Judicial Selection – Page 39 – immigrationcourtside.com

😎👍🏼🥂SHEEEEEEE’S BACK! TAL KOPAN @ SF CHRON RETURNS TO THE “IMMIGRATION BEAT” WITH A POWERFUL IN-DEPTH LOOK AT HOW AMERICA’S MOST DYSFUNCTIONAL “COURT SYSTEM” PREDICTABLY SCREWED UP THE COVID-19 RESPONSE WHILE DEEPENING HUMAN MISERY INFLICTED ON THE “BACKLOGGED” — “’There isn’t a day that goes by that there isn’t mass chaos behind this veil of business as usual,’ said Ashley Tabaddor, president of the National Association of Immigration Judges.”

https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/Immigration-courts-in-chaos-with-15276743.php

Immigration courts in ‘chaos,’ with coronavirus effects to last years

By Tal Kopan

WASHINGTON — Raquel and her sons fled gang threats in El Salvador, survived the weeks-long journey to the U.S., and then endured the Trump administration’s 2018 separations at the southern border.

This month, she was finally going to get her chance to convince an immigration judge in San Francisco that she should be granted permanent asylum in the U.S., ending the agony of having to prepare for her court date by reliving the danger in her native country and her weeks of detention at the border.

Thanks to the coronavirus, she will have to endure the wait for three more years.

“It’s really traumatizing, because I have to keep telling them the same thing,” Raquel said. “I thought I had gotten over everything that had happened to me … but every time I remember, I can’t help crying.”

Raquel’s case is one of hundreds of thousands in the immigration courts that are being delayed by the pandemic. The courts, run by the Justice Department, have been closed for health reasons in the same way that much of U.S. public life has been on hold. But many of those who work in the system say the Trump administration has handled the shutdown in an especially haphazard manner, increasing the stress on judges and attorneys in addition to immigrants and making it harder for the courts to bounce back.

“There isn’t a day that goes by that there isn’t mass chaos behind this veil of business as usual,” said Ashley Tabaddor, president of the National Association of Immigration Judges.

The Justice Department began postponing hearings for immigrants who are not in detention on March 18, and the delays have been extended every few weeks. Hearings are now set to resume June 15. But many courts technically remain open, including the one in San Francisco, with frequently changing statuses announced on social media and a website. It also took weeks for all judges to get laptops that would allow them to work remotely, said Tabaddor, who hears immigration cases in Los Angeles.

The scattershot communications make it difficult to prepare for if and when the hearings are held, immigrants say. And it’s worse for those who have no lawyer who can help navigate the changes. About one-third of immigrants with pending cases have no representation, according to Justice Department statistics, and missing a hearing is grounds for deportation.

The agency’s inspector general is investigating the handling of the courts during the pandemic.

The Justice Department says it is being proactive in balancing safety with immigrants’ rights. A spokeswoman said the agency is “deeply concerned” for the health of its staff and the public.

In a recent legal filing, the director of the immigration courts, James McHenry, said a “one size fits all” approach to court closures and procedures wouldn’t work, given varying situations at different locations.

With postponements happening on short notice, most immigrants fighting deportation feel they must prepare for court even if pandemic-caused delays seem likely. But doing so can force them to revisit the terrifying situations they say they came to the U.S. to escape.

None who spoke with The Chronicle said they wanted to risk their health by keeping the courts open. But they and their attorneys said they wished the administration was doing more to take immigrants’ and staffers’ needs into account.

Because the immigration courts already have a backlog of more than 1 million cases, it can take years for an asylum applicant such as Raquel to go before a judge. In the meantime, they build lives here, knowing that can be yanked away if they’re ordered deported.

Raquel and others whose hearings have been postponed won’t go first when the courts reopen — they go to the back of the line. The alternative for the immigration courts would be a logistical nightmare of rescheduling everyone else’s hearings, which are now booked years in advance.

The Trump administration ended the practice of prioritizing cases of criminal immigrants or recent arrivals, and has curtailed judges’ ability to simply close the case of a low-risk migrant less deserving of deportation, which would clear court schedules for more serious cases.

The Justice Department declined to say how many hearings have been postponed because of the pandemic. But a nonprofit statistics clearinghouse estimated that the government shutdown of 2018-19 resulted in the cancellation of 15,000 to 20,000 cases per week.

Raquel’s case is emblematic of the thousands that are now in limbo. The Chronicle has agreed not to use her real name out of her concern for her safety, in accordance with its anonymous sourcing policy.

Raquel says she came to the U.S. in 2018 because a gang in the area of El Salvador where she lived threatened her family after her two sons refused to join.

She was among the immigrant families that were forcibly separated at the border. She spent a month and a half apart from her teenage son as she was shuffled between detention centers and jails. She says she endured numerous indignities, including having to shower in front of guards and being shackled by her wrists and ankles.

“It was the most bitter experience I’ve ever had,” she said in Spanish.

After finally being reunited with her son and released, Raquel rejoined her husband and other son who had come here previously, settling in San Francisco. She was ordered to wear an ankle monitor, which again made her feel like “a prisoner.”

“I had never felt so hurt like I did in this country, which hurt me so much just for crossing a border illegally,” Raquel said. “That was the sin and the crime that we committed, and we paid a high price.”

Raquel spoke with The Chronicle before receiving word that her May hearing was canceled. She and her attorney had felt forced to prepare despite a high likelihood of postponement, just in case the Justice Department forged ahead.

San Francisco attorneys who are working with immigrants during the pandemic say it is an acute challenge. Stay-at-home orders complicate preparing for cases that could have life-and-death consequences for those who fled violence back home.

Difficulties include trying to submit 1,000-page filings from home, needing to discuss traumatic stories of domestic and sexual violence with immigrants who are sharing one-bedroom apartments with 10 other people, and navigating courts’ changing status on Twitter.

“It’s taking an already not-user-friendly system and spinning it into chaos to the extent that even savvy practitioners don’t know how to get information, let alone the applicant,” said Erin Quinn, an attorney in San Francisco with the Immigrant Legal Resource Center.

She added, “The stakes are high, and at the same time, a comment I got yesterday from a practitioner was, ‘I’m tired of trying to figure out what to do with my practice based on tweets.’”

Judges and court staffers are also frustrated. On March 22, an unprecedented partnership was formed among the unions representing Immigration and Customs Enforcement attorneys who serve as prosecutors in the courts, judges and the association for attorneys who represent immigrants. They wrote a letter to the Justice Department demanding it close all the courts, not just postpone hearings for immigrants who are not in detention. The agency later expanded the ability of attorneys to appear by telephone and for some judges to work from home.

Even now, however, the Justice Department is requiring some judges and staff to come in to court to handle cases of immigrants who are being detained — those hearings have not been canceled — or to process filings.

“It is very, very upsetting. Employees do not feel like they are, No. 1, being protected and, No. 2, you don’t feel respected and valued,” said Immigration Judge Dana Leigh Marks, president emerita of the judges’ union.

Marks and Tabaddor say it’s part of a Trump administration pattern of stripping immigration judges of their independence at the expense of fair proceedings— an example of “haste makes waste,” Marks said. The Justice Department has set performance metrics to push judges to complete more cases, and Trump’s attorneys general have issued rulings that made it more difficult for judges to prioritize their caseloads.

The Justice Department, for its part, says it is making the courts more efficient. In November, McHenry testified before Congress that his agency had “made considerable progress in restoring (the courts’) reputation as a fully functioning, efficient and impartial administrative court system fully capable of rendering timely decisions consistent with due process.”

Quinn, the San Francisco attorney, said the Justice Department should work more closely with immigrants’ lawyers like Raquel’s to prioritize cases that are ready to move forward.

“Everything this administration has done to speed up or deal with the backlog are actually actions that limit the meting out of justice in the courts, which even before this crisis have been gumming up the system further,” Quinn said. “We will see the impact of that now as we try to come out of this crisis.”

Meanwhile, for immigrants like Raquel, the wait will continue. Even with the hardship, she says coming to the U.S. was worth the risks.

“It’s about protecting my children,” she said. “I’ve always told my sons, if God let us get here, they have to take advantage of it. … In my country, someone walks down the block and they get assaulted or kidnapped and nobody ever finds them. But not here. Here you feel safe.”

San Francisco Chronicle staff writer Alexei Koseff contributed to this report.

Tal Kopan is The San Francisco Chronicle’s Washington correspondent. Email: tal.kopan@sfchronicle.com Twitter:@talkopan

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

It’s great to have you back, Tal! We’ve missed you!

It’s well worth going to the link to read Tal’s full article! Also, you’ll see some great pictures from the “home chambers” of my good friend and colleague Judge Dana Leigh Marks of the San Francisco Immigration Court, a Past President of the NAIJ.

What also would be great is if the dire situation in the U.S. Immigration Courts had actually improved over the past few months. But, predictably, the “downward spiral” has only accelerated.

Tal’s article brings to life the “human trauma” inflicted not only on those poor souls whose constitutional due process rights have been “sold down the river” by this “maliciously incompetent” regime, but also the unnecessary trauma inflicted on everyone touched by this disgraceful system: private and pro bono counsel, judges, interpreters, clerical staff, government counsel, and their families all get to partake of the unnecessary pain and suffering.

While it undoubtedly would take years to restore due process, fundamental fairness, and some measure of efficiency to this dysfunctional mess, the starting points aren’t “rocket science” – they are deceptively simple. One was eloquently stated by Erin Quinn, an attorney with the Immigrant Legal Resource Center in San Francisco who “said the Justice Department should work more closely with immigrants’ lawyers like Raquel’s to prioritize cases that are ready to move forward.” That’s actually how it used to be done in places like Arlington.

As Judge Marks points out, a host of “haste makes waste” gimmicks and enforcement schemes by this Administration (and to a lesser extent by the Obama Administration) have resulted in massive “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” and total chaos as politicos in at the DOJ and bureaucrats in EOIR HQ “redesign and reshuffle” dockets to achieve political objectives and “send messages” without any meaningful input from the Immigration Judges and attorneys (on both sides) who actually do the work and understand the dynamics of a particular docket.

In particular, under a fair and unbiased application of legal standards there are thousands of well-documented meritorious asylum and cancellation of removal cases that could be handled in “short hearings.” Other individuals could be removed from the docket to pursue U and T nonimmigrant visas or “stateside processing” permanent immigration with USCIS. Still others have documentation establishing that they are productive, law-abiding tax-paying members of their communities, often with U.S. citizen family, who should be removed from the dockets through the type of sensible, mutually beneficial “prosecutorial discretion” (“PD”) programs that were beginning to show meaningful results before being arbitrarily terminated by this Administration.

This is just the “tip of the iceberg.” There are many more improvements in efficiency, without sacrificing due process, and “best practices” that could be made if this were operated as a fair and impartial court system, rather than an appendage of DHS Enforcement committed to Stephen Miller’s nativist agenda.

The other necessary piece is the one promoted by Judge Tabaddor and the NAIJ and endorsed by nearly all “non-restrictionist” experts in the field: establishing an independent Immigration Court outside of the Executive Branch. That’s not likely to happen without “regime change.”

Moreover, it’s clear from his recent actions that Billy Barr, who is currently running the Immigration Courts into the ground, actually aspires to “kneecap” the Article III Judiciary in behalf of his lord and master, Trump. Barr would be delighted if all Federal,Courts, including the Article IIIs, were functionaries of the all powerful “Unitary Executive.” Given the Supremes’ failure to stand up for immigrants’ and asylum seekers’ legal rights as they are systematically dismantled by the regime, Barr is already a ways down that road!

Tal’s article also highlights another glaring deficiency: the lack of a diverse, merit-based Immigration Judiciary committed solely to “due process with efficiency” and fair and impartial adjudications under the law, particularly the asylum laws. Experts like Erin Quinn, folks with a deep scholarly understanding of immigration and asylum laws and experience representing the individuals whose lives are caught up in this system, should be on the Immigration Bench. They are the ones with the knowledge and experience in making “hard but fair” choices and how to achieve “practical efficiency” without sacrificing due process.

Rather than actively recruiting those outstanding candidates from the private, academic, and NGO sectors with asylum experience and knowledge, so that they could interact and share their expertise and practical experiences with other judicial colleagues, the current system draws almost exclusively from the ranks of “insiders” and government prosecutors. They apparently are hired with the expectation that they will churn out orders of removals in support of DHS Enforcement without “rocking the boat.” To some extent this was also true under the Obama Administration, which also hired lopsidedly from among government attorneys.

Indeed, prior immigration experience is not even a job requirement right now. The hiring tends to favor those with high volume litigation skills, primarily gained through prosecution. That doesn’t necessarily translate into fair and scholarly judging, although it might and has in some instances.

Of course, a few do defy expectations and stand up for the legal and due process rights of respondents. But, that’s not the expectation of the politicos and bureaucrats who do the hiring. And the two-year probation period for newly hired Immigration Judges gives Administration politicos and their EOIR subordinates “leverage” on the new judges that they might not have on those who are more established in the system, particularly those who are “retirement eligible.”

Moreover, the BIA has now been “stocked” with judges with reputations for favoring enforcement and ruling against asylum seekers in an unusually high percentage of cases. The design appears to be to insure that even those who “beat the odds” and are granted asylum by an Immigration Judge get “zapped” when the DHS appeals. Even if the BIA dared not to enforce the “restrictionist party line,” the Attorney General can and does intervene in individual cases to change the result to favor DHS and then to make it a “precedent” for future cases. Could there be a clearer violation of due process and judicial ethics? I doubt it. But, the Courts of Appeals largely pretend not to see or understand the reality of what’s happening in the Immigration Courts.

Beyond that, the Immigration Judge job, intentionally in my view, has been made so unattractive for those who believe in due process for individuals and a fair application of asylum laws, that few would want to serve in the current environment. Indeed, a number of fine Immigration Judges have resigned or retired as matters of conscience because they felt unable to square “system expectations” with their oaths of office.

To state the obvious, the current version of Congress has become a feckless bystander to this ongoing human rights, constitutional, ethical, and fiscal disaster. But, the real question is whatever happened to the existing independent Article III Judiciary? They continue to remain largely above the fray and look the other way as the Constitution they are sworn to uphold is further ground into the turf every day and the screams of the abused and dehumanized (“Dred-Scottified”) emanating from this charade of a “court system” get louder and louder. Will they ever get loud enough to reach the refined ears of those ensconced in the “ivory tower” of the Article III Judiciary?

Someday! But, the impetus for the necessary changes to make Due Process, fundamental fairness, and equal justice for all a reality rather than a cruel, intellectually dishonest, and unfulfilled promise is going to have to come from outside the current broken and intentionally unfair system and those complicit in its continuing and worsening abuses of the law and humanity!

Due Process Forever! Complicit Courts Never!

PWS

05-18-20

Suzanne Monyak @ Law360: FEDERAL COURTS RECOGNIZE THAT BILLY BARR’S BIA IS A FRAUD! — So Why Do They Let The Unconstitutional Abuse Of Persons Seeking Justice Continue Under Their Noses?

Hon. Jeffrey S. Chase
Jeffrey S. Chase Blog
Coordinator & Chief Spokesperson, Round Table of Retired Immigration Judges

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

https://www.law360.com/immigration/articles/1271825/immigration-board-picks-under-trump-to-set-lasting-policy

Suzanne writes in Law360:

U.S. Circuit Judge Frank H. Easterbrook didn’t mince words earlier this year when sharing his thoughts on a recent decision by the immigration courts’ appellate board: “We have never before encountered defiance of a remand order, and we hope never to see it again.”

The Seventh Circuit judge, a Reagan-appointee, said the board had ignored the court’s directions to grant protection to an immigrant fighting deportation, instead ruling against the immigrant again. The rebuke wasn’t the first time the Board of Immigration Appeals has been reprimanded by the federal judiciary for seemingly prejudiced decisions under the Trump administration.

Just a month earlier, a judge on the Third Circuit tackling an appeal from the BIA wrote in a concurring opinion that it didn’t appear the board “was acting as anything other than an agency focused on ensuring [an immigrant’s] removal rather than as the neutral and fair tribunal it is expected to be.”

“That criticism is harsh and I do not make it lightly,” U.S. Circuit Judge Theodore McKee wrote.

While President Donald Trump’s judicial nominees and U.S. Supreme Court picks grab headlines for rtheir potential to shape the judiciary for years to come, the administration is staffing the lesser known BIA with former immigration judges who have high asylum-denial rates and individuals with backgrounds in law enforcement. Some of the picks have prompted advocates for immigrants and lawmakers to claim the hiring process is too politicized.

Documents newly obtained through the Freedom of Information Act reveal that the Trump administration has aimed to fast-track the hiring process while giving the director of U.S. Department of Justice‘s Executive Office for Immigration Review, James McHenry, and the U.S. attorney general more say in who gets the nod.

Unlike the federal and appellate courts, the BIA, an administrative appellate board that hears appeals from immigration trial courts, is not independent but rather is housed with the EOIR.

Yet the board can issue precedential decisions that shape immigration policy — and the lives of immigrants facing deportation — well into the future.

“That the reasonably ordinary citizen has not heard of the BIA does not take away from the fact that it is the most important agency establishing immigration jurisprudence in the country, and when you politicize that, you’re obviously politicizing immigration jurisprudence,” said Muzaffar Chishti, head of the nonpartisan Migration Policy Institute’s New York office.

A spokesperson for EOIR told Law360 that the office sped up the hiring process as part of “commonsense changes” and in response to criticism from Congress.

She also said that EOIR “does not choose board members based on prohibited criteria such as race or politics, and it does not discriminate against applicants based on any prohibited characteristics,” and that “all board members are selected through an open, competitive, merit-based process.”

During the most recent hiring cycle, every panelist evaluating candidates was a career employee, not a political appointee, according to the spokesperson.

“Individuals who assert that such changes make the hiring process less neutral are either ignorant or mendacious,” the spokesperson said.

High Rates of Asylum Denials

Since August, the Trump administration has installed nine of the 19 current permanent members of the BIA, and most of the newcomers have asylum-denial rates above 80% and backgrounds in law enforcement or the military.

All but one of the nine were previously immigration judges, and according to data collected by Syracuse University’s Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse, the average asylum-denial rate among those eight judges was just over 92%. The denial rate for each of those eight judges ranged from 83.5% to 96.8%.

The average asylum-denial rate for immigration courts nationally is 63.1%, according to TRAC.

Asylum-denial rates aren’t perfect metrics; controlling asylum law varies by circuit, and the viability of asylum claims can vary based on location. New York’s immigration courts for instance, tend to see more asylum claims from Chinese citizens fleeing political oppression, which are more frequently successful, while courts near detention centers may see harder-to-win claims from longtime U.S. residents with less access to counsel.

However, Jeffrey Chase, a New York City immigration lawyer and former immigration judge, told Law360 that no one deciding cases fairly could have a 90% asylum denial rate.

“You’re looking to deny cases at that point,” he said.

The one recent Trump administration BIA hire who wasn’t previously an immigration judge had been a trial attorney at the Justice Department, while many of the other former judges had prior experience at the U.S. Department of Homeland Security or its predecessor agency.

One, V. Stuart Couch, was previously a senior prosecutor for detainees held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

“There’s overall just a lack of diversity on the immigration judge bench, which is deeply concerning,” said Laura Lynch, senior policy counsel at the American Immigration Lawyers Association. “I think the mark of justice is the idea that decision makers come from a diverse background.”

A hire to the BIA announced earlier this month, Philip J. Montante Jr., has come under fire not only for a sky-high asylum-denial rate — 96.3% — but for a history of ethics complaints.

In 2014, the DOJ’s Office of Professional Responsibility concluded that Judge Montante’s handling of an immigration case was “inappropriate” after an attorney accused him of showing bias when deciding a client’s case.

In March, not long before his promotion to the BIA was announced, the New York Civil Liberties Union accused Judge Montante in a proposed class action in federal court of denying detained immigrants’ bond requests nearly universally.

According to the advocacy organization, Judge Montante rejected 95% of bond requests between March 2019 and February 2020, bringing him within the top five lowest bond grant rates among the more than 200 immigration judges nationwide.

. . . .

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

Read the rest of Suzanne’s excellent article, with more quotes from my fellow members of the NDPA, Judge Jeffrey S. Chase and Laura Lynch, at the above link. I have been told that this article is “outside” the Law360 “paywall,” so you should be able to read it even if you don’t have a subscription.

I find the Article III Courts’ recognition of the Due Process travesty going on in individual cases, while they ignore the systemic unfairness that makes a mockery out of the Due Process Clause of our Constitution, the rule of law, our entire justice system, and humanity itself, perhaps the most disturbing institutional failure under the Trump regime. While Article III Judges are “shocked and offended” by contemptuous actions directed at them in particular cases, they remain willfully “tone deaf” to the reality of our dysfunctional and biased Immigration Courts and their impact on “real human lives.” ☠️

This is how individuals seeking justice and the courageous lawyers representing them, many serving at minimal or no compensation to inject a modicum of integrity into our system, are treated every day. Not every wronged individual has the ability to reach the Article IIIs.

And, given the Article IIIs failure to take the courageous, systemic steps necessary to stop abuses of migrants, the Trump regime has “taken it to a new level” by coming up with various illegal schemes and gimmicks to keep individuals seeking asylum from even getting a hearing in Immigration Court. Due Process? Fundamental Fairness? Rule of Law? No way!

Yet, this unfolds before us daily as the Article IIIs basically “twiddle their collective thumbs” 👎🏻 and “nibble around the edges” of a monumental Constitutional disaster and blot on the humanity and integrity of our nation and our own souls. The complicity starts with the Supremes who have “passed” on a number of critical opportunities to “just say no” to blatant violations of the Fifth Amendment, the Immigration and Nationality Act, the Refugee Act of 1980, international human rights conventions, and misuse and clear abuse of “emergency authority” to achieve a White Nationalist, racist agenda.

In other words, the Supremes’ majority is knowingly and intentionally encouraging the regime’s program of “Dred Scottification” — dehumanization or “de-personification” before the law — of “the other.” This disgusting and fundamentally un-American “resurrection and enabling” of a “21st Century Jim Crow Regime” might be “in vogue” with the “J.R. Five” and their right-wing compatriots right now. But, they are squarely on the “wrong side of history.” Eventually, the “truth will out,” and they will be judged accordingly!👎🏻

That’s why I say: “Constantly Confront Complicit Courts 4 Change.”

Due Process Forever!

PWS

05-11-20

TANVI MISRA @ ROLL CALL: The BIA’s Biased Hiring Program Is As Bogus As A Three Dollar Bill — Designed To Empower White Nationalist Nation, Deny Due Process! ☠️👎🏻 — “Everyone knows that [EOIR Director James McHenry] 👺 was changing the process along the way to ensure he got the candidates he pre-selected.”

https://www.rollcall.com/2020/05/04/doj-hiring-changes-may-help-trumps-plan-to-curb-immigration/

Tanvi writes for Roll Call:

. . . .

The hiring plan documents show shortened hiring timelines and suggest preference given to judges with records of rulings against immigrants. The documents also demonstrate the influence held over the board by the political leadership of the Executive Office for Immigration Review, the Justice Department agency that oversees the nation’s immigration court system, particularly its director, James McHenry.

“The [hiring] processes previously in place were cumbersome and not efficient but what we’re seeing with this hiring plan is that they’ve really eviscerated any protections that were put in place … to create a flexible process to fit their political priorities,” said Laura Lynch, senior policy counsel at AILA. “It’s very unclear and opaque and provides the leeway to manipulate the process.”

An EOIR official, who would only comment if identified as an agency spokeswoman, said its current process is “open, competitive, merit-based.”

“During the most recent hiring cycle, every interview panelist was a career (i.e. not political) employee, which would not have been possible under the previous procedures,” said the spokeswoman after CQ Roll Call reached out to EOIR for comment. “Individuals who assert that such changes make the hiring process less neutral are either ignorant or mendacious.”

New roles

Under the current administration, the Justice Department has rapidly expanded the board. In 2018, it went from 17 members to 21. On March 31, the department announced a new rule, effective the next day, expanding the board to 23 members.

McHenry first advertised for new positions in fall 2018. But instead of referring to them as “board members,” as they had been historically described, he called them “appellate judges,” a reflection of other changes to come. Instead of working out of the board’s office in Falls Church, Va., appellate judges could work from any immigration court in the country.

They also could review cases at both the trial and the appellate level — creating potential conflicts of interest.

EOIR said its office first proposed that designation in 2000.

“Elevating trial-level judges to appellate-level courts is common in every judicial system in the United States,” the agency spokeswoman said.

True, said Ashley Tabaddor, who heads the union, the National Association of Immigration Judges. But she noted judges in an independent judiciary don’t hear cases at the trial and appellate level at the same time.

“They are taking these concepts and they’re mashing them up together to essentially walk away from the traditional court model,” she said, adding that she believes conflating the roles could be a way to dilute union membership.

Tabaddor and others are currently fighting the Justice Department over its move in January to decertify the judges’ union.

Faster hiring process

In 2008, a DOJ Inspector General investigation found widespread political hiring at the board. As a result, to curb future practices, the department implemented a multi-layered process that entailed vetting by both political appointees and career professionals.

The current hiring process appears to chip away at the role career employees play in that process, and instead amplifies that of the EOIR director and other political appointees, according to Lynch and some other experts who reviewed the changes.

McHenry refers several times in one memo that he seeks to streamline the hiring process and make it more efficient. For instance, new openings on the board are now public for only 14 days, as opposed to the previous 30 days, to “begin the application review process more quickly,” McHenry writes in the memo.

In another step, current board members have to submit their evaluations of job candidates within three days, as opposed to a week. McHenry notes other tighter deadlines for other parts of the applicant screening process.

The changes raise concerns by immigration judges, lawyers and court observers about political appointees rushing preferred candidates, including those with unresolved complaints in their records, onto the board.

“Looks like another coverup for ‘expedited,’ predetermined, ideologically-based, ‘insider’ hiring,” Paul Schmidt, a retired immigration judge who headed the Board of Immigration Appeals under President Bill Clinton, told CQ Roll Call via email.

Schmidt, who tracks every board hire and firing on a well-known immigration blog, described the current hiring process as “a fraud and a joke — but not so funny when we consider the human lives at stake.”

According to a former longtime member of the appeals board who served under McHenry, EOIR’s director has manipulated even the newly laid out hiring process. “Everyone knows that he was changing the process along the way to ensure he got the candidates he pre-selected,” said the former board member, who spoke to CQ Roll Call on the condition of anonymity because of fear of agency retribution.

EOIR leaders did not respond to questions posed to agency leaders specifically regarding this allegation.

. . . .

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

Read Tanvi’s full article at the link.

Actually, I’m neither neither “ignorant [nor] mendacious.” I probably know more about EOIR than anyone alive. I”ll certainly put my knowledge of immigration law and due process up against anyone at the DOJ today!

The proof of any merit based hiring system is in the results. Nobody, and I mean nobody, outside the world of DOJ politicos and the restrictionist right would claim that the last half-dozen selections for the BIA are the “best and the brightest.” None of them actually have any recent relevant experience representing migrants or asylum seekers.

There must be hundreds if not thousands of immigration practitioners out there who would be better qualified and more deserving of these jobs. Under current conditions, what would a civil servant not actually involved in Immigration Court practice know about what makes a good BIA Appellate Immigration Judge? What would they know about legal issues facing the immigrant community? Next to nothing, to put it generously. So, what’s the benefit of involving them except to “rubber stamp” and “launder” Director McHenry’s anti-immigrant preselections. That’s exactly what the “inside” source in Tanvi’s article confirms!

What is badly needed and sorely lacking is input from the immigration bar and the NGOs who actually practice before the Immigration Courts and the BIA and have seen the unmitigated due process and fundamental fairness disaster that unfolds every day under this Administration. That’s the way other judicial “merit selection” systems are run — with input from outside Government, indeed some even get input from influential non-lawyers within the community being served by the courts.

Such a system was actually used on a number of occasions during the Clinton Administration. And, hiring then didn’t take anywhere near as long as it has under the bloated, biased, and opaque systems employed by the Bush, Obama, and Trump Administrations. Not surprisingly, every appointment to the BIA since 2000 has been some type of “government insider.”

Today’s BIA is largely White, Male, Anglo, and restrictionist. That bears no resemblance whatsoever to the community that the Immigration Courts are supposed to be serving. Indeed, it bears little resemblance to the composition of today’s America or the attitudes of the majority of Americans toward migrants.

Even with tons of “undue deference” given to the BIA by the Article IIIs, scarcely a week goes by without the Article IIIs highlighting some grossly defective performance in the BIA’s interpretation and application of the basics of immigration law and due process. Yet, the BIA selection process makes no effort to encourage or promote private sector applicants renowned and respected in the larger legal community for their scholarship, professionalism, and problem-solving skills. Indeed, some Immigration Judges with just those skills have prematurely been driven from the bench by this Administration’s racially biased and fundamentally unfair manipulation of the Immigration Court process.

The BIA’s bogus hiring process is a prime example of fraud, waste, and abuse. And the failure of Congress and the Article III Courts to put an end to this ridiculous perversion of justice is a disgraceful act of complicity in the disgusting “Dred Scottification” of “the other.”

INTERESTING HISTORICAL FOOTNOTE: The current 23 Board Members is where the BIA was in 2001 before the “Ashcroft Purge” artificially reduced the BIA to 12 Members to eliminate dialogue, suppress dissent, and skew results to favor DHS without any meaningful deliberation or internal opposition. In other words, creating a false impression of consensus by shutting out dissent. The immediate cratering of the quality of the BIA’s decision making caused an uproar of resistance and criticism in the Circuit Courts of Appeals. Since then, the Immigration Courts have been in a two-decade-long “death spiral” with due process, fundamental fairness, judicial integrity, efficiency, and human lives among the victims.

Here’s more from Laura Lynch over at AILA about the ongoing farce at EOIR and the BIA 🤡☠️:

NEW Roll Call article by Tanvi Misra – DOJ hiring changes may help Trump’s plan to curb immigration

AILA and the American Immigration Council Obtain EOIR Hiring Plan via FOIA Litigation

AILA and the American Immigration Council Press Release, New Documents Reveal Immigration Judge Hiring Plan Designed to Stack the Courts, Prioritize Politics Over Justice

This November, vote like your life depends on it! Because it does!

Due Process Forever! Fraudulent “Clown Courts” 🤡 Never!

PWS

05-05-20

Judge Mimi Tsankov @ ABA JOURNAL: 🆘 Immigration Courts Now A Human Rights Catastrophe Threatening The Heart ❤️ & Soul 😇 Of American Justice!

Honorable Mimi Tsankov
U.S. Immigration Judge
Eastern Region Vice President
National Association of Immigration Judges (“NAIJ”)

https://www.americanbar.org/groups/crsj/publications/human_rights_magazine_home/immigration/human-rights-at-risk/

Judge Tsankov writes solely in her capacity as Eastern Region Vice President with the National Association of Immigration Judges (“NAIJ”) in the ABA Journal:

April 28, 2020 HUMAN RIGHTS

Human Rights at Risk: The Immigration Courts Are in Need of an Overhaul

The views expressed here do not represent the official position of the United States Department of Justice, the attorney general, or the Executive Office for Immigration Review. The views represent the author’s personal opinions, which were formed after extensive consultation with the membership of NAIJ.

by Hon. Mimi Tsankov

Share this:

“While immigration courts reside within the executive branch, they should not be merely a tool to achieve desired policy outcomes.”

—Senator Sheldon Whitehouse

So wrote Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) in his February 13, 2020, letter to Attorney General William Barr, in which he and eight members of the Senate Judiciary Committee called upon Barr to take action against, what he termed, an increasingly troubling politicization of the immigration court adjudication process.

The stakes couldn’t be higher for those seeking human rights protection in the form of asylum and other forms of relief from persecution and torture. Individual liberty and personal safety interests are often at stake in immigration court proceedings where immigration judges have the authority to grant protection from persecution. Id.; see also, 8 U.S.C. 1158. Whitehouse gave voice to what is becoming an alarming trend—the increasing political influence over individual immigration cases. This action, he explained, is undermining the public’s confidence in the immigration courts and creating an impression that “cases are being decided based on political considerations rather than the relevant facts and law. The appearance of bias alone is corrosive to the public trust.” Whitehouse Letter, supra, at 5; see also, 8 U.S.C. Section 1229a(b)(4)(A) and (B); 8 C.F.R. 1003.10(b).

Whitehouse recounted a sentiment articulated previously by a host of legal community leaders for more than a decade, not the least of which was ABA President Judy Perry Martinez, who in a recent statement before the U.S. Congress explained that housing a court within a law enforcement agency has exacerbated an inherent conflict of interest undermining “the basic structural and procedural safeguards that we take for granted in other areas of our justice system.” See, Am. Bar. Assoc., 2019 Update Report: Reforming the Immigration System, Proposals to Promote Independence, Fairness, Efficiency, and Professionalism in the Adjudication of Removal Cases (Mar. 2019). As she explained, “this structural flaw leaves Immigration Judges particularly vulnerable to political pressure and interference in case management.” Martinez Testimony, supra, at 1.

It is important to note that these concerns are being expressed on the heels of what some see as growing impunity within the executive branch, focused almost single-mindedly on the speed of removal hearings at the risk of diminished due process. See Statement of Jeremy McKinney, Secretary, American Immigration Lawyer’s Association, NPR, Justice Department Rolls Out Quotas for Immigration Judges (April 3, 2018). The Justice Department is being charged with implementing a host of policies that diminish the primary responsibility of ensuring a fair hearing. For the past three years, the attorney general has used a process known as “certification,” a power historically used sparingly, to overrule decisions made by the Board of Immigration Appeals and set binding precedent. Id. Some have argued that the frequency with which this procedure has recently been employed borders on abuse as it seeks to severely limit the number of immigrants who can remain in the United States. Whitehouse Letter, supra, at 5. Equally troubling is the charge that the attorney general is using certification as a way to overrule immigration judges whose decisions don’t align with the administration’s immigration agenda. Id.

One area of particular concern is the recent encroachment by the agency into judicial independence. The National Association of Immigration Judges (NAIJ), which is the union representing sitting immigration judges, argues, alongside many others in the legal community, that these incursions into judicial independence are part of a broader effort to fundamentally alter how immigration removal cases are adjudicated, and that such actions are having deleterious effects. See Statement of Judge A. Ashley Tabaddor, President of the National Association of Immigration Judges, Before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Border Security and Immigration Subcommittee Hearing on “Strengthening and Reforming America’s Immigration Court System” 2 (Apr. 18, 2018).

An overcrowded, fenced area holds families at a border patrol station in McAllen, Texas.

Thomas Cizauskas from Flickr

Among the new measures implemented by the Justice Department are unrealistic and impractical one-size-fits-all case quotas and deadlines that squeeze immigration judges where they are most vulnerable—their status as “employees.” If an immigration judge provides one too many case continuances, even though related to a valid due process concern, she risks being terminated. Every pause for judicial reflection, or break for much needed legal research, risks slowing down the “deportation machinery” that the adjudication process is veering toward and threatens to eviscerate procedural due process, even though such due process is mandated by the U.S. Constitution. Id.

These controversial new policies have become so pervasive and so threatening to judicial independence that they have raised alarms. What began in 2018 as a few dramatic instances involving the abrupt removal and reassignment of cases from an immigration judge’s docket previewed the agency’s more recent alarming actions where the shuffling of scores of cases and entire dockets sometimes multiple times within a single day has become the norm. The endless docket shuffling, and the chasing of performance “completions” that correspond to a job-preserving metric, seems designed to make political statements rather than ensuring victims of human rights abuses are afforded due process. A complex, multi-witness, multi-issue hearing is afforded the same value as an order of removal for failure to appear at a hearing. See Mimi Tsankov, Judicial Independence Sidelined: Just One More Symptom of an Immigration System Reeling, 55 Cal. W. L. Rev. 2 (2019).

. . . .

Mimi Tsankov serves as eastern region vice president with the National Association of Immigration Judges and has been a full-time immigration judge since 2006.

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

Read Judge Tsankov’s complete article at the link.Thanks Judge Tsankov. You are a “True American Hero!” 🗽🎖👩‍⚖️👍🏼

The situation in the Immigration Courts is totally out of control and unacceptable. Both Congress and the Article III Courts have failed in their duties to require and enforce the “fair and impartial adjudication” required by the Fifth Amendment to our Constitution.

These grotesque derelictions of duty are inexcusable. They call not just for an independent Immigration Court but also for “regime change” in both the Executive and the Senate and a total rethinking of what qualities should be required for the privilege of serving for life in the Article III Judiciary.

While there are many Article III derelictions of duty out there (and some courageous performances, particularly among the ranks of U.S. District Judges), I’m specifically highlighting the disgraceful performance of the “J.R. Five” ☠️🤮👎🏻 on the Supremes, who have been AWOL on Due Process, immigration, human rights, and humanity itself when our country needs them most. Never again! We need a better Supreme Court, one that lives up to its role as America’s highest tribunal entrusted with protecting our Constitutional, individual, and human rights! John Marshall must be turning over in his grave with the wimpy performance of John Roberts in the face of Executive tyranny and contempt for our Constitution!

Due Process Forever! Complicit Courts & Star Chambers, Never!

This November, vote like your life depends on it! Because it does!

PWS

05-02-20

DUE PROCESS FARCE CONTINUES @ BIA 🤡 — Billy Barr Appoints More Anti-Asylum Enforcement Zealots To Appellate Division Of Crown’s Star Chambers!☠️☹️

Laura Lynch of AILA reports:

Hi all-

DOJ EOIR announced today that it hired 3 new appellate IJs- https://www.justice.gov/eoir/page/file/1272731/download.

Philip Montante- Batavia NY

TRAC Analysis – FY2014-2019 – Judge Montante denied 96.3% asylum cases and granted (including conditional grants) 3.7%.

Kevin Riley – Los Angeles – N. Los Angeles St. Immigration Court

TRAC Analysis – FY2014- 2019 – Judge Riley denied 88.1% asylum cases and granted (including conditional grants) 11.9%

Aaron R. Petty, Former OIL, National Security Counsel. Previously worked on Operation Janus cases.

Laura A. Lynch, Esq.

Senior Policy Counsel

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

The trashing of Due Process and fundamental fairness, as well as abuse of the merit selection system continues unabated under the Trump regime.

How long will this parody of justice continue? How many lives will be unnecessarily lost?

Due Process Forever! Star Chambers, Never!
P

PWS

05-02-20

“NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET” 🪓🔪 — MALE, PALE WHITE, & FAR RIGHT — The Clown Prince 🤡 & Moscow Mitch 👹 Have Put Together An Extreme Bench That Looks, Thinks, and Acts Nothing Like The Real America — Their Evil Specter 🧛‍♂️🧟‍♀️ Will Haunt Our Justice System For Decades To Come 💣! — Judges Should Have Demonstrated Reputations For Fairness, Scholarship, Courage, & Relevant Experience Successfully Interacting With A Broad Base Of Humanity, Not Just Reliable Right-Wing Voting Records!

The Honorable Shira Scheindlin — The Honorable Shira A. Scheindlin
Retired US District Judge
SDNY
Spector8745, 8/6/13, 8:58 AM, 8C, 3000×4000 (0+0), 50%, ten stop S cur, 1/12 s, R38.4, G30.1, B67.6

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/apr/28/trump-judges-giant-step-backward-america?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

Hon. Shira A. Scheindlin writes in The Guardian:

Whether or not he is re-elected, Donald Trump will be revered by conservatives for his judicial appointments. As of March, Trump has appointed 193 judges to the federal bench, with another 39 pending on the floor of the Senate or in the Senate judiciary committee. Those nominations will surely be acted on favorably by the Senate before 20 January 2021, when there may be a new president and a new Senate. There are another 38 district court vacancies awaiting nominations. In one presidential term, Trump may appoint up to 270 federal judges, or 31% of the entire federal judiciary. For perspective, Barack Obama appointed 329 in eight years.

There is no doubt that the Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell, will confirm Trump’s appointments until the very last day of his term. This is of course the same Senate gatekeeper who infamously blocked Obama’s final supreme court nomination, Merrick Garland, for an entire year – on the ground that in the final year of a presidency, the Senate should await “the will of the people” in the upcoming general election. But that was then. The rules have apparently changed. McConnell will pack the courts with “right-thinking” ideologues who will carry out Trump’s agenda long after he has been subjected to the scorn of historical scrutiny.

We now know a lot about Trump’s judicial appointments. Eighty-five per cent are white and 76% are male. This is a significant step backward. Obama’s judicial appointments were 64% white and 58% male. Today, after more than three years of Trump’s appointments, the federal judiciary is 73% white and 66% male, but it will be even more male and pale by the end of his term. Even more troubling is the average age of the Trump judges. According to Brookings, the median age of Trump’s judicial appointments by the beginning of his fourth year in office is 48.2. By the same time in his presidency, the median age of Obama’s appointees was 57.2. This means that Trump judges will serve, on average, for 10 years more than the Obama judges.

Advertisement

Hide

Statistics only tell part of the story. More important is the impact of these statistics on the critical issues that face the courts now and in the future. Courts should reflect the people they serve. I served as a federal district judge for 22 years. The vast majority of criminal defendants (in non-white-collar cases) were either African American or Hispanic, as were their family members. Plaintiffs in employment discrimination cases were overwhelmingly women, minorities or persons with disabilities. The same was true in actions involving prisoner rights, voting rights, housing discrimination and public benefits. Not all cases involve big corporations and business disputes.

Trump’s court takeover

This series examines the historic pace and nature of Trump’s remaking of the federal courts and the conservative agenda it will usher in on a range of issues from voting rights to climate and from healthcare to criminal justice

More from this series

A diverse bench engenders trust and credibility. Many studies have shown that decision-makers reach better decisions when they bring a variety of experiences to their analysis. A 36-year-old lawyer who has never tried a case, has not represented individual clients, and has not spent years facing life’s challenges is not well-positioned to decide on the length of a prison term, the need for access to healthcare, abortion, food stamps, Medicare or housing, or the impact of pollution or discrimination on working people’s quality of life. It is for this reason the American Bar Association’s standing committee on the federal judiciary insists that a candidate for judicial office have at least 12 years of experience practicing law – not talking about it as a speech writer, lobbyist or media star.

When I was appointed to the bench I was 48. I had been a federal prosecutor, a defense lawyer, and had handled many civil cases in trial and appellate courts. That experience was invaluable. I knew both the substance and procedure of federal practice. The same cannot be said of many of Trump’s nominees, whose only qualifications appear to be their consistently rightwing voting records.

Consider the following four Trump judges, all of whom were appointed in their 30s. What they have in common is not their legal experience, but their outspoken support of Trump’s political agenda. All were members of the Federalist Society or other rightwing organizations, clerked for conservative judges, and have written articles or advocated for legal positions that are vastly out of step with most Americans.

Allison Rushing was 36 when she was confirmed to a seat on the fourth circuit court of appeals, 11 years after graduating from law school, and Trump’s youngest nominee to a circuit court judgeship. She clerked for then-circuit judge Neil Gorsuch and for Justice Clarence Thomas. Her law practice during the remaining nine years was limited to representing big corporations at one of the nation’s largest law firms.

Andrew Brasher was 38 when he was confirmed to a seat on the 11th circuit court of appeals, after serving for only nine months on the district court for the middle district of Alabama. In the years just before his appointment he served as Alabama’s solicitor general, often advocating for rightwing causes.

Advertisement

Hide

Justin Walker, best known for his full-throated defense of Brett Kavanaugh (for whom he clerked), was appointed as a district judge in the western district of Kentucky, at 37, just 10 years after graduating law school. He is a protege of Mitch McConnell, who held up debate on a Covid-19 relief bill to attend Walker’s induction ceremony. Less than six months after Walker took the bench, Trump announced that he intended to nominate him for an upcoming vacancy on the DC court of appeals.

Patrick Wyrick was 38 when he was confirmed as a judge for the western district of Oklahoma. Four years after graduating law school he became the solicitor general of Oklahoma. He is a protege of Scott Pruitt, the disgraced former head of the Environmental Protection Agency.

One of these judges could easily end up on the supreme court; two are known to be on the shortlist. All will probably still be on the bench 40 years from now. That alone should make voters think hard about the upcoming presidential election. As the saying goes: elections have consequences.

Shira A Scheindlin served as a United States district judge for the southern district of New York for 22 years. She is the co-chair of the Board of the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law and a board member of the American Constitution Society

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

I’ve been preaching on “Courtside” for some time now about the serious deterioration of America’s Article III Judiciary in the face of Trump’s tyranny. While there are some notable exceptions among appointees of both parties, even some of the “non-Trump appointees” have done a less than heroic job of standing up for Due Process, fundamental fairness, equal justice for all, and human rights, particularly when it comes to vulnerable migrants and asylum seekers, some children, being abused by a system that just no longer cares.

Witness the clearly unconstitutional and essentially unconscionable abuse and open mockery of the American Justice system, the rule of law, and respect for human dignity going on every day in our broken and dysfunctional U.S. Immigration “Courts” that betray and sometimes mock the most fundamental of American values.

Any Article III Judge personally subjected to the kind of intentional dehumanization (a/k/a/ “Dred Scottification”) and disrespect going on daily in Immigration Court would be outraged! But, that outrage seems to disappear when the grotesque abuses are only being inflicted on “the other.” Since, according to Trump and his cronies, the majority of Americans are “the other” — in some way or another — this abdication of judicial integrity has ominous implications far beyond the “world of immigration” — where those mistreated often get deported so their voices can no longer be heard!

While, yes, the Administration frequently gets bashed by some U.S. District Courts and some Circuits, we’re only getting at the “tip of the iceberg” for a system that is allowed to grind out unfair and substandard results and where far too many are simply railroaded out of the country without fair access to lawyers, Article III judicial review, and even time to prepare their cases or understand what they are required to prove to save their lives.

Emboldened by judicial intransigence and fecklessness, the Administration has now “one-upped” the complicit Article IIIs by simply unilaterally, and without legislation, cutting off access to even the Immigration Courts while the “J.R. Five” nods approval like a bunch of “judicial bobbleheads” gracing Stephen Miller’s mantle.

No, we can’t change life tenure. But, we can elect a President and a Senate majority committed to a diverse Federal Judiciary that will put excellence, due process, equal justice, human rights, and human understanding and empathy before far-right ideology. That’s an important start on fighting back and taking the challenge directly to those now on the bench who are committed to dehumanizing, degrading, and ignoring the rights of those who comprise the real America.

This November, vote like your life depends on it. Because it does!

PWS

04-29-20

DUE PROCESS/GENDER-BASED ASYLUM WINS: 1st Cir. Slams BIA, Sessions’s Matter of A-B- Atrocity – Remands For Competent Adjudication of Gender-Based Asylum Claim — DE PENA-PANIAGUA v. BARR

DE PENA-PANIAGUA v. BARR, 1^st Cir., 04-24-20, published

OLBD OPINION VACATING AND REMANDING

PANEL: Howard, Chief Judge, Kayatta and Barron, Circuit Judges.

OPINION BY: Judge Kayetta

KEY EXCERPTS (Courtesy of Amer S. Ahmed, Esquire, Gibson Dunn, Pro Bono Counsel for the Round Table of Former Immigration Judges as Amici):

[The BIA] added, however, that “[e]ven if [De Pena] had

suffered harm rising to the level of past persecution,” De Pena’s

proposed particular social groups are analogous to those in Matter

of A-R-C-G, 26 I. & N. Dec. 388 (BIA 2014), which the BIA

understood to have been “overruled” by the Attorney General in

Matter of A-B, 27 I. & N. Dec. 316, 319 (A.G. 2018). The BIA read

A-B as “determin[ing] that the particular social group of ‘married

women in Guatemala who are unable to leave their relationship’ did

not meet the legal standards to qualify as a valid particular

social group.”

…

That conclusion poses two questions to be resolved on

this appeal: First, does A-B categorically reject any social group

defined in material part by its members’ “inability to leave” the

relationships in which they are being persecuted; and, second, if

so, is A-B to that extent consistent with the law?

…

Is it reasonable to read the law as supporting such a categorical

rejection of any group defined by its members’ inability to leave

relationships with their abusers? A-B itself cites only fiat to

support its affirmative answer to this question. It presumes that

the inability to leave is always caused by the persecution from

which the noncitizen seeks haven, and it presumes that no type of

persecution can do double duty, both helping to define the

particular social group and providing the harm blocking the pathway

to that haven. These presumptions strike us as arbitrary on at

least two grounds.

….

First, a woman’s inability to leave a relationship may

be the product of forces other than physical abuse. In

Perez-Rabanales v. Sessions, we distinguished a putative group of

women defined by their attempt “to escape systemic and severe

violence” from a group defined as “married women in Guatemala who

are unable to leave their relationship,” describing only the former

as defined by the persecution of its members. 881 F.3d 61, 67

(1st Cir. 2018). In fact, the combination of several cultural,

societal, religious, economic, or other factors may in some cases

explain why a woman is unable to leave a relationship.

…

We therefore do not see any basis other

than arbitrary and unexamined fiat for categorically decreeing

without examination that there are no women in Guatemala who

reasonably feel unable to leave domestic relationships as a result

of forces other than physical abuse. In such cases, physical abuse

might be visited upon women because they are among those unable to

leave, even though such abuse does not define membership in the group

of women who are unable to leave.

…

Second, threatened physical abuse that precludes

departure from a domestic relationship may not always be the same

in type or quality as the physical abuse visited upon a woman

within the relationship. More importantly, we see no logic or

reason behind the assertion that abuse cannot do double duty, both

helping to define the group, and providing the basis for a finding

of persecution. An unfreed slave in first century Rome might well

have been persecuted precisely because he had been enslaved (making

him all the same unable to leave his master). Yet we see no reason

why such a person could not seek asylum merely because the threat

of abuse maintained his enslaved status. As DHS itself once

observed, the “sustained physical abuse of [a] slave undoubtedly

could constitute persecution independently of the condition of

slavery.” Brief of DHS at 34 n.10, Matter of R-A, 23 I. & N. Dec.

694 (A.G. 2005).

For these reasons, we reject as arbitrary and unexamined

the BIA holding in this case that De Pena’s claim necessarily fails

because the groups to which she claims to belong are necessarily

deficient. Rather, the BIA need consider, at least, whether the

proffered groups exist and in fact satisfy the requirements for

constituting a particular social group to which De Pena belongs.

Amer S. Ahmed

GIBSON DUNN

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

Read the full opinion at the link above.

While Judge Kayetta does not specifically cite our Round Table’s brief, a number of our arguments are reflected in the opinion. Undoubtedly, with lots of help from Amer and our other superstar friends over at Gibson Dunn, we’re continuing to make a difference and hopefully save some deserving lives of the refugees intentionally screwed by our dysfunctional Immigration Court system under a politicized DOJ.

I’ve heard of the bogus rationale used by the BIA in this case reflected in a number of wrongly decided unpublished asylum denials by both the BIA and Immigration Judges. This should make for plenty of remands, slowing down the “Deportation Railroad,” jacking up the backlog, and once again showing the “substantial downside” of idiotic “haste makes waste shenanigans” at EOIR and allowing biased, unqualified White Nationalist hacks like Sessions and Barr improperly to interfere with what are supposed to be fair and impartial adjudications consistent with Due Process and fundamental fairness.

Great as this decision is, it begs the overriding issue: Why is a non-judicial political official, particularly one with as strong a prosecutorial bias as Sessions or Barr, allowed to intervene in a quasi-judicial decision involving an individual and not only reverse the result of that quasi-judicial tribunal, but also claim to set a “precedent” that is binding in other quasi-judicial proceedings? Clearly, neither Ms. De Pena-Paniagua nor any other respondent subject to a final order of removal under this system received the “fair and impartial decision by an unbiased decision-maker” which is a minimum requirement under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

Let’s put it in terms that an Article III Circuit Court Judge should understand. Suppose Jane Q. Public sues the United States in U.S. District Court in Boston and wins a judgment. Unhappy with the result, Attorney General Billy Barr orders the U.S. District Judge to send the case to him for review. He enters a decision reversing the U.S. District Judge and dismissing Public’s claim against the United States. Then, he orders all U.S. District Judges in the District of Massachusetts to follow his decision and threatens to have them removed from their positions or demoted to non-judicial positions if they refuse.

The First Circuit or any other Court of Appeals would be outraged by this result and invalidate it as unconstitutional in a heartbeat! They likely would also find Barr in contempt and refer him to state bar authorities with a recommendation that his law license be revoked or suspended.

Yet this is precisely what happened to Ms. A-B-, Ms. De Pena Paniagua, and thousands of other asylum applicants in Immigration Court. It happens every working day in Immigration Courts throughout the nation. It will continue to happen until Article III Appellate Judges live up to their oaths of fealty to the Constitution and stop the outrageous, life-threatening miscarriages of justice and human dignity going on in our unconstitutional, illegal, fundamentally unfair, and dysfunctional Immigration Courts.

Due Process Forever!

PWS

04-24-20

INSANITY ALWAYS ON THE DOCKET @ EOIR: Court Cleaners In Hazmat Suits Add To The “Clown Court” 🤡 Atmosphere — But, Those Forced To Risk Their Lives ☠️ To Keep The Deportation Railroad 🚂 Rolling Aren’t Laughing 😰!

Hon. A. Ashlley Tabaddor — Hon. A. Ashley Tabaddor
President, National
Association of Immigration Judges (“NAIJ”)

Trump’s ‘Deportation Machine’ Keeps Growing Despite Pandemic – Bloomberg

Malathi Nayak reports for Bloomberg News:

As President Donald Trump prepares to pause immigration into the U.S., the court system that handles the removal of immigrants is projected to issue nearly 60% more deportation orders than last year.

With the rest of the U.S. legal system grinding to a near halt amid the pandemic, at the nation’s 69 federal immigration courts cleaning crews clad in hazmat suits are regularly used to make sure in-person hearings can continue. The courts are moving at speed to reduce a massive backlog of cases despite outdated technology and criticism from advocacy groups and a union representing most of the nation’s 460 immigration judges, who say the pace is putting people at risk of infection.

“The deportation machine has not stopped,” said Florida immigration lawyer Ira Kurzban. “It’s somewhat outrageous given the current circumstances.”

While the number of people deported from the U.S. fell in March, one research group predicts that the total number of deportation orders will rise for the 2020 fiscal year, despite the pandemic. The Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse, a Syracuse University group that tracks government enforcement actions, estimates there will be 340,500 deportation orders in the year ending Sept. 30, 2020, up from 215,535 for the prior year. A spokeswoman for the Justice Department, which oversees immigration courts, declined to comment on the projection, saying it doesn’t certify third-party statistics.

The National Association of Immigration Judges says the continued operation of the courts is unsafe and has called for them to be closed. The Trump administration in 2018 set a quota for each immigration judge to close 700 cases a year, a requirement that remains in force during the pandemic, said Ashley Tabaddor, president of the union.

‘Hobbesian Choice’

U.S. immigration judges are “being forced into this Hobbesian choice of risking their health and having to keep their jobs,” said Tabaddor. She cites a colleague who is trying to meet his quota while minimizing his health risk as a throat cancer survivor.

Along with the judges, 1,200 support staff work in the nation’s immigration courts. Those courts are taking precautionary steps similar to those elsewhere in the federal system “to reduce the likelihood of exposure to Covid-19,” including holding hearings via phone or video conference whenever possible, according to Kathryn Mattingly, a Justice Department spokeswoman. Hearings involving people not in custody have also been suspended until May 15.

But judges and lawyers said it is harder for the immigration courts to operate remotely than other federal courts. While electronic document filing is routine in other federal courts, the immigration courts have struggled to introduce it, leaving most documents in paper form. Though some filings are now accepted by email, the many court employees without laptops need to come into the office to access them.

“The immigration courts are probably 20 years behind federal courts in terms of technology,” said Jeff Chase, a former immigration judge. Moreover, some immigration courts have rules where opting for a phone hearing means giving up the right to object to documents submitted by ICE, he said.

The current situation has immigration lawyers choosing between their personal well-being and a client’s future, Chase said. “Lawyers should not be put in this position.”

. . . .

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

Read the rest of the article at the link.

Nice quotes from Judges Tabaddor and Chase!

Actually, when the “off docket”cases are factored in, the backlog exceeds 1.4 million cases. Even with artificially accelerated production, and if no new cases were filed by DHS (reality check — receipts have been exceeding completions for years) it would take until 2024 to “clear” the existing backlog. But, the reality is that even by speeding up the “Deportation Railroad,” adding new often inadequately trained judges largely from the ranks of prosecutors, eliminating Due Process, demeaning their own employees, and unethically skewing the law against migrants, EOIR has been unable to reduce the backlog by even one case under the Trump regime!

Indeed, when all of the pending and “off docket” cases are considered, the already large backlog left behind by the Obama Administration has more than doubled, and is well on its way to tripling, under the Trump regime’s “malicious incompetence” and pattern of often illegal and irrational behavior. Many of the “final orders of deportation” being cranked out by EOIR are either legally wrong or counterproductive — deporting harmless individuals who actually are productive members of our society, often with U.S. citizen family members. This system, including the mindless abuse of docket space by DHS Enforcement and “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” by EOIR, is broken! Yet, it’s allowed to continue grinding away, putting lives in danger in more ways than one.

And, speaking of incompetence, whether malicious or not, I was on the initial “E-Filing Group” that submitted comprehensive recommendations and a detailed plan for implementing e-filing to ”EOIR management” back in 2001 or 2002. Since then, successive waves of EOIR “management” have squandered time, money, and public trust without producing a usable product. Meanwhile, almost every other court in America has designed and implemented e-filing systems. This catastrophic failure in and of itself would more than justify eliminating EOIR and replacing it with a judicially-managed, independent, professionally administered court system that would guarantee due process, efficiency, and fundamental fairness for all.

But, that’s by no means the only problem at EOIR. It’s unconstitutional, unfair, dysfunctional, unprofessional, and downright dangerous. I have posted recently about how Courts of Appeals continue to find that the BIA has grossly misinterpreted, distorted, and/or misapplied both law and facts in “life or death cases.” Is “good enough for government work” really OK for human lives? That neither Congress nor the Article III Courts have had the guts and decency to put an end to this life-threatening farce staining our justice system is an unforgivable national disgrace.

Those of us who understand exactly what’s happening at EOIR under the Trump kakistocracy might at the moment be powerless to change it. But, we’re continuing to challenge the unacceptable status quo and making a public record of this grotesque malfeasance and of those in all three branches of Government who are “papering over” (and by doing so enabling) EOIR’s abuses. Eventually, positive change will come. The only question is how many lives and futures will unnecessarily be lost before it does?

Due Process Forever! Deadly ☠️ Clown Courts, 🤡 Never!

PWS

04-23-20

HON. JEFFREY S. CHASE: Matter of R-A-V-P- (Bond Denial) — Maximo Cruelty, Minimal Rationality, Idiotic Timing! — BONUS: My “Monday Mini-Essay:” “ HOW EOIR’S ‘CAPTIVE COURTS’ INTENTIONALLY DISTORT AND PERVERT JUSTICE — The Shocking Failure Of Congress & The Article IIIs To Stand Up For Justice In America!”

Hon. Jeffrey S. Chase
Jeffrey S. Chase Blog
Coordinator & Chief Spokesperson, Round Table of Retired Immigration Judges

https://www.jeffreyschase.com/blog/2020/4/6/bia-lock-them-up

Blog Archive Press and Interviews Calendar Contact

BIA: “Lock Them Up!”

In the words of the Supreme Court, “Freedom from imprisonment – from government custody, detention, or other forms of physical restraint – lies at the heart of the liberty that [the Due Process] Clause protects.”1 While imprisonment usually occurs in the criminal context, courts have allowed detention under our immigration laws, which are civil and (purportedly) non-punitive, only to protect the public from danger or to ensure the noncitizen’s appearance at future hearings.2 Case law thus requires a determination that a detained noncitizen does not present a danger to the public, a risk to national security, or a flight risk in order to be eligible for bond under section 236 of the I&N Act.

The Board of Immigration Appeals has acknowledged the complexity of such determinations. In it’s 2006 decision in Matter of Guerra,3 the Board suggested nine factors that an immigration judge may consider in deciding if bond is warranted. The list included whether the respondent has a fixed U.S. address; the length of residence, employment history, and family ties in this country (and whether such ties might lead to legal status); the respondent’s criminal record, and their record of appearing in court, fleeing prosecution, violating immigration laws, and manner of entry to the U.S. But the Board made clear that an immigration judge has broad discretion in deciding what factors to consider and how much weight to afford each factor.The ultimate test is whether the decision was reasonable.

What makes such a decision reasonable? Given what the Supreme Court has called “an individual’s constitutionally-protected interest in avoiding physical restraint,”4 Guerra’s broad discretion must be interpreted as an acknowledgment of the inadequacy of relying on “one size fits all” presumptions as a basis for overriding such a fundamental constitutional right. In allowing IJs to consider what factors to consider and how to weigh them, Guerra should be read as directing those judges to delve deeply into the question of whether the noncitizen poses a danger or a flight risk. Obviously, all recently-arrived immigrants are not flight risks, and all of those charged with crimes don’t pose a threat to society.As the trier of fact, immigration judges are best able to use their proximity to the respondent, the government, and the evidence and witnesses presented to determine what factors are most indicative of the likelihood that the respondent will see their hearings through to the end and abide by the result, or in the case of criminal history, the likelihood of recidivism.

In considering the continued custody of one with no criminal record, the risk to public safety or national security are generally not factors. And in Matter of R-A-V-P-,5 a case recently decided by the BIA, the immigration judge found that the respondent, an asylum-seeker with no criminal record, presented no risk on either of those counts. However, the immigration judge denied bond on the belief that the respondent was a flight risk, and it was that determination that the BIA was asked to consider on appeal.

How does one determine whether someone detained upon arrival is likely to appear for their hearings? It is obviously more complicated than whether one presents a threat to public safety, in which the nature of the criminal record will often be determinative. In R-A-V-P-, the Board repeated the nine Matter of Guerra factors, and added a tenth: the likelihood that relief will be granted.

As stated above, Guerra made clear that these were suggestions; the immigration judge could consider, ignore, and weigh whatever factors they reasonably found relevant to the inquiry. Furthermore, many of the listed Guerra factors were not applicable to the respondent. Guerra involved a respondent found to pose a danger to others. The nine factors laid out in the decision were not specific to the question of flight risk; clearly, all the listed factors were not meant to apply in all cases. As to the specific case of R-A-V-P-, obviously, someone who was detained since arrival can have no fixed address, length of residence, or employment history in this country. The respondent’s history of appearing for hearings also reveals little where all appearances occurred in detention.And the Guerra factors relating to criminal record and history of fleeing prosecution are inapplicable to a respondent never charged with a crime.

The Board’s decision in R-A-V-P- is very short on details that would provide meaningful context. There is no mention of any evidence presented by DHS to support a flight risk finding. In fact, the absence of any listing of government counsel in the case caption indicates that DHS filed no brief at all on appeal, a point that doesn’t appear to have made a difference in the outcome.6

The few facts that are mentioned in the decision seem to indicate that the respondent sought asylum from Honduras based on his sexual orientation. Not mentioned were the facts that the respondent entered as a youth, and that although he entered the U.S. without inspection, he made no attempt to evade immigration authorities after entry. To the contrary, he immediately sought out such authorities and expressed to them his intention to apply for asylum.These facts would seem quite favorable in considering the Guerra factors of the respondent’s “history of immigration violations,” manner of entry to the U.S., and attempts to “otherwise escape from authorities.”7 And although not mentioned in Guerra, the respondent is also represented by highly competent counsel, a factor that has been demonstrated to significantly increase the likelihood of appearance, and one within the IJ’s broad discretion to consider as weighing in the respondent’s favor.

Regarding the tenth criteria introduced by the Board, i.e., the likelihood of relief being granted, the persecution of LGBTI individuals is well-documented in Honduras, and prominently mentioned in the U.S. Department of State’s country report on human rights practices for that country. The State Department reported an increase in killings of LGBTI persons in Honduras in 2019, and that 92 percent of hate crimes and acts of violence committed against the LGBTI community went unpunished. Such asylum claims are commonly granted by asylum officers, immigration judges, and the BIA.

Yet the Board took a very strange approach to this point. It chose to ignore how such claims actually fare, and instead speak in vague, general terms of how “eligibility for asylum can be difficult to establish,” even for those who were found to have a credible fear of persecution. The Board next noted only that the immigration judge found that the respondent “did not demonstrate a sufficient likelihood that he would be granted asylum,” without itself analyzing whether such conclusion was proper.

In fact, the immigration judge did deny the asylum claim; a separate appeal form that decision remains pending before the BIA. But the Board missed an important point.The question isn’t whether the respondent will be granted asylum; it’s whether his application for asylum will provide enough impetus for him to appear for his hearings relating to such relief. From my experience both as an attorney and an immigration judge, the answer in this case is yes.One with such a claim as the respondent’s who is represented by counsel such as his will almost certainly appear for all his hearings.The author of the Board’s decision, Acting BIA Chair Garry Malphrus, did sit as an immigration judge in a non-detained court for several years before joining the BIA. I’m willing to bet that he had few if any non-appearances on cases such as the respondent’s.

Yet the Board’s was dismissive of the respondent’s asylum claim, which it termed a “limited avenue of relief” not likely to warrant his appearance in court. Its conclusion is strongly at odds with actual experience. Early in my career, I represented asylum seekers who arrived in this country in what was then known as “TRWOV” (transit without visa) status, which meant that the airline they traveled on was responsible for their detention. The airline in question hired private guards to detain the group in a Queens motel.As time passed, the airline calculated that it would be cheaper to let those in their charge escape and pay the fine than to bear the ongoing detention costs. The airline therefore opened the doors and had the guards leave, only to find the asylum seekers waiting in the motel when they returned hours later.None were seeking to abscond; all sought only their day in court.And that was the determinative factor in their rejecting the invitation to flee; none had employment records, community ties, or most of the other factors held out as more important by the BIA in R-A-V-P-. They chose to remain in detention rather than jeopardize their ability to pursue their asylum claims.

My clients in the above example had a good likelihood of being granted asylum. But volunteering in an immigration law clinic three decades later, I see on a weekly basis individuals with much less hope of success nevertheless show up for all of their hearings, because, even in these dark times, they maintain faith that in America, an impartial judge will listen to their claim and provide them with a fair result. In one case, an unrepresented asylum applicant recently released from detention flew across the country for a preliminary master calendar hearing because the immigration judge had not yet ruled on his motion for a change of venue.

So for what reason did the BIA determine that the respondent in R-A-V-P- would behave to the contrary? The Board made much of the fact that an individual who promised to pay for the respondent’s bus ticket and provide him with a place to live (an offer which the Board referred to as “laudable”) was a friend and not a family member of the respondent. But on what basis can it be concluded that living with a cousin rather than a friend increases the chances of his future appearance in court? In the absence of statistics or reports that support such determination, is this fact deserving of such discretionary weight? The Board felt it could rely on this factor simply because it was mentioned in Matter of Guerra. But while that decision requires a finding that the IJ’s conclusion was reasonable, the decision in R-A-V-P- appears to be based more on a hunch than a reasoned conclusion, with the Board referencing seemingly random factors in support of its conclusion without explaining why such factors deserve the weight they were afforded, while ignoring other more relevant factors that would weigh in favor of release.

The respondent has now been detained for well over a year, including the seven months his bond appeal lingered before the Board, a very significant deprivation of liberty. The respondent’s asylum appeal remains to be decided, likely by a different Board Member or panel than that which decided his bond appeal.But now that the majority of the Board has voted to publish the bond denial as a precedent decision, what is the likelihood that any Board member will review that appeal with an unbiased eye?

As a final point, although the drafting of the decision likely began months earlier, the Board nevertheless chose to allow the decision to be published as precedent in the midst of an unprecedented health pandemic that poses a particular threat to those detained in immigration jails. So at a time when health professionals and numerous other groups are pleading for the government to release as many as possible from immigration detention centers, the BIA chose to instead issue a decision that will likely lead to an opposite result.

Notes:

Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 690 (2001).

Ibid; Robert Pauw, Litigating Immigration Cases in Federal Court (4th Ed.) (AILA, 2017) at 418.

24 I&N Dec. 37 (BIA 2006).

Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346, 356 (1997).

27 I&N Dec. 803 (BIA 2020).

Appeals may be summarily dismissed due to the failure to file a brief or to sufficiently state a ground for appeal. However, the BIA does not view an appeal or motion as unopposed where ICE files no brief.

Matter of Guerra, supra at 40.

Copyright 2020 Jeffrey S. Chase. All rights reserved.

APRIL 6, 2020

NEXT

Like “Firing Randomly Into a Crowd”

Repriented with permission.

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

HOW EOIR’S “CAPTIVE COURTS” INTENTIONALLY DISTORT AND PERVERT JUSTICE — The Shocking Failure Of Congress & The Article IIIs To Stand Up For Justice In America!

By Paul Wickham Schmidt

“Courtside” Exclusive

April 6, 2020

Jeffrey and I both get to pretty much the same “bottom line” here. But, as usual, he is more “nuanced” in his approach.

Here’s my earlier, less subtitle, take on this outrageously wrong and unjust precedent by Billy Barr’s wholly-owned subsidiary, the BIA: https://immigrationcourtside.com/2020/04/02/timing-is-everything-during-crisis-bia-makes-time-for-a-little-gratuitous-cruelty-what-could-be-better-during-worldwide-pandemic-humanitarian-disaster-than-an-attempt-to-narrow-the-criteria-for-c/

Certainly, the DOJ’s two-decade program, under Bush, Obama, and now Trump, of systematically excluding from the BIA (and also largely from the Immigration Judiciary, with a more than 9-1 government/private sector hiring ratio) any acknowledged immigration and human rights expertise from those who actually represent and work with asylum applicants is paying huge dividends for Trump’s nativist immigration agenda.

A “captive BIA” well-attuned to “not rocking the boat” and “implementing the Attorney General’s priorities” abandons due process and fundamental fairness for individuals. Instead, they crank out an endless stream of one-sided pro-DHS-enforcement “precedents.”

Led by the Supremes’ “supreme abdication of judicial duties” in Chevron and Brand X, the Courts of Appeals and sometimes the Supremes themselves “defer” to “any old interpretation” by the BIA rather than undertaking the more challenging search for the “best interpretation.” In immigration law, “deference” to the BIA “tilts the playing field” overwhelming in favor of DHS and against individuals and due process.

And, if the BIA occasionally lets the immigrant “win” or at least not outright “lose,” one or two precedents, Sessions, Whitaker, and Barr have shown a frequent willingness to merely step in and change the results. Sometimes, they do this on cases decided years ago, even when DHS doesn’t ask them to. They openly and aggressively are carrying out a predetermined White Nationalist, nativist agenda. Because, they can!

If this sounds like a parody of due process, that’s because it is! But, the Supremes and the rest of the Article IIIs have been studiously looking away while due process, fundamental fairness, and equal protection are trampled in Immigration Court for more than a half-century. Why step up to the plate now?

Although it’s hard to do under Chevron, the BIA does sometimes so clearly ignore the statute or come up with such “off the wall” interpretations that the Article IIIs occasionally have to distinguish Chevron and intervene. In other words, generally screwing immigrants is OK by the Article IIIs; but, at some point looking totally feckless or downright idiotic by rubber stamping the BIA’s most outlandish anti-immigrant rulings is a “no no.” Bad for their reputations, law school speaking tours, and recruitment of the “best and brightest” clerks that the “Supremos” and other Article IIIs enjoy so much.

Another “big advantage” of a captive and fundamentally unfair BIA is that its “perversions of justice” become a “self-fulfilling prophecy.” The respondent in R-A-V-P- should not only have been released on bond, but his asylum case could easily have been granted in a “short hearing” in a system committed to a fair interpretation and application of asylum law. That might have led to the release of others and the more efficient granting of other similar cases. That actually would be an huge step forward in a dysfunctional system running a largely self-inflicted backlog of approximately 1.4 million cases.

Instead, denying meritorious cases creates hugely inflated denial rates. This supports the Trump Administration’s intentionally false narrative that all asylum claims are frivolous or fraudulent.

And, naturally, if the claims are overwhelmingly non-meritorious, who cares if we give asylum applicants any due process or not. Just summarily deny them all and you’ll be right 90% of the time.

That’s probably why Trump has gotten away with his biggest outrage: Simply eliminating the statutory right to apply for asylum at the border by Executive fiat, confident that the Supremes and the Article IIIs will never have the guts to effectively intervene and hold him accountable merely for arbitrarily inflicting potential death sentences on asylum seekers. After all, they are just “aliens,” not really “humans” or “persons” under the warped views of the Roberts’ Court majority! “Dred Scottification in action.”

Also, by denying meritorious claims for asylum seekers already in the U.S., the BIA “sends a message” that asylum seekers shouldn’t bother applying — they can’t and won’t win no matter how meritorious their cases. And, what’s more, the BIA will use the manipulated, improperly inflated “denial rates” to show that there is “little likelihood of success” on the merits of any asylum claim.

Under R-A-V-P–, this virtually guarantees punitive DHS detention, serving as both a punishment for asserting rights and a further deterrent to asserting claims in Immigration Court. Heck, in a “best case scenario” for Trump, COVID-19 will wipe out all detained asylum seekers, thereby eliminating that “problem.”

The system is a farce. But, it is a farce that both Congress and the Article IIIs have enabled.

Asylum seekers and other migrants deserve justice from America. When they will finally get it from a system intentionally rigged against them, and judges and legislators all too often unwilling to acknowledge or recognize their humanity, remains to be seen.

Due Process Forever! Captive Courts Never!

PWS

04-07-20

EVERY U.S. CONGRESSPERSON, SENATOR, & ARTICLE III JUDGE INCLUDING ALL THE JUSTICES OF THE U.S SUPREME COURT SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO WATCH THIS 4-MINUTE VIDEO SHOWING WHY TODAY’S “CAPTIVE” U.S. IMMIGRATION “COURT” IS A FESTERING, POTENTIALLY MORTAL WOUND TO OUR CONSTITUTION & OUR HUMANITY – Starring The U.S. Constitution & Judge A. Ashley Tabaddor, President, National Association of Immigration Judges (“NAIJ”)

The video at this link kindly furnished by the always amazing Dan Kowalski over at LexisNexis Immigration Community:

https://www.lexisnexis.com/legalnewsroom/immigration/b/outsidenews/posts/the-immigration-courts-nothing-like-what-you-have-imagined-video

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

How totally screwed up, unconstitutional, and unethical is this current system under the Department of Justice (“DOJ”)?

As “punishment” for consistently speaking out for Constitutional Due Process and for the rights of EOIR employees to do their jobs safely, professionally, and free from political interference and pressure, the DOJ is seeking, on patently frivolous grounds previously rejected by the Federal Labor Relations Authority, to “decertify” the NAIJ to prevent Judge Tabaddor and other NAIJ officers from “speaking truth to power” and “blowing the whistle” on the mockery of justice unfolding daily in Immigration Courts across the country. We can’t let them get away with this outrageous and unlawful behavior.

Join the New Due Process Army (“NDPA”) today, and fight to make Due Process under law a reality for all persons in the United States!

Due Process Forever! Captive Courts, Never! We Need Article I!

PWS

04-02-20

ARTICLE I: A POWERFUL NEW VOICE JOINS THE BATTLE FOR DUE PROCESS & AN INDEPENDENT IMMIGRATION COURT – The Alliance For Justice (“AFJ”) Writes To Congress In Support Of The Efforts Of The Many Organizations Of The NDPA Fighting For An Independent Due Process-Oriented Immigration Court!

Nan Aron
Founder & President
Alliance for Justice (“AFJ”)

AFJ letter to Chair Lofgren and Ranking Member Buck 3.30.20

PRESIDENT
NAN ARON
CHAIR
PAULETTE MEYER
March 30, 2020
The Honorable Zoe Lofgren
Chair
Subcomm. on Immigration and Citizenship Committee on the Judiciary
U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515
Dear Chair Lofgren and Ranking Member Buck:
The Honorable Ken Buck
Ranking Member
Subcomm. on Immigration and Citizenship Committee on the Judiciary
U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515
On behalf of Alliance for Justice (AFJ), a national association representing 120 groups committed to equal justice and civil rights, I write to add our voice to the organizations that have written or testified at the hearing held on January 29, 2020, before the House Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Immigration and Citizenship, on “The Courts in Crisis: The State of Judicial Independence and Due Process in U.S. Immigration Courts.”
For more than a generation, AFJ has worked to promote equal justice under law. We have fought to ensure a justice system that upholds the rights of all people. That is why we are so deeply troubled by the Department of Justice’s (the “Department”) exploitation of its position as the superintendent of our nation’s immigration courts to advance its anti-immigrant agenda. The Department’s actions have turned should be a fair adjudicatory system into one designed to dictate outcomes favorable to the anti- immigrant zealots in the Administration. The Department has engaged in a range of efforts designed to deprive individuals who have valid claims of asylum of the opportunity to present those claims. It has sought to influence immigration judges by incentivizing them to summarily deny claims. It has urged judges to adopt its conspiratorial views about the immigration lawyers who appear before the courts. Its pursuit of short-term political objectives has increased backlogs, produced vacancies, contributed to the demoralization of the court system, and resulted in widespread and unnecessary suffering.
AFJ writes this letter, moreover, at a time when the nation, and the world, is facing a pandemic and the Administration has indefinitely closed the southern border to asylum-seekers. Over 200 non-profit legal services organizations, law firms, and immigration legal representatives recently wrote to the
Eleven Dupont Circle NW, Suite 500 | Washington, DC 20036 | www.afj.org | t: 202-822-6070 Field Offices
Dallas | Houston | Los Angeles | San Francisco

Alliance for Justice
Letter to Chair Zoe Lofgren and Ranking Member Ken Buck Page 2
Attorney General regarding policies and practices that “during these unprecedented times” will cause immigrants and the providers and advocates who help them to “suffer serious hardships that raise due process concerns.” The concerns raised in the letter, and those mentioned below, only reinforce the need for an independent immigration court system.
The current administration has launched a series of efforts to weaponize the immigration courts. The efforts to control immigration judges include:
• The adoption of enforcement-oriented performance metrics, which require judges to complete 700 cases per year, equivalent to approximately three complete cases each business day. These metrics, which immigration judges must see on their computer screens, require judges to adjudicate claims irrespective of the complexity or merit of the cases and impose categorical restrictions on bond cases;
• The creation of a specialized fast docket, built almost exclusively for Central American families applying for asylum, which includes restrictions on the rights of judges to grant continuances;
• Limitations on judges’ authority to administratively close or terminate cases;
• Training sessions that immigration judges have described as indoctrination. As a former Immigration Judge explained: “There isn’t even any attempt at proper training. The whole indoctrination is you’re not judges, you’re really enforcement”1;
• Abusing the Attorney General’s power to act as a final arbiter of contested cases, by taking cases not then pending before the Board of Immigration Appeals to issue sweeping rulings limiting asylum protection for individuals victimized by domestic violence or harm as a result of retaliation based upon their family relationships. In the latter of the two cases, Attorney General William Barr attempted to sweep aside decades of precedent, much of it from federal appellate courts whose decisions are binding on the immigration courts;
• Issuing a final interim rule that would allow the Director of the Executive Office of Immigration Review to issue opinions on his own, on any appeal pending for more than 180 days;
• Seeking to decertify the National Association of Immigration Judges (NAIJ), the union that has represented immigration judges since 1979. NAIJ serves as one of the last bulwarks against a complete and total takeover of the Immigration Court system by our Executive Branch. Without union representation, immigration judges will lose their collective voice and be unable to push back against policies that undermine the fairness and transparency of the system.
1 Innovation Law Lab and the Southern Poverty Law Center, The Attorney General’s Judges: How the U.S. Immigration Courts Became a Deportation Tool, at 18 (quoting former Immigration Judge and BIA Chairman Paul Schmidt) https://innovationlawlab.org/reports/the-attorney-generals/judges/.
Eleven Dupont Circle NW, Suite 500 | Washington, DC 20036 | www.afj.org | t: 202-822-6070 Field Offices
Dallas | Houston | Los Angeles | San Francisco

Alliance for Justice
Letter to Chair Zoe Lofgren and Ranking Member Ken Buck Page 3
In addition to its efforts to turn immigration judges into partisan actors, the Administration’s unceasing efforts to be and appear to be tough on asylum seekers have created disorder, even for those individuals far from the Southern Border. The Administration has repeatedly shuffled Immigration
Judges from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, for example, in a 2017 “surge” of judges to the border, which required the postponement of 23,000 cases. The Attorney General’s decision prohibiting administrative closure will eventually add more than 300,000 cases to its docket. The overall backlog of cases has now doubled, to over one million pending cases. In a number of courts, litigants may wait more than four years before their cases are heard. The disparities in outcomes from jurisdiction to jurisdiction are now worse than ever.
There is also disturbing evidence that the Administration’s attacks on the system may be enabling a culture of impunity. On January 23 of this year, in an unprecedented opinion, the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit chastised the Board of Immigration Appeals for defying the Circuit’s remand order. Relying on what it said was advice from the Attorney General, the Board of Immigration Appeals declared the Seventh Circuit’s decision to be incorrect and declined to obey it. The Circuit stated that it had “never before encountered defiance of a remand order,” adding that members of the Board of Immigration Appeals should count themselves lucky that the immigrant had not asked the
2
Many of the most respected participants and observers of the immigration court system have called for reform of the current system. Groups as diverse as the American Bar Association, the Federal Bar Association, the National Association of Immigration Judges and the CATO Foundation have long urged the transfer of the immigration courts to a separate Article I CourtThese groups have pointed to the need to professionalize the corps of immigration judges and outlined the threat to judicial independence caused by the placement of the immigration court system under the control of the Department of Justice.
What was previously a threat of political interference is now a reality, and AFJ believes that there can be no lasting solution to this problem without removing the immigration court system from DOJ.
2 Debra Cassens Weiss, 7th Circuit is aghast at ‘obduracy’ of Board of Immigration Appeals, which refused to implement its decision, ABA Journal, Jan. 27, 2020, http://www.abajournal.com/authors/4/.
3 Katie Reilly, Northeastern University Student Sent Back To Iran Despite Valid Visa, Judge’s Order As Immigration Attorneys Warn of “Troubling Pattern”, Time Magazine, January 22, 2020, https://time.com/5769-400/northeastern-student-deported-iran.
Eleven Dupont Circle NW, Suite 500 | Washington, DC 20036 | www.afj.org | t: 202-822-6070 Field Offices
court to hold the Board in contempt.
of deportation to an Iranian student who possessed a valid student visa, was ignored by officials of the Customs and Border Patrol, who deported the student from Logan Airport back to Iran. The federal judge then stated that he believed the case to be moot, saying of the government officials, “I don’t think they’re going to listen to me.” The student’s attorney noted, “I wish I could say we were surprised, but we’ve seen this kind of flagrant defiance of the law from immigration officials before.”3
Only days earlier, a federal district court’s order granting a stay
Dallas | Houston | Los Angeles | San Francisco

Alliance for Justice
Letter to Chair Zoe Lofgren and Ranking Member Ken Buck Page 4
Our current system of adjudication is utterly broken. The most effective solution to protecting the neutrality of our Immigration Courts is to create an Article I Immigration Court system that is independent of DOJ. Article I of the U.S. Constitution expressly grants Congress the power to establish “tribunals” in addition to those created by Article III, and Congress has done so on many occasions. The establishment of an Article I Immigration Court would create greater transparency in the system. It would also restore the Due Process rights of those who come before the Court.
While moving the immigration court system from the Department of Justice will not solve the ills of the current system, it is desperately needed as a part of the solution. We therefore urge Congress to support to recommendation of the ABA, immigration judges, and immigration lawyers, among others, to establish an Article I Immigration Court system that is independent of Department of Justice.
Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely,
Nan Aron President
Eleven Dupont Circle NW, Suite 500 | Washington, DC 20036 | www.afj.org | t: 202-822-6070 Field Offices
Dallas | Houston | Los Angeles | San Francisco

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

Click the above link for the AFJ letter in its “original” much more “readable” format.

Why this a big deal: Nan Aron and the group she founded, the Alliance For Justice (“AFJ”), are inspirational, leading voices for justice reform and equal justice for all in America. That Nan and her team see the clear connection between the disintegration of justice in the Immigration Courts and the “big picture” of justice in America, all the way up to the Supreme Court, speaks volumes.

It reaffirms the commonality of the fight for Constitutional justice for asylum seekers and other migrants and the larger issues of building a premier 21st Century justice system of which we can all be proud – one that will treat all persons in our country with respect, dignity, and fundamental fairness. As Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., once said: “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.”

What an honor to and joy it is to have “Lifetime Due Process Warriors” like Nan Aron and Paulette Meyer and their dedicated team throw their support and expertise behind the push for Article I!

Under their inspiring leadership, AFJ is also spearheading a nationwide effort to identify candidates for the Federal Judiciary, at all levels from the Immigration Courts to the Supreme Court. We need future judges who will put our Constitution, due process, fundamental fairness, human rights, human dignity, and equal justice for all before ideological agendas meant to serve the parochial interests and philosophy of only a minority of Americans.

Establishing an independent U.S. Immigration Court that will finally fulfill the Fifth Amendment requirement of providing “neutral and impartial adjudication” of life or death claims, without the opportunity for political interference or meddling in the individual case process, is an essential part of AFJ’s vision for a better and fairer America. Indeed, an independent Immigration Court that models due process and best practices for the most vulnerable and defenseless among us is the “essential foundation” for our entire justice system all the way up to the Supreme Court.

Also, as Nan and her team recently discussed with our group from the “New Due Process Army” and the “Round Table,” many of the best and most qualified potential candidates for the Federal Judiciary might be talented lawyers who never thought of themselves as “potential Federal Judges” and competing for these critical jobs that shape our justice, system, our nation, and indeed our world. From my extensive observations, in and out of court, in teaching, practice, and community service, folks like clinical professors, NGO advocates, bar association leaders, leaders of charitable and religious organizations, and those who have dedicated large portions of their career to litigating and advising pro bono or “low bono” individuals struggling to find equal justice and be heard in a system that too often wants to shunt them and their rights aside, could all have strong judicial skills. Legal journalists are another group that I have found often possesses stunningly accurate understanding and incisive knowledge of how our justice system works (or doesn’t, in some cases) at every level.

In my view, one of the best potential “entries into judging” is the U.S. Magistrate Judge selection program which generally has been praised as a “merit-based,” apolitical, scholarship-rewarding, and competency focused system administered by the U.S. District Judges, usually in conjunction with the private bar (our son Wick, a private practitioner in Green Bay, WI, served on the Magistrate Selection Committee for the Eastern District of Wisconsin). I would love to see the U.S. Immigration Court become this same type of “merit & scholarship based” depoliticized “hotbed of judicial excellence” and potential “stepping stone” to the higher levels of the Article III Judiciary.

So, to the many members of our “New Due Process Army” who have devoted their careers to fairness, scholarship, timeliness, respect, and teamwork, think about taking on a different role as a Federal Judge in the future. Don’t be surprised if you get a call from one of us at the AFJ or the “New Due Process Army.” Or, better yet, get in touch with us at the AFJ and the NDPA.

Due Process Forever! Help Make Our Courts Better Than Ever!

PWS

03-31-20

TWILIGHT ZONE: ABSURDITY, CRUELTY, INJUSTICE ARE THE ORDERS OF THE DAY IN “AMERICA’S STAR CHAMBERS” (A/K/A IMMIGRATION “COURTS’) — Podcaster Sam Graber Takes You Inside The Mind Numbing Reality Of A “Third-World Court System” Operating Right Under Our Noses!

Listen to Sam on “American Refugee” here:

LISTEN on the Web – https://odaction.com/americanrefugee-ep03/
LISTEN on Apple devices (Apple Podcasts) – https://pcr.apple.com/id1494027429
LISTEN on Android devices (Spotify) – https://spoti.fi/30r4Efi

In the days leading up to the coronavirus shutdown I journeyed into a shadow part of our justice system, a courtroom rarely seen by the public.

Detained immigration court is a place where lawyers aren’t provided for the defense, where judges and prosecutors are on the same team, where guilty is presumed and the all-too-often verdict a different kind of death.

Who are these immigration judges? What exactly is detained court? And how is it able to get away with operating outside of what we might call normal law?

Get ready because you’re about to go there, to see the injustice that isn’t being shut down.

This is American Refugee.

Written, Engineered & Produced: Sam Graber
Music: Rare Medium, Punk Funk Metropolis, New Sound Underground
Recorded: Minneapolis, MN
Original Release: March 2020

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

Disturbing and infuriating as Sam’s podcast is, I urge everyone to listen, even if you think you know what “really happens” in this godforsaken and deadly “darkest corner of the American ‘justice’ system.” Is this really the way we want to be remembered by generations that follow? As a country with so little collective courage and integrity that we allowed our fellow human beings to be treated this way? Think about it!

Even in this grimmest of worlds, their are true heroes. First and foremost, of course, are the dedicated attorneys of the New Due Process Army (“NDPA”), many working pro bono or “low bono” to vindicate essential legal, constitutional, and human rights in a system designed to grind them into dust and “dehumanize and demonize the other.”

Sound familiar? It should to anyone who studied Hitler’s rise to power in Germany. By and large, it wasn’t the “Brown Shirts” and the party faithful who enabled his rule. It was judges, lawyers, ministers, priests, businessmen, doctors, corporate moguls, and the average German who “facilitated” his annihilation of millions.

And, it started gradually, with laws stripping Jews of citizenship, property, and all legal rights and judges who enthusiastically enforced them, even against their own former judicial colleagues. Once people aren’t “humans” any more (Hitler liked the term “subhumans”) or “persons” before the law, there is no limit to what can be done, particularly when complicit judges join in the “fun and games.”

Among the other heroes are two “Courtside regulars:” Round Table Member Judge (Ret.) Ilyce Shugall and NAIJ President Judge A. Ashley Tabaddor.

Hon. Ilyce Shugall
U.S. Immigraton Judge (Retired)
Director, Immigrant Legal Defense Program, Justice & Diversity Center of the Bar Assn. of San Francisco.

At a time when too many with knowledge of the travesty of what’s going on in our “Star Chambers” have chosen to look the other way or “go along to get along,” Ilyce and Ashley have consistently “spoken truth to power” in the face of a regime that often abuses its authority by punishing truth, honesty, and decency. Indeed, Billy Barr’s highly unethical move to “decertify” the NAIJ is a blatant attempt to punish and silence Ashley for revealing the truth.

One minor correction. Sam says that the Immigration Judges and the prosecutors both work for the DOJ. Actually, the prosecutors work for DHS. But, it’s largely a “distinction without difference” because the agenda at both DOJ and DHS is set by Trump, Miller, and the rest of the White Nationalist nativist cabal.

Indeed, former AG Sessions told Immigration Judges they were “partners” with the DHS prosecutors in enforcing immigration laws. So, the observation that in many Immigration Courtrooms migrants, including the unrepresented and children, face “two prosecutors” — the “judge” and the DHS Assistant Chief Counsel is accurate. The podcast relates how in some courts the “judge speaks for the prosecution,” the Assistant Chief Counsel is a “potted plant,” and nobody speaks for justice or the rights of the migrants. What’s missing: The impartial “neutral decisionmaker” required by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution.

Thanks Ashley and Ilyce for all you do! You are true superstars!

As my friend, Professor Ayo Gansallo says on her e-mail profile:

Vote like your rights depend upon it!

“A country is not only what it does…it is also what it tolerates.”

Kurt Tucholsky

Due Process Forever! Star Chambers Never!

PWS

03-29-20

DUE PROCESS WINS IN THE WEST: Split 9th Cir. Slams DOJ’s Vile/Unethical “No Due Process Due” Argument — Orders Bond Hearings For Asylum Applicants Who Passed Credible Fear — Padilla v. ICE — Round Table Amicus Brief Helps Save Due Process!

Padilla v. ICE

Padilla v. ICE, 9th Cir., 03-27-20, published

SUMMARY BY COURT STAFF:

SUMMARY* Immigration

Affirming in part, and vacating and remanding in part, the district court’s preliminary injunction ordering the United States to provide bond hearings to a class of noncitizens who were detained and found to have a credible fear of persecution, the panel affirmed the injunction insofar as it concluded that plaintiffs have a due process right to bond hearings, but remanded for further findings and reconsideration with respect to the particular process due to plaintiffs.

The district court certified a nationwide class of all detained asylum seekers who were subject to expedited removal proceedings, were found to have a credible fear of persecution, but were not provided a bond hearing with a record of hearing within seven days of requesting a hearing. Part A of the district court’s modified preliminary injunction provided: 1) bond hearings must take place within seven days of a class member’s request, or the member must be released; 2) the burden of proof is on the government to show why the

* This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader.

4 PADILLA V. ICE

member should not be released; and 3) the government must produce recordings or verbatim transcripts of the hearings, as well as written decisions. Part B concluded that the class is constitutionally entitled to bond hearings. A motions panel of this court previously denied the government’s request to stay Part B, but granted the stay as to Part A.

The panel concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that plaintiffs were likely to prevail on their due process claim, explaining that immigration detention violates the Due Process Clause unless a special justification outweighs the constitutionally protected interest in avoiding physical restraint. The panel also concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that other processes—seeking parole from detention or filing habeas petitions—were insufficient to satisfy due process. The panel further rejected the government’s suggestion that noncitizens lack any rights under the Due Process Clause, observing the general rule that once a person is standing on U.S. soil—regardless of the legality of entry—he or she is entitled to due process.

The panel next concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in its irreparable harm analysis, noting substandard physical conditions and medical care in detention, lack of access to attorneys and evidence, separation from family, and re-traumatization. The panel also concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the balance of the equities and public interest favors plaintiffs, explaining that the district court weighed: 1) plaintiffs’ deprivation of a fundamental constitutional right and its attendant harms; 2) the fact that it is always in the public interest to prevent constitutional violations; and 3) the

PADILLA V. ICE 5

government’s interest in the efficient administration of immigration law.

As to Part A of the injunction, the panel concluded that the record was insufficient to support the requirement of hearings within seven days, and that the district court made insufficient findings as to the burdens that Part A may impose on immigration courts. The panel also noted that the number of individuals in expedited removal proceedings may have dramatically increased since the entry of the injunction. Thus, the panel remanded to the district court for further factual development of the preliminary injunction factors as to Part A.

The panel also rejected the government’s argument that the district court lacked authority to grant injunction relief under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(f)(1), which provides: “no court (other than the Supreme Court) shall have jurisdiction or authority to enjoin or restrain the operation of the provisions of [8 U.S.C. §§ 1221–1232], other than with respect to the application of such provisions to an individual alien against whom proceedings under such part have been initiated.” Examining the relevant precedent, statutory scheme, and legislative history, the panel concluded that here, where the class is composed of individual noncitizens, each of whom is in removal proceedings and facing an immediate violation of their rights, and where the district court has jurisdiction over each individual member of that class, classwide injunctive relief is consistent with congressional intent.

Finally, the panel concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting the injunction as to the nationwide class. However, the panel directed that, on

6 PADILLA V. ICE

remand, the district court must also revisit the nationwide scope.

Dissenting, Judge Bade wrote that 8 U.S.C. § 1252(f)(1) barred injunctive relief in this case, concluding that the majority’s opinion does not square with the plain text of § 1252(f)(1), is inconsistent with multiple Supreme Court cases, and needlessly creates a circuit split with the Sixth Circuit. Judge Bade further wrote that, even if the district court had jurisdiction to issue injunctive relief, the preliminary injunction is overbroad and exceeds what the constitution demands. Judge Bade would vacate the preliminary injunction and remand for further proceedings with instructions to dismiss the claims for classwide injunctive relief.

PANEL: Sidney R. Thomas, Chief Judge, and Michael Daly Hawkins and Bridget S. Bade, Circuit Judges.

OPNION BY: Chief Judge Sydney R. Thomas

DISSENTING OPINION: Judge Bridget S. Bade

KEY QUOTE FROM MAJORITY OPINION:

The government also suggests that non-citizens lack any rights under the Due Process Clause. As we have discussed, this position is precluded by Zadvydas and its progeny. The government relies on inapposite cases that address the peculiar constitutional status of noncitizens apprehended at a port-of-entry, but permitted to temporarily enter the United States under specific conditions. See, e.g., Shaughnessy v. United States ex rel. Mezei (“Mezei”), 345 U.S. 206, 208–09, 213–15 (1953) (noncitizen excluded while still aboard his ship, but then detained at Ellis Island pending final exclusion proceedings gained no additional procedural rights with respect to removal by virtue of his “temporary transfer from ship to shore” pursuant to a statute that “meticulously specified that such shelter ashore ‘shall not be considered a landing’”); Leng May Ma v. Barber, 357 U.S. 185 (1958) (noncitizen paroled into the United States while waiting for a determination of her admissibility was not “within the United States” “by virtue of her physical presence as a parolee”); Kaplan v. Tod, 267 U.S. 228 (1925) (noncitizen excluded at Ellis Island but detained instead of being deported immediately due to suspension of deportations during World War I “was to be regarded as stopped at the boundary line”).

Indeed, these cases, by carving out exceptions not applicable here, confirm the general rule that once a person is standing on U.S. soil—regardless of the legality of his or her entry—he or she is entitled to due process. See, e.g., Mezei, 345 U.S. at 212 (“[A]liens who have once passed

PADILLA V. ICE 25

through our gates, even illegally, may be expelled only after proceedings conforming to traditional standards of fairness encompassed in due process of law.”); Leng May Ma, 357 U.S. at 187 (explaining that “immigration laws have long made a distinction between those aliens who have come to our shores seeking admission . . . and those who are within the United States after an entry, irrespective of its legality,” and recognizing, “[i]n the latter instance . . . additional rights and privileges not extended to those in the former category who are merely ‘on the threshold of initial entry’” (quoting Mezei, 345 U.S. at 212)); Kwai Fun Wong v. United States, 373 F.3d 952, 973 (9th Cir. 2004) (explaining that “the entry fiction is best seen . . .as a fairly narrow doctrine that primarily determines the procedures that the executive branch must follow before turning an immigrant away” because “[o]therwise, the doctrine would allow any number of abuses to be deemed constitutionally permissible merely by labelling certain ‘persons’ as non-persons”). We thus conclude that the district court did not err in holding that plaintiffs are “persons” protected by the Due Process Clause.

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

First, and foremost, let’s give a big vote of appreciation to the All-Star Team at Wilmer Cutler who represented our Round Table on this:

Alan Schoenfeld and Lori A. Martin, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, New York, New York; Rebecca Arriaga Herche, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Washington, D.C.; Jamil Aslam, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Los Angeles, California; for Amici Curiae Retired Immigration Judges and Board of Immigration Appeals Members.

Knjightess — Knightess of the Round Table

This team is it’s own “Special Forces Brigade” of the New Due Process Army (“NDPA”)!

WOW! Persons are “persons” under the Constitution even when they have brown skins and are asylum seekers! How “rad” can you get! What a blow to “business as usual” for the regime and their “Dred Scottification” program of dehumanizing and making non-persons out of migrants and other vulnerable minorities!

Too bad that the Supremes and other Circuit Courts have too often advanced “Dred Scottification,” hiding behind transparently bogus and contrived “national emergencies” and the doctrine of judicial dereliction of duty otherwise known as “Chevron deference.” I guess that’s why the regime has the contempt for both the law and the Article III Courts to press such legally, morally, and Constitutionally “bankrupt” arguments as they did in this case. Never know when you’ll get a “thumbs up” from those who sometimes don’t view oaths of office and their obligations to their fellow humans with enough seriousness!

Significantly, the panel found that “plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their claim that they are constitutionally entitled to individualized bond hearings before a “neutral decisionmaker.” However, in doing so they “papered over” the obvious fact that the constitutional requirement of a “neutral decisionmaker” cannot be fulfilled as long as Billy Barr or other politicos control the Immigration Courts!

Indeed, the panel decision was a strong rebuke of Barr’s atrocious, unethical, scofflaw decision in Matter of M-S-, 27 I&N Dec. 509 (A.G. 2019) purporting to unilaterally change the rules to eliminate bond for those who had passed “credible fear.” Fact is that no individual appearing in today’s Immigration Courts has access to the constitutionally-required “neutral decisionmaker” because Barr retains the ability to simply unilaterally change any result that doesn’t match his White Nationalist nativist agenda and can hire and fire the so-called “judges” at will.

Indeed, under Barr’s totally illegal and professionally insulting “production quotas,” I’m not sure that the “judges” on the “deportation assembly line” even get “production credit” for bond decisions because they aren’t “final orders of removal.” However, denial of bond is actually an important “whistle stop” on the “deportation express.” Those kept in the “New American Gulag” have difficulty finding attorneys and the systematic mistreatment they receive in detention helps to demoralize them and coerce them into giving up claims or waiving appeals.

When are the Article IIIs finally going to stop “beating around the bush” and hold this whole mess to be unconstitutional, as it most clearly is?

In some ways, the panel’s decision reminds me of one of my own long-ago concurring/dissenting opinion in Matter of Joseph, 22 I&N Dec. 799, 810 (BIA 1999) (en banc) (“Joseph II”):

However, I do not share the majority’s view that the proper standard in a mandatory detention case involving a lawful permanent resident alien is that the Service is “substantially unlikely to prevail” on its charge. Matter of Joseph, 22 I&N Dec. 3398, at 10 (BIA 1999). Rather, the standard in a case such as the one before us should be whether the Service has demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of its charge that the respondent is removable because of an aggravated felony.

Mandatory detention of a lawful permanent resident alien is a drastic step that implicates constitutionally-protected liberty interests. Where the lawful permanent resident respondent has made a colorable showing in custody proceedings that he or she is not subject to mandatory detention, the Service should be required to show a likelihood of success on the merits of its charge to continue mandatory detention. To enable the Immigration Judge to make the necessary independent determination in such a case, the Service should provide evidence of the applicable state or federal law under which the respondent was convicted and whatever proof of conviction that is available at the time of the Immigration Judge’s inquiry.

The majority’s enunciated standard of “substantially unlikely to pre-vail” is inappropriately deferential to the Service, the prosecutor in this matter. Requiring the Service to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits of its charge would not unduly burden the Service and would give more appropriate weight to the liberty interests of the lawful permanent res- ident alien. Such a standard also would provide more “genuine life to the regulation that allows for an Immigration Judge’s reexamination of this issue,” as referenced by the majority. Matter of Joseph, supra, at 10.

The Service’s failure to establish a likelihood of success on the merits would not result in the release of a lawful permanent resident who poses a threat to society. Continued custody of such an alien would still be war- ranted under the discretionary criteria for detention.

In conclusion, mandatory detention should not be authorized where the Service has failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits of its charge. Consequently, while I am in complete agreement with the decision to release this lawful permanent resident alien, and I agree fully that the Service is substantially unlikely to prevail on the merits of this aggravated felony charge, I respectfully dissent from the majority’s enunciation of “substantially unlikely to prevail” as the standard to be applied in all future cases involving mandatory detention of lawful permanent resident aliens.

Concern for Due Process and fundamental fairness have intentionally been eradicated in the Immigration “Courts” by Sessions, Whitaker, and Barr. It’s past time for this constitutional mockery to be put out of its misery (and the unending misery it causes for the humans coming before it) once and for all!

As my late BIA colleague Judge Fred W. Vacca once said, albeit in a different context, “It’s time to put an end to this pathetic imitation of an adjudication.” Fred and I didn’t always agree. In fact, we disagreed much of the time. But, he did know when it was finally time to “stop the nonsense,” even when some of our colleagues just kept the system churning long past the point of reason and sanity.

And, folks, that was back in the days when the BIA actually functioned more or less like an “independent appellate court” until the Ashcroft purge of ’03 forever ended that noble vision. Like the rest of the system and those who enable it to keep churning lives as if they were mere water under the bridge, the BIA and the rest of the Immigration “Courts” have now become a national disgrace — a blot on our national conscience. Human beings seeking justice are neither “numbers” to be achieved for “satisfactory ratings,” nor “enforcement problems” to be exterminated without Due Process.

Dehumanization of the “other”and stripping them of legal and human rights is a key part of fascism. It’s what allowed German judges and most of German society to “look the other way” or actively aid in the holocaust. It has no place in our justice system — now or ever!

Due Process Forever! Judicial Complicity in Weaponized Captive “Courts,” That Aren’t Courts At All, Never!

PWS

03-28-20

CLOWN COURT REPORT 🤡🤡: AILA Seeks Information On Politically-Biased, Anti-Asylum Hiring @ BIA!

https://www.aila.org/advo-media/press-releases/2020/lawsuit-seeks-to-uncover-problematic-board

Lawsuit Seeks to Uncover Problematic Board of Immigration Appeals’ Hiring Procedures

AILA Doc. No. 20031937 | Dated March 19, 2020

CONTACTS:

Maria Frausto

202-507-7526

mfrausto@immcouncil.org
George Tzamaras

202-507-7649

gtzamaras@aila.org

For Immediate Release

Thursday, March 19, 2020

WASHINGTON, DC — The American Immigration Council (Council) and the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) filed a lawsuit Tuesday in federal court to compel the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) Office of Information Policy (OIP) to release records about the Executive Office for Immigration Review’s (EOIR) hiring procedures for appellate immigration judges and Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) Members. The lawsuit seeks to understand current hiring procedures for the BIA—the highest administrative body for interpreting and applying immigration laws—after reports came to light of anti-immigrant bias in the hiring process.

The DOJ—which oversees immigration courts, houses the BIA, and employs immigration judges—has failed to disclose critical information about the hiring policy of appellate immigration judges and BIA Members, who make precedential decisions in the immigration adjudicatory system.

Advocates and policymakers have become concerned that DOJ’s hiring practices for appellate immigration judges and Board Members are improperly influenced by the Trump administration’s anti-immigrant policies. Biased hiring practices for these judges are a concern for the public because these judges can set legal precedent that has the potential to negatively impact thousands of immigrants seeking protection and/or a path to lawful status in the United States.

The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, challenges DOJ’s failure to disclose information in response to a Freedom of Information Act request submitted in October 2019.

“The fairness of the immigration court system depends on the impartiality of judges who are responsible for deciding thousands of cases each year. If appellate judges are not neutral decision-makers, the integrity of our immigration system is compromised,” said Claudia Valenzuela, FOIA senior attorney at the American Immigration Council. “The lack of transparency in this hiring process only serves to undermine public confidence in this system.”

“It’s imperative that the public, policymakers, and stakeholders be provided with the opportunity to review the thus far opaque hiring process at the BIA. Allegations of politicized hiring give rise to the notion that BIA decisions serve the political purposes of the attorney general, rather than adhere to prior case law,” said Laura Lynch, senior policy counsel at the American Immigration Lawyers Association.

A copy of the complaint is here.

The American Immigration Council works to strengthen America by shaping how America thinks about and acts towards immigrants and immigration and by working toward a more fair and just immigration system that opens its doors to those in need of protection and unleashes the energy and skills that immigrants bring. The Council brings together problem solvers and employs four coordinated approaches to advance change—litigation, research, legislative and administrative advocacy, and communications. Follow the latest Council news and information on ImmigrationImpact.com and Twitter @immcouncil.

The American Immigration Lawyers Association is the national association of immigration lawyers established to promote justice, advocate for fair and reasonable immigration law and policy, advance the quality of immigration and nationality law and practice, and enhance the professional development of its members. Follow AILA on Twitter@AILANational.

Cite as AILA Doc. No. 20031937.

Laura A. Lynch, Esq.

Senior Policy Counsel

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

The whole idea that a White Nationalist prosecutor and political toady like Billy Barr gets to hire the “judges” for a so-called “appellate tribunal” is as absurd and illogical as it is clearly unconstitutional. The perversion of our humanity and our legal institutions that has allowed this to operate in plain view as if it were “normal” should be a subject for reflection and study. That the Supremes and Congress both took a “dive” on this is beyond question. How they got away with it and continue to do so without any accountability is another story. Hopefully, at some point it will be told in full.

In particular, the anti-asylum bias of the regime has been aggravated by a large dose of anti-Latino racism and misogyny that both Congress and the Article III Courts have enabled and, in the case of the Supremes actively encouraged by rewarding the clearly disingenuous and misleading arguments of Solicitor General Noel Francisco on fabricated “emergencies” and bogus rationales for transparently invidious and irrational actions.

DUE PROCESS FOREVER! CLOWN COURTS 🤡🤡 AND THEIR COMPLICIT ENABLERS, NEVER!

PWS

03-20-20

COURTSIDE HAS BEEN AT THE FOREFRONT OF EXPOSING THE “CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY” COMMITTED BY THE REGIME AND THE MORAL CULPABILITY OF THOSE WHO WILLFULLY CARRY OUT & ENABLE THESE ATROCITIES — The “Mainstream Media” Is Now Channeling Courtside! — “In the meantime, no government has the right to treat people with such abject inhumanity. History will remember Trump for this, but it will also remember the people who enable such atrocious acts.”

https://edition.pagesuite.com/popovers/dynamic_article_popover.aspx?guid=17e4b3b6-8350-4ef2-86b2-45242bddfa52&v=sdk

From the LA Times Editorial Board:

The U.S. betrays migrant kids

Kevin Euceda, a 17-year-old Honduran boy, arrived at the U.S.-Mexico border three years ago and was turned over to the custody of the Department of Health and Human Services until his request for asylum could be decided by immigration courts. During that period, he was required, as are all unaccompanied minors in custody, to meet with therapists to help him process what he had gone through.

In those sessions, Kevin was encouraged to speak freely and openly and was told that what he said would be kept confidential. So he poured out his story of a brutalized childhood, of how MS-13 gang members moved into the family shack after his grandmother died when he was 12, of how he was forced to run errands, sell drugs and, as he got older, take part in beating people up. When he was ordered to kill a stranger to cement his position in the gang, Kevin decided to run.

His therapists submitted pages of notes over several sessions to the file on him, as they were expected to do. But then, HHS officials — without the knowledge of the teen or the therapists — shared the notes with lawyers for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, who used them in immigration court to paint the young migrant as a dangerous gang member who should be denied asylum and sent back to Honduras. In sharing those therapy notes, the government did not break any laws. But it most assuredly broke its promise of confidentiality to Kevin, violated standard professional practices — the first therapist involved quit once she learned her notes had been shared — and offended a fundamental expectation that people cannot be compelled to testify against themselves in this country.

Kevin, whose story was detailed by the Washington Post, wasn’t the only unaccompanied minor to fall victim to such atrocious behavior, though how many have been affected is unknown. The government says it has changed that policy and no longer shares confidential therapy notes, but that’s not particularly reassuring coming from this administration. It adopted the policy once; it could easily do so again.

Last week, Rep. Grace F. Napolitano (D-Norwalk) and Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) introduced the Immigrants’ Mental Health Act of 2020 to ban the practice, which is a necessary preventive measure. The bill would also create a new training regimen to help border agents address mental health issues among migrants and require at least one mental health expert at each Customs and Border Patrol facility. Both of those steps are worth considering too.

That the government would so callously use statements elicited from unaccompanied minors in therapy sessions to undercut their asylum applications is part of the Trump administration’s broad and inhumane efforts to effectively shut off the U.S. as a destination for people seeking to exercise their right to ask for sanctuary. Jeff Sessions and his successor as attorney general, William Barr, have injected themselves into cases at an unprecedented rate to unilaterally change long-established practices and immigration court precedent.

They have been able to do so because immigration courts are administrative and part of the Justice Department, not the federal court system, and as a result they have politicized what should be independent judicial evaluations of asylum applications and other immigration cases. Advocates argue persuasively that the efforts have undermined due process rights and made the immigration courts more a tool of President Trump’s anti-immigration policies than a system for measuring migrant’s claims against the standards Congress wrote into federal law.

Of course, trampling legal rights and concepts of basic human decency have been a hallmark of the administration’s approach to immigration enforcement — witness, for example, its separation of more than 2,500 migrant children from their parents. Beyond the heartlessness of the separations, the Health and Human Services’ inspector general last week blasted the department for botching the process. Meanwhile, the administration has expanded detention — about 50,000 migrants are in federal custody on any given day, up from about 30,000 a decade ago — and forced about 60,000 asylum seekers to await processing in dangerous squalor on Mexico’s side of the border.

There are legitimate policy discussions to be had over how this government should handle immigration, asylum requests and broad comprehensive immigration reform. In the meantime, no government has the right to treat people with such abject inhumanity. History will remember Trump for this, but it will also remember the people who enable such atrocious acts.

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

The LA Times is ”on top” of the grotesque perversion of the Immigration “Courts” under nativist zealot Jeff “Gonzo Apocalypto” Sessions and Trump toady Billy Barr to carry out a White Nationalist political agenda:

They have been able to do so because immigration courts are administrative and part of the Justice Department, not the federal court system, and as a result they have politicized what should be independent judicial evaluations of asylum applications and other immigration cases.

Who’a NOT “on top” of what’s happening: The GOP-controlled U.S. Senate, Chief Justice Roberts, a number of his Supremely Complicit colleagues, and a host of Court of Appeals Judges who allow this unconstitutional travesty to continue to mock the Fifth Amendment and the rule of Law, while abusing and threatening the lives of legal asylum seekers every day!

This was even before yesterday’s cowardly, wrong-headed, and totally immoral “Supreme Betrayal” of the most vulnerable among us in Wolf v. Innovation Law Lab. https://immigrationcourtside.com/2020/03/11/let-the-killing-continue-predictably-supremes-game-system-to-give-thumbs-up-to-let-em-die-in-mexico-brown-lives-dont-matter/ As MLK, Jr., said “Injustice anywhere affects justice everywhere.”

With 2.5 Branches of our Government led by anti-democracy zealots and cowards, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is our only remaining bulwark against tyranny! Capable as she is, she can’t do it all by herself!

In reality, judges were among those inside Germany who might have effectively challenged Hitler’s authority, the legitimacy of the Nazi regime, and the hundreds of laws that restricted political freedoms, civil rights, and guarantees of property and security. And yet, the overwhelming majority did not. Instead, over the 12 years of Nazi rule, during which time judges heard countless cases, most not only upheld the law but interpreted it in broad and far-reaching ways that facilitated, rather than hindered, the Nazis ability to carry out their agenda.

— United States Holocaust Museum, Law, Justice, and the Holocaust, at 8 (July 2018)

How soon we forget!

Due Process Forever; Complicit Courts & Other Immoral Enablers, Never!

PWS

03-12-20

Due Process Forever! Complicit Courts Never!

Related posts:

That’s why I say: “Constantly Confront Complicit Courts 4 Change.”

Due Process Forever!

PWS

Related posts:

This November, vote like your life depends on it! Because it does!

Due Process Forever! Fraudulent “Clown Courts” 🤡 Never!

Related posts:

Due Process Forever! Complicit Courts & Star Chambers, Never!

This November, vote like your life depends on it! Because it does!

PWS

Related posts:

Due Process Forever! Star Chambers, Never! P

Related posts:

This November, vote like your life depends on it. Because it does!

Related posts:

Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Due Process Forever! Deadly ☠️ Clown Courts, 🤡 Never!

Related posts:

HOW EOIR’S “CAPTIVE COURTS” INTENTIONALLY DISTORT AND PERVERT JUSTICE — The Shocking Failure Of Congress & The Article IIIs To Stand Up For Justice In America!

By Paul Wickham Schmidt

“Courtside” Exclusive

April 6, 2020

Due Process Forever! Captive Courts Never!

Related posts:

Due Process Forever! Captive Courts, Never! We Need Article I!

Related posts:

Due Process Forever! Help Make Our Courts Better Than Ever!

Related posts:

Due Process Forever! Star Chambers Never!

Related posts:

Due Process Forever! Judicial Complicity in Weaponized Captive “Courts,” That Aren’t Courts At All, Never!

Related posts:

DUE PROCESS FOREVER! CLOWN COURTS 🤡🤡 AND THEIR COMPLICIT ENABLERS, NEVER!

Related posts:

Due Process Forever; Complicit Courts & Other Immoral Enablers, Never!

Related posts:

Due Process Forever! Star Chambers, Never!
P