"The Voice of the New Due Process Army" ————– Musings on Events in U.S. Immigration Court, Immigration Law, Sports, Music, Politics, and Other Random Topics by Retired United States Immigration Judge (Arlington, Virginia) and former Chairman of the Board of Immigration Appeals PAUL WICKHAM SCHMIDT and DR. ALICIA TRICHE, expert brief writer, practical scholar, emeritus Editor-in-Chief of The Green Card (FBA), and 2022 Federal Bar Association Immigration Section Lawyer of the Year. She is a/k/a “Delta Ondine,” a blues-based alt-rock singer-songwriter, who performs regularly in Memphis, where she hosts her own Blues Brunch series, and will soon be recording her first full, professional album. Stay tuned! 🎶 To see our complete professional bios, just click on the link below.
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.
“Eyore In Distress” Once A Symbol of Fairness, Due Process, & Best Practices, Now Gone “Belly Up”“Justice” Star Chamber StyleBIA 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 LicenseHon. Jeffrey S. Chase Jeffrey S. Chase Blog Coordinator & Chief Spokesperson, Round Table of Former Immigration Judges
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.
“EOIR Clown Show Must Go” T-Shirt Custom Design Concept
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! 🚂☠️⚰️
Dumping Asylum Seekers in Honduras Artist: Monte Wolverton Reproduced under license“Sheltering in Cages” by John Darkow Reproduced under licenseJeff Sessions’ Cage by J.D. Crowe, Alabama Media Group/AL.com Republished under license
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!
As this Court has recognized, “when [an] alien appears pro se, it is the IJ’s duty to ‘fully develop the record.’” Agyeman v. INS, 296 F.3d 871, 877 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting Jacinto v. INS, 208 F.3d 725, 733-34 (9th Cir. 2000)). Despite this long-recognized obligation, the record in this case demonstrates that this duty is not always fulfilled; and that the consequence may be unfairness and injustice to the pro se petitioner who is unable to develop the record without guidance and assistance. We respectfully submit that this Court should use this case to provide much-needed guidance to IJs on the scope of their duty to work with pro se respondents to elicit the information necessary to develop the factual record. Based upon our own extensive experience, we are of the view that this can be done efficiently and effectively by conscientious IJs, so long as the rule that they are required to do so is clear.
******************
Thanks so much to out “Team of Pro Bono Heroes” at Sullivan & Cromwell, NY:
Philip L. Graham, Jr.
Amanda Flug Davidoff
Rebecca S. Kadosh
Joseph M. Calder, Jr.
This regime has appointed mostly judges lacking experience representing individuals in Immigration Court and then compounded the problem with:
Mindless “haste makes waste” enforcement gimmicks (often supported by knowingly false or misleading narratives) imposed by political hacks at DOJ and Falls Church;
A BIA lacking expertise and objectivity that instead of focusing on due process for those in Immigration Court, spews forth “blueprints for denial and deportation” without regard for statutory, Constitutional, and human rights;
A system that has elevated “malicious incompetence” and “worst judicial practices” to a “dark art form.”☠️
TIME FOR COURAGEOUS NEW IMMIGRATION LEADERSHIP!
By Paul Wickham Schmidt
It’s time for the “EOIR Clown Show” in Falls Church to go! Bring in competent jurists and administrators from the NDPA: practical scholars and problem solvers with real life skills developed by saving lives from this broken and biased system. Real jurists with expertise in human rights and courage, who will make due process, fundamental fairness, humane values, and “best judicial practices” the only objectives of the Immigration Courts. Jurists who will courageously resist political interference and improper and unethical weaponization of the Immigration Courts by any Administration.
Let the incoming Biden-Administration know that you won’t accept failed “retreads” from the past and “go along to get along” bureaucrats running and comprising what is probably the most important and significant court system in America from an equal justice, social justice, constitutional development, and saving human lives standpoint.
This is the “retail level” of our justice system: Thefoundation upon which the rest of our legal system all the way up to a tone-deaf, flailing, failing, and generally spineless Supremes stands! This is a court system that the Biden Administration can fix without Mitch McConnell!
The members of the NDPA are the ones who have been fighting in the trenches (and at the borders) to save lives, advance social justice, insure equal justice for all, end institutional racism, and preserve our democracy in the face of a tyrannical, unscrupulous, corrupt, racially biased, anti-democracy regime and its enablers! Many have sacrificed careers, health, not to mention financial security in this fight!
Don’t let those who watched from the sidelines, above the day-to-day fray, or were part of the problem swoop in and take control after the battle has been won!
Get mad! Get vocal! Get active! Call everyone you know in the incoming Administration! Demand that the NDPA and its members be given the leadership roles they have earned and deserve in remaking EOIR and reforming a thoroughly corrupt, politicized, and dysfunctional immigration bureaucracy across our Government!
Don’t let the Dems turn their back on achievable reforms and “shut out” the reformers and problem solvers in the advocacy sector (who have “carried the water” for Dems for decades) as has been the case in the past! Don’t let the mistakes and short-sightedness of the past destroy YOUR chances for a better future!
Don’t let timidity, ignorance, indifference, and fear of “rocking the boat” in the name of justice, due process, and human dignity replace “malicious incompetence” in Government!
Due Process Forever! Same old, same old, never! It’s time for real change and reform! It’s YOUR time to shine! Let YOUR voices be heard!
“Eyore In Distress” Once A Symbol of Fairness, Due Process, & Best Practices, Now Gone “Belly Up”BIA Members Unwind After Harassing Another Expert, Overruling Circuit Court, & Aiding Their “Partners” At ICE In Demeaning Justice https://www.flickr.com/photos/rasputin243/ Creative Commons License
Granting Juan Mauricio Castillo’s petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ denial of his application for protective status pursuant to the Convention Against Torture, and remanding, the panel held that the Board erred in giving reduced weight to the testimony of Dr. Thomas Boerman, a specialist in gang activity in Central America and governmental responses to gangs.
Castillo is a former gang member with tattoos who fears torture by gangs and/or Salvadoran officials because of his former gang memberships, his criminal conviction, and his later cooperation with law enforcement against La Mara Salvatrucha or MS-13. In a prior petition, the same panel concluded that the immigration judge and the Board improperly discounted Dr. Boerman’s testimony.
The panel addressed two initial matters. First, the panel stated that the Board’s rejection on remand of the panel’s prior interpretation of the immigration judge’s decision was ill-advised, explaining that its prior disposition was not an advisory opinion, but a conclusive decision not subject to disapproval or revision by another branch of the federal government. Second, the panel rejected the Board’s reliance on Vatyan v. Mukasey, 508 F.3d 1179 (9th Cir. 2007), to support its conclusion that Dr. Boerman’s testimony should be given reduced weight, because Vatyan addressed an IJ’s
** This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader.
CASTILLO V. BARR 3
discretion to weigh the “credibility and probative force” of an authenticated document, whereas the issue in this case involved the testimony of an expert that the agency had ostensibly concluded was fully credible.
Even assuming the agency could accord reduced weight to Dr. Boerman’s testimony and declaration, the panel disagreed with the Board’s new justifications. First, the panel rejected the Board’s reliance on alleged inconsistencies regarding Dr. Boerman’s familiarity with Castillo’s prison gang, where Dr. Boerman explicitly wrote in his declaration that his comments on Castillo’s prison gang were based on facts provided by Castillo, and the Board did not cite any reason to doubt Castillo’s testimony regarding rival gangs.
Second, the panel disagreed with the Board’s conclusion that Dr. Boerman’s testimony did not warrant full weight because he did not submit a copy of a video referenced in his testimony, where the video was neither the sole nor primary basis for his opinion, and the Board failed to explain why the absence of one video diminished the weight of Dr. Boerman’s expert opinion, when his opinion had an independent factual basis.
Finally, the panel concluded that the Board’s decision to give Dr. Boerman’s opinion reduced weight, because it was not corroborated by other evidence in the record, was erroneous. The panel observed that the country report did provide support for Castillo’s claim, and it noted that Dr. Boerman’s expert testimony was itself evidence that could support Castillo’s claim.
The panel remanded to the Board, directing it to give full weight to Dr. Boerman’s testimony regarding the risk of
4 CASTILLO V. BARR
torture Castillo faces if removed to El Salvador. The panel explained that if the Board determines once again that Castillo is not entitled to relief, it must provide a reasoned explanation for why Dr. Boerman’s testimony is not dispositive on the issue of probability of torture. The panel further explained that once it gives full weight to Dr. Boerman’s testimony, the remaining issue for the Board is to determine whether Castillo has established the government acquiescence element of his CAT claim.
***********
Essentially, EOIR has been unethically misusing their authority to harass Dr. Boerman and respondents’ advocates by systematically teaming up with ICE to devalue and defeat their efforts. Remarkably, this is even though Dr. Boerman and the advocacy community are “busting their tails” trying to help the system function properly and achieve justice! How screwed up, perverted, and cowardly is that?
Obviously justice and a functioning system have been antithetical to this regime and their toadies at DOJ and EOIR. With the degradation of the DOS Country Reports by political hacks, expert testimony has become essential in most asylum cases. Disgraceful performances by EOIR, as in this case, undermine the system and add to the backlog.
This case should have been completed in a single hearing. The BIA’s open contempt for the Circuits and failure to send strong signals to IJs (and the dilatory litigators at ICE) about issues that clearly should be resolved in the respondent’s favor is a mockery of justice!
Put the experts from the NDPA in charge of EOIR! Replace the BIA with real judges from the NDPA — asylum, human rights, and due process experts who will courageously stand up for the rule of law and hold both Immigration Judges and ICE accountable for scofflaw performances (and resist improper political interference from the DOJ — regardless of Administration).
Judges who will re-establish judicial independence and stop flooding the Circuit Courts (and even the U.S. District Courts) with cases and issues that should be resolved in favor of respondents at the trial level, consistently and efficiently. That’s how to stop DHS’s and DOJ’s frivolous, unethical, anti-immigrant “litigation positions” in immigration matters that are bogging down our justice system at all levels.
That’s also how to cut, rather than astronomically increase, backlogs (along with drastic pruning of all the “deadwood” mindlessly and improperly piled onto the EOIR docket by Sessions, Barr, and an out of control ICE acting as an arm of “White Nationalist nation”). The backlogs can be reduced and eventually eliminated without stomping on anyone’s rights or adversely affecting “real” law enforcement — as opposed to the bogus (and fiscally irresponsible) version we have seen from DHS over the past four years.
Stop “churning” cases! Stop the “denial factory! Create a model, best judicial practices, due-process oriented court system of which we all can be proud! Grant asylum expeditiously and consistently to those who qualify for protection under Cardoza-Fonseca, Mogharrabi, Kasinga, and A-R-C-G- (after vacating the A-B- travesty and reissuing it as a precedent for clear grants in all similar cases)! Encourage the Asylum Offices to do likewise! Make “equal justice for all” part of the new Administration’s legacy!
Think of what a great “teaching tool” that will be for future generations! I always treated my “courtroom as a classroom,” teaching law, history, practical problem solving, best interpretations, and best practices. I can’t think of a more powerful “real life” teaching and doing tool for improving the future of American justice — from the “retail level” of the Immigration Courts to the failing Supremes.
Due Process Forever! A weaponized and dysfunctional EOIR, never!
It’s time for a sea change at EOIR. End the kakistocracy and the “malicious incompetence!” Time for action by the Biden Administration — not just hollow promises and more endless studies and discussions of what we already know and have known for years!
It’s not rocket science! The practical scholars and steadfast defenders of due process and democracy in the NDPA who can fix EOIR are out here and prepared to take over and hit the ground running for due process and fundamental fairness at EOIR! (Amazingly, those were once the goals and vision for EOIR, now trampled, degraded, mocked, and forgotten!)Leaving them on the sidelines again would be “governmental malpractice!” And we’ve already had more than enough of that!
Paulina is a former Arlington Immigration Court intern and yet another “charter member of the NDPA” who is doing great things and changing the future of American Justice for the better. Educator, litigator, practical scholar, leader, inspirational humanitarian, all around nice person, and future Federal Judge, that’s Paulina!
“Tune in” tomorrow night and compare the bright future of due process, fundamental fairness, equal justice for all, ethical behavior, and practical applied scholarship with the ugly tone-deaf, intolerant, and ethics-free rant delivered to the Federalist Society by Justice Sam Alito last week. Alito accurately represented the unjustified grievances of the unreasonably embittered dark forces currently promoting a dysfunctional Federal Judiciary that failed as a body to stand up to the cruel, unconstitutional, racist-driven, authoritarianism of the now-defeated Trump regime.
Those are judges who shirked their constitutional and ethical duties and disgracefully embraced the regime’s White Nationalist driven invitations to “Dred Scottify” (dehumanize) large segments of society including African American and Latino voters, immigrants, asylum applicants, children, union members, etc. There is no excuse for such performance from judges who are supposedly insulated from political pressures by the unique privilege of life tenure.
Life tenure is life tenure. So, Alito & his arrogantly out of touch, anti-democracy, far-right buddies aren’t going anywhere soon.
But, it is essential to start putting the faces of a elitist, intentionally unfair, backward-looking, and intolerant society like him “in the rear view mirror” and start actively cultivating for our Federal Judiciary the large pool of much better qualified, smarter, fairer, more ethical, more diverse, more courageous, and more humane talent like Paulina and many of her colleagues out there in the private sector.
Not surprisingly given the groups who have fought to preserve democracy for all of us over the past four years, a disproportionate amount of that talent is in the immigration/human rights bar. As a nation, we can no longer afford the gross under-representation of this consistently “over performing” and courageous segment of the legal community on our Article III and Immigration Judiciaries!
Build a better Federal Judiciary for a better America!
“Eyore In Distress” Once A Symbol of Fairness, Due Process, & Best Practices, Now Gone “Belly Up”Recent Barr Appointee Prepares to Take Bench Fangusu, CC BY-SA 4.0 <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0>, via Wikimedia Commons“Justice” Star Chamber StyleBIA Asylum Panel In Action Albrecht Dürer, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
Gregory Chen @ Just Security lays bare the unrelenting nightmare @ EOIR:
The Trump administration has subjected America’s courts to extreme politicization and relentless assaults in the past four years. At the highest level, the deeply partisan battle over the Supreme Court confirmation of Justice Amy Coney Barrett transfixed the nation. But an even more radical transformation has been occurring in America’s immigration courts that has gone almost entirely unnoticed yet impacts hundreds of thousands of lives each year.
In a single term, Trump has filled the immigration courts with judges that hew to his anti-immigrant agenda and has implemented policies that severely compromise the integrity of the courts. Strained to the breaking point under a massive backlog of cases and a systemic inability to render consistent, fair decisions, the immigration courts require the urgent attention of the incoming Biden administration.
Most people apprehended by immigration enforcement authorities are removed from the United States without ever seeing a judge. The fortunate few who come before a judge are those seeking asylum or who need humanitarian relief that only an immigration judge can grant. Despite this critical role, these courts have suffered for years from underfunding, understaffing, and deep structural problems such as the fact that, unlike other courts, they operate under the jurisdiction of a prosecutorial agency, the Department of Justice, whose aims and political interests often conflict with the fundamental mission of delivering impartial and fair decisions. In recent years, the Justice Department has exercised its power to the maximal extent, stripping judges of fundamental authorities and rapidly appointing judges, to bend the courts toward political ends.
The intense public debates that accompany the Senate confirmation of Supreme Court nominees stand in sharp contrast to the lack of any public or congressional oversight into the appointments of immigration judges. During his time in office, President Donald Trump has appointed at least 283 out of a total of 520 immigration judges with no more fanfare than a public notice on the court’s website.
The Trump administration has not only chosen the majority of immigration judges but has also stacked the courts with appointees who are biased toward enforcement, have histories of poor judicial conduct, hold anti-immigrant views, or are affiliated with organizations espousing such views. Human Rights First found, for example, that 88 percent of immigration judges appointed in 2018 were former Department of Homeland Security (DHS) employees or attorneys representing the department.
Especially egregious are the appointments of the Chief Immigration Judge, who was previously the chief prosecutor for Immigration and Customs Enforcement and lacked any bench experience; the Chief Appellate Judge, who was a Trump advisor on immigration policy and a former prosecutor; and an immigration judge who worked for the Federation for American Immigration Reform, a known hate group. With the pace of appointments accelerating, it’s likely that even more judges conforming to that mold will be appointed before the administration’s term ends. In each of the most recent fiscal years, the administration has hired progressively more judges: 81 in 2018; 92 in 2019; and 100 in 2020.
Packing the Board of Immigration Appeals
The idea of packing the Supreme Court was heavily debated in the run-up to the election, but court-packing has already occurred on the Board of Immigration Appeals — the immigration appellate body — with the Trump administration’s addition of six new positions that raised the total size of the board from 17 to 23. The two regulations expanding the board were promulgated in rapid succession, each on an expedited basis that afforded no opportunity for public comment.
The expansion of the Board was another brazenly transparent move to fill the bench with judges unsympathetic to those appearing before them. Data from 2019 reveal that six immigration judges whom Attorney General William Barr elevated to serve as Board members had abysmal asylum grant rates — an average of 2.4 percent — that were far below the norm of 29 percent. Two of those judges denied every asylum case that year. In a manner of speaking, these judges never met an asylum seeker they liked.
The next year, Justice Department leadership tried to cull the nine appellate judges appointed by previous administrations by offering them buyout packages if they resigned or retired early. None took the deal, and thereafter, changes were made to their positions to make them more vulnerable to pressure from above and further intimidate them into leaving.
A judicial system that is buffeted so wildly by political waves cannot retain the public’s trust that it will deliver fair decisions. A similar attempt made at the end of the George W. Bush administration resulted in a hiring scandal that rocked the Justice Department. An oversight investigation found its leadership had violated federal law by considering immigration judge candidates’ political and ideological affiliations. Monica Goodling, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales’s White House Liaison, and other department staff had improperly screened candidates based on their political opinions by examining voter registration records and political contributions and asking about political affiliations during interviews. Now, at the request of eleven democratic senators, including Senator and Vice President Elect Kamala Harris, the Government Accountability Office has launched an investigation into the Trump administration’s politicization of the immigration courts.
Political interference with the immigration courts rises to the very top of the Department of Justice. Both Attorneys General Jeff Sessions and Barr vigorously exercised an unusual authority that enables them to overturn and rewrite the Board of Immigration Appeals’ decisions. In a series of opinions, Sessions divested judges of the powers they need to control their dockets, such as the authority to administratively close, continue, or terminate cases that are not suitable or ready for hearing. (Matter of Castro-Tum, 27 I&N Dec. 271 (A.G. 2018); Matter of L-A-B-R-, et al., 27 I&N Dec. 405 (A.G. 2018); Matter of S-O-G- & F-D-B-, 27 I&N Dec. 462 (A.G. 2018).)
. . . .
******************
Read Gregory’s complete article at the link.
Have any doubt that EOIR is a deadly “hack haven?” Here’s an article about a Barr “judicial” appointee with no immigration experience. What’s his “claim to fame?” He’s a controversial state criminal judge from Illinois who “retired” several years after being rated “unqualified” for further judicial service by the Chicago Council of Lawyers (although other groups recommended him.)
According to a recent complaint filed with EOIR by an coalition of an astounding 17 legal services and immigration groups in the San Francisco area:“In unusually aggressive language, the coalition accused Ford of ‘terrorizing the San Francisco immigrant community,’ alleging that he dispensed ‘racist, ableist and hostile treatment of immigrants, attorneys and witnesses.’”
With tons of exceptionally well qualified legal talent out there in the New Due Process Army (“NDPA”) who are experts in immigration and asylum laws and who have demonstrated an unswerving career commitment to scholarship, due process, fundamental fairness, equal justice, professionalism, and treating all humans decently, there is no, that is NO, excuse for tolerating clowns like Ford in perhaps the most important judicial positions in the Federal System. Judges at the “retail level” of our system who decide hundreds of thousands of cases annually and exercise life or death authority over large segments of our population and set the tone and are the foundation for our entire justice system!
Enough of the malicious incompetence, institutionalizedracism, ignorance, intentional rudeness, wanton cruelty, worst practices, disdain for scholarship, dehumanization, destruction of the rule of law, hack hiring, and systemic trampling of human decency and human dignity! EOIR is an ongoing“crime against humanity” perpetrated by the Trump regime under the noses of Congress and the Article III Courts who have undermined their own legitimacy by letting this stunningly unconstitutional travesty continue.
The Biden-Harris Administration must fix EOIR immediately! It’s not rocket science! The talent to do so is ready, willing, and able in the NDPA!
There is no “middle ground” here, and the status quo is legally and morally unacceptable! If they don’t fix it, the incoming Administration will rapidly become a co-conspirator in one of the darkest and most disgraceful episodes in American legal history. One that literally poses an existential threat to the continuation of our nation!
This isn’t a “back burner” issue or a project for “focus groups.” It’s war! And, we’re on the front lines of the monumental battle to save the heart, soul, and future of America and our judicial system! Failure and fiddling around (see, Obama Administration) aren’t options!
“Eyore In Distress” Once A Symbol of Fairness, Due Process, & Best Practices, Now Gone “Belly Up”“Justice” Star Chamber StyleMe
FROM THE HEIGHTS OF KASINGA TO THE DEPTHS OF AMERICA’S DEADLY STAR CHAMBERS: Will The Biden Administration Tap The New Due Process Army To Fix EOIR & Save Our Nation?
By Paul Wickham Schmidt
Retired U.S. Immigration Judge
Courtside Exclusive
Nov. 12, 2020
I. INTRODUCTION — ABROGATION OF ASYLUM LAWS IN THE FACE OF EXECUTIVE LAWLESSNESS & RACIAL BIAS IS A NATIONAL DISGRACE
In Matter ofKasinga, I applied the generous well-founded fear standard for asylum established by the Supreme Court in Cardoza-Fonseca to reach a favorable result for a female asylum applicant. It was based on a particular social group of women of the tribe who feared persecution in the form of female genital mutilation, or “FGM.” I sometimes think of this as the “high water mark” of asylum law at the BIA.
Since then, proper, generous application of asylum laws to serve their intended purpose of flexibly, fairly, and consistently extending protection to those facing persecution has been steadily declining. The Trump Administration essentially overruled Cardoza-Fonseca and abolished asylum law without legislative change.
Both Congress and the Court have failed to stand up to this egregious abuse of the law, constitutional due process, and simple human decency that presents a “clear and present danger” to our nation’s continued existence.
Indeed, the performance of the Court in the face of the Administration’s overt assault on asylum has been so woeful as to lead me to wonder whether any of the Justices, other than Justice Sonia Sotomayor, have actually read the Cardoza-Fonseca decision. Certainly, most of them have failed to consistently and courageously carry forth its spirit and to grapple with their legal and moral responsibility for letting a lawless Executive trample the constitutional and human rights, as well as the human dignity, of the most vulnerable among us.
How did we get to this utterly deplorable state of affairs and what can the Biden Administration do to save us? Will they act boldly and courageously or continue the tradition of ignoring abuses directed against asylum seekers and the deleterious effect it has on our society and the rule of law?
I guarantee that racial justice and harmony will continue to elude us as a nation unless and until we come to grips with the ongoing abuses in the Immigration Courts — “courts” that no longer function as such in any manner except the misleading name!
II. BACKGROUND
To understand what has happened since Kasinga, here’s some background. In U.S. asylum law, there generally has been an “inverse relationship” between geography and success. The further your home country is from the U.S., the more generous the treatment is likely to be.
Thus, folks like Kasinga from Togo, or those from Tibet, Ethiopia, China, or Eritrea, with relatively difficult access to our borders, tend to do relatively well. On the other hand, those from Mexico, Haiti, Central America, and South America, who have easier access to our borders, tend to be treated more restrictively.
This reaction has been driven by a hypothesis with limited empirical support, but which has been accepted in some form or another by all Administrations, regardless of party, since the enactment of the Refugee Act of 1980. That is, the belief that human migration patterns are driven primarily by the policies and legal regimes in prosperous so-called “receiving countries” like the U.S.
Thus, generous and humane asylum policies will encourage unwanted flows of asylum seekers across international borders. And, of course, we all know that nothing threatens the national security of the world’s greatest nuclear superpower more than a caravan or flotilla of desperate, unarmed asylum seekers and their families trying to turn themselves in at the border or to the Border Patrol shortly after arrival.
Conversely, restrictive policies including rapid, unfair rejection, border turn-backs, mass detentions, criminal sanctions, family separation, denials of fair hearings, walls, border militarization, and hostile, often racially and religiously charged rhetoric, will cause asylum seekers to “stay put” thus deterring them and reducing the number of applications threatening our national security. In other words, encourage legitimate asylum seekers to “perish in place.” Often, these harsh policies are disingenuously characterized as being, at least partially, “for the benefit of asylum seekers” by discouraging them from undertaking dangerous journeys and paying human smugglers only to be summarily rejected upon arrival.
This “popular hypothesis” largely ignores the effect of conditions in refugee sending countries, including both geopolitical and environmental factors. For example, the current migration flow is affected by the practical difficulties of travel in the time of pandemic and by economic failures and cultural and political changes resulting from unabated climate change, not just by the legal restrictions that might be in place in the U.S. and other far-away countries.
It also factors out the “business narratives” of human smugglers designed to manipulate asylum seekers in ways that maximize profits under a variety of scenarios and to take maximum advantage of mindlessly predictable government “enforcement only” strategies.
Indeed, there is plenty of reason to believe that such policies serve largely to maximize smugglers’ profits, extort more money from desperate asylum seekers, but with little long-term effect on migration patterns. The short-term reduction in traffic, often hastily mischaracterized as “success” by the government, probably reflects in part “market adjustments” as smugglers raise their rates to cover the increased risks and revised planning caused by more of a particular kind of enforcement. That “prices some would-be migrants out of the market,” at least temporarily, and forces others to wait while they accumulate more money to pay smugglers.
It also likely increases the number of asylum seekers who die while attempting the journey. But, there is no real evidence that four decades of various “get tough” and “deterrence policies” — right up until the present — have had or will have a determinative long term effect on extralegal migration to the U.S. It may well, however, encourage more migrants to proceed to the interior of the country and take “do it yourself” refuge in the population, rather than turning themselves in at or near the border to a legal system that has been intentionally rigged against them.
Regardless of its empirically questionable basis, “deterrence theory” has become the primary driving force behind government asylum policies. Thus, the fear of large-scale, out of control “Southern border incursions” by asylum seekers has driven all U.S. Administrations to adopt relatively restrictive interpretations and applications of asylum law with respect to asylum seekers from Central America.
Starting with a so-called “Southern border crisis” in the summer of 2014, the Obama Administration took a number of steps intended to discourage Central American asylum seekers. These included: use of so-called “family detention;” denial of bond; accelerated processing of recently arrived children and adults with children; selecting Immigration Judges largely from the ranks of DHS prosecutors and other Government employees; keeping asylum experts off the BIA; taking outlandish court positions on detention and the right to counsel for unrepresented toddlers in Immigration Court; and dire public warnings as to the dangers of journeying to the U.S. and the likelihood of rejection upon arrival.
These efforts did little to stem the flow of asylum seekers from the Northern Triangle. However, they did result in a wave of “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” (“ADR”) at the Immigration Courts that accelerated the growth of backlogs and the deterioration of morale at EOIR. (Later, Sessions & Barr would “perfect the art of ADR” thereby astronomically increasing backlogs, even with many more judges on the bench, to something approaching 1.5 million known cases, with probably hundreds of thousands more buried in the “maliciously incompetently managed” EOIR (non)system).
Success for Central American asylum applicants thus remained problematic, with more than two of every three applications being rejected. Nevertheless, by 2016, largely through the heroic efforts of pro bono litigation groups, applicants from the so-called “Northern Triangle” – El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala – had achieved a respectable approval rate ranging from approximately 20% to 30%.
Many of these successful claims were based on “particular social groups” composed of battered women and/or children or family groups targeted by violent husbands or boyfriends, gangs, cartels, and other so-called “non-governmental actors” that the Northern Triangle governments clearly were “unwilling or unable to control.”
III. CROSSHAIRS
Upon the ascension of the Trump Administration in 2017, refugee and asylum policies became driven not only by “deterrence theory,” but also by racially, religiously, and politically motivated “institutionalized xenophobia.” The initial target was Muslims who were “zapped” by Trump’s so-called “Muslim ban.” Although initially properly blocked as unconstitutional by lower Federal Courts, the Supreme Court eventually “greenlighted” a slightly watered-down version of the “Muslim ban.”
Next on the hit list were refugees and asylees of color. This put Central American asylum seekers, particularly women and children, directly in the crosshairs.
In something akin to “preliminary bombing,” then Attorney General Jeff Sessions launched a series of false and misleading narratives against asylum seekers and their lawyers directed at an audience consisting of Immigration Judges and BIA Members who worked at EOIR and thus were his subordinates.
Without evidence, Sessions characterized most asylum seekers as fraudulent or mala fide and blamed them as a primary cause for the population of 11 million or so undocumented individuals estimated to be residing in the U.S. He also accused “dirty immigration lawyers” of having “gamed” the asylum system, while charging “his” Immigration Judges with the responsibility of “assisting their partners” at DHS enforcement in stopping asylum fraud and discouraging asylum applications.
IV. THE ATTACK
While not directly tampering with the “well-founded fear” standard for asylum, with Sessions leading the way, the Administration launched a three-pronged attack on asylum seekers.
First, using his power to review BIA precedents, Sessions reversed the prior precedent that had facilitated asylum grants for applicants who had suffered persecution in the form of domestic abuse. In doing so, he characterized them as “mere victims of crime” who should not be recognized as a “particular social group.” While not part of the holding, he also commented to Immigration Judges in his opinion that very few claimants should succeed in establishing asylum eligibility based on domestic violence.
He further imposed bogus “production quotas” on judges with an eye toward speeding up the “deportation railroad.” In other words, Immigration Judges who valued their jobs should start cranking out mass denials of such cases without wasting time on legal analysis or the actual facts.
Later, Sessions’s successor, Attorney General Bill Barr, overruled the BIA precedent recognizing “family” as a particular social group for asylum. He found that the vast majority of family units lacked the required “social distinction” to qualify.
For example, a few prominent families like the Rockefellers, Clintons, or Kardashians might be generally recognized by society. However, ordinary families like the Schmidts would be largely unknown beyond their own limited social circles. Therefore, we would lack the necessary “social distinction” within the larger society to be recognized as a particular social group.
Second, Sessions and Barr attacked the “nexus” requirement that persecution be “on account of” a particular social group or other protected ground. They found that most alleged acts of domestic violence or harm inflicted by abusive spouses, gangs and cartels were “mere criminal acts” or acts of “random violence” not motivated by the victim’s membership in any “particular social group” or any of the other so-called “protected grounds” for asylum. They signaled that Immigration Judges who found “no nexus” would find friendly BIA appellate judges anxious to uphold those findings and thereby retain their jobs.
Third, they launched an attack on the long-established “nongovernmental actor” doctrine. They found that normally, qualifying acts of persecution would have to be carried out by the government or its agents. For non-governmental actions to be attributed to that government, that government would basically have to be helpless to respond.
They found that the Northern Triangle governments officially opposed the criminal acts of gangs, cartels, and abusers and made at least some effort to control them. They deemed the fact that those governments are notoriously corrupt and ineffective in controlling violence to be largely beside the point. After all, they observed, no government including ours offers “perfect protection” to its citizens.
Any effort by the government to control the actor, no matter how predictably or intentionally ineffective or nominal, should be considered sufficient to show that the government was willing and able to protect against the harm. In other words, even the most minimal or nominal opposition should be considered “good enough for government work.”
V. THE UGLY RESULTS
Remarkably, notwithstanding this concerted effort to “zero out” asylum grants, some individuals, even from the Northern Triangle, still succeed. They usually are assisted by experienced pro bono counsel from major human rights NGOs or large law firms — essentially the “New Due Process Army” in action. These are the folks who have saved what is left of American justice and democracy. Often, they must seek review in the independent, Article III Federal Courts to ultimately prevail.
Some Article IIIs are up to the job; many aren’t, lacking both the expertise and the philosophical inclination to actually enforce the constitutional and statutory rights of asylum seekers — “the other,” often people of color. After all, wrongfully deported to death means “out of sight, out of mind.”
However, the Administration’s efforts have had a major impact. Systemwide, the number of asylum cases decided by the Immigration Courts has approximately tripled since 2016 – from approximately 20,000 to over 60,000, multiplying backlogs as other, often older, “ready to try” cases are shuffled off to the end of the dockets, often with little or no notice to the parties.
At the same time, asylum grant rates for the Northern Triangle have fallen to their lowest rate in many years 10% to 15%. Taken together, that means many more asylum denials for Northern Triangle applicants, a major erosion of the generous “well-founded fear” standard for asylum, and a severe deterioration of due process protections in American law. Basically, it’s a collapse of our legal system and an affront to human dignity. The kinds of things you might expect in a “Banana Republic.”
VI. WILL BIDEN FIX EOIR OR REPEAT THE MISTAKES OF THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION?
The intentional destruction of U.S. asylum law and the weaponization of EOIR in support of the White Nationalist agenda have undermined the entire U.S. justice system. It actively encourages both dehumanization (“Dred Scottification”) and institutionalized racism all the way up to a Supreme Court which has improperly enabled large portions of the unlawful and unconstitutional anti-migrant agenda.
The Biden Administration can reverse the festering due process and human rights disaster at EOIR. Unlike improving and reforming the Article III Judiciary, it doesn’t need Mitch McConnell’s input to do so.
Biden can appoint an Attorney General who will recognize the importance of putting immigration/human rights/due process experts in charge of EOIR. He can replace the current BIA with real appellate judges whose qualifications reflect an unswerving commitment to due process, expert application of asylum laws in the generous manner once envisioned by the Supreme Court in Cardoza-Fonseca, implementing “best” practices, judicial efficiency, and judicial independence.
Biden can return human dignity to an improperly weaponized system designed to “Dred Scottify” the other. He can appoint better qualified Immigration Judges through a merit-based system that would encourage and give fair consideration to the many outstanding candidates who have devoted their professional lives to fighting for due process, fundamental fairness, and immigrants’ rights, courageously, throughout America’s darkest times!
That, in turn, will create the necessary conditions to institutionalize the EOIR reforms through the legislative creation of an independent, Article I Immigration Court that will be the “gemstone” of American justice rather than a national disgrace! One that will eventually fulfill the noble, now abandoned, “EOIR Vision” of “through teamwork and innovation being the world’s best tribunals, guaranteeing fairness and due process for all.”
The Obama Administration shortsightedly choose to “freeze out” the true experts in the private advocacy, NGO, academic, clinical teaching, and pro bono communities. The results have been beyond disastrous.
In addition to killing, maiming, and otherwise harming humans entitled to our legal protection, EOIR’s unseemly demise over the past three Administrations has undermined the credibility of every aspect of our justice system all the way to the Supreme Court as well as destroying our international leadership role as a shining example and beacon of hope for others.
The talent in the private sector is out there! They are ready, willing, and very able to turn EOIR from a disaster zone to a model of due process, innovation, best practices, fair, efficient, and practical judging, and creative judicial administration. One that other parts of the U.S. judicial system could emulate.
Will the Biden Administration heed the call, act boldly, and put the “right team” in place to save EOIR? Or will they continue past Democratic Administrations’ short-sighted undervaluation of the importance of providing constitutionally required due process, equal justice, and fundamental fairness to all persons in the U.S. including asylum applicants and other migrants.
I’ve read a number of papers and proposals on how to “fix” immigration and refugee policies. None of them appears to recognize the overriding importance of making EOIR reform “job one.”
For once, why can’t Democrats “think like Republicans?” When John Ashcroft and Kris Kobach and later Jeff Sessions and Stephen Miller set out to kneecap, politicize, and weaponize the U.S. justice system, what was their “starting point?” EOIR, of course!
The Obama Administration’s abject failure to effectively address and reverse the glaring mess at EOIR left by the “Ashcroft reforms” basically set the table for Sessions’s even more invidious plan to weaponize EOIR into a tool for xenophobia and White Nationalist nativism. The problems engendered by allowing the politicization and weaponization of EOIR have crippled the U.S. justice system far beyond immigration and asylum law.
Without a better EOIR, fully empowered to lead the way legally and insure and enforce compliance, all reforms, from DACA, to detention reform, to restoration of refugee and asylum systems will be less effective, more difficult, and less enduring than they should be. Equal justice for all and an end to institutionalized racism cannot be achieved without bold EOIR reform!
It would also take some of the pressure off the Article III Courts. Time and again they are called upon, with disturbingly varying degrees of both willingness and competence in the results, to correct the endless stream of basic legal errors, abuses of due process, and inane, obviously biased and counterproductive policies regularly flowing from EOIR and DOJ. Indeed, unnecessary litigation and frivolous, ethically questionable, often factually inaccurate or intentionally misleading positions advanced by the DOJ in immigration matters now clog virtually all levels of the Article III Federal Courts right up to the docket of the Supreme Court!
So far, what I haven’t seen is a recognition by anyone on the “Biden Team” that the experts in the private bar who have been the primary fighters in the trenches, almost singlehandedly responsible for preserving American justice and saving our democracy from the Trump onslaught, must be placed where they belong: in charge of the effort to rebuild EOIR and those who will be chosen to staff it!
Continue to ignore the New Due Process Army and their ability to right the listing American ship of state at peril! It’s long past time to unleash the “problem solvers” on government and give them the resources and support necessary to use practical scholarship, technology, best practices, and “Con Law/Human Rights 101” to solve the problems!
No “magic list,” stakeholders committees, or consensus-building groups can take the place of putting expert, empowered, practical problem solvers in charge of the machinery. We can’t win the game with the best, most talented, most knowledgeable, most courageous players forever sitting on the bench!
The future of our republic might well depend on whether the Biden-Harris Administration can get beyond the past and take the courageous, far-sighted actions necessary to let EOIR lead the way to a better future of all Americans! We can only hope that they finally see the light. Before it’s too late for all of us!
Due Process Forever! Complicity & Complacency, Never!
The Outrageous Decision to Decertify the IJ’s Union
Our attention is understandably focused elsewhere right now. However, it must be mentioned that on the eve of Election Day, a panel decision of the Federal Labor Relations Authority decertified the National Association of Immigration Judges (NAIJ) as a union. While this might seem to be a minor issue at the moment, it is not. At stake is the integrity of the nation’s Immigration Courts and the life-changing decisions its judges make.
The NAIJ was formed in 1971, and was certified as the recognized collective bargaining representative of Immigration Judges in 1979, 41 years ago. It weathered a similar decertification effort in 2000. Then as now, the agency argued that Immigration Judges are managers, and thus ineligible to unionize. Under federal labor law, one is classified as a manager if their position “influences policy.” 20 years ago, both the initial decision of the Regional Director and the appeal to the FLRA resoundingly dismissed that notion. In its September 2000 decision, the FLRA agreed with the finding below that IJs are not involved in creating agency policy. The FLRA then noted that “unlike decisions of the Board of Immigration Appeals, the decisions of Immigration Judges are not published, do not constitute precedent, are binding only on the parties to the proceedings, and are subject to de novo review. The RD accordingly concluded that the decisions of the Judges do not influence and determine the Agency’s immigration policy, in contrast to the decisions of the Board.”
In two decades, the only change to the above is that while the IJ’s findings of law remain subject to de novoreview, their findings of fact are now reviewed for clear error. Of course, facts are entirely case-specific, and thus have no influence whatsoever on policy. So as before, rather than create or influence policy, IJs implement established policy. Yet EOIR once again sought decertification. At the hearing in January, EOIR stipulated that the judges’ duties and responsibilities had not changed since the prior decision. As reported in an article covering the hearing, EOIR’s Director, James McHenry, testified that Immigration Judges are not supervisors, adding that they “are at the bottom of the org chart so they don’t supervise anything,” and further noted that “they cannot hire or fire anyone.” Nevertheless, he argued that because an Immigration Judge’s decision becomes a final ruling binding the agency if not appealed, Immigration Judges influence policy.
The Regional Director dismissed the claim based on the above arguments and testimony. But there was always a sense that the administration had something up its sleeve. That “something” turned out to be two Trump appointees, FLRA Chairperson Colleen Duffy Kiko, and FLRA Member James T. Abbott. They have jointly issued a series of decisions overturning decades of precedent to erode the rights of federal employees’ unions, a result clearly favored by the administration that appointed them. The two stayed true to form in decertifying the NAIJ. The FLRA’s lone Democratic appointee, Ernest DuBester, issued a scathing opinion in the NAIJ’s case, which concluded with the following language:
This is the antithesis of reasoned decision making. Based upon the conclusory nature of the majority’s analysis, along with the facetious manner in which it reconciles its decision with Authority precedent precluding collateral attacks on unit certifications, it is abundantly clear that the majority’s sole objective is to divest the IJs of their statutory rights. Once again, I refuse to join a decision “so fundamentally adverse to the principles and purposes of our Statute.”
By deciding in this matter, the decision violates the FLRA’s own rules regarding when such reversals of past holdings are allowed. Moreover, not that it matters to Chairperson Kiko and Member Abbott, but if allowed to stand, their decision ignoring the NAIJ’s 41 years as a certified union and reversing its own precedent without any reasoned basis will accomplish the following damage.
First, Immigration Judges would lose their voice, collective bargaining rights, ability to be individually defended by their union representative, and their ability to push back against the relentless attack on their independence, neutrality, and ability to fulfill their proper function as a check against executive branch overreach. Second, NAIJ officers have remained the only Immigration Judges able to allow the public to peek behind the scenes at these tribunals, by speaking at law schools and conferences (with the exception of management level judges who may be permitted to state the party line, sometimes by reading it from index cards). As several leading scholars explained in an article in Slate: “Judges and asylum officers are being instructed to decide cases in ways that many contend are contrary to law. A virtual gag rule has been placed on them in the context of law schools and the broader public. This denies information to coming generations of lawyers and eliminates public discourse on some of the most critical civil rights issues of our time.”
But of great importance is a point I raised last year in an article I wrote forLaw360 on the decertification effort: the administration’s citing to a recent decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Lucia v. SEC:
while irrelevant to the management inquiry, the citing of Lucia points to another motive of the DOJ. In a leaked internal memo, the Justice Department indicated its interpretation of the decision as a basis to bypass the Merit System Protection Board, allowing the Administration to more easily terminate ALJs whose decisions don’t align with its political views. Such actions would constitute a troubling attempt by the executive branch to influence case outcomes. Similarly, decertifying the NAIJ would simplify the removal of IJs whose decisions are at odds with the administration’s stated immigration goals by eliminating the present collective bargaining agreement’s right to an independent arbitrator in matters concerning IJ discipline and termination.
Just prior to the FLRA’s decision, an executive order creating a schedule of career federal employees who can be more easily fired for purely political reasons (such as issuing decisions not in line with the administration’s views). By ruling that IJs influence agency policy (contrary to its prior decision), the FLRA has put the Immigration Judges squarely in the crosshairs of the new executive order. To be clear: Immigration Judges whose neutral and independent application of the law would lead them to issue decisions the administration doesn’t like would be subject to easy termination. And of course, having just lost their union, those judges will have lost their best means of challenging such termination. Then, the hiring of their replacements would become even more nakedly partisan.
While it seems as I write this there will be a new administration come January, that doesn’t render this issue irrelevant. First, the earlier decertification effort in 2000 occurred under a Democratic administration. Second, leaving the above ruling in place would allow it be used as a weapon in the ways described by any subsequent administration. Whatever one’s political leanings or views on immigration, we should all be able to agree that decisions of such importance should be rendered by fair, neutral judges by applying law to facts, protected from rank political pressures.
The creation of an Article I Immigration Court is ultimately the most durable way to guarantee the independence of these vital tribunals, but the evisceration or protections caused by allowing this decision to stand is too egregious to ignore even in the short term. It is therefore hoped that readers will amplify the news of the decision and all it means. It is hoped those with the capacity to do so will provide amicus or other legal support for further actions by the NAIJ to legally challenge the FLRA decision. And the decision must be brought to the attention of an incoming Biden administration, which has so much damage to correct
There also needs to be consequences for those who abandoned their obligation of fairness and neutrality under the present administration. FLRA Member DuBester is to be applauded for continuing to strongly voice his defense of justice in the dissent. But perhaps a Biden administration can assess whether Kiko and Abbott might be better suited for other work.
Copyright 2020 Jeffrey S. Chase. All rights reserved. reprinted with permission.
***********************
Thanks for speaking out so forcefully and articulately, my friend,
I am confident that the Biden-Harris Administration will correct this egregious miscarriage of justice. As “Good Government” folks, I’m also confident that they they will constructively address the disgraceful dysfunctional mess at EOIR that threatens to topple the American justice system. We will finally have “problem solvers” leading our Government! That will make a positive difference for all Americans.
Hon. A. Ashley Tabaddor President, National Association of Immigration Judges (“NAIJ”)
Here’s a message Judge Tabaddor sent to all Immigration Judges:
Subject: Update on Agency Action to Decertify NAIJ
THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF IMMIGRATION JUDGES
November 3, 2020
Dear Colleagues,
Today the Federal Labor Relations Authority reversed two decades of precedent and issued a baseless decision effectively decertifying the National Association of Immigration Judges as the union of immigration judges. See the decision here. We are outraged, though not surprised, by the lack of legal analysis. As dissenting member Ernest DuBester notes, the decision is pure “sophistry.”
This decision is not being rendered in a vacuum. We have suffered an all-out assault on labor and unions from the outset of three executive orders designed to decimate bargaining rights of unions to the most recent executive order designed to transform the federal workforce into an ”at-will” and deeply politicized body. And in the context of immigration judges, this is in line with our experience of undue interference and influence in our independent decision making authority.
We have lost this battle, but we will win the war. The NAIJ has prepared for just this day. We shall continue to fight. We are pursuing any and all available legal and other options.
Your support of NAIJ is now more important than ever. NAIJ needs you. If you have not previously joined NAIJ, join now by contacting us directly. In turn, NAIJ will continue to support immigration judges both individually with management and also as a group through public outreach, media contacts, and work on the Hill. We will need to work together to make sure that misguided policies like quotas and deadlines and micromanagement of IJs are not utilized to target us for discipline or removal from office. Even absent the protection of a collective bargaining agreement, we continue to have rights as federal government employees, including before the Merit System Protection Board. And if nothing else, this highly politicized decision is another compelling exhibit in our case for the creation of an independent Article 1 immigration court.
As always, feel free to reach out to myself or any of the NAIJ board members with any questions or concerns. My personal email address is ashleytabaddor@gmail.com and my cell is (310) 709-3580.
Ashley Tabaddor
President, NAIJ
—
***********************
Unquestionably, the move by the Attorney General to “decertify” the NAIJ (essentially eradicate it) was intended to “punish and silence” Judge Tabaddor and other NAIJ officers who have spoken out about serious due process abuses and chronic mismanagement at EOIR and the DOJ. Indeed, since all other sitting IJs are “muzzled” by the DOJ, and “EOIR Star Chamber” operations have become increasingly more secretive, less transparent, and wildly inconsistent from court to court under the Trump regime, the NAIJ is one of the few sources of accurate information for Congress and the public about the ever-deteriorating conditions in Immigration Court!
Don’t expect this battle for the “heart and soul” of Federal Civil Service and American democracy to go away any time soon!
ImmigrationProf blogger Ingrid Eagly and Steven Shafer in an op/ed in the Los Angeles Times take on President Trump who “[l]ast week, during the final presidential campaign debate, President Trump renewed a claim he has often made: Migrants with pending court dates rarely show up for their hearings. In response to the charge by his Democratic challenger, former Vice President Joe Biden, that the administration’s treatment of would-be immigrants was inhumane, Trump told debate watchers that the number who`come back’ to immigration court is `less than 1%.’
The government’s data, however, tell a far different story.”
Check out the op/ed and the take down of President.
A new fact sheet by Nina Siulc and Noelle Smart of the Vera Institute of Justice summarizes new evidence showing that most immigrants appear for their immigration court hearings. The report includes data from Vera’s Safety and Fairness for Everyone (SAFE) Initiative that provides free representation through a universal access model of representation. Vera researchers found that 98 percent of SAFE clients released from custody have continued to appear for their court hearings. Read the full report for additional information on related research, including Vera’s ongoing evaluation of the New York Immigrant Family Unity Project (NYIFUP).
I[ngrid] E[agly]
***********************
Thanks, Ingrid and Steven! Our “Round Table” has used your scholarship in amicus briefs to educate Federal Courts at all levels about the realities of Immigration Court.
It’s particularly critical in an era where the politicized and “ethically challenged” DOJ often puts forth largely fictionalization versions of their self-manufactured “immigration emergency” that is actually little more than the outcome of studied ignorance, White Nationalism, “gonzo” enforcement, and maliciously incompetent administration of the Federal immigration bureaucracy.
Attribution: Stephen Miller Monster by Peter Kuper, PoliticalCartoons.com
If we kick out the kakistocracy next week, we could put qualified “practical scholars” like Ingrid and others like her in charge and remake both DHS and the Immigration Courts to actually operate as required by Due Process while also fulfilling legitimate law-enforcement objectives. To state the obvious, neither of these objectives is being realized at present. It’s bad for America and for humanity.
For far too long, the wrong individuals, lacking the necessary expertise in immigration and human rights, and also lacking a firm commitment to equal justice under law, have been “in charge” of the Government’s immigration policy and legal apparatus and appointed to the Federal Courts, at all levels. That’s particularly true at the Supremes where only Justices Sotomayor and (some days) Kagan appear “up to the job.”
We will never end institutionalized racism, achieve equal justice for all, and realize the true human and economic potential of America until we bring our broken immigration and refugee systems and our failing Federal Judicial System into line with our Constitutional and national values. That process must start, but certainly will not end, with this election!
Susan Church, an immigration attorney in Boston, ended the first week of the Trump administration arm in arm with protesters at Logan Airport, resisting an executive order banning travel from several predominantly Muslim countries. But what happened the next day, away from the public chants of “Let them stay!” was more typical of what the life of the former chair of the New England chapter of the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) was to become under the Trump administration.
Church and an associate filed an emergency lawsuit to secure the release of immigrants from Customs and Border Protection (CBP) custody. “I got a federal judge on the phone, you know, on a Saturday night at eight o’clock.” The judge told Church to go to court immediately. An hour later, the attorneys were in court defending their clients.
“For me, that was the canary in the coal mine about what the rest of my four years under the Trump administration was going to be like,” Church said. “It’s just a nonstop series of emergency litigation filed to try to rescue one or 10 or 100 or 1,000 people, depending on which issue it is.” Eventually, the speed of the work, and the physical and mental exhaustion it triggered, landed Church in the hospital. “I thought I was having a heart attack,” she said.
Church stayed with the fight to reunite parents with their children. She described the process of taking affidavits from clients, which require she learn every harrowing detail of a client’s trauma. In one instance, CBP ripped away one woman’s eight-year-old daughter at the border. “She had to comb her daughter’s hair and change her daughter’s clothes and put her on a bus and say goodbye to her,” Church said through tears. The two were separated for nearly two months, even after the mother was released from detention.
Church was able to reunite her client with her child, but the episode—like many, many other cases—weighs heavy on her shoulders. “I don’t think I’ll ever be quite the same person that I was beforehand,” she said.
Four years into this migration crisis, there’s a parallel migration under way—of immigration lawyers out of the profession. Survey data and interviews the Prospect conducted with more than a dozen lawyers around the country reveal the physical, mental, and financial toll endured by members of the bar. Given the extreme violence, trauma, and inhumanity their clients often endure, immigration attorneys don’t like to talk about how it affects them. But secondary trauma also leaves a mark, making it impossible to continue for some attorneys. Although numerical data is limited, there is evidence that some attorneys are cutting back on some types of cases, such as deportation defense work, or even leaving immigration law altogether. Removal defense casework is one of the most time-intensive, emotional, and exigent parts of lawyers’ loads. It’s also where the administration has aimed much of its cruelest policymaking, severely limiting lawyers’ efficacy.
Under the Trump administration, immigration law has changed not only profoundly, but also so rapidly that it’s hard for immigration attorneys to keep up. Susan Church—and several other attorneys interviewed for this article—described combating Trump’s policies as a game of whack-a-mole.
. . . .
**************
Read Marcia’s full article at the link.
Forget all the right wing BS and the “originalist hoax!” This is about “democracy (or the destruction thereof) in action.”
Remember, all of these cosmic “immigration law changes” have taken place without a single piece of major legislation enacted by Congress! Indeed, the Trump regime’s ham-handed attempt to force it’s nativist agenda down the throats of the Congress as part of the “Dreamer fiasco” fell flat on its face in both Houses!But, the Supremes have both encouraged and enabled Trump (actually notorious white supremacist Stephen Miller) to rewrite the law through. “Executive fiat.” Totally inappropriate, not to mention glaringly unconstitutional.
The Supremes’ majority has time and again improperly sided with the unethical, immoral, and Constitutionally bankrupt “Dred Scottification” of migrants, particularly asylum seekers. It’s not much different from what has happened to African Americans, Latinos, and other minorities following the Civil War. But, this is supposed to be the 21st Century where we have put “Jim Crow” behind us. Obviously, we haven’t!
Failing to protect “officers of the court” (lawyers) and their clients from a scheme of abuses heaped upon them by a corrupt, biased, out of control, overtly racist Executive and his sycophants is a gross dereliction of duty by the Supremes. It’s basically like allowing, and even encouraging, the badgering of a witness during trial!
It’s painfully obvious that we have many of the wrong folks on the bench — from the Immigration Courts to the Supremes. Indeed, the nation and the world would be much better served if many more of those courageous lawyers who serve the immigrant community and human rights experts were on the Federal Bench at all levels.
Trump, Roberts, and the GOP judicial misfits have also shown us first-hand the profiles of individuals who should not be serving in judicial positions. Let them litigate their “originalist,” “unitary Executive,” and other “far out” righty philosophies as lawyers appearing before real judges —“practical scholars” who live in the 21st Century and are committed to problem solving rather than problem creating. As Joe Biden has noted, the entire judicial selection system and particularly the Supremes need a thoughtful re-examination and reform.
Never again should we have Justices like Amy Coney Barrett and Clarence Thomas performing highly inappropriate and unethical televised “campaign stunts” for an incumbent President during an ongoing election. Geez! What kind of “impartial jurists” are they?
Most first year law students could tell you that’s a “no-go!” Why have we “normalized” and “accepted” such obvious bias, misbehavior, and lack of sound judgment at the highest levels of our (not Trump’s or Mitch’s personal) Judiciary?
It’s not “Rocket Science!” The fundamental building blocks of our society are immigration, human rights, and equal justice! Any lawyer who who doesn’t embody those virtues and doesn’t publicly embrace them should not in the future be given a lifetime appointment as a Federal Judge — at any level!
We need better judges for a better America! We will never achieve constitutionally-required “equal justice for all” for African Americans, Latinos, or anyone else, nor can we reach our diverse nation’s full potential, if we don’t start “pushing back” against Roberts and the GOP’s right wing judicial oligarchy, their obtuse legal gibberish, and their anti-democratic “jurisprudence.”
It starts with voting to take back our country from the far right. But, that’s just the beginning of the changes needed if equal justice for all is to become a reality, rather than an ever unfulfilled promise, limited to certain privileged (predominantly White) groups within our society!
And, all of society owes a debt of gratitude to Ms. Church and other brave lawyers like her who represent the best our country has to offer and have actually suffered for standing up for the rule of law and the legal and human rights of the most vulnerable among us. In other words, standing up for all of our rights against a tyranny!
Compare that with the utterly dismal composition of the “Trump kakistocracy” and its “Dred Scottification” of “the other.”
Many thanks to the “drafting team:” Judges Ilyce Shugall, Jeffrey Chase, Lory Rosenberg, and Rebecca Jamil.
Hon. Ilyce Shugall U.S. Immigraton Judge (Retired) Director, Immigrant Legal Defense Program, Justice & Diversity Center of the Bar Assn. of San Francisco.Hon. Jeffrey S. Chase Jeffrey S. Chase Blog Coordinator & Chief Spokesperson, Round Table of Former Immigration JudgesHon. Lory Diana Rosenberg Senior Advisor Immigrant Defenders Law Group, PLLCHon. Rebecca Jamil U.S. Immigration Judge (Ret.) Source: TwitterKnightess of the Round Table
