"The Voice of the New Due Process Army" ————– Musings on Events in U.S. Immigration Court, Immigration Law, Sports, Music, Politics, and Other Random Topics by Retired United States Immigration Judge (Arlington, Virginia) and former Chairman of the Board of Immigration Appeals PAUL WICKHAM SCHMIDT and DR. ALICIA TRICHE, expert brief writer, practical scholar, emeritus Editor-in-Chief of The Green Card (FBA), and 2022 Federal Bar Association Immigration Section Lawyer of the Year. She is a/k/a “Delta Ondine,” a blues-based alt-rock singer-songwriter, who performs regularly in Memphis, where she hosts her own Blues Brunch series, and will soon be recording her first full, professional album. Stay tuned! 🎶 To see our complete professional bios, just click on the link below.
Inside the Gulag In the fine tradition of Josef Stalin, like US Presidents before him, President Biden finds it useful to have a “due process free zone” to stash people of color.
The case is Miranda v. Garland, and it’s published:
Quote from Judge Marvin Quattlebaum’s wrong-headed decision, joined by fellow Trump appointee Judge Julius Richardson:
QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judge:
8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) permits the Attorney General to detain aliens1 pending their
removal hearings. And the Attorney General has adopted procedures for making that discretionary decision. Under those procedures, an alien is given notice and three opportunities to seek release by showing they are neither a flight risk nor a danger to the community.
A district court determined that a class of aliens had a likelihood of establishing that those procedures violated the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution. That court then issued a preliminary injunction ordering, on a class- wide basis, that to continue detaining an alien under § 1226(a), the government must prove by clear and convincing evidence that an alien is either a flight risk or a danger to the community. The district court also required immigration judges, again on a class-wide basis, to consider an alien’s ability to pay any bond imposed and consider alternatives to detention.
However, under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(f)(1), the district court lacked jurisdiction to issue class-wide injunctive relief that enjoined or restrained the process used to conduct § 1226(a) bond hearings. As for the individual relief issued by the district court, the detention procedures adopted for § 1226(a) bond hearings provide sufficient process to
1 We realize that the use of the term “alien” has been the subject of some debate. See e.g., Martinez Rivera v. U.S. Att’y Gen., No. 20-13201, 2021 WL 2836460, at *7 (11th Cir. July 8, 2021). We use the term because Congress used it in the text of the applicable statutes, and the same term is used in the applicable regulations. Our use of the term “alien” is not intended to express any opinion, pejorative or otherwise, about the plaintiffs in this action or others challenging their detention under our immigration laws.
3
satisfy constitutional requirements. For that reason, the aliens are unable to establish a likelihood of success on their due process claims. Nor have they shown that they are likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in their favor or that an injunction is in the public interest. Therefore, we vacate the district court’s preliminary injunction order.
Abetter quote from the only Panel Judge to get it right, Chief Judge Michael Urbanski of the WDVA, (an Obama appointee) sitting by designation:
While I am mindful of the executive’s vast authority over immigration, it must still
comport with constitutional safeguards. With this balancing in mind, requiring a detained noncitizen to prove he is not a danger to the community or risk of flight is unconstitutionally onerous on an already vulnerable group of defendants and violates due process. In sum, I respectfully dissent and would affirm the district court’s conclusion that the Due Process Clause requires the government to bear the burden of proof at § 1226(a) detention hearings and remand the case to the district court for consideration of § 1252(f)(1) and the availability of class-wide declaratory relief.
********************************
Well, at least one judge got it right!
The Round Table ⚔️🛡 filed an amicus brief in support of the respondents in this case. Additionally, Round Table Member Judge Denise Slavin filed an affidavit (cited by the USDJ) before the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. There, Hon.Catherine C. Blake, Senior District Judge, correctly ruled for the respondents. The Trump DOJ appealed, and Garland decided to continue to advance the prior Administration’s anti-due-process position before the Fourth Circuit.
Gosh, and Dem politicos wonder why it’s hard for them to gin up enthusiasm for the midterms!
Stacy Caplow Associate Dean of Experiential Education & Professor of Law Brooklyn Law PHOTO: Brooklyn Law website
“Sir Jeffrey” Chase reports:
Hi all:A new volume of the AILA Law Journal was released yesterday.It contained an article by Stacy Caplow, co-director of Brooklyn Law School’s Safe Harbor Project, called The Sinking Immigration Court: Change Course, Save the Ship.I’m not sure if all can access it, but the link is:
The Round Table of Former Immigration Judges, “a group of 51 former Immigration Judges and Members of the Board of Immigration Appeals who are committed to the principles of due process, fairness, and transparency in our Immigration Court system,” bears witness to the degrading of the court and, speaking with the voice of years of experience, has been an increasingly active and vocal critic of recent developments at the court both before Congress and as amicus curiae.
There are also citations to a couple of our group’s statements (including one to Congress) and an amicus brief filed with the Supreme Court in the footnotes.
********************
How come the Biden Administration, and particularly AG Garland, don’t “get it?”
An immigration judge has blocked the deportation of a Sacramento man to his native Iraq where he would face trial, and likely execution, for a terrorist murder — a murder that, according to a U.S. magistrate, took place while the man was in another country.
Omar Ameen was granted U.S. refugee status in 2014 by immigration officials who said he would face persecution in Iraq. But the U.S. government jailed him in August 2018 while Iraq sought to extradite him on a murder charge.
Last April, U.S. Magistrate Judge Edmund Brennan found that the crime Iraq accused Ameen of committing, the fatal shooting of a police officer in 2014 before his departure for the U.S., had taken place while Ameen was 600 miles away in Turkey, where he had fled from Iraq more than two years earlier.
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement then sought to deport Ameen to Iraq, saying he had lied about his alleged terrorist connections and other subjects, and kept him in custody. But Immigration Judge Tara Naselow-Nahas of Van Nuys (Los Angeles County) ruled last week that Ameen could not be deported to Iraq because he was likely to be jailed and tortured there. She did not dismiss ICE’s claim that Ameen had made false statements, but said she found no evidence of terrorist connections.
. . . .
*******************************
Read the rest of the article at the link.
Immigration Judges make critical life or death decisions every day. Yet the system suffers from gross inconsistencies, huge backlogs, lack of discipline, poor intellectual leadership, an appellate board mired in leftover Trumpism, and an Attorney General who generally has been slow to recognize the importance of Immigration Court reform and a focus on due process, fundamental fairness, expertise, and quality in his “wholly owned” system.
One of the lead attorneys for Mr. Ameen is Round Table stalwart and former Immigration Judge Ilyce Shugall!Congrats to Ilyce and her team!
Hon. Ilyce Shugall U.S. Immigraton Judge (Retired) Member Rounds Table of Former Immigration Judges
The whole issue is devoted to addressing the critical due process, fundamental fairness, and ethical issues in Immigration Court with articles by NAIJ President Judge Mimi Tsankov, Judge Samuel B. Cole, Professor Michele Pistone of the VIISTA Villanova Project and others in addition to Joan.
Hon. Jeffrey S. Chase Jeffrey S. Chase Blog Coordinator & Chief Spokesperson, Round Table of Former Immigration JudgesHon. Susan G. Roy Law Office of Susan G. Roy, LLC Princeton Junction, NJ Member, Round Table of Former Immigration Judges
More NDPA Training:Tomorrow and Saturday, the New York Asylum and Immigration Law Conference will be held virtually; Sue Roy and I are among the speakers, along with many other members of the NDPA.
On the line are millions of futures. Undocumented immigrants who fear being split from their American children and spouses, people facing persecution and death in their countries of origin, or those being sent to countries they haven’t seen in decades are all fighting for fair play and often literally their lives in courts ill-equipped to do them justice.
“Let’s make it absolutely clear: due process is suffering,” said Muzaffar Chishti, a senior fellow at the Migration Policy Institute. “There’s just no way around that.”
Chishti said he sees all the hallmarks of a strong administrative law system suffering in the nation’s immigration courts, which are housed under the Department of Justice in the executive branch of the federal government, not within the judicial branch.
“It is a system in crisis,” he said.
After Trump made hardline anti-immigration policies pivotal to his 2016 presidential campaign, he flooded courts with judges more inclined to order deportations, Reuters reported.
His administration hired so many new immigration judges so hastily that the American Bar Association warned of “under-qualified or potentially biased judges”, many of whom had no immigration experience.
And as officials such as then-attorney general Jeff Sessions made sweeping proclamations that “the vast majority of asylum claims are not valid”, judges simultaneously confronted performance metrics demanding they each race through at least 700 cases a year.
People ranging from asylum seekers forced to wait in Mexico to unaccompanied children crossing the border on foot, to longtime undocumented residents with families stateside end up appearing in court, often without attorneys to help them parse the country’s byzantine laws.
In a process smacking of a zip code lottery, one judge in New York may grant nearly 95% of asylum petitions while colleagues in Atlanta almost universally deny similar requests, creating a patchwork of standards.
. . . .
***************************
Read Alexandra’s full report at the link.
Garland’s stubbornly indolent approach to racial justice and due process at “Justice” endangers the lives of millions of vulnerable humans! PHOTO: Wikipedia Commons
Not news to Courtside readers or the millions whose lives and futures are caught up in Garland’s totally dysfunctional morass! And, that doesn’t even include hundreds of thousands of migrants orbited to danger under bogus “border closure” gimmicks that Garland and his ethically-challenged DOJ continue to defend!
Honorable Joan Churchill Retired U.S. Immigration Judge Member Round Table of Retired Judges
Many thanks to Judge Joan A. Churchill for spearheading this effort and for her many years of leadership and tireless dedication to the Article I Movement!
THE ROUND TABLE OF FORMER IMMIGRATION JUDGES February 18, 2022
The Round Table of Former Immigration Judges, composed of 52 for- mer Immigration and Appellate Immigration Judges, wholeheartedly endorses H.R. 6577. We urge its passage.
Members of the Round Table of Former Immigration Judges were appointed by and served under both Democratic and Republican administrations. Our periods of service on the bench span 1980 through December 2021. As former Immigration Judges, we are acutely aware of the systemic flaws in the placement of the Immigration Court within the Department of Justice, our nation’s highest law enforcement agency. Ever aware of our duty to exercise our independent judgment to accord due process, we conscientiously strove to do so throughout our years on the bench. However, challenges to our ability to do so were ever present. While we felt that we individually were administering impartial justice, we could not overcome the appearance of partiality, created by the structural flaw in the system, in the eyes of the parties and public.
Establishment of an independent Immigration Court under Article I of the Constitution is long overdue. On March 1, 1981 the Congressionally created bipartisan Select Commission on Immigration & Refugee Policy, issued its Final Report, entitled U. S. Immigration Policy and the National Interest, calling for creation of an Article I Immigration Court :
“The Select Commission recommends that existing law be amended to create an immigration court under Article I of the U.S. Constitution.” [pp. xxviii-xxix]
The Select Commission, which began its work in 1979, undertook an exhaustive study which ultimately identified and recognized the structural flaw which H.R. 6577 will finally correct. Steps taken by successive ad- ministrations since 1981 have not fixed the problem. Rep. Bill McCollum, (R FL), a prior Chair of the House Immigration Subcommittee, introduced several Article I Immigration Court bills over the years. It is not a partisan issue. The structure simply does not allow for truly impartial adjudication. Political policy making functions should not be commingled with adjudicative functions. Impartial adjudication is essential for due process. Congressional action is necessary to eliminate the systemic structural flaw. Passage of H.R. 6577 will do that. H.R. 6577 will establish a judicial structure for adjudicative immigration proceedings that will assure due process, an American value enshrined in the U.S. Constitution. We applaud the intro- suction of H.R. 6577 and look forward to its enactment.
“The question presented in this appeal—one which has led to a circuit split—is whether a conviction for falsely representing a social security number, see 42 U.S.C. § 408(a)(7)(B), is a CIMT. … The BIA explained that § 408(a)(7)(B) requires intent to deceive, and as a result Mr. Zarate’s conviction was for a CIMT. Noting that the circuits were divided on the issue, it quoted our decision in Walker v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 783 F.3d 1226, 1229 (11th Cir. 2015), for the proposition that, “[g]enerally, a crime involving dishonesty or false statement is considered to be one involving moral turpitude.” The BIA did not, however, address whether a violation of § 407(a)(7)(B) is inherently base, vile, or depraved. And that, as we will later explain, is a significant omission. … Our holding today does not foreclose the possibility that a conviction for a violation of § 408(a)(7)(B) may be a CIMT. But if the BIA is going to hold that it is, it will need to do what it has so far failed to do in Mr. Zarate’s case—it will have to apply its two-pronged moral turpitude standard in toto and decide whether the statute, under the categorical approach, involves conduct that is “reprehensible,” i.e., conduct that is “inherently base, vile, or depraved, and contrary to the accepted rules of morality and the duties owed between persons or to society in general.” Silva-Trevino, 26 I. & N. Dec. at 833–34 (internal quotation marks omitted). See also Simon-Kerr, Moral Turpitude, 2012 Utah L. Rev. at 1007–08 (criticizing courts for “ignor[ing] community moral sentiments when applying the [moral turpitude] standard”). We remand to the BIA for that purpose.”
Hon. Jeffrey S. Chase Jeffrey S. Chase Blog Coordinator & Chief Spokesperson, Round Table of Former Immigration Judges
My colleague Hon. “Sir Jeffrey” Chase of the Round Table 🛡⚔️ offers the following cogent “instant analysis:”
Besides from what this says about the BIA being too lazy and hellbent on affirming removal orders for even the 11th Circuit’s liking, this is really interesting in its addressing the issue of applying “community moral sentiments”.What community are we talking about, and at what period of time?
There’s also a concurring opinion that does a very deep dive into the process for determining whether a statute is divisible.Could you even imagine the BIA engaging in the necessary analysis?
“Deep analysis” isn’t exactly in the “BIA playbook” under Garland. No, Garland’s “good enough for government work culture” at the DOJ tolerates the “whatever it takes to get to ‘no’” standard that was instilled by Sessions and Barr and, remarkably, still permeates much of the BIA’s work that is being rejected by the Article IIIs.
I note that the “deep dive” concurring opinion referenced by “Sir Jeffrey” was written by Senior Circuit Judge Gerald B. Tjoflat, a 92-year-old Gerald Ford appointee whose intellectual engagement and analytical work product puts the Garland BIA to shame!
Joseph A. Vail Asylum Workshop shares valuable immigration insights in the era of the Biden Administration
Retired Immigration Judge, U.S. Immigration Court and Former Chairman of the Board of Immigration Appeals Paul Wickham Schmidt discusses growing immigration court backlogs.
Feb. 7, 2022 – More than 350 practitioners attended the annual Joseph A. Vail Asylum Workshop recently. The four-hour virtual event held on Jan. 28 was presented by the University of Houston Law Center’s Immigration Clinic and co-sponsored by Interfaith Ministries of Greater Houston. Interfaith Ministries joined this year to shed light on the plight of Afghani refugees who have settled in Houston since the government in Afghanistan collapsed and the Taliban takeover.
The goal of the workshop was to provide an update on immigration practices since President Biden took office. For example, while Biden halted the building of the border wall between the U.S. and Mexico and removed Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP) – where asylum seekers must remain on the Mexican side of the border while awaiting U.S. immigration court dates – a federal court order forced MPP to be reinstated. Immigration court backlogs continue to grow with former Board of Immigration Appeals Chairman Paul W. Schmidt predicting them reaching over 2 million by the end of 2022.
The first panel, moderated by Immigration Clinic Director Geoffrey Hoffman, explored the Biden Administration’s focus on Prosecutorial Discretion, Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), Migratory Protection Protocols (MPP), recent circuit court decisions, Afghan and Haitian case precedents, and immigration court backlogs.
“I hope you are emboldened to take a pro-bono client,” said Hoffman. “You can reach out to any of us on this call and use us as mentors.”
Panelist Magali Candler Suarez, principal at Suarez Candler Law, PLLC warned practitioners that Title 42 – a public health and welfare statue that gives the Center for Disease Control and Prevention the power to decide whether something like Covid-19 in a foreign country poses a serious danger of spreading in the U.S. – was being applied to Haitians in a racist manner.
“Many Haitians are being turned back at the border,” said Candler Suarez. “They are being denied the right to apply for asylum.”
The second panel, moderated by Parker Sheffy, a clinical teaching fellow at the Immigration Clinic, was a refresher on asylum, withholding of removal and CAT. Panelist Elizabeth Mendoza from the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA), which supports immigration attorneys in this work, spoke about challenges because of newly appointed immigration judges and evolving Covid practices.
“Unfortunately, things are in flux this month,” said Mendoza. “It’s not out of the ordinary to be given conflicting information.”
Well known former U.S. immigration judge, Jeffrey S. Chase, was the final panelist in this group and focused on the future of asylum in the U.S. “The Biden Administation issued a paper on climate change and migration,” said Chase. “[What] they were really talking about [though was] asylum and how climate change will impact that.”
A third panel offered insights on the use of experts in removal proceedings. UH Law Center Professor Rosemary Vega moderated the discussion which ranged from psychological experts to country experts and where to find them.
“The Center for Gender and Refugee Studies has a giant list of experts on many topics,” said panelist and UH Law Professor Lucas Aisenberg. “It’s the first place I go to when I’m working on a case.”
The workshop wrapped up with speakers from Interfaith Ministries of Greater Houston explaining what it is like to be a refugee from Afghanistan and how hard it has been to meet the needs of Afghan refugees that have arrived in the last year.
“Two years ago, we resettled 407 Afghan refugees,” said Martin B. Cominsky, president, and CEO of Interfaith Ministries of Greater Houston. “Since September 2021, we have resettled 11,081 refugees.” He implored practitioners on the call to help in any way they can.
The Joseph A. Vail Asylum Workshop has been held annually since 2014 in memory of the University of Houston Law Center Immigration Clinic’s founder. Since the clinic’s inception in 1999, it has become one of the largest in the nation, specializing in handling asylum applications for victims of torture and persecution, representing victims of domestic violence, human trafficking, and crime, and helping those fleeing civil war, genocide, or political repression. The clinic has served over 2,000 individuals who otherwise could not afford legal services.
For a full list of speakers at this year’s event, click here.
******************
“Immigration court backlogs continue to grow with former Board of Immigration Appeals Chairman Paul W. Schmidt predicting them reaching over 2 million by the end of 2022.”
“Aimless Docket Reshuffling” is thriving @ Garland’s EOIR. Instead of gimmicks designed to “prioritize for denial and deterrence” (how about those “engineered in absentia dockets?”) why not work with the private bar and DHS to prioritize at both the Asylum Office and EOIR those with the most compelling cases from countries where refugee flows are well-documented?
For example, why not “prioritize” represented Uyghur and Afghani cases which should be “slam dunk” asylum grants? What’s the purpose of making folks who are going to be part of our society unnecessarily spend years in limbo?
Is anybody in the Biden Administration actually planning for a possible human rights catastrophe, or just waiting for it to happen and then declaring yet another “migration emergency.”
Contrary to the uninformed view of many, backlogs aren’t just a workload problem or a hindrance to enforcement. There are huge human, psychological, economic, societal, and institutional costs with maintaining large uncontrolled backlogs.
Most of those costs fall on the individuals with strong, likely winning cases who constantly are “orbited to the end of the line” to accommodate ever-changing, ill-advised, enforcement agendas and misguided “quick fix” initiatives. That’s so that DHS and DOJ can misuse the legal system as a deterrent — by prioritizing the cases they think they can deny without much due process to “send messages” about the futility of asking for protection or asserting rights in the U.S. legal system! And, those with strong cases (and their attorneys) “twist in the wind” as denials and deterrence are prioritized.
Trying to prioritize “bogus denials” (often without hearings, lawyers, time to prepare, or careful expert judging) also creates false statistical profiles suggesting, quite dishonestly, that there is no merit to most cases. These false narratives, in turn, are picked up and repeated by the media, usually without critical examination.
Like the “Big Lie,” they eventually develop “a life of their own” simply by repetition. When occasionally “caught in action” by Article IIIs, the resulting backlog bolstering remands and “restarts” are inevitably blamed on the individuals (the victims), rather than the systematic Government incompetence that is truly responsible!
The truth is quite different from the DOJ/DHS myths.Over the years, despite facing a chronically unfair system intentionally skewed against them, some hostile or poorly qualified Immigration Judges and Appellate IJs, and wildly inconsistent results on similar cases before different judges (so-called “Refugee Roulette”), asylum seekers have won from 30% to more than 50% of the time when they actually receive an opportunity for a full, individual merits determination of their claims.
But, getting that individual hearing has proved challenging in a system that constantly puts expediency and enforcement before due process, fundamental fairness, and human dignity! No matter how the Government tries to hide it, that means that there lots of bona fide asylum seekers out there whose cases are languishing in a broken system.
The creation of the USCIS Asylum Office was supposed to be a way of dealing with this issue through so-called affirmative applications and “quick approvals” of meritorious cases. But, during the Trump Administration even that flawed system was intentionally and maliciously “dumbed down,” “de-functionalized,” “re-prioritized,” and hopelessly backlogged. It was so bad that the Asylum Officers’ Union actually sued the Trump Administration for acting illegally.
More “gimmicks” like Garland’s failed “dedicated dockets” won’t fix his dysfunctional system. Fundamental leadership, personnel, substantive quality, procedural, and “cultural” changes are necessary to address backlogs while achieving due process and fundamental fairness at EOIR. Ironically, that was once the “EOIR Vision.” ⚖️ It’s too bad, actually tragic, Garland doesn’t share it!🤯
Genevra W. Alberti, Esq. The Clinic at Sharma-Crawford Attorneys at Law Kansas City, Mo. PHOTO: The Clinic
Dear Colleagues,
The Clinic at Sharma-Crawford Attorneys at Law – a nonprofit removal defense organization in Kansas City, Missouri – is hosting its fifth annual Immigration Court Trial Advocacy College from Thursday, April 28 to Saturday, April 30, 2022 in the Kansas City metro area.
This is a unique, hands-on, one-on-one, training experience designed to make you confident in immigration court, and the program has something for beginners as well as experienced removal defense litigators. Under the guidance of seasoned trial attorneys from all over the country (myself included) and using a real case, real witnesses, and real courtrooms, participants will learn fundamental trial skills while preparing a defensive asylum case for a mock trial. The complete conference schedule and faculty bios are available on The Clinic’s website here.
Among our All-Star Faculty will be Members of the Round Table of FormerImmigration Judges Hon. Lory Diana Rosenberg, Hon. Sue Roy, and Hon. Paul Wickham Schmidt.
Hon. Susan G. Roy Law Office of Susan G. Roy, LLC Princeton Junction, NJ Member, Round Table of Former Immigration JudgesHon. Lory Diana Rosenberg Senior Advisor Immigrant Defenders Law Group, PLLC, Member, Round Table of Former Immigration Judges
Me
Days 1 and 2 of the program will focus on helping attendees master the fundamentals of trial practice and prepare a defensive asylum case and witness for trial. For many of the sessions, attendees will be broken up into smaller groups, each with its own set of faculty members to provide one-on-one input. Each attendee will be assigned a role – either the respondent’s attorney, or the DHS attorney – and will have a volunteer “witness” to prep. On day 3, mock trials will be held in real courtrooms with faculty serving as the judges.
Tickets are available now, and you can register on The Clinic’s website here. There is a discounted rate for nonprofit attorneys. Price includes lunch, snacks, coffee and refreshments on all three days, along with breakfast on Friday and Saturday and a happy hour on Thursday. **IMPORTANT: It is imperative that you commit to attending all 3 days of the conference, so please do not register unless you can do so.** If you have questions about this, please let me know. Proof of COVID-19 vaccination is also required.
Space is limited, so be sure to get your tickets soon. We hope to see you there!
DISCLAIMER: While I have been inspired by, and drawn on, the work of my friends Nolan & Michele, this posting is my view and does not necessarily represent either of their views on MPP, its merits, and/or the litigation challenging it.
INA section 1229a(b)(4)(A) prohibits the government from paying for lawyers to represent immigrants in removal proceedings. The pertinent part of this section states that, “the alien shall have the privilege of being represented, at no expense to the Government, by counsel of the alien’s choosing who is authorized to practice in such proceedings” (emphasis added).
But there is an alternative. EOIR has a program for recognizing organizations and accrediting their non-attorney representatives to represent aliens in removal proceeds for a nominal fee, and INA section 1229a(b)(4)(A) does not prohibit the government from providing these organizations with the funds they need to expand their immigration operations.
The government established the recognition and accreditation program to increase the availability of competent immigration legal representation for low-income and indigent persons, which promotes the effective and efficient administration of justice.
Two levels of accreditation are available. Full accreditation authorizes the accredited representative to represent immigrants in proceedings before DHS, in proceedings before an immigration judge, and in appeals to the Board of Immigration Appeals. Partial accreditation just authorizes them to assist immigrants in proceedings before DHS, such as in applying for an immigration benefit.
Aliens needing low-cost legal representation for removal proceedings or to apply for asylum can find recognized organizations and accredited representatives in their area on the roster of Recognized Organizations and Accredited Representatives. Currently, there are 761 recognized organizations and 1,970 accredited representatives, but only 300 of them have full accreditation.
An organization applying for recognition must establish that it is a Federal, tax-exempt, non-profit religious, charitable, social service, or similar organization; that it provides immigration legal services primarily to low-income and indigent clients; and that, if it charges fees, it has a written policy for accommodating clients who are unable to pay the fees.
And it must establish that it has access to adequate knowledge, information, and experience in all aspects of immigration law and procedure.
An organization applying for the accreditation of a representative must establish that the representative has the character and fitness needed for representing immigration clients; that he has not been subject to disciplinary proceedings or been convicted of a serious crime; and that he has the necessary knowledge in immigration law and procedures.
Professor Michele Pistone Villanova Law
Excellent training programs are available to provide representatives with the knowledge they need to represent immigrants in removal proceedings before an immigration judge, such as the Villanova Interdisciplinary Immigration Studies Training for Advocates (VIISTA) — a university-based online certificate program that was established by Michele Pistone, a law professor at Villanova in August 2020, to provides the training immigrant advocates need to become accredited representatives.
VIISTA covers all of the topics needed to become an effective immigrant advocate — such as interviewing, how to work with an interpreter, how to work with migrant children, trial advocacy and, of course, immigration law.
Biden’s promise to maximize legal representation
Biden included maximizing legal representation in his “Blueprint for a Fair, Orderly, and Human Immigration System.” His plan to achieve that objective includes providing $23 million to support legal orientation programs — but orientation programs do not provide legal representation. In fact, the statement of work for the LAB contract solicitation requires orientation presenters to explain that they do not provide legal advice or representation.
Accredited representatives with full accreditation do provide legal advice and legal representation — but there aren’t nearly enough of them now to meet the need for such assistance.
Biden could use the funds he has earmarked for the legal orientation program to provide recognized organizations with the money they need to increase the number of accredited representatives — but a better solution would be for congress to provide the necessary funding.
For many asylum-seeking immigrants, an accredited representative with immigration law training may be their only hope for representation when they appear at their asylum hearings.
**********************
Thanks for this timely and informative piece, Nolan! Amazingly, this “accessible” analysis of an under-publicized opportunity is Nolan’s 300th published op-ed on The Hill! Congratulations! 🎊🍾
Go on over to The Hill to read the full article! The excerpt published above also contains helpful links to the VIISTA Program @ Villanova.
The extraordinary, innovative VIISTA Program began with Michele’s dinner table conversation with Judges Larry “The Burmanator” Burman, Mimi Tsankov (now NAIJ President), and me following an FBA Conference in DC several years ago. I doubt that any other lawyer in America could have turned it into reality. Michele got all the grants for seed money herself — winning a prestigious Kaplan Family Foundation Grant for Innovation in the process!
Because VIISTA is modularized, available online, constantly evaluated (including, of course, by students), and updated, it is “built for rapid expansion” throughout America, as suggested by Nolan. Even now, Michele is actively looking for “partners.”
My Round Table 🛡⚔️ colleague Judge Jeffrey Chase and I were privileged to have had modest roles in VIISTA’s curriculum development and review. Additionally, our Round Table colleague Judge Ilyce Shugall is one of the exceptional VIISTA faculty.
Hon. Ilyce Shugall U.S. Immigraton Judge (Retired) A “Fighting Knightess of the Round Table,” she’s also one of VIISTA’s talented expert faculty members who knows exactly what asylum seekers need to prove to win in what currently is “America’s most dysfunctional court system!” She has “lived life on both sides of the bench!”
Recently (pre-omicron) Jeffrey and I were fortunate enough to be invited to a “VIISTA Anniversary Celebration” @ Villanova. We had a chance to meet not only folks from the Kaplan Foundation and Villanova (which has been totally supportive), but also to meet and hear from some faculty and members of the “Inaugural Class” about their achievements and their plans for the future.
This is truly “making the law better” and “delivering justice” at a grass roots level! And, as Nolan points out, expanded programs like this might be asylum seekers’ best chance of getting great representation that could be “outcome determinative.” Michele’s goal is 10,000 new representatives in 10 years! Who could doubt her ability to pull it off!
By now, it should be clear to both advocates and the Biden Administration that “Remain in Mexico” is here to stay, at least for the foreseeable future. No matter what the lack of merits to the Fifth Circuit’s decision might be (I’m sure that its tone-deaf, disconnected from reality and humanity approach will be the subject of numerous critical commentaries and law review articles), no relief can be expected from either the right-wing Supremes or the feckless Dems in Congress.
Given that the MPP program is going to be judicially imposed, the Administration and advocates can still get together to make it work in compliance with due process. It’s well within their power and not rocket 🚀 science:
A Better Due-Process- Focused Approach To “Remain in Mexico:”
Better BIA. Appoint a new BIA with appellate judges who are practical scholars in asylum and will establish coherent, correct legal guidance on domestic violence claims, gender based asylum, gang-based claims, nexus, “failure of state protection,” credibility, corroboration, the operation of the presumption of future persecution, the DHS’s burden of rebutting the presumption, “rise to the level,” right to counsel, fair hearings, fair notice, and other critical areas where the current “Trump holdover” BIA’s guidance has been lacking, inadequate, or defective. They can also insure consistency in asylum adjudications, something that has long escaped EOIR.
Better Judges. Get a corps of Immigration Judges with established records and reputations for scholarly expertise in asylum, demonstrated commitment to due-process, practicality, and fairness to asylum seekers to handle these cases.
Better Representation. Work with pro bono, advocacy groups, VIISTA, and the UNHCR to insure that every person applying under this program has access to competent representation and adequate opportunities to prepare and document cases. Another one of Nolan’s good ideas for VIISTA-type programs would be for Congress to provide scholarships for students (beyond those already available from Villanova). I have also gotten “anecdotal reports” that EOIR has built up an unconscionable backlog in processing of applications for Accreditation & Recognition. If confirmed, this must be immediately addressed.
Better Conditions. Work with the Government of Mexico and the UNHCR to guarantee the health, security, safety, and welfare of those waiting in camps in Mexico.
Indeed, the Biden Administration could and should already have put this very straightforward, achievable program in place during its first year in office, instead of “treading water” (or worse, in many cases)!
Garland’s methods for attracting, recruiting, hiring, and retaining Immigration Judges have not inspired confidence from the NDPA and other expert critics of his totally dysfunctional, wholly-owned and operated, exponentially backlogged, poorly performing Immigration “Courts.” PHOTO: Thomas Hawk Creative Commons Amateur Night
The latest judge-by-judge data from the Immigration Courts indicate that more judges are resigning and retiring. Turnover is the highest since records began in FY 1997 over two decades ago. These results are based on detailed records obtained by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC) at Syracuse University under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) from the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) which administers the Courts.
During FY 2019 a record number of 35 judges left the bench. This is up from the previous record set in FY 2017 when 20 judges left the bench, and 27 judges left in FY 2018. See Figure 1.
. . . .
There has also been an increase in hiring (see Table 1). The combination of elevated hiring plus a record number of judges leaving the bench means more cases are being heard by judges with quite limited experience as immigration judges.
Currently one of every three (32%) judges have only held their position since FY 2019. Half (48%) of the judges serving today were appointed in the last two and a half years. And nearly two-thirds (64%) were appointed since FY 2017[1]. See Figure 2.
. . . .
Thus, record judge turnover means the Court is losing its most experienced judges, judges whose services would be of particular value in helping mentor the large number of new immigration judges now joining the Court’s ranks. Even with mentoring, new judges appointed without any background in the intricacies of immigration law face a very steep learning curve. And without adequate mentoring, there is a heightened risk that some immigrants’ cases could be decided incorrectly.
. . . .
****************************
Read the complete report, with charts and graphs, at the above link.
It certainly didn’t help that Garland inexcusably wasted dozens of his “first picks” on Barr’s pipeline appointments — a group that contained few, if any, recognizable “practical scholars” in immigration/human rights/due process/equal justice.
This also shows why adding more judges under Garland’s indolent and ineffective “leadership to the bottom” is likely to aggravate, rather than alleviate, the myriad of problems and the uncontrolled mushrooming backlogs in his dysfunctional courts.
Garland’s mind-boggling failure to act on principles and make obvious, long overdue personnel and structural reforms at EOIR threatens to shred the Dem party and endanger the future of American democracy! It also underlines the hollowness of Biden’s pledge to fight for equal justice and voting rights reforms.
Faced with a wholly owned system badly in need of progressive reforms, the Biden Administration has carried on many of the scurrilous traditions of its Trump predecessors (“MillerLite policies”) while shunning and disrespecting the advice, values, and participation of progressives committed to due process and fair treatment of all persons, regardless of race, color, creed, or status.
And, of course, it goes without saying that Garland has failed to address the glaring integrity and access problems infecting EOIR data, as outlined in the TRAC report above. With “disappearing records,” “stonewalling party lines,” and institutionalized “lack of transparency,” who really knows what the real size of Garland’s backlog is or what other problems are hidden in his EOIR morass?
It just underlines the need for an independent team of professionals to take over Garland’s broken system, “kick some tail,”and get to the bottom of its many, many, largely self-created and often hidden from the public problems and enduring failures!
Overall, a disappointing and disgraceful first-year performance by an experienced Judge and DOJ vet from whom much, much better was expected and required.
Too bad we didn’t get an Attorney General with the guts to lead and engage on progressive reforms at EOIR! One bright spot, though: Some of the “best ever” judges just leave the bench and call “Sir Jeffrey” Chase to enlist in the Round Table’s battle to advance due process and fundamental fairness! 🛡⚔️ And, they are welcomed with appreciation, respect, friendship, and love — things that few, if any, sitting judges in Garland’s dysfunctional and discombobulated system get!
🇺🇸Due Process Forever! Garland’s “Amateur Night @ The Bijou” Never!
Hon. Jeffrey S. Chase Jeffrey S. Chase Blog Coordinator & Chief Spokesperson, Round Table of Former Immigration Judges
From our leader and spokesperson “Sir Jeffrey” Chase:
Round Table Brief cited today in Oral Argument
Hi all:To end the week on a positive note, in oral arguments today before the Second Circuit, one of the judges asked the OIL attorney the following:
“What are we to make of the amicus brief filed by so many former IJs who stress the importance of in person hearing in the special role of Immigration Judges in developing the facts before rendering an opinion, particularly in something as factually heavy as this, as undue hardship to the children?They emphasize the importance of hearing in person testimony and suggest that it is an abuse of discretion to not permit it when it is requested.How do you respond?”
The case is Martinez-Roman v. Garland.
. . . .
The IJ wouldn’t let two witnesses testify: the medical expert, and a 13-year-old child of the respondent.So when the judge asked that question, the OIL attorney claimed that the IJ was trying to protect the child from the psychological trauma of testifying.The judges pointed out that the IJ had actually said he wouldn’t allow the testimony only because it would be duplicative.In the child’s case, it was supposedly “duplicative” of a one-page handwritten statement written by the child.In the expert’s case, the IJ admitted that he hadn’t actually read the expert’s written statement, causing the circuit judges to ask how the IJ could have known the testimony would be duplicative of a statement he hadn’t read.
Wishing all a great, safe, and healthy weekend! – Jeff
*************
Garland’s “amazing” EOIR “judges” can divine the content of statements they never read, while Prelogar’s “equally amazing” DOJ lawyers just “make it up as they go along” when arguing before Article IIIs! https://www.flickr.com/photos/rasputin243/ Creative Commons License
So, Merrick, it’s an “A-OK” judicial practice for your judges to deem live testimony “duplicative” of a statements they never read! That’s some feat of clairvoyance!
“Clairvoyance” appears to be more of a qualification for your “judges” than actual expertise and experience vindicating due process in Immigration Court!
Also, when your attorneys are confronted with the defects in your judges’ performance by Article IIIs who have actually read the record and familiarized themselves with the evidence, (something you apparently deem “optional” for both your IJs and the attorneys defending them) it’s also “A-OK” for your attorneys to fabricate any bogus pretextual excuse, even one that is clearly refuted by the record.
Perhaps, SG Liz Prelogar should take a break from losing cases before the Supremes and pay attention to what nonsense DOJ attorneys are arguing before the lower Federal Courts.What, Liz, is the legality and the morality of defending a broken system, wholly owned and operated by your “boss,” that dishonestly denies due process to the most vulnerable among us?
Harvard Law might have spared Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar from having to work in the “legal trenches” of Immigration Court, unlike the lawyers who have been fighting to keep democracy alive over that past five years! Apparently, she took a pass on the Ethics class too, as DOJ lawyers under her overall direction “make it up as they go along” in defending the dysfunctional Immigration Courts before the Article IIIs! PHOTO: Twitter
Is this what they taught you at Harvard law? Did you miss the required course on ethics and professional responsibility? Why is the Round Table doing the work YOU should be doing as a supposedly responsible Government official who took an oath to uphold the Constitution and the rule of law?
Yeah, I know that Prelogar, like her other elitist political appointee colleagues, operates in the “legal stratosphere,” has clerked for two liberal Supremes, and otherwise “punched all the right tickets” in Dem politics. But, the problem here is that like it or not, Immigration Courts are the “retail level” of American justice that affects everything else! Right now, that effect is stunningly and unacceptably adverse!
The GOP White Nationalist nativists, like Sessions, Barr, and their hand-selected toadies, “got that.” That’s why they used their time in office to weaponize EOIR and degrade due process and humanity, while using “Dred Scottification” developed in immigration to diminish and degrade the rights of “the other” throughout our legal and political systems! The dots aren’t that hard to connect, unless, apparently, you’re a Dem Politico serving in the DOJ!
For whatever reason, perhaps because Dems keep appointing politicos who haven’t had to personally confront the mess in Immigration Court, folks like Garland, Monaco, Gupta, Clarke, and Prelogar entertain the elitist belief that standing up to the “nativist appeasers” in the Biden White House, getting rid of bad judges and incompetent administrators at EOIR, and bringing our dysfunctional (“killer”) Immigration Courts into conformity with Constitutional Due Process, international standards, and simple human dignity are “below their pay grade.” Not so!
Have to hope that the Chairman Lofgren and her staff are paying attention and will start throwing more light on Garland’s deficient handling of EOIR and the disgraceful, intellectually dishonest, arguments his attorneys are making before the Article IIIs!
This system is BROKEN, and going into the second year of the Biden Administration, Garland has NOT taken the necessary bold, decisive, yet quite obvious and realistically achievable, steps to FIX it! What gives?
Since Liz has never been a judge, let me provide an insight. No judge, life-tenured or “administrative,” liberal, conservative, or centrist, likes being played for a fool, misled, or “BS’ed” 💩 by counsel. (I actually remember “chewing out” attorneys in open court for failing to acknowledge controlling precedent in arguing before me.)
They particularly hate such conduct when it comes from lawyers representing the USG! Because Federal Judges often come from a bygone generation, many still retain the apparently now long outdated concept that DOJ attorneys should be held to a “higher standard.” Your predecessor, Trump shill Noel Francisco, certainly mocked that belief during his disgraceful tenure at the DOJ, particularly in his disingenuous and aggressive defense of the White Nationalist, anti-immigrant, anti-asylum agenda! Do you REALLY want to follow in HIS footsteps? Sadly, At this early point in time, that answer appears to be “yes.”
So, that leads to another question. Why do progressive human rights and immigration advocates continue to turn out the vote and loyally support a Dem Party that, once in office, considers them, their values, and the human souls they represent to be “expendable” — essentially “fungible political capital?” It’s something I often wondered when I was on the inside watching Dem Administrations screw up EOIR and immigration policy. I still don’t know the answer, and perhaps never will.
Hon. Ilyce Shugall U.S. Immigraton Judge (Retired) Immigrant Legal Defense Program, Justice & Diversity Center of the Bar Assn. of San Francisco.
IMMIGRANT LEGAL DEFENSE
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE January 10, 2022
Contacts:
Immigrant Legal Defense
Ilyce Shugall, ilyce@ild.org, (415) 758-3765
Siobhan Waldron, siobhan@ild.org, (510) 479-0972
Edwin F. Mandel Legal Aid Clinic, The University of Chicago Law School Nicole Hallett, nhallett@uchicago.edu, (203) 910-1980
Omar Ameen Files Federal Lawsuit Seeking His Release
After the U.S. Government Fails Once Again to Prove Any Connection to Terrorism
San Francisco, CA. Immigrant Legal Defense and the University of Chicago Immigrants’ Rights Clinic have filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of Omar Ameen seeking his immediate release from immigration custody. Mr. Ameen has been held by the U.S. government for over three years based on false allegations that he was involved in terrorism in Iraq before he arrived in the United States as a refugee. Multiple courts have now rejected those allegations. The petition alleges that his continued detention in these circumstances violates the Due Process Clause and the Immigration and Nationality Act.
After an investigation initiated by the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the Iraqi government issued a warrant for his arrest in connection with the 2014 murder of a police officer in Rawa, Iraq. Mr. Ameen was subsequently arrested by U.S. authorities in August 2018 and placed in extradition proceedings, with the government arguing that not only was Omar responsible for the 2014 murder, but that he also occupied a leadership position in ISIS. After two and a half years of fighting his extradition, the federal magistrate judge found that the warrant was not supported by probable cause because Mr. Ameen had been in Turkey, not Iraq, at the time of the murder. He further found that there was no evidence that Mr. Ameen was an ISIS leader and ordered his immediate release.
Instead of releasing him or charging him with a crime, DHS took Mr. Ameen into immigration custody, and placed him in removal proceedings before the Department of Justice (DOJ). DHS abandoned the murder claim, but otherwise made the same terrorism allegations against Mr. Ameen in immigration court that had been made – and rejected – in the extradition proceedings. After months of proceedings, the immigration judge found that the government had not proved that Mr. Ameen had any involvement with terrorism, yet still denied him bond while he seeks relief from deportation. Mr. Ameen continues to fight for his freedom, to remain in the United States, and to clear his name.
“It is a fundamental principle that the government cannot detain someone based on unsubstantiated rumors and unproven accusations,” said Ilyce Shugall, an attorney with Immigration Legal Defense (ILD) and a member of Mr. Ameen’s legal team. “The government keeps losing, yet continues to believe it can detain Omar indefinitely without cause. The Constitution does not allow such a cavalier denial of individual liberty.”
“Omar’s bond request was denied by the same agency – the Department of Justice – that has maliciously targeted for him years. Omar deserves a fair hearing in federal court,” said Siobhan Waldron, another ILD attorney on Mr. Ameen’s legal team.
“The government seems to think that it can do whatever it wants as long as it invokes the word ‘terrorism,’” said Nicole Hallett, director of the Immigrants’ Rights Clinic at the University of Chicago Law School, “Rather than admit it was wrong about Omar, the government will go to extraordinary measures to keep him locked up. We are asking the federal court to put a stop to this abuse of power.”
###
Immigrant Legal Defense’s mission is to promote justice through the provision of legal representation to underserved immigrant communities.
The Immigrants’ Rights Clinic is a clinical program of the University of Chicago Law School and provides representation to immigrants in Chicago and throughout the country.
****************
Unfortunately, “cavalier denial of individual liberty” largely describes the daily operations of Garland’s dysfunctional and hopelessly backlogged “wholly owned Immigration Courts” — where due process, scholarship, quality, and efficiency are afterthoughts, at best. “Malicious targeting” — that’s a Stephen Miller specialty shamelessly carried forth by Garland in too many instances! Miller must be gratified, and not a little amazed, to find that the guy Dem progressives and human rights advocates thought would be leading the charge to undo Miller’s White Nationalist, scofflaw attack on migrants and people of color would instead be proudly “carrying his water” for him.
To punctuate my point, today Garland’s Solicitor General will follow in the disgraceful footsteps of predecessors in both GOP and Dem Administrations. Essentially (that is, stripped of its disingenuous legal gobbledygook), the SG will argue that individuals, imprisoned without conviction, struggling to vindicate their rights before Garland’s broken, backlogged, and notoriously pro-Government, anti-immigrant Immigration Courts, renowned for their sloppiness and bad judging, are not really “persons” under the Constitution and therefore can be arbitrarily imprisoned indefinitely, in conditions that are often worse than those for convicted felons, without any individualized rationale and without recourse to “real” courts (e.g., Article III courts not directly controlled by the DOJ).
“The right-wing majority on the Supreme Court seems to be planning to eliminate the only way a lot of people in immigration detention can challenge their imprisonment,” appellate public defender Sam Feldman commented in a quote-tweet. “People would still be held illegally, but no court could do anything about it.”
One might assume that our nation’s highest Court would unanimously make short-shrift of the SG’s scofflaw arguments and send her packing. After all, that’s what several lower courts have done! But, most experts predict the exactly opposite result from a Supremes’ majority firmly committed to “Dred Scottification” — that is de-humanization and de-personification” — of people of color and migrants under the Constitution.
It’s painfully obvious that Congress must create an independent Article I Immigration Court not beholden to the Executive Branch. But, don’t hold your breath, given the current political gridlock in Washington. It’s equally clear that the Article IIIs, from the Supremes down, have “swallowed the whistle” by not striking down this blatantly unconstitutional system, thereby forcing Congress to take corrective action to bring the system into line with our Constitution.
In the meantime, Garland could bring in better-qualified expert judges, reform procedures, and appoint competent professional administrators who would institutionalize fairness, efficiency, and independence that would help transition the Immigration Courts to a new structure outside the DOJ. He could stop echoing Stephen Miller in litigation.
He could have replaced the architects of “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” and exponentially growing back logs with practical scholars and progressive experts who could reduce backlogs and establish order without violating human or legal rights of individuals. He could have set a “new tone” by publicly insisting that all coming before his Immigration Courts be treated fairly, with respect, dignity, and professionalism.
But, instead, Garland has stubbornly eschewed the recommendations of immigration and human rights experts while allowing and even defending the trashing of the rule of law at the border and elsewhere where migrants are concerned. He’s also done it with many questionably qualified “holdover” judges and administrators appointed by Sessions and Barr because of their perceived willingness, or in some cases downright enthusiasm, to stomp on the legal and human rights of asylum seekers and other migrants.
It’s curious conduct from a guy who once was only “one Mitch McConnell away” from a seat on the Supremes! I guess the “due process” Garland got from McConnell and his GOP colleagues is all that he thinks migrants and other “non-persons” of color get in his wholly-owned “courts.”
Good luck to our Round Table colleague, Judge Ilyce Shugall, and her great team, on this litigation! Obviously, the wrong folks are on the Federal Bench — at all levels of our broken and floundering system.
Interestingly, Judge Shugall was once an Immigration Judge until forced to prematurely resign, as a matter of conscience, by the lawless anti-immigrant policies of the Trump Administration carried out through its DOJ. As in many cases, the Government’s loss is the Round Table’s gain!🛡⚔️
Hon. Dana Leigh Marks U.S. Immigration Judge (Ret.) One of the most influential, outspoken, and dynamic Federal Judges of the past half-century enters the next phase of her illustrious career, as a caregiver for her granddaughter and a “fighting knightess” of the Round Table, with typical optimism. “Decades of dealing with DOJ and EOIR management has given me the best possible toolbox to meet any challenges on the road ahead,” says “NanaDana.”
😎🇺🇸🗽⚖️👩⚖️ FLASH: JUDICIAL MAVEN HON. DANA LEIGH MARKS RETIRES, JOINS ROUND TABLE! 🛡⚔️ — “Founding Mother” Of U.S. Asylum Law Successfully Argued INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca @ Supremes, Led Immigration Judges’ Association, Spearheaded “Article I”Movement For Judicial Independence, Saved Thousands of Lives Over Career OnBench Spanning More Than Three Decades!
By Paul Wickham Schmidt
Courtside Exclusive
Jan. 9, 2022
Judge Dana Leigh Marks, one of America’s leading “applied scholars” and human rights jurists, joined the Round Table of Former Immigration Judges. Marks retired from the San Francisco Immigration Court on December 31, 2021, following an extraordinary nearly 35-year career on the bench. Round Table spokesperson Judge Jeffrey S. Chase announced Marks’s move in an e-mail yesterday to the group’s more than 50 members.
In addition to her “number one retirement priority” — helping care for her granddaughter — Marks told Courtside that she “looks forward to continuing the fight for Article I and due process for all in America, now without the disclaimers that DOJ requires.” It’s a mission and a sentiment shared by the group.
Long time colleague and fellow past president of the National Association of Immigration Judges (“NAIJ”), Judge John Gossart enthusiastically welcomed and recognized Marks’s fearless advocacy “for due process, fundamental fairness, the right to be heard, and an Article 1 Court.”
Other Round Table judges greeted their newest member with an avalanche of praise, appreciation, admiration, and love for Marks’s intellectual prowess, courage under pressure, and embodiment of the one-time vision of making the U.S. Immigration Courts “the world’s best tribunals, guaranteeing fairness and due process for all.” Over the last several decades, many experts say that noble vision was cashiered by Department of Justice (“DOJ”) politicos in favor of the “go along to get along” and “good enough for government work” aura that infects today’s broken and dysfunctional Immigration Court system. Those courts, now running an astounding, largely self-created backlog in excess of 1.5 million cases, are inappropriately located within the byzantine, politicized bureaucracy of a DOJ still reeling from four years of grotesque mismanagement and misdirection by the Trump group.
Marks graduated from Cal Berkeley in 1974 and received her J.D. from Hastings Law in 1977. She worked for almost ten years as an immigration lawyer in private practice, and was an active leader in AILA’s Northern California chapter during that time. In 1986, as a partner with Simmons & Ungar, then San Francisco’s premier immigration law specialty firm, Marks successfully argued the landmark case, INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 US 421 (1987).
There, the Supreme Court rejected the Government’s argument that asylum seekers must establish that their future persecution is “more likely than not” to happen. Instead, the Court adopted the much more generous international standard of a “well founded fear” of persecution. The Court thereby recognized that asylum could be granted where the fear was objectively reasonable, even if it were significantly less than “probable.”
Some also consider this to be the “high water mark” of the Court’s positive use of international law concepts in a human rights case involving immigration. Despite considerable internal resistance to fairly applying the more generous legal standard, Cardoza has undoubtedly saved the lives of tens of thousands of refugees and their families over the past three and one-half decades.
Shortly after submitting the brief (co-authored with Bill Ong Hing, Kip Steinberg and Susan Lydon), but prior to her Cardoza argument, Marks was selected for a judgeship by then Chief Immigration Judge, the late William R. Robie. Then Attorney General Ed Meese adopted Robie’s recommendation, and Marks was sworn in as a U.S. Immigration Judge for San Francisco in January, 1987, two months after the oral argument and two months prior to the decision being issued by the Court.
During her distinguished career on the immigration bench, Marks has been an outspoken fighter for professional treatment of her fellow Immigration Judges, for true judicial independence in the Immigration Courts, and for fair, humane, professional treatment of those coming before the courts. She served on a number of occasions as the President and Executive Vice President of the NAIJ, sometimes “swapping” leadership positions with her close friend Judge Denise Slavin, also President Emerita of NAIJ and now a “fearless fighting knightess” of the Round Table.
Marks and Slavin helped battle two DOJ attempts to “decertify” the NAIJ and thus silence the powerful voices that often exposed severe problems in the administration of the Immigration Courts. Indeed, Marks’s determination to speak “truth to power,” her outsized personality, and her willingness to “level” with the media often put her at odds with “handlers” in the court’s bloated bureaucracy and their DOJ overlords.
The latter often sought to divert the Immigration Courts from their due process mission to focus instead on “deterrence” of asylum seekers and fulfilling each Administration’s goals for immigration enforcement. Among other things, this led to a backlog-building phenomenon known as “Aimless Docket Reshuffling.”
In her writings, speeches, and interviews, Marks decried these glaring conflicts of interest and abuses of normal judicial ethics, not to mention common sense and human decency. She tirelessly advocates that the United States adhere more closely to international standards governing refugees and asylees, which was the clearly expressed legislative intent when the Refugee Act of 1980 was enacted.
Summing up her new life after Immigration Court, Marks said “I will enjoy my new day job of caring for my granddaughter, but will continue my hobby of telling truth about EOIR [the bureaucratic acronym for Immigration Courts] through NAIJ and the Roundtable. I am proud to be in such good company!” The feeling is mutual! Due process forever!
