Judicial Selection – Page 15 – immigrationcourtside.com

🤯GARLAND BIA’S SLOPPY WORK, ANTI-ASYLUM SLANT CONTINUES TO ROIL WATERS IN NORMALLY PRO-GOV 5TH CIR!

Dan Kowalski reports for LexisNexis Immigration Community:

Yahm v. Garland, unpublished, 5th Cir., 05-31-22

https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/unpub/20/20-60914.0.pdf

https://www.lexisnexis.com/LegalNewsRoom/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/unpub-ca5-credibility-remand-yahm-v-garland#

“Elvis Njenula Yahm, a citizen of Cameroon facing removal, sought asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) based on his pro-Anglophone political opinion. An immigration judge denied all three avenues for relief, and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissed Yahm’s appeal. … A recent decision supports Yahm’s view that an adverse credibility finding does not relieve the agency of its obligation to also consider documentary support for a CAT claim. See Arulnanthy v. Garland, 17 F.4th 586 (5th Cir. 2021). … Because Yahm offered nontestimonial evidence of country conditions in Cameroon, the BIA erred by not considering it in the context of his CAT claim and instead treating Yahm’s lack of credibility as dispositive. See Arulnanthy, 17 F.4th at 598. Yahm’s petition for review is GRANTED and these proceedings are REMANDED for the BIA to address the CAT claim consistent with Arulnanthy.”

[Hats off to Keith S. Giardina!]

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

Way to go, Keith! Congrats! Winning justice for asylum seekers in the 5th Circuit is no mean feat!

The 5th Circuit decision in Arulnanthy sounds very much like the 4th Circuit’s decision in Camara v. Ashcroft, 378 F. 3d 361 (4th Cir. 2004). Camara actually changed for the better the preparation, presentation, and most of all results in asylum cases in the 4th Circuit.

I consider it the “precursor” to the REAL ID provision now incorporated in the INA requiring IJ’s and the BIA to consider the “the totality of the circumstances, and all relevant factors,” in making credibility determinations. If that is actually done, which it isn’t in far too many cases in today’s broken Immigration Courts, the results are likely to be far more positive for asylum seekers and other respondents seeking relief in Immigration Court.

The “Camara effect” was real. For example, in 2004, on the “eve of Camara,” the asylum denial rate at the Arlington Immigration Court, where I sat, in the 4th Circuit, was in excess of 70%. By the time I retired in 2016, it was the polar opposite. The asylum grant rate exceeded 70%! SOURCE: TRAC Immigration.

Of course, no one factor is responsible for that positive change. And, I acknowledge that in the Charlotte Immigration Court, also in the 4th Circuit, where several judges were reknowned for their hard-core anti-asylum attitudes, the denial rates remained disturbingly above the national average. And, of course, the “institutionalized anti-asylum bias” ushered in and promoted at EOIR by the Trump regime resulted in another dramatic, totally unjustified, downturn in asylum grants by EOIR across America after 2016.

Nevertheless, positive appellate guidance on asylum is a major factor in establishing and maintaining due process in the Immigration Courts. Unfortunately, almost none of that expert positive guidance on asylum and other forms of relief comes from Garland’s BIA precedents. Additionally, although some of his appointments have been welcome, overall, Garland has done a very poor job of bringing in dynamic progressive expert leaders and judges to reverse the anti-asylum, anti-due-process, anti-immigrant “culture” that continues to haunt EOIR at all levels.

The “results” of his dysfunctional courts speak for themselves. Backlogs build, Circuit Courts struggle with EOIR’s poor “haste makes waste” work product, and decisional consistency on asylum is shockingly, “tragicomically” lacking!

In almost all ways, this system has seriously regressed in the past decade, even while eating up more resources! That’s about as much of an “engineered lose-lose” as one can imagine! Yet, Biden, Harris, and Garland appear impervious to this glaring, “fixable” problem that threatens our entire justice system!

Meanwhile, could even the conservative judges of the 5th Circuit be tiring of substandard work product inflicted on them by Garland’s dysfunctional EOIR? Reprehensibly, this is by no means the first “bogus asylum denial” by Garland’s EOIR involving a Cameroonian claim to be soundly rejected by the 5th. https://immigrationcourtside.com/2022/05/20/%f0%9f%8f%b4%e2%98%a0%ef%b8%8fassembly-line-injustice-eoir-most-conservative-u-s-circuit-court-faults-bogus-asylum-denial-for-cameroonian-that-garlands-doj-defended/

Shouldn’t racial justice advocates be all over Garland, Monaco, Gupta, and Clarke for the EOIR’s disgraceful performance on asylum claims involving Cameroonians and other applicants of color! If not, why not? The entire “progressive social justice community” should be expressing “collective outrage” to the Biden Administration about the Garland DOJ’s disgraceful performance at EOIR and on other human rights issues involving race and immigration.

It’s also worthy noting, as my Round Table colleague retired Judge Jeffrey Chase has pointed out before, that the Biden Administration has granted TPS to Cameroonians in the U.S. So, there is really no issue about the truly miserable human rights conditions there. That is, apparently, except in Garland’s Immigration Courts where the “programmed to deny” and “good enough for government work” mentalities continue to prevail — even where the stakes are life or death!

Additionally, the regulations implementing the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) at EOIR initially became effective on Mar. 22, 1999 — over two decades ago. I remember that at one of the next Immigration Judge Conferences, probably in 1999 or 2000, the training specifically instructed that because of the country-conditions related nature of CAT, adverse credibility rulings against a respondent were not determinative of CAT claims.

Yet, more than two decades later, Immigration Judges and, worse yet, the BIA are still making that same fundamental error! How does this make the idea that EOIR is an “expert court” or that “constitutional due process is being protected at EOIR” anything other than a “sick joke.” Yet, the mockery of justice continues and nobody at Justice, from the top down, is being held accountable for stomping on life-determining legal and Constitutional rights! Why?

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

06-01-22

🗽🧑🏻‍⚖️ BIA APPELLATE JUDGES LIEBOWITZ, BROWN, MANUEL WITH STRONG REVERSAL OF HIGH-DENYING IJ IN FIFTH — Nexis, PSG — Roberto Blum Reports! — “This makes the need to populate the Immigration Court bench with independent, highly qualified, experienced, non-political unbiased individuals with appropriate temperament even more urgent,” Says Says Brooklyn Law Associate Dean Stacey Caplow!

Roberto writes:

Hello Judge,

Here’s another remand you might like to read. This time it was Nexus and PSG with IJ Monique Harris (previously in Houston). According to TRAC she has a 96.5 asylum denial rate. The prior remand I shared was IJ Khan who is at 97% denial rate. Clearly these IJs are getting a lot of “matter of life and death” decisions wrong. As you say, haste makes waste. This case (like the previous one) should have been easy grants with all of the supporting documents that were included. I appeared at the individual hearing and my colleague Bryan Russell Terhune (from the same office) worked on the BIA Brief.

P.S. you can see this news article: https://sv.usembassy.gov/court-inaugurated-memory-pnc-agent/ , from our own U.S. Embassy in El Salvador where they inaugurated an athletic court in the Usulutan Police Delegation, named after the PNC officer Nelson Panameño, who was killed. Panameño was one of the instructors from the Gang Resistance Education and Training Program (GREAT) which my client closely worked with for many years helping him and the PNC gain trust with the community and local youth. This was part of the record, plus a lot more evidence showing this specific connection and the specific and imminent warnings that Panameno gave to my client before his own murder. This was just one of the many great things this client did in El Salvador to try and make his country a better place. We are lucky to have him and his family in this country now.

Best,

DPF!

RB

Here’s the panel decision:

BIA APPEAL REMAND (Redacted)

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

Thanks, Roberto.

As Roberto says:

This was just one of the many great things this client did in El Salvador to try and make his country a better place. We are lucky to have him and his family in this country now.

That this respondent is here to contribute to our country is due to Roberto and his colleagues in the Law Office of Juan Reyes, Houston, and to this particular panel of BIA Appellate Judges. But it is “no thanks” to the IJ who got this case egregiously wrong below!

Nor, is it thanks to an Attorney General who has allowed injustice, bad judgment, and poor quality decision-making to flourish at the “retail level” of his wholly-owned “court” system. What about the many folks who don’t have Roberto or someone like him for a lawyer or who get members of the “BIA asylum deniers club” appointed under Trump to “pack the BIA for an anti-asylum agenda” instead of this panel of conscientious appellate judges?

I note that Judge Elise Manuel and Judge Denise Brown are currently denominated “Temporary” Appellate Judges. At least in this case, along with Judge Ellen Liebowitz, they “got it” at a level at odds with the work of too many of their so-called “permanent” colleagues. Why has Garland allowed this obviously problematic situation to continue to fester with human lives at stake?

Judge Ellen Liebowitz’s compact, cogent, powerful opinion is a terrific “mini-primer” on how PSG and “one central reason” nexus cases properly should be decided! As Judge Liebowitz demonstrates, you don’t have to write a lot to say a lot. You just have to know what you’re doing!

The gross, fundamental errors in the application of basic statutory terms by the IJ below in this case are, unfortunately, repeated on a regular basis by many of her colleagues across America who are improperly “programmed to deny” clearly grantable asylum cases.

It belies the bogus claim that EOIR is an “expert subject matter tribunal!” That expertise is, at least in part, what the questionable doctrines of “Chevron deference” and “Brand X abdication” by the Supremes rest upon. Shouldn’t it make a difference that in EOIR’s case, it’s a lie?

Why is Garland allowing this to happen when it could be remedied? Make this case a precedent and start removing, retraining, or reassigning so-called “judges” who don’t follow it and who continue to disregard the law and the rights of asylum seekers!

Why isn’t this case a precedent? Why is an IJ who is so clearly unqualified to decide asylum cases still on the Immigration Bench under Garland? Why aren’t cases like this being used to end the “asylum free zone” improperly established by some Houston IJs?

These are the “tough questions” that Garland should have addressed. Why hasn’t he? Why is “refugee roulette” still plaguing EOIR and American justice — 15 years after the problem was first “outed” by my Georgetown Law colleagues Professors Schrag, Schoenholtz, and Ramji-Nogales? How is this “good government,” or even “minimally competent government?”

When compelling, well-documented cases like this are turned down at the trial level, something clearly is rotten in the system! Make no mistake about it, lack of expertise, bad judicial attitudes, widespread anti-asylum bias, counterproductive “haste makes waste gimmicks,” and way, way too many denials are significant “drivers” of the backlog that continues to mushroom under Garland.

The arbitrary and often grotesquely unfair, unprofessional, and results-driven state of “justice” in Garland’s dysfunctional Immigration Courts was recently highlighted by Brooklyn Law Associate Dean Stacey Caplow in her lament about the Supremes’ abdication of responsibility in Patel v Garland.

Stacy Caplow
Associate Dean of Experiential Education & Professor of Law
Brooklyn Law
PHOTO: Brooklyn Law website

As Dean Caplow cogently points out:

Patel shuts the door firmly and unequivocally, preventing independent review of fact-finding by Immigration Judges, however irrational and indefensible once the Board of Immigration Appeals has affirmed. This makes the need to populate the Immigration Court bench with independent, highly qualified, experienced, non-political unbiased individuals with appropriate temperament even more urgent. Perhaps this case will provide new impetus for reform such as Real Courts, Rule of Law Act of 2022 voted by the House Judiciary Committee in May just days before the Supreme Court’s decision.

https://www.lexisnexis.com/LegalNewsRoom/immigration/b/outsidenews/posts/the-pathos-of-patel-v-garland

While an independent, subject matter expert Article I Immigration Court is the obvious answer, unfortunately, it’s not immediately on the horizon. Meanwhile, the innocent and vulnerable continue to suffer daily injustices, sometimes gratuitous humiliation or dehumanization, in Garland’s broken system. It DOESN’T have to be this way!

As Dean Caplow says, we “need to populate the Immigration Court bench with independent, highly qualified, experienced, non-political unbiased individuals with appropriate temperament.” It’s not “rocket science” 🚀— just intellectual excellence, courage, and a fair-minded approach to justice!

There are literally hundreds of extraordinarily well-qualified individuals out there in the private sector who could outperform the IJ in this case in every critical aspect of the job! Why hasn’t Garland actively recruited them for his courts? Why isn’t his system functioning correctly “on the retail level?”

Garland has the authority to take the bold action necessary to redirect, refocus, and re-populate his current parody of a court system to laser-focus on due process, fundamental fairness, judicial expertise in immigration and human rights, and efficiency (without sacrificing due process or decisional excellence). All of us who care about the future of American justice should be asking why he isn’t doing his job!

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

05-31-22

🇺🇸🗽⚖️😎🌟🏆NDPA SUPERSTAR LAUREN WYATT WINS AWARD!

Lauren Wyatt Award — NY City Bar
Legal Services Award
Lauren Wyatt

Lauren Wyatt

Lauren Wyatt is an attorney with Catholic Charities Community Services, Archdiocese of New York, where she provides direct representation to immigrants before the Immigration Court, Board of Immigration Appeals, USCIS, and New York family courts. As the Lead Project Attorney for the Immigration Court Helpdesk (ICH), she coordinates pro se application workshops, Know-Your-Rights presentations, legal screenings, and pro bono case placements for unrepresented immigrants in removal proceedings. She also prepares and supervises the implementation of specialized ICH programming in response to emergencies (such as family separation) and changes in law and policy (such as in domestic violence- and family-based asylum claims) She recruits and trains volunteers to provide free legal information and assistance to low-income immigrants. She also supervises and mentors pro bono volunteer attorneys in representing clients before the Immigration Court.

Prior to joining Catholic Charities, Lauren was a Program Associate at the Vera Institute of Justice administering the Legal Orientation Program for detained immigrants. Before moving to New York City, Lauren was an Equal Justice Works AmeriCorps Fellow at Catholic Charities Archdiocese of Washington. At Catholic Charities DC, she represented unaccompanied children in immigration and state court proceedings, as well as in affirmative applications before USCIS. She also trained and mentored pro bono attorneys to represent clients in immigration and family court cases.

Lauren is licensed to practice in New York and Maryland, as well as before the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. She earned her J.D. from Howard University School of Law in 2014, and her B.A. from the University of Pennsylvania in 2010. She has studied in Seville, Spain, Buenos Aires, Argentina, and Havana, Cuba. She is fluent in Spanish and conversational in Italian.

Refugee Women

SOURCE: I-ARC

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

Congrats, Lauren!😎👍🏼

As we can see, eight years out of law school, Lauren has basically “done it all!” When are we going to see Lauren on the Federal Bench?

Like Vice President Kamala Harris, Lauren is a distinguished grad of Howard Law! So, why hasn’t Harris actively recruited her for a judicial or senior management position at EOIR, where due process, racial justice, practical problem solving, and a positive attitude toward human rights are in total tatters and need “big time” change and redirection?

Why are Dems blowing the opportunity to recognize, promote, and empower “the best and the brightest” that the “upcoming generation” of American lawyers has to offer?

Why is EOIR still a “due process wasteland” rather than a model, due process focused, best practices oriented, “progressive judiciary of the future?”

Somebody with some “pipelines” into the Biden Administration should be asking these questions and insisting on positive progressive actions!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

05-27-22

☠️👎🏽DEM’S CATASTROPHIC DUE PROCESS FAILURE: AS PREDICTED, GARLAND’S “DEDICATED DOCKETS” ARE “ASYLUM FREE ZONES” TARGETING CHILDREN!🤮

“Floaters” — Garland’s vision of “justice” for refugee children appears to be little different from that of Stephen Miller and his White Nationalist predecessors at DOJ!
EDS NOTE: GRAPHIC CONTENT – The bodies of Salvadoran migrant Oscar Alberto Mart??nez Ram??rez and his nearly 2-year-old daughter Valeria lie on the bank of the Rio Grande in Matamoros, Mexico, Monday, June 24, 2019, after they drowned trying to cross the river to Brownsville, Texas. Martinez’ wife, Tania told Mexican authorities she watched her husband and child disappear in the strong current. (AP Photo/Julia Le Duc)

Cindy Carcamo reports for the LA Times:

BY CINDY CARCAMO STAFF WRITER

MAY 25, 2022 11:56 AM PT

After drug traffickers killed his little brother, William and his 6-year-old son, Santiago, fled Colombia last September to seek asylum in the United States.

Unbeknownst to William, who ended up in Los Angeles with a friend, he and his son immediately became part of a cohort of thousands of families in a “dedicated docket” program that the Biden administration established in 11 cities, including Los Angeles, in May 2021.

In response to a sudden rise of apprehensions last spring of families and children at the Southwest border, Biden promised the accelerated docket would resolve cases “more expeditiously and fairly.” These sorts of programs have existed in various forms under previous administrations; Biden’s program pushes immigration judges to resolve cases in 300 days, significantly shorter than the 4.5-year average of asylum cases in immigration court.

But according to a new Center for Immigration Law and Policy at UCLA Law report, the docket’s fast-track timeline has imposed new hardships on many asylum seekers and created additional obstacles that ultimately lead to higher rates of deportation orders, sometimes based on legal technicalities.

For William — who didn’t want his last name published, fearing reprisal against his family still living in Colombia — the docket’s expeditious nature meant he had only six weeks to secure legal representation before his first court hearing, leaving him to navigate a complex and often confusing system without an attorney. Immigration officials provided him with documents heavy with legal jargon in English. He could read only in Spanish.

In addition, those on the docket are released with “alternatives to detention,” which means they are monitored, either with an ankle bracelet or via a phone application. Immigration officials shackled William with a GPS monitor on his ankle before releasing him and his son.

Ultimately, an immigration judge ordered William and his 6-year-old to be deported in “absentia” when they didn’t show up for their court hearing at U.S. Immigration Court in downtown Los Angeles. In fact, at the time the judge gave the order, William was in the building, but was three floors below the courtroom in a waiting area at the direction of an Immigration and Customs Enforcement official. By the time William was told he was in the wrong place, the judge had already ordered the father and son’s removal from the U.S.

In Los Angeles, an estimated 99% of the 449 cases completed on the dedicated docket as of February of this year resulted in removal orders and about 72% of those cases were issued to people who missed their court hearing — “in absentia” — according to a report released Wednesday by the Center for Immigration Law and Policy and Immigrants’ Rights Policy Clinic at UCLA School of Law

Perhaps most striking, the report shows that almost half of those in absentia removal orders are for children, many 6 and younger.

In addition, court data analyzed in the report show that an estimated 70% of people on this particular docket don’t have legal counsel. In contrast, an estimated 33% of those on the Los Angeles court’s non-accelerated docket lack legal counsel.

The nature of the accelerated dockets made it nearly impossible for asylum-seekers to get a fair hearing, the report’s authors concluded. The high absentia rate, the report concluded, is a red flag that the dedicated docket isn’t working as it should.

. . . .

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

Read the rest of Cindy’s totally disturbing article at the link!

Sadly, this news will come as no surprise to readers of “Courtside.” Having watched these types of efforts to co-opt the Immigration Courts as a vehicle of unfair, racially motivated “deterrence” and “enforcement,” I could see that this program was going to be an unmitigated disaster at EOIR, given Garland’s failure to install progressive judicial leadership and human rights and due process expertise into the broken and biased system he inherited from Sessions and Barr.

The NDPA is going to have to “dig in” and fight Garland and Mayorkas every step of the way, at every level of the system, to save as many lives as possible from their disgraceful continuation of a “Miller Lite” White Nationalist, anti-immigrant program of abusing and dehumanizing asylum seekers — most individuals of color and many of them children or other “vulnerable individuals.”

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever! Garland’s dysfunctional, biased, leaderless, soul-less, ethically challenged EOIR, never!

PWS

05-26-22

⚖️ IMMIGRATION JUDICIARY👩🏽‍⚖️ 👨🏻‍⚖️: THREE OF FIVE LATEST GARLAND IJ APPOINTEES HAVE PRIOR IMMIGRATION PRIVATE PRACTICE EXPERIENCE!

https://www.justice.gov/eoir/page/file/1507646/download

NOTICE

U.S. Department of Justice

Executive Office for Immigration Review

Office of Policy

5107 Leesburg Pike

Falls Church, Virginia 22041

Contact: Communications and Legislative Affairs Division Phone: 703-305-0289 PAO.EOIR@usdoj.gov

www.justice.gov/eoir @DOJ_EOIR

May 23, 2022

EOIR Announces Five New Immigration Judges

FALLS CHURCH, VA – The Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) today announced the appointment of five immigration judges to courts in California, Florida, and Massachusetts.

EOIR continues to work to expand its immigration corps and welcomes qualified candidates from all backgrounds to join the agency. In addition to making a difference through service to our Nation, immigration judges join a diverse and inclusive workforce. Individuals interested in these critical positions are invited to sign up for job alerts that are sent when new opportunities become available.

After a thorough application process, Attorney General Merrick B. Garland appointed Romy L. Lerner, William Mabry III, Cynthia M. Nunez, Curtis F. Pierce, and Michael P. Sady to their new positions.

Biographical information follows:

Romy L. Lerner, Immigration Judge, Miami (Krome) Immigration Court

Romy L. Lerner was appointed as an Immigration Judge to begin hearing cases in May 2022. Judge Lerner earned a Bachelor of Arts in 1999 from Columbia University and a Juris Doctorate in 2002 from Columbia University School of Law. From 2015 to 2022, she was the Associate Director of the Immigration Clinic at the University of Miami School of Law, and from 2013 to 2015, she was a supervising attorney with the clinic. From 2010 to 2013, she was a supervising attorney at Americans for Immigrant Justice (formerly Florida Immigrant Advocacy Center (FIAC)). From 2007 to 2010, and previously from 2005 to 2006, she was a staff attorney at FIAC. From 2006 to 2007, she was a Fulbright Fellow in Buenos Aires, Argentina. From 2002 to 2005, she was a litigation associate at Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP. Judge Lerner is a member of the Florida Bar and New York State Bar.

William Mabry III, Immigration Judge, Santa Ana Immigration Court

William Mabry III was appointed as an Immigration Judge to begin hearing cases in May 2022. Judge Mabry earned a Bachelor of Science in 1988 from Arizona State University, and a Master

Communications and Legislative Affairs Division

EOIR Announces Five New Immigration Judges Page 2

of Public Administration in 1991 from Arizona State University while concurrently earning a Juris Doctor in 1993 from the University of New Mexico School of Law. From 2019 to 2022, he served as an associate judge for the San Carlos Apache Tribe, in Peridot, Arizona. From 2018 to 2019, he was an associate attorney with Davis and Miles, in Tempe, Arizona. From 1996 to 2018, he served as a senior field attorney with the National Labor Relations Board in Phoenix. From 1994 to 1995, he served as a staff attorney with the New Mexico Court of Appeals. Judge Mabry is a member of the State Bar of Arizona and State Bar of New Mexico.

Cynthia M. Nunez, Immigration Judge, San Francisco Immigration Court

Cynthia M. Nunez was appointed as an Immigration Judge to begin hearing cases in May 2022. Judge Nunez earned a Bachelor of Arts in 1986 from the University of Michigan and a Juris Doctor in 1993 from Wayne State University Law School. After a previous stint from 1994 to 1997, Judge Nunez returned to practicing immigration law at Walker & Associates of Michigan PC, in Detroit, during which time she also served as Lawyer-Guardian ad Litem. From 1997 to 2006, she served as a Michigan Assistant Attorney General. Judge Nunez is a member of the State Bar of Michigan.

Curtis F. Pierce, Immigration Judge, San Francisco Immigration Court

Curtis Pierce was appointed as an Immigration Judge to begin hearing cases in May 2022. Judge Pierce earned a Bachelor of Arts in 1980 from the University of California, Los Angeles, and a Juris Doctor in 1984 from Loyola Law School, Los Angeles. From 1995 to 2022, he practiced immigration law with the Law Offices of Curtis Pierce in Los Angeles. Judge Pierce is a member of the State Bar of California.

Michael P. Sady, Immigration Judge, Boston Immigration Court

Michael P. Sady was appointed as an Immigration Judge to begin hearing cases in May 2022. Judge Sady earned a Bachelor of Science in 1984 from Northeastern University and a Juris Doctor in 1988 from Boston University School of Law. From 2002 to 2022, he served as an Assistant U.S. Attorney (AUSA) in the District of Massachusetts, Boston. From 1997 to 2002, he served as Senior Litigation Counsel with the Massachusetts Port Authority in Boston. From 1991 to 1997, he served as an Associate Litigation Attorney at Eckert, Seamans, Cherin & Mellott in Boston. From 1990 to 1991, he served as an Associate Litigation Attorney at Hutchins & Wheeler in Boston. From 1988 to 1990, he served as an Associate Litigation Attorney at Peabody & Arnold in Boston. Judge Sady is a member of the Massachusetts Bar, as well as the First and Second Circuit Courts of Appeal.

— EOIR —

The Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) is an agency within the Department of Justice. EOIR’s mission is to adjudicate immigration cases by fairly, expeditiously, and uniformly interpreting and administering the Nation’s immigration laws. Under delegated authority from the Attorney General, EOIR conducts immigration court proceedings, appellate reviews, and administrative hearings. EOIR is committed to ensuring fairness in all cases it adjudicates.

Communications and Legislative Affairs Division

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

Incremental progress.

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

05-23-22

POLITICS: KURT BARDELLA @ LA TIMES: WHAT “DEMS DON’T GET” THREATENS AMERICAN DEMOCRACY☠️: “They should do what the Republicans would do given a chance: Refuse to compromise and go on the attack. This difference, of course, is that the Democrats are going after the insurrectionist machine and defending democracy while the GOP is tearing it down.”

http://enewspaper.latimes.com/infinity/article_share.aspx?guid=8323fc34-a52b-46ef-9c44-5be1f107c380

By Kurt Bardella

The question I get asked the most as someone who went from being a Republican to a Democrat is: “What’s the biggest difference between the two parties?”

The answer: Every impulse Democrats have is defensive and every impulse Republicans have is offensive.

A report in the Washington Post this week showed these dynamics at play perfectly between Democrats and Republicans on the House Jan. 6 select committee. As the Post described, Democratic Rep. Stephanie Murphy (Fla.) insisted that the committee focus less on former President Trump and more on the security and intelligence failures that allowed the attack on the Capitol. In response, Republican Vice Chair Liz Cheney (Wyo.) argued that the committee should keep its focus on the former president.

This is the best illustration I have come across that demonstrates how different Republicans and Democrats approach things on a tactical and, I’d say, cellular level.

When Republicans have the reins of power, they do not hesitate to go after the very top. From Barack Obama’s birth certificate to Hillary Clinton’s emails and potentially Hunter Biden’s laptop, the GOP is unapologetic about pursuing witch hunts for political gain.

Democrats, on the other hand, are always pursuing lines of legitimate oversight reluctantly. At times, it feels like they are apologizing for doing the right thing.

I think back to Trump’s first impeachment and the hesitant posture displayed by the Democrats during those proceedings. It was almost as if they were forced into it, regretted that it came to this, and moved as fast as possible to get it over with.

Democrats controlled the House majority but never forced Trump administration officials with firsthand knowledge of the events that were at the center of the impeachment inquiry to testify, such as John Bolton, Mick Mulvaney or Rick Perry, and the Republican-controlled Senate predictably torpedoed any effort to compel them to testify.

History repeated itself during Trump’s second impeachment as firsthand witnesses like Mike Pence, Mark Meadows, Jared Kushner, Ivanka Trump, Rudolph W. Giuliani, etc., were never called to testify. Hillary Clinton, of course, was grilled by the Republican-led Benghazi committee for more than 11 hours.

It’s almost as if Democrats believe there is some prize awaiting them for showing what they would characterize as restraint. There isn’t.

. . . .

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

Read the complete article at the link.

This has been obvious in the Dems’ feckless approach to Immigration, and particularly the Immigration Courts, over the years.

Without enacting any significant legislation, the GOP instituted an overtly racist/nativist/restrictionist program. They negated existing laws, scorned the Constitution, abrogated log-standing international agreements, and aggressively and blatantly stacked the Federal Judiciary at all levels with far-right zealots. And they have gotten away with it!

Yet, even after successfully running on programs promising a restoration of the rule of law and the Constitution in immigration and human rights, Dems have been from feckless, to timid, to complicit in the GOP’s vile programs.

The GOP did not hesitate to “stack” the Immigration Court system at all levels with questionably qualified judges who lacked perspective, expertise, and a commitment to due process. The result was a dramatic plunge in the grant rates for asylum seekers, even though conditions in the primary sending countries have continued to worsen dramatically over the years.

No justification for what the GOP did, and no hesitation or self-doubts about doing it! Amid tons of criticism, they just plowed ahead and did it! They “played to the most extreme elements of their base” — nobody else! They weren’t scared to take extreme actions that most polls showed the majority of American’s didn’t favor!

By contrast, the Dems approach to immigration and human rights policy is a complete mess. And, worst of all, the Immigration Courts and EOIR remain largely as the Trump regime left them. Indeed, the backlog is growing at an astounding rate, as Garland flails and fails to bring on board the “best and brightest” judges and intellectual leaders to reform EOIR into the due-process oriented “model judiciary” that it was once intended to be!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

05-22-22

🏴‍☠️ASSEMBLY LINE INJUSTICE @ EOIR! — MOST CONSERVATIVE U.S. CIRCUIT COURT FAULTS BOGUS ASYLUM DENIAL FOR CAMEROONIAN, THAT GARLAND’S DOJ DEFENDED! — Nkenglefac v. Garland, 5th Cir., 05-18-22, published

Dan Kowalski reports from LexisNexis Immigration Community:

https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/19/19-60647-CV0.pdf

https://www.lexisnexis.com/LegalNewsRoom/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/ca5-on-due-process-credibility-nkenglefac-v-garland#

“Petitioner Giscard Nkenglefac, a native and citizen of Cameroon, applied for admission into the United States on May 9, 2018. The immigration judge (“IJ”), Agnelis Reese, denied Nkenglefac’s application for relief from removal and ordered him removed to Cameroon after determining that Nkenglefac was not credible. The Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) subsequently affirmed the IJ’s determination, and Nkenglefac was removed to Cameroon. Nkenglefac now petitions for review of the BIA’s dismissal of his appeal from the IJ’s denial of application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Nkenglefac challenges the IJ’s reliance on his U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) and asylum credible fear interviews that were not entered into the hearing record of the removal proceeding, nor, indeed, raised in that hearing at all, to make an adverse credibility finding. … Nkenglefac argues that the IJ erred as a matter of law by drawing negative credibility inferences from summaries of his CBP and credible fear interviews because neither interview was submitted into the record during his proceeding, much less adverted to. Nkenglefac also argues that he did not waive this argument because he could not have raised the issue before the IJ given that he had no notice the IJ would rely on these documents prior to issuance of her decision. … [A]t no point during the hearing before the IJ was Nkenglefac provided with the opportunity to explain any apparent inconsistencies or dispute the accuracy of the records in question, or cross examine the individuals who prepared the interview summaries, much less object to their introduction, or offer views on weight to be given to the evidence. Inspection of the hearing record confirms that Nkenglefac was not given the opportunity to explain perceived inconsistencies in the government summaries of his prior uncounseled interviews.5 Indeed, the voluminous testimonial record, including extensive government cross-examination and IJ direct inquiry, gives no indication that Nkenglefac had previously made any inconsistent statements, yet the IJ, three months later, determined that “inconsistencies and omissions . . . undermine critical parts of Respondent’s claim” to such an extent that the court denied “Respondent’s application based on lack of credibility.” … The BIA majority—affirming the IJ’s decision—also determined that Nkenglefac’s argument regarding the absence of the CBP and credible fear interviews from the record was “waived” because “the [trial] transcript reflects that [Nkenglefac’s] former counsel never requested that these records . . . be made a part of the record.” However, we fail to understand why Nkenglefac’s counsel should have introduced these government summaries into the record to anticipate and explain later-perceived inconsistencies when they were never identified, referenced, or discussed. It is also worth noting that there is no evidence—beyond the statement of the BIA majority—that Nkenglefac’s counsel failed to preserve this issue on appeal. The issue was discussed at length in Nkenglefac’s appeal brief to the BIA and again in his brief to this court. Furthermore, this observation stands in contravention to existing BIA law that “an adverse credibility determination should not be based on inconsistencies that take an alien by surprise.” Matter of Y-I-M-, 27 I. & N. Dec. 724, 726-29 (BIA 2019) (quote at 726). Notably, the Government’s brief on appeal does not argue that Nkenglefac has waived this argument. … We GRANT the petition for review and REMAND this case to the BIA for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”

[Hats waaaayyyy off to Homero López, Jr., who reports that he is in touch with his client and is hopeful of bringing him back to the USA. Audio of the oral argument is here.]

—

Daniel M. Kowalski

Editor-in-Chief

Bender’s Immigration Bulletin (LexisNexis)

cell/text/Signal (512) 826-0323

@dkbib on Twitter

dan@cenizo.com

Free Daily Blog: www.bibdaily.com

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

Once again, credibility, the problematic issue in this case, is not a profound legal concept. It’s supposedly the “bread and butter of Immigration Judging.” Yet, both the IJs and the BIA continue to often get it wrong. Perhaps “dead wrong” in the cases of asylum seekers! Why isn’t this fundamental flaw at the all-important “retail level” of our justice system receiving the necessary attention and corrections from Garland and the Biden Administration?

As one “Courtside Commenter” said:

I think this is the IJ who retired with a 100% asylum denial rate [actually it was 99.4%, denying 155 of 156 claims she “heard” — but didn’t listen to — over a career that lasted far too long]!And Cameroon is now a TPS country.

This decision is proof perfect of EOIR’s deportation assembly line approach.And I’ve mentioned a number of times the alarming problems with CBP arrival statements noted by the US Commission for International Religious Freedom, an internal government component, which has repeatedly flagged the fact that the resulting “statements” are not the verbatim transcripts they appear to be, and often contain questions that were never actually asked of the respondent.

How bad was this now retired Judge who has been the subject of frequent adverse publicity? See, e.g., https://www.topic.com/your-judge-is-your-destiny; https://www.motherjones.com/crime-justice/2019/07/inside-the-courtroom-where-every-asylum-seeker-gets-rejected/.

As pointed out in the above comment, Cameroon is now a TPS country. Additionally, one of the “five top nationalities” that came before this “asylum denial machine” were asylum seekers from Eritrea. Although they found no success with her, the EOIR statistics for FY 2022 show that that every “merits decision” on Eritrean asylum was granted. There were exactly ZERO, “0” merits denials. See https://www.justice.gov/eoir/page/file/1107366/download.

Thankfully, Judge Reese has retired. But the endemic problems she symbolized, the lack of effective appellate review, and disdain for due process for asylum seekers by the BIA remain overarching problems that Garland has stubbornly failed to effectively address.

Additionally, in another “under the radar yet highly significant problem,” Garland’s OIL within the USDOJ Civil Division continues to “defend the indefensible” coming out of the BIA. This wastes Government and private sector litigation resources, not to mention precious Article III Court time. It also turns due process and immigrant justice in the U.S. into a random game of chance.

Obviously, there is a severe lack of leadership all over the USDOJ under Garland. Moving toward the “halfway point” in the Biden Administration, there still is no appointed and confirmed Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Division!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

05-20-22

🤮INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE/DEFECTIVE COURTS — 3rd Cir. Exposes Massive Due Process Failure @ Garland’s EOIR! — St. Ford v. A.G.

https://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/211729p.pdf

From Judge Roth’s opinion:

The need for effective assistance of counsel applies in immigration law just as it does in criminal law. Aliens, many of whom do not speak English and some of whom are detained before their immigration hearings, can be particularly susceptible to the consequences of ineffective lawyers.

Petitioner Arckange Saint Ford paid a lawyer to represent him in removal proceedings, but Saint Ford’s requests for relief from deportation were denied after the lawyer failed to present important and easily available evidence going to the heart of Saint Ford’s claims. Saint Ford retained new counsel, and his new lawyer asked the Board of Immigration Appeals to reopen his case because of his former attorney’s ineffective assistance. The Board declined to do so. Because Saint Ford presents a meritorious ineffective-assistance claim, we will vacate the Board’s decision and remand.

And concurring Judge Ambro had a harsh assessment of the IJ, the BIA, and most of all A.G. Garland, who has been remarkably “tone deaf” about correcting the grotesque expertise and due process problems in his “wholly owned, astoundingly dysfunctional” Immigration “Courts:”

Arckange Saint Ford will get a second shot at canceling the Government’s order of removal—that’s what matters. The majority is remanding because of his former counsel’s deficient performance at Saint Ford’s removal hearing. I agree with that and concur in full.

But former counsel was not the only one who made significant missteps at the hearing. The Immigration Judge did as well. I therefore would have granted Saint Ford’s initial petition for review and remanded on that basis. I write separately to explain these errors in the hope that similar ones will not be made at Saint Ford’s new hearing.

. . . .

Here, though it was reasonable to request Saint Ford corroborate his testimony about the identity and motive of his harassers, the IJ did not tell him what corroboration she needed or give him a chance to present that evidence. There is no indication she engaged in the Abdulai inquiry as required before skipping straight to “hold[ing] the lack of corroboration against [Saint Ford].” Id. (alterations adopted). She went from first to third across the pitcher’s mound. Our Abdulai inquiry is there to ensure these important corners aren’t cut.

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

What’s wrong with this picture? Going on two decades after the enactment of the REAL ID Act, this IJ gets basic corroboration wrong on a life or death asylum case. Then, she compounds the error by failing to apply a two-decades old circuit precedent. The case sails through the BIA. Then, Garland’s OIL defends the indefensible. “Corner cutting” has become institutionalized, permitted, and even encouraged in today’s broken EOIR!

Meanwhile, it’s left to Circuit Judge Ambro to do the jobs of Garland, his failed BIA, and an IJ badly in need of remedial training! This is an expert tribunal? This is justice? This is due process? Gimmie a break!

This is squarely on Garland! He enables and defends defective, due-process-denying decisions by EOIR. His grotesque failure to appoint and empower a BIA that will end this nonsense and insist on competent legal performance from ALL Immigration Judges in these life or death cases is disgraceful!

Cases like this also “give lie” to the bogus claims that today’s EOIR is comprised of “experts” who can be trusted to remedy due process defects, model best practices, or (perhaps most absurdly) insure that the rights of all respondents, including the unrepresented, are protected. Why is a Dem Administration running a “due process denial machine?” Why is OIL defending the indefensible? Why is Garland still the AG, despite showing little interest and scant skill in creating a due process/fundamental fairness oriented tribunal at the “retail level” of our staggering justice system!

You don’t have to be a “rocket scientist” to trace the disrespect for the Constitutional, statutory, and human rights of migrants, largely individuals of color, to hate crimes, misogyny, curtailment of voting rights, and disrespect for equal justice and racial justice throughout our nation. The stunningly poor performance of the U.S. Immigration Courts under Garland also sets an unfortunate tone for the staggering and highly politicized Federal Court system from bottom to top!

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

05-19-22

PORTLAND (ME) PRESS HERALD: THE OVERTLY RACIST “GREAT REPLACEMENT LIE” IS A STAPLE OF TODAY’S GOP 🏴‍☠️— The “War On Immigrants” Was Just The Beginning Of A Deadly Racist Campaign To Eliminate Democracy & Diversity!🤮

https://www.pressherald.com/2022/05/17/our-view-great-replacement-lie-runs-deep-in-republican-politics/?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_content=Daily+Headlines%3A++RSS%3AITEM%3ATITLE&utm_campaign=PPH+DH+-+TUESDAY+%28HTML%29

Our View: ‘Great replacement’ lie runs deep in Republican politics

Party leaders tolerate radical anti-immigrant ideology, even as it motivates racist massacres like last weekend’s mass shooting in Buffalo.

. . . .

After other racist massacres, we have asked Republican leaders to repudiate this false and dangerous ideology that is taking root in their party and shun anyone who traffics in it. But they never have, and we don’t expect them to do so now. The state party has attempted to appear more friendly to immigrants this year, opening a “Multicultural Center” in Portland. But the party showed no sign of separating itself from anti-immigration figures like Lockman at the recent party convention.

Apparently, the party needs the white-power extremists, just as it needs anti-immigrant, anti-transgender, anti-vaccination and QAnon elements, who may make up only a minority of the electorate but who provide the party with its energy and enthusiasm at election time.

We expect that Republican Party leaders, candidates and officeholders– who know that there is no such thing as a “great replacement” – will continue to keep their mouths shut about the extremists in their party so that they can ride their enthusiasm to control of Congress, the Blaine House and the state Legislature in November.

They are playing with fire, and we are all at risk.

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

Read the full editorial at the link!

“We are all at risk.” Certainly, that has been my message on “Courtside” since its inception in 2016!

That’s why it was, and continues to be, such a tragedy for our democracy that Democrats, once in power, have failed to aggressively stand up for “immigrants’ rights, due process for all, and drastic, meaningful, Immigration Court reform.”

Immigrant justice = racial justice = equal justice for all. And, the path to equal justice for all begins in the now disgracefully dysfunctional (but potentially due-process-enhancing) U.S. Immigration Courts where aggressive reforms and progressive judges in positions to “make a difference” are long overdue.

Often, the view is “clearer” from up here in Maine!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

05-17-22

😢SUPREMES SLAM DUNK ON ADJUSTMENT APPLICANTS WITH “NO JURISDICTION” RULING, OVER SPIRITED DISSENT FROM JUSTICE GORSUCH! — Patel v. Garland (5-4)

Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch — Associate Justice Neil M. Gorsuch; photograph by Franz Jantzen, 2017.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-979_h3ci.pdf

Held: Federal courts lack jurisdiction to review facts found as part of dis- cretionary-relief proceedings under §1255 and the other provisions enumerated in §1252(a)(2)(B)(i). Pp. 6–17.

From Justice Gorsuch’s dissent (joined by Justices Breyer, Kagan, & Sotomayor):

The majority concludes that courts are powerless to cor- rect an agency decision holding an individual ineligible for relief from removal based on a factual error, no matter how egregious the error might be. The majority’s interpretation has the further consequence of denying any chance to cor- rect agency errors in processing green-card applications outside the removal context. Even the government cannot bring itself to endorse the majority’s arresting conclusions. For good reason. Those conclusions are at war with all the evidence before us. They read language out of the statute and collapse the law’s clear two-step framework. They dis- regard the lessons of neighboring provisions and even ig- nore the statute’s very title. They make no sense of the statute’s history. Altogether, the majority’s novel expan- sion of a narrow statutory exception winds up swallowing the law’s general rule guaranteeing individuals the chance to seek judicial review to correct obvious bureaucratic mis- steps. It is a conclusion that turns an agency once account- able to the rule of law into an authority unto itself. Perhaps some would welcome a world like that. But it is hardly the world Congress ordained.

***********************
Justice Barrett wrote the majority opinion.

Interestingly, neither the Respondent nor the Solicitor General defended the 11th Circuit’s decision. So, the Court appointed Taylor A.R. Meehan as amicus to defend that decision. Her “no jurisdiction” statutory argument prevailed.

Looking at rulings like this, the makeup of the Supremes, and the bleak prospects for Article I in an ideologically divided Congress, the composition of the Immigration Courts and the BIA becomes even more significant.

As Justice Gorsuch points out, in many important cases, even the most obvious and egregious mistakes from EOIR Judges will go uncorrected by the Article IIIs. So, getting the results right in the first place and having higher quality appellate review at the BIA becomes even more “life determining.”

As judicial vacancies arise, it’s critical that NDPA members who are eligible to apply do so in large numbers! That also goes for the U.S. Magistrate Judges and the Article IIIs!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

05-16-22

⚖️IMMIGRATION COURTS: Article I Bill Passes Out Of House Judiciary On Party Line Vote!

From ImmigrationProf Blog:

https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/immigration/2022/05/bill-creating-independent-immigration-court-passes-in-house.html

About

Resources

Shop Amazon

RSS

Network Information

LAW PROFESSOR BLOGS NETWORK

ImmigrationProf Blog

Saturday, May 14, 2022

Bill creating independent immigration court passes in House

By Immigration Prof

After years of advocacy from theNational Immigration Judges Association (here and here), immigration attorneys (from ABA and AILA), and scholars, Representatives Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), and Hank Johnson (D-GA), introduced the Real Courts, Rule of Law Act of 2022 (H.R. 6577) that has passed House Judiciary Committeewith a vote of 24-12. It will next move to the House floor.

An section-by-section analysis of the full text legislation is here.

MHC

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

Unfortunately, without any GOP support, this Article I Bill will be DOA in the Senate.

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

05-16-21

⚖️🧑🏻‍⚖️BIA APPELLATE JUDGE BETH LIEBMANN ISSUES MATTER OF A-B- REMAND, PROVIDES USEFUL GUIDANCE!

Here’s the decision (unfortunately unpublished):

https://drive.google.com/file/d/15v7-tVnh-eqBWDWgwBE-Wxqx4rNCH_f8/view?usp=drivesdk

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

There is more helpful, practical guidance in Judge Liebmann’s “two-pager” than in most BIA precedents. So, why isn’t this a precedent?

A.G. Garland overruled Session’s abominable, wrong-headed precedent nearly one year ago. Yet, there has been no further guidance from the BIA on the meaning of the “reinstated A-R-C-G-.” Nor, have the so-called “gender-based regulations” ordered by Biden and referenced by Garland ever seen the light of day.

Meanwhile, there are many cases like this out there in the backlog. Most of them could be granted with proper guidance and supervision from a “Better BIA.” No wonder the backlog continues to grow!

My prediction that the “ascension” (she was a “mere TBM” at the time of this particular decision) of Judge Liebmann to join Judge Saenz on the BIA would be a “breath of fresh air” for practitioners appears to be gaining at least some traction. But, it’s going to take more than two well-qualified judges to pull the BIA out of its current “death spiral.”

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

05-13-22

🙁“CAT-ASTROPHE” — GARLAND’S EOIR FLUNKS “CAT 101” — Coast-to-Coast Failures in 9th and 1st Cir Show A “Judiciary” With Life or Death ☠️ Authority Lacking In Basic Legal Skills & Competence!🤮

Bob Egelko reports for the SF Chron:

An immigration judge ordered a gay Nigerian man deported over a minor discrepancy. The Ninth Circuit just reversed in a fiery ruling https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/An-immigration-judge-ordered-a-gay-Nigerian-man-17151459.php

When a local security brigade in Nigeria learned Peter Udo and his boyfriend were seen having sex in a hotel room, they seized and beat the couple for six hours and later told Udo he should be put to death.

Udo’s mother used her family savings to enable him to flee the country and he wound up in California, where an immigration judge rejected his plea for asylum and ordered him deported because his description of the events gave a false name for the hotel where he had been captured. That order has now been firmly rejected by a federal appeals court.

The judge and the Board of Immigration Appeals, which upheld the deportation order, failed to give any “reasoned consideration” to the evidence Udo presented, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco said Wednesday in a ruling requiring the board to review his claim that he would be tortured if returned to Nigeria.

That evidence included an “excommunication notice,” signed by leaders of the community’s Council of Traditional Rulers, notifying Udo and his family that anyone engaging in homosexual acts is “subjected to public execution” and that his mother and five other relatives were no longer considered citizens of the community.

“Remarkably, the (Board of Immigration Appeals) did not reference the excommunication notice at all” in its ruling that would have returned Udo to Nigeria, Judge M. Margaret McKeown said in the appeals court’s 3-0 decision, which included a copy of the notice.

Udo’s lawyer, David Casarrubias, said the ruling was a victory for asylum seekers.

“The opinion stands for the proposition that although Congress may enact laws that make it harder for asylum seekers to prevail as a result of minor discrepancies in their applications, there are other international laws like the Convention Against Torture that still have teeth,” Casarrubias said.

. . . . .

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

Read the rest of Bob’s article at the link.

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

And things are just as bad on the other side of the country. Here’s what the 1st Circuit had to say about the latest mis-step from Garland’s “Star Chambers” on a life or death CAT matter:

http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/21-1296P-01A.pdf

. . . .

The government does again urge us to construe the BIA as having merely affirmed a finding that it attributed to the IJ

10 For this reason, we need not resolve whether, as Ali contends, the IJ violated 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(3) by failing to consider all relevant evidence through the way the IJ treated the evidence from Harper in her testimony and March 2020 declaration that bears on Ali’s “security forces”-related ground for CAT-based deferral of removal.

– 30 –

regarding whether it was “more likely than not” that Ali would be subject to abuse severe enough to constitute torture rather than a finding that it attributed to the IJ regarding the limited severity of the abuse that Ali had shown that he was likely to suffer. But, as we explained in connection with Ali’s challenge to the BIA’s “other private actors”-related ruling, the IJ did not make that finding either. And, in any event, as we have noted, that is a strained reading of the BIA’s opinion, given that the opinion expressly quotes only from the portion of the relevant regulations that purports to define how severe abuse must be to constitute torture, see 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a)(2) (“Torture is an extreme form of cruel and inhuman treatment . . . .”), rather than a regulation concerning how “likely” it must be that the noncitizen will be subjected to abuse that is severe enough to constitute torture, see, e.g., id. §§ 1208.16(c)(2), (4).11

Finally, the government contends that we still must affirm the BIA’s ruling because, although Harper described violence, “she did not describe the injuries to the Somalis she

11 To the extent that the government means to argue here, too, that the BIA itself considered the Harper evidence in question because of the portion of the BIA’s opinion in which the BIA states, “after considering the risk of torture from all sources in the aggregate,” we cannot agree. That statement concerns only what the BIA determined that the IJ considered in making the finding about the severity of the abuse that Ali would face that the BIA attributed to the IJ. But, as we have explained, the IJ made no such finding.

– 31 –

witnessed being beaten or kicked . . . such that the agency could reasonably conclude she provided insufficient detail to show that such abuse by Somali security forces rose to the level of torture or that Ali was at risk that it likely would rise to the level of torture.” But, the IJ did not find that Ali had failed to meet his burden to show that he would likely be tortured by security forces in Somalia on any such basis. Rather, the IJ rejected his “security forces”-related ground for requesting deferral of removal pursuant to the CAT solely because the IJ found that “Harper indicated that the main motivation” of the security forces who “mean to do the respondent harm” is “they are either too busy to protect themselves and therefore they cannot protect other people” or to “harass people based on cultural differences,” such that they would not be acting “with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity” in visiting any abuse on Ali.

. . . .

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

These are complicated cases. Indeed, the 1st Circuit spent 33 pages analyzing this particular case.

By contrast, a supposedly (but, clearly not) “expert” BIA appears to have taken about 5 minutes to “rubber stamp” the clearly defective denials prepared by staff attorneys in these life or death matters! How is this due process or fundamental fairness? No way!

If this were a law school exam, rather than a life or death “court” case, the BIA’s effort probably would have received a “D-“ or an “F.” Yet, Garland finds this ridiculously deficient level of performance acceptable where “only” the rule of law, constitutional due process, and human lives are at stake!

One might expect this from a GOP AG. But, is this really what human rights advocates and progressives elected Biden to churn out?

I say “No.” This is NOT acceptable performance by the BIA! Nor is it acceptable professional performance by Garland, Monaco, Gupta, Prelogar, and the other members of the “Clueless Crew” supposedly in charge of the DOJ!

⚖️Due process for migrants is due process for all in America!

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

05-08-22

👎🏽🤮AIMLESS DOCKET RESHUFFLING (“ADR”) @ GARLAND’S EOIR SCREWS 🔩ASYLUM SEEKERS WITH LONG-PENDING “SLAM DUNK” 🏀 CASES: “So if we can actually get to a hearing, it is still possible to win. This is the hope we all need to hold on to, but it would be much easier and much fairer if the system had a modicum of respect for the people it purports to serve.”

From Jason “The Asylumist” Dzubow:

https://www.asylumist.com/2022/04/27/aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah/

Let me tell you about some recent events in my office.

We had two cases set for individual hearings this week. Both cases involve noncitizens who have been waiting years for their decisions, both have family members abroad who they hope to bring to the U.S. if their claims are successful, and both have strong cases for asylum.

For the first case, we prepared and submitted evidence earlier in the pandemic, but the case was postponed at the last minute due to Covid. We were hoping that the new date would stick, given that restrictions are easing and the court now has a system to do cases remotely (called Webex). As the date approached, we filed additional evidence and scheduled two practice sessions for the client. We also regularly checked the Immigration Court online portal, which lists our court dates, to be sure the case was still on the docket.

“Your asylum case is cancelled. Again.”

The second case has also been pending for years. The respondent (the noncitizen in court) is from Afghanistan, and such cases are supposedly receiving priority treatment. So at the Master Calendar Hearing, the Immigration Judge (“IJ”) asked us to be sure to talk to DHS prior to the hearing, presumably in the hope that we would come to an agreement about relief. The IJ also scheduled the hearing for a relatively short time slot in anticipation of a possible uncontested hearing. As with the first case, we filed all the evidence and scheduled the practices.

Both respondents had been in touch with their families overseas and both had talked to their relatives about hopefully reuniting soon.

Then – surprise! – we checked the Immigration Court portal and noticed that both cases had disappeared from the docket. Since the portal pages are sometimes screwy, and since court dates are constantly changing, we decided to wait a bit to see whether the dates reappeared. Informing clients about court delays is always fraught, and can even be traumatic for the clients and their families, who have a lot invested in these dates. So it is better not to inform the client until we are sure a date is canceled.

After some hours, we decided to tell the first client. We had a practice session scheduled for that afternoon, and it would waste time to prepare for a hearing that was not going forward. I called the client and informed him, and as I have often experienced before, he was upset and confused. Why had the case been postponed? Was it something about him or his case? Or was it something about the Court? I could at least inform him that we had two cases canceled on the same date (from two different IJs), and so he should understand that the cancellation was not related to him personally. That is obviously cold comfort, but I guess it is better than nothing. I know it was very upsetting for him to receive this news. It was emotionally exhausting for me as well.

For the next two days, this client kept checking the online court system to see whether anything changed. Then – surprise again! – the case re-appeared on the docket for the same old day and time!

I called the court to confirm, and the clerk told me that the case had been removed by accident, and that it was back on! How lucky! The client told me how upset he had been. He hadn’t been able to sleep or eat. He did not even inform his family back home, as he feared they would not understand or would not believe him. We rescheduled the two practice sessions and mentally re-prepared to go forward.

The next day – surprise again again! – I received a message from the court. The case was definitely off. The clerk apologized for the confusion, and told me that the matter would be set for a date in the future. It would be inappropriate for me to publish here the words that came from my mouth after receiving this message, but let’s just say that I was somewhat agitated. I called the clerk and left a message informing the court how harmful this whole process had been to the respondent, how upset he was, and how he had not seen his family members for years. I also mentioned how upsetting the experience had been for me.

I should say that I do not blame the clerk. He is actually very nice and very responsive (he actually called back and said he will try to get us a new date as soon as possible). The problem is “the system” and complaining to the system is about as effective as punching the ocean. No one is ever responsible, and so there is no one who can be held accountable.

As for client number two, at least he did not suffer the on-again, off-again fate of our first client. But he and his family members were also very upset, and given the IJ’s intention of scheduling the hearing quickly because the respondent is Afghan, it is particularly frustrating that a likely approval should be pushed off until who-knows-when.

What now? For both cases, we will wait a bit to see if new dates appear. Maybe they will. If not, we will file motions to advance, and we will try to get earlier dates. All this is more expense and wasted time for the clients, more work for us, and more work for the court, which will have to review our filings. Last year, I wrote about the harm caused by cancelled hearings, and–despite the easing pandemic and the wide-spread availability of Webex–the problem persists. I’ve mentioned just two cases here, but we see this again and again and again. Not in every case, but it’s common enough that we can never be confident that any particular case will go forward, which makes it much more difficult for respondents and attorneys to prepare for court.

While the situation is bleak, I should mention that the news is not all bad. We are still having some successes. For example, over my Spring Break, I litigated a Syrian case (remotely, with very questionable internet, and in what I believe is the first Immigration Court case in the history of Shickshinny, Pennsylvania). Although it was a close case and DHS generally opposed relief, the IJ explained his reasons for granting and DHS agreed not to appeal. And just yesterday, my client from Pakistan received asylum after a contested hearing. DHS did not appeal.

So if we can actually get to a hearing, it is still possible to win. This is the hope we all need to hold on to, but it would be much easier and much fairer if the system had a modicum of respect for the people it purports to serve.

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

Thanks, Jason, for your clear and compelling description of the toxic human and systemic effects of Garland’s continuing “ADR” at EOIR!

Contrary to the “nativist false narrative” promoted under Administrations of both parties, those suffering in the inexcusable EOIR backlog are NOT “evading deportation.” Many, probably the majority, are individuals who are eligible to, and should be granted, the ability to remain in the U.S.

This is particularly true of asylum applicants. Even with a system improperly skewed against them, asylum applicants were winning the majority of their EOIR court cases as recently as FY 2012.

Despite worsening conditions since then in almost all “sending countries,” that rate cratered by about 50% during the Trump regime. It’s fairly obvious that the increased denial rates resulted from perversions of the law, ADR, and an intentional “dumbing down” of both the administrative law and EOIR personnel at all levels.

Garland has taken, at best, “baby steps” to improve the Immigration Courts. He’s merely “nibbling at the edges” where radical house cleaning 🧹and progressive reforms ⚖️ were absolutely necessary, recommended by experts, and achievable — at least had Garland “hit the ground running!”

EOIR should long ago have been replaced with an independent Article I Immigration Court based on the principles of fairness, scholarship, timeliness, respect, teamwork, and most of all, an overriding unswerving commitment to due process and best practices. Judges and administrators should be selected competitively, with private bar input, and exclusively on a merit basis from among those who have demonstrated expertise in immigration and human rights.

As long as EOIR inappropriately continues to reside in the U.S. Department of Justice, there should never, NEVER, again be another Attorney General who does not possess significant experience representing individuals in Immigration Court — the fundamental “retail level” of our entire justice system. Garland ‘s failure to “get the job done for due process and equal justice” — not even close — is “Exhibit A” in what happens when the wrong person is appointed to oversee the Immigration Courts!

At a time when America needed enlightened, inspirational, informed, and courageous legal and ethical leadership for the Immigration Courts, Garland has been “MIA!” American justice, at all levels, is paying the heavy price!☹️

Alfred E. Neumann — Merrick Garland: “What, me worry? I’ve spent my entire law career in the ‘ivory tower.’ What’s ‘aimless docket reshuffling?’ Who cares about asylum seekers?”
PHOTO: Wikipedia Commons

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

05-04-22

⚖️STACY CAPLOW @ AILA IMMIGRATION COURTS ARE SINKING — ROUND TABLE 🛡⚔️ FIGHTING FOR CHANGE!

“Sir Jeffrey” Chase reports:

Hi all: A new volume of the AILA Law Journal was released yesterday. It contained an article by Stacy Caplow, co-director of Brooklyn Law School’s Safe Harbor Project, called The Sinking Immigration Court: Change Course, Save the Ship. I’m not sure if all can access it, but the link is:

https://www.aila.org/File/Related/19110103g.pdf#page=40. It is a very much worth reading generally, but I wanted to highlight the following mention of our group at pp. 49-50:

The Round Table of Former Immigration Judges, “a group of 51 former Immigration Judges and Members of the Board of Immigration Appeals who are committed to the principles of due process, fairness, and transparency in our Immigration Court system,” bears witness to the degrading of the court and, speaking with the voice of years of experience, has been an increasingly active and vocal critic of recent developments at the court both before Congress and as amicus curiae.

There are also citations to a couple of our group’s statements (including one to Congress) and an amicus brief filed with the Supreme Court in the footnotes.

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

How come the Biden Administration, and particularly AG Garland, don’t “get it?”

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

04-28-22

Dan Kowalski reports for LexisNexis Immigration Community:

Yahm v. Garland, unpublished, 5th Cir., 05-31-22

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Roberto writes:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Lauren Wyatt

Congrats, Lauren!😎👍🏼

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Cindy Carcamo reports for the LA Times:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever! Garland’s dysfunctional, biased, leaderless, soul-less, ethically challenged EOIR, never!

Related posts:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Dan Kowalski reports from LexisNexis Immigration Community:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

From Judge Roth’s opinion:

And concurring Judge Ambro had a harsh assessment of the IJ, the BIA, and most of all A.G. Garland, who has been remarkably “tone deaf” about correcting the grotesque expertise and due process problems in his “wholly owned, astoundingly dysfunctional” Immigration “Courts:”

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

From Justice Gorsuch’s dissent (joined by Justices Breyer, Kagan, & Sotomayor):

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

From ImmigrationProf Blog:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Bob Egelko reports for the SF Chron:

And things are just as bad on the other side of the country. Here’s what the 1st Circuit had to say about the latest mis-step from Garland’s “Star Chambers” on a life or death CAT matter:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

From Jason “The Asylumist” Dzubow:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

“Sir Jeffrey” Chase reports:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts: