underline the severity of the limits on traumatized migrants’ rights to seek protection in the United States. In a decision pertaining to the immigration courts’ handling of those accused of providing “material support” to terrorist organizations abroad, the Board of Immigration Appeals decided even labor compelled with death threats counts as grounds to bar someone from the United States.

The Salvadoran woman whose appeals gave rise to the case had been married to a sergeant in El Salvador’s army during a bloody civil war there. Guerrillas kidnapped the woman and her husband, made her watch as he dug his own grave and was shot dead, then made her wash clothes and do other menial chores for the rebel fighters while in captivity.

This clothes-washing and death-avoiding makes her, in the DOJ’s immigration overseers’ eyes, a terrorist no better than the unnamed group — presumably the Marxist-Leninist revolutionary Farabundo Martí National Liberation Front (FMNL) — who killed her husband in front of her and forced her into servitude.

The board denied her appeals and used the case to set a broader line across all immigration courts. Violently coerced labor while imprisoned by a terror organization will permanently bar you from crossing the U.S. border to seek protection. If you try it, we’ll send you back to your captors — presumably after first taking your kids away from you, pursuant to Sessions’ new policy mandating all immigrants crossing the border without documentation be referred to criminal court and thus separated from any minors who accompanied them.

This piece has been updated with additional context about Sessions’ immigration policies and further perspective from immigration policy experts.

Read Alan’s full analysis at the above link. According to many observers, the “small aside” by Sessions in the article is the closest he’s ever come to accepting responsibility for a mess that he, the Trump Administration, and the two previous Administrations actually have caused with their horrible and highly politicized mismanagement of the U.S Immigration Courts.

For the most part, the ever disingenuous Sessions, has tried to shift blame for his gross mismanagement to the victims: migrants (particularly asylum seekers); private attorneys (particularly those heroic attorneys performing pro bono); and the beleaguered, totally demoralized U.S. Immigration Judges themselves who have been stripped of dignity, wrongfully accused of laziness, and placed under inane, sophomoric, “performance standards” — incredibly developed by Sessions and other politicos and “Ivory tower” bureaucrats who have never themselves been Immigration Judges, have no idea what is happening in Immigration Court, and are driven entirely by political bias and/or a desire to keep their comfy jobs on the 5th floor of the DOJ or in the Falls Church Tower — well away from the results of the havoc they are wreaking on local Immigration Courts every day!

What a way to “manage” one of the nation’s largest and most important court systems! The real blame here goes to Congress which created this awful mess, yet has done nothing to remove this joke of a system from the toxic incompetence of the DOJ and create an independent court system where fairness, Due Process, quality, respect, and efficient, unbiased decision-making will be the hallmarks!

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

UPDATE:

The fabulous Dan Kowalski @ LexisNexis also reminds me that our statement was the “banner, above the fold” headline on today’s bibdailyonline!

Here’s the link which also includes tons of other “great stuff” that Dan publishes!

http://www.bibdaily.com/

PWS

06-12-18

LATEST FROM TRAC: IMMIGRATION COURT SYSTEM COLLAPSING UNDER EXPLODING BACKLOG AS TRUMP/SESSIONS “DISSING” OF DUE PROCESS, BLATANT POLITIZATION, INCOMPETENT ADMINISTRATION, AND “GONZO” ENFORCEMENT POLICIES TAKE HOLD — Backlog Soars By An Amazing 32% In Just Over One Year Since Sessions Assumed Control — Now An Astounding 714,000 – Sessions’s Wrong-Headed Actions Geared To Push It Over ONE MILLION With No Sensible End In Sight!

Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse
==========================================
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Greetings. The Immigration Court’s backlog keeps rising. As of the end of May 2018, the number of cases waiting decision reached an all-time high of 714,067. This compares with a court backlog of 542,411 cases at the end of January 2017 when President Trump assumed office. During his term the backlog has increased by almost a third (32%) with 171,656 more cases added.

The pace of court filings has not increased – indeed, case filings are running slightly behind that of last year at this time. What appears to be driving the burgeoning backlog is the lengthening time it now takes to schedule hearings and complete proceedings in the face of the court’s over-crowded dockets.

For example, cases that ultimately result in a removal order are taking 28 percent longer to process than last year – up from 392 days to an average of 501 days – from the date of the Notice to Appear (NTA) to the date of the decision. And compared with the last full fiscal year of the Obama administration, cases resulting in removal take an average of 42 percent longer.

Decisions granting asylum or another type of relief now take over twice as long as removal decisions. Relief decisions this year on average took 1,064 days – up 17 percent – from last year.

Wait times in Houston, San Antonio, Chicago, Imperial (California), Denver, and Arlington (Virginia) now average over 1,400 days before an immigrant is even scheduled for a hearing on his or her case. At many hearing locations hearings are currently being scheduled beyond 2021 before an available slot on the docket is found.

To read the full report, including how long at each court hearing location current cases are waiting before their hearing is scheduled, go to:

http://trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/516/

In addition, many of TRAC’s free query tools – which track the court’s overall backlog, new DHS filings, court dispositions and much more – have now been updated through May 2018. For an index to the full list of TRAC’s immigration tools go to:

http://trac.syr.edu/imm/tools/

If you want to be sure to receive notifications whenever updated data become available, sign up at:

http://tracfed.syr.edu/cgi-bin/tracuser.pl?pub=1&list=imm

or follow us on Twitter @tracreports or like us on Facebook:

http://facebook.com/tracreports

TRAC is self-supporting and depends on foundation grants, individual contributions and subscription fees for the funding needed to obtain, analyze and publish the data we collect on the activities of the U.S. federal government. To help support TRAC’s ongoing efforts, go to:

http://trac.syr.edu/cgi-bin/sponsor/sponsor.pl

David Burnham and Susan B. Long, co-directors
Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse
Syracuse University
Suite 360, Newhouse II
Syracuse, NY 13244-2100
315-443-3563

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

Wow! The “One Man Supreme Court” is also a “One Man Wrecking Crew” trying his best to bring down the entire U.S. justice system with his remarkable mix of bias, ignorance, cruelty, political grandstanding, and just plain old incompetence. To my knowledge, he’s never run anything larger than a modest sized U.S. Attorney’s Office, and not everyone who worked with him then was enamored by the way he handled that job. In fact, he was so bad that members of his own party his own party helped block him from a U.S. District Judge position because of his perceived racial bias and lack of ability to deal fairly with minorities.

All of this while, the GOP Congress just sits back and “ho hums” about the mess they have created and allowed to fester in the DOJ and their lack of meaningful oversight over Sessions’s destructive, often dishonest, actions and gross mismanagement!

And, destroying the U.S. Immigration Courts is by no means the last or least of his efforts. According to Richard Morosi’s “banner headline top story” in today’s Los Angeles Times, Sessions & Co have so overloaded the U.S. District Courts along the border with non-violent misdemeanor immigration offenders that those courts 1) don’t have time for more serious offenders, major fraudsters, and other real criminals; and 2) are abandoning their values and independence to produce what one former senior prosecutor, Charles La Bella, termed “turnstyle justice” (“not what the federal courts were meant to do”). It’s so horrible that one long-time U.S. District Judge has already quit because he couldn’t take the wanton wastefulness, stupidity, and inhumanity of it all. You can check out Morosi’s full article here: http://enewspaper.latimes.com/infinity/article_share.aspx?guid=aec32f3c-e756-4d4a-acbc-f7e451bd9d87

In other words, Sessions is compromising the actual safety and security of the United States and threatening the integrity of our U.S. Court System to indulge his own racist, xenophobic desire to punish “regular folks, dishwashers, landscapers . . .people who are coming to pick fruit or find menial work to send money back home.”

At least the Chief U.S. District Judge trying to deal with this mess has included defense attorneys along with judges and prosecutors in his new “case management committee.” Compare that with the Immigration Courts, where Sessions, his DOJ politicos, and administrative bureaucrats in Falls Church manage the cases from afar, based solely on political and enforcement considerations. The U.S. Immigration Judges who actually hear the cases, the hard-working (largely pro bono) defense attorneys, and even the local ICE prosecutors are effectively “frozen out” of the system for setting priorities and managing cases. I’ll wager that there is no other court system in the United States that attempts to operate in this bone-headed and obviously counterproductive manner!

Under Sessions, more judges = more backlog! That militates against Congress throwing any more judges, money, and personnel into this mess until the Immigration Courts are removed from the DOJ, a long, long overdue move.

How do you build more backlog with more judges? First, by demoralizing and effectively forcing out some of the most experienced and fairest judges and replacing them with “newbies,” Sessions reduces judicial legal expertise, productivity, and independence, at least in the short run.

Second, by trashing the very promising “prosecutorial discretion” program undertaken by ICE prosecutors with the encouragement and cooperation of the Immigration Judges, he forces “low priority” cases into the court system at the expense of the more difficult and complex cases that then get pushed to the end of the line. Astoundingly, Sessions’s recent legally flawed “beat down” of “Administrative Closing” virtually guarantees that several hundred thousand low priority “closed” cases will be returned to the courts’ active dockets in the near future, thus artificially pushing the backlog beyond 1,000,000!

This is known as “Aimless Docket Reshuffling.” It started under Obama, but has accelerated dramatically under Sessions. This is essentially what is happening with Sessions’s irresponsible prosecution of minor misdemeanants over in the U.S. District Courts along the border.

Third, and this jumped out from the TRAC report, it now takes much longer to complete cases, particularly asylum case and other cases granting relief, because they are all contested by ICE and Sessions is actively trying to “jack” the law against respondents, particularly asylum applicants. A wise Attorney General actually committed to the job of justice for all in America and responsible use of taxpayer-funded resources would work cooperatively with prosecutors, defense attorneys, and Immigration Judges within existing precedents favorable to asylum applicants to encourage “pretrial” of the many well-documented, meritorious asylum cases and other cases for relief (like cancellation of removal) now unnecessarily clogging the dockets so that they could be granted relief on “short-block dockets” by Immigration Judges. In other cases, they could be closed and removed from the docket to pursue alternative forms of relief at USCIS. This would be a great way of attacking the backlog without running over anyone’s Due Process rights! But, that’s not what Sessions is interested in.

Not only are asylum cases becoming unnecessarily complex and time-consuming under Sessions, but his apparent plan to intentionally misconstrue U.S. asylum law to disadvantage bona fide applicants in favor of his restrictionist agenda and personal biases against asylum seekers, women, and Central Americans is almost sure to result in many “losers” for the Government in the Courts of Appeals. This, in turn, is likely to result in massive returns for “do-overs” — just as happened during the Due Process disaster than occurred following the “Ashcroft Purge” of the BIA in 2003!

PWS

06-08-18

CALLING ALL U.S. JUDGES (ARTICLE III, U.S. IMMIGRATION JUDGES, ADMINISTRATIVE, STATE, ACTIVE, RETIRED, SENIOR), INVOLVED IN (OR WHO WOULD LIKE TO KNOW MORE ABOUT) ASYLUM AND REFUGEE ADJUDICATION AT THIS CRITICAL JUNCTURE: Come Join Me At The America’s Conference Of The International Association Of Refugee & Migration Judges At Beautiful Georgetown Law Center In Washington, D.C. , August 1-5, 2018!

International Association of Refugee and Migration Judges

America’s Chapter

Office of the Vice President

Alexandria, Virginia

June 6, 2018

Dear colleagues,

As those of you who know me well realize, since my retirement from the bench, there’s not much that can keep me away from Maine and Wisconsin in July and August! But, this year’s America’s Chapter Conference at the beautiful campus of Georgetown Law in D.C. is one of those exceptions.

As the Vice President of the International Association of Refugee and Migration Judges’ (IARMJ) Americas Chapter, I enthusiastically invite you to join me at the Americas Chapter Conference to be held in Washington, D.C., August 1-5, 2018.

As you may be aware, the IARMJ is a voluntary association of judges and quasi-judicial decision makers whose main purpose is to foster an understanding of the obligations created by the United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees. For instance, this includes supporting capacity building initiatives and the sharing of best practices with nascent refugee determination systems in the Americas to help develop expertise and practices around the world, in accordance with international legal instruments and standards. Then Chief U.S. Immigration Judge (now BIA Appellate Immigration Judge) Michael J. Creppy and I were among the founding members of the IARLJ (the original name of the IARJM) in Warsaw, Poland, two decades ago. As you might expect, my signature is scrawled large across the bottom of the original articles!

The conference will begin with two days of pre-conference workshops, followed by two days of plenary sessions, and a capstone program examining law and justice at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum on day five. Expert speakers at this event will include, in addition to internationally renowned academics and specialists, representatives from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services – Asylum Division as well as other government entities and NGOs.

This August, the Americas Chapter seeks to examine the theme of resilience in our asylum systems through an in-depth legal analysis and discussion of various topics, including trauma-informed adjudications techniques, the real-world impact of heavy workloads and humanitarian caseloads on adjudicators, the impact of bias on adjudicative decisions and how lessons learned from recent migration surges can help to inform the creation of more resilient legal protection systems and processes.

Participation is open worldwide, and we aim to invite asylum and refugee judges, quasi-judicial decision makers and tribunal members at all levels. I am thus writing to request your support to both attend this special and timely Conference and to help us promote participation at the Conference, among current and retired U.S. Immigration Judges, BIA Appellate Immigration Judges, and Article III Federal Judges at all levels.

This will be a unique opportunity to make asylum judges throughout the world aware of the challenges that we are facing here in the United States and to share notes with them on how to effectively adhere to the principles enunciated in the 1952 Geneva Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees.

ociation of Refugee Please find attached a draft version of the agenda for your reference. I encourage you to visit our website at https://www.iarlj.org/events/event/56-iarlj-americas-chapter-conference for updated conference information, including registration details. If you have any questions or require further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact the following email: iarmjamericaschapter@gmail.com.

I look forward to seeing you at Georgetown Law in August!

Due Process Forever!

Best regards,

Paul

Americas Chapter, IARMJ

HERE’S THE AGENDA:

Agenda ENG 2018

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

Friends, there has NEVER been a more important time for this Conference and this terrific organization dedicated to promoting professionalism, respect, fairness, Due Process, and international understanding in interpreting and applying the 1952 Convention on the Status of Refugees — the most important international accord in the timeless history of refugees! Meetings like this don’t come to the United States often. Don’t miss this opportunity for a special, one-of-a-kind experience with your peers from elsewhere!

IMPORTANT NOTE: Although we would, of course, love to have you join our organization and will have a favorable membership rate for new members, membership in the IARMJ is not required to attend this conference!

Hope to see you at Georgetown Law in August!

Due Process Forever!

PWS

06-06-18

HON. JEFFREY CHASE WITH “LAW YOU CAN USE” TO FORCE THIS ADMINISTRATION TO RECOGNIZE REFUGEES FROM THE NORTHERN TRIANGLE — Yes, Many Recently Arrived Refugees From The Northern Triangle Qualify As “Political” Refugees – Here’s How To Argue & Support Their Cases!

https://www.jeffreyschase.com/blog/2018/6/3/3rd-generation-gangs-and-political-opinion

Jun 3 3rd-Generation Gangs and Political Opinion

When Attorney General Jeff Sessions issues his decision in Matter of A-B- (the case he certified to himself to decide whether “being a victim of private criminal activity” can constitute a particular social group for asylum purposes), it may negatively impact those asylum applicants who fear gang violence on account of their membership in a particular social group. Attorneys representing such claimants should consider whether their clients may alternatively claim a well-founded fear of persecution based on their political opinion under a “third-generation gang” theory, supported by country condition evidence.

In their article ‘Third Generation’ Gangs, Warfare in Central America, and Refugee Law’s Political Opinion Ground,1 Deborah Anker and Palmer Lawrence make a very important point: that “the Refugee Convention’s concept of political opinion incorporates ‘any opinion on any matter in which the machinery of the State, government, and policy may be engaged,’ or that of other persecutory agents where the state is unwilling or unable to provide protection” (citing Canada (Attorney General) v. Ward, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 689, 746 (Can.)).

Relying on this broad interpretation of political opinion, Anker and Lawrence next note that some military and law enforcement experts have concluded that the larger Central American gangs (including MS-13 and Mara 18) “have developed a degree of politicization, sophistication, and international reach to qualify them as ‘third generation gangs,’” which “function as de facto governments, controlling significant territory (competing with the state for power).” Anker and Lawrence cite Lieutenant Colonel Howard L. Gray, Gangs and Transnational Criminals Threaten Central American Stability, 7 U.S. Army War College, Strategy Research Project (2009)); in documenting such claims, practitioners should also reference John P. Sullivan and Robert J. Bunker, “Third Generation Gang Studies: An Introduction,” 14-4 Journal of Gang Research 1 (Summer 2007), and “Third General Gangs Strategic Note No. 1: Mara Salvatrucha (MS-13) 500 Man Commando Unit Planned for El Salvador,” Small Wars Journal, Sept. 10, 2016. The last article quotes Douglas Farah, Visiting Senior Fellow, National Defense University Center for Complex Operations as stating that “The MS has strong political and military ambitions and now views itself as political/military rather than a gang…MS 13 now has troops, weapons, and a cause…efforts to form a joint force with the 18 is less likely but both sides are in discussion to at least have lines of communication open.”2

Under the definition of political opinion cited above, gangs such as MS-13 and Mara 18 are at least other persecutory agents from which the state is unable or unwilling to provide protection. Such gangs might also be the de facto “state” itself in areas they control. The idea that opinions or matters that engage such gangs might constitute political opinion finds support from the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), which has recently published Eligibility Guidelines for Assessing the International Protection Needs of Asylum Seekers from Guatemala (January 2018), El Salvador (March 2016), and Honduras (July 2016). These can be found on the website Refworld.org. UNHCR has been described as “the entity that most resembles a supervisory body of the [1951] Convention.”3 Although U.S. courts and the BIA have been inconsistent in the deference accorded to its opinions, given the clearly stated intent of Congress in passing the Refugee Act of 1980 to conform U.S. asylum law to the language of the 1951 Convention (which was binding on the U.S. based on its ratification of the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees), it has been argued that courts should defer more consistently to UNHCR’s interpretations of the Convention’s provisions.4

UNHCR’s 2016 Eligibility Guidelines for El Salvador includes an “Assessment of International Protection Needs of Asylum-seekers from El Salvador.” The agency concludes that “depending on the particular circumstances of the case, UNHCR considers that persons perceived by a gang as contravening its rules or resisting its authority may be in need of international protection on the grounds of their (imputed) political opinion…”5 The UNHCR Guidelines report at p. 12 that “gangs are reported to exercise extraordinary levels of social control over the population of their territories.” According to UNHCR, residents in such gang-controlled zones “are reportedly required to ‘look, listen and keep quiet’ (‘mirar, oir, callar’), and often face a plethora of gang-imposed restrictions on who they can talk with and what about, what time they must be inside their homes, where they can walk or go to school, who they can visit and who can visit them, what they can wear, and even, reportedly, the color of their hair.”

At p. 28 of its Guidelines, UNHCR states:

The ground of political opinion needs to reflect the reality of the specific geographical, historical, political, legal, judicial, and sociocultural context of the country of origin. In contexts such as that in El Salvador, expressing objections to the activities of gangs may be considered as amounting to an opinion that is critical of the methods and policies of those in control and, thus, constitute a “political opinion” within the meaning of the refugee definition. For example, individuals who resist being recruited by a gang, or who refuse to comply with demands made by the gangs, such as demands to pay extortion money, may be perceived to hold a political opinion.

Anker and Lawrence note in their conclusion that many denials of such claims “reflect adjudicators’ and courts’ lack of knowledge (often because they are not presented with evidence) of regarding the political nature and context of the present conflict in that region.” This is an extremely important point. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit stated in Castro v. Holder6 that “a claim of political persecution cannot be evaluated in a vacuum….” The court noted that it has “remanded cases in which the agency denied an application for asylum based on its failure to properly engage in the “complex and contextual factual inquiry” that such claims often require…Nevertheless, in this case, the agency has once again embraced an ‘impoverished view of what political opinions are, especially in a country where certain democratic rights have only a tenuous hold’” in denying the asylum claim “without any coherent examination of the surrounding political environment.”

Immigration judges dealing with seriously overloaded dockets, limited authority to grant continuances, and completion quotas will be hard pressed to engage in “complex and contextual factual inquiry.” Practitioners should do their best to educate adjudicators through country condition evidence, expert testimony, memoranda of law, and through detailed direct examination of the asylum-seeker.

Practitioners should also rely on the BIA’s precedent decision in Matter of S-P-, 21 I&N Dec. 486 (BIA 1996), which held that imputed political opinion may satisfy the refugee definition (relying in part on the UNHCR Handbook and Procedures for Determining Refugee Status under the 1951 Convention; and that asylum applicants need not show conclusively why persecution may occur, but need only produce facts to establish that a reasonable person would fear that the danger arises on account of a protected ground. The Board in S-P- also set forth five elements to consider in identifying motive, including “indications in the particular case that the abuse was directed toward modifying or punishing opinion rather than conduct (e.g., statements or actions by the perpetrators or abuse out of proportion to nonpolitical ends)” (Id. at 494). With the support of the UNHCR Guidelines, a strong argument can be made that death threats or actual killings for offenses such as “looking mistrustfully at a gang member,” “wearing certain clothing.” or “accidentally turning up uninvited in a gang zone” constitute “statements or actions…out of proportion to nonpolitical ends” under the criteria found in Matter of S-P-.7

Where another motive exists for the feared harm, practitioners should argue that mixed motives will support a grant of asylum where one of the motives is tethered to a statutory ground. See Matter of S-P-, supra at 495. In Osorio v. INS, 18 F.3d 1017 (2d Cir. 1994), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit responded to INS’ argument that a labor union leader could not establish a nexus to political opinion because his dispute with the Guatemalan government was economic in nature by finding “any attempt to unravel economic from political motives is untenable in this case.” The court concluded that the petitioner’s union activities “imply a political opinion,” concluding that “the Government’s view of what constitutes a political opinion is too narrow.” Or, as Anker and Lawrence explain, “gangs can, for example, view a person who refuses extortion as an enemy opposing them and, at the same time, also want the funds.”

Copyright 2018 Jeffrey S. Chase. All rights reserved.

Notes:

1. 14-10 Immigration Briefings 1 (October 2014).

2. I first heard Farah speak at a country condition training on gang violence in the Northern Triangle held by USCIS for its asylum officers; at my invitation, Farah was a speaker on the same topic at the 2015 EOIR Training Conference for its immigration judges and BIA staff.

3. American Courts and the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees: A Need for Harmony in the Face of a Refugee Crisis (Note), 131 HARVARD L.R. 1399 (March 2018).

4. See, e.g., American Courts and the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees, supra; Bassina Farbenblum, Executive Deference in U.S. Refugee Law: Internationalist Paths Through and Beyond Chevron,” 60 DUKE L.J. 1059 (2011); Joan Fitzpatrick, The International Dimension of U.S. Refugee Law, 15 BERKELEY J. INT’L L. 1 (1997).

5. UNHCR, Eligibility Guidelines for Assessing the International Protection Needs of Asylum-Seekers from El Salvador (March 2016) at 30. http://www.refworld.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/rwmain?page=search&docid=56e706e94&skip=0&query=guidelines%20on%20&coi=SLV

6. 597 F.3d 93 (2d Cir. 2010).

7. See UNHCR Guidelines on El Salvador at 29; Matter of S-P-, supra at 494.

JEFF CHASE

LAW YOU CAN USE: ALL-STAR PROFESSOR LINDSAY MUIR HARRIS TELLS US HOW TO STOP THE TRUMP, SESSIONS, NIELSEN PLAN FOR A “NEW AMERICAN GULAG:” “CONTEMPORARY FAMILY DETENTION AND LEGAL ADVOCACY” — 136 Harvard Latinx Law Review Vol. 21 — “This is our time to act and proudly join the brigade of “dirty immigration lawyers” to ensure protection and due process for the most vulnerable!”

FULL ARTICLE:

SSRN-id3179506

ABSTRACT:

Abstract

This essay explores the contemporary practice of detaining immigrant women and children — the vast majority of whom are fleeing violence in their home countries and seeking protection in the United States — and the response by a diverse coalition of legal advocates. In spite of heroic advocacy, both within and outside the detention centers from the courts to the media to the White House, family detention continues. By charting the evolution of family detention from the time the Obama Administration resurrected the practice in 2014 and responsive advocacy efforts, this essay maps the multiple levels at which sustained advocacy is needed to stem crises in legal representation and ultimately end family detention.

Due to a perfect storm of indigent detainees without a right to appointed counsel, remote detention centers, and under-resourced nonprofits, legal representation within immigration detention centers is scarce. While the Obama Administration largely ended the practice of family detention in 2009, the same administration started detaining immigrant families en masse just five years later. In response to the rise in numbers of child migrants seeking protection in the United States arriving both with and without their parents, and with the purported aim of deterring future flows, the Obama administration reinstituted the policy of detaining families. The Ad- ministration calls these detention centers “family residential centers,” while advocates use the term “baby jail.”

The response from the advocate community was swift and overwhelming. Lawyers and law students from all over the country traveled to the detention centers, in remote areas of New Mexico and later Texas, to meet the urgent need for representation of these asylum-seeking families. This essay calls for continued engagement by attorneys throughout the nation in filling the justice gap and providing representation to these asylum-seeking families and other detained immigrants.

The crisis in representation for detained immigrants is deepening. Given the success of intensive representation at the family detention centers discussed in this article, advocates are beginning to experiment with the same models in other locations. For example, at the Stewart Detention Center in Lumpkin, Georgia, the Southern Poverty Law Center, in conjunction with four other organizations, launched the Southeast Immigrant Freedom Initiative in 2017. This initiative enlists and trains lawyers to provide free legal representation to immigrants detained in the Southeast who are facing deportation proceedings. The American Immigration Lawyers Association and the American Immigration Council have partnered to create the Immigration Justice Campaign, where pro bono attorneys are trained and mentored when providing representation to detained immigrants in typically underserved locations. Given the expansion of the volunteer model of providing legal services to detained immigrants, opportunities will continue to arise for lawyers, law students, and others to engage in crisis lawyering and advocacy. This article provides the background to understand the government’s practice of detaining families, to the extent that it can be understood, and to emphasize a continuing need for legal services for this population.

The introduction explains the population of asylum seekers and the law and procedure governing their arrival, detention, and release into the United States. The essay then traces the evolution of the U.S. government’s most recent experiment in detaining families from the summer of 2014 to present. The next part outlines the access to counsel crisis for immigrant mothers and children in detention and highlights the difference that representation makes. The article concludes with a call to action to attorneys and non-attorney volunteers nationwide to commit and re-commit to providing services to detained immigrant families and individuals.

MY FAVORITE QUOTE:

We are in an era of incredible need for immigration legal services. That need is most acute within detention centers located outside of major metro- politan areas, including within the family detention centers.

Ultimately, neither the Trump nor the Obama administration can claim to have won or be “winning” with the policy of family detention. The vast majority of women and children still receive a positive result during their credible fear interviews, because they are indeed individuals fleeing persecu- tion under the Refugee Convention. It is a poor use of resources, then, to continue to detain this population. Instead, tax-payer dollars, government energy, and resources, should be invested in providing representation and case management for this population to ensure that they appear in court and follow all required procedures to pursue their claims for protection.125 In the current era of intense immigration enforcement, combined with the Trump Administration’s plans to increase detention bed space and Attorney General Jefferson Beauregard Session’s clear attacks on asylum-seekers,126 family de- tention is, however, likely here to stay.

In light of this reality, crowdsourcing refugee rights, as Stephen Man- ning articulates, is more important than ever.127 It is heartening to see the expansion of the model of lawyering within immigration detention centers expand to centers in Georgia and Louisiana, where asylum grant rates are dismal, conditions of detention dire, with a historical extreme lack of access to counsel. Lawyers are needed to ensure that individuals can properly ac- cess their due process rights and to help the immigration court system run more smoothly.128

Lawyers, specialized in immigration or not, must arm themselves with the knowledge and tools to join this fight. Just as non-immigration lawyers quickly rose to a call to action in January at the airports,129 lawyers must again rise, and continue rising, to provide representation for families and individuals held in immigration detention. This is our time to act and proudly join the brigade of “dirty immigration lawyers” to ensure protection and due process for the most vulnerable.

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

Lindsay is “one of the best.” We were colleagues at Georgetown Law when I was an Adjunct Professor and she held the prestigious “CALS Fellowship” working with Professors Andy Schoenholtz and Phil Schrag (of “Refugee Roulette fame”). Lindsay was a guest lecturer in my Refugee Law & Policy class, and I have since returned the favor at both George Mason Law and UDC Law where she now teaches with another of my good friends and superstars, Professor Kristina Campbell. Indeed, my friend Judge Dorothy Harbeck and I are “regulars” at their class and are in the process of planning another session this fall.

Lindsay and Kristina “talk the talk and walk the walk.” They appeared before me frequently at the Arlington Immigration Court with their clinical students. The have also gone “on site” at some of the worst immigration detention facilities in the country to help refugees in need.

In a truly unbiased, merit-based, independent, Immigration Court system (of the future) they would be ideal judges at either the trial or appellate level. They possess exactly the types of amazing scholarship, expertise and “hands on” experience representing actual individual clients before our Immigration Courts that is sorely lacking in, and in my view has largely been systematically banished from, the 21st Century immigration judiciary, to the detriment of our Immigration Courts, Due Process, and the entire American justice system. That’s one reason why our Immigration Courts are functioning so poorly in basic areas like efficiency, deliberation, quality control, and fundamental fairness!

Some important “take aways” from this article:

Contrary to Administration propaganda and false narratives, most of the recent arrivals who have lawyers are found to have credible claims for protection under our laws.
Similarly, if given fair access to competent counsel and time to prepare and present their claims in a non-coercive setting to a truly unbiased decision-maker, I believe that majority would be granted asylum, withholding of removal, or protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).
This is the truth that Trump, Sessions, & Company don’t want revealed: most of the folks we are so cavalierly mistreating are, in fact, legitimate refugees, even under current legal rulings that have been intentionally and unfairly skewed against asylum applicants from Central America for years!
Even those who don’t currently fit the arcane legal categories for protection probably have a legitimate fear of harm or death upon return. They certainly are entitled to fully present and litigate their claims before being returned to life-threatening situations.
Finally, a better country, with better, wiser, more humane leaders, would devise ways of offering these individuals fleeing the Northern Triangle at least temporary protection, either here or in another stable country in this hemisphere, while doing something constructive to address the severe, festering, chronic human rights problems in the Northern Triangle that are sending us these refugees.
The “enforcement only” approach has failed over and over in the past and will continue to do so until we get better political leadership in the future.
In the meantime, join Lindsay, Kristina, and the other “Charter Members of the New Due Process Army” in resisting the evil, immoral, and illegal policies of the Trump Administration.
Due Process Forever! Harm to the most vulnerable among us is harm to all!

PWS

06-02-18

AS SESSIONS DISEMBOWELS DUE PROCESS, THE REAL LEGAL PROBLEMS LEADING TO UNFAIR HEARINGS FOR ASYLUM SEEKERS AND OTHERS CONTINUE UNABATED & UNADDRESSED IN U.S. IMMIGRATION COURT – 2d Cir. Delivers A “Double Shot” Rebuke To Misapplication Of Credibility Rules By Immigration Judges & BIA Judges Who Should Know Better — HONG FEI GAO V. SESSIONS

GAO-2D CIR 16-2262_16-2493_opn

Hong Fei Gao v. Sessions, 2d Cir., May 25, 2018, published

PANEL: WINTER and CHIN, Circuit Judges, and KORMAN, Judge.*

Edward R. Korman, of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation.

OPINION BY: JUDGE CHIN

SUMMARY OF HOLDING (From Decision):

These petitions for review heard in tandem challenge two decisions of the Board of Immigration Appeals (the ʺBIAʺ), affirming decisions by two Immigration Judges (ʺIJsʺ), denying asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (ʺCATʺ) to two petitioners seeking relief from religious persecution in China on adverse credibility grounds. During removal proceedings, petitioners testified regarding the medical attention they received for injuries they sustained from police beatings. The IJs and the BIA relied substantially on the omission of that information from petitionersʹ initial applications and supporting documents to determine that petitioners lacked credibility.

On appeal, petitioners principally challenge the agencyʹs adverse credibility determinations. In light of the totality of the circumstances and in the context of the record as a whole, in each case we conclude that the IJ and BIA erred in substantially relying on certain omissions in the record. Accordingly, we grant the petitions, vacate the decisions of the BIA, and remand the cases to the BIA for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

KEY QUOTE:

For cases filed after May 11, 2005, the effective date of the REAL ID Act, Pub L. No. 109‐13, 119 Stat. 231 (2005), ʺan IJ may rely on any inconsistency or omission in making an adverse credibility determination as long as theʹtotality of the circumstancesʹ establishes that an asylum applicant is not credible,ʺ Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 167 (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii)). The agency may base a credibility finding on an asylum applicantʹs ʺdemeanor, candor, or responsivenessʺ; the ʺinherent plausibilityʺ of his account; the consistency among his written statements, oral statements, and other record evidence; and ʺany inaccuracies or falsehoods in such statements, without regard to whether an inconsistency, inaccuracy, or falsehood goes to the heart of the applicantʹs claim, or any other relevant factor.ʺ 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). Even where the agency ʺrelies on discrepancies or lacunae that, if taken separately, concern matters collateral or ancillary to the claim, the cumulative effect may nevertheless be deemed consequential.ʺ Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 167 (quoting Tu Lin v. Gonzales, 446 F.3d 395, 402 (2d Cir. 2006)). To resolve the instant appeals, we first clarify the following principles that govern credibility determinations based on omissions following the REAL ID Act.

First, although the REAL ID Act authorizes an IJ to rely on ʺanyinconsistency or omission in making an adverse credibility determination,ʺ even one ʺcollateral or ancillaryʺ to an applicantʹs claims, id. at 167, the Act does not give an IJ free rein. The REAL ID Act does not erase our obligation to assess whether the agency has provided ʺspecific, cogent reasons for the adverse credibility finding and whether those reasons bear a legitimate nexus to the finding.ʺ Id. at 166 (quoting Zhou Yun Zhang, 386 F.3d at 74); accord Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1042 (9th Cir. 2010) (ʺThe REAL ID Act did not strip us of our ability to rely on the institutional tools that we have developed, such as the requirement that an agency provide specific and cogent reasons supporting an adverse credibility determination, to aid our review.ʺ). Thus, although IJs may rely on non‐material omissions and inconsistencies, not all omissions and inconsistencies will deserve the same weight. A trivial inconsistency or omission that has no tendency to suggest a petitioner fabricated his or her claim will not support an adverse credibility determination. See Latifi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 103, 105 (2d Cir. 2005) (per curiam) (remanding where we found ʺany potential discrepancies that might exist to be far from ʹsignificant and numerous,ʹ but rather insignificant and trivialʺ); accord Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1044 (noting thatʺtrivial inconsistencies that under the total circumstances have no bearing on a petitionerʹs veracity should not form the basis of an adverse credibility determinationʺ); Kadia v. Gonzales, 501 F.3d 817, 821 (7th Cir. 2007) (faulting IJ forʺfail[ing] to distinguish between material lies, on the one hand, and innocent mistakes, trivial inconsistencies, and harmless exaggerations, on the other handʺ).3

Second, although ʺ[a] lacuna in an applicantʹs testimony or omission in a document submitted to corroborate the applicantʹs testimony . . . can serve as a proper basis for an adverse credibility determination,ʺ Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 166 n.3, we also recognize that ʺasylum applicants are not required to list every incident of persecution on their I–589 statement,ʺ Lianping Li v. Lynch, 839 F.3d 144, 150 (2d Cir. 2016) (per curiam) (quoting Pavlova, 441 F.3d at 90); see also Secaida‐Rosales v. INS, 331 F.3d 297, 308 (2d Cir. 2003) (noting that an applicantʹsʺfailure to list in his or her initial application facts that emerge later in testimony will not automatically provide a sufficient basis for an adverse credibility findingʺ), superseded by statute on other grounds as recognized in Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 167; accord Pop v. INS, 270 F.3d 527, 531‐32 (7th Cir. 2001) (ʺWe hesitate to find that one seeking asylum must state in his or her application every incident of persecution lest the applicant have his or her credibility questioned if the incident is later elicited in direct testimony.ʺ); Abulashvili v. Attorney Gen. of U.S., 663 F.3d 197, 206 (3d Cir. 2011). Because of this tension, although we have noted in dictum that an inconsistency and an omission are ʺfunctionally equivalentʺ for adverse credibility purposes, Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 166 n.3, in generalʺomissions are less probative of credibility than inconsistencies created by direct contradictions in evidence and testimony,ʺ Lai v. Holder, 773 F.3d 966, 971 (9th Cir. 2014). Cf. Lianping Li, 839 F.3d at 150 (upholding adverse credibility determination where petitionerʹs ʺasylum application did not simply omit incidents of persecution. . . . [but rather] described the same incidents of persecution differentlyʺ).

An example of a trivial inconsistency that is entitled to little if any weight is the difference between Gaoʹs hearing testimony that he was interrogated by the police ʺfour timesʺ and his application statement that he was interrogated ʺseveral times.ʺ The BIA correctly held that this ʺdiscrepancyʺ did not support an adverse credibility determination. Likewise, the difference between September 1, 2010 and September 4, 2010 as the date when Shao contacted his cousin is a trivial discrepancy.

Although the federal evidentiary rules do not apply in immigration proceedings, Aslam v. Mukasey, 537 F.3d 110, 114 (2d Cir. 2008) (per curiam), it is nonetheless instructive to analogize the use of omissions in adverse credibility determinations to the use of a witnessʹs prior silence for impeachment. In the latter context, we have indicated that ʺ[w]here the belatedly recollected facts merely augment that which was originally described, the prior silence is often simply too ambiguous to have any probative force, and accordingly is not sufficiently inconsistent to be admitted for purposes of impeachment.ʺ United States v. Leonardi, 623 F.2d 746, 756 (2d Cir. 1980) (citation omitted). In addition, the probative value of a witnessʹs prior silence on particular facts depends on whether those facts are ones the witness would reasonably have been expected to disclose. See Jenkins v. Anderson, 447 U.S. 231, 239 (1980) (ʺCommon law traditionally has allowed witnesses to be impeached by their previous failure to state a fact in circumstances in which that fact naturally would have been asserted.ʺ(emphasis added)). In the immigration context, in assessing the probative value of the omission of certain facts, an IJ should consider whether those facts are ones that a credible petitioner would reasonably have been expected to disclose under the relevant circumstances.

Finally, the REAL ID Act requires IJs to evaluate each inconsistency or omission in light of the ʺtotality of the circumstances, and all relevant factors,ʺ8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). That requirement is consistent with our well‐established rule that review of an agencyʹs adverse credibility determination ʺis conducted on the record as a whole.ʺ Tu Lin, 446 F.3d at 402; see also Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 167 (an applicantʹs testimony must be considered ʺin light of . . . the manner in which it hangs together with other evidenceʺ (citation omitted)); accord Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1040 (ʺ[T]he totality of the circumstances approach also imposes the requirement that an IJ not cherry pick solely facts favoring an adverse credibility determination while ignoring facts that undermine that result.ʺ). Thus, ʺan applicantʹs testimonial discrepancies ‐‐ and, at times, even outright lies ‐‐ must be weighed in light of their significance to the total context of his or her claim of persecution.ʺ Zhong v. U.S. Depʹt of Justice, 480 F.3d 104, 127 (2d Cir. 2007). An IJ must also ʺʹengage or evaluateʹ an asylum applicantʹs explanations for apparent inconsistencies in the record.ʺ Diallo v. Gonzales, 445 F.3d 624, 629 (2d Cir. 2006) (quoting Latifi, 430 F.3d at 105); see also Cao He Lin v. U.S. Depʹt of Justice, 428 F.3d 391, 403 (2d Cir. 2005) (ʺAbsent a reasoned evaluation of [petitionerʹs] explanations, the IJʹs conclusion that his story is implausible was based on flawed reasoning and, therefore, cannot constitute substantial evidence supporting her conclusion.ʺ).

II. Application
In light of the foregoing principles, we conclude that in both cases, the IJs and the BIA erred by substantially relying on certain inconsistencies and omissions that had no tendency to show that petitioners fabricated their claims when considered in light of the totality of the circumstances and in the context of the record as a whole. Because we cannot confidently predict that the IJs would have adhered to their adverse credibility determinations absent these erroneous bases, we remand for further evaluation.

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

So, while Jeff Sessions is busy with a “nuclear attack” on asylum law and Constitutional Due Process, some U.S. Immigration Judges and BIA Appellate Immigration Judges are equally busy just mis-applying well-established legal standards to screw asylum seekers.

Rather than looking at the record as a whole, as required by law, and giving asylum seekers the “benefit of the doubt,” too many Immigration Judges and BIA Judges are playing “gotcha” with the law — using minor or irrelevant variances in testimony or minor gaps in proof to justify bogus adverse credibility findings and asylum denials. Obviously, as backlogs stretch out, the problems inherent in “fly-specking” an applicant’s testimony about events many years in the past increases. That’s one of the reasons why Sessions’s insane bid to shove more properly administratively closed removal cases back onto “active dockets,” and to discourage the further removal of “low priority” cases from active dockets, is totally and intentionally destructive to an already failing court system.

The REAL ID ACT was effective in 2005, well over a decade ago. So, its proper application is not “rocket science.” It’s “Immigration Judging 101.”

Yet unfair applications of the law to wrongfully discredit and deny asylum seekers persists in the Immigration Courts and seems to breeze through at least some BIA “Panels” without critical review or analysis. I put “Panels” in quotes because all too often these days the appellate review is conducted by a “Panel of One” judge.

And since the BIA Appellate Immigration Judges now come almost exclusively from Government backgrounds, they are very likely to share some of the same “blind spots” as to the reality of presenting an affirmative asylum application in Immigration Court. If any of them have done it (and most haven’t), it was decades ago when conditions and the law were very different. They all too often draw inferences and reach conclusions that any competent immigration practitioner would know are way out of line with reality.

How are these endemic problems affecting fairness and Constitutional Due Process in the Immigration Courts, and potentially destroying and endangering lives of asylum applicants, solved by cranking up judicial productivity, trying to reverse long-standing precedents that aid asylum seekers pursuing legal protections, and making biased public anti-asylum statements? How is justice and Due Process served by gratuitously attacking immigration lawyers and disingenuously seeking to eliminate laws that provide the already meager and inadequate protections that asylum seekers now have? Yet this is precisely what Sessions’s program is!

The Immigration Court system needs reform to guarantee unbiased, high quality, fair treatment of asylum seekers and other individuals fighting for their very lives. Jeff Sessions is dedicated to the eradication of Due Process and turning the Immigration Courts into a “Death Railroad” for asylum seekers and other migrants. He must be stopped before he destroys our entire U.S. justice system — apparently his ultimate aim.

Join the New Due Process Army and stand up to Jeff Sessions and the other bullying, scofflaw, White Nationalists in the Trump Regime.

PWS

06-01-18

A DESPERATE CRY FOR HELP FROM DEEP WITHIN OUR BROKEN U.S. IMMIGRATION COURT SYSTEM: “Yesterday as I left court after an individual hearing for a 237(a)(1)(H) waiver, my client told me she felt like she was not a human being because of the way she was treated during the trial.” – JOIN THE “NEW DUE PROCESS ARMY” & STOP THE DEHUMANIZATION OF INDIVIDUALS SEEKING DUE PROCESS!

Here’s what a practicing immigration attorney has to say about what’s really happening in our broken U.S. Immigration Court system:

I was at the FBA conference in Denver and your keynote speech made me feel like someone actually understands the tragedies that are unfolding in our immigration court system, and is trying to do something about it. Each time I go into court I try to look at the system with new eyes and refreshed hope that today’s trial will be different. Each time I leave court I am reminded of how blatantly biased the judges can be, how the government attorneys are given special treatment, how our clients are badgered and treated inhumanely, and how the “dirty immigration lawyers” such as myself are treated with disdain. I know that I will be ok, but worry to the point of losing sleep over how my clients are treated. Yesterday as I left court after an individual hearing for a 237(a)(1)(H) waiver, my client told me she felt like she was not a human being because of the way she was treated during the trial. I consider myself a part of the due process army and want to know what else I can do to advocate for serious changes, including a complete overhaul, of the EOIR system. I thank you for your time and look forward to hearing from you.

Here’s my response:

You can:
1) Take cases to the Article III Courts. They still have no idea of how Due Process is being mocked every day in the Immigration Courts. They need to be forced to accept responsibility for this travesty which they have the power to end.
2) Make a record of how the IJs are ignoring facts of record and applicable law because they have prejudged cases.
3) Get out the vote for candidates who put Dreamer relief, an independent Immigration Court, and an end to unnecessary and expensive immigration detention at the top of their legislative “to do” list. (Something that the Dems conspicuously failed to do when Obama was elected in 2008).
4) Actively support candidates for state and local office who are pledged to resist the divisive and racially motivated immigration policies of this Administration to the extent possible under the law.
5) Support efforts for universal representation.

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

It’s both telling and disturbing that most of us who understand the system’s failings and are committed to fixing them are now outside the system — where our voices actually can be heard, our views are taken seriously, and the truth about the national disgrace taking place in our U.S. Immigration Courts under Trump & Sessions can be spoken.

Yes, there are many conscientious, courageous, and hard-working Immigration Judges still in the system. But, they have been “muzzled, degraded, and disrespected.” Instead, those Immigration Judges who are biased against respondents, particularly asylum seekers, willing to cut corners, and oblivious to what Constitutional Due Process actually means for individuals are being empowered and encouraged by Sessions.

How is it fair or reasonable to have a so-called “court system” where conscientious attorneys like this are “losing sleep” over the unfair, degrading, and dehumanizing treatment that they are receiving at the hands of supposed Federal Judges in what purports to be a Federal Court system? Totally outrageous!

Attorneys — particularly those appearing pro bono and “low bono” — are the undisputed heroes of this system, the only ones standing between the Immigration Courts and unimaginable chaos and injustice at the hands of Jeff Sessions. Indeed, notwithstanding this reprehensible mistreatment, private attorneys are leading the battle for true judicial independence in the Immigration Courts over the objections of the DOJ and EOIR. What does that tell you about this system?

A “real” Attorney General, who took his oath of office seriously, would slow down this entire farce and direct retraining of every judge in the system in what “guaranteeing fairness and Due Process for all,” carrying out the generous standards for asylum seekers set forth by the Supreme Court in Cardoza-Fonseca, the BIA in Mogharrabi, and actually reflected in the current regulations really mean in practice!

If Due Process, asylum law, withholding law, and the CAT were properly and fairly applied, the vast majority of applicants and recent arrivals could be competently represented and granted some type of protection either by the DHS or in “short block” Immigration Court hearings. That would both fulfill the law and help reduce the backlog pressure on Immigration Courts, as well as reducing the number of needless petitions for review being filed in the Courts of Appeals to correct basic errors committed by the BIA and the Immigration Courts!

Instead, we are stuck with a “scofflaw” Attorney General who intends to establish and reinforce “worst practices.” It will take a concerted effort on the part of the New Due Process Army to halt the Trump Administration’s attack on human decency and our constitutional rights in the Immigration Court system!

Harm to the most vulnerable among us is harm to all!

PWS

05-31-18

THE GIBSON REPORT – 05-29-18 – COMPLIED BY ELIZABETH GIBSON, ESQUIRE, NY LEGAL ASSISTANCE GROUP — Highlighting Significant, Yet Unfortunately Unpublished, BIA Holding That 2 Weeks Was An Inadequate Continuance To Seek an Attorney!

THE GIBSON REPORT 05-29-18

TOP UPDATES

TRAC Finds ICE Deportations Dropped by Almost Half Over Past Five Years

TRAC released a report on ICE deportations, updated through October 2017, finding that deportation levels have dropped by almost half since October 2012. TRAC also provided updated web tools on ICE deportation data including a breakdown on convictions and number of ICE deportations. AILA Doc. No. 18052231

BIA Holds Two-Week Continuance Not Sufficient Time to Find an Attorney

Unpublished BIA decision finds that IJ denied respondent’s right to counsel by providing only two weeks to find an attorney. Special thanks to IRAC. (Matter of Santos-Gijon, 6/22/17) AILA Doc. No. 18052337

Neglect and Abuse of Unaccompanied Immigrant Children by U.S. Customs and Border Protection

ACLU: Documents obtained by the American Civil Liberties Union featured in a new report released today show the pervasive abuse and neglect of unaccompanied immigrant children detained by U.S. Customs and Border Protection.

She came to the US for a better life. Moments after arrival, she was killed

CNN: Claudia Patricia Gomez Gonzalez traveled 1,500 miles to the United States, hoping to find a job and a better future. Shortly after she set foot in Texas, a Border Patrol agent shot and killed her.

Border Patrol union calls Trump’s National Guard deployment ‘colossal waste’

LA Times: A month after President Trump called for sending National Guard troops to the U.S.-Mexico border, the head of the national Border Patrol union called the deployment “a colossal waste of resources.” “We have seen no benefit,” said Brandon Judd, president of the union that represents 15,000 agents, the National Border Patrol Council.

Swept up in the Sweep: The Impact of Gang Allegations on Immigrant New Yorkers

NYIC: Through an extensive field study, the report shows how Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), with other federal agencies and law enforcement, uses arbitrary methods to profile immigrant youth of color to allege gang affiliation.

Deportation by Any Means Necessary: How Immigration Officials Are Labeling Immigrant Youth as Gang Members

ILRC: This report details findings from a national survey of legal practitioners concerning the increased use of gang allegations against young immigrants as a means of driving up deportation numbers, at the encouragement of the Trump administration.

Pretermitting Gang PSGs

AILA Listserv: It appears that, at least in some jurisdictions, DHS is moving to pretermit gang PSGs for asylum before merits hearing. Looks like we must also be prepared to respond to these arguments going forward. See useful gang PSG resources attached.

Civil rights groups slam DeVos for saying schools can report undocumented students

WaPo: Civil rights groups slammed Education Secretary Betsy DeVos for saying Tuesday that schools can decide whether to report undocumented students to immigration enforcement officials, saying her statements conflict with the law and could raise fears among immigrant students.

DHS Prosecutes Over 600 Parents in Two-Week Span and Seizes their Children

AIC: Following implementation of a “zero tolerance” policy, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced that 638 parents who crossed with children had been prosecuted in just a 13-day span this month.

New RFE Policy

From the USCIS District Director’s meeting: Starting immediately if you are issued an USCIS RFE that you need to submit to 26 Federal Plaza they will be issuing a notice giving you a time to hand deliver it. The dates will always be on Fridays and the notice will state that you can come in anytime between 7am-12pm on that date to hand the RFE response in at the indicated window. There will be no interview – you will just hand in the response and get your copy stamped. They are moving away from mail in RFE responses because of too many problems with the post office.

U-visa Categories (attached)

ASISTA: The AAO seems to have paid attention to our amicus arguments on U visa crimes as “categories” in their decision in the case underlying our amicus, see attached redacted decision and the amicus. We will need to keep pushing this framework, however, so please continue using the arguments in the amicus when arguing crime categories. We do not, for instance, agree that the DV category contemplates only the facts involving relationships; many crimes are DV depending on the facts of the crimes, not just the relationships. See attached.

Stay Requests

HerJustice: On this topic, I learned last year that ICE ERO (NYC) wasn’t even accepting applications for stay of removal if the applicant didn’t have a current passport—is this still the case?

LSNYC: As I understand it, it’s always been ICE’s policy that the applicant for a stay (I-246) must have a current passport. Really, the Officers are all over the place when it comes to stays. Some say they are not accepting stays, some say so long as the client has something pending (appeal, MTR, U/VAWA/T, etc) no removal will be effectuated and that no stay is needed until removal is imminent.

Sanctuary: Our office recently filed a stay of removal, and in the alternative request for deferred action, for a client with a removal order from 2009 whose son has hemophilia. ERO accepted the stay without her passport. ERO said that they would make a decision on within 3 months, and if not, she is to return for another check-in at the end of June.

Immigrant Legal Aid Group Withdraws Request for Montgomery County Funding with Carve Out

Bethesda Mag: A Washington, D.C., nonprofit set to receive about $374,000 in Montgomery County funds to provide deportation defense to detained immigrants has withdrawn its request for the money in response to an updated list of criminal convictions that would bar certain immigrants from receiving legal aid.

Anti-Immigrant Extremist Nominated to Run Refugee Office at State Department

HRF: In response to the nomination of Ronald Mortensen to serve as Assistant Secretary of State for Population, Refugees and Migration, the senior-most American diplomat representing the United States in matters relating to the most vulnerable populations in the world, Human Rights First’s Jennifer Quigley issued the following statement: “Mortensen has spent the past several years working at an anti-immigrant hate group, spewing vile, extremist views that have no relation to reality.”

Immigration dominating GOP candidates’ TV ads in House contests across the country

USA Today: House Republican candidates are blanketing the airwaves with TV ads embracing a hard line on immigration — a dramatic shift from the last midterm elections in 2014 when immigration was not on the GOP’s political radar, according to a USA TODAY analysis of data from Kantar Media.

U.S. Immigration Courts, Long Crowded, Are Now Overwhelmed

The Wall Street Journal reports on the U.S. immigration court system’s backlog increasing 25 percent since President Trump took office, with insights on the situation from AILA National Secretary Jeremy McKinney. AILA Doc. No. 18052342

This Salvadoran Woman Is At The Center Of The Attorney General’s Asylum Crackdown

NPR: Attorney General Jeff Sessions is stirring panic in immigrant communities by moving to limit who can get asylum in the United States. Perhaps no one is more alarmed than one Salvadoran woman living in the Carolinas…Now Sessions has personally intervened in her case, questioning whether she and other crime victims deserve protection and a path to American citizenship.

LITIGATION/CASELAW/RULES/MEMOS

SIJS Family Court Appellate Case

2d dept remanded and ordered a new judge be assigned after a Nassau County Fam Court Judge dismissed a mother’s petition for guardianship and refused to set the motion for special findings, without any hearing. They also made note of the judge’s wildly inappropriate remarks.

Supreme Court Delays Further in Deciding Certiorari Petition in Case Involving Abortion by Undocumented Teen

ImmProf: [May 21], the Supreme Court granted certiorari in four cases and also issued orders (denied cert, etc.) in a number of cases. The press room, as it has been for so many weeks, was buzzing about the possible disposition of the U.S. government’s cert petition in Azar v. Garza, a case involving the undocumented pregnant teenager. The government wants the Supreme Court to vacate the D.C. Circuit decision that cleared the way for her to get an abortion. The Court did not act on the case this morning.

Detainees in Stewart Detention Center File Suit Challenging Forced Labor Practices

Plaintiffs filed a class action suit against private prison company CoreCivic challenging its practice of depriving detained immigrants of basic necessities so they are forced to work at well below minimum wage to purchase items at the prison commissary. (Barrientos v. CoreCivic, 4/17/18) AILA Doc. No. 18052163

DOJ Announces Airlines Staffing Executive Sentenced for Immigration Fraud

DOJ announced that Eleno Quinteros, Jr., the former vice president of operations for two airline mechanic staffing companies, was sentenced today to 12 months in prison for making false statements in support of legal permanent resident petitions for dozens of the companies’ mechanics. AILA Doc. No. 18052162

DOJ Settles Immigration-Related Discrimination Claim Against University of California, San Diego

Posted 5/25/2018

DOJ announced a settlement agreement with the University of California, San Diego. The settlement resolved whether the University’s Resource Management and Planning Vice Chancellor Area discriminated against workers in violation of the INA when verifying their continued authorization to work.

AILA Doc. No. 18052532

Documents Relating to Los Angeles’s Challenge to Immigration Enforcement Conditions on Federal Law Enforcement Grants

The court issued an order granting the government’s request to expedite the case. The case will be calendared for September 2018. (Los Angeles v. Sessions, 5/15/18) AILA Doc. No. 18041638

BIA Holds Two-Week Continuance Not Sufficient Time to Find an Attorney

Unpublished BIA decision finds that IJ denied respondent’s right to counsel by providing only two weeks to find an attorney. Special thanks to IRAC. (Matter of Santos-Gijon, 6/22/17) AILA Doc. No. 18052337

BIA Holds Child Abuse Ground of Deportability Does Not Apply to Attempt Crimes

Unpublished BIA decision holds that attempt to endanger the welfare of a child under N.Y.P.L. 260.10 is not a crime of child abuse because INA §237(a)(2)(E)(i) only applies to completed crimes. Special thanks to IRAC. (Matter of B-Q-, 6/20/17) AILA Doc. No. 18052432

BIA Finds Wisconsin Prostitution Statute Is Categorically an Aggravated Felony

The BIA reinstated removal proceedings, after finding that INA §101(a)(43)(K)(i) encompassed offenses related to the operation of a business that involves engaged in, or agreeing or offering to engage in, sexual conduct for anything of value. Matter of Ding, 27 I&N Dec. 295 (BIA 2018) AILA Doc. No. 18052164

BIA Holds Possession of Drug Paraphernalia in Arizona Is Not a Controlled Substance Offense

Unpublished BIA decision holds possession of drug paraphernalia under Ariz. Rev. Stat. 13-3415(A) is not a controlled substance offense because the state schedule is overbroad and the identity of the drug is not an element of the offense. Special thanks to IRAC. (Matter of Lopez, 6/16/17) AILA Doc. No. 18052160

BIA Reverses Discretionary Denial of Adjustment Application

Unpublished BIA decision reverses discretionary denial of adjustment application where respondent had five U.S. citizen children, was active in church, and last DUI offense was more than eight years prior. Special thanks to IRAC. (Matter of Rodriguez, 6/15/17) AILA Doc. No. 18052230

BIA Limits Application of Firm Resettlement Bar

Unpublished BIA decision holds that the firm resettlement bar does not apply to asylum applicants who fear persecution in the country of alleged resettlement. Special thanks to IRAC. (Matter of L-K-U-, 6/16/17) AILA Doc. No. 18052332

CA4 Upholds CBP Search of Smartphone Seized While Defendant Was Exiting the United States

The court found it was reasonable for the CBP officers who conducted a month-long forensic analysis of the defendant’s smartphone to rely on precedent allowing warrantless border searches of digital devices based on at least reasonable suspicion. (U.S. v. Kolsuz, 5/9/18, amended 5/18/18) AILA Doc. No. 18052165

White House Releases Fact Sheet on MS-13

The White House released a purported fact sheet on MS-13, in which it refers to these individuals as “animals.” AILA Doc. No. 18052232

USCIS Issues Policy Guidance on CSPA

USCIS issued policy guidance in the USCIS Policy Manual regarding the Child Status Protection Act (CSPA). This guidance is controlling and supersedes any prior guidance on the topic. Comments are due by 6/6/18. AILA Doc. No. 18052339

USCIS Notice on the Termination of the Designation of Nepal for Temporary Protected Status

USCIS notice on the termination of the designation of Nepal for TPS on 6/24/19. Holders of TPS from Nepal who wish to maintain their TPS and receive an EAD valid through 6/24/19 must re-register for TPS in accordance with the procedures set forth in the notice. (83 FR 23705, 5/22/18) AILA Doc. No. 18052236

EOIR Released Percentage of Detained Cases Completed Within Six Months

EOIR released statistics on the percentage of detained cases completed within six months. As of 3/31/18, 89 percent of initial case completions were completed in less than six months. AILA Doc. No. 18052237

ICE Announces 24-Month Imprisonment for ICE Agent Impersonator

ICE announced that Matthew Ryan Johnston was sentenced to 24 months in federal prison after possessing multiple destructive devices and using fake ICE badges and uniforms to falsely represent himself as an ICE agent to unsuspecting members of the public. AILA Doc. No. 18052561

ACTIONS

AILA Call For Examples: Delays in Receiving Green Cards, EADs, and Travel Documents Due to USCIS Error or Delay

AILA Call for Examples: Continuances and Administrative Closure Following EOIR Policy Changes

AILA: ake Action: Congress Must Vote to Protect Dreamers

June 1st National Day of Action for Children

AIC: Challenge the unconstitutional conditions in short-term detention facilities, often called “hieleras.”

Center for Gender and Refugee Studies action toolkit in light of this Administration’s efforts to break the promise of protection for refugee women

RESOURCES

NaturalizeNY: This latest round runs from May 1, 2018 – June 15, 2018. By visiting www.NaturalizeNY.org, users can screen themselves for citizenship eligibility, find out their eligibility for the Federal Fee Waiver, and enter a lottery to win a fee voucher to cover the cost of the $725 naturalization application fee.

Family Court U certifications to the Google Tracking Doc

Migratory Notes Weekly Roundup

IDP: Making Constitutional Arguments in the Second Circuit to Challenge Prolonged Mandatory Detention after Jenningsand Lora

IDP and NYU: Making Statutory Arguments in the Second Circuit on the Meaning of “When…Released” and “Released” in U.S.C. § 1226(c) To Challenge Mandatory Detention After Jennings and Lora

ACLU Report: Neglect and Abuse of May 2018 Unaccompanied Immigrant Children by U.S. Customs and Border Protection

List of Law Student Immigration Organizations

Ethical Considerations in Declining Representation

DOS Field Offices Directory

Bite-Sized Ethics: Choosing Between Loyalty and Lying

DOJ Fact Sheet: Attorney General Jeff Session Issues Opinion in the Matter of Castro-Tum

Filing DACA Applications in the Wake of Federal Court Rulings

The Refugee Caravan: Human Rights First’s Observations from the Border

Timeline: How the Trump Administration is Rolling Back Protections for Children

KIND: Death By A Thousand Cuts: The Trump Administration’s Systematic Assault On The Protection Of Unaccompanied Children

NIJC: The Trump Administration’s Checklist To Destroy The U.S. Asylum System 1

Gang PSG resources attached.

Hofstra Training on SIJS AAO appeals, RFEs NOIDs

State Department redefines public charge standard

Levin-Goffe Scholarship for LGBTQI Immigrants

EVENTS

5/30/18 Challenging Conditions of Release and Creative Uses of Habeas
5/31/18 3rd Annual Iftar in the City
5/31/18 Immigration Court Practice
5/31/18The State of Federal Social Welfare Policy Under the Trump Administration: Doubling-Down on Failed Welfare Reform Policies that Punish Low-Income and Immigrant Community Members
6/1/18June 1st National Day of Action for Children
6/5/18 CLINIC:Four-Part Asylum Series: Overview of Asylum and Related Relief
6/7/18Strengthening the Global Refugee Protection System: The Global Compact on Refugees
6/7/18Immigrant Women Summer Art Fest
6/11/18Protecting Immigrant Youth from Gang Violence & the Deportation Machine
6/12/18 CLINIC:Four-Part Asylum Series: Overview of Asylum and Related Relief
6/13-16/18 2018 AILA Conference
6/13/18 Manhattan Legal Services Immigration Rights Forum
6/16/18 Open Mic: Writing on Race & Immigration
6/20/18 Leadership and Advocacy Training (LAT)intended for emerging advocates from Southeast Asian American and ally communities to learn how to advocate effectively for policy change – Apply by February 28
6/26/18 Complex Immigrant Visa Processing Matters
7/1-3/18 National Institute for Trial Advocacy & CLINIC Training in Boulder, CO
7/26/18 Defending Immigration Removal Proceedings 2018
9/26/18Representing Children in Immigration Matters 2018: Effective Advocacy and Best Practices

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

The second item on Elizabeth’s List is well worth a look. Although the BIA has stayed away from addressing in a precedent the length and number of continuances required to meet minimum standards of Due Process, this unpublished BIA decision finds that a two-week continuance to locate counsel was inadequate.

That certainly would have been the case in Arlington when I was there, particularly given the unnecessary pressure being put on pro bono counsel by the Obama’s Administration’s policies of “ADR” and “gonzo scheduling” of so-called “priority cases.”

This decision also confirms and reinforces what many of us retired U.S. Immigraton Judges and BIA Appellate Immigration Judges have been saying all along: by pushing the court system to move more cases, faster, and with limited continuances, Immigration Judges are effectively being encouraged to deny Due Process to respondents who do have a right to be represented at no expense to the Government. That right clearly includes reasonable access to, and a resonable opportunity to locate, pro bono counsel. Clearly that didn’t happen here. I suspect it’s also not happening in thousands of other cases — particularly detained cases — across the country.

Instead of protecting Due Process and encouraging “best practices” by U.S. Immigration Judges, Sessions and EOIR Management are feverishly working to instill “worst practices” in the Immigration Courts. The BIA won’t catch all of them, particularly in the absence of helpful precedents. Indeed, and quite remarkably, even this modest declaration of minimum Due Process produced a “split” BIA panel with Judge Roger Pauley signing the order, joined by Judge Edward Grant, but with Judge Ana Mann “dissenting without opinion.”

All of this is likely to mean 1) more denials of Due Process in Immigration Court; 2) more lives ruined; and 3) more “otherwise avoidable” remands from the Courts of Appeals.

Just like mother always said: “Haste Makes Waste!”

PWS

05-30-18

LAW YOU CAN USE: HON. DOROTHY HARBECK: “Objections in Immigration Court: Dost Thou Protest Too Much or Too Little?”

Objections in Immigration Court: Dost Thou Protest Too Much or Too Little?1

Hon. Dorothy Harbeck 2

5 Stetson J. Advoc. & L. 1 (2018)

I. Introduction

An objection is generally an expression or feeling of disapproval or opposition. In court, an objection is a reason for disagreeing with some introduction of evidence. 3 In most courts, the reasons and protocols for various objections are set forth in codified rules of evidence; however, the procedures in immigration courts are not so clearly defined since the Federal Rules of Evidence (F.R.E.) are not strictly applied in immigration courts. The rules of evidence applicable to criminal proceedings do not apply to removal hearings. Relevance and fundamental fairness are the only bars to admissibility of evidence in deportation cases. 4 Immigration courts are creatures of statute. They were created under the Immigration & Nationality Act (INA) as part of the Department of Justice (DOJ), specifically the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR). The EOIR has a Practice Manual as well as guidance memoranda. 5 The trials are before the bench (with no jury) and a Digital Audio Recording (DAR) is made of the proceedings. Lawyers conduct direct and cross examinations and sometimes — but not often enough — make objections. The F.R.E. can provide some guidance in immigration court practice, although immigration proceedings are not bound by the strict rules of evidence. 6 The relevant F.R.E. citation for each objection has been included. Objections to questions must first be made at the trial court level, because if the objection is not made there, an argument based on that objection cannot be asserted on appeal. 7 In immigration court, as in other courts, evidentiary objections must be made in a timely fashion, and the grounds must, therefore, be identified with particularity. 8

The purpose of this article is to discuss verbal objections in immigration court removal/deportation proceedings. It is notan exhaustive and limiting list. It is merely a discussion of the main fourteen objections out of many potential objections that generally make the most sense in immigration court proceedings. This article does not include any objections based upon the potential mental capacity of a witness. The EOIR has extensive criteria for dealing with witnesses that exhibit such issues and that is well beyond the scope of this discussion. 9 Further, unlike many articles providing a “hip pocket” guide to objections at a trial court level, this article does not examine hearsay objections since hearsay is allowed in immigration court unless its use is fundamentally unfair. 10 The general rule with respect to evidence in immigration proceedings is that admissibility is favored, as long as the evidence is shown to be probative of relevant matters and its use is fundamentally fair so as not to deprive the alien of due process of law. 11

Since I was inspired to write this guide by the line from Shakespeare’s Hamlet where Queen Gertrude comments that a character in a play protests too much, I discuss each of the fourteen objections as though they were part of Shakespeare’s next best known medium, the fourteen line sonnet. 12 A Shakespearean sonnet has three four-line quatrains and then a two line “volta,” or twist, at the end. I have divided up three general groups of objections and saved the best two for the end.

II. The First Quatrain — Questions that Elicit an Organic Response

Argumentative

DISCUSSION: This is not an objection to opposing counsel making a good point. It should be used when the questioning attorney is not asking a question and is instead making an argument of law or application of law that should be argued in summation. It is only valid when the witness is not being asked a question that he or she can properly answer.

F.R.E. Reference: Argumentative (611(a))

RESPONSE: “Your Honor, I am testing the testimony of this witness.” 13

Form

DISCUSSION: An objection that the “form” is improper is a generalization; it is a sort of “catch-all” when the sense is that there is something wrong with a question. The objection is generally dealt with by a direction to counsel to rephrase. The best objections to “form” should state the specific issue.

RESPONSE: “Your Honor, may counsel be requested to inform the court in what specific way is the form of my question insufficient, so that I can remedy any problem?” (Then, when informed, restate the question to eliminate the bad form.)

Compound Question/Double Question

DISCUSSION: The question is really two questions posed as one. This objection should only be used when the question is misleading and the answer could be misconstrued by the jury.

F.R.E. Reference: Compound (611(a))

RESPONSE: Separate the question into the two parts.

Confusing/Vague/Ambiguous

DISCUSSION: Confusing/vague/misleading/ambiguous are all words that convey the objection that the question is not posed in a clear and precise manner so that the witness knows with certainty what information is being sought.

RESPONSE: “Your Honor, I can restate that question.”

Counsel is Testifying/Misstates Evidence/Misquotes Witness/Improper Characterization of Evidence

DISCUSSION: Basically, in immigration court, this is when a lawyer is leading his or her own witness on direct or deliberately misstating facts on cross. The immigration judge has inherent power to administer the trial so that it is fair. The value of making this objection is to both wake up the witness to pay attention and not mindlessly answer the question, and also to call the attention of the immigration judge to the fact that the earlier testimony was different.

RESPONSE: “Your Honor, it is not a misstatement, and certainly the court and jury have heard the evidence.” If the issue is counsel testifying, then, depending on the type of question, the best response is to revert back to non-leading who, what, where, when, how and why questions.

Narrative

DISCUSSION: This type of objection in immigration court is really only useful with expert witnesses. The point being that the immigration judge wants to hear from the respondent in a general narrative form, since so much of the respondent’s case will depend upon whether the immigration judge finds him or her credible. However, objecting to a long narrative by an expert witness has the advantage of preventing an expert witness or other verbally gifted witness from captivating the attention of the immigration judge.

RESPONSE: “Your Honor, this simply asks for a short description of the expert’s methodology.”

III. The Second Quatrain — Questions Based on What Has Happened in Court

Assumes Facts Not in Evidence

DISCUSSION: Facts which are not in evidence cannot be used as the basis of a question, unless the immigration judge allows the question “subject to later connecting up.” Generally, in the interest of good administration and usage of time, the immigration judge may allow the missing facts to be brought in later.

RESPONSE: “Your Honor, we will have those facts later in the case, but this witness is here now and it is the best use of time to ask that question now.”

Beyond The Scope of Direct/Cross/Redirect Examination

DISCUSSION: The testimony sought was not covered by the opposing counsel while questioning the witness and is not relevant to any of the previous issues covered. In the testimony of an expert, the scope of what is within the direct examination is not limited to the exact items the expert talked about. Because the expert is an expert in an entire field and is there to explain items in the field of endeavor, the scope of direct is usually understood to be everything in the expert’s field of knowledge that bears on the case in issue.

F.R.E. Reference: Beyond Scope (of Direct, Cross) (1002).

RESPONSE: “Your Honor, this is within the scope of the direct examination (cross-examination) because [explain].”

Speculative

DISCUSSION: The witness does not have first-hand knowledge of the fact about which he or she is testifying. Greater freedom is allowed with expert witnesses, but still the expert is limited by Rule 702 strictures. Expert witnesses are allowed in immigration court proceedings. 14

F.R.E. Reference: Speculation (602; 701)

RESPONSE: “Your Honor, this is an expert giving an expert opinion within the scope of her expertise.”

Foundation/Lack of Personal Knowledge

DISCUSSION: The predicate evidence has not been entered that would make this evidence admissible. This is a good objection to make when the evidence about to come in is objectionable in some way. The objecting attorney must identify what is necessary to correct the lack of foundation for the deponent to answer. 15 If the witness is a layperson, the usual foundation objection is a lack of showing that the witness has personal knowledge of the facts which the question seeks. If the witness is an expert, the usual foundation objection is a lack of showing that the expert is qualified to give the opinion sought. A (non-expert) witness may not testify to a matter unless evidence is introduced sufficient to support a finding that the witness has personal knowledge of the matter. Evidence to prove personal knowledge may, but not must, consist of the testimony of the witness. With some qualifications, experts can testify to facts they used in their process of building an opinion, even if they do not have personal knowledge of the facts supporting the opinion.

F.R.E. Reference: Rule 602, 703; Lack of Foundation (602; 901(a))

RESPONSE: [Establish by preliminary questions that the person has actual personal knowledge.]

IV. The Third Quatrain — Imagery: Questions Based On Rules

Best Evidence Rule

“OBJECTION: Your Honor, this is not the best evidence. The original document is the best evidence.”

DISCUSSION: This objection can be used when the evidence being solicited is not the best source of the information. 16 It usually occurs when a witness is being asked a question about a document that is available to be entered into evidence. The document should be entered as proof of its contents. There are three aspects to the “Best Evidence Rule.” The first aspect is the one most often invoked: ordinarily a non-expert witness is not allowed to describe what is in a document without the document itself being introduced into evidence. Put the document into evidence first, and then have the lay witness talk about what is in it. The second aspect is requiring the original document to be introduced into evidence instead of a copy — if the original is available. Requiring the original document (the best evidence) to be available for examination insures that nothing has been altered in any way. The original document is not always available, especially in cases where a respondent may be fleeing persecution/prosecution. The third aspect is a summary of voluminous documents. The contents of voluminous writings, recordings, or photographs which cannot conveniently be examined in court may be presented in the form of a chart, summary, or calculation. The originals, or duplicates, shall be made available for examination or copying, or both, by other parties at a reasonable time and place. The court may order that they be produced in court.

F.R.E. Reference: Rules 1002, 1003, 1006.

RESPONSE: Dependent on the aspect of the Best Evidence rule involved in the objection: [Offer the document into evidence] [“Your Honor, this is admissible as a copy under Evidence Rule 1003”] [“Your Honor, this is a summary admissible under Evidence Rule 1006”].

Opinion

DISCUSSION: An improper lay (non-expert) opinion is when a witness is giving testimony that does not require an expertise, but is still an opinion that does not assist the jury in its understanding of the case. In regard to an expert, this objection is made to the competence of the expert due to the inability of the expert to pass the voir dire requirements for experts. If the witness is not testifying as an expert, the witness’ testimony in the form of opinions or inferences is limited to those opinions or inferences which are (a) rationally based on the perception of the witness, (b) helpful to a clear understanding of the witness’s testimony or the determination of a fact in issue, and (c) not based on scientific, technical or other specialized expert knowledge.

F.R.E. Reference: Rule 701, 702.

RESPONSE to Objection Regarding Expert: “Your Honor, the witness is an expert and entitled to draw a conclusion.”

Privileged Communication

DISCUSSION: A privilege is a right of an individual not to testify.

Some general privileges are:

Attorney-Client 17

Attorney Work Product

Husband-Wife 18

Mental Health Records 19

Physician-Patient

Psychotherapist-Patient

RESPONSE: “Your Honor, the matter is not privileged because….”

Public Policy

DISCUSSION: The objection regarding public policy does not consist of an optional right of an individual not to testify. The objection based on public policy refers to a non-optional class of evidence that cannot be introduced, no matter that the person who holds the evidence wants to testify. Subjects forbidden by state and federal law are wide:

Medical Expense Payments. Evidence of the payment of medical expenses to show liability for negligence leading to the medical expenses is inadmissible.

Medical Review Records. Most states forbid discoverability or admissibility of the records of a medical review committee of a hospital. It is a legislative policy decision to promote the ability of a hospital to discover medical malpractice above that of the injured person to discover the malpractice.

Parole Evidence Rule. The “parole evidence rule” has long been a rule of law in the English speaking world. In the absence of fraud or mutual mistake, oral statements are not admissible to modify, vary, or contradict the plain terms of a valid written contract between two parties.

Witness is Attorney. Ethical rules prohibit a lawyer from serving simultaneously as a witness and an advocate. Generally, a party’s lawyer who attempts to testify is subject to having to choose between being a witness or continuing as a lawyer in a case.

F.R.E. Reference: 409

RESPONSE: [Depends on the statute or rule involved.]

V. The Couplet — The Volta: The Takeaway, Most Important Objections

Leading on Direct Examination

DISCUSSION: The question on direct suggests an answer. This is (1) not an objection on cross, and (2) actually allowed in some circumstances. The important factor is not whether the question is leading, irrelevant, or without foundation, but rather whether the answer would assist the immigration judge in formulating his or her opinion. The special inquiry officer should weigh this objective along with his obligation to keep the record within bounds when ruling upon objections made by either counsel for the alien or the trial attorney. 20 The problem with a leading question is that the question itself suggests the answer that the examiner wants to have. A leading question often, but not always, can be answered with a “yes.” To encourage witnesses telling facts in their own way, leading questions are not allowed on direct examination when an attorney is examining his/her own friendly or neutral witness. When an attorney has called a hostile witness (which may be someone other than the adverse party), leading questions are allowed in direct examination. Leading questions are always proper in cross-examinations.

F.R.E. Reference: Leading (611(c))

RESPONSE: “Your Honor, this question is only preliminary to move us quickly to the matters in issue.” OR “Your Honor, the witness is a hostile witness.” Depending on the type of question, the best response is often to revert back to non-leading who, what, where, when, how and why questions. 21

Rule 403 (Undue Waste of Time or Undue Prejudice/Immaterial/Irrelevant/Repetitive/Asked and Answered/Cumulative/Surprise)

DISCUSSION: The argument is that the evidence being introduced is highly prejudicial to your client and this prejudice far outweighs the probative value. An objectionable piece of evidence is one that not only hurts your case but is also not sufficiently relevant to the merits of your opponent’s case to be let in.

In immigration court, all relevant evidence should be admitted. 22 Determining “probative value” or “weight” is at the discretion of the immigration judge. 23 The amount of “unfair prejudicial effect” also is determined by the judge. The word “unfair” is the key. In determining whether to exclude evidence, immigration judges should give the evidence its maximum reasonable probative force and its minimum reasonable prejudicial value.

F.R.E. Reference: More Prejudicial Than Probative (401–403); Non-responsive (611a).

RESPONSE: “Your Honor, the exclusion of relevant evidence for unfairness is an extraordinary remedy. There is nothing unfair about this evidence.”

Do not be afraid to object in immigration court. The Federal Rules of Evidence are not strictly followed; however, evidence must be relevant and fundamentally fair. If the evidence is not, no protest is too much.

Footnotes

1 William Shakespeare, Gertrude to Hamlet, “The lady doth protest too much, methinks.”

2 Dorothy A. Harbeck is the Eastern Regional Vice President of the National Association of Immigration Judges (NAIJ). The views expressed here do not necessarily represent the official position of the United States Department of Justice, the Attorney General, or the Executive Office for Immigration Review. The views represent the author’s personal opinions, which were formed after extensive consultation with the membership of the NAIJ. This article is solely for educational purposes, and it does not serve to substitute for any expert, professional and/or legal representation and advice. Judge Harbeck is also an adjunct Professor of Law at Seton Hall University School of Law in trial skills.

7 See Matter of Edwards, 20 I. & N. Dec. 191, 196–197 n.4 (BIA 1990) (objections not lodged before the immigration judge are not appropriately raised first on appeal).

8 Thus, a party who fails to raise a timely and specific objection to the admission of evidence generally does not preserve such an objection as a ground for appeal. Matter of Lemhammad, 20 I. & N. Dec. 316, 325 (BIA 1991); see also Fed. Rule of Evidence 103(a)(1). See United States v. Adamson, 665 F. 2d 649, 660 (5th Cir. 1982); United States v. Arteaga-Limones, 529 F. 2d 1183, 1198 (5th Cir. 1976). See also 8 C.F.R. § 1240.10(a)(4) (the immigration judge shall “advise the respondent that he or she will have a reasonable opportunity to examine and object to the evidence against him or her.”).

13 The concept of suggesting a lawyer’s response to a judge after the judge has ruled on the objection was suggested to this author by the work of Leonard Bucklin from his Building Trial Notebooks series (James Publishing). Mr. Bucklin is a Felllow of the International Academy of Trial Lawyers, which attempts to identify the top 500 trial lawyers in the U.S. He served as a Director of the Academy from 1990 to 1996. He is also a member of the Million-Dollar Advocate’s Forum, which is limited to plaintiffs’ attorneys who have won million or multi-million dollar verdicts, awards, and settlements. On the other side of the table, Mr. Bucklin has been placed in Best’s Directory of Recommended Insurance Attorneys as a result of superior defense work and reasonable fees for over 35 insurers. His training materials have been used by the New Jersey Institute of Continuing Legal Education in basic skills classes.

14 Matter of D-R-, 25 I. & N. Dec. 445 (BIA 2011). An expert witness is broadly defined as one who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education and who has specialized knowledge that will assist the immigration judge to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue. The “spirit of Daubert” is applicable in immigration court. See Pasha v. Gonzales, 433 F. 3d 530 (7th Cir. 2005) (discussing the rubric of expert testimony and referencing the seminal expert report case under the Federal Rules of Evidence, Daubert v. Merrill Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579 (1993)). The immigration judge has the discretion to exclude expert testimony. Matter of V-K-, 24 I. & N. Dec. 500, fn. 2 (BIA 2008); Akinfolarin v. Gonzales, 423 F. 3d 39, 43 (1st Cir. 2005).

16 In the Matter of M-, 5 I. & N. Dec. 484 (BIA 1953) (failure to produce reports of Communist Party activity made by the Government witness to the police department is not a violation of the best evidence rule where the sole issue is whether the respondent was a Communist Party member. Such reports did not create Communist Party membership but reflected the witness’s report of such membership; they were not used by the witness or the Government in the hearing; and there was no showing that they were relevant for the purpose of impeachment).

17 See generally Immigration Court Practice Manual, Chapter 2, Sec. 2.3(d); Matter of Velazquez, 19 I. & N. Dec. 384(BIA 1986); Matter of Athanasopoulos, 13 I. & N. Dec. 827 (BIA 1971) (finding that attorney-client privilege was lost when the representative was in pursuit of a fraudulent claim); see also Ann Naffier, Attorney-Client Privilege for Non-Lawyers? A Study of Board of Immigration Appeals-Accredited Representatives, Prilege, and Confidentially, 59 Drake L. Rev. 584(2011).

18 Matter of Gonzalez, 16 I. & N. Dec. 44 (BIA 1976); Matter of B-, 5 I. & N. Dec. 738 (BIA 1954).

19 Matter of B-, 5 I. & N. Dec. 738 (BIA 1954). (The testimony of a physician of the United States Public Health Service in a deportation hearing is competent and not privileged since he is performing a duty provided by applicable law and regulations and the ordinary relationship of physician and patient does not exist).

21 Dorothy Harbeck, The Commonsense of Direct and Cross Examinations in Immigration Court, 304 New Jersey Law. Mag. (2017) (NAIJ capacity); Dorothy Harbeck, Terms so Plain and Firm as to Command Assent: Preparing and Conducting Optimal Direct Examination of the Respondent, Fed. Law. 13 (Jan./Feb. 2017) (primary author, NAIJ capacity).

Download PDF version
Download ePub version
Download Kindle version

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

Thanks for sharing, Judge Harbeck. “Good stuff” as usual! And, for those of you taking “Immigration Law & Policy” with me at Georgetown Law this summer, Judge Harbeck will be a “guest lecturer” at our June 14 class (along with Jones Day’s Worldwide Pro Bono Director Laura Tuell).

PWS

05-29-18

READ MY SPEECH TO THE ABA COMMISSION ON IMMIGRATION: “CARICATURE OF JUSTICE: Stop The Attack On Due Process, Fundamental Fairness, and Human Decency In Our Captive, Dysfunctional U.S. Immigration Courts!”

CARICATURE OF JUSTICE:

Stop The Attack On Due Process, Fundamental Fairness, and Human Decency In Our Captive, Dysfunctional U.S. Immigration Courts

ABA COMMISISON ON IMMIGRATION

WASHINGTON, D.C.

MAY 4, 2018

Thank you, Madam Moderator. I am pleased to be on this distinguished panel. And, I am particularly delighted that EOIR Director James McHenry has joined us.

Clearly, this isn’t about Director McHenry, who by my calculations was still in law school when the wheels began coming off the EOIR wagon. Also, as a former Senior Executive in past Administrations of both parties, I’m familiar with being sent out to “defend the party line” which sometimes proved to be “mission impossible.”

For me, no more disclaimers, no more bureaucratic BS, no more sugar coating, no more “party lines.” I’m going to “tell it like it is” and what you need to do to reestablish Due Processand fundamental fairnessas the only acceptable missionof the United States Immigration Courts.

It’s still early in the morning, but as Toby Keith would say, “It’s me, baby, with your wakeup call!”

Nobody, not even Director McHenry, can fix thissystem while it remains under the control of the DOJ. The support, meaningful participation, and ideas of the judges and staff who work within it and the public,particularly the migrants and their lawyers, who rely on it, is absolutely essential.

But, the current powers that be at the DOJ have effectively excludedthe real stakeholdersfrom the process. Worse,they have blamed the victims,you, the stakeholders, for the very problems created by political meddling at the DOJ. We’re on a path “designed and destined for failure.”

The decline of the Due Process mission at EOIR spans several Administrations. But, recently, it has accelerated into freefallas the backlog largely created by “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” (“ADR”) by political officials at the DOJ over the past several Administrations and chronic understaffing have stripped U.S. Immigration Judges of all effective control over their dockets, made them appear feckless, and undermined public confidence in the fairness, independence, and commitment to individual Due Process of our Immigration Courts.

The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment is there for one, and only one reason. To protect all individuals in the United States, not just citizens, from abuses by the Federal Government. In simple terms, it protects individuals appearing in Immigration Court from overstepping and overzealous enforcement actions by the DHS. It is notthere to insure either maximum removals by the DHS or satisfaction of all DHS enforcement goals.

Nor is it there to “send messages” – other than the message that individuals arriving in the United States regardless of statuswill be treated fairly and humanely. It serves solely to protect the rights of the individual, and definitelynotto fulfill the political agenda of any particular Administration.

The “EOIR vision” which a group of us in Senior Management developed under the late Director Kevin Rooney was to “be the world’s best administrative tribunals guaranteeing fairness and due process for all.” Sadly, that noble vision is now dead and buried.

In fact, when I mentioned it to a recently hired EOIR attorney just prior to my retirement in 2016, she looked at me as if I were from outer space. Indeed, nobody in his or her right mind would seriously suggestthat today’s Immigration Courts are on track to meet that vision or that it motivates the actions of today’s DOJ.

No, instead, the Department of Justice’s ever-changing priorities, Aimless Docket Reshuffling, and morbid fascinationwith increased immigration detention as a means of deterrence have turned our Immigration Court system back into a tool of DHS enforcement. Obviously, it is long past time for an independentU.S. Immigration Court to be established outside the Executive Branch.

I work with a group of retired colleagues on various Amicus Briefs trying to defend and restore the concept of Due Process in Immigration Court. I doubt that it’s what any of us thought we’d be doing in retirement. As one of those colleagues recently said, it’s truly heartbreaking for those of us who devoted large segments of our professional lives to improving Due Process and fairness in the Immigration Courts to see what has become of those concepts and how they are being mocked and trashed on a daily basis in our Immigration Court system.

Those of us watching from retirement treat each day’s EOIR news with a mixture of disbelief, disappointment, anger, and total outrage. But, it drives and inspires us to actionto halt and reverse the travesty of justice now taking place in our US Immigration Courts.

I am one of the very few living participants in the 1983 creation of EOIR when it was spun off from the “legacy INS” to create judicial independence and better court administration during the Reagan Administration.

And, I can assure you that the Reagan Administration was not filled with “knee jerk liberal.” No, those were tough, but fair minded and practical, law enforcement officials. The other “survivors” who come to mind are former Director and BIA Judge Tony Moscato and then Associate Attorney General Rudy Giuliani, whom I understand is “otherwise occupied” these days.

Sadly, although EOIR appeared to have prospered for a period of time after its creation, it has now regressedto essentially the same problematic state it was in prior to 1983: lack of actual and perceived judicial independence; a weak appellate board that fails to function as an independent judiciary promoting due process; an unwieldy structure, poor administrative support, and outdated technology; a glacial one-sided judicial selection process that effectively has eliminated private sector attorneys with actual experience in representing immigrants and asylum applicants in court from the 21^stCentury Immigration Judiciary; and an overwhelming backlog with no end in sight.

Only now, the backlog is multiples of what it was back in 1983, nearing an astounding 700,000 cases! And additional problemshave arisen, including grotesque overuse of detention courts in obscure, inappropriate locations to discourage representation and inhibit individuals from fully exercising their legal rights; a lack of pro bono and low bono attorney resources; and new unprecedented levelsof open disdain and disrespect by Administration officials outside EOIR, at the DOJ, for the two groups that are keeping Due Process afloat in the Immigration Courts: private attorneys, particularly those of you who are pro bono and low bono attorneys representing vulnerable asylum applicants and the Immigration Judgesthemselves, who are demeaned by arrogant, ignorant officials in the DOJ who couldn’t do an Immigration Judge’s job if their lives depended on it.

But, wait, and I can’t make this stuff up, folks, it gets even worse! According to recent news reports, the DOJ is actually looking for ways to artificially “jack up” the backlog to over 1,000,000 cases – you heard me, one million cases– almost overnight. They can do this by taking cases that were properly “administratively closed” and removed from the Courts’ already overwhelmed “active dockets” and adding them to the backlog.

Administratively closed cases involve individuals who probably never should have been in proceedings in the first place – DACA recipients, TPS recipients, those waiting in line for U visa numbers, potential legal immigrants with applications pending at USCIS, and long-time law-abiding residents who work, pay taxes, are integrated into our communities, have family equities in the United States, and were therefore quite properly found to be low to non-existent “enforcement priorities” by the last Administration.

Some of you in the audience might be in one of these groups. They are your neighbors, friends, fellow-students, co-workers, fellow worshippers, employees, workmen, child care workers, and home care professionals., and other essential members of our local communities.

And you can bet, that rather than taking responsibility for this unnecessary cruelty, waste, fraud, and abuse of our court system, the DOJ will attempt to falsely shift blame to Immigration Judges and private attorneys like those of you in the audience who are engaged in the thankless job of defending migrants in the toxic atmosphere intentionally created by this Administration and its antics.

Expose this scam! Don’t let the DOJ get away with this type of dishonest and outrageous conduct aimed at destroying our Immigration Court system while disingenuously directing the blame elsewhere.

Basically, respondents’ attorneys and Immigration Judges have been reduced to the role of “legalgerbilson an ever faster moving treadmill” governed by the unrestrained whims and indefensible, inhumane “terror creating” so-called “strategies” of the DHS enforcement authorities. And, instead of supportingour Immigration Judges in their exercise of judicial independence and unbiased decision-making and nurturing and enhancing the role of the private attorneys, the DOJ, inexcusably, during this Administration has undercut them in every possible way.

For the last 16 years politicians of both parties have largely stood by and watched the unfolding Due Process disaster in the U.S. Immigration Courts without doing anything about it, and in some cases actually making it worse.

The notion that Immigration Court reform must be part of so-called “comprehensive immigration reform” is simply wrong. The Immigration Courts can and must be fixed sooner rather than later, regardless of what happens with overall immigration reform. It’s time to let your Senators and Representatives know that we need due process reforms in the Immigration Courts as one of our highest national priorities.

Folks, the U.S Immigration Court system is on the verge of collapse. And, there is every reason to believe that the misguided “enforce and detain to the max” policies being pursued by this Administration, at levels over which Director McHenry has no realistic control, will drive the Immigration Courts over the edge. When that happens, a large chunk of the entire American justice system and the due process guarantees that make American great and different from most of the rest of the world will go down with it.

Our Constitution and our protection laws, which adhere to international treaties that we have signed, are not“loopholes.” Treating migrants fairly, humanely, and in accordance with the rule of law does notshow “weakness.” It shows our strengthas a nation.

There is a bogus narrative being spread by this Administration that refugees who are fleeing for their lives from dangerous situations in the Northern Triangle, that we had a hand in creating, are mere “economic migrants” not deserving of our protection. Untrue!

Migrants should be given a reasonable chance to get lawyers; an opportunity to prepare, document, and present their cases in a non-coercive setting; access to a truly independent, unbiased judge who is committed to guaranteeing individual rights and the fair application of U.S. protection laws in the generous spirit of the Supreme Court’s decision in Cardoza-Fonsecaand the BIA’s oft cited but seldom followed precedent in Matter of Mogharrabi; and a fair decision, preferably in writing, without being placed under duress by unnecessary, wasteful, inhumane detention and separation of families. This Court System should not be run by a Cabinet Member who has already announced his predetermination of the preferred outcomes and his total disdain for migrants and their lawful representatives.

Once fully documented, many of these cases probably could be granted either as asylum cases or as withholding of removal cases under the CAT in short hearings or by stipulation if the law were applied in a fair and unbiased manner. Those who don’t qualify for protection after a fair and impartial adjudication, and a chance to appeal administratively and to the Article III Courts, can be returned under the law.

This Administration and particularly this DOJ depend on individuals notbeing competently represented and therefore not being able to assert their rights to either legal status or fair treatment. But, there are still real,truly independent Article III Courts out there that can intervene and put an end to this “deportation railroad” and its trampling on our Constitution, our laws, our values, and our dignity as human beings. For, friends, if we are unwilling to stand up against tyranny and protect the legal and Constitutional rights of the most vulnerable among us, like asylum seekers, then our ownrights and liberties as Americans mean nothing!

I urge each of youin this audience to join the “New Due Process Army” and stand upfor “truth, justice, and the American way” in our failing, misused, and politically abused United States Immigration Courts and to continue the fight, for years or decades if necessary, until this systemfinally is forced to deliveron its noble but unfulfilled promise of “being the world’s best tribunals, guaranteeing fairness and due process for all.” Harm to one is harm to all! Due process forever!

Thank you, Madam Moderator, I yield back my time.

(04-04-18)

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

ADMISSION: Notwithstanding the last sentence, I went “overtime,” so there actually was no time to “yield back.”

PWS

05-04-18

Category: Immigration Judge Training

Doris Meissner

Senior Fellow and Director, U.S. Immigration Policy Program

HOW TOXIC IS THE ATMOSPHERE AT THE DEPARTMENT OF “JUSTICE” UNDER SCOFFLAW SESSIONS? – Highly Honored Long-Time Career Attorney, In Line for Promotion, Quits After Sessions Tosses Constitution Under the Bus With Politically Motivated Change Of Sides in ACA Litigation!

KATIE BENNER @ NYT: SESSIONS USES IMMIGRATION JUDGE “TRAINING” CONFERENCE TO INSTILL FEAR AND UP ALREADY ASTRONOMIC STRESS LEVELS ON IMMIGRATION JUDGES – IMPROPERLY TOUTS “VOLUME” WHILE FAILING TO PROMOTE IMPARTIALITY, FAIRNESS, AND DUE PROCESS!

Harm to the most vulnerable among us is harm to all. Join the New Due Process Army and fight for the legal rights of refugees!

Join the New Due Process Army and stand up to Jeff Sessions and the other bullying, scofflaw, White Nationalists in the Trump Regime.

Harm to the most vulnerable among us is harm to all!

THE GIBSON REPORT – 05-29-18 – COMPLIED BY ELIZABETH GIBSON, ESQUIRE, NY LEGAL ASSISTANCE GROUP — Highlighting Significant, Yet Unfortunately Unpublished, BIA Holding That 2 Weeks Was An Inadequate Continuance To Seek an Attorney!

LAW YOU CAN USE: HON. DOROTHY HARBECK: “Objections in Immigration Court: Dost Thou Protest Too Much or Too Little?”

Objections in Immigration Court: Dost Thou Protest Too Much or Too Little?1

Hon. Dorothy Harbeck 2

I. Introduction

II. The First Quatrain — Questions that Elicit an Organic Response

Argumentative

Form

Compound Question/Double Question

Confusing/Vague/Ambiguous

Counsel is Testifying/Misstates Evidence/Misquotes Witness/Improper Characterization of Evidence

Narrative

III. The Second Quatrain — Questions Based on What Has Happened in Court

Assumes Facts Not in Evidence

Beyond The Scope of Direct/Cross/Redirect Examination

Speculative

Foundation/Lack of Personal Knowledge

IV. The Third Quatrain — Imagery: Questions Based On Rules

Best Evidence Rule

Opinion

Privileged Communication

Public Policy

V. The Couplet — The Volta: The Takeaway, Most Important Objections

Leading on Direct Examination

Rule 403 (Undue Waste of Time or Undue Prejudice/Immaterial/Irrelevant/Repetitive/Asked and Answered/Cumulative/Surprise)

Footnotes

Doris Meissner

Senior Fellow and Director, U.S. Immigration Policy Program

Related posts:

Jun 14 Women Need Not Apply

Related posts:

Get out the vote! Remove the kakistocracy!

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Marching orders, not friendly advice

Immigration court backlog hits all-time high, days before Sessions speech to immigration judges

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Jun 3 3rd-Generation Gangs and Political Opinion

Harm to the most vulnerable among us is harm to all. Join the New Due Process Army and fight for the legal rights of refugees!

Related posts:

Related posts:

Join the New Due Process Army and stand up to Jeff Sessions and the other bullying, scofflaw, White Nationalists in the Trump Regime.

Related posts:

Harm to the most vulnerable among us is harm to all!

Related posts:

Related posts:

Objections in Immigration Court: Dost Thou Protest Too Much or Too Little?1

Hon. Dorothy Harbeck 2

I. Introduction

II. The First Quatrain — Questions that Elicit an Organic Response

Argumentative

Form

Compound Question/Double Question

Confusing/Vague/Ambiguous

Counsel is Testifying/Misstates Evidence/Misquotes Witness/Improper Characterization of Evidence

Narrative

III. The Second Quatrain — Questions Based on What Has Happened in Court

Assumes Facts Not in Evidence

Beyond The Scope of Direct/Cross/Redirect Examination

Speculative

Foundation/Lack of Personal Knowledge

IV. The Third Quatrain — Imagery: Questions Based On Rules

Best Evidence Rule

Opinion

Privileged Communication

Public Policy

V. The Couplet — The Volta: The Takeaway, Most Important Objections

Leading on Direct Examination

Rule 403 (Undue Waste of Time or Undue Prejudice/Immaterial/Irrelevant/Repetitive/Asked and Answered/Cumulative/Surprise)

Footnotes

Related posts:

Related posts: