Article I Immigration Court – Page 21 – immigrationcourtside.com

“TILL DEATH ☠️⚰️ DO US PART” — EOIR CAN CONTINUE OPERATIONS DESPITE COVID-19: U.S. District Judge “Stuffs” Immigration Bar’s Pleas For Better Protections!

https://www.law.com/nationallawjournal/2020/04/28/federal-judge-says-he-cant-order-immigration-courts-to-close-over-covid-19/?kw=Federal%20Judge%20Says%20He%20Can%27t%20Order%20Immigration%20Courts%20to%20Close%20Over%20COVID-19&utm_source=email&utm_medium=enl&utm_campaign=breakingnews&utm_content=20200428&utm_term=nlj&slreturn=20200328111724

Jacqueline Thomsen reports for the National Law Journal:

A federal judge in Washington, D.C., ruled Tuesday that he did not have the authority to order immigration courts to temporarily shut down during the COVID-19 pandemic.

U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols, confirmed to the federal bench last year, found he did not have jurisdiction to rule on that matter, and the immigration lawyers and detained immigrants seeking a temporary restraining order against the Justice Department, which oversees the immigration courts, are unlikely to succeed on the merits of their case.

He pointed to the Immigration and Nationality Act, which states legal challenges tied to removal proceedings conducted in immigration courts can only be brought to courts of appeals.

Nichols wrote that “the increased risk of contracting COVID-19 constitutes a cognizable injury sufficient to satisfy Article III, and also that the risk of contracting COVID-19 will increase as a result of being forced to attend in-person hearings.” But he found the detained immigrants named in the suit do not have “an imminent in-person hearing,” and therefore lack standing.

“More generally, there is no evidence in the record that any of the individual plaintiffs has been forced to appear, or will be forced to appear, at an in-person hearing over his or her request for either a continuance or some way of attending remotely, such as by VTC or teleconference. In fact, the evidence is to the contrary. The individual plaintiffs have thus failed to establish that they are likely to suffer an imminent injury to their health that is traceable to EOIR’s failure to take different action,” Nichols wrote.

The judge also took issue with immigration lawyer groups who alleged that detained immigrants are being deprived of counsel due to policies implemented during the pandemic.

Nichols said the lawyers “fail to explain” how the policies have caused the immigrants “to be unable to retain an attorney—especially considering that they had been unable to find counsel even before the pandemic and considering that they were able to retain counsel for this suit.”

He further said the immigration lawyers have failed to show that “immigration judges are regularly refusing to deny requests for continuances or requests for telephonic or VTC hearings.”

. . . .

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

Those with access to the NLJ (everyone can get 3 free “non-premium” articles per month by registering) can read Jacqueline’s full article and get Judge Nichols’s full opinion at the above link.

A slight clarification of the last sentence in Jacqueline’s full article: “Nichols, during arguments, was concerned about what options detained immigrants have if an immigration judge, which are Article I judges under the control of the Department of Justice, refused to delay an in-person hearing or hold it remotely.”

Immigration Judges are “administrative judges” who work for the Attorney General. Unfortunately, they are not “Article I Judges,” which would make them a true independent judiciary.

Immigration Judges would like to be Article I Judges. Most immigration and judicial experts agree that they should be. There are a number of legislative proposals circulating to establish an independent Article Immigration Court. But, alas, notwithstanding the obvious and pressing need, Congress is nowhere close to legislating the necessary change.

So, these current blatantly unconstitutional “captive courts” operating under the DOJ will continue to stagger on, taking innocent lives and trampling due process and fundamental fairness in the process. Grimly, as I had predicted, it’s apparently going to take some actual dead bodies⚰️of migrants and perhaps their lawyers piling up on the courthouse steps to get either the Article IIIs or Congress to pay serious attention to this unfolding disaster which seems to operate just enough beneath their “radar screens” to allow them to ignore or, as in this case, paper it over.

Due Process Forever! Captive Courts Never!

PWS

04-28-20

ANOTHER BIG DUE PROCESS VICTORY: 3rd. Cir. Reaffirms That Due Process Applies Equally To Discretionary Relief, Finds BIA Screwed Up “Ineffective Assistance Claim,” Rejects OIL’s Attack On Due Process — Calderon-Rosas v. Atty. Gen.

https://www.lexisnexis.com/legalnewsroom/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/ca3-on-ineffective-assistance-calderon-rosas-v-atty-gen

Dan Kowalski reports from LexisNexis Immigration Community:

Daniel M. Kowalski

27 Apr 2020

ineffective assistance

CA3 on Ineffective Assistance: Calderon-Rosas v. Atty. Gen.

Calderon-Rosas v. Atty. Gen.

“Immigration law is a field in which fair, accurate factfinding is of critical importance. The need in immigration proceedings for effective attorneys who can competently marshal the evidence on each side is therefore of commensurate importance. Yet aliens—often poor, often non-English speaking—are disproportionately saddled with low-quality counsel, and the consequences can be drastic. This is a case in point. Petitioner Sergio Calderon-Rosas paid a now-disbarred attorney to represent him in removal proceedings, and Calderon-Rosas was ordered deported after that attorney failed to present key evidence supporting his application for cancellation of removal. Calderon-Rosas sought a new hearing, arguing that he was deprived of due process by, among other things, his attorney’s ineffective assistance, but the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denied his claims. We must decide whether we have jurisdiction to review due process claims where a petitioner, like Calderon-Rosas, seeks only discretionary relief—and if so, whether Calderon-Rosas’s claims have merit. Because we conclude that we have jurisdiction and Calderon-Rosas plainly presents a meritorious ineffective-assistance claim, we will vacate the Board’s decision and remand.”

[Hats off to Petra D. Fist!]

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

Get the full decision at the link.

Panel: GREENAWAY, JR., KRAUSE, and RESTREPO,

Circuit Judges

Opinion by: Judge Krause

Here’s my favorite quote from court’s unanimous opinion written by Circuit Judge Krause:

The government’s argument, however, is one we have squarely rejected. We long ago recognized that due process claims can be asserted by petitioners seeking discretionary relief because “Congress instructed the Attorney General to establish an asylum procedure,” and “[w]hen Congress directs an agency to establish a procedure . . . it can be assumed that Congress intends that procedure to be a fair one.” Marincas v. Lewis, 92 F.3d 195, 203 (3d Cir. 1996) (addressing asylum claim). “[F]airness,” we explained, “mandate[s] that the asylum procedure promulgated by the Attorney General provide the most basic of due process.” Id.; see also Cham v. Att’y Gen., 445 F.3d 683, 691 (3d Cir. 2006) (“[A]lthough Cham has no constitutional right to asylum, he was entitled, as a matter of due process, to a full and fair hearing on his application.”); Ponce-Leiva v. Ashcroft, 331 F.3d 369, 373–74

8

(3d Cir. 2003) (“Ponce–Leiva’s brief . . . suggests that counsel’s ineffectiveness was a denial of due process. Accordingly, we may analyze the claim, at least within the parameters of due process.”).

More recently, in Serrano-Alberto v. Attorney General, 859 F.3d 208 (3d Cir. 2017), in exercising jurisdiction over claims for discretionary relief, we reiterated that “petitioners must receive a full and fair hearing that allows them a reasonable opportunity to present evidence on their behalf, and a decision on the merits of their claim by a neutral and impartial arbiter.” Id. at 213 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). That procedural due process right, we explained, is comprised of “three key protections” in immigration proceedings: “(1) ‘factfinding based on a record produced before the decisionmaker and disclosed to him or her’; (2) the opportunity to ‘make arguments on his or her own behalf’; and (3) ‘an individualized determination of his [or her] interests.’” Id. (quoting Dia v. Ashcroft, 353 F.3d 228, 239 (3d Cir. 2003) (en banc)). In short, “[t]hroughout all phases of deportation proceedings, petitioners must be afforded due process of law.” Id.

So true. Yet, so often ignored in practice by the Supremes and Circuit Courts.

The current Immigration “Court” system is run by a politically biased enforcement official, Billy Barr, who solely controls judicial appointments, job retention, sets so-called “performance standards” intentionally weighted toward DHS Enforcement’s needs, establishes binding “precedents,” and changes results favorable to asylum seekers and other respondents when they don’t suit his nativist agenda. In this system, no respondent is receiving a “fundamentally fair hearing” before a “fair and impartial decision maker.”

Even if an Immigration Judge tries to act fairly in an individual case, as many do, they are still bound by the Attorney General’s pro-enforcement policies, and the specter of arbitrary reversal of results favorable to the respondent by so-called “certification” by the AG hangs over and materially compromises the entire system and every proceeding.

Indeed, by concentrating only on the small, and somewhat random, sampling of “petitions for review” that actually cross their desks, the Courts of Appeals and the Supremes are ignoring the systemic lack of fundamental due process that infects this entire dysfunctional and unfair system. Time to wake up and do the right thing!

Nice words are one thing. Actions an entirely different matter!

Due Process Forever!

PWS

04-28-20

LEE SUNDAY EVANS @ WATERWELL: “The Power of Transcripts”— “It wasn’t hard to recognize the power of each individual story, and the patterns revealed when reading two, three, ten testimonies were a disturbing depiction of how the protections outlined in the Flores Settlement Agreement (FSA) were being violated.”

Hon. Jeffrey S. Chase
Jeffrey S. Chase Blog
Coordinator & Chief Spokesperson, Round Table of Retired Immigration Judges

FYI, an essay by Waterwell Artistic Director Lee Sunday Evans on the company’s immigration law related work. Best, Jeff

https://howlround.com/power-transcripts

The Power of Transcripts

In July 2019, I sat down with a few people at the Immigrants’ Rights Clinic at Columbia Law School to discuss the possibility of bringing a performance of The Courtroom: a re-enactment of one woman’s deportation proceedings—a production by the New York City–based theatre company Waterwell, where I’m artistic director—to their campus. Fast forward thirty minutes and Elora Mukherjee—the director of the clinic, an immigration lawyer and professor—had our attention focused in a different direction.

Elora was describing her work as a monitor for the Flores Settlement Agreement—a court settlement that sets the time limit and conditions under which children can be held in immigration detention—over the past twelve years; two weeks earlier, she had provided testimony in front of the House Committee on Oversight and Reform about the deplorable conditions she and her colleagues had witnessed in two immigration detention facilities in Clint and Ursula, Texas. Then, Elora politely declined to bring The Courtroom to Columbia Law School—at least for the time being—and asked if Waterwell would consider making a new project using first-person testimonies of the children and young parents she had met at the border.

I’ll start at the beginning of our company’s engagement with immigration and then describe The Flores Exhibits—the project Waterwell created in response to this conversation with Elora Mukherjee.

The Courtroom. Photo by Miguel Amortegui

The Courtroom

In the summer of 2018, Arian Moayed—an actor, writer, director, and co-founder of Waterwell—was watching, along with the rest of the United States, as an increasingly heated debate about immigration enveloped our country. Family separations at the border and the uproar that followed flooded the news, along with stories about how increasingly rapid deportation proceedings were compromising due process. Arian was born in Iran, immigrated here when he was seven years old, and became a citizen when he was twenty-six. The stories of how the United States was treating immigrants hit him personally.

He thought: How can Waterwell respond? What can we do to add something meaningful to this conversation?

Then a new question crystallized in his mind: We hear about them in the media, but what does a deportation proceeding in court actually look like? How do deportation proceedings work?

While reaching out to a handful of immigration lawyers and asking them to share transcripts of deportation proceedings, Arian met Richard Hanus, an immigration lawyer in Chicago, who has been practicing for over twenty-five years. Richard shared transcripts of one case he thought might be of interest, and Arian read it right away. The case was powerful.

The transcripts gave the story a certain kind of objectivity, an unvarnished truthfulness about immigration.

A few months later, I started as the newly appointed artistic director of Waterwell. Arian and I dove into these transcripts, did a rough edit of them, then another, then another, then an intense three-day text workshop with incredible actors, and came out with a script that had a three-act structure, with all the dialogue taken entirely from the court transcripts.

