"The Voice of the New Due Process Army" ————– Musings on Events in U.S. Immigration Court, Immigration Law, Sports, Music, Politics, and Other Random Topics by Retired United States Immigration Judge (Arlington, Virginia) and former Chairman of the Board of Immigration Appeals Paul Wickham Schmidt and Dr. Alicia Triche, expert brief writer, practical scholar, emeritus Editor-in-Chief of The Green Card (FBA), and 2022 Federal Bar Association Immigration Section Lawyer of the Year. She is a/k/a “Delta Ondine,” a blues-based alt-rock singer-songwriter, who performs regularly in Memphis, where she hosts her own Blues Brunch series, and will soon be recording her first full, professional album. Stay tuned! 🎶 To see our complete professional bios, just click on the link below.
“The Trump administration proposed its annual refugee admissions ceiling just before midnight on Wednesday, September 30, committing to resettle just 15,000 individuals in Fiscal Year 2021, which would be the lowest admissions ceiling since the inception of the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP).
The announcement comes on the heels of what was previously the lowest level of refugee admissions in American history. For FY 2020, which ended on September 30, the administration had set a goal to welcome just 18,000 refugees, in stark contrast to the average admissions ceiling of approximately 95,000 since the beginning of the USRAP. Despite this historically low target, the administration barely attained 65% of allotted admissions – resettling only 11,814 refugees this fiscal year, according to Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service.
“In just four years, this Administration has cut the refugee resettlement program from 110,000 to a historic low of fifteen thousand. At a time of unprecedented global need, today’s decision to further cut the refugee admissions ceiling is a complete abdication of our humanitarian and moral duty.” said Krish O’Mara Vignarajah, president and CEO of Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service, a resettlement agency that has welcomed hundreds of thousands of refugees since 1939. “Let this serve as a wake-up call to those who believe this administration supports avenues of legal immigration. Refugees go through extreme vetting and have done everything our government has asked of them, yet they continue to be met with open hostility and egregious processing delays from this administration”
The record-low admissions figures have also disproportionately impacted certain groups. Admissions of Muslim refugees have declined to just 2,503, down from approximately 38,900 in FY 2016 and approximately 4,900 in FY 2019. Additionally, the Trump administration set aside 4,000 slots for Iraqi allies who assisted U.S. interests in their home country. However, it fell drastically short, resettling only 123 individuals in this category, or just 3% of the admissions goal.
“It shows the tragic extent to which we have abandoned our Iraqi allies who risked their lives, and those of their family members, to assist U.S. government and military personnel,” noted Vignarajah. “This further undermines our diplomatic and military efforts, rendering it nearly impossible to garner support from regional allies moving forward.”
Given FY2020’s record-low admissions numbers and an FY2021 proposed admissions ceiling of only 15,000, refugee advocates are deeply concerned by the human toll on the most vulnerable.
“In real terms, this means that families who have already waited years are forced to postpone reunification. It means that thousands who would otherwise find safety on our shores are left to languish in refugee camps, with no end in sight,” concluded Vignarajah. “This heartless decision is diametrically opposed to our values as a welcoming nation and it dishonors our common humanity at a time of dire need.”
**********************
Here’s then”Trump Regression” — From international leader, to outlier, to outlaw state!🏴☠️
This Fall, vote for a return to humanity and the rule of law!
“Eyore In Distress” Once A Symbol of Fairness, Due Process, & Best Practices, Now Gone “Belly Up”“Justice” Star Chamber StyleHon. Susan G. Roy Law Office of Susan G. Roy, LLC Princeton Junction, NJ Member, Round Table of Former Immigration JudgesKnightess of the Round TableHon. Jeffrey S. Chase Jeffrey S. Chase Blog Coordinator & Chief Spokesperson, Round Table of Former Immigration JudgesLaura Lynch Senior Policy Counsel AILA
Ex-Immigration Judges Say NJ Court Risking Public Health
By Sarah Martinson
Law360 is providing free access to its coronavirus coverage to make sure all members of the legal community have accurate information in this time of uncertainty and change. Use the form below to sign up for any of our daily newsletters. Signing up for any of our section newsletters will opt you in to the daily Coronavirus briefing.
Sign up for our Immigration newsletter
Email (NOTE: Free email domains not supported)
Sign up now
Select more newsletters to receive for free [+]
Law360 (September 2, 2020, 7:00 PM EDT) — More than 30 former immigration judges voiced support for New Jersey lawyers’ lawsuit seeking to stop in-person hearings at Newark Immigration Court during the COVID-19 pandemic, saying the court needs to prioritize people’s health over case completion numbers.
In a letter Tuesday supporting the New Jersey chapter of the American Immigration Lawyers Association‘s suit against the Trump administration, the Round Table of Former Immigration Judges said the fact that the New Jersey immigration court is requiring judges, court staff and interpreters to appear in person at all hearings and not requiring them to wear masks is “troubling,” especially in light of four coronavirus-related deaths of people who visited and worked at the courthouse building.
The U.S. Department of Justice‘s Executive Office for Immigration Review, which operates the Newark Immigration Court, is putting case completion numbers ahead of people’s health and safety, to “the detriment of all those who appear at the court,” the former immigration judges said.
“EOIR’s push to move forward and complete as many cases as possible demonstrates that it has abdicated its responsibility to ensure that all parties are guaranteed a semblance of due process,” they said, adding that the agency’s “complete disregard of the health and safety of not only litigants, but its own employees, is further testament of the agency’s misguided priorities.”
In April 2018, the EOIR announced starting in October of that year immigration judges would be required to complete 700 cases annually and remand less than 15% of cases to have satisfactorily met their job expectations.
The policy change came after the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse at Syracuse University released a February 2018 report finding that there was a backlog of more than 680,000 cases in immigration courts nationwide. Later that year, TRAC reported that the immigration court backlog surpassed 1 million cases.
The agency’s policy shift raised concerns among immigration advocates that immigration judges wouldn’t be able to decide cases fairly and prompted six immigration advocacy groups to sue the EOIR in federal court. The groups alleged that the Trump administration was weaponizing immigration courts by denying immigrants a fair chance at obtaining asylum.
The former immigration judges and Board of Immigration Appeals judges said in their letter that the Newark Immigration Court has “no legitimate reason” for not using videoconferencing technology that is being used by other New Jersey courts in place of in-person hearings.
“We are well aware of the fact that EOIR has the technology to handle its cases via televideo,” they said.
In March, the American Immigration Lawyers Association along with two other advocacy organizations filed a similar complaint in D.C. federal court seeking the immediate suspension of in-person detention hearings or the release of all detained migrants who have no means to remotely access legal representation or the immigration court.
A D.C. federal judge ruled in that case that the organizations didn’t show the court had the authority to stop proceedings, allowing in-person hearings to continue.
AILA-NJ’s attorney Michael Noveck of Gibbons PC told Law360 in a statement Wednesday that “there is no excuse for EOIR’s failure to conduct proceedings by remote videoconferencing, where the technology to do so is fully available to EOIR.”
“EOIR’s failure to use this readily accessible technology risks the health and lives of attorneys (among others) who are compelled to appear in person at the Newark Immigration Court, and, as we have argued in our complaint and motion for preliminary injunction, it is therefore unlawful and cannot be justified by a rush to deport people,” Noveck said.
Counsel for the federal government declined to comment Wednesday.
AILA-NJ is represented by Lawrence S. Lustberg and Michael R. Noveck of Gibbons PC.
The federal government is represented by Ben Kuruvilla of the Office of the U.S. Attorney for the District of New Jersey.
NJ Immigration Attys Can’t Stop In-Person Hearings For Now
By Jeannie O’Sullivan
Law360 is providing free access to its coronavirus coverage to make sure all members of the legal community have accurate information in this time of uncertainty and change. Use the form below to sign up for any of our daily newsletters. Signing up for any of our section newsletters will opt you in to the daily Coronavirus briefing.
Sign up for our Immigration newsletter
Email (NOTE: Free email domains not supported)
Sign up now
Select more newsletters to receive for free [+]
Law360 (September 3, 2020, 8:53 PM EDT) — A New Jersey federal judge on Thursday expressed sympathy for attorneys’ concerns about mandated in-person hearings in Newark Immigration Court during the COVID-19 pandemic, but said he needed more information from the government before ruling on their request to halt the in-person requirement.
During a telephone hearing, U.S. District Judge John Michael Vasquez declined to grant a temporary restraining order for the Garden State chapter of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, citing a dearth of information about the Justice Department’s Executive Office of Immigration Review’s July decision to resume in-person proceedings.
The AILA’s emergency request came as part of its lawsuit seeking to reverse the EOIR’s mandate after an attorney and law clerk who attended March hearings later died of the coronavirus. Judge Vasquez said he needed to know more about the EOIR’s plan for social distancing and screening before it ordered the in-person hearings.
“I’m looking for the decision-making process before these instructions were put in place,” Judge Vasquez told the parties. “I want to understand what the EOIR considered, and what the Newark immigration judges considered, before they made these decisions. I’m looking for what they actually took into account.”
The judge instructed the government to furnish the information within two weeks, and said the immigration attorneys would have a week after that to reply.
“In-person can be workable, but there’s a lot more information that I need,” Judge Vasquez said at one point.
Also during the hearing, Judge Vasquez suggested that he was going to reject the government’s argument that the district court can’t hear the matter due to jurisdiction-limiting provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
“It’s somewhat of a shocking argument to hear the DOJ say there’s nothing the attorneys can do to protect themselves if the [Board of Immigration Appeals] decides not to take action,” Judge Vasquez said. “It’s disheartening.”
The AILA’s July 31 complaint targets the EOIR’s July 8 decision to resume in-person hearings for nondetained immigrants on July 13. The group said forcing immigration attorneys to show up to court is needlessly risky with the availability of videoconferencing technology, and claimed that when the EOIR restarted hearings in the Newark court, it did so without “basic information” on how to safely social distance in the building.
The AILA claimed attorneys have been “arbitrarily” denied requests to postpone scheduled hearings, and that an immigration judge has even threatened disciplinary action against two lawyers if they failed to appear for an in-person hearing. On Thursday, AILA attorney Michael R. Noveck of Gibbons PC said attorneys were “risking their lives” by showing up to court, or facing potential discipline if they didn’t.
The government has countered that halting the in-person proceedings would bring the Newark Immigration Court’s caseload, which currently tops 67,500, to a standstill. The EOIR has pointed to the availability in court of video-teleconferencing technology, or VTC, which allows attorneys to join proceedings from an empty courtroom.
The AILA has pushed to use Zoom or Skype in order to avoid having to go to a courtroom at all, but the government has said that those applications lack VTC’s transcription capabilities and security features.
The AILA is represented by Lawrence S. Lustberg and Michael R. Noveck of Gibbons PC.
The government is represented by Ben Kuruvilla of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of New Jersey.
Should representing individuals in the “No Due Process Star Chambers” really be health and life endangering as well as frustrating?⚰️🤮
I agree with Judge Vasquez’s statement quoted in my headline, except for one thing: “shocking” as this behavior by DOJ might be to the Judge, it’s hardly unusual. Unhappily, it’s “business as usual” for hard working, often pro bono or “low bono” attorneys, trying to represent clients in today’s “Beyond FUBAR” Immigration “Courts” (that aren’t “courts” at all). Isn’t it time for Article III Judges throughout the nation to stop “expressing shock, puzzlement, annoyance, and disbelief” and take some effective action to force EOIR into at least minimal compliance with the Due Process Clause of our Constitution?
When, exactly, during the “Gonzo/Billy the Bigot Era” has the BIA EVER intervened in a high profile case on the side of individual rights and Due Process rather than promoting the Stephen Miller White Nationalist, racist, anti-immigrant, anti-due-process agenda?
To be honest, an Article III Judge would only be “surprised” by dishonesty and intransigence from the DOJ, EOIR, and the BIA if he or she hadn’t been paying attention to the daily charade of justice unfolding in “America’s Star Chambers” under the dishonest, unethical, biased, and racism-promoting stewardship of Billy the Bigot! Whatever happened to the role of DOJ lawyers as “officers of the court” and the “duty of candor to tribunals?” Seems to have done a “disappearing act” in the Article IIIs!
I imagine that if Article III Judges were subjected to the same conditions and humiliations as attorneys trying to represent individuals in Immigration Court, serious systemic change would have happened long ago. That’s why we need some “new faces and enlightened minds” from the private sector immigration bar on the Article III bench!
As he seeks a second term, [Trump has] also made it clear that he hasn’t finished. He still wants to end the Obama-era Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program once and for all, drive out the millions of unauthorized immigrants living in the US and curb their political power, enact what he calls “merit-based” immigration reform, and pursue a slew of restrictive immigration regulations.
The US has already seen the harms of Trump’s first-term immigration policies, which could cut deeper if he’s given another four years: Legal immigration is plummeting, stymying growth in the labor force and threatening the US’s ability to attract global talent and recover from the coronavirus-induced recession. The US has abdicated its role as a model for how a powerful country should support the world’s most vulnerable people. And the millions of immigrants already living in the US, regardless of their legal status, have been left uncertain of their fate in the country they have come to call home.
Other concerns — including the coronavirus, racial justice, and unemployment — have recently eclipsed immigration as a top motivating issue for voters. But for Trump, who currently lags former Vice President Joe Biden in the polls, restricting immigration proved a winning message in 2016, and he will likely try to replicate that strategy again.
“It’s the thing he keeps going back to,” Douglas Rivlin, director of communication at the immigrant advocacy group America’s Voice, said. “It is his comfort zone — to go after people of color and turn them into sort of the specter of scary, violent people as a political strategy.”
. . . .
Whether any version of that proposal will get traction would largely depend on the makeup of the next Congress and whether Democrats win a majority in the Senate. Most immigration policy experts aren’t convinced that Trump will see success in negotiating with Democrats, but the political calculus could change if Democrats control both chambers of Congress and need Trump to sign their legislation.
It also depends on Republicans acting as a unified front on immigration. So far, pro-business Republicans aren’t challenging the restrictions and travel bans Trump has imposed during the pandemic, and as the US continues to grapple with its worst economic crisis since the Great Depression and more than a million Americans are out of work, they will likely continue to follow the president’s lead. But in the long term, they might find themselves at philosophical odds with the anti-immigrant wing of the party.
“I think the reality of the economics of immigration and the sort of more ideological agenda are going to come into conflict,” Rivlin said.
But if Trump can overcome those hurdles, the prize would be substantial: the ability the leave his mark on the immigration system beyond a series of executive actions that could be reversed by the next Democrat who assumes office.
“Merit-based immigration reform would be a legacy for him on immigration, more so than a border wall,” the Bipartisan Policy Institute’s Cardinal-Brown said. “That would have impacts on the future of immigration for decades.”
***************
Read the rest of Nicole’s gloomy yet (as always) well-written outlook at the link.
Don’t be fooled. In “Trumpspeak” the term “merit-based” means “race-based” (favoring, of course, White guys, preferably rich, English speaking, and prospective GOP toadies). Again, to state the obvious, a “kakistocracy” by definition lacks the ability to recognize and reward true “merit.” That’s why it’s a “kakistocracy,” not a “meritocracy!”
America is a nation of immigrants. To change that, Trump will have to destroy America, which, as this week’s “clown show of hate, fear, loathing, and complete nonsense” (a/k/a “The GOP Convention”) shows, he and his followers are perfectly willing to do.
This perverted “vision” of America also ties in well with the Trump/GOP approach to racism and social justice: Ignore injustice and double down on violence administered by the largely White power structure against communities of color. Kill, maim, blame, punish, jail, intimidate, disenfranchise, and dehumanize the victims rather than looking for cooperative ways to solve the problems. Sow fear, hate, and division to insure that institutionalized racism and White grievance will be indelibly ingrained in America! As these self-inflicted grievances play out, the Trump family and its cronies will use the ensuing chaos as a diversion to loot the Treasury and use what remains of “government” to further their own personal interests, without regard to the common welfare. Nice folks!
It’s doubtful that America as the majority of us have envisioned it can survive another four years of Trump’s corruption, racism, and malicious incompetence. Despite some liberal wishful thinking, our democratic institutions and apparently overrated “checks and balances” are crumbling before our eyes.
The “JR Five” on the Supremes and the GOP Senate already have reached “Penceian levels” (“Pence” rhymes with “incompetence”) of mindless sycophantic subservience to the “Clown Prince” and his entourage. None of them would be able to extract their collective heads from the more than ample Presidential rear to see any daylight during a second term. Trump’s re-election would inevitably convert the “City on The Hill” to a “wealthy universally despised third world kleptocracy.” That’s the real “vision” of Trump and the GOP. (I think that Nicole’s “hypothetical” of a Trump victory and a Dem Senate is the “least likely scenario.”)
This November, vote like your life and the world’s future depend on it! Because they do!
Equal Justice & A Diverse America For All! Trump’s Dark, Evil, Dishonest Vision Of America, Never!
“In light of the totality of the circumstances and in the context of the administrative record presented to us, the evidence in this case compels the conclusion that Iman’s testimony was credible. Exercising jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1), we therefore grant the petition and remand to the BIA for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
“We hold that the BIA abused its discretion by determining that a noncitizen who seeks to reopen an earlier application for relief and attaches that application to the motion has failed to attach the “appropriate application for relief” as required by § 1003.2(c)(1). … We therefore grant the petition and remand.”
[Hats off to Corrine Nikolenko and Michael W. Schoenleber!]
***************
None of this is “rocket science.” It’s immigration basics. While these 9th Cir. panels “flag” the steady stream of elementary errors, they continue to beg the real question: Why do they allow it to continue?
From: U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services [mailto:uscis@public.govdelivery.com]
Sent: Monday, August 24, 2020 8:19 AM
To: Dan Kowalski
Subject: USCIS Implements DHS Guidance on DACA
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services today provided guidance on how it will implement Acting Secretary of Homeland Security Chad Wolf’s July 28 memorandum regarding the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) policy.
Under USCIS’ implementing guidance, we will reject all initial DACA requests from aliens who have never previously received DACA and return all fees. The rejections will be without prejudice, meaning aliens will be able to reapply should USCIS begin accepting new requests in the future from aliens who never before received DACA. USCIS will continue to accept requests from aliens who had been granted DACA at any time in the past and will also accept requests for advance parole that are properly submitted to the address specified on the Direct Filing Addresses for Form I-131 webpage.
For approvable DACA renewal requests, USCIS will limit grants of deferred action and employment authorization under DACA to no more than one year, but will not rescind any currently valid two-year grants of DACA or associated employment authorization documents (EADs), unless USCIS terminates an alien’s DACA for failure to continue to meet the DACA criteria (see 2012 Memorandum), including failure to warrant a favorable exercise of prosecutorial discretion. USCIS will replace two-year EADs that are lost, stolen or damaged with the same facial two-year validity period assuming the EAD replacement application is otherwise approvable.
USCIS will generally reject requests received more than 150 days before the current grant of DACA expires. DACA recipients should file their renewal request between 150 and 120 days before their current grant of DACA expires.
USCIS will only grant advance parole for travel outside the United States to DACA recipients pursuant to the new guidance, which provides for a determination that parole of the alien is for urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit in keeping with the governing statute. The agency will not rescind any previously granted advance parole documents unless there is another legal reason to do so. However, as has always been the case, parole into the United States is not guaranteed. In all cases, aliens are still subject to immigration inspection at a port-of-entry to determine whether they are eligible to come into the United States.
The determination whether to grant advance parole to an alien is entirely within the discretion of USCIS and must be made on a case-by-case basis. USCIS will review all the factors presented in individual cases before determining whether to approve advance parole for a DACA recipient based on the new guidance. Some examples of circumstances that may warrant approval include, but are not limited to, situations such as:
Travel to support the national security interests of the United States;
Travel to support U.S. federal law enforcement interests;
Travel to obtain life-sustaining medical treatment that is not otherwise available to the alien in the United States; or
Travel needed to support the immediate safety, wellbeing or care of an immediate relative, particularly minor children of the alien.
Even if a requestor establishes that their situation meets one of the examples above, USCIS may still deny the request for advance parole in discretion under the totality of the circumstances.
CAUTION: If you travel outside the United States on or after Aug. 15, 2012, without first receiving advance parole, your departure automatically terminates your deferred action under DACA.
Please do not reply to this message. See our Contact Us page for phone numbers and e-mail addresses.
The actions of Wolfman, his cronies, and the Government lawyers who carry their water are obviously those of lawless individuals who neither fear nor expect accountability. And, why should they?
After more than three years of unrelenting corruption, bad faith, lies, misrepresentations, and overt illegal and unconstitutional actions motivated by racism and xenophobia, just what “consequences” have Administration officials carrying out the Trump/Miller program of “nullification” and “institutionalized racism” suffered? Not many, that I can see, beyond an inordinate number of lower Federal Court defeats that they ignore or avoid in bad faith. Occasionally, certainly nowhere close to as often as they deserve, the regime receives a relatively mild rebuke from the Supremes. But, for the most part, the resulting orders are largely toothless and merely suggest ways in which they can be avoided or “worked around” without consequences.
We’ll see if this time is different. But, I wouldn’t count on it!
“In late 2017, a witness in a courtroom in Billings, Montana, testified that one of the other witnesses, Miguel Reynaga Hernandez (“Reynaga”), was “not a legal citizen.” On the basis of this statement, the Justice of the Peace presiding over the hearing spoke with the local Sheriff’s Office and asked that Reynaga be “picked up.” Deputy Sheriff Derrek Skinner responded to the call. Outside the courtroom, Skinner asked Reynaga for identification and questioned him regarding his immigration status in the United States. Reynaga produced an expired Mexican consular identification card but was unable to provide detailed information regarding his immigration status because he does not speak English fluently. Skinner then placed Reynaga in handcuffs, searched his person, and escorted him to a patrol car outside the courthouse. With Reynaga waiting in the back of the patrol car, Skinner ran a warrants check and, after Reynaga’s record came back clean, asked Immigration and Custom Enforcement (“ICE”) if the agency had any interest in Reynaga. Reynaga was ultimately taken to an ICE facility and remained in custody for three months. Upon his release, Reynaga sued Skinner and Pedro Hernandez, the presiding Justice of the Peace (“Hernandez”), under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violating his Fourth Amendment rights. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the district court denied each defendant qualified immunity and held that Reynaga’s Fourth Amendment rights had been violated. Skinner and Hernandez interlocutorily appeal the court’s denial of qualified immunity. We affirm.”
From NWIRP: “This decision is important as it makes clear that state and local law enforcement officers may be held liable under the civil rights statute if they unlawfully detain community members in order to turn them over to immigration enforcement,” said Matt Adams, legal director for NWIRP. “Police officers—and even local judicial officials—may be held accountable when, instead of serving the community, they take it upon themselves to stop people based on their suspected immigration status, the language they speak, or their ethnicity or the color of their skin.” “The harm that [Judge Hernandez and Deputy Skinner] did to me is hard to explain,” said Mr. Reynaga in reacting to the court of appeals decision. “It’s something that lives in me and in my family now. It’s hard to describe what this harm represents to a person. But I’m very grateful for the work NWIRP has done for me. I’m very happy and proud that now immigrants here in Montana and in other states can know that we also have rights.” Following the court of appeals decision, Mr. Reynaga’s case will return to the district court for further proceedings on the damages he is entitled to in light of the violation of his constitutional rights.”
[Hats way off to Matt Adams (argued), Leila Kang, Aaron Korthuis, and Anne Recinos, Northwest Immigrant Rights Project, Seattle, Washington, and Shahid Haque, Border Crossing Law Firm P.C., Helena, Montana; for Plaintiff-Appellee!]
***************
Who knows what the Supremes might do on on this? So far they have been reluctant to enforce the Constitution against racism in law enforcement. Remember, they recently gave the Border Patrol a license to unconstitutionally shoot and kill a Mexican kid across the border in Mexico. And, the Supremes majority has happily found ways to impose possible death sentences on legal asylum seekers of color without any meaningful process at all.
The “JR Five” aren’t particularly creative thinkers —except when it comes to thinking of ways to dehumanize (“Dred Scottify”) persons of color under our Constitution. Then they often are happy to fabricate any rationale to deny due process and equal protection under our laws.
The Attorney General has issued a decision in Matter of REYES, 28 I&N Dec. 52 (A.G. 2020).
HEADNOTE:
(1) If all of the means of committing a crime, based on the elements of the statute of conviction, amount to one or more of the offenses listed in section 101(a)(43) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. §1101(a)(43), then an alien who has been convicted of that crime has necessarily been convicted of an aggravated felony for purposes of the INA.
(2) The respondent’s conviction for grand larceny in the second degree under New York Penal Law § 155.40(1) qualifies as a conviction for an aggravated felony for purposes of the INA. DHS charged that the respondent had been convicted of either aggravated-felony theft or aggravated-felony fraud, as defined in section 101(a)(43)(G) and (M)(i) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(G) and (M)(i). Larceny by acquiring lost property constitutes aggravated-felony theft, and the parties do not dispute that the other means of violating the New York statute correspond to either aggravated-felony theft or aggravated-felony fraud.
******************************
The DHS has the burden of proving removability. The DHS charges two distinct aggravated felonies. At trial and on appeal to the BIA, DHS can sustain neither charge. Therefore, according to Billy, to make the respondent removable, Immigration Judges should look for the generic elements of the respondent’s crime in any of the separate sections defining “aggravated felony” and combine them as necessary to create a new aggravated felony.
In other words, even if the respondent has not committed any listed “aggravated felony” under the so-called “categorical approach,” the judge must rewrite the statute as necessary to create new aggravated felonies that overcome the shortcomings and limitations of the actual statutory language used by Congress. The judge need not find that the respondent was convicted of any particular aggravated felony listed in the statute. It is enough that he or she committed the elements of some generic crime that would be some aggravated felony if we rewrote the definition as we think it should have been written to maximize deportations.
As my friends and colleagues Judge Jeffrey S. Chase (Jeffrey S. Chase Blog) and Dan Kowalski (LexisNexis Immigration Community) pointed out to me, this is not the first time that a GOP AG has decided to “diss” the Federal Courts by attempting to rewrite the “categorical approach” out of existence. AG Mukasey tried something similar with crimes involving moral turpitude during the Bush II Administration in Matter of Silva-Trevino, 24 I&N Dec. 24 I&N Dec. 608 (A.G. 2006). The Federal Courts didn’t agree, and Attorney General Eric Holder eventually vacated Mukasey’s lousy decision. http://www.immigrantdefenseproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/AG-Order-Vacating-Silva-Trevino-2015.pdf
All of us who believe in due process and equal justice should look forward to a day when a future Attorney General and/or Congress will vacate all of the misguided, biased, anti-immigrant “precedents” by Billy the Bigot, Gonzo Apocalypto, and Whitaker and thereby restore some semblance of fairness, normalcy, and predictability to the law. In the meantime, we’ll see whether Billy’s attempt to undo the “categorical approach” fares any better than Mukasey’s with the Federal Courts.
Litigate litigate, litigate! It’s important that the Federal Courts feel and see the pain caused by the DOJ’s biased rewriting of established principles of immigration law to create unnecessary controversies where there previously were none. Immigration law has never been short of legitimate controversies for litigation. But this regime’s unprecedented attempt to rewrite immigration law by fiat has upset those areas that previously were settled, thereby creating new waves of avoidable litigation and controversy where previously there was some agreement and efficiency. No wonder the Immigration Court backlog has mushroomed out of control. Sadly, the regime’s maliciously incompetent approach to the Immigration Courts resembles its maliciously incompetent approach to the COVID-19 pandemic. Basically a total disaster!
I also credit Jeffrey with the “Do It Yourself” observation. Or, as Dan pointed out, Billy’s approach could be called “Tinker Toy Analysis” or“Legoland Analysis.”
“Ricardo Javier Blanco, a citizen of Honduras, is a member of Honduras’s Liberty and Refoundation (“LIBRE”) Party, an anti-corruption political party that opposes the current Honduran president. After participating in six political marches, he was abducted by the Honduran police and beaten, on and off, for twelve hours. He was let go but received death threats over the next several months until he fled to the United States. He applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). The Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denied all relief, and the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirmed. Blanco now petitions for review of the agency’s decision, arguing that the BIA and IJ erred in denying his asylum and withholding of removal claims on the basis that his treatment did not rise to the level of persecution. He also argues that it was improper to require him to corroborate his testimony to prove his CAT claim. Because the agency misapplied our precedent when determining whether Blanco had established past persecution, and because it did not follow the three-part inquiry we established in Abdulai v. Ashcroft, 239 F.3d 542, 554 (3d Cir. 2001), before requiring Blanco to corroborate his CAT claim testimony, we will grant the petition, vacate the BIA’s decision, and remand for further proceedings.”
This should have been a “no brainer” asylum grant!
Instead, after two levels of disturbingly unprofessional administrative decision-making, now driven by racism and overt anti-immigrant bias, and one layer of “real court” review, the case is basically back to square one. No wonder this “Deadly Clown Court” ☠️🤡 is running a 1.4 million backlog, and counting!
Think we have the wrong folks on the “Immigration Bench?” You bet! Two smart patent lawyers from Baker Hostetler run legal circles around an IJ, the BIA, and OIL!
Interestingly, a significant number of students in my Georgetown Law Summer Semester Immigration Law & Policy (“ILP”)Class have been patent examiners and/or patent attorneys! They have all been amazing, both in class dialogue and on the final exam. I suspect it has something to do with analytical skills, meticulous research, and attention to detail — always biggies in asylum litigation!
That’s why we must end a “built to fail” system that preys on unrepresented or underrepresented asylum seekers in illegal, intentionally inhumane and coercive, detention settings, where adequate preparation and documentation are impossible and where judges, too often lacking in asylum expertise, humanity, and/or the time to carefully research and deliberate, are pressured to engage in “assembly line denials.”
And, thanks to the racial dehumanization embraced by the Supremes’ majority many refugees, disproportionately those with brown or black skins, are completely denied fair access to the asylum hearing system. They are simply treated by our highest Court like human garbage — sent back to torture or potential death in unsafe foreign countries without any due process at all. So, the systemic failure is not by any means limited to the “Immigration Star Chambers.”
A simple rule of judging that appears “over the heads” of the current Supremes majority: If it wouldn’t be due process for you or your family in a death penalty case, than it’s not due process for any “person.” Not “rocket science.” Just “Con Law 101” with doses of common sense and simple humanity thrown in. So why is it beyond the capabilities of our most powerful judges?
If there is any good news coming out of this mess, it’s that more talented litigators like Gary Levin and Aaron Rabinowitz from firms like Baker Hostetler are becoming involved in immigration and human rights litigation. They often run circles around Billy the Bigot’s ethically-challenged group of captive DOJ lawyers, who can no longer operate independently and ethically, even if they want to.
So, in a better future, after regime change, there are going to be lots of really great sources for better judges out there at all levels of the Federal Judiciary from the eventually independent Immigration Courts, to the U.S. District Courts and Magistrate Judges, to the Courts of Appeals, all the way to the Supremes.
At the latter, we need new and better Justices: Justices who understand immigration and human rights laws and the overriding human interests at stake, who will “lose” the White institutional racial bias and perverted right-wing ideologies that infect our current Court, and who are dedicated to making the vision of folks like Dr. King and Congressman John Lewis for “equal justice under law” and an end to dehumanization of persons of color a reality under our Constitution and within our system of justice!
There is no excuse for the current Supreme Court-enabled travesty unfolding in a biased, broken, and dysfunctional immigration system every day!
Due Process Forever!
This November, vote like our nation’s future existence depends on it! Because it does!
“Andrei Skripkov, a citizen of Russia, seeks review of a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) upholding an Immigration Judge’s (IJ’s) denial of his application for asylum and the withholding of removal. Skripkov asserted in his application that he was persecuted in his home country on account of his political opinion. He specifically contended that his anticorruption whistleblowing activities motivated Russian officials to persecute him. The IJ and the BIA, on the other hand, found that the officials were motivated solely by their pecuniary interest in furthering a corrupt scheme disrupted by Skripkov. In his petition for review, Skripkov argues that the BIA erred in disregarding evidence that he would be criminally prosecuted for his political opinion if he is returned to Russia. For the reasons set forth below, we GRANT Skripkov’s petition for review and REMAND the case to the BIA for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
When the objective is to reject, not protect, mistakes are inevitable. This is just the tip of the iceberg. Most folks whose lives are being chewed up and spit out by the “designed to be unjust” Immigration Court system don’t have the good fortune to be represented by Brenna D. Duncan or someone of her caliber.
Indeed, under the ongoing illegal travesty that now passes for “justice” in America, most legal asylum seekers are turned away at the border without any hearing or meaningful process at all.
Interestingly, Brenna D. Duncan, a rising superstar at the international commercial law firm of Perkins Coie appears to have practiced primarily in the area of commercial litigation. Yet, she clearly understands immigration and human rights law better than the Immigration Judge and the BIA Appellate Immigration Judges involved in this case.
That’s why actual experience representing immigrants and asylum seekers is such a critical qualification for good Immigration Judges at both the trial and appellate levels as well as being something that should be a factor in appointing future Article III Judges at all levels right up to and particularly including the Supremes. Years of one-sided prosecutorial or law enforcement experience is often no substitute for the “real deal” of experience understanding immigrants and asylum seekers from their perspective.
The current Immigration Court system is intentionally and fatally skewed against asylum seekers, immigrants, due process, and fundamental fairness. Until that changes, equal justice under law will continue to be a cruel, unachieved illusion in our American justice system.
Hannah Albarazi Federal Courts Reporter Law360Hon. Jeffrey S. Chase Jeffrey S. Chase Blog Coordinator & Chief Spokesperson, Round Table of Retired Immigration JudgesMe
Ex-FAIR Research Director Among 46 New Immigration Judges
“It would be impossible for one to receive a fair hearing before Matthew O’Brien,” Jeffrey Chase, a New York City immigration lawyer and former immigration judge, told Law360. Chase said O’Brien has expressed a view of asylum law that is at odds with the controlling circuit case law that he would be tasked with applying from the bench.
Chase said O’Brien has “basically spouted propaganda for an organization openly hostile to immigration.”
His appointment, Chase said, shows that the Trump administration doesn’t want a fair and independent immigration court and is proof that the Executive Office for Immigration Review needs to be taken out of the control of the Department of Justice, an enforcement agency.
The administration “has repeatedly emphasized to classes of new immigration judges that they are above all employees of the attorney general, who does not believe most asylum seekers are deserving of protection,” Chase said.
These appointments could negatively impact the immigration courts for decades, Chase said.
Paul Wickham Schmidt, a retired U.S. immigration judge who chaired the Board of Immigration Appeals in the Clinton administration, also slammed the recent wave of appointments.
“The idea that these are the 46 best qualified individuals in America to discharge these awesome responsibilities in a fair, impartial and expert manner, in furtherance of due process of law and with recognition of the human rights and human dignity of the individuals whose lives are at stake, is beyond preposterous. It’s a fraud on American justice,” Schmidt told Law360.
Schmidt didn’t mince his words about O’Brien’s appointment either.
“As someone who has helped FAIR spread its racially biased, anti-immigrant, and anti-asylum propaganda and false narratives, O’Brien is not qualified to be a fair and impartial quasi-judicial decision maker as required by the due process clause of our Constitution,” Schmidt said.
. . . .
**********************************
Those with Law360 access can read Hannah’s complete article at the link.
The U.S. Justice system, once the envy of free nations throughout the world, is disintegrating before our eyes. If there is no justice for those whose lives are at stake, there will be no justice for any of us in the Trump/Barr Third World kakistocracy.
Due Process Forever! Corrupt & Feckless Institutions Parodying Justice, Never!
“Mario Ordonez Azmen petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying his motion to remand and dismissing his appeal of the denial of his asylum and statutory withholding claims under the Immigration and Nationality Act. The BIA did not adequately explain its conclusion that Ordonez Azmen’s proposed social group of former gang members in Guatemala was not particular. Nor did the BIA adequately explain its reasons for denying Ordonez Azmen’s motion to remand based on evidence of new country conditions. Finally, we hold that under 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(D), changed circumstances presenting an exception to the one-year deadline for filing an asylum application need not arise prior to the filing of the application, and the BIA erred when it refused to consider Ordonez Azmen’s alleged changed circumstances on the ground that the change occurred while his application was pending. We GRANT the petition, VACATE the BIA’s decision, and REMAND for reconsideration of Ordonez Azmen’s application for asylum and statutory withholding of removal and his motion to remand, consistent with this opinion.”
[Hats off to Zachary A. Albun, Albert M. Sacks Clinical Teaching & Advocacy Fellow, Harvard Immigration & Refugee Clinical Program, Harvard Law School, who writes: “The Court found the INA unambiguously provides that “material changed circumstances” excepting the one year filing deadline need not precede filing of the asylum application (i.e., you can rely on a changes that occur during proceedings). The court further held that W-G-R- & M-E-V-G- do not create a per se rule that “former gang member” PSGs lack cognizability. Another important point is that the Court relied on two unpublished BIA decisions that we’d submitted in determining it need not defer to the agency, but instead decide the case based on its own reading of the governing statute and regulations. Major credit and a huge thanks goes to my co-counsel at the University of Minnesota Federal Immigration & Litigation Clinic and the National Immigrant Justice Center, and to my colleagues and students at HIRC.”]
“Maria Cared Millan-Hernandez petitions for review of a 2018 Board of Immigration Appeals decision dismissing her appeal of an Immigration Judge’s denial, without an evidentiary hearing, of her motion to suppress evidence. On appeal, we consider whether Millan-Hernandez provided sufficient evidence of an egregious Fourth Amendment violation to warrant an evidentiary hearing. We conclude that she did and that the agency applied an incorrect standard in determining otherwise. Accordingly, the petition for review is GRANTED and the cause REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion.”
[Hats off to AADHITHI PADMANABHAN, The Legal Aid Society, New York, NY (Nicholas J. Phillips, Joseph Moravec, Prisoners’ Legal Services of New York, Buffalo, NY, on the brief), for Petitioner!]
“Carlos Rendon began living in the United States as a lawful permanent resident in 1991. Then in 1995, he pled guilty to resisting a police officer with violence. Under immigration law this offense qualifies as a crime involving moral turpitude (“CIMT”). At the time, Mr. Rendon’s sentence of 364 days in state custody did not affect his status as a lawful permanent resident. But Congress later changed the law. In 1996, the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (“AEDPA”) made him deportable based on his CIMT conviction. And in 1997, the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (“IIRIRA”) created the “stop-time rule,” which meant people convicted of certain crimes were no longer eligible for a discretionary form of relief known as cancellation of removal. Approximately 25 years after his guilty plea, an immigration judge found Mr. Rendon removable and ruled he was no longer eligible for cancellation of removal on account of the stop-time rule. On appeal, Mr. Rendon now argues that it was error to retroactively apply the stop-time rule to his pre-IIRIRA conviction. After careful review, we conclude that Mr. Rendon is right. We reverse the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals and remand for further proceedings.”
[Hats off to Anthony Richard Dominquez at Prada Urizar, PLLC!]
“David Nunez-Vasquez seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) finding that he was removable because he had been convicted of two crimes involving moral turpitude (“CIMT”)—a conviction for leaving an accident in violation of Va. Code Ann. § 46.2–894 and a conviction for use of false identification in violation of Va. Code Ann. § 18.2–186.3(B1). We hold that neither conviction is categorically a crime involving moral turpitude. We therefore grant Nunez-Vasquez’s petition for review, vacate the BIA’s order of removal, order the Government to return Nunez-Vasquez to the United States, and remand to the BIA for further proceedings.”
[Hats off to Ben Winograd, Trina Realmuto, Kristin Macleod-Ball, Nancy Morawetz and Samantha Hsieh!]
“In these tandem cases, Jervis Glenroy Jack and Ousmane Ag each petition for review of decisions of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) ordering them removed based on their New York firearms convictions. See 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii), (a)(2)(C). We principally conclude that the statutes of conviction, sections 265.03 and 265.11 of the New York Penal Law, criminalize conduct involving “antique firearms” that the relevant firearms offense definitions in the Immigration and Nationality Act do not. This categorical mismatch precludes the petitioners’ removal on the basis of their state convictions. We therefore GRANT the petitions, VACATE the decisions of the BIA, and REMAND both causes to the agency with instructions to terminate removal proceedings.”
[Hats off to Nicholas J. Phillips, Joseph Moravec, Prisoners’ Legal Services of New York, Buffalo, NY; Alan E. Schoenfeld, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, New York, NY, for Jervis Glenroy Jack, Petitioner in No. 18-842-ag., Stephanie Lopez, Neighborhood Defender Service of Harlem, New York, NY; Alan E. Schoenfeld, Andrew Sokol, Beezly J. Kiernan, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, New York, NY, for Ousmane Ag, Petitioner in No. 18-1479-ag.!]
************************
Remember, unlike most so-called “civil litigation,”lives and futures are at stake in every one of these cases. It’s like sending in brain surgeons trained by the “American Academy of Morticians.” Over and over, the Trump DOJ has shown itself more interested in “upping the body count” than on fairness, due process, and just results at EOIR. Is there a “breaking point” at which the Article IIIs will finally get tired of correcting the BIA’s mistakes and doing their work for them?
Good thing the BIA isn’t sitting for the final exam in my “Immigration Law & Policy” course at Georgetown Law. Even “the curve” might not be enough to save them.
“On July 16, 2019, the Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security published a joint interim final Rule without notice and comment, entitled “Asylum Eligibility and Procedural Modifications” (the “Rule”). With limited exceptions, the Rule categorically denies asylum to aliens arriving at our border with Mexico unless they have first applied for, and have been denied, asylum in Mexico or another country through which they have traveled. We describe the Rule in detail below. Plaintiffs are nonprofit organizations that represent asylum seekers. They brought suit in district court seeking an injunction against enforcement of the Rule, contending that the Rule is invalid on three grounds: first, the Rule is not “consistent with” Section 208 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1158; second, the Rule is arbitrary and capricious; third, the Rule was adopted without notice and comment. The district court found that plaintiffs had a likelihood of success on all three grounds and entered a preliminary injunction against enforcement of the Rule, with effect in the four states on our border with Mexico. We hold that plaintiffs have shown a likelihood of success on the first and second grounds. We do not reach the third ground. We affirm.”
**************************************
This isn’t rocket science. Neither the legal nor moral issues are particularly difficult in this case. Indeed, the Supremes should unanimously have tossed Solicitor General Noel Francisco out on his tail the last time he unethically requested their intervention. Instead, they rewarded him, thus enabling and encouraging further “crimes against humanity.”
Unfortunately, this Supremes’ majority has had a hard time seeing people of color, and particularly those seeking asylum and other legal protections under our laws, as human. Even though the lower Federal Courts have essentially made things easy by showing exactly why these racist-inspired policies are illegal, a Supremes majority has chosen to advance Stephen Miller’s White Nationalist agenda, sometimes hiding behind a smokescreen of nonsensical legal gobbledygook, while other times choosing to act without bothering to provide any rationale at all.
One thing is for certain. Someday, after the fall of Trump, and the banishment of Miller, the Justices who advanced their unconstitutional, illegal, racist immigration agenda will try to “save their legacies” by putting some distance between themselves and the neo-Nazi ramifications of their votes. It’s critically important for those of us who see exactly what’s happening to insure that the names of justices and judges who sided with Stephen Miller are inextricably linked for the rest of time with his disgraceful racist legacy of “crimes against humanity.”
There is only one side of history here! And, it’s certainly not with Stephen Miller and his enablers, be they judges, legislators, public officials, or voters.
Meanwhile, the pandemic has made it more difficult to care for those who are arriving at the border each day. Since that lone covid-19 case was identified, Mexico’s National Immigration Institute has not allowed the camps to accept any new arrivals. So refugees are being turned away and have no place to go. Some are being placed in hotels or churches, and volunteers are desperately looking for other options.
Within the camp, we have had to limit the volunteers’ activities — there are 10 to 20 volunteers allowed to enter and help provide the people with food, water and basic health care. We have set up areas for washing hands, and try to provide hope and reassurance amid the uncertainty. All this makes it even harder to keep the camps safe from the cartels and gangsters who continue to prey on these largely defenseless asylum seekers.
That young woman who tested positive for the coronavirus has been transferred to a covid-19 center operated by Doctors Without Borders. We pray for her recovery, and we pray for all the families’ safety, for their protection and for a resolution to their untenable situation.
While I know many people in many places are dealing with so much, I urge you not to look away from the border in this moment. Do not ignore the suffering occurring here. It is time that we put an end to it, and to end the MPP policy. Until that happens, we will continue to help those who are defenseless, whose only real “crime” is trying to seek protection for themselves and their families.
Sister Norma Pimentel
In addition to highlighting inhumanity, Sister Pimentel shows the gross intellectual fraud and immorality in the Trump Regime’s bogus claim that asylum seekers present a significant threat of spreading COVID-19. If anything, it’s the exact opposite which is most often the case with the Trump regime’s endless racist false narratives and fake “horror stories” about immigration.
It also exposes yet again both the intellectual dishonesty and immorality of those who present “pretextual justifications” for illegal acts being perpetrated by our Government against the most vulnerable and the spineless performance of judges who claim to accept at face value that which any reasonable person knows to be a pretext for racism and inhumanity.
The intent behind these bogus regulation changes and programs like the “Migrant Protection Protocols” (or, more properly, “Let ‘Em Die in Mexico”) is very clear: dehumanize “the other” – in this case primarily brown skinned asylum seekers. But, in the process of letting this happen and tolerating legislators and judges without the decency to stand up for the rights of our fellow humans, WE are the ones who actually are dehumanized. We’re not allowed to look away from the horrors being perpetrated by the Trump regime in our name!
Easy to see why ending racism and applying the crystal clear Constitutional requirement of due process and equal justice for all persons in the U.S. has been so hard to achieve! Achieving would start with Justices who actually believe in the Constitution!
What if Justices believed “that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness?”While some might find these rights to be “self-evident,” not so much the majority of current Supremes’ Justices who apparently believe asylum seekers to be something less than human.
The Dred Scott decision is no longer good law. When will we get Justices who unanimously stop applying it to immigrants and asylum seekers in our country?
It isn’t rocket science. You either believe in equal justice under law, as required by our Constitution, or you don’t. Just how did so many “nonbelievers” in the Constitution make it to our highest Constitutional Court?
Another giant in our professional forest has fallen. Among other things, Bob will be remembered for his mastery of the laws of citizenship by acquisition.
Here is a link to a 2010 interview with Bob, and here is a link to a biography by his family. A photo of Bob is here.
The encomiums are flooding my inbox. Angelo A. Paparelli said, “Bob was a warm-hearted giant, an encyclopedia of immigration law, a gentle and genial humanitarian. Every encounter I had with him helped me be a better immigration lawyer and person.”
*************************
I remember from my private practice days that Bob was always ready for a free consult on a “citizenship stumper.”
R.I.P., my friend and colleague! Fairness, scholarship, timeliness, respect, and teamwork, you did it all and inspired younger generations to do likewise!
“[In Ortiz I, this] Court determined that a conviction under Minn. Stat. Ann. § 609.50, subdiv. 2(2) [obstruction of legal process, arrest, or firefighting] is not categorically a crime of violence—and, thus, not an aggravated felony—because the minimum amount of force required to sustain a conviction under that statute is less than the level of force required to constitute a crime of violence under Johnson v. United States, 559 U.S. 133, 140 (2010). Ortiz v. Lynch, 796 F.3d 932, 935-36 (8th Cir. 2015). Accordingly, we granted Ortiz’s petition for review, vacated the order of removal, and remanded to the BIA to decide whether Ortiz’s prior conviction nonetheless subjected him to removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(i) as a crime involving moral turpitude.
… Pursuant to the parties’ joint motion, the BIA remanded the case to the IJ to decide the issue. Ortiz again moved to terminate removal proceedings, arguing that a conviction for obstruction of legal process under Minn. Stat. Ann. § 609.50, subdiv. 2(2) is not a crime involving moral turpitude. The IJ denied the motion, finding that Ortiz’s prior conviction was categorically a crime involving moral turpitude because (1) the statute requires intentional conduct, and (2) using or threatening force or violence to obstruct legal process entails conduct that is inherently base, vile, or depraved and contrary to accepted rules of morality. Accordingly, the IJ sustained the charge of removability under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(i) and ordered Ortiz’s removal from the United States to Mexico on that basis. The BIA affirmed the IJ’s decision, adding that the minimum conduct punishable by the statute falls within the definition of “moral turpitude” because it involves some aggravating level of force or violence in the context of interference with important and legitimate government functions. Ortiz again filed a timely petition for review.
… [W]e conclude that the BIA erred in finding that a conviction under Minn. Stat. Ann. § 609.50, subdiv. 2(2) is categorically a crime involving moral turpitude. For the foregoing reasons, we hold a conviction under Minn. Stat. Ann. § 609.50, subdiv. 2(2) is not categorically a crime involving moral turpitude under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(i). We, therefore, grant Ortiz’s petition for review and vacate the order of removal.”
[Attorney David L. Wilson writes: “This statement is particularly helpful and could go unnoticed. The court wrote, “Further, because subdivision 2(2) is a penalty provision, rather than a “statutory element[] that criminalize[s] otherwise innocent conduct,” the presumption in favor of a scienter requirement does not apply. United States v. X-Citement Video, Inc., 513 U.S. 64, 72 (1994).” The government has been trying to invoke this argument for some time, and the Eighth just shut it down. A round of applause to Anne Carlson for the first round of the fight, and Brittany Bakken for bearing with me for the second round.”]
*********************
Bottom line: For more than five years over two Administrations on a number of charges, EOIR has been attempting to wrongfully deport this individual. This falls below the “minimum level of competence” that should be expected of an “expert tribunal” that is nothing other than a deportation factory with a fancy title. And, let’s remember that the 8th Circuit, out in the middle of “America’s Heartland,” is hardly the 9th Circuit, the 7th Circuit, or even the 4th Circuit, all of which have been much more openly critical of the BIA’s lousy performance.
The cost of “deportation at any cost” is too high for America! Whatever happened to due process, fundamental fairness, and impartial judging? Gone by the wayside! No wonder this unfair and dysfunctional system is running a largely self-inflicted backlog of more than 1.4 million known cases and “who knows how many” that are lost or otherwise “off-docket” in the EOIR morass of biased judging and gross mismanagement.
When will it end? How many will be wrongfully deported or die because one of American’s largest “court” systems (that isn’t’ a “court” at all) is allowed to continue to operate far below minimum levels of constitutionality and competence?
Q
