ROUNDTABLE OF FORMER IMMIGRATION JUDGES – Page 14

🇺🇸⚖️🗽👍🏼🏆👏🏽GOOD GOVERNMENT: BELEAGUERED FEDS WOULD FIND WELCOME RESPITE IN BIDEN ADMINISTRATION! — This Election Could Be “Last Call” For One Of The Cornerstones Of Our Democracy — A Competent, Honest, Career Civil Service!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/biden-federal-workers-unions/2020/08/26/62595932-e71c-11ea-a414-8422fa3e4116_story.html

Joe Davidson reports for WashPost:

If Joe Biden is elected president, he promises to overturn President Trump’s aggression against federal employee unions, support regular pay raises for federal employees and protect their workplace rights.

Biden, the Democratic nominee, has pledged to upend Trump’s actions concerning federal labor organizations on Inauguration Day in January. Trump’s assaults were codified in three executive orders he issued in 2018. They systematically undermined the ability of unions to represent not only their members, but all employees in agency collective-bargaining units.

Saying Trump “has loosed a direct attack on our members’ union rights and dignity on the job,” the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) questionnaire to Biden outlines policies the largest federal union wants reversed.

“This includes purging lawful representational activity from government worksites and equipment, weaponizing the bargaining process to propose, and in some cases impose, one-sided contracts, attacking our statutory right to collect voluntary dues, crippling our ability to mediate disputes on duty time, and more,” says the questionnaire’s introduction. “Taken together, these attacks constitute more than just a threat to our members’ livelihoods, they threaten the survival of the merit-based civil service system on which our government is built.”

AFGE endorsed Biden last month. In two internal polls, AFGE said its members supported Biden over Trump by more than 30 points.

The first question asked Biden to commit to overturning the executive orders and other directives that weaken employee due process and collective bargaining rights “on your first day in office.” Biden agreed and said “the federal government should serve as a role model for employers to treat their workers fairly.”

“On my first day in office,” he added, “I will restore federal employees’ rights to organize and bargain collectively, restore their right to official time, and direct agencies to bargain with federal employee unions.” Official time allows union leaders to represent employees, including those who are not union members, in grievance procedures and matters involving issues such as workplace safety and productivity, while being paid by the government.

[If he gets a presidential Day 1, Biden has a nearly endless list of ways to spend it]

In addition to Biden’s answers, the Democratic Party Platform promises to “strengthen labor rights for the more than 20 million public-sector employees” at all levels by supporting legislation that would “provide a federal guarantee for public-sector employees to bargain for better pay and benefits and the working conditions they deserve.”

While Trump has been relentless in his federal union offensive, all was not copacetic when Biden served as Barack Obama’s vice president. Government workers vehemently opposed three federal pay freezes imposed under Obama, with congressional approval, during an era of budget tightening.

But the Obama-Biden administration did not seek to fundamentally undermine unions as Trump has done or diminish federal workers. Obama’s stated effort to “make government cool again” contrasts sharply with Trump’s “drain the swamp” attitude toward government. Trump did not respond to AFGE’s questionnaire.

. . . .

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

Read the complete article at the link.

Just another instance where Biden is going to have to separate himself from some misguided, occasionally weak-kneed and shortsighted, Obama-era policies and establish himself as his own man, with a decidedly more practical, aware, and progressive approach. And, as a long-time public servant himself (albeit an elected one) — whose career has in many ways been built and furthered by the skills, expertise, and contributions of civil servants in all branches of Government — I believe he is up to the task. Indeed, he might well be the best-qualified candidate in my lifetime to save and enhance our now reeling and crumbling civil service — one of the “crown jewels” of American democracy now under unrelenting assault from a thoroughly corrupt Trump and his GOP nihilist “wrecking crew.”

For example, look at how the cowardly and totally unethical “Billy the Bigot” Barr tried to “punish” Judge Ashley Tabaddor and the National Association of Immigration Judges (“NAIJ”) (disclosure: I am a proud retired member) for speaking “truth to power.” As the only ones authorized to speak out on behalf of Immigration Judges (regardless of membership in the NAIJ), Judge Tabaddor and other NAIJ officials exposed the massive corruption, gross mismanagement, improper politicization, and medically dangerous working conditions at EOIR! As a result, Billy tried to silence her and the NAIJ by filing a frivolous action to “decertify” the NAIJ based on bogus reasons, many rejected by the FLRA in the past. This abuse of Government resources and process by Billy has since been dismissed after hearing by a FLRA official, as previously reported in “Courtside.”

As a civil servant for more than 35 years, serving in Administrations of both parties, at levels from “worker bee” to “Senior Exec,” and a veteran of 21 years on both levels of the Immigration Bench (when it actually more resembled a “real court” than the ridiculous parody engineered by Gonzo Apocalypto and Billy the Bigot), I know what I’m speaking about.

Incidentally, I was one of the “founding brothers and sisters” of the BIA employees’ union in the 1970s, and then went on to battle that same union before the FLRA during my tenure as BIA Chair in the late 1990s. So, like many issues in immigration during my career, I understand both sides.

But, I never questioned the BIA union’s authority to speak for the staff. In most ways, it was a good “focal point” for getting important issues out in the open and resolving them, even if the process was occasionally contentious and frustrating. And, I’d have to admit to getting some good ideas on management improvements from union officials. So good, in fact, that I actually hired some of them to become staff managers at the BIA.

Over my career, I was involved in thousands of asylum and refugee cases, many of them successful. Many were fleeing countries with great progressive “paper constitutions” and sometimes even very “facially reasonable” statutory law. A number of these countries had even signed the U.N. Refugee Convention. What often made these countries “persecutors” as opposed to “protectors” was in the “execution” rather than the “black letter law.”

Two characteristics that many of these persecutors had in common were: 1) an authoritarian executive who controlled a corrupt civil service usually “on the take,” staffed with family members, tribe members, or “party regulars,” and personally loyal to the leader rather than the constitution and statutes; and 2) “courts” that were either instruments of the leader and his tribe or party or too feckless to stand up against executive tyranny.

Under Trump and his corrupt GOP cronies, the US is well on its way to this type of “banana republic” public service in all three branches. And, don’t thank that a healthy economy or a robust stock market are “proof” against tyranny. Today’s China, as well as Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, are prime examples of how “economic success and power” do not necessarily equate with good government, equality, or lack of repression.

This November, vote like your life and the future of our democracy depend on it! Because they do!

PWS

08-26|-20

🏴‍☠️☠️🤮⚰️👎🏻BILLY THE BIGOT GOES BANANAS 🍌 WITH RACIST, ANTI-IMMIGRANT AGENDA @ EOIR AS ARTICLE IIIs TAKE A DIVE ON EQUAL JUSTICE FOR ALL!

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

Laura Lynch reports from AILA:

DOJ Proposes Regulation to Turn Immigration Appeals into Tool of the Administration’s Anti-Immigrant Agenda

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

August 26, 2020
Contact: George Tzamaras, gtzamaras@aila.org
Tessa Wiseman, twiseman@aila.org

Washington, DC – Today, the Department of Justice (DOJ) published a sweeping proposed rule in the Federal Register that would overhaul Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) processes and remove due process safeguards with an aim of fast-tracking deportations. The public has 30 days to comment on the proposed rule.

AILA’s Senior Policy Counsel, Laura Lynch, stated, “The proposal gives the Director of the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) extraordinary adjudicatory power over appeals, authorizing him to reverse, singlehandedly, BIA decisions at the request of immigration judges. Putting this much power in the hands of an administrator who is not even a judge will give the Trump administration unprecedented ability to manipulate the courts in furtherance of its deportation agenda. The need for independent immigration courts has never been more urgent, or clear. This exemplifies why AILA is calling on Congress to pass legislation creating an immigration court system separate and independent from DOJ.”

AILA’s First Vice President, Jeremy McKinney, added, “The realities of this proposed rule are grim—more power entrusted to a hand-selected bureaucrat, increased pressure for speedy decisions at the cost of due process, and a dismantling of an appeals process vital to a fair day in court. Deeply troubling is the rule’s codification of the prohibition former Attorney General Jeff Sessions tried to impose on judges’ ability to administratively close cases, a fundamental authority judges need to efficiently manage their overloaded dockets. At least two circuit courts have rejected Sessions’ analysis and overturned the decision. The proposed rule is part of a larger effort by the DOJ to exert improper political influence over immigration court decisions and to turn the immigration courts into an enforcement mechanism. It’s a power grab, pure and simple.”

###

The American Immigration Lawyers Association is the national association of immigration lawyers established to promote justice, advocate for fair and reasonable immigration law and policy, advance the quality of immigration and nationality law and practice, and enhance the professional development of its members.

Laura A. Lynch, Esq.

Senior Policy Counsel

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

Thanks, Laura, for all that you and AILA do to fight for equal justice for all and to combat the evil influence of Billy the Bigot and his toadies over at EOIR!

Litigate, litigate, litigate! Force the Article IIIs to confront on a mass basis the human carnage, overt xenophobia, mockery of justice, and racism that they have fostered with their timid and indolent approach to the massive assault on our justice system and human dignity from Billy the Bigot and the White Nationalist regime! Make a record for future generations to see who stepped up, who chickened out, and what kind of individuals hid behind their black robes while humanity suffered and the lives of some of the most vulnerable were unlawfully and unethically destroyed.

There is no excuse for the continued, unconstitutional EOIR abomination! Past time for the Article IIIs to call halt to this perverted charade and transfer all immigration hearings to U.S. Magistrate Judges until Congress and the Executive create a new, independent, constitutionally compliant Immigration Court!

Due Process Forever!

PWS

08-26-20

SENATORS DEMAND IG INVESTIGATE BIAS, CORRUPTION, GROSS MISMANAGEMENT @ EOIR!

Laura Lynch @ AILA reports:

FYI – On Friday, August 21st, Democratic members of the Senate Judiciary Committee sent a letter to the GAO requesting an investigation into the politicization of the immigration courts and EOIR’s mismanagement of the immigration courts during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Laura A. Lynch, Esq.

Senior Policy Counsel

Direct: 202.507.7627 I Email: llynch@aila.org

American Immigration Lawyers Association

Main: 202.507.7600 I Fax: 202.783.7853 I www.aila.org

1331 G Street NW, Suite 300, Washington, DC 20005

From: Davidson, Richard (Whitehouse) <Richard_Davidson@whitehouse.senate.gov>
Sent: Friday, August 21, 2020 3:24 PM
To: Davidson, Richard (Whitehouse) <Richard_Davidson@whitehouse.senate.gov>
Subject: Senators Call for GAO Investigation of Trump Politicization of Immigration Courts as COVID-19 Crisis Rages

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

August 21, 2020
Contact: Rich Davidson

(202) 228-6291 (press office)

Senators Call for GAO Investigation of Trump Politicization of Immigration Courts as COVID-19 Crisis Rages

Trump attacks on immigration system raise serious concerns about safety during pandemic

More than 1,000 people in immigration detention have tested positive for COVID-19, and five have died

Washington, DC – Today, Senators Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), Dick Durbin (D-IL), and Mazie Hirono (D-HI) led a Senate request to the top congressional watchdog to investigate the practices of the Executive Office of Immigration Review (EOIR) under President Trump, including its management of immigration courts during the current COVID-19 pandemic. In a letter to the Government Accountability Office (GAO), the senators raise concerns first voiced to the Justice Department in February about mismanagement of the EOIR under Attorney General William Barr, as well as the Trump administration’s regulatory and procedural changes at the Justice Department that have curtailed the independence of immigration courts. The administration’s mismanagement of and meddling with the immigration courts – done in the name of “efficiency” – are particularly troubling during the COVID-19 pandemic, when an overburdened system can lead to unsafe practices that place individuals at grave risk and jeopardize due process, the senators write to the GAO.

“While the Trump administration has justified its incursions into the independence of immigration courts as efficiency measures, legal service providers have explained that EOIR’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic demonstrates how the agency can use seemingly neutral measures to tip the scales of justice against noncitizens,” the senators write. “In order to defend themselves in immigration court, noncitizens must file motions and other papers in person at physical court locations; obtain counsel; meet with their attorneys; present testimony from family members, employers, and/or expert witnesses; and provide medical records, tax records, and other supporting documents. Yet COVID-19 makes these actions potentially dangerous.”

Joining Whitehouse, Durbin, and Hirono in the request to the GAO are Senators Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Patrick Leahy (D-VT), Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Chris Coons (D-DE), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Cory Booker (D-NJ), and Kamala Harris (D-CA).

The senators continue in their letter to GAO, “Immigration courts are now reopening around the country, including in areas that are seeing increases in the number of COVID-19 cases. Because EOIR does not have consistent policies for when attorneys, let alone translators or witnesses, may appear telephonically or by video, participants often must appear in person or not at all. Immigration courts have continued to issue in absentia orders of removal for noncitizens who do not appear, even when the likely cause is COVID-19. Nor has EOIR uniformly extended deadlines or continued cases, despite the difficulty noncitizens face in finding and consulting with counsel, obtaining and filing necessary documents and evidence, or securing the appearance of witnesses. These difficulties are particularly acute for detained clients, who have limited access to phone calls and attorney visits. As a result, noncitizens cannot obtain counsel or litigate their cases, and attorneys cannot effectively represent their clients.”

The Trump administration’s management of the immigration system has come under close scrutiny during the COVID-19 crisis. Reports suggest immigrants face a range of unsafe conditions and practices as a result of Trump administration management decisions, including the detention of children using unaccountable private contractors. More than 1,000 people in immigration detention have tested positive for COVID-19, and five people have died.

Full text of the senators’ request is below. A PDF copy is available here.

August 21, 2020

The Honorable Gene Dodaro

Comptroller General of the United States

United States Government Accountability Office

441 G Street, NW

Washington, DC 20548

Dear Mr. Dodaro:

We are writing to request that the Government Accountability Office (GAO) analyze and audit the Executive Office of Immigration Review’s (EOIR) practices with respect to the hiring, training, and evaluation of immigration judges and staffing of immigration courts, as well as their management of these courts during the current COVID-19 pandemic. GAO’s insight will help Congress determine if additional legislation is necessary to address these issues, as well as inform appropriations decisions.

In February, we wrote to Attorney General William Barr to express our concern that the Trump administration is undermining the independence of immigration courts. As outlined in that letter, attached, we are concerned about the mismanagement of EOIR and troubled by regulatory and procedural changes within the Department of Justice (DOJ) that have curtailed the independence of immigration courts. Although more than six months have passed, we have not received a response from DOJ or EOIR. Instead, in that time, EOIR has continued to use its administrative powers to put its thumb on the scale of justice. Most recently, EOIR attempted to buy out all nine career Board of Immigration Appeals judges who had been hired in prior administrations.[1] When the judges refused, they were reassigned to new roles.[2]

While the Trump administration has justified its incursions into the independence of immigration courts as efficiency measures,[3] legal service providers have explained that EOIR’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic demonstrates how the agency can use seemingly neutral measures to tip the scales of justice against noncitizens. In order to defend themselves in immigration court, noncitizens must file motions and other papers in person at physical court locations; obtain counsel; meet with their attorneys; present testimony from family members, employers, and/or expert witnesses; and provide medical records, tax records, and other supporting documents. Yet COVID-19 makes these actions potentially dangerous. While EOIR initially postponed all hearings for non-detained individuals, proceedings for detained noncitizens continued to move forward unabated.[4] Immigration courts are now reopening around the country,[5] including in areas that are seeing increases in the number of COVID-19 cases. Because EOIR does not have consistent policies for when attorneys, let alone translators or witnesses, may appear telephonically or by video,[6] participants often must appear in person or not at all.[7] Immigration courts have continued to issue in absentia orders of removal for noncitizens who do not appear, even when the likely cause is COVID-19.[8] Nor has EOIR uniformly extended deadlines or continued cases, despite the difficulty noncitizens face in finding and consulting with counsel, obtaining and filing necessary documents and evidence, or securing the appearance of witnesses. These difficulties are particularly acute for detained clients, who have limited access to phone calls and attorney visits.[9] As a result, noncitizens cannot obtain counsel or litigate their cases, and attorneys cannot effectively represent their clients.[10]

EOIR’s facially-neutral policies during the COVID-19 pandemic have raised systemic due process concerns.[11] Immigration judges, staff, and litigators have also expressed concerns about the health risks to them and the litigants who appear in immigration courts.[12] Given GAO’s prior work on immigration courts,[13] it is uniquely suited to conduct an audit and analysis of EOIR. We ask GAO to look into the following questions:

What criteria does EOIR use to hire immigration judges and Board of Immigration Appeals judges? What criteria does EOIR use to determine the number of deputy chief and other management positions for judges, and what criteria does EOIR use to hire for these positions? To what extent does EOIR assess its immigration judge and Board of Immigration Appeals judge hiring efforts? What, if any, challenges has EOIR encountered in recruiting and retaining immigration judges and Board of Immigration Appeals judges? How, if at all, has it addressed them?

How does EOIR determine targets for immigration court and Board of Immigration Appeals case completion time frames and caseloads?

To what extent has EOIR assessed its immigration court and Board of Immigration Appeals staffing needs? What have any such assessments shown? How do current immigration court staffing levels compare to staffing needs EOIR has identified?

How does EOIR assess immigration and Board of Immigration Appeals judge performance?

To what extent has EOIR assessed immigration judge and Board of Immigration Appeals judge training needs? What have any such assessments shown?

How has EOIR’s use of video teleconferencing changed since GAO last reported on it in 2017? What, if any, data is EOIR collecting on hearings using video teleconferencing and the effects of that technology on hearing outcomes?

How do EOIR’s practices compare to other administrative courts?

How, if at all, is EOIR addressing the backlog of cases that were postponed in response to the COVID-19 pandemic?

How, if at all, has EOIR’s response to COVID-19 affected noncitizens’ ability to locate and meet with counsel, obtain and present evidence in their cases, and appear in court? To what extent have the challenges of COVID-19 impacted the number of in absentia orders issued by immigration courts?

Please keep our offices apprised of your review. Thank you for your attention to this matter.

###

[1] Tanvi Misra, DOJ ‘reassigned’ career members of Board of Immigration Appeals, CQ Roll Call, June 9, 2020, available at https://www.rollcall.com/2020/06/09/doj-reassigned-career-members-of-board-of-immigration-appeals/.

[2] Id.

[3] Jeff Sessions, Attorney General, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Remarks to the Executive Office for Immigration Review Legal Training Program (Jun. 11, 2018), available at https://www.justice.gov/opa/speech/attorney-general-sessions-delivers-remarks-executive-office-immigration-review-legal.

[4] Executive Office for Immigration Review, EOIR Operational Status During Coronavirus Pandemic, https://www.justice.gov/eoir/eoir-operational-status-during-coronavirus-pandemic (last updated Aug. 19, 2020); American Immigration Lawyers Association, “AILA Tracks EOIR’s Historical Operational Status During Coronavirus Pandemic,” https://www.aila.org/eoir-operational-status (last visited Aug. 19, 2020).

[5] American Immigration Lawyers Association, supra note 4.

[6] Id.

[7] Emergency Mot. for a Temporary Restraining Order, Nat’l Imm. Project of the Nat’l Lawyers Guild v. Exec. Office of Imm. Review, No. 1:20-cv-00852-CJN, at 12-18 (D.D.C. Apr. 8, 2020), available at https://www.aila.org/advo-media/press-releases/2020/temporary-restraining-order-requested-to-stop.

[8] Id. at 15-16.

[9] Monique O. Madan, Despite national shortage, immigration lawyers required to bring their own medical gear, Miami Herald, Mar. 22, 2020, https://miamiherald.com/news/local/immigration/artcile241414486.html.

[10] Id. 12-15, 25-26.

[11] Betsy Woodruff Swan, Union: DOJ deportation appeals workers fear overcrowding, Politico, Apr. 23, 2020, https://www.politico.com/news/2020/04/23/doj-union-immigration-deportation-coronavirus-202075 (“That is the feeling the [EOIR] employees have, that [EOIR’s COVID response is] definitely connected to this administration and their desperation to be able to boast about how great they’re doing on their deportation numbers.”).

[12] Nat’l Assoc. of Immigration Judges, Am. Assoc. of Immigration Lawyers, & Am. Fed. Of Gov’t Employees Local 511, Position on the Health and Safety of Immigration Courts During the COVID-19 Pandemic, Mar. 15, 2020, available at https://naij-usa.org/images/uploads/newsroom/2020.03.15.00.pdf.

