Judicial Selection – Page 21 – immigrationcourtside.com

⚖️EOIR GUIDANCE ON ADMINISTRATIVE CLOSING — GOOD, BUT COULD HAVE BETTER! —Why Is A Non-Judge Director (“Senior Court Administrator”) Issuing Non-Binding “Guidance” That Should Have Been In BIA Precedents?

https://www.justice.gov/eoir/book/file/1450351/download

PURPOSE:

OOD DM 22-03

Issued: Nov. 22, 2021 Effective: Immediately

ADMINISTRATIVE CLOSURE

Provide guidance to adjudicators on administrative closure in light of Matter of Cruz-Valdez, 28 I&N Dec. 326 (A.G. 2021)

David L. Neal, Director 8 C.F.R. § 1003.0(b)

On July 15, 2021, the Attorney General issued a precedential decision in Matter of Cruz-Valdez, 28 I&N Dec. 326 (A.G. 2021). In that decision, the Attorney General restored the authority of immigration judges and the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) to administratively close cases. This memorandum discusses the practical implications of the Attorney General’s decision, particularly in light of the Executive Office for Immigration Review’s (EOIR) pending caseload.

II. Administrative Closure to Date

Administrative closure “is a docket management tool that is used to temporarily pause removal proceedings.” Matter of W-Y-U-, 27 I&N Dec. 17, 18 (BIA 2017). An immigration judge’s or appellate immigration judge’s administrative closure of a case “temporarily remove[s] [the] case from [the] Immigration Judge’s active calendar or from the Board’s docket.” Matter of Avetisyan, 25 I&N Dec. 688, 692 (BIA 2012). Administrative closure came into widespread use by EOIR adjudicators in the 1980s. Cases have been administratively closed for a variety of reasons over the years, and the Board has issued several decisions addressing when administrative closure is appropriate. The Board’s two most recent such decisions are Matter of Avetisyan and Matter of W-Y-U-, issued in 2012 and 2017, respectively.

In 2018, Attorney General Sessions issued Matter of Castro-Tum, 27 I&N Dec. 271 (A.G. 2018). He held that, with limited exceptions, “immigration judges and the Board do not have the general authority” to administratively close cases. Matter of Castro-Tum, 27 I&N Dec. at 272. The Third, Fourth, Sixth, and Seventh Circuits subsequently ruled on challenges to Matter of Castro- Tum. A circuit split emerged, with the Third, Fourth, and Seventh Circuits holding that

OWNER:

AUTHORITY: CANCELLATION: None

I. Introduction

1

adjudicators have the general authority to administratively close cases,1 but with the Sixth Circuit holding that adjudicators have the authority to administratively close cases only in limited circumstances.2 In 2020, the Department of Justice (Department) promulgated a final rule that essentially codified Matter of Castro-Tum, restricting EOIR adjudicators’ ability to administratively close cases. See “Appellate Procedures and Decisional Finality in Immigration Proceedings; Administrative Closure,” 85 Fed. Reg. 81588 (Dec. 16, 2020). However, this rule has been preliminarily enjoined nationwide. See Centro Legal de La Raza v. Exec. Office for Immigration Review, 524 F.Supp.3d 919 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 10, 2021).

In Matter of Cruz-Valdez, the Attorney General noted that Matter of Castro-Tum “departed from long-standing practice” by prohibiting administrative closure in the vast majority of circumstances. Matter of Cruz-Valdez, 28 I&N Dec. at 329. He also noted that the Department is “engaged in a reconsideration” of the enjoined 2020 rule. Id. Given these factors, the Attorney General, in Matter of Cruz-Valdez, “overrule[d] [Matter of Castro-Tum] in its entirety,” and he “restore[d] administrative closure” pending the current rulemaking. Id. He specified that, in deciding whether to administratively close cases pending the rulemaking, “except when a court of appeals has held otherwise, immigration judges and the Board should apply the standard for administrative closure set out in Avetisyan and W-Y-U-.” Id.

III. Administrative Closure after Matter of Cruz-Valdez

With administrative closure restored, EOIR adjudicators have the authority, under the Board’s case law, to administratively close a wide variety of cases. Going forward, pending the promulgation of a regulation addressing administrative closure, adjudicators must evaluate requests to administratively close cases under Matter of Avetisyan and Matter of W-Y-U-, as well under as the Board’s case law predating those decisions, to the extent that case law is consistent with those decisions. Adjudicators should accordingly familiarize themselves with Matter of Avetisyan, Matter of W-Y-U-, and the Board’s prior case law addressing administrative closure.

The restoration of administrative closure will assist EOIR adjudicators in managing their dockets given EOIR’s caseload. In Matter of Cruz-Valdez, the Attorney General recognized that administrative closure has in the past “served to facilitate the exercise of prosecutorial discretion, allowing government counsel to request that certain low-priority cases be removed from immigration judges’ active calendars or the Board’s docket, thereby allowing adjudicators to focus on higher-priority cases.” Matter of Cruz-Valdez, 28 I&N Dec. at 327. EOIR has finite resources and a daunting caseload. Given this reality, it is important that adjudicators focus on two categories of cases: those in which the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) deems the respondent to be an immigration enforcement priority,3 and those in which the respondent

1 See Arcos Sanchez v. Att’y Gen., 997 F.3d 113, 121-24 (3d Cir. 2021); Meza Morales v. Barr, 973 F.3d 656, 667 (7th Cir. 2020); Romero v. Barr, 937 F.3d 282, 292-94 (4th Cir. 2019).

2 Specifically, the Sixth Circuit initially held that the regulations do not delegate to immigration judges or the Board the general authority to administratively close cases. Hernandez-Serrano v. Barr, 981 F.3d 459, 466 (6th Cir. 2020) . But the Sixth Circuit later held that the regulations provide adjudicators “the authority for administrative closure” to allow respondents to apply with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services for provisional unlawful presence waivers. Garcia-DeLeon v. Garland, 999 F.3d 986, 991 (6th Cir. 2021).

3 Effective November 29, 2021, DHS’s immigration enforcement priorities are noncitizens DHS deems to pose risks to national security, public safety, and border security. See Memorandum from Alejandro N. Mayorkas, Secretary,

2

desires a full adjudication of his or her claim or claims. Being able to administratively close low priority cases will help adjudicators do this.

Under case law, where DHS requests that a case be administratively closed because a respondent is not an immigration enforcement priority, and the respondent does not object, the request should generally be granted and the case administratively closed. See Matter of Yewondwosen, 21 I&N Dec. 1025, 1026 (BIA 1997) (stating that the parties’ “agreement on an issue or proper course of action should, in most instances, be determinative”); Matter of Cruz-Valdez, 28 I&N Dec. at 327 (recognizing the role of administrative closure in “facilitat[ing] the exercise of prosecutorial discretion”).

Administrative closure is appropriate in many other situations as well. For example, it can be appropriate to administratively close a case to allow a respondent to file an application or petition with an agency other than EOIR. See Matter of Avetisyan, 25 I&N Dec. at 696 (identifying “the likelihood the respondent will succeed on any petition, application, or other action he or she is pursuing outside of removal proceedings” as a factor for adjudicators “to weigh” in evaluating requests for administrative closure); 8 C.F.R. § 212.7(e)(4)(iii) (permitting a respondent in removal proceedings to file a Form I-601A, Application for Provisional Unlawful Presence Waiver, with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services where the “proceedings are administratively closed and have not yet been recalendared at the time of filing the application”). It can also be appropriate to administratively close a case while an agency adjudicates a previously filed application or petition, or, if a visa petition has been approved, while waiting for the visa to become available. See Matter of Avetisyan, 25 I&N Dec. at 696. It is generally appropriate to administratively close a case where a respondent has been granted temporary protected status. See Matter of Sosa Ventura, 25 I&N Dec. 391, 396 (BIA 2010). This is only a partial list; administrative closure can be appropriate in other situations not mentioned here. See Matter of Avetisyan, 25 I&N Dec. at 696 (stating that each request for administrative closure “must be evaluated under the totality of the circumstances of the particular case”).

Where a respondent requests administrative closure, whether in a scenario described above or another scenario where administrative closure is appropriate, and DHS does not object, the request should generally be granted and the case administratively closed. See Matter of Yewondwosen, 21 I&N Dec. at 1026. Where a request for administrative closure is opposed, “the primary consideration . . . is whether the party opposing administrative closure has provided a persuasive reason for the case to proceed and be resolved on the merits.” Matter of W-Y-U-, 27 I&N Dec. at 20. But adjudicators should bear in mind that “neither party has ‘absolute veto power over administrative closure requests.’” Id. at n. 5 (quoting Matter of Avetisyan, 25 I&N Dec. at 692).

Where at all possible, issues involving administrative closure should be resolved in advance of individual calendar hearings and not at hearings. Immigration judges are therefore encouraged to send scheduling orders to parties well before the hearing takes place, inquiring of DHS whether the respondent is an immigration enforcement priority, and otherwise soliciting the parties’ positions on administrative closure and other issues related to prosecutorial discretion. Where

Guidelines for the Enforcement of Civil Immigration Law (Sept. 30, 2021), available at https://www.ice.gov/doclib/news/guidelines-civilimmigrationlaw.pdf.

3

such issues have not been resolved in advance of an individual calendar hearing, the immigration judge should ask DHS counsel on the record at the beginning of the hearing whether the respondent is an immigration enforcement priority. Where DHS counsel responds that the respondent is not a priority, the immigration judge should further ask whether DHS intends to exercise some form of prosecutorial discretion in the case. As part of this colloquy, the 4 immigration judge should ask whether the parties want the case administratively closed.

IV. Conclusion

Administrative closure is a longstanding, and valuable, tool for EOIR adjudicators. As the Attorney General noted in Matter of Cruz-Valdez, the Department is currently engaged in rulemaking that will address adjudicators’ authority to administratively close cases. Pending that rulemaking, adjudicators have the authority under Matter of Cruz-Valdez to administratively close many cases before them when warranted under Board case law. Adjudicators should familiarize themselves with the situations in which administrative closure is appropriate, and adjudicators should be proactive in inquiring whether parties wish for cases to be 5 administratively closed. If you have any questions, please contact your supervisor.

4 There is one potential caveat to the guidance and instructions in this section. As noted above, the Attorney General stated that, pending the promulgation of a regulation addressing administrative closure, immigration judges and the Board should apply the Board’s case law “except when a court of appeals has held otherwise.” Matter of Cruz- Valdez, 28 I&N Dec. at 329. For cases arising in the Sixth Circuit, adjudicators must determine to what extent administrative closure is permitted given that court’s case law, and they must handle issues involving administrative closure accordingly. See Garcia-DeLeon, 999 F.3d 986; Hernandez-Serrano, 981 F.3d 459.

5 This memorandum does not create any legal rights or benefits for either party, and it does not mandate that a particular motion for administrative closure be granted or denied. In all cases, immigration judges and appellate immigration judges must exercise their independent judgment and discretion in adjudicating motions for administrative closure consistent with the law. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.1(d)(1)(ii), 1003.10(b).

4

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

WHAT SHOULD HAVE HAPPENED: Garland should have appointed the “Chen-Markowitz BIA” and empowered them to aggressively clean up the backlog, using administrative closing among others tools (such as referral to USCIS and more favorable precedents requiring the granting of relief in meritorious cases).

https://immigrationcourtside.com/2021/02/04/its-not-rocket-science-%f0%9f%9a%80-greg-chen-professor-peter-markowitz-can-cut-the-immigration-court-backlog-in-half-immediately-with-no-additional-resources-and/

In a properly functioning quasi-judicial system, this same “guidance” should have come in a series of BIA precedents that would require BIA panels and the Article IIIs to enforce compliance among recalcitrant Immigration Judges. That could be accompanied by unilateral action by the BIA to close “deadwood” cases on the appellate docket. Either party could request re-docketing, with a justification. (Hint: In my BIA career, we closed thousands of cases of this way and I could count on one hand the number of “redocketing” motions we received.) Also, in a better system, the Immigration Judges already would be aggressively taking these “common sense” steps. Precedents properly applying asylum, withholding, and CAT would be cutting into the largely “manufactured” backlog.

WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED: Typical Dem timid approach.

Unless the BIA actually believes in this “guidance” (doubtful, given it’s current “packing” with notorious anti-immigrant judges by Sessions and Barr, unaddressed by Garland) and is willing to enforce it and incorporate it into precedents, it won’t achieve its objective of promoting fairness and efficiency! Nor will it significantly reduce the backlog.

Perhaps the “rulemaking” referenced in Director Neal’s memo will solve the problem. But, EOIR’s history of completing such rulemaking, particularly in Dem Administrations, has been less than stellar. See, e.g., Gender-Based Asylum Regs (3 Dem Administrations, 0 Regs); Ineffective Assistance of Counsel Regs (2 Dem Administrations, 0 Regs).

One problem: Dem Administrations often feel compelled to engage in false “dialogue,” look for an unachievable “consensus,” and pay attention to public comments; GOP Administrations simply plow ahead with their preconceived agenda without regard to expert input, public opinion, or empirical data.

Consequently, although Dems have failed over more than two decades to finalize final gender-based asylum regulations, Stephen Miller was able to publish outrageous final regulations eliminating more than two decades of gender-based case law progress in a few months. Fortunately, those regs were promptly enjoined!

Over the past two decades, the GOP has radically “weaponized” EOIR as an enforcement tool. Dems have pretended not to notice and have squandered at least nine years of basically “unrestricted” opportunities to restore some semblance of due process, sanity, and humanity @ EOIR! As my friend Karen Musalo said in her recent LA Times op-ed, “actions speak louder than words.”

EOIR’s latest “actions,” while better than nothing, are unnecessarily ineffective.This is supposed to be a “court system,” not a bureaucratic “agency,” run by “policy directives” and a top-heavy, bloated bureaucracy with fancy-titled “supervisors” and superfluous “program managers.”

Until we get an Attorney General who considers migrants to be persons (humans), views immigrant justice as important, understands what a court is, how it operates, and has the guts to install the practical progressive experts who can make it happen, EOIR will continue to be an embarrassment to American justice.

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

11-27-21

😎👍🗽⚖️🙏🏽🇺🇸🍻🍽THANKSGIVING SPECIAL: BILL BOYARSKY: “SPECIAL REPORT: IMMIGRATION AND THE DUTY TO HELP” — How Universities, Clinics, & The NDPA Are Providing The “Practical Scholarship & Essential Humanitarian Leadership” That Our Government Isn’t! — I’m Thankful For Professor Eagly & All The Other Members Of the NDPA & The Round Table!

Professor Ingrid Eagly
UCLA Law
Blogger, ImmigrationProf Blog
Picture from ImmmigrationProf Blog

Special Report: Immigration and the Duty to Help

From the UCLA Blue Print:

RESEARCH | FALL 2021 ISSUE
SPECIAL REPORT: IMMIGRATION AND THE DUTY TO HELP
“Bringing the university into the streets”
BY BILL BOYARSKY
ACADEMICS, UNIVERSITY STUDENTS and activists are creating an informal network reaching throughout California and beyond to seek justice for the more than 25,000 immigrants held in federal detention centers across the nation. It is eye-opening work and often distressing.
Members of the network struggle to penetrate the secrecy in which Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) shrouds its immigration centers, many located far from attorneys who might be able to help. When the network pierces the concealment, it often finds babies imprisoned with their mothers, random mistreatment by guards and an ever-growing backlog of cases awaiting hearings in immigration court.
“As a state university, we have an obligation to train students who will give back to the state, and immigrants are terribly important. Immigrants contribute greatly to the state,” Ingrid Eagly, a UCLA law professor who is part of the network, told me in a recent telephone interview.
Victor Narro, project director at the UCLA Labor Center and one of Eagly’s network colleagues, put it this way: “We are activist scholars, bringing the university into the streets.”
Championing justice is crucial now, when immigrants are arriving in California and throughout the United States in ever-growing numbers, and it will become ever more urgent as desperate newcomers — refugees hoping for asylum after President Biden’s end to the war in Afghanistan — attempt to enter the country. This is the immediate future of the battle over immigration, one that will shape the future of Los Angeles and the larger nation. It is far from settled.
A Washington Post-ABC News poll in early September showed, for example, general support for the resettlement of Afghans in the United States, after security screening. But granting them entry is likely to anger Americans bitterly opposed to immigration of any kind.
UCLA and beyond
UCLA is at the center of this informal network of professors, students and activists pursuing justice for immigrants. But it is hardly alone.
Immigration clinics at the USC Gould School of Law and Southwestern Law School send students into the community to represent immigrants in deportation hearings. Centers for undocumented students at California State University, San Bernardino, and other Cal State campuses provide gathering places for students and faculty, as well as on-campus locations from which activists can enter the community and fight for those fearing deportation. There are many such examples around the state.
As faculty director of the UCLA Law School’s criminal justice program, Prof. Eagly is deeply involved. She took her students to rural Texas to work with immigrants arrested by federal officers who accused them of illegal entry into the country. The immigrants were jailed by ICE officers after seeking amnesty at the border, or they were caught during raids on their workplaces.
The students went from familiar surroundings at UCLA to ICE’s South Texas Family Residential Center in Dilley, Texas, 70 miles southwest of San Antonio, where the company that runs the center for the federal government had been accused of treating the immigrants as if they were dangerous criminals. The students met with migrants from Guatemala, Mexico, El Salvador, Ecuador and Honduras.
The center is tantamount to a prison for families as they await hearings in which they try to convince an immigration court that they fled their countries because they had feared death or injury at the hands of criminal gangs or corrupt police. These hearings are called “credible fear” interviews. If the immigrants are not persuasive enough, deportation proceedings begin. Like most detention centers, the South Texas facility is far from the immigration lawyers and translators the immigrants need to guide them through the complex process. Among Guatemalans, for example, 22 languages are spoken.
Visiting the South Texas Center gave Eagly’s students a unique experience, she said. “They had deep concerns. We saw babies in arms being detained. We would hear about inadequate health care and mistreatment by guards.” Even though the observers were only law students, Eagly added, the fact that the inmates had any representation at all made a difference in the process and getting people released.
It was an intense introduction to a system bogged down in bureaucracy and shaped by years of hostility toward immigrants, extending through Democratic and Republican administrations. Democrats, fearing an electoral backlash, promoted laws increasing penalties for immigration violations. President Trump, elected as an anti-immigrant crusader, carried them to new extremes. The students learned that the backlog of cases awaiting hearings in immigration court numbered almost 1.4 million, according to Syracuse University’s Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC). Someone seeking a hearing at the Texas center could wait as long as 2.4 years, TRAC said.
When Eagly’s students returned from Texas, they recruited lawyers who would take immigration cases without charge and try to help immigrants through the legal maze.
UCLA SOCIOLOGY PROFESSOR Cecilia Menjivar and her students focused on the inequalities that immigrants found in the United States. For many, it was simply a continuation of the hard life they had left in Central America. “Because it is so difficult to access people in detention, we approached it through lawyers,” Menjivar said. “What we wanted to do was capture the everyday life in detention centers. We wanted to focus on what life is like in detention centers. We also interviewed immigrants who had left detention.”
Menjivar recalled visiting a detention center in Eloy, Arizona, about 65 miles southeast of Phoenix, to attend immigration court. “I had to go through three gates before entering the facility, first a barbed-wire gate, then two [more],” she said. “A guard accompanied me until I got to the courtroom. Six gates or doors [total] to get to the courtroom.
“Immigrants are often moved from one place to another. Lawyers may lose contact with them. Immigrants can’t be found, [are] moved to a different facility, sometimes to a different state. So families have to locate relatives.”
Studying the crisis
Narro, the UCLA Labor Center project director, told me about students venturing into Pico-Union in Los Angeles, where impoverished immigrants from Central America and Mexico crowd into apartments, making it one of America’s densest neighborhoods. Some of the immigrants try to find work in the food industry.
The students enroll in classes such as “Immigrants, Students and Higher Education,” taught by Labor Center Director Kent Wong. From these classes come academic studies like the center’s examination of the impact of robots on food workers. The studies, in turn, help shape legislation on the federal, state and local levels.

“Two summers ago, they did a project on gig workers,” Narro said. “We train students on how to survey workers. They interviewed gig drivers. They collected data and analyzed it, and the information was used by community activists.
“[In that way], the activists become scholars.”
Shannon Speed combines many of the attributes of scholars and activists. Speed is a professor of gender studies and anthropology at UCLA and director of the American Indian Studies Center. She also is a citizen of the Chickasaw Nation of Oklahoma.
The center brings together indigenous American Indian students with faculty, staff, alumni and members of the indigenous community. Its goal is to address American Indian issues and support native communities. It also acts as a bridge between the academy and indigenous peoples locally, nationally and internationally.
One of Speed’s accomplishments has been to lead a successful effort to have Los Angeles adopt Indigenous People’s Day, the largest city to do so. As director of the Community Engagement Center at the University of Texas in Austin, she was one of a corps of volunteers who inspected detention centers.
“We would talk [to immigrants] about how things were, what their needs were, how they came to be there,” she said. “Almost all had been kidnapped for ransom.” Now, Speed said, they had no idea when — or whether — they might be released from detention.
She collected some of their stories in a book, Incarcerated Stories: Indigenous Women Migrants and Violence in the Settler-Capitalist State. The subtitle reflects Speed’s thesis: that European settlers imposed a violent culture on Indians living throughout the length and breadth of South and North America, a violence that continues in the treatment of the indigenous people Speed grew up with and whom she and her students met every day.
“What the stories of indigenous women migrants make evident, above all else,” Speed wrote, “is their strength and resilience as they seek to free themselves of the oppression and violence that mark their lives.”
These are the lessons, learned in migrant communities, that students and their academic and activist mentors will take with them as the United States meets its ongoing challenge of immigration, with its newest confrontation: this one between those who approve of Afghan resettlement and those who do not.
There is work left to do: Even as Americans have voiced their sympathy for Afghans who helped U.S. soldiers fight the 20-year war in Afghanistan, the Post-ABC News poll shows that 27% of Americans oppose resettling Afghans here.
IN TOPICS: BIDEN CIVIL RIGHTS FAMILIES IMMIGRATION SANCTUARY TRUMP
TAGGED:IMMIGRATION, PUBLIC POLICY, UCLA

Bill Boyarsky

Veteran American Journalist & Author

PHOTO: UCLA

BILL BOYARSKY
Boyarsky is a veteran journalist and author. He was with the L.A. Times for 31 years, serving as city editor, city county bureau chief, political reporter and columnist. He is the author of several books, including: “Inventing LA, The Chandlers and Their Times.”

Republished with author’s permission.

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

Thanks, Bill, for forwarding this great and timely article!😎👍

Courtside recently has highlighted the extraordinary efforts of other All-Star 🌟 Immigration Clinics at Wisconsin, Cornell, and George Washington.

https://immigrationcourtside.com/2021/04/25/%EF%B8%8Fndpa-news-superstar–clinical-prof-erin-barbato-named-clinical-teacher-of-the-year-u-w-law/

https://immigrationcourtside.com/2021/10/21/more-ndpa-news-immigration-guru-professor-stephen-yale-loehr-cornell-immigration-clinic-help-afghan-refugees-with-humanitarian-parole-requests/

https://immigrationcourtside.com/2021/11/19/%EF%B8%8F-of-course-great-lawyering-makes-a-difference-in-immigration-court-only-nativists-former-director-mchenry-would-bogusly-claim-otherwise/

These are just a few of the many law schools across our nation that have answered the call for due process and human dignity for all migrants in America!

I’ve made the point many times that Professor Eagly and other leaders of the NDPA like her are the folks who rightfully should be on the BIA, the Immigration Judiciary, and in the key “sub-cabinet” policy positions at DOJ & DHS. These are critical jobs that generally do not require the delays and inefficiencies associated with Presidential appointments.

I’m thankful for Professor Eagly, her students, and all of the other extraordinary members of the NDPA and the Round Table for courageously and steadfastly standing tall every day for due process for all persons in the U.S., regardless of race, creed, gender, or status! Also, as I always tell my students, I’m personally thankful: 1) that I woke up this morning; and 2) that I’m not a refugee!

Additionally, my condolences ☹️ to UCLA “Bruin Nation” 🐻 for the drubbing their (previously) #2 Men’s hoopsters took at the hands of #1 Gonzaga Tuesday night!🏀

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS
11-25-21

🏴‍☠️👎🏽MORE REBUKES FOR GARLAND’S INEPT BIA, ASHCROFT: 1st Cir. Questions Ashcroft’s Matter Of Y-L-, 23 I&N Dec. 370 (AG 2002) Even As OIL Disavows BIA’s (Non) Analysis — 11th Slams BIA’s Unreasonable Rejection Of Future Persecution, Withholding, CAT For Sri Lankan!

From Dan Kowalski @ LexisNexis Immigration Community:

https://www.lexisnexis.com/LegalNewsRoom/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/ca1-puts-a-dent-in-matter-of-y-l–decarvalho-v-garland#

CA1 Puts a Dent in Matter of Y-L-: DeCarvalho v. Garland

DeCarvalho v. Garland

“The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) held that Janito DeCarvalho’s conviction for possession of oxycodone with intent to distribute in violation of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 94C, § 32A(a), constitutes a “particularly serious crime” that makes him ineligible for withholding of removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(B)(ii). The BIA also denied DeCarvalho’s application for deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). DeCarvalho petitions for review of the BIA’s decisions, principally arguing that the Attorney General’s decision in Matter of Y-L- unlawfully presumes that all aggravated felonies involving trafficking in controlled substances are particularly serious crimes. See 23 I. & N. Dec. 270, 274–75 (U.S. Att’y Gen. 2002). We deny his petition for review insofar as he seeks CAT relief. We grant the petition in part, however, because the immigration judge (IJ) informed DeCarvalho, who was proceeding pro se, that he was eligible for potential relief only under the CAT. In so doing, the IJ treated DeCarvalho’s conviction for drug trafficking as if it were a per se bar to withholding of removal, a position that the government now disavows on appeal. We remand to the agency with instructions to give DeCarvalho a new hearing to determine whether he is entitled to withholding of removal.”

[Hats off to Trina Realmuto, Tiffany Lieu, and Jennifer Klein!]

***********

https://www.lexisnexis.com/LegalNewsRoom/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/ca11-on-future-persecution-cat-jathursan-v-atty-gen#

CA11 on Future Persecution, CAT: Jathursan v. Atty. Gen.

Jathursan v. Atty. Gen.

“Pathmanathan Jathursan, a native and citizen of Sri Lanka, seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) final order affirming the immigration judge’s denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (“CAT”). The BIA found no clear error in the immigration judge’s findings that Jathursan failed to establish (1) past persecution on account of a protected ground, (2) a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of a protected ground, or (3) that he would more likely than not be tortured in the event he returned to Sri Lanka. Following oral argument, we grant Jathursan’s petition for review in part, vacate the BIA’s order in part, and remand to the BIA for further consideration of his asylum and withholding-of-removal claims based on his fear of future persecution as a Tamil failed asylum seeker. We also vacate and remand on the BIA’s denial of relief under CAT.”

[Hats off to Visuvanathan Rudrakumaran!]

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

What’s the “worst of all worlds?” Let’s try a ”holdover BIA” still channeling Trump/Miller biased nativist restrictionism combined with a Dem AG with infinite tolerance for substandard judging, an anti-immigrant culture, and bad decision making that disproportionately adversely affects people of color! 😎 Add that to an out of control, largely self-created, jaw-dropping 1.5 million case backlog and you get a formula for national disaster!

These “TRAC Lowlights” show a totally unacceptable and inept performance by the DOJ and Judge Garland that should have every American who believes in due process, equal justice, and “good government” outraged and demanding a change at DOJ! https://trac.syr.edu/immigration/quickfacts/?category=eoir

Highlights from data updated today on immigrants facing deportation in court include the following:

Immigration Courts recorded receiving 49,817 new cases so far in FY 2022 as of October 2021. This compares with 21,154 cases that the court completed during this period.

According to court records, only 0.68% of FY 2022 new cases sought deportation orders based on any alleged criminal activity of the immigrant, apart from possible illegal entry.

At the end of October 2021, 1,486,495 active cases were pending before the Immigration Court.

Los Angeles County, CA, has the most residents with pending Immigration Court deportation cases (as of the end of October 2021).

So far this fiscal year (through October 2021), immigration judges have issued removal and voluntary departure orders in 24.7% of completed cases, totaling 5,232 deportation orders.

So far in FY 2022 (through October 2021), immigrants from Guatemala top list of nationalities with the largest number ordered deported.

Only 20.7% of immigrants, including unaccompanied children, had an attorney to assist them in Immigration Court cases when a removal order was issued.

Immigration judges have held 2,011 bond hearings so far in FY 2022 (through October 2021). Of these 714 were granted bond.

You don’t have to be a Rhodes Scholar to see how an undisciplined system run by clueless politicos and bureaucrats (rather than judges and experts) that takes in more cases than it can decide, picks on unrepresented individuals, deports large numbers of Guatemalans to a country that is clearly in crisis, and grants bond to only 1/3 of the custody cases even with a minuscule percentage of so-called “criminal immigrants” in proceedings is failing, miserably, every day.

What’s even worse, is that there is NO credible plan to fix this! NONE! Throwing more bodies into the maelstrom, poorly thought out proposed asylum regulations, dedicated dockets, and misuse of Title 42 to block proper access to those seeking asylum and other forms of legal protection won’t do the trick. No qualified expert would propose any of the foregoing as the solution to fairly and legally reducing backlogs. That tells us all we need to. know about the qualifications of the folks “pulling the strings” on immigration in the Biden Administration.

The message: The GOP hates immigrants, and the Dems disrespect them!

We’ll see whether the Biden Administration’s contemptuous treatment of immigrants, their families, communities, and supporters, particularly their failure to “clean up, clean out, and reform” their wholly owned “courts” at EOIR, proves to be a great political strategy. Frankly, I can’t see how dumping on a key group of supporters from the last successful election proves to be a “winner” in 2022 or 2024!

The extraordinary quality of the work done by the NDPA all-stars 🌟highlighted above by Dan speaks for itself, as does the unacceptably poor quality of the legal work done by EOIR and a BIA that is bogusly presenting itself as “experts.” Obviously, as has been clear from the beginning of the Biden Administration, the wrong people are on the BIA and Team Garland has disgracefully failed to do the serious and gutsy “recruitment and replacement” necessary to fix this dysfunctional EOIR system and save lives!

The absolute disaster for our legal system and the reprehensible result of Garland & Co’s failure to “pull the plug” on the “Miller Lite BIA” and to make wholesale merit-based positive changes in the recruitment, selection, and composition of the Immigration Judiciary will go down as a legacy that not only will reflect ill on Garland and his lieutenants, but will also be a major factor promoting the failure of American democracy.

You can tell a lot about the values of a society by the way it treats the most vulnerable among it. Right now, sadly, that’s “nothing to write home about!”🤮

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

11-18-21

😎🗽ASYLUM GRANT RATES REBOUND MODESTLY UNDER BIDEN AFTER FOUR YEARS OF SYSTEMIC ARTIFICIAL WHITE NATIONALIST REPRESSION UNDER TRUMP, EVEN AS NUMBER OF ASYLUM DECISIONS RECEDES — Grant Rates Still Lag Far Behind FY 2012 When Well Over 50% Were Granted, Showing Inexcusable “Lost Decade” In EOIR’s Asylum Adjudications & Proper Legal Development Of Asylum Law!

Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse

Asylum Grant Rates Climb Under Biden

Under the new Biden administration, asylum seekers are seeing greater success rates in securing asylum. While relief grant rates had fallen ever lower during the Trump years to just 29 percent in FY 2020, they rose to 37 percent in FY 2021 under President Biden.

However, with the ongoing partial Court shutdown during the COVID-19 pandemic, there has been a sustained drop in the number of asylum decisions. Even with the greater odds of success, the number of asylum seekers who were granted asylum during FY 2021 was only 8,349 with an additional 402 granted another type of relief in place of asylum. In sheer numbers, this was only about half the number of asylum seekers who had been granted relief during FY 2020, the final year of the Trump administration.

The improved asylum grant rates during FY 2021 began only after the new Biden administration took office at the end of January 2021. Tracking asylum grant rates month-by-month rather than year-by-year, the increase in asylum grant rates under President Biden for the last quarter of FY 2021 (July-September 2021) was even larger: asylum seekers’ success rates climbed to 49 percent. Not only was this much higher than at any period during the Trump years, the asylum success rate was up five percentage points from 44 percent during the last quarter of the Obama administration.

Historically, asylum seekers have had greater success in the Immigration Court for affirmative as compared with defensive asylum cases. At one time, the majority of asylum applications decided by Immigration Judges were affirmative cases referred by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). However, most asylum applications today are considered defensive applications and filed in response to the Department of Homeland Security initiating removal proceedings in Immigration Court.

Asylum seekers who are represented by an attorney – as most are in affirmative asylum cases – have greatly increased odds of winning asylum or other forms of relief from deportation. For all Court decisions in FY 2021, nearly nine out of ten (89%) asylum seekers in affirmative and defensive cases were represented. This was clearly a vital factor in improving overall asylum success rates since in the prior year, FY 2020, representation rates were 80 percent or nine (9) percentage points lower.

Read the full report – the first in a two-part series – to obtain many more details about trends in Immigration Court asylum decisions over the past two decades at:

https://trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/667

The impact of gender, age, language, and nationality will be covered in the second report in this two-part series. Readers need not wait to probe these and many more details on asylum decisions using TRAC’s free web query tool — now updated through September 2021 and expanded to cover gender, age, and language details. As before users can also drill in to see how decisions vary geographically, by state, Immigration Court, and hearing location. Go to:

https://trac.syr.edu/phptools/immigration/asylum/

To examine a variety of Immigration Court data, including asylum data, the backlog, MPP, and more now updated through September 2021, use TRAC’s Immigration Court tools here:

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

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

https://tracfed.syr.edu/cgi-bin/tracuser.pl?pub=1

Follow us on Twitter at:

https://twitter.com/tracreports

or like us on Facebook:

https://facebook.com/tracreports

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

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

David Burnham and Susan B. Long, co-directors

Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse

Syracuse University

601 E. Genesee Street

Syracuse, NY 13202-3117

315-443-3563

trac@syr.edu

https://trac.syr.edu

The Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse is a nonpartisan joint research center of the Whitman School of Management (https://whitman.syr.edu) and the Newhouse School of Public Communications (https://newhouse.syr.edu) at Syracuse University. If you know someone who would like to sign up to receive occasional email announcements and press releases, they may go to https://trac.syr.edu and click on the E-mail Alerts link at the bottom of the page. If you do not wish to receive future email announcements and wish to be removed from our list, please send an email to trac@syr.edu with REMOVE as the subject.

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

Here’s some historical perspective. When the Refugee Act of 1980 was enacted, the INS took the position that the standard of proof for asylum was the same as the “traditional” standard for the pre-existing relief of withholding of deportation. That was a “clear probability,” of persecution, which means “more likely than not.”

Because this was a high standard that had been “over-rigorously applied” to deny almost all withholding cases (refugees from communism — Other Than Chinese — were about the only folks who had any chance of being granted withholding, and that was rare) the asylum grant rate remained very low for the first six years following enactment of the Refugee Act. In 1987, that grant rate was only approximately 11%.

In 1987, the Supreme Court decided INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421 (1987). (As the Acting General Counsel/Deputy General Counsel of INS, I had helped the Solicitor General prepare and articulate the Government’s position. My future Immigration Court friend and colleague, Judge Dana Leigh Marks, then known as Dana Marks Keener, argued for Ms. Cardoza-Fonseca. I sat at counsel’s table with the “SG’s Team” during the oral argument before the Court. Shortly thereafter, I left INS to go into private practice at Jones Day.)

To the surprise of many of us, the Supremes soundly rejected the INS position and ruled in favor of Ms. Cardoza-Fonseca. The Court said that a “well-founded fear” of persecution was intended to be a much more generous standard, significantly less than a probability and including a “10% chance” of persecution.

Thereafter, the BIA issued a precedent implementing the “well founded fear” standard as “significantly less than a probability” — an “objectively reasonable” fear of persecution — in Matter of Mogharrabi, 19 I&N Dec. 437 (BIA 1987). Mogharrabi also stood out as one of the very few BIA precedents up to that time actually granting, rather than denying asylum on appeal. (When I returned to Government service in 1995 as Chairman of the BIA, I was a “true believer” in making the as yet “unfulfilled promise of Cardoza and Mogharrabi” a reality! That’s still at the top of my “Due Process Forever Wish List!”)

In the immediate aftermath, while “parroting” the Cardoza and Mogharrabi generous standards, most Immigration Judges and BIA panels appeared to actually continue to apply the more restrictive “probability” or “more likely than not” standard. But, over time, the Circuit Courts of Appeals and sometimes even Board Members (most often in dissent) began “calling out” EOIR Judges for what appeared to be an intentional misapplication of the asylum standard.

A regulation change to provide a “rebuttable presumption of future persecution” arising out of past persecution also helped. That is, once the Article III Courts forced EOIR judges to actually apply, rather than ignore or disingenuously “work around,” the regulatory presumption. See generally, Matter of Chen, 20 I&N Dec. 16 (BIA 1989) (particularly the concurring opinion by Judge Michael J. Heilman) for the “Bush I Era” historical impetus for the past persecution regulations. Ironically, the BIA sometimes had trouble “following up” on the generous teachings of their own Chen precedent.

Additionally, Judge Marks and other trained asylum experts from outside the Government who joined the Immigration Court prior to 2001 began actually applying the correct standard to grant asylum. (By stark contrast, Sessions and Barr “stacked and packed” the BIA with some of the most virulent anti-asylum judges in America while appointing far too many individuals with no immigration or asylum expertise whatsoever to be Immigration Judges at the trial level. The idea was to “build the deportation railroad” 🚂 with the BIA and Immigration Court as “mere whistle stops,” at best.)

Consequently, over time, between 1987 and 2013, there was a slow but steady increase in asylum grant rates as Courts and some Immigration Judges and BIA Members pushed EOIR to finally “live up” to the more generous Cardoza/Mogharrabi standard. A number of those who helped this push for justice for asylum seekers are now members of our “Round Table of Former Immigration Judges!”🛡⚔️

The world certainly was a dangerous place for refugees in the years leading up to FY 2012, when asylum grants actually reached their “high water mark” of well over 50%. But, it has gotten even more dangerous over the past decade.

That, until recently, asylum grant rates had steadily declined since FY 2012 while conditions for refugees continued to worsen shows that the EOIR system is largely about politically driven enforcement manipulation rather than a test of reality or a fair, efficient, competent, and legally sound approach to asylum law.

The modest but welcome rise in asylum approval rates under Biden happened notwithstanding a BIA that continues to churn out unduly and intentionally restrictive precedents and to botch basic asylum decisions on a regular basis! It also occurred under an Attorney General who has largely “looked the other way” and exhibited indifference as the BIA (composed mostly of “holdover” Trump-era appointees or “survivors” of the Trump regime) continues to abuse asylum seekers.

Lawyers and applicants who have kept fighting for their rights in a system designed to railroad and demoralize them deserve much credit for the improved results and for constantly battling to expose the “Garland BIA’s” gross deficiencies to the Article III Circuit Courts. That’s what the “New Due Process Army” is all about!

Just think what the asylum grant rate might look like with a better BIA of independent expert judges who consistently provided positive precedents and guidance on asylum law and consistently enforced them against those Immigration Judges who have improperly and unethically created “Asylum Free Zones” in some jurisdictions!

Think of how many lives could be saved with better judges at the trial, and particularly the appellate, levels of EOIR! Backlogs and unnecessary litigation would also begin to decrease — without bogus and wasteful “enforcement gimmicks” like Garland’s “Dedicated Dockets” designed and implemented from above by disconnected, sometimes clueless, bureaucrats as a toxic example of backlog-building “Aimless Docket Reshuffling!”

Not rocket science! 🚀 Too bad nobody at Garland’s DOJ appears to care much about human lives and taxpayer dollars going down the drain on an unfair, backlogged, and stunningly dysfunctional asylum system at EOIR and on the Southern Border. ☹️

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

11-10-21

☹️👎🏽BUMBLING BIA BADLY BUNGLES BASICS, AGAIN! — Applies Wrong Standard In Seeking To Reverse Valid CAT Grant — Obviously Frustrated 3rd Cir. Reinstates IJ Decision Following BIA’s Inept Attempt @ Appellate Review! — Arreaga Bravo v. A.G.

Woman Tortured — The BIA’s blunders in trying to help out their “partners” @ DHS Enforcement can sometimes seem almost comical. But, they are no laughing matter to those facing persecution or torture as a result! Why is Garland indifferent to life-threatening injustice in his courts?
Amazing StoriesArtist Unknown, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

https://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/203300p.pdf

Key Quote from Judge Greenaway’s decision:

Given the strength and rigor of the IJ’s underlying opinion, along with the BIA having exceeded its proper scope of review, we will vacate the BIA’s final order of removal and remand with instructions to reinstate the IJ’s opinion.

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

There is the good, the bad, the ugly, and the absurdly horrible. This latest BIA travesty falls in the latter category.

Not surprisingly, the Circuit opinion quotes liberally from the BIA’s insipid, mealy-mouthed “bureaucratic double-speak” language! To paraphrase my BIA colleague the late Judge Fred Vacca, thank goodness the 3rd Circuit finally put an end to this “pathetic attempt at appellate adjudication.”

Interesting that rather than remanding to give the BIA a chance to deny again on some newly invented specious basis, the court just reinstated the IJ opinion. There should be a message here! But, Garland and his lieutenants aren’t “getting it!”

This case illustrates deep systemic and personnel problems that Garland has failed to address. Instead of summarily dismissing the DHS’s frivolous appeal with a strong warning condemning it, these types of bad BIA decisions contribute to the unnecessary backlog and both encourage and reward frivolous actions by the DHS.

Additionally, reversing, for specious reasons, a well-done and clearly correct IJ decision granting relief, just to carry out the wishes of DHS Enforcement and political bosses, is intended to discourage respondents and their attorneys while unethically steering Immigration Judges toward a “norm of denial.”

Abused women of color from the Northern Triangle have been particular targets of the EOIR’s seriously skewed anti-immigrant adjudications. This makes the Garland DOJ’s claims to be a “champion of racial justice” ring all the more hollow and disingenuous in every context. There will be no racial justice in America without radical EOIR reform!

What ever happened to our first ever woman of color Veep? Hypothesize that one of the BIA Appellate Immigration Judges responsible for this mess had come before the Senate Judiciary Committee for confirmation. Wouldn’t you have had some questions about judicial qualifications? So, why is it OK to continue to employ them in untenured Executive Branch quasi-judicial positions where they exercise life or death power over many of the most vulnerable among us, overwhelmingly persons of color, many women, lots of them unrepresented! Kamala Harris, where are you?

It’s all part of an improper “culture of denial” at EOIR, led and “enforced” by the BIA. Garland has disgracefully failed to come to grips with the “anti-due process” that he fosters every day that the “Miller Lite Holdover BIA” remains in their appellate positions.

For heavens sake, with unnecessary “TV Adjudication Centers” coming out EOIR’s ears, reassign these purveyors of bad law and appellate injustice to those lower “courts” where they can do less cosmic damage and real, better qualified appellate judges can “keep on eye” on them!

I keep thinking (or perhaps hoping) that eventually Circuits will tire of continually redoing the BIA’s sloppy work product and then having the cases come back again, sometimes years later, denied on yet another bogus ground!

On the flip side, Judge Garland seems to have infinite “patience” with well-documented substandard performance and painfully obvious anti-immigrant, pro-DHS bias on the part of his BIA.

Wrongful denial of CAT costs lives and can improperly condemn individuals to gruesome and painful death! This is no way to run a court system! I guess it’s easier to “tolerate” lousy judicial performance when you aren’t the one being unfairly and illegally condemned to torture!

Past time for a “line change” in Falls Church!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

10-29-21

⚖️👩🏻‍⚖️👩🏽‍⚖️👨🏾‍⚖️👨🏻‍⚖️ GARLAND FINALLY SHOWS SOME PROGRESS ON QUALITY IMMIGRATION JUDGE HIRING — 2/3 of 24 Appointments Have Prior Immigration Practice & Almost Half (11) Have Recent Experience Representing Individuals In Immigration Court, A Substantial Improvement In A Flailing System!

After an extremely disappointing start, Attorney General Merrick Garland is finally bringing some much needed balance and immigration expertise to his broken, dysfunctional, hopelessly backlogged, and overall reeling Immigration Courts. He appears to be at least partially heeding the advice of experts and tapping into the deep pool of private sector, NGO, and clinical program talent to improve the balance, professionalism, fairness, and efficiency of the U.S. Immigration Courts.

After years of a toxic combination of neglect, mismanagement, outright “weaponization,” and poor to haphazard judicial selections biased against well-qualified immigration and Immigration Court experts from the private/NGO/academic sectors, the latest round of judicial hiring by Garland shows a more appropriate and diverse balance of private sector experts, government employees with relevant immigration experience, and those with other types of judicial experience.

Here’s the complete list of 24 new Immigration Judges from EOIR:

https://www.justice.gov/eoir/page/file/1444911/download

For me, personally, two names particular “jumped out.” First, “NDPA All-Star”🌟 Judge Rebecca J. Walters, until recently the Managing Attorney at nonprofit AYUDA’s Virginia Office, will be Assistant Chief Immigration Judge at the Arlington Immigration Court! (Full disclosure: I am on the AYUDA Advisory Board.) Her “specialty” at AYUDA was litigation on behalf of SIJS applicants before both immigration agencies and the Virginia State Courts.

Judge Rebecca Walters — Hon. Rebecca J. Walters
Assistant Chief Immigration Judge
Arlington, VA
PHOTO: AYUDA

Rebecca and her colleagues appeared before me at the Arlington Immigration Court. Among many other things, she was legal intern at our court while a student at the Washington College of Law at American University. We’ve all come a long way since the days when Rebecca and her fellow interns and JLCs used to “run the stairs” with Judge John Milo Bryant and me when our court was at Ballston, VA!

The second notable appointment is Judge Louis Gordon, until recently of Los Angeles, now at the San Francisco Immigraton Court. He is the son of the late beloved Immigration Judge Nate Gordon. As I mentioned in an obit for his father in Courtside, Louis, then a highly regarded private attorney, argued before the BIA when we visited Los Angeles during my tenure as BIA Chair.

https://immigrationcourtside.com/2019/01/17/in-memorium-judge-nate-gordon-one-of-the-good-guys-tribute-by-carl-shusterman-esquire/

Congrats to Judge Walters, Judge Gordon, and the other recent selections.

Don’t get me wrong! It’s going to take more — much, much more — than a few better judicial appointments to right the rapidly sinking ship at Garland’s EOIR. But, at least it appears to be progress. And, every voice of expertise, fairness, due process, and humanity in a system seriously lacking in all the foregoing qualities helps save lives and generate some energy for systemic improvements, in both “culture” and actual judicial performance, that have long been missing at EOIR.

Yes, although the honchos at the top of EOIR’s “Management Pyramid” would have you believe otherwise, practical, positive change can often come from below in any organization, even one as totally and completely screwed up as EOIR!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

10-28-21

☠️👎🏽GARLAND EOIR’S DISTURBINGLY BAD ANALYSIS IN YET ANOTHER ASYLUM CASE “OUTED” BY FIRST CIRCUIT! — Lopez Troche v. Garland

Dan Kowalski reports for LexisNexis Immigration Community:

http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/20-1718P-01A.pdf

https://www.lexisnexis.com/LegalNewsRoom/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/ca1-on-credibility-lopez-troche-v-garland#

“Mario Rene Lopez Troche (“Lopez Troche”), a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) that affirms the denial of his application for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We vacate and remand. … [T]he record does not reveal the claimed inconsistency between the testimony and the reasonable fear interview as to Lopez Troche’s reporting to police that the BIA identified. The BIA cited to three portions of Lopez Troche’s testimony in support of its determination that the IJ did not clearly err in finding an inconsistency between what Lopez Troche told the asylum officer during his reasonable fear interview and how he testified as to the reporting of past abuse. But, none of those passages supports the BIA’s determination. … Nor is it possible to read either the BIA or the IJ to have inferred from Lopez Troche’s failure to report to the police the specific incidents that he discussed in his testimony that he was asserting in that testimony that did not report any incidents of abuse ever. Neither the IJ’s opinion nor the BIA’s expressly purports to premise its ruling as to adverse credibility on the basis of such inferential reasoning, see Chenery, 318 U.S. at 95, and we do not see what basis there would be for drawing that inference on this record, given that, in his reasonable fear interview, declaration, and testimony, Lopez Troche discussed a series of traumatic physical and sexual assaults that he had experienced that appears to have stretched back to a time when he was eight years old and that thus encompassed many more incidents than those addressed specifically in the portions of his testimony on which the BIA focused. As a result, we must vacate and remand the BIA’s order affirming the denial of Lopez Troche’s request for withholding of removal.”

[Hats way off to PAIR Project Legal Director Elena Noureddine and Staff Attorney Irene Freidel!]

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

Law students and attorneys of the NDPA are out there helping refugees every day. Meanwhile, over at Garland’s dysfunctional EOIR, Immigration Judges and BIA Appellate Immigration Judges strain to improperly “diddle the record” to deny relief to asylum seekers! Then, OIL defends them!

Essentially, in this case, the BIA “made it up and misrepresented the record” in an effort to deny asylum for specious reasons! Then, OIL tried to “blow it by” the Circuit!

“[T]he record does not reveal the claimed inconsistency between the testimony and the reasonable fear interview as to Lopez Troche’s reporting to police that the BIA identified.” That’s “judgespeak” for: The BIA invented non-existent “inconsistencies” to unfairly deny asylum. Then, OIL defended that fabrication and denial of due process! What does this say about Garland’s leadership at DOJ?

Whatever happened to legal and judicial ethics? Clearly they were “deep sixed” under Sessions and Barr. But, why is Garland continuing to operate DOJ as an “ethics and quality free zone?”

This is a bad system with the wrong folks in too many judicial and leadership positions and presenting an overwhelming need for robust, bold change in how decisions are made and defended in Circuit Court. So far, Garland has not made the fundamental personnel changes and “quality upgrades” necessary to bring due process and some semblance of expertise and order back to his broken Immigration Courts! Why not?

Why are the kind of individuals who should be Immigration Judges and EOIR judicial leaders, talented lawyers like Elena and Irene, still “on the outside” rather than being actively recruited and brought in to replace those unable to perform judicial, administrative, and litigation duties in a fair, expert manner, that enhances due process? Why is EOIR still operating with a “judiciary” the majority of whom were installed by the Trump regime at Justice to “dehumanize, deport, and deter” without regard for due process? Why is OIL continuing to “defend the indefensible?” Why isn’t Congress asking Garland these questions?

Government lacking in expertise, intellectual honesty, professional ethics, and accountability is “bad government.” That’s true no matter which party holds power!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

10-21-21

🍅MORE ROTTEN TOMATOES FOR GARLAND, SESSIONS: NDPA SUPERSTAR 🦸🏻‍♂️🌟 BEN WINOGRAD CREAMS GARLAND’S BIA, OIL IN 4TH CIR! — Sessions’s Wrong Matter of S-O-G- & F-D-B- (Illegally Denying Authority To Terminate) Falls, As OIL Argues Nonsensical Position — Garland’s Continuing Wasteful Failure To Get Control Of Immigration Bureaucracy @ DOJ Squanders Time & Resources, Puzzles Article IIIs, Promotes Arbitrary & Capricious “Justice” @ Justice! — Chavez-Gonzalez v. Garland

Here’s the complete opinion by Judge Thacker, joined by Judges Floyd & Harris:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1MwZtKE73ucoEVTR9HOZcqUWxTB6RfyxK/view?usp=sharing

Here’s my favorite quote from Judge Thacker’s opinion, highlighting Garland’s out of control DOJ immigration bureaucracy!

This case was argued on September 21, 2021, more than two months after Matter of Cruz-Valdez, 28 I&N Dec. 326 (AG 2021), where AG Garland had refuted Sessions’s legal reasoning! Moreover, the 4th Circuit itself had pointed out the legal flaws in overruling Session’s abominable Castro-Tum, his abuse of AG authority that began this whole sorry episode in American jurisprudence. Yet, OIL argued this case as if nothing had happened and “Gonzo” Sessions were still in charge!

Looking to the character and context of the Government’s litigating position — in stark contrast to its recent regulatory position explained below — we are quite frankly puzzled that the Government currently stands in support of Attorney General Sessions’s decision in Matter of S-O-G-, particularly in light of the fact that Matter of S-O-G- relies heavily on Castro-Tum, which is no longer good law.

To begin with, this court has overruled Castro-Tum in Romero, in which we relied on the broad language of 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.10(b) and 1003.1(d)(1)(ii) to hold that the immigration courts possess the authority to administratively close cases. Indeed, the fact that Castro-Tum has been overruled should not only begin the analysis here, but it should definitively end it.

But, beyond the fact that Castro-Tum is now defunct, Attorney General Garland no longer takes the position set forth in Castro-Tum and has since disavowed the idea that the IJs and BIA cannot administratively close proceedings. In Matter of Cruz-Valdez, Attorney General Garland decided, “Because Castro-Tum departed from long-standing practice, it is appropriate to overrule that opinion in its entirety and restore administrative closure” authority to the agency. Matter of Cruz-Valdez, 28 I. & N. Dec. 326, 329 (A.G. 2021). In doing so, Attorney General Garland noted “three courts of appeals have rejected Castro- Tum” and held that administrative closure is “‘plainly within an [IJ]’s authority’ under Department of Justice regulations.” Id. at 328 (citing Arcos Sanchez v. Att’y Gen. U.S. of

Am., 997 F.3d 113, 121–22 (3d Cir. 2021); Meza Morales v. Barr, 973 F.3d 656, 667 (7th 18

USCA4 Appeal: 20-1924 Doc: 54 Filed: 10/20/2021 Pg: 19 of 26

Cir. 2020) (Barrett, J.); Romero, 937 F.3d at 292). Indeed, “[o]nly one court of appeals has upheld Castro-Tum.” Id. (citing Hernandez-Serrano v. Barr, 981 F.3d 459, 464 (6th Cir. 2020). “[B]ut even that court subsequently ruled that [IJs] and the [BIA] do have authority to grant administrative closure in order to permit a noncitizen to apply for a provisional unlawful presence waiver.” Id. (citing Garcia-DeLeon v. Garland, 999 F.3d 986, 991–93 (6th Cir. 2021)). Attorney General Garland’s position on administrative closure in Matter of Cruz-Valdez (and the reasoning behind it) calls into question the Government’s position in this matter and Matter of S-O-G- that IJs and the BIA do not have the inherent authority to terminate proceedings.3

The obvious answer here is that Garland has failed to take the necessary steps to replace the BIA and bring new leadership to OIL.

This should have been “Week One Stuff” after Garland assumed office! Instead, the EOIR system continues to careen out of control, clog the Article III judiciary with semi-frivolous litigation, and destroy human lives!

How many wrongly-treated respondents are fortunate enough to have Ben Winograd take up their cause, or indeed to have any legal assistance at all? How many can even get to the Court of Appeals to correct Garland’s errors?

The continued dysfunction at EOIR & DOJ is a humanitarian crisis and a threat to our legal system and American democracy! It’s high time for Judge Garland to wake up and treat this mess like the existential crisis it is!

Congrats again to Ben Winograd! Obviously, Garland should have recruited real immigration experts like Ben to be on the BIA or supervise OIL to get this system back on track. Why hasn’t he?

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

10-20-21

IMMIGRATIONPROF BLOG: Law Student Essay Captures Essence Of Problem In Immigration Courts: “Not all judges should be immigration judges. Sometimes being a judge is just not for everyone, period.” Structural Problems, Indefensible Personnel Decisions, Byzantine Bureaucracy Continue To Plague Garland’s Broken Courts!☠️

https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/immigration/2021/10/good-judge-bad-judge.html

Guest blogger: Kelsea Villanueva, law student, University of San Francisco

Not all judges should be immigration judges. Sometimes being a judge is just not for everyone, period. Bad attitudes and questionable decision making within the immigration courts often cause the most noise because the impact is often more than a rude remark. While I do not believe problematic judges make up the whole picture of immigration courts, just one bad judge can be enough to impact the lives of many, and I only wonder whether it is the system that perpetuates behavior, the history and beliefs of immigration, or both that give rise to bad experiences.

Surprisingly in our own city, San Francisco Judge Nicholas Ford was the subject of a complaint that was sent to the U.S. Justice Department for being hostile and having biased treatment of immigrants in the courtroom. The accusations stated that he belittled migrants’ stories and struggles by making inappropriate comments. One account stated that he said “I can tell an indigent person when I see one, and you can afford an attorney” in response to someone who claimed they could not pay. Many accounts also made it a point to mention that he had previously been criticized for jailing a pregnant woman without bail for a nonviolent crime – this gives an idea of his character in court. When he was first appointed by the Attorney General under the Trump administration, Ford had been a judge in the criminal justice system and apparently had no prior immigration law experience. Other judges that have similar backgrounds can take biases from the criminal justice system and bring them into the immigration law field. There is the risk that the treatment of criminals becomes synonymous with the treatment of immigrants.

Even if judges like Ford represent a minority, the behavior exhibited by him is not unusual in immigration courts. In Jacinto v. INS, 208 F. 3d 725 (9th Cir. 2000), it was difficult for the respondent to even answer basic questions about her family’s struggles; she was constantly faced with interruptions by the immigration judge and a blatant lack of patience. Most people regardless of being an immigrant or not could become overwhelmed during questioning or lack of information about legal procedures. Lacking compassion and basic manners, whenever Jacinto was asked a question regarding why she was seeking asylum, the immigration judge or government attorney would interrupt her midsentence and not allow her to ask any clarifying questions. The transcripts reveal a sense of confusion and urgency, as they treated her as if they were in a rush and like she was wasting their time.

. . . .

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

Kelsea Villanueva, a law student, “gets” it! So why don’t Garland and his lieutenants?

Perhaps, because they are too far removed from the human trauma and and the practical problems in the broken and unfair “courts” for which they are responsible! They obviously have become indifferent to the unnecessary human suffering they cause by tolerating this systemic stain on American justice.

It’s not that there aren’t lots of exceptionally well-qualified immigration lawyers, practical scholars, and effective litigators in the Bay Area (and most other areas where Immigration Courts are located) who would make great Immigration Judges. Therefore, it has taken a concerted effort over the past four Administrations, including the Biden Administration, NOT to recruit, attract, and hire the “best and brightest” for these life or death judicial positions.

One “key to building dysfunction” has been the childish, demeaning, and disrespectful treatment heaped upon the “IJ Corps” by DOJ politicos and EOIR “Management” trying to appease their “handlers.” Attempts to enforce “assembly line justice,” lousy technology, poor training, screwed up and always changing “priorities,” micromanagement by non-judges, and favoring “quick numbers” over thoughtful high quality judicial work product obviously discourages many of the most talented and well-qualified lawyers in the business from even applying.

Some of those who do make the effort are then demoralized and discouraged when clearly inferior candidates, some lacking even basic immigration and asylum knowledge, are hired by a DOJ bureaucratic system that too often seeks and rewards complicity and “following orders” over intellectual excellence, proven immigration and human rights expertise, and the courage to make the right decisions even in the face of political pressure from above to “go along to get along” with each Administration’s enforcement agenda.

Surely, no panel of immigration/human rights experts would have recommended hiring someone like Judge Ford for the job! So, why was he even on the Immigration Bench in the first place?

In every way, Judge Ford was EOIR’s self-created problem! It tied up both private resources and Government investigative resources that could have been better used. It further damaged EOIR’s reputation and ruined human lives. In the end, the “Ford brouhaha” produced no transparent results, thus further eroding public confidence in Government. It prompted neither accountability nor reforms to insure a better judicial selection process!

The best way to limit the administrative nonsense, unnecessary and inappropriate meddling, and time and resources wasted building a needless, ineffective bureaucracy to “monitor performance” and investigate complaints is to hire exceptionally well-qualified judges in the first place — good judges need neither much supervision nor significant monitoring. All they need is support, independence, professional training, continuing judicial education, and some inspirational encouragement from dynamic, well-qualified judicial leadership — things that generally have been in short supply within the EOIR bureaucracy, particularly over the past four years!

Leaders should be sitting judges — not just disconnected bureaucratic “managers” — who continue to handle regular dockets so they have the necessary perspective and first-hand experience to lead this broken system back to functionality. In what other “real” judicial system do the “chief judges and chief justices” largely or completely cease to perform judicial duties?

For example, Chief Justice John Roberts has no shortage of administrative and leadership tasks. Yet, somehow, he finds time to participate in every merits case coming before the Court!

Almost every day, we see Court of Appeals decisions in which the Chief Judge of the Circuit was a panel member, sometimes even writing the opinion. Chief U.S. District Judges hear cases and sometimes author lengthy opinions in notable and controversial cases.

There are few, if any, examples of successful judiciaries in which those in leadership positions isolate and insulate themselves from the judicial tasks of their colleagues! Yet, this has become “standard operating practice” at DOJ/EOIR. This is despite “clear and convincing evidence” that DOJ/EOIR’s bloated “Vatican style” (a/k/a “Legacy INS style”) bureaucracy is incapable of practical problem solving and has presided over the demise of a court system that once aspired to greatness, even if the efforts sometimes fell short!

The taxpayer money wasted on ludicrous “Immigration Judge Dashboards,” unnecessary “supervisors” who almost never go to court, ineffective and inefficient “Dedicated Dockets,” establishing “TV Adjudication Centers” in strange places, and running “kangaroo courts” embedded in the DHS Gulag could be repurposed into funding legal representation programs, a functioning e-filing system, more Judicial Law Clerks, judicial training by experts, and other badly needed and long overdue improvements and reforms. These things would actually help the system achieve justice with efficiency, rather than aggravating existing problems!

EOIR’s “customer service,” transparency, and engagement with the public get consistently low marks from Government watchdogs. I see no improvement under Garland.

Any legitimate system for judicial tenure or retention relies on robust public input and some peer involvement — things that are foreign to the DOJ/EOIR model which, if I do say so myself, bears a disturbing resemblance to the Byzantine bureaucracy of the “Legacy INS” (although the there are only a few us still around who experienced the latter “first hand”).

Ironically, EOIR was originally established as an independent agency within DOJ to “free” it from the “Legacy INS;” over the years it has come more and more to look, feel, and operate like the worst aspects of that long-disbanded agency.

In particular, it has “retaken on” the image of “being just another appendage of immigration enforcement” — a complete abandonment of the original goal of increased judicial independence in both fact and appearance!

Numerous private lawyers have related to me that being in an EOIR “courtroom” is too often “like facing two prosecutors.” Some say that their already traumatized clients are “re-traumatized” by the rude, disrespectful, and inhumane treatment they receive in Immigration Court as they attempt to plead for their lives and their families’ futures! What kind of judiciary “operates” in this manner?

For heaven’s sake, even former AG Alberto “Gonzo I” Gonzalez, hardly a “due process warrior,” spoke out publicly against demeaning treatment of migrants by Immigration Judges! Article III Courts continue to document instances of bias, incompetence, and cavalier treatment of human lives in Garland’s Immigration Courts at both trial and appellate levels. Yet, he says nothing and has taken few actions to solve the myriad of festering problems! We deserve better, much better, from the “people’s top lawyer!”

It’s also worth contemplating why law students understand the systemic problems and potential solutions better than the senior Government lawyers and officials we are employing and paying to mismanage it!

You can read the rest of Kelsea’s excellent piece at the above link!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

10-20-21

⚖️☹️ (NO) SURPRISE! — “GARLAND’S GIMMICKS” FAIL TO STEM GROWTH OF EOIR BACKLOG, NOW APPROACHING ASTOUNDING 1.5 MILLION! 🆘— “Bogus Dedicated Dockets,” Gross Abuse Of Title 42 To Deny Fair Hearings, Due Process Denying “Production Quotas,” “Trumped-Up Judiciary” Can’t Overcome Lack Of Dynamic Progressive Practical Leaders & Judges, As 98% Of New Filings Non-Criminal & Intake Outpaces Completions By 2.5 to 1! — Many Of Us Predicted This, & Offered Obvious Solutions — Why Are Garland, Mayorkas, & Other Biden Immigration Honchos “Asleep @ The Switch?” 😴 — Latest TRAC Report Damning For Garland’s Beyond Dysfunctional Courts!

EYORE — “Eyore In Distress”
Once A Symbol of Fairness, Due Process, & Best Practices, Now Gone “Belly Up”

https://trac.syr.edu/whatsnew/email.211014.html

Number of New Deportation Cases Far Outpaces Completed Cases in FY 2021

(14 Oct 2021) According to TRAC’s updated Quick Facts tools, the number of new deportation cases filed with the Courts in FY 2021–over 315,000–is more than double the number of completed cases over the same period which, according to Immigration Court records, currently sits at less that 145,000. When incoming cases exceed the capacity of the Courts to adjudicate those cases, the Immigration Court backlog continues to grow. At the end of September 2021, the end of FY 2021, the total number of pending cases reached nearly 1.5 million total cases, larger than the population of San Diego, the eighth largest city in the United States.

The Transactional Research Access Clearinghouse (TRAC) a research organization at Syracuse University created ‘Quick Facts’ tools to provide a user-friendly way to see the most updated data available on immigrant detention and the Immigration Courts. The tools include easy-to-understand data in context and provide quotable descriptions.

Highlights from data updated today on immigrants facing deportation in court include the following:

Immigration Courts recorded receiving 315,491 new cases so far in FY 2021 as of September 2021. This compares with 144,654 cases that the court completed during this period.

According to court records, only 2.0% of FY 2021 new cases sought deportation orders based on any alleged criminal activity of the immigrant, apart from possible illegal entry.

At the end of September 2021, 1,457,615 active cases were pending before the Immigration Court.

Los Angeles County, CA, has the most residents with pending Immigration Court deportation cases (as of the end of September 2021).

So far this fiscal year (through September 2021), immigration judges have issued removal and voluntary departure orders in 29.7% of completed cases, totaling 43,031 deportation orders.

So far in FY 2021 (through September 2021), immigrants from Mexico top list of nationalities with largest number ordered deported.

Only 20.6% of immigrants, including unaccompanied children, had an attorney to assist them in Immigration Court cases when a removal order was issued.

Immigration judges have held 22,712 bond hearings so far in FY 2021 (through September 2021). Of these 6,997 were granted bond.

For more information, see TRAC’s Quick Facts tools here or click here to learn more about TRAC’s entire suite of immigration tools.

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

https://tracfed.syr.edu/cgi-bin/tracuser.pl?pub=1

Follow us on Twitter at:

https://twitter.com/tracreports

or like us on Facebook:

https://facebook.com/tracreports

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

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

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

Being able to say “toldya so” to the crowd in the Biden Administration is of little consolation to those of us in the Round Table of Former Immigraton Judges ⚔️🛡and the NDPA who have had to witness the unfolding (yet preventable) human disasters caused by the Biden Administration’s inept, tone-deaf, frankly spineless approach to EOIR and the rest of the dysfunctional USG immigration bureaucracy!

An operationally independent EOIR under dynamic progressive leadership and a BIA of judges who are practical experts in asylum and immigration could have cut the backlog by eliminating non- priority cases (most of what is in the EOIR backlog) and showing that fair, legal, timely, and generous administration of asylum laws can work and produce efficient, yet humane, correct, and consistent results!

Instead, the disgraceful mess at EOIR promotes human suffering and dysfunction, waste, and abuse in government. Backlog building “Aimless Docket Reshuffling,” (“ADR”), continuing to move cases around to meet administrative objectives unrelated to the needs of the parties and the input of the sitting Immigration Judges, continues to plague Garland’s failed courts.

Indeed, if Garland’s EOIR were a country, it would be considered a “failed state!”

A reformed EOIR also could have exposed and perhaps corrected some of the continuing systemic abuses at DHS (see, e.g., “Baby Jails,” “Family Gulags,” and absurdly inconsistent and irrational bond procedures)!

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

10-19-21

⚖️THREE WEEKS AFTER “COURTSIDE” BROKE THE NEWS, EOIR FINALLY GETS AROUND TO ANNOUNCING THE APPOINTMENT OF DISTINGUISHED “PRACTICAL SCHOLAR-EXPERT” JUDGE ANDREA SAENZ TO BIA! 😎👍 — 🆘 Call Out To NDPA: Judge Saenz Will Need Lots Of Help, & EOIR Is Hiring Judges! — Get Those Applications In, Because NOW Is The Time To Restore Due Process & Equal Justice To Our Broken Courts!🗽🇺🇸

Hon. Andrea Saenz
Appellate Immigration Judge, BIA
PHOTO: immigrantarc.org

https://www.justice.gov/eoir/page/file/1442001/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 Oct. 14, 2021
EOIR Announces New Appellate Immigration Judge
Agency Seeks Qualified Individuals for Immigration Judge Positions
FALLS CHURCH, VA – The Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) today announced the appointment of Andrea Saenz as a Member of EOIR’s Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). Attorney General Merrick B. Garland’s appointment of Appellate Immigration Judge Saenz brings the BIA to its regulatory maximum of 23 Members.
The BIA is the highest administrative body for interpreting and applying immigration laws,
having nationwide jurisdiction to hear appeals of decisions by adjudicators, including
Immigration Judges. EOIR has more than 2,300 employees in its 69 immigration courts
nationwide, at the BIA and at EOIR headquarters in Falls Church, Virginia. As provided in the
President’s Budget Request for Fiscal Year 2022, EOIR anticipates increasing its immigration
judge corps from 535 today to 734 by the end of the next fiscal year.
EOIR recognizes the many benefits of a diverse and inclusive workforce, and is looking for
qualified candidates from all backgrounds to join our corps of Immigration Judges. For
information about qualifications and application requirements to become an Immigration Judge,
please review EOIR’s current Immigration Judge Job Opportunity Announcement, which closes at 11:59 p.m. on October 15.
Biographical information follows:
Andrea Saenz, Appellate Immigration Judge
Andrea Saenz was appointed as an Appellate Immigration Judge in October 2021. Judge Saenz earned a Bachelor of Arts in 2002 from the University of California, Los Angeles, and a Juris Doctor in 2008 from Harvard Law School. From 2016 to 2021, she was Attorney-in-Charge of the New York Immigrant Family Unity Project, Brooklyn Defender Services, in Brooklyn, NY. From 2013 to 2016, she was a Clinical Teaching Fellow at the Immigration Justice Clinic, Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law (New York). From 2012 to 2013, she was a Staff Attorney at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. From 2010 to 2012, she served as a Judicial Law Clerk at the New York – Varick Immigration Court, entering on duty through the Attorney General’s Honors Program. From 2008 to 2010, she was an Equal Justice Works Fellow at the Political Asylum/Immigration Representation Project, in Boston. Judge Saenz is a member of the New York State Bar.
Communications and Legislative Affairs Division

EOIR Announces New Appellate Immigration Judge Page 2
— 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

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

“Courtside” readers had this story three weeks ago:

https://immigrationcourtside.com/2021/09/24/%e2%9a%96%ef%b8%8f%f0%9f%97%bd%f0%9f%87%ba%f0%9f%87%b8%f0%9f%91%8d%f0%9f%8f%bcfollowing-a-hideous-0-27-start-garland-hits-a-home-run-%e2%9a%be%ef%b8%8f-amazing-practical-scholar-ndpa-superstar-and/

Congratulations again, Judge Saenz! Capable as she is, Judge Saenz is just one among 23 BIA Appellate Immigration Judges. All of her colleagues are “government insiders,” and none has any recent experience representing individuals in Immigration Court!

Decades of skewed hiring at EOIR overwhelmingly favored those with government/prosecutorial backgrounds by a ratio of more than 9 to 1 (even worse at the BIA, where Judge Saenz is the first “private sector” appointee since the waning days of the Clinton Administration and the “Schmidt Board” in 2000).

This is in a system where studies such as the highly acclaimed Refugee Roulette have consistently shown that judges’ backgrounds and personal philosophies have more to do with the outcome of “life or death cases” than the actual merits of the claims. Claims that might be routinely and properly granted by one judge are summarily rejected by others, sometimes in another courtroom in the same court building!

The BIA as currently comprised has shown neither an interest in nor the ability to consistently protect due process, equal justice, individual rights, and enforce consistency among Immigration Courts. Indeed, there is a ridiculous and quite intentional dearth of positive asylum precedents from the BIA and the various AGs who have inserted themselves onto the process!

Remarkably, as shown by recent FOIA disclosures, “rubber stampism” in a race to make quotas, please political “handlers,” and hold onto jobs and careers is still “alive and well” at today’s EOIR, including the BIA:

https://www.lexisnexis.com/LegalNewsRoom/immigration/b/outsidenews/posts/rubber-stamps-eliminating-master-calendar-hearings-how-low-can-eoir-go

EOIR now claims:

EOIR recognizes the many benefits of a diverse and inclusive workforce, and is looking for
qualified candidates from all backgrounds to join our corps of Immigration Judges. For
information about qualifications and application requirements to become an Immigration Judge,
please review EOIR’s current Immigration Judge Job Opportunity Announcement, which closes at 11:59 p.m. on October 15.

That this belated announcement on October 14 cites a deadline at noon the next day (now expired) is probably a good indicator of the (lack of) sincerity of EOIR’s claims that it actively seeks “diversification,” particularly from the private/NGO/academic sector.

Fortunately, I’m aware that a number of exceptionally well-qualified NDPA members have “thrown their hats in the/ring.” There will be future announcements and opportunities.

So NDPA members need to “put DOJ/EOIR to the test” by flooding their “designed for insiders” system and pathetically inadequate recruitment mechanisms (e.g., where’s the “outreach” to HBCUs, to Hispanic, Black, and Asian American Bar Associations, and to human rights NGOs?) with a tidal wave of superior applicants who can change this broken system into a real due-process-oriented judiciary, even in the absence of dynamic progressive leadership at with a plan!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS
10-18-21

🆘⚖️MR. NEGUSIE’S 17-YR ODYSSEY INTO JUDICIAL NEVER-NEVER LAND CONTINUES — GARLAND’S CERTIFICATION OF MATTER OF NEGUSIE, 28 I&N DEC. 399 (A.G. 2021) — A Microcosm Of All That’s Wrong With Our Immigration Court System — 17 Years, 4 Administrations, 5 Different Tribunals, 0 Final Resolution! — Calling Charles Dickens!

https://lnks.gd/l/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiJ9.eyJidWxsZXRpbl9saW5rX2lkIjoxMDAsInVyaSI6ImJwMjpjbGljayIsImJ1bGxldGluX2lkIjoiMjAyMTEwMTIuNDcyNTU4OTEiLCJ1cmwiOiJodHRwczovL3d3dy5qdXN0aWNlLmdvdi9lb2lyL3BhZ2UvZmlsZS8xNDQxMjYxL2Rvd25sb2FkIn0.5W9gUw8pz8DPzsg7kAN8OnR6-Fn9dKgiW5oNm1UqGzM/s/842922301/br/113790680583-l

Cite as 28 I&N Dec. 399 (A.G. 2021) Interim Decision #4029

Matter of NEGUSIE, Respondent

Decided by Attorney General October 12, 2021

U.S. Department of Justice Office of the Attorney General

BEFORE THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(h)(1)(i), I direct the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) to refer this case to me for review of its decision. The Board’s decision in this matter is automatically stayed pending my review. See Matter of Haddam, A.G. Order No. 2380-2001 (Jan. 19, 2001).

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

This terse decision conceals a total, disgraceful mess in our justice system!

Mr. Negusie, the respondent in this case, filed his asylum application before an Immigration Judge in 2004 — 17 years ago!
In 2005, the IJ denied his application because of the so-called “persecutor bar,” but “deferred” his removal to Eritrea under the Convention Against Torture(“CAT”).
The BIA affirmed the IJ’s decision.
In 2007, the 5th Circuit affirmed the BIA.
In 2009, the Supreme Court reversed the BIA, and remanded the case to the BIA under their “Chevron doctrine” of “judicial task avoidance,” Negusie v. Holder, 555 U.S. 511 (2009].
- At that time, in separate opinions, five Justices expressed rather definitive views about the substantive legal issue.
- Justices Thomas, Scalia, and Alito all clearly believed that there should be no “duress exception” to the persecutor bar.
- Justices Stevens and Breyer obviously thought that there was a “duress exception.”
- The other four, Chief Justice Roberts, Justices Kennedy, Souter, & Ginsburg, had obviously studied matter, but rather than resolving the issue, chose to “punt” it back to the BIA for their supposed “expert interpretation” — an unusual “vote of confidence” in an administrative body they had just found to have misinterpreted their prior decisions.
“The Interregnum:” For the next nine years, during which both Administrations and BIA membership changed several times, the BIA “ruminated” on the task assigned them by the Supremes. Finally, in 2018, the BIA issued a precedent decision finding a limited “duress defense.” Matter of Negusie, 27 I&N Dec. 347 (BIA 2018). Nevertheless, the BIA found that Negusie didn’t qualify for that limited defense. So, Negusie lost! But, that was hardly the end of the matter within the convoluted world of the DOJ!
Despite the Government’s prevailing in Negusie’s case, four months later, AG Sessions “certified” that decision to himself.
Two years later, in 2020, another AG, Billy Barr, who had succeeded Sessions, reversed the BIA in a precedent, finding that there was no “duress exception,” however limited, to the “persecutor bar.” Matter of Negusie, 28 I&N Dec. 120 (A.G. 2020). Mr.Negusie lost once again, but this time on a different rationale than employed by the BIA!
The case was returned to the BIA for “background checks,” since Mr. Negusie’s removal had been indefinitely “deferred” under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). After Mr.Negusie’s background “cleared,” the BIA apparently entered a final order of removal to Eritrea, but “deferred” execution of that order under CAT.
Thereafter, on April 15, 2021, Mr. Negusie exercised his right to seek review in the 5th Circuit for the second time. https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca5/21-60314
But, before that review was complete, AG Garland “certified” the last BIA decision (actually Barr’s 2020 precedent) for review, thus “staying” its effect.
Summary: one IJ decision; three trips to the BIA; two trips to the Fifth Circuit; three AG decisions; one trip to the Supremes = no decision on a 2004 application!
In other words, five different tribunals have had this case before them at least nine times over 17 years without finally resolving the issue!
In the meantime, I can tell you from past experience that this issue arises on a regular basis before Immigration Judges. They, in turn, must resolve it as best they can without definitive guidance from higher judicial authorities, sometimes relying on “precedents” that later are vacated or invalidated.
The solution: How about a BIA made up of real judges: true nationally respected experts and “practical scholars” in immigration, human rights, and due process who will provide timely, legally correct guidance at the initial appeal level?
And, if they do happen to get it wrong, how about Supremes that decide the legal issues coming before them, as they are paid to do, rather than aimlessly “orbiting” legal questions back to the lower tribunals that got them wrong in the first place under the highly problematic “Chevron doctrine of high-level judicial task avoidance?”
Also, in the event such reforms were made, how about Attorneys General, who traditionally have particular expertise in neither immigration nor human rights, keeping their “fingers out of the pie” and letting the real experts do the work? (In this respect, while AG Sessions had a long, disgraceful political history of advancing far right, xenophobic, racist, misogynistic tropes, such that his nomination to become a Federal Judge was rejected by his own party, no recognized immigration/human rights expert would classify Sessions as having either legal expertise in the area or proper qualifications to serve in any judicial capacity including a “quasi-judicial” one, particularly in areas where he had previously and consistently shown extreme bias and intellectual dishonesty in his public statements and actions. Nor did AG Barr have any legitimate expertise that would qualify him to participate in quasi-judicial capacity in immigration and human rights cases. While, ordinarily, a Federal Circuit Judge with long service would acquire some immigration experience and perhaps develop expertise, Judge Garland sat on the DC Circuit, which did not regularly review Immigration Court cases, because there is no Immigration Court sitting in D.C.)
One might also ask why the Supremes would remand to a purportedly “expert agency” for statutory interpretation, only to have the process hijacked by politicos?
Finally, multi-raspberries to Congress who let this disgraceful abuse of both taxpayer resources and our justice system go on, in plain sight, for decades without corrective action. America needs an independent Article I Immigration Court, with judges selected on a merit basis, NOW!
Where’s Charles Dickens when we need him? See, e.g., Jarndyce v. Jarndyce.

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

10-15-21

👎🏽IS GARLAND PULLING A SESSIONS-STYLE SHENANIGAN TO COMPROMISE JUSTICE @ EOIR? — Immigration Judge Removed From High-Profile Case After Criticizing DHS!

Sessions in a cage — “Comeback Kid?” — Advocates thought they were getting a welcome change from “Gonzo Apocalypto’s” vile legacy of abuses at EOIR. But, Garland seems to be warming to the idea of “wholly-owned courts” where he can manipulate “his” judges, many of them Sessions-Barr holdovers,” to achieve pro-DHS results in key cases. Jeff Sessions’ Cage by J.D. Crowe, Alabama Media Group/AL.com
Republished under license

KCRA3 in Sacramento reports:

https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fwww.kcra.com%2farticle%2fimmigration-judge-omar-ameen-case-replaced-department-justice%2f37551036&c=E,1,yS6wbDb1XxjixHZMWBWlS1g2lSyzCFYmd-OZv1yWPUzG8lSaeKiR8On89auj__3kIGZLWvu2M1thmOJhsYAXibmhhmngZdIxgaC3VpTL2w,,&typo=1

The judge overseeing the last two weeks of hearings and testimonies of Omar Ameen’s immigration case has been changed by the Department of Justice, sources close to the case told KCRA 3.

Ameen was the Sacramento refugee accused of being an ISIS leader and killing an Iraqi police officer in 2014.

Earlier this year, a Sacramento federal judge said there were major problems with the case against Ameen and refuse extradition to Iraq.

However, the U.S. Immigration Department took Ameen into custody the day he was released and began proceedings to deport him, claiming he lied on refugee applications.

Sources told KCRA 3 Investigates that immigration Judge Scott Laurent, after weeks of hearings and testimony in the deportation case, is no longer the judge in the case.

The removal comes just two weeks after Laurent issued an order that was, in part, critical of the government’s case against Ameen.

In particular, Laurent was critical of the Department of Justice for wanting FBI agents to testify for the government, but not be cross-examined by Ameen’s attorneys.

Unlike a criminal court, immigration judges work for the Department of Justice, which is the agency looking to deport Ameen.

No reason was immediately provided for Laurent’s removal from the case.

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

Go to the link to see the TV report!

In what other system can the prosecutor “switch judges,” with no explanation in the middle of a case?

Given the DOJ’s lack of transparency, one has to assume the worst!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

10-13-21

👎🏽GARLAND’S BIA BLOWS ANOTHER: “Divide and conquer is a good military strategy but a bad judicial one. Judges must consider how related facts weave together into a narrative,” Says 3rd Circuit In Cha Lang v. Att’y Gen.

https://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/203353p.pdf

Key quote from opinion by Circuit Judge Bibas:

Divide and conquer is a good military strategy but a bad judicial one. Judges must consider how related facts weave to- gether into a narrative.

Chinese officials caught Cha Liang practicing his faith, so they beat, jailed, and then threatened him. When he sought asy- lum, the Board of Immigration Appeals minimized the threats and physical abuse as discrete incidents. But Liang’s twenty- minute beating and fifteen days in jail made the later threats more menacing. Because the Board should not have ignored this context, we will grant the petition and remand.

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

Perhaps unwittingly, Judge Bibas’s use of a military analogy for EOIR “judging” is very, very apt! After four years of corrupt, White Nationalist, Stephen Miller inspired “leadership” and “judicial selections,” far, far too many judges and others at today’s EOIR view immigrants and their attorneys as “the enemy.” By contrast, they think of their “partners” at DHS as their “comrades in arms” against Stephen Miller’s fabricated “alien invasion” — a euphemism for “replacement theory” and other racist tropes that were seldom far below the surface of Trump-era immigration policies and actions.
It’s tempting to blame this entire mess on theTrump regime. But, sadly, manifestations of this problem were present well before 2017.
I remember an Immigration Judge Conference where, strangely, a recently appointed IJ, a former government prosecutor, was given an “instructor slot” at small group training. This Judge proceeded to repeatedly refer to the the DHS as “we” and the respondents and their lawyers as “them” as he enthusiastically described Government litigation “victories” while ignoring or downplaying Circuit Court decisions that had found serious flaws in EOIR judging and DHS legal positions.
That individual went on to a “judicial career” at EOIR that consistently demonstrated a disturbing and inappropriate inability to view those humans coming before the Immigration Court and their lawyers as anything other than “the enemy!” So, the ethical, cultural, and quality control problems at EOIR are very deep-seated.
Remember, this is a broken agency that once, but no more, was supposed to stand for “through teamwork and innovation, become the world’s best administrative tribunals guaranteeing fairness and due process for all.”
As the recent “John Gruden Episode” in the NFL shows, “corrosive culture” remains a huge problem in professional football. Similarly, EOIR’s “culture of denial with a heavily dose of racism, misogyny, and xenophobia” remains every bit as much of a problem as those plaguing the NFL. Disingenuously “minimizing threats” to asylum seekers, as in this case, is “business as usual” at Garland’s anti-immigrant, anti-asylum EOIR.
While the response of the NFL’s leadership has obviously been not fully effective, it’s still much better than Garland’s “what me worry, hear nothing, see nothing” approach to the crippling problems at his dysfunctional EOIR.

Garland’s inept approach to the ongoing due process disaster at his EOIR has been perplexing, to say the least!
PHOTO: Wikipedia Commons
Gruden actually was promptly forced out when the full extent of his misconduct finally surfaced. By contrast, with overwhelming public evidence of systemic failure, Garland has catastrophically failed to replace the problematic judges and inept senior leaders at EOIR with better-qualified, progressive, practical scholar-expert judges unswervingly committed to due process, fundamental fairness, and equal justice!
Although not cited by the 3rd Circuit, the BIA and the IJ also ignored the leading BIA precedent of Matter of O-Z- & I-Z-, 22 I&N Dec. 23 (BIA 1998) (Panel: Hurwitz, Rosenberg, Schmidt) on the importance of considering harm cumulatively.
The concurring opinion by Judges Jordan and Ambro on past persecution as a “mixed question of fact and law” subject to a “two-step review process” is also well worth a read, particularly for those practicing in the 3rd Cir.

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

10-13-21

⚖️ THE GIBSON REPORT — 10-11-21 — NYC Attorneys & Clients Bear Brunt of Garland’s Failure To Fix Immigration Courts 🤮 — “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” (“ADR”) Imposed By Clueless Administrators Frustrates Lawyers, Denies Due Process, Builds Backlogs! — Plus Lots Of Other Immigration News Compiled By Elizabeth Gibson, Esquire, NY Legal Assistance Group!

Elizabeth Gibson
Attorney, NY Legal Assistance Group
Publisher of “The Gibson Report”

ALERTS

Alien’s Change of Address Card

USCIS: Starting Dec. 7, 2021, we will only accept the 08/31/21 edition.

I-693 Vaccine Requirement

USCIS: Effective Oct. 1, 2021, applicants subject to the immigration medical examination must complete the COVID-19 vaccine series and provide documentation of vaccination to the civil surgeon in person before the civil surgeon can complete an immigration medical examination and sign Form I-693, Report of Medical Examination and Vaccination Record. This guidance applies prospectively to Form I-693 signed by civil surgeons on or after Oct. 1, 2021.

USPS is about to charge you more for slower mail.

WaPo: Up until Oct. 1, the Postal Service said it should take no more than three days for a piece of first-class mail to be delivered anywhere in the country. After Oct. 1, it will take between two and five days. From Oct. 3 to Dec. 26, the Postal Service is raising prices on some products through a holiday season surcharge. The price hikes are modest for some products (30 cents more for first-class package service), a bit more for others ($1 more for parcel-return service, deliveries from consumers back to retailers), and heftier still for others ($5 more for priority mail, priority express mail, parcel select and retail ground services for items weighing between 21 and 70 pounds).

NYC Immigration Courts – Immigration Judge/Legal Assistant Directories (attached)

NEWS

‘A day without Latinx and immigrants’: Hundreds in Wisconsin expected to strike, march on Monday

NBC26: Organized by Voces de la Frontera, this action aims to increase economic and political pressure on President Biden, Vice President Harris and Congressional Democrats to deliver on their promise to pass a path to citizenship in the Build Back Better reconciliation budget bill this year.

Columbus Day Helped Italians Become ‘White’, Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz Explains

Teen Vogue: This excerpt from “Not ‘A Nation of Immigrants’” explains how Italian immigrants used Christopher Columbus to assimilate to American culture and whiteness. For decades, Native Americans and their allies have demanded the end of celebrating Columbus, rightly characterizing him as a mercenary of the Spanish monarchy, an actor in and symbol of the onset of European genocidal colonization of the Indigenous Peoples of the Western Hemisphere.

3 US-based economists win Nobel for research on wages, jobs

WaPo: A U.S.-based economist won the Nobel prize in economics Monday for pioneering research that transformed widely held ideas about the labor force, showing how an increase in the minimum wage doesn’t hinder hiring and immigrants do not lower pay for native-born workers.

Governor Hochul Signs Legislation Protecting Undocumented Immigrants from Threats to Report Their Immigration Status

NYGov: Threats to report a person’s immigration status can currently be treated as a crime in cases of labor trafficking and sex trafficking, but were not previously treated as potential extortion or coercion offenses.

How Attorneys Wrangle New York’s Wildly Unpredictable Immigration Court Schedule

Documented: The courts have been pushing individual hearings forward often too soon for immigrants and attorneys to properly prepare. Individual hearings, particularly for asylum cases, require rigorous preparation both from immigrants, who must recount traumatic details of their lives for a successful case, and attorneys, who must submit dozens of pages of paperwork and work alongside their clients to equip them for the court date.

Anger in U.S. Customs and Border Protection as Biden administration’s vaccine mandate looms

WaPo: The NBPC does not encourage members to get vaccinated and has said it would like to file a legal challenge to Biden’s mandate that all federal employees be immunized by Nov. 22, but it has not yet found lawyers willing to take the case.

At Mexico-U.S. Security Talks, Migration Question Is Largely Avoided

NYT: As diplomats from both countries began negotiating a new security agreement on Friday, the focus was on stopping criminal activity while the border crisis was conspicuously sidestepped. See also The U.S. Is Organizing A $5 Million Gun Sale To Mexican Forces Accused Of Murder And Kidnapping.

Mexico police intercept 652 Central American migrants in three cargo trucks

Guardian: Almost 200 of the 652 migrants found in the white refrigerated trucks were unaccompanied children and teens, the police said in a statement.

Court tosses ban on private immigration jails in California

AP: A federal appeals court on Tuesday tossed out California’s ban on privately owned immigration detention facilities, keeping intact a key piece of the world’s largest detention system for immigrants.

Trump baselessly claims Haitian immigrants entering the US ‘probably have AIDS’ and letting them come in ‘is like a death wish’

Business Insider: During his appearance on Fox News, Trump repeatedly claimed that Haitians trying to enter the US are infected with AIDS… Contrary to his assertions, the prevalence of HIV among Haitian adults aged 15 to 49 is around 1.9%, according to data from the United Nations. While that’s higher than the global rate of 0.7%, reports say Haiti’s HIV prevalence rate has declined significantly in recent decades.

US resumes Afghan refugee flights after measles shots

AP: Afghan refugees will soon be arriving again in the U.S. after a massive campaign to vaccinate them against measles following a small outbreak that caused a three-week pause in evacuations, officials said Monday. See also Small nonprofits helping resettle Afghan evacuees say they need more foundation and government support.

LITIGATION/CASELAW/RULES/MEMOS

3rd Circ. Raps BIA For Cutting Proof From Vet’s Removal Case

Law360: A U.S. Air Force veteran has another chance to fight his deportation to Trinidad after the Third Circuit found that an immigration appeals board used the wrong legal standard to bar evidence that he may be tortured if deported.

CA9 Holds That BIA’s Summary Dismissal of Pro Se Litigant’s Appeal Violated Her Right to Due Process

AILA: The court held that, given petitioner’s status as a pro se litigant, her Notice of Appeal was sufficiently specific to inform the BIA of the issues challenged on appeal, and thus the BIA violated her right to due process by summarily dismissing her appeal. (Nolasco-Amaya v. Garland, 9/28/21)

9th Circ. Says Breadth Of Wash. Law Doesn’t Bar Deportation

Law360: The Ninth Circuit confirmed that a conviction under a state assault law criminalizing HIV transmission amounts to a federal “crime of violence” for the purposes of deporting a Salvadoran man who shot his friend, saying the key common ingredient is intent.

9th Circ. Rejects Calif. Ban On Private Prisons

Law360: A California law banning private immigration detention facilities and other private prisons doesn’t pass legal muster because it would impede the federal government’s immigration enforcement, a split Ninth Circuit ruled Tuesday, undoing a lower court’s decision to keep most of the law in place as litigation proceeds.

District Court Says DOS Acted Improperly in Suspending Visa Issuance Based on Regional Ban Proclamations

AILA: The court granted the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, holding that DOS’s interpretation of several Presidential Proclamations to prevent U.S. consulates and embassies in those countries from adjudicating visas was unlawful. (Kinsley, et al. v. Blinken, et al., 10/5/21)

Government Reaches Settlement with Flores Plaintiffs to Pay $1.15 Million in EAJA Fees

AILA: The parties reached a settlement to resolve the plaintiffs’ Motion for Award of Attorneys’ Fees and Costs under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), in which the government agreed to pay $1,150,000 in attorneys’ fees and litigation costs. (Flores, et al. v. Garland, et al., 9/30/21)

Groups File Emergency Request Against the United States to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights on Behalf of Asylum Seekers Expelled to Danger

CGRS: The Lowenstein Project at Yale Law School submitted today an emergency request for precautionary measures against the United States on behalf of asylum seekers who face grave dangers because the Biden administration continues to illegally block and expel them. The request was submitted under Article 25 of the Rules of Procedure to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR).

2 States Ask Full 5th Circ. To Block Biden’s Curbs On ICE Ops

Law360: Texas and Louisiana called on the full Fifth Circuit to reinstate a block on the Biden administration’s policy curbing immigration enforcement operations, saying Thursday that the federal government was ducking its obligation to arrest noncitizens convicted of serious crimes.

Ex-Gaddafi Worker Sues Feds Over Asylum Waiting Times

Law360: A Libyan man formerly employed as a government worker under the Gaddafi regime and his wife have filed suit in Michigan federal court against the federal government and the Chicago asylum processing center, saying five years is too long to wait for an asylum interview.

Afghan Ally Sues State Dept. To Bring Kids To US

Law360: An Afghan man who worked with the U.S. government in the Central Asian country told a California federal court that the U.S. Department of State failed to protect his children from the Taliban while their visa applications are processed.

Sens. Intro Bill Barring Warrantless Device Searches At Border

Law360: A bipartisan group of senators announced new legislation this week that would require law enforcement to obtain a warrant before searching Americans’ digital devices at the border.

Feds Want DACA Appeal Paused Until New Rule Is Finalized

Law360: The Biden administration asked the Fifth Circuit to shelve its appeal of a lower court order blocking the federal government from approving new applications to the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program while it firms up the details of a replacement rule.

ORR Announcement of Inflationary Increase to Refugee Cash Assistance Program Payment Ceilings

AILA: Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) announcement of an inflationary increase to the Refugee Cash Assistance program’s monthly payment ceilings, effective October 1, 2021. (86 FR 54466, 10/1/21)

ACTIONS

Take Action: Demand a Clear System of Release from Immigration Detention

Take Action: Get Immigration Reform Done on Reconciliation

Call for Examples: BIA Motions to Reconsider

Call for Examples: The Center for Gender and Refugee Studies (CGRS) is collecting the following information regarding the treatment of asylum and withholding of removal cases following Attorney General Garland’s vacatur of Matter of A-B- I/II, Matter of L-E-A- II, and Matter of A-C-A-A-. To report an outcome in your case and share any sample case documents, please follow the instructions here. To share information regarding OIL’s position in your case, please email the following to CGRS-ABTracking@uchastings.edu. To share information regarding ICE OCC’s position in your case, please complete this survey for each individual case.

Access to Counsel Immigration Detention Survey

Procedures for Credible Fear Screening and Consideration of Asylum, Withholding of Removal, and CAT Protection Claims by Asylum Officers: Comments due 10/19/21.

BIA Invites Amicus Briefs on Pereida v. Wilkinson (Regarding modified categorical approach): Briefs are due by 10/21/21.

USCIS Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Public Charge: Comments due 10/22/21.

USCIS 30-Day Notice and Request for Comments on Proposed Revisions to Form N-648: Comments are due November 5, 2021.

USCIS Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on DACA: Comments are due 11/29/21.

DHS Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to Update Privacy Act Regulations: Comments are due December 6, 2021.

RESOURCES

AIC: Immigration Lawsuits and the APA: The Basics of a District Court Action

AILA: Practice Alert: What Comes Next for People Entering the U.S. from MPP

AILA: Checklist to Avoid Data Breaches and Cyberattacks

CRS: Human Trafficking: Key Federal Criminal Statutes

CRS: Noncitizen Eligibility for Federal Housing Programs

IDP: ICE Knows That You’re In NYS Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (DOCCS)

ILRC: Community Breakdown of AB 32 Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Decision

ILRC: Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) Proposed Rule Breakdown

ILRC: Understanding the Rights of and Unique Challenges Faced by Indigenous Migrants
MPI: Toward a Better Immigration System: Fixing Immigration Governance at the U.S. Department of Homeland Security

NIP/NLG: September 30th Mayorkas Memo – Quick FAQ (September 30, 2021)

RAND: Undocumented and Asylum-Seeking Children from Central America and Mexico: Where They Are and How Schools Are Doing

EVENTS

10/12/21-10/28/21 40-Hour Overview of Immigration Law

10/13/21-10/14/21 2021 Annual NLG Convention Virtual CLE Seminar, “Immigration Defense Strategies: Lessons from the Criminal Defense Context”

10/13/21 Liberian Refugee Immigration Fairness Act: Updates 10/13/21

10/13/21 Immigration Defense Strategies Virtual CLE

10/13/21 Representing Stateless Individuals

10/14/21 Detention & Deportation System for Children and Youth

10/14/21 The CIS Ombudsman’s Listening Session: Get to Know DHS’ New Office of the Immigration Detention Ombudsman

10/14/21 “Immigration Defense Strategies: Lessons from the Criminal Defense Context”

10/19/21 Waivers of inadmissibility in U, T and VAWA cases

10/19/21 Webinar Series: Putting the Case Together

10/19/21 The Categorical Approach Now

10/20/21 Univision National Network’s Jorge Ramos in Conversation with Three DREAMers Who Fought the President and Won

10/20/21 What is Happening with DACA?

10/20/21 U Visa and Bona Fide Determination Process for Victims of Qualifying Crimes: email public.engagement@uscis.dhs.gov by Sept. 24. Put “BFD” in the subject line.

10/21/21 U Visa Webinar Series: The Definition of Victim

10/22/21 Hiroshi Motomura in Conversation with Leading Advocates on Efforts Toward Executive Action Today

10/22/21 Ahilan Arulanantham in Conversation with Leading Scholars on the Scope and Limits of Executive Branch Authority Over Immigration

10/26/21 Emerging Issues in Asylum Law

10/27/21 Challenging Expedited Removal and Reinstatement Orders

10/28/21 What’s Old Is New Again: “Hail Mary” Relief and Creative Lawyering Options That Are Back!

11/3/21 U Visa Adjustment

11/4/21 IDP Training: ICE Detainers in NYC: The Impact on State Criminal Cases

11/7/21 Together We Welcome: A National Faith Gathering to Strengthen Support for Refugees, Immigrants and Migrants

11/9/21, 11/16/21 Two-Part Introduction to Asylum Law and Procedure

11/10/21 Remedies for Surviving Relatives

11/11/21 Inadmissibility: A Look at Common Grounds and Red Flags

11/16/21 Advocating for Prosecutorial Discretion Under the Current Enforcement Priorities

11/16/21 Considerations for I-601A Waivers and I-212

11/18/21 Dealing with Post-Consular Interview Nightmares for Immigrant Visas

11/23/21 Establishing Social Group in Asylum Claims

11/29/21-12/3/21 Partial to Full Accredited Representative Initiative 2021

12/1/21 54th Annual Immigration and Naturalization Institute

12/2/21 Post-Conviction Relief For Immigrants: New Laws, New Developments, New Advice

12/7/21 Hardship in Non-LPR Cancellation Cases

12/9/21 December Immigration Update

12/15/21 FOIA

02/03/22 Basic Immigration Law 2022: Business, Family, Naturalization and Related Areas

02/04/22 Asylum, Special Immigrant Juvenile Status, Crime Victim, and Other Immigration Relief 2022

ImmProf

Monday, October 11, 2021

Immigration Article of the Day: The Challenge of Immigration: A Radical Solution by Gary Becker

Sunday, October 10, 2021

Poetry Break: Rupi Kaur’s immigrant

Immigration Article of the Day: Revelation Out of Rupture: Building Human Rights from the Bottom Up by Daniel I. Morales

Saturday, October 9, 2021

New NY Law: Protecting Undocumented Immigrants from Threats to Report Their Immigration Status

A Blast from the Past (or Back to the Future)? Trump to Hannity: Haitians Seeking to Enter US ‘Probably Have AIDS’

Immigration Article of the Day: The “Impractical and Anomalous” Consequences of Territorial Inequity by Jayanth K. Krishnan

Friday, October 8, 2021

From The Bookshelves: Immigration: Key to the Future — The Benefits of Resettlement to Upstate New York

RAND Study Says Undocumented Children Need More Teachers, Funding

Abdulrazak Gurnah, Chronicler of Migrant Experience, Wins 2021 Nobel Prize in Literature

UCLA Center for Immigration Law and Policy Announces Conference: The Road Ahead in Immigration Law: What Can the President Do?

Cuban-born players make history in American League MLB Playoffs

Thursday, October 7, 2021

Now Streaming: The Facility (Vimeo)

LatCrit 2021 – begins Fri 10/8/21

#Immigrants are Essential

Sturat Anderson: Immigrants Keep Winning Nobel Prizes

Black Immigrants Claim Racism, Abuses At Miami ICE Facility

Enforced Misery: The Degrading Treatment of Migrant Children and Adults in Northern France

Wednesday, October 6, 2021

Teenage People Smugglers on the U.S./Mexico Border

In or Out? The Biden Administration’s Conflicting Messages on Immigration Policy

National Immigrant Law Center: Immigrants are Essential!

Jeffrey S. Chase: The Need For Full-Fledged Asylum Hearings

92 legal scholars call on Vice President to preside over Senate to include immigration in reconciliation

Haitian Migration through the Americas: A Decade in the Making

Tuesday, October 5, 2021

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Rules in a Lawsuit Challenging AB 32, California’s Private Prison Ban

Teaching with Sunday’s Poetry Break: This Matter by Haymanot

Your Playlist: Robbie O’Connell & Finbar Clancy

ABC News documentary ‘Asylum’ features the harrowing journey of two migrant families | Nightline

Monday, October 4, 2021

Harold Koh leaves State Department post, rips President Biden’s use of Trump-era Title 42

Symposium — Unequal Profession: Race and Gender in Legal Academia

National Immigrant Integration Conference 2021: President Biden speaks TODAY 10/4/21 (free virtual programming)

Announcing the 2022-2024 asylum law clinical fellowship at Georgetown Law

Viet4Afghans links Vietnamese with Afghan refugees

From the Bookshelves: Reluctant Reception by Lamis Abdelaaty (webinar Oct 15, 2021)

U.S. to Pay $1.2 Million in Attorneys Fees in Migrant Minors Case

Immigration activists follow Senator into bathroom, demanding action on reconciliation bill

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

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

Shifting cases around without working with the parties in advance to insure that the new dates are achievable is totally insane! No experienced practitioner or expert would “run the railroad” this way! But, Garland does!

To state the obvious, many attorneys practice in multiple jurisdictions and are already fully or heavily booked. Additionally, my experience was that “move ups” without consultation with both parties, including ICE ACC, often resulted in missing ICE files, unavailable witnesses, unavailable interpreters, or incomplete fingerprint reports which caused additional unnecessary continuances and yet more “ADR.”

“Motions to continue” are not the answer. The system is already backlogged. In an obvious denial of due process, it actually discourages Immigration Judges from granting reasonable continuances in a number of ways, including bogus “case completion quotas” and onerous requirements for justifications for granting continuances. It’s ADR on steroids!

An obvious solution, ignored by Garland and his subordinates:

Return “docket control” to the local Immigration Judges where it has always belonged;
Have Immigration Judges and Court Administrators work cooperatively with the local bar, the ICE OCC, and NGOs, in advance, to come up with rational scheduling procedures that meet everyone’s legitimate needs;
Encourage ICE and the local bar to work cooperatively to identify cases that can potentially be moved up for “short hearings.” Let the parties, who have a strong joint interest in rational dockets, propose the solutions, rather than having politicos impose them from above through clueless agency bureaucrats who are unqualified to “micromanage” dockets!

The real fundamental problem here: Garland is improperly trying to “run” his huge, dysfunctional court system with bureaucrats and politicos who have no recent “real life” experience representing individuals in Immigration Court.

Garland’s inexplicable determination to eschew appointing “progressive practical experts’ with the skills and courage to fix this system has become a (totally unnecessary) national disgrace!

Star Chamber Justice — Judge Garland’s gross mismanagement of EOIR is “ratcheting up the pressure” on practitioners in NYC and across the nation!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

10-12-21

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

From the UCLA Blue Print:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

From Dan Kowalski @ LexisNexis Immigration Community:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Key Quote from Judge Greenaway’s decision:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Dan Kowalski reports for LexisNexis Immigration Community:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Here’s the complete opinion by Judge Thacker, joined by Judges Floyd & Harris:

Here’s my favorite quote from Judge Thacker’s opinion, highlighting Garland’s out of control DOJ immigration bureaucracy!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Guest blogger: Kelsea Villanueva, law student, University of San Francisco

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

“Courtside” readers had this story three weeks ago:

EOIR now claims:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Key quote from opinion by Circuit Judge Bibas:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts: