‘SIR JEFFREY” CHASE: Garland’s “First Steps” To Eradicate Misogyny & Anti-Asylum Bias @ EOIR Are Totally Insufficient Without Progressive Personnel Changes — Regulations Will Only Be Effective If Drafted By Progressive Human Rights Experts Of Which There Currently Are NONE @ DOJ Save For Some Immigration Judges In The Field Whose Expertise, Intellectual Integrity, & Moral Courage Has Been Ignored By Team Garland! — There Will Be No Gender, Racial, Or Immigrant Justice @ Justice As Long As Garland Mindlessly Lets “Miller’s Club Denial” Operate @ BIA! — Progressives Must Turn Up The Heat On Garland To Reform & Remake EOIR With Qualified Expert Judges & Dynamic, Independent, Progressive Leaders!

https://www.jeffreyschase.com/blog/2021/6/21/first-steps

The latest from the Hon. “Sir Jeffrey:”

JEFFREY S. CHASE | OPINIONS/ANALYSIS ON IMMIGRATION LAW

Blog Archive Press and Interviews Calendar Contact

First Steps

On June 16, Attorney General Merrick Garland finally, mercifully vacated three decisions that formed a key part of the Trump administration’s unrelenting attack on the law of asylum.1 Matter of A-B-, issued by Jeff Sessions in June 2018, took aim in particular at victims of domestic violence.2 Matter of L-E-A-, issued the following year by William Barr, sought to undermine protection for those targeted by gangs due to their familial ties.3 And on January 14, 2021, six days from the end of the Trump Administration, acting A.G. Jeffrey Rosen issued a second decision in A-B-, gratuitously criticizing the method for determining nexus in asylum claims employed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, while conveniently evading that court’s review of the original decision in the case through remand.4

Garland’s action restores the law to where it stood prior to June 11, 2018, but only for the time being. Proposed rules on the subject (which Garland referenced) are due by October 30, when they will first be subjected to a period of public comment. If final rules are eventually published, it will occur well into next year.

As we sigh in collective relief and celebrate the first steps towards correcting our asylum laws, let’s also take note of the imperfect place in which the case law stands at present.

As to domestic violence claims, the BIA’s 2014 decision in Matter of A-R-C-G- (which Matter of A-B- had vacated) has been restored as binding precedent.5 That decision was issued at a time when (as now) regulations addressing particular social groups were being contemplated by DHS and EOIR.6 While A-R-C-G- was an extremely welcome development, the Board used it to recognize a rather narrowly-defined group: “married women in Guatemala who are unable to leave their relationship.” In a footnote to the decision, the Board declined to address the argument of several amici (including UNHCR) that a particular social group may be defined by gender alone. Although A-R-C-G- led to many grants of asylum, some immigration judges relied on the limited scope of the group’s definition to deny claims involving slightly broader variations, in particular, where the victim was not legally married, but nevertheless in a domestic relationship that she was unable to leave. While the BIA reversed some of those denials in unpublished decisions, it declined to speak to the issue through binding precedent.

As to Matter of L-E-A-, Garland’s recent action returns us to the BIA’s original opinion in that case.7 While the decision acknowledged that families constitute particular social groups (a point that was not in dispute, having been universally recognized for some 35 years and stipulated to by DHS), the BIA still denied asylum by invoking a legally incorrect standard for establishing nexus that it has continued to apply in all family-based asylum claims.

For these reasons, the content of the forthcoming regulations will be extremely important in determining the future of asylum in this country. While a return to the test for social group cognizability expressed in the BIA’s 1985 precedent in Matter of Acosta tops most regulation wish lists, I will focus the discussion here on a couple of more specific items necessary to correct the shortcomings of Matter of A-R-C-G- and Matter of L-E-A-.

First, the regulations need to explicitly recognize that a particular social group may be defined by gender alone. In its 2002 Gender Guidelines, UNHCR identified women “as a clear example of a social subset defined by innate and immutable characteristics, and who are frequently treated differently than men,” and whose “characteristics also identify them as a group in society, subjecting them to different treatment and standards in some countries.”8 However, over the nineteen years since those guidelines were issued, the BIA has consistently avoided considering the issue.

The peril of defining gender-based groups in the more narrow manner employed by the BIA has been addressed by two distinguished commentators, who explain that such practice results in “constant re-litigating of such claims,” sometimes creating “an obstacle course in which the postulated group undergoes constant redefinition.”9 And of course, that is exactly what has happened here, as A-R-C-G- gave way to A-B-, which led to differing interpretations among different courts until Garland’s recent reset. The above-mentioned commentators further decried the “nitpicking around the margins of the definition” resulting from the narrow approach when the true reason for the risk of persecution to the applicant “is simply her membership in the social group of ‘women.’”10 Regulations recognizing gender alone as a particular social group would thus provide clarity to judges and asylum officers, eliminate the wastefulness of drawn out litigation involving “nitpicking around the margins,” and bring our laws into line with international standards.

But as L-E-A- demonstrates, recognition of a group alone does not guarantee asylum protection. In order for a group’s recognition to be meaningful, the regs must also address an ongoing problem with the BIA’s method for determining nexus, or whether persecution is “on account of” the group membership.

The BIA is accorded deference by Article III courts when it reasonably interprets immigration laws, provided that the meaning of the language in question is ambiguous. However, the “on account of” standard included by Congress in defining the term “refugee” is quite clear; its meaning is long established, and in fact, is not particular to immigration law.

The Supreme Court referenced this standard last year in a non-immigration case, Bostock v. Clayton County. The Court explained that the test

incorporates the “‘simple’” and “traditional” standard of but-for causation…. That form of causation is established whenever a particular outcome would not have happened “but for” the purported cause….In other words, a but-for test directs us to change one thing at a time and see if the outcome changes. If it does, we have found a but-for cause.11

In a 2015 decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit applied this exact test in the asylum context to conclude that persecution was on account of family, determining that the petitioner’s “relationship to her son is why she, and not another person, was threatened with death if she did not allow him to join Mara 18.”12 But for some reason, the BIA has felt entitled to reject this established standard outside of the Fourth Circuit in favor of its own excessively restrictive one.

Had the proper test for nexus been employed in L-E-A-, asylum would have been granted. Under the facts of that case, once the familial relationship is removed from the equation, the asylum-seeker’s risk ceases to exist. However, the BIA instead imposed an incorrect test for nexus requiring evidence of an “animus against the family or the respondent based on their biological ties, historical status, or other features unique to that family unit.”13

As a former circuit court judge, Garland is particularly qualified to recognize the error in the Board’s approach, as well as the need to correct its course. The problem is compounded by the particular composition of the BIA at present. For example, of the ten immigration judges who were promoted to the BIA during the Trump administration, nine denied asylum more than 90 percent of the time (with the tenth denying 85 percent of such claims). Three had an asylum denial rate in excess of 98 percent.14

This matters, as those high denial rates were achieved in part by using faulty nexus determinations to deny asylum in domestic violence claims, even before the issuance of Matter of A-B-. This was often accomplished by mischaracterizing the abuse as merely personal in nature, referencing only the persecutor’s generally violent nature or inebriated state. The analysis in those decisions did not further examine whether gender might also have been one central reason that the asylum seeker, and not someone else, was targeted.

One BIA Member appointed under Trump recently found no nexus in a domestic violence claim by concluding that the persecutor had not targeted the asylum seeker because of her membership in the group consisting of “women,” but rather because she was his woman. There is no indication in the decision that the Board Member considered why the persecutor might view another human being as belonging to him and lacking the same rights he seems to enjoy. Might it have been because of her gender?

Without a correction through published regulations, there is little reason to expect different treatment of these claims moving forward. Let’s hope that the Attorney General views his recent action as only the first steps on a longer path to a correct application of the law.

Copyright 2021, Jeffrey S. Chase. All rights reserved.

Notes:

Matter of A-B-, 28 I&N Dec. 307 (A.G. 2021) (“A-B- III”); Matter of L-E-A-, 28 I&N Dec. 304 (A.G. 2021) (“L-E-A- III”).

27 I&N Dec. 316 (A.G. 2018) (“A-B- I”).

27 I&N Dec. 581 (A.G. 2019) (“L-E-A- II”).

28 I&N Dec. 199 (A.G. 2021) (“A-B- II”).

26 I&N Dec. 388 (BIA 2014).

The regulations under consideration at that time were never issued.

27 I&N Dec. 40 (BIA 2017) (“L-E-A- I”).

UNHCR, Guidelines on International Protection: Gender-Related Persecution within the context of Article 1A(2) of the 1951 Convention and/or its 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees (May 2002) at para. 30.

James C. Hathaway and Michelle Foster, The Law of Refugee Status, Second Edition (Cambridge University Press, 2014) at 442.

Hathaway and Foster, supra.

Bostock v. Clayton County, 140 S.Ct. 1731, 1739 (2020).

Hernandez-Avalos v. Lynch, 784 F.3d 944, 950 (4th Cir. 2015).

L-E-A- I, supra at 47.

See TRAC (Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse) Immigration Judge Reports https://trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/judgereports/.Republished with permission.

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

Without progressive intervention, this is still headed for failure @ EOIR! A few things to keep in mind.

- Former Attorney General, the late Janet Reno, ordered the same regulations on gender-based asylum to be promulgated more than two decades ago — never happened!
- The proposed regulations that did finally emerge along the way (long after Reno’s departure) were horrible — basically an ignorant mishmash of various OIL litigation positions that would have actually made it easier for IJs to arbitrarily deny asylum (as if they needed any invitation) and easier for OIL to defend such bogus denials.
- There is nobody currently at “Main Justice” or EOIR HQ qualified to draft these regulations! Without long overdue progressive personnel changes the project is almost “guaranteed to fail” – again!
- Any regulations entrusted to the current “Miller Lite Denial Club” @ the BIA ☠️ will almost certainly be twisted out of proportion to deny asylum and punish women refugees, as well as deny due process and mock fundamental fairness. It’s going to take more than regulations to change the “culture of denial” and the “institutionalized anti-due-process corner cutting” @ the BIA and in many Immigration Courts.
- Garland currently is mindlessly operating the “worst of all courts” — a so-called “specialized (not) court” where the expertise, independence, and decisional courage is almost all “on the outside” and sum total of the subject matter expertise and relevant experience of those advocating before his bogus “courts” far exceeds that of the “courts” themselves and of Garland’s own senior team! That’s why the deadly, embarrassing, sophomoric mistakes keep flowing into the Courts of Appeals on a regular basis.
- No regulation can bring decisional integrity and expertise to a body that lacks both!
- Any progressive who thinks Garland is going to solve the problem @ EOIR without “outside intervention” should keep this nifty “five month snapshot of EOIR under Biden” in mind:
  - Progressive judges appointed to BIA: 0
  - Progressive judges appointed to Immigration Court: 0
  - Progressives installed in leadership positions @ EOIR permanently or temporarily: 0
  - Billy Barr Selected Immigration Judges Appointed: 17
  - “Miller Lite” holdover individuals still holding key positions @ EOIR: many (only two removed to date)
  - Number of BIA precedents decided in favor of respondent: 2
  - Number of BIA precedents decided in favor of DHS: 9

That’s right, folks: Billy Barr and Stephen Miller have had more influence and gotten more deference from Garland at EOIR than have the progressive experts and advocates who fought tirelessly to preserve due process and to get the Biden Administration into office. How does that a make sense?

“Miller Lite” – Garland’s Vision of “Justice @ Justice” for Communities of Color — Finally vacating two grotesquely wrong anti-female, anti-asylum precedents hasn’t ended the “Miller Lite Unhappy Hour” for migrants and their advocates at Garland’s foundering DOJ!

Progressives, advocates, and NGOs must keep raising hell until we finally get the “no-brainer,” long overdue, obvious, personnel, legal, structural, institutional, and cultural changes at EOIR that America needs! Waiting for Judge Garland to get around to it is like “Waiting for Godot!” Perhaps worse — I don’t recollect that anyone died waiting for Godot!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever! The BIA Denial Club, Never!🏴‍☠️

PWS

06-22-21

🏴‍☠️☠️⚰️🤮👎IT JUST KEEPS GETTING WORSE @ GARLAND’S BIA — Plethora of Errors, Mischaracterizations, Misogyny, and Abuses Emanate From Garland’s Deadly, Out Of Control Star Chambers In Falls Church — How Many Deaths & Embarrassments Is It Going To Take For Judge G. To Finally Pull The Plug 🔌 On This Dangerous, Incompetent Band Of Scofflaws? — Issue = Asylum For Rape Victim/Abused Widow In India!

Woman Tortured — “When will it end, Judge G? When will it ever end?” –“She struggled madly in the torturing Ray”
Amazing StoriesArtist Unknown, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2021/06/21/18-72786.pdf

Kaur v. Garland, 9th Cir., 06-21-21, published

PANEL:Mary M. Schroeder and Marsha S. Berzon, Circuit Judges, and Salvador Mendoza, Jr.,* District Judge.

OPINION BY: Judge Mendoza

STAFF SUMMARY:

Granting Ravinder Kaur’s petition for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals, and remanding, the panel held that the Board erred in concluding that Kaur failed to establish material changed circumstances to warrant an exception to the time limitation on her motion to reopen, and in concluding that she failed to establish prima facie eligibility for asylum, withholding of removal, or protection under the Convention Against Torture.

Kaur sought to reopen her removal proceedings based on a combination of changed personal circumstances – the death of her abusive husband and his family’s threats that they would kill her if she returned to India because she was responsible for his death, and changed country conditions – including worsening conditions in India for women and widows.

The panel held that the Board mischaracterized the record and erred in concluding that Kaur presented evidence of only changed personal circumstances in support of reopening. The panel explained that while a self-induced change in personal circumstances does not qualify for the changed circumstances exception, that principle cannot apply rigidly when changed circumstances in the country of origin, while personal to the petitioner, are entirely outside her control, as was the case here. The panel further

** This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader.

KAUR V. GARLAND 3

explained that even where any change in personal circumstances is voluntary and did not originate in the country of nationality, the changed circumstances exception applies where changes in personal circumstances are made relevant due to changes in country conditions. The panel wrote that Kaur’s husband’s death, and his family’s death threats, were made relevant by increased violence in India against women, and in particular against widows. The panel further wrote that, contrary to the Board’s determination that Kaur provided evidence of only generalized conditions, Kaur presented evidence demonstrating that the prevalence and severity of human rights violations against women and widows had materially worsened in many respects.

The panel held that the Board also erred in concluding that Kaur failed to establish prima facie eligibility for asylum and withholding of removal relief. First, the panel concluded that the Board erred in determining that Kaur failed to establish that a protected ground, including her membership in a family social group, would be one central reason, or a reason, for the harm she fears. The panel wrote that a person may share an identity with a persecutor, and if a member of a particular social group is persecuted by other members of that same group because those members perceive the applicant as being “insufficiently loyal or authentic” to that group, she has been persecuted on account of a protected ground. Second, the panel concluded that the Board erred by requiring Kaur to show that her similarly situated family members had been mistreated. The panel explained that the safety of similarly situated members of the family who remained in the country of origin may be pertinent to a claim of future persecution, but does not itself disprove it, and in this case, the Board relied on the safety of Kaur’s daughter, who was not similarly situated. Third, the

4 KAUR V. GARLAND

panel concluded that the cultural context and Kaur’s evidence established more than a mere personal vendetta.

The panel held that the Board erred in concluding that Kaur failed to establish prima facie eligibility for CAT protection. First, the panel held that the Board erred in applying a “more likely than not” standard, rather than requiring Kaur to show a “reasonable likelihood” of meeting the statutory requirements for CAT protection. Moreover, the panel concluded that the Board abused its discretion in determining that Kaur did not meet the government consent or acquiescence requirement. The panel pointed out that Kaur presented evidence that her husband’s family is wealthy and has the means of carrying out their threats, that India suffers from widespread corruption, and that officials respond ineffectively to crimes, especially those against women. Based on that evidence, the panel concluded that the Board did not have substantial evidence to dismiss Kaur’s fears as speculation.

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

This is outrageous! In addition to raising issues about Garland’s failure to replace the “Killer BIA” with real progressive judges who are experts in human rights, due process, and immigration law, as almost every expert recommended, it raises serious concerns about Associate AG Vanita Gupta’s inexplicable failure to bring in litigation competence at OIL. Presenting and defending this mess as acceptable performance by DOJ quasi-judicial officials raises very serious ethical questions about both the “judges” and the attorneys defending their obviously defective, bias-based, anti-asylum, anti-female work product.

As many of us have been saying ever since the election, the “thorough housecleaning” at DOJ can’t wait! There is plenty of evidence to get the government lawyers participating in this mockery of justice out of leadership and decision-making positions, at a minimum! The fact that this case was argued under the Trump regime does not change the unethical performance at OIL or the incompetence of the BIA. Folks who “go along to get along” with violations of law and ethics, particularly in support of a White Nationalist agenda, should not be holding responsible Government legal positions. PERIOD!

Every individual and group who believes in due process, equal justice, gender fairness, good government, humanity, racial justice, and legal ethical norms should be demanding that Garland, Monaco, Gupta, and Clarke change leadership at EOIR, immediately relieve and replace (even if on a temporary basis) the BIA, and bring ethics, expertise, and competence to OIL.

Kristen Clarke, some the most outrageous “civil rights abuses” in America here taking place right at the DOJ — at EOIR and OIL! Others are “hidden in plain sight” at DHS, particularly in their “New American Gulag.” You’re NOT going to solve voting rights, police misconduct, or any other civil rights problem in America without first getting the DOJ’s house in order. And, that means standing up to your dawdling and, to date, remarkably ineffective “political bosses” and demanding immediate change!

It’s YOUR REPUTATION, along with the lives of refugee women like Ms. Kaur, that are on the line here!

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

06-21-21

⚠️FIFTH CIRCUIT REMAND IS JUST FIRST OF MANY THAT WILL RESULT FROM BIA’S TOTALLY AVOIDABLE NIZ-CHAVEZ SCREW-UP! — Garland’s Backlog Likely To Mushroom Until He Cleans House @ EOIR! — “Culture of Denial” At BIA Crippling American Justice! — Garland Needs Qualified Judges & Professional Court Administrators @ EOIR, To Replace The “Continuing Clown Show!”🤡

https://www.lexisnexis.com/legalnewsroom/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/unpub-ca5-niz-chavez-remand-villegas-de-mendez-v-garland

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

Dan Kowalski reports on LexisNexis Immigration Community:

Immigration Law

Daniel M. Kowalski

18 Jun 2021

Niz-Chavez

Unpub. CA5 Niz-Chavez Remand: Villegas de Mendez v. Garland

Villegas de Mendez v. Garland

“The NTA sent to Villegas de Mendez does not contain the information required to trigger the stop-time rule. See id. at 1478-79, 1485; see also § 1229(a)(1)(A)-(G). Neither does the subsequent notice of hearing sent to her. Thus, she did not receive the “single compliant document” required by statute. Niz-Chavez, 141 S. Ct. at 1485. The BIA consequently abused its discretion by committing an error of law. See Koon v. United States, 518 U.S. 81, 100 (1996); Ramos-Portillo v. Barr, 919 F.3d 955, 958 (5th Cir. 2019); Milat v. Holder, 755 F.3d 354, 365 (5th Cir. 2014). Therefore, the petition for review is GRANTED and the case is REMANDED to the BIA for further consideration in light of Niz-Chavez, 141 S. Ct. 1474, and consistent with this judgment.”

Hats off to Raed Gonzalez!

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

One major problem with constantly going with DHS interpretations is that many are both legally wrong and practical disasters. After the initial Pereira v. Sessions debacle the BIA had a chance to solve the problem. Instead, undoubtedly spurred on by the “deny everything culture” promoted by the Trump regime’s White Nationalist agenda, the BIA chose the worst possible legal interpretation with disruptive practical implications. Any real immigration expert could have seen this coming!

When was the last time in a potential “Chevron-type” situation that the BIA or the AG adopted the migrant’s proffered interpretation rather than DHS’s? Yet even with all the (in my view highly inappropriate) advantages conferred on the Government by the Supremes’ intellectual indolence in Chevron and its absurdist companion “Brand X,” Article III Courts, including the Supremes, reject BIA/AG interpretations on a regular basis. Pereira and Niz-Chavez are just two of the most prominent recent examples.

Moreover, because neither the AGs nor the BIA are respected experts in immigration and human rights, and, shockingly, none have significant experience representing individuals in Immigration Court, the mis-interpretations that they choose are often impractical and unworkable. This, in turn leads to confusion, unnecessary remands, and unmanageable backlogs, not to mention patent injustice and deadly results for the mere humans caught up in this ongoing disaster! This is what “Dred Scottifcation” is all about!

The case highlighted above should have been reopened in 2017. In a “real” court system, with qualified judges, professional administration, and no political interference, it could have been completed by now. Instead, it’s no closer to completion than it was four years ago!

But, lots of time and resources have been wasted in defending the BIA’s wrong attempt to deny reopening! This nonsense by the Government, NOT dilatory tactics by migrants and their attorneys trying to navigate this intentionally user-unfriendly and often illegal and illogical system, is what “builds backlog!”

Indeed, a wiser system would have turned preliminary adjudication of these cases over to USCIS so that only those that could not be granted and were not appropriate for prosecutorial discretion (“PD”) would have been sent to Immigration Court. Virtually none of the “non-LPR cancellation” cases are legitimate enforcement priorities. A similar approach was used with the NACARA program under better overall management.

Instead, as a result of poor BIA decision-making and even worse “leadership” at the Trump DOJ, this case is no closer to a final resolution than it was in 2017. And, DHS and EOIR still haven’t systemically corrected the completely fixable practical problems that generated Pereira and Niz-Chavez in the first place. Nor have Garland and Mayorkas announced systemic plans for removing the unnecessary “cancellation backlog” from Immigration Court dockets even though they would be “low priorities” for ICE under the criteria announced by OPLA’s John Trasvina!

That’s why we have unmanageable backlogs! And they will continue until Garland cleans house at EOIR, brings in a diverse group of qualified expert judges, and empowers them to act independently, stand up to the frequent nonsense pushed by DHS, and “laser focus” on due process for individuals and instituting and enforcing best practices!

One of the most obvious of those “best practices,” totally missing from Garland’s mismanaged Immigration Courts to date, would be returning “docket control” to local Immigration Courts and ending the “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” by EOIR Headquarters and DOJ politicos that has helped generate the out of control backlog.

Many cancellation of removal cases could and should be “administratively closed.” But, inexplicably, Garland has yet to revoke Sessions’s ridiculously wrong Matter of Castro-Tum, and restore to Immigration Judges their power to administratively close cases. That’s notwithstanding that Castro-Tum has been rejected in whole or in part by every Circuit Court of Appeals to consider it.

How long is Garland going to continue to “sponsor” inferior, non-independent, pro-DHS “judging” and amateurish, politicized mismanagement that is destroying our entire legal system?

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

06-20-21

🆘🤮IS 11TH CIR. GROWING WEARY OF GARLAND’S SCOFFLAW BIA? —Two Trips To The Circuit, & The BIA Still Violates Own Regulations, Ignores Precedent, Spouts Gibberish While OIL’s Defense Of This Nonsense & Malfeasance By EOIR Raises Serious Ethical Questions! — THAMOTAR v. U.S. ATT’Y GEN. — Garland’s Dysfunctional & Systematically Unjust Courts Undermine OUR Democracy☠️ — Demand An IMMEDIATE End To The Scofflaw Nonsense🤡 🧹 At OUR Justice Department! 🏴‍☠️

Circus — This appears to be Judge Garland’s vision of “justice” for migrants and people of color @ Bailey’s Crossroads. Isn’t it time to put the past behind us and move forward with housecleaning and reforms at EOIR? Ask Judge Garland “What are you thinking, man?” Is this YOUR vision of due process and expert “judging?” — Public Realm

https://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/201912019.pdf

Thamotar v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 11th Cir., 06-17-21, Published

PANEL: WILSON, JILL PRYOR and LAGOA, Circuit Judges.

OPINION: JILL PRYOR, Circuit Judge

KEY QUOTE:

Visavakumar Thamotar, a Sri Lankan citizen of Tamil ethnicity, seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order affirming an Immigration Judge’s discretionary denial of his application for asylum and grant of withholding of removal. Mr. Thamotar argues that because removal was withheld, federal regulation 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(e)1 required reconsideration of his asylum claim, which the Immigration Judge and BIA failed to give. We agree with Mr. Thamotar that the agency failed to conduct the proper reconsideration. When an asylum applicant is denied asylum but granted withholding of removal, 8 C.F.R.

§ 1208.16(e) requires reconsideration anew of the discretionary denial of asylum, including addressing reasonable alternatives available to the petitioner for family reunification.2 And where the Immigration Judge has failed to do so, the BIA must remand for the Immigration Judge to conduct the required reconsideration.

Here, the Immigration Judge failed to reconsider Mr. Thamotar’s asylum claim under § 1208.16(e). The BIA’s failure to remand on this issue was therefore

1 Mr. Thamotar refers to both 8 C.F.R. §§ 208.16(e) and 1208.16(e) in his briefing. The two provisions are identical in substance, but § 1208.16(e) specifically applies to the BIA (and Immigration Judges) because of the enactment of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-296, tit. IV, subtits. D, E, F, 116 Stat. 2135, 2192 (Nov. 25, 2002) (as amended), and the promulgation of final rule 68 Fed. Reg. 9823, effective February 28, 2003. 68 Fed. Reg. 9823, 9824–25, 9834 (Feb. 28, 2003); see Huang v. INS, 436 F.3d 89, 90 n.1 (2d Cir. 2006) (discussing this legislative history). For consistency, we will refer only to 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(e).

2 Because we vacate the BIA’s order on this ground, we do not address Mr. Thamotar’s additional challenges to the order, which included that the BIA erred by affirming the Immigration Judge’s adverse credibility determination, which he contends was not supported by substantial evidence, and relying on his method of entry into the United States when affirming the Immigration Judge’s decision.

2

USCA11 Case: 19-12019 Date Filed: 06/17/2021 Page: 3 of 32

manifestly contrary to law and an abuse of discretion. It is clear that neither the Immigration Judge nor the BIA conducted the proper reconsideration because the record contained no information about Mr. Thamotar’s ability to reunite with his family, information that the agency must review under § 1208.16(e). Thus, the BIA should have remanded the case for further factfinding. We grant the petition, vacate the BIA’s order, and remand to the BIA with instructions to remand to the Immigration Judge for reconsideration of the discretionary denial of asylum.

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

Lots of work for a bogus asylum denial by EOIR! And the utter nonsense isn’t over! Just a “remand” to give EOIR yet another chance to deny for specious reasons (as they have already done twice). This idiocy will continue until Judge Garland replaces the BIA with real judges who will properly, fairly, and timely apply the law and regulations!

The poor analysis of the IJ, mindlessly affirmed by the BIA, failed to come anywhere close to the “most egregious adverse factors” requirement of the BIA’s own precedent in Matter of Kasinga, 21 I&N Dec. 357, 367 (BIA 1996):

A grant of asylum to an eligible applicant is discretionary. The final issue is whether the applicant merits a favorable exercise of discretion. The danger of persecution will outweigh all but the most egregious adverse factors. Matter of Pula, 19 I&N Dec. 467, 474 (BIA 1987).

Get this, folks! The IJ and the BIA both found that meeting the higher standard for withholding of deportation based on probability of persecution somehow was an “adverse factor” that outweighed family separation! That’s right, an “adverse factor!”

I can’t imagine how this gang of so-called “judges, got through law school and admitted to the bar! Maybe “imposters” took their exams for them! THIS is the best American justice has to offer? If not, why are they making life or death decisions and imposing potential permanent family separation on refugees?

Notwithstanding the assembly line climate and lackadaisical approach to law in Garland’s Immigration “Courts,” these are NOT TRAFFIC COURTS! They are more like “death penalty courts” or “courts of last resort” and those humans appearing before them and their representatives deserve better.

Judge Garland and his team should hypothesize that this type of inferior justice were being meted out in life or death cases to THEIR FAMILY MEMBERS AND LOVED ONES — actual human beings, NOT “just migrants” who, according to Garland’s EOIR, appear to exist in a twilight zone beneath the rest of humanity. That’s what the ongoing “Dred Scottification of the other” still being permitted and promoted by Garland at DOJ is all about!

A fitting celebration of the first Federal Juneteenth Holiday would have been to remove the entire BIA so that they can no longer inflict “Dred Scottification” on migrants of color, their families, their friends, and their communities, among others! Symbolism is only effective if followed by action. And, so far, Garland’s actions on wiping out the “vestiges of Dred Scott at Justice” have fallen woefully short!

This raises serious, unaddressed questions of why such weakly qualified individuals are on the bench in the first place when there are many immigration experts out there who can and would do better. Much better! And it wouldn’t take them years and multiple hearings, appeals, and trips to the Circuit to grant asylum.

This isn’t a “deep” case except that it represents the “deep dodo” 💩 at EOIR, the stench of which is fouling our entire justice system and shaking the foundations of our democracy! This case is about following the Code of Federal Regulations, properly applying precedent, and fairly treating asylum seekers. It’s “Law 101” — things L-1s would have to know to get to L-2! I can’t begin to think what the paper would look like like if one of my students gave me this kind of garbage on a final exam. Fortunately, to date, nobody ever has!

Nor is this a Circuit renowned for critical analysis or holding the Government to a high standards in immigration cases. Indeed, the Eleventh Circuit itself bears some responsibility for this mess! They are well aware of the anti-asylum bias and poor decision-making emanating from the Atlanta Immigration Court, within their jurisdiction, and have chosen to ignore it. See, e.g., https://immigrationcourtside.com/2019/04/22/11th-circuit-judge-adelberto-jose-jordan-outs-the-atlanta-immigration-court-for-equal-protection-charade-in-a-dissenting-opinion-in-my-view-ms-diaz-r/

Those who want a more complete run down of the ongoing “Atlanta disgrace” — a cancer on our justice system — should just go to the “Atlanta Immigration Court” tab on immigrationcourtside.com. There is more than enough compiled to have triggered an investigation, removals from office, and corrective action in a functioning Government! And my collection is just “the tip of the iceberg” on what has been written about the disgraceful, systemic denial of fairness, impartiality, and justice in Atlanta!

And, why was OIL defending this ridiculous mess in the first place? It’s a “comedy” of errors, questionable ethics, and amateurish legal work that the DOJ should be ashamed of and which Garland should end — NOW! No wonder this ridiculous national embarrassment has created an unnecessary 1.3 million case backlog that continues to grow under Garland!

Don’t let Garland or anyone else in the Administration tell you that this self-created backlog justifies a truncation of due process or more “bogus attempts to expedite” asylum cases. NO! What it requires is for Garland to bring in real judges and experts from the private/NGO sector to fix the Immigration Courts so they comply with due process and fundamental fairness!

Judge Garland, “come on man!” These deadly robed clowns and their “defenders” represent YOU — “the top legal officer in our Executive Branch!” YOU have a responsibility to the American people (NOT just the failed DOJ or the President) to “get out the big hook” and “yank” these anti-due process, anti-immigrant, anti-asylum, anti-racial-justice clowns 🤡 off YOUR bench and replace them with competence and fairness. A little (now missing) diversity wouldn’t hurt either! It’s called fulfilling the promises made by Biden and Harris during the election!

It’s not going to improve until Garland replaces the BIA with qualified judges, hires only Immigration Judges who know how to fairly adjudicate asylum cases, (with outstanding public reputations for fairness, scholarship, timeliness, teamwork, and respect), and AAG Vanita Gupta brings in better leadership at OIL to put an end to this tragic, totally unnecessary, disgracefully wasteful abuse of our Federal Judicial system and the resulting human carnage!

NDPA warriors, don’t be fooled or lured into complacency by this week’s long overdue positive developments in A-B- and L-E-A- — things that experts said should have been done by Judge Garland on “Day 1.” Keep showing your total dis-satisfaction and disgust with the glacial pace of reform at DOJ and the myriad of highly unqualified “judges” still being allowed to continue to inflict racial injustice and “worst imaginable practices” on vulnerable individuals (and their lawyers) who are entitled to due process and justice — not a continuing deadly ☠️ clown 🤡 show! Keep letting Garland, Monaco, Gupta, Clarke, Biden, Harris, Congress, the Article IIIs, and the American people know that “The EOIR Clown Show Has Got To Go!” NOW! There will be neither racial justice nor equal justice for all in America (wake up, Vanita Gupta and Kristen Clarke) while Garland operates his “star chamber courts” at EOIR!

Star Chamber Justice — Hi, Judge Garland! This is how “justice” is administered in the 11th Circuit Immigration Cours and at the Bailey’s Crossroads’ Tower. Glad you like it! I guess the screams of the innocent can’t be heard across the river! Not even sure why you would need a law school degree to be “judges” in your EOIR star chambers. It’s really just about dehumanization, degradation, and “productivity!” — Public realm

🇺🇸Due Process Forever! Garland’s “Asylum Free Zones,” Never!

PWS

06-19-21

NDPA STALWART JASON “THE ASYLUMIST” DZUBOW 🌟 QUOTED IN AP ARTICLE ABOUT REPEAL OF A-B- & L-E-A-!

http://enewspaper.latimes.com/infinity/article_share.aspx?guid=a9dc6320-82bc-4db8-bb6b-cfba11a536cb

AP reports:

The U.S. government on Wednesday ended two Trump administration policies that made it harder for immigrants fleeing violence to qualify for asylum, especially Central Americans.

Atty. Gen. Merrick Garland issued a new policy saying immigration judges should cease following the Trump-era rules that made it tough for immigrants who faced domestic or gang violence to win asylum in the United States. The move could make it easier for them to win their cases for humanitarian protection and was widely celebrated by immigrant advocates.

“The significance of this cannot be overstated,” said Kate Melloy Goettel, legal director of litigation at the American Immigration Council. “This was one of the worst anti-asylum decisions under the Trump era, and this is a really important first step in undoing that.”

Garland said he was making the changes after President Biden ordered his office and the Department of Homeland Security to draft rules addressing complex issues in immigration law about groups of people who should qualify for asylum.

Gene Hamilton, a key architect of many of then-President Trump’s immigration policies who served in the Justice Department, said in a statement that he believed the change would lead to more immigrants filing asylum claims based on crime and that it should not be a reason for the humanitarian protection.

. . . .

In the current fiscal year, people from countries such as Russia and Cameroon have seen higher asylum grant rates in the immigration courts than those from El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras, the data show.

One of the Trump administration policies was aimed at migrants who were fleeing violence from nonstate actors, such as gangs, while the other affected those who felt they were being targeted in their countries because of their family ties, said Jason Dzubow, an immigration attorney in Washington who focuses on asylum.

Dzubow said he recently represented a Salvadoran family in which the husband was killed and gang members started coming after his children. While Dzubow argued they were in danger because of their family ties, he said the immigration judge rejected the case, citing the Trump-era decision among the reasons.

Dzubow welcomed the change but said he doesn’t expect to suddenly see large numbers of Central Americans winning their asylum cases, which remain difficult under U.S. law.

“I don’t expect it is going to open the floodgates, and all of a sudden everyone from Central America can win their cases. Those cases are very burdensome and difficult,” he said. “We need to make a decision: Do we want to protect these people?”

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

Read the full article at the link.

You know for sure you’re doing the right thing when anti-asylum shill and Stephen Miller crony Gene Hamilton criticizes it!

I tend to agree with my friend Jason that under present conditions, asylum cases for women refugees from Central America are likely to continue to be a “tough slog” at EOIR. The intentionally-created anti-asylum, misogynist, anti-Latino, anti-scholarship, anti-quality, anti-due-process culture at EOIR that emerged under Sessions and Barr isn’t going to disappear overnight, particularly the way Judge Garland is approaching it. He needs to “get out the broom,🧹 sweep out the current BIA and the bad, anti-asylum judges, get rid of ineffective administration, and bring in human rights and due process professionals to get this system operating again!

Jason, for one, would be an outstanding judicial choice for building a functioning, fair, efficient Immigration Court; one that would fulfill the long-abandoned vision of “through teamwork and innovation, being the world’s best tribunals guaranteeing fairness and due process for all.” Under the Trump regime, EOIR was the antithesis of that noble vision!

Cases such as that described by Jason (incorrectly decided by the Immigration Judge) utilizing A-R-C-G- and “family friendly” precedents from the Fourth Circuit were usually well-represented and well-prepared by attorneys like Jason, Clinics, and NGOs like CLINIC, CAIR Coalition, Human Rights First, and Law School Clinics. After review by ICE Counsel, many were candidates for my “short docket” in Arlington where asylum could easily be granted based on the documentation and short confirming testimony.

To their credit, even before the BIA finally issued A-R-C-G-, the Arlington Chief Counsel’s Office was not opposing well-documented asylum grants based on domestic violence under what was known as the “Martin Brief” after former DHS/INS Senior Official, renowned immigration scholar, and internationally recognized asylum expert, now emeritus Professor David A. Martin of UVA Law. I remember telling David after one such case that his brief was still “saving lives” even after his departure from DHS and return to academia.

David Martin — Professor (Emeritus) David A. Martin
UVA Law
PHOTO: UVA Law

Rather than building on that real potential for efficiency, cooperation, quality, and due process, under Sessions those things that were working at EOIR and represented hope and potential for future progress were maliciously and idiotically dismantled. From the outside, throughout the country, I saw DV cases that once would have been “easy short docket grants” in Arlington require lengthy hearings and often be incorrectly decided in Immigration Court and the BIA. Sometimes the Circuits corrected the errors, sometimes not.

At best, what had been a growing census around recognizing asylum claims based on DV became a “crap shoot” with the result almost totally dependent on what judges were assigned, what Circuit the hearing was held in, and even the composition of the Circuit panel! And, of course, unrepresented claimants were DOA regardless of the merits of their cases. What a way to run a system where torture or death could be the result of a wrong decision!

But, it doesn’t have to be that away! Experts like Jason and others could get this system functioning fairly and efficiently in less time than it took Sessions and Barr to destroy it.

However, it can’t be done with the personnel now at DOJ and EOIR Headquarters. If Judge Garland wants this to function like a real court system (not always clear to me that he does), he needs to recruit and bring in the outside progressive experts absolutely necessary to make it happen. At long last, it’s time for “Amateur Night at the Bijou” to end its long, disgraceful, debilitating “run” @ EOIR!

Time for this long-running show at DOJ/EOIR to end! PHOTO: Thomas Hawk
Creative Commons
Amateur Night

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

06-18-21

EOIR ISSUES TOOTHLESS 😶 GUIDANCE ON ICE PROSECUTORIAL DISCRETION — Obvious Problem — Failure To Repeal Sessions’s Abominable ☠️ Matter of Castro-Tum — Remains Unaddressed In Garland’s Failed “Courts” That Aren’t “Courts” At All By Any Reasonable Measure!🤡

EYORE — “Come on, Judge Garland! Repeal Matter of Castro-Tum already! Gimme a break! Stop issuing weak-kneed policy memos and give me some qualified, expert, progressive leadership! It’s not rocket science!” “Eyore In Distress”
Once A Symbol of Fairness, Due Process, & Best Practices, Now Gone “Belly Up”

https://www.justice.gov/eoir/book/file/1403401/download

To: From: Date:

PURPOSE:

OWNER: AUTHORITY: CANCELLATION:

I. Introduction

Provides EOIR policies regarding the effect of Department of Homeland Security enforcement priorities and initiatives.

Office of the Director 8 C.F.R. § 1003.0(b) None.

OOD PM 21-25

Effective: June 11, 2021

All Immigration Court Personnel & Board of Immigration Appeals Personnel Jean King, Acting Director

June 11, 2021

EFFECT OF DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY ENFORCEMENT PRIORITIES

President Biden issued Executive Order 13993 on January 20, 2021, and directed relevant agencies to take appropriate action to review and “reset the policies and practices for enforcing civil immigration laws to align enforcement” with the Administration’s priorities “to protect national and border security, address the humanitarian challenges at the southern border, and ensure public health and safety.” Exec. Order No. 13993, 86 Fed. Reg. 7,051 (Jan. 20, 2021).

Accordingly, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has issued a number of memoranda and guidance documents regarding its enforcement priorities and framework for the exercise of prosecutorial discretion.1 Those memoranda establish the DHS general enforcement and removal priorities as three categories of cases of noncitizens who present risks to (1) national security, (2) border security, and (3) public safety.2

1 See, e.g., Memorandum from John D. Tasviña, Principal Legal Advisor, ICE, Office of the Principal Legal Advisor (OPLA), to All OPLA Att’ys, Interim Guidance to OPLA Att’ys Regarding Civil Immigr. Enf’t and Removal Policies and Priorities (May 27, 2021), available at https://www.ice.gov/doclib/about/offices/opla/OPLA- immigration-enforcement_interim-guidance.pdf; Memorandum from Tae D. Johnson, Acting Dir., ICE, to All ICE Emps., Interim Guidance: Civil Immigr. Enf’t and Removal Priorities (Feb. 18, 2021), available at https://www.ice.gov/doclib/news/releases/2021/021821_civil-immigration-enforcement_interim-guidance.pdf.

2 These DHS memoranda and DHS priorities do not change EOIR’s current adjudication priorities, which remain in effect. See, e.g., PM 21-23, Dedicated Docket (May 28, 2021); Exec. Office for Immigr. Rev. Mem., Case Priorities and Immigration Court Performance Measures (Jan. 2018).

1

Through individualized review of pending cases, DHS, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), attorneys will be determining which cases are enforcement priorities and which are not. Overall, these memoranda explain that DHS will exercise discretion based on individual circumstances and pursue these priorities at all stages of the enforcement process. This includes a wide range of enforcement decisions involving proceedings before EOIR, such as deciding whether to issue, reissue, serve, file, or cancel Notices to Appear; to oppose or join respondents’ motions to continue or to reopen; to request that proceedings be terminated or dismissed; to pursue an appeal before the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA); and to agree or stipulate to bond amounts or other conditions of release. Accordingly, these memoranda are likely to affect many cases currently pending on the immigration courts’ and BIA’s dockets.

II. Role of the EOIR Adjudicator

The role of the immigration court and the BIA, like all other tribunals, is to resolve disputes. Cf. 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.1(d) (“The Board shall resolve the questions before it in a manner that is timely, impartial, and consistent with the Act and regulations.”), 1003.10(b) (“In all cases, immigration judges shall seek to resolve the questions before them in a timely and impartial manner consistent with the Act and regulations.”) (emphasis added). At the present time, there are over 1.3 million combined cases pending before the immigration courts3 and the BIA.4 In light of the DHS memoranda, it is imperative that EOIR’s adjudicators use adjudication resources to resolve questions before them in cases that remain in dispute.

A. Immigration Court

Immigration judges should be prepared to inquire, on the record, of the parties appearing before them at scheduled hearings as to whether the case remains a removal priority for ICE and whether ICE intends to exercise some form of prosecutorial discretion, for example by requesting that the case be terminated or dismissed, by stipulating to eligibility for relief, or, where permitted by case law, by agreeing to the administrative closure of the case.5 The judge should ask the respondent or his or her representative for the respondent’s position on these matters, and take that position into account, before taking any action.

In addition, immigration judges are encouraged to use all docketing tools available to them to ensure the fair and timely resolution of cases before them.

3 Exec. Office for Immigr. Rev., Adjudication Statistics: Pending Cases, New Cases, and Total Completions, Apr. 19, 2021, available at https://www.justice.gov/eoir/page/file/1242166/download.

4 Exec. Office for Immigr. Rev., Adjudication Statistics: Case Appeals Filed, Completed, and Pending, Apr. 19, 2021, available at https://www.justice.gov/eoir/page/file/1248501/download.

5 Administrative closure is currently permitted in the Third, Fourth, and Seventh Circuits. See Arcos Sanchez v. Att’y Gen. U.S.A., 997 F.3d 113 (3d Cir. 2021); Meza Morales v. Barr, 973 F.3d 656 (7th Cir. 2020); Romero v. Barr, 937 F.3d 282 (4th Cir. 2019). Administrative closure is currently permitted in the Sixth Circuit, but only to allow respondents to apply with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services for provisional unlawful presence waivers. See Garcia-DeLeon v. Garland, __ F.3d __, 2021 WL 2310055 (6th Cir., June 4, 2021). Administrative closure is not currently permitted in the other circuits. See Matter of Castro-Tum, 27 I&N Dec. 271 (A.G. 2018).

2

B. Board of Immigration Appeals

Appellate immigration judges should be prepared to review and adjudicate motions from DHS regarding prosecutorial discretion. In addition, appellate immigration judges may solicit supplemental briefing from the parties regarding whether the case remains a removal priority for ICE or whether the parties intend to seek or exercise some form of prosecutorial discretion. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(e)(9) (“[T]he Board may rule, in the exercise of its discretion . . . , on any issue, argument, or claim not raised by the parties, and the Board may solicit supplemental briefing from the parties on the issues to be considered before rendering a decision.”).

III. Conclusion

EOIR expects the parameters of the new DHS memoranda to focus DHS resources on cases that meet the DHS-determined priorities. All EOIR adjudicators are encouraged to use docketing practices that ensure respondents receive fair and timely adjudications, and act consistently with the role of the immigration courts and the BIA in resolving disputes. That includes disposing of cases as appropriate, based on the specific circumstances of the individual matter, with consideration of ICE’s determinations that 1) a case does not fit within the Secretary’s enforcement priorities, and 2) accordingly, pursuit is no longer in the best interest of the Government. If you have any questions, please contact your Assistant Chief Immigration Judge or the Chief Appellate Immigration Judge.

Nothing in this PM is intended to replace independent research, the application of case law and regulations to individual cases, or the decisional independence of immigration judges and appellate immigration judges as defined in 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.1(d)(1)(ii), 1003.10.

3

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

“In addition, immigration judges are encouraged to use all docketing tools available to them to ensure the fair and timely resolution of cases before them.”

Unfortunately, the primary “docketing tool” — Administrative Closing — is largely UNAVAILABLE to most Immigration Judges outside the 3rd, 4th, 7th, and (sort of) 6th Circuits. Rather than fix this on “day one” by vacating Matter of Castro-Tum — as recommended by almost all immigration experts — Garland’s inaction has resulted in continuing unnecessary confusion and inefficiency in his dysfunctional “court” system sporting an astounding, continually growing, largely unnecessary 1.3 million plus case backlog! Come on, man!!

Under OPLA’s John Trasvina, ICE is actually taking more aggressive and sensible action to restore due process, sanity, and docket control in Immigration Court than EOIR has under Garland! What sense does that make?

Due Process Forever! Happy Flag Day!🇺🇸

PWS

06-14-21

⚖️🧑🏽‍⚖️🗽NBC NEWS: IMMIGRATION JUDGES KHAN, MARKS, HONEYMAN, & DORNELL SPEAK OUT ON STRESS, MESS, IN GARLAND’S BROKEN IMMIGRATION COURTS 🆘 🏴‍☠️ — Gabe Gutierrez Reports!

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

Hon. Diana Leigh Marks — Hon. Dana Leigh Marks
U.S. Immigration Judge
San Francisco Immigration Court
Past President, National Association of Immigration Judges

Hon. Charles Honeyman — Honorable Charles Honeyman
Retired U.S. Immigration Judge
Member, Round Table of Former Immigration Judges

Honorable Lisa Dornell
U.S. Immigration Judge (Retired)
Member, Round Table of Former Immigration Judges

https://www.nbcnews.com/nightly-news/video/immigration-judges-speak-out-on-rise-in-u-s-border-crossings-114715205902

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

Judges Khan and Marks are already on the DOJ payroll. Garland should have brought them in to Falls Church, on at least a temporary basis, to start cleaning up the mess and instituting long overdue due process and judicial independence reforms! The NAIJ which they represent should have been reinstated to represent Immigration Judges.

FULL DISCLOSURE: I am a retired member of the NAIJ.

Recent retirees on the Round Table like Judges Honeyman and Dornell could have been rehired on a temporary basis under available authority to help root out and change the inane quotas, bad precedents, terrible exclusionary hiring processes, and mind-boggling “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” that continues to build backlog, deny due process, and promote reactionary White Nationalist policies in the failed and flailing Immigration “Courts.”

The continuing problems at Garland’s DOJ start with EOIR, but by no means end there! Apparently, Garland’s lackadaisical, permissive attitude toward corruption at DOJ under Trump & his cronies doesn’t get the Hill Dems’ attention unless they and their families were personally targeted by the illegality and misconduct. Otherwise, it’s just the lives of immigrants, asylum seekers, and “the others,” mostly people of color and abused women and children, so who cares?

It’s worthy of noting that it has largely fallen to the press and public interest groups to expose the corruption allowed to fester at Trump’s DOJ. Only then does Garland make tardy and half-hearted efforts to investigate or take action. Cleaning up corruption, changing bad and illegal policies, and rooting out those who carried out such abuses should have been “job one” for the incoming Attorney General. Instead, it’s an “afterthought,” at best!

And, of course, good government and ethics aren’t part of the “institutional culture” @ DOJ that Garland is so anxious to defend. Does every Administration have a “right” to have its illegal actions and corruption covered up and defended by its successor? Will it really deter “good government” if you believe that you might be held accountable by the next Administration for acts of unconstitutionality or illegality?

How come using the law as a “deterrent” is fine as applied to migrants of color, but “deterring” present and future DOJ bureaucrats and politicos from abusing the law in support of a corrupt Administration’s illegal policies isn’t?

Sure, I recognize that guys like Sessions and Barr have a perverted view of what’s unconstitutional. But, the object is to make it difficult for horrible opponents of American democracy like them to become Attorney General in the future and to insure that there will be institutional resistance to any future efforts to corrupt our justice system.

“Normalizing” the unprecedented overtly corrupt behavior of theTrump regime is a continuing problem! We need to fight it all levels of our society and government!

Dishonesty appears to be the main “bipartisan institutional value” at DOJ. No wonder it was so easy for Sessions and Barr to get their corrupt agendas carried out by career lawyers and bureaucrats!

Unless and until Congress finally lights a fire under Garland and his team, and creates an independent Article I Immigration Court, that’s unlikely to change.

Our DOJ is quite obviously broken and reeling. Why isn’t fixing it one of our highest national priorities?

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

06-13-21

⚔️⚔️🛡ROUND TABLE SALLIES FORTH AGAIN AS 9TH VACATES GARLAND BIA’S PRECEDENT IN MATTER OF K-S-E-, 27 I&N Dec. 818 (BIA 2020) (misconstruing “firm resettlement” in effort to punish, harm asylum seekers)

Hon. “Sir Jeffrey” Chase reports:

Hi all:We filed an amicus brief in the attached case (drafted for us by Sullivan Cromwell) challenging the BIA’s precedent decision in Matter of K-S-E- before the 9th Circuit. K-S-E- held that firm resettlement can be found based on the availability of permanent residence in a third country, regardless of the asylum seeker’s unwillingness to pursue such status.

The 9th Cir. yesterday vacated the Board precedent and remanded for the Board to further consider the firm resettlement issue, inter alia.

Best, Jeff

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

To quote one of my esteemed Round Table colleagues:

Excellent news! Should an ethnic Korean from China or Japan be forced to accept an offer of firm resettlement from North Korea? To quote our President, “C’mon, man!”

“C’mon, man,” indeed! For Garland’s BIA it’s just a question of “what can we do to screw asylum seekers today!” The level of absurdity, irrationality, and/or illegality is largely irrelevant.

It’s not like Sessions and Barr had any concern for the law. The BIA knew there would be no meaningful consequences as long as they carried out the White Nationalist anti-immigrant agenda of the Trump regime!

But, you could say much the same about Garland! There was more than ample evidence and documentation of anti-asylum bias and deficient decision making to replace of the BIA with “real judges” from among progressive experts on the day Garland was sworn in as AG.

Yet, three months later, nothing much has changed and the assault on asylum seekers and justice at Garland’s EOIR continues largely unabated. Indeed, Garland’s totally inappropriate, due process damaging, appointment of yet more (17) “Barr-picked judges” has further aggravated the problem to a simply astounding degree! It’s like you’re behind by three touchdowns in the fourth quarter and your so-called “head coach” awards your opponents 17 more points for no particular reason! What on earth is going on in Garland’s head?

Real judges on a “Reform BIA” from the ranks of progressive experts would have Matter of K-S-E-, Matter of A-B-, Matter of L-E-A-, Matter of Castro-Tum and a host of other Trumpist garbage “sorted” in no time and the now-dysfunctional EOIR system back on track to due process and functionality. What’s glaringly missing is any semblance of awareness, urgency, and competent progressive leadership from Garland and those surrounding him!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

06-11-21

⚖️HOPEFUL SIGN ON ARTICLE 1? — At Oversight Hearing, Garland Expresses Modest Endorsement Of Judicial Independence & Open Mind On Article 1 — “As independent as possible,” whatever that means.

Judge Merrick Garland — Attorney General Merrick B. Garland — “Is he open to Article I? It would be nice to think so, but still plenty of reason to be skeptical about his intent for EOIR!’
Official White House Photo
Public Realm

Here’s the audio:

https://www.appropriations.senate.gov/hearings/a-review-of-the-presidents-fiscal-year-2022-funding-request-for-the-us-department-of-justice

The relevant remarks are at 1:59.

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

While it’s always good to be optimistic, to date, “as independent as possible” has meant “as independent as four years of White Nationalist weaponization and meddling from Trump, Miller, Sessions, Barr, Whitaker, Hamilton, McHenry, et al, left them.” That’s NOT independent at all! Quite the OPPOSITE. In many ways there is less judicial independence and more political interference at EOIR now than there was when it was located within the “Legacy INS” before EOIR was created in 1983.

I personally will believe it to the extent that it’s reflected in actions. That means things like vacating restrictive anti-immigrant precedents, restoring asylum for gender-based violence, re-instituting and encouraging Administrative Closing, slashing the backlog by working with parties to remove the vast majority of “non-priority” cases that could be handled in alternative ways, installing e-filing, eliminating bogus “performance work plans,” repudiating “production quotas,” replacing Trump’s BIA with better-qualified judges, revising judicial recruiting and hiring practices to attract more diverse expert candidates from the private/NGO sector, considering stakeholders’ views and recommendations on important policies BEFORE announcing them, establishing a transparent complaint and tenure review process involving the private bar, re-establishing a robust asylum system at the border, upgrading judicial training and using “outside DOJ” experts to conduct it, eliminating the unnecessary “Office of POlicy” from the bloated bureaucracy, hiring experts in judicial management for administrative positions, encouraging written over oral decisions on cases likely to be appealed, expanding the number of judicial law clerks assigned to judges, eliminating agency bureaucracy and redirecting resources to improving local courts and furthering independence, re-recognizing the NAIJ and listening to their suggestions, working cooperatively with the pro bono bar to increase representation, rethinking the overuse of televideo and the presence of “courts” in detention center settings (e.g., prisons in the “New American Gulag”), selecting and retaining only judges who will treat all parties, counsel, and court personnel with respect and professionalism, actively working to overcome the “culture of denial, White Nationalism, and misogyny” that has permeated EOIR over the past four years and still exists, ending docket meddling from Falls Church and DOJ and returning control to local judges, eliminating “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” by politicos and their enablers, reducing the use of single-judge orders at the BIA, selecting expert Appellate Judges for the BIA who will issue some positive as opposed to only negative precedents, refusing to open and closing “courts” located in obscure, out of the way prison locations selected by DHS in large part because of the absence of pro bono lawyers, returning full authority to grant continuances to local judges, no longer referring to DHS (but not respondents’ counsel) as “our partners,” ending the use of derogatory terms and false claims by DOJ officials to Immigration Judges about private lawyers, stopping the intentional manipulation of statistics bv DOJ and EOIR management to further political agendas, ending the “muzzle” on Immigration Judges and encouraging them to participate in public professional activities, promoting best practices rather than institutionalizing worst practices, and again making “through teamwork and and innovation, guaranteeing fairness and due process for all” the absolute touchstone at EOIR, for starters.

To date, NONE of the things on the foregoing list has been accomplished or proposed by Garland and his team. Indeed, a number of his actions, like engaging in “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” by establishing a “Dedicated Docket” for new asylum cases without consulting the stakeholders in advance, and appointing 17 new judges selected by Barr under defective and flawed procedures that discouraged diversity and “disfavored” private sector candidates, are in direct contravention of due process and best practices and serve to discourage, rather than nurture, judicial independence.

Moreover, as I have previously said, I see no evidence that Garland has hired or reached out to any of the types of progressive experts who could actually implement these reforms necessary to achieve judicial independence and promote due process. You can’t get the job done for judicial independence and due process without a radical personnel shakeup at EOIR! The current group at both DOJ and EOIR just doesn’t cut it, as ever a casual observer could tell Garland.

So, until I see some ACTUAL progress, beyond mushy rhetoric, color me skeptical about Garland’s plans for EOIR.

🇺🇸🗽⚖️Due Process Forever!

PWS

06-10-21

AS TOTALLY DYSFUNCTIONAL IMMIGRATION COURTS 👎🏽 CONTINUE THEIR DESCENT INTO THE ABYSS, 80 EXPERTS AND ORGANIZATIONS ASK GARLAND TO UNDO BARR’S ILLEGAL “BANISHMENT” OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF IMMIGRATION JUDGES (“NAIJ”)🧑🏽‍⚖️

June 7, 2021

The Honorable Merrick Garland Attorney General

U.S. Department of Justice Washington, DC 20500

RE: Department of Justice Should Support the National Association of Immigration Judges and Withdraw the Petition to Decertify its Union

Dear Attorney General Garland,

We, the undersigned unions, organizations, immigration law professors and scholars, and other immigration court stakeholders call your attention to the urgent need to preserve and protect the National Association of Immigration Judges (NAIJ) and support collective bargaining by Department of Justice (DOJ) career civil servants. We are heartened by President Biden’s announcements on January 22, 2021, that both overturned his predecessor’s policies limiting employee rights to collectively bargain and also implement a wide-ranging policy to protect, empower, and rebuild the career federal workforce. President Biden’s announcements specifically encourage union organizing and collective bargaining.1

After four relentless years of union-busting, decisive leadership is needed to refortify the federal workforce. NAIJ and its 500+ bargaining unit members—immigration judges who are DOJ attorney employees—are in need of protection right now! NAIJ has been the collective bargaining representative for immigration judges since 1979. Yet, in 2019, the Trump administration filed a petition to strip immigration judges of their statutory right to be represented by a union and decertify NAIJ.

The Trump administration targeted NAIJ in retaliation for NAIJ’s criticism of both the unreasonable working conditions that DOJ managers imposed on its members and the sweeping curtailment of due process rights in immigration court.

While the decertification attempt was initially and thoroughly rejected in a decision by a career employee of the Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA), the decision was abruptly reversed

1 Executive Order 14003, on Protecting the Federal Workforce. 1

in a politically-motivated decision by the FLRA. That FLRA decision ignored the detailed fact-finding of the career employee and reversed long-standing FLRA precedent that 20 years earlier had found that immigration judges were not in a position to influence agency policy.

The FLRA decision is devoid of any reasoned analysis and creates an extremely dangerous precedent for professional workers throughout the federal government. Future administrations could wield this decision like a sword to preclude other professional employees such as physicians, scientists, engineers, and others from unionizing. Indeed, this ill-conceived anti-union precedent could have devastating repercussions for decades to come.

At this moment, a motion to reconsider is currently pending at the FLRA, and we call on the DOJ to withdraw its opposition to that motion, withdraw its decertification petition, and take all steps to restore collective bargaining rights for NAIJ members. President Biden has committed to restoring labor unions and fair working conditions for federal employees. We ask the DOJ to do its part in supporting that objective by taking all necessary actions to ensure that the NAIJ remains a union so that it can continue to represent its members in support of fair working conditions. Doing so will be a service to Immigration Court stakeholders and the public at large.

We seek your immediate review and leadership in this matter. Sincerely,

Amiena Khan

Amiena Khan, President

National Association of Immigration Judges

Unions: AFL-CIO

American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), AFL-CIO American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), Local 511

American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), Local 3525

American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees American Federation of Teachers

Asian Pacific American Labor Alliance, AFL-CIO

Association of Flight Attendants-CWA

2

Communications Workers of America (CWA)

Department for Professional Employees, AFL-CIO

Federal Education Association

International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers (IFPTE) International Union of Painters and Allied Trades

Labor Council for Latin American Advancement National Association of Government Employees National Education Association

National Federation of Federal Employees National Nurses United

National Treasury Employees Union

National Weather Service Employees Organization Patent Office Professional Association

Service Employees International Union (SEIU) The International Brotherhood of Teamsters UNITE HERE

United Mine Workers of America

United Power Trades Organization

Organizations:

African Services Committee

Alliance for Justice

American Immigration Lawyers Association AsylumWorks

3

Bellevue Program for Survivors of Torture Brooklyn Law School Safe Harbor Project Catholic Labor Network

Catholic Legal Services, Archdiocese of Miami Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc. Center for Gender & Refugee Studies

Columbia Law School Immigrants’ Rights Clinic Disciples Immigration Legal Counsel

Florence Immigrant & Refugee Rights Project Immigrant Defenders Law Group

The Legal Aid Society

Migrant Center for Human Rights

Minnesota Interfaith Coalition on Immigration Mississippi Center for Justice

National Immigration Law Center

National Network for Immigrant & Refugee Rights The Right to Immigration Institute

Round Table of Former Immigration Judges

Law Professors and Scholars with Institutional Affiliation for Identification Purposes only:

Sabi Ardalan

Clinical Professor of Law

Harvard Immigration and Refugee Clinical Program Harvard Law School*

Roxana C. Bacon

4

Adjunct Professor of Law Arizona State University* University of Arizona* University of Miami*

David Baluarte

Associate Clinical Professor of Law Washington & Lee University School of Law*

Jon Bauer

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

Lenni B. Benson

Distinguished Chair of Immigration and Human Rights Law New York Law School*

Matthew Boaz

Professor

Washington & Lee School of Law*

Stacy Caplow

Associate Dean of Experiential Education & Professor of Law Brooklyn Law School*

Rose Cuison-Villazor

Vice Dean and Professor of Law Rutgers Law School*

Ingrid Eagly

Professor of Law

University of California Los Angeles School of Law*

Lauren Gilbert

Professor

St. Thomas University College of Law*

Lindsay M. Harris

Associate Professor & Director, Immigration & Human Rights Clinic University of the District of Columbia, David A. Clarke School of Law*

Katie Herbert Meyer

Associate Professor of Practice and Director of the Immigration Law Clinic Washington University*

Geoffrey Hoffman

Clinical Professor and Immigration Clinic Director

5

University of Houston Law Center*

Alan Hyde

Distinguished Professor of Law and Sidney Reitman Scholar Rutgers Law School*

Erin Jacobsen

Professor and Director at Vermont Law School’s South Royalton Legal Clinic Vermont Immigrant Assistance

Vermont Law School*

Hiroko Kusuda

Clinic Professor and Director of Immigration Law Section

Loyola University New Orleans College of Law*

Stuart H. Smith Law Clinic and Center for Center for Social Justice

Vanessa Merton

Professor of Law

Immigration Justice Clinic Elizabeth Haub School of Law*

Karen Musalo

Professor and Founding Director, Center for Gender & Refugee Studies and the Refugee and Human Rights Clinic

U.C. Hastings College of the Law*

Lori A. Nessel

Professor

Seton Hall University School of Law*

Michael A. Olivas

Wm B. Bates Distinguished Chair (Emeritus) University of Law Center*

Maria Mercedes Pabon Professor of Law

Loyola University New Orleans*

Carrie Rosenbaum

Lecturer in Legal Studies University of California, Berkeley*

Faiza Sayed

Visiting Professor of Clinical Law and Co-Director Safe Harbor Clinic

6

Brooklyn Law School*

Gemma Solimene

Clinical Associate Professor of Law Fordham University School of Law*

Elissa Steglich

Clinical Professor and Co-director Immigration Clinic University of Texas School of Law*

Mark E. Steiner

Professor of Law

South Texas College of Law Houston*

Enid Trucios-Haynes Brandeis School of Law University of Louisville*

Irene Scharf

Professor

Immigration Law Clinic University of Massachusetts*

Doug Smith

Lecturer in Legal Studies Brandeis University*

Paul Wickham Schmidt Immigrationcourtside.com

Erica B. Schommer

Clinical Professor of Law

St. Mary’s University School of Law*

Michael J. Wishnie

William O. Douglas Clinical Professor of Law Yale Law School*

*Institutional affiliation for identification purposes only

7

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

FULL DISCLOSURE: I am a retired member of the NAIJ.

Thanks to my friend Judge Amiena Khan and the rest of her leadership group at the NAIJ for all they do to fight for due process for individuals in Immigration Court!

To date, Garland and his team have been busy defending Billy Barr’s and Trump’s corruption from legal accountability, appointing Barr’s hand-picked “judges” to their overtly non-progressive judiciary, attempting to intimidate the press (until the White House finally had to intervene), and carrying out pre-existing Stephen Miller inspired precedents and policies. Oh yeah, and engaging in their own mindless unilateral round of “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” (a/k/a yet another designed to fail “Dedicated Docket”) in Immigration Court while continuing to build on the pre-existing 1.3 million case backlog. They have also been occupied with ignoring every progressive and expert suggestion and NOT appointing progressives to leadership and judicial positions. Wow! That’s a very full plate (of unappetizing food)!

So, I’m not holding my breath for a favorable response to the latest request for the injection of some legality, common sense, and decency into EOIR. Nor am I expecting Biden and Harris to honor their commitment to Federal Employee Unions, after watching their performance to date on immigration and human rights. Additionally, given the continuing abysmal performance of EOIR and its ongoing waste and incompetence, I doubt whether they want any “internal critics” speaking truth to power.

So far, Garland is on course to be “Billy Barr, Jr.” While that might help Barr to avoid legal accountability for his corrupt administration of justice @ Justice, it’s not so good for progressives who would like to see (and once believed they would see) some “justice from Justice” particularly for racial minorities, women, children, asylum seekers, and other migrants.

They also would like to see at least minimally professional and respectful treatment of those appearing and representing individuals in Immigration Court. While Garland, Monaco, Gupta, and Clarke are all being paid comfortable “top of the line” USG salaries for ignoring long-overdue progressive reforms @ EOIR, many attorneys representing individuals in their “Star Chambers” are operating pro bono or low bono in their attempts to keep Garland’s failing and flailing system afloat.

Just more reasons why we need an independent Article I Immigration Court to deliver due process, racial, and gender justice to individuals, regardless of status.

Barr Departs — Lowering The Barr by Randall Enos, Easton, CT
Republished By License. Guess Garland forgot to flush!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

06-08-21

⚖️NAIJ RESPONDS TO U.N. ON NEED FOR INDEPENDENCE, GENDER DIVERSITY — “[A]chieving judicial independence is essential to ensuring a diversity of opinions and reducing bias in adjudications.”

Honorable Mimi Tsankov
U.S. Immigration Judge
Chair, Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Committee
Co-Chair Gender Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Subcommittee
National Association of Immigration Judges (“NAIJ”)

Letter to UN Rapporteur

May 28, 2021

VIA EMAIL to SRindependenceJL@ohchr.org

The Honorable Diego García-Sayán

Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights Palais des Nations

1211 Geneva 10

Switzerland

Dear Honorable García-Sayán,

Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the Questionnaire on Gender Equality in the Judiciary.

I am writing in my capacity as Chair of the Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Committee of the National Association of Immigration Judges (NAIJ). I am currently seated at the New York Federal Plaza Immigration Court. Hon. Brea Burgie and I co-chair the NAIJ Gender Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Subcommittee.

Organizational Background

By way of introduction, NAIJ is a non-partisan, non-profit, voluntary association of United States Immigration Judges. Since 1979, the NAIJ has been the recognized representative of Immigration Judges for collective bargaining purposes. Our mission is to promote the independence of Immigration Judges and enhance the professionalism, dignity, and efficiency of the Immigration Courts, which are the trial-level tribunals where removal proceedings initiated by the United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS) are conducted. We work to improve our court system through: educating the public, legal community and media; providing testimony at congressional oversight hearings; and advocating for the integrity and independence of the Immigration Courts and Immigration Court reform. We also seek to improve the Court system and protect the interests of our members, collectively and individually, through dynamic liaison activities with management, formal and informal grievances, and collective bargaining. In addition, we represent Immigration Judges in disciplinary proceedings, seeking to protect judges against unwarranted discipline and to assure that when discipline must be imposed it is imposed in a manner that is fair and serves the public interest.

1

The focus of the NAIJ Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Committee is to identify underrepresented groups of association members and remove or reduce unconscious biases with respect to such underrepresented groups. We facilitate the ongoing and continuing effort to foster a culture and atmosphere of mutual respect and understanding for our judges.

Need for Judicial Independence

Our courts are in need of reform due to unprecedented challenges facing the Immigration Courts and Immigration Judges. This is particularly important, because achieving judicial independence is essential to ensuring a diversity of opinions and reducing bias in adjudications. Immigration Courts have faced structural deficiencies, crushing caseloads and unacceptable backlogs for many years. Many of the “solutions” that have been set forth to address these challenges have in fact exacerbated the problems and undermined the integrity of the Courts, encroached on the independent decision-making authority of the Immigration Judges, and further enlarged the backlogs.

The Immigration Court suffers from an inherent structural defect as it resides in a law enforcement, Executive branch agency – the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ). The inherent conflict present in pairing the law enforcement mission of the DOJ with the mission of a court of law that mandates independence from all other external pressures, including those of law enforcement priorities, has seriously compromised the very integrity of the Immigration Court system. Immigration Judges make life-changing decisions on whether or not non-citizens are allowed to remain in the United States. Presently, approximately 538 Immigration Judges in the United States are responsible for adjudicating almost 1,300,000 cases. The work is hard. The law is complicated; the labyrinth of rules and regulations require expertise in an arcane field of law. Many of the individuals brought into proceedings do not have attorneys to represent them despite the fact that the DHS is always represented by attorneys because they have no right to appointed counsel. In contrast to our judicial role, we are considered by the DOJ to be government attorneys, fulfilling routine adjudicatory roles in a law enforcement agency. With each new administration, we are harshly reminded of that subordinate role and subjected to the vagaries of the prevailing political winds.

The problems compromising the integrity and proper administration of a court underscore the need to remove the Immigration Court from the political sphere of a law enforcement agency and assure its judicial independence. Since the 1981 Select Commission on Immigration and Refugee Policy, the idea of creating an Article I court, similar to the U.S. Tax Court, has been advanced. Such a structure solves a myriad of problems which now plague our Court: removing a politically accountable Cabinet level policy maker from the helm; separating the decision makers from the parties who appear before them; protecting judges from the cronyism of a too close association with DHS; assuring a transparent funding stream instead of items buried in the budget of a larger agency with competing needs; and eliminating top-heavy agency bureaucracy.

In the last 35 years, a strong consensus has formed supporting this structural change. For years experts debated the wisdom of far-reaching restructuring of the Immigration Court system. Now most Immigration Judges and attorneys agree the long-term solution to the problem is to restructure the Immigration Court system. Examples of those in support include the American Bar Association, the Federal Bar Association, the National Association of Women Judges, and

2

the American Immigration Lawyers Association. These are the recognized legal experts and representatives of the public who appear before us. Their voices deserve to be heeded. To that end, the Federal Bar Association has prepared proposed legislation setting forth the blueprint for the creation of an “Article 1” or independent Immigration Court. This proposal would remove the Immigration Court from the purview of the DOJ to form an independent Court. The legislation would establish a “United States Immigration Court” with responsibility for functions of an adjudicative nature that are currently being performed by the judges and appellate Board members in the Executive Office for Immigration Review.

Questionnaire Response

As of May 19, 2021, there are 538 Immigration Judges (including supervisory Immigration Judges). Of those 313 (or 58.2%) are male and 225 (or 41.8%) are female. Of the 40 Immigration Judges who serve in supervisory/leadership roles, 17 (or 43%) are female. There are 23 Appellate Immigration Judges. In line with international trends where there is more parity for judges overall, but less for high-ranking judicial officers, seven of the Appellate Immigration Judges (or 30%) are female. Currently, EOIR has a female acting agency Director, but the agency has never had a permanent female head. Therefore, while EOIR is approaching gender equality for Immigation Judges overall, there is still a deficit in female leadership at the highest levels.

During the period 2008 – 2013, the agency identified as a clearly articulated strategic objective the hiring of candidates reflecting gender diversity. We are not aware of an updated strategy for addressing this objective. It is our view that when an agency is helmed by largely homogeneous leaders, there is a lack of varied perspectives which inhibits innovation and insights, workers’ morale suffers, the organization becomes less able to attract and retain top talent, fewer diverse career officials are promoted to management positions, and the problem becomes self-perpetuating. This condition also provides fertile ground for implicit bias to take hold and flourish, infiltrating future recruitment, as well as implicating the decisions we render in the individual cases which come before us.

The Biden administration has made diversifying the federal workforce, including at DOJ, a top priority. We are hopeful that more work will be done in the months ahead to support greater gender parity in judicial roles throughout the agency and the Immigration Court. More flexible workplace options are needed, including expanded telework and flexible working hours, which have proven to be workable and effective during the pandemic. As numerous studies have shown, women bear an overwhelming majority of caretaking responsibilities: for children, elderly parents, and family members who need additional care. Ensuring continuation of the flexible policies the Department of Justice adopted during the pandemic would ensure that more women could take roles as Immigration Judges, or stay in that role long-term, and keep a healthy work-life balance.

In regard to promoting female leadership at the highest levels of EOIR, the agency needs to examine the work culture that is rigid rather than flexible in addressing the unexpected needs of employees, and expects individuals to work long hours and be available to work evenings and weekends. This culture excludes many women who may otherwise bring valuable contributions to top-level agency positions.

3

We appreciate your time, and attention to this issue. Sincerely,

Mimi Tsankov

Hon. Mimi Tsankov

Chair, Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Committee

Co-Chair Gender Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Subcommittee

4

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

FULL DISCLOSURE: I am a retired member of the NAIJ.

Many thanks to my friend Judge Mimi Tsankov (who also serves with me on the ABA’s National Conference on the Administrative Law Judiciary) for bringing this to my attention.

As Judge Tsankov points out, there has been some progress toward “gender equity” in terms of overall profile. However, in my view, this has been more than offset by 1) the “single sourcing” of judicial appointments to basically discourage and exclude progressive experts, advocates from the private sector, and those with backgrounds in advancing human rights and immigrants’ rights; and 2) constant political interference from the DOJ (under both parties) to promote their political agendas, usually anti-due-process, anti-immigrant, anti-asylum-seeker, and pro-enforcement, with definite overriding racial and nationalist overtones.

Indeed, the sad situation of the NAIJ itself — bogusly “decertified” by “Billy the Bigot” Barr as “punishment” for exercising First Amendment rights, exposing waste and bias, and “daring to speak truth to power” speaks for itself. To date, despite the Biden Administration’s claim to be supportive of the rights of Government employees, Garland has allowed the NAIJ (not to mention asylum seekers and other migrants) to continue to “twist in the wind.”

It’s also worth noting that the NAIJ is the only entity providing meaningful due process and anti-bias training to Immigration Judges. Indeed, it is the only entity providing any type of useful professional training and continuing judicial education at EOIR!

🇺🇸🗽🧑🏽‍⚖️Due Process Forever!

PWS

06-08-21

⚖️🌟🗽NDPA SUPERSTARS, PRACTICAL EXPERT PROFESSORS LINDSAY M. HARRIS AND SARAH R. SHERMAN-STOKES SCORE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION’S CONTINUED RELIANCE ON BOGUS 🏴‍☠️ TRUMP-ERA, WHITE NATIONALIST COVID-19 RESTRICTIONS TO RETURN REFUGEES TO DANGER & DEATH @ SOUTHERN BORDER!☠️🤮⚰️

https://apple.news/A9hXjuI8xTQ6Zle8aVf4Dgg

Lindsay and Sarah write in USA Today:

. . . .

However, despite advice from public health experts and condemnation by UNHCR, expulsions under Title 42 continue and the human cost has been devastating. Though refugees come from countries all over the world, the Department of Homeland Security expels them to Mexico, just on the other side of the border.

Reports by Human Rights First document the terrifying realities they face once there: kidnappings, violence, sexual assault, extortion and even murder in border towns where criminal gangs and cartels prey on recently expelled children and families. Just this spring, a 4-year-old Honduran boy and his asylum-seeking mother were kidnapped in Nuevo Laredo immediately after they were expelled under Title 42.

Expulsions don’t just impact migrants from Mexico and Central America. Despite the recent designation of temporary protected status for Haitian migrants within the United States, the Biden administration has sent plane after plane of asylum-seeking families back to Haiti, with some Haitians being expelled to Mexico. The UndocuBlack Network and the Haitian Bridge Alliance, for example, document a Haitian woman expelled to Mexico with her three-day-old baby, where she will face extreme anti-Black discrimination and be at risk of violence and homelessness.

Just the start: Biden will no longer detain migrants at two county jails. That’s good but not enough.

Public health has often been used as a pretext for restrictionist immigration policies. Beginning as early as 1793, when Haitians were blamed for bringing yellow fever to Philadelphia, nativism and xenophobia have long merged with concerns about public health to exclude immigrants and refugees. These concerns were not justified by science then, and they certainly are not justified now.

. . . .

Lindsay M. Harris (@Prof_LMHarris) is associate professor and director of the Immigration and Human Rights Clinic at the University of the District of Columbia’s Law School. Sarah Sherman-Stokes (@sshermanstokes) is clinical associate professor and associate director of the Immigrants’ Rights and Human Trafficking Program at Boston University School of Law.

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

Read the rest of the USA Today op-ed at the link!

Thanks, my friends, for speaking out about the continuing outrages perpetrated by the Biden Administration at our Southern Border. So many, many “practical experts” out here in the “real world,” like Lindsay and Sarah, who would be heads and shoulders above current immigration “leadership” at DHS, DOJ, and EOIR and who would bring “real, qualified, expert judging” to the BIA and the Immigration Courts.

The Biden Administration’s failure to actively recruit, attract, and promptly bring on board the “best and the brightest” that American law has to offer for these critical jobs (which do NOT require Senate confirmation) is a disgrace! Betcha Stephen Miller could tell them how to do it! But, curiously, the Biden Immigration Team seems to think that alienating the best progressive minds in the business, the folks who helped them get elected and can fix their immigration problems, is smart politics and great public policy! Go figure!

Suspending the rule of law and international treaty obligations is never “OK” and it’s not something to be “studied.” “Gee whiz, should we comply with the law or continue to violate it; should we continue to send people to possible kidnapping, rape, torture, extortion, and/or death with no process or should we give them fair hearings; should we continue unqualified Trump hacks in key positions and keep defending illegal policies or should we hire qualified experts from the NDPA to restore and promote due process?” These are the “questions” that folks like Garland, Mayorkas, and their “spear carriers” are being paid to “study” while innocent humans are daily being abused and dying in the “real world” that these Biden Cabinet officers appear to have absented themselves from? Gimme a break!

We need an end to the deadly nonsense at DHS, DOJ, and EOIR NOW! Keep the outrage, the op-eds, the law suits, and the exposure and documenting of Mayorkas’s and Garland’s illegal, immoral, and incompetent actions coming until we get change and our Government delivers on the Constitutionally-required promise of due process, equal protection, and racial justice for all persons!

🇺🇸⚖️🗽Due Process Forever! The Garland/Mayorkas “Miller Lite Nonsense” at the border, never!

PWS

06-04-21

🗽⚖️🇺🇸LEE GELERNT @ ACLU SAYS BIDEN ADMINISTRATION “cannot farm out the asylum system.” Yet, That Appears To Be Largely What They Are Doing Under New, Previously Unpublicized Program!

https://apnews.com/article/only-on-ap-united-nations-donald-trump-immigration-health-98d4da6cb6f2999787c3fcd3579de695?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=June4_MorningWire&utm_term=Morning%20Wire%20Subscribers

Elliott Spagat
Reporter
Associated Press

Elliot Spagot and Julie Watson report for AP:

SAN DIEGO (AP) — The Biden administration has quietly tasked six humanitarian groups with recommending which migrants should be allowed to stay in the U.S. instead of being rapidly expelled from the country under federal pandemic-related powers that block people from seeking asylum.

The groups will determine who is most vulnerable in Mexico, and their criteria has not been made public. It comes as large numbers of people are crossing the southern border and as the government faces intensifying pressure to lift the public health powers instituted by former President Donald Trump and kept in place by President Joe Biden during the coronavirus pandemic.

Several members of the consortium spoke to The Associated Press about the criteria and provided details of the system that have not been previously reported. The government is aiming to admit to the country up to 250 asylum-seekers a day who are referred by the groups and is agreeing to that system only until July 31. By then, the consortium hopes the Biden administration will have lifted the public health rules, though the government has not committed to that.

So far, a total of nearly 800 asylum-seekers have been let in since May 3, and members of the consortium say there is already more demand than they can meet.

The groups have not been publicly identified except for the International Rescue Committee, a global relief organization. The others are London-based Save the Children; two U.S.-based organizations, HIAS and Kids in Need of Defense; and two Mexico-based organizations, Asylum Access and the Institute for Women in Migration, according to two people with direct knowledge who spoke on condition of anonymity because the information was not intended for public release.

Asylum Access, which provides services to people seeing asylum in Mexico, characterized its role as minimal.

The effort started in El Paso, Texas, and is expanding to Nogales, Arizona.

A similar but separate mechanism led by the American Civil Liberties Union began in late March and allows 35 families a day into the United States at places along the border. It has no end date.

The twin tracks are described by participating organizations as an imperfect transition from so-called Title 42 authority, named for a section of an obscure 1944 public health law that Trump used in March 2020 to effectively end asylum at the Mexican border. With COVID-19 vaccination rates rising, Biden is finding it increasingly difficult to justify the expulsions on public health grounds and faces demands to end it from the U.N. refugee agency and members of his own party and administration.

. . . .

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

Read the full article at the link.

Well, I’ll give them this. “Farming out” the asylum system to these NGO experts is better than the Trump approach. The Trump regime “outsourced” the American asylum system to Mexico, El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala.

The common denominators among those countries is that the are all notorious for human rights abuses, corrupt government, dysfunctional legal systems, and lack of any semblance of a fair, functioning asylum adjudication system. Additionally, all are major senders of asylum seekers to America.

But, the Biden Administration’s “under the counter” approach is still fundamentally wrong! It’s yet another “haste makes waste gimmick” that lacks transparency, clear standards, accountability, and most of all, operates outside of any legal framework!

That’s a recipe for arbitrariness, abuse, and unfairness. Even if the system were to produce decent results, the lack of transparency robs it of credibility. It’s therefore likely to be attacked by both advocates and restrictionists while being panned in the press — a self-created “worst case” scenario of the type Dem Administrations seem to specialize in when it comes to immigration and human rights!

The solution here is to do what many of us have been recommending since the day the election results became final. That is, bring in outside experts to USCIS to lead and revitalize the Asylum Officer screening program and bring in real judges, largely from the outside, — progressive practical experts in asylum law committed to human rights and due process — to EOIR to establish legitimate precedents and insure fair, humane, and uniform treatment of asylum seekers.

It’s possible, indeed probable, that the U.S. representatives of some of the NGOs involved would be among the best experts to do this — leading human rights authorities like Mark Hatfield at HIAS, Wendy Young at KIND, and Wendy Wylegala, also of KIND are obvious choices.

So, put them and other practical experts like Professor Karen Musalo (Center for Gender & Refugee Studies), Eleanor Acer (Human Rights First), Professor Stephen Legomsky (former USCIS Chief Counsel), Associate Dean Jaya Ramji Nogales (Temple Law), Judge Ilyce Shugall (Round Table), Dean Kevin Johnson (UC Davis), Michelle Mendez (CLINIC), Professor Lenni Benson (Safe Passage Project), Professor Ingrid Eagly (UCLA Law), Laura Lynch (NILC), Professor Stephen Yale Loehr (Cornell Law), Jason Dzubow (The Asylumist), Professor Debi Anker (Harvard Law), Professor Michele Pistone (VIISTA/Villanova Law), and others like them on the payroll at USCIS and EOIR and let them fix the asylum system!

Experts like this could, if properly empowered, in relatively short order, establish a system that is legal, constitutional, fair, generous, humane, practical, efficient, and that complies with all of our international obligations. In other words, a “model system” that would serve the best interests of humanity and our nation!

The current opaque, chaotic, arbitrary mess at our Southern Border (essentially the Biden Administration’s version of “Hunger Games”) serves nobody’s interests excepts cartels and smugglers. It’s also likely to kill record numbers of asylum seekers unless fixed, NOW! https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/summer-migrant-deaths-southern-border/2021/06/03/a03d7bb8-c3a6-11eb-8c34-f8095f2dc445_story.html

Bringing in the experts seems like an outstanding, “no brainer” alternative to the godawful, dysfunctional, disgraceful mess that the Trump kakistocracy left at USCIS and EOIR, much of which continues to ramble on, further off the rails all the time, under Mayorkas and Garland. The Biden Administration can’t, and won’t, get the job done on asylum and racial justice without radical, yet logical and badly needed, personnel and leadership changes at USCIS and EOIR!

🇺🇸🗽⚖️🧑🏽‍⚖️Due Process Forever!

PWS

06-04-21

👎🏽“ADR” IN ACTION: EOIR ISSUES “DEDICATED DOCKET” GUIDANCE FROM THE TOWER! — Experts & Those Affected Continue To Be Snubbed, Left Out Of Process!

Trial By Ordeal — ”Just how is a ‘Dedicated Docket’ using current EOIR precedents and methods, and with too many ‘judges’ still ‘programmed to deny asylum for any reason’ going to help me achieve justice? What if I’m sent to an ‘Asylum Free Zone’ or my fate is put in the hands of a judge striving to achieve membership in the ‘90% Denier Club’ encouraged by Sessions and Barr and still running rampant under Garland?” Woman Being “Tried By Ordeal”
17th Century Woodcut
Public Realm
Source: Ancient Origins Website
https://www.ancient-origins.net/history/trial-ordeal-life-or-death-method-judgement-004160

ADR = “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” — a DOJ/EOIR specialty now being used by Garland’s DOJ

https://www.justice.gov/eoir/book/file/1399361/download

To: All of EOIR

From: JeanC.King,ActingDirector Date: May 27, 2021

DEDICATED DOCKET

Effective:

OOD PM 21-23

May 28, 2021

PURPOSE:

OWNER: AUTHORITY:

CANCELLATION:

Establishes a dedicated docket for certain individuals in removal proceedings.

Office of the Director

Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) Memorandum, Case Priorities and Immigration Court Performance Measures (Jan. 2018); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.0(b)

Policy Memorandum 19-04

EOIR is initiating a Dedicated Docket to focus on the adjudication of family cases as designated by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). This docket will run alongside typical court operations in immigration courts in ten cities: Denver, Detroit, El Paso, Los Angeles, Miami, Newark, New York City, San Diego, San Francisco, and Seattle. DHS has indicated that it will be placing on the Dedicated Docket families who crossed the Southern border and whom DHS has placed on alternatives to detention. Cases will be identified for this docket as of the effective date of this memorandum.

EOIR’s immigration judges will endeavor to issue a decision in each case on the Dedicated Docket within 300 days after the initial master calendar hearing. To facilitate such timeliness while providing due process, EOIR will only schedule these cases before immigration judges who generally have docket time available to manage a case on that timeline, but EOIR recognizes that unique circumstances of each case may impact the ability to issue a decision within that period. As needed, the Office of the Chief Immigration Judge will provide additional case management guidance to assist immigration judges in meeting this goal.

EOIR remains committed to the timely resolution of immigration court cases in a fair and impartial manner. Importantly, the adjudication timeframe established by this policy memorandum (PM) and any subsequent case management guidance is an internal goal. Respondents whose cases are on these dockets have the opportunity to request continuances, as do all respondents in removal proceedings, and immigration judges retain discretion to determine whether a continuance should be granted for good cause. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29. EOIR expects

1

that its immigration judges will make these determinations with full consideration for a respondent’s statutory right to counsel and consistent with due process and fundamental fairness.

Respondents whose cases are placed on these dockets will be provided with a number of services, including access to information services and possible referral services to facilitate legal representation. Each city in which EOIR has established the Dedicated Docket has an established pro bono network.

EOIR previously tracked certain cases designated by DHS in select immigration court locations. See PM 19-04, Tracking and Expedition of “Family Unit” Cases (Nov. 16, 2018). This effort was discontinued during the COVID-19 pandemic and has not been resumed. Thus, PM 19-04 is rescinded.

EOIR is managing the hearings with full consideration for the safety of its employees and all parties who appear in court. EOIR will continue to implement practices and procedures consistent with information from public health officials and guidance from the Office of Personnel Management and the DOJ Justice Management Division. See PM 20-13, EOIR Practices Related to the COVID-19 Outbreak (June 11, 2020).

This PM is not intended to, does not, and may not be relied upon to create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or equities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

Please contact your supervisor if you have any questions regarding this PM.

2

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

In theory, prioritizing timely adjudication of recently arrived asylum seekers in Immigration Court could be a good idea – along the lines that a number of us recommended to the Biden Transition Team. But, not this way!

This “tone-deaf missive from on high,” as usual, is “designed to fail” rather than “dressed for success:”

It relies heavily on the ready availability of pro bono legal services in certain locations, yet, incredibly, there was NO ADVANCE CONSULTATION & COORDINATION with those key groups;
It is not accompanied by grants or other support to legal assistance groups to help them provide universal representation to asylum seekers;
There is no reason to believe that Immigration Judges in these locations are well-qualified to decide asylum cases merely because they have “docket space available;” indeed there are gross disparities in asylum grant rates among the selected courts;
Anti-asylum precedents issued by the Trump Administration remain in effect which undoubtedly will lead to unfair denials of asylum;
Among these anti-asylum precedents are some incorrectly limiting and discouraging continuances and administrative closing — making the promise of flexibility and fairness totally disingenuous;
Before instituting new programs in consultation with the private bar, the DHS, and the NAIJ (representing the IJs who will actually have to control these dockets), EOIR must slash the backlog by removing from the docket the vast majority of “non-priority” cases forming the astounding, largely self created 1.3 million case backlog;
With better precedents by a new BIA with progressive asylum experts as judges, and some procedural changes, many more asylum cases could be granted “in the first instance” by the Asylum Office, thereby reducing the pressure on the Immigration Courts while reducing the incentives for frivolous opposition to asylum cases by ICE, a big “time waster” in Immigration Court; but no such “progressive thinking or practical problem solving” is reflected in this directive.

Half-baked bureaucratic directives like this won’t solve the problem! It’s just more proof of how completely unqualified Garland’s DOJ and EOIR leadership are to administer a “real court system.” Where are the Article I advocates in Congress? Removing the Immigration Courts from DOJ needs to be one of our highest National priorities.

🇺🇸⚖️🗽🧑🏽‍⚖️Due Process Forever! DOJ/EOIR incompetence, never!

PWS

06-02-21

GARLAND/MAYORKAS UNILATERAL “IN YOUR FACE” 🤮 ASYLUM POLICIES CONTINUE TO INFLAME, OUTRAGE, PROGRESSIVE OPPOSITION! — More Haste Makes Waste “Special Asylum Dockets,” Continuation Of “Miller Lite” Racist/Misogynist Anti-Asylum Policies, Unqualified Judges, Likely To Deny Due Process, Create Aimless Docket Reshuffling, Increase Backlogs — Congress Needs To Remove Immigration Courts From Garland’s Dysfunctional DOJ — Now!

Here’s yet another “big middle finger” 🖕 to progressives and experts from Garland and Mayorkas:

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Office of Public Affairs

DHS and DOJ Announce Dedicated Docket Process for More Efficient Immigration Hearings

WASHINGTON – Today, Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro N. Mayorkas and Attorney General Merrick B. Garland announced a new Dedicated Docket process to more expeditiously and fairly make decisions in immigration cases of families who arrive between ports of entry at the Southwest Border. This new process should significantly decrease the amount of time it takes for migrants to have their cases adjudicated while still providing fair hearings for families seeking asylum at the border.

“Families arriving at the border who are placed in immigration proceedings should have their cases decided in an orderly, efficient, and fair manner,” said Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro N. Mayorkas. “Families who have recently arrived should not languish in a multi-year backlog; today’s announcement is an important step for both justice and border security.”

“The mission of the Department of Justice’s immigration courts is to decide the cases that come before them promptly and fairly,” said Attorney General Merrick B. Garland. “This new program for certain newly arriving families will help achieve that critically important goal.”

Under this new process, certain recently arrived families may be placed on the Dedicated Docket. Families may qualify if they are apprehended between ports of entry on or after Friday, May 28, 2021, placed in removal proceedings, and enrolled in Alternatives to Detention (ATD). DHS, in partnership with the Department of Justice (DOJ) Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), will make available information services to help families understand the immigration system and refer families to pro bono legal service providers for possible representation.

EOIR has identified immigration courts in 10 cities with established communities of legal services providers and available judges to handle the cases. The designated cities are Denver, Detroit, El Paso, Los Angeles, Miami, Newark, New York City, San Diego, San Francisco, and Seattle.

Under the Dedicated Docket, EOIR’s immigration judges will work generally to issue a decision within 300 days of the initial master calendar hearing, subject to the unique circumstances of each case including allowing time for families to seek representation where needed. While the goal of this process is to decide cases expeditiously, fairness will not be compromised.

# # #

U.S. Department of Homeland Security
www.dhs.gov

Here are “statements in opposition” from the National Immigrant Justice Center and Human Rights First:

https://immigrantjustice.org/press-releases/bidens-return-failed-immigration-court-rocket-docket-will-deprive-asylum-seekers

https://www.humanrightsfirst.org/press-release/human-rights-first-concerned-biden-plan-risks-new-rocket-dockets-when-it-should-end#.YLEQ7NuEm7k.twitter

Here’s the “statement of outrage and solidarity in opposition from the experts at the Center for Gender and Refugee Studies at Hastings Law:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Media Contact: Brianna Krong, (415) 581-8835, krongbrianna@uchastings.edu

CGRS Concerned Biden Policies Will Undermine Fairness, Endanger Refugee Families

San Francisco, CA (May 28, 2021) – The Center for Gender & Refugee Studies (CGRS) is deeply concerned by today’s announcement that the Biden administration will begin fast-tracking asylum cases for certain families seeking refuge. By establishing a “dedicated docket” for asylum-seeking families, the administration will sacrifice fairness in the name of speed, adopting a misguided approach that under both the Obama and Trumpadministrations contributed to record backlogs in the immigration system, eroded due process, and endangered lives. Instead of reviving the failed policies of past administrations, the Biden administration should swiftly end cruel and illegal Trump-era policies and fully restore safe asylum processing at the southern border.

Today’s announcement arrives at a time when families seeking asylum face enormous roadblocks to safety and justice. Over four months into its first term, the Biden administration has failed to end myriad Trump-era policies that continue to place refugees at risk of grave violence, and even death. It is shameful that the administration is prioritizing fast-tracked adjudications while continuing to illegally expel asylum seekers to danger under the widelydebunked pretext of the pandemic. So long as the Title 42 policy remains in place, there can be no safe or fair process for asylum seekers.

The Biden administration also has yet to address Trump policies that have gutted protections for people escaping domestic violence and gang brutality, including many of the families impacted by this new policy. Until Attorney General Garlandtakes action to reverse these policies, the asylum system will remain rigged against families fleeing violence in their homes and communities, who will be wrongly denied protection and ordered deported to the very dangers they’ve fled. Rushing adjudications will make it even more difficult for these families to find safety, further undermining any semblance of fairness in the asylum process.

“CGRS and our partners have set forth a clear roadmap for the Biden administration to adjudicate asylum cases in a timely manner and mitigate backlogs, all while improving fairness and protecting due process,” CGRS Legal Director Blaine Bookey said today. “As advocates, we’ve been down this road before. We know policies that rush asylum adjudications fail to keep families and children safe. We implore the administration not to make the mistake of putting speed above justice.”’

Advocates, asylum seekers, and communities are coming together to demand an asylum system that provides every person a safe and fair opportunity to seek protection, with full access to legal representation and community-based support. The Biden administration should put humanity first, reject the cruel policies of the past, and welcome people seeking asylum with dignity.

Brianna Krong | Communications and Advocacy Coordinator

Center for Gender and Refugee Studies

200 McAllister Street | San Francisco, CA 94102

(415) 581-8835 (Phone) | (415) 581-8824 (Fax)

krongbrianna@uchastings.edu
Pronouns: she/her/hers

Twitter| Facebook | Donate

Request Assistance or Report an Outcome in Your Asylum Case

Here are other initial comments from asylum experts:

I don’t think there was any consultation w/ private bar. NGOs are very upset. Biden administration just held a q and a about two hours ago to answer NGO questions but there’s a lot of unknowns remaining.

Lots of NGOs are off today because of the long weekend but many are working to respond to this and the President’s budget.

See NGO press release in response to President’s budget:

For Immediate Release: May 28, 2021

Contact: press@wearehome.us

We Are Home Campaign Deeply Disappointed by Biden’s DHS Budget Request

Calls on Congress to Do Better

Washington, DC —President Biden’s FY 2022 budget, released today, requests $2.7 billion from Congress for ICE detention – almost the same amount enacted by Congress last year under the Trump Administration. It includes funds for 2,500 family detention beds. Alongside recent increases in the number of people jailed by ICE, this budget request is an alarming signal that DHS and the President are not heeding the call of the immigrant justice movement to reduce and ultimately end the federal government’s harmful and unnecessary reliance on incarceration for immigration processing.

In response to the news, Bridgette Gomez, Director of the We Are Home campaign, said:

“We are deeply disappointed to see that DHS plans to continue Trump-era levels of ICE detention. Candidate Biden promised an immigration policy that reflects our highest values as a nation. As president, Biden has repeatedly emphasized his commitment to racial equity. Any plan that doesn’t dramatically shrink ICE’s incarceration system – which mostly jails Black and Brown people – betrays those commitments. We’ll be looking to Congress to do better and cut ICE’s budget significantly.”

In March, We Are Home joined the Defund Hate coalition in calling on Congress to cut funding for ICE and CBP by at least 50 percent.

In February, the campaign sent comprehensive recommendations to DHS to overhaul enforcement and begin to dismantle the detention and deportation machinery that has devastated millions of families, mostly Black and Brown, and squandered billions of taxpayer dollars. These recommendations included policies to cut detention, including 1) a comprehensive file review of all people in ICE custody, with a presumption of release, and 2) an end to the use of private prisons and state and local jails for ICE detention. The urgency to reduce the detained population is even greater during the pandemic, since people in jails and prisons face particular risk of contracting COVID. ICE has no centralized plan to provide vaccines for people in its custody.”

We Are Home is a nationwide campaign to fight for immigrant communities on three fronts: prioritizing and demanding a pathway to citizenship for the 11 million undocumented immigrants in America; a moratorium and overhaul of interior enforcement; and broad affirmative relief from deportation. We Are Home is co-chaired by Community Change/Community Change Action; National Domestic Workers Alliance (NDWA)/Care in Action; Service Employees International Union (SEIU); United Farm Workers/UFW Foundation; and United We Dream.

###

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

The NGOs are quite upset.Note that this comes days after the Fourth Circuit enforced an IJ’s duty to fully develop the record even in represented cases.And yet here is the administration speeding up the assembly line.

In my view, this will lead to more pro se I-589s being filed.And as Sessions vacated Matter of E-F-H-L-, there is now no safeguard in either case law or regs preventing IJs from summarily denying those I-589s for e.g. failing to correctly delineate a PSG.

I can’t for the life of me understand this administration’s determination topreserveTrump’s policies.

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

Quick takes:

Because the system would depend almost entirely on NGOs and pro bono groups to provide counsel, developing policies without consulting those groups or providing grants to increase representation is totally inappropriate, not to mention stupid and insulting;
Special expedited asylum dockets have failed in the last two Administrations, so why try a “proven failure” once again?
Assigning certain Immigration Judges to these “priority dockets” – without first removing non-priority cases from the docket, will result in more “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” and increased backlogs;
As a recent article by respected experts Professor Karen Musalo and Professor Stephen Legomsky shows, the current system has been “gamed against asylum seekers” by both EOIR and DHS; https://www.justsecurity.org/76671/asylum-and-the-three-little-words-that-can-spell-life-or-death/; without radical progressive changes, the new policy will just produce more unfairness;

Professor Karen Musalo
Director, Center for Gender & Refugee Studies, Hastings Law

Stephen Legomsky — Professor Stephen H. Legomsky
Emeritus Professor of Law. & Former USG Senior Executive
Washington U. Law
PHOTO: Washington U. Law website

The 10 Immigration Courts selected for this project have widely varying asylum denial rates. For example, for the period 2015-20, according to TRAC, El Paso (an “Asylum Free Zone”) had a denial rate of 90% and New York a denial rate of 32%. How can a system including such extremes be “fair?”
As recent litigation has pointed out, Garland’s Immigration Judges are making basic mistakes and failing to develop records in their rush to screw asylum seekers. Without bringing in expert judges and emphasizing fairness, scholarship, record development, and quality above bureaucratic, enforcement related goals, this proposal is going to increase the due process disaster in Garland’s broken “courts;” https://immigrationcourtside.com/2021/05/26/%e2%9a%96%ef%b8%8f%f0%9f%97%bd4th-circuit-blasts-garland-eoirs-indolent-haste-make-waste-denial-centric-asylum-adjudication-in-another-victory-for-round-table-due-proces/
In just a short time, Garland’s outrageous mishandling of the Immigration Courts, and his disdain for expert progressive advice and appointments, shows exactly why Congress must remove these “courts” from the incompetent and biased administration of the DOJ and create an independent U.S. Immigration Court;
Until that happens, progressives and advocates will have to deal with Garland’s “in your face arrogance and ignorance” the same way they dealt with Sessions and Barr — with massive resistance and unending litigation until Garland’s corrupt, incompetent, biased system grinds to a halt.

Turning potential powerful and helpful friends into motivated and committed enemies! Seems pretty stupid to me.

Stephen Miller rightfully made lots of enemies with his racist, neo-Nazi shenanigans. But, he did please and energize his nativist, White Nationalist supporters!

By contrast, Garland has rapidly turned progressive supporters into enemies. But, he won’t get one iota of appreciation or support from Miller and his White Nationalist nativist supporters in the GOP.

Creating policies that are universally opposed or panned. That takes some impressive negative leadership and political idiocy!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

05-29-21

The latest from the Hon. “Sir Jeffrey:”

🇺🇸Due Process Forever! The BIA Denial Club, Never!🏴‍☠️

Related posts:

Kaur v. Garland, 9th Cir., 06-21-21, published

It’s YOUR REPUTATION, along with the lives of refugee women like Ms. Kaur, that are on the line here!

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Dan Kowalski reports on LexisNexis Immigration Community:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Thamotar v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 11th Cir., 06-17-21, Published

Get this, folks! The IJ and the BIA both found that meeting the higher standard for withholding of deportation based on probability of persecution somehow was an “adverse factor” that outweighed family separation! That’s right, an “adverse factor!”

🇺🇸Due Process Forever! Garland’s “Asylum Free Zones,” Never!

Related posts:

AP reports:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Due Process Forever! Happy Flag Day!🇺🇸

Related posts:

FULL DISCLOSURE: I am a retired member of the NAIJ.

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Hon. “Sir Jeffrey” Chase reports:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Here’s the audio:

🇺🇸🗽⚖️Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

FULL DISCLOSURE: I am a retired member of the NAIJ.

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

FULL DISCLOSURE: I am a retired member of the NAIJ.

🇺🇸🗽🧑🏽‍⚖️Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Lindsay and Sarah write in USA Today:

🇺🇸⚖️🗽Due Process Forever! The Garland/Mayorkas “Miller Lite Nonsense” at the border, never!

Related posts:

Elliot Spagot and Julie Watson report for AP:

🇺🇸🗽⚖️🧑🏽‍⚖️Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

ADR = “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” — a DOJ/EOIR specialty now being used by Garland’s DOJ

🇺🇸⚖️🗽🧑🏽‍⚖️Due Process Forever! DOJ/EOIR incompetence, never!

Related posts:

Here’s yet another “big middle finger” 🖕 to progressives and experts from Garland and Mayorkas:

Here are “statements in opposition” from the National Immigrant Justice Center and Human Rights First:

Here’s the “statement of outrage and solidarity in opposition from the experts at the Center for Gender and Refugee Studies at Hastings Law:

Here are other initial comments from asylum experts:

Quick takes:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts: