"The Voice of the New Due Process Army" ————– Musings on Events in U.S. Immigration Court, Immigration Law, Sports, and Other Random Topics by Retired United States Immigration Judge (Arlington, Virginia) and former Chairman of the Board of Immigration Appeals Paul Wickham Schmidt. To see my complete professional bio, just click on the link below.
Category: “APPELLATE LITIGATION IN TODAY’S BROKEN AND BIASED IMMIGRATION COURT SYSTEM: FOUR STEPS TO A WINNING COUNTERATTACK BY THE RELENTLESS ‘NEW DUE PROCESS ARMY’”
Since choice of law is dependent on venue in Immigration Court proceedings, the controlling circuit law is not affected by a change in the administrative control court and will only change upon the granting of a motion to change venue. Matter of Garcia, 28 I&N Dec. 693 (BIA 2023), followed.
“In a decision dated October 24, 2023, the Immigration Judge denied the respondent’s application for deferral of removal under the regulations implementing the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). The respondent, a native and citizen of Morocco, has appealed that decision. The Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) has not responded to the appeal. Because we agree with the respondent that additional fact-finding and analysis are needed and the Immigration Judge misapplied choice of law precedent, we will remand these proceedings for the entry of a new decision. … The record reflects that the respondent has been detained at the Moshannon Valley Processing Center (“Moshannon”) in Philipsburg, Pennsylvania, throughout these proceedings. The proceedings commenced with the filing of a Notice to Appear (“NTA”) on April 18, 2023, at the Cleveland, Ohio Immigration Court, which is within the jurisdiction of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. … After the respondent’s individual hearing on October 20, 2023, the Immigration Judge applied Third Circuit law and denied deferral of removal under CAT. … The respondent argues that the Immigration Judge erroneously applied Third Circuit law rather than Sixth Circuit law. We review this issue de novo. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(3)(ii) (2020). For the reasons discussed below, we agree with the respondent that the Immigration Judge applied the incorrect circuit’s law. … On remand, the Immigration Judge should reevaluate the respondent’s claim under Sixth Circuit law and apply relevant Board precedent, with consideration to the respondent’s appellate arguments concerning the respondent’s gender identity and sexual orientation. See Matter of C-G-T-, 28 I&N Dec. 740, 745 (BIA 2023) (explaining that “when considering future harm, adjudicators should not expect a respondent to hide” the respondent’s sexual orientation).”
Great job, Jennifer! Once again, it’s worth asking ourselves how successful arguments of this kind could ever be made by an unrepresented respondent. If, as is painfully obvious to even a casual observer, the answer is “they couldn’t,” then where is the due process in an overloaded, corner-cutting court system where lack of representation is actually on the increase, despite truly heroic efforts by the private and pro bono bars?
I also find the last sentence of the above summary very helpful. While it certainly states the correct rule regarding sexual orientation cases, my sense is that this part of the Matter of C-G-T- precedent is often ignored at the Immigration Court level and not always corrected by the BIA on appeal. So, it’s certainly worth re-emphasizing!
The BIA’s opinion was written by Appellate Immigration Judge Gorman for a panel that also included Appellate Immigration Judge Greer and Temporary Appellate IJ Crossett.
The 1924 Immigration Act vilified, dehumanized, and barred many of those immigrants who have made America great, like Italian Americans being demeaned in this cartoon. Yet, some descendants of those unfairly targeted appear oblivious to the mistakes of the past and willing to inflict the same immoral lies, harm, and suffering on today’s migrants. IMAGE: Public RealmEduardo Porter Columnist and Editorial Board Member Washington Post PHOTO: WashPost
“I think that we have sufficient stock in America now for us to shut the door.”
That sounds like Donald Trump, right? Maybe on one of his campaign stops? It certainly fits the mood of the country. This year, immigration became voters’ “most important problem” in Gallup polling for the first time since Central Americans flocked to the border in 2019. More than half of Americans perceive immigrants crossing the border illegally as a “critical threat.”
Yet the sentiment expressed above is almost exactly 100 years old. It was uttered by Sen. Ellison DuRant Smith, a South Carolina Democrat, on April 9, 1924. And it helped set the stage for a historic change in U.S. immigration law, which imposed strict national quotas for newcomers that would shape the United States’ ethnic makeup for decades to come.
. . . .
The renewed backlash against immigration has little to offer the American project, though. Closing the door to new Americans would be hardly desirable, a blow to one of the nation’s greatest sources of dynamism. Raw data confirms how immigrants are adding to the nation’s economic growth, even while helping keep a lid on inflation.
Anyway, that horse left the stable. The United States is full of immigrants from, in Trump’s memorable words, “s—hole countries.” The project to set this in reverse is a fool’s errand. The 1924 Johnson-Reed immigration law might have succeeded in curtailing immigration. But the restrictions did not hold. From Presidents Johnson to Trump, efforts to circle the wagons around some ancestral White American identity failed.
We are extremely lucky it did. Contra Sen. Ellison DuRant Smith’s 100-year old prescriptions, the nation owes what greatness it has to the many different women and men it has drawn from around the world to build their futures. This requires a different conversation — one that doesn’t feature mass expulsions and concentration camps but focuses on constructing a new shared American identity that fits everyone, including the many more immigrants who will arrive from the Global South for years to come.
*******************************
Gordon F. Sander Journalist and Historian PHOTO: www.gordonsander.com
Gordon F. Sander, journalist and historian, also writes in WashPost, perhaps somewhat less optimistically, but with the same historical truth in the face of current political lies and gross misrepresentations:
Johnson and Reed were in a triumphant mood on the eve of their bill’s enactment. “America of the melting pot will no longer be necessary,” Reed wrote in the Times. He remarked on the new law’s impact: “It will mean a more homogenous nation, more self-reliant, more independent and more closely knit by common properties and common faith.”
The law immediately had its intended effect. In 1921, more than 200,000 Italians arrived at Ellis Island. In 1925, following the bill’s enactment, barely 6,000 Italians were permitted entry.
But there were less intended consequences, too, including on U.S. foreign relations. Although Reed insisted there was nothing personal about the act’s exclusion of Japanese people, the Japanese government took strong exception, leading to an increase in tensions between the two countries. There were riots in Tokyo. The road to Pearl Harbor was laid.
During the 1930s, after the eugenics-driven Nazis seized control of Germany, the quotas established by the act helped close the door to European Jews and others fleeing fascism.
At the same time, the law also inspired a small but determined group of opponents led by Rep. Emanuel Celler (D-N.Y.), who were committed to overturning it. Celler’s half-century-long campaign finally paid off in 1965 at the Statue of Liberty when, as Celler looked on, President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Immigration and Nationality Act, which ended national origin quotas.
But with anti-immigration sentiment on the rise and quotas once again on the table, it’s clear that a century after its enactment, the ghost of Johnson-Reed isn’t completely gone.
Gordon F. Sander is a journalist and historian based in Riga, Latvia. He is the author of “The Frank Family That Survived: A 20th Century Odyssey” and other books
***********************
Many thanks to my friend and immigration maven Deb Sanders for alerting me to the Sander article. I strongly urge everyone to read both pieces at the links above.
Perhaps the most poignant comment I’ve received about these articles is from American educator, expert, author, and “practical scholar” Susan Gzesh:
And because of the 1924 Act, my grandparents lost dozens of their siblings, parents, aunts, uncles, nieces, and nephews to the Holocaust in the 1940s because Eastern European Jewish immigration to the US had been cut off. They would have been capable of sponsoring more family to come to the US in the late 1920s and 30s, but there was no quota for them.
I have no words to describe my feelings about so-called experts who would praise the 1924 Act. I know that Asian Americans must feel similarly to my sentiments.
Well said, Susan!
Susan Gzesh American scholar, educator, expert, author PHOTO: U. Of Chicago
I’ll leave it at that, for you to ponder the next time you hear Trump, DeSantis, Abbott, and the like fear-monger about the bogus “invasion,” spout “replacement theory,” and extoll the virtues of extralegal cruelties and dehumanization inflicted upon “the other” — typically the most vulnerable who areseeking our legal protection and appealing to our senses of justice and human dignity! And, also you can consider this when the so called “mainstream media” pander to these lies by uncritically presenting them as “the other side,” thereby echoing “alternative facts!”
It’s also worth remembering this when you hear Biden, Harris, Schumer, Murphy, and other weak-kneed Dem politicos who should know better adopt Trumpist White Nationalist proposals and falsely present them as “realistic compromises” — as opposed to what they really are —tragic acts of political and moral cowardice!
Eventually, as both of the above articles point out, America largely persevered and prospered over its demons of racism, anti-Catholicism, and anti-immigrant nationalism. But, it would be wrong to view this “long arc” analysis as “zeroing out” the sins and horrors of our past.
Susan Gzesh’s relatives died, some horribly and painfully, before their time. That can’t be changed by future progress. Nor can the children they might have had or the achievements they never got to make to our nation and the world be resurrected.
As Susan mentions, the 1924 Act also reinforced long-standing racism and xenophobia against Asian Americans that led to the irreversible harm inflicted by the internment of Japanese American citizens, continuing Chinese Exclusion, and a host of state laws targeting the Asian population and making their lives miserable. Belated recognition of the wrongfulness and immorality of these reprehensible laws and actions does nothing for their past victims.
Many Irish, Italian, and other Catholics and their cherished institutions died, lost property, or were permanently displaced by widespread anti-Catholic riots brought on and fanned by the very type of biased and ignorant thinking that undergirded Johnson-Reed. They can’t be brought back to life and their property restored just by a “magic wave of the historical wand.”
U.S. citizens of Mexican-American heritage were deported and dispossessed, some from property their ancestors had owned long before there was even a United States. Apologizing to their descendants and acknowledging our mistakes as a nation won’t eliminate the injustices done them — ones that they took to their graves!
Despite the “lessons of the Holocaust,” America continues to struggle with anti-Semitism and anti-Islamic phobias and indifference to human suffering beyond our borders.
And, of course, the poisonous adverse impacts of slavery on our nation and our African-American compatriots continue to haunt and influence us despite disingenuous claims to the contrary.
Dan Kowalski Online Editor of the LexisNexis Immigration Law Community (ILC)Hon. Jeffrey S. Chase Jeffrey S. Chase Blog Coordinator & Chief Spokesperson, Round Table of Former Immigration Judges
My friends immigration experts Dan Kowalski and Hon. Jeffrey Chase also had some “choice words” for the “false scholars” who extol the fabricated “benefits” of White Nationalism and racism embodied in “laws” that contravened the very meaning of “with liberty and justice for all” — something to reflect upon this Memorial Day. See https://dankowalski.substack.com/p/true-colors.
Thank you, Dan! In memory of my Gzesh, Wolfson, Kronenberg, and Kissilove relatives who were victims of the Holocaust – after their U.S.-based relatives failed to get visas for them.
Heed the lessons of history, enshrine tolerance, honor diversity, and “improve on past performance!”We have a choice as to whether or not to repeat the mistakes of the past — to regress to a darker age or move forward to a brighter future for all!Make the right one!
Immigration law and policy are very complex, and truly boring for everyone except those who have to deal with them. But we live in an instant gratification, fast food culture. Immigration is a Hot Topic, folks want a Solution Now, so journalists naturally write about it…some better than others.
David Leonhardt, a senior writer at the New York Times, is a smart fellow who has won awards. But his “wheelhouse,” as the kids say, is mostly business and economics. I wish he (and/or his editors…where were they?) had consulted a panel of experts before hitting “send” on this piece.
Thanks for reading Dan’s Substack! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.
Pledge your support
Now, I’m not an expert, but I did practice immigration law for almost 40 years, and today my social media feeds and email listservs are burning up with negative reactions to Leonhardt’s piece from true immigration experts.
Responding to every one of the problems in the piece would make this post too long, and would put you to sleep rather quickly, so I’ll touch on just a few highlights that really chapped my professional hide.
First, Leonhardt said, “Biden … changed the definition of asylum to include fear of gang violence.” That is simply false. The definition of who qualifies for asylum is based on the “refugee” definition, is fixed by statute, and only Congress can change that. Congress did NOT make any such change, and neither Biden nor any president could. Fear of gang violence as a basis for an asylum claim is a continuing subject of litigation at the Board of Immigration Appeals and in the federal courts, but the statute remains unchanged.
Second, Leonhardt states that Biden could have issued executive orders to mitigate the situation at the border. Oh, but “Yes, federal judges might block some of these policies… .” Maybe because they are illegal orders? No matter, “sending a message” is more important than legality.
Third, on the matter of admission into the U.S. via “parole,” Leonhardt implies that Biden expanded the use of parole beyond its “case-by-case” legal limits. Maybe Leonhardt did not know that “parole was … used to resettle over 360,000 Indochinese refugees between 1975 and mid-1980” and that “[b]etween 1962 and the end of May 1979, over 690,000 Cuban nationals were paroled into the country, “the largest number of refugees from a single nationality ever accepted into the United States.” ” – Amicus brief submitted to the Supreme Court in Clark v. Martinez.
Finally, the overall thrust of Leonhardt’s piece seems to be that the border is a “problem” that can and should be “solved” by some combination of legal and physical deterrents. This is a misperception common to educated elites as well as regular folks, and it is based on an ignorance of the full panoply of historical, economic, geographic and political forces that combine to make true border “control” a fantasy. Go to the border, look at the miles of desert, mountain and river and you will conclude that border walls are nothing more than a contractor’s financial wet dream. Talk to a woman from Central America who has risked everything to come here and you will conclude that no laws, no walls, no “message” would have deterred her.
I usually ignore much of what the MSM publishes about immigration, but the Times and Leonhardt carry a certain weight, so here I am, typing away. You’re welcome.
[The Comments are open, so fire away!]
Thanks for reading Dan’s Substack! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.
Pledge your support
***************
Professor Karen Musalo Director, Center for Gender & Refugee Studies, Hastings Law
Here’s the letter that Professor Karen Musalo, Director of the Center for Gender & Refugee Studies at Hastings Law wrote to the NYT:
Before David Leonhardt writes another piece on immigration, he should make sure he has his facts straight. He erroneously claims Biden “changed the definition of asylum to include fear of gang violence.” Biden did no such thing. What his Justice Department did was overturn a Trump-era ruling attempting to foreclose asylum claims by victims of domestic and gang violence, regardless of their legal merits. That decision was widely criticized, including on your pages in an op-ed I co-authored with Jane Fonda. Attorney General Garland rightfully vacated it, leaving the issue to be resolved by regulations [which to date have not been issued].
Leonhardt is incorrect in his assertion that more “aggressive” moves will mitigate challenges at the border, or score points with voters who overwhelmingly opposecruel and exclusionary policies. The Senate bill touted as a step in the right direction would have codified failed policies that only create more chaos.
Executive actions reportedly under consideration would similarly exacerbate operational challenges and inevitably get tied up in litigation.
And yes, Republicans’ sabotage of the bill was “transparently cynical.” Just as cynical, however, was the president’s choice to back anti-immigrant legislation he knew was doomed. In their attempts to out-Trump Trump, the president and his allies have betrayed their values and the voters who put them in office.
Karen Musalo
San Francisco, CA
*******************
Thanks, Dan and Karen! Turning Leonhardt loose on a subject he’s obviously unqualified to write about — “stunning ignorance” in the words of one world-renowned expert — is nothing short of journalistic malpractice on the part of the NYT!
Immigration is a serious topic with life or death implications for migrants and the future of our nation. It deserves serious, informed, professional journalism by experts who are familiar with the plight of forced migrants and the actual legal requirements for asylum and due process as well as the realities of the border and the anti-immigrant absurdities of our dysfunctional Immigration Courts and non-legally-compliant asylum adjudication system.
There are lots of well-qualified folks around who could inform the public. Needless to say Leonhardt is not one of them. Unhappily, few “mainstream media” journalists have the necessary creds. That’s one reason the toxic national debate is so dominated by right wing White Nationalist media spreading lies and myths with little critical pushback from the “MSM.”
Rachel Siegel Economics Reporter Washington Post PHOTO: WashPost
Ironically, the same day’s Washington Post had an article by Rachel Siegel about how robust immigration of all types has saved the U.S. economy and how many economists believe Trump’s mindless, restrictionist, and likely illegal nativist policies could slow growth, devastate the U.S. workforce, and exacerbate inflation! https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2024/05/20/trump-immigration-undocumented-economy/. At the same time, he would create chaos and waste billions in public funds.
Recently, I publisheda number of articles by experts debunking many of the very anti-immigrant myths that Leonhardt disingenuously repeats or enables:
In one of many bad moments, Leonhardt uncritically “parrots” the oft-debunked fiction that changes in U.S. immigration policies and “deterrents” like walls, detention, and racially-driven cruelty are primary long-term “drivers” of forced human migration. Undoubtedly, in the complex interrelated world of migration, such policies do have some fairly marginal, largely short-term effects, causing changes in migration paths, adjustments in smuggling methods, changes in smuggling fees, more deaths and unreported irregular entries (when enforcement “gimmicks” are irresponsibly expanded), and enough “statistical variance” to allow proponents of these futile policies to falsely claim “victory” before the system reverts to a new “equilibrium.”
But the truth is inescapable, even if inconvenient for Leonhardt and other dilettantes: Human migration is a complex worldwide phenomenon driven by forces beyond the ability of any single nation, even one as powerful and influential as the U.S., to control by harsh deterrence and restriction, no matter how cruel, deadly, and wasteful.See, e.g., https://immigrationcourtside.com/wp-admin/about.php (“Migrants will continue to flee bombs, look for better-paying jobs and accept extraordinary risks as the price of providing a better life for their children. . . .No wall, sheriff or headscarf law would have prevented [forced migrants] from leaving their homes.”).
As cogently stated by Robert McKee Irwin, an immigration scholar at U.C. Davis:
Leonhardt also suggests, quite incorrectly, that Biden’s (limited) attempts to increase pathways for legal immigration and return to the rule of law at the border somehow benefitted and encouraged smugglers and cartels. NOTHING could be more wrong-headed!
It is Trump and his restrictionist allies and enablers who have been a huge boon for human smugglers! As legal pathways are eliminated or unreasonably restricted, the entire “protection” system falls into the hands of smugglers and other trans-border criminal organizations who become “the only game in town” for those seeking protection! Smuggling prices go up and the risks to migrants increase, even as profit margins for the smugglers skyrocket! Equally bad, law enforcement is diverted from real criminals to playing a bogus “numbers game” at the expense of those who seek only to have their life-determining claims heard fairly, timely, and humanely in accordance with the rule of law!
If our country builds a fair, timely, and humane system for considering asylum claims, something that succeeding Administrations have shamefully eschewed, the majority of asylum applicants will use it, which at the same time would allow border law enforcement to focus on real security issues rather than contrived ones. Similarly, more realistic and robust paths for legal immigration, both temporary and long term, will reduce the pressure and incentives for irregular migration. These measures would also tap into the truth about migration being ignored by politicos of both parties:
These [restrictionist] political reactions fail to grapple with a hard truth: in the long run, new migration is nearly always a boon to host countries. In acting as entrepreneurs and innovators, and by providing inexpensive labor, immigrants overwhelmingly repay in long-term economic contributions what they use in short-term social services, studies show. But to maximize that future good, governments must act -rationally to establish humane policies and adequately fund an immigration system equipped to handle an influx of newcomers.
Notably, the Biden parole program criticized by Leonhardt not only has been upheld in Federal Court, but has generally been praised and recognized by experts as a great, largely under appreciated, success in both creating an orderly process and reducing border pressures while benefitting American families and fueling our economy. See, e.g., https://www.fwd.us/news/chnv-parole/. (I’ll admit to not initially being a “fan,” but hey, results matter so I’ve come around). The most legitimate criticism is that it has been too limited both in terms of numbers and nationality restrictions!
Bad journalism promoting myths like those spouted by Leonhard misleads the public and enables politicos to get away with policies that are not only illegal, but often harm and even kill the very vulnerable migrants we are supposed to be protecting, or at the very least treating with fairness, respect, and human dignity. America and the migrants who still (against the odds) see us as a beacon of hope in a cruel world deserve better from the NYT!
Judge Lister also has a plan to donate patented “healthy, sustainable textile technology” developed during the pandemic that could be used to create good jobs in Mexico and other countries beyond our borders.
Professor Michele Pistone at Villanova Law has developed a “scalable” online training course (“VIISTA Villanova”) that is currently being used to graduate more highly-qualified non-lawyer “Accredited Representatives” to close the burgeoning and critical representation gap in Immigration Court, thus “delivering due process with efficiency.” She believes that with more funding, this program could be “ramped up” to produce 10,000 new Accredited Representatives annually! See, e.g., https://www1.villanova.edu/university/professional-studies/academics/professional-education/viista.html.
With so many brilliant, informed, and involved experts out here, with creative positive ideas for improving immigrant justice and restoring the rule of law, it is very disappointing that the NYT and Leonhardt have chosen to uncritically recycle and repeat cruel, failed, legally problematic proposals by irresponsible politicos that would make things worse. Rather, the media should be consulting the experts actually involved in immigration at the “grass roots level” and pressing politicos on both sides of the aisle and the Administration as to why they aren’t concentrating and investing in humane potential solutions rather than deadly and discredited “deterrence through cruelty!”
As Erica Bryant of the Vera Institute of Justice, someone who, unlike Leonhardt, is actually qualified to write about migration, stated in an article I recently republished:
This November, and beyond, voters need to reject lies that demonize immigrants and demand policies that treat each person with dignity and fairness, no matter where they were born.
Obviously, neither Leonhardt nor the NYT editors got the message. They should!
Thanks again, Dan and Karen, for being the first to speak out and challenge Leonhardt’s dangerous, misleading, and highly irresponsible nativist nonsense!
Austin Kocher, Ph.D. Research Assistant Professor TRAC-Syracuse PHOTO: Syracuse U.
From Professor Austin Kocher @ Linkedin:
New Report! “Two-Thirds of Court Asylum Applicants Found Legally Entitled to Remain.”
Out of 1M+ asylum cases decided by immigration judges over the past decade, 685,956 (66%) were legally entitled to remain in the United States due to asylum or other relief.
Remember, this is in a system that has, over decades, been intentionally rigged, manipulated, and skewed AGAINST legal asylum seekers, particularly those of color from certain arbitrarily “disfavored” countries! (Think Haiti, The Northern Triangle, and many African Nations). While this anti-asylum bias has “peaked” in GOP Administrations, Dems have also been guilty including the Biden Administration’s flailing, legally problematic efforts to abuse the asylum adjudication system as a “deterrent” to those legally seeking asylum!
The U.S. Asylum system over the past two decades has prided itself in making the experience of asylum seekers as restrictive, difficult, complex, arcane, arbitrary, and “user unfriendly” as possible for many of the most vulnerable. Even so, courageous asylum seekers who can actually get a decision persevere and succeed against the odds! What if Administrations of both parties worked to make the system fair and timely, rather than trying to use it as a false “deterrent?” Woman Being “Tried By Ordeal” 17th Century Woodcut Public Realm Source: Ancient Origins Website https://www.ancient-origins.net/history/trial-ordeal-life-or-death-method-judgement-004160
Austin’s post triggered this exchange between Beckie “Deportation Defender” Moriello and me on LinkedIn:
BECKIE: It’s really higher than that, once we factor in all the wrongfully denied cases for clients who can’t afford to appeal.
PWS: Thanks for speaking truth, Beckie! If true asylum experts were on the BIA, IJs were experts who applied or were held by the BIA to the Cardoza, Mogharrabi, Kasinga, 8 CFR 208.13 framework, the asylum adjudication system had dynamic leadership, and individuals were competently represented, many more cases would be granted much more efficiently and backlogs would eventually come under control and start to diminish. In fact, individuals should be considered eligible for asylum even where persecution on a protected ground is “significantly less than probable” — the 10% rule! Moreover, asylum seekers who testify credibly are supposed to be given “the benefit of the doubt.” These and the presumption of future persecution established by past persecution, thereby shifting the burden to DHS, are still too often ignored, misapplied, or manipulated against asylum seekers. There is nothing that will make a backlog at least a decade in the making disappear overnight. But, a legitimate, legally compliant, properly generous asylum adjudication system would benefit all involved. It’s sad that Biden, Harris, Garland, and Mayorkas are afraid to comply with the rule of law for asylum seekers and other migrants!
Proposed Asylum Bar Regs Are At Odds With International Law (And Why That Matters)
In 2003, the Office of the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees published Guidelines for applying the bars to asylum known internationally as the “exclusion clauses” (because they exclude an applicant from being recognized as a refugee under international law). Addressing the proper procedure for applying these bars, the UNHCR Guidelines state:
Given the grave consequences of exclusion, it is essential that rigorous procedural safeguards are built into the exclusion determination procedure. Exclusion decisions should in principle be dealt with in the context of the regular refugee status determination procedure and not in either admissibility or accelerated procedures, so that a full factual and legal assessment of the case can be made.1
This week, the Biden Administration published a proposed rule seeking to do precisely the opposite of what UNHCR advises.2 The rule would empower USCIS asylum officers to apply certain bars to asylum eligibility up front, at the border, as part of a preliminary admissibility determination. The goal is to effect the immediate deportation of certain asylum seekers, foreclosing their ability to have their eligibility for asylum decided by an Immigration Judge pursuant to a full-fledged hearing.
Advocates have already pointed out the dangers of the proposed approach, which will require quick decisions on highly complex issues at a point at which applicants very rarely have access to lawyers or evidence; their responses should be read.3 However, I would like to focus here on the rule’s conflict with international law, and why this is problematic.
Since 1804, the Supreme Court’s decision in Murray v. The Schooner Charming Betsy 4 has required domestic statutes to be interpreted consistently with international law whenever possible.5
This general requirement carries a particular urgency in its application to refugee law. The purpose of the 1951 Refugee Convention (which applied to those made refugees by World War II), and the 1967 Protocol (which extended the 1951 Convention’s definitions and protections to all) was to create a single, universal refugee standard to replace the patchwork of protections that reflected individual states’ own political preferences and biases.
This is not a small matter. International refugee law scholars James C. Hathaway and Michelle Foster have warned that “[i]nconsistency and divergence in interpretation of the Convention definition would clearly undermine the principled goal of ensuring a single, universal standard for access to refugee protection.”6 They further quote a decision of the Australian Administrative Appeals Tribunal in support of this contention: “[i]nconsistency is not merely inelegant; it brings the process of deciding into disrepute, suggesting an arbitrariness which is incompatible with commonly accepted notions of justice.”7
Congress apparently agreed with this approach when enacting the 1980 Refugee Act. In its landmark 1987 decision in INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, the Supreme Court pointed this out:
If one thing is clear from the legislative history of the new definition of “refugee,” and indeed the entire 1980 Act, it is that one of Congress’ primary purposes was to bring United States refugee law into conformance with the 1967 United Nations Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, 19 U.S.T. 6223, T.I.A.S. No. 6577, to which the United States acceded in 1968.8
And in adhering to Congress’s clear intent, the Supreme Court in Cardoza-Fonseca looked for guidance in interpreting the 1980 Refugee Act to UNHCR, citing its Handbook first issued in 1979 as an important tool for interpreting the Convention’s provisions. In a footnote, the Court found that while it was not binding, “the Handbook provides significant guidance in construing the Protocol, to which Congress sought to conform. It has been widely considered useful in giving content to the obligations that the Protocol establishes.”9
As leading scholar Deborah E. Anker has noted, “One of the most important developments in U.S. asylum law is the weight that U.S. authorities – including the USCIS Asylum Office, the Board, and the federal courts – give to the UNHCR’s interpretation of the refugee definition contained in its 1979 Handbook….” Anker noted that UNHCR has issued other interpretive documents since 1979 that “complement and expand on the Handbook.”10 I would argue that those other documents (which include the 2003 guidelines addressing the exclusion clauses that is quoted above) are deserving of the same interpretive weight.
So given (1) the Supreme Court’s Charming Betsy doctrine mandating conformity with international law whenever possible; (2) the stated intent of Congress to bring U.S. asylum law into conformity with international refugee law (as recognized in Cardoza-Fonseca); and (3) the purpose of the 1951 Convention to “ensure a single, universal standard” for refugee status, according great weight to UNHCR guidance in interpreting the Convention provides the best means of adhering to all of the above requirements.
However, another leading scholar, Karen Musalo, provided a recent reminder of how far U.S. law has strayed from international law standards for determining nexus (i.e. when persecution is “on account of” a statutorily protected ground), and in determining the validity of particular social groups. Musalo posits that realignment with international standards would resolve the erroneous interpretations that have arisen under present case law, and would remove unwarranted barriers to protection that presently exist.11 But with its new proposed regulations, the government instead seeks to veer even further off course in its procedures for determining bars to asylum eligibility.
In December 2020, I presented in a blog post a “wish list” for the incoming Biden Administration. One of the items on my list was to create a “Charming Betsy” regulation requiring adherence to international law refugee standards. It included the hope “that the Biden Administration would codify the Charming Betsy doctrine in regulations, which should further require the BIA, Immigration Judges, and Asylum Officers to consider UNHCR interpretations of the various asylum provisions, and require adjudicators to provide compelling reasons for rejecting its guidance.”12
I am not so naive to expect that a regulation like this will be proposed anytime soon. But I do believe that the direct contradiction of the proposed regs with international law guidance should be included in comments and talking points by those both inside and outside of government. Through these rules, the Biden Administration seeks to engage in the type of politically-motivated action that the Refugee Convention and 1980 Refugee Act sought to eliminate. For the above reasons, such action would violate the intent of Congress, our treaty obligations, and over two centuries of U.S. case law.
Moving forward, whether an asylum-related law, rule, policy, or case holding conforms with international law should instinctively be the first question asked by all of us. When refugee protection is viewed in such neutral, legal terms, the urge to politicize decisions will be lessened.
As those scholars referenced above have been saying far longer and more articulately than myself, it is only when international law becomes normalized in the process that our asylum law will function as it should.
Copyright 2024 Jeffrey S. Chase. All rights reserved.
See Weinberger v. Rossi, 456 U.S. 25, 32 (1982) (noting that construing federal statutes to avoid violating international law has “been a maxim of statutory construction since the decision” in Charming Betsy).
James C. Hathaway and Michelle Foster, The Law of Refugee Status (Second Ed.), (Cambridge, 2014) at 4.
Hathaway and Foster, supra at n.18 (quoting Brennan, J., in Re Drake and Minister of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (No. 2) (1979) 2 ALD 634 (Aus. AAT, Nov. 21, 1979) at 639.
480 U.S. 421, 436-37 (1987).
Id. at 439.
Deborah E. Anker, Law of Asylum in the United States (2023 Ed.) (Thomson Reuters) at 20-21.
Karen Musalo, “Aligning United States With International Norms Would Remove Major Barriers to Protection in Gender Claims,” International Journal of Refugee Law (2024).
The schooner Charming Betsy sailed into Supreme Court history. Hon. Jeffrey Chase and other legal experts aren’t “charmed” by AG Merrick Garland’s approach to binding international standards for asylum! PHOTO: The Constitutional Law Reporter
Thanks, “Sir Jeffrey” for a great and timely analysis!
For the second successive Administration, we have an Attorney General who does not take seriously his oath of office to uphold the Constitution and laws of the United States when it comes to those seeking asylum.
Garland has too often signed off on regulations and policies that are clearly at odds with domestic and international law as well as our Constitution. The current abominable proposed regulations, referenced by Jeffrey and opposed by all experts on asylum law and human rights, are just the latest example. Those politicos behind these toxic policies won’t confront in person or acknowledge the well-documented unnecessary human trauma and degradation caused by scofflaw actions and policies that intentionally fail to make fair, humane, safe, and timely asylum processing available to all who come to legal ports of entry as required by law (not to mention human decency)!
Jenny Vi Beverly, Immigration Judge, Lowell Immigration Court
Jenny Vi Beverly was appointed as an immigration judge to begin hearing cases in May 2024. Judge Beverly earned a Bachelor of Arts in 2010 from the University of California, Los Angeles, and a Juris Doctor in 2013 from the University of Maine School of Law. From 2014 to 2024, she was in private practice as an attorney partner from 2014 to 2017 and as principal attorney from 2017 to 2024, representing noncitizens before EOIR and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security. During her time in private practice, she volunteered as pro bono counsel for the Immigrant Legal Advocacy Project in Maine. Judge Beverly is a member of the Maine State Bar.
Mark D. Donovan, Immigration Judge, Boston Immigration Court
Mark D. Donovan was appointed as an immigration judge to begin hearing cases in May 2024. Judge Donovan earned a Bachelor of Arts in 1992 from The Catholic University of America, a Master of Business Administration in 2001 from Northeastern University, and a Juris Doctor in 2008 from New England Law – Boston. From 2012 to 2024, he was an associate at Considine & Furey LLP in Boston, practicing civil litigation and criminal defense. From 2008 to 2012, he was an assistant district attorney in the Bristol County District Attorney’s Office in Bristol County, Massachusetts. Judge Donovan is a member of the Massachusetts Bar.
Nina J. Froes, Immigration Judge, Lowell Immigration Court
Nina J. Froes was appointed as an immigration judge to begin hearing cases in May 2024. Judge Froes earned a Bachelor of Arts in 2003 from the University of. Massachusetts Dartmouth and a Juris Doctor in 2008 from Roger Williams University School of Law. From 2013 to 2024, she was a solo immigration law practitioner at the Law Office of Nina J. Froes in New Mattapoisett, Massachusetts. From 2012 to 2013, she was a clinical fellow at the Immigration Law Clinic, School of Law, University of Massachusetts Dartmouth. From 2010 to 2011, she was the legal director of the Immigrant Victims Representation Project, Immigration Department, Catholic Social Services of Fall River, Catholic Charities USA, in Fall River, Massachusetts. From 2008 to 2011, she was a fellow in the immigration unit at the Legal Assistance Corporation of Central Massachusetts in Worcester, Massachusetts. Judge Froes is a member of the Massachusetts Bar and the Rhode Island Bar.
Roopal B. Patel, Immigration Judge, Boston Immigration Court
Roopal B. Patel was appointed as an immigration judge to begin hearing cases in May 2024. Judge Patel earned a Bachelor of Arts in 2003 from Harvard University and a Juris Doctor in 2011 from New York University School of Law. From 2014 to 2024, she was a senior staff attorney at Manhattan Legal Services where she worked on a wide variety of cases, including immigration cases. From 2011 to 2013, she was a staff attorney at the Brennan Center for Justice. Judge Patel is a member of the New York State Bar.
Sarah F. Torres, Immigration Judge, Concord Immigration Court
Sarah F. Torres was appointed as an immigration judge to begin hearing cases in May 2024. Judge Torres earned a Bachelor of Arts in 2004 from the University of California, Berkeley and a Juris Doctor in 2007 from the University of California, Davis School of Law. From 2019 to 2024, she was the managing attorney of the immigration legal services program at Opening Doors Inc., in Sacramento. From 2015 to 2019, she was a partner at Tomlinson & Torres PC. From 2008 to 2014, she practiced immigration law in private practice. Judge Torres is a member of the State Bar of California.
Joan B. Geller, Appellate Immigration Judge
Attorney General Merrick B. Garland appointed Joan B. Geller as an appellate immigration judge in May 2024. Judge Geller earned a Bachelor of Arts in 1990 from the University of Wisconsin and a Juris Doctorate in 1994 from the Georgetown University Law Center. From 2003 to 2024, Judge Geller served as an attorney advisor with the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), and in 2015, 2016, 2018, 2020, and 2021 she served as a temporary Appellate Immigration Judge with the BIA. From 2002 to 2003, she was deputy staff counsel at the District of Columbia Court of Appeals. From 1996 to 2002, she was a staff attorney at the District of Columbia Court of Appeals. From 1994 to 1996, she was a court law clerk at the District of Columbia Court of Appeals. Judge Geller is a member of the Maryland State Bar and the District of Columbia Bar.
Homero López Jr., Appellate Immigration Judge
Attorney General Merrick B. Garland appointed Homero López Jr. as an appellate immigration judge in May 2024. Judge López earned a Bachelor of Arts in 2007 from Southern Methodist University and a Juris Doctorate in 2010 from Tulane University Law School. From 2018 to 2024, Judge Lopez worked with the Immigration Services and Legal Advocacy (ISLA) in New Orleans, which he cofounded, serving as legal director from 2021 to 2024 and executive director from 2018 to 2020. From 2015 to 2018, he worked with Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of New Orleans, serving as managing attorney of Immigration Legal Services from 2015 to 2018 and as supervising attorney for the Unaccompanied Children’s Program in 2015. From 2011 to 2014, he worked with Catholic Charities of the Diocese of Baton Rouge, serving as a staff attorney from 2011 to 2014 and as a supervising attorney in 2014. Judge López is a member of the Louisiana Bar.
**************************************
The appointments of Judges Lopez and Geller to the BIA were previously announced on “Courtside.”
Congratulations, best wishes, and good luck to these and all of the other new Judges! Remember, beyond all the bureaucratic nonsense that EOIR might throw at you, the name of the game, the ONLY game, is due process, fundamental fairness, and correct results! With lives at stake, our country and humanity are counting on you to help lift EOIR out of its “downward spiral” and to permanently change the “any reason to deny” culture!
Rekha Sharma-Crawford ESQUIRE Partner and Co-Founder Sharma-Crawford Law Kansas City, KS
Rekha Sharma-Crawford writes in Linkedin:
The Clinic at Sharma-Crawford Attorneys at Law Immigration Court Trial Advocacy College Faculty, 2024. Kick ass trial lawyers sharing their wisdom and knowledge to elevate the practice before the immigration courts. Blessed to call them all friends! Thank you my friends!! 🙏🏽🗽⚖️💕
Sharma-Crawford Faculty 2024
Paul Schmidt Lory Rosenberg Elina Magaly Santana Erich Straub Michael Sharma-Crawford Kelli Stump Lindsay Gray David Bell Kelly Driscoll Nathan Dayani Davorin Odrcic Michelle Saenz-Rodriguez Sarah Owings Genevra Alberti Susan Roy Patrick Lewis Angel Marie Graf
********************************
Immigration Court Trial Advocacy College Defensive Asylum Day 2!
Sharma-Crawford 2024 Day 2Sharma-Crawford 2024 Day 2
It’s incredible to witness the dedication and passion of our attendees as they dive into the world of defensive asylum cases.
#TheClinicSCAL #KansasCity #TrialCollege …see more
*********************************
The Clinic @ Sharma-Crawford Law
Immigration Court can, quite intentionally on the part of its “political handlers,” be intimidating, particularly for newer litigators.
Among the many “user unfriendly/due process denying features:”
Arbitrary, “make ‘em up as you go along” rules that apply to individuals, but not to DHS or EOIR;
Cosmically inconsistent adjudications;
Lack of universal asylum expertise among judges at both the trial and appellate levels;
Institutional bias against asylum seekers and failure to follow generous precedents such as Cardoza-Fonseca and Mogharrabi;
Shifting political priorities driving “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” and creating unmanageable backlogs;
Permissive lack of discipline at DHS in intentionally overloading system;
Grotesque overemphasis of “bogus productivity” over due process, quality, and fundamental fairness;
One-sided “disciplinary procedures” that give DHS counsel a “free pass;” and
A “permissive culture” of racial bias and “any reason to deny” decision-making.
Yet, despite this intentional, unethical “tilting of the playing field’ against migrants, particularly asylum seekers of color, and their representatives, well-represented individuals win their cases against the odds at all levels of this system every day!
The faculty of the Sharma-Crawford Immigration Court Trial College is a unique blend of experienced, hard-nosed, gutsy, immigration advocates, criminal defense attorneys, former prosecutors and judges, teachers, and coaches. We teach skills and instill fearless attitudes that have proven to be successful in criminal, civil, and immigration litigation!
The Trial College now has more the 150 “alumni” nationwide who are using their enhanced talents to force due process on a reluctant system, save lives, and “build America,” one case at a time! The “Class of 2024” was larger than usual and showed exceptional seriousness, dedication, creativity, and commitment to changing the course of American Justice for the better at the oft-ignored but existentially important “retail level.”
I was particularly pleased to be “reunited” on the faculty with my colleagues and “EOIR Alums” retired Judges Lory Rosenberg, Sue Roy, and “new recruit” Ed Kelly! I also appreciate the courtesy of Assistant Chief Immigration Judge Jayme Salinardi and the Kansas City Immigration Court in arranging for the students and faculty to observe some Master Calendar hearings.
I am privileged to be part of this amazing and inspiring multi-disciplinary effort! Thanks to Rekha Sharma-Crawford, Michael Crawford, Genevra Alberti, and the Clinic Staff for their leadership in making this happen!😎
Genevra W. Alberti, Esq. The Clinic at Sharma-Crawford Attorneys at Law Kansas City, Mo. PHOTO: The Clinic
We are looking to connect with immigration attorneys who have clients who crossed the border in recent years and have sought asylum in immigration court.
Specifically, we are looking to talk to asylum-seekers who have waited years/months for their cases to be heard in immigration court and are STILL waiting for a final decision.
Please comment or send me a message if you have a client who would be interested in speaking with us.
. . . To tell Hamed Aleaziz at The NYT the truth about the “under the radar” mess at EOIR that is systemically treating those with valid claims and sound defenses unfairly and threatens, with its unrelenting disorder and “deterrence bias,” to destabilize the entire U.S. Justice System! Public Domain
The (largely avoidable), backlog building, due-process-denying mess at Garland’s EOIR is one of the “unsung drivers” of bad immigration policies and myths about migrants, particularly asylum seekers.
To the extent that this glaring problem is covered at all by the so-called “mainstream media,” it’s usually superficial: reference to the 3.5 million case backlog, long delays, and the need for more Immigraton Judges and court personnel.
Here’s your chance to correct that “cosmetic coverage” by giving Hamed input on the overall unfairness, unnecessary inefficiencies, “user-unfriendliness,” and grotesque lack of overall legal expertise, consistency, and common sense in this broken system! It has improperly become a tool of “deterrence” in behalf of DHS Enforcement and has lost sight of its only proper role of insuring Constitutionally-required due process and fundamental fairness for individuals comingbefore the Immigration Courts!
“Singh experienced multiple physical attacks and death threats over an eight-month period, from November of 2014 to June of 2015. No reasonable factfinder would conclude that Singh did not experience serious harm rising to the level of persecution. … For all these reasons we find that the record compels a finding that Singh suffered harm rising to the level of persecution. … [T]he BIA did not independently analyze relocation and determine that the government met its burden. Rather, the BIA expressly adopted the IJ’s reasons for finding that internal relocation was safe and reasonable. In doing so, the BIA adopted the IJ’s flawed relocation analysis, which did not afford Singh the presumption of past persecution or shift the burden to the government to prove that Singh can safely and reasonably relocate within India. … In sum, because the BIA erred in its relocation analysis, we grant Singh’s petition to review his claim for asylum and remand to the BIA for consideration in light of Singh v. Whitaker, 914 F.3d 654. … For the reasons set forth above, we GRANT Singh’s petition in part and REMAND to the BIA to consider (1) whether Singh is eligible for asylum because he suffered past persecution on account of statutorily protected grounds by the government or individuals whom the government was unable or unwilling to control; (2) if so, whether the DHS rebutted the presumption of a well-founded fear of future persecution; and (3) whether Singh is entitled to withholding of removal.”
“The agency entirely overlooked evidence material to the hardship determination in this case: evidence regarding Mendez’s serious back injury and its implications for his ability to support his qualifying relatives through work in El Salvador. … The BIA’s decision is VACATED and the case is REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this order.”
H. Raymond Fasano, Esquire PHOTO: Super Lawyers Profile
—Daniel M. KowalskiEditor-in-ChiefBender’s Immigration Bulletin (LexisNexis)
******************
What if a brain surgeon or a heart surgeon were routinely engaging in “surgical malpractice?” Wouldn’t it be a cause for grave concern?🤯
Almost every week, sometimes multiple times, the BIA mishandles the basics in potential “life or death” cases. Yet, Garland somehow shrugs it off! This not only adds to the “dehumanization” of migrants (their lives don’t count), but also badly skews the statistical profile that undergirds much of the misguided immigration (non) dialogue.
If the anti-immigrant, anti-asylum, huge “over-denial” problem at EOIR were addressed with better qualified judges and adjudicators, it would become apparent that many more, probably a majority, of those caught up in the dysfunction at EOIR and the Asylum Office are qualified to remain in the U.S. in some status. And, proper positive precedents would guide practitioners, ICE Counsel, Immigration Judges, and Asylum Officers to correct results without protracted litigation that eventually burdens the Courts of Appeals, causes avoidable remands, fuels “Aimless Docket Reshuffling,” and contributes mightily to the mushrooming EOIR backlog!
As a result, these cases could be prepared, prioritized, granted, and individuals could get on with their lives and maximize their human potential to help our nation — just as generations before them have done including the ancestors of almost all Americans! How soon some of us forget!
The real, largely self-created, “immigration crisis,” is NOT insufficient “deterrence, detention, and cruelty” at the border! It’s the grotesque failure of all three branches of Government to insist on a fair, timely, well-staffed, professionally-managed, due-process-compliant adjudication, review, and resettlement system for asylum seekers and other immigrants. It’s also the ongoing attempt to “cover up” and minimize our Government’s mistreatment of asylum seekers, particularly those asserting their legal right to apply at our borders and in the interior regardless of status!
The racially-driven “targeting” of asylum seekers at the border is a ruse designed to deflect attention from the realities of human migration, what drives it, and the failure of governments across the board to come to grips with them and to fulfill their legal responsibilities to treat all persons fairly, humanely, and in accordance with correct interpretations and applications of the law!
Hon. Jeffrey S. Chase Jeffrey S. Chase Blog Coordinator & Chief Spokesperson, Round Table of Former Immigration Judges
Here’s additional commentary on Singh from my Round Table ⚖️⚔️ colleague “Sir Jeffrey” Chase:
The IJ was really determined to deny on this one. And I guess Vandyke had filled his quota of once in a lifetime for finding fault with the government, and thus had no choice but to dissent.
How would YOU like to face a system “determined to deny” with your life on the line? How would Garland like it?
Actually, under the generous “well-founded fear” standard applicable to asylum (Cardoza-Fonseca/Mogharrabi) and the authoritative guidance in the U.N. Handbook on adjudication, applicants like Singh who testify credibly are supposed to be given “the benefit of the doubt.” Garland has, quite improperly, like his immediate predecessors, allowed this key humanitarian legal principle to be mocked at EOIR! Instead, as cogently pointed out by “Sir Jeffrey,” here the IJ and the BIA actually went the “extra mile” to think of “any reason to deny” — even totally specious ones!
Also, half-baked, legally deficient “reasonably available internal relocation analysis”is a long-standing, chronic problem at EOIR, despite a regulation setting forth analytical factors that should be evaluated. Few, if any, such legitimate opportunities are “reasonably available” in most countries sending asylum applicants!
Moreover, once past persecution is established, the DHS has the burden of showing that there is a reasonably available internal relocation alternative, something that they almost never can prove by a preponderance of the evidence! Indeed, in my experience, the DHS almost never put in such evidence beyond rote citations to generalized language in DOS Country Reports!
The “judicial competency/bias” problems plaguing EOIR are large and well documented. Yet, Garland pretends like they don’t exist!
Has Alfred E. Neumann been “reborn” as Judge Merrick Garland? “Not my friends or relatives whose lives as being destroyed by my ‘Kangaroo Courts.’ Just ‘the others’ and their immigration lawyers, so who cares, why worry about professionalism, ethics, and due process in Immigration Court?” PHOTO: Wikipedia Commons
⚖️ BIA: OUTSDE, INSIDE: Garland Reportedly Will Tap “Practical Scholar” Professor Homero López, Jr., & Temp. Appellate Immigration Judge Joan B. Geller To Prior Vacancies, With One Judgeship Still “In Competition!”
By Paul Wickham Schmidt
Special to Courtside
March 19, 2024
Although there has been no official announcement from DOJ/EOIR, I have learned that Professor (and legal services provider) Homero López and Temporary Appellate Judge (and long-time BIA attorney) Joan Geller will be appointed to two of the three existing vacancies at the BIA. The BIA is the highest administrative tribunal in immigration law and exercises nationwide jurisdiction over the Immigration Courts with authority to issue binding precedents.
Professor López‘s appointment was announced by Loyola University Law (New Orleans) where he has been an Adjunct Professor of Law:
Adjunct Professor Promoted to Board of Immigration Appeals
Adjunct Law Professor Homero Lopez has been appointed to the Board of Immigration Appeals, the top administrative appellate agency to review immigration court decisions in the United States! Judge Lopez will start considering appeals on April 1st!
BIA Judge-designate Homero López, Jr. PHOTO: ILSA website
In addition to his adjunct professorship at Loyola, Judge-designate López most recently has been the Co-Founder & Legal Director of Immigration Services and Legal Advocacy (“ISLA”) in New Orleans, “a legal services organization that defends the rights of our immigrant communities and advocates for just and humane immigration policy.”
Here’s his bio from the ISLA website:
Homero is ISLA’s Legal Director. As the son of a migrant worker, Homero grew up moving around the country and living among immigrant communities his entire life. Before co-founding ISLA, Homero was the managing attorney at Catholic Charities-Archdiocese of New Orleans where he oversaw a legal team of 30 attorneys, accredited representatives, and legal assistants focusing on representing Unaccompanied Children and immigrant victims of crime. Before that, Homero was a staff, and later, supervising attorney at Catholic Charities of the Diocese of Baton Rouge where he conducted the Legal Orientation Program for detained immigrants at the LaSalle Detention Facility and primarily focused on detained cases. Homero is a graduate of Southern Methodist University in Dallas, Texas and Tulane University Law School in New Orleans, Louisiana.
López recently was featured by Dan Kowalski in LexisNexis for his successful litigation of a major due process/credibility victory in the Fifth Circuit, Nkenglefac v. Garland, 34 F.4th 422, 430 (2022), and for prevailing in the fee award litigation in the same case. See:
Judge-designate Geller has spent the bulk of her legal career as on the BIA staff and has also served as a Temporary Appellate Immigration Judge/Board Member. Here’s her “official bio” from the EOIR website:
Joan B. Geller was appointed as a temporary board member in January 2018. Ms. Geller, who has prior experience as a temporary board member, has over 14 years of experience as an attorney advisor at the Board. Prior to joining the Board, Ms. Geller served for seven years with the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, first as a staff attorney and later as a deputy staff counsel. Ms. Geller received her B.A. from the University of Wisconsin-Madison and her J.D.from Georgetown University Law Center. She is a member of the District of Columbia and Maryland Bars.
Significantly, from my standpoint, she graduated from the University of Wisconsin-Madison and Georgetown Law, two institutions with which I have long-time associations.While Geller’s BIA service began after my tenure there, sources tell me she was “held in high regard by the staff attorneys.” That’s important, given that the bulk of the opinion-drafting work at the BIA is done by the staff and the endemic quality control issues now plaguing this appellate body.
Hopefully, López and Geller will bring some much-needed due process focus, quality control, and practical progressive scholarship, leadership, and energy to a floundering, yet critically important, tribunal badly in need of the foregoing.
Indeed, López’s stellar work in Nkenglefac went right to the heart of the chronic due process and quality control problems of the BIA, particularly in life or death asylum cases, under Sessions, Barr, and now Garland: failure to follow precedent favorable to the respondent, “phantom finding of waiver,” lack of critical analysis, misrepresentation of the record, misuse of non-record materials, improper allocation of the burdens, and ignoring or minimizing voluminous testimony!In other words, a classic example of prejudgement and “any reason to deny” (even if not in the record) decision-making!
So totally miserable was EOIR’s and OIL’s performance in Nkenglefac that in a rare move the Fifth Circuit in subsequent litigation found them to be “not substantially justified at each stage of this litigation” and awarded costs and attorneys fees to the respondent! Having seen first-hand just how absurdly skewed and unfair the EOIR system has become in “life on the line” cases, López should be well-positioned to “just say no” to this type of appellate nonsense and inject a long-missing dose of reality, humanity, and real scholarship into this “ivory (actually glass) tower tribunal!”
Those of us who care about justice in America have ripped Garland’s BIA for sloppiness, anti-asylum culture, anti-immigrant attitudes, and failure to establish clear, practical, positive precedents facilitating the timely granting of asylum to the many qualified refugees now stuck in the largely USG-created morass at our Southern Border.See, e.g., https://immigrationcourtside.com/2024/03/18/⚖️-winograd-whomps-🥊-garlands-eoir-again-this-time-on-particularly-serious-crime-psc-annor-v-garland-fo/. For example, the failure to issue a precedent requiring presumptive grants of asylum to Afghan women, instead making them laboriously work their way through the system with potentially incorrect results, is an egregious, but not certainly not the only, example of the BIA’s abject failure to “get the job done for American justice.”
I also trust that López and Geller will be “throwbacks” to a time when senior leaders EOIR actually believed in the noble (now abandoned) “vision” of EOIR that I once had a role in crafting:“Through teamwork and innovation, be the world’s best administrative tribunals, guaranteeing fairness and due process for all.”
Rather than making that vision a reality, disgracefully, under the last four Administrations, the EOIR motto appears to have devolved into “any reason to deny, good enough for government work, numbers over quality, institutional survival over individual justice, go along to get along, and don’t rock the boat!”
Finally, the appointment of Judge-designate López illustrates my constantly-made point that NDPA warriors can and must compete for EOIR judgeships, particularly at the BIA level, when they are advertised! This system needs practical, positive, due-process-focused, protection-oriented change, and it needs it now!Things are only going to improve if the pressure comes from both better-qualified judges on the “inside” and unrelenting litigation and media coverage from the “outside!”
And, of course, good luck to both these new Appellate Immigration Judges! May you never, ever forget that due process is the one and only mission of EOIR!
The Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) at the Department of Justice (DOJ) is seeking a highly-qualified individual to join our team of expert professionals who serve as Appellate Immigration Judges.
This is an Excepted Service position, subject to a probationary period. The initial appointment is for a period not to exceed 24 months. Conversion to a permanent position is contingent upon appointment by the Attorney General.
This position is in the Board of Immigration Appeals, within the Executive Office for Immigration Review. The incumbent reports to a Deputy Chief Appellate Immigration Judge, who in turn reports to the Chief Appellate Immigration Judge.
Appellate Immigration Judges must apply immigration laws impartially, humanely, and equitably and ensure that all parties are treated with respect and dignity. They also must resolve cases expeditiously, in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations, and consistent with the Department’s priorities and policies.
Appellate Immigration Judges are commissioned to serve in formal, quasi-judicial proceedings to review the determinations of immigration judges in removal and related proceedings, and of certain officers of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security in visa petition proceedings and other matters. All Appellate Immigration Judges review the record on appeal, including briefs, exhibits, and transcripts, and hear oral argument when appropriate. An Appellate Immigration Judge may concur or dissent based on their view of any given case. The majority of the Appellate Immigration Judges’ duties fall into the general categories of removal proceedings, discretionary relief, claims of persecution, stays of removal, visa petitions, administrative fines, and bond and detention.
The majority of an Appellate Immigration Judge’s duties will be dedicated to the appellate work, but an Appellate Immigration Judge must also be qualified, and may be called upon, to conduct trial level proceedings in the role of an immigration judge.
Appellate Immigration Judges make decisions that are final, subject to appeal to the Federal courts. In connection with these proceedings, Appellate Immigration Judges exercise certain discretionary powers as provided by law and are required to exercise independent judgment in reaching final decisions.
Employment is contingent upon the completion and satisfactory adjudication of a background investigation.
Selective Service Registration is required, as applicable.
Moving and Relocation Expense are not authorized.
You must have relevant experience (see “Qualifications” below.)
Qualifications must be met by the closing date of the announcement.
If selected, you must file a financial disclosure statement in accordance with the Ethics in Government Act of 1978.
You must receive your Federal salary by Direct Deposit (to a financial institution of their choosing).
Qualifications
In order to qualify for the Appellate Immigration Judge position, applicants must meet all of the following minimum qualifications:
Education: Applicants must possess a LL.B., J.D., or LL.M. degree. (Provide the month and year in which you obtained your degree and the name of the College or University from which it was conferred/awarded.)
AND
Licensure: Applicants must be an active member of the bar, duly licensed and authorized to practice law as an attorney under the laws of any state, territory of the U.S., or the District of Columbia. (Provide the month and year in which you obtained your first license and the State from which it was issued.)
AND
Experience: Applicants must have seven (7) years of post-bar admission experience as a licensed attorney preparing for, participating in, and/or appealing formal hearings or trials involving litigation and/or administrative law at the Federal, State or local level. Qualifying litigation experience involves cases in which a complaint was filed with a court, or a charging document (e.g., indictment or information) was issued by a court, a grand jury, or appropriate military authority. Qualifying administrative law experience involves cases in which a formal procedure was initiated by a governmental administrative body.
NOTE: Qualifying experience is calculated from the date of your first admission to the bar.
In addition, successful applicants will have a strong combination of experience demonstrating that they will perform at the level of competence, impartiality, and professionalism expected of an Appellate Immigration Judge. For more information about relevant experience and knowledge, please see the “How You Will Be Evaluated” section.
Additional information
This is an Excepted Service position, subject to a probationary period. The initial appointment is for a period not to exceed 24 months. Conversion to a permanent position is contingent upon appointment by the Attorney General.
Additional positions may be filled from this announcement within 90 days of certificate issuance.
Alternative work schedule options are available.
There is no formal rating system for applying veterans’ preference to Appellate Immigration Judge appointments in the excepted service; however, the Department of Justice considers veterans’ preference eligibility as a positive factor in Appellate Immigration Judge hiring. Applicants eligible for veterans’ preference must claim their status when completing their application in the online application process and attach supporting documentation. (See “Required Documents” section.)
Conditions of Employment: Only U.S. Citizens or Nationals are eligible for employment with the Executive Office for Immigration Review. Dual citizens of the U.S. and another country will be considered on a case-by-case basis. All DOJ applicants, both U.S. Citizens and non-citizens, whose job location is with the United States, must meet the residency requirement. For a total of three (not necessarily consecutive years) of the five years immediately prior to applying for a position, the applicant must have: 1) resided in the United States; 2) worked for the United States overseas in a Federal or military capacity; or 3) been a dependent of a Federal or military employee serving oversees.
As the Federal agency whose mission is to ensure the fair and impartial administration of justice for all Americans, the Department of Justice is committed to fostering a diverse and inclusive work environment. To build and retain a workforce that reflects the diverse experiences and perspectives of the American people, we welcome applicants from the many communities, identities, races, ethnicities, backgrounds, abilities, religions, and cultures of the United States who share our commitment to public service.
Additional Information: The COVID-19 vaccination requirement for Federal employees pursuant to Executive Order 14043 does not currently apply. Some jobs, however, may be subject to agency- or job-specific vaccination requirements, so please review the job announcement for details. To ensure compliance with an applicable preliminary nationwide injunction, which may be supplemented, modified or vacated, depending on the course of ongoing litigation, the Federal government will take no action to implement or enforce the COVID-19 vaccination requirement pursuant to Executive Order 14043 on Requiring Coronavirus Disease 2019 Vaccination for Federal Employees. Therefore, to the extent a Federal job announcement includes the requirement that applicants must be fully vaccinated against COVID-19 pursuant to Executive Order 14043, that requirement does not currently apply.
Read more
Benefits
How You Will Be Evaluated
You will be evaluated for this job based on how well you meet the qualifications above.
You will be evaluated for this job based on how well you meet the qualifications above.
Applicants meeting the minimum qualifications stated above will be further evaluated to determine those who are best qualified. This determination will be based, in part, on the following Quality Ranking Factors (QRFs), which need to be addressed as part of the application package.
Ability to demonstrate the appropriate temperament to serve as a judge. Appellate Immigration Judges need to possess traits such as compassion, decisiveness, open-mindedness, courtesy, patience, freedom from bias, and commitment to equal justice under the law. Additionally, individuals in this role are expected to exercise discretion, and articulate how that discretion is being exercised, in complex, sensitive, high-pressure and/or emotional situations. A strong candidate demonstrates excellent analytical, decision-making, and writing abilities.
Litigation or adjudication experience, preferably in a high volume judicial or administrative context. Appellate Immigration Judges often must balance a variety of skills that can include managing a high volume of cases, drafting decisions, and reviewing an administrative record at the appellate level. It is vital that a candidate is able to manage a high-volume docket under tight deadlines without compromising quality.
Experience conducting administrative hearings or adjudicating administrative cases. Appellate Immigration Judges are expected to decide difficult or complex issues, particularly those that impact people’s lives. Prior adjudication experience in other tribunals – Federal, state, local, military or other court systems – is ideal, however, adjudications experience may be drawn from non-courtroom settings. For candidates who have limited adjudications experience, significant litigation experience before EOIR or extensive litigation experience in settings comparable to an immigration court setting may be considered.
Experience handling complex legal issues. Immigration law often involves handling complex legal issues. This role requires being able to work through complicated fact patterns and issues, novel areas of the law, as well as learning, adapting to, and incorporating changes in the law.
Knowledge of immigration laws and procedures. In this role, depth and/or volume of immigration law experience is important. Candidates should have meaningful experience applying complex immigration law, which can include representing non-citizens or the Federal government in matters involving complex or diverse immigration laws, adjudicating immigration matters, legislative or administrative advocacy on immigration policy issues, academic or clinical experience, and other similar work that involves routine analysis and application of immigration law.
To apply for this position, you must provide a complete Application Package by 11:59 PM (ET) on 04/12/2024, the closing date of this announcement, which includes:
Your Resume documenting seven (7) years experience since being admitted to the bar.
A complete online Assessment Questionnaire.
Document(s)addressing the Quality Ranking Factors (QRFs) listed above.
A Writing Sample demonstrating your ability to author legal documents (10 pages, maximum; an excerpt of a longer document is acceptable).
Current or former Federal employees must provide copies of their most recent and their latest SF-50, Notification of Personnel Action.
Other Supporting Documents, if applicable:
Veterans’ Preference Documentation: Although the veterans’ preference point system does not apply to this position, we accept preference claims and adjudicate such claims per the documentation provided. Note: If claiming 5-point veterans’ preference, include a DD-214 or statement of service. If claiming 10-point veterans’ preference, include an SF-15 and documentation required by that form, VA or military letter dated 1991 or later, and DD-214.
Any other supporting documentation required for verification as described in the announcement.
Tips for your resume:
Ensure that your resume contains your full name, address, phone number, email address, and employment information.
Each position listed on your resume must include: From/To dates of employment (MM/YYYY-MM/YYYY or MM/YYYY to Present); agency/employer name; position title; Federal grade level(s) held, if applicable; hours, if less than full time; and duties performed.
In addition, any experience on less than a full time basis must specify the percentage and length of time spent in performance of such duties.
Tips for addressing QRFs:
Applicants should use narrative form to address each of the five (5) QRFs. They must be written in a separate document indicating the by-number of the specific QRF being addressed.
Successful applicants will address all of the QRFs. If you do not have the specific experience addressed in a QRF, we encourage you to write about a similar skill, ability, knowledge, or experience.
Applicants should be thorough in addressing each QRF. This includes:
Approximate number of cases or matters handled in a given period of time.
Applicant’s specific role (e.g., adjudicator, first chair, co-counsel, responsible for the written brief only, etc.).
Length of time involved in a given role (e.g., lead counsel in 20 immigration proceedings in 10 years).
Specific examples of the types of cases (asylum application, pleas, settlement, bench trial, jury trial, etc.).
The number of court and/or administrative appearances made in those cases.
The case dispositions (ruling on the merits, plea or similar resolution, settlement, trial, jury trial, etc.).
Failure to submit the documents listed above with your application package will result in your application package being removed from consideration.
If you are relying on your education to meet qualification requirements:
Failure to provide all of the required information as stated in this vacancy announcement may result in an ineligible rating or may affect the overall rating.
You must submit a complete application package by 11:59 PM (EST) on 04/12/2024, the closing date of the announcement.
To begin, click Apply Online to create a USAJOBS account or log in to your existing account. Follow the prompts to select your USAJOBS resume and/or other supporting documents and complete the occupational questionnaire.
Click the Submit My Answers button to submit your application package.
It is your responsibility to ensure your responses and appropriate documentation is submitted prior to the closing date.
To verify your application is complete, log into your USAJOBS account, select the Application Status link and then select the more information link for this position. The Details page will display the status of your application, the documentation received and processed, and any correspondence the agency has sent related to this application. Your uploaded documents may take several hours to clear the virus scan process.
To return to an incomplete application, log into your USAJOBS account and click Update Application in the vacancy announcement. You must re-select your resume and/or other documents from your USAJOBS account or your application will be incomplete.
If you are unable to apply online or need to fax a document you do not have in electronic form, view the following link for information regarding an Alternate Application.
We will evaluate the qualifications and eligibility of all applicants, and then assess those who meet the minimum qualifications. All candidates who meet all the minimum requirements will be referred to the hiring official for further consideration. We will notify you of the final outcome after all of these steps have been completed.
Fair & Transparent
The Federal hiring process is set up to be fair and transparent. Please read the following guidance.
Beginning of a dialog window for the agency announcing this job. It begins with a heading 2 called “Learn more about Field Operating Offices of the Office of the Secretary of the Army”. Escape will cancel and close the window.
Learn more about
Executive Office for Immigration Review
If you are interested in a rewarding and challenging career, this is the position for you!
The Executive Office for Immigration Review seeks highly-qualified individuals to join our team of expert professionals in becoming a part of our challenging and rewarding Agency. The primary mission of the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) is to adjudicate immigration cases by fairly, expeditiously, and uniformly interpreting and administering the Nation’s immigration laws. Under delegated authority from the Attorney General, EOIR conducts immigration court proceedings, appellate reviews, and administrative hearings. EOIR consists of three adjudicatory components: The Office of the Chief Immigration Judge, which is responsible for managing the Immigration Courts where Immigration Judges adjudicate individual cases; the Board of Immigration Appeals, which primarily conducts appellate reviews of these Immigration Judge decisions; and the Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer, which adjudicates immigration-related employment cases.
Learn more about what it’s like to work at Executive Office for Immigration Review, what the agency does, and about the types of careers this agency offers.
Yes, EOIR is a mess! But, it’s not going to get any better without better judges, particularly at the BIA which sets precedents and should (even if it now doesn’t) maintain nationwide consistency among Immigration Judges and articulate and implement “best judicial practices.”
Quite disappointingly and outrageously, the Biden Administration and A.G. Garland have failed to “clean house” and bring long overdue due process and judicial reforms to EOIR. So, the NDPA will have to go about it “the old-fashioned way:” one judicial vacancy at a time!
What if we had a BIA that:
Believed due process and fundamental fairness are “job one;”
Insured correctness and quality over “generating numbers;”
Institutionalized protection, not rote rejection, of asylum seekers;
Built on past precedents for properly generous treatment of asylum seekers like INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, Matter of Mogharrabi, and Matter of Kasinga, rather than ignoring, or looking for artificial ways to limit them;
Issued precedents insuring early identification and consistent granting of many current and repetitive asylum applications;
Looked for ways to simplify, rather than overcomplicate and obfuscate, legal guidance;
Had “zero tolerance” for anti-immigrant, anti-asylum, racial, gender, and other biases among Immigration Judges (e.g., no more “asylum free zones”);
Refused to allow the Immigraton Court system to be misused and abused as a “deterrent” or “an adjunct of DHS Enforcement;”
Developed and enforced “best judicial practices;”
Prioritized facilitating pro bono representation as a key element of due process;
Aspired to make the “former vision of EOIR” — “through teamwork and innovation be the world’s best administrative tribunals guaranteeing fairness and due process for all” — a reality, rather than a cruel hoax!
Of course, one judge can’t do it all! But, there are plenty of great judges in the current EOIR system, at both levels, who need reenforcement and reaffirmation! Rebuilding the EOIR system so that it is a real, due-process-oriented, subject-matter-expert court that insures justice — rather than institutionalizing injustice — has to start somewhere! Fixing EOIR would also help save the entire faltering Federal Judicial system.
If the NDPA doesn’t do it, who will? Certainly not Biden, Harris, Garland or their minions— or at to least not without being pushed from within and dragged kicking and screaming from without.
Waiting for Godot (a/k/a Merrick Garland) to fix EOIR isn’t going to cut it! Naseer’s Motley Group in The Rose Bowl Merlaysamuel Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Waiting for Godot in Doon School.jpg Copy [[File:Waiting for Godot in Doon School.jpg|Waiting_for_Godot_in_Doon_School]] Copy December 8, 2011So, don’t “wait for Godot” to fix this broken system! Clue: He’s not coming! Get those applications in now!
Better judges for a better America! Sooner, rather than later!
1)Hi all: Our Cornell asylum appeals clinic recently won a difficult withholding/CAT case at the BIA.On remand, the IJ granted CAT.And the client won release through habeas.
Pasted in below is a summary of the case.
Kudos go to Eva Charles and Isaac Belenkiy, the two Cornell law students who worked on the case.Even by the high standards of our clinic, they both went above and beyond for the client.And as you will see from the summary, pro bono attorneys from Morrison Foerster and the public defender’s office also worked hard to get our client CAT protection and release from detention.It takes a village to win immigration relief!
The habeas decision is at 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 173280.The BIA decision is too big to attach.If anyone wants it, please email me offline.
Thanks, Steve Yale-Loehr
2023 Mexico Withholding and CAT Case Summary [IES]
Stephen Yale-Loehr, Evangeline Charles, Isaac Belenkiy
IES is a 41-year-old man from Mexico who first came to the U.S. when he was 18 years old. As a youth, IES joined a gang. He was arrested in 2005 for possessing a small quantity of drugs and was sentenced to four years in prison for “transporting drugs.” While in prison, IES defected from the gang and, following his release, was removed to Mexico in 2008. There, his tattooed physical appearance caught the attention of gangs and cartels like the Cártel de Jalisco Nueva Generación, who attacked him and his family, prompting him to relocate eight times within Mexico. Unable to find safety in Mexico, IES fled back to the United States in 2010.
In 2022, IES was detained by ICE and held at the Golden State Annex (“GSA”), a private for-profit prison, in McFarland, CA. IES applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). The Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denied all forms of relief, finding that IES’s 2005 conviction was a “particularly serious crime” (“PSC”) that rendered him ineligible for asylum and withholding of removal.
At this point, the Cornell asylum appeals clinic took on IES’s appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”). Our brief addressed two main issues: 1) IES warranted relief under withholding of removal because his 2005 conviction was not a PSC; and 2) the IJ erred in analyzing IES’s eligibility for CAT relief.
For the PSC argument, we argued that the IJ improperly analyzed IES’s offense, ignored credible evidence that the drugs were for personal use, and instead relied on boilerplate sentencing documents. As a result, the IJ failed to analyze IES’s motivation and intent at the time of the offense.
For the CAT argument, we focused on 6 errors: 1) the IJ failed to consider that IES’s prolonged mental pain would cause future torture; 2) the IJ did not consider future torture from gangs and cartels despite an expert saying this risk was at 80%; 3) the IJ failed to admit 400 pages of country conditions reports into evidence; 4) the IJ mischaracterized IES’s attempts to flee cartels 8 times as “relocation;” 5) the IJ did not think there was police acquiescence even though the police, the local Attorney General, and the judicial police ignored IES’s complaints; and 6) the IJ did not aggregate IES’s risk of torture.
On June 16, 2023, the BIA sustained our appeal in IES’s favor and remanded the case back to the IJ. Notably, the BIA agreed with our PSC argument, the IJ’s failure to consider all evidence, and the IJ’s failure to aggregate IES’s risk of torture.
After this, IES’s case was transferred to a public defender, who represented him on remand. The clinic team worked closely with the public defender’s office to transfer all files and get them up to speed on the case.
Parallel to our BIA filing, we participated in other advocacy efforts. While at GSA, IES participated in a labor strike in 2022 and a hunger strike in 2023. The aims of these protests were to draw attention to the abysmal conditions at private immigration detention facilities like GSA, to call for a minimum wage for detainee labor, and to demand safe and sanitary living conditions for detained migrants. The 2023 hunger strike was a coordinated effort by detainees and activists, supported by lawyers working for immigration justice. This protest resulted in a class action lawsuit on behalf of the detainees and the submission of release requests on behalf of individual detainees.
During the protests at GSA, our team filed a release request for IES. Our request explained that IES should be released because he was neither a flight risk nor a danger to society. ICE denied the request. IES continued to participate in the hunger strike and was mistreated by ICE personnel and medical officers. This prompted our clinic to file complaints to ICE and DHS about this mistreatment, which violated ICE’s own regulations.At the same time, we filed FOIA requests asking for IES’s detention, removal, and medical records. We decided to build a record of release requests to show administrative exhaustion so that IES can get a bond hearing. We also found a law firm (Morrison Foerster) to represent IES pro bono for a habeas corpus petition.
On September 27, 2023, the U.S. district court for the Northern District of California granted IES’s habeas petition on the grounds that “his prolonged detention without an individualized hearing violates his procedural due process rights.” A bond hearing was granted to IES. The government appealed this ruling, but their appeal was dismissed.
In fall 2023, IES was released on bond. A week later, the IJ granted him protection under CAT. IES is now back home with his wife and children. He can now get a work permit and cannot be deported to Mexico.
In the triumph of IES’s journey from detention to liberation, our team found a beacon of hope and resilience. The hunger strikes, the legal battles, and the relentless pursuit of freedom for IES were not in vain. As our clinic celebrates his freedom, we are grateful to our partners—advocacy groups in California and lawyers and public defenders who provided advice and guidance on appeal and zealously advocated for IES on remand—and to IES’s family, who never stopped providing support and information despite their own personal struggles.
The clinic’s fight for immigration justice is far from over, but IES’s triumph serves as inspiration to press onward and advocate for other clients who are plagued by inequities in our immigration system.
2) Asylum granted!
Beginning in spring 2023, a group of thirteen 1L and advanced Immigration Law & Advocacy Clinic students worked tirelessly to file individual asylum applications for a family from Afghanistan. The clients had their interviews in April, and the clinic just received the good news that the requests were approved. Congratulations to the team!
Part of the legal team is pictured here (from left): Katie Rahmlow ’23, client, client, Don Izekor, Esq. ’23, Alisa Whitfield, interpreter Hamid Rezaee (CIS ’26), Jaclyn Kelley-Widmer, client, Amy Godshall ’23.
Not pictured: Deborah Morales ’25, Oscar F. Ruiz ’25, Nathaniel Squires ’25, Rodrigo Tojo Garcia ’25, Aaliyah Channer ’25, Yubin “Lucy” Oh ’25, Arina Gorokhovska ’25, Miriam Mars ’24, Tori Staley ’23, Jared Flanery ’23.
*****************************
Congrats to the “next wave” of the relentless NDPA!
These are outstanding examples of why claims that unrepresented individuals receive constitutionally-required due process in Immigration Court are absolute poppycock! They also illustrate why responsible legislators and policy makers should be investing in representation rather than just spending wildly and fruitlessly on “gonzo” immigration enforcement.
No single nation, no matter how rich and powerful, can unilaterally change 21st century worldwide patterns of forced migration, which is what is generating the humanitarian situation at our Southern Border. But, we can more effectively address due process issues in our Immigration Courts, the “retail level” of the U.S. justice system!
Merrick Garland doesn’t worry about injustice in his courts! But, YOU should PHOTO: Wikipedia Commons
THIS WEEK IN “GARLANDING” — True Tales From The “Twilight Zone” Of American Justice!
By Paul Wickham Schmidt
Courtside Exclusive
February17, 2024
garland ( gar’ land) v.t. [garlanded, garlanding] [dv. USAG Merrick Garland via Prof. Laurence Tribe] m. inflict injustice by one in charge, often through inattention, inaction, or dithering. (Ex 1. I pray the judge won’t garland my case. Ex 2. My client was garlanded and deported to death. Ex 3. They will be garlanding asylum applicants at the U.S. border.)
By all accounts, President Biden and his White House were outraged this week when they were garlanded by the “Hur report.” Ironically, three years of complaining by some of Biden’s core supporters who helped elect him in 2020 about being systematically “garlanded” at EOIR brought not so much as a raised eyebrow from the WH. Indeed, they might now be viewed as just a preview of Biden’s “Miller Lite” dissing of his supporters and human lives at the border with his inanely enthusiastic support of an attempted human rights “fire sale” by Senate Dems! Obviously, it’s quite a different story when things come full circle and the “chickens finally come home to roost.”
You might think that’s hard to top! But, you would be wrong! Let’s get started on this week’s trip around “the land where due process and fundamental fairness fear to tread!”
The project focused on pretrial hearings that can encompass pleadings, scheduling and other technical matters. The average observed hearing ran under four minutes, a rapid-fire pace to cover all of a hearing’s required steps.
Judges advised people of their rights in only 18% of the observed hearings. Most often, this involved reading rights to everyone in a group instead of individually.
Immigration courts are required to provide interpretation in the preferred language of the individual appearing at a hearing at no cost to the individual. The court frequently failed to provide Central American Indigenous language interpretation. This impacted roughly four out of five individuals who preferred to speak in a Central American Indigenous language.
In about one in five observed hearings, the individual was not represented by an attorney.
Of course, one might wonder why it is the responsibility of the ACLU to ferret out things that Garland should have discovered and corrected himself. But, no matter. Those poor souls whose lives and future are in the hands of the Omaha Immigration Court can expect to be garlanded.
2) Shenanigans in Chicago
Dan Kowalski reports:
IJs hide the ball; find the secret list or lose your case
Friends,
Immigration court practitioners in many cities now face a new hurdle: find, and adhere to, a secret list of IJ procedural preferences (requirements, actually)…posted, in one case, in the “pro bono room” of one court. NOT online anywhere. Oh, and it changes frequently, and without warning. See the attached sample from Chicago.
Practitioners have complained to EOIR, so let’s see what happens.
I have a funny feeling that PWS may have a thing or two to say about all this.
Indeed I do, my friend, indeed I do. This one hits “close to home.”
Back in 2006 my friend and Round Table colleague Judge John Gossart of Baltimore headed a group of IJs who took on the monumental task of writing the first Immigration Court Practice Manual (“ICPM”). Based on Judge Gossart’s own “local court rules and best judicial practices” developed over decades, the ICPM built on the success of the award- winning BIA Practice Manual, created and issued during my tenure as BIA Chair.
One of the key features of the ICPM is thatIt superseded and erased all then-existing “local rules.”
Those few of us IJs who did public education events — under the watchful eye of our HQ “handlers” — were encouraged to tout and promote the ICPM as the “definitive guide” to successful practice before the courts, which, of course I dutifully did as reflected in my speeches from those days. I believe we even had “Q&A” sessions with the local immigration bar to promote and explain the ICPM.
Now, after years of gross mismanagement under Trump and Biden, things have come full circle. The oft-conflicting, idiosyncratic, and frequently inaccessible or counterintuitive “local rules” that the ICPM was created to eliminate evidently have returned with a vengeance.
Meanwhile, the very substantial amount of time, resources, credibility, and effort that went into creating, distributing, and implementing the ICPM has been a colossal waste of taxpayer resources because the last two Administrations have failed in their duty to competently and professionally administer EOIR!
And let’s not leave out Congress! If ever there were a need for a new, independent, professional, expert Article I Court System it’s EOIR. Yet, although Dems have introduced bills, the GOP has expressed no interest in Article I, nor has it been a priority for Congressional leadership and the Administration. It wasn’t even “on the radar screen” during the failed Senate “debate” on the immigration system.
Both Chicago Immigration Court practitioners and those IJs, current and past, who devoted their professional time and energy to the ICPM have been garlanded.
3) ADR On Steroids In Virginia
A long-time DMV immigration lawyer told the “Courtside I-Team” this week:
I routinely have MCHs listed as “in person” that are actually by Webex (I had one today). I also have an Individual on Thursday listed as Webex, but I received an email at 4:00 PM today stating that this was an error, and it was actually in person. I replied that I could not attend in person, as I have too many other cases and family issues to rearrange my schedule at the last minute. We’ll see what happens, but all this is typical of an agency that could care less about applicants, practitioners or due process of law. Take care.
For decades, practitioners and experts had been begging DOJ and EOIR to enter the 21st century with automation. Dishearteningly, now that automation has belatedly arrived at EOIR, it’s being used to severely diminish customer service rather than improve it!
It seems that every whim, irrationality, inefficiency, and inconvenience that developed at EOIR over years has now been “automated” to maximize the trauma and stress inflicted on those appearing before these broken courts. As this example points out, that has led to “Aimless Docket Reshuffling (“ADR”) on steroids!”
And here’s why automated ADR is such a powerful tool! Some practitioners have told me that it allows EOIR to unilaterally schedule them to be in three or four different courts at the same time, with almost no notice. Then, it’s up to the lawyer to file individual“motions to reschedule” to clean up EOIR’s mess.
Sometimes they are granted, sometimes denied without any rationale. All of this leads to more work and case shuffling but, importantly, without ever getting to the merits of any case!
Meanwhile, the backlog grows exponentially and the stress levels on the private bar and the staff ratchet up.
There might be surer ways to destroy a court system, but none come immediately to mind. This is garlanding at its best!
4) Another “F” In “Immigration Law 101” From The 3rd Circuit
“[W]e conclude that the BIA, in deciding his CAT claim, failed to consider evidence favorable to Herrow. For that reason, we will remand his petition as it applies to that claim. … Herrow claims that the BIA and IJ erred in denying his CAT claim and in finding that (1) he is unlikely to face torture and (2) the Somali government would not acquiesce in such torture. Because the BIA and IJ ignored evidence favorable to Herrow, we will grant his petition in part and remand for a more comprehensive review of the evidence. … To establish a likelihood of future torture, the record must demonstrate an aggregate risk of torture to the noncitizen that exceeds fifty percent. In making this determination, the IJ must address what is likely to happen to the petitioner if removed, and whether “what is likely to happen amount[s] to the legal definition of torture.” In answering these questions here, the BIA and IJ found that Herrow did not demonstrate a likelihood of torture. We conclude, however, that this determination could not have been made if all the evidence presented by Herrow had been properly considered.”
Being wrongfully denied CAT is no small matter, particularly if the USG is threatening to send you to Somalia. Lets get a glimpse of what happens in Somalia, courtesy of the latest report from our State Department:
Government security forces, including NISA and the Puntland Intelligence Agency (PIA), detained boys and adult men in the same facility and threatened, beat, and forced them to confess to crimes, according to Human Rights Watch. There were reports of rape and sexual abuse by government agents, primarily members of the security forces. The Human Rights Center, a local nongovernmental organization (NGO), reported two Somaliland police officers, area commissioner Hassan Ismail and Mustafe Yusuf Dheere, raped Nimo Jama Hassan on June 4 in Caynabo (see sections 1.g. and 6).
Al-Shabaab imposed harsh treatment and punishment on persons in areas under its control (see section 1.g.).
Torture and other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment at the hands of clan militias, some of which were government-affiliated, remained frequent. A strong and widespread culture of impunity continued, due mainly to clan protection of perpetrators and weak government capacity to hold the guilty to account.
You might think that would lead Garland and his subordinates to take extra care to get these cases right. But, you would be wrong. Dead wrong in many cases. “Good enough for government work” is the touchstone of garlanding.
By all accounts, Garland was a stellar student during his Harvard Law days. But, not so much some of his EOIR judges at the trial and appellate levels, particularly some of the “Sessions/Barr holdovers” who appear to have been appointed to the bench primarily because they were viewed as likely to deny protection without regard to law or facts. (I’ll concede that Barr and Sessions were wrong about some of their appointments who turned out, perhaps againstthe odds, to be fair judges.)
Far too many EOIR judges receive “Fs” from the Courts of Appeals on the basics of immigration and asylum law, even though most mistakes never get to the Article III Courts or manage to otherwise wend their way through the system, thereby endangering lives.
Mr. Herrow was garlanded, but survived (at least for now) thanks to the work of his lawyers and the Third Circuit.
Well, folks, that’s this week’s wrap from Gar-Land, “the land that justice forgot!” But, stay tuned to Courtside for future updates on garlanding and its victims!
What’s on the horizon: In March, a final report expected from AILA Ohio on systemic racism at EOIR! Should be a great read!
Sarah Jessica Parker will NOT be appearing in the Garland/Monaco production of “Sex And The Courthouse!” Photo by Shawn Miller/Library of Congress. Public Domain.
Law360 (February 5, 2024, 6:23 PM EST) — The U.S. Department of Justice will pay $1.2 million to resolve a suit from a former staff assistant who said a California immigration judge routinely subjected her to explicit, lewd comments and once told her he would “make her straight” if they had sex.
By Grace Elletson
This article is “paywalled.” Those with Law360 access can get all the details.
But, the final settlement agreement is public and should give you a picture of what’s happening inside Garland’s often-secretive and dysfunctional “courts.”
On January 22, 2021, two days after President Joe Biden’s inauguration, then SF Chron reporter Tal Kopan ran an extensive, well-documented expose of the widespread sexual harassment problems at EOIR, the home of the U.S. Immigration Courts at the USDOJ. The story was picked up by other publications. Also, it was highlighted in that day’s edition of “Courtside,” along with a strong suggestion for immediate action addressed to incoming AG Judge Merrick Garland and AAG Vanita Gupta (a former, now very former, “civil rights maven”), both of whom had been nominated but not yet confirmed. Seehttps://immigrationcourtside.com/2021/01/22/🇺🇸⚖%EF%B8%8Fnote-to-judge-garland-and-vanita-gupta-misogyny🤮-is-running-rampant-in-the-eoir-courts-soon-to-be-your/.
Tal Kopan, Deputy Washington Bureau Chief for the Boston Globe. As a reporter for the S.F. Chron in 2021, she ripped the covers off massive sexual harassment problems at EOIR.
Lisa Monaco, Deputy AG. In apparent response to Kopan’s expose, Monaco established a committee to look into sexual harassment at EOIR and the rest of DOJ. But, not surprisingly, the recent $1.2 million settlement with a former EOIR female staff member shows that complaints languish, resolutions are opaque, and wronged individuals have to force action by suing in Federal Court! Official USG Photo, Public Realm
It now appears that Monaco’s efforts at reform have been just as lackadaisical as her implementation of Biden’s Executive order on regulations improving the treatment of gender-based claims at EOIR and elsewhere in Government, and her and her boss’s disturbingly inept approach to EOIR reform generally!
Yet, even with clear notice of the festering problems and an opportunity to address them in a way that would “change culture,” it required the institution of a Federal lawsuit by the plaintiff to obtain action and an effective remedy, almost three years after her termination.
After years of overt anti-asylum bias and misogyny from Sessions and Barr, long suffering respondents, practitioners, and many EOIR employees expected a “due process/good government renaissance” under former Federal Judge and Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland. However, despite a few improvements, Garland has “floated above” the chaos and lack of quality control that daily vex and plague those trapped in his dysfunctional, hopelessly backlogged “courts.” PHOTO: Wikipedia Commons
It’s difficult to quantify the actual costs of EOIR mismanagement by Garland and his political lieutenants. After all, how do you put a money value on wrongful deportations, denial of constitutional rights, being subjected to substandard anti-immigrant decision making, bad precedents, “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” (“ADR”) on steroids, poorly trained judges, years stuck in limbo without the relief to which you are entitled, the effect of statistics manipulated to downplay the number of legal refugees stuck in EOIR’s hellish 3 million+ backlog, “courts” intentionally located in obscure inaccessible locations within the “New American Gulag” (“NAG”) run by DHS, and the overall “customer unfriendly” and often intentionally coercive mess to which those who practice before EOIR and those whose fate is in EOIR’s hands are subjected every working day? You can’t!
Nor is the waste of finite USG resources on chronic structural inefficiencies, boneheaded schemes to expedite dockets as “deterrents,” and ill-advised “defenses of the indefensible” in Federal Courts easy to value. But, in this case, we can quantify the cost to taxpayers of Garland’s and Monaco’s poor leadership — $1.2 million!
I wonder how many qualified accredited representatives a real problem solver and due process innovator like Professor Michele Pistone at VIISTA Villanova could train with that kind of money?
The poor leadership of Garland on immigration matters and the lousy performance of EOIR continue to be drags on the Biden Administration and our justice system. It didn’t have to be this way!
No Longer in the Cast: Former Associate AG Vanita Gupta, who left DOJ after three years of “failing to connect the dots” among civil rights, the rule of law, and the glaring violations of human rights and due process taking place at EOIR and the rest of the immigration bureaucracy. Literally, these abuses took place right under her nose, but apparently below her radar screen!
During Gupta’s tenure, the already horrible treatment of asylum seekers and other migrants of color within EOIR and the immigration bureaucracy actually deteriorated in many ways. Gupta is a sad, yet classic, example of what routinely happens to progressives once they are invited into the “halls of power” within the Government: They get co-opted into defending the status quo and the dangerous fiction of “revolution by evolution.” See, e.g., Perry Bacon, Jr., https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/02/06/equity-diversity-inclusion-progressivism-limits/.
Just ask neo-Nazi Stephen Miller how “revolution” really works! He spent every day of his tenure in the Trump Administration single-mindedly working to dehumanize and demonize immigrants, particularly those of color and women, and to strip them of their already overly-limited rights. He paid no attention whatsoever to criticism, naysaying, and resistance from within or without. He took every “defeat” in Federal Court as an invitation to do something even worse and more outrageous.
While Gupta, despite her lofty position and civil right creds, was unable to materially improve the situation of migrants, Miller undid decades of progress on due process, racial justice, gender justice, and good government. Much of the damage he inflicted remains imbedded in the system, at DOJ, DHS, and elsewhere, as do many of those who willingly and enthusiastically assisted him.
The contrast between Gupta’s and Miller’s accomplishments and government “legacies” is a stunning illustration of the difference between Democrats and Republicans when it comes to immigrants’ rights, human rights, and racial justice — the fundamentals of governing. Democrat “political strategists” are belatedly “wondering and wandering” what to do about an “enthusiasm gap” with their core progressive voters who put Biden and Harris in office. The answer is staring them right in the face: Results matter!
Liz Mineo, Staff Writer, interviews Professor Neuman in The Harvard Gazette:
. . . .
What should be done about border security, enforcement, and the immigration court backlog?
In terms of enforcement, there is no easy solution. A border fence is merely a symbol and no solution. Clearly, the adjudication system needs more resources, and adjustments to improve both efficiency and fairness. For both sides, justice delayed is justice denied, and that should be an important part of the focus.
Another priority, contrary to some claims, is to reduce reliance on detention. The U.S. is engaged in arbitrary detention of migrants who really don’t need to be detained; they could be subject to surveillance.
The country should also respect its international obligations not to send people back to countries where they will be persecuted, tortured, or killed. It cannot suspend its international obligations on that front, and it should not openly violate them, as it did under COVID.
What measures should be taken to reduce the flow of migrants into the U.S?
In terms of enforcement, the important point to stress is that this is not an issue that the U.S. can solve unilaterally. There must be a regional solution. It’s obvious to anyone who looks at the logistics of the problem that the solutions depend on cooperation with Mexico. Congress can’t just impose a solution and assume that Mexico will go along with it. More broadly, there are other countries that need to be involved in protecting refugees and in solving some of the problems that lead to migration.
Some experts say the asylum system is a parallel immigration system and that it should be revamped. What’s your take on this?
I’d like to use the term asylum broadly, not legalistically, to cover forms of protection from persecution, killing, and torture. The U.S. asylum system is too opaque and too inconsistent: Valid claims may be rejected, and claims that are made in perfectly good faith may turn out to be invalid.
On the other hand, some people seek desperately to come to the U.S. for reasons that are not covered by asylum, such as poverty, loss of livelihood, or to join family members. The system needs to winnow those claims out while remaining open to valid claims for protection. It would also benefit from greater clarity on which claims are valid, and from more consistent adjudication, but now, the system is not meeting its obligations to persecuted people.
Finally, what are your realistic hopes for changes in immigration policies?
For now, my hopes would be that any new legislation would increase funding and would help give the public the sense that the border situation is being addressed.
And meanwhile that the executive would use the authority that it already has to manage the situation better, including by negotiating with other countries. The executive should resist efforts that obstruct its compliance with its obligations.
There is danger that any new legislation would decrease protection, which would mean that we would be taking no steps forward, and several steps backward, and that nonetheless, issues about migration would remain just as divisive as they are now.
*************************
Read the full (edited) interview at the link.
“Decrease protection” seems to be a toxic bipartisan goal of Congress and the Administration. What’s preventing it? They can’t agree on the amount of cruelty, suffering, and dehumanization to inflict on vulnerable forced migrants who overwhelmingly seek only to have the USG process their legal claims for protection in a fair and timely manner! That reality has clearly been lost in the rancid, one-sided, often secret “negotiations” in Congress; the insipid statements of the Biden Administration promising more border closures, cruel, inhuman, degrading, expensive, and wasteful detention; and treacherous “bipartisan” abrogation of well-established “life or death” legal rights to fair consideration of claims!
Professor Neuman says “this is not an issue that the U.S. can solve unilaterally.” There is general consensus among migration experts on this fundamental truth! Yet, Congress and the Administration keep pretending otherwise, with little critical, informed “pushback” from the media.
Why isn’t Kristen Welker interviewing Professor Neuman and other migration experts, rather than making “Meet the Press” a “Foxlike Forum” for those promoting White Nationalist lies about the border and national security? Welker hasn’t bothered to inform herself about the human lives and human rights involved with forced migration at the border. Therefore, her feeble attempts to stop GOP nativist politicos from rambling on with their border myths are somewhere between ineffective to pathetic, but certainly must be maddening to anyone involved with assisting the actual humans seeking protection under our dysfunctional legal system!
Garland’s inexcusable failure to fix EOIR and get it working fairly, professionally, expertly, and in real time is a drag on the Biden Administration immigration policies and an existential threat to our democracy!
