"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.
Elizabeth Gibson Managing Attorney National Immigrant Justice Center Publisher of “The Gibson Report”
How much of Ukraine will look like this by war’s end? Photo from Previous Russia-Ukraine War by Wojciech Zmudzinski Creative Commons License
Weekly Briefing
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 content 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.
CONTENTS (jump to section)
PRACTICE ALERTS
NEWS
LITIGATION & AGENCY UPDATES
RESOURCES
EVENTS
PRACTICE ALERTS
Virtual EOIR Registration: For new attorney registration, practitioners are no longer required to go to the court personally to show an ID. However, they still may appear personally. To coordinate identification verification please contact: Tina.Barrow@usdoj.gov or by phone at 717-443-9157.
Adjustment-Ready Cases: DHS is filing motions for dismissal for about 1,000 cases nationwide for Adjustment-Ready Cases (ARCs) to allow for pursuit of relief before USCIS. If you don’t want the case dismissed, timely file your opposition.
ICE Appointment Scheduler: Now available in Spanish, French, Portuguese, and Haitian Creole in addition to English.
Hill: Immigration restrictionists celebrated that the bill includes funding increases for ICE and Customs and Border Protection, but worried that the Biden administration will not use those funds to implement the Trump-style strict enforcement measures they favor…“The budget gives ICE money to fund over 5,000 more beds than proposed in funding bills introduced last year in both the House and Senate. These funding levels directly contradict commitments made by the Biden administration and members of Congress to reduce the immigration detention system,” Mary Meg McCarthy, executive director of the National Immigrant Justice Center, said in a release.
WaPo: Advocates for immigrants said they welcomed many of the Biden administration’s early changes, such as ending the travel ban and increasing the number of refugees allowed into the United States. But they said the most recent spending bill increases funding for immigration enforcement and complained that Biden has not kept his campaign promise to end privately run detention, which accounts for the majority of the ICE system.
NYT: The tension has also resonated inside the White House, where senior officials have been anxious that unwinding the Trump-era border restrictions would open the United States to an increase in illegal crossings at the southern border and fuel Republican attacks that Mr. Biden is too lenient on illegal immigration.
NYT: More than 4,100 Russians crossed the border without authorization in the 2021 fiscal year, nine times more than the previous year. This fiscal year, which began Oct. 1, the numbers are even higher — 6,420 during the first four months alone.
RollCall: Now, embassies have shuttered in Russia, Belarus and Ukraine. That could increase pressure on other consular posts in the region already feeling the weight of a visa backlog of nearly half a million cases.
AP: All Florida government agencies would be barred from doing business with transportation companies that bring immigrants to the state who are in the country illegally under a bill sent to Gov. Ron DeSantis on Wednesday.
Miami Herald: Nearly 200 Haitian migrants were returned to Haiti on Friday by the U.S. Coast Guard after their bid to reach U.S. shores ended with their overloaded sailboat running aground behind a wealthy North Key Largo resort in the Upper Florida Keys and some of their compatriots making a harried dash to freedom in the choppy waters. See also Black Immigrants to the U.S. Deserve Equal Treatment.
NYT: Although the bureau did not say how many people it missed entirely, they were mostly people of color, disproportionately young ones. The census missed counting 4.99 of every 100 Hispanics, 5.64 of every 100 Native Americans and 3.3 of every 100 African Americans.
Buzzfeed: Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents obtained millions of people’s financial records as part of a surveillance program that fed the information to a database accessed by local and federal law enforcement agencies, according to a letter sent Tuesday by Sen. Ron Wyden to the Department of Homeland Security inspector general requesting an investigation into whether the practice violated the US Constitution.
Forbes: “International student enrollment at U.S. universities declined 7.2% between the 2016-17 and 2019-20 academic years, before the start of the Covid-19 pandemic,” according a new analysis from the National Foundation for American Policy (NFAP). “At the same time, international student enrollment at Canadian colleges and universities increased 52% between the 2016-17 and 2019-20 academic years, illustrating the increasing attractiveness of Canadian schools due to more friendly immigration laws in Canada, particularly rules enabling international students in Canada to gain temporary work visas and permanent residence.”
Law360: A Salvadoran woman urged the U.S. Supreme Court to review an Eleventh Circuit decision greenlighting her deportation based on a decades-old removal order issued after she voluntarily left the country, saying the ruling conflicted with Fifth and Seventh Circuit precedents.
Law360: The Second Circuit on Thursday revived an asylum application from a man who says he fled political violence in Guinea, finding a string of errors in an immigration judge’s determination that he wasn’t credible.
LexisNexis: Dissent: I respectfully dissent from this court’s denial of rehearing en banc on the issue of whether to grant Chevron deference to the Board of Immigration’s (“Board”) recent interpretation of § 1101(a)(43)(S), providing that an aggravated felony under the INA is “an offense relating to the obstruction of justice, perjury or subornation of perjury, or bribery of a witness.” …Namely, this decision is the first and only to uphold the Board’s 2018 redefinition as reasonable—repudiating the Ninth Circuit’s 2020 decision. Accordingly, by no longer requiring a nexus element, this opinion expands the list of possible state crimes that could trigger immigration deportation consequences for many persons who may not have been otherwise subject to deportation. This is a sizeable impact for many people in our country.
LexisNexis: The Government indicates that the matter should be remanded, in part, to the BIA for consideration of her request for voluntary departure in light of Niz-Chavez. Thus, the petition for review is granted as to the stop-time issue, and this matter is remanded to the BIA for consideration under Niz-Chavez and other relevant precedents.
LexisNexis: The Board granted one extension but denied a second, suggesting that Oluwajana instead submit his brief with a motion seeking leave to file it late. When he did so, less than two weeks after the submission deadline, the Board denied the motion in a cursory-and factually erroneous-footnote. And having rejected the brief, the Board upheld the removal order without considering Oluwajana’s allegations of error by the immigration judge. Based on the undisputed circumstances of this case, we conclude that the Board abused its discretion by unreasonably rejecting Oluwajana’s brief.
Law360: The Ninth Circuit ordered the Board of Immigration Appeals on Wednesday to decide if an immigrant’s rape conviction bars deportation relief, with a dissenting judge saying the decision only delays the “unpalatable” conclusion that the man can seek a removal waiver.
BIA: When the Department of Homeland Security raises the mandatory bar for filing a frivolous asylum application under section 208(d)(6) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1158(d)(6) (2018), an Immigration Judge must make sufficient findings of fact and conclusions of law on whether the requirements for a frivolousness determination under Matter of Y-L-, 24 I&N Dec. 151 (BIA 2007), have been met.
LexisNexis: Additionally, the respondents assert that despite informing immigration officials of their intent to get a new attorney and “sort out [their] case,” ICE officials told them that they were not priorities for deportation and there was nothing more they could do with respect to their case (Respondents’ Mot., Tab G). Accordingly, under these circumstances, we will equitably toll the filing deadline for the respondents’ motion to reopen.”
Law360: An Illinois federal judge closed the book on Chicago’s lawsuit challenging certain Trump-era conditions for recipients of a federal public safety grant on Tuesday when he put the final touches on his judgment blocking conditions for receiving the grant to resolve the case’s outlying issues.
LexisNexis: Defendant executed an I-864 Affidavit of Support; therefore, he is contractually obligated to provide Plaintiff and J.K.M.F. any support necessary to maintain their household at an income that is at least 125 percent of the Federal Poverty Guidelines. Plaintiff has received no financial support from Defendant since fleeing to a shelter on October 21, 2021…Accordingly, Plaintiff has alleged a meritorious claim against Defendant for breaching his contractual duty.
Law360: U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s New York office will overhaul its policy on people suspected of civil immigration offenses while on bond, settling claims it detained suspects beyond what the law allows without a chance to post bail.
Law360: A D.C. district court ordered the federal government to disclose the names of border officers who screened migrants’ asylum claims under a pilot program, saying Friday that asylum-seekers needed to know if they were unwittingly placed in the since-suspended project.
Law360: A woman’s suit contending she was wrongly deprived of pandemic relief payments from the IRS because of her marriage to an immigrant is barred by a federal law prohibiting court challenges that restrain tax collection, a Maryland federal court ruled.
USCIS: U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services announced that it is updating the USCIS Policy Manual to consider deferred action and related employment authorization for noncitizens who have an approved Form I-360, Petition for Amerasian, Widow(er), or Special Immigrant, for Special Immigrant Juvenile (SIJ) classification but who cannot apply to adjust status to become a lawful permanent resident (LPR) because a visa number is not available.
AILA: DOS provided guidance for nationals in Ukraine seeking to enter the United States. The guidance clarifies information on nonimmigrant visas, immigrant visas, COVID-19 entry requirements, humanitarian parole, refugee status, and more.
AILA: EOIR updated appendix O of the policy manual with adjournment code 74. The reason is “Public Health,” and the definition is “Adjourned for public health reasons.”
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 group page and request to be added.
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
The “Top News Section” is a good rundown of the Biden Administration’s “mixed bag” on immigration policy, particularly as it relates to our largely defunct asylum system and the refugee system (still reeling from Trump-era “deconstruction”) that does not appear to be prepared for the inevitable flow of Ukrainian refugees. It also highlights some of the lingering damage to our democracy (e.g., racially biased census undercount) done by the Trump regime and its toady enablers.
My Take: Ukrainian Refugees & The U.S. Response
So far, largely meaningless political rhetoric from the Administration concerning Ukrainian refugees has been predictably “welcoming.” But, the actions to date have amounted to nothing more than taking the obvious step of granting TPS to Ukrainians actually here.
That does little or nothing to address the nearly 3 million refugees who have fled Ukraine in recent weeks. If the Administration has a coherent plan for admitting our share of those refugees and resuming processing of Ukrainians and all other refugees seeking asylum at the border, they have not announced it.
For example, despite U.S. and worldwide condemnation of China’s treatment of Uyghurs — some characterizing it as “genocide” — the Administration has done nothing to speed the processing of the very limited number of Uyghur refugees languishing in our still largely dysfunctional asylum system. If, as I’ve pointed out on numerous occasions, the Administration is unable to address “low hanging fruit” like Uyghurs and Immigration Court reform, in a bold and timely matter, how are they going to respond to more difficult human rights issues?
As this op-ed in today’s NY Times points out, “generous” responses to large-scale refugee situations are often short-lived. As refugees flows inevitably continue and grow, the initial positive responses too often “morph” into xenophobia, nativism, racism, culture wars, and restrictionism.https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/03/15/opinion/ukraine-refugee-crisis.html
Ukrainian refugees have two potential “advantages” over those from Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, Haiti, Venezuela, Ethiopia, DRC, and the Northern Triangle that could help them realize “more durable” protection. They are 1) mostly White Europeans, and 2) mostly Christian.
Neither of these is a legally recognized international criterion for defining refugees. Fact is, however, that they were not universally descriptive of those aforementioned groups who have often received less enthusiastic receptions from Western democracies. As a practical matter, “cultural attitudes” influence the Western World’s acceptance of refugees, probably to a greater extent than the actual dangers which those refugees face in the lands from which they have fled.
But, that has also been true in Haiti, Syria, Central America, the DRC and many other trouble spots. It has made little positive difference to the U.S. The Trump regime, led by Uber racist-misogynist refugee deniers “Gonzo Apocalypto” Sessions and “Gauleiter” Stephen Miller actually went out of their way to target the most vulnerable women and children fleeing persecution for further abuse.
And, to date, the Biden Administration’s promise to do better and regularize the treatment of those fleeing gender-based violence has been a huge “nothingburger.” Whatever happened to those promised “gender-based regulations” and the “common-sense recommendations” to replace the restrictionist holdover, bad-precedent-setting BIA with real judges who are experts in gender-based asylum?
The flow of refugees from Ukraine, and a much smaller (at this point) flight of dissidents from Russia, has already “exceeded projections” and is not likely to diminish in the coming weeks and months. Moreover, with Russia focusing on civilian targets and leveling parts of many major metropolitan areas in Ukraine, the essential infrastructure and “livability” of many areas is rapidly being destroyed.
Thus, even if a “truce” were declared tomorrow (which it won’t be), many who have fled would not be able to return for the foreseeable future, perhaps never, even if they wanted to. The latter is a particular risk if Russia makes good on its threats to eradicate the current Ukrainian Government and replace it with a Russian puppet regime.
Refugee planning has consistently lagged foreign policy developments even though that has been shown to be problematic over and over. When will we ever learn?
We can’t necessarily prevent all foreign wars and internal upheavals, worthy as that goal might be. But, we can learn to deal better with inevitable refugee displacements.
Indeed, that was the purpose of the UN Convention and Protocol on the Status of Refugees, to which we and the other major democracies are parties. That more than 70 years after the initial Convention was signed we are still groping for solutions (indeed, we have shamefully abrogated a number of our key responsibilities under both domestic and international law)to recurring, somewhat predictable, and inevitable dislocations of humanity is something that should be of concern to all.
Despite all of the nativist propaganda, the truth is that nobody wants to be a refugee and that it could happen to any of us for reasons totally beyond our control! The similarity of the lives of many Ukrainians, up until a few weeks ago, to daily life in Western Democracies has perhaps “brought home” these realities in ways that the equally bad or even worse plight of other refugees in recent times has not.
I hope that we can learn from this terrible situation and treat not only Ukrainian refugees, but all refugees, with generosity, humanity, compassion, kindness, and as we would hope to be treated if our situations were reversed. Because, in reality, nobody is immune from the possibility of becoming a refugee!
“Oh, Great and Exalted Masters at DHS Enforcement, how high would you like your humble servants here at the BIA to jump?” https://www.flickr.com/photos/rasputin243/ Creative Commons License
U.S. Department of Justice Executive Office for Immigration Review Board of Immigration Appeals
When the Department of Homeland Security raises the mandatory bar for filing a frivolous asylum application under section 208(d)(6) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1158(d)(6) (2018), an Immigration Judge must make sufficient findings of fact and conclusions of law on whether the requirements for a frivolousness determination under Matter of Y-L-, 24 I&N Dec. 151 (BIA 2007), have been met.
FOR THE RESPONDENT: Elias Z. Shamieh, Esquire, San Francisco, California
FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY: Jennifer L. Castro, Assistant Chief Counsel
BEFORE: Board Panel: WILSON and GOODWIN, Appellate Immigration Judges. Dissenting Opinion: GREER, Appellate Immigration Judge.
WILSON, Appellate Immigration Judge: [Opinion]
For those interested in what the law actually says (clearly an “endangered minority” @ Garland’s BIA), here’s key language from Judge Greer’s dissent:
In my view, when an Immigration Judge elects to undertake the analysis set forth in our precedent under Matter of Y-L-, either independently or at the request of the DHS, and determines that the application is frivolous, then the plain statutory language requires the entry of a frivolousness finding as part of the Immigration Judge’s decision. But whether the Immigration Judge must conduct that analysis in the first place because the DHS requests it is a different question. This key distinction was recognized by the Second Circuit in stating that Immigration Judges “regularly exercise discretion when deciding whether to initiate a frivolousness inquiry.” Mei Juan Zheng, 672 F.3d at 186.
Requiring the adjudicator, either independently or at the request of the DHS, to engage in this analysis because the respondent made a material misrepresentation upends current practice by creating a rigid structure not mandated by statute. It equates adverse credibility with frivolousness, which I view as conflicting with the case law. It also removes discretion from the Immigration Judge and transfers it to the DHS. Accordingly, the majority’s interpretation constitutes an unwarranted expansion of the frivolousness provisions.
Although the majority casts this question in terms of whether an Immigration Judge may “ignore” a mandatory bar to asylum, the question is whether the Immigration Judge has the authority to make a judgment about pursuing a frivolousness inquiry. This Immigration Judge did not ignore a request from DHS to consider frivolousness. Rather, she entertained it and made an independent judgment not to proceed based on particular facts and circumstances in this case after deliberation. As discussed, the DHS did not question the judgment she made, which is a critical distinction; rather the DHS questions the ability of the Immigration Judge to make this judgment at all.2
I interpret the language and structure of the statute and development of relevant case law, combined with the sequencing of the frivolousness inquiry and its consequences, to demonstrate the discretionary nature of the frivolousness inquiry. And, absent any challenge to how the Immigration Judge exercised her discretion in this case, which I consider to have been waived, I would dismiss the appeal.
2 The relevant factors for the Immigration Judge to assess in making a threshold determination whether to invoke the frivolousness inquiry are a separate issue not implicated by the posture of this case.
*********************
BIA to IJs: “When our overlords @ DHS tell you to jump, your duty is to say ‘how high, my masters!’”
Here, a correct (basically, uncontested on the merits, as Judge Greer points out) grant of a waiver was reversed just because DHS wanted “control” over the judges. “How dare a ‘mere employee’ of the AG exercise discretion in the face of the ICE ACC’s demand? Do these guys think they are ‘real’ judges? Let’s tell our buddy Merrick to get his toadies back in line like they were under Sessions and Barr!” How does the “holdover” BIA’s steady stream of incorrect decisions, institutionalized bias, and “worst practices” advance justice?
The “Biden-Era BIA” is building a legacy of bad law, poor judging, and unnecessarily broken lives. Not exactly what the Biden Administration promised during the election! And, it goes without saying that requiring a fact-heavy “full Y-L- analysis” at the unilateral demand of the DHS will increase the backlog as Garland “shoots for 2 million” in his dysfunctional and chronically misdirected “courts.”
The whole issue is devoted to addressing the critical due process, fundamental fairness, and ethical issues in Immigration Court with articles by NAIJ President Judge Mimi Tsankov, Judge Samuel B. Cole, Professor Michele Pistone of the VIISTA Villanova Project and others in addition to Joan.
Leading Senate Democrats demanded that the Biden administration immediately end a Trump-era policy that blocks asylum-seeking migrants from crossing land borders into the United States, after lawyers said U.S. Customs and Border Protection expelled a single mother of three who had traveled from Ukraine to Mexico seeking refuge.
Senate Majority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) cited the “desperate” Ukrainian family at a news conference Thursday and said he was deeply disappointed that the Biden administration has dragged out the Trump-era policy, which a federal appeals court in D.C. last week called “questionable.” The Trump administration issued the order two years ago under Title 42, which is the public health code. Since then, officials have expelled more than 1.6 million migrants to countries such as Haiti and Mexico.
“The United States is supposed to welcome refugees with open arms, not put them in additional danger by denying them a chance to plead their case and leaving them at the mercy of criminals and smugglers,” Schumer said, joined by advocates for immigrants. “Now’s the time to stop the madness.”
Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, added that the policy “has created life-threatening conditions” for migrants. He called on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which issued the order under President Donald Trump and has extended it under President Biden, to rescind it.
. . . .
Sofiia, 34, who asked to be identified only by her first name because she has family sheltering in their basements in Ukraine, said in a telephone interview that her family had enjoyed a good life there. She worked as a Hebrew teacher and lived in her father’s house. They left as bombs grew closer.
“I was seriously afraid for my life and the life of my kids,” she said in English, one of four languages that she speaks.
She said she and her children — ages 6, 12 and 14 — flung suitcases stuffed with clothes and medicines into her old Citroen and drove straight to Moldova, the closest border, and then into Romania, where they traveled to Germany and caught a flight to Mexico. She said that they tried to enter legally twice, once by car and again by foot, and that officials rejected them both times, citing the Title 42 order.
“I was surprised that they don’t even want to listen,” she said. “I was trying to tell them that I have tests and I am vaccinated but they told me, ‘No, no, no, no, no.’”
She said she does not speak Spanish and was crying on the bridge in Mexico when lawyer Blaine Bookey spotted her. Bookey, the legal director of the Center for Gender and Refugee Studies at the University of California’s Hastings law school, was there with her students to aid Haitian migrants facing similar troubles.
ADVERTISEMENT
00:00
Bookey said Customs and Border Protection told her that they would consider admitting the Ukrainian family. They were planning to try again Thursday, she said, adding that shelters in Mexico are filled with other would-be refugees who are not eligible to enter.
“There’s families like this that are showing up at the border from all sorts of countries from similar levels of violence. They deserve process to apply for asylum,” Bookey said. “This case really brings it home for people how just problematic this policy is.”
*********************
Read Maria’s full article at the link.
Rhetoric over action!
“Do as I say, not as I do!”
More cowardly performances from AG Garland and SG Prelogar who continue to “defend the indefensible,” putting politics over their constitutional duty to speak up for due process, human rights, racial justice, adherence to international conventions, and the rule of law.
The “COVID emergency” appears to be “over” everywhere in the U.S., even in areas with significant infection rates, EXCEPT for asylum seekers at the Southern Border who never were a major threat anyway.
“Saying no” to desperate Ukrainian mothers and children seeking refuge in the U.S. That’s ”law enforcement?” That’s how your tax dollars are being spent? Do these count as “border apprehensions?”
The Dem leaders are right to speak out. But, they waited far too long to do so. This travesty has been going on since Day 1 of the Biden Administration.
The only “hero” 🌟 here is Blaine Bookey and others like her who have the guts and courage to stand up for equal justice for all when politicos, judges, and public officials “tank!”
Blaine Bookey Legal Director Center for Gender & Refugee Studies @ Hastings Law Photo: CGRS website
Meanwhile, although the opposition to Biden’s scofflaw policy hasn’t restored the rule of law for most asylum seekers, it might have generated at least a modest reaction. CBS News reports that the CDC has revoked the (bogus) Title 42 authority to bar the entry of unaccompanied children seeking asylum.News: https://apple.news/Anfp9S-UAQFqT5PWRc-8u2A
“After an immigration judge ordered him removed from the United States, Olawole Oluwajana appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals and retained counsel to represent him. But the government was slow in providing a copy of Oluwajana’s immigration file, without which his attorney could not prepare a brief. The Board granted one extension but denied a second, suggesting that Oluwajana instead submit his brief with a motion seeking leave to file it late. When he did so, less than two weeks after the submission deadline, the Board denied the motion in a cursory—and factually erroneous—footnote. And having rejected the brief, the Board upheld the removal order without considering Oluwajana’s allegations of error by the immigration judge. Based on the undisputed circumstances of this case, we conclude that the Board abused its discretion by unreasonably rejecting Oluwajana’s brief. We therefore grant the petition for review, vacate the Board’s order, and remand for further proceedings.”
Here, the BIA took 7 months to set a briefing schedule, didn’t get the file to counsel in a timely manner, then “dinged” the R’s counsel for being 12 days late in filing a brief on a complex issue where input from legal counsel would likely be “outcome determinative!”
But, along the way, “Garland’s Clown Show” 🤡 fabricated a 33 day “late period.” And, to add insult to injury, they ignored their own regulations and instructions to counsel.
Even OIL couldn’t defend this one! But, Garland nevertheless retains the “Miller Lite” Clowns from his predecessors’ “whatever it takes to deny and deport assembly line!” No quality, no fairness, no accountability! Just “anything goes” when it’s “only immigrants of color!”
Briefing schedules aren’t “rocket science.” But Garland’s “Miller Lite” holdover gang can’t even get the simple stuff right!
How is this “expert judging” entitled to “deference?”
How is having the Circuit spend time cleaning up Garland’s messes an acceptable use of Article III resources?
What happens to the many human victims of Garland’s unjust and unprofessional system who don’t have Scott Pollock & Co. to take Garland to the Court of Appeals?
What happens to Garland’s victims when the CA is on “autopilot,” which often happens?
Is it any wonder that “judges” who would rather fight with attorneys than read their briefs are running an astounding 1.6 million case backlog and an appellate backlog of 82,000, up approximately 7 times from just four years ago?
Wonder why an AG running a “second (or perhaps third or fourth) class justice system” for people of color isn’t a very effective leader or force for racial justice in America?
Clear, concise, helpful, and correct. This is the type of guidance that should be in BIA precedents! It has the potential to “move” large number as of cases through Garland’s backlogged system.
It would also deter ill-advised “bogus oppositions” to meritorious motions such as the one woodenly advanced by DHS in this case. They do it because sometimes they are rewarded by lousy EOIR judging. At worst, it’s a crap shoot as EOIR currently functions (or, in too many cases, malfunctions).
Start consistently granting meritorious motions like this and the dilatory tactics from DHS will stop! In any system, particularly one as backlogged as this one, getting the Government to stop wasting judicial time and promoting bad results in a big step forward!
The prior Administration made an all-out effort to institutionalize bias and bad judgment. Garland has been far, far too slow in exposing and rooting out this bad behavior!
Just look around for some helpful, positive “precedential” guidance from the BIA on equitable tolling in the Fourth Circuit. Let me know if you find any!
So what aren’t cases like this precedents? Why doesGarland’s BIA instead keep publishing a steady stream of obtuse, poorly reasoned, anti-immigrant precedents written by Trump holdovers. These push IJs in the wrong direction, lead to prolonged wasteful litigation, reinforce the toxic “culture of denial,” create a “false narrative” that denies the merits of many respondents’ claims, and, worst of all, abrogate the BIA’s duty to insure fundamental fairness and due process for all!
Where’s the positive guidance on how to grant gender-based and family-based asylum cases, building on the restoration of A-R-C-G- to clear out meritorious old cases?
Where’s the positive guidance on how to “leverage” PD and administrative closing to reduce backlogs?
Where’s the positive precedent on expeditiously granting reopening in the many non-LPR cancellation cases mishandled by EOIR in light of Pereira and Niz-Chavez?
Where’s the common sense workable rule on nexus that reflects “mixed motive” and incorporates ordinary concepts of causation whilejettisoning the prior Administration’s bogus “look for any motivation that doesn’t qualify, no matter how attenuated or contrived” approach?
Where’s the reasonable bond guidance that would promote consistency and end the routine practice of setting absurdly high bonds in some Immigration Courts?
With the available talent to reshape the BIA into a body that would actually fulfill the vision of “through teamwork and innovation be the world’s best tribunal guaranteeing fairness and due process for all” why does Garland continue to screw immigrants and build more backlog by treating “Miller Lite Holdovers” as if they were life-tenured judges? They aren’t!
Although Garland appears to be in denial, “immigration judging” is some of the most consequential and important decision-making in the entire Federal Judicial System! Many, probably the majority, of those languishing in Garland’s out of control, largely self-created 1.6 million case EOIR backlog have strong claims to remain in a fair and efficient system. Yet, you would never know it by the indolent way Garland has handled the BIA mess (82,000 pending appeals) and his failure to speak out and lead by example on due process, fundamental fairness, racial justice, and human rights.
A new, functioning, expert, star-studded BIA, dedicated to due process, fundamental fairness, equal justice, human rights, and best practices, would be a great starting place! A year into an Administration that should know better, it’s long, long overdue!
Meanwhile, Elsy and other talented, motivated, committed members of the NDPA will continue to pound and expose Garland’s dysfunctional “courts” at all levels of the judicial system until we get the change that we need and that was (falsely) promised!
Few Americans favor mass deportations, and with good reason — a large majority of the estimated 10.5 million undocumented immigrants in the United States have been here for at least a decade, including more than 4 in 5 Mexican migrants. Many are fixtures in their community, with U.S. citizen spouses and children; the vast majority are employed, and some own their homes and businesses.
So it was not a radical idea when Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas issued new enforcement guidelines last fall that urged deportation agents to focus their efforts on actual threats to public and national safety, as well as border security. As for long-term migrants, the bulk of whom are law-abiding, Mr. Mayorkas urged Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials to use some common sense. “The fact that an individual is a removable noncitizen should not alone be the basis of an enforcement action against them,” he said.
. . . .
Despite the resistance, however, they appear to be having a preliminary and positive effect of tailoring enforcement to unauthorized immigrants who are dangerous. In the first 13 months of the Biden administration, 44 percent of deported migrants had been convicted of felonies or aggravated felonies, compared with just 18 percent during the Trump administration, according to internal ICE figures. For the same period, there was also a sharp jump, compared with under the Trump administration, in the number of arrests of migrants who had earlier convictions for aggravated felonies.
At the same time, the number of migrants held in ICE detention facilities has dropped sharply. At the end of February, roughly 18,000 migrants were detained, and the vast majority had no criminal record or had committed only minor offenses, such as traffic violations, according to the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse at Syracuse University. By contrast, nearly three times as many migrants were held for much of 2019, when the Trump anti-immigrant blitz was in full force.
. . . .
It’s not lax enforcement to refrain from arresting very old or very young migrants, or to think twice about a deportation that would tear apart a family. It’s an intelligent application of the law.
*********************
Read the full editorial at the link.
The Post is right. But, unfortunately, by not making this “smarter PD” part of an overall plan to reduce backlogs, reform the Immigration Courts, re-establish the legal asylum and refugee systems, and end unnecessary detention, the Biden Administration has failed to take full advantage of this promising development.
By “running” from immigration improvements rather than embracing them, they also fail to to get credit for replacing the “maliciously incompetent,” demonstrably not in the national interest Trump/Miller/Homan White Nationalist nativist policies with a functioning system that actually serves the national interest and works as well as can be expected without legislative reforms.
A major problem remains the underperformance of DOJ and EOIR under AG Garland. Without the enlightened leadership and better personnel that should now be in place, Garland has failed to “leverage and build upon” improvements in DHS enforcement priorities to slash backlog and advance due process at EOIR.
Indeed, disturbingly, Garland has actually built new Immigration Court backlogat a record pace, while inexplicably relying on a “holdover Miller Lite” BIA that continues to deliver bad precedents, resulting in increased wasteful litigation and backlog-building remands from Circuit Courts. He has also ignored the many opportunities for harnessing the innovative ideas and high-level pro bono advocacy skills developed by the private sector in response to the “Trump onslaught” to dramatically advance and increase quality representation before the Immigration Courts.
The grotesque mismanagement of EOIR by the Trump DOJ resulted in a backlog of approximately 12,000 pending BIA appeals at the end of FY 2017 exploding to more than 84,000 by the end of FY 2020 — a mind-boggling 700% increase!https://www.justice.gov/eoir/page/file/1248501/download
Yet, curiously, there has been no major personnel shakeup at EOIR under Garland. The Trump-era “hand selected” BIA whose skewed anti-asylum, anti-immigrant “jurisprudence” helped create this mess remains largely intact.
Most of the EOIR senior managers who helped DOJ engineer this unmitigated disaster remain in their jobs. Garland has sent a message that there will be no accountability for “going along to get along” with the White Nationalist war on immigrants and that he isn’t interested in expertise, fundamental fairness, creativity, or dynamic leadership by example in his reeling “court system!”
Yet, Garland continues to “blow off” and “lock out” the private/NGO sector experts who could bring rational professional docket management, higher representation rates, and resulting reductions in detention to his dysfunctional system. Instead, he continues the “Amateur Night at the Bijou” approach of unilateral “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” and endless “built to fail gimmicks” designed by bureaucrats to meet political agendas without meaningful input from and consideration of the views of those who have actual private sector experience litigating in his broken system.
How does the make sense? It doesn’t!
Of course, effective, dynamic, courageous management of EOIR to focus on constitutionally required due process would provoke reactions from the GOP nativist right, including obstructive litigation. That’s why Garland also needs better litigators at DOJ: Tough, experienced “due process warriors” who will aggressively and expertly defend and advance the Executive’s authority to rationally administer the law, allocate resources wisely and prudently, and to recognize and vindicate civil and constitutional rights that have been suppressed by GOP politicos and some of their reactionary Federal Judges.
Bottom line: Probably the majority of those 1.6 million individuals rotting in EOIR’s largely self-created backlog fit the Post’s “lead-in” description above: “Many are fixtures in their community, with U.S. citizen spouses and children; the vast majority are employed, and some own their homes and businesses.”
Many could be granted asylum or other protection under proper interpretations of the law or granted “cancellation of removal” but for the unrealistic, anachronistic 4,000 annual “numerical cap” imposed by Congress decades ago. Others could be granted Temporary Protected Status (“TPS”) just as it recently was extended to Ukrainians in the U.S.
Very few are “criminals” or others who should be “priorities” for removal. Most are actively contributing to our society and many are paying taxes. In most cases, removing individuals in the EOIR backlog from the U.S., even if possible, would be a net loss for our society.
Yet, the uncontrolled, undifferentiated EOIR backlog prevents the Immigration Courts from working in “real time” on more recent cases that might actually be proper priorities.What’s the good of a more rational and professional system at DHS Enforcement if the Immigration Courts under Garland remain discombobulated? The system will not change without dynamic expert leadership at the top and an infusion of better judges, particularly at the appellate level where precedents are set and “best practices” and some measure of fair and consistent adjudication can be established and enforced.
Immigration is a complex, often convoluted system. Without a comprehensive plan led by outside experts that fixes the Immigration Courts and restores a robust functional asylum system at our borders, the positive enforcement changes initiated by Mayorkas will continue to have limited impact. And, ironically, that will play right into the hands of the Millers and Homans of the world who would like to see democracy fail, irrationality prevail, and cruelty rule!
Elizabeth Gibson Managing Attorney National Immigrant Justice Center Publisher of “The Gibson Report”
Weekly Briefing
Note: The briefing is back after a short hiatus while I transitioned to a new position at NIJC. It will be coming from my gmail for a few weeks while I set up a more long-term distribution system. In the meantime, please add egibson@heartlandalliance.org to your trusted contact list so that any future messages do not go to spam.
CONTENTS (click to jump to section)
PRACTICE ALERTS
NEWS
LITIGATION & AGENCY UPDATES
RESOURCES
EVENTS
PRACTICE ALERTS
eROPs: EOIR has begun digitizing some paper records of proceedings (ROPs). Once an ROP is an eROP, only ECAS electronic filing will be permitted on that case. However, this will be a lengthy process and it sounds like EOIR is prioritizing conversion of smaller records first.
DHS: Individuals eligible for TPS under this designation must have continuously resided in the United States since March 1, 2022. Individuals who attempt to travel to the United States after March 1, 2022 will not be eligible for TPS.
USCIS: U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services today announced that it is updating the USCIS Policy Manual to consider deferred action and related employment authorization for noncitizens who have an approved Form I-360, Petition for Amerasian, Widow(er), or Special Immigrant, for Special Immigrant Juvenile (SIJ) classification but who cannot apply to adjust status to become a lawful permanent resident (LPR) because a visa number is not available.
AP: A federal appeals court on Friday upheld sweeping asylum restrictions to prevent spread of COVID-19 but restored protections to keep migrant families from being expelled to their home countries without a chance to plead their cases. Almost simultaneously, a federal judge in another case ruled that the Biden administration wrongly exempted unaccompanied children from the restrictions and ordered that they be subject to them in a week, allowing time for an emergency appeal.
Bloomberg: The estimated wait time for a work permit has risen to eight to 12 months, up from about three months in 2020, according to data from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.
Law360: Texas’ Operation Lone Star border security initiative has expanded over the past year despite courtroom setbacks revealing cracks in its legal foundation, and it appears poised to grow further unless the federal government steps in to confront it.
SCOTUS: “Wooden committed his burglaries on a single night, in a single uninterrupted course of conduct. The crimes all took place at one location, a one-building storage facility with one address. Each offense was essentially identical, and all were intertwined with the others. The burglaries were part and parcel of the same scheme, actuated by the same motive, and accomplished by the same means.”
SCOTUSblog: The Supreme Court on Wednesday [in oral arguments] returned to the scope of the right to sue federal officers for damages under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, in a case arising from events surrounding an (unfairly) disparaged inn and suspicious characters near the U.S.-Canada border.
Lexis: As we noted above, while (b)(4) requires “changed country conditions,” (b)(3) does not. Thus, the BIA’s reference to a “material change in country conditions” and the analysis that followed shows that the BIA applied § 1003.23(b)(4). In applying the standard of § 1003.23(b)(4) to a timely filed motion, the BIA acted contrary to law.
Lexis: . After he pled guilty to first-degree home invasion, the Department of Homeland Security initiated removal. But the removal didn’t go as planned: DHS failed to show that Jasso was in fact removable, and the immigration judge terminated the proceeding. So DHS tried again. It started a second removal proceeding based on a new legal theory but the same underlying facts. The problem? The doctrine of claim preclusion prevents parties from litigating matters they failed to raise in an earlier case. Because claim preclusion barred the second removal proceeding, we grant the petition for review, vacate, and remand.
Reuters: A federal appeals court on Monday declined to dismiss an “unprecedented” criminal case filed during the Trump administration against a Massachusetts judge accused of impeding a federal immigration arrest of a defendant in her courtroom.
Law360: Sixteen attorneys general of Democratic-led states, including the District of Columbia, are defending a new Illinois law phasing out immigrant detention contracts and urging the Seventh Circuit to dismiss a challenge by two Illinois counties, saying the policy does not interfere with federal enforcement of immigration law.
NYT: People with health conditions that place them at high risk from Covid-19 have been denied access to coronavirus vaccine booster shots while in federal immigration detention, the American Civil Liberties Union said in a lawsuit filed on Tuesday.
Reuters: The U.S. Embassy in Havana announced on Thursday it would increase staffing and resume some visa processing in Cuba several years after the Trump administration slashed personnel at the facility following a spate of unexplained health incidents.
AILA: EOIR will open immigration courts in Hyattsville, Maryland, and Laredo, Texas, today, February 28, 2022. The Hyattsville and Laredo immigration courts will have 16 and 8 immigration judges, respectively. Both courts will hear transferred cases; EOIR is notifying parties whose locations have changed.
AILA: Due to conflict in both regions, DHS will extend and redesignate South Sudan for TPS for 18 months, and designate Sudan for TPS for 18 months. The extension and redesignation of South Sudan is in effect from 5/3/2022, through 11/3/2023. The memo details eligibility guidelines.
AILA: USCIS announced that its website will now feature a Lockbox Filing Location Updates page, where customers can track when lockbox form filing locations are updated. Updates will also be emailed and announced on social media.
USCIS: USCIS has clarified Form I-9 guidance related to Native American tribal documents. We also published new guidance regarding T nonimmigrants (victims of human trafficking) and U nonimmigrants (victims of certain other crimes) in the M-274, Handbook for Employers. USCIS has provided these updates to respond to customer needs.
Thanks for all you do for due process and fundamental fairness in America, Liz! And congrats again to both you and NIJC/Heartland Alliance on your new position!
My good friend Heidi Altman, Director of Policy at NIJC, should be delighted, as Liz is a “distinguished alum” of both the CALS Asylum Clinic at Georgetown Law (where Heidi was a Fellow) and my Refugee Law & Policy class. Liz also served as an Arlington Intern and a Judicial Law Clerk at the NY Immigration Court. Liz has been a “powerful force for due process, clear, analytical writing, and best practices” wherever she has been! So, I’m sure that will continue at NIJC! Clearly, Liz is someone who eventually belongs on the Federal Bench at some level.
Heidi Altman Director of Policy National Immigrant Justice Center PHOTO: fcnl.org
Liz’s mention under “Litigation” of the Supremes’ decision in Wooden v U.S., where Justice Kagan for a unanimous Court interpreted the term “single occasion” broadly in favor of a criminal defendant, raises an interesting immigration issue.
Two decades ago, in Matter of Adetiba, 20 I&N Dec. 506 (BIA 1992), the BIA basically “nullified” the INA’s statutory exemption from deportation for multiple crimes “arising out of a single scheme of criminal misconduct.” Rejecting the 9th Circuit’s contrary ruling, the BIA essentially read the exception out of the statute by effectively limiting it to lesser included offenses.
How narrow was this interpretation? Well, in 21 years on the immigration appellate and trial benches, I can’t recall a single case where the “scheme” did not result in deportation under Adetiba. Taking advantage of the outrageous “doctrine of judicial task avoidance” established by the Supremes in the notorious “Brand X,”the BIA eventually took the “super arrogant” step of nullifying all Circuit interpretations that conflicted with Adetiba! Matter of Islam, 25 I&N Dec. 637 (BIA 2011).
Surprisingly, in my view, in his concurring opinion in Wooden, Justice Gorsuch actually applied the “rule of lenity” — something else the “21st Century BIA” has basically “read out of the law” in their haste to deport! Here’s what Justice Gorsuch said:
Today, the Court does not consult lenity’s rule, but neither does it forbid lower courts from doing so in doubtful cases. That course is the sound course. Under our rule of law, punishments should never be products of judicial conjecture about this factor or that one. They should come only with the assent of the people’s elected representatives and in laws clear enough to supply “fair warning . . . to the world.” McBoyle, 283 U. S., at 27.7
Hon. Jeffrey S. Chase Jeffrey S. Chase Blog Coordinator & Chief Spokesperson, Round Table of Former Immigration Judges
As the ongoing (“backlog enhancing”) “Pereira fiasco” shows, the BIA has had little problem “blowing off” or distinguishing the Supremes to deport or deny when asked by DHS Enforcement to do so. Today’s BIA “rule” for interpreting supposedly “ambiguous” statutes is actually straightforward, if one-sided: Adopt whatever interpretation DHS Enforcement offers even if that means “taking a pass” on a better interpretation offered by the respondent. So, I’m sure that Garland’s current “Miller Lite” BIA will simply distinguish Wooden as dealing with statutory language different from the INA and ignore its broader implications if asked to do so by “their partners” at DHS Enforcement.
But, whether all Circuits will see it that way, and/or allow themselves to continue to be humiliated by “Brand X,” or whether the issue will reach the Supremes, are different questions. In any event, immigration advocates should pay attention to Wooden, even if the BIA is likely to blow it off.
The current Supremes don’t seem to have much difficulty jettisoning their own precedents when motivated to do so! Why they would continue to feel bound by the bogus “Chevron doctrine” or its “steroid laden progeny Brand X” to follow the interpretations of Executive Branch administrative judges on questions of law is beyond me! Somewhere Chief Justice John Marshall must be turning over in his grave!
In the early morning on Feb. 4, Jose boarded a packed airplane in Illinois filled with handcuffed immigrant detainees just like him. They were en route to another detention center in Oklahoma after theirs was ordered close. During the hour-and-35-minute flight, several people appeared ill, coughing and sniffling, but no one was able to socially distance. A few days later, Jose began experiencing the worst kind of sickness he had ever felt. He had contracted COVID-19. Jose joins the 1,126 other immigrants in Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detention who are currently being monitored and tested positive for the virus, representing a 395% surge in COVID-19 cases since January when there were only 285 reported cases.
“I was scared at one point. I’ve never been sick like that in my life,” Jose said. “I thought, ‘I’m going to die here.’”
Jose, who has asked to withhold his last name to protect his identity, is 25 years old and has lived in the U.S. since he came with his parents from Mexico at age seven; he has been in immigration detention for three months. He was originally detained in Illinois at McHenry County Jail, but when Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker signed the Illinois Way Forward Act, banning private and county-run immigration detention, Jose was one of 17 people from McHenry County Jail transferred to the Kay County Jail in Oklahoma.
“We really want to focus on getting releases and getting folks out of detention, instead of transfers to another facility,” said Gabriela Viera, advocacy manager at the Detention Watch Network. “We need to continue shutting down facilities until we are in a place where there are no more facilities for people to be transferred to.”
Another person in a different immigrant detention center, Jorge, was transferred from a facility in New York to Krome Detention Center in Homestead, Florida. According to advocates from the Queer Detainee Empowerment Project, he was exposed to COVID-19 and tested positive for the virus. Jorge has confirmed widespread reports that there is a complete disregard for the virus within the detention center, with no access to hand sanitizer or vaccines.
According to the National Immigrant Justice Center, both McHenry County Jail and the Jerome Combs Detention Center in Kankakee County experienced COVID-19 outbreaks among the ICE population at the time of these transfers. Advocates, public health experts, and members of Congress raised the alarm to Chicago Field Office Director Sylvie Renda in the days before the transfers about the risks of moving people to jails out of state under these circumstances, but ultimately, about 30 people were transferred from McHenry and Kankakee to Oklahoma, Indiana, and Texas.
“There was no distance between us,” Jose said. “When we got there, they just put us all in the dorm room.”
About four days after arriving in Oklahoma, Jose began feeling sick. His body ached, his sinuses were congested, and he had difficulty standing, especially during routine phone calls where there are no chairs provided. The extreme cold at night only worsened his symptoms, and he developed body shivers, chest pain, and a fever. He put in two requests to see the medic before he was finally tested for COVID-19 and confirmed that he had the virus.
“They’re not testing people regularly, and they’re not socially distancing, they’re not providing people with sufficient hygiene products,” said Diana Rashid, National Immigrant Justice Center’s managing attorney, who is representing Jose in his release request. “The spread is just going to continue.”
The medic gave him fever-reducing medication and vitamin D. He was returned to his 20-person pod and was told to remain in his bunk and try to self-isolate within his dorm room the size of a small basketball court.
“I thought they were going to move me to a cell alone,” Jose said. “But, they just left me in the room. I think I even got someone else sick.”
Jose is now recovering and feels better, but at least one other person has tested positive, with a total of nine positive cases in the detention center, according to ICE. But, Jose says that number may be even larger due to underreporting. When a person tests positive, they are put under quarantine for 10 days, meaning they cannot interact with other pods. Even worse, they are not taken out of their rooms for their court hearings, postponing an already delayed process and forcing them to stay in detention longer than necessary. According to Rashid, it would take about two to four weeks to get the first hearing in Chicago’s immigration court after a person is first detained.
“Everyone’s cases stalled for those who are in quarantine,” said Rashid.
Jose, who has been in quarantine for a majority of his detention, says that people are getting frustrated and desperate with the continued prolonging of their cases. Some are even considering signing the removal papers out of desperation.
“I just want to go ahead with my court proceedings and get out of here,” said Jose. “I want to make it to the light at the end of the tunnel.”
Immigration advocates hope more states will follow Illinois and close their detention centers. A total of 41 people were released from these jails during January in Illinois, but they believe that everyone, including Jose, should have been released on the current ICE enforcement memo guidelines. Advocates are also continuing to push for Congress to cut funding for immigration detention and enforcement and hope to invest in vital programs that uplift their communities instead, like health care, affordable housing, and education.
Prism is a BIPOC-led non-profit news outlet that centers the people, places, and issues currently underreported by national media. We’re committed to producing the kind of journalism that treats Black, Indigenous, and people of color, women, the LGBTQ+ community, and other invisibilized groups as the experts on our own lived experiences, our resilience, and our fights for justice. Sign up for our email list to get our stories in your inbox, and follow us on Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram.
*********************
Assistant Attorney General, Civil Rights, Kristen Clarke looks for civil rights violations by state and local governments. Yet, she studiously ignores those being committed in broad daylight by her boss’s dysfunctional and biased Immigration Courts and the immigration detention empire he enables, supports, and defends.
As Alexandra’s report notes, one well-known result of prolonged detention in intentionally unsafe and substandard conditions is to “duress” individuals into giving up legal rights. Could there be a clearer violation of our Constitution going on right under Garland’s nose? I doubt it! But, no stand against these clear abuses. It’s as if “Gonzo” Sessions, “Billy the Bigot” Barr, and “Gauleiter” Stephen Miller were still calling the shots for Garland!
“The New American Gulag” (“NAG”) operates right under the noses of civil rights honcho Kristen Clarke and her boss AG Merrick Garland with their blessing. Indeed, they have “embedded courts” in the NAG! So much for the Biden Administration’s commitment to civil rights. GULAG PHOTO: Public Realm.
Almost from the “git go,” the Biden Administration has avoided dealing effectively and honestly with the “second (or third) class justice system” being inflicted by the DOJ, disproportionately targeting individuals of color and ethnic communities in America! It’s a rather glaring case of “do as I say, not as I do” that doesn’t appear to have escaped the notice of some Trump Article III judges. They turn the DOJ’s spineless “Dred Scottification” and “Miller Lite” actions and arguments back against them to undermine racial justice, fundamental fairness, and truth in all areas.
In a truly revolting🤮, yet highly revealing, interview with Savannah “Why Am I Giving Air Time To This Bad Dude” Guthrie on today’s Today Show, “Billy the Bigot” Barr made it clear that he considers corruption, lies, fascism, racism, and the final destruction of American democracy a “small price to pay” to fight the “real problem:” Progressive, humane, values-based governance in the common public interest.
But, somehow, Garland and others in the Biden Administration see no reasons to take a stand against this dangerous nonsense!
Remember folks, BTB is the overt racist who casually and glibly told Lester Holtthat “Black Lives Matter” is the “Big Lie!” He knows there will be no accountability for GOP enablers like him! Who’s the next “exclusive” for the NBC News crew, the Grand Dragon of the KKK? And, you can bet that if empowered again, the GOP will have no problem reviving the “White Nationalist Clown Show”🤡 @ DOJ.
That leaves the fight for the future of our nation to the NDPA and others who believe that America doesn’t necessarily have to spiral downhill into a “MAGAland” grave, ⚰️ but could actually become something better than we are today! It’s not a given that we can build a better nation and a better world, but it is a possibility.
Will the next generation stand up for a better future for everyone, or fulfill the nasty, backward-looking vision of lies, hate, and intolerance that BTB and the rest of the GOP right have mapped out for them?
In real time, Barr jettisoned Justice Department norms and authorized the department to open election-fraud investigations before the tallies were certified. Barr, who had falsely asserted that mail-in voting was vulnerable to counterfeit foreign ballots, did allow at one point that the Justice Department hadn’t found enough fraud to change the election outcome — “to date.” But his sycophantic departure letter (“you built the strongest and most resilient economy in American history”) said “these allegations will continue to be pursued.”
Had Barr spoken out publicly about Trump’s “clown show,” perhaps he could have punctured the “big lie” before it resulted in the Jan. 6 insurrection. Barr didn’t even speak out during Trump’s impeachment, instead offering his self-serving view 14 months later while hawking his book — after Trump managed to get the bulk of the Republican electorate to accept the “big lie” as an article of faith.
Barr is just the latest in the parade of former Trump officials to wash their hands of him long after their public condemnation would have done any good: John Bolton, John F. Kelly, Rex Tillerson, Jim Mattis, Reince Priebus, Nikki Haley, Gary Cohn, Omarosa Manigault Newman, Michael Cohen, Anthony Scaramucci, H.R. McMaster and many more.
But nobody in the administration did more to enable Trump’s deceptions and assaults on democracy than Barr. He buried the Mueller report while issuing a public summary that misrepresented it; he alleged the Obama administration “spied” on the Trump campaign, and he appointed a prosecutor who is, years later, still trying to prove true Trump’s paranoid fantasy; he scoured the world for evidence to discredit the Trump-Russia probe; his Justice Department gave credibility to Rudy Giuliani’s ravings about the Bidens in Ukraine; he tried to give favorable treatment to Trump cronies Michael Flynn and Roger Stone; he justified the violent assault on peaceful demonstrators in Lafayette Square; he made unfounded allegations against “antifa” and assembled a militia-like force of often-unidentified federal police in D.C. And on, and on.
Now Barr wants to be remembered as the brave figure who spoke truth to power? Talk about a clown show.
🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤹♀️🤹♀️🤹♀️🤹♀️🤹♀️
Barr’s attempted self-justification would be funny if the consequences of his silence hadn’t been so dire. He allowed Trump to pull off a democracy-defying swindle.
. . . .
*******************
ReadMilbank’s full article at the link.
There were plenty of folks @ DOJ who “went along to get along” with the Sessions/Barr radical right-wing scheme to deconstruct justice with a series of lies, racially charged false narratives, questionable, arguably frivolous, presentations to Federal Courts, use of pretexts, discrediting of civil rights and free and fair elections, and undermining or outright violations of both domestic laws and international conventions protecting the human rights of migrants.
Others were installed or promoted within Justice because of their actual or perceived willingness to run over the law, truth, and often human dignity, to further the far-right agenda. In other words, they would elevate loyalty to the Trump agenda over their duty to the U.S. Constitution!
What, exactly, has AG Garland done to “clean house”🧹 and restore the rule of law, Government ethics, fundamental fairness, and due process for migrants? Good question!🤨
In the meantime, notwithstanding his pathetic, outrageous, disingenuous, attempt at rehabilitation “BTB” Barr should go down in history as exactly the divisive, dishonest, neo-fascist, theocrat sleaze-ball that he is!🤮
And, Garland will be judged by what he does to reject and reform the mess @ Justice left by his predecessors. In that respect, “Miller Lite” won’t do it.
This might be Garland’s vision for justice, but to the NDPA, “no way!”
Trump Judge Mark T. Pittman has a very explicit vision of the future for brown-skinned children seeking protection from “White Nationalist Nation.” EDS NOTE: GRAPHIC CONTENT – The bodies of Salvadoran migrant Oscar Alberto Mart??nez Ram??rez and his nearly 2-year-old daughter Valeria lie on the bank of the Rio Grande in Matamoros, Mexico, Monday, June 24, 2019, after they drowned trying to cross the river to Brownsville, Texas. Martinez’ wife, Tania told Mexican authorities she watched her husband and child disappear in the strong current. (AP Photo/Julia Le Duc)
ThreadOpen appSee new TweetsConversationAaron Reichlin-Melnick@ReichlinMelnick🚨Absolute madness. The same day the DC Circuit rules that families can’t be expelled under Title 42 to places they will be persecuted, a federal judge in Texas just overruled the CDC and ordered the Biden administration to expel unaccompanied children. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txnd.347182/gov.uscourts.txnd.347182.100.0_1.pdf…
. . . .
*************************
Read the rest of Aaron’s feed at the link.
Although the DC Circuit basically confirmed that the evidence produced by plaintiffs showed illegal returns to death and that there was little, if any, support for the draconian Title 42 exclusion order, the relief granted was unacceptably narrow. The order merely directed the Administration to cease returning individuals to countries where they would be persecuted or tortured.
That order is weak because:
It doesn’t specify any particular fair procedure that must be followed by DHS in determining who faces persecution or torture. That appears to leave open the possibility of DHS employing bogus “summary determinations by enforcement agents” rather than using Asylum Officers and having cases referred to Immigration Courts.
There are no limits on the Government’s ability to detain individuals and/or return them to other countries.
The standard for so-called “withholding of removal” to persecution is “more likely than not” as opposed to the more generous “well-founded fear” or “reasonable possibility” standard for asylum (although individuals should be able to invoke the regulatory “presumption of future persecution” arising out of past persecution).
Even if granted, withholding of removal does not provide individuals with “durable legal status” nor does it allow them to access the asylum system, from which they apparently would remain barred under Title 42.
Judge Mark T. Pittman of the Northern District of Texas is a Trump appointee with strong ties to the Federalist Society and a very loose grasp on domestic and international laws and procedures for protecting children.
It’s interesting, if disheartening, to compare the “overt wishy-washiness” of the DC Circuit Judges who were timidly, “sort of” trying to protect at least some minimal legal and human rights with the “in your face,” overtly anti-immigrant, arrogant tone and ridiculous self-assuredness with which activist righty District Judge Mark Pittman advanced his absurdist notion that the White Nationalist agenda of “protecting” America from the “non-threat” of brown-skinned children merited his simultaneous assumption of the roles of President, Secretary of DHS, Attorney General, and for a good measure, Congress.
Obviously, the “judicial restraint,” supposedly a hallmark of modern conservatism, was just a “smoke screen” for the GOP’s activist anti-social, anti-immigrant, racially charged agenda. That’s not news to many of us, although it seems to have gone “over the head” of many in the Biden Administration and many Dems on the Hill.
It shows once again why “Team Garland’s” indolent, often uninformed, and floundering approach to immigrant justice under law is being steamrolled by Trump holdovers and crusading right-wing Federal Judges. And, you wonder why Dems can’t figure out what they stand for and what their “line in the sand” is!
Meanwhile, back at the ranch, Garland and other weak-kneed Biden officials can’t decide how much of the leftover “Miller Lite” anti-asylum, anti-humanitarian, anti-due-process policy they want to retain and defend and how much effort, if any, they want to put into re-establishing human rights and the rule of law.
One observation: After more than one-year in office, the Biden Administration is no closer to having an orderly, functional, due-process-oriented asylum system in place and ready for the border than they were on January 20, 2021! The expert Asylum Officers and qualified Immigration Judges who are necessary to operate such a system are still few and far between, and the program to facilitate legal assistance for those seeking legal protection at the border is all but non-existent.
I’ve never understood crimes involving moral turpitude. I confess this after reading a recent decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit that caused me to realize that I am not alone.
In Zarate v. U.S. Att’y Gen.,1 the court was confronted with the question of whether a federal conviction for “falsely representing a social security number” constitutes a crime involving moral turpitude under our immigration laws. Not surprisingly, the Board of Immigration Appeals held that it was. And yet, one of the most conservative circuit courts in the country chose not to defer to the Board’s judgment.
Reading the decision, it became clear that no one knows what a CIMT is. As the court pointed out, the term was first included in our immigration laws in the late 19th century. That fact immediately brought to mind the character of Lady Bracknell from The Importance of Being Earnest (first performed in 1895), who, upon learning that a character had been found as a baby in a satchel at a train station, responded: “To be born, or at any rate bred, in a handbag, whether it has handles or not, seems to me to display a contempt for the ordinary decencies of family life that reminds one of the worst excesses of the French Revolution. And I presume you know what that unfortunate movement led to?” If that snippet is any indicator, it seems to have been quite the era for the passing of moral judgment.
The Eleventh Circuit went on to explain that by 1914, a legal dictionary defined the term to mean “an act of baseness, vileness or depravity in the private and social duties which one owes to society, and as applied to offenses includes only such crimes as manifest personal depravity or baseness.” This standard becomes all the more elusive when one asks the obvious follow-up question “In whose view?” Lady Bracknell’s? Vladimir Putin’s? Or someone occupying an indeterminate middle point between those extremes?
It seems pretty obvious in reading the Eleventh Circuit’s opinion that the term “crime involving moral turpitude” is unconstitutionally vague. It’s nearly impossible to argue that the term provides sufficient clarity up front of the consequences of committing certain crimes when, as the Eleventh Circuit emphasized, no less an authority than former circuit judge Richard Posner remarked “to the extent that definitions of the term exist, ‘[i]t’s difficult to make sense of . . . [them].’”2
However, there is one huge obstacle preventing courts from simply brushing the term aside: in 1951, the Supreme Court nixed that idea in a case called Jordan v. De George.3 In its decision, the majority of the Court’s justices held that the term “conveys sufficiently definite warning as to the proscribed conduct when measured by common understanding and practices.” Of course, the Court provided no workable definition (if it had, courts today wouldn’t still be exhibiting so much confusion). But the majority did make one highly consequential pronouncement to support its shaky conclusion, claiming “The phrase ‘crime involving moral turpitude’ has without exception been construed to embrace fraudulent conduct.”
Jordan v. De George also contains a remarkable dissenting opinion written by Justice Robert H. Jackson, and joined by two of his colleagues (Justices Black and Frankfurter).
Interestingly, prior to his appointment to the Supreme Court, Justice Jackson briefly served as Attorney General under Franklin D. Roosevelt. And readers of Prof. Alison Peck’s excellent book on the history of the U.S. Immigration Court will know that as Attorney General, Jackson tried to dissuade Roosevelt from moving the INS to the Department of Justice due to the harsh consequences it would impose on immigrants, a move that Roosevelt nevertheless undertook in May 1940.4
Sitting on the high court 11 years later, Justice Jackson expressed his frustration with a majority opinion that would punish the petitioner (who had resided in the U.S. for 30 years) “with a life sentence of banishment” because he was a noncitizen. Justice Jackson pointed out that Congress had been forewarned by one of its own at a House hearing on the Immigration Act of 1917 that the term would cause great confusion, yet provided no additional clarifying language in enacting the statute.5
In the record of the same House hearing, Jackson found reason to believe that Congress meant the term to apply to “only crimes of violence,” quoting language to that effect from a witness, NYC Police Commissioner Arthur H. Woods, whose testimony (according to Jackson) “appears to have been most influential” on the subject.6
After further demonstrating the futility of finding any clear meaning for the term, Jackson stated in his dissent that the majority “seems no more convinced than are we by the Government’s attempts to reduce these nebulous abstractions to a concrete working rule, but to sustain this particular deportation it improvises another which fails to convince us…”7
In Jackson’s view, the elusiveness of the term left whether a conviction was for a CIMT or not to the view of the particular judge deciding the matter. He added “How many [noncitizens] have been deported who would not have been had some other judge heard their cases, and vice versa, we may only guess. That is not government by law.”8
Turning to the specific crime before him, which involved the failure to pay federal tax on bootlegged liquor, Jackson noted that those who deplore trafficking in liquor “regard it as much an exhibition of moral turpitude for the Government to share its revenues as for respondents to withhold them.” On the flip side, Jackson wryly observed that “Those others who enjoy the traffic are not notable for scruples as to whether liquor has a law-abiding pedigree.”9 Just for good measure, the justice added: “I have never discovered that disregard of the Nation’s liquor taxes excluded a citizen from our best society…”10
Given the term’s requirement of passing moral judgment on criminal acts, Jackson emphasized (perhaps most importantly) that “We should not forget that criminality is one thing— a matter of law—and that morality, ethics and religious teachings are another.”11
In spite of the wisdom (and wit) of Jackson’s dissent, here we are over 70 years later, with the 11th Circuit left to deal with De George in reviewing the case of someone who falsely used a Social Security number. In Zarate, counsel explained at oral argument that the reasons for his client’s action was to work and support his family, and to have medical coverage to pay for his son’s surgery.12 Counsel also argued that the crime lacked the level of immorality required for a CIMT finding, explaining that those using a false number still pay the required amount of Social Security withholding to the government, and yet are not eligible to receive Social Security benefits themselves in return unless they first obtain lawful immigration status.
The Eleventh Circuit issued a thoughtful opinion. The court understood that it was bound by De George’s view that fraud always involves moral turpitude, a stance repeatedly reinforced by courts since. But the court noted that “under the categorical approach the crime Mr. Zarate committed does not include fraud as an element or ingredient.”
Surveying BIA decisions on the topic all the way back to 1943, it found that over the years, the Board has concluded that not all false statements or deception constitute fraud. The court cited a Second Circuit unpublished opinion distinguishing between deception and fraud, as the latter generally requires “an intent to obtain some benefit or cause a detriment.”13 And the court referenced the Seventh Circuit’s observation that the statute in question covers false use of a Social Security number not only to obtain a benefit, but also “for any other purpose.” That court added “It is not difficult to imagine some purposes for which falsely using a social security number would not be “inherently base, vile, or depraved.”14
In the end, the Eleventh Circuit sent the matter back to the BIA to consider whether under the categorical approach, any and all conduct covered by the statute would involve behavior that is “inherently base, vile, or depraved, and contrary to the accepted rules of morality and the duties owed between persons or to society in general.” The court’s decision certainly provided the Board a path to conclude otherwise.
I of course have no insight into how the Board will rule on remand. However, it seems worth adding some observations on the BIA’s problematic approach to CIMT determinations in recent years.
First, the Eleventh Circuit focused on the importance of the categorical approach in reaching the proper outcome.15 However, Kansas attorney Matthew Hoppock obtained through FOIA the PowerPoint of a presentation from the 2018 EOIR Immigration Judges training conference titled “Avoiding the Use or Mitigating the Effect of the Categorical Approach,” which was presented by a (since retired) Board Member, Roger Pauley.16 By virtue of binding Supreme Court case law, judges are required to apply the categorical approach. So why is the BIA, a supposedly neutral tribunal, training EOIR’s judges to find ways around employing this approach, or to try to reduce its impact?
This concern was further confirmed in an excellent 2019 article by Prof. Jennifer Lee Koh detailing how the BIA has repeatedly fudged its application of the categorical approach in CIMT cases.17 Prof. Koh concluded that the BIA’s approach has involved “The Board’s designation of itself as an arbiter of moral standards in the U.S., its unwritten imposition of a “maximum conduct” test that is at odds with the categorical approach’s “minimum conduct” requirement, and its treatment of criminalization as evidence of moral turpitude” which, not surprisingly, has resulted in BIA precedents expanding the number of offenses judged to be CIMTs.18
Even where the rule is applied correctly, another major problem remains. As Justice Jackson correctly stated, criminality is one thing, moral judgment quite another. And while immigration judges are expected to be experts in the law, they are not the standard bearers for what society views as base or vile.
This returns us to a question asked earlier: if not the judge, then who should be arbiter of moral standards? At the conclusion of its opinion, the Eleventh Circuit cited to a law review article by Prof. Julia Simon-Kerr which criticized how courts have “ ignored community moral sentiments when applying the standard.”19 The article’s author observed that instead of keeping the standard “up to date with the ever-evolving and often-contested morals of a pluralistic society,” courts have to the contrary “preserved, but not transformed, the set of morally framed norms of the early nineteenth century that first shaped its application.”20 In other words, it seems present-day judges too often continue to channel Lady Bracknell, rather than trying to gauge the moral sensibilities of their particular time and place.
If courts were to truly adapt to evolving societal standards, should decisions such as De George remain binding? Or should they be deemed to have provided guidance based on the morals of their time, subject to current reassessment?
Copyright 2022 Jeffrey S. Chase. All rights reserved.
Alison Peck, The Accidental History of the U.S. Immigration Courts: War, Fear, and the Roots of Dysfunction (University of California Press, 2021) at p. 97.
The warning was provided by Adolph J. Sabath, who served in the House from 1907 to 1952, was an immigrant himself, and is described in his Wikipedia page as “a leading opponent of immigration restrictions and prohibition.”
Jordan v. De George, supra at 235.
Id. at 238.
Id. at 239-40.
Id. at 241.
Id.
Id.
Petitioner was represented by Fairfax, VA attorney Arnedo Silvano Valera.
Ahmed v. Holder, 324 F.App’x 82, 84 (2d Cir. 2009).
Arias v. Lynch, supra at 826.
Judge Gerald Tjoflat even authored a concurring opinion tutoring the BIA to properly conclude that the statute is not divisible, ensuring the application of the categorical approach on remand.
The materials can be found at: https://www.aila.org/infonet/eoir-crimes-bond.
Jennifer Lee Koh, “Crimmigration Beyond the Headlines,” 71 Stan. L. Rev. Online 267, 272 (2019).
Id. at 273.
Julia Simon-Kerr, “Moral Turpitude,” 2012 Utah L. Rev. 1001, 1007-08 (2012).
Id.
MARCH 4, 2022
Reprinted by permission.
******************
“Brilliant,” as our friend and colleague Dan Kowalski says!
There is another way in which the Supremes’ prior constitutional abdication continues to pervert the constitutional guarantee of due process today.
As Jeffrey cogently points out NOBODY — Congress, the Article IIIs, the BIA, Immigration Judges, certainly not respondents — REALLY understands what “moral turpitude” means. Consequently, the only way to properly adjudicate cases involving that issue is through an exhaustive search and parsing of Circuit law, BIA precedents, and often state court decisions.
The problem: No unrepresented immigrant — particularly one in detention where a disproportionate share of these cases are heard — has any realistic chance of performing such intricate, arcane research into all too often conflicting and confusing sources.
Therefore, in addition to the problem that originated in DeGeorge when the Supremes’ majority failed to strike down a clearly unconstitutional statute, the failure to provide a right to appointed counsel in such cases — many involving long-time lawful permanent residents of the U.S. — is a gross violation of due process. It basically adds insult to injury!
As long as migrants continue to be intentionally wrongly treated as “lesser persons” or “not persons at all” by the Supremes and other authorities under the Due Process Clause — a process known as “Dred Scottification” — there will be no equal justice under law in America!
Better, more courageous, practical, and scholarly, Federal Judges — from the Supremes down to the Immigration Courts — won’t solve all of America’s problems. But, it certainly would be an essential start!
“Every day is ‘Kangaroo Field Day’ @ Garland’s DOJ!” When it comes to immigrant justice, “good enough for government work” is the mantra! https://www.flickr.com/photos/rasputin243/ Creative Commons License
“The BIA “affirm[ed] the Immigration Judge’s decision to deny reopening because the respondent has not sufficiently demonstrated that his brother’s murder represents a material change in country conditions that would affect his eligibility for asylum.” A.R. 4. As we noted above, while (b)(4) requires “changed country conditions,” (b)(3)does not. Thus, the BIA’s reference to a “material change in country conditions” and the analysis that followed shows that the BIA applied § 1003.23(b)(4). See A.R. 4. In applying the standard of § 1003.23(b)(4) to a timely filed motion, the BIA acted contrary to law. … The question for the BIA to consider in evaluating Garcia Hernandez’s motion to reopen was whether Garcia Hernandez offered, in the proper from and with the appropriate contents, evidence that was material and not previously available at the initial hearing. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(3). Because the BIA did not analyze that question, and instead evaluated the issue under § 1003.23(b)(4), the BIA abused its discretion. … The BIA held that Zambrano did not apply because the changed circumstances there took place before the petitioner filed a time-barred petition even though here, the purported changed circumstances took place after the time-barred petition was filed and adjudicated. But nothing in Zambrano suggests its holding or reasoning was limited in the way the BIA suggests. Thus, Zambrano’s framework in examining changed circumstances should have been applied to Garcia Hernandez’s asylum application. … [W]e grant Garcia Hernandez’s petition for review. We vacate and remand with instructions to the BIA to consider Garcia Hernandez’s motion to reopen under the appropriate standard. The BIA should also address Garcia Hernandez’s asylum application under the framework of Zambrano and conduct any further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
Many congrats to Ben and Alex, who were both “regulars” at the Arlington Immigration Court! Alex is also a former Arlington Intern and a “charter member” of the NDPA!😎
The 4th Circuit decision was written by Judge Marvin Quattlebaum, a Trump appointee, for a unanimous panel thatincluded Judge Motz and Judge Thacker. While Judge Q doesn’t always “get it right,” his cogent analysis of the BIA’s lawless behavior in this case is “spot on.”
How does a supposedly “expert” tribunal like the BIA blow the “easy stuff” — like following their own regulations? Clearly it has something to do with an unduly permissive “haste makes waste/rush to deny” anti-immigrant culture at EOIR that Garland has not effectively addressed!
Another obvious problem: Why were Garland’s lawyers at OIL defending this obviously wrong decision?You don’t have to be an “immigration guru” to read the regulations!
Sadly, it’s not the first time under Garland that OIL has chosen to waste judicial resources and undermine our justice system by “defending the indefensible.” It’s what happens when leaders promote an “anything goes/no accountability/good enough for government work” atmosphere!
There are deep substantive, structural, personnel, attitude, and “cultural” problems at EOIR and DOJ. That, over his first year in office, Garland has chosen to ignore these glaring malfunctions of justice @ Justice is an ongoing national disgrace!🤮
It doesn’t have to be this way! But, unfortunately, it is! And, even more disturbingly, no meaningful improvements appear to be on the horizon! That’s a deadly ☠️⚰️ outlook for American justice and for those poor souls caught up in Garland’s unfair, broken, dysfunctional “court” system that bears little resemblance to any commonly understood notion of what a fair, impartial, subject matter expert court should be in America!🤯
Trump Judges Are Now a Threat to America’s National Security
The 5th Circuit let a lone judge order the deployment of unvaccinated SEALs. High-ranking officers say the decision puts the world at risk.
MARCH 1 2022 6:55 PM
On Monday, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued a stunning decision transferring control over the Navy’s special operations forces from the commander-in-chief to a single federal judge in Texas. The 5th Circuit’s decision marks an astonishing infringement of President Joe Biden’s constitutional authority over the nation’s armed forces, directing him to follow the instructions of an unelected judge—rather than his own admirals—in deploying SEALs. High-ranking military personnel have testified under oath that this power grab constitutes a direct threat to the Navy’s operational abilities. As Russia invades Ukraine and declares a nuclear alert, Donald Trump’s judges are actively threatening America’s national security.
Like so many lawless cases in the 5th Circuit, this dispute began in the courtroom of U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor. A notorious George W. Bush nominee, O’Connor is best known for attemptingto abolish the Affordable Care Act in 2018, then getting reversed by a 7–2 vote at the Supreme Court last year. So when 35 Navy Special Warfare service members refused to comply with Biden’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate for the armed forces, they brought their case to O’Connor. These service members—mostly SEALs, all represented by the far-right First Liberty Institute—claimed that their religious beliefs barred them from getting the shots. (Some said they heard “divine instruction not to receive the vaccine”; others asserted that the mRNA vaccines altered “the divine creation of their body by unnaturally inducing production of spike proteins.)
O’Connor predictably sided against Biden in January, granting a preliminary injunction of staggering scope on the grounds that the mandate violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. He awarded himself sweeping authority over the assignment of the plaintiffs, forcing the Navy to deploy them with operational units. When several plaintiffs were denied transfer to a duty station, they asked O’Connor to sanction the government for allegedly violating his order; he promptly ordered the Justice Department to explain why it should not be punished for failing to deploy these service members. (O’Connor has not yet decided whether to impose sanctions.)
As of today, this lone judge continues to oversee the plaintiffs’ assignments, forcing the Navy to train, equip, and deploy unvaccinated troops—with granular specificity as to their exact stations and duties.
Never before in the history of the United States has one district court judge exercised so much control over the armed forces. The Constitution assigns this authority to Congress and the president. There are certainly legal limits on executive discretion, including due process and constitutional safeguards against invidious discrimination. Right-wing lawyers have typically been loath to acknowledge any restrictions on the president’s war powers. Indeed, the conservative legal movement has endorsed a near-limitless vision of the commander-in-chief: Republican presidents, lawyers, and judges have argued that the Constitution allows the president to deploy troops without congressional approval, indefinitely detain enemy combatants, and exclude entire classes of immigrants from the country. But now it seems they draw the line at a simple vaccine requirement—even though all service members were already required to have at least nine vaccines upon enlistment.
Setting aside this hypocrisy, O’Connor’s order violated a fundamental principle of judicial restraint: Federal courts have long held that specific military assignments are never subject to judicial review. O’Connor appears to be the first judge ever to rule that, in fact, the courts can compel the armed forces to deploy a specific service member to a specific location to perform a specific duty. If his court were in a sane circuit, this unprecedented intrusion on the president’s power would be quashed almost instantly.
In an unsigned opinion that bristled with hostility against the COVID-19 vaccine, this panel agreed that the mandate violated religious liberty. Noting that most service members are vaccinated, the panel declared that the Navy lacks the “paramount interests” necessary to overcome anti-vaxxers’ religious objections. It questioned the “efficacy” of the vaccine, noting that “the USS Milwaukee was ‘sidelined’ in December 2021 by a COVID-19 outbreak despite having a fully vaccinated crew.” (Unmentioned was the fact that the crew’s vaccination status prevented even more transmission and serious illness.) The panel then found that the Navy will not be “irreparably harmed” by O’Connor’s order. And it concluded that the “public interest” lies in keeping the plaintiffs unvaccinated.
. . . .
******************
Don’t expect this lackadaisical attitude from the next far-right GOP Attorney General to “own” the U.S. Immigration Courts — America’s “retail level” judiciary! PHOTO: Wikipedia Commons
There isn’t anything that Biden and the Dems can do in the short run to change the scofflaw trajectory and composition of the 5th and the Supremes.
But, there is a powerful, nationwide, precedent-setting“Trump-oriented retail level ‘judiciary’” — with trial and appellate divisions and control over millions of lives and futures — that they have the power to immediately reform: The U.S. Immigration Courts “housed” within the DOJ’s EOIR!
Too bad for the rule of law and the future of democracy, not to mention the millions of individual human lives and futures at stake, that Garland and his lieutenants aren’t “up to” the job!
Progressives shouldn’t expect the same lack of will, defective focus, and clueless complacency the next time the radical GOP right takes over ownership of the DOJ! When it comes to the interrelated problems of immigration, human rights, civil rights, and immigration judicial reform in the 21st Century, fecklessness and underperformance are exclusive characteristics of Dem Administrations!👎🏽☹️🤯