We asked Jeffrey S. Chase, a former immigration judge and widely respected leader in the field, to help us understand legal terms in the transcripts and to advise us on how to make most accurate representation of immigration court. He made a terrific recommendation: Go watch some proceedings.

We met at 26 Federal Plaza, went through the metal detectors, and headed up to the floors where proceedings take place. The courtrooms are small, with drop ceilings. There are no witness boxes and there is often no lawyer representing the immigrant—if you are an immigrant required to appear in immigration court, you don’t have automatic access to legal representation. This was not news to Arian, but for me, as a person born in the United States who had never interacted with the immigration system, I found it surprising and unsettling. Immigrants represent themselves, or pay not-unsubstantial sums to hire a lawyer. Non-profits and law school clinics step in to fill this gap, but they do not—and cannot—reach everyone.

Watching court proceedings—the combination of banal procedural details and life-and-death stakes—fundamentally shaped our thinking. What we witnessed was quiet, tense, tedious, disorienting. We knew that, for our performance, we’d have to risk recreating those very dynamics. It wouldn’t be quite a play but a reenactment. As we created The Courtroom, we focused on the small, regular mistakes shown in the transcripts—awkward phrasing of a thought, the quick mistaken use of a word—embracing them as interesting windows into how people function in court when they are prepared but don’t have a script, and set out to find real courtrooms to perform in. We created the original staging in our most hallowed venue: a grand courtroom on the seventeenth floor of the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, the seat of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. Though this prestigious courtroom was very different from small, plain immigration courts, the architecture taught us a lot about how courtrooms work.

The Courtroom. Photo by Maria Baranova.

The transcripts we used to create the script were from the case of Elizabeth Keathley, an immigrant from the Philippines who came to the United States on a K3 visa after she married her husband, who was a United States citizen. After inadvertently registering to vote at the DMV in Bloomington, Illinois, receiving a voter registration card in the mail, and voting, Elizabeth had to appear in court for deportation hearings. She lost the first case, but her appeal was heard in the Seventh Circuit, where the federal judges ruled in her favor.

The first performances were terrifying. We had no idea if the piece would capture people’s interest and hold their attention. But we put our faith in how this case encapsulated the age-old adage about the personal and the political. Through this story about a married couple in the early stages of building their family, who had made one honest mistake that put the wife in danger of being deported, the audience got to see a portrait of our nation’s legal system that exposed its catastrophic flaws and showed its singular, profound potential.

We were floored by audiences’ responses to the performances and started to understand the real power of the transcripts.

The transcripts gave the story a certain kind of objectivity, an unvarnished truthfulness about immigration—a polarizing issue that seems relentlessly distorted when we encounter it in the media, something that is all the more painful because it is central to our country’s identity. Ali Noorani, director of the National Immigration Forum, put it perfectly in his book, There Goes the Neighborhood: “Immigration gets at the core of who we are, and who we want to be, as a country.”

The Courtroom gave audiences an opportunity to get closer to the immigration legal system’s inner workings. Not to be told what to think, not to be told again how bad things are, but to get closer to something true and real. It was our realization about the power of unaltered transcripts that guided us when we started to think about what to make in response to our conversation with Elora Mukherjee.

The Flores Exhibits

We told Elora we would think deeply about how we could make a meaningful project, and she said she’d send us the testimonies. We took the conversation with her very seriously, feeling a sincere responsibility as artists to take up the need she put before us but having very little idea what we could create in response.

I printed out everything Elora sent me and sat down to read the sixty-nine testimonies. I thought: Again, here is that combination of procedural banality alongside life-and-death stakes. It unnerved me. The project needed to capture that specific disorienting, haunting aspect of the testimonies. It wasn’t hard to recognize the power of each individual story, and the patterns revealed when reading two, three, ten testimonies were a disturbing depiction of how the protections outlined in the Flores Settlement Agreement (FSA) were being violated.

Here’s a quick history of the FSA and why it’s important: In 1985, a fifteen-year-old Salvadoran girl named Jenny Flores was held in substandard conditions in immigration detention for a prolonged period of time. Based on her experience, a number of legal organizations filed a lawsuit against the government, which in 1997 resulted in the Flores Settlement Agreement. This set standards for the treatment of unaccompanied children (anyone under the age of eighteen) while they are in detention, including requiring the government to provide reasonable standards of care as well as safe and sanitary living conditions, and to release minors without any unnecessary delay, setting a cap of twenty days.

It is often impossible for people held in detention to socially distance, and there are many reports that there is no access to soap or sanitizer in numerous facilities.

The sixty-nine testimonies that Elora gave us were exhibits filed by the National Youth Law Center in a temporary restraining order requesting emergency relief for minors held in Customs and Border Patrol facilities; the firsthand accounts demonstrated violations of the Flores Settlement. Wrenching news reports about children being held in detention facilities for extended period of times—sometimes in cages—without access to basic hygiene supplies and adequate nutrition or sleep were based on these lawyers’ experiences and these testimonies.

What could we create to respond? We wanted people to experience the testimonies in full. We wanted people outside of New York City, where we’re based, to hear them. We wanted to involve actors but also all the incredible people we’d met during the process of creating The Courtroom who were not actors: lawyers, former judges, immigrant-rights advocates, immigrants who are not in the arts, and playwrights, designers, and other artists invested in this issue.

We decided not to make a piece of theatre. We decided to make a series of videos.

The testimonies would be read in full, without any textual or cinematic editing. We would ask readers from different sectors of society to participate with the hope that it would demonstrate—in a quiet, un-didactic way—a wide-ranging solidarity and investment in the issue. Each reader would sit at a simple wooden table with a glass of clean water, which is often described in the testimonies as being hard for immigrants to get in detention.

The Flores Exhibits. Photo courtesy of Andrew Kluger.

We wanted the readers to be good storytellers but I directed them not to take on any “character” they gleaned from the text or embody the experience described by the person who gave the testimony to the lawyers. We said the goal was for people to hear the words as clearly as possible—without emphasis, without dramatization.

To date, we have filmed forty-three out of the sixty-nine testimonies and are working to complete the filming of the remaining ones. This coming fall, we hope to instigate and facilitate live screenings of The Flores Exhibits around the country as a way to bolster support, organizing, and advocacy for the protections outlined in the Flores Settlement Agreement to be upheld and improved.

Taking Action

Right now, there are efforts around the country to decarcerate as many people held in jails, prisons, and detention facilities as possible due to the amplified dangers posed by COVID-19 to anyone in this kind of environment. It is often impossible for people held in detention to socially distance, and there are many reports that there is no access to soap or sanitizer in numerous facilities.

Using excerpts from videos in The Flores Exhibits, we released this ninety-second video connecting firsthand testimonies of people held in detention in June 2019 to the urgent need to get people out of detention during the COVID-19 pandemic.

If you are interested in getting involved, here are a few ways to start:

Find out where there are detention facilities near you: local jails and prisons often have contracts with ICE, and there are dedicated ICE facilities, often in rural areas. Once you know where those facilities are in your state, follow them in the news and connect with and support local organizations and elected representatives who advocate for the release of immigrants, proper living conditions, and access to healthcare in detention. (For a full explanation of government agencies involved in immigration detention, watch this video.)
Join and amplify the efforts of Detention Watch Network, a coalition of eight hundred organizations around the country to get urgent messages to governors, ICE directors, sheriffs, and other represented officials to release people from detention during COVID-19.
Join New Sanctuary’s efforts to advocate to free unaccompanied minors held in immigration detention.
Join Freedom for Immigrants to get involved in your area.
Read the Southern Border Community Coalition’s New Border Vision so you can be part of their proactive movement to transform culture, values, and policy at our southern border.

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

Think about the grotesque perversions of justice going on in the US today! Desperate kids seeking protection and entitled to legal process being illegally held in detention as unlawful punishment and coercion in violation of U.S. Court orders.

Some of the criminals who masterminded and carried out these illegal, unethical, and totally immoral schemes not only remain free but, outrageously, are on our public payroll: Thugs like Stephen Miller, Chad Wolf, Billy Barr, and Ken Cuccinelli. “Cooch Cooch” actually continues to spew his vile propaganda after being held by a Federal Judge to have been illegally appointed.

Another notorious human rights criminal and child abuser, Jeff “Gonzo Apocalypto” Sessions, remains at large and is outrageously running for return to the Senate, a position he already had abused and misused to promote a White Nationalist racist agenda in the past.

Still others like “Big Mac With Lies” and Kirstjen Nielsen are also at large, disingenuously trying to “reinvent” themselves by having the audacity to tout their past criminal activities, public lies, and human rights abuses as “senior executive experience.”

As these transcripts show, it’s a “world turned upside down” under the vile Trump kakistocracy. But, we all have a chance to redeem our nation in November by voting the kakistocracy out and re-establishing honesty, human values, mutual respect, cooperation, our Constitution, and the rule of law as the hallmarks of America.

On the other hand, the despicable performance by those public officials who abandoned their legal and moral obligations to humanity also shines a light on the many unsung heroes of our time: folks like Professor Elora Mukherjee, Lee Sunday Evans, Arian Moayed, Judge Jeffrey Chase, and the many other members of the New Due Process Army throughout the U.S. Unlike many of our public officials, they are standing up for Due Process and the rule of law in the face of seemingly never-ending tyranny, racism, xenophobia, and hate-mongering from the Trump regime.

Due Process Forever! The Regime’s Continuing Child Abuse ☠️☠️ Never!

PWS

04-26-20

TWO-FER: Billy Barr Assaults First & Fifth Amendments In Frivolous Attack On NAIJ — Seeks To Harass, Silence Immigration Judges’ Union For Fearlessly Speaking Out Against Demise Of Due Process, Improper Political Influence, Gross Mismanagement In America’s Most Unfair & Dysfunctional “Courts!”

Judge Amiena Khan is the executive vice president of the National Association of Immigration Judges (NAIJ) — Judge Amiena Khan Executive Vice President National Association of Immigration Judges (NAIJ)

Judge Dorothy Harbeck, an immigration judge in New York City, is the secretary/treasurer of the NAIJ — Judge Dorothy Harbeck Secretary/Treasurer of the NAIJ

Immigration TFL_Mar-Apr2020

Judge Amiena Khan and Judge Dorothy Harbeck (in their capacities as NAIJ Officers) write in the Federal Lawyer:

DOJ Tries to Silence the Voice of the Immigration Judges—Again!

The Second Attempt to Decertify the National Association of Immigration Judges

by Judge Amiena Khan and Judge Dorothy Harbeck

Immigration Law

Judge Amiena Khan is the executive vice president of the National Association of Immigration Judges (NAIJ) and serves as the co-chair of the NAIJ Vulnerable Populations Committee. Judge Khan was appointed by Attorney General Eric Holder in December 2010. She is seated at the New York Immigration Court and is a member of the New York State Bar. Judge Khan is the programs chair of the FBA Immigration Law Section and is also a member of the National Association of Women Judges.

Judge Dorothy Harbeck, an immigration judge in New York City, is the secretary/treasurer of the NAIJ. She is also an adjunct professor of law at Columbia and Rutgers. She
is a fellow of the Federal Bar Foundation, is on the Executive Board of the FBA Immigration Law Section, and is a member of the bar in New Jersey and New York.

The 2019 DOJ Petition for Decertification
In August 2019, the Department of Justice (DOJ), in a veiled attempt to silence the voice of the immigration judges (IJs), filed a petition with the Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA) to decertify the Nation- al Association of Immigration Judges (NAIJ).1 The NAIJ—origi

The 2019 DOJ Petition for Decertification

In August 2019, the Department of Justice (DOJ), in a veiled attempt to silence the voice of the immigration judges (IJs), filed a petition with the Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA) to decertify the Nation- al Association of Immigration Judges (NAIJ).1 The NAIJ—originally certified in 1979 as the recognized representative for collective bargaining for all U.S. IJs—is a voluntary association that represents and speaks for the interests of the nation’s 440 IJs. The NAIJ was formed with the objectives of promoting independence and enhancing the professionalism, dignity, and efficiency of the immigration courts. DOJ asserts that IJs should be reclassified as “management officials.” This would mean IJs could no longer union- ize, be part of a collective bargaining unit, or speak independently.

NAIJ serves as the only voice of the IJs who cannot speak out without prior express permission of DOJ’s Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR).2 NAIJ serves to afford transparency and accountability. The immigration courts are not independent courts under Article I or Article III of the Constitution. They are wholly contained within DOJ. Without a union,

IJs have no protection against the politicization of the process and their decisions. Without transparency,

the integrity of the process is in jeopardy. Without a union, the IJs cannot protest policy measures, such as the imposition of quotas and performance measures; the IJs cannot contest the numerous policies enacted by EOIR that encroach upon and undermine the inde- pendent decision-making ability of the IJs; and the IJs will not be able to rally against the effective speedup of the workforce, placing due process and fundamental fairness of the proceedings at risk.

How the Process Works

The burden to show that IJs are management officials is on the moving party (i.e., DOJ). The FLRA regional director (RD) has opened an investigation into the

NAIJ, seeking information about its responsibilities. DOJ can submit factual and legal arguments in support of its petition. The RD can then issue a decision or request a hearing to solicit more information. Either party can appeal the RD’s decision to the full FLRA board.

The Unsuccessful 2000 Attempt to Decertify

the Immigration Judges’ Union

This current effort follows a similar, and unsuccessful, strategy pursued by DOJ to decertify the immigration judges’ union approximately 20 years ago. In Septem- ber 2000, the FLRA’s RD rejected DOJ’s argument, and the full FLRA upheld the RD’s decision on appeal. In that prior decertification attempt,3 the FLRA reject- ed DOJ’s argument that IJs make policy through the issuance of decisions, noting that the trial court level IJs do not set precedent and that their rulings are often appealed and reviewed. The FLRA also said that the immigration court system was established specifically so that IJs do not maintain any management duties to enable them to focus on hearings.

The FLRA also ruled that there is a distinct differ- ence between the trial level IJs and the appellate level Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) members.4 The description of the duties of the IJ were described in the 2000 decertification attempt:

The daily routine of an Immigration Judge involves hearing and deciding cases that arise from the operation of the INS.5 A court’s juris- diction to decide these cases is determined at the time a case is filed. After filing, the cases are randomly assigned by the court administrator to an individual Judge and placed on a Judge’s calendar on his or her master calendar day. At that time, the Judge hears presentations from the parties and their attorneys, identifies the is- sues, and advises individuals as to their right to

March/April 2020 • THE FEDERAL LAWYER • 9

representation. The Judge also sets time frames and briefing schedules, as well as the date for trial.6

The nature of the IJs’ decisions and their position in the hierarchy of binding the EOIR was also set forth:

During a trial, the parties are represented by counsel and the rules of evidence are observed. Thereafter, in arriving at their decisions, Immigration Judges are required to apply immigra- tion statutes, applicable regulations, published decisions of the Board of Immigration Appeals and federal appellate courts, and other foreign and state laws. After the trial, the Judge issues his or her decision, almost always orally, and advises the parties of their appeal rights. Oral decisions are not tran- scribed unless they are appealed; are not published; and are final and binding only with respect to the parties to the case. With limited exception, decisions of the Immigration Judges may be appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals and review of their decisions is de novo. Certain cases may also be appealed to the appropriate U.S. circuit court.7

Citing its precedential case on the managerial status of BIA members (hereinafter “the BIA Management Case”),8 the FLRA specifically stated that the BIA appellate judges were management officials within the meaning of section 7103(a)(11) of the statute and, therefore, could not be included in the existing bargaining unit. In particular, it concluded that “the incumbent Board Member directly influences activity policy through his participation in the interpreta- tion of immigration laws and the issuance of decisions and, thereby, meets the definition of a management official set forth in section 7103(a)(11) of the Statute.”9

In the 2000 decertification attempt, the RD applied the BIA Management Case and concluded that “unlike decisions of the Board of Immigration Appeals, the decisions of Immigration Judges are

not published, do not constitute precedent, are binding only on the parties to the proceedings, and are subject to de novo review.”10 The RD accordingly concluded that the decisions of the judges do not in- fluence and determine the Agency’s immigration policy, in contrast to the decisions of the BIA.

The FLRA concurred that the RD’s definition of a management official is defined as “an individual employed by an agency in a posi- tion the duties and responsibilities of which require or authorize the individual to formulate, determine, or influence the policies of the agency.”11

Critically, the full FLRA also found that management officials are individuals who: “(1) create, establish or prescribe general princi- ples, plans or courses of action for an agency; (2) decide upon or settle upon general principles, plans or courses of action for an agen- cy; or (3) bring about or obtain a result as to the adoption of general principles, plans or courses of action for an agency.”12

The FLRA distinguished the trial court IJs from the BIA appellate judges by specifically holding that IJs do not “make policy through the issuance of their decisions … that in arriving at their decisions, Immigration Judges are required to apply immigration laws and reg- ulations, that their decisions are not published and do not constitute precedent.” Finally, the RD observed that the decisions are binding only on the parties to the case, are “routinely” appealed, and are subject to de novo review.13 There is no difference in this now.

The FLRA specifically agreed with the RD’s rejection of the EOIR’s claims that “the sheer volume of decisions issued by the [immigration] Judges and the finality of their decisions, unless they are appealed,” affect the EOIR’s policy. This is because “no matter the volume of decisions issued, or number of appeals filed, the fact remains that when an Immigration Judge issues a decision [,] he or she is applying and following established Agency law and policy.”14 Again, there is no difference in this now.

While IJs have some authority to control practice in their own courtrooms, they have no authority to set overall policy as to how the courts as a whole will operate. Nor, critically, do they have the authority to direct or commit the EOIR to any policy or course of action. The IJs are highly trained professionals with the extremely important job of adjudicating cases.15 This organizational structure and supervisory delegation was established specifically so that the IJs are unencumbered by any supervisory and management obligations and are free to concentrate on hearings.16 Aspirationally, this is still the position of the IJs.

. . . .

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

Read the rest of the article at the link. Many thanks to Judge Khan and Judge Harbeck for courageously speaking out and informing us in such a well-documented and scholarly manner.

It’s disgraceful that political leaders who are supposed to be committed to our Constitution and the rule of law instead misuse government funds and abuse their authority to cover up their wrongdoing and mismanagement. In a functional government, Barr and his toadies would be facing impeachment or referral for criminal investigation from Congress for their abuses of authority and attacks on our Constitution. Most certainly, a competent Congress would long ago have removed EOIR from the clutches of the DOJ politicos and placed it where it belongs: as an independent court system under either Article I or Article III.

Due Process Forever!

PWS

04-23-20

🏴‍☠️🆘 AMERICAN NIGHTMARE: THIS DEADLY ☠️🤮 “CLOWN SHOW” 🤡 IS A “COURT” SYSTEM? — You’ve GOT To Be Kidding! — “’Everyone feels the message is, nobody cares if you die as long as we get our numbers,’ said one worker in the office. . . . ‘I feel like half the time, I’m working on Trump’s reelection,’ said an employee in the office who spoke anonymously because of concerns about retaliation. ‘This is just a piece for him to tout when reelection time comes up about how much he’s getting done.’” — Politico’s Betsy Woodruff Swan Takes Us Inside “HQ” In America’s Most Morally Corrupt Court System, Where “Trumpian” Contempt For Due Process & Human Lives ☠️ Extends To Its Own Employees, Many Of Them Lower-Paid Clerical Staff!

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/04/23/doj-union-immigration-deportation-coronavirus-202075

Betsy Woodruff Swan reports for Politico:

The union for lawyers and support staff who handle Justice Department immigration appeals says their office’s working conditions put workers’ lives in danger. And employees in the DOJ office handling those immigration appeals said many suspect it’s because the department prioritizes high deportation numbers over worker safety.

“I feel like half the time, I’m working on Trump’s reelection,” said an employee in the office who spoke anonymously because of concerns about retaliation. “This is just a piece for him to tout when reelection time comes up about how much he’s getting done.”

It’s an accusation a spokesperson for the office vehemently denied. But the conflict is no longer being kept in the DOJ family; the president of that union recently filed a complaint with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), saying management requires too many people to come into the office, putting workers at risk of contracting Covid-19, the sickness caused by the novel coronavirus. Concerns in the office about worker safety were first reported by Government Executive.

At issue are working conditions in DOJ’s Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR). The office oversees America’s immigration courts––which are part of the Justice Department––and lawyers there handle appeals from immigrants fighting deportation orders. Those courts face a mammoth backlog of more than one million cases, by Syracuse University’s count. Despite hiring more immigration judges, the backlog has doubled under the Trump administration.

EOIR leaders have maximized how much telework employees there can do, the spokesperson said, adding that the office “takes the safety, health, and well-being of its employees very seriously.”

But the OSHA complaint, which Politico reviewed, says the office is violating a federal law mandating workplaces be free of “hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm.”

“The agency’s actions described below are proliferating the spread of a known and deadly contagion both within our building and to our surrounding communities,” the complaint reads. The office policies “are expected to result in death and severe health complications and/or possible life-long disabilities,” it says.

The office requires most support staff to come in, rather than telework, as they deal with physical pieces of paper and files as part of their work, per the complaint. The few who can work from home can only do so once a week, and on rotating days because they share the same laptop, the complaint reads. At work, support staff sit in cubicles in a shared area, “in direct breathing paths of each other,” it says.

Nancy Sykes, the president of American Federation of Government Employees Local 3525, filed the complaint on behalf of the union. It represents non-managerial Board of Immigration Appeals employees in the office, including attorneys, paralegals, clerks, and legal assistants.

The EOIR spokesperson, meanwhile, said the office is working to implement coronavirus guidance from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Office of Personnel Management, and the General Services Administration.

. . . .

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

Read the rest of Betsy’s report at the link. Long a superstar at The Daily Beast, and an articulate “repeat panelist” on “Meet the Press” with Chuck Todd, it’s great to have Betsy “back on the immigration beat” as a part of her “new portfolio” over at Politico. I’ve always found Betsy’s clear prose and insightful analysis enlightening!

Typically within the Trump immigration kakistocracy, the harshest consequences fall jump-on the most vulnerable. In Immigration Court, it’s often unrepresented asylum seekers, some of them mere children, being railroaded through the system with regard to neither due process nor a legally correct application of asylum law. Here, the brunt of the latest EOIR assault on human dignity during the pandemic appears to fall on the support staff at the “bottom of the totem pole” of EOIR’s “bloated at the top,” yet astoundingly misdirected and consequently inefficient, bureaucracy. What a way to run the railroad — even a “Deportation Railroad!” 🚂

As my good friend and Round Table colleague, Judge Jeffrey Chase said: “In spite of having very genuine concerns, the BIA staff are generally off the radar. Thanks to Betsy for spotlighting them. The BIA staff union and the NAIJ put out a joint statement yesterday; let’s hope this begins a period of increased communication and cooperation.”

Many of us “old timers” remember a bygone era when the BIA staff was considered one of the premier places for career attorneys to work at the DOJ. This was largely because staff were treated “like family.” The BIA, in cooperation with the union, actually “pioneered” things like “flexible work schedules” and “work from home” at the DOJ. That union (of which I actually was among the “founding members” back in the 1970’s) was perhaps the first one at the DOJ to represent the interests of both attorneys and support staff. Those times sadly are long gone.

As I’ve mentioned before, under the Trump regime, EOIR “non-management” employees at all levels levels are treated with a disrespect, intentional demeaning, and callous disregard for health and welfare usually reserved for those poor souls trapped in what passes for an immigration justice system under the White Nationalist driven Trump regime. Risking employees’ lives to promote Trump’s reelection agenda? That’s actually illegal on a number of accounts. But, don’t expect any corrective actions in an era where the “rule of law” has been willfully distorted and undermined as Congress and the Article IIIs simply melt away under Trump’s contemptuous scofflaw onslaught.

Unhappily, as Betsy’s article highlights, there appears to be little chance of meaningful change unless and until enough employees actually start dropping dead, by which time it will be too late.

But, as I keep pointing out, there are “other villains” here. Despite DOJ/EOIR efforts to suppress truth, all of this basically is happening in “plain sight,” as we know from folks like Judge Ashley Tabaddor, the NAIJ, the BIA union, former Judges on the Round Table who are speaking out, courageous employees willing to “blow the whistle” anonymously, as well as reporters like Betsy, Erich Wagner at Government Executive (who “broke” this story), and Malathi Nayak at Bloomberg News, to name just a few. The unconstitutional mockery of Due Process, immigration, and asylum laws in Immigration Court hearings is documented in verbatim transcripts available to the Article III Courts and the Congress.

Yet, Congress and the Article III Courts let these grotesque abuses within our justice system go on largely unabated. It’s a disgusting and disturbing saga of the breakdown of America’s democratic institutions and their replacement by an authoritarian, “Third-World style” kakistocracy, headed by a dangerously incompetent and unrestrained clown 🤡 whom those charged with protecting us and our institutions refuse to hold accountable.

This November, vote like your life depends on it! Because it does!🇺🇸 We need “regime change” at all levels. And, that certainly includes a better, more courageous, more scholarly Federal Judiciary that understands immigration and human rights, believes in Due Process and fundamental fairness for all under law, and will finally stand up and put an end to these gross abuses if Congress doesn’t act first. Obviously, it’s also essential to get a new Executive committed to advancing, rather than destroying, our Constitution and the rule of law and who will strive for best, rather than worst, practices in all phases of government.

Due Process Forever! Clown Courts 🤡☠️ Never!

PWS

04-23-20

OUT OF THE GULAG: Rocky Mt. Immigrant Advocacy Network (“RMIAN”) Forces Release of Eight Highly Vulnerable Detainees! — Flooding US District Courts With Litigation Appears To Be Only Way To Get DHS to Do Their Job!

https://mailchi.mp/rmian/rmian-habeas-april-update?e=76683935c9

ICE Releases 8 of 14 Petitioners 24 Hours After RMIAN & Advocates File Lawsuit To Order Release of Medically-Vulnerable People in ICE Custody

In just 24 hours, ICE released 8 of the 14 petitioners in the lawsuit. All 8 are women living with HIV.

April 15, 2020

Denver — After the lawsuit filed by Arnold & Porter, the National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild (NIPNLG), and the Rocky Mountain Immigrant Advocacy Network (RMIAN) for the release of 14 medically-vulnerable people in civil immigration detention at the Aurora ICE Processing Center in Colorado yesterday, ICE officials released 8 of the 14 petitioners within 24 hours.

The 8 people released from immigration detention are all people living with HIV. “RMIAN is elated to see the release of these eight resilient women” says Laura Lunn of the Rocky Mountain Immigrant Advocacy Network. “Yesterday, our clients were trapped in a cage that stripped them of any autonomy over their personal safety and wellbeing. Today, these women are finally able to protect themselves. It is astonishing the difference a day – and a federal lawsuit – makes.”

RMIAN Social Service Project, along with many community organizations, including the American Friends Service Committee, Casa de Paz, the Santa Fe Dreamers Project, and Las Americas, are receiving the women upon release and providing food, housing, and travel assistance. Jordan Garcia, Colorado Program Director of the American Friends Service Committee states, “COVID-19 unmasks how caging people threatens public health. As a society, we cannot treat anyone as expendable. Today we are relieved and heartened that these women were released into the hand of caring community, who can make sure that their needs are taken care of. We hope that more members of our community can be released in the coming days and weeks.”

“This is a great result for many of our clients, but our work is not done” said Tim Macdonald, pro bono counsel at Arnold & Porter. Co-counsel in the case will continue to fight for release of the 6 petitioners who remain detained, all of whom have medical vulnerabilities that make them especially susceptible to serious illness or death should they contract COVID-19. Adrienne Boyd, also of Arnold & Porter, urged, “There is no reason for ICE to continue to detain our remaining clients. Their lives are on the line and they should be released as soon as possible.”

The lawsuit fits into a broader movement of litigation around the country asking federal judges to order release of vulnerable people detained in ICE custody in response to ICE inaction in the midst of the COVID pandemic. Sirine Shebaya, of the National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild, explains, “We are thrilled that our 8 clients have been released after the filing of this lawsuit. But it should not have taken emergency litigation to achieve this outcome. Their quick release shows that ICE is fully capable of releasing people, and is aware of the special vulnerabilities affecting many of those it is currently detaining, but is not taking the actions it should unless compelled to do so. That is the same pattern we are seeing across the country—a refusal to acknowledge the extreme emergency and the immediate need to release persons who are detained so they can safely self-isolate during this difficult time.”

Co-counsel’s emergency filing urges the court to take up the case on an expedited basis, in light of the grave harm that could befall the people detained at any moment.

The lawsuit cites the severe risk the COVID-19 pandemic poses to the health and safety of the petitioners, who all have serious medical vulnerabilities. The ICE detention facility in Aurora, Colorado has failed to put in place CDC-recommended preventive measures, and is unable to provide adequate medical care in the event of an outbreak at the facility.

Detained people do not have personal protective equipment or cleaning supplies other than a generic bath bar and spray solution. Five staff members who work in the facility have tested positive for the virus, and several dorm units in the facility were placed under quarantine. Given the presence of the virus among the facility staff, attorneys say it is reasonable to suspect that detained individuals have already been exposed and that serious illness or death is inevitable for many immigrants and asylum seekers confined in the facility.

The clients included in this group all experience serious health issues, including respiratory illness, diabetes, high blood pressure, heart conditions, cancer, asthma, and otherwise severely compromised immune systems. One petitioner has a history of cancer, is living with only one lung, and has chronic asthma, yet she is unable to control her contact with the outside world given that she is currently detained. Attorneys say coronavirus quarantines have exacerbated the already dire conditions in the ICE facility.

Co-counsel in the case are Timothy Macdonald, Adrienne Boyd, Katie Custer, and Sarah Grey of Arnold & Porter, Sirine Shebaya, Khaled Alrabe, and Amber Qureshi of the National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild, and Laura Lunn of the Rocky Mountain Immigrant Advocacy Network.

——

The case is Codner v. Choate and was filed in federal district court in Denver on April 14, 2020.

Please share this important update with your social networks.

Share

Tweet

Forward

Donate to RMIAN Today

With nearly 1,000 lawyers practicing in 14 offices around the globe, Arnold & Porter serves clients across 40 distinct practice areas. The firm offers 100 years of renowned regulatory expertise, sophisticated litigation and transactional practices, and leading multidisciplinary offerings in the life sciences and financial services industries.

View this email in your browser

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

As the current system flounders, wastes resources, and threatens lives, let’s imagine what a better system would look like.

Article I Independent Immigration Court

- Appellate Division issues nationwide precedent requiring release of most vulnerable detainees who are not dangerous and can be safely placed in communities consistent with best health guidance;
- Immigration Courts use Televideo technology and e-filing to safely hold bond hearings and insure DHS compliance with criteria in individual cases on expedited basis;
- Contempt authority available to insure that DHS officials and attorneys comply with legal requirements for release in good faith;
- Article III review available for the limited number of individual cases that can’t be resolved by Article I Immigration Court.

Yes, it can be done!

Due Process Forever! Captive Courts Never!

PWS

04-17-20

IDIOCY WATCH: “Clown Courts’” 🤡🤡🤡 Refusal To Follow COVID-19 Guidelines Is Top Headline In Today’s National Law Journal — “Congress should not have believed to have adopted … a suicide pact or a death trap.”☠️⚰️😰🆘😉

DOJ Said Judges Can’t Stop Immigration Hearings Over COVID-19. Cleary Gottlieb Called That a ‘Death Trap.’

Immigration lawyers and detained immigrants want U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols to temporarily stop all in-person immigration proceedings during the COVID-19 pandemic.

By Jacqueline Thomsen | April 15, 2020 at 06:35 PM

Justice Department attorneys told a federal judge in Washington, D.C., on Wednesday that he lacks the authority to temporarily halt in-person court proceedings for detained immigrants during the COVID-19 pandemic.

. . . .

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

Those will full access can go over to the NLJ for Jacqueline’s complete article.

With DOJ lawyers arguing that folks have to “exhaust their administrative remedies” (basically by risking death or serious illness) you get the general tenor of the argument before U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols in D.C.

I’d be tempted to say that during the pandemic ethical rules have been suspended for DOJ attorneys. But, in my view, that was true even before the pandemic.

And, in their defense, some of their misleading narratives and insane arguments actually WIN in Federal Court, as some Federal Judges are used to deferring to the DOJ and giving their lawyers a pass on both ethical rules and acceptable arguments that generally wouldn’t be extended to private attorneys acting in the same irresponsible manner.

What would be an acceptable response in a better functioning, ethics-biased DOJ: for the lawyers to go back to their “agency clients,” tell them that they won’t defend the indefensible, and advise them to start working immediately with the plaintiffs to develop methods for hearing only the most pressing cases under appropriate health safeguards.

Interestingly, the positions argued by DOJ lawyers are actually putting the lives of their colleagues at EOIR and their fellow Government attorneys at ICE at risk! Perhaps if they “win,” they should be given a chance to risk their lives to represent ICE in Immigration Court! Wonder how their nifty little “exhaustion arguments” would help them ward off the virus.

With 1.4 million cases already in the backlog, it’s not like any one removal more or less during the pandemic is going to make much of a difference. Unlike, perhaps, some other courts built with sufficient space and electronic support, the poorly designed “brandbox” Immigration Courts with marginal, at best, technology, are unhealthy in the best of times. Certainly, it’s difficult to imagine that there are very many cases other than perhaps bonds or stipulated “grant and release” cases that need to go forward right now.

How many lawyers (on both sides) and Immigration Judges are going to have to die before the Article IIIs finally take notice and put the brakes on the nonsense going on at EOIR?☠️⚰️☠️⚰️☠️⚰️

Due Process Forever. Clown Courts Never!🤡

PWS

04-16-20

BIA DENIES DUE PROCESS TO VISA PETITIONER, SAYS 9TH CIR. — Zerezghi v. USCIS

Dan Kowalski over at LexisNexis Immigration Community forwards this report:

https://www.lexisnexis.com/LegalNewsRoom/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/ca9-on-due-process-standard-of-proof-zerezghi-v-uscis

CA9 on Due Process, Standard of Proof: Zerezghi v. USCIS

Zerezghi v. USCIS

“We hold that the BIA violated due process by relying on undisclosed evidence that Zerezghi and Meskel did not have an opportunity to rebut. In making its initial determination of marriage fraud, the BIA also violated due process by applying too low a standard of proof. On remand, it must establish marriage fraud by at least a preponderance of the evidence before it can deny any subsequent immigration petition based on such a finding.”

[Hats way off to Robert Pauw!]

Robert Pauw
Founding Partner
Gibbs, Houston & Pauw
Seattle, WA

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

How totally perverse has the EOIR system become?

Well, the BIA’s sole function is to insure Due Process for individuals and to apply top-flight expertise and scholarship to keep the Immigration Courts, ICE, CBP, and USCIS in line and following the law and best practices.

Instead, the BIA has become a corner-cutting, sloppy, “rubber stamp” on DHS Enforcement and USCIS “enforcement wannabes.” Remember, early on, the Trump regime made it clear that service to the public, i.e., immigrants, their families, and their communities, was no longer “part of the mission” at USCIS. Instead, the mission is to help ICE & CBP institute politically-driven White Nationalist xenophobic enforcement initiatives.

USCIS was created as a separate agency under DHS specifically to allow service to the immigrant community to flourish without the subservience to law enforcement often present and institutionalized at the “Legacy INS.” However, this regime and its toadies in DHS “Management” have seen fit to recreate the very same conflicts of interest and enforcement dominance that USCIS was created to overcome. In most ways, things are far worse than they ever were at the “Legacy INS.” And, let’s remember that USCIS is funded largely by user fees collected from the public on the now largely fictional rationale that they are getting valuable and professionalized services. What a complete mess and abuse of public funding!

Moreover, given the BIA’s lousy performance, rather than assisting the Article III Courts, it now all too often falls to the Article IIIs to keep the BIA in line and do its job for it. But, given the wide disparity in interest levels, expertise, and integrity among the Article IIIs, the results have been spotty.

Some Article III Judges step up and do the job; others sweep the chronic problems under the table and look the other way as rights are trampled and service to the public mocked. And, no Article III to date has been courageous and scholarly enough to take on the real problem: the glaring unconstitutionality under the Due Process Clause of a so-called “court” controlled, staffed, and evaluated by a highly biased prosecutor empowered to reverse individual case outcomes that don’t match his political agenda!

A glimpse of future horrors to come: Emboldened by Article III complicity, and egged on by the White Nationalist nativists, EOIR now outrageously proposes to charge astronomically higher fees for its shabby, biased, and ever deteriorating “work product.” This is a transparent attempt to further restrict access to justice for the most vulnerable among us. Another clear denial of Due Process!

Yes, Congress is responsible. Yes, Congress is largely in failure. But, that doesn’t absolve the Article IIIs of their duty to the Constitution, the rule of law, and human decency. Will they finally wake up, act with some courage, and do their jobs? Or, will they engage in further “judicial task avoidance” until it’s too late for all of us?

Due Process Forever!

PWS

04-16-20

RISKING LIVES TO KEEP THE DEPORTATION RAILWAY RUNNING — FOR UNACCOMPANIED KIDS! — “It is inexplicable and dangerous that the Trump administration has insisted that detained unaccompanied children are still required to go to court,” said Wendy Young, president of Kids in Need of Defense.” — Julia Preston Reports For The Marshall Project

Julia Preston
American Journalist
The Marshall Project

Wendy Young
President, Kids In Need of Defense (“KIND”)

https://www.themarshallproject.org/2020/04/10/migrant-children-still-face-speedy-deportation-hearings-in-covid19-hotspots

Julia writes:

They are children who were caught crossing the southwest border without papers and sent to migrant shelters in New York when the coronavirus was silently spreading. Now the city is a pandemic epicenter in lockdown, but the Trump administration is pressing ahead with their deportation cases, forcing the children to fight in immigration court to stay.

In two courthouses in the center of the besieged city, hearings for unaccompanied children—migrants who were apprehended without a parent—are speeding forward. The U.S. Department of Justice, which controls the immigration courts, has said it has no plan to suspend them.

This week an 8-year-old, a 5-year-old, and a teenage single mother with an infant were preparing for imminent court dates and deadlines in New York, lawyers representing them said. With children trapped indoors in shelters and foster-care homes, many young migrants who don’t have lawyers may not even be aware of ongoing court cases that could quickly end with orders for them to be deported.

Hearings for unaccompanied children are also proceeding in courts in other COVID-19 hotspots, including Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle, Chicago and Boston.

The Executive Office for Immigration Review, the Justice Department agency in charge of the immigration courts, has rejected calls from judges, prosecutors and immigration lawyers to shut down courts nationwide. Although hearings for immigrants who are not detained have been suspended through May 1, cases of people in detention are going forward at the same accelerated pace as before the pandemic.

That includes many unaccompanied children. Since last year, Trump administration officials have instructed the courts to treat those children as detained if they are in shelters or foster care under the custody of the Office of Refugee Resettlement, or ORR, a federal agency. Immigration judges are under pressure to complete detained cases within 60 days—warp speed in immigration court—with no exception for children.

Across the country, about 3,100 unaccompanied children are currently in the custody of the refugee agency. Many have run from deadly violence and abuse at home and hope to find safety with family members in the United States. The demands for them to meet fast-moving court requirements are causing alarm among lawyers, caregivers and families.

“It is inexplicable and dangerous that the Trump administration has insisted that detained unaccompanied children are still required to go to court,” said Wendy Young, president of Kids in Need of Defense, or KIND, which helps provide lawyers for unaccompanied children. Unlike in criminal courts, in immigration court children have no right to a lawyer paid by the government if they cannot afford one.

On April 8, the American Immigration Lawyers Association, the immigration bar, and other legal groups asked a federal court for a temporary restraining order to force the Justice Department to suspend in-person hearings of detained immigrants during the pandemic.

Justice Department officials say they are holding hearings for immigrants in detention, including for children, so they can get their cases decided and perhaps be freed quickly.

. . . .

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

Read the rest of Julia’s report at the link.

The idea, as DOJ claims, that this is being done to facilitate the “freeing” of kids is preposterous on its face.

First, there is nothing stopping them from arranging placements for children without the Immigration Court hearings being completed. It used to be done all the time.

Second, the DOJ has intentionally and unethically rewritten asylum laws through “precedents” aimed primarily at making it harder to qualify for asylum. This abuse of process particularly targets those fleeing persecution resulting from various types of systematic government and societal violence in Central America. The approval rates for these types of cases have fallen to minuscule levels under Trump.

Third, no child has any chance of succeeding in Immigration Court without a lawyer. Almost all lawyers who represent children in Immigration Court serve “pro bono” — or work for NGOs who can only provide minimal salaries.

Yet, the Administration is making these lawyers risk their health and safety, while artificially accelerating the process, all of which actively and aggressively discourages representation.

Added to that is the constant “Aimless Docket Reshuffling,” with Immigration Courts closing, reopening, and re-closing on a moment’s notice and dockets constantly being rearranged as judges, court support staff, interpreters, and DHS lawyers fall ill.

The Administration could work with groups like KIND and other NGOs to arrange placements, and schedule hearings in a manner that promotes health and safety for everyone while maximizing due process. But, the Administration refuses to do this.

Instead, those seeking to inject sanity, common sense, best practices, and human decency into the process are forced to sue the Administration in Federal Court. This further dissipates and diverts already scarce legal resources that could have been used to actually represent children in Immigration Court and arrange safe placements for them.

Finally, as I have noted previously, the Administration has simply suspended the operation of the Constitution and the rule of law at the borders. This means that thousands, including unaccompanied children, are “orbited into the void” without any process whatsoever or any effort to ascertain their situations or best interests.

All of this gives lie to the Administration’s bogus claim that this is about looking out for the best interests of these kids. No, it’s about maximizing cruelty, destroying lives (considered an effective and acceptable “deterrent” in nativist circles), and carrying out a noxious racist White Nationalist restrictionist immigration agenda.

And, to date, Congress and the Federal Courts, both of which have the power to put an end to this disgraceful, unlawful, and unconstitutional conduct have been largely “MIA.”

Nevertheless, thanks to courageous and dedicated journalists like Julia and organizations like KIND, a public record is being made. While those responsible for implementing and enabling these abuses directed at the “most vulnerable of the vulnerable” among us are likely to escape legal accountability, they will eventually be tried and found wanting in the “court of history.”

Due Process Forever! Trump’s Child Abuse Never!

PWS

04-10-20

TRAC IMMIGRATION: Crisis In Immigration Court Representation? — 60% In Immigration Court Live In Rural Counties Where Immigration Lawyers Are Scarce!

Read the complete report here:

https://trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/602/

Here’s an excerpt:

The Hidden Impact of Removal Proceedings on Rural Communities

Although the Immigration Courts with the largest backlogs of cases are located in large cities, the latest Immigration Court records show that when adjusted for population, many rural counties have higher rates of residents in removal proceedings than urban counties. In fact, of the top 100 US counties with the highest rates of residents in removal proceedings, nearly six in ten (59%) are rural. In these communities, residents facing deportation may find themselves in rural “legal deserts[1]” where there are few qualified immigration attorneys, longer travel times to court, and high rates of poverty.

The Immigration Court data used in this report was obtained and analyzed by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC) at Syracuse University in response to its Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests to the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR).

Mapping Pending Immigration Court Cases

TRAC recently mapped the Immigration Court’s current active backlog—over 1.1 million cases—to show the number of residents in each county who are awaiting their day in court. In this follow-on report, TRAC used the same data set to map the proportion of residents (“rate”) with pending immigration cases as a fraction of total residents[2].

When the total number of backlog cases is mapped, urban areas such as Los Angeles, New York City, and Chicago emerge as areas with large numbers of pending cases. This makes sense, because the total number of immigration cases is driven by the geographic concentration of large numbers of people in urban areas. However, when the number of pending immigration cases is mapped relative to county population, a different picture emerges. Many large urban counties are revealed to be more average, while many rural counties are shown to have much higher concentrations of removal cases.

In these rural counties, residents may have a heightened sense that immigration enforcement is impacting their community. This, in fact, would be an entirely rational perception since the odds are indeed greater.

Figure 1 below includes a map of the proportion of residents in each county currently in the backlog (top) and the total number of cases in each county in the backlog (bottom, reprinted from our previous report). The county-level rate is represented as the number per 100,000 residents who are currently in removal proceedings.

Particularly striking is how many counties in Southern California and the New York City-Boston corridor, which are prominent in the map of the number of cases, look more typical once population is taken into account. Also striking is how counties in the Great Plains regions from Southwest Minnesota to western Oklahoma pop off the map as places where higher percentages of the community are facing deportation proceedings today.

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

There is little doubt that DHS Enforcement and their “partners at EOIR” have made an effort to hinder individuals’ Constitutional and statutory right to representation by counsel of their choice. From “Aimless Docket Reshuffling,” to locating so-called “detained courts” in obscure places, to arbitrary denial of continuances, to restricting bonds, to failures to provide notices and giving intentionally “bogus” notices, to rude and unprofessional treatment of attorneys, to trying to get rid of “know your rights” presentations, to skewing the law to change results to favor DHS.

All this leads to a largely “due process free” Deportation Railroad.

Due Process Forever!

PWS

04-10-20

“DEVOURING ITS OWN” — U.S. IMMIGRATION JUDGES FIND TRUMP REGIME’S DEHUMANIZATION PROGRAM APPLIES TO THEM TOO — DOJ Overlords Treat Captive Judges’ Lives With Contempt Usually Reserved For Asylum Seekers, Detainees, & Their Attorneys! ☠️⚰️🆘🧫👎🏻😰

https://apple.news/AHVHlXYP_N1SlC2OPsFNIJQ

Kelly Donohue reports for Cronkite News/NPR:

PHOENIX – Nearly a month into a seemingly worldwide shutdown, it may be hard to find an everyday business or public area that has not been closed because of COVID-19. Many companies have allowed their employees to work from home, but businesses deemed essential are still in operation.

This includes grocery stores, fuel stations, banks, transportation systems, pharmacies – and most U.S. immigration courts.

The coronavirus pandemic has upended the daily routines of hundreds of millions of Americans.

Yet for migrants in federal custody waiting for their cases to be heard, their reality has not changed much.

As of March 28, Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s average daily population – the total number of individuals in ICE detention across the current fiscal year (Oct. 1 through Sept. 30), divided by the number of days into the fiscal year – was 43,026.

Three out of four Arizona immigration courts – in Phoenix, Eloy and Florence – remain open. A fourth, in Tucson, was closed due to a water main break. All hearings scheduled through May 1 for immigrants who are not in federal detention, as well as cases under the Migrant Protection Protocols docket scheduled through May 1, have been postponed by the Department of Justice.

Yet all detained migrants still remain in federal custody.

All non detained hearings scheduled through April 10 have been postponed in all 63 immigration courts. But immigration judges and court staff from various professional associations say that’s not nearly enough. They have filed a lawsuit against ICE and the Department of Justice’s Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), which oversees all U.S. immigration court cases.

The American Immigration Lawyers Association, the Immigration Justice Campaign, the National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild and several detained immigrants filed the complaint on March 30, calling on ICE and the EOIR to indefinitely suspend all in-person immigration court hearings, as well as provide remote communication opportunities and personal protective equipment for legal representatives to wear.

Immigration attorney Pamela Florian, chairwoman of the American Immigration Lawyers Association’s Arizona chapter, said she and her associates fear for their own well-being as well as the health of their clients.

“Detainees who are in the Arizona detention facilities are at a higher risk because of the conditions that they live in,” Florian said, “and we don’t want to be the ones bringing in the virus to them because we are still forced to continue with our hearings during a pandemic.”

The associations are also looking for the EOIR to provide detained immigrants and legal counselors with protective gear, such as N95 masks, eye protection and gloves, to be used when they meet in facilities that require such gear. The lawyers fear that if they are not provided with the equipment and can’t access them independently, they will not be able to meet with their clients when necessary.

“If we don’t have the required PPE (personal protective equipment) that is in shortage right now at the national level, not seeing our clients or being deprived of that does raise due process concerns because we need to be able to prepare our clients for their hearings,” Florian said.

Immigration lawyer Margarita Silva has been defending both detained and non detained immigrants for 18 years. On March 20, she arrived at an Arizona ICE detention facility to meet with a client with a makeshift collection of PPE that she provided herself.

Silva said that she and her colleagues began to bring their own protective gear to meet with clients in detention centers after they were told by ICE that they would not be allowed in without them.

“I had a friend who had just had a baby in November, and she’s like, ‘Well, I have some masks. You can have a couple,’” Silva said. “And then my husband uses protective eyewear for some of his jobs, and so he said, ‘Well, here you can use these.’ And I ended up getting some nitrile gloves.”

Silva was allowed into the facility wearing her provisional gear. She mentioned that a few of her colleagues have been wearing prescription sunglasses and swimming goggles to meet with clients in custody.

“There was no scrutiny at all,” Silva said. “They had a sign out front that said they were going to take our temperatures before we went in, and that if you had a fever, nobody was getting in. I went in with a group of about 10 people. Nobody’s temperature was taken.”

However, she said she was more shocked to learn she and her colleagues were the only ones in the facility wearing personal protective equipment.

“That was the other weird thing, was that it (the PPE requirement) only applied to the immigrants’ attorneys,” Silva said. “None of the guards were wearing it (protective gear). None of the admin staff were wearing it. Medical personnel inside the facility weren’t wearing any of this. Detainees aren’t wearing any of it.”

The immigration lawyers suing the EOIR also insist the Department of Justice make it possible for them to communicate with their detained clients to promote a safer environment, as the limited phone calls they currently have access to are simply not enough.

Silva said she and her associates have been given the green light to attend all Arizona detained cases by phone at this time. In the past, she said, attorneys had to submit a written request to a judge if they wanted to attend a short hearing by phone, which lawyers who lived far from facilities did frequently.

If the EOIR can’t meet their demands, the professional bar associations said, it must release the detained immigrants with “inadequate access to remote communication” with their legal representatives or immigration courtrooms.

Immigration attorneys and detained immigrants differ on whether detainees should be released at this time, Silva said. Many feel the courts should be closed entirely, she added, but others are frustrated that immigrants in custody will not be released as a result.

“A large amount of these people could be released safely, either on their own recognizance or on bond,” Silva said. “A lot of (immigrants in custody) are not people that would have been considered dangerous. They have houses and families to go to. So it’s not like they would just be wandering the streets. These are people that had jobs.”

Although non detained immigrants may not mind having their cases put on hold for the time being, she said, many want their cases to move forward if they’re forced to remain in custody.

Cronkite News

Judges, attorneys call for all immigration courts to close in wake of coronavirus | Cronkite News

Watch later

Share

<div class=”player-unavailable”><h1 class=”message”>An error occurred.</h1><div class=”submessage”><a href=”http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGDrc_rvPZI” target=”_blank”>Try watching this video on www.youtube.com</a>, or enable JavaScript if it is disabled in your browser.</div></div>

Video by Frankie McLister/Cronkite News

Meanwhile, the American Immigration Lawyers Association has taken the lead in the effort to temporarily suspend immigration courts. The organization initially joined with the National Association of Immigration Judges and the American Federation of Government Employees Local 511 to publish a statement on March 15 that expressed concerns for the health and safety of immigration prosecutors and attorneys.

Since then, 73 other organizations have joined their efforts to close the courts by addressing a letter to U.S. Attorney General William Barr. The letter, signed by organizations including the Arizona Coalition to End Sexual and Domestic Violence and Amnesty International USA, called on Barr to immediately close all U.S. immigration courts.

As the president of the National Association of Immigration Judges, Judge A. Ashley Tabaddor oversees a union of judges that works to improve the immigration court system and promotes the well-being of its members.

“It’s really a historic event that we have prosecutors and the defense attorney organizations come together with the judges, all agreeing that the immigration courts across the country should close temporarily and immediately to allow for the public health officials to get a handle on” the outbreak, said Tabaddor, whose court is in Los Angeles.

. . . .

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

Read Kelly’s full article at the link.

Not surprising that an organization like EOIR which has institutionalized the dehumanization of others — treating human lives as “production statistics” and touting cutting corners, skewed decisions, and unfair deportations as a “deterrent” — would eventually start “devouring its own.”

Mr. Peanut Devouring His Son
By Nina Matsumoto

PWS

04-07-20

TIMING IS EVERYTHING: DURING CRISIS, BIA MAKES TIME FOR A LITTLE GRATUITOUS CRUELTY: What Could Be Better During Worldwide Pandemic & Humanitarian Disaster Than An Attempt To Narrow The Criteria For Cancellation & Deport To Guatemala A Long-Time Resident With Five U.S.C. Kids, Three With Health Issues, & An LPR Mother With Hypertension? — Matter of J-J-G, 27 I&N Dec. 808 (BIA 2020)

https://www.justice.gov/eoir/page/file/1264601/download

Matter of J-J-G-, 27 I&N Dec. 808 (BIA 2020)

BIA HEADNOTE:

1) The exceptional and extremely unusual hardship for cancellation of removal is based on a cumulative consideration of all hardship factors, but to the extent that a claim is based on the health of a qualifying relative, an applicant needs to establish that the relative has a serious medical condition and, if he or she is accompanying the applicant to the country of removal, that adequate medical care for the claimed condition is not reasonably available in that country.

(2) The Immigration Judge properly determined that the respondent did not establish eligibility for cancellation of removal because he did not demonstrate that his qualifying relatives will experience hardship, including medical, economic, and emotional hardship, that rises to the level of exceptional and extremely unusual.

PANEL: MALPHRUS, Acting Chairman; CREPPY and CASSIDY, Appellate Immigration Judges

OPINION BY: Judge Garry D. Malphrus, Acting Chairman

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

Getting beyond the BIA’s disingenuously rosey description of life in Guatemala, here’s what really happens to families sent back to Guatemala in the “time of plague.” https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/apr/02/deported-coronavirus-ice-family-separations?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

Here’s an excerpt:

María looked for work as a waitress as soon as she arrived. She knocked on the doors of 15 restaurants and was rejected each time. “Right now, no one is hiring workers, they’re firing people,” María said. Under the lockdown, she has had to put her search on hold.

María’s options in Guatemala are limited, particularly since it is not safe for her to go back to her home town. She and her little girl fled Guatemala for the US in late 2018 after the same gang that murdered María’s entire family over a land dispute, including the little girl’s mother, killed María’s partner and shot at María. Last summer, a US immigration judge found María’s account credible but decided her case did not meet the narrow legal standard for asylum. María filed an appeal but could no longer endure being locked up away from her niece. Because she was not the girl’s biological mother, Ice refused to release her from detention to reunite the family. After nearly a year apart, María requested deportation with the hope she and the girl could return together.

“It was notably easier for Ice to concede the bona fides of the relationship between María and her niece when removal to Guatemala was the goal,” said Suzannah Maclay, María’s attorney.

‘It is beyond cruel’: Ice refuses to reunite girl with the only family she has left

María was craving freedom after so long in detention but still finds herself spending her days inside. She wants her niece to go to school and get the education she never got. She feels restless, unable to start building a better life for them both. “I can’t do anything,” she said.

She believes the gang that murdered her family still wants to kill her, and she is always fearful they will discover she is back. She doesn’t want her niece to grow up alone. She tries to give the girl a sense of security, but the truth is hard to hide. “Why did they send us here?” the girl asked her upon arriving in Guatemala. “It’s too dangerous.”

As María and her child focus on day-to-day survival, they are also trying to heal from the trauma of their separation. Sometimes the girl tells María about foster care in New York. The stories are hard to hear. The girl describes getting her hands slapped when she touched things or being scolded in restaurants. “They humiliated her,” María said.

“Mami, I missed you so much,” the girl tells her. “I don’t ever want to be apart again.” María responds with a promise: “This won’t happen again.”

Now, a real appellate court, with qualified judges acting independently, might have used this as an opportunity to direct that Immigration Court hearings in all “non-criminal” cancellation of removal cases be deferred until such time as we can understand what is actually happening in Guatemala and other countries after the worldwide pandemic is brought under control.

After all, the situation is rapidly evolving. Or, I should say devolving! What’s the purpose of holding “trials” on conditions in foreign nations that are likely to change materially on a weekly or even daily basis?

Just look at the difference between the impact of the coronavirus in the United States one month ago and what is happening today. A month ago, folks were strolling the beaches of Florida and our President was basically minimizing the potential impact. Now there are over 10 million Americans out of work, three-fourths of the country under “stay at home” orders (except for Immigration Court), with nearly 200,000 reported cases, and “best case” predictions of several hundred thousand deaths!

So, why would any rational person think, like the BIA does, that things will be “hunky dory” for those deported to Guatemala, particularly if they choose to take their U.S.C. children? Why would a poor corrupt country with a limited economy and few resources fare better than the world’s richest nation in weathering this crisis? When hospitals are breaking down all over the U.S., why would health care be readily available to recent returnees in Guatemala? With 10 million out of work here, why would jobs to support a family of five be readily available in Guatemala? The BIA’s decision in this case is as “counterfactual” as it is needlessly cruel!

Looking at it from a factual, legal, public health, or humanitarian viewpoint, the BIA’s timing and decision in this case were totally irresponsible.

We need an independent U.S. Immigration Court with better, more responsible, and more humane judges.

Due Process Forever! Captive Courts Never!

PWS

04-02-20

ARTICLE I: A POWERFUL NEW VOICE JOINS THE BATTLE FOR DUE PROCESS & AN INDEPENDENT IMMIGRATION COURT – The Alliance For Justice (“AFJ”) Writes To Congress In Support Of The Efforts Of The Many Organizations Of The NDPA Fighting For An Independent Due Process-Oriented Immigration Court!

Nan Aron
Founder & President
Alliance for Justice (“AFJ”)

AFJ letter to Chair Lofgren and Ranking Member Buck 3.30.20

PRESIDENT
NAN ARON
CHAIR
PAULETTE MEYER
March 30, 2020
The Honorable Zoe Lofgren
Chair
Subcomm. on Immigration and Citizenship Committee on the Judiciary
U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515
Dear Chair Lofgren and Ranking Member Buck:
The Honorable Ken Buck
Ranking Member
Subcomm. on Immigration and Citizenship Committee on the Judiciary
U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515
On behalf of Alliance for Justice (AFJ), a national association representing 120 groups committed to equal justice and civil rights, I write to add our voice to the organizations that have written or testified at the hearing held on January 29, 2020, before the House Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Immigration and Citizenship, on “The Courts in Crisis: The State of Judicial Independence and Due Process in U.S. Immigration Courts.”
For more than a generation, AFJ has worked to promote equal justice under law. We have fought to ensure a justice system that upholds the rights of all people. That is why we are so deeply troubled by the Department of Justice’s (the “Department”) exploitation of its position as the superintendent of our nation’s immigration courts to advance its anti-immigrant agenda. The Department’s actions have turned should be a fair adjudicatory system into one designed to dictate outcomes favorable to the anti- immigrant zealots in the Administration. The Department has engaged in a range of efforts designed to deprive individuals who have valid claims of asylum of the opportunity to present those claims. It has sought to influence immigration judges by incentivizing them to summarily deny claims. It has urged judges to adopt its conspiratorial views about the immigration lawyers who appear before the courts. Its pursuit of short-term political objectives has increased backlogs, produced vacancies, contributed to the demoralization of the court system, and resulted in widespread and unnecessary suffering.
AFJ writes this letter, moreover, at a time when the nation, and the world, is facing a pandemic and the Administration has indefinitely closed the southern border to asylum-seekers. Over 200 non-profit legal services organizations, law firms, and immigration legal representatives recently wrote to the
Eleven Dupont Circle NW, Suite 500 | Washington, DC 20036 | www.afj.org | t: 202-822-6070 Field Offices
Dallas | Houston | Los Angeles | San Francisco

Alliance for Justice
Letter to Chair Zoe Lofgren and Ranking Member Ken Buck Page 2
Attorney General regarding policies and practices that “during these unprecedented times” will cause immigrants and the providers and advocates who help them to “suffer serious hardships that raise due process concerns.” The concerns raised in the letter, and those mentioned below, only reinforce the need for an independent immigration court system.
The current administration has launched a series of efforts to weaponize the immigration courts. The efforts to control immigration judges include:
• The adoption of enforcement-oriented performance metrics, which require judges to complete 700 cases per year, equivalent to approximately three complete cases each business day. These metrics, which immigration judges must see on their computer screens, require judges to adjudicate claims irrespective of the complexity or merit of the cases and impose categorical restrictions on bond cases;
• The creation of a specialized fast docket, built almost exclusively for Central American families applying for asylum, which includes restrictions on the rights of judges to grant continuances;
• Limitations on judges’ authority to administratively close or terminate cases;
• Training sessions that immigration judges have described as indoctrination. As a former Immigration Judge explained: “There isn’t even any attempt at proper training. The whole indoctrination is you’re not judges, you’re really enforcement”1;
• Abusing the Attorney General’s power to act as a final arbiter of contested cases, by taking cases not then pending before the Board of Immigration Appeals to issue sweeping rulings limiting asylum protection for individuals victimized by domestic violence or harm as a result of retaliation based upon their family relationships. In the latter of the two cases, Attorney General William Barr attempted to sweep aside decades of precedent, much of it from federal appellate courts whose decisions are binding on the immigration courts;
• Issuing a final interim rule that would allow the Director of the Executive Office of Immigration Review to issue opinions on his own, on any appeal pending for more than 180 days;
• Seeking to decertify the National Association of Immigration Judges (NAIJ), the union that has represented immigration judges since 1979. NAIJ serves as one of the last bulwarks against a complete and total takeover of the Immigration Court system by our Executive Branch. Without union representation, immigration judges will lose their collective voice and be unable to push back against policies that undermine the fairness and transparency of the system.
1 Innovation Law Lab and the Southern Poverty Law Center, The Attorney General’s Judges: How the U.S. Immigration Courts Became a Deportation Tool, at 18 (quoting former Immigration Judge and BIA Chairman Paul Schmidt) https://innovationlawlab.org/reports/the-attorney-generals/judges/.
Eleven Dupont Circle NW, Suite 500 | Washington, DC 20036 | www.afj.org | t: 202-822-6070 Field Offices
Dallas | Houston | Los Angeles | San Francisco

Alliance for Justice
Letter to Chair Zoe Lofgren and Ranking Member Ken Buck Page 3
In addition to its efforts to turn immigration judges into partisan actors, the Administration’s unceasing efforts to be and appear to be tough on asylum seekers have created disorder, even for those individuals far from the Southern Border. The Administration has repeatedly shuffled Immigration
Judges from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, for example, in a 2017 “surge” of judges to the border, which required the postponement of 23,000 cases. The Attorney General’s decision prohibiting administrative closure will eventually add more than 300,000 cases to its docket. The overall backlog of cases has now doubled, to over one million pending cases. In a number of courts, litigants may wait more than four years before their cases are heard. The disparities in outcomes from jurisdiction to jurisdiction are now worse than ever.
There is also disturbing evidence that the Administration’s attacks on the system may be enabling a culture of impunity. On January 23 of this year, in an unprecedented opinion, the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit chastised the Board of Immigration Appeals for defying the Circuit’s remand order. Relying on what it said was advice from the Attorney General, the Board of Immigration Appeals declared the Seventh Circuit’s decision to be incorrect and declined to obey it. The Circuit stated that it had “never before encountered defiance of a remand order,” adding that members of the Board of Immigration Appeals should count themselves lucky that the immigrant had not asked the
2
Many of the most respected participants and observers of the immigration court system have called for reform of the current system. Groups as diverse as the American Bar Association, the Federal Bar Association, the National Association of Immigration Judges and the CATO Foundation have long urged the transfer of the immigration courts to a separate Article I CourtThese groups have pointed to the need to professionalize the corps of immigration judges and outlined the threat to judicial independence caused by the placement of the immigration court system under the control of the Department of Justice.
What was previously a threat of political interference is now a reality, and AFJ believes that there can be no lasting solution to this problem without removing the immigration court system from DOJ.
2 Debra Cassens Weiss, 7th Circuit is aghast at ‘obduracy’ of Board of Immigration Appeals, which refused to implement its decision, ABA Journal, Jan. 27, 2020, http://www.abajournal.com/authors/4/.
3 Katie Reilly, Northeastern University Student Sent Back To Iran Despite Valid Visa, Judge’s Order As Immigration Attorneys Warn of “Troubling Pattern”, Time Magazine, January 22, 2020, https://time.com/5769-400/northeastern-student-deported-iran.
Eleven Dupont Circle NW, Suite 500 | Washington, DC 20036 | www.afj.org | t: 202-822-6070 Field Offices
court to hold the Board in contempt.
of deportation to an Iranian student who possessed a valid student visa, was ignored by officials of the Customs and Border Patrol, who deported the student from Logan Airport back to Iran. The federal judge then stated that he believed the case to be moot, saying of the government officials, “I don’t think they’re going to listen to me.” The student’s attorney noted, “I wish I could say we were surprised, but we’ve seen this kind of flagrant defiance of the law from immigration officials before.”3
Only days earlier, a federal district court’s order granting a stay
Dallas | Houston | Los Angeles | San Francisco

Alliance for Justice
Letter to Chair Zoe Lofgren and Ranking Member Ken Buck Page 4
Our current system of adjudication is utterly broken. The most effective solution to protecting the neutrality of our Immigration Courts is to create an Article I Immigration Court system that is independent of DOJ. Article I of the U.S. Constitution expressly grants Congress the power to establish “tribunals” in addition to those created by Article III, and Congress has done so on many occasions. The establishment of an Article I Immigration Court would create greater transparency in the system. It would also restore the Due Process rights of those who come before the Court.
While moving the immigration court system from the Department of Justice will not solve the ills of the current system, it is desperately needed as a part of the solution. We therefore urge Congress to support to recommendation of the ABA, immigration judges, and immigration lawyers, among others, to establish an Article I Immigration Court system that is independent of Department of Justice.
Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely,
Nan Aron President
Eleven Dupont Circle NW, Suite 500 | Washington, DC 20036 | www.afj.org | t: 202-822-6070 Field Offices
Dallas | Houston | Los Angeles | San Francisco

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

Click the above link for the AFJ letter in its “original” much more “readable” format.

Why this a big deal: Nan Aron and the group she founded, the Alliance For Justice (“AFJ”), are inspirational, leading voices for justice reform and equal justice for all in America. That Nan and her team see the clear connection between the disintegration of justice in the Immigration Courts and the “big picture” of justice in America, all the way up to the Supreme Court, speaks volumes.

It reaffirms the commonality of the fight for Constitutional justice for asylum seekers and other migrants and the larger issues of building a premier 21st Century justice system of which we can all be proud – one that will treat all persons in our country with respect, dignity, and fundamental fairness. As Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., once said: “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.”

What an honor to and joy it is to have “Lifetime Due Process Warriors” like Nan Aron and Paulette Meyer and their dedicated team throw their support and expertise behind the push for Article I!

Under their inspiring leadership, AFJ is also spearheading a nationwide effort to identify candidates for the Federal Judiciary, at all levels from the Immigration Courts to the Supreme Court. We need future judges who will put our Constitution, due process, fundamental fairness, human rights, human dignity, and equal justice for all before ideological agendas meant to serve the parochial interests and philosophy of only a minority of Americans.

Establishing an independent U.S. Immigration Court that will finally fulfill the Fifth Amendment requirement of providing “neutral and impartial adjudication” of life or death claims, without the opportunity for political interference or meddling in the individual case process, is an essential part of AFJ’s vision for a better and fairer America. Indeed, an independent Immigration Court that models due process and best practices for the most vulnerable and defenseless among us is the “essential foundation” for our entire justice system all the way up to the Supreme Court.

Also, as Nan and her team recently discussed with our group from the “New Due Process Army” and the “Round Table,” many of the best and most qualified potential candidates for the Federal Judiciary might be talented lawyers who never thought of themselves as “potential Federal Judges” and competing for these critical jobs that shape our justice, system, our nation, and indeed our world. From my extensive observations, in and out of court, in teaching, practice, and community service, folks like clinical professors, NGO advocates, bar association leaders, leaders of charitable and religious organizations, and those who have dedicated large portions of their career to litigating and advising pro bono or “low bono” individuals struggling to find equal justice and be heard in a system that too often wants to shunt them and their rights aside, could all have strong judicial skills. Legal journalists are another group that I have found often possesses stunningly accurate understanding and incisive knowledge of how our justice system works (or doesn’t, in some cases) at every level.

In my view, one of the best potential “entries into judging” is the U.S. Magistrate Judge selection program which generally has been praised as a “merit-based,” apolitical, scholarship-rewarding, and competency focused system administered by the U.S. District Judges, usually in conjunction with the private bar (our son Wick, a private practitioner in Green Bay, WI, served on the Magistrate Selection Committee for the Eastern District of Wisconsin). I would love to see the U.S. Immigration Court become this same type of “merit & scholarship based” depoliticized “hotbed of judicial excellence” and potential “stepping stone” to the higher levels of the Article III Judiciary.

So, to the many members of our “New Due Process Army” who have devoted their careers to fairness, scholarship, timeliness, respect, and teamwork, think about taking on a different role as a Federal Judge in the future. Don’t be surprised if you get a call from one of us at the AFJ or the “New Due Process Army.” Or, better yet, get in touch with us at the AFJ and the NDPA.

Due Process Forever! Help Make Our Courts Better Than Ever!

PWS

03-31-20

THE TRUTH IS OUT, THANKS TO MICHELLE MENDEZ @ CLINIC: Practice Pointers on Matter of Castillo-Perez & “Takeaways” From FOIA Trove On In Absentias!

She was a Leader of the NDPA before there was an NDPA! Now Michelle Mendez and her CLINIC Team are giving you “the skinny” on how to combat EOIR’s “Raging War on Due Process!”

Friends,

Wanted to share with you two new CLINIC resources:

Practice Pointer: Matter of Castillo-Perez, 27 I&N Dec. 664 (A.G. 2019)

FOIA Disclosures on In Absentia Removal Numbers Based on Legal Representation

An immigration judge may issue an in absentia removal order if the Department of Homeland Security, or DHS, establishes by clear, unequivocal and convincing evidence that the respondent had written notice of the hearing and is removable as charged on the Notice to Appear. There are many reasons why a respondent may fail to appear at a removal hearing, including lack of notice of the hearing, sickness, a breakdown in transportation, limited or no English knowledge, or because the respondent is a child without the help of a responsible adult who can assist them in getting to the hearing. As documented in the report Denied a Day in Court: The Government’s Use of in absentia Removal Orders Against Families Seeking Asylum, CLINIC learned about these reasons firsthand while representing 46 families released from detention and successfully challenging their in absentia removal orders. Perhaps the main factor for failing to appear at scheduled hearings in immigration court is the presence or absence of legal counsel to orient the respondent through the layers of government bureaucracy and the complex immigration system.

On November 18, 2019, CLINIC submitted a Freedom of Information Act, or FOIA, request to the Executive Office for Immigration Review, or EOIR, seeking data on the number of in absentia removal orders issued based on legal representation status. CLINIC requested three sets of in absentia order data: the total number of in absentia removal orders issued since 2008, the number of in absentia orders issued to Unaccompanied Children, or UACs, since 2008, and the number of in absentia orders issued to families classified by EOIR as “Family Unit,” FAMU, cases since November 16, 2018. On March 13, 2020, EOIR responded with a three-tab Excel spreadsheet of raw in absentia removal order data. CLINIC has calculated the in absentia removal order raw data into percentages.

Here are some key takeaways from the data:

Although, according to EOIR statistics, the current overall representation rate is 65 percent for all pending cases, those who are unable to secure representation are at extraordinary risk of receiving in absentia removal orders. 92.6 percent of those with in absentia orders issued in fiscal year, or FY, 2020 were unrepresented.

Although, according to EOIR statistics, the current overall representation rate is 68 percent for all UAC pending cases, UACs who are unable to secure representation are also at extreme risk of receiving in absentia removal orders. 88 percent of those with in absentia orders issued in fiscal year FY2020 were unrepresented.

Since 2008, the percentage of unrepresented respondents with in absentia removal orders has been at least double that of in absentia orders of removal issued to represented respondents.

Since 2008, at least 70.8 percent of UACs who were issued in absentia orders of removal were unrepresented and, so far this fiscal year, the unrepresented rate for UACs who received in absentia orders of removal has been the highest ever, at 88 percent.

The number of in absentia removal orders issued by EOIR to unrepresented respondents in FY2020 surpassed the total number of in absentia orders issued to unrepresented respondents in FY2019 in just the first five and a half months of FY2020.

EOIR has issued more in absentia removal orders in the three and a half combined fiscal years covering the Trump presidency, than it did during the eight combined fiscal years covering the Obama presidency.

Total in absentia removal orders from FY2008 through FY2016 were 246,893. Total in absentia removal orders from FY2017 through FY2020 (through March 13, 2020), were 267,696

EOIR has issued more in absentia removal orders to UACs in the three and a half combined fiscal years covering the Trump presidency, than it did during the eight combined fiscal years covering the Obama presidency.

Total in absentia orders of removal issued to UACs from FY2008 through FY2016 were 20,123. Total in absentia removal orders issued to UACs from FY2017 through FY2020 (through March 13, 2020), were 26,228.

During the date range covered by the data (FY2008 through FY2020 Q2), immigration judges issued the fewest number of in absentia removal orders in FY2012, the year that DHS announced DACA. During FY2012, DHS officially launched the prosecutorial discretion program in November 2011 and reviewed many pending removal proceedings to identify low-priority cases meriting favorable exercises of prosecutorial discretion.

Most immigration courts saw a decrease in in absentia orders of removal for unrepresented noncitizens in FY2012 compared to FY2011.

Unrepresented UACs suffered a huge jump of in absentia removal orders from FY2014 (1,701) to FY2015 (5,836). This hike in in absentias for UACs occurred concurrently with the increase in UACs fleeing El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras, and arriving in neighboring countries and at the U.S.-Mexico border.

89.6 percent of all family units who received an in absentia removal orders from November 16, 2018 to September 30, 2019, were unrepresented.

Of all the immigration courts, the Houston Immigration Court issued the most in absentia removal orders in unrepresented FAMU cases during this period: 4,108 (which translates into 93.8 percent of the total in absentia removal orders issued by this court).

Of all the immigration courts, the Miami Immigration Court issued the second most in absentia removal orders in unrepresented FAMU cases during this period: 3,347 (which translates into 89.5 percent of the total in absentia removal orders issued by this court).

94.2 percent of all family units who received in absentia removal orders from October 1, 2019 to March 13, 2020, were unrepresented.

Of all the immigration courts, the Houston Immigration Court issued the most in absentia removal orders in FAMU cases from October 1, 2019 to March 13, 2020: 4,931 (which translates into 95.62 percent of the total in absentia removal orders issued by this court).

Of all the immigration courts, the Atlanta Immigration Court issued the second most in absentia removal orders in FAMU cases from October 1, 2019 to March 13, 2020: 4,662 (which translates into 98.27 percent of the total in absentia removal orders issued by this court).

Oddly, several immigration courts that oversee only detained dockets, including the Elizabeth Detention Center, recorded in absentia removal orders during the FOIA time period.

In FY2020, immigration judges have issued more in absentia removal orders than any prior year since 2008, and we are only five and a half months into the federal fiscal year.

Of all the immigration courts, the Harlingen Immigration Court has recorded the most unrepresented in absentia removal orders overall in FY2020 so far: 8,357.

Of all the immigration courts, the New York City Federal Plaza Immigration Court has recorded the most represented in absentia removal orders overall in FY2020: 753.

Of all the immigration courts, the Miami Immigration Court has recorded the most unrepresented in absentia removal orders for UACs in FY2020: 430.

Of all the immigration courts, the New York City Federal Plaza Immigration Court has recorded the most represented in absentia removal orders for UACs in FY2020: 73.

Thanks for helping us share these!

Michelle N. Mendez (she/her/ella/elle)

Director, Defending Vulnerable Populations Program

Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc. (CLINIC)

Embracing the Gospel value of welcoming the stranger, CLINIC promotes the dignity and protects the rights of immigrants in partnership with a dedicated network of Catholic and community legal immigration programs.

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

Now, it’s hardly “news” that there is a strong positive correlation between legal representation and appearance in Immigration Court. That information came to light way back in the Obama Administration and has consistently been reinforced by data that contradicts the lies about failures to appear put out on a regular basis by regime officials.

Given the clear correlation, the best way to make a fair due process system function would be if the Government worked hand in hand with NGOs, charitable organizations, local bar associations, and others involved in providing pro bono representation to insure that at least all asylum applicants and children are represented before the Immigration Courts. Due Process and fundamental fairness would be served and the in absentia rate would crater. In other words, due process with efficiency, an achievable “win-win!”

Instead, the Trump regime, through both EOIR and DHS, has made a concerted attack on the right to counsel in a transparent attempt to increase the number of in absentia orders and “speed up the deportation railroad” that EOIR now runs as its “one and only mission.”

How does something masquerading as a “court” system conduct a “deportation railway?” It takes lots of complicity and supposedly responsible public officials and citizens intentionally “looking the other way” and studiously ignoring the obvious!

I hope that advocates will be able to use the data provided by CLINIC to expose to the Article III Courts and Congress the rampant fraud, waste, abuse, and just plain “malicious incompetence” of EOIR and DHS (is there really a difference these days? Not apparent to most of us who follow the “Star Chambers” with regularity.).

Remember, moral cowardice and intellectual dishonesty often begin with picking on the most vulnerable and defenseless among us. And what follows is likely to be unspeakably bad, based on history!

Thanks, Michelle, my friend, for all you and CLINIC do.

Due Process Forever!

PWS

03-29-20

TWILIGHT ZONE: ABSURDITY, CRUELTY, INJUSTICE ARE THE ORDERS OF THE DAY IN “AMERICA’S STAR CHAMBERS” (A/K/A IMMIGRATION “COURTS’) — Podcaster Sam Graber Takes You Inside The Mind Numbing Reality Of A “Third-World Court System” Operating Right Under Our Noses!

Listen to Sam on “American Refugee” here:

LISTEN on the Web – https://odaction.com/americanrefugee-ep03/
LISTEN on Apple devices (Apple Podcasts) – https://pcr.apple.com/id1494027429
LISTEN on Android devices (Spotify) – https://spoti.fi/30r4Efi

In the days leading up to the coronavirus shutdown I journeyed into a shadow part of our justice system, a courtroom rarely seen by the public.

Detained immigration court is a place where lawyers aren’t provided for the defense, where judges and prosecutors are on the same team, where guilty is presumed and the all-too-often verdict a different kind of death.

Who are these immigration judges? What exactly is detained court? And how is it able to get away with operating outside of what we might call normal law?

Get ready because you’re about to go there, to see the injustice that isn’t being shut down.

This is American Refugee.

Written, Engineered & Produced: Sam Graber
Music: Rare Medium, Punk Funk Metropolis, New Sound Underground
Recorded: Minneapolis, MN
Original Release: March 2020

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

Disturbing and infuriating as Sam’s podcast is, I urge everyone to listen, even if you think you know what “really happens” in this godforsaken and deadly “darkest corner of the American ‘justice’ system.” Is this really the way we want to be remembered by generations that follow? As a country with so little collective courage and integrity that we allowed our fellow human beings to be treated this way? Think about it!

Even in this grimmest of worlds, their are true heroes. First and foremost, of course, are the dedicated attorneys of the New Due Process Army (“NDPA”), many working pro bono or “low bono” to vindicate essential legal, constitutional, and human rights in a system designed to grind them into dust and “dehumanize and demonize the other.”

Sound familiar? It should to anyone who studied Hitler’s rise to power in Germany. By and large, it wasn’t the “Brown Shirts” and the party faithful who enabled his rule. It was judges, lawyers, ministers, priests, businessmen, doctors, corporate moguls, and the average German who “facilitated” his annihilation of millions.

And, it started gradually, with laws stripping Jews of citizenship, property, and all legal rights and judges who enthusiastically enforced them, even against their own former judicial colleagues. Once people aren’t “humans” any more (Hitler liked the term “subhumans”) or “persons” before the law, there is no limit to what can be done, particularly when complicit judges join in the “fun and games.”

Among the other heroes are two “Courtside regulars:” Round Table Member Judge (Ret.) Ilyce Shugall and NAIJ President Judge A. Ashley Tabaddor.

Hon. Ilyce Shugall
U.S. Immigraton Judge (Retired)
Director, Immigrant Legal Defense Program, Justice & Diversity Center of the Bar Assn. of San Francisco.

Hon. A. Ashlley Tabaddor — Hon. A. Ashley Tabaddor
President, National
Association of Immigration Judges (“NAIJ”)

At a time when too many with knowledge of the travesty of what’s going on in our “Star Chambers” have chosen to look the other way or “go along to get along,” Ilyce and Ashley have consistently “spoken truth to power” in the face of a regime that often abuses its authority by punishing truth, honesty, and decency. Indeed, Billy Barr’s highly unethical move to “decertify” the NAIJ is a blatant attempt to punish and silence Ashley for revealing the truth.

One minor correction. Sam says that the Immigration Judges and the prosecutors both work for the DOJ. Actually, the prosecutors work for DHS. But, it’s largely a “distinction without difference” because the agenda at both DOJ and DHS is set by Trump, Miller, and the rest of the White Nationalist nativist cabal.

Indeed, former AG Sessions told Immigration Judges they were “partners” with the DHS prosecutors in enforcing immigration laws. So, the observation that in many Immigration Courtrooms migrants, including the unrepresented and children, face “two prosecutors” — the “judge” and the DHS Assistant Chief Counsel is accurate. The podcast relates how in some courts the “judge speaks for the prosecution,” the Assistant Chief Counsel is a “potted plant,” and nobody speaks for justice or the rights of the migrants. What’s missing: The impartial “neutral decisionmaker” required by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution.

Thanks Ashley and Ilyce for all you do! You are true superstars!

As my friend, Professor Ayo Gansallo says on her e-mail profile:

Vote like your rights depend upon it!

“A country is not only what it does…it is also what it tolerates.”

Kurt Tucholsky

Due Process Forever! Star Chambers Never!

PWS

03-29-20

Due Process Forever! Captive Courts Never!

Related posts:

Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Due Process Forever! The Regime’s Continuing Child Abuse ☠️☠️ Never!

Related posts:

Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Due Process Forever! Clown Courts 🤡☠️ Never!

Related posts:

Due Process Forever! Captive Courts Never!

Related posts:

Due Process Forever. Clown Courts Never!🤡

Related posts:

CA9 on Due Process, Standard of Proof: Zerezghi v. USCIS

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

Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Due Process Forever! Trump’s Child Abuse Never!

Related posts:

Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Related posts:

Due Process Forever! Captive Courts Never!

Related posts:

Due Process Forever! Help Make Our Courts Better Than Ever!

Related posts:

Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Due Process Forever! Star Chambers Never!

Related posts: