🏴‍☠️👎🏻MORE INFO ON AG’s “STEALTH IJs” — Some Will Be “Union-Busting Unit Chief IJs,” Others Will Staff “Video Star Chambers,” As Garland Quickly Sinks To “New Low” In Relationship With EOIR “Stakeholders!”

An anonymous source writes to Courtside:

but yesterday the Director’s message indicated that the 17 new judges were – In April, we welcomed 17 new Immigration Judges (IJs), including one Assistant Chief Immigration Judge, six Unit Chief Immigration Judges, and ten IJs. They will serve in the following locations: Adelanto, Atlanta, Chicago, Houston, New York, Portland, and Richmond

A thought to share – I suppose one who is familiar with the above courts could check out each court website listing the judges snd see who is new. Then some web searching can get backgrounds. Takes time, yes, but perhaps more fruitful than waiting for EOIR to respond.

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

So, EOIR “welcomed” new IJs in April without bothering to introduce them to the community whose lives and professional futures will be in their hands. This is how Garland intends to “do business” with those in the advocacy community who helped put him in his job! Nice touch, Judge G!

Heck, even Sessions & Barr were willing to announce publicly the names and backgrounds of those with whom the were “packing” their Immigration Courts. They actually were quite proud of their anti-due-process, anti-progressive, non-expert picks that they could “shove down the throats” of the advocacy community (“dirty lawyers” as Gonzo Sessions called them) and their clients — the “other” in our society, not worthy of the legal and human rights conferred on “real persons.”

But, Team Garland is neither as honest nor as forthcoming. “Get it though the rumor mill” or find out the day of your “star chamber proceeding” is apparently the new attitude of contempt at DOJ/EOIR for the NDPA!

Obviously, expansion and staffing of the “Richmond VTC” — a “kangaroo court” arrangement opposed and panned by most immigration and human rights experts is a slap in the face to ethnic communities and activists who helped put Biden and Harris (and indirectly Garland, Monaco, and Gupta) in office.

Fortunately, the NDPA knows a thing or two about how to “speak through litigation and political agitation” if that’s the game the Biden Administration wants to play. It’s now becoming clear that any positive changes and due process in the Immigration Courts over the next four years will come from outside the Administration.

So be it! It might not bode so well, though, for the Biden Administration when they come around seeking support from the immigration/human rights/civil rights communities for the next election!

The GOP treats the immigration advocacy community with consistent contempt. With Dems, the contempt is also pretty consistent — but with an exception every fourth year during Presidential campaigns.

🇺🇸⚖️🗽Due Process Forever!

PWS

05-05-21

🤮👎🏻SHOCKING BETRAYAL@ “JUSTICE” — GARLAND DISSES PROGRESSIVE EXPERTS WITH SECRET APPOINTMENTS OF 17 UNQUALIFIED IMMIGRATION JUDGES! — New AG’s Open Contempt For Racial Justice, Due Process, Human Rights Enrages Advocacy Community Who Believed & Supported Biden-Harris Campaign Pitch! — THE REINCARNATION OF “DEEP THROAT” @ EOIR “BLOWS WHISTLE” ON NEW AG’S ATROCIOUS FAILURE TO TAKE SERIOUSLY MOCKING OF DUE PROCESS, INSTITUTIONALIZED RACISM, MISOGYNY, LACK OF SCHOLARSHIP, AVERSION TO PRACTICAL PROBLEM SOLVING IN AMERICA’S DEADLY, DYSFUNCTIONAL STAR CHAMBERS!⚰️☠️🏴‍☠️

Deep Throat — Reincarnated @ EOIR? — Creative Commons License

Courtside Exclusive

By Paul Wickham Schmidt

May 4, 2021

Recently, some of America’s top legal minds were “wordsmithing” their “practical scholarly” advice on what actions Judge Garland should take to begin straightening out his EOIR mess. Common sense steps to slash the largely self-created Immigration Court backlog of an astounding 1.3 million cases actually could and should have been taken within hours of Garland’s swearing in as Attorney General. But, unknown to these experts, the battle they steadfastly had been fighting for the past four years in behalf of due process, common sense, and humanity in a broken system already was lost.

Basically, Garland and his team had secretly delivered the “big middle finger” to progressives earnestly seeking to assist and guide them in the right direction on long overdue reforms at Garland’s incredibly backlogged, totally dysfunctional, anti-due-process, Immigration “Courts” that don’t fit any known American definition of “court.” For while the wheels of scholarly, problem-solving brainpower were grinding away, Garland had cavalierly and clandestinely handed out 17 of the most important (and certainly most readily available to progressive judicial candidates) Federal Judicial positions to unqualified insiders and prosecutors basically “in the Stephen Miller White Nationalist pipeline.” Adding insult to injury, Garland and his lieutenants covered up their disgraceful actions. But, thanks to a reincarnated “Deep Throat” @ EOIR (see, Watergate for newer generations), we now know the truth.

According to “Deep Throat 2021,” (“DT-21”) it’s worse than I previously thought about Immigration Judge appointments. (And, I thought it was bad.) Garland actually secretly appointed 17 new IJs in April, but EOIR hasn’t released the names publicly because they (rightly) fear “the blowback” from Dems and progressives.

So, who is Team Garland” trying to please? “Gauleiter” Stephen Miller? “Billy the Bigot” Barr? Gene Hamilton? Donald Trump? Jeff “Gonzo Apocalypto” Sessions? Chad “Wolfman” Wolf? Ken “Cooch Cooch” Cuccinelli? “Teddy the Traitor” Cruz? Tom “Blacks & Hispanics Should be Pickin’” Cotton?

The 17 include some for the VTC black box “court” in Richmond. The only one that went public was a story a judge himself placed. That’s apparently the one that Dan Kowalski and I picked up. According to sources, none of Garland’s new judges are good for due process or for progressive, expert, independent judging.

Also, there’s a rumor that the open BIA position is going to go to an “EOIR insider,” not someone from the outside who could help restore due process and fundamental fairness.

Let’s see, so far the Biden Administration has had exactly zero progressive Federal Judges confirmed by the Senate. Meanwhile, over at DOJ, Garland has handed out these 17 powerful judgeships with life or death authority serving on the front lines of racial justice in America to non-progressives apparently recommended and tapped by his restrictionist predecessor.

Make sense? Only if you’ve watched past Dem Administrations’ inept handling of the Immigration Courts.

In positive news, there’s “internal chatter” that EOIR Deputy Director Carl C. Risch, a political hack “burrower” from the Trump Administration, is leaving EOIR.

But, “DT-21” is still gravely concerned that “Millerite” BIA Chair David Wetmore (Maury Roberts must be turning over in his grave) has yet to be removed with his “probationary period” set to expire at the end of this month. What, exactly, have been Wetmore’s contributions to human rights scholarship, “applied due process,” fundamental fairness, racial justice, and fair treatment of female asylum seekers that justify his continued tenure as essentially the “Chief Justice of Immigration?”

Garland’s malfeasance at EOIR is not just disappointing, but totally outrageous! On Tuesday, he disingenuously asked the House for more money to promote civil rights while running Star Chambers of institutionalized racism that are undermining the American justice system at the critical “retail level.”

Star Chamber Justice — “Civil Rights” in Garland’s Star Chambers have a peculiar meaning! — Creative Commons License

Those advocates who almost single handedly kept the American justice system afloat by successfully challenging many of the unconstitutional racist actions of the Trump immigration kakistocracy once again find themselves “on the outside looking in.” Meanwhile, Judge Garland, who was hiding out above the fray @ the DC Circuit, treats them as “chopped liver” while continuing White Nationalist, anti-due-process policies and precedents initiated by Trump and his cronies.

How out of touch is Garland’s proposal to the House yesterday to address the Immigration Court backlog by casting 100 new Immigration Judges into this mess? (Presumably, these positions will be handed out “like candy” to more non-expert, non-diverse, non-due-process oriented insiders and former government prosecutors.) Well, even with many more Immigration Judges on the bench (more than twice as many as at the end of the Obama Administration), it’s been about two decades since EOIR has decided more cases than it has docketed! That’s how “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” by DOJ politicos and EOIR bureaucrats builds uncontrollable backlogs!

Assume the highly unlikely, that under Garland, without any more quotas, corner cutting, or other anti-due-process gimmicks, the existing nearly 600 judges could keep “even” with new filings. Then, once selected, trained, and on duty (a process that took the Obama Administration an astounding average of two years), “Garland’s 100 new judges” could devote themselves to “backlog reduction.” At the DOJ’s quota of 700 cases per judge, the new judges could decide 70,000 cases per year. At that rate, it would take them approximately two decades (or five 4-year Administrations) to “wipe out” the backlog.

Sound like a plan? Only if you don’t understand the fundamental, endemic problems plaguing EOIR and have no “real life experience” representing individuals whose hopes, lives, and futures are being ground to dust by EOIR malfeasance on a daily basis!

Folks, this has to stop! Keep pressing those constitutional arguments that eventually will bring Garland’s corrupt, dysfunctional system to a screeching halt. And keep pushing for legislation to take this ungodly mess out of the DOJ. Also, keep reminding President Biden who helped get out the vote and get him his job. And, where is our African/Asian American/daughter of immigrants Vice President while this outrage at “Justice” is playing out?

How do supposedly progressive women legal luminaries like Lisa Monaco and Vanita Gupta justify their role in Garland’s misogynist, due process farce @ EOIR?

Woman Tortured — “She struggled madly in the torturing Ray” — Lisa Monaco & Vanita Gupta have wandered into a strange vision of “justice” for refugee women of color @ “Justice!”
Amazing StoriesArtist Unknown, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

As for “DT-21,” he/she/them remains as enigmatic, unverifiable, unabashed, and unafraid as ever! This is a 21st Century “patriot” tired of the abuse of due process, racism, incompetence, and misogyny that EOIR has fostered over Administrations of both parties. EOIR under Garland is a progressive’s continuing nightmare!

Does “DT-21” lurk in the shadows of a parking garage, beyond the view of security cameras, as did the famous 1970’s namesake? Or, at the outskirts of an interstate rest area? Perhaps in a dark unwatched corner of an overcrowded Zoom chat room?

And, while you’re at it, say a prayer for Linda Lovelace (1949-2002), the original “Deep Throat” (1972), who later said she was an abused spouse coerced into a career as an adult actress that she eventually rejected. Somehow, there is a tie-in between Lovelace’s exploitation in the 1970s and the systemic mistreatment of asylum seeking domestic violence victims that went into high gear during the Trump regime and continues unabated under Garland! Interestingly, before her untimely death in 2002, Lovelace became an anti-porn activist who testified before the Attorney General’s Commission on Pornography (a/k/a “The Meese Commission”) in 1986.

Stay tuned for more “truth from the Tower.” You certainly won’t get it from “Team Garland.”

Due Process Forever!

PWS

05-04-21

🆘NOT ROCKET 🚀 SCIENCE — EXCEPT WHEN DEMS RUN THE DOJ! — Group Of America’s Leading Legal Experts — “Practical Scholars” — Ask Judge Garland To Immediately Slash Backlogs To Align His Now Dysfunctional, Unjust Immigration Courts With Administration’s Stated Priorities — This Should Have Been “Day 1 Stuff” For Judge G, Who Inexplicably Has Stephen Miller “Plants” and Holdovers In Key Positions In Huge, Broken, “Life Or Death” Federal Court System That Controls The Future Of American Democracy!

Here’s the letter to Judge Garland:

April 30, 2021
The Honorable Merrick B. Garland Attorney General of the United States U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530-0001

RE: U.S. Department of Justice Authority to Remove Non-Priority Cases from the Active Docket of the Nation’s Immigration Courts

To Attorney General Garland:

As immigration law teachers and scholars, we write to express our opinion on the scope of executive branch legal authority for the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) to utilize well-established administrative tools to address the historic backlog of cases pending in immigration courts. Each case in the backlog involves an immigrant, many waiting for years to have a “day in court” to defend against charges of removability or to have an application for relief adjudicated. The Attorney General, through EOIR, has the authority to address the immigration court backlog by rapidly and systemically removing nonpriority cases from the active docket.1

For years, the immigration court docket remained relatively steady, hovering between 100,000 and 200,000 cases.2 During the Obama administration, however, the system began to accumulate a substantial backlog, eventually rising to over 500,000 cases.3 These numbers continued to spike during the Trump administration. Currently, the immigration court backlog sits at 1.3 million cases,4 which Lisa Monaco, President Biden’s nominee for Deputy Attorney General, has acknowledged is a “direct impediment to a fair and effective system.”5 Addressing the immigration court backlog is critical to restoring the integrity of the immigration court system.

As a consequence of the immigration court backlog, the average wait time for respondents’ next immigration court hearing, measured from the time a case entered the immigration court docket, is now over 1,600 days.6 Less than 50% of all cases now pending in the immigration backlog are even set for an individual merits hearing, which means many cases will require subsequent hearings, resulting in additional delay.7 This backlog impedes the proper functioning of the immigration court system and its ability to dispense justice. It also undermines core administrative law values that include but are not limited to consistency, efficiency, public acceptability, and transparency.

The immigration backlog also impacts immigration judges, who face crushing caseloads, now approaching 3,000 cases per judge.8 Such caseloads undermine the ability of immigration judges to reliably and competently complete the complex legal analysis and careful credibility and discretionary determinations that removal cases demand.9 The backlog also harms immigrants, who face years of legal limbo while their cases are pending. This legal limbo can be destabilizing to families and communities and delay immigrants’ access to the legal status many are ultimately granted.
AILA Doc. No. 21050334. (Posted 5/3/21)

The Attorney General has the legal authority to create a more functional and fair immigration court system, using existing tools of discretion and deferred adjudication. Specifically, the EOIR has the authority under regulations to identify and defer the adjudication of nonpriority cases. The EOIR Director has clear authority to defer adjudication of cases pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1003.0(b)(1)(ii). Specifically, the Director has the “power, in his discretion, to set priorities or time frames for the resolution of cases [and] to direct that the adjudication of certain cases be deferred…”10 Further, the Director has the authority to “issue operational instructions on policy” pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1003.0(b)(1). The Attorney General also has broad discretionary authority pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1103(g) to “issue such instructions, . . . delegate such authority, and perform such other acts as the Attorney General determines to be necessary” for the administration of the nation’s immigration courts.11

The use of deferral authority is not merely theoretical. Systemwide deferrals have recently been implemented by EOIR leadership through policy memorandum.12 Deferral acts as a pause in adjudication, akin to the historic use of the status docket, as opposed to a final resolution.13 Indeed, the deferral mechanism can be used as an alternative to the status docket, grounded more firmly in the regulatory scheme, or in tandem, such that deferred cases are placed on the status docket to free up capacity for priority cases. At a future point in time, deferred cases could be recalendared when a determination is made as to the appropriate path to final resolution.14 Based on current agency authority, termination, generally requires a legal deficiency;15 dismissal, generally requires a motion from DHS;16 and administrative closure, is severely constrained.17 However, deferral power remains available as a mechanism that EOIR leadership can independently and immediately deploy at its discretion. Removing nonpriority cases from the immigration courts’ active docket will substantially improve the functioning of the courts and shrink the proverbial haystack, thereby allowing immigration judges to fairly and expeditiously adjudicate priority cases.

Less than one percent of the cases in the EOIR backlog satisfy the Biden administration’s current enforcement priorities.18 Accordingly, consistent with the administration’s own priorities, EOIR could exercise its discretion to defer nonpriority immigration cases. As a first step, EOIR could establish categories of nonpriority cases that can be identified and deferred at a headquarters level without the need for a case-by-case file review.19 This is the path recently recommended by a group of United States Senators and over 150 leading immigration, civil rights, and human rights organizations.20 These Senators and organizations have proposed specific categories of such nonpriority cases that could be systematically identified through existing EOIR data, including: cases that have been pending for more than five years and cases that involve respondents who have potential affirmative pathways to status, such as applications for adjustment of status or new asylum claims, that could be adjudicated by the USCIS.21 These are non-exhaustive examples of the types of nonpriority cases that could be systematically identified and deferred. EOIR should explore these and other similarly identifiable nonpriority categories.

This letter outlines the legal foundation and method by which the Attorney General can restore the fairness and integrity of the nation’s immigration courts. The legal authority, under the existing statutory and regulatory framework, to remove nonpriority cases from the active docket of the immigration courts is clear. Thank you for your attention. For any follow up inquiries, please contact Professor Peter L. Markowitz at peter.marowitz@yu.edu or at 646-592-6537. _____________________________________________________________________________
2
AILA Doc. No. 21050334. (Posted 5/3/21)

1 While this letter focuses on EOIR’s authority to manage the court docket, we do not mean to suggest that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) does not play an important corresponding role in establishing enforcement policies and priorities for the initiation and resolution of proceedings. In fact, DHS has exclusive authority to decide whether to institute proceedings, see Matter of W-Y-U-, 27 I. & N. Dec. 17, 19 (BIA 2017) and, as noted infra note 21, DHS’s discretion to dismiss removal proceedings could also play a critical role in permanently removing nonpriority cases from the immigration court docket.
2 TRAC Immigration, Backlog of Pending Cases in Immigration Courts (data through Feb. 2021), https://trac.syr.edu/phptools/immigration/court_backlog/apprep_backlog.php.
3 Id.
4 Id.
5 The Nomination of the Honorable Lisa Oudens Monaco to be Deputy Attorney General Before the S. Comm. on the Judiciary, 117th Cong. (2021) (statement of Hon. Lisa Oudens Monaco).
6 TRAC Immigration, The State of the Immigration Courts: Trump Leaves Biden 1.3 Million Case Backlog in Immigration Courts (data through Feb. 2021) [hereinafter “TRAC, The State of the Immigration Courts”], https://trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/637/#f1.9.
7 Id.
8 According to EOIR, there are approximately 466 immigration judges nationwide sharing the 1.3 million cases. EOIR, Adjudication Statistics, Immigration Judge (IJ) Hiring (Jan. 2020), https://www.justice.gov/eoir/page/file/1104846/download. However, an unknown number of these judges serve in an administrative capacity and thus do not carry a docket of their own. TRAC Immigration, Crushing Immigration Judge Caseloads and Lengthening Hearing Wait Times (data through Oct. 25, 2019), https://trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/579/. The crushing caseloads are driving many experienced immigration judges to leave EOIR, further exacerbating the backlog. Amulya Shankar, Why US Immigration Judges Are Leaving the Bench In Record Numbers, THE WORLD (July 20, 2020), https://www.pri.org/stories/2020-07-20/why-us- immigration-judges-are-leaving-bench-record-numbers (interview with former Immigration Judge Ashley Tabaddor, then president of the National Association of Immigration Judges).
9 See Quinteros v. Att’y Gen. of United States, 945 F.3d 772, 794 (3d Cir. 2019) (McKee, J. concurring) (acknowledging the “incredible caseload foisted upon [immigration courts]” and how immigration judges being “horrendously overworked” contributes to the denial of fair and impartial hearings); Chavarria-Reyes v. Lynch, 845 F.3d 275, 280 (7th Cir. 2016) (J., Posner dissenting) (noting how “crushing workloads” cause immigration judges to routinely “botch” cases); United States Government Accountability Office, Immigration Courts: Actions Needed to Reduce Case Backlog and Address Long-Standing Management and Operational Challenges 30-1 (June 2017), https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-17-438.pdf (reporting that increased caseloads have prevented immigration judges from “conduct[ing] administrative tasks, such as case-related legal research or staying updated on changes to immigration law”); see also Julia Preston, Deluged Immigration Courts, Where Cases Stall for Years, Begin to Buckle, N.Y. TIMES (Dec. 1, 2016), www.nytimes.com/2016/12/01/us/deluged-immigration-courts-where-cases- stall-for-years-begin-to-buckle.html?_r=0.
10 8 C.F.R. § 1003.0(b)(1)(ii). This management authority can also be exercised by the Chairman of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) and the Chief Immigration Judge. 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.1(a)(2)(i)(C), 1003.9(b)(3) (identifying the similar subordinate authority of the Chairman of the BIA and the Chief Immigration Judge).
11 See also, 8 U.S.C. § 1103(a)(1) (reserving to the Attorney General certain powers related to the “administration and enforcement of . . . laws relating to the immigration and naturalization of aliens”); 6 U.S.C. § 521(“[T]he Executive Office for Immigration Review . . . shall be subject to the direction and regulation of the Attorney General”).
12 See e.g., EOIR, Policy Memorandum: Immigration Court Practices During The Declared National Emergency Concerning the COVID-19 Outbreak, PM 20-10, fn.2 (Mar. 18, 2020), available at https://www.justice.gov/eoir/file/1259226/download (deferring all non-detained cases at the outset of the pandemic for a limited period of time); EOIR, Notice: Executive Office for Immigration Review Operation During Lapse in Government Funding (Oct. 1, 2013), available at https://www.justice.gov/eoir/legacy/2013/10/24/Shutdown09302013.pdf (deferring all non-detained cases during government shutdown).
13 See Memorandum from EOIR Director James R. McHenry III, EOIR Policy for Use of Status Dockets in Immigration Court Proceedings (Aug. 16, 2019), https://www.justice.gov/eoir/page/file/1196336/download (explaining how “[v]arious types of status dockets under different labels have existed at individual immigration
3
AILA Doc. No. 21050334. (Posted 5/3/21)

courts for many years”). While the McHenry Memorandum established historically narrow criteria for use of the status docket, the parameters for such use have been subject to change as a matter of administration policy. Id.
14 Such eventual pathways may include later individualized determinations to administratively close or dismiss cases or to return them to the active docket, once capacity exists, for full adjudication. Notably, while individuals await final resolution, a deferral order, like administrative closure, would neither confer nor disturb respondents’ entitlement to work authorization.
15 Matter of S-O-G- & F-D-B-, 27 I&N Dec. 462, 465-67 (A.G. 2018). But see, e.g., 8 C.F.R. § 214.14(c)(1)(i) (providing for termination pursuant to joint motion for adjudication of a U visa); 8 C.F.R. § 1245.13(l) (providing for termination upon the of adjustment of status to certain Cubans and Nicaraguans); 8 C.F.R. § 1239.2(f) (providing for termination to pursue naturalization in certain circumstances).
16 8 C.F.R. § 239.2(c); 8 C.F.R. § 1239.2(c); see also Matter of S-O-G- & F-D-B-, 27 I&N Dec. at 466.
17 8 C.F.R. § 1003.10(b); see also Matter of Castro-Tum, 27 I. & N. Dec. 271 (A.G. 2018). Ultimately, EOIR should individually evaluate all pending cases to determine whether they meet the administration’s priorities. To achieve this, the Attorney General should also ensure that immigration judges have the ability to prioritize their cases and “exercise their independent judgment and discretion.” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.10(b). Indeed, you were clear in your confirmation hearing that the solution to the immigration court backlog must include “some ability to give to the judges to prioritize their cases.” The Nomination of the Honorable Merrick Brian Garland to be Attorney General of the United States: Day 1 Before the S. Comm. on the Judiciary, 117th Cong. (2021) (statement of Hon. Merrick B. Garland). The primary tool used by immigration judges to remove cases from the active docket has historically been “administrative closure.” However, this authority was recently and imprudently curtailed, such that § 1003.10(b) now divests judges of administrative closure authority. See also Matter of Castro-Tum, supra. You can reaffirm and restore the authority for all immigration judges to administratively close nonpriority cases on a case-by-case basis. We express no opinion herein on the merits of current agency precedent regarding termination or dismissal but note that such precedent is subject to your review and could potentially be expanded in the future.
18 There are currently three enforcement priorities: (1) people suspected of engaging in terrorism or who pose a national security threat; (2) people apprehended at the border after November 1, 2020; and (3) people deemed to be a public safety threat, which includes primarily certain individuals with aggravated felony convictions. Memorandum from ICE Acting Director Tae Johnson, Interim Guidance: Civil Enforcement and Removal Guidance (Feb. 18, 2021), https://www.ice.gov/doclib/news/releases/2021/021821_civil-immigration-enforcement_interim- guidance.pdf. Out of the 1.3 million people with cases pending in immigration court right now: less than 100 have any type of terrorism or national security charge, virtually all had cases initiated before November 1, 2020, and less than 0.01% involve aggravated felony charges. TRAC, The State of the Immigration Courts, supra note 6. There is no publicly available data on the number of cases that would fall within the new narrowed gang-based public safety priority group, but it is doubtful this category would substantially increase the percentage of priority cases since less than 0.01% of all cases involve any type of criminal removal ground.
19 While it is critical that such cases can be systematically identified this does not mean that consideration of individualized circumstances is foreclosed. Notices of intent to defer could permit respondents to lodge objections if they would be prejudiced by deferral and DHS attorneys to object if it believes a respondent’s case is not appropriate for deferral. Indeed, deferral could act to facilitate individualized prosecutorial discretion determinations, if DHS coordinates to consider whether deferred cases are appropriate for dismissal, and if affirmative applications in deferred cases are ultimately processed by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS).
20 Letter from Eight U.S. Senators to Attorney General Garland (Mar. 23, 2021), https://www.aila.org/File/DownloadEmbeddedFile/88403; Letter from 165 Organizations to President Biden (Feb. 1, 2021), https://www.aila.org/advo-media/aila-correspondence/2021/aila-and-partners-send-letter-to-president-biden. 21 For the affirmative pathway to ultimately be realized, in most instances, the removal proceedings will eventually need to be dismissed or terminated. In this regard, DOJ should coordinate its docket review effort with DHS. DHS has the authority to move to dismiss such cases, and immigration judges have the authority to dismiss such cases, because the notice to appear was “improvidently issued” or continuation is “no longer in the best interest of the government.” 8 C.F.R. § 239.2(c) (permitting DHS to move to dismiss any case where the notice to appear was “improvidently issued” or where “continuation is no longer in the best interest of the government” (incorporating grounds enumerated in 8 C.F.R. § 239.2(a))); 8 C.F.R. § 1239.2 (same); see also Matter of S-O-G- & F-D-B-, 27 I. & N. Dec. at 464 (reaffirming DHS authority to move to dismiss on such bases). Indeed, DHS has previously made clear that when relief is “appropriate for adjudication by [US]CIS” DHS attorneys “should consider moving to dismiss proceedings.” Memorandum from William J. Howard, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Principle Legal Advisor, Prosecutorial Discretion, (Oct. 24, 2005), AILA Doc. No. 06050511.
4
AILA Doc. No. 21050334. (Posted 5/3/21)

Cori Alonso-Yoder
Visiting Professor of Law & Director of the Federal Legislation Clinic Georgetown University Law Center
Jojo Annobil Adjunct Professor NYU School of law
Lauren Aronson
Associate Clinical Professor, Director Immigration Law Clinic University of Illinois, Champaign/Urbana
David Baluarte
Associate Dean for Academic Affairs Washington and Lee University School of Law
Jon Bauer
Clinical Professor of Law and Richard D. Tulisano ’69 Scholar in Human Rights University of Connecticut School of Law
David Bedingfield
Visiting Professor Florida State University College of Law Florida State University
Lenni Benson
Distinguish Professor of Immigration and Human Rights Law New York Law School
Kaci Bishop
Clinical Professor of Law
The University of North Carolina School of Law
Linda Bosniak Distinguished Professor Rutgers Law School
Stella Burch Elias
Professor of Law
University of Iowa College of Law
Jason Cade
Associate Dean for Clinical Programs and Experiential Learning J. Alton Hosch Associate Professor of Law
Director, Community Health Law Partnership Clinic
University of Georgia School of Law
5
AILA Doc. No. 21050334. (Posted 5/3/21)

Kristina Campbell
Professor of Law
UDC David A Clarke School of Law
Stacy Caplow Professor of Law Brooklyn Law School
Violeta Chapin
Clinical Professor of Law University of Colorado Law School
Michael Churgin
Raybournee Thompson Centennial Professor in Law University of Texas at Austin
Julie Dahlstrom
Clinical Associate Professor Boston University School of Law
Alina Das
Professor of Clinical Law
New York University School of Law
Ingrid Eagly Professor of Law UCLA School of Law
Bram Elias
Clinical Professor
University of Iowa College of Law
Kate Evans
Clinical Professor of Law
Duke University School of Law
Jill Family
Commonwealth Professor of Law and Government Widener University Commonwealth Law School
Paula Galowitz
Clinical Professor of Law Emerita New York University School of Law
6
AILA Doc. No. 21050334. (Posted 5/3/21)

Denise Gilman
Director, Immigration Clinic University of Texas School of Law
Lindsay Harris
Associate Professor,
Director, Immigration & Human Rights Clinic
University of the District of Columbia David A. Clarke School of Law
Laura Hernandez Professor of Law Baylor Law School
Barbara Hines
Retired Clinical Professor of Law University of Texas School of Law
Geoffrey Hoffman
Director, Immigration Clinic University of Houston Law Center
Alan Hyde Distinguished Professor Rutgers Law School
Anil Kalhan
Professor of Law
Drexel University Kline School of Law
Kathleen Kim
Associate Dean and Professor of Law LMU Loyola Law School, Los Angeles
Jennifer Koh
Visiting Lecturer
University of Washington School of Law
Yoana Kuzmova
Staff Attorney Northeast Justice Center
Eunice Lee
Associate Professor of Law
University of Arizona James E. Rogers College of Law
7
AILA Doc. No. 21050334. (Posted 5/3/21)

Lynn Marcus
Clinical Law Professor
Director, Community Immigration Law Placement Clinic University of Arizona James E. Rogers College of Law
Peter L. Markowitz
Professor of Law
Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law
Fatma Marouf
Professor of Law
Texas A&M School of Law
Amelia McGowan
Adjunct Professor, Immigration Clinic Mississippi College School of Law
M Isabel
Medina Ferris Distinguished Professor of Law Loyola University New Orleans College of Law
Jennifer Moore
Professor of Law and Pamela Minzner Chair in Professionalism University of New Mexico School of Law
Elora Mukherjee
Jerome L. Greene Clinical Professor of Law Director, Immigrants’ Rights Clinic Columbia Law School
Raquel Muñiz Assistant Professor Boston College
Natalie Nanasi
Assistant Professor
SMU Dedman School of Law
Lindsay Nash
Clinical Assistant Professor of Law Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law
Lori Nessel
Professor of Law
Seton Hall University School of Law
8
AILA Doc. No. 21050334. (Posted 5/3/21)

Mauricio Noroña
Clinical Teaching Fellow
Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law
Michael A. Olivas
Wm B. Bates Distinguished Chair (Emeritus) University of Houston Law Center
Maria Pabon
Professor of Law Loyola College of Law
John Palmer
Professor Agregat Interí Universitat Pompeu Fabra
Reena Parikh
Assistant Clinical Professor Boston College Law School
Helen Parsonage
Adjunct Professor of Immigration Law Wake Forest University School of Law
Sarah Plastino
Adjunct Professor of Law
University of Denver, Sturm College of Law
Anam Rahman
Adjunct Professor of Law Georgetown University Law Center
Jaya Ramji-Nogales Professor of Law Temple Law School
Shruti Rana
Assistant Dean & Professor
Hamilton Lugar School of Global & International Studies Indiana University Bloomington
Victor Romero
Professor of Law
Penn State Law, University Park
9
AILA Doc. No. 21050334. (Posted 5/3/21)

Rachel Rosenbloom
Professor of Law
Northeastern University School of Law
Kevin Ruser
Richard and Margaret Larson Professor of Law M.S. Hevelone Professor of Law
Director of Clinical Programs
University of Nebraska College of Law
Mario Russell
Adjunct Professor of Law
St John’s University, School of Law
Faiza Sayed
Visiting Professor of Clinical Law Brooklyn Law School
Andrew Schoenholtz
Professor from Practice Georgetown University Law Center
Erica Schommer
Clinical Professor of Law
St. Mary’s University School of Law
Kim Thuy Seelinger
Visiting Professor
Washington University School of Law
Rebecca Sharpless
Professor of Law
University of Miami School of Law
Anna Shavers
Cline Williams Professor of Citizenship Law Associate Dean for Diversity and Inclusion University of Nebraska College of Law
Gemma Solimene
Clinical Associate Professor of Law Fordham University School of Law
10
AILA Doc. No. 21050334. (Posted 5/3/21)

Jayashri Srikantiah
Associate Dean for Clinical Education Director, Immigrants’ Rights Clinic Stanford Law School
Elissa Steglich
Clinical Professor
University of Texas School of Law
Mark Steiner
Professor of Law
South Texas College of Law Houston
Maureen Sweeney
Law School Professor
University of Maryland Carey School of Law
Margaret Taylor
Professor of Law
Wake Forest University School of Law
Claire Thomas Director, Asylum Clinic New York Law School
David Thronson
Alan S. Zekelman Professor of International Human Rights Law Michigan State University College of Law
Emily Torstveit Ngara
Assistant Clinical Professor of Law Georgia State University College of Law
Enid Trucios-Haynes
Professor of Law
Brandeis School of Law, University of Louisville
Diane Uchimiya
Director of Clinical Programs Creighton University School of Law
Leti Volpp
Robert D. and Leslie Kay Raven Professor of Law in Access to Justice UC Berkeley School of Law
11
AILA Doc. No. 21050334. (Posted 5/3/21)

Shoba Sivaprasad Wadhia
Associate Dean for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion
Samuel Weiss Faculty Scholar and Clinical Professor of Law Penn State Law, University Park
Jonathan Weinberg
Professor of Law and Associate Dean for Research Wayne State University
Anna Welch
Clinical Professor
University of Maine School of Law
Michael Wishnie
William O. Douglas Clinical Professor of Law Yale Law School
Lauris Wren
Clinical Professor of Law
Maurice A. Deane School of Law at Hofstra University
Elliott Young Professor of History Lewis & Clark College
cc: Susan Rice, White House
Esther Olavarria, White House
Tyler Moran, White House
Matt Clapper, DOJ
Margy O’Herron, DOJ
Jean King, EOIR
Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, DHS Angie Kelley, DHS
Kamal Essaheb, DHS
David Shahoulian, DHS
Tom Jawetz, DHS
12
AILA Doc. No. 21050334. (Posted 5/3/21)

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

All the familiar problems that have plagued the DOJ under past Dem Administrations and helped create the due process and human rights disaster in today’s dysfunctional Immigration “Courts,” that aren’t “courts” at all as operated by Judge Garland, are on display here!

First, I know that I’m not the only person who made this or a similar recommendation to the Biden Transition Team. So, 100 days in, why are we still writing letters while those supposedly “in charge” dawdle over common sense “day one stuff” that would dramatically improve the delivery of justice in America?

Second, the “sign on” list here looks like a “who’s who” of the practical experts who should be running EOIR, comprising the entire BIA, and filling vacant Immigration Judge positions! That they are writing letters from the “outside” rather than running the system from “the inside” shows dramatically why Judge Garland is on a course for failure at DOJ — a failure that American democracy can’t afford!

To date, to my knowledge, Judge Garland has made only one Immigraton Judge appointment — a white, male former prosecutor with no prior immigration, human rights, or judicial experience! In other words, same old, same old ignorant devaluing of Immigration Judge positions and the power they hold over human lives and the future of our nation. When will they ever learn?

The irony or ironies — in all of history, there has been only one Attorney General to recognize the true power and potential of the Immigration Judiciary — for good or evil — and act accordingly. Unfortunately, that happened to be White Nationalist, misogynist, xenophobic, racist Jeff “Gonzo Apocalypto” Sessions! Why is he effectively “still in charge” under Judge Garland and an Administration that ran on a platform of fair and just treatment of asylum seekers and other migrants?

Letters are nice — but they are no substitute for action to solve festering problems!

Who REALLY ‘runs” our disgraceful and dysfunctional Immigration “Courts”

This guy?

Attribution: Stephen Miller Monster by Peter Kuper, PoliticalCartoons.com

Or, this guy?

Judge Merrick Garland — Judge Merrick B. Garland, U.S. Attorney General
Official White House Photo
Public Realm

How can you tell?

🇺🇸⚖️🗽🧑🏽‍⚖️Due Process Forever!

PWS

04-04-21

⚖️🗽COMING TOMORROW — REGISTER NOW — NY City Bar Presents: “100 Days: Accountability on Immigration” — Moderator Liz Gibson of NYLAG (& The NDPA) Leads An All-Star Panel! — Don’t Miss It!

Elizabeth Gibson
Attorney, NY Legal Assistance Group
Publisher of “The Gibson Report”

Webcast

100 Days: Accountability on Immigration
Wednesday, May 5, 2021 | 6:00 p.m. – 8:00 p.m.

Description:
After a tumultuous four years in immigration law, the Biden administration promised to make immigration reforms a priority. The term started off with a series of executive orders reversing some policies, directing implementation of new ones, and asking agencies to pause and reassess. This panel will explore what has changed in the first 100 days of the administration and what still needs to be done with regard to family separation, enforcement, and due process as well as humanitarian, family, and business immigration law.

Moderator:

Elizabeth Gibson, New York Legal Assistance Group (NYLAG)

Speakers:

Denise Bell, Amnesty International
Kennji Kizuka, Human Rights First
Claire Razzolini, Gibney Anthony & Flaherty, LLP
Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, American Immigration Council
Charles Wheeler, Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc. (CLINIC)

Program Fee:

Free for Members | Free for Non-Lawyers | $15 for Non-Member Lawyers

Non-Lawyers please call Customer Service at 212-382-6663 to register.

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

Presumably, the panel will discuss the ongoing failure of the Biden Administration & “Team Garland” to address the continuing due process disaster, institutionalized racism, and misogyny at EOIR.

We have just seen on refugee numbers how channeled public outrage and organized pressure can quickly turn around misguided nativist policies. How can the advocacy community, legal community, academia, humanitarians, religious groups, civil rights organizations, ethnic communities, and other members of NDPA unite to force Judge Garland to make the long, long, long overdue progressive changes in our Immigration Courts and to reinstitute at least some semblances of fairness, due process, and independence into this totally dysfunctional system until Congress creates an Article I Court?

🇺🇸⚖️🗽🧑🏽‍⚖️Due Process Forever!

PWS

05-04-21

CHARLES M. BLOW @ NYT BEGS TO DIFFER WITH GOP SENs SCOTT & GRAHAM: “However, it is important to remember that nearly half the country just voted for a full-on racist in Donald Trump, and they did so by either denying his racism, becoming apologists for it, or applauding it. What do you call a country thus composed?”

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/02/opinion/america-racism.html?referringSource=articleShare

. . . .

I personally don’t make much of Scott’s ability to reason. This is the same man who said in March that “woke supremacy,” whatever that is, “is as bad as white supremacy.” There is no world in which recent efforts at enlightenment can be equated to enslavement, lynching and mass incarceration. None.

Colfax

It seems to me that the disingenuousness on the question of racism is largely a question of language. The question turns on another question: “What, to you, is America?” Is America the people who now inhabit the land, divorced from its systems and its history? Or, is the meaning of America inclusive of those systems and history?

When people say that America is a racist country, they don’t necessarily mean that all or even most Americans are consciously racist. However, it is important to remember that nearly half the country just voted for a full-on racist in Donald Trump, and they did so by either denying his racism, becoming apologists for it, or applauding it. What do you call a country thus composed?

Historically, however, there is no question that the country was founded by racists and white supremacists, and that much of the early wealth of this country was built on the backs of enslaved Africans, and much of the early expansion came at the expense of the massacre of the land’s Indigenous people and broken treaties with them.

Eight of the first 10 presidents personally enslaved Africans. In 1856, the chief justice of the United States wrote in the infamous ruling on the Dred Scott case that Black people “had for more than a century before been regarded as beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations; and so far inferior, that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect.”

The country went on to fight a Civil War over whether some states could maintain slavery as they wished. Even some of the people arguing for, and fighting for, an end to slavery had expressed their white supremacist beliefs.

Abraham Lincoln said during his famous debates against Stephen A. Douglas in 1858 that among white people and Black ones “there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I, as much as any other man, am in favor of the superior position being assigned to the white man.”

Some will concede the historical point and insist on the progress point, arguing that was then and this is now, that racism simply doesn’t exist now as it did then. I would agree. American racism has evolved and become less blunt, but it has not become less effective. The knife has simply been sharpened. Now systems do the work that once required the overt actions of masses of individual racists.

. . . .

As Mark Twain once put it: “The difference between the almost right word and the right word is really a large matter. ’Tis the difference between the lightning bug and the lightning.”

Being imprecise or undecided with our language on this subject contributes to the murkiness — and to the myth that the question of whether America is racist is difficult to answer and therefore the subject of genuine debate among honest intellectuals.

Saying that America is racist is not a radical statement. If that requires a longer explanation or definition, so be it. The fact, in the end, is not altered.

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

Read Blow’s full article at the link.

Four things that are clear to me:

The “history” that most of us in my generation learned in high school was “whitewashed;”
The monumental achievements of non-white Americans, women, and children which allowed this country to exist, prosper, and flourish have consistently been ignored or downplayed;
America still has race issues;
The GOP, in particular, has failed to come to grips with the issue of race in 21st century America (apologists Scott & Graham notwithstanding).

🇺🇸⚖️🗽Due Process For All Persons Under Law, Forever!

PWS

05-03-21

🏴‍☠️☠️⚰️SCOFFLAW ADMINISTRATION: Biden, Garland, Mayorkas Continue Trump Policies That Fuel Kidnapping Of Asylum Applicants, Aid Smugglers! — Molly O’Toole Reports @ LAT!

Molly O’Toole
Immigration Reporter
LA Times
Source: LA Times website

http://enewspaper.latimes.com/infinity/article_share.aspx?guid=3c4571fa-1131-4b45-8fd5-a1903b21b58f

By Molly O’Toole

WASHINGTON — With shaking hands, Karen Cruz Caceres manages to hit record on the call.

“How many days have you gone without food?” she asks into the phone.

Tani, her younger sister, is heard sobbing. “Help me,” she gets out.

Cruz Caceres assures her: “I am going to pay today. I’ll make another deposit.”

The April 1 call ends abruptly, and Cruz Caceres stops recording.

A week before, Cruz Caceres, a single mother from Honduras who won asylum in Tennessee, had gotten another call that upended her already precarious life: Kidnappers in Nuevo Laredo, Mexico, had abducted her pregnant sister Tani and Tani’s 4-year-old son, and they wanted more than $20,000, according to a video recording of the call and messages reviewed by the Los Angeles Times. The family asked The Times not to use her sister’s last name, for fear of retribution from the kidnappers in Mexico and gangs back home.

Tani, 33, and her son were kidnapped on March 25, Cruz Caceres and lawyers said — just after U.S. authorities expelled them from Texas alongside other mothers and children under a Trump-era pandemic policy known as Title 42, which President Biden has continued.

The unprecedented policy, which relies on an obscure 1944 public health statute to indefinitely close the border to “nonessential” travel, has made migrant children and parents easy prey for the criminal groups waiting just on the other side. Biden’s continued reliance on Title 42 to quickly remove the vast majority of migrants at the southern border without due process contrasts with his pledge to restore “human dignity” to a U.S. immigration system targeted by former President Trump.

“My sister and my nephew were told they were going to kill them and feed them to the dogs,” Cruz Caceres told The Times. “If [U.S. officials] want to deport them back to their country, why don’t they do it now like prior presidents did?” she asked. “Why dump them to try their luck in the most dangerous cities in Mexico, to get abducted by kidnappers?”

The abduction of migrants in northern Mexico and the extortion from U.S. family members isn’t new, lawyers, experts and officials told The Times — what’s new is the reliance on Title 42 to expel thousands of these already vulnerable families, leaving them at the mercy of kidnappers and other criminals.

Since the Trump administration implemented Title 42 in March last year amid a global pandemic, U.S. border officials have carried out more than 630,000 expulsions under the policy, some 240,000 since Biden took office in January, according to a Times analysis of the latest government data.

. . . .

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

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

The Biden Administration ran and took office on a platform of kinder, saner policies that would restore human rights and the rule of law at the border. So far, that promise has been a deadly lie!

Arbitrarily and unlawfully closing legal ports of entry to asylum seekers and abrogating asylum and refugee laws plays directly into the hands of human smugglers and cartels while expanding the extralegal immigration system and the resulting underground of undocumented residents. Many of these individuals could and should have been legally admitted through legal channels if we had a functioning immigration system overseen by fair, impartial, expert Immigration Courts staffed with well-qualified progressive Immigration Judges.

Inevitably and predictably, these gross government failures lead to the type of human tragedy that occurred yesterday when a smuggling boat sank off the California coast, killing at least three and injuring dozens. https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-05-02/boat-capsizes-off-coast-of-point-loma

Naturally, with no legal asylum system in place, and with asylum seekers arbitrarily rejected at legal ports of entry, as described in Molly’s article, desperate individuals will turn to smugglers to achieve refuge. It’s not rocket science; but sadly the human tragedy that illegal, inhumane government policies cause at our border appear to be “out of sight, out of mind” to Judge Garland and other Biden Administration officials. That is, until the dead bodies start to pile up on their doorsteps!

“Floaters” — “Floaters — How The World’s Richest Country Responds To Asylum Seekers”
This appears to be the Garland, Monaco, Gupta view of human rights and the rule of law for asylum seeker! What if we thought of these folks as our fellow human beings, rather than statistics or problems to be “deterred” through illegal, deadly, and ultimately ineffective policies? What if Garland replaced Miller’s nativist “judges” with REAL progressive Immigration Judges who are experts in asylum and due process and have the guts to grant legal protection to eligible migrants in a prompt, fair, and timely manner and to demand that DHS Asylum Officers do likewise? (AP Photo/Julia Le Duc)

🇺🇸⚖️🗽😎🧑🏽‍⚖️👨🏻‍⚖️Due Process Forever!

PWS

05-03-21

EOIR WRONG AGAIN: BIA’s Attempt To Limit Its Own Jurisdiction To Grant Waivers Thwarted By 4th Cir. — Jiminez-Rodriguez v. Garland

Dan Kowalski
Online Editor of the LexisNexis Immigration Law Community K(ILC)

https://www.lexisnexis.com/LegalNewsRoom/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/ca4-on-waivers-jimenez-rodriguez-v-garland#

Dan Kowalski reports for LexisNexis Immigration Community:

CA4 on Waivers: Jimenez-Rodriguez v. Garland

Jimenez-Rodriguez v. Garland

“Reading the broad language of §§ 1003.10(b) and 1240.1(a)(1)(iv), we conclude that these regulations give the IJ the Attorney General’s discretionary authority to grant a § 1182(d)(3)(A)(ii) waiver. … [W]e grant the petition, vacate the BIA’s final removal order, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”

[Hats off to Brad Banias!]

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

Seldom has a supposed quasi-judicial tribunal worked as hard as the current BIA to find limits on its ability to solve legal and humanitarian problems. That leaves the work to the Circuits, as in this case.

So, why have EOIR at all? The system clearly is unconstitutional because it lacks fair and impartial adjudicators and even minimally competent administration of due process. If Garland, Monaco, and Gupta have no interest in fixing these glaring problems, then why not just transfer EOIR’s functions to the U.S. District Courts and U.S. Magistrate Judges under the supervision of the Courts of Appeals?

Dems talk big about the need for a more progressive Federal Judiciary to achieve racial justice. But, given the chance actually to create one, they sit on their hands!

Not so the GOP! Restrictionists, nativists, reactionaries and White Nationalists recognize the repressive power of a captive and co-opted Immigration Judiciary and act accordingly. “Act” — that’s the operative word that doesn’t appear to be in the Dem’s vocabulary when it comes to building a better Federal Judiciary for a better America.

Progressives might initially have cheered the appointment of these three to top leadership posts @ the DOJ. But, to date, they have shown no interest in rescinding Stephen Miller’s White Nationalist immigration policies or replacing Miller’s nativist judges with progressive expert judges @ EOIR.

Lisa Monaco
Deputy AG
Official USG Photo, Public Realm

Vanita Gupta
Associate Attorney General
Photo: Brookings Institution, Paul Morigi, Creative Commons License.

Due Process Forever!

PWS

05-02-21

🛡⚔️👍🏼“SIR JEFFREY” CHASE — Garland’s Immigration “Judges” Pull The Ol’ “Bait & Switch” — They Only Are “Judges” When “OIL” Is Trying To Convince Ethically & Legally Challenged Article III Courts To “Defer” To EOIR Decisions — Otherwise, They Are Expected To Act Like DOJ ”Grundoons” Mindlessly Carrying Out The Executive’s Agenda Cloaked In Quasi-Judicial Disguise!

Grundoon
From Walt Kelly’s “Pogo”
SOURCE: Pininterest

Grundoon: A diapered baby groundhog (or “woodchunk” in swamp-speak). An infant toddler, Grundoon speaks only gibberish, represented by strings of random consonants like “Bzfgt”, “ktpv”, “mnpx”, “gpss”, “twzkd”, or “znp”. Eventually, Grundoon learns to say two things: “Bye” and “Bye-bye”. He also has a baby sister, whose full name is Li’l Honey Bunny Ducky Downy Sweetie Chicken Pie Li’l Everlovin’ Jelly Bean. [From the Walt Kelly comic strip “Pogo.”]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pogo_(comic_strip)

https://www.jeffreyschase.com/blog/2021/4/29/the-dojs-contradictions

Contact

The DOJ’s Contradictions

In a recent blog post, I discussed the difficulty in establishing asylum based on a political opinion expressed against MS-13. In the specific case discussed, the Board of Immigration Appeals reversed the Immigration Judge’s finding that the asylum-seeker had expressed a political opinion to MS-13 members.1 In reversing the Immigration Judge, the BIA specifically stated as to MS-13 that “the gangs are criminal organizations, and not political or governmental organizations and gang activities are not political in nature.” The BIA has repeatedly expressed this same view (using this or similar boilerplate language) in its decisions denying asylum. In the particular case discussed in my blog post, a split panel of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals could not find enough evidence of record to compel the majority to overturn the BIA’s conclusion.

The BIA is of course a part of the U.S. Department of Justice; its judges are appointed by and employed by the Attorney General. Former Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein was one of the Department officials to make the following point to a class of new Immigration Judges in March 2019:

Immigration judges appointed by the Attorney General and supervised by the Executive Office for Immigration Review are not only judges. First, you are not only judges because you are also employees of the United States Department of Justice. It is a great honor to serve in this Department. In the courtyard just outside the entrance to this Great Hall, high up on the interior wall of the Main Justice building, there is a depiction of the scales of justice and an inscription that reads, “Privilegium Obligatio.” It means that when you accept a privilege, you incur an obligation. In this Department, our duty is in our name. We are the only cabinet agency with a name that articulates a moral value.

Justice is not measured by statistics. Our employees learn from day one that their duty is to gather the facts, seek the truth, apply the law, and respect the policies and principles of the Department of Justice.

The second reason that you are not only judges is that in addition to your adjudicative function – finding facts and applying laws – you are a member of the executive branch. You follow lawful instructions from the Attorney General, and you share a duty to enforce the law.2

The clear message being conveyed is “Don’t get any big ideas of judicial independence and neutrality; you work for ‘Team Justice,’ and you will behave accordingly.” Am I alone in thinking that the motto cited by Rosenstein, “when you accept a privilege, you incur an obligation,” here comes across as a boss reminding new employees where their loyalties lie rather than as a commitment to truth and justice?

As wrong as this message is when conveyed to judges who are supposed to enjoy the independence and neutrality to rule against the Department of Justice and the Attorney General when the facts and law compel such an outcome, let’s examine this view for the consistency of its application as to all DOJ employees. Presumably, the Board’s official stance that MS-13 is not a political organization and that its activities are criminal and not political in nature enjoys the Department’s seal of approval. In fact, other Department of Justice attorneys, working for the Office of Immigration Litigation, defend that view when the BIA”s decisions are reviewed on appeal by the Circuit Courts. I’m not aware of any Attorney General action to certify a BIA decision expressing this view in order to correct the Board’s position on this issue, or even to remand to the Board for further consideration of its position in light of other conflicting views within the Department.

Regarding such conflicting views, I was recently made aware of a criminal indictment drafted by the U.S. Attorneys’ Office in the Eastern District of New York.3 The indictment was filed in December, 2020, while the Trump Administration was still in office. The opening paragraph of the indictment states that MS-13 is a transnational criminal organization engaged in terrorist activity, and that its members use violence “in order to obtain concessions from the government of El Salvador, achieve political goals and retaliate for government actions against MS-13’s members and leaders.” (emphasis added).

The indictment contains a specific section titled “Political Influence in El Salvador.” The indictment states that a unit of MS-13, the Ranfla Nacional, “gained political influence as a result of the violence and intimidation MS-13 exerted on the government and population of El Salvador.” It continued that the organization exercised leverage on the Salvadoran government through its control on the level of violence. The indictment states that in 2012, MS-13 exercised its leverage to negotiate a truce with the ruling FMLN party and its rival 18th Street “to reduce homicides in El Salvador in return for improved prison conditions, benefits and money.” According to the indictment, MS-13 also negotiated a similar agreement with the rival ARENA party, promising to deliver votes in return for benefits. The indictment states that over time, “the Ranfla Nacional continued to negotiate with political parties in El Salvador and use its control of the level of violence to influence the actions of the government in El Salvador.”

The indictment also contains a section explaining the purpose of the Ranfla Nacional. The second specific goal listed is: “Influencing the actions of governments in El Salvador and elsewhere to implement policies favorable to MS-13.”

The attorneys who made the above claims in an indictment filed in Federal District Court are also employees of the U.S. Department of Justice. They are also members of the executive branch, following lawful instructions from the Attorney General, and sharing a duty to enforce the law. In the Second Circuit case I recently discussed, other Department of Justice attorneys in their brief to the court defended the Board’s decision by depicting MS-13 as “an institution that is entirely non-governmental – that is…a group of criminals who, in fact, reject the rules set out by the government.” Noticeably absent from the same brief was any mention that this “rejection of the rules set out by government” includes strategies to pressure said government into undertaking specific actions, as well as its entering into negotiations and ultimately agreements with political parties, the terms of which include MS-13’s delivering votes in return for the parties’ commitment to enacting beneficial policies.

So how can it be that attorneys in one office of the Department of Justice argue that MS-13 as an organization is engaged in exerting political influence to achieve its political goals, and at the same time, another group of attorneys within the same Department of Justice can sign orders sending victims of the same MS-13 to their death by employing a boilerplate sentence that MS-13 is not a political organization and its activities are not political in nature? And that the decisions of that latter group are then defended by a third group of Department attorneys on appeal who make no mention of the conflicting arguments? Let’s remember that, according to Rosenstein, these attorneys were taught from day one that their duties as Department of Justice employees include gathering the facts and seeking the truth.

In 1997, a very different BIA wrote the following in a decision that, although still binding as precedent, seems long forgotten:

immigration enforcement obligations do not consist only of initiating and conducting prompt proceedings that lead to removals at any cost. Rather, as has been said, the government wins when justice is done. In that regard, the handbook for trial attorneys states that “[t]he respondent should be aided in obtaining any procedural rights or benefits required by the statute, regulation and controlling court decision, of the requirements of fairness.” Handbook for Trial Attorneys § 1.3 (1964). See generally Freeport-McMoRan Oil & Gas Co. v. FERC, 962 F.2d 45, 48 (D.C. Cir. 1992)(finding astonishing that counsel for a federal administrative agency denied that the A.B.A. Code of Professional Responsibility holds government lawyers to a higher standard and has obligations that “might sometimes trump the desire to pound an opponent into submission”); Reid v. INS, 949 F.2d 287 (9th Cir. 1991)(noting that government counsel has an interest only in the law being observed, not in victory or defeat).4

This matter deserves the immediate attention of Attorney General Merrick Garland. The ability of asylum seekers to receive a fair review of their claims based on accurate information is a matter of life and death. At this early stage of the Biden Administration, it is critical that the Department send a clear message that the “obligation” mentioned in its motto is to serve an ideal of justice that is independent of the particular politics of those temporally in charge.

Copyright 2021 Jeffrey S. Chase. All rights reserved.

Notes:

Zelaya-Moreno v. Wilkinson, No. 17-2284, ___ F.3d ___ (2d Cir., Feb. 26, 2021).

https://www.justice.gov/opa/speech/deputy-attorney-general-rod-j-rosenstein-delivers-opening-remarks-investiture-31-newly.

E.D.N.Y. Docket No.: 20-CR-577 (JFB). The Department of Justice’s Press Release can be found here: https://www.justice.gov/usao-edny/pr/ms-13-s-highest-ranking-leaders-charged-terrorism-offenses-united-states.

Matter of S-M-J-, 21 I&N Dec. 722, 727 (BIA 1997).

APRIL 29, 2021

Reprinted by permission.

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

As most outside the nativist world know, the BIA’s position that Northern Triangle gangs aren’t political in nature and action is absurd! For Pete’s sake, these guys negotiate “peace treaties” with governments, control large swaths of territory, manipulate “public death rates” for political gain, aid or punish political candidates and police, collect taxes, control jobs, and have economic policies. Sure sounds like a quasi-governmental, clearly political entity to me. Somewhere, there is a dissent of mine in an old published CAT case saying approximately that.

At least at one point, gangs in El Salvador controlled more jobs than did the Salvadoran Government! No competent, unbiased group of adjudicators (not to mention supposed “experts”) could have reached the BIA’s ridiculous, clearly politicized conclusions!

Sadly, to date, Judge Garland has followed in the footsteps of his dilatory Dem predecessors by destroying lives, promoting injustice, and blowing the Dems’ best chance to build a progressive, due process oriented, human rights advancing judiciary that also would help resolve America’s failure to come to grips with the 1951 U.N. Refugee Convention and its key role in our legal immigration system as well as being a prerequisite to achieving racial justice in America.

Supposedly, these are the goals of the Biden Administration. Unfortunately, Garland, Monaco, and Gupta haven’t gotten the message, although it has been “delivered” time after time by numerous experts and advocates!

A few historical notes:

I was on the en banc BIA that decided Matter of S-M-J-, cited by Jeffrey. It was written by Judge Michael J. Heilman, a fellow Wisconsinite who once had worked for me at the “Legacy INS” General Counsel, following service as a State Department consular officer. That case “originated” on a three-member panel of Heilman, the late Judge Lauri Steven Filppu, and me. It reflects the “government wins when justice is done” message that I had incorporated into INS attorney training years earlier, as well as fealty to UN Handbook standards encouraged by the Supremes in INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, and the “best practices” that bygone BIA was consciously and aggressively advancing.
Former DAG Rod Rosenstein was once a respected career prosecutor who served Administrations of both parties. Then, he “sold out” to the Trump Administration and its neo-fascists. Although that probably should have ended his legal career, he’s currently enjoying life in “big law” while those victims harmed and wronged by the illegal and unethical policies (or, in some cases their survivors) he furthered continue to suffer.

Radical progressive due process reforms @ EOIR, starting with wholesale personnel changes and revocation of restrictionist, racist, misogynist policies and practices is long overdue. Nearly two months into his tenure Judge Garland has yet to demonstrate awareness of the need for immediate, decisive action. Meanwhile the bodies continue to pile up and the “adverse decisions” from the Article IIIs bearing his name and tarnishing his reputation continue to roll in!

Actually, Judge, each wrong decision from the BIA represents a human life ruined, often irrevocably. Is that the type of “impact” on American justice that you intend to leave as your “legacy?”

EOIR HQ, Falls Church, VA (a/k/a “The Tower of Babel”)
By Pieter Bruegel The Elder
Public Domain

🇺🇸⚖️🗽🧑🏽‍⚖️👨🏻‍⚖️Due Process Forever!

PWS

05-01-21

☠️👎🏽⚰️🤮 PERVERSION OF “JUSTICE @ JUSTICE” — Immigration “Courts” Were Born Of A Bogus “National Security” Rationale — “[Author Alison] Peck couldn’t wrap her mind around the fact that these high-stakes cases with potentially life-or-death consequences were not being decided by impartial jurists in an independent court, but within the Department of Justice, a law enforcement agency.” — New Book By Professor Alison Peck Makes Overwhelming Case For Progressive Reforms, Impartial Expert Judges, Judicial Independence!

Professor Alison Peck — Professor & Author Alison Peck
Director, Immigration Clinic
West Virginia Law
PHOTO: West Virginia Law website

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2021/04/the-original-sin-of-americas-broken-immigration-courts/

From Mother Jones:

The Original Sin of America’s Broken Immigration Courts

A new book reveals how this troubled system began with FDR and wartime paranoia.

Isabela Dias

Let our journalists help you make sense of the noise: Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter and get a recap of news that matters.

During the Trump administration, Alison Peck started to see more of her cases have an outcome she describes as “a door just slammed” in the clients’ faces. A law professor and co-director of the Immigration Law Clinic at West Virginia University College of Law, Peck grew concerned that paths to immigration relief previously available to them were no longer an option. The explanation for it was an increasingly common practice whereby the US Attorney General, who is a political appointee, would self-refer cases previously decided by an immigration judge and then use them as vehicles for broad policy changes. These precedent-setting determinations included restricting asylum for victims of domestic violence and gang violence, and limiting immigration judges’ power to manage their dockets by temporarily closing low-priority cases. Some of Peck’s clients were impacted by both decisions. “It was very distressing to see this happen and have to tell people midway through the game that the rules had been changed,” she says. Hence, the experience of the door slammed shut.

Peck couldn’t wrap her mind around the fact that these high-stakes cases with potentially life-or-death consequences were not being decided by impartial jurists in an independent court, but within the Department of Justice, a law enforcement agency. “It didn’t make sense to me, and it didn’t fit with anything I knew about administrative law theory,” she says. So Peck decided to look for an explanation for how this anomalous system had been set up in the first place, and what rationale, if any, sustained it despite a general consensus that the existing structure is nothing if not broken.

Peck shares her findings in the upcoming book The Accidental History of the US Immigration Courts: War, Fear, and the Roots of Dysfunction, a revealing account of how wartime paranoia and xenophobia shaped a system that has been with us for over 80 years. “As long as the immigration courts remain under the authority of the Attorney General, the administration of immigration justice will remain a game of political football—with people’s lives on the line,” Peck writes. I called Peck to discuss what World War II and Nazi Germany have to do with modern-day US immigration courts, and how Congress can fix an “irrationally constructed” system.

You trace the origins of the architecture of immigration courts back to two pivotal moments. The first is 1940, when President Franklin D. Roosevelt moved the immigration services from the Department of Labor into the Department of Justice. How did that come about?

Immigration services had long been treated as kind of a stepchild within the Department of Labor. With the New Deal and the labor strife throughout the 20s and into the 1930s, the Secretary of Labor had the obligation to deal fairly and impartially with union leaders, many of whom were immigrants, but then also had the responsibility of investigating and deporting immigrants who were in the country unlawfully. That tension started to become pretty extreme. Francis Perkins, the Secretary of Labor at the time, ended up being in the political crosshairs in part because of her handling of immigration cases. She was in favor of immigration being moved out of the Department of Labor, but she didn’t think it was very appropriate to have it in the Department of Justice because it shouldn’t be associated with crime and law enforcement.

In fact, Roosevelt had resisted members of Congress and the public for over a year. He had lawyers in the DOJ study the issue, and they sent him a report concluding that moving the immigration services into the DOJ would be inappropriate and could change the understanding of immigration for the country. His attorney general at the time, Robert H. Jackson—who later became a Supreme Court justice and also presided at the Nuremberg trials—advised him against it, calling for a sort of temporary wartime agency that dealt with the threat of sabotage, rather than setting up a system that invites an entry of politics into immigration cases. So it’s not as if Roosevelt and his advisers didn’t understand the risks of what they were doing. They did, and they resisted it for some time. But because of the fear and the nature of the threat and things that they just couldn’t have known at the time, they decided, for lack of any better option, that they would do this.

At the time, the Roosevelt administration justified the move as a necessary response to a national security threat. How exactly did the war in Europe ultimately influence his decision?

In 1939, much of Congress was still pretty isolationist, and there was a lot of skepticism about Roosevelt’s willingness to get involved in the war and make the United States a leading force. The occupation of Denmark by the Nazis in April 1940 was really a game changer. The isolationism of the United States up until that point was based on this notion that we’re an ocean apart and protected by geography—what happens in Europe can’t affect us directly. But Denmark had possession of Greenland, so the Nazis had a base in North America where they could refuel, restock, and plan attacks from there.

By that time, the State Department and the FBI were both actively tracking what they saw as the “Fifth Column” threat: this idea that foreign nationals might be plotting to take over from within the country without anyone ever knowing what happened. When the invasion of France and the Low Countries occurred in May [1940], many people assumed that this must have been because people in high level positions within these countries were simply raising the drawbridge and letting the Nazis through without resistance. [Roosevelt] was very influenced by the visit that the Undersecretary of State Sumner Welles had paid to the Axis powers. He came back very worried and told Roosevelt “I think we need to make this move.” After Roosevelt had said no for a year, he changed his mind and within three days, it was done.

This decision looks very different in retrospect, doesn’t it?

It’s understandable in historical context that Roosevelt felt that he needed to do something to protect against what could be a serious threat. But in hindsight, he realized the fears were misplaced. As it happened, the Nazis kept their plans very close to the vest and didn’t trust people outside their inner circle. This “Fifth Column” was actually just propaganda and the enemy stoking fear in order to create insecurity and undermine Allies’ morale.

“What happened was that people were understandably fearful at times of national security crisis and were easily swayed by fear and propaganda that was spread precisely to create that type of fear.”

Looking back now, 80 years later, it certainly has had the effect that Roosevelt and his advisors feared of making immigration be equated with crime and caught up with the political process. It really is sort of a function of historical accidents that we have the system where it is. It’s not the case that anyone ever said it would make good sense from an administrative law perspective to have immigration adjudication done in the Department of Justice under the control of the Attorney General. That was not a conversation that ever occurred. What happened was that people were understandably fearful at the time of national security crisis and were easily swayed by fear and propaganda that was spread precisely to create that type of fear.

You write that the scenario Roosevelt had feared sixty years earlier of a foreign attack from within the country came to be in the early 2000’s with 9/11, and that in turn overhauled immigration policy in the twenty-first century. What did that overhaul mean specifically for immigration courts?

I looked to see whether there had ever been serious consideration of changing this system in the last 80 years, particularly after the realization that this so-called “Fifth Column” never really existed, and this was really just a response to Nazi propaganda that we are still stuck with. What I found was that in the 90s, there was some movement toward reform, but then 9/11 happened and changed the way Americans were thinking about foreign nationals, immigration, visas, and the relationship between the State Department and the FBI or other domestic law enforcement. For some time, it appeared that the immigration courts would be moved into [the recently created Department of] Homeland Security. Many people in Congress, especially Democrats, but some Republicans as well, were concerned about this. Maybe having it in a law enforcement agency wasn’t perfect, but having it in this national security agency, where it would once again be closely aligned with the prosecutors, would be even worse. With relatively little focus on the immigration courts at the time, the best that could be accomplished was to keep them in the Department of Justice instead of moving them into the Department of Homeland Security. It was an opportunity for reform that then got swept away by the events of 9/11.

After that, the issue sort of went underground again, until it started to appear on people’s radar screens during the Trump administration. Until then, the immigration courts were mostly allowed to function independently, and so people weren’t as up in arms about it. For the most part, Attorney Generals were pretty hands off and so people thought: Well, it’s a system that doesn’t make a whole lot of sense, but it mostly works, so it’s not that important to make this institutional change. I think it’s an unfortunate combination of political forces that has led the immigration courts to sort of limp along in this way.

“The Trump administration exposed the vulnerability that was already there in the system.”

Immigration courts were dysfunctional in nature long before Trump took office, but under his administration that gained a new dimension. What did this unprecedented politicization of the courts look like?

The Trump administration exposed the vulnerability that was already in the system. What we saw was a much higher level of intervention, about four times higher than even the George W. Bush administration, which had been the most active prior. One of the ways that happened was through the frequency with which the Trump administration used the Attorney General’s self-referral power, which means the Attorney General can take a case away from an immigration judge at any time and decide it as he wishes. In the Trump administration, that power was used 17 times in four years. Previously, the highest number had been 10 times over eight years.

In one case, the Attorney General made a statement that victims of domestic violence and gang violence would generally not meet the asylum standard. Officers within the Department of Homeland Security were confused by the scope of the decisions that were unprecedented. That confusion is still ongoing, and it affects what happens every day in the immigration courts. Immigration judges are feeling that their independence has been highly compromised, and they are hamstrung by the decisions of the Attorney General to do things that they actually think are just. This system that everyone tolerated for a while, assuming and hoping there wouldn’t be abuses, has now shown to be very clearly subject to abuses.

There’s currently a backlog of more than 1.3 million cases. Yet, despite what seems to be a consensus that immigration courts are not working as they should, we still have the same system from 80 years ago. Are there any solid arguments to justify keeping the immigration courts under the DOJ?

There may be an assumption by people that it was set up this way for a reason, and that we might be losing something if we changed it. When we look at the history, it makes clear that it really was a historical accident that we ended up with this system. There never was a coherent rationale. It was something that was done as a matter of exigency, when there wasn’t a good solution. And so they took a bad solution instead and stuck with it. There’s not a whole lot of efficiency or institutional knowledge that’s being gained by having these immigration courts within the Department of Justice.

EYORE — “Eyore In Distress”
Once A Symbol of Fairness, Due Process, & Best Practices, Now Gone “Belly Up.” Largely self-created backlogs resulting from “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” by unqualified, xenophobic DOJ politicos and incompetent EOIR bureaucrats have become endemic at the totally dysfunctional Immigration Courts. There are lots of great ideas in the NDPA on how to slash the backlog immediately without denying anyone due process. But, Judge Garland to date has ignored them.

I think most people in the United States are not even aware that the immigrant courts are not part of our federal judiciary. They may be assuming that there’s a certain fairness built in that we expect from the federal courts when, in fact, it isn’t there. These are not courts; they are part of a law enforcement agency. The system is actually set up in such a way that it allows for political decision-making to become part of these court cases in a way that Americans don’t usually think of court cases being decided. That’s really inconsistent with American notions of justice, fairness, and due process. We think that those are decided by what we hope and aspire to be independent judges who are not part of the political branches and not subject to the whims of politics. From that fundamental misunderstanding, if we look deeper, we can see a desire for change. We have the choice to change that now.

Your book seems to suggest that the problem runs way deeper than what stopgap measures like hiring more immigration judges could accomplish. What do you think is an appropriate approach to creating independent immigration courts?

Adding more immigration judges or changing the way immigration judges are hired to have more diversity are not bad ideas in and of themselves, but they don’t get at the root of the problem. The root of the problem is that the immigration courts were never really intended to be impartial courts. Under our basic founding Constitutional principles of due process and separation of powers, we can and should protect the adjudication process and make it separate from the law enforcement process. The Biden administration could play a role by urging Congress to seriously consider and to pass legislation that would separate immigration courts into an Article I court system. Article I courts are a relatively independent system set up by Congress and, by definition, would create separation between the immigration courts and the executive branch. That would give us something that approaches the fairness that people deserve.

This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

FACT:

Mother Jones was founded as a nonprofit in 1976 because we knew corporations and the wealthy wouldn’t fund the type of hard-hitting journalism we set out to do.

Today, reader support makes up about two-thirds of our budget, allows us to dig deep on stories that matter, and lets us keep our reporting free for everyone. If you value what you get from Mother Jones, please join us with a tax-deductible donation today so we can keep on doing the type of journalism 2021 demands.

EOIR continues to apply “old time methods” to those poor souls stuck at the “retail level” of American “justice,” as “Team Garland” ignores the screams for help!

Trial By Ordeal — Woman Being “Tried By Ordeal”
17th Century Woodcut
Public Realm
Source: Ancient Origins Website
https://www.ancient-origins.net/history/trial-ordeal-life-or-death-method-judgement-004160

Four Horsemen — BIA Asylum Panel In Action
Albrecht Dürer, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

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

Clearly, experts like Professor Alison Peck, who understand and have personally experienced the abominable, unconstitutional, life threatening unfairness of this broken and totally dysfunctional system should be the judges and intellectual leaders, particularly at the appellate level, of a reformed, independent Immigration Court system.

In a functioning legal system, successful asylum seekers would fill their essential role in increased legal immigration that has been denied them by a distorted, racist, misogynist system that treats them as a “problem to be solved” — largely because of their skin color — rather than humans entitled to our protection who will contribute to our future.

Indeed, every day we illegally turn away many of those we need for our future in their hour of direst need! Such selfishness, cruelty, mockery of the rule of law, and short-sightedness does not reflect well on our nation!

“It’s not rocket science,” but so far Garland, Monaco, and Gupta have “blown off” the advice of human rights experts like Professor Peck and refused to consult, elevate, or otherwise empower those who could bring due process, order, and expert, professional judging to the Immigration Courts!

Due Process Forever!

PWS

04-29-21

⚖️🇺🇸🗽👍🏼👨🏻‍⚖️JUSTICE GORSUCH LEADS 6-3 SUPREMES’ MAJORITY IN HANDING MIGRANTS HUGE VICTORY OVER DHS & EOIR INTRANSIGENCE/INCOMPETENCE IN “STOP TIME RULE” CASE — Niz-Chavez v. Garland — “Round Table” Amicus Plays A Role In Success! — “A single notice—rather than 2 or 20 documents!”

Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch — Associate Justice Neil M. Gorsuch; photograph by Franz Jantzen, 2017.

Niz-Chavez v. Garland, U.S. Supreme Court, 04-20-21

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/19-863_6jgm.pdf

SYLLABUS BY COURT STAFF:

Syllabus

NIZ-CHAVEZ v. GARLAND, ATTORNEY GENERAL CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR

THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

No. 19–863. Argued November 9, 2020—Decided April 29, 2021

Nonpermanent resident aliens ordered removed from the United States under federal immigration law may be eligible for discretionary relief if, among other things, they can establish their continuous presence in the country for at least 10 years. 8 U. S. C. §1229b(b)(1). But the so- called stop-time rule included in the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA) provides that the pe- riod of continuous presence “shall be deemed to end . . . when the alien is served a notice to appear” in a removal proceeding under §1229a. §1229b(d)(1). The term “notice to appear” is defined as “written notice . . . specifying” certain information, such as the charges against the al- ien and the time and place at which the removal proceedings will be held. §1229(a)(1). A notice that omits any of this statutorily required information does not trigger the stop-time rule. See Pereira v. Ses- sions, 585 U. S. ___. Here, the government ordered the removal of pe- titioner Agusto Niz-Chavez and sent him a document containing the charges against him. Two months later, it sent a second document, providing Mr. Niz-Chavez with the time and place of his hearing. The government contends that because the two documents collectively specified all statutorily required information for “a notice to appear,” Mr. Niz-Chavez’s continuous presence in the country stopped when he was served with the second document.

Held: A notice to appear sufficient to trigger the IIRIRA’s stop-time rule is a single document containing all the information about an individ- ual’s removal hearing specified in §1229(a)(1). Pp. 4–12.

(a) Section 1229b(d)(1) states that the stop-time rule is triggered by serving “a notice,” and §1229(a)(1) explains that “written notice” is “re- ferred to as a ‘notice to appear.’ ” Congress’s decision to use the indef- inite article “a” suggests it envisioned “a” single notice provided at a

2

NIZ-CHAVEZ v. GARLAND Syllabus

discrete time rather than a series of notices that collectively provide the required information. While the indefinite article “a” can some- times be read to permit multiple installments (such as “a manuscript” delivered over months), that is not true for words like “notice” that can refer to either a countable object (“a notice”) or a noncountable abstrac- tion (“sufficient notice”). The inclusion of an indefinite article suggests Congress used “notice” in its countable sense. More broadly, Congress has used indefinite articles to describe other case-initiating plead- ings—such as an indictment, an information, or a civil complaint, see, e.g., Fed. Rules Crim. Proc. 7(a), (c)(1), (e); Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 3—and none suggest those documents might be delivered by installment. Nor does the Dictionary Act aid the government, as that provision merely tells readers of the U. S. Code to assume “words importing the singular include and apply to several persons, parties, or things.” 1 U. S. C. §1. That provision means only that terms describing a single thing (“a no- tice”) can apply to more than one of that thing (“ten notices”). While it certainly allows the government to send multiple notices to appear to multiple people, it does not mean a notice to appear can consist of mul- tiple documents. Pp. 4–9.

(b) The IIRIRA’s structure and history support requiring the govern- ment to issue a single notice containing all the required information. Two related provisions, §§1229(e)(1) and 1229a(b)(7), both use a defi- nite article with a singular noun (“the notice”) when referring to the government’s charging document—a combination that again suggests a discrete document. Another provision, §1229(a)(2)(A), requires “a written notice” when the government wishes to change an alien’s hear- ing date. The government does not argue that this provision contem- plates providing “the new time or place of the proceedings” and the “consequences . . . of failing . . . to attend such proceedings” in separate documents. Yet the government fails to explain why “a notice to ap- pear” should operate differently. Finally, the predecessor to today’s “notice to appear” required the government to specify the place and time for the alien’s hearing “in the order to show cause or otherwise.” §1252(a)(2)(A). The phrase “or otherwise” has since disappeared, fur- ther suggesting that the required details must be included upfront to invoke the stop-time rule. Indeed, that is how the government itself initially read the statute. The year after Congress adopted IIRIRA, in the preamble to a proposed rule implementing these provisions, the government acknowledged that “the language of the amended Act in- dicat[es] that the time and place of the hearing must be on the Notice to Appear.” 62 Fed. Reg. 449 (1997). Pp. 9–13.

(c) The government claims that not knowing hearing officers’ avail- ability when it initiates removal proceedings makes it difficult to pro-duce compliant notices. It also claims that it makes little sense to re- quire time and place information in a notice to appear when that in- formation may be later changed. Besides, the government stresses, its own administrative regulations have always authorized its current practice. But on the government’s account, it would be free to send a person who is not from this country—someone who may be unfamiliar with English and the habits of American bureaucracies—a series of letters over the course of weeks, months, maybe years, each containing a new morsel of vital information. Congress could reasonably have wished to foreclose that possibility. And ultimately, pleas of adminis- trative inconvenience never “justify departing from the statute’s clear text.” Pereira, 585 U. S., at ___. The modest threshold Congress pro- vided to invoke the stop-time rule is clear from the text and must be complied with here. Pp. 13–16.

789 Fed. Appx. 523, reversed.

GORSUCH, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which THOMAS, BREYER, SOTOMAYOR, KAGAN, and BARRETT, JJ., joined. KAVANAUGH, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and ALITO, J., joined.

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

This is the type of case where I had hoped that Justice Gorsuch would “stick to his interpretative guns” by stopping the Government from basically redesigning clear statutory requirements “willy nilly” to suit their own purposes and disadvantage respondents. And, he came through! Big time! I’ve been critical of Justice Gorsuch in the past and am likely to be so again in the future. But, in this case, he did the right thing, and I, for one, am grateful!

Most encouraging, Justice Gorsuch “got” the way that the DHS and EOIR, with the deck already unfairly stacked in their favor, manipulate clear legal requirements for their own nefarious purposes and to the disadvantage of those struggling for justice in an inherently unfair system. There is absolutely no doubt that receiving “piecemeal notice” — incomplete and often sent to incorrect addresses or “personally served” without the proper reading and explanations — works to further disadvantage respondents.

Indeed, illegal, ineffective notices — some setting hearings on “phantom dates” and “imaginary times” — lead directly to an over abundance of “in absentia” orders and consequent illegal removals. Some unrepresented individuals understand how to reopen their hearings for lack of notice — but many are clueless; the Government system strives to keep them that way to “jack up the numbers,” meet “quotas,” and improve stats. Worse yet, Congress sometimes uses the “bogus stats” generated by DOJ and DHS to write legislation, conduct oversight, and establish policy. This is an astoundingly broken, dysfunctional, and intentionally unfair system — a disgrace to our entire justice system and our national conscience each day it is allowed to continue to operate in its abusive ways!

The majority in this case was both very interesting, and at least mildly encouraging, for those of us who believe in due process and fundamental fairness for all persons, including migrants, under law. In addition to Trump appointees Justice Gorsuch and Justice Barrett, another GOP conservative appointee, Justice Thomas, joined Justices Breyer, Kagan, and Sotomayor in the majority!

And, although this case has (incorrectly) seemed “hyper technical” to some Supremes’ watchers unfamiliar with immigration, it will have huge impact — forcing reopening and “redos” in tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, of cases in the already backlogged (1.3 million cases) Immigration Court. That will be the direct result of poor jurisprudence by the BIA, lousy court administration by EOIR, and horrible policy decisions by DHS.

Just another prime example of how “haste makes waste” enforcement gimmicks continue to cause unnecessary chaos in the system. Why not just appoint progressive experts as Immigration Judges and BIA Appellate Judges. Qualified jurists who will understand immigration law, due process, and “get in right” in the first instance? Certainly seems like a reasonable approach. What is Judge Garland waiting for?

This, in turn should add to the already loud cries (from virtually everywhere outside Judge Garland’s universe and the restrictionist right) for sensible, readily available backlog reductions and accelerated movement toward better judges and independence in the Immigration Courts, not to mention better management in the DHS enforcement programs.

Here’s my favorite quote from Justice Gorsuch’s majority opinion:

In the end, though, all this speculation is beside the point. The dissent tries to predict how the government will react to a ruling that requires it to follow the law and then pro- ceeds to assess the resulting “costs” and “benefits.” Post, at 17, 20–21. But that kind of raw consequentialist calcula- tion plays no role in our decision. Instead, when it comes to the policy arguments championed by the parties and the dissent alike, our points are simple: As usual, there are (at least) two sides to the policy questions before us; a rational Congress could reach the policy judgment the statutory text suggests it did; and no amount of policy-talk can overcome a plain statutory command. Our only job today is to give the law’s terms their ordinary meaning and, in that small way, ensure the federal government does not exceed its statutory license. Interpreting the phrase “a notice to ap-pear” to require a single notice—rather than 2 or 20 docu- ments—does just that.

*

At one level, today’s dispute may seem semantic, focused on a single word, a small one at that. But words are how the law constrains power. In this case, the law’s terms en- sure that, when the federal government seeks a procedural advantage against an individual, it will at least supply him with a single and reasonably comprehensive statement of the nature of the proceedings against him. If men must turn square corners when they deal with the government, it cannot be too much to expect the government to turn square corners when it deals with them.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Cir- cuit is

Reversed.

And, here’s some “immediate commentary” by Round Table spokesperson “Sir Jeffrey” Chase:

Victory! This was the case in which our Round Table amicus brief was specifically referenced in oral argument.

Congrats to all involves, and Due Process Forever!

PWS

04-29-21

☠️⚰️🤮👎🏽BIDEN/GARLAND/MAYORKAS WITH MASSIVE HUMAN RIGHTS FAILURE: 40% Of Asylum Seekers Illegally Returned By Biden Administration Suffered Attacks, Kidnapping Upon Return To Mexico — None Were Given Legal/Human Rights To Apply For Asylum (Under A System Already Biased Against People of Color & Women)! — This & Other News In The Gibson Report, Prepared By Elizabeth Gibson, Esquire, NY Legal Assistance Group!

Elizabeth Gibson
Attorney, NY Legal Assistance Group
Publisher of “The Gibson Report”

COVID-19 & Closures

Note: Policies are rapidly changing, so please verify information with the government and colleagues.

EOIR Status Overview & EOIR Court Status Map/List: Unless previously specified on the court status list, hearings in non-detained cases at courts are postponed through, and including, May 14, 2021. (It is unclear when the next announcement will be. EOIR announced 5/14 on Mon. 3/29, 4/16 on Fri. 3/5, 3/19 on Wed. 2/10, 2/19 on Mon. 1/25, 2/5 on Mon. 1/11, and 1/22 on Mon. 12/28.) There is no announced date for reopening NYC non-detained at this time.

USCIS Office Closings and Visitor Policy

TOP NEWS

An Early Promise Broken: Inside Biden’s Reversal on Refugees

NYT: Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken was in the Oval Office, pleading with President Biden. In the meeting, on March 3, Mr. Blinken implored the president to end Trump-era restrictions on immigration and to allow tens of thousands of desperate refugees fleeing war, poverty and natural disasters into the United States, according to several people familiar with the exchange. But Mr. Biden, already under intense political pressure because of the surge of migrant children at the border with Mexico, was unmoved.

Trump Asylum Work Rules Under Review, Changes Possible, DOJ Says

Bloomberg: Trump regulations aimed at lengthening the amount of time an asylum seeker had to wait to apply for work authorization are now under review, with potential changes coming, according to a new government filing in a federal lawsuit over the rules.

New Report Documents Nearly 500 Cases Of Violence Against Asylum-Seekers Expelled By Biden

Intercept: A joint human rights report published Tuesday, based on more than 110 in-person interviews and an electronic survey of more than 1,200 asylum-seekers in the Mexican state of Baja California, documented at least 492 cases of attacks or kidnappings targeting asylum-seekers expelled under a disputed public health law, known as Title 42, since President Joe Biden’s January inauguration.

Biden’s open to doing immigration through reconciliation, Hispanic lawmakers say

Politico: A push from Biden touting the economic benefits of immigration reform could supplement efforts by progressive groups to sell a pathway to citizenship for undocumented people as a $1.4 trillion boon for the U.S. economy. It also may boost efforts by some on Capitol Hill to argue that a pathway to citizenship for some undocumented immigrants can be passed in a reconciliation package that, if sanctioned by the Senate parliamentarian, could move through the chamber with just 50 votes.

How ICE’s Mishandling of Covid-19 Fueled Outbreaks Around the Country

NYT: To date, Immigration and Customs Enforcement has reported over 12,000 virus cases. Our investigation found that the impact of infection extended beyond U.S. detention centers.

Nearly 4,000 MPP Cases Transferred Out of MPP Courts Under Biden, But Most Cases Still Remain In Mexico

TRAC: Rates of case transfers out of MPP varied by court, from a high of 28 percent of cases assigned to the MPP court in Brownsville, Texas, transferred to a non-MPP court, to a low of just three percent of cases assigned to the MPP court in Laredo, Texas.

They missed their U.S. court dates because they were kidnapped. Now they’re blocked from applying for asylum.

WaPo: Many missed their court dates because they were kidnapped and held hostage, or detained by Mexican officials, or because they couldn’t find a safe way to get to the border in the middle of the night, when most were told to arrive for their hearings, according to lawyers, advocates and the migrants themselves. Some had medical emergencies related to the conditions in which they waited. An untold number, their asylum cases now closed, remain in hiding in northern Mexico.

Unaccompanied migrant children spend weeks in government custody, even when their U.S.-based parents are eager to claim them

WaPo: More than 40 percent of the minors released by the government have at least one parent already living in the United States, but HHS has been taking 25 days on average to approve release and grant custody to the mother or father, a number that dipped to 22 days Thursday, according to the latest internal data reviewed by The Washington Post. It takes an average of 33 days to release minors to other immediate relatives, such as siblings.

Despite Biden’s union support, immigration judges left waiting

Roll Call: More than a month after former D.C. Circuit judge Merrick B. Garland was confirmed as attorney general, the Justice Department — which houses the U.S. immigration court system — has not intervened.

What America would look like with zero immigration

CNN: In short, if immigration remained at near-zero levels, within decades, the country could be older, smaller and poorer. But if the US government welcomed more newcomers, within decades, the country could be younger, more productive and richer.

Sex Work Prosecution Changes in New York Are a Welcome Step — but Not Enough

Intercept: Historically, the criminalization of “promoting” sex work has left the loved ones and roommates of sex workers, as well as sex worker rights advocates, vulnerable to prosecution. For many immigrant workers, the risk of deportation will remain. The DA’s office said that it would continue to bring other charges that stem from prostitution-related arrests. “Trafficking” will no doubt be used to carry out raids and harass survival workers.

LITIGATION/CASELAW/RULES/MEMOS

Justices Won’t Hear Texas Bid To Revive Public Charge Rule

Law360: The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday ruled Texas and 13 other states moved too quickly in attempting to revive the Trump-era public charge rule, saying the states would have to first make their case at the district court level.

BIA Finds Attorney Provided Ineffective Assistance by Missending Medical Examination

Unpublished BIA decision finds prior attorney provided ineffective assistance by mistakenly submitting medical examination to USCIS rather than immigration court. Special thanks to IRAC. (Matter of Samuels-Foster, 7/30/20) AILA Doc. No. 21042002

BIA Finds IJ Improperly Drew Falsus in Uno Inference

Unpublished BIA decision finds IJ improperly drew falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus inference where sole false testimony related to whether respondent rather than his prior attorney signed his adjustment application. Special thanks to IRAC. (Matter of Luwaga, 7/31/20) AILA Doc. No. 21042001

CA3 3rd Circ. Says Courts Can’t Help Asylum-Seeker Define Group

Law360: Immigration courts were not required to help a Mexican immigrant refine his definition of the persecuted group he identified with in order to prevent his deportation, a Third Circuit panel has ruled.

CA3 Holds That INA §237(a)(2)(B) Provides No Pardon Waiver for a Controlled Substance Offense

Denying the petition for review, the court held that INA §237(a)(2)(B), which provides for removal of a noncitizen convicted of a violation of any law or regulation of a state relating to a controlled substance, contains no pardon waiver. (Aristy-Rosa v. Att’y Gen., 3/16/21) AILA Doc. No. 21041934

CA8 Upholds Denial of Asylum to Somali Petitioner Who Was a Member of a Minority Islamic Sect

The court held that the petitioner was removable because his Minnesota conviction for possession of khat related to a federal controlled substance pursuant to INA §237(a)(2)(B)(i), and found that the petitioner had failed to prove that he was entitled to asylum. (Ahmed v. Garland, 4/8/21) AILA Doc. No. 21041935

CA8 Says “Serious Reasons for Believing” Standard Under INA §208(b)(2)(A)(iii) Requires a Finding of Probable Cause

Where BIA had denied asylum to petitioner based on a finding that serious reasons exist to believe he committed a serious nonpolitical crime, the court held that the “serious reasons for believing” standard requires a finding of probable cause. (Barahona v. Garland, 2/3/21, amended 4/15/21) AILA Doc. No. 21021636

CA8 Concludes That Petitioner Was Barred from Cancellation of Removal Based on His Iowa Conviction for Possessing Marijuana

The court held that the BIA did not err in determining that petitioner’s Iowa conviction for possession of a controlled substance disqualified him from relief in the form of cancellation of removal, because the Iowa statute is divisible as to marijuana offenses. (Arroyo v. Garland, 4/14/21) AILA Doc. No. 21041937

CA9 Affirms District Court’s Grant of a Preliminary Injunction Against Third Country Transit Ban

The court upheld the district court’s grant of a preliminary injunction against the implementation of a DHS/DOJ joint interim final rule that categorically denies asylum to individuals arriving at the U.S./Mexico border. (East Bay Sanctuary Covenant v. Garland, 7/6/20, amended 4/8/21) AILA Doc. No. 20070636

CA9 Concludes IJ’s Adverse Reasonable Fear of Torture Determination Was Not Supported by Substantial Evidence

Granting the petition for review and remanding, the court held that the IJ’s decision to affirm the asylum officer’s adverse reasonable fear of torture determination as to the Honduran petitioner was not supported by substantial evidence. (Alvarado-Herrera v. Garland, 4/13/21)

AILA Doc. No. 21042032

CA11 BIA Mishandling Of Forged Letter Resurrects Removal Appeal

Law360: The Eleventh Circuit has revived a Gambian man’s bid to remain in the U.S., chiding the Board of Immigration Appeals for misrepresenting how attorney misconduct, including an alleged forgery, skewed his removal proceedings.

Texas Says Biden Admin. Ignores COVID-19 Immigration Rule

Law360: Texas’ attorney general said in a federal court complaint Thursday that the Biden administration was not abiding by Trump-era U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention rules meant to reduce the spread of COVID-19 by restricting illegal immigration.

ICE Must Hand Over Alternatives To Detention Records

Law360: U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement must hand over records related to its Alternatives to Detention program by May 3, in response to a lawsuit in New York federal court seeking information on how the agency surveils immigrants in its supervision.

ICE Rescinds Civil Penalties for Failure to Depart

Posted 4/23/2021

DHS announced that ICE has rescinded two delegation orders related to the collection of civil financial penalties for noncitizens who fail to depart the United States. ICE had initiated enforcement of civil penalties in 2018; as of January 20, 2021, ICE ceased issuing these fines.

AILA Doc. No. 21042331

DHS Notice of Suspension of Requirements Governing Employment for Venezuelan F-1 Students

Posted 4/22/2021

DHS notice of the suspension of certain requirements governing employment for F-1 students from Venezuela who are experiencing severe economic hardship as a result of the humanitarian crisis in Venezuela. (86 FR 21328, 4/22/21)

AILA Doc. No. 21042106

DHS Notice of Suspension of Requirements Governing Employment for Syrian F-1 Students

Posted 4/22/2021

DHS notice of the suspension of certain requirements governing employment for F-1 students from Syria who are experiencing severe economic hardship as a result of the civil unrest in Syria. (86 FR 21333, 4/22/21)

AILA Doc. No. 21042105

CBP Memo Updating Terminology for CBP Communications and Materials

Posted 4/21/2021

Troy Miller, senior official performing the duties of the commissioner, issued a memo establishing guidance on the preferred use of immigration terminology within the federal government. The memo provides a table listing prior terminology and the new terminology CBP will use moving forward.

AILA Doc. No. 21042100

ACTIONS

USCIS Request for Public Input on Reducing Administrative Barriers: Comments are due May 19, 2021.

March to Victory: Relay Across America

RESOURCES

AIC: The First 100 Days: Biden on Immigration Detention

AILA: Client Flyer: Extension of DED for Liberians

AILA: Client Flyer: Receipt Notice Delays and Related Intake Issues

AILA: From China’s One-Child Policy to Central America’s Gender-Based Violence Epidemic: An Argument for Expansive Application of the “Coercive Population Control” Political Opinion Ground

Asylos

Sierra Leone: Support for former victims of trafficking (AFR2021-01)

Namibia: Situation for people from Ovahimba tribe and treatment for diabetes (AFR2020-30)

Ecuador: Indigenous female children’s protection from domestic abuse and harassment, and young Indigenous mothers’ access to education and employment opportunities (AME2021-03)

India: Harassment and violence against Christians (ASI2021-01)

Ethiopia: Discrimination and violence against Eritrean children in Ethiopia (MEN2021-03)

Azerbaïdjan : Etat des lieux sur la corruption, l’opposition et les rapatriés (CIS2021-01)

CLINIC: Department of Homeland Security (DHS), I-9 and REAL ID Policies

CLINIC: Five Things to Know about Fraud and Marriage-Based Petitions

CLINIC: Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR)

CLINIC: Legislative Relief Packages

CLINIC: Presidential Proclamations and Other White House Policies

CLINIC: U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)

CWS: COVID-19 Vaccine Informational Videos for Refugee Communities (multiple languages)

DOJ OIG: Limited-Scope Review of the Executive Office for Immigration Review’s Response to the Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pandemic

HRF: Failure to Protect: Biden Administration Continues Illegal Trump Policy to Block and Expel Asylum Seekers to Danger

IAN: Webinar Handout: Mendez Rojas Settlement Agreement

Immigrants Rights Voices – Map of Retaliation

ImmProf: Chart of Terminology Changes at CBP

NIP/NLG: Aggravated Felonies and the Harmful Exclusion of People from Immigration Relief

Witness Radio: Title 42, The Invisible Border Wall

EVENTS

4/26/21 Clean Slate Advocacy Day training

4/27/21 The Relationship Between Immigration and Journalism

4/27/21 Dusting Off DACA

4/27/21 Relief for immigrant youth under the Biden administration – Deferred Action for Childhood

4/28/21 Spring 2021 Asylum Seminar

4/28/21 A Chance to Come Home: A Roadmap to Bring Home the Unjustly Deported

4/28/21 Community Defense: Legal Service Partnerships with Organizers

4/29/21 Adjudication of trauma in immigration proceedings

4/30/21Dismantling MPP Moving Forward: Lessons Learned From Working With Detained People and Formerly Separated Families

5/3/21 Finding A New Norm: Resilience Fundamentals

5/4/21 Dealing with Difficult People

5/4/21 Avoiding Future Travel Issues for Clients with COVID-19 Travel Complications

5/4/21Public Charge: Current State of Play

5/5/21 100 Days: Accountability on Immigration

5/5/21-5/6/21 U Visas: Advanced & Emerging Issues

5/5/21 Straight Talk on Stress in Law and How to Cope: Mindfulness for Lawyers

5/6/21 IDP: The Ethics of Representing Clients with Criminal Contacts

5/6/21Hot Topics in Asylum Law

5/6/21 Advanced Considerations in TPS & DED (Late-breaking)

5/10/21All About DOJ Recognition and Accreditation

5/12/21 NYIC: Legal Research and Writing Training Series

5/12/21New Virtual Workshop Models

5/13/21Marijuana and Immigrants

5/17/21-5/20/21CLINIC Convening 2021

5/18/21 DOJ Recognition & Accreditation

5/18/21Ethics in Representing Family Members in U Visa, U AOS/929, and VAWA Cases

5/19/21 Phase 1 of a SIJS case: the intersection of immigration law and family law

5/20/21 Understanding your Client’s Contact with the Criminal Legal System in New York City

5/26/21Hot Topics in Removal Defense

6/1/21VAWA Adjustment of Status Fundamentals

6/2/21-6/23/21 CLINIC Webinar Series: Overview of Immigration Consequences of Crimes

6/8/21-6/29/21 CLINIC Webinar Series: Citizenship and Naturalization

6/9/21-6/12/21 2021 AILA Virtual Annual Conference on Immigration Law

6/9/21Hot topics: Adjudication and Enforcement Trends

6/10/21Public Charge and Hot Topics in Consular Processing

6/14/21Taxes at the Border: Understanding the Tax Consequences of Immigration Status

6/15/21U Visa Hot Topics

6/15/21Motions to Reopen in Immigration Court: Part III – VAWA Self-petitioners

6/16/21 Phase 2 of a SIJS case: Preparation & submission of the immigration forms to USCIS

6/22/21Defending Immigration Removal Proceedings 2021

6/30/21Immigration Update – June 2021

7/21/21 The ethics of dual representation (child and guardian) in SIJS practice

7/22/21PLI: Defending Immigration Removal Proceedings 2021

9/23/21Representing Children in Immigration Matters 2021: Effective Advocacy and Best Practices

ImmProf

Monday, April 26, 2021

Immigration Article of the Day: Regional Immigration Enforcement by Fatma Marouf

Sunday, April 25, 2021

Map of Retaliatory Actions Against Immigrant Activists

Human Smugglers Bypass Border Patrol, Deaths on the Border in South Texas

Immigration Article of the Day: The War Against Asian Sailors and Fishers by Gabriel Jack Chin and Sam Chew Chin

Saturday, April 24, 2021

Protagonist of The Infiltrators Speaks Out Against Deportation of Whistleblowers

Immigration Article of the Day: Athletes in Transit: Why the Game is Different in Sports and the Visas Should be Too by David P. Weber

Friday, April 23, 2021

Balls of F$%*ing Steel

April 29: Bridging the Scientific-Legal Divide in the Adjudication of Trauma in Immigration Proceedings, UC Davis Global Migration Center

Immigration Article of the Day: (Un)Equal Immigration Protection by Carrie Rosenbaum

American First Legal (a/k/a Stephen Miller’s Foundation) teams with Texas in challenge to Biden immigration policies

Accolades: Emily Ryo

Thursday, April 22, 2021

April 24: Access to Justice Scholar Showcase

May 07: ABA Administrative Law Section Virtual Live Spring CLE Conference

From the Bookshelves: Taste of Belonging by Welcoming America

Wednesday, April 21, 2021

Conference June 9-11, 2021: ‘Ageing Gracefully? The 1951 Refugee Convention at 70’

Tuesday, April 20, 2021

Chart of Terminology Changes at CBP

In Defense of Chain Migration

What America would look like with zero immigration

Rutgers Law: Latinx Civil Rights Conference

Call for Proposals: Global Borderlands: getting to the core of Crimmigration

Monday, April 19, 2021

Oral Argument in Sanchez v. Mayorkas

From the Bookshelves: The End of Asylum by By Andrew I. Schoenholtz, Jaya Ramji-Nogales, and Philip G. Schrag

Peter Margulies: Biden’s Border Problem, and How to Fix It

More inclusive language for immigrants at ICE, CBP

America First Caucus Scrapped

Senator Booker Revives Bill To Overhaul Immigration Detention

Immigration Article of the Day: Expanding the Geographies of ‘Sanctuary’ and the Deepening and Contentious Nature of Immigration Federalism: The Case of California’s SB 54 by William Arroacha

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

The failure of President Biden, Judge Garland, and Secretary Mayorkas to end the grotesque abuse of asylum seekers at our borders will be a blot on their records. Human lives are at stake!

And establishing a due process compliant, robust, generous asylum adjudication system in the U.S. is not “rocket science.” With better, more courageous leadership, and different judges (a number of whom are already on the EOIR payroll), and a partnership with NGOs and organizations who know asylum law, a much better system could have been up and functioning well before now!

Just one word to describe the performance so far: INEXCUSABLE!

Biden Border Message — “Border Message”
By Steve Sack
Reproduced under license

Due Process Forever!

PWS

04-28-21

🤯🍺🐂🥩FORMER TRUMP ADVISOR LARRY “MEATHEAD” KUDLOW PUTS THE BLOOD & GUTS BACK IN BEER! — Who Needs Grains, Hops, Yeast, & Water?

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/apr/26/trump-larry-kudlow-biden-plant-based-beer?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

“Watch out! I hear that magamoron ‘Larry the K’ wants US for his new brewery. And I don’t think it’s to be ‘spokescattle’ for his new brew.”
Black Angus
PHOTO: Steph67
Creative Commons License

Martin Pengelly in The Guardian:

. . . .

“OK, got that? No burgers on 4 July. No steaks on the barbecue … So get ready. You can throw back a plant-based beer with your grilled Brussels sprouts and wave your American flag.”

Beer is typically made from grains, hops and yeast – not steak, sausages or chops.

Amid a blizzard of lacerating social media send-ups, the New York Times columnist Paul Krugman offered a sober analysis of what Kudlow was up to.

“So this seems to be the latest rightwing attempt to smear Bidenomics,” he wrote on Saturday. “There is, of course, nothing about eliminating meat in Biden’s plans; so this is like the imaginary mobs that burned our cities to the ground.

“If you read what Kudlow actually said, he’s cagey – doesn’t say that Biden proposed this, only that some people say this is what would happen. But Fox viewers won’t notice, which is the intention.

. . . .

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

I’m about to quaff one of these, Larry!

“Perhaps this was the ‘cow’ Larry the K was talking about! Stop by on July 4 for a few plant-based brats and down some ‘meat-free brewskies,’ Larry! It will be a good ol’ Wisconsin time!
Spotted Cow
From New Glarus Brewing
New Glarus, WI
PHOTO: untapped.com

And despite the fact that no animals died during the brewing process, I’m looking forward to a clean crisp taste, rather than a mouthful of blood and gristle.

DPF, and bottoms up!

PWS

04-26-21

🏴‍☠️☠️HOW RACIST DISTORTIONS & ABROGATIONS OF EQUAL PROTECTION & DUE PROCESS IN IMMIGRATION LAW FEED & REINFORCE INSTITUTIONALIZED RACISM IN AMERICAN LAW GENERALLY! — New Scholarship By Carrie Rosenbaum Highlights An Old Problem That Is Destroying American Law & Ripping Apart Our Society!🤮👎🏽

James “Jim” Crow

“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!

https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/immigration/2021/04/immigration-article-of-the-day-unequal-immigration-protection-by-carrie-rosenbaum.html

From ImmigrationProf Blog:

(Un)Equal Immigration Protection by Carrie Rosenbaum, 50 Sw. L. Rev. 232 (2021)

ABSTRACT

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.

🇺🇸⚖️🗽🧑🏽‍⚖️Due Process Forever!

PWS

04-26-21

🏴‍☠️☠️⚰️🆘GARLAND, MAYORKAS FAIL TO CORRECT GROSS ABUSES OF DUE PROCESS CAUSED BY MPP SYSTEM! — Reopening All Of The Unconstitutionally Denied MPP Cases Should Be A “No Brainer” For Competent Officials & “Real” Judges! — Tell Judge Garland His Unconstitutional & Abusive Immigration Courts Can’t Wait To Be Fixed! — Lives Are Being Lost & Suffering Continues While He Diddles!

Kevin Sieff
Latin American Correspondent, Washington Post

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2021/04/24/mexico-border-migrant-asylum-mpp/

By Kevin Sieff

April 24 at 11:16 AM CT

MATAMOROS, Mexico — Carolina had memorized the date, but she triple-checked her documents just to make sure. For months, her life had revolved around the court hearing at which she could finally make her asylum claim.

Like tens of thousands of asylum seekers who reached the U.S. border during the Trump administration, the 36-year-old from Honduras had been sent to wait in Mexico for her immigration hearing. She was told to return to the border on her court date.

So on Feb. 26, 2020, she woke up early and put on her best blouse. She said a short prayer. But not long after her bus left for Laredo, Tex., gunmen stopped the vehicle. They kidnapped Carolina and her 15-year-old daughter, took them to a stash house packed with other kidnapped migrants and demanded thousands of dollars in ransom.

By the time they were released a few days later, Carolina had missed her day in court.

Her asylum case, it turned out, had been closed in absentia because she hadn’t shown up. Of the 68,000 asylum cases processed under the Trump-era Migrant Protection Protocols, the policy also know as “Remain in Mexico,” 28,000 were closed for the same reason: Because asylum seekers didn’t present themselves.

. . . .

“MPP deprived people of due process and fundamental fairness,” she said. “In order to restore access to asylum in a meaningful way, the Biden administration needs to reopen cases for people ordered removed under MPP and allow them to pursue their claims safely from within the United States.”

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

Read Kevin’s full article at the link.

The last statement, from Haiyun Damon-Feng, the director of the Adelante Pro Bono Project and assistant director of the William H. Gates Public Service Law Program at the University of Washington School of Law, sums it up. It’s not rocket science! It’s basic “Con Law 101” with some common sense and human decency thrown in! It’s also an essential part of the Biden Administration fulfilling basic campaign promises! Folks like Damon-Feng are the ones who should be running this system, solving the problems, and reconstructing the legal asylum system!

In what kind of “court” system are kidnapped individuals, some of them minors and children, further penalized and the Government allowed to get away with not keeping accurate addresses of individuals in their process and of knowingly sending them into danger zones? The victims remain in limbo and suffering while the perpetrators of these illegal outages — both current and former government officials — have not been held accountable. This is a national disgrace compounded by the fact that neither Judge Garland nor Secretary Mayorkas have taken corrective actions. Nor have they cleaned out the deadwood from their own legally and morally bankrupt systems and put competent individuals in charge!

Qualified Immigration Judges and competent administrators at the DOJ and DHS could have started solving these problems beginning the day after the inauguration. That 100 days into the Biden Administration this system is still operating illegally and taking a human toll is both a betrayal of campaign promises and an abuse of humanity! It’s also horrible and clearly illegal policy!

How does an Administration that is actively engaged in “Dred Scottifying” people of color at the border and in their wholly owned Immigration “Courts” — actually modern day “Star Chambers” — have any “legitimate voice” on racial justice in America?

🇺🇸⚖️🗽Due Process Forever! Human lives matter! The Constitution matters! Asylum law matters!

PWS

04-26-21

⚠️🆘JUDGE GARLAND’S FAILURE TO ADDRESS HIS DYSFUNCTIONAL IMMIGRATION COURTS CONCERNS UNION, ADVOCATES, EXPERTS, & UNDERMINES HIS LEADERSHIP ON RACIAL INJUSTICE 🏴‍☠️ — Continuation Of Trump-Miller-Sessions-Barr White Nationalist, Anti-Asylum, Racist, Misogynist Agenda, Lack Of Plan To Replace GOP Hacks & Unqualified Judges Is A “Bad Look” For New AG & Team! — Round Table Star Judge Sue Roy Speaks Out!

Suzanne Monyak
Senior Reporter, Immigration

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

https://rollcall.com/2021/04/22/despite-bidens-union-support-immigration-judges-left-waiting/

Suzanne Monyak reports for Roll Call:

. . . .

Garland has yet to indicate whether he will rescind several decisions penned by attorneys general under the previous administration. In the last four years, Trump officials limited asylum eligibility for those fleeing violence by private actors, like gang members and domestic partners, and immigration judges’ ability to maintain their own dockets.

“There’s no reason that Attorney General Garland hasn’t done a thorough review of the attorney general certifications from the last administration,” said Susan Roy, a former immigration judge. “He should rescind any of them which he can. He has the authority to do that.”

. . . .

The Biden administration has also inherited a lengthy immigration court backlog — containing roughly 1.3 million cases — that have kept immigrants facing deportation and asylum-seekers waiting years for decisions in their cases.

The Biden administration has recognized that immigration judges may be key to processing these claims quickly and efficiently. In a preview of its budget request released earlier this month, the White House proposed increasing funding for the Justice Department’s immigration court agency from $734 million to $891 million to hire 100 new immigration judges.

Immigrant advocates and former judges say freeing the immigration court system from political influences is also critical to this effort.

“Without a union, there’s no way to protect judges against political ideologies of a given administration,” Roy said.

While judicial independence has “always been a concern” with a court system housed within a federal agency, “rarely has that been as problematic as it was under the Trump administration,” she said.

. . . .

Some advocates also want to see immigration courts be removed entirely from the DOJ and made an independent court system. The issue is on the agenda for the American Immigration Lawyers Association’s virtual “day of action” on April 22.

Roy, the incoming chair of AILA’s New Jersey chapter, acknowledged that Garland faces a number of competing priorities outside of the immigration courts. But she urged the administration against letting the system fall to the wayside.

“The immigration court is a subject that needs immediate attention,” she said. “Otherwise, it’s going to collapse under its own weight.”

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

Thanks, Sue!

Today’s Immigration Courts, hotbeds of inefficiency, worst practices, racial bias, misogyny, and unnecessary backlogs, undermine everything that Biden and Harris campaigned on. They also make Judge Garland’s pledge to return justice and independence to the Department of Justice look like a farce.

You simply can’t be responsible for something as totally broken, biased, and due process denying as the current Immigration Courts and have ANY shred of credibility on racial justice, independence, and “good government!”

Judge Garland’s concept of “justice” for refugee women and people of color seems a little out of touch — anti-asylum, misogynistic, anti-due process, xenophobic, racially charged precedents remain in place; regressive, unqualified judges on the bench; “worst practices” continue to flourish; 1.3 million case backlog builds; & He hasn’t spoken to the naij:

Woman Being “Tried By Ordeal”
17th Century Woodcut
Public Realm
Source: Ancient Origins Website
https://www.ancient-origins.net/history/trial-ordeal-life-or-death-method-judgement-004160

Due Process Forever!

PWS

04-23-21

🇺🇸⚖️🗽Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Courtside Exclusive

By Paul Wickham Schmidt

May 4, 2021

Related posts:

Who REALLY ‘runs” our disgraceful and dysfunctional Immigration “Courts”

This guy?

Or, this guy?

How can you tell?

🇺🇸⚖️🗽🧑🏽‍⚖️Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Related posts:

🇺🇸⚖️🗽Due Process For All Persons Under Law, Forever!

Related posts:

🇺🇸⚖️🗽😎🧑🏽‍⚖️👨🏻‍⚖️Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

🇺🇸⚖️🗽🧑🏽‍⚖️👨🏻‍⚖️Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

EOIR continues to apply “old time methods” to those poor souls stuck at the “retail level” of American “justice,” as “Team Garland” ignores the screams for help!

Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Congrats to all involves, and Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Related posts:

🇺🇸⚖️🗽🧑🏽‍⚖️Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

🇺🇸⚖️🗽Due Process Forever! Human lives matter! The Constitution matters! Asylum law matters!

Related posts:

Due Process Forever!

Related posts: