"The Voice of the New Due Process Army" ————– Musings on Events in U.S. Immigration Court, Immigration Law, Sports, Music, Politics, and Other Random Topics by Retired United States Immigration Judge (Arlington, Virginia) and former Chairman of the Board of Immigration Appeals Paul Wickham Schmidt and Dr. Alicia Triche, expert brief writer, practical scholar, emeritus Editor-in-Chief of The Green Card (FBA), and 2022 Federal Bar Association Immigration Section Lawyer of the Year. She is a/k/a “Delta Ondine,” a blues-based alt-rock singer-songwriter, who performs regularly in Memphis, where she hosts her own Blues Brunch series, and will soon be recording her first full, professional album. Stay tuned! 🎶 To see our complete professional bios, just click on the link below.
🇺🇸⚖️🗽😎BRINGING HOPE 🙏& LIGHT💡: ROUND TABLE🛡️, NDPA ALL-STARS ✨HELP CA 2 👩🏽⚖️CORRECT YET ANOTHER TOTAL SCREW-UP BY GARLAND’S DOJ! — This time EOIR blew competency determination, couldn’t properly apply own precedents to achieve due process, fundamental fairness!🤯
With lots of help from our friends, the Round Table has become a “Powerful Force of Nature,” carving out a spot for due process even along the most wild and rugged coasts! PHOTO: PWS Maine Collection“Our Fearless Leader,” Hon. Jeffrey S. Chase Jeffrey S. Chase Blog Coordinator & Chief Spokesperson, Round Table of Former Immigration Judges
“Sir Jeffrey” Chase forwarded this note of appreciation from one of the all-star advocates who represented The Round Table in drafting an amicus brief:
You, Paul and the Roundtable played a central role in this decision. Beyond the persuasive amicus brief, your group—along with . . . . —gave me the confidence to pursue the due process claim . . . . Your advocacy is admirable and much needed; it also has an impact beyond just the individual cases you support as an amicus. . . . . [T]his case has been one of the most impressive collaborative efforts I’ve had the opportunity to be involved with [in my decade of professional experience.] Thank you again for your interest and support of this important case, as well as your work in this space more broadly.
This is also a great space to once again thank all of the top flight legal talent, law firms, NGOs, and legal clinics that have donated their time and talents pro bono to the cause of due process, equal justice for all, and advancing best practices. Indeed, you have “given us a voice” — one that has proved to have an outsized impact on our American justice system.
Working with our wonderful“partners in due process and professional excellence” has been a total joy and fulfilling career opportunity for each of us! We never, ever forget what we owe to your skill and generous donation of time, resources, and effort. Just as we are committed to insuring that all individuals appearing in Immigration Court — the essential “retail level” of our justice system — have a right to be heard, YOU have insured that WE will be heard — loudly and clearly for a long time to come! Thank you again from the bottom. of our “collective hearts!”💕
Many congrats to all who worked on this multi-year, intensive, cooperative effort to achieve justice that should never, ever have gotten to this point IF EOIR and OIL were competently staffed and administered by Garland! Interesting, that even the most “conservative” Circuits often tire of the constant unprofessional, “deny protection for any reason” nonsense shoved at them by Garland’s DOJ. Perhaps, that’s a “basis for hope” as we appear to be moving into a wasteful “bipartisan political world of mindless and lawless restrictionism and denial of fundamental rights to migrants.” Here’s hoping for the best!
Proposed Asylum Bar Regs Are At Odds With International Law (And Why That Matters)
In 2003, the Office of the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees published Guidelines for applying the bars to asylum known internationally as the “exclusion clauses” (because they exclude an applicant from being recognized as a refugee under international law). Addressing the proper procedure for applying these bars, the UNHCR Guidelines state:
Given the grave consequences of exclusion, it is essential that rigorous procedural safeguards are built into the exclusion determination procedure. Exclusion decisions should in principle be dealt with in the context of the regular refugee status determination procedure and not in either admissibility or accelerated procedures, so that a full factual and legal assessment of the case can be made.1
This week, the Biden Administration published a proposed rule seeking to do precisely the opposite of what UNHCR advises.2 The rule would empower USCIS asylum officers to apply certain bars to asylum eligibility up front, at the border, as part of a preliminary admissibility determination. The goal is to effect the immediate deportation of certain asylum seekers, foreclosing their ability to have their eligibility for asylum decided by an Immigration Judge pursuant to a full-fledged hearing.
Advocates have already pointed out the dangers of the proposed approach, which will require quick decisions on highly complex issues at a point at which applicants very rarely have access to lawyers or evidence; their responses should be read.3 However, I would like to focus here on the rule’s conflict with international law, and why this is problematic.
Since 1804, the Supreme Court’s decision in Murray v. The Schooner Charming Betsy 4 has required domestic statutes to be interpreted consistently with international law whenever possible.5
This general requirement carries a particular urgency in its application to refugee law. The purpose of the 1951 Refugee Convention (which applied to those made refugees by World War II), and the 1967 Protocol (which extended the 1951 Convention’s definitions and protections to all) was to create a single, universal refugee standard to replace the patchwork of protections that reflected individual states’ own political preferences and biases.
This is not a small matter. International refugee law scholars James C. Hathaway and Michelle Foster have warned that “[i]nconsistency and divergence in interpretation of the Convention definition would clearly undermine the principled goal of ensuring a single, universal standard for access to refugee protection.”6 They further quote a decision of the Australian Administrative Appeals Tribunal in support of this contention: “[i]nconsistency is not merely inelegant; it brings the process of deciding into disrepute, suggesting an arbitrariness which is incompatible with commonly accepted notions of justice.”7
Congress apparently agreed with this approach when enacting the 1980 Refugee Act. In its landmark 1987 decision in INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, the Supreme Court pointed this out:
If one thing is clear from the legislative history of the new definition of “refugee,” and indeed the entire 1980 Act, it is that one of Congress’ primary purposes was to bring United States refugee law into conformance with the 1967 United Nations Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, 19 U.S.T. 6223, T.I.A.S. No. 6577, to which the United States acceded in 1968.8
And in adhering to Congress’s clear intent, the Supreme Court in Cardoza-Fonseca looked for guidance in interpreting the 1980 Refugee Act to UNHCR, citing its Handbook first issued in 1979 as an important tool for interpreting the Convention’s provisions. In a footnote, the Court found that while it was not binding, “the Handbook provides significant guidance in construing the Protocol, to which Congress sought to conform. It has been widely considered useful in giving content to the obligations that the Protocol establishes.”9
As leading scholar Deborah E. Anker has noted, “One of the most important developments in U.S. asylum law is the weight that U.S. authorities – including the USCIS Asylum Office, the Board, and the federal courts – give to the UNHCR’s interpretation of the refugee definition contained in its 1979 Handbook….” Anker noted that UNHCR has issued other interpretive documents since 1979 that “complement and expand on the Handbook.”10 I would argue that those other documents (which include the 2003 guidelines addressing the exclusion clauses that is quoted above) are deserving of the same interpretive weight.
So given (1) the Supreme Court’s Charming Betsy doctrine mandating conformity with international law whenever possible; (2) the stated intent of Congress to bring U.S. asylum law into conformity with international refugee law (as recognized in Cardoza-Fonseca); and (3) the purpose of the 1951 Convention to “ensure a single, universal standard” for refugee status, according great weight to UNHCR guidance in interpreting the Convention provides the best means of adhering to all of the above requirements.
However, another leading scholar, Karen Musalo, provided a recent reminder of how far U.S. law has strayed from international law standards for determining nexus (i.e. when persecution is “on account of” a statutorily protected ground), and in determining the validity of particular social groups. Musalo posits that realignment with international standards would resolve the erroneous interpretations that have arisen under present case law, and would remove unwarranted barriers to protection that presently exist.11 But with its new proposed regulations, the government instead seeks to veer even further off course in its procedures for determining bars to asylum eligibility.
In December 2020, I presented in a blog post a “wish list” for the incoming Biden Administration. One of the items on my list was to create a “Charming Betsy” regulation requiring adherence to international law refugee standards. It included the hope “that the Biden Administration would codify the Charming Betsy doctrine in regulations, which should further require the BIA, Immigration Judges, and Asylum Officers to consider UNHCR interpretations of the various asylum provisions, and require adjudicators to provide compelling reasons for rejecting its guidance.”12
I am not so naive to expect that a regulation like this will be proposed anytime soon. But I do believe that the direct contradiction of the proposed regs with international law guidance should be included in comments and talking points by those both inside and outside of government. Through these rules, the Biden Administration seeks to engage in the type of politically-motivated action that the Refugee Convention and 1980 Refugee Act sought to eliminate. For the above reasons, such action would violate the intent of Congress, our treaty obligations, and over two centuries of U.S. case law.
Moving forward, whether an asylum-related law, rule, policy, or case holding conforms with international law should instinctively be the first question asked by all of us. When refugee protection is viewed in such neutral, legal terms, the urge to politicize decisions will be lessened.
As those scholars referenced above have been saying far longer and more articulately than myself, it is only when international law becomes normalized in the process that our asylum law will function as it should.
Copyright 2024 Jeffrey S. Chase. All rights reserved.
See Weinberger v. Rossi, 456 U.S. 25, 32 (1982) (noting that construing federal statutes to avoid violating international law has “been a maxim of statutory construction since the decision” in Charming Betsy).
James C. Hathaway and Michelle Foster, The Law of Refugee Status (Second Ed.), (Cambridge, 2014) at 4.
Hathaway and Foster, supra at n.18 (quoting Brennan, J., in Re Drake and Minister of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (No. 2) (1979) 2 ALD 634 (Aus. AAT, Nov. 21, 1979) at 639.
480 U.S. 421, 436-37 (1987).
Id. at 439.
Deborah E. Anker, Law of Asylum in the United States (2023 Ed.) (Thomson Reuters) at 20-21.
Karen Musalo, “Aligning United States With International Norms Would Remove Major Barriers to Protection in Gender Claims,” International Journal of Refugee Law (2024).
The schooner Charming Betsy sailed into Supreme Court history. Hon. Jeffrey Chase and other legal experts aren’t “charmed” by AG Merrick Garland’s approach to binding international standards for asylum! PHOTO: The Constitutional Law Reporter
Thanks, “Sir Jeffrey” for a great and timely analysis!
For the second successive Administration, we have an Attorney General who does not take seriously his oath of office to uphold the Constitution and laws of the United States when it comes to those seeking asylum.
Garland has too often signed off on regulations and policies that are clearly at odds with domestic and international law as well as our Constitution. The current abominable proposed regulations, referenced by Jeffrey and opposed by all experts on asylum law and human rights, are just the latest example. Those politicos behind these toxic policies won’t confront in person or acknowledge the well-documented unnecessary human trauma and degradation caused by scofflaw actions and policies that intentionally fail to make fair, humane, safe, and timely asylum processing available to all who come to legal ports of entry as required by law (not to mention human decency)!
Professor Karen Musalo Director, Center for Gender & Refugee Studies, Hastings Law
Read Karen’s newly-released article “Aligning United States Law with International Norms Would Remove Major Barriers to Protection in Gender Claims” in the 2024 Edition of the International Journal of Refugee Law. Here’s the abstract:
A B ST R A CT
The protection of women and girls fleeing gender-based harms has been controversial in the United States (US), with advances followed by setbacks. The US interpretation of particular social group and its nexus analysis, both of which diverge from guidance by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), is the most significant barrier to protection. It has become almost impossible for women and girls to rely upon the particular social group ground because of current requirements that social groups not only be defined by immutable or fundamental characteristics, but also be socially distinct and have particularity. Establishing nexus is also a significant obstacle, with the US requirement of proof of the persecutor’s intent. In the first month of his administration, President Biden issued an executive order on migration, which raised hopes that these obstacles to protection would be removed. The order committed to protecting survivors of domestic violence and to issuing regulations that would make the US interpretation of particular social group consistent with international standards. The target date for the regulations was November 2021, but they have yet to issue. This article examines how the evolution of the US interpretation of particular social group and nexus has diverged from UNHCR recommendations. It shows how protection has been denied in gender cases involving the most egregious of harms. The article concludes by providing recommendations for realignment with international standards, which set a benchmark for evaluating the promised Biden administration regulations on the issue.
Karen’s highly readable “spot on” article prompted this additional thoughtful comment from my friend and Round Table colleague Hon. “Sir Jefferey” Chase:
Hi Karen: Wonderful article! So clear, so logical, and just so correct! Thanks as always for this. (And I’m extremely honored to find myself in several of your footnotes – thank you!)
Create a “Charming Betsy” Reg Requiring Adherence to International Law:Since 1804, the Supreme Court’s decision in Murray v. The Schooner Charming Betsy has required domestic statutes to be interpreted consistently with international law whenever possible.As the Supreme Court in INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca observed that in enacting the 1980 Refugee Act, “one of Congress’ primary purposes was to bring United States refugee law into conformance with the 1967 United Nations Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees,” it would seem that interpreters of our asylum laws should look to international law interpretations of that treaty for guidance.Recent examples in which this has not been the case include the just-published “death to asylum” regulations that will completely gut the 1980 Refugee Act of any meaning; as well as regulations that bar asylum for conduct falling far, far short of the severity required to bar refugee protection under international law (which a federal district court blocked in Pangea v. Barr).
As the Board seems disinclined to listen to the Supreme Court on this point, it is hoped that the Biden Administration would codify the Charming Betsy doctrine in regulations, which should further require the BIA, Immigration Judges, and Asylum Officers to consider UNHCR interpretations of the various asylum provisions, and require adjudicators to provide compelling reasons for rejecting its guidance.
Do you think there is a way to use Karen’s article to make this into a talking point across the advocacy community? I think there’s merit to trying to normalize an idea over time. Just a thought.
Hon. Jeffrey S. Chase Jeffrey S. Chase Blog Coordinator & Chief Spokesperson, Round Table of Former Immigration Judges
I agree, Jeffrey! Ironically, as Karen shows, “normalizing” refugee and asylum processing to bring it into alignment with the Convention was one of the driving forces behind enactment of the Refugee Act of 1980. Indeed, it’s reflected in a key early interpretation of the Act by the Supremes in INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca (successfully argued by our friend and Round Table colleague Hon. Dana Marks, a “Founding Mother of U.S. Refugee Law”). In rejecting the USG’s restrictive interpretation, the Court consulted the U.N. Handbook while making the point that the refugee definition was to be applied generously so that even those with only a 10% chance of persecution could qualify.
I also note that the abandonment of the “Acosta test,” which I relied on in Kasinga, in favor of a more convoluted, restrictive, and ultimately intellectually dishonest approach, went “into high gear” after the “Ashcroft purge” had removed the core of BIA Judges who spoke up for asylum rights and protection, even when in dissent!
Unfortunately, Administrations of both parties have feared honest and robust implementation of the Refugee Act that truly follows the “spirit of Cardoza and its BIA progeny, Matter of Mogharrabi.” They all have had their “favored” and “feared” groups of refugees and asylees, some more than others.
This, of course, breeds huge inconsistencies and arbitrary adjudications, a problem exposed well over a decade ago by Professors Schoenholtz, Schrag, and Ramji-Nogales in their critical seminal work Refugee Roulette describing the largely unprincipled and politicized operation of our system for adjudicating protection claims.
At some level, all Administrations have given in to the false idea that protection of refugees is politically perilous and that consequently the law should be interpreted and manipulated to “deter” the current “politically disfavored” groups of refugees. Not surprisingly, the latter are usually those of color, non-Christian religions, or from poorer countries where the mis-characterization of groups of legitimate refugees as “mere economic migrants” has become routine. Too often, the so-called “mainstream media” accepts such negative characterizations without critical analysis.
Unfortunately, the Biden Administration has regressed from a somewhat enlightened beginning with the never-promulgated “gender based regulation” mentioned by Karen to a position of fear, desperation, and ultimately “false deterrence.” Apparently, they perceive that GOP nativist lies and shamless fear-mongering combined with their own failure to boldly reform and materially improve the asylum processing system under their control are “scoring points” with the electorate.
The latest misguided proposal being considered in the White House would grotesquely miss the mark of addressing the real glaring problems with our asylum system at the border and beyond. That is the overly restrictive interpretations and applications of the refugee definition, too many poorly-qualified and poorly-trained adjudicators, over-denial leading to protracted litigation and inconsistent results, uninspiring leadership, and a stubborn unwillingness to set up the system in compliance with international rules so that significant numbers of qualified refugees applying at the border can be timely and properly admitted to the U.S. where, incidentally, their skills and determination can contribute greatly to our economy and our society.
The latest bad idea is truncating the already overly-summary and poorly run asylum process in apparent hopes of more quickly denying more potentially valid claims with less consideration. See, e.g.,https://www.politico.com/news/2024/05/08/biden-migrants-asylum-changes-00156865. Far from being a panacea for the much-feared and highly distorted “border issue,” it eventually will aggravate all of the problems highlighted by Karen.
One thing it won’t do, however, is stop forced migrants from coming to the United States, even if they must abandon our broken legal system to do so. That’s what forced migrants do! Pretending otherwise and misusing our legal protection system for rejection won’t “deter” the reality of forced migration.
Hon. Jeffrey S. Chase Jeffrey S. Chase Blog Coordinator & Chief Spokesperson, Round Table of Former Immigration Judges
“Sir Jeffrey” Chase reports:
Cert granted in Bouarfa v. Mayorkas
Hi all: Thanks to Lory [Rosenberg] for flagging that cert was granted today [April 29] by the Supreme Court in Bouarfa v. Mayorkas, in which our group filed an amicus brief in January.
As a reminder, the issue involves whether a revocation of a visa petition by USCIS for non discretionary criteria can be reviewed by the courts. A straight-out non-discretionary denial by DHS of a visa petition can be reviewed by the circuit courts; however, if DHS approves the petition and revokes it a day later for a non-discretionary reason, under the Eleventh Circuit’s reading, the petition can no longer be appealed to the circuit. (The Sixth and Ninth Circuits disagree).
Best, Jeff
Find all the relevant links, including to our amicus brief, here:
“Singh experienced multiple physical attacks and death threats over an eight-month period, from November of 2014 to June of 2015. No reasonable factfinder would conclude that Singh did not experience serious harm rising to the level of persecution. … For all these reasons we find that the record compels a finding that Singh suffered harm rising to the level of persecution. … [T]he BIA did not independently analyze relocation and determine that the government met its burden. Rather, the BIA expressly adopted the IJ’s reasons for finding that internal relocation was safe and reasonable. In doing so, the BIA adopted the IJ’s flawed relocation analysis, which did not afford Singh the presumption of past persecution or shift the burden to the government to prove that Singh can safely and reasonably relocate within India. … In sum, because the BIA erred in its relocation analysis, we grant Singh’s petition to review his claim for asylum and remand to the BIA for consideration in light of Singh v. Whitaker, 914 F.3d 654. … For the reasons set forth above, we GRANT Singh’s petition in part and REMAND to the BIA to consider (1) whether Singh is eligible for asylum because he suffered past persecution on account of statutorily protected grounds by the government or individuals whom the government was unable or unwilling to control; (2) if so, whether the DHS rebutted the presumption of a well-founded fear of future persecution; and (3) whether Singh is entitled to withholding of removal.”
“The agency entirely overlooked evidence material to the hardship determination in this case: evidence regarding Mendez’s serious back injury and its implications for his ability to support his qualifying relatives through work in El Salvador. … The BIA’s decision is VACATED and the case is REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this order.”
H. Raymond Fasano, Esquire PHOTO: Super Lawyers Profile
—Daniel M. KowalskiEditor-in-ChiefBender’s Immigration Bulletin (LexisNexis)
******************
What if a brain surgeon or a heart surgeon were routinely engaging in “surgical malpractice?” Wouldn’t it be a cause for grave concern?🤯
Almost every week, sometimes multiple times, the BIA mishandles the basics in potential “life or death” cases. Yet, Garland somehow shrugs it off! This not only adds to the “dehumanization” of migrants (their lives don’t count), but also badly skews the statistical profile that undergirds much of the misguided immigration (non) dialogue.
If the anti-immigrant, anti-asylum, huge “over-denial” problem at EOIR were addressed with better qualified judges and adjudicators, it would become apparent that many more, probably a majority, of those caught up in the dysfunction at EOIR and the Asylum Office are qualified to remain in the U.S. in some status. And, proper positive precedents would guide practitioners, ICE Counsel, Immigration Judges, and Asylum Officers to correct results without protracted litigation that eventually burdens the Courts of Appeals, causes avoidable remands, fuels “Aimless Docket Reshuffling,” and contributes mightily to the mushrooming EOIR backlog!
As a result, these cases could be prepared, prioritized, granted, and individuals could get on with their lives and maximize their human potential to help our nation — just as generations before them have done including the ancestors of almost all Americans! How soon some of us forget!
The real, largely self-created, “immigration crisis,” is NOT insufficient “deterrence, detention, and cruelty” at the border! It’s the grotesque failure of all three branches of Government to insist on a fair, timely, well-staffed, professionally-managed, due-process-compliant adjudication, review, and resettlement system for asylum seekers and other immigrants. It’s also the ongoing attempt to “cover up” and minimize our Government’s mistreatment of asylum seekers, particularly those asserting their legal right to apply at our borders and in the interior regardless of status!
The racially-driven “targeting” of asylum seekers at the border is a ruse designed to deflect attention from the realities of human migration, what drives it, and the failure of governments across the board to come to grips with them and to fulfill their legal responsibilities to treat all persons fairly, humanely, and in accordance with correct interpretations and applications of the law!
Hon. Jeffrey S. Chase Jeffrey S. Chase Blog Coordinator & Chief Spokesperson, Round Table of Former Immigration Judges
Here’s additional commentary on Singh from my Round Table ⚖️⚔️ colleague “Sir Jeffrey” Chase:
The IJ was really determined to deny on this one. And I guess Vandyke had filled his quota of once in a lifetime for finding fault with the government, and thus had no choice but to dissent.
How would YOU like to face a system “determined to deny” with your life on the line? How would Garland like it?
Actually, under the generous “well-founded fear” standard applicable to asylum (Cardoza-Fonseca/Mogharrabi) and the authoritative guidance in the U.N. Handbook on adjudication, applicants like Singh who testify credibly are supposed to be given “the benefit of the doubt.” Garland has, quite improperly, like his immediate predecessors, allowed this key humanitarian legal principle to be mocked at EOIR! Instead, as cogently pointed out by “Sir Jeffrey,” here the IJ and the BIA actually went the “extra mile” to think of “any reason to deny” — even totally specious ones!
Also, half-baked, legally deficient “reasonably available internal relocation analysis”is a long-standing, chronic problem at EOIR, despite a regulation setting forth analytical factors that should be evaluated. Few, if any, such legitimate opportunities are “reasonably available” in most countries sending asylum applicants!
Moreover, once past persecution is established, the DHS has the burden of showing that there is a reasonably available internal relocation alternative, something that they almost never can prove by a preponderance of the evidence! Indeed, in my experience, the DHS almost never put in such evidence beyond rote citations to generalized language in DOS Country Reports!
The “judicial competency/bias” problems plaguing EOIR are large and well documented. Yet, Garland pretends like they don’t exist!
Has Alfred E. Neumann been “reborn” as Judge Merrick Garland? “Not my friends or relatives whose lives as being destroyed by my ‘Kangaroo Courts.’ Just ‘the others’ and their immigration lawyers, so who cares, why worry about professionalism, ethics, and due process in Immigration Court?” PHOTO: Wikipedia Commons
The Round Table of Former Immigration Judges Statement on EOIR’s Prior Restraint on NAIJ Speech
As former Immigration Judges and BIA Board Members we strongly protest the unconstitutional prior restraint imposed by the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) which effectively silences the officers of the National Association of Immigration Judges (NAIJ) and prohibits them from providing information or engaging in advocacy involving the complex workings of our nation’s Immigration Court system. We call for immediate reversal of this misguided policy.
In late February 2024 EOIR advised NAIJ officers that they could not speak publicly without obtaining advance permission through the agency’s “”SET” (Speaking Engagement Team) process, a requirement which was never imposed before. This is a cumbersome, multistep process which requires Immigration Judges to seek permission from their supervisors, the SET unit, and sometimes even EOIR’s Ethics team and the Office of Policy. It provides no time frames for decisions nor any opportunity for review of adverse determinations. It is a process which is wildly incompatible with the practical realities involved in responding to media or congressional inquiries which often involve extremely short deadlines, sometimes mere hours or days. Mandating union officers use this process is a thinly disguised gag order.
This step is a dramatic departure from a precedent of more than 50 years, since NAIJ was established in 1973 and was never previously mandated to seek prior approval for appearances or speech. It ignores the uncontroverted fact that NAIJ officials scrupulously provide disclaimers indicating that they are not speaking on behalf of EOIR [or its parent, the Department of Justice (DOJ)] or articulating any position except that held by NAIJ members. It unfairly penalizes NAIJ officers who risk personal discipline for insubordination should they fail to comply but are then hampered in the duties owed to their union members when they remain silent.
NAIJ has played a pivotal role fostering the independence and increased professionalism of the Immigration Courts. It brought home to Congress the crucial function that IJs serve in the deportation and removal process, not as prosecutors but rather as neutral arbiters. This resulted in a change in job title from Special Inquiry Officer to Immigration Judge in 1996, with a concomitant enhanced special pay rate intended to broaden and improve the candidate pool for new judges. NAIJ was a crucial player in efforts to protect the independence of the Immigration
Courts in 2002 by leading the successful effort to keep the court independent from the newly created Department of Homeland Security despite strong opposition to that end by the administration and DOJ. At that time, NAIJ argued presciently that the establishment of an Article I Court was the only enduring way to safeguard the sanctity of these courts which hear “death penalty cases in a traffic court setting.” While NAIJ did not succeed in achieving that lofty goal then, legislation to do just that is currently pending in Congress, largely due to NAIJ’s tireless advocacy and coalition building. NAIJ’s voice in the media often stands alone explaining the practical implications of the complex workings of our immigration removal laws since DOJ eschews comments despite the American standard in jurisprudence which emphasizes transparency in its tribunals. NAIJ is the only spokesperson for IJs in the field, who have the first-hand view of court operations. Without NAIJ speech, no views from these benches in the trenches will be heard.
Perhaps worst of all, this policy deprives the American public of the views of an important, informed group which can shed light on the realities of the implementation of immigration laws and policy at a time when public scrutiny is at an all-time high and accurate factual information scarce. Under this new policy, NAIJ officers cannot even speak at educational or professional seminars or other public events without DOJ approval and instruction as to precisely what they can or cannot say.
Government employees do not surrender their First Amendment rights when they take office. To the contrary, their duty to educate the public is heightened and their voice enhanced by their informed opinions and expertise.
We urge EOIR to restore NAIJ’s important voice and revoke this new policy. ###
The Round Table of Former Immigration Judges is composed of 56 former Immigration Judges and Appellate Immigration Judges of the Board of Immigration Appeals. We were appointed and served under both Republican and Democratic administrations. Members of our group have served in training and management roles at EOIR. Several of our members were officers and leaders in NAIJ and were instrumental in guiding NAIJ to accomplish the achievements described above. Combined we have decades of experience and unique expertise in the immigration court system and the field of immigration law.
For media inquiries, please contact Hon. Dana Leigh Marks (ret.) at danamarks@pobox.com or (415) 577-9831
3/25/24
Hon. Dana Leigh Marks U.S. Immigration Judge (Retired) San Francisco Immigration Court Past President, National Association of Immigration Judges, Member Round Table of Former Immigration JudgesKnightess of the Round Table
************************
Hon. Jeffrey S. Chase Jeffrey S. Chase Blog Coordinator & Chief Spokesperson, Round Table of Former Immigration Judges
MINI-ESSAY: NAIJ IS AN ESSENTIAL FORCE FOR JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE
By Judge (Ret.) Jeffrey S. Chase
March 25, 2024
In Matter of A-R-C-G-, the BIA at footnote 16 recognized that AILA, UNHCR, and CGRS in their amicus briefs had all argued that gender alone should be sufficient to constitute a valid PSG in the matter. However, the Board chickened out, stating that because they were recognizing the narrower group stipulated to by DHS, “we need not reach this issue.”
I think the real proof of the validity of gender per se as a PSG is found in what happened after Sessions issued Matter of A-B-. With A-R-C-G- vacated, IJs all around the country began issuing detailed written decisions recognizing gender plus nationality, and explaining why such group met all of the legal requirements. This was done by IJs with very different grant rates, across different circuits, and included at least one ACIJ. And remember, this was done under an AG that clearly didn’t want IJs to reach that conclusion.
Which allows me to segue into our next issue: a major reason that IJs felt empowered to issue those decisions that were clearly not to the AG’s liking was due to the decades of effort by the NAIJ on behalf of judicial independence. Our public statement, prepared by our esteemed colleague Judge Dana Marks with input from others in our group, criticizing EOIR’s recent gag order on NAIJ officers, who for the first time will now be required to request agency permission to speak publicly, is a powerful reminder of the essential role played by NAIJ in protecting judicial independence, promoting due process and fundamental fairness, and, ultimately, saving lives of those seeking justice from our nation.
***********************
Thanks to Dana, “Sir Jeffrey,” and all our other wonderful Round Table colleagues for speaking out so forcefully in favor of due process for all and judicial independence!
Under Garland, the BIA’s approach to gender-based asylum has too often remained tethered to the past. Woman Being “Tried By Ordeal” 17th Century Woodcut Public Realm Source: Ancient Origins Website https://www.ancient-origins.net/history/trial-ordeal-life-or-death-method-judgement-004160
Hon. “Sir Jeffrey” S. Chase reports to the Round Table⚔️🛡️:
Hi all: Another win to report, in a First Circuit case in which we filed a joint amicus brief with immigration law professors (and some in our group actually fit within both categories!).
However, the court declined to address our argument regarding the correct nexus standard for withholding claims (as opposed to asylum claims). The reason is that the court found that the BIA misstated one of the petitioner’s particular social groups, such that (according to the circuit court):
In sum, the BIA rejected a PSG of its own devising and not the social group Ferreira advanced. Its characterization substantively altered the meaning of Ferreira’s proffered PSG and amounts to legal error.
The court directed:
On remand, the BIA should carefully consider Ferreira’s gender-based PSG in light of our decisions in De Pena-Paniagua and Espinoza-Ochoa.
Both of those cited decisions were quite favorable to the petitioners.
Hon. Jeffrey S. Chase Jeffrey S. Chase Blog Coordinator & Chief Spokesperson, Round Table of Former Immigration Judges
*****************
Fear mongering and myth making by politicos of both parties, with the connivance of the media, deflect attention from the real problem: a dysfunctional U.S. asylum adjudication system that hugely and disingenuously over-rejects and under-protects, in addition to being too slow and unconstitutionally inconsistent. Thus, both parties intentionally skew the statistics against asylum seekers and feed racially-driven nativist “talking points” about the border!
The BIA/OIL claim that the gender-based psg is not recognizable is utterly preposterous!It took me fewer than 5 minutes of internet research to find this very recent Trinidad government report recognizing that gender-based violence is an endemic and well-documented problem that disproportionately affects women and girls in Trinidad. While the report sets forth an “aspirational multi-year plan” to address the problem (“willing to protect”), there is no indication that the plan is reasonably effective at present (“but unable to do so at present”).
Here is some other “choice commentary” from Round Table members:
“A win is a win–again ‘calling’ the BIA on doing the wrong thing!”
“Great job, Team!! Let’s keep up this winning streak.”
“Wow – great! As Paul would say, another bad Garland/BIA Fiasco. Making up a psg and then denying relief because of it. Funny if it were not so tragic!“
“Yes, especially when they are telling IJs they can’t even determine what PSG fits the facts of the case unless the Respondent gets it just right! Yet they can make up whatever they want and then say it doesn’t fit the facts or isn’t cognizable!”
“When we were at the International Judges conference that [Paul] organized at Georgetown, all of the international judges said that gender was a recognized psg in their countries—even the countries where women are discriminated against and/or persecuted!”
“Like most of you, I am at a loss to understand how gender, alone, does not meet every requirement of PSG. The BIA position on this is inexplicable, and IMO, at minimum, borders on frivolous.“
Roger that! Intentionally ignoring the obvious and failing in the duty to consistently recognize and prioritize many easy grants of asylum and other protection is the “elephant in the room” for the U.S. justice system!
No wonder spineless politicos, judges, and the media want to shift attention away from their shared responsibility for a glaringly unjust and inept asylum system to blame the hapless victims of their collective failure — whose lives and futures are on the line!
Hon. Jeffrey S. Chase Jeffrey S. Chase Blog Coordinator & Chief Spokesperson, Round Table of Former Immigration Judges
Hon. “Sir Jeffrey” Chase reports:
Hi all: The Supreme Court just issued its opinion in Wilkinson v. Garland, in which our group filed an amicus brief. The Court held that the exceptional and extremely unusual hardship determination in cancellation B cases (involving non-LPRs) is a mixed question of fact and law, and is thus reviewable by circuit courts on appeal. The Court thus reversed the Third Circuit’s determination that it lacked jurisdiction.
The decision was 6-3. Sotomayor wrote the majority opinion; Jackson wrote a concurring opinion, and Roberts and Alito wrote dissenting opinions.
Our amicus brief argued:
In amici’s experience, whether the facts of a particular case satisfy the “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” eligibility criteria for cancellation is a mixed question of law and fact.
This decision will have a major impact on cancellation B cases, as the Board’s hardship determinations will now be subject to wide circuit court review.
This case makes a huge difference! Circuit review will ratchet up the pressure on the BIA to cut the “any reason to deny” BS 💩 and start doing a quality review in every case! If not, given the number of cancellation cases in the system, there are going to be lots more Circuit remands that will jack the backlog even higher!
As put by one “Round Tabler,” this will “impact the scholarship and often times lack of analytical rigor by the Board, knowing that it is no longer completely insulated from review of its hardship determinations.” You betcha!
And don’t ever underestimate the adverse impact on due process and justice that occurs when, knowing that its decisions are “immune” from judicial review, the BIA is “pushed by the political powers that be” to cut corners, “crank the numbers,” and “keep the removal assembly line moving!” That’s why political control over the BIA’s decision-making has such an outsized adverse impact on justice for immigrants and undermines the key constitutional due process principle of “fair and impartial justice for all.”
“Justice” — While totally unjustifiable, it’s perhaps understandable why A.G. Merrick Garland wants to suppress criticism from IJs of his courts’ failure to provide due process and uphold the rights of asylum seekers at the border and elsewhere! It’s a major driver of disorder at the border!
Two items from the indomitable Dan Kowalski @ LexisNexis:
“LEXISNEXIS EXCLUSIVE: How Low Will They Go? – An Outraged Retired IJ Speaks (Because She Can)”
This broad edict applies even when a judge seeks to speak at an event in their personal capacity and agrees to provide a clear disclaimer that the views expressed do not
reflect an official position of EOIR or DOJ. It means a judge cannot explain the basics of immigration law to a church group interested in sponsoring refugees or even a middle
school civics class. The application of this process to NAIJ officers ignores the well known fact that many reporters operate on deadlines of mere hours and do not provide their questions in advance. It is also hard to understand how EOIR dismisses the clear disclaimer, scrupulously provided, that NAIJ comments do not represent the Department’s views.
Perhaps most puzzling about this turn of events is how this step can be taken during the Biden administration, one which says it seeks to empower federal workers and their
unions. It is simply breathtaking in the worst of ways that the DOJ through EOIR is taking this step in clear violation of the First Amendment. The United States Supreme Court has made it abundantly clear that federal employees don’t check their First Amendment rights at the door when they accept employment. To the contrary, the Court has
recognized the unique “special value” to the public of speech by public employees on matters related to their employment. In stark contrast to EOIR’s position, the Code of
Conduct for U.S. Judges affirmatively encourages federal judges to speak, write, lecture, teach and participate in other activities concerning the law, the legal system and
the administration of justice. And whatever happened to whistleblower protections? Are they suspended when they reveal information which can be viewed as critical of an agency?
In defense of its action, EOIR cites the tepid, generic excuse that it is merely promoting the efficiency of the service it is charged with performing. It asserts that using personal
capacity speech (as opposed to official speech by its designated spokespersons), even with a disclaimer, can have real adverse effects on the agency’s mission. It claims that
the SET process was established to promote public confidence in IJ impartiality, despite clear Supreme Court guidance that judicial partiality is narrowly defined as a lack of bias
for or against a party in the proceeding. If that is not clear enough, that standard was set forth in a decision which protected the rights of judicial candidates to announce their
views on disputed legal or political issues, a bridge NAIJ officers never cross because NAIJ is a nonpolitical professional organization whose members’ personal viewpoints
span the spectrum.
EOIR’s gag order against NAIJ officers is an outrageous and dangerous policy that should not go unnoticed and unremedied. Those of us who can speak must speak out
and take action to prevent this policy change from being continued.”
The Honorable Dana Leigh Marks (retired) served as an Immigration Judge in San Francisco from January 1987 until December 2021. During her tenure she was an active member of NAIJ from the start, serving seven two-year terms as President and two two-year terms as Vice President. Since ending her term as president in 2017 she has served as President Emerita of NAIJ. The opinions expressed here are her personal ones and are not intended to set forth the formal position of NAIJ on the matters discussed. To hear their views, you will have to contact its officers. Uh oh. I guess you can’t…….
Hon. Dana Leigh Marks Retired U.S. Immigration Judge Past President, National Association of Immigration Judges, Member of The Round Table of Former IJs.
2. ACROSS THE BOARD OUTRAGE: Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) Sends Garland Scathing Letter: “Completely Unacceptable!”
I write to you regarding concerning allegations that the Biden Justice Department is unlawfully attempting to prohibit its employees from making legally protected disclosures to Congress. It’s been reported that the Justice Department Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) Chief Immigration Judge Sheila McNulty issued an order on February 15, 2024, prohibiting immigration judges from speaking publicly without prior agency approval.1 The news report claims that the issuance of this order comes as some immigration judges have spoken out publicly on significant case backlogs at the immigration court, testified before Congress, participated in panel discussions, and made themselves available to the media.2 It’s been reported that the order prohibits immigration judges from speaking with Congress without prior agency approval, and it’s speculated that Chief Immigration Judge McNulty issued this directive in response to the testimony Immigration Judge Mimi Tsankov gave before Congress last fall.3 In that October 18, 2023, testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Judge Tsankov said that the Justice Department lacked leadership and was ineffective in its management of the immigration courts.4 It’s critically important that immigration judges communicate with Congress particularly when the Biden administration’s leadership and policy failures have created an unprecedented immigration crisis at our Southern Border. If the allegations that the Justice Department has sought to silence immigration judges from communicating with and testifying before Congress are true and accurate, the Biden Justice Department’s conduct is absolutely unacceptable.
. . . .
Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) Official Photo
***************************
Read the full statements of Judge Marks and Sen.Grassley at the links above.
Thanks for speaking out, Dana, my friend and Round Table colleague! As Dana points out, the Speaking Engagement Team (“SET”) process acts to deter IJs from public speaking at educational and other events. It’s an example of how within DOJ, EOIR “management” gets sidetracked with creating unnecessary bureaucratic “gatekeepers” and “handlers” rather than focusing on due process, fundamental fairness, best practices, and quality control! Those are the things that are broken at EOIR.
Also, well-known immigration commentator Nolan Rappaport provided the following helpful resource on Federal employee rights to communicate with Congress:
Instead, Garland, once again, has unnecessarily and incompetently, stepped into a “hornet’s nest!” And, the Biden Administration, inexplicably and indolently, has allowed him to do so. Sen.Grassley is “spot on” in this letter. And, that’s something I don’t often say.
Now, if the Senator will just call up his colleague Sen. Alex Padilla (D-CA) and get behind the Article I legislation effort, the problem can be solved in a bipartisan manner that will give a huge boost to the quality of justice in America! The evidence that EOIR is not “viable” within DOJ or any other Executive Agency is overwhelming. This is just a graphic illustration of why we need the Article I change that Judge Mimi Tsankov, (Ret) Judge Dana Marks, and many other experts and legislators have been supporting before Congress and in other public forums! See, e.g., https://youtu.be/MEJ093pDGI4%C2%A0.
In the interim, the Administration should immediately appoint an “Immigration Czar” and expert task force along the lines recommended by Heidi Altman of NIJC to supersede Garland’s and Mayorkas’s incompetent and damaging “management” of existing migration programs and policies and lay the groundwork for a smooth transition to Art 1. https://wp.me/p8eeJm-9PM.
DISCLOSURE: I am a proud retired member of the NAIJ.
SAN DIEGO (AP) — A 53-year-old union of immigration judges has been ordered to get supervisor approval to speak publicly to anyone outside the Justice Department, potentially quieting a frequent critic of heavily backlogged immigration courts in an election year.
The National Association of Immigration Judges has spoken regularly at public forums, in interviews with reporters and with congressional staff, often to criticize how courts are run. It has advocated for more independence and free legal representation. The National Press Club invited its leaders to a news conference about “the pressures of the migrant crisis on the federal immigration court system.”
The Feb. 15 order requires Justice Department approval “to participate in writing engagements (e.g., articles; blogs) and speaking engagements (e.g., speeches; panel discussions; interviews).” Sheila McNulty, the chief immigration judge, referred to a 2020 decision by the Federal Labor Relations Authority to strip the union of collective bargaining power and said its earlier rights were “not valid at present.”
The order prohibits speaking to Congress, news media and professional forums without approval, said Matt Biggs, president of the International Federation of Professional & Technical Engineers, an umbrella organization that includes the judges’ union. He said the order contradicted President Joe Biden’s “union-friendly” position and vowed to fight it.
“It’s outrageous, it’s un-American,” said Biggs. “Why are they trying to silence these judges?”
. . . .
**************************
Read the complete article at the above link.
Ukase Public Domain
Courtesy of my friend Dan Kowalski over at LexisNexis, here’s the text of what is being called the “McNulty Ukase:”
From: Chief Immigration Judge, OCIJ (EOIR) Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2024 11:53 AM To: Tsankov, Mimi (EOIR) ; Cole, Samuel B. (EOIR) Cc: Weiss, Daniel H (EOIR) ; Luis, Lisa (EOIR) ; Young, Elizabeth L. (EOIR) ; Anderson, Jill (EOIR) <
Subject: Public Engagements and Speaking Requests
Dear Judges Cole and Tsankov:
From recent awareness of your public engagements, I understand you are of the impression that your positions in the group known as the National Association of Immigration Judges (NAIJ) permit you to participate in writing engagements (e.g., articles; blogs) and speaking engagements (e.g., speeches; panel discussions; interviews) without supervisory approval and any Speaking Engagement Team review your supervisor believes necessary. The agency understands this is a point of contention for you, but any bargaining agreement related to that point that may have existed previously is not valid at present. Please consider this email formal notice that you are subject to the same policies as every EOIR employee. To ensure consistency of application of agency policies—and prevent confusion among our staff—please review the SET policy and work with your supervisor to ensure your compliance with it, effective immediately.
Thank you,
Sheila McNulty
Chief Immigration Judge
Executive Office for Immigration Review • Department of Justice
*******************
It’s perhaps no surprise. EOIR is a badly failing agency with an incredible ever-growing backlog of over 3 million cases, no plan for reducing it, antiquated procedures, a disturbing number of questionably-qualified judges (many holdovers from the Trump era), grotesque decisional inconsistencies, poor leadership, a tragic record of ignoring experts’ recommendations for improvements, and that produces a steady stream of sloppy, poorly-reasoned, or clearly erroneous decisions on the “nuts and bolts” of asylum and immigration law that are regularly “roasted” by Circuit Judges across the political spectrum.
In this context, their desire to strangle criticism from those actually trying to provide justice and due process, against the odds — the sitting Immigration Judges who see the management and systemic problems on a daily basis — is perhaps understandable, if not defensible.
At least where immigration is involved, the Biden Administration’s rhetoric and promises on being “labor friendly” and supportive of Federal workers is unfortunately reminiscent of its pledge to treat asylum seekers and immigrants fairly and humanely and to distance themselves from the racially-driven xenophobic policies of the Trump Administration.
While the NAIJ may be “gagged,” the fight about working conditions and the unrelenting dysfunction at EOIR is far from over!
Sources close to the NAIJ’s parent union, the IFPTE, tell me that the “campaign to call out this atrocity” is “just getting started.”
In statement issued yesterday, IFPTE President Matt Biggs expressed outrage and raised the possibility that the Administration could face tough Congressional questioning on the gag order, which also applies to communications with legislators and legislative staff:
“Just because a highly partisan decision by the FLRA’s board, that is likely to be reversed, limited NAIJ’s ability to collectively bargain, doesn’t mean that NAIJ and its national union IFPTE can’t meet and confer with the DOJ, provide legal services to our members, have officers serve on professional committees, speak to the media, offer training and other services a union provides,” says Biggs. “In fact, for the past four years, NAIJ, with assistance from IFPTE, has provided all of that. We give judges a voice. Judge Tsankov regularly speaks to reporters and recently testified before Congress. This is an attempt to limit what the press and public know by placing a gag over the mouths of the judges on the front lines. The only thing that has changed in the past four years is an overreach by a federal bureaucrat.”
NAIJ has repeatedly sounded the alarm on the size of the backlog, the need for translators, raised courtroom security concerns and other issues related to immigration adjudication. It has been a strong advocate for judicial independence and questioned why the immigration courts are attached to the Department of Justice, rather than being placed in an independent agency. The National Press Club recently invited both Tsankov and Cole to speak at a news conference on “the pressures of the migrant crisis on the federal immigration court system.”
“We believe that this order and un-American, anti-union act of censorship by McNulty will lead to Congressional hearings,” said Biggs. “Until this matter is resolved, the judges’ national union, IFPTE, will act as the voice for the immigration judges. McNulty may try, but the nation’s immigration judges won’t be silenced.”
As noted by Biggs, over the years, NAIJ leadership has frequently been asked to testify before Congress and meet with staff as an independent counterpoint to the “party line, everything is under control” nonsense that has become a staple of DOJ politicos and EOIR bureaucrats in administrations of both parties in dealing with the Hill as the backlog continued to explode in plain view!
Although the Biden Administration has curiously shown little hesitation in throwing asylum seekers, human rights, and advocates who were a key support group in 2020 “under the bus” in an ill-advised attempt to “out-Trump-Trump” on stupidity and inhumanity at the border, the IFPTE could be a different animal. Representing more than 80,000 government professionals, the union endorsedBiden/Harris in 2020.
With a hotly-contested, close election underway, Biden can ill-afford to alienate more key support groups, particularly among organized labor. Why the “geniuses” in the White House and the Biden/HarrisCampaign think that going to war with your base is a great, “winning” strategy, is beyond me! Even Donald Trump recognizes the benefit of energizing behind him a loyal and committed (although horribly misguided) “base!”
*****************
Tellingly, and illustrating this issue’s cosmic importance, the Ohio Immigrant Alliance just released its blockbuster report documenting systemic racism at EOIR entitled “The System Works As Designed: Immigration Law, Courts, & Consequences” —
This report is based on the experiences of immigrants, lawyers, and immigration court observers, as well as external research. “The System Works as Designed” reveals how U.S. immigration laws, and the courts themselves, were planted on a foundation of white supremacy, power imbalance, and coercive control. For those reasons, they fail to protect human dignity and lives on a daily basis.
While the operations of the immigration courts have frequently been ignored, their outcomes could not be more consequential to immigrants and their loved ones. This report lifts the curtain.
Racism in Immigration Law and Policies
It is clear from the congressional record, and laws themselves, that the Chinese Exclusion Act, Undesirable Aliens Act, Immigration and Nationality Acts of 1924 and 1952, and other laws played on racial and ethnic stereotypes to limit mobility and long-term settlement of non-white immigrants.
The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 attempted to address some imbalances, but the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act basically broke the already contradictory set of laws, making them a landmine for immigrants attempting to seek safety or build new lives here. The REAL ID Act and other post-9/11 laws and policies tightened the vise.
Policy choices made by presidents from every modern administration have attempted to coerce, repress, and reject migration, a basic human survival act, instead of building safe paths people can use.
Death Penalty Consequences, Traffic Court Rules
The U.S. immigration courts were designed to offer the illusion of justice, while failing the people they purport to protect. Dysfunctional elements include:
A quasi-judicial structure that answers to the U.S. Attorney General in the Executive Branch and is not an independent judiciary; is blatantly influenced by ideology; and promotes quantity over quality decision making.
Power imbalances, such as the fact that the government is represented by attorneys 100% of the time, while immigrants often argue their cases without a legal guide. Detained immigrants are forced to “attend” their hearings via grainy video feed, while judges and counsel are together in courtrooms miles away. Yet immigration judges frequently deny requests for expert witnesses to appear remotely, citing challenges with communication and credibility. The deck is stacked.
4
Also, by detaining someone in jail for the duration of their civil immigration case, the government makes it harder for them to get a lawyer to help. The government is also using the psychological, financial, and physical toll of detention to try to break someone’s spirits and get them to give up.
Subjective “credibility determinations,” rife for bias and abuse. A case can be denied based on a judge’s feeling about the immigrant’s testimony, not facts. This is the barn door through which all manner of ignorance, bias, and ideology storm in.
Legal landmines make it harder for people who qualify for asylum to receive it, such as the one-year filing deadline; illogical definition of material support to terrorism; and the Biden asylum ban.
Differing standards of accuracy. Immigrants may be furnished interpreters who speak the wrong dialect. Judges and DHS attorneys may make inaccurate statements about an individual’s evidence or the political conditions of their country. The hearing transcripts can be riddled with gaps instead of key facts. Yet life-altering decisions are made based on this record, and an immigrant has little to no opportunity to object, correct, or explain.
Consider the experience of M.D. a Black Mauritanian man seeking asylum in the U.S. after the late 1980s/early 1990s genocide. An immigration judge questioned his credibility because M.D. did not provide “evidence” that he is Black and Fulani, a persecuted group in Mauritania. M.D. addressed the court, speaking in Fulani, and said, “I am the evidence. I speak Fulani and I am Black.”
The English transcript of M.D.’s hearing is riddled with “(unintelligible)” in place of the names of relatives and locations where important events, such as the murder of his father, took place. There was an interpreter in the room who could have spelled the words out to make the record more accurate and credible. Instead, the record shows big holes in place of material facts, while M.D. was accused of not providing “proof” that he is Black, deemed not credible, denied asylum.
In another case, a Black man seeking asylum was found “not credible” because his interpreter first used the word “canoe” when describing his method of escape, and later said “little boat.” But in his language and, one can argue, in common English, they are the same thing.
Situations like these, memorialized in the case record, are carried into the appeals process where rehearings typically do not take place, compounding the injustices of these mistakes.
Many of the report’s observations echo some aspects my own writings and public speeches over the years since I retired from the bench in June 2016. For example, here’s my speech “JUSTICE BETRAYED: THE INTENTIONAL MISTREATMENT OF CENTRAL AMERICAN ASYLUM APPLICANTS BY THE EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW“ from from an FBA Conference in Austin, Texas in May 2019:
While I was speaking during the Trump Administration, sadly, many of my observations remain equally true today, as the Biden Administration and AG Garland have quite inexcusably failed to rise to the occasion by instituting long-overdue due process and quality control reforms at EOIR. Yet, I am struck by how even then, as today, I found reasons to continue to be proud of the accomplishments of the “New Due Process Army” (“NDPA”) and to urge others to continue tobelieve that the “light of due process will eventually be relit” at EOIR and that history will deal harshly with the xenophobic urges and anti-asylum attitudes that too often drive policy in administrations of both parties:
Today, the Immigration Courts have become an openly hostile environment for asylum seekers and their representatives. Sadly, the Article III Courts aren’t much better, having largely “swallowed the whistle” on a system that every day blatantly mocks due process, the rule of law, and fair and unbiased treatment of asylum seekers. Many Article IIIs continue to “defer” to decisions produced not by “expert tribunals,” but by a fraudulent court system that has replaced due process with expediency and enforcement.
But, all is not lost. Even in this toxic environment, there are pockets of judges at both the administrative and Article III level who still care about their oaths of office and are continuing to grant asylum to battered women and other refugees from the Northern Triangle. Indeed, I have been told that more than 60 gender-based cases from Northern Triangle countries have been granted by Immigration Judges across the country even after Sessions’s blatant attempt to snuff out protection for battered women in Matter of A-B-. Along with dependent family members, that means hundreds of human lives of refugees saved, even in the current age.
Also significantly, by continuing to insist that asylum seekers from the Northern Triangle be treated fairly in accordance with due process and the applicable laws, we are making a record of the current legal and constitutional travesty for future generations. We are building a case for an independent Article I Immigration Court, for resisting nativist calls for further legislative restrictions on the rights of asylum seekers, and for eventually holding the modern day “Jim Crows” who have abused the rule of law and human values, at all levels of our system, accountable, before the “court of history” if nothing else!
Eventually, we will return to the evolving protection of asylum seekers in the pre-2014 era and eradicate the damage to our fundamental values and the rule of law being done by this Administration’s nativist, White Nationalist policies. That’s what the “New Due Process Army” is all about.
That brings me back to two of my “key takeaways” from the Ohio Immigrant Alliance Report.
First: “Withholding is a true limbo status, though better than being sent back to certain death.” Skillfully and aggressively using the system to save lives, in any way possible, is job one. A life saved is always a victory!
Second, as the report concludes:
Solutions exist, but they require policymakers and legislators to listen to the people with direct, personal experience. Ramata, cited earlier in this report, suggests quicker approval of cases found credible at the outset. Aliou wants judges to put more stock in migrants’ testimony, understanding that persecuting governments are not credible sources about their own abuse. Jennifer, one of the immigration lawyers we interviewed, suggested that Black immigrant organizations and the American Immigration Lawyers Association be involved in crafting a new direction, citing their extensive expertise with how the system works—and fails people.
Bill, another immigration lawyer interviewed for this report, suggests taking a page from the refugee resettlement program when it comes to verifying facts about a case. “Social workers and private investigators [could] interview people and research documents and try to … verify whether [they’re] telling the truth or not,” he said. Bill suggests employment counselors, ESL teachers, and others with specialized expertise could also assist in the processing of cases.
Most importantly, the asylum and immigration system must be reoriented toward prioritizing safety and resettlement, rather than deportation as the default outcome. The forthcoming report, “Behind Closed Doors: Black Migrants and the Hidden Injustices of US Immigration Courts,” will explore these and other solutions.
As I have observed many times, despite the “national BS” on asylum and immigration being traded by Trump and Biden, and the legislative gridlock, there are still plenty of readily available, non-legislative solutions out there that would dramatically improve due process, justice, and the life-saving capacity of the EOIR system. While no single one of them is a “silver bullet” that would solve all problems overnight, each is an important step in the right direction. Taken together, they would substantially improve the quality and quality of justice overall in our U.S. legal system and, perhaps, in the process, save our republic from demise.
🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!
PWS
03-06-24
This article has been revised to include an excerpt from the IFPTE press release.
FULL DISCLOSURE: I am a proud retired member of the NAIJ.
Where a State court order granting a respondent’s motion to vacate a conviction does not indicate the reason for the vacatur, and there is no other basis in the record to independently establish the reason, the respondent has not satisfied his burden to show that the court vacated his conviction because of a substantive or procedural defect in his criminal proceedings.
FOR THE RESPONDENT: William M. Sharma-Crawford, Esquire, Kansas City,
Missouri
BEFORE: Board Panel: HUNSUCKER, PETTY, and CLARK, Appellate Immigration
Judges.
PETTY, Appellate Immigration Judge: [Opinion]
******************************
SCHMIDT, Judge of the Round Table, dissenting:
I dissent.
This respondent moves to reopen and terminate proceedings. His motion is biased on a valid order of a Kansas State Judge vacating the conviction that was the basis for his removal. I would grant the motion and terminate proceedings.
Contrary to the panel’s claim, the basis for the respondent’s motion to vacate the conviction in state court is clear on this record: the respondent was ineffectively advised by counsel during his criminal proceedings where he pled guilty. Notably, the U.S. Supreme Court has found that failing to properly advise a defendant of the immigration consequences of his conviction is ineffective assistance under the sixth amendment to the Constitution. Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010).
According to the record, the prosecuting attorney agreed with the respondent’s assertion. On the basis of that agreement and his review of the record, the state judge granted the motion. Thus the record shows that the reason for the action was a violation of the respondent’s sixth amendment rights during his criminal proceedings. There is no evidence that the state court acted “solely for immigration purposes” as the BIA found in Matter of Pickering, 23 I&N Dec. 621, 625 (BIA 2003), rev’d on other grounds, Pickering v Gonzales, 465 F.3d 263 (6th Cir. 2006).Therefore, the panel’s reliance on Pickering is wrong.
Because there is no conviction supporting the DHS’s charge of removability, they have failed to meet their burden of proof. Consequently, these proceedings must be terminated.
Even if there were ambiguity in the state judge’s order, I would reach the same result. The INA places the burden of establishing removability on DHS by a very high “clear and convincing evidence” standard. INA section 240(c)(3)(A). Consequently, any ambiguities in the DHS’s proof must be construed against them. Therefore, even if I found some ambiguity as to the reason for the state judge’s order, the DHS would still fail to sustain their burden and proceedings should be terminated.
There is no evidence in this record that the state judge acted solely to eliminate immigration bars or for other rehabilitative purposes as was the case in Pickering. Therefore Pickering does not control. To get around this defect, the panel essentially invents a “presumption of immigration rehabilitative purposes” to fill the gap in their reasoning and save the DHS’s case. This attempt to overrule the statutory burden placed on DHS is clearly inappropriate.
For the foregoing reasons the DHS has not established the respondent’s removability by clear and convincing evidence. Therefore, I would grant the respondent’s motion to reopen and terminate proceedings. Consequently, I dissent from the panel’s unjustified denial of the motion.
