"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.
Lips Sewn Shut Public Realm — Biden’s continuation of Trump’s cruel and illegal abrogation of asylum laws at the border, inappropriately defended by Garland’s DOJ, drives desperate people to do desperate things.
Nicole Narea Immigration Reporter Vox.com — Her clear and cogent analysis stands in sharp contrast to the Biden Administration’s often muddled, incoherent, and self-contradictory policies on human rights and racial justice on America.
Migrants stranded in southern Mexico because of US and Mexican border policies are taking increasingly drastic measures to draw attention to their plight. On Tuesday, a dozen migrants staged a protest in which they sewed their lips together and went on a hunger strike.
They are among the thousands staying in what has become known as an “open-air prison” in the city of Tapachula on Mexico’s southern border with Guatemala. Migrants there have struggled to access food and shelter, and have reported being preyed on by government officials.
Facing pressure to find ways to limit the number of migrants requesting entry to the United States, Mexican immigration authorities will not permit the migrants to leave the city unless they have some form of legal immigration status allowing them to move freely through the country, such as asylum. Hundreds tried to escape last month, but were intercepted and detained by Mexican immigration authorities.
. . . .
The US could share the load by resuming processing of migrants at its own borders and allowing them to pursue claims to humanitarian protection, as is their legal right. Instead, it has offloaded its immigration responsibilities onto its neighbor.
****************
As usual, Nicole provides timely, astute, accessible analysis of complex problems. I highly recommend her complete article at the link above.
The Attorney General is supposed to stand up for the rule of law, human rights, and to “just say no” to defending illegal and improper policies. As many of us pointed out during the scofflaw tenures of Sessions and Barr, the AG’s fealty is supposed to be to the Constitution and the laws of the United States, which include treaties that we have ratified and incorporated into our laws. As human rights and legal rights continue to be ignored, deflected, and degraded at our borders and in Immigration “Courts” that don’t operate as “courts” at all in any commonly understood meaning of the term, where is Garland?
“A federal court ruled that tworules issued by the Trump administration restricting — and in some cases eliminating — access to work authorization for asylum seekers were illegally issued and are therefore invalid.
More than a year ago, a group of nearly 20 asylum seekers along with three organizations sued the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) challenging these rules. The individual asylum seekers include transgender women, parents with small children, and children and adults who fled political persecution, gender-based violence, or gang and drug-cartel violence. The rules prevented or delayed their access to a work permit. The organizational plaintiffs — AsylumWorks, the Tahirih Justice Center, and Community Legal Services in East Palo Alto — argued that the rules derailed their missions to provide employment assistance and legal and social services to asylum seekers.
The National Immigrant Justice Center, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, the Center for Gender & Refugee Studies, Kids in Need of Defense, and Tahirih Justice Center provided counsel in the case.
Plaintiffs challenged the substantive provisions that drastically curtailed access to work authorization, and they argued that the rules were invalid because purported Acting DHS Secretary Chad Wolf issued them even though he was not lawfully installed as DHS Secretary. The rules took effect in August 2020 and were partially enjoined by a different court in September 2020, but that decision left many of the rules’ harmful provisions in place. Despite these ongoing harms and despite a change in administration, the government dragged its feet arguing that the rules should remain in place “for the time being” to allow “developing administrative actions” to resolve the case.
The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia refused to entertain these delay requests, and rejected the government’s “interpretative acrobatics” to justify Mr. Wolf’s purported authority to engage in rulemaking. Instead, the court followed numerous other courts around the country and concluded that “Wolf’s ascension to the office of Acting Secretary was unlawful.” The court also rejected the Biden administration’s attempt to ratify one of the rules in question, reasoning that the ratification “did not cure the defects … caused by Wolf’s unlawful tenure as Acting Secretary.”
Reflections from Counsel and Organizational Plaintiffs:
“The ability to earn an income is critical to asylum seekers’ ability to survive in the United States as they pursue protection from persecution,” said Keren Zwick, director of litigation at the National Immigrant Justice Center. “The court’s decision recognizes that the government cannot neglect to fill a cabinet position with a Senate-approved candidate for 665 days and then rely on unvetted, temporary officials to strip asylum seekers of access to a livelihood in the United States.”
“The court got it right,” said Annie Daher, senior staff attorney at the Center for Gender & Refugee Studies. “People seeking asylum should be treated with dignity and fairness as they pursue their legal claims. Access to work permits allows asylum seekers to provide for their families, obtain vital legal representation, and ultimately find safety and security in the United States. Today’s ruling will make a life-saving difference for our plaintiffs and for all people who turn to this country for refuge.”
“Children seeking asylum often need a USCIS-issued ‘employment authorization’ document as their only form of photo ID, to access education and other services critical to their stability and well-being during the asylum process,” said Scott Shuchart, senior director, legal strategy, at Kids in Need of Defense. “The court correctly restored access to these important documents for, potentially, thousands of unaccompanied children who will now have the opportunity to build a more secure life in the United States as they pursue lifesaving protection.”
“The right to work is an essential component of humanitarian protection,” said Joan Hodges-Wu, executive director and founder of AsylumWorks. “Work is not only imperative to economic survival; it also represents a means for asylum seekers to maintain personal dignity and self-respect during the long and protracted legal process. The court took a critical step toward upholding the rights of asylum seekers by vacating illegally-issued rules created to deter individuals and families seeking safety from harm. We applaud the court’s decision and look forward to continuing our work to help asylum seekers prepare for and retain safe, legal, and purposeful employment.”
“This decision restores the critical ability of countless survivors of gender-based violence to work, and thus be independent and provide for their families, while their asylum applications are pending—a process that often takes many years,” said Richard Caldarone, senior litigation counsel at the Tahirih Justice Center. “It also makes clear that the government remains obligated to promptly decide survivors’ requests for work authorization rather than leaving them in bureaucratic limbo for months or years. The decision takes arbitrary and punitive restrictions on work permanently off the books. We applaud the court’s decision and look forward to its immediate implementation.”
“We are thrilled that our motion for summary judgment was granted. This decision will have an enormous impact on our clients and so many other asylum seekers who come to this country seeking safety and justice,” said Christina Dos Santos, the Immigration Program director at Community Legal Services in East Palo Alto. “The Trump-era rules were punitive and cruel to asylum seekers, preventing them from receiving the right to work, potentially for years, as they waited to have their cases heard in our backlogged immigration court system. We have seen first hand how these policies forced asylum-seekers and their families into poverty and destitution. A resolution was urgently needed. We applaud the court’s decision.””
************
Garland’s poor judgement, legally deficient, ethically questionable defenses of illegal and inhumane Trump-era immigration policies continue to astound! Also, the inane maneuvers conducted by Mayorkas, presumably with Garland’s approval, attempting to illegally “ratify” one of these rules is simply disgraceful! Chief Judge Beryl A. Howell strongly and correctly rejected this flailing waste of Government resources in her opinion.
Chief Judge Howell’s decision describes a compendium of some of the most egregious evasions of rules and wasteful attempts to paper them over, by both the Trump and Biden Administrations, that can be imagined. It’s an appalling example of the failure of Biden’s “good government” pledge! Inflicting this utter nonsense on the Federal Courts and on individuals fighting for their lives and rights, and stretching the resources of their pro bono lawyers, is on Garland! It’s inexcusable!
Has Alfred E. Neumann been “reborn” as Judge Merrick Garland? PHOTO: Wikipedia Commons
Congrats to my good friend Joan, AsylumWorks, the Tahirih Justice Center, and all the other great NGOs who are “taking it to” Garland and and his flailing Justice Department as well as to Mayorkas and his lousy, inept, illegal gimmicks being used to “shore up” grotesquely cruel and unfair Trump policies that Biden & Harris were elected to change! Gotta wonder what Ur Mendoza Jaddou and other folks who were supposed to “just say no” to these disgraceful policies are doing over at DHS!
Here’s what Joan said about the case:
WE WON! 🗽 The court ruled in AsylumWorks’ favor and struck down a series of Trump era rules that significantly delayed – and in many cases outright denied – work permits for asylum seekers.Today, justice prevailed.
🇺🇸Due process Forever!
Best,
—
Joan Hodges-Wu, MA, LGSW
Founder & Executive Director | AsylumWorks
Justice DID indeed prevail! That’s thanks to you, Joan, your fellow NGOs, and some great pro bono lawyers who showed that despite campaign promises, true “justice” for all persons under our Constitution resides elsewhere than at our flawed and failing Department of “Justice” under Garland’s uninspired and often tone deaf “leadership.”
“After Adan de Jesus Tomas-Ramos, a citizen and native of Guatemala, reentered the United States illegally in 2018, a removal order previously entered against him was reinstated. But because Tomas-Ramos expressed a fear of returning to Guatemala, an asylum officer conducted a screening interview to determine whether he reasonably feared persecution or torture in his home country. The asylum officer determined that Tomas-Ramos failed to establish a reasonable fear of such harm, and so was not entitled to relief from his reinstated removal order. An Immigration Judge (“IJ”) concurred with that determination. Tomas-Ramos now petitions for review of the IJ’s order on two grounds. He first contends that the IJ’s finding that he lacked a reasonable fear of persecution or torture was erroneous. We agree. The primary ground for the IJ’s decision was that there was no “nexus” between the harm Tomas-Ramos faced and a protected ground. But the agency incorrectly applied the statutory nexus requirement. Instead, the record compels the conclusion that Tomas-Ramos was persecuted on account of a protected ground, in the form of his family ties. And in light of that error, we cannot determine that the other reason given by the IJ for her decision – that Tomas-Ramos could avoid harm by relocating – was supported by substantial evidence. Accordingly, we grant the petition for review, vacate the agency’s decision, and remand for further proceedings.”
[Hats off to Michael D. Lieberman, Simon Y. Sandoval-Moshenberg, Stacy M. Kim, Paul F. Brinkman, and Michael A. Francus!]
—
Daniel M. Kowalski
Editor-in-Chief
Bender’s Immigration Bulletin (LexisNexis)
**********************
DOJ’s error-studded performance (or lack thereof) in this case is disgraceful!
I guarantee that there are plenty of other unjust, legally defectivereasonable fear and credible fear decisions where these came from. Just most folks never get any meaningful judicial review.
Both the IJ and the AO got the basics of nexus and the applicable 4th Circuit case law totally wrong here. How are is this acceptable performance from what are supposed to be “expert” courts? Why hasn’t Garland brought in real experts, committed to due process and best practices, to take charge and straighten out this mess?
Disturbingly, the Biden Administration wants to turn this type of clearly inadequate procedure with poorly trained officers and judges and incorrect applications of the law loose on the merits determinations for all asylum seekers at the border!
Rather than being a check on bad judges, Garland’s OIL continues to “defend the indefensible” with arguments that don’t meet “the straight-face test.” Aren’t ethical codes equally applicable to Government lawyers?
Worse yet, Garland continues to unethically defend the scofflaw behavior of the Biden Administration by using a Stephen Miller era “COVID pretext” to deny most asylum seekers at the Southern Border any process, even the pathetic one used here!
The “wheels have come off” @ Garland’s DOJ and he’s driving on the axel hubs! When is someone going to pull him over and make him fix it?
Believe it or not, these are life or death cases! ☠️ Why is Garland allowed to treat the lives and rights of migrants and those associated with them so frivolously?
The IJ’s attempt to bar the R’s attorney from participating in the “credible fear” review is ridiculous! It shows the deep problems in Garland’s broken system which too often is deaf to due process, hostile to attorneys, and immune from common sense and best practices! Why would the “default” for regulatory silence be “no participation” rather than a “strong presumption that attorneys can fully participate?” What kind of “court” bars attorneys from speaking for their clients? Why would any judge not want to listen to attorneys, who are there to help them make correct decisions? The IJ’s conduct here was particularly egregious given that she had already made a clearly wrong decision before cutting off the attorney’s attempt to point out her errors! What a complete farce that Garland has failed to address!
This is another case where Circuit Judge Allison Jones Rushing, a Trump appointee with solid conservative credentials, once thought to be a possible contender for the “ACB seat,” joined her colleagues (Judge Harris and Chief Judge Gregory) to overturn a wrong, anti-immigrant decision by EOIR. Her approach in this and another recent case shows more sensitivity to due process, scholarship, and the rights of individual immigrants than many decisions emanating from Biden’s Immigration Courts under Garland.
I’m not suggesting that Judge R is necessarily going to become a leading defender of due process for immigrants. But, based on these somewhat random “snippets,” she seems more “reachable” and open to sound arguments on the issues than some other Trump appointees, points worth keeping in mind for NDPA advocates!
She’s also young. So, she will be reviewing immigration cases and making law for decades to come.
Biden’s immigration polices leave Haitians stranded in Mexico
Friday, January 21, 2022
By Immigration Prof
Nicole Narea of Voxreports that the U.S. has deported nearly 14,000 Haitians to Mexico since September, according to data released by UN’s International Organization for Migration. In 2021, Mexico received more than 131,ooo asylum applications, of which an estimated 45% were Haitians and their Chilean-born children. Haitians in Mexico “face pervasive racism, and many are unable to work, have no access to medical care, and are targets for criminals,” Narea writes.
Mexico is seeing an uptick in Haitian asylum applicants.
The Biden administration continues to enforce pandemic-related border restrictions that have kept out the vast majority of asylum seekers, including Haitians.
This disingenuous action by the Administration comes at a rather inopportune time, just as they are “getting heat” for failing to deliver on promises to Black voters. Additionally, the latest Pew Study shows that immigrants now make ump 10% of the U.S. Black population and that they are “more than holding their own” in terms of education and economic contributions.
Looks like many of the “immigrants we need” (and who also need us), according to Suzanne Clark of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, have mindlessly been dumped in Mexico at great human and fiscal cost that actually results in a “negative achievement.” (That’s notwithstanding the White Nationalist myths perpetrated by the 5th Circuit and GOP AGs and not always effectively opposed by the Biden Administration. How do you purport to end “Remain in Mexico” while denying asylum seekers any right to seek refuge at the border? Not very effectively, it appears!)
“Aires Daniel Benros Da Graca petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (the “Board”) affirming his order of removal and denying his requests for cancellation of removal and voluntary departure. Because we find that a conviction under Rhode Island General Laws (“RIGL”) § 31-9-1 is not categorically a theft offense, we grant the petition for review, vacate the decision below, and remand for further proceedings.”
“Appellant Imad Jaffal, born in Jordan, seeks a declaration that he is entitled to derivative U.S. citizenship under former 8 U.S.C. § 1432(a). That statute provides that “a child born outside the United States automatically acquires United States citizenship if, while the child is under the age of eighteen, the parent with legal custody of the child is naturalized while that child’s parents are legally separated.” Jaffal’s father was naturalized when Jaffal was seventeen years old, and Jaffal presented evidence to the District Court that he was in the sole legal custody of his father when his father was naturalized and his parents were separated. The District Court, however, declined to accept Jaffal’s evidence of his parents’ divorce. Because we conclude that was error, we will reverse the order of the District Court and remand the matter with instructions to issue a judgment declaring Jaffal to be a national of the United States.”
Here’s my favorite quote from Judge Torresen’s decision inDa Garcia v. Garland:
Despite this apparent disconnect between RIGL § 31-9-1 and the Board’s definition of theft offense, the Board in Da Graca’s case determined that to prove the statute’s overbreadth, the Petitioner was required to identify actual cases in which Rhode Island had enforced the statute against de minimis deprivations of ownership interests. Da Graca contests the Board’s imposition of an actual case requirement and argues that he “need not necessarily proffer specific examples of Rhode Island prosecutions in order to establish a ‘realistic probability’ that the state would apply its statute to conduct that falls outside the generic definition of a crime.” We agree with Da Graca.
Essentially, Garland’s BIA “makes it up as it goes along” to reach a denial, then Prelogar’s DOJ attorneys defend the illegal result. Sounds like a really bad system, lacking accountability, expertise, common sense, and, sometimes, professional responsibility.
Lest you think that the legal nonsense being produced by Garland’s BIA and the USCIS is “below Prelogar’s radar screen” in her exulted position, that’s NOT true! Every adverse decision suffered by the USG must be reported to the SG’s Office with an analysis and recommendations from the agency’s attorneys, the litigators who handled the case, the appellate section of litigating division (here the Civil Division), and the SG’s staff. No appeal, petition for rehearing en banc, or petition for cert. can be filed without the express authorization of the SG’s Office.
So, Prelogar is well aware of the bad positions, unfairness, and poor work product DOJ attorneys are defending (sometimes with a lack of candor or misleading the courts) and their abuses of the time of the Article IIIs.
Even with the “real” (Article III) Federal Courts moving markedly to the right (following four years of Trump-McConnell appointments and eight years of lackadaisical performance by the Obama Administration), and rules that strongly favor the Government on judicial review, DOJ’s haphazard performance under Garland and Prelogar continues to earn a stream of avoidable “kickbacks” from the Article IIIs. The DOJ system is broken in many places — EOIR is just the most obvious, most pressing, and most easily addressed area of failure.
At the same time they acknowledge but downplay the existential crippling effects of Garland’s failure to bring progressive reforms to EOIR, his defense of disgraceful, immoral, and inhumane “Miller Lite” positions in Federal Court, his intentional indifference to human suffering and the complete breakdown of the rule of law at our borders, and his disdain for removing the Trump enablers, deadwood, and poor lawyers from DOJ — at all levels.
I have a radically different perspective on the future of meaningful progressive immigration reforms, based on my nearly 50 years of involvement with the system on both sides and at all levels — more than most folks.
There will be no meaningful, sustainable immigration reforms without a radically reformed, remade, Immigration Court system with a judiciary of due-process-oriented progressive experts who have the courage to “speak truth to power,” stand up for the legal, constitutional, and human right of the most vulnerable, and put integrity, humanity, and the best interests of our nation above career advancement, survival, or “ingratiation with the powers that be.” That’s NOT Garland’s DOJ — which remains largely the out of control, often ethically challenged morass that he inherited from his predecessors.
Let’s not forget that through intentional misuse of precedents, weaponization of EOIR, and White Nationalist litigation strategies, Jeff Sessions was able to largely disable the entire asylum system, including USCIS Asylum Offices, and shift USCIS Adjudications from service to “enforcement only,” in preparation for the “final eradication” of asylum and crippling of our entire legal immigration system by his crony and former subordinate, Stephen Miller. And, the folks who helped him do that and “went along to go along” with abuses are still largely on board and in key positions in Garland’s DOJ — actually operating with his apparent “stamp of approval.” Outrageous!
From a due process, human rights, progressive, good government, equal justice, racial equality standpoint, as well as from any aspect of moral leadership on fundamental values, Garland’s performance at DOJ has been unacceptable. Has Garland visited any of the camps in Mexico or gone to the “New American Gulag” to witness first-hand the human carnage for which he is responsible? Heck no! That’s a job for progressive experts whose input and advice he then shuns, ignores, and “tunes out!”
For progressive advocates to downplay the Biden Administration’s gross failures or “over-cheer” incremental progress that means little without fundamental reforms at EOIR and the DOJ only deepens the fecklessness of their own positions and furthers the disrespect and under-appreciation of their efforts, potential power, and value that has become an endemic feature of the Democratic Party.
The Biden Administration might talk a good game, particularly around election time; but, in reality, they are governing largely in fear of and like nativist Republicans — but getting no “political return” whatsoever for betraying their supposed values and their base (see, Catherine Rampell). Advocates reward and tolerate such disgraceful and intellectually dishonest conduct at their own peril!
Meanwhile, Suzanne Clark, President of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, certainly no “progressive shill,” speaks truth about the need for and our ability to accept more immigrants:
Allowing more immigrants into the US would help mitigate both soaring inflation and the current labor shortage, the CEO of the US Chamber of Commerce said.
“We need more workers,” Suzanne Clark told reporters Tuesday, per CNN. “We should welcome people who want to come here, go to school, and stay.”
“That is a place the government could be particularly helpful and we do believe it would be anti-inflationary,” she said, per CNN.
Those immigrants are right in front of us: rotting in camps at the border, being returned to danger or death with no process — both as a result of Garland’s failure to re-establish our legal asylum system at the border — or languishing in Garland’s mushrooming 1.6 million Immigration Court backlog!It doesn’t take a “rocket scientist” to see that instead of wasting time, money, and resources on mindless “enforcement” intended to deter and discourage those who might help us by helping themselves, we should have set up fair and timely processing systems, staffed by experts, that would identify the many individuals at the border and already in the U.S. who can qualify to remain under fair and properly generous interpretations of asylum law, withholding, CAT, U & T visas, “stateside processing waivers,” cancellation of removal” (for those already here), TPS, and other possibilities.
This is just as much”law enforcement” and “maintaining the integrity of our system” as are the efforts to increase deportations, terrorize communities, or close borders to “deter” migrants (primarily those of color) that has been practiced to some degree by every Administration. It also makes sense, economically, practically, and ethically.
It starts with an Attorney General and DOJ with the courage and vision to end the “deterrence only” misconstruction of our laws and stand up for the legal and human rights of migrants, regardless of race, color, creed, or manner of entry. That’s not what Garland has been doing to date! Too bad, because there will be no resolution of immigration issues — nor will there be racial justice in America — without an AG who will stand up for the real rule of law rather than the parody of the law and justice purveyed by Miller and his White Nationalists and still being parroted and too often defended by Garland and his minions.
Law360 (January 12, 2022, 2:09 PM EST) — A top U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement attorney appeared elated when a sitting Massachusetts judge was indicted in 2018 for helping an immigrant in the country illegally evade custody, asking in an email if it would be “the first of many” such arrests, according to records made public in court Tuesday.
The email by then-ICE Principal Legal Adviser Tracy Short was part of a series of documents filed by a civil liberties group and government watchdog suing the agency to obtain even more records relating to the obstruction of justice charges against Newton District Court Judge Shelley Joseph.
Short posed the rhetorical question as a Fox News article circulated in emails among agency staff on the day Judge Joseph was indicted. In a later email to agency executives, Short said, “This is a great day.”
“Indeed,” responded Matthew Albence, ICE director of enforcement removal operations, according to the court filings. ICE chief of staff Thomas Blank allegedly chimed in, “Blessed.”
Judge Joseph is accused of helping the immigrant evade federal custody by allowing him to leave out the back door of her courtroom while agents from ICE were waiting out front to arrest him.
The case has been criticized by retired judges, academics and Massachusetts defense lawyers as an overreach by the federal government. Judge Joseph has argued that she acted within the scope of her judicial authority and therefore cannot be criminally charged. The issue is on appeal at the First Circuit.
The American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts and American Oversight, a government watchdog, attached the emails ICE produced to a motion for a pretrial win in the lawsuit they filed against the agency for records relating to the charges against Judge Joseph and her court officer Wesley MacGregor.
The civil liberties groups told U.S. District Judge Angel Kelley that the 83 pages of communications handed over by ICE in response to its records request “calls into serious question the adequacy of its search” for documents.
Among the groups’ concerns are that no records were produced for the 11 months that followed the incident, no text messages were searched, the search terms used were too narrow, and the agency never searched its Homeland Security Investigations Division even though the unit wrote a memo about the incident.
The groups asked the court to grant them summary judgment, order ICE to conduct a reasonable search — including emails and text messages — and release pages ICE is withholding under claimed exemptions from the public records law.
In December, ICE asked for a win in the case, saying it handed over what it needed to and withheld other sought-after documents that would harm pending criminal proceedings if released.
Judge Joseph and MacGregor have appealed a federal judge’s decision to not toss the charges on judicial immunity grounds. The First Circuit, in early December, heard the appeal and wrestled with how to define the judge’s immunity claim.
The ACLU’s records request was spurred by a November 2019 New York Times article that reported then-acting ICE Director Thomas Homan had been communicating with the Massachusetts U.S. Attorney’s Office in seeking legal recourse against Judge Joseph.
The ACLU requested records from March 15, 2018, through April 25, 2019, including emailed messages and letters between the U.S. attorney’s office and ICE about Judge Joseph, as well as records concerning an ICE investigation into the judge.
ICE told the ACLU in 2019 that it couldn’t do the search because the ACLU was a third party in the criminal case against Judge Joseph and needed her approval to access the records.
The ACLU protested and asked the agency to reconsider, saying that its request didn’t need Judge Joseph’s approval. In February 2020, the ICE Office of the Principal Legal Advisor ruled that a records search could be made, but ICE has failed to respond to the ACLU’s request since then, the complaint says.
Daniel McFadden, an ACLU staff attorney on the case, said in a statement to Law360 that ICE’s decision to charge Judge Joseph was “unprecedented.”
“The public has a right to know how this prosecution arose, and whether it was part of a pressure campaign to force Massachusetts court officials to assist in federal immigration enforcement,” McFadden said.
ICE and the Department of Justice declined to comment on the filing when reached Wednesday.
The ACLU of Massachusetts is represented in-house by Krista Oehlke, Daniel L. McFadden and Matthew R. Segal.
American Oversight is represented in-house by Katherine M. Anthony.
Update: This article has been updated to include comments from the ACLU.
******************
Look, whether Short can be fired or not, he has no business being the Chief Immigration Judge at EOIR. Short never held a judicial position before his inappropriate appointment under Trump.
His career as a hard line, widely disrespected ICE Prosecutor took him through probably the worst Federal Court in America — the Atlanta immigration Court, a self-styled “Asylum Free Zone” where “due process and fundamental fairness go to die and be buried.”
No Senior Executive like Short has “life tenure” in a particular senior position. For example, former Chief Immigration Judge, current BIA Appellate Judge Michael J, Creppy, woke up one morning in 2006 to find himself“out at OCIJ” and on his way to OCAHO, widely considered the “Siberia of EOIR.” His “offense:” “losing the confidence” of the then powers that were at DOJ and EOIR during the Bush II Administration!
I had a similar experience when I was “pushed out” as BIA Chair and then Appellate Judge because Ashcroft and his team of hard liners (including the notorious neo-fascist nativist Kris Kobach) didn’t like my decisions standing up for the legal rights of migrants!
Once in power, the GOP makes good on its threats against asylum seekers and other migrants, without necessarily passing any legislation. By contrast, with weak-kneed, tone-deaf “leaders” like Mayorkas and Garland, Dems fail to keep their campaign promises and won’t even move the worst of the GOP holdovers out of key positions where they undermine justice and ruin human lives.
“Record, what record? Here at the BIA, we don’t need no stinkin’ record to deny asylum! The assembly line would break down if we took time to look at all the evidence and research the law! It’s about ‘numbers,’ not ‘justice!’” https://www.flickr.com/photos/rasputin243/ Creative Commons License
“Tarlishi Emmanuel-Tata, a native and citizen of Cameroon, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision affirming the Immigration Judge’s denial of his claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. We GRANT the petition for review and REMAND for further consideration. … Emmanuel-Tata challenges both the BIA’s factual determinations and whether it gave his claims full and fair consideration. We begin by examining Emmanuel-Tata’s argument that the BIA failed to consider all the evidence. This argument relies on a BIA statement that the record “does not contain any country conditions evidence indicating that Anglophones are regularly subject to persecution,” and that “[t]he record does not contain any country conditions evidence indicating the type of punishment the respondent may face as a result of his criminal charges.” There is such evidence, though. … The significance of the overlooked evidence is clear. … Because the BIA erroneously found there was no record evidence about relevant country conditions, Emmanuel-Tata did not receive “meaningful consideration of the relevant substantial evidence supporting” his claims. See Abdel-Masieh, 73 F.3d at 585. We therefore reverse the BIA’s decision. We need not further consider the BIA’s factual determinations. The petition for review is GRANTED and we REMAND to the BIA for further consideration.”
[Hats off to Brian Plotts! Brian, make a motion to publish!]
*********************
As any “immigration pro” knows, the DOJ has to work hard to lose immigration cases in the “ultra-conservative” 5th Circuit. But, even judges not very sympathetic to migrants don’t like being “played for fools” by a DOJ where “quality, integrity, and due process” definitely are “NOT job one.”
Highlighting the constant stream of bogus findings, “canned” decisions, ignored records, and chronic contemptuous sloppiness is a great way to for the NDPA to make inroads with even the most unsympathetic Circuit panels. While some Article III judges are willing to overlook the BIA’s endemic shortcomings, hiding behind the “bogus deference” doctrine, they might be less willing to “do the BIA’s dirty work for them.”
“Jose Ernesto Menjivar Bonilla, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming the denial of his application for withholding of removal under Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) Section 241(b)(3) and relief under Article 3 of the United Nations Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We grant the petition in part and remand for further proceedings. … [B]ecause the IJ’s assessments of Bonilla’s credibility and the decision to require corroborating evidence were based in significant part on discrepancies with the 2012 Record, which we have determined to be unreliable, further factfinding is required. See Mboowa v. Lynch, 795 F.3d, 222, 229 (1st Cir. 2015) (finding remand warranted where a central aspect of the agency’s credibility assessment is flawed). Accordingly, we remand to the agency for further factfinding. Guta-Tolossa v. Holder, 674 F.3d 57, 61 (1st Cir. 2011) (“Where a question is best resolved by the agency in the first instance, or is left primarily in the agency’s hands by statute, and the agency has failed to address that question, we generally must remand.”); see also Kho v. Keisler, 505 F.3d 50, 56 (1st Cir. 2007) (“If, in the absence of a credibility finding by the IJ, a reviewing court determines that such a finding is necessary for effective review of the case, it may remand to the agency for further factfinding.”). Accordingly, we vacate the denials of withholding and relief under the CAT and remand for further consideration consistent with this opinion.”
Let’s see, an IJ gets it wrong, a “single member BIA panel” summarily affirms w/o opinion, and a three member panel of the First Circuit unanimously reverses in a published opinion!
“Cristian Josue Diaz Ortiz, a native of El Salvador, seeks review of a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming the denial of his claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the United Nations Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). The Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) rejection of Diaz Ortiz’s petition for relief rested on an adverse credibility determination that primarily drew its support from a “Gang Assessment Database.” Flaws in that database, including its reliance on an erratic point system built on unsubstantiated inferences, compel us to conclude that the credibility judgment — and, in turn, the rejection of Diaz Ortiz’s request for relief — is not supported by substantial evidence. Accordingly, we grant the petition for review and remand for new immigration proceedings.”
Nkemchap Nelvis Takwi seeks review of a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal from a removal order entered by an Immigration Judge (IJ) and denying his motion to remand. Exercising jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, we grant the petition for review. We remand this matter to the BIA because the IJ did not make an explicit adverse credibility determination, and the BIA did not afford Mr. Takwi the required rebuttable presumption of credibility.
Just for a good measure, the 9th Circuit also “busted” Garland’s BIA on an agfel issue:
“Petitioner Longinos Togonon, a native and citizen of the Philippines, was admitted to the United States as a lawful permanent resident in 2013. In 2015, he was convicted of arson in violation of California Penal Code § 451(b) and sentenced to three years of imprisonment. In 2018, the Department of Homeland Security initiated removal proceedings against Togonon, alleging (as relevant for our purposes) that his arson offense qualifies as an “aggravated felony.” See 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) (“Any alien who is convicted of an aggravated felony at any time after admission is deportable.”). The Immigration and Nationality Act defines the term “aggravated felony” to include “an offense described in” 18 U.S.C. § 844(i). 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(E)(i). The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) held that a conviction under California Penal Code § 451(b) is an offense described in 18 U.S.C. § 844(i) and that Togonon is therefore subject to removal from the United States. Reviewing that decision de novo, see Sandoval v. Sessions, 866 F.3d 986, 988 (9th Cir. 2017), we conclude that the BIA erred in so holding. We accordingly grant Togonon’s petition for review.”
[Hats off to pro bono publico appointed counsel Matthew N. Ball (argued), Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Denver, Colorado; Paul J. Collins, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Palo Alto, California; Andrew T. Brown and Matt Aiden Getz, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Los Angeles, California!]
*****************************
The First Circuit decision was 4-3. It appears that the respondent’s lawyers, experts, and the majority did the careful, critical analysis that the BIA failed to perform. Even the dissenters, who got it wrong, appear to have spent more time and thought on this issue than Garland’s BIA.
The Tenth Circuit decision highlights “Basic Asylum 101” failures by both the IJ and the BIA. It’s not that hard to make a specific credibility finding in every case. I did it in every contested asylum case I heard over 13 years on the bench. Nor is applying the presumption of credibility on appeal profound.
I’ll concede that the 9th Circuit agfel issue was more tricky. But, the BIA’s practice of almost always going with the most expansive, pro-DHS interpretations of the agfel definition to maximize deportation and minimize relief doesn’t help.
As asylum applicants, other migrants, and their lawyers, receive grievous mistreatment by the “judges of his EOIR Star Chambers,” “Teflon Merrick” Garland has avoided accountability for the ongoing, systemic degrading of humanity and American justice carried out in his name!” Why? PHOTO: Wikipedia Commons
“Bob Lupini Nsimba petitions for review of a December 8, 2020 decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals affirming the Immigration Judge’s denial of his application for asylum. In affirming that decision, the BIA misapplied and misinterpreted controlling precedent and imposed requirements on those seeking relief that would require petitioners to first endure torture or arrest. Accordingly, for the reasons that follow, we will grant the petition for review, vacate the ruling of the BIA and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
[You MUST read the entire opinion; the panel really goes to town on the IJ and the BIA. Hats off to Valentine Brown!]
*****************
Not news for anyone who (unlike Garland) has even passing familiarity with the daily mockery of justice being carried out by Garland’s “wholly-owned bogus ‘court’ system.” These AREN’T aberrations or isolated incidents! They are “business as usual” in Garland’s totally dysfunctional and out of control Immigration “Courts.”
These aren’t “courts;” they are “adjuncts of DHS enforcement, masquerading as courts,” redesigned as such by Sessions and Barr with Stephen Miller’s influence and enabled to continue their disgraceful degradation of American justice by Garland!
DRC cases, if credible and documented, should be “slam dunk grants of asylum.” They could be put on the “30 minute docket.” Instead, EOIR has been allowed and encouraged to engage in this type of obscene, dilatory nonsense, with obvious racial overtones.
This case is a microcosm of how EOIR and the DOJ have built astounding due process denying backlog! The solution is NOT more Immigration Judges! It’s better Immigration Judges.
Congrats to NDPA Star Valentine Brown!
Obviously Garland has neither standards nor any shame!
Dishonest, biased, and incompetent decisions like this should long ago have resulted in the removal from the BIA and reassignment of the BIA “judge(s)” involved.
When are the Circuits going to catch on that this entire charade is a grotesque denial of due process, pull the plug, and hold Garland accountable for this unconstitutional (not to mention unethical) degradation of American justice?
BIA judges and EOIR judges AREN’T Article IIIs, and they DON’T have life tenure in their particular jobs.
When are Dems in both Houses going to start demanding accountability and competence from Garland? How long are the Article IIIs going to allow this mind-boggling misfeasance that materially affects millions of lives in America, and squanders an unconscionable amount of legal resources, to continue before finally “pulling the plug” on Garland’s “quasi-judicial farce?”
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:
“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.”
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.
“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.]
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:
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!🤮
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
“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
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
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.
Professor Geoffrey Hoffman Immigraton Clinic Director University of Houston Law Center
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!”
Dan Kowalski Online Editor of the LexisNexis Immigration Law Community (ILC)
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!
“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?
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?
“The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) held that Janito DeCarvalho’s conviction for possession of oxycodone with intent to distribute in violation of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 94C, § 32A(a), constitutes a “particularly serious crime” that makes him ineligible for withholding of removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(B)(ii). The BIA also denied DeCarvalho’s application for deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). DeCarvalho petitions for review of the BIA’s decisions, principally arguing that the Attorney General’s decision in Matter of Y-L- unlawfully presumes that all aggravated felonies involving trafficking in controlled substances are particularly serious crimes. See 23 I. & N. Dec. 270, 274–75 (U.S. Att’y Gen. 2002). We deny his petition for review insofar as he seeks CAT relief. We grant the petition in part, however, because the immigration judge (IJ) informed DeCarvalho, who was proceeding pro se, that he was eligible for potential relief only under the CAT. In so doing, the IJ treated DeCarvalho’s conviction for drug trafficking as if it were a per se bar to withholding of removal, a position that the government now disavows on appeal. We remand to the agency with instructions to give DeCarvalho a new hearing to determine whether he is entitled to withholding of removal.”
“Pathmanathan Jathursan, a native and citizen of Sri Lanka, seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) final order affirming the immigration judge’s denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (“CAT”). The BIA found no clear error in the immigration judge’s findings that Jathursan failed to establish (1) past persecution on account of a protected ground, (2) a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of a protected ground, or (3) that he would more likely than not be tortured in the event he returned to Sri Lanka. Following oral argument, we grant Jathursan’s petition for review in part, vacate the BIA’s order in part, and remand to the BIA for further consideration of his asylum and withholding-of-removal claims based on his fear of future persecution as a Tamil failed asylum seeker. We also vacate and remand on the BIA’s denial of relief under CAT.”
What’s the “worst of all worlds?” Let’s try a ”holdover BIA” still channeling Trump/Miller biased nativist restrictionism combined with a Dem AG with infinite tolerance for substandard judging, an anti-immigrant culture, and bad decision making that disproportionately adversely affects people of color! 😎 Add that to an out of control, largely self-created, jaw-dropping 1.5 million case backlog and you get a formula for national disaster!
These “TRAC Lowlights” show a totally unacceptable and inept performance by the DOJ and Judge Garland that should have every American who believes in due process, equal justice, and “good government” outraged and demanding a change at DOJ! https://trac.syr.edu/immigration/quickfacts/?category=eoir
Highlights from data updated today on immigrants facing deportation in court include the following:
Immigration Courts recorded receiving 49,817 new cases so far in FY 2022 as of October 2021. This compares with 21,154 cases that the court completed during this period.
According to court records, only 0.68% of FY 2022 new cases sought deportation orders based on any alleged criminal activity of the immigrant, apart from possible illegal entry.
At the end of October 2021, 1,486,495 active cases were pending before the Immigration Court.
Los Angeles County, CA, has the most residents with pending Immigration Court deportation cases (as of the end of October 2021).
So far this fiscal year (through October 2021), immigration judges have issued removal and voluntary departure orders in 24.7% of completed cases, totaling 5,232 deportation orders.
So far in FY 2022 (through October 2021), immigrants from Guatemala top list of nationalities with the largest number ordered deported.
Only 20.7% of immigrants, including unaccompanied children, had an attorney to assist them in Immigration Court cases when a removal order was issued.
Immigration judges have held 2,011 bond hearings so far in FY 2022 (through October 2021). Of these 714 were granted bond.
You don’t have to be a Rhodes Scholar to see how an undisciplined system run by clueless politicos and bureaucrats (rather than judges and experts) that takes in more cases than it can decide, picks on unrepresented individuals, deports large numbers of Guatemalans to a country that is clearly in crisis, and grants bond to only 1/3 of the custody cases even with a minuscule percentage of so-called “criminal immigrants” in proceedings is failing, miserably, every day.
What’s even worse, is that there is NO credible plan to fix this! NONE! Throwing more bodies into the maelstrom, poorly thought out proposed asylum regulations, dedicated dockets, and misuse of Title 42 to block proper access to those seeking asylum and other forms of legal protection won’t do the trick. No qualified expert would propose any of the foregoing as the solution to fairly and legally reducing backlogs. That tells us all we need to. know about the qualifications of the folks “pulling the strings” on immigration in the Biden Administration.
The message: The GOP hates immigrants, and the Dems disrespect them!
We’ll see whether the Biden Administration’s contemptuous treatment of immigrants, their families, communities, and supporters, particularly their failure to “clean up, clean out, and reform” their wholly owned “courts” at EOIR, proves to be a great political strategy. Frankly, I can’t see how dumping on a key group of supporters from the last successful election proves to be a “winner” in 2022 or 2024!
The extraordinary quality of the work done by the NDPA all-stars 🌟highlighted above by Dan speaks for itself, as does the unacceptably poor quality of the legal work done by EOIR and a BIA that is bogusly presenting itself as “experts.” Obviously, as has been clear from the beginning of the Biden Administration, the wrong people are on the BIA and Team Garland has disgracefully failed to do the serious and gutsy “recruitment and replacement” necessary to fix this dysfunctional EOIR system and save lives!
“Miller Lite” – Garland’s Vision of “Justice @ Justice” for Communities of Color
The absolute disaster for our legal system and the reprehensible result of Garland & Co’s failure to “pull the plug” on the “Miller Lite BIA” and to make wholesale merit-based positive changes in the recruitment, selection, and composition of the Immigration Judiciary will go down as a legacy that not only will reflect ill on Garland and his lieutenants, but will also be a major factor promoting the failure of American democracy.
You can tell a lot about the values of a society by the way it treats the most vulnerable among it. Right now, sadly, that’s “nothing to write home about!”🤮
