"The Voice of the New Due Process Army" ————– Musings on Events in U.S. Immigration Court, Immigration Law, Sports, and Other Random Topics by Retired United States Immigration Judge (Arlington, Virginia) and former Chairman of the Board of Immigration Appeals Paul Wickham Schmidt. To see my complete professional bio, just click on the link below.
“Eyore In Distress” Once A Symbol of Fairness, Due Process, & Best Practices, Now Gone “Belly Up”“Justice” Star Chamber StyleMe
Friends, you know, and I know, what is the biggest crisis facing the American justice system today. One that undermines and threatens racial justice, social justice, equality before the law, voting rights, American values, and indeed the very foundations of our democratic institutions and our justice system.
It’s imperative that our incoming Administration and its leaders fully recognize the overwhelming importance and extreme urgency of immediately ending the ongoing, deadly, and dangerous “Clown Show” at EOIR – the Executive Office for Immigration Review.
Under the defeated but not yet departed regime, EOIR has been weaponized by White Nationalist nativists to function as America’s Star Chambers. Once envisioned by its founders, including me, as a potential “jewel in the crown” of American justice, EOIR now has become an ungodly nightmare of anti-due process, anti-immigrant propaganda, bad judges, bogus stats, uncontrollable backlogs, malicious incompetence, stupid regulations, daily doses of irrationality, abuse of private attorneys, and institution of “worst practices.” But, it doesn’t have to be that way! No, not at all!
With courage, bold action, and, most important, the right people in place in leadership and key judicial positions, EOIR can be fixed: sooner, not later. The Immigration Courts can, indeed, through teamwork and innovation become the world’s best courts guaranteeing fairness and due process for all, promoting a model of best practices for the Federal Judiciary as a whole, and providing a trained and ready source of due-process oriented judges with strong immigration, human rights, and equal justice backgrounds for the Article III Judiciary and public policy positions.
EOIR will then be positioned for the essential transition to an Article I independent U.S. Immigration Court when we have the votes.
But, it will require a far more progressive, visionary, and aggressive approach than past Democratic Administrations. We must immediately (and legally) clear out the deadwood and get the problem solvers from the New Due Process Army (“NDPA”) — mostly now in the NGO, clinical, and private sectors, folks like you and your colleagues — in place to fix this horribly broken system.
When I wasn’t visiting border, I was trying to understand how the U.S. government could put in place a policy that seemed the very antithesis of what seeking asylum was supposed to be, as articulated in Refugee Act of 1980. I had spent my time before coming to Refugees International researching the writing and passage of that law and the development of the contemporary asylum system since 1980. The Remain in Mexico policy is unprecedented. The U.S. government claims the authority for it lies in a provision of the 1996 immigration law that allows for the return of certain applicants for admission to contiguous territory to await processing. I began researching this provision and it became clear that it was not intended to apply to asylum seekers.
In support of a challenge to the Remain in Mexico program in California federal court, Refugees International and I, with attorneys from Sidley Austin LLP, submitted this brief describing why the Refugee Act forbids the program, a reality that the 1996 law does not change. The argument of the brief is that, when the 1980 Refugee Act was enacted, it was intended to establish a uniform process for consideration of asylum claims that would preclude this return to Mexico approach. A lynchpin in the argument is that there were two versions of the asylum provision of the Refugee Act—one proposed by Congresswoman Holtzman and one by Senator Edward Kennedy. Only the House version provided that asylum seekers at a land border be accorded the same ability to seek asylum as those already in the country. When, in conference, Holtzman’s version was accepted, Congress made a conscious choice in pursuit of uniformity in consideration of asylum requests: that the United States would treat asylum seekers at the border the same as it would all others. And the language mandating uniform treatment of asylum seekers in the 1980 Refugee Act was reiterated in the 1996 immigration law.
. . . .
*******************
The case is Immigrant Defenders Law Center v. Wolf, USDC, C.D. CA.
Read Yael’s intro, her outstanding brief prepared by Sidley Austin LLP, and the “Holtzman Papers” at the above link.Notably, Sidley Austin is one of the great firms that have helped our Round Table with amicus briefs! It’s what happens when you connect the dots among history, research, social justice, and the law. It’s why the Liberal Arts are the wave of a better future and a better Federal Judiciary! It’s all about perspective and problem solving!
Thanks Yael for all that you, Refugees International, and great pro bono lawyers like Sidley Austin do for justice and humanity.
The real problem here: A disgraceful Supremes’ majority 🏴☠️ that improperly “greenlighted” this totally illegal, racist-inspired, “crime against humanity,” cooked up by neo-Nazi hate monger Stephen Miller ☠️🤮, after it had properly and timely been enjoined by lower Federal courts. And, a complicit EOIR that consistently fails to provide due process and justice to asylum seekers is a huge part of the problem.
Unlike the Supremes, the EOIR Clown Show 🤡 can be removed and justice at all levels improved just by a putting the right experts from the NDPA in charge right off the bat.
Democratic Administrations, particularly the Obama Administration, have a history of not getting the job done when it comes to achievable immigration reforms within the bureaucracy. If you don’t want four more years of needless death, disorder, demeaning of humanity, and deterioration of the most important “retail level” of our justice system, let the incoming Biden Administration know: Throw out the EOIR Clown Show and bring in the experts from the NDPA to turn the Immigration Courts into real, independent courts of equal justice and humanity that will be a source of pride, not a deadly and dangerous national embarrassment!
Contrary to all the mindless “woe is me” suggestions that it will take decades to undo Stephen Miller’s (is he really that much smarter than any Democrat politico?) racist nonsense, EOIR is totally fixable — BUT ONLY WITH THE RIGHT FOLKS FROM THE NDPA IN CHARGE!
It’s only “mission impossible” if the Biden-Harris Administration approaches EOIR with the same indifference, lack of urgency, and disregard for expertise and leadership at the DOJ that has plagued past Dem Administrations on immigration, human rights, and social justice.
It won’t take decades, nor will it take zillions of taxpayer dollars! With the right folks in leadership positions at EOIR, support for independent problem solving (not mindless micromanagement) from the AG & DOJ, and a completely new BIA selected from the ranks of the NDPA, we will see drastic improvements in the delivery of justice at EOIR by this time next year. And, that will just be the beginning!
No more clueless politicos, go along to get along bureaucrats, toadies, and restrictionist holdovers calling the shots at EOIR, America’s most important, least understood, and “most fixable” court system! No more abuse of migrants and their representatives! No more ridiculous, “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” generating self-created backlogs! No more vile and stupid White Nationalist enforcement gimmicks being passed off as “policies!” No more “Amateur Night at The Bijou” when it comes to administration of the immigrant justice system at the DOJ under Dems!
Get mad!Get angry! Stop the nonsense! Tell every Democrat in Congress and the Biden Administration to bring in the NDPA experts to fix EOIR! Now! Before more lives are lost and futures ruined! It won’t get done if we don’t speak out and demand to be heard!
This is our time! Don’t let it pass with the wrong people being put in charge — yet again! Don’t be “left at the station” as the train of immigrant justice at Justice pulls out with the best engineers left standing on the platform and the wrong folks at the controls! Some “train wrecks” aren’t survivable! 🚂☠️⚰️
Patrick Taurel Senior Attorney Clark Hill PLC D.C.
Subject: Victory in M.D. Ga. – gov’t bears burden of justifying detention in 236(a) bond proceedings by clear & convincing evidence
Dear colleagues,
I’m pleased to share the attached opinion authored by Judge Hugh Lawson of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia finding that the Due Process Clause requires the government in 236(a) bond proceedings to bear the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that the noncitizen’s detention is justified. The decision follows in the footsteps of cases like Velasco Lopez v. Decker, No. 19-2284-cv, 2020 WL 6278204 (2d Cir. Oct. 27, 2020), Dubon Miranda v. Barr, 463 F. Supp. 3d 632 (D. Md. 2020), and Pensamiento v. McDonald, 315 F. Supp. 3d 684 (D. Mass. 2018).
The bulk of the opinion is devoted to applying the Mathews v. Eldridge balancing test. Notably, the court rejects the argument advanced by the government here and in other cases like Velasco Lopez that the Supreme Court’s civil detention cases have no purchase in the immigration context. Citing Zadvydas and Justice Souter’s concurring and dissenting opinion in Demore, the court finds that the government’s position “belies the fact that the Supreme Court regularly relies upon civil confinement cases to inform its due process analysis in immigration cases.” “[I]mmigration detention,” the court explains, “is an extraordinary liberty deprivation that must be carefully limited.”
Other items of note:
We argued, cribbing liberally from Mary Holper’s exceptional law review article, The Beast of Burden in Immigration Bond Hearings, 67 Case W. Res. L. Rev. 75 (2016), that the BIA’s decision in Matter of Adeniji, 22 I&N Dec. 1102 (BIA 1999) was arbitrary and capricious under the APA. The court does not reach that issue but does recognize that the regulation the BIA relied on in Adeniji to allocate the burden on the noncitizen “does not apply to IJs determining release at bond hearings.”
The court acknowledges that under 236(a) the “IJ may … set conditions of release such as subjecting the noncitizen to electronic monitoring.”
For those practicing in the Eleventh Circuit where the government continues to cite Sopo v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 825 F. 3d 1199 (11th Cir. 2016) when it suits the government’s interests, the judge recognized that that case confers no precedential value in light of its vacatur.
Best regards,
Patrick
Patrick Taurel
CLARK HILL PLC
******************************
Congrats, Patrick!
The case is Gao v. Paulk:Here’s a copy of Judge Lawson’s decision:
Petitioner has already experienced a severe liberty deprivation. Two years of immigration detention imitates the Government’s punishment of individuals convicted of serious offenses. See 18 U.S.C. § 3156(a)(2) (“‘[F]elony’ means an offense punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of more than one year….”); 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B) (“‘[V]iolent felony’ means any crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year . . . .”); 18 U.S.C. §3559(a). Petitioner now faces a third year of incarceration—though the Government has “no . . . punitive interest” in civil confinement, and he “may not be punished.” Foucha, 504 U.S. at 80.
Reality check:
I did lots of non-detained cases involving natives of the PRC in 13 years on the Arlington bench. Perhaps a couple failed to show for their asylum merits hearings, but if so, I don’t remember it. The PRC is always among the “league leaders” in EOIR asylum grants and applicants from there have little reason not to show up for their hearings. That’s particularly true of someone represented by Patrick Taurel and Clark Hill!
So, this detention has little, if anything, to do with insuring appearance at immigration hearings. And, by the Government’s own admission, it has nothing whatsoever to do with protecting the public from danger.
So, what’s it all about? It’s illegal punishment for applying for asylum and asserting rights, intended to “deter” other individuals from doing so, and to enrich those profiting from gross and abusive over-detention of foreign nationals, as well as throwing “red meat” to the political right wing.
And, perhaps nowhere is the abuse of our system worse than in the Georgia Immigration Courts which have correctly been characterized as an “Asylum Free Zone” where unconstitutional, unlawful, and biased judging and demeaning of asylum applicants and their representatives has been allowed to flourish and “turned into an art.”
Will the Biden-Harris Administration end these perversions of justice occurring in broad daylight? It’s not rocket science:
Adopt the proper constitutional rule for bond cases set forth by the court in this and other cases;
Remove the current BIA and replace them with real appellate judges: experts in asylum, human rights, and due process, who will insure equal justice and fundamental fairness for every single individual stuck in the now out of control, dysfunctional, and intentionally unfair EOIR system;
Have a real BIA crack down on the “judicial outliers” in Georgia and require them to follow the proper Cardoza/Mogharrabi generous asylum standards, stop illegal and wasteful detention, treat everyone with respect and human dignity, and follow best (not worst) practices, or find other jobs more suited to their anti-immigrant philosophies.
Or, will the incoming Administration follow in the footsteps of the Obama Administration by ignoring or papering over the problems causing deep dysfunction and mockery of the rule of law, due process, and best practices at EOIR.
There are only two ways of approaching the EOIR mess: solve it by bringing in the NDPA, or become a part of it. The choice is easy.
But, sadly, not so easy that past Democratic Administrations have figured it out! And rumors that some of the same folks whose poor, ineffectual, wrong-headed approach to both immigration policy and administration of the immigration bureaucracy, as well as gross lack of appreciation for the Immigration Courts and their proper role, helped empower Stephen Miller & company to wreak havoc on our democracy and humanity are being seriously considered for high level posts in the incoming Administration are discouraging to say the least.
Leaving the true “defenders of the faith” out in the cold once again, while rewarding those who weren’t fighting on the front lines to save democracy, and “didn’t get it” the last time the Democrats had power, could be the death knell for both the Democratic Party and our nation.
Sad, but true. And you heard it first on Courtside!
Paulina is a former Arlington Immigration Court intern and yet another “charter member of the NDPA” who is doing great things and changing the future of American Justice for the better. Educator, litigator, practical scholar, leader, inspirational humanitarian, all around nice person, and future Federal Judge, that’s Paulina!
“Tune in” tomorrow night and compare the bright future of due process, fundamental fairness, equal justice for all, ethical behavior, and practical applied scholarship with the ugly tone-deaf, intolerant, and ethics-free rant delivered to the Federalist Society by Justice Sam Alito last week. Alito accurately represented the unjustified grievances of the unreasonably embittered dark forces currently promoting a dysfunctional Federal Judiciary that failed as a body to stand up to the cruel, unconstitutional, racist-driven, authoritarianism of the now-defeated Trump regime.
Those are judges who shirked their constitutional and ethical duties and disgracefully embraced the regime’s White Nationalist driven invitations to “Dred Scottify” (dehumanize) large segments of society including African American and Latino voters, immigrants, asylum applicants, children, union members, etc. There is no excuse for such performance from judges who are supposedly insulated from political pressures by the unique privilege of life tenure.
Life tenure is life tenure. So, Alito & his arrogantly out of touch, anti-democracy, far-right buddies aren’t going anywhere soon.
But, it is essential to start putting the faces of a elitist, intentionally unfair, backward-looking, and intolerant society like him “in the rear view mirror” and start actively cultivating for our Federal Judiciary the large pool of much better qualified, smarter, fairer, more ethical, more diverse, more courageous, and more humane talent like Paulina and many of her colleagues out there in the private sector.
Not surprisingly given the groups who have fought to preserve democracy for all of us over the past four years, a disproportionate amount of that talent is in the immigration/human rights bar. As a nation, we can no longer afford the gross under-representation of this consistently “over performing” and courageous segment of the legal community on our Article III and Immigration Judiciaries!
Build a better Federal Judiciary for a better America!
