"The Voice of the New Due Process Army" ————– Musings on Events in U.S. Immigration Court, Immigration Law, Sports, and Other Random Topics by Retired United States Immigration Judge (Arlington, Virginia) and former Chairman of the Board of Immigration Appeals Paul Wickham Schmidt. To see my complete professional bio, just click on the link below.
Don’t just complain about the awful mess @ the BIA! Get on the appellate bench and do something about it! Public Domain
Summary
The Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) at the Department of Justice (DOJ) is seeking a highly-qualified individual to join our team of expert professionals who serve as Appellate Immigration Judges.
This is an Excepted Service position, subject to a probationary period. The initial appointment is for a period not to exceed 24 months. Conversion to a permanent position is contingent upon appointment by the Attorney General.
Although there was no formal announcement from EOIR, it appears that Appellate Immigration Judge William Cassidy has finally retired from the BIA. As many of you know, Judge Cassidy, appointed by AG Billy Barr, was notoriously hostile to asylum seekers and to a fair application of the generous well-founded-fear standard for asylum enunciated by the Supremes in INS v. Cardoza-Fonsecaand by the BIA in Matter of Mogharrabi. His “final” TRAC Immigration asylum denial rate as an Immigration Judge in Atlanta was an appalling and bone-chilling 99.1%! https://trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/judge2022/00004ATD/index.html.
This is a chance for a “real judge” with impeccable academic knowledge, practical solutions, and actual experience representing asylum applicants in the EOIR quagmire to bring some long-overdue and absolutely essential positive, progressive, change to the BIA – a group overall known for its too-often stilted, sloppy, improperly pro-Government, “go along to get along,” “don’t rock the boat by standing up for due process and human rights” decision-making.
The BIA’s lousy performance on the “stop time rule,” where they were twice rebuked by the Supremes for ignoring the language of the statute and the Court’s own holdings, is a classic example of why we need fundamental change at the top of EOIR. This substandard performance generated more unnecessary backlog and “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” in a system that can ill afford it (2 million case backlog). It also created unnecessary confusion and uncertainty in a situation where clarity was both required and achievable. I daresay, it’s hard to imagine any NDPA “practical scholar” getting sidetracked the way the BIA did in its misguided rush to please DHS Enforcement and its political “handlers” at DOJ!
Also, because of “jurisdiction stripping” legislation over the years, limiting the review of the Article IIIs in many areas, the BIA often represents the last realistic chance for individuals to obtain justice and fair treatment!That the BIA too often acts like an “assembly line,” doesn’t diminish its potential to become part of the solution rather than a source of further problems and unfairness.
Don’t let this important Federal Judgeship, with real life or death power over the lives of individuals and the future of our democracy, go by default to another “insider” or asylum denier.
I hear complaints from practitioners nationwide about the BIA’s poor scholarship and failure to issue realistic, positive guidance. But, it’s not going to change unless the “best and the brightest” from the NDPA apply for these critical jobs at EOIR and become agents of change.
Don’t let this chance go by to make a difference in the lives of others and to use your hard-earned expertise and practical skills to fundamentally change our failing U.S. judicial system — starting at the critical “retail level.”
The deadline is July 5, 2023, conveniently during the July 4 holiday. But, don’t let mindless bureaucratic tactics and feeble efforts at recruitment deter you. Force the USG to recognize and employ “judicial excellence” – once the “vision” of EOIR (before “good enough for government work” became the motto). I urge well-qualified minority candidates to apply for this key position!
There should be a process, but there does need to be some space to be able to do this process. When you are in the thick of applying for asylum, you’re going to commit errors, you’re going to make mistakes, and it’s my understanding that these are the things that get you sent home. The work of an attorney is so important because you [as the applicant] have to turn over your soul, the best of you in this interview. The hardest part is the time, and the details required to demonstrate to the U.S. you are worthy of being allowed to remain herei
Lara Boston, MA Recently received her green card based on an asylum grant.
For people fleeing violence and persecution, nothing is more important than finding safety. For more than 40 years, U.S. asylum law has guaranteed asylum seekers the right to access legal protections enabling them to stay in the United States and avoid being returned to danger. But since the Refugee Act was signed into law in 1980, the laws on asylum eligibility have grown into a maze of convoluted requirements and pitfalls, like the children’s game “Chutes and Ladders,” with potentially deadly consequences.
Because of the complexity and requirements of asylum law, it takes time to prepare an asylum application. In my 25 years of practice, I have prepared and filed hundreds of asylum applications. Based on my experience, it takes time to get an accurate account of someone’s life when there’s violence and trauma involved. It takes time to find evidence of torture and persecution. When you read this report, I encourage you to try to imagine navigating the complex legal steps in the asylum process. Then, imagine doing it without an attorney, a nearly impossible task as extensive research and data has shown.1
This report comes at a critical moment when increased migration to the U.S. southern border and intense political pressure are pushing lawmakers to process asylum seekers faster. Faster can be accomplished, but it must also be fairer. If the system is fair, people meriting protection will receive it and those not eligible can and must depart. Toward that end, this report includes several recommendations that improve asylum processing so that it is both fair and more efficient. It is our hope that this report will contribute to policy reforms that are grounded in the realities of asylum law and the system that implements it.
Jeremy McKinney President, American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA)
i Quotes by Lara throughout the report are from an interview conducted primarily in Spanish and then translated into English.
High-Stakes Asylum How Long an Asylum Case Takes and How We Can Do Better 3 AILA Doc. No. 23061202. (Posted 6/14/23)
Return to TOC
Executive summary and recommendations
The heightened levels of migration worldwide are drawing intense political and media attention to the United States’ southern border, including radical calls for blocking access to asylum seekers that would undo longstanding American humanitarian principles. More balanced, smarter approaches are available. In fact, since taking office, the Biden Administration has implemented several such policies, including the scale-up of resources to screen asylum seekers at the border and the expansion of existing legal pathways for people to obtain protection.
Unfortunately, the President is also accelerating and truncating the asylum system in an attempt to speed up the process with policies like the 2022 asylum processing rule and the dedicated dockets program.ii AILA has forcefully opposed these recent policies because they are restricting or blocking asylum access and, as a result, deeply compromising the integrity and fairness of the U.S. system.iii
This report on the asylum process draws principally upon the expertise of AILA’s membership of more than 16,000 immigration attorneys and law professors nationwide who provided more than 300 detailed responses to a survey about the critical steps and time required to prepare an asylum case.iv The report’s principal conclusion is that the minimum time required for an attorney to properly prepare an asylum case is 50 to 75 hours. While this estimate accounts for some complications, an asylum case can take much longer. For example, the attorney may need to find evidence of torture in a country that is still wracked by political violence or devote extensive interview time to obtain sensitive information from the asylum applicant while they are still suffering from trauma. See Appendix I.
The government can greatly increase the efficiency of the asylum process by increasing agency resources and capacity and by eliminating existing delays within the system. Some of those steps are being taken, but further action is urgently needed . AILA recommends the Biden Administration use a systemwide, all-of-government approach to implement a range of solutions that will improve asylum processing and the management of migration at the U.S. southern border.
America needs an asylum system that is in line with the nation’s commitments to protect asylum seekers and ensure a fair legal process while also meeting the urgent demand for greater efficiency and capacity. The country’s immigration system must be able to quickly identify who has a legitimate claim for humanitarian protection and who does not. Those not eligible should be required to depart. But imposing strict, arbitrary timelines for asylum that do not allow for adequate preparation will result in eligible asylum seekers being denied protection and sent back to face persecution or death.
ii The asylum processing rule is formally known as “Procedures for Credible Fear Screening and Consideration of Asylum, Withholding of Removal, and CAT Protection Claims by Asylum Officers.” New enrollment is currently paused as the Biden administration focuses on the transition away from Title 42. For recent updates, see Featured Issue: Asylum and Credible Fear Interim Final Rule, AILA, https://www.aila.org/advo-media/issues/featured-issue-asylum-and-credible-fear#:~:text=The%20 interim%20final%20rule%20%E2%80%9CProcedures,for%20individuals%20in%20expedited%20removal. See infra at Biden administration fast-tracked programs limit the opportunity to access counsel for more information on the asylum processing rule and the dedicated docket program.
iii E.g., AILA and the Council Submit Comments on Credible Fear Screening and Asylum Processing IFR, May 26, 2022, https:// www.aila.org/infonet/comments-on-credible-fear-screening; AILA Joins Legal Service & Mental Health Providers in Letter to Administration Expressing Grave Concerns over the “Dedicated Docket”, Oct. 5, 2022, https://www.aila.org/advo-media/ aila-correspondence/2022/letter-to-administration-expressing-grave-concerns; AILA and the Council Submit Comments on Circumvention of Lawful Pathways Proposed Rule, Mar. 26, 2023, https://www.aila.org/infonet/comments-on-circumvention- of-lawful-pathways.
iv See Appendix II.
High-Stakes Asylum How Long an Asylum Case Takes and How We Can Do Better 4 AILA Doc. No. 23061202. (Posted 6/14/23)
Return to TOC
Ultimately, systemwide changes can only be accomplished through congressional action to appropriate the funding required to meet these systemic demands. After three decades of inaction, Congress must pass immigration laws that ensure America’s immigration system is ready for the future.
Key findings
The basic steps of preparing an asylum application takes an estimated minimum of 50 to 75 hours. This work cannot be done in one continuous period; instead, it is carried out over the course of several months. Cases with significant complexity can take far more time than this estimate.
Most asylum cases are not straightforward. Complicating factors that add time to an asylum case may include detention, past trauma experienced by the applicant, language barriers, and procuring evidence from foreign countries or expert witnesses such as medical testimony.
It is extremely difficult for an asylum seeker represented by counsel to sufficiently develop their asylum application within the mandatory deadlines established in the May 2022 asylum processing rule or the expedited family court “dedicated dockets.” AILA recommendations Ensure asylum timelines do not undermine fairness
When setting asylum processing deadlines, allow adequate time for an asylum seeker to obtain counsel and for the attorney to prepare for the case. Timelines should not rush trauma survivors who may need more time to recount their experience. Reasonable continuances should be allowed to obtain an attorney or for attorney preparation.
Waive or exempt asylum seekers from deadlines if the reason the deadline was not met is outside of their control.
Do not hold asylum seekers to the same evidentiary standards when they are subject to expedited adjudication timelines, such as the shortened deadlines of the 2022 asylum processing rule. Reduce government delays and inefficiency
Establish uniform policies, centralized systems, and appropriate information sharing between immigration agencies. Agencies should centralize and digitize address changes across all agencies and simplify access to a noncitizen’s immigration record. These steps will enhance communication and data sharing, which will in turn reduce backlogs, avoid delays, and increase efficiency and fairness.
Reduce the immigration court backlog. Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) should continue expanding initiatives to remove cases from the docket or facilitate the resolution of cases through pretrial conferencing. Immigration judges should administratively close or terminate appropriate cases, such as those eligible for a benefit with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS).2
Do not expend finite prosecutorial resources on cases that can be resolved more expeditiously. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) Office of the Principal Legal Advisor (OPLA) attorneys should engage in pretrial negotiations and exercise prosecutorial discretion to avoid unnecessary litigation. High-Stakes Asylum How Long an Asylum Case Takes and How We Can Do Better 5 AILA Doc. No. 23061202. (Posted 6/14/23)
Return to TOC
Legal access and representation improve fairness and government efficiency
Ensure asylum seekers and other migrants being processed rapidly at the U.S. southern border have access to legal information, advice, and full counsel during credible fear interviews (CFIs), Customs and Border Protection (CBP) inspections, and immigration court proceedings.
Congress should Fund the Department of Justice (DOJ) to provide legal representation for all immigrants. Everyone needs access to an attorney to provide legal advice and information prior to any hearings, including the CFI. Congress should appropriate DOJ funding to provide full legal representation to those in removal proceedings who cannot afford it.
Ensure access to counsel in all detention facilities. Detention facilities must be held accountable to policies that ensure attorneys have reliable confidential contact visits with clients, as well as access to free and confidential phone calls and video conferences. The government must monitor access to counsel at ICE facilities and impose penalties for violations of standards. Reduce immigration detention
• Reduce immigration detention. Detention delays asylum cases because it creates barriers to obtaining counsel and makes case preparation far more difficult. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) should reduce its use of immigration detention.
Improve the asylum process
The Biden administration should publish the long-awaited regulation on particular social group (PSG) asylum cases. On February 20, 2021, President Biden issued an executive order to promulgate this regulation by November 17, 2021,3 but it has not been published. A regulation would aid in consistency of application of asylum law and would reduce USCIS referrals to immigration court.
Increase transparency in adjudications by making DHS’s asylum officer training materials publicly available.
Establish an interagency task force to develop a trauma-informed adjudication system. Experts in development, mental health, welfare, and trauma science should all be involved in this process. A trauma-informed adjudication process will help ensure accurate adjudications in the first instance, which in turn will decrease appeals.
Fund additional asylum officers. Congress should appropriate funds to increase the capacity of USCIS to adjudicate asylum applications.
High-Stakes Asylum How Long an Asylum Case Takes and How We Can Do Better 6 AILA Doc. No. 23061202. (Posted 6/14/23)
Return to TOC
********************************
Download and read the complete report and view accompanying video at the above link!
Amy R. Grenier ESQ Immigration Attorney Washington, D.C. PHOTO: Linkedin
Here’s one of my favorite comments on Linkedin from an all-star member of the NDPA, Amy R. Grenier:
A year ago, I wanted to cite something in a regulatory comment, but the cite I needed didn’t exist yet.
Today, the American Immigration Lawyers Association released a report on asylum timelines, High-Stakes Asylum: How Long an Asylum Case Takes and How We Can Do Better. The report is based on a survey of over 300 asylum attorneys about how much time it takes to prepare an asylum application, and what complications add significant time. High-Stakes Asylum also includes recommendations on how to inject efficiency into the existing asylum process and ensure the integrity of a system that has life-and-death consequences.
Three decades ago, when I was practicing business immigration at Jones Day, we also did a robust pro bono Immigration Court BIA practice in which I played an advisory role. Even then, we allocated a minimum of 100 hours of attorney/paralegal prep time for an asylum case in Immigration Court and 40 hours for a BIA appeal.
And, at that time, the system probably wasn’t as “intentionally user unfriendly” as it is now. On some occasions, we were responding to requests for pro bono representation from Immigration Judges who believed that without representation certain previously unrepresented detained cases would “be lost and linger in the system forever.” That was long before 2 million case backlogs!
Representation is essential for due process at EOIR! This fundamental truth is neither new nor is it “rocket science!” That politicians of both parties and Article III Judges have swept this truth under the carpet doesn’t make it less true! If lives of persons who didn’t have the bad fortune to be immigrants were at issue, this intentionally due-process-denying system would have been held unconstitutional by the Supremes decades ago!
Unfortunately, A.G. Garland has fashioned a “highly, unnecessarily, and intentionally user unfriendly system” that actually discourages and impedes pro bono and low bono representation.
Immigration experts and long-suffering advocates have become weary of AG Garland’s “above the fray” attitude and substandard performance on human rights and equal justice in America! PHOTO: Wikipedia Commons
Even worse, he and his subordinates have failed miserably to “fully leverage” the amazing VIISTA Villanova program for training more highly-qualified non-attorney “accredited representatives” to rapidly close the representation gap throughout the nation. The asylum litigation “training modules” put together by VIISTA founder Professor Michele Pistone, with help from the National Institute for Trial Advocacy (“NITA”) puts EOIR/DOJ/DHS asylum training to shame!
Professor Michele Pistone Villanova Law — The founder of VIISTA Villanova, brilliant lawyer, inspirational leader, teacher, scholar, social justice mavan, why isn’t she running and reforming EOIR? Why is Garland afraid of a proven “creative disrupter” driven 100% by a commitment to equal justice for all?
Incredibly, the Biden Administration “blew off” recommendations by experts that Professor Pistone or one of her colleagues be recruited to “shake up” EOIR and radically reform and improve training in asylum and other forms of protection.
Lack of fundamental expertise and private sector expedience representing asylum seekers is a key reason why EOIR under Garland continues to “wander in the wilderness” of legal dysfunction with no way out! So unnecessary! So damaging to democracy!
Jeremy McKinney, Esquire Greensboro, NC AILA President
Many thanks to Jeremy McKinney, Greg Chen, and others who worked on the AILA report. Cite it! Use it! Demand that Congress heed it! Use it to force justice into Garland’s failed, dysfunctional, and unfair “Clown Courts!”🤡
“We don’t need immigration expertise to be hired, and now we don’t need it to deny cases either. Just have to slap any old attachment on it! EOIR is the ‘paint by numbers’ of judging!” https://www.flickr.com/photos/rasputin243/ Creative Commons License
BREAKING: Attorneys advocate for better due process in response to immigration judges making conveyor-belt deportation decisions
June 12, 2023
Immigration attorneys nationwide have witnessed a concerning increase in immigration judges issuing deportation decisions without individualized analysis. Instead, these barebones decisions often rely on boilerplate “form addenda,” which are standardized summaries of immigration law not specific to any noncitizen’s case.
This week, in response to these concerning practices, Capital Area Immigrants’ Rights (CAIR) Coalition and pro bono counsel O’Melveny & Myers, along with over 50 partner organizations, have submitted a letter advocating that the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) reform its policies governing the use of form addenda.
Because they are not specific to a person’s individual case and are instead just stapled to a deportation order as legal justification, the addenda usually include irrelevant issues and sometimes incorrect statements of the law. Plus, the noncitizen and their attorney often never see a copy of the addenda.
The sign-on letter urges EOIR to take multiple, concrete steps to change its policies governing the use of form addenda. These measures include increased training on addenda usage for immigration judges, making form addenda publicly accessible, and appointing an ombudsman to investigate addenda misuse.
“Due to the drastic consequences for immigrants in deportation cases—including family separation and possible persecution and death in people’s home countries—the law requires U.S. immigration judges to conduct an individualized analysis of each noncitizen’s case when deciding on their removal proceedings,” said Peter Alfredson, Senior Attorney at CAIR Coalition. “When the stakes are that high, noncitizens deserve to know that judges are taking their claims seriously—or even looking at their claims at all—and issuing decisions that reflect that responsibility.”
“Immigration judges merely staple these form addenda to a removal order instead of doing their job to analyze each person’s case.” said Adina Appelbaum, Program Director of the Immigration Impact Lab at CAIR Coalition. “We need clearer policies from EOIR so that if judges use these addenda, they will do so in a way that is fair and respectful to the noncitizens whose lives are in their hands.”
Adina Appelbaum Director, Immigration Impact Lab CAIR Coalition Charter Member, NDPA PHOTO: “30 Under 30” from Forbes
Through free legal, social, and litigation services, Capital Area Immigrants’ Rights (CAIR) works to ensure equal justice for immigrants in the Capital region who are at risk of detention and deportation.
“Deny, deny, deny, deter, deter, deter! ‘Fake efficiency’ over justice! Expediency over due process! Gee, it’s fun to be a ‘Deportation Judge’ @ EOIR! Much better than having to practice before this awful mess we’ve created! “ https://www.flickr.com/photos/rasputin243/ Creative Commons License
KEY QUOTE FROM CIRCUIT JUDGE RONALD LEE GILMAN’S MAJORITY OPINION:
. . . .
Third, the IJ was hardly inconvenienced at all. Arizmendi-Medina’s counsel offered to submit the application while the IJ was still on the bench. Although this might have required the IJ to recall Arizmendi-Medina’s case at the end of the IJ’s docket, this inconvenience was truly minimal. Cf. Jerezano, 169 F.3d at 615 (“While an IJ need not linger in the courtroom awaiting tardy litigants, so long as he is there on other business and the delay is short[,] …it is an abuse of discretion to treat a slightly late appearance as a nonappearance.”). Further, as discussed above, the December 18, 2018 hearing was a Master Calendar hearing, not a merits hearing. This means that the proceedings were ultimately not delayed at all.
And fourth, we consider the total number of continuances previously granted to Arizmendi-Medina. He received two very short continuances (only two weeks each) to find an attorney at the beginning of his immigration proceedings on July 31, 2018 and August 15, 2018. See Cruz Rendon, 603 F.3d at 1106–07, 1110 (finding that two one- month continuances were both “exceedingly short”). The proceedings were then reset at the hearing on August 29, 2018 because Arizmendi-Medina requested, and the IJ granted, a change of venue. The next hearing was scheduled for October 24, 2018 before a new IJ. Although this certainly gave Arizmendi-Medina more time to find an attorney, this delay was primarily due to the change of venue and getting the case calendared in a new court.
Finally, after Arizmendi-Medina was required to proceed pro se and was found removable at the hearing on October 24, 2018, the IJ granted another continuance so that Arizmendi-Medina could continue to look for an attorney and work on his relief application (which was presented to him for the first time at the October 24, 2018 hearing).
20 ARIZMENDI-MEDINA V. GARLAND
Arizmendi-Medina thus received only one continuance after he was found removable and presented with a relief application, and he received zero continuances after he finally secured an attorney. From start to finish, the proceedings against Arizmendi-Medina were delayed for less than five months, with nearly two months of that delay due to the change of venue.
Ultimately, all of the Ahmed factors weigh in favor of finding that the IJ abused his discretion in not granting a continuance so that Arizmendi-Medina’s recently-retained counsel could complete and submit the relief application on December 18, 2018. The abuse is especially apparent given the offer of Arizmendi-Medina’s counsel to submit the application later that same day. Such an abuse by the IJ counsels in favor of finding that Arizmendi-Medina was denied fundamental fairness. See id. at 1110 (finding that the IJ abused her discretion in part because the merits hearing was “less than one month after Cruz Rendon first appeared with counsel,” which contributed to the noncitizen’s difficulty in marshalling evidence in such a short time frame (emphasis in original)). This “prevented [Arizmendi-Medina] from reasonably presenting his case.” See Zetino, 622 F.3d at 1013 (quoting Ibarra-Flores, 439 F.3d 620-21).
. . . .
*******************************
This faux “court” system has lost sight of its sole function: To provide due process hearings to individuals whose lives and futures are on the line!
In this case, the DOJ was obviously willing to spend more time and resources on denying the respondent his day in court than it would have taken to hold a merits asylum hearing! No wonder they have built an astounding, ever-growing 2 million case backlog! Don’t let Garland & company get away with blaming the private bar or respondents (that is, “the victims”) for DOJ’s continuing screw-ups at EOIR!
No real inconvenience or delay to the IJ! Life or death for the respondent! Attorney kept on a treadmill by EOIR’s unreasonable conduct! Who would take cases, particularly pro bono, under this type of tone-deaf “double standard.” (Would Trump-appointed dissenting Judge Danielle J. Forrest, who probably never has represented an individual in Immigration Court, REALLY practice law under these abusive circumstances?)
How many of you out there in “Courtside Land” have arrived on time for a scheduled merits hearing, with respondent and witnesses in tow, only to find out that your case had been “orbited” further out on the docket, with no or inadequate notice?How many have had long-prepared cases arbitrarily shuffled to a future year while having other cases where you were recently retained mindlessly “moved up” on the docket to satisfy EOIR’s latest “priority of the day?” Pretending like “every minute counts” in this hopelessly inefficient and bolloxed system is EOIR’s and DOJ’s way of deflecting attention and shifting the blame for their own, largely self-created failures!
In the “topsy turvy” fantasy world of EOIR, the dockets are overwhelming and totally screwed up! So much, that DHS recently took the unprecedented step of unilaterally declaring that (except for a small subset of “mandatory appearances”) THEY would decide which EOIR cases to staff with an Assistant Chief Counsel. See, https://immigrationcourtside.com/2023/05/31/🤯-wacko-world-of-eoir-dhs-prosecutors-deliver-the-big-middle-finger-bmf-🖕to-garlands-feckless-immigration-courts-unilate/. Implicit in this “in your face” action is the assumption that Immigration Judges will also act as prosecutors in these cases (even though Immigration Judges clearly lack some of the authority of prosecutors, including the exercise of prosecutorial discretion and stipulation to issues or relief).
On the other hand, private attorneys are systemically jerked around by EOIR and subjected to the threat of discipline for even relatively minor transgressions. Talk about an “uneven playing field!” In a system where lack of representation and under-representation are daily threats to due process and fundamental fairness, how does EOIR’s one-sided, anti-attorney, anti-immigrant conduct encourage new generations to chip in their time pro bono or low bono to bridge the ever-present “representation gap?”
In short, it does just the opposite! Some experienced practitioners have “had enough” and reduced or eliminated their Immigration Court presence while others have changed to other areas of practice because of EOIR’s continuing dysfunction under Garland. This should be a “solvable” problem — particularly in a Dem Administration! Why isn’t it?
Why is Garland getting away with this nonsense? How can we “change the playing field” and demand that Garland finally bring the due process reforms and expert judicial and professional, common-sense administrative personnel to America’s worst and most life-threatening courts?
Thanks to attorney Shannon Englert of San Diego for taking on Garland’s dysfunctional DOJ immigration bureaucracy!
Shannon Englert, ESQ Founder DYADlaw Vista, CA PHOTO: Linkedin
Experts on the immigration court system will highlight the systemic problems in the US immigration system that have caused and sustained the backlog, and offer recommendations for reversing the backlog.
Speakers include:
Donald Kerwin, former executive director of CMS and Editor of the Journal of Migration and Human Security
Mimi Tsankov, President, National Association of Immigration Judges and member, Expert Advisory Group
Richard A. Boswell, Professor of Law, UC College of Law, San Francisco, and member, Expert Advisory Group
As well as additional members of the Expert Advisory Group:
Gregory Chen, Senior Director of Government Relations, American Immigration Lawyers Association
Anna Gallagher, Executive Director, Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc.
Karen T. Grisez, Pro Bono Counsel, Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver, and Jacobsen, LLP
Hon. Dana Leigh Marks (retired), President Emerita, National Association of Immigration Judges (in her personal capacity)
Michele Pistone, Professor of Law, Villanova University
Andrew Schoenholtz, Professor from Practice, Georgetown University Law Center
Denise Noonan Slavin, retired judge, Adjunct Professor, St. Thomas University School of Law
Charles Wheeler, Senior Attorney/Director Emeritus, Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc.
The Center for Migration Studies (CMS) is a New York-based educational institute devoted to the study of international migration, to the promotion of understanding between immigrants and receiving communities, and to public policies that safeguard the dignity and rights of migrants, refugees, and newcomers. For more information, please visit www.cmsny.org.
To be bluntly honest, this panel of experts appears to be the group that an Administration seriously committed to restoring due process, fundamental fairness, and best practices to the “retail level” of U.S. justice would have hired in January 2021, to clean house 🧹 and institute lasting institutional reforms at America’s worst courts!
They have been “hiding in plain sight” for the past 2.5 years while Garland has been flailing and failing to bring order and long-overdue reforms to his tragically broken system!
Isn’t it time to finally get the “EOIR Clown Show” off the road before it causes more fatalities? Many experts think so! PHOTO CREDIT: Ellin Beltz, 07-04-16, Creative Commons License, https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/. Creator not responsible for above caption.
“Gerardo A. Portillo petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming his order of removal and denying his application for adjustment of status. Because we find that a conviction under Massachusetts General Laws (“MGL”) ch. 269, § 11C is not categorically a firearm offense as defined by 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(C), we grant the petition for review, vacate the decision below, and remand for further proceedings. … Accordingly, without resorting to “legal imagination,” we conclude that MGL ch. 269, § 11C sweeps more broadly than the federal offense, and Portillo need not produce an actual case to demonstrate that overbreadth. … For the reasons stated above, we grant the petition for review, vacate the BIA’s opinion, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this decision.”
Congrats to the NDPA “litigation team” of Klein, Church, & Gillespie!
Notably, the unanimous 1st Circuit did a detailed 24-page analysis to get this one right. This is the type of scholarship and effort one might expect, but doesn’t consistently get, from the BIA.
Remarkably, this case has now been pending for more than six years at EOIR.Now, largely as a consequence of EOIR’s, toxic “how can we get to no” bias, present over the past several Administrations, it’s back to “square one” with no end in sight.
THAT’S how a system builds uncontrollable backlog! Maybe pruning out the “deadwood” and bringing in “practical scholar-experts” as judges at the appellate and trial levels wouldn’t solve all the problems that have been building up for decades at EOIR. But, it sure would be a great start on a better future!
Donald M. Kerwin, Senior Research Associate, University of Notre Dame
In forwarding this article, Don says: “The report makes the case that the backlog has nothing to do with the immigration courts and everything to do with systemic, unresolved problems in the broader US immigration system.”
The US immigration court system seeks to “fairly, expeditiously, and uniformly administer and interpret US immigration laws” (DOJ 2022a). It represents the first exposure of many immigrants to due process and the rule of law in the United States, and occupies an integral role in the larger US immigration system. Yet it labors under a massive backlog of pending cases that undermines its core goals and objectives. The backlog reached 1.87 million cases in the first quarter of FY 2023 (Straut-Eppsteiner 2023, 6). This paper attributes the backlog to systemic failures in the broader immigration system that negatively affect the immigration courts, such as:
•
Visa backlogs, United States Citizen and Immigration Services (USCIS) application processing delays, and other bottlenecks in legal immigration processes.
•
The immense disparity in funding between the court system and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) agencies that feed cases into the courts.
•
The failure of Congress to pass broad immigration reform legislation that could ease pressure on the enforcement and court systems.
•
The lack of standard judicial authorities vested in Immigration Judges (IJs), limiting their ability to close cases; pressure parties to “settle” cases; and manage their dockets.
•
The absence of a statute of limitations for civil immigration offenses.
•
Past DHS failures to establish and adhere to enforcement priorities and to exercise prosecutorial discretion (PD) throughout the removal adjudication process, including in initial decisions to prosecute.
•
The location of the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), which oversees US immigration courts, within the nation’s preeminent law enforcement agency, the Department of Justice (DOJ).
•
The misconception of many policymakers that the court system should primarily serve as an adjunct to DHS.
•
A past record of temporary judge reassignments and government shutdowns.
The paper supports a well-resourced and independent immigration court system devoted to producing the right decisions under the law. Following a short introduction, a long section on “Causes and Solutions to the Backlog” examines the multi-faceted causes of the backlog, and offers an integrated, wide-ranging set of recommendations to reverse and ultimately eliminate the backlog. The “Conclusion” summarizes the paper’s topline findings and policy proposals.
*********************************
This is a “treasure trove” of information about systemic failure of our Immigration Courts, for which I am deeply grateful to Don & Evin.
So, is EOIR a symptom or a cause of immigration dysfunction, or a mixture of both?
I’m inclined to believe that notwithstanding the evidence described in the article that EOIR is largely a “victim” of deeper problems in our immigration system, there is a strong case to be made that more principled Attorneys General, more courageous and talented EOIR personnel, and a Democratic Party with democratic values and a spine could have thrust EOIR into a due process and legal expertise leadership role, thereby making the current immigration system operate more fairly, efficiently, and in the public interest.
It’s a shame that we’ll never know the truth. That just leaves commentators and scholars to analyze the carnage and to speculate on “what might have been” or “what could be” in a different political atmosphere.
This is perhaps interesting, even significant, from an historical standpoint. But, the practical effect remains to be seen.
If I could have just one immigration “reform, it would be an Article I EOIR! Without due process, all other reforms and improvements are doomed to failure!
Women find “trial by ordeal” can be the order of the day at Garland’s BIA:
Woman Being “Tried By Ordeal” 17th Century Woodcut Public Realm Source: Ancient Origins Website https://www.ancient-origins.net/history/trial-ordeal-life-or-death-method-judgement-004160Woman Being “Tried By Ordeal” 17th Century Woodcut Public Realm Source: Ancient Origins Website https://www.ancient-origins.net/history/trial-ordeal-life-or-death-method-judgement-004160
Dan Kowalski reports for LexisNexis Immigration Community:
CA11 on VAWA, “Extreme Cruelty,” Chevron: Ruiz v. Atty Gen.
“Esmelda Ruiz, a native and citizen of Peru, appeals the Board of Immigration Appeals’ determination that she is ineligible for relief under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(2), a provision whose language was originally adopted as part of the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 and that outlines the conditions under which certain “battered spouse[s] or child[ren]” qualify for discretionary cancellation of removal. As relevant here, it requires a petitioning alien to show that she “has been battered or subjected to extreme cruelty” by her spouse or parent. 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(2)(A)(i). Ruiz contends that the Immigration Judge and the BIA made two errors in refusing her cancellation request. First, she maintains that, as a matter of law, they misinterpreted the statutory term “extreme cruelty” to require proof of physical—as distinguished from mental or emotional—abuse. And second, she asserts that, having misread the law, the IJ and the BIA wrongly concluded that she doesn’t qualify for discretionary relief. We agree with Ruiz that the IJ and the BIA misinterpreted § 1229b(b)(2) and thereby applied an erroneous legal standard in evaluating her request for cancellation of removal. Accordingly, we grant her petition for review and remand to the BIA for further consideration. … For the foregoing reasons, we agree with Ruiz—and hold— that the BIA misinterpreted 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(2). The term “extreme cruelty” does not require a petitioning alien to prove that she suffered physical abuse in order to qualify for discretionary cancellation of removal; proof of mental or emotional abuse is sufficient to satisfy the “extreme cruelty” prong of § 1229b(b)(2)’s five-prong standard. We therefore GRANT the petition in part and REMAND to the BIA for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
Not only did the supposedly “expert” BIA get the standard completely wrong, but Garland’s OIL continued to throw up specious arguments defending the BIA’s abusive treatment of women!
When you start with “No,” and then “reason” backwards to get there, bad things happen. Frankly, the Biden Administration was elected to “clean house” 🧹 at EOIR and to bring systemic due process, expertise, best practices, and impartiality to our nation’s dysfunctional immigration tribunals — with literally millions of lives and the future of democracy at stake! Why haven’t they done it? How do they continue to get away with it?
Eliza C. Klein, a retired immigration judge, said the asylum case backlog “creates a second class of citizens.”Credit…Taylor Glascock for The New York Times
Eliza C. Klein, who left her position as an immigration judge in Chicago in April, said the latest increase in illegal border crossings will strain the understaffed work force as they prioritize migrants who crossed recently.
That will leave some older cases to languish even longer, she said.
“This is a great tragedy because it creates a second class of citizens,” Ms. Klein, who started working as an immigration judge in the Clinton administration, said of those immigrants who have been waiting years for an answer to their case. The oldest case Ms. Klein ever adjudicated had been pending in the court for 35 years, she said.
“It’s a disgrace,” Ms. Klein said. “My perspective, my thought, is that we’re not committed in this country to having a just system.”
While crowds of migrants continued to seek refuge in the United States after the lifting of Title 42, U.S. officials said the border remained relatively orderly. About 10,000 people crossed the border on Thursday, a historically large number, but that dropped significantly to about 6,200 on Friday.
Tens of thousands of migrants continued to wait in makeshift camps on both sides of the border for a chance to request sanctuary in the United States. The administration remained concerned about overcrowding; Border Patrol held more than 24,000 migrants in custody on Friday, well over the agency’s maximum capacity of roughly 20,000 in its detention facilities.
. . . .
Mimi Tsankov, the president of the National Association of Immigration Judges, said that to truly address the backlog, the Biden administration would need to do more than simply hire more judges. She said that the government should increase funding for better technology and bigger legal teams, and that Congress should reform the nation’s immigration laws.
“The immigration courts are failing,” said Samuel B. Cole, the judge association’s executive vice president. “There needs to be broad systemic change.”
. . . . .
Judge Charles Honeyman, who spent 24 years as an immigration judge and retired in 2020, said he came away from his job believing the United States would need to do a better job of deterring fraud while protecting those who would be harmed in their home country.
When handling an asylum case, Mr. Honeyman said he would assess the person’s application and examine the state of their home country by reading reports from the State Department and nonprofits. Many of the applicants lacked attorneys; he believes some cases that he denied might have turned out differently if the migrants had had legal representation.
In trying to root out fraud, he would compare a person’s testimony with the answers they had given to an asylum officer or Border Patrol agent.
. . . .
*******************************
Read the full article at the link.
EOIR ABUSES ASYLUM SEEKERS — The Problem Goes Deeper Than The Number Of Judges: Quality & Culture Matter!
By Paul Wickham Schmidt
U.S. Immigration Judge (Retired)
Courtside Exclusive
May 16, 2023
While the NYT article notes that the majority of asylum cases are eventually denied on the merits, this data is often presented in a misleading way by the Government, and unfortunately, sometimes the media. According to TRAC Immigration, during the period Oct 2000 to April 2023, approximately 43% of asylum seekers who received a merits decision were granted asylum or some other type of relief. Approximately 57% were denied. https://trac.syr.edu/phptools/immigration/asylum/
Even in an overall hostile system, where individuals are often required to proceed without lawyers, and grant/denial rates among Immigration Judges vary by astounding levels (so great as to present prima facie due process issues), asylum seekers succeed on the merits of their claims at a very respectable rate. In a properly staffed and administered system where the focus was on due process and fundamental fairness for individuals, that number would almost certainly be substantially higher.
Moreover, the data suggests that toward the end of the Obama Administration and during the entire Trump Administration, the asylum system was improperly manipulated to increase denials.
I think there are three reasons for the precipitous decline in asylum grant rates, largely unrelated to the merits of the claims. First, Attorneys General Jeff Sessions and Bill Barr overruled some of the leading administrative precedents supporting grants of asylum. In the process, they made it crystal clear that they considered Immigration Judges to be their subordinate employees within the political branch of Government and that denial, deportation, and assistance to their “partners” at DHS Enforcement (actually DHS is a party before EOIR, not a “partner”) were the preferred results at EOIR.
Second, in greatly expanding the number of Immigration Judges, Sessions and Barr appointed almost exclusively from the ranks of prosecutors and government attorneys, even elevating an inordinate number of individuals with no immigration and human rights experience whatsoever. Not only were well-qualified individuals with experience representing individuals in Immigration Court largely passed over and discouraged from applying, but some of the best Immigration Judges quit or retired prematurely as a matter of conscience because of the nakedly anti-immigrant pro enforcement “culture” promoted at EOIR.
Additionally, the nationwide appellate court and precedent setter, the BIA, was expanded and “packed” with some Immigration Judges who denied virtually all of the asylum cases coming before them and had reputations of hostility to the private bar and asylum seekers. Remarkably, Attorney General Garland has done little to address this debilitating situation at the BIA.
Third, since the latter years of the Obama Administration, when a vastly overhyped “border surge” took place, political officials of both parties have improperly “weaponized” EOIR as a “deterrent” to asylum seekers, focusing on expeditious denials of asylum rather than the due process and expert tribunal functions the agency was supposed to serve. The result has been a “culture of denial and deportation” with particular emphasis on finding ways to “say no” to women and individuals of color seeking asylum.
The NYT Article also mentions that asylum merits decisions require a higher standard of proof than “credible fear determinations.” That’s true. But the suggestion that the standards are much higher is misleading. In fact, the standards governing merits grants of asylum before the Asylum Office and EOIR are supposed to be extremely generous.
In the seminal case, INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, the Court said that “well-founded fear” is a generous standard, one that could be satisfied by a 10% chance of persecution. In implementing this holding, the BIA found in Matter of Mogharrabi that asylum could be granted even where the chances of persecution were substantially less than probable.
There is as also a regulation, 8 C.F.R. 208.13, issued under the Bush I Administration, that creates a rebuttable presumption of future persecution based on past persecution.
The problem is that none of these generous and remedial provisions relating to asylum has ever been properly, consistently, and uniformly applied within EOIR. As someone who during my time on the bench took these standards to heart, I found that a substantial majority of merits asylum cases coming before me could and should be granted under a proper application of asylum law.
Consequently, I am skeptical of judges who deny virtually all asylum claims. Likewise, I question the claims by political officials of both parties who pretend, without actual knowledge, that almost all asylum applicants at the border are “mere economic migrants” who deserve to be quickly and summarily removed.
Actually, under some circumstances, severe economic hardships can amount to persecution. Moreover, under the legally required “mixed motive” analysis for asylum, an economic aspect does not automatically obviate other qualifying grounds.
So, at its root, “credible fear” is actually an even more generous application of what is already supposed to be (but often isn’t in reality) a very generous standard for asylum. The alleged “disconnect” between the number of individuals found to have credible fear and the number actually granted asylum on the merits appears to be more a function of defective and overly restrictive decision-making at EOIR than it is of unjustified generosity of Asylum Officers screening for credible fear. It’s also important to remember that at the credible fear stage, individuals haven’t had time to marshal the substantial corroborating evidence eventually required (some would say unrealistically and unreasonably) in formal merits asylum hearings before EOIR.
Finally, just aimlessly increasing the number of Immigration Judges, without solving the systemic legal, logistical, management, quality control, training, and “cultural” problems infecting EOIR creates its own set of new problems.
Recently, a veteran practitioner before EOIR wrote the following:
In about eleven years, our local DMV went from twelve (12) judges in Baltimore and Arlington in 2012 to a hundred (100) judges in 2023 (8 BAL, 18 HYA, 30 WAS, 9 FCIAC, 14 RIAC, 21 STE). That’s an increase of 733.33%. This seismic expansion has resulted in many attorneys being overscheduled for individual hearings, which has an adverse effect on our clients, our ethical obligations, due process, and mental health.
Well-prepared attorneys, many serving pro bono or “low bono,” are absolutely essential to due process and fundamental fairness in Immigration Court, particularly in cases involving asylum and other forms of protection. For EOIR to schedule cases in a manner that does not take into consideration the legitimate needs and capacities of those practicing before their courts is nothing short of malpractice on the part of DOJ leadership.
There is a silver lining here. The EOIR judicial hiring program gives NDPA stars a chance to get on the bench at the retail level level, bring much needed balance and perspective, and to develop the credentials for future Article III judicial appointments. Since change isn’t coming “from the top,” we need to make it happen at the “grass roots level!” Keep those applications coming!
For my colleague Judge “Sir Jeffrey” Chase, Judge Maria Baldini-Potermin is the name that jumps out:
Maria T. Baldini-Potermin, Immigration Judge, Chicago Immigration Court
Maria T. Baldini-Potermin was appointed as an immigration judge to begin hearing cases in May 2023. Judge Baldini-Potermin earned a Bachelor of Arts in 1990 from the University of Dayton and a Juris Doctor in 1997 from the University of Minnesota Law School. From 2008 to 2023, she was the owner and managing attorney at Maria Baldini- Potermin and Associates PC in Chicago. During this time, from 2009 to 2023, she served as the author of “Immigration Trial Handbook,” a book she co-authored from 2008 to 2009. Also, from 2009 to 2021, she served as the update editor for “Immigration Law and Crimes” . From 2009 to 2021, she also served as a member of the board of directors of the National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild, where she served as board chair and interim executive director in 2019. From 2007 to 2008, she was an associate immigration attorney at Gostynska Frakt Ltd., and from 2001 to 2007, at Scott D. Pollock and Associates PC in Chicago. From 1999 to 2001, she served as a National Association of Public Interest Law (NAPIL) Equal Justice Fellow with the Midwest Immigrant Rights Center (now National Immigrant Justice Center) in Chicago. From 1997 to 1999, she served as a NAPIL Equal Justice Fellow with the Immigrant Law Center of Minnesota (Oficina Legal) in Saint Paul, Minnesota. From 1996 to 1997, she served as an immigration law clerk at Guyton Law Office in Saint Paul, Minnesota. From 1994 to 1997, she trained law students at the Asylum Law Project in Minneapolis. From 1992 to 1994, she served as an accredited representative, and from 1991 to 1992, as a paralegal, with the South Texas Pro Bono Asylum Representation Project (ProBAR) in Harlingen, Texas. From 1990 to 1991, she served as a paralegal with the Brownsville Catholic Charities Canada Asylum Project in Brownsville, Texas. Judge Baldini-Potermin is a member of the Illinois State Bar and the Minnesota State Bar. She is admitted to practice before the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Second, Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Circuits, and the Supreme Court of the United States.
For me, it’s Judge Angela Munro whom I worked with on training for the Annual Conference during my time at EOIR:
Angela Munro, Immigration Judge, Boston Immigration Court
Angela Munro was appointed as an immigration judge to begin hearing cases in May 2023. Judge Munro earned a Bachelor of Arts in 2000 from Brown University, a Master of Arts in 2004 from the Fletcher School at Tufts University, and a Juris Doctor in 2008 from Northeastern University School of Law. From 2010 to 2023, she served as an attorney advisor at the Board of Immigration Appeals, EOIR. From 2008 to 2010, she served as a judicial law clerk at the Boston Immigration Court entering on duty through the Attorney General’s Honors Program. Judge Munro is a member of the Massachusetts Bar and the New York State Bar.
Another bio that caught my eye is Judge Hannah B. Kubica who once practiced at Joyce & Associates in Boston with my long-time friend and Round Table colleague Judge Bill Joyce.
Hannah B. Kubica, Immigration Judge, Boston Immigration Court
Hannah B. Kubica was appointed as an immigration judge to begin hearing cases in May 2023. Judge Kubica earned a Bachelor of Arts in 2005 from Vanderbilt University and a Juris Doctor in 2008 from the Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law. From 2016 to 2023, she was in private practice as an associate, and later as a senior associate, at McHaffey & Nice LLC in Boston where she represented noncitizens before EOIR and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security. During her time in private practice, she provided pro bono services at Rian Immigrant Center, formerly the Irish International Immigrant Center. From 2016 to 2011, she was in private practice as an associate at Joyce & Associates PC in Boston. From 2011 to 2008, Judge Kubica was in private practice at GNP Law Firm in the greater Boston area, and at Weir & Partners LLC in Philadelphia. Judge Kubica is a member of the Massachusetts Bar and the Pennsylvania Bar.
********************************
Congrats and good luck to all of the new Judges. Remember: The job is about due process, fundamental fairness, practical scholarship, and best practices, NOT “pleasing your handlers” or making DHS Enforcement happy!
We’re “making progress” in getting more NDPA practical scholars on the ImmigrationBench! But, we need even more to fundamentally change the culture at EOIR and to make due process the overriding mission, as it was supposed to be! So, NDPA’ers, keep those judicial applications coming!
Dems control the composition of one of the most consequential Federal Appellate Tribunals, the BIA. Is THIS really the look that they want to project? https://www.flickr.com/photos/rasputin243/ Creative Commons License
Dan Kowalski reports for Lexis Nexis Immigration Community:
CA1 on Changed Country Conditions (Guatemala) – Mendez Esteban v. Garland
“[T]he 2017 report and the testimony from Mendez do not — together or independently — establish that changes in Guatemala have fundamentally altered the specific conditions that gave rise to Mendez’s substantiated claim of political persecution. Accordingly, the BIA’s conclusion that DHS rebutted Mendez’s presumption of well-founded fear is not supported by substantial evidence. We therefore find Mendez statutorily eligible for asylum. … [W]e grant the petition for review as to Mendez’s claims for asylum and withholding of removal. We deny the petition as to Mendez’s claim for CAT protection. We accordingly affirm the denial of Mendez’s CAT claim, vacate the denials of Mendez’s political opinion-based asylum and withholding of removal claims, and remand to the IJ for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
“Appellant Ishmael Kosh petitions us to review the order from the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) that terminated his asylum status and denied his applications for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture. He maintains that the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) improperly sought to terminate his asylum status in asylum-only proceedings because he first entered the United States under the Visa Waiver Program. Per Kosh, that limiting program no longer applies to him, so he is entitled to complete-jurisdiction removal proceedings instead. In such unlimited proceedings, asylees can raise an adjustment-of-status claim as a defense to removal. We conclude that, if Kosh re-entered the country as an asylee without signing a new Visa Waiver Program form limiting his defenses, he is entitled to complete-jurisdiction proceedings. We thus grant his petition for review, vacate the BIA’s decision, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
As many practitioners know, the BIA’s continual bogus “fundamentally changed circumstances” findings for countries where the human rights conditions have remained abysmal for decades, certainly NOT materially improving, and in most cases in the Northern Triangle getting worse, are an endemic problem. Following a finding of past persecution, ICE, not the respondent, bears the burden of proof!
If that burden were honestly and expertly applied, considering individualized fear of harm, ICE would rebut the presumption by a preponderance of the evidence in only a minuscule percentage of cases. Certainly, that was my experience over 21 years on both the trial and appellate benches at EOIR.
Moreover, in this and most other cases of past persecution, even if ICE were able to satisfy its burden of rebutting the presumption of future persecution by a preponderance of the credible evidence, the respondent would be a “slam dunk” for a grant of discretionary asylum on the basis of “other serious harm.” It’s not clear that any of the three judicial entities that considered this case understood and properly applied the “other serious harm” concept.
The BIA’s chronic failure to fulfill its proper role of insuring a fair application of asylum and other protection laws and to provide guidance “shutting down” IJs who routinely manufacture bogus reasons to deny is a systemic denial of due process and failure of judicial professionalism. That it continues to happen under a Dem Administration pledged to restore the rule of law and due process for asylum seekers is astounding, deplorable, and a cause for concern about what today’s Dems really stand for!
This case should have been granted by the IJ years ago. An appeal by ICE on this feeble showing should have been subject to summary dismissal.
That cases like Mendez Esteban are still aimlessly kicking around Garland’s dysfunctional system in an elusive search for justice is a serious indictment of the Biden Administration’s approach to asylum and to achieving long overdue, life-changing, and readily achievable reforms that are within their power without legislative action. It also helps explain why Garland has neither reduced backlogs nor sufficiently improved professionalism, even with many more IJs on the bench.
Practical tips for fighting against bogus “presumption rebuttals” by IJs under 8 CFR 208.13:
Insist that the IJ actually shift the burden to ICE to rebut the presumption of future persecution based on past persecution.
Use the regulatory definition of “reasonably available” internal relocation to fight bogus IJ findings. For example, countries in the Northern Triangle are “postage stamp sized” and plagued by nationwide violence and corruption. The idea of “reasonably available internal location” under all the factors is prima facie absurd! (A “better BIA” would have already pointed this out in a precedent.)
Argue for a discretionary grant of asylum even in the absence of a current well founded fear based on 1) “compelling circumstances” arising out of the past persecution (“Chen grant”), and/or “other serious harm” under the regulations — a much broader concept than persecution that does NOT require nexus to a protected ground.
Knowing and using the law aggressively to assert your client’s rights, making the record, and exhausting all appellate options are the best defenses to biased, anti-asylum, often disconnected from reality denials of life-saving relief to your clients!
Knightess of the Round Table — Somebody’s listening to our message! Too bad the Biden Administration doesn’t! It would save lots of time, resources, and lives if they did!
JUSTICE JACKSON delivered the opinion of the Court.
Under 8 U. S. C. §1252(d)(1), a noncitizen who seeks to challenge an order of removal in court must first exhaust certain administrative remedies. This case presents two questions regarding that statutory provision. For the rea- sons explained below, we hold that §1252(d)(1) is not juris- dictional. We hold further that a noncitizen need not re- quest discretionary forms of administrative review, like reconsideration of an unfavorable Board of Immigration Appeals determination, in order to satisfy §1252(d)(1)’s exhaustion requirement.1
. . . .
***********************
Read the full opinion at the link.
So, why is a Dem Administration under AG Garland taking anti-immigrant positions that can’t even garner a single vote on the most far-right Supremes in recent history?
Incredibly, the DOJ made the absurdist argument that, in violation of the statute, an additional unnecessary layer of procedural BS should be inflicted on individuals already dealing with the trauma of a dysfunctional system running a 2 million plus backlog and a BIA with more than 80,000 un-adjudicated appeals at last count! Where’s the common sense? Where’s the competence? Where’s the “better government” that the Biden Administration promised?
Meanwhile, our Round Table continues to put our centuries of collective experience in due process, fundamental fairness, and practical problem solving to use! The Biden Administration might not be paying attention. But, many others, including Article III Judges, are taking advantage and listening.
BIA Asylum Panel In Action. Garland’s largely “holdover” BIA continues to align itself with Trump’s extreme right, nativist judges, as the progressives and advocates who actually supported Dems in the last two elections are left to stew, along with their dehumanized asylum seeking clients. Albrecht Dürer, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
Dan Kowalski reports for LexisNexis Immigration Community:
“Under the correct analysis, the record here compels a conclusion that Honduran rural landownership in this case is a common fundamental characteristic because Turcios-Flores should not be required to change this aspect of her identity to avoid persecution given the demonstrated importance of landownership to her. Therefore, we remand to the Board for further explanation of whether this group meets the social distinction and particularity requirements as well as the remaining asylum considerations.”
To reach their wrongconclusion that “rural landowners” are not a “particular social group,” the BIA ignored its own precedent. See, e.g., Matter of Acosta, 19 I&N Dec. 211, 233 (BIA 1985), modified on other grounds.
Class warfare and persecution of property owners was at the heart of most Marxist-Leninist Communist dictatorships.
Remarkably, under Garland, the BIA continues to parrot the same biased, restrictionist nonsense spouted by the Trumpist dissenter in this case, Judge Chad A. Readler. He was roundly criticized as unqualified by Democrats and advocates at the time of his nomination. This opposition had lots to do with his biased, anti-immigrant views flowing from his then “boss,” nativist/racist former AG Jeff “Gonzo Apocalypto” Sessions!
For example, it’s worth reviewing the comments of the Alliance for Justice on Reacher’s nomination:
On June 7, 2018, President Trump announced his intention to nominate a Justice Department official, Chad Readler, to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. This announcement was particularly striking for one notable reason: on that very day, Readler had become a leader in the Trump Administration’s fight to destroy the Affordable Care Act and the protections it offers to millions of Americans. Readler, as acting head of the Civil Division, filed a brief to strike down the ACA, including its protections for people with preexisting conditions. If Readler and the Trump Justice Department are successful, the ACA’s protections for tens of millions of people, including cancer patients, people with diabetes, pregnant women, and many other Americans, would be removed.
As the acting head of the Department of Justice Civil Division under Attorney General Jeff Sessions, Readler defended the Trump Administration’s most odious policies, including separating immigrant children from their parents at the border, while claiming that “[e]verything that the Attorney General does that I’ve been involved with he’s . . . being very respectful of precedent and the text of the statute and proper role of agencies.”
His track record is equally atrocious in other respects. He has tried to undermine public education in Ohio; supported the efforts of Betsy DeVos to protect fraudulent for-profit schools; fought to make it harder for persons of color to vote; advanced the Trump Administration’s anti-LGBTQ and anti-reproductive rights agenda; fought to allow tobacco companies to advertise to children, including outside day care centers; sought to undermine the independence of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau; and advocated for executing minors.
Chad Readler’s record of diehard advocacy for right-wing causes suggests he will be anything but an independent, fair-minded jurist. Alliance for Justice strongly opposes Readler’s confirmation.
It’s remarkable and infuriating that once in office, Democrats in the Biden Administration have aligned themselves with the toxic views of extreme, nativist right wing judges whose xenophobic, atrocious views they campaigned against! They have done this in a huge “life or death” Federal Court system that they completely control and have authority to reform without legislation!
Matter of Morales-Morales, 28 I&N Dec. 714 (BIA 2023)
BIA Headnote:
(1) The Board of Immigration Appeals has authority to accept what are otherwise untimely appeals, and consider them timely, in certain situations because 8 C.F.R. § 1003.38(b) (2022) is a claim-processing rule and not a jurisdictional provision. Matter of Liadov, 23 I&N Dec. 990 (BIA 2006), overruled.
(2) The Board will accept a late-filed appeal where a party can establish that equitable tolling applies, which requires the party to show both diligence in the filing of the notice of appeal and that an extraordinary circumstance prevented timely filing.
FOR THE RESPONDENT: Mario Salgado, Esquire, San Francisco, California
Notably, but perhaps predictably for those who follow the BIA’s generally “respondent/due process unfriendly” jurisprudence, the “good news” that the BIA has belatedly decided to follow the 2d, 5th, and 9th Circuits on equitable tolling is “tempered” by the result in this case — denial of the motion to reconsider and accept the appeal!
Evidently, among its 82,000+ backlog, the BIA was unable to identify a case where correctly applying equitable tolling would actually BENEFIT the respondent, rather than just requiring a different, largely contrived, analysis to “get to no!”This continues a depressing and highly inappropriate long-standing tendency of the BIA to provide negative examples of how to apply potentially remedial rules.
Presumably, after 17 years of the BIA’s wrong-headed precedent Matter of Liadov, everyone understands that the BIA is “programmed to deny.” What’s needed is “reprogramming”to recognize and grant motions based on “equitable tolling.”
It’s also remarkable that the “highest tribunal” of a dysfunctional organization, notorious for losing files; failing to provide timely, correct notice; cancelling hearings without notice on the hearing date; switching Immigration Judges without notice in a system where the identity of the judge is too often “outcome determinative;” and “cutting” DHS and itself almost endless “breaks” and “exceptions” for their sloppy, lazy, and sometimes ethnically questionable practices sees fit to “pontificate” so self-righteously on what’s “due diligence” and “extraordinary circumstances” for the private bar. The “message” is pretty clear: Denial is the “preferred” (or default, or de facto presumed) result!
If either of the foregoing concepts were applied to EOIR and DHS with the same stringency they are to individuals and their representatives, both agencies would have been forced out of business long ago!
This system is totally screwed up! Dems must ask themselves why Garland and his senior leadership have failed to “unscrew it,” and what can be done to deal with their democracy-and-life-threatening indolence and inattention to quality jurisprudence, due process, fundamental fairness, and best practices.
1. Plaintiff CLAUDIA ESCOTO, while working as a Staff Assistant to Assistant Chief Immigration Judge Scott Laurent was subjected to egregious and continual sexual harassment, including Judge Laurent describing in graphic detail other judges and employees he wanted to have sex with, or had sex with, in what positions he wished to have sex and in what manner. Judge Scott Laurent discussed in lurid detail the physical attributes of attorneys who came before him to represent litigants and the government and further discussed attraction to and/or sexual relations with other judges. Judge Laurent regularly subjected Plaintiff to rambling diatribes regarding the breasts, attractiveness and whether he deemed the female attorneys and judges “fuckable.” Judge Laurent also regularly discussed female colleagues and employees in a degrading and sexual manner, discussing in graphic detail who he wanted to have sex with, the physical attributes of female employees and judges. Judge Laurent engaged in this conduct even when in judge’s robes when on the bench. Judge Laurent subjected Plaintiff to graphic description of sexual relations he was having with his wife and other women, including during what was supposed to be work hours.
2. Judge Laurent touched Plaintiff without her consent in a sexual manner, repeatedly placing his hand on Plaintiff’s upper leg when she traveled in a car with him, and ensuring his right arm touched her breasts. This was unwelcome and deeply disturbing to Plaintiff.
3. Judge Laurent further demeaned Plaintiff’s sexual orientation, claiming he could turn her straight (referring to his supposed sexual prowess if Plaintiff had sexual relations with him), referred to Plaintiff’s wife’s breasts and attractiveness and demanded that Plaintiff come “sit on Daddy’s lap,” referring to himself as “Daddy.” He would also proclaim “I can turn you straight, Baby!”
4. Judge Laurent’s conduct caused Plaintiff severe emotional impacts, including causing fainting spells, among other severe reactions. Plaintiff requested a medical leave, during which time
Judge Laurent continued to contact Plaintiff to pressure her to work. He denied Plaintiff’s extension of leave, improperly placing her on AWOL status, even though Plaintiff had leave time. Plaintiff requested a reasonable accommodation of reassignment to a different supervisor where she would not be subjected to this egregious sexual harassment. This request was denied by Defendant. Defendant then acted on Judge Laurent’s recommendation to fire Plaintiff shortly after receiving Plaintiff’s complaints of sexual harassment, discrimination, and retaliation, having taken no actions to address Plaintiff’s complaints, other than to fire her.
5. Judge Laurent’s actions show no respect for the sacred office he holds, demean the entire justice system, and turn what should be a model employment environment into a cesspool, where Plaintiff was made to endure an onslaught of sexual comments and sexual advances, ultimately being fired when she had the bravery to come forward. Plaintiff CLAUDIA ESCOTO, as well as the justice system itself, deserved so much better. Defendant must be held to account.
*****************************
These are only unproven allegations in a court complaint at this point! But, if any of this is true, it would confirm that there are some deep “cultural” issues at EOIR that leadership has not dealt with.
“Expedited/dedicated dockets” and other “haste make waste” nonsense that misses the mark at EOIR aren’t going to solve systemic issues affecting due process and fundamental fairness for the millions whose lives and futures are pending in our broken and dysfunctional Immigration Courts!
