"The Voice of the New Due Process Army" ————– Musings on Events in U.S. Immigration Court, Immigration Law, Sports, Music, Politics, and Other Random Topics by Retired United States Immigration Judge (Arlington, Virginia) and former Chairman of the Board of Immigration Appeals PAUL WICKHAM SCHMIDT and DR. ALICIA TRICHE, expert brief writer, practical scholar, emeritus Editor-in-Chief of The Green Card (FBA), and 2022 Federal Bar Association Immigration Section Lawyer of the Year. She is a/k/a “Delta Ondine,” a blues-based alt-rock singer-songwriter, who performs regularly in Memphis, where she hosts her own Blues Brunch series, and will soon be recording her first full, professional album. Stay tuned! 🎶 To see our complete professional bios, just click on the link below.
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!
Donald Trump used anti-immigrant demagoguery to launch his presidential campaign, accusing the people who hoped to make their homes here of being “rapists” and “bad hombres” and calling — nonsensically — for all of them to be sent back to their home countries, where they would “go to the back of the line” for readmission to the United States. He used them as scapegoats whom the “Make America Great Again” crowd could blame for the nation’s ills. Republican senators who once believed in reality-based immigration reform, such as Marco Rubio (Fla.) and Lindsey O. Graham (S.C.), stopped resisting the party’s xenophobia and came to embrace it.
Democrats sought political advantage by being seen as anti-anti-immigration, seeking support by opposing GOP initiatives such as Trump’s border wall. Yet they were disappointed to see Trump’s share of the Hispanic vote actually grow from 2016 to 2020 — demonstrating, in my view, that theatrical demonstrations of solidarity are no substitute for coming up with policies that voters believe would actually improve their lives.
Are we really going to continue like this indefinitely? Are we going to consign 11 million people to an extralegal existence because our politicians find it advantageous to argue about their fate?
Biden’s proposal would allow farmworkers, migrants brought here as children and those who have “temporary protected status” because of threats in their homelands to apply for citizenship in three years. The rest of the undocumented would have to wait eight years to apply to be citizens. All would have to pass background checks; and the amnesty — let’s call it what it is — would cover only those in the country before Jan. 1 of this year to prevent a new surge of people trying to cross the border.
Would Biden settle for legislation that normalized the status of only some of the undocumented, but not all of them? He has already said he doesn’t want to but might. Would he accept whatever scraps of reform that could be achieved through the Senate’s reconciliation process, which requires only 51 votes instead of 60? If it came to that, he wouldn’t have a choice.
But the Biden administration has shown a refreshing insistence on negotiating with the opposition rather than with itself. In seeking covid-19 relief, for example, Biden is asking for $1.9 trillion rather than some less eye-popping amount. When he lays out his plans for improving the nation’s infrastructure and making the transition to green energy, he is expected to request even more. Polls show that voters want bipartisanship and compromise — but the first crucial step in that process is defining the range of possibilities.
Biden is asking not for a few minimal immigration fixes but for a comprehensive solution. This is a president who wants more than a return to the old ways: He’s shooting for a truly new normal.
***********************
Read the rest of Eugene’s op-ed at the link.
Well said, Eugene! “Negotiating with itself” is a good description of the Obama Administration’s ineffective approach to immigration. And, an Article I Immigration Court must also be part of the “think big — act boldly” immigration policy that America needs! “Reality-based immigration policy” — administered and staffed by experts and professionals — is exactly the right approach!
BIA Asylum Panel In Action Albrecht Dürer, Public domain, via Wikimedia CommonsDan Kowalski Online Editor of the LexisNexis Immigration Law Community (ILC)
Dan Kowalski reports from LexisNexis Immigration Community:
“Alicia Naranjo Garcia (“Garcia”) is a native and citizen of Mexico. Garcia petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision affirming the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). The Knights Templar, a local drug cartel, murdered Garcia’s husband, twice threatened her life, and forcibly took her property in retaliation for helping her son escape recruitment by fleeing to the United States. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we grant the petition in part and remand. … [W]e conclude that the BIA erred in its nexus analysis for both Garcia’s asylum claim and her withholding of removal claim. We remand with instructions for the BIA to reconsider Garcia’s asylum claim, and for the BIA to consider whether Garcia is eligible for withholding of removal under the proper “a reason” standard. We deny the petition as it relates to Garcia’s claim for relief under CAT.”
This insanely nonsensical gibberish put forth by the BIA — and defended by OIL — is an insult to the entire American justice system!Obviously, EOIR and their DOJ “handlers” unethically assume that Article III Circuit Judges will just “take a dive” and defer to illegal and illogical removal orders. Because, after all, it’s only foreign nationals (mostly people of color) whose lives are at stake! Not “real human beings.” That’s exactly what “institutionalized racism” and “Dred Scottification” look like. Nothing worth breaking a sweat about in the “21st Century Jim Crow America!”
The BIA’s anti-asylum bias and massively incompetent adjudication — on life or death matters — continues to be exposed. There likely are many, many other legitimate asylum cases that are wrongfully rejected by the EOIR “denial factory.” That’s one of many reasons why the EOIR/DHS (intentionally) “cooked stats” on the bona fides of asylum seekers arriving at our Southern Border can never be trusted!
Not everyone is fortunate enough to have competent representation and get meaningful review by a Circuit panel not on “autopilot.” This is a corrupt and broken system, the continued existence of which in its current form is a repudiation of our Constitution, the rule of law, and human decency!
The Biden Administration can, and must, put an end to this ongoing national disgrace! “Any reason to deny” is not justice!
Wonder how the Georgia Law Clinic got involved in this 9th Circuit case? I have the answer, thanks to my friend Michelle Mendez, Director, Defending Vulnerable Populations @ CLINIC:
Thanks so much to CLINIC’s BIA Pro Bono Project for identifying and placing this case with the wonderful team at at University of Georgia School of Law!
Michelle Mendez Defending Vulnerable Populations Director Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc. (“CLINIC”)
The NDPA is everywhere! And, we’ll continue to be there until due process for all is achieved, regardless of the Administration!
The White House announced a sweeping immigration bill Thursday that would create an eight-year path to citizenship for millions of immigrants already in the country and provide a faster track for undocumented immigrants brought to the US as children.
The legislation faces an uphill climb in a narrowly divided Congress, where House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has just a five-vote margin and Senate Democrats do not have the 60 Democratic votes needed to pass the measure with just their party’s support.
Administration officials argued Wednesday evening that the legislation was an attempt by President Joe Biden to restart a conversation on overhauling the US immigration system and said he remained open to negotiating.
“He was in the Senate for 36 years, and he is the first to tell you the legislative process can look different on the other end than where it starts,” one administration official said in a call with reporters, adding that Biden would be “willing to work with Congress.”
The effort comes as there are multiple standalone bills in Congress aimed at revising smaller pieces of the country’s immigration system. Sens. Lindsey Graham, a Republican from South Carolina, and Majority Whip Dick Durbin, a Democrat from Illinois, for example, have reintroduced their DREAM Act, which would provide a path to citizenship for immigrants who came to the country illegally as children.
Administration officials said the best path forward and plans either to pass one bill or break it into multiple pieces would be up to Congress.
“There’s things that I would deal by itself, but not at the expense of saying, ‘I’m never going to do the other.’ There is a reasonable path to citizenship,” Biden said at a CNN town hall in Milwaukee on Tuesday.
“The President is committed to working with Congress to engage in conversations about the best way forward,” one administration official said.
Officials did not say if they believed that the reconciliation process, a special budget tool that applies only to a specific subset of legislation and allows the Senate to pass bills with a simple majority, would be applicable for an immigration bill. “Too early to speculate about it right now,” one official said.
The Senate is working on passing the President’s coronavirus relief legislation through reconciliation. The expectation is that the administration could also use the process to pass an infrastructure bill.
Biden’s immigration bill will be introduced by Democrats Bob Menendez of New Jersey in the Senate and Linda Sanchez of California in the House.
Read the rest of Priscilla’s & Lauren’s analysis at the link.
The White House “Fact Sheet” on the legislation is also available at the link at the end of the above excerpt.
Here’s what that summary says about the U.S. Immigration Courts:
Improve the immigration courts and protect vulnerable individuals. The bill expands family case management programs, reduces immigration court backlogs, expands training for immigration judges, and improves technology for immigration courts. The bill also restores fairness and balance to our immigration system by providing judges and adjudicators with discretion to review cases and grant relief to deserving individuals. Funding is authorized for legal orientation programs and counsel for children, vulnerable individuals, and others when necessary to ensure the fair and efficient resolution of their claims. The bill also provides funding for school districts educating unaccompanied children, while clarifying sponsor responsibilities for such children.
Support asylum seekers and other vulnerable populations. The bill eliminates the one-year deadline for filing asylum claims and provides funding to reduce asylum application backlogs. It also increases protections for U visa, T visa, and VAWA applicants, including by raising the cap on U visas from 10,000 to 30,000. The bill also expands protections for foreign nationals assisting U.S. troops.
Unfortunately, the bill does not contain the most important legislative solution: An Article I Immigration Court. Nevertheless, a separate Article I bill will be introduced in the House soon. Since the “USCA of 2021” is largely a “talking draft” anyway, there is no reason why Article I couldn’t be combined with the other changes in the bill.
While attention to improving the Immigration Courts is welcome and long overdue, I think this proposal actually misses the major point: What’s needed right now isn’t necessarily more Immigration Judges; it’s better Immigration Judges, starting, but not ending, with a replacement of the current dysfunctional Board of Immigration Appeals. Only with the improvements in the administrative case law, docket management, and “best practices” that better EOIR judges would bring could we really tell whether more judges are actually necessary.
Right now, throwing more bodies into the ungodly mess at EOIR would only create confusion and aggravate existing problems. And, while the proposal correctly spotlights woeful inadequacies in IJ training and professional development, those alone will not be enough to restore due process to a system wracked by decades of bad judicial selection practices that basically have excluded the “best and brightest” immigration experts from the private sector, those with actual experience representing individuals in Immigration Court, from the “21st Century Immigration Judiciary.”
The good news: Judge Garland won’t need legislation to get this system back on track by:
Immediately replacing the current BIA with judges who are renowned experts in immigration, human rights, and due process, with special attention to those with actual experience representing asylum seekers;
Vacating all of the improper Sessions and Barr precedents, and letting the “new BIA” straighten out the law and implement best practices, including holding IJs who are members of the “Asylum Deniers Club” accountable;
Implementing efficient merit-based judicial hiring practices which would involve public input and actively recruit from communities now underrepresented in the Immigration Judiciary;
Eventually re-competing all Immigration Judge jobs under these merit criteria, again with public input on the performance of current judges part of the process;
Replacing all of EOIR’s incompetent upper “management” with competent professional judicial administrators;
Examining the justification and “bang for the buck” in EOIR’s bloated, yet highly ineffective, headquarters operation in Falls Church with an eye toward maximizing support for the local Immigration Courts and minimizing counterproductive and politicized micromanagement and interference with the operation of local courts;
Making peace and working with the National Association of Immigration Judges (“NAIJ”), which is much more “on top of” the real problems in the Immigration Courts than often clueless EOIR “management” in Falls Church;
Instituting e-filing and other long overdue 21st Century judicial administration practices in the Immigration Courts;
Working cooperatively with the private bar, NGOs, ICE, and local IJs to maximize representation and improve docketing and scheduling practices.
Judge Garland has the authority to make all the foregoing changes, which will immediately improve the delivery of justice at the critical “retail level” of our justice system and make the achievement of racial justice and equal justice for all more than just “pipe dreams.” Immigrant justice is essential for racial justice!
The only question is whether Judge Garland will actually do what’s necessary. If not, he can expect some “aggressive pushback” from those of us who are fed up with the “EOIR Clown Show” 🤡🦹🏿♂️☠️ and its daily mockery of American justice!
President Biden’s Executive Actions on Immigration
A new webpage from the Center for Migration Studies summarizes and analyzes recent executive orders, proclamations, and directives from the Biden administration.
On his first day in office, President Biden issued a number of orders, proclamations, and directives that reversed policies enacted by the Trump administration and sought to put the US immigration system on a far different course. These executive actions:
Ended the discriminatory travel bans;
Revised US immigration enforcement priorities
Protected Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) recipients;
Temporarily halted construction of the US-Mexico Border Wall;
Ensured that all US-residents, including undocumented immigrants, are counted in the 2020 Census; and
Reinstated Deferred Enforced Departure (DED) for Liberians.
President Biden also sent the US Citizenship Act of 2021 to Congress. If passed by the Senate and House, this bill would represent the most sweeping immigration reform legislation in decades and lead to the largest legalization program in US history.
President Biden has since issued several additional Executive Orders (EOs), which:
Created a task force to reunify separated migrant families;
Require federal agencies to review the Trump administration’s actions related to immigration;
Provide for safe and orderly processing of asylum applications at the border;
Call for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Department of State (DOS) to rebuild and strengthen the US Refugee Admissions Program.
The Center for Migration Studies (CMS) is a New York-based educational institute devoted to the study of international migration, to the promotion of understanding between immigrants and receiving communities, and to public policies that safeguard the dignity and rights of migrants, refugees, and newcomers. For more information, please visit www.cmsny.org.
By Geoff Bennett, Julia Ainsley and Jacob Soboroff
The Biden administration and Hill Democrats are expected later this week to release an immigration reform bill, multiple sources familiar with the planning tell NBC News.
The legislative text of the “U.S. Citizenship Act of 2021” will reflect the immigration priorities that President Joe Biden unveiled on his first day in office. His proposal includes an earned pathway to citizenship for 11 million undocumented immigrants, expands the refugee resettlement program and deploys more technology to the Southern border. There are additional protections that are being considered in the legislation, such as asylum processing in home countries for minors, expanded benefits for DREAMers and ending the public charge rule.
While previous attempts at massive immigration reform have failed under both Republican and Democratic administrations, the Biden White House has signaled support for breaking the legislation into pieces.
As a potential secondary path, lawmakers would work to pass bills legalizing farmworkers and Dreamers right away, and then move toward a more expansive overhaul. The main objective, officials and advocates say, is progress.
. . . .
*************
Sounds like modest expectations. But, any meaningful immigration legislation would be a major achievement that has eluded the last two Administrations.
Unfortunately, based on the the GOP’s impeachment performance, it’s hard to see 60 votes for any substantive legislation in the Senate.
Sens. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) and Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) on Sunday made history with their appointments to lead two separate Senate subcommittees.
The Senate Judiciary Committee, headed by Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), announced Booker will chair the subcommittee on criminal justice and counterterrorism. He’s the first Black chair of a Senate Judiciary subcommittee.
The committee also announced Padilla will chair the subcommittee on immigration, citizenship and border safety ― the first Latino to do so. He became the first Latino senator from California last month when he took over Kamala Harris’ seat as she assumed the vice presidency.
In a statement Sunday, Padilla said he’s honored by the historic appointment, noting his roots as the “proud son of immigrants from Mexico.”
“While no state has more at stake in immigration policy than California, the entire nation stands to benefit from thoughtful immigration reform,” Padilla said. “I commit to bringing the urgency to immigration reform that this moment demands and millions of hard working immigrants have earned.”
. . . .
**************
Read the full article at the link.
“Urgency” on immigration and human rights is exactly what’s needed and has been sorely missing from Dem leadership in the past. There is nothing more “urgent” than insuring immediate comprehensive Immigration Court reform at the DOJ, eventually leading to the creation of a progressive, independent, Article I Immigration Court.
Without dramatic Immigration Court reforms, most other immigration reforms will prove to be sporadic, inconsistent, and ineffective. Somebody has to insure that the Executive Branch complies with due process and other legal requirements. That’s been totally lacking over the past four years, and has also been problematic in past Dem Administrations!
Without addressing the institutionalized dehumanization inflicted on people of color (“Dred Scottification”) by the immigration system, there will be no real racial justice in America!
Prof. Geoffrey Hoffman, Nov. 24, 2015 – “It is important, I think, to note the import but also the paradox behind the BIA’s latest precedent decision, Matter of Y-S-L-C-, 26 I&N Dec. 688 (BIA 2015) that admonishes IJ’s not to bully minors. In the decision, the Board discusses conduct by an Immigration Judge that can be construed as “bullying or hostile” behavior and says it is “never appropriate,” particularly in cases involving “minor respondents,” concluding such behavior may result in remand to a different Immigration Judge. I am glad that the Board is finally taking to task this kind of egregious IJ behavior. On the one hand, we should applaud the Board for pointing out this behavior and finally holding it up to the light of day in an important new precedent decision. On the other hand, it is a sad commentary on the behavior of some judges that the appellate body of the EOIR has to even say this publicly. Of course judges should not behave this way, and the fact that recusal is mandated by the BIA in such situations is something to congratulate the Board for now getting behind. But, one wonders whether this response is at all sufficient. Whether, as an IJ, I can now say, “Well, the worst that will happen is that I will have the case taken away from me on remand, and therefore I do not have to deal with this mess anymore.” It doesn’t seem like much of a deterrent.
In a case which I handled on appeal, the IJ denied the respondent’s attorney the opportunity to call a psychologist to testify about the respondent’s mental condition and disease (bipolar disorder), a fact which went directly to the particular social group and seemed particularly relevant to me. When the attorney respectfully requested permission to put on the expert witness, and specially whether the witness could testify about any medications the respondent had taken or was taking the IJ in response asked the attorney whether she was on any medications. Was she on any medications? I read and re-read that line again and again as I prepared the appeal thinking perhaps I had missed the joke. But this wasn’t a joke. It was simply intemperate behavior by an IJ. Thankfully, the BIA correctly and compassionately remanded the case but based on the bipolar condition, recognizing that it could form a valid PSG. No mention was made of the issue of judicial impropriety I had raised in the brief. In other appeals I have done before the Board, I have noticed that when raising issues with the Board about IJ’s missing evidence or even misconstruing the factual background, the Board does not seem to deal with these issues head-on but instead bases their decisions on some other ground, preferring to adjudicate the appeal on a legal ground rather than on the basis of judicial misconduct or judicial mistake. And there is nothing surprising here, with the Board insulating IJ’s from admonishment and not highlighting their misunderstandings of the record, but there is I think a cost which has been underreported or perhaps not even appreciated. The cost is that IJs become used to behaving in a way that can be described as intemperate at best and demeaning or demoralizing and abusive, at worst.
This said, I do have a lot of sympathy for many IJs, having worked very hard myself for a federal judge for two years after law school, and seeing and appreciating the incredible stress and responsibilities of being a judge. The IJs, it should be mentioned, have it worse: they have to juggle a case load of hundreds and hundreds of cases, while at the same time maintaining compassion and composure at all times, and at the same time providing a clear, cogent and correct legal analysis in all cases and contexts. However, and this needs to be said, I think some IJs should not be IJs and should not have been selected to be IJs. If we want to make the immigration court system work we need to do a better job in vetting these judges, choosing based on temperament and suitability to deal with the rigors of handling all these cases with compassion and professionalism.
This is the time now (at this very moment) to make this statement as loudly and boldly as possible, since EOIR right now is advertising for 50+ new judgeships across the country. Since we have approximately 250+ judges, this represents an approximate 20 percent increase. I implore EOIR to make these decisions with due regard to how the judges might act in future, not just whether they have experience deporting people, working for the government in other capacities, or experiences such as being in the military. While those are factors, let’s draw from the ranks of those with proven compassion, like the YMCA directors, legal aid attorneys, and people who will never belittle a child, never lose themselves in the power and prestige, and be resilient and persevere in one of the hardest jobs imaginable.”
Unfortunately, the Obama Administration ignored Geoffrey’s plea. Instead of creating a well-qualified, independent, progressive judiciary that could achieve the “EOIR Vision” of: “Through teamwork and innovation becoming the world’s best tribunals, guaranteeing fairness and due process for all,” the Obama Administration handed out immigration judgeships like they were service awards for DHS prosecutors, DOJ attorneys, and other government lawyers.
The Obama selections appeared designed primarily to avoid appointing anyone who might have the background, backbone, and courage to “rock the boat” and stand up for immigrants’ rights even when it meant rejecting ill-advised and legally questionable Administration enforcement policies and procedures. In other words, truly independent judging and thinking was discouraged in favor of a “go along to get along” atmosphere mischaracterized as “collegiality.”
Sure, collegiality has its benefits. But, in the end, independent judging is about justice for the individuals coming before the courts, not about institutional survival, job preservation, making friends, achieving bureaucratic performance goals, or pleasing political “handlers” who don’t want to read about their “subordinates” in the “funny papers.” When I was ousted from the BIA as part of the so-called “Ashcroft purge,” I noticed that those those judges who were “collegial” but outspoken about immigrants’ legal rights got punished right along with those who were perceived as “less collegial” in standing up for the same rights.
Moreover, the Obama folks designed an unwieldy and astoundingly inefficient “Rube Goldberg selection system” that took more than two years to fill an average IJ vacancy — much longer than the Senate confirmation process! This was at a time when backlogs were building and the NAIJ and the “line IJs” were begging “EOIR management” for help. “Management” could have achieved comparable results simply by throwing darts at a board containing the names of government attorneys. And, it would have cut the red tape.
Inept as the Obama Administration might have been, the Trump kakistocracy of course proved to be our worst nightmare. They “weaponized” the EOIR immigration judiciary into a tool of White Nationalist nativist enforcement, racial injustice, and misogyny. Here are some of the things Sessions and Barr did at the behest of Stephen Miller:
“Packed” the BIA with judges known as “asylum deniers” — some with denial rates in excess of 90%;
Appointed IJs from the Atlanta Immigration Court, which had generated Matter of Y-S-L-C-, to the BIA in an overt attempt to replicate the “Asylum Free Zone” as Atlanta was known throughout the private bar;
“Rewarded” with BIA appointments several judges who had complaints lodged against them for their rude and unprofessional in-court behavior, open hostility to asylum seekers (particularly women), and unprofessional treatment of private attorneys;
Issued bogus EOIR and BIA precedents, some on their “own motion,” that were almost 100% against respondents and in favor of DHS Enforcement while undoing long-standing rules that had promoted fairness to asylum seekers and sound docket management;
Appointed almost all government/prosecutorial background Immigration Judges, many without immigration qualifications, others associated with anti-immigrant or anti-gay groups;
“Decertified” the National Association of Immigration Judges (“NAIJ”) as punishment for speaking out against gross mismanagement at EOIR and DOJ;
Imposed due-process-denying unprofessional “production quotas” on IJs intended to increase deportation rates;
Deprived IJs of effective management control over their dockets, while engaging in endless “Aimless Docket Reshuffling;”
Unethically exhorted IJs to treat the DHS as their “partners” in enforcing immigration laws;
Gave the Director — essentially a political appointee disguised as a career executive — authority to interfere with BIA decision making in certain cases;
Basically reduced Immigration Judges to the status of “deportation clerks” while falsely claiming that they were “management officials” to “bust” the union;
“Dumbed down” immigration judge training;
Artificially “jacked up” the Immigration Court backlog to an astounding 1.3 million cases — even with twice the number of IJs on the bench.
As one of my esteemed Round Table colleagues said, “since [Geoffrey’s article] was written, record numbers of good IJs resigned over the past 4 years, many good candidates wouldn’t apply (or if they did, likely weren’t chosen) over the past 4 years, and then just the general drop in quality that comes with that degree of expansion [in the absence of competent planning].”
The lack of compassion, glaring disregard for the protective purposes of refugee law, and absence of human understanding as to what it means to be a refugee seeking salvation simply screams out from the last four years of perverse AG and BIA precedents as well as from some of the elementary mistakes made by EOIR judges at all levels in the numerous cases reversed by Courts of Appeals over the past four years.
And, this is just the “tip of the iceberg.” Many seeking protection are denied any hearings at all, railroaded out without understanding what’s happening, or simply give up without appealing wrong decisions and denials of due process — worn down by the abusive and unnecessary detention that EOIR helps promote and the intentionally “user unfriendly” procedures developed to discourage individuals from asserting their legal and human rights.
While the broken and reeling Department of Justice presents many challenges, I predict that Judge Garland’s tenure will be remembered largely by how he deals, or doesn’t deal, with the total disaster in the U.S. Immigration Courts. The Trump regime’s attack on democracy and people of color began with immigration, and the effort to dehumanize and degrade migrants continued until the final day.
Will Judge Garland leave behind a reformed, progressive, due-process-oriented system that is a model judiciary? One that finally fulfills the vision of — “Through Teamwork and innovation action becoming the world’s best tribunals, guaranteeing fairness and due process for all?” A court that can easily transition out of the DOJ intro an independent Article I Judiciary? Or will he leave behind another disgraceful mess and the dead bodies, broken dreams, and visible betrayals of American values to prove it?
Only time will tell! But, the NDPA will be watching. And, there isn’t much patience out here for more of the “EOIR Clown Show!”🤡🦹🏿♂️
🇺🇸🗽⚖️Due Process Forever! Better judges 🧑🏽⚖️👩⚖️👨🏻⚖️ for a better America. And that starts (but doesn’t end) with the U.S. Immigration Courts!
Trump Era Immigration Kakistocrat Photo: Bennie Thomas, Creative Commons License“Luke Skywalker” A/K/A Professor Lucas Guttentag Yale Law Photo: Duke Law via YouTube
Professor Lucas Guttentag has tracked “every known Trump-era immigration policy from January 2017 through the end of the administration.” There are over 1,000! This “easy to use” tool should be a great resource for policy makers, litigators, legislators, journalists, students, historians and teachers looking to grasp and dismantle Trump’s anti-American, anti-humanity immigration initiatives!
Needless to say, there is a whole section for the EOIR Clown Show/Kakistocracy 🤡🦹🏿♂️ containing 173 separate entries!
“Eyore In Distress” Once A Symbol of Fairness, Due Process, & Best Practices, Now Gone “Belly Up“She struggled madly in the torturing Ray” Amazing StoriesArtist Unknown, Public domain, via Wikimedia CommonsDan Kowalski Online Editor of the LexisNexis Immigration Law Community (ILC)
Dan Kowalski reports for LexisNexis Immigration Community:
“Diaz de Gomez claims that she received repeated death threats from a gang in Guatemala after she and her family witnessed a mass killing by gang members and refused to acquiesce to the gang’s extortion and other demands. … [W]e reject the Board’s “excessively narrow” view of the nexus requirement, and conclude that Diaz de Gomez established that her familial ties were one central reason for her persecution. … We also hold that the record conclusively establishes that the Guatemalan government was unable or unwilling to control Diaz de Gomez’s persecutors. We therefore grant the petition for review and remand for the Board to reconsider Diaz de Gomez’s claims in light of our holdings.”
So, let’s compare the 4th Circuit’s view with the most recent abomination and intentional misconstruction of the “unable or unwilling to control” doctrine by totally unqualified political hack Jeffrey Rosen, then impersonating the “Acting Attorney General” and issuing clearly unconstitutional “precedents” to implement the defeated regime’s racially biased, misogynistic, anti-asylum agenda.
Talk about “crimes against humanity!” ☠️🏴☠️ Certainly, every current civil servant who supported and advanced this bogus designation should be held accountable.
Kakistocracy Kills: Obviously, with better qualified judges, competent representation, and a fair system operated in accordance with due process and a proper interpretation of asylum laws, many of those now being arbitrarily, capriciously, and unlawfully turned back at our borders would be entitled to our legal protection. This is life or death, not a problem that can “wait till tomorrow” to be addressed! Every day that the patently inadequate “judges” currently on the BIA remain in their positions means more injustice, trauma, and even death for legitimate asylum seekers!
Our Symposium’s focus will be on the practical aspects of immigration law and the current policy debates surrounding the field. Our goal is to present a compelling CLE program for immigration and non-immigration practitioners alike, as well as to provide an engaging educational experience for current law students. This year’s theme is “The Road to Rehabilitation: Reconnecting with Humanity.”
Attendees will have the opportunity to hear a variety of notable immigration attorneys, leaders, and scholars speak on current issues within the field of immigration law in the United States.
Our event is made possible through the generous sponsorship of Terry Bassham (’85) & Zulema Carrasco Bassham.
Featured Speakers and Panelists
Eduardo Beckett
Immigration Attorney featured in “Immigration Nation” Docuseries on Netflix
Shaw Drake
Staff Attorney and Policy Counsel, Border and Immigrants’ Rights, ACLU of Texas
Celina Moreno
President and CEO, Intercultural Development Research Association (IDRA)
Eitan Peled
UNICEF USA Child Migration & Protection Program Manager
Cristina Rodriguez
Leighton Homer Surbeck Professor of Law, Yale Law School
Teresa Romero
President, United Farm Workers of America
Erica Schommer
Clinical Professor of Law, St. Mary’s University School of Law
Karla Vargas
Senior Attorney, Texas Civil Rights Project
Register Today. We Look Forward to Seeing You.
This CLE event is pending approval by the State Bar of Texas for 5 CLE credit hours (including 1 hour of ethics).
Registration is now open and available through February 26:
Attorney registration $85
Government employee and non-attorney registration $55
Immigration volunteer registration $25
Student registration $10 (scholarships available for St. Mary’s School of Law students only; please email lawscholar@stmarytx.edu from your St. Mary’s email address telling us why you would like to attend)
St. Mary’s School of Law faculty/staff and Scholar Volume 23 member registration is free
The Scholar: St. Mary’s Law Review on Race and Social Justice is a student-run law review at St. Mary’s University School of Law in San Antonio, Texas. The goal of The Scholar is to give a voice to the voiceless and the vulnerable in our society. The Scholar publishes three issues per volume on a variety of legal topics through the lens of race and social justice. Additionally, The Scholar hosts an Immigration Symposium annually during the spring semester.
Professor Cristina Rodriguez is the co-author (with Professor Adam B. Cox of NYU Law) of the widely acclaimed book The President & Immigration Law. Recently she worked on EOIR issues for the Biden-Harris Transition Team.
Shaw Drake is Staff Attorney & Policy Counsel, Border & Immigrants’ Rights, ACLU of Texas. He was one of my all-star Refugee Law & Policy students @ Georgetown Law and a Charter Member of the New Due Process Army (“NDPA”).
Last year, I was on this outstanding program. It was one of my last “in person” appearances before COVID restrictions set in.
“Willian Rubio Barahona petitions for review of a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) upholding the denial of his request for asylum and withholding of removal, based on a finding that serious reasons exist to believe Barahona committed a serious nonpolitical crime outside the United States. We hold that the “serious reasons for believing” standard requires a finding of probable cause before an alien can be subject to the mandatory bar set forth in 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(2)(A)(iii), 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(B)(iii), and 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(d)(2). Because no such finding was made below, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.”
“Plaintiff-Appellant New York Legal Assistance Group (“NYLAG”) seeks access to non-precedential “unpublished opinions” issued by Defendant-Appellee the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) in immigration cases. NYLAG wants to consult the opinions, which are not routinely made available to the public, to aid in its representation of low-income clients in removal and asylum proceedings. NYLAG asserts that the BIA’s failure to make the opinions publicly available violates the agency’s affirmative obligation under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(2), to “make available for public inspection in an electronic format final opinions . . . [and] orders, made in the adjudication of cases.” In this action under FOIA’s remedial provision, 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B), which authorizes district courts “to enjoin the agency from withholding agency records and to order the production of any agency records improperly withheld from the complainant,” NYLAG seeks an order requiring the BIA to make available to the public all unpublished opinions issued since November 1, 1996, as well as future unpublished opinions. The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Paul A. Crotty, J.) dismissed the case, concluding that FOIA’s remedial provision does not authorize district courts to order agencies to make records publicly available. We conclude that FOIA’s remedial provision authorizes the relief NYLAG seeks. FOIA’s text, read in light of its history and purpose, empowers district courts to order agencies to comply with their affirmative disclosure obligations under 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(2), including the obligation to make certain documents publicly available. We therefore VACATE the judgment of the district court and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
********************
Why would the BIA even want to withhold unpublished decisions or bar someone from asylum based on less than probable cause? Why would anyone want to further impede the already difficult task of representing the most vulnerable in Immigration Court? What if the resources wasted on litigation to diminish due process were “repurposed” to working with NYLAG and other pro bono all-stars to achieve universal representation? Much of what EOIR does these days makes little or no sense unless looked at from a White Nationalist nativist perspective.
When will it end? The Biden Administration proclaimed a “new day” on immigration and human rights issues. But, you sure can’t tell from the junk continuing to come out of the BIA and being defended in court by OIL. No matter how welcome the change in tone from the President is, it requires concerted action and getting better judges, administrators, and litigators in place to actually change policies, produce fairer results, and save lives!
Congrats to Allison Heimes and the good folks at Fair Trials Americas.
Also, congrats to my former Georgetown Law superstar, Arlington Intern, & NY JLC, Elizabeth Gibson (“The Gibson Report”) and her colleagues at the NY Legal Assistance Group!
Elizabeth Gibson Attorney, NY Legal Assistance Group Publisher of “The Gibson Report”
🇺🇸🗽⚖️Due Process Forever! We need “a little less talk and a lot more action!”
While Donald Trump failed to pass much signature legislation and largely failed to remake the federal government in ways that cannot be immediately corrected, his landmark achievement will be his lasting contributions to the federal judiciary. Breaking the records of his predecessors, Trump seated 234 judges on the federal courts in four years, including three at the Supreme Court. That means that whatever Biden and the Democrats try to do in the coming months and years, most of the efforts will ultimately be in the hands of life-tenured judges, 30 percent of whom were named by Trump. Those judges are overwhelmingly very young, very white, and very male. A preview of what’s likely to come happened just last week, when a federal judge tapped by Trump blocked Biden’s 100-day deportation “pause” with a nationwide injunction.
The question is what Biden and the Democrats can and will do in response to Trump’s enduring legacy. The new president is already making moves that indicate he understands that some of the norms and conventions that guided Barack Obama in building the judiciary are dead and gone. This week the Washington Post reported that the Biden administration is doing away with the formal American Bar Association vetting process that Democratic presidents used to abide by, because it was jettisoned by Republican presidents and because it simply lengthened the process. Biden is also hustling to put together the bipartisan commission he pledged would examine structural reforms for the Supreme Court and the federal judiciary. Former Wisconsin Sen. Russ Feingold is a leading Democrat attempting to strengthen the left’s ability to appoint judges, to match the pace the right has set. He is the president of the American Constitution Society, the left’s answer to the Federalist Society (we spoke last year when he assumed the post). Given the potential of the current moment for big changes in the judiciary, I wanted to ask him what happens next. Our conversation has been lightly edited for clarity.
. . . .
************************
Read the rest of the interview at the link.
The disgraceful mess that Trump and McConnell made out of our Federal Judiciary has been a constant theme here @ Courtside over the past four years!
What’s missing from this interview are these fundamental realizations that those of us in the world of immigration and human rights know well but seem to escape most of the others looking to fundamentally change and improve the Federal Judiciary:
There are few things that go on in the Federal Judiciary, at any level, as important to human lives and the future of our nation as what takes place in Immigration Court every day;
The Immigration Courts have hit stunning new levels of dysfunction, incompetence, and intentional injustice over the past four years — they are truly an ongoing national disgrace (“America’s Star Chambers” or “Clown Courts”🤡) and a stain on the humanity of our nation, as well as an abomination that threatens to collapse our entire justice system;
Immigration law and “weaponized” Immigration Courts have been the key to the Trump regime’s attack on American democracy and our Constitutional institutions culminating in the deadly Capitol insurrection;
The Biden Administration has complete authority to fix the Immigration Courts now — no waiting for Justices or Judges to retire, “negotiating with Mitch and the Federalist Society,” waiting for the scheduling of Senate Confirmation hearings, or humoring home state Senators;
Some of the lawyers and advocates who led the legal fight to preserve American democracy over the past four years would be outstanding choices for the Immigration Judiciary (as well as the Article III Judiciary — there is no shortage of diverse progressive talent with “real life retail experience” out here in the NDPA, Russ);
A well-functioning, diverse, independent Immigration Judiciary would not just help advance and enforce the Administration’s progressive, humane, due-process-focused immigration and human rights policies, but also should become a model of “best practices” for the Article III Judiciary, and an extraordinary source of well-trained, experienced, progressive, “practical scholar jurists” for filling positions in the Article III Judiciary;
Better understanding of, and commitment to, humanely and properly administering immigration and human rights laws by Federal Judges — and the total elimination of “Dred Scottification of the other” under law — is the absolutely essential “now-missing key” to achieving racial justice and social justice in America;
America can’t afford the astounding absence of true immigration scholarship, human understanding of immigrants, practical decision making and problem solving, and an overriding commitment to due process for all persons, including asylum seekers and migrants, that now infects the Federal Court system at all levels;
Those seeking to undermine American democracy will continue to exploit the Federal Judiciary’s overall lack of understanding of immigration and human rights laws and their willing abrogation of Constitutional due process and basic concepts of fundamental fairness and human dignity for some of the most vulnerable persons among us — we must fix this problem before it destroys us!
That is why the Justice Department must also identify categories of non priority immigration court cases that can be dismissed now. One obvious category is the estimated 460,000 cases — an astounding 37 percent of the current backlog — that involve individuals who could qualify, under current law, for legal status. It makes little sense to waste limited enforcement resources by having immigration prosecutors and judges spend years trying these cases in court, when trained adjudicators at another agency, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, can handle them more efficiently through paper applications.
Another category of cases that should be removed from judges’ dockets are the 200,000 cases that have been pending for more than five years. By definition, these old cases are ones that prosecutors and judges have deemed low priorities.
Biden has noted that the Obama administration “took too long” to begin fixing the nation’s immigration system. His initial steps are a promising indication that he intends to move swiftly to build the fair, humane and functional immigration enforcement system he has promised. To guarantee results, the new president must use his first 100 days to identify and remove the non priority cases bottlenecked in America’s immigration courts.
Greg Chen is senior director of government relations for the American Immigration Lawyers Association. Peter L. Markowitz is a professor of law at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law where he directs the Kathryn O. Greenberg Immigration Justice Clinic.
*****************
Read the full article at the link.
Presto: 1.3 million million docket becomes 640,000. And that’s just the beginning!
Here are some more low-budget, immediate action “No-Brainers:”
Vacate all of the anti-asylum, backlog expanding “precedents” issued by Sessions, Whitaker, Barr, and the BIA over the past four years (immediately returning needed flexibility and some degree of fairness to the system);
Reassign the current BIA and replace with expert judges committed to due process who know how to grant asylum and establish precedents on how “clear grants” can be easily identified, properly documented, and consistently adjudicated (eliminate “refugee roulette” — largely a product of an “any reason to deny culture” combined with defective judicial selection, poor training, and lousy leadership);
Return all asylum cases denied over the past four years to the USCIS Asylum Office for adjudication without all the anti-asylum precedents and dehumanizing policies of the Trump regime;
Work with the private bar and NGOs to increase representation with universal representation as the goal;
Eliminate inane and demeaning “production quotas” for EOIR judges (thus placing the emphasis back on careful decision making, thoughtful analysis, and getting the correct result the first time — also restoring IJs’ ability to schedule and manage dockets).
Realistically, 500 Immigration Judges can complete approximately 250,000 to 300,000 cases annually. A combination of 1) the “Chen-Markowitz plan;” 2) the “Schmidt Addendum;” and 3) the more sensible and realistic enforcement priorities initiative already underway at DHS will have EOIR “operating in real time” (and, significantly, in the national interest) in no time at all — without legislation or busting anyone’s budget!
Of course, these initial steps are just the “tip of the iceberg” of the reforms necessary at EOIR, leading to the fulfillment of the vision of “through teamwork and innovation becoming the world’s best tribunals guaranteeing fairness and due process for all.”Congress must at the earliest opportunity create an independent Article I Immigration Court to institutionalize and preserve these reforms and “best practices.”
But, in the meantime, lives and our national interests are imperiled by the current deadly (and wasteful) dysfunction @ EOIR. There is every reason to fix the system now! And, it’s not “rocket science” — just expertise and common sense.
Which leads me to another obvious point — Members of the NDPA like Chen, Markowitz, Dean Kevin Johnson, Michelle Mendez, Associate Dean Professor Jaya-Ramji Nogales, Professor Phil Schrag, Professor Michele Pistone, up and coming all-star Lauren Wyatt, Judge Dana Marks and other leaders of the NAIJ, experienced due process oriented Immigration Judges like my former BIA colleague Judge Noel Brennan, and many others like them should be in charge of this effort to reform EOIR and create a model court system.
The Biden Administration must apply the same principles to EOIR Reform that they have elsewhere: Get rid of the “middlemen” and “bring in the experts” to run the show! Articles, papers, speeches, TV interviews, encounter groups, studies, and blogs are great — but putting the right folks in the right places to take action to solve problems is much better and more efficient! Put the folks with the answers in charge!
That would not only create a “laboratory of best judicial practices” that could be applied to the floundering Article III Judiciary, but also would provide the Biden Administration with source of well-trained progressive candidates for the Article III Judiciary. Leadership, including “leading by example” is critical in any well-functioning judicial system; it has been sorely lacking at EOIR (and in the Article III Judiciary) over the past four years. As the Biden Administration has already recognized, the only real leadership among the Federal Judiciary has come from “resistors” like Judge Ashley Tabaddor, now at USCIS.
Incidentally, in her current position at USCIS, Judge Tabaddor is perfectly placed to work with EOIR in carrying out the “Chen-Markowitz plan” to get cases of those potentially eligible for residence out of the EOIR backlog and into USCIS where they can be handled more efficiently.
To state the obvious, EOIR needs more “headquarters personnel” like a hole in the head! What you need is a streamlined staff of better-qualified individuals across the board: real judges and professional judicial administrators who will restore due process and get this system functioning again — sooner rather than later.
Consequently, there is no apparent need for additional “counsel” in his office right now. To say the least, this ill-timed “example of the “Continuing Clown Show at EOIR”🤡 has already become a “internet mini-sensation!” At the very least, you should wait until Risch’s replacement arrives and let her or him make the selection.
Undoubtedly, a reformed IJ tenure program (considering not only discipline but also retention of current judges and improved professional training) that is transparent, fair, and effective is a badly needed and long overdue improvement. But, hiring another bureaucrat (on short notice, which is likely to produce a less than “best qualified” candidate) isn’t the answer.
That being said, I’ve already heard from a number of private practitioners who would love to be in charge of “professional responsibility for Immigration Judges.” They have lots of great ideas for improvements and a number of places where they would start the process immediately, if not sooner!
