IT TOOK MANY YEARS AND LOTS OF EFFORT, BUT RESPONDENTS FINALLY WON ONE @ THE BIA — ON STALKING — Matter of Sanchez-Lopez, 27 I&N Dec. 256 (BIA 2018), overruling Matter of Sanchez-Lopez, 26 I&N Dec. 7 (BIA 2012)

Matter of Sanchez-Lopez, 27 I&N Dec. 256 (BIA 2018), overruling Matter of Sanchez-Lopez, 26 I&N Dec. 7 (BIA 2012)

BIA HEADNOTE:

The offense of stalking in violation of section 646.9 of the California Penal Code is not “a crime of stalking” under section 237(a)(2)(E)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(E)(i) (2012). Matter of Sanchez-Lopez, 26 I&N Dec. 71 (BIA 2012), overruled.

PANEL: BIA APPELLATE IMMIGRATION JUDGES PAULEY, GUENDELSBERGER, MALPHRUS

OPINION BY: JUGE JOHN GUENDELSBERGER

DISSENTING OPINION: JUDGE GARRY D. MALPHRUS

KEY QUOTE FROM MAJORITY:

Although the DHS appears to concede that stalking under section 646.9 is “overbroad” relative to the definition we outlined in Matter of Sanchez-Lopez, it asserts that we should broaden the definition of a “crime of stalking” under section 237(a)(2)(E)(i) of the Act to meet contemporary standards. Specifically, it argues that we should redefine the term “stalking” in the Act based on its commonly understood meaning, either in 2012 when we decided Matter of Sanchez-Lopez, or based on the common elements of State and Federal stalking statutes in 2017.

We recognize that the common elements of stalking have evolved since section 237(a)(2)(E)(i) was added to the Act in 1996, in that a number of States have broadened the term “stalking” to cover threats of nonphysical harm in an effort to afford greater protections to their citizens against stalkers. However, we are constrained to define offenses “based on the ‘generic, contemporary meaning’ of the statutory words at the time the

statute was enacted.” Matter of Cardiel, 25 I&N Dec. 12, 17 (BIA 2009) (quoting Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575, 598 (1990)); see also Matter of Alvarado, 26 I&N Dec. 895, 897 (BIA 2016). The DHS relies on the decision of the Supreme Court in Voisine v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2272, 2281 (2016), which declined “to wind the clock back” to consider the common law in discerning whether the provision at issue reached reckless acts. But that case also looked to the legislative history and the “state-law backdrop” that existed at the time the statute was enacted. Id. at 2280–82. We are therefore unpersuaded to broaden the definition of the term “stalking” under section 237(a)(2)(E) of the Act to encompass the most contemporary understanding of that offense.

Upon reconsideration, we conclude that the offense of stalking in violation of section 646.9 of the California Penal Code is not “a crime of stalking” under section 237(a)(2)(E)(i) of the Act. We will therefore overrule our decision in Matter of Sanchez-Lopez and vacate all prior orders in this case to the extent they hold to the contrary. Accordingly, because the respondent is not removable, his appeal will be sustained and the removal proceedings will be terminated.

KEY QUOTE FROM DISSENT:

The legal landscape has changed since we published our decision inMatter of Sanchez-Lopez. This case illustrates the limitations of applying the categorical approach imposed by the Supreme Court in Descamps andMathis to provisions of the immigration laws enacted by Congress for the purpose of removing aliens convicted of serious criminal conduct. See Matter of Chairez, 27 I&N Dec. 21, 25–26 (BIA 2017) (Malphrus, concurring). Under this approach, only if section 646.9 is divisible can we look to the respondent’s conviction records to determine if his conduct involved an intent to cause the victim to fear death or bodily injury, as many such stalking cases do. Because of this strict categorical approach, many statutes that have since broadened the scope of protection for stalking victims may not qualify as a categorical match to section 237(a)(2)(E)(i) of the Act. As a result, in California and many other States, an alien who was criminally convicted of stalking an innocent victim will not be removable under the Act, even though the record makes clear that he or she committed “a crime of stalking.” It is highly unlikely that Congress intended this result.

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

I liked the comment from Dan Kowalski over at LexisNexis Immigration Community: “It only took about 6 years and several trips up and down the administrative and judicial food chain.”

My point (that I make over and over) is that there is NO WAY that an unrepresented respondent (particularly in DHS detention where most respondents convicted of crimes end up) could have achieved this result. That means that unrepresented individuals are wrongfully deported by DHS every day.

The Immigration Court system already is failing in its duty to guarantee fairness and due process to all respondents. Outrageously, instead of doing what he should do — working to insure maximum representation and raising the quality of Immigration Judge and BIA decisions to insure Due Process — Jeff Sessions is doing just the opposite!

He’s putting “haste makes waste quotas” on Immigration Judges; encouraging judges to deny continuances needed to obtain counsel and adequately prepare defenses; locating Immigration Courts in detention centers which intentionally lack both public access and ready availability of pro bono counsel; using coercive, substandard detention and family separation to deter individuals from pursuing potentially successful claims and defenses; further skewing the law against asylum seekers; and suspending the essential “Legal Orientation Program” which helps unrepresented individuals in detention understand their rights and what will happen in Immigration Court before their first appearance before a judge.

PWS

04-20-18

MULTI-TALENTED TAL @ CNN TAKES US TO THE S. BORDER IN PICTURES & WORDS!

http://www.cnn.com/2018/04/19/politics/secretary-nielsen-dhs-border-fence-wall-immigration/index.html

Snapshots from the US-Mexico border

By Tal Kopan, CNN

Updated 6:55 PM ET, Thu April 19, 2018

Here are Tal’s pictures. For whatever technical reason, you’ll have to go to the original article at the link to get the captions that go with them!

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

Wow! As those of you who read “Courtside” on a regular basis know, I’m a HUGE FAN of Tal’s timely, incisive, concise, and highly accessible reporting. I feature it on a regular basis. I’ve also seen her do a great job on TV and video. But, until now, I didn’t know about her skills as a photojournalist. Tal can do it all!

Also, as my colleague Judge and Super-Blogger Jeffrey Chase pointed out in one of his recent comments on this blog, pictures play an essential role in understanding the immigration saga in America.

Been there, done that in my career. Takes me back to the long past days of riding three wheelers, helicopters, Patrol Cars, looking through infrared night scopes, and even accompanying foot patrol during my days in the “Legacy INS General Counsel’s Office.” (Most often on the border south of San Diego.) We actually took the Trial Attorneys and some of the Assistant U.S. Attorneys prosecuting our cases with us to show them what it was really like at the “ground level.”

Actually doesn’t look all that much different decades later. What is painfully clear is that walls, fences, helicopters, detectors, unrealistically harsh and restrictive laws, and more detention centers (the “New American Gulag”) will never, ever “seal” our borders as some immigration hard-liners insist is possible.

At best, we can control, channel, and regulate the flow of migrants, but not halt it entirely. Human migration was taking place long before the U.S. became a nation, and I daresay that it will continue as long as there are humans left on earth. To think that walls, troops, concentration camps, harsh laws, and prisons are going to halt it completely is a mixture of arrogance and ignorance.

So, rather than pouring more money down the drain on the same “strategies” that have been failing for decades, a “smart” border control policy would involve:

More realistic and generous interpretations of our refugee and asylum laws that should include most of those fleeing for their lives from the Northern Triangle;
A much larger and more “market based” legal immigration system for permanent and temporary migrants that would meet the legitimate needs of U.S. employers and our economy while making it attractive for most prospective workers and employers to use the legal visa system rather than the “black market” of undocumented entry;
A larger and more robust refugee processing program for Northern Triangle refugees so most would be screened and documented outside the U.S.;
Cooperation with the UNHCR and other stable countries in the Western Hemisphere to distribute the flow of long-term and temporary refugees in an equitable manner that will help both the refugees and the receiving countries;
Working with and investing in Mexico and Northern Triangle countries to address and correct the conditions that create migration flows to the Southern Border.
Providing lawyers for asylum applicants who present themselves at the Southern Border so that their claims for protection (which actually go beyond asylum and include protection under the Convention Against Torture) can be fairly, correctly, and efficiently determined in an orderly manner in accordance with Due Process.

No, it’s unlikely to happen in my lifetime. But, I hope that future generations, including the members of the “New Due Process Army,” will find themselves in a position to abandon past mistakes, and develop the smart, wise, generous, humane, realistic, and effective immigration and refugee policies that we need to keep our “nation of immigrants” viable and vitalized for centuries to come. Until then, we’re probably going to have to watch folks repeat variations of the same painful mistakes over and over.

PWS

04-19-18

SCOFFLAW SESSIONS LOSES AGAIN ON SANCTUARY CITIES – 7TH CIRCUIT FINDS SESSIONS’S ACTIONS UNCONSTITUTIONAL “Usurpation Of Power” — City of Chicago v. Sessions

Trump and Sessions lose another sanctuary cities case

By: Tal Kopan, CNN

A federal appeals court struck another blow Thursday to the Trump administration’s efforts to pressure sanctuary cities, upholding a court order preventing the Justice Department from imposing conditions on grants to cities.

The three-judge panel from the 7th US Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower court’s decision blocking the Justice Department from adding new conditions on policing grants that had required some cooperation with federal immigration enforcement.

The ruling makes it the latest federal court, along with courts in California and Philadelphia, to restrict what the administration can try to do to pressure jurisdictions that restrict some cooperation with federal immigration enforcement.

It comes as President Donald Trump has been targeting his fury on Twitter at sanctuary cities, which administration officials accuse of jeopardizing public safety.

The judges sided with the city of Chicago in the case, which had challenged Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ July effort to condition the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program on two new requirements: allowing federal immigration authorities access to local detention facilities and providing the Department of Homeland Security with at least 48 hours’ notice before local officials release an undocumented immigrant wanted by federal authorities.

The administration has been aggressive in asking cities to comply with those requests, but a number of cities and police chiefs around the country argue that cooperating in that way could jeopardize the trust police need to have with local communities, and in some cases could place departments in legal gray areas.

Like the district judge, the appellate judges found that Chicago was likely to succeed in its case that such conditions would be a violation of the Constitution and law, as Congress did not authorize those conditions when it created the grants.

The judge who wrote the opinion called the attorney general’s move a “usurpation of power.”

More: http://www.cnn.com/2018/04/19/politics/court-rules-against-trump-sessions-sanctuary-cities-chicago/index.html

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

Our Attorney General continues to thumb his nose at the Constitution while wasting judicial time. That’s what the “rule of law” means in “Gonzoland.”

Here’s a link to the 7th Circuit’s full decision written by Judge Rovner.

7thChicagoSanctuaryInjunction

PWS

0-9-18

SESSIONS’S ATTACK ON DUE PROCESS IN THE CRUMBLING U.S. IMMIGRATON COURT SYSTEM FRONT PAGE NEWS IN LA TIMES — Joseph Tanfani’s Article Makes Page One Headlines As Session’s Outrageous Actions Deepen, Aggravate Court Crisis!

I had already posted the online version of Joseph’s article, which quoted me, among other sources: http://immigrationcourtside.com/2018/04/07/joseph-tanfani-la-times-more-critical-reaction-to-sessionss-immigration-court-quotas-if-youve-got-a-system-that-is-producing-defective-cars-making-the-system-run-fas/

Today, it’s on the front page of the “hard copy” edition of the LA Times where it belongs.

http://enewspaper.latimes.com/infinity/article_share.aspx?guid=99ce5eb1-0b1e-4e1a-9afd-5bf75d1

Thanks to great reporting from Joseph and others like him, Session’s outrageous war on the rights of the most vulnerable among us and his evil plan to destroy Due Process in the United States Immigration Courts is getting the nationwide attention it deserves. Whether the Immigration Courts will be saved and Sessions held accountable for his abusive behavior and mocking of our Constitution and the rule of law remains to be seen. But, it’s critically important to publicly record his invidious motivations and the corrupt misuse of Government authority that’s really going on here.

PWS

04-18-18

HEAR JUDGE A. ASHLEY TABADDOR, PRESIDENT OF THE NAIJ TESTIFY LIVE BEFORE THE SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE ON WEDNESDAY APRIL 18, 2018 ABOUT THE APPALLING STATE OF “JUSTICE” IN OUR UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION COURTS UNDER TRUMP & SESSIONS!

From: John Manley [mailto:jmanleylaw@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, April 16, 2018 12:34 PM
To: AILA Southern California Chapter Distribution List <southca@lists.aila.org>
Subject: [southca] IJ Tabaddor to testify in Congress Wednesday

Colleagues,

As currently scheduled, Judge A. Ashley Tabaddor is expected to testify this Wednesday at 2:30PM EST 11:30AM PST. at a hearing on Strengthening and Reforming America’s Immigration Court System

Here is the link to the event, if you want to watch it: https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/meetings/strengthening-and-reforming-americas-immigration-court-system

—

John M. Manley
Attorney at Law
11400 W Olympic Blvd., Suite 200
Los Angeles, CA 90064
Phone: (310) 597-4590
Fax: (310) 597-4591
www.johnmanley.net;
email: jmanleylaw@gmail.com

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

PWS

04-16-18

DIANNE SOLIS @ DALLAS MORNING NEWS DETAILS GONZO’S ALL-OUT ASSAULT ON INDEPENDENCE OF U.S.IMMIGRATION JUDGES AND DUE PROCESS IN OUR IMMIGRATION COURTS –“Due process isn’t making widgets,” Schmidt said. “Compare this to what happens in regular courts. No other court system operates this way. Yet the issues in immigration court are life and death,” he said, referring to asylum cases.”

https://www.dallasnews.com/news/immigration/2018/04/10/immigration-judges-attorneys-worry-sessions-quotas-will-cut-justice-clogged-court-system

Dianne writes:

“A case takes nearly 900 days to make its way through the backlogged immigration courts of Texas. The national average is about 700 days in a system sagging with nearly 700,000 cases.

A new edict from President Donald Trump’s administration orders judges of the immigration courts to speed it up.

Now the pushback begins.

Quotas planned for the nation’s 334 immigration judges will just make the backlog worse by increasing appeals and questions about due process, says Ashley Tabaddor, Los Angeles-based president of the National Association of Immigration Judges.

Quotas of 700 cases a year, first reported by The Wall Street Journal, were laid out in a performance plan memo by U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions. They go into effect October 1.

Some have even called the slowdown from the backlog “de facto amnesty.”

“We believe it is absolutely inconsistent to apply quotas and deadlines on judges who are supposed to exercise independent decision-making authority,” Tabaddor said.

“The parties that appear before the courts will be wondering if the judge is issuing the decision because she is trying to meet a deadline or quota or is she really applying her impartial adjudicative powers,” she added.

. . . .

Faster decision-making could cut the backlog, but it also has many worried about fairness.

The pressure for speed means immigrants would have to move quickly to find an attorney. Without an attorney, the likelihood of deportation increases. Nationally, about 58 percent of immigrants are represented by attorneys, according to Syracuse’s research center. But in Texas, only about a third of the immigrants have legal representation.

Paul Schmidt, a retired immigration judge who served as chairman of the Board of Immigration Appeals for immigration courts for six years, says he saw decisions rendered quickly and without proper legal analysis, leaving it necessary for many cases to be sent back to the immigration court for what he called “a redo.”

“Due process isn’t making widgets,” Schmidt said. “Compare this to what happens in regular courts. No other court system operates this way. Yet the issues in immigration court are life and death,” he said, referring to asylum cases.

Schmidt said there are good judges who take time with cases, which is often needed in asylum pleas from immigrants from countries at war or known for persecution of certain groups.

But he also said there were “some not-very-good judges” with high productivity.

Ramping up the production line, Schmidt said, will waste time.

“You will end up with more do-overs. Some people are going to be railroaded out of the country without fairness and due process,” Schmidt said.

. . . .

“It doesn’t make any sense to squeeze them,” said Huyen Pham, a professor at Texas A&M University School of Law in Fort Worth. “When you see a lot more enforcement, it means the immigration court will see a lot more people coming through.”

Lawyers and law school professors say the faster pace of deportation proceedings by the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement spells more trouble ahead. Immigration courts don’t have electronic filing processes for most of the system. Many judges must share the same clerk.

For decades, the nation’s immigration courts have served as a lynchpin in a complex system now under intense scrutiny. Immigration has become a signature issue for the Trump administration.

Five years ago, the backlog was about 344,000 cases — about half today’s amount. It grew, in part, with a rise in Central Americans coming across the border in the past few years. Most were given the opportunity to argue before an immigration judge about why they should stay in the U.S.

This isn’t the first time the judges have faced an administration that wants them to change priorities. President Barack Obama ordered that the cases of Central American unaccompanied children to be moved to the top of docket.

“Our dockets have been used as a political tool regardless of which administration is in power and this constant docket reshuffling, constant reprioritization of cases has only increased the backlog,” Tabaddor said.

The quota edict was followed by a memo to federal prosecutors in the criminal courts with jurisdiction over border areas to issue more misdemeanor charges against immigrants entering the country unlawfully. Sessions’ memo instructs prosecutors “to the extent practicable” to issue the misdemeanor charges for improper entry. On Wednesday, Sessions is scheduled to be in Las Cruces, New Mexico, to speak on immigration enforcement at a border sheriffs’ meeting.

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

Judge Ashley Tabaddor, President of the National Association of Immigration Judges (“NAIJ” — for the record, I’m a retired member of the NAIJ) hits the nail on the head. This is about denying immigrants their statutory and Constitutional rights while the Administration engages in “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” (“ADR”) an egregious political abuse that I have been railing against ever since I retired in 2016.

Judge Tabaddor’s words are worth repeating:

“Our dockets have been used as a political tool regardless of which administration is in power and this constant docket reshuffling, constant reprioritization of cases has only increased the backlog,” Tabaddor said.

In plain terms this is fraud, waste, and abuse that Sessions and the DOJ are attempting to “cover up” by dishonestly attempting to “shift the blame” to immigrants, attorneys, and Immigration Judges who in fact are the victims of Session’s unethical behavior. If judges “pedaling faster” were the solution to the backlog (which it isn’t) that would mean that the current backlog was caused by Immigration Judges not working very hard, combined with attorneys and immigrants manipulating the system. Sessions has made various versions of this totally bogus claim to cover up his own “malicious incompetence.”

Indeed, by stripping Immigration Judges of authority effectively to manage their dockets; encouraging mindless enforcement by DHS; terminating DACA without any real basis; insulting and making life more difficult for attorneys trying to do their jobs of representing respondents; attacking legal assistance programs for unrepresented migrants; opening more “kangaroo courts” in locations where immigrants are abused in detention to get them to abandon their claims for relief; threatening established forms of protection (which in fact could be used to grant more cases at the Asylum Office and by stipulation — a much more sane and legal way of reducing dockets); canceling “ready to hear” cases that then are then “orbited” to the end of the docket to send Immigration Judges to detention courts where the judges sometimes did not have enough to do and the cases often weren’t ready for fair hearings; denying Immigration Judges the out of court time necessary to properly prepare cases and write decisions; and failing to emphasize the importance of quality and due process in appellate decision-making at the BIA, Sessions is contributing to and accelerating the breakdown of justice and due process in the U.S. Immigration Courts.

PWS

04-11-18

HON. JEFFREY CHASE: Sessions’s Quotas Attack Fairness, Due Process, Undermine U.S. Immigration Court System!

https://www.jeffreyschase.com/blog/2018/4/7/eoir-imposes-completion-quotas-on-ijs

Apr 7 EOIR Imposes Completion Quotas on IJs

Ten years ago, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit decided Hashmi v. Att’y Gen. of the U.S.1 The case involved a request to continue a removal proceeding which the Department of Homeland Security did not oppose. The respondent was married to a U.S. citizen; he would become eligible to adjust his status in immigration court once the visa petition she had filed on his behalf was approved by DHS. However, the approval was delayed for reasons beyond the respondent’s control. One of those reasons was that a part of the respondent’s DHS file was needed by both the office in Cherry Hill, NJ adjudicating the visa petition and the DHS attorney in Newark prosecuting the removal case.

The immigration judge decided that he could wait no longer. Noting that the pendency of the case had exceeded the agency’s stated case completion goals, the judge denied the continuance and ordered the respondent deported. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed, holding that “to reach a decision about whether to grant or deny a motion for a continuance based solely on case-completion goals, with no regard for the circumstances of the case itself, is impermissibly arbitrary.”

In response to Hashmi, the BIA issued a precedent decision stating that unopposed motions of that type should generally be granted.2 In subsequent decisions, the BIA provided further guidance in allowing IJs to make reasonable determinations to continue such cases,3 and to administratively close proceedings where it would further justice (as in Hashmi, where the need for the DHS file to be in two places at once was preventing the case from proceeding).4

In subjecting immigration judges to strict, metrics-based reviews last week, EOIR’s director, James McHenry, may pressure immigration judges into taking the types of actions barred by Hashmi. Under the newly-announced metrics, individual judges may run the risk of disciplinary action for granting reasonable requests for continuance, or for other delays necessary for reaching a fair result. The combined actions of McHenry (who prior to being promoted to the position of agency director had worked for EOIR for approximately 6 months as an administrative law judge with OCAHO, the only component of EOIR that doesn’t deal with immigration law or the immigration courts), and Attorney General Jeff Sessions in recently certifying four BIA decisions to himself, could erase the above positive case law developments of the past decade, and replace them with an incentive for rushed decisions that do not afford adequate safeguards to non-citizens facing deportation.

Allowing reasonable continuances for the parties to obtain counsel, present evidence, and formulate legal theories, or to allow other agencies to adjudicate applications impacting eligibility, is an essential part of affording justice. Judges also need to fully understand the legal arguments presented. When an issue arises in the course of a hearing, it is not uncommon for a judge to ask the parties for briefs, and for the judge to then conduct his or her own legal research before deciding the matter. A detailed decision is also necessary to allow for meaningful review on appeal. However, all of this takes time, and the performance of individual judges will be found to be unsatisfactory or in need of improvement if they complete less than 700 cases per year, complete less than 95 percent of cases at their first merits hearing, or have 15 percent of their cases remanded on appeal.

Some recently reported actions by immigration judges in the name of expediency are troubling. Last Sunday’s episode of Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (for which my colleague Carol King and I served as subject-matter sources) featured a credible-fear review hearing by an immigration judge that lasted one minute and 43 seconds in its entirety (and was probably doubled in length by the need for an interpreter). The judge asked the unrepresented respondent a total of two questions before reaching this decision: “Well, the government of the United States doesn’t afford you protection for this type of reason. I affirm the Asylum Officer’s decision.” It’s not clear how the judge could have been confident in such conclusion. The respondent was detained and had not yet had an opportunity to consult with counsel. Her claim was only sketched in the broadest outline; upon further development by an attorney, it may well have fallen into the “type of reason” for which asylum may be granted. Her credibility was never doubted; in fact, the program reported that she was assaulted at gunpoint by the man she fled after she was deported to her country.

In another case arising in the Ninth Circuit, C.J.L.G. v. Sessions,5 an immigration judge told the mother of a child in removal proceedings who was unable to retain counsel that she could represent her son, and proceeded with the child’s asylum hearing. Of course, the mother was not qualified for the task. Although the son had been threatened with death for resisting gang recruitment efforts, he was denied asylum in a hearing in which many critical questions that could have helped develop a nexus between his fear and a legally protected ground for asylum were never asked. This occurred because the judge did not feel that he could grant another continuance to provide the respondent an additional opportunity to retain counsel.

All of the above-described actions by IJs occurred prior to last week’s announcement by the EOIR director. Should judges struggling to meet the benchmarks feel their job security to be at risk, will actions such as those described above become the norm?

As previously mentioned, the Attorney General certified four decisions of the BIA to himself shortly before the director’s announcement of the new metrics. In one of those cases, Matter of E-F-H-L-,6 Sessions vacated a 2014 BIA precedent decision requiring immigration judges to provide asylum applicants a full hearing on their claim. In another, Matter of A-B-,7 Sessions chose a case in which the BIA twice reversed an immigration judge’s denial of asylum to a victim of domestic violence, and on certification has made the case a referendum on whether victims of private criminal activity may constitute a particular social group for asylum purposes.

Should Sessions decide this issue in the negative, the two decisions taken together may allow for the type of quick denials of the “Government…doesn’t afford you protection for this type of reason” variety discussed above. Fair-minded judges who will continue to hold full hearings and consider legal arguments in favor of granting relief may find it more difficult to meet all of the above benchmarks.

Copyright 2018 Jeffrey S. Chase. All rights reserved.

Notes:

531 F.3d 256 (3d Cir. 2008)

Matter of Hashmi, 24 I&N Dec. 785 (BIA 2009).

See Matter of Rajah, 25 I&N Dec. 127 (BIA 2009) (concerning continuances due to pending employment-based visa petitions) ; Matter of C-B-, 25 I&N Dec. 888 (BIA 2012) (requiring reasonable and realistic continuances to obtain counsel); Matter of Montiel, 26 I&N Dec. 555 (BIA 2015) (allowing delaying proceedings for adjudication of criminal appeals).

See Matter of Avetisyan, 25 I&N Dec. 688 (BIA 2012); Matter of W-Y-U-, 27 I&N Dec. 17 (BIA 2017).

No. 16-73801 (9th Cir. Jan. 29, 2018); Pet. for rehearing and rehearing en banc pending.

27 I&N Dec. 226 (A.G. March 5, 2018)

27 I&N Dec. 227 (A.G. March 7, 2018)

JEFF CHASE

JOSEPH TANFANI @ LA TIMES: More Critical Reaction To Sessions’s Immigration Court Quotas — “If you’ve got a system that is producing defective cars, making the system run faster is just going to result in more defective cars.” (PWS)

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-immigration-courts-20180406-story.html

Joseph Tanfani reports for the LA TIMES:

The nation’s 58 immigration courts long have been the ragged stepchild of the judicial system – understaffed, technologically backward and clogged with an ever-growing backlog of cases, more than 680,000 at last count.

But a plan by Atty. Gen. Jeff Sessions, a longtime immigration hawk, aimed at breaking the logjam and increasing deportations of immigrants in the country illegally has drawn surprising resistance from immigration judges across the country.

Many say Sessions’ attempts to limit the discretion of the nation’s 334 immigration judges, and set annual case quotas to speed up their rulings, will backfire and made delays even worse — as happened when previous administrations tried to reform the system.

“It’s going to be a disaster and it’s going to slow down the adjudications,” warned Lawrence O. Burman, secretary of the National Assn. of Immigration Judges, a voluntary group that represents judges in collective bargaining.

Cases already move at a glacial pace. Nationwide, the average wait for a hearing date in immigration court is about two years, according to data analyzed by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse, a research organization at Syracuse University.

But some jurisdictions are much slower. The immigration court in Arlington, Va., where Burman is a judge, has a four-year backlog, meaning hearings for new cases are being scheduled in 2022. Burman says the reality is far worse — the docket says he has 1,000 cases scheduled to begin on the same day in 2020.

. . . .

Another problem: Poorly funded immigration courts still use paper files, slowing access to information, while other federal courts use digital filing systems.

The Executive Office of Immigration Review, the Justice Department office that oversees the courts, started studying the problem in 2001. It has issued numerous reports and studies over the last 17 years, but accomplished little in the way of computerized record keeping.

. . . .

The judges don’t see it that way. Burman and other leaders of the immigration judges’ association, in an unusual public protest, say Sessions’ plan will force judges to rush cases and further compromise the courts’ already battered reputation for fairness.

“Clearly this is not justice,” said the association president, Judge A. Ashley Tabaddor, who sits in Los Angeles, the nation’s busiest immigration court. The plan will “undermine the very integrity of the court.”

Sessions is not the first U.S. attorney general to try to push deportation cases through the system faster.

John Ashcroft, who served under President George W. Bush, unveiled a streamlined approach in 2002, firing what he called softhearted judges from the 21-member Board of Immigration Appeals, the highest administrative body for interpreting and applying immigration laws.

The result was an increase of cases sent back by federal courts, which reviewed the decisions – and more delays.

Under the Obama administration, immigration judges were ordered to prioritize old cases to try to clear the backlog. But after thousands of unaccompanied minors from Central America surged to the southwest border in 2014, they were told to focus on those cases instead. As the dockets were reshuffled, the backlog kept growing.

Last fall, Sessions ordered 100 immigration judges from around the country to travel to courts on the border to move cases quickly. The Justice Department pronounced it a success, saying they finished 2,700 cases.

Some of the judges were less enthusiastic.

“We had nothing to do half the time,” said Burman, who spent eight weeks in border courts. “I’m not saying it’s a bad idea, but they sent more people than they needed to” while his caseload in Virginia languished for those two months.

Immigration advocates say the answer is more resources: more judges, more clerks, and legal representation for immigrants. They also say the courts should be independent, not under the Justice Department.

“Everybody wants to hear there’s some magical solution to make all this fine. It’s not going to happen,” said Paul Schmidt, a former immigration judge and former chairman of the Board of Immigration Appeals.

“If you’ve got a system that is producing defective cars, making the system run faster is just going to result in more defective cars,’ he said.

Staff writer Brian Bennett contributed to this report.

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

Go on over to the LA Times at the above link for Joseph’s complete article.

Those of us in the Immigration Courts at the time of the “Ashcroft debacle” know what a complete disaster it was from a due process, fairness, and efficiency standpoint. Far too many of the cases were returned by the Article III Courts for “redos” because Immigration Judges and BIA Members were encouraged to “cut corners” as long as the result was an order of removal.

Some judges resisted, but many “went along to get along.” Some of the botched cases probably still are pending. Worse, some of the botched, incorrect orders resulted in unjust removals because individuals lacked the resources or were too discouraged to fight their cases up to the Courts of Appeals. And, the Courts of Appeals by no means caught all of the many mistakes that were made during that period. Haste makes waste. I analogized it to being an actor in a repertory theater company playing the “Theater of the Absurd.” Now, Sessions is promoting a rerun of another variation on that failed theme.

Somebody needs to fix this incredibly dysfunctional system before shifting it into “high gear.” And, it clearly won’t be Jeff Sessions.

PWS

04-07-18

TRUMP ADMINISTRATION’S UGLINESS IS EVERYWHERE IN AMERICA! – Beloit College Grad/Honorably Discharged Army Vet Target For ICE Removal Despite Mattis’s Assurances To The Contrary!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/people/alex-horton

Alex Horton reports for the Washington Post:

Immigration and Customs Enforcement appears to have ignored a directive from prevent the deportation of noncitizen troops and veterans, seeking to remove a Chinese immigrant despite laws that allow veterans with honorable service to naturalize, court filings show.

Xilong Zhu, 27, who came from China in 2009 to attend college in the United States, enlisted in the Army and was caught in an immigration dragnet involving a fake university set up by the Department of Homeland Security to catch brokers of fraudulent student visas.

Zhu paid tuition to the University of Northern New Jersey, created by DHS to appear as a real school, long enough to ship to basic training using the legal status gained from a student visa issued to attend that school.

Then ICE found him and asked the Army to release him for alleged visa fraud. He left Fort Benning, Ga., on Nov. 10, 2016, in handcuffs as an honorably discharged veteran. He was detained for three weeks and released.

Zhu is waiting for a Seattle judge’s ruling on his removal proceedings, which are based on allegations by ICE that he failed to attend classes in violation of his student visa. His attorney says his client is a victim of federal entrapment.

Zhu’s case comes amid Trump administration pressure on immigration judges to speed up deportation proceedings in an apparent move to adjudicate more removals, aligning with President Trump’s stated goals.

But it also comes after Mattis said he would protect certain immigrant recruits who enlist through a program designed to trade fast-tracked citizenship for medical and language skills. Those assurances followed sustained controversy over how the Pentagon has exposed more than a thousand foreign-born recruits to deportation. A background-screening logjam began in late 2016 when fears of insider threats slowed clearances to a glacial pace.

[ A deported veteran has been granted U.S. citizenship, after 14 years of living in Mexico ]

“Anyone with an honorable discharge … will not be subject to any kind of deportation,” Mattis told reporters at the Pentagon in February, describing exceptions for those who commit a “serious felony” and anyone who has been authorized for deportation in an agreement he said was made with DHS Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen.

Zhu’s attorney, retired Army officer Margaret Stock, told The Washington Post those exceptions do not apply to him.

DHS referred questions to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Spokesman Jonathan Withington declined to comment, citing the pending litigation. ICE declined to provide a comment attributable by name.

But through court documents, ICE has interpreted the Mattis directive applies to a narrow group of foreign recruits that exclude Zhu. It’s unclear whether ICE consulted with the Pentagon on the subject, or if the agency has moved to deport other immigrant recruits since Mattis spoke in February.

Xilong Zhu at Army basic training graduation in 2016. (Xilong Zhu)

Zhu graduated from basic training on June 9, 2016, and was handed over to ICE custody months later, after the Army lost a battle to retain him, Stock said. Zhu was included in a group of “holdovers,” an Army term he disdains that refers to soldiers who fail training.

That wasn’t him.

“It made me nauseous to be lumped into that group,” he told The Post.

How Zhu got in his predicament is a strange, bureaucratic odyssey after he graduated from Beloit College in Wisconsin in 2013. He wanted to become a U.S. citizen, so he decided to enlist through the Military Accessions Vital to the National Interest (MAVNI) program that his father in China had read about. It trades expedited citizenship for language and medical skills in short supply among U.S.-born recruits.

. . . .

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

Gee whiz, I thought that spending a week with the grandchildren in Beloit, Wisconsin might get us away from most of the Trump zaniness. But, no such luck as this story about a Beloit College graduate hit during the week. No end to the ways that ICE can think up to waste taxpayer money, clog already overwhelmed Immigration Court dockets with cases that no responsible prosecutor would even file, and exhibit mindless cruelty and irrationality in the process. Small wonder that some pols are starting to suggest that American would be safer and better off without ICE.

PWS

04-06-18

HON. BRUCE J. EINHORN IN WASHPOST: SESSIONS’S BLATANT ATTEMPT TO INTIMIDATE U.S. IMMIGRATION JUDGES TO DEPORT INDIVIDUALS IN VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS SHOWS A SYSTEM THAT HAS HIT ROCK BOTTOM! — Are There Any “Adults” Out There In Congress Or The Article III Courts With The Guts To Stand Up & Put An End To This Perversion Of American Justice? — “Due process requires judges free of political influence. Assembly-line justice is no justice at all.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/jeff-sessions-wants-to-bribe-judges-to-do-his-bidding/2018/04/05/fd4bdc48-390a-11e8-acd5-35eac230e514_story.html?utm_term=.770822e8f813

My former colleague Judge Bruce J. Einhorn writes in the Washington Post:

Bruce J. Einhorn, an adjunct professor of immigration, asylum and refugee law at Pepperdine University, served as a U.S. immigration judge from 1990 to 2007.

It’s a principle that has been a hallmark of our legal culture: The president shouldn’t be able to tell judges what to do.

No longer. The Trump administration is intent on imposing a quota system on federal immigration judges, tying their evaluations to the number of cases they decide in a year. This is an affront to judicial independence and the due process of law.

I served as a U.S. immigration judge in Los Angeles for 17 years, presiding over cases brought against foreign-born noncitizens who Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers believed were in this country illegally and should thus be removed. My responsibility included hearing both ICE’s claims and the claims from respondents for relief from removal, which sometimes included asylum from persecution and torture.

Read These Comments newsletter

The best conversations on The Washington Post

As a judge, I swore to follow the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees that “no person” (not “no citizen”) is deprived of due process of law. Accordingly, I was obliged to conduct hearings that guaranteed respondents a full and reasonable opportunity on all issues raised against them.

My decisions and the manner in which I conducted hearings were subject to review before the U.S. Board of Immigration Appeals and U.S. courts of appeals. At no time was my judicial behavior subject to evaluation based on how quickly I completed hearings and decided cases. Although my colleagues on the bench and I valued efficiency, the most critical considerations were fairness, thoroughness and adherence to the Fifth Amendment. If our nativist president and his lapdog of an attorney general, Jeff Sessions, have their way, those most critical considerations will become a relic of justice.

Under the Trump-Sessions plan, each immigration judge, regardless of the nature and scope of proceedings assigned to him or her, will be required to complete 700 cases in a year to qualify for a “satisfactory” performance rating. It follows that only judges who complete more, perhaps many more, than 700 cases per year will qualify for a higher performance rating and, with it, a possible raise in pay.

Essentially, the administration’s plan is to bribe judges to hear and complete more cases regardless of their substance and complexity, with the corollary that judges who defy the quota imposed on them will be regarded as substandard and subject to penalties. The plan should be seen for what it is: an attempt to undermine judicial independence and compel immigration judges to look over their shoulders to make sure that the administration is smiling at them.

This is a genuine threat to the independence of the immigration bench. While Article III of the Constitution guarantees the complete independence of the federal district courts and courts of appeal, immigration judges are part of the executive branch. Notwithstanding the right of immigration judges to hear and decide cases as they believe they should under immigration law, they are unprotected from financial extortion and not-so-veiled political intimidation under the U.S. Administrative Procedure Actor any regulations.

Moreover, federal laws do not guarantee respondents in removal hearings a right to counsel, and a majority of those in such hearings are compelled to represent themselves before immigration judges, regardless of the complexity of their cases. Those who lack representation in removal hearings typically cannot afford it, and the funds to help legal aid organizations fill in for private attorneys are nowhere to be found.

Hearings in which respondents proceed pro se, or unrepresented, are often the most challenging and time-consuming for immigration judges, who must take care to assure that the procedural rights of those facing possible removal are protected and to guarantee that inarticulate relief claims are fully considered.

The Trump administration’s intention is clear: to intimidate supposedly independent judges to expedite cases, even if it undermines fairness — as will certainly be the case for pro se respondents. Every immigration judge knows that in general, it takes longer to consider and rule in favor of relief for a respondent than it does to agree with ICE and order deportation. The administration wants to use quotas to make immigration judges more an arm of ICE than independent adjudicators.

In my many years on the immigration bench, I learned that repressive nations had one thing in common: a lack of an independent judiciary. Due process requires judges free of political influence. Assembly-line justice is no justice at all.

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

Thanks, Bruce for speaking out so forcefully, articulately, and truthfully!

Jeff Sessions is a grotesque affront to the U.S. Constitution, the rule of law, American values, and human decency. Every day that he remains in office is a threat to our democracy. There could be no better evidence of why we need an independent Article I U.S. Immigration Court!

Due Process Forever! Jeff Sessions Never! Join the New Due Process Army Now! The fight must go on until Sessions and his toxic “21st Century Jim Crows” are defeated, and the U.S. Immigration Courts finally are forced to deliver on the betrayed promise of “guaranteeing fairness and due process for all.” Harm to the most vulnerable among us is harm to all!

PWS

04-05-18

TAL @ CNN: TRUMP’S “GONZO” IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT POLICIES LIKELY TO FAIL AND ACTUALLY AGGRAVATE FORCES DRIVING UNDOCUMENTED MIGRATION!

How Trump’s policies could worsen the migration issue he says he wants to solve

By Tal Kopan, CNN

President Donald Trump in recent days has decried “weak” US border laws that he says leave the US vulnerable to unfettered immigration — but some of his policies could have the effect of worsening a Central American migrant crisis.

Even as the Department of Homeland Security says the southern border “is more difficult to illegally cross today than ever before,” Trump has stepped up his hardline immigration rhetoric, calling on the US military to guard the US-Mexico border until his long-promised wall is complete. He’s hammered Mexico and other countries for policies that he says are disadvantageous to the US and that send unsavory individuals into the country.

But experts say the President has been pursuing other policies that could substantially harm Central America — and in doing so, he risks creating conditions that generate the exact kind of mass exodus north that he talks about wanting to solve.

Immigration is driven by what are called push and pull factors. The US has been seeking aggressive immigration powers to cut down on what they say are pull factors — the perception that immigrants can live illegally with impunity in the US. But those very policies could affect push factors — the conditions of poverty and violence that drive immigrants elsewhere out of desperation.

“The US sort of talks out of both sides of its mouth,” said Eric Olson, a Latin America expert at the nonpartisan Wilson Center.

“If you’re investing in the region to address the drivers of migration and at the same time pursuing a policy of large-scale deportation, or at least potentially large-scale deportation, and you’re creating more obstacles for people leaving the region for reasons like violence and so on, you’re really creating more instability, not less instability.”

(Much) more: http://www.cnn.com/2018/04/04/politics/trump-migration-central-america/index.html

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

As Tal says, there’s much, much more to her report on the total stupidity and counter-productivity (not to mention inhumanity) of the Trump Administration’s “Gonzo” enforcement policy. Go on over to CNN at the link to get the full picture.

I’ve been saying for some time now that Trump is pursuing facially “hard-line” policies that are proven failures. Indeed, that forced migration from Central America is a phenomenon that spans four decades and six different Administrations with varying degrees of “same old, same old” would suggest to rational leadership that a different approach is required.

Contrary to Trump’s oft-made bogus claim, his is not the first Administration to try a “close the border, detain and deter” policy. Beginning with Reagan, every Administration has tried largely the same thing (although perhaps without some of the inflammatory and outright racist rhetoric favored by the Trumpsters) and all have failed. I know because I’ve been involved in some aspect of trying to implement those failed policies in at least four of those Administrations, two GOP and two Democrat.

That’s why the trend of migration from the Northern Triangle continues and will continue and fester until we get some enlightened leadership that 1) correctly applies our refugee and protection laws in the generous humanitarian spirit they were intended; and 2) recognizes and starts to deal effectively with the “push” issues in the sending countries.

Contrary to the false narrative spread by current Administration, most Central American refugees that I encountered personally during my career would have preferred to remain in their home countries, if political and country conditions had permitted it. Indeed, many were forced by targeted violence to give up promising careers, studies, or businesses to flee for their lives to the U.S. Here, they often had to perform “entry-level” work to support themselves unless and until they achieved some type of legal status (often TPS , asylum, withholding of removal, CAT relief, Special Immigrant Juvenile (“SIJ”) status, or a green card under NACARA).

Of course, many were denied protection despite having very credible, well-documented fears of harm because they didn’t fit the intentionally restrictive asylum criteria engineered by the BIA over several Administrations largely as a result of political pressure on the system to be “unwelcoming” to Central American migrants. Some of those who returned were killed or disappeared; others were tortured or attacked again and forced to flee second or third times, now bearing the scars or injuries to prove their cases — only as “prior deportees” they were no longer eligible for asylum but had to accept withholding of removal or CAT deferral.

Nobody in this Administration, and sadly relatively few in Congress and among the public, are willing to deal honestly with the phenomenon of Central American migration and the “push factors” that will never, ever be controlled by more restrictive laws, more violations of statutory, Constitutional, and international rights, inhumane and life-threatening detention , and racist rhetoric. Nor will it be stopped by any bogus “Wall.”

As I’ve said before, “We can diminish ourselves as a nation, but that won’t stop human migration!” If only someone would listen!

PWS

04-04-18

LORELEI LAIRD @ ABA JOURNAL: Sessions’s Quotas Threaten Due Process & Judicial Independence –“And it’s part of an ongoing effort, I think, to diminish the judges to more or less the status of immigration adjudicators rather than independent judges.” (PWS)

http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/justice_department_imposes_quotas_on_immigration_judges_provoking_independe

Lorelei Laird reports for the ABA Journal:

. . . .

The news was not welcomed by the National Association of Immigration Judges. Judge A. Ashley Tabaddor, the current president of the union, says the quotas are “an egregious example of the conflict of interests of having the immigration court in a law enforcement agency.” A quota system invites the possibility that judges will make decisions out of concern about keeping their jobs, she says, rather than making what they think is the legally correct decision. And even if they don’t, she points out, respondents in immigration court may argue that they do.

“To us, it means you have compromised the integrity of the court,” says Tabaddor, who is a sitting immigration judge in Los Angeles but speaking in her capacity as NAIJ’s president. “You have created a built-in appeal with every case. You are going to now make the backlog even more. You’re going to increase the litigation, and you are introducing an external factor into what is supposed to be a sacred place.”

Retired immigration judge Paul Wickham Schmidt adds that the new metrics are unworkable. Reversal on appeal is influenced by factors beyond the judge’s control, he says, including appeals that DHS attorneys file on behalf of the government and shifting precedents in higher courts.

McHenry’s email said that “using metrics to evaluate performance is neither novel nor unique to EOIR.” Tabaddor disagrees. Federal administrative law court systems may have goals to aspire to, she says, but those judges are, by law, exempt from performance evaluations. Nor have the immigration judges themselves been subject to numeric quotas in the past.

“No other administration before this has ever tried to impose a performance measure that [had] this type of metrics, because they recognized that immediately, you are encroaching on judicial independence,” she says.

Schmidt agrees. “No real judge operates under these kinds of constraints and directives, so it’s totally inappropriate,” says Schmidt, who has also served on the Board of Immigration Appeals. “And it’s part of an ongoing effort, I think, to diminish the judges to more or less the status of immigration adjudicators rather than independent judges.”

Tabaddor adds that the Justice Department forced the union last year to drop a provision forbidding numbers-based performance evaluations from its contract negotiations. This was not a sign that NAIJ agrees with the quotas, she says, but rather that the union’s hands are tied under laws that apply to federal employees.

The memo continues a trend of Justice Department pressure on immigration judges to resolve cases. Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who has the power to refer immigration law cases to himself, is currently taking comment on whether judges should have the power to end cases without a decision. (The ABA has said they should.)

Last summer, the chief immigration judge discouraged judges from granting postponements. Sessions did the same in a December memo that referenced the backlog as a reason to discourage “unwarranted delays and delayed decision making.”

Sessions has power over the immigration courts because they are a branch of the DOJ, not an independent court system like Article III courts. Independence has long been on the judges’ union’s wish list, and it was one topic when HBO’s Last Week Tonight with John Oliverexplored some problems with immigration courts on Sunday.

As the ABA Journal reported in 2017, the immigration courts have had a backlog of cases for most of the past decade, fueled by more investment in enforcement than in adjudication. Schmidt claims that unrealistic laws and politically motivated meddling in dockets also contribute to the backlog. As of the end of February, 684,583 cases were pending, according to Syracuse University’s Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse, which gets its data from Freedom of Information Act requests.

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

Read Lorelei’s full article at the link.

Clearly:

Today’s Immigration Courts are not “real” courts in the sense that they are neither independent nor capable of truly unbiased decision-making given the clear bias against immigrants of all types expressed by Sessions and other officials of the Trump administration who ultimately control all Immigration Court decisions.
The Immigration Courts have become a mere “facade of Due Process and fairness.” Consequently, Federal Courts should stop giving so-called “Chevron deference” to Immigration Court decisions.
The DOJ falsely claimed that the NAIJ “agreed” to these “performance metrics” (although as noted by Judge Tabaddor, the NAIJ might have lacked a legal basis to oppose them).
The current Immigration Court system is every bit as bad as John Oliver’s TV parody, if not actually worse.
America needs an independent Article I Immigration Court. If Congress will not do its duty to create one, it will be up to the Federal Courts to step in and put an end to this travesty of justice by requiring true Due Process and unbiased decision-making be provided to those whose very lives depend on fairness from the Immigration Courts.

PWS

04-04-18

“HAPPY EASTER” — Trump Mocks Christian Values — Trump’s Easter Message Full Of Hate, Vitriol, Racism, Lies, & Ignorance — Now Targeting Dreamers!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2018/04/01/deal-on-daca-no-more-trump-says/

Philip Rucker and David Weigel report for the Washington Post:

PALM BEACH, Fla. — President Trump spent his Easter morning here on an anti-immigrant tirade, declaring Sunday that there would be no deal to legalize the status of undocumented immigrants known as “dreamers” and threatening to exit the North American Free Trade Agreement unless Mexico increases border security.

Trump thrust the future of millions of undocumented immigrants who were brought to the United States as children into peril by promising “NO MORE DACA DEAL,” and he directed congressional Republicans to pass tough anti-immigration legislation.

An hour after he wished Americans a “HAPPY EASTER,” Trump fired off three tweets in which he vented, sometimes in all caps, about immigration laws he derided as “ridiculous” and “dumb” and about border enforcement he deemed dangerously lax.

In his first of the immigration-related tweets, Trump wrote, “Border Patrol Agents are not allowed to properly do their job at the Border because of ridiculous liberal (Democrat) laws like Catch & Release. Getting more dangerous. ‘Caravans’ coming. Republicans must go to Nuclear Option to pass tough laws NOW. NO MORE DACA DEAL!”

It was Trump who last fall canceled the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, which was begun in the Obama administration to provide temporary protection to dreamers.

“A lot of people are coming in because they want to take advantage of DACA,” Trump told the traveling press pool. “They had a great chance. The Democrats blew it.”

The president added, “Mexico has got to help us at the border. . . . They flow right through Mexico; they send them into the United States. It can’t happen that way anymore.”

President Trump’s position on DACA has taken several twists and turns over the years.(Meg Kelly, Claritza Jimenez/The Washington Post)

Trump in the past has promised to show “great heart” in dealing with DACA. In his comments Sunday, he appeared to be confused about the rules of the program. To qualify, immigrants must have lived in the United States since 2007, have arrived in the country before age 16 and have been younger than 31 on June 15, 2012. No one arriving in the country after that date is eligible.

After canceling DACA, Trump said he would like to reach a deal with Congress to protect dreamers from deportation in exchange for funding to build his long-promised wall at the U.S.-Mexico border. The president, however, went on to reject immigration proposals from congressional Democrats in recent months.

[ Immigration bills fail in Congress, leaving ‘dreamers’ in limbo ]

“Catch and release” is not a law, but shorthand for immigration officials freeing up detention center space by allowing immigrants to remain at large if they are not seen as security risks. The Trump administration has frequently claimed that the policy ended when the new president took office.

But detention centers have continued releasing low-risk immigrants, as the backlog of immigration court cases reaches the hundreds of thousands. On March 5, Attorney General Jeff Sessions informed immigration court judges that they could rule against asylum seekers without full hearings, which conservatives see as a way, in the long term, to open more space in detention centers.

Trump — who has spent his time in Palm Beach hanging out with family, playing golf with friends and watching television — may have tweeted in response to commentary on Fox News Channel, which he is known to view regularly.

“Fox & Friends” aired a segment earlier on Sunday morning about Central American migrants traveling through Mexico en route to the United States. It carried the headline: “CARAVAN OF ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS HEADED TO U.S.”

Trump’s Sunday comments may have been mere musings by an impassioned “Fox & Friends” viewer and may not signal a substantive shift in administration policies. Still, White House officials have long said Trump’s tweets are official presidential statements, and he has been known to use Twitter to preview formal policy pronouncements.

Trump sent his tweets on the fourth and final day of his vacation in Palm Beach, Fla., where he has been staying at his private Mar-a-Lago Club with a small coterie of aides. White House Chief of Staff John F. Kelly did not travel with him, but senior policy adviser Stephen Miller, a proponent of hard-line immigration policies, has been with Trump.

The president also has been spotted spending time — both over dinner Friday at Mar-a-Lago and on Saturday at the nearby Trump International Golf Club — with Fox host Sean Hannity. An outspoken immigration hard-liner, Hannity is a Trump booster and informal presidential adviser, in addition to hosting a radio show and prime-time Fox show.

Trump’s tweets baffled some Democrats, who had seen the president distinguish between DACA recipients and other immigrants who are in the country illegally.

“Time and time again, the president has walked away from bipartisan proposals that are exactly what he asked for,” said Drew Hammill, a spokesman for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.). “When an agreement to protect the Dreamers is reached, it will be despite this president rather than with his leadership.”

Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.) said on Twitter that Trump had once again revealed a racial animus behind his immigration policy. “The mask of deceptions and lies with which Trump has tried to gaslight the country for months just fell away: ‘no more DACA deal.’ ” Beyer tweeted. “His true position was always anti-immigrant.”

Rep. Luis V. Gutiérrez (D-Ill.), a leading advocate for a DACA deal in the House, tweeted that Trump had “demonstrated his complete ignorance” on immigration policy.

“Everyone who qualifies for DACA must show they lived in US almost 11 years ago,” he wrote. “Apparently every day is April Fool’s Day at White House.”

Conservative reaction to the tweets was relatively muted, and no Republican member of Congress had a comment or statement Sunday afternoon. At Breitbart, the tweets were reported as Trump refusing to “negotiate a deal between the GOP establishment and Democrats,” in “a return to his ‘America First’ immigration agenda.”

On Facebook, the conservative author Ann Coulter, who had condemned Trump for not securing border wall funding so far this year, urged the president to show and not tell.

“Try to get a message to the commander in chief for that wall,” she wrote.

But some Republicans joined the chorus of criticism. Ohio Gov. John Kasich, a GOP primary opponent of Trump in 2016 and possibly again in 2020, tweeted in response: “A true leader preserves & offers hope, doesn’t take hope from innocent children who call America home. Remember, today is Easter Sunday. #DACA #Hope”

Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.), a supporter of immigration reform who represents Miami and is retiring this year, took a sarcastic approach: “Such a strong message of love and new beginnings from @realDonaldTrump on Easter Sunday.”

By calling for Republicans to use the “Nuclear Option” to pass tough immigration measures, Trump seemed to urge a parliamentary procedure by which Senate Republicans could pass legislation with a simple majority of 51 votes as opposed to the 60-vote majority required to end debate and bring a vote to the floor.

But in mid-February, just 36 of the Senate’s 51 Republicans backed an immigration bill that mirrored White House demands. Congressional negotiations on DACA stalled just weeks later, when the Supreme Court upheld a decision that prevented the Trump administration from denying new program renewals.

The court’s move effectively nixed a March 6 deadline that the administration had set for ending DACA. Before leaving for Easter recess, Congress passed an omnibus spending bill with no DACA fix, even though advocates saw that as the best must-pass vehicle for one.

Trump lashed out at Mexico in his second of the three tweets Sunday. He threatened to “stop” NAFTA unless Mexican authorities do more to secure the border with the United States.

Trump wrote: “Mexico is doing very little, if not NOTHING, at stopping people from flowing into Mexico through their Southern Border, and then into the U.S. They laugh at our dumb immigration laws. They must stop the big drug and people flows, or I will stop their cash cow, NAFTA. NEED WALL!”

And in the third tweet, the president wrote, “These big flows of people are all trying to take advantage of DACA. They want in on the act!”

Trump’s tweets come amid tense negotiations over NAFTA between his administration and that of Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto. A call between the two men in February became testy after Trump refused to publicly affirm Peña Nieto’s position that Mexico will not pay for the wall’s construction, leading the Mexican leader to cancel a planned visit to Washington.

[ After testy call with Trump over border wall, Mexican president shelves plan to visit White House ]

Weigel reported from Washington.

Philip Rucker is the White House bureau chief for The Washington Post. He previously has covered Congress, the Obama White House, and the 2012 and 2016 presidential campaigns. He joined The Post in 2005 as a local news reporter.

Follow @PhilipRucker

David Weigel is a national political correspondent covering Congress and grass-roots political movements. He is the author of “The Show That Never Ends,” a history of progressive rock music.

Follow @daveweigel

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

Wow, hard to know where to start on this one.

DACA obviously has nothing to do with any “exodus” now on the way. Rather, those arriving appear to be mostly refugees from the Northern Triangle — primarily scared women and children. And, they are being driven north not by DACA, but by unrelenting persecution and violence by gangs fueled by the Trump Administration’s own wrongheaded and tone-deaf policies. Sometimes, folks reap what they sow!
Most of the new arrivals probably can establish a legal right to refuge under the law. That’s why Sessions is so anxious to manipulate and “game” the existing asylum system against them. But, that move is likely to be tied up in the Federal Courts, perhaps for decades and with a good chance of grinding the entire immigration enforcement system to a halt.
The “Con-Man-In -Chief” seems to have forgotten that his “enforcement overload legislative proposal” failed miserably in the Senate — garnering only 40 votes. Even if the Senate were to change the “60 vote rule” — something which neither party seems inclined to do — it’s virtually impossible that Trump would be able to round up the necessary 11 additional votes for his “mega enforcement only” program. His problem is that his proposals have offended enough members of the GOP that they are basically DOA in the Senate.
While “The Wall” likely would have little impact on either immigration or drugs, fact is that Trump could have gotten “His Wall” in exchange for relief for the Dreamers. He just was too biased or inept (or both) to close the deal.
Trump has already claimed to have eliminated the inaptly named “catch and release” program. If there is a problem now, it’s with his own policies. Moreover, to the extent that releasing aliens on bond is a function of their being determined to be neither dangers to the community nor flight risks, that appears to be constitutionally required. Trump and the GOP can fume all they want, but they can’t eliminate the US Constitution.
Trump now appears to be backing away of his premature claim that his “get tough rhetoric and policies on immigration enforcement” had single-handedly closed down exgtra-legal migration. Human migration is driven by forces far more powerful than Donald Trump.
Mexico has been known to use some methods that violate human rights to enforce migration restrictions. Encouraging them to do that puts Trump and his buddies squarely on the side of human rights violators. On a more practical note, even assuming that there were legal measures that Mexico could take to stem the flow of northward bound migrants, Trump’s disparaging and inflammatory rhetoric has done little to encourage such action on the part of the Mexican Government. And using NAFTA to threaten Mexico is hardly likely to increase Mexico’s inclination to help.
As a country that imports more than it exports, we need NAFTA more than Mexico does. If the US wants to “dis” one of its primary trading partners, I have little doubt that countries like China, the EU, Canada, and even India will be happy to step in and fill the void. I imagine that the Chinese would love to stick some factories just south of the Mexico-US border, for all sorts of reasons.
Trump’s mean-spirited and idiotic approach to immigration, as well as his inappropriate and unhinged tweets, are a continuing embarrassment to our country and create real questions as to both his intelligence and his mental stability.

Happy Easter indeed!

PWS

04-01-18

ELIZABETH J. (“BETTY”) STEVENS IN “THE FEDERAL LAWYER” (FBA) – Why We Need An Article I Immigration Court Now! — “A close read of the GAO’s report provides a chilling window into a system in chaos.”

http://www.fedbar.org/Publications/The-Federal-Lawyer/Columns/Immigration-Law-Update.aspx?FT=.pdf

Recently, the White House announced that it sought to reduce the current immigration court backlog by requesting appropriations for additional immigration judges and instituting performance metrics for all immigration judges.1 Sen. Claire McCaskill and Reps. Jim Sensenbrenner, Zoe Lofgren, and Trey Gowdy asked the General Accountability Office (GAO) the following questions: 1. What do Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) data indicate about its caseload, including the backlog of cases, and potential contributing factors and effects of the backlog according to stakeholders? 2. How does EOIR manage and oversee immigration court operations, including workforce planning, hiring, and technology utilization? 3. To what extent has EOIR assessed immigration court performance, including analyzing relevant information, such as data on case continuances? 4. What scenarios have been proposed for restructuring EOIR’s immigration court system and what reasons have been offered for or against these proposals?2

A close read of the GAO’s report provides a chilling window into a system in chaos.

. . . .

Moving the immigration courts out of the executive branch
would help alleviate the perception that they are not independent tribunals with DHS and the respondents as equal participants. This would also cure the perception that the immigration courts have become so politicized that decisions change not with the law but with the politics of the current administration. Moreover, due to
the number of immigration judges who are former DHS attorneys and the co-location of some immigration courts with Immigration and Customs Enforcement offices, a broad perception exists that immigration judges and DHS attorneys are working together. This perception leads to significant lapses in perceived due process; for example, individuals don’t appear because they think the system is rigged, don’t appeal a bad decision because they lack resources after the long wait for a merits hearing, or don’t pursue potential relief for which they might be eligible. Plus, such a move would allow DHS the opportunity to appeal the Article I appellate division’s decisions to the circuit courts of appeals—providing those courts with a broader, more balanced view of issues and decisions of the trial-level immigration court.21 EOIR’s FY 2016 Statistics Yearbook indicates that one quarter of the initial cases decided were grants—none of which were ever reviewed by the courts of appeals.22

With a move to an Article I court, both trial level and appellate di- vision judges would have fixed terms of office and tenure protections that would facilitate judicial decisions without fear or favor. (If one believes that current members of the Board of Immigration Appeals are truly independent, one should research the “streamlining” of
the board down to just 11 members.23) Current board members and immigration judges are arguably government attorneys with the same client as DHS attorneys.24 They are subject to case completion goals—with or without express reliance on numerical goals—and may be subject to discipline by the attorney general.25 The currently proposed performance metrics are not new—most have been in place in one form or another since 2002.26

Last but not least, removing the immigration courts from the Department of Justice should speed the courts’ ability to regulate itself. First and foremost, the individual immigration judges would have control over their dockets and not be subject to decisions by headquarters to prioritize case A over case B (and then back again)—or send trial judges off to border courts to handle a few cases when their backlogged dockets have to be re-scheduled.27 The Article I court as a whole would be able to issue rules and regulations without the current byzantine requirements for consultation with a number of different offices and agencies. And, finally, hiring an immigration trial judge would not take two years.28

Other options exist; all have flaws. None of the options will single-handedly fix the backlog. We all have strong opinions about whether our nation’s immigration laws need a complete overhaul or a quick x—and how to go about either or both—but as we look to implement changes in our current immigration system, we must also aspire to lift the immigration courts from “halfway there” not-quite- courts to true Article I courts. 

[Text of Footnotes Omitted]

Elizabeth J. Stevens is
the chair of the Federal
Bar Association’s Immi-
gration Law Section.

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

Read Betty’s highly cogent and incisive full article in The Federal Lawyer at the link! You’ll also be able to get all of Betty’s terrifically informative footnotes.

Betty is not just “any” lawyer. In addition to being the head of the FBA’s highly regarded and very active Immigration Law Section, Betty’s distinguished career in the Department of Justice has touched on all aspects of the Immigration Court practice.

While in law school at George Mason, Betty interned at the Board of Immigration Appeals during my tenure there. When I arrived at the Arlington Immigration Court, Betty was serving as the sole Judicial Law Clerk for all six Immigration Judges.

Betty then began a distinguished career at the Office of Immigration Litigation (“OIL”) where her primary job was to defend the orders of the Board of Immigration Appeals. She had a meteoric rise through the ranks of OIL, culminating in position as a Senior Supervisor and a trainer of newer OIL attorneys.

I well remember Betty shepherding numberous groups from OIL over to the Arlington Court to introduce them to immigration litigation at the “retail level of our justice system.” Since her retirement from Federal Service, Betty has been an energetic, well-informed, and steadfast voice for better legal education of attorneys on both sides practicing immigration law and for Immigration Court and BIA reform.

“Chilling” is exactly the right word to describe the utter chaos in our U.S. Immigration Courts today, as the backlog approaches 700,000 cases with no end in sight. It’s “chilling” to the individual Constitutional rights of all Americans, as well as “chilling” as to the fantastic degree of “malicious incompetence” of the DOJ’s pathetic attempt to administer the Immigration Courts under Jeff Sessions.

Betty is someone who has “looked at life from both sides now!” When Betty Stevens says the system is broken and “in chaos,” you’d better believe it’s true! Thanks again Betty for all you do! It’s an honor and a privilege to work with you on the “Due Process Team.”

PWS

04-01-18

HON. JEFFREY CHASE: Sessions’s Abuses Of “Certification Power” Show Why It’s Past Time To End This Unfair, Unethical, & (Probably) Unconstitutional Mockery of Justice!

https://www.jeffreyschase.com/blog/2018/3/29/the-ags-certifying-of-bia-decisions

Mar 29 The AG’s Certifying of BIA Decisions

The recent flurry of case certifications by Attorney General Jeff Sessions (he has certified four BIA decisions to himself since January) raises the question of the continued appropriateness of the practice. Certification allows a political appointee who heads an enforcement agency, and is subject to the policy agenda of the administration he or she serves, absolute authority to overrule or completely rewrite the decisions of an ostensibly neutral and independent tribunal comprised of judges possessing greater subject matter expertise.

The issue has only become a matter of legitimate concern under the two most recent Republican administrations. In her eight years as Attorney General during the Clinton Administration, Janet Reno decided a total of three cases pursuant to certification. Under the Obama administration, AGs Loretta Lynch and Eric Holder decided a comparable number of cases (four). The number is artificially inflated by the fact that two of those consisted of Holder vacating late-term decisions by his predecessor, Michael Mukasey. In one of the vacated decisions, Mukasey’s reasoning had been rejected by five separate U.S. circuit courts of appeal.

In contrast, during the eight year administration of George W. Bush, his three Attorneys General issued 16 precedent decisions through the certification process. Sessions so far seems to be on a similar pace.

One of Bush’s AGs, Alberto Gonzales, co-authored an article in 2016 defending the use of certification.1 As part of his argument, Gonzales traced the history of the practice to the BIA’s origins as an advisory-only panel in the Department of Labor in the 1920s and 30s. When the Board was transferred to the Department of Justice in 1940, it was provided only limited decision-making authority, but was required to refer to the AG certain categories of cases, including those “in which a dissent has been recorded” or where “a question of difficulty is involved.”

I will add that the early appointees to the BIA were career bureaucrats with no prior expertise or experience in the field of immigration law. To me, such history seems to provide no real justification for the continued practice. The BIA has for decades enjoyed the authority to independently decide a broad class of cases. It’s members all come to the Board with far more expertise and experience in the field of immigration law than the AG possesses (although since the 2003 purge by then-AG John Ashcroft, its make-up is far more conservative). Furthermore, whereas in the past, it was the BIA itself, and later, the Commissioner of INS, requesting certification, at present, the AG is handpicking the cases and certifying them to himself, sometimes in order to decide an issue that wasn’t part of the decision below.

Law Professor Margaret H. Taylor has noted that the practice of AG certification “might be seen as objectionable because it conflicts with a core value of our legal system: that disputes are resolved by an impartial adjudicator who has no interest in the outcome.”2 Taylor further points out that many such decisions were issued in the final days of an AG’s term, meaning that the AG “refers a controversial issue to himself and renders a decision upending agency precedent on his way out the door.”3

In an article calling for the implementation of procedural safeguards on the AG’s certification power, the author accurately notes that the practice of “agency head review” is common and non-controversial.4 However, Professor Stephen Legomsky has pointed out that the strongest arguments for agency head review – inter-decisional consistency, and agency control (by politically-accountable officials) over policy – don’t translate well to the process of deciding asylum applications, for example.5 This harks back to a point I made in an earlier article – that immigration judges (including BIA Board member) are the only judges in the otherwise enforcement-minded Department of Justice, and that the Department has never really grasped the concept of independent decision-makers existing under its jurisdiction.

Legomsky pointed out in the same article that the BIA, as an appellate authority, “can yield the same consistency as agency head review” through the issuance of en banc decisions; adding that the AG could require the Board to decide certain cases en banc.6 Interestingly, the BIA has given up the use of en banc decisions in recent years. It has not decided a precedent decision en banc even in cases of major import, or following remands from the AG or circuit courts.

Sessions’ use of certification thus far is unique in his redetermination of what the case he chooses is even about. In Matter of Castro-Tum, the DHS appealed an immigration judge’s decision to administratively close proceedings in which an unaccompanied minor did not appear on the grounds that it had met its burden of establishing proper notice of the hearing on the minor respondent. The BIA actually agreed with DHS and remanded the matter. However, Sessions has now turned the case into a referendum on whether any IJ or the BIA has the legal authority to administratively close any case, an argument that was never raised below. In Matter of A-B-, an immigration judge, in defiance of the BIA’s order to grant asylum on remand, refused to calendar the case for a hearing for an excessive length of time, and then disobeyed the Board’s order by denying asylum again for spurious reasons. Somehow, Sessions decided to certify this case to decide whether anyone seeking asylum based on membership in a particular social group relating to being a victim of private criminal activity merits such relief. His ultimate decision could curtail asylum eligibility for victims of domestic violence, members of the LGBTQ community, targets of gang violence, and victims of human trafficking.

Furthermore, two of the cases certified by Sessions involve tools of docket management, i.e. administrative closure and continuances. As immigration judges are the only judges within the Department, and as the BIA has set out uniform procedures for the proper use of these tools, how can the AG justify his need to weigh in on these issues, which clearly do not involve the need for intra-department consistency (as no other component of the department employs such tools), or for control by a politically-accountable official to ensure the coherent expression of agency policy?

Once again, the solution is to create an independent, Article I immigration court, allowing IJs to continue to decide cases with fairness and neutrality free from such policy-driven interference.

Copyright 2018 Jeffrey S. Chase. All rights reserved.

Notes:

Alberto Gonzales and Patrick Glen, Advancing Executive Branch Immigration Policy Through the Attorney General’s Review Authority, 101 Iowa L.Rev. 841 (2016).

Margaret H. Taylor, Midnight Agency Adjudication: Attorney General Review of Board of Immigration Appeals Decisions, 102 Iowa L. Rev. 18 (2016).

Id.

Laura S. Trice, Adjudication by Fiat: The Need for Procedural Safeguards in Attorney General Review of Board of Immigration Appeals Decisions, 85 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 1766 (2010).

Stephen H. Legomsky, Learning to Live with Unequal Justice: Asylum and the Limits to Consistency, 60 Stan. L. Rev. 413, 458 (2007).

6. Id.

JEFF CHASE

Related posts:

Snapshots from the US-Mexico border

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Apr 7 EOIR Imposes Completion Quotas on IJs

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Mar 29 The AG’s Certifying of BIA Decisions

Related posts: