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

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

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

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

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

. . . .

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

Read our complete comment at the above link.

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

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

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

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

PWS

08|10-20

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

Sontos, 9th 18-72833_Documents

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

SYNOPSIS BY COURT STAFF:

Immigration

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

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

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

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

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

DIAZ-REYNOSO V. BARR 3

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

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

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

4 DIAZ-REYNOSO V. BARR

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

COUNSEL:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

OPINION BY: Judge Cristen

CONCURRING/DISSENTING OPINION: Judge Bress

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

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

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

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

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

Due Process Forever!

PWS

08-07-20

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

Excerpt:

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

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

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

Here’s the full brief:

Las Americas Amicus (full case)

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

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

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

Due Process Forever!

PWS

08-04-20

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

Melissa Crow
Senior Supervising Attorney
Southern Poverty Law Center

Tess Hellgren, Staff Attorney and Justice Catalyst Legal Fellow

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

August 3, 2020

Contact:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The court’s opinion is HERE.

###

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

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

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

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

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

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

Due Process Forever!🗽⚖️👩🏻‍⚖️

PWS

08-03-20

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

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

Laura Lynch

Laura Lynch
Senior Policy Counsel
AILA

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

Laura Lynch @ AILA writes:

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

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

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

The Associated Press wrote a short article about this lawsuit.

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

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Thanks, Laura

Laura A. Lynch, Esq.

Senior Policy Counsel

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

They provide a link to the filing as well:

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

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

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

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

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

PWS

08-01-20

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

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

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

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

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

That about sums it up!

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

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

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

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

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

Due Process Forever.

PWS

08-01-20

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

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

New post on The Asylumist

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

by Jason Dzubow

Comment See all comments

Unsubscribe to no longer receive posts from The Asylumist.

Change your email settings at Manage Subscriptions.

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

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

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

Thanks, Jason, for some great ideas!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Due Process Forever!

PWS

07-29-20

🏴‍☠️☠️⚰️👎🏻🤮HATE & BIAS RULE WHERE EQUAL JUSTICE FOR ALL IS SCORNED! —THE WORST OF THE WORST FIND A HOME IN AMERICA’S STAR CHAMBERS, THANKS TO BILLY THE BIGOT, ENABLED BY A CONGRESS & ARTICLE III JUDGES UNWILLING TO STAND UP AGAINST “HATE AGENDA” IN “AMERICA’S STAR CHAMBERS!” — Noah Lanard @ Mother Jones Reports!

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2020/07/he-defended-anti-gay-and-anti-muslim-causes-now-hes-an-immigration-judge/

Noah Lanard writes in Mother Jones:

He Defended Anti-Gay and Anti-Muslim Causes. Now He’s an Immigration Judge.

Brandon Bolling argued that Islam was incompatible with the First Amendment and homosexuality was not innate.

NOAH LANARD
Reporter
Bio | Follow

For indispensable reporting on the coronavirus crisis and more, subscribe to Mother Jones’ newsletters.

During the 2014–2015 school year, Caleigh Wood started to learn about Islam as part of her 11th grade world history class. Upon discovering this, Caleigh’s dad, John, wrote on Facebook that he “just about fucking lost it,” adding in response to a commenter, “A 556 round [of ammunition] doesn’t study Islam and it kills them fuckers everyday.” John told the school’s vice principal that “you can take that fucking Islam and shove it up your white fucking ass,” according to federal court records. After saying that he was going to create a “shit storm like you have never seen,” he got banned from the La Plata, Maryland, high school.

That could have been the end of the story. Instead, Brandon Bolling and other lawyers from the Thomas Law More Center, a right-wing Christian group that declares itself “battle ready to defend America,” represented John as he sued the Charles County public school system for allegedly attempting to indoctrinate his daughter into Islam.

Last week, the Justice Department announced that it had hired Bolling, a former Marine and federal attorney, to be an assistant chief immigration judge in Texas, even though he has no discernible immigration experience. During two stints at the Thomas More Law Center—neither of which is disclosed in his government bio—Bolling worked on numerous cases that pitted his clients against Muslims and the gay community. Now Bolling will help oversee the immigration cases of people detained in El Paso, and could be responsible for deciding whether victims of persecution based on their religions and sexual orientations receive protection under US asylum laws.

Bolling is one of 46 new immigration judges recently hired by the Trump administration. Another is Matt O’Brien, who served as the research director for the Federation for American Immigration Reform, one of the country’s leading anti-immigrant groups. The decision to hire both men is an escalation of the Trump administration’s efforts to select judges sympathetic to its anti-immigration agenda. (The Justice Department’s Executive Office for Immigration Review and the Thomas More Law Center did not respond to requests for comment.)

As part of the Justice Department, immigration courts lack the independence of federal courts. The decisions they make can determine whether immigrants who have been in the United States for decades can remain, or whether asylum seekers will be deported to the countries they fled. Even when immigrants appeal their decisions, they generally stick, since the Trump administration has made a point of filling the Board of Immigration Appeals with judges known for denying nearly all asylum claims.

. . . .

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

Read the rest of Noah’s article at the link.

As the world watches America spiral downward and our institutions, once admired by democracy advocates everywhere, spinelessly crumble in the face of tyranny, nowhere is the problem more pronounced than in the clearly unconstitutional, bias-driven, and grotesquely unfair Immigration “Courts.”

Racial justice and equal justice in America will remain cruel illusions unless and until we demand an end to these Star Chambers and hold those responsible for creating and enabling their current toxicity accountable!

Certainly giving Thomas More a bad name. And like lots of those caught up in the EOIR Star Chamber, he has no way of defending himself against the Bollings and Barrs of the world!

PWS

07-25-20

🏴‍☠️☠️⚰️👎🤮KAKISTOCRACY KORNER: Chase, Schmidt Rip Billy The Bigot’s Appointment Of Hate Grouper To Arlington “Bench” – Failed System Drops All Pretenses Of Fairness & Due Process As Feckless Congress & Complicit Article IIIs Flunk Constitutional Duties! –

https://www.law360.com/immigration/articles/1293543/ex-fair-research-director-among-46-new-immigration-judges

Hannah Albarazi
Federal Courts
Reporter
Law360

Ex-FAIR Research Director Among 46 New Immigration Judges

By Hannah Albarazi

. . . .

“It would be impossible for one to receive a fair hearing before Matthew O’Brien,” Jeffrey Chase, a New York City immigration lawyer and former immigration judge, told Law360. Chase said O’Brien has expressed a view of asylum law that is at odds with the controlling circuit case law that he would be tasked with applying from the bench.

Chase said O’Brien has “basically spouted propaganda for an organization openly hostile to immigration.”

His appointment, Chase said, shows that the Trump administration doesn’t want a fair and independent immigration court and is proof that the Executive Office for Immigration Review needs to be taken out of the control of the Department of Justice, an enforcement agency.

The administration “has repeatedly emphasized to classes of new immigration judges that they are above all employees of the attorney general, who does not believe most asylum seekers are deserving of protection,” Chase said.

These appointments could negatively impact the immigration courts for decades, Chase said.

Paul Wickham Schmidt, a retired U.S. immigration judge who chaired the Board of Immigration Appeals in the Clinton administration, also slammed the recent wave of appointments.

“The idea that these are the 46 best qualified individuals in America to discharge these awesome responsibilities in a fair, impartial and expert manner, in furtherance of due process of law and with recognition of the human rights and human dignity of the individuals whose lives are at stake, is beyond preposterous. It’s a fraud on American justice,” Schmidt told Law360.

Schmidt didn’t mince his words about O’Brien’s appointment either.

“As someone who has helped FAIR spread its racially biased, anti-immigrant, and anti-asylum propaganda and false narratives, O’Brien is not qualified to be a fair and impartial quasi-judicial decision maker as required by the due process clause of our Constitution,” Schmidt said.

. . . .

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

Those with Law360 access can read Hannah’s complete article at the link.

The U.S. Justice system, once the envy of free nations throughout the world, is disintegrating before our eyes. If there is no justice for those whose lives are at stake, there will be no justice for any of us in the Trump/Barr Third World kakistocracy.

Due Process Forever! Corrupt & Feckless Institutions Parodying Justice, Never!

PWS

07-21-20

🤡SPOTLIGHTING CLOWN COURTS: HOUSE HOMES IN ON EOIR’S MALICIOUS INCOMPETENCE IN APPROPRIATIONS BILL REPORT! — “[T]ying an immigration judge’s performance to case completion threatens due process and affects judicial independence. Section 217 of the bill prohibits EOIR’s use of case completion quotas for immigration judge performance reviews.”

https://appropriations.house.gov/sites/democrats.appropriations.house.gov/files/July%209th%20report%20for%20circulation_0.pdf

The “EOIR Section” of the House Report follows:

EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

The Committee recommends $734,000,000 for the Executive Of- fice for Immigration Review (EOIR), of which $4,000,000 is from immigration examination fees. The recommendation is $61,034,000 above fiscal year 2020 and $148,872,000 below the request.

The recommendation includes $2,000,000 for EOIR’s portion of the development of the Unified Immigration Portal with the De- partment of Homeland Security (DHS) as well as increased funding for EOIR’s Information Technology (IT) modernization efforts, as requested. The recommendation also supports a level of funding that will allow for the continued hiring of immigration judges and teams. While the Committee recognizes EOIR has not requested any additional increase from its authorized position level from fis- cal year 2020, EOIR is currently well below this level and the Com-

SSpencer on DSK126QN23PROD with HEARING

VerDate Sep 11 2014

02:57 Jul 09, 2020 Jkt 038847 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A847.XXX A847

63

mittee is concerned that proposed funding increases are for posi- tions who will not be on board in fiscal year 2021.

Legal Orientation Program (LOP).—For the LOP and related ac- tivities the recommendation includes $25,000,000, of which $4,000,000 is for the Immigration Court Helpdesk (ICH) program. The LOP improves the efficiency of court proceedings, reduces court costs, and helps ensure fairness and due process. The Committee directs the Department to continue LOP without interruption, in- cluding all component parts, including the Legal Orientation Pro- gram for Custodians of Unaccompanied Children (LOPC) and the ICH. The Committee directs the Department to brief the Com- mittee no later than 15 days after enactment of this Act on how EOIR is effectively implementing these programs, including the execution of funds and any changes to the management of the pro- gram. The recommended funding will allow for the expansion of LOP and ICH to provide services to additional individuals in immi- gration court proceedings. The Committee supports access to LOP and ICHs and looks forward to receiving EOIR’s evaluation of ex- panding this program to all detention facilities and immigration courts, as directed in House Report 116–101. The Committee is deeply concerned that EOIR plans to use fiscal year 2020 funds for the procurement of a web-based application that is still under de- velopment, but did not actively discuss these changes with the Committee. While the Committee understands the coronavirus pan- demic has impacted court operations and novel approaches may be necessary for continuity, it appears a portion of these specific funds may not be fully executed in fiscal year 2020 in support of the pro- gram to pursue a new operating procedure without additional de- tails on how this will impact the LOP program in future years. The Committee is concerned that plans for a web-based application will not adhere to congressional intent to expand this program to new locations and individuals. The Committee reminds EOIR that fund- ing for this program, in its ongoing, in-person format, is mandated by law, and any diversion of these funds from their intended pur- pose must be formally communicated and convincingly justified to the Committee, consistent with section 505 of this Act.

LOP Pilot.—The Committee further directs EOIR, in coordina- tion with U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), to pilot the expansion of LOP to at least one CBP processing facility with an added focus on expanding this program to family units. The Com- mittee further directs EOIR, in coordination with DHS, to assess the feasibility of expanding this pilot program nationally, and to re- port findings to the Committee no later than 180 days after the conclusion of the pilot.

Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) Pro Bono Project.—The Committee recognizes the critical work of the BIA Pro Bono Project in facilitating pro bono legal representation for indigent, vulnerable respondents whose cases are before the Board. The Committee urges the continuation of participation of pro bono firms and non- government organizations (NGOs) in the BIA Pro Bono Project to directly facilitate case screening and legal representation. EOIR shall report annually to the Committee on the number of cases re- ferred to NGOs and pro bono legal representatives, the number of EOIR Form E 26 appeals filed against pro se respondents and filed by pro se respondents and make the information publicly available.

SSpencer on DSK126QN23PROD with HEARING

VerDate Sep 11 2014

02:57 Jul 09, 2020 Jkt 038847 PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A847.XXX A847

64

Immigration case quotas.—The Committee remains concerned with the performance review standards that went into effect Octo- ber 1, 2018, which require immigration judges to complete a quota of 700 case completions per year to receive a satisfactory review. Although the Committee appreciates efforts to reduce the current backlog, tying an immigration judge’s performance to case comple- tion threatens due process and affects judicial independence. Sec- tion 217 of the bill prohibits EOIR’s use of case completion quotas for immigration judge performance reviews.

Judicial Independence and Case Management.—All courts re- quire judges to utilize case management tools in order to ensure ef- ficient use of the court’s time and resources. The Committee is con- cerned by recent Attorney General decisions that curtail the ability of immigration judges to utilize critical docket management tools, such as continuances and terminations, that enable efficient man- agement of the court’s dockets. The Committee supports the utiliza- tion of such tools to the fullest extent practicable and reaffirms its support for the authority of immigration judges to exercise inde- pendent judgment and discretion in their case decisions. Further, the Committee supports full and fair hearings for all who come be- fore the courts but remains concerned about decisions that ulti- mately keep asylum seekers, including those seeking relief from do- mestic violence, in detention for longer periods of time.

Video teleconferencing.—The Committee is frustrated by EOIR’s response to information requested in the Explanatory Statement accompanying the fiscal year 2020 Consolidated Appropriations Act regarding the publication of its policies for determining the use and dissemination of video teleconferencing (VTC) for individual merits hearings and tent court facilities. EOIR cites multiple policies on its website, but ultimately no central guidance on VTC appears to exist, outside of an interim policy document from 2004. The growth and dependence on VTC has developed since that time and it is concerning that EOIR does not have consistent rules governing the use of video teleconferencing, nor does it appear to have standards to ensure that the procedural and substantive due process of re- spondents in immigration court are protected. The Committee di- rects EOIR, within 90 days of enactment of this Act, to develop clear and consistent rules on the use of VTC hearings, including when the use of video teleconferencing is appropriate, and to de- velop rules for utilizing VTC hearings for particularly vulnerable groups such as unaccompanied minors, individuals with medical or mental health problems, and those subject to the Migrant Protec- tion Protocols (MPP) program. The Committee also directs EOIR to provide these newly developed policies to the Committee, and to make these policies publicly available.

Rocket Dockets.—The Committee is troubled by recent reports of changes in EOIR practices that expedite case processing and place unaccompanied children in so called ‘‘rocket dockets’’’ commencing their cases through VTC within days of their arrival in the United States. This practice is a shift from former precedent, and it lacks recognition that cases involving unaccompanied children are dif- ferent than detained adults. Immigration court proceedings must be tailored to the circumstances of individual cases in order to pre- serve due process and fundamental fairness, in particular for mi- nors. The Committee is equally troubled by reports that EOIR in-

SSpencer on DSK126QN23PROD with HEARING

VerDate Sep 11 2014

02:57 Jul 09, 2020 Jkt 038847 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A847.XXX A847

65

tends to expand this expedited case processing for cases involving unaccompanied children, with little knowledge about how this proc- ess impacts children, their opportunity to find counsel, or the chal- lenges with communicating with children of varying ages.

EOIR is directed to report to the Committee no later than 30 days after enactment of this Act on the number of cases involving unaccompanied children that had a Master Calendar hearing scheduled within 30 days of their Notice to Appear (NTA), the loca- tion of these cases, including whether VTC was utilized for the hearing, whether the child had counsel, and the outcome of the pro- ceedings. Further, the Committee notes that EOIR has not commu- nicated with the Committee on this change in practice and is con- cerned that EOIR is piloting and expanding a new program that has not been explicitly authorized by Congress.

Tent Court Proceedings.—The Committee is concerned that the creation of new immigration hearing facilities, often referred to as ‘‘tent courts’’’, along the border, where judges appear via video tele- conferencing (VTC). The Committee is concerned that these new fa- cilities threaten the public nature of immigration court pro- ceedings. The Committee directs EOIR to provide a report within 60 days of the enactment of this Act that provides details on EOIR’s involvement in the creation and operation of such immigra- tion hearing facilities, as well as information detailing how EOIR schedules judges for hearings and a list of judges hearing cases in these facilities. EOIR shall also post to its website information on attorney access at those facilities, as well as policies regarding pub- lic and media access.

Migrant Protection Protocol (MPP) Statistics Publication.—With- in 60 days of enactment of this Act, and quarterly thereafter, EOIR is directed to publish on its public website: (1) the number of MPP Notices to Appear (NTA) received and completed, (2) the number of continuances or adjournments in non-MPP cases due to an immi- gration judge being reassigned to hear MPP cases, (3) the number of MPP hearings that occurred via VTC, and (4) the number of im- migration judges assigned to hear MPP cases. EOIR is also di- rected to publish the number of MPP hearings delayed as a result of the coronavirus pandemic, as well as the average length of delay. EOIR is further directed to publish all workload-related data cur- rently included on its Workload and Adjudication Statistics website page in separate MPP and non-MPP formats.

EOIR is also directed to develop a plan to begin tracking the ap- pearance rate of individuals placed into removal proceedings, bro- ken out into MPP and non-MPP cases, calculated by determining the percent of individuals who have attended all scheduled hear- ings in any given quarter, regardless of whether the hearing re- sulted in a completion. The Committee directs EOIR to report on its plans no later than 180 days after enactment of this Act.

Interpreters.—The recommendation includes the requested fund- ing increase for interpretation services. While the Committee recog- nizes that increasing numbers of respondents in immigration courts require the use of interpretation and the ballooning costs as- sociated with these interpretation services, the Committee directs EOIR to pursue cost efficient measures to ensure appropriate lan- guage access for all respondents, including indigenous language speakers, and further directs EOIR to submit a report to the Com-

SSpencer on DSK126QN23PROD with HEARING

VerDate Sep 11 2014

02:57 Jul 09, 2020 Jkt 038847 PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A847.XXX A847

66

mittee, no later than 90 days after enactment of this Act, outlining steps taken to reduce costs. The Committee eagerly awaits EOIR’s quarterly reports highlighting any continuances or adjournments for reasons related to interpretation as well as EOIR’s joint report with DHS on shared interpretation resources as directed in House Report 116–101.

Legal Representation.—The Committee is concerned with the low rate of representation in immigration court, and the recommenda- tion provides $15,000,000 in State and Local Law Enforcement As- sistance for competitive grants to qualified non-profit organizations for a pilot program to increase representation.

Immigration judges.—The Committee directs EOIR to continue to hire the most qualified immigration judges and BIA members from a diverse pool of candidates to ensure the adjudication process is impartial and consistent with due process. The Committee is dis- turbed by recent reports of politicized hiring processes for immigra- tion judges. The Committee directs EOIR to continue to submit monthly reports on performance and immigration judge hiring as directed in the fiscal year 2020 Explanatory Statement and is di- rected to include additional information on the status of hiring other positions that make up the immigration judge teams such as attorneys and paralegals. Finally, the Committee is concerned about a recent Department of Justice petition sent to the Federal Labor Relations Authority requesting the decertification of the Na- tional Association of Immigration Judges. The Committee recog- nizes the importance of our nation’s immigration judges and their ability to unionize.

Immigration Efficiency.—EOIR is encouraged to collaborate with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to explore efficiencies with regard to the co-location of DHS and DOJ components with immigration related responsibilities, including immigration courts, DHS asylum officers, medical care practitioners, and both CBP and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) immigration officers.

Alternatives to Detention (ATD) Program.—The Committee is concerned that many individuals enrolled in ICE’s ATD program will be terminated from the program before their cases are fully re- solved. Getting timely resolution of these cases is complicated by the historic volume of pending cases on EOIR’s non-detained docket schedule. The Committee recognizes the ATD program is managed by ICE, and that EOIR currently lacks information about who is enrolled. However, the Committee also recognizes that the longer an individual remains on ATD while their case is pending before EOIR, the more expensive the ATD program is per enrollee, and the less effective the ATD program is. Prioritizing ATD enrollees’ cases as if they were on the detained docket could potentially in- crease the effectiveness of the program, lower the cost per enrollee, and support more individuals in the program overall. The Com- mittee directs EOIR, in coordination with ICE, to develop an anal- ysis of alternatives to improve the timeliness of resolving cases be- fore EOIR for individuals in the ATD program, and further to con- sider as one such alternative the classification of ATD enrollees as part of the detained docket for purposes of case prioritization. EOIR is directed to brief the Committee on their findings not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act.

SSpencer on DSK126QN23PROD with HEARING

VerDate Sep 11 2014

02:57 Jul 09, 2020 Jkt 038847 PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A847.XXX A847

67

Court Operations during COVID–19.—The Committee under- stands that the novel coronavirus pandemic has forced the majority of Federal Government agencies to alter their normal operating procedures, and changes to court operations is no exception. How- ever, the Committee is frustrated that EOIR relied largely on Twit- ter to communicate its operational status. Many that were travel- ling, especially from Mexico, to appear at immigration court hear- ings, did not receive the updated information that the courts were closed. Even prior to the pandemic, the Committee was troubled by reports concerning the timeliness and receipt of hearing notices, as some were undeliverable as addressed and thus returned to immi- gration courts, and attempts to change addresses with the immi- gration court were often unsuccessful due to current backlogs. As of March 31, 2020, in absentia removal orders were already on the precipice of reaching the total number for all of fiscal year 2019. The Committee is concerned that the pandemic has exacerbated an already confusing process, resulting in an exponential increase in the number of removal orders for respondents who simply did not have the information to appear in court. Therefore, the Committee directs EOIR to submit a report to the Committee, within 90 days of enactment of this Act, that details the specific steps EOIR has taken since March 2020 to accommodate respondents who have missed court appearances due to COVID–19, and steps EOIR has taken to ensure respondents have a centralized mechanism to elec- tronically file an EOIR Form–33 in order to change their address remotely with EOIR, in addition to the current use of paper filings.

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

Report language from un-enacted appropriations bills doesn’t have any legal effect. But, it does show that at least on the Democratic side, legislators are beginning to penetrate the various smoke screens that DOJ and EOIR management have used to disguise their gross mismanagement and attacks on due process and to deflect blame to the victims: primarily respondents, their attorneys including pro bono groups, and in many cases their own judges and court staff. It also shows that contrary to DOJ/EOIR propaganda, pro bono programs and Legal Orientation Programs play an essential role in due process.

Let’s be very clear. This “fix-it list” will be ignored by the scofflaw kakistocracy firmly committed to a program of unfairness to migrants, hostility to pro bono organizations, worst practices, demeaning their own employees, not serving the public, and returning asylum seekers to mayhem, torture, and death without due process. However, it is a useful “to do” list for those future judicial leaders and administrators committed to judicial independence and restoring and improving due process and fundamental fairness for all in our Immigration Courts.

Hopefully, in the future, with some needed regime change this will result in an independent Article I Immigration Court replacing the unmitigated legal and management mess that has become EOIR under DOJ control.

Due Process Forever! Clown Courts Never!

PWS

07-14-20

🛡⚔️⚖️ROUND TABLE RIPS REGIME’S FRAUDULENT PROPOSED REGS ELIMINATING ASYLUM IN 36-PAGE COMMENTARY — “The proposed rules are impermissibly arbitrary and capricious. They attempt to overcome, as opposed to interpret, the clear meaning of our asylum statutes.”

Knightess of the Round Table

Asylum Ban Reg Comments_July 2020_FINAL

INTRODUCTION

In their introduction, the proposed regulations misstate the Congressional intent behind our asylum laws.2 Since 1980, our nation’s asylum laws are neither an expression of foreign policy nor an assertion of the right to protect resources or citizens. It is for this reason that the notice of proposed rulemaking must cite a case from 1972 that did not address asylum at all in order to find support for its claim.

The intent of Congress in enacting the 1980 Refugee Act was to bring our country’s asylum laws into accordance with our international treaty obligations, specifically by eliminating the above- stated biases from such determinations. For the past 40 years, our laws require us to grant asylum to all who qualify regardless of foreign policy or other concerns. Furthermore, the international treaties were intentionally left broad enough in their language to allow adjudicators flexibility to provide protection in response to whatever types of harm creative persecutors might de- vise. In choosing to adopt the precise language of those treaties, Congress adopted the same flexibility. See e.g. Murray v. The Schooner Charming Betsy, 6 U.S. 64 (1804), pursuant to which national statutes should be interpreted in such a way as to not conflict with international laws.

The proposed rules are impermissibly arbitrary and capricious. They attempt to overcome, as opposed to interpret, the clear meaning of our asylum statutes. Rather than interpret the views of Congress, the proposed rules seek to replace them in furtherance of the strongly anti-immigrant views of the administration they serve.3 And that they seek to do so in an election year, for political gain, is clear.

In attempting to stifle clear Congressional intent in service of its own political motives, the ad- ministration has proposed rules that are ultra vires to the statute.

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

Read our full comment at the above link.

Special thanks to the following Round Table Team that took the lead in drafting this comment (listed alphabetically):

Judge Jeffrey Chase

Judge Bruce Einhorn

Judge Rebecca Jamil

Judge Carol King

Judge Lory Diana Rosenberg

Judge Ilyce Shugall

Due Process Forever! Crimes Against Humanity, Never!

PWS

07-14-20

😰YET ANOTHER SAD DAY FOR AMERICAN JUSTICE: Competence, Professionalism, Fairness, & Human Decency Depart EOIR — Every American Who Cares About Due Process & Color Blind Justice In America Should Be Outraged About Former Acting Chief Immigration Judge Christopher Santoro’s Untimely Departure & Thankful That He Had The Guts To Speak Truth To Power!

https://apple.news/AHkgjeG2HQQKcxUA5LntKNg

Hamed Aleaziz reports for BuzzFeed News:

A Top Immigration Court Official Called For Impartiality In A Memo He Sent As He Resigned

The judge was replaced by the Trump administration with the former top Immigration and Customs Enforcement prosecutor.

Posted on July 3, 2020, at 1:52 p.m. ET

Hamed Aleaziz

BuzzFeed News Reporter

A leading immigration court official stepped down Thursday after sending a pointed email to court employees emphasizing the importance of the appearance of impartiality and the benefits of providing protections for people fleeing to the US. The message came on the same day the Trump administration tapped the former top Immigration and Customs Enforcement prosecutor to take his position, a move that outraged immigrant advocates.

The Trump administration selected Tracy Short, previously the lead ICE prosecutor, for the chief immigration judge role. ICE prosecutors often take up roles as immigration judges, but the selection of Short, formerly ICE’s principal legal adviser, left some claiming the move would undercut the appearance of neutrality at the court.

Christopher Santoro, the acting chief immigration judge, appeared to signal that in his message to court employees announcing his resignation.

His resignation and Short’s hiring comes as the Trump administration has undertaken a monumental overhaul of the way immigration judges work: placing quotas on the number of cases they should complete every year, restricting when asylum can be granted, and pouring thousands of previously closed cases back into court dockets. In the meantime, the case backlog has increased and wait times have continued to skyrocket to hundreds of days.

“There will always be those who disagree with a judge’s (or jury’s) decision and our court system is no different,” he wrote in the email on Thursday, which was obtained by BuzzFeed News. “But for the public to trust a court system, for the public to believe that a court is providing fair and equitable treatment under the law, that court system must not only dispense justice impartially but also appear to be impartial. Maintaining the appearance of impartiality and fairness can often be more difficult than being impartial and is a goal each of us – regardless of our role – must strive for every day.”

Santoro, who had himself served as a senior ICE advisor during the Obama administration, said he delivers this message in training to immigration judges and it applied to everyone involved with the court.

“Santoro’s emphasis on impartiality and protecting vulnerable populations is a sharp departure from this administration’s priorities, which have focused around speedy adjudications and reducing the backlog,” said Sarah Pierce, an analyst at the Migration Policy Institute. “Someone who recognizes the dire need for impartiality in this system has to watch a prosecutor lead the charge in his wake.”

Two Department of Justice employees said the decision to tap Short was misguided. The Office of the Chief Immigration Judge “provides overall program direction, articulates policies and procedures, and establishes priorities” for the court.

“His hiring is further confirmation that the Executive Office for Immigration Review leadership wishes EOIR to be a tool for enforcement agencies, focused on removal orders and nothing else,” said one employee, who could not speak publicly on the matter. The employee said that Santoro is “incredibly respected, and, in normal times, he would have been the chief immigration judge.”

Another DOJ employee said that Short’s appointment was “one step closer to the death knell for impartiality at the Immigration Court and more persuasive evidence that our code of American justice and fairness is not being followed at the Department of Justice.”

Ashley Tabaddor, who heads the union that represents immigration judges, said they were sad to hear of Santoro’s departure, adding that he is “a well-respected judge and will be tremendously missed.”

In his email, Santoro praised the immigration court for its work in recent years.

“Despite the many challenges thrown our way – ranging from changing priorities to lapses in appropriations to the temporary loss of our case management system to our million-plus pending caseload – you have risen to meet and exceed expectations each and every time. I have never worked with a finer group of professionals,” Santoro wrote.

He later said that the “nation benefits when we welcome those who bring different skills, perspectives, and experiences, and when we protect those who would be persecuted or tortured in their home country. We also benefit when we ensure that our laws are enforced fairly and consistently.”

Observers of the court — including current and former officials — said the email was eye opening.

“I’m heartened, but not surprised, to see Judge Santoro join the dozens of judges who have resigned from this administration and expressed a deep concern for the due process rights of vulnerable asylum seekers in our immigration court system,” said Rebecca Jamil, a former immigration judge who stepped down due to the administration’s immigration policies. “For a court system to mean anything, the public has to trust that it is fair and unbiased, and the Immigration Court simply does not have that important contract with the current Attorney General. I’m grateful that Judge Santoro reached the same conclusion that I did.”

. . . .

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

Read the rest of Hamed’s article at the link.

This is yet another disgraceful incident in three years of unconstitutional bias and failure of due process at EOIR. The competent, scholarly, fair, and impartial are driven out and replaced by unqualified politicos.

Just heard this statement on TV in connection with yet another racially motivated killing: “We have a morality problem in America!” EOIR has both a competency and a morality problems. When will someone put an end to this unconscionable and deadly nonsense?

As I have said before, Judge Santoro was our Assistant Chief Immigration Judge during some of my time in Arlington. A “straight-up” professional who cared about both public service and the health and welfare of Court employees in very stressful situations.

What a squandering of public funds and goodwill when the competent are pushed out and replaced by those stunningly unqualified to serve in any type of judicial position, let alone one calling for ethical and moral leadership.

Thanks for your service, Chris.😎

Also, proud to be a member of the Round Table along with our courageous colleague, Judge Rebecca Jamil!

Due Process Forever!

PWS

07-03-20

CHANNELING JOHN LENNON? – Conservative Judiciary Revolts! – Hand-Selected Over Two-Decades By America’s Chief Prosecutors to Quash Dissent & Promote Compliance With DOJ’s Politicized “Priorities,” Immigration Judges Chafe Under Interference, Humiliation, Lack of Concern for Health & Safety by Their Political Boss “Billy the Bigot” Barr!

REVOLUTION

By The Beatles

[Intro]
Aah!

[Verse 1]
You say you want a revolution
Well, you know
We all want to change the world
You tell me that it’s evolution
Well, you know
We all want to change the world
But when you talk about destruction
Don’t you know that you can count me out

[Chorus]
Don’t you know it’s gonna be
Alright
Alright
Alright

[Verse 2]
You say you got a real solution
Well, you know
We’d all love to see the plan
You ask me for a contribution
Well, you know
We’re all doing what we can
But if you want money for people with minds that hate
All I can tell you is, brother, you have to wait

[Chorus]
Don’t you know it’s gonna be
Alright
Alright
Alright

[Instrumental Break]

[Verse 3]
You say you’ll change the constitution
Well, you know
We all want to change your head
You tell me it’s the institution
Well, you know
You better free your mind instead
But if you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao
You ain’t going to make it with anyone anyhow

[Chorus]
Don’t you know it’s gonna be
Alright
Alright
Alright

[Outro]
Alright, alright
Alright, alright
Alright, alright
Alright, alright!

Music and lyrics from Genius.com:

https://genius.com/

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

https://prospect.org/justice/revolt-of-the-immigration-judges/

From American Prospect:

The Revolt of the Judges

The Trump administration has ordered immigration court judges to reject more applicants and speed up trials—and it wants to bust the judges’ union.

BY STEPHEN FRANKLIN

JUNE 23, 2020

First you see scenes from classic movies of wizened judges, brave lawyers, and contemplative juries, but then the video lays out its grim theme: This is not what happens in America’s immigration courts.

These courts are subject to political influences, a narrator explains. They are driven by political messages, and bound by rules based on the “whims” of whoever is in power in Washington, D.C., she says. They don’t provide the blind justice that Americans expect. What they provide is assembly-line justice.

Who is making these claims? A hard-line political or fringe legal group? Hardly. The video is from the National Association of Immigration Judges (NAIJ), the union that represents the nation’s 460-plus immigration judges—reasonably well-paid lawyers, many of whom come from government and law enforcement backgrounds.

Nor is the video the first such salvo from the judges’ group, which has lobbied Congress and spoken out frequently about what’s gone exceptionally wrong with the immigration courts under the Trump administration. Such criticisms, the judges say, are the reason that the government sought last August to decertify their union, the only such effort taken by the Trump administration against a federal workers’ labor organization.

“They are trying to silence the judges by silencing their union,” says Paul Shearon, head of the 90,000-member Professional and Technical Engineers union, to which the NAIJ has been affiliated for the past 30 years. He worries that busting a federal union may be the “next step” in the Trump administration’s actions meant to weaken all federal unions.

Shearon is confident, however, that the union will win its fight against decertification when the local level of the Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA) issues its ruling. He is “not so optimistic,” though, that it will prevail at the higher level of the FLRA, where two of three boardmembers are Trump appointees and “clearly political players.” Though the government has sought to speed up a ruling, the judges do not know when a decision is likely—but they expect one before the November election.

The judges’ complaints are many.

. . . .

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

Read the rest of the article and view the video “The Immigration Courts: Nothing Like You Have Imagined.”

Should be required viewing for every Justice, Federal Judge, U.S. Legislator, and law student.

You don’t need a law degree to know that something purporting to be a “court” where a notoriously corrupt and dishonest political prosecutor is directing “his judges” to deny asylum and speed up the assembly line is unconstitutional under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Yet, every day, life-tenured Court of Appeals Judges rubber stamp the results, often effectively death sentences, of this Star Chamber without questioning the obvious defects. Why?

America’s need for judicial reform and establishing scholarship, courage, integrity, fairness, commitment to due process and human rights, practical problem solving, and humanity as the hallmarks of judicial service runs much deeper than the Immigration “Courts.” If we want to achieve “equal justice for all” as required by our Constitution, but not being uniformly delivered by our judiciary, we need better judges at all levels of our Federal Judiciary.

That starts with throwing out Trump and the GOP Senate that has stuffed our Article III Judiciary with unqualified right-wing ideologues, intentionally tone-deaf to the legal and human rights of refugees, immigrants, people of color, women, the poor, working people, and a host of others whose humanity they decline to recognize. But, that is by no means the end of the changes necessary!

Due Process Forever. Complicit Courts, Never!

PWS

06-24-20

SUZANNE MONYK @ LAW360: Experts Say New Asylum Rule Unconstitutional Because It Guts Due Process🏴‍☠️, Effectively Repeals Asylum Statute, Will Result in Near 100% Denial Rate — While Denials & Illegal “Deportations to Death☠️” Will Soar, Asylum Seekers Not Likely to be Deterred From Coming, Meaning That Court Backlogs & Avoidable Litigation Will Continue to Mushroom!

Suzanne Monyak
Senior Reporter, Immigration
Law360

https://www.law360.com/articles/1282494/planned-asylum-overhaul-threatens-migrants-due-process

Analysis

Planned Asylum Overhaul Threatens Migrants’ Due Process

By Suzanne Monyak | June 12, 2020, 9:34 PM EDT

The Trump administration’s proposed overhaul of the U.S. asylum process, calling for more power for immigration judges and asylum officers, could hinder migrants’ access to counsel in an already fast-tracked immigration system.

The proposal, posted in a 161-page rule Wednesday night, aims to speed up procedures and raise the standards for migrants seeking protection in the U.S. at every step, while minimizing the amount of time a migrant has to consult with an attorney before facing key decisions in their case.

“It certainly sets a tone by the government that fairness, just basic day-in-court due process, is no longer valued,” said Shoba Sivaprasad Wadhia, director for the Center for Immigrants’ Rights Clinic at Penn State Law, University Park, Pennsylvania.

The proposed rule, which will publish in the Federal Register on Monday, suggests a slew of changes to the U.S. asylum system that immigrant advocates say would constitute the most sweeping changes to the system yet and cut off access for the majority of applicants.

Stephen Yale-Loehr, an immigration law professor at Cornell University Law School, said that it was as if administration officials took every precedential immigration appellate decision, executive order and policy that narrowed asylum eligibility under this administration and “wrapped them all in one huge Frankenstein rule that would effectively gut our asylum system.”

Among a litany of changes, the rule, if finalized, would revise the standards to qualify for asylum and other fear-based relief, including by narrowing what types of social groups individuals can claim membership in, as well as the very definitions of “persecution” and “torture.”

In doing so, the proposal effectively bars all forms of gender-based claims, for example, as well as claims from individuals fleeing domestic violence.

These tighter definitions and higher standards would make it difficult even for asylum-seekers who are represented to win their cases, attorneys said.

“I worry about how a rule like this can cause a chilling effect on private law firms, or even BigLaw, from even engaging with this work on a pro bono level because it’s just so challenging and this rule only puts up those barriers even more,” said Wadhia.

But for migrants without lawyers, the barrier to entry is particularly profound. For instance, the rule permits immigration judges to pretermit asylum applications, or deny an application that the judge determines doesn’t pass muster before the migrant can ever appear before the court.

This could pose real challenges for migrants who may not be familiar with U.S. asylum law or even fluent in English, but who are not guaranteed attorneys in immigration court.

“If you’re unrepresented, give me a break,” said Lenni B. Benson, a professor at New York Law School who founded the Safe Passage Project. “I don’t think my law students understand ‘nexus’ even if they’ve studied it,” she added, referring to the requirement that an individual’s persecution have a “nexus” to, or be motivated by, their participation in a certain social group.

Dree Collopy of Benach Collopy LLP, who chairs the American Immigration Lawyers Association‘s asylum committee, told Law360 that she thought the pretermission authority was the most striking attack on due process in the proposal, noting that some immigration judges have asylum denial rates of 90% or higher.

“Giving all judges the authority to end an asylum application with no hearing at all is pretty jaw-dropping,” she said. “Those 90%-denial-rate judges are doing that with the respondent in front of them who’s already testifying about the persecution they’ve suffered or their fear.”

The proposal also allows asylum officers, who are employed by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services and are not required to have earned law degrees, to deem affirmative asylum applications frivolous, and to do so based on a broader definition of “frivolous.”

Currently, applicants must knowingly fabricate evidence in an asylum application for it be deemed frivolous. But the proposal would lower that standard, while expanding the definition of “frivolous” to include applications based on foreclosed law or that are considered to lack legal merit.

The penalty for a frivolous application is steep. If an immigration judge agrees that the application is frivolous under the expanded term, the applicant would be ineligible for all forms of immigration benefits in the U.S. for making a weak asylum claim, Collopy said.

“And under the new regulation, everything is a weak application,” she added.

Benson also said that allowing asylum officers to deny applications conflicts with a mandate that those asylum screenings not be adversarial.

When consulting for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security during the Obama administration, Benson had once supported giving asylum officers more authority to grant asylum requests on the spot when migrants present with strong cases from the get-go. But with this proposal, DHS “took that idea,” but then went “the negative way,” she said.

. . . .

“I can’t even think of a single client I have right now that could get around this,” Collopy said.

“It’s a fairly well-crafted rule,” said Yale-Loehr. “They clearly have been working on this for months.”

But it may not be strong enough to ultimately survive a court challenge, he said.

The proposal was met with an onslaught of opposition from immigrant advocates and lawmakers, drawing sharp rebukes from Amnesty International, the American Immigration Council and AILA, as well as from House Democrats.

Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., who chairs the House Judiciary Committee, and Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif., who leads the committee’s immigration panel, slammed the proposal in a Thursday statement as an attempt “to rewrite our immigration laws in direct contravention of duly enacted statutes and clear congressional intent.”

If the rule is finalized — the timing is tight during an election year — attorneys said it would likely face a constitutional challenge alleging that it doesn’t square with the due process clause by infringing on an individual’s right to access the U.S. asylum system.

And while the administration will consider public feedback before the policy takes effect, attorneys said it could still be vulnerable to a court challenge claiming it violates administrative law.

Benson said the proposed rule fails to explain why its interpretation of federal immigration law should trump federal court precedent.

“They can’t just do it, as much as they might like to, with the wave of a magic wand called notice-and-comment rulemaking,” she said.

Yale-Loehr predicted a court challenge to the policy, if finalized, could go the way of DHS’ public charge rule, which was struck down by multiple lower courts, and recently by a federal court of appeals, but was allowed by the U.S. Supreme Court to take effect while lawsuits continued.

If the policy is in place for any amount of time, it will likely lead to migrants with strong claims for protection being turned away, attorneys said. But Yale-Loehr didn’t believe it would lead to fewer asylum claims.

“If you’re fleeing persecution, you’re not stopping to read a 160-page rule,” he said. “You’re fleeing for your life, and no rule is going to change that fact.”

–Editing by Kelly Duncan.

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

Read Suzanne’s full analysis at the above link.

Although nominally designed to address the current Immigration Court backlog by encouraging or even mandating summary denial without due process of nearly 100% of asylum claims, as observed in the article, the exact opposite is likely to happen with respect to backlog reduction.

As Professor Steve Yale-Loehr points out, finalization of these regulations would undoubtedly provoke a flood of new litigation. True, the Supreme Court to date has failed to take seriously their precedents requiring due process for asylum seekers and other migrants. But, enough lower Federal Courts have been willing to initially step up to the plate that reversals and remands for fair hearings before Immigration Judges will occur on a regular basis in a number of jurisdictions.

This will require time-consuming “redos from scratch” before Immigration Judges that will take precedence on already backlogged dockets. It will also lead to a patchwork system of asylum rules pending the Supreme Court deciding what’s legally snd constitutionally required.

While based on the Court Majority’s lack of concern for due process, statutory integrity, and fundamental fairness for asylum seekers, particularly those of color, shown by the last few major tests of Trump Administration “constitutional statutory, and equal justice eradication” by Executive Order and regulation, one can never be certain what the future will hold.

With four Justices who have fairly consistently voted to uphold or act least not interfere with asylum seekers’ challenges to illegal policies and regulations, a slight change in either the composition of the Court or the philosophy of the majority Justices could produce different results.

As the link between systemic lack of equal justice under the Constitution for African Americans and the attacks on justice for asylum seekers, immigrants, and other people of color becomes clearer, some of the Justices who have enabled the Administration’s xenophobic anti-immigrant, anti-asylum programs might want to rethink their positions. That’s particularly true in light of the lack of a sound factual basis for such programs.

As good advocates continue to document the deadly results and inhumanity, as well as the administrative failures, of the Trump-Miller White nationalist program, even those justices who have to date been blind to what they were enabling might have to take notice and reflect further on both the legal moral obligations we owe to our fellow human beings.

In perhaps the most famous Supreme Court asylum opinion, INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421, 436-37 (1987), Justice Stevens said:

If one thing is clear from the legislative history of the new definition of “refugee,” and indeed the entire 1980 Act, it is that one of Congress’ primary purposes was to bring United States refugee law into conformance with the 1967 United Nations Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, 19 U.S.T. 6223, T.I.A.S. No. 6577, to which the United. States acceded in 1968.

These proposed regulations are the exact opposite: without legislation, essentially repealing the Refugee Act of 1980 and ending U.S. compliance with the international refugee and asylum protection instruments to which we are party. Frankly, today’s Court majority appears, without any reasonable explanation, to have drifted away from Cardoza’s humanity and generous flexibility in favor of endorsing and enabling various immigration restrictionist schemes intended to weaponize asylum laws and processes against asylum seekers. But, are they really going to allow the Administration to overrule (and essentially mock) Cardoza by regulation? Perhaps, but such fecklessness will have much larger consequences for the Court and our nation.

Are baby jails, kids in cages, rape, beating, torture, child abuse, clearly rigged biased adjudications, predetermined results, death sentences without due process, bodies floating in the Rio Grande, and in some cases assisting femicide, ethnic cleansing, and religious and political repression really the legacy that the majority of today’s Justices wish to leave behind? Is that how they want to be remembered by future generations?

Scholars and well-respected legal advocates like Professor Shoba Sivaprasad Wadhia, Professor Stephen Yale-Loehr, Professor Lenni Benson, and Dree Collopy have great expertise in immigration and asylum laws and an interest in reducing backlogs and creating functional Immigration Courts consistent with due process and Constitutional rights. Like Professor Benson, they have contributed practical ideas for increasing due process while reducing court backlogs. Instead of turning their good ideas, like “fast track grants and more qualified representation of asylum seekers, on their heads, why not enlist their help in fixing the current broken system?

We need a government that will engage in dialogue with experts to solve problems rather than unilaterally promoting more illegal, unwise, and inhumane attacks on, and gimmicks to avoid, the legal, due process, and human rights of asylum seekers.

As Professor Yale-Loehr presciently says at the end of Suzanne’s article:

“If you’re fleeing persecution, you’re not stopping to read a 160-page rule,” he said. “You’re fleeing for your life, and no rule is going to change that fact.”

Isn’t it time for our Supreme Court Justices, legislators, and policy makers to to recognize the truth of that statement and require our asylum system and our Immigration Courts to operate in the real world of refugees?

Due Process Forever! Complicity Never!

PWS

06-16-20

🏴‍☠️🤮☠️⚰️AS U.S. JUSTICE SYSTEM FAILS, BARR & DHS GO FOR “ADMINISTRATIVE REPEAL” OF DUE PROCESS & REFUGEE ACT IN 156-PAGE SCREED OVERFLOWING WITH B.S. & FALSE CLAIMS! — A White Nationalist “Manifesto of Lies & Misrepresentations” Masquerading As “Proposed Regulations”

Bigoted Bully Billy Barr Brutalizes Justice as Federal Courts Fail

Here they are:

https://s3.amazonaws.com/public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2020-12575.pdf?utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery

When the rule of law disappears, courts fail, and institutions disintegrate, bad things happen.

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

PWS

06-10-20

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

Related posts:

Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Due Process Forever!🗽⚖️👩🏻‍⚖️

Related posts:

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

Related posts:

Due Process Forever.

Related posts:

Due Process Forever!

PWS

Related posts:

Related posts:

Ex-FAIR Research Director Among 46 New Immigration Judges

Due Process Forever! Corrupt & Feckless Institutions Parodying Justice, Never!

Related posts:

Due Process Forever! Clown Courts Never!

Related posts:

Due Process Forever! Crimes Against Humanity, Never!

Related posts:

Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Due Process Forever. Complicit Courts, Never!

Related posts:

Due Process Forever! Complicity Never!

Related posts:

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

Related posts: