“SIR JEFFREY” CHASE ⚔️🛡 KICKS OFF 2021: Misuse of CDC Authority🤮 Part Of The Scofflaw Regime’s White Nationalist Agenda☠️🏴‍☠️ — Why Have the Federal Courts Let Bogus Pretexts “Overrule” Truth & The Rule of Law?🤥

https://www.jeffreyschase.com/blog/2021/1/3/the-next-level-shamelessness-of-the-covid-security-regs

The Next-Level Shamelessness of the COVID Security Regs

On December 23, EOIR and USCIS published final rules designed to brand most people a “security risk,” and thus ineligible for asylum. The rules won’t become effective until January 22 (i.e. after the Biden Administration is in office), so will presumably be pulled back before they hurt anyone other than the reputations and careers of those responsible for their publication. Nevertheless, it seems worthwhile to refute the present administration’s claimed justification for such a rule. First, there will certainly be other bad administrations in our future, and as we’ve seen with the present one, they might look to the past for inspiration.

Furthermore, even without the rule going into effect, individual immigration judges will still be faced with interpreting the clause it invokes on a case-by-case basis. I’m hoping the following analysis will prove useful, as I’m pretty sure it wasn’t covered in the judges’ training.

But most importantly, the assaults of the past four years on facts and reason have taught us the need to constantly reinforce what those presently in charge hope to make us forget: that there are laws passed by Congress; that the Judiciary has created strict rules governing their interpretation, and that executive agencies are not free to simply ignore or reinvent the meaning of those laws to their own liking.

The regulations in question seek to take advantage of the present pandemic to render any asylum seeker who either exhibits symptoms of the virus, has come in contact with it, or has traveled from or through a country or region where the disease is prevalent ineligible for asylum. The administration seeks to justify this by claiming that there are reasonable grounds for regarding the above a danger to the security of the United States.

The “danger to the security of the United States” bar to asylum1 which the new regulations reference derives from Article 33(2) of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, which serves as the international law basis for our asylum laws. That treaty (which is binding on the U.S.) states that the prohibition against returning refugees shall not apply to those “whom there are reasonable grounds for regarding as a danger to the security of the country in which he is, or who, having been convicted by a final judgment of a particularly serious crime, constitutes a danger to the community of that country.”

However, Article 33(2) applies to those who have already been recognized as refugees, and have then committed crimes in the country of refuge, which is not the class to whom the new regulations would apply. The bases for excluding those seeking refugee status for reasons arising prior to their arrival are found under Article 1D through 1F of the 1951 Convention. The prohibitions found there cover three groups: those who are already receiving protection or assistance (Article 1D); those who are not considered to be in need of protection (Article 1E); and those “categories of persons who are not considered to be deserving of international protection (Article 1F).2 Individuals posing a danger to the community fall into the final category.

No ground contained in the 1951 Convention excludes those in need of protection for health-related purposes. To understand why, let’s look closer at the Convention’s use of the word “deserving” as it relates to refugee protection. In 1997, UNHCR published a note providing additional insight into the Article 1F “exclusion grounds.” Explaining that “the idea of an individual ‘not deserving’ protection as a refugee is related to the intrinsic links between ideas of humanity, equity, and the concept of refuge,” the note explains that the primary purpose of the clauses “are to deprive the perpetrators of heinous acts and serious common crimes, of such protection.” The note explains that to do otherwise “would be in direct conflict with national and international law, and would contradict the humanitarian and peaceful nature of the concept of asylum.”

The European Council on Refugees and Exiles covered this same issue in its 2004 position paper on Exclusion from Refugee Status. At page 8, the ECRE stated that the “main aim” of Article 1F was not “to protect the host community from serious criminals,” but rather to preserve the integrity of the international refugee system by preventing it from being used to “shelter serious criminals from justice.” These sources make it extremely clear that the intent was certainly not to exclude someone who might have been exposed to a virus.

In including six exceptions to eligibility in our asylum statute,3 Congress followed the lead of the 1951 Convention, as all six domestic clauses fall within the three categories listed in paragraph 140 of the UNHCR Handbook as listed above. Of the six grounds listed under U.S. law, the last one, regarding persons firmly resettled in another country prior to arrival in the U.S., is covered by the Convention categories of those already receiving assistance or not in need of assistance.

The remaining five exceptions under U.S. law fall within the category of those not considered to be deserving of protection (Article 1F). The statute lists those categories as: (i) persecutors of others; (ii) persons posing a danger to the community of the U.S. by virtue of having been convicted of a particularly serious crime; (iii) persons whom there are serious reasons to believe committed serious nonpolitical crimes prior to their arrival in the U.S.; (iv) persons whom “there are reasonable grounds for regarding…as a danger to the security of the United States,” and (v) persons engaged in terrorist activity.

Agencies may only apply their own interpretation to the term “as a danger to the security of the United States” to the extent such term is ambiguous. But the courts have instructed that in determining whether a statute is in fact ambiguous, traditional tools of construction must be employed, including canons.4 The Supreme Court has recently applied one such canon, ejusdem generis, for this purpose.5 In its decision, the Court explained that “where, as here, a more general term follows more specific terms in a list, the general term is usually understood to ‘ “embrace only objects similar in nature to those objects enumerated by the preceding specific words.”’”6

Former Attorney General Barr himself recently applied the ejusdem generis canon to the term “particular social group,” stating that pursuant to the canon, the term “must be read in conjunction with the terms preceding it, which cabin its reach…rather than as an “omnibus catch-all” for everyone who does not qualify under one of the other grounds for asylum.”7

A very similar canon to ejusdem generis is noscitur a sociis (the “associated words” canon). Whereas ejusdem generis requires a term to be interpreted similarly to more specific terms surrounding it in a list, noscitur a sociis applies the same concept to more specific terms across the same statute.8

In 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(2)(A), the more general term “danger to the security of the United States” is surrounded by the more specific terminology describing the accompanying grounds of asylum ineligibility. When thus “cabined” by the more specific classes of persecutors of others, those convicted of serious crimes, and those engaged in terrorist activities, it is clear that Congress intended a “risk to security” to relate to similar types of criminal activity, and not to health grounds. As the intent of Congress is clear, the term “threat to the security of the United States” is not open to any interpretation the agencies might wish to apply to it. Yet in its published rule, EOIR and USCIS here create the type of “omnibus catch-all” that the Attorney General himself has elsewhere declared to be impermissible.

The rule is further at odds with circuit case law in its application to those who simply “may” pose a risk. The Third Circuit has found the statutory language of the clause in question to unambiguously require that the asylum-seeker pose an actual, rather than merely a possible, threat to national security.9 Even if it were assumed that COVID could somehow fit into the category of security risk, simply having traveled from or through an area where the virus is prevalent doesn’t establish that the individual presents an actual risk.

There is also the issue of the transient nature of the risk. In the same decision referenced above, the Third Circuit relied on the Refugee Act’s legislative history to conclude “that Congress intended to protect refugees to the fullest extent of our Nation’s international obligations,” allowing for exceptions “only in a narrow set of circumstances.”10 This is obviously a correct reading where exclusion can lead to death, rape, or indefinite imprisonment. The other classes deemed undeserving of asylum are defined by more permanent characteristics. In other words, the attribute of being a terrorist, a persecutor, or a serious criminal will not wear off in two weeks time. To the contrary, any risk posed by one exposed to COVID-19 is likely to pass within that same time frame. Wouldn’t the “fullest extent” of our obligations call for simple quarantining for the brief period in question?

These issues were all raised in comments to the proposed regs. And of course, dubious reasons were employed to dismiss these arguments. For example, the agencies acknowledged the need for the danger posed be an actual rather than a merely possible one. But somehow, that requirement was dismissed by the inadequate excuse that the danger posed by a pandemic is “unique.”

The rule stands as one of the final examples of the extremes this administration will go to in order to circumvent our asylum laws and turn away those entitled to avail themselves of our immigration courts in order to determine if they are entitled to protection. As demonstrated here, the degree to which this administration veered from the actual intent of the statute in interpreting the security bar wouldn’t have been much greater if it attempted to deny asylum to those wearing white after Labor Day.11 The law must not be twisted or ignored by executive branch agencies when it conflicts with an administration’s policy objectives.

Notes:

8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(2)(A).

UNHCR Handbook at ❡ 140.

8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(2)(A).

See, e.g., Arangure Jasso v. Whitaker, 911 F.3d 333, 338-39 (6th Cir. 2018).

See Epic Sys. Corp. v. Lewis, 138 S. Ct. 1612, 1625 (2018).

Ibid (citing Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. Adams, 121 S.Ct. 1302, 149 (2001); National Assn. of Mfrs. v. Department of Defense,138 S.Ct. 617, 628–629 (2018)).

Matter of L-E-A-, 27 I&N Dec. 581, 592 (A.G. 2019).

Thanks to Prof. Jaclyn Kelley-Widmer for sharing her expertise on these terms. See Jaclyn Kelley-Widmer and Hillary Rich, “A Step Too Far: Matter of A-B-, Particular Social Group, and Chevron,” 29 Cornell J. of Law and Public Policy 345, 373 (2019).

Yusupov v. Att’y Gen. of U.S., 518 F.3d 185, 201 (3d Cir. 2008).

Id. at 203-204.

If it had done so, EOIR would undoubtedly have defended the move through the traditional, completely acceptable, totally normal method of issuing a “Myths vs. Facts” sheet. The document might contain the following entry: “Myth: EOIR issued a rule banning asylum to anyone wearing any color at any time. Fact: That’s completely absurd! Only those wearing white (which technically might not even be a color) are banned, and even then, only after Labor Day. As Pantone lists 1,867 colors, white consists of .05 percent of all colors one could wear. And that’s only if white is in fact a color. And, again, only after Labor Day.”

Copyright 2021 Jeffrey S. Chase. All rights reserved.

Republished by permission.

*********************

Jeffrey’s article points out how deeply the corruption and racism of the regime have penetrated into the Federal Bureaucracy, even infecting supposedly “professional and apolitical” agencies like CDC. Fixing this will be a formidable task for the Biden-Harris Administration.

But, there is a larger issue here: Why has the Supremes’ GOP majority “lapped up” the transparent pretexts for unconstitutional actions presented by the regime’s ethics-challenged DOJ lawyers? While an impressive array of U.S. District Court Judges, from both parties, have generally courageously stood tall for the rule of law against White Nationalist abuses, not so the GOP majority of the Supremes!

Let’s go back to the beginning of the regime. After a string of lower Federal Court defeats, “ethics-free” DOJ lawyers massaged and slightly watered down Trump’s “Muslim Ban” and repackaged it as a bogus “national security” measure. But, even as these disingenuous lawyers were advancing this bogus pretext in court, Trump was reassuring his White Nationalist base that this was indeed the “Muslim Ban” he had promised to his supporters.

https://www.cato.org/blog/dozen-times-trump-equated-travel-ban-muslim-ban

Nevertheless, the Supremes’ GOP majority “bought into” the patently (and demonstrably) bogus “national security” pretext, hook, line, and sinker:

Of the Supreme Court’s decision on Muslim ban 3.0, Omar Jadwat, director of the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project, said, “This ruling will go down in history as one of the Supreme Court’s great failures. It repeats the mistakes of the Korematsu decision upholding Japanese-American imprisonment and swallows wholesale government lawyers’ flimsy national security excuse for the ban instead of taking seriously the president’s own explanation for his action.”

“It is ultimately the people of this country who will determine its character and future. The court failed today, and so the public is needed more than ever. We must make it crystal clear to our elected representatives: If you are not taking actions to rescind and dismantle Trump’s Muslim ban, you are not upholding this country’s most basic principles of freedom and equality.”

https://www.aclu-wa.org/pages/timeline-muslim-ban

In doing so, the GOP Supremes’ associated themselves with a long line of racially biased pretexts used by courts to uphold invidious discrimination that violated our Constitution

Internment of Japanese-Americans (but not German-Americans) is about national security.
- Truth: Dehumanize, punish, and dispossess Japanese Americans on the West Coast;
Poll taxes are about raising revenue.
- Truth: Preventing African-Americans from voting;
Literacy tests (“grandfathering” ignorant White guys) are about insuring an informed electorate.
- Truth: Excluding African-American voters;
Separate is equal.
- Truth: Insuring that African-Americans will be educationally disadvantaged;
Voter ID laws are about election integrity.
- Truth: Designed by a primarily White GOP ruling class to suppress African American, Latino, and other minority voters who tend to support Democrats;
Gerrymandering to favor the GOP can be solved through the political process.
- Truth: Gerrymandering is intended by the GOP to rig the political process so that voters of color will never achieve political representation proportional to their numbers.

These are just a few of the obvious examples of how the “legal power structure” has often been on the “wrong side of history.” Sadly, it continues with today’s GOP Supremes’ majority which often embraces obvious pretexts and bogus “right wing legal gobbledygook” to systematically dump on vulnerable minorities and others whose political power and humanity they refuse to recognize.

Finally, to reinforce what Jeffrey and others have said, we have a legal obligation to protect refugees. Article 33 of the Convention to which we are party, now incorporated into the INA, is mandatory, not “optional” or “discretionary.”

As I pointed out before, refugees more often than not arrive in times of international crisis and turmoil. “Tough times” or internal problems (in this case aggravated and magnified by a maliciously incompetent regime) are NOT a legal (not to mention moral) basis for us to jettison our legal obligation to offer them protection.

Had the Supremes courageously and unanimously stood up for the Constitution, rule of law, and simple human decency against the regime’s obvious lies, false narratives, overt racism, religious bigotry, and general disregard for the rule of law (now in full, foul bloom every day), the last four years might have been very different. Lives lost forever could have been saved.

Folks, here we are, two decades into the 21st Century. Yet, we have a highly “un-representative” Supremes’ GOP majority that has willingly promoted the anti-democracy antics of, and carried water for, a patently corrupt White Nationalist regime seeking to “Dred Scottify” tens of millions of persons of color, religious minorities, and those “suspected” of not supporting the GOP.

Even if many would like to, this is not something that can simply be swept under the table (again). Failure of the Supremes majority to stand up for the individual rights and human dignity of all persons in America is something that will haunt us until it is fixed or we disappear as a nation!

Lousy judging has a huge cost for humanity and democracy. We need and deserve better from the highest levels of our privileged, yet too often ineffective and feckless in the face of tyranny, life-tenured judges!

Better Judges for a Better, Fairer America.🇺🇸 Make Equal Justice Under Law ⚖️ A Reality Rather Than an Ongoing, Judicially-Enabled, Charade!

Due Process Forever!⚖️🗽🇺🇸

PWS

01-04-21

ROUND TABLE 🛡⚔️ LEADS THE CHARGE FOR AN INDEPENDENT ARTICLE I U.S. IMMIGRATION COURT!⚖️🗽👩🏻‍⚖‍🤵🏾🇺🇸

Hon. Polly Webber
US Immigration Judge (Ret.)
Member Round Table of Former Immigration Judges
Fiber Artist

Comments of the Round Table of Former Immigration Judges

Submitted to the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration and Citizenship

Regarding the “Real Courts, Real Justice Act.”
January 3, 2021

This statement for the record is submitted by former Immigration Judges and former Appellate Immigration Judges of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). Members of our group were appointed to the bench and served under different administrations of both parties over the past four decades. Drawing on our many years of collective experience, we are intimately familiar with the workings, history, and development of the Immigration Court from the 1980s up to present.

We hereby incorporate our Statement submitted to this Subcommittee on January 29, 2020, for its Hearing on “Courts in Crisis: The State of Judicial Independence and Due Process in U.S. Immigration Courts.” The statement sets forth the many ways in which the lack of safeguards in the Immigration Court system, specifically by positioning it within the Department of Justice, has resulted in extreme overreach by the executive branch over a system that historically has been the purview of Congress through its plenary power.

We applaud the efforts of Congresswoman Lofgren and the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration and Citizenship for undertaking this historic task of creating an independent Immigration Court under Article 1 of the Constitution. Bringing together stakeholders and organizations with the proper expertise and foresight has resulted in a proposal with integrity and purpose, and a realistic possibility of long-needed reform.

The recognition that this Court needed to be independent from executive influence originated within the immigration judge corps as early as 1989. It took decades for the concept to mature to its current endorsement by nearly every important legal and social organization in the field, recognizing the importance of a system built on integrity and independence. Indeed, the creation of an Article 1 Immigration Court is finally a need recognized by the public at large.

The Time is Now

The Subcommittee is in a uniquely advantageous position to introduce this legislation at the inception of this historic session of Congress. There is nearly universal agreement that the whole immigration system needs a major overhaul. Beginning with the Immigration Court reflects a recognition that protection of the most vulnerable population, those appearing before the Court, should be addressed first.

The Round Table urges the Subcommittee to wrap up its due diligence and introduce this bill at the beginning of the new session. It is hoped that by submitting the bill, the Subcommittee will indicate that these issues are on its radar and the continuing executive rampages over the Court will cease.

DHS Rights of Appeal in an Article 1 Court System

Counsel to the Subcommittee specifically asked The Round Table to address whether under an Article 1 scenario the government should have the right to challenge determinations granting relief to immigrants in federal court. This question was presumably presented because under the present configuration, such appeals are disallowed. Our Round Table unanimously believes that given the independence the Court would enjoy under Article 1, both parties should have full right of appeal.

The historical inability of DHS to petition for review from Board grants of relief in part stems from the early days when Immigration Judges were still Special Inquiry Officers and the Court was part of INS, which in turn was part of DOJ. The Attorney General originally delegated only limited decision-making authority to the Board. All complex issues had to be referred to the Attorney General. INS could not appeal decisions made by AG delegates, who all worked for the same agency. Their recourse was to ask the AG to certify the appellate agency decision to himself/herself. The inability of the government to petition for review survived the reorganizations in 1983 and 2003. The difference we are seeking to make is removing the Court from the executive agency trappings. As a stand-alone Court, its parties should enjoy all the rights and duties that fall from that independence.

As INA § 242 is written, Judicial Review is limited to reviews of final orders of removal. Thus, the scope of review would need to be changed to allow the government to challenge grants of relief.

Contact with Questions or Concerns: Polly Webber, pawebber7250@gmail.com

Sincerely,

The Round Table of Former Immigration Judges

Hon. Steven Abrams, Immigration Judge, New York, Varick St., and Queens (N.Y.) Wackenhut Immigration Courts, 1997-2013
Hon. Silvia Arellano, Immigration Judge, Florence and Phoenix, 2010-2019
Hon. Terry A. Bain, Immigration Judge, New York, 1994-2019
Hon. Sarah Burr, Assistant Chief Immigration Judge and Immigration Judge, New York, 1994-2012
Hon. Teofilo Chapa, Immigration Judge, Miami, 1995-2018
Hon. Jeffrey S. Chase, Immigration Judge, New York, 1995-2007 Hon. George T. Chew, Immigration Judge, New York, 1995-2017
Hon. Joan Churchill, Immigration Judge, Arlington, VA 1980-2005
Hon. Lisa Dornell, Immigration Judge, Baltimore, 1995-2019
Hon. Alison Daw, Immigration Judge, Los Angeles and San Francisco, 2006-2018
Hon. Bruce J. Einhorn, Immigration Judge, Los Angeles, 1990-2007
Hon. Noel Ferris, Immigration Judge, New York, 1994-2013
Hon. James R. Fujimoto, Immigration Judge, Chicago, 1990-2019
Hon. Gilbert Gembacz, Immigration Judge, Los Angeles, 1996-2008
Hon. John F. Gossart, Jr., Immigration Judge, Baltimore, 1982-2013
Hon. Paul Grussendorf, Immigration Judge, Philadelphia and San Francisco, 1997-2004
Hon. Miriam Hayward, Immigration Judge, San Francisco, 1997-2018
Hon. Charles Honeyman, Immigration Judge, Philadelphia and New York, 1995-2020
Hon. Rebecca Bowen Jamil, Immigration Judge, San Francisco, 2016-2018
Hon. William P. Joyce, Immigration Judge, Boston, 1996-2002
Hon. Carol King, Immigration Judge, San Francisco, 1995-2017
Hon. Elizabeth A. Lamb, Immigration Judge, New York, 1995-2018
Hon. Donn L. Livingston, Immigration Judge, Denver and New York, 1995-2018
Hon. Margaret McManus, Immigration Judge, New York, 1991-2018
Hon. Charles Pazar, Immigration Judge, Memphis, 1998-2017
Hon. Laura Ramirez, Immigration Judge, San Francisco, 1997-2018
Hon. John W. Richardson, Immigration Judge, Phoenix, 1990-2018
Hon. Lory D. Rosenberg, Appellate Immigration Judge, Board of Immigration Appeals, 1995-2002
Hon. Susan G. Roy, Immigration Judge, Newark, NJ 2008-2010
Hon. Paul W. Schmidt, Chair and Appellate Immigration Judge, Board of Immigration Appeals, and Immigration Judge, Arlington, VA 1995-2016
Hon. Patricia M.B. Sheppard, Immigration Judge, Boston, 1993-2006
Hon. Ilyce S. Shugall, Judge, San Francisco, 2017-2019
Hon. Helen Sichel, Immigration Judge, New York, 1997-2020
Hon. Denise Slavin, Immigration Judge, Miami, Krome, and Baltimore, 1995-2019
Hon. Andrea Hawkins Sloan, Immigration Judge, Portland, 2010-2017
Hon. Gustavo D. Villageliu, Appellate Immigration Judge, BIA, 1995-2003
Hon. Robert D. Vinikoor, Immigration Judge, Chicago, 1984-2017
Hon. Polly A. Webber, Immigration Judge, San Francisco, 1995-2016

*************************

Centuries of judicial experience represented here! As we say, “The
Time Is Now!”

Many thanks to Judge Polly Webber and her drafting team 🖋 for making this happen in such a timely manner!

Due Process Forever!⚖️🗽👩🏻‍⚖‍🇺🇸👍

PWS

01-03-21

⚖️(IN)JUSTICE IN AMERICA 🇺🇸— Why Justice Amy Coney Barrett & A Whole Bunch Of Other Federal Judges 👨🏻‍⚖️👩‍⚖️Who Have “Tuned Out” Humanity Don’t Belong On The Bench!

https://medium.com/i-taught-the-law/i-argued-a-shooting-death-case-in-front-of-amy-coney-barrett-89b4165f7df2

Dan Canon writes on medium.com:

. . . .

Perhaps you’ve reserved some optimism for the whole “Barrett’s a mom and a Catholic so there must be some compassion there” thing. Sorry, but no. In her confirmation hearings, she spoke about how the George Floyd video was “very, very personal” for her family, and that she and her children “wept together” over what must have been the zillionth police murder in her history as a lawyer and mother. But her mentor, the late Antonin Scalia, seemed to think it was constitutional to put innocent people to death, despite his ultra-Catholicism. There’s no reason to believe that any sort of ideological consistency will prevail simply because of a judge’s familial status or bizarre metaphysical beliefs, and those factors made no apparent difference in Brad’s case.

Here’s where this gets complicated: In saying that being part of this horrendous decision should disqualify a judge from serving on the Supreme Court, by extension, I’m saying that damn near every federal judge is similarly unqualified. Almost none of them believe that cops should be held accountable for killing mentally ill people who call for help. This sort of thinking, in which cops are extended every benefit of every doubt, feasible or unfeasible, is the norm. Barrett didn’t even write the opinion in Brad’s case. It was written by a liberal judge who, like all her colleagues (of whatever political persuasion), was willing to write the police a blank check. That’s how our courts have operated for decades, and even in a post-BLM society, few of those in robes have the intestinal fortitude to do anything different.

So I am unmoved by Justice Barrett’s faith. I am unmoved by her status as a working mother of seven. I am particularly unmoved by her fake expression of sympathy for George Floyd, whose case she had nothing to do with, when she couldn’t spare any for the people who actually appear before her. I’m unmoved because I’ve seen so little compassion for grieving parents like Matt and Gina throughout my career, from any federal judge, let alone the Federalist Society drones who have lately taken over the judiciary. The basic inability to do what’s right for families like the Kings should be disqualifying. Not just for Amy Coney Barrett, but for the whole lot of ‘em.

A version of this originally appeared in LEO Weekly.

WRITTEN BY

Dan Canon

Civil rights lawyer and law prof, writing about the Midwest, the untold horrors of the justice system, and the ongoing battle between the law and humanity.

************************

Read Dan’s complete article chronicling the tone-deaf mishandling of the police shooting death of a young man (his clients’ son) suffering from mental health issues.

This echoes what I’ve been saying on Courtside about the need for a “new breed of better, more progressive Federal Judges” who recognize the compelling human side of the law and why the Constitutional requirements of due process, equal protection, and fundamental fairness are there in the first place. They exist to protect individuals from tyranny and government overreach, not to be ignored, watered down, or woodenly distinguished away to protect government abusers from accountability or to further ideological agendas (primarily, but not exclusively those developed by right wingers) out of touch with the most vulnerable levels of humanity they are supposed to be serving.

Life tenure means that Coney Barrett and the rest of her unqualified colleagues will be around for a long time. But, change needs to start somewhere, now!

In my experience, internal pushback, dissent, and constant confrontation of the complicit, complacent, judicial status quo with an aggressive implementation of due process, fundamental fairness, and a commitment to human rights and the best interpretations of the law can over time play a critical role in improving the law, changing results, and perhaps most important, saving lives!⚖️🗽👩‍⚖️🧑🏽‍⚖️👨🏻‍⚖️🇺🇸 That, not the hollow ideological agendas of Coney Barrett and others like her, is what “good judging” is really all about!

Intentional lack of compassion, empathy, and humanity (“Dred Scottification” of the “other”) have been themes of Trump, Miller, Wolf, Sessions, Barr, Rosenstein, Nielsen, Pompeo and the other neo-fascist toadies and moral misfits who have gleefully served the regime over the past four years. But, lack of overall resolve and courage to stand up and uniformly and authoritatively “just say no” to these toxic, anti-American, anti-humanity policies and to hold the “perps” accountable for their systemic lawlessness has plagued the Federal Judiciary, with a feckless and often downright complicit Supremes’ majority “leading” the way.

The current sorry state of our democracy, where GOP demagogues, who falsely swore to uphold our Constitution, openly spread lies, knowingly false narratives, and total BS in an attempt to incite violence, undermine our duly elected incoming President, and destroy democratic institutions, including the courts, is in part a reflection of the sad failure of our life-tenured Federal Judiciary to perform its core Constitutional function. That is, to stand up for the Constitution, the rule of law, and individual law human rights in the face failures by the other two branches of Government to uphold their Constitutional responsibilities.

Compare the (finally) unified position of the judiciary on the frivolous election challenges by Trump and his cronies with the failure to stand up for the legal and human rights of asylum seekers, refugees, immigrants, and migrants from the “git go.” Even now, the Courts have failed to sanction Trump and his lawyers for their unethical behavior in bringing frivolous civil suits, with no supporting evidence, for the specific purpose of undermining a free and fair election and using the legal system to attack the legitimacy of the duly elected President-elect and his incoming Administration. “Corruptly weaponizing the law for improper purposes” is clearly inappropriate and unethical. Yet, folks like Rudy and Sydney Powell retain their law licenses and are free to continue to abuse and undermine the system with frivolous litigation.

Dan points to the “ongoing battle between the law and humanity.” That’s the problem! The law should and must be about defending and advancing humanity in the face of tyranny and injustice. We need judges who stand for human justice. For, as MLK, Jr., said “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere!”

Better judges for a better America! 🇺🇸Not just a slogan; a requirement for our democracy to survive!

⚖️🗽🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

01-03-21

😰NO HAPPY NEW YEAR FOR FAMILIES IN “THE NEW AMERICAN GULAG”☠️⚰️ — As Kakistocracy Of War Criminals 🤮🏴‍☠️ Departs, Will President Biden Have The Wisdom & Guts To Move Beyond “The Dem Border Alarmists” & Get The Progressive Leaders 🦸🏽‍♂️⚖️ From The NDPA In Place To Bring Due Process & Order To The Border?🗽🇺🇸

Trump Dumping Asylum Seekers in Hondiras — Dumping Asylum Seekers in Honduras
Artist: Monte Wolverton
Reproduced under license

Erika Pinheiro, Litigation & Policy Director, Al Otro Lado, speaks at TEDSalon: Border Stories, September 10, 2019 at the TED World Theater, New York, NY Photo: Ryan Lash / TED, Creative Commons License

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jan/01/family-detention-still-exists-immigration-groups-warn-the-fight-is-far-from-over?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

Amanda Holpuch reports from the Gulag for HuffPost:

. . . .

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) bars asylum seekers and refugees from the US under an order called Title 42. People who attempt to cross the border are returned, or expelled, back to Mexico, without an opportunity to test their asylum claims. More than 250,000 migrants processed at the US-Mexico border between March and October were expelled, according to US Customs and Border Protection data.

The situation is dire. Thousands of asylum-seekers are stuck at the border, uncertain when they will be able to file their claims. The camps they wait in are an even greater public health risk that before.

Outside the border, Al Otro Lado has fought for detained migrants to get PPE and medical releases. Prisons are one of the worst possible places to be when there is a contagious disease and deaths in the custody of US immigration authorities have increased dramatically this year. They have also provided supplies to homeless migrants in southern California who have been shut out of public hygiene facilities.

Pinheiro said there will be improvements with Trump out of office, but some of the Biden campaign promises to address asylum issues at the border will be toothless until the CDC order is revoked. It’s a point she plans to make in conversations with the transition team.

A prime concern for advocates about the Biden administration is that it will include some of the same people from Barack Obama’s administration, which had more deportations than any other president and laid the groundwork for some controversial Trump policies.

While it is a worry for Pinheiro, she has hope that the new administration will build something better. “I would hope a lot of those people, and I know for some of them, have been able to reflect on how the systems they built were weaponized by Trump to do things like family separation or detaining children,” she said.

Family separation, which has left 545 children still waiting to be reunited with their parents, was a crucial issue for many voters and Pinheiro hopes that energy translates to other immigration policies.

“How did you feel when your government committed the atrocity of family separation in your name?” Pinheiro said. “The next step is really understanding that similar and sometimes worse atrocities are still being committed in the name of border security and limiting migration.”

*******************

Read the complete article at the link.

I totally agree with Erika Pinheiro that there is no excuse for the continuing violations of our Constitution, statutes, international obligations, and simple human decency. The regime’s policies are nothing more than “crimes against humanity” thinly disguised as “law enforcement,” “national security,” and “public health” (from a regime whose “malicious incompetence,” cruelty, and callous intentional undermining of medical advice during the pandemic have contributed to the unnecessary deaths of tens of thousands of Americans).

Even more disgracefully, the Supremes and other Federal Courts have failed in their Constitutional duty to stand up to the abusers and hold the regime’s scofflaw “leaders” (to where, one might ask?) accountable. What’s the purpose of life-tenured judges who lack the training, wisdom, ethics, and most of all courage to enforce the legal and human rights of the most vulnerable against lawless, dishonest, and fundamentally cowardly “Executive bullies” hiding behind their official positions? Not much, in my view! There are deep problems in all three branches of our badly compromised and ailing Government!

I have also spoken out on Courtside against the dangers of putting the same failed Dem politicos who thoroughly screwed up immigration policy, and particularly the Immigration Courts, back in charge again. I agree with Erika’s hope that some of them have gained wisdom and perspective in the last four years. But, why rely on the hope that those who failed in the past have suddenly gotten smarter, when there are “better alternatives” out there ready to step in and solve the problems?

Why not put in place some talented new faces from the NDPA with better, more progressive ideas, tons of dynamic energy, and the demonstrated willingness and courage to stand tall against bureaucratic tyranny? Give them a chance to solve the problems! Erika looks like one of those who should be solving problems and implementing better immigration policies “from the inside” in the Biden-Harris Administration!

The “deterrence only paradigm” that has driven our border enforcement policies over the past half century has been a demonstrable failure, both in terms of law enforcement and the unnecessary and unjustifiable human carnage that it has caused. Why keep doing variations on discredited policies and expecting better results?

We know that ugly, racist rhetoric, jailing families and kids in punitive conditions, weaponizing courts as enforcement tools, suspending the rule of law, denying hearings, and even summarily, illegally, and immorally returning asylum seekers to death won’t stop folks from fleeing unbearable conditions in their native countries! They will continue to seek protection in America, even in the face of predictable abuses, life-threatening dangers, and little chance of success in a system intentionally “gamed” to mistreat and reject them while denying their humanity.

Desperate people do desperate things. They will continue to do them even in the face of inhuman abuses inflicted by those whose better fortunes in life have not been accompanied by any particular compassion, understanding of the predicament of others, or recognition of an obligation to abjure the power to bully and torment those less fortunate in favor of addressing their situations in a fair, reasonable, and humane manner.

Human migration is far older than nation states, zero tolerance, baby jails, family incarceration, biased judging, national selfishness disguised as “patriotism,” and border walls. It has outlasted and outflanked all of the vain attempts to artificially suppress it by force and gimmicks. It’s time for some policies that recognize reality, see its benefits, and work with the flow rather than futilely in opposition to it.

It’s past time to look beyond the failures of yesterday to progressive solutions and new leadership committed to solving problems while enhancing justice, respecting human dignity, and enhancing human rights (which, in the end, are all of our rights)!

Due Process Forever!⚖️🗽🇺🇸 Same old, same old never!

Happy New Year!😎👍🏼

PWS

O1-01-21

🛡⚔️⚖️ROUND TABLE (WITH LOTS OF HELP FROM OUR FRIENDS @ AKIN GUMP) CONTINUES TO AID NDPA ⚖️🗽🦸🏽‍♂️🦸‍♀️IN TAKING IT TO THE EOIR CLOWN SHOW🤡🧟! — The Forces Of Bigotry, White Nationalism, “Dred Scottification,” & Malicious Incompetence Will Be Driven From The Field & Removed From The Power They Have So Grossly & Disgracefully Abused! — Read Our Latest Amicus Brief ⚖️🗽👍👨🏽‍⚖️🤵🏻‍♀️👩‍⚖️ In Pangea II Here!

2020.12.30 DE 41 Admin Motion for Leave to File Amicus Brief

Hon. Ilyce Shugall
U.S. Immigraton Judge (Retired)

************************

Thanks to our friends Steve Schulman 😇 and Michael Stortz 😇 at Akin Gump for their truly outstanding pro bono assistance on this brief. Couldn’t do it without you!😎

Such an honor to be “fighting the good fight” for due process and fundamental fairness with my colleagues on the Round Table🛡⚔️👩‍⚖️🧑🏽‍⚖️👨🏻‍⚖️. We have made a difference in the lives of some of the most vulnerable and deserving among us. 🗽We have also helped educate the Federal Courts and the public on the ugly realities of our failed, unjust, and totally dysfunctional Immigration “Courts” ☠️🤡🦹🏿‍♂️, modern day “Star Chambers” ☠️⚰️😪that have become weaponized appendages of “White Nationalist 🤮🏴‍☠️⚰️👎🏻 nation.”

EYORE — “Eyore In Distress”
Once A Symbol of Fairness, Due Process, & Best Practices, Now Gone “Belly Up”

Star Chamber Justice — “Justice”
Star Chamber
Style

Four Horsemen — BIA Asylum Panel In Action
Albrecht Dürer, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

⚖️🗽Due Process Forever!

Happy New Year! 🍾🥂🎉Looking forward to Jan. 20 and the end of the kakistocracy!👍🏼⚖️🗽😎🇺🇸

PWS

12-31-20

DEMS NEED TO STOP REPEATING THE BOGUS 🤥 NARRATIVES ABOUT THE (LARGELY SELF-CREATED & OVERBLOWN) “SOUTHERN BORDER CRISIS:” Channeling “Courtside,” Yale Schacher Sets Forth A Plan For Using Experts To Not Only Reinstitute But Drastically Improve Due Process ⚖️🗽🇺🇸 For Asylum Seekers! — It’s NOT Rocket 🚀 Science!

Yael Schacher
Historian
Senior U.S. Advocate
Refugees International

https://www.refugeesinternational.org/reports/2020/12/17/building-better-not-backward-learning-from-the-past-to-design-sound-border-asylum-policy

Introduction

President-elect Biden has promised a broad array of reforms that would impact refugees, asylum seekers, and other forced migrants. He has indicated he will restore Temporary Protected Status, place a moratorium on deportations, and end prolonged detention and for-profit detention centers. These are all crucially important to the safety and security of migrants and their families in the United States and other countries, especially in the Western Hemisphere. President-elect Biden has also promised to end the Trump administration’s policy of making asylum seekers “remain in Mexico” while awaiting hearings in U.S. immigration court.

However, in recent weeks, a flawed and fatalistic view of migration to the U.S. southern border has taken hold in some media accounts and reports. It goes like this: President Trump’s Remain in Mexico (or MPP) policy has created a logistical and humanitarian crisis at the southern U.S. border that, despite President-elect Biden’s promises, will be very difficult to undo. Further, a combination of pull and push factors (especially in the wake of hurricanes in Central America) will lead to increased migration to the southern U.S. border this spring such that President-elect Biden will have little choice but to keep the border sealed under an order from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), as he attempts to deal with COVID-19 in border states and fulfill other immigration policy promises—including uniting families the Trump administration ripped apart two years ago.

There are several problems with this line of argument, many of which are addressed in this report. Most fundamentally, keeping the border sealed and migrants waiting in Mexico will perpetuate serious abuses. Family separations and other violations of human rights, as well as violations of U.S. law, will continue to occur under a Biden administration that does not implement new policies at the border. Recently, MPP and the CDC border closure have exacerbated smuggling and trafficking at the border, as well as other forms of abuse against migrants. For example, the CDC order has led to the repatriation of Nicaraguan dissidents as well as the return of a sexually abused Guatemalan child. It has also led asylum seekers to try to cross undetected in remote desert areas. Further, unwinding MPP and allowing asylum seekers to ask for protection at the border is not only the right thing to do, but also feasible with the proper planning. Indeed, it presents the incoming administration with an opportunity to rethink migration management, especially for those seeking asylum, and to implement a new screening process that is both more humane and more efficient.

President-elect Biden has invoked President Franklin Delano Roosevelt—healer, rebuilder, and practical problem solver—as a model. During World War II, Roosevelt planned and devoted significant resources to resolving the largest displacement crisis the world had ever known. This planning was part of an effort to ensure that what happened in 1939 to the S.S. St. Louis—a ship of asylum-seeking Jews turned away by the United States and other countries—would not occur again.

During his first week in office, President-elect Biden should issue an executive order on border asylum policy that departs dramatically from that which President Trump put forth during his first week. President Biden’s executive order should give asylum seekers access to the border and provide for cooperation with border states and shelters to safely and humanely receive asylum seekers. It should allocate resources to alternatives to detention, including case management, and to improved adjudication of asylum claims in immigration courts, especially through provision of legal services. It should also commit to ending practices associated with expedited removal of asylum seekers that have resulted in abuses, and to the use of parole to unwind MPP. Finally, through revocation of Trump administration decisions, regulations, and policies, as well as through settlement of lawsuits and the withdrawal of appeals to federal courts regarding these policies, the executive order should commit to restoring asylum eligibility to those who have fled persecution but have been denied or prevented from obtaining protection.

In taking such action, President-elect Biden would be fulfilling not only his campaign promises but the commitment he made when he voted for Senate passage of the Refugee Act of 1980. That law, supported by large majorities of both parties, promised to ensure fair access to asylum at the border.

This report shows why it is imperative that the Biden administration do this rather than keep us mired in a policy framework that does not work and that has led to a cycle of crises. It does so by looking back to a momentous time of transition about thirty years ago. With the Cold War ending, the United States had to rethink its assumptions about who merited refugee status. Only a handful of refugee resettlement slots in the U.S. Refugee Program were allotted to Central Americans, and the United States had not yet developed clear procedures for effectively handling asylum seekers at the southwestern border. Rather than acknowledge the forces pushing people northward, U.S. policymakers adopted a paradigm that was focused primarily, if not exclusively, on deterrence. This is a paradigm that we are still in today.

At different points over the past thirty years, humanitarian and constructive policies have tempered the harshness of this paradigm, and such policies have also brought benefits in terms of cost and efficiency. These policies need to be adapted and scaled up. But they also need to be placed within a welcoming framework that does not presume asylum seekers are a threat. Instead of devoting tremendous resources to a futile and rights-violating attempt to block those already on the move, we have to try to better understand the drivers of migration, which, for Central Americans, include corruption, poverty, insecurity, and violence. We must devote resources instead to humanely receiving asylum seekers and adjudicating their claims fairly. We also have to stop assuming that the best place to manage admissions of all Central Americans seeking protection is at the border.

The Deterrence Paradigm

The deterrence paradigm has been implemented repeatedly using the same counterproductive strategies.

. . . .

*************

Read the rear of Yael’s article at the link.

👍🏼👍🏼👍🏼👍🏼👍🏼⚖️🗽🇺🇸

Folks like my Round Table 🛡⚔️ colleague Judge Paul Grussendorf and I have been “preaching” for an abandonment of the unlawful, inhumane, incredibly wasteful, and demonstrably ineffective “deterrence paradigm.”

The skill set to establish a lawful, better, humane, efficient asylum system, consistent with our Constitutional, statutory, and international obligations is out there, mainly in the private/NGO/academic communities. I/O/W the “practical scholars, litigators, and advocates” in the NDPA.

It’s a just a question of the incoming Biden/Harris Administration getting beyond the “enforcement only” mentality, personnel, and White Nationalist nativist thinking that currently infects the entire USG immigration bureaucracy, at all levels. Replace the current failed leadership with experts from the NDPA and empower them to work with other experts in the private sector to institute a better system that would be no more costly, likely less, than the current “built to fail” abominations that not only waste resources but destroy human lives and are an ugly stain on our national conscience!

I also appreciate Yael’s recognition of the pressing and compelling need to “end the Clown Show 🤡🦹🏿‍♂️☠️@ EOIR:”

Immigration Court Reform

EOIR policies during the Trump administration have been at odds with principles of due process and judicial independence. These include the imposition of numeric case completion quotas and docket management policies that deprive asylum seekers of procedural protections; appointment of judges who almost exclusively come from prosecutorial backgrounds (especially working at DHS and in law enforcement); promotion to permanent positions on an expanded BIA of judges with asylum denial rates much higher than the national average; and procedures that limit the ability of claimants to effectively appeal their cases. The Biden administration should conduct an urgent review of EOIR hiring practices and immigration court procedures and develop recommendations for regulatory or structural changes consistent with the protection needs of asylum seekers.

The critical “urgent review” should be done by a “Team of Experts from the NDPA” brought in on an immediate temporary basis, if necessary, in accordance with Federal Personnel Rules, to replace the current Senior “Management” @ EOIR as well as the entire BIA. There’s no better way to fix the system than to take over management, restore fairness and order, and get inside the current disastrous mess @ the Clown Show 🤡🦹🏿‍♂️! Importantly, the “Team of Experts” with effective operational control could immediately begin fixing (and conversely stop aggravating and creating) the glaring problems while putting the structure and personnel in place for long-term reforms.

Lives ☠️⚰️ are at stake here! We need ACTION, not merely study and evaluation. “Fixing the system on the fly” may be challenging, but it’s perfectly within the capabilities of the right team of NDPA experts! Dems often prefer study and dialogue to effective actions. As Toby Keith would say: We need “a little less talk and a lot more action.”

(Toby Keith: https://www.google.com/search?q=%22a+little+less+talk+and+a+lot+more+action&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en-us&client=safari)

Due Process Forever! It’s NOT rocket 🚀 science!

PWS

12-30-20

🏴‍☠️KAKISTOCRACY DEATH ⚰️ WATCH: New NDPA Suits Challenge EOIR/DHS Scheme To Implement Grauleiter Miller’s 🤮☠️ Neo-Nazi “Kill Asylum” Regs In Regime’s Final Days! — The Disrespect For The Rule Of Law & Contempt For Humanity Run Deep At Flailing, Failed Agencies!

https://www.lexisnexis.com/legalnewsroom/immigration/b/outsidenews/posts/lawsuits-challenge-massive-end-of-asylum-rule

Dan Kowalski reports from LexisNexis Immigration Community:

Lawsuits Challenge Massive “End of Asylum” Rule

1. Pangea Legal Services, et al. v. DHS et al. – “[T]he Center for Gender & Refugee Studies, the Harvard Immigration and Refugee Clinical Program, and Sidley Austin LLP filed suit today challenging the mammoth asylum rule in the Northern District of California on behalf of organizational plaintiffs Pangea Legal Services, Dolores Street Community Services, Inc., CLINIC, and CAIR Coalition. The complaint challenges all substantive and procedural merits related issues (it does not challenge the changes to credible fear).” – Blaine Bookey, Legal Director, Center for Gender & Refugee Studies, University of California Hastings College of the Law

2. Human Rights First v. Wolf – “Human Rights First, alongside counsel at Williams & Connolly, filed a lawsuit challenging the Trump administration’s sweeping new anti-refugee regulation, which will gut protections for those seeking asylum and make it virtually impossible for refugees to secure asylum in the United States.

The lawsuit, filed in the United States federal district court in Washington, D.C., asks the court to intervene and stop the government from enforcing the rule, which is scheduled to take effect on January 11, 2021.

“This rule seeks to end asylum in the United States as we know it. Over the past four years, this administration has employed an array of tools in the hope of dismantling the legal protections Congress provided for refugees and asylum seekers,” said Hardy Vieux, Human Rights First’s senior vice president, legal. “Human Rights First is heading back to federal court to dash that hope. And to affirm that Congress sought to protect people fleeing persecution, not demonize them incessantly, even in the waning days of an administration long consumed with denying protection to those most in need of it. This holiday season, and every season, we shall continue to exalt the rule of law.”

Human Rights First v. Wolf et. al. challenges the Department of Homeland Security and Department of Justice’s rule, rammed through in the waning days of the Trump administration. The complaint in Human Rights First v. Wolf et. al. can be found here.

Human Rights First, an organizational plaintiff in the suit, argues that the rule violates the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), the Administrative Procedure Act, international law, and the United States Constitution. In its complaint, Human Rights First argues, “If allowed to stand, the rule will eviscerate the ability of noncitizens fleeing persecution to obtain asylum and related relief in the United States. The United States will instead send refugees back to countries where they face persecution, torture, and possible death—the very outcome Congress expressly designed the INA to avoid.”

The rule, which fundamentally rewrites United States asylum law, will illegally render the majority of asylum seekers ineligible for asylum while tilting every phase of the asylum process in favor of denial and deportation. The rule also upends the procedures for asylum adjudication, further limiting procedural protections for refugees seeking protection in the United States.

The United States government is attempting to make it impossible for our asylum-seeking clients to secure protection. Many of Human Rights First’s clients who have already been granted asylum would, under the rule, be denied protection. One Human Rights First asylum-seeking client stated, “[I]t really disappoints me to learn that the United States, a country [I] have looked up to as a beacon of freedom, is trying to put people like me in harm’s way. I fear for my safety.”

Through this lawsuit, Human Rights First is standing up for the rights of asylum seekers like our clients. Human Rights First’s comments this past summer opposing the draft rule are here.

Human Rights First provides pro bono legal representation for refugees seeking asylum in the United States, in partnership with volunteer lawyers at many of the nation’s leading law firms. Our refugee clients have fled persecution in Cameroon, China, Cuba, El Salvador, Guatemala, Eritrea, Honduras, Iraq, Nicaragua, Syria, Venezuela, and other countries where their lives and freedom are at risk.’

*******************

Thanks to all the NDPA heroes involved in this effort!

Hey hey, ho ho, the EOIR Clown Show 🤡🤮 has got to go!

EOIR Clown Show Must Go T-Shirt — “EOIR Clown Show Must Go” T-Shirt Custom Design Concept

Due Process Forever!⚖️🗽🧑🏽‍⚖️👩‍⚖️🇺🇸

PWS

12-22-20

WHY EOIR 🤡 MUST GO ** CH. CI — Latest CLINIC Court Victory Over Regime Exposes Unholy (Not To Mention Unconstitutional & Unethical) Alliance Between EOIR & ICE Enforcement To Screw Kids! — The Bottom Is Unfathomably Deep @ The Deadly EOIR Clown Show🤡! — “ICE is barred (both at the IJ and BIA levels) from seeking denials of continuances or other postponements to await adjudication of the I-589 filed with USCIS, seeking EOIR exercise of jurisdiction over an asylum claim where USCIS has initial jurisdiction under the terms of the 2013 Kim Memo, or otherwise taking the position that USCIS lacks initial jurisdiction over the class member’s asylum application.”

Michelle Mendez @ CLINIC reports:

Court Grants Class Certification and Amends Preliminary Injunction in USCIS UC Asylum Jurisdiction Litigation

On December 21, 2020, the U.S. District Court in Greenbelt, Maryland granted Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification in J.O.P. v. DHS, No. 19:1944, a lawsuit challenging a May 31, 2019 USCIS policy limiting USCIS asylum jurisdiction over applicants previously determined to be “unaccompanied alien children.” The court certified the following class:

“All individuals nationwide who prior to the effective date of a lawfully promulgated policy prospectively altering the policy set forth in the 2013 Kim Memorandum (1) were determined to be an Unaccompanied Alien Child (“UAC”); and (2) who filed an asylum application that was pending with the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”); and (3) on the date they filed their asylum application with USCIS, were 18 years of age or older, or had a parent or legal guardian in the United States who is available to provide care and physical custody; and (4) for whom USCIS has not adjudicated the individual’s asylum application on the merits.”

Simultaneously, the court granted in part Plaintiffs’ motion to amend the nationwide preliminary injunction to prevent USCIS’s deference to EOIR jurisdictional determinations and to prevent ICE’s advocacy against USCIS initial jurisdiction. The court denied Plaintiffs’ request to amend the preliminary injunction to prevent USCIS from rejecting jurisdiction based on its expansion of the “affirmative act” exception from the 2013 Kim Memo, instead granting Plaintiffs 21 days to amend their complaint to encompass this claim. Please see CLINIC’s litigation webpage for the court’s December 21, 2020 memorandum opinion and order, as well as other case-related documents.

As amended, the preliminary injunction has the following components:

It enjoins USCIS from relying on the 2019 policy for any purpose. USCIS is barred from “rejecting jurisdiction over any asylum application filed by Plaintiffs and members of the class whose applications would have been accepted” under USCIS’s previous policy, articulated in the 2013 Kim Memo.

It enjoins USCIS from deferring to EOIR jurisdictional determinations. USCIS is barred from “deferring to EOIR determinations in assessing jurisdiction over asylum applications filed by Plaintiffs and members of the class.”

It orders USCIS to retract adverse decisions already made. USCIS must “retract any adverse decision rendered on or after June 30, 2019 that is based in whole or in part on any of the actions enjoined and restrained” as described above.

It enjoins ICE from advocating against USCIS initial jurisdiction. Where a class member’s asylum application is pending before USCIS, ICE is barred (both at the IJ and BIA levels) from seeking denials of continuances or other postponements to await adjudication of the I-589 filed with USCIS, seeking EOIR exercise of jurisdiction over an asylum claim where USCIS has initial jurisdiction under the terms of the 2013 Kim Memo, or otherwise taking the position that USCIS lacks initial jurisdiction over the class member’s asylum application.

Counsel for the Plaintiffs will continue to provide updates to practitioners as this litigation progresses. Advocates for clients: (1) who receive adverse decisions dated on or after June 30, 2019 that violate the terms of the amended preliminary injunction; or (2) in whose removal proceedings ICE advocates in violation of the amended preliminary injunction should contact Plaintiffs’ counsel Mary Tanagho Ross, mross@publiccounsel.org, and Kevin DeJong, KDeJong@goodwinlaw.com.

Thank you,

Michelle N. Mendez | she/her/ella/elle

Director, Defending Vulnerable Populations Program

Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc. (CLINIC)

******************

Thanks for another “great news” report, Michelle, my friend!

Finally, at long last, some Article III judges are “calling out” the highly unethical and glaringly unconstitutional “partnership” between ICE enforcement and EOIR to screw asylum seeking kids.

The EOIR White Nationalist agenda 🏴‍☠️ of limiting legitimate continuances and administrative closing to mindlessly, improperly, and inefficiently proceed in Immigration Court on matters that should be resolved through USCIS adjudication is not only thoroughly corrupt, but also totally counterproductive, as uncontrollably mounting EOIR backlogs and increasing Article III Court interventions have shown.

And, the completely unconstitutional and unethical call early on by corrupt former AG Jeff “Gonzo Apocalypto” Sessions 🤮 for “his wholly owned EOIR judges” to join their “ICE enforcement partners” in racist immigrant bashing initiatives should long ago have been a basis for the Article IIIs to declare this entire ungodly mess in the Immigration Courts to be unconstitutional under the 5th and 14th Amendments.

Thanks to you and other members of the NDPA, Michelle, for all you have done and continue to do to expose corruption, illegality, and wrongdoing in the regime’s sprawling, out of control, immigration kakistocracy! Now, we need you and other members of the NDPA like you on the Federal Bench to short circuit all the BS and get sane, legal, humane policies and “best interpretations and practices” in place “from the git go” and then enforce them on recalcitrant bureaucrats.

Racial Justice in America is, as it must be, one of the top Biden-Harris priorities! 🇺🇸 It can only be achieved if the White Nationalist mess at EOIR and ICE is cleaned up and replaced with experts committed to due process, fundamental fairness, and human rights in charge! There must be new, dynamic, and courageous leadership committed to controlling and reforming the actions of civil servants throughout government who furthered Stephen Miller’s vile racist agenda unlawfully and immorally targeting immigrants of color, their families, and their communities. “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere” (MLK, Jr.).

Time for the NDPA ⚖️🗽🧑🏽‍⚖️👩‍⚖️ to replace the EOIR Clown Show🤡!

Due Process Forever!

PWS

12-22-20

DUH OF DA DAY: White Nationalist Agenda, Anti-Asylum Gimmicks, Grotesque Mal-Administration Leads To Longer Waiting Times @ Disastrously Dysfunctional EOIR 🤮 — Biden-Harris Administration Must End America’s Disgraceful Star Chambers ⚰️!

Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse

Immigration Court Case Completion Times Jump as Delays Lengthen

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Not surprisingly, Immigration Court closures and delays in hearings for courts that are conducting hearings have drastically reduced the number of completed cases for the first two months of this fiscal year as compared with prior years at the same time.

New cases continue to drastically outpace case completions. In October and November 2020, the Immigration Courts received 29,758 new filings. This is fewer filings than usual, but still almost twice the 15,990 cases they completed.

As a result, the court’s active backlog at the end of November 2020 reached 1,281,586. This is up 18,821 cases in just the last two months. Adding to the court’s workload are not only new filings, but previously closed cases that have been reopened, remanded for reconsideration, or otherwise placed back on the court’s docket.

Disposition times for closed cases have also shot up this year. Cases disposed of in FY 2020 took on average 460 days. During the first two months of FY 2021, the courts disposed of a much smaller number of cases, but the disposition times were much longer at an average of 755 days—or 64 percent longer. The longest disposition times were found in the Cleveland Immigration Court where it took on average 1,617 days.

For the latest disposition times at each Immigration Court read the full report at:

https://trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/634/

To examine a variety of Immigration Court data, including asylum data, the backlog, MPP, and more now updated through November 2020, use TRAC’s Immigration Court tools here:

https://trac.syr.edu/imm/tools/

If you want to be sure to receive a notification whenever updated data become available, sign up at:

https://tracfed.syr.edu/cgi-bin/tracuser.pl?pub=1

Follow us on Twitter at:

https://twitter.com/tracreports

or like us on Facebook:

https://facebook.com/tracreports

TRAC is self-supporting and depends on foundation grants, individual contributions and subscription fees for the funding needed to obtain, analyze and publish the data we collect on the activities of the US Federal government. To help support TRAC’s ongoing efforts, go to:

https://trac.syr.edu/cgi-bin/sponsor/sponsor.pl

David Burnham and Susan B. Long, co-directors

Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse

Syracuse University

Suite 360, Newhouse II

Syracuse, NY 13244-2100

315-443-3563

trac@syr.edu

https://trac.syr.edu

The Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse is a nonpartisan joint research center of the Whitman School of Management (https://whitman.syr.edu) and the Newhouse School of Public Communications (https://newhouse.syr.edu) at Syracuse University. If you know someone who would like to sign up to receive occasional email announcements and press releases, they may go to https://trac.syr.edu and click on the E-mail Alerts link at the bottom of the page. If you do not wish to receive future email announcements and wish to be removed from our list, please send an email to trac@syr.edu with REMOVE as the subject.

*******************

As mom used to say, “Haste makes waste.” Taking more time to decide cases would be perfectly defensible if it actually produced useful deliberation, thoughtful scholarship, and just and fair results. But, this currently is a system that must limit its intake while it develops the expertise, scholarship, analytical skills, quality control mechanisms, and best practices necessary for judicial efficiency that complies with due process and fundamental fairness (not to mention basic asylum law). That’s a “complete rebuild.”

Then, once that system is running well, it could be methodically and rationally expanded, if actually necessary. But, aimlessly building more assembly lines producing defective products and then ratcheting up the speed will, not surprisingly, produce nothing except more dangerous and defective products.

Not exactly rocket science that a bunch of hacks implementing racist policies, trying to speed up the assembly line, engaging in “Aimless Docket Reshuffling,” eradicating due process, discouraging fairness and deliberation, eliminating their own jurisdiction to control the dockets, and denying everything while mindlessly throwing more resources into a broken beyond belief “(non)system” at war with its own essential employees and those whom it (dis)serves would produce total chaos and dysfunction. Also, throw in lack of best technology and overt disregard for public health and safety.

And, while this is going on, an undisciplined, out of control, and for all practical purposes worse than useless ICE continues to pour new cases into the maelstrom at twice the rate it can get turn them out! As the late NY Met’s Manager Casey Stengel once said, “Can’t anyone here play this game?”

This is an ongoing and increasingly visible unmitigated national disgrace. It’s also an abuse of public funds and a betrayal of the public trust — fundamentals of sound government.

And, it won’t be “swept under the table” in the finest tradition of incoming Administrations. As I’ve said before, the Biden-Harris Administration either fixes EOIR🤡 immediately with some new faces with real expertise, or it “owns” it. And, the current White Nationalism infested atrocity and den of “malicious incompetence” at EOIR🤡 is not something an Administration striving to achieve equal justice and racial reconciliation should want to own!

Due Process Forever!

Hey hey, ho ho, the EOIR Clown Show 🤡 has got to go!

PWS

12-22-20

🏴‍☠️☠️🤮👎🏻IN NYT OP-ED, FORMER TRUMP DOJ ATTORNEY ERICA NEWLAND ADMITS COMPLICITY! — Having Undermined Democratic Institutions, Sold False Narratives To (Too Often Willing) Federal Judges, & Participated In Racist-Inspired “Dred Scottification” (“Dehumanization”) Of the Other Is Actually a BIG Deal! — So Is The Destruction Of Due Process & Fundamental Fairness In The Immigration Courts (Now, “Clown Courts”🤡, or “America’s Star Chambers”☠️)

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/20/opinion/trump-justice-department-lawyer.html?referringSource=articleShare

. . . .

Watching the Trump campaign’s attacks on the election results, I now see what might have happened if, rather than nip and tuck the Trump agenda, responsible Justice Department attorneys had collectively — ethically, lawfully — refused to participate in President Trump’s systematic attacks on our democracy from the beginning. The attacks would have failed.

. . . .

*******************

Read the full op-ed at the link. That’s right Erica. Lack of ethics, morality, and failing to uphold the Constitution and the rule of law have consequences. Helping to “custom design” obvious pretexts for racist and hate inspired policies, for consumption by right-wing judges who only seek “cover” for going along to get along with fascism, is wrong. Duh!

It’s no surprise that the clearly unconstitutional and racially and religiously bigoted “Travel Ban,” willingly embraced by an intellectually dishonest and morally compromised Supremes majority, was first on the list in Erica’s “confession.”

But, don’t expect any apologies from the vast majority of Trumpist lawyer/enablers who violated their oaths of office or from the big time law firms (one where I was formerly a partner) who have granted them undeserved refuge at fat salaries! Nor should we expect large-scale redemption from the legions of Government lawyers in DOJ, DHS, and elsewhere who will assert the “Nuremberg defense” of “just following orders.” But, that doesn’t mean that the rest of us can’t demand some accountability for participation in what are essentially “crimes against humanity.”

Erica’s article largely echoes what my friend and colleague Judge Jeffrey Chase, many of our colleagues in the Round Table of Former Immigration Judges, ⚔️🛡 and numerous members of the New Due Process Army (“NDPA”) have been saying throughout this Administration. Indeed, I frequently have noted that the once-respected Solicitor General’s Office and EOIR operated as basically “ethics free zones” under the disgraced “leadership” of Sessions, Whitaker, and Barr.

It’s also why the the Biden-Harris team that takes over at DOJ must:

immediately remove all the current “executives” (and I use that term lightly) at EOIR as well as all members of the BIA and transfer them to positions where they can do no further damage to asylum seekers, migrants, their (often pro bono or low bono) lawyers, or the rest of humanity;
replace them with qualified individuals from the NDPA; and
be circumspect in eventually making retention decisions for Immigration Judges, taking into account public input as to the the degree to which each such judge’s jurisprudence during the Trump kakistocracy continued to reflect adherence to constitutionally required due process and fundamental fairness to migrants, respect for migrants and their representatives, best practices, and interpretations that blunted wherever reasonably possible the impact of the kakistocracy’s xenophobic, racist, White Nationalist policies.

American justice has been ill-served by the DOJ and the Immigration Courts over the past four years. That’s something that must not be swept under the carpet (as is the habit with most incoming Administrations).

The career Civil Service overall, and particularly complicit and often ethics-free government lawyers, failed to put up the necessary resistance to an overtly anti-American regime with an illegal and immoral agenda. Lives were lost or irreparably ruined as a result. That’s a big-time problem that if not addressed and resolved will likely make continuance of our national democratic republic impossible.

⚖️🗽🧑🏽‍⚖️👍🏼🇺🇸Due Process Forever! Complicity Never☠️🤮🏴‍☠️👎🏻!

PWS

12-21-20

🏴‍☠️👎🏻WITH KAKISTOCRACY HEADING INTO FINAL MONTH, BIA CONTINUES TO ISSUE NEGATIVE GUIDANCE ON EXPERT TESTIMONY — Matter of M-A-M-Z-, 28 I&N Dec. 173 (BIA 2020)

The Board of Immigration Appeals has issued a decision in Matter of M-A-M-Z-, 28 I&N Dec. 173 (BIA 2020).

(1) Expert testimony is evidence, but only an Immigration Judge makes factual findings.

(2) When the Immigration Judge makes a factual finding that is not consistent with an expert’s opinion, it is important, as the Immigration Judge did here, to explain the reasons behind the factual findings.

PANEL: MULLANE, CREPPY, and LIEBOWITZ, Appellate Immigration Judges

OPINION BY: Judge MULLANE

**********************

So, with the overt politicization and precipitous decline in reliability of DOS Country Reports, expert opinions have become of increasing importance in asylum cases. And, the are many great experts and groups providing alternatives to the skewed DOS reports these days.

So, what’s really needed in NOT more encouragement for IJs, many of whom lack real asylum expertise, to find ways to downgrade or dismiss experts. What is essential, is new guidance: 1) honestly recognizing that this Administration’s anti-asylum and inappropriate ideological agendas have undermined the credibility of DOS reports; and 2) describing ways in which IJs should be using alternatives, like expert testimony and reports, to support grants of protection to applicants who need and deserve them.

Credible applicants are supposed to be given the benefit of the doubt. Today’s EOIR has “made mincemeat” of that principle.

It is time to rethink the evidence so often submitted and relied upon in asylum claims, to dial back the corroboration demands, and to return to a core principle of refugee law – the need to afford asylum seekers the benefit of the doubt. We need a better way to establish asylum eligibility and challenge stereotypes.

https://clinics.law.harvard.edu/blog/2020/07/refugee-eligibility-challenging-stereotypes-and-reviving-the-benefit-of-the-doubt/

Appropriate guidance is not going to happen until the present BIA is replaced by real appellate judges who are experts on asylum law, due precess, fundamental fairness,and who have experience representing asylum seekers in the real world. Hopefully, that long overdue day, is within sight: “Hey hey, ho, the EOIR Clown Show has got to go!

Due Process Forever!

PWS

12-20-20

🛡⚔️⚖️🗽SIR JEFFREY’S 2021 WISH LIST — Sanity, Humanity, Due Process, & Other Great Things! — The Importance Of A Long Overdue “Training Upgrade” @ EOIR!

https://www.jeffreyschase.com/blog/2020/12/14/a-wish-list-for-2021

JEFFREY S. CHASE | OPINIONS/ANALYSIS ON IMMIGRATION LAW

Blog Archive Press and Interviews Calendar Contact

A Wish List for 2021

To use another sports analogy, we have entered the preseason of the Biden Administration. As any sports fan knows, preseason (which generally starts five or six weeks before the real season begins) is a time for dreaming. During preseason, every team is undefeated, and every fan is permitted to believe that this will finally be the year in which their suffering and loyalty are rewarded.

I’ve spoken to several law school classes this fall via Zoom. One question I’ve been asked by students (both before and after the election) is what reforms I would like to see under the Biden Administration. Although it seemed significantly more likely before November 3 that the Democrats would control both houses, I’ve stuck with the original list. This is, after all, preseason, and I’m allowed to dream.

Just to be clear, Biden will be the 13th president to serve during my lifetime, and the seventh since beginning my career in immigration law. I am well aware that most of the items on my list won’t happen; I wouldn’t be surprised if none come to pass. Maybe I’ll continue that thought in a future blog; this one is devoted to dreaming. That being said, some of the changes I hope to see are:

Safeguarding Asylum: In spite of numerous reminders from Article III courts that it is Congress, and not the Attorney General, that writes our laws, and that in enacting the 1980 Refugee Act, Congress intended to bring our asylum laws into accordance with our treaty law obligations, the Trump Administration showed shameless disregard for these facts, doing everything it could think of to upend Congressional intent by eliminating asylum eligibility to all who apply. Ideally through statute, but if not possible, then at least through regulation, safeguards must be added making it absolutely clear to future administrations that asylum is meant to be a broad and flexible relief from any type of persecution creative persecutors may conceive; that the designated grounds required for such protection are to be interpreted broadly, and that persecution may be attributed to a government providing imperfect protection to its citizens. It is important to note that none of these principles constitute changes to the law, but simply shore up or repair long-existing principles following the storm of the past four years.

An Independent Immigration Court: It is time for the Immigration Courts to be moved out of the Department of Justice, and into independent Article I status. We’ve seen over the past four years the worst-case scenario of what happens when an enforcement agency realizes that it controls the courts that exist to keep that same agency’s worst impulses in check. Article I has been strongly endorsed by the American Bar Association, the Federal Bar Association, the American Immigration Lawyers Association, the National Association of Immigration Judges, and many other groups, including the Round Table of Former Immigration Judges. Enacting this change is the only way the integrity and independence of the Immigration Courts can be safeguarded from future attack.

Government Appointed Counsel for Children in Removal Proceedings: This is a no-brainer. In a case before the Ninth Circuit involving this issue, J.E.F.M. v. Lynch, an amicus brief was filed by the states of Washington and California. The brief began: “In this case, the federal government argues that an indigent child charged with removability in a federal immigration proceeding does not, as a matter of due process under the federal Constitution, have the right to be represented by appointed counsel at government expense….Such a position is at odds with principles of ordered liberty and due process. It ignores the reality that indigent children are incapable of representing themselves in an adversarial immigration removal proceeding, let alone raising complex claims of due process or navigating federal administrative and appellate procedure.” The brief continued: “An adversarial immigration system, which depends on the presentation of both sides of a case in a highly specialized area of law, demands that a child, standing alone, be represented by counsel.” The brief was signed (in March 2016) by California’s then Attorney General, Kamala Harris. Hopefully Vice President Harris will work to make this right a reality.

Eliminate Chevron Deference for BIA and Attorney General Decisions: Last year, the Third Circuit, in a concurring opinion by Judge McKee in its decision in Quinteros v. Att’y Gen. (which all three judges on the panel joined), stated that “it is difficult for me to read this record and conclude that the Board was acting as anything other than an agency focused on ensuring Quinteros’ removal rather than as the neutral and fair tribunal it is expected to be. That criticism is harsh and I do not make it lightly.” The court’s observation highlights the problem with according broad deference to those who use their decision-making authority for politically motivated ends.

In a blog post earlier this year, I highlighted three recent scholarly articles questioning the continued propriety of applying Chevron’s principles to decisions of the BIA concerning asylum, or to any decisions of the Attorney General. I believe Article I status would resolve this problem, as decisions issued by an independent court outside of the executive branch would no longer constitute the interpretation of an executive branch agency covered by Chevron. In the meantime, Congress and/or the Department of Justice should consider means of exempting such decisions from Chevron deference, and thus keep both the BIA and Attorney General honest in their efforts to reach neutral and fair results.

Create a “Charming Betsy” Reg Requiring Adherence to International Law: Since 1804, the Supreme Court’s decision in Murray v. The Schooner Charming Betsy has required domestic statutes to be interpreted consistently with international law whenever possible. As the Supreme Court in INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca observed that in enacting the 1980 Refugee Act, “one of Congress’ primary purposes was to bring United States refugee law into conformance with the 1967 United Nations Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees,” it would seem that interpreters of our asylum laws should look to international law interpretations of that treaty for guidance. Recent examples in which this has not been the case include the just-published “death to asylum” regulations that will completely gut the 1980 Refugee Act of any meaning; as well as regulations that bar asylum for conduct falling far, far short of the severity required to bar refugee protection under international law (which a federal district court blocked in Pangea v. Barr).

As the Board seems disinclined to listen to the Supreme Court on this point, it is hoped that the Biden Administration would codify the Charming Betsy doctrine in regulations, which should further require the BIA, Immigration Judges, and Asylum Officers to consider UNHCR interpretations of the various asylum provisions, and require adjudicators to provide compelling reasons for rejecting its guidance.

Eliminate or Curtail the Attorney General’s Certification Power: Until Article I becomes a reality, Congress must pass legislation that either eliminates or at least seriously limits the Attorney General’s certification power by removing the ability to rewrite established law on a whim. At most, the Attorney General’s role should be limited to requesting the BIA to reconsider precedent in light of interceding Supreme Court or Circuit Court decisions, changes in law or regulations, or other legal developments that might materially impact the prior holding. Furthermore, any right to certify must be limited to cases before the BIA, and to actual disputes between the parties arising in the proceedings below.

Revamp Immigration Judge Training: This is more important than it might sound. Conservative commentator Nolan Rappaport has commented on the inadequacy of Immigration Judge training, particularly where many recent appointees come to the bench with no prior immigration experience. This problem predates the present administration. Under Attorneys General Holder and Lynch, the BIA in particular was extremely resistant to exposing its judges and attorneys to views not considered part of the official party line. During that period, I was amazed at how the BIA’s vice-chair (who continues to hold that position up to present) viewed respected immigration experts as the enemy, and employed a director of training and subject matter experts whose only qualification was their willingness to shield EOIR employees from outside sources. This problem has worsened over the past four years. A committee including not only those within EOIR, but also academics and members of the private bar should be formed to completely rethink the curriculum and resources available to judges and support staff.

Copyright 2020 Jeffrey S. Chase. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

**********************

Jeffrey’s point on training is particularly well-taken. This has been a festering “below the radar screen” problem at EOIR for decades.

Jeffrey’s analysis supports my call for the immediate end of the “EOIR Clown Show” and the replacement of EOIR Senior “Management” and the entire BIA with expert “practical scholars” from the NDPA. Indeed, one of the most grossly “underrepresented” groups in the current Immigration Judiciary are those who gained their expertise and courtroom knowledge as clinical professors! That group includes some of the finest legal minds I have run across in nearly 50 years of government, “big law,” and academic practice.

In my experience, EOIR training ranged from the “minimally adequate,” to the sadly comical, to the overtly insulting. In the latter category were the years we had no in person training and were sent a series of “mandatory videos.” Some were inaudible; others wrong or misleading; a few were actually reprises of BIA “staff brown bag lunches.” “Amateur Night at The Bijou” to be sure!

It was not that the resources weren’t available. We had among our ranks colleagues like Judge Dana Marks, one of the “Founding Mothers” of U.S. asylum law, who successfully argued the landmark Cardoza-Fonseca (“well-founded fear”) case before the Supreme Court as a private lawyer; and Board Member/Appellate Immigration Judge Lory D. Rosenberg, to my knowledge the only EOIR judge at any level whose legal analysis was favorably cited by name by the Supreme Court in the St. Cyr case (212(c) waiver retroactivity).

Yet instead of getting insights and pointers from these and other luminaries of modern immigration and asylum law, we often were treated to government litigators telling us how to narrowly interpret asylum law or make denial decisions “easier to defend” in the Circuit Courts. One government prosecutor famously informed us that we weren’t really “judges” at all but simply “highly paid immigration inspectors working for the Attorney General.”

Others told us that as “mere DOJ attorneys” we weren’t allowed to claim status as “administrative judges” for state bar purposes, even though by law we were barred from performing non-adjudicative legal functions. This is the kind of nonsense on which some of our limited “training time” was spent. Still others told us that although Congress had granted us statutory contempt authority, the Attorney General was withholding it because we shouldn’t be allowed to hold “other government attorneys” (that is, INS/DHS prosecutors) accountable for their conduct in our “courts” (which, clearly, these bureaucrats didn’t consider “courts” at all, except, perhaps, when arguing against judicial review by the Article IIIs).

Training is important! Many of the Circuit Court reversals highlighted in “Courtside” and on Jeffrey’s blog show grossly deficient understanding and application at both the trial and appellate levels of EOIR of the fundamentals of immigration and asylum law — things like standards of proof, considering all the evidence, judging credibility, and following Circuit and sometimes even BIA precedents favorable to respondents.

This isn’t “rocket science!” They are the “x’s and o’s” of basic due process and fair immigration adjudication. Yet, all too often, EOIR “expert” tribunals (that really aren’t) come up short. Indeed very few members of today’s EOIR judiciary would be generally recognized as “experts” in the field based on their lifetime body of work. A sad, but true, commentary. But, one that can and must be changed by the Biden-Harris Administration!

The BIA should not only be reconstituted as an true “expert tribunal,” along the line of a Circuit Court of Appeals, but as a tribunal that teaches, instructs, and promotes best practices through its jurisprudence.

And, contrary to some of the restrictionist commentary that I continue to read, asylum law following Cardoza, Mogharrabi, the Refugee Act of 1980, and the U.N. Convention & Protocol from which it flows is neither intentionally narrow nor inherently restrictive. As indicated in Cardoza, it could and should properly be interpreted generously and humanely to grant life-saving protection wherever possible. The purpose of the Convention was to set forth legal minimums while inspiring greater protections along those lines.

The “spirit of Cardoza and Mogharrabi” have long been lost, and now gleefully exorcised at the “EOIR Clown Show.” It’s past time for the appointment of competent, expert EOIR judges and administrators from the NDPA. Those who are intellectual leaders with moral courage who will insist on its long overdue restoration and fulfillment of this spirit!

Due Process Forever!

PWS

12-15-20

NAN ARON OF ALLIANCE FOR JUSTICE⚖️SPEAKS OUT ON NEED FOR BIDEN-HARRIS ADMINISTRATION TO LOOK AT BROADER SOURCES FOR FEDERAL JUDICIAL CANDIDATES 🧑🏽‍⚖️👨🏻‍⚖️👩‍⚖️!

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/11/us/progressive-groups-biden-judges.html?referringSource=articleShare

Carl Hulse reports for the NY Times:

. . . .

In addition to the candidates put forward by Mr. Feingold’s group after a nationwide effort, another coalition of organizations has provided the transition with over 100 names of candidates developed over the past several months.

“The process started earlier so we would be ready,” said Nan Aron, the president of the Alliance for Justice, which in cooperation with nearly three dozen other groups has given the Biden team a list of more than 100 potential nominees. “We are pushing hard for them to make judges a priority.”

. . . .

The progressives say that Democrats must use whatever leverage they can to press their nominees.

“Our view is the administration should push to make judges a critical part of the conversation,” Ms. Aron said. “The Democrats will need to fight for the judges they want.”

Though acknowledging winning confirmations will be difficult — certainly compared with the free hand Republicans have had when controlling both the White House and the Senate — Mr. Feingold said he was optimistic that Mr. Biden, using the available political tools and with strong progressive support, could get his picks on to the courts.

“I see opportunity here,” Mr. Feingold said.

****************

Thanks Nan! Read the rest of the article at the above link!

I just hope that this time around, unlike the Obama Administration, the Biden-Harris Team focuses on what former Senator Russ Feingold of the American Constitution Society might call a “golden opportunity” for broadening and improving the Federal Judiciary.

That’s, of course, the “judiciary” at the Executive Office for Immigration Review (“EOIR”) which operates (and I use this term loosely, given the disgraceful, deadly dysfunction sowed by the outgoing regime) entirely within the Executive Branch at the DOJ. No need to get Mitch McConnell’s sign off on these judges! (We ultimately need a fully independent Article Immigration Court, which will take legislation.)

The mess at EOIR needs immediate attention and aggressive due process reforms. This is no “small opportunity.” There are more than 500 Immigration Judgeships and another two dozen critically important Appellate Judgeships at the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) at stake here.

Together, this “under the radar administrative judiciary” exercises essentially life or death authority over millions of individuals and affects the lives and futures of millions more American families, employers, and communities from coast to coast. While most of the BIA’s decisions are reviewable in the Circuit Courts of Appeals, the BIA’s nationwide authority to set precedents and policies that determine not only the future of millions of humans, but also the conduct of DHS (which has been highly problematic) gives it power that in some ways exceeds that of any Federal Court short of the Supremes.

Sadly, the independence, expertise, and due process performance of EOIR has deteriorated steadily over the past three Administrations before going into a “death spiral” under the Trump/Miller/Sessions/Barr White Nationalist kakistocracy.

The exceptionally well qualified judicial candidates and competent legal administrators to fix the EOIR disaster are out here in the New Due Process Army. There is no area of judging that combines intellectual challenge, applied due process, human relations, practical problem solving, historical perspectives, ethical norms, and fundamental human values the way that the Immigration Court experience does!

A new, due process oriented, expert, diverse, representative immigration judiciary at EOIR will not only be a model for best practices for all levels of the Federal Judiciary, but will also provide an exceptional source of experienced candidates for the Article III Judiciary and future public policy positions (the massive failures in these areas over the past four years are an example of why we must do better if we want to save lives, promote equal justice for all, and enhance our democracy). As I always tell my Georgetown Law students, if you can win in Immigration Court, everything else you do in law will be a “piece of cake!”

This is more than just “an opportunity.” Human lives are at stake! National values and the future of the rule of law in America hang in the balance! This isn’t “optional,” nor is it a “back burner” issue! Reforming the Immigration Judiciary is a national imperative that we must insist upon!

Hey hey, ho ho, the EOIR Clown Show 🤡 has got to go! Let the Biden-Harris Team know!

Due Process Forever!⚖️🗽👍🏼

PWS

12-13-20

⚖️🗽“HOUSTON, WE’VE GOT A PROBLEM!” — It’s Called “EOIR” & It’s Time For The Clown Show 🤡 To Go! — Here’s My Speech Last Night To The Houston Chapter of AILA!

Good evening, Houston! Hope you and yours are staying well. Thanks for joining me to help plan the next big battle for our New Due Process Army (“NDPA”).

I’m retired, so I can tell it like it is: no party line, no bureaucratic doublespeak, no BS, just the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Nevertheless, I do want to hold AILA, your organizers, you, and anyone else of any importance whatsoever harmless for the following remarks, for which I am solely responsible. To borrow the words of country music superstar Toby Keith, “it’s me baby, with your wakeup call!”

And, perhaps to state the obvious: “Houston, we’ve got a problem!” The problem is EOIR, it’s threatening our entire justice system, and I need your help to fix it!

42 days and counting left in the kakistocracy – governance by the worst among us. We got the job done in November. But, by no means is the fight to preserve our justice system and save our nation over. Indeed, in many ways it’s just beginning!

I’m dividing my presentation this evening into two parts. First, I’m going to take you from one of the highlights of my career, the Kasinga decision in 1996, to the depths of the current unmitigated disaster in our Immigration Courts. I’ll explain how policy-making by myth, inadequate leadership, followed by malicious incompetence snuffed out hope and progress and replaced it with despair and return to the dark days of Jim Crow.

Then, I’m going to tell you what needs to be done to restore and re-energize due process at EOIR, why our time is now, and why your voices as members of our New Due Process Army (“NDPA”) need to be heard loud and clear by the incoming Biden-Harris Administration.

* * * * * * *

We also need an AG who is advocate for human rights and immigrants’ rights. Additionally, there is a pressing need for immigration/human rights experts from the NDPA in authoritative positions in other parts of the DOJ, like the SG’s Office, OIL, and the Office of Legal Policy, as well as, of course DHS, ORR, State, and even CDC.

Remember: This isn’t “rocket science!” It’s just common sense, “practical scholarship,” best practices, moral courage, humanity, and respect for human dignity! All of which you and other members of the NDPA have in abundance! Most of all, it’s about getting the right practical experts in the key positions within the incoming Administration.

Unlike the Article III Courts, the “EOIR Clown Show” can be removed, replaced, and justice at all levels improved just by putting the right experts from the NDPA in charge right off the bat. Because these are Executive positions that do not require Senate confirmation, Mitch McConnell’s permission is not required.

Democratic Administrations, particularly the Obama Administration, have a history of not getting the job done when it comes to achievable immigration reforms within the bureaucracy. If you don’t want four more years of needless frustration, death, disorder, demeaning of humanity, and deterioration of the most important “retail level” of our justice system, let the incoming Biden Administration know: Throw out the EOIR Clown Show and bring in the experts from the NDPA to turn the Immigration Courts into real, independent courts of equal justice and humanity that will be a source of national pride, not a deadly and dangerous national embarrassment!

Contrary to all the mindless “woe is me” suggestions that it will take decades to undo Stephen Miller’s racist nonsense, EOIR is totally fixable — BUT ONLY WITH THE RIGHT FOLKS FROM THE NDPA IN CHARGE! It only becomes “mission impossible” if the Biden-Harris Administration approaches EOIR with the same indifference, lack of urgency, and disregard for expertise and leadership at the DOJ that often has plagued past Democratic Administrations on immigration, human rights, and social justice.

It won’t take decades, nor will it take zillions of taxpayer dollars! With the right folks in leadership positions at EOIR, support for independent problem solving (not mindless micromanagement) from the AG & DOJ, and a completely new BIA selected from the ranks of the NDPA experts, we will see drastic improvements in the delivery of justice at EOIR by this time next year. And, that will just be the beginning!

No more clueless politicos, go along to get along bureaucrats, unqualified toadies, and restrictionist holdovers calling the shots at EOIR, America’s most important, least understood, and “most fixable” court system! No more abuse of migrants and their hard-working representatives! No more ridiculous, “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” generating self-created backlogs! No more vile and stupid White Nationalist enforcement gimmicks being passed off as “policies!” No more “Amateur Night at The Bijou” when it comes to administration of the immigrant justice system at EOIR!

Get mad! Get angry! Stop the nonsense! Tell every Democrat in Congress and the Biden Administration to bring in the NDPA experts to fix EOIR! Now! Before more lives are lost, money wasted, and futures ruined! It won’t get done if we don’t speak out and demand to be heard! Let your voices ring out from banks of the Rio Grande to the shores of the Potomac, from the Gulf Coast to the centers of Government!

This is our time! Don’t let it pass with the wrong people being put in charge — yet again! Don’t be “left at the station” as the train of immigrant justice at Justice pulls out with the best engineers left standing on the platform and the wrong folks at the controls! Some “train wrecks” aren’t survivable!

Repeat after me: “Hey hey, ho ho, the EOIR Clown Show has got to go!” Then pass it on to the incoming Administration! Let them know, in no uncertain terms, that you’ve had enough! More than enough!

Thanks for listening, have a great evening, stay well, take care of your families, and, always remember the NDPA rallying cry, Due Process Forever!

Read my complete speech here:

HOUSTON

And, here’s the zoom video recording, courtesy of Roberto Blum, Esquire, of Houston AILA:

https://zoom.us/rec/share/s607ygH0DZ4E_tQqcbs_6w1nrdDjfcoY9JWlIT7FAQRKm_mdFu5iGNP5ukVWjXLI.Y_uTqJUfps7uq9St?startTime=1607558497000

*********************************

🤮EOIR’S STUPIDITY IN MOTION: One of the audience questions last night concerned the recent mindless “scheduling orders” issued by EOIR bureaucrats masquerading as “judges.” These were the subject of immediate harsh congressional criticism, as I noted yesterday. https://immigrationcourtside.com/2020/12/09/kakistocracy-korner%f0%9f%8f%b4%e2%80%8d%e2%98%a0%ef%b8%8f-eoirs-latest-maliciously-incompetent-%f0%9f%a4%ae-attack-%e2%98%a0%ef%b8%8f-on-kids-earns-well-deserved-congressional-ire/

Basically, with over 1.3 million backlogged cases already on the docket, EOIR has chosen to expedite and prioritize newer asylum cases where individuals have not had time to obtain attorneys and properly prepare over hundreds of thousands, perhaps one million, of “ready to try” backlogged cases. Some of the latter undoubtedly date back to my time on the bench!

Rather than working with the private bar and ICE on a rational plan to get the cases that are ready to try heard, EOIR has chosen to rush ahead by putting “not ready for prime time” cases in front of those that have been waiting, some for many years. Apparently, the plan is to then dismiss the cases if completed asylum applications aren’t filed by the arbitrary, artificial, and unreasonable deadlines.

Remarkably, attorneys were told that if they couldn’t meet these arbitrary, unreasonable deadlines, they should “file motions.” That will 1) throw more useless paper into an un-automated system already drowning in it; 2) undoubtedly lead to wildly inconsistent adjudications among judges; and 3) generate unnecessary appeals and possible Federal court actions. Some unrepresented individuals likely will be wrongfully deported because they don’t understand what’s happening.

This is “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” in action. A great example of why “The EOIR Clown Show 🤡 has got to go!” Sooner, not later!

Let your voices be heard!

I hear lots of talk about the importance of civil rights from the Biden team. But, as we well know, “immigrants’ rights are civil rights.”

Civil rights reforms and justice for African Americans, Hispanic Americans, and other minorities will continue to be an unrealized dream unless and until we fix the broken and biased Immigration Court system: “The home of ‘Dred Scottification’ and the ‘21st Century Jim Crow.’” As MLK, Jr. once said, “Injustice anywhere is a threat justice everywhere.”

After three decades of abject failure and “deterioration of justice at Justice,” time for some progressive new leadership at the DOJ that takes those words to heart and “connects the dots” between the continuing abuses of Black Americans in the streets and the disgraceful abuses inflicted on immigrants of color and their representatives in our 21st Century “Star Chambers” called Immigration Courts that operate within the DOJ. In my mind, appointing officials who were part of not solving the problem in the past, even if they “know” the DOJ, is not going to get the job done.

We need new faces in leadership at DOJ! That means individuals in leadership positions who have demonstrated a commitment to equal justice for all! Experts in justice rather than political and bureaucratic retreads! Time to value “real life” experiences and achievements over past participation in managing a failed and floundering DOJ bureaucracy that has been “AWOL” on equal justice and immigrant justice for far too long.

Yes, we need a “good manager” at Justice. But, a manager who has seen the problems with the justice system first-hand, through litigation or advocacy against the regime’s abuses, particularly in the Immigration Courts and with racist and unconstitutional immigrant bashing “policies.” A leader familiar with the problems at Justice, but not part of those problems in the past. Sure, that person will need personnel experts and some “bureaucratic insiders” to get the job done. But, they should be part of the team, not driving the train.

There will be no justice for all Americans without justice in our Immigration Courts! So far, I haven’t heard a direct acknowledgement and embracing of that simple fact from the Biden-Harris team. That’s a matter that should be of concern to all of us in the NDPA!

That’s why it’s so important for our voices to be heard now! Before the “train leaves the station” without the NDPA on board, which is precisely what happened in 2008!

Due Process Forever!

PWS

12-10-20

🇺🇸“GOOD MORNING OHIO!” — MY KEYNOTE SPEECH TO AILA THIS MORNING 🗽— AN NDPA CALL TO ACTION! ⚖️— “The EOIR Clown Show Has Got To Go!”🤡👨🏻‍⚖️👎🏻

Friends, you know, and I know, what is the biggest crisis facing the American justice system today. One that undermines and threatens racial justice, social justice, equality before the law, voting rights, American values, and indeed the very foundations of our democratic institutions and our justice system.

It’s imperative that our incoming Administration and its leaders fully recognize the overwhelming importance and extreme urgency of immediately ending the ongoing, deadly, and dangerous “Clown Show” at EOIR – the Executive Office for Immigration Review.

Under the defeated but not yet departed regime, EOIR has been weaponized by White Nationalist nativists to function as America’s Star Chambers. Once envisioned by its founders, including me, as a potential “jewel in the crown” of American justice, EOIR now has become an ungodly nightmare of anti-due process, anti-immigrant propaganda, bad judges, bogus stats, uncontrollable backlogs, malicious incompetence, stupid regulations, daily doses of irrationality, abuse of private attorneys, and institution of “worst practices.” But, it doesn’t have to be that way! No, not at all!

With courage, bold action, and, most important, the right people in place in leadership and key judicial positions, EOIR can be fixed: sooner, not later. The Immigration Courts can, indeed, through teamwork and innovation become the world’s best courts guaranteeing fairness and due process for all, promoting a model of best practices for the Federal Judiciary as a whole, and providing a trained and ready source of due-process oriented judges with strong immigration, human rights, and equal justice backgrounds for the Article III Judiciary and public policy positions.

EOIR will then be positioned for the essential transition to an Article I independent U.S. Immigration Court when we have the votes.

But, it will require a far more progressive, visionary, and aggressive approach than past Democratic Administrations. We must immediately (and legally) clear out the deadwood and get the problem solvers from the New Due Process Army (“NDPA”) — mostly now in the NGO, clinical, and private sectors, folks like you and your colleagues — in place to fix this horribly broken system.

Read my complete speech here:

OHIO AILA

DUE PROCESS FOREVER!

PWS

12-04-20

Better Judges for a Better, Fairer America.🇺🇸 Make Equal Justice Under Law ⚖️ A Reality Rather Than an Ongoing, Judicially-Enabled, Charade!

Due Process Forever!⚖️🗽🇺🇸

Related posts:

Due Process Forever!⚖️🗽👩🏻‍⚖‍🇺🇸👍

Related posts:

Civil rights lawyer and law prof, writing about the Midwest, the untold horrors of the justice system, and the ongoing battle between the law and humanity.

Better judges for a better America! 🇺🇸Not just a slogan; a requirement for our democracy to survive!

⚖️🗽🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Due Process Forever!⚖️🗽🇺🇸 Same old, same old never!

Happy New Year!😎👍🏼

Related posts:

⚖️🗽Due Process Forever!

Happy New Year! 🍾🥂🎉Looking forward to Jan. 20 and the end of the kakistocracy!👍🏼⚖️🗽😎🇺🇸

Related posts:

Due Process Forever! It’s NOT rocket 🚀 science!

Related posts:

Hey hey, ho ho, the EOIR Clown Show 🤡🤮 has got to go!

Due Process Forever!⚖️🗽🧑🏽‍⚖️👩‍⚖️🇺🇸

Related posts:

Time for the NDPA ⚖️🗽🧑🏽‍⚖️👩‍⚖️ to replace the EOIR Clown Show🤡!

Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Due Process Forever!

Hey hey, ho ho, the EOIR Clown Show 🤡 has got to go!

Related posts:

⚖️🗽🧑🏽‍⚖️👍🏼🇺🇸Due Process Forever! Complicity Never☠️🤮🏴‍☠️👎🏻!

Related posts:

Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Due Process Forever!⚖️🗽👍🏼

Related posts:

Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Read my complete speech here:

DUE PROCESS FOREVER!

Related posts: