"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.
Every year at the end of October, legal service providers come together to celebrate Pro Bono Week. It is a dedicated opportunity to acknowledge the amazing work that our volunteers do—work that is the foundation of the American Immigration Council’s Immigration Justice Campaign. In an immigration system that is set up to make it almost impossible for certain groups of people to win, pro bono volunteers are one of the bastions helping overwhelmed legal service providers hold the line for due process and justice.
From the solo practitioner doing pro bono work to learn a new skill, to the corporate law firm partner who has incorporated pro bono as part of their practice for two decades, our volunteers run the gamut. Everyone makes a difference—from the law students interpreting between classes and homework to the community members who volunteer simply because they care. Every single volunteer is integral to the Justice Campaign’s work—and we thank them for their time and dedication.
Since its creation in 2017, the Justice Campaign and our volunteers have walked alongside hundreds of immigrants in their fight for justice and due process in the United States.
This year alone, over 200 Justice Campaign volunteers have:
Worked on 221 cases for detained individuals in 14 detention centers across the country.
Worked on 335 cases for non-detained individuals across 32 states of residence.
Served clients from 30 countries of origin who speak 19 different languages.
And with these volunteers’ help:
71% of clients have won their immigration case.
85% of clients asking for release from detention have won that release from an immigration judge.
Nationally, only 40% of people win their immigration cases, and only 32% win their release from an immigration judge. Those numbers are even lower for people without an attorney. Detained immigrants without an attorney only have about an 11% chance of winning release.
This small example of Justice Campaign clients and volunteers shows the immediate impact that pro bono work has on clients’ lives. Without the dedication of our pro bono volunteers, many of these individuals would have had to move forward alone. Statistically speaking, that means most probably would have lost.
The past several years have been difficult for most of the world in so many ways. And yet, pro bono volunteers continue showing up every day, allowing the Justice Campaign to continue serving clients, help people get out of detention, fight their cases—and for many, win. To the hundreds of volunteers who have worked with the Justice Campaign, this year and every year, thank you. We could not do this work without you.
*************************
This reality bears little resemblance to the myths and false narratives about the impact of representation put out by nativists and parroted by EOIR during the Trump years. Nor does it match the gimmicks and poor planning of the Biden Administration, which continues to operate on the false assumption that the vast majority of asylum cases in Immigration Court will be denials.
While this sample is probably too small to be statistically valid, it certainly supports the view that the current mess at EOIR unjustly leaves behind many asylum seekers and other individuals entitled to relief just because they are unrepresented or poorly represented. It also make them much more likely to remain in detention, costly for both them and the Government.
It would make sense for EOIR and the Biden Administration to work cooperatively with the pro bono and low bono bar to prioritize and increase representation and to then prioritize represented cases that are most likely to result in grants of relief. Those cases are likely to proceed faster (without any due-process-denying “gimmicks”), less likely to be appealed, and would seldom reach the Courts of Appeals. An overall efficient way to use resources.
Additionally, EOIR should be working more closely with VIISTA Villanova and others who have developed “scalable” programs for training accredited representatives to increase quality representation in Immigration Court.
Instead, with yet another round of mindless “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” on steroids, EOIR has instigated an unnecessary and counterproductive “pitched battle” with advocates across America. Go figure!
“Can’t anyone here play this game?” The GOP lacks honesty and decency. The Dems lack vision and guts. The public is misinformed about the realities of immigration. Migrants and their supporters are caught in the crossfire of political failure! PHOTO: Rudi Reit Creative Commons
Lack of immigration reform hurts businesses and farmers, puts nation’s food supply at risk
Note the comments from immigration lawyer George Pappas in North Carolina.
The hostility is reflected in the immigration courts in Atlanta and in Charlotte, where the highest denial rates for asylum prevail,” he told USA TODAY. “They will not be talking about outsourcing workers or about education. The right wing base of the Republican party has used immigration as a political wedge issue to deflect attention and to deflect media, airwaves, and media space from real issues.
While undoubtedly the Immigration Courts in Atlanta and Charlotte do reflect the type of biased, anti-immigrant approach pushed by GOP politicos, today they are run by Dem AG Merrick Garland. He has failed to make needed reforms and changes at the top, starting with inept leadership from EOIR Headquarters and a precedent setting appellate board (BIA) that does not reflect the best-qualified expert judicial talent available who would implement due process, fundamental fairness, consistency, and best judicial practices nationwide.
Ironically, these values WERE once part of the “EOIR Vision,” abandoned and trashed by Administrations of both parties over the past two decades. For Dems who believe in the power of immigrants and immigrants’ tights, it’s now basically “Pogoland:” “We have met the enemy, and he is us.”
A number of the public comments in the articles also show gross misconceptions about the nature of migration, the goals of the GOP, the reasons why migrants can’t apply for asylum in a safe, orderly manner at ports of entry, the immense benefits to both the workforce and society brought by family-based immigrants and those seeking to enter as refugees and asylees, and the relationship between an improved economy and a sensible, robust, realistic approach to immigration (eschewed by the GOP; bobbled by the Dems).
Both parties have squandered opportunities to acknowledge truth, make the current system work better, and create order at the border. Neither has a serious plan for reform on its agenda.
Unlike the Trump “shut the border/build the wall” racist fiasco, Biden’s initial USCitizenship Act of 2021 had some good ideas. But, after quickly “throwing it out there,” apparently as a sop to those who helped elect them, the Administration shoved it in a drawer and forgot about it. Instead, they pursued a mishmash of “built to fail gimmicks,” bureaucratic bungling, broken courts, poor legal positions, lack of vision, inept PR, and weak leadership.
The failure of the world’s leading “nation of immigrants” to discard and disavow the racist nonsense on immigration and come together on realistic, forward looking, generous, welcoming immigration policies makes our nation look bad and robs us of opportunities to improve the economy and build for the future.
Too many Biden Administration Immigration officials appear to share Stephen Miller’s “upside down” view of the Statue of Liberty, in whole or in part! Why can’t they just follow the Refugee Act of 1980 and establish the robust, timely, generous legal approach to refugees and asylum seekers that best serves America?Bill Frelick Director Refugee and Migrant Rights Division Human Rights Watch
Refugees are people who flee for their lives. Escape from danger and abuse is usually chaotic, sudden, desperate. The Biden administration’s rollout of its new policy for Venezuelan refugees seems oblivious to this refugee reality and risks doing more harm than good.
. . . .
Announcing the program on Oct. 12, Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro N. Mayorkas said Venezuelans who enter irregularly “will be returned to Mexico.”
He didn’t mention — and appeared to disregard — U.S. law, which recognizes that anyone who arrives in the United States has the right to seek asylum “whether or not at a designated port of arrival” and “irrespective of such alien’s status.”
The impact of this announcement, “effective immediately,” was the summary return to Mexico without examination of their asylum claims of any Venezuelans entering the United States without authorization. Mexico has given no assurances that it will examine their refugee claims or provide asylum to those who fear return to Venezuela. In fact, the 4,050 Venezuelans expelled to Mexico since the implementation of the policy have been given visas valid for only one week and instructed to leave the country.
. . . .
With the Biden administration’s plan in effect, we might as well apply a blowtorch to Emma Lazarus’s welcoming poem at the foot of the Statue of Liberty and chisel in a new message: “Give me your well-rested, your well-to-do, your properly ticketed jet-setters yearning to breathe free.”
Read Bill’s complete op-ed act the link. Bill is one of many “practical experts” who would do a much better job than current Administration politicos in establishing and running a refugee and asylum program that would comply with the law, due process, human dignity, and America’s best interests.Why is Biden following the lead of his “clueless (and spineless) crew?”
The Refugee Act of 1980was enacted and amended to deal with these situations! Robust, realistic refugee programs outside the U.S. should encourage many refugees to apply, be screened abroad, and admitted legally.
Other refugees arriving at our border can be promptly screened for credible fear. Those who fail that test can be summarily removed in accordance with existing law.
Those who pass that test should have access to counsel and receive timely, expert adjudications, with full appeal rights, under the generous “well founded fear” (1 in 10 chance) international standard established by the Refugee Act. See, e.g., INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca (Supremes); Matter of Mogharrabi (BIA).
It’s not “rocket science!” With dynamic, experienced refugee experts running the system and “practical scholars” with expertise in refugee processing and human rights laws serving as USCIS Asylum Officers and EOIR judges at the trial and appellate levels the legal system should be flexible enough to deal with all refugee situations in an orderly manner.
Many, probably a majority, of today’s asylum seekers should be granted asylum and admitted to the U.S. in full legal status, authorized to work, and on their way to green cards and eventual citizenship. Like those admitted from abroad, they could also be made eligible for certain resettlement assistance to facilitate integration into American communities who undoubtedly will benefit from their presence.
The more robust, realistic, and timely our overseas refugee programs become, the fewer refugees who will be forced to apply for asylum at our borders. Also, real, bold, dynamic humanitarian leadership, including accepting our fair share of refugees and asylees, could persuade other countries signatory to the Geneva Refugee Convention to do likewise.
No insurmountable backlogs; no bewildered individuals wandering around the U.S. in limbo waiting for hearings that will never happen; few “no shows;” no long-term detention; no botched, biased “any reason to deny” decisions from unqualified officers and judges leading to years of litigation cluttering our legal system, no diverting Border Patrol resources from real law enforcement, no refugees huddled under bridges or sitting on street corners in Mexico!
It’s not “pie in the sky!” It’s the way our legal system could and should work with competent leadership and the very best available adjudicators and judges! It would support the proper, important role of refugees as an essential component of LEGAL IMMIGRATION, not an “exception” or “loophole” as racists and nativists like to falsely argue.
Instead of demonstrating the competence and integrity to use existing law to deal with refugee and asylum situations, the Biden Administration resorts to ad hoc political gimmicks. Essentially, the “RA80” has been repealed “administratively.” Effectively, we’re back to the “ad hoc” arbitrary approaches we used prior to ‘80 (which I worked on during the Ford Administration, and where I recollect I first heard of Bill Frelick).
I doubt that the late Senator Ted Kennedy, former Rep. Elizabeth Holtzman, and the rest of the group who helped shepherd the Refugee Act of 1980 through Congress would have thought that using Border Patrol Agents as Asylum Officers or packing the Immigration Courts and the BIA with judges prone to deny almost every asylum claim, regardless of facts or proper legal standards, was the “key to success!”
Congress specifically intended to eliminate the use of parole to deal with refugees except in extremely unusual circumstances, not present here. Biden’s latest ill-advised gimmick violates that premise. It’s totally inexcusable, as the refugee flow from Venezuela is neither new nor unpredictable. I was granting Venezuelan asylum cases before I retired in June 2016. Even then, there were legions of documentation, much of it generated by the USG, condemning the repressive regime in Venezuela and documenting the persecution of those who resisted!
A better AG would say “No” to these improper evasions of existing law. But, we have Merrick “What Me Worry” Garland! His botching of the Immigration Courts has been combined with a gross failure to stand up for equal justice for migrants (particularly those of color) across the board! America and refugees deserve better from our chief lawyer.
The Refugee Act of 1980 actually provides all the tools and flexibility the Biden Administration needs to establish order on the border and properly and fairly process refugees and asylees. Why won’t they use them?
AG Merrick Garland has “looked the other way” while the Biden Administration flaunts applicable protection laws in and outside the U.S. He also runs a dysfunctional “court system” where anti-asylum bias, worst practices, poorly qualified decision makers, and grotesque inconsistencies undermine the legal rights of asylum seekers and other refugees. Doesn’t America deserve more competence from its top lawyer? PHOTO: Wikipedia Commons
Asylum seekers and lawyers must cross hostile territory, with a dearth of naturally-occurring due process, to successfully negotiate Garland’s dysfunctional EOIR. Most never make it! Death Valley Creative Commons
INSIDE THE NUMBERS FOR THE TRAC 10-09-22 IJ REPORT
NOTE: Does not account for: IJs no longer on the bench; IJs appearing in more than one location; differences among detained, non-detained dockets; profiles of high and non-high-denying courts excluded locations with fewer than four IJs listed. No guarantee of accuracy for my “hand count” — but, in accordance with the old government motto, “I did the best I could under the circumstances.”
Precipitous unexplained rise in nationwide denial rate since FY 2012, from 44.5% to 63.3%, even though human rights conditions in most so-called “sending countries” remained horrible and in some cases significantly deteriorated.See for FY2012 stats, https://trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/306/
Lots of “Nay-Sayers” on the Immigration Bench:
92 IJs denied asylum 90% or more of the time.
Another 94 IJs denied 85-90% of the time.
Total of 186 “High Deniers” — those who denied 85% or more — significantly (21.7% or more) above already inexplicably high 63.3% national rate.
High Denying Courts (majority of IJs listed denied 85%+)
Atlanta (including ATD-Detained) (10 of 10 IJs)
Charlotte (6 of 8 IJs)
Conroe (5 of 9 IJs)
Houston (19 of 22 IJs)
Houston-Greenspoint (4 of 5 IJs)
Jena (6 of 6 IJs)
LA – North (8 of 11 IJs)
Los Fresnos (5 of 6 IJs)
Lumpkin (5 of 7 IJs)
Memphis (6 of 11 IJs)
Miami (20 of 31 IJs)
Miamii – Krome (7 of 9 IJs)
Non-High-Denying Courts (all, or almost all, listed IJs denied less than 85%)
Adelanto (5 IJs)
Arlington (3 of 25 IJs High Deniers)
Bloomington (1 of 13 IJs High Denier)
Boston (1 of 15 IJs High Denier)
Baltimore (1 of 16 IJs High Denier)
Batavia (1 of 4 IJs High Denier)
Chicago (1 of 16 IJs High Denier)
Denver (2 of 8 IJs High Deniers)
Detroit (4 IJs)
Elizabeth (5 IJs)
Imperial (5 IJs)
New York (46 IJs, 0 High Deniers) **
New York Detained (17 IJs, 1 High Denier)
Newark (3 of 16 IJs High Deniers)
Otay Mesa (7 IJs)
Pearsall (5 IJs)
Philadelphia (8 IJs)
Portland OR (4 IJs)
San Francisco (2 of 27 High Deniers)
Seattle (8 IJs)
Tacoma (5 IJs)
Van Nuys (1 of 7 IJs High Denier)
Telling stats:99.1%, 97.4%, 94.3% 90.4% — Asylum denial rates for four BIA Appellate Immigration Judges listed in the chart who continue to serve on Garland’s BIA. No wonder asylum seekers are saddled with bad law and sloppy, one-sided appellate review within Garland’s dysfunctional EOIR.
Best courts for asylum seekers: Generallyin the Northeast and Northern California: Arlington, Boston, Baltimore, New York, Philadelphia, Newark, San Francisco, Chicago.
Worst places for asylum seekers: Atlanta, Miami, Charlotte, Houston, Louisiana.
Mind-blowing stat: Compare the performance of IJs in Arlington and Baltimore with those in Charlotte, all within the 4th Circuit.
Observations:
New York, followed by San Francisco, appear to be the largest and best functioning courts with respect to actually following the generous standards for asylum seekers set forth by the Supremes in Cardoza-Fonseca, enunciated (but seldom followed) by the BIA in Mogharrabi, and to a large extent incorporated into sporadically enforced regulations.
In NY, 46 IJs, 0 High Deniers, 24 listed IJs granted at least 50% or more of the cases, denial rates ranging from 7.1% to 83.5%, still a rather mind-boggling range.The 24 IJs in the 50% or more grant range would seem like a good place for Garland to look for a model for rebuilding EOIR as a fair, due-process-oriented, subject matter expert court. He doesn’t seem interested in doing that, but it could be done with better leadership.
Although generally one would expect Detention Courts to be in the “High Denier” category, that’s not always the case. Courts like NY-Detained, Elizabeth, Adelanto, Otay Mesa, and Pearsall, all had some significant asylum grant rates. Conversely, several predominantly non-detained courts like Atlanta, Charlotte, Miami, and Houston were unseemly “dead zones” for asylum seekers. Garland’s failure to address the gross inconsistencies and abuses of asylum law going on in those and other “High Denier Courts” is disgraceful.
Overall, this is a statistical picture of a failed and dysfunctional court system where critical life or death decisions depend more on where you are and who your judge or BIA “panel” is than on the quality of the evidence or the state of the law. It has failed to deliver on its promise of being a court of widely acknowledged subject matter experts who will guarantee due process, fundamental fairness, and best judicial practices for all on some of the most important and life-determining decisions in American jurisprudence. It’s bad; and not significantly improving under the Dems!
Hon. Scott E. Bratton U.S. Immigration Judge New York – Broadway Immigration Court PHOTO: lawyer.com
Judge Scott E. Bratton of the NY Broadway Immigration Court was a “regular” before me when I was assigned to the Cleveland docket. Always well-prepared, collegial, and an outstanding brief writer and oral advocate, he had no hesitation in going to the Article III Courts when necessary on behalf of his clients. He also has a sense of humor and perspective. This great appointment should have come long ago. But, better late than never!
Hon. Denise M. Hunter U.S. Immigration Judge Sacremento Immigration Court PHOTO: Linkedin
Judge Denise M. Hunter of the Sacramento Immigration Court collaborated with now GW Law Professor Cori Alonso Yoder and me on “hands-on CLE in immigration” for the DC Bar. Following my retirement, she, Cori, and I met for lunch to “strategize” ways to make due process, fundamental fairness, and best practices the “norm” in Immigration Court, rather than the exception it continues to be! She’s now in a position to lead and teach by example to make that happen in a system where justice too often continues to be a mere “afterthought,” if that!
Hon. Becca A. Niburg U.S. Immigration Judge Hyattsville Immigration Court PHOTO: Linkedin
Judge Becca A. Niburg of the Hyattsville Immigration Court is a “self described immigration nerd” — in other words, a distinguished practical scholar in immigration, human rights, and due process for all! In addition to private practice and serving with two of the premier human rights NGOs in the DMV area, Catholic Charities & Kids in Need of Defense (“KIND”), Becca has a rich background as an immigration adjudicator at the appellate level of USCIS and as a litigator in the Office of Immigration Litigation at DOJ. She combines “insider knowledge” of the failing Government immigration bureaucracy with the skills, courage, determination, and “outside perspective” to make bureaucracy work for the common good, often in spite of itself. Can’t think of an organization more in need of that perspective these days than Garland’s dysfunctional EOIR!
Here’s a complete list of appointments with bios from EOIR:
12 Judges from predominantly private sector backgrounds;
20 Judges from predominantly government sector backgrounds (primarily DHS & DOJ, but also state and local governments and other Federal agencies);
26 Judges with known immigration experience;
6 Judges with no obvious immigration experience on their resumes — all 6 from government sector backgrounds.
This is a marked improvement over the Obama and Trump Administrations where EOIR judicial appointments ran approximately 9:1 in favor of those from government! It’s also a needed improvement over the Trump Administration’s oft-criticized tendency to place too many individuals without significant immigration experience on the EOIR bench in the apparent belief that they would be more willing to “follow orders, shut up, deny, and deport.” The precipitous drop in asylum approvals during the Trump years, despite worsening conditions for refugees worldwide, proved that there was some basis for this anti-asylum assumption.
Nevertheless, Garland’s selections tend to remain significantly “over-weighted” toward those from government.I always believed that the excuse of DOJ officialsfor the over-appointments from government given during the Obama Administration — that the applicant pool from government was so much better — was pure unadulterated BS!
Since retiring and having an opportunity to work more closely with super talented private practitioners on Round Table briefs, CLE, articles, litigation strategy, proposals for legislative reform, and clinical and classroom teaching, I can say without a doubt that the talent level out here in the private/NGO/academic section is “through the roof” — astounding — particularly compared with the intellectual and legal output of EOIR! If more of these “leading lights” — of American law (NOT “just Immigration law”) aren’t on the “short list” for the Immigration Court and replacing most of the current BIA, that’s a problem with Garland’s recruiting process, NOT with the non-government “talent pool.”
Did the Federalist Society and the Heritage Foundation just “wait to see who might apply” for Federal Judge positions — starting with the Supremes! Hell no! They “groomed” their “preferred judicial selections” for years, decades even, far in advance of any known vacancies.
If you remember, Brett Kavanaugh believed that a seat on the Supremes was his “birthright” — since about age 10 or something like that. He bemoaned the fact that nasty Dems questioning his qualifications might deprive him of his “preordained destiny.” One can never accuse right-wing zealots of not having a well-developed “sense of entitlement.” They act on it, and apologize to nobody! Compare that with Dems!
By contrast, Dems are absolutely clueless about both the importance and potential of the Immigration Courts — including the BIA, a nationwide appellate court, essentially the “12th or 13th Circuit” depending on how you count.With absolute control of these important “retail level” courts for 10 of the past 14 years, the Dems have done an extraordinarily poor job of filling judgeships with the best-qualified, progressive, most due-process-committed candidates — scholarly, practical judges who would take equal justice and racial justice in America seriously! Additionally, such individuals would be “primed, experienced, and ready” for Article III appointments when the opportunities arose!
By contrast, in the four years they controlled EOIR, Sessions, Barr, and their “acting fill-in flunkies” did an extraordinary job of weaponizing and reshaping the Immigration Courts — starting with the BIA — in “Stephen Miller’s image.” In the process, they created total dysfunction and chaos at EOIR, heaped abuse and injustice on vulnerable asylum seekers ( predominantly individuals of color, many women and children), twisted immigration law into a “Milleresque” anti-immigrant mess, demoralized and punished lawyers, busted the judges’ union, forced some of the best most qualified judges off the bench, and undermined our entire justice system. They even got EOIR to “cook” their statistics to support the nativist myth that “nobody qualifies for asylum” — ergo, all asylum seeks and their lawyers are fraudsters!
I’m on the record, many times over, as being no fan of Stephen Miller! But, his aggressive, energetic, focused, “take no prisoners,” “ignore the opposition” approach to de-constructing our immigration and justice systems certainly was more effective than anything else I have witnessed over my decades in and out of Government! He understood that time could be short, and he had to do as much damage as possible in that allotted to him. He literally was totally engaged in killing asylum and asylum seekers until the exact minute he left the White House! Dems, on the other hand, disturbingly, exhibit no leadership, urgency, sense of purpose, dynamic energy, confidence in the rightness of their cause, or plan when it comes to immigration.
“You can’t do that” was a challenge to Miller — not a deterrent! He not only did it, but got away with it!
He didn’t “study” things or fool around attempting to build support outside his “base.” If nothing else, Miller “gave lie” to the off-repeated “bureaucratic mantra” that “change takes time.”
He undid decades of hard work by those engaged in making the “Refugee Act of 1980” functional in a matter of weeks or months! And, the inept immigration bureaucracy and non-existent immigration leadership under the Biden Administration has been stymied, or simply “contented no-shows,” on undoing much of Miller’s damage!
Faced with this exceptionally well-documented disaster, and it’s undeniable corrosive impact on our democracy, Garland has been largely MIA, or AWOL might be a better term. “Action” isn’t a word readily associated with Merrick Garland.
Garland’s glacial, largely disengaged, timid, ineffective approach to EOIR reform and reconstruction is perhaps typical of Democrat Administrations and their overall approach to immigration, human rights, and racial justice in the 21st Century. But, that doesn’t make it the RIGHT approach, for the party, the Federal Judiciary, our nation’s future, and, most important, for the individuals seeking justice in Garland’s EOIR wasteland and their long-suffering attorneys.
As someone who has not represented asylum seekers in his “Houses of Horror” and who disdains engaging with those who have, Merrick Garland has shown that he is unqualified to be Attorney General of the US. His “Clown Courts” are now “Houses of Horror” that are no joke, particularly for those who have to deal with his beyond dysfuntional mess on a daily basis! Reaper Image: Hernan Fednan, Creative Commons License
I received this from a practitioner in response my earlier post about Garland’s ongoing scheduling and due process fiasco @ EOIR:
Glad you wrote this. It has been so hard. I am working 7 days a week and feel like I am losing my mind. Hopefully they start making changes, because how this is currently going is just not sustainable. Many of the Judges are not granting the continuances or making you go to the IH and giving you a hard time about it. Multiple Judges told me a month or even less notice was “plenty of time.” O boy!
“Due process cannot exist if an attorney does not have sufficient time and advance notice to prepare for a case.”
The above is an elementary statement of the minimum requirement for due process in any court setting! Yet, in the “wacky world of Garland’s EOIR” 🤯 it is being knowingly and intentionally violated hundreds of times each day!
Not only does this inhibit effective professional representation of those fortunate enough to have lawyers, but it actively discourages attorneys from taking on cases in Immigration Court, particularly those acting in a pro bono or low bono capacity. How will we interest and inspire new lawyers to get into the practice when this is the way they can expect to be treated? It’s a truly disgusting and disgraceful development!
The following letter from a consortium of practitioners, academics, and NGO leaders protests the insane, due-process-denying lack of notice and the “Aimless Docket Reshuffling on steroids” ongoing @ EOIR and makes suggestions for constructive changes to restore at least some order to Garland’s dysfunctional courts. In my view, this situation raises huge Constitutional, ethical, and policy issues affecting all justice in America! It also illustrates the incredibly poor judgement and dismissive attitude of the Biden Administration and Garland’s DOJ in approaching the most serious “life or death” issues involving human rights and racial justice!
Among the signers:
NJ AILA chapter signed on, former judges, Rocky Mountain Advocacy Network, professors, CGRS, ASAP (150,000 members), NC Justice Center, etc. Attorneys practicing in every state + DC + Puerto Rico ended up signing-on to this letter.
I am a signatory. As you know, many of us believe that the ongoing intentional deterioration of due process, fundamental fairness, and best practices at EOIR is a preventable national disgrace that is undermining equal justice and democratic institutions in America. Consequently, I think it is critical to keep this issue “in the public eye” and to demand constructive, common sense reforms at EOIR.
The “constructive suggestions” contained in the letter are great! But, it’s a colossal waste of time and resources to have unqualified bureaucrats, far removed from the actual practice before these dysfunctional “courts,” unilaterally institute these ill-advised, unethical, due-process denying changes. Then, it’s left to the “outside experts” to drop everything and “plead and beg” for common sense and sanity from an arrogant, dysfunctional system!
The American justice system can’t continue to afford to let this wasteful and highly counterproductive “clown show” 🤡 go on unabated! It’s up to everyone who cares about equal justice in America (NOT just immigration practitioners) to demand that Merrick Garland get rid of the incompetents at EOIR and replace them with expert administrators and real, well-qualified judges who are “practical scholars” in the law, understand the needs of justice, and will reform this broken system to work for the best interests of everyone in America!
Elizabeth Gibson Managing Attorney National Immigrant Justice Center Publisher of “The Gibson Report”
Weekly Briefing
This briefing is designed as a quick-reference aggregation of developments in immigration law, practice, and policy that you can scan for anything you missed over the last week. The contents of the news, links, and events do not necessarily reflect the position of the National Immigrant Justice Center. If you have items that you would like considered for inclusion, please email them to egibson@heartlandalliance.org.
This gathering will bring together existing universal representation projects as well as groups considering starting/supporting new programs to reflect on best practices, adapting models while seeking to end detention, and ways to expand universal representation. The deadline to register for virtual attendance is tomorrow, October 25, 2022.
CNN: There were 227,547 migrant encounters along the US-Mexico border in September, up 12 percent from the previous month. The sharp increase in migrants from Venezuela, Cuba, and Nicaragua contributed to the uptick.
NYT: The number of Venezuelans entering the United States illegally dropped from about 1,200 a day to 150 in the first days after the Biden administration rolled out the new policies.
Reuters: The Ethiopian military and allies including troops from neighboring Eritrea have been battling forces from the northern region of Tigray on and off for two years. The conflict has killed thousands, displaced millions and left hundreds of thousands on the brink of famine.
The Hill: The Coast Guard stopped 185 Cubans on Friday, 94 on Saturday and 40 on Sunday. In total, the service says it has intercepted 921 Cubans since Oct. 1.
AP: Molina was among 13 migrants who recently arrived in the U.S. who agreed to share documents with The Associated Press that they received when they were released from U.S. custody while they seek asylum after crossing the border with Mexico. The AP found that most had no idea where they were going — nor did the people at the addresses listed on their paperwork.
CNN: It has been an endless cycle since President Joe Biden took office, according to multiple administration officials and sources close to the White House. Agency officials dream up a plan but then struggle to get White House approval, even as the problem compounds and Republicans step up their criticism. See also Immigrant advocates feel abandoned as they stare at Biden’s first-term checklist.
TRAC: According to new data obtained by TRAC through Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests, 480,301 people have been enrolled in ICE’s electronic monitoring program known as Alternatives to Detention (ATD) between August 2020 and June 2022. Many of these individuals, about 196,000, were previously active in ATD but have since ceased to be monitored under ATD, while 284,000 immigrants were still in ATD as of the end of June.
TRAC: As of the end of September 2022, Immigration Court judges dismissed a total of 63,586 cases because Department of Homeland Security officials, chiefly Border Patrol agents, are not filing the actual “Notice to Appear” (NTA) with the Immigration Court. Without a filed NTA, the Court has no jurisdiction to hear the case.
GBH: Police in New York arrested about 57,000 unlicensed drivers a year before state lawmakers narrowly approved the Green Light Law in 2019, making most immigrants eligible for licenses regardless of their legal status. In 2021, those arrests declined to about 30,000 and are on a similar pace for this year, according to records obtained by GBH News from the New York State Unified Court System.
Block Club: As a major city that attracts immigrants, Chicago specifically has been struggling to support the recent influx of asylum seekers. After dealing with cuts under the Trump administration and then the COVID-19 pandemic, immigrant serving organizations’ resources were already strained before the war in Ukraine and the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan and subsequent Taliban takeover sent thousands of refugees and asylum seekers to Chicago. The recent arrival of migrants from Texas has only added to the strain on organizations’ resources, including legal services and representation.
LexisNexis: He argues that the immigration judge (“IJ”) applied the incorrect legal standard in assessing whether he would more likely than not be tortured with the “consent or acquiescence” of the Honduran government, and that the BIA erred in its review of the IJ’s decision. He also argues that the BIA failed to consider whether the Honduran government would likely torture him and whether the MS-13 gang is a de facto government actor. We agree that the agency erred in these respects, and we therefore grant his petition for review, vacate the order of the BIA to the extent it denied him CAT relief as to Honduras, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
CA1: We thus remand for the BIA to consider in the first instance whether Chavez’s proposed social group satisfies the requirements for constituting a particular social group under the INA to which he belongs. We express no opinion as to the merits of that issue other than to emphasize that the BIA cannot reject such a group based solely on its determination that current or former gang members cannot form a particular social group.
LexisNexis: The plain language of the statute, coupled with the reasoning of Mahn and Ramirez-Contreras, persuades us that the Pennsylvania felony fleeing statute does not qualify as turpitudinous. While the failing to stop for a police officer while crossing a state line is conduct that may put another in danger, it does not necessarily do so. The agency therefore erred in its conclusion that King was convicted of a CIMT.
LexisNexis: We conclude: (1) the record in this case compels the conclusion that two of De Leon’s attackers were police officers during a July 2011 incident; (2) De Leon showed acquiescence on the part of the Guatemalan government with respect to that incident because government officials— namely, the two police officers—directly participated in the incident; and (3) the record indicates that the IJ and BIA’s conclusion that De Leon is not likely to be subjected to torture with government acquiescence if returned to Guatemala disregards several important circumstances pertinent to evaluating the likelihood of future torture. In light of these errors, we grant the petition and remand for the agency to reconsider De Leon’s application for relief.
Law360: The state of Texas on Wednesday agreed to drop its challenge to a provision of the pandemic-era Title 42 policy which exempted unaccompanied minor migrants from being expelled from the U.S. during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Law360: An Illinois university professor and students can’t stop the Biden administration from enforcing a Trump-era policy barring student visas to Chinese nationals who are connected to any entity in China that supports its “military-civil fusion strategy,” a federal judge has ruled, denying the plaintiffs’ bid for a temporary restraining order.
Law360: A class of foreign-born military recruits who sought $10 million in attorney fees after winning back their expedited path to naturalization two years ago have settled for $2.75 million in the interest of conserving resources and avoiding further litigation risks.
AIC: Several legal services organizations filed a lawsuit today against Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) for unlawfully preventing attorneys from communicating with immigrants detained in four detention facilities in Florida, Louisiana, Texas, and Arizona.
USCIS: U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services is extending certain COVID-19-related flexibilities through Jan. 24, 2023, to assist applicants, petitioners, and requestors.
You now can change your email settings or search the archives using the Google Group. If you are receiving this briefing from a third party, you can visit the Google Group and request to be added. If you receive an error, make sure you click request access.
Elizabeth Gibson (Pronouns: she/her/ella)
Managing Attorney for Capacity Building and Mentorship
National Immigrant Justice Center
A HEARTLAND ALLIANCE Program
224 S. Michigan Ave., Suite 600, Chicago, IL 60604
T: (312) 660-1688| F: (312) 660-1688| E: egibson@heartlandalliance.org
But immigrant advocates note that some of their demands aren’t contingent on Congress or the courts, which makes it all the more exasperating as to why the administration has failed to deliver.
Some told POLITICO they simply wanted to see the administration remedy the harm caused by the Trump administration’s family separation policies. Others want to see follow-up on early proposals to protect immigrant workers in labor disputes.
The administration further angered the community last week when it announced plans to use the Trump-era pandemic policy, Title 42, to expel Venezuelan migrants crossing the border illegally as part of its new humanitarian parole program for them. Advocates decried the expansion of Title 42, which the Justice Department is fighting in court, as a continuation of the Trump “playbook.”
. . . .
The biggest, most significant “unforced error” by the Biden Administration has been the failure to “clean house” at EOIR and to reform the Immigration Courts to be a model of great, scholarly, humane judging, and a bastion of due process, fundamental fairness, and best judicial practices.
The Federalist Society and the Heritage Foundation set forth a successful “blueprint” for a far-right takeover of not only the Immigration Courts, but the entire Article III Judiciary. The Trump Administration adopted and successfully followed it!
By stark contrast, the Dems have failed to act timely and decisively on the one all-important Federal court system that they completely control! EOIR is a system that probably has more impact on the future of America — or whether there will even be a future America — than any court short of the Supremes!
Garland’s dismissive treatment of the informed views of immigration, human rights, and racial justice experts — who have had “hands on” experience with “America’s most dysfunctional courts” (the Immigration Courts) — has undermined our legal system and hamstrung almost every other progressive social justice initiative — from voting rights to abortion!
Garland’s failure to bring in experienced, dynamic, inspirational, respected, “Tier One” progressive practical scholar/leaders — folks like, for example, Dean Kevin Johnson, Professor Karen Musalo, Marielena Hincapie, Professor Phil Schrag, Margaret Stock, Professor Michele Pistone, and Judge Dana Leigh Marks — to clean up EOIR, kick some tail, and create “the best, fairest, most efficient courts in America” — is beyond inexcusable!
Dems are a self-inflicted mess when it comes to immigration — apparently because those “calling the shots” are more “Stephen Miller Lite” than they are Julian Castro and other Democrats who understand the essential importance of immigrants and of standing up for their rights — starting with the “retail level” of American justice.
As one frustrated experienced practitioner recently told me: “Biden’s entire immigration policies are a train wreck. He didn’t take the action he said he would. The practice of immigration law is soul crushing.”
“Soul crushing!” Those words should be a “wake up call” to the “tone deaf” policy honchos in the Administration. It shouldn’t be this way in a Dem Administration that was elected because they promised to do better and to stand up to the lies, myths, and false narratives of the nativist right! Once in power, Dems don’t seem to be able to distinguish between their friends and their adversaries. That’s proven NOT to be a “formula for success!”
For every immigrant/racial justice advocate that the Biden Administration wears down and demoralizes, two “new recruits” for the NDPA will arise, fully energized to keep litigating, winning, and raising hell until due process, human rights, fundamental fairness, and racial justice get some long overdue ACTION. Based on results to date, that means continuing to “beat Garland’s brains out” in court! The talent and creativity is obviously “out here,” not in Garland’s “Halls of (In)Justice!” Given that the “Stephen Miller Group” is also challenging the Administration in court, Garland will eventually find himself doing nothing but litigating immigration issues and getting walloped by both sides!
Meanwhile, as the Administration daily fails on immigration, human rights, and racial justice within the Executive Branch, my mailbox and message box are overflowing with desperate requests from Dem politicos, from Joe, Kamala, Nancy, and Chuck on down, for more donations of money and time. But, once the election cycle is over, our views are ignored, and we are treated as “PNGs.” Meanwhile, those who actively undermined immigrants’ rights and diminished due process are rewarded or retained in key positions where they continue to heap damage on the most vulnerable among us and frustrate their supporters.
Doesn’t seem like a sustainable future for the Democratic Party or for American democracy! But, hey, I’m just a retired Immigration Judge. Maybe my friends in the social justice movement enjoy being treated as “chopped liver” — frozen out and ignored — once they have helped elect Dems.
Republicans boldly “run on the big lie.” Meanwhile, Dems “run from the truth” about immigrants and their all-important role in America’s future! Go figure!
A quote from a recent NY Times article struck me as aptly summarizing the failure of leaders of both political parties to take an honest, creative, and practical approach to the opportunity presented by continuing human migration:
Immigration in the United States is broken, but one side of the fence wants to study the root causes of the problem, and don’t want to see what’s happening right here,” Mr. [John] Martin [deputy director of the Opportunity Center for the Homeless in El Paso] said, squinting beneath the brim of his cowboy hat. “And the other side wants to build a wall which would become a dam and eventually burst.”
Former AG Jeff “Gonzo Apocalypto” Sessions went to the border to preach his “gospel” of anti-immigrant hate, lies, nativist myths, and to “fire up” officials for one of the biggest unconstitutional abuses of prosecutorial authority in modern American history. Indeed, that is when one reporter coined the term “Gonzo Apocalypto” to describe the absolute nonsense spewing from Sessions’s mouth.
Sessions orchestrated a vile “strategy” of family separation from which the victims haven’t yet, and may never, fully recover. Interestingly, he has also escaped accountability.
By contrast, Garland, to my knowledge, has never bothered to visit the border and engage first-hand with the human carnage his failed “courts” and abuse of both the Constitution and asylum law inflict on others. He interacts neither with those outside government trying to uphold the rule of law nor the enforcement officials given “mission impossible.” He absolves himself from observing the effect that his failure to carry out orderly, humane, legally compliant refugee and asylum processing — using existing law rather than extralegal “gimmicks” — has on communities on the border and in the interior.
Sessions was a vile, intellectually dishonest, and immoral leader; Garland is simply a failed and disengaged one. But, the difference might not be readily apparent to most practitioners laboring in the foul trenches of Garland’s dysfunctional “court” system.
From my observation, there are folks out here interested in, and capable of, addressing the opportunities, potential benefits, and challenges presented by the inevitability of human migration in the 21st Century. Most of them, unlike “pontificating politicos,” have, at some point, “walked the walk” with those humans caught up in the migration dilemma, on both sides of the border.
But, leaders of neither party are interested in the constructive ideas and solutions developed within the rule of law that these unusually talented and dedicated individuals can offer. As long as that is the case, the realities of human migration, false promises, racially driven bias, and wildly inconsistent application of justice in America will continue to vex both politicians and the voters who put such “non-problem-solvers” in office!
If he survives Garland’s EOIR, this guy faces more torture if wrongfully removed to torture elsewhere. “Justice” Star Chamber Style
“Sir Jeffrey” Chase reports on H.H. v. Garland, a case in which the RoundTable filed an amicus brief in behalf of the respondent. Many thanks to our friends Adam Gershenson, Zachary Sisko, Marc Suskin, Valeria M. Pelet del Toro, Samantha Kirby, and Cooley LLP on the brief for amici curiae Former Immigration Judges and Former Members of the Board of Immigration Appeals.
For the reasons detailed above, we conclude that the BIA erred by: (1) applying the incorrect standard of review to uphold the IJ’s denial of CAT relief as to Honduras, in a misguided effort to accommodate the IJ’s error of law in requiring a showing of willful acceptance rather than willful blindness; (2) improperly failing to address H.H.’s argument that he would likely be tortured by or at the instigation of Honduran officials; and (3) failing to meaningfully address H.H.’s argument that MS-13 members may act under color of law.21 Accordingly, we grant the petition for review, vacate the BIA’s decision insofar as it denied H.H. deferral of removal to Honduras, and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
************************************
Meanwhile, Dan Kowalski at LexisNexis Immigraton Community reports on another CAT rebuke from the 9th Circuit.
“Risvin Valdemar De Leon Lopez (“De Leon”), a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision dismissing his appeal of an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) order denying his application for relief under the Convention Against Torture. We conclude: (1) the record in this case compels the conclusion that two of De Leon’s attackers were police officers during a July 2011 incident; (2) De Leon showed acquiescence on the part of the Guatemalan government with respect to that incident because government officials— namely, the two police officers—directly participated in the incident; and (3) the record indicates that the IJ and BIA’s conclusion that De Leon is not likely to be subjected to torture with government acquiescence if returned to Guatemala disregards several important circumstances pertinent to evaluating the likelihood of future torture. In light of these errors, we grant the petition and remand for the agency to reconsider De Leon’s application for relief.”
These aren’t “minor bureaucratic matters,” no matter how much Garland and his “clueless crew” over @ DOJ might want to treat them that way and hope they will go away! They won’t! Not if the thousands of us involved in the due process, fundamental fairness, and racial justice for all movement have anything to say about it (e.g., the “NDPA”)!
And we will continue to speak out against the parody of justice @ Garland’s EOIR! It’s a disingenuous and disgraceful performance by a Democratic Administration that will have “down the line” consequences!
While the Trump Administration admittedly left EOIR in complete shambles, that doesn’t excuse the Biden Administration’s failure to fix it. It’s not “rocket science!”But, there is no way that the “Clown Show” 🤡 that Garland has chosen to run and staff EOIR (many inexplicably “held over” from the Sessions/Barr debacle) can fix it!
These are literally life and death cases in which Garland’s “faux expert” BIA “pretzels” the law, misconstrues facts, and “selectively reads” records to reach wrong results that deny protection and decree deportation! How is this acceptable performance from any tribunal, let alone one that is supposed to insure justice for those whose lives are on the line? How is this acceptable performance from a Democratic Administration that claimed fealty to human rights and racial justice, but takes neither seriously when it comes to EOIR?
There are plenty of “practical scholar experts” out here in the non-governmental sectors who would make much better appellate and trial judges, and administrators, than many of those Garland is inflicting on migrants and their attorneys.
What’s wrong with the Biden Administration? What’s “right”about failed justice @ Justice?”
The poor performance of Garland as the “steward” of the Immigration Courts at EOIR is a threat to humanity, democracy, and a colossal waste of judicial and litigation resources at all levels of our justice system!
Maybe Merrick Garland SHOULD worry about running “America’s worst courts” and inflicting life-threatening injustice on his fellow humans! PHOTO: Wikipedia Commons
Garland’s approach to immigrant justice in his courts harkens back to “the bad old days.” Yet he remains impervious — and unaccountable! The Wasp 1882-01-06 cover Slow but sure.jpg Slow, but Sure. Cartoon depicts Lady Justice riding a tortoise, about to hang a man. George Frederick Keller Public domain
Dean Kevin Johnson @ ImmigrationProf Blog previews upcoming book by Professor Maya Pagni Barack:
The publisher’s description of the book reads as follows:
“Each year, hundreds of thousands of migrants are moved through immigration court. With a national backlog surpassing one million cases, court hearings take years and most migrants will eventually be ordered deported. The Slow Violence of Immigration Court sheds light on the experiences of migrants from the “Northern Triangle” (Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador) as they navigate legal processes, deportation proceedings, immigration court, and the immigration system writ large.
Grounded in the illuminating stories of people facing deportation, the family members who support them, and the attorneys who defend them, The Slow Violence of Immigration Court invites readers to question matters of fairness and justice and the fear of living with the threat of deportation. Although the spectacle of violence created by family separation and deportation is perceived as extreme and unprecedented, these long legal proceedings are masked in the mundane and are often overlooked, ignored, and excused. In an urgent call to action, Maya Pagni Barak deftly demonstrates that deportation and family separation are not abhorrent anomalies, but are a routine, slow form of violence at the heart of the U.S. immigration system.”
KJ
**************************
The ongoing national disgrace called “EOIR” continues to mete out injustice and inane bureaucratic nonsense under a DEMOCRATIC Administration that pledged to return the rule of law and humanity to our broken Immigration Court system!
That system is “headed and controlled” by a DEMOCRATIC AG, Merrick Garland. He is a former Federal Appellate Judge who certainly knows that what passes for “justice” in his broken “court” system is nothing of the sort! Also this ongoing debacle doesn’t say much good about Garland’s “lieutenants:” Deputy AG Lisa Monaco, Associate AG Vanita Gupta, Assistant AG for Civil Rights Kristen Clarke, and Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar.
They have all “looked the other way,” defended, or failed to condemn this travesty undermining our entire justice system, unfolding under their collective noses at EOIR every day! At some point in the future, all these guys will be “making the rounds” of major law firms, NGOs, universities, mainstream media, and corporations — seeking to “cash in” on their DOJ “experience.” Then, folks should remember how they ACTUALLY PERFORMED (or didn’t) when they had a chance to fix “America’s worst courts” — hotbeds of racial and ethnic injustice, purveyors of bad law, and a haven for ridiculously dysfunctional procedures!
Perhaps a suitable future for these willfully blind “public servants” would be to require them to spend the balance of their careers practicing on a pro bono basis before the “star chambers” they inflicted on others! See how they like being “scheduled,” with no or inadequate notice, to do 15 or 20 asylum cases per month; appearing before too many ill-qualified “judges” who have already decided to deny regardless of the law and facts; appealing to a captive “appellate court” dominated by individuals, working for the Executive, whose main “judicial qualification” was that they denied close to 100% of the asylum claims that came before them in Immigration Court and were known for their rude and dismissive treatment of asylum applicants and their lawyers! See, e.g., “Confronting The American Star Chamber . . .,” https://wp.me/p8eeJm-4Vm.,
Here’s Professor Barak’s bio from the U of Michigan-Dearborn website:
Maya Barak, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Criminal Justice Studies
Maya P. Barak, PhD Assistant Professor of Criminal Justice Studies U. of Michigan -Dearborn PHOTO: UM-D Websitew
Teaching Areas: Arab American Studies, Criminology & Criminal Justice Studies, Master of Science in Criminology and Criminal Justice, Women’s & Gender Studies
Research Areas: Capital Punishment, Criminal Justice, Criminology, Gangs, Immigrants / Crimmigration, Legal Sociology, Procedural Justice, State-Corporate Crime
Biography and Education
I am an Assistant Professor of Criminology and Criminal Justice at the University of Michigan-Dearborn. I hold a PhD in Justice, Law and Criminology from American University (2016), an MA in Criminology and Criminal Justice from Eastern Michigan University (2011), and a BA in Social Anthropology and Peace and Social Justice from the University of Michigan (2009). My research brings together the areas of law, deviance, immigration, and power, utilizing interdisciplinary approaches that span the fields of criminology, law and society, and anthropology.
Gould, Jon B. and Maya Barak. 2019. Capital Defense: Inside the Lives of America’s Death Penalty Lawyers. New York: NYU Press.
Selected Articles
Barak, Maya. 2021. “Can You Hear Me Now? Attorney Perceptions of Interpretation, Technology, and Power in Immigration Court.” Journal on Migration and Human Security (https://doi.org/10.1177/23315024211034740).
Barak, Maya. 2021. “A Hollow Hope? The Empty Promise of Rights in the U.S. Immigration System”/ “¿Una promesa vacía? La ilusión de “los derechos” en el sistema migratorio de los Estados Unidos.” Las Cadenas Que Amamos: Una panorámica sobre el retroceso de Occidente a todos los niveles.
Barak, Maya. 2021. “Family Separation as State-Corporate Crime.” Journal of White Collar and Corporate Crime Vol. 2(2), 2021, pp. 109-121 (https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2631309X20982299). (2021 Outstanding Article or Book Chapter Award, Division of White-Collar and Corporate Crime, American Society of Criminology)
Barak, Maya. 2017. “Motherhood and Immigration Policy: How Immigration Law Shapes Central Americans’ Experience of Family.” In Forced Out and Fenced In: Immigration Tales from the Field, edited by Tanya Golash-Boza. New York: Oxford University Press.
Advocates and all Americans committed to racial justice and equal justice under law need to keep raising hell — and supporting progressive candidates — until this horrible system is replaced by a real court system, with subject matter expert judges, totally focused on delivering due process, fundamental fairness, and best judicial practices to all!
What’s happening to individuals (fellow humans, “persons” under our Constitution) and their lawyers at EOIR is NOT OK, nor is it acceptable from a DEMOCRATIC ADMINISTRATION!
Yeah, “there’s trouble, right here in River City!” And, it begins with “E,” ends with “R,” and rhymes with “EYORE!”
“Eyore In Distress” Once A Symbol of Fairness, Due Process, & Best Practices, Now Gone “Belly Up”
We’re not going to defeat fascism by talking about policy. Nor by issuing grave warnings. Nor by praying for the rain of indictments. Nor by despair.
We are going to defeat it by outcompeting it. Here is a proposal for how we can do that right now.
**********************
Watch the compelling “spot on” video at the above link. Many thanks to my friend Charles Kuck for passing this on!
The Dems once were the “party of practical problem solvers” — particularly at the local level with great organizations that effectively addressed issues on the minds of the local populace. After all, it was Dem House Speaker, the late Tip O’Neill, who famously said that “All politics is local” (although, perhaps contrary to popular notions, he did not “coin” that phrase.)
It’s not that today’s GOP solves problems. Far from it! Indeed they specialize in division, destruction (“the wrecking crew”), and making things worse. (How would you like to go to GOP Rep. MTG or Virginia GOP Gov. Glenn Youngkin to get help with mistreatment of your trans kid in school? Good luck with the one!)
Yet the GOP does excel in one area. That is channeling and fanning the rage, bitterness, and anger of folks in the community who feel left out or that “the system” has betrayed them. They are also great at using that collective anger and resentment for their own political ends — usually anti-democracy actions or picking on, demonizing, and falsely blaming vulnerable groups in society for all their ills.
Anand says it’s time for Dems to get back to communicating and problem solving: “outcompeting” and “outperforming,” if you will! That’s certainly true on a larger scale. But, it’s also true at Garland’s dysfunctional EOIR. There, bureaucratic nonsense, “built to fail gimmicks,” and false “deterrence rationale” have replaced scholarship, timeliness, and practical problem solving directed at the achievable, yet inexplicably elusive, “common good.” Time for a difference approach at the critical, yet often ignored, “retail level” of democracy!
“King, a native and citizen of Jamaica, arrived in the United States in August 2016 pursuant to a visa, which later expired. He pleaded guilty in January 2020 to third-degree felony fleeing or eluding a police officer in violation of 75 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 3733(a). The Government initiated removal proceedings and charged King as removable for having overstayed his visa and for having been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude (“CIMT”) within five years of entering the United States. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1227(a)(1)(B), (a)(2)(A)(i). King later married a United States citizen and has applied to adjust to the status of lawful permanent resident. … The BIA … conclud[ed] that a Pennsylvania felony fleeing conviction is categorically a CIMT because it involves a culpable mental state of willfulness and applies to reprehensible conduct. … The plain language of the statute, coupled with the reasoning of Mahn and Ramirez-Contreras, persuades us that the Pennsylvania felony fleeing statute does not qualify as turpitudinous. While the failing to stop for a police officer while crossing a state line is conduct that may put another in danger, it does not necessarily do so. The agency therefore erred in its conclusion that King was convicted of a CIMT. For the foregoing reasons, we will grant the petition for review.”
[Hats off to William C. Menard! And personally, I think this case should be published, because it highlights errors made by the IJ, the BIA and OIL.]
William C. Menard, Esquire Member Norris McLaughlin PHOTO: Firm
It’s always helpful to have superstars 🌟 like William C. Menard of Norris McLaughlin on the side of the NDPA. Too bad they and other top flight lawyers “out here” who know and understand the plight of migrants and its inextricable ties to racial justice in America aren’t “running the show” at the DOJ like they should be! The American legal system would function much better if due process and best practices for migrants were a part of it (that is, “institutionalized”), rather than something that has to be achieved case-by-case at a great cost in resources and inconsistent justice!
I concur with my friend Dan that this case should be published as yet another public reminder and “citable” permanent record of the seemingly unending stream of errors, misguided arguments, and “worst practices” streaming out of Garland’s dysfunctional EOIR and OIL!
A Dem Administration inexplicably continues to subject migrants and their representatives to “4th class justice” from Garland’s broken EOIR. Ironically, at the same time, the Administration is begging advocates and NGOs to “empty their pockets and pound the streets” in behalf of their candidates. Talk about “being taken for granted!”
Hon. Jeffrey S. Chase Jeffrey S. Chase Blog Coordinator & Chief Spokesperson, Round Table of Former Immigration JudgesDan Kowalski Online Editor of the LexisNexis Immigration Law Community (ILC)
Dan Kowalski reports for LexisNexis Immigration Community:
“The need for effective assistance of counsel applies in immigration law just as it does in criminal law. Aliens, many of whom do not speak English and some of whom are detained before their immigration hearings, can be particularly susceptible to the consequences of ineffective lawyers. Petitioner Arckange Saint Ford paid a lawyer to represent him in removal proceedings, but Saint Ford’s requests for relief from deportation were denied after the lawyer failed to present important and easily available evidence going to the heart of Saint Ford’s claims. Saint Ford retained new counsel, and his new lawyer asked the Board of Immigration Appeals to reopen his case because of his former attorney’s ineffective assistance. The Board declined to do so. Because Saint Ford presents a meritorious ineffective-assistance claim, we will vacate the Board’s decision and remand. … AMBRO, Circuit Judge, concurring Arckange Saint Ford will get a second shot at seeking withholding of removal—that’s what matters. The majority is remanding because of his former counsel’s deficient performance at Saint Ford’s removal hearing. I agree with that and concur in full. But former counsel was not the only one who made significant missteps at the hearing. The Immigration Judge did as well. I therefore would have granted Saint Ford’s initial petition for review and remanded on that basis. I write separately to explain these errors in the hope that similar ones will not be made at Saint Ford’s new hearing. [Emphasis added.]”
“The opinion and judgment filed on May 16, 2022 [34 F.4th 201 (3d Cir. 2022)] are hereby vacated. The Clerk is directed to file the amended opinion and re-enter the judgment contemporaneously with this order.” – Saint Ford v. Atty. Gen.
“Singh argues the BIA committed legal error in denying his motion to reopen because it failed to cite or apply the prejudice standard from Matter of Lozada and its progeny—i.e., that the alien “show a reasonable likelihood that the outcome would have been different,” Molina, 763 F.3d at 1263 (internal quotation marks omitted)— and instead applied an elevated standard of prejudice from Matter of F-S-N-, 28 I. & N. Dec. 1, 3 (B.I.A. 2020)—i.e., that the alien “overcome” a prior adverse credibility determination. We agree. … The BIA applied an incorrect legal standard in deciding whether Singh had been prejudiced by his attorney’s alleged ineffective assistance because it required him to “overcome” the adverse credibility determination to show prejudice. The BIA therefore abused its discretion in denying Singh’s motion to reopen. See Qiu, 870 F.3d at 1202 (“[C]ommitting a legal error . . . is necessarily an abuse of discretion.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). On remand, the BIA should consider whether there is “a reasonable likelihood that the outcome would have been different but for counsel’s deficient performance.” Mena-Flores, 776 F.3d at 1169 (internal quotation marks omitted).”
Wrong legal standards, mistakes at both trial and appellate levels, sloppy work, unfair results in “life or death” cases. Why is this “acceptable quasi-judicial performance” in the Biden Administration? Why isn’t Garland being held accountable for his life-threatening, ongoing, anti-due-process “clown show” @ EOIR?🤡☠️
“EOIR Clown Show Must Go” T-Shirt Custom Design Concept“Lady Injustice” has found a home at Garland’s dysfunctional EOIR! Public Realm
In 1984, the Supreme Court in Strickland v. Washington announced the standard for determining when the Constitution’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel requires the overturning of a criminal conviction due to ineffective assistance of counsel.1 Strickland involved a death penalty case; on its winding path to the Supreme Court, a circuit court panel found in the defendant’s favor. That ruling was later overturned; the defendant was executed two months after the Supreme Court’s decision established a standard that the defendant could not satisfy.
A commentator writing years later could find no record of a malpractice claim or disciplinary complaint of any type having been filed against the attorney impugned in that case.2 The commentator cited this example in making the point that attorneys who are found to be Constitutionally deficient in criminal defense cases very rarely face disciplinary complaints.3 And the standard for establishing ineffective assistance laid out in Strickland does not require the filing of any such complaint.4
By contrast, the requirements for claiming ineffective assistance of counsel in immigration proceedings were set forth by the Board of Immigration Appeals in its 1988 decision Matter of Lozada.5 As immigration proceedings are civil in nature, the Sixth Amendment right to counsel was found not to apply; the Board determined that a right to counsel in the removal context “is grounded in the fifth amendment guarantee of due process.”6The BIA thus created its own standard in Lozada that requires (1) filing an affidavit attesting to the relevant facts; (2) informing prior counsel of the allegations, and providing any response received; and (3) if claiming “a violation of ethical or legal responsibilities” by prior counsel, indicating “whether a complaint has been filed with appropriate disciplinary authorities regarding such representation, and if not, why not.”7
A practice advisory of the American Immigration Council points out that requirement number three “on its face…does not require filing a bar complaint in all circumstances.”8 The AIC advisory cites circuit decisions excusing the filing of disciplinary complaints, including Fadiga v. Att’y Gen., 488 F.3d 142, 156-57 (3d Cir. 2007) (allowing no bar complaint “where counsel acknowledged the ineffectiveness and made every effort to remedy the situation”), and Correa-Rivera v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1128, 1131-32 (9th Cir. 2013) (holding that Lozada only requires an explanation of whether a bar complaint was submitted, not proof that the complaint was filed).9
Nevertheless, a 1996 BIA precedent, Matter of Rivera,10 underscores the risk of not filing a bar complaint. In that case, the requirements of Lozada were satisfied. As to the third requirement, new counsel indicated that a disciplinary complaint was not filed against prior counsel because “if any error was made in this case it was a postal error or an error of inadvertence by [former counsel].”11 Although this explanation accorded with Lozada, as it was explained both whether a bar complaint was filed and why, the Board rejected the explanation as insufficient.
The majority opinion in Rivera went on to provide a list of reasons why it considered “[t]he requirement of a bar complaint” important in ineffective assistance claims. A dissenting opinion written by then-BIA chair Paul Schmidt addressed the issue far more sensibly:
I do not need a Lozada motion or a state bar complaint to find that ineffective assistance has occurred here. The respondent’s affidavit and that of former counsel are sufficient to establish that former counsel’s duties to the respondent were not properly discharged. There is no hint of collusion between former counsel and the respondent. Under these circumstances, I see no basis for making the filing of a state bar complaint the determinative factor…12
Thus, in Rivera (and in a subsequent precedent, Matter of Assaad,13 the Board reframed the need to file a disciplinary complaint as a categorical requirement under Lozada. But in its circumstance-specific approach, Judge Schmidt’s dissent raised the question of whether this requirement is really necessary.
Nearly six years after Rivera, the answer to that question came from an unlikely source. Matter of Lozada was briefly vacated in the final days of the Bush Administration by then Attorney General Michael Mukasey.14His decision reframed ineffective assistance claims from a due process right into a discretionary agency action, and in doing so, created a new, tougher standard for establishing ineffective assistance that far fewer respondents would be able to satisfy. But interestingly, the A.G.’s decision felt the need to rethink the Board’s disciplinary complaint requirement:
By making the actual filing of a bar complaint a prerequisite for obtaining (or even seeking) relief, it appears that Lozada may inadvertently have contributed to the filing of many unfounded or even frivolous complaints. See, e.g., Comment filed by the Committee on Immigration & Nationality Law, Association of the Bar of the City of New York (Sept. 29, 2008), in response to the Proposed Rule for Professional Conduct for Practitioners—Rules and Procedures, and Representation and Appearances, 73 Fed. Reg. 44,178 (July 30, 2008) (“Under the Lozada Rule, an ineffective assistance of counsel charge is often required in order to reopen a case or reverse or remand an unfavorable decision. The practice of filing such claims is rampant, and places well-intentioned and competent attorneys at risk of discipline.”). Such unfounded complaints impose costs on well-intentioned and competent attorneys, and make it harder for State bars to identify meritorious complaints in order to impose sanctions on lawyers whose performance is truly deficient. The new approach is intended to avoid these problems by requiring only that the [noncitizen] submit to the Board a completed and signed but unfiled complaint…15
In light of these concerns, the new Compean standard still required the preparation of a disciplinary complaint against prior counsel, but (perhaps in a bizarre nod to Moses E. Herzog) added that the respondent “need not actually file the complaint with the appropriate State bar or disciplinary authorities, as Lozada had required.”16
Less than five months after its issuance, Compean was vacated by Mukasey’s successor, Attorney General Eric Holder, thus restoring the Lozada standard, along with its mandatory bar requirement.17 Holder’s decision further directed EOIR to draft proposed regulations on the topic for public comment “as soon as practicable.”18
When the agency finally published those proposed regulations more than seven years later, they retained Rivera’s mandatory complaint requirement.19 In its comments to the proposed rule, the American Immigration Lawyers Association opined that the mandatory complaint requirement should be eliminated, stating that “rather than centering on attorney discipline, the rules governing ineffective assistance of counsel should focus on assisting and protecting the noncitizen victim…” The comment continued that “EOIR already has ample existing procedures to police the immigration bar without requiring the filing of a formal complaint.”20As no final rule was ever published, we don’t know EOIR’s reaction to the comment.
Another six years later, the question first raised in the Rivera dissent, and to which a Bush Administration Attorney General and leading bar groups seem in agreement on the answer, remains unresolved.Recently, immigration law experts have revived the issue.21As those experts again point out, the purpose of reopening a proceeding in which attorney error occurred is to remedy a harm that was beyond the respondent’s ability to control. The focus on correcting the harm (as opposed to punishing the lawyer) is why in the criminal context bar complaints rarely if ever accompany ineffective assistance claims. The lack of sucha requirement allows attorneys to admit to their occasional errors without fear of retribution.
In its unique approach to the contrary, the BIA discourages attorneys from being forthcoming about their errors, and further forces counsel to turn on their own colleagues for acts that would not warrant the extreme action of a bar complaint in any other context. It seems remarkable that even an Attorney General decision issued during the Bush Administration acknowledged that most bar complaints filed pursuant to Lozada are “unfounded” and “impose costs on well-intentioned and competent attorneys,” while also hampering state bars from identifying and disciplining genuine incidents of malpractice.
According to one proponent of amending the standard, attorney Rekha Sharma Crawford, the current Lozada requirement pits members of the private bar against one another in a very destructive way, and adds unnecessary stress on the immigration removal defense counsel who are often at the forefront of these claims-many which are meaningless and done only to comply with Lozada.22
Hopefully, this will be the year that the agency finally gets around to resolving this issue by removing the mandatory complaint requirement of Lozada, and thus bringing the standard in immigration proceedings into alignment with those required in other civil and criminal courts and tribunals.
Copyright 2022 Jeffrey S. Chase.All rights reserved.
Notes:
466 U.S. 668 (1984).
Joseph H. Ricks, Raising the Bar: Establishing an Effective Remedy against Ineffective Counsel, 2015 BYU L. Rev. 1115, 1120 (2016).
Id.
The Strickland standard requires a finding that (1) counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness; and (2) there was a reasonable probability that the result would have been different if not for counsel’s inadequate performance.
12.Id. at 608. It bears noting that Judge Schmidt, and two of the three Board Members who joined in his dissent (Lory Rosenberg and Gustavo Villageliu) are presently members of the Round Table of Former Immigration Judges.
20.Comment filed by the American Immigration Lawyers Association (Sept. 26, 2016), in response to the Proposed Rule for Motions Reopen Removal, Deportation, or Exclusion Proceedings Based Upon a Claim of Ineffective Assistance of Counsel, 81 Fed. Reg. 145 (July 28, 2016).
21.See, e.g., an October 3 AILA Roundtable, “Changing the Bench: A New Narrative on Lozada and Bar Complaints.”
22.Private email to the author.
*****************************
Republished by permission.
As “Sir Jeffrey points out,” in Matter of Compean, Bangaly, & J-E-C-, 25 I&N Dec. 1 (A.G. June 3, 2009), AG Eric Holder directed EOIR to promulgate new regulations providing guidance on ineffective assistance of counsel. More than seven years later, in 2016 — essentially the entire Obama Administration — DOJ/EOIR issued flawed “proposed” regulations. Not surprisingly, no final regulations were ever issued. A dozen yers after the AG directed EOIR to take action — a big “nothingburger.”
This by no means is the only example of EOIR/DOJ’s unsuitability to the task facing it. It’s reminiscent of the tortured history of the “gender based asylum” regulations ordered by former AG, the late Janet Reno, but issued only as a badly flawed proposal and never finalized.
Additionally, incoming President Joe Biden made issuing “gender based regulations” one of his Administration’s highest priorities, ordering action by October 2021. A year later — nothing!
Meanwhile, EOIR Judges’ applications and interpretations of the governing precedent on gender-based asylum — Matter of A-R-G-G- — are wildly inconsistent. Beyond that, the 5th Circuit has taken the right-wing misogynistic “liberty” of simply ignoring the law on gender-based asylum.
“Lozada reform” is long overdue. But, so is meaningful EOIR reform!
Ultimately, America needs and deserves an independent U.S. Immigration Court with exceptionally well-qualified judges, at all levels, who are recognized experts in asylum law and unswervingly committed to due process and best judicial practices.
Until then, those appearing in Immigration Court — disproportionately individuals of color and women — and their hard-working attorneys — will continue to receive grossly substandard “justice” from “Justice!”
Elizabeth Gibson Managing Attorney National Immigrant Justice Center Publisher of “The Gibson Report”
Weekly Briefing
This briefing is designed as a quick-reference aggregation of developments in immigration law, practice, and policy that you can scan for anything you missed over the last week. The contents of the news, links, and events do not necessarily reflect the position of the National Immigrant Justice Center. If you have items that you would like considered for inclusion, please email them to egibson@heartlandalliance.org.
NYT: The decision from the three-judge panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit — one of the country’s most conservative federal appellate courts — affirmed a 2021 lower court decision. The Biden administration will need to continue its legal fight to enroll new applicants in the program, called the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA.
SD Union-Trib: Simple marijuana possession is usually charged at the state rather than federal level, so if governors follow Biden’s lead, there could be a wider impact on immigration court cases…Biden’s Thursday proclamation also explicitly says that undocumented noncitizens are not eligible for the pardon.
ProPublica: The public has largely stopped paying attention to what’s happening inside shelters and other facilities that house immigrant children since President Donald Trump left office, and particularly since the end of his administration’s zero tolerance policy, which separated families at the southern border.
VOA: Shortly before attending OAS ministerial talks on the perplexing question of migration in the western hemisphere, Blinken told reporters of “new humanitarian and bilateral and regional assistance” to the tune of $240 million. See also United States fell far short of refugee goal last fiscal year
Roll Call: With Cuellar in line to be the top Democrat in the next Congress on the House Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee, which oversees the Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Protection budgets, some Democrats and advocacy groups are growing concerned.
WaPo: A Mexican man who was shot fatally inside a Border Patrol station in Texas this week had grabbed an “edged weapon” off a desk inside the facility and continued to approach U.S. agents after they attempted to stop him with a Taser, the FBI said in a statement late Wednesday.
VOA: Two Russians who said they fled the country to avoid military service have requested asylum in the U.S. after landing in a small boat on a remote Alaska island in the Bering Sea, U.S. Sen. Lisa Murkowski’s office said Thursday.
Law360: The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday turned away a deported Salvadoran man’s bid to look into an allegedly “unfairly” crafted deadline for filing deportation order reconsideration requests, ending his decades-long hope of returning to the U.S.
Law360: The Fifth Circuit on Wednesday affirmed a Texas judge’s ruling that vacated the Obama administration’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, which has protected some young immigrants from deportation, and barred new applicants, but asked the lower court to review the Biden administration’s recent final rule on the DACA program.
LexisNexis: Because we conclude that the government failed to provide the constitutionally required notice within a reasonable time period following the denial of Asencio-Cordero’s visa application, the government was not entitled to summary judgment based on the doctrine of consular nonreviewability.
LexisNexis: A fraud waiver under section 237(a)(1)(H) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(H) (2018), does not waive a respondent’s removability under section 237(a)(1)(D)(i) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(D)(i), where conditional permanent residence was terminated for failure to file a joint petition
Law360: A Minnesota federal judge ended an American Civil Liberties Union-backed suit alleging that U.S. Customs and Border Protection assaulted and degraded two teenagers in its custody, after the agency agreed to pay the girls $80,000 to resolve the claims.
Law360: Florida pushed for a trial to resolve its contention that the Biden administration has a policy of releasing immigrants subject to detention, but asked a federal judge to first declare that the state has standing to challenge the alleged policy.
Law360: The head of a U.S. Department of Justice office on Friday asked a Virginia federal judge to nix a suit filed by an immigration judges association claiming they are “muzzled” by a policy that they say bars them from discussing their personal views on immigration, contending that a new policy encourages speech and simply requires supervisory approval.
AILA: USCIS 30-day notice and request for comment on USCIS’s Online Account Access system, formerly called Identity and Credential Access Management (ICAM). Comments are due 11/7/22.
AILA: Following an outbreak of Ebola in the Republic of Uganda, the CDC announced enhanced public health screening for flights departing after 11:59 pm (ET) on 10/10/22, for flights carrying travelers with nexus to Uganda. Said flights will be funneled through JFK, EWR, IAD, ATL, and ORD.
You now can change your email settings or search the archives using the Google Group. If you are receiving this briefing from a third party, you can visit the Google Group and request to be added. If you receive an error, make sure you click request access.
Elizabeth Gibson (Pronouns: she/her/ella)
Managing Attorney for Capacity Building and Mentorship
National Immigrant Justice Center
A HEARTLAND ALLIANCE Program
224 S. Michigan Ave., Suite 600, Chicago, IL 60604
T: (312) 660-1688| F: (312) 660-1688| E: egibson@heartlandalliance.org
Given the disgraceful mess @ EOIR, it’s understandable that Garland & Co. fear IJ’s speaking out in public. It’s just not a justifiable position, particularly for a Democratic Administration.
