"The Voice of the New Due Process Army" ————– Musings on Events in U.S. Immigration Court, Immigration Law, Sports, Music, Politics, and Other Random Topics by Retired United States Immigration Judge (Arlington, Virginia) and former Chairman of the Board of Immigration Appeals PAUL WICKHAM SCHMIDT and DR. ALICIA TRICHE, expert brief writer, practical scholar, emeritus Editor-in-Chief of The Green Card (FBA), and 2022 Federal Bar Association Immigration Section Lawyer of the Year. She is a/k/a “Delta Ondine,” a blues-based alt-rock singer-songwriter, who performs regularly in Memphis, where she hosts her own Blues Brunch series, and will soon be recording her first full, professional album. Stay tuned! 🎶 To see our complete professional bios, just click on the link below.
Bill Barr Consigliere Artist: Pat Bagley Salt Lake Tribune Reproduced under license“Eyore In Distress” Once A Symbol of Fairness, Due Process, & Best Practices, Now Gone “Belly Up”
From the EOIR website:
Garry Malphrus
Deputy Chief Appellate Immigration Judge
Attorney General William P. Barr appointed Garry Malphrus as a deputy chief appellate immigration judge in September 2020. Judge Malphrus earned a Bachelor of Arts in 1989 from the University of South Carolina and a Juris Doctor in 1993 from the University of South Carolina. From August 2008 to September 2020, he served on the Board of Immigration Appeals, Executive Office for Immigration Review, including as acting board chairman from October 2019 to May 2020. From 2005 to 2008, he served as an immigration judge at the Arlington Immigration Court. From 2001 to 2005, he served as associate director of the White House Domestic Policy Council. From 1997 to 2001, he worked for the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary, which included serving as chief counsel and staff director on the Subcommittee on Criminal Justice Oversight and the Subcommittee on the Constitution. From 1995 to 1997, Garry served as a law clerk for the Honorable Dennis W. Shedd, U.S. District Judge for the District of South Carolina. From 1994 to 1995, he was a law clerk for the Honorable William W. Wilkins of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. From 1993 to 1994, he was a law clerk for the Honorable Larry R. Patterson, Circuit Judge for South Carolina. Judge Malphrus is a member of the South Carolina Bar.
****************
No surprise here, folks, as Courtside had predicted this back in May:
This appears to be the “penultimate step” in the ongoing process of “benching” the long-time “holdover” Vice Chair Chuck Adkins-Blanch. First, he was “passed over” when Judge Malphrus became the BIA’s Acting Chair following the hasty departure of former Chair David Neal. Now, Malphrus basically has been “layered in” to be the “real Deputy,” who will faithfully continue to carry out Billy’s nativist political agenda, presumably until Adkins-Blanch reaches retirement and finally pulls the plug.
Needless to say, Judge Adkins-Blanch’s name has been conspicuously absent from the BIA’s most recent barrage of anti-immigrant, anti-asylum “precedents.” That is, of course, the “precedents” that Billy lets the BIA write as opposed to the ones that he and his fellow political hacks at “Main DOJ” issue as “AG precedents.”
More and more, the AG, whom nobody except, perhaps, a few intentionally tone-deaf Circuit Court of Appeals Judges, would mistake for an “expert” in immigration law, has taken over the BIA’s precedent setting function. That leaves the BIA basically to do the “mop-up work” of maximizing the impact of Billy’s anti-immigrant policies and insuring that just and fair results below favoring immigrants are reversed upon demand of “EOIR’s masters” at DHS Enforcement.
Talk about the need for an Article I Court with a new cast of characters selected on a merit basis for their demonstrated immigration expertise, and established commitment to due process, fundamental fairness, equal justice, human rights, and practical applied scholarship! That so many Article III judges continue to “go along to get along” with this vile legal charade says some pretty sad things about the overall state of justice and the judiciary in America!
An Article I Court requires judicial leadership that replaces “built to fail ‘Vatican Style’ (or “Legacy INS Style”) hierarchical bureaucracy” with professional court administration and a much “leaner and flatter” judicial structure. A judicial structure where most resources are devoted to actually fairly and efficiently deciding cases, establishing “best practices,” and leading by example. That would eliminate the “Mickey Mouse” demeaning “control freak supervision (“suppression”)” of supposedly senior level “judges” who, if properly selected, would need effective support, but little to no “supervision” in the normal bureaucratic sense of the term.
In the meantime, expect the backlog to grow unabated and the Article IIIs to continue to reverse and return an essentially random selection of the BIA’s reliably “one-sided” jurisprudence for “redos!” That will further increase the backlog without effectively addressing the fundamental problem of an unconstitutional system with a clearly established anti-immigrant political bias!
Just more signs of an Americanjustice system now in the throes of institutional failure!
I am a lawyer specializing in asylum and refugee law. I have taught refugee law at George Washington University, University of San Francisco and Howard University. I have worked with the U.S. government and the UN Refugee Agency in refugee resettlement all over the world, most recently in Rwanda until COVID shut down our interviews.
In 2011 I self-published my legal memoir, My Trials: Inside America’s Deportation Factories, focusing upon the deportation system and my time as an immigration judge. It is time to update the book, given all the changes and destructive policies that have occured in recent years to our asylum system. The book received great reviews: “My Trials is both a scathing indictment of a broken immigration system that sends vulnerable immigrants back to perilous situations from which they fled, and a heartfelt call for a return to the values upon which our nation was founded.” American Immigration Lawyers Association. It was endorsed by renowned criminal defense attorney Gerry Spence.
The budget will include $2000 for editing and formatting, and $3000 for a limited publicity campaign. I am currently working with an editor to make the book available on Amazon by first week of October, so funds are essential now. It will be available on all other platforms mid-October.
This book has been a labor of love and education, and I have not profited from it. I will be tremendously grateful for assistance to make this updated book available at this critical junction in our nation’s history.
Click here it contribute to Paul’s “Go Fund Me” Campaign:
Judge, educator, public servant, humanitarian, author, role model, tireless advocate for due process, fundamental fairness, and equal justice for all: Thanks, Paul, for all you have done and continue to do. It’s a total honor to serve with you on the Round Table!🛡⚔️👍🏼
Hon. Ilyce Shugall U.S. Immigraton Judge (Retired) Director, Immigrant Legal Defense Program, Justice & Diversity Center of the Bar Assn. of San Francisco.Hon. Jeffrey S. Chase Jeffrey S. Chase Blog Coordinator & Chief Spokesperson, Round Table of Former Immigration JudgesHonorable Joan Churchill Retired U.S. Immigration Judge Member Round Table of Retired JudgesHon. Cecelia M.Espenoza Former Appellate Immigration Judge, BIA Source: Denverdemocrats.orgHon. Rebecca Jamil U.S. Immigration Judge (Ret.) Source: Twitter
The Round Table of Former Immigration Judges is composed of 47 former Immigration Judges and Appellate Immigration Judges of the Board of Immigration Appeals. We were appointed by and served under both Republican and Democratic administrations. We have centuries of com- bined experience adjudicating asylum applications and appeals. Our members include nation- ally-respected experts on asylum law; many regularly lecture at law schools and conferences and author articles on the topic.
Our members issued decisions encompassing wide-ranging interpretations of our asylum laws during our service on the bench. Whether or not we ultimately reached the correct result, those decisions were always exercised according to our “own understanding and conscience,”1 and not in acquiescence to the political agenda of the party or administration under which we served.
We as judges understood that whether or not we agreed with the intent of Congress, we were still bound to follow it. The same is true of the Attorney General, Secretary of Homeland Security, and for that matter, the President.
INTRODUCTION
Initially we note that the current practice of reducing the time for notice and comment, severely undermines the ability for the public to digest and comment on rules. The reduction of time to
1 See Accardi v. Shaughnessy, 347 U.S. 260, 266-67 (1954). 1
30 days violates the intent of Congress to give full deliberation to regulatory changes. As experi- enced adjudicators, we are in a unique position to contextualize these changes, but even with our experience, the breadth of these proposed regulations should allow for additional time to review and comment.
Next, we note that the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), contains changes that continue to diminish the role and function of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) as an independent adjudicatory body free from political pressure. For example, the granting of certification author- ity to judges who are supposed to be subject to the appellate review of the BIA, does not further the objectives of finality or due process. Further, these rules are slanted in ways that diminish actions and take away tools used by Immigration Judges and Board to manage dockets and en- sure consideration of changed circumstances that might arise for either party. Under the NPRM, the Department of Homeland Security is invited to utilize unlimited power to reopen cases for negative information, and all opportunity for respondents to obtain reopening for new infor- mation have been removed.
In our review we do not object to the clarifications and changes regarding: 1) finality; 2) the ex- pansion of the authority to grant voluntary departure to the BIA; and 3) having cases that only need security checks being placed on hold by the BIA.
However, we do object to: 1) the proposed shortened briefing schedule; 2) simultaneous briefing in non-detained cases; 3) the prohibition from receiving new evidence on appeal, remanding a case for the immigration judge to consider new evidence in the course of adjudicating an appeal, or considering a motion to remand based on new evidence; 4) the elimination of the ability of immigration judges to consider issues beyond the express scope of the remand; 5) giving Immi- gration Judges Certification Authority over BIA decisions; 5) the proposed elimination of admi- nistrative closures; 6) the proposed elimination of the delegation of sua sponte reopening author- ity; 7) removal of BIA certification authority; 8) the imposition of new deadlines and timeframes for adjudication of appeals with those failing to be adjudicated in the specified time being re- ferred to the EOIR Director for adjudication; and 9) the elimination of Immigration Judge review of transcripts.
In short, there is little in the NPRM, that furthers the interests of ensuring a fair and neutral adju- dication. We are concerned with the overall diminishment of the BIA as an appellate body.
Read the full 17-page comment with the names of all the signers here:
In August 2020, the Executive Office of Immigration Review (EOIR) proposed a new rule that would effectively eliminate administrative closure as a docket management tool for Immigration Judges. The EOIR justified this proposed rule by claiming that administrative closure has “exacerbated both the extent of the existing backlog of immigration court cases and the difficulty in addressing that backlog in a fair and timely manner.” TRAC analyzed the EOIR’s claims as well as the historical data on administrative closure from 1986, and has just published its findings in a detailed report. The link to the report is below.
TRAC’s detailed analysis of the court records on administrative closure yields four key findings. First, administrative closure has been routinely used by Immigration Judges to manage their growing caseloads as well as manage the unresolved overlapping of jurisdictions between the EOIR and other immigration agencies. From FY 1986 to 2020, 6.1 percent (or 376,439) deportation and removal cases had been administratively closed during their lifespan. Each year, between 1 percent and 30 percent of cases are administratively closed, with high percentages of administrative closures during the Reagan and Bush Administrations in the late 1980s and early 1990s and during the Obama Administration between 2012 and 2016.
Second, TRAC finds that far from contributing to the backlog, administrative closure has helped reduce the backlog. If the 292,042 cases that are currently administratively closed and not yet recalendared were brought back onto the Court’s active docket, this would suddenly increase the Court’s active workload from its current backlog at the end of July 2020 of 1,233,307 cases to 1,525,349 cases. This would produce a 24 percent jump in the court’s already clogged hearing schedules, pushing the resolution of other backlogged cases off for many additional months if not years.
Third, data from the Immigration Courts show that immigrants who obtain administrative closure are likely to have followed legal requirements and obtain lawful status. When cases were administratively closed, recalendared, and decided, most immigrants met the legal standard to remain in the country lawfully. For example, for those cases in which the government was seeking removal orders, six out of ten (60.1%) immigrants met the high legal threshold of remaining in the country. The largest proportion of these had their cases terminated since the Court ultimately found there were no longer valid grounds to deport them. Just three out of ten (30.3%) immigrants were ultimately ordered removed.
Fourth, the EOIR significantly misrepresented the data it used to justify this rule. Specifically, the agency claims to show low numbers of case completions during the Obama Administration and high numbers of case completions during the Trump Administration. In reality, the data behind this argument artificially eliminates cases that were administratively closed. Its argument also fails to recognize that average annual case completions per Immigration Judge have actually declined from 737 closures per judge to 657 per judge during the past four years, not increased, perhaps due to the changes introduced by the current Administration.
TRAC’s free web query tools which track Immigration Court proceedings have also been updated through July 2020. For an index to the full list of TRAC’s immigration tools and their latest update go to:
TRAC is self-supporting and depends on foundation grants, individual contributions and subscription fees for the funding needed to obtain, analyze and publish the data we collect on the activities of the US Federal government. To help support TRAC’s ongoing efforts, go to:
David Burnham and Susan B. Long, co-directors
Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse
Syracuse University
Suite 360, Newhouse II
Syracuse, NY 13244-2100
315-443-3563 trac@syr.edu https://trac.syr.edu
The Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse is a nonpartisan joint research center of the Whitman School of Management (https://whitman.syr.edu) and the Newhouse School of Public Communications (https://newhouse.syr.edu) at Syracuse University. If you know someone who would like to sign up to receive occasional email announcements and press releases, they may go to https://trac.syr.edu and click on the E-mail Alerts link at the bottom of the page. If you do not wish to receive future email announcements and wish to be removed from our list, please send an email to trac@syr.edu with REMOVE as the subject.
*************************************
“Significantly misrepresented” — That’s a euphamism for “blatantly lied.” Of course, that’s what the head of the regime does on life or death matters. So, I suppose we wouldn’t expect anything else from the “toadies on parade” filling out the kakistocracy.
Look, you don’t “jack” the backlog to at least twice its “pre-regime” level with twice the number of Immigration Judges without some pretty grotesque mismanagement, cover-ups, falsification of data, dishonesty, and denial of rights to migrants.
Moreover, TRAC specifically shows the “false narrative” peddled by the racists in the Trump regime that administrative closing is some type of “evasion” that is not in the public interest. As Judge Richard Leon would say “poppycock.” It’s exactly the opposite! TRAC finds that “data from the Immigration Courts show that immigrants who obtain administrative closure are likely to have followed legal requirements and obtain lawful status.”
Administrative closure is a sane, reasonable, well-established, entirely legal, and absolutely necessary procedure.Gee whiz, one of the original proponents of administrative closure and its aggressive use as a docket management tool was the late first Chief Immigration Judge William R. Robie. Chief Judge Robie was a Republican appointee during the Reagan Administration. He also was a devotee of fundamental fairness and judicial efficiency. He had led a number of professional organizations and was known and respected in the DC Legal Community as a “guru of timeliness and efficient legal administration.”
What’s abusive are the illegal tactics, lies, and mismanagement at both DOJ and DHS that have been concocted to justify racist, White Nationalist policies that do not serve the public interest!
Due Process Forever!
PWS
09-10-20
**************************
Here’s an Addendum from Margaret Stock:
From: Margaret Stock [mailto:MStock@CASCADIALAWALASKA.COM] Sent: Saturday, September 12, 2020 10:17 AM To: Benson, Lenni B. Cc: Immprof (immprof@lists.ucla.edu) Subject: Re: [immprof] FW: The Life and Death of Administrative Closure
The Administration is most definitely putting out misleading information (as usual). Example: one often overlooked “administrative closure” group has been members of the US military who got tossed into removal proceedings for one reason or another (usually because of a referred asylum case or failure to file an I751 or denial of an I751 by USCIS). They almost always naturalize after being put into proceedings, then reopen and terminate. Lately, they’ve had to hire a lawyer to keep showing up at master calendar hearings, usually for a couple of years. The judges can’t hear the case because they’ve got naturalization applications pending. But the judges have to keep wasting docket time on them because there’s no such thing as admin closure anymore. It’s foolish and costly for the service members.
Hundreds of Americans are dying every day from COVID-19. Unemployment is at 8.4%. Everything is fine.
By Jennifer Bendery
WASHINGTON ― The Senate is back in session after a month of recess and Republicans’ first order of business isn’t a comprehensive coronavirus relief bill. Or emergency stimulus in response to high unemployment. Or legislation addressing nationwide unrest over police violence targeting Black Americans.
It’s confirming more judges.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who has long said his top priority is getting President Donald Trump’s nominees settled into lifetime federal court seats, didn’t disappoint on Wednesday. At a time when nearly 190,000 Americans have died from COVID-19 and unemployment is at 8.4%, the Senate kicked off its first full day of business with a vote to confirm a district court judge, procedural votes to advance two more district court nominees, another vote to confirm one of those nominees, and two more procedural votes to advance two more district court nominees.
Democrats and Republicans are in a standoff over coronavirus relief legislation. The House passed a sweeping $3 trillion package in May that has gone nowhere in the Senate, where Democrats are ready to pass the House bill but Republicans don’t even agree with each other on what to do. Some prefer no action at all on another coronavirus package because it would add to the growing federal deficit.
McConnell will try to pass a narrowly focused COVID-19 relief bill this week, but it’s purely a political exercise ― an effort to give vulnerable Republicans something to run on ahead of the November elections. It includes funding for small businesses and schools and enhanced $300-a-week unemployment benefits. It leaves out another round of stimulus checks, which Republicans previously supported, and does not include rental assistance or aid to cities and states, which Democrats have insisted on. And it’s not even clear if a majority of Republicans will support the bill.
The Senate Judiciary Committee also met Wednesday for the first time in more than a month. The panel, led by Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), has jurisdiction over a number of issues related to the health and economic fallout from COVID-19. Graham could, for example, hold hearings that looked at the needs of state and local law enforcement on the front lines of the pandemic. He could hold hearings on the health and safety of corrections staff and incarcerated people. He could hold hearings on changes in immigration policy tied to the pandemic.
Instead, the committee held a hearing to advance five more of Trump’s judicial nominees.
One of those nominees isn’t even qualified to be a federal judge, according to the American Bar Association. Just as the hearing got underway, the ABA released an embarrassing “not qualified” rating for Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, Trump’s nominee for a seat on the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida.
“The nominee presently does not meet the requisite minimum standard of experience necessary to perform the responsibilities required by the high office of a federal trial judge,” reads the ABA’s review of Mizelle’s nomination.
. . . .
Mizelle, 33, is eight years out of law school and has practiced law for four years. She has participated in a total of two trials (as a law student) and has not tried a case, civil or criminal, as lead or co-counsel.
. . . .
“This nominee has been put forward not only because she is an ultraconservative ideologue, but also because she is a Trump loyalist, having worked in the Trump Justice Department to dismantle many critical civil rights protections,” reads a Tuesday letter to senators from the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, a coalition of more than 220 national civil rights groups. “The Senate must reject her nomination.”
Trump’s most lasting legacy will arguably be his judges, who will sit on the nation’s courts for decades after he’s left the White House. He has had confirmed a total of 204 Article III judges, including two Supreme Court justices, 53 appeals court judges and 147 district court judges. A common thread among his court picks is that many are young, white, male and hold extreme ideological views on abortion, LGBTQ rights and other civil rights.
*******************
Read the complete article at the link.
Why The Private Sector Immigration Bar Holds The Key To A Better Article III Judiciary For America
By Paul Wickham Schmidt
Courtside Exclusive
Sept. 10, 2020
Hey, Hey, Ho, Ho, the Trump regime🏴☠️ has got to go!
And that includes Moscow Mitch and every GOP Senator on the ballot this Fall. The serious long-term damage they have inflicted on our nation is already catastrophic! Let’s not let it become fatal!
Our sinking “Ship of State,” including the failing Federal Judiciary that is largely unrepresentative of our diverse nation, too often lacks engagement with the “human face” of our justice system, and sometimes demeans our best humane national values, can still be saved and put the on the correct course.
It won’t be easy. It won’t happen overnight, particularly with the life-tenured judiciary. But, it must start in November. Remember, the law is about humanity, fairness, and equatable human relations, as embodied in the due process and equal protection clauses of our Constitution.
It’s not the dusty, musty, wooden, racially tone deaf, sometimes intentionally unfair, anti-civil-rights, anti-human rights, and often contrived “anti-social ideologies of the right” that blind a disproportionate number of Trump-Mitch appointees and enable lawless, fundamentally anti-American tyrants like Trump and his cult of sycophants to run roughshod over our country, our national values, and human decency.
Yesterday, Courtside highlighted the monumental achievements of a real American legal heroine and superstar, Attorney Sarah Owings of Atlanta, Georgia. She could have done other things with her skills and her career. Instead, she devoted herself to “working in the trenches of the law,” laboriously making an intentionally unfair and dysfunctional system fairer, and preserving the rights and saving the lives of some of the most vulnerable among us.
That’s what a real lawyer does. Disgracefully, these are the folks now largely missing from our elitist, out of touch with humanity Federal Bench.
Compare her “real life” qualifications, contributions, and courage with those of a strikingly unqualified, lightweight right wing dilettante like Mizelle. That’s one reason why our nation and our judiciary are in failure right now. Lack of leadership and lack of moral courage and human values. It’s literally killing individuals across our nation, a disproportionate number of them people of color. It must stop. Social justice can no longer be demeaned and demolished by those in charge!
It’s past time to stop “undervaluing and ignoring” the outstanding ”practical scholarship” (see, “Law You Can Use”), great courage to speak truth to power, energy, dedication, “retail level litigation skills,” and creative problem solving abilities of the private sector immigration bar, many serving in pro bono, low bono, clinical, or NGO capacities, in Federal Judicial Selection.
As tell law students, “if you can win an asylum case in today’s conditions, everything else you do in law will be a piece of cake.” There are good reasons why some of the largest law firms in America have found pro bono Immigration Court work to be some of the greatest “real life legal training” out there! Also, good reasons why some of the best legal minds and legal strategists in America are working pro bono on amicus briefs for our Round Table of Former Immigration Judges!
A new, independent, Article I Immigration Court with a “merit-based” judicial selection system should be the ideal training ground and future selection pool for a better, fairer, more efficient, more diverse, more representative, and more effective Article III Judiciary. One that would have an unswerving commitment to Constitutionally required “equal justice under law.” A judiciary that would fairly and efficiently solve problems rather than avoiding and often aggravating them! An Article III Judiciary that would actually understand and appreciate immigration and human rights laws and their fundamental connection to the goal of equal justice for all!
The talent necessary to stop the bleeding and vastly improve the American justice system is out there. What’s lacking right now is the leadership and political power to make a better future a reality, for all Americans.
We must take back our nation, before it’s too late for humanity!
Hon. Polly Webber US Immigration Judge (Ret.) Member Round Table of Former Immigration Judges Fiber ArtistKnightess of the Round Table
Polly writes:
Hi everyone,
I taped a show today on our local Napa TV station to compare the 2020 Immigration Platforms of the RNC and the DNC. Amazingly, they sent me the video tonight. It will air 8 times in the month of October.
I only had about 25 minutes, and there is an avalanche of information that I had to leave out in order to get the major points out.
Thanks, Polly for being the voice of truth and rationality! You are a true “Knightess of Our Round Table.”I know I speak for the others when I say that it is a privilege and an honor to “fight the good fight” alongside you!
I particularly recommend Polly’s very cogent explanation of the importance of prosecutorial discretion, administrative closing, and independent docket control by Immigration Judges. It shows why the elimination of these beneficial and essential tools by former AG Jeff “Gonzo Apocalypto” Sessions was so stupid and counterproductive, in addition to being illegal. It’s one of the many reasons why Billy the Bigot and Gonzo have doubled the backlog with twice the number of Immigration Judges.
On top of cruelty, stupidity, and scofflaw behavior, the Trump regime continues to squander taxpayer moneywith maliciously incompetent administration!That’s exactly what a kakistocracy does! Just putting competent judicial administration in charge of existing resources would make a huge positive difference!
“Eyore In Distress” Once A Symbol of Fairness, Due Process, & Best Practices, Now Gone “Belly Up”“Justice” Star Chamber StyleHon. Susan G. Roy Law Office of Susan G. Roy, LLC Princeton Junction, NJ Member, Round Table of Former Immigration JudgesKnightess of the Round TableHon. Jeffrey S. Chase Jeffrey S. Chase Blog Coordinator & Chief Spokesperson, Round Table of Former Immigration JudgesLaura Lynch Senior Policy Counsel AILA
Ex-Immigration Judges Say NJ Court Risking Public Health
By Sarah Martinson
Law360 is providing free access to its coronavirus coverage to make sure all members of the legal community have accurate information in this time of uncertainty and change. Use the form below to sign up for any of our daily newsletters. Signing up for any of our section newsletters will opt you in to the daily Coronavirus briefing.
Sign up for our Immigration newsletter
Email (NOTE: Free email domains not supported)
Sign up now
Select more newsletters to receive for free [+]
Law360 (September 2, 2020, 7:00 PM EDT) — More than 30 former immigration judges voiced support for New Jersey lawyers’ lawsuit seeking to stop in-person hearings at Newark Immigration Court during the COVID-19 pandemic, saying the court needs to prioritize people’s health over case completion numbers.
In a letter Tuesday supporting the New Jersey chapter of the American Immigration Lawyers Association‘s suit against the Trump administration, the Round Table of Former Immigration Judges said the fact that the New Jersey immigration court is requiring judges, court staff and interpreters to appear in person at all hearings and not requiring them to wear masks is “troubling,” especially in light of four coronavirus-related deaths of people who visited and worked at the courthouse building.
The U.S. Department of Justice‘s Executive Office for Immigration Review, which operates the Newark Immigration Court, is putting case completion numbers ahead of people’s health and safety, to “the detriment of all those who appear at the court,” the former immigration judges said.
“EOIR’s push to move forward and complete as many cases as possible demonstrates that it has abdicated its responsibility to ensure that all parties are guaranteed a semblance of due process,” they said, adding that the agency’s “complete disregard of the health and safety of not only litigants, but its own employees, is further testament of the agency’s misguided priorities.”
In April 2018, the EOIR announced starting in October of that year immigration judges would be required to complete 700 cases annually and remand less than 15% of cases to have satisfactorily met their job expectations.
The policy change came after the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse at Syracuse University released a February 2018 report finding that there was a backlog of more than 680,000 cases in immigration courts nationwide. Later that year, TRAC reported that the immigration court backlog surpassed 1 million cases.
The agency’s policy shift raised concerns among immigration advocates that immigration judges wouldn’t be able to decide cases fairly and prompted six immigration advocacy groups to sue the EOIR in federal court. The groups alleged that the Trump administration was weaponizing immigration courts by denying immigrants a fair chance at obtaining asylum.
The former immigration judges and Board of Immigration Appeals judges said in their letter that the Newark Immigration Court has “no legitimate reason” for not using videoconferencing technology that is being used by other New Jersey courts in place of in-person hearings.
“We are well aware of the fact that EOIR has the technology to handle its cases via televideo,” they said.
In March, the American Immigration Lawyers Association along with two other advocacy organizations filed a similar complaint in D.C. federal court seeking the immediate suspension of in-person detention hearings or the release of all detained migrants who have no means to remotely access legal representation or the immigration court.
A D.C. federal judge ruled in that case that the organizations didn’t show the court had the authority to stop proceedings, allowing in-person hearings to continue.
AILA-NJ’s attorney Michael Noveck of Gibbons PC told Law360 in a statement Wednesday that “there is no excuse for EOIR’s failure to conduct proceedings by remote videoconferencing, where the technology to do so is fully available to EOIR.”
“EOIR’s failure to use this readily accessible technology risks the health and lives of attorneys (among others) who are compelled to appear in person at the Newark Immigration Court, and, as we have argued in our complaint and motion for preliminary injunction, it is therefore unlawful and cannot be justified by a rush to deport people,” Noveck said.
Counsel for the federal government declined to comment Wednesday.
AILA-NJ is represented by Lawrence S. Lustberg and Michael R. Noveck of Gibbons PC.
The federal government is represented by Ben Kuruvilla of the Office of the U.S. Attorney for the District of New Jersey.
NJ Immigration Attys Can’t Stop In-Person Hearings For Now
By Jeannie O’Sullivan
Law360 is providing free access to its coronavirus coverage to make sure all members of the legal community have accurate information in this time of uncertainty and change. Use the form below to sign up for any of our daily newsletters. Signing up for any of our section newsletters will opt you in to the daily Coronavirus briefing.
Sign up for our Immigration newsletter
Email (NOTE: Free email domains not supported)
Sign up now
Select more newsletters to receive for free [+]
Law360 (September 3, 2020, 8:53 PM EDT) — A New Jersey federal judge on Thursday expressed sympathy for attorneys’ concerns about mandated in-person hearings in Newark Immigration Court during the COVID-19 pandemic, but said he needed more information from the government before ruling on their request to halt the in-person requirement.
During a telephone hearing, U.S. District Judge John Michael Vasquez declined to grant a temporary restraining order for the Garden State chapter of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, citing a dearth of information about the Justice Department’s Executive Office of Immigration Review’s July decision to resume in-person proceedings.
The AILA’s emergency request came as part of its lawsuit seeking to reverse the EOIR’s mandate after an attorney and law clerk who attended March hearings later died of the coronavirus. Judge Vasquez said he needed to know more about the EOIR’s plan for social distancing and screening before it ordered the in-person hearings.
“I’m looking for the decision-making process before these instructions were put in place,” Judge Vasquez told the parties. “I want to understand what the EOIR considered, and what the Newark immigration judges considered, before they made these decisions. I’m looking for what they actually took into account.”
The judge instructed the government to furnish the information within two weeks, and said the immigration attorneys would have a week after that to reply.
“In-person can be workable, but there’s a lot more information that I need,” Judge Vasquez said at one point.
Also during the hearing, Judge Vasquez suggested that he was going to reject the government’s argument that the district court can’t hear the matter due to jurisdiction-limiting provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
“It’s somewhat of a shocking argument to hear the DOJ say there’s nothing the attorneys can do to protect themselves if the [Board of Immigration Appeals] decides not to take action,” Judge Vasquez said. “It’s disheartening.”
The AILA’s July 31 complaint targets the EOIR’s July 8 decision to resume in-person hearings for nondetained immigrants on July 13. The group said forcing immigration attorneys to show up to court is needlessly risky with the availability of videoconferencing technology, and claimed that when the EOIR restarted hearings in the Newark court, it did so without “basic information” on how to safely social distance in the building.
The AILA claimed attorneys have been “arbitrarily” denied requests to postpone scheduled hearings, and that an immigration judge has even threatened disciplinary action against two lawyers if they failed to appear for an in-person hearing. On Thursday, AILA attorney Michael R. Noveck of Gibbons PC said attorneys were “risking their lives” by showing up to court, or facing potential discipline if they didn’t.
The government has countered that halting the in-person proceedings would bring the Newark Immigration Court’s caseload, which currently tops 67,500, to a standstill. The EOIR has pointed to the availability in court of video-teleconferencing technology, or VTC, which allows attorneys to join proceedings from an empty courtroom.
The AILA has pushed to use Zoom or Skype in order to avoid having to go to a courtroom at all, but the government has said that those applications lack VTC’s transcription capabilities and security features.
The AILA is represented by Lawrence S. Lustberg and Michael R. Noveck of Gibbons PC.
The government is represented by Ben Kuruvilla of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of New Jersey.
Should representing individuals in the “No Due Process Star Chambers” really be health and life endangering as well as frustrating?⚰️🤮
I agree with Judge Vasquez’s statement quoted in my headline, except for one thing: “shocking” as this behavior by DOJ might be to the Judge, it’s hardly unusual. Unhappily, it’s “business as usual” for hard working, often pro bono or “low bono” attorneys, trying to represent clients in today’s “Beyond FUBAR” Immigration “Courts” (that aren’t “courts” at all). Isn’t it time for Article III Judges throughout the nation to stop “expressing shock, puzzlement, annoyance, and disbelief” and take some effective action to force EOIR into at least minimal compliance with the Due Process Clause of our Constitution?
When, exactly, during the “Gonzo/Billy the Bigot Era” has the BIA EVER intervened in a high profile case on the side of individual rights and Due Process rather than promoting the Stephen Miller White Nationalist, racist, anti-immigrant, anti-due-process agenda?
To be honest, an Article III Judge would only be “surprised” by dishonesty and intransigence from the DOJ, EOIR, and the BIA if he or she hadn’t been paying attention to the daily charade of justice unfolding in “America’s Star Chambers” under the dishonest, unethical, biased, and racism-promoting stewardship of Billy the Bigot! Whatever happened to the role of DOJ lawyers as “officers of the court” and the “duty of candor to tribunals?” Seems to have done a “disappearing act” in the Article IIIs!
I imagine that if Article III Judges were subjected to the same conditions and humiliations as attorneys trying to represent individuals in Immigration Court, serious systemic change would have happened long ago. That’s why we need some “new faces and enlightened minds” from the private sector immigration bar on the Article III bench!
Don Ayer American Lawyer Former U.S. Deputy Attorney GeneralHonorable Mimi Tsankov U.S. Immigration Judge Eastern Region Vice President National Association of Immigration Judges (“NAIJ”)Elizabeth Gibson Attorney, NY Legal Assistance Group Publisher of “The Gibson Report”
Elizabeth Gibson, New Due Process Army Superstar & Editor Publisher Of The Renowned Weekly “Gibson Report”reports:
Hi Everyone,
I want to flag an upcoming NYCBA webinar series on Preserving the Rule of Law in an Age of Disruption. Full disclosure, I’m on the taskforce organizing the event, but I highly recommend it. The speaker list is top-notch.
For immigration practitioners in particular, Session 4will feature IJ Tsankov, representing NAIJ, and the session will discuss “deteriorations of voting rights, asylum rights and incarceration policies, the militarization of policing and the disparate treatment of minorities by police and prosecutors, and the use of libel litigation to inflict costs on individuals and media outlets who challenge or criticize officeholders.”
It’s free for NYCBA members, $15 for other lawyers, and free for the general public (including law students and fellows). Please circulate widely.
New York City Bar Association Announces Five-Part Forum on the Rule of Law
Fall Series to Feature Former Officials, Judges, Scholars and More
New York, August 10, 2020 – The New York City Bar Association has announced a five-part Forum on the Rule of Law, to take place this fall beginning on September 15. (Full schedule and speaker list below.)
The “Rule of Law Forum – Preserving the Rule of Law in an Age of Disruption” will feature panels of respected experts from across the political spectrum – including former government officials, judges and scholars – who will identify current challenges and threats to the rule of law in America, discuss why they matter and propose remedies. Participants will include Nicole Austin-Hillery, Donald Ayer, Mitchell Bernard, Preet Bharara, Robert Cusumano, Hon. Mary McGowan Davis, John Feerick, Charles Fried, Daniel Goldman, Harold Hongju Koh, Errol Louis, Margaret Colgate Love, David McCraw, Barbara McQuade, Dennis Parker, Myrna Perez, Hon. Jed Rakoff; Anthony Romero, Cass Sunstein, Hon. Mimi Tsankov,Joyce Vance, and Cecilia Wang. City Bar President Sheila S. Boston will introduce the series, and Professor Timothy Snyder of Yale University, author of On Tyranny and The Road to Unfreedom, will kick off the opening session with a survey of the “Threats to the Rule of Law in America.”
All sessions will be carried live on Zoom and will be open to the public free of charge ($15 for non-member lawyers):
Session 1: Threats to the Rule of Law in America: A Survey
(Sept 15, 1:00 p.m. – 4:00 p.m.)
Session 2: Checks, Balances and Oversight — the Distribution of Governmental Power and Information
(Sept 22, 1:00 p.m. – 4:00 p.m.)
Session 3: Interference with Judicial Independence and Local Law Enforcement
(October 8, 11:00 a.m. – 2:00 p.m.)
Session 4: Threats to Individual and Societal Rights
(Oct 21, 1:00 p.m. – 4:00 p.m.)
Session 5: Rebuilding the Rule of Law in America: What Can and Should the Legal Profession, Individual Lawyers and Citizens Do?
(Nov 18, 1:00 p.m. – 4:00 p.m.)
“The rule of law is the foundation of our democracy,” said City Bar President Sheila S. Boston. “It’s at the core of our Constitution that sets forth the powers of our government and the rights of our people, and the supremacy of the law in our nation ensures that no one can claim to be above it. The rule of law is what provides for transparency and equity in our society, enables us to confront challenges, foreign or domestic, and protects our security and welfare so that the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness exists for us all.”
“While we hope these individual reports have been useful to our members and the public, they illustrate a broader theme – threats to the Rule of Law itself – that we believe has not received sufficient in-depth attention in either the public or the legal profession,” said Stephen L. Kass, Chair of the Task Force. “Our goal is to create an ongoing and thought-provoking discussion among the legal profession, the academic community and the public about what can and should be done to assure that America remains a nation governed by law even in a time of crisis – or especially in a time of crisis – and to identify the actions necessary for our justice system to promote the impartial, equitable and effective enforcement of those laws.”
In addition to the work of the Task Force on the Rule of Law, the City Bar has been speaking out on rule-of-law issues for decades through its committees on Federal Courts, Government Ethics, Immigration and Nationality Law, and its Task Force on National Security and Rule of Law (the predecessor of the Task Force on the Rule of Law).
Full Schedule:
Rule of Law Forum – Preserving the Rule of Law in an Age of Disruption
This session will broadly survey recent developments that implicate, and may signal rejection of, traditional Constitutional roles and customary norms of behavior within the national government and each of its branches. Session 1 will also take an inventory of recent challenges to laws and norms involving the impartial administration of justice by law enforcement, prosecutors, the courts and the Executive, as well as threats to individual and societal rights generally and to marginalized communities in particular. Individual speakers will focus on constitutional checks and balances, politicization of the administration of justice, dramatic changes in how governmental agencies ascertain facts and make decisions, and trends in derogation of individual and societal rights, including voting rights and the promise of impartial justice for all.
Introduction: Sheila S. Boston, President, New York City Bar Association
Keynote Speaker: TimothySnyder, Professor of History, Yale University; author, Tyranny and The Road to Unfreedom
Dennis Parker, Director, National Center for Law and Economic Justice
Cass Sunstein, Professor of Law, Harvard Law School
Joyce Vance, Professor of Law, University of Alabama School of Law; former U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Alabama
This session will focus in depth on the rule of law challenges arising out of disruption of traditional “checks and balances” among the branches of the government, the ideas of “independence” and “oversight” among the agencies of government, and the ability of the Congress or Inspectors General and “whistleblowers” to perform their functions in the face of Executive secrecy, limits on Congressional subpoena power, governmental job insecurity and public statements critical of the bureaucratic levers of government.
Keynote Speaker: Donald Ayer, Partner at Jones Day; former U.S. Deputy Attorney General under President George H.W. Bush; former Principal Deputy Solicitor General under Solicitor General Charles Fried.
Moderator: Errol Louis, CNN Political Analyst; Host of NY1’s “Inside City Hall”
Mitchell Bernard, Executive Director, National Resources Defense Council
Preet Bharara, former U .S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York
Daniel Goldman, Counsel to the House Intelligence Committee
Barbara McQuade, Professor of Law, University of Michigan Law School; former U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Michigan
This session will explore the effects of Executive disruption of several distinct justice systems – civil and criminal courts, the immigration court system and local law enforcement. Speakers will explore the implications of Executive interference with investigations and trials, castigation of individual judges and jurors, the deployment of military and/or federal forces in connection with local law enforcement and the issuance of pardons without traditional due diligence for civilian and military crimes.
Keynote Speaker: Charles Fried,Professor of Law at Harvard Law School; former U.S. Solicitor General under President Ronald Reagan
Margaret Colgate Love, Executive Director, Collateral Consequences Resource Center; former U.S. Pardon Attorney
Harold Hongju Koh, Sterling Professor of International Law and former Dean, Yale Law School; former Legal Adviser of the U.S. Department of State
Hon. Jed Rakoff, Senior U.S. District Court Judge, Southern District of New York
This session will survey recent trends that question the role of law and courts in the pursuit of a just and democratic society. Is adherence to the rule of law deteriorating and, if so, is that because of limitations on the ability (or inclination) of citizens and courts to prevent violations of individual rights or, more broadly, the rules governing a functioning democracy? Speakers will discuss the most salient of the deteriorations of voting rights, asylum rights and incarceration policies, the militarization of policing and the disparate treatment of minorities by police and prosecutors, and the use of libel litigation to inflict costs on individuals and media outlets who challenge or criticize officeholders.
Keynote Speaker: Anthony Romero, Executive Director, American Civil Liberties Union
Nicole Austin-Hillary, Executive Director, Human Rights Watch U.S. Program
David McCraw, Senior Vice-President and Deputy General Counsel, New York Times
Myrna Perez, Director, Voting Rights and Elections Program, Brennan Center for Justice
Hon. Mimi Tsankov, Vice President, Eastern Region, National Association of Immigration Judges
Cecilia Wang, Deputy Legal Director and Director of the Center for Democracy, American Civil Liberties Union
This session will explore the role of individual lawyers, professional organizations and citizens in protecting the rule of law as a guiding principle in American public life and in restoring the norms and standards by which we may remain a society governed by transparent rules equitably applied. Speakers will discuss the history of efforts by the organized bar to support and sustain impartial justice, the scope of pro bono work by the private bar and the private sector, the ethical standards guiding government officials and the education of the public about the necessity of acting to protect a fair and equitable rule of law. Speakers will draw on their own experience to offer lessons for members of the bar on building on one’s own background and training to promote the rule of law domestically and abroad.
Keynote Speaker: John Feerick, Fordham Law Dean Emeritus and Norris Professor of Law, Fordham Law School
Robert Cusumano, founder and CEO, Legal Horizons Foundation; former Corporate General Counsel
Harold Hongju Koh, Sterling Professor of International Law and former Dean, Yale Law School; former Legal Adviser of the U.S. Department of State
Hon. Mary McGowan Davis, Former New York Supreme Court Justice; Member, UN Committees of Independent Experts in International Humanitarian and Human Rights Law
The mission of the New York City Bar Association, which was founded in 1870 and has 25,000 members, is to equip and mobilize a diverse legal profession to practice with excellence, promote reform of the law, and uphold the rule of law and access to justice in support of a fair society and the public interest in our community, our nation, and throughout the world.www.nycbar.org
******************
☠️⚠️‼️DISCLAIMER: Of course, the following are just my views, not the views of anyone on the All-Star cast of speakers at this upcoming event, the NYCBA, or anyone else of any importance whatsoever!
Don is my former partner at Jones Day and a long time colleague going back to our days together at a “Better DOJ.” Mimi and I have been friends and colleagues for years in the NAIJ, the FBA, and on the Immigration Court.
Elizabeth is my former student at Georgetown Law, a former intern at the Arlington Immigration Court, a former Judicial Law Clerk at the NY Immigration Court, and a “charter member” and leader of the “New Due Process Army” (“NDPA”). She’s still early in her career, but already establishing herself as one of the “best legal minds” in the business — in immigration, human rights, Constitutional Law, or any any other field. Elizabeth and others like her are indeed “the future of American law and the nation!”
In nearly five decades as a lawyer in the public, private, and academic sectors, I have never seen such a concerted attack on the rule of law and the institutional underpinnings of American democracy as that being carried our by the Trump regime.
Perhaps most shocking and disappointing to me has been the ineffective “pushback” and often outright complicity or encouragement offered to “the scofflaw destroyers” by our supposedly independent Article III Judiciary.
Let’s cut to the chase! The only real role of the Federal Judiciary is to protect our nation from tyranny and overreach from the the other two branches of Government. That’s it in a nutshell! If they can’t do that, they really have no purpose that couldn’t be fulfilled by the State and Local Courts.
In this role, the Article IIIs have failed — miserably! With a “disappearing Congress,” the Article IIIs, starting with the lousy performance of the Supremes, overall have been unwilling effectively to stand up to Trump’s corrupt, overtly racist, divisive, and illegal White Nationalist agenda. An agenda that is destroying our society and mockingthe Constitutional guarantees of “equal justice for all.”
I call the regime’s strategy “Dred Scottification” or “dehumanization of the other before the law.”It targets people of color, particularly immigrants and asylum seekers.
Outrageously, rather than emphatically rejecting this clearly unconstitutional “throwback to Jim Crow,” a Supremes’ majority has embraced and furthered it:from the “Muslim Bam;” to illegally letting legitimate asylum applicants rot, be abused, and die in Mexico; to allowing a deadly irrational, racist attack on the health and public benefits of the legal immigrant community; to turning their back on refugees who are are potentially being sentenced to death without any recognizable legal process; to allowing GOP politicos to blatantly suppress Black and Hispanic voting rights for corrupt political gain, the “tone-deaf” and spineless Supremes’ majority has misused its life tenure to clearly install itself on the wrong side of history — with racists and human rights abusers of the past!
We see it playing out every day; it will continue to get worse if we don’t get “regime change.” We need a functional Congress, without Mitch McConnell’s poisonous intransigence, and better Federal Judges, at all levels. Judges who actually believe in equal justice for allunder our Constitution and have the guts and intellectual integrity to stand up for it — whether the issue is voting rights, criminal justice, rights of asylum seekers, immigrants’ rights, effective Congressional oversight of the Executive, or putting an end to the “due process parody” going on daily in the “weaponized and politicized” Immigration “Courts” (that are not “courts” at all by any commonly understood meaning of the word).
For example, as American justice implodes, AG Billy Barr and several GOP Supremes have decided that the “real enemy” is “nationwide injunctions” by US District Court Judges. This is nothing short of “legal absurdism” being spouted by folks who are supposed to be functioning as “responsible public officials!”
As those who live in the “real world” of the law, peopled by actual human beings, nationwide injunctions are one of the few effective tools that defenders of our Constitution (many serving pro bono) have to stop life-threatening illegal attacks by the regime on individual rights, particularly in the field of immigration and human rights. Otherwise, the regime’s “violate the law at will and fill the courts with frivolous litigation strategy,” adopted by the DOJ and furthered by the Supremes, would simply bury and overwhelm the defenders of individual rights and the rule of law.
Without nationwide injunctions against illegal Executive actions, by the time the regime’s legal transgressions worked their way to the Supremes, most of the bodies would be dead and buried. ⚰️⚰️Indeed, we see the results of this illegal abrogation of U.S. asylum law and international protections, sans legislation or legitimate rationale, which daily returns legitimate refugees, many women and children, to harm, torture, or death, without any process whatsoever, let alone the “due process” required by the Constitution. ☠️🤮⚰️🏴☠️
You might ask yourself what purpose is served by a Supremes’ majority that has encouraged and facilitated this type of deadly “outlaw behavior” that will stain our nation’s soul and reputation forever in the eyes of history? It’s not “rocket science” — really just Con Law 101, common sense, and human decency, which seem to have fled the scene at our highest Court.
The complete breakdown of professional and ethical standards within the Executive, particularly the DOJ, that used to govern positions taken, arguments made, and evidence submitted to Federal Courts also is shocking to those of us who once served in the DOJ. Likewise, the overall failure of the Federal Courts to enforce even minimal standards of professionalism and the duty of “candor to a tribunal” for Government lawyers is surprising and disheartening.
Yes, Federal Judges sometimes “pan” or “wring their hands” about the bogus positions, disingenuous reasoning, and contemptuous actions of agencies and Government lawyers. But, they seldom, if ever, take meaningful corrective action. For Pete’s sake, both “Wolfman” and “Cooch Cooch” have been held by a Federal Judge to have been illegally appointed to their acting positions!Yet every day, these “illegals” continue to mete out injustice, and racist-driven policies on largely defenseless migrants . What kind of judiciary allows this kind of “in your face nonsense” to continue unabated?
This judicial fecklessness hasn’t been lost on folks like Billy Barr, Chad “Wolfman” Wolf, Stephen Miller, “Cooch Cooch,” Mark Morgan, Noel Francisco, and other Trump sycophants who continue to flood the Federal Courts with false narratives, bogus positions, and what many would characterize as “unadulterated BS” without meaningful consequences, other than to stretch the “battle lines” of the pro bono opposition to the breaking point. Indeed, as many fearless immigration and human rights litigators will confirm, it has become the burden of the private, usually pro bono or “low bono,” bar to “fact check” and disprove the false narratives and incomplete or misleading accounts submitted by the DOJ to the Federal Courts.
How does this “misplacing of the burden” further the interests of justice and encourage representation of the most vulnerable in our society? Clearly, it doesn’t, which is the entire point of the DOJ’s destructive and unprofessional “strategy!” Certainly, these are unmistakable signs of widespread systemic breakdown in our Federal justice system.
I urge everyone to attend and learn more about why the rule of law is “on the ropes” in today’s America, what efforts are being made to save and preserve it, and to ponder the consequences ofwhat another four years of a corrupt, scofflaw, White Nationalist regime and complicit Federal Judges could mean for everyone in America and perhaps the world!
Due Process Forever! If you don’t stand up for it, you’ll find yourself living in the “world’s highest-GNP failed state,” governed by a hereditary kakistocracy enabled by feckless “judges” more interested in their life tenure than in YOUR rights under the law!🤮☠️🏴☠️👎
“Due Process of Law”
As Reenvisioned By Trump & Billy Barr
This is what “Dred Scottification” or the “end of the rule of law” as promoted by Trump, Miller, Barr and their cronies, and enabled by a tone-deaf and “insulated from the human suffering they cause” Supremes’ majority looks like:
“Floaters — How The World’s Richest Country Responds To Asylum Seekers” EDS NOTE: GRAPHIC CONTENT – The bodies of Salvadoran migrant Oscar Alberto Mart??nez Ram??rez and his nearly 2-year-old daughter Valeria lie on the bank of the Rio Grande in Matamoros, Mexico, Monday, June 24, 2019, after they drowned trying to cross the river to Brownsville, Texas. Martinez’ wife, Tania told Mexican authorities she watched her husband and child disappear in the strong current. (AP Photo/Julia Le Duc)
But Democrats all but ignored the Supreme Court in their four-day convention earlier this month, even after the party spent Trump’s first term reckoning with the consequences of Republicans confirming two justices, including a reliably conservative justice who replaced the court’s swing vote.
The contrast worries liberal activists who see it as further evidence that the Democratic Party isn’t paying enough attention to an area where conservatives have made big inroads in recent years: control of the courts.
“The fact that Democrats spent so little to no time discussing the federal bench failed to take into account that their critically important goals for the future will be challenged in the courts,” said Nan Aron, the president of the liberal judicial advocacy group Alliance for Justice.
She added: “It’s a major misstep, given the fact that these 200 judges will make it very difficult, if not impossible in many cases, for the Democrats to accomplish their worthy goals going forward.”
. . . .
************************
Read the full article at the link,
Thanks, Nan, for speaking out! I’ve always been astounded by the Dems’ failure to recognize the importance of getting demonstrated advocates for due process, fundamental fairness, human rights, equal justice under law, and best practices on the Federal Bench.
Heck, look at the Dems beyond disastrous and just plain incompetent approach to the Immigration Bench in the Obama Administration — an administrative court controlled entirely by the Attorney General. Can’t blame Mitch and the GOP for:
Ridiculously convoluted and entirely unnecessary 2-year hiring process (under former Director Anthony C. Moscato, the Clinton Administration could sometimes do it in a fraction of that time with better, or at least no worse, results);
Eschewing progressive judicial candidates, including well-qualified underrepresented groups, with scholarly credentials and practical expertise in immigration, asylum, human rights, and due process in favor of an endless stream of largely “insider only, don’t rock the boat” picks;
Leaving numerous positions unfilled at the end of the Administration for White Nationalist xenophobe Jeff Sessions to fill;
Ignoring obvious, achievable management reforms like e-filing!
The Trump Administration is teeming with malicious incompetents, particularly in the Immigration-related agencies. Notwithstanding that, they immediately figured out how to expedite Immigration Judge hiring and to load the bench with some of the worst, most unqualified, and biased so-called “judges” in modern American legal history!
In other words, Sessions, Whitaker, and Barr shamelessly and rapidly weaponized the Immigration Courts and made them subservient shills and zealots for DHS enforcement and Stephen Miller’s White Supremacist agenda. And feckless Article III Courts, now also stuffed with Trump judges, have, with a few notable exceptions, looked the other way as the slaughter of Constitutional due process and vulnerable humans (including kids) unfolds. You couldn’t write a worse script for the rule of law and future of humanity!
Democrats pretended that the Immigration Courts existed merely to “go along to get along with the policy flavor of the day.” They did not reinforce due process, fundamental fairness, or view the Immigration Bench as a source of expertise, creativity, progressive legal thinking, or creative legal problem solving. The backlogs grew, morale slid (although admittedly not at the breakneck pace under the Trump regime), and the bodies of those who should have been saved but weren’t started to pile up. Simple reforms — try e-filing, for example — were left unaccomplished!
It wasn’t “malicious incompetence” — just good old fashioned “administrative incompetence.” But the latter paved the way for the former to “go on steroids” during the Trump regime. This isn’t just political malpractice and academic debate! Real people have lost their lives, families, or futures because of the Dems’ diddling approach to justice — including America’s largest and perhaps most significant court system over which they had total control!
It’s actually pretty simple: Better judges (from the Supremes to the Immigration Courts) for a better America! And, time for the immigration/human rights community to wake up, join the NDPA, and demand that the Dems do better next time around!
Due Process Forever! Repeating past mistakes, never!
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!
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!
“Eyore In Distress” Once A Symbol of Fairness, Due Process, & Best Practices, Now Gone “Belly Up”Laura Lynch Senior Policy Counsel AILA
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.
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.
[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?
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!
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.”
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.
