"The Voice of the New Due Process Army" ————– Musings on Events in U.S. Immigration Court, Immigration Law, Sports, and Other Random Topics by Retired United States Immigration Judge (Arlington, Virginia) and former Chairman of the Board of Immigration Appeals Paul Wickham Schmidt. To see my complete professional bio, just click on the link below.
“This appeal arises from the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) denial of Karla Yadira Lara Canales’s motion to reopen her removal proceedings. The BIA denied her motion to reopen as untimely, leaving the order of removal in place. We now VACATE the BIA’s denial of Lara Canales’s motion to reopen and REMAND so that the BIA may properly consider whether Lara Canales is entitled to equitable tolling. … [E]ach of the BIA’s bases for determining that Lara Canales had not accrued the continuous physical presence required for eligibility of cancellation of removal was legal error. We now hold that Lara Canales is statutorily eligible to seek cancellation of removal. However, this holding does not automatically entitle Lara Canales to have her motion to reopen heard on the merits. The BIA must, upon remand, engage in the fact-intensive determination of whether the 90-day deadline on motions to reopen should be tolled because of the extraordinary circumstance presented by Pereira. If the BIA determines Lara Canales satisfies the requirements for equitable tolling, she may then present her motion for a determination on its merits. We therefore VACATE the BIA’s denial of Lara Canales’s motion to reopen and REMAND this case for further consideration not inconsistent with this opinion.”
[Hats off once again to superlitigator Raed Gonzalez!]
Thanks Raed for continuing to lead the fight for justice in “America’s worst ‘court’ system” in America’s most right-wing Circuit!
THIS “any reason to deny mentality” at EOIR, still being promoted by Garland’s BIA, combined with incredibly inept and unprofessional “administration” of EOIR by DOJ, is why the Immigration Court is broken and being crushed by unending backlogs, daily chaos, and a travesties of justice and sound government!
The Biden Administration pretends like the problem doesn’t exist and/or isn’t important enough to fix. But, I can assure you that they are WRONG! “Dead wrong” in some cases!
In addition to the public manifestations of dysfunction and unprofessionalism like this case, I get regular e-mails from NDPA members relating their own EOIR horror stories and venting their frustrations with the arrogant “above the fray/what me worry about humanity and those defending it” attitude of Garland and the rest of the Biden Administration responsible for the ongoing EOIR catastrophe!
I strongly doubt that Garland, Monaco, Gupta, Prelogar, and the rest of the DOJ “clueless crew” responsible for this indelible blot on American justice would last 60 days if required to practice exclusively before EOIR under the unfathomably horrible, due-process-denying conditions they have promoted and enabled over their past two years of horrible legal “leadership!” As aptly stated by one practitioner who recently contacted me:
“Things in Immigration Court will never be the same, but I at least expected attention to due process. Nope, IJ’s are more interested in getting the cases done.”
How is this appropriate conduct from a Dem Administration that claims to value human lives, racial justice, and the rule of law, but whose actions at EOIR (and elsewhere in immigration and human rights) say the exact opposite? Poorly functioning as EOIR was when I retired in 2016, the “anecdotal consensus” from practitioners seems to be that it’s measurably worse now under Garland’s inept leadership! “Come on man,” this just isn’t right!
After all this time (17 years since the BIA’s supposedly “final” order), this case is still not complete! It’s back at the BIA for yet another chance for them to deny on specious, legally incorrect grounds. One possibility is to misapply the “equitable tolling” concept mentioned by the 5th Circuit. The BIA has a long, disgraceful record of resisting and mis-applying equitable tolling.
Or, perhaps they will attempt to invoke their recent precedent in Matter of Chen, 28 I&N Dec. 676 (BIA 2023) https://www.justice.gov/eoir/page/file/1561876/download to deny reopening for “failing to make out a prima facie case for relief on the merits.”
Chen is a case where the the respondent moved to reopen to apply for NLP cancellation having attained the required 10 years of physical presence by reason of the BIA’s two wrong-headed precedents overruled by the Supremes in Pereira v. Sessions and Niz-Chavez v. Garland. Having twice screwed up in a way that created tens of thousands of potential remands and reopenings, someone not familiar with the BIA might have expected them to set forth clear, practical, generous criteria that would encourage IJ’s to consistently reopen cases where the respondent now had the qualifying time and relative(s) in light of the problems caused by the BIA itself. After all, that’s basically the direction in the BIA’s long-standing precedent Matter of L-O-G-, 21 I&N Dec. 413 (BIA 1996) (reopening where the record“indicate[s] a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits, so as to make it worthwhile to develop the issues at a hearing”). https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjWzY36pdn8AhVgF1kFHTcxChEQFnoECBkQAQ&url=https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/eoir/legacy/2014/07/25/3281.pdf&usg=AOvVaw2Ntzlp4MuxfupmjaDIn7i6
Since “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” is inherently a fact-bound issue requiring a hearing to develop those facts, one might expect most cases to be routinely reopened.
But, the BIA took a different tack in Chen. While acknowledging that the hardship asserted by the respondent fell within the zone of those “recognized” by the BIA, they found “she has not identified and documented heightened hardship beyond that which would normally be expected to occur in such circumstances.”
While the BIA claimed to be “following” Matter of L-O-G-, they actually appear to have violated the teaching of that case that: “In considering a motion to reopen, the Board should not prejudge the merits of a case before the [respondent] has had an opportunity to prove the case.”(21 I&N Dec. at 419). That should particularly be true when the BIA itself has had a major role in creating the situation where reopening is sought.
By providing only a negative precedent (they didn’t even botherto “bookend” this with a precedential example of a grantable motion) to a system already suffering from a “culture of denial,” the BIA aggravated an long-festering problem. One can expect many IJ’s to view Chen as an “invitation to deny” the many Pereira/Niz Chavez motions to reopen in the offing for specious reasons or indeed for “any reason at all.” I expect talented NDPA warriors like Raed to make mincemeat out of the BIA’s wrong-headed attempt to minimize the “Pereira-induced damage” they have generated.
Like most of the misguided efforts of the 21st Century BIA, this attempt to cut corners, summarily deny, and NOT provide full due process and real hearings is likely to take more time and waste more resources than simply giving respondents the fair merits hearings to which they are legally entitled in the first place.But, that’s exactly what this Dem Administration has wrought at EOIR. “More of the same, instead of the promised change!”
I had a few highlights roll in after this was first posted, so here is an updated thread regarding the wonderful things that immigration law professors around the country had to celebrate in 2022.
Eugenio Mollo, Jr. joined Toledo as a Clinical Assistant Professor of Law to launch and direct the school’s Immigrant Justice Clinic.
Aadhithi Padmanabhan (Maryland) started her first full-time job in academia as an Assistant Professor of Law directing the new Federal Appellate Immigration Clinic.
Carrie Rosenbaum joined Chapman as a Visiting Assistant Professor in Fall 2022.
Tania N. Valdez started her first tenure-track job as an Associate Professor of Law at The George Washington University Law School.
Promotions and Awards:
Lauren R. Aronson (Illinois) was promoted to Full Clinical Professor in August and granted Clinical Tenure.
Jason Cade (Georgia) was promoted to full professor. He also received the University of Georgia’s Engaged Scholar Award.
Jennifer Chacón (Stanford) received the Bruce Tyson Mitchell professorship.
Ming Hsu Chen (Hastings) was named the Harry & Lillian Hastings Research Chair and Founding Director of the Center for Race, Immigration, Citizenship, and Equality (RICE).
Shane Ellison (Duke) was promoted to Clinical Professor of Law (Teaching).
Kate Evans (Duke) was awarded clinical tenure in 2022.
Laila Hlass (Tulane) was promoted to Clinical Professor of Law. She was also awarded the 2022 NIPNLG Elisabeth S. “Lisa” Brodyaga Award.
Kevin Johnson (Davis) was named the first recipient of the Michael A. Olivas Award for Outstanding Leadership in Diversity and Mentoring in the Legal Academy. We look forward to the formal celebration in 2023.
Kit Johnson (Oklahoma) received the Thomas P. Hester Presidential Professorship.
Gabriela Kahrl (Maryland) was promoted from Associate Director to Co-Director of the Chacón Center for Immigrant Justice.
Jennifer Lee (Temple) was approved for tenure by a vote of the law school faculty — their first tenured clinician! We look forward to celebrating the formal approval from central campus in 2023.
Mauricio E. Noroña (Cardozo) became a VAP this year after a stint as a teaching fellow in the Cardozo Immigration Justice Clinic.
Shalini Bhargava Ray (Alabama) was approved for tenure by a vote of the law school faculty. We look forward to celebrating the formal approval from central campus in 2023.
Rachel Rosenbloom (Northeastern) is a fellow with Northeastern’s Center for Law, Equity and Race (CLEAR) while she is on sabbatical this year.
Scott Titshaw (Mercer) was promoted in 2022 from Associate Professor to Professor.
Administrative Gigs:
Hemanth Gundavaram (Northeastern) became Associate Dean of Experiential Education and Director of Clinical Programs; he continues to also serve as Director of the Immigrant Justice Clinic.
Anita Maddali (Northern Illinois) became the Associate Dean for Student Affairs in August 2022, stepping down from the Director of Clinics role she’d been in since 2011.
Rachel Rosenbloom (Northeastern) finished her term as Associate Dean for Experiential Education.
Other Exciting News:
Kate Evans (Duke) secured an additional $2.5 million grant to support Duke’s Immigrant Rights Clinic and the activities of the Duke Immigrant & Refugee Project.
Jill Family (Widener) became Chair of the ABA Administrative Law section.
Dina Haynes (New England) started a non-profit–Refugeeprojects.org–through which she has assisted many refugees, asylum seekers, pro bono attorneys and governments. She coordinates 800 attorneys assisting Afghans with evacuation, transit and Immigration status.
Laila Hlass (Tulane), Sarah Sherman-Stokes (Boston U), and Mary Yanik (Tulane) received a 2022 Research & Policy Grant from Boston University’s Center for Antiracist Research.
Geoffrey Hoffman (formerly Houston) became an immigration judge!
NEW BABIES (Squee!)
Joe Landau (Fordham) welcomed Max Fitzgerald Landau on 1/1/22 at 4:49am. 6 lbs, 2 oz of greatness.
Lauren R. Aronson (Illinois) welcomed Max Reuben Aronson-Orr on 12/15/2022 at 8:00pm. 8 lbs., 12 oz. of joy.
Congratulations to all!
-KitJ
********************
“Super-kudos” to all! 🎖🏆😎 Thanks to Kit (the “Amazing KitJ @ ImmProf”) for putting this together and many congrats on her receipt of the Thomas P. Hester Presidential Professorship @ Oklahoma Law. Couldn’t have gone to a more deserving and consequential role model for the NDPA!
As one of my NDPA colleagues recently observed about the work of these NDPA “practical scholars:”
[T]he law schools today have incredible clinical programs that encourage and develop critical thinking and creative problem-solving; they send so many great new members of the NDPA out into the world.
Those familiar with what’s really happening in American justice these days also had this cogent observation:
EOIR does exactly the opposite; it kills critical or original thought, and rewards the bland “go along to get along” types. And the training is horrible, and actually refuses to include anyone from outside – even former IJs and Board Members. So the good people either quit, linger in the shadows, or are broken over time.
It’s very clear that a better Dem Attorney General would have “tapped in” to the practical problem solving skills, guts, integrity, and intellectual firepower of those on Kit’s honor roll and many others like them. I note with great pleasure and immense gratitude that Honor Roll member, Judge Geoffrey Hoffman, formerly of Houston Law, did “make the leap” to the Immigration Bench this year. But we need more, many more, like Judge Hoffman at all levels of EOIR to “rescue the sinking ship.”
The talent to change EOIR from a “CINO” to a “model court system” is out here! What’s sorely missing is dynamic leadership and consistent direction from the Biden Administration and Dems in Congress.
Immigrants have legal rights. Immigration isn’t going away in the future no matter how much Dems try to “wish it below the radar screen” and the GOP tries to “demonize it to death!”
The disgraceful failure of both parties to enforce legal rights of immigrants, stand up for human rights, and take realistic approaches to human migration is damaging our democracy and diminishing our national strength.
I advocate NDPA members “taking over” the Immigration Judiciary and fixing things from “the bottom up.” It won’t happen overnight; but waiting for real leadership from Dems or change from the “top” is like “waiting for Godot” — Not going to happen! See, e.g., https://wp.me/p8eeJm-8hm.
And, you’d be surprised at the useful insights and knowledge that can be gained from getting “inside EOIR” — an intentionally opaque, “closed” organization if there ever was one. That’s why courts often pay attention to what we “Former Immigration Judges and Board Members in the Round Table” say in our amicus briefs. We’re they only ones speaking truth about what really happens in Immigration Court “behind the bench.” All the “official versions” are “highly sanitized,” “manipulated,” or sometime just “unadulterated BS!”
Don’t leave “judging in America” to the Federalist Society, the Heritage Foundation, and inept Dem politicos who are too tone-deaf, insecure, and/or scared to do the right thing for YOUR future and the future of our nation.
Storm the tower! 🗼Take back justice at the retail level of our system!Better judges for a better America!
”Storm the Tower!” — EOIR HQ, Falls Church, VA (a/k/a “The Tower of Babel”) By Pieter Bruegel The Elder Public Domain
Apparently, due process, fundamental fairness, and racial justice for all persons in the U.S., even those who happen to be non-citizens, weren’t part of A.G. Merrick Garland’s Harvard Law education. PHOTO: Wikipedia Commons
The esteemed Harvard Law Review does not publish much immigration scholarship. A student note on the immigration court system may be of interest to blog readers. The system long has been criticized and, last year, a bill was introduced in Congress that would have brought reform.
Courts in Name Only: Repairing America’s Immigration Adjudication System
By the Harvard Law Review
Noncitizens in the United States face innumerable obstacles, many of which have now become well known. But even the supposedly neutral court system in which noncitizens’ cases are adjudicated currently functions as an executive tool for removal. This Note argues that the current structure of the immigration adjudication system — and the resulting executive control over it — subjects Immigration Judges to a variety of conditions that, taken together, bias the entire system towards removal. It then surveys existing proposals for structural reform and proposes numerous possible intermediate reforms.
KJ
**********************
Key recommendation from HLR article:
While waiting for Congress to act, however, the executive branch has the authority to implement several crucial reforms that would allow for noncitizens to have their cases heard in fairer proceedings overseen by IJs with true, independent adjudicatory power.
Good News for Harvard Law: Some bright, unidentified, Harvard Law students can cut through the BS and clearly state achievable reforms that could and should have been implemented by the Biden Administration without legislation.
Bad News for Harvard Law: Prominent graduate and Law Review “alum” AG Merrick Garland (‘77), once a step away from a seat on the Supremes, doesn’t “get” it and, in fact, his poor leadership and mis-management are key parts of the problems at EOIR that threaten the stability and credibility of the entire U.S. justice system.
Note to HLR: Follow your own advice to “cut through the noise” and reform yourself. Lose the “historical BS,” move into the 21st century, show some intellectual integrity, and set a better example by clearly identifying and crediting the authorship of this and other student articles, whether by individual(s) or a team. See, e,g., Authorship: Giving Credit Where It’s Due,https://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/resources/publishing-tips/giving-credit
It’s not “rocket science!” 🚀 It’s just “Legal & Intellectual Ethics 101” (not to mention standard professional courtesy). As a former judge, albeit only one in the CINOs, I gave little weight to quotations and citations to anonymous or unidentified sources.
Don’t just complain about the awful mess @ EOIR! Get on the bench and do something about it! Public Domain
Excerpts:
Now, those of you who read my blog immigrationcourtside.com or have heard me speak before, or both, know that I am an outspoken critic of the last four Administrations’ gross mismanagement and misdirection of our Immigration Courts. So, you might well ask why I am here recruiting YOU to become part of a court system that I have consistently lampooned and characterized as dysfunctional, FUBAR, and badly in need of long-overdue reforms.
A better question might be why AG Garland, VP Harris, Deputy AG Lisa Monaco, and Associate AG Vanita Gupta AREN’T here today actively recruiting you to apply to become Immigration Judges in their system. It’s a hugely important court, perhaps the largest in the Federal Government, that cries out for excellence, practical immigration scholarship, and badly needs a much more diverse, representative, and expert judiciary to achieve equal justice for all in America.
The short answer is because I CARE, and THEY DON’T! I have a vision of a model court system unswervingly dedicated to due process, fundamental fairness, great practical scholarship, best judicial practices, fantastic public service, and equal justice for all! THEY DON’T!
After two largely fruitiness and frustrating years of the Biden Administration’s bungling immigration and social justice mis-steps, it’s painfully clear that the needed management, personnel, operational, and expertise reforms needed at EOIR AREN’T going to come from above.
But, if you have been in Immigration Court and thought “Hey, there is a better, more informed, more efficient, more just way to run this railroad, why isn’t it happening,” THIS is YOUR chance to get on board and change the direction of EOIR and the millions of lives and livelihoods that depend on it! See that the next generations of dedicated immigration lawyers won’t face some of the unnecessary and counterproductive roadblocks and bad experiences that you have had to deal with in seeking justice for your clients before EOIR!
. . . .
Not surprisingly, asylum grant rates dropped precipitously during the Trump years. Although they have rebounded some under Biden, they still remain below the 2012 levels. It’s certainly not that conditions have substantially “improved” in major “sending countries.” If anything, conditions are worse in most of those countries than in the years preceding 2012.
So, if the law hasn’t changed substantially and country conditions haven’t improved, what has caused regression in asylum grant rates at EOIR? It comes down to poor judging, accompanied by inadequate training, too much emphasis on “churning the numbers over quality and correctness,” and a BIA that really doesn’t believe much in asylum law and lacks the expertise and commitment to consistently set and apply favorable precedents and end disgraceful inconsistencies and “asylum free zones” that continue to exist.
Some of the most disgraceful, intentional asylum misinterpretations by Sessions and Barr now have been reversed by Garland. Unfortunately, he failed to follow-up to insure that the correct standards are actually applied, particularly to recurring circumstances. It’s one of many reasons that the Biden Administration struggles to re-establish a fair and efficient legal asylum system at the Southern Border — notwithstanding having two years to address the problems!
But, it doesn’t have to be this way! Recently, as I noted earlier, a number of notable “practical scholar experts” have been appointed to the Immigration Judiciary. When such well-qualified jurists reach a “critical mass” in the expanding EOIR, systemic changes and improvements in practices and results will happen.
The “dialogue” among Immigration Judges from government backgrounds and those from the private/NGO sector will improve. Lives will be saved. Life-threatening inconsistencies and wasteful litigation to correct basic mistakes at all levels of EOIR will diminish. The EOIR system will resume movement toward the former noble, but now long abandoned, vision of “through teamwork and innovation, being the world’s best administrative tribunals, guaranteeing fairness and due process for all!”
. . . .
So, warriors of the NDPA, check out USA Jobs, make those applications for EOIR judgeships! Storm the tower from below! Make a difference in the lives of others, stand up for due process and fundamental fairness for all persons, and help save our democracy! Become better judges for a better America! If not YOU, then who?
You can watch my full webinar here:
AILA Webinars shared the following meeting recording with you.
Topic: How to become an EOIR judge
Date: Jan 11, 2023 11:42 AM Eastern Time (US and Canada)
This is what we immigration lawyers have to deal with. A court notice for a case mailed 12/27/2022 telling me that the trial scheduled for 5/18/2021 has been cancelled.
“Late Notice”
***************************
Notably the one thing this incredibly belated notice DOESN’T do: Provide an actual date and time for the “rescheduled” hearing! That will probably come only after an in absentia has been issued!
A great public research project: What are the backlog and fiscal consequences of DHS’s & EOIR’s joint intentional failure to comply with statutory notice requirements in Non-LPR cancellation cases? (a/k/a “The Pereira Debacle” — for which there has been absolutely NO official accountability).
NO MORE Attorneys General who lack actual experience representing individuals before EOIR!
One of America’s largest, most important, most backlogged, and completely FUBAR Federal “Court” Systems would likely run much better if the person in charge (U.S. Attorney General) had actually been subjected to the indignities and incredible stresses of attempting to get justice for a real-life person at EOIR! Enough of the “What Me Worry” approach of Garland and other tone-deaf, “above the fray” Dem politicos! PHOTO: Wikipedia Commons.
To paraphrase Forrest Gump, Immigration Court is like a box of chocolates; you never know what you’re going to get. Also, some of the chocolate is poison.
For many applicants in Immigration Court, the most important factor in determining success is not the person’s story or the evidence or the quality of their lawyer. It is the judge who is randomly assigned to the case. According to TRAC Immigration, a non-profit that tracks asylum approval rates in Immigration Court, Immigration Judge (“IJ”) approval rates vary widely. For the period 2017 to 2022, asylum approval rates ranged from 0% (a judge in Houston) to 99% (a judge in San Francisco). Of the 635 IJs listed on the TRAC web page, 125 granted asylum in less than 10% of their cases. At the other extreme, nine IJs granted asylum more than 90% of the time.
Based solely on these numbers, there is a 20% chance (1 in 5) that your IJ denies at least 90% of the asylum cases that he adjudicates. That’s pretty frightening. But there is much more to the story, which we will explore below.
If Santa were an IJ, it wouldn’t matter whether you were naughty or nice – he would deport you Ho-Ho-Home.
First, the raw TRAC data does not distinguish between represented and unrepresented applicants, and having a lawyer generally makes a difference. Overall, represented applicants were denied asylum in 64% of cases. Unrepresented applicants were denied asylum more frequently–in 83% of cases. So if your IJ sees many cases where the applicant does not have an attorney, her overall denial rate is likely to be higher than if most of her cases have lawyers. To find this information, go to the TRAC website, click on the judge’s name, and scroll almost to the bottom of the IJ’s individual web page. You will see the percentage of cases before that IJ where the asylum applicant had an attorney. If you see that your judge presides over many unrepresented cases, it probably means that her overall denial rate is higher than would be expected if that IJ saw more cases where the applicant had a lawyer. What does this mean? Basically, if you are before such a judge, and you have an attorney, your odds of success are probably better than the judge’s overall denial rate would suggest. Conversely, if you do not have an attorney, your odds of receiving asylum are probably lower than the judge’s overall denial rate would suggest.
A second big factor that is relevant to each IJ’s denial rate is country of origin. People from certain countries are more likely to be denied, and so if your judge sees many people from those countries, his overall denial rate will be pushed up. You can see country-of-origin information if you click on your judge’s name and scroll to the very bottom of his web page. The countries that have had the highest denial rates over the past two decades are: El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, and Mexico. And so if your IJ has many cases from these countries, his overall denial rate will likely be higher. Meaning that if you are not from one of these countries, your odds of winning asylum are probably better than what your judge’s overall denial rate would suggest.
A third important factor in examining IJ approval rates is the distinction between detained and non-detained asylum applicants. Certain judges have “detained dockets,” meaning that they rule on cases where the applicants are detained. Such people have a much more difficult time winning asylum: Some are barred from asylum due to criminal history or the one-year asylum bar. Others just have a more difficult time preparing their cases because they cannot easily gather evidence while detained. For these reasons, judges who decide many detained cases will generally have a lower overall asylum approval rate. Unfortunately, the TRAC data does not distinguish between detained and non-detained cases, and it is not always easy to know whether an IJ’s record includes detained cases (EOIR has a website that gives some details about each court, including whether that court is located at a detention facility).
While the TRAC data is not perfect (and there is no data on the newest IJs), it is the best source of information we have on Immigration Judge grant rates. Do keep in mind that the numbers only tell part of the story, and it is important to consider the above factors, as well as any other information you can gather from immigration lawyers and asylum applicants about your IJ.
What if you’ve done your research and have concluded that your judge is one of those who denies almost every case she sees? There are a few options.
One: You can go forward with the case and hope for the best. Sometimes a strong case can overcome a judge’s tendency to deny, and after all, even the worst IJs grant cases now and again (except for the 0% guy in Houston).
Two: You can ask for prosecutorial discretion and try to get the case dismissed. Except for cases where the noncitizen has a criminal or security issue, DHS (the prosecutor) is often willing to dismiss. Assuming you can get the case dismissed, you can then re-file for asylum at the Asylum Office (yes, this is a ridiculous waste of resources, but people are now doing it all the time). If you pursue this option, make sure to read the Special Instructions for the form I-589, as you will most likely be required to file your form at the Asylum Vetting Center.
Third: You can move. If you move to a new state (or at least a new jurisdiction within the same state), you can ask the IJ to move your case. Typically, you file a Motion to Change Venue. If the judge agrees, your case will be moved to a different court where you will hopefully land on a better IJ. Judges (and DHS attorneys) do not always agree to allow you change venue, especially if you are close to the date of your Individual Hearing or if you have previously changed venue in the past. And so if you plan to move your case, the sooner you make the move, the better.
Most Immigration Judges will do their best to evaluate the evidence and reach a fair decision. But some IJs seem intent on denying no matter what, and these judges are best avoided, if at all possible. Thanks to TRAC, you can get an idea about whether your IJ is one of these “deniers,” and this will help you decide how best to proceed in your case.
**********************
So, at roughly the “halfway point” of the Biden Administration, one of the “best minds in the business,” Jason Dzubow, is expending his awesome brain-power advising lawyers on “strategies” for avoiding unfair “any reason to deny” Immigration Judges who inhabit about one in five Immigration Courtrooms under Garland!In other words, what steps you have to take to get a “fair hearing” on asylum from an agency whose sole function is SUPPOSED to be providing said “fair hearings” to everyone! See something wrong here?
One of these “strategies:” Request the ICE prosecutor’s agreement to dismissal of the (probably already long-pending) case in Immigration Court and “refile” before the Asylum Office (which also is hugely backlogged). Jason admits “that this is a ridiculous waste of resources, but people are now doing it all the time.”
Wonder why we have huge asylum backlogs? Despite what Trump, Biden, and nativist GOP politicos would have you believe, it has less do with those vainly seeking legal justice at our borders and LOTS to do with inept decisions, dumb actions (some of them downright malicious), and inactions by Congress and Administrations of both parties in the 21st Century.
Garland’s job was to fix this broken, unfair, wasteful, and astoundingly inefficient system. That isn’t “rocket science.” But, it requires dynamic, progressive, due process committed new leadership at EOIR and a major “shakeup” among Immigration Judges, at both the trial and appellate levels, so that those who are “looking for any reason to deny” either are get different jobs or start treating asylum seekers fairly and humanely byfollowing Cardoza, Mogharrabi, Kasinga, and 8 CFR!
Garland hasn’t gotten the job done! And, the applicants and lawyers whose lives and livelihoods are tied up in his beyond dysfunctional system are the ones paying the price for his failure! Also taxpayers see their dollars and resources being poured down the drain at EOIR!
But, they aren’t Garland’s only victims! EOIR’s dysfunction and its failure to provide consistently correct, generous, positive guidance on how to efficiently grant asylum, particularly at the border, drives a whole other series of failures, illegalities, wastefulness, and mis-steps by the Administration.
Much of the nonsense and legally inappropriate gimmicks being rolled out by President Biden himself at the border this week is an insane attempt to avert the dysfunction at EOIR and USCIS by punishing not the inept politicos and bureaucrats responsible (nor political grandstanding GOP demagogues like Abbott & DeSantis), but the victims!
Improperly taking away the legal right to seek asylum at the border and creating more “jury-rigged” faux refugee programs by misusing parole are NOT the answer! Whatever their short-term impact is, in the long run they will fail just like all the other “deterrents” and “asylum work-arounds” unsuccessfully tried by Administrations of both parties over the past two decades.
Indeed, for those of us who have been around immigration law and policy for the last half-century, it bears an uncomfortable resemblance to the “ad hoc, highly politicized, unsatisfactory” approach to refugee situations that was superseded by enactment of the Refugee Act of 1980. How little we learn from the past!
What HASN’T been tried is the obvious:Recognizing and vigorously defending the right to asylum and building a fair and efficient adjudication system run and staffed by human rights experts under the existing authority provided by the Refugee Act of 1980, as amended. Why not build a fair, functional, generous legal asylum system under that Act that would encourage applicants to use it and reward those qualified for doing so with timely legal status (including, of course, authorization to work)?
Existing law already provides for “expedited removal,” without full Immigration Court hearings, of those who fail to establish to a trained USCIS Asylum Officer that they have a “credible fear” of persecution! Draconian as that measure is, and it undoubtedly has resulted in mistakes and injustices to asylum seekers, both the Trump and Biden Administrations have gone even further by wrongfully depriving those fleeing persecution of even this limited statutory right to present their claim to an Asylum Officer! To matters worse, both politicos and so-called “mainstream” media have “normalized” this disgraceful and harmful scofflaw behavior by ignoring the pretextual, racist roots of the Title 42 charade!
In the meantime, given the near total lack of leadership, competence, and courage from above to “do the right thing” and bring the “rule of law” to life, I do have a strong suggestion for NDPA members courageously “fighting in the trenches.” Apply for upcoming Immigration Judge vacancies at EOIR in massive numbers, over and over, until the roadblocks are removed and justice prevails!
As the relative proportion of “expert practical scholars” on the Immigration Bench grows and the “deniers’ club cohort” shrinks, change will emerge “from below” at EOIR, lives will be saved by the thousands, and justice will finally be realized in a system that now tries to resist and twist it! Functionality and “good government” will eventually win out over today’s inexcusable, and preventable, mess!
On Title 42, the Supreme Court rules for a partisan agenda
COVID-19 is no reason to shut out migrants. Yet it’s used as a political pretext.
By Erwin Chemerinsky
The Supreme Court’s ruling last week to keep in place a Trump-era immigration order can only be understood as five conservative justices advancing a conservative political agenda, in violation of clear legal rules.
Without giving reasons or any explanation, the court reversed lower court decisions that allowed the Biden administration to lift a restriction that prevents asylum seekers at the border from entering the country, imposed early during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The federal law — referred to as Title 42 — permits the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to prohibit people from coming into the U.S. to avert the spread of a “communicable disease” present in a foreign country.
.. . .
In November, U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan, in Washington, D.C., found that the continued use of Title 42 was “arbitrary and capricious in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act.” He ruled that the expulsion policy was no longer justified based in light of the present state of the pandemic, which includes widely available vaccines, treatments and increased travel in the United States.
Nineteen states with Republican attorneys general, however, oppose that ruling and sought the right to appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. They were not parties to the lawsuit in the District Court and the law generally does not allow parties to get into a case for the first time at the appeals level. On Dec. 16, the federal Court of Appeals, following its well-established law, refused to allow the states to intervene. The states then sought Supreme Court review of that decision.
On Dec. 27, in Arizona vs. Mayorkas, the Supreme Court, in a 5-4 ruling, not only said that it would hear the states’ appeal, but that it would require that the Biden administration continue to use Title 42 to expel migrants.
The court’s action makes no sense for several reasons. Title 42 provides the government authority to close the borders only if a public health crisis involving a communicable disease requires it. No one in the litigation disputes that COVID no longer warrants restrictions on immigration.
. . . .
The states are intervening not because they believe that a continuing public health emergency requires Title 42, but because they want to use it as a pretext to close the borders.
In fact, in another case now pending on the Supreme Court’s docket — on whether the Biden administration’s student loan forgiveness program is justified as a response to the pandemic emergency — 12 of the states in the Title 42 case argued in their brief that “COVID-19 is now irrelevant to nearly all Americans.”
The Supreme Court’s order is senseless for another reason: The only issue before the court is whether the states can intervene in the case. It is not about whether the District Court erred in ending the use of Title 42 to expel migrants. Even if the states were allowed to join the case, they can’t plausibly make the case that COVID concerns still justify immigration expulsions at this point.
. . . .
The five conservative justices based their decision not on the purpose of Title 42, which is to stop the spread of a communicable disease, but on their partisan agreement with conservatives on immigration issues. We should expect better of the court than that.
*********************
Read Dean Chemerinsky’s full article at the link. Having a High Court, with life tenure, where a majority of the Justices enter “senseless orders” — targeting some of the most vulnerable and abused in our society who also happen to be predominantly individuals of color — is in and of itself senseless — from a standpoint of preserving our democracy!
The action of the five GOP Supremes is beyond outrageous! The NDPA CAN turn this gross right-wing minority abuse of our judicial system around!Likely not in my lifetime!
But, you need to keep pushing Dems to pay attention to judicial appointments and start insisting on meaningful professional expertise in immigration and actual experience representing individuals in Immigration Court as a basic requirement to serve as a Justice. Also we need an Article I Immigration Court and NO MORE Attorneys General without proven “grass roots” immigration and human rights experience!
Immigration is “where the action is” on the fight to save American democracy! If tone-deaf and spineless Dem politicos keep “running” from the key issue in American law and society, perhaps it’s time for true liberals, progressives, and constitutional humanitarian realists to “run” from the Dem Party!
This Supreme farce also reinforces the disgraceful failure of Garland and the Dems to reform the “Supreme Court of Immigration” — the BIA — by replacing enforcement-tilted Trump holdovers with practical scholar, expert, progressive judges committed to realizing long-denied due process, fundamental fairness, and the best interpretations of immigration and refugee laws! Dems control an important Federal Appellate body and are too clueless and afraid to do the right thing — even with the rule of law, racial justice, and human lives on the line!
“Federal Reserve chief Jerome Powell showed last week that he’s thinking about how recent lower immigration has factored into the ongoing U.S. labor shortage, but he said it’s not appropriate for the Fed to call for increased legal immigration to help alleviate the shortage. Could his remarks, careful as they were, somehow move the needle on immigration policy? His comments came as one new bipartisan proposal for immigration reform flopped in Congress, and some analysts say they aren’t optimistic about progress on immigration next year in a divided Washington. Still, others see Powell’s remarks having a small effect. … Powell’s answer could be seen as part of a slow process that eventually results in long-awaited fixes to the U.S. immigration system, according to Stephen Yale-Loehr, a professor of immigration law at Cornell Law School. “To me, it’s like water dripping on a rock,” Yale-Loehr told MarketWatch in an interview. “A single drop of water, whether it’s from Fed Chairman Powell or somebody else, won’t make a difference by itself. But if enough drips of water from other people and other studies consistently show that immigration can help our labor shortages and improve our economy, then I hope that will move the needle so that Congress will seriously take up immigration reform in 2023.” … The Cornell professor also suggested that grassroots efforts eventually might end up spurring U.S. lawmakers to do more. “A lot of change happens from the ground up, rather than the top down — if you think about civil-rights legislation in the 60s, the Environmental Protection Act of 1970, the antiwar efforts,” he said. “It was because people really protested the existing framework that they forced Congress to make changes in those areas. And so too, I think that if more Americans stood up and said, ‘We need immigration reform,’ I think that that would help persuade Congress to actually put pen to paper and make some significant changes.””
What better place to start forcing some long overdue changes than by getting more NDPA “practical scholar/experts” onto the EOIR bench where lives are on the line every minute of every working day? There are lots of ways to do justice at the “retail level” despite, or perhaps because of, the indifference of those in charge!
Folks, approximately a decade ago, the asylum grant rate at EOIR exceeded 50%! When grants of withholding (many the result of the 1-year-bar on asylum) and CAT were added in, almost 2/3 of asylum applicants who got a merits determination received some form of legal protection!
The vast majority of these cases were not appealed to the BIA. Slowly, but steadily, the EOIR system “at the retail level” was committing to expertise, sound scholarship, due process, fundamental fairness, faithful application of the generous legal principles established in Cardoza, Mogharrabi, and the regulatory presumption of future future persecution based on past persecution.
For years, those precedents and that regulation were resisted by many EOIR judges who continued, in practice, to apply the higher “more likely than not” standard rejected in Cardoza. But, following a series of savagely critical reversals of EOIR asylum denials by the Courts of Appeals the ground started to shift toward a more generous, proper, and correct interpretation of asylum law. Notably, those Court of Appeals “roastings” came after AG John Ashcroft “purged” the BIA in 2003 of appellate judges who spoke out for a better legal interpretation of asylum laws — one that faithfully followed Cardoza, Mogharrabi, and international standards!
As I used to tell my Georgetown Law students, a quarter century after the Supremes’ landmark decision in INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, establishing the generous “well-founded fear” standard for asylum (reasonable likelihood = 10% chance) and the BIA’s implementation of that standard in Matter of Mogharrabi (asylum can be granted even where it is significantly unlikely that persecution will occur) the more generous standard was actually achieving “traction” at EOIR!
The law hasn’t changed very much since 2012. But, the progress toward a “Cardoza/Mogharrabi compliant” interpretation and application of asylum law halted and regressed substantially during the last part of the Obama Administration and during the Trump era.
What did change, for the worse, was the attitude of politicos, who have seen the Immigration Courts as captive “tools” to deter asylum seekers and “send negative messages” rather than insuring that they function as due-process-oriented, independent, subject matter expert, courts of law. The qualifications of those selected as Immigration Judges were “watered down” to favor high-volume government prosecutorial experience over demonstrated expertise in immigration and asylum laws and “hands on” experience representing individuals before EOIR.
Not surprisingly, asylum grant rates dropped precipitously during the Trump years. Although they have rebounded some under Biden, they still remain below the 2012 levels. It’s certainly not that conditions have substantially “improved” in major “sending countries.” If anything, conditions are worse in most of those countries than in the years preceding 2012.
So, if the law hasn’t changed substantially and conditions haven’t improved, what has caused regression in asylum grant rates at EOIR? It comes down to poor judging, accompanied by inadequate training, too much emphasis on “churning the numbers over quality and correctness,” and a BIA that really doesn’t believe much in asylum law and lacks the expertise and commitment to consistently set and apply favorable precedents and end disgraceful inconsistencies and “asylum free zones” that continue to exist.
Some of the most disgraceful, intentional asylum misinterpretations by Sessions and Barr now have been reversed by Garland. Unfortunately, he failed to follow-up to insure that the correct standards are actually applied, particularly to recurring circumstances. It’s one of many reasons that the Biden Administration struggles to re-establish a fair and efficient legal asylum system at the Southern Border — notwithstanding having two years to address the problems!
But, it doesn’t have to be this way! Recently, a number of notable “practical scholar experts” have been appointed to the Immigration Judiciary. When such well-qualified jurists reach a “critical mass” in the expanding EOIR, systemic changes and improvements in practices and results will happen.
The “dialogue” among Immigration Judges from government backgrounds and those from the private/NGO sector will improve. Lives will be saved. Life-threatening inconsistencies and wasteful litigation to correct basic mistakes at all levels of EOIR will diminish. The EOIR system will resume movement toward the former noble, but now long abandoned, vision of “through teamwork and innovation, being the world’s best administrative tribunals, guaranteeing fairness and due process for all!”
So, warriors ⚔️🛡of the NDPA, make those applications for EOIR judgeships! Storm the tower from below! Make a difference in the lives of others and help save our democracy! If not YOU, then who?👩🏻⚖️👨🏽⚖️⚖️🗽🇺🇸
In addition to these five, two other recently appointed Immigration Judges had private practice experience in immigration before becoming Government attorneys.
Round Table maven (and VERY proud new grandfather 😎) “Sir Jeffrey” S. Chase gave a special “shout out” to Judge Gioia M. Maiellano, now of the NY Federal Plaza Immigration Court.
Gioia M. Maiellano, Immigration Judge, New York – Federal Plaza Immigration Court
Gioia M. Maiellano was appointed as an Immigration Judge to begin hearing cases in December 2022. Judge Maiellano earned a Bachelor of Science in 1994 from Fordham University and a Juris Doctor in 1998 from Brooklyn Law School. From 2021 to 2022, she was a solo practitioner handling immigration cases. From 2017 to 2021, she served as an Administrative Law Judge with the Department of Finance, City of New York. From 2015 to 2016, she served as an asylum officer with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), Department of Homeland Security (DHS). In 2015, prior to joining USCIS, she served as pro bono counsel for the Iraqi Refugee Assistance Project. From 2013 to 2015, she worked in private practice with the Law Office of Carmen DiAmore-Siah in Honolulu representing individuals before the immigration courts, the Board of Immigration Appeals, and USCIS. From 2003 to 2013, she served as an assistant chief counsel, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, DHS, in New York. In 2002, she worked with the Law Office of Amir Alishahi in New York. From 2000 to 2001, she served as a staff attorney with the European Roma Rights Center, in Budapest, Hungary. Prior to that, she served as a law clerk with the Office of the Prosecutor at the United Nations International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia in The Hague, The Netherlands. Judge Maiellano is a member of the New York State Bar.
As experts like my friends Judge Chase, Professor Debbie Anker, and LexisNexis Guru Dan Kowalski say, EOIR is an organization where positive change is more likely to “come from below than from above.” Unfortunately, that makes it a painfully slow process for those still suffering in the substandard conditions that Garland permits in his Immigration Courts.
Nevertheless, as more and more judges join the bench with recent experience actually working their way through this dysfunctional system to obtain justice for their clients, the resistance to mis-applying BIA and Circuit precedents favoring individuals will grow. Additionally, the legal standards will be correctly applied at the “first level,” unrealistic requirements on individuals and their lawyers will diminish, due process, fundamental fairness, and efficiency will advance, and the disgraceful anti-immigrant, anti-asylum, deny, deport, and deter “culture” at EOIR — actively promoted under Sessions and Barr — will diminish over time.
Moreover, when Article I eventually comes, a more diverse and better-qualified group of IJs likely will be initially “grandfathered.” That’s another reason why Garland’s “slow moving train” in improving the quality of EOIR Judges at all levels has been so totally frustrating.
Should have and could have happened over the past two years with better leadership and vision from Garland and his subordinates. But, given the dismal state of immigration institutions and policies over the past six years, I’ll treat anything that isn’t “bad news” as “good news!”
Michigan Stadium, America’s largest, holds 107,601. It would take approximately 20 Michigan Stadiums to hold all the 2,000,000 + folks waiting for hearings in Garland’s dysfunctional and backlogged Immigration Courts! And, that doesn’t include their families, communities, employers, co-workers and others affected by their fates! If Garland were the managing partner of a law firm or the CEO of a business, he would be “long gone.” Why aren’t competence and accountability “minimum requirements” for America’s chief lawyer? Michigan Stadium Photo by Andrew Horne, Creative Commons License
Even at this accelerated completion rate, on an annualized basis, I calculate thatEOIR will still be building backlog at a rate of nearly 300,000 annually, based on 800,000 new receipts from DHS.
At approximately 700 completions/year/judge (EOIR’s figure), EOIR would need approximately 400 additional, fully trained, fully productive IJs on the bench just to “break even” and stop creating more backlog.
Nearly 800,000 asylum cases are sitting in the backlog, many ready to try and pending for years. With a better BIA and better trained IJs who actually applied Cardoza-Fonseca, Mogharrabi, and the regulatory presumptions of well-founded fear properly (instead of being “programmed to deny”) the vast majority of these old asylum cases could be prioritized and granted in short hearings.
Even with today’s broken, biased, and unconstitutionally inconsistent Immigration Courts, migrants prevail against deportation in approximately 60% of cases! This suggests that the majority of the Immigration Court’s cases could be prioritized and resolved in the migrant’s favor without lengthy hearings IF the system had a better BIA, better IJs, better training, better practices, and a better working relationship with the private bar and DHS.
Far too few bonds are being granted, and insufficient attention is being paid to inconsistencies in the bond process.
Only an infinitesimally small percentage, .56%, of new cases filed by ICE involve allegations of criminal conduct. This suggests continuing problems with the way ICE allocates enforcement resources and chooses to use Immigration Court time.
Earlier this year, I had predicted that Garland would top the 2 million backlog mark by the end of August 2022.https://wp.me/p8eeJm-7dT
I was off by 3 months, as it actually took him until the end of November 2022 to achieve this negative landmark.
Nevertheless, some things are clear: This system is “beyond FUBAR!” It needs professional leadership, a new appellate board, better judges, better training, better utilization of the private bar, smarter, more creative and innovative practices, and authority to “rein in” in out of control ICE Enforcement. All the same things experts said were needed back at the time of Biden’s election! Ignoring expert advice has resulted in just the continuing, mushrooming disaster at EOIR and in our legal system that experts predicted!
Over two years, Garland has shown that he is not the person for the job. Nor have his political subordinates shown any aptitude for addressing the festering management, legal, and quality control problems @ EOIR!
Experts and advocates should be pushing the Administration and Dems in Congress for a change in leadership at the DOJ! Every day of failure means more backlog, more injustice, more frustration, more lives endangered, and a growing threat to American democracy — from those sworn to protect and uphold it, but aren’t getting the job done!
“The IJ granted Omorodion’s application for deferral of removal under the CAT and, after an initial remand by the BIA, reaffirmed that decision. In July 2018 the BIA vacated the IJ’s grant of CAT relief and ordered Omorodion removed, concluding that Omorodion did not show that she would suffer torture or that public officials would acquiesce in her torture. … First, Omorodion argues that the BIA mischaracterized and ignored key evidence. We agree. … The BIA also erred by failing to apply the clear error standard in its review of the IJ’s “predictive finding that [Omorodion] would suffer torture by or with the acquiescence of the Nigerian government.” … The BIA erred as a matter of law when it overlooked such evidence and rejected the IJ’s predictive finding. To summarize, we grant the petition and remand because the BIA overlooked material components of the record and misconstrued others. See Xiao Kui Lin v. Mukasey, 553 F.3d 217, 220 (2d Cir. 2009). Should the BIA vacate the IJ’s grant of CAT relief on remand, it should explain where it identifies clear error in the IJ’s factfinding based on the totality of the record. If any vacatur is not due to clear error, the BIA must otherwise “provide sufficient explanation to permit proper appellate review” of its decision. Hui Lin Huang, 3 677 F.3d at 137. For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is GRANTED, the BIA’s decision is VACATED, and the case is REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this order.”
“We remand for the agency to conduct the required factfinding and analysis regarding the reasonableness of Perez Nagahama’s delay in filing her asylum claim following her changed circumstances. An asylum applicant must file an asylum “application . . . within 1 year after the date of . . . arrival in the United States.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B). There is an exception for “changed circumstances which materially affect the applicant’s eligibility for asylum.” Id. § 1158(a)(2)(D). Where there is such a change, the applicant must file an application “within a reasonable period given those ‘changed circumstances.’” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(4)(ii). The IJ concluded and the BIA assumed that Perez Nagahama’s circumstances changed materially when she began living as openly gay in April 2015. What is a reasonable period for filing after a changed circumstance is a fact-specific inquiry: IJs should make specific “findings of fact with respect to the particular circumstances involved in the delay of the respondents’ applications” to determine the reasonableness of the delay. Matter of T-M-H- & S-W-C-, 25 I. & N. Dec. 193, 195–96 (B.I.A. 2010). … Perez Nagahama has raised a reviewable question of law that the agency failed to apply the proper standard because it did not consider her specific circumstances before concluding that her delay was unreasonable. … The agency did not conduct the required factfinding and analysis. … Here, the IJ did not make findings of facts regarding the reasonableness of the delay in light of the attendant circumstances. The BIA should have remanded to the IJ to consider whether the delay was reasonable. … Instead, the BIA made its own factual determinations that Perez Nagahama beginning to live as openly gay did not make her delay reasonable and that the other facts she pointed to were not related to this underlying changed circumstance. Compounding this issue, the BIA gave no reasoning for its conclusion that the relevant circumstance made her delay unreasonable.”
[Hats off to Genet Getachew!]
**********************
Clearly, the BIA’s performance in this and other recent CA remands is far below even the “good enough for government work” mantra that prevails at Garland’s dysfunctional EOIR! Why does Garland think “NOT good enough for government work” is “goodenough for due process for ‘persons’ who happen to be foreign nationals” with the their lives at stake in his “smashed to smithereens” piece of our “justice” system?
The only way Garland gets to where his EOIR is today is by “Dred Scottification:” That is, intentionally treating “persons” (“humans”) in his Immigration Courts as “non –persons” under the Due Process Clause of our Constitution. If that sounds like a “Stephen Miller wet dream”🤮 (grotesque as that image undoubtedly is), it’s because that’s exactly what it is! How does a Dem Administration get away with this affront to due process, equal protection, and racial justice in America?
Kind of makes me wonder what they taught at Harvard Law (Garland’s alma mater) and other so-called “elite” law schools. I daresay that virtually all law students I have encountered in teaching immigration and refugee law for a number of years at Georgetown Law would have done better than the BIA had these cases been on my final exams.
The BIA’s inability to fairly and competently apply basic legal standards, honestly and professionally evaluate evidence of record, give asylum applicants the “benefit of the doubt” to which they are entitled under international standards, provide positive practical expert guidance on granting relief, eliminate “asylum free zones,” promote uniform outcomes, and develop and enforce “best judicial practices” is a major factor in the incredible two million case backlog that Garland has built in Immigration Court! His failure to take corrective action by replacing the BIA with competent, expert, unbiased appellate judges is a major breach of both ethical standards and his oath of office! How does he get away with it?
Thousands of asylum applicants at our border are being illegally returned to danger! Individuals with valid claims to be in the United States are routinely being denied relief for specious reasons and clear misapplications of basic legal standards in his “courts” —powerful indicators of systemic bias that should have been forcefully addressed by Garland on “day one” of his tenure at EOIR, as experts recommended.
Garland’s victims’ lives are irrevocably ruined or even ended! Misery is inflicted on their family, loved ones, and American communities! Dedicated lawyers working overtime to save lives are mistreated by Garland’s courts and traumatized by sharing the horrible consequences to their clients of systemic inferior judging! America is denied legal immigrants we need!
Our Federal justice system is overwhelmed with wasteful and never-ending litigation of immigration cases that should have been timely granted in the first instance and bad policies that never should have seen the light of day. In this respect, note that the IJ actually got it right in Omorodion! Then, in attempting to accommodate DHS and achieve an illegal removal, the BIA completely botched it on appeal! Even where justice prevails at the “retail” level, the BIA screws it up!
Yet Garland just shows up for work and draws his paycheck as if this were the way “justice” is supposed to work in America and fixing it is “below his pay level!” Gimmie a break!
Meanwhile, back at the ranch, many congrats and much appreciation to NDPA stalwarts Tom Moseley and Genet Getachew!
I am particularly honored to recognize the litigation greatness of my long-time friend, former INS colleague, and NDPA litigation icon 👍🏼🗽 Tom Moseley. He honed his complex litigation skills as an INS Special Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of NY during my tenure as Deputy General Counsel and Acting General Counsel at the “Legacy INS.”
Since leaving INS decades ago, Tom has been a tower of “practical impact litigation” and “Life-Saving 101” in New Jersey and beyond. Thanks for all you do, my friend!
Elizabeth Gibson Managing Attorney National Immigrant Justice Center Publisher of “The Gibson Report”
Weekly Briefing
This briefing is designed as a quick-reference aggregation of developments in immigration law, practice, and policy that you can scan for anything you missed over the last week. The contents of the news, links, and events do not necessarily reflect the position of the National Immigrant Justice Center. If you have items that you would like considered for inclusion, please email them to egibson@heartlandalliance.org.
Politico: Experts in the immigration field say they’re expecting a stressful and chaotic transition when a court-ordered deadline to end the Trump directive is hit, one that could drive a new rush to the border and intensify GOP criticism. See also States move to keep court from lifting Trump asylum policy.
Reuters: The United States is in talks with Mexico and other countries to facilitate the return of Venezuelan migrants to their homeland, a senior U.S. official said in a call with reporters on Tuesday.
TRAC: The South Texas Family Residential Center in Dilley, Texas, which currently houses single adults (mostly females) has more than doubled the number of individuals it is holding since September. ICE reports this facility run by CoreCivic now has the largest average daily population of detainees (1,562) in the country
CBS: McCarthy also threatened to use “the power of the purse and the power of subpoena” to investigate and derail the Biden administration’s immigration and border policies, saying Republican-led committees would hold oversight hearings near the U.S.-Mexico border.
LexisNexis: “Remand is required in this case because the BIA did not give consideration to all relevant evidence and principles of law, as those have been detailed by this Court’s recent decision in Scarlett v. Barr, 957 F.3d 316, 332–36 (2d Cir. 2020). … Because Mejia did not fear torture at the hands of the Guatemalan authorities, the relevant inquiry is whether government officials have acquiesced in likely third-party torture. To make this determination, the Court considers whether there is evidence that authorities knew of the torture or turned a blind eye to it, and “thereafter” breached their “responsibility to prevent” the possible torture.”
LexisNexis: “Having reviewed both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions, we hold that the agency did not err in finding that Garcia-Aranda failed to satisfy her burden of proof for asylum and withholding of removal, but that the agency applied incorrect standards when adjudicating Garcia-Aranda’s CAT claim.”
Law360: The Third Circuit has backed a decision denying a Dominican man’s bid for deportation relief based on his fear of being tortured, saying the procedural flaws he claimed tainted his proceedings — including the use of legal jargon and a videoconferencing glitch — did not prejudice him.
Law360: An English-speaking Cameroonian lost her chance to stay in the U.S. after the Eighth Circuit ruled that she failed to provide enough evidence showing that military officers had attacked her for her presumed support of Anglophone separatists.
LexisNexis: “Without record evidence that Phong orally waived his right to appeal before the IJ, we decline to address his alternative arguments that any waiver was unconsidered, unintelligent, or otherwise unenforceable. Rather, we remand to the BIA to develop the record on the waiver issue and, if it deems it appropriate, to consider Phong’s remaining arguments in the first instance.”
Law360: A divided Ninth Circuit on Monday ruled that the federal government was not constitutionally required to provide a Salvadoran immigrant a second bond hearing amid his prolonged detention during removal proceedings, while also bearing the burden to show he was a flight risk or danger to the community.
AP: The U.S. Department of Homeland Security has agreed to pay a Vermont-based immigrant advocacy organization $74,000 in legal fees to settle a lawsuit seeking information about whether advocates were being targeted by immigration agents because of their political activism.
USCIS: Today, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services announced it is extending and expanding previously announced filing fee exemptions and expedited application processing for certain Afghan nationals.
You now can change your email settings or search the archives using the Google Group. If you are receiving this briefing from a third party, you can visit the Google Group and request to be added. If you receive an error, make sure you click request access.
Elizabeth Gibson (Pronouns: she/her/ella)
Managing Attorney for Capacity Building and Mentorship
National Immigrant Justice Center
A HEARTLAND ALLIANCE Program
224 S. Michigan Ave., Suite 600, Chicago, IL 60604
T: (312) 660-1688| F: (312) 660-1688| E: egibson@heartlandalliance.org
Folks, it’s about re-instituting the law and screening system for legal asylum seekerswhich was in effect, in one form or another, for four decades before being illegally abrogated by the Trump Administration’s abusive use of Title 42. Outrageously, after promising to do better during the 2020 election campaign, the Biden Administration has “gone along to get along” with inflicting massive human rights violations under the Title 42 facade until finally ordered to comply with the law by U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan last month.
One of Judge Sullivan’s well-supported findings was that the scofflaw actions by both Trump and Biden officials had resulted in knowingly and intentionally inflicting “dire harm” on legal asylum applicants:
Sullivan wrote that the federal officials knew the order “would likely expel migrants to locations with a ‘high probability’ of ‘persecution, torture, violent assaults, or rape’ ” — and did so anyway.
“It is unreasonable for the CDC to assume that it can ignore the consequences of any actions it chooses to take in the pursuit of fulfilling its goals,” Sullivan wrote. “It is undisputed that the impact on migrants was indeed dire.”
Contrary to the “CYA BS” coming from Biden Administration officials, making the law work at the Southern Border requires neither currently unachievable “reform” legislation nor massive additions of personnel! It does, however, require better personnel, expert training, accountability, smarter use of resources, and enlightened, dynamic, courageous, principled, expert leadership currently glaringly lacking within the Biden Administration.
The Administration’s much ballyhooed, yet poorly conceived, ineptly and inconsistently implemented,“revised asylum regulations” have also failed to “leverage” thepotential for success, thus far producing only an anemic number of “first instance” asylum grants. This is far below the rate necessary for the process significantly to take pressure off the backlogged and dysfunctional Immigration Courts, one of the stated purposes of the regulations!Meanwhile, early indications are that Garland’s ill-advised regulatory time limits on certain arbitrarily-selected asylum applications have further diluted quality and just results for EOIR asylum decisions. That, folks, is in a system where disdain for both of these essential judicial traits is already rampant!
It’s not rocket science! It was well within the capability of the Biden Administration to establish a robust, functional asylum system had it acted with urgency and competency upon taking office in 2021:
Better Asylum Officers at USCIS and Immigration Judges at EOIR — well-qualified asylum experts with practical experience in the asylum system who will timely recognize and grant the many valid asylum claims in the first instance;
Cooperative agreements with NGOs and pro bono organizations to prescreen applications in an orderly manner and represent those who can establish a “credible fear;”
A new and improved BIA of qualified “practical scholars” in asylum law who will establish workable precedents and best practices that honestly reflect the generous approach to asylum required (but never carried out in practice or spirit) by the Supremes in Cardoza-Fonseca and the BIA itself in its long-ignored and consistently misapplied precedent in Mogharrabi;
An orderly refugee resettlement program administered under the auspices of the Feds for those granted asylum and for those whose claims can’t be expeditiously granted at the border and who therefore must present them in Immigration Court at some location away from the border.
The Biden Administration has nobody to blame but themselves for their massive legal, moral, and practical failures on the Southern Border! With House GOP nativist/restrictionists “sharpening their knives,” Mayorkas, Garland, Rice, and other Biden officials who have failed to restore the legal asylum system shouldn’t expect long-ignored and “affirmatively dissed” human rights experts and advocates to bail them out!
The massive abrogations of human rights, due process, the rule of law, common sense, and human decency that the GOP espouses — so-called enforcement and ineffective “deterrence” only approach — will NOT resolve the humanitarian issues with ongoing, often inevitable, refugee flows!
But, the Biden Administration’s inept approach to human rights has played right into the hands of these GOP White Nationalist politicos. That’s an inconceivable human tragedy for our nation and for the many legal refugees we turn away without due process or fair consideration of their life-threatening plight! These are refugees — legal immigrants — who should be allowed to enter legally and help our economy and our nation with their presence.
If we want refugees to apply “away from the border,” we must establish robust, timely, realistic refugee programs at or near places like Haiti, Venezuela, and the Northern Triangle that are sending us refugees. In the Refugee Act of 1980, Congress actually gave the President extraordinary discretionary authority to establish refugee processing directly in the countries the refugees are fleeing. This was a significant expansion of the UN refugee definition which requires a refugee to be “outside” his or her country of nationality. Yet, no less than the Trump and Obama Administrations before, President Biden has failed to “leverage” this powerful potential tool for establishing orderly refugee processing beyond our borders!
Meanwhile, down on the actual border, a place that Biden, Harris, Mayorkas, Garland, Rice, and other “high level architects of failed asylum policies” seldom, if ever, deign to visit, life, such as it is, goes on with the usual abuses heaped on asylum seekers patiently waiting to be fairly processed.
A rational observer might have thought that the Biden Administration would use the precious time before Dec. 22, 2022, reluctantly “gifted” to them by Judge Sullivan, to pre-screen potential asylum seekers already at ports of entry on the Mexican side. Those with credible fear and strong claims could be identified for orderly entries when legal ports of entry (finally) re-open on Dec. 22. Or, better yet, they could be “paroled” into the U.S. now and expeditiously granted asylum by Asylum Officers.
This would reduce the immediate pressure on the ports, eliminate unnecessary trips to backlogged Immigration Courts, and expedite these refugees’ legal status, work authorization, and transition to life in the U.S.
I have no idea what the Biden Administration has done with the time since Judge Sullivan “gifted” them a stay. The only noticeable actions have been more BS excuses, blame-shifting, and lowering expectations.
But, in reality, by their indolent approach to humanitarian issues and the law, in the interim the Administration has consciously left the fate of long-suffering and already “direly-harmed” legal asylum seekers to the Mexican Government. According to a recent NBC News report, the Mexican Government forcibly “rousted” many awaiting processing at a squalid camp near the border and “orbited them’ to “who knows where.” https://www.nbcnews.com/now/video/mexican-authorities-evict-venezuelan-migrants-from-border-camps-155516485544
Judge Sullivan might want to take note of this in assessing how the Biden DOJ has used the “preparedness time” that he reluctantly granted them following his order.
Nearly five months later, the Supreme Court will give the Texas case a full hearing on Tuesday. And there’s a good chance that even this Court, where Republican appointees control two-thirds of the seats, will reverse Tipton’s decision — his opinion is that bad.
The case involves a memo that Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas issued in September 2021, instructing ICE agents to prioritize undocumented immigrants who “pose a threat to national security, public safety, and border security and thus threaten America’s well-being” when making arrests or otherwise enforcing immigration law.
Nevertheless, the Republican attorneys general of Texas and Louisiana asked Tipton to invalidate Mayorkas’s memo. And Tipton defied the statute permitting Mayorkas to set enforcement priorities — and a whole host of other, well-established legal principles — and declared Mayorkas’s enforcement priorities invalid. This is not the first time that Tipton relied on highly dubious legal reasoning to sabotage the Biden administration’s immigration policies.
. . . .
Even when the law offers no support for the GOP’s preferred policies, in other words, the Court permits Republicans to manipulate judicial procedures in order to get the results they want. The Texas attorney general’s office can handpick judges who they know will strike down Biden administration policies, and once those policies are declared invalid, the Supreme Court will play along with these partisan judges’ decisions for at least a year or so.
******************
Once the GOP got the upper hand on the Federal Bench, the “traditional” conservative case for “judicial restraint” went straight down the tubes under an assault by righty ideologues eager to “do in” precedents, laws, and Executive policies that don’t fit their “out of the mainstream” political agenda, no matter how thinly reasoned or often counterfactual their “cover” might be.
And, as usual, Dems have been slow on the uptake about getting younger, staunch defenders of democracy and our Constitution on the bench to counteract the right-wing’s Article III takeover.
As this article points out, the Supremes’ questionable “shadow docket” is manipulated by the Court’s righty majority improperly to favor GOP scofflaw tactics, even where they ultimately can’t concoct a legal basis to uphold them on the merits.
I would like to discuss a concept related to asylum, involving protection under Article 3 of the U.N. Convention Against Torture (commonly referred to as “CAT” for short). Although lacking the benefits afforded to those granted asylum or admitted as refugees, the importance of CAT as a protection from deportation has increased in recent years due to the complex nature of current asylum claims, which require greater effort to interpret causation than claims that were more commonly decided decades ago.
Whereas asylum requires a connection between the persecution and the applicant’s race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion, CAT protects those who are at risk of torture for any (or no) reason. CAT therefore can (and has) saved lives where the person at risk could not demonstrate to the adjudicator’s satisfaction a sufficient connection to one of the five mandatory asylum grounds.
While not requiring specific causation, CAT does require that the torture be “by, or at the instigation of, or with the consent or acquiescence of, a public official…”1 When (as is often the case) the torturers are a gang or drug cartel, what is required of an applicant to establish government acquiescence?
According to federal regulations, “Acquiescence of a public official requires that the public official, prior to the activity constituting torture, have awareness of such activity and thereafter breach his or her legal responsibility to intervene to prevent such activity.”2 Thus, the regulations make it clear that acquiescence is a two-step test for (1) awareness, and (2) breach of responsibility to intervene.
Back in 2000, the BIA addressed the meaning of “acquiescence” in a precedent decision, and managed to get it very wrong. In its en banc decision in Matter of S-V- , the majority defined “government acquiescence” as a government’s willful acceptance of the torturous activity.3 How it managed to look at the above two-step test and come up with “willful acceptance” (which, incidentally, is only one step) is anyone’s guess.
Not surprisingly, the Board’s standard was universally panned by the circuit courts. With the recent decision of the First Circuit in H.H. v. Garland 4, nine circuits have now outright rejected the BIA’s take as overly restrictive, holding that the proper test is satisfied where the government in question remained “willfully blind” to the commission of torture. The remaining two circuits, while not directly overruling the Board’s take, have nevertheless applied the “willful blindness” standard. No circuit has deferred to the BIA’s interpretation.
However, until just recently, only one circuit – the Second – clarified that acquiescence requires a two-step test as described above. The remaining circuits were content to correct the language of the Board’s one-step standard from “willful acceptance” to one including “willful blindness” and then leave it at that.
Last year, Prof. Jon Bauer at the Univ. of Connecticut Law School wrote an excellent article that did a wonderful job of explaining the proper standard and the shortcomings of existing case law on the topic.5 I believe that Prof. Bauer’s article (available at the above link) should be required reading for Immigration Judges.
In summary, Bauer’s article flagged several flaws in the common view of acquiescence. The first is the mistaken belief that “willful blindness” is the entire test for acquiescence. Bauer points out that the circuit courts have held that the “awareness” step (step one) may be met either through a government’s willful blindness or through its actual awareness. But willful blindness is neither an absolute requirement nor a minimum standard for establishing both awareness and breach of legal duty elements; it simply expands the manner in which the awareness prong may be satisfied.
Importantly, in most cases, actual awareness can be established without the need to rely on a government’s willful blindness. As Bauer points out in a footnote, at least two circuits recognize government awareness as being satisfied where the government is “aware that torture of the sort feared by the applicant occurs.”6 In other words, awareness doesn’t require the government to have specific knowledge of a plan to torture the CAT applicant; it is enough that ts agents are aware that, e.g., MS-13 is engaging in this sort of conduct within the country to satisfy the awareness prong.
Bauer additionally emphasized that acquiescence remains a two-step test, and that “willful blindness” is relevant to only the first step. The standard for satisfying step two, the breach of duty to intervene, remains a blank slate. Neither the BIA nor the circuit courts have stated what is required to establish a likelihood that the government will breach its responsibility to intervene.
Bauer points out that the confusion concerning willful blindness has caused some adjudicators to view any action (no matter how ineffectual) by the government in question as precluding a finding of acquiescence, regarding even a minimal response as proof that the government was not being “willfully blind” to the torture. But as Bauer notes, willful blindness has nothing to do with the obligation to intervene. Once awareness is established (either through actual awareness or willful blindness), the focus turns to the separate question contained in step two of whether the duty to intervene was breached.
As to the breach prong, Bauer opined that the test applied under international law, requiring states “to exercise ‘due diligence’ to prevent, investigate, prosecute, and punish acts of torture by non-State actors,” is the correct one for adoption as the domestic standard for step two. Bauer explains how this interpretation is consistent with the CAT’s text and drafting history, as well as the legislative history of US ratification and implementation of the treaty.7
The confusion cited by Bauer as to the proper standard to be applied is exacerbated by the fact that the Board has never vacated its precedent decision in S-V- setting out the incorrect standard. And it was that failure to fix what was obviously broken that led to the First Circuit’s recent lesson on the topic in H.H. In that case, an Immigration Judge denied CAT by applying the Board’s incorrect “willfully accepting” standard. And perhaps because the case arose in the First Circuit, which at the time had yet to directly refute the Board’s approach in a published decision, the BIA affirmed the Immigration Judge’s decision applying the erroneous standard.
Fortunately, the petitioner in that case was represented on appeal to the First Circuit by SangYeob Kim and Gilles Bissonnette of the ACLU of New Hampshire. Petitioner’s counsel did an excellent job of explaining the state of confusion on the topic, and of presenting the clear solution in line with Bauer’s approach. Counsel also enlisted the Round Table of Former Immigration Judges to weigh in on the topic with an amicus brief drafted for us by the law firm of Cooley LLP.8
The result was an excellent published decision deserving of our attention. First, the circuit panel found that the BIA “failed to meaningfully address H.H.’s alternative theory that MS-13 itself is a de facto state actor.” The court found that in simply labeling the argument “unpersuasive,” the Board provided an insufficient degree of analysis to facilitate appellate review. That argument remains one that practitioners should continue to raise in both the CAT and asylum contexts.9 And practitioners may now wish to cite to the language in H.H., which is the first published decision to demand a detailed explanation from adjudicators as to why they find such argument unconvincing.10
In addressing Matter of S-V-, the court joined the list of circuits rejecting the Board’s standard. Specifically, the court found the term “willful acceptance” to clash with Congress’s clear intent for awareness to be satisfied through both actual knowledge and willful blindness. As the court pointed out, willful acceptance “necessarily includes knowledge of the matter one is ‘accepting,’ and excludes the concept of willful blindness.”
Finding that the BIA applied an improper standard of review by treating the acquiescence issue as clearly factual, when the inquiry regarding “‘whether the government’s role renders the harm ‘by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official,”’ is legal in nature and is subject to de novo review,” the court remanded for the Board to consider under a de novo review standard “the question of acquiescence, understanding that a showing of willful blindness suffices to demonstrate an “awareness” of torture under the CAT.”
However, the court did not stop there. It continued on to the question of the breach of obligation, observing that the regulations set out a two-step inquiry, yet noting that “most of the courts that have adopted the willful blindness standard have not consistently distinguished between the ‘awareness’ and ‘breach of duty’ steps.”
On remand, the court left it to the Board to address the proper standard for the breach requirement in the first instance. But the court advised “that we join the Second Circuit in expressing skepticism that any record evidence of efforts taken by the foreign government to prevent torture, no matter how minimal, will necessarily be sufficient to preclude the agency from finding that a breach of the duty to intervene is likely to occur….Rather, on remand, the agency’s determination about breach of duty, to the extent such a determination is necessary, must be made after carefully weighing all facts in the record.”11
It is puzzling why it took 22 years for the Board to be given that direction by a circuit court. And from experience, it will take the Board some time to respond in the form of a precedent decision. As many lives will be on the line in the meantime as claims are heard by Immigration Judges (and in some instances by USCIS asylum officers, under new procedures for claims arising at the border), those deciding CAT cases are respectfully urged to reference the full decision in H.H. as well as Prof. Bauer’s article, which practitioners should also file, cite, and discuss in their briefs and arguments. Litigants and judges should work together towards getting this important standard right. Lives depend on our doing so.12
Copyright 2022 Jeffrey S. Chase. All rights reserved.
Notes:
8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a)(1).
8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a)(7).
22 I&N Dec. 1306 (BIA 2000) (en banc). I am happy to announce that all three members of the Round Table of Former Immigration Judges who participated in that decision disagreed with the majority’s interpretation of acquiescence in separate opinions. See Concurring Opinion of Board Member Gustavo D. Villageliu; Concurring and Dissenting Opinion of BIA Chair Paul W. Schmidt, and Dissenting Opinion of Board Member Lory D. Rosenberg.
J. Bauer, “Obscured by Willful Blindness: States’ Preventive Obligations and the Meaning of Acquiescence Under the Convention Against Torture,” 52 Col. Hum. Rts. L. Rev. 738 (2021).
Id. at 749, fn. 34 (quoting Diaz-Reynoso v. Barr, 968 F.3d 1070, 1089 (9th Cir. 2020) (citing two earlier decisions in agreement); and additionally citing Myrie v. Att’y Gen., 855 F.3d 509, 518 (3d Cir. 2017) (similar statement).
Id. at 750.
The Round Table expresses its appreciation to attorneys Adam Gershenson, Zachary Sisko, Marc Suskin, Valeria M. Pelet del Toro, and Samantha Kirby of Cooley LLP for expressing our arguments so articulately in their brief on our behalf. Our brief can be read here.
For persuasive presentations of the de facto state actor argument, see Deborah E. Anker, Law of Asylum in the United States (Thomsen Reuters) at § 4:9; and Anna Welch and SangYeob Kim. “Non-State Actors ‘Under Color of Law’: Closing a Gap in Protection Under the Convention Against Torture,” 35 Harvard Hum. Rts. J. 117 (2022).
The Second Circuit case cited to was De La Rosa v. Holder, 598 F.3d 103, 110-111 (2d Cir. 2010) (holding that the preventative measures of some government actors does not foreclose the possibility of government acquiescence).
My sincere thanks to Jon Bauer and SangYeob Kim, who provided valuable input in reviewing this article.
NOVEMBER 17, 2022
Republished by permission.
**************************
I’m proud to say that, as kindly noted by “Sir Jeffrey” in FN 3, Round Table ⚔️🛡 members, Judge Gustavo D. Villageliu, Judge Lory D. Rosenberg, and I, each filed separate opinions distancing ourselves from various aspects of our majority colleagues’ specious, and eventually proved to be wrong, views in Matter of S-V-, 22 I & N Dec. 1306 (BIA 2000) (en banc). My BIA colleagues Judge John Guendelsberger and Judge Anthony C. Moscato also joined my separate opinion, in addition to Judges Villageliu and Rosenberg.
As a hint to what’s wrong with this politically-biased “charade of a court,” operating within a prosecutorial agency, I note that all of us except Judge Moscato were ultimately “exiled” from the BIA by John Ashcroft. Our “offense” was doing our jobs by standing up in dissenting opinions for correct interpretations of law and the legal and constitutional rights of migrants in the context of a “go along to get along” BIA majority who too often chose job security over justice for the individuals coming before us.
That a number of our dissents, particularly Judge Rosenberg’s, were prescient as to what Federal Circuit Courts and the Supremes would hold, and also predicted some of their vociferous criticisms of EOIR’s poor performance under Ashcroft, are also telling of the lack of legitimacy and impartiality that Ashcroft ushered in. That has continued to plague EOIR over subsequent Administrations of both parties, including the present Administration.
In my conclusion, I highlight the majority’s unseemly haste to “get to no, with the interpretation least favorable to the respondent.”
The issue whether the respondent’s situation fits within Article 3 of the Convention Against Torture requires factual determinations about conditions in Colombia and the respondent’s own situation considered in the con- text of international legal principles. We have little United States jurisprudence to guide us in this area. Before deciding such important and potentially far-reaching issues, we should have a fully developed record and the benefit of the Immigration Judge’s informed ruling on the positions of the parties.
The respondent has established a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits so as to make it worthwhile to develop the issues at a hearing under Matter of L-O-G-, supra. His motion to reopen and remand should therefore be granted. Consequently, I respectfully dissent from the decision to deny the motion.
Over the years, the pro-government/anti-immigrant bias and “haste makes waste gimmicking” has progressively gotten worse at the BIA, culminating in the disgraceful “packing” of the BIA with notorious asylum deniers and “hard liners” during the Trump Administration.
Poll human rights experts on how many of the Trump holdover BIA judges would be considered “leading asylum experts?” How many have ever represented an asylum seeker in Immigration Court? So, why would this body have a “stranglehold” over American asylum law and be given deference by the Article IIIs to boot?
One would have expected Garland to address this obviously unacceptable situation on an urgent basis by reassigning most holdover BIA Appellate Judges and replacing them with real, expert judges from the deep private sector talent pool. EOIR needs qualified appellate jurists who will correct the many mistakes of the past, change the one-sided, overwhelmingly anti-immigrant and often misleading “precedential guidance,” enforce some consistency, eliminate disreputable “asylum free zones” pretending to be “courts,” and lead EOIR (and indeed the entire Federal Judiciary) into high-quality, best-scholarship, 21st century jurisprudence.
That means a body of scholarly, practical, transparent precedents that properly guide and advise Immigration Judges on the correct and efficient adjudication of many cases stuck in this dysfunctional system where individuals deserve to win. Instead, Garland has allowed EOIR to continue its downward spiral with sloppy work, bad decisions, and incompetent judicial administration in a system where all of these problems are potentially life threatening. Not surprisingly, this failure to fundamentally reform and improve EOIR has also led Garland to increase the backlog to a jaw-dropping almost two million cases.
Lack of judicial excellence, grotesque inconsistencies, worst practices, and administrative incompetence have also unfairly, unprofessionally, and unnecessarily increased the difficulty and already sky-high stress levels for immigration practitioners, many serving the system in a pro bono or low bono capacity. With lack of adequate immigration representation one of the festering problems undermining our entire American justice system, Garland’s poor stewardship over EOIR can (charitably) be described as totally unacceptable.
So, in answer to Jeffrey’s question as to why after 22 years legallywrong precedents still rule at EOIR and correct guidance remains elusive, I have the answer. Because, Merrick Garland has ignored the advice of experts and failed to make achievable, long-overdue reforms and critical upgrading of judicial quality at EOIR.
That’s a growing cancer on our justice system that won’t be cured without better, due-process-dedicated, leadership — at all levels!
“Judge” Roy Bean (1825-1903) American Saloon Keeper & “Jurist” Public Realm His reputation for “rough justice” in the West would be right at home in the “Asylum Free Zones” of Garland’s EOIR. Bean “was once trying a Mexican on a charge of horse stealing and his charge was the shortest on record: Gentlemen of the Jury, there’s a greaser in the box and a hoss missing. You know your duty, and they did.”
Here’s the latest analysis of Garland’s ongoing abuse of his office from Austin Kocher, PhD, at TRAC:
Has Alfred E. Neumann been “reborn” as Judge Merrick Garland? “Not my friends or relatives whose lives as being destroyed by my ‘Kangaroo Courts.’ Just ‘the others’ and their immigration lawyers, so who cares, why worry about professionalism, ethics, and due process in Immigration Court?” PHOTO: Wikipedia Commons
If someone NOT Merrick “What Me Worry” Garland (the “Alfred E. Neumann of Biden’s immigration bureaucracy”) took a look at the data, one major thing would jump out! There are likely more than 400,000 refugees entitled to asylum sitting in Garland’s 770,000 case asylum backlog (52% x 770,000). (The asylum backlog at EOIR is a “subset” of Garland’s largely self-inflicted, ever mushrooming, nearly 2 million case EOIR backlog — more judges have produced more backlog, so that’s likely NOT the answer here).
And, this is in a system currently governed by skewed anti-asylum BIA “precedents” and a chronic “anti-asylum culture” actively encouraged and fed by the Trump Administration. In a properly staffed and functioning court system with qualified, due-process oriented, judges and an expert BIA that enforced some decisional consistency and properly and generously interpreted asylum law, a “grant rate” of 75% or more would be a plausible expectation.
Given the obvious (and I would argue intentional) lack of reliable data on how a legitimate asylum system, one consisting at all levels of judges with well-recognized expertise in asylum law and human rights, and overseen by competent, due-process-oriented judicial administrators, might function, the 75% figure is just an “educated guesstimate.” But, it matches my own personal experience over 13 years on the bench in the (now defunct) Arlington Immigration Court.
It’s also in line with my recent conversations with the head of one of the largest NGOs in the DMV area involved in meeting busses and counseling those “orbited” from the Southern border by the racist/nativist GOP Govs that Biden, curiously, has chosen to run our domestic refugee resettlement program. This is a person who, unlike Garland, his lieutenants, and most of the other politicos and nativist blowhards participating in the “border travesty,” actually spent years of a career representing individuals in Immigration Court. They estimated that “at least 70%” of the “arriving bus riders” had very viable asylum claims.
This is a far cry from the nativist, restrictionist myths promoted by both the Trump and Biden Administrations — obviously to cover up their gross human rights violations in knowingly and illegally returning hundreds of thousands of legal refugees to danger zones! Many human rights experts would consider such gross misconduct to be “crimes against humanity.” Consequently, it doesn’t take much imagination to see why self-interested scofflaw officials like Garland, Mayorkas, and White House advisors seek to manipulate the system to keep the asylum grant rates artificially low while eschewing proper, realistically robust use of the overseas refugee program to take the pressure off the border — by acting legally rather than illegally!
Almost all the EOIR asylum backlog consists of “regular docket” (I use this term lightly with EOIR where “normalcy” is unknown) cases. Those are refugees who have had time to get lawyers, adequately prepare, document their cases, but are stuck in Garland’s chronically dysfunctional system. Consequently, they are “denied by delay” legal immigration status, a chance to get green cards, and to eventually qualify for citizenship. The American economy is denied an important source of legal workers who should be part of our permanent workforce and well on their way to full participation in our political system and society!
An expert looking at this system would see a “golden opportunity” to move most of the backlogged “easily grantable” asylum cases out of the system with stipulated grants or short hearings (the kind you actually might be able to do 3-4 a day without stepping on anyone’s due-processrights or driving the private bar nuts). These cases would also avoid the BIA’s appellate backlog, as well as eliminating unnecessary workload in the U.S. Circuit Courts (which already have their own inconsistency, rubber stamp, and bias issues in the human rights/racial justice area that seem to be getting worse, not better).
Knocking 400,000+ cases off the backlog wouldn’t completely solve Garland’s 2 million case backlog problem — only a complete “house cleaning” at EOIR, replacing many of the current bureaucrats with competent leaders and expert Immigration Judges well-versed in asylum law, will do that. But, cutting EOIR’s backlog by 20% (and the asylum backlog by over 50%) without stomping on anyone’s rights, while bolstering much-needed legal immigration, and harnessing the strengths of the private/pro bono bar, is nothing to “sneeze at!” That’s particularly true in comparison with Garland’s two years of mindless “designed to fail” gimmicks and astounding mismanagement, which have produced exactly the opposite results!
How bad has Garland’s leadership been at on human rights, due process, and racial justice at DOJ. A number of seasoned asylum practitioners have told me that today’s EOIR, also suffering from a tidal wave of Garland’s“Aimless Docket Reshuffling” — is actually significantly worse than it was under Trump! That’s right, Garland’s tone-deaf incompetence has exceeded the disorder and systemic unfairness caused by overt xenophobia, anti-asylum bias, misogyny, “dumbing down,” and enforcement-biased “weaponization” of the Sessions/Barr years.
As for Dr. Kocher’s cogent observation that input from the Immigration Judges who actually decide these cases is a “missing ingredient,” good luck with that, my friend! Perhaps understandably in light of his unseemly failures at EOIR, Garland has taken EOIR’s traditional opaqueness and “muzzling” of Immigration Judges to new heights — even barring their participation in CLE events aimed at improving the level of practice before his courts.
Apparently, “studied incompetence” in a Democratic Administration can be even worse than the “malicious incompetence” of the Trump Kakistocracy — at least where immigrants rights/human rights/racial justice/ women’s rights are concerned at EOIR. That’s an astounding observation! One that I actually never thought I’d hear from practitioners!
The only way for human rights and racial justice experts and advocates to “communicate” with Garland in his “ivory tower” is to ‘“sue his tail” in court! Judge Sullivan’s recent opinion finding Title 42 illegal incorporates the very facts and law used by human rights experts and advocates in years of fruitless pleading and begging Garland to “cease and desist” his support for unlawful conduct and “just follow the law.” The latter seems like a modest “no-brainer” request to a guy once nominated by an Dem President for the Supremes.
Waiting for Merrick Garland to fix the mess at EOIR to provide even a bare minimum of due process and rational administration is like waiting for the guy pictured below. Frustrated and “Garland-weary” as they might be, human rights advocates should take it to heart and act accordingly!
Waiting for Merrick Garland and his “clueless crew” at DOJ to fix the dysfunctional Immigration Courts will be an exercise in futility. He only pays attention when ordered by a Federal Judge, which, somewhat ironically, he used to be. But, he’s proven “beyond a reasonable doubt” that he is unqualified to run one of the most important and life-determining Federal Judiciaries — one where due process has been buried beneath an avalanche of expediency, incompetency, intellectual dishonesty, and dumb gimmicks. When will “enough be enough?” https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0
