IMMIGRATION COURTS: WILL TRUMP’S SHUTDOWN BE THE FINAL NAIL IN THE COFFIN? — Demoralized, Backlogged, Mismanaged, Immigration Courts Experiencing A New Wave Of Politically Caused “Aimless Docket Reshuffling,” As More Cases That Should Have Been Completed Are Mindlessly “Orbited” to 2021 & Beyond Because Of Trump’s Intransigence!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/shutdown-worsens-strain-on-us-immigration-system/2019/01/02/97dd0ef6-0ebe-11e9-84fc-d58c33d6c8c7_story.html

Nick Miroff reports in the WashPost:

. . . .

The Executive Office for Immigration Review, the immigration court system run by the Justice Department, did not respond to requests for comment, because its public affairs staff has been furloughed.

But Ashley Tabaddor, president of the National Association of Immigration Judges, the union that represents the country’s approximately 400 judges, said the impact of the disruption has been “immense.”

Immigration judges all received furlough notices on Dec. 26, she said, but many have since been instructed to return to court to adjudicate cases of detainees in immigration custody. The judges are also working without pay.

Some of those judges have their calendars booked three to four years in advance because of the backlog of cases, Tabaddor said, so hearings that have been canceled in recent days cannot be rescheduled until 2021 or beyond.

“The irony is not lost on us,” Tabaddor said, “that the immigration court is shut down over immigration.”

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

Read Nick’s complete report at the link.

This confirms what many have been saying all along: Trump neither knows nor cares about effective immigration enforcement. No, he’s all about blowing racist “dog whistles” for the benefit of a White Nationalist “base.”

I remember how previous shutdowns were the beginning of the “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” that has so damaged our Immigration Courts and artificially jacked up the backlog. First, the politicians show their disdain for the Government they are supposed to be running and the civil servants who are actually doing the work of that Government. Then the politicos at DOJ show their disrespect by designating most Immigration Court functions as “nonessential.” Then, when work resumes, EOIR basically says “no heroics, just put all the cancelled cases at the end of the docket.” So much for urgency, priorities, Due Process, and respect.

In fact, an operating, well-staffed, highly professional Immigration Court with expertise in asylum and other complex provisions of immigration law and an unswerving commitment to enforcement of Due Process for all individuals within its jurisdiction is essential for effective immigration enforcement. Indeed, this was “at least one central reason” for the removal of the Immigration Courts from the “Legacy INS” and the establishment of EOIR as a separate quasi-judicial entity within the DOJ during the Reagan Administration.

For a time, EOIR made substantial progress toward professionalism and judicial independence until the advent of Attorney General John Ashcroft and his notorious nativist sidekick Kris Kobach in 2001. Thereafter, it’s been pretty much straight downhill, starting with Ashcroft’s trashing of the BIA and continuing through Sessions’s gross mismanagement and overt attacks on judicial independence, due process, and substantive asylum law.

Today, the Immigration Court system is in shambles, unable to provide either consistent fairness and Due Process to respondents or timely removal orders for those who might be legitimate enforcement priorities for the DHS. The BIA fails to provide true deliberation, commitment to Due Process, and expertise, particularly in the areas of asylum, CAT, and the provisions for removal of certain criminals. This, in turn, erodes deference and debilitates efficient review from the “real” Article III Courts.

The Trump Administration has made a complete hash out of the immigration laws. However, at some point, reasonable, responsible leadership will return to the political scene. When it does, an independent Article I U.S. Immigration Court must be at or near the top of the legislative agenda.

Until then, the dysfunction will increase unless and until the Article IIIs figure out and impose a temporary fix. Otherwise, they are likely to have little if any judicial time to devote to anything other than the chaos thrust upon them by the rapidly failing Immigration Court system.

PWS

01-05-19

KILLER SYSTEM: ASYLUM OFFICES, IMMIGRATION COURTS FAIL TO PROVIDE BASIC DUE PROCESS, FUNDAMENTAL FAIRNESS, COMMITMENT TO THE GENEROUS HUMANITARIAN INTENT OF ASYLUM LAW — Those Entitled To Asylum Or Other Protections Pay With Lives Or Suffer Further Persecution As A Result Of Poor Performance From Failing System! — When Will This Deadly National Disgrace Now Driven By Outlaw Administration End?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/classic-apps/when-death-awaits-deported-asylum-seekers/2018/12/26/6070085a-a62d-11e8-ad6f-080770dcddc2_story.html

Kevin Sieff & Carolyn Van Houten report for WashPost:

SAN SALVADOR — The threats from MS-13 had become incessant. There were handwritten letters, phone calls and text messages that all said the same thing: The gang was preparing to kill Ronald Acevedo.

His family pieced together a plan. They paid a smuggler to take Acevedo to the United States border. It was April 2017, three months after Donald Trump was inaugurated. The family believed that Acevedo could convince anyone, even the new president, that returning to El Salvador meant certain death. The country had the world’s highest murder rate. Acevedo had already been stabbed once.

“They already kill my friends, and they are going to do the same to me,” he said, according to his asylum application.

The plan didn’t work. After eight months in detention, Acevedo, 20, abruptly withdrew his asylum claim, reversing course and telling an immigration judge, “I don’t have any fear” of returning to El Salvador.He was deported to El Salvador on Nov. 29, 2017. He disappeared on Dec. 5, 2017, and his body was later found in the trunk of a car, wrapped in white sheets. An autopsy showed signs of torture.

His family says that he expressed a willingness to return to El Salvador only after immigration officers told him that he had no chance at gaining asylum and could spend many more months in detention.

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) did not respond to the family’s allegations that immigration officials dissuaded him from continuing his asylum case but said in a statement that it had a legal obligation to hold him in detention.

“ICE’s detention authority is based in the furtherance of an alien’s immigration proceedings, and if so ordered, their removal from the country,” the agency said.

Acevedo’s relatives spoke on the condition that his full name not be used, out of fear for their safety. (The Post is using only part of his name.) In a series of interviews, they discussed his asylum application and provided letters, Facebook messages and official documents outlining what happened to him. The Post also obtained transcripts of the proceedings and asylum documents through a Freedom of Information Act request.

. . . .

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

Read the complete report at the link.

Based on these facts, Acevedo should have had a “slam dunk” claim for a grant of protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”): a probability of torture at gang’s hands with government acquiescence/willful blindness.

He might also have had a grantable withholding of removal claim on the basis of imputed political opinion — opposition to gangs in a country where gangs are a political force, actually the de facto government in many areas.

He also appears to meet the basic requirements for a grant of asylum on the same ground. However, his participation in assisting gangs could be a basis for a discretionary denial of asylum. Depending on further development of the facts, it also might amount to “assistance in persecution of others” which would bar withholding of removal under the Refugee Act but not CAT protection.

Obviously, Acevedo was entitled to a full, fair hearing on this complex and substantial claim. That requires a lawyer and an impartial U.S. Immigration Judge.

Instead, individuals literally pleading for their lives under U.S. and binding international laws face a policy of official coercion, lack of real training, rampant bias and political interference, a “captive court” that lacks the authority and the will to do what’s necessary to get the results correct, widespread contempt for individuals, their lawyers, and human life: That’s “business as usual” at DHS, the Asylum Office, DOJ, EOIR and the Immigration Courts — all glommed together in an unethical and probably unconstitutional morass that elevates (often bogus or wildly exaggerated) enforcement concerns above the law and our obligations to provide fair opportunities to be heard and protect human life. Perhaps worst of all, nobody is held truly accountable for this ungodly mess that is a blot upon our national conscience and an affront to the rule of law.

Congress has been AWOL. The Article III Courts have provided some welcome pushback, but have only scratched the surface of this deeply corrupt and lawless system; they are still disingenuously deferential to an inherently flawed process that merits no deference whatsoever!

PWS

12-28-18

TRAC: ADMINISTRATION CONTINUES TO “JACK” U.S. IMMIGRATION COURT BACKLOG – 809,000 ACTUALLY PENDING, 330,000 CLOSED CASES “IN LINE” TO BE ARTIFICIALLY ADDED – Adverse Effects Of Sessions’s Xenophobic Views & Gross Mismanagement Continue To Impede Due Process Even After His Departure! — Across The Board Failure, Even On “Priority Detained” Cases!

==========================================
Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse
==========================================
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASEGreetings. The Immigration Court backlog continues to rise. As of November 30, 2018, the number of pending cases on the court’s active docket grew to 809,041 cases. This is almost a fifty percent increase compared to the 542,411 cases pending at the end of January 2017 when President Trump took office. This figure does not include the additional 330,211 previously completed cases that EOIR placed back on the “pending” rolls that have not yet been put onto the active docket.The state of Maryland continues to lead the pack with the highest rate of increase in pending cases since the beginning of FY 2017 — up by 107 percent. In absolute terms, California has the largest Immigration Court backlog – 146,826 cases waiting decision – up by 54 percent. These results are based upon proceeding-by-proceeding internal Immigration Court records obtained and analyzed by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse at Syracuse UniversityJust in the last two months, the Immigration Court active backlog has grown by over 40 thousand cases. Particularly high growth rates of 10 percent or higher were experienced at nine Immigration Courts. The two courts with the highest rate of growth in their backlog were two courts at ICE detention facilities. The Eloy Immigration Court in Arizona saw its backlog increase by 144 percent, while the Conroe Immigration Court (Houston SPC) in Texas had an increase of 62 percent. These increases occurred even though the court assigns the highest priority to hearing detained cases.

For the full report go to:

http://trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/542/

In addition, many of TRAC’s free query tools – which track the court’s active backlog, new DHS filings, court dispositions and much more – have now been updated through November 2018. For an index to the full list of TRAC’s immigration tools go to:

http://trac.syr.edu/imm/tools/

If you want to be sure to receive notifications whenever updated data become available, sign up at:

http://tracfed.syr.edu/cgi-bin/tracuser.pl?pub=1&list=imm

or follow us on Twitter @tracreports or like us on Facebook:

http://facebook.com/tracreports

TRAC is self-supporting and depends on foundation grants, individual contributions and subscription fees for the funding needed to obtain, analyze and publish the data we collect on the activities of the U.S. federal government. To help support TRAC’s ongoing efforts, go to:

http://trac.syr.edu/cgi-bin/sponsor/sponsor.pl

David Burnham and Susan B. Long, co-directors
Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse
Syracuse University
Suite 360, Newhouse II
Syracuse, NY 13244-2100
315-443-3563

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

More judges, more backlog, due to “gonzo” enforcement, politicization, cratering morale, and just plain old mismanagement. When will Congress and/or the Article IIIs step in and put this dying system out of its misery before the DOJ politicos can do any more damage?

Sessions launched a three-point attack on already inadequate Due Process in U.S. Immigration Court by:

Removing Immigration Judges’ last vestiges of authority to independently manage their dockets;
Severely limiting judicial discretion, thereby effectively reducing Immigration Judges to the status of DHS adjudicators; and
Attacking the well-established rights of asylum seekers, particularly those from the Northern Triangle.

The result has been chaos in the courts. Even more wildly inconsistent decisions from Immigration Judges, cases that should have been “slam dunk” asylum grants, stipulated grants by ICE, or not in Immigration Court in the first place now occupying docket space and being “fully litigated,” thereby tying up more judicial time. Meanwhile judges are being subjected to sophomoric “production quotas,” which were almost universally opposed by everyone working in the system, and forced over scheduling. “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” has gone into full gear. Not surprisingly, there are more appeals, more remands from the Article III Courts, and grossly unfair and disparate treatment of those who are detained and or unrepresented. It’s basically the “worst of all worlds.” All of this is continuing under Whitaker.

I hope that at least the House Committees will look into how political mismanagement is wasting the taxpayers’ money and mocking due process, with no rational solution in sight! There needs to be some accountability for this grotesque fraud, waste, and abuse engineered by this Administration!

PWS

12-18-18

UPI ANALYSIS OF LATEST EOIR ASYLUM STATS ACTUALLY SHOWS THAT MANY FROM NORTHERN TRIANGLE (PARTICULARLY EL SALVADOR) HAVE VALID CLAIMS FOR PROTECTION, BUT SESSIONS’S POLITICAL ACTIONS AND CONTROL OVER U.S. IMMIGRATION JUDGES ARTIFICIALLY FORCED THE GRANT RATE DOWN! – It’s Time For An Independent “Article I” U.S. Immigration Court & A Level, Apolitical Playing Field For Asylum Applicants!

https://apple.news/AHg-L3Cy-SEG6Gi9SR1rk_w

Patrick Timmons reports for UPI:

Asylum denials jump; immigration judges’ discretion attacked

MEXICO CITY, Dec. 10 (UPI) — New data about the number of asylum applications granted by the United States this year show how the Trump administration has dramatically narrowed asylum granted to people fleeing persecution in their home countries — though significantly more Central Americans have been admitted over the past decade.

“Asylum acceptance rates are at a 20-year low, and the recent TRAC data confirms that,” said Sarah Pierce, policy analyst for the non-partisan and independent Migration Policy Institute, referring to data from the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse.

For fiscal 2018, TRAC’s statistics show immigration judges denied 65 percent of asylum claims — up from 42 percent in 2017. There were 42,224 asylum cases decided in 2018, an 89 percent increase over the total number of cases decided in 2016.

Due to a backlog in the immigration system, some asylum seekers have been able to live in the United States for three years to five years while their claims are adjudicated, a situation the administration has tried to address by changing some rules and practices.

“This administration is trying to address people who are trying to take advantage of the system. But unfortunately this administration’s approach tends to punish asylum seekers rather than just specifically looking at those individuals who are taking advantage of the system,” Pierce said.

The administration’s broad approach to all asylum seekers has had the effect of narrowing asylum by increasing immigration judges’ workloads by setting quotas, ending discretionary decision making and rewriting immigration rules to deny relief to asylum seekers fleeing domestic and gang violence.

Immigration experts told UPI the administration’s changes to how immigration judges work has spiked a general increase in asylum denials.

Northern Triangle

There has been an increased flow of asylum seekers from Central American countries, particularly those from the Northern Triangle countries of Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala.

And the fact that more of them are getting approved shows they are “sincere humanitarian migrants,” Pierce said.

A new TRAC tool shows Central Americans now fare better than in previous years. Salvadorans receive asylum in rates higher than Guatemalans or Hondurans. In 2004, Salvadorans’ asylum approval rate was 6 percent. In 2018, it rose to 23 percent. Guatemala’s grant rate in 2018 was 18 percent, the lowest of three countries, with Honduras at 20 percent.

Pierce said that changes in immigration law under the Obama administration help account for significant changes in asylum approval rates for people fleeing the Northern Triangle. Immigration judges over the past decade were more accepting of domestic and gang violence as grounds for asylum, with successes helping to develop case law.

The rise in asylum for Salvadorans has to do with direct violent threats, rather than domestic violence, which is a common claim among Guatemalan asylum seekers, or gang violence, common among Hondurans.

“The circumstantial evidence suggests El Salvador tends to have the most direct violent threats,” said Everard Meade said, director of the Trans-Border Institute at the University of San Diego.

Data comparing the Northern Triangle countries’ asylum seekers’ claims is hard to come by. However, Meade said in 2014 the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees issued its report, “Children on the Run,” about unaccompanied Central American minors highlighting direct violence in El Salvador as a reason for flight. UNHCR interviewed almost 400 children with 66 percent of El Salvadorans reporting flight for threat of direct violence Guatemalans reported 20 percent, Hondurans at 44 percent.

But Central Americans’ asylum approvals might be a blip. Former Attorney General Jeff Sessions this year removed domestic violence and gang violence as grounds for asylum in immigration court proceedings.

“These private acts of violence claims are typically the ones we are seeing from the Northern Triangle,” Pierce said, “including El Salvador.”

Discretionary decision-making

The general picture, however, is that more people are failing to win asylum than ever before because the Trump administration has changed how judges work.

“The asylum decisions and denial data for fiscal year 2018 is really about discretionary relief that used to be available under [President Barack] Obama but is not available under [President Donald] Trump anymore,” Meade said.

Prior to Trump-Sessions, immigration judges used to employ a form of discretionary relief called administrative closure. This was a form of temporary protection against deportation that did not grant any permanent immigration status, unlike asylum, which is a pathway to citizenship.

“Immigration judges had people coming before them who had really compelling stories but those stories did not necessarily cleave close enough to the asylum standard to grant them asylum. But the judges really felt they did not want to return them to dangerous situations, either. They also felt they were people who were credible, who had told the truth, and so they were administratively closing their cases,” Meade said.

The practice of administrative closure ended this year with a Sessions memorandum.

“Administrative closure was a widespread practice and that is exactly what explains how the denial rate can go up so dramatically without the grant rate going down. Actually, the grant rate has gone up. In defense of the institutions, the modest increase in the grant rates suggest people have some really good asylum claims,” Meade said.

The situation in El Paso

Carlos Spector, a veteran El Paso immigration lawyer, said that although the asylum rate has increased nationwide, there is little evidence of successful asylum claims in El Paso’s immigration court.

“This year, I have lost some asylum cases that had really compelling claims,” Spector said, adding that 98 percent of his clients are Mexican.

Mexicans generally do not fare well in immigration court. In 2018, 14.5 percent of Mexican asylum seekers received asylum. Part of the reason is that immigration judges were administratively closing cases, protecting from deportation but stopping short of permanent relief.

For 2018, the latest TRAC data reveal El Paso’s immigration judges reviewed 297 cases, granting asylum 47 times. In 2017, they reviewed 148 cases and granted asylum 12 times. These low asylum rates, some of the lowest in the nation, mean El Paso’s immigration judges have a reputation for enforcing law and order, Spector said.

“I’ve been tracking asylum cases of Mexican nationals for the past few years and it is more or less the same rate along the border from San Diego to Brownsville,” Spector said.

“Because we are on the border and these judges are political appointees and these judges do understand the government’s mandate of holding or guarding the border and they take that law enforcement approach,” Spector said, “the denials are much, much higher on the U.S.-Mexico border, and they always have been.”

TRAC compiled asylum approval and denial statistics for fiscal year 2018, the first full year of Trump’s presidency, based on Freedom Of Information Act requests to the Justice Department’s Executive Office of Immigration Review, the agency charged with adjudicating defensive asylum claims in immigration court.

Photoby Ariana Drehsler/UPI : Jose Hernández, 17, styles his hair at El Barretal shelter in Tijuana, Mexico, on Dec. 9, 2018.

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

Just as I have been saying all along! The Trump Administration’s claim that low asylum approval rates indicate the system is being “gamed” by applicants is a bogus cover up. Even taken at “face value,” a 20-25% chance of being granted asylum hardly shows a system being “gamed.” At most, it shows that Immigration Judges are applying a much more restrictive standard than Asylum Officers considering “credible fear” claims at the border. Far from being “gaming,” that would be consistent with (although not necessarily required by) an intentionally much more generous standard for getting a fair adjudication in a removal hearing (“passing credible fear”) than for actually achieving relief (“a favorable order from an Immigration Judge after a full merits hearing”).

But, what really appears to be going on here are artificially restrictive, politically inspired “tweaks” to asylum law and procedures specifically intended to disadvantage those in danger from the Northern Triangle. Additionally, inappropriate detention policies are intended to force many more applicants to proceed without lawyers or to abandon appeals — making it like “shooting fish in a barrel” for those Immigration Judges with a predilection to deny relief who are under great pressure to “produce” more final orders of removal. It also appears that a disturbing number of Immigration Judges along the Southern Border view themselves as agents of DHS and Administration enforcement policies, rather than as fair and impartial decision makers committed to giving asylum seekers the “benefit of the doubt” under the law.

This all adds up to what appears to me to be a significant “cover up” of politicized wrong-doing and a mass denial of Due Process orchestrated by the Administration through the Department of Justice.

Why are the Administration, DHS, and DOJ so afraid of giving asylum applicants fair access to lawyers, time to prepare and document their cases, and timely fair hearings before impartial quasi-judicial adjudicators whose sole focus is getting the right substantive result, rather than achieving some type of assembly line enforcement-related “production quotas?”

Why waste time on “gimmicks” — most of which eventually prove to be illegal, ineffective, or both — rather than concentrating on getting to the merits of these cases in a timely manner and “letting the chips fall where they may.”

Surely, among a largely artificially created 1.1 million case “backlog” there are hundreds of thousands of cases that could be “administratively closed” as an exercise of prosecutorial discretion to allow more recently arrived cases to be timely heard without increasing backlogs or creating further wasteful “Aimless Docket Reshuffling.”

Eventually, the “mask will be ripped off” what’s really happening in our U.S. Immigration Court system. When that happens, the results could be ugly and damaging to the reputations of those orchestrating and enabling what certainly appears to be a disgraceful and intentional miscarriage of justice!

PWS

12011-18

“CLOWN COURT:” NOT SO FUNNY WHEN THE SENTENCE IS DEATH — Administration’s Policies Aim At Making Already Broken System More Unfair, Arbitrary, Deadly!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2018/local/asylum-deported-ms-13-honduras/?utm_term=.28c1c97d4da9&wpisrc=nl_buzz&wpmm=1

Maria Sacchetti reports for the Washington Post:

On the day he pleaded for his life in federal immigration court, Santos Chirino lifted his shirt and showed his scars.

Judge Thomas Snow watched the middle-aged construction worker on a big-screen television in Arlington, Va., 170 miles away from the immigration jail where Chirino was being held.

In a shaky voice, Chirino described the MS-13 gang attack that had nearly killed him, his decision to testify against the assailants in a Northern Virginia courtroom and the threats that came next. His brother’s windshield, smashed. Strangers snapping their photos at a restaurant. A gang member who said they were waiting for him in Honduras.

“I’m sure they are going to kill me,” Chirino, a married father of two teenagers, told the judge.

It was 2016, the last year of the Obama administration, and Chirino was seeking special permission to remain in the United States. His fate lay with Snow, one of hundreds of administrative judges working for the U.S. Justice Department’s clogged immigration courts.

Their task has become more urgent, and more difficult, under President Trump as the number of asylum requests has soared and the administration tries to clear the backlog and close what the president calls legal loopholes.

In the process, the White House is narrowing the path to safety for migrants in an asylum system where it’s never been easy to win.

Snow believed Chirino was afraid to return to Honduras. But the judge ruled that he could not stay in the United States.

Nearly a year after he was deported, his 18-year-old daughter and 19-year-old son arrived in the Arlington immigration court for their own asylum hearing. They were accompanied by their father’s lawyer, Benjamin Osorio.

“Your honor, this is a difficult case,” Osorio told Judge John Bryant, asking to speed the process. “I represented their father, Santos Chirino Cruz. . . . I lost the case in this courtroom . . . . He was murdered in April.”

When Osorio paused, the judge blanched and stammered.

“You said their father’s case — did I understand I heard [it]?” Bryant asked, eyes wide.

“No,” Osorio said. “In this court. Not before your honor.”

“Well good, because — all right, my blood pressure can go down now,” Bryant said. “Yeah. I mean. Okay.”

The immigration courts declined a request for comment from Snow. But in an essay published in USA Today — after Chirino was deported but before he was killed — the judge said deportation cases could be heartbreaking.

“Sometimes, there is not much to go on other than the person’s own testimony,” he wrote. “Yet this is not a decision we want to get wrong. I’ve probably been fooled and granted asylum to some who didn’t deserve it. I hope and pray I have not denied asylum to some who did.”

Santos Chirino was killed in April 2017 after he was denied asylum and deported.

Sitting in judgment

Chirino’s daughter and son, who spoke on the condition of anonymity out of concern for their safety, are among 750,000 immigrants facing deportation in the U.S. immigration courts. A growing number, like Chirino and his family, say they would be in grave danger back home.

A decade ago, 1 in 100 border crossers was seeking asylum or humanitarian relief, according to the nonpartisan Migration Policy Institute. Now it’s 1 in 3. The intensifying caseload — nearly 120,000 asylum cases filed last year alone, four times the number in 2014 — has upped the pressure on one of America’s most secret and controversial court systems.

Judges say they must handle “death-penalty” cases in a traffic court setting, with inadequate budgets and grueling caseloads. Most records aren’t public, most defendants don’t speak English and many don’t have lawyers to represent them. Cases often involve complex tales of rape, torture and murder. Approval rates can vary widely.

The Trump administration has imposed production quotas and ordered judges to close cases more quickly. They also must enforce a stricter view on who deserves protection in the United States.

Under federal immigration law, fear isn’t enough to keep someone from being deported. Asylum applicants must prove they are a target based on their race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership in a particular social group, which for years has included being a victim of gang or domestic violence.

Before he was forced to resign Nov. 7 , Attorney General Jeff Sessions ruled that victims of gangs or domestic abuse generally would not qualify for asylum. He told a crop of new immigration judges that “the vast majority” of claims are invalid, and warned them not to rule based on a sense of “sympathy.”

“Your job is to apply the law — even in tough cases,” Sessions said.

Immigration Judge Lawrence Burman, the secretary-treasurer of the National Association of Immigration Judges , said “there’s a lot of unfairness” that could result from Trump’s crackdown. “We sometimes send people back to situations where they’re going to be killed,” said Burman, who serves at the Arlington immigration court. “Who wants to do that?”

The government doesn’t track what happens after asylum seekers and other immigrants are ordered deported. But Columbia University’s Global Migration Project recently tracked more than 60 people killed or harmed after being deported.

Judges’ powers are limited, immigration lawyers say, by outdated asylum laws that were designed to protect people from repressive governments rather than gangs or other threats. In Central America, many migrants flee towns where gangs and drug cartels are in control, not the government. If migrants don’t meet the strict definition of an asylee, judges must send them back to dangerous situations.

“It can be depressing. We’ve had judges quit because of that . . . or they just couldn’t stand it anymore,” Burman said. “You have to fit into a strict category, and if you don’t fit into a category, then you can’t get asylum, even if your life is in danger.”

Grafitti with a scratched-out MS-13 gang tag, near the home of Santos Chirino’s family in Virginia. Translated, the graffiti says, “If you are not of the [MS], don’t speak to me.”

‘Best of luck to you and your family’

At Chirino’s asylum hearing, Snow gently urged him to slow down as he testified from Farmville Detention Center in Virginia over the immigration court’s often glitchy version of Skype.

Osorio laid out evidence that his client’s life was in danger, according to an audio recording of the hearing. He explained how MS-13 gang members had stabbed Chirino with a screwdriver at a soccer game in Northern Virginia in 2002, and his testimony had helped send them to jail. At least one man was deported to Honduras. Now the U.S. government was trying to expel Chirino for his role in a 2015 bar fight, which he said started when gang members there snapped his photo.

Chirino told Snow he believed the police could protect him if he stayed in the United States. Osorio said gang members could easily “finish the job that they started” in Honduras, where gang violence is rampant and most serious crimes are never solved. Chirino’s friends and relatives echoed that belief in letters to the court. “Death is waiting for him,” wrote his uncle, Felipe Chirino, in Honduras.

“He can never go back,” wrote his brother, Jose Chirino, in Virginia.

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement prosecutor Elizabeth Dewar expressed skepticism that Chirino was really in danger after so many years away from Honduras. Noting that Chirino never reported the threats against him to the police, she told Snow: “Those aren’t the actions of someone that is in fear for their life.”

Santos Chirino explains why he’s afraid to go back to Honduras

6:21

After more than two hours in court, Snow was unsure. Immigration judges often dictate their decisions immediately after a hearing. But Snow, an appointee of President George W. Bush, said cases increasingly were too complex for that, and he didn’t want to “rush this one through.”

“I’ll do it as quickly as I can,” he told the lawyers.

“Sir?” He turned to Chirino on the television screen. “There are some complicated issues and I feel to be fair to you I need to do a written decision. . . .

“Either way, no matter how the case goes, it’s unlikely I’ll see you again. So best of luck to you and your family in the future.”

Snow’s options were limited by a technicality. Chirino could not qualify for full asylum because he failed to apply for the protection within a year of arriving in the United States or soon after the gang attack.

But the judge could still halt Chirino’s deportation temporarily, under either the Immigration and Nationality Act or the Convention Against Torture, because of the danger he would face in Honduras.

Unlike asylum, those protections do not lead to U.S. citizenship. They also are much harder to grant. Applicants must prove that there’s a “clear probability” of harm — at least 51 percent. To win asylum, in contrast, they must prove there is a 10 percent chance they’ll be harmed if they are deported.

In a ruling three months later, Snow wrote that Chirino fell short of the high standard the law required: He hadn’t proved that MS-13 would find him in Honduras, or that they were even looking for him.

“The Court is sympathetic to the risks facing the respondent,” Snow wrote. But the evidence, he said, was “insufficient to support a clear probability” that he’d be killed.

‘Should I have pitched it a different way?’: Lawyer reflects on Santos Chirino’s asylum case

A different prison

Osorio urged Chirino to appeal. The construction worker told Osorio that he couldn’t stand being locked up. Chirino paced the closet-like meeting room where they met and sobbed through the glass when his family visited. Some detainees — especially hardened criminals — can withstand the months or years of detention it takes to win their cases, immigration attorneys say. Others unravel. Their hair falls out, they lose weight. Some have committed suicide.

When Chirino gave up, Osorio felt so disheartened he offered to represent his children free.

Chirino was deported Aug. 26, 2016. His brother Belarmino, also convicted in the bar fight, had been sent back a month earlier.

Their parents’ home became a different kind of jail.

“I fear for my life on a daily basis,” Chirino wrote in an affidavit to support his children’s cases, explaining that he rarely went outside. He said MS-13 would probably kill his children if they returned to Honduras “because they are part of my family.”

On April 9, 2017 — Chirino’s 38th birthday — he decided to venture out, relatives said. He loved soccer, and in Virginia he used to play on a team named after his hometown.

He and Belarmino went to the city of Nacaome to watch a game. After they arrived, family members said, the air filled with popping sounds and screams.

Chirino was found in a red Toyota pickup, shot in the throat. His brother was on the ground, near a rock allegedly used to bash him in the head. Police recovered five bullet casings.

Relatives called Chirino’s wife and children with news of the deaths. Then his daughter phoned Osorio’s office, screaming.

The lawyer instructed her to gather the death certificates, police documents and gruesome photos that had been posted to a Honduran news website. He said he would use them as evidence for the teens’ asylum cases. And he wrote a letter to Snow, with the gory documents attached.

“Santos was murdered by purported gang members,” Osorio wrote. “Santos was telling the truth.”

The official record on the brothers’ murders remains unclear. Relatives said the brothers were attacked by gang members. But an initial police report provided by the family said people had been drinking and a fight ensued.

Honduran officials did not respond to multiple requests for information about the case.

Santos Chirino’s daughter, above, and son were brought to the United States in 2014 as threats against the family began to escalate. They are seeking asylum and are waiting for their case to be heard in Arlington immigration court.

An uncertain future

Four months after the killings, Chirino’s children arrived for a scheduling hearing in Bryant’s courtroom in Arlington. Unlike their father, they appeared in person beside Osorio, sinking uneasily into the cushioned chairs.

The siblings were raised by their grandparents in Honduras. In 2014, as threats against his family continued to escalate, Chirino and his wife brought the children to the United States.

Chirino wouldn’t let his daughter take an after-school job, telling her to study hard so she could one day become a nurse.

Now she and her brother were facing deportation too.

“I want to extend my deepest sympathy upon the death of your father,” Bryant told the siblings, after Osorio explained what had happened. “My father died many, many years ago . . . I understand how painful that is.”

“It is even more painful because of the manner in which your father died,” he added, as Chirino’s daughter wiped her eyes.

Bryant scheduled a full deportation hearing for March 2018. A snowstorm postponed it. The judge’s next available date was in 2020.

Immigration lawyer explains Santos Chirino’s death in court

1:41

Osorio says it is unclear how the Trump administration’s recent changes in asylum policy will affect the siblings’ cases. But the answer could come sooner than expected.

On Nov. 24, Chirino’s son, who had recently turned 21, was charged in Loudoun County with public intoxication and contributing to the delinquency of a minor. Police had stopped the car he was riding in and arrested the driver for speeding and other charges.

After posting bail on the misdemeanor charges, Chirino’s son was transferred to Farmville, where his father had been held. ICE released him on bond, his sister said. Osorio is waiting to hear whether a new immigration hearing will be scheduled for him.

The attorney says he will do everything possible to ensure that the young man and his sister can remain in the United States. Their mother, Chirino’s widow, has kidney disease and is on dialysis, hoping for a transplant. Her condition is one of the factors Osorio plans to raise in court.

He has won other asylum cases since Chirino’s death, victories he describes as bittersweet.

“And this is what haunts me,” he emailed late one night. “Did I leave something laying on the table? Or is that just the dumb luck of our system, that in a different court, with a different judge and a different prosecutor, you get an entirely different outcome based on supposedly the same law?”

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

Go to the link for pictures by Carolyn Van Houten, recordings from the actual hearing, and an interview with Attorney Benjamin Osorio.

This happened during the last Administration at Arlington. Arlington is rightfully considered to be one of the best U.S. Immigration Courts with fair, scholarly, courageous judges who generally have been able to resist political pressure from above to cut corners and “send enforcement messages.” I saw nothing in this article to change that impression.

The decency, humanity, courage, and competency under pressure of judges like Judge John M. Bryant and Judge Lawrence O. Burman also comes through. That’s what the system should be promoting and attracting (but isn’t). Maria also movingly portrays the anguish and self-examination of a smart, caring, competent, hard-working immigration attorney like Benjamin Osorio.

But, even in Arlington, we all recognized that we were operating under less than ideal conditions that increased the likelihood of life-threatening mistakes and miscarriages of justice. And, even before Trump and Sessions, we were constrained by unduly restrictive interpretations of asylum law and intentional docket manipulation by DOJ politicos intended to reduce the number of asylum grants, prevent “the floodgates from opening,” and “send enforcement messages.” All of these are highly improper roles for what is supposed to be a Due Process focused, fair, and impartial court system.

Sadly, situations like Maria describes can’t always be prevented. I know Judge Snow to be a fair, scholarly, and conscientious jurist who always is aware of and considers the human implications of his decisions, as all of us did at Arlington. This comes through in the quote from his article in USA Today highlighted by Maria above.

If things like this happened in Arlington before Trump and Sessions, it certainly raises the question of what’s happening elsewhere right now. In some other Immigration Courts some judges are well-known for their enforcement bias, thin knowledge, and lack of professionalism.

Rather than instituting necessary reforms to restore Due Process, recognize migrants’ rights, require professionalism, and make judges showing anti-asylum, anti-female, and anti-migrant biases accountable, under Trump the Department of Justice has gone in exactly the opposite direction. “Worst practices” have been instituted, precedents and rules promoting fairness for asylum applicants reversed, judges encouraged to misapply asylum law to produce more denials and removals, the BIA turned into a rubber stamp for enforcement, and judges showing pro-DHS and anti-migrant bias insulated from accountability and empowered to crank out more decisions that deny Due Process.

One of the most despicable of the many despicable and dishonest things that Jeff Sessions did was to minimize and mock the stresses put on the respondents, their conscientious lawyers, the judges, the court staff, and the DHS litigation staff by the system he was maladministering. While a decent human being and a competent Attorney General could and should have dealt with these honestly with an eye toward working cooperatively with all concerned to build a better, fairer, less stressful system, Sessions intentionally did the opposite. He insulted lawyers, made biased, unethical statements to Immigration Judges, hurled racially inspired false narratives at asylum applicants and migrants, manipulated and stacked the law against asylum applicants, artificially “jacked up” backlogs, and ratcheted up the stress levels on the judges by demeaning them with “production quotas.” (Other than that, he was a great guy.)

Contrary to what Jeff Sessions said, being a U.S. Immigration Judge is one of the toughest judicial jobs out there, requiring a very healthy dose of sympathy, empathy, and compassion, in addition to critical examination of claims under a legal framework and our Constitution.

I had to remove some individuals I found to be in danger because I couldn’t fit them into any of the protections available under law. But, it certainly made me uncomfortable. I did it only reluctantly after exploring all possible options including, in some cases, “pushing” ICE to exercise “prosecutorial discretion” in some humanitarian situations. That’s what “real judging” is about, not the simplistic, de-humanized, mechanized assembly line enforcement function falsely promoted by Sessions.

We should be concerned about laws and interpretations that fail to protect lives. We should be working hard to insure, to the maximum extent possible, that we save lives rather than returning folks to death. We must insure that no biased, unethical, and unprincipled person like Jeff Sessions ever gets personal control of this important court system in the future.

Instead, the Trump Administration is working overtime to guarantee more miscarriages of justice, violate international laws, and achieve more preventable deaths of innocent folks. We should all be deeply ashamed of what America has become under Trump.

PWS

12-06-18

INSIDE EOIR: LA TIMES: Former EOIR Attorney Reveals Truth Of Sessions’s Ugly, Corrupt, Mean-Spirited, Attack On Judicial Independence & The Totally Demoralizing Effect On Judges & Other Dedicated Civil Servants – No Wonder This “Captive Court System” Is A Dysfunctional Mess Being Crushed Under An Artificially Created “Sessions Legacy Backlog” of 1.1 Million+ Cases With Neither Sane Management Nor Any End In Sight!

https://apple.news/AnkcqK5ITQ76IwHCZq2FnBw

I resigned from the Department of Justice because of Trump’s campaign against immigration judges

Gianfranco De Girolamo November 26, 2018, 3:05 AM

One of the proudest days of my life was Dec. 16, 2015, when I became a naturalized citizen of the United States.

I shed tears of joy as I swore allegiance to the United States at the Los Angeles Convention Center, along with more than 3,000 other new Americans. I was celebrating a country that had welcomed me with open arms, treated me as one of its own and opened doors I hadn’t known existed. Just a few years before, in the remote village in southern Italy where I grew up, this would have been unimaginable.

Another of my proudest moments came just a year later, when I was awarded a coveted position in the U.S. Department of Justice. This happened in late November 2016, a few weeks after President Trump was elected.

Like many, I harbored reservations about Trump. But I did not waver in my enthusiasm for the job. In law school, l had learned about the role of civil servants as nonpolitical government employees who work across administrations — faithfully, loyally and diligently serving the United States under both Republicans and Democrats.

I was designated an attorney-advisor and assigned to the Los Angeles immigration court. There, I assisted immigration judges with legal research, weighed in on the strengths and weaknesses of parties’ arguments and often wrote the first drafts of judges’ opinions.

Soon enough, however, the work changed. In March 2018, James McHenry, the Justice Department official who oversees the immigration courts as head of the Executive Office for Immigration Review, announced a mandate imposing individual quotas on all the judges. Each judge would be required to decide 700 cases per year, he said.

With these new quotas, which went into effect on Oct. 1, immigration judges must now decide between three and four cases a day — while also reviewing dozens of motions daily and keeping up with all their administrative duties — or their jobs will be at risk.

The announcement of the quotas in March was the first in a series of demoralizing attacks on immigration judges this year. In May, Atty. Gen. Jeff Sessions, since fired by Trump, personally issued a decision that placed limits on the ability of immigration judges to use a practice known as administrative closure, which allows judges to put cases on indefinite hold, and which, in immigration cases, can be a tool for delaying deportation orders.

The Justice Department enforced the decision in July by stripping an immigration judge in Philadelphia of his authority in scores of cases for continuing to use administrative closure.

All this was in addition to a barrage of disparaging comments made directly by the president. In June, Trump tweeted that there is no reason to provide judges to immigrants. He also rejected calls to hire more immigration judges, saying that “we have to have a real border, not judges” and asking rhetorically, “Who are these people?”

The demoralizing effect on immigration judges was palpable. Morale was at an all-time low. I was new to civil service, but these judges, some of whom have served continuously since the Reagan administration, made clear that this was an unprecedented attack on the justice system.

Enter the Fray: First takes on the news of the minute from L.A. Times Opinion »

I’ve long admired the independence and legitimacy that the judiciary enjoys in the United States, so I found the attacks on judges deeply disturbing and troubling. They reminded me of Trump’s Italian alter-ego, Silvio Berlusconi, who spent most of his tenure as Italy’s prime minister fighting off lawsuits by delegitimizing and attacking the judiciary, calling it “a cancer of democracy” and accusing judges of being communist.

I voiced my concerns to my supervisors and directly to Director McHenry in a letter. Seeing no opportunity to make a positive difference and unwilling to continue to lend credence to this compromised system, I submitted my resignation in July, explaining my reasons in a letter.

This was not how I wanted to end my career in government. I had hoped to serve this country for the long haul. But I couldn’t stand by, or be complicit in, a mean-spirited and unscrupulous campaign to undermine the everyday work of the Justice Department and the judges who serve in our immigration courts — a campaign that hurts many of my fellow immigrants in the process.

Gianfranco De Girolamo was an attorney at the Department of Justice from 2017 to 2018.

Follow the Opinion section on Twitter @latimesopinion or Facebook

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

Thanks for speaking out Gianfranco! I published an earlier, at that time “anonymous,” letter from Gianfranco at the time of his resignation. I’m sure there are many others at EOIR who feel the same way. But, they are “gagged” by the DOJ — threatened with job loss if they “tell the truth” about the ongoing legal farce and parody of justice within our Immigration Courts.

It’s a “closed system” at war with the public it serves, the dedicated attorneys who represent migrants, the essential NGOs who are propping up what’s left of justice in this system, and the very civil servants who are supposed to be carrying out the courts’ mission. What a horrible way to “(not) run the railroad.”

Someday, historians will dig out the whole truth about the “Sessions Era” at the DOJ and his perversion of justice in the U.S. Immigration Courts. I’m sure it will be even worse than we can imagine. But, for now, thanks to Gianfranco for shedding at least some light on one of the darkest and most dysfunctional corners of our Government!

PWS

11-16-18

MARK JOSEPH STERN @ SLATE: GONZO’S GONE! — Bigoted, Xenophobic AG Leaves Behind Disgraceful Record Of Intentional Cruelty, Vengeance, Hate, Lawlessness, & Incompetence That Will Haunt America For Many Years!

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/11/jeff-sessions-donald-trump-resign-disgrace.html

Stern writes:

Attorney General Jeff Sessions resigned on Wednesday at the request of Donald Trump. He served a little less than two years as the head of the Department of Justice. During that time, Sessions used his immense power to make America a crueler, more brutal place. He was one of the most sadistic and unscrupulous attorneys general in American history.

At the Department of Justice, Sessions enforced the law in a manner that harmed racial minorities, immigrants, and LGBTQ people. He rolled backObama-era drug sentencing reforms in an effort to keep nonviolent offenders locked away for longer. He reversed a policy that limited the DOJ’s use of private prisons. He undermined consent decrees with law enforcement agencies that had a history of misconduct and killed a program that helped local agencies bring their policing in line with constitutional requirements. And he lobbied against bipartisan sentencing reform, falsely claiming that such legislation would benefit “a highly dangerous cohort of criminals.”

Sessions’ attack on immigrants was equally ruthless. He compelled immigration judges to order the deportation of more unauthorized immigrants and punished them when they did not. He barred most victims of domestic violence from seeking asylum in the United States, deporting survivors back to their persecutors. He attempted to rescind the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, subjecting hundreds of thousands of young immigrants to deportation but was too inept to do so lawfully. He tried to prevent states and cities from protecting immigrants within their borders. And he implemented the “zero tolerance” family separation policy, imprisoning thousands of individuals at the border for the misdemeanor of unlawful entry, then seizing their children and locking them in cages. (Hundreds of these kids are still separatedfrom their parents.)

Meanwhile, Sessions mobilized the DOJ’s attorneys to torture immigrant minors in other ways. He fought in court to keep undocumented teenagers pregnant against their will, defending the Trump administration’s decision to block their access to abortion. His Justice Department made the astonishing claim that the federal government could decide that forced birth was in the “best interest” of children. It also revealed these minors’ pregnancies to family members who threatened to abuse them. And when the American Civil Liberties Union defeated this position in court, his DOJ launched a failed legal assault on individual ACLU lawyers for daring to defend their clients.

As he oversaw family separation, forced birth, and mass incarceration, Sessions found time to degrade LGBTQ Americans and their families. He issued a memo alleging that federal civil rights laws do not protect transgender employees, a position the Justice Department recently reiterated to the Supreme Court. He also argued that these civil rights laws do not protect gay people. His DOJ defended Trump’s ban on open transgender military service by claiming that trans people are disordered deviants. Under his leadership, the DOJ also asked the Supreme Court to rule that many businesses have a First Amendment right to turn away same-sex couples. (Sessions gave a speech to the anti-LGBTQ group that brought that case to SCOTUS, thanking them for their “important work” on behalf of religious liberty.)

The guiding principle of Sessions’ career is animus toward people who are unlike him. While serving in the Senate, he voted against the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act because it expressly protected LGBTQ women. He opposed immigration reform, including relief for young people brought to America by their parents as children. He voted against the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. He voted against a federal hate crime bill protecting gay people. Before that, as Alabama attorney general, he tried to prevent LGBTQ students from meeting at a public university. But as U.S. attorney general, he positioned himself as an impassioned defender of campus free speech.

While Sessions doesn’t identify as a white nationalist, his agenda as attorney general abetted the cause of white nationalism. His policies were designed to make the country more white by keeping out Hispanics and locking up blacks. His tenure will remain a permanent stain on the Department of Justice. Thousands of people were brutalized by his bigotry, and our country will not soon recover from the malice he unleashed.

His successor could be even worse.

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

Can’t overstate the intentional damage that this immoral, intellectually dishonest, and bigoted man has done to millions of human lives and the moral and legal fabric of our country. “The Father of the New American Gulag,” America’s most notorious unpunished child abuser, and the destroyer of Due Process in our U.S. Immigration Courts are among a few of his many unsavory legacies!

The scary thing: Stern is right — “His successor could be even worse.” If so, the survival of our Constitution and our nation will be at risk!

PWS

11-06-18

GONZO’S WORLD – NEW TRAC DATA SHOWS SESSIONS’S IDEOLOGICALLY DRIVEN INTERFERENCE AND GROSS MISMANAGEMENT HAS “ARTIFICIALLY JACKED” THE U.S. IMMIGRATION COURT BACKLOG TO OVER 1 MILLION CASES! – And, That’s With More Judges — “Throwing Good Money After Bad!”

http://trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/536/

Immigration Court Backlog Surpasses One Million Cases

Figure 1. Immigration Court Workload, FY 2018

The Immigration Court backlog has jumped by 225,846 cases since the end of January 2017 when President Trump took office. This represents an overall growth rate of 49 percent since the beginning of FY 2017. Results compiled from the case-by-case records obtained by TRAC under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) from the court reveal that pending cases in the court’s active backlog have now reached 768,257—a new historic high.

In addition, recent decisions by the Attorney General just implemented by the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) have ballooned the backlog further. With a stroke of a pen, the court removed 330,211 previously completed cases and put them back on the “pending” rolls. These cases were previously administratively closed and had been considered part of the court’s completed caseload[1].

When the pending backlog of cases now on the active docket is added to these newly created pending cases, the total climbs to a whopping 1,098,468 cases! This is more than double the number of cases pending at the beginning of FY 2017.

Pending Cases Represent More Than Five Years of Backlogged Work

What does the pending case backlog mean as a practical matter? Even before the redefinition of cases counted as closed and cases considered pending, the backlog had reached 768,257 cases. With the rise in the number of immigration judges, case closures during FY 2018 rose 3.9 percent over FY 2016 levels, to 215,569. In FY 2017, however, closure rates had fallen below FY 2016 levels, but last year the court recovered this lost ground[2].

At these completion rates, the court would take 3.6 years to clear its backlog under the old definition if it did nothing but work on pending cases. This assumes that all new cases are placed on the back burner until the backlog is finished.

Now, assuming the court aims to schedule hearings eventually on all the newly defined “pending” cases, the backlog of over a million cases would take 5.1 years to work through at the current pace. This figure again assumes that the court sets aside newly arriving cases and concentrates exclusively on the backlog.

Table 1. Overview of Immigration Court Case Workload and Judges
as of end of FY 2018

Number of
Cases/Judges Percent Change
Since Beginning
of FY 2017

New Cases for FY 2018 287,741 7.5%

Completed Cases for FY 2018 215,569 3.9%

Number of Immigration Judges 338/395* 17.0%

Pending Cases as of September 30, 2018:

On Active Docket 768,257 48.9%

Not Presently on Active Docket 330,211 na

Total 1,098,468 112.9%

* Immigration Judges on bench at the beginning and at the end of FY 2018; percent based on increase in judges who served full year.
** category did not exist at the beginning of FY 2017.

Why Does the Backlog Continue To Rise?

No single reason accounts for this ballooning backlog. It took years to build and new cases continue to outpace the number of cases completed. This is true even though the ranks of immigration judges since FY 2016 have grown by over 17 percent[3] while court filings during the same period have risen by a more modest 7.5 percent[4].

Clearly the changes the Attorney General has mandated have added to the court’s challenges. For one, the transfer of administratively closed cases to the pending workload makes digging out all the more daunting. At the same time, according to the judges, the new policy that does away with their ability to administratively close cases has reduced their tools for managing their dockets.

There have been other changes. Shifting scheduling priorities produces churning on cases to be heard next. Temporary reassignment and transfer of judges to border courts resulted in additional docket churn. Changing the legal standards to be applied under the Attorney General’s new rulings may also require judicial time to review and implement.

In the end, all these challenges remain and the court’s dockets remain jam-packed. Perhaps when dockets become overcrowded, the very volume of pending cases slows the court’s ability to handle this workload – as when congested highways slow to a crawl.

Footnotes

^[1] The court also recomputed its case completions for the past ten years and removed these from its newly computed completed case counts. Current case closures thus appear to have risen because counts in prior years are suppressed. Further, the extensive judicial resources used in hearing those earlier cases are also disregarded.

^[2] For consistency over time, this comparison is based upon the court’s longstanding definition, which TRAC continues to use, that includes administratively closed cases in each year’s count. Under this standard, numbers are: 207,546 (FY 2016), 204,749 (FY 2017), 215,569 (FY 2018).

^[3] The court reports that the numbers of immigration judges on its rolls at the end of the fiscal year were: 289 (FY 2016), 338 (FY 2017), and 395 (FY 2018). The 17 percent increase only considers judges who were on the payroll for the full FY 2018 year. See Table 1. For more on judge hires see: https://www.justice.gov/eoir/page/file/1104846/download

^[4] New court cases based upon court records as of the end of FY 2018 were: 267,625 (FY 2016), 274,133 (FY 2017), and 287,741 (FY 2018). Due to delays in adding new cases to EOIR’s database, the latest counts may continue to rise when data input is complete. TRAC’s counts use the date of the notice to appear (NTA), rather than the court’s “input date” into its database. While the total number of cases across the FY 2016 – FY 2018 period reported by TRAC and recently published by EOIR are virtually the same, the year-by-year breakdown differs because of the court’s practice of postponing counting a case until it chooses to add them to its docket.

TRAC is a nonpartisan, nonprofit data research center affiliated with the Newhouse School of Public Communications and the Whitman School of Management, both at Syracuse University. For more information, to subscribe, or to donate, contact trac@syr.edu or call 315-443-3563.

	Number of Cases/Judges	Percent Change Since Beginning of FY 2017
New Cases for FY 2018	287,741	7.5%
Completed Cases for FY 2018	215,569	3.9%
Number of Immigration Judges	338/395*	17.0%
Pending Cases as of September 30, 2018:
On Active Docket	768,257	48.9%
Not Presently on Active Docket	330,211	na
Total	1,098,468	112.9%

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

Yes, as TRAC notes, it has been building for many years. And there are plenty of places to place responsibility: Congress, the Bush Administration, the Obama Administration, the DOJ, DHS, and EOIR itself.

But, there is no way of denying that it has gotten exponentially worse under Sessions. Ideology and intentional “Aimless Docket Reshuffling,” as well as the same ineffective “terrorist tactics, threats, intentionally false narratives, inflammatory and demeaning rhetoric, and just plain willful ignorance” that Sessions employs in his immigration enforcement and prosecutorial programs are the main culprits. And, they aren’t going to stop until Sessions and this AdministratIon are removed from the equatIon. Not likely to happen right now.

So, if the Article IIIs don’t step in and essentially put this “bankrupt dysfunctional mess into receivership” by appointing an independent Special Master to run it in accordance with Due Process, fairness, fiscal responsibility, and impartiality, the whole disaster is going to end up in their laps. That will threaten the stability of the entire Federal Court system — apparently just what White Nationalist anarchists like Sessions, Miller, and Bannon have been planning all along!

Wonder if Las Vegas is taking odds on the dates when 1) the backlog will reach 2 million; and 2) the Immigration Court system will completely collapse?

The kakistocracy in action! And, lives will be lost, people hurt, and responsible Government damaged. More judges under Sessions just means more backlog and more injustice.

PWS

11-06-18

WASHPOST: DON’T SEND TROOPS, GUNS, & MONEY – SEND JUDGES!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dont-send-troops-to-the-border-send-judges/2018/11/02/cd54d0f0-deda-11e8-85df-7a6b4d25cfbb_story.html

The Post Editorial Board writes:

PRESIDENT TRUMP has based his midterm election campaign on the specter of an “invasion” by immigrants marching from Central America to the southern border. His demagoguery is disgusting and irresponsible. But there is a real problem of migrants — one that his administration is failing to address.

Many people are crossing the border with their children and applying for asylum, overwhelming existing mechanisms for dealing with asylum seekers. They are feeding what the president calls a “catch-and-release” revolving door for migrants freed as they await hearings to adjudicate their cases, and contributing to a backlog of some 750,000 cases in immigration courts.

A rational response would be to add substantially to the approximately 350 immigration judges, who cannot handle the tens of thousands of asylum claims flooding the immigration courts annually. The administration this year hired a few dozen new judges, a fraction of what is required. As the caseload has more than quadrupled since 2006, the number of judges has not even doubled, according to congressional testimony in April by Judge A. Ashley Tabaddor, president of the National Association of Immigration Judges.

Despite that, Mr. Trump has sneered at the idea of hiring more, even after aides pressed him to do so. “Who are these people?” he raged, before suggesting darkly that adding many new judges would somehow corrupt the system. “Now can you imagine the graft that must take place?” he said.

Granted, the hiring could be challenging, in vetting and cost. But any major challenge involves scaling up resources and personnel, and it’s hard to see why that’s beyond the government’s capabilities.

On the other hand, maybe Mr. Trump prefers having an issue to a solution. He has made it clear he believes the immigration question propelled him into the White House. Now, by ramping up his inflammatory rhetoric, and by advancing over-the-top measures such as sending thousands of troops to the border to fulfill a mission for which they are not trained — Congress has barred troops from law enforcement duties — it seems apparent Mr. Trump has opted for crisis instead of constructive improvements to what he rightly calls a broken system. Instead of deploying thousands of troops, why not hire hundreds of judges?

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

Certainly on the right track here!

But here’s what really needs to happen to address the issue in a rational way:

Send more Asylum Officers to do credible fear interviews at the border;
Send enough private attorneys to represent all arriving migrants before both the Asylum Office and the Immigration Courts;
Allow Asylum Officers to grant temporary withholding of removal under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) to the many applicants who have a probability of torture upon return, which clearly happens with “government acquiescence” — or in many cases actual participation or connivance — in the Northern Triangle;
Put the asylum claims of those granted CAT withholding on the “back burner” (thus keeping them from clogging the Immigration Courts) while working with the UNHCR and other counties in the Hemisphere (including, of course Mexico and Canada) on a more durable solution for those currently fleeing the Northern Triangle;
Otherwise, individuals who pass credible fear should be released on minimal bonds and allowed to go to locations where they will be represented by pro bono lawyers (thus avoiding the money wasted on “tent cities” and other types of expensive and arguably illegal detention) — contrary to the Trump Administration lies, almost all represented asylum applicants show up faithfully for their Immigration Court Hearings;
If the Administration wants to “prioritize” the cases of recent arrivals before the Immigration Courts, this can and should be done without creating more “Aimless Docket Reshuffling.” Not “rocket science.” Here’s how:
- Hundreds of thousands of those now unnecessarily clogging the Immigration Court dockets are long-time residents eligible to apply for “Cancellation of Removal for Non-Lawful Permanent Residents.” Take those with no serious criminal records off the Immigration Court docket and send them to USCIS Adjudications for initial processing. No rush, since only 4,000 “numbers” are available each year for grants;
- Those granted can be put in a line for green card numbers maintained by USCIS;
- Those denied who have committed serious crimes should be referred back to the Immigration Courts;
- For others who don’t qualify for cancellation of removal, the Administration should sponsor bipartisan legislation to provide legal status to such long-term residents. With Administration support, such legislation clearly could pass both Houses and be enacted into law.
The Immigration Courts could then return to real priorities: detained cases; cases of recently arrived individuals with or without asylum claims; cases of immigrants who have committed crimes; and cases of other individuals who don’t fit within our legal system, as properly administered.
Sure, this doesn’t match the “White Nationalist game plan.” But, it’s a practical, legal solution that would be good for immigration enforcement, the legal system, and the country as a whole. And, until the final step of legalization of long-term residents, it can be achieved under the current law.
And, I’ll bet you the overall cost would be much less than some of the “designed to fail” and perhaps illegal schemes now being pursued by the Administration. That’s particularly true because applications to USCIS and legalization programs actually “pay their own way” through application fees — perhaps even turning a slight profit for the Government.

PWS

11-03-18

PRISCILA ALVAREZ @ THE ATLANTIC: Sessions’s Influence Over Justice In The U.S. Immigration Courts Will Continue Long After His Departure!

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/10/jeff-sessions-carrying-out-trumps-immigration-agenda/573151/

Priscilla writes in The Atlantic:

Dorothea Lay was on track to become a member of the Board of Immigration Appeals, part of the Justice Department’s Executive Office for Immigration Review. Her 25-year government career had prepared her for the post, as reflected in four letters of recommendation from academics and current and former officials. In December 2016, nine months after submitting her application, she was offered the job. But administrations changed, Jeff Sessions assumed the role of attorney general, and by early 2018, the offer was withdrawn.

Why?

That’s the question at the center of a complaint filed by Lay, an Idaho native, with the Office of Special Counsel, an independent federal investigative body. In a letter to Lay, 53, the Executive Office for Immigration Review said it rescinded her offer because “the needs of the agency have evolved,” even though the agency announced around the same time that it wanted to expand the size of the appeals board. The complaint suggests that political considerations may have been taken into account in reviewing Lay’s background, citing Lay’s letters of recommendation from people who “had liberal backgrounds or were perceived as having liberal backgrounds.”

The suspicion of politically based hiring has lingered among Democrats, who raised concerns in April and again in May. In the May letter, directed to Michael E. Horowitz, Democrats urged the inspector general of the Justice Department to investigate “allegations of politicized hiring practices,” citing cases in which offers for immigration judges and Board of Immigration Appeals positions had been delayed or withdrawn. (Lay’s attorney, Zachary Henige, is also representing two other people who claim their offers were withdrawn over political differences.) Assistant Attorney General Stephen Boyd responded to the Democrats’ allegations in a letter: “As stated in every immigration judge hiring announcement, the Department of Justice does not discriminate on the basis of political affiliation.”

The investigation into Lay’s complaint is ongoing, so it’s still not clear whether there were ulterior motives behind the withdrawal of her offer. But the case speaks to how DOJ can pick and choose who fills roles and in doing so, influence who’s at the helm of deciding immigration cases.

This isn’t unique to this administration. The Justice Department has considerable leeway when appointing immigration judges—the immigration courts are part of its direct purview. The attorney general therefore has unique authority to overrule decisions and hire immigration judges. To that end, Sessions appears to be shaping the court by, at the very least, hiring former law enforcement officials as immigration judges.

Read: The end of civil rights

“The more you bring people from the same background, the same set of experiences, the same perspective, the more you expose the court to criticism,” said Ashley Tabaddor, the president of the National Association of Immigration Judges. “Those decisions will be more open to being questioned.”

Of the 140 judges hired since Donald Trump’s inauguration, more than half have past prosecutorial experience or some other government experience. The pace of hiring has also stepped up: In fiscal year 2017, the Justice Department hired 64 immigration judges, compared to 81 in fiscal year 2018—bringing the total of immigration judges to 395, according to data released by EOIR. Sessions’s hiring spree is not unusual—and it’s also not unwarranted: His predecessors brought on new immigration judges, and the immigration court backlog also continues to creep up, with the latest figure at more than 760, 000 pending cases. Of the newly hired immigration judges, at least half had received conditional offers during the Obama administration, said Kathryn Mattingly, assistant press secretary at EOIR, in an email.

It’s not just how many immigration judges are being brought on but where they’re being located. EOIR has hired immigration judges for two adjudication centers—in Falls Church, Virginia, and Fort Worth, Texas—where cases from around the country will be heard through video teleconferencing. Judges will be located at the centers, while attorneys and respondents will be in separate locations. According to Rob Barnes, a regional public information officer for EOIR, immigration judges at these centers will be evaluated like others. It’s likely then that thousands of immigration cases will be heard with respondents never seeing a judge face to face.

Across the board, there appears to be a preference for people who come from an enforcement background, according to biographies of newly hired immigration judges posted by the Justice Department. Of the 23 judges announced in August, more than half previously worked with the Department of Homeland Security, and of those remaining, most came from a law enforcement background. In September, EOIR announced 46 new immigration judges, two of which will serve in a supervisory role: 19 previously worked for ICE, 10 had served at DOJ or as a former local prosecutor, and seven had a background in military (one of whom previously served in Guantánamo). It’s not yet known how these judges will rule once they’re on the bench and whether their enforcement background will inform their decisions. But experts, attorneys, and current and former immigration judges have warned about hiring too many people from government before.

“It’s not that we’re saying [those] with law enforcement or military background are unqualified,” Tabaddor, the head of the immigration judges association, told me. “A diverse bench is what brings fairness and legitimacy to court. It’s very important for a court to be reflective of the people it serves and the community at large to gain legitimacy and respect.”

Mattingly, the EOIR spokeswoman, has provided a series of specific qualifications that all candidates for immigration judge must possess.

Previous administrations also pulled from within government, reasoning that candidates have already passed background checks and can therefore be hired more quickly. But that can present some challenges. It’s possible that having spent years fighting in court on behalf of the government, an individual might be biased, said Jeremy McKinney, an immigration lawyer in North Carolina. The American Immigration Lawyers Association, of which McKinney is a part of, and National Association of Immigration Judges, have called for the pool of immigration judges to also include people from private firms and academia.

Read: Trump’s immigration crackdown is overwhelming a strained system

Their concerns were backed up by Booz Allen Hamilton, which conducted a year-long study of the immigration court system at EOIR’s direction. The April 2017 study found that at least 41 percent of immigration judges previously worked in the Department of Homeland Security, and nearly 20 percent worked at other branches within the Justice Department. The report recommended broadening “hiring pools and outreach programs to increase diversity of experience among [immigration judges].” It’s not clear whether the Justice Department took the study into account in putting together its hiring plan in April 2017, the same month the study was presumably handed over.

The hiring of immigration judges has always been a contentious issue: complaints have been lodged about there not being enough career diversity; it often takes months to hire judges (though the Justice Department recently pushed the time it took down from an average of 742 days to about 266 days); and political affiliations have previously been weighed in selecting judges. In 2008, the Inspector General issued a report on the hiring practices of DOJ in selecting attorneys, immigration judges, and members of the Board of Immigration Appeals. The report concluded that hiring based on political or ideological affiliation is in violation of department policy.

The fear, as expressed by some Democrats, legal experts and immigration advocates, is that Sessions is improperly seeking out conservatives in order to to influence the tilt of the nation’s immigration courts and hire a large cadre of immigration judges who will likely far outlast his tenure.

“I think he’s trying to get a complacent judiciary: ‘Forget the title, you guys are really DOJ employees, you’re out there to carry out my policies,’” said Paul W. Schmidt, former chairman of EOIR’s Board of Immigration Appeals from 1995 to 2001 and a former immigration judge.

Beyond who the Justice Department decides to bring on board, the message Sessions sends down to judges can also heavily influence their decisions, as direct reports to the department, Schmidt and others argue.

Read: The Democratic effort to keep Jeff Sessions in office

In September, for example, Sessions delivered remarks to a new class of immigration judges, the largest in history, according to the Justice Department, in which he pressed them to decide cases swiftly. “You have an obligation to decide cases efficiently and to keep our federal laws functioning effectively, fairly, and consistently,” he said. “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. I do not apologize for expecting you to perform, at a high level, efficiently and effectively.”

The message was striking given who it’s intended for. “If he was speaking to attorneys, that’d be normal. He has the right to set prosecutorial policy,” McKinney said. “That doesn’t translate to immigration judges.” Judges—even when they are DOJ employees—are expected to be independent. By effectively telling them how to handle cases and how quickly, the Justice Department is infringing upon that independence, McKinney said.

And Sessions’s words weren’t just an expression of what he hopes judges will do either. As of October 1, the expectation to “efficiently and effectively” adjudicate cases is being enforced. Earlier this year, the Justice Department took the unprecedented step of rolling out quotas for judges. To receive a “satisfactory” performance evaluation, judges are required to clear at least 700 cases a year. According to the Justice Department, judges complete 678 cases a year on average now, meaning they will have to pick up the pace to remain in good standing.

This fall, DOJ expects to bring on at least 75 more immigration judges. Even if Sessions days as attorney general are numbered, as Trump has suggested, his selections will decide the fate of immigrants, for years to come.

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

While immigration advocates might look forward to the day of Session’s departure from DOJ just as much as Donald Trump does, in the case of immigration the wonton damage and carnage he has inflicted on our justice system, particularly in the area of immigration, won’t easily be repaired. And, the repairs can’t even begin until after we get “regime change.”

PWS

10-16-18

BIASED COURTS: EL PASO’S “HANGING JUDGES” ARE DEATH TO ASYLUM CLAIMS, EVEN THOSE THAT ARE BEING GRANTED IN MANY OTHER IMMIGRATION COURTS – The Due Process Problems In The U.S. Immigration Courts Go Much Deeper Than Jeff Sessions’s Outrageous White Nationalist Policies! — Author Justine van der Leun Presents A Meticulously Researched, Moving Report Of Unfairness That “Scotches” All Of The DOJ/EOIR “Bogus Excuses” & Exposes The Deep, Unacceptable Bias That Makes Our Immigration Courts A National Disgrace!

https://www.vqronline.org/reporting-articles/2018/10/culture-no

Here’s an excerpt from Justine van der Luen’s much longer article “A Culture of No,” published in the Fall 2018 issue of VQR (quoting me, among many others).

. . . .

“Here in the US, there is democracy, but we still have fear,” he said. “I got asylum but if they want to make a problem, they can do it.” He was terrified that the smallest misstep, no matter how apparently meaningless, how accidental or random, could signal the difference between freedom and imprisonment—and from there, between life and death.

To beat the extreme odds in El Paso, Isaac had spent fifteen months in detention and paid thousands of dollars in legal fees to an elite lawyer who then worked dozens of pro bono hours on his appeal. This feat required an enormous amount of translated and notarized evidence discretely sent overseas by family members in Syria, the emotional and financial support of his brother and his lawyer, and the wherewithal to withstand a complex, taxing, humiliating process. How many asylum seekers could or should have to endure such an ordeal in order to gain internationally recognized rights meant to protect the persecuted?

As Isaac started over in America, other asylum seekers I had been tracking were less fortunate. Jesus Rodriguez Mendoza, the Venezuelan, had been transferred to a notorious detention center in Miami, which his legal team believed was punishment for his public protests; he remained on the El Paso docket, but now was physically separated from his lawyers, his fourth parole request denied. Berta Arias, the Honduran grandmother whose relief Judge Abbott had granted and then quickly rescinded, lost her appeal and was deported without the granddaughter she had raised. The Central American man whose brother, with an identical case, had won protection in New York City, remained in the Camp. It wasn’t only those from the Americas who were out of luck. Cambodians, Cameroonians, Guineans, and Kenyans I’d followed all had their claims denied; they had since been deported or were waiting on appeals.

One young Central American woman who had been repeatedly raped had managed to win relief, but only after her lawyer, unable to bear the thought of her client being sent home to be violated yet again, paid over $2,000 from her own pocket to fly two expert witnesses into Texas to clinch the case.

“I think in El Paso, they want to see that people died,” a young Salvadoran asylum seeker told me. He was an Evangelical Christian, who preached to local kids. Members of MS-13 had shot at him with a machine gun, killing a pedestrian who happened to be standing nearby, and kidnapped and murdered his fifteen-year-old friend who had joined him in proselytizing. The young man, his mother, and his brother made their way to the US. Despite having a devoted pro bono lawyer, he lost his asylum case, as well as his appeal, on the grounds of credibility (the judge believed he was simply an economic migrant who had invented the threats); his mother also struggled to find legal relief in El Paso.

“Maybe if I died, and then my mom asked for asylum, maybe then she can get protection,” he told me calmly. “They tried to kill me, but I didn’t die, so it’s not good enough for them.”

Justine van der Leun

Justine van der Leun is the author of several books, including We Are Not Such Things (Random House, 2016), a New York Times Editors’ Choice and Spectator Book of the Year. Her work has appeared in theNew York Times, Harper’s, the Guardian, and Oprah Magazine. She is an International Women’s Media Foundation reporting fellow and a grantee of the Investigative Fund at the Nation Institute.

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

I encourage you to read the full article at the above link, which is accompanied by some great original illustrations by Alan Vest!

Justine highlights the real role of attorneys in our asylum system. Many of them are working on a pro bono or low fee basis or actually paying out of their own pockets! They persist under horrible working conditions and often rude, insensitive, and unprofessional treatment from judges and other government officials that would persuade most other professionals to take up another line of work. The cases are complicated and (unnecessarily) fact intensive, often requiring not only extensive research and legal knowledge, but also skilled use of expert testimony and sources translated from foreign languages.

In courts like El Paso, getting a fair result in an asylum case too often depends on making the record below and then taking an appeal — the latter itself a time-consuming “hit or miss” proposition depending on the BIA “panel” (it could be a single judge) or the Circuit in which the case arose (sadly, the 5th Circuit is notorious for taking a cavalier and tone-deaf attitude toward the law and fundamental fairness in immigration matters).

Indeed, conscientious, dedicated attorneys are far more interested in making the system function in a fair and efficient manner consistent with our Constitution than the DOJ politicos who run today’s broken court system.

Compare the reality with the intentionally false and totally disingenuous picture painted by our White Nationalist Attorney General Jeff Sessions. He refers to “dirty lawyers” who are “gaming” the system.

Apparently, Sessions’s view of “gaming” means providing vigorous and effective representation and forcing him and some of the anti-asylum judges working for him to comply with asylum law!

It’s also painfully clear that no unrepresented asylum applicant would have any chance whatsoever of receiving fairness and Due Process in El Paso.

But, instead of working with the private bar to facilitate representation and repair the damage to the Immigration Courts, Sessions has gone to great lengths to prevent effective representation of asylum seekers. He has arranged for the detention of asylum seekers in horrible conditions in obscure places where there are no lawyers; he has “speeded up” the system to make it more difficult for lawyers to effectively represent their clients; he has used unconstitutional intentional family separation to duress individuals with valid claims into abandoning them; he has made pejorative remarks about asylum seekers and their lawyers in front of Immigration Judges; and he has manipulated the substantive law against bona fide asylum seekers.

Yes, many, many Immigration Judges “buck the odds” to honor their oaths of office and guarantee fairness and Due Process for asylum seekers and other respondents. Justine points out how results differ dramatically in Immigration Courts where judges apply the law and treat respondents and their lawyers in a fair and impartial manner.

So, how can I be such a strong advocate for independence of a system that I know is badly flawed? Those of us who have actually worked in the system know that it can’t be fixed overnight.

But, getting the system out of the hands of Sessions and the DOJ politicos is an absolutely essential first step. With the advent of a true merit judicial hiring system, such as that recommended by Professor Andy Schoenholtz and others, and the establishment of a more diverse and representative Appellate Division that acts like an independent Federal Court to rein in those judges who are unfairly treating asylum applicants and force them to correctly and fairly apply the law, there will be a return of meaningful judicial dialogue and deliberation which leads to progress over time.

Notably, in Isaac’s case, the system actually worked! After many months of expensive, wasteful, and unnecessary detention and an incorrect decision below, the BIA summarily corrected the Immigration Judge’s clearly erroneous denial of Isaac’s asylum case. But corrective action by the BIA to bring anti-asylum judicial “outliers” under control is exactly what Sessions has disabled in his decision in Matter of A-B-. He basically encourages “worst practices” and enables biased Immigration Judges while criticizing the BIA’s modest attempts to bring legality and order to an out of control system. What an outrageous perversion of justice and Due Process by someone who constantly makes bogus claims to be “enforcing the rule of law!”

Additionally, by returning control over dockets and court administration to sitting judges, rather than non-judicial DOJ politicos and their agency subordinates, an independent Immigration Court can make progress toward reducing backlogs while promoting, rather than “demoting,” Due Process.

The current Immigration Court System is a farce that should outrage and disgust every fair-minded American! It will continue to malfunction and deny Due Process until we have an independent Immigration Court where all judges are required to respect the Constitution and the individual rights of those coming before them.

Join the “New Due Process Army” and force the Immigration Courts and the Article IIIs to live up to their unfilled promise of “guaranteeing fairness and Due Process for all!”

PWS

10-09-18

JUDICIAL CATASTROPHE: By Any Sane Standard, The U.S. Immigration Court In Baltimore Is A Total Administrative Disaster – But, That Hasn’t Stopped White Nationalist AG Jeff Sessions From Demanding That The Already Overworked & Demoralized Judges Forget About Fundamental Fairness & “Just Pedal Faster!” — “All this is going to be litigated at taxpayers’ expense, but it’s all in the effort to fulfill a political promise,” Says Retired Judge John Gossart, Jr.!

https://news.vice.com/en_us/article/xw94ea/leaked-report-shows-the-utter-dysfunction-of-baltimores-immigration-court

Ani Ucar reports for Vice News in an article featuring quotes from “Our Gang” members retired U.S. Immigration Judges Jeffrey Chase and John Gossart, as well as current (soon to be retired, perhaps?) Judge Denise Slavin:

By Ani Ucar Oct 3, 2018

Overwhelmed immigration courts are a national problem, and the growing backlog means an average immigration case is waiting in court for a record 717 days, as of 2018, according to Syracuse University.

But Maryland, with its more than 34,000 pending cases, has the fastest-growing backlog, largely because its sole immigration court, the Baltimore Immigration Court, is one of the most beleaguered and understaffed in the country, according to a confidential Department of Justice review obtained by VICE News.

ADVERTISEMENT

VICE News first obtained a heavily redacted version of the report through a records request but later obtained an uncensored version of the review, which paints a portrait of dysfunction at one of the busiest immigration courts in the country.

Completed in 2018 and covering the years 2014 to 2017, the review shows a department so understaffed that basic functions such as address changes or orders to appear in court were not processed or sent out as caseloads piled up. Failing to process key documents could deny migrants the opportunity to be heard in court. “Poor management of this core process leads to additional work for the Court and can result in respondents being ordered removed in absentia through no fault of their own,” the report says.

Read: Being a kid is a “negative factor” under Trump’s new immigration rule

As the court’s caseload mounted, the number of sitting judges stayed the same, fluctuating between four and five. As a point of reference, Chicago’s immigration court, which has a comparable caseload, has twice the number of sitting judges.

NO HABLA ESPAÑOL

The court’s office had no Spanish speakers on staff, even though 84 percent of its cases involved a respondent who only spoke Spanish. The equipment in the office was dated and often nonfunctional. “The two existing HP copiers in the Baltimore Court have had numerous issues and there have been literally days when the Court is unable to use either copier,” the report said.

A lack of administrative staff meant boxes with thousands of documents were left sitting on the floor or on top of file cabinets, and the report describes “hallway space filled with files, file carts, printers and the like.”

One judge currently on the court told VICE News that as cases and administrative work piles up, the court may not be able to provide due process.

“I’m happy to be retirement-eligible, and quite frankly a lot of us are,” said Baltimore Immigration Judge Denise N. Slavin, who spoke to VICE News in her capacity as president emeritus of the National Association of Immigration Judges. “I feel like if I get pushed to a point to violate due process, or I’m being disciplined for not doing something that I thought would violate due process, I would be able to leave.”

Read: This toddler got sick in ICE detention. Two months later she was dead

As bad as it’s been in the Baltimore Immigration Court, it’s about to get worse. On Monday, a new policy backed by Attorney General Jeff Sessions went into effect mandating that the nation’s roughly 330 immigration judges process at least 700 cases per year. The Department of Justice has said it will hire 100new immigration judges this calendar year to help with the backlog, but current and former immigration judges say more judges without commensurate support staff will only add to the problem.

The confidential report on the Baltimore Immigration Office was performed by a court administrator at the request of the Office of the Chief Immigration Judge, a branch of the DOJ. Unlike state or federal courts, immigration courts are part of the Department of Justice, and therefore part of the executive branch of government.

SURGING CASES

The review took place in November and December of last year, and focused on the time period from 2014-2017, when the Baltimore Immigration Court caseload nearly quadrupled.

Though the caseload was rising during that period, the court was shedding staff: They lost seven full-time permanent employees. “The shortage of staff in the Baltimore Court was so severe the Court did not have enough employees to manage the Court’s core processes,” the report says.

The report coincides with a 2014 surge of crossings at the U.S.-Mexico border. Baltimore’s caseload began to grow rapidly afterward. Despite having completed 33.11 percent more cases from 2015 to 2016 combined, the court’s efforts were not enough to keep pace with the mounting backlog. At the end of 2014, the court had 8,331 pending cases, and by December 2017 the pending caseload jumped to 29,184, according to the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse database, or TRAC, at Syracuse University.

“It feels like you are being buried alive”

Backlogs in the immigration courts have historically been impacted by shifting migration patterns, immigration policy changes, and hiring freezes on judges and staff. But since President Trump took office in 2017, the number of pending cases in immigration courts has increased 41 percent, bringing the total to 764,561 as of August 31, 2018, according to TRAC.

“It feels like you are being buried alive,” said Los Angeles Immigration Judge Ashley Tabaddor, speaking as president of the National Association of Immigration Judges. “It’s like this tsunami of cases that just never goes away, and instead of [us] being helped, the department is just adding more pressure.”

QUOTA SYSTEM

Sessions has said the quota system will help cut down the record-high backlog, but immigration judges, both current and retired, have pushed back, saying the standard would threaten due process and judicial independence.

“There’s an overabundance of attention on efficiency and there seems to be little to no concern from higher-ups on getting the decisions right,” said retired New York City Immigration Judge Jeffrey S. Chase.

Read: Jeff Sessions wants to remove immigration judges who aren’t deporting people fast enough

Baltimore’s immigration court is relatively small, but it has been operating with a caseload similar to that of a large immigration court. While more populous states have a number of immigration courts—there are seven courts in California, for instance, and six in New York—the Baltimore facility is the only one in Maryland.

The report describes at length how staff failed to maintain order as paperwork grew. “As of early December 2017, there were approximately 700-1,000 additional filings sitting in the Court that are made up of EOIR-28s, EOIR-33s, returned notices, general correspondence and motions that have not been processed,” the report says. (An EOIR-28 is a notice of appearance in court. An EOIR-33 is a change-of-address form.)

“How the Baltimore court manages motions still needs improvement. Poor management of this core responsibility leads to additional work for the Court, and it sends the message to the private bar and to DHS that the Court is not organized and cannot be relied on,” the report said.

The Department of Justice declined to comment on the report.

At the time of the review, the Baltimore court had 24,142 pending cases in which the respondent spoke Spanish but no Spanish-speakers on staff. At one point, the staff resorted to pulling two judges off the bench to help the front desk with translation needs, said one EOIR employee.

Other times they had to enlist the help of someone in the waiting room to interpret for people. “Sometimes they were not getting the best information or even accurate information about their case,” said the EOIR employee.

“Recruitment of a Spanish Interpreter should be a priority,” the report says, but that position has yet to be filled.

All these issues are expected to worsen with the rollout of the quota system. “We’ll have preliminary success with getting a large number of cases out and temporarily reduce the backlog, but ultimately a large number of those cases will come back on appeal, thus making the backlog even worse,” Slavin said.

At the end of the day, the taxpayer will be on the hook for the cost of the immigration policy, said retired Baltimore immigration judge F. Gossart Jr. “All this is going to be litigated at taxpayers’ expense, but it’s all in the effort to fulfill a political promise.”

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

Wow! An Attorney General who consistently shows bias and maliciousness combined with incompetence. What a horrible combination! And throw into the mix a complete abdication of oversight functions by the GOP-controlled Congress.

Sessions is pouring taxpayer money down the drain in an effort to actually make the system more dysfunctional and less fair. It’s the type of fraudulent, wasteful, and abusive conduct that in normal times might result in criminal prosecutions and jail sentences. We also know that he is promoting similar dysfunction in the criminal justice system with his inane and ineffective “zero tolerance” policy that has also made him the nation’s most notorious un-prosecuted child abuser. Yet, Sessions walks free, while the victims of his misconduct, many vulnerable children and women merely seeking the justice to which they are entitled, rot in his “New American Gulag” and/or suffer grossly substandard “justice” in a totally out of control charade of a “court system” where Due Process is mocked every day.

When the only thing that keeps you going is the knowledge that you can retire any day, you know that your job is really screwed up! (Hint to the un-retired but eligible: The very best time to retire is before you get to the foregoing point.)

If this isn’t your vision of America, then take Willie Nelson’s advice and “Vote ‘Em Out.”

PWS

10-04-18

“A new and dark era as Immigration Judges,” Says Judge A. Ashley Tabaddor, NAIJ President!

Dear Colleagues,

October 1^st marked a new and dark era as Immigration Judges. The Agency is now subjecting us to quotas and deadlines as part of our individual performance evaluations, something that is inherently in conflict with our oath of office(which is the very reason why Congress explicitly excluded ANY individual performance measures for Administrative Law Judges). NAIJ has largely concluded the bargaining with the Agency on “impact and implementation” of these quotas and deadlines and continues to express (to the Agency and the public) our strenuous disagreement with the concept of quotas and deadlines as a matter of principle. However, to the extent that we remain a part of the Department of Justice and are treated as DOJ attorneys (in spite of being judges in our duties and responsibilities), our legal recourse of action is confined to labor laws, which are designed for traditional labor/management relationships and do not deal with issues of judicial independence. Thus, unless and until the Agency takes an adverse action against a particular judge (or Congress steps in with the durable solution of removing the Immigration Court from the Justice Department), we cannot file any grievance or complaints (including the suggestion of several of our judges to file for intentional infliction of emotional distress, which appears to be prohibited by the Federal Torts Claims Act). Thus, we have spent many hours in the past months in bargaining and informal discussions to minimize the impact of this ill-conceived program. We have been able to help craft more favorable interpretations of what will satisfy the metrics, improved the content and design of the Dashboard to make it more user friendly, and been able to point out shortcomings and flaws which we still seek to improve or eliminate. The MOU you will see shortly has been negotiated as an adjunct to Article 22 of the Collective Bargaining Agreement which provides protections for judges in the performance evaluation process. We entered into the MOU in the hopes of improving the position of judges by clarifying that the quotas and deadlines do not stand alone, but must be read in conjunction with specific consideration of each judge’s docket and consistent with Article 22.3.h. We expect the MOU will help provide judges with a measure of protection and help reconcile the quotas and deadlines with the individual demands of our individual dockets and courts. Additionally, the MOU provides for a continuing forum for the NAIJ to raise concerns with the Agency about the operation of the Dashboard or application of performance measures, both on a general level and on behalf of any individual judge. So your continued feedback to NAIJ is a critical part of this process.

Meanwhile I cannot emphasize enough that your oath of office should be your guiding principle throughout these challenging times. As I have said many times before, so long as you put in an honest day’s work and stay true to your oath of office, we will stand by you 100% of the time. “Due process” is the beginning and the end of the conversation. Period. Full Stop.

Thank you for those of you who have been sharing with us your experiences with the Dashboard and your ACIJs regarding the CBA Article 22.3.h. Please keep them coming as we want to make sure that any problematic patterns or practices of the Agency are noted and resolved early.

We also understand that many of you are seeking guidance on how to best navigate this new system. We do have some suggestions for you which we plan to share in our upcoming Q&A sessions on the implementation of the Quotas and Deadlines. I have included a couple of attachments that may also be of help to you in identifying the data entry error or track the 22.3.h factors that your ACIJs should be considering. So please mark your calendars, and plan on joining us for at least one of the sessions.

Wednesday, October 10^th 8:00 a.m. PT, 9:00 a.m. MT, 10:00 a.m. CT, 11:00 a.m. ET

Wednesday, October 10^th 9:00 a.m. PT, 10:00 a.m. MT, 11:00 a.m. CT, 12:00 p.m. ET

Wednesday, October 10^th, 10:00 a.m. PT, 11:00 a.m. MT, noon CT, 1:00 p.m. ET

Thursday, October 11^th, 11:00 a.m. PT, noon MT, 1:00 p.m. CT, 2:00 p.m. ET

Thursday, October 11^th, noon PT, 1:00 p.m. MT, 2:00 p.m. CT, 3:00 p.m. ET

The call-in information for each of the scheduled sessions is as follows: (605) 475-4001 & passcode: 765103#

If you have any questions in advance that you would like for us to address during a meeting, feel free to forward it to my attention.

Thank you for all of your hard work.

Ashley

The Honorable A. Ashley Tabaddor, President

National Association of Immigration Judges

606 S. Olive St., 15^th floor

www.naij-usa.org

213-534-4491 (direct office line)

BEST E-MAIL: ashleytabaddor@gmail.com

DISCLAIMER: The author is the President of the National Association of Immigration Judges. 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 the author’s personal opinions, which were formed after extensive consultation with the membership of NAIJ.

P.S. Please let your fellow NAIJ members know about these call-in session. Should you hear of any NAIJ member who may not have received this email, please let me knowasap and feel free to forward to them as well. Thank you.

From: Ortiz-Ang, Susana (EOIR)
Sent: Monday, October 01, 2018 3:07 PM
To: All of Judges (EOIR) <All_of_Judges@EOIR.USDOJ.GOV>
Cc: Keller, Mary Beth (EOIR) <MaryBeth.Keller@EOIR.USDOJ.GOV>; Wilson, Donna L. (EOIR) <Donna.Wilson@EOIR.USDOJ.GOV>
Subject: New Performance Measures (On Behalf of Mary Beth Keller, Chief Immigration Judge)

Judges,

Please see the below and attached.

Today, the new performance measures, as incorporated in Element 3 of your Performance Work Plan, become effective. The new Element 3 is attached to this e-mail and will be appended to each of your PWPs. The implementation of these new performance measures is part of a larger effort to make changes across the Agency to better enable us to meet our mission, to fairly and expeditiously adjudicate immigration cases. You are and always have been a dedicated and professional corps, with the competence and integrity to render decisions that are both “timely and impartial,” as required by the regulations. Historically, IJs have been held accountable in performance Element 3 to make timely rulings and decisions as well as to manage calendars efficiently. These measures simply define these goals more specifically in the present day.

I wanted to emphasize a few important points that you also may have heard from your ACIJ during your court meetings:

-Decisions should not be made on individual matters based solely on the performance measures. We remain committed to ensuring due process in each case.

– I hope that each of you has taken an opportunity to review the IJ Performance Data Dashboard (“Dashboard”), which is linked to the OCIJ intranet page under “Quick Links.” Please keep in mind that the Dashboard is not your performance rating. It displays data from CASE as it relates to your progress towards meeting the established goals and benchmarks in Element 3 of the PWP. The new measures apply to your performance for the second year of this cycle, from Oct. 1, 2018 to September 30, 2019. Your overall performance rating will be determined at the end of the two-year rating cycle (ending September 30, 2019), considering your performance in all three elements of the PWP.

– The Dashboard is one day behind. Therefore today it shows data as of September 30, 2018. Tomorrow, it will “zero out,” and show data as of October 1. As of tomorrow, only actions you take from October 1 forward should appear on the Dashboard.

– In addition to the Definitions document that I circulated on September 10 (and attached again here), with the input of NAIJ, we have developed a Frequently Asked Questions (“FAQ”) document, which I have attached here as well. We continue to tweak the data captured in the Dashboard to ensure that it accurately reflects the Definitions document and the FAQ document. We encourage you to bring data issues to the attention of your ACIJ.

– Please carefully review not only the new PWP Element 3, but also Article 22 of the Collective Bargaining Agreement between the Agency and NAIJ. In particular, in Article 22.3.h., the Agency has agreed to take into account a number of factors that may affect an IJ’s ability to meet the performance standards, including factors not in control of the IJ.

– We have concluded our discussions with NAIJ, and in the near future, we will publish on the intranet the Memorandum of Understanding that both parties agreed to at the conclusion of bargaining. Please review this document carefully when it becomes available.

– We welcome your input throughout the year. We want to hear about the circumstances you feel are hindering your efforts to reach the goals and benchmarks. We also want to hear your suggestions for making the courts and our processes more efficient, and more generally how the courts can better meet our mission.

– If there is something systemic or frequently recurring that you believe is interfering with your ability to meet the measures, please raise your concern with your ACIJ.

– Please be patient, especially during the rollout and at the end of the first quarter, when numbers are likely to be low due to holidays and leave.

Thank you.

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

So, Chief Immigration Judge Marybeth Keller says decisions shouldn’t be made based “solely on the performance measures.” In other words, performance measures can be a basis for decisions so long as the IJ doesn’t identify them as the “sole” basis.

There would be no need for “performance measures” at all unless those imposing them intended that they influence or control results. What kind of “performance measure” isn’t geared at influencing or shaping the “end product” of the “performance.” Or, perhaps the theory of DOJ/EOIR management is that IJs as a group are a bunch of lazy work shirkers who won’t put in a full day’s effort unless watched and threatened at all times with sophomoric “big brother type performance dashboards.”

Maybe that is the purpose of the “IJ Performance Data Dashboard.” This “Dashboard” is a remarkable achievement for an agency that still hasn’t been able to roll out a finalized version of an e-filing system. Clearly it’s a matter of “priorities;” fair adjudication and service to the public obviously aren’t among them!

The purpose of the Dashboard is appparently to insure that the stress levels build and that “judges” remain focused on achieving their “performance goals” (and hence keeping their jobs) rather than on the merits or justice in a particular case. Indeed, in a “real” court system judges would be encouraged to focus solely on providing fair and impartial adjudications in accordance with Due Process and the technology would be devoted exclusively to that end. “Production data,” while perhaps interesting from an intellectual or self-evaluation standpoint, actually has little or nothing to do with justice in a particular case.

Everyone who loses a case in this amazingly depressing “kangaroo court” system should file a petition for review citing the inherent Due Process flaw in having a “judge” who can’t possibly function as an “impartial” adjudicator as required both by the Constitution and by DOJ regulations. Maybe at some point the Article IIIs will fully understand the judicial farce in which they are complicit and act accordingly.

PWS

10-03-18

ANGELO PAPARELLI: The Real “Con Job” Is An Immigration “Court” Lacking Independent Jurists & Run By A Closed Minded Anti-Immigrant Partisan Politico!

https://www.nationofimmigrators.com/immigration-courts/the-long-lived-con-job-structural-injustice-in-the-immigration-courts/

Last week, President Trump held an 81-minute press conference. He traversed wide-ranging territory, including his notions of procedural due process. Discussing the importance of fundamental fairness when trying to distinguish facts from falsehoods, he said:PRES. TRUMP:

Somebody could come and say 30 years ago, 25 years ago, 10 years ago, 5 years ago, he did a horrible thing to me. He did this, he did that, he did that and, honestly, it’s a very dangerous period in our country. And it’s being perpetuated by some very evil people — some of them are Democrats, I must say — because some of them know that this is just a game that they’re playing. It’s a con game. It’s at the highest level. We’re talking about the United States Supreme Court. . . .

I’ve used much worse language in my life than “con job.” That’s like probably the nicest phrase I’ve ever used. I mean con job — it is. It’s a con job. You know confidence. It’s a confidence job, but they — it’s a con job by the Democrats. They know it.

Although clearly referring to recent charges of decades-old sexual wrongdoing against Supreme Court nominee, Judge Brett Kavanaugh, the president could have been discussing credibility determinations that arise every business day in our nation’s administrative tribunals that are euphemistically called immigration “courts.” The hearings and proceedings in the immigration courts raise one of the highest of stakes, deportation (or as it’s technically termed, removal) from the United States, a process which the Supreme Court in Fong Haw Tan v. Phelan, 333 U.S. 6, 10 (1948), described as “a drastic measure and at times the equivalent of banishment or exile,” and in Ng Fung Ho v. White, 259 U.S. 276, 284 (1922), as a theft of liberty that “may result … in loss of both property and life, or of all that makes life worth living.”

Yet immigration hearings are all too often a con job — not necessarily for any lack of effort at fairness and truth-ferreting by the actual participants, the immigration judges, and the attorneys representing the federal government and the hapless noncitizen known as the “respondent” who must appear in person and respond to one or more allegations that s/he is in the U.S. unlawfully and thus deportable. No, the unfairness is baked into the immigration court system; it’s a feature, not a bug. It was willfully designed by a long-forgotten Congress to be structurally unfair, and intentionally to omit the essential requirement of procedural due process. That is, that the fact-finder — the judge — must be independent and impartial, leaning neither in favor nor against one side or the other. In immigration courts, however, the immigration judge and the “trial attorney,” or counsel for the government, are both Executive-Branch employees. Immigration judges are Department of Justice lawyers appointed by the U.S. Attorney General. Trial attorneys – who often later become immigration judges – are employed by the Department of Homeland Security and are part of U.S. Customs and Immigration Enforcement.

The Attorney General has the power to fire and remove immigration judges, or, on his unexplained whimsy, to punitively relocate them to hear cases at remote detention facilities in the U.S. hinterlands. As seen in recent months by the incumbent Attorney General Jeff Sessions, the AG has approved the imposition of work load production quotas on immigration judges, which inevitably will lead to even more abbreviated hearings, rushed oral and written decisions by immigration judges, and – all too often – reversible errors that must be rectified by the Board of Immigration Appeals and the federal appellate courts, including the Supreme Court.

The present AG has gone even further in advancing his activist agenda, e.g., on August 16 in Matter of L-A-B-R- et al., 27 I&N Dec. 405 (A.G. 2018), by limiting the authority of immigration judges to find good cause to grant continuances, and on June 11, in Matter of A- B,  27 I&N Dec. 316 (A.G. 2018), by taking away the power of immigration judges to find female victims of domestic violence abroad whom the foreign police will not or cannot protect as a social group deserving of protection under the asylum laws of the United States.

Indeed, the con job is even more atrocious because the power of the Attorney General in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) seems to have been inspired by no less a legal authority than Humpty Dumpty:

‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’

‘The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’

‘The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.’

Alice in Wonderland, by Lewis Carroll (Ch. 6)(italics in the original).

The “master” — according to INA § 103(a)(1)  — the arbiter of the meaning of words carrying immigration-related legal consequences, at least for now, is the incumbent, AG Jeff Sessions:

The Attorney General shall be charged with the administration and enforcement of this Act and all other laws relating to the immigration and naturalization of aliens, except insofar as this Act or such laws relate to the powers, functions, and duties conferred upon the President, the Secretary of State, the officers of the Department of State, or diplomatic or consular officers: Provided, however, That determination and ruling by the Attorney General with respect to all questions of law shall be controlling (emphasis added).

Many respected commissions, organizations and individuals have long assailed the systemic deficiencies that make our nation’s administrative system for procedural fairness in deportation proceedings unfair and ineffective (including, Kip T. Bollins, The President of the Federal Bar Association which has proposed model legislation, the Board of Governors of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, the Alliance of Business Immigration Lawyers, the National Immigrant Justice Center, and Ashley Tabaddor, President of the National Association of Immigration Judges, in recent congressional testimony) – a broken and unjust process that by now can only be seen as a con job.

In 1981, Rev. Theodore M. Hesburgh, President of the University of Notre Dame, chaired the Select Commission on U.S. Immigration and Refugee Policy, which issued a 467-page report. The report contained a recommendation (23 VII.C.I.) on the re-positioning of the immigration court from the Justice Department into an independent judicial tribunal:  “The Select Commission recommends that existing law be amended to create an immigration court under Article I of the U.S. Constitution.” The Commission explained its reasoning in Article 23 VII.C.I., page 248, entitled “Structure for Immigration Hearings and Appeals”:

The Select Commission is convinced of the need for a more equitable and efficient method of processing exclusion and deportation cases. Some Commissioners believe that the answer lies in the creation of a U.S. Immigration Board, with statutory independence from INS [Immigration and Naturalization Service] and the Attorney General, subject to the requirements of the Administrative Procedures Act. Such a mechanism, the Commission members argue, would also be an ideal body for adjudicating noncriminal actions taken against employers under an employer sanctions system. A majority of Commissioners, however, is of the view that such a solution would still suffer from many of the current administrative inadequacies. The institution of an Immigration Court under Article I of the U.S. Constitution, they believe, would result in more efficient and uniform processing of cases. . . .

The Immigration Court recommended by the Commission will include a trial division to hear and decide exclusion and deportation cases and an appellate division to correct hearing errors and permit definitive, nationally binding resolutions of exclusion and deportation cases.* The new court also offers the potential for introducing judicial uniformity into the review of denials of applications and petitions — matters that now occupy the attention of district courts around the country. The elimination of potential disparate rulings by courts of appeals should discourage further litigation. The Commission majority is also of the view that an Article I Immigration Court is more likely to attract outstanding adjudicators. Improvements in the caliber of personnel will enhance the quality of decisions and generally: eliminate any need for further review. Some Commissioners believe that if the Article I Court cannot be instituted for several years, interim measures should be taken to improve the competency of the existing INS.

*The remedy of Supreme Court review by petition for certiorari would remain available for the rare immigration case of great national importance; review of immigration decisions, by U.S. Courts of Appeals would be eliminated.

Congress should of course consider and debate the merits of the Commission’s sub-recommendations. (I would not eliminate the right of petition to the federal appeals courts for the very reason that many immigration rulings are of great national importance and the U.S. Supreme Court’s docket cannot accommodate them.) Still, the fundamental proposition urged by the Select Commission – to remove the immigration courts from the oversight of the Attorney General, and instead structure it as an Article I court – is supported by a multitude of contemporary stakeholders.

One leading voice is Hilarie Bass, President of the American Bar Association (ABA), who offered in her April 18, 2018 Statement submitted to the Senate Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Border Security and Immigration Committee, “Strengthening And Reforming America’s Immigration Court System,” the ABA’s compelling reasons:

[The ABA] determined that the Article I model presented the best option for meeting the goals and needs of the system. The Article I model is likely to be viewed as more independent than an agency because it would be a true judicial body; is likely as such to engender the greatest level of confidence in its results; can use its greater prestige to attract the best candidates for judgeships; and offers the best balance between independence and accountability to the political branches of the federal government. Given these advantages, in our view, the Article I court model is the preferred option.

. . . Removing the adjudication system from the Department of Justice, whose primary function is a law enforcement agency, is vital to assuaging concerns about fairness and the perception of fairness. As a wholly judicial body, an Article I court is likely to engender the greatest level of confidence in the results of adjudication.

An Article I court also should attract highly-qualified judicial candidates and help to further professionalize the immigration judiciary. History has shown the potential for the politicization of the hiring process and an inherent bias toward the hiring of current or former government employees. Removing the hiring function from the Department of Justice also may increase the diversity of the candidate pool. Providing for a set term of sufficient length, along with protections against removal without cause, will similarly protect decisional independence and
make Article I judgeships more attractive. By attracting and selecting the highest quality lawyers as judges, an Article I court is more likely to produce well-reasoned decisions. Such decisions, as well as the handling of the proceedings in a professional manner, should improve the perception of the fairness and accuracy of the result. Perceived fairness, in turn, should lead to greater acceptance of the decision without the need to appeal to a higher tribunal. When appeals are taken, more articulate decisions should enable the reviewing body at each level to be more efficient in its review and decision-making and should result in fewer remands requesting additional explanations or fact-finding.

Unfortunately, Attorney General Sessions seems mired in a false equivalency, asserting that anyone opposing his views on immigration must ipso facto be a proponent of unregulated open borders. He made this clear recently in his remarks welcoming 44 new immigration judges, characterizing immigration lawyers not as officers of the court but as single-objective advocates (essentially as mouthpieces) who will do or say anything to win in immigration court:

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 INA to advance their clients’ interests. Theirs is not the duty to uphold the integrity of the [INA]. That is our most serious duty.

He said other disturbing things as well in addressing the new immigration judges:

You have an obligation to decide cases efficiently and to keep our federal laws functioning effectively, fairly, and consistently.

And, 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 last provision gives me responsibility to ensure that our immigration system operates in an effective and efficient manner consistent with law enacted by Congress. Many in this country take a different view. They object to any enforcement that works. They evidence an open borders philosophy. . . .

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. I do not apologize for expecting you to perform, at a high level, efficiently and effectively.

Your role requires great legal skill. Many of the cases present complex legal issues, but like anyone acting as a judge, you must manage your docket and support staff well.Cases must be moved to conclusion.

And as members of the Executive Branch, it is our duty to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” 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.

As we work to restore rule of law in our immigration system, we will send a clear message to the world that the lawless practices of the past are over. The world will know what our rules are, and great numbers will no longer undertake this dangerous journey.

To be sure, the world — indeed, the American people — should know what our rules are. They should also know Lord that their ability to make the arduous journey to settle in America pursuing their opportunity under the facts in their case and our immigration laws to live out the American Dream will be decided by an impartial jurist in an independent tribunal. This is not our fathers’ immigration system. It cannot be learned by a three-year-old. Its laws should not be declared by any Attorney General. Congress must end this con job.

PWS

10-02-18

JOIN AILA AND OTHER ORGANIZATIONS IN MAKING OCT. 1, 2018 A “DAY OF PROTEST” AGAINST THE WHITE NATIONALIST, ANTI-DUE-PROCESS POLICIES OF JEFF SESSIONS WHICH HAVE DESTROYED JUSTICE IN THE US IMMIGRATION COURT SYSTEM!

https://www.aila.org/dueprocess

AILA Calls for Independent Immigration Courts

AILA Doc. No. 18092834 | Dated September 29, 2018 | File Size: 759 K

DOWNLOAD THE DOCUMENT

Beginning today – October 1, 2018 – Attorney General Sessions is requiring all immigration judges to meet performance-based case completion quotas, which means the judges are forced to complete a certain number of cases or face discipline. This astounding move has been called “death knell for judicial independence” by the National Association of Immigration Judges, and means judges will compelled to rush through these often life-or-death cases.

The imposition of quotas is just the latest in a series of policy changes implemented in the past year that undermine judicial independence, threaten due process, and prevent people from getting a fair day in court. Because immigration courts are housed under the Department of Justice, the very same law enforcement agency that is charged with prosecuting immigration cases in federal courts, the Attorney General has authority over both the prosecutors and judges in immigration cases. Attorney General Sessions has wielded this considerable power to not only impose quotas, but also pluck no less than six cases from the judges to decide himself, to reassign judges away from particular cases, and to implement policies that emphasize quantity over quality.

In the face of this unprecedented attack on our judiciary, more than 1,000 AILA members are submitting a letter to Attorney General Sessions asking that he support the creation of an independent, Article I court system that can ensure due process and fundamental fairness. Justice demands nothing less.

AILA Policy Brief

Resources Coming Soon

AILA Press Statement

Letter from over 1,000 AILA members calling for independent immigration courts

Talking Points

Sample Letter to the Editor

Tweetstorm

AILA will be hosting a Tweetstorm on Monday, October 1, 2018, from 1:00 – 3:00 pm (ET) to speak out against the implementation of the quotas on immigration judges.

Participate in AILA’s #ProtectDueProcess & #JudicialIndependence Tweetstorm Monday, October 1, 2018, from 1:00 – 3:00pm (ET) by:

Using the sample tweets below and accompanying graphics.

Creating your own tweets using the hashtags #ProtectDueProcess or #JudicialIndependence; or

Retweeting @AILANational, @AILAExecDir, or @GregChenAILA

SAMPLE TWEETS – DO NOT USE UNTIL MONDAY TWEETSTORM

The only benchmark for #immigration judges should be to #ProtectDueProcess. Imposing case competition quotas does just the opposite. Read @AILANational’s policy brief: http://ow.ly/zQD230lZ5uD

A judge’s decision can carry life-or-death consequences. This is why we must #ProtectDueProcess in our immigration court system. Read @HispanicCaucus’ letter to #DOJ: http://ow.ly/5VEH30lZ5xG

More than 120 #immigration law scholars and professors denounced #DOJ’s plan to impose case completion quotas to measure #immigration judges’ performance out of concern that it would undermine #JudicialIndependence in immigration courts. http://ow.ly/lKt130m0mwR

For months, Attorney General Jeff Sessions has been interfering with #JudicialIndependence and undermining #DueProcess in #immigration courts. @MotherJones explains: http://ow.ly/NSf130lZ7La

With the case completion quotas in effect, #immigration judges will need to finish cases quickly to receive satisfactory performance reviews, forcing them to choose between job security or justice. #ProtectDueProcess http://ow.ly/NSf130lZ7La via @MotherJones

Judge Ashley Tabaddor, President of the National Association of #Immigration Judges, explains why NAIJ is speaking out against recent policy changes that undermine #JudicialIndependence: “We are essentially then prosecutors in a judge’s robe.” https://lat.ms/2xGkWUm

AG Sessions went ahead and imposed case completion quotas without input from the very people they will affect: #immigration judges! That is no way to uphold #JudicialIndependence and integrity. Read more: http://ow.ly/VbSj30lZgwf
Members of the law community, including the National Association of Immigration Judges, are advocating for an #immigration court system that is independent of #DOJ, as AG Sessions undermines #JudicialIndependence. http://ow.ly/eFhQ30lZ9l9

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

STAND UP FOR DUE PROCESS — STOP JEFF SESSIONS & HIS WHITE NATIONALIST RESTRICTIONIST AGENDA!

PWS

10-01-18

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Sitting in judgment

‘Best of luck to you and your family’

An uncertain future

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Immigration Court Backlog Surpasses One Million Cases

Pending Cases Represent More Than Five Years of Backlogged Work

Why Does the Backlog Continue To Rise?

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

NO HABLA ESPAÑOL

SURGING CASES

QUOTA SYSTEM

Related posts:

I wanted to emphasize a few important points that you also may have heard from your ACIJ during your court meetings:

– We have concluded our discussions with NAIJ, and in the near future, we will publish on the intranet the Memorandum of Understanding that both parties agreed to at the conclusion of bargaining. Please review this document carefully when it becomes available.

– Please be patient, especially during the rollout and at the end of the first quarter, when numbers are likely to be low due to holidays and leave.

Thank you.

Related posts:

Related posts:

AILA Calls for Independent Immigration Courts

Resources Coming Soon

Tweetstorm

SAMPLE TWEETS – DO NOT USE UNTIL MONDAY TWEETSTORM

STAND UP FOR DUE PROCESS — STOP JEFF SESSIONS & HIS WHITE NATIONALIST RESTRICTIONIST AGENDA!

Related posts: