"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.
Far right activist 5th Circuit Judges reacting to colleagues who followed law and ruled in favor of immigrants. PHOTO: Creative Commons.
The issue is whether an in absentia removal order can be based on a statutorily defective notice. The panel followed the Supreme’s decision in Niz-Chavez and rejected the BIA’s conflicting decision in Matter of Laparra. In other words, the panel required the Government to follow the statute, a process known as “complying with the law.” This sent some of this most conservative circuit’s most far-right judges over the edge. Here’s the en banc decision:
Credit Dan Kowalski over at LexisNexis for the “food fight” characterization.
The scofflaw GOP dissenters cited “deference” to the Executive, something they have pointedly refused to apply to Biden Administration precedents and policies favoring migrants.
The majority says: “[The BIA] flies in the face of the Supreme Court’s Pereira decision, which Laparra ignored.”
Incredibly, Garland is on the “wrong side” of this controversy, defending the legally incorrect misinterpretation of his “Trump holdover” BIA!
The statutory requirement at issue: That a “Notice to Appear” before the Immigration Court inform the individual of the time and place of the hearing. How difficult does that sound? Not very, unless you are bumbling bureaucrat at DHS and EOIR who chose, even after the Supremes’ initial decision, toviolate that decision and the statute in almost 100% of the cases instituted before the Immigration Courts!
Kudos to the 3 Trump appointees and one Bush II appointee who joined 3 Obama appointees and 2 Clinton appointees to uphold the rule of law and thwart their GOP scofflaw colleagues.
Interestingly, and perhaps mildly encouraging, the “Trump appointees” split 3-3 on this one.
Apparently nothing drives a wedge between conservative judges like the scary prospect of following the law when it gives immigrants a win!
Future ambitious academic study: How much of the current out of control backlog can be traced to the Government’s, and particularly the BIA’s, inept handling of straightforward notice requirements set forth in the statute?
There’s a reason why I keep referring to Garland’s out of control EOIR backlogs as “largely self-created,” albeit in fairness not exclusively by him. The Trump Administration, and to a lesser extent the Obama Administration, also “excelled” at “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” driven by “prioritizing” improper political goals over due process, fundamental fairness, quality, and practical scholarship in the Immigration Courts.
Julia Edwards Ainsley and Dan DeLuce report for NBC News:
WASHINGTON — Days before the Trump administration announced plans to slash the number of refugees allowed into the U.S. to its lowest level in 40 years, Trump senior adviser and immigration hard-liner Stephen Miller made his case for fewer refugees to a room of senior officials at the White House.
His sales job was made easier by the absence of top officials who disagree with his stance. They weren’t there because they weren’t invited, according to two people briefed on the discussions. Missing from the room last Friday were U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley and the head of the U.S. Agency for International Development, Mark Green, both of whom have promoted a more generous policy toward refugees fleeing poverty, famine and persecution, the two sources said.
The planned cut in the refugee cap, now just 30,000 for the coming fiscal year, is the latest win for Miller, who has outmaneuvered opponents in and outside the administration to push through a crackdown on all forms of immigration.
Miller’s victories on the Muslim travel ban, limiting legal immigrationand separating migrant families at the border show his skill in pulling bureaucratic levers, blocking opponents from key meetings, restricting the flow of information and inserting his allies in key positions, said current and former officials.
In the administration’s internal discussions, Defense Secretary James Mattis — who was also absent from the Friday meeting — and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo had consistently opposed reducing the ceiling for how many refugees could be allowed into the country next fiscal year, former officials, humanitarian experts and congressional staffers from both parties told NBC News.
But after the meeting of top officials at the White House, Pompeo unveiled plans Monday to scale back the cap for refugees in 2019 to its lowest level since 1980. The secretary gave no explanation as to why he had changed his position, or how that number was arrived at during the closed door “principals” meeting.
Lawmakers from both parties, and some Christian charities, had urged Pompeo to stand firm against yet another reduction in refugee admissions, arguing it would undermine relations with allies, fuel instability in volatile regions and damage America’s image.
In a joint statement Wednesday, Republican Rep. Randy Hultgren of Illinois and Democratic Rep. Jim McGovern of Massachusetts expressed “extreme disappointment at the administration’s proposal,” and added, “We cannot turn our back on the international community in a time of historic need.”
Sen. Bob Menendez of New Jersey, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said Monday he was “very concerned to see Secretary Pompeo was either not willing or unable to be a voice of reason in the room when the president was told he should continue grinding the U.S refugee program to a halt.”
Former officials said it appeared the top diplomat bowed to Miller and others pressing for scaling back refugee resettlement.
CIA Director Mike Pompeo speaks in Washington on Oct. 19.Carolyn Kaster / AP
“Pompeo got rolled,” said one former official familiar with the deliberations who served under Republican and Democratic administrations. The secretary “got manhandled by a kid who knows nothing about foreign policy,” said the source, referring to the 33-year-old Miller.
The State Department did not respond directly to questions about why Pompeo apparently altered his stance. But a spokesperson said the recommendation, which still must be approved by the president, takes into account additional security vetting procedures for refugee applications as well as the need to manage nearly 300,000 asylum cases.
Over the past several months, former officials and humanitarian organizations say, Miller restricted who would take part in the deliberations, while ensuring like-minded associates were in key positions at the State Department.
Unlike last year’s deliberations on refugees, Haley and her office were excluded from the inter-agency discussions on the issue and did not attend last Friday’s meeting where the cap was set, even though her staff argued she should be included, current and former officials said.
Although Haley’s office was not invited into the discussions, the ambassador “provided our views during the process,” a spokesperson for the U.S. mission at the UN told NBC News.
Haley had previously opposed drastic reductions in refugee resettlement numbers.
Paving the way for Miller, an official at the National Security Council, Jennifer Arangio, a political appointee who worked on President Donald Trump’s campaign, was fired and escorted from her office in July after clashing with Miller over refugee-related issues. And two refugee skeptics aligned with Miller are now in senior positions at the State Department: Andrew Veprek at the Bureau for Population, Refugees and Migration and John Zadrozny at the policy planning office.
The White House did not respond to requests for comment.
The State Department declined to disclose which agencies or officials attended the final interagency discussions, but a spokesperson said the plan was arrived at “in consultation with all appropriate government agencies.”
It was not clear if the Office of Refugee Resettlement, which is part of the Department of Health and Human Services and provides cash payments and medical assistance to newly arrived refugees, was invited to the inter-agency process. A spokesperson said ORR took part in “the discussion” on the issue but did not say specifically if the office had a seat at the table in the inter-agency deliberations.
The White House meeting last Friday was classified and limited to only a small number of senior officials and cabinet members. Those restrictions are usually reserved for more sensitive issues involving military action or intelligence, former officials said. The limits played in Miller’s favor, as cabinet members and their deputies could not divulge details of the discussion.
Mattis did not attend the meeting in person and provided his opinion in writing, Pentagon spokeswoman Dana White said. She added that “as the information and discussion were classified, I cannot provide further comment.”
Based on the administration’s public statements on the issue, Miller also appeared to succeed in framing the refugee issue on his terms.
Senior adviser to President Donald Trump, Stephen Miller, watches as Attorney General Jeff Sessions delivers remarks during the daily White House press briefing in Washington on March 27, 2017.Win McNamee / Getty Images file
When Pompeo announced the plan to reporters at the State Department this week, he echoed arguments that Miller and his supporters have often employed to defend drastic restrictions on refugees. Pompeo said that the government lacked the manpower to handle more refugees, that the U.S. was focused on providing aid abroad where refugees are located and that refugee numbers needed to be limited to safeguard the country’s national security.
“He was using Miller’s talking points,” another former official who served in both Republican and Democratic administrations said.
With the world facing the worst refugee crisis since World War II, the recommendation to slash refugee numbers was widely condemned by humanitarian organizations and rights groups. Pompeo’s announcement is “appalling, and it continues this administration’s rapid flight from the proud U.S. tradition of providing refuge to those fleeing persecution around the world,” said Eric Schwartz, president of Refugees International, who oversaw refugee policy at the State Department.
Those who share Miller’s views on immigration say he is portrayed unfairly by his critics. They maintain he is merely a successful advocate for Trump, who promised as a candidate to clamp down on immigration and temporarily halt Muslims from entering the country.
“As I understand it, Miller is zealously promoting his boss’s agenda within the administration, and running up against people who are less committed to that agenda,” said Mark Krikorian of the Center for Immigration Studies, which has backed the administration’s stance on immigration.
“He seems to be pretty effective at navigating bureaucratic politics, which is an essential skill if you want to get anything done.”
In a tumultuous White House, Miller is one of a handful of original Trump loyalists who has survived and thrived, exerting an outsize influence over immigration decisions and rhetoric.
One administration official, who was not authorized to speak on the record, said it should not be surprising that so many of Miller’s ideas have come to fruition.
“Miller has survived and people who think like Miller have survived because the president agrees with these policies. He is not running a rogue operation,” the official told NBC News.
Miller was once part of a small group of outsiders working as staffers on Capitol Hill who backed an aggressive line on immigration but often found themselves out of favor with the Republican Party establishment.
Many of those former colleagues are now deployed throughout the administration and have helped design and carry out some of Miller’s most sweeping and contentious policies, including a ban on travel from certain countries, a higher bar for proving asylum, a reduction in refugee admissions and the separation of migrant parents from their children at the border.
Miller and his allies have even promoted the creation of a denaturalization task force, which is supposed to ferret out people who lied on their applications and to strip them of their citizenship.
Critics say Miller is overseeing a systematic attack on all forms of immigration, illegal and legal, by promoting an underlying idea that foreign-born citizens or immigrants represent a dangerous threat to the country.
“I think he’s going to go down in history having a lot of blood on his hands. He is driving the most nativist agenda we have seen in 100 years,” said Frank Sharry, executive director of America’s Voice, an immigration reform advocacy group in Washington. “But he has had mixed results.”
Some of those mixed results include the legal blowback on the travel ban, which went through three versions before finally holding up in federal court. Miller also pushed for the end of DACA, the program designed to help children brought to the country illegally by their parents to remain in the U.S. But courts have stopped the administration from taking away those rights.
The most hard-line measures have also proved politically unpopular, according to opinion polls, with large majorities of American voters voicing opposition to ending DACA or detaining children separately from relatives entering the country illegally.
************************************************
Meanwhile, over at Jezebel.com, Esther Wang gives us the skinny on the guy who implements an anti-immigrant agenda with a smile and has taken the word “Services” out of “United States Citizenship and Immigration Services.”
It’s often the architects of our nation’s monstrous immigration policies (cough Stephen Miller cough) who are the subject of dramatic news headlines and the target of our much-deserved vitriol. But, as a new Politicoprofile of Lee Francis Cissna, the director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, reminds us, the bureaucrats who willingly and happily follow the dictates that come from above are equally as appalling (if not more so in their unthinking devotion to carrying out orders).
Politico describes how Cissna, the son of an immigrant from Peru and husband to the daughter of a Palestinian refugee who has steadily worked his way up the ranks of different federal agencies, has been dramatically—and quietly—reshaping immigration policy:
Much less visible than Miller or Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen, Cissna has quietly carried out Trump’s policies with a workmanlike dedication. From his perch atop USCIS, he’s issued a steady stream of policy changes and regulations that have transformed his agency into more of an enforcement body and less of a service provider. These changes have generated blowback from immigrant advocates, businesses and even some of his own employees. Leon Rodriguez, who served as USCIS director under President Barack Obama, said the agency is sending a message “that this is a less welcoming environment than it may have been before.”
While the travel ban and family separations grabbed headlines, Cissna has waged a quieter war,tightening and reworking regulations and guidance that make it harder to come to the U.S. as an immigrant or temporary worker.
In February, Cissna rewrote the mission statement of the agency which he heads, eliminating a passage that proclaims the U.S. is “a nation of immigrants,” a symbolic move that nonetheless signaled a worrisome shift.
A few months later, Cissna announced the creation of a new denaturalization task force, which would investigate naturalized Americans whom the agency suspected of lying on their citizenship applications. As Masha Gessen wrote in The New Yorker, “It’s the apparent underlying premise that makes this new effort so troublesome: the idea that America is under attack by malevolent immigrants who cause dangerous harm by finding ways to live here.” Gessen continued: “Indeed, the creation of the task force itself is undoing the naturalization of the more than twenty million naturalized citizens in the American population by taking away their assumption of permanence. All of them—all of us—are second-class citizens now.” One of the people Cissna wished to strip citizenship from? A 63-year-old Peruvian-American grandmother, over her minor role in a fraud scheme perpetrated by her boss.
He has also spearheaded other changes, many of which have largely flown under the radar and failed to generate widespread outrage outside of those whose lives will be impacted by them—from new rules that empower USCIS officials to initiate deportation proceedings for a wider number of immigrants to policies that allow USCIS officers to deny visa and green card applications over small errors, without giving applicants an opportunity, as the Obama administration did, to fix them.
And as Politico and others have reported, Cissna plans on pushing through a new regulation—described as “the most controversial regulation to come out of his agency under Trump”—that would prevent people from immigrating to the United States if they’re expected to use public benefits. As Politico writes, “The proposed regulation, which is expected before the midterm elections, would effectively gentrify the legal immigration system, blocking poorer immigrants from obtaining green cards or even from entering the country in the first place.”
People who have known Cissna for years expressed surprise at the turn that he has taken as head of USCIS.
“We’re pretty stunned that a guy who is compassionate, funny, proud of his immigrant mother from Latin America, that he would now be one of the key architects of the seemingly heartless policy of separating families,” Dan Manatt, who attended Georgetown Law School with Cissna, told Politico.
Cissna himself disputes that he bears any animosity towards immigrants.
“I just feel a strong commitment to the law, and to the rule of law,” Cissna told Politico. “None of the things that we’re doing, as I’ve said on numerous public occasions, are guided by any kind of malevolent intent.”
Good to know—he doesn’t hate immigrants, he just loves laws that make their lives as difficult as possible. What a relief.
********************************************
No, the law doesn’t require that we bend the rules to harass and make it difficult for individuals who qualify for legal immigration and refugee status to actually get into the country. In addition to being complete jerks, Miller and Cissna are liars.
Get out the vote! Inspire your friends who oppose White Nationalism to get out and vote. These Dudes are pure evil, and America’s future is on the line! If decent people don’t stand up for humane values, evil can prevail! Time to restore the real “rule of law” which requires us to admit legal immigrants, refugees, and asylees without throwing up bogus White Nationalist roadblocks.
Dan De Luce and Julia Edwards Ainsley report for NBC News:
WASHINGTON — The Trump administration has consistently sought to exaggerate the potential security threat posed by refugees and dismissed an intelligence assessment last year that showed refugeesdid not present a significant threat to the U.S., three former senior officials told NBC News.
Hard-liners in the administration then issued their own report this year that several former officials and rights groups say misstates the evidence and inflates the threat posed by people born outside the U.S.
At a meeting in September 2017 with senior officials discussing refugee admissions, a representative from the National Counterterrorism Center came ready to present a report that analyzed the possible risks presented by refugees entering the country.
But before he could discuss the report, Associate Attorney General Rachel Brand dismissed the report, saying her boss, Attorney General Jeff Sessions, would not be guided by its findings.
“We read that. The attorney general doesn’t agree with the conclusions of that report,” she said, according to two officials familiar with the meeting, including one who was in the room at the time.
Brand’s blunt veto of the intelligence assessment shocked career civil servants at the interagency meeting, which seemed to expose a bid to supplant facts and expertise with an ideological agenda. Her response also amounted to a rejection of her own department’s view, as the FBI, part of the Justice Department, had contributed to the assessment.
“She just dismissed them,” said the former official who attended the meeting.
The intelligence assessment was “inappropriately discredited as a result of that exchange,” said the ex-official. The episode made clear that “you weren’t able to have an honest conversation about the risk.”
A current DHS official defended the administration’s response to the intelligence assessment, saying immigration policy in the Trump administration does not rely solely on “historical data about terrorism trends,” but rather “is an all-of-the-above approach that looks at every single pathway that we think it is possible for a terrorist to come into the United States.”
A spokeswoman for DHS said, “If we only look at what terrorists have done in the past, we will never be able to prevent future attacks … We cannot let dangerous individuals slip through the cracks and exploit our refugee program, which is why we have implemented security enhancements that would prevent such violent individuals from reaching our shores, while still upholding our humanitarian ideals.”
The Justice Department did not respond to a request for comment in time for publication.
Following the dismissal of the assessment, anti-immigration hard-liners in the administration clashed with civil servants about how to portray the possible threat from refugees in documents drafted for inter-agency discussions, former officials said. In the end, the president’s decision last year to lower the ceiling for refugee admissions to 45,000 did not refer to security threats, but cited staffing shortages at DHS as the rationale. But once the decision was issued, the White House released a public statement that suggested the president’s decision was driven mainly by security concerns and said “some refugees” admitted into the country had posed a threat to public safety.
An Afghan refugee sleeps on the ground while another looks out a window in an abandoned warehouse where they and other migrants took refuge in Belgrade, Serbia, on Feb. 1, 2017.Muhammed Muheisen / AP file
“President Donald J. Trump is taking the responsible approach to promote the safety of the American people,” said the Sept. 29 statement.
Political appointees in the Trump administration then wrote a new report a few months later that seemed to contradict the view of the country’s spy agencies.
In a press release at the time, DHS Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen said the report showed the need for tougher screening of travelers entering the country and served as “a clear reminder of why we cannot continue to rely on immigration policy based on pre-9/11 thinking that leaves us woefully vulnerable to foreign-born terrorists.”
But the report is being challenged in court by several former officials and rights groups who say it inflates the threat posed by people born outside the U.S. Two lawsuits filed in Massachusetts and California allege the report improperly excludes incidents committed by domestic terrorists, like white supremacists, and wrongfully includes a significant number of naturalized U.S. citizens and foreigners who committed crimes overseas and were brought to the United States for the purpose of standing trial.
Associate Attorney General Rachel Brand speaks during the opening of the summit on Efforts to Combat Human Trafficking at Department of Justice in Washington, on Feb. 2, 2018.Jose Luis Magana / AP file
Mary McCord, former assistant attorney general of the Justice Department’s National Security Division, which prosecutes terrorism charges, said the January 2018 report is “unfortunately both over-inclusive and under-inclusive.”
“The result is a report that presents an inaccurate picture of the threat of terrorism in the United States,” McCord said.
When the report was released in January 2018, Trump tweeted that it showed the need to move away from “random chain migration and lottery system, to one that is merit based” because it showed that “the nearly 3 in 4 individuals convicted of terrorism-related charges are foreign-born.”
But the report only focuses on international terrorism, which is defined as a crime committed on behalf of a foreign terrorist organization. The document excludes domestic terrorism committed by groups such as white supremacists or anti-government militias, which are more likely to be supported by those born in the U.S.
Because of the way the terrorism statute is written, those who support domestic organizations like anti-government or white supremacists groups cannot be charged with terrorism, even if the groups they support have committed crimes. Only supporters of foreign terrorist organizations designated by the State Department can be charged with “material support” of terrorism.
Still, Trump has repeatedly stated that the overwhelming majority of terrorists in the United States came from overseas, even before the 2018 report.
In his first speech to Congress in February 2017, Trump said that the “vast majority of individuals convicted of terrorism and terrorism-related offenses since 9/11 came here from outside of our own country.”
Benjamin Wittes, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, MSNBC legal analyst and editor-in-chief of the Lawfare blog, took issue with that statement and sued the Justice Department to provide documents that backed up the president’s claim. But the Department was unable to locate any records.
“There are a lot of domestic terrorism cases, and they are generally not committed by people born abroad. To the extent that those cases were excluded — white supremacist violence, anti-abortion terrorism and militia violence — the inquiry is grossly biased,” Wittes wrote on Lawfare.
Wittes said that almost 100, or about a quarter, of the 402 individuals listed as foreign-born terrorists committed their crimes overseas and were brought to the U.S. to face trial.
White House senior adviser Stephen Miller at roundtable discussion on California immigration policy at the White House on May 16.Evan Vucci / AP file
During her time in government as the chief of the Refugee Affairs Division at U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Barbara Strack said her staff worked diligently to thoroughly vet refugees for any possible terrorist links. But she said there was no information she came across that indicated refugees posed a significant security threat.
“I did not see evidence that refugees presented an elevated national security risk compared to other categories of travelers to the United States,” she told NBC News.
The administration must decide by the end of the month how many refugees to allow in the country in the next fiscal year. Trump’s senior adviser, Stephen Miller, known for his hawkish stance on immigration, has been pushing for a drastic reduction in the ceiling.
The cap was set at 45,000 last year, but the number of refugees allowed in the country has fallen far below that ceiling, with only about 20,000 resettled in the United States since October 2017. Rights advocates and former officials accuse the White House of intentionally slowing down the bureaucratic process to keep the numbers down, overloading the FBI and other government agencies with duplicative procedures.
*******************************************
This level of total intellectual dishonesty, overt racism, and policy driven solely by a White Nationalist philosophy and political agenda by an Attorney General is unprecedented in my experience at the DOJ.
If you remember, Brand escaped to a “soft landing” in the private sector earlier this year. One of my theories is that she was trying to protect herself and her reputation for a future Federal Judgeship. If and when that happens, I hope that those serving on the Senate Judiciary Committee will remember her completely sleazy role in carrying Sessions’s racist-polluted water on this one. Someone with no respect for facts, the law, humanity, or professional expertise definitely does not deserve to be on the Federal Bench!
And for Pete’s sake don’t credit Sessions with any integrity whatsoever in not resigning under pressure from our “Mussolini Wannabe.” He’s not “protecting” the Mueller investigation or anything else worthy in the DOJ. In fact, he has wholly politicized the DOJ and taken it down into the gutter. The reason he “hangs on” is not because he respects the Constitution or rule of law. Clearly, he doesn’t! No, it’s because he wants to do as much damage to civil rights and people of color as he can during his toxic tenure.
Make no mistake, that damage he has done, as has been reported elsewhere, is very substantial. It has set the goals that Dr. Martin Luther King and others fought for and even gave their lives for back by decades. Despicable!
Sessions’s White-Nationalist driven lies and false narratives about refugees are described above. For the truth about refugees and immigrants and all of the great things they have done and continue to do for our country, see my recent post at https://wp.me/p8eeJm-313.
