"The Voice of the New Due Process Army" ————– Musings on Events in U.S. Immigration Court, Immigration Law, Sports, and Other Random Topics by Retired United States Immigration Judge (Arlington, Virginia) and former Chairman of the Board of Immigration Appeals Paul Wickham Schmidt. To see my complete professional bio, just click on the link below.
Michelle Rindels & Riley Snyder report for The Nevada Independent:
A federal judge in Nevada has ruled that a nearly 70-year-old section of law that makes it a felony to reenter the U.S. after being deported is unconstitutional, saying it was enacted with discriminatory intent against Latinos and therefore violates the Equal Protection Clause.
Judge Miranda Du issued an order on Wednesday dismissing a case against Gustavo [Carrillo]-Lopez, who was indicted last summer for being in the U.S. in spite of being deported in 1999 and 2012. It appears to be the first time a court has made such a decision, even though the statute known as Section 1326 has been under consideration by several district courts.
“Because Carrillo-Lopez has established that Section 1326 was enacted with a discriminatory purpose and that the law has a disparate impact on Latinx persons, and the government fails to show that Section 1326 would have been enacted absent racial animus … the Court will grant the Motion,” Du wrote.
The case is a blow for the Department of Justice (DOJ), which initially filed the charge during the Trump administration — an era of hardline immigration policies — but has since switched hands to the Biden administration. Left-leaning groups have asserted that the Trump administration had “weaponized” Section 1326 and other decades-old immigration laws as part of their “zero tolerance” immigration strategy.
Julian Castro, a former Democratic presidential candidate and secretary of the Housing and Urban Development Administration, tweeted that “this law has an incredibly racist history. I doubt the Biden DOJ will want to defend it in the appellate court.”
. . . .
The order notes that the law has a disparate impact on Latinos, noting that 87 percent of people apprehended at the border in 2010 were of Mexican descent. While the federal government argued those statistics are a function of geography and Mexico’s proximity to the U.S. rather than discrimination, Du said the argument was unpersuasive.
“The federal government’s plenary power over immigration does not give it license to enact racially discriminatory statutes in violation of equal protection,” Du wrote.
. . . .
*************************
Read the complete article at the link,
Great decision! Notable for you “liberal artists” that historical analysis of racism and eugenics in America presented by Kelly Lytle Hernández, a history professor at UCLA, helped make the record and carry the day!
Just the kind of interdisciplinary interaction that permeates judging, particularly in immigration and human rights, and argues for more liberal arts grads with backgrounds in history, the humanities, linguistics, demographics, and social sciences on the Immigration Bench and the Article IIIs.
I’ve long criticized the “ahistorical” sometimes “anti-historical” approach taken by the BIA and other Federal Courts! For example, promoting the fiction that treaties, laws, ombudpersons, and even elections magically change centuries’ old animuses and make everything “hunky dory” for long-persecuted social, political, ethnic, religious, or racial groups.
Now, if we can only get the Article IIIs to do their job and hold the entire EOIR system, as currently operating, which has fatal racial bias, fairness, impartiality, expertise, and operational problems that make it a “walking violation of due process,” unconstititional, we could be on the way to the change America needs to bring an end to the present national disgrace in our Immigration Courts which is diminishing justice for everyone in America.
Additionally, despite life tenure, most Federal Courts have been reluctant to enforce the Constitution against the many Executive and Legislative abuses in the area of immigration and human rights. So, I would be disappointed, but not surprised, if this ruling is reversed on appeal.
Nevertheless, it’s an important step in exposing racism, connecting it with immigration, establishing truth, and fighting the Executive’s unconscionably bad and often illegal performance on immigration and race! While Garland might incorrectly think that immigration and human rights are “back burner” issues, by the time the NDPA is done with him they might well be issues that consume most of his time and irreparably damage his reputation. That’s why a wise Attorney General would be “leading the bandwagon for Article I” while immediately bringing in the progressive experts necessary to re-establish due process and efficiency at EOIR.
At any rate, this is exactly the kind of “creative disruption” that needs to happen until the system wakes up and makes the necessary progressive, due process, equal justice reforms long overdue at EOIR and other parts of the immigration bureaucracy.
USAToday: Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, a Trump appointee, directed the Biden administration to reinstate the program, saying the administration “failed to consider several critical factors” when ending the program. Kacsmaryk delayed his order for seven days to give the administration a chance to appeal.
Reuters: Mayorkas, speaking at a news conference in south Texas, did not provide details about which asylum seekers would be eligible to use the online system, but said further asylum changes would be announced in the coming days.
WaPo: The number of migrants detained along the Mexico border crossed a new threshold last month, exceeding 200,000 for the first time in 21 years, according to U.S. Customs and Border Protection enforcement data released Thursday.
NYT: By this week, at least 1,000 migrants were housed at the teeming camp, erected by the nearby city of McAllen as an emergency measure to contain the spread of the virus beyond the southwestern border. About 1,000 others are quarantined elsewhere in the Rio Grande Valley, some of them in hotel rooms paid for by a private charity.
Politico: Thousands of lawsuits on every aspect of immigration policy are pending from the Trump years — from challenges to the government’s moves to block asylum for specific individuals to roughly 100 lawsuits filed by the government to gain access to or seize land near the southern border for Trump’s border wall.
Newsweek: [S]ix months in, Biden’s administration and his Democrat-led Congress are spending millions more taxpayer dollars to expand detention and surveillance of immigrants. A private prison company is profiting from both.
WaPo: Last week, the Biden administration began the expulsion flights from the United States to the southern Mexican city of Villahermosa in a bid to deter repeat border crossers. Mexico agreed to accept those flights and said it would allow those who feared persecution in their home countries to apply for asylum. But the migrants — mostly from Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala — who have arrived in the remote Guatemalan border town of El Ceibo describe a chaotic series of expulsions, first from the United States in planes and then from Villahermosa to Guatemala by bus. They say they were not given an opportunity to seek refuge in Mexico.
CNN: The agency’s new policy, issued Wednesday, marks the latest effort by the Biden administration to pivot from the Trump administration and tailor enforcement priorities. Going forward, ICE will require agents and officers to help undocumented victims seek justice and facilitate access to immigration benefits, according to the agency.
WSJ: The situation complicates what has already been a yearslong wait for many of the 1.2 million immigrants—most of them Indians working in the tech sector—who have been waiting in line to become permanent residents in the U.S. and are watching a prime opportunity to win a green card slip away.
CBS: The death toll from a magnitude 7.2 earthquake in Haiti soared to at least 1,297 Sunday as rescuers raced to find survivors amid the rubble ahead of a potential deluge from an approaching tropical storm. Saturday’s earthquake also left at least 2,800 people injured in the Caribbean nation, with thousands more displaced from their destroyed or damaged homes.
TheCity: Lt. Gov. Kathy Hochul, speaking publicly for the first time as New York’s governor-to-be, insisted Wednesday she’s “evolved” since fighting against driver’s licenses for undocumented immigrants by threatening them with possible arrest and deportation.
AILA: The BIA dismissed the appeal after concluding that the respondent’s prior receipt of special rule cancellation of removal under the NACARA bars her from applying for cancellation of removal. Matter of Hernandez-Romero, 28 I&N Dec. 374 (BIA 2021)
Law360: The Third Circuit signed off Monday on an order from the New Jersey Attorney General’s Office barring law enforcement agencies from sharing certain information with federal immigration authorities, ruling in a precedential opinion that two federal statutes do not bar the directive since they regulate states and not private actors.
AILA: The court upheld the BIA’s denial of asylum to the Salvadoran petitioner, finding that his proposed particular social groups of “former members of MS-13” and “former members of MS-13 who leave for moral reasons” were overbroad and lacked social distinction. (Nolasco v. Garland, 8/2/21)
AILA: The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to review the BIA’s finding that the petitioner had not presented prima facie evidence of her eligibility for cancellation of removal pursuant to INA §242(a)(2)(B)(i). (Parada-Orellana v. Garland, 8/6/21)
AILA: The court held that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the petitioner’s motion to reopen, where the evidence showed that the poor conditions facing homosexuals and Christians in Somalia have remained substantially similar since the time of her hearing. (Yusuf v. Garland, 8/9/21)
AILA: The court held that the BIA did not err in finding that the petitioner’s proposed particular social group (PSG) of “Mexican mothers who refuse to work for the Cartel Jalisco Nueva Generación” was not sufficiently particularized or socially distinct. (Rosales-Reyes v. Garland, 8/4/21)
AILA: The court found that because petitioner had failed to rebut the presumption set out in the Attorney General’s decision in In re Y-L-, the BIA did not err in not considering her mental health as a factor in the particularly serious crime (PSC) analysis. (Gilbertson v. Garland, 8/2/21)
Law360: The Board of Immigration Appeals was wrong to deny administrative closure to a Mexican woman and her daughters while they had a U visa petition pending, an Eighth Circuit panel ruled, faulting the board’s reliance on now-vacated precedent.
AILA: Granting the petition for review, the court held that, because petitioner was not an applicant for admission, the BIA impermissibly applied the “clearly and beyond doubt” burden of proof in finding him inadmissible and therefore ineligible for adjustment of status. (Romero v. Garland, 8/2/21)
AILA: The court remanded for the BIA to consider in the first instance whether the petitioner was eligible for withholding of removal on account of his membership in the particular social group of “people erroneously believed to be gang members.” (Vasquez-Rodriguez v. Garland, 8/5/21)
AILA: The court held that Hawaii’s fourth degree theft statute, a petty misdemeanor involving property of less than $250, is overbroad with respect to the BIA’s definition of a crime involving moral turpitude (CIMT) and is indivisible, and granted the petition for review. (Maie v. Garland, 8/2/21)
Law360: The Ninth Circuit denied a Mexican man’s appeal of his deportation order Wednesday, saying the Board of Immigration Appeals was correct in ruling that his past conviction for marijuana possession made him ineligible for cancellation of removal.
AILA: The court held that the petitioner’s conviction in Florida under Fla. Stat. §790.23(1)(a) for being a felon in possession of a firearm did not constitute a “firearm offense” within the meaning of INA §237(a)(2)(C) and its cross-reference to 18 USC §921(a)(3). (Simpson v. Att’y Gen., 8/4/21)
Law360: A Texas federal judge on Friday extended for an additional 14 days an emergency order temporarily blocking Gov. Greg Abbott’s executive order restricting ground transportation of migrants detained at the border amid the COVID-19 pandemic.
Law360: An American who has waited years for his Pakistani wife to have her green card application processed is suing the federal government, blaming their visa limbo on what they call an illegal national security vetting program.
AILA: ICE released ICE Directive 11005.3, Using a Victim-Centered Approach with Noncitizen Crime Victims, with guidance on how it will handle civil immigration enforcement actions involving noncitizen crime victims.
AILA: USCIS SAVE issued guidance regarding Afghans who are eligible for Special Immigrant Visas and their special immigrant LPR status or special immigrant parole that meets the special immigrant requirement for certain government benefits.
AILA: USCIS stated that 8/12/21 through 9/30/21, it will extend the validity period for Form I-693, Report of Medical Examination and Vaccination Record, from two years now to four years due to COVID-19-related delays in processing. Guidance is effective 8/12/21, and comments are due by 9/13/21.
AILA: Executive order issued 8/9/21, imposing sanctions on those determined to have contributed to the suppression of democracy and human rights in Belarus, including suspending the unrestricted immigrant and nonimmigrant entry into the United States of such persons. (86 FR 43905, 8/11/21)
AILA: On 8/5/21, President Biden issued a memo directing DHS to defer for 18 months the removal of Hong Kong residents present in the United States on 8/5/21, with certain exceptions. (86 FR 43587, 8/10/21)
The article by Anita Kumar in Politico should be an “eye opener” for those progressive advocates who think Garland is committed to due process, equal justice, and best practices in Immigration Court and elsewhere in the still dysfunctional immigration bureaucracy. This particular quote stands out:
“The Department of Justice really was a center of gravity for some of the most…hideous anti- immigrant policies that came out of the Trump administration and really was in some ways ground zero for the anti-immigrant agenda of Donald Trump,” said Sergio Gonzales, who worked on the Biden transition and serves as executive director of the Immigration Hub. “And this is why it’s so critical that DOJ moves swiftly and aggressively to undo that agenda.”
I dare any advocate to claim Garland has moved “swiftly and aggressively” to undo the Miller White Nationalist agenda! Yes, after a crescendo of outrage and public pressure from NGOs, he has vacated four of the worst xenophobic and procedurally disastrous precedents. But, there are dozens more out there that should have been reversed by now.
More important, returning the law to its pre-Trump state is highly unlikely to bring meaningful change and fairer results as long as far too many of the Immigration Judges and BIA Judges charged with applying that law are Trump-era appointees, some with notorious records of anti-immigrant bias and a number who have denied almost every asylum case that came before them. (And, it’s not like A-R-C-G- was fairly and consistently applied during the Obama Administration, which largely gave “the big middle finger” to progressives in appointments to the Immigration Judiciary).
Is an IJ who was denying nearly 100% of A-R-C-G- cases (and in some cases misogynistically demeaning female refugees in the process) even prior to A-B- suddenly going to start granting legal protection? Not likely!
Are BIA Judges who got “elevated” under Trump by being notorious members of the “Almost 100% Denial Club” suddenly going to have a “group ephifany” and start properly and generously applying A-R-C-G- to female refugees and insisting that trial judges do the same? No way!
Is a BIA where notorious asylum deniers are heavily over-represented and others have shown a pronounced tendency to “go along to get along” with Miller-type xenophobic White Nationalist policies now going to do a “complete 360” and start churning out “positive precedents” requiring IJs to fairly and generously grant asylum as contemplated in long-forgotten (yet still correct) precedents like Cardoza-Fonseca, Mogharrabi, and Kasinga? Not gonna happen!
Will a few rumored, long delayed progressive expert appointments to the Immigration Judiciary “turn the tide” ofsystemic dysfunction, intellectual dishonesty, anti-immigrant, anti-asylum “culture,” lack of expertise, and dereliction of due process and fundamental fairness at EOIR? Of course not!
So, progressives, don’t kid yourselves that Garland has “seen the light” and is on your side. Judge him by his actions and appointments!
Note, that unlike Sessions and Barr, it’s actually hard to judge Garland on his rhetoric, because there isn’t much. He’s five months into running a nationwide system of dysfunctional “star chambers.”
But, to date, he hasn’t uttered a single inspiring pronouncement on returning due process, fundamental fairness, human dignity, decisional excellence, or professionalism to EOIR, connecting the dots between immigrant justice and racial justice, or given any warning that those who don’t “get the message” will be getting different jobs or heading out the door.
I still remember my first personal encounter with AG Janet Reno when she exhorted everyone at the BIA to promote “equal justice for all!” I still think of it, and it’s still “on my daily agenda” — over a quarter century later, even after the end of my EOIR career!
Where are Garland’s “inspiring words” or “statements of values” on immigrant justice and equal justice for all!Actions count, but rhetoric in support of those actions is also important. So far, Garland basically has “zeroed out” on both counts!
Yes, along with the entire immigration community, I cheered the appointment of Lucas Guttentag! But, Lucas isn’t deciding cases, nor has he to date brought the progressive experts to EOIR Management and repopulated the BIA with progressive expert judges who will end the due process abuses and grotesque injustices at EOIR and start holding IJs with anti-asylum, anti-migrant, anti-due-process agendas accountable.
Also unacceptably, progressive litigators haven’t been brought in to assume control of the Office of Immigration Litigation (“OIL”) and end wasteful, and often ethically questionable, defense of the indefensible in immigration cases in the Article IIIs.
We need bold, progressive, due process/fundamental fairness/racial justice reforms! It’s got to start with major progressive personnel changes! And, it should already have started at EOIR!
The best laws, regulations, precedents, and policies in the world will remain ineffective so long as far too many of those judges and senior executives charged with carrying them out lack demonstrated commitment to progressive values, not to mention relevant, practical expertise advancing human and civil rights!
Contrary to what many think, bureaucracy can be moved by those with the knowledge, guts, determination, and commitment to do it! Seven months after Biden’s inauguration, the DOJ remains a disaster with the situation at EOIR leading the way!
It didn’t have to be that way! It’s unacceptable! Foot dragging squanders opportunities, wastes resources, and, worst of all, actually costs lives and futures where immigration is at stake. This isn’t “ordinary civil litigation!” It’s past time for tone-deaf and inept Dem Administrations to stop treating it as such!
The following item from Angelika Albaladejo at Newsweek should also be a “clarion call” to advocates who might have thought this Administration (and even Congressional Dems) has a real interest in human rights reforms.
Here’s the essence:
President Joe Biden promised to end prolonged immigration detention and reinvest in alternatives that help immigrants navigate the legal process while living outside of government custody. These promises were part of Biden’s campaign platform and the reform bill he sent to Congress on his first day in the White House.
But six months in, Biden’s administration and his Democrat-led Congress are spending millions more taxpayer dollars to expand detention and surveillance of immigrants. A private prison company is profiting from both.
Meanwhile, community case management—which past pilot programs and international studies suggest is less expensive while more effective and humane—is receiving comparatively little support.
Same old same old! Election is over, immigration progressives who helped elect Dems are forgotten, and human rights becomes an afterthought —or, in this case, worse!
Progressives must continue to confront a largely intransigent and somewhat disingenuous Administration. A barrage of litigation that will tie up the DOJ until someone pays attention and, in a best case, forces change on a tone-deaf and recalcitrantAdministration, is a starting point.
But, it’s also going to take concerted political pressure from a group whose role in the Dem Party and massive contributions to stabilizing our democracy over the past four years is consistently disrespected and undervalued (until election time) by the “Dem political ruling class!”
Legislation to create an Article I Immigration Court and get Garland, his malfunctioning DOJ, and his infuriating “what me worry/care attitude” completely out of the picture has also become a legal and moral imperative, although still “a tough nut to crack” in practical/political terms. But, we have to give it our best shot!
Actions (including, most important, personnel changes) solve problems and save lives! Unfulfilled promises, campaign slogans, and fundraising pitches not so much!
Many who helped put Biden and Garland in office believed that “Americans Gulags” and “EOIR StarChambers” would be a thing of the past by now. But, outrageously, they are still alive, well, and thriving in the Biden Administration, even being expanded and defended by Garland’s team of morally and ethically challenged DOJ lawyers. “The Inspiring Words & Deeds of AG Merrick Garland on Immigrant Justice” would fill a book about as large as “The Combined Wisdom & Humanity of Donald Trump & Stephen Miller.” Oh well, at least the Grim Reaper must be happy with the way things are going! Image: Hernan Fednan, Creative Commons License
😎Due Process Forever! Star Chambers and the New American Gulag, Never!
“In sum, we conclude that the BIA abused its discretion in two respects: it departed from established policy when it failed either to apply the Sanchez Sosa factors or to remand to allow the IJ do so, and it failed to provide a rational explanation for its decision, including its treatment of this court’s binding precedent in Caballero-Martinez. … We grant the petition for review, vacate the BIA’s May 2020 order, and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
[Hats off to David L. Wilson and amici Immigrant Law Center of Minnesota, ASISTA Immigration Assistance Project and National Network To End Domestic Violence!]
*******************************
Folks, all of this nonsense, delay, needless litigation, and remarkable legal/judicial incompetence was for the “purpose” of denying a well-deserved continuance to a U visa applicant — what should have been about a 5-minute positive adjudication, at max. No wonder the Federal Courts are clogged, the EOIR backlog grows, and the system has lost all respect and credibility!
I wish that Lucas Guttentag, Lisa Monaco, Vanita Gupta, and Merrick Garland would explain to all of us what is the purpose of an “expert tribunal” that lacks expertise, fundamental legal skills, judicial independence, moral courage, and common sense, as well as the backbone to have stood up to folks like Sessions and Barr (see, e.g., the Census Bureau career civil servants for stark contrast).
EOIR needs, among other things, changes at the top, real courageous progressive leadership, and a new, well-qualified, progressive, practical, expert BIA that puts due process and fair adjudication above all else. The practical experts are out there! Lucas knows exactly who should be leaders, role models, and appellate judges at the BIA! He knows that EOIR is the one critically important Federal Judiciary that can be transformed in the short run into a progressive, due-process-focused, “model judiciary!” Every day wasted in making the necessary changes in personnel and procedures is a life-changing, life-preserving opportunity wasted!
So, what’s the delay? Why is this nonsense, injustice, and waste of resources continuing nearly seven months into the Biden Administration? What’s with the continuing, due-process-denying, corner-cutting, sophomoric “denial quotas” for EOIR “judges” that produce wasteful, unjust “garbage adjudications” like this litigation exemplifies?
Lucas Guttentag Senior Counselor to the Deputy Attorney General
It shouldn’t be this hard to get long, long overdue, well-documented, common sense, readily achievable changes at EOIR! It shouldn’t be this hard for asylum seekers and other migrants, as well as their long-suffering representatives, to get the due process and fair and impartial adjudication that is their absolute right under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to our Constitution!
Additionally, the status quo does not guarantee that no one will be present in the United States without permission. In fact, with the plenary power doctrine in place, there are approximately 10 million individuals living in the United States without permission. (And most of them crossed the border legally, entering the territory with legal authorization for some period that expired.) Despite this, the United States continues to exist. Noncitizens, however, are denied more independent adjudicators under the false idea that by denying them we somehow protect the nation’s sovereignty. These are complex lives interwoven with our communities, businesses, schools, and the lives of US citizens. The failure to provide fair process affects more than just the noncitizen; in fact, it degrades our democracy and affects us all.
Perhaps the sovereignty fear is shorthand for something else? Is it an objection to multiculturalism? The reflection of a desire to give the president power to thwart statutory immigration law? Or perhaps courts and policymakers have been invoking the phrase “plenary power” for so long that it has become an out of date, knee-jerk reaction.
Sovereignty and foreign policy will remain intact even with more independent immigration adjudication. The sovereignty fear is a distraction from what really needs our attention; we should not let it stop us from providing fair process.
*******************
The threat to our democracy hardly comes from those seeking legal refuge to save their lives or to find meaningful work to support their families and contribute to society.A more robust and fair legal immigration system would assist in identifying the relatively small percentage of migrants who seek to do us harm.
No, the bigger threat comes from GOP neo-fascist insurrectionists and their spineless political enablers who actively seek to undermine our democracy with lies and White Nationalist racism.
In a more functional system, Professor Family and those like her who understand and are committed to the “big picture” of American democracy and equal justice for all would be the Appellate Immigration Judges and Article III Judges — jurists ready and willing to stand up to Executive abuses of authority! The Immigration Courts should be the “starting place” for restoring and reinforcing American democracy. Does the Biden Administration have the vision and guts to make it happen?
USCIS: Individuals applying for Haiti TPS must submit Form I-821, Application for Temporary Protected Status, during the 18-month initial registration period that runs from Aug. 3, 2021, through Feb. 3, 2023. Haiti TPS applicants are eligible to file Form I-821 online.
TRAC: The number of new cases continues to severely outpace the rate at which judges can keep up, resulting in a growing backlog that is approaching 1.4 million.
ImmProf: A Biden administration official announced last week that the government has processed green card applications at such a slow pace that it will come at least 100,000 slots short of using up the annual limit. Without drastic revisions in the glacial processing times, President Biden will have presided over one of the largest cuts to legal immigration in U.S. history — and almost no one is talking about it.
AIC: All told, available data shows that ICE arrested 674 potential U.S. citizens, detained 121, and deported 70 during the time frame the government watchdog analyzed.
NYT: Mr. Biden said on Thursday night that White House staff were “putting out a message right now” that “we should include in the reconciliation bill the immigration proposal.”
Hill: Although the document is deeply critical of the Trump administration, it leads with border management, relegating the Biden administration’s “root causes” initiative to the last section.
Vox: [D]iversity visa lottery winners who applied for visas amid the Covid-19 pandemic now risk losing their opportunity to come to the US — in part because the State Department has continued the Trump-era policy of deprioritizing their applications.
Buzzfeed: Thirty-two unaccompanied immigrant children who were deported to Guatemala despite a judge’s order have yet to be brought back to the US to apply for asylum, six months after the government admitted it was in the wrong. Now, immigration advocates are ramping up pressure on the Biden administration to speed up the process.
Reuters: Garland’s letter comes just a day after Abbott signed the order, which states that “no person, other than a federal, state, or local law-enforcement official, shall provide ground transportation to a group of migrants” who have been detained by federal immigration officials for crossing the border.
AP: Unless there’s a legal challenge or other exception, ICE’s options are to either transfer current detainees in Illinois to other states or release them.
WaPo: “The IRS is aware some taxpayers who filed tax returns with ITIN numbers did not receive their child tax credit payment for July. We have worked expeditiously to correct this issue and these taxpayers will start receiving payments in August. All impacted taxpayers will receive their July payment.”
Advance copy of USCIS notice announcing the designation of Haiti for Temporary Protected Status for 18 months, effective 8/3/21 through 2/3/23. The notice will be published in the Federal Register on 8/3/21. AILA Doc. No. 21073002
Lexis: Matter of Aguilar-Barajas, 28 I&N Dec. 354 (BIA 2021) (1) The offense of aggravated statutory rape under section 39-13-506(c) of the Tennessee Code Annotated is categorically a “crime of child abuse” within the meaning of section 237(a)(2)(E)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(E)(i) (2018). (2) The Supreme Court’s holding that a statutory rape offense does not…
Law360: The Eighth Circuit refused on Thursday to review a Honduran man’s bid for deportation relief reserved for victims of child abuse, saying the government had discretion to decide he didn’t deserve exemption because of his criminal history.
Law360: A split Ninth Circuit panel denied a Mexican woman’s petition for review of her deportation, which was previously blocked due to the ambiguous nature of her drug conviction, citing a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling that an unclear conviction alone cannot save an applicant’s case.
Lexis: Maie v. Garland “Maie’s petition contends that his petty theft convictions are not categorically CIMTs. The government’s initial response argued only that Maie failed to preserve this argument. For reasons explained more fully below, we conclude that Maie’s argument was not waived. Because Maie’s argument presents an issue we have yet to address in a published opinion, we ordered supplemental…
Lexis: Romero v. Garland “Romero had been admitted before he applied for adjustment of status. Thus, he is not now an “applicant for admission,” and therefore the “clearly and beyond doubt” burden does not apply. Rather, the “preponderance of the evidence” burden from 8 C.F.R. § 1240.8(d) applies. … [W]e remand for the BIA to reconsider whether Romero met his burden to show by…
Law360: An LGBTQ American expat is closing down her lawsuit seeking to obtain citizenship for her daughter born overseas, following a policy change from the Biden administration that allowed the child to secure a passport even though she’s not biologically related to a U.S. citizen.
AILA: The United States filed a lawsuit in federal district court against Texas and its governor, Greg Abbott, alleging that the governor’s 7/28/21 executive order relating to the transportation of certain migrants during the COVID-19 pandemic is unlawful. (United States v. Texas, et al., 7/30/21) AILA Doc. No. 21080239
Politico: The American Civil Liberties Union on Monday announced it will resume a lawsuit against the Biden administration to force an end to the use of a provision of U.S. health code known as Title 42 to expel migrant families arriving at the border.
AILA: DHS announced that it resumed expedited removal flights for certain families who recently arrived at the southern border, cannot be expelled under Title 42, and do not have a legal basis to stay in the United States. CBP returned individuals to Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras. AILA Doc. No. 21080231
AILA: DOS announced that certain Afghan nationals and their eligible family members are now eligible for a Priority 2 designation granting U.S. Refugee Admissions Program access. Notice outlines eligibility. AILA Doc. No. 21080240
AILA: USCIS announced the opening of a new asylum office in Tampa, Florida on August 2, 2021, in response to an increasing asylum workload in Florida. This is the 11th asylum office in the country and the second in Florida. The Tampa and Miami asylum offices will divide the state’s asylum workload.AILA Doc. No. 21080238
AILA: DHS published its semiannual regulatory agenda providing a summary of projected regulations, existing regulations, and completed actions of DHS and its components. (86 FR 41226, 7/30/21) AILA Doc. No. 21080237
Immigration Court backlogs continue to mushroom as Garland to date has failed to take the aggressive measures needed and recommended to slash the docket by getting so-called “non-priority” cases off the docket (see, e.g., “Chen/Moskowitz proposal”) and bringing in more “progressive practical scholar judges” who know how to complete cases without compromising due process;
Biden’s announced support for “immigration legislation by reconciliation” might be the best shot for an Article I Immigration Court — is it an “idea whose time has finally come” as Judge Dana Leigh Marks, long-time Article I advocate, said recently;
Biden Administration mindlessly chooses to go to war with ACLU and human rights advocates on continued abuse of Title 42 to suspend asylum at the border (why not instead enlist these experts to restore a functioning asylum system at the border?);
ICE evidently has been deporting U.S. citizens, and not just “one or two;”
Circuits continue to “ding” BIA on basics like standard of proof, categorical approach;
Lucas Guttentag arrives on the scene @ DOJ not a moment too soon— but he’ll need lots of expert help on the inside to “right this sinking ship;”
Haste makes waste once again, as Gov. drags feet on returning 32 illegally removed children, spurring yet more unnecessary litigation (what about getting it right the first time around? — saves time and resources, also lives!);
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/immigration/2021/07/lets-call-the-border-crisis-what-it-is-another-big-lie-from-the-right.html is also a “good read.” It seems pretty obvious, as many of us have been saying over and over, that having no legal system for screening and admitting refugees would add to the number of apprehensions and illegal entries — what other choice do desperate refugees have under the dysfunctional system maliciously created by Trump and mindlessly and illegally being maintained by Biden? Blaming the “victims” for our Government’s own intellectually dishonest, scofflaw, and immoral actions is a particularly cowardly thing to do! After nearly seven months in office (and over two months to prepare after the election) there is no excuse for the Biden Administration’s failure to have in place a fair and efficient asylum system, staffed by experts and better IJs who understand asylum and protection laws and are willing and well-qualified to grant relief to the deserving! Properly screening and establishing an orderly, fair adjudication system, with the assistance of NGOs and legal aid groups across the nation, would take pressure off of border communities. It would also allow qualified asylum seekers to become legal residents and begin fully contributing to our society and economy. Almost all experts, economists, and demographers say we need more legal immigration. Here it is staring us in the face; but, our Government wastes time and resources futilely trying to deter and expel folks who can help us out (while saving their own lives — a “win-win”)!
“Thomas Malthus was wrong about economics, but he would be delighted with the GOP’s dishonest “beggar thy neighbor” policies!” Creative Commons 4.0
If you’ve taken Econ 101, you were probably taught that the economy is a zero-sum game. If I win, another economic actor has to lose. One group’s gains mean another’s losses. The issue with that theory? It’s not only wrong, it’s dangerous: Nationalist leaders around the world have played on voters’ fears by threatening that the economic progress of immigrants and minorities will result in losses for everyone else.
The truth is, life isn’t a zero-sum game. A growing body of evidence actually shows that inclusion isn’t just compatible with economic growth – it’s absolutely necessary.
On this week’s episode of Nick Hanauer’s podcast Pitchfork Economics, JP Julien discusses a report that he co-wrote as a leader of global management consulting firm McKinsey & Company’s Institute for Black Economic Mobility. This think tank isn’t in the business of getting accolades from progressive circles – or conservative ones – it’s focused on the cold, hard data. Here’s what Julien told us about economic inclusion:
When more people can fully participate in the economy, we all win
Julien says that when people from all races and backgrounds are able to participate as workers, entrepreneurs, and consumers, the economy is stronger and more resilient. There’s already plenty of evidence for this theory: Between 1960 and 2010, 40% of GDP growth can be directly tied to women and people of color joining the labor force. “The data speaks quite clearly that the more we get people to participate, the better outcomes we produce,” Julien says.
Economic discrimination hurts all of us
There’s a staggering price tag on economic discrimination against people of color and women in America. In his paper, Julien found that eliminating wealth disparities between Black and white households and Hispanic and white households could add $2 to $3 trillion of incremental annual GDP to the U.S. economy. And if more women join the workforce over the coming years, we could add $2.1 trillion in GDP by 2025.
These gains aren’t zero-sum numbers; they don’t come at the expense of the economic value of white men – those numbers are in addition to that growth. That means America’s missing out on at least $5 trillion of economic activity because whole demographics have been shut out of the economy.
Corporations that focus on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion outperform their peers
From the end of last year to this May, we’ve seen Fortune 1000 companies spend $66 billion in racial equity commitments. That’s because of a growing consensus among Fortune 1000 companies that being good corporate citizens actually creates economic opportunities. In his research, Julien found that corporations with more diverse boards and diverse leadership teams actually outperform their peers. It’s becoming impossible to ignore: DEI policies lead to a better and more profitable workplace.
For centuries, our economy has been constructed around exclusionary policies that shut out women and people of color – and this is discrimination is taking a toll on everyday Americans and our country’s economic growth. We can all win by increasing inclusion in the economic playing field – but we’re going to need all hands on deck to tear down this unfair economic system, and that means we need your help right now.
We’ve created an urgent poll to show support for win-win policies that allow everyone to participate in our economic system. We need 5,000 people to answer this one question before 11:59 p.m. tonight, and we’re counting on you to cast your vote tonight. Tell us now:
Does economic inclusion lead to greater economic growth?
“For centuries, our economy has been constructed around exclusionary policies that shut out women and people of color – and this discrimination is taking a toll on everyday Americans and our country’s economic growth.”
Couldn’t help thinking of these words as I listened to insurrectionist/traitor “Cancun Ted” Cruz pontificate about why it’s OK to exploit farmworker labor and mischaracterize a long-overdue and well-earned legal status as “amnesty” in responding to Sen. Alex Padilla (D-CA) during a hearing yesterday on helping farm workers.
Despite the noxious, racist, White Nationalist bogus rhetoric of Cruz, Gov. Gregg Abbott, and other GOP political hacks from the Lone Star State, Texas and its economy would indeed be in dire straits without the economic and cultural contributions of migrants, both documented and undocumented. So would the rest of us without the essential services, productivity, and societal contributions of immigrants of all types. Indeed, without immigrants of all types, Native Americans would be the only inhabitants of America.
We need immigration laws and policies built on truth and optimism about the future, not the “beggar thy neighbor” White Nationalist myths of the nativist restrictionists!
“The immigration courts were completely upended by the Trump administration, but what awaits them under this new administration? Join Immigration Judge Amiena Khan, President of the National Association of Immigration Judges, and Julia Preston, Contributing Writer at The Marshall Project, for a discussion on the future of the immigration courts.
The two will discuss where the judge’s union stands in its decertification fight; what judges are hoping to see from this administration and what the lasting impacts of the past 4 years will be.
Join us at 1 pm on July 23rd, 2021
Panelists:
Hon. Amiena Khan:
Judge Khan is the President of NAIJ. Judge Khan was appointed as a United States Immigration Judge in New York by Attorney General Eric Holder in December 2010. In her personal capacity, she is a member of the Federal Bar Association (FBA) and is the Vice-Chair of the Federal Bar Association Immigration Law Section.
Judge Khan is appearing in her capacity as President of NAIJ. Her views do not represent the official position of the Department of Justice, the Attorney General, or the Executive Office for Immigration Review. Her views represent her personal opinions, which were formed after extensive consultation with NAIJ membership.
Julia Preston:
Julia Preston is a Contributing Writer at The Marshall Project. Preston previously worked for 21 years at The New York Times. She was the National Correspondent covering immigration from 2006 through 2016, and a correspondent in Mexico from 1995 through 2001, among other assignments. She is a 2020 winner of an Online Journalism Award for Explanatory Reporting, for a series by The Marshall Project on myths about immigration and crime. She was a member of the Times staff who won the 1998 Pulitzer Prize for reporting on international affairs, for a series on the corrosive effects of drug corruption in Mexico.
Time
Jul 23, 2021 01:00 PM in Eastern Time (US and Canada)
* Required information
First Name *
Last Name *
Email Address *
Confirm Email Address *
Information you provide when registering will be shared with the account owner and host and can be used and shared by them in accordance with their Terms and Privacy Policy.
Register”
************************
Should be a great panel from two real experts from the NDPA!
Sadly, however, it’s not clear that Judge Garland, Lisa Monaco, Vanita Gupta, Kristen Clarke, and others who are supposed to be fixing the dysfunction will be among the audience. Nor do I see much concrete evidence that they have established a meaningful dialogue with those, like Amiena and Julia, who have the expertise and creative problem solving ability to fix the DOJ’s embarrassingly broken “courts” before more migrants and their attorneys are abused.
In my view, and the view of many others, the “destructive phase” of the last four years moved much more rapidly and with more purpose than the “reconstructive and improvement phase” that was promised by the Biden Administration.
There are still far too many of those who were “part of the problem” in key positions, and far, far too few, if any, dynamic new faces who have been brought in (or promoted from within) with the capability and the mandate to fix the mess, establish progressive values, and return to a due process/fundamental fairness/best practices focus!
There are “reliable rumors” of some better appointments in the offing. But, it hasn’t happened till it happens.
If Republicans are truly worried about the supposed scourge of undocumented immigrants, they should start building that “big, beautiful door” on our borders that Donald Trump always talked about.
The solution to concerns about “illegal immigration” is creating more legal pathways to immigrate here.
Immigration reform has stalled for decades, despite widespread agreement that the existing system is broken, and occasional bipartisan attempts to fix it. The latest sweeping reform bill, backed by President Biden, has gone nowhere, unlikely to secure enough Republican votes to avoid a filibuster.
So now Senate Democrats are attempting a workaround. They’ve signaled that they’ll include a narrow subset of immigration issues in their forthcoming reconciliation bill, which could be passed with only Democratic votes.
Exact details are still being hashed out, but the bill is expected to contain a pathway to citizenship for certain categories of undocumented immigrants, including “dreamers” (unauthorized immigrants who came to the United States as children), those with temporary protected status (people from countries facing emergencies such as armed conflict or natural disaster), essential workers and farm laborers.
A majority of both Democratic and Republican voters support earned legalization of these groups, according to recent polls.
This legislative strategy is by no means a slam-dunk. Moderate Democratic lawmakers need to get on board, since passing the bill through the reconciliation process would require all 50 Senate Democrats’ votes. The biggest wild card, Sen. Joe Manchin III (D-W.Va.), has already indicated his support, which seems promising.
The bigger hurdle involves legislative rules: The Senate parliamentarian must determine that these immigration measures are sufficiently budget-related to include in the reconciliation process. Legalizing millions of undocumented migrants would have some effect on federal budgets — for example, through more immigration application fees and taxes on legalized immigrants’ earnings. Activists also point to a 2005 reconciliation bill that included different immigration-related provisions. Even so, the parliamentarian may nix these particular measures.
None of this has stopped Republicans from preemptive scaremongering about the “illegal alien” hordes supposedly rushing our “open borders” to seize their “amnesty.”
“Democrats are trying to sneak mass amnesty for millions of illegal immigrants through Congress under the cover of their budget scheme,” warned Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.).
“The Democrats want to include a massive amnesty in that legislation,” echoed his colleague Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.). “That will simply act as a bigger magnet for more illegal immigration into this country.”
This is nonsense. First and foremost, the population eligible for legalization would likely be restricted to people who’ve already been here for some minimum period of time, rather than those contemplating coming, say, tomorrow. This is how that broader, Biden-backed bill works, and how previous legalization proposals have been structured.
More importantly, though, if these restrictionists are really so concerned about all the immigrants slipping in through the back door, the best solution is a more accessible, clearly monitored front door.
. . . .
***********************
Well and clearly said, Catherine! You can read her complete op-Ed at the above link.
The solution to border “surges” has little or nothing to do with walls, jails, and more agents. The prerequisites are reopening the ports of entry, restoring the legal asylum system, staffing it with experts, and expanding other legal immigration opportunities as Catherine cogently suggests!
NEW YORK, July 16 (Reuters) – A U.S. federal judge in Texas on Friday blocked new applications to a program that protects immigrants who were brought to the United States as children from deportation but said the hundreds of thousands of people already enrolled would not be affected until further court rulings.
U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen sided with a group of states suing to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, arguing it was illegally created by former President Barack Obama in 2012.
Hanen found the program violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) when it was created but said that since there were so many people currently enrolled in the program – nearly 650,000 – his ruling would be temporarily stayed for their cases until further court rulings in the case.
“To be clear,” the judge said, the order does not require the government to take “any immigration, deportation or criminal action against any DACA recipient.”
. . . .
**************
Read the rest of Mica’s article at the link.
The obvious solution is legislation. But, the GOP is likely to oppose any reasonable proposal, and the Dems might not have the votes to “go it alone.”
This WashPost headline and Post Supreme Court reporter Robert Barnes’s summary say it all!
Supreme Court rules against immigrants claiming safety fears after deportation and for pipeline builders
By Robert Barnes
June 29 at 5:22 PM ET
. . . .
In the immigration case, the court was considering the rights of a relatively small subset of immigrants: those who were deported once before but reentered the United States illegally because they say they faced threats at home.
At issue was a complex federal law that authorizes the government to detain immigrants and which section of it applies to these types of cases.
One piece of the law says, “the alien may receive a bond hearing before an immigration judge” and thus the chance to be free while proceedings continue, Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. wrote for the majority. In the other, the immigrant is considered “removed,” and indefinite detention is warranted.
Alito and his fellow conservative justices said it was the second that applied, and the detainees do not get a bond hearing. The court’s three liberals objected.
The case involved people who an immigration officer found had credible fears of danger or persecution in their home countries. For instance, Rodriguez Zometa said he was threatened with death by the 18th Street Gang when he was removed to his home country of El Salvador.
The question of whether the government could hold the immigrants without a hearing before an immigration judge had divided courts around the country. The case was argued before President Biden took office, and lawyers for the Trump administration told the court immigrants were not entitled to a hearing.
Alito said Congress had good reason to be more restrictive with those who came back into the country after being deported. “Aliens who reentered the country illegally after removal have demonstrated a willingness to violate the terms of a removal order, and they therefore may be less likely to comply with the reinstated order” that they leave, he said.
He was joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil M. Gorsuch, Brett M. Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett.
The court’s liberals, Justices Stephen G. Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, saw it differently and would have affirmed the victory the plaintiffs won at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit in Richmond.
“Why would Congress want to deny a bond hearing to individuals who reasonably fear persecution or torture, and who, as a result, face proceedings that may last for many months or years?” Breyer wrote. “I can find no satisfactory answer to this question.”
Nice summary, Robert! You can read the rest of Barnes’s report at the link. Indeed, Justice Breyer’s cogent question quoted in the articleremains unanswered by the wooden legal gobbledygook in the majority decision, devoid of much understanding of how the dysfunctional Immigration Courts and the DHS “New American Gulag” actually operate and dismissive of what it actually means to be a refugee seeking to exercise legal rights in today’s world.
At issue: The right of non-criminal foreign nationals who have established a “reasonable fear” of persecution or torture if deported to apply for bond pending Immigration Court hearings on the merits of their cases. Getting a bond hearing before an Immigration Judge does not in any way guarantee release; just that the decision to detain or release on bond will be based on the individual facts and circumstances. Individuals released from detention have a much better chance of obtaining counsel and gathering the documentation necessary to win their cases. They are also much less likely to be “coerced” by DHS detention into surrendering viable claims and appeal rights.
Majority’s response: These “aliens” have neither rights nor humanity that any life-tenured GOP-appointed judge is bound to respect.
Alternative: There is a readily available alternative statutory interpretation, adopted by the 4th Circuit and the dissent, that would recognize the human and legal rights of vulnerable refugees seeking legal protection and give them hearings on continuing custody in substandard conditions (in some instances, conditions in the “DHS New American Gulag” fall well below those that would be imposed on convicted felons).
You can’t win ‘em all: The Round Table was one of many organizations filing an amicus brief on behalf of the refugees and in support of the position adopted by the 4th Circuit and the dissent. While we were unsuccessful on this one, at least we are on the “right side of history.”
Creative suggestion: Detainees should incorporate, perhaps as a pipeline company, or better yet a gun rights’ group, so that they would have legal rights and be treated as “persons” (e.g., “humans”) by the Supremes’ GOP majority.
Next steps:
Advocates should prevail on the Biden Administration to change the regulations to give this limited subclass of applicants for protection a chance to seek bond before an Immigration Judge;
Advocates should keep up the pressure on the Biden Administration and Garland to appoint better judges at EOIR: progressive practical experts, who know how to grant legal protection efficiently and fairly and who will establish appropriate legal precedents to help these cases move through the EOIR system on the merits in a timely and fundamentally fair manner consistent with due process. The length of time it takes “Withholding Only” cases to move through the Immigration Courts has lots to do with: unfair, coercive detention practices by DHS; poor judging and bad precedents at EOIR; incompetent “judicial administration” and politicized “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” @ EOIR by DOJ politicos and their EOIR “retainers.”
Long term solution:
Support and vote for progressive legislators who will revise the immigration laws to do away with the unnecessary and wasteful“New American Gulag;”
Vote progressive candidates for President and the Senate: political officials committed to putting better Federal Judges on the bench at all levels — “practical scholars” with real experience representing the most vulnerable in society and who will tirelessly enforce due process, equal protection, human rights, and fundamental fairness for all persons regardless of race, religion, or status; judges who understand and will seriously reflect on the “real life” human consequences of their decisions. Better judges for a better America!
“Sadly, over the last two decades the US has been unable to get beyond this vision of ‘deterrence’ of legal asylum seekers.“ — Floaters — “How The World’s Richest Country Responds To Asylum Seekers” EDS NOTE: GRAPHIC CONTENT – The bodies of Salvadoran migrant Oscar Alberto Mart??nez Ram??rez and his nearly 2-year-old daughter Valeria lie on the bank of the Rio Grande in Matamoros, Mexico, Monday, June 24, 2019, after they drowned trying to cross the river to Brownsville, Texas. Martinez’ wife, Tania told Mexican authorities she watched her husband and child disappear in the strong current. (AP Photo/Julia Le Duc)Vice President Kamala D. Harris Vice President of the United States. — “So far, she hasn’t gotten beyond the mistakes of the past, either. Taking a tour with CBP won’t help.” (Official Senate Photo)
Last week, Ms. Harris traveled to Guatemala to meet with President Alejandro Giammattei and expressed the Biden administration’s goal to “help Guatelmalans find hope at home.” During a press conference on June 7, she told Guatemalans thinking of making the journey north to the United States: “Do not come. Do not come.”
“O.K., that’s like saying, ‘Stay home and die,’” according to the Rev. Pat Murphy, a Scalabrini priest who runs the Casa del Migrante shelter in Tijuana, Baja California. “That message is falling on deaf ears.”
If Ms. Harris does travel to the border, Father Murphy said, she should be sure to make a visit to the Mexican side. “If she just stays on her side, she’s not going to find much,” he said.
In Tijuana, Ms. Harris would see a camp of 2,000 asylum seekers near the port of entry, Father Murphy said. “If she looked a little further, she would see the people who are victims of violence in Tijuana and Mexicali and other places,” he said. Migrants may be eager to escape bad situations in their home countries, Father Murphy said, but they often do not understand how difficult conditions at the border are “until they’re stuck in the middle of [a border city] with no place to go.”
“You can’t understand [border realities] by talking to government officials. You have to talk to the people who are working with migrants and hear about the suffering.”
At diminished capacity because of the pandemic, migrant shelters are full. The United States has started to accept some vulnerable people, like families with children with an illness or those being persecuted because of their sexual orientation, Father Murphy said. But there are also hundreds deported every day.
He believes if the vice president did decide to visit the border, it would be worth her while. “You can’t understand [border realities] by talking to government officials,” Father Murphy said. “You have to talk to the people who are working with migrants and hear about the suffering.”
. . . .
Donald M. Kerwin Executive Director Center for Migration Studies
Donald Kerwin, the executive director of the Center for Migration Studies in New York, also noted that people have a right not to migrate—to stay in their home country. He sees immigration policy as an arena for a fruitful convergence of Catholic social teaching, international law and contemporary human rights principles.
The Biden administration’s recognition of the forces that drive migration should be applauded, but it can address root causes while re-establishing humane asylum policies at the border.
“States are responsible for ensuring that people can flourish at home,” he said. “But it’s an empty right at this point in many communities in the Northern Triangle countries. They’re facing impossible conditions, caused by natural disasters, climate change, gang violence and extraordinary poverty. So people have a right to flee those impossible conditions and seek lives that are worthy of human dignity. In some cases, that means leaving their countries.”
When they do leave their home countries, people have the right to seek protection wherever they can find it, Mr. Kerwin said. “The vice president seems to have bought into the… I can’t use another word, but the nativist party line, that somehow these immigrants are the cause of the problem when, in fact, they’re the victims of multiple problems in many cases.”
The United States needs a functioning refugee resettlement system, an asylum system and robust humanitarian programs to address the conditions in Central America that are driving people to migrate, he said. “They’re not in place right now,” Mr. Kerwin said, “and until they are in place, people will reluctantly, at a terrible cost…continue to migrate.”
If Ms. Harris visits the border, Mr. Kerwin suggested she speak with migrants that have entered the United States, starting with the children. “Find out why they’ve come, what drove them to the United States and also see what their situation is currently, in often overcrowded facilities,” he said. “At that point, it would be clear as day that these folks are not a problem. These folks fled terrible problems, but they themselves are not the problem.”
Earlier this month, more than 20 bishops, Vatican representatives and leaders of Catholic organizations met for an emergency immigration meeting at Mundelein Seminary, outside of Chicago. Mr. Kerwin, who attended the meeting, said organizers displayed notes written by immigrant children, often addressed to God.
“It’s clear from reading these notes that these are lovely children, who miss their parents and worry about them and are in difficult situations that are not of their own making. And that the United States should do right by them,” he said. “And the right thing is to protect them and reunify them with family members.”
Chloe Gunther, America intern, contributed to this story.
***********************
Read the full article at the link.
Politicians of both parties are averse to the truth. They don’t have the courage and backbone for it! But the truth is quite simple, if somewhat “inconvenient.”
Unless and until we can solve the problems driving refugees to flee the Northern Triangle, we will have to take more of them. We should welcome them through an orderly legal system, including a robust, properly staffed, and honestly administered legal refugee and asylum system.
Alternatively, we could continue our current policies of immorally and illegally killing some on the journey, “snuffing” some in the desert (where their bodies might never be found and “counted”), and enriching smugglers and cartels who will eventually get many determined survivors into the interior.
There, they will join our highly exploitable, yet politically expedient for both parties (for differing reasons), “extralegal population.” Alimited number will be “in the wrong place at the wrong time” and be arbitrarily removed by ICE, usually at costs that far exceed any demonstrable benefits. Even fewer will commit misconduct leading to their arrest and removal.
But the bulk of them will blend in somehow and do what’s necessary for themselves and their families to survive, as has been happening for decades and generations. They will also enrich and improve our nation in ways both predictable and unpredictable. Some will eventually find it possible and advantageous to return to their nations of origin, most won’t.
It would be far better for both the migrants and our nation, not to mention humanity as a whole, if we included the bulk of those forced to come here in our legal immigration system. But, whether we are enlightened enough “to do it the right way” or not, they will come as long as the alternatives are starvation, death, unspeakable abuse, and unending despair.
Migration is both our oldest and most persistent human phenomenon and an essential survival skill for humanity. It’s going to take more than inane walls, cruel and illegal imprisonment in American Gulags, unworkable laws, mindless, yet expensive, enforcement, nativist rhetoric, bad judges, and cowardly politicians sending “don’t come” messages to make them “die in place.” Our politicians might be not be bright or brave enough to face reality — but, I guarantee that the forced migrants we like to dehumanize and look down upon are much smarter, braver, more aware, and far more creative, adaptable, and capable than we think!
NPR: In a pair of decisions announced Wednesday, Attorney General Merrick Garland is vacating several controversial legal rulings issued by his predecessors — in effect, restoring the possibility of asylum protections for women fleeing from domestic violence in other countries, and families targeted by violent gangs.
AP: A pending federal court case in Texas is challenging whether the program’s creation was legal. If the challenge is successful, it could end protections, adding urgency to those pressing Congress for a more lasting solution.
Axios: The policy known as Title 42 has resulted in tens of thousands of migrant family members, including asylum seekers, being sent away — as well as thousands of kids then separating from their families to cross into the United States alone.
Reuters: As the U.S. military completes its withdrawal from Afghanistan in the coming weeks, the Biden administration says it is adding staff to hurry up the visa process for Afghans who worked for the U.S. government and want to flee to avoid Taliban reprisals.
CityLimits: As they continue on the campaign trail, contenders of both parties who remain in the race speak openly about citizens’ concerns, such as crime, police reform, affordable housing, education, health, jobs and the Big Apple’s recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic. Latino voters, however, still feel that they have not heard concrete proposals regarding immigrants.
Intercept: Internal ICE records and emails, as well as a deposition by an ICE officer in a court case, show the agency referring to an advocacy group as a “known adversary” and closely surveilling the immigration and civil rights activists’ activities, both online and in person.
NYT: Health and consumer protection agencies have repeatedly warned that several of these treatments, as well as vitamin infusions and expensive injections of “peptide therapies” sold at alternative wellness clinics for more than $1,000, are not supported by reliable scientific evidence.
AIC: Although not every proposed rule put on the agenda will end up being finalized, the agenda signals an administration’s priorities and its goals for pursuing changes to our immigration system through executive action.
DOJ vacated Matter of A-B- and Matter of A-B-II and stated that immigration judges and the BIA should no longer follow these decisions when adjudicating pending or future cases. Matter of A-B-, 28 I&N Dec. 307 (A.G. 2021) AILA Doc. No. 21061639
DOJ vacated Matter of L-E-A- II in its entirely and immigration judges and the BIA should no longer follow Matter of L-E-A- II when adjudicating pending and future cases. Matter of L-E-A-, 28 I&N Dec. 304 (A.G. 2021)AILA Doc. No. 21061640
AAG: Please review any pending cases that may be affected by the Attorney General’s vacatur of L-E-A-II, A-B-I, and A-B-II and take appropriate steps in light of that development, including seeking remands in appropriate cases to allow the Board to reconsider asylum claims based on this change in the law.
The court certified to New York State Court of Appeals the question of whether an intent to “appropriate” property requires an intent to deprive the owner of property permanently or under circumstances where their property rights are substantially eroded. (Ferreiras Veloz v. Garland, 6/7/21) AILA Doc. No. 21061635
Law360: A split Third Circuit panel on Thursday refused to halt deportation proceedings for a Jamaican woman who pled guilty to defrauding the elderly in a lottery scam, ruling in a precedential decision that she didn’t prove she was likely to face retribution from the scam’s ringleader if sent back to her native country.
The court held that although the defendant, a former military officer, refused to shoot civilians during the Salvadorian Civil War, the fact that he “assisted” and “participated in the commission of” extrajudicial killings permitted his denaturalization. (United States v. Vasquez, 6/11/21) AILA Doc. No. 21061737
The court concluded that 8 CFR §212.7(e)(4)(iii), together with 8 CFR §§1003.10(b) and 1003.1(d)(1)(ii), gives IJs and the BIA the authority for administrative closure to permit noncitizens to apply for and receive provisional unlawful presence waivers. (Garcia-DeLeon v. Garland, 6/4/21) AILA Doc. No. 21061634
The court found that while the Memphis Immigration Court violated procedural rules in transferring the petitioner’s hearing to the Louisville Immigration Court, that violation was a procedural question relating to venue, not jurisdiction to hear the case. (Tobias-Chaves v. Garland, 6/8/21) AILA Doc. No. 21061636
The court granted the petition for review and remanded the case to the BIA in light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in Niz-Chavez v. Garland. (Lorenzo Lopez v. Garland, 6/8/21) AILA Doc. No. 21061643
The court held that the BIA erred by reviewing the IJ’s decision de novo rather than for clear error, and found that the record established that the petitioner had met her burden to show it was more likely than not she would be tortured if removed to Mexico. (Soto-Soto v. Garland, 6/11/21) AILA Doc. No. 21061644
Law360: A split Tenth Circuit panel on Tuesday reversed a Utah federal judge’s order finding that American Samoans are birthright U.S. citizens, holding that the issue belongs in the hands of Congress, not the courts.
Law360: In a decision that established several court precedents, the Eleventh Circuit has revived a Sri Lankan man’s bid for asylum, ruling that both an immigration judge and the Board of Immigration Appeals failed to properly reconsider his asylum application after allowing him to stay in the United States.
Law360: The D.C. Circuit ruled Friday that it lacks jurisdiction to revive asylum-seekers’ challenge to how border officers carry out a policy that requires migrants to seek protections in other countries they pass en route to the U.S.
AILA: DHS filed a motion for partial summary judgment in district court on all the plaintiffs’ claims regarding the 30-day timeline repeal rule, which was published on June 22, 2020.
Law360: The Biden administration has asked a Maryland federal judge to keep intact a Trump-era asylum work rule that gives the U.S. Department of Homeland Security more time to process work permits, saying the increased flow of asylum-seekers justifies the change.
Law360: Three Mexican nationals have asked a Colorado federal court to declare that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services unlawfully denied their green card applications by finding them inadmissible under a 10-year bar on reentering the United States up to 20 years after they left the country.
USCIS provided guidance in the Policy Manual on employment authorization and deferred action for principal petitioners for U nonimmigrant status and qualifying family members with pending, bona fide petitioners. Comments and feedback is due by July 14, 2021. AILA Doc. No. 21061433
DHS and DOS issued a joint statement on the second phase of the Central American Minors (CAM) program’s reopening. Eligibility now includes legal guardians and parents and U.S.-based parents or legal guardians with pending asylum application or pending U visa petition filed before 5/15/21. AILA Doc. No. 21061631
Thanks Elizabeth!As previously noted, I remain skeptical of Biden Administration plans to “reform” asylum law without bringing in the progressive human rights experts who can handle the job!
Most needed “reforms” — like bringing in progressive judges, replacing the BIA, bringing in progressive managers and executives, slashing the largely self-created EOIR backlog, working with NGOs to provide universal representation to asylum seekers and other vulnerable individuals, eliminating unnecessary detention, issuing positive precedents to guide IJs and Asylum Officers, bringing on more Asylum Officers and offering them better training (see, e.g., VIISTA @ Villanova), restoring Administrative Closing, implementing e-filing at EOIR, expanding the Central American Minors Program and other refugee programs in Central America, and many others are “hiding in plain sight.”
The “blueprints” are already about there — in bulk! All that’s missing is the dynamic new progressive leadership to implement them and insure compliance.
Also, as I’ve pointed out before, no Administration in history has had the benefit of so much empirical data, practical scholarship, and “ready for prime time” workable solutions for such well-documented and glaring problems. The asylum and EOIR “fixes” are both highly doable and can produce immediate positive results with more to follow!
But, not necessarily the way the Biden Administration is going about it, with far too many of those needed to turn “rhetoric into reality” still on sidelines in the private sector. In the meantime, folks who have already proved beyond a reasonable doubt that they can’t fix the system remain in key positions.
For Pete’s sake, several of my Georgetown Law students rattled off some of these solutions in class yesterday, and asked me why nobody was working on them. I told them I couldn’t figure out why the Biden Administration was so “slow on the uptake” with so many resources and experts out here in the private sector!
One of my most obvious ideas — hire my three colleagues, Georgetown Professors Phil Schrag, Andy Schoenholtz, and Temple Associate Dean Jaya Ramji-Nogales who recently wrote “instant immigration classic” The End of Asylum and earlier wrote the classic “bad government” expose Refugee Roulette — on a six month consulting contract to come in and fix EOIR and the Asylum Office.
It’s not so much regulatory reform that’s needed (although to be sure improvements can be made), but rather bringing in progressive leadership and better judges in key positions at DHS, DOJ, and EOIR to insure that due process is maximized, best practices are instituted, and recalcitrant personnel still committed to the Trump/Miller White Nationalist agenda are placed in other jobs where they can’t overtly damage our justice system.
Not “rocket science!” 🚀 But, it’s not going to be solved by a “regulatory agenda” either!
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.
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).
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 Millerhave 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!🏴☠️
“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
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 inAmerica 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!
“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.”
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 humanscaught 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?
“O.K., that’s like saying, ‘Stay home and die,’” according to the Rev. Pat Murphy, a Scalabrini priest who runs the Casa del Migrante shelter in Tijuana, Baja California. “That message is falling on deaf ears.”