[13] See, e.g., Gov’t Accountability Office, Immigration Courts: Actions Needed to Reduce Case Backlog and Address Long-Standing Management and Operational Challenges (June 2017).

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

Basically, confirms what AILA, NAIJ, our Round Table, NGOs, and much of the media have been saying for a long time now! Obviously, the Dems lack the power in the Senate to take effective action to eliminate EOIR and replace it with an independent Article I Court, at present. Hopefully, that will be remedied in November.

In the meantime, what’s the excuse of the Article IIIs for continuing to allow this mockery of our Constitution and parody of justice to continue to daily inflict abuse on their fellow humans?

Due Process Forever!

PWS

08-25-20

🛡⚔️⚖️ADVENTURES OF THE ROUND TABLE: Latest Amicus Brief To Supremes Weighs In On “Stop Time Rule” — Niz-Chávez v. Barr — Many Thanks to The Pro Bono Stars @ Gibson Dunn!

Hon. Jeffrey S. Chase
Jeffrey S. Chase Blog
Coordinator & Chief Spokesperson, Round Table of Former Immigration Judges

Niz-Chavez Amicus Brief TO FILE

No. 19-863 IN THE

_______________

AGUSTO NIZ-CHAVEZ,

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent.

_______________

On Writ Of Certiorari

To The United States Court of Appeals For the Sixth Circuit _______________

BRIEF OF THIRTY-THREE FORMER IMMIGRATION JUDGES AND MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS

AS AMICI CURIAE

IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER _______________

RICHARD W. MARK

Counsel of Record

AMER S. AHMED

TIMOTHY SUN

DORAN J. SATANOVE

GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 200 Park Avenue

New York, NY 10166 (212) 351-4000 rmark@gibsondunn.com

Counsel for Amici Curiae

INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE

1

1

Amici curiae are thirty-three former immigration judges and members of the Board of Immigration Ap- peals (“BIA” or “Board”).2

Amici curiae have dedicated their careers to the immigration court system and to upholding the immi gration laws of the United States. Each is intimately familiar with the functioning of immigration courts and is invested in improving the fairness and effi- ciency of the United States immigration scheme. Amici curiae’s extensive experience adjudicating im- migration cases provides a unique perspective on the procedures and practicalities of immigration proceed- ings.

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

The straightforward question this case presents is one of enormous practical significance: Must the ini- tial written notice served on noncitizens to commence their removal proceedings provide—in one docu- ment—the “time and place at which the proceedings will be held” (along with charges and other specified information) in order to satisfy the requirements of 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a), or does the statute allow the govern- ment to cobble together the required elements of a “notice to appear” from multiple documents, issued at different times, some containing misinformation, and

1 All parties have consented to the filing of this brief. Amici state that this brief was not authored in whole or in part by coun- sel for any party, and that no person or entity other than amici or their counsel made a monetary contribution intended to fund the preparation or submission of this brief.

2 The appendix provides a complete list of signatories.

2

none of which alone contains all of the statutorily re- quired information?

Reversing the Sixth Circuit and holding that § 1229(a)’s requirements must be included in a single document will greatly reduce the procedural and bu- reaucratic errors attendant in a two-step process that detrimentally impact thousands of noncitizens law- fully seeking to remain in this country.

I. For noncitizens applying for cancellation of re- moval, service of a valid “notice to appear” under § 1229(a) triggers the so-called “stop-time” rule, which terminates the period of continuous presence required for cancellation eligibility. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1229b(d)(1), 1229b(a)(2), 1229b(b)(1)(A). Separately but relatedly, for noncitizens ordered removed in ab- sentia, whether that “severe” penalty, Pereira v. Ses- sions, 138 S. Ct. 2105, 2111 (2018), is proper depends on whether the notice served on the noncitizen satis- fied the requirements of §1229(a). 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(A). This Court’s decision will thus touch not only those like Petitioner who are seeking cancel- lation of removal, but also those who may not even have been provided sufficient notice to appear for their removal hearings—and potentially severely punished as a result.

II. The Sixth Circuit’s ruling approves a two-step notice process that involves: (i) the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) serving on a noncitizen a putative notice to appear lacking time-and-place in- formation (or, perhaps worse, that includes fake time- and-place information), and (ii) only after that notice to appear is filed and docketed with the immigration court, the immigration court separately sending a “no- tice of hearing” supplying the time-and-place infor- mation to the noncitizen.

3

Under this two-step process an initial notice lack- ing § 1229(a)’s time-and-place information languishes in a proverbial “No Man’s Land” until the notice is filed with an immigration court and entered into the court’s computer systems—a process that can take years. This delay increases the risk of procedural er- rors and lost filings, such as crucial Change of Address forms, which can result in noncitizens never receiving time-and-place information at all—potentially result- ing in wholly unjustified in absentia removal orders.

Sorting through those issues adds to immigration judges’ fact-finding burdens by requiring them to di- vert attention from the merits of a case to investigate collateral issues like whether time-and-place infor- mation was provided in a second document; whether that document was properly served; and whether a fil- ing like a Change of Address form was submitted but ultimately lost in “No Man’s Land.” When coupled with the pressure to complete cases—even if it means churning out in absentia removal orders without fully considering whether the noncitizen received adequate time-and-place notice—the result may be an increase in unwarranted removal orders.

These problems would be ameliorated if the gov- ernment simply provided the actual time-and-place information in a single document as required by § 1229(a).

III. Requiring DHS to work with the Executive Office of Immigration Review (“EOIR”) to obtain time- and-place information before serving a notice to ap- pear—and including such information in that docu- ment, as § 1229(a) and Pereira require—is practical and within the government’s capabilities.

4

A single-step notice process, consistent with this Court’s ruling in Pereira, furthers the due process ax- iom that a party charged to defend against a legal pro- ceeding must receive notice of the time and place of the proceeding and an opportunity to be heard.

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

Read the complete brief, with better formatting, at the link!

Of course we couldn’t have done this without the amazing talent and assistance of Amer S. Ahmed and the rest of the “Pro Bono All-Star Team” 🎖🏆 @ Gibson Dunn! Just another example of the essential contribution of pro bono lawyers to literally saving our legal system that has been featured on “Courtside” this week!

Due Process Forever!

PWS

08-14-20

🎾 COURTSIDE TAKES THE (TENNIS) COURT WITH JEFFREY S. CHASE 🏆 — Penetrating Analysis By “Resident Pro” Jeff Chase of The Serves, Returns, Volleys, In & Out of Bounds In The “Blanco v. AG” Match, Recently Played On The Court of Appeals (3d Cir.) – It’s Not Wimbledon, But Chase’s Tips Guaranteed to Improve Your Game, or Your Money Back💸!

https://www.jeffreyschase.com/blog/2020/8/13/follow-the-bouncing-ball-persecution-and-the-shifting-burden-of-proof

Follow the Bouncing Ball: Persecution and the Shifting Burden of Proof

On July 24, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed the BIA as to what constitutes past persecution. In Blanco v. Att’y Gen., the asylum-seeker had been abducted by police in his native Honduras because he had participated in marches in support of the LIBRE party. Police officers there detained him for 12 hrs in an abandoned house, where he was subjected to multiple beatings lasting 40 to 60 minutes each. The police also threatened to kill him and his family if he continued to participate in LIBRE party marches, and further insulted him with racial slurs. Learning that other LIBRE supporters had been killed by the police, the petitioner moved from city to city within Honduras over the next 14 months. However, he received three letters and one phone call during that time threatening that he and his family would be killed if he did not leave the country.

The immigration judge believed the petitioner, but nevertheless denied asylum, finding the harm to have not been severe enough to constitute past persecution. The B.I.A. agreed, saying that the treatment was “more akin to harassment” than persecution. The B.I.A. also found that the petitioner had not even established a well-founded fear of future persecution, concluding that there wasn’t a ten percent chance that a mere supporter who had last participated in a demonstration almost 2 years earlier would be persecuted.

The 3d Circuit reversed. It first quoted the oft-cited phrase that “persecution does not encompass all forms of unfair, unjust, or even unlawful treatment.” But the court continued that it has found persecution to include “threats to life, confinement, torture, and economic restrictions so severe that they constitute a real threat to life or freedom.” Of course, the facts described above include multiple threats to life, as well as confinement and torture. So then how did the Board find what was obviously persecution several times over to be “more akin to harassment?”

As the Third Circuit explained, the BIA and the immigration judge committed three errors. The first was in finding that the past harm was not severe enough. But the court noted that persecution does not require severe injury; in fact, it requires no physical injury at all, as evidenced by the fact that a death threat alone may constitute past persecution. Thus, the court corrected the Board in holding that “physical harm is not dispositive in establishing past persecution.”

The court next corrected the Board’s discrediting of the threats on the ground that it was not “imminent,” citing the fact that the threat was not carried out in the 14 months until the petitioner’s departure. The court observed that in order to constitute persecution, a threat must be concrete and menacing, but explained that neither term relates to its immediacy. Rather, concrete and menacing go to the likelihood of the threatened harm, and excludes threats that are merely “abstract or ideal.” The court rejected the idea that an asylum-seeker must wait “to see if his would-be executioners would go through with their threats” before qualifying for protection, which “would upend the fundamental humanitarian concerns of asylum law.”

The last error pointed to by the court was the Board’s failure to weigh the various harms cumulatively. The court distinguished between the Board’s claim to have considered the harm cumulatively, and its actual analysis, which considered the individual instances of harm in isolation.

The court observed that, having shown past persecution, there was a presumption that the petitioner possessed a well-founded fear of persecution, which is what one must prove to merit asylum. But as both the IJ and the Board erred in their conclusion regarding past persecution, no determination regarding whether ICE had rebutted the regulatory presumption was ever reached.

* * *

Although Blanco did not reach the question of what happens following a showing of past persecution, I would like to continue the conversation in order to discuss this point. I don’t believe that the shifting burden of proof that arises upon a showing of past persecution is properly taught by EOIR in its training. For that reason, years ago, when I was still with EOIR, I conducted a training in which I tried to clarify the concept by using a tennis analogy. I will attempt to recreate the lesson here.

Imagine the asylum applicant as serving in a tennis match. In tennis, only the serve must go into one specific box on the court, as opposed to anywhere on the opponent’s side of the net. Here, I have marked that service box “past persecution,” as it is only by “serving” into that specific box that the asylum-seeker can create a presumption of well-founded fear, and thus shift the burden of proof to the government.

In the above illustration, the respondent has served into the “past persecution” box by establishing facts that constitute past persecution. This doesn’t require a showing of severe or extreme persecution; any harm rising to the level of what has been found to constitute persecution will suffice. Examples includes multiple instances of lesser harm that cumulatively rise to the level of persecution (see, e.g. Matter of O-Z- & I-Z-, 22 I&N Dec. 23 (BIA 1998); a concrete and menacing threat (not accompanied by actual physical harm); or persecution in the guise of criminal prosecution or conscription.

Once the respondent establishes past persecution, the ball is then in the DHS’s “court.” The only way DHS can “return the serve” to the respondent’s side of the net (i.e. shift the burden of proof back to the asylum applicant) is to demonstrate either (1) changed circumstances such that the respondent no longer has a well-founded fear of persecution on account of a protected ground; or (2) that the respondent could reasonably safely relocate to another part of the home country. If DHS can’t prove either of the above, the respondent has “won the point” of establishing persecution.

Only if DHS succeeds in establishing one of those two points is the ball returned to the respondent. But just as in tennis, after the serve is returned, the respondent is no longer limited to hitting into the service box only. The respondent now has a wider court in which to win the point:

Just as there are three boxes on each side of a tennis court (i.e. the two service boxes and the backcourt), the respondent now has three options for meeting the burden of proof.

The two service boxes (closest to the net) represent the two ways in which one who has suffered past persecution can still merit a grant of “humanitarian asylum” even where there is no longer a basis to fear future persecution.

The first of these is where a humanitarian grant is merited based on the severity of the past persecution. This is the only time that the severity of the past persecution matters. (I believe that errors such as those committed in Blanco arise because the immigration judge remembers learning something about the severity of the past persecution, but isn’t quite clear on the context in which it arises.)

This rule is a codification of the BIA’s holding in a 1989 precedent decision, Matter of Chen. In a concurring opinion in that decision, former Board Member Michael Heilman pointed out that our asylum laws are designed to conform to our international law obligations. He continued that the source of those obligations, the 1951 Convention, came into effect years after the majority of those refugees it was meant to protect, i.e. those who had suffered past persecution during WW II, were clearly no longer at risk from the same persecutors following the defeat of the Axis powers

From this history, Heilman concluded that “the historical underpinnings of the Convention, from which the Refugee Act of 1980 receives its genesis, would have to be totally ignored if one were inclined to adopt the position that present likelihood of persecution is also required where past persecution has been established.”

The majority of the Board adopted this position only where it deemed the past persecution sufficiently severe, and it was that view that the regulations codified in 1990.

Years later, a second basis for humanitarian asylum was added to the regulations for those who suffered past persecution but had their presumption of well-founded fear rebutted by the government. This second category (represented by the second service box in the third illustration) applies to those who might reasonably suffer “other serious harm” in their country of origin. This rule (which became effective in January 2001) looks to whether the asylum applicant might suffer harm as severe as persecution, but unrelated to any specific ground or motive. Thus, an asylum-seeker who suffered past persecution but whose original basis for asylum has dissipated due to changed conditions may merit a humanitarian grant where their return might give rise to mental anguish, put their health at risk due to the unavailability of necessary medical treatment or medication, or subject them to abject poverty or severe criminal extortion, to provide a few examples.

Lastly, an asylum applicant who no longer has a well-founded fear due to changed conditions in their country of origin may still “win the point” by establishing a different well-founded fear of persecution under the new conditions.

Copyright 2020 Jeffrey S. Chase. All rights reserved. Reprinted With Permission.

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

You’ll have to go to the original at the above link to see all of Jeffrey’s great “tennis court illustrations!”

Reminded me of my own, less than illustrious, career on the tennis court. Here’s the anecdote I shared with Jeffrey:

I loved it, Jeffrey, even though in my life many of my shots and serves “went over the fence.” Indeed, I once ended an inter-fraternity tennis match with a forfeit after hitting all of my opponent’s tennis balls into the Fox River which at that time bordered the LU Tennis Courts in Appleton. It was kind of like a “mercy killing” since I was being totally creamed anyway, and it was a hot day. I found Immigration Court a much more comfortable fit for my skill set.

I also appreciate Jeff’s citation of Matter of O-Z- & I-Z-, 23 I&N Dec. 22 (BIA 1998). I was on that panel, along with my colleagues Judge Lory Rosenberg and Judge Jerry Hurwitz, who wrote the opinion. The record will show that it was one of the few published BIA precedents where the three of us, members of the “Notorious Panel IV,” agreed. Perhaps that’s why it got published. Our colleagues probably figured that any time the three of us were in harmony, it must be an auspicious occasion worth preserving for the future!

In any event, of all of the more than 100 published decisions in which I participated during my tenure on the BIA, O-Z- & I-Z- on the issue of “cumulative harm” proved to be one of the most useful during my tenure at the Arlington Immigration Court. Attorneys on both sides, knowing my tendencies, liked to frame their arguments in many cases in terms of “it is” or “it isn’t” O-Z- & I-Z-.

I think that “cumulative harm” is one of the most important, and these days most overlooked or wrongly ignored, concepts in modern asylum law. It was really one of the keys to favorable resolution of many asylum cases based on “past persecution.” But, that goes back to a time when the law was applied to protect worthy asylum seekers, rather than to reject them, often on specious grounds as happens on today’s “deportation railroad.”

PWS

08-14-20

JEFFREY S. CHASE: 9TH Circuit “Schools” BIA In Asylum Law – But, Will It Really Make Any Difference To “Death Board” In A Regime That Gives The Article IIIs, Congress, & The Law The Big Middle Finger Every Day With No Meaningful Consequences? — Programmed To Deny Asylum At Any Cost, EOIR Under Billy The Bigot Is Largely Undeterred By Judicial Lectures Without Teeth!

https://www.jeffreyschase.com/blog/2020/8/10/9th-cir-sets-bia-straight-on-circularity

9th Cir. Sets BIA Straight on ‘Circularity’

On August 7, the U.S Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit dealt a blow to the Trump Administration’s attacks on domestic violence-based asylum claims. In Diaz-Reynoso v. Barr, the petitioner applied for withholding of removal to Guatemala because she had been persecuted by her domestic partner on account of her membership in the particular social group consisting of “indiginous women in Guatemala who are unable to leave their relationship.”1 An immigration judge found her credible, but denied her applications for relief.

While her appeal was pending before the BIA, then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions issued his decision in Matter of A-B-. The BIA subsequently relied on that decision to reject the Petitioner’s particular social group.

Regarding this sequence of events, it’s important to realize that in 2014, the BIA issued a precedent decision holding that a particular social group consisting of “married women in Guatemala who are unable to leave their relationship” could serve as a basis for asylum. As a result, domestic violence-based asylum claims relied on this BIA-approved formulation as a model over the next four years.

When Sessions vacated the Board’s decision, many asylum claims relying on the prior precedent were already in the pipeline. The BIA could have applied Matter of A-B- only prospectively to cases filed after Sessions’ decision.2 Or if it decided to apply the decision retroactively, it could have remanded the cases that had relied on the law at the time of filing to now allow them to modify their record in response to the superseding decision.

However, the Board did neither of these things. Instead, it denied the pending cases with no individualized analysis, simply dismissing the claim as being too similar to the case that the Attorney General had just disagreed with.

In Diaz-Reynoso, the Ninth Circuit refuted the above approach by affirming the following points that have been raised repeatedly since the issuance of the AG’s decision, but that the BIA has continued to ignore.

First, the court held that Matter of A-B- does not categorically bar the granting of domestic violence-based asylum claims. In the words of the court: “Far from endorsing a categorical bar, the Attorney General emphasized that the BIA must conduct the ‘rigorous analysis’ set forth in the BIA’s precedents.’”

Second, the court affirmed the commonly-held view that much of the AG’s decision in Matter of A-B- is nonbinding dicta. In the words of the Ninth Circuit, the AG offered “some general impressions about asylum and withholding claims based on domestic violence and other private criminal activity.” But the court noted that “despite the general and descriptive observations set forth in the opinion, the Attorney General’s prescriptive instruction is clear: the BIA must conduct the proper particular social group analysis on a case-by-case basis.”

Third, the court held that the particular social group that Sessions rejected in Matter of A-B- was not impermissibly circular.

As the concept of circularity can be confusing, I will offer some explanation. In order to merit asylum, persecution must be on account of a statutory ground: race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. Hypothetically, someone with a fear clearly unrelated to one of the necessary grounds could put forth an argument as follows: “I fear persecution.” “Why?” “Because I’m a member of a particular social group.” “What group?” “People who fear persecution.” “But why do they fear persecution?” “Because of their social group.” “What group?” “People who fear persecution.” And this could go on and on, continuing in the same circle.

In a 2006 precedent decision, Matter of C-A-, the BIA cited to UNHCR guidelines on particular social groups as prohibiting this exact scenario, in which a group is defined exclusively by the harm. The Board repeated the same rule a year later in another precedent, Matter of A-M-E- & J-G-U-, again using the word “exclusively” (although this time without the emphasis).3 However, the BIA in 2014 added language that a particular social group must exist independently of the persecution, without explaining whether this term differed in meaning from the “exclusively defined” prohibition, and if so, to what degree.

In Matter of A-B-, the AG first jumped to the conclusion that the reason an asylum-seeker is “unable to leave the relationship” is due to persecution.4 And following that assumption, he rejected the particular social group as being impermissibly circular.

As stated above, the particular social group in Diaz-Reynoso was “indiginous women in Guatemala who are unable to leave their relationship.” The group was thus defined by the group members’ (1) indiginous status; (2) Guatemalan nationality; (3) gender; and (4) inability to leave their relationship. So the group was clearly not exclusively defined by the persecution.

And yet, as the Ninth Circuit noted, “with almost no analysis, the BIA rejected Diaz-Reynoso’s proposed particular social group because it ‘suffer[ed] from the same circularity problem articulated by the Attorney General in Matter of A-B-.’”

The Ninth Circuit continued: “In the Government’s and dissent’s view, in order to exist independently from the petitioner’s feared harm, a proposed group may not refer to that harm at all. We disagree. The idea that the inclusion of persecution is a sort of poison pill that dooms any group does not withstand scrutiny.”

The court further clarified that a group exists independent of persecution when it “shares an immutable characteristic other than the persecution it suffers.” As noted above, the particular social group here included three such immutable characteristics: indiginous status, nationality, and gender. These serve as what the court termed “narrowing characteristics” independent of any harm.

The court further questioned the logic behind the agency’s restrictive view of circularity: “The purpose of asylum and withholding is to provide relief to people who have been persecuted in foreign lands because of their race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion…The Government and dissent do not explain why a person seeking relief on the basis of membership in a particular social group should be required to omit any mention of threatened persecution.”

One additional point worth mentioning is that the Ninth Circuit looked to UNHCR materials for guidance, noting that the BIA has found UNHCR’s views to be “a useful interpretive aid.”

The Ninth Circuit’s decision should certainly be applauded by asylum advocates. The court joined the First and Sixth Circuits in rejecting the reliance on Matter of A-B- as a basis for swiftly dismissing domestic violence claims.

But this litigation could have been avoided through the BIA properly doing its job. The petitioner in this case endured four years of abuse at the hands of her tormentor. She was forced by him to work without pay in the coffee fields as well as to have sex with him. She was further subjected to weekly beatings, suffering bruises that sometimes lasted for 10 days.

The petitioner actually escaped to the U.S., where she was detained for a month and then deported back to Guatemala. There, she was forced to return to her abuser when he threatened to otherwise kill her and her daughter and harm her mother. Upon return, she was subjected to even worse abuse for another year.

And yet an appellate immigration judge with the BIA saw in this case an opportunity for a quick denial with no analysis, on the grounds that the particular social group that had been valid for four years now contained a few more words than the AG approved of. This sadly demonstrates the present philosophy of the BIA, where the goal of achieving quick dismissals has usurped the need for reasoned analysis and due process.

The petitioner was represented by students and supervising counsel with the Hastings Appellate Project, an advocacy clinic of the University of California – Hastings College of Law. Amicus briefs were filed by the Center for Gender and Refugee Studies, the Round Table of Former Immigration Judges, Harvard Law School’s Immigration and Refugee Clinical Programs, and UNHCR. Special mention is due to Blaine Bookey at CGRS, who so ably argued the case remotely.

The Round Table expresses its gratitude to attorneys Richard W. Mark, Amer S. Ahmed. Grace E. Hart, and Cassarah M. Chu of the law firm of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP for their invaluable assistance.

Notes:

The Petitioner was ineligible to apply for asylum because she was subject to reinstatement of a prior order of removal.

I believe a strong argument can be made that Matter of A-B- more closely resembled a policy announcement (which should be applied prospectively only) than a judicial interpretation of the law that would apply retroactively.

There is actually an exception to this rule, that we need not go into here.

In De Pena Paniagua v. Barr, the First Circuit in April explained that there may be other reasons one could be unable to leave their domestic relationship that are unrelated to persecution.

Copyright 2020 Jeffrey S. Chase. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

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

While the Supremes and other Federal Courts continue to live in their “alternate universe,” most of the rest of us have noticed that the Trump regime is completely unapologetic and undeterred by their frequent defeats in Federal Court. There are no consequences, and therefore no deterrents, for their lies, misrepresentations, unprofessionalism, racist bias, and contempt for the American justice system. Nobody loses a law license, nobody goes to jail, nobody is required to operate under meaningful court supervision. Appalling misconduct and contemptuous behavior is normalized. “Just commit the same abuse again with a slightly different rationale” has become the watchword. The Supremes have shown they will accept any fraudulent rationale from Trump and his toadies as long as it gives them “some cover” for systemic abuses of people of color.

I’d say that Billy Bigot actually treats the Article IIIs almost like he treats the Immigration Courts – as his toady subordinates. And, he pretty much gets away with it! Contempt for Congress and the Courts is the heart of the “Unitary Executive” pushed by Billy and his neo-fascist cronies. And, until the Article IIIs find the collective backbone to “just say no,” the “Unitary Executive” is going to continue to run roughshod over them while our democracy.

Due Process Forever! Complicit Courts Never!

PWS

08-11-20

🏴‍☠️KAKISTOCRACY WATCH: Billy The Bigot Appoints Another “Death Squad”☠️⚰️ To BIA!🤮👎

EOIR Announces Three New Appellate Immigration Judges

FALLS CHURCH, VA – The Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) today announced the appointment of Michael P. Baird, Sunita B. Mahtabfar, and Sirce E. Owen as appellate immigration judges in EOIR’s Board of Immigration Appeals.

Biographical information follows:

Michael P. Baird, Appellate Immigration Judge

Attorney General William P. Barr appointed Michael P. Baird as an appellate immigration judge in August 2020. Judge Baird received a Bachelor of Business Administration in 1989 from Clayton State University and a Juris Doctorate in 1992 from Georgia State University College of Law. From 2009 to 2020, he served as an immigration judge first in Dallas, Texas and then later transferred to the Atlanta Immigration Court. From 2006 to 2009, he served as a senior assistant district attorney in the Appalachian Judicial Circuit, in Georgia. From 2004 to 2006, he served as a judge in the Municipal Court of Jonesboro, Georgia. From 1997 to 2004, he served as chief judge for the Magistrate Court of Clayton County, Georgia. From 1995 to 1996, he was in private practice. From 1993 to 1995, he served as senior assistant solicitor general at the Clayton County Solicitor’s Office. From 1992 to 1993, he was in private practice. From 1986 to 1990, he was a police officer. Judge Baird has taught as adjunct faculty at the Georgia State University College of Law, Clayton State University and the University of West Georgia. Judge Baird is a member of the State Bar of Georgia.

Sunita B. Mahtabfar, Appellate Immigration Judge

Attorney General William P. Barr appointed Sunita B. Mahtabfar as an appellate immigration judge in August 2020. Judge Mahtabfar earned a Bachelor of Arts in 1994 from the University of Texas at Austin and a Juris Doctorate in 1998 from Thurgood Marshall School of Law. From 2013 to 2020, she served as an immigration judge in the El Paso Immigration Court. From 2006 to 2013, she served as an attorney in the Office of the Assistant Chief Counsel, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security (DHS), in El Paso, Texas. From 2003 to 2006, she served as an asylum officer, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, DHS, in Houston. Judge Mahtabfar is a member of the State Bar of Texas.

Communications and Legislative Affairs Division

August 7, 2020

Page 2

Sirce E. Owen, Appellate Immigration Judge

Attorney General William P. Barr appointed Sirce E. Owen as an appellate immigration judge in August 2020. Judge Owen earned a Bachelor of Science in 1996 from Johns Hopkins University, a Master of Business Administration in 2002 from Georgia State University, and a Juris Doctor in 2005 from Georgia State University. From 2018 to 2020, she served as an assistant chief immigration judge, based in Atlanta. From June 2019 to January 2020, she served as acting deputy director of EOIR. From 2016 to 2018, she served as deputy chief counsel, Office of Chief Counsel, Office of the Principal Legal Advisor, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), Department of Homeland Security (DHS), in Atlanta. From 2008 to 2016, she served as assistant chief counsel, ICE, DHS, in Atlanta. From 2005 to 2008, she was an associate attorney with Mozley, Finlayson & Loggins LLP, in Atlanta. Judge Owen is a member of the State Bar of Georgia.

— EOIR —

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

Here’s what you really need to know about these so-called “judges.”

Baird – Asylum denial rate 91.4% (74^th highest of 456 ranked)

Mahtabfar – Asylum denial rate 98.7 (8^th highest of 456 ranked – but remember the 7 worse “judges” are probably already on the BIA)

Owen – Didn’t deny enough asylum to make the TRAC charts. Served mostly as a prosecutor and “management judge” (A/K/A “JINO” or “Judge In Name Only”). But rest assured – she hails from the Atlanta Immigration “Court” – deemed an “Asylum Free Zone” in “a petition filed before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR).” https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/these-jurisdictions-have-become-asylum-free-zones/

As my Round Table colleague Judge Jeffrey S. Chase summed it up: “Under [EOIR Director James] McHenry, a “liberal” is defined as one whose asylum denial rate is lower than their body temperature.”

Due Process Forever! The EOIR kakistocracy, never!

PWS

08-11-20

🏴‍☠️☠️🤡🤮ANOTHER EOIR SCAM: MORE LAYERS OF MISMANAGEMENT FOR FAILED SYSTEM — More Managers Are No Substitute For Competent Court Management!

Regional Deputy Chief Immigration Judge

08/10/2020 10:00 AM EDT

Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR)
Office of the Chief Immigration Judge
Falls Church, Virginia
Announcement #: SES-10606886-20-AS
Application Deadline: September 8, 2020

Typical work assignments will include:

·         Directing oversight of activities of formal, quasi-judicial hearings and proceedings conducted by Immigration Judges within a designated region.

·         Providing executive leadership for court matters involving deportation, exclusion, removal, rescission, bond and related decisions and actions of Immigration Judges and Court personnel.

·         Managing the analysis and evaluation of judicial decisions to determine impact on immigration judges, court policies and procedures and/or the immigration judge program.

·         Providing technical direction of court staff through Assistant Chief Immigration Judges, Immigration Judges and Court administrators through the region.

Number of Positions:
6 vacancies in multiple locations: San Francisco, CA, Chicago, IL, New York, NY, Miami, FL, Las Vegas, NV, Houston, TX

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

It never hurts to restate the obvious when dealing with the never-ending, always worsening mess at EOIR.

A system that competently selects well-qualified professional judges needs very little “management” at all, since judges are independent decision makers. Qualified judges basically are “self-managing.”

What they do need is competent professional administrators who secure the necessary resources, technology, equipment, and training for those judges to function efficiently and professionally while steering clear of any interference in substantive judicial decision making. Administrators responsible to the judges and public they serve, rather than vice versa as EOIR is now constructed. Indeed, “customer service” at today’s EOIR isn’t just “off the charts” — it never was on the regime’s chart to begin with!

A trial court also needs a competent, functional appellate division that shows leadership in promoting due process, fundamental fairness, and best practices throughout the system through clear, cogent, and intellectually honest precedents.

Right now EOIR has almost nothing it needs and everything it doesn’t. Not surprisingly, this incredibly FUBAR system is a total dysfunctional mess where injustice reigns supreme and “management” squanders taxpayer funds while constantly turning complete disorder into mind-boggling morale killing unrelenting disasters.

Due Process Forever! Today’s FUBAR EOIR, Never!🤮

PWS

08-10-20

🛡⚔️🗽👍🏼🇺🇸ROUND TABLE SLAMS LATEST BOGUS “KILL ASYLUM” PROPOSED REGS IN COMMENTS TO REGIME!

Comments – Security Bar (COVID) Asylum Reg (PDF)

The Round Table of Former Immigration Judges is composed of 46 former Immigration Judges and Appellate Immigration Judges of the Board of Immigration Appeals. We were appointed and served under both Republican and Democratic administrations. We have centuries of combined experience adjudicating asylum applications and appeals. Our members include nationally- respected experts on asylum law; many regularly lecture at law schools and conferences and author articles on the topic.

We view the proposed rule as an improper attempt to legislate through rule making. The proposed rule is inconsistent with Congressional intent and with our nation’s obligations under international law. The rule is also overly broad, and as worded, could be applied to virtually anyone. It requires determinations to be made based on pure speculation by officials lacking any required expertise in the subject. And the rule fails to consider much lesser, more humane approaches to address the issue.

. . . .

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

Read our complete comment at the above link.

Gimmicks, cruelty, illegally, gimmicks, cruelty, illegality. Over and over the regime targets asylum seekers with “crimes against humanity.”

Although all DHS statistics should be regarded as suspect, the recent assertions that the regime”s killer tactics are protecting America against COVID appear particularly bogus — especially given the Trump regime’s gross failure to protect Americans from the pandemic and the frequent myths and false claims blabbered by Trump in a pathetic attempt to downplay the disaster caused by his stupidity and malicious incompetence.

The net result of all these “Miller-hatched” cruel gimmicks to eliminate legal immigration (without legislative authority) appears to be steadily increasing levels of extralegal immigration. And that’s just the folks who get caught. Who knows how many get through and simply get lost in the interior? So, instead of a rational legal immigration and refugee system that encourages screening, testing where necessary, taxpaying, and data collection, thanks to the stupidity and cruelty of Trump and Miller, the fecklessness of Congress, and the complicity of the Supremes, we have created a larger than ever extralegal immigration system.

Diminishing ourselves as a nation,🤮 won’t stop human migration🗽!

PWS

08|10-20

🛡⚔️⚖️🗽😎GOOD NEWS, AS ROUND TABLE BESTS BIA AGAIN: 9th Cir. Zaps BIA’s Denial Of Guatemalan Woman’s Asylum & CAT Cases Involving Matter of A-B-! — Diaz-Reynoso v. Barr

Sontos, 9th 18-72833_Documents

Diaz-Reynoso v. Barr, 9^th Cir., 08-07-20, published

SYNOPSIS BY COURT STAFF:

Immigration

Granting Sontos Diaz-Reynoso’s petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision affirming the denial of her application for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture, and remanding, the panel held that the Board misapplied Matter of A-B-, 27 I. & N. Dec. 316 (A.G. 2018), as well as Board and circuit precedent, in concluding that Diaz-Reynoso’s proposed social group comprised of “indigenous women in Guatemala who are unable to leave their relationship” was not cognizable, and that she failed to establish that the government of Guatemala would acquiesce in any possible torture.

The panel rejected Diaz-Reynoso’s contention that Matter of A-B- was arbitrary and capricious and therefore not entitled to Chevron deference. The panel concluded that, despite the general and descriptive observations set forth in the opinion, Matter of A-B- did not announce a new categorical exception to withholding of removal for victims of domestic violence or other private criminal activity, but rather it reaffirmed the Board’s existing framework for analyzing the cognizability of particular social groups, requiring that such determinations be individualized and conducted on a case-by-case basis.

The panel observed that the Board rejected Diaz- Reynoso’s proposed social group, with almost no analysis,

** This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader.

Case: 18-72833, 08/07/2020, ID: 11780830, DktEntry: 100-1, Page 3 of 76

DIAZ-REYNOSO V. BARR 3

because it “suffered from the same circularity problem articulated by the Attorney General in Matter of A-B-.” The panel explained that in doing so, the Board appeared to misapprehend the scope of Matter of A-B- as forbidding any mention of feared harm within the delineation of a proposed social group. The panel concluded that this was error, explaining that Matter of A-B- did not announce a new rule concerning circularity, but instead merely reiterated the well- established principle that a particular social group must exist independently of the harm asserted. The panel recognized that a proposed social group may be deemed impermissibly circular if, after conducting the proper case-by-case analysis, the Board determines that the group is defined exclusively by the fact that its members have been subjected to harm. The panel explained, however, that a proposed social group is not impermissibly circular merely because the proposed group mentions harm.

The panel concluded that the Board also erred in assuming that domestic violence was the only reason Diaz- Reynoso was unable to leave her relationship, and in failing to conduct the rigorous case-by-case analysis required by Matter of A-B-. The panel therefore remanded Diaz- Reynoso’s withholding of removal claim for the Board to undertake the required analysis applying the correct framework.

Because the Board failed to discuss evidence that Diaz- Reynoso reported her husband’s abuse to authority figures in her village community, and the government conceded remand was warranted, the panel also remanded Diaz-Reynoso’s CAT claim for further consideration.

4 DIAZ-REYNOSO V. BARR

Concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part, Judge Bress agreed with remand of the CAT claim in light of the government’s concession, but disagreed with the majority’s conclusion that the Board misread Matter of A-B- in rejecting Diaz-Reynoso’s proposed social group. In Judge Bress’s view, Matter of A-B- held that a proposed group that incorporates harm within its definition is not a group that exists independently of the harm asserted in an application for asylum or statutory withholding of removal. Judge Bress wrote that substantial evidence supported the Board’s assessment that Diaz-Reynoso’s social group was defined exclusively by the harm suffered, and that the Board correctly applied Matter of A-B-, and the circularity rule, in rejecting Diaz-Reynoso’s proposed social group.

COUNSEL:

Gary A. Watt, Stephen Tollafield, and Tiffany J. Gates, Supervising Counsel; Shandyn H. Pierce and Hilda Kajbaf, Certified Law Students; Hastings Appellate Project, San Francisco, California; for Petitioner.

Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney General; John S. Hogan and Linda S. Wernery, Assistant Directors; Susan Bennett Green, Senior Litigation Counsel; Ashley Martin, Trial Attorney; Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.; for Respondent.

Blaine Bookey, Karen Musalo, Neela Chakravartula, and Anne Peterson, Center for Gender & Refugee Studies, U.S. Hastings College of Law, San Francisco, California, for Amicus Curiae Center for Gender & Refugee Studies.

Richard W. Mark, Amer S. Ahmed, Grace E. Hart, and Cassarah M. Chu, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, New York New York, for Amici Curiae Thirty-Nine Former Immigration Judges and Members of the Board of Immigration Appeals.

Sabrineh Ardalan, Nancy Kelly, John Willshire Carrera, Deborah Anker, and Zachary A. Albun, Attorneys; Rosa Baum, Caya Simonsen, and Ana Sewell, Supervised Law Students; Harvard Immigration and Refugee Clinical Program, Cambridge, Massachusetts; for Amicus Curiae Harvard Immigration and Refugee Clinical Program.

Ana C. Reyes and Alexander J. Kasner, Williams & Connolly LLP, Washington, D.C.; Alice Farmer, United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Washington, D.C.; for Amicus Curiae United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.

PANEL: Ronald M. Gould, Morgan Christen, and Daniel A. Bress, Circuit Judges.

OPINION BY: Judge Cristen

CONCURRING/DISSENTING OPINION: Judge Bress

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

Just another example of how under this regime, EOIR’s perverted efforts to deny and deport, especially targeting female asylum seekers from the Northern Triangle for mistreatment and potential deportation to death, waste time and effort that could, in a wiser more just Administration, be used to reduce dockets and waiting times by ensuring that well-documented, deserving cases like this one are rapidly granted. EOIR’s biased performance also reeks of both anti-Latino racism and misogyny. Here we are, two decades into the 21^st Century with our immigration “justice” system still being driven by invidious factors.

The Supremes’ majority may feign ignorance and or indifference to Trump’s and Miller’s overtly racist immigration agenda. But, those of us working in the field of immigration had it figured out long ago. It’s not rocket science! The Trumpsters make little or no real attempt to hide their scofflaw intent and invidious motives. It has, disgustingly, taken a concerted and disingenuous effort by the Supremes’ majority to sweep these unconstitutional attacks on humanity under the carpet.

That’s why we need “regime change” in both the Executive and the Senate which will lead to the appointment of better judges for a better America. Justices and judges who will ditch the institutionalized racism and misogyny and who will make equal justice for all under our Constitution a reality rather than the cruel hoax and “throwaway line” that it is today under GOP mis-governance.

Many thanks to our good friends and pro bono counsel at Gibson Dunn for the help in drafting our Amicus Brief!

Due Process Forever!

PWS

08-07-20

🛡⚔️⚖️🗽 ROUND TABLE ASSISTS FIGHT AGAINST “AMERICA’S STAR CHAMBERS” — Here’s Our Amicus Brief In Las Americas v. Trump! — With Thanks To Our Pro Bono Friends STOLL STOLL BERNE LOKTING & SHLACHTER P.C. in Portland, OR!

Excerpt:

The immigration court system lacks independence. An agency within the Department of Justice, the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) houses the immigration court system, which consists of trial-level immigration courts and a single appellate tribunal known as the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). Immigration judges, including appellate immigration judges, are viewed by EOIR “management” not as judges, but as Department of Justice attorneys who serve at the pleasure and direction of the Nation’s prosecutor-in-chief, the Attorney General.

As former immigration judges, we offer the Court our experience and urge that corrective action is necessary to ensure that immigration judges are permitted to function as impartial adjudicators, as required under the Immigration and Nationality Act. The INA and its implementing regulations set forth procedures for the “timely, impartial, and consistent” resolution of immigration proceedings. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1103, 1230; 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(1) (charging the Board with appellate review authority to “resolve the questions before it in a manner that is timely, impartial, and consistent with the [INA] and regulations”) (emphasis added); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.10(b) (similarly requiring “immigration judges . . . to resolve the questions before them in a timely and impartial manner”) (emphasis added).

Although housed inside an enforcement agency and led by the Nation’s chief prosecutor, immigration judges must act neutrally to protect and adjudicate the important rights at stake in immigration cases and check executive overreach in the enforcement of federal immigration law. Applying a detached and learned interpretation of those laws, judges must correct overzealous bureaucrats and policy makers when they overstep the bounds of reasonable interpretation and the requirements of due process.

Here’s the full brief:

Las Americas Amicus (full case)

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

As I often say, it’s an honor to be a part of this group with so many of my wonderful colleagues. It’s also an honor to be able to assist so many wonderful “divisions and brigades” of the New Due Process Army, like the SPLC and Immigration Law Lab.

Here’s another thought I often express: What if all of this talent, creativity, teamwork, expertise, and energy were devoted to fixing our broken Immigration Court System rather than constantly fighting to end gross abuses that should not be happening? There is a “systemic cost” to “maliciously incompetent” administration and the White Nationalist agenda promoted by the Trump kakistocracy!

Due Process Forever!

PWS

08-04-20

🛡⚔️👍🗽⚖️👩🏻‍⚖️FIGHTING THE STAR CHAMBER! — US District Judge Holds That Constitutional Challenge To Weaponized Immigration “Courts” Can Proceed! — “Both policies change the way immigration judges run their dockets and their courtrooms. Accordingly, Plaintiffs have at least sufficiently alleged that such docket management has practical consequence for parties or their attorneys.”

Melissa Crow
Senior Supervising Attorney
Southern Poverty Law Center

Tess Hellgren, Staff Attorney and Justice Catalyst Legal Fellow

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

August 3, 2020

Contact:

Marion Steinfels, marionsteinfels@gmail.com / 202-557-0430
Ramon Valdez, ramon@innovationlawlab.org / 971-238-1804

Federal Court Denies Government’s Motion to Dismiss in Immigration Court Case
Advocates’ challenge to immigration courts as “deportation machines”
moves forward; constitutionality of immigration court system at issue

PORTLAND, OR – Immigrant rights advocates challenging the weaponization of the U.S. immigration courts applaud Friday’s late-afternoon ruling by the U.S. District Court of Oregon that their lawsuit, Las Americas v Trump, will move forward. The legal services providers, Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center, Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project (ASAP), Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc. (CLINIC), the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), Innovation Law Lab, and Santa Fe Dreamers Project (SFDP), working with Perkins Coie LLP for pro bono support, allege that the Administration has failed to establish an impartial immigration court as required under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and the Take Care Clause of the U.S. Constitution – weaponizing them into deportation machines against asylum seekers and other noncitizens – and asks the court to end the unlawful use of the courts to effectuate mass deportations instead of fair decisions.

In Friday’s order, the Honorable Karin Immergut denied the government’s motion to dismiss the case. The district court rejected the government’s arguments, holding that all of the organizations’ claims could proceed, including their claim that the Attorney General has grossly mismanaged the immigration court system and weaponized the system against asylum seekers.

“This is a clear victory for everyone who has sought a fair hearing in immigration court, only to face a system plagued by rampant dysfunction and policies designed to subvert justice,” said Melissa Crow, senior supervising attorney with the Southern Poverty Law Center’s Immigrant Justice Project. “For asylum seekers and those who represent them, the current process is like playing Russian roulette. Despite the life-or-death stakes in these cases, there is little rhyme or reason to the court’s workings apart from prioritizing deportation at all costs.”

“Friday’s decision is an important milestone in our fight for a truly fair, transparent, and independent immigration court,” said Tess Hellgren, staff attorney with Innovation Law Lab. “Whether an asylum seeker wins or loses should not depend on the political whims of the President or Attorney General. ”

Not only does the Court’s decision confirm that the gross mismanagement of the immigration court system is subject to judicial review, it also recognizes that there may be important constitutional checks and balances on the power of presidential administrations to manipulate the immigration courts to achieve mass deportation.

“This win is incredibly validating. We often operate under the guise that the work we are doing is impossible,” said Linda Corchado, Managing Attorney of the Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center. “We feel uplifted as we can take the giant step forward to tackle the system now, with everything we’ve got.”

“ASAP works with families across the United States and at the border who fled persecution and now face countless obstacles to seeking asylum in the U.S. immigration court system,” said Conchita Cruz, Co-Executive Director of ASAP. “This decision gets us one step closer to showing that the injustices of the U.S. immigration court system are not only wrong, but illegal. We stand with asylum seekers and immigrants’ rights advocates in bringing these abuses to light and demanding better from our government.”

The lawsuit, which was filed in December 2019, alleges President Trump, Attorney General Barr, and other members of the executive branch have failed to establish a fair immigration court system in which the plaintiff organizations can provide meaningful legal assistance to their asylum-seeking clients. The complaint outlines pervasive dysfunction and bias within the immigration court system, including:

The Enforcement Metrics Policy, , which requires immigration judges to decide cases quickly, at the expense of a fair process, in exchange for favorable performance reviews.

The “family unit” court docket, which stigmatizes the cases of recently arrived families and rushes their court dates, often giving families inadequate time to find an attorney and prepare for their hearings.

Areas that have become known as “asylum-free zones,” where virtually no asylum claims have been granted for the past several years.

The nationwide backlog of pending immigration cases, which has now surpassed 1 million — meaning that thousands of asylum seekers must wait three or four years for a court date.

In June 2019, Innovation Law Lab and SPLC also released a report, based on over two years of research and focus group interviews with attorneys and former immigration judges from around the country, documenting the failure of the immigration court system to fulfill the constitutional and statutory promise of fair and impartial case-by-case adjudication. The report can be accessed here: The Attorney General’s Judges: How the U.S. Immigration Courts Became a Deportation Tool.

The court’s opinion is HERE.

###

The Southern Poverty Law Center, based in Alabama with offices in Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi and Washington, D.C., is a nonprofit civil rights organization dedicated to fighting hate and bigotry, and to seeking justice for the most vulnerable members of society. For more information, see www.splcenter.org and follow us on social media: Southern Poverty Law Center on Facebook and @splcenter on Twitter.

Innovation Law Lab, based in Portland, Oregon with projects around the country and in Mexico, is a nonprofit organization that harnesses technology, lawyers, and activists to advance immigrant justice. For more information, visit www.innovationlawlab.org.

The Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project (ASAP) provides community support and emergency legal aid to asylum seekers, regardless of where they are located. ASAP’s model has three components: online community support, emergency legal aid, and nationwide systemic reform. For more information, see www.asylumadvocacy.org and follow us on social media at @asylumadvocacy on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram.

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

So, finally, the clear unconstitutionality of “Star Chambers” run by a biased prosecutor who basically views himself as the personal lawyer for a racist xenophobic President is going to get some scrutiny, along with the beyond grotesque mismanagement of EOIR that has created a “backlog” that in all likelihood now exceeds 2 million cases. But, of course we don’t know, and may never know, the exact extent of the backlog because of 1) the notoriously defective record keeping at EOIR; and 2) the manipulation of and sometimes outright misrepresentation of data by the Trump Administration.

Thanks to SPLC and Innovation Law Lab for undertaking this long-overdue effort. And, special appreciation to my friends and New Due Process Army superstars Melissa and Tess.

Due Process Forever!🗽⚖️👩🏻‍⚖️

PWS

08-03-20

🏴‍☠️☠️🤮👎KAKISTOCRACY WATCH: NJ AILA Sues EOIR’s Malicious Incompetents To Stop Deadly ☠️☠️☠️🤮 In-Person Hearings

Laura Lynch

Laura Lynch
Senior Policy Counsel
AILA

Hon. Susan G. Roy
Law Office of Susan G. Roy, LLC
Princeton Junction, NJ
Member, Round Table of Former Immigration Judges

Laura Lynch @ AILA writes:

I wanted to flag this lawsuit that was filed a few hours ago by AILA’s New Jersey Chapter seeking to stop in-person court appearances at the Newark Immigration Court. The attached complaint reveals the following:

“The Newark Immigration Court is no stranger to the devastating effects of COVID-19. The coronavirus spread through the court before it closed in March, and COVID-19 illnesses tragically caused the deaths of both a longtime private immigration attorney and a staffer at the immigration prosecutor’s office, as well as causing the serious illness of both a senior immigration prosecutor and a court translator. More recently, the head of Federal Protective Services at 970 Broad Street in Newark—the building where the Newark Immigration Court is housed—died from COVID-19.”

“Yet, despite the risks posed by the spread of COVID-19, and the actual serious illness and death it has already caused to people involved with the Newark Immigration Court, that court was recently reopened for immigration hearings regarding cases for persons who are not held in detention (the so-called “non-detained docket”). Moreover, even though immigration law and regulations provide for immigration hearings to take place by videoconference—and the Executive Office of Immigration Review, which operates the nation’s immigration courts, has touted its use of such videoconference hearings—the Newark Immigration Court does not provide the option for attorneys or others to appear by videoconference for cases on the non-detained docket.”

The Associated Press wrote a short article about this lawsuit.

Unfortunately, the complaint hasn’t been posted on AILA’s website yet. I’ve been sharing the document using this google link:https://drive.google.com/file/d/1TTXt0c7dzflF9Kpvvpe–aeHbQvHbYoV/view.

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Thanks, Laura

Laura A. Lynch, Esq.

Senior Policy Counsel

Here’s a link to a courthouse news story also: https://www.courthousenews.com/immigration-lawyers-seek-to-halt-in-person-hearings-amid-covid-fears/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

They provide a link to the filing as well:

https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/NJ.petition.220cv9748.pdf

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

It just keeps getting worse and worse. The malicious incompetents at DOJ/EOIR keep endangering lives in an out of their so-called “courts” while those supposedly responsible for “justice in America” let it happen. This is a “Third World Dictatorship-Style Meltdown” happening right here in our country.

How many will have to die or have their lives ruined before this dangerous and dysfunctional embarrassment to humanity is finally put out of its misery (not to mention the misery it brings to others).

This November, vote like your life depends on it! Because it does!

PWS

08-01-20

🏴‍☠️👎🤮KAKISTOCRACY WATCH: Labor Authority Lambastes Billy The Bigot’s Lame Assault On Immigration Judges’ Union !

https://www.naij-usa.org/images/uploads/newsroom/2020.07.31.00.pdf

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

As my long term, friend, Round Table colleague, and member of the “EOIR Founder’s Club,” Judge John Gossart said:

Great news…I was at the hearing which was shameful and disingenuous and a waste of taxpayer money. Well done NAIJ.

That about sums it up!

As the decision pointed out, even as the DOJ/EOIR kakistocracy reduces Immigration Judges basically to “deportation clerks,” stripping them of even minimal authority to control their dockets, and largely circumscribing their exercises of discretion, they make the outrageously fraudulent claim that these “deportation clerk judges” are “managers” to squelch their First Amendment rights to speak out and reveal the ongoing fraud, waste, and abuse at EOIR.

There was a time when public officials might have hesitated to engage in such dishonest conduct in full public view for fear of being held accountable. However, thanks to a feckless Congress and indolent Supremes’ majority, those days are gone.

The Trump kakistocracy now feels free to violate the Constitution, ignore statutes, make disingenuous arguments to courts and other tribunals, lie, and loot the Treasury without fear of consequences other than an occasional “slap on the wrist” when, as in this case, someone actually dares to “just say no” to their degradation of American democracy.

One could easily wonder why a FLRA Regional Director has more courage, integrity, legal knowledge, and a better understanding of what’s really going on in our Immigration “Courts” than a majority of Justices on the Supremes and many Article III Judges who simply “pretend to look away” as these outrageous abuses of our justice system are “normalized” in Billy Barr’s corrupt and unconstitutional “courts.”

One can only hope that legal historians will expose truth and “rip apart” the legacies of those Justices, judges, legislators, and other public officials who allowed these “crimes against humanity” to be carried out with impunity on their watch!

Due Process Forever.

PWS

08-01-20

⚖️🗽😎👍🏼👨🏾‍🎓🏆MASTER CALENDAR REFORM: WHAT THE POST-KAKISTOCRACY IMMIGRATION COURT COULD LOOK LIKE — “The Asylumist” Jason Dzubow Shows Exactly Why An Independent Article I Immigration Court With More “Private Sector Experts” (Like Jason & Many Others) As Judges & Judicial Administrators Would Promote “Due Process With Efficiency” & Creative Judicial Administration That Would Be Good For Everyone Involved (Including DHS)!

https://www.asylumist.com/2020/07/29/re-thinking-the-master-calendar-hearing-in-the-time-of-coronavirus/

New post on The Asylumist

The Master Calendar Hearing–where dozens of people are squeezed into a room and forced to wait for hours in order to talk to a Judge for two minutes–has always been a headache and a waste of time. Now, though, as the coronavirus pandemic continues unabated, attending an MCH seems downright dangerous (lucky for us, we have an associate attorney who covers our MCHs – Don’t forget to wash your hands when (if) you get back!). I’ve written before about alternatives to the MCH, and given the expanding pandemic and the need for social distancing, now seems a good time to re-visit some of these ideas.

Before we get to that, I should mention that MCHs are not the only place where groups of non-citizens are packed together against their will. Far worse are our nation’s ICE detention facilities and private prisons, where conditions were already quite bleak (in the two years before the pandemic, 21 people died in ICE custody). Unfortunately, ICE has not taken effective action to protect detained asylum seekers and other non-citizens from the pandemic (at one facility in Virginia, for example, nearly 75% of detainees tested positive for COVID-19), and the agency seems to have little regard for the health of its detainees (or staff). As a colleague aptly notes, Anne Frank did not die in a gas chamber; she most likely died from typhus, which was epidemic in her detention camp.

Also, it’s worth noting that the National Association of Immigration Judges (the judges’ union) has been working hard for safer conditions in our nation’s Immigration Courts, even if EOIR management has been hostile to some of those efforts. Currently, non-detained MCHs have been suspended, but so far, there is no EOIR-wide policy for what to do instead. Some Immigration Judges and individual courts have made it easier to submit written statements in lieu of MCHs, but the process is still needlessly awkward and time consuming.

MCHs are no more efficient today than they were in olden times.

While we need a short-term fix so that MCHs can go forward during the pandemic, here I want to talk about longer-term solutions. Below are a few ideas for replacing in-person MCHs. While these ideas may not work in all cases, they will help most respondents (and their attorneys) avoid attending MCHs. This would save time and money for people in court, and would also save time and resources for the courts themselves, and for DHS. In addition, reducing the need to appear in person would help prevent the spread of disease. In short, doing away with MCHs is an all around win. So without further ado, here are some ideas to get rid of those pesky Master Calendar Hearings–

e-Master Calendar Hearings: EOIR–the Executive Office for Immigration Review, the office that oversees our nation’s Immigration Courts–has been working towards electronic filing for decades, and in some courts, limited online filing is available. Given that the infrastructure is being put into place for online filing, EOIR should create an online MCH. There already exists a system for written MCHs, but this is a huge pain in the neck. It involves a burdensome amount of paperwork, and judges don’t always respond to the documents we file. This means that we lawyers do double work–we submit everything in writing and we have to attend the MCH. Given how unreliable it is, many attorneys (including yours truly) would rather attend the MCH than try to do it in writing.

An effective and reliable e-MCH would be easy to use and efficient. Most cases fit a clear pattern: Admit the allegations, concede the charge(s), indicate the relief sought and language spoken, designate the country of removal, and obtain a date for the Individual Hearing. For attorneys and accredited representatives who are registered with EOIR, this could all easily be accomplished through an online form, thus saving time for all involved.

Orientation Sessions for Unrepresented Respondents: One difficulty during the typical MCH is attending to unrepresented respondents. People who come to court without a lawyer tend to take more time than people who have attorneys. This is because the attorneys (usually) know what is expected at the MCH and are (hopefully) ready to proceed. For people without lawyers, the Immigration Judge (“IJ”) needs to explain what is going on, often through an interpreter. All this takes time and seems like busy work for the IJ (who often has to repeat the same litany multiple times during each MCH). Why not provide pre-MCHs with court staff instead of judges? There, unrepresented respondents can received a basic orientation about the process and be encouraged to find a lawyer. These sessions could be organized by language. Respondents who indicate that they will return with a lawyer can be given a deadline by which the lawyer can either submit the necessary information online (if e-MCHs have been implemented) or come to court if need be. Respondents who will not use a lawyer can be given a date to return for an in-person MCH with a judge. Even if e-MCHs are not implemented, having an orientation session would save significant time for judges and would make MCHs more efficient.

Empower DHS: In Immigration Court, the “prosecutor” works for the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”). Most DHS attorneys are overwhelmed and overworked. They have little time to review cases in advance or to speak with opposing counsel prior to the MCH or the Individual Hearing. What if there were more DHS attorneys? What if we could pre-try cases, narrow issues, and maybe even hold depositions? If issues could be hashed out ahead of time, we could shorten or eliminate the need for a MCH, and we could make Individual Hearings more efficient.

All this seems pretty basic. The Immigration Courts are overwhelmed. Reducing or eliminating MCHs will free up judges to do substantive work. It will also save time for DHS, respondents, and their attorneys. And of course, given our new normal with the coronavirus, it will help keep everyone safe. Changes to the MCH system are long overdue, and are especially urgent due to the pandemic. Let’s hope that EOIR can finally rise to the occasion.

Jason Dzubow | July 29, 2020 at 9:09 am | Tags: coronavirus, court, EOIR | Categories: Immigration Court | URL: https://wp.me/p8nkzm-21G

Re-Thinking the Master Calendar Hearing in the Time of Coronavirus

by Jason Dzubow

Comment See all comments

Unsubscribe to no longer receive posts from The Asylumist.

Change your email settings at Manage Subscriptions.

Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser:

https://www.asylumist.com/2020/07/29/re-thinking-the-master-calendar-hearing-in-the-time-of-coronavirus/

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

Thanks, Jason, for some great ideas!

One could wonder why EOIR hasn’t done this already. Unfortunately, the answer is obvious: It’s a “built to fail system” FUBAR System, run by a maliciously incompetent politicized kakistocracy whose main objective is to screw immigrants and secondary objective is to degrade and demoralize its own employees.

Creative thinking and working collectively and cooperatively with knowledgeable “stakeholders” — private counsel, pro bono groups, NGOs, immigrants, judges, staff, and ICE attorneys — is actively discouraged if not outright prohibited by current the political kakistocracy. That’s what happens when a racist, xenophobic agenda replaces due process and fundamental fairness as the objective and vision of the system. A kakistocracy actually inhibits and suppresses creative positive change in favor of “political gimmicks” and “haste makes waste” non-solutions to problems. The Trump regime is “Exhibit A!”

That’s why true reform can’t come without:

regime change;
Article I;
return to a sole focus on due process and fundamental fairness through teamwork and innovation;
a merit based Immigration Judiciary at all levels; and
professional court administration accountable to that independent judiciary (not a political kakistocracy).

Thanks for pointing us in the right direction, Jason! I know from my experience that there are lots of other folks out there in private sector with some great ideas on how to make the Immigration Court System functional while advancing due process, fundamental fairness, and human rights.

Another idea for promoting due process with efficiency developed by my friend retired Wisconsin Judge Tom Lister and me is to create a trained corps of Reserve Immigration Judges. https://immigrationcourtside.com/2019/08/19/an-open-letter-proposal-from-two-uw-law-73-retired-judges-weve-spent-90-collective-years-working-to-improve-the-quality-delivery-of-justice-in-america/

This would be comprised of retired judges from all systems who could work on a volunteer basis to perform certain types of standard judicial tasks to free up Immigration Judges to concentrate on fairly resolving the most difficult legal issues at individual hearings and to work on their opinion writing.

Master calendar hearings, motions calendars, status calls, bond hearings, and certain types of hearings where the issues are primarily factual would be naturals for a Reserve Immigration Judge Corps. It also would allow the Immigraton Court System to be more responsive to workload fluctuations without the problems of “fire drill” overstaffing, understaffing, and “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” that currently plague the system.

Right now, we lack the political will to get the job done. That must start this November with “regime change” at all levels of our political system.

Elected officials who aren’t willing to prioritize and commit to an independent Article I Immigration Court dedicated to due process and fundamental fairness should be voted out of office. Enough of the nonsense, malicious incompetence, and inhumanity. Time for a change! We can’t afford the kakistocracy!

Due Process Forever!

PWS

07-29-20

This November, vote like your life and the future of our democracy depend on it! Because they do!

Related posts:

Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Due Process Forever! Complicit Courts Never!

Related posts:

Due Process Forever! The EOIR kakistocracy, never!

Related posts:

Related posts:

Diminishing ourselves as a nation,🤮 won’t stop human migration🗽!

Related posts:

Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Due Process Forever!🗽⚖️👩🏻‍⚖️

Related posts:

This November, vote like your life depends on it! Because it does!

Related posts:

Due Process Forever.

Related posts:

Due Process Forever!

PWS

Related posts: