AS ANOTHER BIASED BIA PRECEDENT BITES THE DUST, THE QUESTIONS ARE: 1) WILL THE BIA DELIVER ITS CUSTOMARY “MIDDLE FINGER” TO THE CIRCUITS; 2) WILL THE CIRCUITS FINALLY HOLD THE BIA ACCOUNTABLE FOR CONTEMPTUOUS CONDUCT; & 3) WILL THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION REPLACE THE DEADLY BIA “CLOWN SHOW” 🤡☠️ WITH REAL JUDGES?

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

https://cliniclegal.org/resources/asylum-and-refugee-law/practice-alert-ninth-circuit-vacates-matter-e-r-l

Here’s the CLINIC “practice advisory” on the vacating of Matter of E-R-A-L-, 27 I&N Dec. 767 (BIA 2020)

Practice Alert

On December 10, 2020, the Ninth Circuit issued an order vacating the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals in Matter of E-R-A-L-, 27 I&N Dec. 767 (BIA 2020). Albizures-Lopez v. Barr, No. 20-70640, 2020 WL 7406164, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 38725 (9th Cir. Dec. 10, 2020). In E- R-A-L-, the asylum applicant was targeted by a drug cartel because his family owned a farm in Guatemala. The Board’s now-vacated published decision rejected his family and landowner-based particular social groups, as well as making errors relating to the nexus analysis for asylum and withholding of removal.

Practitioners should note that the Ninth Circuit specifically vacated E-R-A-L- itself, meaning that the Board’s decision has no effect anywhere in the United States. See Harmon v. Thornburgh, 878 F.2d 484, 495 n.21 (D.C. Cir. 1989) (“When a reviewing court determines that agency regulations are unlawful, the ordinary result is that the rules are vacated—not that their application to the individual petitioners is proscribed.”) Practitioners should argue to Immigration Judges that E-R-A-L- is no longer binding precedent, making it easier to prove the cognizability of landowner-based particular social groups. If an Immigration Judge already denied a landowner case, and the appeal is pending before the Board, practitioners should argue that the case should be remanded in light of E-R-A-L-ʼs vacatur.

Practitioners confronting issues with an adjudicator’s implementation of the Ninth Circuit’s decision are encouraged to contact counsel for E-R-A-L-, Bradley Jenkins (bjenkins@cliniclegal.org) and Shane Ellison (ellison@law.duke.edu).

Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc. | cliniclegal.org | Updated December 2020

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

Congrats to Brad, Shane, and the rest of the CLINIC team.

This is certainly the right approach. But, in the past, the BIA has routinely “blown off” claims that reversal and vacation by a “mere Circuit Court” affects the “precedential value” of the decision outside that Circuit. https://illinoislawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Sheffy.pdf#:~:text=A%20vacated%20BIA%20precedential%20decision%20is%20thus%20only,to%20contra-%20dict%20long-held%20notions%20of%20fairness%2C%20consistency%2C

That “in your face Article IIIs” position by the BIA is remarkable. But even more remarkable has been the feckless Article IIIs’ failure to challenge this disrespect for their functions.

You don’t even have to be a lawyer to understand that a vacated and/or reversed decision is no decision at all. Since it no longer represents the correct resolution of an actual dispute, it pertains to no live “case.” It’s simply part of the historical record of that case, having no force and effect. Continuing to treat it as “precedent” is essentially issuing an illegal advisory opinion, untethered to any actual case or controversy.

Sure, I understand the concept of “Circuit splits,” better than most, having dealt with the legal and practical aspects of them for nearly half a century. But, no reversed precedent should be effective anywhere unless and until the BIA revisits the issue in another Circuit with a precedent fully considering the reasons why the “naysaying Circuit” found their original precedent wrong, whether that Circuit’s interpretation should be adopted nationwide, and, if not, cogently explaining why they have chosen to disregard the Circuit’s views. And, it should be the BIA’s actual, independent evaluation, not a result that they are explicitly or implicitly “told” to issue by OIL, the Solicitor General, the Attorney General, the Director, or any other DOJ official.

So, whether E-R-A-L- continues to have precedential effect outside the 9th Circuit probably ultimately depends on if and when the Biden Administration replaces this BIA with better judges and whether we finally get a better qualified Attorney General, committed to due process, human rights, and human decency, willing to let the “new BIA” function independently.

On the merits, E-R-A-L- was a ham-handed attempt by the BIA to abrogate its seminal Acosta precedent which correctly recognized “land ownership” as a proper “fundamental characteristic” and therefore a recognizable ”particular social group.” As I often have observed, the BIA’s subsequent absurdist, ahistorical approach in E-R-A-L- would come as a surprise to millions of dead kulaks liquidated by Stalin’s purges and countless others subjected to persecution throughout history based on property ownership, one of the most clearly recognized “particular,” “socially visible,” and “fundamental” characteristics in human existence.

One wouldn’t exactly have to be a “Rhodes Scholar” to recognize the ridiculous, overtly politicized, intentional misinterpretation of asylum law that springs from the pages of the BIA’s atrociously erroneous decision in E-R-A-L-.

But, it’s hardly surprising, given the disrespect for immigration and human rights expertise in judicial selection at all levels of EOIR and the resulting failure to produce anything close to a fair, representative judiciary that is capable of understanding asylum law in context and appreciating the impact of their decisions on the human lives and communities they most affect. There is also a conspicuous absence of deliberation or dissent among today’s politically accommodating, “go along to get along” BIA “judges.”

What’s the purpose of a supposed “deliberative body” that neither transparently deliberates nor gets the correct answers on basic legal questions; a body incapable of protecting the constitutional and statutory rights, not to mention the lives, of individuals seeking justice?

To some, the BIA might (wrongly) be considered “obscure.” But, there is nothing “obscure” about the real human beings whose existence is threatened or eradicated by the BIA’s malfeasance and dereliction of duty!

The EOIR Clown Show 🤡 must go!

Due Process Forever!

PWS

12-22-20

🏴‍☠️☠️🤮👎🏻IN NYT OP-ED, FORMER TRUMP DOJ ATTORNEY ERICA NEWLAND ADMITS COMPLICITY! — Having Undermined Democratic Institutions, Sold False Narratives To (Too Often Willing) Federal Judges, & Participated In Racist-Inspired “Dred Scottification” (“Dehumanization”) Of the Other Is Actually a BIG Deal! — So Is The Destruction Of Due Process & Fundamental Fairness In The Immigration Courts (Now, “Clown Courts”🤡, or “America’s Star Chambers”☠️)

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/20/opinion/trump-justice-department-lawyer.html?referringSource=articleShare

. . . .

Watching the Trump campaign’s attacks on the election results, I now see what might have happened if, rather than nip and tuck the Trump agenda, responsible Justice Department attorneys had collectively — ethically, lawfully — refused to participate in President Trump’s systematic attacks on our democracy from the beginning. The attacks would have failed.

. . . .

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

Read the full op-ed at the link. That’s right Erica. Lack of ethics, morality, and failing to uphold the Constitution and the rule of law have consequences. Helping to “custom design” obvious pretexts for racist and hate inspired policies, for consumption by right-wing judges who only seek “cover” for going along to get along with fascism, is wrong. Duh!

It’s no surprise that the clearly unconstitutional and racially and religiously bigoted “Travel Ban,” willingly embraced by an intellectually dishonest and morally compromised Supremes majority, was first on the list in Erica’s “confession.”

But, don’t expect any apologies from the vast majority of Trumpist lawyer/enablers who violated their oaths of office or from the big time law firms (one where I was formerly a partner) who have granted them undeserved refuge at fat salaries! Nor should we expect large-scale redemption from the legions of Government lawyers in DOJ, DHS, and elsewhere who will assert the “Nuremberg defense” of “just following orders.” But, that doesn’t mean that the rest of us can’t demand some accountability for participation in what are essentially “crimes against humanity.”

Erica’s article largely echoes what my friend and colleague Judge Jeffrey Chase, many of our colleagues in the Round Table of Former Immigration Judges, ⚔️🛡 and numerous members of the New Due Process Army (“NDPA”) have been saying throughout this Administration. Indeed, I frequently have noted that the once-respected Solicitor General’s Office and EOIR operated as basically “ethics free zones” under the disgraced “leadership” of Sessions, Whitaker, and Barr.

It’s also why the the Biden-Harris team that takes over at DOJ must:

immediately remove all the current “executives” (and I use that term lightly) at EOIR as well as all members of the BIA and transfer them to positions where they can do no further damage to asylum seekers, migrants, their (often pro bono or low bono) lawyers, or the rest of humanity;
replace them with qualified individuals from the NDPA; and
be circumspect in eventually making retention decisions for Immigration Judges, taking into account public input as to the the degree to which each such judge’s jurisprudence during the Trump kakistocracy continued to reflect adherence to constitutionally required due process and fundamental fairness to migrants, respect for migrants and their representatives, best practices, and interpretations that blunted wherever reasonably possible the impact of the kakistocracy’s xenophobic, racist, White Nationalist policies.

American justice has been ill-served by the DOJ and the Immigration Courts over the past four years. That’s something that must not be swept under the carpet (as is the habit with most incoming Administrations).

The career Civil Service overall, and particularly complicit and often ethics-free government lawyers, failed to put up the necessary resistance to an overtly anti-American regime with an illegal and immoral agenda. Lives were lost or irreparably ruined as a result. That’s a big-time problem that if not addressed and resolved will likely make continuance of our national democratic republic impossible.

⚖️🗽🧑🏽‍⚖️👍🏼🇺🇸Due Process Forever! Complicity Never☠️🤮🏴‍☠️👎🏻!

PWS

12-21-20

EOIR Clown Show Must Go T-Shirt — “EOIR Clown Show Must Go” T-Shirt Custom Design Concept

⚖️BC PROFESSOR KARI HONG’S BIG WIN IN 10TH CIRCUIT HIGHLIGHTS YET ANOTHER FAILURE OF BASIC ASYLUM ANALYSIS BY EOIR JUDGES! — This Time They Failed To Follow The Rules On “Reasonably Available Internal Relocation!” — ADDO v. BARR — “[B]ecause the purpose of the relocation rule is not to require an applicant to stay one step ahead of persecution in the proposed area, th[e] [new] location must present circumstances that are substantially better than those giving rise to a well-founded fear of persecution on the basis of the original claim.”

Addo Opinion

Addo v. Barr, 10th Cir., 12-14-20, published

PANEL: HARTZ, PHILLIPS, and CARSON, Circuit Judges.

OPINION BY: Judge HARTZ

KEY QUOTE:

On this record we think it was unreasonable for the BIA and the IJ to decide that the government successfully rebutted the presumption that Petitioner has a well-founded fear of future persecution in Ghana. Their finding that Petitioner could safely relocate within Ghana is not supported by substantial evidence. See Arboleda v. U.S. Atty. Gen., 434 F.3d 1220, 1226 (11th Cir. 2006) (concluding that relocation “would not successfully shield [an asylum applicant from] persecution” because, although the applicant “relocated from his farm . . . to the capital city,” “the [persecutors] continued to threaten [the applicant] and his family . . . , [including through] frequent notes and telephone calls detailing the family’s activities and threatening them with death,” and by “burning down [the applicant’s] farm house”).

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

Yet another in the steady stream of documented failures of basic asylum analysis — the X’s and O’s — by a supposedly “expert” tribunal that is anything but!

This decision would be an outstanding “teaching tool” for instructing Immigration Judges on the proper analysis of a “reasonably available internal alternative.” The word “reasonable” is often “read out” of the analysis by EOIR judges in their rush to find “any reason to deny” claims to please their nativist political handlers.

In my more than two decades of experience at both the trial and appellate levels of the Immigration Judiciary, I observed that it is very difficult for DHS to properly rebut the presumption of future persecution by showing “that there is a specific area of the country where the risk of persecution to the respondent falls below the well-founded fear level,” as accurately described by the 10th Circuit. Indeed, it appears that many EOIR Judges lack the skills and training necessary to grant asylum with cogent analysis that would cut off many of the semi-frivolous appeals that ICE now takes. This is truly a “judiciary in shambles” under current grossly defective leadership.

I daresay that if all Immigration Judges held the DHS to their legal burden under this standard, the presumption would seldom be rebutted, in either asylum or withholding cases. But, the lack of real asylum expertise at today’s “dumbed down” EOIR and the clear “any reason to deny and deport” message sent by corrupt regime politicos to “their captive judiciary” undoubtedly results in numerous miscarriages of justice and wrongful removals.

Note that the respondent in this case was actually removed pending appeal! Had the case been handled properly in June 2017, the respondent would have been granted asylum, be a green card holder, and on his way to achieving citizenship. Instead, Professor Hong has to hope that she can get him back to the U.S. while he’s still alive!

The costs of EOIR’s deficient “judging” and unethical “weaponization” go far beyond what meets the eye. Someday, historians and sociologists will uncover and document the true human and moral costs of this disgraceful period in American history when we let grossly unqualified and immoral leaders and their accomplices lead us down the path to inhumanity and the abuse of the rule of law.

Unnecessary escapades like this, where cases that should be granted at “first instance review” instead linger in the system, moving from level to level and back again, for years, without proper resolution, make it easy to understand why EOIR builds “artificial backlog” while failing to provide basic justice. It also shows why the solution is “better judges” at EOIR and more prosecutorial discipline at ICE, rather than just shoving yet more additional judges into a broken, dysfunctional, and intentionally inefficient system that has been run into the ground by “malicious incompetents” over the past four years. NDPA expertise at EOIR and DHS are the answers!

Perhaps the “new EOIR” should hire Professor Hong to provide some real expert training on asylum law. Or, better yet, appoint her to an Appellate Judgeship at the BIA where she can lead a “renaissance of competence” in due process and fair asylum adjudication at EOIR and “teach by example!”

Or, even better, given her outstanding credentials, practical litigation experience, scholarship, courage, and proven leadership, appoint her to an Article III Judgeship where she can help improve the performance of the entire Federal Judiciary on what is one of the key issues in the fight to achieve social justice for all in America.

We need some new faces and better “practical scholarship” at ALL levels of the Federal Judiciary, from the “retail level” of the Immigration Courts to the Supremes. Better Judges for a Better America for all! Biden-Harris Administration take note!

Thanks, Professor Hong to you and your dedicated “crew” @ BC Law for all you do for the NDPA and for American Justice! You are making a difference!

In addition to Professor Hong’s stellar efforts, I am also reminded by my good friend, and another NDPA Superstar 🌟 Michelle Mendez @ CLINIC, of the key “behind the scenes” role played by the CLINIC BIA Pro Bono Project . Brad Jenkins and Rachel Naggar helped Professor Hong prepare for oral argument. (In the “small world” category, Brad did a “textbook presentation” of an asylum case before me in Arlington while he was serving as an Accredited Representative and a fellow at CAIR. I only found out later that he was a “ringer” on his way to Harvard Law and a distinguished career in social justice!) Additionally, Tania Linares Garcia (from NIJC) was part of the “team of experts” advising Professor Hong.

This is just another example of the great teamwork and mutural support that is the hallmark of the NDPA and the pro bono immigration/human rights community. As those who have had me for a teacher at Georgetown Law or have heard me speak know, I always “preach five things:” fairness, scholarship, timeliness, respect, and teamwork. Those were once “what EOIR was suppposed to be about” before the precipitous decline and total loss of values.

But, if the Biden-Harris Team takes bold and decisive action to eliminate the current kakistrocracy and replace it with “NDPA pros,” the vision of “through teamwork and innovation becoming the world’s best tribunals guaranteeing fairness and due process for all” can become a reality! Things don’t have to be the way they are now at EOIR!

Due Process Forever!⚖️🗽😄

PWS

12-17-20

🛡⚔️⚖️🗽SIR JEFFREY’S 2021 WISH LIST — Sanity, Humanity, Due Process, & Other Great Things! — The Importance Of A Long Overdue “Training Upgrade” @ EOIR!

https://www.jeffreyschase.com/blog/2020/12/14/a-wish-list-for-2021

JEFFREY S. CHASE | OPINIONS/ANALYSIS ON IMMIGRATION LAW

Blog Archive Press and Interviews Calendar Contact

A Wish List for 2021

To use another sports analogy, we have entered the preseason of the Biden Administration. As any sports fan knows, preseason (which generally starts five or six weeks before the real season begins) is a time for dreaming. During preseason, every team is undefeated, and every fan is permitted to believe that this will finally be the year in which their suffering and loyalty are rewarded.

I’ve spoken to several law school classes this fall via Zoom. One question I’ve been asked by students (both before and after the election) is what reforms I would like to see under the Biden Administration. Although it seemed significantly more likely before November 3 that the Democrats would control both houses, I’ve stuck with the original list. This is, after all, preseason, and I’m allowed to dream.

Just to be clear, Biden will be the 13th president to serve during my lifetime, and the seventh since beginning my career in immigration law. I am well aware that most of the items on my list won’t happen; I wouldn’t be surprised if none come to pass. Maybe I’ll continue that thought in a future blog; this one is devoted to dreaming. That being said, some of the changes I hope to see are:

Safeguarding Asylum: In spite of numerous reminders from Article III courts that it is Congress, and not the Attorney General, that writes our laws, and that in enacting the 1980 Refugee Act, Congress intended to bring our asylum laws into accordance with our treaty law obligations, the Trump Administration showed shameless disregard for these facts, doing everything it could think of to upend Congressional intent by eliminating asylum eligibility to all who apply. Ideally through statute, but if not possible, then at least through regulation, safeguards must be added making it absolutely clear to future administrations that asylum is meant to be a broad and flexible relief from any type of persecution creative persecutors may conceive; that the designated grounds required for such protection are to be interpreted broadly, and that persecution may be attributed to a government providing imperfect protection to its citizens. It is important to note that none of these principles constitute changes to the law, but simply shore up or repair long-existing principles following the storm of the past four years.

An Independent Immigration Court: It is time for the Immigration Courts to be moved out of the Department of Justice, and into independent Article I status. We’ve seen over the past four years the worst-case scenario of what happens when an enforcement agency realizes that it controls the courts that exist to keep that same agency’s worst impulses in check. Article I has been strongly endorsed by the American Bar Association, the Federal Bar Association, the American Immigration Lawyers Association, the National Association of Immigration Judges, and many other groups, including the Round Table of Former Immigration Judges. Enacting this change is the only way the integrity and independence of the Immigration Courts can be safeguarded from future attack.

Government Appointed Counsel for Children in Removal Proceedings: This is a no-brainer. In a case before the Ninth Circuit involving this issue, J.E.F.M. v. Lynch, an amicus brief was filed by the states of Washington and California. The brief began: “In this case, the federal government argues that an indigent child charged with removability in a federal immigration proceeding does not, as a matter of due process under the federal Constitution, have the right to be represented by appointed counsel at government expense….Such a position is at odds with principles of ordered liberty and due process. It ignores the reality that indigent children are incapable of representing themselves in an adversarial immigration removal proceeding, let alone raising complex claims of due process or navigating federal administrative and appellate procedure.” The brief continued: “An adversarial immigration system, which depends on the presentation of both sides of a case in a highly specialized area of law, demands that a child, standing alone, be represented by counsel.” The brief was signed (in March 2016) by California’s then Attorney General, Kamala Harris. Hopefully Vice President Harris will work to make this right a reality.

Eliminate Chevron Deference for BIA and Attorney General Decisions: Last year, the Third Circuit, in a concurring opinion by Judge McKee in its decision in Quinteros v. Att’y Gen. (which all three judges on the panel joined), stated that “it is difficult for me to read this record and conclude that the Board was acting as anything other than an agency focused on ensuring Quinteros’ removal rather than as the neutral and fair tribunal it is expected to be. That criticism is harsh and I do not make it lightly.” The court’s observation highlights the problem with according broad deference to those who use their decision-making authority for politically motivated ends.

In a blog post earlier this year, I highlighted three recent scholarly articles questioning the continued propriety of applying Chevron’s principles to decisions of the BIA concerning asylum, or to any decisions of the Attorney General. I believe Article I status would resolve this problem, as decisions issued by an independent court outside of the executive branch would no longer constitute the interpretation of an executive branch agency covered by Chevron. In the meantime, Congress and/or the Department of Justice should consider means of exempting such decisions from Chevron deference, and thus keep both the BIA and Attorney General honest in their efforts to reach neutral and fair results.

Create a “Charming Betsy” Reg Requiring Adherence to International Law: Since 1804, the Supreme Court’s decision in Murray v. The Schooner Charming Betsy has required domestic statutes to be interpreted consistently with international law whenever possible. As the Supreme Court in INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca observed that in enacting the 1980 Refugee Act, “one of Congress’ primary purposes was to bring United States refugee law into conformance with the 1967 United Nations Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees,” it would seem that interpreters of our asylum laws should look to international law interpretations of that treaty for guidance. Recent examples in which this has not been the case include the just-published “death to asylum” regulations that will completely gut the 1980 Refugee Act of any meaning; as well as regulations that bar asylum for conduct falling far, far short of the severity required to bar refugee protection under international law (which a federal district court blocked in Pangea v. Barr).

As the Board seems disinclined to listen to the Supreme Court on this point, it is hoped that the Biden Administration would codify the Charming Betsy doctrine in regulations, which should further require the BIA, Immigration Judges, and Asylum Officers to consider UNHCR interpretations of the various asylum provisions, and require adjudicators to provide compelling reasons for rejecting its guidance.

