👎🏽“GOOD ENOUGH FOR GOVERNMENT WORK” IS GOOD ENOUGH FOR GARLAND! ☹️ — FUNDAMENTALLY UNFAIR HEARINGS, BOGUS IN ABSENTIA REMOVAL ORDERS, UNREASONED PSG DENIALS, FAILURE TO FOLLOW CIRCUIT & OWN PRECEDENTS — The Life-Threatening ☠️☠️⚰️⚰️🪦 Errors Continue To Flow From EOIR’s “Culture Of Denial” — What’s Missing? — Accountability, Judicial Excellence, Due Process, Fundamental Fairness!

Alfred E. Neumann — Will Garland ever be held accountable for threatening the lives of migrants and undermining our entire justice system by running the most dysfunctional “court system” in America on his watch?
PHOTO: Wikipedia Commons

Dan Kowalski reports @ LexisNexis Immigration Community:

https://www.lexisnexis.com/LegalNewsRoom/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/ca9-on-fundamental-fairness-alcaraz-enriquez-v-garland

CA9 on Fundamental Fairness: Alcaraz-Enriquez v. Garland

Alcaraz-Enriquez v. Garland

“Despite its obligation under Saidane, the DHS made no effort—good faith or otherwise—to procure for Alcaraz’s cross-examination the witnesses whose testimony was embodied in the probation report and upon whose testimony the BIA ultimately relied in denying his appeal. See id. This failure impugned the probation report’s reliability and rendered the BIA’s procedure fundamentally unfair. … Based on the BIA’s failure to require the DHS to make a good faith effort to present the author of the probation report or the declarant for Alcaraz’s cross-examination and the prejudice generated therefrom, we grant in part Alcaraz’s petition and remand for a hearing that comports with the requirements of § 1229a(b)(4)(B). … On remand, cross-examination of the author of the probation report (or the declarant) could affect both the IJ’s credibility determination as to Alcaraz and the BIA’s decision to credit the probation report’s version of events over Alcaraz’s.”

[Hats off again to Bob Jobe!]

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

5th Cir. on illegal in absentia, defective notice, blown MTR:

https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/unpub/20/20-60655.0.pdf

Rodriguez controls the outcome of this case. Here, as in Rodriguez, “[t]he initial NTA” sent to Lemus-Ayala “did not contain the time and date of [his] hearing.” Id. And just as in Rodriguez, see id., the BIA’s holding in this case that Lemus-Ayala was not entitled to recission of the in absentia removal order rested on the Board’s legal conclusion that an NTA “that does not specify the time and place of an individual’s removal hearing . . . meets the requirements of … §1229(a), so long as a hearing notice specifying this information is later sent to the individual.” The BIA’s conclusion to that effect was an abuse of discretion, as it was based on an erroneous interpretation of a statute. See Barrios-Cantarero, 772 F.3d at 1021.

An in absentia removal “order may be rescinded . . . upon a motion to reopen filed at any time if the alien demonstrates that the alien did not receive notice in accordance with . . . section 1229(a).” 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(C). Lemus-Ayala was not notified “in accordance with . . . section 1229(a),” and so, as in Rodriguez, the proper disposition is to vacate the BIA’s decision to deny Lemus-Ayala’s motion to reopen and rescind the in absentia removal order, and to remand the case for further proceedings. See 15 F.4th at 356.1

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is GRANTED, the BIA’s decision is VACATED, and the case is REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

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

Dan Kowalski again:

https://www.lexisnexis.com/LegalNewsRoom/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/ca4-on-psg-escobar-gomez-v-garland-unpub-2-1

CA4 on PSG: Escobar Gomez v. Garland (Unpub., 2-1)

Escobar Gomez v. Garland

“Carlos Escobar Gomez seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) dismissal of his application for asylum. The BIA determined that Escobar Gomez was ineligible for asylum because he failed to establish membership in a particular social group defined with sufficient particularity. Because this ruling is not supported by a reasoned explanation, we grant the petition for review and remand to the BIA for further proceedings.” [Note the long and detailed concurrence by Judge Wynn.]

[Hats off to Nathan Bogart!]

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

Even 4th Cir. “Ultra-conservative” Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III has finally had enough, joining his panel colleagues in remanding after the BIA ignored both their own precedent and Circuit precedent on administrative closing in their “rush to no” to please their “partners” @ DHS Enforcement:

https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/202322.U.pdf

Finally, Merida-Saenz asserts that the Board erred by failing to remand to the IJ for the administrative closure of his case pursuant to our decision in Romero v. Barr, 937 F.3d 282, 297 (4th Cir. 2019) (holding that IJs and the Board possess “the general authority to administratively close cases”). While the Board acknowledged that Merida-Saenz had argued for administrative closure on appeal, it neither explicitly resolved that argument nor applied any of the relevant administrative closure factors thereto. See In re Avetisyan, 25 I. & N. Dec. 688, 696 (B.I.A. 2012) (specifying administrative closure factors). Moreover, the Board’s resolution of Merida-Saenz’s continuance request did not resolve his administrative closure argument. Although a continuance and an administrative closure are similar forms of relief, they are distinct in purpose and in result. See Romero, 937 F.3d at 289, 294 n.12 (contrasting circumstances in which continuance is appropriate with circumstances in which administrative closure is appropriate); Gonzalez-Caraveo v. Sessions, 882 F.3d 885, 892 (9th Cir. 2018) (explaining that administrative closure is “like” a continuance but not identical thereto). Because the Board’s decision does not demonstrate that it has actually considered Merida-Saenz’s administrative closure argument, we grant the petition for review as to this argument and remand to the Board for further proceedings. See Gonzalez, 2021 WL 4888394, at *10 (remanding for Board to address administrative closure argument in first instance); Li Fang Lin v. Mukasey, 517 F.3d 685, 693-94 (4th Cir. 2008) (explaining that we cannot review the Board’s decision when the Board has given us “nothing to review”).

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

Obviously, the Article IIIs have their own due process problems with burying significant rulings, particularly in immigration, in highly inappropriate, approaching unethical, “unpublished” decisions. These aren’t “routine” cases except that material errors at Garland’s BIA are so frequent that Circuit Courts have wrongly come to view them as “routine” and thereby to “normalize” substandard judging.

That’s basically sweeping the festering and ever-growing problem of a dysfunctional and unjust EOIR “under the carpet” — something that both Garland and EOIR apparently have come to rely upon. The unpublished cases highlighted above each have important messages and analytical points for practitioners as well as the EOIR judges who screwed them up! Even Garland could learn by paying attention to the poor quality work being churned out by EOIR in his name!

You know you’ve hit rock bottom as an immigration jurist when even Judge Wilkinson can’t think of a way to paper over your errors and explain away your abuse of immigrants! The same might be said when you start getting reversed on a regular basis by the 5th Circuit — a court that almost never saw a migrant they didn’t want to dehumanize and deport!

In a real court system with real judges, DHS would be treated as a “party” not a “partner.” But, not in Garland’s courts, where judicial quality and fundamental fairness have gone to die and be buried. ⚰️🪦

Wonder why Dems struggle to govern? Look no further than the astounding lost opportunity for transforming EOIR into a real court system where great judges could be modeling due process, fundamental fairness, backlog-reducing better precedents, and best practices.

One of the best ‘fixes” for any broken system is appointing talented experts who will get the decisions right in the first place and promote excellence and efficiency by establishing, promoting, and, most of all enforcing, “best practices” systemwide, with particular emphasis on getting it right at the initial level, be that Immigration Court or the USCIS Asylum Office.

Of course, at EOIR that would mean appointing a BIA with judges who have the backgrounds and expertise to actually recognize what best interpretations and best practices are in the first place! Hint: It’s got nothing to do with bending over backwards to help “partners” at DHS enforcement, maximizing removal orders, positioning OIL to argue Chevron or Brand X, or thinking of new and creative ways that the system can be mis-used as a “deterrent” to individuals making claims for legal relief. Those were Sessions’s and Barr’s “priorities,” and Garland has done little to change the rancid culture in his Immgration Courts. See, e.g., https://immigrationcourtside.com/2021/12/15/%f0%9f%8f%b4%e2%80%8d%e2%98%a0%ef%b8%8f%f0%9f%91%8e%f0%9f%8f%bd%f0%9f%a4%ae-aimless-docket-reshuffling-adr-on-steroids-eoir-dysfunction-shows-what-happens-when/

Instead, Garland has given us a potentially fatal dose of “good enough for Government work” — on steroids, with lives and the foundations of our democracy hanging in the balance every day!🤮👎🏽👎🏽👎🏽👎🏽👎🏽🤡

It’s an entirely unnecessary, ongoing national disgrace!🤮

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

12-20-21

🏴‍☠️👎🏽🤮 AIMLESS DOCKET RESHUFFLING (“ADR”) ON STEROIDS! — EOIR Dysfunction Shows What Happens When “Captive Court System” Kowtows To Political Handlers Rather Than Serving The Public! — Jason Dzubow, The Asylumist, Reports!

https://www.asylumist.com/2021/12/01/cancel

-culture-in-immigration-court/

Cancel Culture in Immigration Court

December 1, 2021

For “respondents” (non-citizens in removal proceedings) and their lawyers, Individual Hearings in Immigration Court are a big deal. Evidence must be gathered. Affidavits have to be prepared, checked, and re-checked. Witnesses must be identified, convinced to attend the hearing, and prepared for trial. Respondents practice their testimony. In most cases, the noncitizen has been waiting for many months or years for the trial date. The result of the trial determines whether the applicant can remain in the United States or must leave. When a respondent receives asylum, he is permitted to stay in the U.S. If he loses, he may be deported to a country where he faces danger. In many cases, respondents have family members here or overseas who are counting on them, and the outcome of the case affects the family members as well as the respondent. All of this provokes anxiety and anticipation. In short, Individual Hearings are life-changing events that profoundly effect respondents and their families.

So what happens when the Individual Hearing is canceled?

“Sorry boys and girls, the ‘nice’ list is too long. We’ll reschedule Christmas for next year… or maybe the year after that.”

The first thing to know is that cancellations are common. Cases are canceled weeks, days or even minutes before the scheduled time. Indeed, we often cannot be sure that a case will actually go forward until the hearing begins.

Why does this happen?

There are many reasons, some more legitimate than others. The most common reason these days is the pandemic. Sometimes, courts close due to potential exposures. That is understandable, but as far as I can tell, these represent a small minority of Covid cancellations. I have had 50% or more of my Individual Hearings canceled over the last year and a half, and none of those was caused by a Covid exposure. I suspect that the large majority of these cancellations are due to reduced capacity to hear cases–since judges and staff are often working from home. Indeed, most pandemic cancellations seem to occur a week or two before the Individual Hearing. By that time, we’ve already completed and submitted the evidence, witness list, and legal brief, and have usually started prepping the client for trial. The client is also psychologically gearing up for the big event.

And then we check the online system and find that the case is off the docket.

What’s so frustrating about these cancellations is that we’ve been living with the pandemic since early 2020. The Immigration Courts should have adjusted by now. If cases need to be canceled, why not do that several months in advance? At least that way, applicants would not build up hope, only to have that dashed when the case is cancelled at the last minute. Also, it wastes attorney time–since we will have to submit updated country condition evidence (and perhaps other evidence) later, re-prep witnesses, and potentially prepare new legal briefs, if the law changes (which is more common than you’d like to think). For attorneys who charge hourly, this additional work will involve additional costs to the applicants. So all around, last minute cancellations are harmful, and it’s hard to understand why they are still so frequent.

“I’m double booked today, so let’s put off your heart surgery until 2023.”

Besides the pandemic, court cases are cancelled for a host of other reasons: Immigration Judges (“IJs”) are out sick, hearings get bumped to accommodate “priority” cases or sometimes cases are “double booked,” meaning that they are scheduled for the same time slot with the same IJ, and so only one can go forward. To me, all these are weak excuses for canceling individual hearings. Most courts have several judges, and so if one judge is out sick, or if a priority case must be scheduled at the last minute, another judge should be able to help out (in all but the most complicated cases, judges need little time to prepare for a hearing, and so should be able to adjudicate a case on short notice). Also, there is no excuse for double-booking cases. IJs should have a sense of their schedules and simply not overbook. In addition, all courts are overseen by Assistant Chief Immigration Judges (“ACIJs”), who should be available to hear cases if need be. Finally, given the ubiquity of video conferencing equipment and electronic records, judges can adjudicate cases remotely, and so there should almost always be a judge available to fill in where needed.

Of course, there are times when case cancellations are unavoidable, due to inclement weather, for example. But in an ideal world, these should be rare.

“Oy vey! I have to give priority to a better-looking couple. Let’s reschedule this wedding for later. Are you free in 2024?”

If the delay caused by case cancellations was measured in weeks or even months, the problem would not be so severe. But in many cases, hearings are postponed for one or two years–or even longer! This is obviously distressing for the applicant, as the long-anticipated end date is pushed back to who-knows-when. It is particularly devastating for applicants who are separated from family members. The long postponements are also a problem for the case itself, as evidence becomes stale and must be replaced with more up-to-date information, and laws change, which can require a new legal brief. In short, these delays often force the applicant (and the applicant’s lawyer) to do significant extra work on the case, and this can add additional costs in terms of legal fees.

It seems obvious to me that courts do not fully appreciate the damage caused by last minute cancellations. If judges and staff (and management) knew more about the harm these cancellations cause, perhaps they would make a greater effort to ensure that hearings go forward, and that any delayed hearings are rescheduled as quickly as possible.

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

Readers of “Courtside” are familiar with the “toxic culture” of EOIR — actively encouraged by some Attorneys General, enabled and abetted by others.

The real problem here is that Immigration Courts are “led” by “managers” beholden to political agendas rather than the public they should serve. Also, since far too many EOIR “managers” and Immigration Judges have never represented individuals in Immigration Court, they are basically clueless as to the human and practical effects of their actions on individuals as well as on the dedicated, often pro bono or “low bono” lawyers who must guide their desperate and often re-traumatized clients through this morass.

At a time when the need for pro bono assistance has never been greater, the disgraceful dysfunction, mismanagement, and “studied user unfriendliness” of EOIR under Garland is actually discouraging attorneys from donating their time and endangering their emotional well-being! Could there be any worse public policy?

With so many extraordinarily talented, creative, courageous, independent legal minds out there in the private/NGO/academic sector of human rights/immigration/racial justice/due process this “intentional mediocrity (or worse)” is inexcusable. Yet, this massive failure of the U.S. justice system at the most basic level gets scant attention outside of Courtside, LexisNexis, ImmigrationProf Blog, Jeffrey S. Chase Blog, The Asylumist, and a few other specialized websites.

This “leading disintegrator of American justice and cosmic threat to our entire democracy” is largely “shoved under the carpet” by “mainstream media,” leaders of the legal profession (outside of immigration/human rights), politicians, policy makers, and the general public. Will they only “wake up” when it is too late and their own rights and futures have been diminished, dehumanized, and de-personified as if they were “mere migrants, not humans?”

In other words, who in America will always be immune from the “Dred Scottification of the other” now practiced, tolerated, and often even encouraged at the highest levels of our government? Don’t think it couldn’t happen to you! If immigrants, asylum seekers, and migrants in the U.S. are not “persons” under the Fifth Amendment, what makes YOU think that YOUR “personhood” will be honored by the powers that be!

In defense of today’s IJs, they actually have remarkably little control over their own dockets which are incompetently “micromanaged” from on high or by non-judicial “administrators.” Sound like a formula for an incredible, largely self-created, 1.5 million case backlog?

Cutting to the chase, the Immigration Courts are controlled by the Attorney General, a political official and a chief prosecutor to boot. Beyond that, no Attorney General has actually had to experience practice before the totally dysfunctional and intentionally user unfriendly “courts” he or she runs.

Foreign Service Officers must initially serve as consuls — the basic operating level of an embassy. Hotel managers usually start by working the front desk, where the “rubber meets the road” in the industry.

But, we enthrone those who are supposed to be the best, wisest, and fairest in the legal profession as Attorneys General and Article III Judges without requiring that they have had experience representing individuals at the “retail level” of our legal system — the U.S. Immigration Courts.

It doesn’t make sense! But, what does figure is that a system run by those without expertise and relevant experience, haphazardly “supervised” by Article III Judges who almost invariably exhibit the same blind spots, indifference to injustice, and lack of practical knowledge and expertise as those they are “judicially reviewing” has devolved into the worst court system in America. It’s an oppressive catastrophe where “liberty and justice are not for all” and survival is often more about the mood, mindset, or personal philosophy of the judge, or the “whim of the day” of DOJ politicos, than it is about the facts of the case or the most fair and reasonable applications of the law by experts! Is this really the way we should be determining who lives and who dies, who thrives and who will struggle just to survive?

These “courts” are not fair and impartial courts at all. They are places where service to the public comes last, poor leadership and mismanagement are tolerated and even rewarded, backlogs are out of control, due process, fundamental fairness, scholarship, and best practices scorned, and precious lives and human dignity routinely are ground to dust and scattered to the wind.

We deserve better from our legal system!

Once, there was a court system with a dream of a better future for all in America — a noble, if ambitious, vision, if you will: “through teamwork and innovation, become the world’s best administrative tribunals, guaranteeing fairness and due process for all.”😎

Now, sadly, that enlightened vision has disintegrated into a nightmare of dedicated dockets, biased precedents, endless backlogs, sloppy work, due process denying gimmicks, bogus statistics, mediocre judicial selections, secrecy, customer unfriendliness, dishonest blame shifting, and ridiculous Aimless Docket Reshuffling. ☠️

Attorney General Merrick Garland’s “limited vision” for EOIR is a continuing nightmare for those sentenced to appear and practice before his stunningly dysfunctional and “highly user unfriendly” Immigration “Courts.” Isn’t it high time to insist that those given responsibility for stewardship over America’s largest — and probably most consequential — Federal “Court” system actually have represented humans before those “courts?”
PHOTO: Thomas Hawk
Creative Commons
Amateur Night

Where there once was the promise of “light at the end of the tunnel,” now there is only “Darkness on The Edge of Town:”

Well lives on the line where dreams are found and lost
I’ll be there on time and I’ll pay the cost
For wanting things that can only be found
In the darkness on the edge of town
In the darkness on the edge of town

—- Bruce Springsteen

😎Due Process Forever!

PWS

12-15-21

☠️🤮👎🏽 3RD CIR. BADLY BUNGLES GUATEMALAN WOMEN PSG! — Chavez-Chilel v. Atty. Gen.

Woman Tortured — “Hey ladies, not every woman in Guatemala is hanging up there with you (yet), so what’s the problem,” says Circuit Judge Patty Shwartz of the 3rd. Cir.“ “She struggled madly in the torturing Ray”
Amazing StoriesArtist Unknown, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

https://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/211180p.pdf

Chavez-Chilel v. Atty. Gen., 3rd Cir., 12-09-21, published

PANEL: SHWARTZ, PORTER, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

OPINION: Judge Patty Shwartz

KEY QUOTE:

Chavez-Chilel’s proposed PSG lacks particularity. “[N]ot every immutable characteristic is sufficiently precise to define a [PSG],” id. at 552, and courts have concluded that a proposed PSG of all women in a particular country “is overbroad[] because no factfinder could reasonably conclude that all [of a country’s] women had a well-founded fear of persecution based solely on their gender,” Safaie v. INS, 25 F.3d 636, 640 (8th Cir. 1994) (addressing Iranian women).8 Reasons to depart from this general rule are not present here. For example, in Hassan v. Gonzales, 484 F.3d 513 (8th Cir. 2007), the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit recognized the PSG of all Somali women because “all Somali females have a well-founded fear of persecution based solely on gender given the prevalence of” female genital mutilation. Id. at 518; see also Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 797–98 (9th Cir. 2005) (same); In re Kasinga, 21 I. & N. Dec. 357, 365–66 (B.I.A. 1996) (recognizing PSG of “young women” in a particular tribe in Togo due to pervasive practice of female

8 In Perdomo v. Holder, 611 F.3d 662, 668–69 (9th Cir. 2010), the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit disagreed with the BIA’s conclusion that “all women in Guatemala” was too broad a group to qualify as a PSG and remanded for further analysis. That case rested on the Ninth Circuit’s two-part definition of a PSG, which recognized any group “united by a voluntary association, including a former association, or by an innate characteristic that is so fundamental to the identities or consciences of its members that members either cannot or should not be required to change it.” Id. at 666 (quotation marks and emphasis omitted). This definition is not consistent with our Court’s three requirements for a PSG, see S.E.R.L., 894 F.3d at 540, so we decline to follow the reasoning in Perdomo.

14

genital mutilation). Here, by contrast, there is no record evidence that all Guatemalan women share a unifying characteristic that results in them being targeted for any form of persecution based solely on their gender. Cf. A.R. 170–73, 182 (Chavez-Chilel’s testimony that she knew of no other women who suffered sexual or domestic violence); A.R. 232 (report explaining that one-third more Guatemalan women experience sexual or domestic violence against them than women in Paraguay). Accordingly, while the size of the group standing alone would not disqualify a group from being a PSG, Cece v. Holder, 733 F.3d 662, 674–75 (7th Cir. 2013), Chavez- Chilel has failed to demonstrate that her proposed PSG is sufficiently particularized. Thus, her alleged fear of persecution based upon membership in such a group does not provide a basis for asylum. Because Chavez-Chilel cannot prove her asylum claim, she cannot meet the higher standard to obtain withholding of removal. See Blanco v. Att’y Gen., 967 F.3d 304, 315 (3d Cir. 2020). As a result, the IJ and BIA correctly denied her request for asylum and withholding of removal.9

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

What total poppycock Judge Shwartz spews forth in the faces of abused and targeted refugee women! Guatemalan women suffer one of the highest femicide rates in the world! https://cgrs.uchastings.edu/our-work/femicide-and-gender-based-violence. Indeed, that rate increased dramatically, by 31%, in 2021! https://www.riotimesonline.com/brazil-news/mercosur/central-america/femicides-increase-by-31-in-guatemala-during-2021/. While Judge Shwartz and her colleagues are incapable of recognizing truth, persecutors in Guatemala are highly capable of recognizing “women in Guatemala” as a group to target because of their gender!

This is a seriously flawed analysis. The court conflates psg “particularity” with nexus. Obviously, not every woman in Guatemala need fear persecution for some to be persecuted on that basis!

Suppose a few Jews escaped Nazi persecution. Does that mean Jews weren’t a PSG? Suppose only 10% of Poles were killed by the Nazis because of their ethnicity. Does that mean Poles were not a PSG? Suppose only 40% of Roma in a particular country are exterminated? Does that make Roma not a PSG? What if every Catholic in a particular country doesn’t have the exact same fear of persecution? Does that mean that Catholics don’t have a “well-founded fear”of persecution? Does that mean that Catholicism isn’t “one central reason” for persecution? Of course not, except in the uninformed minds of Judge Shwartz and her panel colleagues!

Obviously “women in Guatemala” is 1) fundamental to identity; 2) particularized (it clearly excludes non-women); and 3) distinct in Guatemalan society (and every other country in the world). Indeed, like family “women” and “men” are among the oldest, most fundamental, readily recognizable “particular social groups” in human existence!

I’m not the only critic of this outrageous misconstruction of asylum law!

Hon. Jeffrey S. Chase
Jeffrey S. Chase Blog
Coordinator & Chief Spokesperson, Round Table of Former Immigration Judges

“Sir Jeffrey” Chase of the Round Table 🛡⚔️ says:

The court completely misconstrued the standard for determining particularity:

Here, by contrast, there is no record evidence that all Guatemalan women share a unifying characteristic that results in them being targeted for any form of persecution based solely on their gender.

Particularity of course is a clear marker for group inclusion, and does not require evidence that everyone in the group is being targeted for persecution – compare, e.g. family or land owners.

Our friend and “practical scholar” colleague, Professor Geoffrey Hoffman of the University of Houston Law Center, adds:

Appears also to ignore the “once central reason” asylum rule in that the court is erroneously say gender must be “sole” reason (page 15, use of word “solely”)

So court got it wrong on 2 counts – not “all” women in Guatemala must be persecuted to form a valid PSG and gender need not be “sole reason” for the persecution.

Another colleague who practices in the 3rd Circuit sums it up succinctly and bluntly: “Awful!”

In addition to being legally wrong on a number of points, as pointed out by Dan Kowalski at LexisNexis Immigration Community, the court’s decision is horrible policy:

Note that the IJ DID grant CAT relief, and the government did NOT appeal that grant.

The “good news” is that the CAT grant prevents Ms. Chavez -Calel from being returned to torture and persecution in Guatemala. However, by misapplying asylum law, the court basically places her in an indefinite “limbo status.”

She therefore is deprived of the right to fully integrate into our society by getting a green card and becoming a citizen. The court also strips her of any realistic path to exercising political rights! What sense does manipulating the law to intentionally create disenfranchised subclasses in American society make when better alternatives are available?

To add insult to injury, in this decision the Third Circuit joined other Circuits and the BIA in giving DHS and EOIR a “pass” on their intentional decision not to comply with the INA requirements for issuing a Notice to Appear (“NTA”) to commence removal proceedings.

Obviously, these “ivory towerists” have never experienced the actual mess that occurs when overworked, understaffed Immigration Court clerks manually mail out subsequent notices, by regular U.S. Mail, using addresses haphazardly entered by DHS personnel in the chaos that often exists at the border and upon release from DHS detention.

Perhaps, in their exalted positions, these Article IIIs no longer have to rely on the ever-deteriorating service of the U.S. Postal service. This morning, I delivered a “mini-stack” of mis-delivered U.S. Mail to my next door neighbor. We seem to get mis-delivered mail on a weekly basis. And, I live in a reasonably “upscale” neighborhood, if I do say so myself — one where folks know all the neighbors and take the time to “re-route” misdirected mail. Think there are places America where that doesn’t happen?

What do these judges think “delivery accuracy” is in the communities and situations where most Immigration Court respondents live? Maybe, there was a good reason why Congress required the NTA, which, unlike subsequent EOIR notices, is often served personally, to contain accurate information on the time and place of their hearing.

Maybe, we need Federal Judges who live in the “real world” rather than abstract one they have constructed where the lives of migrants are at issue! Maybe, we need more Federal Judges who have seen and experienced the consequences of “poor and uninformed judging” on immigrant and ethnic communities in the U.S.!

At a time when the Supremes’ righty majority appears to be intent on dismantling half a century of established women’s rights, the Third Circuit’s wrong-headed decision is a further “body blow” to both the humanity and human rights of women throughout the world!

Judge Schwartz is an Obama appointee. Her panel colleagues are GOP appointees. We deserve better from our life-tenured Federal Judiciary! Much, much better!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

12-10-21

☠️☠️ ☠️TRIPLE HEADER — 10TH CIRCUIT FINDS MULTIPLE MATERIAL ERRORS IN YET ANOTHER DISGRACEFUL WRONGFUL ASYLUM DENIAL BY GARLAND’S BIA!🤮

Four Horsemen — BIA Asylum Panel In Action
Albrecht Dürer, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

Dan Kowalski reports for LexisNexis Immigration Community:

https://www.lexisnexis.com/LegalNewsRoom/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/ca10-corrects-massive-bia-failure-villegas-castro-v-garland#

CA10 Corrects Massive BIA Failure: Villegas-Castro v. Garland

Villegas-Castro v. Garland

“We conclude that the Board erred in three ways. First, the Board erred in overturning the grant of asylum. The Board decided that Mr. Villegas-Castro had not filed a new application. But if he hadn’t filed a new asylum application, he wouldn’t need to show a material change in circumstances. And with the remand, the immigration judge enjoyed discretion to reconsider the availability of asylum. Second, the Board erred in rejecting the immigration judge’s credibility findings without applying the clear-error standard. The immigration judge concluded that Mr. Villegas-Castro’s conviction had not involved a particularly serious crime. For this conclusion, the immigration judge considered the underlying facts and found Mr. Villegas-Castro’s account credible. The Board disagreed with the immigration judge’s credibility findings but didn’t apply the clear-error standard. By failing to apply that standard, the Board erred. Third, the Board erred in sua sponte deciding that Mr. Villegas-Castro was ineligible for (1) withholding of removal or (2) deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture. The Board reasoned that the immigration judge had already denied withholding of removal under federal law and the Convention. But the Board’s general remand didn’t prevent fresh consideration of Mr. Villegas-Castro’s earlier applications. So the Board erred in sua sponte rejecting the applications for withholding of removal and deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture. We thus grant the petition for judicial review, remanding for the Board to reconsider Mr. Villegas-Castro’s application for asylum, to apply the clear-error standard to the immigration judge’s credibility findings, and to reconsider the applications for withholding of removal and deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture.”

[Hats off to Harry Larson, formerly of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, Chicago, Illinois (Andrew H. Schapiro, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, Chicago, Illinois, and Keren Zwick and Tania Linares Garcia, National Immigrant Justice Center, Chicago, Illinois, with him on the briefs), on behalf of the Petitioner, and Simon A. Steel, DENTONS US LLP, Washington, D.C., and Grace M. Dickson, DENTONS US LLP, Dallas, Texas, filed a brief for Amici Curiae, on behalf of Petitioner!]

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

A prime example of the “any reason to deny culture,” that Garland has allowed to continue, at “work” — although it doesn’t appear the BIA actually did any “work” here beyond insuring that the bottom line in the staff attorney’s draft was against the asylum seeker!

As I raised yesterday, how is it that this fatally flawed group continues to get “Chevron deference” from the Article IIIs?

https://immigrationcourtside.com/2021/12/02/%e2%9a%96%ef%b8%8f4th-cir-chief-circuit-judge-roger-gregory-dissenting-castigates-colleagues-on-grantng-chevron-deference-to-bia/

Also, why isn’t every group of legal professionals in America “camped” on Judge Garland’s doorstep @ DOJ demanding meaningful change @ EOIR as the degradation of American justice and demeaning of human lives continue largely unabated?

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

12-03-21

🤮👎PROPER CAT ANALYSIS A VICTIM OF GARLAND’S “ANY REASON TO DENY” BIA — Arulnanthy v. Garland, 5th Cir.

Dan Kowalski reports from LexisNexis Immigration Community:

https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/19/19-60760-CV0.pdf

https://www.lexisnexis.com/LegalNewsRoom/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/ca5-on-jurisdiction-cat-arulnanthy-v-garland#

“The collateral consequences of the BIA’s order ensure that Arulnanthy’s petition for review remains justiciable despite his removal to Sri Lanka. Substantial evidence supports the finding that Arulnanthy was not a credible witness. And the BIA was right to consider Arulnanthy’s lack of credibility fatal to his asylum claim. But the BIA’s refusal to consider his country-conditions evidence in the purely objective CAT context was error. We therefore REMAND the petition as to the CAT claim and DENY it in all other respects.”

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

This isn’t “rocket science” and the 5th Circuit is hardly known as a hotbed of due process and fundamental fairness for migrants!

But, when the BIA starts with “the migrant loses” as the “bottom line,” and then reasons backwards (if they bother reasoning at all, in their usual haste to keep the “deportation assembly line” moving) the “analysis” is likely to be defective. This 5th Circuit panel actually took their job of analyzing the record before them more seriously than Garland “faux expert” BIA!

One would think that a former Court of Appeals Judge would take due process, impartiality, and quality control seriously in his “wholly owned and operated ‘court’ system.” But, that would be someone other than Judge Garland!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever! Xenophobia, Never!

PWS

11-09-21

⚖️👎🏽LATEST QUAD OF ARTICLE III “BODY SLAMS” SHOWS ENDEMIC PROBLEM OF ANTI-IMMIGRANT BIAS, UNPROFESSIONAL WORK PRODUCT @ GARLAND’S BIA — Wrong On: PSG, Failure Of State Protection, Internal Relocation, Nexus, Right To Counsel, Statutory Interpretation!

Dan Kowalski reports for LexisNexis Immigration Community:

https://www.lexisnexis.com/LegalNewsRoom/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/ca6-on-psg-zometa-orellana-v-garland-unpub

CA6 on PSG: Zometa-Orellana v. Garland (Unpub.)

Zometa-Orellana v. Garland

“Ana Mercedes Zometa-Orellana, a native and citizen of El Salvador, suffered regular beatings and rape by her domestic partner. She sought asylum and withholding of removal based both on political opinion and membership in a particular social group. An immigration judge (IJ) denied asylum and withholding of removal, and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed that ruling. Since then, however, a crucial case on which both the BIA and the IJ relied to assess Zometa-Orellana’s particular social group was vacated by the Attorney General. And the IJ and BIA failed to consider the entire record in determining the El Salvadorian Government’s willingness to respond and Zometa-Orellana’s ability to relocate in El Salvador. For these reasons, we GRANT the petition, VACATE the BIA’s decision, and REMAND for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.”

[Hats off to Dr. Alicia Triche!]

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

https://www.lexisnexis.com/LegalNewsRoom/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/ca4-on-nexus-aleman-medrano-v-garland-unpub

CA4 on Nexus: Aleman-Medrano v. Garland (Unpub.)

Aleman-Medrano v. Garland

“Aleman-Medrano’s central argument on appeal is that the agency [EOIR: the IJ and the BIA] erred at the second step of the analysis, improperly rejecting his claim that he was targeted by gang members “on account of” his family ties to his daughter. We agree and, finding no independent basis on which to affirm the agency’s denial of relief, remand for further proceedings. … [W]e are compelled to conclude that Aleman-Medrano’s relationship with his daughter was at least one central reason why he, and not someone else, was threatened by MS-13. … MS-13’s threats to Aleman-Medrano arose “on account of” his family ties and that he thus has met the nexus requirement for both asylum and withholding of removal.”

[Hats off to Abdoul A. Konare!]

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

https://www.lexisnexis.com/LegalNewsRoom/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/ca9-2-1-on-right-to-counsel-usubakunov-v-garland

CA9 (2-1) on Right to Counsel: Usubakunov v. Garland

Usubakunov v. Garland

“This is not a case of a petitioner abusing the system or requesting serial delays of his merits hearing—Usubakunov had found an attorney willing to take his case. Although it may be tempting to look for a bright-line rule, we hew to our precedent that the “inquiry is fact-specific and thus varies from case to case.” Biwot, 403 F.3d at 1099. In doing so, we do not suggest that there is “no limit,” Dissent at 19, to the permissible delay for obtaining a lawyer. Our factspecific inquiry here leads us to conclude that the IJ’s refusal to grant a continuance violated Usubakunov’s right to counsel. … This case illustrates diligence, not bad faith, coupled with very difficult barriers faced by a detained applicant who does not speak English. Usubakunov sought and identified counsel within the period the IJ originally thought reasonable, but he was stymied by counsel’s scheduling conflict. He had identified by name and organization the lawyer who would ultimately represent him, and Usubakunov thus sought his first continuance of the merits hearing. We conclude that “[u]nder these circumstances, denial of a continuance was an abuse of discretion because it was tantamount to denial of counsel.” Biwot, 403 F.3d at 1100. Given these unique circumstances, our grant of the petition will not open the floodgates of continuances, as we apply the same fact-based inquiry we have done for years. That concludes our inquiry, as a petitioner who is wrongly denied assistance of counsel at his merits hearing need not show prejudice. See Gomez-Velazco, 879 F.3d at 993 (citing Montes-Lopez v. Holder, 694 F.3d 1085, 1090 (9th Cir. 2012)). In light of the need to remand for a new hearing, we do not address Usubakunov’s other challenges. We grant Usubakunov’s petition for review and remand for further proceedings. PETITION GRANTED and REMANDED.”

[Hats off to Bardis Vakili (argued), ACLU Foundation of San Diego and Imperial Counties, San Diego, Kristin MacLeod-Ball, American Immigration Council, Brookline, Massachusetts; Mary Kenney, American Immigration Council, Washington, D.C.; for Amicus Curiae American Immigration Council; and Laura J. Edelstein, Jenner & Block LLP, San Francisco, California, for Amicus Curiae Women’s Refugee Commission!]

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

https://www.lexisnexis.com/LegalNewsRoom/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/natz-victory-slams-matter-of-zhang-melara-v-mayorkas

Natz. Victory Slams Matter of Zhang: Melara v. Mayorkas

Melara v. Mayorkas

“Matter of Zhang, 27 I&N Dec. 569 (BIA 2019) is not entitled to deference by this Court because it is a dramatic break with past agency interpretation, is in conflict with the Department of State’s current interpretation of the false claim to citizenship ground of inadmissibility, and is a break from Congress’s clearly expressed intent. An agency’s interpretation of an unambiguous statute receives no deference if the interpretation is not in line with Congress’s clearly expressed intent. See, e.g., Valenzuela Gallardo v. Lynch, 818 F.3d 808, 815 (9th Cir. 2016). Matter of Zhang takes a dramatic and unique approach to the knowledge element out of the term “false claim to U.S. citizenship.” See, e.g., Richmond v. Holder, 714 F.3d 725, 729 (2d Cir. 2013) (assuming without deciding that false claim inadmissibility provision has knowledge element); Muratoski v. Holder, 622 F.3d 824, 828 (7th Cir. 2010) (agency determined that applicant lacked good moral character because he “knew or should have known” that he was not a United States citizen at the time he made that claim); Valdez-Munoz v. Holder, 623 F.3d 1304, 1308 (9th Cir. 2010) (reasonable factfinder would not be compelled to disagree with agency’s determination that applicant was inadmissible because he “intended to and did make a false claim of United States citizenship”). … The Court finds that Petitioner Antonio Fernando Melara has met his burden of proving each element of naturalization by preponderance of the evidence. Judgment is GRANTED for Petitioner.”

[Hats way off to Sabrina Damast and Patricia M. Corrales!]

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

Individuals are being mistreated! Attorneys are frustrated! Due Process is mocked! Garland is disinterested in fixing the huge structural, personnel, and quality control problems at BIA/EOIR!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

11-03-21

☠️👎🏽GARLAND EOIR’S DISTURBINGLY BAD ANALYSIS IN YET ANOTHER ASYLUM CASE “OUTED” BY FIRST CIRCUIT! — Lopez Troche v. Garland

Dan Kowalski reports for LexisNexis Immigration Community:

http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/20-1718P-01A.pdf

https://www.lexisnexis.com/LegalNewsRoom/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/ca1-on-credibility-lopez-troche-v-garland#

“Mario Rene Lopez Troche (“Lopez Troche”), a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) that affirms the denial of his application for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We vacate and remand. … [T]he record does not reveal the claimed inconsistency between the testimony and the reasonable fear interview as to Lopez Troche’s reporting to police that the BIA identified. The BIA cited to three portions of Lopez Troche’s testimony in support of its determination that the IJ did not clearly err in finding an inconsistency between what Lopez Troche told the asylum officer during his reasonable fear interview and how he testified as to the reporting of past abuse. But, none of those passages supports the BIA’s determination. … Nor is it possible to read either the BIA or the IJ to have inferred from Lopez Troche’s failure to report to the police the specific incidents that he discussed in his testimony that he was asserting in that testimony that did not report any incidents of abuse ever. Neither the IJ’s opinion nor the BIA’s expressly purports to premise its ruling as to adverse credibility on the basis of such inferential reasoning, see Chenery, 318 U.S. at 95, and we do not see what basis there would be for drawing that inference on this record, given that, in his reasonable fear interview, declaration, and testimony, Lopez Troche discussed a series of traumatic physical and sexual assaults that he had experienced that appears to have stretched back to a time when he was eight years old and that thus encompassed many more incidents than those addressed specifically in the portions of his testimony on which the BIA focused. As a result, we must vacate and remand the BIA’s order affirming the denial of Lopez Troche’s request for withholding of removal.”

[Hats way off to PAIR Project Legal Director Elena Noureddine and Staff Attorney Irene Freidel!]

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

Law students and attorneys of the NDPA are out there helping refugees every day. Meanwhile, over at Garland’s dysfunctional EOIR, Immigration Judges and BIA Appellate Immigration Judges strain to improperly “diddle the record” to deny relief to asylum seekers! Then, OIL defends them!

Essentially, in this case, the BIA “made it up and misrepresented the record” in an effort to deny asylum for specious reasons! Then, OIL tried to “blow it by” the Circuit!

“[T]he record does not reveal the claimed inconsistency between the testimony and the reasonable fear interview as to Lopez Troche’s reporting to police that the BIA identified.” That’s “judgespeak” for: The BIA invented non-existent “inconsistencies” to unfairly deny asylum. Then, OIL defended that fabrication and denial of due process! What does this say about Garland’s leadership at DOJ?

Whatever happened to legal and judicial ethics? Clearly they were “deep sixed” under Sessions and Barr. But, why is Garland continuing to operate DOJ as an “ethics and quality free zone?”

This is a bad system with the wrong folks in too many judicial and leadership positions and presenting an overwhelming need for robust, bold change in how decisions are made and defended in Circuit Court. So far, Garland has not made the fundamental personnel changes and “quality upgrades” necessary to bring due process and some semblance of expertise and order back to his broken Immigration Courts! Why not?

Why are the kind of individuals who should be Immigration Judges and EOIR judicial leaders, talented lawyers like Elena and Irene, still “on the outside” rather than being actively recruited and brought in to replace those unable to perform judicial, administrative, and litigation duties in a fair, expert manner, that enhances due process? Why is EOIR still operating with a “judiciary” the majority of whom were installed by the Trump regime at Justice to “dehumanize, deport, and deter” without regard for due process? Why is OIL continuing to “defend the indefensible?” Why isn’t Congress asking Garland these questions?

Government lacking in expertise, intellectual honesty, professional ethics, and accountability is “bad government.” That’s true no matter which party holds power!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

10-21-21

NOT ROCKET SCIENCE! 🚀 “Any alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters), irrespective of such alien’s status, may apply for asylum . . . .” INA section 208(a). Black Organizations File Complaint About Biden Administration’s Scofflaw Actions Targeting Black Haitians & Other Asylum Seekers Of Color!

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/black-immigration-groups-demand-biden-halt-deportations-haitian-asylum_n_6150a453e4b00164119567a9

Sanjana Karanth reports for HuffPost:

Several Black immigration organizations have filed a formal complaint with the Department of Homeland Security’s Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, demanding that the Biden administration halt its continued deportations of Haitian asylum seekers.

The complaint filed by four groups ― the Haitian Bridge Alliance, UndocuBlack Network, African Communities Together and Black Alliance for Just Immigration ― requests that any potential witnesses of Border Patrol abuses be allowed to remain in the U.S. while their asylum claims are investigated. The complaint was first reported by theGrio, and signed by dozens of advocacy groups.

More than 13,000 Haitians were camped along the river at the Texas border town of Del Rio last weekend when Border Patrol officers on horseback charged at some of those gathered there, verbally assaulting and appearing to whip them. Photos of the violence shocked the public.

. . . .

The complaint by the organizations notes that the migrants have been denied access to attorneys, interpreters, adequate medical care, fear-based screening and proper nourishment and sanitation, all under intense heat. It also highlights physical intimidation and violence against migrants by Border Patrol officers, and misleading statements made by Homeland Security officers to Haitians about where they were being flown to.

“We’re not living up to our obligation as a nation to be a place of refuge for people seeking a better life,” former Obama administration Cabinet member Julián Castro told HuffPost earlier this week. “And in the least, asylum seekers, whether they’re from Haiti, or from one of these Northern Triangle countries should be allowed to make their asylum claim, instead of being severely expelled from the country. This was not the change we were hoping for on immigration policy.”

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

Mayorkas’s defense of his grotesque, “Trumpist” misuse of Title 42, which actually has been rejected by a Federal Judge, on “Meet the Press” was as disgraceful as it was dishonest!

Professor Stephen Yale-Loehr succinctly nailed it in a recent interview for National Geographic: “The United States has to realize that more people are on the move in the world than ever before. We’re never going to be able to shut off our borders.” https://www.lexisnexis.com/legalnewsroom/immigration/b/outsidenews/posts/expert-u-s-immigration-laws-don-t-match-current-reality

Either Mayorkas doesn’t understand reality, or he’s too intellectually dishonest to speak truth! Regardless, it’s not good!

Re-establishing the rule of law and treating asylum seekers fairly and generously, as the law requires, is not an option! It’s a legal and moral obligation! There is absolutely no reason to “apologize” for treating asylum seekers fairly and humanely, no matter what racist GOP nativists like Texas “Governor Death” Greg Abbott and Senator “Cancun Ted the Insurrectionist” Cruz say!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

09-27-21

🏴‍☠️👎🏽BIA BLOWS DUTY TO ADJUDICATE CAT, OIL MISREPRESENTS RECORD BEFORE CIRCUIT — Latest 5th Cir. Reject Shows Festering Competence & Ethical Problems @ Garland’s DOJ!🤮 — The BIA Ignores Matter of L-O-G-, But YOU Shouldn’t!

Dan Kowalski reports for LexisNexis Immigration Community:

https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/19/19-60807-CV0.pdf

https://www.lexisnexis.com/LegalNewsRoom/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/ca5-cat-remand-abushagif-v-garland#

Abushagif v. Garland

“Abushagif contends that the BIA abused its discretion by entirely failing to address his CAT claim. On that point, he is correct. A CAT “claim is separate from . . . claims for asylum and withholding of removal and should receive separate analytical attention.” Efe v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 899, 906–07 (5th Cir. 2002). Moreover, the BIA must not leave asserted CAT claims unaddressed. See Eduard v. Ashcroft, 379 F.3d 182, 196 (5th Cir. 2004). The government does not dispute that Abushagif raised a CAT claim in his motion to reopen. The government avers, however, that Abushagif did not present his claim to the Board and thus failed to exhaust it. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1). That is flatly incorrect; Abushagif raised his CAT claim several times in his briefing before the BIA. It is confounding that the government says otherwise. The government also contends that remanding the CAT claim would be “futile” because, even if the BIA had addressed it, the Board still would not have granted his motion to reopen, given its determination that Abushagif had generally failed to submit reliable evidence in support of his claims of persecution. That contention, however, cannot overcome the plain command of our caselaw: The Board must address CAT claims where they are raised. See Eduard, 379 F.3d at 196. We therefore remand for the limited purpose of the Board’s addressing Abushagif’s CAT claim.”

[Hats off to pro bono publico counsel Alison Caditz and Jeri Leigh Miller!]

—

Daniel M. Kowalski

Editor-in-Chief

Bender’s Immigration Bulletin (LexisNexis)

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

The government does not dispute that Abushagif raised a CAT claim in his motion to reopen. The government avers, however, that Abushagif did not present his claim to the Board and thus failed to exhaust it. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1). That is flatly incorrect; Abushagif raised his CAT claim several times in his briefing before the BIA. It is confounding that the government says otherwise.

“Confounding,” but not surprising to any of us who follow the continuing meltdown of justice and callous indifference to the law, truth, and human lives @ Garland’s failed and failing Department of “Justice.”

The government also contends that remanding the CAT claim would be “futile” because, even if the BIA had addressed it, the Board still would not have granted his motion to reopen, given its determination that Abushagif had generally failed to submit reliable evidence in support of his claims of persecution. That contention, however, cannot overcome the plain command of our caselaw: The Board must address CAT claims where they are raised.

Basically, OIL, argues that even if they had actually addressed CAT, the BIA would still have stiffed the respondent’s claim because that’s what a “programmed to deny for any reason” BIA does. Why bother with a BIA decision when a denial is “predetermined?” Is this really the sad state of due process at Garland’s DOJ? Apparently!

Let’s put this in context. The respondent is from Libya, a country notorious for torture. Here’s an excerpt from the latest (2020) Department of State Country Report on Libya:

While the 2011 Constitutional Declaration and postrevolutionary legislation prohibit such practices, credible sources indicated personnel operating both government and extralegal prisons and detention centers tortured detainees (see section 1.g.). While judicial police controlled some facilities, the GNA continued to rely on armed groups to manage prisons and detention facilities. Furthermore, armed groups, not police, initiated arrests in many instances. An unknown number of individuals were held without judicial authorization in other facilities nominally controlled by the Ministry of Interior, Ministry of Defense, or in extralegal

Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2020

United States Department of State • Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor

LIBYA 7

facilities controlled by GNA-affiliated armed groups, LNA-affiliated armed groups, and other nonstate actors. Treatment varied from facility to facility and typically was worst at the time of arrest. There were reports of cruel and degrading treatment in government and extralegal facilities, including beatings, administration of electric shocks, burns, and rape. In many instances this torture was reportedly initiated to extort payments from detainees’ families.

Also, the 5th Circuit is generally considered the most conservative and pro-Government Circuit. It is a jurisdiction where the Government has to work hard and really, really screw up to lose an immigration case.

Two of the panel judges in this case are GOP appointees: Judges Engelhardt (Trump), and Smith (Reagan). The third panel member, Judge Higginson is an Obama appointee. Judge Jerry E. Smith, who wrote this opinion, is known as one of the most conservative Federal Judges in America! If these jurists see problems, you can be sure they actually exist!

One thing that unites Federal Judges across the ideological spectrum is dislike of being lied to by DOJ attorneys! Evidently, that’s no longer of concern to Judge Garland now that he is the purveyor, rather than the recipient, of misrepresentations, untruths, and sloppy, unprofessional work from DOJ attorneys!

How travesties like this, that happen at Garland’s DOJ on a daily basis, in “life or death” cases, is acceptable professional judicial performance is beyond understanding!

Additionally, how clearly misrepresenting the facts of record is ethically acceptable performance for OIL attorneys is totally beyond me!

Maybe its time for the House and Senate Judiciary Committees to call Judge Garland before them for oversight to examine his continuing mismanagement of EOIR, America’s worst, most backlogged, most blatantly unfair, court system, that has not materially improved during his tenure. They should also inquire as to why he continues to tolerate unethical performance from OIL Attorneys making material misrepresentations to Federal Courts in attempting to defend the indefensible performance of the BIA in immigration litigation. Also, why hasn’t Garland spoken out about the illegal suspension of asylum laws enacted by Congress at our borders? Human lives are at stake here!

The idea that Garland intends to “fix” this problem by throwing 200 new Immigration Judges into this broken, dysfunctional system, without first addressing any of the structural, management, competence, personnel, and institutional bias issues at EOIR is beyond absurd! “Management 101” says you fix the system by rooting out and replacing incompetent and unqualified judges, replacing incompetent managers with competent ones, and fixing the many broken operational pieces of the Immigration Court System before expanding it.

This means, at a minimum, slashing the backlog by getting hundreds of thousands of old, non-priority cases off the docket now, stopping endemic “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” at EOIR, installing a functional e-filing system, getting competent representation into the Immigration Courts, replacing the current institutionalized “worst practices” with “best practices,” and instituting real judicial training by experts from outside EOIR.

Only then, after the system has been made functional, should it be expanded, if needed. Otherwise, it’s like trying to fix defective automobile production by hiring more workers and speeding up the assembly line, thereby producing more defective vehicles without fixing that which caused the defects in the first place.

This case also shows the critical, life-saving role of pro bono counsel in Immigration Court. Without the heroic efforts of pro bono publico counsel Alison Caditz and Jeri Leigh Miller, Mr. Abushagif would probably be hanging from a ceiling fan in Libya right now!

Torture — Garland indifferent to wrong torture decisions from BIA?
Photo by David R. Badger, Creative Commons

I was pleased to see that Judge Smith cited my precedent opinion in Matter of L-O-G-, 21 I&B Dec. 413 (BIA 1996) in his opinion. See FN 1. In L-O-G-, we held that “we have been willing to reopen ‘where the new facts alleged, when coupled with the facts already of record, satisfy us that it would be worthwhile to develop the issues further at a plenary hearing on reopening.’” 21 I&N Dec. at 419 (citations omitted).

Yes, folks, there was a time long ago and far away when BIA Chairs actually functioned as appellate judges: participating in cases at both the panel and en banc level, writing decisions, and, where necessary, filing dissents, without regard to “career enhancement.” That was in addition to BIA management duties, being a senior member of EOIR’s executive team, and many public speaking, writing, and other public information and educational functions.

While today’s BIA and many Immigration Judges routinely ignore Matter of L-O-G- and its important teaching, it remains “good law,” as found by Judge Smith. Practitioners should be citing it in every motion to reopen and insisting that EOIR start following its own precedents, even where they produce results inconsistent with the restrictionist positions urged by DHS or the “round ‘em up and move ‘em out attitudes” that still seem prevalent at Garland’s DOJ.

It’s rather ironic that Federalist Society hero Judge Jerry E. Smith understands me better than Garland’s BIA!

Garland seems uninterested in making the long overdue bold progressive reforms necessary to restore due process, consistency, humanity, and racial justice to our broken and dysfunctional Immigration Courts. That means the battle over the next four years is likely to shift to the Article III Courts and Congress to finally get this utterly disgraceful, yet fixable, system back on track! This is also what’s required to save at least some of the vulnerable human lives now being “chewed up and spit out” by Garland’s ☠️ “Deadly Clown Courts” 🤡 and their ethics-challenged OIL defenders!🤮

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

09-26-21

🏴‍☠️GARLAND’S FAILED BIA REAMED BY 3RD CIR. ON ANTI-ASYLUM BIAS, LACK OF BASIC COMPETENCE! — “First, the Board’s conclusion ignores overwhelming evidence that Ghanem was persecuted on account of political opinion. Second, it erroneously treated familial relationships as disqualifying and failed to give the proper weight to the substantial record evidence that a protected ground remains one central reason for Ghanem’s persecution.” — Ghanem v. AG

EYORE — “Eyore In Distress”
Once A Symbol of Fairness, Due Process, & Best Practices, Now Gone “Belly Up”

Dan Kowalski reports for LexisNexis Immigration Community:

https://www.lexisnexis.com/LegalNewsRoom/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/ca3-bia-ignored-overwhelming-evidence-of-persecution-ghanem-v-atty-gen#

CA3: BIA Ignored “Overwhelming Evidence” of Persecution: Ghanem v. Atty. Gen.

Ghanem v. Atty. Gen.

“Adel Ghanem, a former lawful permanent resident of the United States, seeks to avoid removal to Yemen, from which he fled to avoid persecution on account of political opinion. He pursues three forms of relief that were denied by the Immigration Judge (IJ) and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA): asylum under the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a), withholding of removal under the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3), and withholding of removal under the Convention Against Torture, 8 U.S.C. § 1252, 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c). Ghanem was kidnapped and tortured before being convicted and sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment for political opposition to the Houthi regime. We will therefore grant the petition for review and remand to the BIA. … We begin by reviewing the agency’s determination that Ghanem was ineligible for asylum under the INA because he was not persecuted “on account of” political opinion. We perceive two errors in its analysis: First, the Board’s conclusion ignores overwhelming evidence that Ghanem was persecuted on account of political opinion. Second, it erroneously treated familial relationships as disqualifying and failed to give the proper weight to the substantial record evidence that a protected ground remains one central reason for Ghanem’s persecution. … Illustrating “gross, flagrant [and] mass violations of human rights” that he would be unable to escape, the record evidence not only fails to support but directly contradicts the BIA’s conclusions that Ghanem is not likely to be tortured with the government’s acquiescence, if returned to Yemen. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(3)(iii).8 The denial of relief under CAT therefore cannot withstand even our most deferential review. … For the foregoing reasons, we will grant Ghanem’s petition, vacate the BIA’s order, and remand to the agency for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”

[Hats off to pro bono publico appointed counsel Will Weaver, Ian Gershengorn and Sam Kaplan!]

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

How is the BIA’s grotesque misapplication of asylum and CAT law and intentional distortion of the record evidence acceptable adjudication from a Federal Court, even a “quasi-judicial administrative tribunal?” Lives are at stake are here! But, Garland remains indifferent to the deadly ☠️ daily injustices and stunning judicial incompetence and bias he promotes, coddles, defends, and enables at his dysfunctional EOIR!

And what is his OIL doing defending this garbage before the Circuits? Garland’s DOJ is an ethical cesspool and a slimy mess of legal incompetence! Where’s the long overdue “thorough housecleaning” of this gross abuse of taxpayer dollars and walking talking insult to the Canons of Legal and Judicial Ethics!

These aren’t just “honest legal mistakes!” No way! They are the product of an anti-asylum, anti-immigrant, anti-due process, anti-people of color “culture” which was actually encouraged and promoted at EOIR during the Trump regime and still endures!

It starts, but doesn’t end, with a BIA “packed” with a number of Trump/Miller appointees who were nationally renowned for their unsuitability to fairly adjudicate ANY asylum case, let alone to be “elevated” to the highest immigration tribunal. But, it’s not like any BIA Appellate Judge has the guts and integrity to stand up and speak out for immigrants’ rights, human rights, and constitutional due process!

It’s outrageous that the BIA as currently comprised is charged with setting precedents, maintaining consistency, and guaranteeing fairness for asylum applicants, particularly women and people of color. Of course this type of misconduct and incompetence will continue to generate huge, uncontrolled backlogs! THIS national, even international, disgusting disgrace will be Garland’s lasting legacy!

The proposed “asylum reform regulations” and all other immigration and racial justice reforms put forth by Biden will fail without a better, progressive, expert BIA totally committed to due process, fundamental fairness, and racial justice! Why hasn’t Congress demanded an accounting from Garland for his jaw-dropping mismanagement of the Immigration Courts and his failure to make obvious administrative reforms?

Demand better from Garland and the Biden Administration! This disgraceful, dysfunctional, deadly mess at EOIR is NOT OK!🤮👎🏽

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

09-23-21

⚖️PULVERIZED! — 6th Cir. Slam Dunks 🏀 On Mayorkas/Garland Efforts To Avoid Consequences of Illegal USCIS Actions On U Visas!

Dan Kowalski reports for LexisNexis Immigration Community:

https://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/21a0217p-06.pdf

https://www.lexisnexis.com/LegalNewsRoom/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/massive-u-visa-and-apa-victory-barrios-garcia-v-dhs-ca6#

Barrios Garcia v. DHS

“Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged that USCIS has unreasonably delayed the adjudication of their U-visa applications. Because the BFD [“Bona Fide Determination”] process was issued after Plaintiffs’ complaints were filed, Plaintiffs should be allowed to amend their complaints should they wish to assert that USCIS has unreasonably delayed its determination that their U-visa applications are “bona fide.” … We hold that the issuance of the BFD Process moots no part of this case. We hold that 5 U.S.C. § 701(a)(1), 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii), and 5 U.S.C. § 701(a)(2) do not bar the federal courts from reviewing claims that USCIS has unreasonably delayed placing principal petitioners on the U-visa waitlist and adjudicating prewaitlist work-authorization applications. We hold that the federal courts may compel USCIS to place principal petitioners on the U-visa waitlist when an unreasonable delay has occurred per 5 U.S.C. § 706(1). We hold that § 706(1) allows the federal courts to command USCIS to hasten an unduly delayed “bona fide” determination, which is a mandatory decision under 8 U.S.C. § 1184(p)(6) and the BFD process. We hold, however, that the federal courts cannot invoke 5 U.S.C. § 706(1) to force USCIS to speed up an unduly delayed prewaitlist work-authorization adjudication, which is a nonmandatory agency action under 8 U.S.C. § 1184(p)(6) and the BFD process. We hold that Plaintiffs have sufficiently pleaded that USCIS has unreasonably delayed the principal petitioners’ placement on the U-visa waitlist. We further hold that Plaintiffs should be permitted to amend their complaints should they wish to challenge any delayed “bona fide” determinations. We thus REVERSE the district courts’ grants of the Government’s motions to dismiss and REMAND for further proceedings.”

[Hats way off to Brad Banias!]

Daniel M. Kowalski

Editor-in-Chief

Bender’s Immigration Bulletin (LexisNexis)

cell/text/Signal (512) 826-0323

@dkbib on Twitter

dan@cenizo.com

Free Daily Blog: www.bibdaily.com

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

Just another in the continuing litany of why Mayorkas and Garland aren’t getting the job done for immigrants. They continue to: 1) mindlessly defend Trump-era screw ups and invidiously motivated actions; 2) attempt to weasel their way out of accountability for misdeeds by their agencies. This case should have been settled, plain and simple!

The only good thing about the dilatory litigation tactics employed by DHS and DOJ is that they are building up some good case law precedents for those challenging Government immigration actions and hopefully costing the DOJ attorneys’ fees that can be plowed back into public interest litigation. Actually, the DOJ should be litigating “in the public interest,” but apparently someone forgot to tell “Team Garland.”

Trump and his xenophobic, insurrectionist colleagues were not a “normal” Administration. For the Biden folks to continue to ignore that and pretend like the White Nationalist, anti-democracy actions of the Trump kakistocracy/bureaucracy were “business as usual,” will be a never-ending disaster for the Dems!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

09-16-21

⚠️MORE PROBLEMS LIKELY LOOM FOR GARLAND’S TOTALLY DYSFUNCTIONAL 🤡 EOIR AS EN BANC 9TH REJECTS “GOOD ENOUGH FOR GOVERNMENT WORK STANDARD” FOR CREDIBILITY REVIEW — “Any Reason To Deny Gimmicks” Fail Again As Court Requires EOIR To Comply With REAL ID! — Alam v. Garland

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

Here’s “quick coverage” from Dan Kowalski over at LexisNexis Immigration Community:

https://www.lexisnexis.com/LegalNewsRoom/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/ca9-en-banc-on-credibility-alam-v-garland

CA9, En Banc, on Credibility: Alam v. Garland

“We voted to rehear this case en banc to reconsider our “single factor rule,” which we have applied in considering petitions for review from decisions by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”). The single factor rule, as we have applied it, requires us to sustain an adverse credibility finding if “one of the [agency’s] identified grounds is supported by substantial evidence.” Wang v. INS, 352 F.3d 1250, 1259 (9th Cir. 2003). On rehearing en banc, we hold that the single factor rule conflicts with the REAL ID Act of 2005, Pub. L. No. 109-13, 119 Stat. 231 (2005), and we overrule our prior precedent establishing and applying it. We remand this case to the three-judge panel to re-examine the petition for review in light of our clarification of the standard for reviewing the BIA’s adverse credibility determinations. … Given the REAL ID Act’s explicit statutory language, we join our sister circuits and hold that, in assessing an adverse credibility finding under the Act, we must look to the “totality of the circumstances[] and all relevant factors.” § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). There is no bright-line rule under which some number of inconsistencies requires sustaining or rejecting an adverse credibility determination—our review will always require assessing the totality of the circumstances. To the extent that our precedents employed the single factor rule or are otherwise inconsistent with this standard, we overrule those cases. We remand this case to the three-judge panel for reconsideration in light of the newly articulated standard for reviewing adverse credibility determinations.”

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

Even with Article III Courts, including the 9th Circuit, generally “drifting right,” “good enough for Government work” has been rejected! That ought to help Garland boost the EOIR backlog!

The EOIR/DOJ policy right now appears to be “give any reason to deny,” hope that OIL can make at least one of them stick, and count on righty Circuit Judges to “swallow the whistle.” While that has certainly happened in the 5th Circuit, and to some extent in the 11th Circuit, there still appear to be enough Article IIIs out there critically reviewing EOIR’s too often patently substandard work product to make Garland’s indolent “look the other way” approach to the EOIR mess highly problematic.

Analyzing all the factors also might be inconsistent with mindless, due-process-denying three or four per day “merits quotas,” invented and imposed by Jeff “Gonzo Apocalypto” Sessions (someone with zero (0) Immigration Court experience and a well-justified lifetime reputation as a racist xenophobe — how does Matthews v. Eldridge allow a guy like that to pick and “run” judges — the Article IIIs might choose to look the other way, but most L-1 students know this is wrong and unconstitutional).

Just aimlessly listing common testimonial problems and hoping OIL will find one or more of them actually in the record is much faster (if you don’t count the impact of Circuit remands!) That it’s inconsistent with the statute, the Constitution, and, actually, BIA precedent seems to be beside the point these days. Of course, EOIR’s “assembly line jurists” also get “dinged” for remands.

Is there is anybody left at EOIR HQ today who could properly teach “totality of the circumstances” under REAL ID?

My observation from Arlington was that the number of adverse credibility findings and asylum denials went down substantially once the Fourth Circuit, and even occasionally the BIA, began enforcing “totality of the circumstances and all relevant factors” under REAL ID. As lawyers “got the picture” and began providing better independent corroborating evidence and documentation, the ability to “nit-pick” testimony, find the respondent “not credible,” and make it stand up on review diminished, as its well should have!

Of course, in my mind, REAL ID and the Fourth Circuit were just “re-enforcing and adopting” observations that members of our deposed “Gang of Four or Five” had made in numerous dissents from our BIA colleagues “undue deference” to poorly reasoned and thinly supported adverse credibility determinations, particularly in asylum cases.

More careful analysis of the record as a whole, often with the help of JLCs, became the rule at Arlington. And, after a few initial setbacks in the Fourth Circuit, ICE in Arlington generally stopped pushing for unjustified adverse credibility rulings and adopted approaches that actually complied with Fourth Circuit law.

The antiquated “contemporaneous oral decision format,” put on steroids by Sessions and Barr, is particularly ill-suited to the type of careful analysis required by the current statute, not to mention due process. And, having far too many newer Immigration Judges who have no immigration background and who have never had to represent an individual in Immigration Court is also a formula for failure, particularly when combined with inadequate training and idiotic “quotas.”

I’m not sure that the famous Rube Goldberg could have created a more convoluted, inefficient, and irrational process than exists at today’s EOIR. It simply can’t be fixed without leadership and assistance from outside experts who understand the problems (because they and their clients have “lived them”) and who aren’t wedded to all the mistakes and failed “silver bullet solutions” of the past!

By contrast with the EOIR mess, it’s amazing what changes an expert appellate body that actually takes its job and due process seriously can effect. Imagine if we had an expert BIA that made due process and treating individuals fairly “job one,” rather than operating as a “whistle stop on the deportation railroad.”

The ongoing EOIR clown show 🤡 just keeps getting exposed. But, nobody in charge seems to care! That’s a shame, 🤮 because “human lives, ⚰️ and perhaps the survival of our democracy, 🇺🇸 hang in the balance here!”

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

08-09-21

⚔️🛡⚖️🗽👨🏻‍⚖️🧑🏽‍⚖️🇺🇸 ROUND TABLE AGAIN STEPS UP @ SUPREMES — Patel v. Garland: Issue = Judicial Review Of EOIR’s Non-Discretionary Decisions!

Here’s our amicus brief drafted by the pro bono “All-Star Team” of Richard W. Mark, Amer S. Ahmed, & Chris Jones @ Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP, NY:

1419000-1419434-20210907134938198_patel amicus brief

Our effort was featured in an article by Jennifer Doherty at Law360 for those with Law360 access.

More coverage here from Dan Kowalski over at LexisNexis Immigration Community:

https://www.lexisnexis.com/legalnewsroom/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/supreme-court-amicus-briefs-filed-in-patel-v-garland

“Due Process Forever!” Hmmm, where have I herd THAT before? Thanks, Dan, for all you do for the NDPA!

The American Immigration Council, the National Immigration Alliance, and the Law Professors, all representing a number of other organizations, also filed in behalf of the “good guys, truth, justice, and the American way,” in this case. The respondents are expertly represented by my friend and legendary immigration advocate Ira J. Kurzban, Esquire, of Kurzban Kurzban Tetzeli and Pratt PA.

Ira Kurzban ESQUIRE
Legendary American Immigration Lawyer

One could not imagine a group MORE in need of thorough, critical, independent Article III judicial review of its decisions than today’s dysfunctional EOIR! There, potentially fatal errors have been “institutionalized” and even “normalized” as just another “unavoidable” consequence of the anti-immigrant, “haste makes waste,” “culture” that constantly places churning out removal orders above due process, fundamental fairness, and best practices!

Ironically, doubling the number of Immigration Judges, eliminating expertise as the main qualification in judicial selections, and forcing yet more “gimmicks” down their throats has actually nearly tripled the case backlog to an astounding 1.4 million cases, without producing any quantifiable benefit for anyone!

Obviously, it’s high time for Garland to “reinvent” EOIR with progressive experts, many with private sector Immigration Court experience, as judges and leaders at both the appellate and the trial level! Who knows what wonders might result from an emphasis on quality, humanity, and getting decisions correct in the first instance? Progressives are used to creatively solving difficult problems without stepping on anyone’s rights or diminishing anyone’s humanity! Those skills are in disturbingly short supply at today’s failed and failing EOIR! And, they aren’t exactly DOJ’s “long suit,” either.

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

09-08-21

@WASHPOST: CATHERINE RAMPELL SAYS IT WELL! — “Contrary to Trumpers’ claims, keeping our word to Afghan allies in trouble is wholly consistent with a philosophy that puts ‘America First.’ Indeed, it’s central to the entire operation.” — Getting Beyond Bogus Racist Nativism To A Robust, Honest, Expanded Legal Immigration System That Treats Refugees & Asylees Fairly, Humanely, & Generously — As Assets, Not “Threats” — Is Putting America First!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/08/26/putting-america-first-would-require-keeping-our-word-afghan-allies/

Opinion by Catherine Rampell

August 26 at 5:56 PM ET

Trumpy nativists, posing as fiscal conservatives, want you to question whether the United States can afford to take in Afghan allies and refugees.

The better question is whether we can afford not to.

The Republican Party has cleaved in recent weeks over the issue of Afghan refugees, specifically those who served as military interpreters or otherwise aided U.S. efforts. On the one hand, Republican governors and lawmakers around the country have volunteered to resettle Afghan evacuees in their states. Likewise, a recent CBS News/YouGov poll found that bringing these allies to the United States is phenomenally popular, garnering support from 76 percent of Republican respondents. Influential conservative constituencies are invested in this issue, too, including veterans’ groups and faith leaders.

On the other hand, the Trump strain within the GOP has been fighting such magnanimous impulses with misinformation.

Xenophobic politicians and media personalities have been conspiracy-theorizing about the dangers of resettling Afghan allies here — even though we had previously entrusted these same Afghans with the lives of U.S. troops and granted them security clearances. And even though they go through additional extensive screening before being brought to our shores.

No matter; if you listen to Tucker Carlson and his ilk, you’ll hear that these Afghans are apparently part of a secret plot to replace White Americans, and that untamed Afghan hordes are going to rape your wife and daughter.

Often these demagogues try to disguise their racist objections to refugee resettlement (and immigration more broadly) as economic concerns. Their claim: that however heartbreaking the footage from the Kabul airport, compassion for Afghan refugees is a luxury Americans simply cannot afford.

Refugees are somehow responsible for existing housing shortages, proclaims Carlson. (This is demonstrably false; the reason we have too little affordable housing is primarily because people like Carlson oppose building more and denser housing.) More refugees would sponge up precious taxpayer dollars, according to Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.). And in general, refugees — like all immigrants — are a massive drain on the U.S. economy, alleges Stephen Miller.

This is nonsense.

. . . .

***********************
Read Catherine’s complete op-ed at the link!

Thanks, Catherine, for once again standing up to and speaking truth against disgraceful, neo-Nazi, nativist racists like Stephen Miller, Tucker Carlson, and Marjorie Taylor Greene!

As Catherine has observed on this and other occasions, in addition to all of the legal and moral reasons for welcoming them, refugees are good for the U.S. economy. See, e.g., https://immigrationcourtside.com/2018/09/04/forget-trumps-white-nationalist-lies-three-ways-immigrants-have-2-cms-refugees-are-good-for-ame/

By contrast, one might well ask what “value added” folks like Stephen Miller and his buddies, (Miller has largely sponged off of taxpayer funds while looking for ways to inflict misery on others and destroy America) bring to the table. None, that I can see!

Moreover, even beyond the undoubted value of robust refugee admissions, there is good reason to believe that large-scale migration presents our best opportunity for salvation and prosperity, rather than the “bogus threat” posited by Miller & Co.

As Deepak Bhargava and Ruth Milkman recently, and quite cogently, wrote in American Prospect:

. . . .

A “Statue of Liberty Plan” for the 21st century could make the United States the world’s most welcoming country for immigrants. Right now, the foreign-born share of the U.S. population lags behind that of Canada, Australia, and Switzerland. In order to surpass them, the United States would have to admit millions more people each year for a decade or longer. We currently admit immigrants to promote family integration, meet economic needs, respond to humanitarian crises, and increase the diversity of our population from historically underrepresented countries. Under this plan, we could dramatically expand admissions in all four categories and add a fifth category to recognize the claims of climate migrants. As a civic project of national renewal, with millions of people playing a role in welcoming new immigrants, such a policy could reweave frayed social bonds and create a healthier, outward-looking, multiracial national identity.

The politics of immigration, however, lag far behind the moral and economic logic of the case for a pro-immigration policy. The immigrant threat narrative has become so pervasive that many liberals have embraced it, if only because they hope to fend off threats from right-wing nationalists. President Obama not only deprioritized immigration reform in his first term but deported record numbers of immigrants, hoping that such a display of “toughness” might win support for legalization of the undocumented immigrants already here. Hillary Clinton advocated liberal immigration policies in her 2016 presidential campaign but later tacked toward restrictionism. Liberals and leftists across the global North, from Austria to France to the U.K., have offered similar concessions to nativism. But mimicking right-wing appeals is a losing gamble that only serves to legitimize the anti-immigrant agenda and its standard-bearers.

There are promising signs of potential for shifting the debate, however, if progressives lean in. Polling shows that Americans increasingly reject the immigrant threat narrative, largely due to Trump’s shameless cruelty. Last year, for the first time since Gallup began asking the question in 1965, more Americans supported increased levels of immigration than supported reduced levels. A telling barometer of how the sands are shifting is that President Biden’s proposed immigration bill is far to the left of what Obama proposed.

The work of shifting gears toward a more welcoming policy can begin right now by fully welcoming immigrants who already reside in our country. A crucial starting point would be to include a path to citizenship for essential workers, Dreamers, farmworkers, and Temporary Protected Status holders in the American Jobs Plan Congress is considering. This is not only a humane approach, but it also will stimulate economic growth and thus help finance other parts of the plan. A separate campaign by the Biden administration (not requiring congressional action) to simplify the naturalization process for nine million eligible green-card holders would help make the nation’s electorate more reflective of its population.

Getting the politics of immigration right isn’t just important for immigrants. Nativism, built upon the sturdy foundation of racism, remains among the most potent tools in the arsenal of right-wing authoritarians. Any program for economic equity or democracy will be fragile in the absence of a coherent immigration agenda. The antidote to authoritarianism is not to duck, cower, or imitate the nativists, but rather to make the case for opening the door to millions more immigrants.

If slavery and genocide were the country’s original sins, its occasional and often accidental genius has been to renew itself through periodic waves of immigration. Once we expose the immigration threat narrative as the Big Lie that it is, it becomes plain that immigration is not a problem to be solved but an opportunity and necessity to be embraced.

https://www.lexisnexis.com/LegalNewsRoom/immigration/b/outsidenews/posts/why-mass-immigration-is-the-key-to-american-renewal

This, of course, also casts doubt on the wisdom of our current, wasteful and ultimately ineffective, policy of illegally rejecting legal asylum applicants at our Southern Border, rather than attempting in good faith to fit as many as qualify under our current system, as properly and honestly administered (something that hasn’t happened in the past). Additionally wise leaders would be looking for ways to expand our legal immigration system to admit, temporarily or permanently, those whose presence would be mutually beneficial, even if they aren’t “refugees” within existing legal definitions. In this respect, the proposal to modernize our laws to admit climate migrants is compelling.

Remember, as stated above:

Getting the politics of immigration right isn’t just important for immigrants. Nativism, built upon the sturdy foundation of racism, remains among the most potent tools in the arsenal of right-wing authoritarians. Any program for economic equity or democracy will be fragile in the absence of a coherent immigration agenda. The antidote to authoritarianism is not to duck, cower, or imitate the nativists, but rather to make the case for opening the door to millions more immigrants.

NDPA members, keep listening to Catherine and the other voices of progressive wisdom, humanity, practicality, and tolerance. The key to the future is insuring that the “Stephen Millers of the world” never again get a chance to implement their vile, racist propaganda in the guise of “government policy.”

Happily, many Northern Virginians have listened to our “better angels.” Humanitarian aid and resettlement opportunities for Afghan refugees are pouring in, as shown by this report from our good friend Julie Carey @ NBC 4 news:

https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/northern-virginia-residents-offer-donations-shelter-to-afghan-refugees/2785567/

Julie Carey
NOVA Bureau Chief, NBC4 Washington
PHOTO: Twitter

The local couple interviewed by Julie emphasized the impressive “human dignity” of the Afghan refugees! (I also observed this during many years of hearing asylum cases in person at the Arlington Immigration Court.) Compare that with the lack thereof (not to mention absence of empathy and kindness) shown by the nativist naysayers!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

08-27-21

🤮☠️ GARLAND’S EOIR STAR CHAMBERS CONTINUE TO GRIND OUT ANTI-ASYLUM TRAVESTIES! — Read What Passes For “Justice” In Garland’s Deadly Parody Of A Court System!

Garland’s “right hand man” on EOIR matters is eerily familiar, in a Himmleresque way! Attribution: Stephen Miller Monster by Peter Kuper, PoliticalCartoons.com

Kangaroos — “Miller’s Mob” is still alive and well at Garland’s EOIR. Legal asylum seekers — not so well, not so alive!
https://www.flickr.com/photos/rasputin243/
Creative Commons License

Dan Kowalski reports for LexisNexis Immigration Community:

https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2021/08/25/19-72890.pdf

CA9 on Credibility: Munyuh v. Garland

Munyuh v. Garland

“Ms. Munyuh’s case concerns us. From our reading of the record, the IJ seemed determined to pick every nit she could find. Besides erring procedurally, the IJ discounted probative evidence on flimsy grounds and displayed a dubious understanding of how rape survivors ought to act. Although we give great deference to the IJ as factfinder, substantial-evidence review does not require us to credit the credibility finding of an IJ who cherry-picks from—or misconstrues—the record to reach it. The IJ must consider the “totality of the circumstances, and all relevant factors.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii) (emphasis added). At the very least, the two legal errors we have identified warrant remand. The IJ erred by failing to give specific, cogent reasons for rejecting Ms. Munyuh’s reasonable, plausible explanations for the discrepancies tied to her declaration that the police truck broke down after only four or five kilometers. And she further erred by discounting the supporting documentation without giving Ms. Munyuh adequate notice and opportunity to provide corroborative evidence. We therefore vacate the removal order and remand the case to the Board for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. PETITION GRANTED; VACATED and REMANDED.”

[Hats off to Ronald D. Richey!]

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

Congrats to Attorney Ronald D. Richey, who appeared before me many times at the Arlington Immigration Court.

Here’s a quote from the opinion by Senior Circuit Judge Danny Boggs, a Reagan appointee “on loan” from the 6th Cir., that shows the appallingly unprofessional performance of the Immigration Judge and the BIA in this “life or death” case:

On this point, the IJ made findings with which no reasonable factfinder could agree. She found Ms. Munyuh’s testimony that “the truck had traveled over two hours” to conflict with her earlier estimate that it had traveled “over an hour.” And she found Ms. Munyuh’s redirect testimony that “the truck [had] traveled approximately four to five hours before breaking down” to be “clearly in conflict with each of [Ms. Munyuh]’s prior estimations.”

But these time estimates are all consistent with each other. Indeed, assuming the truck really had traveled for four to five hours, Ms. Munyuh had no other choice but to give those answers. The IJ asked her if the truck had traveled more or less than an hour, to which Ms. Munyuh said more than an hour. Then the IJ asked whether the truck had traveled at least two hours, to which Ms. Munyuh answered in the affirmative.

No reasonable factfinder could find those two statements to conflict with Ms. Munyuh’s later testimony that the truck traveled for four to five hours. The IJ’s contrary finding is therefore unsupported by substantial evidence.

Wow! Is this what constituted “acceptable performance” when Judge Garland was on the D.C. Circuit? And, don’t forget, OIL actually defended this garbage product in May 2021, well after Garland took office and after experts had advised him to “clean house.”

The bad judges at EOIR whose lack of competence and/or bias unfairly condemn asylum seekers to persecution, torture and death, or all three, do NOT have life tenure and should NOT be on the Immigration Bench. Period! It’s not rocket science!

“No reasonable fact finder.” Isn’t that a problem in life or death cases? So-called “judges” who time after time stretch and misinterpret facts, ignore due process, and misapply basic asylum law to unfairly sentence asylum seekers to death! Why isn’t this grounds for removal from the bench? Or at least removing them from all asylum cases!

While Judge Boggs and his colleagues are rightfully “concerned” with EOIR’s performance in this case, Garland doesn’t appear to share those concerns. This is “business as usual” at Garland’s EOIR, just as it was when Stephen Miller was calling the shots! Obviously, Garland isn’t taking the human lives at stake here with even a modicum of seriousness. That’s totally unacceptable! Maybe Judge Boggs needs to pick up pen ✒️ and paper 📜 and express his outrage in writing to his former Circuit Court colleague, attaching an annotated copy of the garbage being turned out by his EOIR Star Chambers!

Star Chamber Justice — Just look the other way, it’s the Garland way! “Justice”
Star Chamber
Style

Also, don’t think that cases like this are an “aberration.” No, they aren’t! The only “aberration” is that this is one of a tiny sliver of injustices that was actually caught and corrected by the Article IIIs. How many unrepresented or under-represented individuals do you think that this judge and this BIA panel “railroad” in a week?

🏴‍☠️⚰️THEATER OF THE ABSURD: Incredibly, Garland & Mayorkas are now proposing to put this “Miller-Lite” EOIR infested with many incompetent, poorly trained, asylum-denying “judges,” with no credible leadership, totally lacking in professionalism and quality control, “in charge” of establishing precedents, insuring, and enforcing due process in their proposed “streamlined” asylum system! In other words, the solution for those who have repeatedly demonstrated an outrageous inability to conduct fair hearings and whose ignorance of asylum law and best practices is often stunning is to put them in charge of doing “paper reviews” of applications denied by Asylum Officers!

https://immigrationcourtside.com/2021/08/18/%F0%9F%97%BDcourtsides-instant-analysis-bidens-proposed-asylum-regs-advocates-beware-%E2%9A%A0%EF%B8%8F%E2%98%B9%EF%B8%8F-despite-a-potentially-workable-framework-adminis/

Good luck with that! Could there be a more insane proposal under current conditions? Making Stephen Miller the new “Asylum Czar” at EOIR? Perhaps, don’t be surprised!

Of course, in the nutsos world of Garland and Mayorkas, their fatally flawed proposal arguably would be a better than the current illegal and immoral use of Miller’s bogus Title 42 scheme to return legal asylum seekers to torture or death WITHOUT ANY PROCESS WHATSOEVER.

It’s simple. A complete “housecleaning” at EOIR, starting with the BIA, new progressive leadership and professional expert training at EOIR and the Asylum Office, new progressive asylum precedents and guidance, and an operating program for universal representation of asylum seekers are ABSOLUTE PREREQUISITES for fair and efficient regulatory reform of the asylum system! In the meantime, allow Asylum Officers to grant asylum to those who pass credible fear, but continue to give full Immigration Court hearings to any who can’t be granted. Get rid of Title 42 and start processing legal asylum seekers in an orderly fashion through ports of entry!

More than seven months into the Administration, Garland and Mayorkas could, and should, have had these needed progressive personnel, leadership, and structural changes in place, producing due process, and most important, actually saving lives! Instead, they have wasted time and squandered goodwill by continuing to run Stephen Miller’s White Nationalist system with Miller’s personnel in place! Simply incredible!

And, the bumbling, highly predictable weakness of the team of DOJ lawyers trying to defend the Administration’s few humanitarian immigration initiatives has become patently obvious. How can you expect lawyers who have spent the last four years misrepresenting asylum seekers as less than human and a threat to society suddenly start setting the record straight and effectively advocating for their human and legal rights? Obviously, they can’t! While EOIR is clearly the most glaringly dysfunctional part of DOJ, it’s obviously not the only problem and the only place Team Garland needed to (but didn’t) “clean house.”

I “get” that this isn’t Judge Bell’s, Ben Civiletti’s, or Janet Reno’s DOJ any more! But, remarkably, and tragically for the poor souls and their lawyers involved, Garland doesn’t!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

08-26-21

Dan Kowalski reports @ LexisNexis Immigration Community:

CA9 on Fundamental Fairness: Alcaraz-Enriquez v. Garland

5th Cir. on illegal in absentia, defective notice, blown MTR:

Dan Kowalski again:

CA4 on PSG: Escobar Gomez v. Garland (Unpub., 2-1)

It’s an entirely unnecessary, ongoing national disgrace!🤮

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

😎Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Chavez-Chilel v. Atty. Gen., 3rd Cir., 12-09-21, published

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Dan Kowalski reports for LexisNexis Immigration Community:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Dan Kowalski reports from LexisNexis Immigration Community:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever! Xenophobia, Never!

Related posts:

Dan Kowalski reports for LexisNexis Immigration Community:

CA6 on PSG: Zometa-Orellana v. Garland (Unpub.)

CA4 on Nexus: Aleman-Medrano v. Garland (Unpub.)

CA9 (2-1) on Right to Counsel: Usubakunov v. Garland

Natz. Victory Slams Matter of Zhang: Melara v. Mayorkas

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Dan Kowalski reports for LexisNexis Immigration Community:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Sanjana Karanth reports for HuffPost:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Dan Kowalski reports for LexisNexis Immigration Community:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Dan Kowalski reports for LexisNexis Immigration Community:

Demand better from Garland and the Biden Administration! This disgraceful, dysfunctional, deadly mess at EOIR is NOT OK!🤮👎🏽

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Dan Kowalski reports for LexisNexis Immigration Community:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Here’s “quick coverage” from Dan Kowalski over at LexisNexis Immigration Community:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Here’s our amicus brief drafted by the pro bono “All-Star Team” of Richard W. Mark, Amer S. Ahmed, & Chris Jones @ Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP, NY:

More coverage here from Dan Kowalski over at LexisNexis Immigration Community:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts: