"The Voice of the New Due Process Army" ————– Musings on Events in U.S. Immigration Court, Immigration Law, Sports, and Other Random Topics by Retired United States Immigration Judge (Arlington, Virginia) and former Chairman of the Board of Immigration Appeals Paul Wickham Schmidt. To see my complete professional bio, just click on the link below.
Category: National Association of Immigration Judges
CHRISTINA JEWETT AND SHEFALI LUTHRA, REPORT FOR KAISER HEALTH NEWS IN THE TEXAS TRIBUNE:
The Trump administration has summoned at least 70 infants to immigration court for their own deportation proceedings since Oct. 1, according to Justice Department data provided to Kaiser Health News.
These are children who need frequent touching and bonding with a parent and naps every few hours, and some were of breastfeeding age, medical experts say. They’re unable to speak and still learning when it’s day versus night.
“For babies, the basics are really important. It’s the holding, the proper feeding, proper nurturing,” said Shadi Houshyar, who directs early childhood and child welfare initiatives at the advocacy group Families USA.
The number of infants under age 1 involved has been rising — up threefold from 24 infants in the fiscal year that ended last Sept. 30, and 46 infants the year before.
The Texas Tribune thanks its sponsors. Become one.
The Justice Department data show that a total of 1,500 “unaccompanied” children, from newborns to age 3, have been called in to immigration court since Oct. 1, 2015.
Roughly three-fourths of the children involved are represented by a lawyer and they have to make their case that they should stay in the United States.
Officials who review such deportation cases say most children under 1 cross the border with a parent and their deportation cases proceed together.
But some of the infants were deemed “unaccompanied” only after law enforcement separated them from their parents during the Trump administration’s “zero-tolerance” immigration policy. The children were sent to facilities across the U.S. under the supervision of the Department of Health and Human Services.
“This is to some extent a … crisis of the creation of the government,” said Robert Carey, who previously headed the Office of Refugee Resettlement, which takes custody of unaccompanied minors. “It’s a tragic and ironic turn of events.”
Younger children are also considered unaccompanied if they enter the United States with an older family member who is not yet 18. The data do not clarify which children arrived that way or which were separated from their parents.
The Texas Tribune thanks its sponsors. Become one.
The Justice Department did not respond to a request for further data about where the children are housed. They could be in a foster care home, in a group home, with a relative or sponsor, or reunited with a parent. HHS, which operates the refugee resettlement office, did not provide comment by publication time.
In previous statements, the government has argued that separation — and its consequences — are unfortunate but unavoidable under the law.
“There is a surefire way to avoid separation from your children. Present yourself legally … or stay back at your home country, and go through the process others do,” HHS Secretary Alex Azar said on a media call earlier this month. “None of us want children separated from their parents. I want no children in our care and custody.”
The number of unaccompanied children called in to court since Oct. 1, 2015, swells to 2,900 if kids up to 5 are included. The total will rise between now and Sept. 30, when the fiscal year ends, noted Susan Long, a statistician at Syracuse University and director of TRAC, a repository of immigration and federal court data. There’s also an ongoing backlog in entering the data.
In June, a district judge in San Diego ordered the government to reunify families within a month, specifically directing them to unite children younger than 5 with parents by July 10.
HHS reunited about half of those children by July 12 — 57 out of 103. Others, the government said, could not be placed with a parent, citing in some cases “serious criminal history” or parents currently being in jail.
In 12 cases, those children’s parents had already been deported. In another, the government had failed to figure out where the child’s parent was located, and in another, the parent had a “communicable disease,” HHS said.
The Department of Homeland Security, which issues the court orders, also did not respond to a request for comment.
The Texas Tribune thanks its sponsors. Become one.
In the removal cases, children have no right to an appointed lawyer, but rather to a list of legal aid attorneys that the child’s current caregiver can contact.
And young children rarely know the details of why they fled their home country, especially without a parent present, noted Eileen Blessinger, a Virginia-based immigration lawyer who has been aiding parents she was connected with through advocates on the Texas-Mexico border.
“Think about it as a parent. You’re not going to tell your child they might be killed, right?” she said. “A lot of the kids don’t know.”
Immigration court, which is an administrative unit of the Department of Justice, is different from typical courts. It handles “respondents” who may be too young to speak, but has no social workers or legal remedies focused on the best interest of a child.
Lenni Benson, a New York Law School professor and founder of the Safe Passage Project, which provides legal services to migrant youth, said she was recently at a large family detention center in Dilley talking to families. She said it’s rare for the families fleeing violence in Central America to bring infants, given the dangers of the journey, which include risks of abduction and a lack of clean water.
“There are people who do that because they are terrified for their child” in the home country, she said.
Benson recounted being in immigration court in 2014 when a judge asked for a crying baby to be removed from the courtroom. She said she paused to inform the judge that the baby was the next respondent on the docket — and asked that the child’s grandmother stand in.
The stakes for the babies, and any migrant fleeing violence, are high, said Paul Wickham Schmidt, a former immigration judge who retired in 2016 after 13 years on the bench in Arlington, Va.
“Final orders of deportation have consequences,” he said. “For something that has a very serious result, this system has been described as death penalty cases in traffic court.”
Ashley Tabaddor, president of the National Association of Immigration Judges and a judge specializing in juvenile cases in Los Angeles, acknowledged that the Trump administration narrowed a directive on how much judges can assist juveniles in court. Still, she said, judges do their best to ensure that young children get a fair hearing.
Justice Department data show that asylum denials are at a nearly 10-year high at 42 percent, and the Associated Press reported that the administration has raised the bar for making a successful case.
At the same time, children can be strapped for resources, Blessinger said.
She described one client whose 7-year-old daughter received legal support from a New York-based charity. Even in that case, she said, the organization acted simply as a “friend of the court” — rather than a full-fledged attorney — requesting delays in proceedings until the child and mother could be reunited. That finally happened Tuesday night, she said.
“It’s the saddest experience. These people are not going to be recovering anytime soon,” she said. “The parents are crying even after they’re reunited.”
Kaiser Health News (KHN) is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of the Kaiser Family Foundation that is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.
KHN’s coverage of children’s health care issues is supported in part by a grant from the Heising-Simons Foundation.
*******************************************
Stupid policies driven by biased White Nationalist restrictionists squander judicial time, waste resources, make America look dumb!
Contrary to what HHS Secretary Alex Azar says, presenting oneself at a Port of Entry and applying for asylum has been a guarantee neither of prompt and professional processing of asylum applications nor that there will be no family separation. Indeed, the “credible fear” process has now been “gamed” by Sessions and USCIS so that many legitimate asylum applications are summarily denied and the individuals subjected to expedited removal without appeals. And, to date, several “real” Article III Courts (in particular, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals) have “twiddled their thumbs” and failed to intervene to prevent the gross abuses of Due Process and our international obligations being carried out on a daily basis by this Administration.
Infants in court, real substantive asylum claims rejected without hearings — no wonder the U.S. Immigration Court system is broken and there is no time for “real”cases. The long-term solution might well involve more Immigration Judges and staff. But, at this point, that would be “throwing good money after bad.”
Before there can be expansion, the U.S. Immigration Court system needs to be fixed and returned to its original Due Process focus with Immigration Judges in change and empowered to remove cases like this from the active docket and to sanction Government Attorneys (as well as private attorneys) who waste valuable court time with frivolous litigation. Indeed, Congress did provide Immigration Judges with authority to hold attorneys from both sides in contempt. However, the DOJ has thumbed its nose at that statutory authorization over several Administrations and has never implemented the statute. (This is a good example of what the “rule of law” really means in the USDOJ!)
Removing the Immigration Court system from the Executive Branch is a necessary first step in reforming it to serve its original (and only) purpose: guaranteeing Due Process and fairness for all!
Meanwhile, as pointed out by Christina and Shefali, the damage to the health and welfare children and families might be irreparable.
Henry Gass reports for the Christian Science Monitor:
In a federal courtroom in the border city of McAllen, Texas, two weeks ago, 74 migrants waited as Judge J. Scott Thacker confirmed their names and countries of origin. Tired and nervous, the migrants were wearing the clothes they had been arrested in, translation headsets, and ankle chains that clinked as some of them fidgeted.
After having their rights and potential punishments explained to them to them, Judge Thacker asked the seven rows of migrants – mostly from Honduras, El Salvador, or Guatemala – how they wanted to plead. “Culpable,” they all answered. Judge Hacker sentenced almost all of them, row by row, to time already served and a $10 fine.
At one point, a man from Honduras separated from his son explained why they had traveled to the United States. Thacker listened, then addressed the whole room.
“Ladies and gentlemen, I am not a [specialist] immigration judge; I am not in the immigration system,” he said. “Once you enter the immigration system you can explain your situation to them.”
In immigration court in San Antonio, a few hours north, Judge Charles McCullough is working through cases from the summer of 2017.
Over three hours, he moves smoothly through hearings for a dozen people. One man accepts voluntary departure to Mexico, but then things get complicated. One case has to be postponed because of irregular paperwork. Another sparks a brief debate over whether a US Supreme Court decision last year means it can be thrown out. His final hearing is a mother and two children from Colombia, accused of overstaying their visas. He schedules their next hearing for September.
Staff shortages and an ever-increasing caseload have been problems for years, compounded by successive administrations using the courts to achieve political and policy goals. Cognizant of the burden the immigration court system is under, and the additional strain its stated goal of having zero unauthorized immigration into the US would represent, the Trump administration is going to great lengths to try and streamline immigration court proceedings.
Unlike every other court in the country, immigration courts are part of the executive, not judicial, branch. And the judges who staff those courts are not judges in the common sense, but are employees of the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), a wing of the Justice Department. Thus, Attorney General Jeff Sessions has significant authority to reshape how the courts operate.
The changes the Trump administration is engineering, however, have experts and former immigration judges concerned that the immigration court system could be even more burdened.
“All those weaknesses, those weak points, are being highlighted by the measures this administration is taking,” says Ashley Tabaddor, an immigration judge in Los Angeles and president of the National Association of Immigration Judges.
“The immigration court system is designed to protect the … founding principles of our American democracy,” she adds. “If you don’t care, then that’s the first brick that’s being taken out of the foundation.”
One example of how that system is being strained further is the estimated 3,000 children still separated from the their families by the “zero tolerance” immigration policy. Trump administration officials told a judge Friday they couldn’t comply with a June court order to reunite children under 5 with their families by Tuesday. (Children over 5 are to be reunited by July 26.) At least 19 parents of those children already have been deported without them, according to reports.
“[A] guy that shows up here every day and does this every day has to find hope somewhere…. I’m hoping that maybe the moral outrage associated with what’s happened will be the thing that finally — the catalyst that finally makes us look hard at this immigration system that we all agree needs to be fixed,” Judge Robert Brack of the US District Court of New Mexico told “PBS Newshour.”
720,000-case backlog
On the day he retired, June 30, 2016, Paul Schmidt was scheduling cases through the end of 2022. In a system with a roughly 720,000-case backlog, according to Syracuse University’s Transactional Records Clearinghouse, it wasn’t an unusual situation. The backlog has been steadily growing for decades, something Mr. Schmidt blames on recent administrations using the courts to respond to urgent political crises.
For example: When thousands of unaccompanied minors from Central America traveled to the border in 2014, the Obama administration told immigration judges to prioritize those cases.
“Each administration comes in and moves their priority to the top of line and everything else goes to the back,” he says. “You have aimless docket reshuffling, and the whole system after a while loses credibility.”
The Trump administration is now doing the same thing, telling immigration courts to prioritize the cases of detained families. But what concerns Schmidt and other former immigration judges even more are changes Mr. Sessions is making to how immigration judges can hear and resolve the cases before them.
. . . .
*******************************************
Read the rest of Henry’s article at the link. It contains quotes from my retired colleagues Judge Carol King, Judge Eliza Klein, and Judge Susan Roy, who are also key members of our “Gang of Retired Judges” who file amicus briefs in support of Due Process in the Immigration Courts.
This quote from Judge Ashley Tabaddor, President of the National Association of Immigration Judges (“NAIJ”) (I am a retired member), says it all:
“The immigration court system is designed to protect the … founding principles of our American democracy,” she adds. “If you don’t care, then that’s the first brick that’s being taken out of the foundation.”
Depressing fact: Far too many Article III Courts — particularly the U.S District Courts at the border participating in the “Kangaroo Court Operation Streamline” — are kowtowing to Sessions and failing to push back against his outrageous misuse of our legal process. Those “go along to get along” judges might discover that life tenure without integrity is a hollow benefit.
Judge Roger Harris, Me, Judge Thomas Snow, & Judge John Milo Bryant (“The Non-Conformist”) head out to lunch on my last day at the Arlington Immigration Court, June 30, 2016
‘Just be a kid, OK?’: Inside children’s immigration hearings
By: Tal Kopan, CNN
As each immigrant child took their seat in his courtroom for their hearing, Judge John M. Bryant started the same way.
“How are you doing today?” he’d ask.
“Muy bien,” most would answer.
In a span of about 45 minutes, Bryant — an immigration judge in Arlington, Virginia — checked in on the cases of 16 immigrants under the age of 20, all with attorneys and some with parents.
The day was known as a “master calendar hearing” — a swift introduction in court and the beginning of court proceedings for immigrants facing deportation.
The children had largely been in the country for some time, each fighting in court for the right to stay.
But though the immigration courts have long dealt with immigrant children, even those barely school age or younger, their turn through the unique, stand-alone immigration courts is getting new attention as the government’s “zero tolerance” border policy has sent thousands more children into the system without their parents.
The hearings were observed by six Democratic members of Congress: Whip Steny Hoyer of Maryland; Rep. Don Beyer, whose Virginia district includes the court; Congressional Hispanic Caucus Chairwoman Rep. Michelle Lujan Grisham of New Mexico; and Reps. Pete Aguilar, Nanette Diaz Barragán and Norma Torres, all of California.
At a news conference afterward, Beyer called the session “One of the best-case scenarios of a master calendar hearing, a sympathetic judge with kids with lawyers.”
The lawmakers said they had wanted to come to the court to witness it for themselves, because they fear that around the country there are too many courtrooms that are the opposite.
“We know that in vast numbers of cases, there is not proper representation,” Hoyer said, adding that some kids are “not old enough to spell their own names, let alone represent themselves in court.”
In each case, the attorneys described waiting for applications filed with the government, and all were quickly given court dates into 2019 to come back for another check-in. One, a boy named José who had just finished ninth grade, was there for his second check-in and for his full asylum hearing received a court date of May 11, 2021 — likely to be just as he is finishing high school in the US.
The youngest was a 6-year-old boy, Rodolfo, who was there with his attorney and father, though Rodolfo’s case was being heard by itself. As he did with most of the children, Bryant asked Rodolfo if he was in school, translated by an interpreter via headphones provided to every immigrant facing the court.
“Hoy?” Rodolfo asked, confused — “Today?”
Bryant cheerfully prompted Rodolfo about what grade he had finished — kindergarten — and his teacher’s name — Ms. Dani. Bryant said he still remembered his own kindergarten teacher, Ms. Sweeney, from many years prior. “Hasta luego,” Bryant told Rodolfo, giving him a next court date of May 30, 2019.
While all the children in Bryant’s courtroom on this afternoon had attorneys, the Arlington Immigration Court is not typical of the country, where closer to 1-in-3 children are represented in court. Bryant was also generous with the continuances requested by attorneys as they waited to hear from the government on applications for other visas for the children, despite uniform opposition by the government attorney in court.
“Mr. Wagner, your turn,” Bryant joked at one point to the government attorney present, who dutifully recited the government’s opposition to granting continuances solely on the basis of waiting to hear back on a visa application. Bryant than immediately picked a day on his calendar for the immigrant and attorney to return.
One attorney for a 12-year-old girl, Rosemary, who was there with her mother, said they had applied for a Special Immigrant Juvenile visa, which is for minors who have been abused, abandoned or neglected by a parent. Bryant asked the attorney if the application was before a “sweet or sour judge.”
“I think it’s going to be a problem. It may have to be appealed,” the attorney replied.
The judge granted them a court date on February 28 of next year.
“Have a nice summer,” he said to the girl. “Just be a kid, OK?”
******************************************
“The lawmakers said they had wanted to come to the court to witness it for themselves, because they fear that around the country there are too many courtrooms that are the opposite.” And, with very good reason!
No trace of the Jeff Sessions’s paranoia, xenophobia, bias, child abuse, and de-humanization of migrants here. It’s like one would expect a “real” U.S. Court to be run! Sadly, that’s not what’s happening in the rest of the country. Just ask folks in Charlotte, Atlanta, Stewart, Ga., or Houston how they are treated by Immigration Judges. It’s ugly, abusive, well documented, highly inappropriate, and needs to end!
Even more outrageously, rather than building on and replicating successful judicial models like Arlington, Sessions has actually adopted some of the worst imaginable “judicial” practices, encouraged bias, and has actually endorsed and empowered the actions of some of the most clearly biased and anti-immigrant, anti-asylum Immigraton Judges in the system. It’s a simply unacceptable waste of taxpayer money and abuse of our legal system by someone incapable of fulfilling his oath of office.
Imagine, with judges actually in control, lawyers for the respondents, time to prepare and file applications, empathy, courtesy, knowledge, kindness, concern for fairness, efficiency, and giving ICE’s obstructionist “rote objections” and other dilatory tactics encouraged and enabled by this Administration exactly the short shrift they so richly deserve, the U.S. Immigration Courts could potentially fulfill their original vision of “becoming the world’s best tribunals, guaranteeing fairness and due process for all.”
And, ICE could be once again required to function in the same highly-professional, courteous, collegial, respectful, and helpful manner that they did in Arlington during the last Administration. It’s disgraceful that rudeness and unfairness have become the norm under Trump. Things like that used to get even Government lawyers fired, disbarred, or disciplined. Now they appear to win kudos.
And, having dockets run by experienced judicial professionals like Judge Bryant with the help of professional staff responsible to him and his colleagues would promote fairness, quality, and efficiency over the “Amateur Night at the Bijou” atmosphere created by a biased, politicized, and totally incompetent Department of Justice and carried out by agency bureaucrats who aren’t judges themselves and are not qualified to administer a major court system.
Why not design a system “built for success” rather one that is built for failure and constant crisis? A well-functioning court system where “Due Process and Quality Are Job One” and which serves as a “level playing field” would actually help DHS Enforcement as well as the immigrants whose lives depend upon it.Fairness and Due Process are good for everyone. It’s also what our Constitution requires! Play the game fairly and professionally and let the chips fall where they may, rather than trying to “game the system” to tilt everything toward enforcement.
But, it’s not going to happen until either 1) Congress creates an independent U.S. Immigration Court, or 2) the Article III Courts finally step up to the plate, put an end to this travesty, remove the DOJ from its totally improper and unethical supervisory role, and place the Immigration Courts under a court-appointed “Special Master” to manage them with the goal of Due Process and judicial efficiency until Congress reorganizes them outside of the Executive Branch! Otherwise, the Article IIIs will have to do the job that Sessions won’t let the Immigration Courts perform!
Compare Judge Bryant’s professional performance with the “judicial meat processing plant/Due Process Denial Factory” being operated by U.S. Magistrate Judge Peter Ormsby on the Southern Border as described by Karen Tumulty of the Washington Post in my post from yesterday:
Who is the “real” judge here? It doesn’t take a “rocket scientist” to answer that one! Just some judges with the backbone, courage, and integrity not to “go along to get along” with Sessions’s assault on the integrity and independence of our justice system.
An attorney recently reported the following: at a Master Calendar hearing, an immigration judge advised that if on the Individual Hearing date, both the court and the ICE attorney do not believe the respondent is prima facie eligible for asylum based on the written submissions, the judge will deny asylum summarily without hearing testimony. The judge stated that other immigration judges around the country were already entering such summary judgments, in light of recent decisions of the Attorney General.
I have been telling reporters lately that no one decision or policy of the AG, the EOIR Director, or the BIA should be viewed in isolation. Rather, all are pieces in a puzzle. Back in March, in a very unusual decision, Jeff Sessions certified to himself a four-year-old BIA precedent decision while it was administratively closed (and therefore off-calendar) at the immigration judge level, and then vacated the decision for the most convoluted of reasons. What jumped out at me was the fact that the decision, Matter of E-F-H-L-, had held that all asylum applicants had the right to a full hearing on their application without first having to establish prima facie eligibility for such relief. It was pretty clear that Sessions wanted this requirement eliminated.
Let’s look at the timeline of recent developments. On January 4 of this year, Sessions certified to himself the case of Matter of Castro-Tum, in which he asked whether immigration judges and the BIA should continue to have the right to administratively close cases, a useful and common docket management tool. On January 19, the BIA published its decision in Matter of W-Y-C- & H-O-B-, in which it required asylum applicants to clearly delineate their claimed particular social group before the immigration judge (an extremely complicated task beyond the ability of most unrepresented applicants), and stated that the BIA will not consider reformulations of the social group on appeal. The decision was written by Board Member Garry Malphrus, a hard-line Republican who was a participant in the “Brooks Brother Riot” that disrupted the Florida ballot recount following the 2000 Presidential election.
On March 5, Sessions vacated Matter of E-F-H-L-. Two days later, on March 7, Sessions certified to himself an immigration judge’s decision in Matter of A-B-, engaging in procedural irregularity in taking the case from the BIA before it could rule on the matter, and then completely transforming the issues presented in the case, suddenly challenging whether anyone fearing private criminal actors could qualify for asylum.
On March 22, Sessions certified to himself Matter of L-A-B-R-et al., to determine under what circumstances immigration judges may grant continuances to respondents in removal proceedings. Although this decision is still pending, immigration judges are already having to defend their decisions to grant continuances to their supervisors at the instigation of the EOIR Director’s Office, which is tracking all IJ continuances.
On March 30, EOIR issued a memo stating that immigration judges would be subjected to performance metrics, or quotas, requiring them to complete 700 cases per year, 95 percent at the first scheduled individual hearing, and further requiring that no more than 15 percent of their decisions be remanded. On May 17, Sessions decided Castro-Tum in the negative, stripping judges of the ability to manage their own dockets by administratively closing worthy cases.
On May 31, Castro-Tum’s case was on the Master Calendar of Immigration Judge Steven Morley. Instead of ordering Castro-Tum deported in absentia that day, the judge continued the proceedings to allow an interested attorney to brief him on the issue of whether Castro-Tum received proper notice of the hearing. Soon thereafter, the case was removed from Judge Morley’s docket and reassigned to a management-level immigration judge who is far less likely to exercise such judicial independence.
On June 11, Sessions decided Matter of A-B-, vacating the BIA’s 2014 decision recognizing the ability of victims of domestic violence to qualify for asylum as members of a particular social group. In that decision, Sessions included headnote 4: “If an asylum application is fatally flawed in one respect, an immigration judge or the Board need not examine the remaining elements of the asylum claim.” The case was intentionally issued on the first day of the Immigration Judges training conference, at which the need to complete more cases in less time was a repeatedly emphasized.
So in summary, within the past few months, the immigration judges have been warned that their livelihood will depend on their completing large numbers of cases, without the ability to grant continuances or administratively close cases. They have had the need to hold a full asylum hearing stripped away, while at the same time, having pointed out to them several ways to quickly dispose of an asylum claim that until weeks ago, would have been clearly grantable under settled case law.
So where does all this leave the individual judges? There has been much discussion lately of EOIR’s improper politicized hirings of immigration judges. I feel that the above developments have created something of a Rorschach test for determining an immigration judge’s ideology.
The judges that conclude from the above the best practice is to summarily deny asylum without testimony are exactly the type of judges the present administration wants on the bench. They can find a “fatal flaw” in the claim – either in the formulation (or lack thereof) of the particular social group, or in the lack of preliminary documentation as to the persecutor’s motive, the government’s inability to protect, or the unreasonableness of internal relocation, and simply deny the right to a hearing. It should be noted that these issues are often resolved by the detailed testimony offered at a full merits hearing, which is the purpose of holding such hearings in the first place.
On the other hand, more thoughtful, liberal judges will find that in light of the above developments, they must afford more time for asylum claims based on domestic violence, gang threats, or other claims involving non-governmental actors. They will conference these cases, and hear detailed testimony from the respondent, country experts, and other witnesses on the particular points raised by Sessions in Matter of A-B-. They may consider alternative theories of these cases based on political opinion or religion. They are likely to take the time to craft thoughtful, detailed decisions. And in doing so, they will find it extremely difficult to meet the completion quotas set out by the agency with Sessions’ blessing. They may also have their decisions remanded by the conservative BIA, whose leadership is particularly fearful of angering its superiors in light of the 2003 purge of liberal BIA members by then-Attorney General John Ashcroft. The removal of Castro-Tum’s case from the docket of Judge Morley is clearly a warning that the agency does not wish for judges to behave as independent and impartial adjudicators, but rather to act in lockstep with the agency’s enforcement agenda.
There is another very significant issue: most asylum claims also apply for protection under Article III of the U.N. Convention Against Torture. Unlike asylum, “CAT” relief is mandatory, and as it does not require a nexus to a protected ground, it is unaffected by the AG’s holding in A-B-. So won’t those judges pondering summary dismissal still have to hold full hearings on CAT protection? It would seem that a refusal to hold a full CAT hearing would result in a remand, if not from the BIA, than at the circuit court level.
Copyright 2018 Jeffrey S. Chase. All rights reserved.
Four Easy, Low Budget, Steps To A Better, Fairer, & More Efficient U.S. Immigration Court System:
Remove Jeff Sessions and all other politicos from control.
Restore Immigration Judges’ authority to “administratively close” cases when necessary to get them off the docket so that relief can be pursued outside the Immigration Court system.
Give Immigration Judges authority to set and control their own dockets, working with Court Administrators and attorneys from both sides (rather than having DHS enforcement policies essentially “drive the docket” as is now the case) to:
Schedule cases in a manner that insures fair and reasonable access to pro bono counsel for everyone prior to the first Master Calendar;
Schedule cases so that pleadings can be taken and applications filed at the first Master Calendar (or the first Master Calendar after representation is obtained);
Schedule Individual Hearings in a manner that will maximize the chances of “completion at the first Individual Hearing” while minimizing “resets” of Individual Hearing cases.
Establish a Merit Selection hiring system for Immigration Judges overseen by the U.S. Circuit Court in the jurisdiction where that Immigration Judge would sit, or in the case of the BIA Appellate Immigration Judges, by the U.S. Supreme Court.
No, it wouldn’t overnight eliminate the backlog (which has grown up over many years of horrible mismanagement by the DOJ under Administrations of both parties). But, it certainly would give the Immigration Courts a much better chance of reducing the backlog in a fair manner over time.Just that, as opposed to the Trump Administration’s “maximize unfairness, minimize Due Process, maximize backlogs, shift blame, waste money and resources”policies would be a huge improvement at no additional costs over what it now takes to run a system “designed, built, and operated to fail.”
“Group Leader” Hon. Jeffrey Chase forwards these items:
Samantha Schmidt (long-lost “Cousin Sam?” sadly, no, but I’d be happy to consider her an honorary member of the “Wauwatosa Branch” of the Wisconsin Schmidt Clan) writes for the Washington Post:
Aminta Cifuentes suffered weekly beatings at the hands of her husband. He broke her nose, burned her with paint thinner and raped her.
She called the police in her native Guatemala several times but was told they could not interfere in a domestic matter, according to a court ruling. When Cifuentes’s husband hit her in the head, leaving her bloody, police came to the home but refused to arrest him. He threatened to kill her if she called authorities again.
So in 2005, Cifuentes fled to the United States. “If I had stayed there, he would have killed me,” she told the Arizona Republic.
And after nearly a decade of waiting on an appeal, Cifuentes was granted asylum. The 2014 landmark decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals set the precedent that women fleeing domestic violence were eligible to apply for asylum. It established clarity in a long-running debate over whether asylum can be granted on the basis of violence perpetrated in the “private” sphere, according to Karen Musalo, director for the Center for Gender & Refugee Studies at the University of California Hastings College of the Law.
But on Monday, Attorney General Jeff Sessions overturned the precedent set in Cifuentes’s case, deciding that victims of domestic abuse and gang violence generally will not qualify for asylum under federal law. (Unlike the federal courts established under Article III of the Constitution, the immigration court system is part of the Justice Department.)
For critics, including former immigration judges, the unilateral decision undoes decades of carefully deliberated legal progress. For gender studies experts, such as Musalo, the move “basically throws us back to the Dark Ages, when we didn’t recognize that women’s rights were human rights.”
“If we say in the year 2018 that a woman has been beaten almost to death in a country that accepts that as almost the norm, and that we as a civilized society can deny her protection and send her to her death?” Musalo said. “I don’t see this as just an immigration issue … I see this as a women’s rights issue.”
. . . .
A group of 15 retired immigration judges and former members of the Board of Immigration Appeals wrote a letter in response to Sessions’s decision, calling it an “affront to the rule of law.”
The Cifuentes case, they wrote, “was the culmination of a 15 year process” through the immigration courts and Board of Immigration Appeals. The issue was certified by three attorneys general, one Democrat and two Republican. The private bar and law enforcement agencies, including the Department of Homeland Security, agreed with the final determination, the former judges wrote. The decision was also supported by asylum protections under international refugee treaties, they said.
“For reasons understood only by himself, the Attorney General today erased an important legal development that was universally agreed to be correct,” the former judges wrote.
Courts and attorneys general have debated the definition of a “particular social group” since the mid-1990s, according to Musalo.
“It took the refugee area a while to catch up with the human rights area of law,” Musalo said.
A series of cases led up to the Cifuentes decision. In 1996, the Board of Immigration Appeals established that women fleeing gender-based persecution could be eligible for asylum in the United States. The case, known as Matter of Kasinga, centered on a teenager who fled her home in Togo to escape female genital cutting and a forced polygamous marriage. Musalo was lead attorney in the case, which held that fear of female genital cutting could be used as a basis for asylum.
“Fundamentally the principle was the same,” as the one at stake in Sessions’s ruling, Musalo said. Female genital cutting, like domestic violence in the broader sense, generally takes place in the “private” sphere, inflicted behind closed doors by relatives of victims.
Musalo also represented Rody Alvarado, a Guatemalan woman who fled extreme domestic abuse and, in 2009, won an important asylum case after a 14-year legal fight. Her victory broke ground for other women seeking asylum on the basis of domestic violence.
Then, after years of incremental decisions, the Board of Immigration Appeals published its first precedent-setting opinion in the 2014 Cifuentes case, known as Matter of A-R-C-G.
“I actually thought that finally we had made some progress,” Musalo said. Although the impact wasn’t quite as pronounced as many experts had hoped, it was a step for women fleeing gender-based violence in Latin America and other parts of the world.
Now, Musalo says, Sessions is trying to undo all that and is doing so at a particularly monumental time for gender equality in the United States and worldwide.
“We’ve gone too far in society with the MeToo movement and all of the other advances in women’s rights to accept this principle,” Musalo said.
“It shows that there are these deeply entrenched attitudes toward gender and gender equality,” she added. “There are always those forces that are sort of the dying gasp of wanting to hold on to the way things were.”
. . . .
Paul Wickham Schmidt, a retired immigration judge and former chairman of the Board of Immigration Appeals, wrote on his blog that Sessions sought to encourage immigration judges to “just find a way to say no as quickly as possible.” (Schmidt authored the decision in the Kasinga case extending asylum protection to victims of female genital mutilation.)
Sessions’s ruling is “likely to speed up the ‘deportation railway,’ ” Schmidt wrote. But it will also encourage immigration judges to “cut corners, and avoid having to analyze the entire case,” he argued.
“Sessions is likely to end up with sloppy work and lots of Circuit Court remands for ‘do overs,’ ” Schmidt wrote. “At a minimum, that’s going to add to the already out of control Immigration Court backlog.”
Picking on our most vulnerable and denying them hard-earned legal protections that had been gained incrementally over the years. Certainly, can’t get much lower than that!
Whether you agree with Sessions’s reasoning or not, nobody should cheer or minimize the misfortune of others as Sessions does! The only difference between Sessions or any Immigration Judge and a refugee applicant is luck. Not merit! I’ve met many refugees, and never found one who wanted to be a refugee or even thought they would have to become a refugee.
An Attorney General who lacks fundamental integrity, human values, and empathy does not belong at the head of this important judicial system.
In my career, I’ve probably had to return or sign off on returning more individuals to countries where they didn’t want to go than anybody involved in the current debate. Some were good guys we just couldn’t fit into a badly flawed and overly restrictive system; a few were bad guys who deserved to go; some, in between. But, I never gloried in, celebrated, or minimized anyone’s suffering, removal, or misfortune. Different views are one thing; overt bias and lack of empathy is another.
Advocates and many judges say that the decision is extraordinary, not only because the attorney general took steps to overrule the court’s’ prior rulings, but because the decision that victims of certain kinds of violence can qualify for asylum has been previously reviewed over the course of decades.
A group of 15 former immigration judges signed a letter on June 11 calling the decision “an affront to the rule of law.” They point out that the decision Sessions overturned, a precedent cited in the “Matter of A-B-” decision that he was reviewing, had been certified by three attorney generals before him: one Democrat and two Republicans.
“For reasons understood only by himself, the Attorney General today erased an important legal development that was universally agreed to be correct,” the letter says. “Today we are deeply disappointed that our country will no longer offer legal protection to women seeking refuge from terrible forms of domestic violence from which their home countries are unable or unwilling to protect them.”
In his decision, Sessions said “private criminal activity,” specifically being a victim of domestic violence, does not qualify migrants for asylum. Rather, victims have to show each time that they are part of some distinct social group (a category in international and US law that allows people to qualify for refugee status) and were harmed because they are part of that group — and not for “personal reasons.”
Sessions said US law “does not provide redress for all misfortune. It applies when persecution arises on the account of membership in a protected group and the victim may not find protection except by taking refuge in another country.”
“Generally, claims by aliens pertaining to domestic violence or gang violence perpetrated by non-government actors will not qualify for asylum,” the decision reads. In a footnote, he also says that few of these cases would merit even being heard by judges in the first place because they would not pass the threshold of “credible fear.”
But attorney Karen Musalo says every case has to be decided individually. Muslao is the director of the Center for Gender and Refugee Studies at the UC Hastings College of the Law and has been representing women in immigration hearings for decades. She is concerned that some asylum officers will see this decision as a directive to turn people away from seeing a judge. “That’s patently wrong,” she says.
US Citizenship and Immigration Services, the agency that conducts initial screenings for asylum cases (known as “credible fear interviews”) did not respond to a request for information about how the decision might change the work they do.
Musalo’s is among the attorneys representing A-B-, a Salvadoran woman identified only by her initials in court filings, whose case Sessions reviewed. Her center was part of a group that submitted a brief of over 700 pages in the case; that brief was not cited in Sessions’ decision. The brief reviewed impunity in El Salvador, for example, for those who commit violence against women and also had specific evidence about A-B- and how local police failed to protect her from domestic violence.
“What’s surprising is how deficient and flawed his understanding of the law and his reasoning is. The way he pronounces how certain concepts in refugee law should be understood and interpreted is sort of breath-taking,” says Musalo. “He was reaching for a result, so he was willing to distort legal principles and ignored the facts.”
To Musalo, this case is about more than asylum, though. She says it’s a surprising, damaging twist in the broader #MeToo movement. Sessions is “trying to turn back the clock on how we conceptualize protections for women and other individual,” she says. “In the bigger picture of ending violence against women, that’s just not an acceptable position for our country to take and we’re going to do everything we can to reverse that.”
That includes monitoring cases in the system now and making appeals in federal courts, which could overturn Sessions’ decision. Congress, Musalo says, could also take action.
Because Sessions controls the immigration courts, which are administrative courts that are part of the Department of Justice rather than part of the judiciary branch, immigration judges will have to follow his precedent in determining who qualifies for asylum. District court and other federal judges
Ashley Tabaddor, an immigration judge and president of the National Association of Immigration Judges, said she was troubled by Sessions’ lack of explanation for why he intervened in this particular case.
The attorney general’s ability to “exercise veto power in our decision-making is an indication of why the court needs true independence” from the Justice Department, Tabaddor told the New York Times.
Immigration judge Dana Leigh Marks, the immigration judges association past president, says the group has been advocating for such independence for years.
“We have a political boss. The attorney general is our boss and political considerations allow him, under the current structure, to take certain cases from the Board of Immigration Appeals and to choose to rule on those cases in order to set policy and precedent,” she says. “Our organization for years has been arguing that … there’s a major flaw in this structure, that immigration courts are places where life and death cases are being heard.”
Therefore, she adds, they should be structured “like a traditional court.”
Sessions’ decision will have immediate implications for domestic violence victims currently seeking asylum in the US.
Naomi, who asked to be identified by a pseudonym because her case is pending in New York, is from Honduras. Her former boyfriend there threw hot oil at her, but hit her 4-year-old son instead. The boyfriend threatened them with a gun — she fled, ultimately coming to the US where she has some family. She told us that she tried to get the police to help, but they wouldn’t.
Naomi’s attorney, Heather Axford with Central American Legal Assistance in Brooklyn, said they might need to try a new argument to keep her client in the US.
“We need to come up with new ways to define a particular social group, we need to explore the possibility of when the facts lend themselves to a political opinion claim, and we need to make claims under the Convention Against Torture,” she told WNYC Monday. The US signed and ratified the Convention Against Torture in 1994.
Mary Hansel, deputy director of the International Human Rights Clinic at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, says the Sessions decision goes against US human rights obligations.
“An evolving body of international legal authorities indicates that a state’s failure to protect individuals (whether citizens or asylum seekers) from domestic violence may actually amount to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment,” Hansel writes in an email to PRI. In international human rights law, states need to protect individuals from harm. “Essentially, when women are forced to endure domestic violence without adequate redress, states are on the hook for allowing this to happen,”
Naomi’s story is horrific, but it is not unusual for women desperate to escape these situations to flee to the US. Many of these women had a high bar for winning an asylum case to begin with. They have to provide evidence that they were persecuted and documents to support their case. Sometimes, lawyers call expert witnesses to explain what is happening in their country of origin. Language barriers, lack of access to lawyers, contending with trauma and often being in detention during proceedings also contribute to making their cases exceptionally difficult.
Sessions’ decision will make it even harder.
In justifying tighter standards, Sessions often claims that there is fraud in the system and that asylum seekers have an easy time arguing their cases.
“We’ve had situations in which a person comes to the United States and says they are a victim of domestic violence, therefore they are entitled to enter the United States” Sessions told Phoenix radio station KTAR in May. “Well, that’s obviously false, but some judges have gone along with that.”
The Trump administration has taken several steps to clear the 700,000 cases pending in immigration court. At the end of May, Sessions instituted a quota system for immigration judges, requiring them to decide 700 cases each year and have fewer than 15 percent of cases be overturned on appeal.
Marks told NPR that the quota could hurt judicial independence. “The last thing on a judge’s mind should be pressure that you’re disappointing your boss or, even worse, risking discipline because you are not working fast enough,” she said.
According to TRAC, the courts decided more than 30,000 cases in the 2017 fiscal year compared to about 22,000 in 2016. Some 61.8 percent of these cases were denied; the agency does not report how many of the claims were due to domestic or gang violence, or for other reasons. For people from Central America, the denial rate is 75 to 80 percent. Ninety percent of those who don’t have attorneys lose their cases.
Correction: An earlier version of this story incorrectly said Sessions’ overturned a decision in the “Matter of A-B-.”
**************************************
Here’s another one from Bea Bischoff at Slate:
How the attorney general is abusing a rarely used provision to rewrite legal precedent.
Photo illustration by Slate. Photos by Alex Wong/Getty Images, Library of Congress.
On Monday, Attorney General Jeff Sessions told a group of immigration judges that while they are responsible for “ensur[ing] that our immigration system operates in a manner that is consistent with the laws,” Congress alone is responsible for rewriting those laws. Sessions then announced that he would be issuing a unilateral decision regarding asylum cases later in the day, a decision he told the judges would “provide more clarity” and help them “rule consistently and fairly.” The decision in Matter of A-B-, which came down shortly after his remarks, reverses asylum protections for victims of domestic violence and other persecution.
During his speech Sessions framed his decision in Matter of A-B- as a “correct interpretation of the law” that “advances the original intent” of our immigration statute. As a matter of law, Sessions’ decision is disturbing. It’s also alarming that this case ended up in front of the attorney general to begin with. Sessions is abusing a rarely used provision to rewrite our immigration laws—a function the attorney general himself said should be reserved for Congress. His zealous self-referral of immigration cases has been devastatingly effective. Sessions is quietly gutting immigration law, and there’s nothing stopping him from continuing to use this loophole to implement more vindictive changes.
Normally, an immigration judge is the first to hear and decide an immigration case. If the case is appealed, it goes in front of the Board of Immigration Appeals before being heard by a federal circuit court. In a peculiarity of immigration law, however, the attorney general is permitted to pluck cases straight from the Board of Immigration Appeals for personal review and adjudication. Sessions, who was famously denied a federal judgeship in 1986 because of accusations that he’d made racist comments, now seems to be indulging a lingering judicial fantasy by exploiting this provision to the fullest. Since January 2018, Sessions has referred four immigration cases to himself for adjudication, putting him on track to be one of the most prolific users of the self-referral provision since 1956, when attorneys general stopped regularly reviewing and affirming BIA cases. By comparison, Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch certified a total four cases between them during the Obama administration.
Sessions is not using these cases to resolve novel legal issues or to ease the workload of DHS attorneys or immigration judges. Instead, he is using the self-referral mechanism to adjudicate cases that have the most potential to limit the number of people granted legal status in the United States, and he’s disregarding the procedural requirements set up to control immigration appeals in the process.
A close look at the Matter of A-B- case shows exactly how far out of bounds Sessions is willing to go. Matter of A-B- began when Ms. A-B- arrived in the United States from El Salvador seeking asylum. Ms. A-B- had been the victim of extreme brutality at the hands of her husband in El Salvador, including violent attacks and threats on her life. The local police did nothing to protect her. When it became clear it was only a matter of time before her husband tried to hurt her again, Ms. A-B- fled to the United States. Upon her arrival at the U.S. border, Ms. A-B- was detained in Charlotte, North Carolina. Her asylum case was set to be heard by Judge Stuart Couch, a notoriously asylum-averse judge who is especially resentful of claims based on domestic violence.
During her trial, Ms. A-B- testified about the persecution she’d faced at the hands of her husband and provided additional evidence to corroborate her claims. Despite the extensive evidence, Judge Couch found Ms. A-B-’s story was not credible and rejected her asylum claim. Ms. A-B- then appealed her case to the BIA. There, the board unanimously found that Ms. A-B-’s testimony was in fact credible and that she met the requirements for asylum. Per their protocol, the BIA did not grant Ms. A-B- asylum itself but rather sent the case back down to Judge Couch, who was tasked with performing the required background checks on Ms. A-B- and then issuing a grant of asylum in accordance with their decision.
Judge Couch, however, did not issue Ms. A-B- a grant of asylum, even after the Department of Homeland Security completed her background checks. Instead, he improperly tried to send the case back to the BIA without issuing a new decision, apparently because he was personally unconvinced of the “legal validity” of asylum claims based on domestic violence. Before the BIA touched the case again, Attorney General Sessions decided he ought to adjudicate it himself.
Sessions trampled over several crucial procedural requirements in his zeal to shut off asylum eligibility for vulnerablewomen.
After taking the case, Sessions asked for amicus briefs on the question of “whether … being a victim of private criminal activity constitutes a cognizable ‘particular social group’ for purposes of an application for asylum.” The question of whether private criminal activity like domestic violence can in some instances lead to a grant of asylum had not been at issue in Matter of A-B-. The issue raised in Ms. A-B-’s case was whether her claims were credible, not whether asylum was available for victims of private criminal activity. In fact, persecution at the hand of a private actor who the government cannot or will not control is contemplated in the asylum statute itself and has been recognized as a grounds for asylum for decades. The question of whether domestic violence could sometimes warrant asylum also appeared to be firmly settled in a 2014 case known as Matter of A-R-C-G-.
The question the attorney general was seeking to answer was actually so settled that the Department of Homeland Security, the agency responsible for prosecuting immigration cases, submitted a timid brief to Sessions politely suggesting that he reconsider his decision to take on this case. “This matter does not appear to be in the best posture for the Attorney General’s review,” its brief argued, before outright acknowledging that the question of whether private criminal activity can form the basis of an asylum claim had already been clearly answered by the BIA. The attorney general, despite his alleged desire to simplify the jobs of immigration prosecutors and judges, ignored DHS’s concerns and denied the agency’s motion. “[BIA] precedent,” Sessions wrote in his denial, “does not bind my ultimate decision in this matter.” Sessions, in short, was going to rewrite asylum law whether DHS liked it or not.
Sessions not only ignored DHS concerns about the case but, as 16 former immigration judges pointed out in their amicus brief, trampled over several crucial procedural requirements in his zeal to shut off asylum eligibility for vulnerable women. First, he failed to require Couch, the original presiding judge, to make a final decision before sending the case back to the BIA. The regulations controlling immigration appeals allow an immigration judge to send a case to the BIA only after a decision has been issued by the original judge. Next, Sessions failed to wait for the BIA to adjudicate the case before snapping it up for his personal analysis. Even if Judge Couch hadn’t improperly sent the case back to the BIA, Sessions was obligated to wait for the BIA to decide the case before intervening. The self-referral provision permits the attorney general to review BIA decisions, not cases that are merely awaiting adjudication.
Finally, and perhaps most tellingly, the question Sessions sought to answer in this case, namely “whether … being a victim of private criminal activity constitutes a cognizable ‘particular social group’ for purposes of an application for asylum” was not a question considered by any court in Matter of A-B-. Rather, it was one Sessions seemingly lifted directly from hardline immigration restrictionists, knowing that the answer had the potential to all but eliminate domestic violence–based asylum claims.
On June 11, after receiving 11 amicus briefs in support of asylum-seekers like Ms. A-B- and only one against, the attorney general ruled that private activity is not grounds for asylum, including in cases of domestic violence. Ms. A-B-’s case, in Sessions’ hands, became a vehicle by which to rewrite our asylum laws without waiting on Congress.
The attorney general’s other self-referred decisions are likewise plagued by questionable procedure. In Matter of E-F-H-L-, Sessions seized on a case from 2014 as an opportunity undo the longstanding requirement that asylum applicants be given the opportunity for a hearing. Like in Matter of A-B-, Sessions did procedural somersaults to insert himself into Matter of E-F-H-L-, using a recent decision by the immigration judge in the case to close the proceedings without deciding the asylum claim as grounds to toss out the original BIA ruling on the right to a hearing. Without so much as a single phone call to Congress, Sessions effectively rescinded the requirement that asylum seekers are entitled to full hearings. He also mandated that the judge reopen Mr. E-F-H-L-’s case years after he thought he was safe from deportation.
In Matter of Castro-Tum, a case Sessions referred to himself in January, he used his powers to make life more difficult for both immigrants and immigration judges by banning the use of “administrative closure” in removal proceedings. Administrative closure allowed immigration judges to choose to take cases off their dockets, indefinitely pausing removal proceedings. In Matter of Castro-Tum, Sessions made a new rule that sharply curtails the use of the practice and allows DHS prosecutors to ask that judges reschedule old closed cases. The result? The potential deportation of more than 350,000 immigrants whose cases were previously closed. In addition, judges now have so many hearings on their dockets that they are scheduling trials in 2020.
As CLINIC, an immigration advocacy group, pointed out, Sessions appeared be using his decision in Matter of Castro-Tum to improperly develop a new rule on when judges can administratively close immigration cases. Normally, such a new rule would need to go through a fraught bureaucratic process under the Administrative Procedures Act before being implemented. Instead of going through that lengthy process, however, Sessions simply decreed the new rule in his decision, bypassing all the usual procedural requirements.
The cases that Sessions has chosen to decide and the procedural leaps he’s taken to adjudicate them show that his goal is to ensure that fewer people are permitted to remain in the United States, Congress be damned. So far, his plan seems to be working. As a result of Sessions’ decision in Matter of A-B-, thousands of women—including many of the women who are currently detained after having their children torn from their arms at our border—will be shut out of asylum proceedings and deported to their countries of origin to await death at the hands of their abusers.
While Sessions’ decisions trump BIA precedent, they do not override precedent set by the federal circuit courts on immigration matters, much of which contradicts the findings he’s made in his decisions. While immigration attorneys are scrambling to protect their clients with creative new advocacy strategies, the only real way to stop Sessions’ massacre is to listen to him when he says Congress needs to fix our immigration laws. In doing so, the legislative branch could not only revise our immigration system to offer meaningful paths to legal status for those currently shut out of the system, but could eliminate the needless attorney general review provision altogether and force Sessions to keep his hands out of immigration case law.
*****************************************
Sessions’s shameless abuses of our Constitution, Due Process, fundamental fairness, the true rule of law, international standards, common morality, and basic human values are beyond astounding.
I agree with Bea that this requires a legislative solution to 1) establish once and for all that gender based asylum fits squarely within the “particular social group” definition; and 2) establish a U.S. Immigration Court that is independent of the Executive Branch.
A few problems, though:
Not going to happen while the GOP is in control of all branches of Government. They can’t even get a “no brainer” like DACA relief done. Trump and his White Nationalist brigade including Sessions are now firmly in control.
If you don’t win elections, you don’t get to set the agenda. Trump’s popularity has consistently been below 50%. Yet the majority who want to preserve American Democracy and human decency have let the minority control the agenda. If good folks aren’t motivated to vote, the country will continue its descent into the abyss.
No more Obama Administrations, at least on immigration. The Dreamer fiasco, the implosion of the Immigration Courts, and the need for gender protections to be written into asylum law were all very well-known problems when Obama and the Dems swept into office with a brief, yet significant, veto proof Congress. The legislative fix was hardly rocket science. Yet, Obama’s leadership failed, his Cabinet was somewhere between weak and incompetent on immigration, and the Dems on the Hill diddled. As a result “Dreamers” have been left to dangle in the wind — a bargaining chip for the restrictionist agenda; children are being abused on a daily basis as a matter of official policy under Sessions; women and children are being returned to death and torture; and the U.S. Immigration Courts have abandoned Due Process and are imploding in their role as a “junior Border Patrol.” Political incompetence and malfeasance have “real life consequences.” And, they aren’t pretty!
There have been some bright spots for the Dems in recent races. But, the November outcome is still totally up for grabs. If the Trump led GOP continues its stranglehold on all branches of Government, not only will children suffer and women die, but there might not be enough of American Democracy left to save by 2020.
TYSONS, Va. — As the nation’s immigration judges gathered here for training this week, Attorney General Jeff Sessions had a message: They needed to help “end the lawlessness that now exists in our immigration system.”
But to many of the judges, Mr. Sessions’s hard-line immigration agenda is increasingly standing in the way of their ability to mete out justice.
In interviews, some objected to quotas he imposed on them this spring of 700 cases per year, as well as his ban on a bureaucratic tool they used to reduce their caseloads. Others expressed concern about the impact his zero-tolerance policy on illegal immigration could have on their dockets, and his push for faster rulings. They viewed those together as leaving them at risk of creating a system that sacrifices due process for efficiency.
“Sessions is treating them like immigration officers, not judges,” said Paul Schmidt, a former judge in the immigration courts, which count more than 300 judges in their ranks and another two dozen or so on an immigration appeals board.
Mr. Sessions’s carrying out of his immigration agenda has reignited a long-running debate about the independence of immigration judges, who are part of the Justice Department, not the judicial branch. Some of the judges fear that they could be used to help fulfill the administration’s priorities, endangering their independence.
“The Justice Department is the premier law enforcement agency, but the role of law enforcement is different from that of a neutral court,” said Dana Leigh Marks, the president emeritus of the immigration judges’ union. She said the organization believes the time has come to separate immigration courts from the department.
. . . .
In a speech on Monday at the judges’ conference outside Washington, hosted by the Justice Department, Mr. Sessions asked them to look for inefficiencies to finish cases more quickly.
“We have to be very productive,” he said. “Volume is critical.”
Three judges said they were struck by his emphasis on speed, prosecutions and policy matters without acknowledgment of the need to balance those demands with ensuring due process for immigrants. They said they feared the focus on metrics and closing cases would make it harder to sort through complicated cases and easier to simply deny applications for entry into the United States.
Scores of attendees wore American flag pins in support of “judicial independence and integrity in our courts,” according to a note accompanying the pins.
Dozens of judges who gathered early Monday evening expressed anxiety over their treatment, according to one person present who was not authorized to share the details of the private meeting.
They said they lacked specifics on which cases would count toward their quotas. They pointed to Mr. Sessions’s ban on their use of administrative closure, the tool that effectively allowed them to close cases. And they worried that his zero-tolerance policy on illegal immigration would flood the system with new cases and make it hard for them to decrease the system backlog of about 700,000 cases.
The potential impact of Mr. Sessions’s zero-tolerance policy toward immigration has been of particular concern to judges who are already grappling with a large caseload. “It’s as if local police and prosecutors decided to prosecute every traffic ticket of anyone going 2 miles per hour over the speed limit and filled the court system with those cases,” Mr. Schmidt said.
Judges are also resigning in large numbers, Ms. Marks said, a pattern she expected to continue. As of last year, 39 percent of immigration judges were eligible for retirement, according to a study conducted by the Government Accountability Office. Many immigration judges were sworn in during a wave of hiring in the 1990s.
The Justice Department has said it is on pace to hire 100 more judges this year, and its data shows that the department has never filled every slot. Currently there are 336 judges out of the 484 authorized slots.
In a conference session on Tuesday afternoon with Mr. McHenry, one judge asked if they could delay disciplining judges on the attorney general’s directives about metrics and streamlining the system. The room erupted in applause, but the question went unanswered.
***************************************
Read Katie’s full article at the above link!
Immigration is an incredibly complex area of the law — often compared with the Tax Code. And, it almost certainly has more direct and potentially life-threatening and life-changing effects than does tax law (with due apologies to my tax lawyer colleagues). For better or worse, when they have an opportunity to get together at annual conferences (which aren’t necessarily held annually), most Immigration Judges love to “talk shop.”
Normally, you’d expect to hear things like questions about pending Supreme Court cases, the latest BIA precedent decision, immigration reform legislation, or how to constructively react to some of the criticism dished out by Circuit Courts, as well as sharing “best practices” to achieve fundamental fairness with efficiency.
But, while I was waiting in the lobby to meet my “dinner group” of some former colleagues, the “hall chatter” was all about things like “judicial dashboards,” “production quotas,” “what counts as a completion,” “docket rearrangement without consultation,” “required retraining” (sounded very much like a judicial version of the former Soviet “re-educaton camps”), “stress relief,” “not losing it in court,” “retirement estimates,” and, perhaps most tellingly “how can I remain true to my oath of office and job description without getting harassed, fired, or reassigned?”
Not much room for talk of law, Due Process, best methods and practices, and how to insure that folks, including the unrepresented, get the relief they might be entitled to under the immigration laws.
Appropriate for a judicial conference? Of course not! But, when your “keynote address” is delivered by a totally non-judicial Enforcement Cheerleader in a tone and with content more appropriate to a class of new Border Patrol officers than a group of supposedly independent, senior, quasi-judicial officers of the U.S. Government, that’s what you’re going to get. What must newly appointed U.S. Immigration Judges — some who gave up other good jobs to serve in these positions — have thought?
What made it even worse was the misuse of the judicial conference as a “platform” to release a “personal rewrite” by Sessions (although I suspect some outside group actually drafted it for him or gave him the outline) of established asylum principles in a way that dripped with overt hostility to legitimate asylum seekers, most of them desperate abused women, and was accompanied by unsupported statements about asylum fraud and bogus statistics that could have come right out of a “restrictionist group’s backgrounder.” The message to the judges was very clear — most asylum seekers are fraudsters, so you should cut corners, prejudge cases, look for any reason to deny asylum, preferably at the preliminary stage without wasting time on a full hearing, and crank out those denials to deter folks from fraudulently seeking refuge under our laws — or start looking for a new job!
From a legal, ethical, moral, and intellectual honesty standpoint, the Attorney General’s speech to the Immigration Judges was simply jaw-droppingly inappropriate! How is a quasi-judicial officer sworn to uphold the U.S. Constitution and charged by regulation with “exercising independent judgment” supposed to “negotiate” a system where the “boss” is basically saying “to heck with fairness, respect, and quality — just crank up the volume.”
Contrary to what Sessions said, DHS isn’t EOIR’s “partner.” No, DHS is a party in interest to every adversary proceeding in Immigration Court! They are legally entitled to no better treatment or consideration than any foreign national respondent, even an unrepresented one!
Indeed, the Due Process Clause of our Constitution applies to respondents but not to the DHS! The “founding fathers” weren’t trying to protect the rights of the Government under the Bill of Rights. They were seeking to protect individuals against Govenment overreach and abuses. Jeff Sessions is just the type of overbearing Government official that the founding fathers might have envisioned abusing the power and authority of his office.
“Rumored” assertions by some EOIR management officials that “we don’t care how you decide these cases” are patently absurd! Of course, Jeff Sessions cares about the results! He wants removal orders — fast and by the truckload!
He certainly wasn’t talking about racing through hundreds of thousands of cases to grant 43%-56% of the asylum cases that are decided on the merits, which is what should happen based on past performance had Sessions not reached in to “tilt” the law against asylum seekers and to use detention and family separation to coerce individuals into giving up potentially winnable claims. Anybody who perceived Sessions’s remarks to the judges on Monday as an encouragement to treat asylum applicants fairly, impartially, humanely, respectfully, and to insure that the generous interpretation of well-founded fear set forth by the Supremes in Cardoza-Fonseca was followed would need their head examined!
Even though immigrants, both legal and undocumented, forced and voluntary, built America and are primarily responsible for our success as a nation, I can’t remember ever hearing Jeff Sessions say anything kind or nice about any foreign national! Indeed, it’s hard to think of any public occasion when Sessions addressed immigration without providing some false narrative, ethnic slur, bogus or misleading statistic, denigrating the contributions of immigrants, dehumanizing them, or seeking to drum up xenophobia by touting false links between migrants and crime.
Sessions’s other message to the judges: By the way, folks, this backlog mess that we and our predecessors have created and are now intentionally aggravating by aimlessly reshuffling dockets, cranking up needless detention, poor enforcement policies, lousy management and hiring practices, absurdly inadequate technology, and attempting to use the Immigration Courts as “deterrents” is your fault (along with the respondents and their attorneys) because you don’t work hard enough or smart enough! You’re going to “take the fall” when we aren’t able to stop human migration by using the Immigration Court as an enforcement tool! We’re giving you “mission impossible,” and if you can’t carry it out, you’re not doing your job!
Congress — which is ultimately responsible for this mess — and the Article III Courts who have knowingly and intentionally swept the glaring Due Process deficiencies, stunning ethical conflicts, lack of quality control, and failure to consistently provide fundamental fairness under their “Ivory Tower carpets” for far too long are going to have to step up and put an end to this parody of justice or accept responsibility for the implosion of the Immigration Courts and Constitutional Due Process that are looming on the horizon.
One thing is for certain: You can’t run a Due Process, fundamentally fair court system under Jeff Sessions. He proved that this week — beyond any reasonable doubt! Anybody who doubts that, isn’t being reasonable — or isn’t paying attention!
Attorney General Sessions Delivers Remarks to the Executive Office for Immigration Review Legal Training Program
Washington, DC
~
Monday, June 11, 2018
Remarks as prepared for delivery
Thank you, James, for that introduction, and thank you for your years of superb service to the Department as an SAUSA, at Main Justice, and now here at EOIR. James has been doing a fabulous job. He understands these issues, knows exactly what our challenges are, and is working steadfastly every day to meet them.
Thank you also to Katherine Reilly, Kate Sheehy, Chris Santoro, Edward So, David Neal, Chief Judge Keller, Lisa Ward, Jean King, Robin Sutman, and all of the leadership team.
It is good to be with you today.
Each one of you plays an important role in the administration of our immigration laws. Immigration judges are critical to ensuring that the Department of Justice carries out its responsibilities under the INA. You have an obligation to decide cases efficiently and to keep our federal laws functioning effectively, fairly, and consistently. As the statute states, Immigration Judges conduct designated proceedings “subject to such supervision and shall perform such duties as the Attorney General shall prescribe”.
This responsibility seeks to ensure that our immigration system operates in a manner that is consistent with the laws enacted by Congress. As you know, the INA was established to ensure a rational system of immigration in the national interest.
Of course there are provisions in the INA, consent decrees, regulations, and court decisions where the commonsense enforceability of the plain intent of the INA has been made more difficult. That’s what you wrestle with frequently.
President Trump is correct: Congress needs to clarify a number of these matters. Without Congressional action, clarity and consistency for us is much more difficult.
Let’s be clear: we have a firm goal, and that is to end the lawlessness that now exists in our immigration system. This Department of Justice is committed to using every available resource to meet that goal. We will act strategically with our colleagues at DHS and across the government, and we will not hesitate to redeploy resources and alter policies to meet new challenges as they arise.
Last month, the Department of Homeland Security announced that it will begin to refer as close to 100 percent of illegal Southwest Border crossers as possible to the Department of Justice for prosecution. The Department of Justice will take up those cases.
I have put in place a “zero tolerance” policy for illegal entry on our Southwest border. If you cross the Southwest border unlawfully, then we will prosecute you. It’s that simple.
If someone is smuggling illegal aliens across our Southwest border, then we will prosecute them. Period.
I have sent 35 prosecutors to the Southwest and moved 18 immigration judges to detention centers near the border. That is about a 50 percent increase in the number of immigration judges who will be handling cases at the border.”
All of us should agree that, by definition, we ought to have zero illegal immigration in this country.
Each of us is a part of the Executive Branch, and it is our duty to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.”
Ours is a public trust.
And the United States of America is not a vague idea. It is not just a landmass or an economy. Ours is a sovereign nation state with a constitution, laws, elections, and borders.
As you all well know, one of our major difficulties today is the asylum process.
The asylum system is being abused to the detriment of the rule of law, sound public policy, and public safety— and to the detriment of people with just claims. Saying a few simple words—claiming a fear of return—is now transforming a straightforward arrest for illegal entry and immediate return into a prolonged legal process, where an alien may be released from custody into the United States and possibly never show up for an immigration hearing. This is a large part of what has been accurately called, “catch and release”.
Beginning in 2009, more and more aliens who passed an initial USCIS credible fear review were released from custody into the United States pending a full hearing. Powerful incentives were created for aliens to come here illegally and claim a fear of return. In effect, word spread that by asserting this fear, they could remain in the United States one way or the other. Far too often, that rumor proved to be true.
The results are just what one would expect. The number of illegal entrants has surged. Credible fear claims have skyrocketed, and the percentage of asylum claims found meritorious by our judges declined.
That’s because the vast majority of the current asylum claims are not valid. For the last five years, only 20 percent of claims have been found to be meritorious after a hearing before an Immigration Judge. In addition, some fifteen percent are found invalid by USCIS as a part of their initial screening.
Further illustrating this point, in 2009, DHS conducted more than 5,000 credible fear reviews. By 2016, only seven years later, that number had increased to 94,000. The number of these aliens placed in immigration court proceedings went from fewer than 4,000 to more than 73,000 by 2016—nearly a 19-fold increase—overwhelming the system and leaving legitimate claims buried.
Now we all know that many of those crossing our border illegally are leaving difficult and dangerous situations. And we understand all are due proper respect and the proper legal process. But we cannot abandon legal discipline and sound legal concepts.
Under the INA, asylum is available for those who leave their home country because of persecution or fear on account of race, religion, nationality, or membership in a particular social group or political opinion. Asylum was never meant to alleviate all problems— even all serious problems— that people face every day all over the world.
Today, exercising the responsibility given to me under the INA, I will be issuing a decision that restores sound principles of asylum and long standing principles of immigration law.
We have not acted hastily, but carefully. In my judgment, this is a correct interpretation of the law. It advances the original intent and purpose of the INA, and it will be your duty to carry out this ruling.
This decision will provide more clarity for you. It will help you to rule consistently and fairly.
The fact is we have a backlog of about 700,000 immigration cases, and it’s still growing. That’s more than triple what it was in 2009. This is not acceptable. We cannot allow it to continue.
At this time, when our immigration system and our immigration judges are under great stress, I am calling on you to use your best efforts and proper policies to enhance our effectiveness. To end the lawlessness and move to the virtuous cycle, we have to be very productive. Volume is critical. It just is. We ask you to evaluate your processes and disposition rates.
We ask each one of you to complete at least 700 cases a year. It’s about the average. We are all accountable. Setting this expectation is a rational management policy to ensure consistency, accountability, and efficiency in our immigration court system. Thank you for working every day to meet and exceed this goal. You can be sure that this administration and this Department of Justice supports you in this critically important and historic effort.
That’s why we are hiring more than 100 new immigration judges this calendar year. And we are actively working with our partners at DHS to ensure that we can deploy judges electronically and by video-teleconference where needed and to obtain appropriate courtroom facilities.
Let’s be clear. These actions will not end or reduce legal immigration. These actions will be directed at reducing illegal immigration. Only Congress can change legal immigration.
This is a great nation—the greatest in the history of the world. It is no surprise that people want to come here. But they must do so according to law.
When we lose clarity or have decisions that hold out hope where a fair reading of the law gives none, we have cruelly hurt many people. As we resolutely strive to consistently and fairly enforce the law, we will be doing the right thing.
The world will know what our rules are, and great numbers will no longer undertake this dangerous journey. The number of illegal aliens and the number of baseless claims will fall. A virtuous cycle will be created, rather than a vicious cycle of expanding illegality.
The American people have spoken. They have spoken in our laws and they have spoken in our elections. They want a safe, secure border and a lawful system of immigration that actually works. Let’s deliver it for them.
***********************************************
It’s all about numbers — volume over justice! What a total farce!
Sessions also lied about the low asylum grant rate. Of cases in which a merits decisions on asylum is actually rendered by an Immigration Judge after hearing, here are the actual asylum grant rates from the EOIR’s own website
Figure 16
Asylum Grant Rate
Grants
Denials
Grant Rate
FY 12
10,575
8,444
56%
FY 13
9,767
8,777
53%
FY 14
8,672
9,191
49%
FY 15
8,184
8,816
48%
FY 16
8,726
11,643
43%
In other words, for the last five years available, nearly half of the asylum applications actually decided on the merits were granted. And, that doesn’t even include individuals granted other types of protection such as withholding of removal and CAT after a merits hearing.
It’s a far cry from the bogus 20% figure Sessions used. In any event, it’s well established law that denial of an asylum application does not in any way show that it was “fraudulent” or “frivolous” as Sessions implies.
*************************************
As usual, the ever-amazing Tal Kopan was one of the first to “hit the net running” with her analysis of the Sessions speech to EOIR.
Jeff Sessions primed to overhaul asylum law
By Tal Kopan, CNN
Attorney General Jeff Sessions will announce a major decision that could impact thousands of asylum seekers from Central America on Monday — his latest move to use his unique authority to single-handedly reshape immigration law.
Sessions made the announcement at an annual training conference for the nation’s hundreds of immigration judges, telling them the decision would be coming and reminding them that they will be obligated to follow his interpretation of the law.
Though Sessions did not explicitly name the decision, it is widely expected to be a case involving asylum protections for domestic violence victims. Sessions referred the case to himself earlier this year and invited interested parties to submit briefs. In his remarks, Sessions implied he would be restricting the use of asylum for victims of crime, which would reverse previous court decisions and overrule a significant 2014 Board of Immigration Appeals decision that ruled Central American domestic violence victims who cannot escape their abusive partners can qualify under asylum law for protection in the US.
“Asylum was never meant to alleviate all problems, even all serious problems, that people face every day all over the world,” Sessions said, reiterating the particular requirements of asylum under the law. “Today I will be exercising the responsibility given to me under the (Immigration and Nationality Act), I will be issuing a decision that restores sound principles of asylum and long standing principles of immigration law.”
The ruling and announcement is the latest evidence of Sessions taking full advantage of his authority over the immigration courts — a separate court system designed by law to be under the auspices of the Justice Department. The attorney general functions as a one-person Supreme Court in the system, in addition to hiring and evaluating the lower court judges themselves.
Sessions also reminded judges that his decision will be final, unless a federal appellate court were to overturn it on appeal.
In addition to impacting domestic violence victims, the case could also have large-scale implications for victims of other forms of crime and violence — rampant in Central America, where a majority of US asylum seekers at the southern border come from.
Related: Judge in case Sessions picked for immigrant domestic violence asylum review issued ‘clearly erroneous’ decisions, says appellate court
“In my judgment, this will be a correct interpretation of the law,” Sessions said. “It advances the original intent and purpose of the INA, and it will be your duty, of course, to carry that out.”
According to Tal, the National Association of Immigration Judges (“NAIJ”) immediately criticized Sessions’s overemphasis on numerical quotas that are actually still supposed to be the subject of “good faith” labor negotiations with the NAIJ before going into effect in the Fall.
Nevertheless, Tal’s longer article (linked above) would lead one to believe that many U.S Immigration Judges look forward their new well-defined role as an “asylum denial workforce” working as part of the law enforcement “team” to send vulnerable individuals, including children, back to death, rape, extortion, or constant beatings, in probable violation of international standards, as part of the DHS enforcement effort headed by Sessions.
Sessions received a warm welcome and reception from the judges present, who gave him multiple standing ovations at the beginning and end of his speech. But some leading immigration judges reacted unfavorably to the announcement.
Denying applications based on “precedents” intentionally misinterpreting the law will definitely make dockets move faster and might even allow some Immigration Judges to earn “gold stars” — and perhaps even recognition from the Chief Enforcer himself at next year’s conference — for exceeding their deportation quotas — at least until those pesky Article III Courts get involved.
We’ll see whether the Administration’s policies of intentional cruelty, criminal prosecution, child abuse, and sending folks back to places where their lives will be endangered without fairly considering their claims of protection works as a “deterrent” (never has in the past) or merely diminishes us as a society and a country.
As I always say, “We can diminish ourselves as a nation (and we are), but that won’t stop human migration.”
It’s a far cry from when the late Attorney General Janet Reno used to appear at Immigration Judge Conferences and urge us to do our duty to provide fairness, Due Process, and “equal justice for all.”
Stay tuned for the release of the AG’s decision and more reaction.
This essay explores the contemporary practice of detaining immigrant women and children — the vast majority of whom are fleeing violence in their home countries and seeking protection in the United States — and the response by a diverse coalition of legal advocates. In spite of heroic advocacy, both within and outside the detention centers from the courts to the media to the White House, family detention continues. By charting the evolution of family detention from the time the Obama Administration resurrected the practice in 2014 and responsive advocacy efforts, this essay maps the multiple levels at which sustained advocacy is needed to stem crises in legal representation and ultimately end family detention.
Due to a perfect storm of indigent detainees without a right to appointed counsel, remote detention centers, and under-resourced nonprofits, legal representation within immigration detention centers is scarce. While the Obama Administration largely ended the practice of family detention in 2009, the same administration started detaining immigrant families en masse just five years later. In response to the rise in numbers of child migrants seeking protection in the United States arriving both with and without their parents, and with the purported aim of deterring future flows, the Obama administration reinstituted the policy of detaining families. The Ad- ministration calls these detention centers “family residential centers,” while advocates use the term “baby jail.”
The response from the advocate community was swift and overwhelming. Lawyers and law students from all over the country traveled to the detention centers, in remote areas of New Mexico and later Texas, to meet the urgent need for representation of these asylum-seeking families. This essay calls for continued engagement by attorneys throughout the nation in filling the justice gap and providing representation to these asylum-seeking families and other detained immigrants.
The crisis in representation for detained immigrants is deepening. Given the success of intensive representation at the family detention centers discussed in this article, advocates are beginning to experiment with the same models in other locations. For example, at the Stewart Detention Center in Lumpkin, Georgia, the Southern Poverty Law Center, in conjunction with four other organizations, launched the Southeast Immigrant Freedom Initiative in 2017. This initiative enlists and trains lawyers to provide free legal representation to immigrants detained in the Southeast who are facing deportation proceedings. The American Immigration Lawyers Association and the American Immigration Council have partnered to create the Immigration Justice Campaign, where pro bono attorneys are trained and mentored when providing representation to detained immigrants in typically underserved locations. Given the expansion of the volunteer model of providing legal services to detained immigrants, opportunities will continue to arise for lawyers, law students, and others to engage in crisis lawyering and advocacy. This article provides the background to understand the government’s practice of detaining families, to the extent that it can be understood, and to emphasize a continuing need for legal services for this population.
The introduction explains the population of asylum seekers and the law and procedure governing their arrival, detention, and release into the United States. The essay then traces the evolution of the U.S. government’s most recent experiment in detaining families from the summer of 2014 to present. The next part outlines the access to counsel crisis for immigrant mothers and children in detention and highlights the difference that representation makes. The article concludes with a call to action to attorneys and non-attorney volunteers nationwide to commit and re-commit to providing services to detained immigrant families and individuals.
MY FAVORITE QUOTE:
We are in an era of incredible need for immigration legal services. That need is most acute within detention centers located outside of major metro- politan areas, including within the family detention centers.
Ultimately, neither the Trump nor the Obama administration can claim to have won or be “winning” with the policy of family detention. The vast majority of women and children still receive a positive result during their credible fear interviews, because they are indeed individuals fleeing persecu- tion under the Refugee Convention. It is a poor use of resources, then, to continue to detain this population. Instead, tax-payer dollars, government energy, and resources, should be invested in providing representation and case management for this population to ensure that they appear in court and follow all required procedures to pursue their claims for protection.125 In the current era of intense immigration enforcement, combined with the Trump Administration’s plans to increase detention bed space and Attorney General Jefferson Beauregard Session’s clear attacks on asylum-seekers,126 family de- tention is, however, likely here to stay.
In light of this reality, crowdsourcing refugee rights, as Stephen Man- ning articulates, is more important than ever.127 It is heartening to see the expansion of the model of lawyering within immigration detention centers expand to centers in Georgia and Louisiana, where asylum grant rates are dismal, conditions of detention dire, with a historical extreme lack of access to counsel. Lawyers are needed to ensure that individuals can properly ac- cess their due process rights and to help the immigration court system run more smoothly.128
Lawyers, specialized in immigration or not, must arm themselves with the knowledge and tools to join this fight. Just as non-immigration lawyers quickly rose to a call to action in January at the airports,129 lawyers must again rise, and continue rising, to provide representation for families and individuals held in immigration detention. This is our time to act and proudly join the brigade of “dirty immigration lawyers” to ensure protection and due process for the most vulnerable.
********************************************
Lindsay is “one of the best.” We were colleagues at Georgetown Law when I was an Adjunct Professor and she held the prestigious “CALS Fellowship” working with Professors Andy Schoenholtz and Phil Schrag (of “Refugee Roulette fame”). Lindsay was a guest lecturer in my Refugee Law & Policy class, and I have since returned the favor at both George Mason Law and UDC Law where she now teaches with another of my good friends and superstars, Professor Kristina Campbell. Indeed, my friend Judge Dorothy Harbeck and I are “regulars” at their class and are in the process of planning another session this fall.
Lindsay and Kristina “talk the talk and walk the walk.” They appeared before me frequently at the Arlington Immigration Court with their clinical students. The have also gone “on site” at some of the worst immigration detention facilities in the country to help refugees in need.
In a truly unbiased, merit-based, independent, Immigration Court system (of the future) they would be ideal judges at either the trial or appellate level. They possess exactly the types of amazing scholarship, expertise and “hands on” experience representing actual individual clients before our Immigration Courts that is sorely lacking in, and in my view has largely been systematically banished from, the 21st Century immigration judiciary, to the detriment of our Immigration Courts, Due Process, and the entire American justice system. That’s one reason why our Immigration Courts are functioning so poorly in basic areas like efficiency, deliberation, quality control, and fundamental fairness!
Some important “take aways” from this article:
Contrary to Administration propaganda and false narratives, most of the recent arrivals who have lawyers are found to have credible claims for protection under our laws.
Similarly, if given fair access to competent counsel and time to prepare and present their claims in a non-coercive setting to a truly unbiased decision-maker, I believe that majority would be granted asylum, withholding of removal, or protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).
This is the truth that Trump, Sessions, & Company don’t want revealed: most of the folks we are so cavalierly mistreating are, in fact, legitimate refugees, even under current legal rulings that have been intentionally and unfairly skewed against asylum applicants from Central America for years!
Even those who don’t currently fit the arcane legal categories for protection probably have a legitimate fear of harm or death upon return. They certainly are entitled to fully present and litigate their claims before being returned to life-threatening situations.
Finally, a better country, with better, wiser, more humane leaders, would devise ways of offering these individuals fleeing the Northern Triangle at least temporary protection, either here or in another stable country in this hemisphere, while doing something constructive to address the severe, festering, chronic human rights problems in the Northern Triangle that are sending us these refugees.
The “enforcement only” approach has failed over and over in the past and will continue to do so until we get better political leadership in the future.
In the meantime, join Lindsay, Kristina, and the other “Charter Members of the New Due Process Army” in resisting the evil, immoral, and illegal policies of the Trump Administration.
Due Process Forever! Harm to the most vulnerable among us is harm to all!
The fate of tens of thousands of immigrants’ court cases could rest in the hands of Attorney General Jeff Sessions.
That’s not a metaphor. Sessions has stepped into the immigration system in an unprecedented manner: giving himself and his office the ability to review, and rewrite, cases that could set precedents for a large share of the hundreds of thousands of immigrants with pending immigration court cases, not to mention all those who are arrested and put into the deportation process in future.
He’s doing this by taking cases from the Board of Immigration Appeals — the Justice Department agency that serves as a quasi-appellate body for immigration court cases — and referring them to himself to issue a decision instead.
Sessions isn’t giving lawyers much information about what he’s planning. But he’s set himself up, if he wants, to make it radically harder for immigration judges to push cases off their docket to be resolved elsewhere or paused indefinitely — and to close the best opportunity that tens of thousands of asylum seekers, including most Central Americans, have to stay in the United States. And he might be gearing up to extend his involvement even further, by giving himself the authority to review a much bigger swath of rulings issued in the immigration court system.
The attorney general has the power to set immigration precedents. But attorneys general rarely used that power — until now.
Most immigrants who are apprehended in the US without papers have a right to a hearing in immigration court to determine whether they can be deported and whether they qualify for some form of legal status or other relief from deportation. The same process exists for people who are caught crossing into the US but who claim to be eligible for some sort of relief, like asylum, and pass an initial screening. In both cases, only after the judge issues a final order of removal can the immigrant be deported.
Immigration courts aren’t part of the judicial branch; they’re under the authority of the Department of Justice. Their judges are supposed to have some degree of independence, and some judges are certainly harsher on immigrants and asylum seekers than others. But their decisions are guided by precedent from the Board of Immigration Appeals, which is basically the appellate court of the immigration system and which also answers to the DOJ and the attorney general.
If the attorney general doesn’t like that precedent, he has the power to change it — by referring a case to himself after the Board of Immigration Appeals has reviewed it, issuing a new ruling, and telling the immigration courts to abide by the precedent that ruling sets in future.
Attorneys general rarely ever use that power. Sessions has used it three times since the beginning of 2018; all three cases are still under review. “I can’t remember this many decisions being certified in the past five to 10 years,” says Kate Voigt of the American Immigration Lawyers Association.
In theory, Sessions’s office is supposed to make its decision based on amicus briefs from outside parties, as well as the immigrant’s lawyer and the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) prosecutor. But advocates and lawyers’ groups say they can’t file a good brief if they don’t know what, exactly, the cases Sessions is getting involved in actually are — and Sessions is withholding that information.
In one of the cases Sessions has referred to himself, the DOJ refused to provide a copy of the decision that Sessions is reviewing or any information about where the case came from and who the immigrant’s lawyer was. In another case, congressional staff happened to find the decision under review on a DOJ website days before the deadline for amicus briefs.
That opacity makes it basically impossible to know whether Sessions is planning to issue relatively narrow rulings or very broad ones. In the case in which the decision under review was discovered by congressional staffers, both the immigrant’s lawyer and the Department of Homeland Security (serving as the prosecution) asked Sessions’s office to clarify the specific legal question at hand in the review — in other words, to give them a hint of the scope of the potential precedent being set. They were denied.
“We have no idea how broad he’s going,” said Eleanor Acer of the advocacy group Human Rights First. “The way it was framed was totally inscrutable.”
Sessions’s self-referrals could affect a large portion of immigration court cases
To Acer and other lawyers and advocates, that uncertainty is worrisome. All three of the cases Sessions has referred to himself center on questions that, depending on how they’re answered, could result in rulings that tip the balance of tens of thousands of immigration court cases.
Can judges remove cases from the docket? In the case Sessions referred to himself in January, Matter of Castro-Tum, he asked the question of whether judges are allowed to use something called “administrative closure” — to remove a case from the docket, essentially hitting the pause button on it indefinitely.
Administrative closures were common under the Obama administration, as ICE prosecutors used it to stop the deportation process for “low-priority” unauthorized immigrants. They’re already much less common under Trump — a Reuters analysis found that closures dropped from 56,000 in Obama’s last year in office to 20,000 in Trump’s first year — but that’s still 20,000 immigrants whose deportation cases were halted, and 20,000 cases cleared out of an ever-growing immigration court backlog.
If it’s written broadly enough, the forthcoming Sessions decision could prevent administrative closure from being even a possibility.
Are victims of “private violence” eligible for asylum? In a March self-referral, Sessions asked whether a judge should be allowed to grant asylum to a domestic violence survivor because she was a victim of “private violence” — violence that wasn’t state-based. Theoretically, asylum is supposed to be available only for victims of certain types of persecution, but some judges have found that women in some countries who experience domestic violence are being persecuted for membership in the “social group” of being women.
The self-referral has raised red flags for a lot of domestic violence groups, which are worried that Sessions is about to cut off an important path to relief for some immigrant survivors. But it could be even broader — gang violence is also “private” violence, and the “social group” clause has also been used to give asylum to people fleeing gang violence in Honduras and El Salvador.
“There is no dispute under US law that asylum claims may be based on persecution conducted by nongovernmental actors,” Human Rights First’s Acer told Vox, as long as the asylum seeker shows her government was unwilling or unable to protect her. But Sessions appears to be “directly attacking, essentially, whether a nonstate actor” can ever qualify as a persecutor.
For many of the thousands of Central Americans who’ve entered the US in recent years, that provision has been their best chance to stay here rather than being sent home. And it could be taken away with a stroke of Sessions’s pen.
Can an immigration judge wait for an application to be approved? In his other March self-referral, Sessions appears to be taking aim at “continuances” — a practice of judges kicking the can down the road in a case by scheduling it for the next available court date sometime in the future (often several months) in order for something else to be prepared or resolved.
Sometimes, continuances are requested because the immigrant in question is also involved in another legal proceeding that’s relevant to the case. One example: An immigrant put into deportation proceedings by ICE, in an immigration court run by the DOJ, may still be eligible to apply for legal status from US Citizenship and Immigration Services while waiting for their application to be processed. Sessions is now asking himself whether it’s legally valid to grant a continuance so the parallel legal proceeding can get resolved.
This could affect tens of thousands of cases. A 2012 DOJ Office of the Inspector General report found that more than half of cases examined involved continuances — and one-quarter of all continuances involved requests from the immigrant to delay a case while an application was filed or processed (or a background check was completed).
At the end of April, lawyers’ concern that Sessions is gearing up to issue a broad ruling in this case was amplified when a DOJ notification in the case mentioned two other immigrants whose cases were being combined with this one — indicating to some lawyers that the facts in the original case didn’t lend themselves to the ruling Sessions had already decided to give.
Furthermore, lawyers and advocates worry that Sessions is gearing up to restrict continuances in other circumstances — like allowing immigrants time to find a lawyer or prepare a case.
Sessions’s meddling might not make courts more efficient, but it will make them more brutal
Sessions and the Trump administration claim they’re trying to restore efficiency to a backlogged court system that poses the biggest obstacle to the large-scale swift deportation of border-crossing families and to unauthorized immigrants living in the US. But lawyers are convinced that Sessions’s diktats, if they’re as broad as feared, would just gum up the works further.
“If the attorney general were seriously concerned about the backlog, as opposed to a desire for quick deportations, he would be focused on transferring as many cases away from” immigration judges as possible, attorney Jeremy McKinney told Vox — not forcing them to keep cases on their docket that they would rather close, or that could be rendered moot by other decisions. It’s “not smart docket control.”
And Sessions isn’t simply planning to issue these rulings and walk away. His office is planning to give itself even wider power over the immigration court system. A notice published as part of the department’s spring 2018 regulatory agenda says, “The Department of Justice (DOJ) proposes to change the circumstances in which the Attorney General may refer cases to himself for review. Such case types will include those pending before the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) but not yet decided and certain immigration judge decisions regardless of whether those decisions have been appealed to the BIA.”
In other words, even when a DOJ judge makes a ruling in an immigrant’s favor and ICE prosecutors don’t try to appeal the ruling, the attorney general’s office could sweep in and overrule the judge.
Sessions’s decrees would probably result in more immigration judge decisions getting appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals (further gumming up the works) as judges try to interpret precedents Sessions has set, and from there to federal courts of appeals. Many federal judges aren’t keen on the immigration court system, especially when its appeals gum up their own dockets, and they might step in to push back against Sessions’s changes.
In the meantime, though, immigration judges will have fewer ways to move cases off their docket and fewer avenues for asylum seekers to qualify for relief, as they’re simultaneously facing serious pressure to make quick decisions in as many cases as possible. The more pressure is put on immigration judges from above, and the more Sessions moves to block their safety valves, the less likely they are to give immigrants a chance to fully make their cases before they bang the gavel on their deportations.
*******************************************
All too true. The real question: Will he be able to get away with this farce of “judicial justice” by probably the most clearly and strongly biased public official short of Trump himself.
An unbiased, impartial decision-maker is a key requirement for Due Process under the Constitution. Having Sessions sit as a the “ultimate judge” in Immigration Court clearly violates that cardinal principle.
For many years, the inherent conflict of interest in having supposedly “fair hearings” run by an enforcement agency in the Executive Branch has basically been swept under the table by Congress and the Article IIIs. As with many things, Sessions’s dogged determination to do away with even the pretense of fairness and Due Process in immigration hearings might eventually force the Article IIIs to confront an issue they have been avoiding since the beginning of immigration laws.
Whether and how they face up to it might well determine the future of our republic and our current Constitutional form of government!
The Executive Office for Immigration Review, under the direction of the Department of Justice, announced last year that it had reopened the Collective Bargaining Agreement with the National Association of Immigration Judges (NAIJ) to include case completion quotas in the performance evaluations of Immigration Judges. On March 30, 2018, James McHenry, the Director of the EOIR, formally announced these metrics, which require IJs to complete at least 700 cases per year, have a remand rate of less than fifteen percent, and meet half of the additional benchmarks listed in the evaluation plan, which can be found here. As pointed out by the Association of the Bar of the City of New York, “this quota translates into each judge hearing testimony and rendering decisions almost three cases per day, five days per week, 52 weeks per year.” According to several retired IJs and Former Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) Members, such quotas raise serious due process concerns and will result in a system that is less focused on justice and appearing “more like an assembly line.”
There are a number of issues with the EOIR case completion quotas. First, these quotas may force IJs to breach their ethical obligations. Specifically, the new completion quotas are tied to the financial incentives of IJs, where the performance evaluations affect IJs’ job security and eligibility for raises. IJs are not given life appointments and can be easily removed from the bench by the Attorney General if he finds them to not be meeting these performance thresholds. Thus, IJs may be encouraged to render hasty decisions in order to satisfy these case completion quotas and receive a good review (and thus a raise) instead of making decisions based on what is proper for the cases in front of them. Having such a financial incentive in the completion of a case arguably forces an IJ to violate 5 C.F.R. §§ 2635.401 to 2635.403,[i] which prohibits IJs from participating in proceedings where he or she has a financial interest. Additionally, IJs must be impartial in their decision-making under 5 C.F.R. § 2635.101(b)(8). It is hard for an IJ to remain impartial when pressured with impossible case completion standards especially when a case is meritorious but an IJ may not grant a continuance for legitimate reasons.
The case completion quotas also violate 8 C.F.R. § 1003.10(b), which provides: “In deciding the individual cases before them, and subject to the applicable governing standards, immigration judges shall exercise their independent judgement and discretion and may take any action consistent with their authorities under the Act and regulations that is appropriate and necessary for the disposition of such cases.” For example, an attorney may have been only recently retained by an asylum-seeker, and may request a continuance in order to gather and assemble evidence that is vital for the asylum-seeker’s claim. Under ordinary circumstances, an IJ would likely grant such a continuance as it would be considered proper under INA § 240(b)(4)(B) which affords a “reasonable opportunity…to present evidence” on one’s behalf. However, under the quota system, an IJ may feel pressure to deny the motion for continuance and may ultimately deny the asylum claim because the asylum-seeker was not afforded sufficient time to present their case. Such an outcome clearly violates 8 C.F.R. § 1003.10(b) and INA § 240(b)(4)(B) where the IJ is stripped of their independent decision-making authority where they feel pressured to quickly close out a case despite compelling reasons to grant a continuance, and where the asylum-seeker is not afforded a reasonable opportunity to be heard.
Another example is an individual placed in removal proceedings who is the intending beneficiary of a pending I-130 with USCIS. Typically, USCIS takes several months to adjudicate an I-130, and thus, attorneys for respondents file motions for continuance with the IJ until the USCIS has rendered a decision which will determine the respondent’s eligibility for relief from removal. Under the new case quota system, IJs will be less inclined to grant such continuances. This hypothetical similarly implicates 8 C.F.R. § 1003.10(b) and INA § 240(b)(4)(B), as described above. Moreover, the IJ’s denial of the continuance here would violate Matter of Hashmi, 24 I&N Dec. 785, 793-94 (BIA 2009) where the Board held that compliance with a IJ’s case completion goals “is not a proper factor in deciding a continuance request” where there is an meritorious pending I-130. We’ve previously blogged about AG Sessions’ stripping of judicial independence through his self-referral of Matter of L-A-B-R- et al, 27 I&N Dec. 245 (AG 2018), which can be found here.
The case completion quotas will also lead to an unprecedented number of BIA and federal court appeals. This would needlessly increase the BIA’s backlog and indeed affect the dockets of the federal court systems, resulting in the tremendous waste of taxpayer’s dollars where a proper decision could have been rendered at the IJ level. In addition, the number of remanded cases may exceed fifteen percent, and thus, the IJ would again fail to meet the performance metrics in their performance evaluation.
For many years, the NAIJ has advocated for the creation of an Article I Immigration Court that is independent of the political whims of the Department of Justice. Under the current Administration, and in light of the newly imposed DOJ/EOIR performance quota metrics, these calls have never been more relevant. The Immigration Court system should not be used as a political tool of the executive branch to effectuate anti-immigrant policies. Rather, it should be an independent system that is committed to the fair adjudication and implementation of our immigration laws. The case completion quotas will undoubtedly undermine the integrity of our immigration system and should be vigorously challenged by IJs and practitioners.
[i] The author acknowledges that 5 CFR § 2635.402 directly implicates 18 U.S.C. 208(a), a criminal statute. This author suggests that the EOIR case completion quotas may jeopardize an IJ’s ethical obligations where their financial interests are directly and predictably impacted by blind adherence to such arbitrary quotas. Criminal liability for these actions, however, goes beyond the scope of this article.
Expert panelists address immigration court reform at a discussion hosted by the ABA Commission on Immigration
America’s immigration justice system is broken. The case backlog is huge – nearly 700,000 immigrants and asylum-seekers are waiting for hearings or decisions – technology is old and there aren’t enough judges.
All five panelists agreed on that much at a May 4 discussion of how to reform immigration courts. They disagreed on who broke the system and how to fix it.
Several panelists accused Congress of underfunding the courts and the Justice Department of politicizing them. The head of the federal office that oversees immigration courts said he is working to cut down the backlog and hire more judges.
James McHenry, director of the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), said the agency will hire 150 additional judges and the hiring process will be much shorter than it has been. It previously took two years to hire new immigration judges. It now takes less than a year, McHenry said.
The discussion was sponsored by the ABA Commission on Immigration and held at the Washington, D.C., office of Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson.
Three panelists – a sitting judge, a retired judge and an immigrant advocate – criticized EOIR’s handling of the courts. All three said the courts should be removed from the Justice Department and become independent.
Judge Denise Slavin of Baltimore, representing the National Association of Immigration Judges, said the immigration system today deserves a grade of D or D-minus. “The system is failing, there is no doubt about it,” she said.
The two biggest problems, she said, are the backlogs and public perception that the courts are unfair. The backlog, she said, was caused by “years of fiscal neglect” by both political parties. “Enforcement has been funded at levels that the courts have not,” she said.
She also accused Attorney General Jeff Sessions of politicizing the immigration courts. “It does not help matters much when our attorney general states to the press that we are being sent to the border to deport people. Not to hear cases, to deport people,” Slavin said.
She also criticized Sessions’ recent order that all immigration judges must clear at least 700 cases a year to get a “satisfactory” rating on their performance evaluations. No other American courts have such a quota, she said. “The only other court that we found that has that is in the People’s Republic of China,” Slavin said.
Retired immigration judge Paul Schmidt, an adjunct law professor at Georgetown University, accused the Justice Department of “aimless docket reshuffling” and have a “morbid fascination with increased immigration detention as a means of deterrence.” These actions “have turned our immigration court system back into a tool of DHS (Department of Homeland Security) enforcement,” he said.
He said the Trump administration has shown “unprecedented levels of open disdain and disrespect” for pro bono lawyers and immigration judges – “the two groups that are struggling to keep due process afloat in the immigration courts.”
He urged the audience to “join the new due process army and stand up for truth, justice and the American way in our failing, misused and politically abused United States immigration courts.” That earned the only applause of the morning.
Heidi Altman, policy director at the National Immigrant Justice Center, also accused the Justice Department of political interference in the immigration courts. “We are faced today with an administration that, at the very highest levels of leadership, is using rhetoric designed to reframe the goals and mission of our immigration court system,” she said. “The politicization of the immigration court system is particularly harmful because the courts are meant to be neutral bodies.”
McHenry said his agency is fixing the court system. Document e-filing will roll out nationally next year, he said. He denied Slavin’s accusation that judicial hiring is politicized. Merit hiring “will be the standard as long as I’m the director,” McHenry said.
In addition to hiring more judges, EOIR will shorten the backlog by using more teleconferencing, bringing back retired judges and re-examining all its policies, McHenry said. He said he sees no conflict between making the system more efficient and providing due process. “We believe judges can do both.”
The panel was moderated by Karen Grisez, special adviser to the ABA Commission on Immigration and public service counsel at Fried Frank.
************************************
Couldn’t be clearer: Jeff Sessions is a huge part of the problem and is incapable of being part of the solution. Yes, other Administrations have also helped destroy justice in the Immigration Courts. But, Sessions graphically demonstrates why Due Process can never be safe from attack as long as the DOJ is in charge.
WASHINGTON — Central Americans who travel north to plead for entry at the U.S. border are taking their chances on an immigration system that is deeply divided on whether they can qualify for asylum if they are fleeing domestic violence or street crime, rather than persecution from the government.
The law in this area remains unclear, and the outcome of an asylum claim depends to a remarkable degree on the immigration judge who decides it.
And sitting atop the immigration court system is Atty. Gen. Jeff Sessions, a longtime advocate of much stricter limits on immigration who has recently taken an interest in reviewing asylum cases.
Lawyers say they are troubled by a legal system in which decisions turn so much on the views of individual judges.
Among the 34 immigration judges in Los Angeles, two granted fewer than 3% of the hundreds of asylum claims that came before them in the last five years, while another judge granted 71% of them. The disparity is even greater in San Francisco, where the judge’s rate of granting asylum claims ranged from 3% to 91%.
Overall, asylum seekers would do much better in San Francisco, where 32% were denied between 2012 and 2017, compared with a 68% denial rate in Los Angeles during the same period, according to data from the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse at Syracuse University.
This is not news to immigration lawyers. A decade ago, several law professors published a study called “Refugee Roulette” that revealed how asylum cases depend heavily on the views of individual judges. “The level of variation was shocking. And it hasn’t changed,” said Georgetown University professor Philip Schrag.
Judge Ashley Tabaddor from Los Angeles, president of the National Assn. of Immigration Judges, discounts the statistics. “They’re not reliable,” she said, since judges may have very different caseloads. Some judges hear claims from people who have been detained for crimes, while others hear mostly claims from juveniles, she said.
“We are human. Different people can have different views about the same set of facts,” she said.
Several Los Angeles lawyers who have won or lost asylum cases in recent months said the identity of the judges played an important role. “It’s astounding how much variation there is from judge to judge. The system is in need of repair. It’s an embarrassment,” said Joseph D. Lee, a partner at Munger, Tolles & Olson.
He represented an El Salvador mother who fled north with her three children after gang members shot and killed her husband’s brother in front of her family and then threatened to do the same to her relatives.
“The Central American cases can be difficult to win. Some judges are pretty hostile to gang-related claims,” he said. His client’s claim was denied, and he plans to appeal. “Your chance of winning an asylum claim shouldn’t turn on the luck of the draw on which judge you get. But that is exactly how it works,” he said.
It may soon become much harder to win such claims. Under an unusual feature of the law, the attorney general, as the nation’s top law enforcement officer, also oversees the immigration courts. He can overrule their decisions and announce new rules that are binding on them.
In March, Sessions announced he would review the question of whether women fleeing domestic violence or other “private criminal activity” can rely on this to win asylum.
Last fall, Sessions spoke to a meeting of immigration judges and complained America’s “generous asylum” system has become “overloaded with fake claims.… The credible fear process was intended to be a lifeline for persons facing serious persecution. But it has become an easy ticket to illegal entry into the United States.”
In the last week, the American Bar Assn., faith-based groups and a coalition of immigration law professors have submitted “friend of the court” briefs to Sessions urging him not to reverse years of precedent involving women fleeing abuse and terror.
But veteran immigration judges are not optimistic. Sessions “just wants more people to be removed,” said Paul W. Schmidt, a retired immigration judge from Virginia and an outspoken critic of the attorney general. “He will make it a lot harder for Central Americans to get asylum.”
The dispute begins with the words of the asylum law. In the Refugee Act of 1980, Congress adopted the United Nations standard and said people may seek asylum if they are “unable or unwilling to return” to their home country “because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.”
Under the law, asylum seekers are treated differently than, for example, refugees from a war-torn nation or immigrants seeking work.
Four of those terms in the asylum law are clear enough: race, religion, nationality and political opinion. But lawyers and judges have struggled to decide what counts as “membership in a particular social group.”
Courts have agreed that gays and lesbians can count as a social group, since they have suffered persecution in many societies. Some judges have also said women and girls fleeing sexual abuse and violence can seek asylum because their society views women as the property of men — and with no hope for protection from their government.
But the question becomes harder when considering the gang violence that has spread through some Central American countries. For example, people who testified against violent gangs or resisted them in other ways have sought asylum on the grounds they are members of a particularly endangered social group.
“These cases are challenging,” said Nareeneh Sohbatian, a Los Angeles lawyer at Winston & Strawn who supervises asylum claims. “We talk a lot about this. If they are targeted because of a gang, it can be difficult to show it was caused by their membership in a particular social group.”
Jenna Gilbert, managing attorney for Human Rights First in Los Angeles, said it is clear the asylum law does not protect people fleeing “generalized violence.” A claim “needs to be tied to the one of the protected categories,” she said. “The cases are very fact-dependent.”
But the odds of winning asylum are not good for Central Americans. In the last five years, China had the largest number of asylum seekers in the U.S. immigration courts, and only 20% of their claims were denied. Ethiopians did even better, with only 17% denied. By contrast, the highest denial rates arose from claims brought by natives of Jamaica (91%), the Philippines (90%), Mexico (88%), El Salvador (79%), Honduras (78%) and Guatemala (75%).
Andrew Arthur, a former immigration judge who works at the Center for Immigration Studies, which favors stricter enforcement, said it is not surprising that Sessions will reconsider rulings on asylum in cases of domestic violence. “Right now, the law is very unclear. The phrase ‘particular social group’ is vague. A lot of these claims are compelling, but that doesn’t mean it is ‘persecution’ under the law. If a gang wants to recruit me, that’s not persecution.”
Last month, Sessions criticized a caravan of Central American asylum seekers approaching the border as a “deliberate attempt to undermine our laws and overwhelm our system. There is no right to demand entry without justification. Smugglers and traffickers and those who lie or commit fraud will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.”
People who present an asylum claim at the border must only show they have a “credible fear” of persecution if they were to return home. Most asylum seekers are allowed to stay and make their claim.
Sessions said he would send more prosecutors and judges to the border area to resolve these claims quickly, rather than let them linger for many months or years.
Meanwhile, lawyers are also rushing to represent the asylum seekers. “Unfortunately, the Trump administration has waged a yearlong campaign to undermine asylum seekers and demonize those who only wish to live in safety with the families,” said Gilbert of Human Rights First. “We’re proud to assist these individuals who are fleeing unspeakable horror as they try to rebuild their lives.”
*************************************
It’s really not that complex.
Under the BIA’s seminal precedent decision in Matter of Acosta, 19 I&N Dec. 285 (BIA 1985) resisting gang recruitment is undoubtedly a characteristic that is “fundamental to identity” therefore making an individual a member of a “particular social group” (“PSG”) for asylum purposes.
Undoubtedly, this conduct is threatening to a gang’s existence and power and is “at least one central reason” why forced recruitment and other forms of harm are used, among other things, to overcome this fundamental characteristic of the PSG.
Therefore, the vast majority of those fleeing the Northern Triangle over the years because of various forms of resistance to gangs should have qualified for asylum under the Acosta test.
However granting most of these cases might have been perceived as “opening the floodgates” and therefore career threatening to the BIA.
Following the “Ashcroft Purge,” which removed almost all of the Appellate Judges on the BIA who consistently stood up for the rights of migrants and asylum seekers, the BIA came up with bogus requirements of “particularity” and “social visibility/social distinction” to facilitate the denial of most asylum grants to individuals from the Northern Triangle.
To do this, the BIA actually had to intentionally and disingenuously misapply criteria developed by the UNHCRto expand the protection available on the basis of a particular social group to instead restrict the group entitled to protection.
With the “due process” group of judges removed by Ashcroft, the BIA was able to get away with this with no visible internal resistance.
However even under the BIA’s new “bogus test” almost all experts agree that individuals resisting gang recruitment in countries where “go along to get along (and live)” is the norm would be both a well-defined “particularized” group and highly “socially distinct.”
Consequently, the BIA and a number of anti-asylum Immigration Judges simply resorted to intentionally misconstruing country conditions and making biased “no nexus” findings or largely bogus “adverse credibility rulings” to keep the Northern Triangle grant rate unrealistically low.
A great way to maximize denials is to hold individuals in detention or game the system so that they can’t obtain competent representation and/or “fail to appear” in Immigration Court thereby denying them the relief that the likely could win in a truly fair, unbiased system.
Remarkably, the article quotes a source who espouses one of the many DHS “enforcement myths” — that forced recruitment can’t be a basis for asylum.
This is nonsense. Even under BIA’s intentionally restrictive precedents, the factual reasons why the respondent is being recruited (“nexus”) are important.
But, as a practical matter, no detained, unrepresented applicant has any realistic chance of understanding the law and developing the factual record necessary to support relief.
Also, in the Northern Triangle gangs have infiltrated the system to the extent that it is almost impossible to separate “political motives” from supposedly “criminal ones/”
Individuals are forcibly recruited as punishment for a variety of reasons including family membership, having been witnesses against gangs, actual or imputed political opinion, and actual or imputed religious views.
With competent lawyers, time to prepare, and an attentive Court of Appeals, most credible gang-related cases should qualify for asylum.
Without lawyers or the chance to develop and document a case, the chances for success are almost nil.
Even though the system is already heavily rigged against bona fide asylum applicants from the Northern Triangle, Attorney General Jeff Sessions has made it clear that he intends to further misconstrue the law to make it virtually impossible for refugees fleeing the Northern Triangle to qualify for asylum
Given the total corruption of the governments in the Northern Triangle and the serious infiltration by gangs, a fair process should result in a “blanket precedent” that would give almost everyone credibly fleeing gang threats in the Norther Triangle at least “temporary withholding of removal” under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).
No, the problem is not just that different Immigration Judges have different opinions. It’s that both the composition of the Immigration Court and the administrative case-law have been consciously “rigged” to deny those seeking protection from the Northern Triangle the protection to which they should be entitled under both U.S. and international law.
Yes, I of all people certainly agree that judges can and should have differing views and philosophies,
But, at some point, “differences” become “biases.”
There is no way that those judges whose grant rates are below 10% can actually be applying asylum law in the generous manner set forth by the Supreme Court in Cardoza-Fonseca or the BIA itself in Matter of Mogharrabi.
Nor are they properly applying the “benefit of the doubt” as it’s supposed to be given according to the UNHCR in systems based on the 1952 Geneva Convention on Refugees.
No, I wouldn’t “fire” any current Immigration Judges (although I might over time make everyone re-compete for their jobs in a true merit-based selection system). But we do need:
An independent Article I U.S. Immigration Court, free from the pernicious political influence that the DOJ has been applying for many years.
A real merit selection system for future Immigration Judges that emphasizes expertise in immigration and asylum law and proven ability to deal fairly, effectively, and objectively with the public and which utilizes panels with some members from outside the Federal Government who practice before the Immigration Courts.
An Appellate Division that functions like a true independent Appellate Court, with a diverse membership, that will rein in those judges who are biased against asylum seekers and not applying Cardoza-Fonseca.
As I’ve pointed out before, things simply can’t happen under the highly biased, xenophobic Jeff Sessions. He is the “perfect storm” of why the Immigration Judiciary must be removed from the DOJ.
As a historical aside, an unfortunate harbinger of things to come, the BIA actually misapplied their own “immutability/fundamental to identity” test to the facts in Acosta!
Of course “taxi drivers in San Salvador” were a PSG! Ask any New Yorker whether being a taxi driver is “fundamental to identity!”
Occupational identification, at all levels of society, is one of the most powerful indicators of self-identity and one that we seldom ask individuals to involuntarily change. Think that “truck drivers” aren’t a “PSG?” Just walk into the next Pilot Truck Stop you see on the Interstate in your little black judicial robe and shout that next to the Drivers” Lounge or rest rooms. I think you would find some “strong dissenters.”
Or how about going before a group of judges and telling them that being a judge isn’t “fundamental to identity!” I remember when a somewhat “tone-deaf” (but in retrospect, perhaps clairvoyant) invited speaker at one of our past Annual Immigration Judges’ Conferences referred to us as “just highly paid immigration inspectors working for the Attorney General.” He barely got out alive!
The BIA ruling in Acosta was “doubly absurd” in the context of 1985. The U.S. was then actively engaged in supporting the Government of El Salvador against the guerrillas. The BIA suggested that the taxi drivers in San Salvador could merely quit their jobs en masse or participate in the guerrillas taxi strike called by the guerrillas. Both of which would have crippled the country of El Salvador and seriously undermined the government we were supporting!
In short, the BIA has a long ugly history of twisting the law and the facts against legitimate asylum seekers, particularly those from Latin America.
Jeff Sessions, well-known for his long history of xenophobia, racially charged attitudes and actions, and bias against nearly every non-White-male-straight-right-wing-Christian social group in America is on the cusp of making things even worse for vulnerable refugees entitled to our protection by abusing his power as AG and stripping the hard earned asylum rights from abused women — who had to labor through 15 years of wrong BIA decisions, outrageous political maneuvering at the DOJ, and task avoidance at the BIA to win their hard-earned rights in A-R-C-G- in the first place!
Only cowards pick on the vulnerable and the dispossessed!
Eventually, long after I’m gone, I’m sure the “truth will out.” However, that will be little help to those currently being railroaded through the travesty that passes for justice in today’s U.S. Immigration Courts or those who have been denied justice in the past.
(Ret.) Immigration Judge Paul Schmidt, Adjunct Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law
Center Heidi Altman, Policy Director, National Immigration Justice Center James R. McHenry, Director, Executive Office for Immigration Review Judge Denise Slavin, President Emeritus, National Association of Immigration Judges
James R. McHenry, Director, Executive Office for Immigration Review
Judge Denise Slavin, President Emeritus, National Association of Immigration Judges
Karen Grisez, Special Advisor to the ABA Commission on Immigration; Public Service Counsel, Fried Frank LLP
*********************************************
This event is FREE & OPEN TO ALL. I believe there will be a “public comment” opportunity. So, this is your chance to weigh in on the US Immigration Court “Train Wreck” and the Attorney General’s recent actions!🚂🚂🚂🚂🚂🚂🚂🚂🚂
Seating might be limited, and I would expect interest to be high. So, I strongly recommend arriving early!
Justice report’s findings clash with Sessions’ actions
By Tal Kopan
Attorney General Jeff Sessions has made overhauling the chronically backlogged immigration courts a top priority — but some of his moves seem to run counter to recommendations in a Justice Department-commissioned report made public on Monday.
While some of the recommendations, such as increasing staffing, have been part of his efforts, other steps — such as requiring judges to process a target amount of cases — run contrary to the study’s suggestions.
The report was written by consulting firm Booz Allen Hamilton last April after a yearlong analysis commissioned by the Justice Department’s immigration courts division. A redacted version was made public Monday as the result of a Freedom of Information Act request by the American Immigration Lawyers Association and American Immigration Council.
The report looks at the chronic inability of the immigration courts to keep up with the number of cases before them. Cases related to immigration status are handled in a court system separate from the typical criminal and civil courts in the US — a system that is run entirely by the Justice Department and in which the attorney general effectively functions as a one-man Supreme Court.
Because cases can take years to finish, undocumented immigrants can end up living and building lives in the US as they await a final decision on whether they are legally allowed to stay in the US — something the Trump administration has cited as a driver of illegal immigration.
The Booz Allen Hamilton analysis identifies a number of issues that contribute to the backlog, including staffing shortages, technological difficulties and external factors like an increasing number of cases.
Sessions has worked to hire more immigration judges and has ordered other upgrades like the use of an electronic filing system, as the report recommends.
But the American Immigration Lawyers Association expressed concern about a number of other recommendations that seemed ignored or on which opposite action was taken.
Responding to the report, a Justice Department official who requested not to be named said that the efforts of the department are “common-sense.”
“After years of mismanagement and neglect, the Justice Department has implemented a number of common-sense reforms in the immigration court system, a number of them address these issues and we believe that focusing our efforts on these reforms has been an effective place to start,” the official said.
The report’s recommendations include a performance review system for judges, who are hired and managed by the Justice Department, that “emphasizes process over outcomes and places high priority on judicial integrity and independence,” including in dialogue with the union that represents immigration judges. The Justice Department recently rolled out a performance metrics system, though, that requires judges to complete a certain number of cases per year and sets time goals for other procedural steps along the way, which immigration judges have strongly opposed as jeopardizing the ability of judges to make fair, independent decisions.
In a call with reporters, AILA representatives and a retired immigration judge argued that while the report doesn’t explicitly reject a quota system, it’s clear that putting one in place is contrary to the recommendation. They say that judges who are fearful of their job security and opportunity for advancement may be pressured to speed up hearing cases at the expense of due process for the immigrants, which could skew the outcome of the case.
A Justice Department official said the agency rejects the notion of a “false dichotomy” that improving efficiency sacrifices due process and said the agency has also put in place court-based metrics that lend itself to the recommendation of the report.
In another example, the report recommends that the Justice Department consider expanding legal orientation programs for immigrants and increasing their access to attorneys, so they can better navigate the system. The Justice Department recently put on hold a legal advice program for immigrants in the courts, saying it needed to be reviewed, though audits in the past had consistently shown it was productive and had saved the government money long-term. Officials say they may reinstitute the program if the audit shows it is effective.
The report also recommends limited use of video hearings, saying judges are stymied by technical difficulties and also are less able to read the subtle cues and nonverbal communications of witnesses and people involved in the hearings. Sessions’ immigration courts plan includes expanding the use of video hearings.
In another example, one of Sessions’ first moves in taking office was to send a number of judges to the border on a temporary assignment to handle cases there. The report says temporary assignments should be avoided, as they create more delays when judges have to catch up on their workloads back home.
The report also recommends administratively closing cases if they are being adjudicated in some other venue, like a visa petition or another court case. The Trump administration has sought to curtail the administrative closing of cases.
*********************************
DOJ’s ridiculous claim that Sessions’s actions are “common sense” is refuted by virtually everyone with expertise or true understanding of the Immigration Court system including those working in it, those stuck in it, and even ICE!
There can be no effective, Due Process oriented, “actual common sense” Immigration Court reforms so long as Jeff Sessions controls those courts.
Here’s the link to the hearing. I had to move the “time bar” at the bottom to about 28 minutes in before the “action” started. Thanks to both Laura Lynch of AILA and Nolan Rappaport for forwarding this to me.
Expert panelists address immigration court reform at a discussion hosted by the ABA Commission on Immigration