AN “OPEN LETTER PROPOSAL” FROM TWO UW LAW ‘73 RETIRED JUDGES — We’ve Spent 90+ Collective Years Working To Improve The Quality & Delivery Of Justice In America On Both The State & Federal Levels, In The Private & Public Sectors — What We’re Seeing Now Is Shocking, Heartbreaking, Inexcusable, & Unnecessary — It’s Time For Legislators & Policy Makers To Start Listening To Those Of Us With New Ideas Based On “Real Life” Experiences & Observation!

Hon. Thomas Lister
Retired Jackson County (WI) Circuit Judge

A CONCEPTUAL PROPOSAL FOR AN AUXILIARY IMMIGRATION JUDICIARY

By

Paul Wickham Schmidt, Retired U.S. Immigraton Judge and Former Chair, U.S. Board Of Immigration Appeals

&

Thomas Lister, Retired Wisconsin Circuit Judge

Drawing on our judicial expertise gained over decades of working in both Federal and State judicial system, we respectfully set forth a concept for those working in the legislative, political, legal, and judicial systems to use and further develop to promote better, fairer, and more efficient judicial decision-making and to make better use of existing and future judicial resources both in and outside the U.S. Immigration Court system.

To save time, and since neither of us purports to be a legislative draftsperson, instead of submitting a “draft bill,” or the “outline” of such a bill, we advance an idea and the conceptual and practical justifications for it for your consideration and future use in drafting actual legislation.

No knowledgeable individual thinks the current dysfunctional U.S. Immigration Court system can continue without imploding. Just feeding more new, permanent Immigration Judges into an unfair and broken system actually is making things worse as well as outrageously wasting our taxpayer money at a time when deficits are skyrocketing.

All too many newly hired Immigration Judges appear to be neither the best qualified to be judges nor, even if qualified on paper, properly trained in how to deliver “full due process with efficiency” under the immigration laws and in strict compliance with the Due Process Clause of our Constitution.

On the other hand, many retired judges from other Federal and State systems have proven expertise and track records that would allow a competent judicial administrator (there are, to our knowledge, NONE of these currently in DOJ or EOIR) to determine if they are suitable for emergency service and how they could best be trained to effectively and efficiently use their skills as “Auxiliary Immigration Judges” to augment the current and future Immigration Judiciary.

Moreover, since most retired Federal and State judges already have adequate pensions or other means of support, asking them to volunteer to serve on the basis of limited compensation, or even just reimbursement for out of pocket expenses, would not be unreasonable.

We are offering this idea as a way in which those of us with lifetime legal and judicial expertise can use it to improve the delivery of justice in America; it is not intended as a means of enriching or offering alternative full-time employment to current retired judges, from any system.

To name just a few areas of “low hanging fruit,” we believe that:

• Most bonds;

• Initial “Master Calendars” (arraignments);

• Master Calendar scheduling for Individual Hearings;

• Motions Calendars;

• “Status” Calendars;

• Stipulated Final Order and Withdrawal Calendars;

• Individual Hearings on Cancellation of Removal for long-time lawful and unlawful residents;

• Uncontested Adjustments of Status and other types of equitable waivers; and

• Voluntary Departure as the sole application cases

have elements in common with most other types of judicial work.

Using Auxiliary Judges for such cases would allow those judges, from any Federal or State system, with sound work records, that is, those with impeccable reputations for fairness, professionalism, judicial efficiency, and impartiality, to handle these types of immigration adjudications with a modest amount of additional training and in close consultation and cooperation with the sitting Immigration Judges in a particular location.

In this respect, our emphasis would always be on aiding existing, sitting U.S. Immigration Judges, in cooperation with them and at their request, in the ways those sitting judges deem most helpful, fair, and effective.

It would never be on fulfilling inappropriate and unethical “production quotas,” numerical goals, or pandering to interests who want to use the judicial system to fulfill political or law enforcement objectives inconsistent with Due Process, fundamental fairness, or sound judicial administration.

We do not propose that “Auxiliary Judges” ever work directly for or under the supervision of non-judicial political officials as is now, disturbingly, the case in our Immigration Court System. Indeed, the current unwarranted attack on the independence and professionalism of Immigration Judges by unqualified political officials seeking to “decertify” the Immigration Judges’ professional association, the National Association of Immigration Judges, is a prime example of the type of counterproductive activity in which “Auxiliary Judges” should never be allowed to participate, in any way.

By contrast with the types of more straightforward judicial work described above as potential “low hanging fruit,” Asylum Cases, Withholding of Removal Cases, and applications for protection under the Convention Against Torture involve complex legal and factual issues. These are matters that should NOT be delegated to retired judges from other fields.

Indeed, one huge advantage of our proposal is that it would allow existing and future Immigration Judges to spend adequate time (a contested fair hearing on any of these aforementioned protection matters would take a well-trained judge 3-4 hours, minimum) on these types of cases and to receive more and better training on how to fairly and timely adjudicate, consistent with Constitutional Due Process, claims for protection under these laws and International Conventions.

Of course, there would be some administrative costs involved with training and maintaining a list of those willing to serve as “Auxiliary Immigration Judges.” But, they pale in relation to the costs of continuing to throw new permanent positions into a badly broken and dysfunctional system.

Indeed, some, such as the ABA Commission on Immigration, have observed that additional Immigration Judge hiring under current conditions has demonstrably been a waste of taxpayer money that has actually made the system worse and further impaired the delivery of Due Process to those vulnerable individuals whose lives depend on fair, professional, and efficient administration of Due Process and fundamental fairness in our Immigration Courts.

Sadly, we surmise that significant amounts of the “assembly line (in)justice” currently being encouraged and delivered to represented individuals in today’s Immigration Courts will eventually have to be re-adjudicated by orders of the Article III reviewing courts because of legal and/or factual errors. The only reason we don’t include unrepresented individuals in our equation is that these, unfortunately, are often “railroaded” out of our country without realistic access to the Article III Courts.

As lawyers with a combined 90 years of experience working in State and Federal justice systems, as prosecutors, judges, private litigators, educators, and government officials, at both the national and local level, we cannot in good conscience watch the continued deterioration of justice in the Immigration Courts while constructive ideas for improvements and efficiency and fairness are ignored or left unaddressed.

The concept of using retired State and Federal Judges outside the Immigration System to do certain types of cases to augment justice and relieve the incredible stress on full time Immigration Judges, in times of emergency or workload surges, without all the problems inherent in the current hiring of permanent judges by the DOJ, easily could be incorporated into one of the “Independent Article I Immigration Court” bills being advocated and advanced by groups such as the ABA, FBA, AILA, and the National Association of Immigration Judges (“NAIJ”).

The current system is dying before our eyes. We need to “pull out all the stops,” consider “every potential concept,” and utilize “positive professional creativity” (the antithesis of the negative energy devoted to cruel and counterproductive “gimmicks” and outright illegal actions) designed to enhance, rather than denigrate, Due Process, fundamental fairness, and judicial efficiency without sacrificing quality.

It is in that spirit that we respectfully request those involved in legislative reform of our Immigration Court system to consider incorporating our concept of an “Auxiliary Immigration Judiciary” into overall legislative proposals for positive reform of the Immigration Courts now being advanced by all of the leading voices in the field.

Respectfully submitted,

Thomas Lister, Middleton, WI

Paul Wickham Schmidt, Alexandria, VA

August 19, 2019

THE “GOOD GUYS” STRIKE BACK: NAIJ, AILA Issue Statements Strongly Condemning Administration’s Attempt to “Decertify” Immigration Judges’ Union!

Hon. A. Ashlley Tabaddor — Hon. A. Ashley Tabaddor
President, National
Association of Immigration Judges (“NAIJ”)

NAIJ Press Release on Attempt to Decertofu 8-12-19

For immediate release – August 12, 2019

Contact: Jamie Horwitz,jhdcpr@starpower.net, 202/549-4921

Trump Administration Seeks to Silence Federal Immigration Judges’ Union DOJ Files Legal Documents to End the Labor Rights of Judges

Retribution for Speaking Out and Exposing Problems in the Courts

Judges Make Bipartisan Appeal Asking Congress to Create an Independent Court Free From Political Influence

WASHINGTON — On Friday, August 9, the U.S. Department of Justice filed legal documents with the Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA) seeking to eliminate the rights of federal Immigration Judges (IJs) to be represented by a union. The petition filed by the administration asserts that IJs are “management officials” who formulate and advance policy.

“This is nothing more than a desperate attempt by the DOJ to evade transparency and accountability, and undermine the decisional independence of the nation’s 440 Immigration Judges,” said Judge Ashley Tabaddor, an Immigration Judge who hears cases in Los Angeles, speaking in her capacity as the president of the National Association of Immigration Judges (NAIJ). “We are trial court judges who make decisions on the basis of case specific facts and the nation’s immigration laws. We do not set policies, and we don’t manage staff,” she added.

The nation’s immigration courts are not part of the judicial branch of the government. The courts where immigration cases are heard are managed by the DOJ, allowing the

nation’s chief prosecutor, the U.S. Attorney General, oversight authority and the power to hire, fire, and control the judges who preside over immigration hearings.

Over the past two years, NAIJ has been highly critical of the administration’s moves to create a quota of 700 cases per year for every IJ and to pressure judges to process cases faster, irrespective of the law and the facts of the case. The NAIJ has also documented and publicly commented on how the government shutdown earlier this year added to the case backlog. Other issues raised by the NAIJ during the Trump years have included challenges to the Attorney General’s stripping IJs of needed docket management authority and depriving IJs of adequate support staff and resources such as interpreters, courtrooms, law clerks, and access to current technology. The move to decertify NAIJ is a clear effort to thwart criticism.

“It’s absurd that anyone would consider us managers,” said Tabaddor. “We don’t even have the authority to order pencils.”

This is not the first time that the DOJ has floated the theory that Immigration Judges are managers. Two decades ago, the DOJ made a similar attempt at decertifying the judges’ union. In 2000, the FLRA ruled at that time that IJs do not act as managers. Since that decision, the role and responsibilities of IJs has further been reinforced as trial judges rather than as managers. In the last two years, for example, the DOJ has eliminated any opportunity for IJs to serve in an advisory capacity to management officials and has repeatedly refused even to consult NAIJ on decisions affecting daily court operations. Additionally, the docket schedule of each IJ is micromanaged to advance law enforcement priorities rather than priorities or scheduling set by an individual judge.

NAIJ is affiliated with the International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers, a much larger union that represents thousands of highly-educated federal employees including NASA rocket scientists, engineers employed by the U.S. Navy and the Army Corp of Engineers, and administrative law judges who hear cases involving Social Security claims. According to IFPTE’s president Paul Shearon, “This is nothing

more than union busting plain and simple, and part of a disturbing pattern. The White House has

signed a series of executive orders that limit the ability of federal unions to raise questions about abuses and inefficiencies, and they have tried to hinder a union’s ability to fully represent federal workers who are often stuck in a bureaucratic maze.” Added Shearon, “This administration doesn’t want to be held accountable, and they especially don’t want anyone looking over their shoulder on immigration issues.”

“It’s in the best interests of the American people for judges to hear cases based solely on the law and the facts presented, free from political considerations,” said Judge Tabaddor. “This is not a Democrat or Republican or a left, right issue.” NAIJ has long advocated for Immigration Judges to be placed in an independent agency, similar to the nation’s bankruptcy and tax courts, rather than under the control of the DOJ. In recent months, this move to create an independent agency to operate the immigration courts has been gaining traction on both sides of the aisle in Congress.

“We think many on Capitol Hill, from both parties, will oppose this effort to mute the nation’s Immigration Judges,” said Tabaddor. “When Congress returns in September, we will redouble our efforts to maintain judicial independence and due process through the creation of an independent court. The DOJ’s actions, designed to silence judges and their union, further demonstrates why judges who hear immigration cases need to be placed in an independent agency. Our rallying cry as we make the rounds in the halls of Congress will be ‘remember August 9’.”

The National Association of Immigration Judges (NAIJ), founded in 1971, is a voluntary organization formed with the objectives of promoting independence and enhancing the professionalism, dignity, and efficiency of the Immigration Court.

# # #

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

AILA – AILA: DOJ Seeks Termination of Immigration Judges Union, Further Undermining Court Independen

AILA: DOJ Seeks Termination of Immigration Judges Union, Further Undermining Court Independence

AILA Doc. No. 19081591 | Dated August 15, 2019

CONTACTS:

George Tzamaras
202-507-7649
gtzamaras@aila.org Tessa Wiseman
202-507-7661
twiseman@aila.org

WASHINGTON, DC – On Friday, August 9, 2019, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) petitioned the Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA) in an effort to strip immigration judges of their right to be represented by a union. In the petition, DOJ asserts that immigration judges should be considered “management officials” and therefore should be excluded from forming or joining labor unions. The National Association of Immigration Judges (NAIJ), the recognized collective bargaining representative of our nation’s immigration judges, deemed DOJ’s claim as “absurd” and said that DOJ’s actions are “designed to silence judges and their union.” Representatives Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) and Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) of the House Judiciary Committee also decried the move in a statement this week.

Benjamin Johnson, Executive Director of the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) responded, “DOJ’s petition to decertify the NAIJ is an effort to suppress the voices of immigration judges, who have denounced DOJ efforts to strip their authority. Ironically, while the petition contends that immigration judges are ‘management officials,’ this Administration has made every effort to limit the judges’ independence, management, and authority – micromanaging dockets, limiting discretion in adjudication, and imposing strict performance quotas.

Congress must protect the sanctity of due process, efficiency, and fairness in the court system by exercising its oversight authority over these politically motivated actions of the DOJ. Oversight alone is not enough; these actions are only possible because DOJ has total control over the immigration court system. America can no longer afford to have a system that can be so easily manipulated. AILA urges Congress to pass legislation establishing an independent immigration court under Article I of the Constitution.”

Cite as AILA Doc. No. 19081591.

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

An outrageous waste of our taxpayer money, abuse of our legal system, and unlawful attempt to silence the Administration’s critics. Note that the ONLY U.S. Immigration Judges who have a right to “speak out” against the fraud, waste, and abuse of the system by the current Administration (in other words, to “speak truth”) are senior officials of the NAIJ.

The DOJ and EOIR have effectively “muzzled” the rest of the active Immigration Judges. They are not allowed to speak to the press. Under this Administration, they aren’t even allowed to participate in educational programs and seminars aimed at educating the public about practice before the Immigration Courts.

Yet, while treating the judges little better than well-paid but overworked clerks, the Department of Justice asserts, with a straight face, that they are “management officials.” Just what, one might ask, are they “managing?”

Moreover, since judges generally need support but little if any day to day “management” in a functioning system (I wonder how much time Chief Justice Roberts spends “managing” his colleagues or how much time any Chief Judge in a legitimate system spends “managing” his or her judicial colleagues), what’s the purpose of the bloated management structure in the “EOIR Tower” in Falls Church, VA?

The real needs of the Immigration Judges — more clerks, more time off the bench to prepare, more educational opportunities, better equipment, better courtrooms, less time spent on non-productive work like reporting progress on case quotas — remain unaddressed by what passes for “management” at today’s EOIR. The filing of this meritless “decertification petition” by EOIR appears to be yet another in the long series of disingenuous efforts by DOJ and EOIR to deflect attention from their own gross mismanagement of the Immigration Court system that has helped to create monumental, unprecedented backlogs even as more resources are thrown into the maelstrom.

A truly horrible system — essentially a “Rube Goldberg Contraption — that must be abolished by Congress and reinstituted as an independent Article I Court dedicated to delivering “Due Process with efficiency.”

Due Process forever; malicious incompetence never!

PWS

08-19-19

JOURNAL ON MIGRATION & HUMAN SOCIETY (“JMHS”) PUBLISHES MY TRIBUTE TO JUAN OSUNA (1963-2017): “An Overview and Critique of US Immigration and Asylum Policies in the Trump Era”

New from JMHS | An Overview and Critique of US Immigration and Asylum Policies in the Trump Era

View this email in your browser

A publication of the Center for Migration Studies

Donald Kerwin, Executive Editor
John Hoeffner and Michele Pistone, Associate Editors

An Overview and Critique of US Immigration and Asylum Policies in the Trump Era

By Paul Wickham Schmidt (Georgetown Law)

This paper critiques US immigration and asylum policies from perspective of the author’s 46 years as a public servant. It also offers a taxonomy of the US immigration system by positing different categories of membership: full members of the “club” (US citizens); “associate members” (lawful permanent residents, refugees and asylees); “friends” (non-immigrants and holders of temporary status); and, persons outside the club (the undocumented). It describes the legal framework that applies to these distinct populations, as well as recent developments in federal law and policy that relate to them. It also identifies a series of cross-cutting issues that affect these populations, including immigrant detention, immigration court backlogs, state and local immigration policies, and Constitutional rights that extend to non-citizens. It makes the following asylum reform proposals, relying (mostly) on existing laws designed to address situations of larger-scale migration:

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and, in particular, US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) should send far more Asylum Officers to conduct credible fear interviews at the border.
Law firms, pro bono attorneys, and charitable legal agencies should attempt to represent all arriving migrants before both the Asylum Office and the Immigration Courts.
USCIS Asylum Officers should be permitted to grant temporary withholding of removal under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) to applicants likely to face torture if returned to their countries of origin.
Immigration Judges should put the asylum claims of those granted CAT withholding on the “back burner” — thus keeping these cases from clogging the Immigration Courts — while working with the UNHCR and other counties in the Hemisphere on more durable solutions for those fleeing the Northern Triangle states of Central America.
Individuals found to have a “credible fear” should be released on minimal bonds and be allowed to move to locations where they will be represented by pro bono lawyers.
Asylum Officers should be vested with the authority to grant asylum in the first instance, thus keeping more asylum cases out of Immigration Court.
If the Administration wants to prioritize the cases of recent arrivals, it should do so without creating more docket reshuffling, inefficiencies, and longer backlogs

Download the PDF of the article

Read more JMHS articles at http://cmsny.org/jmhs/

Want to learn more about access to asylum on the US-Mexico border? Join the Center for Migration Studies for our annual Academic and Policy Symposium on October 17.

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

My long-time friend Don Kerwin, Executive Director of CMS, has been a “Lt. General of the New Due Process Army” since long before there even was a “New Due Process Army” (“NDPA”). Talk about someone who has spent his entire career increasing human understanding and making the world a better place! Don is a great role model and example for newer members of the NDPA, proving that one can make a difference, as well as a living, in our world by doing great things and good works! Not surprisingly, Don’s career achievements and contributions bear great resemblance to those of our mutual friend, the late Juan Osuna.

So, when Don asked me to consider turning some of my past speeches about our immigration system and how it should work into an article to honor Juan, I couldn’t say no. But, I never would have gotten it “across the finish line” without Don’s inspiration, encouragement, editing, and significant substantive suggestions for improvement, as well as that of the talented peer reviewers and editorial staff of JMHS. Like most achievements in life, it truly was a “team effort” for which I thank all involved.

Those of you who might have attended my Boynton Society Lecture last Saturday, August 10, at the beautiful and inspiring Bjorklunden Campus of Lawrence University on the shores of Lake Michigan at Bailey’s Harbor, WI, will see that portions of this article were “reconverted” and incorporated into that speech.

Also, those who might have taken the class “American Immigration, a Cultural, Legal, and Anthropological Approach” at the Bjorklunden Seminar Series the previous week, co-taught by my friend Professor Jenn Esperanza of The Beloit College Anthropology Department, and me had the then-unpublished manuscript in their course materials, and will no doubt recognize many of the themes that Jenn and I stressed during that week.

Perhaps the only “comment that really mattered” was passed on to me by Don shortly after this article was released. It was from Juan’s wife, the also amazing and inspiring Wendy Young, President of Kids In Need of Defense (“KIND”):“Juan would be truly honored.”

Donald M. Kerwin
Executive Director
Center for Migration Studies

Juan P. Osuna (1963-2017)
Judge, Executive, Scholar, Teacher, Defender of Due Process

Wendy Young
President, Kids In Need of Defense (“KIND”)

PWS

08-19-19

CTGN VIDEO: “THE HEAT: MIGRATION, ASYLUM & DEPORTATION” – “New Due Process Army Warrior” Paulina Vera Makes Mincemeat Of FAIR’s Matthew O’Brien & His Bogus White Nationalist Narrative!

Paulina Vera
Lecturer in Law
George Washington Law

The Heat: Migration, Asylum and Deportation

Anand Naidoo

@anandnaidoo

Published August 14, 2019 at 5:50 PM

Hundreds more undocumented immigrants are being rounded up by U.S. law enforcement and processed for deportation. But the United States is not the only country dealing with these issues.

In 2015 and 2016, a wave of migrants and refugees sought asylum in Europe as they fled wars in Syria and Iraq. Thousands more have died, or have been rescued at sea, as they tried to reach Europe from Africa. And, Italy is taking a tough stance on migrants by closing reception centers and trying to prevent rescue boats from docking at Italian ports. Meanwhile Australia has long had some of the toughest asylum policies in the world, as it tries to prevent migrants and refugees from entering its country.

To discuss all of this:

Daniel Ghezelbash is a senior lecturer at Macquarie Law School and author of “Refuge Lost: Asylum Law in an Interdependent World.”

Reuven Ziegleris an associate professor in international refugee law at the University of Reading.

Paulina Vera is a lecturer in law at The George Washington University Law School.

Matthew O’Brien is director of research at the Federation for American Immigration Reform.

See the video here:

https://america.cgtn.com/2019/08/14/the-heat-migration-asylum-and-deportation

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

Wow! O’Brien is a shameless liar. Hopefully, his descendants will view this video and see for posterity just what a racist apologist opportunist and vile White Nationalist he is.

Unfortunately, this isn’t a “debate.” It’s a question of O’Brien’s lies, fabrications, and false narratives versus truth. Even DHS’s OWN studies refute many of O’Brien’s White Nationalist talking points!!

It’s sad that in an attempt to present “ both sides” of a picture that has only one legitimate side, the media has to dredge up guys like O’Brien and give them a forum for their ugly, callous, and demonstrably untrue false narratives. Very much like the debate about climate change where lying “pseudo scientists” get equal time with those stating the truth, while the world disintegrates.

In the end, elections and political pandering can determine who holds power, but they can’t change truth. Contrary to Trump and his lackeys, there are no “alternative facts” and Trump himself is a living example of “fake news” and its toxic effects on our country and humanity. In this case, the truth is that under Trump and with support from folks like FAIR, our world is spiraling downward toward chaos and destruction.

ANYBODY, like O’Brien, who claims that “sound judicial practices” are being followed in today’s unfair and dysfunctional Immigration Courts should not be taken seriously by the media or anyone else.

Many congrats to Paulina, a courageous graduate of the “Arlington Immigration Court Internship Program” and a “Charter Member of the New Due Process Army” for taking a stand and speaking truth to the lies and liars who currently hold power.

PWS

08-15-19

FRAUD, WASTE, & ABUSE @ “JUSTICE” – Barr & Co. Seek To Punish National Association of Immigration Judges (”NAIJ”) For Daring To Stand Up For Due Process & Judicial Independence!

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/10/us/immigration-judges-union-justice-department.html?searchResultPosition=1

Christina Goldbaum reports for the NY Times:

By Christina Goldbaum

10, 2019

The Justice Department has moved to decertify the union of immigration judges, a maneuver that could muffle an organization whose members have sometimes been openly critical of the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement agenda.

The department filed a petition on Friday asking the Federal Labor Relations Authority to determine whether the union, the National Association of Immigration Judges, should have its certification revoked because its members are considered “management officials” ineligible to collectively organize, according to a Justice Department spokesman.

The move suggested escalating tensions between overwhelmed immigration judges desperate for greater resources and a Justice Department pushing them to quickly address a backlog of immigration cases.

“This is a misguided effort to minimize our impact,” said Judge Amiena Khan, vice president of the judges’ union, which has publicly criticized the use of a quota system in immigration court and other attempts to speed up proceedings.

“We serve as a check and balance on management prerogatives and that’s why they are doing this to us,” said Judge Khan.

Unlike other federal judges who are part of the judicial branch, immigration judges are appointed by the attorney general and are employees of the Justice Department. Though sitting judges are prohibited from speaking publicly about issues that could be considered political, representatives of the immigration judges’ union can speak publicly about Justice Department policies on behalf of its members.

This is not the first time an administration has challenged the organization. The Clinton administration also tried to decertify the immigration judges’ union, a move that the Federal Labor Relations Authority rejected, according to former immigration judges.

Both Judge Khan and the union president, Judge Ashley Tabaddor, have spoken out repeatedly against what they say is an attempt to turn immigration judges from neutral arbiters of the law to law enforcement agents enacting the White House’s policies. They have called for immigration judges to be independent of the Justice Department.

Last year, the union criticized the department’s quota system, which required immigration judges to complete 700 cases per year, as well as a move to bar judges from an administrative tool they had previously used to reduce their caseloads. The union says the focus on efficiency impedes judges’ ability to work through complicated cases and could affect the due process rights of immigrants in court.

The pressure to hear more cases more quickly amounts to “psychological warfare,” Judge Tabaddor said last year.

Addressing some of the union’s concerns, the Justice Department has tried to tackle the backlog, which now totals more than 830,000 cases, by hiring more immigration judges. Judges appointed by President Trump now make up 43 percent of the nation’s immigration judges, a larger share than under any of his five predecessors, according to a recent analysis by The Associated Press. A large number of his appointees are former military or Immigration and Customs Enforcement lawyers, the analysis found.

But that hiring has not been accompanied by other necessary support, Judge Khan said.

“I can’t work alone, I am reliant on support staff,” said Judge Khan. “Right now there are two judges to one support staff person,” which has delayed the progress of cases despite the additional judges, she said.

The judges’ union plans to officially respond to the Justice Department’s petition once it receives official notification from the Federal Labor Relations Authority.

If the attempt to decertify the union is successful, it could leave judges without recourse for their already overwhelming workload, judges said.

“The union won’t be able to help judges with overall working conditions at a time when most all judges would tell you working conditions are worse now than they have ever been,” said Paul Schmidt, a former immigration judge.

Judge Khan called the Justice Department’s petition part of “a systematic attack on unions” representing federal employees under the Trump administration. Last year, Mr. Trump signed a series of executive orders that rolled back the workplace role of unions for at least two million federal workers and made it easier to fire them. The administration said the move would make the government more efficient.

The Justice Department’s recent petition will most likely prompt an investigation by the Federal Labor Relations Authority, according to a department spokesman.

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

Seems like the investigation ought to be into ethical violations and attempts to misuse Federal labor laws by Bill Barr. A substantially identical challenge to the NAIJ was soundly rejected by the same agency, the FLRA, back in the late 1990’s under the Clinton administration.

Since then, over the strong objection of the NAIJ, the status of Immigration Judges has been even farther reduced to that of glorified “deportation clerks.” The idea that individuals whose little remining discretion has been removed have somehow morphed into “management officials” is both totally absurd and a confirmation that so-called “management officials” in the Federal Government under the Trump Administration have nothing to manage.

Seems like this clear abuse of our legal system by Barr and his cronies should be a subject for investigation by the House Judiciary Committee and would warrant commencement of impeachment proceedings against arrogant, anti-American scofflaw Bill Barr. Not that Barr hasn’t already been found in contempt of Congress and the American people – he has. He’s a disgusting character – a disgrace to public service and the legal profession.

I suppose he will escape accountability in his lifetime. But, the “Jefferson Davis of the Justice Department” will certainly receive the judgement of history against him for his betrayal of his country and his racist, White Nationalist misconduct clothed in a thin veneer of undeserved credibility based on his success in the corporate legal world. If anything, that a sleazy and corrupt character like Barr could prosper in the world of “white shoe corporate law” is an indictment of that system and its total lack of values and ethical standards.

Meanwhile, it appears that the actions of the NAIJ have been successful in striking a nerve among the DOJ kakistocracy. As with the corrupt, inept, and racist-infested DHS, the current inability of the DOJ as an institution to stand up to Barr’s dishonesty, corruption, and lawless behavior certainly merits a reexamination of the role and structure of the DOJ down the line with an eye toward determining how an institution supposedly staffed with “officers of the court” could be so cowardly and inept when it comes to standing up against internal abuses and contempt for our Constitution.

In addition, the latest abuse of authority by Barr emphasizes the need for immediate removal of the Immigration Courts from Barr’s control and a reversal of the “Chevron doctrine” of “judicial task avoidance” that has granted the DOJ’s immigration kakistocracy clearly unwarranted and unjustified “deference.”

Finally, I pass along my favorite quip from one of my former colleagues about the exalted “management role” of today’s Immigration Judges: “I often say I am not even permitted to manage the pencils in my courtroom.”

While there is a certain type of “dark humor” in the actions of Barr and the other “malicious incompetents” in the Trump Administration, there is nothing funny about the innocent lives being lost or threatened by their actions or the damage that these “evil clowns” are inflicting on our Constitution and our instructions.

PWS

08-10-19

COURAGEOUS U.S IMMIGRATION JUDGES LIKE PAUL GAGNON OF THE BOSTON IMMIGRATION COURT CONTINUE TO PROTECT ABUSED REFUGEE WOMEN UNDER THE LAW DESPITE SESSIONS’S EXTRALEGAL ATTEMPT TO ELIMINATE PROTECTION IN MATTER OF A-B- — Continuing Threats By Bill Barr & EOIR Against Judges Who Act Fairly & Impartially Fail To Deter Some From Upholding Their Oaths Of Office — Of Course, “Women in Guatemala” are a “Particular Social Group,” As Beautifully & Convincingly Set Forth By Judge Gagnon’s Recent Decision, A Primer On The Proper Application Of Asylum Law That Carries Out The Intent Of The Supreme’s 1987 Decision in Cardoza-Fonseca!

Boston Judge Gagnon Decision

Thanks to Judge Jeffrey Chase, leader of our Roundtable of Former Immigration Judges for sending this to me.

Also, I join Judge Chase in congratulating Gerald D. Wall and the Greater Boston Legal Services (a clinical program of Harvard Law School) for providing pro bono representation in this case.

Note how succinct, straightforward, logical, and well-supported by authority Judge Gagnon’s decision is. Compare that with the nearly incomprehensible 30+ page anti-asylum, lie-filled, intellectually dishonest, and legally incorrect screed written by Sessions in support of his cowardly extralegal attack on some of the most vulnerable and deserving of protection among us in his Matter of A-B- atrocity.

Now think of how the system could work if Judge Gagnon’s correct decision were the precedent and all asylum applicants had access to qualified pro bono counsel.

Many cases could be promptly granted by an honest USCIS Asylum Office committed to properly applying protection law. They would not even have to reach the backlogged Immigration Courts or be subjected to toxic, counterproductive “gimmicks” like “Let ‘Em Die in Mexico” or absurdities like claiming that everyone should apply in Guatemala, from which this respondent was fleeing for her life and which has neither a functional government nor a credible asylum system.

That, plus perhaps using retired judges from all types of courts and bringing back retired Asylum Officers and adjudicators trained to recognize and quickly grant “slam dunk” asylum cases like this would be the key to establishing a credible, independent, Immigration Court and a reestablishing a functioning asylum system of which we all could be proud.

Instead, our current maliciously incompetent White Nationalist regime continues to ignore our laws, our Constitution, and our international obligations in leading a cowardly and disreputable “race to the bottom” in which the richest and most powerful country in the world conducts itself as a “Banana Republic” led by a tinhorn dictator.

PWS

08-08-19

THE ROUNDTABLE IN ACTION: HON. ILYCE SHUGALL DELIVERS POWERFUL STATEMENT IN THE LA TIMES ON WHY SHE COULD NO LONGER SERVE AS A JUDGE IN OUR OBSCENELY DISTORTED AND UNFAIR U.S. IMMIGRATON COURT SYSTEM – “But nothing prepared me for the unprecedented, unfair and unworkable policies the Trump administration imposed on the courts and the immigration process.”

https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2019-08-03/immigration-court-judge-asylum-trump-policies

By ILYCE SHUGALL

LA Times

AUG. 4, 2019

I have been an immigration lawyer dedicated to fairness and due process for immigrants my entire career. In 2015, convinced that my 18 years of experience as an advocate would make me a good immigration judge, I applied for the job.

Most immigration judges are former attorneys from the chief counsel’s office of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, former assistant U.S. attorneys or former attorneys from other federal government agencies. Former advocates are appointed less frequently, but I believed in the importance of having judges from varied backgrounds on the bench and therefore applied.

I made it through the application and vetting process and was appointed to the bench in September 2017. I resigned this March because I could no longer in good conscience work as an immigration judge in the Trump administration.

I knew when I joined the bench that there would be frustrations, as immigration courts are governed by the Justice Department and lack the independence of other courts in the federal judicial system. But nothing prepared me for the unprecedented, unfair and unworkable policies the Trump administration imposed on the courts and the immigration process.

I believed it was my job to ensure that all people who appeared before me understood their rights and had the opportunity to fully present their cases. I found the job fulfilling when I was hearing cases. I enjoyed learning about the lives of people from all over the world and analyzing complex legal issues. It was also heartbreaking. I heard stories of horrific violence, terror and pain. I was moved by the struggles and resolve of those who leave everything behind to seek safety and refuge, those who dedicate their lives to caring for family members, and those who overcome incredible obstacles to make a better future for themselves and their families.

In 2018, Atty. Gen. Jeff Sessions and the director of the Executive Office for Immigration Review, which oversees the immigration courts, began imposing quotas and performance metrics that affected the day-to-day function and independence of the judges. We were notified that all judges were expected to complete 700 cases a year to receive a satisfactory performance review. EOIR also published performance metrics for the judges that established specific timelines for adjudication of cases and motions.

During a conference of immigration judges in June 2018, agency leadership informed us that the quota policy would go into effect in October. Sessions, during his keynote speech at the conference, announced that he would be issuing his decision in the case of Matter of A-B-, which dealt with asylum claims based on domestic violence. His decision to prohibit grants of asylum for victims of domestic violence and persecution perpetrated by other nongovernment actors was announced later that day. I left the conference extremely demoralized.

My colleagues and I felt the impact of the case quotas on our ability to render correct and well-reasoned decisions. My calendar was fully booked with cases through 2021. The judges in San Francisco, where I served, were told we could not schedule any cases in 2022 until our calendars showed that three cases were scheduled every day through the end of 2021.

SPONSORED CONTENT

This meant that the judges were forced to schedule at least two cases in one time slot (there being two slots a day) — regardless of whether it was possible to hear two cases in such a short time frame or whether this would allow a judge to consider fully the merits of each case, which often involved determining life or death issues.

This was the way to push us to complete 700 cases a year. Failure to hit the quota would also result in failing to meet other performance metrics. In August 2018, Sessions also issued a decision limiting continuances of cases in immigration court.

Shortly after we were told to hear three cases a day, we were also told we could not schedule interpreters for two different languages in each of the morning or afternoon sessions. We were told we needed to match languages or pair English-language cases with other languages, though we had no tools to assist us in coordinating languages.

The impact of these administrative policies, while bad on judges’ morale and workloads, was worse for the immigrants appearing at court. The pressure to complete cases made me less patient and less able to uphold the constitutional protections required to properly adjudicate cases.

In addition to these policies, the Trump administration announced several new policy changes to limit the rights of noncitizens to apply for asylum. One was the “Remain in Mexico” policy, which required asylum applicants to stay in Mexico while awaiting their court hearings. Another was the administration’s attempt to eliminate eligibility for asylum for individuals who did not present themselves at a port of entry while simultaneously preventing asylum seekers from being processed at the ports of entry.

In November 2018, the EOIR director issued a memorandum to push through cases of “family units” on a fast track. These cases continue to be docketed and heard on an expedited basis. This policy prevents indigent noncitizens from having adequate time to secure counsel or evidence to support their cases. And it often leads to individuals being ordered removed without a hearing because clerical errors caused hearing notices to be sent to incorrect addresses.

As more policies were issued, it became clear that this administration’s attack on immigrants and the independence and functioning of the immigration courts would only get worse.

As I expected, the attacks continued. Since I resigned, the Department of Homeland Security has expanded expedited removal. Recently, EOIR began using a video to comply with federal regulations requiring that all noncitizens be advised of their rights and responsibilities in court. The video, which replaces in-person interpreters, will inevitably cause confusion and make it far harder for individuals to defend themselves.

Just last week, Atty. Gen. William Barr issued a decision that largely eliminates asylum eligibility for those facing persecution because of family ties. This ruling could affect thousands of legitimate asylum seekers fleeing violence in Mexico and Central American countries, as well as other parts of the world.

I expect the Trump administration’s relentless attacks against immigrants and the immigration system to continue. The way to limit the damage is to establish an independent immigration court that is outside the Justice Department. Until that happens, the immigration courts will be subject to the politics driving the administration rather than the principles of justice immigration judges are sworn to uphold.

Ilyce Shugall is the director of the Immigrant Legal Defense Program at the Justice & Diversity Center of the Bar Assn. of San Francisco.

OPINIONOP-ED

Hon.

MORE FROM THE LOS ANGELES TIMES

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

Well said, Judge Shugall, my friend, colleague, and fellow member of the Roundtable of Former Immigration Judges!

Ilyce explains and gives “real life examples” of two concepts that I discuss often at “Courtside:”

AIMLESS DOCKET RESHUFFLING (“ADR”): Arbitrarily or maliciously moving cases around without actually deciding them to the disadvantage of the respondents, their lawyers, the judges, court staff, and often even ICE counsel (who, as far as I can tell, are never consulted in advance or given meaningful input on major policy changes at DHS, despite probably being the best qualified individuals in the agency to understand the real legal framework and practical implications of various policy decisions imposed “from above”);
MALICIOUS INCOMPETENCE (“MI”): Using White Nationalist restrictionist policies, not based on either the law or empirical data, usually irrational and impractical, to limit the ability of migrants to exercise their legal rights, create chaos in the court system, and ultimately to destroy the system and replace it with something even more draconian and more completely unfair.

PWS

08-04-19

COURT OBSERVATION TEAMS EXPOSE SYSTEMATIC INJUSTICE IN AMERICA’S MOST IMPORTANT COMPLETELY DYSFUNCITONAL COURT SYSTEM – Our U.S. Immigration Courts, “Where The Rubber Meets The Road,” Are Running On Four Flat Tires, Leaving A Human Carnage Of Injured & Dying Victims In Its Wake! — This Is What “Irreparable Harm” Looks Like!

https://apple.news/AfkD4idrHPfKfrm2yLtDT1A

Rewire.News reports:

All eyes are on the border crisis our government has created.

The news of horrific conditions at immigrant detention centers, an onslaught of restrictions preventing refugees from seeking asylum, and reports of ICE raids have sent thousands of people to the streets to protest.

Amid these atrocities, many people in the United States are asking how they can help. For those who want to contribute, there is a simple way that doesn’t require donating money, living in a border town, or speaking Spanish: volunteering as a court observer.

Court observers attend asylum hearings to shed light on the immigration court system, which is among the least transparent institutions of the justice system. Qualifications are minimal—one needs only a valid government photo ID and the ability to observe in silence and take legible notes, since recording devices aren’t allowed. Volunteers can plug into different programs to share their observations, as well as discuss the process with family and friends or post their findings on social media. Collectively, this information can be used to highlight judges or courts that are particularly unfriendly to asylum seekers. It can also empower advocates pushing for systemic reform of the 50 immigration courts in 29 states, Puerto Rico, and the Northern Mariana Islands deciding the fate of every asylum seeker, many of whom are forced to return to the place they just barely escaped from.

“The immigration court system has been so insulated from public view,” Michele Garnett McKenzie, deputy director of The Advocates for Human Rights, an organization that has been running a court observation program since 2017, told Rewire.News. “It’s small, it’s under the radar, and it lulls us to thinking that there are a set of rules and if the rules are followed, justice will be done.”

Reports, however, are surfacing of judges who haven’t granted a single asylum out of 200 cases. Asylum seekers who are deported are sent back to a place where they might be tortured or killed.

Ariel Prado, who organizes the volunteer-based court watch program in Atlanta, Georgia, for Innovation Law Lab, hasn’t encountered a judge who has denied 100 percent of asylum cases. “But there are judges in Atlanta with a denial rate in the high 90s,” Prado told Rewire.News.

These high denial rates don’t tell us the full story, Prado noted. “You might think [the judges] have a different understanding of the law or they have a constrained understanding of what asylum is or they apply the law differently,” Prado said. “In [immigration court], it’s a much more human level than that. You see women who describe sexual abuse, repeated rape over the span of the year, being in captivity, being forcefully drugged … and you watch mostly male judges almost doze off through the testimony and totally trivialize [the woman’s] experience in their summary.”

Other advocates echo similar frustrations. Emem Maurus is an immigration attorney for Al Otro Lado, a bi-national nonprofit serving asylum seekers who seek to migrate to the United States, in Tijuana, Mexico. The organization recently launched a court observation program to collect information and bring transparency to Migrant Protection Protocols. Without accountability, Maurus told Rewire.News, “it’s a black hole in terms of what’s happening” to asylum seekers. Maurus described a judge who asked an asylum seeker to designate the country of his removal in case his asylum was denied. “The man said, I can’t go back to Honduras,” said Maurus. The judge then asked the government lawyer for a recommendation. “[The government lawyer] very glumly said, ‘Honduras.’ And the judge said, ‘OK, Honduras,’” added Maurus.

Although Maurus finds these incidents difficult to observe, they believe it’s crucial to document “the human cost of [the collective policies] that Trump [has] enacted.”

Under the “Remain in Mexico” policy, asylum seekers are forced to wait in Mexico for their case to be heard, and when they eventually appear for court, most are unrepresented. Lack of representation can be detrimental to an asylum case.

As part of her court observation for Al Otro Lado, volunteer Sarah Gibb Millspaugh records whether asylum seekers appear with a lawyer and if they try to obtain council. Although the San Diego immigration court provides asylum seekers with a list of legal aid, only 5 percent of people she observed had legal representation. “When you’re living in shelters, [it is difficult] to find a lawyer across the border that will connect with you in Mexico,” Millspaugh told Rewire.News. “The list they had posted in the court were all in San Diego and not in Tijuana.”

Compounding the issue, many U.S.-based immigration law firms don’t answer phone calls from Mexico, according to Maurus. And there are other obstacles. In several immigration courts, interpreters communicate through video as they aren’t present. “So if the judge talks to the prosecutor, it doesn’t get interpreted for the asylum seeker,” said McKenzie. “The interpreters only translate questions addressed to the asylum seekers.” Given such circumstances and the lack of adequate representation, it is highly unlikely for asylum seekers to receive a fair trial.

Millspaugh found the immigration judges she observed to be compassionate. Even so, like other advocates, she thinks the law is unjust. “Some of the most emotional points were that [the judge] said we’ll review [the] case at the next hearing in September.” This meant the asylum seekers would have to live in Mexico shelters for another two-and-a-half months or on the streets of one of the most dangerous cities in the world, with no money or means to protect themselves. “A woman said a man had followed her twice, [while she was in Mexico awaiting her court hearing], [trying] to take her daughter,” Millspaugh added. “Her daughter was about three.” A man and his son who had been threatened in Mexico asked the judge if she could hold the hearing any sooner. Due to a backlog in cases, the judge was able to expedite the case by only two weeks.

Millspaugh observed another judge who asked asylum seekers to not bring their children to their court hearing. Afterwards, Millspaugh wrote the judge a letter stating that given the unstable and unsafe conditions in Mexico, asylum seekers have no choice but to bring their children to the court. “I wouldn’t leave my child in Mexico. I would bring my child,” said Millspaugh.

The advocates Rewire.News spoke to encouraged people of all backgrounds to volunteer as court observers. Given the background and different experiences of volunteers, McKenzie believes they can observe court hearings from different angles. “[We have] an amazing array of retired people who go [into the immigration courts] with 40 years of professional experience as a psychologist or a child protection worker,” she said.

Prado, who is helping develop an Immigration Court Watch browser-based app, believes who controls the narrative is important. “It’s all [up to] the community to investigate where the truth lies. Court observation is the core of truth finding and it’s meant to be a national project.”

Scheduled to launch in mid-August, the app uses standardized forms to document immigration judges’ conduct, the hearing outcome, and other factors. “That way we can compare the immigration judge conduct and hearing outcomes by more than just [what the government and the Department of Justice] is willing to share,” said Prado. The forms are uploaded onto the app, which will read responses, ask follow-up questions, and store the information in a centralized location.

“Court observation makes sure what happens [to asylum seekers] isn’t completely shrouded and opaque,” Prado said. There are times, however, that immigration judges determine a hearing should be closed to the public in order to protect the asylum seeker from having to share sensitive details in front of an audience. Other times a judge would rather not be scrutinized or might be concerned the observers will be disruptive. Prado noted it would be ill-advised for observers to challenge the judge. Instead they should document they were ordered to leave the immigration court along with any reasons the judge provides.

McKenzie believes court observation could help the justice system become accountable and even change the behavior of the judges. “The system is designed to operate for the benefit of the system and not the public,” McKenzie said. “Without public engagement there is no sunshine, no transparency. Transparency and accountability are fundamental to protecting the human rights of the people.”

When Millspaugh shared her experience as a volunteer court observer with friends, they were concerned that it is difficult to witness such heartbreaking proceedings. But Millspaugh is undeterred, as she feels contributing to stopping human rights violations is empowering. “There is something that’s very life-giving … about actually engaging in the system. When we know what’s happening and we’re not connecting with it, there is a helpless despair we can feel. We can do something. Even if we [don’t] stop it, we are mitigating the horrors that are inflicted.”

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

As this article aptly points out, every concerned American can take part in supporting the many traumatized individuals being sentenced to injustice in our disgracefully broken U.S. Immigration Courts. You don’t have to be a lawyer or a journalist. These “courts that function more like star chambers” have been “weaponized” by the Trump Administration against the very individuals they are supposed to be protecting against unlawful Government actions, Executive overreach, and the intentional misconstruction of the laws granting asylum and other immigration benefits.

This article also correctly points out that the so-called “border crisis,” largely created and totally aggravated by this “maliciously incompetent” Administration, has been used to divert attention from the gross violations of legal and human rights and basic morality that the Administration inflicts daily in the “captive” Immigraton Courts as it mocks constitutional Due Process and fundamental fairness.

History will record the intentional misdeeds, lack of human empathy, and the often life-threatening harm being cowardly and unfairly inflicted on those seeking mercy and refuge under our laws.

PWS

08-03-19

FRANZ KAFKA’S AMERICA: One Of The Worst Judges In Our Most Dysfunctional Court System Spent 22 Years “On The Bench” & NEVER Granted An Asylum Case! — How Could This Happen? — Gross Distortion Of Justice Has Been Unfolding Right Before The Eyes Of Congress & The Article III Courts For Years — Time For Change!

https://www.topic.com/your-judge-is-your-destiny

Gabriel Thompson & Leonardo Santamaria in Topic Magazine:

“Your Judge Is Your Destiny”

Agnelis L. Reese has presided over more than 200 hearings during the past five years as an immigration judge. Unique among her peers, she has rejected every single case.

Words by Gabriel Thompson

Illustrated by Leonardo Santamaria

Leonardo Santamaria

Artist

https://www.topic.com/your-judge-is-your-destiny?utm_source=topicsite&utm_medium=copiedlink&utm_campaign=topicsite&utm_term=sharebutton_main&utm_content=link

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

Read the complete article at the link.

The Supreme Court set forth a generous view of asylum law — even a 10% chance of persecution is enough to qualify — in the 1987 case Cardoza-Fonseca v. INS, discussed in this article. Following the Supreme Court’s directive, the BIA in Matter of Mogharrabi adopted a generous “reasonable person” standard for asylum eligibility, assuring everyone that asylum could be granted “even where persecution is significantly less” than probable.

However, judges like Judge Agnelis Reese have a different idea: treat asylum as a “loophole” and abuse your power over individuals’ lives by looking for bogus ways to deny protection rather than grant it. As pointed out by this article, one of the “best” of these “legal gimmicks” is simply arbitrarily to decide not to believe anyone’s claim or to “nit-pick” memories in a way that would establish Judge Reese and others like her as “inherently not credible” if applied to them. Much like the Trump Administration as a whole.

However, this is about more than just one ill-qualified asylum judge. For 22 years, Judge Reese was allowed to abuse asylum seekers with her one-sided decision making. That spanned two entire Administrations, one of each party, and two partial ones. Yet the BIA, EOIR, the DOJ, and life-tenured Article III Court of Appeals Judges failed to intervene to force Judge Reese, and other like her, to either apply asylum law in the fair, reasonable, and generous manner it was intended or to find other jobs.

There are “other Judge Reeses” out there today screwing the most vulnerable among us with dishonest interpretations of asylum law and facts, particularly in the area of credibility and “nexus” to a “protected ground.” Now, however, instead of being “outliers,” they are the kinds of “shining example” judges who implement the Administration’s White Nationalist false narrative that all asylum seekers from all countries are “gaming the system” and ought to be rejected en masse, without fair and impartial adjudications, in some cases amounting to literately “death sentences” without anything approaching due process.

All this is going on right under the noses of life-tenured Article III Judges who are supposed to be enforcing Due Process and fundamental fairness by insuring that the Immigration Court system provides fair and impartial adjudications (it doesn’t), that the generous criteria set forth in INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca and Matter of Mogharrabi are not just given “lip service” but are actually applied in every case (they aren’t), that credibility determinations are based on the record as a whole and all relevant factors (they aren’t), and that “mixed motive” for acts of persecution is properly considered and applied (it isn’t).

Of course, Congress and to some extent the voters are to blame for the current disgraceful parody of justice in our Immigration Courts. But, careers like that of Judge Reese are proof that the Article III Courts are also failing to live up to their statutory, constitutional, and human obligations and thus have become part of the problem, rather than part of the solution.

I can only hope that some future legal historian will analyze in detail, naming names, the failure of the Article III Courts, up to and including the Supremes, to perform their functions with integrity and thereby to have prevented the legal, constitutional, and human tragedy and mockery of justice taking place every day in our broken Immigration Courts.

Unqualified, yet empowered, judges like Reese are a symptom, rather than the cause of, that broken system.

Just yesterday, four distinguished legal organizations sent a joint letter to Congress calling for the establishment of an independent U.S. Immigration Court in view of the demonstrated catastrophic failure of the current system to provide Due Process to asylum seekers and other migrants:

ABA signs joint letter to Congress on establishing an independent immigration court system

WASHINGTON, D.C., JULY 9, 2019 —The American Bar Association has joined with three other legal organizations to call on Congress to establish a separate immigration court system that is independent of the U.S. Department of Justice.

ABA President Bob Carlson, along with the presidents of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, the Federal Bar Association and the National Association of Immigration Judges, will send a joint letter to Congress on July 11 stating that immigration courts “cannot meet the standards which justice demands” because they are not truly independent. This issue is particularly crucial as immigration courts struggle with crisis-level backlogs of almost 900,000 cases.

Under the current arrangement, immigration courts are part of the U.S. Department of Justice, and the judges in those courts are answerable to the U.S. Attorney General, who is also the nation’s chief prosecutor.

In their joint letter to Congress, the four organizations note that this inherent conflict of interest means that immigration judges are “particularly vulnerable to political pressure and interference.” In addition to the structural issues, the letter said that problems have “resulted in a severe lack of public confidence in the system’s capacity to deliver just and fair decisions in a timely manner.”

The lack of independence in the immigration court system was also addressed in the ABA’s recent updated report, “Reforming the Immigration System.” In the report, the organization urged removing the immigration courts from DOJ to ensure they are given the independence they need to be fair, impartial arbiters.

A telephone media briefing on the letter will be held Thursday, July 11, at 1pm ET/10am PT immediately following submission of the letter to Congress.

Briefing speakers

·         Wendy Wayne, Chair, American Bar Association Commission on Immigration

·         Jeremy McKinney, Second Vice President, American Immigration Lawyers Association

·         Hon. Denise Noonan Slavin, former Immigration Judge and President Emeritus of the National Association of Immigration Judges

·         Elizabeth Stevens, Chair, Federal Bar Association Immigration Law Section

·         Greg Chen, Director of Government Relations, American Immigration Lawyers Association (Moderator)

Contact twiseman@aila.org to receive dial-in information and the embargoed letter.

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

PWS

07-10-19

HON. JEFFREY S. CHASE SLAMS BIA, BARR FOR INSTITUTIONALIZING SLOPPY WORK — BIA “Has Certainly Not Earned The Deference”

Jul 5 EOIR’s Troubling New Regulations

On July 2, the Department of Justice published final regulations impacting how decisions of immigration judges will be reviewed, both on appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals and by certification to the Attorney General. I plan to cover the topic in depth in a later article, but I wanted to post my quick take on the fact that the new rule encourages the BIA to decide cases using two sentences of boilerplate language (plus a citation) that provides no insight into its determination process. However, the regs imbue such decisions with a presumption that the Board “properly and thoroughly considered all issues, arguments, and claims raised or presented by the parties on appeal or in a motion that were deemed appropriate to the disposition of the appeal or motion, whether or not specifically mentioned in the decision.”

Just to be clear, the boilerplate denials look like this (in their entirety):

“ORDER: The Board affirms, without opinion, the result of the decision below. The decision below is, therefore, the final agency determination. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(e)(4).”

The above decision is referred to as an “affirmance without opinion,” or “AWO” for short. In its commentary accompanying the publication of the final rule, the Department of Justice addressed a commenter’s concern that the BIA may use such AWOs to quickly deny cases even if a favorable disposition is warranted where “the Board member reviewing the case simply lacked the time or inclination to spend his or her resources writing a reasoned, public opinion for that particular case.’’ The Department responded by summarizing the BIA’s process of having staff attorneys first review the record of proceedings before making a recommendation to the Board member. The Department offered such process as proof that “the use of an AWO does not reflect an abbreviated review of a case, but rather reflects the use of an abbreviated order to describe that review…”

Several facts are at odds with this claim. There is an excellent corps of staff attorneys at the BIA, but over the past few years, those staff attorneys have been pushed to decide more cases in less time or risk discipline or termination. Staff attorneys are encouraged to produce 40 decisions per month that are actually signed by Board Members, but are being assigned increasingly difficult cases to decide. One staff attorney reported needing 18 hours to complete one decision on a very unique legal issue, but was still expected to meet the overall quota. Such extreme pressure would make it tempting if not necessary for attorneys to resort to AWOs simply to keep their jobs. Furthermore, as the present EOIR Director has downgraded the staff attorney positions to entry level with no upward progression, and as the agency is strapped for funds, the Board is extremely short of such attorneys at present, further increasing the pressure on those remaining to decide more cases more quickly.

As for review by the Board Members themselves, there were always those who were known to sign anything handed to them. In a 2007 decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, former Judge Richard Posner noted that one Board Member, Ed Grant, “was discovered to have decided more than 50 immigration cases in one day, requiring a decision ‘nearly every 10 minutes if he worked a nine-hour day without a break,’” or 7 minutes per case if he worked an 8 hour day and took lunch. See Kadia v. Gonzales, 501 F.3d 817, 820 (7th Cir. 2007). I hope we can all agree that reviewing a complete record of an immigration court hearing, plus the decision drafted for such case, in seven minutes does in fact reflect an abbreviated review of the case.

In its comments to the new regs, the Department further defended its presumption argument by citing the language from a Ninth Circuit decision, Angov v. Lynch, 788 F.3d 893, 905 (9th Cir. 2015), relating to the reliability of a State Department consular investigation which undermined some of the factual claims of an asylum claim. In that case, the court (in a 2-1 decision) upheld the IJ’s reliance on the report (in spite of its author’s unavailability to testify), stating that such reports “aren’t just a collection of statements by disconnected individuals. Rather, they are the unified work product of a U.S. government agency carrying out governmental responsibilities. As such, the report itself, and the acts of the various individuals who helped prepare it, are clothed with a presumption of regularity.”

However, the situation in Angov was not analogous to a BIA decision. In carrying out an investigation to confirm or disprove factual aspects of the asylum claim, the issue of reliability in Angov related to the likelihood of government misconduct: i.e., whether the investigator lied, and in fact had not taken the investigatory steps claimed in the report. The presumption cited by the court was that the State Department officials did their job “fairly, conscientiously, and thoroughly,” that none had a personal stake in the outcome, and that “no one lied or fabricated evidence.” It should also be noted that the Court found that, because the petitioner had not formally entered the U.S., he had no constitutional due process rights, and thus could not challenge the admission of the report on such grounds. And the court conceded that the outcome would have been different had the claim arisen in the Second Circuit, whose case law favored the petitioner’s argument.

However, in the context of the BIA’s review on appeal, the question isn’t whether the single Board member fabricated facts or had a personal stake in the claim. The question is whether the Board Member got it right – i.e. whether he or she properly interpreted the law, and applied that law correctly to the proper facts. History has demonstrated that they often do not, nor would they be expected to when signing a decision every seven minutes.

Yet through the new regulations, the Department of Justice is essentially saying that, due to the crushing case load, just trust that it is doing everything correctly, and defer to its two-sentence boilerplate decisions without requiring further explanation of its reasoning. The retort to this may be found a little later in Judge Posner’s decision in Kadia: “Deference is earned; it is not a birthright. Repeated egregious failures of the Immigration Court and the Board to exercise care commensurate with the stakes in an asylum case can be understood, but not excused, as consequences of a crushing workload that the executive and legislative branches of the federal government have refused to alleviate.” Kadia, supra at 821 (emphasis added). I am not aware of any other court that would expect Circuit Court judges to grant them carte blanche to simply affix rubber-stamp denials on appeals, particularly those involving life-or-death determinations arising in the asylum context. Furthermore, regular readers of my blog or that of my friend Paul Schmidt will know that the BIA errs not infrequently in its interpretation of fact and law. And for the record, the caseload has become far more crushing in the 12 years since Judge Posner penned those words in Kadia.

Take for example a recent decision of the Fourth Circuit. In Orellana v. Barr, No. 18-1513 (4th Cir. May 23, 2019), the court found that the BIA had distorted the evidence of record in order to conclude that the government had been willing and able to control the non-government persecutor by ignoring the many credible instances in which the police did not respond to the petitioner’s call for help, and instead focusing on the few isolated incidents in which they did respond. So had the BIA chosen to decide the case with a two-sentence AWO, should the same circuit court have credited the Board with properly considering and weighing all of the police’s responses and non-responses, without such distortion, because government employees are presumed to properly carry out their duties? The Third Circuit reversed the BIA for its troubling, erroneous overreach in Alimbaev v. Att’y Gen. of U.S., 872 F.3d 188 (3d Cir. 2017), finding the Board to have violated its proper standard of review, and then wrongly reversed based on false insinuation and nitpicking. Had the BIA relied on a two-sentence AWO in that case, should the circuit court have just assumed that none of those errors had occurred, and that the BIA had instead reached the correct conclusion for the right reasons?

The BIA has certainly not earned the deference the Department of Justice believes it deserves based on the regulatory presumption. Hopefully, the circuit courts will waste no time in pointing this out in future appeals of the AWOs we can expect to see frequently from the BIA.

Copyright 2019 Jeffrey S. Chase. All rights reserved.

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

Like Jeffrey, I’ve been saying for some time now that under the control of Attorneys General who are neither experts in immigration and refugee law nor qualified quasi judicial adjudicators, the Federal Courts should stupor giving “Chevron deference” to BIA decisions.

PWS

07-07-19

TRUMP ADMINISTRATION’S MALICIOUS INCOMPETENTS DENY MIGRANTS INTERPRETERS IN KANGAROO COURTS WHILE LYING ABOUT RATIONALE — Money For Tanks & Golf, None For Due Process? — Why Are The Article III Courts Complicit By Not Blowing Whistle On “Courts” That Don’t Come Close To Providing Due Process?

Tal Kopan
Washington Reporter, SF Chronicle

Link might help for sharing…

https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/Trump-administration-ending-in-person-14070403.php

Trump administration ending in-person interpreters at immigrants’ first hearings

Tal Kopan, San Francisco Chronicle

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration is preparing to replace in-court interpreters at initial immigration court hearings with videos informing asylum seekers and other immigrants facing deportation of their rights, The Chronicle has learned.

The administration portrays the change as a cost-saving measure for an immigration court system bogged down under a growing backlog. But advocates for immigrants are concerned the new procedure could jeopardize their due-process rights, add confusion and potentially make the system less efficient by causing more of them to go underground or appeal cases.

The Justice Department informed the nation’s immigration judges of the change last month at a training session, multiple sources familiar with the situation told The Chronicle.

At issue are “master calendar” hearings where immigration judges meet with undocumented immigrants, usually dozens of them, in rapid succession to schedule their cases and to inform them of their rights. The quick sessions are intended mainly to be sure the immigrants understand what is happening and know when their next hearing will be and what steps they need to take in the interim.

Under the new plan, which the Justice Department told judges could be rolled out by mid-July, a video recorded in multiple languages would play informing immigrants of their rights and the course of the proceedings. But after that, if immigrants have questions, want to say something to the judge or if the judge wants to confirm they understand, no interpreter would be provided.

Many of the immigrants come from Central America, but collectively they speak a diverse range of indigenous languages and sometimes don’t know Spanish. Immigrants from all over the world also come before the court system, which is run by the Justice Department.

The shift would especially affect immigrants who do not have attorneys to explain proceedings. Many immigrants lack representation at the initial hearing, and legal services around the country say they are being stretched thin. The government does not provide attorneys.

Instead of turning to an in-court interpreter, judges would have to rely on any who happen to be in the building for other purposes, or call a telephone service for on-demand translation that judges say can be woefully inadequate or substantially delayed.

“It’s a disaster in the making,” one judge said, speaking on condition of anonymity because the person did not have Justice Department approval to talk publicly. “What if you have an individual that speaks an indigenous language and has no education and is completely illiterate? You think showing them a video is going to completely inform them of their rights? How are they supposed to ask questions of the judge?”

The Justice Department billed the move as a cost-saving measure. Sources familiar with the interpreter situation say there have been ongoing issues with the budget and the contract with the primary interpreter provider, leading the administration to encourage more use of the telephone service and look for other ways to keep costs down.

A Justice Department who was not authorized to speak on the record said the shift away from in-person interpretation was “part of an effort to be good stewards of (the department’s) limited resources.” The official said the direction to judges was not a policy change, but declined to elaborate.

The immigration judges union, the National Association of Immigration Judges, said the change was another in a line of steps the administration has taken to force judges to do more with fewer resources at the risk of fairness.

Asked to comment, union President Ashley Tabaddor, a judge in Los Angeles, said the Justice Department had not given enough notice for the union to raise objections or provide input on the change.

She dismissed budget concerns as a justification.

“Interpreter cost is not a surprise cost — it’s an integral part of every case,” Tabaddor said. “If they actually look at the courts as a real court, they would never be dismissive of the role of an interpreter. But the fact that we are here and have these budget shortfalls means they have prioritized the budget in a way that is dismissive of the integral role of the interpreters, and reflects the flaw of having the courts run by a law enforcement agency.”

The immigration courts have been overwhelmed for years with a burgeoning load that is now approaching 1 million cases. The judges association has advocated for the courts to be removed from the Justice Department and made an independent system.

The Trump administration has made a series of efforts it says are intended to speed up the process and avoid having hundreds of thousands of immigrants build lives in the U.S. while waiting to learn if they will be deported. Critics, including immigration lawyers and advocates and some judges, say many of the changes have actually undermined the system, confusing immigrants and creating grounds for lengthy appeals.

Some judges said it’s common at master calendar hearings for immigrants to misunderstand the advice to find a lawyer. Some conclude that means they should not return for their next hearing if they don’t have a lawyer. Failing to appear is grounds for a deportation order.

The system is “not an assembly line,” said Jeffrey Chase, a former immigration judge and former senior legal adviser to the immigration appeals court who now volunteers for organizations that provide legal assistance to immigrants. He said the master calendar is most immigrants’ first impression ever of a court system, and that a lack of interpreters and interaction with a judge could foster a sense of distrust.

“You’re dealing with people’s lives,” Chase said. “All kinds of crazy issues arise. Sometimes there’s a health issue, and you need to be able to communicate to find this stuff out.

“And also, people come in so afraid,” Chase said. “If they’re able to talk with the judge and realize, ‘This person is a human being and they’re able to work with me’ — being played a tape reinforces this feeling that, ‘I’m dealing with this deportation machine.’ ”

Chase said concerns about the cost and length of the process are legitimate, but he questioned the administration’s way of addressing them.

“You always hear the word ‘efficiency’ from this administration now, and it’s very infrequent that you hear ‘due process’ or ‘justice,’ ” Chase said. “There’s no longer concern about the balance. It’s totally efficiency-heavy these days, and I think it’s being decided by people who haven’t been in the court much and don’t understand the consequences.”

Tal Kopan is The San Francisco Chronicle’s Washington correspondent. Email: tal.kopan@sfchronicle.com Twitter: @talkopan

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

My suggestion: In the future, any legal claims involving Members of Congress or Article III Judges and any members of their immediate families should be tried only in U.S. Immigration Court. The opposing party should be given the ability to:

Select the judge;
Write or rewrite the rules governing the litigation;
Change any result with which they might disagree; and perhaps most important
The proceedings shall be conducted in a language that only the opposing party and the “judge” understand.

That way, these folks would be receiving the same type of “justice” under the Constitution that they are happy to inflict on individuals in today’s Immigration Courts. Seems fair to me.

PWS

07-03-19

AILA’S LAURA LYNCH SPEAKS OUT AGAINST BARR’S LATEST ASSAULT ON DUE PROCESS IN IMMIGRATION COURT — The System Has Become A Public Travesty That Insults Our Constitution — Why Are The Article IIIs Damaging Their Legacy By Enabling This Ugly Charade? — What Good Is Life Tenure If It Comes Without Backbone & Integrity?

https://www.aila.org/advo-media/press-releases/2019/aila-ag-attempts-power-grab-over-immigration

Here is AILA’s Statement:

AILA: AG Attempts Power Grab over Immigration Appeals

https://www.aila.org/advo-media/press-releases/2019/aila-ag-attempts-power-grab-over-immigration

AILA Doc. No. 19070236

AILA: AG Attempts Power Grab over Immigration Appeals

AILA Doc. No. 19070236 | Dated July 2, 2019

CONTACTS:

George Tzamaras
202-507-7649
gtzamaras@aila.org Belle Woods
202-507-7675
bwoods@aila.org

WASHINGTON, DC – On July 2, 2019, Attorney General (AG) Barr published a final rule, further expanding his authority to reshape immigration law. The rule was issued in a highly unusual manner by resurrecting an old proposed regulation from 11 years ago and making it final within 60 days without any opportunity for public comment.

AILA President Marketa Lindt said, “This regulation exemplifies why the immigration courts should not be housed under the Department of Justice (DOJ). Under this administration, the AG has already utilized the certification power in an unprecedented manner to unilaterally strip immigration judges of basic operational authorities, interfere with judicial independence, and even attempt to rewrite asylum and detention laws. The American legal system is designed with fundamental procedural protections, such as briefing by the parties, to ensure the decision maker-here the AG-hears all points of view before deciding an important case. This new rule, however, authorizes the AG to singlehandedly designate Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) decisions as precedent – and do so literally overnight bypassing the necessary legal procedures and without any checks and balances.”

AILA Executive Director Benjamin Johnson added, “This is the most aggressive effort to unify control over the immigration courts in 20 years; I have never seen an administration claw back a discarded rule like this in order to further assert its power. The scope of this power grab could be immense. This rule attempts to shield decisions issued by the Board – including decisions for which the Board didn’t even bother to write an opinion – from federal court review and tries to force the U.S. Courts of Appeals to presume that the Board reviewed all the available information and claims made by the parties even if there’s nothing to show the Board did so. Simply put, the AG will have more power with less oversight, and immigrants’ right to appeal to the federal courts will be far more limited. This attack on the judicial branch proves further that our nation urgently needs an independent immigration court system separate from the Department of Justice. Nothing less will suffice.”

Cite as AILA Doc. No. 19070236.

Laura A. Lynch, Esq.

Senior Policy Counsel

Direct: 202.507.7627 I Email: llynch@aila.org

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

Thanks, Laura, for speaking out!

Every Court of Appeals Judge who signs off on one of these constitutionally defective removal orders produced by EOIR, an illegitimate “court” that functions without either fundamental fairness or impartiality under procedures that no such judge would accept if applied to them or their loved ones, should hang his or her head in shame.

Once the Trump nightmare is over, courage and integrity to stand up against Government overreach should be the touchstone for all future Article III judicial appointments. No more “go along to get along” Federal Judges at any level of the system! The Judicial Branch was actually conceived and established as a protector of liberty and justice against tyranny, not as an enabler of, and apologist for, “abuses by the Crown” (or in this case, “the Clown”).

What kind of “judge” stands by and watches while empowered cowards like Trump and Barr unconstitutionally “beat up” on America’s most vulnerable who seek only the basic justice and fairness that our Constitution supposedly guarantees to “all persons.” Judges who allow the dehumanization and “de-personification” of others, in others words “Dred Scottification,” might someday find themselves and those they actually care about becoming “Dred Scott” by their dereliction of duty!

PWS

07-03-19

DOJ FINALIZES REG INTENDED TO CEMENT EVASION OF REGULATORY PROCESS & “RULE BY PRECEDENT” – Drops Some Of The More Controversial Proposals In Proposed Regulation!

Tal Kopan reports for the SF Chronicle:

https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/AG-Barr-moves-forward-with-immigration-court-14063716.php

AG Barr moves forward with immigration court changes

By Tal Kopan

WASHINGTON — Attorney General William Barr has moved forward with a regulation changing the way immigration courts handle appeals, expanding the ability of that court to issue decisions that bind the way all immigration judges must decide cases.

The final version of the proposal, which will be published Tuesday, backs away from other changes after the public raised concerns the appellate body would have too much discretion over precedent.

Barr’s first major regulatory change to the immigration courts continues efforts started by his predecessor, former Attorney General Jeff Sessions, to tighten the ways immigrants can pursue a right to stay in the country. As first reported by The Chronicle, the regulation originally proposed during the George W. Bush administration was revived under President Trump and sent for review in April.

The version set for publication drops some of the more controversial provisions of the original proposal but expands the ability of the appellate body, the Board of Immigration Appeals, to issue binding decisions about immigration law.

A senior Department of Justice official who briefed reporters on the condition of anonymity called the regulation a “cleanup rule more than anything else.” But, the official said, the administration believes it’s important to make the courts “as efficient or as effective through the process as possible.”

The immigration courts are separate from the federal judiciary and exist entirely under the control of the Department of Justice and attorney general. The lower courts hear arguments as to why immigrants should be legally allowed to stay in the U.S. and decide whether they should be deported.

Appeals of those decisions are reviewed by the Board of Immigration Appeals. Under current law, those decisions remain unpublished, and thus not binding on the entire system unless a majority of all members of the board vote to publish it. According to the Department of Justice, the board averages less than 30 such decisions each year.

The new regulation creates another way for decisions to become binding — at the direction of the attorney general. Such a change could allow the attorney general to shape all immigration judges’ decisions by selecting which appellate decisions should become precedent.

The final regulation also expands the circumstances under which the Board of Immigration Appeals can hear cases for potential binding precedent, including “the need to resolve a complex, novel, unusual, or recurring issue of law or fact” in the immigration courts, which would allow the board to take up cases that pose what the department views as a repeat issue in the lower courts. It also would allow the board to weigh parts of the case that lawyers did not bring up at appeal.

One aspect of the proposal that the administration chose not to pursue was expanding judges’ ability to issue cursory opinions that had no written explanation. The Bush-era version would have allowed judges to consider their time and resources in doing so, which the Trump administration opted against. The final version also bowed to concerns and dropped a proposal that would have allowed two out of three judges behind a decision to make their own ruling precedent.

Under Trump, the administration has taken a keen interest in the immigration courts as it seeks to tackle the nearly million-case backlog that allows many migrants seeking asylum and other rights to stay in the country as they wait years for their case to work through the system.

Sessions began using the attorney general’s power to refer cases to himself for review. Under immigration law, the attorney general has the final say over the immigration courts system, similar to the Supreme Court in the federal judiciary. Sessions issued several binding decisions that limited the right to claim asylum for domestic violence and gang violence victims, and he sped up the court process by reducing judge’s discretion to close or postpone cases.

That authority would still exist under this new rule, but the attorney general now could also opt to have a decision with which he agrees issued as binding and skip reviewing the decision himself.

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

No wonder they don’t want to use the regulatory process, preferring to “rule by fiat” instead. As this example shows, promulgating a regulation in the face of widespread and well-reasoned public opposition can turn out to be problematic in later court challenges.

The proposed relgulation was a recycled “relic” from the Bush II Admnistration. But, it’s not like the Obama Administration did much for improving Due Process and fundamental fairness in Immigration Court. Honestly, I think that they kind of liked the idea of a subservient, captive, “go along to get along” system that functioned as a bureaucracy yet looked like a court, originally pioneered under Bush II.

Obviously, part of the game here is to misuse the ostensible Immigration “Court” precedent process to shore up the DOJ’s ability to defend DHS’s most extreme positions in the Article III courts. In other words, the Immigration Courts now serve both the interests of DHS Enforcement and the litigating attorneys at OIL who defend DHS’s orders of removal in the Courts of Appeals.

The rights of the individuals, who are supposed to be the focus of this system, have become nominalized, at best. But, some Article III Courts either haven’t bothered to figure this out or else know and just don’t care because, hey, dead, tortured, raped, and otherwise brutalized deportees don’t usually make headlines in the local papers. Out of sight, out of mind.

While DOJ does still “go through the motions” of soliciting briefs on new precedents, such solicitations reach a much smaller audience than do proposed regulatory changes. Also, since the DOJ routinely ignores all the cogent arguments in the briefs and plows ahead with its obviously “predetermined” precedent resolution, some groups have undoubtedly given up on the EOIR “fake” amicus briefing process, preferring instead to marshal their resources for an Article III court challenges. There, real judges still appear to actually read and respond to many, if not all, legal arguments and sometimes are persuaded by them.

For example, our “Roundtable” amicus briefs have had considerable influence in the Article III courts after the same or similar arguments were largely ignored by EOIR and the AG.

But, as I keep suggesting, what if everyone could work together to actually improve Due Process and fix the broken Immigration Court system, rather than having to devote limited high-level pro bono time and resources to fending off further outrageous assaults on the system by the DOJ and DHS? It would also free up time for the Article III Courts which in the near future are likely to have their civil dockets dominated and likely overwhelmed by petitions for review showcasing the sloppy and defective work emanating from the broken and dysfunctional Immigration Courts and their “pedal faster, cut more corners, quality and fairness be damned” philosophy.

Nice work, Tal. Great to have you “back in the immigration headlines again.”

PWS

07-01-19

COURTSIDE EXCLUSIVE — INSIDE EOIR — “TRASHED IN TRANSLATION: EOIR’S Latest Attack On Due Process In Immigration Courts Shocks Professional Interpreters, Outrages Judges!”

EYORE — “Eyore”
Once A Symbol of Fairness, Due Process, & Best Practices, Now Gone “Belly Up”

TRASHED IN TRANSLATION: EOIR’S Latest Attack On Due Process In Immigration Courts Shocks Professional Interpreters, Outrages Judges!

By Paul Wickham Schmidt for Immigrationcourtside.com

Alexandria, VA, July 1, 2019. No, it isn’t as dramatic as pictures of drowned families and caged toddlers. But, the effects of the latest move by those running our U.S. Immigration Courts and their political handlers could turn out to be just as deadly. Judges and interpreters were shocked by EOIR’s recently announced truncation of the right to receive effective live interpretations during master calendars as well as more management-ordered “aimless docket shuffling” which both denies due process and artificially “jacks up” already overwhelming backlogs.

How important is master calendar? It’s where individuals make their initial appearance in court and are advised about their right to a lawyer, procedures for obtaining pro bono counsel, given warnings, plead to charges of removability, seek bond if detained, have possible relief from removability explained, file applications for relief like asylum, have hearing dates and filing deadlines set, learn the DHS position on applications, have current address confirmed, receive DHS fillings, make and receive rulings on preliminary motions, and receive warnings as to the dire consequences of failure to appear and meet filing deadlines, to name just some things that go on. In other words, “important stuff.”

What happens when non-judicial politicos interfere with judges’ individual case scheduling and docketing by setting artificial limits on when and how they use interpreters? Cases that have been rescheduled numerous times over the years get “moved to the back of the bus” once again.

Individuals and their lawyers faithfully show up for their long-awaited individual “merits” hearings, sometimes after having traveled hundreds of miles, witnesses and families in tow, only to be informed by a clerk that their cases have been taken off the docket without notice for the “convenience of the agency” and will be rescheduled for some unspecified later date. Evidence goes stale, memories fade, witnesses become unavailable, lawyers move on to other jobs, and country conditions change as these cases drag on literally forever because of political meddling and management incompetence. Perhaps worst of all, these same politicos and bureaucrats engineering the delays and backlogs attempt to shift blame to the victims and judges by limiting legitimate continuances, “expediting” cases that aren’t ready to be heard, and dishonestly calling for totally unneeded restrictive changes in the law.

Ostensibly, the truncation of interpretation resulted from mismanagement on the part of these same politicos and bureaucrats who hired additional judges in a hurry without planning for those judges’ support needs, including in person interpreters. And, take it from me as someone who spent thirteen years on the immigration bench and heard thousands of cases, “telephonic interpretation” is not by any means the equivalent of “in person” interpretation Indeed, at some point, I found the process for telephonic interpretation so time wasting and inadequate, that I just stopped using it. But, that was way back when individual judges had at least a little control over what happened on their dockets and what was necessary to achieve due process in an individual case.

More likely, this move is just another step the intentional “dumbing down” of the immigration court process and the systematic dismantling of what little remains of constitutional due process for those pleading for their lives in a system doing its best to “tune them out.” It will result in more illegal removal orders.

However, these will be hard for appellate courts to detect upon review, because they might not be readily apparent from the English language version of the transcripts. Besides, some Article III courts have also abandoned their duties to the Constitution in a mad rush to “rubber stamp” as many defective removal orders as possible to “clear” their own overcrowded dockets at the expense of integrity, fundamental fairness, and quite frankly, innocent lives.

So shocking has become this “under the radar” further de-professionalization of what disingenuously holds itself out to be a ”court” that readers have been sending me anonymous comments from some distraught individual professional court interpreters. Here’s what one such concerned interpreter had to say (edited to preserve confidentiality);

“Bottomline, no more in-person interpretation for master calendars. In addition, in-person interpreters will be assigned in three-hour blocks only. Judges will no longer be allowed to have two languages in one hearing. I think this means no more relay interpretation between indigenous languages and Spanish. I’m concerned about language access being curtailed.”

These further disgraceful developments, showing a complete disregard for legal norms and individual fairness, should be carefully documented in congressional oversight hearings with an eye toward a future independent Article I immigration court. In the meantime, the Article III courts could and should put a stop to this travesty and force the system to meet at least minimal standards of professionalism and due process pending needed legislative reforms.

No American citizen would want to trust him or herself to this parody of a court system. Yet, due process under our Constitution applies equally to “all persons,” not just citizens, and the stakes in these cases often are life or death. If we refuse to defend the rights of the least among us, who will stand for our rights when the forces of oppression shift their ugly gaze? Even exaulted, yet too often complicit, life-tenured Article III judges should be asking themselves that question.

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

PWS

07-01-19

AMERICA’S “MASS ATROCITY” — Professor Kate Cronin-Furman Says Don’t Kid Yourself About What The Trump Administration Is Doing In Your Name & How “Ordinary Civil Servants” Carry Out The Unthinkable & Unacceptable!

Professor Kate Cronin-Furman writes in the NY Times:

The debate over whether “concentration camps” is the right term for migrant detention centers on the southern border has drawn long-overdue attention to the American government’s dehumanizing treatment of defenseless children. A pediatrician who visited in June said the centers could be compared to “torture facilities.” Having studied mass atrocities for over a decade, I agree.

At least seven migrant children have died in United States custody since last year. The details reported by lawyers who visited a Customs and Border Protection facility in Clint, Tex., in June were shocking: children who had not bathed in weeks, toddlers without diapers, sick babies being cared for by other children. As a human rights lawyer and then as a political scientist, I have spoken to the victims of some of the worst things that human beings have ever done to each other, in places ranging from Cambodia to the Democratic Republic of the Congo to Sri Lanka. What’s happening at the border doesn’t match the scale of these horrors, but if, as appears to be the case, these harsh conditions have been intentionally inflicted on children as part a broader plan to deter others from migrating, then it meets the definition of a mass atrocity: a deliberate, systematic attack on civilians. And like past atrocities, it is being committed by a complex organizational structure made up of people at all different levels of involvement.

Thinking of what’s happening in this way gives us a repertoire of tools with which to fight the abuses, beyond the usual exhortations to call our representatives and donate to border charities.

Those of us who want to stop what’s happening need to think about all the different individuals playing a role in the systematic mistreatment of migrant children and how we can get them to stop participating. We should focus most on those who have less of a personal commitment to the abusive policies that are being carried out.

Testimony from trials and truth commissions has revealed that many atrocity perpetrators think of what they’re doing as they would think of any other day job. While the leaders who order atrocities may be acting out of strongly held ideological beliefs or political survival concerns, the so-called “foot soldiers” and the middle men and women are often just there for the paycheck.

This lack of personal investment means that these participants in atrocities can be much more susceptible to pressure than national leaders. Specifically, they are sensitive to social pressure, which has been shown to have played a huge role in atrocity commission and desistance in the Holocaust, Rwanda and elsewhere. The campaign to stop the abuses at the border should exploit this sensitivity and put social pressure on those involved in enforcing the Trump administration’s immigration policies.

Here is what that might look like:

The identities of the individual Customs and Border Protection agents who are physically separating children from their families and staffing the detention centers are not undiscoverable. Immigration lawyers have agent names; journalists reporting at the border have names, photos and even videos. These agents’ actions should be publicized, particularly in their home communities.

This is not an argument for doxxing — it’s about exposure of their participation in atrocities to audiences whose opinion they care about. The knowledge, for instance, that when you go to church on Sunday, your entire congregation will have seen you on TV ripping a child out of her father’s arms is a serious social cost to bear. The desire to avoid this kind of social shame may be enough to persuade some agents to quit and may hinder the recruitment of replacements. For those who won’t (or can’t) quit, it may induce them to treat the vulnerable individuals under their control more humanely. In Denmark during World War II, for instance, strong social pressure, including from the churches, contributed to the refusal of the country to comply with Nazi orders to deport its Jewish citizens.

The midlevel functionaries who make the system run are not as visibly involved in the “dirty work,” but there are still clear potential reputational consequences that could change their incentives. The lawyer who stood up in court to try to parse the meaning of “safe and sanitary” conditions — suggesting that this requirement might not include toothbrushes and soap for the children in border patrol custody if they were there for a “shorter term” stay — passed an ethics exam to be admitted to the bar. Similar to the way the American Medical Association has made it clear that its members must not participate in torture, the American Bar Association should signal that anyone who defends the border patrol’s mistreatment of children will not be considered a member in good standing of the legal profession. This will deter the participation of some, if only out of concern over their future career prospects.

The individuals running detention centers are arguably directly responsible for torture, which could trigger a number of consequences at the international level. Activists should partner with human rights organizations to bring these abuses before international bodies like the United Nations Human Rights Council. They should lobby for human rights investigations, for other governments to deny entry visas to those involved in the abuses, or even for the initiation of torture prosecutions in foreign courts. For someone who is “just following orders,” the prospect of being internationally shamed as a rights abuser and being unable to travel freely may be significant enough to persuade them to stop participating.

When those directly involved in atrocities can’t be swayed, their enablers are often more responsive. For-profit companies are supplying food and other material goods to the detention centers. Boycotts against them and their parent entities may persuade them to stop doing so. Employees of these companies can follow the example of Wayfair workers, who organized a walkout on Wednesday in protest of their company’s sale of furniture to the contractor outfitting the detention centers. Finally, anyone can support existing divestment campaigns to pressure financial institutions to end their support of immigration abuses.

Many Americans have been asking each other “But what can we DO?” The answer is that we call these abuses mass atrocities and use the tool kit this label offers us to fight them. So far, mobilization against what’s happening on the border has mostly followed standard political activism scripts: raising public awareness, organizing protests, phoning our congressional representatives. These efforts are critical, but they aren’t enough. Children are suffering and dying. The fastest way to stop it is to make sure everyone who is responsible faces consequences.

Dr. Cronin-Furman is an assistant professor of human rights.

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

“The fastest way to stop it is to make sure everyone who is responsible faces consequences.”

That includes attorneys who defend indefensible policies in Federal Court as well as Federal Judges all the way up to the Supremes who fail to stand up for Due Process for individuals, and who insist on treating Trump’s overt attacks on our Constitution, democracy, and human dignity as within the scope of “normal” Executive actions rather than intentional and dishonest abuses requiring censure and strong, courageous, unconditional disapproval.

PWS

06-30-19

CONTACTS:
George Tzamaras 202-507-7649 gtzamaras@aila.org	Tessa Wiseman 202-507-7661 twiseman@aila.org

CONTACTS:
George Tzamaras 202-507-7649 gtzamaras@aila.org	Belle Woods 202-507-7675 bwoods@aila.org

A CONCEPTUAL PROPOSAL FOR AN AUXILIARY IMMIGRATION JUDICIARY

By

Paul Wickham Schmidt, Retired U.S. Immigraton Judge and Former Chair, U.S. Board Of Immigration Appeals

&

Thomas Lister, Retired Wisconsin Circuit Judge

Related posts:

Due Process forever; malicious incompetence never!

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

TRASHED IN TRANSLATION: EOIR’S Latest Attack On Due Process In Immigration Courts Shocks Professional Interpreters, Outrages Judges!

By Paul Wickham Schmidt for Immigrationcourtside.com

Related posts:

“The fastest way to stop it is to make sure everyone who is responsible faces consequences.”

Related posts: