"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.
There, of course, are pressing humanitarian issues to address along the U.S./Mexico border. But to say that this issues are a result of “open border policies” is simply wrong. No major party political leader to my knowledge is calling for “open borders.” Rather, the “open borders” mantra is something that Republican politicians invoke to attack immigration policies that they do not like.
Democrats have another explanation for the current situation at the border. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told ABC News’ “This Week” that the policies of the Trump administration, which radically transformed immigration enforcement from 2017-21, are to blame for the recent increase in unaccompanied migrant children at the southern border,
“This is a humanitarian challenge to all of us,” Pelosi said. “What the administration has inherited is a broken system at the border and they are working to correct that in the children’s interests.”
Thanks, Kevin, for adding some reality and perspective to the discussion. You can read Abbott’s statement at the link. Notably, the Republicans have offered no constructive solutions to this humanitarian issue, either in or out of power, other than to engage in child abuse and continually violate the laws, both international and domestic.
The criticism from the likes of Abbott, who as “Governor” of Texas has presided over a power grid disaster that actually killed and threatened the health of Texas residents and who has thumbed his nose at public health recommendations that save lives, is particularly disingenuous. And, naturally, the dangerous and deadly results of Abbott’s and the GOP’s mis-governance of Texas have fallen disproportionately on Latinos and other communities of color. The Abbott/GOP response has been to attempt to disenfranchise citizens of color in Texas!
The same can be said of GOP House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy whose main contribution to America’s safety and security has been to whitewash the deadly assault on our Capitol that his “supreme leader” orchestrated. Again, a person with no credibility.
Those seeking a more nuanced and accurate picture of what’s really happening at the Southern Border should read the lengthy report of Arelis Hernandez in the WashPost:
Migrants are not overrunning U.S. border towns, despite the political rhetoric
Leaders in Texas border towns say their economies are suffering because of pandemic restrictions on cross-border travel.
. . . .
City officials and nonprofit organizations can’t force families to stay in the hotels but Darling, the McAllen mayor, said so far no one they track has left isolation prematurely.
“We tell them if they want to leave on our buses, they need to follow our rules,” he said. The city has spent nearly $200,000 of taxpayer money it hopes will be reimbursed by the federal government, but Abbott’s rejection of Federal Emergency Management Agency funding from the Biden administration will complicate matters for localities.
Darling said his city is full of compassionate people, and they are doing the rest of the country a favor in taking care of migrant families on the front end of their journeys.
Along the border, faith organizations, local emergency managers and immigration advocates say they have learned from previous surges how best to coordinate. They are preparing to receive flights and buses full of asylum seekers, mostly recently released families with small children, to ease capacity issues that critics say the Department of Homeland Security officials should have anticipated.
Coronavirus restrictions have put capacity limits on shelters run by community organizations on the U.S. side of the border, but so far the numbers are not at 2019 levels, said Pastor Michael Smith of the Holding Institute in Laredo. Shelters and temporary detention facilities operated by the U.S. Health and Human Services’ contractors, however, are over capacity.
But without more orderly intervention, the numbers could overwhelm. The Biden administration plans to deploy FEMA to the border to help with the migration surge as the administration tries to quickly scale up space to temporarily hold and process migrants and unaccompanied children — many between the ages of 13 and 17.
“The failure to have an administrative process is causing a humanitarian crisis,” Smith said during a news conference organized by Laredo activists. “There are solutions to the issues, but they are not solutions that call for militarizing the border.”
“We need robust infrastructure at our ports of entry to handle people seeking asylum,” said Tannya Benavides, of the No Border Wall coalition. “We need more lawyers and judges, not more troops or technology.”
Arelis R. Hernandez Southern Border Reporter Washington Post
Great article by Arelis! I highly recommend it. My only caveat is that we need not just more lawyers and judges, certainly correct, but better Immigration Judges who are experts in asylum law, have experience representing asylum seekers, and can fairly, efficiently, and consistently identify those with valid claims to protection under the law before it was perverted by the Trump regime. Also, the Government could use more qualified Asylum Officers who could screen and finally adjudicate the grantable cases, under correct legal criteria set forth by better-qualified Immigration Judges and a completely new due-process-human rights-oriented BIA without even having to send the cases to court.
These are the bold steps necessary to get out of the cycle of “same old, same old” — which inevitably ends with harsh measures directed at asylum seeking families and children that do nothing to address the causes of forced migration. “Enforcement-only deterrent measures” never have solved, and never will solve, the long-term problem in a constructive manner. The cycle of failed, yet expensive and inhumane deterrents, just keeps repeating itself Administration after Administration.
I have already suggested tapping into retired Asylum Officers and other retired USCIS Adjudicators with the necessary asylum expertise. I’m betting that my retired Round Table colleague, and former Asylum Officer and UN Official, Judge Paul Grussendorf would be available to help lead such an effort.
To solve this problem, the Biden Administration must put some expertswho understand the practicalities of refugee and asylum situations in place and let them solve the problem. It should come as no shock that the current gangs at DHS and EOIR —largely holdovers who participated in the Trump regime’s cruel, failed, and illegal “enforcement only” policies at the border — are not going to be able to get the job done. At least they can’t without some effective “adult supervision” from those committed to humane, legal, and timely processing of asylees and other migrants in full compliance with due process and best practices.
The Trump regime eschewed any attempt to build a fair, effective, timely asylum adjudication system that complied with domestic and international law as well as due process. Instead, they concentrated on eradicating the entire U.S. refugee and protection system through regulations (many enjoined), Executive Orders (some enjoined), bogus administrative “precedents,” and stacking the Immigration Courts with overtly anti-asylum or “go along to get along” “judges.” Right now, the entire system is in shambles — the most obvious example being the totally dysfunctional mess at EOIR!
To “win the game,” the Biden Administration needs to get the right players on the field. While there has been some notable progress, that hasn’t happened to date. And, with politicos like Abbott and McCarthy stirring the pot daily, time is running to get the “A Team” in place to combat their lies, distortions, and nonsense.
The union is hopeful that President Biden will reverse the decision, but they have yet to see action. “I know the new administration is extremely busy; I think this is a very important and significant issue,” said Paul Shearon, president of the International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers, a union that represents many high-skilled federal employees.
As the administration begins to process asylum seekers in the “Remain in Mexico” program and otherwise roll back Trump’s asylum blockades, the court system will need to run efficiently and fairly. As it is, the immigration court backlog—largely created by Trump policies—is at 1.3 million cases.
Trump’s decertification of NAIJ “was to retaliate against NAIJ for our strong voice and our strong call to demand transparency and accountability,” said Amiena Khan, NAIJ president. The union’s previous president, A. Ashley Tabaddor, is now chief counsel at U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. The union is hopeful that Biden will take action, though nothing has yet been forthcoming.
“We are very supportive of the current Biden administration and appreciate his strong support for unions and collective bargaining,” said Khan.
Biden’s position on unions in other contexts has been clear. Some labor historians have said he is the most pro-labor president in their lifetimes. In an executive order in January, Biden directed the Office of Personnel Management to make recommendations concerning raising the minimum wage for federal employees to $15 per hour. In February, Biden voiced support for Amazon workers’ right to organize, an unprecedented level of support from a sitting president.
Almost immediately, the immigration judges’ union asked if he would follow up by voluntarily recognizing their union. No action has been taken. A White House spokesperson has not yet responded to a request for comment.
Merrick Garland has now been confirmed as attorney general, perhaps setting the stage for quicker movement. But the union says that, despite immigration judges being part of the Justice Department, an attorney general appointment isn’t needed to reverse the decision. The administration can voluntarily recognize the union.
. . . .
******************
Over the last four years, the NAIJ was was one of the few “inside sources” of truth about the Trump Administration’s misconduct and gross mismanagement — “malicious incompetence” —at the DOJ. Obviously, in the Trump Administration speaking truth to power was a punishable offense. NAIJ was no exception.
This union representing Immigration Judges was illegally “decertified” in an absurd decision by the FLRA finding that IJs were now “management officials” on the basis of actions that had reduced them to little more than “deportation clerks” carrying out the regime’s White Nationalist, xenophobic agenda.
Not only did IJs continue to have no control whatsoever over their staff and working conditions, but they were unceremoniously stripped of their already-limited authority to professionally manage their dockets and to exercise independent discretion. They were subjected to due-process-killing “deportation quotas” and bogus “performance evaluations” by unqualified and largely out of touch “supervisors” — few, if any, of whom handled full dockets themselves — that would have been more suited to entry level deportation officers than supposedly independent and impartial “judges.” Meanwhile, the real primary cause of uncontrollable backlogs and endless delays at EOIR — “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” by politicos at EOIR HQ and the DOJ, and horrible, anti-due process, out of touch with reality “precedents” by biased AGs and the BIA — continued unabated.
Always subject to control by their “handlers” at EOIR HQ and DOJ, IJs were further humiliated by being barred from teaching at professional seminars and writing for scholarly publications. Their dockets and roles were defined by highly unqualified politicos who had never presided at an immigration hearing in their careers! Talk about screwed up!
Who ever heard of a “judiciary” that operates like a totally dysfunctional bureaucratic agency — that has most recently been run by non-judicial personnel who lack expertise, experience, and a commitment to due process — but were focused on carrying out an overtly anti-immigrant, anti-human rights, anti-due-process White Nationalist political agenda!
To add to this outrageously politically-biased scenario, to reach its ludicrous result the FLRA had to steamroll both their prior precedent on the same issues and overrule the decision of their own Regional Director.
Presently, the NAIJ is the only organization providing due-process oriented training directly to Immigration Judges. The leadership of the NAIJ stand out as some of the most qualified, courageous, and talented judges on the immigration bench.
Judge Garland and the Biden Administration simply can’t afford to leave the NAIJ out in the cold if they intend to fix the now totally-screwed-up EOIR and bring constitutionally-required equal justice under law to the broken and reeling DOJ. You simply can’t promote racial justice in America while running a “court” that has institutionalized racial biases and mocks, tramples, and ignores due process and equal justice on a daily basis!
FULL DISCLOSURE: I am a proud retired member of the NAIJ!
Retired Immigration Judge Paul Wickham Schmidt, a former chairman of the Board of Immigration Appeals who was also general counsel to the Immigration and Naturalization Service at the time of the EOIR’s creation, likewise praised Judge Illston’s order in an interview with Law360 Thursday.
Judge Schmidt, a vocal opponent of the Trump administration’s management of the EOIR, characterized the rule as part of a larger effort to discourage immigrants by stacking the courts against them, rather than a good-faith effort to reduce ballooning backlogs.
“When your docket is 1.3 million, it’s not the fact that someone is getting a few extra days in a continuance, it’s the fact that DHS is adding more cases,” he said.
As for whether the DOJ under President Joe Biden would continue defending the rule — as it is for one of the Trump-era asylum rules — Judge Schmidt said it was hard to say. But newly confirmed Attorney General Merrick Garland should prioritize changing the EOIR, as he stated his mission would be to restore nonpartisanship and defense of civil rights as pillars of the department, the judge said.
“If Garland wants to straighten out the Department of Justice, he’s got to straighten out EOIR. EOIR is a living refutation of everything Garland says he stands for,” Judge Schmidt told Law360.
Representatives for the DOJ did not respond to a request for comment Thursday.
The immigrant advocates are represented by Jingni (Jenny) Zhao, Anoop Prasad and Glenn Michael Katon of Asian Americans Advancing Justice — Asian Law Caucus, Seferina Young Berch, Stephen Chang, Naomi Ariel Igra, Michael O McGuinness, Scott T. Nonaka and Irene Inkyu Yang of Sidley Austin LLP, and Judah Ben Lakin and Amalia Margarete Wille of Lakin & Wille LLP.
*************************
Thankfully, Jennifer is operating “outside the paywall” on this particular article. So, all of you can get full access to her outstanding reporting on this case at the above link.
Dear Judge Garland:
Congratulations again and best wishes on your recent appointment as our Attorney General. I write to beg you, as a former DOJ colleague, Senior Executive, and administrative judge to deal immediately with a festering problem undermining the entire U.S. Justice system that is unfolding right under your nose, whether or not you have had time to focus on it.
A number of the individuals and organizations whose help you will need to fix EOIR and achieve equal justice for all in America are instead having their time and precious resources diverted to defending our justice system and the Constitution from absurdly illegal and obscenely counterproductive decisions and actions now being taken in YOUR NAME, such as the illegal EOIR regulations in this case. Indeed, these regulations and many other travesties still being pursued by EOIR at the behest of the former regime should have been on the chopping block long before you were even sworn in.
Not only are you now squandering Executive Branch and private sector resources that could better be devoted to solving problems, you are also wasting the time and trying the patience of thoughtful Federal Judges like U.S. District Judge Susan Illston. Certainly, as a former highly admired and respected Federal Judge, you know the value of judicial time in our system.
Additionally, failure to take immediate steps to end the dysfunction, disorder, and nonsense still streaming from EOIR on a daily basis is not only destroying vulnerable human lives, but also costing you goodwill with the very NGOs and talented, dedicated, often pro bono advocates whose assistance and support will be absolutely necessary for you to succeed in your stated objectives of returning integrity to the DOJ, eradicating institutionalized racism, and finally, finally achieving long overdue equal justice under law for all in America.
As I told Jennifer, EOIR is a “living contradiction” of everything you said in your confirmation hearing. It’s also a repudiation of the values that I have always seen and respected in you, even if mostly from afar.
I beseech you to “pull the plug” on today’s EOIR and put someone in there who can start getting it back on track: A “Due Process/Human Rights/Immigration Guru,” if you will. In terms to which we both can relate, you must find a judicial leader in the image of our late great colleague from the Carter DOJ, and your former colleague on the D.C. Circuit, Judge Patricia M. Wald. As we both know, she was was brilliant, energetic, yet highly practical, well-organized, and unswervingly committed to realizing social justice on both the national and eventually international stages.
Put someone who can run a real due-process-oriented court system in charge of the EOIR mess and let ‘er rip. You can cement your legacy to American Justice by achieving EOIR’s once noble, now discarded, vision that many of us who once served there established to guide our actions: “Through teamwork and innovation, be the world’s best tribunals guaranteeing fairness and due process for all.”
With my very best wishes for your continued success,
The Wrong Answer to the Right Question: How to Address the Failure of Protection for Gender-Based Claims?
By Professor Karen Musalo, Bank of America Professor of International Law, Director of the Center for Gender & Refugee Studies, UC Hastings
In 1996 I was honored to litigate the first case at the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), Matter of Kasinga,[1] that opened the door to protection for women fleeing gender-based harms. To qualify for recognition as a refugee under U.S. law, an individual must establish “persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution” on account of one of five grounds – “race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership in a particular social group.”[2] This definition in the 1980 Refugee Act essentially adopts the standard set forth in the 1951 UN Refugee Convention[3] and its 1967 U.N. Refugee Protocol,[4] which the U.S. ratified in 1968.
The woman seeking asylum in the Kasinga case fled female genital cutting and forced marriage. In a ground-breaking decision, the BIA ruled that cutting was persecution, and it was “on account of” her membership in a gender-defined social group. In so ruling, the BIA was following the guidance that UNHCR has issued over a number of years, noting that the absence of gender as a protected ground should not impede protection for women fleeing persecution, because the particular social group ground encompasses gender-defined groups.[5]
The Kasinga decision was a breakthrough for women, and a highwater mark in U.S. adjudicators following international guidance. It also raised expectations that U.S. law would continue to evolve and extend protection to women fleeing the many forms of gender-based violence to which they are subject. However, that has not been the case, and there have been retreats from protection across administrations, although undoubtedly we witnessed the most dramatic attempts to end protection in gender claims during the Trump administration, which issued extremely limiting Attorney General decisions, such as Matter of A-B- I,[6] and Matter of A-B- II –[7] as well as regulations[8] – currently enjoined[9]—that explicitly rule out gender-based claims.
The Biden administration has committed itself to reviewing the issue of protection for those fleeing gender-based violence.[10] As we consider how to remedy the issue, some argue for a legislative amendment to the refugee definition, adding gender as a sixth ground to the statute’s five protected grounds of race, religion, nationality, political opinion and membership in a particular social group. This is the wrong solution. It would not only repeat the errors of the past (amending the refugee definition in 1996, discussed below), but it would also fail to adequately protect survivors of gender-based violence. At the same time, it would lead to the quite foreseeable consequence of leaving many deserving asylum seekers outside the ambit of refugee protection. It is also likely to signal to other Convention State parties that unless they also add a sixth ground, they could deny protection to women and girls without running afoul of the treaty’s obligations.
In order to prescribe a remedy, one first has to diagnose the illness; in order to understand why the sixth ground solution is wrong, we need to examine what occurred after Kasinga that limited protection in subsequent claims involving women fleeing gender-based persecution. . . . .
**********************
Read the rest of Karen’s outstanding analysis at the link.
Here’s a question from last summer’s “Jeopardy style” final exam in Immigration Law & Policy @ Georgetown Law:
A: Judge Schmidt’s favorite case.
Q: What is Matter of Kasinga?
Happy to say that everyone got that one right! Of course, I wrote the decision in Matter of Kasinga!
Karen’s bottom line: “We should be working to bring the U.S. into compliance with UNHCR’s social group interpretation, rather than surrendering to its flawed interpretation, by adding a sixth ground.”
The key is better Federal Judges, from the Immigration Courts all the way up to the Supremes: Judges who are “practical scholars” in human rights and applied due process; judges who have represented asylum seekers, particularly women, and understand their plight.
That’s a nice gesture. But, as I always say, actions are what really counts. So here are actions that Judge Garland can take immediately as Attorney General to finally fulfill the promise of Matter of Kasinga:
Vacate the atrocious, misogynist, perversion of asylum law (not to mention facts of record) by Sessions in Matter of A-B-;
Appoint some female “practical scholars in human rights” to appellate judgeships on the BIA.
That’s how to really honor Women’s History Month!
To understand the human impact of Sessions’s grotesque misconstruction of asylum law and the relevant facts in Matter of A-B-, check out this video short featuring Karen and others along with Ms. A-B-: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QRQpXRWlQL0
I generally agree with Karen’s concerns about specific gender-based legislation potentially having an unintended negative effect. That is certainly the fate of past unsuccessful attempts to include gender-based asylum in the regulations.
They essentially were “hijacked” by DOJ litigators and enforcement-oriented policy officials looking for ways to facially appease women’s rights groups, while actually proposing to restrict eligibility and make it easier for OIL and the SG’s Office to defend denials of asylum. They also sought to create hyper-technical requirements that would have effectively made it impossible for any unrepresented individual to properly set forth a “cognizable particular social group.”
These, in and of themselves, are reasons for removing the Immigration Courts from the DOJ and creating an independent Article I structure. The “ultimate insult to injury” was when EOIR enthusiastically participated in Stephen Miller’s currently-enjoined attempt to completely write gender-based asylum out of the law. Absurdly, that came at a time when gender-based persecution has become endemic throughout the world!
Not surprisingly, the DOJ, a prosecutorial agency at heart, is most often interested in “litigation strategies” to make it easier for the Government to successfully defend the burgeoning immigration litigation in Federal Court, rather than guaranteeing justice for asylum seekers and other migrants. Quite ironically, what would really reduce the volume of civil immigration litigation is more practical, expert decision making from better qualified Immigration Judges at the “retail level” of the system.
Gimmicks to “game” the Federal Court system against asylum seekers and other migrants by skirting due process and fundamental fairness have actually contributed to, rather than reduced, the amount of civil immigration litigation the Circuits. It has also generated many avoidable “Circuit conflicts” that require attention on Supremes’ limited docket. The failure of the DOJ, the Immigration Courts, and the Federal Courts to recognize and protect the due process rights of asylum seekers and other migrants has directly carried over into the failure of our justice system to achieve equal justice under law for racial minorities.
“Institutionalized racism” is inextricably linked to “Dred Scottification” of migrants of color in the Immigration Courts! The Biden Administration can’t solve the former without addressing the latter!
Bad judging and skewed policies on the “retail level” create multiple problems that adversely affect the entire Federal Justice system. I guarantee that they will not be solved by more restrictionist gimmicks and and unduly narrow and tone-deaf interpretations by judges and policy officials who lack the necessary expertise in immigration and human rights laws and the real-life understanding and perspective of the human consequences of the choices that judges make on a daily basis.
But, I also think that in addition to better judges, it is important to revise the statutory language to make it more explicitly inclusive and clarify that gender-based asylum, family based asylum, and other protected groups are examples, but not limits, of those covered by “particular social group.” Also, the statute should reverse the BIA’s stilted restrictionist interpretations (all too often incorrectly given “deference” by Circuit Courts shirking their duty) of “nexus” as a vehicle to deny asylum rather than an expansive concept that can and should be used to extend life-saving protections where necessary.
Otherwise, as Trump, Sessions, Barr, and Miller demonstrated, needed protection becomes largely a matter of who is appointing the judges at any particular point in time. Protection must and should be more durable — for all refugees including, but not limited, to those seeking gender-based protection!
Better Federal Judges are the beginning, but by no means the end, of what is needed to make due process, fundamental fairness, and genuine refugee protections the hallmarks of American law. They are also required to turn institutionalized racism into equal justice for all persons in America, regardless of race, religion, gender, or other defining personal characteristics.
🇺🇸⚖️🗽Due Process Forever! Asylum Laws Must Protect, Not Reject!🧑🏽⚖️🛡
The Biden administration has signaled that it would like to narrow arrests and deportations to those persons convicted of national security threats and other serious felonies. That would keep many of those, like the fast-food worker in Indianapolis, from immigrant court.
But there’s a bigger challenge facing the Biden administration.
Can it wipe away rules that have fed into a mindset that seemed to take root nationally among some court and immigration enforcement officials?
The rules were meant to erase an immigrant presence in the U.S. And they came to life far away from the nation’s borders in the daily grind of the immigration courts. For well over two years, I sat in Chicago’s immigration court watching, reporting and wondering how his could be happening.
Day by day I watched as the crowds huddled anxiously in the Chicago court’s major waiting room grew. Judges’ caseloads, as listed on the waiting room walls, eventually doubled for some to as many as 100 a day.
Why?
When Trump took office there were 542,411 deportation cases in the nation’s immigration courts. When he left, the number was 1.29 million. The backlog grew as arrests grew, as more were detained, as bonds went up, and new rules raised new hurdles for immigrants in the courts. The average wait for a case in Chicago’s court was 945 days in 2016, and that grew to 1,014 in 2021, 14% higher than the national average.
The long wait perplexed a judge one day as she scanned her computer looking to schedule a new hearing. The best she could find, she told an Iraqi woman in her 80s, was a date four years down the road. The long delay was not lost on the woman’s lawyer’s face. The woman’s husband was not in court because he was facing brain surgery.
A series of canceled hearings left a middle-age Palestinian’s life dangling in the court for seven years. The long delay left him anxious and panicked about the fate of his family back home, where they faced the threat of violence that had already taken several relatives’ lives. He won asylum but several months later, and before he could bring his family to the U.S., his teenage son was killed, a targeted victim of the violence that had haunted him and his relatives.
I took note after the Trump administration said in August 2019 it would push older cases back in 10 courts across the U.S., including Chicago, so that cases involving newly arrived immigrant families could move more rapidly through the courts. It was a clear warning that the U.S. would deal quickly with immigrants arriving at its borders.
. . . .
**********
Read the complete op-ed at the link.
The solutions are not rocket science. As many of us have suggested they include:
New leadership at EOIR firmly committed to judicial independence, due process, best practices and competent judicial Administration;
New judges at the BIA — “practical experts” in asylum and immigration laws committed to due process, fair application of the law, and humane treatment of individuals;
Slash the docket immediately to manageable levels by removing aged cases that would fit the legalization proposals in the Biden Bill or where relief could be granted by USCIS;
Get recent arrivals represented and decide their cases on a fair, reasonable, timely, predictable schedule (e.g., end “Aimless Docket Reshuffling”);
Establish and implement merit-based criteria for recruitment and retention of judges.
It won’t happen without new personnel and different attitudes. There’s plenty of talent out here to rebuild a high-quality, expert, due-process oriented immigration judiciary. Judge Garland and his team just have to move out those who have created and furthered dysfunction and replace them with better-qualified pros who can get the job done for American justice and the millions of individuals whose lives, hopes, and futures are tied up in the EOIR mess !
Article I is the ultimate solution! But, Judge Garland can start making long overdue changes the day he is sworn in as AG (probably later this week). The only question: Will he?
A Better EOIR For A Better America!🇺🇸It’s not rocket science!🚀
BIA Asylum Panel In Action Albrecht Dürer, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons“Oh Boy! Three material mistakes in one asylum case! Do you think our superiors in the enforcement bureaucracy will give us extra credit on our ‘move ‘em out without due process quotas?’ Being a Deportation Judge sure is fun!” https://www.flickr.com/photos/rasputin243/ Creative Commons License
Arita-Deras v. Wilkinson, 4th Cir., 03-05-21, Published
PANEL:GREGORY, Chief Judge, and AGEE and KEENAN, Circuit Judges
OPINION BY: Judge Barbara Milano Keenan
KEY QUOTE:
Maria Del Refugio Arita-Deras, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions for review of a final order of removal entered by the Board of Immigration Appeals (the Board).1 The Board affirmed an immigration judge’s (IJ) conclusion that Arita-Deras was not eligible for asylum, withholding of removal, or protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The Board: (1) agreed with the IJ that Arita-Deras failed to support her claims with sufficient corroborating evidence; (2) found that Arita-Deras failed to prove that she suffered from past persecution because she had not been harmed physically; and (3) concluded that Arita-Deras failed to establish a nexus between the alleged persecution and a protected ground.
Upon our review, we conclude that the Board improperly discounted Arita-Deras’ corroborating evidence, applied an incorrect legal standard for determining past persecution, and erred in its nexus determination. Accordingly, we grant Arita-Deras’ petition and remand her case to the Board for further proceedings.
***************************
After eight years of bouncing around the system at various levels THIS “NotQuite Good Enough For Government Work” error-fest is what we get from EOIR! As I keep saying, no wonder they are running a 1.3 million case backlog, clogging the Circuit Courts with incredibly shoddy work, and in many cases sending vulnerable refugees back to death or torture under incorrect fact findings and blatantly wrong legal interpretations!
Again, nothing profound about this claim; just basic legal and analytical errors that often flow from the “think of any reason to deny” culture. EOIR just keeps repeating the same basic mistakes again and again even after being “outed” by the Circuits!
This case illustrates why the unrealistically high asylum denial numbers generated by the biased EOIR system and parroted by DHS should never be trusted. This respondent, appearing initially without a lawyer, was actually coerced by an Immigration Judge into accepting a “final order” of removal with a totally incorrect, inane, mis-statement of the law. “Haste makes waste,” shoddy, corner cutting procedures, judges deficient in asylum legal knowledge, and a stunning lack of commitment to due process and fundamental fairness are a burden to our justice system in addition to being a threat to the lives of individual asylum seekers.
Only when she got a lawyer prior to removal was this respondent able to get her case reopened for a full asylum hearing. Even then, the IJ and the BIA both totally screwed up the analysis and entered incorrect orders. Only because this respondent was fortunate enough to be assisted by one of the premier pro bono groups in America, the CAIR Coalition, was she able to get some semblance of justice on appeal to the Circuit Court!
I’m very proud to say that a member of the “CAIR Team,” Adina Appelbaum, program Director, Immigration Impact Lab, is my former Georgetown ILP student, former Arlington Intern, and a “charter member” of the NDPA! If my memory serves me correctly, she is also a star alum of the CALS Asylum Clinic @ Georgetown Law. No wonder Adina made the Forbes “30 Under 30” list of young Americans leaders! She and others like her in the NDPA are ready to go in and start cleaning up and improving EOIR right now! Judge Garland take note!
Adina Appelbaum Director, Immigration Impact Lab CAIR Coalition PHOTO: “30 Under 30” from Forbes
Despite CAIR’s outstanding efforts, Ms. Arita-Deras still is nowhere near getting the relief to which she should be entitled under a proper application of the law by expert judges committed to due process. Instead, after eight years, she plunges back into EOIR’s 1.3 million case “never never land” where she might once again end up with Immigration Judges at both the trial and appellate level who are not qualified to be hearing asylum cases because they don’t know the law and they are “programmed to deny” to meet their “deportation quotas” in support of ICE Enforcement.
Focus on it folks! This is America; yet individuals on trial for their lives face a prosecutor and a “judge” who are on the same side! And, they are often forced to do it without a lawyer and without even understanding the complex proceedings going on around them! How is this justice? It isn’t! So why is it allowed to continue?
Also, let’s not forget that under the recently departed regime, EOIR falsely claimed that having an attorney didn’t make a difference in success rates for respondents. That’s poppycock! Actually, as the Vera Institute recently documented the success rate for represented respondents is an astounding 10X that of unrepresented individuals. In any functional system, that differential would be more than sufficient to establish a “prima facie” denial of due process any time an asylum seeker (particularly one in detention) is forced to proceed without representation.
Yet, this miscarriage of justice occurs every day in Immigration Courts throughout America! Worse yet, EOIR and DHS have purposely “rigged” the system in various ways to impede and discourage effective representation.
To date, while flagging EOIR for numerous life-threatening errors, the Article IIIs have failed to come to grips with the obvious: The current EOIR system provides neither due process nor fundamental fairness to the individuals coming before these “courts” (that aren’t “courts” at all)!
Acting AG Wilkinson has piled up an impressive string of legal defeats in immigration matters in just a short time on the job. It’s going to be up to Judge Garland to finally make it right. It’s urgent for both our nation and the individuals whose rights are being stomped upon by a broken system on a daily basis!
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
No. 19–438. Argued October 14, 2020—Decided March 4, 2021
Immigration officials initiated removal proceedings against Clemente Avelino Pereida for entering and remaining in the country unlawfully, a charge Mr. Pereida did not contest. Mr. Pereida sought instead to establish his eligibility for cancellation of removal, a discretionary form of relief under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). 8 U. S. C. §§1229a(c)(4), 1229b(b)(1). Eligibility requires certain nonper- manent residents to prove, among other things, that they have not been convicted of specified criminal offenses. §1229b(b)(1)(C). While his proceedings were pending, Mr. Pereida was convicted of a crime under Nebraska state law. See Neb. Rev. Stat. §28–608 (2008). Ana- lyzing whether Mr. Pereida’s conviction constituted a “crime involving moral turpitude” that would bar his eligibility for cancellation of re- moval, §§1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(I), 1227(a)(2)(A)(i), the immigration judge found that the Nebraska statute stated several separate crimes, some of which involved moral turpitude and one—carrying on a business without a required license—which did not. Because Nebraska had charged Mr. Pereida with using a fraudulent social security card to obtain employment, the immigration judge concluded that Mr. Pereida’s conviction was likely not for the crime of operating an unli- censed business, and thus the conviction likely constituted a crime in- volving moral turpitude. The Board of Immigration Appeals and the Eighth Circuit concluded that the record did not establish which crime Mr. Pereida stood convicted of violating. But because Mr. Pereida bore the burden of proving his eligibility for cancellation of removal, the ambiguity in the record meant he had not carried that burden and he was thus ineligible for discretionary relief.
Held: Under the INA, certain nonpermanent residents seeking to cancel
2
PEREIDA v. WILKINSON Syllabus
a lawful removal order bear the burden of showing they have not been convicted of a disqualifying offense. An alien has not carried that bur- den when the record shows he has been convicted under a statute list- ing multiple offenses, some of which are disqualifying, and the record is ambiguous as to which crime formed the basis of his conviction. Pp. 5–17.
(a) The INA squarely places the burden of proof on the alien to prove eligibility for relief from removal. §1229a(c)(4)(A). Mr. Pereida accepts his burden to prove three of four statutory eligibility requirements but claims a different rule should apply to the final requirement at issue here—whether he was convicted of a disqualifying offense. Mr. Pereida identifies nothing in the statutory text that singles out that lone requirement for special treatment. The plain reading of the text is confirmed by the context of three nearby provisions. First, the INA specifies particular forms of evidence that “shall constitute proof of a criminal conviction” in “any proceeding under this chapter,” regardless of whether the proceedings involve efforts by the government to re- move an alien or efforts by the alien to establish eligibility for relief. §1229a(c)(3)(B). Next, Congress knows how to impose the burden on the government to show that an alien has committed a crime of moral turpitude, see §§1229a(c)(3), 1227(a)(2)(A)(i), and yet it chose to flip the burden when it comes to applications for relief from removal. Fi- nally, the INA often requires an alien seeking admission to show “clearly and beyond doubt” that he is “entitled to be admitted and is not inadmissible,” §1229a(c)(2), which in turn requires the alien to demonstrate that he has not committed a crime involving moral turpi- tude, §1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(I). Mr. Pereida offers no account why a rational Congress would have placed this burden on an alien who is seeking admission, but lift it from an alien who has entered the country ille- gally and faces a lawful removal order. Pp. 5–7.
(b) Even so, Mr. Pereida contends that he can carry the burden of showing his crime did not involve moral turpitude using the so-called “categorical approach.” Applying the categorical approach, a court considers not the facts of an individual’s conduct, but rather whether the offense of conviction necessarily or categorically triggers a conse- quence under federal law. Under Mr. Pereida’s view, because a person could hypothetically violate the Nebraska statute without committing fraud—i.e., by carrying on a business without a license—the statute does not qualify as a crime of moral turpitude. But application of the categorical approach implicates two inquiries—one factual (what was Mr. Pereida’s crime of conviction?), the other hypothetical (could some- one commit that crime of conviction without fraud?). And the Ne- braska statute is divisible, setting forth multiple crimes, some of which the parties agree are crimes of moral turpitude. In cases involving
Cite as: 592 U. S. ____ (2021) 3 Syllabus
divisible statutes, the Court has told judges to determine which of the offenses an individual committed by employing a “modified” categori- cal approach, “review[ing] the record materials to discover which of the enumerated alternatives played a part in the defendant’s prior convic- tion.” Mathis v. United States, 579 U. S. ___, ___. This determination, like many issues surrounding the who, what, when, and where of a prior conviction, involves questions of historical fact. The party who bears the burden of proving these facts bears the risks associated with failing to do so. This point is confirmed by the INA’s terms and the logic undergirding them. A different conclusion would disregard many precedents. See, e.g., Taylor v. United States, 495 U. S. 575, 600. Just as evidentiary gaps work against the government in criminal cases where it bears the burden, see, e.g., Johnson v. United States, 559 U. S. 133, they work against the alien seeking relief from a lawful removal order. Congress can, and has, allocated the burden differently. Pp. 7– 15.
(c) It is not this Court’s place to choose among competing policy arguments. Congress was entitled to conclude that uncertainty about an alien’s prior conviction should not redound to his benefit. And Mr. Pereida fails to acknowledge some of the tools Congress seemingly did afford aliens faced with record-keeping challenges. See, e.g., §1229a(c)(3)(B). Pp. 15–17.
916 F. 3d 1128, affirmed.
GORSUCH, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C.J.,andTHOMAS,ALITO,andKAVANAUGH,JJ.,joined. BREYER,J.,filed a dissenting opinion, in which SOTOMAYOR and KAGAN, JJ., joined. BARRETT, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
KEY QUOTE FROM DISSENT:
Finally, it makes particularly little sense to disregard this core feature of the categorical approach here. See id., at 203–204. As already noted, cancellation of removal is discretionary. Thus, when a conviction is not disqualifying under the categorical approach, the Government may still deny the noncitizen relief. If it turns out that an individual with a record like the one here in fact violated the statute in a reprehensible manner, that can be accounted for during the discretionary phase of the proceedings, when the categorical approach does not apply.
***
In my view, the Court should follow Congress’ statute. Congress has long provided that immigration courts apply- ing the INA provision here, like sentencing courts applying ACCA, must follow the categorical approach. See Mellouli, 575 U. S., at 805–806. Our cases make clear how that approach applies in a case like this one. We should follow our earlier decisions, particularly Taylor, Shepard, and John- son. And, were we to do so, ineluctably they would lead us to determine that the statutory offense of which Mr. Pereida was “convicted” is not “necessarily” a “crime involving moral turpitude.”
Because the Court comes to a different conclusion, with respect, I dissent.
**********************
“When in doubt, throw ‘em out,” seems to be the majority’s refrain. As pointed out by Justice Breyer, a decision that allowed Mr. Pereida, who has lived in the U.S. for a quarter of a century, to apply for cancellation of removal because of the uncertainty as to whether his 2010 conviction for “attempted criminal impersonation” under Nebraska law involved “moral turpitude,” would not have guaranteed him relief. It merely would have allowed the Immigration Judge to weigh the substantial equities that Mr. Pereida and his family had developed against his decade-old criminal conviction.
The Immigration Judge could then have decided, on the basis of a fully developed record, in the exercise of discretion whether or not Mr. Pereida merited a “second chance” in the U.S. And, of course, if the application were granted, ICE would still have the ability to appeal to the BIA, which exercises “de novo” review on questions of discretion.
There is lots that needs to be changed about our current immigration system. It’s too bad that Congress appears too deadlocked to get the job done.
PWS
03-04-21
UPDATE:
”Sir Jeffrey” Chase just reminded me that our Round Table 🛡⚔️filed an amicus brief in support of the respondent’s position in this case. Sadly, we didn’t carry the day, here! ☹️
But, we’ll be heard from again on the “categorical approach.” I guarantee it!
Here’s the section relating to the Immigration Courts:
Title IV: Immigration Courts, Family Values, and Vulnerable Individuals
We are facing a due process crisis in the immigration courts. Nearly 1.3 million cases are currently pending in a structurally flawed system housed within a
prosecutorial agency, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ).4 While this bill
4 https://trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/637/.
10
falls short of creating an independent Article I immigration court,5 provisions in the bill would improve court operations and enhance due process protections for individuals facing highly complex immigration court proceedings that
often raise issues of life and death.6 Even though representation is often
the single greatest factor in determining whether an individual will obtain relief in removal proceedings,7 low-income immigrants and people in immigration detention face significant barriers to obtaining counsel. This bill calls for expanding alternatives to detention and authorizes funding for the appointment of counsel for children and vulnerable noncitizens. Provisions in this bill also provide for an expansion of DOJ’s Legal Orientation Program and greater access to legal information for immigrants who are not
detained. These are important steps in the right direction, but the bill falls short of ending civil immigration detention and establishing a much-needed universal representation program.8
Judicial diversity encourages fair decision-making, but DOJ’s Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) has a long history of politicized
hiring,9 resulting in a supermajority of judges on the bench who have prosecutorial backgrounds. This bill calls for the hiring of additional immigration judges (IJs) and Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) members who are experts in immigration law, and it encourages the hiring of IJs who have diverse experience, including people from the private sector. The bill also requires EOIR to conduct mandatory continuing legal and diversity training for IJs and BIA members. Additional steps must be taken to ensure critical oversight into the hiring process, promote diversity, and eliminate harassment in the immigration courts.10
Also included in this bill are provisions to protect vulnerable individuals. The bill eliminates the one-year filing deadline for asylum claims and increases access to employment authorization for people seeking asylum and for U and T visa applicants, ensuring that vulnerable populations seeking refuge in the U.S. will be able to work and support their families while their immigration cases are pending.
The bill calls for expanding alternatives to detention and authorizes funding for the appointment of counsel for children and vulnerable noncitizens.
X Provides for appointing counsel for children and vulnerable noncitizens. Authorizes funding for and requires DOJ to appoint or provide counsel
for children, vulnerable individuals, and other people where necessary. Requires DHS to provide copies of their immigration files to individuals who are in immigration court proceedings.
X Requires access to legal orientation programs and access to counsel. Requires legal orientation programs to be available for all noncitizens in immigration detention. DHS must provide access to counsel inside all immigration detention facilities and border facilities.
X Increases access to legal information. Expands the help desk program
to all immigration courts, providing non-detained individuals who have pending asylum claims access to information related to immigration status. Requires DHS to provide copies of their immigration files to people who are in immigration court proceedings.
X Expands alternatives to detention. Expands the family case management program and requires DHS to develop additional community-based programs. People enrolled in these programs will receive legal orientations.
X Increases immigration court hiring. Requires DOJ to increase the number of IJs on the bench, hire additional BIA staff attorneys, and provide sufficient support staff. In hiring the new IJs and BIA members, DOJ is instructed to select people from diverse backgrounds, including from the nonprofit sector and the private bar and people with academic experience.
X Expands training for IJs and members of the BIA. Requires the EOIR
to conduct mandatory training for IJs and members of the BIA, including continuing legal training and training on age, gender, and trauma sensitivity.
X Directs EOIR to modernize technology. Requires the EOIR director to modernize electronic systems, including by allowing electronic filing, to improve court proceedings.
X Eliminates barriers to asylum and protects vulnerable populations. Removes the one-year time limit for filing an asylum claim. Increases protections for U visa, T visa, and VAWA applicants by providing them with a rebuttable presumption of release from detention and prohibiting the removal of these applicants from the U.S. while an application is pending. Increases the number of U visas, which are available to some crime victims, from the current cap of 10,000 to 30,000 per year.
FEBRUARY 2021
12
In hiring new IJs and BIA members, DOJ is instructed to select people from diverse backgrounds, including from the nonprofit sector and the private bar and people with academic experience.
X Increases access to employment authorization for people seeking U and T visas and protection under VAWA. People seeking U and T visas shall and must be granted employment authorization on the date their application is approved or a date to be determined by the DHS secretary within 180 days of submitting their petition, whichever is earlier. Employment authorization is issued for two years, with the possibility of renewal.
X Increases access to employment authorization for people seeking asylum. Provides that DHS shall grant employment authorization to bona fide and non-detained asylum-seekers within 180 days after they file their asylum application with DHS or DOJ.
***************************
The improvements to the Immigration Courts are all helpful. But, as the NILC points out, they fall short of what’s really needed: An independent Article I Immigration Court. One thing the bill does address, lack of diversity and immigration/human rights expertise among EOIR judicial hires (over the past three Administrations) is a glaring problem and hinderance to achieving due process and fundamental fairness.
Thanks to my friend and NDPA superstar Laura Lynch, Senior Immigration Policy Attorney at the NILC for passing this along.
Here’s a recent unpublished decision from the 9th Circuit in Deepak Lama v. Wilkinson, (Feb. 24, 2021):
Before: HURWITZ and BRESS, Circuit Judges, and FEINERMAN,** District Judge.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The Honorable Gary Feinerman, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Illinois, sitting by designation.
Deepak Lama, a citizen of Nepal, petitions for review of a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal of an Immigration Judge (IJ) order denying his claims for asylum and withholding of removal.1 We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We grant the petition and remand.
The IJ found that Lama had suffered past persecution on account of his political activity and was entitled to a presumption of a well-founded fear of future persecution. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1). But, the IJ also found that the government had rebutted the presumption, and the BIA then dismissed Lama’s appeal on the sole basis that Lama could safely and reasonably relocate within Nepal, to Chitwan, where he previously resided for five years without incident. Our review is limited to the ground on which the BIA relied. Qiu v. Barr, 944 F.3d 837, 842 (9th Cir. 2019).
When the presumption of a well-founded fear of future persecution applies, the government bears the “burden of showing that relocation is both safe and reasonable under all the circumstances” by a preponderance of the evidence. Afriyie v. Holder, 613 F.3d 924, 934 & n.8 (9th Cir. 2010), overruled on other grounds by Bringas-Rodriguez v. Sessions, 850 F.3d 1051, 1070 (9th Cir. 2017). “Relocation analysis consists of two steps: (1) ‘whether an applicant could relocate safely,’ and (2) ‘whether it would be reasonable to require the applicant to do so.’” Singh v. Whitaker, 914 F.3d 654, 659 (9th Cir. 2019) (quoting Afriyie, 613 F.3d at 934). We
1 The BIA found that Lama forfeited his claim under the Convention Against Torture. Lama does not challenge that ruling in this court.
2
conclude that the BIA’s limited relocation analysis does not satisfy the applicable legal requirements.
First, the agency “failed to take into account the numerous factors for determining reasonableness outlined in 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(3).” Knezevic v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 1206, 1215 (9th Cir. 2004). Relying on Lama’s stay in Chitwan between 2003 and 2008, the agency provided no analysis of whether it would be reasonable for Lama to relocate there at the time of his hearing, in 2017. Lama demonstrated that he experienced persecution in Nepal both in his hometown and later in Kathmandu, and that this persecution took place both before and after he lived in Chitwan. While his time in Chitwan appears to have been without incident, he last lived there many years ago. The government presented no evidence that Lama could safely and reasonably return there now, considering both the current political situation in Chitwan and Lama’s personal circumstances. See Singh, 914 F.3d at 661.
Second, the BIA’s analysis rests on an apparent misapprehension of the record. The BIA stated that “[t]he record contains no evidence that it would no longer be safe or reasonable for [Lama] to once again return to [Chitwan] where he had previously voluntarily relocated and resided for approximately 5 years without incident.” (Emphasis added.) But the record contains a 2016 letter written to Lama from his uncle, with whom he lived in Chitwan, indicating that Lama would not be
3
safe there. The BIA did not consider this evidence. And to the extent the BIA “erroneously presumed that relocation was reasonable and improperly assigned the burden of proof to [Lama] to show otherwise,” Afriyie, 613 F.3d at 935, it erred in that respect as well. See also 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(3)(ii) (burden of proof).
Gomes v. Gonzales, 429 F.3d 1264 (9th Cir. 2005), does not support the government’s position that because Lama once resided in Chitwan without incident, “it is axiomatic that he can do so again.” In Gomes, unlike this case, the petitioners had not shown past persecution and thus bore the burden to show that relocation was unreasonable. Id. at 1266–67 & 1266 n.1. In addition, unlike Lama, it appears that the petitioners in Gomes had safely resided in the area in question immediately prior to entering the United States. See id. at 1267. Gomes also did not involve the BIA failing to address evidence (here the letter from Lama’s uncle) indicating that relocation to the designated area could be unsafe.
For the foregoing reasons, we grant the petition and remand this matter to the BIA for further proceedings consistent with this decision. Any relocation analysis must comport with the governing regulations and this court’s precedents. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(3); Singh, 914 F.3d at 659–61. We also dismiss as moot the portion of Lama’s petition challenging the BIA’s denial of his motion to remand.
PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED IN PART AND DISMISSED IN PART; REMANDED.
4
*******************
Once again, this is nothing profound, difficult, or controversial. Just basic application of EOIR’S own regulations, consideration of all the evidence presented by the respondent, and basic analysis, with some fundamental fairness and common sense thrown in. That’s probably why the panel didn’t deem it worthy of publication. But, it does further illustrate a disturbing pattern at the BIA and the Immigration Courts.
During my time as an Immigration Judge, I was sometimes involved in the nationwide judiciallaw clerk (JLC)training program. One of my key points to the JLCs was that many Immigration Judges, even then, continued to get basic “burden shifting” and further analysis wrong once the respondent established past persecution, thereby invoking the regulatory presumption of future persecution.
The DHS then has the burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence either 1) fundamentally changed conditions that would eliminate any well-founded fear of individualized persecution; or 2) a reasonably available internal relocation alternative under the applicable regulations.
Because conditions seldom materially improve in most refugee-sending countries, and reasonable relocation alternatives that would eliminate a well-founded fear of persecution (not hiding in someone’s basement or in a cave in the forest) can seldom be established, in my experience, the DHS almost always failed to rebut the presumption. This was particularly the case because then, as now, the ICE counsel usually presented no testimony or other evidence to rebut the presumption beyond that contained in the State Department Country Report, whichseldom was definitive on this type of highly individualized analysis.
Even where the DHS rebuts the regulatory presumption, the respondent still can win protection if she or he shows 1) compelling reasons for not returning arising from the past persecution, or 2) a reasonable possibility of other serious harm if returned.
These regulatory standards are consistent with the generous intent of the refugee definition as described by the Supreme Court in INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca. They should result in rather easy grants of protection in most cases involving past persecution,
However it appears that EOIR judges haven’t improved in this area. If anything, result-oriented decision-making geared to make denial of asylum the “administrative norm” evidently has been substituted for careful, professional, expert analysis. Indeed, correct analysis by expert judges knowledgeable in asylum law would probably result in most cases like this being granted at the Immigration Judge level, or even the Asylum Office, thus discouraging the DHS from taking largely meritless appeals to the BIA and reducing the workload in the Circuit Courts.
Instead the sloppy, biased, “any reason to deny” attitude that infects today’s EOIR means that justice for asylum seekers requires skilled lawyers, a “lucky draw” on judges at some level of the system, and, all too often, endless remands and time spent on “redos” to correct elementary errors. No wonder this system is running an astounding 1.3 million case backlog, even with many more IJs on the bench at both the trial and appellate levels!
This is a “system designed to fail.” And, failing it is, at every level, spilling over into the Article III Courts and placing the foundation of our entire U.S. justice system — due process for all under law — in jeopardy.
Quality, expertise, understanding, and a fair and humane attitude toward asylum seekers is much more important than quantity in asylum adjudication!This the exact opposite of the message delivered by the last Administration.
Here’s my basic thesis:
Granting relief wherever possible and at the lowest possible levels of the system speeds things up and promotes best practices and maximum efficiency without stomping on anyone’s rights. (And, it saves lives).
En masse denials and trying to run a “deportation railroad” eventually leads to gross inefficiencies and systemic failure. (And, it kills innocent individuals).
I’m not the only one who believes this. As one of my esteemed Round Table colleagues recently quipped: “The sloppiness of the BIA in case after case is alarming.” Indeed it is; but, sadly, not particularly surprising or unusual.
Before the inauguration, President Biden pledged a $1.9 trillion COVID-19 relief bill. Then, hours after he entered the Oval Office, he introduced an immigration bill, The U.S. Citizenship Act of 2021, which aims to put millions of undocumented immigrants on a pathway to citizenship. At first glance, these initiatives seem unrelated; in fact, they are deeply connected. Combining them is the best way to help us battle the COVID-19 pandemic and recover from the recession. Here’s why.
In the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, the United States and the world over learned a lesson about who was truly essential to the economy: the home health aides and nurses who care for the sick, the grocery and delivery workers who keep our stores and kitchens stocked, and the workers at our farms and food processing plants who keep our food supply chain from collapsing. These and so many other overlooked jobs — classified as “essential and critical” by the Department of Homeland Security — hold our society together, protect us, and make our economy work.
Large numbers of these essential workers are also undocumented immigrants. Over 78 percent of immigrants without legal status work in these fields, according to a report by UCLA’s Latino Policy and Politics Initiative. They’re not just risking their lives to keep American citizens safe and help rebuild our economy, but they do so without legal protections and under the constant fear of deportation. That’s inhumane. But it’s also dangerous for Americans. With hospitalizations of COVID-19 patients surpassing 52,000, Congress must follow the lead of countries like France and give these essential workers a fast track to the citizenship they deserve.
It’s no secret that immigrants are helping to keep us all afloat. Despite being just 13 percent of the population, immigrants make up 37 percent of all home health aides and almost one third of all physicians and psychiatrists. With a very real threat of meat and poultry shortages at the beginning of the pandemic, immigrants filled more than a third of the tough food processing jobs and nearly half of all farm jobs picking our fruits and vegetables. And as parents across the country are placed in the impossible situation of balancing full-time work and parenting during a pandemic, once again immigrants help shoulder the burden, making up more than 20 percent of all childcare workers in day care centers.
And yet, despite all of this, our federal government acted as though we didn’t need these workers. As the pandemic raged, millions of immigrants were explicitly left out of the CARES Act relief efforts, as were millions of their U.S. born children and spouses who were penalized for having an unauthorized immigrant in the family. Meanwhile, the Trump Administration sought to shut the border to immigrant workers and students, all but stopped processing citizenship applications and ended asylum for people fleeing horrific violence. It also fought unsuccessfully all the way to the Supreme Court for the right to end protections for Dreamers, tens of thousands of whom are essential health care workers.
So what would an effective federal response look like?
. . . .
***************
Read the rest of Jeremy’s article at the link for his ideas on how to join immigration reform with economic expansion.
Thanks for speaking out Andrea!Andrea is a former Arlington Immigration Court intern and one of the “charter members” of the NDPA. As captured on this video, she was assaulted by ICE while trying to assist her child client in reuniting with his mother! A civil suit against the agent involved is pending.
“Eyore In Distress” Once A Symbol of Fairness, Due Process, & Best Practices, Now Gone “Belly Up”BIA Asylum Panel In Action Albrecht Dürer, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons“Justice” Star Chamber Style
PANEL: Howard, Chief Judge, and Kayatta, Circuit Judge.**Judge Torruella heard oral argument in this matter and participated in the semble, but he did not participate in the issuance of the panel’s opinion in this case. The remaining two panelists therefore issued the opinion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 46(d).
ATTORNEYS: Nancy J. Kelly, with whom John Willshire Carrera and Harvard Immigration & Refugee Clinic of Harvard Law School at Greater Boston Legal Services were on brief, for petitioner.
Stratton C. Strand, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, with whom Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Douglas E. Ginsburg, Assistant Director, and Derek C. Julius, Senior Litigation Counsel, were on brief, for respondent.
OPINION BY: Chief Judge Howard
KEY QUOTE:
Petitioner Olga Araceli Molina- Diaz is a Honduran native and citizen who twice entered the United States without authorization. The government ordered her removed to Honduras, and an immigration judge (“IJ”) denied her subsequent application for withholding of removal (“Application”). Molina appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), which affirmed the IJ’s order and denied Molina’s motion to reopen and remand. Molina now petitions this court to review the BIA’s decision. Because we agree that the IJ and BIA made legal errors, we grant the petition, vacate the removal order, and remand for further proceedings.
*************************
Folks, we’re not talking about obtuse principles of international law, complex statutory interpretation, or “cutting edge” legal concepts. No, this is about credibility, corroboration, following your own precedents (even when they might produce a result favorable to the respondent), and adjudicating a CAT claim.
These are the “bread and butter” of basic asylum and withholding adjudication that is the staple of most Immigration Court dockets. Not rocket science! Yet, once they got below the “caption line,” the BIA, a supposedly “expert tribunal,” got pretty much everything else wrong. With human life at stake, no less!
This isn’t just an “outlier.” It reveals deep systemic problems in a dysfunctional system that has been programmed to cut corners and deny relief. After 21 years as an EOIR Judge at every level, I know an “autopilot denial” when I see one.
This is clearly the product of a judge and a BIA panel that approached the case with a “we deny almost all Hondurans, it’s just a question of how” attitude. Because “the bottom line got to no,” obviously nobody paid much, if any, attention to what was above it. I suspect that if the staff attorney had drafted this as a grant or a remand, the BIA panel would have given it a more thorough and searching review.
Following your own precedents isn’t a matter that requires profound knowledge or amazing analytical skills. It just requires some level of basic expertise and an open mind — things that appear to be sorely lacking throughout today’s broken EOIR.
The flawed EOIR approach to claims for asylum and withholding, particularly those involving the Northern Triangle and women, is very costly, not only to the humans involved, but also to our justice system. This respondent reentered the U.S. in 2009, and her merits hearing before the IJ took place in 2012. A careful, proper analysis could well have resulted in a grant at that time.
Instead, this “plethora of errors,” created by EOIR’s corner cutting and obsession with denying claims, bounced around the system for nearly a decade before being “outed” by the Circuit Court — obviously the only judges involved who took the time to actually analyze the case in accordance with the law, the facts, and the arguments made by counsel. So, after nearly a decade, at three different levels of review, we’re basically back to “square one” with this case.
The case will be returned to the BIA who inevitably will return it to to the IJ for a new hearing that actually complies with the law and due process. Given the total dysfunction in the EOIR system, it’s could easily be around for another decade.
Getting it right at the first level is critically important in a high volume, yet life determining, system like the Immigration Courts!That’s why it’s so absolutely essential that Judge Garland replace the current BIA and many of the current trial judges with “practical experts;” judges selected on a merit-basis because of their understanding of immigration and human rights laws, demonstrated analytical skills, and who by experience and reputation are overwhelmingly committed to due process, fundamental fairness, treating respondents and their lawyers with respect and dignity, and getting the right result the first time around. “The best and the brightest,” if you will!
As this case that began well before Trump shows, the deterioration at EOIR has been underway across Administrations over the past two decades. It greatly accelerated and became more acute under Trump. That’s particularly true because “Trump AGs” drastically expanded the Immigration Courts and the BIA (while exponentially increasing the backlog), and now have appointed the majority of judges in the system — after just four years!
Compare that with the Obama Administration’s practice of taking an mind-boggling average of two years to fill IJ vacancies! And, then filling them almost all with “government insiders and former prosecutors” rather than some of the many renowned “practical scholars,” experienced clinicians, and notable litigators in the private/academic/NGO immigration/human rights sectors. They actually left behind unfilled judicial vacancies for Sessions to “pounce on.” Says all you really need to know about the “priority” of immigrant justice in the Obama Administration. The “good enough for government work” attitude that has replaced “guaranteeing fairness and due process for all” as the “EOIR Vision” needs to go, now!
🇺🇸⚖️🗽Due Process Forever! Achieving it in the Immigration Courts will be the “litmus test” of whether Judge Garland succeeds or fails in his new role as Attorney General! You can’t improve justice for all in America while running a “court system” that denies justice, often ignores the law, mocks due process, eschews best practices and common sense, and routinely disrespects the humanity of those appearing before it! All while running up a stunning 1.3 million case backlog! As Justice Sotomayor would say: “This is not justice!”
1. Family and children detention protocols: The bill does not incorporate the Flores settlement governing the detention of immigrant minors. The Trump administration tried but failed to abrogate the settlement.
2. Border wall infrastructure: No surprise. The U.S./Mexico border wall, which President Trump championed, is not part of the bill’s enforcement plans. The Biden administration already had made it clear that construction of the wall was not a priority of his administration.
As I have previously mentioned, I expect a “stand alone” Article I Bill 🧑🏽⚖️ to be introduced in the House shortly.It could be combined with the Immigration Court improvements in the Biden Bill.
We need to keep the pressure on until Article I happens!
Elizabeth Gibson Attorney, NY Legal Assistance Group Publisher of “The Gibson Report”
COVID-19 & Closures
Note: Policies are rapidly changing, so please verify information with the government and colleagues.
EOIR Status Overview & EOIR Court Status Map/List: Hearings in non-detained cases at courts without an announced date are postponed through, and including, March 19, 2021 (The timing of postponement notices has been roughly every two weeks lately, but it has been inconsistent and it is unclear when the next announcement will be. EOIR announced 3/19 on Wed. 2/10, 2/19 on Mon. 1/25, 2/5 on Mon. 1/11, and 1/22 on Mon. 12/28). There is no announced date for reopening NYC non-detained at this time.
Politico: Congressional Democrats unveiled President Joe Biden’s expansive immigration reform bill Thursday, which would provide an eight-year pathway to citizenship for 11 million undocumented immigrants. But it already faces dim prospects for becoming law with such narrow Democratic majorities in both chambers. See also Factbox: What’s in Biden’s sweeping immigration bill being rolled out in Congress?
CNN: The guidelines establishes strict parameters for ICE officers, particularly in the event that an undocumented immigrant is encountered who’s not being targeted, and appears intended to restrain an agency emboldened under the last administration. See also New ICE Enforcement Priorities Represent an Important Shift, But More Change Is Needed.
CNN: Twenty-five migrants who had been forced to stay in Mexico crossed the US border in San Diego on Friday, the first group to arrive in the country as part of the Biden administration’s rollback of a controversial Trump-era policy, according to a source with knowledge of the process. See also The Ambiguous End of “Remain in Mexico.”
BuzzFeed: Department of Homeland Security officials have been directed to stop using words such as “alien” and “illegal alien” from communications with the public or within the agency when referring to people who aren’t US citizens in an effort by the Biden administration to recast immigration terminology.
SPLC: A federal court has again blocked a Trump administration ban that categorically denied asylum to anyone at the southern border who had transited through a third country en route to the United States, with very limited exceptions.
CBS: The Department of Homeland Security on Tuesday moved to scrap a contract signed at the tail end of the Trump administration that could have allowed a union of deportation officers to stall the implementation of certain immigration policy changes.
BuzzFeed: As millions across Texas endured freezing temperatures without running water or electricity this week, immigrants detained by ICE said they have endured their own misery with not enough to drink, toilets full of human excrement that couldn’t be flushed, and days without being able to shower.
ICE: He is the former Dean of the University of San Francisco School of Law, where he established an immigration law clinic. Prior to his time as Dean, Mr. Trasviña served as the Assistant Secretary of the Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity in the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, managing over 580 employees and a budget exceeding $140 million per year, and President and General Counsel of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF).
CNN: Immigration and Customs Enforcement is planning to release some migrant families in detention to accommodate the arrival of migrants arrested at the US-Mexico border, according to two Homeland Security officials.
Reuters: The justices agreed to take up an appeal that the Trump administration had filed of a lower court ruling that found the rule likely violated federal immigration and administrative law by impermissibly expanding the definition of who counts as a “public charge” and greatly increasing the number of people who would be rejected for residency.
Conecta: Individuals and families who believe they may be eligible for the program for active MPP cases can now register via Conecta for an appointment with the Support Hub, the first step in the process. For those without internet, call: 800 283 2753.
USCIS updated guidance in its Policy Manual regarding the educational requirements for naturalization. The update, effective 3/1/21, provides that USCIS will revert to administering the 2008 civics test to applicants who filed for naturalization before 12/1/20, or who will file on or after 3/1/21. AILA Doc. No. 21022232
ICE Acting Director issued a memo establishing interim guidance in support of the interim civil immigration enforcement and removal priorities issued by DHS on 1/20/21. The guidance, effective immediately, covers enforcement actions, custody decisions, execution of final orders of removal, and more. AILA Doc. No. 21021800
CDC notice announcing a temporary exception from expulsion for unaccompanied noncitizen children to its order issued October 13, 2020, suspending the right to introduce certain persons from countries where a quarantinable communicable disease exists. (86 FR 9942, 2/17/21) AILA Doc. No. 21021732
Unpublished BIA decision equitably tolls 180-day time limit on motion to rescind in absentia order based on ineffective assistance of counsel. Special thanks to IRAC. (Matter of Enriquez-Godinez, 6/24/20) AILA Doc. No. 21021600
Unpublished BIA decision holds that carrying a firearm without a license under 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. 6106(a)(1) is not a firearms offense because it applies to antique firearms that are suitable for use. Special thanks to IRAC. (Matter of Santana Colon, 6/30/20) AILA Doc. No. 21021601
The court held that substantial evidence supported the BIA’s decision affirming the IJ’s adverse credibility determination, reasoning that discrepancies in the record warranted a finding that petitioner had testified untruthfully about his asylum claim. (Zaruma-Guaman v. Wilkinson, 2/9/21) AILA Doc. No. 21021837
The court rejected the petitioner’s contention that the conditions of prolonged 41-bis incarceration he faced or would face in Italy rose to the level of torture, as that term is used in the Convention Against Torture (CAT) and its implementing regulations. (Gallina v. Wilkinson, 2/12/21) AILA Doc. No. 21021840
The court rejected the BIA’s “excessively narrow” view of the nexus requirement, concluding that the record indisputably showed that the petitioner had satisfied her burden to establish that her familial ties were one central reason for her persecution. (Diaz de Gomez v. Wilkinson, 2/8/21) AILA Doc. No. 21021631
The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to review petitioner’s argument that the IJ and BIA erred in finding his conspiracy to commit wire fraud offense was a “particularly serious crime” rendering him statutorily ineligible for withholding of removal. (Tibakweitira v. Wilkinson, 2/1/21) AILA Doc. No. 21021632
The court held that BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the petitioner’s motion to reopen her 1992 deportation proceedings, finding that the Supreme Court’s decision in Pereira v. Sessions did not affect the soundness of her proceedings. (Perez-Perez v. Wilkinson, 2/11/21) AILA Doc. No. 21021841
The court held that the BIA and the IJ failed to consider evidence that the petitioner’s removal would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to his daughter, given that her hardship—a speech impairment—is aggravated by her emotional turmoil. (Martinez-Baez v. Wilkinson, 2/1/21) AILA Doc. No. 21021634
Where the BIA upheld the denial of asylum to petitioner based on a finding that serious reasons exist to believe he committed a serious nonpolitical crime, the court held that the “serious reasons for believing” standard requires a finding of probable cause. (Barahona v. Wilkinson, 2/3/21) AILA Doc. No. 21021636
Upholding the BIA’s denial of asylum and related relief, the court found that the petitioner’s proposed particular social group (PSG) comprised of “minor Christian males who oppose gang membership” was not a cognizable PSG. (Santos-Ponce v. Wilkinson, 2/10/21) AILA Doc. No. 21021932
Denying in part the petition for review, the court held that petitioner’s proposed particular social group (PSG) of “Mexican wealthy business owners” was not cognizable because it lacked social distinction, particularity, or an immutable characteristic. (Macedo Templos v. Wilkinson, 2/9/21) AILA Doc. No. 21021931
Granting the petition for review, the court held that the IJ and BIA had impermissibly refused to consider the Iraqi petitioner’s mental illness as a factor in determining whether he was barred from withholding of removal based on a particularly serious crime. (Shazi v. Wilkinson, 2/11/21) AILA Doc. No. 21021930
Granting the petition for review, the court held that the act of reentering illegally under INA §241(a)(5) requires some form of misconduct by the noncitizen—such as entering without inspection—rather than merely the status of inadmissibility. (Tomczyk v. Wilkinson, 2/3/21) AILA Doc. No. 21021644
A district court granted a preliminary injunction preventing the government from implementing the Third Country Transit Ban final rule and ordering the return to the pre-Final Rule practices for processing asylum applications. (East Bay Sanctuary Covenant vs. Barr, 2/16/21) AILA Doc. No. 21021645
Granting in part plaintiffs’ motion for emergency relief, the court ordered defendants to treat all visas issued or renewed pursuant to Gomez v. Trump as having been issued in the first instance as of the date the court makes a final judgment. (Gomez, et al., v. Biden, et al., 2/19/21) AILA Doc. No. 21022233
The district court preliminarily approved a settlement agreement under which the L.A. County Sheriff’s Department will pay $14,000,000 to former inmates detained beyond the expiration of their state criminal charges pursuant to immigration detainers. (Roy v. County of Los Angeles, 11/25/20) AILA Doc. No. 21021736
The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts issued a preliminary injunction requiring DHS to rescind the orders returning seven asylum-seeking plaintiffs to Mexico pursuant to the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP). (Bollat Vasquez, et al. v. Mayorkas, et al., 2/13/21) AILA Doc. No. 21021646
Law360: A California federal judge has recommended sanctioning the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and Customs and Border Protection, finding Thursday that two officials shredded notes relevant to asylum-seekers’ claims of being illegally turned away from the southern border.
DHS announced that it has begun the first step in a phased approach to process individuals returned to Mexico with active MPP cases. DHS processed a limited number of individuals on 2/19/21 through the San Ysidro Port of Entry. Additional ports of entry will begin processing individuals this week. AILA Doc. No. 21021230
DOS updated its guidance on K visa processing for individuals who are named plaintiffs in Milligan v. Pompeo and who are subject to a geographic COVID-related proclamation. DOS also provided guidance for K visa applicants who are not plaintiffs in the case. AILA Doc. No. 20113030
USCIS notice extending Deferred Enforced Departure (DED) and work authorization for eligible Liberians through 6/30/22, pursuant to the memo issued by President Biden on 1/20/21. (86 FR 9531, 2/16/21) AILA Doc. No. 21021233
CUNY Immigration Seminar Series, Spring 2021: Feb 5: Holding Fast, Feb 19: Hyper Education, Mar 5: Citizenship Reimagined, Mar 12: The President and Immigration Law, Mar 26: The Browning of the New South, Apr 9: Reuniting Families, Apr 23: Represented But Unequal, Apr 30: Pursuing Citizenship in the Enforcement Era.
FJC Core and Advanced Trainings, February and March 2021 for service providers, community leaders, and city agency staff who are working with populations directly or indirectly affected by domestic and gender-based violence.
By Micah Schwartzman and David Fontana write in WashPost:
. . . .
Assuming federal appellate judges decide, on average (and conservatively), at least several hundred cases per year, Trump’s judges will decide tens of thousands more cases than their Obama-appointed counterparts. To put it bluntly: The age of judges matters.
But Democrats still aren’t getting the message. At a Brookings Institution event in January, former attorney general Eric Holder touted racial and ethnic diversity — and diversity of professional background — but also said judges should only be appointed if they are 50 years old or older.
It would be a serious mistake for President Biden to follow that last piece of advice, and he would be repeating an error that Obama made. The Obama administration made substantial progress in diversifying the bench, but took a misguided approach when it came to age.
In an attempt to depoliticize judicial nominations, Obama mostly appointed highly experienced sitting judges and federal prosecutors during his first term as president. Senate Republicans rejected the olive branch, and in fact escalated obstruction of his nominees. Biden also wants to lower the temperature of partisan conflict, but there is no reason to think choosing older judges will have that effect.
Nominating younger judges is also crucial for developing leaders on the federal bench, including future Supreme Court justices. When presidents look for nominees to elevate to the high court, they usually select judges from the federal appellate courts. For example, Neil M. Gorsuch was a mere 38 years old when nominated (by President George W. Bush) to become an appellate judge, Brett M. Kavanaugh was 41 (also Bush), and Amy Coney Barrett was 45 (Trump). When later elevated to the Supreme Court they were 49, 53 and 48, respectively (average age: 50). Meanwhile, because Obama selected older judges, Biden will find only three Democratically appointed judges across the entire federal courts of appeals who are at that age or younger.
Younger federal judges have more time to build up a jurisprudence — a body of legal values, principles and judgments — as well as a professional network of other judges, lawyers and clerks who can develop, share and amplify their legal views. Republicans have long understood this: Many of their most famous and influential appointees were put on the appellate bench at young ages, including Frank Easterbrook (nominated at age 36), Michael Luttig (36), Kenneth Starr (37), Samuel Alito (39), Douglas Ginsburg (40), Clarence Thomas (41), Richard Posner (42), Antonin Scalia (46) and John Roberts (47).
If Democrats hope to shape the law for the next generation, they, too, need younger judges who have both the energy and a sufficiently long tenure on the bench to leave lasting legacies. Consider the example of Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who was one of President Bill Clinton’s youngest appellate nominees, at age 43; she was 54 when Obama nominated her to the Supreme Court in 2009. Over the past two decades, she has developed a distinctive and powerful voice on the bench. It’s unlikely she would have done so had she been nominated to the appellate court in her early-to-mid 50s.
The Biden administration has made an admirable commitment to diversifying the bench — signaling his intention to depart from Trump’s example. Not a single one of Trump’s 54 appointments to the appellate courts was African American. But there is no trade-off between youth and diversity. If anything, there are more women and more members of minority groups represented in the legal profession now than at any time in the past. At least when it comes to putting judges on the bench, this president can have it all. He can diversify the bench while at the same time appointing people who will be influential for decades, narrowing the partisan age gap in the judicial branch.
Micah J. Schwartzman is the Hardy Cross Dillard professor of law at the University of Virginia.
David Fontana is Samuel Tyler Research Professor at the George Washington University Law School.
**********************
Read the rest of this article at the: above link.
Absolutely right!
And, nowhere did the Obama Administration do a worse job than with the U.S. Immigration Courts which were entirely under their control at the DOJ! Can’t blame Moscow Mitch and his GOP Senate cronies for this failure!
As one of my Round Table ⚔️🛡 colleagues accurately described it:
I continue to repeat that following the Bush Administration’s terrible record for appointments based on Republican credentials and loyalty, Holder merely shuffled the deck of long-time EOIR bureaucrats, appointing as Chief IJ and BIA Chair and Vice-Chair individuals whose idea of leadership was keeping their heads down and doing what had always been done before.There is presently a need for much more inspired appointments at the top.
Amen! I keep saying it: There needs to be an immediate “clean sweep” of EOIR so-called upper “management” and at the BIA. There are plenty of much better qualified folks out there who could “hit the ground running” on either a temporary or permanent basis.
Then, there must be a proper merit-based selection system with public participation and an active, positive recruitment effort that will attract a diverse group of “practical scholars” with actual experience representing asylum seekers and other migrants in Immigration Court. (“Posting” judicial vacancies on “USA Jobs” for a couple of weeks is both absurdly inadequate and “designed to fail” if your objective is to create a diverse expert judiciary of “the best, brightest, and most capable”).
Then, these merit-based criteria should be applied over time to “re-compete” all existing Immigration Judge jobs. These necessary steps will tie-in with the legislation to create an Article I Immigration Court. “Turn over” a top-flight “model judiciary” rather than the unmitigated disaster that now exists at EOIR.
An important consequence of the failure of Obama to build a better, progressive Immigration Judiciary is that it has deprived President Biden of a pool of younger progressive Immigration Judges with proven judicial credentials who, in turn, would have been prime candidates for filling Article III vacancies.
That’s not to say that some sitting Immigration Judges don’t have Article III credentials. Some undoubtedly have stood tall against the “Dred Scottification” of the Immigration Courts under Miller & Co. Not enough, but some.
However, had the Obama Administration acted with more wisdom, courage, and competence, the pool would be much larger — perhaps large enough to have put up a more concerted and higher profile resistance to the lawless, anti-immigrant, anti-due process agenda at all levels of EOIR over the past four years!
Using better Immigration Judges as a source of progressive Article III Judges would also solve another glaring problem that has undermined equal justice and racial justice within the Article III Judiciary: the lack of expertise in immigration and human rights laws (which currently make up a disproportionate part of the Article III civil docket) and the human empathy and practical problem solving ability that comes from representing asylum applicants and others in Immigration Court. Nowhere is the lack of scholarship, integrity, and human understanding more obvious than with the woodenly anti-due process, anti-Constitutional, anti-rule-of-law performance of the tone-deaf and totally out of touch GOP majority on the Supremes in immigration, human rights, and civil rights cases.
It’s no coincidence that the best-qualified of the current Supremes, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, has overtly “called out” her right wing colleagues’ inexcusable performance on cases affecting immigrants’ rights and human rights. It’s also no coincidence that in his new highly critical look at the failures of the Federal Judiciary in criminal justice, U.S. District Judge Jed S. Rakoff “would also require prosecutors to periodically represent indigent defendants so they appreciate the ‘one-sided nature . . . of the plea bargaining process.’” https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2021/02/16/court-appointments-age-biden-trump-judges-age/
I guarantee that none of the current Supremes would put up with the outrageously unfair, biased, degrading, and dehumanizing practices intentionally and maliciously inflicted on vulnerable migrants and their attorneys on a daily basis at both the trial and appellate levels of our broken and dysfunctional Immigration Courts if they had personally experienced it. Nor should Judge Garland put up with the totally unacceptable status quo!
A better Immigration Court isn’t rocket science. It’s quite achievable on a realistic timeline. But, it will take both the will to act and putting the right “practical experts” (predominantly from outside the current Government) in place. Past Dem Administrations have failed on both counts, some worse than others.
The Biden Administration can’t afford to fail on Immigration Court reform! For the sake of the vulnerable individuals whose lives are at stake! For the sake of America whose future is at stake!
