"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’”
Attorney General Merrick B. Garland Announces Appointment of David Neal as Director of the Executive Office for Immigration Review
WASHINGTON – Attorney General Merrick B. Garland today announced the appointment of David L. Neal as the Director of the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) at the Department of Justice.
“The Justice Department’s commitment to a fair and efficient immigration court system, governed by due process and the rule of law, is exemplified by recent policy changes and our pursuit of significant additional resources,” said Attorney General Garland. “David Neal brings invaluable experience that will help further EOIR’s mission.”
The EOIR director is responsible for the supervision of the Chairman of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), the Chief Immigration Judge, the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer and all agency personnel. EOIR has more than 2,300 employees in its 69 immigration courts nationwide, at the BIA and at EOIR headquarters in Falls Church, Virginia. As provided in the President’s Budget Request for FY 22, EOIR anticipates increasing its immigration judge corps from 535 today to 734 by the end of the next fiscal year.
Most recently, Mr. Neal was a consultant specializing in immigration policy and practice. Previously, he held positions at EOIR over two decades. From 2009 to 2019, he served as Chairman of the BIA at EOIR, where he was chief judge of the appeals board and managed judicial and administrative operations. Mr. Neal served in multiple other capacities at EOIR, including as Vice Chairman of the BIA, Chief Immigration Judge, Assistant Chief Immigration Judge, Immigration Judge and Assistant to the Director.
Prior to his tenure with EOIR, Mr. Neal served in the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee as chief counsel of the Subcommittee on Immigration. Mr. Neal began his legal career as the Director of Policy Analysis at the American Immigration Lawyers Association and also worked for a law firm in Los Angeles, representing immigration cases before the former Immigration and Naturalization Service, the State Department, the Department of Labor and EOIR.
Mr. Neal received his Bachelor of Arts from Wabash College in Crawfordsville, Indiana, Master of Divinity from Harvard University’s School of Divinity and his Juris Doctor from Columbia Law School. Mr. Neal is a member of the District of Columbia and New York bars.
**************************
David thus becomes the first EOIR Director to have served as both BIA Chair and Chief Immigration Judge, as well as briefly as an Immigration Judge.
Congratulations and good luck to David in his new position! It’s going to take a monumental effort, extraordinary management ability, creativity, and lots courage and determined due-process-best-practices-oriented leadership to straighten out the godawful legal, professional, and administrative mess in America’s most unfair and dysfunctional court system, now running a largely self-created 1.4 million case backlog.
Will he be able to hold off the politicos at DOJ and finally put an end to the DOJ-generated “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” (“ADR”) that has been the major cause of the 1.4 million case backlog at EOIR that has gown up over the last two decades of mismanagement at DOJ and EOIR? Will he be able to end the reprehensible officially-sanctioned “victim shaming” and cowardly “blame shifting” that has been heaped by the DOJ and EOIR on those suffering from its defective administrative practices over the past two decades?
If, as Garland claims, 200 new Immigration Judge positions will be added by the end of FY 2022, will David be able to institute merit-based Immigration Judge hiring that 1) involves public input from those who actually practice before the Immigration Courts, e.g., the private bar; 2) gives appropriate credit to “practical scholars” in immigration, human rights, and civil rights with clearly-established records of independent thinking and unswerving commitment to due process for individuals; 3) appropriately honors and weighs experience gained actually representing individuals, particularly asylum seekers, in Immigration Court, and 4) removes demeaning “production quotas,” limitations on docket management, and unnecessary restrictions on public scholarship, writing, and teaching which have made the job intentionally unattractive to many of the “best and brightest” progressive candidates from the private immigration and human rights sector. Will he actually go out and actively recruit a broader, more diverse, and more representative candidate base for IJ hiring, rather than using “insider procedures” that don’t reach or encourage many of the best candidates for these important jobs?
HINT: More “gimmicks,” like “dedicated dockets,” continued “Mickey Mouse” 🐭 uber enforcement “production quotas,” and appointments of judges who have never represented an individual in Immigration Court won’t do the trick! That is being proved every single day, beyond any reasonable doubt!
Nor will being at war with the National Association of Immigration Judges (“NAIJ”) and their leadership further due process. NAIJ leaders are the only ones at EOIR who have been providing meaningful professional training over the past four years of darkness and ignorance at EOIR.
They, along with the Private/NGO/Clinical Bar and OPLA Assistant Chief Counsel have the best and most practical ideas on how to fix EOIR! David would be wise to give them all “seats at his table,” and listen carefully to their views, rather than attempting to “lock them in a dark cellar,” as was the practice of the Trump immigration kakistocracy that effectively destroyed EOIR!
Since “built to fail” enforcement-generated non-solutions are the things EOIR appears “wedded to,” David is going to have to persuade Garland and his lieutenants to radically change course. Can he get them to treat Immigration Courts as “real courts,” controlling the lives of “real human beings,” folks like you and me, in dire need of real judicial administration and real progressive expert judges, to get out of EOIR’s current “death spiral.”☠️ Or, will we see a continuation of “Dred Scottification” of women and people of color, along with substandard trial judging, defective appellate review, and lousy biased precedents that end up creating more problems than they solve? 🤮 Only time will tell!
PANEL: Consuelo M. Callahan and*Paul J. Watford, Circuit Judges, and Jed S. Rakoff, District Judge.
Opinion by Judge Watford; Dissent by Judge Callahan
* The Honorable Jed S. Rakoff, United States District Judge for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.
STAFF SUMMARY:
Granting Rafael Diaz-Rodriguez’s petition for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals, the panel held that child endangerment, in violation of California Penal Code § 273a(a), does not constitute “a crime of child abuse, child neglect, or child abandonment” within the meaning of 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(E)(i).
In Martinez-Cedillo v. Sessions, 896 F.3d 979 (9th Cir. 2018), a divided panel held to the contrary, and a majority of the non-recused active judges voted to rehear the case en banc. However, after the petitioner passed away, the en banc court dismissed the appeal as moot and vacated the panel decision. The panel here observed that Martinez-Cedillo is no longer binding precedent, but explained that between its issuance and the decision to rehear the case en banc, two published opinions relied on it: Menendez v. Whitaker, 908 F.3d 467 (9th Cir. 2018), and Alvarez-Cerriteno v. Sessions, 899 F.3d 774 (9th Cir. 2018).
The panel concluded that the unusual circumstance here led it to conclude that this case falls outside the scope of the general rule that three-judge panels are bound to follow published decisions of prior panels. The panel explained that both Alvarez-Cerriteno and Menendez simply followed Martinez-Cedillo as then-binding precedent without engaging in independent analysis of the deference issue, and
** This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader.
DIAZ-RODRIGUEZ V. GARLAND 3
both decisions were effectively insulated from en banc review on that issue. The panel explained that both decisions are irreconcilable with a subsequent decision of the court sitting en banc because their reliance on Martinez-Cedillo is in conflict with the en banc court’s decision to designate that decision as non-precedential.
Applying the categorical approach, the panel identified the elements of California Penal Code § 273a(a): causing or permitting a child “to be placed in a situation where his or her person or health is endangered,” committed with a mens rea of criminal negligence. As to the federal offense, the panel explained that Congress enacted the ground of removability at 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(E)(i) as part of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA) and did not define the phrase “a crime of child abuse, child neglect, or child abandonment.” In Matter of Soram, 25 I. & N. Dec. 378 (BIA 2010), however, the BIA held that the phrase encompassed child endangerment offenses committed with a mens rea of at least criminal negligence. In considering whether Soram was entitled to deference, the panel was guided by the Supreme Court’s decision in Esquivel-Quintana v. Sessions, 137 S. Ct. 1562 (2017), where the Court observed that the term “sexual abuse of a minor” was undefined and then looked to normal tools of statutory interpretation in concluding that the statute unambiguously forecloses the BIA’s interpretation of it.
Applying this approach, the panel concluded that deference was precluded at Chevron step one because the text of §1227(a)(2)(E)(i) unambiguously forecloses the BIA’s interpretation as encompassing negligent child endangerment offenses. First, the panel explained that contemporary legal dictionaries from the time of IIRIRA’s enactment indicate that child abuse, child neglect, and child
4 DIAZ-RODRIGUEZ V. GARLAND
abandonment were well-understood concepts with distinct meanings that do not encompass one-time negligent child endangerment offenses. Second, the panel explained that the statutory structure suggested that Congress deliberately omitted child endangerment from the list of offenses specified in § 1227(a)(2)(E)(i). Third, the panel explained that the general consensus drawn from state criminal codes confirms that the phrase does not encompass negligent child endangerment offenses. The panel noted that the fourth source consulted in Esquivel-Quintana, related federal criminal statutes, did not aid its analysis.
Because a violation of California Penal Code § 273a(a) can be committed with a mens rea of criminal negligence, the panel concluded that it is not a categorical match for “a crime of child abuse, child neglect, or child abandonment.” Accordingly, the panel concluded that Diaz-Rodriguez’s conviction under that statute did not render him removable under § 1227(a)(2)(E)(i).
Dissenting, Judge Callahan wrote that she was compelled to dissent for two reasons. First, she did not agree that the three-judge panel could disregard Menendez and Alvarez-Cerriteno. Second, Judge Callahan did not agree with the majority’s peculiar reading of the phrase as not encompassing a child endangerment offense committed with a mens rea of at least criminal negligence. Judge Callahan wrote that majority’s suggestion that § 1227(a)(2)(E)(i) is unambiguous is contrary to precedent and the unanimous opinions of the court’s sister circuits. Moreover, she wrote that the majority failed to recognize that the court’s task is limited to reviewing the agency’s interpretation for “reasonableness.” Instead, the majority proffered its own definition based primarily on selected dictionary definitions and its own research.
*****************
Who knows how this eventually will come out? But, what I can guarantee is until it is finally resolved, by the Supremes or otherwise, immigration practitioners and their clients will have a mess of inconsistency and bad decisions by EOIR on their hands.
Complicated issues involving criminal law come up all the time in EOIR “detention courts,” located in the Mayorkas/Garland “New American Gulag,” where many respondents are unrepresented or under-represented. How would an unrepresented respondent be able to prepare a “defense” like this? No way! The entire EOIR system suffers from some extreme constitutional problems that Garland has done nothing to address.
Having bad precedents like this in effect for a decade or more, almost always tilted toward DHS enforcement, results in many wrongful removals, as well as numerous remands and “redos” that help increase the astronomical 1.4 million case backlog! Having better judges on the BIA, real independent jurists with practical scholarly expertise, unafraid to interpret statutes and apply the law in favor of respondents when that is the “better view,” and to impose “best practices” on the Immigration Courts, is a necessary first step in addressing EOIR’s many legal and operational shortcomings.
It appears that Garland is disinterested in meaningful due process reforms and inserting real progressive judicial leadership into EOIR. The good news: With the vast majority of the immigration, human rights, and constitutional expertise and legal talent now in the private sector, and more talent coming out of law schools all the time, the NDPA stands a good chance of “litigating Garland’s failed EOIR to a standstill” over the next four years.
While that’s hardly the most desirable result, it would be infinitely better than the continuing due-process-denying “Clown Show” 🤡 that Garland currently runs at EOIR! Sometimes, you just have to take what the opposition gives you!
At what point will “powers that be” finally pay attention to the ongoing disaster at EOIR? When the backlog reaches 1.5 million? 2 million? 3 million? 4 million? 5 million? How many unjust and illegal removals will take place, and how many lives and futures irrevocably altered or ruined before this dysfunctional system finally reaches its “breaking point?”
“Eyore is completely distraught that Garland has eschewed installing progressive expert judging and creative thinking, instead allowing the ‘death spiral’ to continue!” “Eyore In Distress” Once A Symbol of Fairness, Due Process, & Best Practices, Now Gone “Belly Up”
“We voted to rehear this case en banc to reconsider our “single factor rule,” which we have applied in considering petitions for review from decisions by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”). The single factor rule, as we have applied it, requires us to sustain an adverse credibility finding if “one of the [agency’s] identified grounds is supported by substantial evidence.” Wang v. INS, 352 F.3d 1250, 1259 (9th Cir. 2003). On rehearing en banc, we hold that the single factor rule conflicts with the REAL ID Act of 2005, Pub. L. No. 109-13, 119 Stat. 231 (2005), and we overrule our prior precedent establishing and applying it. We remand this case to the three-judge panel to re-examine the petition for review in light of our clarification of the standard for reviewing the BIA’s adverse credibility determinations. … Given the REAL ID Act’s explicit statutory language, we join our sister circuits and hold that, in assessing an adverse credibility finding under the Act, we must look to the “totality of the circumstances[] and all relevant factors.” § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). There is no bright-line rule under which some number of inconsistencies requires sustaining or rejecting an adverse credibility determination—our review will always require assessing the totality of the circumstances. To the extent that our precedents employed the single factor rule or are otherwise inconsistent with this standard, we overrule those cases. We remand this case to the three-judge panel for reconsideration in light of the newly articulated standard for reviewing adverse credibility determinations.”
********************
Even with Article III Courts, including the 9th Circuit, generally “drifting right,” “good enough for Government work” has been rejected! That ought to help Garland boost the EOIR backlog!
The EOIR/DOJ policy right now appears to be “give any reason to deny,” hope that OIL can make at least one of them stick, and count on righty Circuit Judges to “swallow the whistle.” While that has certainly happened in the 5th Circuit, and to some extent in the 11th Circuit, there still appear to be enough Article IIIs out there critically reviewing EOIR’s too often patently substandard work product to make Garland’s indolent “look the other way” approach to the EOIR mess highly problematic.
Analyzing all the factors also might be inconsistent with mindless, due-process-denying three or four per day “merits quotas,” invented and imposed by Jeff “Gonzo Apocalypto” Sessions (someone with zero (0) Immigration Court experience and a well-justified lifetime reputation as a racist xenophobe — how does Matthews v. Eldridge allow a guy like that to pick and “run” judges — the Article IIIs might choose to look the other way, but most L-1 students know this is wrong and unconstitutional).
Just aimlessly listing common testimonial problems and hoping OIL will find one or more of them actually in the record is much faster (if you don’t count the impact of Circuit remands!) That it’s inconsistent with the statute, the Constitution, and, actually, BIA precedent seems to be beside the point these days. Of course, EOIR’s “assembly line jurists” also get “dinged” for remands.
Is there is anybody left at EOIR HQ today who could properly teach “totality of the circumstances” under REAL ID?
My observation from Arlington was that the number of adverse credibility findings and asylum denials went down substantially once the Fourth Circuit, and even occasionally the BIA, began enforcing “totality of the circumstances and all relevant factors” under REAL ID. As lawyers “got the picture” and began providing better independent corroborating evidence and documentation, the ability to “nit-pick” testimony, find the respondent “not credible,”and make it stand up on review diminished, as its well should have!
Of course, in my mind, REAL ID and the Fourth Circuit were just “re-enforcing and adopting” observations that members of our deposed “Gang of Four or Five” had made in numerous dissents from our BIA colleagues “undue deference” to poorly reasoned and thinly supported adverse credibility determinations, particularly in asylum cases.
More careful analysis of the record as a whole, often with the help of JLCs, became the rule at Arlington. And, after a few initial setbacks in the Fourth Circuit, ICE in Arlington generally stopped pushing for unjustified adverse credibility rulings and adopted approaches that actually complied with Fourth Circuit law.
The antiquated “contemporaneous oral decision format,” put on steroids by Sessions and Barr, is particularly ill-suited to the type of careful analysis required by the current statute, not to mention due process. And, having far too many newer Immigration Judges who have no immigration background and who have never had to represent an individual in Immigration Court is also a formula for failure, particularly when combined with inadequate training and idiotic “quotas.”
I’m not sure that the famous Rube Goldberg could have created a more convoluted,inefficient, and irrational process than exists at today’s EOIR. It simply can’t be fixed without leadership and assistance from outside experts who understand the problems (because they and their clients have “lived them”) and who aren’t wedded to all the mistakes and failed “silver bullet solutions” of the past!
The EOIR process is so “user friendly” that any unrepresented two-year-old can easily navigate it! Rube Goldberg (1883-1970) — 1930 Public Realm
By contrast with the EOIR mess, it’s amazing what changes an expert appellate body that actually takes its job and due process seriously can effect. Imagine if we had an expert BIA that made due process and treating individuals fairly “job one,” rather than operating as a “whistle stop on the deportation railroad.”
The ongoing EOIR clown show 🤡 just keeps getting exposed. But, nobody in charge seems to care! That’s a shame, 🤮 because “human lives, ⚰️ and perhaps the survival of our democracy, 🇺🇸 hang in the balance here!”
Immigration Courts are the “living, breathing repudiation” of racial justice in America!🏴☠️
Repeatedly, Federal Courts at all levels say that foreign nationals are entitled to due process under the Fifth Amendment.
Then, they often go on to convert that to an insulting platitude by approving legal travesties and substandard performance by EOIR inflicted on migrants of color, their attorneys (if any), and their communities. Maybe, it’lls because talented Hispanic judges with actual experience representing asylum seekers and other migrants in Immigration Court are so few and far between. Maybe it’s because Garland has failed to actively recruit judges from among immigration and human rights attorneys of color and has continued to employ a flawed “insider-tilted” selection process that was designed and implemented to “slam the door” on experts from the non-governmental advocacy and academic communities.
Whatever the reason, EOIR has become the “living refutation” of the assertion that Hispanics and other communities of color are treated fairly and equally under our laws and that that race-based decision-making and jurisprudence have vanished from our legal system.
Maybe it’s time for Hispanics and their allies to stop being “tolerant of inequity and bias” and start taking a more aggressive and less compromising position on Garland’s disgraceful, disorderly, dysfunctional, non-diverse, tone-deaf Immigration Courts! Your voices are NOT being heard by those running the Star Chambers and cranking out “assembly line injustice.”
Why does the Hispanic community put up with being demeaned, dehumanized, and degraded by Garland’s “Clown Courts”🤡 and also by a Democratic Party that promised change but has delivered “same old same old” at EOIR?
Recent Supreme Court mockeries of justice show that the rights of minorities are under assault by a radically right-wing Article III Judiciary stocked with GOP appointees. The Immigration Courts, by contrast, are under the total control of the Administration and present an unparalleled opportunity for minority communities to both showcase their judicial skills and to start winning back their legal rights after four years of unrelenting assault by the White Nationalist right.
Why is this perhaps once-in-a lifetime opportunity for long overdue, radical reform of a broken, biased, and incompetent system being squandered and buried by Garland as if Stephen Miller and his cronies were still calling the shots? How many Hispanic and other lives will be sacrificed to EOIR over the next three plus years? How many attorneys of color will continue to be abused, misused, and under-appreciated by an Administration pledged to “do better?” What will be left of racial justice in America if entrusted to a DOJ that doesn’t even believe in the concept in their own court system?
“We hold that B.C. was denied due process because the IJ did not conduct an adequate initial evaluation of whether an interpreter was needed and took no action even after the language barrier became apparent. Those failures resulted in a muddled record and appear to have impermissibly colored the agency’s adverse credibility determination. We therefore vacate the BIA’s decisions and remand for a new hearing on the merits of B.C.’s claims. On remand, the agency must also remedy other errors B.C. has identified, which include dealing with the corroborative evidence he submitted.”
“Baljinder Singh achieved what many immigrants to our country seek: he became a naturalized citizen. Unfortunately, he did so through willful misrepresentation, and, as a consequence, his citizenship was revoked. Before that revocation and while he was still a citizen, he was convicted of conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute illegal drugs. That led the government to initiate removal proceedings against him, and he was in fact ordered to be removed. Singh now petitions for review of that final order of removal, arguing that the pertinent statutory provisions, by their terms, permit removal only of individuals who were “aliens” at the time of their criminal convictions, whereas he was a naturalized citizen when convicted. The government responds that we must defer to the interpretation given by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) to those statutes and therefore must deny the petition for review. In the alternative, the government contends that Singh should be treated as if he had never been naturalized and was actually an “alien” at the time he was convicted. We disagree with both of the government’s arguments and will grant Singh’s petition for review.”
Who would have thought that nearly eight months into the Biden Administration, Garland would still be living in this guy’s house and cranking out some of America’s most unabashedly horrible “jurisprudence” that actually threatens human lives! This is competence? Attribution: Stephen Miller Monster by Peter Kuper, PoliticalCartoons.com
So many systemic problems here! So many obvious solutions! So much progressive expert talent out here who could get this system back on track and save lives in the process! So few excuses for Garland’s gross mishandling of the ongoing EOIR disaster!
The “culture of sloppiness, denial, and anti-immigrant bias” remains at EOIR almost eight months into the Biden Administration! Major personnel (new expert progressive judges committed to due process) and structural changes are necessary and long, long overdue!
The BIA needs to be replaced. Yesterday! Not rocket science! 🚀 Garland and his DOJ have no credibility whatsoever on civil rights, voting rights, or other racial justice issues as long as they run “star chambers” targeting primarily migrants of color (not to mention their long-suffering and dedicated lawyers, many acting pro bono).
“Justice” Star Chamber Style — Garland’s star chambers look and function disturbingly like those of Stephen Miller! Is this REALLY the “progressive humanitarian change” progressives voted for?
Immigrant justice IS racial justice IS equal justice for all! I’m certainly not the only person to have observed this!
⚠️WARNING TO PROGRESSIVE ADVOCATES: There can be no legitimate “asylum reform” without a strong, courageously progressive EOIR to set proper precedent, insure consistency, establish best practices, train judges and adjudicators, and police both the Immigration Courts and the Asylum Offices, including ordering corrective action to be taken in cases of those judge and officers repeatedly and demonstrably “not up to the job.” In simple terms, the culture of anti-asylum bias, racial dehumanization, and sloppy anti-immigrant decision-making that was promoted and institutionalized at EOIR under Sessions and Barr must be eradicated!
Do you seriously think that “this version” of EOIR, poorly trained, weakly staffed, and led by a BIA custom designed and packed by nativists to deny asylum and tilt in favor of DHS enforcement, will insure fairness and due process to asylum seekers in a “streamlined system?” No way!
Yet, beneath all the legal gobbledygook surrounding the proposed asylum regulation changes is the ugly reality that inflicting a “Miller-Lite” EOIR on asylum seekers and their advocates is EXACTLY what Garland and Mayorkas are absurdly proposing!
Advocates need to make their voices heard for immediate EOIR reforms from Garland and establishment of a new well-qualified, well-trained, progressive EOIR as an absolute, non-negotiable prerequisite to any more “gimmicks,” including most of the proposed asylum regulations.
As proved, beyond any reasonable doubt, day after day, Garland’s EOIR is “not quite ready for prime time” — not by a long shot! JUST SAY NO TO STREAMLINING & YET MORE “GIMMICKS” (see, e.g., “Dedicated Dockets”) WITHOUT RADICAL PROGRESSIVE EOIR REFORMS!⚖️🗽
The main problem with the current asylum system isn’t the law. It’s the unqualified folks charged with interpreting and applying it, those “defending the indefensible” (also an abuse of our legal process), and the spineless politicos unwilling to stand up for due process and the rule of law for migrants — at the border and elsewhere!
The failure of effective progressive leadership on EOIR reform at DOJ is simply appalling! And, OIL isn’t exactly covering itself in glory either! You can’t win the game without new and better players on the field. Right Casey?
“Casey Stengel might understand Judge Garland. The rest of us not so much.” Not going to win many games for humanity and the rule of law with Stephen Miller’s “nativist team” on the field. Is that fundamental truth really too deep for Garland and his “spear carriers” to grasp? PHOTO: Rudi Reit Creative Commons
SCOTUSblog: The Supreme Court on Tuesday night rejected the Biden administration’s plea for a reprieve from a district-court order requiring it to reinstate a Trump-era program known as the “remain in Mexico” policy, which requires asylum seekers to stay in Mexico while they wait for a hearing in U.S. immigration court. The court was divided on the decision to deny relief, with the court’s three liberal justices – Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan – indicating that they would have granted the government’s request and put the district court’s order on hold. See also The Supreme Court’s stunning, radical immigration decision, explained; Biden administration will continue challenging ‘Remain in Mexico’.
Politico: U.S. officials in Kabul gave the Taliban a list of names of American citizens, green card holders and Afghan allies to grant entry into the militant-controlled outer perimeter of the city’s airport, a choice that’s prompted outrage behind the scenes from lawmakers and military officials. See also In evacuation mission’s 11th hour, hope dims for Afghans seeking escape.
AP: U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement must test detainees for COVID-19 before they are transferred to the immigrant detention center in Tacoma, a federal judge ordered Monday.
The Intercept: ATLAS helps DHS investigate immigrants’ personal relationships and backgrounds, examining biometric information like fingerprints and, in certain circumstances, considering an immigrant’s race, ethnicity, and national origin. It draws information from a variety of unknown sources, plus two that have been criticized as being poorly managed: the FBI’s Terrorist Screening Database, also known as the terrorist watchlist, and the National Crime Information Center. Powered by servers at tech giant Amazon, the system in 2019 alone conducted 16.5 million screenings and flagged more than 120,000 cases of potential fraud or threats to national security and public safety.
AP: Five months after the Biden administration declared an emergency and raced to set up shelters to house a record number of children crossing the U.S.-Mexico border alone, kids continue to languish at the sites, while more keep coming, child welfare advocates say.
NYT: a new camp sprang up about 55 miles farther west, in the Mexican city of Reynosa, and this one, aid workers say, is far worse than the one at Matamoros ever was. Overcrowded already, with more than 2,000 people, it is filthy and foul-smelling, lacking the health and sanitation infrastructure that nonprofit groups had spent months installing at Matamoros. Assaults and kidnappings for ransom are commonplace.
NYT: . Through July, Border Patrol officials found 383 dead migrants, the highest toll in nearly a decade, and one already far surpassing the 253 recovered in the previous fiscal year.
Law360: Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis demanded the Biden administration provide personal information on undocumented migrants being relocated to Florida, including names, addresses and the number of people who tested positive for COVID-19 or refused the coronavirus vaccine.
Law360: A federal watchdog on Wednesday called on U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services to improve its employment eligibility verification system, finding shortcomings that kept the agency from accurately confirming workers’ identities and work authorization in at least 800,000 instances.
AILA: The Supreme Court denied the application for a stay and thus preventing the Biden administration’s effort to halt the reminstatement of “Remain in Mexico.” (Biden, et al. v. Texas, et al., 8/24/21)
AILA: The court extended the district court stay on the preliminary injunction on the Biden immigration enforcement memos indefinitely. (Texas, et al., v. USA, et al., 8/27/21)
Law360: A Nepalese asylum-seeker has another shot at avoiding deportation after the Second Circuit ruled Friday that an immigration judge had prematurely declared his story of Maoist intimidation and violence not credible without giving him a chance to address minor discrepancies.
Law360: The Second Circuit rejected an immigrant’s arguments Wednesday that after being beaten by members of a rival political party for his affiliation with a Sikh party, he could not escape the threat of more violence by moving within India, affirming a Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision to deny asylum and deport the man.
Law360: A panel of Fifth Circuit judges vacated a Pakistani man’s deportation order issued after he was convicted for synthetic marijuana possession, finding that the Board of Immigration Appeals failed to fully consider whether his state law conviction is equivalent to federal drug law.
AILA: Where the petitioner alleged that the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Sessions v. Dimaya made his removal unlawful, the court held that the BIA did not err by construing his motion as a motion to reconsider nor by denying it as time barred. (Gonzalez Hernandez v. Garland, 8/13/21)
AILA: The court granted the petition for review of the BIA’s denial of the petitioners’ motion to reopen, finding the BIA abused its discretion by departing from established policy when it failed to apply the Matter of Sanchez Sosa factors. (Gonzales Quecheluno v. Garland, 8/12/21)
AILA: Where BIA had reversed the IJ’s findings that petitioner would more likely than not be tortured in Somalia, the court found that BIA applied the correct legal standard to the Convention Against Torture (CAT) claim and did not engage in impermissible fact finding. (Mohamed v. Garland, 8/13/21)
Law360: The Eighth Circuit refused to stop an Ethiopian refugee’s deportation, ruling Friday that a portion of the Immigration and Nationality Act allowing the deportation of certain migrants who face persecution upon return is ambiguous, but not unconstitutionally vague.
Law360: The Ninth Circuit Wednesday revived a Cameroonian rape survivor’s asylum bid, ruling that the immigration judge cherry-picked discrepancies in the woman’s testimony to justify deporting her and “displayed a dubious understanding of how rape survivors ought to act.”
AILA: The court upheld BIA’s determination that petitioner was ineligible for cancellation of removal under INA §240A(b)(1)(C) due to his conviction for an offense described in INA §212(a)(2), even though he had been previously admitted into the United States. (Sanchez-Ruano v. Garland, 8/11/21)
AILA: The court held that the IJ failed to put the petitioner on notice that his alleged false claim of U.S. citizenship would be at issue during his hearing, and that such failure violated due process by denying him a full and fair hearing. (Flores-Rodriguez v. Garland, 8/16/21)
AILA: The court found it lacked jurisdiction to review petitioner’s challenge to his expedited removal proceedings, concluding that the Supreme Court’s decision in DHS v. Thuraissigiam abrogated any colorable constitutional claim exception to INA §242(a)(2)(A). (Guerrier v. Garland, 8/16/21)
AILA: The court held that an Interpol Red Notice, among other evidence, created a serious reason to believe that the petitioner had committed a serious nonpolitical crime before entering the United States, and that he was ineligible for withholding of removal. (Villalobos Sura v. Garland, 8/17/21)
AILA: The court held that the record did not compel the conclusion that the petitioner suffered hardship in India that rose to the level of past persecution, where he did not experience significant physical harm and his harm was an isolated event, among other factors. (Sharma v. Garland, 8/17/21)
AILA: Granting in part the petition for review, the court held that vehicle theft under California Vehicle Code §10851(a) is indivisible in its treatment of accessories after the fact, and thus is not an aggravated felony theft offense under INA §101(a)(43)(G). (Lopez-Marroquin v. Garland, 8/18/21)
AILA: The court denied the petition for review, holding that because petitioner was convicted of a violation of 18 USC §1546(a) and his sentence was greater than one year, his conviction expressly fell under the definition of aggravated felony in INA §101(a)(43)(P). (Germain v. Att’y Gen., 8/18/21)
Law360: A split Eleventh Circuit panel refused Tuesday to grant asylum to a member of a Sri Lankan ethnic minority or to block his deportation, ruling he hasn’t proven past persecution or credible fear of future persecution.
Law360: A Texas federal judge has blocked an executive order from the state’s governor banning the transportation of certain migrants in the state, holding it violates the supremacy clause of the Constitution by authorizing state officials to make federal immigration determinations.
Law360: U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement must test immigrants for COVID-19 before transferring them to a Washington state detention center, after a federal judge blamed the agency for 240 detainees and facility staff contracting the virus over the past three months.
Law360: The U.S. Department of Homeland Security has told a California federal judge that it could not produce an administrative record related to its practice of turning back asylum-seekers at the southern border because no such policy existed.
AILA: USCIS provided information regarding a proposed class settlement in A.O., et al. v. Jaddou, et al. No. 19-cv-6151 (N.D. Cal.) regarding juvenile court orders in the California Juvenile Court with subsequent filed Special Immigrant Juvenile (SIJ) petitions after the age of 18 years old.
AILA: DHS released a memo with guidance on immigration processing for certain Afghan nationals, stating that they will be paroled into the U.S. on a case-by-case basis for a two-year period and may be eligible to apply for status through USCIS.
AILA: EOIR launched its FOIA Public Access Link (PAL), which will allow users to submit requests, check the status of requests, download records, browse the FOIA reading room, and correspond with the EOIR FOIA Service Center. The PAL also allows users to pay required fees online.
AILA: ICE issued interim guidance to all OPLA attorneys to guide them in appropriately executing interim civil immigration enforcement and removal priorities and exercising prosecutorial discretion. Note, on 8/19/21, OPLA suspended reliance on this guidance due to litigation.
Thanks, Elizabeth! It’s interesting and satisfying that several Circuits, including the 2d and the 9th, are openly rejecting EOIR’s practice of “nit-picking” asylum applicants’ testimony in an attempt to deny meritorious applications. It’s all part of the “culture of denial” that continues to flourish at EOIR’s deportation assembly line under Garland.
Sadly, the Circuits haven’t yet had the guts to face the larger problem here — the EOIR system, as currently staffed with too many “Trump plants” as judges and a continuing lack of expertise and anti-asylum, anti-immigrant bias is clearly unconstitutional under the Fifth Amendment!
Indeed, some Circuit panels take judicial review seriously, others function as rubber stamps, and most individuals wronged in Immigration Court lack the lawyers and wherewithal to take their case to the Circuits. This means that inconsistent results and lack of consistently applied expertise at all levels of the Federal legal system just add to the inconsistencies and unfairness heaped on migrants in violation of the Due Process Clause. To date, no Circuit has been willing to act on the glaring constitutional defects at EOIR staring them in the face.
Unhappily, Congress also has failed to act on long-overdue legislation to create an independent, Article I Immigration Court. In the interim, it would be possible to ameliorate, if not entirely eliminate, these constitutional problems by replacing marginally qualified IJs and BIA judges with well-qualified progressive experts and then giving them independence to issue precedents and make necessary procedural and structural changes to restore some semblence of Due Process, quality control, fair procedures, and efficiency to this disgracefully dysfunctional, unnecessarily backlogged system. The private bar could be constructively involved in creating universal representation and sane docket management. Indeed experts recommended these very changes to Garland, only to be ignored in favor of the “same old, same old” incredible mess and gross indifference to both the rule of law and human life at EOIR!
Not surprisingly, a recently issued report from the Government Accountability Office (“GAO”) highlighted lack of “shareholder engagement” — something specifically discouraged by the Trump kakistocracy — as an endemic and continuing problem at EOIR. https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-21-104404
Shareholder engagement means having a meaningful dialogue with those practicing before the courts, and honestly considering their input in advance of promulgating new policies. So called “Town Halls” to announce unilaterally developed bureaucratic policies are the antithesis of this meaningful process. It’s no mystery why EOIR continues to founder and stumble under Garland.
A robed GOP Justice, carrying a copy of Dred Scott and the tool of right-wing extremism, heads for secret meeting to take action against brown-skinned refugees! Image: Hernan Fednan, Creative Commons LicenseDahlia Lithwick Supreme Court Reporter Slate Wikimedia Commons — Public DomainMark Joseph Stern Reporter, Slate
On Tuesday night, the Supreme Court issued one of the most radical orders in recent memory—and it did it in three sentences, unsigned. By a 6–3 vote, the conservative justices attacked the president’s authority to conduct foreign policy (a principle it had vehemently preserved throughout the Trump presidency) by compelling the Biden administration to revive Donald Trump’s “Remain in Mexico” policy, which required all asylum-seekers who arrive at the Southern border—including many fleeing violence in Central America—to wait for their U.S. immigration hearings in Mexico. This 2019 policy, the product of extensive negotiations between the Trump administration and the Mexican government, has been suspended for about 17 months. On Aug. 13, however, a single federal judge issued a nationwide injunction ordering the government to reinstate the long-dormant program immediately. Late Tuesday, the Supreme Court blessed this unprecedented hostile takeover of the executive’s immigration policies without bothering to explain how or why.
The implications of Tuesday’s decision are profoundly disturbing. . . .
Perhaps the most perverse aspect of the litigation over “Remain in Mexico”—also known as the Migrant Protection Protocols, or MPP—is that the policy itself is illegal. The Immigration and Nationality Act does allow the government to return a narrow class of migrants to “contiguous territory” while they await hearings. But, as a federal appeals court explained in 2020, the law does not allow the government to send the vast majority of asylum-seekers back to Mexico to await hearings. Doing so violates the United States’ treaty obligations as implemented in the INA, which bar the government from sending refugees back to countries where they fear persecution.
. . . .
As we have suggested in the recent past, the problem with late-night emergency orders written as haikus on Post-it notes stuck to the front doors of the Supreme Court isn’t just that the parties must scramble, without guidance, to discern what it is the court wants them to do. In this case, perhaps tens of thousands of desperate asylum-seekers and their families have absolutely no clue as to what the law is now and why. We have no idea what even constitutes an emergency, or which parties have standing, or what the legal reasoning might be.
Not very long ago, the high court used its shadow docket to spank what it deemed runaway district court judges arrogating power to set immigration policy in violation of Trump’s orders. Now, the same shadow docket is being used to hand federal immigration powers to runaway district court judges, with no rule or principle set forth beyond the fact that Biden should just lose, because they say so.
*****************
Under Roberts, the Supremes are looking more and more like the deadly EOIR Star Chambers/Clown Courts!☠️⚰️🤡 Shamefully, the “Roberts Six” have “revived” the “essence” of perhaps the worst Supremes’ decision in U.S. history, Dred Scott, and gotten away with applying it to people of color in the 21st Century!
They have elevated utter BS and fabricated “injuries” manufactured in bad faith by vile right wing GOP State AGs over the human rights, lives, and human dignity of refugees seeking asylum! In particular, they have targeted bown-skinned women, children, and families legally seeking refuge! This is progress? Seems like the definition of “judicial cowardice” to me!
Meanwhile Garland inexcusably has failed to reform his Immigration Courts by replacing unqualified Immigration Judges and BIA Appellate Judges selected by his predecessors under highly questionable procedures with well-qualified progressive judges who are experts in due process and human rights.
Building a progressive Immigration Judiciary at EOIR is absolutely necessary to developing the legal skills to hold the anti-American far right at bay and eventually creating a better Article III Judiciary that will actually stand up for due process and equal justice for all persons in America. Something the “Roberts 6” have scandalously and spinelessly failed to do!🤮👎🏽
Garland’s “right hand man” on EOIR matters is eerily familiar, in a Himmleresque way! Attribution: Stephen Miller Monster by Peter Kuper, PoliticalCartoons.com“Miller’s Mob” is still alive and well at Garland’s EOIR. Legal asylum seekers — not so well, not so alive! https://www.flickr.com/photos/rasputin243/ Creative Commons LicenseBIA Asylum Panel In Action — At Garland’s BIA, a “Miller-trained and inspired” Asylum Panel can, and does, kill dozens of unarmed asylum seekers in a single day to “make quota.” Despite being thoroughly discredited for judicial use, Garland has inexplicably continued due-process-denying, corner-cutting, quality-killing “production quotas” for his assembly line worker/judges in Immigration Courts! Albrecht Dürer, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons.
Dan Kowalski reports for LexisNexis Immigration Community:
“Ms. Munyuh’s case concerns us. From our reading of the record, the IJ seemed determined to pick every nit she could find. Besides erring procedurally, the IJ discounted probative evidence on flimsy grounds and displayed a dubious understanding of how rape survivors ought to act. Although we give great deference to the IJ as factfinder, substantial-evidence review does not require us to credit the credibility finding of an IJ who cherry-picks from—or misconstrues—the record to reach it. The IJ must consider the “totality of the circumstances, and all relevant factors.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii) (emphasis added). At the very least, the two legal errors we have identified warrant remand. The IJ erred by failing to give specific, cogent reasons for rejecting Ms. Munyuh’s reasonable, plausible explanations for the discrepancies tied to her declaration that the police truck broke down after only four or five kilometers. And she further erred by discounting the supporting documentation without giving Ms. Munyuh adequate notice and opportunity to provide corroborative evidence. We therefore vacate the removal order and remand the case to the Board for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. PETITION GRANTED; VACATED and REMANDED.”
Congrats to Attorney Ronald D. Richey, who appeared before me many times at the Arlington Immigration Court.
Ronald D. Richey, Esquire Rockville, MD
Here’s a quote from the opinion by Senior Circuit Judge Danny Boggs, a Reagan appointee “on loan” from the 6th Cir., that shows the appallingly unprofessional performance of the Immigration Judge and the BIA in this “life or death” case:
On this point, the IJ made findings with which no reasonable factfinder could agree. She found Ms. Munyuh’s testimony that “the truck had traveled over two hours” to conflict with her earlier estimate that it had traveled “over an hour.” And she found Ms. Munyuh’s redirect testimony that “the truck [had] traveled approximately four to five hours before breaking down” to be “clearly in conflict with each of [Ms. Munyuh]’s prior estimations.”
But these time estimates are all consistent with each other. Indeed, assuming the truck really had traveled for four to five hours, Ms. Munyuh had no other choice but to give those answers. The IJ asked her if the truck had traveled more or less than an hour, to which Ms. Munyuh said more than an hour. Then the IJ asked whether the truck had traveled at least two hours, to which Ms. Munyuh answered in the affirmative.
No reasonable factfinder could find those two statements to conflict with Ms. Munyuh’s later testimony that the truck traveled for four to five hours. The IJ’s contrary finding is therefore unsupported by substantial evidence.
Wow! Is this what constituted “acceptable performance” when Judge Garland was on the D.C. Circuit? And, don’t forget, OIL actually defended this garbage product in May 2021, well after Garland took office and after experts had advised him to “clean house.”
The bad judges at EOIR whose lack of competence and/or bias unfairly condemn asylum seekers to persecution, torture and death, or all three, do NOT have life tenure and should NOT be on the Immigration Bench. Period! It’s not rocket science!
“No reasonable fact finder.” Isn’t that a problem in life or death cases? So-called “judges” who time after time stretch and misinterpret facts, ignore due process, and misapply basic asylum law to unfairly sentence asylum seekers to death! Why isn’t this grounds for removal from the bench? Or at least removing them from all asylum cases!
While Judge Boggs and his colleagues are rightfully “concerned” with EOIR’s performance in this case, Garland doesn’t appear to share those concerns. This is “business as usual” at Garland’s EOIR, just as it was when Stephen Miller was calling the shots! Obviously, Garland isn’t taking the human lives at stake here with even a modicum of seriousness. That’s totally unacceptable! Maybe Judge Boggs needs to pick up pen ✒️ and paper 📜 and express his outrage in writing to his former Circuit Court colleague, attaching an annotated copy of the garbage being turned out by his EOIR Star Chambers!
Just look the other way, it’s the Garland way! “Justice” Star Chamber Style
Also, don’t think that cases like this are an “aberration.” No, they aren’t! The only “aberration” is that this is one of a tiny sliver of injustices that was actually caught and corrected by the Article IIIs. How many unrepresented or under-represented individuals do you think that this judge and this BIA panel “railroad” in a week?
🏴☠️⚰️THEATER OF THE ABSURD: Incredibly, Garland & Mayorkas are now proposing to put this “Miller-Lite” EOIR infested with many incompetent, poorly trained, asylum-denying “judges,” with no credible leadership, totally lacking in professionalism and quality control, “in charge” of establishing precedents, insuring, and enforcing due process in their proposed “streamlined” asylum system! In other words, the solution for those who have repeatedly demonstrated an outrageous inability to conduct fair hearings and whose ignorance of asylum law and best practices is often stunning is to put them in charge of doing “paper reviews” of applications denied by Asylum Officers!
Good luck with that! Could there be a more insane proposal under current conditions? Making Stephen Miller the new “Asylum Czar” at EOIR? Perhaps, don’t be surprised!
Of course, in the nutsos world of Garland and Mayorkas, their fatally flawed proposal arguably would be a better than the current illegal and immoral use of Miller’s bogus Title 42 scheme to return legal asylum seekers to torture or death WITHOUT ANY PROCESS WHATSOEVER.
It’s simple. A complete “housecleaning” at EOIR, starting with the BIA, new progressive leadership and professional expert training at EOIR and the Asylum Office, new progressive asylum precedents and guidance, and an operating program for universal representation of asylum seekers are ABSOLUTE PREREQUISITES for fair and efficient regulatory reform of the asylum system! In the meantime, allow Asylum Officers to grant asylum to those who pass credible fear, but continue to give full Immigration Court hearings to any who can’t be granted. Get rid of Title 42 and start processing legal asylum seekers in an orderly fashion through ports of entry!
More than seven months into the Administration, Garland and Mayorkas could, and should, have had these needed progressive personnel, leadership, and structural changes in place, producing due process, and most important, actually saving lives! Instead, they have wasted time and squandered goodwill by continuing to run Stephen Miller’s White Nationalist system with Miller’s personnel in place! Simply incredible!
And, the bumbling, highly predictable weakness of the team of DOJ lawyers trying to defend the Administration’s few humanitarian immigration initiatives has become patently obvious. How can you expect lawyers who have spent the last four years misrepresenting asylum seekers as less than human and a threat to society suddenly start setting the record straight and effectively advocating for their human and legal rights? Obviously, they can’t! While EOIR is clearly the most glaringly dysfunctional part of DOJ, it’s obviously not the only problem and the only place Team Garland needed to (but didn’t) “clean house.”
I “get” that this isn’t Judge Bell’s, Ben Civiletti’s, or Janet Reno’s DOJ any more! But, remarkably, and tragically for the poor souls and their lawyers involved, Garland doesn’t!
PANEL: MARTIN (Obama), NEWSOM (Trump), and BRANCH (Trump), Circuit Judges.
OPINION BY: Judge Branch
DISSENT: Judge Martin
KEY QUOTES FROM DISSENT:
The majority opinion gives no more consideration to Mr. Murugan’s claims
and individualized evidence than did the Board of Immigration Appeals and the Immigration Judge. That is to say not much consideration at all.
Mr. Murugan produced evidence that in October 2018, the Sri Lankan government changed drastically when the former president, who had been accused of authorizing war crimes and other human rights abuses against Tamils “blindsided” political observers and “sudden[ly]” returned as prime minister. Because Mr. Murugan is a member of the Tamil ethnic group, his attorney brought up these facts at the hearing before the IJ. But the IJ took no notice of this evidence, finding that Mr. Murugan’s country conditions evidence was outdated because it included materials related to the former president’s rule from 2014 to 2016. Mr. Murugan argued to the BIA that the IJ improperly disregarded these new facts, because they were relevant to what treatment the Tamils could expect from the newly returned prime minister. Even so, the BIA mechanically adopted the IJ’s decision that Mr. Murugan’s evidence was outdated. Mr. Murugan has now tried a third time, pointing out the significance of this evidence in his brief before this Court.
The majority opinion, like the IJ and the BIA, fails to engage with this
evidence. But I see it as substantial and highly probative evidence of a pattern or 19
USCA11 Case: 19-13715 Date Filed: 08/24/2021 Page: 20 of 34
practice of government persecution of Tamils. Because I believe Mr. Murugan met his burden of showing he had a well-founded fear of future persecution based on the Sri Lankan government’s practice of persecuting Tamils, I would grant him relief on this claim.
. . . .
When this Court is tasked with reviewing a decision of the BIA, we must
actually review it, albeit with deference. This majority opinion may condemn Mr. Murugan to extreme persecution in Sri Lanka because it failed to actually examine the evidence of recent political changes in that country. When a dictator with a well-documented history of persecuting an ethnic group returns to power, surely
33
USCA11 Case: 19-13715 Date Filed: 08/24/2021 Page: 34 of 34
our law does not require a member of that group wait to again experience persecution before he can claim asylum. Mr. Murugan has met his burden here. I respectfully dissent.
************
I encourage everyone to read Judge Martin’s complete dissent. By contrast, Judge Elizabeth Branch’s majority opinion is a vapid, disingenuous, piece of right-wing legal sophistry. As my colleague, Hon. “Sir Jeffrey” Chase observed, Branch was “Associate General Counsel for Rules and Legislation, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, in 2004-2005,” during the Bush II Administration.
Judge Martin will retire from the bench on September 30, 2021, thus giving President Biden a chance to appoint her replacement. So, this might be her last immigration opinion.
Judge Martin calls out her intellectually dishonest Trumpy colleagues and accurately characterizes BIA review as no review at all. (Actually, it’s worse than no review, because the BIA sometimes reverses correct IJ asylum grants and rewrites decisions to make it easier for OIL to defend bad denials.)
No matter how poorly they perform their judicial duties (the majority decision in this case certainly stands out as one of many low points in recent American jurisprudence) Trump’s and McConnell’s far righty Article IIIs enjoy lifetime sinecures.
But, EOIR “judges,” particularly after the last two decades of political interference with any semblance of “judicial independence,” enjoy no such exalted lifetime protection. As DOJ keeps pointing out, they are “mere Government attorneys” who can be reassigned to a wide range of attorney positions at the discretion of the AttorneyGeneral.
Thus Garland could, and should, remove and reassign poorly qualified judges and replace them with real, well-qualified expert progressive judges who understand asylum law, will fairly apply it, will issue some positive asylum precedents, and will control the “Asylum Deniers Club” operating in Immigration Courts throughout America. The dysfunction, institutionalized unfairness, and “worst practices,” are particularly acute after four years of poor judicial selections, a BIA packed with anti-asylum zealots, and defective training by biased, anti-asylum AGs under fatally flawed and discriminatory selection procedures
Judge Martin “gets it.” How come nobody on Team Garland does?
As we can see, from the Supremes to the “retail level” at the Immigration Courts, the consequences of poor right-wing judging fall most heavily on migrants, women, children, and people of color. Progressives could change that around at EOIR. But, Judge Garland doesn’t seem up to the job, as the opportunity for long overdue, systemic, life saving changes at EOIR continues to slip through his fingers!
ELIE MYSTAL, Justice Correspondent, writes in The Nation:
. . . .
The opinion is thorough and well-reasoned, and Judge Du’s arguments are so obvious in retrospect that it’s kind of amazing they aren’t a staple of the immigration debate in this country. But this is where Judge Du’s background perhaps becomes important.
DONATE NOW TO POWER THE NATION.
Readers like you make our independent journalism possible.
Miranda Du was born in Ca Mau, Vietnam, in 1969. Her family fled the nation after the Vietnam War when she was 9, first to Malaysia, before eventually making its way to Alabama. She went to Berkeley for law school and was an employment lawyer in Nevada when Harry Reid and Barack Obama made her a federal district judge in 2011. I would imagine that Judge Du looks at the US immigration system with a fresh perspective, at least as compared to a person like me, who was born here and has been taught to just accept a background level of bigotry as an immutable fact of immigration law. One of the more striking parts of her opinion in this case is the section in which she calls out other courts for not doing this sooner. She essentially says that courts in other jurisdictions that have looked at Section 1326 have blindly accepted the government’s reasoning that the 1952 reauthorization cleansed the statute of its racial bias, without really looking at the 1952 Congress.
The opinion is brilliant, and I’m going to print it out so I’ll still have a copy of it when Justice Samuel Alito and the other conservatives on the Supreme Court reverse it and order Du’s opinion to be nuked from orbit. There is, practically speaking, no chance this ruling survives Supreme Court review. The high court will skate over the disparate impact analysis by saying that any person, regardless of race, who crosses the southern border will experience the same over-enforcement. Or the court will reverse the ruling of racist intent by finding, as other courts have, that the 1952 Congress did cleanse the statute of racism. Or they’ll find that the government does have a legitimate and permissible interest in discriminating against southern border crossers. After all, the Supreme Court found bigotry to be okay in Trump v. Hawaii, which upheld the Muslim ban, so finding a reason to uphold Section 1326 will be child’s play for the conservatives who like a little bigotry in their immigration rulings.
And that’s if the case even makes it to the Supreme Court, which it probably won’t. Judge Du’s ruling will first be appealed to the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and I could see it getting reversed there. It’s unlikely that other liberal judges will even want to open this can of worms. As I said, Judge Du relies on a disparate impact analysis, and I can think of at least three Supreme Court justices who might be in the mood to overturn disparate impact analysis altogether.
Judge Du is right about the bigotry inherent in our immigration laws, but conservatives like the bigotry and liberals will be afraid that trying to stop it will just piss off the conservatives.
But at least this opinion exists now. It’s out there, and future lawyers and judges can read it and maybe think differently about the core assumptions at the heart of our immigration system. A lone federal judge cannot stop 100 years of bigoted policies, but if you want to know what a truly progressive legal analysis looks like, Judge Du just spelled one out.
Now, President Biden just needs to read it and go out and nominate 100 judges who agree.
***************
Read the full article at the link.
Biden could start by telling Garland to “redo” the U.S. Immigration Courts with well-qualified, expert, progressive judges in the “ Chief Judge Miranda Du” image!
Different backgrounds and new, “real life” perspectives! That’s why two decades of appointments of almost exclusively prosecutors and government bureaucrats, to the exclusion of human rights experts and advocates, to the Immigration Judiciary has produced such unfair and disastrous results for humanity and American law! Similar to other “blind spots” in American law, it has also created misery and cost innocent lives.
For the most part, judges of all philosophies hate being confronted with “ugly truths” about the system they are a part of. Consequently, the impetus to sweep historical truth and logical legal reasoning under the carpet when it produces uncomfortable, unpopular, and highly controversial results is overwhelming on all sides of the judicial spectrum, with the exception of a few “brave souls” like Chief Judge Du.
One of the most obvious and disgraceful of these “dodges,” is the abject failure of the Article IIIs to confront head on the clear Fifth Amendment unconstitutionality of the Executive’s “captive Immigration Courts,” particularly as currently staffed and still operating in “Miller Lite, White Nationalist mode.”
But, courageous decisions like this will be a part of our permanent legal history and come back to haunt today’s go along to get along Federal Judges, at all levels!
Citing Matter of Acosta, 19 I. & N. Dec. 211 (BIA 1985), the Board concluded that “female nurses” were not a cognizable “particular social group” because being a nurse, like being a taxi driver, is not an immutable characteristic. The panel held that the Board erred by simply citing Matter of Acosta, and failing to provide any meaningful analysis about the immutability of “female nurses.” The panel explained that in contrast to Acosta, Plancarte cannot avoid compulsion by the cartel simply by changing jobs, because even if she ceased employment as a nurse, she would still be a nurse, as she has received specialized medical training and has a professional license as a nurse. Moreover, the cartel targeted Plancarte precisely because of her specialized nursing skills, and threatened her and her family with torture and death to force her to use those skills to provide medical treatment to the cartel. Thus, regardless of whether she would continue to work as a licensed nurse, Plancarte lacks “the power to change” the immutable nursing characteristics—her medical knowledge and nursing skills—that make her important to the cartel. The panel therefore granted the petition with respect to Plancarte’s asylum and withholding of removal claims, and remanded for consideration of the other required characteristics of her proposed particular social group of “female nurses.”
Turning to Plancarte’s CAT claim, the panel concluded that the Board’s decision ignored uncontradicted record evidence showing both acquiescence and direct involvement by government officials. The panel held that substantial evidence therefore compelled the conclusion that there was official involvement and acquiescence in the cartel forcing Plancarte to provide medical treatment to cartel members. The panel granted the petition with respect to CAT, and remanded for a determination whether the likelihood of
4 PLANCARTE SAUCEDA V. GARLAND
torture if Plancarte were returned to Mexico is sufficient to warrant CAT relief.
***************
Welcome to the “any reason to deny culture” at Garland’s EOIR!
In addition to the gross errors noted by the panel, I also think that there is a winning argument that being a registered nurse is “fundamental to identity” and therefore not something we should require an individual to change. Put it in today’s COVID context, for Pete’s sake!
Think that being a lawyer isn’t “fundamental” to the identity of a BIA Appellate Judge, an Immigration Judge, or an Article III Judge?Only when these “judges” are thinking of ways to deny protection to others do they engage in such obvious intellectual dishonesty and absurd reasoning!
This is the type of case that should have been a “quick grant” and a precedent for other grants of protection in a functioning justice system! Instead it’s an disaster! One that just happens to have been “outed” by a conscientious Court of Appeals panel — something no person of color can count on! It should be no mystery why this maliciously incompetent system creates huge, growing, out of control backlogs while squandering public resources and destroying lives!
Immigration Court— Failure
BIA — Failure
OIL — Failure
Garland — Failure
And this gang is going to be in charge of setting precedents and protecting due process and human rights of women and other asylum seekers under the Administration’s proposed “streamlined” asylum system? Absurd! It will be a death sentence for far too many refugees!
Congrats to Vallerye Allyn Anderson for saving a life here! Her outstanding performance and understanding of human rights were far superior to that of any “judge” or other DOJ lawyer involved in this case. So, why are the wrong judges still making life or death decisions at EOIR without competent “adult supervision” from qualified judges at the BIA with expertise in asylum law and the guts to apply it correctly, humanely, and generously? See, e.g., Cardoza-Fonseca, Mogharrabi, Kasinga. Just hope that Vallerye and others like her will pursue EOIR judgeships until the disgraceful, deadly, two-decade old “progressive expert lockout from the 21st Century Immigration Judiciary” finally ends and quality, courage, and due process prevail!
Vallerye Allyn Anderson ESQ Sacramento, CA PHOTO: LexisNexis
🇺🇸Due Process Forever! Failure to “clean house” of Miller Lite White Nationalism, it’s acolytes, go along to get along toady enablers, and to bring common sense, long overdue, obvious, recommended, available progressive human rights reforms and better judges and leaders to EOIR — An ongoing national disgrace!🤮
Garland’s Unwillingness To Install Progressive Competence @ EOIR Continues to Drag Down the Ship Of State! PHOTO: Thomas Hawk Creative Commons Amateur Night
Here’s a link to the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, courtesy of Dan Kowalski over at LexisNexis Immigration Community:
At first glance, this could potentially be a workable system, with some favorable aspects:
* Restores properly generous credible fear standard;
* Allows AO to grant well-established cases in first instance, even at the credible fear level, without referral to EOIR;
* Retains EOIR review of both credible fear and asylum denials;
* Doesn’t appear to affect pending and affirmative cases;
* Retains access to Circuit review of denials.
But, as with most things, the devil 👹 is in the details. And, personnel, leadership, direction, and accountability are absolute keys to success.
Without:
1) More and better Asylum Officers;
2) Far better training at the AO and EOIR (see, Michele Pistone);
3) Better IJs with proven expertise in asylum law and a demonstrated willingness to grant relief to worthy cases;
4) An entirely new BIA of progressive asylum experts to provide leadership, positive precedents, and accountability for both credible fear reviews and de novo asylum reviews;
5) An agreement with the private bar as to where and on what schedule these cases are to be heard, to achieve universal representation (see, Michele Pistone and VIISTA); and
6) Agreements with NGOs re housing, care, employment assistance to take pressure off particular communities;
this proposal appears to be “headed for failure.”
I can’t glean any of those essential characteristics from this NPR.
In their absence:
1) There are likely to be huge discrepancies in AO decisions;
2) Many current IJs, particularly from border areas, will simply “rubber stamp” both credible fear and asylum merits denials from the AO to keep the EOIR dockets moving and “make quota” (Lucas Guttentag, where are you?);
3) “Rubber stamping” of asylum denials is also endemic at the BIA, as currently comprised;
3) The current BIA will be reluctant to issue positive asylum precedents (not sure they even know how or have the ability to do so) and will likely concentrate on instructing AOs and the IJs on how to deny asylum or credible fear and have it stand up on review;
4) The private bar will be unable to keep up with the pro bono demand, causing many applicants to be unrepresented or underrepresented;
5) Asylum applicants will be concentrated in particular communities, often near the border, who will complain about the burdens being inflicted upon them by the Feds.
In other words, without better, expert, progressive leadership at both DHS and DOJ, and without major changes in personnel and training, this program will rapidly become a disaster, like other “streamlining” efforts that do not deal realistically with the practical aspects of implementation, particularly the qualifications, attitude, “culture,” and training of those making the actual decisions!A continuing lack of progressive leadership and expertise at the “retail level” will likely lead to widespread injustice, inconsistency, and eventually protracted litigation.
I am also concerned that the NPR appears to take the current 1.4 million case EOIR backlog (actually under-stated in the NPR as 1.3 million — Garland has grown it almost as rapidly as Barr-Sessions) as a “given.” But, there are readily available ways to dramatically slash this backlog by perhaps as much as 90% (see, Chen & Moskowitz plan) which would allow both IJs and the BIA to work on these cases “in real time” WITHOUT creating yet more “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” at EOIR (as the NPR, without the changes outlined above, is highly likely to do).
“Like the rest of us, Casey has no idea what Judge Garland is doing and what he hopes to achieve in his Star Chambers!” PHOTO: Rudi Reit Creative Commons
This leads me to reiterate Casey’s cosmic question: “Can’t anybody here play this game?”Ironically, there are many “all-star players” out here in the real world who can and would be “winners.” But, for whatever reason, to date, this Administration has unwisely chosen to leave most of them “on the sidelines” rather than giving them bats and gloves and putting them in the game. ⚾️ That’s painfully obvious at DOJ! Not a recipe for a “winning campaign” in my “preseason prediction.”
Asylum Seekers Wikimedia Commons — “Will US asylum seekers finally be treated fairly, humanely, and in accordance with full due process? Or is the Biden Administration’s recent “plan” just another “designed to fail enforcement gimmick” masquerading as legitimate asylum policy? Only time — and the details — will tell!
I found the White House “Fact Sheet” to be largely a mix of bureaucratic doublespeak, shame, blame, and few details about how it’s actually going to work. Also, not much about who is going to be responsible (and accountable) for making it work!
Will those whose cases are denied by an Asylum Officer still have a right to IJ/BIA/Judicial Review?
How will they set up dedicated dockets without pushing back cases already on the docket?
What steps will be taken to insure that Judges assigned to these dockets aren’t members of the “90% Denial Club?”
How will they screen asylum cases with Title 42 still in effect?
What will be the role of detention? If detention is used, how will reasonable access to counsel be be guaranteed in detention centers?
Who will be training the CBP Agents, Asylum Offices, and Immigration Judges to recognize asylum claims, even those that might not be well-articulated by migrants or that might involve novel applications of protection laws?
What advance coordination will take place with legal services groups to maximize representation.
How will positive asylum guidance be issued (given that the BIA has issued almost none in the past four years, and a number of negative precedents have been vacated by the AG or rejected by various Circuits)?
How will the success of this program be measured, particularly with respect to insuring full due process and fundamental fairness to all asylum applicants?
What type of resettlement opportunities or assistance will be made available for successful asylum, seekers and who will provide and fund it?
Will there be any role for the UNHCR? If so, what?
How will DHS and EOIR solve the “effective notice problems” that have plagued the Immigration Court system for years and resulted in far too many “bogus in absentia removal orders.”
Who will insure the accuracy of statistics and that “gamed” or manipulated statistics are not used (as the Trump regime did) to create false narratives about “success” by the Administration or to promote unfair and inaccurate “myths” about asylum seekers.
Attorney General Merrick B. Garland — His poignant recollection of the inability of his great aunts to find refuge in the U.S., and their resulting deaths in the Holocaust, haven’t stopped him from daily “pushing the St. Louis back out to sea” and denying legal protections and full due process to asylum seekers at our Southern Border and at EOIR — his “wholly owned court system” that functions more like a branch of DHS enforcement than a court of law! Official White House Photo Public Realm
“Garland believes that a thorough de-Trumpification of the Justice Department would … be called partisanship and would call into question the institution of the Justice Department, but the institution has already been called into question,” says Jeff Hauser, executive director of the Revolving Door Project of the Center for Economic and Policy Research. “Sessions and Barr came in with a goal of assaulting and undermining the institution of the Justice Department, and it’s just weird to presume that they failed. We presume that they succeeded. They were in the building. They hired their minions. They assessed people. They politicized everything. Garland presuming that the previous Department of Justice was behaving in good faith requires the same suspension of disbelief as believing dragons are real in a fantasy novel.”
. . . .
And so, we’ll also be judging Garland by another standard: how well his approach fortifies the institution against a future administration that once again disrespects norms and politicizes the rule of law.
************************
These quotes go to the heart of the problem with Garland’s stewardship and his naive, ivory tower, ineffectively timid approach to restoring the rule of law at Justice. “By the book” is NOT an effective strategy against opponents who seek to burn the book, bury the ashes, and lie about it! It’s basically no “strategy” all!
I’d be shocked, as would most knowledgeable observers, if the next GOP Administration doesn’t “disrespect the norms and politicize the rule of law.” Not only have the past two GOP Administrations done exactly that, in spades, but that’s basically what today’s GOP stands for: neo-fascist, anti-democracyrule based on big lies and a cult of personality.
To the extent the modern GOP believes in anything, it’s the exercise of power without restraint of law or morality. “Why? Because we can, and you can’t stop us. We’re in power, and you aren’t,” was largely the Trump McConnell mantra, particularly when it came to judges. How did the dying plea of RBG and the appeals of Dems for fairness and consistency in Supremes’ appointments work out? It was a classic “heads I win, tails you lose” that once again left the Dems grasping at thin air.
So, these folks are going to respect long-gone “norms” from the 1970s? “Norms” that couldn’t and didn’t stop Ashcroft, Gonzalez (“Gonzo I”), Mukasey, Sessions, or Barr? You have to be kidding? I don’t know what universe Garland has been living in for the past four plus years, but it doesn’t appear to be this one.
Contrary to Garland’s approach, there is absolutely nothing wrong with:
Coming clean on recent abuses at DOJ;
Replacing lawless immoral intentional misconstructions of law with better progressive ones that adhere to and further both the rule of law and “good government;” and
Replacing political hacks who furthered the White Nationalist agenda or other personnel who “went along to get along” with abuses, to keep their jobs, with progressive experts committed to due process and best practices who’ll get the job of restoring the rule of law, respect, and human dignity done.
Not only is there nothing wrong with the foregoing, but they are moral and practical imperatives if lives are to be saved and our democracy preserved! For Pete’s sake, these are actually the things that Biden and Harris campaigned upon and won! Why is Garland reticent to act upon truth?
This isn’t an “academic exercise!” It’s an actual life or death moment for migrants and for our democracy! And, the opponents are not folks who intend to honor norms established by Garland or any other Dem.
Indeed, they will characterize all of his actions as “radical socialism,” as they already have, regardless of the truth. In many ways, Garland’s incremental, largely passive, approach to “de-Trumpifying justice @ Justice” has been a huge gift to GOP anti-democracy insurrectionists and restrictionists. But, if I were him, I wouldn’t wait for the “thank you note.”
To shrink from the bold decisive actions necessary to clean up the disgraceful mess at the DOJ and its most grotesque manifestations at EOIR shows not only a lack awareness, but a lack of beliefin the progressive, democratic, humane values that got Biden and Harris elected in the first place and got Garland his job.
And, it’s not as if the problem with the values and institutional integrity at DOJ started only in the Trump regime. Under Bush II, Ashcroft and his advisor, notorious White Nationalist xenophobe Kris Kobach, had their plan to dismantle due process and fundamental fairness in the Immigration Courts, through compromising the BIA, in action before they even set foot in the building 10th & Pa. Ave.Those changes have actually cost some migrants their lives, and some DOJ attorneys their jobs (for the “crime” of standing up for due process for migrants) even before the Trump kakistocracy arrived.
And, al la Garland, the Obama Administration’s failure to either acknowledge the historical truth or take the obvious and necessary corrective actions sent our Immigration Courts and justice for migrants into a steep decline that became a “death spiral” under Sessions (“Gonzo Apocalypto”) and Barr and continues its accelerated downward trajectory under Garland. It’s a contributing factor in the largely self-created 1.3 million case Immigration Court backlog generated by Sessions and Barr at EOIR.
Indeed, the lack of quality, intellectual honesty, practical guidance, humane values, common sense, expertise, and legitimacy at EOIR has spread to and adversely affected other areas of our beleaguered justice system and now threatens to take down everything in a messy heap. Why a former Article III Appellate Judge can’t grasp that reality and act accordingly is beyond me.
Maybe its because he didn’t personally experience enough of EOIR’s deadly, failed, corner-cutting “work product” at the D.C. Circuit because DC has no “resident Immigration Court.” Maybe it’s because he can’t “connect the dots” between his relatives who died in the Holocaust and having no legal asylum system for those arriving at our Southern border and denying asylum seekers full due process every day @ EOIR.
For the reasons set forth in the article, it seems that Judge Garland is philosophically and by personality incapable of leading and implementing long overdue, critical progressive changes at this point in his otherwise distinguished career. The only hope would be that one of his advisors could light a fire and get him out of his inept centrist institutionalist funk.
But, the two best hopes to do that, Associate Attorney Vanita Gupta and Assistant AG for Civil Rights Kristen Clarke, who should be personally familiar with the practical and racial justice disaster at EOIR and its overall adverse effects on justice in America, have failed to make a visible impact.
Garland needs a practical expert like Dean Kevin Johnson at U.C. Davis Law, Professor Karen Musalo at the Center for Gender and Refugee Studies at Hastings Law, Jaya Ramji-Nogales, Associate Dean at Temple Law, Judy Rabinowitz at ACLU, Marielena Hincappie at the National Immigration Justice Center, or someone of equal expertise and stature in civil and human rights to advise him and lead the reform effort at EOIR. Sadly, he does not appear interested in surrounding himself with such capable, talented individuals who could “save him from himself” while saving the lives of those like his great aunts who perished in the Holocaust for want of a viable refugee and asylum system.
Like Garland, I was at the DOJ during the Levi-Civiletti post-Watergate reform era. I once knew him and certainly helped out his “boss” Ben Civiletti on several occasions.
Somewhere in the “archives,” I have a handwritten note from Ben Civiletti expressing his gratitude that he never had to use the “administrative subpoena” and “designation as an “immigration officer” that I had drafted for him in the midst of one of a number of “immigration emergencies” involving a plane on the tarmac.
Somewhere along the line, Merrick seems to have forgotten that even Civiletti was willing to take bold actions when necessary to advance the cause of immigration justice! There was no “precedent” for the Attorney General personally serving an INS subpoena. But, Civiletti was on the verge of doing it, until “Plan A” prevailed, and the crisis was resolved without resorting to “Plan B” or even “Plan C.”
I was also there and directly affected when the likes of Ashcroft, “Gonzo I”, Kobach, and Mukasey cut through those post-Watergate reforms at EOIR as though they never existed, with little resistance except for a few of us “survivors” who adapted and continued to fight for due process and individual justice in a deteriorating system.
I watched in disgust and disbelief as the Obama Administration (“change?” — not so much in immigration) completely “blew” the opportunity to make life and democracy saving corrections at EOIR. I then saw from the outside as “Gonzo Apocalypto” and Barr aggressively and systematically dismantled American justice, starting with the Immigration Courts. Their job was made infinitely easier by the indolence of the Obama Administration in failing to systematically bring progressive reforms and appoint more progressive judges at EOIR.
But, those of us “on the outside” were not just “passively outraged” by the due process and human rights abuses flowing from DOJ, we took action! Among many groups forming the New Due Process Army (“NDPA”), our Round Table of Former Immigration Judges, some of whom had resigned or retired as an act of conscience, helped lead the charge against the Trump regime’s inhumane, scofflaw policies and bogus legal interpretations.
We filed over 100 amicus briefs in tribunals from the Supremes to the BIA, many of them successful in helping to correct and reverse the regime’s anti-due process, anti-immigrant, racially driven policies. We also wrote, educated, did media interviews, organized, inspired others to join the resistance, and voted for change!
Even assuming, as I do, that any future GOP Administration would move to undo progressive reforms and replace progressive judges, their job would be made much more difficult if Garland creates the progressive judiciary that he should at EOIR. Moreover, even if exiled, “trueprogressive practical scholars” will form the expert backbone of the resistance to neo-fascism in the “next generation” of the Round Table and the NDPA.
Some “graduates” of a progressive Immigration Judiciary could be elevated to the Article III Judiciary where they will have continuing beneficial influence beyond the ability of the next GOP Administration to change. Others could use their knowledge of the system to fight the forces of nativism, restrictionism, White Nationalist myths, and mindless cruelty. Others will run for office and improve our moribund legislative branch! Who knows, we could even get Article I during the Biden Administration, giving a progressive immigration judiciary yet another degree of protection from right-wing political shenanigans!
Garland’s “stuck in the irretrievable past” approach to EOIR and the DOJ generally is blowing a golden, perhaps never-to-come again, chance to finally create an effective progressive judiciary at EOIR and, perhaps most important, to save lives and stop “pushing the St. Louis” back out to sea! It’s something that Biden can’t fully achieve in the Article IIIs. It’s painful to watch him squander the opportunity.
Merrick Garland might well have been a great Supreme Court Justice had Mitch McConnell and the GOP had a serious interest in institutional integrity and preserving norms. They didn’t (which should have been “signal” that got Garland’s attention)! Garland might also have been great Attorney General in a bygone era.
Sadly for both Garland and America, he’s not the “right fit” for the job under today’s realities. Not only will that forever tarnish his reputation, but it could well cost the rest of us our democracy.
🇺🇸Due Process Forever! Timidity and false “restraint” in delivering equal justice for all, never!
The meek might well inherit the earth in the next world. But, they won’t restore the rule of law to the Department of Justice in this one!☠️
Come on, Judge Garland, take off the blinders and show that you are smart, flexible, and capable enough to get beyond the limitations of your past experiences and take the bold, aggressive, courageous, potentially controversial, yet absolutely necessary and long overdue, actions necessary to restore the rule of law at Justice in the 21st year of the 21st Century. And, that starts with progressive due process reforms and major personnel changes at EOIR!
PWS
07-26-21
***************************
HISTORICAL ADDENDUM FROM HON. “SIR JEFFREY” CHASE:
I actually had Civiletti’s desk at the BIA (I was told that Tony Moscato had brought it with him from Main Justice).
“Eyore In Distress” Once A Symbol of Fairness, Due Process, & Best Practices, Now Gone “Belly Up”
Unaccompanied immigrant minors wait on July 2, 2019 in Los Ebanos, Texas to be transported to a U.S. Border Patrol processing center after entering the U.S. to seek political asylum. John Moore/Getty Images
US immigration judges considering asylum for unaccompanied minors are ‘significantly influenced’ by politics
July 13, 2021 8.30am EDT
Authors
Daniel Braaten Associate professor of Political Science, Texas Lutheran University
The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
In March 2021, the number of unaccompanied minors apprehended in the U.S. reached an all-time monthly high of 18,890. This surpassed the previous monthly high of 11,681 in May 2019.
One question not addressed in many of these stories is: How many of these children actually receive asylum and are allowed to stay in the country?
The people who make those decisions are immigration judges. Their decisions are supposed to be based on whether these children have fears of being persecuted in their home countries and whether these fears are realistic.
But our research examining the period from early October 2013 until the end of September 2017 shows that these judges were influenced by factors outside of the case. Political factors such as ideology, political party of the president who appointed them and who was president at the time they decided the case significantly influenced whether these children were allowed to stay in the country.
Aside from political factors, immigration judges are also influenced by local contexts, such as unemployment levels, the number of uninsured children and size of Latino population in the places where they work.
Unaccompanied minors and asylum
Under U.S. law, an unaccompanied minor is a child under 18 years old who does not have lawful immigration status and no parent or legal guardian in the country who can provide care or custody.
Unaccompanied minors cannot be refused entry or removed from the country without legal process because of the 1993 Supreme Court case Reno v. Flores. In 2008, new legislation allowed asylum officers to grant these children asylum at the U.S. border. If the asylum officer denies asylum to the minor, the minor may request asylum before an immigration judge.
Because immigration judges are not appointed under Article III of the Constitution, as federal judges are, they have less independence than those federal judges. According to current Justice Department rules, immigration judges are appointed by the attorney general and they act as his or her delegates.
Political pressure
In order to learn what factors affect the grant of relief to unaccompanied minors, we obtained data on their asylum applications from Oct. 2, 2013 to Sept. 29, 2017, covering over 10,000 cases from 280 different judges in 46 counties and 27 states.
Only 327 of the unaccompanied minors actually received asylum; 2,867 were deported and 455 chose to voluntarily leave.
An additional 6,645 children were allowed to stay in the country. Of those, 3,589 had their case administratively closed, which allows judges to suspend the case indefinitely without hearing and deciding on it. The remaining 3,056 had their case terminated, which means that the case against the child was dismissed.
The fate of unaccompanied minors entering the US
A review of about 10,000 asylum applications for unaccompanied minors from October 2, 2013 to September 29, 2017 found the majority of the minors were allowed to stay (in green), most because a judge either dismissed or indefinitely suspended the case against them. Only 327 were granted asylum.
Bar charts grouped to show significantly more unaccompanied minors were allowed to stay.
We ran a statistical analysis of political factors that may influence immigration judges’ decision: judicial ideology, political party of the appointing president and whether the decision was made before or during the Trump administration.
Following previous research on immigration judge’s ideology, we determined a judge’s ideology by considering their prior work experiences. Based on this research, we determined that some experiences, such as working for immigration agencies, are associated with more conservative views on immigration and asylum issues.
Conversely, work experiences in an immigration or non-immigration-related nonprofit or academia are associated with more liberal views. Our analysis showed that immigration judges with more liberal judicial ideology were more likely to rule in favor of granting asylum to these children.
Judges’ ideology can influence asylum decisions
Immigration judges who are more liberal tended to allow unaccompanied children to stay in the U.S. more often, compared to more conservative judges. Ideology was determined from each judge’s prior work and ranges from 1-11, most conservative to most liberal.
Area chart showing how children allowed to stay rose with more liberal judges.
We also found that judges who were appointed by a Democratic attorney general were more likely to rule in favor of the minors.
Political party of attorney general who appointed the judge
Immigration judges appointed by Democrats were more likely to allow unaccompanied minors seeking asylum to stay in the U.S. than those appointed by Republicans.
Bar charts showing judges appointed by Democrats were more like to allow unaccompanied children to stay in the U.S., but GOP-appointed numbers were also above 62%.
Finally, statistical analysis showed that immigration judges were less likely to grant relief during the eight months of the Trump administration compared to the last three years of the Obama administration.
President at the time the case was decided
Immigration judges were more likely to allow unaccompanied minors seeking asylum to stay in the U.S. during the Obama administration than during the Trump administration.
Why did politics and judges’ ideology play into their decisions?
We believe it’s because immigration judges are subject to political pressure from the president, indirectly, because they are appointed by the attorney general, who is also a presidential appointee and carries out the president’s policies and wishes.
Local environment
Pressure from the executive branch was not the only factor we concluded had influenced whether these children got to stay in the U.S. or were turned away. Aside from political and ideological values, judges may also have been influenced by their local contexts.
For example, we found that immigration judges in places with more Latinos were more likely to let these children stay. Conversely, immigration judges in states with lots of poor children were less likely to let these children stay than judges in states with relatively fewer poor kids.
Latino population in the county
In counties with larger Latino populations, judges were more likely to allow unaccompanied minors seeking asylum to stay in the U.S. The horizontal axis shows the percentage of the county’s population that is Latino.
20% Latino
40
60
80
0
20
40
60
80
100% likelihood unaccompanied minor is allowed to stay
Asylum decisions can be life-or-death matters. Although immigration judges consider the requirements of asylum law, they are also influenced by nonlegal factors when making decisions.
Political influence from the executive branch combined with local environmental pressures can affect how immigration judges rule. Most importantly, these influences can lead to some children not receiving asylum when they might otherwise be entitled to it.
The Conversation is a nonprofit organization working for the public good through fact- and research-based journalism. Nearly half of our budget comes from the support of universities, and higher education budgets are under unprecedented strain. Your gift can help us keep doing our important work and reach more people. Thank you.
This article confirms two things I have said over and over:
Garland’s failure, to date, to replace the BIA with better qualified progressive judges with expertise gained by representing asylum seekers; plus
His “giveaway” of 17 critical Immigration Judge positions to those selected by “Billy the Bigot” Barr under badly flawed procedures;
will unquestionably cost some children and other refugees their lives. Immigration Judge positions are life or death — we need an Attorney General who treats them that way!
Immigration Judge appointments, particularly those at the appellate (BIA level), need to be treated by Democratic Administrations with the same care, seriousness, and strategy as Article III judicial appointments, perhaps more! Few Article III Judges, including the Supremes, affect more lives and have a bigger impact on America’s future than Immigration Judges.
The last two GOP Administrations “got” the negative power for destruction and dehumanization inherent in a “captive” court system that actively pursues misguided nativist policies and receives only sporadic supervision and attention from the Article IIIs. By contrast, the Obama Administration failed to “mine EOIR’s potential” for progressive due process advancements and building a corps of dynamic, courageous progressive judges.
So far, while perhaps exceeding the passively inept approach of the Obama Administration, the Biden Administration has also failed to achieve the radical, yet logical and obvious, reforms and decisive personnel actions necessary to undo the damage caused by the White Nationalist xenophobia of the Trump kakistocracy.
The Immigration Courts have the potential to become “model progressive courts” that could lead the way to better practices and more constitutionally and legally sound jurisprudence throughout the Federal Judiciary. Whether the Biden Administration grasps and acts boldly on that potential, or squanders it as past Democratic Administrations have done, remains to be seen.
But, that question is far from “academic.” The survival of our democratic republic is likely to depend to a great extent on whether the Biden Administration can bring in the progressive experts who finally will “get EOIR right!”
– Sozi
