Article I Immigration Court – Page 40 – immigrationcourtside.com

PROFESSOR MAUREEN SWEENEY ON WHY THE BIA DOESN’T DESERVE “CHEVRON” DEFERENCE – JEFF SESSIONS’S ALL OUT ATTACK ON THE INDEPENDENCE OF THE IMMIGRATION JUDICIARY IS EXHIBIT 1!

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/immigration/2018/08/immigration-article-of-the-day-enforcingprotection-the-danger-of-chevron-in-refugee-act-cases-by-mau.html

Go on over to ImmigrationProf Blog at the above link for all of the links necessary to get the abstract as well as the full article. Among the many current and former Immigration Judges quoted or cited in the article are Jeffrey Chase, Ashley Tabaddor, Dana Marks, Lory Rosenberg, Robert Vinikoor, and me. (I’m sure I’m missing some of our other colleagues; it’s a very long article, but well worth the read.)

In an article full of memorable passages, here is one of my favorites:

Full enforcement of the law requires full enforcement of provisions that grant protection as well as provisions that restrict border entry. This is the part of “enforcement” that the Department of Justice is not equipped to fully understand. The agency’s fundamental commitment to controlling unauthorized immigration does not allow it a neutral, open position on asylum questions. The foundational separation and balance of powers concerns at the heart of Chevron require courts to recognize that inherent conflict of interest as a reason Congress is unlikely to have delegated unchecked power on refugee protection to the prosecuting agency. In our constitutional structure, the courts stand as an essential check on the executive power to deport and must provide robust review to fully enforce the congressional mandate to protect refugees. If the courts abdicate this vital function, they will be abdicating their distinctive role in ensuring the full enforcement of all of our immigration law—including those provisions that seek to ensure compliance with our international obligations to protect individuals facing the danger of persecution.

This is a point that my friend and colleague Judge Lory Rosenberg made often during our tenure together on the BIA. All too often, her pleas fell on deaf ears.

The now abandoned pre-2001 “vision statement” of EOIR was “to be the world’s best administrative tribunals, guaranteeing fairness and due process for all.” Nothing in there about “partnering” with DHS to remove more individuals, fulfilling quotas, “sending messages to stay home,” securing the border, jacking up volume, deterring migration, or advancing other politically motivated enforcement goals. Indeed, the proper role of EOIR is to insure fair and impartial adjudication and Due Process for individuals even in the face of constant pressures to “just go along to get along” with a particular Administration’s desires to favor the expedient over the just.

Under all Administrations, the duty to insure Due Process, fairness, full protections, and the granting to benefits to migrants under the law is somewhat shortchanged at EOIR in relation to the pressure to promote Executive enforcement objectives. But, the situation under the xenophobic, disingenuous, self-proclaimed “Immigration Enforcement Czar” Jeff Sessions is a true national disgrace and a blot on our entire legal system. If Congress won’t do its job by removing the Immigration Courts from the DOJ forthwith, the Article III courts must step in, as Maureen suggests.

PWS

08-23-18

JASON JOHNSON @ WASHPOST: YES, TRUMP IS A RACIST, AS ARE MILLER, SESSIONS, BANNON & THE REST OF THE WHITE NATIONALIST CREW — “If you think a racial slur is the only way to determine if the president is racist, you haven’t been paying attention, and you don’t understand what racism is.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2018/08/15/is-trump-a-racist-you-dont-need-an-n-word-tape-to-know/?utm_term=.427cd1460cea

Jason Johnson writes in the Washington Post:

By Jason Johnson

Associate professor at Morgan State University and politics editor for the Root

August 15

Omarosa Manigault Newman — who once declared that “every critic, every detractor will have to bow down to President Trump” — evolved from mentee to frenemy to antagonist before her nonstop media blitz promoting her new post-White House tell-all, during which she’s touted the existence of a recording of Trump using the n-word. It’s all sent the White House scrambling, with the president tweetingMonday that “I don’t have that word in my vocabulary, and never have.” Press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders told reporters Tuesday she “can’t guarantee” Americans will never hear audio of Trump using the slur.

It doesn’t matter.

Trump is a racist. That doesn’t hinge on whether he uttered one particular epithet, no matter how ugly it is. It’s about the totality of his presidency, and after 18 months you can see his racial animus throughout his policy initiatives whether you hear it on tape or not.

ADVERTISING

Over the course of his career, well before he took office, Trump’s antipathy toward people of color has been plainly evident. In the ’70s, his real estate company was the subject of a federal investigation that found his employees had secretly marked the paperwork of minority apartment rental applicants with codes such as “C” for “colored.” After black and Latino teenagers were charged with sexually assaulting a white woman in Central Park, he took out full-page ads in New York City newspapers calling for the return of the death penalty. He never backtracked or apologized when the teenagers’ convictions were overturned. He championed birtherism, and wouldn’t disavow the conspiracy theory that President Barack Obama was born in Kenya until the end of his 2016 presidential campaign. As president, he’s targeted African American athletes for criticism, whether it’s ranting, “Get that son of a bitch off the field,” in reference to professional football players silently protesting police brutality or tweeting that:

Calling African American Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) a “low IQ person” is now a routine bit at his political rallies. He was quoted referring to Haiti, El Salvador and various African nations as “shithole” countries. He announced his campaign in 2015 by referring to Mexican immigrants as “rapists.” Later that year, he called for the United States to implement a “total and complete” Muslim ban.

After taking office, he hired xenophobes such as Stephen Miller — an architect of the ban, whose hostility toward immigrants is so stark, and hypocritical, that his uncle excoriated him this week in an essay for Politico Magazine, writing of Miller and Trump that “they repeat the insults and false accusations of earlier generations against these refugees to make them seem less than human.”

[Trump wanted ‘facts’ before calling out racists. When I was on trial, he didn’t care.]

I could go on. The point is that Trump’s view of nonwhites is out in the open. As Slate’s Christina Cauterucci notes, there’s every reason “to believe that an n-word tape wouldn’t torpedo Trump’s presidency”; there’s no indication his supporters “will turn against him because he used a racial slur.” Trump’s words and deeds over time have demonstrated his racism — it doesn’t hinge on being outed, Paula Deen-style, by a tape of him using the word. Racism hardly ever does.

I’m not saying it would be okay for Trump to use any variation of the n-word — in jest, in anger, singing along to the lyrics of a song, with or without the hard “R.” But the feverish speculation about whether he ever deployed the term wrongly implies that a verdict on his racist character turns on its use. What matters more about Trump are the positions he’s taken and the policy choices he’s made that harm communities of color. In his first year as president, Trump evolved from mere interpersonal racist to racist enabler when he proclaimed there were “very fine people, on both sides” when white supremacists and anti-racist protesters converged in Charlottesville last year. Jeff Sessions, a senator from Alabama who, three decades ago, was denieda federal judgeship by the Republican-controlled Senate Judiciary Committee over concerns that he was a racist, was installed by Trump as attorney general.

Since assuming that role, Sessions has worked to undermine consent decrees meant to restrain racially abusive police departments and explicitly articulated the administration’s intent to use family separation to deter immigration. The Department of Education, under Secretary Betsy DeVos, is dismissing hundreds of civil rights complaints, supposedly in the name of efficiency. Trump hired Manigault Newman as a liaison to black constituent groups based on their reality TV relationship and, according to him, her willingness to say “GREAT things” about him, despite almost universal criticism of her appointment and subsequent work by African American Republicans and Democrats.

Being a racist — which entails belief in a fixed racial hierarchy and the power to act upon that belief in commerce, government or social spaces — is not now, and never has been, about one word or one slip of the tongue. It is about the ability of those in power to use public and private resources to enforce a racial hierarchy, whether that means having black people arrested for sitting in Starbucks, refusing to hire or promote qualified black job applicants or staffing a presidential administration with people who tolerate or encourage white nationalists. Trump’s statements and his approach to governance suggest he believes in a set racial hierarchy, and the possible existence of a hyped tape doesn’t change that. So far, and as far as I know, no one’s produced audio of white nationalist participants in last Sunday’s Unite the Right 2 rally in Washington using the n-word. Presumably, by the logic of some Trump defenders, that would mean there’s no proof they’re racist, either.

If American public discourse on race continues to revolve around a game of “gotcha,” with sentiments and smoking guns, divorced from an acknowledgment of how racists use their power, we won’t make any progress, during this administration or any other.

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

Johnson states a simple truth that some don’t want to acknowledge. But, racist anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim, anti-refugee, anti-Mexican American, xenophobic “dog whistles” were at the heart of Trump’s campaign and remain at the heart of his policies, particularly on immigration, refugees, and law enforcement.

Does that mean that the majority of Americans who don’t endorse racism don’t need to deal with the fact that Trump is President and that Sessions and Miller are exercising outsized control over our justice system? Or that today’s Trumpist GOP isn’t your grandparents’ GOP (in my case, my parents’ GOP) and, although they might occasionally mutter a few insincere “tisk, tisk’s,” are firmly committed to enabling Trump and his racist policies including, of course, voter disenfranchisement. Of course not. Just think of how African-Americans, Hispanics, and liberals had to deal in practical terms with Southern political power in the age of Jim Crow (which is basically the “Age of Jeff Sessions”).

But, it is essential for us to know and acknowledge who and what we are dealing with and not to let political expediency totally obscure the harsh truth. Trump is a racist. And, that sad but true fact will continue to influence all of his policies for as long as he remains in office. Indeed, “Exhibit 1,” is the failure of the GOP to achieve “no-brainer” Dreamer protection over the last two years and the stubborn insistence of Sessions and others in the GOP to keep tying up our courts with bogus attempts to terminate already limited protections for those who aren’t going anywhere in the first place.

PWS

08-18-18

THE PROSTITUTION OF EYORE: Founded To Establish Independence, The Immigration Court Agency Puts Out Bogus Statistics To Support Sessions’s White Nationalist Agenda!

THE PROSTITUTION OF EYORE: Founded To Establish Independence, The Immigration Court Agency Puts Out Bogus Statistics To Support Sessions’s White Nationalist Agenda!

By Paul Wickham Schmidt (U.S. Immigration Judge, retired)

The Executive Office for Immigration Review, known as “EOIR” and pronounced “Eyore” as in the sad little donkey from Wininie the Pooh,was founded in 1983 to promote judicial independence and Due Process. Sadly, those have ceased to be the focus, as the beleaguered agency now develops and promotes bogus statistics to advance the White Nationalist xenophobic agenda of chief immigration “enforcer,” Attorney General Jeff Sessions.

Some might have noticed a new way of presenting so-called “asylum statistics.’ Recently, EOIR published the following so-called “statistical tables” on “defensive” asylum applications — that is, those filed by respondents as a defense to removal after they have been placed in proceedings before the Immigration Court. By contrast, applications filed with the USCIS Asylum Office before proceedings are instituted and thereafter “referred” to the Immigration Court if they are not granted are known as “affirmative” applications.

EYORE ROLLS OVER FOR SESSIONS

Here’s the chart:

Executive Office for Immigration Review

DefensiveAsylumApplications Fiscal Year	Filed	Granted	Defensive Receipts : Defensive Grants Ratio
2008	13,213	2,928	4.51:1
2009	12,258	2,458	4.98:1
2010	12,771	2,273	5.61:1
2011	17,988	2,807	6.4:1
2012	19,908	2,891	6.88:1
2013	23,372	2,620	8.92:1
2014	31,046	2,765	11.22:1
2015	45,960	3,388	13.56:1
2016	68,849	4,863	14.15:1
2017	120,094	6,995	17.16:1
2018 (as of 6/30/2018)	83,534	6,946	12.02:1

Anyone familiar with how immigration proceedings actually work immediately would see the problem with this presentation. However, few of those not familiar with EOIR and Immigration court would notice that glaring disconnect.

What’s the problem? This is a classic “apples and oranges”analysis. The number of “applications filed” in a particular year has little, indeed almost nothing, to do with the number granted. That’s because given the dockets at EOIR, applications are very seldom actually decided in the year that they are filed.The minority that are decided in the year filed are almost always applications by detained, usually unrepresented, aliens. Such applications are literally like “shooting fish in a barrel.” Detained unrepresented asylum applicants seldom receive anything even resembling Due Process and are therefore routinely denied asylum.

Moreover, because the system forces respondents to file all possible applications for relief before an “Individual Hearing” is scheduled, respondents who might actually be relying on cancellation of removal, adjustment of status, so-called “stateside waivers,” and other forms of relief must file the “backup” asylum application even if it might well never proceed to a final adjudication. Additionally, even respondents seeking only the lesser relief of withholding of removal or relief under the Convention Against Torture must file on the asylum application, Form I-589, and thus are counted as “asylum applicants” even if they never pursue asylum.

By artificially maximizing the number of “defensive filings,” while taking the grants out of context to minimize them, EOIR artificially creates a bogus picture of only a small number of asylum applications being granted on the merits. Moreover, EOIR compounds the error by presenting a totally bogus and highly pejorative statistic of “filings to grants” without correlating the year filed with the year granted.

No honest professional statistician would participate in such a hoax. The intent obviously is to create a false narrative of overwhelmingly non-meritorious asylum applications to support Sessions’s disingenuous fabricated scenario of “asylum fraud” infecting the system. For example, according the EOIR’s bogus numbers, the ratio of “applications to grants” in FY 2017 was 17 to 1, falsely suggesting very few meritorious asylum applications.

