"The Voice of the New Due Process Army" ————– Musings on Events in U.S. Immigration Court, Immigration Law, Sports, and Other Random Topics by Retired United States Immigration Judge (Arlington, Virginia) and former Chairman of the Board of Immigration Appeals Paul Wickham Schmidt. To see my complete professional bio, just click on the link below.
It has been said that Immigration Judges hear death penalty cases under traffic court conditions.1 The death penalty cases are of course asylum claims, which, if wrongly denied, can result in the applicant being returned to their death.
The Biden Administration recently published proposed regulations seeking to revise the system for hearing the asylum claims of those arriving at the southern border. Any positives envisioned in the proposal are greatly outweighed by the damage the rules will do to the right to immigration court review. If enacted as drafted, traffic court conditions would be far preferable to the meager access to review that would remain for many asylum seekers.
To provide some context: presently, arriving asylum seekers who after screening by USCIS asylum officers are found to have established a sufficient risk of harm proceed directly to Immigration Court, where they have a full hearing on their claim before an Immigration Judge. In those proceedings, asylum seekers may freely submit documents, call witnesses, and elicit testimony.
This was as Congress intended it. In creating the present credible fear screening system in 1996, Congress made clear that those passing the screening, in the words of then Senator Alan Simpson (R-WY), “will be provided a full – full – asylum hearing.”2 This sentiment was echoed by Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT), who stated that those who establish credible fear “get a full hearing without any question,”3 and Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX), who emphasized that those with a credible fear of persecution “can go through the normal process of establishing their claim.”4
Under the proposal, those who pass the preliminary screening (known as a credible fear interview) will instead have their full asylum claim heard by an asylum officer. This could be a positive development if the rules continued to assure the right to a full court proceeding to those not granted at this initial stage.
Unfortunately, the proposed rules would reduce Immigration Judges to reviewers of transcripts of the asylum office interviews. Additional evidence (including testimony) that was not provided at the Asylum Office will only be allowed if deemed to be “non-duplicative” and necessary to complete the record. If an Immigration Judge determines that the applicant (who may not have been represented by a lawyer) provided sufficient evidence to the asylum officer, the claim may be decided entirely on the record from that initial non-court interview.
It bears noting that the Immigration Judges making these determinations remain subject to the completion quotas imposed under the prior administration. While Immigration Judges must be guided by the requirements of due process and fairness in making such decisions, it would be remiss not to point out that for newly hired judges still on probation, the ability to exclude new evidence and essentially rubber stamp the asylum officer’s decision offers the prospect of a very quick completion for quota purposes. Judges should not be put in the position of choosing between the dictates of justice and their own job security.
As the drafters of the proposed rules are well aware, Immigration Judges have long decided cases that were first heard by Asylum Officers. The outcomes of those cases offer strong reason to question the logic of what is now being proposed. EOIR’s Statistical Yearbook for 2016 (the last year such stats were made available) shows that 83% of cases referred by asylum officers were granted asylum that year by Immigration Judges conducting de novo hearings.5
Having heard referred cases as an Immigration Judge, as well as having represented asylum applicants at the Asylum Office, I have no doubt that the right to a full de novo court hearing, in which attorneys are free to offer documents, briefs, and present testimony as they see fit, is the reason for that large disparity. The current system itself recognizes this; it is why Asylum Officers are limited to granting clearly meritorious cases, and must refer the rest to courts better equipped to delve into the intricacies of a highly complex field of law. Immigration Judges also enjoy greater decisional independence than asylum officers, who require supervisory approval of their decisions,6 are more susceptible to political pressure, and are more limited in the legal theories they may rely on.
As to the criteria for supplementing the record, whether evidence is duplicative or necessary is a fuzzy concept. For example, the law accords greater deference to government sources, such as State Department reports, and at times, Immigration Judges may find other evidence deserving of “little evidentiary weight.” Thus, sometimes duplicative evidence is necessary to persuade a judge who may otherwise not be sufficiently swayed by a single report. But that need might not become apparent until the hearing is concluded, whereas decisions to exclude additional testimony and documentary evidence are made much earlier, at the outset of the proceeding.
There are constitutional considerations as well. In a 2013 decision, Oshodi v. Holder, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that limiting an asylum seeker’s testimony to events that were not duplicative of the written application, on the belief that the written record would suffice for deciding veracity, was a violation of the asylum seeker’s due process rights. Yet the proposed regulations seek to codify what according to Oshodi the Constitution specifically forbids. The court in Oshodi stated that “the importance of live testimony to a credibility determination is well-recognized and longstanding.” Having heard live testimony as a judge, I can vouch for this. I decided many cases in which an in person demeanor observation was instrumental to my credibility finding.
I will also state from experience that critical “Eureka” moments arise unexpectedly in the course of hearing testimony. A question from counsel, or sometimes from the judge, will elicit an answer that unexpectedly gives rise to a new line of questioning, or even a legal theory of the case. An example is found in last year’s Second Circuit decision in Hernandez-Chacon v. Barr. In that case, the Second Circuit found that a woman’s act of resisting rape by an MS-13 gang member could constitute a political opinion based on one sentence not contained in the written application, and uttered for the first time at the immigration court hearing: when asked why she resisted, the petitioner responded: “Because I had every right to.” From that single sentence, the Second Circuit found that the resistance transcended mere self-protection and took on a political dimension. Under the proposed rules, the attorney would likely never have been able to ask the question that elicited the critical answer. At asylum office interviews, attorneys are relegated to sitting in the corner and quietly taking notes. Furthermore, I have been told by former asylum officers that the concept of imputed political opinion was not available to them as a basis for granting asylum, a fact that pretty much guarantees it will not be covered in an asylum office interview.
The proposed limitations on Immigration Judge review are not necessary to increase efficiency. Whatever cases asylum officers grant pursuant to their new up front review will significantly reduce the Immigration Court case load. And even an imperfect transcript from those interviews in claims referred to the court will provide attorneys for both sides the opportunity for advance conferencing to narrow down the issues in dispute, a practice which significantly reduces hearing times and which should be greatly encouraged.
According to the website of the New York State Department of Motor Vehicles, at a traffic court hearing, “you or your attorney may ask the officer questions. You may testify, bring witnesses or present evidence on your behalf.”7 The Biden Administration cannot provide less rights than these to those facing the life and death consequences inherent in asylum claims.
Those interested may submit their comments on the new regs by October 19.
Copyright 2021 Jeffrey S. Chase. All rights reserved.
See EOIR FY 2016 Statistics Yearbook, https://www.justice.gov/eoir/page/file/fysb16/download, at p. K-3. Figure 17 is a chart showing the Immigration Court grant rate of affirmative cases referred by the USCIS Asylum Offices. The chart shows a grant rate of 72% in FY 2012, steadily increasing each year to 83% in FY 2016.
Per the USCIS website: A supervisory asylum officer reviews the asylum officer’s decision to ensure it is consistent with the law. Depending on the case, the supervisory asylum officer may refer the decision to asylum division staff at USCIS headquarters for additional review. https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/refugees-and-asylum/asylum/the-affirmative-asylum-process. Immigration Judges require no supervisory review before rendering their decisions.
Sign up with your email address to receive news and updates.
SIGN UP
We respect your privacy.
<img src=”https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/593d84191e5b6ca18cb547ee/1576527959952-C9MO449EII0SH3V1X9M7/Screen+Shot+2019-12-16+at+3.24.24+PM.png” alt=”Screen Shot 2019-12-16 at 3.24.24 PM.png” />
Jeffrey S. Chase is an immigration lawyer in New York City. Jeffrey is a former Immigration Judge and Senior Legal Advisor at the Board of Immigration Appeals.He is the founder of the Round Table of Former Immigration Judges, which was awarded AILA’s 2019 Advocacy Award.Jeffrey is also a past recipient of AILA’s Pro Bono Award.He sits on the Board of Directors of the Association of Deportation Defense Attorneys, and Central American Legal Assistance.
REPUBLISHED BY PERMISSION
******************************
Thanks, “Sir Jeffrey!”
Like many of our colleagues, I granted the majority of “referred” asylum cases, most without ICE appeal. It wasn’t that the Asylum Office did a bad job. The records were often poor or incomplete (as too many individuals attempted to represent themselves at the AO). With the additional information and elucidation from counsel provided at a full hearing, the merits of the case came into focus.
There were a few cases where the parties stipulated to the record before the AO, and just asked me for a legal ruling. This procedure would be available in appropriate cases, without any regulations changes, and should be encouraged for the parties, particularly ICE. Obviously, the key is that both parties must agree that the record before the AO was adequate.
Additionally, at the time, the AO could not grant withholding or CAT, so an inordinate number of one-year filling denial cases were in the referrals. As Jeffrey suggests, this could be fixed without eliminating the right to a full hearing upon referral.
Also, as I have said many times, instituting a new system that reduces the right to a full hearing, without first making badly needed major structural, personnel, training, and leadership changes at both the AO and EOIR is simply insane and another serious breach of trust by the Biden Administration!
“I believe when I go to do this work, I need to integrate myself into the lives of the people I’m covering,” he says. “I don’t want them to see me as above them. We’re on the same level; we’re human.”
That context is needed to understand why Dennison entered the Darién Gap several weeks ago and why, unlike other photographers and videographers, he didn’t take any security guards with him.
That decision would end up giving him a different experience from that of others who have gone there to document the harrowing passage. They have left that jungle and come home with photos that show the horrific struggles of others. He almost didn’t leave the jungle, and he came home with only a fraction of the photos he took and with his own horrific story.
“What he’s been through is horrible and really disturbing,” says Erika Pinheiro, a lawyer who is the litigation and policy director of Al Otro Lado, an advocacy and legal aid organization that serves migrants, refugees and deportees on both sides of the U.S.-Mexico border. The organization has been working with Dennison to create a film that captures the experiences of U.S.-bound Black migrants.
“The only way to understand it is to see it, and that’s what he’s providing,” Pinheiro says. “It’s really important that people understand what’s happening, and that it’s not over in Del Rio.”
The Biden administration recently cleared out a border camp in Del Rio, Tex., where an estimated 15,000 migrants, most of them Haitian nationals seeking asylum, had gathered. The clearing out of the camp came after viral images and video footage showed Border Patrol agents on horseback grabbing migrants and charging at them. In one video, a young girl in a mint-green dress scrambles to get out of the way of a horse heading toward her.
President Biden decried the agents’ actions, and the Department of Homeland Security opened an investigation into the incident.
But what happened in Del Rio captures only part of what many Haitians experience to get to the United States. Many pass through the Darién Gap, some with children in tow and infants strapped to their backs or chests. Officials in Panama have said that a record 70,000 people traveled the 66 miles through the terrain this year.
Before going, Dennison did extensive research on what to expect: spiders with bites that can cause death within six hours, criminals who routinely rob travelers, and polluted water that if not filtered can sicken you. But nothing, he says, could have prepared him for what he experienced.
“When you’re in the jungle, you’re no longer a filmmaker,” he says. “You’re no longer a humanitarian. It becomes about survival.”
. . . .
***********************
Read the full story at the link.
Sad as truth is, it’s not rocket science:
Desperate people do (and will continue to do) desperate things;
For forced migrants, the dangers of staying will always exceed those of leaving;
“Die in place” isn’t a “policy;”
“Deterrence only” can’t work in the long run;
While institutionalized racism has a long history in U.S. immigration policy, it’s never been a good policy for America, nor will it ever be!
Honestly, where does the Biden Administration get these folks who don’t “get the obvious,” lie about it, and then expect good results?
Right now, after nearly eight months, the Biden Administration still appearsto be in no better position to process the next border influx than they were on January 20, despite numerous warnings and eight months of graphic practical and humanitarian failures. Racially charged rhetoric and more cruel, wasteful, dishonest enforcement and removals won’t do it!
We need reopened legal border ports of entry staffed with more and better Asylum Officers overseen by a pragmatic progressive corps of expert Immigration Judges and a BIA composed of progressive asylum experts with the guts to knock heads and get our broken border legal system back to functionality. To state the obvious, that would promote consistency, transparency, and take some of the pressure off of the Article III Courts!
Because neither Mayorkas nor Garland is committed to taking the bold actions necessary to change the dynamics at the border, America, the Biden Administration, and vulnerable legal asylum seekers appear headed for another four years of avoidable failure with all of its unhappy human and political consequences!
“Supremes? What Supremes? We work for Judge Garland @ DOJ, and he’s very, very tolerant of our anti-immigrant, pro-DHS ‘culture,’ and institutionalized poor decision-making over here at ‘his EOIR!’ Our jobs are safe, and that’s all that matters! To hell with ‘the others!’ ‘Jeffie Gonzo’ and ‘Billy the Bigot’ told us to treat migrants like the ‘trespassers’ and ‘scum of the earth’ they really are! It’s not like OUR families were ever migrants!” https://www.flickr.com/photos/rasputin243/ Creative Commons License
Rodriguez v.Garland, 5th Cir., 09-27-21, published
PANEL: Higginbotham, Willett, and Duncan, Circuit Judges.
OPINION: Judge Patrick Higginbotham
KEY QUOTE:
The initial NTA did not contain the time and date of Rodriguez’s hearing. The BIA found that the NTA combined with the subsequent NOH containing the time and place of Rodriguez’s hearing “satisfied the written notice requirements of [8 U.S.C. § 1229(a)],” directly contrary to the Supreme Court’s interpretation of § 1229(a) in Niz-Chavez which made clear that subsequent notices may not cure defects in an initial notice to appear. The BIA applied a “legally erroneous interpretation[].”23
*********************
Judge Higginbotham was appointed by President Ronald Reagan. Even conservative Article III Judges aren’t as anxious to snub the Supremes as the BIA.
After all, the BIA works for the Attorney General, not the Supremes. So, who cares whether their decisions comply with the rulings of the Article III Courts, so long as their political “handlers” at the DOJ are pleased with the pro-DHS outcome! That’s what happens when a “captive court” is encouraged to view itself as an extension of their “partners” at DHS enforcement, carrying out the political agenda of their DOJ superiors who control their paychecks and their career destiny!
Wow! It took fewer than three business days for Garland’s latest venture into obtuse anti-immigrant decision-making at the BIA, Matter of Arambula-Bravo, to hit a brick wall! In the 5th Circuit, no less! Back in the “old days” of the “Legacy INS,” it was a very bad sign when we couldn’t “sell” a position to the 5th Circuit!
Have to wonder if Judge Garland would have been so sanguine with the dissing of the Supremes by the BIA if he had actually become “Justice Garland?”
As my esteemed colleague Judge “Sir Jeffrey” Chase noted, the position adopted by the 5th Circuit in Rodriguez:
is the same argument we [the “Round Table”] made in our recent amicus brief to the Board – in a published decision, the 5th Cir. granted a PFR and vacated the Board’s decision denying a motion to rescind an in absentia order where there was no proper service due to a defective NTA under Niz-Chavez.
By failing to replace the BIA with better qualified progressive expert judges who will issue correct precedents (even when they might benefit immigrants) and require “best practices” in the now-totally-dysfunctional Immigration Courts, Garland is further building backlog by generating thousands of unnecessary remands and reopenings. How long will it take him to reach the 2 million case mark?
“Bogus dedicated dockets,” gross misuse of the discredited “Title 42” rationale to deny due process, increased use of “expedited removal,” proposals to “rubber stamp” asylum and credible fear denials, badly skewed pro-enforcement interpretations that throw the fate of hundreds of thousands of cases into the Circuits and the Supremes aren’t going to solve the problem!
Never underestimate the adverse effects of bad judging, particularly in a high volume system where incorrect precedents result in wrong decisions in hundreds of cases every day! Conversely, you can’t overestimate the positive potential of progressive expert judges who would get the results correct at the “retail level;” force some badly needed quality control, discipline, and consistency at both EOIR and DHS; and solve problems rather than creating them!
Sadly, Garland doesn’t “get it!” And that will be a continuing unmitigated disaster for our democracy and our justice system! Such a lost opportunity!
Has Alfred E. Neumann been “reborn” as Judge Merrick B. Garland? “Not my friends, relatives, or attorney buddies whose lives are being destroyed by my ‘Kangaroo Courts.’ Just ‘the others’ and their ‘scuzzy, unimportant immigration lawyers,’ so who cares, why worry about professionalism, ethics, and due process in Immigration Court?” PHOTO: Wikipedia Commons
“Abushagif contends that the BIA abused its discretion by entirely failing to address his CAT claim. On that point, he is correct. A CAT “claim is separate from . . . claims for asylum and withholding of removal and should receive separate analytical attention.” Efe v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 899, 906–07 (5th Cir. 2002). Moreover, the BIA must not leave asserted CAT claims unaddressed. See Eduard v. Ashcroft, 379 F.3d 182, 196 (5th Cir. 2004). The government does not dispute that Abushagif raised a CAT claim in his motion to reopen. The government avers, however, that Abushagif did not present his claim to the Board and thus failed to exhaust it. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1). That is flatly incorrect; Abushagif raised his CAT claim several times in his briefing before the BIA. It is confounding that the government says otherwise. The government also contends that remanding the CAT claim would be “futile” because, even if the BIA had addressed it, the Board still would not have granted his motion to reopen, given its determination that Abushagif had generally failed to submit reliable evidence in support of his claims of persecution. That contention, however, cannot overcome the plain command of our caselaw: The Board must address CAT claims where they are raised. See Eduard, 379 F.3d at 196. We therefore remand for the limited purpose of the Board’s addressing Abushagif’s CAT claim.”
The government does not dispute that Abushagif raised a CAT claim in his motion to reopen. The government avers, however, that Abushagif did not present his claim to the Board and thus failed to exhaust it. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1). That is flatly incorrect; Abushagif raised his CAT claim several times in his briefing before the BIA. It is confounding that the government says otherwise.
“Confounding,” but not surprising to any of us who follow the continuing meltdown of justice and callous indifference to the law, truth, and human lives @ Garland’s failed and failing Department of “Justice.”
The government also contends that remanding the CAT claim would be “futile” because, even if the BIA had addressed it, the Board still would not have granted his motion to reopen, given its determination that Abushagif had generally failed to submit reliable evidence in support of his claims of persecution. That contention, however, cannot overcome the plain command of our caselaw: The Board must address CAT claims where they are raised.
Basically, OIL, argues that even if they had actually addressed CAT, the BIA would still have stiffed the respondent’s claim because that’s what a “programmed to deny for any reason” BIA does. Why bother with a BIA decision when a denial is “predetermined?” Is this really the sad state of due process at Garland’s DOJ? Apparently!
Let’s put this in context. The respondent is from Libya, a country notorious for torture. Here’s an excerpt from the latest (2020) Department of State Country Report on Libya:
While the 2011 Constitutional Declaration and postrevolutionary legislation prohibit such practices, credible sources indicated personnel operating both government and extralegal prisons and detention centers tortured detainees (see section 1.g.). While judicial police controlled some facilities, the GNA continued to rely on armed groups to manage prisons and detention facilities. Furthermore, armed groups, not police, initiated arrests in many instances. An unknown number of individuals were held without judicial authorization in other facilities nominally controlled by the Ministry of Interior, Ministry of Defense, or in extralegal
Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2020
United States Department of State • Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor
LIBYA 7
facilities controlled by GNA-affiliated armed groups, LNA-affiliated armed groups, and other nonstate actors. Treatment varied from facility to facility and typically was worst at the time of arrest. There were reports of cruel and degrading treatment in government and extralegal facilities, including beatings, administration of electric shocks, burns, and rape. In many instances this torture was reportedly initiated to extort payments from detainees’ families.
Also, the 5th Circuit is generally considered the most conservative and pro-Government Circuit. It is a jurisdiction where the Government has to work hard and really, really screw up to lose an immigration case.
Two of the panel judges in this case are GOP appointees: Judges Engelhardt (Trump), and Smith (Reagan). The third panel member, Judge Higginson is an Obama appointee. Judge Jerry E. Smith, who wrote this opinion, is known as one of the most conservative Federal Judges in America! If these jurists see problems, you can be sure they actually exist!
One thing that unites Federal Judges across the ideological spectrum is dislike of being lied to by DOJ attorneys! Evidently, that’s no longer of concern to Judge Garland now that he is the purveyor, rather than the recipient, of misrepresentations, untruths, and sloppy, unprofessional work from DOJ attorneys!
How travesties like this, that happen at Garland’s DOJ on a daily basis, in “life or death” cases, is acceptable professional judicial performance is beyond understanding!
Additionally, how clearly misrepresenting the facts of record is ethically acceptable performance for OIL attorneys is totally beyond me!
Maybe its time for the House and Senate Judiciary Committees to call Judge Garland before them for oversight to examine his continuing mismanagement of EOIR, America’s worst, most backlogged, most blatantly unfair, court system, that has not materially improved during his tenure. They should also inquire as to why he continues to tolerate unethical performance from OIL Attorneys making material misrepresentations to Federal Courts in attempting to defend the indefensible performance of the BIA in immigration litigation. Also, why hasn’t Garland spoken out about the illegal suspension of asylum laws enacted by Congress at our borders? Human lives are at stake here!
The idea that Garland intends to “fix” this problem by throwing 200 new Immigration Judges into this broken, dysfunctional system, without first addressing any of the structural, management, competence, personnel, and institutional bias issues at EOIR is beyond absurd! “Management 101” says you fix the system by rooting out and replacing incompetent and unqualified judges, replacing incompetent managers with competent ones, and fixing the many broken operational pieces of the Immigration Court System before expanding it.
This means, at a minimum, slashing the backlog by getting hundreds of thousands of old, non-priority cases off the docket now, stopping endemic “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” at EOIR, installing a functional e-filing system, getting competent representation into the Immigration Courts, replacing the current institutionalized “worst practices” with “best practices,” and instituting real judicial training by experts from outside EOIR.
Only then, after the system has been made functional, should it be expanded, if needed. Otherwise, it’s like trying to fix defective automobile production by hiring more workers and speeding up the assembly line, thereby producing more defective vehicles without fixing that which caused the defects in the first place.
This case also shows the critical, life-saving role of pro bono counsel in Immigration Court. Without the heroic efforts ofpro bono publico counsel Alison Caditz and Jeri Leigh Miller, Mr. Abushagif would probably be hanging from a ceiling fan in Libya right now!
Garland indifferent to wrong torture decisions from BIA? Photo by David R. Badger, Creative Commons
I was pleased to see that Judge Smith cited my precedent opinion in Matter of L-O-G-, 21 I&B Dec. 413 (BIA 1996) in his opinion. See FN 1. In L-O-G-, we held that “we have been willing to reopen ‘where the new facts alleged, when coupled with the facts already of record, satisfy us that it would be worthwhile to develop the issues further at a plenary hearing on reopening.’” 21 I&N Dec. at 419 (citations omitted).
Yes, folks, there was a time long ago and far away when BIA Chairs actually functioned as appellate judges: participating in cases at both the panel and en banc level, writing decisions, and, where necessary, filing dissents, without regard to “career enhancement.” That was in addition to BIA management duties, being a senior member of EOIR’s executive team, andmany public speaking, writing, and other public information and educational functions.
While today’s BIA and many Immigration Judges routinely ignore Matter of L-O-G- and its important teaching, it remains “good law,” as found by Judge Smith. Practitioners should be citing it in every motion to reopen and insisting that EOIR start following its own precedents, even where they produce results inconsistent with the restrictionist positions urged by DHS or the “round ‘em up and move ‘em out attitudes” that still seem prevalent at Garland’s DOJ.
It’s rather ironic that Federalist Society hero Judge Jerry E. Smith understands me better than Garland’s BIA!
Garland seems uninterested in making the long overdue bold progressive reforms necessary to restore due process, consistency, humanity, and racial justice to our broken and dysfunctional Immigration Courts. That means the battle over the next four years is likely to shift to the Article III Courts and Congress to finally get this utterly disgraceful, yet fixable, system back on track! This is also what’s required to save at least some of the vulnerable human lives now being “chewed up and spit out” by Garland’s ☠️ “Deadly Clown Courts” 🤡 and their ethics-challenged OIL defenders!🤮
Attorney General Merrick B. Garland Announces Appointment of David Neal as Director of the Executive Office for Immigration Review
WASHINGTON – Attorney General Merrick B. Garland today announced the appointment of David L. Neal as the Director of the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) at the Department of Justice.
“The Justice Department’s commitment to a fair and efficient immigration court system, governed by due process and the rule of law, is exemplified by recent policy changes and our pursuit of significant additional resources,” said Attorney General Garland. “David Neal brings invaluable experience that will help further EOIR’s mission.”
The EOIR director is responsible for the supervision of the Chairman of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), the Chief Immigration Judge, the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer and all agency personnel. 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 FY 22, EOIR anticipates increasing its immigration judge corps from 535 today to 734 by the end of the next fiscal year.
Most recently, Mr. Neal was a consultant specializing in immigration policy and practice. Previously, he held positions at EOIR over two decades. From 2009 to 2019, he served as Chairman of the BIA at EOIR, where he was chief judge of the appeals board and managed judicial and administrative operations. Mr. Neal served in multiple other capacities at EOIR, including as Vice Chairman of the BIA, Chief Immigration Judge, Assistant Chief Immigration Judge, Immigration Judge and Assistant to the Director.
Prior to his tenure with EOIR, Mr. Neal served in the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee as chief counsel of the Subcommittee on Immigration. Mr. Neal began his legal career as the Director of Policy Analysis at the American Immigration Lawyers Association and also worked for a law firm in Los Angeles, representing immigration cases before the former Immigration and Naturalization Service, the State Department, the Department of Labor and EOIR.
Mr. Neal received his Bachelor of Arts from Wabash College in Crawfordsville, Indiana, Master of Divinity from Harvard University’s School of Divinity and his Juris Doctor from Columbia Law School. Mr. Neal is a member of the District of Columbia and New York bars.
**************************
David thus becomes the first EOIR Director to have served as both BIA Chair and Chief Immigration Judge, as well as briefly as an Immigration Judge.
Congratulations and good luck to David in his new position! It’s going to take a monumental effort, extraordinary management ability, creativity, and lots courage and determined due-process-best-practices-oriented leadership to straighten out the godawful legal, professional, and administrative mess in America’s most unfair and dysfunctional court system, now running a largely self-created 1.4 million case backlog.
Will he be able to hold off the politicos at DOJ and finally put an end to the DOJ-generated “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” (“ADR”) that has been the major cause of the 1.4 million case backlog at EOIR that has gown up over the last two decades of mismanagement at DOJ and EOIR? Will he be able to end the reprehensible officially-sanctioned “victim shaming” and cowardly “blame shifting” that has been heaped by the DOJ and EOIR on those suffering from its defective administrative practices over the past two decades?
If, as Garland claims, 200 new Immigration Judge positions will be added by the end of FY 2022, will David be able to institute merit-based Immigration Judge hiring that 1) involves public input from those who actually practice before the Immigration Courts, e.g., the private bar; 2) gives appropriate credit to “practical scholars” in immigration, human rights, and civil rights with clearly-established records of independent thinking and unswerving commitment to due process for individuals; 3) appropriately honors and weighs experience gained actually representing individuals, particularly asylum seekers, in Immigration Court, and 4) removes demeaning “production quotas,” limitations on docket management, and unnecessary restrictions on public scholarship, writing, and teaching which have made the job intentionally unattractive to many of the “best and brightest” progressive candidates from the private immigration and human rights sector. Will he actually go out and actively recruit a broader, more diverse, and more representative candidate base for IJ hiring, rather than using “insider procedures” that don’t reach or encourage many of the best candidates for these important jobs?
HINT: More “gimmicks,” like “dedicated dockets,” continued “Mickey Mouse” 🐭 uber enforcement “production quotas,” and appointments of judges who have never represented an individual in Immigration Court won’t do the trick! That is being proved every single day, beyond any reasonable doubt!
Nor will being at war with the National Association of Immigration Judges (“NAIJ”) and their leadership further due process. NAIJ leaders are the only ones at EOIR who have been providing meaningful professional training over the past four years of darkness and ignorance at EOIR.
They, along with the Private/NGO/Clinical Bar and OPLA Assistant Chief Counsel have the best and most practical ideas on how to fix EOIR! David would be wise to give them all “seats at his table,” and listen carefully to their views, rather than attempting to “lock them in a dark cellar,” as was the practice of the Trump immigration kakistocracy that effectively destroyed EOIR!
Since “built to fail” enforcement-generated non-solutions are the things EOIR appears “wedded to,” David is going to have to persuade Garland and his lieutenants to radically change course. Can he get them to treat Immigration Courts as “real courts,” controlling the lives of “real human beings,” folks like you and me, in dire need of real judicial administration and real progressive expert judges, to get out of EOIR’s current “death spiral.”☠️ Or, will we see a continuation of “Dred Scottification” of women and people of color, along with substandard trial judging, defective appellate review, and lousy biased precedents that end up creating more problems than they solve? 🤮 Only time will tell!
Hon. Andrea Saenz Appellate Immigration Judge, BIA PHOTO: immigrantarc.org
Here’s Andrea’s bio:
Andrea Sáenz
Andrea Sáenz [was] Attorney-in-Charge of the New York Immigrant Family Unity Project (NYIFUP) at Brooklyn Defender Services. NYIFUP is New York’s first-in-the-nation immigration public defender program representing detained immigrants facing removal. Prior to joining BDS in 2016, Andrea was a Clinical Teaching Fellow in the Immigration Justice Clinic at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, teaching, litigating, and working on the advocacy that grew NYIFUP at the city and state levels. Andrea has previously worked as an Immigration Staff Attorney at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, a judicial law clerk at the Varick Street Immigration Court in Manhattan, an Equal Justice Works Fellow at the Political Asylum/Immigration Representation (PAIR) Project in Boston, and a high school ESL teacher. She teaches and trains widely on criminal immigration, detention, and litigation issues. Andrea graduated from Harvard Law School cum laude in 2008 and received her B.A. in English from the University of California, Los Angeles in 2002.
KEY QUOTE:
Andrea Sàenz, Attorney-in-Charge of the New York Immigrant Family Unity Project (NYIFUP) at Brooklyn Defender Services
“Our platform calls for universal representation of immigrants facing deportation, because when the stakes are often literally life, death, or permanent family separation, no one should be deported simply because they couldn’t afford an attorney. We need to change, shrink, and defund the deportation system and reinvest in our communities. ICE enforcement, detention and other cruel immigration policies tear apart families, and we urge the Biden administration and the new Democratic majority congress to listen to our neighbors’ voices.”
Congratulations, Andrea! As one of my esteemed Round Table colleagues said: “Incredibly great news. I couldn’t think of anybody better and more deserving!” Nor can I!
This is great news for American Justice and for the NDPA. It’s even better news for the long suffering victims of perverted justice at EOIR and their courageous attorneys, like members of the NDPA, who have fought in the trenches for due process, human rights, and human dignity against an intentionally rigged and gamed system designed to deny all three of the foregoing. Andrea also has “EOIR creds,” having been a JLC at the Varick Street Immigration Court.
Finally, someone who has witnessed the waste, unfairness, illegality, and human carnage of failed policies enabled by EOIR’s feckless, tone deaf, careless, and complicit performance of their life-determining quasi-judicial duties. This breaks the scandalous two-decade plus exclusion of the “best and brightest” progressive expert judges from the BIA, the nation’s highest immigration and human rights tribunal, that has helped reduce due process and justice for women and people of color before EOIR to a “sick joke!”
I know that’s it’s impossible for any one person, no matter how brilliant, hard-working, and dedicated, to change the anti-asylum, anti-due process, anti-gender-fairness “culture” encouraged @ EOIR by the past Administration and, to date, not effectively repudiated by Garland. But, it is important that the voice of reason, practicality, due process, fundamental fairness, and humanity once again be heard at EOIR!
We all hope and trust that others will follow in your footsteps, Andrea, and eventually form the “new majority” of a much, much better Immigration Judiciary: That the properly generous, sensible, and humane view of asylum law established in Cardoza-Fonseca and Mogharrabi will again become the guiding lights of immigration jurisprudence rather than being parroted (but not followed), mocked, and dishonored by those whose job it is to protect individual Constitutional, legal, and human rights from Government overreach: That “through teamwork and innovation becoming the world’s best tribunals guaranteeing fairness and due process for all” once again becomes the vision of our Immigration Courts at all levels!
Speaking in behalf of the NFPA, we all appreciate the dedication, hard work, consistent excellence, and intellectual and moral courage it took for Andrea to put herself forward and be a pioneer for the better Immigration Judiciary of our future! On behalf of a grateful NDPA and an appreciative Round Table, thanks, congratulations again, and may the forces of due process guide you and be with you forever!
The Biden administration has condemned abuses at the border – while maintaining the policies underlying these abuses. That’s beyond cynical
Published:
06:22 Thursday, 23 September 2021
Follow Moustafa Bayoumi
You’ve probably seen a photograph haunting the internet this week: a white-presenting man on horseback – uniformed, armed and sneering – is grabbing a shoeless Black man by the neck of his T-shirt. The Black man’s face bears an unmistakable look of horror. He struggles to remain upright while clinging dearly to some bags of food in his hands. Between the men, a long rein from the horse’s bridle arches menacingly in the air like a whip. The photograph was taken just a few days ago in Texas, but the tableau looks like something out of antebellum America.
The image is profoundly upsetting, not just for what it portrays but for the history it evokes. What’s happening at the border right now puts two of our founding national myths – that we’re a land of liberty and a nation of immigrants – under scrutiny. To put it plainly, we don’t fare well under inspection.
US border patrol agents on horseback search for migrants trying to enter the United States along the US-Mexico border. Photograph: José Luis González/Reuters
. . . .
Without review, it’s impossible to know who is facing real threats of persecution when returned to Haiti. The United Nations human rights spokesperson, Marta Hurtado, said that the UN “is seriously concerned by the fact that it appears there have not been any individual assessments of the cases”. Why does the Biden administration not share her concern?
One has to wonder if the same policies expelling Haitians from the US today would be in effect if those arriving at the border were Europeans or even Cubans. If history is any guide – for decades, the US privileged Cubans over Haitians and other Caribbean peoples in immigration matters – the answer is no.
It’s one thing for the Biden administration to condemn abuses conducted by its own government that recall the worst parts of our national history. But it’s quite another to do so while maintaining the policies that enable those abuses. That’s not just cynical. It’s despicable.
Moustafa Bayoumi is the author of How Does It Feel to Be a Problem?: Being Young and Arab in America
Foote’s sudden departure leaves a void in U.S. policy toward Haiti and adds another prominent, critical voice to the administration’s response to Haitians.
AP By Joshua Goodman and Matthew Lee, September 21, 2021
The Biden administration’s special envoy to Haiti has resigned, protesting “inhumane” large-scale expulsions of Haitian migrants to their homeland wracked by civil strife and natural disaster, U.S. officials said Thursday.
Daniel Foote was appointed to the position only in July, following the assassination of Haiti’s president. Even before the migrant expulsions from the small Texas border town of Del Rio, the career diplomat was known to be deeply frustrated with what he considered a lack of urgency in Washington and a glacial pace on efforts to improve conditions in Haiti.
Foote wrote Secretary of State Antony Blinken that he was stepping down immediately “with deep disappointment and apologies to those seeking crucial changes.”
“I will not be associated with the United States inhumane, counterproductive decision to deport thousands of Haitian refugees and illegal immigrants to Haiti, a country where American officials are confined to secure compounds because of the danger posed by armed gangs to daily life,” he wrote. “Our policy approach to Haiti remains deeply flawed, and my policy recommendations have been ignored and dismissed, when not edited to project a narrative different from my own.”
Two U.S. officials with direct knowledge of the matter confirmed the resignation on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss it publicly.
One official, who was not authorized to publicly discuss personnel matters and spoke on condition of anonymity, said that Foote had consistently sought greater oversight of Haiti policy and that the administration did not believe his requests were appropriate.
Foote’s sudden departure leaves a void in U.S. policy toward Haiti and adds another prominent, critical voice to the administration’s response to Haitians camped on the Texas border. The camp has shrunk considerably since surpassing more than 14,000 people on Saturday – many of them expelled and many released in the U.S. with notices to report to immigration authorities.
The White House is facing sharp bipartisan condemnation. Democrats and many pro-immigration groups say efforts to expel thousands of Haitians without a chance to seek asylum violates American principles and their anger has been fueled by images that went viral this week of Border Patrol agents on horseback using aggressive tactics against the migrants.
. . . .
___
Goodman reported from Miami, Lee from New York on the sidelines of United Nations General Assembly meetings.
**********************
Read the complete article at the above link.
And, there are more “strange happenings” within the flailing Biden immigration/human rights bureaucracy.
Over at ICE, “Immigration pro” John Trasviña is out at OPLA after only a few months in office:
The Biden administration has appointed seasoned Boston immigration attorney Kerry Doyle to become its immigration enforcement agency’s top prosecutor.
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials confirmed to GBH that Doyle, previously of Graves & Doyle, will be its principal legal advisor. The office she will lead is the largest legal program within the Department of Homeland Security, with over 1,250 attorneys and 290 support personnel.
The Office of the Principal Legal Advisor sends its prosecutors to litigate deportation cases before the Executive Office for immigration Review, the body that oversees the nation’s immigration courts.
Doyle has been an outspoken critic of the agency and has led many lawsuits against it.
She is a graduate of the American University Washington School of Law, and George Washington University. She started her career as a legislative assistant to former U.S. Rep. Bob Wise (D-W.Va.), and became an attorney for Legal Services for Vietnamese Asylum Seekers in 1993. She was managing attorney for the International Institute of Boston from 1998 to 2001, before founding Graves & Doyle with partner William E. Graves Jr.
The Boston-based firm handled a breadth of immigration issues, from citizenship, to business and family immigration, federal litigation, asylum, and deportation cases.
Doyle took the case of Iranian student Mohammad Shahab Dehghani Hossein Abadi, who was enrolled at Northeastern University and deported because it was assumed by Logan Airport border patrol agents that he would remain in the U.S. beyond the time frame of his student visa. She co-authored an op-ed in The Boston Globe about Abadi’s case, entitled “Customs and Border Protection gone rogue.”
Doyle has also been particularly outspoken against ICE on Beacon Hill, including one appearance in January 2020, where she called ICE “out of control” during a hearing over the Safe Communities Act, which would limit how state and local municipalities interact with federal immigration enforcement.
Doyle declined to comment on her appointment, asking GBH to speak with ICE’s media office, which did not return requests for comment.
Susan Church of Demissie & Church has known and worked with Doyle for over two decades.
“She actually taught me much of what I know about immigration law,” said Church. “I can’t imagine a better, more knowledgeable attorney to run that agency because she knows the immigration system in and out.”
Church and Doyle co-filed a 2017 federal lawsuit against former President Donald Trump with the American Civil Liberties Union after he banned entry to the U.S. from seven Muslim-majority countries.
The Office of the Principal Legal Advisor has control over whether immigrants are released from detention, what financial amounts — or bonds — are set for them to be released, or whether a lawsuit gets postponed.
“There will be a tremendous opportunity to craft policy procedures, rules and the like to make sure that immigrants receive a fair day in court and a fair hearing and have a fair shot at getting a life in the United States,” said Church.
Biden’s Department of Homeland Security has been criticized for continuing to keep immigrants detained with high bond amounts, but Church thinks Doyle’s appointment shows there may be a shift.
“I think it’s clear that the Biden administration is following the path of the progressive district attorney and installing somebody in charge who cares about safety issues, but also cares deeply about the rights and the protections for immigrants,” she said, referring to the recent nomination of Suffolk County District Attorney Rachael Rollins to be the U.S. attorney.
Carol Rose, executive director of the ACLU of Massachusetts, also applauded the pick. “We hope Kerry Doyle’s outstanding track record of fighting for immigrants’ rights continues in her new position at ICE,” Rose said. But, she added, “the ACLU remains committed to holding this and other government agencies accountable.”
The former principal legal advisor John D. Trasviña announced his retirement at the beginning of September.
*****************
On one hand, Kerry Doyle is well qualified and presumably will work to restore professionalism, common sense, and humanity to what had been a misdirected, counterproductive, and totally out of control agency under Trump and his toadies.
But, there has to be more to Trasviña’s “retirement” than meets the eye. One does not normally accept a senior level policy position in a new Administration while planning to “retire” within a few months.
So, something else is going on here. Many of us had applauded the appointment ofTrasviña, a high profile, nationally respected, experienced expert in immigration, civil rights, human rights, and racial justice, at OPLA. During his short tenure, he issued helpful memos and guidance expanding the use of prosecutorial discretion (“PD”) at ICE. More aggressive and sensible use of PD is critical to controlling and eventually eliminating the largely Government-created 1.4 million case Immigration Court backlog.
Best wishes to Kerry in her new position!
*****************
Immigration and human rights are a mess because Biden and his advisors ignored expert advice to move quickly and aggressively to restore robust refugee and asylum systems and to institute long overdue progressive reforms and personnel changes at EOIR. Right now, there appears to be neither an overall plan nor the dynamic progressive leadership and better Immigration Judiciary to carry it out.
It’s going to take more than a few intellectually dishonest expressions of “outrage” from Biden Press Secretary Jen Psaki and a bogus “investigation” of Border Patrol Agents who were only carrying out the cruel, inhumane, and racist policies developed and approved at the highest levels of the Biden Administration, to wipe out the images of the abuse of asylum applicants at our border and the deep-seated racial prejudices and biases it represents. 🏴☠️It’s all about dehumanization and continuing “Dred Scottification” of the “other”🤮☠️ — predominantly courageous, yet vulnerable, people of color!
“Adel Ghanem, a former lawful permanent resident of the United States, seeks to avoid removal to Yemen, from which he fled to avoid persecution on account of political opinion. He pursues three forms of relief that were denied by the Immigration Judge (IJ) and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA): asylum under the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a), withholding of removal under the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3), and withholding of removal under the Convention Against Torture, 8 U.S.C. § 1252, 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c). Ghanem was kidnapped and tortured before being convicted and sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment for political opposition to the Houthi regime. We will therefore grant the petition for review and remand to the BIA. … We begin by reviewing the agency’s determination that Ghanem was ineligible for asylum under the INA because he was not persecuted “on account of” political opinion. We perceive two errors in its analysis: First, the Board’s conclusion ignores overwhelming evidence that Ghanem was persecuted on account of political opinion. Second, it erroneously treated familial relationships as disqualifying and failed to give the proper weight to the substantial record evidence that a protected ground remains one central reason for Ghanem’s persecution. … Illustrating “gross, flagrant [and] mass violations of human rights” that he would be unable to escape, the record evidence not only fails to support but directly contradicts the BIA’s conclusions that Ghanem is not likely to be tortured with the government’s acquiescence, if returned to Yemen. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(3)(iii).8 The denial of relief under CAT therefore cannot withstand even our most deferential review. … For the foregoing reasons, we will grant Ghanem’s petition, vacate the BIA’s order, and remand to the agency for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
How is the BIA’s grotesque misapplication of asylum and CAT law and intentional distortion of the record evidence acceptable adjudication from a Federal Court, even a “quasi-judicial administrative tribunal?” Lives are at stake are here! But, Garland remains indifferent to the deadly ☠️ daily injustices and stunning judicial incompetence and bias he promotes, coddles, defends, and enables at his dysfunctional EOIR!
And what is his OIL doing defending this garbage before the Circuits? Garland’s DOJ is an ethical cesspool and a slimy mess of legal incompetence! Where’s the long overdue “thorough housecleaning” of this gross abuse of taxpayer dollars and walking talking insult to the Canons of Legal and Judicial Ethics!
These aren’t just “honest legal mistakes!” No way! They are the product of an anti-asylum, anti-immigrant, anti-due process, anti-people of color “culture” which was actually encouraged and promoted at EOIR during the Trump regime and still endures!
It starts, but doesn’t end, with aBIA “packed” with a number of Trump/Miller appointees who were nationally renowned for their unsuitability to fairly adjudicate ANY asylum case, let alone to be “elevated” to the highest immigration tribunal. But, it’s not like any BIA Appellate Judge has the guts and integrity to stand up and speak out for immigrants’ rights, human rights, and constitutional due process!
It’s outrageous that the BIA as currently comprised is charged with setting precedents, maintaining consistency, and guaranteeing fairness for asylum applicants, particularly women and people of color. Of course this type of misconduct and incompetence will continue to generate huge, uncontrolled backlogs! THIS national, even international, disgusting disgrace will be Garland’s lasting legacy!
The proposed “asylum reform regulations” and all other immigration and racial justice reforms put forth by Biden will fail without a better, progressive, expert BIA totally committed to due process, fundamental fairness, and racial justice! Why hasn’t Congress demanded an accounting from Garland for his jaw-dropping mismanagement of the Immigration Courts and his failure to make obvious administrative reforms?
Demand better from Garland and the Biden Administration! This disgraceful, dysfunctional, deadly mess at EOIR is NOT OK!🤮👎🏽
Adrift on a sea of endless incompetence, Garland’s “Dedicated Dockets” won’t save EOIR! U.S. Coast Guard photo by Petty Officer 1st Class Sara Francis Public Realm
Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse
Immigration Court Struggling to Manage Its Expanding Dedicated Docket of Asylum-Seeking Families
During the month of August, the Biden administration stepped up the assignment of asylum-seeking families arriving at the border to the Immigration Court’s new “Dedicated Docket” program. As of August 31, 2021, Immigration Court records indicate that a total of 16,713 individuals comprising approximately 6,000 families are now assigned to this program.
But alongside the growing number of asylum-seekers assigned to the new Dedicated Docket, new questions emerge about whether these cases will be completed fairly and within the promised timeline, whether Immigration Judges will be able to manage large Dedicated Docket caseloads, and whether the Court is reliably tracking these cases as promised.
While EOIR has set up Dedicated Docket hearing locations in eleven cities, cases assigned thus far have been unusually concentrated in just a few cities. As of the end of August half of the 16,713 cases were assigned to New York City and Boston.
With the rapid influx of cases at a number of these Dedicated Docket hearing locations, half of the currently scheduled initial master hearings are not being held until after mid-November 2021, and fully one in ten are not currently scheduled until mid-February 2022. In addition, these hearings are largely to be held via video. Only eleven percent of all scheduled hearings are set as in-person hearings.
It also continues to be a relatively small number of judges who are assigned to hear these cases. Six judges now account for nearly two-thirds (63%) of the assigned Dedicated Docket cases. Each of these six judges has already been assigned over a thousand cases just during the first three months of this initiative. Judge Mario J. Sturla in Boston has thus far been assigned the most Dedicated Docket cases for any judge—3,178 cases.
Some basic arrangements are still not in place to ensure that cases assigned to the Dedicated Docket are clearly identified in the Court’s database system which is relied on to manage the Court’s workload. As of the end of August, fully 38 percent of cases assigned to the special hearing locations set up to exclusively handle Dedicated Dockets were not flagged as “DD” cases.
To examine a variety of Immigration Court data, including asylum data, the backlog, MPP, and more now updated through August 2021, use TRAC’s Immigration Court tools here:
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:
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.
*********************
I’m not aware of any “courtroom” at EOIR that actually could hold 129 respondents, their family members, and attorneys (if any). It’s a high volume court with a “mini-court” infrastructure. Our Masters were shut down several times by the Arlington Fire Department for unsafe conditions and blocking handicapped access.
Also, building new “gimmick dockets” without e-filing is totally insane!
I once did a 100-case TV Master in Cincinnati. I had no files! ICE sent their files to Cleveland while sending the Assistant Chief Counsel to appear in person in Cincinnati. They probably crossed “in transit.” EOIR provided a Spanish interpreter. However most of the non-English speakers on the docket were from Mauritania and spoke French or Wolof. It was a complete circus.
Afterwards, I told the then Chief Immigration Judge that it was “friggin’ Clown Court!” He was not amused. Nor was I!
Probably not a “career enhancing” move, but I was “working my way down the ladder” by that time.
Creating more unnecessary “gimmick dockets” at EOIR — just like hiring more new IJs, is NOT going to solve the extreme structural, organizational, personnel, and competence issues infecting the Immigration Courts. Actually, if anyone had bothered to check, “dedicated dockets” were tried during the Obama Administration. They inevitably failed — adding to the “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” while undermining due process, efficiency, and best practices!
It’s not “rocket science.” 🚀 Anybody who actually practices (as best they can, under these near-impossible circumstances) in Immigration Court these days could tell Garland exactly what the problems are.
Nobody in their right mind would suggest that the “answer” is a “Dedicated Docket” or infusing a large number of additional judges into this mess, although the solution definitely involves replacing some existing judges, starting with the BIA, and includes bringing in real progressive, expert judicial leadership. So, why is Garland rolling out more gimmicks and proposed personnel increases without addressing the REAL problems at EOIR?
Fix the system! Bring in expert progressive judges who know the law and are committed to best practices! Stop the politicized interference! Figure out what the real system requirements are! THEN go out and do additional merit-based hiring, if more judges are really part of the answer! (Hint: The vast majority of the 2+-year-old non-detained, non-priority cases should be administratively closed or referred to USCIS, or both. They are bogging down the system without promoting justice.)
Alas, poor EOIR seems to be adrift on a sea of endless incompetence, mismanagement, and neglect with no safe port in sight.
PANEL: Consuelo M. Callahan and*Paul J. Watford, Circuit Judges, and Jed S. Rakoff, District Judge.
Opinion by Judge Watford; Dissent by Judge Callahan
* The Honorable Jed S. Rakoff, United States District Judge for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.
STAFF SUMMARY:
Granting Rafael Diaz-Rodriguez’s petition for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals, the panel held that child endangerment, in violation of California Penal Code § 273a(a), does not constitute “a crime of child abuse, child neglect, or child abandonment” within the meaning of 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(E)(i).
In Martinez-Cedillo v. Sessions, 896 F.3d 979 (9th Cir. 2018), a divided panel held to the contrary, and a majority of the non-recused active judges voted to rehear the case en banc. However, after the petitioner passed away, the en banc court dismissed the appeal as moot and vacated the panel decision. The panel here observed that Martinez-Cedillo is no longer binding precedent, but explained that between its issuance and the decision to rehear the case en banc, two published opinions relied on it: Menendez v. Whitaker, 908 F.3d 467 (9th Cir. 2018), and Alvarez-Cerriteno v. Sessions, 899 F.3d 774 (9th Cir. 2018).
The panel concluded that the unusual circumstance here led it to conclude that this case falls outside the scope of the general rule that three-judge panels are bound to follow published decisions of prior panels. The panel explained that both Alvarez-Cerriteno and Menendez simply followed Martinez-Cedillo as then-binding precedent without engaging in independent analysis of the deference issue, and
** This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader.
DIAZ-RODRIGUEZ V. GARLAND 3
both decisions were effectively insulated from en banc review on that issue. The panel explained that both decisions are irreconcilable with a subsequent decision of the court sitting en banc because their reliance on Martinez-Cedillo is in conflict with the en banc court’s decision to designate that decision as non-precedential.
Applying the categorical approach, the panel identified the elements of California Penal Code § 273a(a): causing or permitting a child “to be placed in a situation where his or her person or health is endangered,” committed with a mens rea of criminal negligence. As to the federal offense, the panel explained that Congress enacted the ground of removability at 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(E)(i) as part of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA) and did not define the phrase “a crime of child abuse, child neglect, or child abandonment.” In Matter of Soram, 25 I. & N. Dec. 378 (BIA 2010), however, the BIA held that the phrase encompassed child endangerment offenses committed with a mens rea of at least criminal negligence. In considering whether Soram was entitled to deference, the panel was guided by the Supreme Court’s decision in Esquivel-Quintana v. Sessions, 137 S. Ct. 1562 (2017), where the Court observed that the term “sexual abuse of a minor” was undefined and then looked to normal tools of statutory interpretation in concluding that the statute unambiguously forecloses the BIA’s interpretation of it.
Applying this approach, the panel concluded that deference was precluded at Chevron step one because the text of §1227(a)(2)(E)(i) unambiguously forecloses the BIA’s interpretation as encompassing negligent child endangerment offenses. First, the panel explained that contemporary legal dictionaries from the time of IIRIRA’s enactment indicate that child abuse, child neglect, and child
4 DIAZ-RODRIGUEZ V. GARLAND
abandonment were well-understood concepts with distinct meanings that do not encompass one-time negligent child endangerment offenses. Second, the panel explained that the statutory structure suggested that Congress deliberately omitted child endangerment from the list of offenses specified in § 1227(a)(2)(E)(i). Third, the panel explained that the general consensus drawn from state criminal codes confirms that the phrase does not encompass negligent child endangerment offenses. The panel noted that the fourth source consulted in Esquivel-Quintana, related federal criminal statutes, did not aid its analysis.
Because a violation of California Penal Code § 273a(a) can be committed with a mens rea of criminal negligence, the panel concluded that it is not a categorical match for “a crime of child abuse, child neglect, or child abandonment.” Accordingly, the panel concluded that Diaz-Rodriguez’s conviction under that statute did not render him removable under § 1227(a)(2)(E)(i).
Dissenting, Judge Callahan wrote that she was compelled to dissent for two reasons. First, she did not agree that the three-judge panel could disregard Menendez and Alvarez-Cerriteno. Second, Judge Callahan did not agree with the majority’s peculiar reading of the phrase as not encompassing a child endangerment offense committed with a mens rea of at least criminal negligence. Judge Callahan wrote that majority’s suggestion that § 1227(a)(2)(E)(i) is unambiguous is contrary to precedent and the unanimous opinions of the court’s sister circuits. Moreover, she wrote that the majority failed to recognize that the court’s task is limited to reviewing the agency’s interpretation for “reasonableness.” Instead, the majority proffered its own definition based primarily on selected dictionary definitions and its own research.
*****************
Who knows how this eventually will come out? But, what I can guarantee is until it is finally resolved, by the Supremes or otherwise, immigration practitioners and their clients will have a mess of inconsistency and bad decisions by EOIR on their hands.
Complicated issues involving criminal law come up all the time in EOIR “detention courts,” located in the Mayorkas/Garland “New American Gulag,” where many respondents are unrepresented or under-represented. How would an unrepresented respondent be able to prepare a “defense” like this? No way! The entire EOIR system suffers from some extreme constitutional problems that Garland has done nothing to address.
Having bad precedents like this in effect for a decade or more, almost always tilted toward DHS enforcement, results in many wrongful removals, as well as numerous remands and “redos” that help increase the astronomical 1.4 million case backlog! Having better judges on the BIA, real independent jurists with practical scholarly expertise, unafraid to interpret statutes and apply the law in favor of respondents when that is the “better view,” and to impose “best practices” on the Immigration Courts, is a necessary first step in addressing EOIR’s many legal and operational shortcomings.
It appears that Garland is disinterested in meaningful due process reforms and inserting real progressive judicial leadership into EOIR. The good news: With the vast majority of the immigration, human rights, and constitutional expertise and legal talent now in the private sector, and more talent coming out of law schools all the time, the NDPA stands a good chance of “litigating Garland’s failed EOIR to a standstill” over the next four years.
While that’s hardly the most desirable result, it would be infinitely better than the continuing due-process-denying “Clown Show” 🤡 that Garland currently runs at EOIR! Sometimes, you just have to take what the opposition gives you!
At what point will “powers that be” finally pay attention to the ongoing disaster at EOIR? When the backlog reaches 1.5 million? 2 million? 3 million? 4 million? 5 million? How many unjust and illegal removals will take place, and how many lives and futures irrevocably altered or ruined before this dysfunctional system finally reaches its “breaking point?”
“Eyore is completely distraught that Garland has eschewed installing progressive expert judging and creative thinking, instead allowing the ‘death spiral’ to continue!” “Eyore In Distress” Once A Symbol of Fairness, Due Process, & Best Practices, Now Gone “Belly Up”
President Joe Biden announced another historic slate of judicial nominees on Wednesday who would bring badly needed diversity to the nation’s federal courts.
His picks also begin to address a major vacancy problem on California’s courts.
Biden announced a total of eight new judicial nominees; three would fill seats on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit and five would fill seats on U.S. district courts. All are up for lifetime appointments.
With Wednesday’s nominees, Biden has now nominated a total of 43 people to federal judgeships. Thanks in part to the Democrat-led Senate, he has been confirming judges faster than any president in more than 50 years by this point in their terms.
His latest nominees also reflect his push to bring more diversity to the federal bench, both professionally and demographically. The courts have long been represented by white, male judges with backgrounds as corporate attorneys or prosecutors. President Barack Obama helped to diversify the courts, adding historic numbers of women and LGBTQ judges, for example. But former President Donald Trump reversed that trend by overwhelmingly nominating straight, white, male, right-wing ideologues.
As a candidate, Biden vowed to bring a diversity of perspectives onto the courts, even promising to nominate a Black woman to the Supreme Court if and when a seat opens up there. He’s kept his word; so far, his court picks have been public defenders, civil rights lawyers, voting rights lawyers and historic firsts with Native American and Muslim American picks.
Wednesday’s nominees include people with backgrounds at legal civil rights organizations, too. Thomas worked for the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund. Urias and Vera both worked for the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund.
California’s senators praised Biden for his six picks for courts located in their state.
“If confirmed, this slate of nominees will bring historic personal and professional diversity to California’s federal bench,” said Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.). “Our justice system needs the experience and unique perspectives these public servants bring.”
But California needs far more nominees than Biden put forward Wednesday. The state still has a whopping 15 vacancies on its federal courts, in part because the state’s two U.S. senators aren’t moving quickly enough to recommend people to the White House to fill those seats.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) acknowledged there is more work to be done here.
“There are 15 additional vacancies on California’s district courts that need to be filled immediately and more expected next year,” Feinstein said. “I look forward to continuing to work with President Biden and Senator Padilla to ensure that the remaining vacancies on the federal courts in California are filled with well-qualified judicial candidates who reflect the makeup of the state.”
. . . .
***************
Read the complete story at the link.
It’s an important step — but only a first step in the process of creating a diverse progressive Federal Judiciary, from top to bottom!
Meanwhile, a house built on a bad foundation is in trouble! In this case, that crumbling foundation is the nearly 600-judge U.S. Immigration Court at both the trial and appellate levels.
This “court” system, with nationwide jurisdiction and life or death authority over millions of lives and American families, is regressive, dysfunctional, and non-diverse, particularly when taking into account the composition of the American communities most directly affected by it’s too often defective, unprofessional, and biased decision making. That’s hardly surprising, because it was largely expanded, packed, weaponized, staffed, and directed in the “image” of Jeff Sessions, Billy Barr, and Gauleiter Stephen Miller!
Unlike Article III Judges, Immigration Judges currently are considered “DOJ Attorneys” who are selected outside the competitive Civil Service, have no “tenure” in their quasi-judicial positions, are subject to the control of the Attorney General, and can be reassigned, or in some cases terminated, at the will of the Attorney General. In simple terms, Garland could fix this badly broken system, but hasn’t done so.
The sorry condition of today’s Immigration Courts (“EOIR”) is particularly disgraceful when one considers the wide, diverse, progressive pool of potential judicial talent available in the private/NGO/sector who were either discouraged from applying under Trump or passed over in favor of lesser-qualified candidates perceived (whether accurately or not) to be more receptive and obedient to the overtly White Nationalist, xenophobic stance promoted by Trump’s DOJ.
To date, Garland has replaced zero (0) of the Trump judicial appointees. He has hired no notable progressive judges as inspirational leaders. He “promoted” one notable progressive to be among the several dozen “Assistant Chief Immigration Judges.” He outrageously appointed his first 27 Immigration Judges from among those “preselected” by Barr under defective procedures that have been universally condemned by progressive experts!
For the most part, without any progressive judicial leadership, precedents, or procedures, EOIR rambles on producing the same sloppy, haste-makes-waste, anti-immigrant, anti-asylum, racially and misogynistically tinged decisions that were the “hallmark” of the Trump-era EOIR.
If things don’t change quickly, I guarantee that American progressives will come to rue the squandered opportunity to radically reform EOIR and convert it into a model progressive judiciary that will showcase due-process-focused judging, innovation, and best judicial practices while saving lives and promoting racial justice, gender rights, and equal justice for all at the critical “retail level” of our justice system!
“Due Process Forever!”Hmmm, where have I herd THAT before? Thanks, Dan, for all you do for the NDPA!
The American Immigration Council, the National Immigration Alliance, and the Law Professors, all representing a number of other organizations, also filed in behalf of the “good guys, truth, justice, and the American way,” in this case. The respondents are expertly represented by my friend and legendary immigration advocate Ira J. Kurzban, Esquire, of Kurzban Kurzban Tetzeli and Pratt PA.
Ira Kurzban ESQUIRE Legendary American Immigration Lawyer
One could not imagine a group MORE in need of thorough, critical, independent Article III judicial review of its decisions than today’s dysfunctional EOIR!There, potentially fatal errors have been “institutionalized” and even “normalized” as just another “unavoidable” consequence of the anti-immigrant, “haste makes waste,” “culture” that constantly places churning out removal orders above due process, fundamental fairness, and best practices!
Ironically, doubling the number of Immigration Judges, eliminating expertise as the main qualification in judicial selections, and forcing yet more “gimmicks” down their throats has actually nearly tripled the case backlog to an astounding 1.4 million cases, without producing any quantifiable benefit for anyone!
Obviously, it’s high time for Garland to “reinvent” EOIR with progressive experts, many with private sector Immigration Court experience, as judges and leaders at both the appellate and the trial level! Who knows what wonders might result from an emphasis on quality, humanity, and getting decisions correct in the first instance? Progressives are used to creatively solving difficult problems without stepping on anyone’s rights or diminishing anyone’s humanity! Those skills are in disturbingly short supply at today’s failed and failing EOIR! And, they aren’t exactly DOJ’s “long suit,” either.
“Eyore In Distress” Once A Symbol of Fairness, Due Process, & Best Practices, Now Gone “Belly Up”
Torture? What torture? It’s merely “enhanced fact-finding!”
Public realm“They all want to voluntarily waive further hearings and take final orders!” Amazing StoriesArtist Unknown, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
The phrase appears in multiple 9/11 volumes, usually uttered by top officials adamant that they were going to get things done, laws and rules be damned. Anti-terrorism efforts were always “lawyered to death” during the Clinton administration, Tenet complains in “Bush at War,” Bob Woodward’s 2002 book on the debates among the president and his national security team. In an interview with Woodward, Bush drops the phrase amid the machospeak — “dead or alive,” “bring ’em on” and the like — that became typical of his anti-terrorism rhetoric. “I had to show the American people the resolve of a commander in chief that was going to do whatever it took to win,” Bush explains. “No yielding. No equivocation. No, you know, lawyering this thing to death.” In “Against All Enemies,” Clarke recalls the evening of Sept. 11, 2001, when Bush snapped at an official who suggested that international law looked askance at military force as a tool of revenge. “I don’t care what the international lawyers say, we are going to kick some ass,” the president retorted.
The message was unmistakable: The law is an obstacle to effective counterterrorism. Worrying about procedural niceties is passe in a 9/11 world, an annoying impediment to the essential work of ass-kicking.
Except, they did lawyer this thing to death. Instead of disregarding the law, the Bush administration enlisted it. “Beginning almost immediately after September 11, 2001, [Vice President Dick] Cheney saw to it that some of the sharpest and best-trained lawyers in the country, working in secret in the White House and the United States Department of Justice, came up with legal justifications for a vast expansion of the government’s power in waging war on terror,” Jane Mayer writes in “The Dark Side,” her relentless 2008 compilation of the arguments and machinations of government lawyers after the attacks. Through public declarations and secret memos, the administration sought to remove limits on the president’s conduct of warfare and to deny terrorism suspects the protections of the Geneva Conventions by redefining them as unlawful enemy combatants. Nothing, Mayer argues of the latter effort, “more directly cleared the way for torture than this.”
To comprehend what our government can justify in the name of national security, consider the torture memos themselves, authored by the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel between 2002 and 2005 to green-light CIA interrogation methods for terrorism suspects. Tactics such as cramped confinement, sleep deprivation and waterboarding were rebranded as “enhanced interrogation techniques,” legally and linguistically contorted to avoid the label of torture. Though the techniques could be cruel and inhuman, the OLC acknowledged in an August 2002 memo, they would constitute torture only if they produced pain equivalent to organ failure or death, and if the individual inflicting such pain really really meant to do so: “Even if the defendant knows that severe pain will result from his actions, if causing such harm is not his objective, he lacks the requisite specific intent.” It’s quite the sleight of hand, with torture moving from the body of the interrogated to the mind of the interrogator.
After devoting dozens of pages to the metaphysics of specific intent, the true meaning of “prolonged” mental harm or “imminent” death, and the elasticity of the Convention Against Torture, the memo concludes that none of it actually matters. Even if a particular interrogation method would cross some legal line, the relevant statute would be considered unconstitutional because it “impermissibly encroached” on the commander in chief’s authority to conduct warfare. Almost nowhere in these memos does the Justice Department curtail the power of the CIA to do as it pleases.
In fact, the OLC lawyers rely on assurances from the CIA itself to endorse such powers. In a second memo from August 2002, the lawyers ruminate on the use of cramped confinement boxes. “We have no information from the medical experts you have consulted that the limited duration for which the individual is kept in the boxes causes any substantial physical pain,” the memo states. Waterboarding likewise gets a pass. “You have informed us that this procedure does not inflict actual physical harm,” the memo states. “Based on your research . . . you do not anticipate that any prolonged mental harm would result from the use of the waterboard.”
You have informed us. Experts you have consulted. Based on your research. You do not anticipate. Such hand-washing words appear throughout the memos. The Justice Department relies on information provided by the CIA to reach its conclusions; the CIA then has the cover of the Justice Department to proceed with its interrogations. It’s a perfect circle of trust.
Yet the logic is itself tortured. In a May 2005 memo, the lawyers conclude that because no single technique inflicts “severe” pain amounting to torture, their combined use “would not be expected” to reach that level, either. As though embarrassed at such illogic, the memo attaches a triple-negative footnote: “We are not suggesting that combinations or repetitions of acts that do not individually cause severe physical pain could not result in severe physical pain.” Well, then, what exactly are you suggesting? Even when the OLC in 2004 officially withdrew its August 2002 memo following a public outcry and declared torture “abhorrent,” the lawyers added a footnote to the new memo assuring that they had reviewed the prior opinions on the treatment of detainees and “do not believe that any of their conclusions would be different under the standards set forth in this memorandum.”
In these documents, lawyers enable lawlessness. Another May 2005 memo concludes that, because the Convention Against Torture applies only to actions occurring under U.S. jurisdiction, the CIA’s creation of detention sites in other countries renders the convention “inapplicable.” Similarly, because the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment is meant to protect people convicted of crimes, it should not apply to terrorism detainees — because they have not been officially convicted of anything. The lack of due process conveniently eliminates constitutional protections. In his introduction to “The Torture Memos: Rationalizing the Unthinkable,” David Cole describes the documents as “bad-faith lawyering,” which might be generous. It is another kind of lawyering to death, one in which the rule of law that the 9/11 Commission urged us to abide by becomes the victim.
Years later, the Senate Intelligence Committee would investigate the CIA’s post-9/11 interrogation program. Its massive report — the executive summary of which appeared as a 549-page book in 2014 — found that torture did not produce useful intelligence, that the interrogations were more brutal than the CIA let on, that the Justice Department did not independently verify the CIA’s information, and that the spy agency impeded oversight by Congress and the CIA inspector general. It explains that the CIA purported to oversee itself and, no surprise, that it deemed its interrogations effective and necessary, no matter the results. (If a detainee provided information, it meant the program worked; if he did not, it meant stricter applications of the techniques were needed; if still no information was forthcoming, the program had succeeded in proving he had none to give.)
“The CIA’s effectiveness representations were almost entirely inaccurate,” the Senate report concluded. It is one of the few lies of the war on terror unmasked by an official government investigation and public report, but just one of the many documented in the 9/11 literature.
. . . ,.
****************************
Sound painfully familiar? It should, to those of us “DOJ vets” who lived through this period. The use of the “third person,” “double and triple negatives,” “weasel words” like “you have given us to understand that,” “decision by committee” where a memo is routed through so many layers of bureaucracy that the original author or authors don’t even appear on its face — are all “devices” to diffuse and obscure responsibility and avoid clear accountability for controversial(and too often wrong) decisions!
During our time at the BIA, my fellow U.W. Badger, Judge Mike Heilman and I were often at odds on the law, particularly when it came to asylum. Anybody who doubts this should read Mike’s remarkable and famous (or infamous) “rabbi dissent” in Matter of H-, 21 I&N Dec. 337, 349 (BIA 1996) (Heilman, Board Member, dissenting). Nevertheless, one thing we agreed upon was requiring any decisions written for us to use the first person to reflect whose decision it actually was!
“Lawyers enable lawlessness.” How true! In 2002, DOJ lawyers (hand-chosen by the politicos) “tanked” and enabled, even encouraged, gross law violations by the CIA.
Fast forward to 2018. Then, White Nationalist AG Jeff Sessions exhorted his wholly-owned “judges” at EOIR not to treat DHS enforcement as a party before the court, but rather as a worthy “partner” in combatting the largely-fabricated “scourge” of illegal immigration (that actually, as we can now see, was propping up Trump’s economy). Is it surprising that precedent decisions by Sessions, Whitaker, and Barr favored DHS nearly 100% of the time and the BIA thereafter issued almost no precedents where the individual prevailed (not that there were many of those following “the Ashcroft purge,” even before Sessions)?
Asylum grant rates in Immigration Court tumbled precipitously, while both the trial, and particularly appellate, levels at EOIR were “packed” with judges whose main qualification appeared to be an expectation that they would churn out large numbers of removal orders without much analysis or consideration of the factors favoring the individual. Misogyny and anti-asylum, anti-private-lawyer attitudes (those “dirty lawyers”) were encouraged by Sessions as part the “culture” at EOIR, sometimes visibly rewarded by “elevation” to the BIA.
Interestingly, at the same time in 2002 that the group of DOJ attorneys was furiously working in secret to justify torture, in clear violation of the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), another group in the DOJ, the BIA, was struggling to make the CAT work in “real world” litigated cases. A number of us dissented from the majority of our BIA colleagues’ wrong-headed and rather transparent attempt to “neuter” CAT protection from the outset. Unlike the “secret lawyers” at the DOJ, our work was public and had consequences not only for the humans involved, but for those of us who had the audacity to stand up for their rights under domestic and international law!
Here’s an excerpt from my long-forgotten dissenting opinion in Matter of J-E-, 22 I&N Dec. 291, 314-15 (BIA 2002) (Schmidt, Board Member, dissenting):
The majority concludes that the extreme mistreatment likely to befall this respondent in Haiti is not “torture,” but merely “cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.” The majority further concludes that conduct defined as “torture” occurs in the Haitian detention system, but is not “likely” for this respondent. In short, the majority goes to great lengths to avoid applying the Convention Against Torture to this respondent.
We are in the early stages of the very difficult and thankless task of construing the Convention. Only time will tell whether the majority’s narrow reading of the torture definition and its highly technical approach to the standard of proof will be the long-term benchmarks for our country’s implementation of this international treaty.
Although I am certainly bound to follow and apply the majority’s constructions in all future cases, I do not believe that the majority adequately carries out the language or the purposes of the Convention and the implementing regulations. Therefore, I fear that we are failing to comply with our international obligations.
I conclude that the respondent is more likely than not to face officially sanctioned torture if returned to Haiti. Therefore, I would grant his application for deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture and the implementing regulations. Consequently, I respectfully dissent.
Within a year of that decision, my dissenting colleagues and I were among those “purged” from the BIA by Ashcroft because of our views. I’d argue that EOIR has continued to go straight downhill since then, and is now in total free fall! Surely, any “facade” of quasi-judicial independence at the BIA has long-since crumbled. Yet, AG Garland pretends there is no problem. Garland’s apparent belief that this is still Judge Bell’s or Ben Civiletti’s or even Ed Levi’s DOJ is simply, demonstrably, wrong.
Today’s DOJ has been part and parcel of a highly inappropriate “weaponization” of the law and “Dred Scottification” directed against individual civil rights, migrants, voters, women, people of color, and a host of “others” who were on the far right “hit list” of the Trump kakistocracy. Nowhere has that been more evident than at the dysfunctional and institutionally biased EOIR. The problems plaguing American justice today have increased since 9-11. They will continue to fester and grow unless and until Garland faces reality and makes progressive leadership and judicial changes at EOIR to addresses the toxic culture of complicity and abusive use of the law to degrade individual and human rights. And, some real accountability at the rest of the badly-damaged DOJ should not be far behind.
These two op-eds make compelling cases for the 5th Circuit rivaling the Supremes as the most scofflaw, out of control, and dangerous court in America! But, hey, is there a “dark horse” in this righty “race to the bottom?” 🐴 (Curiously enough, “owned” and “trained” by Biden-Garland Stables!)
First, let’s hear from my friend, NDPA Stalwart, Houston Law Immigration Clinic Director, Professor Geoffrey Hoffman:
Professor Geoffrey Hoffman Immigraton Clinic Director University of Houston Law Center
CAT a “dead letter” in the Fifth Circuit? I respectfully dissent
By Geoffrey A. Hoffman
This week a panel of the Fifth Circuit issued Tabora Gutierrez v. Garland, interpreting the Convention Against Torture’s (CAT’s) state action requirement so restrictively that it led the dissenting judge to call CAT a virtual “dead letter” in most cases (in the Fifth Circuit, at least).
In this piece, I want to consider this dire prognostication and also think about what it may mean for future practice – at least for those of us in the Fifth Circuit.
Two panel members found that petitioner failed a key requirement for relief: that the government in Honduras “consented or acquiesced” to the torture. In dissent, Judge W. Eugene Davis remarked, “I agree with the IJ, the BIA, and the majority that [petitioner] will likely be tortured by MS-13 gang members. . .[but] I read the record to compel a conclusion that the torture will be with the acquiescence of a public official.” According to Judge Davis, the majority raised the bar so high regarding this requirement under CAT that “for most if not all” people CAT will be out of reach, if they are from countries with (merely) corrupt policy or police without the will or courage to protect them from brutal gangs. While I agree with Judge Davis, the fact is CAT need not be a “dead letter” in the Fifth Circuit.
I was moved to comment on another split panel decision previously in the Fifth Circuit in Inestroza-Antonelli v. Barr, see my prior post here, and I am similarly moved to write about this present decision.
Significantly, the majority here carefully acknowledges up front that the BIA and IJ below found petitioner “likely to be tortured or killed” if returned to Honduras, and even catalogued the horrible injuries he had already suffered, mentioning “gruesome photos” that are part of the record in the case.
Because I think the majority erred, and would agree with most of what the dissenting judge says, let me address three issues where I think the majority got it wrong: (1) what it means for a record to “compel” a different conclusion on appeal; (2) what it means for a government to consent or acquiesce to torture and (3) the notion that Petitioner waived his argument about the correct standard of review merely by failing to bring it up in a motion to reconsider.
I address all three of these points below.
First, the majority importantly conceded in its opinion that the police “failed to investigate” petitioner’s injuries. However, because the Board and IJ interpreted these “failures” of the police as “better explained” by the fact the petitioner “was unable to disclose the specific identity of any of his attackers” this showed the police did not “willfully ignore” the attacks. The majority reasoned that the “evidence” did not “compel” a contrary conclusion and therefore the IJ’s findings, adopted by the BIA, were considered “conclusive.”
I am struck here by the notion that just because the BIA and IJ had inserted their own explanations for the unrebutted record evidence showing lack of any police action that this must have meant (according to the majority) that the appellate court was constrained to accept this explanation and would not disturb the lower tribunal’s interpretation of the evidence.
Such a reading of the word “compel” means that judges can have an “out” anytime they want to rubber stamp any decision of the Board, all they have to do is say the explanation offered characterizing the evidence in one way or another was good enough and must not be disturbed. But this is a very troubling proposition.
Take, for example, the present case where the supposition on the part of the BIA and IJ was that the petitioner was somehow at fault for not being able to identify his attackers by name. Think about that for a minute…Police are not acquiescing and not at fault and should not be held to have “turned a blind eye” because the victim was unable to identify his attackers.
But this does not make sense.
Such a blame-the-victim mentality goes against the motivation and underlying rationale behind other federal types of relief immigrants have available, for example, U visas for crime victims, VAWA, T visas, etc., premised in many cases on the victim’s cooperation with law enforcement and their investigation. Just because a victim does not know the exact identities of their attackers does not disqualify them from relief. Would that be a reasonable interpretation for example of the U visa statute and attendant regulations?
In addition, let’s consider the use of the “compel” standard for a minute and where it came from exactly. This standard, as acknowledged by the majority, comes from a previous case, Chen v. Gonzales, 470 F.3d 1131, 1134 (5th Cir. 2006), among other cases. Chen in turn cites 8 USC 1252(b)(4)(B) and emanates from the Supreme Court’s famous decision, INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478 (1992), authored by Justice Scalia.
Chen was a case about a Chinese petitioner who converted to Christianity after entry into the U.S. and so her applications did not rely on past persecution but a well-founded fear of future persecution based on religion. The IJ in the former case found that there were “many Christians in China” and that Chen’s claims of future persecution were allegedly “highly speculative.” The facts of Chen and the current case relating to police inaction in Honduras could not be further apart. Moreover, the Fifth Circuit in Chen was not considering past persecution, as here, but the more difficult to prove “future persecution” and well-founded fear standard.
Similarly, Justice Scalia in Elias-Zacarias was concerned about proof supporting a political opinion claim. In that case, the Supreme Court found that the petitioner could not produce evidence “so compelling” that no reasonable factfinder could fail to find the requisite fear of persecution on account of political opinion. The “so compelling” language has been used by many courts to deny asylum on many other grounds throughout the past decades and has not been limited to political opinion claims.
But the reliance in the present case for the “compel” standard on the statute in question, 8 USC 1252(b) here is misguided. The statute states in pertinent part as follows: “the administrative findings of fact are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary . . . .” But the “consent and acquiescence” determination under CAT is not a determination of “administrative facts” but is certainly a mixed question of law and fact. As such, the entire structure of the “compel” standard should not have been applied but instead de novo review applied.
And this brings me to the practice pointer that this case so unfortunately stands for. Although on appeal before the circuit court the issue of standard of review was raised by petitioner, it was rejected by the majority on the theory that he had to have filed a “motion to reconsider” before the Board to preserve the issue for appellate review.
This waiver argument has always seemed to me a weak and tenuous one.
For example, what if the petitioner (i.e., the respondent before the BIA) argued in his brief to the Board that the correct standard of review was de novo due to the mixed question raised by a very complicated “consent or acquiescence” determination under CAT, and courts have so held, but the BIA decided to just rubber stamp the IJ and refused to overturn the IJ’s finding based on clear error. Wouldn’t that have preserved the issue? Why is there a need for a litigant to then file a motion to reconsider after the fact to preserve an issue which had already been preserved? To make matters worse it appears Mr. Tobora Gutierrez appeared pro se, see page 3 of the Fifth Circuit majority decision, at least initially. The decision does not reveal if he had appellate counsel before the BIA. But if he did not it would be an especially onerous requirement to impose an “after the fact” requirement that a litigant must file a “motion to reconsider” to preserve an issue for appellate review, especially if he is unrepresented.
All of that said, the practice take-away here is: (1) everyone must file a very carefully drafted and thorough motion to reconsider on all issues that could be in any way (mis-)interpreted to be subject to waiver so you preserve all issues for review before the circuit courts; and (2) everyone should read Judge Davis’ cogent and reasoned dissenting opinion, which hopefully will be followed instead of the majority’s strained application of the “compel” standard. Judge Davis was right: the evidence does compel a different outcome. Judge Davis does a wonderful job also of distinguishing the prior case law in this area and showing how Mr. Tobora Gutierrez’s case is fundamentally different. As he says, “if the egregious facts of this case are not sufficient to support a finding of public-official acquiescence, CAT relief will be a dead-letter to most if not all individuals who live in countries where the police are corrupt or simply do not have the will or courage to protect them from brutal gang attacks.”
Judge Davis is right, this is a most troubling decision but not just for the reason he provides. It is troubling for the further reason that the majority applies the wrong legal standard here, the “compels” standard versus a de novo review. The majority also leaves the door open for “deferred action,” for this sympathetic and horrendous case, although it declines to recommend it. Most importantly, it also leaves the door open for de novo review, in future cases, at least where those litigants are perceived to have preserved the issue. Litigants can do this by filing a motion to reconsider with the BIA, then filing (another, second) petition for review when the motion to reconsider is denied, and then (following the procedure mandated by section 1252) consolidating the two cases.
(Institution for identification only)
Geoffrey Hoffman
Clinical Professor, UHLC Immigration Clinic Director
Let’s not forget that Garland’s DOJ defended this grotesque miscarriage of justice. In a grim way, Geoffrey’s “practical scholarship” ties in nicely with Ruth Marcus’s recent op-ed in WashPost on the righto-wacko 5th Circuit’s dangerous assault on American justice:
Washington Post Columnist Ruth Marcus, moderates a panel discussion about chronic poverty with Education Secretary John B. King (blue tie) and Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack (striped tie), during the National Association of Counties (NACo), at the Washington Marriott Wardman Park, in Washington, DC, on Tuesday, Feb. 23, 2016. U.S. Department of Agriculture photo by Lance Cheung.
Opinion: The 5th Circuit is staking out a claim to be America’s most dangerous court
Opinion by Ruth Marcus
August 31 at 6:37 PM ET
The Supreme Court is, no doubt, the nation’s most powerful court. But the 5th Circuit, the federal appeals court that covers Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas, is staking out a claim to be the most dangerous — the least wedded to respecting precedent or following an orderly judicial process.
The 5th is arguably the most conservative among the country’s dozen appeals courts. It inclined in that direction even before President Donald Trump managed to install six nominees. And they constitute quite a bunch: Stuart Kyle Duncan, who said the Supreme Court’s 2015 ruling establishing a right to same-sex marriage “imperils civic peace” and “raises a question about the legitimacy of the court.” Cory Wilson, who tweeted about Hillary Clinton using the hashtag #CrookedHillary, called the Affordable Care Act “illegitimate” and said he supported overturning Roe v. Wade. James C. Ho, who issued a concurring opinion lamenting the “moral tragedy of abortion.”
How conservative is the court, where 12 of 17 active judges were named by Republican presidents? “As conservative a federal appeals court as any of us have seen in our lifetimes,” says Stephen I. Vladeck, a law professor at the University of Texas, noting that even as the circuit’s conservatives tend toward the extreme end of the spectrum, its liberals aren’t all that liberal.
One measure: During each of the last two Supreme Court terms, with conservative justices firmly in the majority, the high court has reviewed seven cases from the 5th Circuit. It reversed 6 of 7 decisions in the 2019-2020 term and 5 of 7 in 2020-2021.
These included the appeals courts’ rulings striking down the Affordable Care Act and upholding the constitutionality of a Louisiana abortion law, identical to a Texas statute the justices had tossed out several years earlier — another 5th Circuit special reversed by the high court. If you thought the appeals court judges would have learned their lesson the first time, you don’t know the 5th Circuit.
Texas can ban the abortion procedure most commonly used to end second-trimester pregnancies, a federal appeals court ruled on Aug. 18. (Reuters)
The circuit’s latest shenanigans involve, unsurprisingly, abortion, and Texas’s latest attempt to eviscerate abortion rights. This Texas law, which goes into effect Wednesday, is both blatantly unconstitutional (it purports to prohibit abortion once there is a detectable fetal heartbeat, around six weeks into pregnancy) and an audacious effort to evade judicial review (it leaves enforcement of the ban up to private vigilantes, not state officials.)
In this effort to end-run and effectively overturn Roe v. Wade, the 5th Circuit has already proved itself an eager co-conspirator. Texas abortion clinics filed suit in federal court challenging the law and seeking to block it from taking effect. A federal judge had scheduled a hearing on whether to grant such an injunction.
But on Friday a panel of the 5th Circuit — two Trump judges and one Reagan appointee — issued an extraordinary order preventing the district judge from going ahead with the hearing, thus letting the law take effect in the interim — all this even as the appeals court refused to speed up its consideration of the case. In a sign of their desperation, the clinics appealed that action to the Supreme Court, not exactly a friendly venue these days for abortion rights.
. . . .
Read the rest of Ruth’s op-ed at the link.
But, the right-controlled Supremes aren’t going quietly into the night in this competition. The right to a reasoned decision from a fair and impartial decision-maker is fundamental to Constitutional due process — except at the Supremes. The righty majority now employs the “shadow docket” to avoid explanation and accountability for some of it’s most outrageously scofflaw decisions! Many of these have hurt or even killed migrants. David Leonhardt @ NY Times explains:
Davide Leonhardt Journalist NY Times PHOTO: Wikipedia
This one came out shortly before midnight on Wednesday. It consisted of a single paragraph, not signed by the justices who voted for it and lacking the usual detailed explanation of their reasoning. And there had been no oral arguments, during which opposing lawyers could have made their cases and answered questions from the justices.
Instead, the opinion was part of something that has become known as “the shadow docket.” In the shadow docket, the court makes decisions quickly, without the usual written briefings, oral arguments or signed opinions. In recent years, the shadow docket has become a much larger part of the Supreme Court’s work.
Shadow-docket rulings have shaped policy on voting rights, climate change, birth control, Covid-19 restrictions and more. Last month, the justices issued shadow decisions forcing the Biden administration to end its eviction moratorium and to reinstate a Trump administration immigration policy. “The cases affect us at least as much as high-profile cases we devote so much attention to,” Stephen Vladeck, a University of Texas law professor, told me.
Shadow-docket cases are frequently those with urgency — such as a voting case that must be decided in the final weeks before an election. As a result, the justices don’t always have time to solicit briefs, hold oral arguments and spend months grappling with their decision. Doing so can risk irreparable harm to one side in the case.
For these reasons, nobody questions the need for the court to issue some expedited, bare-bones rulings. But many legal experts are worried about how big the shadow docket has grown, including in cases that the Supreme Court could have decided in a more traditional way.
“Shadow docket orders were once a tool the court used to dispense with unremarkable and legally unambiguous matters,” Moira Donegan wrote in The Guardian. “In recent years the court has largely dispensed with any meaningful application of the irreparable harm standard.”
Why the shadow docket has grown
Why have the justices expanded the shadow docket?
In part, it is a response to a newfound willingness by lower courts to issue decisions that apply to the entire country, as my colleague Charlie Savage explains. By acting quickly, the Supreme Court can retain its dominant role.
But there is also a political angle. Shadow-docket cases can let the court act quickly and also shield individual justices from criticism: In the latest abortion case, there is no signed opinion for legal scholars to pick apart, and no single justice is personally associated with the virtual end of legal abortion in Texas. The only reason that the public knows the precise vote — 5 to 4 — is that the four justices in the minority each chose to release a signed dissent.
Critics argue that judges in a democracy owe the public more transparency. “This idea of unexplained, unreasoned court orders seems so contrary to what courts are supposed to be all about,” Nicholas Stephanopoulos, a Harvard law professor, has said. “If courts don’t have to defend their decisions, then they’re just acts of will, of power.”
During a House hearing on the shadow docket in February, members of both parties criticized its growth. “Knowing why the justices selected certain cases, how each of them voted, and their reasoning is indispensable to the public’s trust in the court’s integrity,” Representative Henry Johnson Jr., a Georgia Democrat, said. Representative Louie Gohmert, a Texas Republican, said, “I am a big fan of judges and justices making clear who’s making the decision, and I would welcome reforms that required that.”
The shadow docket also leaves lower-court judges unsure about what exactly the Supreme Court has decided and how to decide similar cases they later hear. “Because the lower-court judges don’t know why the Supreme Court does what it does, they sometimes divide sharply when forced to interpret the court’s nonpronouncements,” writes William Baude, a University of Chicago law professor and former clerk for Chief Justice John Roberts. Baude coined the term “shadow docket.”
Six vs. three
The court’s six Republican-appointed justices are driving the growth of the shadow docket, and it is consistent with their overall approach to the law. They are often (though not always) willing to be aggressive, overturning longstanding precedents, in campaign finance, election law, business regulation and other areas. The shadow docket expands their ability to shape American society.
The three Democratic-appointed justices, for their part, have grown frustrated by the trend. In her dissent this week, Justice Elena Kagan wrote, “The majority’s decision is emblematic of too much of this court’s shadow-docket decision making — which every day becomes more unreasoned, inconsistent and impossible to defend.” In an interview with my colleague Adam Liptak last week, Justice Stephen Breyer said: “I can’t say never decide a shadow-docket thing. … But be careful.”
Roberts also evidently disagrees with the use of the shadow docket in the Texas abortion case. In his dissent, joining the three liberal justices, he said the court could instead have blocked the Texas law while it made its way through the courts. That the court chose another path means that abortion is now all but illegal in the nation’s second-largest state.
The justices are likely to settle the question in a more lasting way next year. They will hear oral arguments this fall in a Mississippi abortion case — the more traditional kind, outside the shadows — and a decision is likely by June.
Read more from David in “The Morning” e-mail from the NYT.
******************************
Abrogating a treaty, intellectual dishonesty, neutering Federal statutes and regulations, scoffing at Constitutional due process, disregarding decency and human life (at least “life after birth”), AND illegally sending another human back to be tortured to death is indeed a “hard act to follow” and makes the 5th a serious contender. But, remember where this “opportunity to dump on migrants” came from!
Immigration practitioners will tell you never to underestimate the sloppiness, lack of expertise, irresponsibility, disdain for due process, and disregard for human lives that has become institutionalized at Garland’s “Miller Lite” captive appeals “court,” the BIA! And, like the Supremes and unlike the 5th Circuit, the BIA has nationwide jurisdiction and sets national precedents. But, unlike the Supremes, who decide fewer than 100 cases in an average year, the BIA assembly line charms out 20,000 to 30,000 cases annually through its defective processes, and it’s lousy, one-sided, anti-immigrant precedents and reactionary guidance that destroy thousands of lives and futures in Immigration Court every day!
So, when it comes to worst court of today, don’t count out the BIA!
Charlotte Klein Staff Writer Vanity Fair PHOTO: Twitter
The “Commanding Generals” of this effort are unprincipled, far-right GOP jurists. Their initial targeted victims are, of course, the usual vulnerable suspects: migrants, asylum seekers, women, voters of color, transgender kids, the poor, union members, etc. But, eventually, all of us who reman true to liberal democratic values will be targeted for some kind of punishment. Immigration “led the way” in the “Dred Scottfication of the other” by the Supremes at the behest of the Trump kakistocracy. But, don’t think that’s where this heinous resuscitation of one of the worst cases in American jurisprudence will end!
Meanwhile, this latest phase of the assault has unleashed the usual Dem arsenal of feckless weaponry, including:
Statements of outrage untied to realistic possibilities;
Largely meaningless public demonstrations that are “media events” and not much else;
Idle threats of reprisals;
A barrage of op-eds decrying that the fringe radical right and their relatively unpopular agenda has once again outflanked liberals who represent the views and values of the majority;
Statements of fact that have no material effect (public support for the complete elimination of abortion, al la Texas, the 5th, and the Supremes holds steady at 8%, while a large majority of Americans favor abortion in some form or another — explain how that has made a difference — also, does anybody really think that these right wingers give a fig that many women will die from illegal abortions and others will be saddled with unwanted children — the only part of human life that creates much compassion or empathy for this righty gang is that which occurs prior to birth);
Appeals to precedent, fairness, decency, reasonableness, confirmation promises, and respect for the law addressed to a party and its jurists who value none of these things if they get in the way of their authoritarian agenda.
But, Dems, here’s a better idea! For once, why not try a different approach and actually work within what you DO control and CAN change? Something that will showcase the positive attributes of honest, expert, progressive judging while developing best practices and saving lots of lives in the process. What do you have to lose, Dems? Can actually doing something to combat right-wing control of the judiciary rather than just impotently raging against it produce a worse result than you have already achieved — even when controlling the Executive, House, and Senate?
There is not much in the immediate future that Biden and the Dems can (and are willing to) do to change the composition and tenor of the Supremes and the 5th Circuit. But Biden and Garland have complete control over the “Miller Lite” BIA and the Immigration Courts!
A new, well-qualified, BIA comprised of progressive expert judges unswervingly committed to scholarship, quality, due process, respect for migrants and their attorneys, and correct results could (and should) be installed by now. But, disgracefully, it isn’t! Progressives need to hold Biden’s and Garland’s feet to the fire until they create the positive change they promised, but have not delivered!
Then, once a new BIA is in place, go to work on re-competing all Immigration Judge jobs on a merit basis, incorporating key progressive values and real-life experiences, and also involving input from practitioners and outside experts in the area. Create a better progressive Federal Immigration Judiciary and let it lead the way to restoring due process, best practices, efficiency, humanity, fundamental fairness, and integrity to our broken immigration system!
Humanity is suffering! Garland must pull the plug 🔌 on the “BIA Clown Show” 🤡 before it kills ⚰️ anyone else! Pull the BIA from the “Most Dangerous Court In America Competition” before they can “win” it. A “win” for the BIA would certainly be a “loss” for America!
Immigration Courts are the “living, breathing repudiation” of racial justice in America!🏴☠️
Repeatedly, Federal Courts at all levels say that foreign nationals are entitled to due process under the Fifth Amendment.
Then, they often go on to convert that to an insulting platitude by approving legal travesties and substandard performance by EOIR inflicted on migrants of color, their attorneys (if any), and their communities. Maybe, it’lls because talented Hispanic judges with actual experience representing asylum seekers and other migrants in Immigration Court are so few and far between. Maybe it’s because Garland has failed to actively recruit judges from among immigration and human rights attorneys of color and has continued to employ a flawed “insider-tilted” selection process that was designed and implemented to “slam the door” on experts from the non-governmental advocacy and academic communities.
Whatever the reason, EOIR has become the “living refutation” of the assertion that Hispanics and other communities of color are treated fairly and equally under our laws and that that race-based decision-making and jurisprudence have vanished from our legal system.
Maybe it’s time for Hispanics and their allies to stop being “tolerant of inequity and bias” and start taking a more aggressive and less compromising position on Garland’s disgraceful, disorderly, dysfunctional, non-diverse, tone-deaf Immigration Courts! Your voices are NOT being heard by those running the Star Chambers and cranking out “assembly line injustice.”
Why does the Hispanic community put up with being demeaned, dehumanized, and degraded by Garland’s “Clown Courts”🤡 and also by a Democratic Party that promised change but has delivered “same old same old” at EOIR?
Recent Supreme Court mockeries of justice show that the rights of minorities are under assault by a radically right-wing Article III Judiciary stocked with GOP appointees. The Immigration Courts, by contrast, are under the total control of the Administration and present an unparalleled opportunity for minority communities to both showcase their judicial skills and to start winning back their legal rights after four years of unrelenting assault by the White Nationalist right.
Why is this perhaps once-in-a lifetime opportunity for long overdue, radical reform of a broken, biased, and incompetent system being squandered and buried by Garland as if Stephen Miller and his cronies were still calling the shots? How many Hispanic and other lives will be sacrificed to EOIR over the next three plus years? How many attorneys of color will continue to be abused, misused, and under-appreciated by an Administration pledged to “do better?” What will be left of racial justice in America if entrusted to a DOJ that doesn’t even believe in the concept in their own court system?
