IMMIGRATION COURTS: “MALICIOUS INCOMPETENCE ON STEROIDS” — With Court System Reeling & Asylum Applicants Suffering, Administration Plans Another Round Of Massive “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” (“ADR”), Reports Hamed Aleaziz @ BuzzFeed News!

https://apple.news/A3UINub7KSjuOLcKAHDJMLw

Hamed Aleaziz reports for BuzzFeed News:

A Surge Of Immigration Judges Are Expected To Handle The Cases Of Thousands Forced To Wait In Mexico

“This will wreak havoc on court dockets across the country,” said one immigration court official.

Hamed Aleaziz

BuzzFeed News Reporter

A 10-month-old boy, whose family fled violence in El Salvador, waits in a tent in Tijuana, Mexico, for an immigration court hearing in the US.

Department of Homeland Security officials expect about 150 immigration judges from across the US will be selected to handle cases involving asylum-seekers forced to remain in Mexico while their cases proceed, according to a source with knowledge of the matter, a massive potential increase in assignments that threatens to overwhelm an already struggling court system.

Around a dozen judges currently presiding over courts in San Diego and El Paso, Texas, handle the cases of people referred under Migration Protection Protocols, the controversial Trump administration policy forcing asylum-seekers to remain in Mexico as their cases move through the immigration system. While the cases can take months or years to be scheduled, the number of individuals included in the program has expanded to more than 35,000, according to figures obtained by BuzzFeed News.

The Trump administration hopes to change that by soon opening facilities along the border to handle the cases. Officials plan to open two border courts in Texas — in Laredo and Brownsville — by the middle of September, in which they will hear up to 20 cases per day, according to a government briefing document obtained by BuzzFeed News. A DHS spokesperson said the date the facilities would open was still to be determined.

On Tuesday, Rep. Lucille Roybal-Allard, who chairs the House DHS Appropriations Subcommittee, revealed in a letter that the agency had plans to transfer $155 million in federal disaster funds to Immigration and Customs Enforcement to help fund the new facilities.

The cases heard at the border are expected to be conducted primarily via video teleconferencing, allowing for more judges across the country to be brought into the process. Assistants, working on contract, will help organize the hearings by taking roll call, send case documents to judges in other locations, and operate the video systems, according to a separate DHS planning document obtained by BuzzFeed News.

Judges assigned these cases could be forced to delay other asylum and deportation hearings that had already been scheduled, causing a ripple effect and further growing an already bloated court backlog of hundreds of thousands of cases.

People wait inside an immigration court in Miami.

“Once again immigration judges from courts across the country will have to push their home court dockets aside to preside televideo at border courts,” said one immigration court official who could not speak publicly on the matter. “This will wreak havoc on court dockets across the country.”

At a San Diego court that has presided over many “Remain in Mexico” cases for months, judges have been told to prioritize the hearings over others, according to a source with knowledge of the change. As a result, some immigrants who have waited for months or years for their previously scheduled cases will likely have their hearings delayed.

“The prioritization of MPP cases will place a huge burden on the immigration courts,” said a DOJ official involved with immigration matters. “Additionally, the postponement of previously scheduled cases will cause the backlog to grow even more, as the completion of these cases will be further delayed for months or even years.”

Rebecca Jamil, a former immigration judge under the Trump administration, said that the cases on judge’s dockets don’t go away when they are assigned new cases.

“Those families have been waiting for years to have their cases heard, and now will wait another two or three years, and due process is denied by the delay — evidence becomes stale, witnesses die, country conditions change,” she said.

The Department of Justice, which oversees the Executive Office for Immigration Review, which manages the nation’s immigration courts, is prepared to meet the demands from the DHS on any hearings, an agency spokesperson said.

The potential changes come as data revealed by Syracuse University indicates that asylum-seekers forced to wait in Mexico rarely have legal representation; just 1% of individuals are accompanied by attorneys at their hearings.

The Remain in Mexico program is one of the few hardline Trump immigration policies that has thus far survived a court injunction. While a federal court judge in San Francisco blocked the policy earlier this year, a 9th Circuit Court of Appeals panel allowed it to continue as a legal challenge works its way through the court process.

Asylum-seekers who were returned to Mexico under the Trump administration have faced consequences of remaining there, according to advocacy group Human Rights First. The group found more than 100 cases of people returned under the program alleging rapes, kidnappings, sexual exploitation, or assault, according to a report released this month.

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

This is the result of the complete abdication of duty by the Ninth Circuit in Innovation Law Lab v. McAleenan, that lifted a proper, life-saving U.S. District Court injunction and allowed the Administration’s patently illegal and immoral “Kill ‘Em in Mexico Program” to proceed.

The solution: There is no such thing as a “fair” asylum denial under this program. Yes, not everyone meets the criteria. But, everyone is entitled to a fair chance to present a claim, free from duress, coercion, and biased judging, which is not happening.

Advocates must flood the Ninth Circuit and the other border circuits with petitions for review and other types of court actions forcing these complicit Article III “Ivory Tower Judges,” who believe they have removed themselves from the fray, with the human carnage resulting from their gross dereliction of duty to enforce the statutory and Constitutional rights of asylum seekers.

The disgusting and spineless performance of the Article IIIs in light of the Administration’s bogus, illegal actions to “deter” legitimate asylum seekers is nothing short of a national disgrace. If not corrected, it will rightfully tarnish the reputation of the Federal Courts and the individual judges involved for generations to come.

PWS

08-30-19

JUSTICE FARCE: BARR PACKS APPEALS BOARD WITH “JUDGES” KNOWN AS ANTI-ASYLUM ZEALOTS! — Body Charged With Insuring Impartiality & Due Process Now Serves As “Chief Persecutor” Of Asylum Applicants — This Is America?

https://apple.news/A4TEHyWG1TfmB-yGzUmx3YA

Noah Lanard reports for Mother Jones:

The Trump Administration’s Court-Packing Scheme Fills Immigration Appeals Board With Hardliners

In his first six years as an immigration judge in New York and Atlanta, from 1993 to 1999, William Cassidy rejected more asylum seekers than any judge in the nation. A few years ago,Earle Wilson overtook Cassidy as the harshest asylum judge on the Atlanta court, which has long been considered one of the toughest immigration courts in the country.

Now both men have been elevated to the Board of Immigration Appeals, which often has the final say over whether immigrants are deported, as part of a court-packing scheme by the Trump administration that is likely to make it even more difficult for migrants fleeing persecution to gain asylum.

Between 2013 and 2018, the average immigration judge in the country approved about 45 percent of asylum claims. The sixjudges newly promoted to the board have all approved fewer than 20 percent. Cassidy granted 4.2 percent of asylum claims. Another appointee, Stuart Couch, approved 7.9 percent. For Wilson, the figure was just 1.9 percent.

Paul Schmidt, who chaired the Board of Immigration of Appeals from 1995 to 2001, says the administration’s goal is to build a “deportation railway” in which cases move through the system as quickly as possible and then get “rubber-stamped by the Board.”

Until last year, the board had 17 members. The Trump administration expanded the board to 21 members, arguing it was necessary to handle an increase in appeals. That has allowed Attorney General William Barr to fill the panel with immigration hardliners. It’s reminiscent of President Franklin Roosevelt’s ill-fated 1937 effort to overcome Supreme Court resistance to the New Deal by adding up to six additional justices—only immigration courts are part of the Justice Department, giving the department the power to expand the Board and fill the new openings with judges sympathetic to the administration’s immigration crackdown.

The promotions of the six judges this month, first reported by the San Francisco Chronicle, are part of an intensifying effort to reshape immigration courts. Earlier this month, the Justice Department moved to eliminate the immigration judges’ union, which has been highly critical of the administration’s policies. On Monday, a regulation took effect that gives the head of the immigration courts, a political appointee, the power to decide appeals if judges do not hear them quickly enough. A rule that gives board members more authority to summarily deny appeals without issuing a full opinion takes effect on Tuesday.

Lawyers who have appeared before Cassidy, Couch, and Wilson say all three have intense tempers. All of them had many of their asylum denials reversed by the Board of Immigration Appeals. Now they’ll be the ones deciding those appeals. (The Justice Department’s Executive Office for Immigration Review, which oversees the immigration court system, did not respond to a request to comment on details in this story.)

Cassidy is most associated with his decision to deport Mark Lyttle, a US citizen who did not speak Spanish, to Mexico during a mass deportation hearing. One Georgia attorney I spoke to blamed Immigration and Customs Enforcement for Lyttle’s removal, but Lyttle asserted that he told Cassidy twice about his US citizenship.

Glenn Fogle, an Atlanta immigration attorney, concluded in 2001, “You could have Anne Frank in front of him and he would say it was implausible that she could have hidden in the house for years and not be caught.” Now he says his feelings about Cassidy haven’t changed. He described a recent case in which Cassidy rejected a Congolese client who said he had scars on his back from being persecuted in his home country. Cassidy, presiding via an aging video system, asked the man to lift up his shirt and show the scars, then said he couldn’t see them. “Judge, how on earth could you see anything with this video?” Fogle recalls asking. Cassidy denied the asylum claim, noting in his decision that he couldn’t observe the scars.

Peter Isbister, a senior attorney with the Southern Poverty Law Center, says Cassidy sometimes writes orders denying bond requests while Isbister is still opening his argument. If he tries to finish, Cassidy can get frustrated and say something like, “You can take it up with the board. We’re done!”

In 2010, Cassidy had an asylum denial overturned because he had written the ruling before the hearing even began. The next year, Cassidy sat down in another judge’s courtroom in his judicial robe. In what one observer described as a “surreal” scene, Cassidy then raised his hand and told how the judge how the case should be handled. Assistant Chief Immigration Judge Deepali Nadkarni admonished Cassidy for his “inappropriate conduct.” In 2016, Cassidy compared an immigrant arriving at the border to “a person coming to your home in a Halloween mask, waving a knife dripping with blood.”

Cassidy and Couch have both suggested that asylum seekers are dishonest and trying to scam their way into the country. A Charlotte immigration attorney, who requested anonymity because Couch is now handling appeals, heard Couch say he believes 85 percent of asylum seekers are lying, that 10 percent are telling the truth but not eligible for protection, and that 5 percent are both honest and eligible for asylum. Couch is also skeptical of lawyers. When an out-of-state lawyer couldn’t make it to a hearing because of a funeral, Couch called the funeral home to verify the claim, according to the Charlotte attorney.

In 2004, Couch, then a military prosecutor, attracted widespread attention for refusing to prosecute a Guantanamo detainee because he had been tortured. But as an immigration judge, Couch has almost always ruled against people who say they’ve been persecuted. He is best known among immigration attorneys for his 2015 decision to deny asylum to a woman who said she had been repeatedly physically and sexually abused by her ex-husband. One year later, the Board of Immigration Appeals overturned Couch’s ruling and ordered him to grant her asylum. But Couch again declined to do so. The case gained prominence when Jeff Sessions, then the attorney general, used it to issue a sweeping precedent that made it much harder for asylum seekers to claim domestic violence as a reason for asylum. (Couch isn’t uniformly anti-immigration—Jeremy McKinney, a North Carolina attorney and the vice president of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, saw him lobby North Carolina Sen. Thom Tillis to greatly expand Central Americans’ access to temporary visas—but has a narrow view of who qualifies for asylum.)

Wilson has the highest asylum denial rate of the six new appointees. His most notable habit is leaning back in his chair while respondents are testifying and closing his eyes so that it looks like he’s sleeping. In one case, according to an observer from Emory University’s law school, Wilson leaned back with his eyes closed for 23 minutes as an asylum seeker described the murder of her parents and siblings.

Like the others, Wilson has often been overturned by the appeals board he is now a part of. In one case, he ruled against a victim of domestic violence partly on the grounds that she had been able leave her abuser and reach the United States. “We disagree,” the Board decided. “Although the respondent did ultimately come to the United States to escape her abuser, by definition, any person applying for asylum in the United States has fled the harm that they experienced.”

Under the regulation that goes into effect Tuesday, Board members will have more authority to summarily deny appeals without providing any justification. Charles Kuck, an Atlanta attorney and former president of the American Immigration Lawyers Associations, expects that to lead to an assembly-line system like the one that existed under the George W. Bush administration, when Board members sometimes issued more than 50 decisions a day.