Eliminate or Curtail the Attorney General’s Certification Power: Until Article I becomes a reality, Congress must pass legislation that either eliminates or at least seriously limits the Attorney General’s certification power by removing the ability to rewrite established law on a whim. At most, the Attorney General’s role should be limited to requesting the BIA to reconsider precedent in light of interceding Supreme Court or Circuit Court decisions, changes in law or regulations, or other legal developments that might materially impact the prior holding. Furthermore, any right to certify must be limited to cases before the BIA, and to actual disputes between the parties arising in the proceedings below.

Revamp Immigration Judge Training: This is more important than it might sound. Conservative commentator Nolan Rappaport has commented on the inadequacy of Immigration Judge training, particularly where many recent appointees come to the bench with no prior immigration experience. This problem predates the present administration. Under Attorneys General Holder and Lynch, the BIA in particular was extremely resistant to exposing its judges and attorneys to views not considered part of the official party line. During that period, I was amazed at how the BIA’s vice-chair (who continues to hold that position up to present) viewed respected immigration experts as the enemy, and employed a director of training and subject matter experts whose only qualification was their willingness to shield EOIR employees from outside sources. This problem has worsened over the past four years. A committee including not only those within EOIR, but also academics and members of the private bar should be formed to completely rethink the curriculum and resources available to judges and support staff.

Copyright 2020 Jeffrey S. Chase. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

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

Jeffrey’s point on training is particularly well-taken. This has been a festering “below the radar screen” problem at EOIR for decades.

Jeffrey’s analysis supports my call for the immediate end of the “EOIR Clown Show” and the replacement of EOIR Senior “Management” and the entire BIA with expert “practical scholars” from the NDPA. Indeed, one of the most grossly “underrepresented” groups in the current Immigration Judiciary are those who gained their expertise and courtroom knowledge as clinical professors! That group includes some of the finest legal minds I have run across in nearly 50 years of government, “big law,” and academic practice.

In my experience, EOIR training ranged from the “minimally adequate,” to the sadly comical, to the overtly insulting. In the latter category were the years we had no in person training and were sent a series of “mandatory videos.” Some were inaudible; others wrong or misleading; a few were actually reprises of BIA “staff brown bag lunches.” “Amateur Night at The Bijou” to be sure!

It was not that the resources weren’t available. We had among our ranks colleagues like Judge Dana Marks, one of the “Founding Mothers” of U.S. asylum law, who successfully argued the landmark Cardoza-Fonseca (“well-founded fear”) case before the Supreme Court as a private lawyer; and Board Member/Appellate Immigration Judge Lory D. Rosenberg, to my knowledge the only EOIR judge at any level whose legal analysis was favorably cited by name by the Supreme Court in the St. Cyr case (212(c) waiver retroactivity).

Yet instead of getting insights and pointers from these and other luminaries of modern immigration and asylum law, we often were treated to government litigators telling us how to narrowly interpret asylum law or make denial decisions “easier to defend” in the Circuit Courts. One government prosecutor famously informed us that we weren’t really “judges” at all but simply “highly paid immigration inspectors working for the Attorney General.”

Others told us that as “mere DOJ attorneys” we weren’t allowed to claim status as “administrative judges” for state bar purposes, even though by law we were barred from performing non-adjudicative legal functions. This is the kind of nonsense on which some of our limited “training time” was spent. Still others told us that although Congress had granted us statutory contempt authority, the Attorney General was withholding it because we shouldn’t be allowed to hold “other government attorneys” (that is, INS/DHS prosecutors) accountable for their conduct in our “courts” (which, clearly, these bureaucrats didn’t consider “courts” at all, except, perhaps, when arguing against judicial review by the Article IIIs).

Training is important! Many of the Circuit Court reversals highlighted in “Courtside” and on Jeffrey’s blog show grossly deficient understanding and application at both the trial and appellate levels of EOIR of the fundamentals of immigration and asylum law — things like standards of proof, considering all the evidence, judging credibility, and following Circuit and sometimes even BIA precedents favorable to respondents.

This isn’t “rocket science!” They are the “x’s and o’s” of basic due process and fair immigration adjudication. Yet, all too often, EOIR “expert” tribunals (that really aren’t) come up short. Indeed very few members of today’s EOIR judiciary would be generally recognized as “experts” in the field based on their lifetime body of work. A sad, but true, commentary. But, one that can and must be changed by the Biden-Harris Administration!

The BIA should not only be reconstituted as an true “expert tribunal,” along the line of a Circuit Court of Appeals, but as a tribunal that teaches, instructs, and promotes best practices through its jurisprudence.

And, contrary to some of the restrictionist commentary that I continue to read, asylum law following Cardoza, Mogharrabi, the Refugee Act of 1980, and the U.N. Convention & Protocol from which it flows is neither intentionally narrow nor inherently restrictive. As indicated in Cardoza, it could and should properly be interpreted generously and humanely to grant life-saving protection wherever possible. The purpose of the Convention was to set forth legal minimums while inspiring greater protections along those lines.

The “spirit of Cardoza and Mogharrabi” have long been lost, and now gleefully exorcised at the “EOIR Clown Show.” It’s past time for the appointment of competent, expert EOIR judges and administrators from the NDPA. Those who are intellectual leaders with moral courage who will insist on its long overdue restoration and fulfillment of this spirit!

Due Process Forever!

PWS

12-15-20

⚠️⚠️PRACTICE ALERT FOR ASYLUM SEEKERS FROM NDPA ALL-STAR PROFESSOR LINDSAY HARRIS! — Filing for Asylum Before January 11, 2021!

Alert for Asylum Seekers – Consult with an Immigration Attorney if you Haven’t Filed your Case before January 11, 2020

Over the summer, the U.S. government proposed a set of regulations that will dramatically change asylum law. In response, the public and immigrant advocates submitted close to 90,000 public comments. The Government changed some of the proposed rules, slightly, but the new rules are set to go into effect on January 11, 2021. There will likely be legal challenges (lawsuits) to try to stop the regulations from going into effect. But, it’s always hard to tell what will happen. One of the changes made between July 15, 2020 and December 2020 to the proposed rules is that they will not be retroactive. This means that they will not apply to anyone who has filed their I-589 Application for asylum before January 11, 2021. The Government is saying that the new rules will apply now and despite any legal challenge to any sections that the Government views as simply codifying existing case law. But, it is likely much better for asylum seekers to have their applications filed prior to January 11, 2021. This is especially for people fleeing harm from non-government actors, for asylum seekers fleeing gender-based harm, and for individuals who have spent time in another country before coming to the U.S. If you are seeking asylum, please consult with an immigration attorney as soon as possible. An I-589 asylum application takes hours to properly fill out and you will need to have time to work with an attorney to prepare your application and get it mailed before January 11, 2021. If you are an asylum seeker in need of assistance, please contact Lindsay.harris@udc.edu, Vice-Chair of the American Immigration Lawyers Association’s National Asylum & Refugee Committee and Associate Professor and Director of the Immigration & Human Rights Clinic at the University of the District of Columbia David A. Clarke School of Law.

Lindsay M. Harris (she/her/hers)

Associate Professor of Law

Director, Immigration & Human Rights Clinic

University of the District of Columbia

David A. Clarke school of Law

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

Thanks Lindsay, my friend!

One of the points that I can’t overemphasize is the importance of getting legal assistance to fully, carefully, and accurately fill out the asylum application (Form I-589).

Variances between the written application and supporting documentation and testimony before the Asylum Office or Immigration Court have always been problematic.

But, under the current White Nationalist restrictionist regime, Asylum Officers and Immigration Judges are encouraged to “fly speck” asylum applications for any variances, no matter how minor, that can be used to find the applicant “not credible.” While this is both a violation of the statute and the case law in most Circuits, it’s a reality that asylum applicants must deal with.

It’s a particular problem given the hiring of many new Immigration Judges with no expertise in asylum laws, no sympathy for asylum seekers, no experience representing asylum seekers, subject to production quotas that encourage them to use “any reason to deny” an asylum application, and basically imbued with the “propaganda” that most asylum applications are without merit.

My own experience, although now in the past, is that many asylum seekers incorrectly assume that the Form I-589 is just a “rough outline” of the claim and that they will be allowed to fill in blanks, obtain additional documentation, and explain problems in full at a later time. That wasn’t true in the past, and is even less so now.

What and how things are said in the written asylum application can have a determinative effect before both the Asylum Office and the Immigration Court! “First instance denials” by Immigration Judges are very hard to reverse on appeal, particularly when based on “adverse credibility rulings.”

So, preparing the application carefully with assistance from someone who understands exactly how the Immigraton Court system works (or doesn’t) is essential!

Due Process Forever!

PWS

12-14-20

NAN ARON OF ALLIANCE FOR JUSTICE⚖️SPEAKS OUT ON NEED FOR BIDEN-HARRIS ADMINISTRATION TO LOOK AT BROADER SOURCES FOR FEDERAL JUDICIAL CANDIDATES 🧑🏽‍⚖️👨🏻‍⚖️👩‍⚖️!

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/11/us/progressive-groups-biden-judges.html?referringSource=articleShare

Carl Hulse reports for the NY Times:

. . . .

In addition to the candidates put forward by Mr. Feingold’s group after a nationwide effort, another coalition of organizations has provided the transition with over 100 names of candidates developed over the past several months.

“The process started earlier so we would be ready,” said Nan Aron, the president of the Alliance for Justice, which in cooperation with nearly three dozen other groups has given the Biden team a list of more than 100 potential nominees. “We are pushing hard for them to make judges a priority.”

. . . .

The progressives say that Democrats must use whatever leverage they can to press their nominees.

“Our view is the administration should push to make judges a critical part of the conversation,” Ms. Aron said. “The Democrats will need to fight for the judges they want.”

Though acknowledging winning confirmations will be difficult — certainly compared with the free hand Republicans have had when controlling both the White House and the Senate — Mr. Feingold said he was optimistic that Mr. Biden, using the available political tools and with strong progressive support, could get his picks on to the courts.

“I see opportunity here,” Mr. Feingold said.

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

Thanks Nan! Read the rest of the article at the above link!

I just hope that this time around, unlike the Obama Administration, the Biden-Harris Team focuses on what former Senator Russ Feingold of the American Constitution Society might call a “golden opportunity” for broadening and improving the Federal Judiciary.

That’s, of course, the “judiciary” at the Executive Office for Immigration Review (“EOIR”) which operates (and I use this term loosely, given the disgraceful, deadly dysfunction sowed by the outgoing regime) entirely within the Executive Branch at the DOJ. No need to get Mitch McConnell’s sign off on these judges! (We ultimately need a fully independent Article Immigration Court, which will take legislation.)

The mess at EOIR needs immediate attention and aggressive due process reforms. This is no “small opportunity.” There are more than 500 Immigration Judgeships and another two dozen critically important Appellate Judgeships at the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) at stake here.

Together, this “under the radar administrative judiciary” exercises essentially life or death authority over millions of individuals and affects the lives and futures of millions more American families, employers, and communities from coast to coast. While most of the BIA’s decisions are reviewable in the Circuit Courts of Appeals, the BIA’s nationwide authority to set precedents and policies that determine not only the future of millions of humans, but also the conduct of DHS (which has been highly problematic) gives it power that in some ways exceeds that of any Federal Court short of the Supremes.

Sadly, the independence, expertise, and due process performance of EOIR has deteriorated steadily over the past three Administrations before going into a “death spiral” under the Trump/Miller/Sessions/Barr White Nationalist kakistocracy.

The exceptionally well qualified judicial candidates and competent legal administrators to fix the EOIR disaster are out here in the New Due Process Army. There is no area of judging that combines intellectual challenge, applied due process, human relations, practical problem solving, historical perspectives, ethical norms, and fundamental human values the way that the Immigration Court experience does!

A new, due process oriented, expert, diverse, representative immigration judiciary at EOIR will not only be a model for best practices for all levels of the Federal Judiciary, but will also provide an exceptional source of experienced candidates for the Article III Judiciary and future public policy positions (the massive failures in these areas over the past four years are an example of why we must do better if we want to save lives, promote equal justice for all, and enhance our democracy). As I always tell my Georgetown Law students, if you can win in Immigration Court, everything else you do in law will be a “piece of cake!”

This is more than just “an opportunity.” Human lives are at stake! National values and the future of the rule of law in America hang in the balance! This isn’t “optional,” nor is it a “back burner” issue! Reforming the Immigration Judiciary is a national imperative that we must insist upon!

Hey hey, ho ho, the EOIR Clown Show 🤡 has got to go! Let the Biden-Harris Team know!

Due Process Forever!⚖️🗽👍🏼

PWS

12-13-20

⚖️🗽“HOUSTON, WE’VE GOT A PROBLEM!” — It’s Called “EOIR” & It’s Time For The Clown Show 🤡 To Go! — Here’s My Speech Last Night To The Houston Chapter of AILA!

Good evening, Houston! Hope you and yours are staying well. Thanks for joining me to help plan the next big battle for our New Due Process Army (“NDPA”).

I’m retired, so I can tell it like it is: no party line, no bureaucratic doublespeak, no BS, just the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Nevertheless, I do want to hold AILA, your organizers, you, and anyone else of any importance whatsoever harmless for the following remarks, for which I am solely responsible. To borrow the words of country music superstar Toby Keith, “it’s me baby, with your wakeup call!”

And, perhaps to state the obvious: “Houston, we’ve got a problem!” The problem is EOIR, it’s threatening our entire justice system, and I need your help to fix it!

42 days and counting left in the kakistocracy – governance by the worst among us. We got the job done in November. But, by no means is the fight to preserve our justice system and save our nation over. Indeed, in many ways it’s just beginning!

I’m dividing my presentation this evening into two parts. First, I’m going to take you from one of the highlights of my career, the Kasinga decision in 1996, to the depths of the current unmitigated disaster in our Immigration Courts. I’ll explain how policy-making by myth, inadequate leadership, followed by malicious incompetence snuffed out hope and progress and replaced it with despair and return to the dark days of Jim Crow.

Then, I’m going to tell you what needs to be done to restore and re-energize due process at EOIR, why our time is now, and why your voices as members of our New Due Process Army (“NDPA”) need to be heard loud and clear by the incoming Biden-Harris Administration.

* * * * * * *

We also need an AG who is advocate for human rights and immigrants’ rights. Additionally, there is a pressing need for immigration/human rights experts from the NDPA in authoritative positions in other parts of the DOJ, like the SG’s Office, OIL, and the Office of Legal Policy, as well as, of course DHS, ORR, State, and even CDC.

Remember: This isn’t “rocket science!” It’s just common sense, “practical scholarship,” best practices, moral courage, humanity, and respect for human dignity! All of which you and other members of the NDPA have in abundance! Most of all, it’s about getting the right practical experts in the key positions within the incoming Administration.

Unlike the Article III Courts, the “EOIR Clown Show” can be removed, replaced, and justice at all levels improved just by putting the right experts from the NDPA in charge right off the bat. Because these are Executive positions that do not require Senate confirmation, Mitch McConnell’s permission is not required.

Democratic Administrations, particularly the Obama Administration, have a history of not getting the job done when it comes to achievable immigration reforms within the bureaucracy. If you don’t want four more years of needless frustration, death, disorder, demeaning of humanity, and deterioration of the most important “retail level” of our justice system, let the incoming Biden Administration know: Throw out the EOIR Clown Show and bring in the experts from the NDPA to turn the Immigration Courts into real, independent courts of equal justice and humanity that will be a source of national pride, not a deadly and dangerous national embarrassment!

Contrary to all the mindless “woe is me” suggestions that it will take decades to undo Stephen Miller’s racist nonsense, EOIR is totally fixable — BUT ONLY WITH THE RIGHT FOLKS FROM THE NDPA IN CHARGE! It only becomes “mission impossible” if the Biden-Harris Administration approaches EOIR with the same indifference, lack of urgency, and disregard for expertise and leadership at the DOJ that often has plagued past Democratic Administrations on immigration, human rights, and social justice.

It won’t take decades, nor will it take zillions of taxpayer dollars! With the right folks in leadership positions at EOIR, support for independent problem solving (not mindless micromanagement) from the AG & DOJ, and a completely new BIA selected from the ranks of the NDPA experts, we will see drastic improvements in the delivery of justice at EOIR by this time next year. And, that will just be the beginning!

No more clueless politicos, go along to get along bureaucrats, unqualified toadies, and restrictionist holdovers calling the shots at EOIR, America’s most important, least understood, and “most fixable” court system! No more abuse of migrants and their hard-working representatives! No more ridiculous, “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” generating self-created backlogs! No more vile and stupid White Nationalist enforcement gimmicks being passed off as “policies!” No more “Amateur Night at The Bijou” when it comes to administration of the immigrant justice system at EOIR!

Get mad! Get angry! Stop the nonsense! Tell every Democrat in Congress and the Biden Administration to bring in the NDPA experts to fix EOIR! Now! Before more lives are lost, money wasted, and futures ruined! It won’t get done if we don’t speak out and demand to be heard! Let your voices ring out from banks of the Rio Grande to the shores of the Potomac, from the Gulf Coast to the centers of Government!

This is our time! Don’t let it pass with the wrong people being put in charge — yet again! Don’t be “left at the station” as the train of immigrant justice at Justice pulls out with the best engineers left standing on the platform and the wrong folks at the controls! Some “train wrecks” aren’t survivable!

Repeat after me: “Hey hey, ho ho, the EOIR Clown Show has got to go!” Then pass it on to the incoming Administration! Let them know, in no uncertain terms, that you’ve had enough! More than enough!

Thanks for listening, have a great evening, stay well, take care of your families, and, always remember the NDPA rallying cry, Due Process Forever!

Read my complete speech here:

HOUSTON

And, here’s the zoom video recording, courtesy of Roberto Blum, Esquire, of Houston AILA:

https://zoom.us/rec/share/s607ygH0DZ4E_tQqcbs_6w1nrdDjfcoY9JWlIT7FAQRKm_mdFu5iGNP5ukVWjXLI.Y_uTqJUfps7uq9St?startTime=1607558497000

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

🤮EOIR’S STUPIDITY IN MOTION: One of the audience questions last night concerned the recent mindless “scheduling orders” issued by EOIR bureaucrats masquerading as “judges.” These were the subject of immediate harsh congressional criticism, as I noted yesterday. https://immigrationcourtside.com/2020/12/09/kakistocracy-korner%f0%9f%8f%b4%e2%80%8d%e2%98%a0%ef%b8%8f-eoirs-latest-maliciously-incompetent-%f0%9f%a4%ae-attack-%e2%98%a0%ef%b8%8f-on-kids-earns-well-deserved-congressional-ire/

Basically, with over 1.3 million backlogged cases already on the docket, EOIR has chosen to expedite and prioritize newer asylum cases where individuals have not had time to obtain attorneys and properly prepare over hundreds of thousands, perhaps one million, of “ready to try” backlogged cases. Some of the latter undoubtedly date back to my time on the bench!

Rather than working with the private bar and ICE on a rational plan to get the cases that are ready to try heard, EOIR has chosen to rush ahead by putting “not ready for prime time” cases in front of those that have been waiting, some for many years. Apparently, the plan is to then dismiss the cases if completed asylum applications aren’t filed by the arbitrary, artificial, and unreasonable deadlines.

Remarkably, attorneys were told that if they couldn’t meet these arbitrary, unreasonable deadlines, they should “file motions.” That will 1) throw more useless paper into an un-automated system already drowning in it; 2) undoubtedly lead to wildly inconsistent adjudications among judges; and 3) generate unnecessary appeals and possible Federal court actions. Some unrepresented individuals likely will be wrongfully deported because they don’t understand what’s happening.

This is “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” in action. A great example of why “The EOIR Clown Show 🤡 has got to go!” Sooner, not later!

Let your voices be heard!

I hear lots of talk about the importance of civil rights from the Biden team. But, as we well know, “immigrants’ rights are civil rights.”

Civil rights reforms and justice for African Americans, Hispanic Americans, and other minorities will continue to be an unrealized dream unless and until we fix the broken and biased Immigration Court system: “The home of ‘Dred Scottification’ and the ‘21st Century Jim Crow.’” As MLK, Jr. once said, “Injustice anywhere is a threat justice everywhere.”

After three decades of abject failure and “deterioration of justice at Justice,” time for some progressive new leadership at the DOJ that takes those words to heart and “connects the dots” between the continuing abuses of Black Americans in the streets and the disgraceful abuses inflicted on immigrants of color and their representatives in our 21st Century “Star Chambers” called Immigration Courts that operate within the DOJ. In my mind, appointing officials who were part of not solving the problem in the past, even if they “know” the DOJ, is not going to get the job done.

We need new faces in leadership at DOJ! That means individuals in leadership positions who have demonstrated a commitment to equal justice for all! Experts in justice rather than political and bureaucratic retreads! Time to value “real life” experiences and achievements over past participation in managing a failed and floundering DOJ bureaucracy that has been “AWOL” on equal justice and immigrant justice for far too long.

Yes, we need a “good manager” at Justice. But, a manager who has seen the problems with the justice system first-hand, through litigation or advocacy against the regime’s abuses, particularly in the Immigration Courts and with racist and unconstitutional immigrant bashing “policies.” A leader familiar with the problems at Justice, but not part of those problems in the past. Sure, that person will need personnel experts and some “bureaucratic insiders” to get the job done. But, they should be part of the team, not driving the train.

There will be no justice for all Americans without justice in our Immigration Courts! So far, I haven’t heard a direct acknowledgement and embracing of that simple fact from the Biden-Harris team. That’s a matter that should be of concern to all of us in the NDPA!

That’s why it’s so important for our voices to be heard now! Before the “train leaves the station” without the NDPA on board, which is precisely what happened in 2008!

Due Process Forever!

PWS

12-10-20

NDPA SUPERSTAR 🌟🌟🌟🌟🌟 SCHOLAR-INNOVATOR PROFESSOR MICHELE PISTONE’S CREATIVE, AMAZING VIISTA PROGRAM IS CHANGING THE FACE OF PRO BONO REPRESENTATION FOR ASYLUM SEEKERS ⚖️— At A Time Of Grotesque Stupidity 🤮 & Management Catastrophe ☠️ Inflicted By The EOIR Kakistocracy, Michele & Her Talented, Problem-Solving Colleagues In The NDPA Are EXACTLY What America Needs To Replace The “Clown Show” With Real Practical Scholars Who Will Lead the New Due Process Revolution! ⚖️👨🏻‍⚖️🧑🏽‍⚖️🗽🇺🇸

Creator & Developer of VIISTA

Michele writes:

I am thrilled to report that VIISTA is getting rave reviews. The inaugural class of students is really enjoying the course. They will be finishing Module 1 next week and will start Module 2 (with its focus on immigration law) in January. I am really impressed so far with their work product and the quizzes and other assessments confirm that they are learning what we want them to learn.

Students in the inaugural class come from diverse backgrounds. My current students include a Stanford college senior who aims to work as a paralegal next year, and eventually go to law school. Other students are recent college grads interested in peace and justice/law/social work who want to make an immediate impact for immigrant families. Some students are first-generation immigrants, others are children of immigrants. Some students are retirees or those seeking an encore career, like empty nesters and parents coming back into the workforce. Three PhDs also enrolled in the program. Many are volunteers with immigrant serving organizations.

I am now focused on getting the word out. Attached and linked here is a recent article from the Chronicle of Higher Education and here is a link to an article from the Columbus Dispatch. And here is a link to the website, immigrantadvocate.villanova.edu.

Please help me to spread the word about VIISTA in your networks, including among volunteers with your organizations. You can also let folks know that scholarships are available for the Spring term, which starts on Monday, January 11.

The Scholarships are offered through ADROP, Augustinian Defenders of the Rights of the Poor.

You can read about the scholarship, the application process and apply at ADROP’s website: https://www.rightsofthepoor.org/viista-scholarship-program.

If you have any questions about the process, please feel free to reach out to Lacie Michaelson (cced here). She is the Executive Director of ADROP and took VIISTA herself as a student in the pilot.

Please note that the deadline to apply for a scholarship for Spring of 2021 semester is Monday, December 14th, 2020.

Thanks for helping me to spread the word and identify passionate advocates for immigrant justice who want to become part of the solution.

Warmly,

Michele

Michele R. Pistone

Professor of Law

_{Villanova University, Charles Widger School of Law}

Founding Faculty Director, VIISTA: Villanova Interdisciplinary Immigration Studies Training for Advocates

Founder, VIISTA Villanova Interdisciplinary Immigration Studies Training for Advocates

Director, Clinic for Asylum, Refugee & Emigrant Services (CARES)

Co-Managing Editor, Journal on Migration and Human Security

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

Michele, my friend and colleague, YOU are amazing!🦸‍♀️😎

With the echoes of my AILA keynote speech yesterday still reverberating across Ohio, here we are with the perfect example of why the EOIR Clown Show must go and be replaced by competent judges and administrators from the NDPA! https://immigrationcourtside.com/2020/12/04/🇺🇸good-morning-ohio-my-keynote-speech-to-aila-this-morning-🗽-an-ndpa-call-to-action-⚖%EF%B8%8F-the-eoi/

Over the past four years, what passes for “management” at DOJ and EOIR has wasted millions of dollars, squandered thousands of hours of time, and kept the private bar on a treadmill with a steady stream of moronic, cruel, and inept “enforcement only” gimmicks, each seemingly stupider and more counterproductive than the last, driven by a White Nationalist nativist agenda. The result is a backlog that has exploded to astounding levels, (even with twice as many judges on the bench, many of them with questionable credentials and little if any expertise in immigration and human rights laws) and a totally dysfunctional mess that threatens to topple the entire Federal judicial system.

As those of us who understand immigration know, the key to a successful EOIR is representation! With an adequate supply of good representation, cases get sorted out at the earliest possible levels, claims are properly documented and presented, individuals show up at their hearings at remarkably high rates, and results are much more likely to be fair. Presto, “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” by EOIR shrinks, parties are encouraged to stipulate and get right to the contested issues, results at trial are more likely to be fair, appeals, petitions for review, and remands decrease, and the backlogs go down as the dockets come under control. Moreover, as the Immigration Court litigation experience improves, more practitioners get the “positive vibes” and are willing to undertake pro bono or low bono cases. Best practices developed to achieve fairness on EOIR’s high-volume docket find their way into other parts of the Federal Court system. It’s an all-around winner! Or, at least it should be!

So, any competent, rational, and knowledgeable “management group” at EOIR would make increasing representation “job # 1.” They would work cooperatively and harmoniously with bar groups, NGOs, states, and localities, to increase availability and improve quality of representation. They would eschew unnecessary detention, which inhibits representation, and insure than courts are reasonably and conveniently located in areas where private representation is abundantly available.

Of course, that’s not what the clowns at EOIR have done! Instead, they have gone out of their way to inflict misery on respondents and their representatives. Far from inspiring more folks to undertake cases, we have all seen stories of how the intentional rudeness and abuse inflicted in Immigration Court and the dysfunctional system actually demoralizes lawyers and causes them to leave the field. Their “stories of woe” are hardly encouraging for others to donate time and effort.

Fortunately, while EOIR was busy ”kneecapping justice,” someone outside the “EOIR twilight zone” was thinking about how to solve the problem! With help from her friends, Michele designed the VIISTA program to train more non-attorney representatives to represent asylum seekers, convinced folks to fund it, recruited initial classes, and has it up and running. (By contrast, after two decades of wasted resources and incompetent meanderings, EOIR is still without a functioning e-filing system. Think that might have helped or saved some lives during the pandemic?)

And the training is not only a bargain (with scholarships available), it is beyond first class in substance and content. Essentially, it’s “what you really need to learn in law school in less than a year.” The curriculum would put to shame any training we received at EOIR, even before the current Clown Show. My Round Table colleague Judge Jeffrey Chase (a/k/a “Sir Jeffrey”) has reviewed the curriculum and agrees.

The solution is painfully obvious to anyone who takes the time to think about it. On January 21, 2021, give the hook to the Clown Show in Falls Church, and bring in the scholar/problem solvers like Michele and her NDPA colleagues to lead the due process revolution that will transform EOIR into a place where teamwork and innovation will produce the world’s best court system guaranteeing fairness and due process for all. That was once the “EOIR vision” before “serial mismanagement” transformed it into the ugly, dysfunctional Star Chamber that confronts us today.

It need not and should not be that way. But, the vision of true due process at EOIR will only be realized if the Biden Administration puts the right people — folks like Michele and others like her from the NDPA — in place immediately upon assuming power.

Let your contacts in the Biden Administration know that you have had more than enough! The EOIR Clown Show must go!

Due Process Forever!

PWS

12-05-20

🇺🇸“GOOD MORNING OHIO!” — MY KEYNOTE SPEECH TO AILA THIS MORNING 🗽— AN NDPA CALL TO ACTION! ⚖️— “The EOIR Clown Show Has Got To Go!”🤡👨🏻‍⚖️👎🏻

Star Chamber Justice — “Justice”
Star Chamber
Style

Friends, you know, and I know, what is the biggest crisis facing the American justice system today. One that undermines and threatens racial justice, social justice, equality before the law, voting rights, American values, and indeed the very foundations of our democratic institutions and our justice system.

It’s imperative that our incoming Administration and its leaders fully recognize the overwhelming importance and extreme urgency of immediately ending the ongoing, deadly, and dangerous “Clown Show” at EOIR – the Executive Office for Immigration Review.

Under the defeated but not yet departed regime, EOIR has been weaponized by White Nationalist nativists to function as America’s Star Chambers. Once envisioned by its founders, including me, as a potential “jewel in the crown” of American justice, EOIR now has become an ungodly nightmare of anti-due process, anti-immigrant propaganda, bad judges, bogus stats, uncontrollable backlogs, malicious incompetence, stupid regulations, daily doses of irrationality, abuse of private attorneys, and institution of “worst practices.” But, it doesn’t have to be that way! No, not at all!

With courage, bold action, and, most important, the right people in place in leadership and key judicial positions, EOIR can be fixed: sooner, not later. The Immigration Courts can, indeed, through teamwork and innovation become the world’s best courts guaranteeing fairness and due process for all, promoting a model of best practices for the Federal Judiciary as a whole, and providing a trained and ready source of due-process oriented judges with strong immigration, human rights, and equal justice backgrounds for the Article III Judiciary and public policy positions.

EOIR will then be positioned for the essential transition to an Article I independent U.S. Immigration Court when we have the votes.

But, it will require a far more progressive, visionary, and aggressive approach than past Democratic Administrations. We must immediately (and legally) clear out the deadwood and get the problem solvers from the New Due Process Army (“NDPA”) — mostly now in the NGO, clinical, and private sectors, folks like you and your colleagues — in place to fix this horribly broken system.

Read my complete speech here:

OHIO AILA

DUE PROCESS FOREVER!

PWS

12-04-20

⚔️🛡SIR JEFFREY ON THE LIFE-SAVING IMPORTANCE OF COMMENTING: Yeah, Preparing Regulatory Comments Is A Royal Pain In The Butt, Particularly When You Know The Malicious Incompetents In The White Nationalist Regime Won’t Pay Any Attention — But, Federal Judges 🧑🏽‍⚖️⚖️ Often Do!

https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.jeffreyschase.com/blog/2020/12/2/pangea-v-dhs-the-power-of-comments&source=gmail-imap&ust=1607531177000000&usg=AOvVaw2vQATGEpuX0Oss0KcQPyVx

Pangea v. DHS: The Power of Comments

The constant stream of proposed regulations relating to our immigration laws has led to a continuous call to the public to submit comments to those rules. Individuals and organizations have responded in large numbers, in spite of the short 30 day comment windows this administrative has generally afforded. For those who have questioned the purpose of submitting comments or have wondered if the effort was worth it, I point to the recent decision of U.S. District Court Judge Susan Illston in the Northern District of California in Pangea Legal Services v. DHS granting a temporary restraining order against regulations that classify a wide range of crimes as bars to asylum eligibility.

As background, I would like to point to the explanation of the notice and comment procedures provided by U.S. District Court Judge Timothy J. Kelly last year in CAIR Coalition v. Trump. In that case, the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security attempted to bypass the process by publishing final rules with no opportunity to comment. Judge Kelly (who happens to be a Trump appointee) found that the avoidance of comments invalidated the regulations, explaining that the “procedures are not a mere formality. They are designed (1) to ensure that agency regulations are tested via exposure to diverse public comment; (2) to ensure fairness to affected parties, and (3) to give affected parties an opportunity to develop evidence in the record to support their objections to the rule and thereby enhance the quality of judicial review.”

It is further worth noting that comments become part of the public record, and that the Administrative Procedures Act requires the agency to respond to all significant comments before the regulations can become final.

In accordance with this scheme, a brief comment period was provided as to the regulations covered in Pangea. The proposed rule sought to expand the category of “particularly serious crimes” that Congress has designated as a bar to asylum. Instead of allowing immigration judges to make such determinations on a case-by-case basis, the new rule sought to add a broad range of criminal conduct that the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security originally argued should categorically bar asylum as particularly serious crimes.

Commenters pointed out the flaws with this proposal, not the least of which was some of the offenses are not particularly serious. The crimes include harboring certain noncitizens (even if they are family members), or possessing or using false identity documents (for example, to work and support one’s family). These offenses are a far cry from the type of behavior that would pose such a threat to society as to outweigh the obligation to provide refugee protection. In publishing the final rule, the Departments did acknowledge these concerns raised in the comments. However, as explained above, more than mere acknowledgement was required.

Although Judge Illston found numerous reasons to support the granting of the temporary restraining order, one of those reasons was the Departments’ failure to respond to the above comments as required. As Judge Illston wrote, “when commenters pointed out that the new bars would include minor conduct and conduct that cannot be categorized as particularly serious or even dangerous, the Departments either declined to respond or else relied on their authority under § 1158(b)(2)(C).”

In other words, when the comments received caused the Departments to realize that their claimed justification for the rule under the statute’s “particularly serious crime” provision was problematic, instead of addressing those comments as they were required to do, the agencies instead replied “Particularly serious crimes? Is that what you thought we said? We meant they were similar to particularly serious crimes. Sorry for the confusion; let’s just say the changes fall under section 1158(b)(2)(C) for the sake of clarity.”

That section which the Departments now chose to rely on contains vague language allowing the Attorney General to establish by regulation “additional limitations and exceptions, consistent with this section” under which noncitizens might be ineligible for asylum. The Departments might not have noticed the words “consistent with this section,” which would seem to rule out their disregarding the fact that Congress had allowed only a few narrow statutory limitations to the right to asylum that tend to be consistent with international law. That might explain their reading of the clause as an invitation to impose any limitation on asylum the Departments desired, with no regard to international law obligations.

But besides from the permissibility of the Departments’ interpretation of the clause, Judge Illston categorized their tactics as evasion. The judge wrote that “the Departments initially stated they were relying in part on their authority to designate new offenses as particularly serious crimes. They then disclaimed reliance on that authority but said the new offenses were ‘similar to’ particularly serious crimes… And they declined to address commenters’ concerns that the Rule now bars crimes that do not rise to the level of particularly serious because, according to the Departments, they are not, in fact, designating new particularly serious crimes and any comments to that point ‘are outside the scope of this rulemaking.’”

Much thanks are owed to the lawyers and organizations who litigated and filed supporting briefs in Pangea; they managed to block yet another effort by this administration that sought to undermine the very nature of refugee protection. But thanks are also due to those who took the time and effort to submit comments. Hopefully, this will provide inspiration to continue to submit comments to new regulations still being proposed in these final days before what will hopefully be a return to normalcy, decency, and respect for the rule of law.

Copyright 2020 Jeffrey S. Chase. All rights reserved.

Republished by permission.

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

While many Federal Judges have been receptive and stopped illegal (and often immoral) regulations in their tracks, there is one key group of jurists so in the regime’s White Nationalist pocket that they don’t pay any much attention. That is the GOP majority on the Supremes, who have happily treated the Trump/Miller racist agenda of “Dred Scottification” of asylum seekers and other migrants with kid gloves. At the request of an “ethics free” Solicitor General, the majority has used corrupt procedural moves to interfere with the lower courts and advance the regime’s agenda while accepting obvious factually and legally inaccurate “pretexts” to “justify” the regime’s extreme, racist, dehumanizing actions.

Imagine all the positives for America that could be accomplished if all of the time and resources devoted to blocking an avalanche of illegal regulations and litigating them through the Federal courts were instead devoted to working for the public good. That’s actually what government is supposed to do. But, fascist regimes and their enablers, not so much.

Ultimately, better qualified, more scholarly, human, and humane Justices — judges distinguished for their wisdom, courage, humanity and constructive problem solving abilities rather than adherence to some far-right agenda — on the Supremes will be necessary for a better, more equal, America.

Life tenure means it will be a slow process of getting the right “Supreme Team” in place. But, one that needs to begin somewhere. A remade U.S. Immigration Court seems like a good starting place for building a better Federal Judiciary at all levels, bottom to top!

Due Process Forever!

PWS

12-03-20

4TH CIR. — BIA WRONG AGAIN 👎🏻🤮 ON ASYLUM DENAL — IN RUSH TO WRONGFULLY DENY LIFE-SAVING PROTECTION, ☠️⚰️ BIA FAILS TO FOLLOW CIRCUIT PRECEDENTS ON THREATS AS PAST PERSECUTION! — BEDOYA V. BARR

https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/191930.P.pdf

Bedoya v. Barr, 4th Cir., 11-25-20, published

PANEL: KING, KEENAN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges

OPINION BY: JUDGE KING

KEY QUOTE:

The BIA fatally erred in deciding that Officer Bedoya had not established past persecution because the various threats were merely “written” and because Bedoya was never physically approached by FARC members. See Zavaleta-Policiano, 873 F.3d at 247; Crespin-Valladares, 632 F.3d at 126-27. We have recognized that “the threat of death alone constitutes persecution,” see Tairou v. Whitaker, 909 F.3d 702, 708 (4th Cir. 2018), and we have never required that a petitioner be physically harmed or personally approached

10

in order for the threats to qualify as persecution.4 Moreover, our precedents in Zavaleta- Policiano and Crespin-Valladares demonstrate that death threats may be written. Indeed, written home-delivered death threats and text messages can easily be more menacing than verbal threats, in that they show that the writer and sender knows where his target lives and the relevant personal cellphone number.

The BIA also emphasized the period of time between the threats that Officer Bedoya received in 1996 and those he received in 2013. That period, however, is not dispositive of Bedoya’s asylum claim, in that he has clearly shown past persecution on the basis of the threats he received in 2013. The earlier incident in 1996 — where Bedoya’s friend Correa was killed for trying to protect Bedoya from FARC — simply bolsters Bedoya’s asylum claim and highlights FARC’s “penchant for extracting vengeance.” See Crespin-Valladares, 632 F.3d at 126-27. Moreover, if FARC is targeting former Colombian police officers for their past actions, there is inevitably going to be a time gap between the actions of such officers and when an officer retires.

In sum, Officer Bedoya received multiple threats of death and harm to himself and his family, and the BIA’s determination that Bedoya had not suffered past persecution was manifestly contrary to the law and constituted an abuse of discretion. See Tairou, 909 F.3d

4 Notably, in a recent unpublished opinion, we emphasized that “[w] Lopez-Orellana v. Whitaker, 757 F. App’x 238, 242 (4th Cir. 2018).

11

e have never

adopted a requirement that an [asylum] applicant suffer physical harm [in order] to show

past persecution.” See

at 708; Crespin Valladares, 632 F.3d at 126. We therefore reverse the BIA’s ruling that Bedoya failed to establish that he was subject to past persecution.

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

Notably, the key 4th Circuit precedent that the BIA ignored here, Crespin-Valadares v. Holder, was my case at the Arlington Immigration Court. I had granted asylum, the BIA reversed me, and the 4th Circuit reversed the BIA. In other words, I was right and the BIA was wrong! But hey, who’s keeping score?

The continuing abuses by the BIA of asylum law and controlling Circuit precedents favoring asylum grants is in the “when will they ever learn” category. Instead of carefully and forcefully building a body of case law amplifying Crespin-Valladares and applying it broadly to insure more expeditious asylum grants at the “retail level” of our system — the Asylum Office and the Immigration Courts — the BIA insists on the illegal (not to mention immoral) “any reason to deny” approach improperly promoted by White Nationalist racist restrictionist AGs Sessions & Barr.

EOIR could function, as it was intended, as a model of scholarship, due process, fundamental fairness, and equal justice insuring the granting of the generous protection described by the Supreme Court in Cardoza in many more cases. EOIR could become a model of humane, practical, efficient, best practices jurisprudence that would reduce dockets by promoting correct results at the Asylum Office and trial levels and taking pressure off of the Circuit Courts by minimizing improper denials of relief that engender unnecessary litigation.

But, that’s not going to happen until the current group of deficient, biased EOIR Executives and BIA Judges is replaced by qualified “practical scholars” from the NDPA who are experts in asylum law and will ensure that necessary, life-saving protection is granted wherever possible.

Due Process Forever!

PWS

12-01-20

JEFFREY S. CHASE BLOG: In 1996, The BIA Was Functioning Like A Court & Trying To Develop & Apply Asylum Law In The Rational, Generous Way It Was Intended, Properly Giving The Applicant “The Benefit Of the Doubt” — Today, The BIA Is A Deadly ☠️☠️⚰️ Clown Show 🤡 Asylum Denial Factory!

Kangaroos — BIA Members: “Hey, let’s celebrate! We just sent a refugee to death for not being able to describe some obscure insignia irrelevant to the case. But, the big thing is we found ‘any reason to deny’ asylum making our handler ‘Billy the Bigot’ happy! He’s out to set new killing records before Jan. 20! Maybe he’ll find us jobs at Breitbart then!”
https://www.flickr.com/photos/rasputin243/
Creative Commons License

https://www.jeffreyschase.com/blog/2020/11/29/facts-reason-and-benefit-of-the-doubt

Contact

Facts, Reason, and Benefit of the Doubt

On November 24, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued an unpublished decision in Malonda v. Barr. In that case, the asylum-seeker was attacked by armed soldiers when they raided his family’s home in the Democratic Republic of Congo. The soldiers raped and killed three of his sisters, and abducted his father and brother, all due to the father’s membership in an opposition political party.

The Immigration Judge acknowledged the voluminous documentation and detailed testimony in support of the claim. However, asylum was denied because Malonda couldn’t identify the soldiers’ uniforms with absolute certainty, although he stated “they were working for the government, I can say.” And because he did not credit the attackers as working for the government, the judge did not find that the attack was necessarily motivated by the family’s political opinion, but could have simply been an act of random violence not protected under asylum law.

Malonda was not the only recent agency decision to employ this thought pattern. In the BIA’s precedent decision in Matter of O-F-A-S-, an applicant for protection under the Convention Against Torture testified that he was beaten, robbed, and threatened by five men wearing police uniforms bearing the insignia of a government law enforcement agency, who were armed with high-caliber weapons and handcuffs. The Immigration Judge determined that the respondent had not met his burden of establishing that the five were police officers, as the uniforms could have been fake, and criminals also carry weapons. The IJ further noted that the five did not arrive in an official police car, and immediately departed when they heard that a police car was en route in response to the disturbance. Of course, real police officers engaging in extracurricular criminal activity would behave the same way. Nevertheless, the BIA found no clear error on appeal.

In another recent decision presently pending at the Second Circuit, asylum was denied because the applicant was unable to state with certainty from the details of the uniform he wore that one of his persecutors was certainly a police officer, although he believed that he was. The IJ therefore did not conclude that police were involved, instead considering the persecutors to be non-state actors, from whom the respondent hadn’t proven that the police were unwilling or unable to protect him. The BIA affirmed in an unpublished decision. Obviously, a finding that a police officer participated in the persecution of the asylum applicant could well have led to a different finding as to the government’s willingness to protect.

In each of the above cases, the respondent was found to be a credible witness. There are only two types of witnesses in court proceedings: fact (or “lay”) witnesses and experts. Asylum applicants are fact witnesses, describing what they experienced. Although the Federal Rules of Evidence are not binding on immigration judges, they provide the best guidance available, as the Immigration Courts have no such evidentiary rules of their own. Rule 701 of the FRE allows a lay witness to express an opinion provided that it is (1) rationally based on their own perception; (2) helpful to clearly understand the testimony or to determine a fact in issue; and (3) not based on scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge reserved for expert witnesses. In the above cases, the asylum seekers’ opinions that the uniformed, armed attackers were government officials fit clearly within the parameters of Rule 701.

Of course, asylum applicants are not experts on uniforms worn by the various government forces in their home countries. I doubt most country experts who testify in asylum cases would possess such specific expertise. Even if they did, those experts weren’t present to witness the event in question to be able to affirm that the uniform was in fact the official government issue. So what is the solution in cases in which the Immigration Judge harbors doubt regarding the attackers?

The UNHCR Handbook at para. 196 advises that despite all efforts, “there may also be statements that are not susceptible of proof. In such cases, if the applicant’s account appears credible, he should, unless there are good reasons to the contrary, be given the benefit of the doubt.” The following paragraph adds that evidentiary requirements should not be applied too strictly to asylum seekers. But the Handbook sets limits on this practice, adding that “[a]llowance for such possible lack of evidence does not, however, mean that unsupported statements must necessarily be accepted as true if they are inconsistent with the general account put forward by the applicant.”1

It would seem that requiring absolute confirmation of the authenticity of the attacker’s uniform (which psychologists have testified is not one’s focus during a traumatic experience) places an insurmountable burden on asylum applicants. Given the purpose of asylum laws, where an asylum applicant expresses the reasonable opinion that attackers who look and behave like government officials are in fact government officials, in the absence of the type of inconsistencies flagged by the Handbook, the benefit of the doubt should be allowed to carry the day.

Addressing this issue in Malonda, the Second Circuit focused on the fact that the identity issue was tied to the question of political opinion. The court referenced its decision from earlier this year in Hernandez-Chacon v. Barr, in which it cited language from the BIA’s excellent 1996 decision in Matter of S-P- holding that political opinion is established by direct or circumstantial evidence.

The Second Circuit pointed to circumstantial evidence in Malonda’s testimony that the attackers were government soldiers motivated by the family’s political opinion. Such evidence included the facts that Malonda’s home was the only one attacked, and his father was the only resident of the street who was an active opposition party member. Furthermore, the likelihood of the attackers being anti-government rebels was undermined by Malonda’s testimony that the rebels ability to reach his neighborhood was impeded by the presence of state security forces, and that his brother, who was abducted by the attackers, was brought to a camp where he was trained to fight against (rather than for) the rebels.

In a footnote, the court noted that the BIA had added its own insinuation to the contrary by referencing general reports of rebel involvement in “widespread violence and civil strife” in the country. But the Second Circuit pointed out that such general information failed to consider that Malonda’s own region was protected by the government, and “more importantly, does not explain why the rebels would have targeted only Malonda’s house for such violence.”

The Second Circuit’s opinion in Malonda emphasizes the starkly different approaches of the 1996 BIA and its current iteration. In Matter of S-P- (an en banc decision which remains binding precedent on immigration judges and the BIA), the Board noted the difficulty in determining motive where “harm may have been inflicted for reasons related to government intelligence gathering, for political views imputed to the applicant, or for some combination of these reasons.” But the Board emphasized the importance of keeping “in mind the fundamental humanitarian concerns of asylum law,” which are “designed to afford a generous standard for protection in cases of doubt.”2

S-P- also included a reminder that a grant of asylum “is not a judgment about the country involved, but a judgment about the reasonableness of the applicant’s belief that persecution was based on a protected ground.” As the scholar Deborah Anker has emphasized, such reasonableness determinations require “that the adjudicator view the evidence as the applicant – or a reasonable person in his or her circumstances – would and does not simply substitute the adjudicator’s own experience as the vantage point.”3 In its decision in Sotelo-Aquije v. Slattery, the Second Circuit similarly emphasized the importance of vantage point by describing the standard as what a reasonable person would find credible “based on what that person has experienced and witnessed.”

Applying this standard, what reasonable person who had experienced and witnessed what Malonda did would say: “You know, I was pretty certain the attackers were government soldiers punishing us for my father’s political activities. But since you pointed out that I’m not completely certain about the uniforms, I guess I was mistaken. It was probably just a random incident. In which case, I can’t see any reason to fear return?”

Remarkably, that appears to have been the BIA’s approach in Malonda. Its decision lacked any indication of adopting the asylum applicant’s vantage point or applying the benefit of the doubt as described above. And while Matter of S-P- set out a rather complex set of elements for identifying motive through the types of circumstantial evidence pointed to by the Second Circuit, the present BIA pointed instead to whatever generalized information it could find in the record to justify affirming the asylum denial.

Although an unpublished decision involving a pro se petitioner that could easily evade our attention,4 Malonda underscores the need for a uniform application of the principles emphasized in the BIA’s decision in Matter of S-P-, instead of a “uniform” approach based on the ability to identify uniforms.

Notes:

Although not binding, the Supreme Court has recognized that “the Handbook provides significant guidance in construing the Protocol, to which Congress sought to conform [and] has been widely considered useful in giving content to the obligations that the Protocol establishes.” INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421, 439 n. 22 (1987). The BIA reached a similar conclusion in Matter of Acosta, 19 I&N Dec. 211 (BIA 1985) (finding the Handbook to be a useful tool “in construing our obligations under the Protocol”).

The majority opinion in Matter of S-P- was authored by now retired Board Member John Guendelsberger. Three current members of the Round Table of Immigration Judges, Paul W. Schmidt (the BIA Chairperson at the time), Lory D. Rosenberg, and Gustavo Villageliu, joined in Judge Guendelsberger’s opinion.

Deborah E. Anker, Law of Asylum in the United States (2020 Edition) (Thomson Reuters) at 76.

Thanks to attorney Raymond Fasano for bringing this decision to my notice.

Copyright 2020, Jeffrey S. Chase. All rights reserved.

Reprinted With Permission.

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

Obviously, the BIA could resume court-like functions, provide scholarly, rational guidance and enforce uniformity for Immigration Judges (too many of whom lack true expertise in asylum laws), help cut backlogs, increase efficiency, and put an end to frivolous litigation by DHS which too often these days seeks to encourage IJs to deny cases where asylum grants clearly are warranted. (There was a time, at least in Arlington, when DHS Counsel actually worked cooperatively with the private bar and the Immigration Judges to promote fairness and use court time wisely on asylum cases. Those days are now long gone as the system has regressed horribly and disgracefully under the maliciously incompetent, White Nationalist, nativist, leadership of the current regime at DHS and DOJ).

But, due process, fundamental fairness, and best practices, can’t and won’t happen until the current “BIA Clown Court” 🤡 is replaced with a new group of expert Appellate Judges ⚖️👨🏻‍⚖️🧑🏽‍⚖️ from the NDPA who are “practical scholars” in immigration and human rights laws.

Due Process Forever!

PWS

11-30-20

🗽⚖️🇺🇸YAEL SCHACHER @ REFUGEES INTERNATIONAL FILES AMICUS BRIEF ON WHY “REMAIN IN MEXICO” IS A “CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY” — “When I wasn’t visiting border, I was trying to understand how the U.S. government could put in place a policy that seemed the very antithesis of what seeking asylum was supposed to be, as articulated in Refugee Act of 1980.”

https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.refugeesinternational.org/reports/2020/11/25/le4a9nihwqnhgcn0q2l5fufa8fah6v&source=gmail-imap&ust=1606928318000000&usg=AOvVaw0Fc_OTkc3MFgBm5dijso0i

. . . .

When I wasn’t visiting border, I was trying to understand how the U.S. government could put in place a policy that seemed the very antithesis of what seeking asylum was supposed to be, as articulated in Refugee Act of 1980. I had spent my time before coming to Refugees International researching the writing and passage of that law and the development of the contemporary asylum system since 1980. The Remain in Mexico policy is unprecedented. The U.S. government claims the authority for it lies in a provision of the 1996 immigration law that allows for the return of certain applicants for admission to contiguous territory to await processing. I began researching this provision and it became clear that it was not intended to apply to asylum seekers.

In support of a challenge to the Remain in Mexico program in California federal court, Refugees International and I, with attorneys from Sidley Austin LLP, submitted this brief describing why the Refugee Act forbids the program, a reality that the 1996 law does not change. The argument of the brief is that, when the 1980 Refugee Act was enacted, it was intended to establish a uniform process for consideration of asylum claims that would preclude this return to Mexico approach. A lynchpin in the argument is that there were two versions of the asylum provision of the Refugee Act—one proposed by Congresswoman Holtzman and one by Senator Edward Kennedy. Only the House version provided that asylum seekers at a land border be accorded the same ability to seek asylum as those already in the country. When, in conference, Holtzman’s version was accepted, Congress made a conscious choice in pursuit of uniformity in consideration of asylum requests: that the United States would treat asylum seekers at the border the same as it would all others. And the language mandating uniform treatment of asylum seekers in the 1980 Refugee Act was reiterated in the 1996 immigration law.

. . . .

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

The case is Immigrant Defenders Law Center v. Wolf, USDC, C.D. CA.

Read Yael’s intro, her outstanding brief prepared by Sidley Austin LLP, and the “Holtzman Papers” at the above link. Notably, Sidley Austin is one of the great firms that have helped our Round Table with amicus briefs! It’s what happens when you connect the dots among history, research, social justice, and the law. It’s why the Liberal Arts are the wave of a better future and a better Federal Judiciary! It’s all about perspective and problem solving!

Thanks Yael for all that you, Refugees International, and great pro bono lawyers like Sidley Austin do for justice and humanity.

The real problem here: A disgraceful Supremes’ majority 🏴‍☠️ that improperly “greenlighted” this totally illegal, racist-inspired, “crime against humanity,” cooked up by neo-Nazi hate monger Stephen Miller ☠️🤮, after it had properly and timely been enjoined by lower Federal courts. And, a complicit EOIR that consistently fails to provide due process and justice to asylum seekers is a huge part of the problem.

Unlike the Supremes, the EOIR Clown Show 🤡 can be removed and justice at all levels improved just by a putting the right experts from the NDPA in charge right off the bat.

Democratic Administrations, particularly the Obama Administration, have a history of not getting the job done when it comes to achievable immigration reforms within the bureaucracy. If you don’t want four more years of needless death, disorder, demeaning of humanity, and deterioration of the most important “retail level” of our justice system, let the incoming Biden Administration know: Throw out the EOIR Clown Show and bring in the experts from the NDPA to turn the Immigration Courts into real, independent courts of equal justice and humanity that will be a source of pride, not a deadly and dangerous national embarrassment!

Contrary to all the mindless “woe is me” suggestions that it will take decades to undo Stephen Miller’s (is he really that much smarter than any Democrat politico?) racist nonsense, EOIR is totally fixable — BUT ONLY WITH THE RIGHT FOLKS FROM THE NDPA IN CHARGE!

It’s only “mission impossible” if the Biden-Harris Administration approaches EOIR with the same indifference, lack of urgency, and disregard for expertise and leadership at the DOJ that has plagued past Dem Administrations on immigration, human rights, and social justice.

It won’t take decades, nor will it take zillions of taxpayer dollars! With the right folks in leadership positions at EOIR, support for independent problem solving (not mindless micromanagement) from the AG & DOJ, and a completely new BIA selected from the ranks of the NDPA, we will see drastic improvements in the delivery of justice at EOIR by this time next year. And, that will just be the beginning!

No more clueless politicos, go along to get along bureaucrats, toadies, and restrictionist holdovers calling the shots at EOIR, America’s most important, least understood, and “most fixable” court system! No more abuse of migrants and their representatives! No more ridiculous, “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” generating self-created backlogs! No more vile and stupid White Nationalist enforcement gimmicks being passed off as “policies!” No more “Amateur Night at The Bijou” when it comes to administration of the immigrant justice system at the DOJ under Dems!

Get mad! Get angry! Stop the nonsense! Tell every Democrat in Congress and the Biden Administration to bring in the NDPA experts to fix EOIR! Now! Before more lives are lost and futures ruined! It won’t get done if we don’t speak out and demand to be heard!

This is our time! Don’t let it pass with the wrong people being put in charge — yet again! Don’t be “left at the station” as the train of immigrant justice at Justice pulls out with the best engineers left standing on the platform and the wrong folks at the controls! Some “train wrecks” aren’t survivable! 🚂☠️⚰️

Due Process Forever!

PWS

11-28-20

CORRUPT, CHILD ABUSING, RACIST IMMIGRATION BUREAUCRACY 🏴‍☠️☠️🤮⚰️👎🏻 MUST BE REPLACED WITH PROFESSIONAL WORKFORCE COMMITTED TO DUE PROCESS, RULE OF LAW, HUMAN DIGNITY! — “CRUELTY TO migrant children, a trademark of the Trump administration’s immigration policy, did not cease when officials reversed course in the face of public outrage two years ago and stopped wrenching toddlers, tweens and teens from their parents — with no plan or process to reunite them. It has continued apace under cover of the pandemic . . . .”

Trump Dumping Asylum Seekers in Hondiras — Dumping Asylum Seekers in Honduras
Artist: Monte Wolverton
Reproduced under license

Sheltering in Cages by John Darkow — “Sheltering in Cages” by John Darkow
Reproduced under license

Sessions in a cage — Jeff Sessions’ Cage by J.D. Crowe, Alabama Media Group/AL.com
Republished under license

From WashPost:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-federal-judge-halts-another-inhumane-trump-administration-practice-at-the-border/2020/11/22/d5795686-2b4d-11eb-8fa2-06e7cbb145c0_story.html

Opinion by the Editorial Board

November 22 at 12:59 PM ET

CRUELTY TO migrant children, a trademark of the Trump administration’s immigration policy, did not cease when officials reversed course in the face of public outrage two years ago and stopped wrenching toddlers, tweens and teens from their parents — with no plan or process to reunite them. It has continued apace under cover of the pandemic, which the White House has used as an all-purpose pretext for ignoring child-protection laws and diplomatic agreements governing asylum, and, without even a nod to due process, expelling unaccompanied children who cross the border seeking refuge.

A federal judge has now halted that practice even as he acknowledged the administration’s far-reaching powers in the midst of a public health emergency. Those powers are broad, U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan ruled, but do not enable the government to send minors packing without affording them a chance to have their asylum claims heard.

At least 13,000 children have been detained by Border Patrol officers and swiftly thrown out of the country under an emergency decree that has effectively sealed off the southern border to most migrants since the spring. Administration officials justified the measure in the name of protecting the country from a potential influx of migrants carrying the coronavirus — but performed no testing, and provided no data, to substantiate their stance.

Given infection rates in Mexico and Central America, it may be reasonable to assume that some migrants, including unaccompanied minors, might have contracted covid-19. It may also be the case, however, as the ACLU argued in court, that the practice of expelling young migrants actually exposes U.S. border authorities to more risk — in the course of holding them while flights are arranged to their home countries in Central America or elsewhere — than they would otherwise face if the migrants were placed in shelters that have the capacity to adopt social distancing and other precautions. Judge Sullivan, for his part, said the government had asserted its “scientific and technical expertise” to justify its policy of evicting young migrants — but provided none by way of actual evidence.

As it happens, it occurred to at least some administration officials, early on in the pandemic, that migrant children deserved some special consideration. When the policy of suspending asylum was first rolled out, children who crossed the border were exempted. That was quickly reversed, however, with a spokesman saying that minors would be returned to their countries of origin on a “case by case basis.” In the ensuing months, however, virtually all have been expelled.

Anti-trafficking and other laws provide for protections for unaccompanied minors who arrive in this country. The administration has seized on the pandemic to disregard those, along with other long-standing measures and practices that set procedures for migrants seeking refuge here. A more humane approach, in line with American traditions and values, would have established a process for testing and quarantining, at least for migrant children, as they pursued asylum claims. But humane policy is anathema to the Trump administration, and the result is thousands of children who have been subjected to unwarranted hardship and risk.

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

Remembers, the victims are largely dead, deported, or still suffering! The “perps” — including the “Perp in Chief,” “Gruppenfuhrer Miller,” Jeff “Gonzo Apocalypto” Sessions, “Wolfman the Illegal,” and “Billy the Bigot” remain at large, even profiting from and bragging about their “crimes against humanity.” This is a “functioning democracy?” No way!

We’ve all been subjected to the disingenuous writings of pundits babbling on about the resilience of American democracy in the face of a fascist president and his corrupt anti-democracy party of cowards and enablers. Hogwash!

Make no mistake about it, American democracy is on the ropes! Basically, we’re watching a corrupt President who lost the election by over 6 million votes and 74 electoral votes engage in systematic frivolous, abusive, baseless litigation intended to destroy our nation, undermine our national security, and disenfranchise voters. It’s a disgusting, overtly racist, dishonest performance that would have any other individual in America and his motley band of unethical lawyers in jail for contempt and conspiracy to obstruct justice! But, Trump and his cronies continue to operate outside the law!

We owe our existence as a nation less to any “structural integrity” and much more to a relatively few courageous, smart, highly motivated members of the resistance: immigration, human rights, and civil rights lawyers; African American women; non-right-wing journalists; Democratic legislators; scientists and medical professionals; a limited number of Federal Judges, mostly at the District Court and Immigration Court levels (and specifically excluding any current BIA Member, EOIR “Manager,” or Supreme Court Justice not named Sotomayor, Kagan, and (sort of) Breyer); courageous DACA kids; and some Federal Career Civil servants not working at ICE or CBP.

The “resilience of American institutions” view is largely that of a privileged minority who haven’t been deported to possible torture or death without any process at all (let alone “due” process), haven’t been illegally separated from beloved family members, aren’t rotting in private prisons (the “New American Gulag”) for the “crime” of seeking justice, aren’t struggling with unemployment or difficulty putting food on the table while Moscow Mitch and his elites focus on confirming unqualified Federal Judges, haven’t had family members shot by the police, haven’t had family members unnecessarily suffer and die because of the worst President in U.S. history’s maliciously incompetent failure to provide leadership and any systematic strategy for controlling a pandemic, and haven’t had to put their lives and professional reputations on the line in a failing Justice system that has enabled grotesque abuses by the likes of Jeff “Gonzo Apocalypto” Sessions, Billy the Bigot Barr, Noel Francisco, and the rest of their band of unethical Government lawyers.

The Biden Administration must do a thorough housecleaning of the corrupt DHS and DOJ bureaucracies that carried out the illegal, immoral, racist, White Nationalist agenda developed by neo-Nazi Stephen Miller and his cowardly gang of brownshirts!

And, as a nation, we need to think carefully about the implications of a life-tenured Supreme Court majority that, since their initial feckless performance on the “Muslim Ban” cases, time and time again failed to forcefully and unanimously stand up for our democracy, human decency, and those defending them in the face of overt, racism and hate driven, Executive tyranny! A Supremes’ majority that has disgracefully and spinelessly embraced the “Dred Scottification” of “the other” (mostly immigrants and those of color). It’s not rocket science! And some of our “elite law schools” seemed to have forgotten to teach “Con Law 101” and “Basic Ethics” to aspiring right wing judges!

It’s less about institutions than it is about the courageous individuals who uphold them! And, our future depends on the Biden-Harris Administration putting these folks “in the game” to insure that an unmitigated disaster like the Trump regime, it’s rampant illegality and inhumanity, and its “malicious incompetence” can never, ever, happen again! And, we must at least start the process of developing a better and more courageous Federal Judiciary for the future!

Due Process Forever! Complicity in the face of tyranny, never!

PWS

11-23-20

COURTSIDE WINTER FASHION EDITION: See The Latest In Due Process & Racial Justice Sportswear Design By Our Award-Winning NDPA Fashion Team!

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

“A Brand New EOIR For A Better America!”⚖️🗽🇺🇸👨🏽‍⚖️👩‍⚖️👨🏻‍⚖️👍🏼😎

Due Process Forever!

PWS

11-22-20

The EOIR Clown Show 🤡 must go!

Related posts:

⚖️🗽🧑🏽‍⚖️👍🏼🇺🇸Due Process Forever! Complicity Never☠️🤮🏴‍☠️👎🏻!

Related posts:

Due Process Forever!⚖️🗽😄

Related posts:

Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Due Process Forever!⚖️🗽👍🏼

Related posts:

Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Let your contacts in the Biden Administration know that you have had more than enough! The EOIR Clown Show must go!

Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Read my complete speech here:

DUE PROCESS FOREVER!

Related posts:

Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Due Process Forever! Complicity in the face of tyranny, never!

Related posts:

“A Brand New EOIR For A Better America!”⚖️🗽🇺🇸👨🏽‍⚖️👩‍⚖️👨🏻‍⚖️👍🏼😎

Due Process Forever!

Related posts: