"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.
The Dehumanizing Work of Immigration Law is an analysis piece authored by immprof Jennifer M. Chacón (Berkeley) for the Brennan Center for Justice. It was part of a series of articles examining the “punitive excess that has come to define America’s criminal legal system.”
In her article, Chacón acknowledges that “our immigration laws are exceptionally harsh in ways that frequently defy common sense.” She notes that for many migrants “the notion that there is a ‘right way’ to immigrate is just not true.” Moreover, “our country has not always honored its own legal processes when immigrants are doing things ‘the right way.’” And, for those “long-time lawful permanent residents who have contact with the criminal legal system are often denied the chance to do things ‘the right way.’”
“Again and again,” Chacón writes, “notions of the rule of law are invoked to justify the sundering of families and communities that would, in other circumstances, seem unthinkable.”
Jennifer elegantly articulates a theme that echoes what “Sir Jeffrey” Chase and I often say on our respective blogs: It’s all about gratuitous cruelty and intentional dehumanization of “the other” — primarily vulnerable individuals of color!
But, it need not be that way! Undoubtedly, the current legislative framework is outdated, unrealistic, and often self-contradictory. Congress’s failure to address it with bipartisan, humane, common sense, practical reforms that would strengthen and expand our legal immigration system is disgraceful.
But, there are plenty of opportunities even under the current flawed framework for much better interpretations of law; more expansive, uniform, and reasonable exercises of discretion; creation and implementation of best practices; advancements in due process and fundamental fairness; drastic improvements in representation; improved expert judging; rational, targeted, “results-focused” enforcement; promoting accountability; and teamwork and cooperation among the judiciary, DHS, and the private/NGO/academic sectors to improve the delivery of justice and make the “rule of law” something more than the cruel parody it is today.
Historically, as Jennifer points out, courts have often aided, abetted, and sometimes even disgracefully and cowardly encouraged lawless behavior and clear violations of both constitutional and human rights. But, it doesn’t have to be that way in the future!
Folks like Trump, Miller, Sessions, Barr, Wolf, “Cooch,” Hamilton, McHenry, et al spent four years laser-focused on banishing every last ounce of humanity, fairness, truth, enlightenment, kindness, compassion, reasonableness, efficiency, rationality, equity, public service, racial justice, consistently positive use of discretion, practicality, and common sense from our immigration and refugee systems.
Biden and Harris promised dynamic change, improvement, and a return to a values-based approach to immigration. Once in office, however, they have basically “gone Miller Lite” —preferring to blame and criticize the Trump regime without having a ready plan or taking much positive action to bring about dynamic systemic improvements. In fact, as pointed out by Jennifer, Garland and Mayorkas have continued to apply, defend, and to some extent rely on the very vile policies they supposedly disavowed. Talk about disingenuous!
Drastic improvements in the current system are “out there for the taking,” with or without Congressional assistance. But, the will, skill, and guts to make the “rule of law” something other than an intentionally cruel, failed “throw away slogan” appears to be sorely missing from Biden Administration ldeadership!
Maybe, the beginning of Jennifer’s essay “says it all” about the abject failure of Garland and others to “get the job done:”
During his confirmation hearing to be attorney general, when asked about the Trump administration’s policy of separating children from their parents at the U.S.–Mexico border, Merrick Garland repudiated the policy, stating “I can’t imagine anything worse.”
Yet, now that he is confirmed, Attorney General Garland presides over an agency that represents the U.S. government in court arguing every day that parents should be separated from their children, brothers from sisters, grandchildren from grandparents.
Obviously, that’s the problem! Garland actually “can’t imagine” the human impact of government-imposed family separation! Nor can he “imagine” what it’s like to be caught up in his unfair, biased, and broken Immigration “Courts” as a party or a lawyer. The “retail level” of our justice system “passed him by” on his way to his judicial “comfort zone.”
“Justice” Star Chamber Style — “AG Garland ‘can’t imagine’ what it’s like to be caught up in the dysfunctional, abusive, and unfair ‘court system’ that he runs!”
Unless and until we finally get an Attorney General who has either experienced or has the actual imagination necessary to feel the daily horrors and indignity that our unnecessarily broken immigration justice system inflicts on real human beings, American justice and human values will continue to spiral downward! ☠️🤮
And, there will be no true racial justice in America without justice for immigrants!
What fun, sending Black Cameroonian refugees back to rape, torture, and possible death! We don’t need to know much asylum law or real country conditions here at EOIR. We make it up as we go along. And, Judge Garland just lets us keep on playing “refugee roulette,” our favorite game! https://www.flickr.com/photos/rasputin243/ Creative Commons License
Nearly all of the deported people interviewed had fled Cameroon between 2017 and 2020 for reasons linked to the crisis in the Anglophone regions. Human Rights Watch research indicates that many had credible asylum claims, but due process concerns, fact-finding inaccuracies, and other issues contributed to unfair asylum decisions. Lack of impartiality by US immigration judges – who are part of the executive branch, not the independent judiciary – appeared to play a role. Nearly all of the deported Cameroonians interviewed – 35 of 41 – were assigned to judges with asylum denial rates 10 to 30 percentage points higher than the national average.
. . . .
*****************
The complete report gives a totally damning account of EOIR’s incompetence, ignorance of asylum law, poor decision making, “rigged” assignment of bad judges, and systemic bias directed against asylum seekers, primarily people of color. Although human rights conditions have continued to deteriorate in Cameroon, asylum grant rates have fluctuated dramatically depending on how the political winds at DOJ are blowing.
For example, judges denying asylum because of imaginary “improved conditions” in Cameroon falls within the realm of the absurd. No asylum expert would say that conditions have improved.
Yet, in a catastrophic ethical and legal failure, there is no BIA precedent “calling out” such grotesque errors and serving notice to the judges that it is unacceptable judicial conduct! There are hardly any recent BIA published precedents on granting asylum at all — prima facie evidence of the anti-asylum culture and institutional bias in favor of DHS Enforcement that Sessions and Barr actively cultivated and encouraged!
Even more outrageously, these same members of the “asylum deniers club” remain in their influential appellate positions under Garland! As inexplicable as it is inexcusable!
The HRF report details the wide range of dishonest devices used by EOIR to cut off valid asylum claims: bogus adverse credibility determinations; unreasonable corroboration requirements; claiming “no nexus” when the causal connection is obvious; failing to put the burden on the DHS in countrywide persecution involving the government or past persecution; bogus findings that the presence of relatives in the country negates persecution; ridiculous findings that severe harm doesn’t “rise to the level of persecution,” failure to listen to favorable evidence or rebuttal; ignoring the limitations on representation and inherent coercion involved in intentionally substandard and health threatening ICE detention, to name just some. While these corrupt methods of denying protection might be “business as usual” at EOIR “denial factories,” they have been condemned by human rights experts and many appellate courts. Yet Garland continues to act as if nothing were amiss in his “star chambers.”
This bench needs to be cleared of incompetence and anti-asylum bias and replaced with experts committed to due process and fair, impartial, and ethical applications of asylum principles. There was nothing stopping Sessions and Barr from “packing” the BIA and the trial courts with unqualified selections perceived to be willing and able to carry out their White Nationalist agenda! Likewise, there is nothing stopping Garland from “unpacking:” “cleaning house,” restoring competence, scholarly excellence, and “due process first” judging to his shattered system!
“It’s not rocket science, but ‘unpacking’ the Immigration Courts appears beyond Garland’s skill set!” “Unpacking” Photo by John Keogh Creative Commons License
All that’s missing are the will and the guts to get the job done! Perhaps that’s not unusual for yet another Dem Administration bumbling its way through immigration policy with no guiding principles, failing to connect the dots to racial justice, betraying promises to supporters, and leaving a trail of broken human lives and bodies of the innocent in its wake. But, it’s unacceptable! Totally!
Biden’s immigration polices leave Haitians stranded in Mexico
Friday, January 21, 2022
By Immigration Prof
Nicole Narea of Voxreports that the U.S. has deported nearly 14,000 Haitians to Mexico since September, according to data released by UN’s International Organization for Migration. In 2021, Mexico received more than 131,ooo asylum applications, of which an estimated 45% were Haitians and their Chilean-born children. Haitians in Mexico “face pervasive racism, and many are unable to work, have no access to medical care, and are targets for criminals,” Narea writes.
Mexico is seeing an uptick in Haitian asylum applicants.
The Biden administration continues to enforce pandemic-related border restrictions that have kept out the vast majority of asylum seekers, including Haitians.
This disingenuous action by the Administration comes at a rather inopportune time, just as they are “getting heat” for failing to deliver on promises to Black voters. Additionally, the latest Pew Study shows that immigrants now make ump 10% of the U.S. Black population and that they are “more than holding their own” in terms of education and economic contributions.
Looks like many of the “immigrants we need” (and who also need us), according to Suzanne Clark of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, have mindlessly been dumped in Mexico at great human and fiscal cost that actually results in a “negative achievement.” (That’s notwithstanding the White Nationalist myths perpetrated by the 5th Circuit and GOP AGs and not always effectively opposed by the Biden Administration. How do you purport to end “Remain in Mexico” while denying asylum seekers any right to seek refuge at the border? Not very effectively, it appears!)
Biden promised to establish a fair, orderly, and humane immigration system. Has he done it?
Paul Schmidt, a former chairman of the Board of Immigration Appeals, doesn’t think so. He claims that Biden could have established due process and the rule of law at the border and expanded refugee programs in potential sending countries but he didn’t, “preferring instead to use modified versions of ‘proven to fail deterrence-only programs’ administered largely by Trump-era holdovers and other bureaucrats insensitive to the rights, needs, and multiple motivations of asylum seekers.”
Predictably, nobody is pleased.
The problems Schmidt describes are not limited to the border and the treatment of asylum seekers. They are reflected in many of Biden’s other immigration measures too.
Nolan Rappaport for the Hill reports that Paul Schmidt, former chair of the Board of Immigration Appeals who now blogs at Immigration Courtside, does not think that President Biden has done enough on immigration. Schmidt claims that Biden could have established due process and the rule of law at the border and expanded refugee programs in potential sending countries but he didn’t, “preferring instead to use modified versions of ‘proven to fail deterrence-only programs’ administered largely by Trump-era holdovers and other bureaucrats insensitive to the rights, needs, and multiple motivations of asylum seekers.”
Thanks, guys! As I have told both of you, I really appreciate the huge contributions you have made to informing the public about this all-important, yet often misunderstood or “mythologized,” issue!
Following up on my last thought, I urge everyone to view this recent clip from “Face the Nation,” posted by Kevin on ImmigrationProf, in which reporter Ed O’Keefe succinctly and cogently explains how immigration is the “most underreported issue of 2021.” It’s fundamental to everything from COVID, to the economy, to voting rights, to racial justice, to climate change, to our position in the world.
And, I say that the absolute dysfunctional mess that Garland has presided over in hisbroken and jaw-droppingly backlogged Immigration Courts is the most widely ignored, misunderstood, mishandled, and under-appreciated part of this under-reporting!
As an example of how even “mainstream liberal progressive pundits” get it wrong by not focusing on the spectacular adverse effects of Garland’s botched handling of the Immigration Courts, check out this article by Mark Joseph Stern over at Slate. https://apple.news/AvmEJc5V0RXa8hCgKICcTOA
Overlooking Garland’s disastrous mis-handling of his “wholly owned” U.S. Immigration Courts and the unparalleled “missed opportunity” to put more brilliant progressive judges on the Federal Bench is an all too common “blind spot” for progressive pundits. Mark Joseph Stern Reporter, Slate
Stern does a “victory lap” over Biden’s 40 great Article III judicial appointments to the lower Federal Courts, closing with the astounding claim that: “Democrats are finally playing hardball with the courts.”
In truth, Dems are only belatedly starting to do what the GOP has been doing over four decades: Get your guys in the positions where they make a difference for better (Dems, in theory) or worse (GOP in practice).
Appointing a diverse, talented, progressive group of 40 out of 870 Article III Judges is an important, necessary, and long, long overdue start; but, it’s not going to make a cosmic difference overnight!
By contrast, there are about 550 Immigration Judges, the majority appointed by GOP restrictionist AGs, many with mediocre to totally inadequate credentials for the job. And, it shows in the consistently substandard performance and mistake-riddled, haphazard “jurisprudence” emanating from Garland’s EOIR.
The main qualifications for a number of these pedestrian to totally outrageous appointments appears to be willingness to carry out former GOP AGs’ restrictionist, nativist policies, or at least to adhere to the DOJ’s enforcement-oriented agenda, while ignoring, distinguishing, or downplaying the due process rights of migrants!
This is “complimented” by an appellate branch (the BIA) with about two dozen judges hand-selected or retained for notorious anti-immigrant records or willingness to “go along to get along” with the wishes of DHS Enforcement. The BIA turns out some truly horrible, almost invariably regressive, “precedents.” A number are so lacking in substance and coherent analysis that they are unceremoniously “stomped” by the Article IIIs despite limitations on judicial review and the travesty of so-called “Chevron deference” that serves as a grotesque example of Supremes-created “judicial task avoidance” by the Article IIIs.
From an informed Dem progressive perspective, it’s an infuriating, ongoing, unmitigated disaster! Only one BIA appellate judge, recently appointed “progressive practical scholar” Judge Andrea Saenz, would appear on any expert’s list of the “best and brightest” progressive legal minds in the field.
Unlike Article III Judges, who are life-tenured, EOIR Judges serve at the pleasure and discretion of the Attorney General and can be replaced and reassigned, including to non-quasi-judicial attorney positions, “at will.”
Starting with Attorney General John Ashcroft’s notorious “BIA Purge of ‘03,”GOP AGs haven’t hesitated to remove, transfer, “force out,” marginalize, demoralize, discourage from applying, or simply not select EOIR judges who stood for due process and immigrants’ rights in the face of nativist/restrictionist political agendas.
Yet, for eight years of the Obama Administration and now a year into the Biden Administration, Dem AGs have lacked the guts, awareness, and vision to fight back by “de-weaponizing” the regressive GOP-constructed Immigration Judiciary and recruiting replacements from among the “best and the brightest” among the “deep pool” of expert, intellectually fearless “progressive practical scholars.”
Not only that, but Dems have totally blown a unique opportunity to remake and establish the Immigration Judiciary not only as “America’s best judiciary” — a model for better Article IIIs — but also as a training ground for the diverse progressive judiciary of the future!
Even more significantly, tens of thousands of lives that should have been saved by an expert, due-process-oriented, racially sensitive judiciary have been, and continue to be, sacrificed on the alter of GOP nativism and Dem indifference to quality judging and human suffering in the Immigration Courts!
Compare the diverse, progressive backgrounds and qualifications of “Stern’s 40” with those on the totally underwhelming list of the most recent Garland “giveaways” of precious, life-determining Immigration Judge positions! See, e.g., https://www.justice.gov/eoir/page/file/1457171/download
The progressive talent is definitely out there to change the trajectory of the Immigration Courts for the better! Garland’s failure to inspire, recruit, appoint, and tout the “best and brightest” in American law for his Immigration Courts is a horrible “whiff” with disturbing national and international implications!
Article III Federal Courts deal with the mundane as well as the profound. By contrast, lives and futures are on the line in every single Immigration Court case! Often effective judicial review of EOIR’s haphazard, widely inconsistent, unprincipled, and one-sided decisions is unavailable, either as a legal or practical matter. The exceptionally poor performance of the Immigration Courts that continues under Garland threatens the underpinnings of our entire justice system and American democracy!
Right now, Garland’s broken system has a largely self-created 1.5+ million case ever-expanding backlog! At a very conservative estimate of four family members, co-workers, employees, employers, students, co-religionists, neighbors, and community members whose lives are intertwined with each of those stuck in Garland’s hopelessly broken, biased, and deficient system, at least 6 million American lives hang in the balance — twisting in the wind among Garland’s “backlog on steroids!” Yet, amazingly, it’s “below the radar screen” of Stern and other leading progressive voices!
I doubt that any Federal Court in America, with the possible exception of the Supremes, holds as many human lives and futures in its hands. Not to mention that “dehumanization” and “Dred Scottification” of the other in Immigration Court drifts over into the Article III Courts on a regular basis. Once you start viewing one group of humans as “less than persons” under the Constitution, it’s easy to add others to the “de-personification” process.
Yet, Garland cavalierly treats the Immigration Courts as just another mundane piece of his reeling bureaucratic mess at the DOJ. The long overdue and completely justified “housecleaning” at Trump’s anti-democracy insurrectionist regime seems far from Garland’s serenely detached mind!
For Pete’s sake, even ICE Special Agents understand the need to “rebrand” themselves by escaping the inept and disreputable ICE bureaucracy left over from Trump:
They say their affiliation with ICE’s immigration enforcement role is endangering their personal safety, stifling their partnerships with other agencies and scaring away crime victims, according to a copy of the report provided to The Washington Post.
But, Garland doesn’t understand the well-deserved toxic reputation of EOIR among legal experts? Gimme a break!
Garland also stands accountable for his spineless failure to insist on a dismantling of the bogus, illegal, immoral, and ultimately ineffectual Title 42 abomination at the Southern Border and an immediate return to the rule of law for asylum seekers.
Unless and until the Dems get serious about gutsy, radical progressive reforms of the Immigration Courts, the downward spiral of American justice will continue! Lives will be lost, and many of those who helped put Dems in power will be pissed off and “de-motivated” going into the midterms. That’s a really bad plan for Dems and for America’s future!
As Dems’ hopes of achieving meaningful Article III judicial reforms predictably are stymied, their inexcusable failure to reform and improve the Immigraton Courts that belong to them becomes a gargantuan, totally unnecessary “missed opportunity!” Talk about “unforced error!” See, e.g., https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/12/28/supreme-court-term-limits/
If Dems suffer an “enthusiasm gap” among their key progressive base going into the key 2022 midterms, they need look no further than Garland’s tone-deaf and inept failure to bring long overdue and readily achievable progressive personnel, procedural, management, and substantive reforms to his dysfunctional Immigration Courts. That — not a false sense of achievement — should have been the “headliner” for Stern and other progressive voices!
“Expedience over excellence, enforcement over equity, gimmicks over innovation is good enough for Government work!” — The “vision” for Garland’s EOIR! But, progressive experts aren’t buying his “tunnel vision.” PHOTO: Thomas Hawk Creative Commons Amateur Night
For “respondents” (non-citizens in removal proceedings) and their lawyers, Individual Hearings in Immigration Court are a big deal. Evidence must be gathered. Affidavits have to be prepared, checked, and re-checked. Witnesses must be identified, convinced to attend the hearing, and prepared for trial. Respondents practice their testimony. In most cases, the noncitizen has been waiting for many months or years for the trial date. The result of the trial determines whether the applicant can remain in the United States or must leave. When a respondent receives asylum, he is permitted to stay in the U.S. If he loses, he may be deported to a country where he faces danger. In many cases, respondents have family members here or overseas who are counting on them, and the outcome of the case affects the family members as well as the respondent. All of this provokes anxiety and anticipation. In short, Individual Hearings are life-changing events that profoundly effect respondents and their families.
So what happens when the Individual Hearing is canceled?
“Sorry boys and girls, the ‘nice’ list is too long. We’ll reschedule Christmas for next year… or maybe the year after that.”
The first thing to know is that cancellations are common. Cases are canceled weeks, days or even minutes before the scheduled time. Indeed, we often cannot be sure that a case will actually go forward until the hearing begins.
Why does this happen?
There are many reasons, some more legitimate than others. The most common reason these days is the pandemic. Sometimes, courts close due to potential exposures. That is understandable, but as far as I can tell, these represent a small minority of Covid cancellations. I have had 50% or more of my Individual Hearings canceled over the last year and a half, and none of those was caused by a Covid exposure. I suspect that the large majority of these cancellations are due to reduced capacity to hear cases–since judges and staff are often working from home. Indeed, most pandemic cancellations seem to occur a week or two before the Individual Hearing. By that time, we’ve already completed and submitted the evidence, witness list, and legal brief, and have usually started prepping the client for trial. The client is also psychologically gearing up for the big event.
And then we check the online system and find that the case is off the docket.
What’s so frustrating about these cancellations is that we’ve been living with the pandemic since early 2020. The Immigration Courts should have adjusted by now. If cases need to be canceled, why not do that several months in advance? At least that way, applicants would not build up hope, only to have that dashed when the case is cancelled at the last minute. Also, it wastes attorney time–since we will have to submit updated country condition evidence (and perhaps other evidence) later, re-prep witnesses, and potentially prepare new legal briefs, if the law changes (which is more common than you’d like to think). For attorneys who charge hourly, this additional work will involve additional costs to the applicants. So all around, last minute cancellations are harmful, and it’s hard to understand why they are still so frequent.
“I’m double booked today, so let’s put off your heart surgery until 2023.”
Besides the pandemic, court cases are cancelled for a host of other reasons: Immigration Judges (“IJs”) are out sick, hearings get bumped to accommodate “priority” cases or sometimes cases are “double booked,” meaning that they are scheduled for the same time slot with the same IJ, and so only one can go forward. To me, all these are weak excuses for canceling individual hearings. Most courts have several judges, and so if one judge is out sick, or if a priority case must be scheduled at the last minute, another judge should be able to help out (in all but the most complicated cases, judges need little time to prepare for a hearing, and so should be able to adjudicate a case on short notice). Also, there is no excuse for double-booking cases. IJs should have a sense of their schedules and simply not overbook. In addition, all courts are overseen by Assistant Chief Immigration Judges (“ACIJs”), who should be available to hear cases if need be. Finally, given the ubiquity of video conferencing equipment and electronic records, judges can adjudicate cases remotely, and so there should almost always be a judge available to fill in where needed.
Of course, there are times when case cancellations are unavoidable, due to inclement weather, for example. But in an ideal world, these should be rare.
“Oy vey! I have to give priority to a better-looking couple. Let’s reschedule this wedding for later. Are you free in 2024?”
If the delay caused by case cancellations was measured in weeks or even months, the problem would not be so severe. But in many cases, hearings are postponed for one or two years–or even longer! This is obviously distressing for the applicant, as the long-anticipated end date is pushed back to who-knows-when. It is particularly devastating for applicants who are separated from family members. The long postponements are also a problem for the case itself, as evidence becomes stale and must be replaced with more up-to-date information, and laws change, which can require a new legal brief. In short, these delays often force the applicant (and the applicant’s lawyer) to do significant extra work on the case, and this can add additional costs in terms of legal fees.
It seems obvious to me that courts do not fully appreciate the damage caused by last minute cancellations. If judges and staff (and management) knew more about the harm these cancellations cause, perhaps they would make a greater effort to ensure that hearings go forward, and that any delayed hearings are rescheduled as quickly as possible.
*************
Readers of “Courtside” are familiar with the “toxic culture” of EOIR — actively encouraged by some Attorneys General, enabled and abetted by others.
The real problem here is that Immigration Courts are “led” by “managers” beholden to political agendas rather than the public they should serve. Also, since far too many EOIR “managers” and Immigration Judges have never represented individuals in Immigration Court, they are basically clueless as to the human and practical effects of their actions on individuals as well as on the dedicated, often pro bono or “low bono” lawyers who must guide their desperate and often re-traumatized clients through this morass.
At a time when the need for pro bono assistance has never been greater, the disgraceful dysfunction, mismanagement, and “studied user unfriendliness” of EOIR under Garland is actually discouraging attorneys from donating their time and endangering their emotional well-being! Could there be any worse public policy?
With so many extraordinarily talented, creative, courageous, independent legal minds out there in the private/NGO/academic sector of human rights/immigration/racial justice/due process this “intentional mediocrity (or worse)” is inexcusable. Yet, this massive failure of the U.S. justice system at the most basic level gets scant attention outside of Courtside, LexisNexis, ImmigrationProf Blog, Jeffrey S. Chase Blog, The Asylumist, and a few other specialized websites.
This “leading disintegrator of American justice and cosmic threat to our entire democracy” is largely “shoved under the carpet” by “mainstream media,” leaders of the legal profession (outside of immigration/human rights), politicians, policy makers, and the general public. Will they only “wake up” when it is too late and their own rights and futures have been diminished, dehumanized, and de-personified as if they were “mere migrants, not humans?”
In other words, who in America will always be immune from the “Dred Scottification of the other” now practiced, tolerated, and often even encouraged at the highest levels of our government? Don’t think it couldn’t happen to you! If immigrants, asylum seekers, and migrants in the U.S. are not “persons” under the Fifth Amendment, what makes YOU think that YOUR “personhood” will be honored by the powers that be!
In defense of today’s IJs, they actually have remarkably little control over their own dockets which are incompetently “micromanaged” from on high or by non-judicial “administrators.” Sound like a formula for an incredible, largely self-created, 1.5 million case backlog?
Cutting to the chase, the Immigration Courts are controlled by the Attorney General, a political official and a chief prosecutor to boot. Beyond that, no Attorney General has actually had to experience practice before the totally dysfunctional and intentionally user unfriendly “courts” he or she runs.
Foreign Service Officers must initially serve as consuls — the basic operating level of an embassy. Hotel managers usually start by working the front desk, where the “rubber meets the road” in the industry.
But, we enthrone those who are supposed to be the best, wisest, and fairest in the legal profession as Attorneys General and Article III Judges without requiring that they have had experience representing individuals at the “retail level” of our legal system — the U.S. Immigration Courts.
It doesn’t make sense! But, what does figure is that a system run by those without expertise and relevant experience, haphazardly “supervised” by Article III Judges who almost invariably exhibit the same blind spots, indifference to injustice, and lack of practical knowledge and expertise as those they are “judicially reviewing” has devolved into the worst court system in America. It’s an oppressive catastrophe where “liberty and justice are not for all” and survival is often more about the mood, mindset, or personal philosophy of the judge, or the “whim of the day” of DOJ politicos, than it is about the facts of the case or the most fair and reasonable applications of the law by experts! Is this really the way we should be determining who lives and who dies, who thrives and who will struggle just to survive?
These “courts” are not fair and impartial courts at all. They are places where service to the public comes last, poor leadership and mismanagement are tolerated and even rewarded, backlogs are out of control, due process, fundamental fairness, scholarship, and best practices scorned, and precious lives and human dignity routinely are ground to dust and scattered to the wind.
We deserve better from our legal system!
Once, there was a court system with a dream of a better future for all in America — a noble, if ambitious, vision, if you will: “through teamwork and innovation, become the world’s best administrative tribunals, guaranteeing fairness and due process for all.”😎
Now, sadly, that enlightened vision has disintegrated into a nightmare of dedicated dockets, biased precedents, endless backlogs, sloppy work, due process denying gimmicks, bogus statistics, mediocre judicial selections, secrecy, customer unfriendliness, dishonest blame shifting, and ridiculous Aimless Docket Reshuffling.☠️
Attorney General Merrick Garland’s “limited vision” for EOIR is a continuing nightmare for those sentenced to appear and practice before his stunningly dysfunctional and “highly user unfriendly” Immigration “Courts.” Isn’t it high time to insist that those given responsibility for stewardship over America’s largest — and probably most consequential — Federal “Court” system actually have represented humans before those “courts?” PHOTO: Thomas Hawk Creative Commons Amateur Night
Where there once was the promise of “light at the end of the tunnel,” now there is only “Darkness on The Edge of Town:”
Well lives on the line where dreams are found and lost
I’ll be there on time and I’ll pay the cost
For wanting things that can only be found
In the darkness on the edge of town
In the darkness on the edge of town
Guest blogger: Kelsea Villanueva, law student, University of San Francisco
Not all judges should be immigration judges. Sometimes being a judge is just not for everyone, period. Bad attitudes and questionable decision making within the immigration courts often cause the most noise because the impact is often more than a rude remark. While I do not believe problematic judges make up the whole picture of immigration courts, just one bad judge can be enough to impact the lives of many, and I only wonder whether it is the system that perpetuates behavior, the history and beliefs of immigration, or both that give rise to bad experiences.
Surprisingly in our own city, San Francisco Judge Nicholas Ford was the subject of a complaint that was sent to the U.S. Justice Department for being hostile and having biased treatment of immigrants in the courtroom. The accusations stated that he belittled migrants’ stories and struggles by making inappropriate comments. One account stated that he said “I can tell an indigent person when I see one, and you can afford an attorney” in response to someone who claimed they could not pay. Many accounts also made it a point to mention that he had previously been criticized for jailing a pregnant woman without bail for a nonviolent crime – this gives an idea of his character in court. When he was first appointed by the Attorney General under the Trump administration, Ford had been a judge in the criminal justice system and apparently had no prior immigration law experience. Other judges that have similar backgrounds can take biases from the criminal justice system and bring them into the immigration law field. There is the risk that the treatment of criminals becomes synonymous with the treatment of immigrants.
Even if judges like Ford represent a minority, the behavior exhibited by him is not unusual in immigration courts. In Jacinto v. INS, 208 F. 3d 725 (9th Cir. 2000), it was difficult for the respondent to even answer basic questions about her family’s struggles; she was constantly faced with interruptions by the immigration judge and a blatant lack of patience. Most people regardless of being an immigrant or not could become overwhelmed during questioning or lack of information about legal procedures. Lacking compassion and basic manners, whenever Jacinto was asked a question regarding why she was seeking asylum, the immigration judge or government attorney would interrupt her midsentence and not allow her to ask any clarifying questions. The transcripts reveal a sense of confusion and urgency, as they treated her as if they were in a rush and like she was wasting their time.
. . . .
*************************
Kelsea Villanueva, a law student, “gets” it! So why don’t Garland and his lieutenants?
Perhaps, because they are too far removed from the human trauma and and the practical problems in the broken and unfair “courts” for which they are responsible! They obviously have become indifferent to the unnecessary human suffering they cause by tolerating this systemic stain on American justice.
It’s not that there aren’t lots of exceptionally well-qualified immigration lawyers, practical scholars, and effective litigators in the Bay Area (and most other areas where Immigration Courts are located) who would make great Immigration Judges. Therefore, it has taken a concerted effort over the past four Administrations, including the Biden Administration, NOT to recruit, attract, and hire the “best andbrightest” for these life or death judicial positions.
One “key to building dysfunction” has been the childish, demeaning, and disrespectful treatment heaped upon the “IJ Corps” by DOJ politicos and EOIR “Management” trying to appease their “handlers.” Attempts to enforce “assembly line justice,” lousy technology, poor training, screwed up and always changing “priorities,” micromanagement by non-judges, and favoring “quick numbers” over thoughtful high quality judicial work product obviously discourages many of the most talented and well-qualified lawyers in the business from even applying.
Some of those who do make the effort are then demoralized and discouraged when clearly inferior candidates, some lacking even basic immigration and asylum knowledge, are hired by a DOJ bureaucratic system that too often seeks and rewards complicity and “following orders” over intellectual excellence, proven immigration and human rights expertise, and the courage to make the right decisions even in the face of political pressure from above to “go along to get along” with each Administration’s enforcement agenda.
Surely, no panel of immigration/human rights experts would have recommended hiring someone like Judge Ford for the job! So, why was he even on the Immigration Bench in the first place?
In every way, Judge Ford was EOIR’s self-created problem! It tied up both private resources and Government investigative resources that could have been better used. It further damaged EOIR’s reputation and ruined human lives. In the end, the “Ford brouhaha” produced no transparent results, thus further eroding public confidence in Government. It prompted neither accountability nor reforms to insure a better judicial selection process!
The best way to limit the administrative nonsense, unnecessary and inappropriate meddling, and time and resources wasted building a needless, ineffective bureaucracy to “monitor performance” and investigate complaints is to hire exceptionally well-qualified judges in the first place — good judges need neither much supervision nor significant monitoring. All they need is support, independence, professional training, continuing judicial education, and some inspirational encouragement from dynamic, well-qualified judicial leadership — things that generally have been in short supply within the EOIR bureaucracy, particularly over the past four years!
Leaders should be sitting judges— not just disconnected bureaucratic “managers” — who continue to handle regular dockets so they have the necessary perspective and first-hand experience to lead this broken system back to functionality. In what other “real” judicial system do the “chief judges and chief justices” largely or completely cease to perform judicial duties?
For example, Chief Justice John Roberts has no shortage of administrative and leadership tasks. Yet, somehow, he finds time to participate in every merits case coming before the Court!
Almost every day, we see Court of Appeals decisions in which the Chief Judge of the Circuit was a panel member, sometimes even writing the opinion. Chief U.S. District Judges hear cases and sometimes author lengthy opinions in notable and controversial cases.
There are few, if any, examples of successful judiciaries in which those in leadership positions isolate and insulate themselves from the judicial tasks of their colleagues! Yet, this has become “standard operating practice” at DOJ/EOIR. This is despite “clear and convincing evidence” that DOJ/EOIR’s bloated “Vatican style” (a/k/a “Legacy INS style”) bureaucracy is incapable of practical problem solving and has presided over the demise of a court system that once aspired to greatness, even if the efforts sometimes fell short!
The taxpayer money wasted on ludicrous “Immigration Judge Dashboards,” unnecessary “supervisors” who almost never go to court, ineffective and inefficient “Dedicated Dockets,” establishing “TV Adjudication Centers” in strange places, and running “kangaroo courts” embedded in the DHS Gulag could be repurposed into funding legal representation programs, a functioning e-filing system, more Judicial Law Clerks, judicial training by experts, and other badly needed and long overdue improvements and reforms. These things would actually help the system achieve justice with efficiency, rather than aggravating existing problems!
EOIR’s “customer service,” transparency, and engagement with the public get consistently low marks from Government watchdogs. I see no improvement under Garland.
Any legitimate system for judicial tenure or retention relies on robust public input and some peer involvement — things that are foreign to the DOJ/EOIR model which, if I do say so myself, bears a disturbing resemblance to the Byzantine bureaucracy of the “Legacy INS” (although the there are only a few us still around who experienced the latter “first hand”).
Ironically, EOIR was originally established as an independent agency within DOJ to “free” it from the “Legacy INS;” over the years it has come more and more to look, feel, and operate like the worst aspects of that long-disbanded agency.
In particular, it has “retaken on” the image of “being just another appendage of immigration enforcement” — a complete abandonment of the original goal of increased judicial independence in both fact and appearance!
Numerous private lawyers have related to me that being in an EOIR “courtroom” is too often “like facing two prosecutors.” Some say that their already traumatized clients are “re-traumatized” by the rude, disrespectful, and inhumane treatment they receive in Immigration Court as they attempt to plead for their lives and their families’ futures! What kind of judiciary “operates” in this manner?
For heaven’s sake, even former AG Alberto “Gonzo I” Gonzalez, hardly a “due process warrior,” spoke out publicly against demeaning treatment of migrants by Immigration Judges! Article III Courts continue to document instances of bias, incompetence, and cavalier treatment of human lives in Garland’s Immigration Courts at both trial and appellate levels. Yet, he says nothing and has taken few actions to solve the myriad of festering problems! We deserve better, much better, from the “people’s top lawyer!”
It’s also worth contemplating why law students understand the systemic problems and potential solutions better than the senior Government lawyers and officials we are employing and paying to mismanage it!
You can read the rest of Kelsea’s excellent piece at the above link!
The Slippery Slope of Systemic Racism in Immigration Law – Del Rio by Carrie Rosenbaum
When Senator Maxine Waters proclaimed that what we witnessed in Del Rio, Texas last week, Customs and Border Protection officers on horseback whipping black men, harkened back to slavery, she drew an age-old, but still relevant connection between slavery, Jim Crow, and anti-immigrant racism. In a press briefing, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas stated, “[w]e know that those images painfully conjured up the worst elements of our nation’s ongoing battle against systemic racism.” Yet, if both are right, where are our equality, anti-racism principles and why haven’t they been enough to dismantle systemic racism? Should U.S. anti-discrimination law inhibit anti-black and anti-immigrant racism, in the U.S. and at the border? Does it? Is there a slippery slope, such that undeterred discrimination against immigrants at the border seeps beyond the immediate individuals at the border?
Senator Waters was right to blur the boundaries of citizenship and rights in her speech. Racism begets racism, and racism towards black Haitians at the border translates to anti-black racism within the United States, just as anti-Mexican racism does not confine itself to noncitizens, and never has. Examples abound including obvious examples, like Latinx lynching of the late 1840s through 1920s (which coincided with lynching of Blacks), mass expulsion or “repatriation” of persons of Mexican descent that included U.S. citizens in the early 1920s and 1930s again via “Operation Wetback” in the 1950s and more subtle ones like exploitation and expropriation of Mexican and Central American farm workers and laborers, whether authorized or not, and colorblind or race neutral policies that fall most heavily, even if not completely, on persons from Mexico and Central America, like border jails.
While the Equal Protection clause of the U.S. constitution does not limit itself to citizens, it falls vastly short in protecting racialized people of color, especially immigrants. The U.S. treatment of Haitians in Del Rio implicates the problem of anti-black and anti-immigrant racism, and is indicative of the express and implicit bias that continues to evade remedy. It runs much deeper than the disturbing images of CBP agents on horseback, and its impacts have ripple effects.
At the same time that DHS Secretary Mayorkas decried systemic racism, he spelled out the government’s potential argument that the exclusion of Haitians, and Central Americans, and Mexicans that accompanies such brutal treatment was not discriminatory pursuant to the current state of immigration equal protection. He stated, “if we are able to expel them under Title 42 … we will do so” and announced that its application was “irrespective of the country of origin, irrespective of the race of the individual, irrespective of other criteria that don’t belong in our adjudicative process and we do not permit in our adjudicative process.”
Yet this is precisely how systemic racism flourishes. The reality is, this provision has been used to exclude the same racialized immigrants who have been subject to the worst treatment under immigration law. However, because the law is colorblind, Mayorkas can suggest that there was no discrimination. Pursuant to the Supreme Court’s 1977 Arlington Heights decision, discriminatory impact has to be accompanied by proof of discriminatory intent. Just by saying that wasn’t his (or implying it was not Congress’) intent, he can erase what too many know to be real. A new immigration priorities memo by the Agency released today stated that ““We must ensure that enforcement actions are not discriminatory and do not lead to inequitable outcomes.” It is a step in the right rhetorical direction, but does little to meaningfully address the colorblind racism that plagues enforcement.
What is the solution? Aside from a more expansive interpretation of the Equal Protection doctrine in line with Justice Sotomayor’s dissent in the Trump era Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals case, and modest progress at the district court level in the crimmigration context, Congress could take steps to stop racial harm inflicted via immigration law and policy. By creating a path to legal status for those who not only have been here, but who have suffered the greatest harms of systemic racism, Haitian immigrants, Mexican immigrants, and others, Congress could start to undo the damage. It could also stop the relatively new practice of detaining or imprisoning migrants at the southern border, who happen to be almost entirely from Mexico and Central America, or abolish immigration prisons entirely. The policies that result in the imprisonment of Mexicans and Central Americans at the southern border now started with expulsion and imprisonment of Haitians in the 1980 and 1990s. Instead of expulsions and rumored potential imprisonment at the notorious Guantanamo Bay as was done in response to Haitians fleeing violence after the U.S. supported overthrow of democratically elected president, Jean-Bertrand Aristide, the U.S. could re-evaluate both its involvement in foreign affairs, and treatment of those who flee here after our interventions cause disruption and civil strife. The largest number of Black migrants come from Haiti and their mistreatment is rooted in anti-Black racism. Racializing anti-immigrant demonization does not confine itself to noncitizens, nor should the remedies. Immigration reform, and a more robust application of the Equal Protection doctrine to all those inside the country, and at our borders, is necessary to move towards meaningfully dismantling systemic racism.
Access my law review articles and scholarship on SSRN
*******************************
Very eloquently said, Carrie!
Compare this with the racist blather and White Nationalist nonsense of nativist pols like Abbott, DeSantis, Cruz, Cotton, and others who glorify Jim Crow and seek to force a sanitized, whitewashed version of American history down the throats of the public!
Also, compare this with the intellectually dishonest actions by Biden Administration officials. They disingenuously claim to be champions of racial equality and racial justice.
But, in reality, they operate “star chamber courts,” “New American Gulags,” and implement discredited, outmoded, and ineffective “Stephen Miller Lite” border enforcement policies that basically dehumanize people of color and deny them the due process and equal protection to which they are entitled under law. Also, think about the many Federal Judges who spinelessly enable that which most first year law students could tell you is illegal and unconstitutional, not to mention totally immoral!
What exactly does Assistant AG for Civil Rights Kristen Clarke do every day at the Civil Rights Division if unraveling the White Nationalist, racially tone deaf policies of her own Department, the DHS, and the “star chambers for people of color” being operated by her “boss” aren’t first and foremost on her “to do” list?
“Floaters” — The ugly reality of Biden’s “Miller Lite border strategy.” It’s mostly people of color floating face-down in the river, being illegally returned to danger zones, rotting in the “New American Gulag,” and being railroaded through Garland’s biased and dysfunctional “star chamber courts.” Right now, Garland and and the rest of of the Biden Administration have “zero (0) credibility” on racial justice and voting rights!
EDS NOTE: GRAPHIC CONTENT – The bodies of Salvadoran migrant Oscar Alberto Mart??nez Ram??rez and his nearly 2-year-old daughter Valeria lie on the bank of the Rio Grande in Matamoros, Mexico, Monday, June 24, 2019, after they drowned trying to cross the river to Brownsville, Texas. Martinez’ wife, Tania told Mexican authorities she watched her husband and child disappear in the strong current. (AP Photo/Julia Le Duc)
The biggest failure of the Biden Administration to date is their willful blindness to the obvious connection between lack of overall racial justice in America and running star chambers, gulags, and border enforcement policies that are unconstitutional, dehumanizing, and racially demeaning to individuals of color. Sadly, and tragically we seem to have gone from “zero tolerance” under Trump to “zero credibility” under Biden! “When will we ever learn, when will we ever learn?”
Democrats suffered a major blow when the Senate Parliamentarian, Elizabeth MacDonough, decided that they could not include immigration provisions in their $3.5 trillion budget reconciliation bill. According to MacDonough, the effect that the immigration provisions would have on the budget would be incidental to their overall policy effect.
The rejected provisions would have provided legalization for undocumented immigrants who were brought here illegally as children, often called “Dreamers;” undocumented immigrants with Temporary Protected Status; and undocumented essential workers. This would have made lawful status available to more than 8 million undocumented immigrants.
Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.) claims that there is another option, which is to narrow the immigration reform provisions such that Democrats can navigate it through the Senate’s Byzantine rules. He thinks this can be done with an update to the registry provision in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).
Registry is a process that permits undocumented immigrants to become lawful permanent residents (green card holders) on the basis of their long-standing presence in the country, regardless of their status or the way they entered the country.
I don’t think updating the registry provision will be acceptable to MacDonough either — It’s just another way to legalize undocumented immigrants.
But it might be possible to move a registry update through the regular legislative process. The registry process has been in place for nearly a century. It reflects our nation’s historical sense of fairness to allow undocumented immigrants who have lived in the country for a very long time an opportunity to obtain legal status, and it hasn’t been updated since 1986.
As Dean Kevin Johnson noted in his ImmigrationProf post, Nolan correctly predicted that the Parliamentarian would reject registry as part of budget reconciliation. But, the possibility for bipartisan legislation doesn’t end there.
Any time we have Nolan and ImmigrationProf Blog resident expert Professor Kit Johnson talking about the same possible solution, folks in Congress on both sides should wake up and take notice! Doesn’t mean they will. But they should think about proposed solutions from thoughtful subject matter experts, who have been involved in the process for years, and who often come at problem-solving from different angles.
Kit Johnson Associate Professor of Law University of Oklahoma Law School
Obviously, THESE are the practical scholar/immigration experts who belong on the BIA:
Kit Johnson Associate Professor of Law University of Oklahoma Law SchoolProfessor Geoffrey Hoffman Immigraton Clinic Director University of Houston Law Center
The Board of Immigration Appeals has issued a decision in Matter of Arambula-Bravo, 28 I&N Dec. 388 (BIA 2021). Here is the summary:
(1) A Notice to Appear that does not specify the time and place of a respondent’s initial removal hearing does not deprive the Immigration Judge of jurisdiction over the respondent’s removal proceedings. Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105 (2018), and Niz-Chavez v. Garland, 141 S. Ct. 1474 (2021), distinguished; Matter of Bermudez-Cota, 27 I&N Dec. 441 (BIA 2018), and Matter of Rosales Vargas and Rosales Rosales, 27 I&N Dec. 745 (BIA 2020), followed.
(2) A Notice to Appear that lacks the time and place of a respondent’s initial removal hearing constitutes a “charging document” as defined in 8 C.F.R. § 1003.13 (2021), and is sufficient to terminate a noncitizen’s grant of parole under 8 C.F.R. § 212.5(e)(2)(i) (2021).
I am hardly the only one to argue that such an NTA should deprive the court of jurisdiction. Immprof Geoffrey Hoffman (Houston), frequent contributor to this blog, submitted an amicus brief to the BIA on this case arguing that an NTA without time or place information is “defective” under Niz-Chavez and cannot be cured by the later issuance of a Notice of Hearing.
Now the waiting game for SCOTUS intervention begins again. I’m hoping for another scathing opinion by Justice Gorsuch. His Niz-Chavez decision was fire.
-KitJ
*******************
INA section 239(a) defines a Notice to Appear, the document used to initiate a removal proceeding in Immigration Court, as including, among other statutory requirements: “G)(i) The time and place at which the proceedings will be held.” Could not be clearer!
The requirements of section 239(a) are hardly onerous. Indeed, several decades ago, the Government had developed an “interactive scheduling system” that allowed DHS to specify the exact time, place, and date of a respondent’s initial Master Calendar hearing in Immigration Court.
However, rather than expanding and improving that system, DHS and EOIR decided to cut corners to accommodate the “uber enforcement” agendas pushed by Administrations of both parties over the past two decades. Their “haste makes waste, good enough for Government work approach” led them to ignore the requirements for a proper NTA and instead issue “piecemeal notices.”
This, of course, increased the unnecessary workload for already-stressed, overwhelmed EOIR Immigration Court clerks, resulted in many more defective notices, more unnecessary bogus “failures to appear,” more improper “in absentia removal orders,” more Motions to Reopen those wrongfully issued orders, and more appeals from improper failures to grant such motions. It also sent more of these preliminary matters into the Circuit Courts for judicial review.
Basically, it’s a microcosm of how an unconstitutional, non-independent “wholly owned court system” “pretzels itself” to accommodate DHS enforcement, misconstrues the law, and attempts to legitimize “worst practices” to please its political overlords, thereby creating endless and largely avoidable case backlogs — now at an astounding 1.4 million cases!
Even worse, when the backlogs finally capture public attention and “hit the fan,” EOIR, DHS, and DOJ disingenuously attempt to shift the blame and the consequences for their failures onto the VICTIMS: respondents and their long-suffering, often pro bono, attorneys! The incompetents at EOIR then cut even more corners and issue more bad precedents misconstruing the law in an attempt to cover up their own wrongdoing and that of their political masters. The latter’s understanding of how to run an efficient, due-process oriented, fair and impartial court system could be put in a thimble with space left over!
The vicious cycle of unfairness, injustice, and incompetence at EOIR continues endlessly, toward oblivion.
As Kit cogently points out, better interpretations, ones that complied with the statute and could be tailored to achieve practical solutions were available and actually submitted to the BIA. The BIA, as usual, brushed them off in favor of trying to please DHS and avoid both the statutory language and the Supremes’ clear direction.
So, something that a properly comprised BIA, composed of true progressive immigration experts and practical scholars, could have solved in a legal and practical manner, will undoubtedly head to the Supremes for a third time. We might not know the result for years, during which the BIA’s bad interpretation will generate additional potential backlog as well as unjust removals.
Inside the Gulag — PHOTO: Creative Commons 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 and other “undesirables” whose “crime” is to demand due process under law! How subversive!
The Supreme Court has decided a number of immigrant detention cases in recent years. Next Term brings another case. Alyssa Aquino for Law360 reports that the Court agreed today to review a Ninth Circuit decision that required bond hearings for immigrants who have been detained for more than six months with final removal orders. A split ruled that the Immigration and Nationality Act requires the federal government to hold bond hearings for detained migrants, and that the government bears the burden of proving that detainees are a flight risk or public safety threat.
Notice any difference between the Biden-Harris campaign rhetoric and actual performance once elected?
Never know when a “due process free zone” where individuals not charged with crimes can be detained forever without individualized bond determinations will be a handy hammer to have in your toolbox!
And, don’t forget those huge profits being raked in by the private detention industry, so beloved by DHS and politicos who receive contributions and can tout the “job creation” in the Gulag! Also, states and localities who rent out substandard prison space on questionable contracts love the Gulag!
Significantly, none of the lower court decisions the Biden Administration seeks to overturn requires the release of anyone! Nope! All the lower courts have done is to give the “civil prisoners” a right to plead their cases for release and to require the Government to provide an individualized rationale for continued indefinite detention! Sure sounds like simple due process to me!
Maybe, if Garland, Mayorkas, and the Supremes had a chance to spend a few “overnights in the Gulag” they would take the Fifth Amendment’s application to people of color in our nation and pleading for their lives at our borders more seriously!
🇺🇸Due Process Forever! The “New American Gulag,” Never!
Immigration Law Professor Named Senior Counselor on Immigration Policy in Biden’s Justice Department
Monday, August 2, 2021
By Immigration Prof
Good immigration news from Washington D.C.!Immigration law professor Lucas Guttentag has been named senior counselor on immigration policy and report to the Department of Justice’s Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco. Guttantag served in the Obama administration as a senior adviser on immigration policy, including as senior counselor to the secretary of Homeland Security.Anita Kumar for Politico states that “Guttentag will not only help dismantle Trump-era policies but will coordinate Biden policy among various agencies and departments.”
Kumar writes that “[p]rior to entering the administration, Guttentag served as law professor at Stanford Law School and lecturer at Yale Law School. He launched the Immigration Policy Tracking Project in 2017 to develop and maintain a complete record of Trump administration immigration actions.
In total, Trump made more than 400 alterations to immigration policy during his time in office, according to the Migration Policy Institute, a think tank with staffers across the political spectrum that provides data and analysis on immigration policy. The Immigration Policy Tracking Project put that number closer to 1,000.”
If you are an immigrant requesting asylum or fighting deportation before the federal immigration court in San Francisco, it’s likely to take nearly three years for your case to be resolved — the average processing time, as of June, was 1,057 days.
That’s because the San Francisco court’s 26 judges are working their way through close to 76,000 cases — the third highest number of pending cases in the country, after New York and Miami. Nationwide, the backlog has grown to an unprecedented 1.3 million cases, more than twice what it was when President Donald Trump took office.
What’s at stake, says Doris Meissner, a senior fellow at the Migration Policy Institute in Washington DC, is the credibility of the entire immigration system — both for the individuals whose futures are on the line, and for broader public confidence.
. . . .
The epic case backlog results from a convergence of factors.
Immigration enforcement, which had increased under President Barack Obama, ballooned during the presidency of Donald Trump. Trump ended Obama-era prosecution priorities that focused on immigrants with serious criminal histories, and instead pursued deportation of any undocumented immigrant. As of last December, more than 98% of the cases in immigration court were for people whose only charge was an immigration violation, according to an analysis by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse at Syracuse University.
Also in the past several years, a much larger share of the migrants arriving at the U.S.-Mexico border are people requesting asylum, rather than trying to evade border authorities to come work or join family in the U.S. And if migrants can establish a “credible fear” of persecution in a screening interview with an asylum officer, they can’t be quickly removed from the country. Instead, their cases go straight into the immigration court system.
But that court system is chronically underfunded, with not enough judges or support staff, according to a 2019 report by the American Bar Association. While the Trump administration hired more judges and imposed a case completion quota on judges meant to speed up their work, neither made a dent in the backlog. Meanwhile the ABA report found that hiring practices became politicized and the administration’s policies threatened due process.
On top of all of that came the COVID-19 pandemic, which led to months of closed courts, suspended hearings and delayed processing.
While many state and federal courts moved quickly to conduct hearings over video conference calls, the Executive Office of Immigration Review, as the immigration court system is known, was behind the curve, according to longtime San Francisco immigration judge, Dana Leigh Marks, who is the executive vice president of the National Association of Immigration Judges.
“What the pandemic and quarantine restrictions revealed is just how abysmally prepared EOIR has been from the technology aspect,” said Marks, speaking in her role with the NAIJ, the judge’s union. “And we do not have universal electronic filing… so there’s roughly a million cases or more that are still paper-based. And that really makes hearings from a judge’s home much more problematic.”
. . . .
Advocates for asylum seekers are also looking forward to seeing new regulations from the Biden administration in another area: establishing clear eligibility standards for asylum so as to prevent future instances where an attorney general can override decades of case law, as Sessions did in the case of a Salvadoran woman fleeing domestic violence, known as the Matter of A-B-.
Karen Musalo, director of the Center on Gender and Refugee Studies at UC Hastings in San Francisco, said she was relieved when Garland reversed that ruling in June, but she called that just a first step in restoring fairness to the asylum system.
“What is much more important is asylum regulations that specifically look at aligning U.S. law with international norms,” she said. “We need to get the law back on track.”
‘What is much more important is asylum regulations that specifically look at aligning U.S. law with international norms. We need to get the law back on track.’Karen Musalo, Center on Gender and Refugee Studies at UC Hastings
That regulation is being drafted jointly by the departments of Justice and Homeland Security and is expected by late October, she said.
Musalo also called on the Biden administration to improve training and oversight for immigration judges, who are appointed to the bench by the U.S. attorney general. The fact that asylum grant rates vary wildly between judges suggests that rulings can be influenced by political leanings more than an impartial application of the law, she said.
“You could have very good rules and laws, but if you don’t have fair, unbiased, competent, professional individuals applying the rules in the law, you don’t solve the problems,” she said. “How can you have a fair game when the referee is unfair?”
. . . .
Legal organizations including the American Bar Association, the American Immigration Lawyers Association and NAIJ, the judges’ union, have long called on Congress to overhaul the immigration courts by taking them out of the Department of Justice altogether. And this summer there’s a move to do just that.
Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-San Jose, the chair of the House immigration subcommittee, will soon introduce a bill to make the immigration court system a so-called Article I court, akin to federal tax court or bankruptcy court. Staff involved in drafting the bill say the new system would better protect due process of law and would be shielded from political pressure from presidents, be they Democratic or Republican.
Some observers, including Meissner and Musalo, say such a change is needed but they aren’t convinced the bill could win enough support to pass.
But Marks, the immigration judge, says the current dysfunction shows how badly the immigration courts are compromised and how urgently they need independence from the Department of Justice.
“It’s an uncomfortable and inappropriate placement for a neutral court system. And that’s the inherent structural flaw that we need Congress to fix,” she said. “I really feel like it is an idea whose time has come… now.”
*********************
You can read Tyche’s complete article at the link.
With deep experience in advocacy, Government, academics, senior management, and scholarship, Lucas is definitely the person for this job! A proven problem solver, to be sure! Many congrats, Lucas! Your appointment is like a breath of fresh air at what has been a mostly “stale show” at Justice so far!
Professor Karen Musalo Director, Center for Gender & Refugee Studies, Hastings Law
Nevertheless, as ProfessorKaren Musalo cogently points out, without better judges and leaders at EOIR — high caliber, proven progressive experts “in theGuttentag-Musalo mold,” — any favorable regulatory or even legislative changes willlikely founder. As currently staffed and led, EOIR simply lacks the expertise, independence, moral/intellectual leadership, courage, and “judicial firepower” to achieve a progressive, practical, due-process-compliant immigration and human rights system. Due process, fundamental fairness, and a correct application of U.S. asylum law — one that honors Cardoza-Fonseca and Mogharrabi — can only be realized by replacing “Club Denial @ EOIR” — actively encouraged and promoted by Sessions and Barr, with competent, expert, progressive judges committed to fair and humane treatment of asylum seekers and other migrants under law.
Simply adding more judges to an incredibly broken system, without correcting the legal, personnel, and judicial administration issues that led to this massive (largely self-created) dysfunction will not solve the problem! Lucas knows this as well as anyone! So does Judge Dana Marks, who actually litigated and won the landmark “well-founded fear” case INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca before the Supremes!
Hon. Dana Leigh Marks U.S. Immigration Judge San Francisco Immigration Court Past President, National Association of Immigration Judges
But even with experts like Lucas at DOJ, Ur Jaddou, John Trasvina, and Judge Ashley Tabaddor in place at DHS, it’s going to take a huge additional infusion of progressive expertise at EOIR, DHS, HHS, and throughout Government to get immigration and refugee policy under control.
GOP Administrations have proved willing to make the bold, often-criticized personnel and policy moves necessary to carry out a nativist, restrictionist, anti-immigrant agenda. Their “response” to criticism has basically been: “We’re in power, you’re not! So, go pound sand!”
Will the Biden Administration “break the Dem mold” and be bold and visionary enough to make the available, necessary, yet potentially controversial, moves to restore and improve due process and efficiency to the Government immigration bureaucracy? Will Lucas finally be able to get Team Garland to see and realize the cosmic importance of developing a progressive Immigration Judiciary: One that will eventually provide the “Article III ready” judicial candidates who will bring balance and quality to the Article III system perverted by four years of Trump-McConnell extremest right-wing, ideological, far out of the mainstream, judicial picks? Contrary to the timid, ineffective, ultimately destructive Obama Administration approach, EOIR is “a boat that needs to be rocked” — big time!
It’s an ambitious task to be sure. But, those with the vision and courage to accomplish it might well go down in history as the saviors ofAmerican democracy. It’s that important!
“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.
Immprof Rose Cuison-Villazor (Rutgers) has just been named co-dean of Rutgers Law School. As the announcement below notes, she’s the school’s first Asian-American woman co-dean and the very first Filipina American law dean in the United States.
Rose is well known in the immprof community. Schools that have been lucky enough to have had the benefit of her teaching include Southern Methodist University Dedman School of Law, Hofstra University School of Law, University of California at Davis School of Law, Columbia Law School, and Rutgers Law School. We here at the ImmigrationProf Blog are also pleased to brag that Rose is one of our former editors.
Congratulations, Rose! We’re so excited for you!
Rutgers Law
@RutgersLaw
Congratulations to Rose Cuison-Villazor, who becomes the first Asian-American woman Co-Dean at @RutgersLaw in Newark and the first Filipina American law dean in the U.S., as @PDavidLopez announces his departure June 30. We are grateful for his leadership and outstanding work.
Congrats again Rose, good luck in your new position, and thanks for being such a great role model and an inspirational “practical scholar/warrior queen” of the NDPA!
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!
“Jim Crow” is still alive and well @ EOIR. To date, Judge Garland & his team seem to think that the rest of us won’t notice what’s happening in “his” Immigration Courts and how it undermines every aspect of his claim to be restoring faith in the DOJ and the American justice system. A progressively-oriented, independent, expert Immigration Judiciary is a prerequisite for finally achieving racial justice in 21st Century America. So far, Judge Garland has NOT enunciated any plan to “get there,” nor has he even publicly acknowledged the many disgraceful problems plaguing EOIR!
This article will contribute to immigration equal protection jurisprudential discussions by highlighting the way in which the plenary power in immigration equal protection cases creates a barrier parallel to the intent doctrine—both prohibit curtailment of government action resulting in racialized harm. The scant recognition of the double duty done by plenary power and the intent doctrine reflects the banality of what may appear as a mere redundancy at first glance. However, the insidiousness of the double-barrier all but ensures that equal protection challenges to facially race-neutral immigration laws with disparate impact will fail. Plenary power is effectively duplicative of the intent doctrine because the intent doctrine already results in great deference to lawmakers.
. . . .
*****************
Read the full abstract at the link.
Unquestionably, immigration jurisprudence has intentionally misread the due process and equal protection clauses to achieve racist immigration policies. Getting rid of these perversions — analogous to the legal and judicial gobbledegook used by White men to make the 14th and 15th Amendments (and to a large extent, the 13th Amendment) “dead letters” for African Americans following Reconstruction — isn’t a matter of complicated legal thinking. It’s a matter of better Federal Judges and better legislators. And, the mess @EOIR — our Immigration “Courts” — is the best and most logical place to begin the long overdue task of instituting constitutional compliance and equal justice for all.
To date, Judge Garland’s failure to demonstrate a commitment to eliminating unconstitutional racism and misogyny (not to mention poor quality decision-making which also disproportionately affects individuals and communities of color) in his Immigration “Courts” threatens to destroy our legal system and “kneecap” American democracy.
We are in the perilous position we are today because past Administrations, to the extent they have even tried to address systemic racism (obviously, the Trump Administration sought the exact opposite —to deepen, protect, and promote racism and hate), have intentionally or negligently ignored the clear link between immigration law and racism in the rest of our legal system.