Two decades later, one Cassidy case still sticks with Fogle. His client was a former Ethiopian government official. As he was telling his story, Fogle remembers, Cassidy jumped up, turned off the court’s audio recorder, and yelled, “Bullshit!” His client insisted he was telling the truth.

Fogle says it was among the most unprofessional behavior he has ever seen from a judge. “I’ve been around,” he says. “I will never forget that.” He adds, “That’s the guy that’s going to be adjudicating appeals from other immigration judges.

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

Sounds like a Third World kakistocracy to me. And, over my years working on asylum cases, I became familiar with many of those. Never imagined the U.S. would hit these depths.

PWS

08-29-19

DUE PROCESS: I Speak Out Against Latest DOJ Attack On Due Process & Judicial Independence!

https://apple.news/AF5h6SB1USvW1DbhapvzZLw

Alan Pyke reports for ThinkProgress:

Shakeup of immigration court system threatens migrants’ due process

Migrants may soon have a much harder time finding lawyers and understanding their rights in immigration court, as the Trump administration pursues a major overhaul of the agency that oversees those proceedings.

The crucial office that provides basic legal information to migrants and helps connect some of them to pro-bono immigration lawyers will be merged into a Trump-created unit widely viewed as the nerve center of his immigration power grab. Though Friday’s reorganization rule makes no specific threat to shutter those legal assistance programs, the president has wanted to kill them for more than a year.

The bureaucratic reshuffle leaves the assistance programs “buried deep in the bowels” of an agency that today “never does anything without some ulterior political motive relating to the restrictionist immigration agenda,” retired immigration judge Paul Schmidt told reporters Friday.

The regulations concern the Executive Office of Immigration Review (EOIR), where the work of applying immigration laws to individual human cases gets done. In addition to burying the legal-assistance work in a team Trump created, the rule endows EOIR’s director with vast new power to change how immigration laws are applied.

The proposal “shows [the] Trump Administration’s ‘weaponization’ of EOIR as a means of implementing restrictionist policies by precedent decision without going through legislation or rule making,” Schmidt told reporters in an email.

Immigration courts, despite their name, are not independent judicial forums. And because deportation is a civil proceeding rather than a criminal one, migrants who come before the courts are not guaranteed counsel.

Any given migrant’s ability to vindicate the rights they do have in immigration court therefore ends up resting, in many cases, with the presiding judge. If the law says a given migrant’s case might merit a stay of deportation or other relief, and an immigration judge applies the law accordingly, the system slows down and fewer people are evicted from the country.

The Trump administration has repeatedly pushed immigration judges to set aside those legal niceties in favor of rapid removal orders for almost everyone they see. Judges now face discipline if they fail to clear 700 cases per calendar year, a speed judges have repeatedly said makes a mockery of due process.

The big winner in Friday’s order is EOIR’s new Office of Policy, created at the start of President Donald Trump’s term. That team will take over management of a key legal orientation program for giving migrants a basic overview of the legal process they’re facing and the rights they have within it.

The Office of Policy has become the prime mover behind various Trump efforts to create a deportation assembly line that favors speedy removals over the fuller individual consideration envisioned in immigration law, experts said.

“The Office of Policy… has in many ways led the Trump administration’s agenda to reduce the independence of the immigration court system,” American Immigration Council policy analyst Aaron Reichlin-Melnick said in an interview.

Currently, EOIR’s Office of Legal Access Programs helps link some migrants to pro-bono immigration attorneys as part of its legal orientation work. Having a lawyer “is arguably the single most important factor in determining whether someone is allowed to remain in the United States” at the conclusion of their immigration case, Reichlin-Melnick said.

The new rule moves the pro-bono program into the Trump-created policy office, along with the legal orientation system that’s meant to give migrants without attorneys a fighting chance.

There is nothing in the rule that says the DOJ is killing the pro-bono system or the legal orientation program, Reichlin-Melnick stressed.

“But we know in the past this is something the administration has gone after,” he said, noting that the White House tried to defund the legal orientation work in 2018 only for a bipartisan coalition of lawmakers to insist it continue.

“It’s a popular program with pretty much everybody,” he said, “except those inside the Trump administration who think we shouldn’t be spending money on helping people know their rights, because that slows things down.”

The same Office of Policy is widely blamed for concocting the 700-case-per-year standard that judges and experts view as an intentional demolition of immigrants’ due process rights. It is also seen as the driving force behind a new piece of technology that displays a speed gauge on judges’ desks while they work, glaring red when they take the time to explore factual disputes or delve into process issues of a given case and fall behind the administration’s speed requirements.

“That kind of pressure creates problems, even if it doesn’t mean that people are going to explicitly deny cases because of it,” Reichlin-Melnick said. “Even the most well-minded people are affected by someone essentially standing behind them tapping their watch.”

The case-completion rule in question technically came from a different EOIR office. But Trump’s new policy office is understood to have crafted it and passed it to the appropriate internal authority to promulgate.

Last year, National Association of Immigration Judges union head Ashley Tabaddor urged her colleagues to take whatever time a case requires regardless of the administration’s pressure tactics. This summer, the administration announced its intention to dissolve the NAIJ and strip judges of labor protections.

These maneuvers “create the appearance of coercion” of a professional legal staff who are responsible for applying the law to a complex array of individual circumstances, Reichlin-Melnick said. A political team that isn’t getting the results it wants from immigration courts when they scrutinize the facts is turning to threats – judges can be denied raises or terminated outright over the running-clock rules – and increasing the authority its Office of Policy holds over those judges.

The new rule “raises a number of concerns about conflict of interest that could play out. Maybe they won’t – at this point it’s a little bit premature to panic, or to make large declaratory statements about how this rule will affect the process,” he said. “But it certainly raises concerns.”

Former immigration judge Schmidt was blunter.

The new policy office’s “primary role appears to be to ensure that EOIR functions as an adjunct of DHS Enforcement and that any adjudication trends that enhance Due Process or vindicate Immigrants rights are quickly identified so that they can be wiped out by precedents or policy changes,” Schmidt wrote.

“Look for the [EOIR] Director over time to reinsert himself in the adjudicative activities of EOIR,” he wrote, “for the purpose of insuring subservience to [the] Administration’s political enforcement priorities.”

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

Thanks, Alan, for “telling it like it is.”

Pro bono lawyers have been very successful in both helping asylum applicants vindicate their rights and winning cases. They have also given those who lose before the Immigration Judge the ability to exhaust their remedies before the BIA and challenge wrongful denials in Circuit Courts. Almost every day, one or more Circuit Courts find that the BIA has erred or improperly cut corners in some way.

The success of the pro bono program in achieving asylum and other forms of protection is what the White Nationalists in the Trump Administration hate. They don’t like their immorality and illegality constantly exposed to public view. They would much rather “beat up on” defenseless, unrepresented applicants who can’t even understand English, let alone understand the system and the hyper-technical, intentionally restrictive criteria confronting them. Also, lots of denials, even if completely unfair, bolsters the Administration’s false statistical claim that most asylum claims are without merit.

PWS

08-26-19

NAIJ LASHES OUT AT BARR’S EVISCERATION OF JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE

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

Press release 8.23.2019

BREAKING: STATEMENT BY IMMIGRATION JUDGES UNION ON MAJOR CHANGE ANNOUNCED TO IMMIGRATION COURTS

Statement by the Hon. Ashley Tabaddor, Pres. of the National Association of Immigration Law Judges

In an unprecedented attempt at agency overreach to dismantle the Immigration Court, the Department of Justice, Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) today published a new interim rule, effective next Monday, which takes steps to dismantle the Immigration Court system. DOJ’s action ends any transparency and assurance of independent decision making over individual cases.

By collapsing the policymaking role with the adjudication role into a single individual, the Director of EOIR, an unconfirmed political appointee, the Immigration Court system has effectively been dismantled,” said Ashley Tabaddor, President of the National Association of Immigration Judges.

The new rule is a wolf in sheep’s clothing. While couched in bureaucratic language, the impact of this regulation is to substitute the policy directives of a single political appointee over the legal analysis of non-political, independent adjudicators. The creation of a mini-Attorney General in the EOIR’s Director, who

is a political appointee, not confirmed by the Senate and currently not empowered to

adjudicate cases, will in effect abolish the separation of functions where the Attorney General’s duties as a law enforcement agent are distinct and separate from his adjudicatory duties. The unprecedented creation of an Office of Policy within EOIR under the Director’s authority, designed to formulate, coordinate, and implement the executive branch’s immigration law enforcement policies

combined with the Director’s new direct adjudicatory role over individual cases, removes any semblance of an independent, non-political court system which ensures due process rather than political expediency.

Furthermore, this bold-faced power-grab undermines oversight by the public through the established notice and comment procedure.

The National Association of Immigration Judges received notice of this action only today when the press was advised. We are currently studying the regulation carefully to provide a more detailed analysis in the days ahead.

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

As I pointed out in my post earlier today, this is nothing less than a vicious attack on our Constitution and the rule of law. https://immigrationcourtside.com/2019/08/23/heres-my-quick-take-on-eoirs-interim-rule-on-reorganization/

Will Congress and the Article IIIs stand up to this grotesque abuse and prevent the DOJ from destroying democracy. Or, will impotent legislators and “go along to get along” Article III Judges continue to look the other way as a system driven by racist authoritarianism eats us up!

PWS

08-23-19

HARD RIGHT TURN: Barr Appoints “Death Squad” Of New “Appellate Judges” Tasked To “Snuff Out” Any Last Remaining Pockets Of Due Process For Asylum Seekers & Send As Many As Possible Unlawfully Into Harm’s Way! — Judge Earle Wilson Has An Astounding 98.1% Asylum Denial Rate, But His New Colleagues Are Hot On His Tail! — TAL @ SF CHRON REPORTS!

Tal Kopan
Washington Reporter, SF Chronicle

https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/AG-William-Barr-promotes-immigration-judges-with-14373344.php

AG William Barr promotes immigration judges with high asylum denial rates

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration has promoted six judges to the immigration appeals court that sets binding policy for deportation cases — all whom have high rates of denying immigrants’ asylum claims.

The six come from courts that have higher asylum-denial rates than the national average, including two from a court that has drawn complaints of unfair proceedings from immigration attorneys and advocates. A third has a long history of denying asylum to domestic violence victims, something the Justice Department has also sought to do.

The new appeals judges, who will now make up more than a quarter of the appellate board, were appointed as the administration works to speed up the immigration courts and narrow migrants’ use of asylum cases to come to the U.S. The six new appointees were sworn in Friday.

The hires are in a new role, in which judges will be allowed to continue serving at any immigration court in the country rather than having to move to suburban Falls Church, Va., where the appeals board’s headquarters are. The new appeals judges will also be allowed to serve as fill-in lower court immigration judges. Critics had suspected the Justice Department, which oversees the immigration courts, created the new positions to pack the board with judges from courts with high rates of denying immigrants’ claims, who may otherwise not have wanted to move to D.C.

The board serves as the appellate body for the immigration court system, an entity separate from the federal courts.

As in the federal system, the immigration board has the power to overrule lower court decisions with three-judge panels. By a majority vote of all its 21 members, it can make those rulings binding on the nation’s nearly 400 immigration judges. Recently, Barr published a new regulation giving himself the power to make any appellate decision binding as well.

By law, the Justice Department is barred from considering political leanings when hiring judges. Agency officials say judges are selected based only on their qualifications for the job, and that their history of rulings is not taken into account.

According to data tracked by Syracuse University from 2013 through 2018, all the judges promoted Friday have records of denying asylum at much higher rates than immigration judges nationally. The Justice Department has in the past questioned Syracuse’s methodology, but does not provide statistics of its own.

Two of the new appeals judges were promoted by Barr from the Atlanta immigration court, which has one of the highest rates of asylum claim denials in the country. The court rejected 95.3% of claims from 2013 to 2018, compared with a national average of 57.6%, Syracuse found.

One of the two new appeals judges from Atlanta, William Cassidy, had a rejection rate of 95.8%, 22nd highest in the country.

Cassidy was also the subject of 11 complaints from immigration attorneys from 2010-2013, according to material obtained by the American Immigration Lawyers Association through a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit. That number of complaints was more than roughly 95% of all other immigration judges in that period, according to information from the lawsuit. Five of the 11 resulted in Cassidy being counseled by a superior on proper judicial behavior.

Also promoted by Barr from the Atlanta court was Earle Wilson, who denied 98.1% of asylum claims from 2013 to 2018, according to Syracuse. That was more than all but five immigration judges in the U.S.

Wilson and Cassidy were also named in two complaints filed by the Southern Poverty Law Center, a civil rights group, in 2017 and 2018 that argued the Atlanta court was treating immigrants unfairly. The complaints said Wilson and Cassidy behaved in an intimidating fashion toward immigrants and their advocates.

It is not clear whether the Justice Department has responded to those complaints. The department said Friday it does not discuss personnel matters.

The other new appellate judges are:

• Keith Hunsucker, who has spent most of his time on the bench at the immigration court at the Port Isabel Detention Center in Texas. While there, he denied 81.6% of asylum cases, consistent with his court’s 81.1% average. Hunsucker is now in Cleveland.

• Deborah Goodwin, appointed from the Miami immigration court. She began hearing cases in 2017, and through last year had a denial rate of 89.4%, above her court’s average of 79.6% in the 2013 to 2018 time frame measured by Syracuse.

• Stephanie Gorman, promoted from the Houston immigration court. She began hearing cases in 2017 and has an 86.9% asylum denial rate, slightly below her court’s 89.3% average.

• Stuart Couch, who was appointed from Charlotte, N.C., denied 92.1% of asylum claims from 2013 to 2018. That was above his court’s average of 88.2%.

Couch also authored a 2017 ruling denying asylum to a Salvadoran woman who was physically and emotionally abused and raped by her ex-husband, a decision that the Board of Immigration Appeals reversed. It was that appellate decision that Sessions overturned to align the law more closely with Couch’s interpretation, saying domestic violence was largely not grounds for asylum. A federal judge has blocked that ruling for now.

Couch’s original decision was one of 10 domestic violence-related cases in 2017 in which the Board of Immigration Appeals found his rulings were “clearly erroneous.” In all 10, Couch rejected the claims of Central American women who had been beaten, raped and otherwise abused by their husbands or partners. The cases were made public as part of a Freedom of Information Act request by immigration attorney Bryan Johnson.

The Justice Department stood behind all the judges.

“DOJ doesn’t track asylum approval and denial rates for individual immigration judges, and (Syracuse) uses its own methodologies in interpreting the data it receives, resulting in conclusions that we cannot verify,” a spokesperson said in a statement. “Collectively these judges combined, have nearly 120 years of immigration law combined, through multiple administrations. Advocates that attack their integrity and professionalism only undermine the entire system.”

Immigration attorneys fear the hires are part of an effort by the Trump administration to skew the courts against immigrants, who face deportation if their claims are denied.

“The board’s primary function is to ensure rule of law and impartiality, yet the department cherry-picked judges from the harshest jurisdictions with the lowest asylum grant rates in the nation,” said Laura Lynch, senior policy counsel for the American Immigration Lawyers Association. “When we’re talking about asylum cases, these decisions are life or death for those seeking protection.”

Lynch’s group, along with the American Bar Association and national union for immigration judges, have called for the immigration courts to be removed from the Justice Department and made independent. Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-San Jose, has pledged to pursue legislation that would do so through the Judiciary subcommittee on immigration she chairs in the House.

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

How many refugees will die or be subjected to additional torture and persecution because of thoroughly biased judges and a corrupt “judicial” system controlled by political hacks like Barr. Will Congress and the Article IIIs ever step in and restore some semblance of Due Process? Unless and until they do, the “blood of the innocents” will be on their hands.

Meanwhile, the complicit/complacent Article IIIs who have let this situation get out of control can look forward to being flooded with petitions for review, because the New Due Process Army will continue to fight this unconstitutional, fundamentally unfair, and evil perversion of American justice!

The idea that six Judges with asylum denial rates astronomically above the national average of 57.1% were the “best qualified” for these appellate jobs is simply absurd. Indeed, probably all of us in the Roundtable of Former Judges know of much better judicial candidates who were passed over so that Barr could install his “Death Squad.”

As Tal points out, unless piling up bar complaints, being cited by the public for rudeness, being reversed by their BIA, and denying an usually high number of asylum claims are among the “quality ranking factors” for these jobs, it’s hard to see how several of these judges would be considered even minimally qualified for promotion, let alone “best qualified.” It seems that a Congressional investigation into the selection process would be well warranted, including a look at the qualifications of candidates who were passed over.

Human lives are being trivialized by this White Nationalist regime and its enablers.

PWS

08-23-19

Here’s My “Quick Take” On EOIR’s “Interim Rule on Reorganization”

PWS “QUICK TAKES” ON EOIR INTERIM REORGANIZATION RULE

Enhances role of relatively new “Office of Policy” (“OP”)
- Remarkable because as a quasi-judicial court system, EOIR really is not supposed to be “making policy” except through BIA precedents
- Shows Trump Administration’s “weaponization” of EOIR as a means of implementing restrictionist policies by precedent decision without going through legislation or rule making
- Enhances policy role of Director, since Director controls OP
- OP primary role appears to be to ensure that EOIR functions as an adjunct of DHS Enforcement and that any adjudication trends that enhance Due Process or vindicate Immigrants rights are quickly identified so that they can be wiped out by precedents or policy changes

Diminishes role of Office of Legal Assistance Programs (“OLAP”)
- OLAP’s primary mission is to enhance and ensure maximum representation for migrants in Removal proceedings
  - That mission directly conflicted with the Administration’s use of EOIR as a “Deportation Railroad”
- OLAP is eradicated from the regulations and organizational chart and buried deep in the bowels of OP
- Look for OLAP to be slowly strangled and its functions in assisting migrants and providing them information and self-help materials in going through the Immigraton Court process to be reduced or eliminated
- OP can be expected to concentrate instead on how to limit migrants’ access to pro bono counsel and to make practice before the Immigration Courts as non-user-friendly as possible to discourage representation and expedite removals of clueless unrepresented migrants

Disingenuously designates BIA Members as “Appellate Immigration Judges”
- As their authority to act as fair, impartial, and independent adjudicators is diminished to lowest level in BIA history, “bogus retitling” appears intended to create an “appearance” of enhanced status of “AG’s patsies” before Article III Appellate Courts in support of DOJ’s arguments for high degree of deference and diminished scrutiny from Article IIIs

Uses administrative gobbledygook and slight of hand to give the Director individual case adjudication authority in certain instances where BIA’s “Mickey Mouse” adjudication deadlines are not met
- Back in 1995 (when I was appointed) the DOJ separated the functions of the Director and the BIA Chair, which until then had been merged in the same position
- Result of a perceived conflict of interest in having Director directly responsible to the AG while also having quasi-judicial responsibilities as BIA Chair
- Beginning to “re-merge” adjudication with administration reflects Trump DOJ’s disregard of ethical considerations in immigration adjudication and intent to use EOIR as enhanced enforcement tool
- Remarkably, the Director could actually issue precedent decisions in some instances
- Look for the Director over time to reinsert himself in the adjudicative activities of EOIR for the purpose of insuring subservience to Administrations’s political enforcement priorities
- Not clear whether the current authority to refer ”overdue” BIA cases has even been utilized (but, if it hasn’t been, why would the AG fear potentially being “overburdened” with such non-existent referrals and find it necessary to make this change?)

PWS

08-23-19

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!

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

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

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?

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

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

The solution: There is no such thing as a “fair” asylum denial under this program. Yes, not everyone meets the criteria. But, everyone is entitled to a fair chance to present a claim, free from duress, coercion, and biased judging, which is not happening.

Related posts:

Paul Schmidt, who chaired the Board of Immigration of Appeals from 1995 to 2001, says the administration’s goal is to build a “deportation railway” in which cases move through the system as quickly as possible and then get “rubber-stamped by the Board.”

Related posts:

Related posts:

BREAKING: STATEMENT BY IMMIGRATION JUDGES UNION ON MAJOR CHANGE ANNOUNCED TO IMMIGRATION COURTS

Related posts:

Related posts:

PWS “QUICK TAKES” ON EOIR INTERIM REORGANIZATION RULE

Related posts:

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: