Honorable A. Ashley Tabaddor – Page 12 – immigrationcourtside.com

GONZO’S WORLD: RECENT ARTICLES SHOW HOW SESSIONS’S SHOCKINGLY INAPPROPRIATE REMARKS TO NEW IMMIGRATION JUDGES VIOLATED EOIR CODE OF JUDICIAL ETHICS, SHOWED DISRESPECT FOR THE LAW, AND VIOLATED THE FUNDAMENTAL RULES OF GOOD IMMIGRATION JUDGING BY DIRECTING JUDGES NOT TO BE SYMPATHETIC TO REFUGEES! – TURNING REFUGEE LAW AND HISTORY ON ITS HEAD!

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/hamedaleaziz/sessions-new-immigration-judges-sympathy

Hamed Aleaziz reports for BuzzFeed News:

Attorney General Jeff Sessions on Monday warned incoming immigration judges that lawyers representing immigrants are trying to get around the law like “water seeping through an earthen dam” and that their responsibility is to not let them and instead deliver a “secure” border and a “lawful system” that “actually works.”

He also cautioned the judges against allowing sympathy for the people appearing before them, which might cause them to make decisions contrary to what the law requires.

“When we depart from the law and create nebulous legal standards out of a sense of sympathy for the personal circumstances of a respondent in our immigration courts, we do violence to the rule of law and constitutional fabric that bind this great nation. Your job is to apply the law — even in tough cases,” he said.

The comments immediately drew criticism from the union that represents the judges and from former judges.

“The reality is that it is a political statement which does not articulate a legal concept that judges are required to be aware of and follow,” said Dana Marks, a spokesperson for the National Association of Immigration Judges and an immigration judge in San Francisco. “It did appear to be a one-sided argument made by a prosecutor.”

Jeffrey Chase, a former immigration judge and now an immigration attorney, said the comments overlooked the fact that asylum laws were designed to be flexible.

“We possess brains and hearts, not just one or the other,” he said. It is sympathy, Chase said, that often spurs legal theories that advance the law in asylum law, civil rights, and criminal law.

“Sessions is characterizing decisions he personally disagrees with as being based on sympathy alone,” he said, “when in fact, those decisions were driven by sympathy but based on solid legal reasoning.”

Unlike other US courts, immigration judges are employees of the Justice Department whose evaluations are based on guidelines Sessions lays out. In that role, Sessions already has instituted case quotas, restricted the types of cases for which asylum can be granted, and limited when judges can indefinitely suspend certain cases. Advocates believe the Trump administration has made these decisions in order to speed up deportations. His comments on sympathy to immigrants appeared intended to bolster a decision he made recently to limit when asylum can be granted out of fear of domestic or gang violence.

Sessions also told the judges that they should focus on maximum production and urged them to get “imaginative and inventive” with their high caseload. The courts currently have a backlog of hundreds of thousands of deportation cases.

Ashley Tabaddor, an immigration judge in Los Angeles and the president of the National Association of Immigration Judges, which represents the nation’s 350 immigration judges, said Sessions’ speech was notable for its lack of any mention of fairness or due process. “We cannot possibly be put in this bind of being accountable to someone who is so clearly committed to the prosecutorial role,” said Tabaddor.

The union has long called for its separation from the Department of Justice in order to be truly independent of political decision-making.

“Good lawyers, using all of their talents and skill, work every day — like water seeping through an earthen dam — to get around the plain words of the [Immigration and Nationality Act] to advance their clients’ interests. Theirs is not the duty to uphold the integrity of the act. That is our most serious duty,” Sessions said in a speech to 44 newly hired judges who were being trained in Falls Church, Virginia.

He ended his speech by telling the incoming judges that the American people had spoken in laws and “in our elections.”

“They want a safe, secure border and a lawful system of immigration that actually works. Let’s deliver it for them,” Sessions said.

From the beginning of October through the end of June, immigration judges had granted around 22% of asylum cases and denied around 41% of cases. The rest of the cases were closed. The rate is similar to previous fiscal years. Sessions’ decision to limit the types of cases in which asylum should be granted was made in mid-June.

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

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6152755/The-U-S-increase-number-immigration-judges-50-percent-BALLOONING-backlog.html

Valerie Bauman reports for The Daily Mail:

Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday that he plans to increase the number of immigration judges in the U.S. by 50 percent by the end of Fiscal Year 2018 – part of the administration’s effort to take on a case backlog that has ballooned under the Trump administration’s zero-tolerance policy.

The number of immigration cases on hold in the U.S. has risen 38 percent since Trump took office, with 746,049 pending immigration cases as of July 31, up from 542,411 at the end of January 2017, according to an analysis of government data by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse at Syracuse University.

Sessions asserted his authority on Monday during remarks welcoming 44 newly hired immigration judges – the largest class in U.S. history – noting that they must operate under his supervision and perform the duties that he prescribes.

As you take on this critically important role, I hope that you will be imaginative and inventive in order to manage a high-volume caseload,’ he said. ‘I do not apologize for expecting you to perform, at a high level, efficiently and effectively.’

The attorney general said the system for seeking asylum in the U.S. has been ‘abused for years’ and while the judges must respect immigrants’ rights, they should also ‘reject unjustified and sometimes blatantly fake claims.’

Sessions also had harsh words for the attorneys who represent immigrants, describing them as ‘water seeping through an earthen dam,’ who attempt to ‘get around’ immigration laws.

The message follows a series of policy changes that have put increasing pressure on immigration judges to close cases quickly while taking away their authority to prioritize cases based on their own judgment.

‘We’re clearly moving toward a point where there isn’t going to be judicial independence in the immigration courts anymore,’ former immigration Judge Jeffrey S. Chase told DailyMail.com.

U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions delivers remarks to the incoming class of immigration judges in Falls Church, Virginia

For example, the Justice Department earlier this year announced a quota system requiring judges to clear at least 700 cases annually in order to be rated as ‘satisfactory’ on their performance evaluations.

Quotas ‘would threaten the integrity and independence of the court and potentially increase the court’s backlog,’ according to the National Association of Immigration Judges, the union representing the judges.

Sessions also issued a decision earlier this year that takes away the authority of immigration judges to administratively close cases, a process that allowed a judge to indefinitely close low-priority cases to make room on the docket for more serious offenses – such as those involving violent criminals and gang members.

From Oct. 1, 2011 through Sept. 30, 2017, 215,285 cases were administratively closed, according to Sessions. Now experts say those cases will be added back to the dockets, further compounding the backlog.

In addition, Sessions issued a legal opinion earlier this year designed to make it impossible for victims of domestic violence and gangs to seek asylum in the U.S. – which some critics say will limit judicial independence.

Legal experts said Monday that Session’s speech was designed to assert his authority over the judges and impress upon them the importance of issuing rulings consistent with his own philosophy.

‘That was an enforcement speech,’ former immigration Judge Paul Wickham Schmidt told DailyMail.com. ‘The whole implication that somehow (people seeking asylum) are bending the law and that there are attorneys trying to go through loopholes is the opposite of the truth … The losers in these asylum cases aren’t simply migrants trying to game the system. They are people facing real dangers when they go home.’

Sessions did not shy away from calling on the new judges to rise to the challenges before them.

‘Let me say this clearly: it is perfectly legitimate, moral, and decent for a nation to have a legal system of immigration and to enforce the system it adopts,’ Sessions said in his prepared remarks. ‘No great and prosperous nation can have both a generous welfare system and open borders. Such a policy is both radical and dangerous.’

Sessions has said that he has introduced a ‘streamlined’ approach for hiring judges – a historically lengthy process – to bring the average hiring time down to 266 days, compared from 742 days in 2017, according to Department of Justice data.

Immigration judges are appointed by the U.S. attorney general. The new additions bring the total number of immigration judges in the U.S. to 397.

OK. Now let’s get beyond Sessions’s White Nationalist screed and get some truth about:

The ethical standards for Immigration Judges;
The real intent of the Refugee Act of 19809; and
What being a fair and impartial immigration judge is really about.

Sessions’s Statement Favoring A Party To Immigration Court Proceedings And Showing Disrespect For The Opposing Party & Their Representatives Violates The EOIR Ethical Code By Showing An “Appearance of Bias.”

Let’s remember that under the strange rules governing EOIR and the Immigration Courts within the USDOJ, Attorney General Jeff Sessions can and has taken on the role as a judicial adjudicator in an individual cases, changing results and setting precedent for the BIA and the Immigration Judges.

So, what does the EOIR Code of Judicial Ethics say about judicial conduct?

V. Impartiality (5 C.F.R. § 2635.101(b)(8))

An Immigration Judge shall act impartially and shall not give preferential treatment to any organization or individual when adjudicating the merits of aparticular case. An Immigration Judge should encourage and facilitate pro bono representation. An Immigration Judge may grant procedural priorities to lawyers providing pro bono legal services in accordance with Operating Procedures and Policies Memorandum (OPPM) 08-01.

VI. Appearance of Impropriety (5 C.F.R. § 2635.101(b)(14))

An Immigration Judge shall endeavor to avoid any actions that, in thejudgment of a reasonable person with knowledge of the relevant facts, wouldcreate the appearance that he or she is violating the law or applicable ethical standards.

. . . .

IX. Acting with judicial Temperament and Professionalism

An Immigration Judge should be patient, dignified, and courteous, and should act in a professional manner towards all litigants, witnesses, lawyers and others with whom the Immigration Judge deals in his or her official capacity, and should not, in the performance of official duties, by words or conduct, manifest improper bias or prejudice.

Note: An Immigration Judge should be alert to avoid behavior, including inappropriate demeanor, which may be perceived as biased. The test forappearance of impropriety is whether the conduct would create in the mind of a reasonable person with knowledge of the relevant facts the belief that the Immigration Judge’s ability to carry out his or her responsibilities with integrity, impartiality, and competence is impaired.

Note: An Immigration Judge who manifests bias or prejudice in a proceeding impairs the fairness of the proceeding and brings the immigration process into disrepute. Examples of manifestations of bias or prejudice include but are not limited to epithets; slurs; demeaning nicknames; negative stereotyping; attempted humor based upon stereotypes; threatening, intimidating, or hostile acts; suggestions of connections between race, ethnicity, or nationality and crime; and irrelevant reference to personal characteristics. Moreover, an Immigration Judge must avoid conduct that may reasonably be perceived as prejudiced or biased. Immigration Judges are not precluded from making legitimate reference to any of the above listed factors, or similar factors, when they are relevant to an issue in a proceeding.

Note: An Immigration Judge has the authority to regulate the course ofthe hearing. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 1240.1(c), 1240.9. Nothing herein prohibits theJudge from doing so. It is recognized that at times an Immigration Judgemust be firm and decisive to maintain courtroom control.

Wow. Sure sounds to me like Sessions is in clear violation of each of these!

Let’s get down to “brass tacks” here. Imagine that you are a represented asylum applicant from the Northern Triangle with an upcoming hearing. The morning of your hearing, you read the statement that Jeff Sessions made to the new Immigration Judges.

That afternoon, when you appear at the hearing you find that none other than Jeff Sessions is yo\ur U.S. Immigration Judge. So, do you think that you and your attorney are going to get a “fair and impartial” hearing, including a possible favorable exercise of discretion” on your asylum application, as our Constitution and laws require? Of course not!

But remember, all asylum applicants are appearing before “judges” who are actually employees of Jeff Sessions. Each judge knows that he or she owes career longevity to pleasing Sessions and his minions. Each judge also knows that at any time Sessions can arbitrarily reach down into the system, without explanation or notice, and “certify” any case or decision to himself.

Clearly, after having publicly taken a pro-DHS, pro-enforcement, anti-asylum applicant, anti-private attorney position, Sessions should not ethically have any role whatsoever in the outcome of cases in the Immigration Court System. But, clearly, he does have such a role. A big one!

If any sitting Immigration Judge conducted himself or herself the way Sessions just did, they would be suspended immediately. How does Sessions get away with disregarding judicial ethics in his own system?

The Refugee Act of 1980 Implements Our International Treaty Obligations Under the UN Convention & Protocol Relating To The Status Of Refugees and Is Actually About “Protecting” Those In Danger, Not Finding Ways Of “Rejecting” Their Claims.

Let’s hear from a former legislator who played a key role in developing and enacting the Refugee Act or 1980, former Representative Elizabeth Holtzman (D-NY) who at that time was the Chair of the House Immigration Subcommittee. This is from the letter that Holtzman recently wrote to Secretary Nielsen resigning from the DHS Detention Advisory Committee because of its perversion of the law, particularly the illegal family separation policy engineered by Sessions.

What is so astonishing to me is how much this country has changed since 1980, when I was privileged as chair of the House Immigration Subcommittee to co-author with Senator Ted Kennedy the Refugee Act of 1980. The Act — which was adopted without serious controversy — created a framework for the regular admission of refugees to the U.S. The immediate stimulus for the bill was the huge exodus of boat people leaving Vietnam. Though the memory of the Holocaust played a role, too, particularly the knowledge that the U.S. could have rescued so many people from the hands of the Nazis but did not. The Refugee Act marked our commitment as a nation to welcoming persons fleeing persecution anywhere.

In those days, the U.S. accepted large numbers of refugees — about 750,000 arrived from Vietnam; 600,000 entered from Cuba; and hundreds of thousands of Jews and their relatives came from the Soviet Union. The thought that the U.S. is frightened today by the presence of an additional 2,000 or so children and parents from Central America is laughable and appalling.

In those days, the U.S. also showed world leadership on refugee resettlement. For example, America understood that it bore a special responsibility for the refugees fleeing Vietnam because of its long involvement in the Vietnam War. Obviously, we could not absorb all the refugees, but our government worked hard to get resettlement solutions for all. First, it persuaded the countries neighboring Vietnam to which people fled in small boats not to push those refugees back out to sea, where they would confront pirates, drowning and other terrible dangers. (I know because I participated in speaking to those countries.) Then, the U.S. organized a world conference in Geneva, where countries agreed to accept specific numbers of refugees. The U.S. was able to induce other countries to act because it took the largest share. Our country’s leadership turned the boat people crisis into one of the most successful refugee resettlement programs ever.

Now, in response to the influx of (mostly) women and their children fleeing horrific violence in Central America, the U.S. government can think only of building a wall and unlawfully separating children from their parents — something I call child kidnapping, plain and simple — as a deterrent to keep others from coming to the US. How far we have we fallen.

And how easy it would be to do the right thing. The U.S. needs to start with recognizing that it once again has a special responsibility for a dire situation, this time in the Northern Triangle. We overthrew the democratically elected government in Guatemala, which was replaced by one right-wing government after another, including one that committed genocide against the indigenous population. In Honduras and El Salvador, we similarly propped up right-wing governments that did nothing for their people, leaving them without effective governance in place. The fact that gangs have been able to terrorize the population with impunity is a result.

More must be done as well. We should reinstate the Central American Minors Refugee/Parole Program, established under President Obama and cancelled by the Trump Administration, whereby people could apply in their home countries for admission as refugees to the U.S. without facing the perils of the overland trip. Second, we should try to get Canada and other countries in South America to accept refugees from the Northern Triangle countries, reducing the burden on us. To do this, we would have to agree to take a substantial number of refugees from the Northern Triangle countries as well. And then we should work to improve the governance in these countries, perhaps by involving the United Nations and nearby countries, such as Costa Rica.

Unfortunately, the chance of any such enlightened response toward refugees from the Northern Triangle seems remote. These countries probably fall into Trump’s stated “shithole” category. Plainly, the hostile attitude toward the refugees persists. For example, 463 parents may have been deported without their children. Apparently DHS Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen feels no responsibility for reuniting those with their parents, instead making the flimsy excuse that the parents wanted to leave them behind. While possibly true in a small number of instances, given the fact that many of the parents do not speak English, or even Spanish, but their indigenous language, it is more likely that a significant number of the parents had no idea of what was happening or how to get their children back. They may even have been coerced into leaving. In any case, Nielsen has a very poor record of truth-telling. On June 17, she insisted that “We do not have a policy of separating families at the border. Period.”

And the racist, contemptuous attitude of the Administration keeps showing. Just recently, before a conservative audience, Attorney General Jeff Sessions made a joke — a joke! — about separating children from their parents. (He also briefly joined in a chant of “Lock her up!”)

Most Americans, fortunately, have found the separation policy abhorrent. Those of us who do, need to press the Administration to find a more humane and more comprehensive solution, like our country has done in the past. But if the Administration continues the enforced separation policy, I hope that the courts will enforce their decisions, which have required reunification, by holding the Secretary and others in contempt if necessary. Congress should be called on to act by holding hearings and adopting censure resolutions. None of us can sit idly by when our government stoops to such racist, malign behavior.

Yes, with responsible leadership, it would be relatively easy to do the right thing here. But, it’s not going to happen with the “wrong people” like Donald Trump, Stephen Miller, Jeff Sessions, and Kristjen Nielsen in charge.

The real intent of the Refugee Act of 1980 was to give America the tools to take a leadership role in protecting individuals, particularly those flowing from situations we helped cause like the mess in the Northern Triangle. I’m sure that most of those involved in the bipartisan effort would be shocked by the overtly racist, restrictionist views being pawned off by Sessions as “following the law.” “I call BS” on Session’s perversion of protection laws.

Undoubtedly, cases like Matter of A-R-C-G-, incorrectly overruled by Sessions, actually substantially understated the case for protecting domestic violence victims. There is little doubt in my mind that under a proper interpretation “women in El Salvador” (or Guatemala or Honduras, or many other countries) satisfy the stated criteria for a “particular social group.”

Being a “woman in El Salvador” clearly is :

Immutable or fundamental to identity;
Particularized; and
Socially distinct.

Moreover, there is no legitimate doubt that the status of being a “woman in El Salvador” is often “at least one central reason” for the persecution. Nor is there any doubt that the Governments in the Northern Triangle are unwilling and unable to offer a reasonable level of protection to women abused because of class membership, Sessions’s largely fictional account of country conditions notwithstanding.

At some point, whether or not in my lifetime, some integrity will be re-injected into the legal definition by recognizing the obvious. It might come from Congress, a more qualified Executive, or the Courts. But, it will eventually come. The lack of recognition for women refugees, who perhaps make up a majority of the world’s refugees, is a symptom of the “old white guys” like Sessions who have controlled the system. But, that’s also likely to change in the future.

My esteemed colleague, retired U.S. Immigraton Judge Jeffrey S. Chase said it best:

“Sessions is characterizing decisions he personally disagrees with as being based on sympathy alone,” he said, “when in fact, those decisions were driven by sympathy but based on solid legal reasoning.”

The Proper Role Of a Good Immigration Judge Involves Sympathetic Understanding Of The Plight Of Refugees, What They Have Suffered, & The Systemic Burdens They Face in Presenting Claims.

Let’s see what some real judges who have had a role in the actually fairly adjudicating asylum claims have to say about the qualities of judging.

Here’s one of my favorite quotes from the late Seventh Circuit Judge Terence T. Evans in Guchshenkov v. Ashcroft, 366 F.3d 554 (7th Cir. 2004) (Evans, J., concurring) that sums up the essence of being a good Immigration Judge:

Because 100 percent of asylum petitioners want to stay in this country, but less than 100 percent are entitled to asylum, an immigration judge must be alert to the fact that some petitioners will embellish their claims to increase their chances of success. On the other hand, an immigration judge must be sensitive to the suffering and fears of petitioners who are genuinely entitled to asylum in this country. A healthy balance of sympathy and skepticism is a job requirement for a good immigration judge. Attaining that balance is what makes the job of an immigration judge, in my view, excruciatingly difficult.

Or, check out this heartfelt statement from my former colleague Judge Thomas Snow, one of “Arlington’s Finest,” (who also, not incidentally, had served as the Acting Chief Immigration Judge and Acting Director of EOIR, as well as being a long-time Senior Executive in the USDOJ) in USA Today:

Immigration judges make these decisions alone. Many are made following distraught or shame-filled testimony covering almost unimaginable acts of inhumanity. And we make them several times a day, day after day, year after year.

We take every decision we make very seriously. We do our best to be fair to every person who comes before us. We judge each case on its own merits, no matter how many times we’ve seen similar fact patterns before.

We are not policymakers. We are not legislators. We are judges. Although we are employees of the U.S. Department of Justice who act under the delegated authority of the attorney general, no one tells us how to decide a case. I have been an immigration judge for more than 11 years, and nobody has ever tried to influence a single one of my thousands of decisions

And finally, because we are judges, we do our best to follow the law and apply it impartially to the people who appear before us. I know I do so, even when it breaks my heart.

Here’s a “pithier” one from my friend and colleague Judge Dana Leigh Marks, former President of the National Association of Immigration Judges (who also was the “winning attorney” representing the plaintiff in INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421 (1987)) — I was on the “losing” INS side that day):

[I]mmigration judges often feel asylum hearings are “like holding death penalty cases in traffic court.”

Finally, here’s my take on being an Immigration Judge after 45 years in the field, including stints at the BIA, the “Legacy INS,” private practice, and academics:

From my perspective, as an Immigration Judge I was half scholar, half performing artist. An Immigration Judge is alwayson public display, particularly in this “age of the Internet.” His or her words, actions, attitudes, and even body language, send powerful messages, positive or negative, about our court system and our national values. Perhaps not surprisingly, the majority of those who fail at the job do so because they do not recognize and master the “performing artist” aspect, rather than from a lack of pertinent legal knowledge.

Compare Sessions’s one-sided, biased outlook with the statements of those of us who have “walked the walk and talked the talk” — who have had to listen to the horrible stories, judge credibility, look at whether protection can legally be extended, and, on some occasions, look folks in the eye and tell them we have no choice but to send them back into situations where they clearly face death or danger.

Sympathetic understanding of refugees and the protection purposes of refugee, asylum, and CAT laws are absolutely essential to fair adjudication of asylum and other claims for relief under the Immigration Laws. And, clearly, under the UNHCR guidance, if one is going to err, it must be on the side of protection rather than rejection.

That’s why Jeff Sessions, a cruel, biased, and ignorant individual, lacking human understanding, sympathy, a sense of fundamental fairness, a commitment to Due Process, and genuine knowledge of the history and purposes of asylum laws has no business whatsoever being involved in immigration adjudication, let alone “heading” what is supposed to be a fair and impartial court system dedicated to “guaranteeing fairness and Due Process for all.”

Senator Elizabeth Warren tried to tell her colleagues and the rest of America the truth about Jeff Sessions and the horrible mistake they were making in putting such a famously unqualified man in charge of our Department of Justice. But, they wouldn’t listen. Now, refugees, families, and children, among his many victims, are paying the price.

Sessions closes with a final lie: that the American people spoke in the election in favor his White Nationalist policies. Whether Sessions acknowledges it or not, Donald Trump is a minority President. Millions more voted for Hillary Clinton and other candidates than they did for Trump.

Almost every legitimate poll shows that most Americans favor a more moderate immigration policy, one that admits refugees, promotes an orderly but generous legal immigration system, takes care of Dreamers, and controls the borders in a humane fashion as opposed to the extreme xenophobic restrictionist measures pimped by Sessions, Trump, Steven Miller, and the GOP far right. In particular, the separation of children, Sessions’s unlawful “brainchild,” has been immensely (and rightfully) unpopular.

Jeff Sessions has never spoken for the majority of Americans on immigration or almost anything else. Don’t let him get away with his noxious plans to destroy our justice system! Whether you are an Immigration Judge, a Government employee, or a private citizen, we all have an obligation to stand up to his disingenuous bullying and intentionally false, xenophobic, racially-motivated, unethical, scofflaw narrative.

PWS

09-11-18

PROFESSOR MAUREEN SWEENEY ON WHY THE BIA DOESN’T DESERVE “CHEVRON” DEFERENCE – JEFF SESSIONS’S ALL OUT ATTACK ON THE INDEPENDENCE OF THE IMMIGRATION JUDICIARY IS EXHIBIT 1!

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/immigration/2018/08/immigration-article-of-the-day-enforcingprotection-the-danger-of-chevron-in-refugee-act-cases-by-mau.html

Go on over to ImmigrationProf Blog at the above link for all of the links necessary to get the abstract as well as the full article. Among the many current and former Immigration Judges quoted or cited in the article are Jeffrey Chase, Ashley Tabaddor, Dana Marks, Lory Rosenberg, Robert Vinikoor, and me. (I’m sure I’m missing some of our other colleagues; it’s a very long article, but well worth the read.)

In an article full of memorable passages, here is one of my favorites:

Full enforcement of the law requires full enforcement of provisions that grant protection as well as provisions that restrict border entry. This is the part of “enforcement” that the Department of Justice is not equipped to fully understand. The agency’s fundamental commitment to controlling unauthorized immigration does not allow it a neutral, open position on asylum questions. The foundational separation and balance of powers concerns at the heart of Chevron require courts to recognize that inherent conflict of interest as a reason Congress is unlikely to have delegated unchecked power on refugee protection to the prosecuting agency. In our constitutional structure, the courts stand as an essential check on the executive power to deport and must provide robust review to fully enforce the congressional mandate to protect refugees. If the courts abdicate this vital function, they will be abdicating their distinctive role in ensuring the full enforcement of all of our immigration law—including those provisions that seek to ensure compliance with our international obligations to protect individuals facing the danger of persecution.

This is a point that my friend and colleague Judge Lory Rosenberg made often during our tenure together on the BIA. All too often, her pleas fell on deaf ears.

The now abandoned pre-2001 “vision statement” of EOIR was “to be the world’s best administrative tribunals, guaranteeing fairness and due process for all.” Nothing in there about “partnering” with DHS to remove more individuals, fulfilling quotas, “sending messages to stay home,” securing the border, jacking up volume, deterring migration, or advancing other politically motivated enforcement goals. Indeed, the proper role of EOIR is to insure fair and impartial adjudication and Due Process for individuals even in the face of constant pressures to “just go along to get along” with a particular Administration’s desires to favor the expedient over the just.

Under all Administrations, the duty to insure Due Process, fairness, full protections, and the granting to benefits to migrants under the law is somewhat shortchanged at EOIR in relation to the pressure to promote Executive enforcement objectives. But, the situation under the xenophobic, disingenuous, self-proclaimed “Immigration Enforcement Czar” Jeff Sessions is a true national disgrace and a blot on our entire legal system. If Congress won’t do its job by removing the Immigration Courts from the DOJ forthwith, the Article III courts must step in, as Maureen suggests.

PWS

08-23-18

LEADING ACADEMICS FILE OPPOSITION TO JUDICIAL QUOTAS WITH SESSIONS – The Continuing Saga Of The Due-Process-Killing Move That Nobody But Sessions Wants!

https://commonwealthlaw.widener.edu/files/resources/letter-to-sessions-immigration-adjudication-with-s.pdf

Professor Jill Family

Commonwealth Professor of Law and Government Director, Law and Government Institute
Widener University Commonwealth Law School

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

page1image2446232864

August 14, 2018

Honorable Jeff Sessions Attorney General
U.S. Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530

Dear Attorney General Sessions:

We are scholars and teachers of immigration law and of administrative law. We write to express our alarm about the Department of Justice’s new performance metrics for immigration judges. We believe the Department’s performance metrics are unacceptable and fear they are a part of larger goal to undermine the independence of the immigration courts.

Longstanding problems with immigration adjudication have simmered through both Republican and Democratic administrations.1 These problems have manifested in a tremendous backlog of cases awaiting adjudication: over 700,000 cases.2 The wait for a removal hearing can last years.3 The status quo is not acceptable and actions to reform the system are imperative.

Reforms, however, need to enhance fairness by protecting individual rights. Whether the adjudicating body is the Environmental Protection Agency, the Internal Revenue Service, or the Department of Justice in a removal proceeding, how government power is used against a respondent should be scrutinized. This concern is amplified in immigration law because Congress has eliminated federal court review of some issues. For many, the agency hearing before the Department of Justice is the only opportunity to seek statutory protections.

1 Our comments here focus on the Department of Justice’s proposed performance metrics for immigration judges, but there are other issues facing the immigration adjudication system, including a lack of access to counsel and the many types of diversions used to prevent an individual from reaching immigration court. SeeIngrid V. Eagly & Steven Shafer, A National Study of Access to Counsel in Immigration Court, 164 U. PA. L. REV. 1 (2015); Jill E. Family, A Broader View of the Immigration Adjudication Problem, 23 GEO. IMMIGR. L.J. 595 (2009).2 Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse, Backlog of Pending Cases in Immigration Courts as of May 2018,http://trac.syr.edu/phptools/immigration/court_backlog/apprep_backlog.php.

3 Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse, Average Time Pending Cases Have Been Waiting in Immigration Courts as of May 2018,http://trac.syr.edu/phptools/immigration/court_backlog/apprep_backlog_avgdays.php.

Widener University Commonwealth Law School, 3800 Vartan Way, Harrisburg, PA 17110
t: 717-541-3911 f: 717-541-3966 e: jefamily@widener.edu w: commonwealthlaw.widener.edu

page1image2495023184 page1image2495023456 page1image2495023728

The concept of fair process in implementing the rule of law is one of the most fundamental American principles. It is a pillar of meaningful democracy. The idea that the government should not deprive any person4 of life, liberty or property without first providing fair process is enshrined in the U.S. Constitution. The repercussions of a lack of fair procedure can be devastating. While it is incumbent on any federal administration to act efficiently, the adjudication process must be fair.

The fair process calculus demands an adjudicator who does not feel compelled to rule in a certain way due to unacceptable influences. The law itself may of course compel an adjudicator, but the scenario becomes very murky very quickly when an adjudicator has a personal stake in the outcome of a case.

Agency adjudicators are not Article III judges and never have had the full independence of federal court judges. Immigration Judges do not have even the job protections that other agency adjudicators enjoy, however.5 Immigration judges are attorney employees of the Department of Justice.6 The Department of Justice sets the conditions of employment, including location of employment and whether employment continues.7 A Department of Justice regulation, nevertheless, tells immigration judges to “exercise independent judgment and discretion” when making decisions.8 Also, the immigration judge position has evolved over time to make it more independent,9 even if it has not reached the ideal level of independence.10

Congress has tasked you, the Attorney General, with the management of the Department of Justice, including immigration adjudication. It is your duty to insist that fairness and independence are a part of the system. Agency adjudicators are by nature more accountable to the executive branch. But that does not mean that agency adjudicators should be mere vessels who fail to apply statutory standards or who apply the law subject

4 The Due Process Clause is not limited to citizens. U.S. CONST. amends. V, IV.
5 See Kent Barnett, Against Administrative Judges, 49 U.C. DAVIS L. REV. 1643, 1647 (2016).
6 8 C.F.R. § 1003.10(a).
7 See Board of Immigration Appeals: Procedural Reforms to Improve Case Management,
67 Fed. Reg. 54,878, 54,893 (Aug. 26, 2002) (codified at 8 C.F.R. pt. 3).
8 8 C.F.R. § 1003.10(b).
9 Sidney B. Rawitz, From Wong Yang Sung to Black Robes, 65 INTERPRETER RELEASES 453 (1988).
10 There are proposals, for example, to recreate immigration adjudication as an Article I court with greater autonomy from the executive branch. Christine Lockhart Poarch, The FBA’s Proposal to Create a Federal Immigration Court, THE FEDERAL LAWYER (April 2014), available at http://www.fedbar.org/Image- Library/Government-Relations/CH16/Proposed-Article-I-Immigration-Court.aspx; American Bar Association,Reforming the Immigration System (2010) at E9, available athttps://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/migrated/media/nosearch/immigration_reform_executive_s ummary_012510.authcheckdam.pdf; American Immigration Lawyers Association, Resolution on Immigration Court Reform (2018), available at https://www.aila.org/File/DownloadEmbeddedFile/74919. See also Stephen H. Legomsky, Restructuring Immigration Adjudication, 59 DUKE L.J. 1635, 1640 (2010) (recommending that immigration judges become administrative law judges and be relocated from the Department of Justice to an independent tribunal within the executive branch).

page2image2496209728 page2image2496210000 page2image2496210272 page2image2496210544 page2image2496210880 page2image2496211216

to unfair influence or a conflict of interest. Independence and a lack of bias help to protect individual rights and to secure public confidence in the integrity of the process.

The Department of Justice should not conflate enforcement with adjudication. Immigration judges are not prosecutors. Immigration adjudication is different than other functions of the Department of Justice. Immigration judges hear cases initiated by the Department of Homeland Security.11 The Department of Homeland Security therefore decides who enters the immigration adjudication system. The Department of Justice is tasked not with enforcement, but rather with carefully evaluating another agency’s claims that an individual should be removed from the United States.12

The Department of Justice must adjust and rapidly respond to the work thrust upon it by the Department of Homeland Security. One tool to help improve the efficiency and operations of the immigration courts would be for the Department of Homeland Security to more carefully assess and vet the cases it chooses to bring forward. We urge you to work with the Department of Homeland Security to improve their procedures rather than expecting all management of enormous dockets to fall on the shoulders of the immigration judges.

Instead of providing adequate resources13 or implementing other case management tactics, the Department of Justice has proposed the case completion quotas. 14 We believe that these quotas show disregard for the importance of independence,15 including avoidance of a conflict of interest, in adjudication. The quotas seem to align with President Trump’s

11 Lenni B. Benson & Russell R. Wheeler, Enhancing Quality and Timeliness in Immigration Adjudication at 12 (2012), available at https://www.acus.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Enhancing-Quality-and-Timeliness- in-Immigration-Removal-Adjudication-Final-June-72012.pdf.
12 Congress has charged immigration judges with the duty to adjudicate charges of removal. 8 U.S.C. §1229a.13 The Administrative Conference of the United States has recognized the need for additional resources for immigration adjudication. See Administrative Conference Recommendation 2012-3 at 3, 5, available athttps://www.acus.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2012-3.pdf. We recognize that the Department of Justice has been hiring more immigration judges, but the number of judges has not kept pace with the workload. In 2012, there were 264 immigration judges and now there are approximately 330. Lenni B. Benson & Russell R. Wheeler, Enhancing Quality and Timeliness in Immigration Adjudication at 6 (2012),available at https://www.acus.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Enhancing-Quality-and-Timeliness-in- Immigration-Removal-Adjudication-Final-June-72012.pdf; (reporting 264 immigration judges in 2012); U.S. Department of Justice, Office of the Chief Immigration Judge, https://www.justice.gov/eoir/office-of-the- chief-immigration-judge (stating that there are approximately 330 immigration judges).

14 EOIR Performance Plan, available at http://cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2018/images/04/02/immigration-judges- memo.pdf.
15 We implore the Department of Justice to promote independence even outside the context of the quotas. A group of former immigration adjudicators recently objected to the Department’s removal of an immigration judge from a particular case and replacement with a supervisory judge who implemented the administration’s preferred outcome. Retired Immigration Judges and Former Members of the Board of Immigration Appeals Statement in Response to Latest Attack on Judicial Independence, July 30, 2018, available at,https://www.aila.org/infonet/retired-ijs-former-bia-mems-attack-on-jud-independ.

page3image2495416384 page3image2495416656 page3image2495416928 page3image2495417200 page3image2495417536 page3image2495417808 page3image2495418080 page3image2495418352 page3image2495418816 page3image2495419088 page3image2495419360

displeasure with the need for process in immigration cases. In response to a Republican proposal to add 375 immigration judges, he said, “We don’t want judges; we want security on the border.”16 He also characterized the Republican proposal as adding five or six thousand more judges (in actuality the legislation proposed adding 375 judges).17 He said that to add that many judges must involve graft.18 He also has claimed that there is something wrong with foreign nationals having lawyers represent them in immigration proceedings.19

Performance metrics for judges are not inherently objectionable. Careful data collection and analysis can be helpful for training adjudicators and for marshalling court resources. Immigration judges already are subject to qualitative evaluations of their work. These new quantitative performance metrics, however, appear to affect conditions of employment20such as salary and location of employment.21 This is unacceptable. These metrics will diminish independence in immigration adjudication as immigration judges will now have a personal stake in the outcome of cases. Meeting the performance metrics will become a powerful influence over immigration decision-making.

The metrics establish case completion quotas for immigration judges at 700 completions per year. This sets up many immigration judges to fail, or perhaps even worse, encourages immigration judges to cut corners to meet the quota.22 As far as we know, the Department has not introduced a case weighting system. Not every immigration court docket is the

16 Remarks by President Trump at the National Federation of Independent Businesses 75th Anniversary Celebration, June 19, 2018, available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks- president-trump-national-federation-independent-businesses-75th-anniversary-celebration/.
17 Id; GOP Moves to End Trump’s Family Separation Policy, but Can’t Agree How, N.Y. TIMES, June 19, 2018,available at https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/19/us/politics/trump-immigration-children-separated- families.html.

18 Remarks by President Trump at the National Federation of Independent Businesses 75th Anniversary Celebration, June 19, 2018, available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks- president-trump-national-federation-independent-businesses-75th-anniversary-celebration/.
19 Id.

20 We are aware of your congressional testimony stating that an immigration judge would not be fired automatically for failing to meet the quota and that the Department of Justice would consider an explanation why a judge did not meet a quota. Department of Justice FY19 Budget: Hearing Before the Subcomm. on Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies, 115th Cong., available at https://www.c- span.org/video/?444369-1/attorney-general-sessions-testifies-justice-department-budget#&start=1786(testimony of Attorney General Jeff Sessions at 31:20). The Department, however, has not clarified exactly how these performance metrics would be used, and immigration judges believe that a failure to meet a quota would be used punitively. See Letter from A. Ashley Tabaddor, President, National Association of Immigration Judges, to Hon. Jefferson B. Sessions, May 2, 2018, available athttps://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/4452614/NAIJ-Letter-to-the-AG-5-2-2018.pdf.
21 Location of employment is valuable in a system with immigration courts in major cities and in extremely remote detention centers.
22 Russell Wheeler, Amid Turmoil on the Border, New DOJ Policy Encourages Immigration Judges to Cut Corners, June 18, 2018, available at https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2018/06/18/amid-turmoil-on- the-border-new-doj-policy-encourages-immigration-judges-to-cut-corners/.

page4image2447820752 page4image2447821024 page4image2447821296 page4image2447821568 page4image2447821904 page4image2447822176 page4image2447822448 page4image2447822720 page4image2447823120 page4image2447823392 page4image2447823664 page4image2447823936

same. Deciding 700 claims for asylum is not the same workload as deciding 700 cases where the only issue is whether a foreign national entered the United States without inspection. Asylum cases require careful consideration of evidence about country conditions and an applicant’s experiences in that country. Also, the unique characteristics of a particular judge’s caseload could prevent meeting the case completion goal. Some immigration courts have specialized dockets for vulnerable populations such as those with mental illness or juveniles. Judges assigned to these dockets have additional obligations to ensure minimum standards of fairness.23

The quota motivates judges to come up with coping mechanisms. 24 Efficiencies can come at too great of a cost. For example, what if an immigration judge decides to review paper records and then decide which cases to invite to provide live testimony? If a judge is worried about meeting a quota, a judge might only schedule those matters that could be handled quickly. That would leave more complicated cases to be decided on paper submissions alone.

The quota also sets up an incentive for immigration judges to deny applications for relief. Cancellation of removal provides just one example. By statute, the number of grants of cancellation of removal is limited to 4,000 per year.25 Once the cap is reached, immigration judges may delay a grant to the following fiscal year. If deferring a grant is not considered a completion, then the incentive is to deny the application for relief to earn a completion. This incentive exists even if an immigration judge sincerely believes that the individual is eligible for relief from removal. There are similar issues where the Department of Homeland Security must complete final security checks before a grant of asylum. The immigration judge knows that an asylum case requires multiple steps to complete, but a denial of a case shortens the completion time. Should the judge erroneously deny relief to maintain his or her conditions of employment?

In addition to the case completion quotas, the Department’s proposal calls for certain types of cases to be decided within a certain number of days. This further erodes an immigration judge’s independence to decide what cases need more attention or to allow a continuance to ensure fairness. For example, the plan calls for 95% of all individual merits hearings to take place on the originally scheduled date. The problem here is that there are many forces

23 The federal courts impose obligations on individual immigration judges. For example, in a recent decision on whether a juvenile must be appointed counsel, the Ninth Circuit held that the detailed questioning by the immigration judge was an adequate substitute for appointed counsel. C.J.L.G. v. Sessions, 880 F.3d 1122, 1137-42 (9th Cir. 2018) (noting the obligations of the immigration judge to develop the record). While many of us disagree with the lack of appointed counsel for indigent children, it is clear that federal courts mandate an active and inquisitorial role of immigration judges that requires time and patience.

24 Your own recent decision in Matter of Castro-Tum eliminated a docket management tool known as administrative closure. Now immigration judges must keep these cases active and open on their dockets. 27 I&N Dec. 271 (2018), available at https://www.justice.gov/eoir/page/file/1064086/download.
25 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(e).

page5image2447443024 page5image2447443296

at work that lead immigration judges to issue continuances. Because there is no right to government funded counsel in removal proceedings, foreign nationals may ask for a continuance to find a lawyer, or a newly hired lawyer may need time to prepare. Also, witnesses may not be available on a particular date, or testimony may run long, and the hearing may need to be continued to another day. The 95% goal encourages immigration judges to hold hearings without lawyers even when the foreign national desires one and provides incentive for immigration judges to cut hearings short. Moreover, a study conducted on behalf of the Administrative Conference of the United States revealed a significant percentage of the delays in cases were made at the request of the Department of Homeland Security, not the respondent.26 If the Department of Homeland Security is not ready to proceed and the immigration judge rushes to completion, the government may have to file more appeals. That would simply create more work somewhere else.

As we noted above, the priorities of the Department of Homeland Security directly and at times dramatically impact the work of the immigration courts. The case completion quotas have arrived at the same time that President Trump’s administration has changed its prosecutorial discretion policies to make more foreign nationals priorities for removal.27The administration has announced its plans to open more actions in immigration court.28

Also, the Department of Justice has announced that it is reviewing the Legal Orientation Program, which provides information about the removal process to immigration detainees in a group setting.29 This review is taking place despite previous reviews that have found the program to increase the efficiency of the immigration courts and to save the government money.30 Without an adequate increase in resources, putting more individuals in removal proceedings and/or ending the Legal Orientation Program will only magnify the negative effects of the performance metrics.

26 Lenni B. Benson & Russell R. Wheeler, Enhancing Quality and Timeliness in Immigration Adjudication at 73 (2012), available at https://www.acus.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Enhancing-Quality-and-Timeliness- in-Immigration-Removal-Adjudication-Final-June-72012.pdf (reporting that 11% of delays were because a Department of Homeland Security attorney was not ready to proceed and that 14% were because the Department of Homeland Security was missing a file).

27 Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States (Jan. 25, 2017), available athttps://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-enhancing-public-safety-interior-united- states/.
28 See, e.g., US Citizenship and Immigration Services, Updated Guidance for the Referral of Cases and Issuance of Notices to Appear (NTAs) in Cases Involving Inadmissible and Deportable Aliens (June 28, 2018), available at,https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/USCIS/Laws/Memoranda/2018/2018-06-28-PM-602-0050.1- Guidance-for-Referral-of-Cases-and-Issuance-of-NTA.pdf.
29 Sessions Backtracks on Pausing Legal Aid Program for Immigrants Facing Deportation, WASH. POST. (April 25, 2018), available at https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/immigration/sessions-backtracks-on-pausing- legal-aid-program-for-immigrants/2018/04/25/c0d27a12-48cb-11e8-827e-190efaf1f1ee_story.html.
30ICE Praised Legal-aid Program for Immigrants that Justice Dept. Plans to Suspend, WASH. POST. (April 17, 2018), available at https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/immigration/ice-praised-legal-aid-program-for- immigrants-that-justice-dept-plans-to-suspend/2018/04/17/c0b073d4-3f31-11e8-974f- aacd97698cef_story.html?utm_term=.8fa7c90bba02.

page6image2446777488 page6image2446777760 page6image2446778032 page6image2446770080 page6image2446770288 page6image2446770496 page6image2446770768 page6image2446771040 page6image2446771440 page6image2446771712 page6image2446771984 page6image2446772320

The Department’s performance metrics are a poor fit for the realities of immigration adjudication. Immigration law is extremely harsh and complex, and the consequences of the decisions of immigration judges are weighty. These decisions should not be made too quickly. An immigration judge must apply statutes that rival the tax code in complexity and must ensure the opportunity to be heard to a diverse and often poorly educated pool of respondents. The Supreme Court regularly hears immigration law cases that require it to resolve thorny questions. These Supreme Court opinions often leave many questions unanswered, as the Court only decides issues directly before it. Immigration judges need time to digest new interpretations and to think about how those new interpretations apply in a wide array of factual scenarios. For example, a recent Supreme Court decision holding certain Department of Homeland Security charging documents31 to be ineffective has created motions within the immigration courts to terminate proceedings and to reopen older cases. Finally, immigration judges are deciding cases with grave consequences. If an individual is removed, they may face death upon return to their country of nationality. Or an individual may be separated from children or other close family.

The immigration adjudication system needs more resources. More immigration judges need to be hired to guarantee that we do not sacrifice our cherished American values and our constitutional obligations. We also note that with the hiring of judges it is critical that the agency adequately provide support staff from law clerks to court administration. All immigration judges need more time to work through their cases fairly and efficiently. Immigration judges need to be given independence so that we all have confidence that their decisions are based on their judgment as adjudicators, and not influenced by what the adjudicators think best will guarantee positive conditions of employment.

We appreciate that you want to work to ensure efficiency in immigration adjudication. However, you are also charged with guiding our government to comply with the rule of law and to protect American legal values. Accordingly, we urge you to reconsider the new performance metrics.

Respectfully,
(Institutional affiliations are listed for identification purposes only.)

Jill E. Family
Commonwealth Professor of Law and Government Director, Law and Government Institute
Widener University Commonwealth Law School

31 Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S.Ct. 2105, 585 U.S. ___ (June 21, 2018).

page7image2407044480 page7image2407044768

Lenni B. Benson Professor of Law New York Law School

Matthew Hirsch
Attorney/Adjunct Professor of Immigration and Nationality Law Delaware Law School, Widener University

Huyen Pham
Professor
Texas A&M University School of Law

Jacqueline Stevens
Professor and Director, Deportation Research Clinic Northwestern University

Anju Gupta
Professor of Law and Director of the Immigrant Rights Clinic Rutgers School of Law

William Brooks
Clinical Professor of Law Touro Law Center

Maria Isabel Medina
Ferris Family Distinguished Professor of Law Loyola University New Orleans College of Law

Jennifer Moore
Professor of Law University of New Mexico

Dina Francesca Haynes Professor of Law
New England Law

Nickole Miller
Clinical Teaching Fellow
University of Baltimore School of Law, Immigrant Rights Clinic

Estelle M McKee Clinical Professor Cornell Law School

Daniel M. Kowalski
Editor-in-Chief
Bender’s Immigration Bulletin (LexisNexis)

Marisa Cianciarulo
Professor of Law, Associate Dean for Academic Affairs Chapman University Fowler School of Law

Lucy E. Salyer
Associate Professor
History Department, University of New Hampshire

Deborah M. Weissman
Reef C. Ivey II Distinguished Professor of Law UNC School of Law

Carrie Rosenbaum
Adjunct Professor
Golden Gate University School of Law

Emily Robinson
Co-Director, Loyola Immigrant Justice Clinic Loyola Law School Los Angeles

Fatma Marouf
Professor of Law
Texas A&M School of Law

Karen Musalo Professor U.C. Hastings

Miriam Marton
Assistant Clinical Professor University of Tulsa College of Law

Helena Marissa Montes Co-Director
Loyola Immigrant Justice Clinic

Alan Hyde Distinguished Professor Rutgers Law School

Stephen H. Legomsky
John S. Lehmann University Professor Emeritus Washington University School of Law

Erica Schommer
Clinical Associate Professor of Law St. Mary’s University School of Law

Renee C. Redman
Adjunct Professor
University of Connecticut School of Law

Linda Bosniak Distinguished Professor Rutgers Law School

Jonathan Weinberg Professor of Law Wayne State University

Denise Gilman
Clinical Professor
University of Texas School of Law Immigration Clinic

Kayleen R. Hartman Clinical Teaching Fellow Loyola Law School

Lynn Marcus
Director, Immigration Law Clinic
University of Arizona Rogers College of Law

Elizabeth McCormick
Associate Clinical Professor University of Tulsa College of Law

Christopher N. Lasch
Professor of Law
University of Denver Sturm College of Law

John Palmer Tenure-Track Professor Universitat Pompeu Fabra

Julie Ann Dahlstrom
Clinical Associate Professor Boston University School of Law

Susan Gzesh
Senior Lecturer University of Chicago

Violeta Chapin
Clinical Professor of Law University of Colorado

Jon Bauer
Clinical Professor of Law
Richard D. Tulisano ’69 Scholar in Human Rights University of Connecticut School of Law

Rachel E. Rosenbloom
Professor of Law
Northeastern University School of Law

Caitlin Barry
Assistant Professor of Law
Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law

Dr. Richard T. Middleton, IV
Adjunct Professor of Law; Associate Professor of Political Science St. Louis University School of Law; University of Missouri-St. Louis

Anna Welch
Clinical Professor
University of Maine School of Law

Charles Shane Ellison
Director of the Immigrant and Refugee Clinic Special Assistant Professor
Creighton University School of Law

Yolanda Vázquez
Associate Professor of Law
University of Cincinnati College of Law

Claire R. Thomas
Director, Asylum Clinic; Adjunct Professor of Law New York Law School

Laura A. Hernandez Professor of Law Baylor Law School

Kate Evans
Associate Professor of Law University of Idaho College of Law

Stella Burch Elias
Professor of Law
University of Iowa College of Law

Rachel Settlage Associate Professor Wayne State Law School

Hiroko Kusuda
Clinic Professor
Loyola New Orleans University

Sabi Ardalan
Assistant Clinical Professor Harvard Law School

Joshua I. Schwartz
E.K. Gubin Professor of Law
The George Washington University Law School

Florence Wagman Roisman
William F. Harvey Professor of Law and Chancellor’s Professor Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law

Richard J. Pierce Jr.
Lyle T. Alverson Professor of Law George Washington University

Michael Sharon
Adjunct Professor of Law
Case Western Reserve University School of Law

Susan Rose-Ackerman
Henry R. Luce Professor of Law and Political Science, Emeritus Yale University

Jaya Ramji-Nogales
I. Herman Stern Research Professor Temple Law School

Michael Asimow
Visiting Professor of Law Stanford Law School

Natalie Gomez-Velez
Professor of Law
City University of New York (CUNY) School of Law

Adell Amos
Associate Dean & Clayton R. Hess Professor of Law University of Oregon

Harold J. Krent
Dean & Professor of Law Chicago-Kent College of Law

Aila Hoss
Visiting Assistant Professor
Indiana University McKinney School of Law

Richard Reuben
James Lewis Parks Professor of Law and Journalism University of Missouri School of Law

Morell E. Mullins, Sr. Professor Emeritus
UALR Bowen School of Law

Bernard W. Bell
Professor of Law and Herbert Hannoch Scholar Rutgers Law School

Rose Cuison Villazor Professor of Law Rutgers Law School

Lauris Wren
Clinical Professor of Law
Maurice A. Deane School of Law at Hofstra University

Victor Romero
Maureen B. Cavanaugh Distinguished Faculty Scholar Associate Dean for Academic Affairs & Professor of Law Penn State Law (University Park)

David Baluarte
Associate Clinical Professor of Law Washington and Lee University School of Law

Michelle N. Mendez
Adjunct Professor, Immigrant Rights Clinic University of Baltimore School of Law

Jeffrey A. Heller
Adjunct Clinical Professor Emeritus Brooklyn Law School
Seton Hall University School of Law

Susan M. Akram
Clinical Professor and Director, International Human Rights Law Clinic Boston University School of Law

Laila L. Hlass
Professor of Practice
Tulane University School of Law

Joanne Gottesman Clinical Professor of Law Rutgers Law School

Jennifer Lee Koh
Professor of Law
Western State College of Law

Geoffrey Hoffman
Director
Univ. of Houston Law Ctr. Immigration Clinic

Ingrid Eagly Professor of Law UCLA School of Law

Jason A. Cade
Associate Professor of Law University of Georgia School of Law

Peter M. Shane
Jacob E. Davis and Jacob E. Davis II Chair in Law Ohio State University

Anna Williams Shavers
Cline Williams Professor of Citizenship Law University of Nebraska College of Law

Stewart Chang
Professor of Law
UNLV Boyd School of Law

Margaret H. Taylor
Professor of Law
Wake Forest University School of Law

Elora Mukherjee
Jerome L. Greene Clinical Professor of Law Columbia Law School

Michael J. Churgin
Raybourne Thompson Centennial Professor in Law The University of Texas at Austin

Kathleen Kim
Professor of Law
Loyola Law School Los Angeles

Ming H Chen
Associate Professor
University of Colorado Law School

Anil Kalhan
Professor of Law
Drexel University Kline School of Law

Shruti Rana
Professor
Indiana University Bloomington

Hilary Evans Cameron Instructor
Trinity College

Fernando Colon
Professor
Thurgood Marshall School of Law

Shoba Sivaprasad Wadhia
Samuel Weiss Faculty Scholar and Clinical Professor of Law Penn State Law – University Park

Blake Close Nordahl Clinical Professor McGeorge Law School

Kaci Bishop
Clinical Associate Professor of Law
The University of North Carolina School of Law

Craig B. Mousin Adjunct Faculty DePaul University

Joel A. Mintz
Professsor of Law Emeritus
C. William Trout Senior Fellow in Public Interest Law Nova Southeastern University College of Law

Raquel E Aldana
Associate Vice Chancellor for Academic Diversity and Professor of Law UC Davis

Lindsay M. Harris
Assistant Professor of Law
Co-Director of Immigration & Human Rights Clinic
University of the District of Columbia David A. Clarke School of Law

Sheila Hayre
Visiting Associate Professor Quinnipiac University School of Law

Andrew Moore
Associate Professor of Law
University of Detroit Mercy School of Law

Krista Kshatriya Lecturer
UC San Diego

David B. Thronson
Professor of Law
Michigan State University College of Law

Mary Holper
Associate Clinical Professor Boston College Law School

Amelia McGowan
Adjunct Professor
Mississippi College School of Law Immigration Clinic

Maryellen Fullerton Professor of Law Brooklyn Law School

Renée M. Landers
Professor of Law and Faculty Director, Health and Biomedical Law Concentration Suffolk University Law School

Leti Volpp
Robert D. and Leslie Kay Raven Professor of Law UC Berkeley

Alexander Vernon
Director, Immigration Law Clinic Detroit Mercy School of Law

Irene Scharf
Professor of Law
University of Massachusetts School of law

Seymour Moskowitz Senior Research Professor Valparaiso Law School

Veronica T. Thronson
Clinical Professor of Law
Michigan State University College of Law

Elissa Steglich
Clinical Professor
University of Texas School of Law

Mariela Olivares
Associate Professor of Law Howard University School of Law

Barbara Hines
Retired Clinical Professor of Law University of Texas School of Law

Richard T. Middleton, IV
Associate Professor of Political Science Adjunct Professor of Law
University of Missouri-St. Louis
St. Louis University School of Law

Deborah Gonzalez
Director of the Immigration Clinic Associate Clinical Professor Roger Williams University School of Law

Alizabeth Newman
Int. Dir. Alumni Engagement & Initiatives CUNY School of Law

Juliet Stumpf
Robert E. Jones Professor of Advocacy & Ethics Lewis & Clark Law School

Bijal Shah
Associate Professor of Law
Arizona State University, Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law

Niels W. Frenzen
Sidney M. and Audrey M. Irmas Endowed Clinical Professor of Law Univ. of Southern California, Gould School of Law

Jon Michaels Professor of Law UCLA School of Law

Kit Johnson
Associate Professor of Law
University of Oklahoma College of Law

Nina Rabin
Director, UCLA Immigrant Family Legal Clinic UCLA School of Law

Karen E. Bravo
Professor
IU McKinney School of Law

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

Not likely to make any difference with Sessions & Co. But, Sessions is rapidly driving an already crippled and demoralized system into collapse. If Congress doesn’t fix it soon, which almost nobody thinks will happen, the Article III Federal Courts will eventually have to sort out (not for the first time — witness child separation, sanctuary cities, Travel Ban 1&2, violation of stays of removal, DACA termination, etc.) this self-inflicted mess created by the Department of Justice under the last three Administrations and accelerated by Sessions and his White Nationalist agenda.

And, NO, the answer isn’t to blame the victims: the respondents, their courageous, hard-working counsel, and the judges and their dedicated staff. The answer is to hold the “perps,” in this case Sessions and his gang, accountable and place them under strict judicial supervision until Due Process and order are restored to our Immigration Courts.

PWS

08-15-18

FRAUD, WASTE, & ABUSE: INFANTS ORDERED TO APPEAR IN U.S. IMMIGRATION COURTS UNDER TRUMP & SESSIONS! – Shocking Stupidity, Inhumanity, & Waste Of Taxpayer Dollars!

https://www.texastribune.org/2018/07/18/immigrant-separated-families-infant-court-defend-donald-trump-zero-tol/

CHRISTINA JEWETT AND SHEFALI LUTHRA, REPORT FOR KAISER HEALTH NEWS IN THE TEXAS TRIBUNE:

The Trump administration has summoned at least 70 infants to immigration court for their own deportation proceedings since Oct. 1, according to Justice Department data provided to Kaiser Health News.

These are children who need frequent touching and bonding with a parent and naps every few hours, and some were of breastfeeding age, medical experts say. They’re unable to speak and still learning when it’s day versus night.

“For babies, the basics are really important. It’s the holding, the proper feeding, proper nurturing,” said Shadi Houshyar, who directs early childhood and child welfare initiatives at the advocacy group Families USA.

The number of infants under age 1 involved has been rising — up threefold from 24 infants in the fiscal year that ended last Sept. 30, and 46 infants the year before.

The Texas Tribune thanks its sponsors. Become one.

The Justice Department data show that a total of 1,500 “unaccompanied” children, from newborns to age 3, have been called in to immigration court since Oct. 1, 2015.

Roughly three-fourths of the children involved are represented by a lawyer and they have to make their case that they should stay in the United States.

Officials who review such deportation cases say most children under 1 cross the border with a parent and their deportation cases proceed together.

But some of the infants were deemed “unaccompanied” only after law enforcement separated them from their parents during the Trump administration’s “zero-tolerance” immigration policy. The children were sent to facilities across the U.S. under the supervision of the Department of Health and Human Services.

“This is to some extent a … crisis of the creation of the government,” said Robert Carey, who previously headed the Office of Refugee Resettlement, which takes custody of unaccompanied minors. “It’s a tragic and ironic turn of events.”

Younger children are also considered unaccompanied if they enter the United States with an older family member who is not yet 18. The data do not clarify which children arrived that way or which were separated from their parents.

The Texas Tribune thanks its sponsors. Become one.

The Justice Department did not respond to a request for further data about where the children are housed. They could be in a foster care home, in a group home, with a relative or sponsor, or reunited with a parent. HHS, which operates the refugee resettlement office, did not provide comment by publication time.

In previous statements, the government has argued that separation — and its consequences — are unfortunate but unavoidable under the law.

“There is a surefire way to avoid separation from your children. Present yourself legally … or stay back at your home country, and go through the process others do,” HHS Secretary Alex Azar said on a media call earlier this month. “None of us want children separated from their parents. I want no children in our care and custody.”

The number of unaccompanied children called in to court since Oct. 1, 2015, swells to 2,900 if kids up to 5 are included. The total will rise between now and Sept. 30, when the fiscal year ends, noted Susan Long, a statistician at Syracuse University and director of TRAC, a repository of immigration and federal court data. There’s also an ongoing backlog in entering the data.

In June, a district judge in San Diego ordered the government to reunify families within a month, specifically directing them to unite children younger than 5 with parents by July 10.

HHS reunited about half of those children by July 12 — 57 out of 103. Others, the government said, could not be placed with a parent, citing in some cases “serious criminal history” or parents currently being in jail.

In 12 cases, those children’s parents had already been deported. In another, the government had failed to figure out where the child’s parent was located, and in another, the parent had a “communicable disease,” HHS said.

The Department of Homeland Security, which issues the court orders, also did not respond to a request for comment.

The Texas Tribune thanks its sponsors. Become one.

In the removal cases, children have no right to an appointed lawyer, but rather to a list of legal aid attorneys that the child’s current caregiver can contact.

And young children rarely know the details of why they fled their home country, especially without a parent present, noted Eileen Blessinger, a Virginia-based immigration lawyer who has been aiding parents she was connected with through advocates on the Texas-Mexico border.

“Think about it as a parent. You’re not going to tell your child they might be killed, right?” she said. “A lot of the kids don’t know.”

Immigration court, which is an administrative unit of the Department of Justice, is different from typical courts. It handles “respondents” who may be too young to speak, but has no social workers or legal remedies focused on the best interest of a child.

Lenni Benson, a New York Law School professor and founder of the Safe Passage Project, which provides legal services to migrant youth, said she was recently at a large family detention center in Dilley talking to families. She said it’s rare for the families fleeing violence in Central America to bring infants, given the dangers of the journey, which include risks of abduction and a lack of clean water.

“There are people who do that because they are terrified for their child” in the home country, she said.

Benson recounted being in immigration court in 2014 when a judge asked for a crying baby to be removed from the courtroom. She said she paused to inform the judge that the baby was the next respondent on the docket — and asked that the child’s grandmother stand in.

The stakes for the babies, and any migrant fleeing violence, are high, said Paul Wickham Schmidt, a former immigration judge who retired in 2016 after 13 years on the bench in Arlington, Va.

“Final orders of deportation have consequences,” he said. “For something that has a very serious result, this system has been described as death penalty cases in traffic court.”

Ashley Tabaddor, president of the National Association of Immigration Judges and a judge specializing in juvenile cases in Los Angeles, acknowledged that the Trump administration narrowed a directive on how much judges can assist juveniles in court. Still, she said, judges do their best to ensure that young children get a fair hearing.

Justice Department data show that asylum denials are at a nearly 10-year high at 42 percent, and the Associated Press reported that the administration has raised the bar for making a successful case.

At the same time, children can be strapped for resources, Blessinger said.

She described one client whose 7-year-old daughter received legal support from a New York-based charity. Even in that case, she said, the organization acted simply as a “friend of the court” — rather than a full-fledged attorney — requesting delays in proceedings until the child and mother could be reunited. That finally happened Tuesday night, she said.

“It’s the saddest experience. These people are not going to be recovering anytime soon,” she said. “The parents are crying even after they’re reunited.”

Kaiser Health News (KHN) is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of the Kaiser Family Foundation that is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

KHN’s coverage of children’s health care issues is supported in part by a grant from the Heising-Simons Foundation.

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

Stupid policies driven by biased White Nationalist restrictionists squander judicial time, waste resources, make America look dumb!

Contrary to what HHS Secretary Alex Azar says, presenting oneself at a Port of Entry and applying for asylum has been a guarantee neither of prompt and professional processing of asylum applications nor that there will be no family separation. Indeed, the “credible fear” process has now been “gamed” by Sessions and USCIS so that many legitimate asylum applications are summarily denied and the individuals subjected to expedited removal without appeals. And, to date, several “real” Article III Courts (in particular, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals) have “twiddled their thumbs” and failed to intervene to prevent the gross abuses of Due Process and our international obligations being carried out on a daily basis by this Administration.

Infants in court, real substantive asylum claims rejected without hearings — no wonder the U.S. Immigration Court system is broken and there is no time for “real”cases. The long-term solution might well involve more Immigration Judges and staff. But, at this point, that would be “throwing good money after bad.”

Before there can be expansion, the U.S. Immigration Court system needs to be fixed and returned to its original Due Process focus with Immigration Judges in change and empowered to remove cases like this from the active docket and to sanction Government Attorneys (as well as private attorneys) who waste valuable court time with frivolous litigation. Indeed, Congress did provide Immigration Judges with authority to hold attorneys from both sides in contempt. However, the DOJ has thumbed its nose at that statutory authorization over several Administrations and has never implemented the statute. (This is a good example of what the “rule of law” really means in the USDOJ!)

Removing the Immigration Court system from the Executive Branch is a necessary first step in reforming it to serve its original (and only) purpose: guaranteeing Due Process and fairness for all!

Meanwhile, as pointed out by Christina and Shefali, the damage to the health and welfare children and families might be irreparable.

PWS

07-19-18

GONZO’S WORLD: SESSIONS OUT TO DESTROY DUE PROCESS AND TRASH THE ALREADY REELING U.S. IMMIGRATION COURTS — RACIST, XENOPHOBIC, SCOFFLAW AG IS A COMPLETE DISASTER FOR THE OVERWHELMED U.S. JUSTICE SYSTEM!

https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2018/0709/With-zero-tolerance-new-strain-on-already-struggling-immigration-courts

Henry Gass reports for the Christian Science Monitor:

In a federal courtroom in the border city of McAllen, Texas, two weeks ago, 74 migrants waited as Judge J. Scott Thacker confirmed their names and countries of origin. Tired and nervous, the migrants were wearing the clothes they had been arrested in, translation headsets, and ankle chains that clinked as some of them fidgeted.

After having their rights and potential punishments explained to them to them, Judge Thacker asked the seven rows of migrants – mostly from Honduras, El Salvador, or Guatemala – how they wanted to plead. “Culpable,” they all answered. Judge Hacker sentenced almost all of them, row by row, to time already served and a $10 fine.

At one point, a man from Honduras separated from his son explained why they had traveled to the United States. Thacker listened, then addressed the whole room.

“Ladies and gentlemen, I am not a [specialist] immigration judge; I am not in the immigration system,” he said. “Once you enter the immigration system you can explain your situation to them.”

In immigration court in San Antonio, a few hours north, Judge Charles McCullough is working through cases from the summer of 2017.

Over three hours, he moves smoothly through hearings for a dozen people. One man accepts voluntary departure to Mexico, but then things get complicated. One case has to be postponed because of irregular paperwork. Another sparks a brief debate over whether a US Supreme Court decision last year means it can be thrown out. His final hearing is a mother and two children from Colombia, accused of overstaying their visas. He schedules their next hearing for September.

Staff shortages and an ever-increasing caseload have been problems for years, compounded by successive administrations using the courts to achieve political and policy goals. Cognizant of the burden the immigration court system is under, and the additional strain its stated goal of having zero unauthorized immigration into the US would represent, the Trump administration is going to great lengths to try and streamline immigration court proceedings.

Unlike every other court in the country, immigration courts are part of the executive, not judicial, branch. And the judges who staff those courts are not judges in the common sense, but are employees of the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), a wing of the Justice Department. Thus, Attorney General Jeff Sessions has significant authority to reshape how the courts operate.

The changes the Trump administration is engineering, however, have experts and former immigration judges concerned that the immigration court system could be even more burdened.

“All those weaknesses, those weak points, are being highlighted by the measures this administration is taking,” says Ashley Tabaddor, an immigration judge in Los Angeles and president of the National Association of Immigration Judges.

“The immigration court system is designed to protect the … founding principles of our American democracy,” she adds. “If you don’t care, then that’s the first brick that’s being taken out of the foundation.”

One example of how that system is being strained further is the estimated 3,000 children still separated from the their families by the “zero tolerance” immigration policy. Trump administration officials told a judge Friday they couldn’t comply with a June court order to reunite children under 5 with their families by Tuesday. (Children over 5 are to be reunited by July 26.) At least 19 parents of those children already have been deported without them, according to reports.

“[A] guy that shows up here every day and does this every day has to find hope somewhere…. I’m hoping that maybe the moral outrage associated with what’s happened will be the thing that finally — the catalyst that finally makes us look hard at this immigration system that we all agree needs to be fixed,” Judge Robert Brack of the US District Court of New Mexico told “PBS Newshour.”

720,000-case backlog

On the day he retired, June 30, 2016, Paul Schmidt was scheduling cases through the end of 2022. In a system with a roughly 720,000-case backlog, according to Syracuse University’s Transactional Records Clearinghouse, it wasn’t an unusual situation. The backlog has been steadily growing for decades, something Mr. Schmidt blames on recent administrations using the courts to respond to urgent political crises.

For example: When thousands of unaccompanied minors from Central America traveled to the border in 2014, the Obama administration told immigration judges to prioritize those cases.

“Each administration comes in and moves their priority to the top of line and everything else goes to the back,” he says. “You have aimless docket reshuffling, and the whole system after a while loses credibility.”

The Trump administration is now doing the same thing, telling immigration courts to prioritize the cases of detained families. But what concerns Schmidt and other former immigration judges even more are changes Mr. Sessions is making to how immigration judges can hear and resolve the cases before them.

. . . .

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

Read the rest of Henry’s article at the link. It contains quotes from my retired colleagues Judge Carol King, Judge Eliza Klein, and Judge Susan Roy, who are also key members of our “Gang of Retired Judges” who file amicus briefs in support of Due Process in the Immigration Courts.

This quote from Judge Ashley Tabaddor, President of the National Association of Immigration Judges (“NAIJ”) (I am a retired member), says it all:

“The immigration court system is designed to protect the … founding principles of our American democracy,” she adds. “If you don’t care, then that’s the first brick that’s being taken out of the foundation.”

Depressing fact: Far too many Article III Courts — particularly the U.S District Courts at the border participating in the “Kangaroo Court Operation Streamline” — are kowtowing to Sessions and failing to push back against his outrageous misuse of our legal process. Those “go along to get along” judges might discover that life tenure without integrity is a hollow benefit.

PWS

07-10-18

Get out the vote! Remove the kakistocracy!

PWS

06-13-18

KATIE BENNER @ NYT: SESSIONS USES IMMIGRATION JUDGE “TRAINING” CONFERENCE TO INSTILL FEAR AND UP ALREADY ASTRONOMIC STRESS LEVELS ON IMMIGRATION JUDGES – IMPROPERLY TOUTS “VOLUME” WHILE FAILING TO PROMOTE IMPARTIALITY, FAIRNESS, AND DUE PROCESS!

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/12/us/politics/immigration-judges-jeff-sessions.html

Katie writes:

TYSONS, Va. — As the nation’s immigration judges gathered here for training this week, Attorney General Jeff Sessions had a message: They needed to help “end the lawlessness that now exists in our immigration system.”

But to many of the judges, Mr. Sessions’s hard-line immigration agenda is increasingly standing in the way of their ability to mete out justice.

In interviews, some objected to quotas he imposed on them this spring of 700 cases per year, as well as his ban on a bureaucratic tool they used to reduce their caseloads. Others expressed concern about the impact his zero-tolerance policy on illegal immigration could have on their dockets, and his push for faster rulings. They viewed those together as leaving them at risk of creating a system that sacrifices due process for efficiency.

“Sessions is treating them like immigration officers, not judges,” said Paul Schmidt, a former judge in the immigration courts, which count more than 300 judges in their ranks and another two dozen or so on an immigration appeals board.

Mr. Sessions’s carrying out of his immigration agenda has reignited a long-running debate about the independence of immigration judges, who are part of the Justice Department, not the judicial branch. Some of the judges fear that they could be used to help fulfill the administration’s priorities, endangering their independence.

“The Justice Department is the premier law enforcement agency, but the role of law enforcement is different from that of a neutral court,” said Dana Leigh Marks, the president emeritus of the immigration judges’ union. She said the organization believes the time has come to separate immigration courts from the department.

. . . .

In a speech on Monday at the judges’ conference outside Washington, hosted by the Justice Department, Mr. Sessions asked them to look for inefficiencies to finish cases more quickly.

“We have to be very productive,” he said. “Volume is critical.”

Three judges said they were struck by his emphasis on speed, prosecutions and policy matters without acknowledgment of the need to balance those demands with ensuring due process for immigrants. They said they feared the focus on metrics and closing cases would make it harder to sort through complicated cases and easier to simply deny applications for entry into the United States.

Scores of attendees wore American flag pins in support of “judicial independence and integrity in our courts,” according to a note accompanying the pins.

Dozens of judges who gathered early Monday evening expressed anxiety over their treatment, according to one person present who was not authorized to share the details of the private meeting.

They said they lacked specifics on which cases would count toward their quotas. They pointed to Mr. Sessions’s ban on their use of administrative closure, the tool that effectively allowed them to close cases. And they worried that his zero-tolerance policy on illegal immigration would flood the system with new cases and make it hard for them to decrease the system backlog of about 700,000 cases.

The potential impact of Mr. Sessions’s zero-tolerance policy toward immigration has been of particular concern to judges who are already grappling with a large caseload. “It’s as if local police and prosecutors decided to prosecute every traffic ticket of anyone going 2 miles per hour over the speed limit and filled the court system with those cases,” Mr. Schmidt said.

Judges are also resigning in large numbers, Ms. Marks said, a pattern she expected to continue. As of last year, 39 percent of immigration judges were eligible for retirement, according to a study conducted by the Government Accountability Office. Many immigration judges were sworn in during a wave of hiring in the 1990s.

The Justice Department has said it is on pace to hire 100 more judges this year, and its data shows that the department has never filled every slot. Currently there are 336 judges out of the 484 authorized slots.

In a conference session on Tuesday afternoon with Mr. McHenry, one judge asked if they could delay disciplining judges on the attorney general’s directives about metrics and streamlining the system. The room erupted in applause, but the question went unanswered.

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

Read Katie’s full article at the above link!

Immigration is an incredibly complex area of the law — often compared with the Tax Code. And, it almost certainly has more direct and potentially life-threatening and life-changing effects than does tax law (with due apologies to my tax lawyer colleagues). For better or worse, when they have an opportunity to get together at annual conferences (which aren’t necessarily held annually), most Immigration Judges love to “talk shop.”

Normally, you’d expect to hear things like questions about pending Supreme Court cases, the latest BIA precedent decision, immigration reform legislation, or how to constructively react to some of the criticism dished out by Circuit Courts, as well as sharing “best practices” to achieve fundamental fairness with efficiency.

But, while I was waiting in the lobby to meet my “dinner group” of some former colleagues, the “hall chatter” was all about things like “judicial dashboards,” “production quotas,” “what counts as a completion,” “docket rearrangement without consultation,” “required retraining” (sounded very much like a judicial version of the former Soviet “re-educaton camps”), “stress relief,” “not losing it in court,” “retirement estimates,” and, perhaps most tellingly “how can I remain true to my oath of office and job description without getting harassed, fired, or reassigned?”

Not much room for talk of law, Due Process, best methods and practices, and how to insure that folks, including the unrepresented, get the relief they might be entitled to under the immigration laws.

Appropriate for a judicial conference? Of course not! But, when your “keynote address” is delivered by a totally non-judicial Enforcement Cheerleader in a tone and with content more appropriate to a class of new Border Patrol officers than a group of supposedly independent, senior, quasi-judicial officers of the U.S. Government, that’s what you’re going to get. What must newly appointed U.S. Immigration Judges — some who gave up other good jobs to serve in these positions — have thought?

What made it even worse was the misuse of the judicial conference as a “platform” to release a “personal rewrite” by Sessions (although I suspect some outside group actually drafted it for him or gave him the outline) of established asylum principles in a way that dripped with overt hostility to legitimate asylum seekers, most of them desperate abused women, and was accompanied by unsupported statements about asylum fraud and bogus statistics that could have come right out of a “restrictionist group’s backgrounder.” The message to the judges was very clear — most asylum seekers are fraudsters, so you should cut corners, prejudge cases, look for any reason to deny asylum, preferably at the preliminary stage without wasting time on a full hearing, and crank out those denials to deter folks from fraudulently seeking refuge under our laws — or start looking for a new job!

From a legal, ethical, moral, and intellectual honesty standpoint, the Attorney General’s speech to the Immigration Judges was simply jaw-droppingly inappropriate! How is a quasi-judicial officer sworn to uphold the U.S. Constitution and charged by regulation with “exercising independent judgment” supposed to “negotiate” a system where the “boss” is basically saying “to heck with fairness, respect, and quality — just crank up the volume.”

Contrary to what Sessions said, DHS isn’t EOIR’s “partner.” No, DHS is a party in interest to every adversary proceeding in Immigration Court! They are legally entitled to no better treatment or consideration than any foreign national respondent, even an unrepresented one!

Indeed, the Due Process Clause of our Constitution applies to respondents but not to the DHS! The “founding fathers” weren’t trying to protect the rights of the Government under the Bill of Rights. They were seeking to protect individuals against Govenment overreach and abuses. Jeff Sessions is just the type of overbearing Government official that the founding fathers might have envisioned abusing the power and authority of his office.

“Rumored” assertions by some EOIR management officials that “we don’t care how you decide these cases” are patently absurd! Of course, Jeff Sessions cares about the results! He wants removal orders — fast and by the truckload!

He certainly wasn’t talking about racing through hundreds of thousands of cases to grant 43%-56% of the asylum cases that are decided on the merits, which is what should happen based on past performance had Sessions not reached in to “tilt” the law against asylum seekers and to use detention and family separation to coerce individuals into giving up potentially winnable claims. Anybody who perceived Sessions’s remarks to the judges on Monday as an encouragement to treat asylum applicants fairly, impartially, humanely, respectfully, and to insure that the generous interpretation of well-founded fear set forth by the Supremes in Cardoza-Fonseca was followed would need their head examined!

Even though immigrants, both legal and undocumented, forced and voluntary, built America and are primarily responsible for our success as a nation, I can’t remember ever hearing Jeff Sessions say anything kind or nice about any foreign national! Indeed, it’s hard to think of any public occasion when Sessions addressed immigration without providing some false narrative, ethnic slur, bogus or misleading statistic, denigrating the contributions of immigrants, dehumanizing them, or seeking to drum up xenophobia by touting false links between migrants and crime.

Sessions’s other message to the judges: By the way, folks, this backlog mess that we and our predecessors have created and are now intentionally aggravating by aimlessly reshuffling dockets, cranking up needless detention, poor enforcement policies, lousy management and hiring practices, absurdly inadequate technology, and attempting to use the Immigration Courts as “deterrents” is your fault (along with the respondents and their attorneys) because you don’t work hard enough or smart enough! You’re going to “take the fall” when we aren’t able to stop human migration by using the Immigration Court as an enforcement tool! We’re giving you “mission impossible,” and if you can’t carry it out, you’re not doing your job!

Congress — which is ultimately responsible for this mess — and the Article III Courts who have knowingly and intentionally swept the glaring Due Process deficiencies, stunning ethical conflicts, lack of quality control, and failure to consistently provide fundamental fairness under their “Ivory Tower carpets” for far too long are going to have to step up and put an end to this parody of justice or accept responsibility for the implosion of the Immigration Courts and Constitutional Due Process that are looming on the horizon.

One thing is for certain: You can’t run a Due Process, fundamentally fair court system under Jeff Sessions. He proved that this week — beyond any reasonable doubt! Anybody who doubts that, isn’t being reasonable — or isn’t paying attention!

PWS

06-13-18

SESSIONS USES SPEECH TO U.S. IMMIGRATION JUDGES TO SPREAD LIES, MOUNT ALL OUT ATTACK ON US ASYLUM LAW AND INTERNATIONAL PROTECTION LAWS – Targets Most Vulnerable Refugee Women Of Color For Latest Round Of Legal Abuses – Orders Judges To Prejudge Applications In Accordance With His Rewrite Of Law – It’s “Kangaroo Court” – The Only Question Now Is Whether Congress & Article III’s Will Let Him Get Away With Latest Perversion Of Justice @ Justice!

“Top Kangaroo lays down the law to EOIR Judges”

https://www.justice.gov/opa/speech/attorney-general-sessions-delivers-remarks-executive-office-immigration-review-legal

Attorney General Sessions Delivers Remarks to the Executive Office for Immigration Review Legal Training Program

Washington, DC

~

Monday, June 11, 2018

Remarks as prepared for delivery

Thank you, James, for that introduction, and thank you for your years of superb service to the Department as an SAUSA, at Main Justice, and now here at EOIR. James has been doing a fabulous job. He understands these issues, knows exactly what our challenges are, and is working steadfastly every day to meet them.

Thank you also to Katherine Reilly, Kate Sheehy, Chris Santoro, Edward So, David Neal, Chief Judge Keller, Lisa Ward, Jean King, Robin Sutman, and all of the leadership team.

It is good to be with you today.

Each one of you plays an important role in the administration of our immigration laws. Immigration judges are critical to ensuring that the Department of Justice carries out its responsibilities under the INA. You have an obligation to decide cases efficiently and to keep our federal laws functioning effectively, fairly, and consistently. As the statute states, Immigration Judges conduct designated proceedings “subject to such supervision and shall perform such duties as the Attorney General shall prescribe”.

This responsibility seeks to ensure that our immigration system operates in a manner that is consistent with the laws enacted by Congress. As you know, the INA was established to ensure a rational system of immigration in the national interest.

Of course there are provisions in the INA, consent decrees, regulations, and court decisions where the commonsense enforceability of the plain intent of the INA has been made more difficult. That’s what you wrestle with frequently.

President Trump is correct: Congress needs to clarify a number of these matters. Without Congressional action, clarity and consistency for us is much more difficult.

Let’s be clear: we have a firm goal, and that is to end the lawlessness that now exists in our immigration system. This Department of Justice is committed to using every available resource to meet that goal. We will act strategically with our colleagues at DHS and across the government, and we will not hesitate to redeploy resources and alter policies to meet new challenges as they arise.

Last month, the Department of Homeland Security announced that it will begin to refer as close to 100 percent of illegal Southwest Border crossers as possible to the Department of Justice for prosecution. The Department of Justice will take up those cases.

I have put in place a “zero tolerance” policy for illegal entry on our Southwest border. If you cross the Southwest border unlawfully, then we will prosecute you. It’s that simple.

If someone is smuggling illegal aliens across our Southwest border, then we will prosecute them. Period.

I have sent 35 prosecutors to the Southwest and moved 18 immigration judges to detention centers near the border. That is about a 50 percent increase in the number of immigration judges who will be handling cases at the border.”

All of us should agree that, by definition, we ought to have zero illegal immigration in this country.

Each of us is a part of the Executive Branch, and it is our duty to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.”

Ours is a public trust.

And the United States of America is not a vague idea. It is not just a landmass or an economy. Ours is a sovereign nation state with a constitution, laws, elections, and borders.

As you all well know, one of our major difficulties today is the asylum process.

The asylum system is being abused to the detriment of the rule of law, sound public policy, and public safety— and to the detriment of people with just claims. Saying a few simple words—claiming a fear of return—is now transforming a straightforward arrest for illegal entry and immediate return into a prolonged legal process, where an alien may be released from custody into the United States and possibly never show up for an immigration hearing. This is a large part of what has been accurately called, “catch and release”.

Beginning in 2009, more and more aliens who passed an initial USCIS credible fear review were released from custody into the United States pending a full hearing. Powerful incentives were created for aliens to come here illegally and claim a fear of return. In effect, word spread that by asserting this fear, they could remain in the United States one way or the other. Far too often, that rumor proved to be true.

The results are just what one would expect. The number of illegal entrants has surged. Credible fear claims have skyrocketed, and the percentage of asylum claims found meritorious by our judges declined.

That’s because the vast majority of the current asylum claims are not valid. For the last five years, only 20 percent of claims have been found to be meritorious after a hearing before an Immigration Judge. In addition, some fifteen percent are found invalid by USCIS as a part of their initial screening.

Further illustrating this point, in 2009, DHS conducted more than 5,000 credible fear reviews. By 2016, only seven years later, that number had increased to 94,000. The number of these aliens placed in immigration court proceedings went from fewer than 4,000 to more than 73,000 by 2016—nearly a 19-fold increase—overwhelming the system and leaving legitimate claims buried.

Now we all know that many of those crossing our border illegally are leaving difficult and dangerous situations. And we understand all are due proper respect and the proper legal process. But we cannot abandon legal discipline and sound legal concepts.

Under the INA, asylum is available for those who leave their home country because of persecution or fear on account of race, religion, nationality, or membership in a particular social group or political opinion. Asylum was never meant to alleviate all problems— even all serious problems— that people face every day all over the world.

Today, exercising the responsibility given to me under the INA, I will be issuing a decision that restores sound principles of asylum and long standing principles of immigration law.

We have not acted hastily, but carefully. In my judgment, this is a correct interpretation of the law. It advances the original intent and purpose of the INA, and it will be your duty to carry out this ruling.

This decision will provide more clarity for you. It will help you to rule consistently and fairly.

The fact is we have a backlog of about 700,000 immigration cases, and it’s still growing. That’s more than triple what it was in 2009. This is not acceptable. We cannot allow it to continue.

At this time, when our immigration system and our immigration judges are under great stress, I am calling on you to use your best efforts and proper policies to enhance our effectiveness. To end the lawlessness and move to the virtuous cycle, we have to be very productive. Volume is critical. It just is. We ask you to evaluate your processes and disposition rates.

We ask each one of you to complete at least 700 cases a year. It’s about the average. We are all accountable. Setting this expectation is a rational management policy to ensure consistency, accountability, and efficiency in our immigration court system. Thank you for working every day to meet and exceed this goal. You can be sure that this administration and this Department of Justice supports you in this critically important and historic effort.

That’s why we are hiring more than 100 new immigration judges this calendar year. And we are actively working with our partners at DHS to ensure that we can deploy judges electronically and by video-teleconference where needed and to obtain appropriate courtroom facilities.

Let’s be clear. These actions will not end or reduce legal immigration. These actions will be directed at reducing illegal immigration. Only Congress can change legal immigration.

This is a great nation—the greatest in the history of the world. It is no surprise that people want to come here. But they must do so according to law.

When we lose clarity or have decisions that hold out hope where a fair reading of the law gives none, we have cruelly hurt many people. As we resolutely strive to consistently and fairly enforce the law, we will be doing the right thing.

The world will know what our rules are, and great numbers will no longer undertake this dangerous journey. The number of illegal aliens and the number of baseless claims will fall. A virtuous cycle will be created, rather than a vicious cycle of expanding illegality.

The American people have spoken. They have spoken in our laws and they have spoken in our elections. They want a safe, secure border and a lawful system of immigration that actually works. Let’s deliver it for them.

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

It’s all about numbers — volume over justice! What a total farce!

Sessions also lied about the low asylum grant rate. Of cases in which a merits decisions on asylum is actually rendered by an Immigration Judge after hearing, here are the actual asylum grant rates from the EOIR’s own website

Figure 16

Asylum Grant Rate

Grants

Denials

Grant Rate

FY 12

10,575

8,444

56%

FY 13

9,767

8,777

53%

FY 14

8,672

9,191

49%

FY 15

8,184

8,816

48%

FY 16

8,726

11,643

43%

In other words, for the last five years available, nearly half of the asylum applications actually decided on the merits were granted. And, that doesn’t even include individuals granted other types of protection such as withholding of removal and CAT after a merits hearing.

It’s a far cry from the bogus 20% figure Sessions used. In any event, it’s well established law that denial of an asylum application does not in any way show that it was “fraudulent” or “frivolous” as Sessions implies.

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

As usual, the ever-amazing Tal Kopan was one of the first to “hit the net running” with her analysis of the Sessions speech to EOIR.

Jeff Sessions primed to overhaul asylum law

By Tal Kopan, CNN

Attorney General Jeff Sessions will announce a major decision that could impact thousands of asylum seekers from Central America on Monday — his latest move to use his unique authority to single-handedly reshape immigration law.

Sessions made the announcement at an annual training conference for the nation’s hundreds of immigration judges, telling them the decision would be coming and reminding them that they will be obligated to follow his interpretation of the law.

Though Sessions did not explicitly name the decision, it is widely expected to be a case involving asylum protections for domestic violence victims. Sessions referred the case to himself earlier this year and invited interested parties to submit briefs. In his remarks, Sessions implied he would be restricting the use of asylum for victims of crime, which would reverse previous court decisions and overrule a significant 2014 Board of Immigration Appeals decision that ruled Central American domestic violence victims who cannot escape their abusive partners can qualify under asylum law for protection in the US.

“Asylum was never meant to alleviate all problems, even all serious problems, that people face every day all over the world,” Sessions said, reiterating the particular requirements of asylum under the law. “Today I will be exercising the responsibility given to me under the (Immigration and Nationality Act), I will be issuing a decision that restores sound principles of asylum and long standing principles of immigration law.”

The ruling and announcement is the latest evidence of Sessions taking full advantage of his authority over the immigration courts — a separate court system designed by law to be under the auspices of the Justice Department. The attorney general functions as a one-person Supreme Court in the system, in addition to hiring and evaluating the lower court judges themselves.

Sessions also reminded judges that his decision will be final, unless a federal appellate court were to overturn it on appeal.

In addition to impacting domestic violence victims, the case could also have large-scale implications for victims of other forms of crime and violence — rampant in Central America, where a majority of US asylum seekers at the southern border come from.

Related: Judge in case Sessions picked for immigrant domestic violence asylum review issued ‘clearly erroneous’ decisions, says appellate court

“In my judgment, this will be a correct interpretation of the law,” Sessions said. “It advances the original intent and purpose of the INA, and it will be your duty, of course, to carry that out.”

More: https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/11/politics/jeff-sessions-asylum-decision/index.html

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

According to Tal, the National Association of Immigration Judges (“NAIJ”) immediately criticized Sessions’s overemphasis on numerical quotas that are actually still supposed to be the subject of “good faith” labor negotiations with the NAIJ before going into effect in the Fall.

Nevertheless, Tal’s longer article (linked above) would lead one to believe that many U.S Immigration Judges look forward their new well-defined role as an “asylum denial workforce” working as part of the law enforcement “team” to send vulnerable individuals, including children, back to death, rape, extortion, or constant beatings, in probable violation of international standards, as part of the DHS enforcement effort headed by Sessions.

Sessions received a warm welcome and reception from the judges present, who gave him multiple standing ovations at the beginning and end of his speech. But some leading immigration judges reacted unfavorably to the announcement.

Denying applications based on “precedents” intentionally misinterpreting the law will definitely make dockets move faster and might even allow some Immigration Judges to earn “gold stars” — and perhaps even recognition from the Chief Enforcer himself at next year’s conference — for exceeding their deportation quotas — at least until those pesky Article III Courts get involved.

We’ll see whether the Administration’s policies of intentional cruelty, criminal prosecution, child abuse, and sending folks back to places where their lives will be endangered without fairly considering their claims of protection works as a “deterrent” (never has in the past) or merely diminishes us as a society and a country.

As I always say, “We can diminish ourselves as a nation (and we are), but that won’t stop human migration.”

It’s a far cry from when the late Attorney General Janet Reno used to appear at Immigration Judge Conferences and urge us to do our duty to provide fairness, Due Process, and “equal justice for all.”

Stay tuned for the release of the AG’s decision and more reaction.

PWS

06-11-18

DARA LIND @ VOX: Sessions’s Role As Top Enforcer While Purporting To Sit As Judge On Individuals’ Cases Is Unprecedented Violation Of Judicial Ethics & Due Process Right To Impartial Decision-Maker in U.S. Immigration Courts!

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/5/14/17311314/immigration-jeff-sessions-court-judge-ruling

Lind writes:

The fate of tens of thousands of immigrants’ court cases could rest in the hands of Attorney General Jeff Sessions.

That’s not a metaphor. Sessions has stepped into the immigration system in an unprecedented manner: giving himself and his office the ability to review, and rewrite, cases that could set precedents for a large share of the hundreds of thousands of immigrants with pending immigration court cases, not to mention all those who are arrested and put into the deportation process in future.

He’s doing this by taking cases from the Board of Immigration Appeals — the Justice Department agency that serves as a quasi-appellate body for immigration court cases — and referring them to himself to issue a decision instead.

Sessions isn’t giving lawyers much information about what he’s planning. But he’s set himself up, if he wants, to make it radically harder for immigration judges to push cases off their docket to be resolved elsewhere or paused indefinitely — and to close the best opportunity that tens of thousands of asylum seekers, including most Central Americans, have to stay in the United States. And he might be gearing up to extend his involvement even further, by giving himself the authority to review a much bigger swath of rulings issued in the immigration court system.

The attorney general has the power to set immigration precedents. But attorneys general rarely used that power — until now.

Most immigrants who are apprehended in the US without papers have a right to a hearing in immigration court to determine whether they can be deported and whether they qualify for some form of legal status or other relief from deportation. The same process exists for people who are caught crossing into the US but who claim to be eligible for some sort of relief, like asylum, and pass an initial screening. In both cases, only after the judge issues a final order of removal can the immigrant be deported.

Immigration courts aren’t part of the judicial branch; they’re under the authority of the Department of Justice. Their judges are supposed to have some degree of independence, and some judges are certainly harsher on immigrants and asylum seekers than others. But their decisions are guided by precedent from the Board of Immigration Appeals, which is basically the appellate court of the immigration system and which also answers to the DOJ and the attorney general.

If the attorney general doesn’t like that precedent, he has the power to change it — by referring a case to himself after the Board of Immigration Appeals has reviewed it, issuing a new ruling, and telling the immigration courts to abide by the precedent that ruling sets in future.

Attorneys general rarely ever use that power. Sessions has used it three times since the beginning of 2018; all three cases are still under review. “I can’t remember this many decisions being certified in the past five to 10 years,” says Kate Voigt of the American Immigration Lawyers Association.

In theory, Sessions’s office is supposed to make its decision based on amicus briefs from outside parties, as well as the immigrant’s lawyer and the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) prosecutor. But advocates and lawyers’ groups say they can’t file a good brief if they don’t know what, exactly, the cases Sessions is getting involved in actually are — and Sessions is withholding that information.

In one of the cases Sessions has referred to himself, the DOJ refused to provide a copy of the decision that Sessions is reviewing or any information about where the case came from and who the immigrant’s lawyer was. In another case, congressional staff happened to find the decision under review on a DOJ website days before the deadline for amicus briefs.

That opacity makes it basically impossible to know whether Sessions is planning to issue relatively narrow rulings or very broad ones. In the case in which the decision under review was discovered by congressional staffers, both the immigrant’s lawyer and the Department of Homeland Security (serving as the prosecution) asked Sessions’s office to clarify the specific legal question at hand in the review — in other words, to give them a hint of the scope of the potential precedent being set. They were denied.

“We have no idea how broad he’s going,” said Eleanor Acer of the advocacy group Human Rights First. “The way it was framed was totally inscrutable.”

Sessions’s self-referrals could affect a large portion of immigration court cases

To Acer and other lawyers and advocates, that uncertainty is worrisome. All three of the cases Sessions has referred to himself center on questions that, depending on how they’re answered, could result in rulings that tip the balance of tens of thousands of immigration court cases.

Can judges remove cases from the docket? In the case Sessions referred to himself in January, Matter of Castro-Tum, he asked the question of whether judges are allowed to use something called “administrative closure” — to remove a case from the docket, essentially hitting the pause button on it indefinitely.

Administrative closures were common under the Obama administration, as ICE prosecutors used it to stop the deportation process for “low-priority” unauthorized immigrants. They’re already much less common under Trump — a Reuters analysis found that closures dropped from 56,000 in Obama’s last year in office to 20,000 in Trump’s first year — but that’s still 20,000 immigrants whose deportation cases were halted, and 20,000 cases cleared out of an ever-growing immigration court backlog.

If it’s written broadly enough, the forthcoming Sessions decision could prevent administrative closure from being even a possibility.

Are victims of “private violence” eligible for asylum? In a March self-referral, Sessions asked whether a judge should be allowed to grant asylum to a domestic violence survivor because she was a victim of “private violence” — violence that wasn’t state-based. Theoretically, asylum is supposed to be available only for victims of certain types of persecution, but some judges have found that women in some countries who experience domestic violence are being persecuted for membership in the “social group” of being women.

The self-referral has raised red flags for a lot of domestic violence groups, which are worried that Sessions is about to cut off an important path to relief for some immigrant survivors. But it could be even broader — gang violence is also “private” violence, and the “social group” clause has also been used to give asylum to people fleeing gang violence in Honduras and El Salvador.

“There is no dispute under US law that asylum claims may be based on persecution conducted by nongovernmental actors,” Human Rights First’s Acer told Vox, as long as the asylum seeker shows her government was unwilling or unable to protect her. But Sessions appears to be “directly attacking, essentially, whether a nonstate actor” can ever qualify as a persecutor.

For many of the thousands of Central Americans who’ve entered the US in recent years, that provision has been their best chance to stay here rather than being sent home. And it could be taken away with a stroke of Sessions’s pen.

Can an immigration judge wait for an application to be approved? In his other March self-referral, Sessions appears to be taking aim at “continuances” — a practice of judges kicking the can down the road in a case by scheduling it for the next available court date sometime in the future (often several months) in order for something else to be prepared or resolved.

Sometimes, continuances are requested because the immigrant in question is also involved in another legal proceeding that’s relevant to the case. One example: An immigrant put into deportation proceedings by ICE, in an immigration court run by the DOJ, may still be eligible to apply for legal status from US Citizenship and Immigration Services while waiting for their application to be processed. Sessions is now asking himself whether it’s legally valid to grant a continuance so the parallel legal proceeding can get resolved.

This could affect tens of thousands of cases. A 2012 DOJ Office of the Inspector General report found that more than half of cases examined involved continuances — and one-quarter of all continuances involved requests from the immigrant to delay a case while an application was filed or processed (or a background check was completed).

At the end of April, lawyers’ concern that Sessions is gearing up to issue a broad ruling in this case was amplified when a DOJ notification in the case mentioned two other immigrants whose cases were being combined with this one — indicating to some lawyers that the facts in the original case didn’t lend themselves to the ruling Sessions had already decided to give.

Furthermore, lawyers and advocates worry that Sessions is gearing up to restrict continuances in other circumstances — like allowing immigrants time to find a lawyer or prepare a case.

Sessions’s meddling might not make courts more efficient, but it will make them more brutal

Sessions and the Trump administration claim they’re trying to restore efficiency to a backlogged court system that poses the biggest obstacle to the large-scale swift deportation of border-crossing families and to unauthorized immigrants living in the US. But lawyers are convinced that Sessions’s diktats, if they’re as broad as feared, would just gum up the works further.

“If the attorney general were seriously concerned about the backlog, as opposed to a desire for quick deportations, he would be focused on transferring as many cases away from” immigration judges as possible, attorney Jeremy McKinney told Vox — not forcing them to keep cases on their docket that they would rather close, or that could be rendered moot by other decisions. It’s “not smart docket control.”

And Sessions isn’t simply planning to issue these rulings and walk away. His office is planning to give itself even wider power over the immigration court system. A notice published as part of the department’s spring 2018 regulatory agenda says, “The Department of Justice (DOJ) proposes to change the circumstances in which the Attorney General may refer cases to himself for review. Such case types will include those pending before the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) but not yet decided and certain immigration judge decisions regardless of whether those decisions have been appealed to the BIA.”

In other words, even when a DOJ judge makes a ruling in an immigrant’s favor and ICE prosecutors don’t try to appeal the ruling, the attorney general’s office could sweep in and overrule the judge.

Sessions’s decrees would probably result in more immigration judge decisions getting appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals (further gumming up the works) as judges try to interpret precedents Sessions has set, and from there to federal courts of appeals. Many federal judges aren’t keen on the immigration court system, especially when its appeals gum up their own dockets, and they might step in to push back against Sessions’s changes.

In the meantime, though, immigration judges will have fewer ways to move cases off their docket and fewer avenues for asylum seekers to qualify for relief, as they’re simultaneously facing serious pressure to make quick decisions in as many cases as possible. The more pressure is put on immigration judges from above, and the more Sessions moves to block their safety valves, the less likely they are to give immigrants a chance to fully make their cases before they bang the gavel on their deportations.

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

All too true. The real question: Will he be able to get away with this farce of “judicial justice” by probably the most clearly and strongly biased public official short of Trump himself.

An unbiased, impartial decision-maker is a key requirement for Due Process under the Constitution. Having Sessions sit as a the “ultimate judge” in Immigration Court clearly violates that cardinal principle.

For many years, the inherent conflict of interest in having supposedly “fair hearings” run by an enforcement agency in the Executive Branch has basically been swept under the table by Congress and the Article IIIs. As with many things, Sessions’s dogged determination to do away with even the pretense of fairness and Due Process in immigration hearings might eventually force the Article IIIs to confront an issue they have been avoiding since the beginning of immigration laws.

Whether and how they face up to it might well determine the future of our republic and our current Constitutional form of government!

PWS

05-16-18

SOPHIA GENOVESE: “INJUSTICE AT JUSTICE” – The Immigration Court system should not be used as a political tool of the executive branch to effectuate anti-immigrant policies. Rather, it should be an independent system that is committed to the fair adjudication and implementation of our immigration laws.”

http://blog.cyrusmehta.com/2018/05/assembly-line-injustice-how-the-implementation-of-immigration-case-completion-quotas-will-eviscerate-due-process.html

Assembly Line Injustice: How the Implementation of Immigration Case Completion Quotas will Eviscerate Due Process

May 7, 2018/0 Comments/in Blog /by Sophia Genovese

The Executive Office for Immigration Review, under the direction of the Department of Justice, announced last year that it had reopened the Collective Bargaining Agreement with the National Association of Immigration Judges (NAIJ) to include case completion quotas in the performance evaluations of Immigration Judges. On March 30, 2018, James McHenry, the Director of the EOIR, formally announced these metrics, which require IJs to complete at least 700 cases per year, have a remand rate of less than fifteen percent, and meet half of the additional benchmarks listed in the evaluation plan, which can be found here. As pointed out by the Association of the Bar of the City of New York, “this quota translates into each judge hearing testimony and rendering decisions almost three cases per day, five days per week, 52 weeks per year.” According to several retired IJs and Former Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) Members, such quotas raise serious due process concerns and will result in a system that is less focused on justice and appearing “more like an assembly line.”

There are a number of issues with the EOIR case completion quotas. First, these quotas may force IJs to breach their ethical obligations. Specifically, the new completion quotas are tied to the financial incentives of IJs, where the performance evaluations affect IJs’ job security and eligibility for raises. IJs are not given life appointments and can be easily removed from the bench by the Attorney General if he finds them to not be meeting these performance thresholds. Thus, IJs may be encouraged to render hasty decisions in order to satisfy these case completion quotas and receive a good review (and thus a raise) instead of making decisions based on what is proper for the cases in front of them. Having such a financial incentive in the completion of a case arguably forces an IJ to violate 5 C.F.R. §§ 2635.401 to 2635.403,[i] which prohibits IJs from participating in proceedings where he or she has a financial interest. Additionally, IJs must be impartial in their decision-making under 5 C.F.R. § 2635.101(b)(8). It is hard for an IJ to remain impartial when pressured with impossible case completion standards especially when a case is meritorious but an IJ may not grant a continuance for legitimate reasons.

The case completion quotas also violate 8 C.F.R. § 1003.10(b), which provides: “In deciding the individual cases before them, and subject to the applicable governing standards, immigration judges shall exercise their independent judgement and discretion and may take any action consistent with their authorities under the Act and regulations that is appropriate and necessary for the disposition of such cases.” For example, an attorney may have been only recently retained by an asylum-seeker, and may request a continuance in order to gather and assemble evidence that is vital for the asylum-seeker’s claim. Under ordinary circumstances, an IJ would likely grant such a continuance as it would be considered proper under INA § 240(b)(4)(B) which affords a “reasonable opportunity…to present evidence” on one’s behalf. However, under the quota system, an IJ may feel pressure to deny the motion for continuance and may ultimately deny the asylum claim because the asylum-seeker was not afforded sufficient time to present their case. Such an outcome clearly violates 8 C.F.R. § 1003.10(b) and INA § 240(b)(4)(B) where the IJ is stripped of their independent decision-making authority where they feel pressured to quickly close out a case despite compelling reasons to grant a continuance, and where the asylum-seeker is not afforded a reasonable opportunity to be heard.

Another example is an individual placed in removal proceedings who is the intending beneficiary of a pending I-130 with USCIS. Typically, USCIS takes several months to adjudicate an I-130, and thus, attorneys for respondents file motions for continuance with the IJ until the USCIS has rendered a decision which will determine the respondent’s eligibility for relief from removal. Under the new case quota system, IJs will be less inclined to grant such continuances. This hypothetical similarly implicates 8 C.F.R. § 1003.10(b) and INA § 240(b)(4)(B), as described above. Moreover, the IJ’s denial of the continuance here would violate Matter of Hashmi, 24 I&N Dec. 785, 793-94 (BIA 2009) where the Board held that compliance with a IJ’s case completion goals “is not a proper factor in deciding a continuance request” where there is an meritorious pending I-130. We’ve previously blogged about AG Sessions’ stripping of judicial independence through his self-referral of Matter of L-A-B-R- et al, 27 I&N Dec. 245 (AG 2018), which can be found here.

The case completion quotas will also lead to an unprecedented number of BIA and federal court appeals. This would needlessly increase the BIA’s backlog and indeed affect the dockets of the federal court systems, resulting in the tremendous waste of taxpayer’s dollars where a proper decision could have been rendered at the IJ level. In addition, the number of remanded cases may exceed fifteen percent, and thus, the IJ would again fail to meet the performance metrics in their performance evaluation.

There is no denying that the Immigration Courts face tremendous pressure to address the ballooning backlog of cases. As of this writing, there are 692,298 pending cases in Immigration Courts across the country, with only approximately 330 judges to hear them. Advocates during the Obama-era consistently advocated for the appointment of more IJs to address the backlog. However, in the Trump-era, advocate are now skeptical of such a move where it is clear that this Administration seeks to deport as many people as possible. Indeed, the Department of Justice, headed by Jeff Sessions, has celebrated deportations under the Trump Administration. Such an emphasis on deportation, as opposed to fair adjudication of claims, undermines the independence and impartiality of IJs. The implementation of the DOJ/EOIR case completion quotas will undoubtedly lead to a rise in unfair hearings and erroneous deportations, which is exactly what this Administration wants. The appointment of Trump-supporting IJs will only exacerbate the problem.

For many years, the NAIJ has advocated for the creation of an Article I Immigration Court that is independent of the political whims of the Department of Justice. Under the current Administration, and in light of the newly imposed DOJ/EOIR performance quota metrics, these calls have never been more relevant. The Immigration Court system should not be used as a political tool of the executive branch to effectuate anti-immigrant policies. Rather, it should be an independent system that is committed to the fair adjudication and implementation of our immigration laws. The case completion quotas will undoubtedly undermine the integrity of our immigration system and should be vigorously challenged by IJs and practitioners.

[i] The author acknowledges that 5 CFR § 2635.402 directly implicates 18 U.S.C. 208(a), a criminal statute. This author suggests that the EOIR case completion quotas may jeopardize an IJ’s ethical obligations where their financial interests are directly and predictably impacted by blind adherence to such arbitrary quotas. Criminal liability for these actions, however, goes beyond the scope of this article.

Tags: 5 C.F.R. § 2635.402, 8 C.F.R. § 1003.10(b), Case completion quotas, Immigration court backlog, INA § 240(b)(4)(B), James McHenry, Matter of Hashmi, Motion for continuance

DAVID G. SAVAGE @ LA TIMES: REFUGEE ROULETTE CONTINUES – But, It’s Not What You Might Think – The “Outliers “ Are All On The Anti-Asylum Side In A System Systematically Biased Against Asylum Seekers From The Northern Triangle!

http://enewspaper.latimes.com/infinity/article_share.aspx?guid=73fad225-44bc-4757-97fa-b9369552de1e

By David G. Savage

WASHINGTON — Central Americans who travel north to plead for entry at the U.S. border are taking their chances on an immigration system that is deeply divided on whether they can qualify for asylum if they are fleeing domestic violence or street crime, rather than persecution from the government.

The law in this area remains unclear, and the outcome of an asylum claim depends to a remarkable degree on the immigration judge who decides it.

And sitting atop the immigration court system is Atty. Gen. Jeff Sessions, a longtime advocate of much stricter limits on immigration who has recently taken an interest in reviewing asylum cases.

Lawyers say they are troubled by a legal system in which decisions turn so much on the views of individual judges.

Among the 34 immigration judges in Los Angeles, two granted fewer than 3% of the hundreds of asylum claims that came before them in the last five years, while another judge granted 71% of them. The disparity is even greater in San Francisco, where the judge’s rate of granting asylum claims ranged from 3% to 91%.

Overall, asylum seekers would do much better in San Francisco, where 32% were denied between 2012 and 2017, compared with a 68% denial rate in Los Angeles during the same period, according to data from the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse at Syracuse University.

This is not news to immigration lawyers. A decade ago, several law professors published a study called “Refugee Roulette” that revealed how asylum cases depend heavily on the views of individual judges. “The level of variation was shocking. And it hasn’t changed,” said Georgetown University professor Philip Schrag.

Judge Ashley Tabaddor from Los Angeles, president of the National Assn. of Immigration Judges, discounts the statistics. “They’re not reliable,” she said, since judges may have very different caseloads. Some judges hear claims from people who have been detained for crimes, while others hear mostly claims from juveniles, she said.

“We are human. Different people can have different views about the same set of facts,” she said.

Several Los Angeles lawyers who have won or lost asylum cases in recent months said the identity of the judges played an important role. “It’s astounding how much variation there is from judge to judge. The system is in need of repair. It’s an embarrassment,” said Joseph D. Lee, a partner at Munger, Tolles & Olson.

He represented an El Salvador mother who fled north with her three children after gang members shot and killed her husband’s brother in front of her family and then threatened to do the same to her relatives.

“The Central American cases can be difficult to win. Some judges are pretty hostile to gang-related claims,” he said. His client’s claim was denied, and he plans to appeal. “Your chance of winning an asylum claim shouldn’t turn on the luck of the draw on which judge you get. But that is exactly how it works,” he said.

It may soon become much harder to win such claims. Under an unusual feature of the law, the attorney general, as the nation’s top law enforcement officer, also oversees the immigration courts. He can overrule their decisions and announce new rules that are binding on them.

In March, Sessions announced he would review the question of whether women fleeing domestic violence or other “private criminal activity” can rely on this to win asylum.

Last fall, Sessions spoke to a meeting of immigration judges and complained America’s “generous asylum” system has become “overloaded with fake claims.… The credible fear process was intended to be a lifeline for persons facing serious persecution. But it has become an easy ticket to illegal entry into the United States.”

In the last week, the American Bar Assn., faith-based groups and a coalition of immigration law professors have submitted “friend of the court” briefs to Sessions urging him not to reverse years of precedent involving women fleeing abuse and terror.

But veteran immigration judges are not optimistic. Sessions “just wants more people to be removed,” said Paul W. Schmidt, a retired immigration judge from Virginia and an outspoken critic of the attorney general. “He will make it a lot harder for Central Americans to get asylum.”

The dispute begins with the words of the asylum law. In the Refugee Act of 1980, Congress adopted the United Nations standard and said people may seek asylum if they are “unable or unwilling to return” to their home country “because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.”

Under the law, asylum seekers are treated differently than, for example, refugees from a war-torn nation or immigrants seeking work.

Four of those terms in the asylum law are clear enough: race, religion, nationality and political opinion. But lawyers and judges have struggled to decide what counts as “membership in a particular social group.”

Courts have agreed that gays and lesbians can count as a social group, since they have suffered persecution in many societies. Some judges have also said women and girls fleeing sexual abuse and violence can seek asylum because their society views women as the property of men — and with no hope for protection from their government.

But the question becomes harder when considering the gang violence that has spread through some Central American countries. For example, people who testified against violent gangs or resisted them in other ways have sought asylum on the grounds they are members of a particularly endangered social group.

“These cases are challenging,” said Nareeneh Sohbatian, a Los Angeles lawyer at Winston & Strawn who supervises asylum claims. “We talk a lot about this. If they are targeted because of a gang, it can be difficult to show it was caused by their membership in a particular social group.”

Jenna Gilbert, managing attorney for Human Rights First in Los Angeles, said it is clear the asylum law does not protect people fleeing “generalized violence.” A claim “needs to be tied to the one of the protected categories,” she said. “The cases are very fact-dependent.”

But the odds of winning asylum are not good for Central Americans. In the last five years, China had the largest number of asylum seekers in the U.S. immigration courts, and only 20% of their claims were denied. Ethiopians did even better, with only 17% denied. By contrast, the highest denial rates arose from claims brought by natives of Jamaica (91%), the Philippines (90%), Mexico (88%), El Salvador (79%), Honduras (78%) and Guatemala (75%).

Andrew Arthur, a former immigration judge who works at the Center for Immigration Studies, which favors stricter enforcement, said it is not surprising that Sessions will reconsider rulings on asylum in cases of domestic violence. “Right now, the law is very unclear. The phrase ‘particular social group’ is vague. A lot of these claims are compelling, but that doesn’t mean it is ‘persecution’ under the law. If a gang wants to recruit me, that’s not persecution.”

Last month, Sessions criticized a caravan of Central American asylum seekers approaching the border as a “deliberate attempt to undermine our laws and overwhelm our system. There is no right to demand entry without justification. Smugglers and traffickers and those who lie or commit fraud will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.”

People who present an asylum claim at the border must only show they have a “credible fear” of persecution if they were to return home. Most asylum seekers are allowed to stay and make their claim.

Sessions said he would send more prosecutors and judges to the border area to resolve these claims quickly, rather than let them linger for many months or years.

Meanwhile, lawyers are also rushing to represent the asylum seekers. “Unfortunately, the Trump administration has waged a yearlong campaign to undermine asylum seekers and demonize those who only wish to live in safety with the families,” said Gilbert of Human Rights First. “We’re proud to assist these individuals who are fleeing unspeakable horror as they try to rebuild their lives.”

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

It’s really not that complex.

Under the BIA’s seminal precedent decision in Matter of Acosta, 19 I&N Dec. 285 (BIA 1985) resisting gang recruitment is undoubtedly a characteristic that is “fundamental to identity” therefore making an individual a member of a “particular social group” (“PSG”) for asylum purposes.
- Undoubtedly, this conduct is threatening to a gang’s existence and power and is “at least one central reason” why forced recruitment and other forms of harm are used, among other things, to overcome this fundamental characteristic of the PSG.
- Therefore, the vast majority of those fleeing the Northern Triangle over the years because of various forms of resistance to gangs should have qualified for asylum under the Acosta test.
- However granting most of these cases might have been perceived as “opening the floodgates” and therefore career threatening to the BIA.
Following the “Ashcroft Purge,” which removed almost all of the Appellate Judges on the BIA who consistently stood up for the rights of migrants and asylum seekers, the BIA came up with bogus requirements of “particularity” and “social visibility/social distinction” to facilitate the denial of most asylum grants to individuals from the Northern Triangle.
- To do this, the BIA actually had to intentionally and disingenuously misapply criteria developed by the UNHCR to expand the protection available on the basis of a particular social group to instead restrict the group entitled to protection.
  - With the “due process” group of judges removed by Ashcroft, the BIA was able to get away with this with no visible internal resistance.
However even under the BIA’s new “bogus test” almost all experts agree that individuals resisting gang recruitment in countries where “go along to get along (and live)” is the norm would be both a well-defined “particularized” group and highly “socially distinct.”
- Consequently, the BIA and a number of anti-asylum Immigration Judges simply resorted to intentionally misconstruing country conditions and making biased “no nexus” findings or largely bogus “adverse credibility rulings” to keep the Northern Triangle grant rate unrealistically low.
- A great way to maximize denials is to hold individuals in detention or game the system so that they can’t obtain competent representation and/or “fail to appear” in Immigration Court thereby denying them the relief that the likely could win in a truly fair, unbiased system.
- Remarkably, the article quotes a source who espouses one of the many DHS “enforcement myths” — that forced recruitment can’t be a basis for asylum.
  - This is nonsense. Even under BIA’s intentionally restrictive precedents, the factual reasons why the respondent is being recruited (“nexus”) are important.
  - But, as a practical matter, no detained, unrepresented applicant has any realistic chance of understanding the law and developing the factual record necessary to support relief.
Also, in the Northern Triangle gangs have infiltrated the system to the extent that it is almost impossible to separate “political motives” from supposedly “criminal ones/”
- Individuals are forcibly recruited as punishment for a variety of reasons including family membership, having been witnesses against gangs, actual or imputed political opinion, and actual or imputed religious views.
- With competent lawyers, time to prepare, and an attentive Court of Appeals, most credible gang-related cases should qualify for asylum.
  - Without lawyers or the chance to develop and document a case, the chances for success are almost nil.
Even though the system is already heavily rigged against bona fide asylum applicants from the Northern Triangle, Attorney General Jeff Sessions has made it clear that he intends to further misconstrue the law to make it virtually impossible for refugees fleeing the Northern Triangle to qualify for asylum
Given the total corruption of the governments in the Northern Triangle and the serious infiltration by gangs, a fair process should result in a “blanket precedent” that would give almost everyone credibly fleeing gang threats in the Norther Triangle at least “temporary withholding of removal” under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).
No, the problem is not just that different Immigration Judges have different opinions. It’s that both the composition of the Immigration Court and the administrative case-law have been consciously “rigged” to deny those seeking protection from the Northern Triangle the protection to which they should be entitled under both U.S. and international law.
- Yes, I of all people certainly agree that judges can and should have differing views and philosophies,
- But, at some point, “differences” become “biases.”
- There is no way that those judges whose grant rates are below 10% can actually be applying asylum law in the generous manner set forth by the Supreme Court in Cardoza-Fonseca or the BIA itself in Matter of Mogharrabi.
- Nor are they properly applying the “benefit of the doubt” as it’s supposed to be given according to the UNHCR in systems based on the 1952 Geneva Convention on Refugees.
- No, I wouldn’t “fire” any current Immigration Judges (although I might over time make everyone re-compete for their jobs in a true merit-based selection system). But we do need:
  - An independent Article I U.S. Immigration Court, free from the pernicious political influence that the DOJ has been applying for many years.
  - A real merit selection system for future Immigration Judges that emphasizes expertise in immigration and asylum law and proven ability to deal fairly, effectively, and objectively with the public and which utilizes panels with some members from outside the Federal Government who practice before the Immigration Courts.
  - An Appellate Division that functions like a true independent Appellate Court, with a diverse membership, that will rein in those judges who are biased against asylum seekers and not applying Cardoza-Fonseca.
  - As I’ve pointed out before, things simply can’t happen under the highly biased, xenophobic Jeff Sessions. He is the “perfect storm” of why the Immigration Judiciary must be removed from the DOJ.
- As a historical aside, an unfortunate harbinger of things to come, the BIA actually misapplied their own “immutability/fundamental to identity” test to the facts in Acosta!
  - Of course “taxi drivers in San Salvador” were a PSG! Ask any New Yorker whether being a taxi driver is “fundamental to identity!”
  - Occupational identification, at all levels of society, is one of the most powerful indicators of self-identity and one that we seldom ask individuals to involuntarily change. Think that “truck drivers” aren’t a “PSG?” Just walk into the next Pilot Truck Stop you see on the Interstate in your little black judicial robe and shout that next to the Drivers” Lounge or rest rooms. I think you would find some “strong dissenters.”
  - Or how about going before a group of judges and telling them that being a judge isn’t “fundamental to identity!” I remember when a somewhat “tone-deaf” (but in retrospect, perhaps clairvoyant) invited speaker at one of our past Annual Immigration Judges’ Conferences referred to us as “just highly paid immigration inspectors working for the Attorney General.” He barely got out alive!
  - The BIA ruling in Acosta was “doubly absurd” in the context of 1985. The U.S. was then actively engaged in supporting the Government of El Salvador against the guerrillas. The BIA suggested that the taxi drivers in San Salvador could merely quit their jobs en masse or participate in the guerrillas taxi strike called by the guerrillas. Both of which would have crippled the country of El Salvador and seriously undermined the government we were supporting!
  - In short, the BIA has a long ugly history of twisting the law and the facts against legitimate asylum seekers, particularly those from Latin America.
    - Jeff Sessions, well-known for his long history of xenophobia, racially charged attitudes and actions, and bias against nearly every non-White-male-straight-right-wing-Christian social group in America is on the cusp of making things even worse for vulnerable refugees entitled to our protection by abusing his power as AG and stripping the hard earned asylum rights from abused women — who had to labor through 15 years of wrong BIA decisions, outrageous political maneuvering at the DOJ, and task avoidance at the BIA to win their hard-earned rights in A-R-C-G- in the first place!
    - Only cowards pick on the vulnerable and the dispossessed!

Eventually, long after I’m gone, I’m sure the “truth will out.” However, that will be little help to those currently being railroaded through the travesty that passes for justice in today’s U.S. Immigration Courts or those who have been denied justice in the past.

PWS

05-06-18

TAL @ CNN: DENYING DUE PROCESS IN U.S. IMMIGRATION COURTS — Sessions’s Plans & Actions Contravene Many Key Recommendations Of Recent Independent Internal Evaluation – Feuding With Judges, Suspending Legal Orientation Program, Establishing Evaluations Based On “Quotas,” Detailing Judges To Border Detention Centers, Restricting Administrative Closing, Increasing Use Of Televideo Hearings, Emphasis On Increasing Removals Over Due Process All Run Counter To Recent Recommendations!

http://www.cnn.com/2018/04/23/politics/immigration-courts-justice-department-report/index.html

Justice report’s findings clash with Sessions’ actions

By Tal Kopan

Attorney General Jeff Sessions has made overhauling the chronically backlogged immigration courts a top priority — but some of his moves seem to run counter to recommendations in a Justice Department-commissioned report made public on Monday.

While some of the recommendations, such as increasing staffing, have been part of his efforts, other steps — such as requiring judges to process a target amount of cases — run contrary to the study’s suggestions.

The report was written by consulting firm Booz Allen Hamilton last April after a yearlong analysis commissioned by the Justice Department’s immigration courts division. A redacted version was made public Monday as the result of a Freedom of Information Act request by the American Immigration Lawyers Association and American Immigration Council.

The report looks at the chronic inability of the immigration courts to keep up with the number of cases before them. Cases related to immigration status are handled in a court system separate from the typical criminal and civil courts in the US — a system that is run entirely by the Justice Department and in which the attorney general effectively functions as a one-man Supreme Court.

Because cases can take years to finish, undocumented immigrants can end up living and building lives in the US as they await a final decision on whether they are legally allowed to stay in the US — something the Trump administration has cited as a driver of illegal immigration.

The Booz Allen Hamilton analysis identifies a number of issues that contribute to the backlog, including staffing shortages, technological difficulties and external factors like an increasing number of cases.

Sessions has worked to hire more immigration judges and has ordered other upgrades like the use of an electronic filing system, as the report recommends.

But the American Immigration Lawyers Association expressed concern about a number of other recommendations that seemed ignored or on which opposite action was taken.

Responding to the report, a Justice Department official who requested not to be named said that the efforts of the department are “common-sense.”

“After years of mismanagement and neglect, the Justice Department has implemented a number of common-sense reforms in the immigration court system, a number of them address these issues and we believe that focusing our efforts on these reforms has been an effective place to start,” the official said.

The report’s recommendations include a performance review system for judges, who are hired and managed by the Justice Department, that “emphasizes process over outcomes and places high priority on judicial integrity and independence,” including in dialogue with the union that represents immigration judges. The Justice Department recently rolled out a performance metrics system, though, that requires judges to complete a certain number of cases per year and sets time goals for other procedural steps along the way, which immigration judges have strongly opposed as jeopardizing the ability of judges to make fair, independent decisions.

In a call with reporters, AILA representatives and a retired immigration judge argued that while the report doesn’t explicitly reject a quota system, it’s clear that putting one in place is contrary to the recommendation. They say that judges who are fearful of their job security and opportunity for advancement may be pressured to speed up hearing cases at the expense of due process for the immigrants, which could skew the outcome of the case.

A Justice Department official said the agency rejects the notion of a “false dichotomy” that improving efficiency sacrifices due process and said the agency has also put in place court-based metrics that lend itself to the recommendation of the report.

In another example, the report recommends that the Justice Department consider expanding legal orientation programs for immigrants and increasing their access to attorneys, so they can better navigate the system. The Justice Department recently put on hold a legal advice program for immigrants in the courts, saying it needed to be reviewed, though audits in the past had consistently shown it was productive and had saved the government money long-term. Officials say they may reinstitute the program if the audit shows it is effective.

The report also recommends limited use of video hearings, saying judges are stymied by technical difficulties and also are less able to read the subtle cues and nonverbal communications of witnesses and people involved in the hearings. Sessions’ immigration courts plan includes expanding the use of video hearings.

In another example, one of Sessions’ first moves in taking office was to send a number of judges to the border on a temporary assignment to handle cases there. The report says temporary assignments should be avoided, as they create more delays when judges have to catch up on their workloads back home.

The report also recommends administratively closing cases if they are being adjudicated in some other venue, like a visa petition or another court case. The Trump administration has sought to curtail the administrative closing of cases.

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

DOJ’s ridiculous claim that Sessions’s actions are “common sense” is refuted by virtually everyone with expertise or true understanding of the Immigration Court system including those working in it, those stuck in it, and even ICE!

There can be no effective, Due Process oriented, “actual common sense” Immigration Court reforms so long as Jeff Sessions controls those courts.

PWS

04-23-18

HERE’S THE VIDEO LINK TO THE APRIL 18, 2018 SENATE HEARINGS ON IMMIGRATION COURT REFORM — SEE & HEAR JUDGE A. ASHLEY TABADDOR’S TESTIMONY AND FOLLOWING Q&A HERE!

Here’s the link to the hearing. I had to move the “time bar” at the bottom to about 28 minutes in before the “action” started. Thanks to both Laura Lynch of AILA and Nolan Rappaport for forwarding this to me.

https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/meetings/strengthening-and-reforming-americas-immigration-court-system

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

PWS

04-19-18

“GANG OF 18” RETIRED IMMIGRATION JUDGES WEIGHS IN BEFORE SENATE JUDICIARY ON SESSIONS’S ABUSES OF DUE PROCESS & NEED FOR ARTICLE I COURT — NAIJ PRESIDENT JUDGE A. ASHLEY TABADDOR PRESENTS STUNNING EVIDENCE OF SESSIONS’S ALL OUT ATTACK ON JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE, PROFESSONALISM, & FAIRNESS TO THOSE APPEARING BEFORE THESE COURTS!

With the help of the amazing Laura Lynch, Senior Policy Counsel at AILA (picture above), here’s the statement filed by our (ever-growing) “Gang of 18” Retired Judges:

Statement of Retired Immigration Judges and former members of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted to the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Border Security and Immigration

Hearing on “Strengthening and Reforming America’s Immigration Court System”

April 18, 2018

This statement for the record is submitted by retired immigration judges and former members of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). Drawing upon our many years of combined service, we have an intimate knowledge of the operation of the immigration courts. Immigration judges and Board members are supposed to act as neutral arbiters; however, they are considered to be employees of the nation’s chief law enforcement agency, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), rather than true judges. The DOJ is run by politically appointed law enforcement officials, making EOIR vulnerable to improper political pressures. In order to restore public confidence in the immigration court system and to insulate EOIR from political pressure, the immigration court system must be removed from the DOJ to an independent article I court structure that focuses on due process and efficient court administration.

For over a decade, the immigration courts have been severely underfunded when compared to the

budget increases that Congress has provided to immigration enforcement. EOIR has been unable to keep pace with the growing number of removal proceedings. The Trump administration has further contributed to this backlog, announcing broad new immigration enforcement priorities in January of 2017 that make almost everyone who is undocumented a priority for arrest. With the immigration court case backlog approaching 700,000 cases, we can all agree that our immigration court system is in crisis.

Instead of working to improve the immigration court system, DOJ and EOIR have issued policies that will threaten the integrity and independence of the immigration courts.

Imposing case completion quotas

On March 30th, the Director of EOIR announced that immigration judges will now be subject to case completion quotas. This unprecedented change will be effective October 1, 2018, and starting then, immigration judges will be subject to performance reviews (tied to job security and raises) that focus on meaningless numbers and disregard due process. An immigration judge should be evaluated based on the quality of her decisions, not the quantity. Moreover, quotas will likely produce hastily-made decisions and result in grave errors. Poor decisions will also directly result in more appeals to the BIA and the Courts of Appeal, and more remands, causing more delays and running contrary to the goals of the Attorney General (AG).

Curbing use of docketing management tools such as use of continuances

On July 31, 2017, the Chief Immigration Judge issued a memorandum making it more difficult for judges to grant multiple continuances. This policy along with the imposition of case completion quotas heightens concerns that cases will be rushed through the immigration court system. Continuances are necessary in a

AILA Doc. No. 18041830. (Posted 4/18/18) 2

variety of circumstances, such as when an individual is facing deportation in immigration court while awaiting a decision by the U.S. Citizenship Immigration Services (USCIS) on a pending application. Examples of such applications are “U” visas for crime victims, I-601A waivers for unlawful presence, I-130 visa petitions for family members of residents or citizens, or I-751 applications for certain individuals married to U.S. citizens. By law, immigration judges cannot make a decision on these applications; USCIS has sole jurisdiction to make those decisions. But the result of those applications may be outcome determinative in removal proceedings. To date, case law supports judges granting continuances, when it makes sense, in circumstances like these. However, under the new quota system, a judge could be influenced to deny a request for a continuance he or she otherwise would have reasonably granted, solely because of concern about completion numbers and job retention. That is not justice; it seems more like an assembly line. Circuit courts will not excuse due process violations based on immigration judges having to meet arbitrary completion goals.

The AG is taking dramatic steps to rewrite immigration law.

The AG recently utilized his authority to certify two BIA decisions to himself for review to examine a judges’ authority to utilize docket management tools including use of continuances and administrative closure. As described in our amicus brief, immigration judges have inherent powers (including the power to control their own dockets, and to administratively close cases as a means of exercising such control) delegated to them by Congress, and not the Attorney General. Such authority of judges to control their dockets has been recognized by the Supreme Court and lower federal courts. Both the issuance of continuances and administrative closure are important docket management tools that allow judges to manage high caseloads. The certification of these cases signals the AG’s intent to massively curtail judicial independence. The solution is to create an independent, Article I immigration court, allowing IJs to continue to decide cases with fairness and neutrality free from such policy-driven interference.

Additional Resources from Retired Immigration Judges and Former BIA Members

● Jeffrey S. Chase, The Need For an Independent Immigration Court, Jeffrey S. Chase Opinions/Analysis on Immigration Law, (Aug. 17, 2017), https://www.jeffreyschase.com/blog/2017/8/17/the-need-for-an-independent-immigration-court.

● Jeffrey S. Chase, IJs, Tiered Review and Completion Quotas, Jeffrey S. Chase Opinions/Analysis on Immigration Law, (Nov. 9, 2017), https://www.jeffreyschase.com/blog/2017/11/9/ijs-tiered-review-and-completion-quotas.

● Bruce Einhorn, Jeff Sessions wants to bribe judges to do his bidding, Washington Post, (Apr. 5, 2018), https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/jeff-sessions-wants-to-bribe-judges-to-do-his-bidding/2018/04/05/fd4bdc48-390a-11e8-acd5-35eac230e514_story.html?utm_term=.758f0b92e2e6.

● John F. Gossart, Time to fix our immigration courts, The Hill, (Feb. 26, 2014), http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/judicial/199224-time-to-fix-our-immigration-courts.

● Lory Rosenberg, Much Sound and Fury: Matter of E-F-H-L-, 27 I&N Dec. 226 (A.G. 2018), ILW, (Mar. 6, 2018),http://blogs.ilw.com/entry.php?10427-Much-Sound-and-Fury-Matter-of-E-F-H-L-27-I-amp-N-Dec-226-(A-G-2018)

● Paul Wickham Schmidt, Retired Immigration Judge and Former Chairman of the BIA Responds to Implementation of Production Quotas, Immigration Courtside, (Apr. 4, 2018), http://www.aila.org/infonet/retired-immigration-judge-and-former-chairman

AILA Doc. No. 18041830. (Posted 4/18/18) 3

● Paul Wickham Schmidt, We Need An Article I United States Immigration Court — NOW — Could The Impetus Come From An Unlikely Source?, Immigration Courtside, http://immigrationcourtside.com/we-need-an-article-i-united-states-immigration-court-now/.

● Robert Vinikoor, Take it From a Former Immigration Judge: Quotas Are a Bad Idea, Minsky, McCormick & Hallagan, P.C. Blog, (Apr. 12, 2018), https://www.mmhpc.com/2018/04/take-it-from-a-former-judge-quotas-for-immigration-judges-are-a-bad-idea/.

We appreciate the opportunity to provide this statement for the record and look forward to engaging as Congress considers reforming the immigration court system.

Contact with questions or concerns: Jeffrey Chase, jeffchase99@gmail.com.

Sincerely,

Honorable Steven R. Abrams

Honorable Patricia L. Buchanan

Honorable Sarah M. Burr

Honorable Jeffrey S. Chase

Honorable George T. Chew

Honorable Bruce J. Einhorn

Honorable Cecelia M. Espenoza

Honorable Noel Ferris

Honorable John F. Gossart, Jr.

Honorable William P. Joyce

Honorable Carol King

Honorable Elizabeth A. Lamb

Honorable Margaret McManus

Honorable Lory D. Rosenberg

Honorable Susan Roy

Honorable William Van Wyke

Honorable Paul W. Schmidt

Honorable Polly A. Webber

List of Retired Immigration Judges and Former BIA Members

The Honorable Steven R. Abrams served as an Immigration Judge in New York City from 1997 to 2013 at JFK Airport, Varick Street, and 26 Federal Plaza. From 1979 to 1997, he worked for the former Immigration and Naturalization Service in various capacities, including a general attorney; district counsel; a Special U.S. Attorney in the Eastern District of New York and Alaska. Presently lectures on Immigration law in Raleigh, NC.

The Honorable Patricia L. Buchanan served as an Immigration Judge in New York City from June 2015 to July 2017, having responsibility for a detained docket for more than a year and a half. From December 2003 to October 2014, she served in various roles within the Immigration Unit of the Civil Division of the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York, including

AILA Doc. No. 18041830. (Posted 4/18/18) 4

Assistant United States Attorney and Chief of the Immigration Unit. From 2001 to 2003 she served as a trial attorney in the Department of Justice, Civil Division, Office of Immigration Litigation in Washington, DC. From 1996 to 2001, she served as a trial attorney on a detained docket with the former Immigration and Naturalization Service in the New York District. During a significant period of her time as a federal court litigator, she authored a monograph analyzing hundreds of precedent decisions on process and procedural issues (including rights and limitations to continuances) in removal proceedings and presented at numerous DOJ and DHS trainings on due process issues. Prior to joining the Department of Justice, she worked as a Temporary and Volunteer Attorney at Westchester/Putnam Legal Services from 1995 to 1996 and worked at Mid-Hudson Legal Services from 1991 to 1995.

The Honorable Sarah M. Burr served as a U.S. Immigration Judge in New York from 1994 and was appointed as Assistant Chief Immigration Judge in charge of the New York, Fishkill, Ulster, Bedford Hills and Varick Street immigration courts in 2006. She served in this capacity until January 2011, when she returned to the bench full-time until she retired in 2012. Prior to her appointment, she worked as a staff attorney for the Criminal Defense Division of the Legal Aid Society in its trial and appeals bureaus and also as the supervising attorney in its immigration unit. She currently serves on the Board of Directors of the Immigrant Justice Corps.

The Honorable Jeffrey S. Chase served as an Immigration Judge in New York City from 1995 to 2007 and was an attorney advisor and senior legal advisor at the Board from 2007 to 2017. He is presently in private practice as an independent consultant on immigration law, and is of counsel to the law firm of DiRaimondo & Masi in New York City. Prior to his appointment, he was a sole practitioner and volunteer staff attorney at Human Rights First. He also was the recipient of the American Immigration Lawyers Association’s annual pro bono award in 1994 and chaired AILA’s Asylum Reform Task Force.

Honorable George T. Chew

The Honorable Bruce J. Einhorn served as a United States Immigration Judge in Los Angeles from 1990 to 2007. He now serves as an Adjunct Professor of Law at Pepperdine University School of Law in Malibu, California, and a Visiting Professor of International, Immigration, and Refugee Law at the University of Oxford, England. He is also a contributing op-ed columnist at D.C.-based The Hill newspaper. He is a member of the Bars of Washington D.C., New York, Pennsylvania, and the Supreme Court of the United States.

The Honorable Cecelia M. Espenoza served as a Member of the Executive Office for Immigration Review (“EOIR”) Board of Immigration Appeals from 2000-2003 and in the Office of the General Counsel from 2003-2017 where she served as Senior Associate General Counsel, Privacy Officer, Records Officer and Senior FOIA Counsel. She is presently in private practice as an independent consultant on immigration law, and a member of the World Bank’s Access to Information Appeals Board. Prior to her EOIR appointments, she was a law professor at St. Mary’s University (1997-2000) and the University of Denver College of Law (1990-1997) where she taught Immigration Law and Crimes and supervised students in the Immigration and Criminal Law Clinics. She has published several articles on Immigration Law. She is a graduate of the University of Utah and the University of Utah S.J. Quinney College of Law. She was recognized as the University of Utah Law School’s Alumna of the Year in 2014

AILA Doc. No. 18041830. (Posted 4/18/18) 5

and received the Outstanding Service Award from the Colorado Chapter of the American Immigration Lawyers Association in 1997 and the Distinguished Lawyer in Public Service Award from the Utah State Bar in 1989-1990.

The Honorable Noel Ferris served as an Immigration Judge in New York from 1994 to 2013 and an attorney advisor to the Board from 2013 to 2016, until her retirement. Previously, she served as a Special Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Southern District of New York from 1985 to 1990 and as Chief of the Immigration Unit from 1987 to 1990.

The Honorable John F. Gossart, Jr. served as a U.S. Immigration Judge from 1982 until his retirement in 2013 and is the former president of the National Association of Immigration Judges. At the time of his retirement, he was the third most senior immigration judge in the United States. Judge Gossart was awarded the Attorney General Medal by then Attorney General Eric Holder. From 1975 to 1982, he served in various positions with the former Immigration Naturalization Service, including as general attorney, naturalization attorney, trial attorney, and deputy assistant commissioner for naturalization. He is also the co-author of the National Immigration Court Practice Manual, which is used by all practitioners throughout the United States in immigration court proceedings. From 1997 to 2016, Judge Gossart was an adjunct professor of law at the University of Baltimore School of Law teaching immigration law, and more recently was an adjunct professor of law at the University of Maryland School of Law also teaching immigration law. He has been a faculty member of the National Judicial College, and has guest lectured at numerous law schools, the Judicial Institute of Maryland and the former Maryland Institute for the Continuing Education of Lawyers. He is also a past board member of the Immigration Law Section of the Federal Bar Association. Judge Gossart served in the United States Army from 1967 to 1969 and is a veteran of the Vietnam War.

The Honorable William P. Joyce served as an Immigration Judge in Boston, Massachusetts. Subsequent to retiring from the bench, he has been the Managing Partner of Joyce and Associates with 1,500 active immigration cases. Prior to his appointment to the bench, he served as legal counsel to the Chief Immigration Judge. Judge Joyce also served as an Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, and Associate General Counsel for enforcement for INS. He is a graduate of Georgetown School of Foreign Service and Georgetown Law School.

The Honorable Carol King served as an Immigration Judge from 1995 to 2017 in San Francisco and was a temporary Board member for six months between 2010 and 2011. She previously practiced immigration law for ten years, both with the Law Offices of Marc Van Der Hout and in her own private practice. She also taught immigration law for five years at Golden Gate University School of Law and is currently on the faculty of the Stanford University Law School Trial Advocacy Program. Judge King now works as a Removal Defense Strategist, advising attorneys and assisting with research and writing related to complex removal defense issues.

The Honorable Elizabeth A. Lamb was appointed to the immigration bench in 1992. Previously she served as EEO counsel to the St. Regis paper company and was of counsel to Catholic Charities in New York City for immigration matters. Before law school she served as press secretary for then Congressman Hugh L. Carey and later for commissioner Bess Myerson at the New York City Department of Consumer

AILA Doc. No. 18041830. (Posted 4/18/18) 6

Affairs. Her first job after graduation from law school was for the New York State Department of Criminal Justice Services. She retired on January 6, 2018.

The Honorable Margaret McManus was appointed as an Immigration Judge in 1991 and retired from the bench after twenty-seven years in January 2018. She received a Bachelor of Arts degree from the Catholic University of America in 1973, and a Juris Doctorate from Brooklyn Law School in 1983. Judge McManus was an attorney for Marion Ginsberg, Esquire from 1989 to 1990 in New York. She was in private practice in 1987 and 1990, also in New York. Judge McManus worked as a consultant to various nonprofit organizations on immigration matters including Catholic Charities and Volunteers of Legal Services from 1987 to 1988 in New York. She was an adjunct clinical law professor for City University of New York Law School from 1988 to 1989. Judge McManus served as a staff attorney for the Legal Aid Society, Immigration Unit, in New York, from 1983 to 1987. She is a member of the New York Bar.

The Honorable Lory D. Rosenberg served on the Board from 1995 to 2002. She then served as Director of the Defending Immigrants Partnership of the National Legal Aid & Defender Association from 2002 until 2004. Prior to her appointment, she worked with the American Immigration Law Foundation from 1991 to 1995. She was also an adjunct Immigration Professor at American University Washington College of Law from 1997 to 2004. She is the founder of IDEAS Consulting and Coaching, LLC., a consulting service for immigration lawyers, and is the author of Immigration Law and Crimes. She currently works as Senior Advisor for the Immigrant Defenders Law Group.

The Honorable Susan Roy started her legal career as a Staff Attorney at the Board of Immigration Appeals, a position she received through the Attorney General Honors Program. She served as Assistant Chief Counsel, National Security Attorney, and Senior Attorney for the DHS Office of Chief Counsel in Newark, NJ, and then became an Immigration Judge, also in Newark. Sue has been in private practice for nearly 5 years, and two years ago, opened her own immigration law firm. Sue is the NJ AILA Chapter Liaison to EOIR, is the Vice Chair of the Immigration Law Section of the NJ State Bar Association, and in 2016 was awarded the Outstanding Pro Bono Attorney of the Year by the NJ Chapter of the Federal Bar Association.

The Honorable William Van Wyke

The Honorable Paul W. Schmidt served as an Immigration Judge from 2003 to 2016 in Arlington, virginia. He previously served as Chairman of the Board of Immigration Appeals from 1995 to 2001, and as a Board Member from 2001 to 2003. He authored the landmark decision Matter of Kasinga, 21 I&N Dec. 357 (BIA 1995) extending asylum protection to victims of female genital mutilation. He served as Deputy General Counsel of the former INS from 1978 to 1987, serving as Acting General Counsel from 1986-87 and 1979-81. He was the managing partner of the Washington, D.C. office of Fragomen, Del Rey & Bernsen from 1993 to 1995, and practiced business immigration law with the Washington, D.C. office of Jones, Day, Reavis and Pogue from 1987 to 1992, where he was a partner from 1990 to 1992. He served as an adjunct professor of law at George Mason University School of Law in 1989, and at Georgetown University Law Center from 2012 to 2014 and 2017 to present. He was a founding member of the International Association of Refugee Law Judges (IARLJ), which he presently serves as Americas Vice President. He also serves on the Advisory Board of AYUDA, and assists the National Immigrant

AILA Doc. No. 18041830. (Posted 4/18/18) 7

Justice Center/Heartland Alliance on various projects; and speaks, writes and lectures at various forums throughout the country on immigration law topics. He also created the immigration law blog immigrationcourtside.com.

The Honorable Polly A. Webber served as an Immigration Judge from 1995 to 2016 in San Francisco, with details in Tacoma, Port Isabel, Boise, Houston, Atlanta, Philadelphia, and Orlando Immigration Courts. Previously, she practiced immigration law from 1980 to 1995 in her own private practice in San Jose, California, initially in partnership with the Honorable Member of Congress, Zoe Lofgren. She served as National President of AILA from 1989 to 1990 and was a national officer in AILA from 1985 to 1991. She has also taught Immigration and Nationality Law for five years at Santa Clara University School of Law. She has spoken at seminars and has published extensively in this field, and is a graduate of Hastings College of the Law (University of California), J.D., and the University of California, Berkeley, A.B., Abstract Mathematics.

AILA Doc. No. 18041830. (Posted 4/18/18

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

It was a great honor and privilege to be part of this distinguished group. To our other retired colleagues out there, we’re always more than happy to have join the group an continue the fight to “guarantee fairness and due process to all.” (Actually, the long-forgotten mission of EOIR). It also provides a great opportunity to chat online with each other and catch up on some of the amazing “post-bench” achievements of our colleagues.

And, once again, that’s to Laura Lynch without whose support, skill, and expertise, this effort could never have happened.

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

Here’s the detailed and deeply disturbing statement of Judge A. Ashley Tabaddor, of the United States Immigration Court in Los Angeles, CA, in her capacity as President of the National Association of Immigration Judges (“NAIJ”). It’s impossible to read Judge Tabaddor’s heartfelt words without being totally outraged by the all-out assault on fairness to, and the human dignity of, those seeking justice from the Immigration Courts and those trying to help them present their cases; the intentional demeaning and de-professionalization of U.S. Immigration Judges struggling to provide impartial justice in a system intentionally rigged against it; the patently dishonest attempt to shift blame for the Immigration Court’s current dysfunction from the politicos who caused it to their victims; and the all out disrespect for truth, the law, ethics, our Constitution, and basic human rights and decency shown by Jeff Sessions.

Statement of

Judge A. Ashley Tabaddor, President

National Association of Immigration Judges

April 18, 2018

Before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Border Security and Immigration Subcommittee

Hearing on “Strengthening and Reforming America’s Immigration Court System”

INTRODUCTION

I am Ashley Tabaddor, President of the National Association of Immigration Judges (NAIJ), and an Immigration Judge.1 For the past twelve years I have served in the Los Angeles Immigration Court. My current pending case load is approximately 2000 cases. Chairman Cornyn, Ranking Member Durbin and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify before the Subcommittee.

1 I am speaking in my capacity as President of the NAIJ and not as employee or representative of the U.S. Department of Justice, Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR). The views expressed here do not necessarily represent the official position of the United States Department of Justice, the Attorney General, or the Executive Office for Immigration Review. The views represent my personal opinions, which were formed after extensive consultation with the membership of NAIJ.

I am pleased to represent the NAIJ, a non-partisan, non-profit, voluntary association of United States Immigration Judges. Since 1979, the NAIJ has been the recognized representative of Immigration Judges for collective bargaining purposes. Our mission is to promote the independence of Immigration Judges and enhance the professionalism, dignity, and efficiency of the Immigration Courts, which are the trial-level tribunals where removal proceedings initiated by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) are conducted. We work to improve our court system through: educating the public, legal community and media; testimony at congressional oversight hearings; and advocating for the integrity and independence of the Immigration Courts and Immigration Court reform. We also seek to improve the Court system and protect the interests of our members, collectively and individually, through dynamic liaison activities with management, formal and informal grievances, and collective bargaining. In addition, we represent Immigration Judges in disciplinary proceedings, seeking to protect judges against 2

unwarranted discipline and to assure that when discipline must be imposed it is imposed in a manner that is fair and serves the public interest.

I am here today to discuss urgently needed Immigration Court Reform and the unprecedented challenges facing the Immigration Courts and Immigration Judges. Immigration Courts have faced structural deficiencies, crushing caseloads and unacceptable backlogs for many years. Many of the “solutions” that have been set forth to address these challenges have in fact exacerbated the problems and undermined the integrity of the Courts, encroached on the independent decision-making authority of the Immigration Judges, and further enlarged the backlogs. I will be focusing my discussion on the inherent structural defect of the Immigration Court system, the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) misguided “solutions” to the current court backlog, and proposed solutions to the challenges facing the court, including the only enduring solution: restructuring of the Immigration Court as an independent Article I Court.

THE FUNDAMENTAL FLAW

⦁ The Placement of a Neutral Court in a Law Enforcement Agency

The inherent conflict present in pairing the law enforcement mission of the DOJ with the mission of a court of law that mandates independence from all other external pressures, including those of law enforcement priorities, has seriously compromised the very integrity of the Immigration Court system and may well lead to the virtual implosion of this vital Court.

Immigration Judges make the life-changing decisions on whether or not non-citizens are allowed to remain in the United States. Presently, approximately 330 Immigration Judges in the United States are responsible for adjudicating almost 700,000 cases. The work is hard. The law is complicated; the labyrinth of rules and regulations require expertise in an arcane field of law. The stories people share in court are frequently traumatic and emotions are high because the stakes are so dire. The proceedings are considered “civil” cases, in contrast to “criminal” cases. Thus, people are not provided attorneys and must either pay for one, find a volunteer, or represent themselves. Last year, approximately 40 percent of the individuals who appeared in our courtrooms represented themselves, a figure that rises to 85 percent when only detained cases are considered. Further complicating the situation, only 15 percent of immigration cases are conducted in the English language. Finally, our courtrooms and systems lack modern technology and unlike federal courts, the Immigration Courts still rely on paper records.

But here’s the core of the problem: Immigration Judges wear two hats. On the one hand, we are statutorily recognized as “Immigration Judges,” wear judicial robes, and are charged with conducting ourselves consistently with canons of judicial ethics and conduct, in order to ensure our role as impartial decision-makers in the cases over which we preside. In every sense of the word, on a daily basis, when presiding over our case in our courts, we are judges: we rule on the admissibility of evidence and legal objections, make factual findings and conclusions of law, and 3

decide the fate of thousands of respondents each year. Last year, our decisions were final and unreviewed in 91% of the cases we decided.

In addition, and in contrast to our judicial role, we are considered by the DOJ to be government attorneys, fulfilling routine adjudicatory roles in a law enforcement agency. With each new administration, we are harshly reminded of that subordinate role and subjected to the vagaries of the prevailing political winds.

At first glance, this may not seem too damaging; after all, our government structure is resilient and must respond to changes demanded by the public. However, this organizational structure is the fundamental root cause of the conflicts and challenges that have plagued the Immigration Court system since its inception and now threatens to cripple it entirely because the very mission of a neutral court is to maintain balance despite political pressures.

⦁ Politicization of the Immigration Courts

Examples of where this conflict of interest has led to the infringement on the independence of the Immigration Court are numerous throughout the past decades and under administrations of both political parties. It is no secret that the DHS, whose attorneys appear before the Court, regularly engages in ex-parte communication with the DOJ. On the macro level, these communications have directly led to the use of the Immigration Court system as a political tool in furtherance of law enforcement policies.

One common use of the Courts as a political tool has been the incessant docket shuffling in furtherance of various law enforcement “priorities.” For example, during the last administration, the mandated “surge” dockets prioritized recent arrivals, such as unaccompanied minors and adults with children, over pending cases before the Court. Similarly, this administration uprooted approximately one third of all Immigration Judges in the 2017 calendar year to assign them temporarily to “border courts” to create the “optics” of a full commitment to law enforcement measures, even at the expense of delaying hundreds of cases at each home. The DOJ claimed that the border surge resulted in an additional completion of 2700 cases. This number is misleading as it does not account for the fact that detained cases at the border are always completed in higher numbers than non-detained cases over a given period. Thus, the alleged 2700 additional completions was a comparison of apples to oranges, equating proceedings completed for those with limited available relief to those whose cases by nature are more complicated and time consuming as they involve a greater percentage of applications for relief. Moreover, many questioned the veracity of the Agency’s reported numbers because so many judges who went to the border courts had no work to do and faced malfunctioning equipment, often with no internet connection, or files. Meanwhile the dockets of these Immigration Judges at their home courts were reset to several years later, not to mention the unnecessary additional 4

financial costs of these details. Such docket shuffling tactics have led to further increases in delays and to the backlog of cases before the Immigration Court system as a whole.

On the micro level, individual judges have been tasked with responding to complaints voiced by DHS to the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) management about how a particular pending case or cases are being handled, in disciplinary proceedings without the knowledge of the opposing party.

⦁ DOJ Priorities

One of the most egregious and long-standing examples of the structural flaw of the Courts’ placement in the DOJ is that Immigration Judges have never been able to exercise the congressionally mandated contempt authority statutorily authorized by Congress in 1996. This is because the DOJ has never issued implementing regulations in an effort to protect DHS attorneys (who it considers to be fellow federal law enforcement employees). However, as Congress recognized in passing contempt authority, misconduct by both DHS and private attorneys has long been one of the great hindrances to adjudicating cases efficiently and fairly. For example, it is not uncommon for cases to be continued due to private counsel’s failure to appear or be prepared for a hearing, or DHS’ failure to follow the Court’s orders, such as to conduct pre-trial conferences to narrow issues or file timely documents and briefs. Just a couple of months ago, when I confronted an attorney for his failure to appear at a previous hearing, he candidly stated that he had a conflict with a state court hearing, and fearing the state court judge’s sanction authority, chose to appear at that hearing over the immigration hearing in my court. Similarly, when I asked a DHS attorney why she had failed to engage in the Court mandated pre-trial conference or file the government’s position brief in advance of the hearing, she defiantly responded that she felt that she had too many other work obligations to prioritize the Court’s order. These examples represent just a small fraction of the problems faced by Immigration Courts, due to the failure of the DOJ, in over 20 years, to implement the Congress approved even-handed contempt authority..

Similarly, Immigration Judges are subject to regulations that provide a one-sided veto of a judge’s decision by DHS. Title 8 C.F.R. section 1003.19 provides that the DHS, who appears as a party before the Immigration Court, can effectively vacate an Immigration Judge’s bond decision through automatic stay powers that override an Immigration Judge’s decision to set or reduce bond for certain individuals.

In a separate failure to safeguard the Immigration Courts, the DOJ has consistently proven to be ineffective in the timely appointment of judges. Historically, this was due, in part, to the Court’s placement in a law enforcement agency where for years, the Court was treated as an afterthought in DOJ, receiving scraps instead of full allotments of needed resources. However, even after the 9/11 tragedy, the DOJ has still visibly struggled with filing Immigration Judge positions, many 5

of which have taken almost two years to fill. Hiring practices by the Agency have a demonstrated history of politically motivated appointment practices, as evidenced by the Office of the Inspector General and Office of Professional Responsibility reports exposing political concerns and nepotism that have crept into the hiring process.2 And now, the DOJ surreptitiously has made substantive changes to the qualification requirements for judges, over-emphasizing litigation experience to the exclusion of other relevant immigration law experience. This has created even more skewed appointment practices that largely have favored individuals with law enforcement experience over individuals with more varied and diverse backgrounds, such as academics and United States Citizenship and Immigration Service attorneys, who are perceived as not sufficiently law enforcement oriented.

2 An Investigation of Allegations of Politicized Hiring by Monica Goodling and Other Staff in the Office of the Attorney General, DOJ OIG and OPR, July 28, 2008; Report Regarding Investigation of Improper Hiring Practices by Senior Officials of the Executive Office for Immigration Review, DOJ OIG, November 2014.

Another example of the structural problem of placing a Court in the DOJ has been the application of federal employee performance evaluations on Immigration Judges. Many courts have performance reviews for Judges, but the overwhelming majority of these reviews follow a judicial model – a transparent, public process where performance is evaluated by input from the stakeholders (attorneys, witnesses, and court staff) based on quality and temperament, not quantity, and is not tied to discipline. However, despite strenuous objections and warnings of conflicts of interest from the NAIJ, the EOIR has chosen to use a traditional federal employee performance review system. These evaluations are not public and are conducted by a management official who is often not located in the same court and does not consider input from the public, and can result in career-ending discipline to a Judge who makes a good faith legal decision that his or her supervisor considers to be insubordinate. This is the flawed current performance evaluation model for Immigration Judges, without the added, soon to be implemented, disastrous production quotas and time-based deadlines that were recently announced by the Department, which I will discuss shortly.

⦁ EOIR’s Decision to Halt the LOP Program

Another stark example of the mismanagement of the Immigration Court due to its placement in an agency with a competing mission is the recently announced EOIR decision to halt the Legal Orientation Program (LOP), despite its proven track record of increased efficiency and enhanced fundamental fairness for pro se respondents in detention facilities. This population of respondents, who are being held in custody, are frequently in extremely remote locations, and often lack the resources or the means to secure counsel or even to properly represent themselves due to language access issues. The lack of assistance in these areas delays their proceedings, often needlessly for those who seek merely a brief legal consultation before making an informed and timely decision to accept an order of removal. Thus in cases where the respondents lack 6

viable relief, the LOP can be instrumental in helping respondents make an informed decision to accept a final order of removal, dramatically minimizing costly detention time and expense.

Competent counsel, when available, can assist the Court in efficiently adjudicating cases before it. In the absence of competent counsel, the LOP provides the necessary bridge to ensure a minimum standard of due process is quickly and efficiently provided. The LOP helps respondents better understand the nature of these proceedings and the steps they need to take to present their cases when in court, understand and complete their applications for relief, and obtain evidence in their case. Without such assistance, judges are required by regulation to spend time and resources explaining these proceedings, soliciting the necessary information for the case, and providing respondents the opportunity to obtain evidence once they become aware it is needed.

Ironically, even the DOJ website has publicly supported the LOP program, citing the positive effects on the Immigration Court process, and the fact that cases are more likely to be completed faster, resulting in fewer court hearings and less time spent in detention. However, once again without consultation with NAIJ, EOIR has made a decision seemingly ignoring the ramifications of how this will likely play out in the remote court locations, further undermining the structural integrity and the smooth functioning of the Court.

⦁ EOIR’s Recent Severe Restriction of Immigration Judge Speaking Engagements

In September 2017, the Agency issued a new memorandum almost eliminating personal capacity speaking engagements for Immigration Judges on any matters relating to the Court or immigration law.

The primary role of a court is to be a neutral and transparent arbiter, and this perception is reinforced when the court is accessible to the community it serves. Public access and understanding of what courts do is essential to build the understanding and trust needed for the judicial system to function smoothly. Judges are the face of that system and serve as role models who should be encouraged to engage with the community to inspire, educate and support civic engagements. Many of our Immigration Judges are active members of the legal and civil community who are sought out to speak in schools, universities, and bar associations as role models and mentors. They help the community better understand our Immigration Courts and their function in the community, helping to demystify the system and bring transparency about our operations to the public. In the past, the DOJ had permitted Immigration Judges to publicly speak in their personal capacity on issues related to the Court and their Immigration Judge roles, (with the use of their title and a disclaimer that they are not speaking on behalf of the Agency).

This new policy brought a 180-degree reversal on many existing programs that included participation of Immigration Judges, from the Model Hearing Program, the Stakeholder 7

Meetings, to appearing as guest lecturer at one’s Alma Mater, etc. Judges who have been engaged in the community are now being deprived of the opportunity to fulfil those roles. This ill-advised move is yet another example of the misguided instincts of a law enforcement agency, which endeavors to keep its operations opaque, leading to an absolutely wrong result for a court system where transparency is essential to build public trust and confidence. This is yet another example which underscores the structural flaw that plagues our courts.

MISGUIDED SOLUTIONS TO THE BACKLOG

⦁ IJ Production Quotas and Deadlines

Based on a completely unsupported assertion that this action will help solve the Court’s backlog, DOJ has taken an unprecedented move that violates every tenet of an independent court and judges, and has announced that it will subject all Immigration Judges to individual production quotas and time-based deadlines as a basis for their performance reviews. A negative performance review due to failure to meet quotas and deadlines may result in termination of employment. This is despite the legal duty of Immigration Judges, codified by regulation, to exercise independent judgement and discretion in each of the matters before them. The havoc this decision will wreak cannot be understated or underestimated.

To fully understand the import of this approach, one must make the critical distinction between court-wide “case completion goals” or “benchmarks” versus individual production quotas and time-based deadlines for judges. The Immigration Court system has had “case completion goals” of some sort for over two decades. These are tools used as resource allocation metrics to help assess resource needs and distribute them nationally so that case backlogs are within acceptable limits and relatively uniform across the country. In fact, when individual performance evaluations were first applied to Immigration Judges over a decade ago, the EOIR agreed to a provision that prevented any rating of the judges based on number or time based production standards, in recognition of the fact that quotas or deadlines placed on an individual Immigration Judge are inconsistent with his or her independent judicial role. The public comments at that time made clear that otherwise quantitative priorities or time frames could abrogate the party’s right to a full and fair hearing. At that time, the DOJ assured the public that case completion goals would not be used this way and that judges would maintain the discretion to set hearing calendars and prioritize cases in order to assure they had the time needed to complete the case.

This tool of court-based evaluation metrics stands in stark contrast to the individual production quotas and completion deadlines which are now being proposed by EOIR. Introduction of individual Immigration Judge production quotas is tantamount to transforming a judge into an interested party in the proceedings. It is difficult to imagine a more profound financial interest than one’s very livelihood being at stake with each and every ruling on a continuance or need for additional witness testimony which would delay a completion. Yet production quotas and time- based deadlines violate a fundamental canon of judicial ethics which requires a judge to recuse 8

herself in any matter in which she has a financial interest that could be affected substantially by the outcome of the proceeding.

This basic principle is so widely accepted that the NAIJ is not aware of a single state or federal court across the country that imposes the type of production quotas and deadlines on judges like those that EOIR has now announced. A numeric quota or time-based deadline pits the judge’s personal livelihood against the interests both the DHS and the respondent. Every decision will be tainted with the suspicion of either an actual or subconscious consideration by the judge of the impact his or her decision would have regarding whether or not he or she is able to fulfill a personal quota or a deadline.

In addition to putting the judges in the position of violating a judicial ethical canon, such quotas pits their personal interest against due process considerations. Recently, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals noted in a case addressing imposition of case completion goals – not quotas – that there may be situations that such goals, even though they are not tied to a judge’s performance evaluation, could so undermine decisional independence as to create a serious issue of due process.

If allowed to be implemented, these measures will take the Immigration Courts out of the American judicial model and place it squarely within the model used by autocratic and dictatorial countries, such as China, which began instituting pilot quota programs for their judges in 2016.3 NAIJ does not believe that such courts should serve as a good blueprint for EOIR or for any court in a democratic society.

3See www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2017-02/27/content_28361584_6.htm.

⦁ Unintended Consequences of Misguided Solutions

The DOJ has touted the imposition of a quota system on judges as a solution to the crushing backlogs facing the Immigration Courts. It is critical to recognize that the current backlog of cases is not due to lack of productivity of Immigration Judges; it is due, in part, to the Department’s consistent failure, spanning more than a decade to hire enough judges to keep up with the caseload. In 2006, after a comprehensive review of the Immigration Courts by Attorney General Gonzales, it was determined that a judge corps of 230 Immigration Judges was inadequate for the caseload at that time (approximately 168,853 pending cases) and should be increased to 270. Despite this finding, there were less than 235 active field Immigration Judges at the beginning of FY 2015. Even with a recent renewed emphasis on hiring, the number of Immigration Judges nationwide as of April 2018 stood at approximately 330 sitting judges, well below authorized hiring levels of 384. From 2006 to 2018, while the caseload has quadrupled (from 168,853 to 684,583 as of March 1, 2018), the number of Immigration Judges has not even doubled! Additionally, up to 40 percent of the Immigration Judge Corps are retirement eligible 9

and are exercising that right at a much higher rate than previously seen. Thus, hiring by the Agency has also failed to keep pace with the loss of judges by retirement or attrition.

Moreover, the 2017 GAO report on Actions Needed to Reduce Case Backlog and Address Long-Standing Management and Operational Changes (GAO-17-438) shows that Immigration Judge related continuances have decreased (down 2 percent) in the last ten years. GAO Report at 124. The same report shows that continuances due to “operational factors” and details of Immigration Judges were up 149% and 112%, respectively. GAO Report at 131, 133. These continuances which occurred primarily due to politically motivated changing court priorities, forced Judges to reset cases that were near completion in order to address the cases which were the priority “du jour,” and have had a tremendous deleterious effect on case completion rates. The same report shows that continuances attributed to the needs of the judge was responsible for only 11% of the continuances granted, clearly debunking the myth that Immigration Judges are significantly contributing to the backlog.

The cause of the increasing backlog is obvious: the ever-ballooning budget for immigration law enforcement which has not been accompanied by concomitant resources to the Immigration Courts. In the period that the budget for DHS saw an increase of 300 percent, the Immigration Court’s budget was only modestly increased by 70 percent. This is tantamount to increasing the lanes in a highway from one to three but failing to increase the number of exit ramps for everyone, then claiming that the exit ramps are the cause of the increased congestion and traffic. Simple common sense tells us otherwise.

Finally, the imposition of numeric quotas and time-based deadlines will have the unintended consequence of further adding to the backlog. A similar measure proposing to “streamline” the adjudications of immigration removal cases was introduced post 9/11 during the Attorney General John Ashcroft era. In the face of a ballooning backlog (which pales in comparison to the current one), the DOJ implemented streamlining measures at the Board of Immigration Appeals that significantly increased the number of case completions at the expense of reasoned decisions. This action caused a flood of appeals to the circuit courts, to a five-fold increase, from 1764 filings in 2002, when the program was announced, to 8446 in 2003 and onwards. Many of these cases were ultimately reversed or remanded all the way back to the trial court level, due to actual or perceived insufficiencies of the process or paucity of reasoning in the decisions. The “streamlining” program was quietly put to rest many years later when its failure was no longer deniable. If Immigration Judges are subjected to production quotas and time-based deadlines, the result will be the same: appeals will abound, repeating a history which was proven to be disastrous. Rather than making the overall process more efficient, this change will encourage individual and class action litigation, creating even longer adjudication times and greater backlogs. 10

Another unintended consequence if these quotas and deadlines are applied, is that judicial time and energy will be diverted to documenting performance rather than deciding cases. Immigration Judges will become bean-counting employees instead of fair and impartial judges, and their supervisors will become traffic cops monitoring whether the cases are completed at the correct speed. What a waste of skilled professional expertise! Judges’ job security will be based on whether or not they meet these unrealistic quotas and their decisions will be subjected to increased appeals based on suspicion regarding whether any actions they take, such as denying a continuance or excluding a witness, are legally sound or motivated to meet a quota. It is difficult to find a shred of practical justification in this approach.

SHORT TERM SOLUTIONS

⦁ Clarify the Definition of the Immigration Judge Position

The most pressing matter threatening the integrity and efficiency of the Immigration Court system which can quickly and easily be remedied is the DOJ’s decision to impose Immigration Judge production quotas and deadlines. If permitted to be implemented, as planned, on October 1, 2018, the Immigration Courts as we know them will cease to exist. Immigration Judges will no longer be able to serve as impartial and independent decision-makers over the life-altering cases before them.

To preserve the judicial independence of Immigration Courts Congress can:

(1) Amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to clarify the definition of an Immigration Judge as follows:

“The term “immigration judge” means an attorney whom the Attorney General appoints as an administrative judge within the Executive Office for Immigration Review, qualified to conduct specified classes of proceedings, including a hearing under section 1229a of this title, whose position shall be deemed to be judicial in nature and whose actions shall be reviewed only under rules and standards pertaining to judicial conduct.”

This definitional change was offered by Senators Gardner and Bennet as part of their bipartisan immigration amendment earlier this year. Senator Hirono’s recent immigration amendment also included this language;

(2) Alternatively, Congress can add Immigration Judges to the short list of federal government employees whose positions are exempt from performance evaluation due to the nature of their duties, as are Administrative Law Judges (ALJs). 5 U.S.C. § 4301(2)(D). Recognizing that federal employee performance evaluations are antithetical to judicial independence, Congress exempted ALJs from performance appraisals and ratings by including them in the list of 11

occupations exempt from performance reviews. To provide that same exemption to Immigration Judges, all that would be needed is an amendment to 5 U.S.C. § 4301(2) to add a new paragraph (I) including Immigration Judges as an additional category in the list of exempt employees.

Extension of 5 U.S.C. § 4301(2)(D) to Immigration Judges is not an indication that NAIJ is opposed to performance evaluation of Immigration Judges. To the contrary, NAIJ fully supports performance evaluations that are based on judicial models, such as those recommended by the American Bar Association. These models stress judicial improvement as the primary goal, emphasizes process over outcomes, and places a high priority on maintaining judicial integrity and independence. Moreover, to the extent that any numeric metrics are included in such models, they would not and “should not be used for judicial discipline.”4 We encourage EOIR to abandon its myopic focus on numerical metrics and instead institute a judicial performance evaluation based on these models.

4https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publications/judicial_division/aba_blackletterguidelines_jpe.authcheckdam.pdf.

Continued enhancement of resources will be an exercise in futility and will fail to reduce the crippling backlogs plaguing the Immigration Courts if the integrity and independence of the Immigration Judge decision-making authority is not protected. Without much needed protection, the inevitable increase in individual and class action litigation and the circuit court backlash (similar to the “streamlining” era) is virtually certain to ensue.

⦁ Additional Resources

NAIJ appreciates the additional judges and staff that Congress has provided and the recent allocation of an additional 100 Immigration Judge teams in the appropriations bill. This is a welcome move in the right direction. However we would be remiss if we failed to point out that even if all the appropriated judge positions are filled promptly (which is a task the DOJ has been unable to accomplish for decades), the pressing crisis of the backlog will not be resolved. The backlog of pending cases has almost quadrupled in the last twelve years. Yet, the number of judges has not even doubled (even with the inclusion of the recently allocated 100 judges). Thus, it is not unreasonable to conclude that with the continued flood of cases being filed with the Court due to increased law enforcement action, the need to match that rate of increased resources with the Courts is a necessary condition of addressing the challenge of the backlog.

Moreover, the Courts are woefully behind the times in technology. The Courts’ computer systems and printers are outdated. The software programs are several generations behind and lag in processing speed. Also, we depend on digital audio recording to capture our hearing audio in lieu of in-person transcribers, and in many locations we function with heavy reliance on tele video equipment. Yet these technologies are no longer state of the art, causing not infrequent 12

delay and malfunctions. We have yet to arrive in the 21st century in technology at EOIR. Unlike other courts who have embraced electronic filings and records, we are still under the weight of hardcopy files, some of which can weigh up to 10 to 15 pounds per case. Increasingly adequate space for Court locations has become an issue, leaving many Courts bursting at the seams due to thousands of files, with staff having to share cubicles, and cramped, unhealthy and unsafe spaces that were never intended to be used as work space.

ENDURING SOLUTION

⦁ An Article I Immigration Court is the Clear Consensus Solution that is Urgently Needed

While it cannot be denied that the short term solutions cited above are needed immediately, Band-Aid solutions alone cannot solve the persistent problems facing our Immigration Courts. The problems compromising the integrity and proper administration of a court highlighted above underscore the need to remove the Immigration Court from the political sphere of a law enforcement agency and assure its judicial independence. Structural reform can no longer be put on the back burner. The DOJ has been provided years of opportunity to forestall the impending implosion at the Immigration Courts. Instead of finding long term solutions to our problems, DOJ’s political priorities and law enforcement instincts have led our Courts to the brink of collapse. With the latest misguided initiative to impose Immigration Judge production quotas and deadlines, DOJ has put accelerant on the fire; if these changes are implemented the integrity of the Immigration Court will be all but destroyed and paralyzing dysfunction will ensue.

Since the 1981 Select Commission on Immigration and Refugee Policy, the idea of creating an Article I court, similar to the U.S. Tax Court, has been advanced. Such a structure solves a myriad of problems which now plague our Court: removing a politically accountable Cabinet level policy maker from the helm; separating the decision makers from the parties who appear before them; protecting judges from the cronyism of a too close association with DHS; assuring a transparent funding stream instead of items buried in the budget of a larger Agency with competing needs; and eliminating top-heavy Agency bureaucracy. In the last 35 years, a strong consensus has formed supporting this structural change. For years experts debated the wisdom of far-reaching restructuring of the Immigration Court system. Now most immigration judges and attorneys agree the long-term solution to the problem is to restructure the immigration court system. Examples of those in support include the American Bar Association, the Federal Bar Association, the National Association of Women Judges, and the American Immigration Lawyers Association. These are the recognized legal experts and representatives of the public who appear before us. Their voices deserve to be heeded.

To that end, the Federal Bar Association has prepared proposed legislation setting forth the blueprint for the creation of an “Article 1” or independent Immigration Court. This proposal will remove the Immigration Court from the purview of the DOJ to form an independent Court. The legislation would establish a “United States Immigration Court” with responsibility for functions 13

of an adjudicative nature that are currently being performed by the judges and Board members in the Executive Office for Immigration Review. The new court would consist of appellate and trial level judges. The appellate judges would be appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, and the immigration trial judges would be appointed by the appellate judges. The substantive law of immigration and corresponding enforcement and policy-determining responsibilities of the DHS and DOJ under the INA would be unchanged. Final decisions of the new court would be subject to review in the circuit court of appeals similar to the current model. However, in the new court, the Department of Homeland Security would be able to seek review of the court’s decisions to the same extent as the individuals against whom charges were filed. Practically, the transition to the new “United States Immigration Court” would involve minimal transitional or financial challenges as much of the physical structures and personnel would already be in place.

NAIJ has endorsed this bill5 and urges you to take immediate steps to protect judicial independence and efficient resolution of cases at the Immigration Courts by enacting legislation as described above. Failure to act will result in irreparable harm to the immigration law community as we know it. Action is needed now!

5 https://www.naij-usa.org/images/uploads/publications/NAIJ_endorses_FBA_Article_I_proposal_3-15-18.pdf

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

Here are links to the other statements submitted to the Senate Judiciary Committee, all well worth a read:

Other Statements:

Law Professor Statement: Immigration Law Professors Issue Statement on Strengthening and Reforming America’s Immigration Court System
AILA National Statement: AILA Statement on Strengthening and Reforming America’s Immigration Court System Hearing

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

It’s no secret that White Nationalist and “21st Century Jim Crow” Sessions was totally unqualified to be the Attorney General of the United States. Yet, the GOP Senate put in him that position knowing full his extremist views, lack of executive qualifications, and history of racially insensitive words and actions.

The Obama Administration’s indolent, sometimes disingenuous, and often highly politicized mis-handling of the Immigration Court System also contributed to the current sad state of justice for immigrants. To paraphrase the words of one of my colleagues, the Obama Administration’s poor handling of the Immigration Courts didn’t cause Jeff Sessions and his toxic policies, but it certainly did nothing to dissuade or prevent them and in many ways set the stage for the current due process disaster.

Congress also stood by and watched this unfolding disaster in a court system they created without providing any effective assistance (except for too few additional positions too late to help) and in many cases making things worse by ramping up enforcement without thinking about the consequences for the judicial system.

We need to elect legislators pledged to due process, fairness to all including immigrants, strong effective oversight of the DOJ, investigation of Sessions’s blatant attempt to “deconstruct” the U.S. justice system (particularly as it applies to immigrants and vulnerable minorities) which should eventually lead to his removal from office, and the transfer of the U.S. Immigration Courts out of the DOJ into an independent structure where they never again can be compromised by the likes of Jeff Sessions.

Join the New Due Process Army and fight to give real meaning to the Constitutional guarantee of Due Process for all in America.

PWS

04-19-18

HEAR JUDGE A. ASHLEY TABADDOR, PRESIDENT OF THE NAIJ TESTIFY LIVE BEFORE THE SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE ON WEDNESDAY APRIL 18, 2018 ABOUT THE APPALLING STATE OF “JUSTICE” IN OUR UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION COURTS UNDER TRUMP & SESSIONS!

From: John Manley [mailto:jmanleylaw@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, April 16, 2018 12:34 PM
To: AILA Southern California Chapter Distribution List <southca@lists.aila.org>
Subject: [southca] IJ Tabaddor to testify in Congress Wednesday

Colleagues,

As currently scheduled, Judge A. Ashley Tabaddor is expected to testify this Wednesday at 2:30PM EST 11:30AM PST. at a hearing on Strengthening and Reforming America’s Immigration Court System

Here is the link to the event, if you want to watch it: https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/meetings/strengthening-and-reforming-americas-immigration-court-system

—

John M. Manley
Attorney at Law
11400 W Olympic Blvd., Suite 200
Los Angeles, CA 90064
Phone: (310) 597-4590
Fax: (310) 597-4591
www.johnmanley.net;
email: jmanleylaw@gmail.com

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

PWS

04-16-18

Asylum Grant Rate
	Grants	Denials	Grant Rate
FY 12	10,575	8,444	56%
FY 13	9,767	8,777	53%
FY 14	8,672	9,191	49%
FY 15	8,184	8,816	48%
FY 16	8,726	11,643	43%

The Proper Role Of a Good Immigration Judge Involves Sympathetic Understanding Of The Plight Of Refugees, What They Have Suffered, & The Systemic Burdens They Face in Presenting Claims.

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

720,000-case backlog

Related posts:

Get out the vote! Remove the kakistocracy!

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

The attorney general has the power to set immigration precedents. But attorneys general rarely used that power — until now.

Sessions’s self-referrals could affect a large portion of immigration court cases

Sessions’s meddling might not make courts more efficient, but it will make them more brutal

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Join the New Due Process Army and fight to give real meaning to the Constitutional guarantee of Due Process for all in America.

PWS

Related posts:

Related posts: