"The Voice of the New Due Process Army" ————– Musings on Events in U.S. Immigration Court, Immigration Law, Sports, and Other Random Topics by Retired United States Immigration Judge (Arlington, Virginia) and former Chairman of the Board of Immigration Appeals Paul Wickham Schmidt. To see my complete professional bio, just click on the link below.
“Ur Jaddou will become the first woman and first person of Arab and Mexican descent to be sworn in as director of US Citizenship and Immigration Services after the Senate confirmed her nomination on Friday.
The agency has not had a Senate-confirmed leader in more than two years . . . . ”
“It is my honor to congratulate Ur Mendoza Jaddou on her confirmation as Director of United States Citizenship and Immigration Services. Ur has two decades of experience in immigration law, policy, and administration. She will administer our Nation’s immigration system fairly and justly. As the daughter of hard-working immigrants, Ur understands how immigrant families enrich our country and the challenges they face. I want to thank the United States Senate for confirming Ur. I look forward to working closely with her to rebuild and restore trust in our immigration system.”
In announcing Jaddou’s nomination, President Biden offered the following biography:
“Ur Mendoza Jaddou has two decades of experience in immigration law, policy, and administration. Most recently, she was the Director of DHS Watch, a project of America’s Voice, where she shined a light on immigration policies and administration that failed to adhere to basic principles of good governance, transparency, and accountability. She is an adjunct professor of law at American University, Washington College of Law and counsel at Potomac Law Group, PLLC. Previously, Jaddou was the Chief Counsel for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) . . . from June 2014 to January 2017. Jaddou’s experience on immigration policy began as counsel to U.S. House of Representative Zoe Lofgren (2002-2007) and later as Chief Counsel to the House Immigration Subcommittee chaired by Rep. Lofgren (2007-2011). Jaddou has also served as the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Regional, Global and Functional Affairs in the Bureau of Legislative Affairs at the U.S. Department of State (2012-2014). Jaddou is a daughter of immigrants – a mother from Mexico and a father from Iraq – born and raised in Chula Vista, California. She received a bachelor’s and a master’s degree from Stanford University and a law degree from UCLA School of Law. ” (bold added).
***************************
Great choice, and congrats to Ur!
USCIS was one of the “major victims” of the Trump immigration kakistocracy! Overt xenophobia and malicious incompetence literally “bankrupted” what was once one of the USG’s few self-supporting and “money making” operations. Think about that the next time some GOP “magamoron” babbles on about “fiscal responsibility!”
Wonderful as this news is, Ur would have been even better as Director of EOIR or BIA Chair. THAT’S where the real “progressive leadership gap” and absence of “practical scholarship and experience in understanding and respecting the rights of migrants” is so glaring and debilitating. Also, I think that without better qualified, enlightened, progressive leadership at EOIR (or Article 1) many “reforms” at USCIS will be ineffective or not achieve their full potential.
For example, the Asylum Offices are a key component of USCIS. But the lousy guidance and precedent setting from past AGs and the BIA has severely limited the ability of the Asylum Office to achieve its full potential.
Hon. A. Ashley Tabaddor, Chief Counsel, USCIS Former President, National Association of Immigration Judges (“NAIJ”)
Ur does have some much needed help from experienced USCIS Chief Counsel Judge Ashley Tabaddor, former President of the NAIJ. Perhaps, working together, they can get the attention of Garland, Monaco, Gupta, and Clarke and successfully urge some long overdue progressive, due-process-oriented changes and better judicial appointments at EOIR.
A fascinating twist on the factual scenario in Niz-Chavez is what to do if your client had an NTA with a so-called “fake date.” The “fake date” problem is one you will remember well if you practice immigration law before EOIR, and it garnered national attention in 2019 when ICE issued these fake dates for thousands of immigrants, many of whom showed up in court only to find that there was nothing on any judge’s docket to indicate they were scheduled for a hearing that day. Reports of fake dates were prevalent in Dallas, Orlando, Miami, Seattle, and I am sure other places as well. See news articles such as this one. In addition, and as a separate matter, there was a well-known so-called “parking date” (November 29) issued on thousands of NTAs and that was also never a “real date” as everyone knew.
There is an interesting theory about why the “fake dates” were issued in the first place: that the government was trying to respond to Pereira v. Sessions itself. Despite its argument in federal court to try to restrict Pereira as much as possible, in practice ICE tacitly was affirming, so the argument goes, that in Pereira the Supreme Court had defined, as we have argued all along, what is and what is not a proper and valid NTA. In an effort to immunize itself from responsibility for defective NTAs without any time or place of hearing, ICE thought it might make sense to input “fake dates” in their NTAs, thus (at least superficially it would seem) immunizing itself from the argument that the NTAs were defective for “lack” of a real date and place. Then the “real date” – according to the argument – could be issued as a follow-up in the form of a notice of hearing by EOIR.
The question now arises whether clients with fake-date NTAs can utilize Pereira and now Niz-Chavez to defeat the “stop-time” effect for cancellation of removal, where such fake NTAs existed, even where there is a subsequent notice of hearing with a “real date” from EOIR. The short answer is “Yes” – and I will discuss in the rest of this article why this should be the case and why it should not come as a surprise for several reasons.
It is arguably a much stronger case for the application of Niz-Chavez because the issuance of a “fake date” that was never intended to be used by EOIR in any way is affirmatively wrong. It is not just mere negligence by leaving “TBA” with a blank date and place of hearing on the NTA. ICE should not be able to hide behind an NTA where the information is filled in on the NTA but the information is patently false and made up or fabricated. Just as an asylum seeker who fabricates a date or other information on their forms cannot benefit from such information in applying for relief before the court, the government should get no benefit either from their incorrect and misleading actions. The counter-argument from the government will be that the NTA was valid “on its face” since it had some “date and place” in the document and therefore (a) stopped time for cancellation purposes and (b) conferred jurisdiction because it was “facially” valid.
This counter-argument is flawed. To embrace such a rationale would exalt form over substance. It also would allow an agency to game the system. It would also defeat the very mechanism that the Supreme Court set out in Pereira and now Niz-Chavez. Respondent should be entitled to reopen their proceedings in all “fake date” cases since a valid NTA was not filed in the immigration court. The only remaining issue will be proof. The respondent and his or her attorney will have to prove there was no hearing that was actually held on that day. If no hearing existed at all, then the stop time rule should not apply and the fake NTA cannot be “cured” by a subsequently issued notice by a different agency, that is EOIR, as per Niz-Chavez.
Finally, in reopening a client’s case it would be helpful if there were a showing of some effort on the part the respondent to check. Proof may be difficult and EOIR FOIA and other investigation will be important. Ideally, the client or the their attorney or both went to court but no hearing was on the docket that day, and there was an effort to check that was documented in some way. If there never was receipt of the NTA at all, whether containing a fake date or not, and an in absentia order was issued, then the question becomes whether jurisdiction could have vested at all in such a case. As I have argued, if the NTA is defective it cannot result in the vesting of jurisdiction. A fake date and place arguably cannot confer jurisdiction, even if the NTA was filed with the court. Since there was no hearing actually scheduled the NTA should be found defective under Pereira and Niz-Chavez.
K[evin] J[ohnson]
********************
Sure sounds to me like ‘affirmative misconduct” by the USG that should stop them from relying on the “fake dates. In the “old days,” INS actually used to settle potential “affirmative misconduct” cases, rather than litigate.
By contrast, today’s DOJ seems perfectly willing shamelessly to defend a wide range of legally and ethically questionable conduct and then “blow off” criticism from the Article III Judiciary. Recently, a frustrated U.S. District Judge referred to Bureau of Prisons officials as “idiots.”
One might have thought that would have spurred some type of apology and corrective action from the DOJ. But, that doesn’t seem to have registered with Garland. He just keeps rolling along with Barr’s “Miller Lite” appointments while dissing advice from progressives who actually helped put him in his current job. About the only thing you can count on from Dems is that when it comes to progressive immigraton reforms and EOIR, they’ll blow it!
Thanks, Geoffrey, for your timely and creative “practical scholarship.” Of course with better leadership, the Biden Administration could solve this problem without protracted litigation that often takes years and produces inconsistent results before the Supremes or Congress can resolve them. In the meantime, lives unnecessarily are ruined and the system becomes more inefficient and unfair.
Garland should appoint progressive practical scholars like Geoffrey to the BIA and senior management at EOIR, OIL, OLP, and the SG’s Office and let them “lead from above” — rather than having to fight bad interpretations and worst practices from the outside.
In this case, the DHS/EOIR “fake date policy” was both fraudulent and unethical. Remember that some folks actually showed up at Immigration Court buildings, often with families in tow, after having traveled hundreds of miles, @ 3:00 AM on Sunday mornings (or on a Federal Holiday or some other bogus date) only to find out that the “joke” was on them.
And, let’s not forget folks, that thanks to the BIA’s permissive attitude (when it comes to the Government, but not with individual rights), under the now “being phased out” “Remain in Mexico Program” (a/k/a “let “em Die In Mexico”), folks basically got NTAs with the equivalent of this: “Maria Gomez, somewhere on some Calle in Tijuana, Mexico.” But, the BIA said that this was basically “good enough for Government work.”
We should also remember that the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause guarantees the individual’s rights against the Government, not the other way around! But, you sure wouldn’t know that from reading BIA and AG precedents issued under the Trump kakistocracy.
Meanwhile, IJs and the BIA under Garland continue to “in absentia” folks for being a few minutes late for a hearing or misreading an NTA in a language they can’t understand. Anybody had a problem with their U.S. Mail lately? We have, in our “upper middle class neighborhood” in Alexandria, VA. Yet, EOIR and some Article IIIs continue to promote the “legal fiction” of a “presumption of proper (and timely) delivery” of notices sent by regular U.S. Mail.
Until, Garland has the backbone to restore ethics and the rule of law at EOIR and the rest of the DOJ, particularly by reassigning or otherwise removing those who “went along to get along” and replacing them with ethical, qualified, experts from the NDPA who will speak truth to power and hold immigration enforcement bureaucrats accountable, our justice system will continue its tailspin!
There, of course, are pressing humanitarian issues to address along the U.S./Mexico border. But to say that this issues are a result of “open border policies” is simply wrong. No major party political leader to my knowledge is calling for “open borders.” Rather, the “open borders” mantra is something that Republican politicians invoke to attack immigration policies that they do not like.
Democrats have another explanation for the current situation at the border. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told ABC News’ “This Week” that the policies of the Trump administration, which radically transformed immigration enforcement from 2017-21, are to blame for the recent increase in unaccompanied migrant children at the southern border,
“This is a humanitarian challenge to all of us,” Pelosi said. “What the administration has inherited is a broken system at the border and they are working to correct that in the children’s interests.”
Thanks, Kevin, for adding some reality and perspective to the discussion. You can read Abbott’s statement at the link. Notably, the Republicans have offered no constructive solutions to this humanitarian issue, either in or out of power, other than to engage in child abuse and continually violate the laws, both international and domestic.
The criticism from the likes of Abbott, who as “Governor” of Texas has presided over a power grid disaster that actually killed and threatened the health of Texas residents and who has thumbed his nose at public health recommendations that save lives, is particularly disingenuous. And, naturally, the dangerous and deadly results of Abbott’s and the GOP’s mis-governance of Texas have fallen disproportionately on Latinos and other communities of color. The Abbott/GOP response has been to attempt to disenfranchise citizens of color in Texas!
The same can be said of GOP House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy whose main contribution to America’s safety and security has been to whitewash the deadly assault on our Capitol that his “supreme leader” orchestrated. Again, a person with no credibility.
Those seeking a more nuanced and accurate picture of what’s really happening at the Southern Border should read the lengthy report of Arelis Hernandez in the WashPost:
Migrants are not overrunning U.S. border towns, despite the political rhetoric
Leaders in Texas border towns say their economies are suffering because of pandemic restrictions on cross-border travel.
. . . .
City officials and nonprofit organizations can’t force families to stay in the hotels but Darling, the McAllen mayor, said so far no one they track has left isolation prematurely.
“We tell them if they want to leave on our buses, they need to follow our rules,” he said. The city has spent nearly $200,000 of taxpayer money it hopes will be reimbursed by the federal government, but Abbott’s rejection of Federal Emergency Management Agency funding from the Biden administration will complicate matters for localities.
Darling said his city is full of compassionate people, and they are doing the rest of the country a favor in taking care of migrant families on the front end of their journeys.
Along the border, faith organizations, local emergency managers and immigration advocates say they have learned from previous surges how best to coordinate. They are preparing to receive flights and buses full of asylum seekers, mostly recently released families with small children, to ease capacity issues that critics say the Department of Homeland Security officials should have anticipated.
Coronavirus restrictions have put capacity limits on shelters run by community organizations on the U.S. side of the border, but so far the numbers are not at 2019 levels, said Pastor Michael Smith of the Holding Institute in Laredo. Shelters and temporary detention facilities operated by the U.S. Health and Human Services’ contractors, however, are over capacity.
But without more orderly intervention, the numbers could overwhelm. The Biden administration plans to deploy FEMA to the border to help with the migration surge as the administration tries to quickly scale up space to temporarily hold and process migrants and unaccompanied children — many between the ages of 13 and 17.
“The failure to have an administrative process is causing a humanitarian crisis,” Smith said during a news conference organized by Laredo activists. “There are solutions to the issues, but they are not solutions that call for militarizing the border.”
“We need robust infrastructure at our ports of entry to handle people seeking asylum,” said Tannya Benavides, of the No Border Wall coalition. “We need more lawyers and judges, not more troops or technology.”
Arelis R. Hernandez Southern Border Reporter Washington Post
Great article by Arelis! I highly recommend it. My only caveat is that we need not just more lawyers and judges, certainly correct, but better Immigration Judges who are experts in asylum law, have experience representing asylum seekers, and can fairly, efficiently, and consistently identify those with valid claims to protection under the law before it was perverted by the Trump regime. Also, the Government could use more qualified Asylum Officers who could screen and finally adjudicate the grantable cases, under correct legal criteria set forth by better-qualified Immigration Judges and a completely new due-process-human rights-oriented BIA without even having to send the cases to court.
These are the bold steps necessary to get out of the cycle of “same old, same old” — which inevitably ends with harsh measures directed at asylum seeking families and children that do nothing to address the causes of forced migration. “Enforcement-only deterrent measures” never have solved, and never will solve, the long-term problem in a constructive manner. The cycle of failed, yet expensive and inhumane deterrents, just keeps repeating itself Administration after Administration.
I have already suggested tapping into retired Asylum Officers and other retired USCIS Adjudicators with the necessary asylum expertise. I’m betting that my retired Round Table colleague, and former Asylum Officer and UN Official, Judge Paul Grussendorf would be available to help lead such an effort.
To solve this problem, the Biden Administration must put some expertswho understand the practicalities of refugee and asylum situations in place and let them solve the problem. It should come as no shock that the current gangs at DHS and EOIR —largely holdovers who participated in the Trump regime’s cruel, failed, and illegal “enforcement only” policies at the border — are not going to be able to get the job done. At least they can’t without some effective “adult supervision” from those committed to humane, legal, and timely processing of asylees and other migrants in full compliance with due process and best practices.
The Trump regime eschewed any attempt to build a fair, effective, timely asylum adjudication system that complied with domestic and international law as well as due process. Instead, they concentrated on eradicating the entire U.S. refugee and protection system through regulations (many enjoined), Executive Orders (some enjoined), bogus administrative “precedents,” and stacking the Immigration Courts with overtly anti-asylum or “go along to get along” “judges.” Right now, the entire system is in shambles — the most obvious example being the totally dysfunctional mess at EOIR!
To “win the game,” the Biden Administration needs to get the right players on the field. While there has been some notable progress, that hasn’t happened to date. And, with politicos like Abbott and McCarthy stirring the pot daily, time is running to get the “A Team” in place to combat their lies, distortions, and nonsense.
Elections truly do have consequences. The Biden administration in its early days has removed some high profile immigration cases from the Supreme Court docket, moving in a different direction than the Trump administration. NBC News reports (see also CNN and Bloomberg) that, yesterday, the Justice Department asked the Court to dismiss three lawsuits over the lawfulness of the Trump administration’s efforts to de-fund “sanctuary’ cities.
In brief letters to the Supreme Court, the Justice Department said the cases should be dismissed, indicating that the government will no longer seek to enforce that policy.
Lower courts were divided on the legality of the Trump de-funding policy. The Supreme Court had been deferring action on the appeals while the new administration decided how to handle the cases. The cases are Wilkinson v. San Francisco, 20-666; New York v. Department of Justice, 20-795; and City of New York v. Department of Justice, 20-796.
KJ
***********************
Thanks for the nice summary and links, Kevin!
The Trump regime waged a four-year unsuccessful war against American local governments who were seeking to protect their ethnic communities from ICE abuses and to encourage community cooperation with police in addressing violent crime in those communities. How did they go about it: By threatening to cut off certain Federal funding for local law enforcement.
If it sounds stupid and wasteful, that’s because it was. It also helped make ICE probably “the most despised law enforcement agency in America.” Again, not an effective strategy for real cooperative law enforcement.
But, despite all his bluster and false claims, Trump never, ever was about “law enforcement.” That was clear even before he sent his “magamorons” out to attack our Capitol. No, it always was about stoking fear, hate, and throwing “red meat” to his base for political purposes.
1. Family and children detention protocols: The bill does not incorporate the Flores settlement governing the detention of immigrant minors. The Trump administration tried but failed to abrogate the settlement.
2. Border wall infrastructure: No surprise. The U.S./Mexico border wall, which President Trump championed, is not part of the bill’s enforcement plans. The Biden administration already had made it clear that construction of the wall was not a priority of his administration.
As I have previously mentioned, I expect a “stand alone” Article I Bill 🧑🏽⚖️ to be introduced in the House shortly.It could be combined with the Immigration Court improvements in the Biden Bill.
We need to keep the pressure on until Article I happens!
As the Migration Policy Institute has shown, the Trump-era changes to the immigration system numbered in the hundreds and consisted of dramatic reinterpretations of the laws alongside seemingly clerical changes, such as revised application forms for visas, higher fees and tighter deadlines in immigration courts — all to advance a maximalist enforcement agenda and slow down the ordinary gears of immigrant admissions. High-level White House advisers, working with knowledgeable allies in the Homeland Security and Justice departments, pushed out regulation after regulation to render asylum laws more restrictive and make it harder for noncitizens to present their case in immigration courts. Trump’s attorneys general exerted unprecedented authority to define asylum laws to severely limit claims by victims of domestic and gang violence, and to constrain immigration judges’ ability to grant relief and manage their dockets in a way that provides a semblance of due process.
. . . .
And yet, the new administration’s policy agenda will not be complete unless legislative proposals are accompanied by concerted executive action across the administrative state, and not just because ambitious legislation on any issue faces an uphill climb in a Senate with the narrowest of Democratic majorities. Even when it comes to pass, legislation emerges from a bargain, leaving issues unaddressed, introducing new concepts to be interpreted and creating new programs that demand administration. Changing the direction of our government requires not only executive vision, but also multilayered strategies that make their way through the bureaucracy and down to the ground — along with the stamina and patience to see them through.
*********************
THE BATTLE FOR DUE PROCESS @ JUSTICE ISN’T OVER: Flailing, Failing Department Needs A Bureaucratic House-Cleaning, Now!
By Paul Wickham Schmidt
Courtside Exclusive
Jan. 24, 2021
Read Cristina’s complete article at the link. The book that she and Adam Cox wrote The President and Immigration Law along with that of my friend and colleague Professor PhilSchrag, Baby Jails, should be required reading for all incoming Biden-Harris officials.
A “democracy” that doesn’t understand how it came to run prisons for vulnerable kids and star chambers for legal asylum seekers, and how to end them immediately, can expect little success in achieving social justice, promoting economic equality and prosperity for all, or leading and advocating for democracy abroad.
It all starts with immigration. I can draw a straight line from the Muslim Ban, to the Roberts’ Court’s disgraceful and cowardly abdication of responsibility to stop it in its tracks (grotesquely undermining the many lower court Federal Judges who had courageously “mapped it out for them”), to GOP politicos running around undermining our free and fair elections, to “magamorons” and other traitor/crazies storming the Capitol. Folks “get” the abdication of moral responsibility and legal accountability when it is delivered by those who should be standing up for democracy.
The failure of career civil servants at all levels to “just say no” and rebel against these outrageous failures of Constitutional governance and simple human decency, combined with a horribly deficient Supremes’ majority that abandoned both legal legitimacy and moral leadership, created a beyond dangerous pattern that came very close to toppling two centuries of the “democratic experiment” and still has the future of our democratic republic “on the ropes.”
Just look at what happened at the DOJ in the final weeks of the regime! Government officials who knew better settled for “heading off” a President’s treasonous acts rather than exposing them to the public, the Vice President, and leaders of Congress (perhaps other than treacherous co-conspirator Kevin McCarthy) who could have taken action for the immediate removal of this “clear and present threat” to our national security from the office for which he was so completely unqualified. Who knows, they might even have stopped the insurrection!
Look at the failed and ethically vapid Solicitor General’s Office (once, but no longer, one of the “Jewels in the Crown” of Government) that time and time again moved forward to defend unethical and unconstitutional policies before a willing Supremes’ majority based on patently false narratives and obvious pretexts (not very convincingly) concealing the overt racist, White Nationalist agenda of Trump, Miller, and the other neo-Nazis who had seized control of large portions of our governing machinery. Who, with the disgraceful complicity of the Supremes, turned American asylum law from the life-saving humanitarian refuge it was intended to be to instead an ugly weapon of racism, xenophobia, misogyny, child abuse, death, torture, unjust imprisonment, and overall dehumanization of the most vulnerable among us! What’s wrong with this picture? Everything!
Checks and balances and the courage and integrity of a professional career civil service are supposed to halt abuses like this, even in the face of failure of one of our two major political parties and our highest Court to act with integrity and adhere to democratic norms! But, with a few exceptions, courageous folks like U.S. Immigration Judge Ashley Tabaddor, Col. Alexander Vindman, and others like them, it did not happen over the past four years. That nearly cost us our country! (Note that Tabaddor, Vindmin, and others like them were punished, with the disgraceful treasonists from the GOP looking on and actually cheerleading, for speaking out and upholding their oaths of office.)
Buried in the carnage of the departed regime are the many lives unnecessarily lost, futures ruined, and lasting trauma — trauma that will continue to adversely affect our nation far into the future — caused by failure to stop the kakistocracy’s unconstitutional, cruel, and inhuman abuses. From intentionally inept COVID policies, to “politicizing” masks, to deaths in detention, to unlawful deportations to torture, to unfair, clearly political misapplications of the death penalty (basically “legalized murder”), to officially-sanctioned misogyny — this damage can’t be swept away overnight.
Like legislative and judicial failures, bureaucratic failure comes at a cost — a huge one! The fact that it might be largely “out of sight, out of mind” to the arrogant, largely white, privileged, ruling elites and ivory tower “High Court” jurists doesn’t mean the harm isn’t real. Just that our society has enabled some in power to look away and avoid meaningful contact with the human wreckage and lasting pain and damage they have caused and or tolerated!
Already, we can see how the Biden-Harris Administration’s inexplicable failure to “take charge” at a broken DOJ is undermining the long-overdue and well-thought-out progressive immigration agenda they announced with such fanfare. Here’s what’s come to light in just the past few days at the broken and dysfunctional DOJ:
Seeking the illegal deportation to Haiti of a mentally ill individual denied due process by the EOIR kakistocracy;
Failure to repudiate scurrilous, misogynist attacks on well-known refugee woman “Ms. A-B-“ by unqualified then “acting” AG Jeffrey Rosen;
Issuance by the “EOIR Clown Show” of more false narratives and anti-migrant “precedents” — basically delivering the “big, public middle finger” to the new Administration and the AG-designate;
Release of a blockbuster investigative report on misogyny and misconduct within the Immigration Judiciary — with no response or plan for corrective action from the DOJ;
Appointment of a bunch of bureaucratic nobodies to “caretaker” duties at the DOJ — including one quickly found by reporters — but apparently missed by the incoming Administration — to have had ties to the grotesque child abuse program run by White Nationalist former AG “Gonzo” Sessions;
Release by the IG of a report showing the role of Sessions, Rosenstein, and other DOJ officials in “official child abuse” – without any promise of accountability for past or future misconduct;
A treasonous plot by the President, a GOP Congressman, and a corrupt DOJ political hack that, although thwarted, went unreported until uncovered by reporters from The NY Times!
To state the obvious, why weren’t folks with known integrity, courage, and ability — professional decision-makers with track records of upholding our Constitution — like Judge Ashley Tabaddor and her colleagues in the leadership of the National Association of Immigration Judges — put in charge of the DOJ debacle to “ride herd”on this mess, restore some integrity, and prevent any more damage until “Team Garland” arrives? Few folks at Justice know as much about the “inept DOJ bureaucracy and failure of justice at Justice” than the NAIJ leadership which has been “at war” with the kakistocracy for years!
The solutions are still out there. But, it will take boldness, courage, and some “quick thinking outside the box” by “Team Garland” to get this completely (and unnecessarily) unacceptable situation under control!
That begins with an immediate clean-up of the “immigration kakistocracy/bureaucracy” throughout Justice — starting with the “EOIR Clown Shown.” Bring in the immigration/human rights/due process experts and let them start fixing the problems!
Stop defending the unprofessional garbage being aimlessly tossed into the Federal Courts by the EOIR White Nationalist deportation factory still running under orders from Miller and Hamilton. Have all these cases reviewed by experts in immigration/human rights/due process and racial justice!
Fire anyone in the SG’s office who presents bogus arguments concerning fake “immigration emergencies” and illegally promulgated “regulations” to the Supremes. End the unethical practice of using one-sided “precedents” to develop anti-immigrant “litigating positions” for OIL.
Stop appointing unqualified individuals to precious Immigration Judgeships. Remove the entire BIA and replace it with real expert appellate judges unswervingly committed to fundamental fairness and due process for all. Replace “worst practices” with “best practices.” Stop the “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” at EOIR. Cut the largely self-created Immigration Court “backlog.”
Bring in Professor Rodriguez, Professor Schrag, Professor Ingrid Eagly, Judge Dana Marks (who argued and won the landmark Cardoza-Fonseca case before the Supremes), Judge (and former BIA Judge and high-ranking DOJ official) Noel Brennan, Judge Amiena Khan, Judge Mimi Tsankov, Marielena Hincapie (NCIJ), Dean Kevin Johnson (UC Davis Law), and a “due process brain trust” of others like them! Let them start “kicking some tail,” fixing the problems, and restoring sanity, humanity, and due process to the broken immigration kakistocracy at DOJ. Now, before any more lives are lost or futures irrevocably ruined!
Let “practical scholars” like Rodriguez, Schrag, Eagly, and Johnson “turn their research and great thoughts into action.” “A little less talk, and a lot more action,” as Toby Keith would say!
The NDPA has already shown that it can out-litigate and out-strategize the Government immigration kakistocracy. In many ways, only the abject failure of the Supremes’ majority to stand up for the Constitution, rule of law, and human decency has prevented the NDPA from completely annihilating the kakistocracy, wiping out all of its misdeeds by judicial decree, and perhaps even holding criminals like Miller and Wolf accountable for their “crimes against humanity.”
Judge Garland is a smart person. The “smart thing” would be to get the “NDPA on the inside at Justice,” creating order from chaos and re-establishing justice @ Justice now!
Otherwise, smart or not, he’s likely to spend the bulk of his tenure as a “caption” on the never-ending avalanche of new legal actions filed against the deadly immigration bureaucracy by the NDPA. Because, I promise that the fight for due process in immigration and human rights isn’t over! It has just begun!
There is lots to be gained by working together to solve these problems. But if it takes litigation, continuing conflict, and a never-ending political and press crusade against an Administration I otherwise support to get the job done, so be it!
The battle isn’t over until the kakistocracy is removed, at every level, and due process, fundamental fairness, equal justice, and respect for human dignity — all both Constitutional and human rights — become a reality for all persons in America (including those physically present at our borders) rather than just the cruel, unfulfilled promises they have been to date.
Due Process Can’t And Won’t Wait! Due Process Forever!
PWS
01-24-22
*******************
GO PACK GO!
Green Bay PackersAaron Rodgers Quarterback Green Bay PackersDevante Adams Wide Receiver Green Bay Packers
Dean Kevin Johnson reports @ ImmigrationProf Blog:
Yesterday, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in Sanchez v. Wolf, which presents the question under the Immigration and Nationality Act whether a Temporary Protected Status (TPS) recipient may adjust his or her status to that of a lawful permanent resident. The Third Circuit held that TPS recipients were not entitled to adjust their status because TPS status was not an “admission,” under 8 U.S.C. § 1255. The Third Circuit decision in Sanchez conflicts with the rulings of the Sixth and Ninth Circuits.
********************
Here’s the government’s position in a nutshell: Notwithstanding the “plain language” of section 244(f)(4) which makes holders of TPS status eligible to adjust status in the U.S. if they meet all of the requirements for legal immigration (usually an an approved visa petition based on family ties or job skills), we have employed legal gobbledygook to refuse to adjust them. Thereby, we mindlessly keep them in “suspended animation” in the U.S. although they are long-time productive members of our society who have resided here with permission and work authorization and now meet our criteria for permanent immigration.
Sound pretty stupid?That’s because it is! I actually had this issue argued before me at the Arlington Immigration Court. Not surprisingly, the ICE Assistant Chief Counsel was unable to come up with any rational reason for circumventing the statutory language to achieve a nonsensical result that actually unnecessarily inflated the case backlog and served no legitimate government purpose. Needless to say, I ruled in the respondent’s favor.
This isn’t “rocket science.” The new SG should join the petitioner’s counsel, JAIME W. APARISI (who regularly appeared before me in Arlington) and LISA S. BLATT (Williams & Connolly LLP) in agreeing that this issue was correctly resolved in the respondents’ favor by the Sixth & Ninth Circuits.
Then, ICE should ask the “new BIA” (real judges with immigration and human rights backgrounds appointed by AG Garland) to adopt this view nationwide.
Presto!
No more bogus, contrived “circuit split;”
TPSers with adjustment eligibility can be taken out of EOIR’s ridiculous 1.1 – 1.5 million case backlog and returned to USCIS for routine adjustment of status;
Productive, long-time members of our society can become green card holders, get on the path to citizenship, and reach their full productive potential for both their benefit and the benefit of our society;
A win, win, win, instead of wasting time attempting to achieve an illegal, undesirable, yet fundamentally stupid, irrational, and counterproductive result;
And, unlike the stupidity going on now, it actually doesn’t require expenditure of funds (actually will save and perhaps even generate money from adjustment filing fees), major regulatory changes, new legislation, or protracted litigation. It’s “low hanging fruit” that the Trump immigration kakistocracy has let rot on the tree! Rational administration of the immigration laws can actually be quite efficient.
Is it any wonder that the EOIR bogus “court,” whose “guiding principle” is “always construe the law against the individual and in favor of DHS” is building uncontrollable backlog hand over fist, even with double the number of “judges?” This is “fraud, waste, and abuse” in action! 💸🤮 Not something I’d want to “own” if I were Judge Garland (which, of course, I’m not, and never will be)!
That’s how “practical scholarship” @ EOIR, DOJ, and ICE; smarter, better, more ethical progressive leadership at the DOJ; and the private/NGO/academic bar can work together to solve legal problems and stop wasting the time of the Federal Courts and the Supremes. Perhaps, with the time saved, the Williams Connolly LLP team can even take some more pro bono asylum cases, make the system work better at the “retail level,” and save some deserving lives of vulnerable individuals who have been mistreated by Miller and his neo-Nazi gang of thugs and the malicious incompetents now “running” EOIR (into the ground) in the process.
Not rocket science! But, it will require Judge Garland to bring in some members of the NDPA who actually understand the interrelated issues of immigration, human rights, due process, civil rights, equal justice, and practical problem solving to replace the current “Clown Show” 🤡🦹🏿♂️ at EOIR and the DOJ. (Not to mention, a comprehensive “de-clownification” 🦹🏿♂️🤡 of DHS by Secretary-designate Mayorkas and his team). All of those skills have been conspicuously absent from the Executive branch during the last four years of kakistocracy.
⚖️🗽🇺🇸Due Process Forever! Let the De-Clownifying 🤡🦹🏿♂️ Of Government Begin!
Dean Johnson addresses unprecedented events at the U.S. Capitol
A message from Dean Kevin R. Johnson
Jan. 7, 2021
Yesterday was a deeply troubling day in one of the most challenging times in U.S. history. But make no mistake: We will get through this as a community.
Our nation saw an unprecedented and appalling assault on the rule of law and our deep and enduring democratic traditions. As Congress carried out its constitutional duty of accepting the certified results of the 2020 presidential election, a mob stormed our Capitol. Whatever our political views, we should all condemn such behavior. There is a stark difference between peaceful protest, which is constitutionally protected, and violence designed to undermine democratic processes.
As we process this traumatic challenge to our democracy, please take to heart the observations of Chancellor Gary S. May. He reminds us of something incredibly positive that greeted us all yesterday:
. . . I awoke this morning . . . buoyed by the thoughtful reflection shared by newly elected Georgia Senator Raphael Warnock, who said that the hands of his 82-year-old mother that were once “used to pick somebody else’s cotton” were just used to vote for the first African American senator in the history of his state. I lived much of my adult life in the state of Georgia. . . . I have attended several services in Ebenezer Baptist Church, where he is pastor and Martin Luther King Jr. once was. I always enjoyed his sermons and was uplifted by the progress his story represented. . . .
There are other reasons for optimism. Our institutions are strong. Our commitment to the rule of law, which is more important now than ever, is unwavering. Although yesterday saw an unprecedented challenge to the rule of law, we also witnessed its triumph. After a violent mob stormed our Capitol, the rule of law prevailed. Following the process set forth in the Constitution, Congress accepted the results of the Electoral College. A new president and vice president will be inaugurated in a matter of days. These events demonstrate why the law and what lawyers do matter so much. Let us try to focus moving forward constructively and positively.
I am hopeful that we as a community can schedule a time to discuss the serious issues facing the nation. We will be in touch as plans develop. Please stay healthy and take good care.
Noam N. Levey, Eyan Halper, and Patrick McGreevy for the Los Angeles Times reported that President-elect Joe Biden has tapped California Attorney General Xavier Becerra to be Health and Human Services secretary, which would make him the first Latino to hold the office. According to the story, Becerra “has become one of the most important defenders of the Affordable Care Act, leading the fight to preserve the landmark law against efforts by the Trump administration and conservative states to persuade federal courts to repeal it. . . . And he has become a leading champion of reproductive health, going to court repeatedly to challenge Trump administration efforts to scale back women’s access to abortion services and contraceptive coverage.”
Becerra’s mother was born in Jalisco, Mexico and immigrated to the United States after marrying his father, who was born in Sacramento and raised in Tijuana. Becerra’s father started out picking vegetables. “He got treated like he wasn’t a citizen,” Becerra recalled in 2017. “He couldn’t walk into restaurants because the sign said ‘No dogs or Mexicans allowed.’”
Elected to the House in 1992, he rose through the ranks to become the highest-ranking Latino in Congress at the time.
I personally would have preferred Becerra as Attorney General. The totally dysfunctional and demoralized DOJ, where “Justice” has been eradicated from the mission, urgently needs a progressive Hispanic leader. Someone who fully understands the overt racism of the nativist immigration policies implemented by Sessions and Barr and how they are connected to the regime’s larger White Nationalist agenda of denying equal justice under law to all persons of color in the U.S. Someone who will make cleaning up the “EOIR Clown Show” 🤡 the top priority!
Nevertheless, there is no denying the overriding importance of public health at the present moment. And, although he isn’t a medical professional, Becerra is a good administrator who understands the intimate connection between public health failures and racism in America. It’s no accident that the African American,Latino, and lower income communities have been disproportionately harmed by the regime’s criminally incompetent and malicious response to the COVID crisis.🤮☠️⚰️
Public health is just another aspect of social justice. And, social justice has been in abject failure in the Federal System for the past four years!
Due Process Forever!
PWS
12-07-20
Historical Footnote: Ah, Dec. 7, Pearl Harbor Day,!
That reminds me of yet another “Great Moment in EOIR History,” even before the “advent of the kakistocracy.” When the Arlington Immigration Court was also assigned to the Cleveland, Ohio Televideo docket, we filled all of the then-available hearing dates on our calendars. Our request to “HQ” in Falls Church to “open” the next year for scheduling was denied, apparently on the ground that it would make the docket charts look bad by being yet another year “out.”
So, we were advised by our Court Administrator to schedule all hearings for December 7, of the last “open” year until further notice. It didn’t take long for the Ohio Bar and the Assistant Chief Counsel to recognize that on any given Master Calendar thereafter, every hearing date assigned was Dec. 7, of the same year. As I used to tell them: “Hey, I’m just an Immigration Judge. I only work here, I’m not in charge of anything.”
Of course, hundreds of cases eventually had to be rescheduled to real dates! “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” at its best!
Ironically, today’s Immigration Judges are even more feckless and powerless to manage the system than we were many years ago. Yet that didn’t stop the “GOP fraudsters” on the FLRA from illegally and dishonestly declaring them to be “management officials.” Talk about kakistocracy!
Management officials, my foot! I doubt today’s Immigration “Judges” can even schedule bathroom breaks without asking permission from the Falls Church Clown Show!🤡
ImmigrationProf blogger Ingrid Eagly and Steven Shafer in an op/ed in the Los Angeles Times take on President Trump who “[l]ast week, during the final presidential campaign debate, President Trump renewed a claim he has often made: Migrants with pending court dates rarely show up for their hearings. In response to the charge by his Democratic challenger, former Vice President Joe Biden, that the administration’s treatment of would-be immigrants was inhumane, Trump told debate watchers that the number who`come back’ to immigration court is `less than 1%.’
The government’s data, however, tell a far different story.”
Check out the op/ed and the take down of President.
A new fact sheet by Nina Siulc and Noelle Smart of the Vera Institute of Justice summarizes new evidence showing that most immigrants appear for their immigration court hearings. The report includes data from Vera’s Safety and Fairness for Everyone (SAFE) Initiative that provides free representation through a universal access model of representation. Vera researchers found that 98 percent of SAFE clients released from custody have continued to appear for their court hearings. Read the full report for additional information on related research, including Vera’s ongoing evaluation of the New York Immigrant Family Unity Project (NYIFUP).
I[ngrid] E[agly]
***********************
Thanks, Ingrid and Steven! Our “Round Table” has used your scholarship in amicus briefs to educate Federal Courts at all levels about the realities of Immigration Court.
It’s particularly critical in an era where the politicized and “ethically challenged” DOJ often puts forth largely fictionalization versions of their self-manufactured “immigration emergency” that is actually little more than the outcome of studied ignorance, White Nationalism, “gonzo” enforcement, and maliciously incompetent administration of the Federal immigration bureaucracy.
Attribution: Stephen Miller Monster by Peter Kuper, PoliticalCartoons.com
If we kick out the kakistocracy next week, we could put qualified “practical scholars” like Ingrid and others like her in charge and remake both DHS and the Immigration Courts to actually operate as required by Due Process while also fulfilling legitimate law-enforcement objectives. To state the obvious, neither of these objectives is being realized at present. It’s bad for America and for humanity.
For far too long, the wrong individuals, lacking the necessary expertise in immigration and human rights, and also lacking a firm commitment to equal justice under law, have been “in charge” of the Government’s immigration policy and legal apparatus and appointed to the Federal Courts, at all levels. That’s particularly true at the Supremes where only Justices Sotomayor and (some days) Kagan appear “up to the job.”
We will never end institutionalized racism, achieve equal justice for all, and realize the true human and economic potential of America until we bring our broken immigration and refugee systems and our failing Federal Judicial System into line with our Constitutional and national values. That process must start, but certainly will not end, with this election!
The ruling does not, however, change an injunction issued last week by a federal judge in New York barring enforcement of the so-called public charge rule.
The Second Circuit affirmed the injunction but limited its scope to New York, Connecticut and Vermont. The appeals court found the government’s justification for the rule is “unmoored from the nuanced views of Congress.”
Perhaps, dissenting Judge Robert B. King best sums up his colleagues’ willingness to distort the law and pervert rationality in support of the regime’s racist-driven, White Nationalist Immigration agenda:
In the face of the extensive history accompanying the term “public charge,” to conclude that the DHS Rule’s definition of “public charge” is reasonable makes a mockery of the term “public charge,” “does violence to the English language and the statutory context,” and disrespects the choice — made consistently by Congress over the last century and a quarter — to retain the term in our immigration laws. See Cook Cty., 962 F.3d at 229. For those reasons, the Rule’s “public charge” definition ventures far beyond any ambiguity inherent in the meaning of the term “public charge,” as used in the Public Charge Statute, and thus fails at Chevron’s second step. In light of the foregoing, the plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their claim that the Rule is unlawful, and the majority is wrong to conclude otherwise.
Equal justice for all, due process, reasonableness, and non-racist judging aren’t “rocket science.” That’s why Wilkinson had to cloak his anti-immigrant bias with 71 pages of irrational nonsense and legal gobbledygook.
Just another example of the U.S. District Judge “getting it right” only to be undermined by bad judging from higher Federal Courts. Unwillingness of the Federal Judiciary to take a unified strand for equal justice and against institutionalized racism and the White Nationalist agenda of the Trump regime is literally ripping our nation apart as well as showing the fatal weakness of the Federal Judiciary as a protector of our democracy and our individual rights.
Folks like Wilkinson and Niemeyer are what they are. But, we have the power to elect a President and a Senate who will appoint judges who actually believe in Constitutional due process and equal justice for all, regardless of color or status. Judges who will “tell it like it is,” “just say no” to “Dred Scottification” of “the other,” and courageously stand up for an unbiased interpretation the law and for simple human decency, rather than pretzeling themselves to defend an indefensible Executive agenda of unbridled White Nationalism and racism.
This November vote like your life and the future of our nation depend on it. Because they do.
“The Trump administration has proposed a regulation that would deliver its biggest blow to the US asylum system yet, vastly expanding immigration officials’ authority to turn away migrants. If enacted, it would all but close America’s doors to asylum seekers — a signature policy for a president desperately trying to rally his base in an election year.
The regulation, which was announced Wednesday, would allow immigration officials to discard asylum seekers’ applications as “frivolous” without so much as a hearing, and make it impossible for victims of gang-related and gender-based violence to obtain protection in the US. It would also refuse asylum to anyone coming from a country other than Canada or Mexico, or who does not arrive on a direct flight to the US, as well as anyone who has failed to pay taxes, among other provisions.
The 30 day public comment period starts on June 15.
******************************
Nicole cuts through the BS and exposes 160+ pages of the regime’s legal gobbledygook, evil intent, and White Nationalist racism for exactly what it is. No surprise for those of us who have been avid readers of Nicole’s outstanding reporting, first at Law360and now at Vox News.
Keep on the story, Nicole! Don’t let the White Nationalist kakistocracy continue to hide their vile and unconstitutional program directed against asylum seekers of color behind a barrage of opaque legalese!
Following the Supreme’s lifeline to Dreamers, some commentators are heralding the triumph of the “rule of law” over Trump. That’s total wishful thinking. It’s great that the Court got a couple of cases right this week. Lives saved are lives saved. That’s actually what they are supposed to do all the time.
Meanwhile, the existence of Remain in Mexico, misuse of COVID-19 to return asylum seekers to potential death, baby jails, kids in cages, family separation, the New American Gulag, Star Chambers in the DOJ that call themselves “courts,” and the elimination of the legal immigration system without legislation show just how ineffectual the Article III Courts have been overall in enforcing due process, equal justice, and human rights in the face of Executive tyranny and grotesque misfeasance.
The folks who launched these fantastically illegal and disingenuous proposals to eliminate asylum, harm, and kill vulnerable individuals deserving protection largely based on White Nationalist racial animus obviously have deep disrespect not only for the rule of law but for humanity as a whole. That they they can get away with it and continue to openly promote their false and illegal agenda shows how little the Article III Courts actually have done to stem the unconstitutional tide of irrational, race-based actions by a thoroughly corrupt Administration over the past three years.
Ask folks rotting in Mexico, orbited to torture without hearings, separated from their family members, suffering in squalor and disease in the Gulag for no crime, or watching their chance to immigrate legally go down the drain how that “rule of law” is working out for them. Until the Article III Courts as an institution confront the real problems here: Trump’s dishonesty, White Nationalism, xenophobia, and institutional racism, all of which violate the Constitution, the “rule of law” will only be a reality for some. America deserves better from our Article III judges. I can only hope that some day we will get it.
TWO NEW ITEMS FROM IMMIGRATIONPROF BLOG SHOW A MALICIOUSLY INCOMPETENT AND CORRUPT TRUMP REGIME IMMIGRATION BUREAUCRACY THAT BELIEVES AND FUNCTIONS LIKE IT IS ABOVE THE LAW, ACCOUNTABILITY, & HUMAN MORALITY!
McCord Pagan for Law360 reports that U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) violated the law by taking funds designated by Congress for consumables and medical care for migrants and instead used some of the money for its canine program, dirt bikes and upgrades to its computer system, according to the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO).
While CBP spent some of the designated funds on baby products, food, defibrillators, and masks, CBP violated the law by spending certain funds meant for such migrant care on canines, boats, dirt bikes, ATVs, a vaccine program for its employees, and upgrades to its computer network, sewer system, as well as janitorial services, according to the GAO report.
The 2019 law providing supplemental funds to CBP to help address a surge of migrants crossing the U.S.-Mexico border designated about $112 million to CBP for “consumables and medical care.”
“We conclude that CBP violated the purpose statute when it obligated amounts expressly appropriated for consumables and medical care and establishing and operating migrant care and processing facilities for other purposes,” according to the GAO opinion. The Congressional watchdog is conducting an audit of CBP and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security on the care of the adults and children in its custody, it said.
In response to GAO’s findings, a CBP spokesperson sent Law360 a statement calling the violations “technical in nature” and said it will take prompt remedial action.
CNN reports the latest skirmish between the state courts and federal immigration enforcement.
U.S. District Judge Jed S. Rakoffissued an order yesterday blocking ICE from making arrests in New York courts, finding that the practice is illegal. The introductory paragraph of his ruling reads as follows:
“Recent events confirm the need for freely and fully functioning state courts, not least in the State of New York. But it is one thing for the state courts to try to deal with the impediments brought on by a pandemic, and quite another for them to have to grapple with disruptions and intimidations artificially imposed by an agency of the federal government in violation of long-standing privileges and fundamental principles of federalism and of separation of powers.”
State and local officials argue that when ICE officers apprehends immigrants at courthouses — where they are making appearances as defendants, witnesses or victims — it endangers public safety by making it harder to prosecute crimes.
Baby jails, stealing from kids, interfering with the administration of justice. Just another day in the Disunited Kakistocracy of Trump.
These situations result in part from a feckless Congress led by Mitch and a failed Supremes led by Roberts who won’t stand up for our Constitutional rights and restrain an obviously corrupt and lawless Executive with a racist agenda.
It’s no surprise that much of Trump’s wrongdoing is exposed by the Government’s own ”watchdogs.” Unlike GAO, which works for Congress, those in the Executive Branch often are then unethically fired by Trump as Congress and the Supremes fail to stand up for honesty in Government. Worse yet, they fail to protect public employees who courageously expose corruption.
And, the high ranking legislators and judges who have watched and enabled Trump’s scurrilous attacks on our Constitution and human values ultimately bear much of the responsibility! As my friend Ira Kurzban would say, “this is not normal.” “Normalizing” and “enabling” illegal, unethical, and racist-driven behavior is obscene. If “watchdogs” and U.S. District Court Judges can speak out against lawless actions and corruption, how is it that Mitch, Roberts, and the rest of the GOP have “swallowed the whistle?”
The Supreme Court will soon release an opinion on the lawfulness of the Trump administration’s choice to end DACA or Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA). Former President Barack Obama rolled out DACA in June 2012 and the Department of Homeland Security implemented it two months later through a memorandum signed by then-Secretary Janet Napolitano.
DACA, based on a conventional concept of prosecutorial discretion, provided limited relief from removal – and work authorization — to nearly 800,000 young undocumented immigrants through a discretionary tool called “deferred action.” All legal challenges to DACA, including one by campus immigration hawk former Maricopa County (Arizona) Sheriff Joe Arpaio, failed. How will the story of DACA be remembered?
Much more than the sum of its parts, DACA will be remembered as an intriguing political story. For years, Congress introduced legislation known as the DREAM Act to provide legal status and a pathway to permanent residency for young undocumented college students. Congress has debated some kind of comprehensive immigration reform over two decades. All of these efforts failed. Said President Obama in announcing DACA “In the absence of any immigration action from Congress to fix our broken immigration system, what we’ve tried to do is focus our immigration enforcement resources in the right places.” DACA helped jump start the forceful movement across the nation calling for the vindication of the rights of immigrants.
Politics led to DACA’s demise. Donald J. Trump ran for President on a strident immigration enforcement ticket and promised to end the “unconstitutional” DACA policy. After the inauguration of President Trump and lobbying by some Republican leaders to keep DACA, the administration tried to terminate DACA and announced this “wind-down” in a press conference on September 5, 2017. Ultimately, political slogans, not reasoned analysis, were offered for the decision to end DACA.
The Trump administration’s arguments to the Supreme Court defending the end of DACA were also mired in politics. In a convoluted fashion that wended its way to federal appellate courts from coast to coast, the administration—through a series of Interim leaders—simply ignored the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act and in an arbitrary and capricious way simply declared that DACA was “illegal,” and that they were required to end it.
The claim that DACA was somehow “illegal” was simply not true. No court found it to be, and for good reason. Deferred action is an instrument of discretion used to shield “low priority” immigrants from deportation. Deferred action enjoys a long history and legal foundation across both Republican and Democratic administrations. The administration could decide to end the policy it, but not by undertaking the judicial role of declaring their own exercise of discretion to be unconstitutional. As it did in the Department of Commerce v. New York (2019) in manufacturing a civil rights rationale for a U.S. citizenship question on the 2020 Census that would have chilled the participation of many Latina/os and immigrants, the administration simply misrepresented facts. The Supreme Court should require the Department of Homeland Security to undertake the searching analysis of facts and policy impacts, and honestly proceed, playing by the rules. Those with DACA have upheld their part of this bargain, and the administration must abide by open and fair procedures required by the law.
DACA will be reminisced as a story about human pain and hope. Said one DACA recipient one author spoke to described September 5, 2017, the day the end of DACA was announced as “just an awful day … Eventually you just get over the pain, get over the fear… and you continue to organize and protect your community in whatever way you can.” Throughout the time DACA has been tossed around in the courts, thousands continue to build families of their own, work in the frontlines of healthcare. and revitalize classrooms in colleges and universities across the country, a phenomenon we have seen first-hand as educators and administrators. DACAmented recipients are now our doctors, lawyers, and schoolteachers, repaying the investment this country has made in them.
If the Supreme Court fails to require the Trump administration to abide by the law, as we urge the Court to insist upon, those with DACA must live under a cruel Sword of Damocles, with no clear pathway to legal permanent residency. They deserve an honest policy determination, and the Supreme Court should insist on no less. Ultimately, it will take Congressional action to enact a DREAM Act, and comprehensive immigration reform to enable these young members a means to their rightful place in our society.
—–
Kevin R. Johnson is Dean of the University of California, Davis School of Law and Mabie/Apallas Professor of Public Interest Law and Chicanx Studies.
The Administration’s legal arguments for ending DACA have always been bogus and totally disingenuous. Indeed, they do not even remain the same from case to case as they essentially make it up as they go along. It’s all transparently about White Nationalist racism and political pandering to a right-wing minority.
The lower Federal Courts were nearly unanimous in rejecting the DOJ’s various bad faith positions. Yet, instead of unanimously blasting the Administration’s frivolous request for intervention out of hand and sending a clear message reaffirming the lower courts, the Supremes granted an audience to Francisco and the scofflaws.
By failing to send a clear message that political pandering at the expense of human lives won’t be tolerated, the Supremes have encouraged further lawless, insidiously-motivated acts by Trump and have become part of the problem. They have also unconscionably undermined lower Federal Court judges who stood up for the rule of law and removal of racism and dehumanization from government decision-making.
Among other things, the Supremes have helped Trump: eradicate 40 years of asylum protections without legislation; weaponize the public charge provisions without legislation to endanger the health an safety of immigrants and our nation; allowed invidious discrimination against Muslims and refugees; and forced individuals who have established reasonable fear of persecution to be sent to live in life-threatening squalor and danger in Mexico.
The Supremes’ majority has knowingly and intentionally furthered the “Dred-Scottification” of “the other” in society: African-Americans, Latinos, immigrants, asylum seekers, the poor, women, prisoners, workers, etc. Our nation is paying the price.
The solution eventually will require a re-examination of the type of individuals to whom we give the high privilege of serving on the Supremes: their humanity, courage, practical experience, empathy, moral leadership, problem-solving ability, expertise in furthering human rights, and commitment to equal justice for all, rather than narrow “out of the mainstream” political ideologies. The current outrage and unrest over the lack of social justice in the United States can be tied directly to the Supremes’ lack of leadership, courage, humanity, and an overriding commitment to equal justice under law. This version of the Supremes has failed America. Badly!We must do better in the future!
Professor Geoffrey Hoffman Immigraton Clinic Director University of Houston Law Center
Geoffrey writeS in ImmigrationProf Blog.
A Stunning Fifth Circuit Asylum Decision: An Analysis of Inestroza-Antonelli v. Barr by Geoffrey Hoffman, Clinical Professor, University of Houston Law Center
I was moved this morning to write about a recent decision from the Fifth Circuit. This is an insightful and sensitive decision from the 2-person panel’s majority, Judges Dennis and King, with Judge Jones dissenting. The April 9th decision is Inestroza-Antonelli v. Barr.
In the very first paragraph, the essence of the decision is announced: “Without addressing the coup, the BIA found that any change in gender based violence was incremental or incidental and not material. Because this conclusion is not supported by the record, we grant the petition and remand.” Id. at 1.
Procedurally, the case involved an in absentia order of removal from 2005. In 2017, the petitioner moved to reopen proceedings outside the 90-day deadline for such motions based on a change in country conditions in Honduras. The petitioner argued that in Honduras since the time of her original removal order there had been “a 263.4 percent increase in violence against women since 2005.” She submitted a trove of documents to support her motion. The Immigration Judge, and Board on appeal denied her motion to reopen.
As recounted in the panel’s decision, there had been a military coup in Honduras in 2009. Specifically, there were several principal changes in the country as a result: “(1) the Gender Unit of the Honduran National Police, established between 2004 and 2005, has been restricted in its operations, and access to the Unit is now limited or nonexistent; (2) the power of the Municipal Offices for Women to address domestic violence has been severely diluted, and officials have been removed from their positions for responding to women’s needs, especially those related to domestic violence; (3) institutional actors have targeted women for violence, including sexual violence, and threatened the legal status of over 5,000 nongovernmental women’s, feminist, and human rights organizations that have opposed the post-coup government’s policies; (4) the rate of homicides of women more than doubled in the year after the coup and has continued to steadily increase, ultimately becoming the second highest cause of death for women of reproductive age; and (5) in 2014, the status of the National Institute for Women was downgraded and other resources for female victims of violence were eliminated….”
The crux of the Immigration Judge’s decision in denying her motion to reopen was that the violence suffered by women in Honduras is an “ongoing problem” and the increase allegedly did not represent a “change in country conditions.” The Board, in its decision, did not even mention the coup, finding instead that the IJ had not clearly erred” because the evidence reflected only an “incremental or incidental,” rather than a “material” change in country conditions.
I would like to point out several noteworthy and instructive aspects of this excellent decision.
First, in analyzing her claim, the Fifth Circuit’s majority noted, as is usual, that the government had introduced “no conflicting evidence.” Indeed, they did not introduce any evidence of country conditions in Honduras at all. Instead, on appeal they “cherry-pick[ed]” excerpts from the evidence introduced by the petitioner. Most typically, the relied on a 2014 Department of State report describing the availability of “domestic violence shelters and municipal women’s offices.”
This first point is important because it accurately describes what is typical of these asylum proceedings. The government often relies on little beyond the State report, and introduces no other evidence of its own. The result sometimes leads to tortured arguments on appeal, nitpicking before the Board, or unfair conclusions before the immigration judge.
It is frustrating sometimes when we litigate these cases and we see parties attempt to shoehorn their conclusions into preconceived molds. This selective reasoning should be called out more often. Many times when confronted with a record that contains a treasure trove of material that is largely favorable to the immigrant, the government is at a loss about how to respond on appeal. Instead of agreeing to a remand, they are faced with defending a sparse record with support for their position. As such, they have to (assuming they do not agree to a remand) cull through the record to find anything to shore up the precarious reasoning in the administrative decisions below.
Second, the majority rejects reliance on a prior case where a petitioner had not presented sufficient evidence of changed country conditions. As astutely pointed out by the majority, it makes no sense to hold that the current petitioner is unable to meet her evidentiary burden merely because a prior petitioner had failed to do so. In the words of the majority, “to hold that Inestroza-Antonelli is precluded from proving that conditions changed as a factual matter during this period simply because a previous petitioner failed to do so would violate the ‘basic premise of preclusion’—i.e., ‘that parties to a prior action are bound and nonparties are not bound.’ Id. at 7 (citing 18A Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller, & Edward H. Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure § 4449 (3d ed. 2019)). It is refreshing to see a panel rely on the famous federal practice and procedure treatise.
Third, the decision does a wonderful job of elucidating the “substantial evidence” standard, which is used so often against the immigrant-petitioner. Here, the majority explains that this standard does not mean that the Court of Appeals reviews the BIA decision to determine whether “there theoretically could have been some unevidenced occurrence that would make its findings correct.” Id. at 5 (emphasis added). Instead, the “substantial evidence” standard just means what it says: whether a party has produced substantial evidence in support of their position. Here, the government – as noted – provided no evidence against the petitioner’s position. In fact, the record “compels” the conclusion that conditions have “significantly changed,” according to the majority.
Fourth, the decision takes to task the BIA’s lack of analysis in its decision, specifically the failure on the part of the agency even to mention the “coup” in Honduras. Instead, there was nothing but a conclusory statement that the Board had “considered [the petitioner’s] arguments.” We have seen, for example, other courts of appeals such as the Seventh Circuit, take to task the BIA in recent months. See Baez-Sanchez v. Barr (7th Cir. 2020) (Easterbrook, J.) . It is a very good sign that circuit courts are making searching inquiries, demanding compliance from the Board and EOIR, and not engaging in mere cursory review.
There was a frustration shown in that, as they noted, the Board evidenced a “complete failure” to address the “uncontroverted evidence” of a clear significant “turning point” in Honduras’ history. The majority characterized this failure as an abuse of discretion by the BIA. On a separate point concerning the Board’s rejection of an argument about her abusive husband’s return to Honduras in 2009, as a changed in country conditions, the majority stopped short of calling that argument’s rejection an “abuse of discretion.” In a footnote, the majority noted several sister circuits that agreed that such a change should be characterized as a change in “personal circumstances.”
The most notable thing about the panel’s 2-1 decision besides its well thought-out reasoning is the lack of any discussion involving Matter of A-B-, 27 I & N Dec. 316 (A.G. 2018), anywhere in either the majority’s or dissent’s decisions. Arguably, A-B- is related and has been used (routinely) by the government to argue against relief for women who are similarly situated. Because this case turned on a denial of a motion to reopen in 2017, and there was no Attorney General’s decision until 2018, there was no occasion for the IJ and, later, the BIA rely on the AG’s A-B- decision. To the extent that AG Sessions in A-B- did not rule out all gender-based violence claims, the more important take away here is this: Matter of A-B- can be overcome and is no prohibition on relief, despite what a number of judges and BIA members may believe, so long as the petitioner can produce substantial evidence in support of his or her claims, as the petitioner did so well here. (Note, since this decision relates to a motion to reopen, the case will now be remanded to the BIA and IJ and the petitioner’s fight will continue on remand.)
Judge Edith Jones in her dissent, while never relying outright on A-B-, still takes affront at the perceived failure to “defer” to the BIA. In a telling passage, she states: “The majority has failed to defer to the BIA, which, hearing no doubt hundreds (or thousands) of cases from Honduras, must be far more familiar with country conditions than judges working from our isolated perch . . . . .” This is a scary position. While it is true the BIA has heard thousands of cases from Honduras, this cannot and should not form the basis for any rationale to blindly “defer” to the Board.
This type of deference and the attempted “rubber-stamping” that it engenders was exactly what Justice Kennedy warned about in his short but biting concurrence in Pereira v. Sessions. To quote Justice Kennedy, the “type of reflexive deference exhibited in some of these cases is troubling…it seems necessary and appropriate to reconsider, in an appropriate case, the premises that underlie Chevron and how courts have implemented that decision.” Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105, 2121 (2018), Kennedy, J., concurring (emphasis added). Justice Kennedy was right. The dissent’s transparent and clearly forthright encapsulation of the arguments in favor of “deference” highlights the dangers inherent in such a position and shows just why Chevron must (and will) be reconsidered.
Geoffrey Hoffman, Clinical Professor, University of Houston Law Center, Immigration Clinic Director
(Individual capacity; Institution for identification only)
KJ
***********************
Judge Jones’s dissent ignores the clear evidence that the BIA is no longer anything approaching an “expert tribunal,” and that it’s jurisprudence has swung sharply in an anti-immigrant, and specifically anti-asylum, direction under Sessions, Whitaker, and Barr.
How long can the Article IIIs keep “papering over” not only the all too often deficient work-product produced by today’s BIA, but, more significantly, the glaring unconstitutionality of a system constructed and run by prosecutors and politicos that purports to function like a “court.” I doubt that Judge Jones would be willing to trust her life to a “court” that was composed and run like EOIR. So, why aren’t other “persons” entitled to the same Constitutional treatment and human dignity that she would expect if their positions were reversed?
In the meantime, I wholeheartedly endorse Geoffrey’s observation that even in the “Age of A-B-,” and in the normally “asylum-unfriendly” Fifth Circuit, great scholarship, persistence, and good lawyering can save lives! We just need more “good lawyers” out there in th NDPA to keep pressing the fight until all of the Article III’s stop “going along to get along” with the charade currently unfolding at EOIR and we also get the “regime change” necessary to establish an Article I Immigration Court that functions like a “real court” rather than a surreal vision of a court.