THE “REAL DEAL”

So, what are the only meaningful EOIR asylum statistics. The number of asylum applications granted and denied on the merits in a particular year. And, those statistics present a radically different picture. Let’s look at EOIR’s own Statistical Yearbookthrough 2016 (the last year for which it was published – the 2017 Statistical Yearbookshould have appeared in the spring of 2018 but, for some curious reason hasn’t) the last full year of the Obama Administration:

Immigration Court Defensive Grant Rate

Grants Denials Grant Rate

FY 12 2,854 5,480 34%

FY 13 2,592 6,188 30%

FY 14 2,747 7,254 27%

FY 15 3,390 7,644 31%

FY 16 4,836 10,842 31%

https://www.justice.gov/eoir/page/file/fysb16/download

As recently as 2016, despite the Obama Administration’s ill-advised “Southern Border Initiative” that forced more unprepared individuals into the “defensive” system faster, and notwithstanding the overall politicized slant of asylum law against Central American Asylum seekers (even before Sessions), the grant rate was a very “robust” 31%, essentially one in three, rather than the bogus one out of every 14.5 put forth in EOIR’s Sessions-driven false narrative.

Let’s look a little further into what the real numbers show. Here are the overall grant rates for asylum and withholding of removal (by regulation, all asylum applications are also considered applications for protection under the withholding of removal provisions of the INA) for the five-year period ending in 2016 :

Immigration Court Asylum or Withholding of Removal Grant Rate
	Asylum Grants	Withholding of Removal Grants	Denials of Both Asylum and Withholding of Removal	Grant Rate
FY 12	10,575	1,527	6,978	63%
FY 13	9,767	1,493	7,293	61%
FY 14	8,672	1,453	7,888	56%
FY 15	8,184	1,184	7,685	55%
FY 16	8,726	969	10,533	48%

While there is a remarkable drop in approvals in FY 2016, again, likely due to the Obama Administration’s ill-advised “Southern Border Initiative,” in FY 2016, 48% of asylum applicants whose cases were actually adjudicated on the merits received protection – essentially one-half of applicants.Again, this is a far cry from EOIR’s current misleading scenario which compares grants to both asylum applications that were not adjudicated on the merits during the year and asylum applications that have never been adjudicated and might never be adjudicated at all, as a result of Session’s mismanagement of the Immigration Courts.

Let’s dig a little further. Here is what happens to so-called “affirmative applications,” that is those made initially to the USCIS asylum Office, when they are “referred” to the Immigration court for a full hearing:

Immigration Court Affirmative Grant Rate

Grants Denials Grant Rate

FY 12 7,721 2,964 72%

FY 13 7,175 2,589 73%

FY 14 5,925 1,937 75%

FY 15 4,794 1,172 80%

FY 16 3,890 801 83%

As we can see, the overwhelming number of affirmative asylum applications not granted by the Asylum Office are eventually granted by the Immigration Courts – a huge majority, 83% in FY 2016. At a minimum, this suggests that the USCIS Asylum Offices should be granting many more affirmative asylum applications, thereby keeping them out of Immigration Court altogether.

ACCURATE STATISTICS LEAD TO BETTER CONCLUSIONS

Overall, the real numbers lead to some obvious conclusions that refute the bogus picture of asylum abuse being painted by Sessions and his EOIR accomplices:

About 50% of asylum applicants whose cases are decided on the merits by the Immigration Courts gain protection;
Asylum applicants who are given fair access to lawyers and time to prepare, generally those filing “affirmative” asylum applications, succeed at extremely high rates;
The USCIS Asylum Office could grant many more “affirmative applications” than they currently do.

All of this suggests that a much more logical approach to asylum adjudication would be:

Treating all asylum applicants applying at ports of entry or who are apprehended near the border and found to have a “credible fear” of persecution or torture as “affirmative applicants” whose cases can be initially adjudicated, and often approved, on the merits by the USCIS Asylum Office without bothering the already overloaded Immigration Courts;
Insuring fair access to counsel and adequate preparation time, preferably in a non-detained setting, to those seeking asylum at the border (significantly, represented asylum applicants show up for their court hearings at extremely high rates);
Encouraging “priority scheduling” for cases in Immigration Court where the documentation is compelling and the Assistant Counsel and private counsel have worked together to narrow the issues for a likely grantof protection (obviously, there are less likely to be Due Process issues with “expediting” grants as opposed to denials).
Exploring other forms of protection or legal status for those whose cases are now “stuck” in the Immigration Court backlog (many are now married to U.S. citizens and eligible for “stateside processing,” or have or will have viable claims for Cancellation of Removal as a result of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Pereira.)
Restoring a more realistic and generous “prosecutorial discretion” (or “PD”) policy along the line of that followed during the later years of the Obama Administration would also help reduce and restore some order to the Immigration Court dockets.
Keeping in mind that even denied asylum applicants more often than not are facing life threatening situations in their “home countries;” they just don’t happen to fit our current overly restrictive and legalistic interpretations of asylum law. (Indeed, in my experience most of those denied asylum were credible and had a well-founded fear of harm – they just failed to meet the rather arcane “nexus” requirements for asylum. Upon return, denied asylum seekers often suffer harm or even death. See, e.g.,https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/01/15/when-deportation-is-a-death-sentence;https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/oct/12/obama-immigration-deportations-central-america

Of course, under Sessions, EOIR and DHS are moving in the opposite direction: seeking, without any probative evidence to support their claims, to falsely paint asylum applicants as de-humanized “numbers” who are “gaming” the system. There is “gaming” going on; but, it’s by Sessions and his “go alongs” at EOIR who intentionally are using bogus statistics to paint a false picture of our asylum system.

NO JUSTICE UNTIL BOTH SESSIONS AND EYORE RIDE INTO THE SUNSET

Asylum is an important part of our immigration system. It should and could be much more generously granted and with far less red tape and bureaucracy. Granting asylum is not only our legal obligation (with a moral foundation stemming from the disaster of World War II and its aftermath) but also benefits both our country and, of course, the individuals whose lives are saved.

Yes, there is so-called “asylum fraud.” But, by and large, it doesn’t involve those currently applying at our Southern Border. Indeed, the parts of ICE Investigations that perform reallaw enforcement work, in my experience, do an excellent job of taking apart large asylum fraud rings and “undoing” those asylum grants that were based on fraud. Several significant Chinese and Indonesian “rings” and at least one involving Cameroonian claims were exposed and prosecuted in that manner.

The U.N Convention and Protocol relating to refugees, implemented by our Refugee Act of 1980, was intended to inspire “a generous asylum policy”and actually to extend protection

to those in flight who might not fully satisfy all of the technical requirements of the “refugee” definition. The generous letter and spirit of the Convention and the Refugee Act of 1980 also are reflected in the leading U.S. Supreme Court case, INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, implementing the generous “well-founded fear” standard for asylum.

Jeff Sessions and his White Nationalist gang are moving to dismantle refugee and asylum protections at all levels. Part of their strategy depends on de-humanization of refugees, bogus statistics, and false narratives. Shamefully, “Eyore” has now become part of that effort, just proving again that Due Process and the rule of law won’t ever be totally restored to our country until we get an independent Article I U.S. Immigration Court.

My friend and colleague, The Honorable Jeffrey Chase, also contributed to this article. The views expressed are mine, and mine alone.

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

PWS

08-16-18

LEADING ACADEMICS FILE OPPOSITION TO JUDICIAL QUOTAS WITH SESSIONS – The Continuing Saga Of The Due-Process-Killing Move That Nobody But Sessions Wants!

https://commonwealthlaw.widener.edu/files/resources/letter-to-sessions-immigration-adjudication-with-s.pdf

Professor Jill Family

Commonwealth Professor of Law and Government Director, Law and Government Institute
Widener University Commonwealth Law School

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

page1image2446232864

August 14, 2018

Honorable Jeff Sessions Attorney General
U.S. Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530

Dear Attorney General Sessions:

We are scholars and teachers of immigration law and of administrative law. We write to express our alarm about the Department of Justice’s new performance metrics for immigration judges. We believe the Department’s performance metrics are unacceptable and fear they are a part of larger goal to undermine the independence of the immigration courts.

Longstanding problems with immigration adjudication have simmered through both Republican and Democratic administrations.1 These problems have manifested in a tremendous backlog of cases awaiting adjudication: over 700,000 cases.2 The wait for a removal hearing can last years.3 The status quo is not acceptable and actions to reform the system are imperative.

Reforms, however, need to enhance fairness by protecting individual rights. Whether the adjudicating body is the Environmental Protection Agency, the Internal Revenue Service, or the Department of Justice in a removal proceeding, how government power is used against a respondent should be scrutinized. This concern is amplified in immigration law because Congress has eliminated federal court review of some issues. For many, the agency hearing before the Department of Justice is the only opportunity to seek statutory protections.

1 Our comments here focus on the Department of Justice’s proposed performance metrics for immigration judges, but there are other issues facing the immigration adjudication system, including a lack of access to counsel and the many types of diversions used to prevent an individual from reaching immigration court. SeeIngrid V. Eagly & Steven Shafer, A National Study of Access to Counsel in Immigration Court, 164 U. PA. L. REV. 1 (2015); Jill E. Family, A Broader View of the Immigration Adjudication Problem, 23 GEO. IMMIGR. L.J. 595 (2009).2 Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse, Backlog of Pending Cases in Immigration Courts as of May 2018,http://trac.syr.edu/phptools/immigration/court_backlog/apprep_backlog.php.

3 Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse, Average Time Pending Cases Have Been Waiting in Immigration Courts as of May 2018,http://trac.syr.edu/phptools/immigration/court_backlog/apprep_backlog_avgdays.php.

Widener University Commonwealth Law School, 3800 Vartan Way, Harrisburg, PA 17110
t: 717-541-3911 f: 717-541-3966 e: jefamily@widener.edu w: commonwealthlaw.widener.edu

page1image2495023184 page1image2495023456 page1image2495023728

The concept of fair process in implementing the rule of law is one of the most fundamental American principles. It is a pillar of meaningful democracy. The idea that the government should not deprive any person4 of life, liberty or property without first providing fair process is enshrined in the U.S. Constitution. The repercussions of a lack of fair procedure can be devastating. While it is incumbent on any federal administration to act efficiently, the adjudication process must be fair.

The fair process calculus demands an adjudicator who does not feel compelled to rule in a certain way due to unacceptable influences. The law itself may of course compel an adjudicator, but the scenario becomes very murky very quickly when an adjudicator has a personal stake in the outcome of a case.

Agency adjudicators are not Article III judges and never have had the full independence of federal court judges. Immigration Judges do not have even the job protections that other agency adjudicators enjoy, however.5 Immigration judges are attorney employees of the Department of Justice.6 The Department of Justice sets the conditions of employment, including location of employment and whether employment continues.7 A Department of Justice regulation, nevertheless, tells immigration judges to “exercise independent judgment and discretion” when making decisions.8 Also, the immigration judge position has evolved over time to make it more independent,9 even if it has not reached the ideal level of independence.10

Congress has tasked you, the Attorney General, with the management of the Department of Justice, including immigration adjudication. It is your duty to insist that fairness and independence are a part of the system. Agency adjudicators are by nature more accountable to the executive branch. But that does not mean that agency adjudicators should be mere vessels who fail to apply statutory standards or who apply the law subject

4 The Due Process Clause is not limited to citizens. U.S. CONST. amends. V, IV.
5 See Kent Barnett, Against Administrative Judges, 49 U.C. DAVIS L. REV. 1643, 1647 (2016).
6 8 C.F.R. § 1003.10(a).
7 See Board of Immigration Appeals: Procedural Reforms to Improve Case Management,
67 Fed. Reg. 54,878, 54,893 (Aug. 26, 2002) (codified at 8 C.F.R. pt. 3).
8 8 C.F.R. § 1003.10(b).
9 Sidney B. Rawitz, From Wong Yang Sung to Black Robes, 65 INTERPRETER RELEASES 453 (1988).
10 There are proposals, for example, to recreate immigration adjudication as an Article I court with greater autonomy from the executive branch. Christine Lockhart Poarch, The FBA’s Proposal to Create a Federal Immigration Court, THE FEDERAL LAWYER (April 2014), available at http://www.fedbar.org/Image- Library/Government-Relations/CH16/Proposed-Article-I-Immigration-Court.aspx; American Bar Association,Reforming the Immigration System (2010) at E9, available athttps://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/migrated/media/nosearch/immigration_reform_executive_s ummary_012510.authcheckdam.pdf; American Immigration Lawyers Association, Resolution on Immigration Court Reform (2018), available at https://www.aila.org/File/DownloadEmbeddedFile/74919. See also Stephen H. Legomsky, Restructuring Immigration Adjudication, 59 DUKE L.J. 1635, 1640 (2010) (recommending that immigration judges become administrative law judges and be relocated from the Department of Justice to an independent tribunal within the executive branch).

page2image2496209728 page2image2496210000 page2image2496210272 page2image2496210544 page2image2496210880 page2image2496211216

to unfair influence or a conflict of interest. Independence and a lack of bias help to protect individual rights and to secure public confidence in the integrity of the process.

The Department of Justice should not conflate enforcement with adjudication. Immigration judges are not prosecutors. Immigration adjudication is different than other functions of the Department of Justice. Immigration judges hear cases initiated by the Department of Homeland Security.11 The Department of Homeland Security therefore decides who enters the immigration adjudication system. The Department of Justice is tasked not with enforcement, but rather with carefully evaluating another agency’s claims that an individual should be removed from the United States.12

The Department of Justice must adjust and rapidly respond to the work thrust upon it by the Department of Homeland Security. One tool to help improve the efficiency and operations of the immigration courts would be for the Department of Homeland Security to more carefully assess and vet the cases it chooses to bring forward. We urge you to work with the Department of Homeland Security to improve their procedures rather than expecting all management of enormous dockets to fall on the shoulders of the immigration judges.

Instead of providing adequate resources13 or implementing other case management tactics, the Department of Justice has proposed the case completion quotas. 14 We believe that these quotas show disregard for the importance of independence,15 including avoidance of a conflict of interest, in adjudication. The quotas seem to align with President Trump’s

11 Lenni B. Benson & Russell R. Wheeler, Enhancing Quality and Timeliness in Immigration Adjudication at 12 (2012), available at https://www.acus.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Enhancing-Quality-and-Timeliness- in-Immigration-Removal-Adjudication-Final-June-72012.pdf.
12 Congress has charged immigration judges with the duty to adjudicate charges of removal. 8 U.S.C. §1229a.13 The Administrative Conference of the United States has recognized the need for additional resources for immigration adjudication. See Administrative Conference Recommendation 2012-3 at 3, 5, available athttps://www.acus.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2012-3.pdf. We recognize that the Department of Justice has been hiring more immigration judges, but the number of judges has not kept pace with the workload. In 2012, there were 264 immigration judges and now there are approximately 330. Lenni B. Benson & Russell R. Wheeler, Enhancing Quality and Timeliness in Immigration Adjudication at 6 (2012),available at https://www.acus.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Enhancing-Quality-and-Timeliness-in- Immigration-Removal-Adjudication-Final-June-72012.pdf; (reporting 264 immigration judges in 2012); U.S. Department of Justice, Office of the Chief Immigration Judge, https://www.justice.gov/eoir/office-of-the- chief-immigration-judge (stating that there are approximately 330 immigration judges).

14 EOIR Performance Plan, available at http://cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2018/images/04/02/immigration-judges- memo.pdf.
15 We implore the Department of Justice to promote independence even outside the context of the quotas. A group of former immigration adjudicators recently objected to the Department’s removal of an immigration judge from a particular case and replacement with a supervisory judge who implemented the administration’s preferred outcome. Retired Immigration Judges and Former Members of the Board of Immigration Appeals Statement in Response to Latest Attack on Judicial Independence, July 30, 2018, available at,https://www.aila.org/infonet/retired-ijs-former-bia-mems-attack-on-jud-independ.

page3image2495416384 page3image2495416656 page3image2495416928 page3image2495417200 page3image2495417536 page3image2495417808 page3image2495418080 page3image2495418352 page3image2495418816 page3image2495419088 page3image2495419360

displeasure with the need for process in immigration cases. In response to a Republican proposal to add 375 immigration judges, he said, “We don’t want judges; we want security on the border.”16 He also characterized the Republican proposal as adding five or six thousand more judges (in actuality the legislation proposed adding 375 judges).17 He said that to add that many judges must involve graft.18 He also has claimed that there is something wrong with foreign nationals having lawyers represent them in immigration proceedings.19

Performance metrics for judges are not inherently objectionable. Careful data collection and analysis can be helpful for training adjudicators and for marshalling court resources. Immigration judges already are subject to qualitative evaluations of their work. These new quantitative performance metrics, however, appear to affect conditions of employment20such as salary and location of employment.21 This is unacceptable. These metrics will diminish independence in immigration adjudication as immigration judges will now have a personal stake in the outcome of cases. Meeting the performance metrics will become a powerful influence over immigration decision-making.

The metrics establish case completion quotas for immigration judges at 700 completions per year. This sets up many immigration judges to fail, or perhaps even worse, encourages immigration judges to cut corners to meet the quota.22 As far as we know, the Department has not introduced a case weighting system. Not every immigration court docket is the

16 Remarks by President Trump at the National Federation of Independent Businesses 75th Anniversary Celebration, June 19, 2018, available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks- president-trump-national-federation-independent-businesses-75th-anniversary-celebration/.
17 Id; GOP Moves to End Trump’s Family Separation Policy, but Can’t Agree How, N.Y. TIMES, June 19, 2018,available at https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/19/us/politics/trump-immigration-children-separated- families.html.

18 Remarks by President Trump at the National Federation of Independent Businesses 75th Anniversary Celebration, June 19, 2018, available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks- president-trump-national-federation-independent-businesses-75th-anniversary-celebration/.
19 Id.

20 We are aware of your congressional testimony stating that an immigration judge would not be fired automatically for failing to meet the quota and that the Department of Justice would consider an explanation why a judge did not meet a quota. Department of Justice FY19 Budget: Hearing Before the Subcomm. on Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies, 115th Cong., available at https://www.c- span.org/video/?444369-1/attorney-general-sessions-testifies-justice-department-budget#&start=1786(testimony of Attorney General Jeff Sessions at 31:20). The Department, however, has not clarified exactly how these performance metrics would be used, and immigration judges believe that a failure to meet a quota would be used punitively. See Letter from A. Ashley Tabaddor, President, National Association of Immigration Judges, to Hon. Jefferson B. Sessions, May 2, 2018, available athttps://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/4452614/NAIJ-Letter-to-the-AG-5-2-2018.pdf.
21 Location of employment is valuable in a system with immigration courts in major cities and in extremely remote detention centers.
22 Russell Wheeler, Amid Turmoil on the Border, New DOJ Policy Encourages Immigration Judges to Cut Corners, June 18, 2018, available at https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2018/06/18/amid-turmoil-on- the-border-new-doj-policy-encourages-immigration-judges-to-cut-corners/.

page4image2447820752 page4image2447821024 page4image2447821296 page4image2447821568 page4image2447821904 page4image2447822176 page4image2447822448 page4image2447822720 page4image2447823120 page4image2447823392 page4image2447823664 page4image2447823936

same. Deciding 700 claims for asylum is not the same workload as deciding 700 cases where the only issue is whether a foreign national entered the United States without inspection. Asylum cases require careful consideration of evidence about country conditions and an applicant’s experiences in that country. Also, the unique characteristics of a particular judge’s caseload could prevent meeting the case completion goal. Some immigration courts have specialized dockets for vulnerable populations such as those with mental illness or juveniles. Judges assigned to these dockets have additional obligations to ensure minimum standards of fairness.23

The quota motivates judges to come up with coping mechanisms. 24 Efficiencies can come at too great of a cost. For example, what if an immigration judge decides to review paper records and then decide which cases to invite to provide live testimony? If a judge is worried about meeting a quota, a judge might only schedule those matters that could be handled quickly. That would leave more complicated cases to be decided on paper submissions alone.

The quota also sets up an incentive for immigration judges to deny applications for relief. Cancellation of removal provides just one example. By statute, the number of grants of cancellation of removal is limited to 4,000 per year.25 Once the cap is reached, immigration judges may delay a grant to the following fiscal year. If deferring a grant is not considered a completion, then the incentive is to deny the application for relief to earn a completion. This incentive exists even if an immigration judge sincerely believes that the individual is eligible for relief from removal. There are similar issues where the Department of Homeland Security must complete final security checks before a grant of asylum. The immigration judge knows that an asylum case requires multiple steps to complete, but a denial of a case shortens the completion time. Should the judge erroneously deny relief to maintain his or her conditions of employment?

In addition to the case completion quotas, the Department’s proposal calls for certain types of cases to be decided within a certain number of days. This further erodes an immigration judge’s independence to decide what cases need more attention or to allow a continuance to ensure fairness. For example, the plan calls for 95% of all individual merits hearings to take place on the originally scheduled date. The problem here is that there are many forces

23 The federal courts impose obligations on individual immigration judges. For example, in a recent decision on whether a juvenile must be appointed counsel, the Ninth Circuit held that the detailed questioning by the immigration judge was an adequate substitute for appointed counsel. C.J.L.G. v. Sessions, 880 F.3d 1122, 1137-42 (9th Cir. 2018) (noting the obligations of the immigration judge to develop the record). While many of us disagree with the lack of appointed counsel for indigent children, it is clear that federal courts mandate an active and inquisitorial role of immigration judges that requires time and patience.

24 Your own recent decision in Matter of Castro-Tum eliminated a docket management tool known as administrative closure. Now immigration judges must keep these cases active and open on their dockets. 27 I&N Dec. 271 (2018), available at https://www.justice.gov/eoir/page/file/1064086/download.
25 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(e).

page5image2447443024 page5image2447443296

at work that lead immigration judges to issue continuances. Because there is no right to government funded counsel in removal proceedings, foreign nationals may ask for a continuance to find a lawyer, or a newly hired lawyer may need time to prepare. Also, witnesses may not be available on a particular date, or testimony may run long, and the hearing may need to be continued to another day. The 95% goal encourages immigration judges to hold hearings without lawyers even when the foreign national desires one and provides incentive for immigration judges to cut hearings short. Moreover, a study conducted on behalf of the Administrative Conference of the United States revealed a significant percentage of the delays in cases were made at the request of the Department of Homeland Security, not the respondent.26 If the Department of Homeland Security is not ready to proceed and the immigration judge rushes to completion, the government may have to file more appeals. That would simply create more work somewhere else.

As we noted above, the priorities of the Department of Homeland Security directly and at times dramatically impact the work of the immigration courts. The case completion quotas have arrived at the same time that President Trump’s administration has changed its prosecutorial discretion policies to make more foreign nationals priorities for removal.27The administration has announced its plans to open more actions in immigration court.28

Also, the Department of Justice has announced that it is reviewing the Legal Orientation Program, which provides information about the removal process to immigration detainees in a group setting.29 This review is taking place despite previous reviews that have found the program to increase the efficiency of the immigration courts and to save the government money.30 Without an adequate increase in resources, putting more individuals in removal proceedings and/or ending the Legal Orientation Program will only magnify the negative effects of the performance metrics.

26 Lenni B. Benson & Russell R. Wheeler, Enhancing Quality and Timeliness in Immigration Adjudication at 73 (2012), available at https://www.acus.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Enhancing-Quality-and-Timeliness- in-Immigration-Removal-Adjudication-Final-June-72012.pdf (reporting that 11% of delays were because a Department of Homeland Security attorney was not ready to proceed and that 14% were because the Department of Homeland Security was missing a file).

27 Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States (Jan. 25, 2017), available athttps://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-enhancing-public-safety-interior-united- states/.
28 See, e.g., US Citizenship and Immigration Services, Updated Guidance for the Referral of Cases and Issuance of Notices to Appear (NTAs) in Cases Involving Inadmissible and Deportable Aliens (June 28, 2018), available at,https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/USCIS/Laws/Memoranda/2018/2018-06-28-PM-602-0050.1- Guidance-for-Referral-of-Cases-and-Issuance-of-NTA.pdf.
29 Sessions Backtracks on Pausing Legal Aid Program for Immigrants Facing Deportation, WASH. POST. (April 25, 2018), available at https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/immigration/sessions-backtracks-on-pausing- legal-aid-program-for-immigrants/2018/04/25/c0d27a12-48cb-11e8-827e-190efaf1f1ee_story.html.
30ICE Praised Legal-aid Program for Immigrants that Justice Dept. Plans to Suspend, WASH. POST. (April 17, 2018), available at https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/immigration/ice-praised-legal-aid-program-for- immigrants-that-justice-dept-plans-to-suspend/2018/04/17/c0b073d4-3f31-11e8-974f- aacd97698cef_story.html?utm_term=.8fa7c90bba02.

page6image2446777488 page6image2446777760 page6image2446778032 page6image2446770080 page6image2446770288 page6image2446770496 page6image2446770768 page6image2446771040 page6image2446771440 page6image2446771712 page6image2446771984 page6image2446772320

The Department’s performance metrics are a poor fit for the realities of immigration adjudication. Immigration law is extremely harsh and complex, and the consequences of the decisions of immigration judges are weighty. These decisions should not be made too quickly. An immigration judge must apply statutes that rival the tax code in complexity and must ensure the opportunity to be heard to a diverse and often poorly educated pool of respondents. The Supreme Court regularly hears immigration law cases that require it to resolve thorny questions. These Supreme Court opinions often leave many questions unanswered, as the Court only decides issues directly before it. Immigration judges need time to digest new interpretations and to think about how those new interpretations apply in a wide array of factual scenarios. For example, a recent Supreme Court decision holding certain Department of Homeland Security charging documents31 to be ineffective has created motions within the immigration courts to terminate proceedings and to reopen older cases. Finally, immigration judges are deciding cases with grave consequences. If an individual is removed, they may face death upon return to their country of nationality. Or an individual may be separated from children or other close family.

The immigration adjudication system needs more resources. More immigration judges need to be hired to guarantee that we do not sacrifice our cherished American values and our constitutional obligations. We also note that with the hiring of judges it is critical that the agency adequately provide support staff from law clerks to court administration. All immigration judges need more time to work through their cases fairly and efficiently. Immigration judges need to be given independence so that we all have confidence that their decisions are based on their judgment as adjudicators, and not influenced by what the adjudicators think best will guarantee positive conditions of employment.

We appreciate that you want to work to ensure efficiency in immigration adjudication. However, you are also charged with guiding our government to comply with the rule of law and to protect American legal values. Accordingly, we urge you to reconsider the new performance metrics.

Respectfully,
(Institutional affiliations are listed for identification purposes only.)

Jill E. Family
Commonwealth Professor of Law and Government Director, Law and Government Institute
Widener University Commonwealth Law School

31 Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S.Ct. 2105, 585 U.S. ___ (June 21, 2018).

page7image2407044480 page7image2407044768

Lenni B. Benson Professor of Law New York Law School

Matthew Hirsch
Attorney/Adjunct Professor of Immigration and Nationality Law Delaware Law School, Widener University

Huyen Pham
Professor
Texas A&M University School of Law

Jacqueline Stevens
Professor and Director, Deportation Research Clinic Northwestern University

Anju Gupta
Professor of Law and Director of the Immigrant Rights Clinic Rutgers School of Law

William Brooks
Clinical Professor of Law Touro Law Center

Maria Isabel Medina
Ferris Family Distinguished Professor of Law Loyola University New Orleans College of Law

Jennifer Moore
Professor of Law University of New Mexico

Dina Francesca Haynes Professor of Law
New England Law

Nickole Miller
Clinical Teaching Fellow
University of Baltimore School of Law, Immigrant Rights Clinic

Estelle M McKee Clinical Professor Cornell Law School

Daniel M. Kowalski
Editor-in-Chief
Bender’s Immigration Bulletin (LexisNexis)

Marisa Cianciarulo
Professor of Law, Associate Dean for Academic Affairs Chapman University Fowler School of Law

Lucy E. Salyer
Associate Professor
History Department, University of New Hampshire

Deborah M. Weissman
Reef C. Ivey II Distinguished Professor of Law UNC School of Law

Carrie Rosenbaum
Adjunct Professor
Golden Gate University School of Law

Emily Robinson
Co-Director, Loyola Immigrant Justice Clinic Loyola Law School Los Angeles

Fatma Marouf
Professor of Law
Texas A&M School of Law

Karen Musalo Professor U.C. Hastings

Miriam Marton
Assistant Clinical Professor University of Tulsa College of Law

Helena Marissa Montes Co-Director
Loyola Immigrant Justice Clinic

Alan Hyde Distinguished Professor Rutgers Law School

Stephen H. Legomsky
John S. Lehmann University Professor Emeritus Washington University School of Law

Erica Schommer
Clinical Associate Professor of Law St. Mary’s University School of Law

Renee C. Redman
Adjunct Professor
University of Connecticut School of Law

Linda Bosniak Distinguished Professor Rutgers Law School

Jonathan Weinberg Professor of Law Wayne State University

Denise Gilman
Clinical Professor
University of Texas School of Law Immigration Clinic

Kayleen R. Hartman Clinical Teaching Fellow Loyola Law School

Lynn Marcus
Director, Immigration Law Clinic
University of Arizona Rogers College of Law

Elizabeth McCormick
Associate Clinical Professor University of Tulsa College of Law

Christopher N. Lasch
Professor of Law
University of Denver Sturm College of Law

John Palmer Tenure-Track Professor Universitat Pompeu Fabra

Julie Ann Dahlstrom
Clinical Associate Professor Boston University School of Law

Susan Gzesh
Senior Lecturer University of Chicago

Violeta Chapin
Clinical Professor of Law University of Colorado

Jon Bauer
Clinical Professor of Law
Richard D. Tulisano ’69 Scholar in Human Rights University of Connecticut School of Law

Rachel E. Rosenbloom
Professor of Law
Northeastern University School of Law

Caitlin Barry
Assistant Professor of Law
Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law

Dr. Richard T. Middleton, IV
Adjunct Professor of Law; Associate Professor of Political Science St. Louis University School of Law; University of Missouri-St. Louis

Anna Welch
Clinical Professor
University of Maine School of Law

Charles Shane Ellison
Director of the Immigrant and Refugee Clinic Special Assistant Professor
Creighton University School of Law

Yolanda Vázquez
Associate Professor of Law
University of Cincinnati College of Law

Claire R. Thomas
Director, Asylum Clinic; Adjunct Professor of Law New York Law School

Laura A. Hernandez Professor of Law Baylor Law School

Kate Evans
Associate Professor of Law University of Idaho College of Law

Stella Burch Elias
Professor of Law
University of Iowa College of Law

Rachel Settlage Associate Professor Wayne State Law School

Hiroko Kusuda
Clinic Professor
Loyola New Orleans University

Sabi Ardalan
Assistant Clinical Professor Harvard Law School

Joshua I. Schwartz
E.K. Gubin Professor of Law
The George Washington University Law School

Florence Wagman Roisman
William F. Harvey Professor of Law and Chancellor’s Professor Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law

Richard J. Pierce Jr.
Lyle T. Alverson Professor of Law George Washington University

Michael Sharon
Adjunct Professor of Law
Case Western Reserve University School of Law

Susan Rose-Ackerman
Henry R. Luce Professor of Law and Political Science, Emeritus Yale University

Jaya Ramji-Nogales
I. Herman Stern Research Professor Temple Law School

Michael Asimow
Visiting Professor of Law Stanford Law School

Natalie Gomez-Velez
Professor of Law
City University of New York (CUNY) School of Law

Adell Amos
Associate Dean & Clayton R. Hess Professor of Law University of Oregon

Harold J. Krent
Dean & Professor of Law Chicago-Kent College of Law

Aila Hoss
Visiting Assistant Professor
Indiana University McKinney School of Law

Richard Reuben
James Lewis Parks Professor of Law and Journalism University of Missouri School of Law

Morell E. Mullins, Sr. Professor Emeritus
UALR Bowen School of Law

Bernard W. Bell
Professor of Law and Herbert Hannoch Scholar Rutgers Law School

Rose Cuison Villazor Professor of Law Rutgers Law School

Lauris Wren
Clinical Professor of Law
Maurice A. Deane School of Law at Hofstra University

Victor Romero
Maureen B. Cavanaugh Distinguished Faculty Scholar Associate Dean for Academic Affairs & Professor of Law Penn State Law (University Park)

David Baluarte
Associate Clinical Professor of Law Washington and Lee University School of Law

Michelle N. Mendez
Adjunct Professor, Immigrant Rights Clinic University of Baltimore School of Law

Jeffrey A. Heller
Adjunct Clinical Professor Emeritus Brooklyn Law School
Seton Hall University School of Law

Susan M. Akram
Clinical Professor and Director, International Human Rights Law Clinic Boston University School of Law

Laila L. Hlass
Professor of Practice
Tulane University School of Law

Joanne Gottesman Clinical Professor of Law Rutgers Law School

Jennifer Lee Koh
Professor of Law
Western State College of Law

Geoffrey Hoffman
Director
Univ. of Houston Law Ctr. Immigration Clinic

Ingrid Eagly Professor of Law UCLA School of Law

Jason A. Cade
Associate Professor of Law University of Georgia School of Law

Peter M. Shane
Jacob E. Davis and Jacob E. Davis II Chair in Law Ohio State University

Anna Williams Shavers
Cline Williams Professor of Citizenship Law University of Nebraska College of Law

Stewart Chang
Professor of Law
UNLV Boyd School of Law

Margaret H. Taylor
Professor of Law
Wake Forest University School of Law

Elora Mukherjee
Jerome L. Greene Clinical Professor of Law Columbia Law School

Michael J. Churgin
Raybourne Thompson Centennial Professor in Law The University of Texas at Austin

Kathleen Kim
Professor of Law
Loyola Law School Los Angeles

Ming H Chen
Associate Professor
University of Colorado Law School

Anil Kalhan
Professor of Law
Drexel University Kline School of Law

Shruti Rana
Professor
Indiana University Bloomington

Hilary Evans Cameron Instructor
Trinity College

Fernando Colon
Professor
Thurgood Marshall School of Law

Shoba Sivaprasad Wadhia
Samuel Weiss Faculty Scholar and Clinical Professor of Law Penn State Law – University Park

Blake Close Nordahl Clinical Professor McGeorge Law School

Kaci Bishop
Clinical Associate Professor of Law
The University of North Carolina School of Law

Craig B. Mousin Adjunct Faculty DePaul University

Joel A. Mintz
Professsor of Law Emeritus
C. William Trout Senior Fellow in Public Interest Law Nova Southeastern University College of Law

Raquel E Aldana
Associate Vice Chancellor for Academic Diversity and Professor of Law UC Davis

Lindsay M. Harris
Assistant Professor of Law
Co-Director of Immigration & Human Rights Clinic
University of the District of Columbia David A. Clarke School of Law

Sheila Hayre
Visiting Associate Professor Quinnipiac University School of Law

Andrew Moore
Associate Professor of Law
University of Detroit Mercy School of Law

Krista Kshatriya Lecturer
UC San Diego

David B. Thronson
Professor of Law
Michigan State University College of Law

Mary Holper
Associate Clinical Professor Boston College Law School

Amelia McGowan
Adjunct Professor
Mississippi College School of Law Immigration Clinic

Maryellen Fullerton Professor of Law Brooklyn Law School

Renée M. Landers
Professor of Law and Faculty Director, Health and Biomedical Law Concentration Suffolk University Law School

Leti Volpp
Robert D. and Leslie Kay Raven Professor of Law UC Berkeley

Alexander Vernon
Director, Immigration Law Clinic Detroit Mercy School of Law

Irene Scharf
Professor of Law
University of Massachusetts School of law

Seymour Moskowitz Senior Research Professor Valparaiso Law School

Veronica T. Thronson
Clinical Professor of Law
Michigan State University College of Law

Elissa Steglich
Clinical Professor
University of Texas School of Law

Mariela Olivares
Associate Professor of Law Howard University School of Law

Barbara Hines
Retired Clinical Professor of Law University of Texas School of Law

Richard T. Middleton, IV
Associate Professor of Political Science Adjunct Professor of Law
University of Missouri-St. Louis
St. Louis University School of Law

Deborah Gonzalez
Director of the Immigration Clinic Associate Clinical Professor Roger Williams University School of Law

Alizabeth Newman
Int. Dir. Alumni Engagement & Initiatives CUNY School of Law

Juliet Stumpf
Robert E. Jones Professor of Advocacy & Ethics Lewis & Clark Law School

Bijal Shah
Associate Professor of Law
Arizona State University, Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law

Niels W. Frenzen
Sidney M. and Audrey M. Irmas Endowed Clinical Professor of Law Univ. of Southern California, Gould School of Law

Jon Michaels Professor of Law UCLA School of Law

Kit Johnson
Associate Professor of Law
University of Oklahoma College of Law

Nina Rabin
Director, UCLA Immigrant Family Legal Clinic UCLA School of Law

Karen E. Bravo
Professor
IU McKinney School of Law

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

Not likely to make any difference with Sessions & Co. But, Sessions is rapidly driving an already crippled and demoralized system into collapse. If Congress doesn’t fix it soon, which almost nobody thinks will happen, the Article III Federal Courts will eventually have to sort out (not for the first time — witness child separation, sanctuary cities, Travel Ban 1&2, violation of stays of removal, DACA termination, etc.) this self-inflicted mess created by the Department of Justice under the last three Administrations and accelerated by Sessions and his White Nationalist agenda.

And, NO, the answer isn’t to blame the victims: the respondents, their courageous, hard-working counsel, and the judges and their dedicated staff. The answer is to hold the “perps,” in this case Sessions and his gang, accountable and place them under strict judicial supervision until Due Process and order are restored to our Immigration Courts.

PWS

08-15-18

LA TIMES: SESSIONS PERSECUTES BROWN SKINNED FEMALE REFUGEES — THERE IS NOTHING “EASY” ABOUT BEING AN ABUSED WOMAN OR AN ASYLUM APPLICANT!

http://enewspaper.latimes.com/infinity/article_share.aspx?guid=7d04de4c-1e76-4711-9b90-dac191234d79

Jazmine Ulloa reports for the LA Times:

WASHINGTON — Xiomara started dating him when she was 17. He was different then, not yet the man who pushed drugs and ran with a gang. Not the man who she says berated and raped her, who roused her out of bed some mornings only to beat her.

Not the man who choked her with an electrical cord, or put a gun to her head while she screamed, then begged, “Please, please don’t kill me — I love you.”

Fleeing El Salvador with their daughter, then 4, the 23-year-old mother pleaded for help at a port of entry in El Paso on a chilly day in December 2016.

After nearly two years, her petition for asylum remains caught in a backlog of more than 310,000 other claims. But while she has waited for a ruling, her chance of success has plunged.

Atty. Gen. Jeff Sessions in June issued a decision meant to block most victims of domestic abuse and gang violence from winning asylum, saying that “private criminal acts” generally are not grounds to seek refuge in the U.S. Already, that ruling has narrowed the path for legal refuge for tens of thousands of people attempting to flee strife and poverty in El Salvador, Honduras and Guatemala.

“You can tell there is something happening,” said longtime immigration attorney Carlos A. Garcia, who in mid-July spoke to more than 70 women in one cell block at a family detention center in Texas. Most had received denials of their claims that they have what the law deems a “credible fear of persecution.”

“More than I’ve ever seen before,” he said.

In North Carolina, where federal immigration agents sparked criticism last month when they arrested two domestic-violence survivors at a courthouse, some immigration judges are refusing to hear any asylum claims based on allegations of domestic abuse. Other immigration judges are asking for more detailed evidence of abuse at the outset of a case, a problem for victims who often leave their homes with few written records.

Under the Refugee Act of 1980, judges can grant asylum, which allows a person to stay in the U.S. legally, only to people escaping persecution based on religion, race, nationality, political opinion or membership in “a particular social group.”

As drug war violence escalated over the last two decades in Mexico and Central America, fueled by a U.S. demand for drugs and waged by gangs partly grown on American streets, human rights lawyers pushed to have victims of domestic violence or gang crime considered part of such a social group when their governments don’t protect them.

After years of argument, they won a major victory in 2014 when the highest U.S. immigration court, the Board of Immigration Appeals, ruled in favor of a woman from Guatemala who fled a husband who had beaten and raped her with impunity.

Sessions, in June, used his legal authority over the immigration system to reverse that decision, deciding a case brought by a woman identified in court as A.B.

“Asylum was never meant to alleviate all problems — even all serious problems — that people face every day all over the world,” he said, ruling that in most cases asylum should be limited to those who can show they were directly persecuted by the government, not victims of “private violence.”

Immigration advocates reacted with outrage.

Karen Musalo, a co-counsel for A.B. and a professor at the UC Hastings College of Law, called the decision “a return to the dark ages of refugee law,” a move inconsistent with a steadily evolving principle “that women’s rights are human rights.”

Neither the government, nor the police, could help Xiomara in her rural town, where gangs were deeply embedded.

“Are you kidding?” she said, asking to be identified by only her first name out of concern about possible retaliation. “I would go to the police department and wouldn’t come back alive — if I came back at all.”

Within a year of when they started dating, she said, her boyfriend began drinking and doing drugs, making friends with the wrong crowd. He grew meaner, more violent.

One day he put a gun to her head, her asylum claim says. On another evening, on the roof of his home after another fight, she had been weeping in the dark, when she felt a cord tighten around her neck.

“He would have killed me if his family hadn’t appeared,” she said.

Other women offer similar stories.

Candelaria, 49, who also asked that her last name not be used, said she left an abusive husband of 20 years in Honduras after his drinking became more severe. And always the criminal bands of men roamed.

“My children sent me a photo of me in those days, and I look so old, so sad,” said Candelaria, whose asylum case has been pending for four years.

For more than two decades, United Nations officials and human rights lawyers have argued that women victimized by domestic violence in societies where police refuse to help are being persecuted because of their gender and should be treated as refugees entitled to asylum.

But Sessions and other administration officials have a different view, and they have made a broad effort to curb the path to asylum. The number of people entering the U.S. by claiming asylum has risen sharply in recent years, and administration officials have portrayed the process as a “loophole” in the nation’s immigration laws.

In October, Sessions labeled asylum an “easy ticket to illegal entry into the United States” and called on immigration judges to elevate “the threshold standard of proof in credible fear interviews.” In March, he restricted who could be entitled to full hearings. From May to June, federal officials limited asylum seekers from gaining access through ports of entry, with people waiting for weeks at some of the busiest crossings in Southern California.

The government does not keep precise data on how many domestic-violence survivors claim asylum, but figures released last month give a glimpse of the effect that Sessions’ decision has begun to have at one of the earliest stages of the asylum process.

The American Civil Liberties Union on Wednesday filed a lawsuit on behalf of 12 parents and children it says were wrongly found not to have a credible fear of return. U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on Thursday stopped the deportation of a mother and her daughter in the case, threatening to hold Sessions in contempt.

For domestic-abuse survivors waiting for hearings, the uncertainty has been excruciating.

Candelaria wants to go home, but her older children back in Honduras tell her to have hope.

“ ‘You’ve endured enough,’ they tell me,” she said.

Xiomara, now 25, won’t have her asylum hearing for another year.

For months, she scraped by on meager wages, baby-sitting and waiting on tables. She was relieved to find a job at a factory that pays $10 an hour.

The American dream is “one big lie,” she now says.

But at least here, she said, she and her daughter are alive.

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

People like Xiomara are wonderful folks, genuine refugees, deserving of protection, who will contribute to our country. As my friend and legal scholar Professor Karen Musalo cogently said, Sessions is leading “a return to the dark ages of refugee law,” a move inconsistent with a steadily evolving principle “that women’s rights are human rights.” But, the “New Due Process Army” (Karen is one of the “Commanding Generals”) isn’t going to let him get away with this outrageous attack on human rights, women’s rights, and human decency.

Due Process Forever, Jeff Sessions Never!

PWS

08-13-18

MORE FROM WASHPOST ON SESSIONS’S ATTACKS ON INDEPENDENCE OF US IMMIGRATION JUDGES!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/social-issues/immigration-judges-worried-trump-is-seeking-to-cut-them-out-fight-back/2018/08/09/3d7e915a-9bd7-11e8-8d5e-c6c594024954_story.html?utm_term=.6b3ca4d6ec23

Antonio Olivo reports for WashPost:

The union for the nation’s immigration judges is fighting a government decision to strip a Philadelphia judge of his authority over 87 cases, arguing that the move sidelines judicial independence as President Trump seeks to ramp up deportations.

Immigration judges work under the Justice Department’s Executive Office for Immigration Review, though they have independent authority to determine whether the thousands of undocumented immigrants who come before them every year can remain in the United States through asylum or some other form of relief.

In a labor grievance filed this week, the National Association of Immigration Judges says the office undercut that authority when it removed Judge Steven A. Morley from overseeing juvenile cases that he had either continued or placed on temporary hold amid questions over whether federal prosecutors had adequately notified the subjects to appear in court.

The Justice Department said in a statement Thursday that “there is reason to believe” Morley violated federal law and department policy in those cases, but it did not offer any specifics. The statement said an investigation is ongoing.

[Judge halts deportation in progress, threatens to hold Sessions in contempt]

Trump alarmed immigration judges in June by tweeting that anyone caught at the border, presumably including those seeking asylum, should be deported without a trial.

“When somebody comes in, we must immediately, with no Judges or Court Cases, bring them back from where they came,” the president wrote.

In its grievance, the judges’ union focused on a case involving Reynaldo Castro-Tum, a Guatemalan national who arrived in 2014 as a 17-year-old unaccompanied minor.

Castro-Tum’s current whereabouts are unknown, and he had not responded to recent court summonses. Morley temporarily closed his case in 2016, ordering the Justice Department to ensure that Castro-Tum was receiving the notices. He did the same with other similar cases.

Prosecutors appealed Morley’s decision, and the case eventually came to the attention of Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who chose to review it in January.

Sessions concluded that Morley was wrong to close Castro-Tum’s case and ordered it resolved within two weeks.

Amiena Khan, a New York-based immigration judge who is the union’s vice president, said the intervention further raised suspicions that the administration is looking to circumvent the judicial process and move to deport people faster amid a backlog of some 600,000 cases.

“This is another transparent way, surprisingly transparent in this instance, for the agency to come in and re-create the ideology of this whole process more towards a law enforcement ideology,” Khan said.

[Ahead of midterms, Trump hits a wall in efforts to curb illegal immigration]

The system “is based on our ability to look at the facts and adjudicate the claim before us to our best ability and then render a decision,” Khan said. “Not being told by someone else how to rule.”

The union, which represents 350 judges, argues that Morely should get his caseload back. It is asking the Justice Department to assure all immigration judges that their independent authority won’t be undermined.

Immigrant advocates say the dispute highlights a fundamental flaw in immigration courts, where the judges work under the same department that is tasked with prosecuting cases. Several legal groups have renewed a push for federal legislation to overhaul the system so judges can operate more independently, either through a different branch of the Justice Department or as a separate tribunal court.

“We’re very concerned the immigration judges are simply being turned into law enforcement officers,” said Laura Lynch, senior policy counsel for the American Immigration Lawyers Association, which launched a national campaign this month to lobby members of Congress to support such legislation.

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

When he isn’t busy praising hate groups, covering for police violence against the African-American community, disenfranchising minority voters, promoting the establishment of religion, using bogus stats to fabricate a connection between immigrants and violent crime, abusing brown-skinned children, forcing transgender kids to pee in their pants, thumbing his nose at Federal Judges and their orders, briefing his attorneys on how to mislead courts, mounting unconstitutional attacks on cities, ignoring environmental laws, dissing Dreamers, shilling for racist legislation, deconstructing our refugee, asylum, and legal immigration systems, filling court dockets with minor misdemeanants to the exclusion of felons, imposing deportation quotas, shafting brown-skinned refugee victims of domestic violence, huddling with fellow neo-Nazi Stephen Miller, blocking migrants from getting abortions, or hiding under his desk from Trump, one of Jeff “Gonzo Apocalypto” Sessions’s favorite pastimes is interfering with the independence of U.S. Immigration Judges while purposely jacking up the backlog in the U.S. Immigration Courts.

It remains to be seen whether our country can survive this one-man Constitutional wrecking crew and his reign of indecency and intellectual dishonesty.

PWS

08-09-18

WHITE NATIONALIST ADMINISTRATION’S NEXT TARGET FOR ABUSE: LEGAL IMMIGRANTS! — PLUS, SESSIONS’S CONTINUING “DECONSTRUCTION” OF DUE PROCESS AND JUSTICE IN THE U.S. IMMIGRATION COURTS!

Tal Kopan reports for CNN:

Sources: Stephen Miller pushing policy to make it harder for immigrants who received benefits to earn citizenship

By Tal Kopan, CNN

White House adviser Stephen Miller is pushing to expedite a policy that could penalize legal immigrants whose families receive public benefits and make it more difficult to get citizenship, three sources familiar with the matter tell CNN.

The White House has been reviewing the proposal since March at the Office of Management and Budget, which is the last stop for regulations before they are final. But concerns over potential lawsuits have delayed the final rule, and the draft has undergone numerous revisions, multiple sources say.

The crux of the proposal would penalize legal immigrants if they or their family members have used government benefits — defined widely in previous drafts of the policy.

The law has long allowed authorities to reject immigrants if they are likely to become a “public charge” — or dependent on government. But the draft rule in its recent forms would include programs as expansive as health care subsidies under the Affordable Care Act, as well as some forms of Medicaid, the Children’s Health Insurance Program, food stamps and the Earned Income Tax Credit.

The rule would not explicitly prohibit immigrants or their families from accepting benefits. Rather, it authorizes the officers who evaluate their applications for things like green cards and residency visas to count the use of these programs against applicants and gives them authority to deny visas on these grounds — even if the program was used by a family member.

Two non-administration sources close to US Citizenship and Immigration Services, which would publish and enforce the proposal, say that Miller has been unhappy by the delay and has pushed the agency to finish it quickly. The sources say Miller even instructed the agency to prioritize finalizing the rule over other efforts a few weeks ago.

Miller is an immigration hardliner within the administration, a veteran of Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ Senate office who has been at President Donald Trump’s side since the early stages of his presidential campaign.

But two other administration sources downplayed the idea of any instructions to defer other policies until it’s done, though they acknowledged Miller is keenly interested in the rule.

The White House and Department of Homeland Security did not respond to a request for comment.

More: http://www.cnn.com/2018/08/07/politics/stephen-miller-immigrants-penalize-benefits/index.html

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

Tal also highlights the continuing bias and political interference with the U.S. Immigration Courts under Sessions, spotlighting the continuing vocal public opposition of “Our Gang” of retired U.S. Judges, led in this case by Judge Jeffrey Chase, to the wanton destruction of Due Process in our Immigration Courts as well as the NAIJ, representing current Immigraton Judges (I am a member):

Immigrant ordered deported after Justice Department replaces judge

By Tal Kopan, CNN

Judge Steven Morley has overseen the immigration case of Reynaldo Castro-Tum for years. But last month when Castro-Tum was officially ordered deported, it wasn’t Morley at the bench.

Instead, the Justice Department sent an assistant chief immigration judge from Washington to replace Morley for exactly one hearing: the one that ended Castro-Tum’s bid to stay in the US.

The unusual use of a chief immigration judge from headquarters has raised concerns from retired immigration judges, lawyers and the union for active immigration judges. They say the move seems to jeopardize the right to a fair process in immigration courts.

It also highlights the unique structure of the immigration courts, which are entirely run by the Justice Department, and the ways that Attorney General Jeff Sessions — who serves as a one-man Supreme Court in these cases — has sought to test the limits of his authority over them.

The saga of Castro-Tum starts in 2014, when he crossed the border illegally as a 17-year-old. The Guatemalan teen was apprehended by the Border Patrol, which referred him to custody with the Health and Human Services Department as an unaccompanied minor. He was released to his brother-in-law a few months later and registered his brother-in-law’s address with the government. Multiple notices of court hearings were sent to that address, the government said.

But after the fifth time Castro-Tum failed to appear in court, immigration Judge Morley closed the case until the government provided him with evidence that Castro-Tum had ever lived at the address they were sending the notices to. The Board of Immigration Appeals sent the case back to Morley to reconsider with instructions to proceed even if Castro-Tum failed to show again. His current whereabouts are unknown.

Earlier this year, Sessions referred the case to himself and ruled that immigration judges across the board could no longer close immigration cases as they saw fit. The attorney general said immigration judges lack the authority to make such “administrative closures” of cases.

Sessions gave Morley 14 days to issue a new hearing notice to Castro-Tum. The Philadelphia-based immigration attorney Matthew Archambeault, who had begun following the case, appeared in court and volunteered to represent Castro-Tum, as well as to track him down. He asked the judge to postpone the case a bit longer to give him time to do that, which Morley granted.

More: http://www.cnn.com/2018/08/07/politics/immigration-judge-replaced-deportation-case-justice-department/index.html

ICYMI:

Trump nominates new ICE director:

http://www.cnn.com/2018/08/06/politics/ice-trump-vitiello/index.html

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

Thanks, again, Tal, for your reporting and for all you do to expose the Administration’s daily scofflaw performances in mal-administering our immigration laws.

Folks, we are in a battle for the “hearts and minds of America.” Will we fulfill our destiny as a vibrant, diverse, creative “nation of immigrants?” Or, will be become a “shell of a nation” controlled by emotionally stunted, scared, White Nationalist bigots pursuing a philosophy of White racial favoritism, discrimination, persecution, and “beggar thy neighbor” economics.

The next election will be the test. Statistically, Trump’s White Nationalist Nation, pushing a platform of overt xenophobia and bigotry, does not represent the majority of Americans. But, they (with the help of their “fellow travelers” in the GOP) have seized effective control of our Government on many levels. Unless we dislodge them at the ballot box and take back America for the majority of us who neither are nor sympathize with White Nationalism, our nation may well be doomed to a gloomy future.

Get out the vote! Just say no to Trump, Sessions, Miller and their White Nationalist cronies!

PWS

08-08-18

PROFESSOR PHIL SCHRAG IN THE SEATTLE TIMES: FAMILY SEPARATION IS JUST PRELIMINARY TORTURE IN SESSIONS’S GULAG – THE NEXT STEP: DEPORTATION OF BROWN-SKINNED REFUGEE FAMILIES TO DEATH ZONES — “And so they will be deported back to the situations of rape, beating and slashing they fled.”

https://www.seattletimes.com/opinion/a-fate-worse-than-separation-awaits-central-american-families/

Professor Phil Schrag writes in theSeattle Times:

Under two court orders, the government is now reuniting migrant children with their mothers. Although the California court that ordered the reunification may permit continued detention of the families until their asylum claims can be decided, something worse than separation or detention awaits those mothers who are deported: rape and death.

Many of the mothers and children who previously could have won asylum will now be sent back to Central America, where they face horrific violence at the hands of the brutal gangs from which they fled.

That risk is now very great because Attorney General Jeff Sessions recently changed policy that had allowed immigration judges to grant asylum to victims of domestic violence.

In 2016, I volunteered as a lawyer at the family detention center in Dilley, Texas. Every mother I met had fled to the United States to escape brutal domestic violence, threats of rape or death from gangs. Nearly all were found by asylum officers to have “credible fear of persecution,” enabling them to claim asylum in hearings before federal immigration judges.

Immigration advocates who work on the cases of mothers in the family detention centers in Texas estimate that more than 85 percent of them are at risk of serious bodily harm or death at the hands of violent men in El Salvador, Honduras and Guatemala.

Federal statistics for family cases are unavailable, but until recently, many of the families fleeing from those countries eventually did win asylum from immigration judges. In the clinic that I codirect at Georgetown Law, and at other law-school clinics, students have won asylum for several of them. We also know from data collected by the Center for Gender and Refugee Studies at the University of California Hastings that hundreds of other Central American families have obtained protection in immigration courts around the country. It had become well established that victims of domestic violence could win asylum. In some cases, asylum was also granted to families fleeing threats of violence in countries where the police are unable to prevent such violence.

But the Immigration and Nationality Act allows the Attorney General unilaterally to tell immigration judges how to interpret the law. Attorney General Sessions recently overruled the appellate case that supported asylum for domestic-violence victims.

Reversing that woman’s asylum grant, he wrote that her ex-husband “attacked her because of his pre-existing relationship with the victim” rather than because she was a member of a “group” of women who were violently attacked by husbands or gang members.

Our attorney general’s view of the law, apparently, is that domestic violence is a purely private affair, unrelated to social norms or patterns in countries in which such violence is endemic. By characterizing domestic violence as “private criminal activity,” even when the police can’t prevent or stop it, he also apparently intends to bar the victims from winning asylum.

Immigration judges don’t enjoy deporting genuine victims of violence. Perhaps some will find creative ways to grant relief to these families, rather than becoming cogs in the giant femicide machines of northern Central America. But many will feel bound to follow Sessions’ official guidance.

If the women fleeing for their lives have to prove that those who want to rape and kill them bear animus toward all women similarly situated, and not just their actual victims, they will be hard pressed to win asylum. And so they will be deported back to the situations of rape, beating and slashing they fled.

The public should not be distracted by the government’s reunification of families. The families now being released may stay together for a few months. But they remain in terrible peril because of the Trump administration’s lack of empathy and humanitarian concern for the parents and children who quite reasonably fear for their lives.

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

Phil is a good friend, and a practicing scholar who has actually been to the border. He knows that these most vulnerable individuals qualify as refugees under a correct application of legal standards and that they merit and deserve protection as human beings. He can also see how the system has been “gamed” by Sessions and how USCIS and EOIR are both complicit.

What’s being done by Sessions and his White Nationalist cabal is both illegal and immoral. Our shame as a nation will be enduring for 1) giving such a totally unqualified, corrupt, and evil individual a chance to take control of American immigration policy; and 2) not acting more quickly to stop him from implementing his racist agenda.

Meanwhile, his victims are likely to pay the price with their lives.

PWS

08-06-18

THE HILL: NOLAN COMMENTS ON RISING IMMIGRATION COURT BACKLOG!

http://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/400627-is-the-drop-in-credible-fear-findings-an-omen-that-hard-times-are

Nolan writes:

. . . .

In the first two quarters of fiscal 2018, the immigration court only completed 92,009 cases. At this rate, the immigration court will have completed only 184,000 cases when fiscal 2018 ends on Sept. 30.

Even if DHS stopped arresting deportable aliens, it would take the immigration court four years to eliminate its backlog.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions is clarifying asylum eligibility requirementsto make it easier to screen out aliens who do not have a legitimate persecution claim, but this will just slow down the rate at which the backlog increases. It won’t reduce it.

To reduce the backlog, Trump will have to pull aliens from the immigration court’s backlog and put them in expedited removal proceedings, and presumably this is why he is planning to expand the use of expedited removal proceedings.

In January, Trump instructed the DHS to apply expedited removal proceedings to the fullest extent of the law. This would extend it to include undocumented aliens who were not admitted or paroled into the United States and cannot prove that they have been here for two years.

It will be extremely difficult to help aliens who are caught up in this expansion. Congress has severely limited federal court jurisdiction over expedited removal proceedings.

The courts cannot consider expedited removal orders on a petition for review.

Review is available in habeas corpus proceedings, but it is limited to determinations of whether the petitioner is an alien; whether his removal has been ordered in expedited removal proceedings; and whether he has been lawfully admitted for permanent residence, or has been granted refugee or asylum status.

Other provisions permit challenges to the constitutionality of the system and its implementing regulations, and claims that the written policies and procedures issued under it are in violation of law. These challenges must be brought in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia within 60 days of when the challenged policy or procedure is implemented.

The expansion should greatly reduce the backlog, but it will not eliminate it. Too many of the aliens in removal proceedings have been physically present for two years.

Trump will need a legalization program to finish the job, but he has shown a willingness to work with the Democrats on legalization. But will they work with him?

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

Go on over to The Hill at the link to read the rest of Nolan’s article.

Even assuming that the vastly expanded use of expedited removal were upheld by the Article III Courts (I think it’s unconstitutional), cases couldn’t be “pulled from the backlog.” The Immigration Court backlog is made up almost entirely of cases where the individuals have already been here more than two years. Thus, expedited removal wouldn’t apply.
Interesting that notwithstanding the attention given to immigration, the DHS hasn’t gotten around to publishing the necessary regulatory change to expand expedited removal. That might suggest that “cooler, smarter heads” within DHS might actually be pointing out why that would be stupid.
The real “take away” here is that under Sessions’s gross mismanagement of the Immigration Courts more Immigration Judges produce fewer completed cases and more backlog. Basically, what I had predicted. And that’s with all sorts of pressure to churn out orders, cutting Due Process, unnecessary wasteful coercive detention, “aimless docket reshuffling,” some politicized personnel actions, and other “pedal faster gimmicks” by Sessions.
What that really shows is that Immigration Court cases are difficult cases and that even with Sessions’s shameless gaming of the system against migrants, Due Process has a certain largely irreducible minimum time for hearings.
Given that, increasing so-called “expedited removal” to reduce the existing backlog clearly would be irrational and present severe Constitutional difficulties under the Due Process clause.
Like it or not, a substantial legalization program combined with an independent Article I Immigration Court, more rational DHS enforcement priorities, and a healthy dose of prosecutorial discretion is the only way of getting the Immigration Courts back on track.
And, while I’ve said before that Democrats bear a fair share of the blame for the current Immigration Court dysfunction, Sessions has certainly made it immeasurably worse; the current barrier to reasonable immigration reform is clearly Trump and the GOP restrictionists, not the Democrats.
Indeed, the Trump-led GOP’s inability to accomplish the “no brainer” of DACA relief shows that it’s going to take “regime change” to solve this problem.
That means that things are likely to continue to get worse before they improve — that is, unless the Article IIIs step in and take control of the Immigration Courts away from Sessions as an act of Constitutional self-preservation.
Drastic action? Sure. Likely? Maybe not. But, the Article IIIs might eventually have to do it, since Sessions’s scofflaw actions on immigration are starting to run the entire Article III system into the ground, just like he is destroying the Immigration Courts.

PWS

08-07-18

“JUST SAY NO TO 1939: HOW JUDGES CAN SAVE LIVES, UPHOLD THE CONVENTION, AND MAINTAIN INTEGRITY IN THE AGE OF OVERT GOVERNMENTAL BIAS TOWARD REFUGEES AND ASYLUM SEEKERS” — My Remarks To The Americas Conference Of The International Association Of Refugee & Migration Judges, August 4, 2018

IMPLICIT BIAS IARMJ 08-03-18

JUST SAY NO TO 1939: HOW JUDGES CAN SAVE LIVES, UPHOLD THE CONVENTION, AND MAINTAIN INTEGRITY IN THE AGE OF OVERT GOVERNMENTAL BIAS TOWARD REFUGEES AND ASYLUM SEEKERS

By Paul Wickham Schmidt,

U.S. Immigration Judge, Retired

Americas Conference

International Association of Refugee & Migration Judges

Georgetown Law

August 4, 2018

INTRODUCTION

Good afternoon. I am pleased to be here. Some twenty years ago, along with then Chief U.S. Immigration Judge Michael J. Creppy, I helped found this Association, in Warsaw. I believe that I’m the only “survivor” of that illustrious group of “Original Charter Signers” present today. And, whoever now has possession of that sacred Charter can attest that my signature today remains exactly as it was then, boldly scrawling over those of my colleagues and the last paragraph of the document.

As the Americas’ Chapter Vice President, welcome and thank you for coming, supporting, and contributing to our organization and this great conference. I also welcome you to the beautiful campus of Georgetown Law where I am on the adjunct faculty.

I thank Dean Treanor; my long-time friend and colleague Professor Andy Schoenholtz, and all the other wonderful members of our Georgetown family; the IARMJ; Associate Director Jennifer Higgins, Dimple Dhabalia, and the rest of their team at USCIS; and, of course, our Americas President Justice Russell Zinn and the amazing Ross Patee from the Canadian Immigration and Refugee Board who have been so supportive and worked so hard to make this conference a success.

I recognize that this is the coveted “immediately after lunch slot” when folks might rather be taking a nap. But, as the American country singer Toby Keith would say “It’s me, baby, with you wake up call!” In other words, I’m going to give you a glimpse into the “parallel universe” being operted in the United States.

In the past, at this point I would give my comprehensive disclaimer. Now that I’m retired, I can skip that part. But, I do want to “hold harmless” both the Association and Georgetown for my remarks. The views I express this afternoon are mine, and mine alone. I’m going to tell you exactly what I think. No “party line,” no “bureaucratic doublespeak,” so “sugar coating.” Just the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth!

I have good news and bad news. The good news is that we don’t have an implicit bias problem in the U.S. asylum adjudication system. The bad news: The bias is now, unfortunately, quite explicit.

Here’s a quote about refugees: “I guarantee you they are bad. They are not going to be wonderful people who go on to work for the local milk people.”

Here’s another one: “We cannot allow all of these people to invade our Country. When somebody comes in, we must immediately, with no Judges or Court Cases, bring them back from where they came. Our system is a mockery to good immigration policy and Law and Order.”

Here’s another referencing the presence of an estimated 11 million undocumented residents of the U.S.: “Over the last 30 years, there have been many reasons for this failure. I’d like to talk about just one—the fraud and abuse in our asylum system.”

Here’s yet another: “We’ve had situations in which a person comes to the United States and says they are a victim of domestic violence, therefore they are entitled to enter the United States. Well, that’s obviously false but some judges have gone along with that.”

You might think that these anti-asylum, and in many cases anti-Latino, anti-female, anti-child, anti-asylum seeker, de-humanizing statements were made by members of some fringe, xenophobic group. But no, the first two are from our President; the second two are from our Attorney General.

These are the very officials who should be insuring that the life-saving humanitarian protection purposes of the Refugee Act of 1980 and the Convention Against Torture are fully carried out and that our country fully complies with the letter and spirit of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees which is binding on our country under the 1967 Protocol.

Let me read you a quote that I published yesterday on my blog, immigrationcourtside.com, from a young civil servant resigning their position with “EOIR,” otherwise known as our Immigration Court system, or, alternatively, as the sad little donkey from Winnie the Pooh.

I was born and raised in a country that bears an indelible and shameful scar—the birth and spreading of fascism. An ideology that, through its different permutations, almost brought the world as we know it to an end. Sadly, history has taught me that good countries do bad things—sometimes indescribably atrocious things. So, I have very little tolerance for authoritarianism, extremism, and unilateral and undemocratic usurpations of Constitutional rights. I believe that DOJ-EOIR’s plan to implement individual annual numerical performance measures—i.e., quotas—on Immigration Judges violates the Due Process clause of the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution, and the DOJ’s own mission to “ensure the fair and impartial administration of justice.” This is not the job I signed up for. I strongly believe in the positive value of government, and that the legitimacy of our agency—and any other governmental institution for that matter—is given by “the People’s” belief in its integrity, fairness, and commitment to serve “the People.” But when the government, with its unparalleled might and coercive force, infringes on constitutionally enshrined rights, I only have two choices: (1) to become complicitous in what I believe is a flagrant constitutional violation, or (2) to resign and to hold the government accountable as a private citizen. I choose to resign because I cannot in good conscience continue serving my country within EOIR.

Strong words, my friends. But, words that are absolutely indicative of the travesty of justice unfolding daily in the U.S. Immigration Courts, particularly with respect to women, children, and other asylum seekers –- the most vulnerable among us. Indeed, the conspicuous absence from this conference of anyone currently serving as a judge in the U.S. Immigration Courts tells you all you really need to know about what’s happening in today’s U.S. justice system.

Today, as we meet to thoughtfully discuss how to save refugees, the reality is that U.S. Government officials are working feverishly at the White House and the U.S. Department of Justice on plans to end the U.S. refugee and asylum programs as we know them and to reduce U.S. legal immigration to about “zero.”

Sadly, the U.S. is not alone in these high-level attacks on the very foundations of our Convention and international protection. National leaders in Europe and other so-called “liberal democracies” — who appear to have erased the forces and circumstances that led to World War II and its aftermath from their collective memory banks — have made similar statements deriding the influence of immigrants and the arrival of desperate asylum seekers. In short, here and elsewhere our Convention and our entire international protection system are under attacks unprecedented during my career of more than four decades in the area of immigration and refugee protection.

As a result, judges and adjudicators throughout the world, like you, are under extreme pressure to narrow interpretations, expedite hearings, view asylum seekers in a negative manner, and produce more denials of protection.

So, how do we as adjudicators remain loyal to the principles of our Convention and retain our own integrity under such pressures? And, more to the point, what can I, as someone no longer involved in the day-to-day fray, contribute to you and this conference?

Of course, you could always do what I did — retire and fulfill a longtime dream of becoming an internet “gonzo journalist.” But, I recognize that not everyone is in a position to do that.

Moreover, if all the “good guys” who believe in our Convention, human rights, human dignity, and fair process leave the scene, who will be left to vindicate the rights of refugees and asylum seekers to protection? Certainly not the political folks who are nominally in charge of the protection system in the US and elsewhere.

So, this afternoon, I’m returning to that which brought this Association together two decades ago in Warsaw: our united commitment to the letter and spirit of the 1951 Convention; additionally, our commitment to fairness, education, international approaches, group problem solving, promoting best practices, and mutual support.

In the balance of my presentation, I’m going to tell you four things, taken from our Convention, that I hope will help you survive, prosper, and advance the aims of our Convention in an age of nationalist, anti-refugee, anti-asylum, anti-immigrant rhetoric.

BODY

Protect, Don’t Reject

First, “protect, don’t reject.” Our noble Convention was inspired by the horrors of World War II and its aftermath. Many of you will have a chance to see this first hand at the Holocaust Museum.

Our Convention is a solemn commitment not to repeat disgraceful incidents such as the vessel St. Louis, which has also been memorialized in that Museum. For those of you who don’t know, in 1939 just prior to the outbreak of World War II a ship of German Jewish refugees unsuccessfully sought refuge in Cuba, the United States, and Canada, only to be rejected for some of the same spurious and racist reasons we now hear on a regular basis used to describe, deride, and de-humanize refugees. As a result, they were forced to return to Europe on the eve of World War II, where hundreds who should and could have been saved instead perished in the Holocaust that followed.

Since the beginning of our Convention, the UNHCR has urged signatory countries to implement and carry out “a generous asylum policy!” Beyond that, paragraphs 26 and 27 of the UN Handbookreiterate “Recommendation E” of the Convention delegates. This is the hope that Convention refugee protections will be extended to those in flight who might not fully satisfy all of the technical requirements of the “refugee” definition.

Therefore, I call on each of you to be constantly looking for legitimate ways in which to extend, rather than restrict, the life-saving protections offered by our Convention.

Give The “Benefit Of The Doubt”

Second, “give the benefit of the doubt.” Throughout our Convention, there is a consistent theme of recognizing the difficult, often desperate, situation of refugees and asylum seekers and attendant difficulties in proof, recollection, and presentation of claims. Therefore, our Convention exhorts us in at least four separate paragraphs, to give the applicant “the benefit of the doubt” in assessing and adjudicating claims.

As a sitting judge, I found that this, along with the intentionally generous “well-founded fear” standard, enunciated in the “refugee” definition and reinforced in 1987 by the U.S. Supreme Court and early decisions of our Board of Immigration Appeals implementing the Supreme Court’s directive, often tipped the balance in favor of asylum seekers in “close cases.”

Don’t Blame The Victims

Third, “don’t blame the victims.” The purpose of our Convention is to protect victims of persecution, not to blame them for all societal ills, real and fabricated, that face a receiving signatory country. Too much of today’s heated rhetoric characterizes legitimate asylum seekers and their families as threats to the security, welfare, heath, and stability of some of the richest and most powerful countries in the world, based on scant to non-existent evidence and xenophobic myths.

In my experience, nobody really wants to be a refugee. Almost everyone would prefer living a peaceful, productive stable life in their country of nationality. But, for reasons beyond the refugee’s control, that is not always possible.

Yes, there are some instances of asylum fraud. But, my experience has been that our DHS does an excellent job of ferreting out, prosecuting, and taking down the major fraud operations. And, they seldom, if ever, involve the types of claims we’re now seeing at our Southern Border.

I’m also aware that receiving significant numbers of refugee claimants over a relatively short period of time can place burdens on receiving countries. But, the answer certainly is not to blame the desperate individuals fleeing for their lives and their often pro bono advocates!

The answer set forth in our Convention is for signatory countries to work together and with the UNHCR to address the issues that are causing refugee flows and to cooperate in distributing refugee populations and in achieving generous uniform interpretations of the Convention to discourage “forum shopping.” Clearly, cranking up denials, using inhumane and unnecessary detention, stirring up xenophobic fervor, and limiting or blocking proper access to the refugee and asylum adjudication system are neither appropriate nor effective solutions under our Convention.

Give Detailed, Well-Reasoned, Individualized Decisions

Fourth, and finally, “give detailed, well-reasoned, individualized decisions.” These are the types of decisions encouraged by our Convention and to promote which our Association was formed. Avoid stereotypes and generalities based on national origin; avoid personal judgments on the decision to flee or seek asylum; avoid political statements; be able to explain your decision in legally sufficient, yet plainly understandable terms to the applicant, and where necessary, to the national government.

Most of all, treat refugee and asylum applicants with impartiality and the uniform respect, sensitivity, and fairness to which each is entitled, regardless of whether or not their claim under our Convention succeeds.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, I fully recognize that times are tough in the “refugee world.” Indeed, as I tell my Georgetown students, each morning when I wake up, I’m thankful for two things: first, that I woke up, never a given at my age; second, that I’m not a refugee.

But, I submit that tough times are exactly when great, independent, and courageous judging and adjudication are necessary to protect both applicants from harm and governments from doing unwise and sometimes illegal and immoral things that they will later regret.

I have offered you four fairly straightforward ways in which adhering to the spirit of our Convention can help you, as judges and adjudicators, retain integrity while complying with the law: protect, don’t reject; give the benefit of the doubt; don’t blame the victims; and give detailed, well-reasoned, individualized decisions.

Hopefully, these suggestions will also insure that all of you will still be around and employed for our next conference.

Thanks for listening, have a great rest of our conference, and do great things! May Due Process and the spirit of our noble Convention and our great organization guide you every day in your work and in your personal life! Due Process forever!

(08-06-18)

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

PWS

08-06-18

RACISM TRUMPS IDEOLOGY — AS PERSECUTION AND TORTURE BY NICARAGUA’S LEFTIST GOVERNMENT RAMPS UP, ICE WORKS WITH NICARAGUA TO INSURE RETURN OF REFUGEES TO PERIL! — “Tiny coffins: how Nicaragua’s spiraling violence ravaged a family. In one incident, a family of six was burned alive after allegedly refusing to let pro-government paramiliaries use their home as a sniper’s perch. Neighbours told the Guardian that police officers shot at anyone who attempted to help the family.”

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/aug/03/us-nicaragua-partner-violence-ice-deportations?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

Charles Davis reports for The Guardian:

The Trump administration is quietly partnering with a government it publicly accuses of killing its own people, in an effort to speed up the deportation of Nicaraguan citizens, the Guardian can reveal.

The partnership between Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the government of Nicaragua’s president, Daniel Ortega, began a week before mass protests erupted in the Central American country, and it continues despite a war of words between Washington and Managua.

Nicaragua: what’s driving the uprising and what comes next?

This week, the White House press secretary, Sarah Sanders, declared the Ortega government responsible for “indiscriminate violence” that has left scores dead and thousands injured since protests began three months ago. “The United States stands with the people of Nicaragua,” she said.

AdvertisementHide

Ortega, meanwhile, has described the protesters as coup-plotters and terroristsinvolved in a US-backed conspiracy.

But when it comes to deporting Nicaraguans who live in the United States, the two governments are still working hand in hand.

Ice officials signed a memorandum of understanding with Managua in April to expedite the deportation of Nicaraguan citizens – shortly after Donald Trump revoked temporary protective status (TPS) for around 2,500 Nicaraguan immigrants.

“Enhancing cooperation with our foreign partners to streamline and improve the removal process is a key part of enforcing our immigration laws and protecting our homeland,” Ice’s assistant director Marlen Piñeiro said in a press releaseannouncing the deal.

Under the agreement, Ice provides training for “authorized foreign partners” on how to access the US’s electronic travel document system, a database of foreign nationals that includes biographic and biometric information that its partners can use to identify their citizens.

The system allows the Nicaraguan government to upload travel documents that Ice agents can then print out “at detention facilities or field offices”.

. . . .

Read the rest of the article at the link.

Ever wonder why the “Abolish ICE” movement is going more “mainstream” and picking up steam? ICE does perform valuable law enforcement functions. That’s exactly why a dissident group of ICE Agents engaged in real law enforcement are seeking a split.

However, too much of what ICE does today on the so-called “civil side” is anywhere from “misguided and wasteful” to “counterproductive and damaging to our country.”

Yes, somebody does need to perform ICE’s functions. But no, they don’t have to be performed the way ICE is performing them now.

Interestingly, under Trump we now support leftist governments in persecution just as long as the victims are Hispanic (or I assume Muslim, African, or any non-white or non-Christian population) and they get killed before they can get to the US to claim asylum. Or, they get killed after we deny them protection and return them to danger.

Either way, folks should take a close look of what America has come to represent under Trump, Sessions, and the White Nationalists.

History and our grandchildren will ultimately hold us accountable for Trump’s destruction of America and disrespect for human rights, even if it is improperly being “normalized” in today’s topsy turvy world.

PWS

08-04-17

BUZFEED NEWS: PRESENT AND FORMER US IMMIGRATION JUDGES CHALLENGE SESSIONS’S UNETHICAL AND IMPROPER INTERFERENCE IN WHAT IS SUPPOSED TO BE A FAIR ADJUDICATION SYSTEM! — “As a democracy, we expect our judges to reach results based on what is just, even where such results are not aligned with the desired outcomes of politicians.”

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/hamedaleaziz/retired-immigration-judges-protest-deportation-case

Hamed Aleaziz reports for BuzzFeed News:

The Justice Department replaced an immigration judge who’d blocked the deportation of a man who failed to show up for a hearing. The new judge ordered the man deported.

Hamed Aleaziz

BuzzFeed News Reporter

Reporting From

San Francisco, California

Posted on July 31, 2018, at 6:47 p.m. ET

Jonathan Ernst / Reuters

A Philadelphia immigration judge was removed from a high-profile case and replaced with a judge who would order the man in the case immediately deported, a move that smacks of judicial interference by the Trump administration, according to a letter signed by a group of retired judges this week.

Advocates call the removal of a judge in the middle of a case the latest in a line of steps by the Trump administration to undercut the independence of immigration judges, further a political agenda, and accelerate deportations.

“As a democracy, we expect our judges to reach results based on what is just, even where such results are not aligned with the desired outcomes of politicians,” read the letter, signed by 15 former judges and members of the immigration appeals board, and circulated Monday.

It all began when Judge Steven Morley presided over a case involving Reynaldo Castro-Tum — a man who’d failed to show up at his immigration court hearings. Morley suspended the case using a procedure known as “administrative closure,” citing the fact that the notice sent to Castro-Tum may have been sent to the wrong address. “Administrative closure” has been used in hundreds of thousands of cases across the country.

In his position overseeing the immigration court, Attorney General Jeff Sessions referred the case to himself and wrote an opinion in Mayrestricting the use of “administrative closures,” a decision that could dramatically alter the way deportation cases are handled and potentially add hundreds of thousands of cases to an already backlogged court system.

Sessions said that “administrative closures” lacked legal foundation and undermined the court’s ability to quickly hear cases.

In the meantime, Sessions sent the case back to Morley’s court, writing that if Castro-Tum did not appear for his hearing, he should be ordered deported. He didn’t show up but an attorney advocating on his behalf, Matthew Archambeault, argued that Castro-Tum didn’t have enough notice and that he wanted to file a brief on the case.

Morley then scheduled a hearing in late July to go over those issues. But before the hearing, Morley was replaced with a supervising judge by the Executive Office of Immigration Review, the Department of Justice body that oversees the immigration courts, according to the American Immigration Lawyers Association.

The new judge, whom Archambeault identified as Deepali Nadkarni, an assistant chief immigration judge, ordered Castro-Tum deported.

Ashley Tabaddor, an immigration judge who heads the judges’ union, the National Association of Immigration Judges, said her organization was “deeply concerned” about the incident and that they were exploring “all available legal actions.”

The Department of Justice declined to comment on the letter or Morley’s removal. Nadkarni did not respond to a voicemail requesting comment.

Tensions have increased in recent months between the union and Sessions, who has warned that immigration judges, who are Justice Department employees, will be evaluated on the basis of how many cases they’ve heard. His referring cases to himself to establish policy also has rankled the immigration judges’ union.

Former immigration judge Jeffrey Chase, who was among those signing the letter, said that Morley is an experienced and well-respected judge who served as a private attorney before being appointed to the immigration bench in 2010. Morley, Chase said, was pushed off of the case “because he had the courage to exercise his independent judgment in the pursuit of a fair result.”

César Cuauhtémoc García Hernández, a University of Denver law professor, said the case would be remarkable if it turns out that a judge was pushed off the case for another judge who would rule the way the Justice Department wanted.

“Judges should never be assigned to a case because of how they are likely to rule,” he said.

He noted that unlike other federal judges, whose positions can only be second-guessed by appeals courts, immigration judges report to Sessions. “Regrettably, the immigration courts are susceptible to this type of manipulation,” he said. “Immigration judges are not protected from internal pressures or politics in the same way that other federal judges are.”

CORRECTION

July 31, 2018, at 7:38 p.m.

Ashley Tabaddor’s name was misspelled in an earlier version of this post.

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

Sessions’s interference with what purports to be a “court system” is stunningly brazen and totally unethical. Of course, intentionally changing judges in a system known for grotesque discrepancies in outcomes is going to have a substantive effect on justice.

The difficulty is that both Congress and the Article III courts are effectively letting Sessions “rob the bank in broad daylight and stroll away counting his stolen cash!” Outrageous! But, as long as we as a country accept and fail to correct this type of blatant misconduct by public officials, it will continue — until we have no country left at all!

PWS

08-04-18

INSIDE EOIR: RESIGNING EMPLOYEE GIVES INSIGHTS INTO WHY EOIR IS FAILING UNDER SESSIONS AND HOW TO FIX IT: “I haven’t heard one single Civil Servant who thinks that the imposition of quotas on the Immigration Judges is a good idea. On the other hand, many Civil Servants—if only they had a meaningful chance to be heard—have excellent ideas that, if implemented, would improve efficiency without violating due process. It’s not too late to prevent being on the wrong side of history.”

Good evening,

As some of you may know, today is my last day at EOIR. I just want to thank everyone at the court for your friendship and a very rewarding and fruitful time, I will certainly miss you.

I’d like to share a few thoughts before bidding farewell.

To the Civil Servants (IJs, AAs, Legal Assistants, Interpreters, Administrators, etc.): I commend you for choosing to serve your country.I have only the greatest respect for each and everyone of you, and there is not a doubt in my mind that your heart is in the right place. I just want to remind you that before being government employees, you are Citizens of the United States of America: the most extraordinary country in world’s history. That as Civil Servants, you don’t work only for the administration in power—as administrations change, but most of you remain, having chosen to dedicate your lives to serve your country.Instead, you work for “the People.” That you have a voice and your opinion matters, this is your country too.So when an administration plans to do something you suspect is wrong or unconstitutional you can, and should, ask questions.You are the backbone of our government, and for some people you are the only face of the government they’ll ever see. Finally, you’re not alone in this. Talk to each other, you’d be surprised to discover how many others share your same concerns. So organize, share thoughts and ideas, because with unity comes strength.

If Civil Servants are so great why are you leaving then, you may ask? Like you, I take pride in the work I do, and I consider serving my country as the highest form of secular calling, and a way to give back to this country that has been so generous to me.At the same time, we are the results of our experiences.I was born and raised in XXXX, a great country in many respects, but also the country that bears an indelible and shameful scar—the birth and spreading of fascism.An ideology that, through its different permutations, almost brought the world as we know it to an end. Sadly, history has taught me that good countries do bad things—sometimes indescribably atrocious things.So I have very little tolerance for authoritarianism, extremism, and unilateral and undemocratic usurpations of Constitutional rights. I believe that DOJ-EOIR’s plan to implement individual annual numerical performance measures—i.e., quotas—on Immigration Judges violates the Due Process clause of the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution, and the DOJ’s own mission to “ensure the fair and impartial administration of justice.”This is not the job I signed up for. I strongly believe in the positive value of government, and that the legitimacy of our agency—and any other governmental institution for that matter—is given by “the People’s” belief in its integrity, fairness, and commitment to serve “the People.” But when the government, with its unparalleled might and coercive force, infringes on constitutionally enshrined rights, I only have two choices: (1) to become complicitous in what I believe is a flagrant constitutional violation, or (2) to resign and to hold the government accountable as a private citizen. I choose to resign because I cannot in good conscience continue serving my country within EOIR.[1]

To the Political Appointees: Civil Servants are not part of the problem, they are part of the solution.They are not mercenaries or hired guns paid to merely execute orders, they are United States Citizens and they care about their country as much as you do. So talk to them, engage with them and come up with synergetic plans and solutions. Civil Servants have invaluable insight on what kind of processes and improvements can be implemented because they experience the problems in these processes on a daily basis. And it is also no secret that cooperation and dialogue lead to improved morale. So engaging with Civil Servants is clearly a win-win. Finally, for what it’s worth, I haven’t heard one single Civil Servant who thinks that the imposition of quotas on the Immigration Judges is a good idea. On the other hand, many Civil Servants—if only they had a meaningful chance to be heard—have excellent ideas that, if implemented, would improve efficiency without violating due process.It’s not too late to prevent being on the wrong side of history.[2]

Thank you for your time. I wish you all the best.

[1] Omitted.

[2] Before becoming the United States of America, this land served as refuge for the social outcast, who fled the persecution and the rejection of their native countries in search for survival and a fresh start in life. Their descendants declared independence and founded the United States of America. They too had experienced what an oppressive government does to “the People,” so they created a system of government that included checks and balances—with “separation of powers” paramount among them—to prevent tyranny. A renowned application of separation of powers provides that “prejudice against discrete and insular minorities may be a special condition, which tends seriously to curtail the operation of those political processes ordinarily to be relied upon to protect minorities, and which may call for a correspondingly more searching judicial inquiry.” United States v. Carolene Prod. Co., 304 U.S. 144, 153 n. 4 (1938) (emphases added). So while it is probably true that no other country offers trials and judges to immigrants, this is in fact an unmitigated positive, as the greatness of a civilization is measured by how it treats its weakest.This is also what makes America special: the Rule of Law is sovereign upon everyone.

[“REDACTED” VERSION PUBLISHED WITH PERMISSION]

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

Pretty easy to see why Due Process is failing in our Immigration Courts. Short answer: It’s not a priority for the politicos in the DOJ who pull the strings. Actually, Due Process has become an anathema for Sessions and his White Nationalist cabal.

What kind of “court system” would impose arbitrary “performance quotas,” developed by non-judicial officials responding to political pressure over the objections of and without even consulting the Immigration Judges who actually are doing the work? Loss of control over dockets, scheduling, and policies affecting court procedures is a major problem in this system. In the past, it has led to the travesty of “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” (“ADR”).

Now, a blatantly biased, anti-asylum, anti-immigrant, anti Due Process agenda has been added to the totally out of control ADR.

That’s why the key to restoring a functioning Immigration Court System is 1) an independent, Article I Court outside of Executive control; and 2) professional court administration controlled by and responsible to the JUDGES who actually decide the cases, rather than to politicos in Washington.

Like the writer of the above message, I believe that there are lots of good ideas on how to improve the system and restore Due Process within the judiciary that are being suppressed. Additionally, the judges should be working with respondents’ counsel, NGOs, the Article III Courts, Court Administrators, and the DHS Chief Counsel to develop systems that serve everyone’s needs and capabilities.

That would be an essential improvement over the present system which is being run by Sessions and his cronies solely for the benefit of one party: DHS Enforcement. How would YOU like to appear before a judge who essentially is working for the opposing party? Not fair, right? But, that’s exactly what today’s Immigraton Court system is! And, that’s why it’s failing our country.

We need an independent Article I U.S. Immigration Court that operates with Due Process as its one and only mission. Until that happens, all of our Constitutional rights will be in jeopardy. Because, as the writer above perceptively states, “the greatness of a civilization is measured by how it treats its weakest.” Harm to one is harm to all!

Thanks again to the writer of he above message for agreeing to share!

PWS

08-03-18

LA TIMES: SESSIONS IS “DECONSTRUCTING” OUR ASYLUM SYSTEM, AND IT’S A NATIONAL OUTRAGE THAT CONGRESS SHAMEFULLY REFUSES TO FIX – “Many more people with legitimate claims are likely being sent home to perilous conditions despite federal and international laws recognizing the right of the persecuted to seek sanctuary in other countries. That is unconscionable.”

http://enewspaper.latimes.com/infinity/article_share.aspx?guid=8434794c-eb73-4a2e-a2cd-3dafee637733

By the LA Times Editorial Board:

A shameful retreat on asylum

Here’s the disheartening reality about the Trump administration’s policies toward those arriving at the borders seeking asylum: Many more people with legitimate claims are likely being sent home to perilous conditions despite federal and international laws recognizing the right of the persecuted to seek sanctuary in other countries. That is unconscionable.

The Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse at Syracuse University reports that immigration judges — who work for the Justice Department, not the federal courts — are granting asylum seekers’ appeals half as often as they did a year ago. Through June, courts revived less than 15% of the asylum claims that had been rejected by immigration agents, who make the initial determination whether an asylum seeker had a credible fear of persecution if returned home.

What changed from the first half of 2017? The reduction of successful appeals coincided with Atty. Gen. Jeff Sessions’ comments that the asylum system “is being gamed” (there’s little evidence of that), his demands that immigration courts handle appeals more quickly, and the roll-out of performance quotas to force immigration judges to clear cases faster. That’s what changed.

The TRAC analysis further found that rate of successful appeals varies wildly by geographic region and even among judges within the same regional court — a systemic inconsistency that predates the Trump administration. That justice is so fickle is neither fair nor meets our moral and legal obligations to those fleeing persecution.

We can rail against the Justice Department’s failings, but the responsibility rests with Congress. It granted the department wide latitude in handling asylum requests from people facing persecution based on race, religion, race, political beliefs, nationality or membership in a social group.

That last, ill-defined category gave the government flexibility as times and needs warranted, but it also has led to uncertainty and politicization. Sessions, for instance, recently overturned an Obama-era immigration court definition that made asylum available to women who faced domestic violence in countries where police failed to protect them. So a political change in the attorney general’s office can weigh more heavily than precedents set by immigration judges.

This is fixable if we ever get a Congress willing to compromise and craft comprehensive immigration reforms framed within a humanitarian context and informed by the nation’s best interests — in terms of diversity and economic growth — and not one that panders to the current mood in the capital of nationalistic antipathy for the foreign-born. In the meantime, we must insist that people who are deserving of sanctuary receive it, and not get turned away to satisfy the current political whims.

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

What’s happening to our U.S. Immigration Courts and to our asylum system is indeed a national outrage that requires Congressional action. That corrective action, at a minimum, must 1) establish an independent, Article I Immigration Court outside the Executive Branch; and 2) specify that persecution based upon gender constitutes persecution on account of a “particular social group.”

Not going to happen under this Congress! That’s why regime change is so critical. And, getting out the vote this November and thereafter is key to the majority no longer being subject to the whims of a toxic minority Government that has abandoned our Constitution, human rights, human decency, common sense, and the common good.

PWS

08-02-18

TRAC: THE SESSIONS EFFECT — DENIALS OF DAY IN COURT FOR ASYLUM SEEKERS SPIKE — Country Conditions Remain Horrible & Asylum Statute Hasn’t Changed, But Many More Asylum Applicants Now Denied Access To Immigration Court Hearings — Huge Individual Discrepancies Among Judges On “Credible Fear” Findings!

==========================================
Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse
==========================================
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Greetings. Immigration Court outcomes in credible fear reviews (CFR) have recently undergone a dramatic change. Starting in January 2018, court findings of credible fear began to plummet. By June 2018, only 14.7 percent of the CFR court decisions found the asylum seeker had a “credible fear.” This was just half the level that had prevailed during the last six months of 2017.
These very recent data from the Immigration Court provide an early look at how the landscape for gaining asylum may be shifting under the current administration. Unless asylum seekers, including parents with children, arriving at the southwest border pass this initial CFR review, they are not even allowed to apply for asylum. As a consequence, individuals who don’t pass these reviews face being quickly deported back to their home countries.

The latest available case-by-case court records obtained and analyzed by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC) at Syracuse University document that depending upon the particular Immigration Court undertaking the credible fear review, the proportion of asylum seekers passing this screening step varied from as little as 1 percent all the way up to 60 percent – a sixty-fold difference. Since October 2015, for example, at least half passed their credible fear reviews when these were conducted by the Immigration Courts in Arlington, Virginia (60% passed), Chicago, Illinois (52% passed), Pearsall, Texas (51% passed), and Baltimore, Maryland (50% passed). In contrast, few were found to have credible fear when their review took place in Immigration Courts based in Lumpkin, Georgia (only 1% passed) and Atlanta, Georgia (only 2% passed).

Which judge is assigned to undertake this review can also have a dramatic impact. Judges on the Pearsall, Texas and San Antonio, Texas Immigration Courts found as few as 4 percent demonstrated credible fear, while others on the same two courts found 94 percent with such fear.

Previous reports by TRAC and others have long documented wide judge-to-judge disparities in asylum decisions. This report breaks new ground in showing that similar differences also exist earlier in the asylum process in the determination of who is allowed to apply for asylum.

To read the full report, including specifics for each Immigration Court, go to:

http://trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/523/

In addition, many of TRAC’s free query tools – which track the court’s overall backlog, new DHS filings, court dispositions and much more – have now been updated through June 2018. For an index to the full list of TRAC’s immigration tools go to:

http://trac.syr.edu/imm/tools/

If you want to be sure to receive notifications whenever updated data become available, sign up at:

http://tracfed.syr.edu/cgi-bin/tracuser.pl?pub=1&list=imm

or follow us on Twitter @tracreports or like us on Facebook:

http://facebook.com/tracreports

TRAC is self-supporting and depends on foundation grants, individual contributions and subscription fees for the funding needed to obtain, analyze and publish the data we collect on the activities of the U.S. federal government. To help support TRAC’s ongoing efforts, go to:

http://trac.syr.edu/cgi-bin/sponsor/sponsor.pl

David Burnham and Susan B. Long, co-directors
Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse
Syracuse University
Suite 360, Newhouse II
Syracuse, NY 13244-2100
315-443-3563

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

To state the obvious, if we believe in our Constitution and the Bill of Rights, we simply can’t tolerate a “court” run, improperly influenced, and manipulated by a xenophobic, White Nationalist, racist enforcement zealot like Jeff Session.

Time for “regime change” that includes an independent U.S. Immigration Court dedicated to insuring Due Process! Get out the vote this fall!

PWS

08-01-18

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Due Process Forever, Jeff Sessions Never!

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

CORRECTION

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts: