"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.
Ben Winograd, Esquire Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center Falls Church, VA
Ben Winograd reports:
The Fourth Circuit issued a decision earlier today — Herrera-Alcala v. Garland — in which it adopted a novel argument regarding the proper venue for a petition for review. As a result of the decision, a petition for review can be filed in the Fourth Circuit in any case that was decided by an immigration judge sitting at an immigration adjudication center in Richmond or Falls Church. That is not to say that the petition for review *must* be filed in the Fourth Circuit in such cases, only that it *may* be filed in the Fourth Circuit. Given that Fourth Circuit law is relatively friendly (especially in asylum cases), it is an option that you may wish to consider.
The facts of the case were very unusual. The petitioner was detained at a correctional facility in Louisiana; the NTA was filed with the immigration court in Fort Snelling, Minnesota; and the case was heard by televideo by an IJ at the Falls Church immigration adjudication center. The noncitizen filed the petition for review with the Fourth Circuit under the theory that the IJ “completed” the proceedings in Virginia for purposes of INA 242(b)(2), 8 USC 1252(b)(2). OIL moved to transfer the petition to the Fifth Circuit, arguing (ridiculously) that the IJ completed the proceedings at the correctional facility in Louisiana. I filed an amicus brief on behalf of a local immigrants’ rights organization arguing that the PFR should have been filed in the Eighth Circuit because venue lay with the immigration court in Fort Snelling. The Fourth Circuit adopted the petitioner’s argument, agreeing that the IJ completed the proceedings at the Falls Church immigration adjudication center.
As I stated above, today’s decision means that the Fourth Circuit can consider any petition for review if the underlying decision was issued by an IJ sitting at an immigration adjudication center in Richmond or Falls Church, Virginia. That being said, the Fourth Circuit’s decision does not necessarily mean that other circuits would take a contrary view or that a PFR in such a case could not be filed in another circuit. For example, if the petitioner had filed the PFR in the Fifth Circuit, the Fifth Circuit may well have agreed that it was the proper venue for the PFR. Likewise for the Eighth Circuit.
The upshot, again, is that in cases that were decided by an IJ sitting at an immigration adjudication center in Virginia, practitioners may now be able to choose from multiple circuits when filing a PFR, with the Fourth Circuit always being a safe option.
Best,
Ben
____________
My question: “So, what Circuit law applies? If review could be in either of two Circuits, how can the IJ know which applies at the time of the hearing?”
Ben’s answer: “That’s the $64,000 (or is it $1 million?) dollar question, and I don’t think there’s a good answer.
Under current BIA precedent, IJs are supposed to apply the law of the “docketed hearing location.” Matter of R-C-R-, 28 I&N Dec. 74, n.1 (BIA 2020). The “docketed hearing location” usually is the immigration court where the IJ is sitting, but sometimes EOIR regards it as the correctional facility where the respondent is detained (as happened in Matter of R-C-R- itself). In Herrera-Alcala, OIL argued that venue was proper in the Fifth Circuit because the “docketed hearing location” was in the Fifth Circuit. The Fourth Circuit (correctly) rejected that argument, but it apparently did not realize that it’s decision would allow noncitizens to forum shop and didn’t grapple at all with what circuit law should apply.
The need for parties and IJs to know what circuit law will apply was the primary issue we raised in our amicus brief (which is attached if you’re curious), but the Court ignored our concern.”
My solution: “Two obvious solutions:
1) Limit ‘Adjudication Centers’ to hearing cases within their Circuit; or
2) Apply the Circuit law most favorable to the respondent (DHS can’t seek Circuit review).”
The Board of Immigration Appeals has issued a decision in Matter of LAPARRA, 28 I&N Dec. 425 (BIA 2022).
A respondent receives sufficient written notice to support the entry of an in absentia order of removal, even if he or she was served with a noncompliant notice to appear that did not specify the time or place of the hearing, where the respondent was properly served with a statutorily compliant notice of hearing specifying this information.Niz-Chavez v. Garland, 141 S. Ct. 1474 (2021), distinguished.Matter of Pena‑Mejia, 27 I&N Dec. 546 (BIA 2019), and Matter of Miranda‑Cordiero, 27 I&N Dec. 551 (BIA 2019), reaffirmed.
Perhaps, contrary to the BIA and some Circuits (both with judges who haven’t had to practice immigration law), Congress had a reason for specifying the contents of a unitary “Notice to Appear” by statute.
Let’s apply that thought in the “real world” rather than the “ivory tower universe” in which most appellate judges exist. In this case, the respondent was personally served with the defective Notice to Appear (“NTA”). Had that notice been legally sufficient under the statute, the respondent would have had critical information — the date, time and place of her upcoming hearing — in her hand.
Nearly two years later (gives you a clue about the “disorder in the Immigration Courts”), EOIR finally got around to correcting the defect by sending her “the missing piece” of the statutorily required unified notice by regular U.S. Mail. It was to the “address provided by the respondent” almost two years earlier. (Notably, the NTA gave the respondent only three weeks advance notice, although EOIR took almost two years to notify her of this date.)
Anybody out there have problems with USPS delivery? I get my neighbors’ mail — sometimes things that look like official communications or financial information — on a fairly regular basis. And, I’ll bet the mail service in our neighborhood is better than that in many of the neighborhoods where recently arrived migrants reside.
Also, we know most of our neighbors and insure that the mail is promptly taken to the correct address — even if that means us “walking it over” and knocking on the door. Think that happens in more “transient” neighborhoods?
Think that there might, just might, also be problems with “regular mail” sent by EOIR? It’s a totally dysfunctional agency suffering from the chaos of a 1.6 million case backlog, no effective automation, no competent leadership, lack of accountability, and a demoralized, underpaid, overwhelmed, and under-appreciated clerical staff! It’s a culture where “good enough for Government work” — basically the BIA approach in this precedent — has been normalized and institutionalized.
In private practice, we used to get notices from the INS of unrelated cases represented by other attorneys stuffed in the same envelope with our firm’s notices. Think today’s EOIR operates better than yesterday’s INS? I wouldn’t “bet the farm” on that!
Also, let’s think about the “address given by the respondent.” The NTA directs the respondent to file any changes of address with EOIR. But, if DHS hasn’t “filed” the NTA with EOIR, it won’t be entered into the EOIR system.
Moreover, even when DHS has supposedly “filed” the NTA with EOIR, that doesn’t mean that it has been manually entered into the EOIR system by the overwhelmed clerks. And, it doesn’t mean that the manual data entry is accurate!
Without prompt entry of accurate information, the later EOIR notice has a good chance of misdelivery. Also, if the respondent duly files a change of address for a case that hasn’t been correctly entered into the EOIR system, that change of address won’t get linked up with the case file. Indeed, stacks of unfiled change of address forms waiting to be filed were a staple of Arlington and other Immigration Courts.
Given that both the Trump and Biden Administrations have allowed ICE to just randomly toss hundreds of thousands of “low priority cases” or cases that could be resolved within DHS into Immigration Court, this problem has only gotten worse under Garland, as shown by the dramatic increase in the EOIR backlog during his “What Me Worry” tenure.
Garland’s “strategy” of allowing Trump/Miller “plants” and holdovers continue to run the Immigration Courts into the ground hasn’t worked, as backlogs grow exponentially and his system continues to careen further out of control! PHOTO: Wikipedia Commons
Once upon a time, the Arlington Immigration Court was operating without a permanent Court Administrator. During that period, boxes of NTAs brought over by DHS were simply “warehoused” in the Court Administrator’s vacant office because the overwhelmed staff couldn’t keep up with data entry, given the other (often mindless) “priorities” imposed by the “Aimless Docket Reshuffllers” at Headquarters and the DOJ. There must have been hundreds of NTAs sitting there unentered into the EOIR manual system. Essentially they were “lost in space.”
At one time, EOIR had established an “interactive scheduling system” that allotted a certain number of specific “nondetained Master slots” weekly to ICE and to the Asylum Office on each IJs docket. This insured that the respondents received real hearing dates on the NTA and reduced the burden on court staff to schedule initial Masters.
Additionally, and importantly, it gave EOIR control over their dockets. ICE couldn’t “flood” dockets beyond the Individual Judge Master Calendar time actually available in each court.
While I had been “exiled from the Tower” by the time this sensible system was abandoned, my impression is that it was the result of pressure from DHS Enforcement and DOJ politicos to create “new priorities” or conduct mass enforcement operations far in excess of EOIR’s capacity to actually schedule and fairly and professionally decide cases. Gradually, during my tenure, the Master Calendar system got out of control and the court’s storage areas were literally filled with “stockpiled” cases awaiting scheduling notices.
Any semblance of discipline, order, and control by individual IJs over dockets quickly disappeared as dockets were “reshuffled” to meet the agendas of political officials at DHS and EOIR. On my final day on the bench, June 30, 2016, I was setting “second Masters” for a year later and setting Individual Merits hearings for Dec. 2022 and Jan. 2023. My colleague on the non-detained docket was even “further out.”
Out of six IJs then available, only two of us were assigned to the non-detained docket that comprised the vast majority of the Arlington Court’s work. Our other four colleagues were assigned full-time to “other priorities” designated by “Headquarters” and DOJ politicos, largely at the behest of DHS Enforcement.
Maybe Congress actually had better insights into the chronic administrative problems at EOIR than appellate judges at the BIA and the Circuits who attempt to “paper over” the problems and shift the consequences of the Government’s intentionally poor performance to hapless respondents — who have no control over the broken system. But, then, if you regularly hire appellate judges who have never practiced immigration law — even though it’s perhaps the largest and certainly the most controversial segment of Federal Civil litigation docket — you’re not likely to get either practical decisions or fair legal solutions.
The BIA and EOIR have already been “dinged” twice by the Supremes for trying to cover up the conscious choice by DHS and EOIR not to comply with the statutory requirements for an NTA. Both of those incorrect BIA decisions have caused unjust results and created additional, preventable backlog havoc by requiring reopening and redoing of tens of thousands of cases decided under legally wrong BIA precedents! If Garland’s BIA “gets the trifecta” — going down for the third time before the Supremes — the disorder, backlog, and Aimless Docket Reshuffling (one of Garland’s specialties) will be exponentially increased— again!
EOIR’s and DHS’s choice to attempt to “sidestep” clear Congressional statutory requirements and Supreme Court decisions, to “cover up” the predictable consequences of lawless Government practices has dramatic “real life effects.” That’s why Garland’s choice not to replace the BIA and EOIR administrators with “pros” who have practiced before the courts, know the law, and understand the problems is so devastating to our justice system — at all levels!
As my esteemed colleague “Sir Jeffrey” Chase of the Round Table said after receiving the LAPARA decision from Dan Kowalski over at LexisNexis: “Seriously.I feel like I’ve heard this song before . . . .”
Of course we have! And it’s going to continue until someone: 1) takes this mess away from DOJ; or 2) forces Garland to pay attention, remove the incompetents and Trump/Miller “plants” at EOIR, and bring in a high-level team of recognized experts in immigration, human rights, and administration empowered to stop the bleeding, get rid of the “problem children,” and begin the long overdue work of fixing this incredible mess!
Javier H. Valdes Co-Director Make the Road NYNedia Morsy Organizing Director Make the Road NJ
https://apple.news/AZ3raIrMIQX2JtEjfdMbJRw
Javier H. Valdés & Nedia Morsy write in the NY Daily News:
Immigrants are on the front lines of the COVID-19 pandemic, but they’re being left out of the federal government’s solutions.
Immigrants are our delivery workers, grocery-store and warehouse workers, nurses, janitors and more. They make up more than 50% of the city’s frontline workers. Many don’t have the luxury of working remotely; millions are going to work, putting themselves at risk to provide others with food, basic necessities and care.
Few employers provide adequate protective materials or protocols to reduce risk to workers. Amazon workers on Staten Island, many of them immigrants, have walked off the job because the company failed to provide safe working conditions despite confirmed COVID-19 cases on-site. Employees at another company’s New Jersey warehouse were told to report to work and were not given adequate protective gear, before being unlawfully told they could not take paid sick days. They continue working in a tinderbox of potential infection.
Meanwhile, other immigrants have been devastated by joblessness. Unemployment has disproportionately hit Hispanic and immigrant communities. In New York City, where a CUNY study found 29% of households have at least one newly jobless person in this crisis, the figure for Hispanic households is 41%.
Immigrant communities have also been hit hardest by the virus itself, with communities like Corona, Queens and the South Bronx reporting the highest death tolls.
We hear daily from desperate workers who have lost their jobs, but, because they are undocumented, are ineligible for unemployment insurance. And they don’t have enough savings to pay rent.
Take Alejandra, a pregnant Long Island mother, who, until last month, worked a minimum-wage factory job. She was laid off and doesn’t know how she will pay her bills. Since her health insurance was through work, she also faces the uncertainty of getting through her pregnancy uninsured.
So far, the Trump administration and Congress have mostly excluded immigrants like Alejandra from relief. The cash assistance passed in the third stimulus bill, the CARES Act, excludes Individual Taxpayer Identification Number filers, a tax status many undocumented immigrants use. Many of the millions of children and spouses of ITIN holders will also be ineligible, even if they are U.S. citizens.
. . . .
Having already prioritized the Trump administration’s enormous slush fund for Wall Street, Congress must advance a just recovery package that puts people first, regardless of immigration status. That means immediate, recurring cash payments and unemployment insurance for all. It means testing and treatment for all. It means worker safety provisions and paid sick leave for all. It means a rent freeze so families have safe spaces to self-quarantine. And it means releasing people from jails, prisons and detention centers at grave risk.
While state and local governments must also respond quickly and prioritize the most vulnerable, only Washington can ensure recovery at the necessary scale.
We need a recovery package that goes directly to working-class and low-income people and includes everyone. If we leave immigrants behind, everyone will suffer.
Valdés* is the co-executive director of Make the Road New York. Morsy is the organizing director of Make the Road New Jersey.*
***************************************
Read the complete article at the link.
The GOP Right’s view of who is “critical” or “essential” to society has been wrong from the git go. Indeed, the many undocumented workers laboring in our food supply chain have proved to be essential to our survival. In fact, they always have been essential. The pandemic and ensuing crisis has just made the truth more obvious.
But, don’t expect the dose of reality dished out by the pandemic to change GOP dogma going forward. Policies driven largely by racism, classism, and the desire to maintain disproportionate power have always dealt in myths, rather than facts, anyway. That makes them largely “factproof.”
It will be up to the rest of us, working together and cooperatively, to build a fairer, juster, more humane, better nation “on the other side” of the current crisis.
Join the New Due Process Army & Fight For a Just America For Everyone!
