CHANNELING COURTSIDE: Billy The Bigot’s Bias, Lies, & Absurdist “Legal Arguments” Have Tanked The DOJ’s Credibility With U.S. Courts – “The problem with bypassing professionals and norms is that the decisions you make instead are often transparently foolish, or appear rigged to achieve an unprincipled or corrupt result,” says WashPost Op-Ed – So, Why Does Billy B Still Have A Law License?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/08/18/justice-departments-extreme-legal-arguments-are-costing-it-court/

Opinion by

George T. Conway III and

Lawrence S. Robbins

August 18, 2020 at 5:12 p.m. EDT

Lawrence S. Robbins is an appellate and trial lawyer at Robbins Russell. George T. Conway III is a lawyer and an adviser to the Lincoln Project, an anti-Trump super PAC. The writers both submitted friend-of-the-court briefs opposing the government’s motion in the Flynn case.

If there’s one thing you can say about President Trump and his administration, it’s that nothing is regular except the irregular, which has had myriad damaging consequences for the nation. And it’s had particularly adverse consequences for the federal government’s ability to defend itself in court.

The latest example comes in the criminal case against Trump’s first, short-tenured national security adviser, Michael Flynn. He pleaded guilty — not once but twice — to charges that he had lied to FBI agents during an interview about his conversations with senior Russian officials during the presidential transition. Despite Flynn’s admissions of guilt, Attorney General William P. Barr filed a motion asking that the case be dismissed — and supporting Flynn’s effort to have that done without even a hearing before the district judge.

Flynn won before an appeals court panel. But when the full court of appeals heard arguments on Flynn’s petition, the judges couldn’t have seemed more bewildered at the Trump administration’s position. The government argued that the district judge couldn’t inquire into the government’s reasons for seeking dismissal even if he’d seen the prosecutor take a bribe, in open court, in exchange for dismissing the case.

The Trump administration has been saying things like that a lot lately — trying to stretch the law in ways that undermine its remaining credibility. It argued that a sitting president’s accountants and bankers can’t be subpoenaed for his personal records during his term in office by either a state grand jury or, without meeting an impossibly high burden, by Congress. It argued that the president’s close aides can’t be called to testify before a congressional committee investigating presidential misconduct. The least trustworthy administration in decades, if not ever, keeps arguing: “You’ve just got to trust us.”

Lawyers have a phrase for the government’s saying “Trust us.” It’s called the “presumption of regularity.” The presumption of regularity means that courts should presume that government officials acted through a “regular” process: that it carefully vetted its policy and scrupulously examined relevant legal precedents.

But, as its name suggests, the presumption of regularity rests on the premise that the government is functioning in a regular way. And the Trump administration is anything but regular. Following the cues of a chief executive who despises what he calls the “deep state,” administration officials have cut corners, displaced career professionals, exiled dissenters and abandoned institutional norms — in short, circumvented the very processes that justify the presumption of regularity in the first place.

The chickens have now come home to roost. Whether they say so explicitly or not, courts have been dispensing with the presumption of regularity. The best example: In the litigation over the 2020 Census, the Supreme Court held that Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross’s decision to add a citizenship question to the census form was arbitrary and capricious. The reason? “Altogether,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote, “the evidence does not match the explanation the secretary gave for his decision.” That’s just a polite lawyer’s way of saying Ross lied.

Examples of the administration’s disrespect for regularity are legion, and not just confined to litigated matters. Barr has acted as a virtual one-man band of irregularity: He forced the U.S. attorney in Washington, Jessie K. Liu, out of her job, thereby enabling him to countermand former special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s sentencing recommendation for Roger Stone. And Barr gave a transparently false account of the Mueller report in the week before it was released to the public.

. . . .

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

Read the rest of the op-ed at the above link.

Perhaps the most disturbing thing is that Billy the Bigot actually “runs” a so-called “court system” — the U.S. Immigration Court — that has life or death authority over some of the most vulnerable individuals in our society, indeed in the world! How this stunning violation of both the Fifth Amendment and fundamental human decency (not to mention basic principles of competent management and good governance) continues to grind humanity into a grisly mess 🤮 of human misery ☠️ in plain sight every day is beyond me!

Almost everything in this “spot on” op-ed echoes “Courtside.” I have consistently criticized the irresponsibility and the gross dereliction of Constitutional duty by a Supremes majority that all too often treats Trump’s patently false, racist, xenophobic, and invidious immigration, refugee, and asylum policies as the actions of a “normal Executive” when Trump is nothing of the sort.

Nor does he even claim to be! He ran on overtly racist and hate-driven policies and has promoted racist tropes and lies about immigrants at every turn. Yet, the Supremes often pretend that there is some “legitimate basis” for clearly illegitimate policies and abrogation of important laws without the involvement of Congress and of Constitutional protections without any reasonable, fact-based justification.

If the “chickens have come home to roost” for the corrupt Trump DOJ, so will they eventually come home to roost for Supremes who have disingenuously and intentionally looked the other way and have enabled, or in some cases even encouraged, Trump’s racist and lie-driven dismantling of American democracy and “Dred Scottification” of “the other.” Life tenure protects the jobs of derelict Federal Judges. But, it won’t protect their reputations from the truth of history.

This November, vote like your life and the future of America depend on it! Because they do!

PWS

08-19-20

🎾 COURTSIDE TAKES THE (TENNIS) COURT WITH JEFFREY S. CHASE 🏆 — Penetrating Analysis By “Resident Pro” Jeff Chase of The Serves, Returns, Volleys, In & Out of Bounds In The “Blanco v. AG” Match, Recently Played On The Court of Appeals (3d Cir.) – It’s Not Wimbledon, But Chase’s Tips Guaranteed to Improve Your Game, or Your Money Back💸!

https://www.jeffreyschase.com/blog/2020/8/13/follow-the-bouncing-ball-persecution-and-the-shifting-burden-of-proof

Follow the Bouncing Ball: Persecution and the Shifting Burden of Proof

On July 24, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed the BIA as to what constitutes past persecution. In Blanco v. Att’y Gen., the asylum-seeker had been abducted by police in his native Honduras because he had participated in marches in support of the LIBRE party. Police officers there detained him for 12 hrs in an abandoned house, where he was subjected to multiple beatings lasting 40 to 60 minutes each. The police also threatened to kill him and his family if he continued to participate in LIBRE party marches, and further insulted him with racial slurs. Learning that other LIBRE supporters had been killed by the police, the petitioner moved from city to city within Honduras over the next 14 months. However, he received three letters and one phone call during that time threatening that he and his family would be killed if he did not leave the country.

The immigration judge believed the petitioner, but nevertheless denied asylum, finding the harm to have not been severe enough to constitute past persecution. The B.I.A. agreed, saying that the treatment was “more akin to harassment” than persecution. The B.I.A. also found that the petitioner had not even established a well-founded fear of future persecution, concluding that there wasn’t a ten percent chance that a mere supporter who had last participated in a demonstration almost 2 years earlier would be persecuted.

The 3d Circuit reversed. It first quoted the oft-cited phrase that “persecution does not encompass all forms of unfair, unjust, or even unlawful treatment.” But the court continued that it has found persecution to include “threats to life, confinement, torture, and economic restrictions so severe that they constitute a real threat to life or freedom.” Of course, the facts described above include multiple threats to life, as well as confinement and torture. So then how did the Board find what was obviously persecution several times over to be “more akin to harassment?”

As the Third Circuit explained, the BIA and the immigration judge committed three errors. The first was in finding that the past harm was not severe enough. But the court noted that persecution does not require severe injury; in fact, it requires no physical injury at all, as evidenced by the fact that a death threat alone may constitute past persecution. Thus, the court corrected the Board in holding that “physical harm is not dispositive in establishing past persecution.”

The court next corrected the Board’s discrediting of the threats on the ground that it was not “imminent,” citing the fact that the threat was not carried out in the 14 months until the petitioner’s departure. The court observed that in order to constitute persecution, a threat must be concrete and menacing, but explained that neither term relates to its immediacy. Rather, concrete and menacing go to the likelihood of the threatened harm, and excludes threats that are merely “abstract or ideal.” The court rejected the idea that an asylum-seeker must wait “to see if his would-be executioners would go through with their threats” before qualifying for protection, which “would upend the fundamental humanitarian concerns of asylum law.”

The last error pointed to by the court was the Board’s failure to weigh the various harms cumulatively. The court distinguished between the Board’s claim to have considered the harm cumulatively, and its actual analysis, which considered the individual instances of harm in isolation.

The court observed that, having shown past persecution, there was a presumption that the petitioner possessed a well-founded fear of persecution, which is what one must prove to merit asylum. But as both the IJ and the Board erred in their conclusion regarding past persecution, no determination regarding whether ICE had rebutted the regulatory presumption was ever reached.

* * *

Although Blanco did not reach the question of what happens following a showing of past persecution, I would like to continue the conversation in order to discuss this point. I don’t believe that the shifting burden of proof that arises upon a showing of past persecution is properly taught by EOIR in its training. For that reason, years ago, when I was still with EOIR, I conducted a training in which I tried to clarify the concept by using a tennis analogy. I will attempt to recreate the lesson here.

Imagine the asylum applicant as serving in a tennis match. In tennis, only the serve must go into one specific box on the court, as opposed to anywhere on the opponent’s side of the net. Here, I have marked that service box “past persecution,” as it is only by “serving” into that specific box that the asylum-seeker can create a presumption of well-founded fear, and thus shift the burden of proof to the government.

In the above illustration, the respondent has served into the “past persecution” box by establishing facts that constitute past persecution. This doesn’t require a showing of severe or extreme persecution; any harm rising to the level of what has been found to constitute persecution will suffice. Examples includes multiple instances of lesser harm that cumulatively rise to the level of persecution (see, e.g. Matter of O-Z- & I-Z-, 22 I&N Dec. 23 (BIA 1998); a concrete and menacing threat (not accompanied by actual physical harm); or persecution in the guise of criminal prosecution or conscription.

Once the respondent establishes past persecution, the ball is then in the DHS’s “court.” The only way DHS can “return the serve” to the respondent’s side of the net (i.e. shift the burden of proof back to the asylum applicant) is to demonstrate either (1) changed circumstances such that the respondent no longer has a well-founded fear of persecution on account of a protected ground; or (2) that the respondent could reasonably safely relocate to another part of the home country. If DHS can’t prove either of the above, the respondent has “won the point” of establishing persecution.

Only if DHS succeeds in establishing one of those two points is the ball returned to the respondent. But just as in tennis, after the serve is returned, the respondent is no longer limited to hitting into the service box only. The respondent now has a wider court in which to win the point:

Just as there are three boxes on each side of a tennis court (i.e. the two service boxes and the backcourt), the respondent now has three options for meeting the burden of proof.

The two service boxes (closest to the net) represent the two ways in which one who has suffered past persecution can still merit a grant of “humanitarian asylum” even where there is no longer a basis to fear future persecution.

The first of these is where a humanitarian grant is merited based on the severity of the past persecution. This is the only time that the severity of the past persecution matters. (I believe that errors such as those committed in Blanco arise because the immigration judge remembers learning something about the severity of the past persecution, but isn’t quite clear on the context in which it arises.)

This rule is a codification of the BIA’s holding in a 1989 precedent decision, Matter of Chen. In a concurring opinion in that decision, former Board Member Michael Heilman pointed out that our asylum laws are designed to conform to our international law obligations. He continued that the source of those obligations, the 1951 Convention, came into effect years after the majority of those refugees it was meant to protect, i.e. those who had suffered past persecution during WW II, were clearly no longer at risk from the same persecutors following the defeat of the Axis powers

From this history, Heilman concluded that “the historical underpinnings of the Convention, from which the Refugee Act of 1980 receives its genesis, would have to be totally ignored if one were inclined to adopt the position that present likelihood of persecution is also required where past persecution has been established.”

The majority of the Board adopted this position only where it deemed the past persecution sufficiently severe, and it was that view that the regulations codified in 1990.

Years later, a second basis for humanitarian asylum was added to the regulations for those who suffered past persecution but had their presumption of well-founded fear rebutted by the government. This second category (represented by the second service box in the third illustration) applies to those who might reasonably suffer “other serious harm” in their country of origin. This rule (which became effective in January 2001) looks to whether the asylum applicant might suffer harm as severe as persecution, but unrelated to any specific ground or motive. Thus, an asylum-seeker who suffered past persecution but whose original basis for asylum has dissipated due to changed conditions may merit a humanitarian grant where their return might give rise to mental anguish, put their health at risk due to the unavailability of necessary medical treatment or medication, or subject them to abject poverty or severe criminal extortion, to provide a few examples.

Lastly, an asylum applicant who no longer has a well-founded fear due to changed conditions in their country of origin may still “win the point” by establishing a different well-founded fear of persecution under the new conditions.

Copyright 2020 Jeffrey S. Chase. All rights reserved. Reprinted With Permission.

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

You’ll have to go to the original at the above link to see all of Jeffrey’s great “tennis court illustrations!”

Reminded me of my own, less than illustrious, career on the tennis court. Here’s the anecdote I shared with Jeffrey:

I loved it, Jeffrey, even though in my life many of my shots and serves “went over the fence.” Indeed, I once ended an inter-fraternity tennis match with a forfeit after hitting all of my opponent’s tennis balls into the Fox River which at that time bordered the LU Tennis Courts in Appleton. It was kind of like a “mercy killing” since I was being totally creamed anyway, and it was a hot day. I found Immigration Court a much more comfortable fit for my skill set.

I also appreciate Jeff’s citation of Matter of O-Z- & I-Z-, 23 I&N Dec. 22 (BIA 1998). I was on that panel, along with my colleagues Judge Lory Rosenberg and Judge Jerry Hurwitz, who wrote the opinion. The record will show that it was one of the few published BIA precedents where the three of us, members of the “Notorious Panel IV,” agreed. Perhaps that’s why it got published. Our colleagues probably figured that any time the three of us were in harmony, it must be an auspicious occasion worth preserving for the future!

In any event, of all of the more than 100 published decisions in which I participated during my tenure on the BIA, O-Z- & I-Z- on the issue of “cumulative harm” proved to be one of the most useful during my tenure at the Arlington Immigration Court. Attorneys on both sides, knowing my tendencies, liked to frame their arguments in many cases in terms of “it is” or “it isn’t” O-Z- & I-Z-.

I think that “cumulative harm” is one of the most important, and these days most overlooked or wrongly ignored, concepts in modern asylum law. It was really one of the keys to favorable resolution of many asylum cases based on “past persecution.” But, that goes back to a time when the law was applied to protect worthy asylum seekers, rather than to reject them, often on specious grounds as happens on today’s “deportation railroad.”

PWS

08-14-20

JEFFREY S. CHASE: 9TH Circuit “Schools” BIA In Asylum Law – But, Will It Really Make Any Difference To “Death Board” In A Regime That Gives The Article IIIs, Congress, & The Law The Big Middle Finger Every Day With No Meaningful Consequences? — Programmed To Deny Asylum At Any Cost, EOIR Under Billy The Bigot Is Largely Undeterred By Judicial Lectures Without Teeth!

https://www.jeffreyschase.com/blog/2020/8/10/9th-cir-sets-bia-straight-on-circularity

9th Cir. Sets BIA Straight on ‘Circularity’

On August 7, the U.S Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit dealt a blow to the Trump Administration’s attacks on domestic violence-based asylum claims. In Diaz-Reynoso v. Barr, the petitioner applied for withholding of removal to Guatemala because she had been persecuted by her domestic partner on account of her membership in the particular social group consisting of “indiginous women in Guatemala who are unable to leave their relationship.”1 An immigration judge found her credible, but denied her applications for relief.

While her appeal was pending before the BIA, then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions issued his decision in Matter of A-B-. The BIA subsequently relied on that decision to reject the Petitioner’s particular social group.

Regarding this sequence of events, it’s important to realize that in 2014, the BIA issued a precedent decision holding that a particular social group consisting of “married women in Guatemala who are unable to leave their relationship” could serve as a basis for asylum. As a result, domestic violence-based asylum claims relied on this BIA-approved formulation as a model over the next four years.

When Sessions vacated the Board’s decision, many asylum claims relying on the prior precedent were already in the pipeline. The BIA could have applied Matter of A-B- only prospectively to cases filed after Sessions’ decision.2 Or if it decided to apply the decision retroactively, it could have remanded the cases that had relied on the law at the time of filing to now allow them to modify their record in response to the superseding decision.

However, the Board did neither of these things. Instead, it denied the pending cases with no individualized analysis, simply dismissing the claim as being too similar to the case that the Attorney General had just disagreed with.

In Diaz-Reynoso, the Ninth Circuit refuted the above approach by affirming the following points that have been raised repeatedly since the issuance of the AG’s decision, but that the BIA has continued to ignore.

First, the court held that Matter of A-B- does not categorically bar the granting of domestic violence-based asylum claims. In the words of the court: “Far from endorsing a categorical bar, the Attorney General emphasized that the BIA must conduct the ‘rigorous analysis’ set forth in the BIA’s precedents.’”

Second, the court affirmed the commonly-held view that much of the AG’s decision in Matter of A-B- is nonbinding dicta. In the words of the Ninth Circuit, the AG offered “some general impressions about asylum and withholding claims based on domestic violence and other private criminal activity.” But the court noted that “despite the general and descriptive observations set forth in the opinion, the Attorney General’s prescriptive instruction is clear: the BIA must conduct the proper particular social group analysis on a case-by-case basis.”

Third, the court held that the particular social group that Sessions rejected in Matter of A-B- was not impermissibly circular.

As the concept of circularity can be confusing, I will offer some explanation. In order to merit asylum, persecution must be on account of a statutory ground: race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. Hypothetically, someone with a fear clearly unrelated to one of the necessary grounds could put forth an argument as follows: “I fear persecution.” “Why?” “Because I’m a member of a particular social group.” “What group?” “People who fear persecution.” “But why do they fear persecution?” “Because of their social group.” “What group?” “People who fear persecution.” And this could go on and on, continuing in the same circle.

In a 2006 precedent decision, Matter of C-A-, the BIA cited to UNHCR guidelines on particular social groups as prohibiting this exact scenario, in which a group is defined exclusively by the harm. The Board repeated the same rule a year later in another precedent, Matter of A-M-E- & J-G-U-, again using the word “exclusively” (although this time without the emphasis).3 However, the BIA in 2014 added language that a particular social group must exist independently of the persecution, without explaining whether this term differed in meaning from the “exclusively defined” prohibition, and if so, to what degree.

In Matter of A-B-, the AG first jumped to the conclusion that the reason an asylum-seeker is “unable to leave the relationship” is due to persecution.4 And following that assumption, he rejected the particular social group as being impermissibly circular.

As stated above, the particular social group in Diaz-Reynoso was “indiginous women in Guatemala who are unable to leave their relationship.” The group was thus defined by the group members’ (1) indiginous status; (2) Guatemalan nationality; (3) gender; and (4) inability to leave their relationship. So the group was clearly not exclusively defined by the persecution.

And yet, as the Ninth Circuit noted, “with almost no analysis, the BIA rejected Diaz-Reynoso’s proposed particular social group because it ‘suffer[ed] from the same circularity problem articulated by the Attorney General in Matter of A-B-.’”

The Ninth Circuit continued: “In the Government’s and dissent’s view, in order to exist independently from the petitioner’s feared harm, a proposed group may not refer to that harm at all. We disagree. The idea that the inclusion of persecution is a sort of poison pill that dooms any group does not withstand scrutiny.”

The court further clarified that a group exists independent of persecution when it “shares an immutable characteristic other than the persecution it suffers.” As noted above, the particular social group here included three such immutable characteristics: indiginous status, nationality, and gender. These serve as what the court termed “narrowing characteristics” independent of any harm.

The court further questioned the logic behind the agency’s restrictive view of circularity: “The purpose of asylum and withholding is to provide relief to people who have been persecuted in foreign lands because of their race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion…The Government and dissent do not explain why a person seeking relief on the basis of membership in a particular social group should be required to omit any mention of threatened persecution.”

One additional point worth mentioning is that the Ninth Circuit looked to UNHCR materials for guidance, noting that the BIA has found UNHCR’s views to be “a useful interpretive aid.”

The Ninth Circuit’s decision should certainly be applauded by asylum advocates. The court joined the First and Sixth Circuits in rejecting the reliance on Matter of A-B- as a basis for swiftly dismissing domestic violence claims.

But this litigation could have been avoided through the BIA properly doing its job. The petitioner in this case endured four years of abuse at the hands of her tormentor. She was forced by him to work without pay in the coffee fields as well as to have sex with him. She was further subjected to weekly beatings, suffering bruises that sometimes lasted for 10 days.

The petitioner actually escaped to the U.S., where she was detained for a month and then deported back to Guatemala. There, she was forced to return to her abuser when he threatened to otherwise kill her and her daughter and harm her mother. Upon return, she was subjected to even worse abuse for another year.

And yet an appellate immigration judge with the BIA saw in this case an opportunity for a quick denial with no analysis, on the grounds that the particular social group that had been valid for four years now contained a few more words than the AG approved of. This sadly demonstrates the present philosophy of the BIA, where the goal of achieving quick dismissals has usurped the need for reasoned analysis and due process.

The petitioner was represented by students and supervising counsel with the Hastings Appellate Project, an advocacy clinic of the University of California – Hastings College of Law. Amicus briefs were filed by the Center for Gender and Refugee Studies, the Round Table of Former Immigration Judges, Harvard Law School’s Immigration and Refugee Clinical Programs, and UNHCR. Special mention is due to Blaine Bookey at CGRS, who so ably argued the case remotely.

The Round Table expresses its gratitude to attorneys Richard W. Mark, Amer S. Ahmed. Grace E. Hart, and Cassarah M. Chu of the law firm of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP for their invaluable assistance.

Notes:

The Petitioner was ineligible to apply for asylum because she was subject to reinstatement of a prior order of removal.

I believe a strong argument can be made that Matter of A-B- more closely resembled a policy announcement (which should be applied prospectively only) than a judicial interpretation of the law that would apply retroactively.

There is actually an exception to this rule, that we need not go into here.

In De Pena Paniagua v. Barr, the First Circuit in April explained that there may be other reasons one could be unable to leave their domestic relationship that are unrelated to persecution.

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

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

While the Supremes and other Federal Courts continue to live in their “alternate universe,” most of the rest of us have noticed that the Trump regime is completely unapologetic and undeterred by their frequent defeats in Federal Court. There are no consequences, and therefore no deterrents, for their lies, misrepresentations, unprofessionalism, racist bias, and contempt for the American justice system. Nobody loses a law license, nobody goes to jail, nobody is required to operate under meaningful court supervision. Appalling misconduct and contemptuous behavior is normalized. “Just commit the same abuse again with a slightly different rationale” has become the watchword. The Supremes have shown they will accept any fraudulent rationale from Trump and his toadies as long as it gives them “some cover” for systemic abuses of people of color.

I’d say that Billy Bigot actually treats the Article IIIs almost like he treats the Immigration Courts – as his toady subordinates. And, he pretty much gets away with it! Contempt for Congress and the Courts is the heart of the “Unitary Executive” pushed by Billy and his neo-fascist cronies. And, until the Article IIIs find the collective backbone to “just say no,” the “Unitary Executive” is going to continue to run roughshod over them while our democracy.

Due Process Forever! Complicit Courts Never!

PWS

08-11-20

🏴‍☠️KAKISTOCRACY WATCH: Billy The Bigot Appoints Another “Death Squad”☠️⚰️ To BIA!🤮👎

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

EOIR Announces Three New Appellate Immigration Judges

FALLS CHURCH, VA – The Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) today announced the appointment of Michael P. Baird, Sunita B. Mahtabfar, and Sirce E. Owen as appellate immigration judges in EOIR’s Board of Immigration Appeals.

Biographical information follows:

Michael P. Baird, Appellate Immigration Judge

Attorney General William P. Barr appointed Michael P. Baird as an appellate immigration judge in August 2020. Judge Baird received a Bachelor of Business Administration in 1989 from Clayton State University and a Juris Doctorate in 1992 from Georgia State University College of Law. From 2009 to 2020, he served as an immigration judge first in Dallas, Texas and then later transferred to the Atlanta Immigration Court. From 2006 to 2009, he served as a senior assistant district attorney in the Appalachian Judicial Circuit, in Georgia. From 2004 to 2006, he served as a judge in the Municipal Court of Jonesboro, Georgia. From 1997 to 2004, he served as chief judge for the Magistrate Court of Clayton County, Georgia. From 1995 to 1996, he was in private practice. From 1993 to 1995, he served as senior assistant solicitor general at the Clayton County Solicitor’s Office. From 1992 to 1993, he was in private practice. From 1986 to 1990, he was a police officer. Judge Baird has taught as adjunct faculty at the Georgia State University College of Law, Clayton State University and the University of West Georgia. Judge Baird is a member of the State Bar of Georgia.

Sunita B. Mahtabfar, Appellate Immigration Judge

Attorney General William P. Barr appointed Sunita B. Mahtabfar as an appellate immigration judge in August 2020. Judge Mahtabfar earned a Bachelor of Arts in 1994 from the University of Texas at Austin and a Juris Doctorate in 1998 from Thurgood Marshall School of Law. From 2013 to 2020, she served as an immigration judge in the El Paso Immigration Court. From 2006 to 2013, she served as an attorney in the Office of the Assistant Chief Counsel, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security (DHS), in El Paso, Texas. From 2003 to 2006, she served as an asylum officer, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, DHS, in Houston. Judge Mahtabfar is a member of the State Bar of Texas.

Communications and Legislative Affairs Division

August 7, 2020

Page 2

Sirce E. Owen, Appellate Immigration Judge

Attorney General William P. Barr appointed Sirce E. Owen as an appellate immigration judge in August 2020. Judge Owen earned a Bachelor of Science in 1996 from Johns Hopkins University, a Master of Business Administration in 2002 from Georgia State University, and a Juris Doctor in 2005 from Georgia State University. From 2018 to 2020, she served as an assistant chief immigration judge, based in Atlanta. From June 2019 to January 2020, she served as acting deputy director of EOIR. From 2016 to 2018, she served as deputy chief counsel, Office of Chief Counsel, Office of the Principal Legal Advisor, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), Department of Homeland Security (DHS), in Atlanta. From 2008 to 2016, she served as assistant chief counsel, ICE, DHS, in Atlanta. From 2005 to 2008, she was an associate attorney with Mozley, Finlayson & Loggins LLP, in Atlanta. Judge Owen is a member of the State Bar of Georgia.

— EOIR —

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

Here’s what you really need to know about these so-called “judges.”

Baird – Asylum denial rate 91.4% (74^th highest of 456 ranked)

Mahtabfar – Asylum denial rate 98.7 (8^th highest of 456 ranked – but remember the 7 worse “judges” are probably already on the BIA)

Owen – Didn’t deny enough asylum to make the TRAC charts. Served mostly as a prosecutor and “management judge” (A/K/A “JINO” or “Judge In Name Only”). But rest assured – she hails from the Atlanta Immigration “Court” – deemed an “Asylum Free Zone” in “a petition filed before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR).” https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/these-jurisdictions-have-become-asylum-free-zones/

As my Round Table colleague Judge Jeffrey S. Chase summed it up: “Under [EOIR Director James] McHenry, a “liberal” is defined as one whose asylum denial rate is lower than their body temperature.”

Due Process Forever! The EOIR kakistocracy, never!

PWS

08-11-20

🏴‍☠️☠️🤡🤮ANOTHER EOIR SCAM: MORE LAYERS OF MISMANAGEMENT FOR FAILED SYSTEM — More Managers Are No Substitute For Competent Court Management!

Regional Deputy Chief Immigration Judge

08/10/2020 10:00 AM EDT

Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR)
Office of the Chief Immigration Judge
Falls Church, Virginia
Announcement #: SES-10606886-20-AS
Application Deadline: September 8, 2020

Typical work assignments will include:

·         Directing oversight of activities of formal, quasi-judicial hearings and proceedings conducted by Immigration Judges within a designated region.

·         Providing executive leadership for court matters involving deportation, exclusion, removal, rescission, bond and related decisions and actions of Immigration Judges and Court personnel.

·         Managing the analysis and evaluation of judicial decisions to determine impact on immigration judges, court policies and procedures and/or the immigration judge program.

·         Providing technical direction of court staff through Assistant Chief Immigration Judges, Immigration Judges and Court administrators through the region.

Number of Positions:
6 vacancies in multiple locations: San Francisco, CA, Chicago, IL, New York, NY, Miami, FL, Las Vegas, NV, Houston, TX

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

It never hurts to restate the obvious when dealing with the never-ending, always worsening mess at EOIR.

A system that competently selects well-qualified professional judges needs very little “management” at all, since judges are independent decision makers. Qualified judges basically are “self-managing.”

What they do need is competent professional administrators who secure the necessary resources, technology, equipment, and training for those judges to function efficiently and professionally while steering clear of any interference in substantive judicial decision making. Administrators responsible to the judges and public they serve, rather than vice versa as EOIR is now constructed. Indeed, “customer service” at today’s EOIR isn’t just “off the charts” — it never was on the regime’s chart to begin with!

A trial court also needs a competent, functional appellate division that shows leadership in promoting due process, fundamental fairness, and best practices throughout the system through clear, cogent, and intellectually honest precedents.

Right now EOIR has almost nothing it needs and everything it doesn’t. Not surprisingly, this incredibly FUBAR system is a total dysfunctional mess where injustice reigns supreme and “management” squanders taxpayer funds while constantly turning complete disorder into mind-boggling morale killing unrelenting disasters.

Due Process Forever! Today’s FUBAR EOIR, Never!🤮

PWS

08-10-20

🛡⚔️⚖️🗽😎GOOD NEWS, AS ROUND TABLE BESTS BIA AGAIN: 9th Cir. Zaps BIA’s Denial Of Guatemalan Woman’s Asylum & CAT Cases Involving Matter of A-B-! — Diaz-Reynoso v. Barr

Sontos, 9th 18-72833_Documents

Diaz-Reynoso v. Barr, 9^th Cir., 08-07-20, published

SYNOPSIS BY COURT STAFF:

Immigration

Granting Sontos Diaz-Reynoso’s petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision affirming the denial of her application for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture, and remanding, the panel held that the Board misapplied Matter of A-B-, 27 I. & N. Dec. 316 (A.G. 2018), as well as Board and circuit precedent, in concluding that Diaz-Reynoso’s proposed social group comprised of “indigenous women in Guatemala who are unable to leave their relationship” was not cognizable, and that she failed to establish that the government of Guatemala would acquiesce in any possible torture.

The panel rejected Diaz-Reynoso’s contention that Matter of A-B- was arbitrary and capricious and therefore not entitled to Chevron deference. The panel concluded that, despite the general and descriptive observations set forth in the opinion, Matter of A-B- did not announce a new categorical exception to withholding of removal for victims of domestic violence or other private criminal activity, but rather it reaffirmed the Board’s existing framework for analyzing the cognizability of particular social groups, requiring that such determinations be individualized and conducted on a case-by-case basis.

The panel observed that the Board rejected Diaz- Reynoso’s proposed social group, with almost no analysis,

** This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader.

Case: 18-72833, 08/07/2020, ID: 11780830, DktEntry: 100-1, Page 3 of 76

DIAZ-REYNOSO V. BARR 3

because it “suffered from the same circularity problem articulated by the Attorney General in Matter of A-B-.” The panel explained that in doing so, the Board appeared to misapprehend the scope of Matter of A-B- as forbidding any mention of feared harm within the delineation of a proposed social group. The panel concluded that this was error, explaining that Matter of A-B- did not announce a new rule concerning circularity, but instead merely reiterated the well- established principle that a particular social group must exist independently of the harm asserted. The panel recognized that a proposed social group may be deemed impermissibly circular if, after conducting the proper case-by-case analysis, the Board determines that the group is defined exclusively by the fact that its members have been subjected to harm. The panel explained, however, that a proposed social group is not impermissibly circular merely because the proposed group mentions harm.

The panel concluded that the Board also erred in assuming that domestic violence was the only reason Diaz- Reynoso was unable to leave her relationship, and in failing to conduct the rigorous case-by-case analysis required by Matter of A-B-. The panel therefore remanded Diaz- Reynoso’s withholding of removal claim for the Board to undertake the required analysis applying the correct framework.

Because the Board failed to discuss evidence that Diaz- Reynoso reported her husband’s abuse to authority figures in her village community, and the government conceded remand was warranted, the panel also remanded Diaz-Reynoso’s CAT claim for further consideration.

4 DIAZ-REYNOSO V. BARR

Concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part, Judge Bress agreed with remand of the CAT claim in light of the government’s concession, but disagreed with the majority’s conclusion that the Board misread Matter of A-B- in rejecting Diaz-Reynoso’s proposed social group. In Judge Bress’s view, Matter of A-B- held that a proposed group that incorporates harm within its definition is not a group that exists independently of the harm asserted in an application for asylum or statutory withholding of removal. Judge Bress wrote that substantial evidence supported the Board’s assessment that Diaz-Reynoso’s social group was defined exclusively by the harm suffered, and that the Board correctly applied Matter of A-B-, and the circularity rule, in rejecting Diaz-Reynoso’s proposed social group.

COUNSEL:

Gary A. Watt, Stephen Tollafield, and Tiffany J. Gates, Supervising Counsel; Shandyn H. Pierce and Hilda Kajbaf, Certified Law Students; Hastings Appellate Project, San Francisco, California; for Petitioner.

Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney General; John S. Hogan and Linda S. Wernery, Assistant Directors; Susan Bennett Green, Senior Litigation Counsel; Ashley Martin, Trial Attorney; Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.; for Respondent.

Blaine Bookey, Karen Musalo, Neela Chakravartula, and Anne Peterson, Center for Gender & Refugee Studies, U.S. Hastings College of Law, San Francisco, California, for Amicus Curiae Center for Gender & Refugee Studies.

Richard W. Mark, Amer S. Ahmed, Grace E. Hart, and Cassarah M. Chu, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, New York New York, for Amici Curiae Thirty-Nine Former Immigration Judges and Members of the Board of Immigration Appeals.

Sabrineh Ardalan, Nancy Kelly, John Willshire Carrera, Deborah Anker, and Zachary A. Albun, Attorneys; Rosa Baum, Caya Simonsen, and Ana Sewell, Supervised Law Students; Harvard Immigration and Refugee Clinical Program, Cambridge, Massachusetts; for Amicus Curiae Harvard Immigration and Refugee Clinical Program.

Ana C. Reyes and Alexander J. Kasner, Williams & Connolly LLP, Washington, D.C.; Alice Farmer, United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Washington, D.C.; for Amicus Curiae United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.

PANEL: Ronald M. Gould, Morgan Christen, and Daniel A. Bress, Circuit Judges.

OPINION BY: Judge Cristen

CONCURRING/DISSENTING OPINION: Judge Bress

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

Just another example of how under this regime, EOIR’s perverted efforts to deny and deport, especially targeting female asylum seekers from the Northern Triangle for mistreatment and potential deportation to death, waste time and effort that could, in a wiser more just Administration, be used to reduce dockets and waiting times by ensuring that well-documented, deserving cases like this one are rapidly granted. EOIR’s biased performance also reeks of both anti-Latino racism and misogyny. Here we are, two decades into the 21^st Century with our immigration “justice” system still being driven by invidious factors.

The Supremes’ majority may feign ignorance and or indifference to Trump’s and Miller’s overtly racist immigration agenda. But, those of us working in the field of immigration had it figured out long ago. It’s not rocket science! The Trumpsters make little or no real attempt to hide their scofflaw intent and invidious motives. It has, disgustingly, taken a concerted and disingenuous effort by the Supremes’ majority to sweep these unconstitutional attacks on humanity under the carpet.

That’s why we need “regime change” in both the Executive and the Senate which will lead to the appointment of better judges for a better America. Justices and judges who will ditch the institutionalized racism and misogyny and who will make equal justice for all under our Constitution a reality rather than the cruel hoax and “throwaway line” that it is today under GOP mis-governance.

Many thanks to our good friends and pro bono counsel at Gibson Dunn for the help in drafting our Amicus Brief!

Due Process Forever!

PWS

08-07-20

🏴‍☠️☠️🤮⚰️👎🏻 “PERP NATION” — DHS’S “NEW AMERICAN GULAG” IS A DEATH TRAP FOR MIGRANTS SEEKING JUSTICE — So Why Haven’t Congress & The Federal Courts Required DHS To Comply With The Constitution? — Because We Have The Wrong Folks In Congress & The Federal Courts!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/migrants-at-ice-detention-centers-are-sitting-ducks-because-of-an-inhumane-policy/2020/08/04/578c668c-c2f7-11ea-9fdd-b7ac6b051dc8_story.html

From WashPost Editorial Board:

Opinion by the Editorial Board August 4 at 6:20 PM ET

COVID-19 has exploded at migrant detention centers nationwide, infecting detainees and employees alike and seeding the disease aboard deportation flights to countries ill-equipped to respond, especially in Latin America. The facilities, run by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, are petri dishes of contagion, and the residents — many of whom have no serious criminal record — are sitting ducks in the crosshairs of an inhumane policy. A federal judge has ordered the release of migrant children at two ICE family detention centers in Texas and one in Pennsylvania, having found them at risk to the virus and to spotty enforcement of safety measures. But across the country, scores more facilities have been hit hard by the pandemic, and ICE has been unable to contain it. [Full coverage of the coronavirus pandemic] Roughly 1,000 new covid-19 cases have been diagnosed in ICE facilities since early July, bringing the number who have tested positive for the disease since March to roughly 4,000. That’s roughly a fifth of all those who have been tested, though some were infected before ICE took them into custody. Courts have ordered more than 500 at-risk detainees released, and ICE has released an additional 900 at its own initiative. Those reductions, along with ongoing deportations, have cut the detainee population by 40 percent since March, to roughly 22,000 now. That’s good, but it is clear that the agency’s steps to mitigate the outbreak have been inadequate. It is also clear that testing at the facilities has lagged, proper distancing at some is insufficient, and health care is not equal to the task of containment. At the Farmville Detention Center in Virginia, west of Richmond, nearly two-thirds of 400 detainees have tested positive for the virus in recent weeks. Moreover, ICE has been complicit in accelerating the pandemic’s reach into Central America, the Caribbean and elsewhere, by deporting tens of thousands of migrants since the spring, including some who were infected. At least a dozen countries assert that deportees arrived with the virus. Many were not tested before boarding the flights. On one deportation flight to India in May, 22 passengers — about 15 percent of those onboard — tested positive upon arriving in India. In Guatemala, authorities say more than 160 deportees who have arrived since April tested positive for the virus. “We understand the United States wants to deport people,” said Guatemalan President Alejandro Giammattei in May. “What we don’t understand is why they send us all these contaminated flights.” [We are interested in hearing about how the struggle to reopen amid the pandemic is affecting people’s lives. Please tell us yours.] Advocates and public health officials have urged ICE to accelerate the release of at-risk detainees, who can be fitted with ankle monitors to encourage their appearance at immigration court proceedings. ICE has done some of that; it is critical that it do more. To continue detaining nonviolent detainees as the virus tightens its grip on ICE facilities is pointless and dangerous — for detainees and for employees, scores of whom have been infected with covid-19. It’s past time for ICE to intensify the fight against covid-19, and reassess a policy that has failed to contain a pandemic behind bars.

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

ICE is a White Nationalist enabler operating within a White Nationalist kakistocracy.

Expecting ICE to do the right thing without being ordered to do so by Congress or the Federal Courts is absurd. We’re in the middle of a deadly meltdown of our democratic institutions.

And, led by the Roberts’ Court’s spineless complicity in the face of clear unconstitutionality, illegality, immorality, and inhumanity from the Trump regime, the failure of the Federal Courts to take a strong, unified approach against the “crimes against humanity” committed by the Trump regime on migrants and others is a national disgrace. Something we have to consider as a nation moving forward.

Better judges for a better America! Time to stop appointing “Dred Scottifyers” and non-believers in due process, human rights, and equal justice for all to our life-tenured courts! The damage they have done will take decades to repair. We can’t afford to continue the GOP’s recent tradition of elevating bad judges who won’t stand up for and don’t believe in American democracy.

When our nation is experiencing massive and deadly institutional failure and a failure of legal and moral leadership, we must start looking at the qualifications and values (or in some cases the rather obvious lack thereof) of the folks in those failing institutions! In a democracy, bad leadership doesn’t “drop out of the sky.” It’s a product of bad decisions and apathy among those with the power to select our leaders. That means all of us who can vote or encourage others to vote.

This November, vote like your life and the future of our democracy depend on it! Because they do!

Due Process Forever!

PWS

08-05-20

🛡⚔️⚖️🗽 ROUND TABLE ASSISTS FIGHT AGAINST “AMERICA’S STAR CHAMBERS” — Here’s Our Amicus Brief In Las Americas v. Trump! — With Thanks To Our Pro Bono Friends STOLL STOLL BERNE LOKTING & SHLACHTER P.C. in Portland, OR!

Excerpt:

The immigration court system lacks independence. An agency within the Department of Justice, the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) houses the immigration court system, which consists of trial-level immigration courts and a single appellate tribunal known as the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). Immigration judges, including appellate immigration judges, are viewed by EOIR “management” not as judges, but as Department of Justice attorneys who serve at the pleasure and direction of the Nation’s prosecutor-in-chief, the Attorney General.

As former immigration judges, we offer the Court our experience and urge that corrective action is necessary to ensure that immigration judges are permitted to function as impartial adjudicators, as required under the Immigration and Nationality Act. The INA and its implementing regulations set forth procedures for the “timely, impartial, and consistent” resolution of immigration proceedings. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1103, 1230; 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(1) (charging the Board with appellate review authority to “resolve the questions before it in a manner that is timely, impartial, and consistent with the [INA] and regulations”) (emphasis added); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.10(b) (similarly requiring “immigration judges . . . to resolve the questions before them in a timely and impartial manner”) (emphasis added).

Although housed inside an enforcement agency and led by the Nation’s chief prosecutor, immigration judges must act neutrally to protect and adjudicate the important rights at stake in immigration cases and check executive overreach in the enforcement of federal immigration law. Applying a detached and learned interpretation of those laws, judges must correct overzealous bureaucrats and policy makers when they overstep the bounds of reasonable interpretation and the requirements of due process.

Here’s the full brief:

Las Americas Amicus (full case)

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

As I often say, it’s an honor to be a part of this group with so many of my wonderful colleagues. It’s also an honor to be able to assist so many wonderful “divisions and brigades” of the New Due Process Army, like the SPLC and Immigration Law Lab.

Here’s another thought I often express: What if all of this talent, creativity, teamwork, expertise, and energy were devoted to fixing our broken Immigration Court System rather than constantly fighting to end gross abuses that should not be happening? There is a “systemic cost” to “maliciously incompetent” administration and the White Nationalist agenda promoted by the Trump kakistocracy!

Due Process Forever!

PWS

08-04-20

🛡⚔️👍🗽⚖️👩🏻‍⚖️FIGHTING THE STAR CHAMBER! — US District Judge Holds That Constitutional Challenge To Weaponized Immigration “Courts” Can Proceed! — “Both policies change the way immigration judges run their dockets and their courtrooms. Accordingly, Plaintiffs have at least sufficiently alleged that such docket management has practical consequence for parties or their attorneys.”

Melissa Crow
Senior Supervising Attorney
Southern Poverty Law Center

Tess Hellgren, Staff Attorney and Justice Catalyst Legal Fellow

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

August 3, 2020

Contact:

Marion Steinfels, marionsteinfels@gmail.com / 202-557-0430
Ramon Valdez, ramon@innovationlawlab.org / 971-238-1804

Federal Court Denies Government’s Motion to Dismiss in Immigration Court Case
Advocates’ challenge to immigration courts as “deportation machines”
moves forward; constitutionality of immigration court system at issue

PORTLAND, OR – Immigrant rights advocates challenging the weaponization of the U.S. immigration courts applaud Friday’s late-afternoon ruling by the U.S. District Court of Oregon that their lawsuit, Las Americas v Trump, will move forward. The legal services providers, Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center, Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project (ASAP), Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc. (CLINIC), the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), Innovation Law Lab, and Santa Fe Dreamers Project (SFDP), working with Perkins Coie LLP for pro bono support, allege that the Administration has failed to establish an impartial immigration court as required under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and the Take Care Clause of the U.S. Constitution – weaponizing them into deportation machines against asylum seekers and other noncitizens – and asks the court to end the unlawful use of the courts to effectuate mass deportations instead of fair decisions.

In Friday’s order, the Honorable Karin Immergut denied the government’s motion to dismiss the case. The district court rejected the government’s arguments, holding that all of the organizations’ claims could proceed, including their claim that the Attorney General has grossly mismanaged the immigration court system and weaponized the system against asylum seekers.

“This is a clear victory for everyone who has sought a fair hearing in immigration court, only to face a system plagued by rampant dysfunction and policies designed to subvert justice,” said Melissa Crow, senior supervising attorney with the Southern Poverty Law Center’s Immigrant Justice Project. “For asylum seekers and those who represent them, the current process is like playing Russian roulette. Despite the life-or-death stakes in these cases, there is little rhyme or reason to the court’s workings apart from prioritizing deportation at all costs.”

“Friday’s decision is an important milestone in our fight for a truly fair, transparent, and independent immigration court,” said Tess Hellgren, staff attorney with Innovation Law Lab. “Whether an asylum seeker wins or loses should not depend on the political whims of the President or Attorney General. ”

Not only does the Court’s decision confirm that the gross mismanagement of the immigration court system is subject to judicial review, it also recognizes that there may be important constitutional checks and balances on the power of presidential administrations to manipulate the immigration courts to achieve mass deportation.

“This win is incredibly validating. We often operate under the guise that the work we are doing is impossible,” said Linda Corchado, Managing Attorney of the Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center. “We feel uplifted as we can take the giant step forward to tackle the system now, with everything we’ve got.”

“ASAP works with families across the United States and at the border who fled persecution and now face countless obstacles to seeking asylum in the U.S. immigration court system,” said Conchita Cruz, Co-Executive Director of ASAP. “This decision gets us one step closer to showing that the injustices of the U.S. immigration court system are not only wrong, but illegal. We stand with asylum seekers and immigrants’ rights advocates in bringing these abuses to light and demanding better from our government.”

The lawsuit, which was filed in December 2019, alleges President Trump, Attorney General Barr, and other members of the executive branch have failed to establish a fair immigration court system in which the plaintiff organizations can provide meaningful legal assistance to their asylum-seeking clients. The complaint outlines pervasive dysfunction and bias within the immigration court system, including:

The Enforcement Metrics Policy, , which requires immigration judges to decide cases quickly, at the expense of a fair process, in exchange for favorable performance reviews.

The “family unit” court docket, which stigmatizes the cases of recently arrived families and rushes their court dates, often giving families inadequate time to find an attorney and prepare for their hearings.

Areas that have become known as “asylum-free zones,” where virtually no asylum claims have been granted for the past several years.

The nationwide backlog of pending immigration cases, which has now surpassed 1 million — meaning that thousands of asylum seekers must wait three or four years for a court date.

In June 2019, Innovation Law Lab and SPLC also released a report, based on over two years of research and focus group interviews with attorneys and former immigration judges from around the country, documenting the failure of the immigration court system to fulfill the constitutional and statutory promise of fair and impartial case-by-case adjudication. The report can be accessed here: The Attorney General’s Judges: How the U.S. Immigration Courts Became a Deportation Tool.

The court’s opinion is HERE.

###

The Southern Poverty Law Center, based in Alabama with offices in Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi and Washington, D.C., is a nonprofit civil rights organization dedicated to fighting hate and bigotry, and to seeking justice for the most vulnerable members of society. For more information, see www.splcenter.org and follow us on social media: Southern Poverty Law Center on Facebook and @splcenter on Twitter.

Innovation Law Lab, based in Portland, Oregon with projects around the country and in Mexico, is a nonprofit organization that harnesses technology, lawyers, and activists to advance immigrant justice. For more information, visit www.innovationlawlab.org.

The Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project (ASAP) provides community support and emergency legal aid to asylum seekers, regardless of where they are located. ASAP’s model has three components: online community support, emergency legal aid, and nationwide systemic reform. For more information, see www.asylumadvocacy.org and follow us on social media at @asylumadvocacy on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram.

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

So, finally, the clear unconstitutionality of “Star Chambers” run by a biased prosecutor who basically views himself as the personal lawyer for a racist xenophobic President is going to get some scrutiny, along with the beyond grotesque mismanagement of EOIR that has created a “backlog” that in all likelihood now exceeds 2 million cases. But, of course we don’t know, and may never know, the exact extent of the backlog because of 1) the notoriously defective record keeping at EOIR; and 2) the manipulation of and sometimes outright misrepresentation of data by the Trump Administration.

Thanks to SPLC and Innovation Law Lab for undertaking this long-overdue effort. And, special appreciation to my friends and New Due Process Army superstars Melissa and Tess.

Due Process Forever!🗽⚖️👩🏻‍⚖️

PWS

08-03-20

MUST SEE TV: “IMMIGRATION NATION” PREMIERES TODAY ON NETFLIX: Time Magazine Says “Netflix’s Searing Docuseries Immigration Nation Is The Most Important TV Show You’ll See In 2020!”

Immigration Nation

Directed by Christina Clusiau and Shaul Schwarz

I appear, along with many others, in a later episode.

As you watch, ask this question: What does most of the enforcement you see have to do with any legitimate notion of “homeland security” except in the sense that abusing, terrorizing, separating, and removing individuals of color evidently makes some folks in the U.S., particularly Trump supporters, feel “more secure?”

No, it’s not “just enforcing the law!” No law is enforced 100% and most U.S. laws are enforced to just a limited extent due to priorities, funding, and sensible prosecutorial discretion used by every law enforcement agency.

How much does the Trump Administration “enforce” environmental protection laws, civil rights laws, laws protecting the LGBTQ community from discrimination, fair housing laws, financial laws, health and safety laws, tax laws, or for that matter ethics laws, whistleblower protections, or anti-corruption laws?

Indeed, as hate crimes directed against the Hispanic, Asian, and Black communities have risen, prosecutions have actually fallen under Trump. See e.g., https://www.cnn.com/2020/08/02/us/hate-crimes-latinos-el-paso-shooting/index.html.

Although domestic violence hasn’t decreased in ethnic communities, prosecutions have gone down as a result of the Administration’s “terror tactics” as illustrated in Immigration Nation. Jeff “Gonzo Apocalypoto” Sessions’s racially-motivated prosecutions of minor immigration violators, intended to promote family separation and “deter” others from asserting legal rights, actually diverted Federal prosecutorial resources from real crimes like drug trafficking and white collar crimes.

Remember, Jeff Sessions walks free (his biggest “trauma” being a well-deserved primary defeat in Alabama); his victims aren’t so lucky; some of their trauma is permanent; their lives changed for the worse, and in some cases eradicated, forever! Where’s the “justice” and the “rule of law” in this?

Prosecutions are always prioritized and “targeted” in some way or another, sometimes rationally, reasonably, and prudently, and other times with bias and malice. So, as you watch this and hear folks like former Acting ICE Director Tom Homan and other Government officials pontificate about “just enforcing the law” or “required by law,” you should recognize it for the total BS that it is!

The Trump Administration’s immigration enforcement program is clearly designed by folks like Stephen Miller, Sessions, and others to be invidiously motivated and to terrorize communities of color including U.S. citizens and lawful residents who are part of those communities. They are an affront to the concepts of “equal justice under law” and eliminating “institutional racism.”

The Administration’s policies are actually “Dred Scottification” or “dehumanization of the other.” You can see and hear it in the voices of DHS enforcement officials, a number of whom eventually view other humans as “numbers,” “priorities,” “quotas,” “missions,” “ops” (“operations”), “beds,” or “collateral damage.”

That’s exactly how repressive bureaucracies in Germany, the Soviet Union, China, and other authoritarian states have worked and prospered, at least for a time. By breaking dehumanization into “little bureaucratic steps” individuals are relieved of moral responsibility and lulled into losing sight of the “big picture.”

Did the folks repairing the tracks and switches for the German railroads focus on where the boxcars were heading and what eventually would happen to their passengers? Did they even know, wonder, or care what was in those boxcars?

And, in case you wonder, family and child separations, supposedly eventually abandoned by Trump, might have diminished as a result of court cases, but they still regularly occur. Only now they are kept largely “below the radar screen” and disingenuously disguised under the bureaucratic rubric “binary choice.”

What has really diminished is less the abuses and more the national and international outrage about those abuses. Dishonesty, immorality, and cruelty have simply become “normalized” under Trump as long it’s largely “out of sight, out of mind.”

What do you imagine happens to those turned away at our borders without any meaningful process and “orbited” to the Northern Triangle — essentially “war zones?” (Preliminary studies show that many die or disappear.) A majority of the Supremes don’t care, and apparently most Americans don’t either as long as the carnage and tears aren’t popping up on their TV screens.

And, in many cases, the “removals” and denials of fair process, both the ones you see in Immigration Nation and the ones you don’t, are actually detrimental to our nation, our values, our society, and our future. The series mentions “being one on the wrong side of history;” that’s precisely where the DHS is under Trump. But, so is the rest of our nation for having allowed an evil charlatan like Trump to have power over our humanity.

This November, vote like your life and the future of our nation depend on it! Because they do! We can’t undo the past! But, we can make Trump part of that past and change our future for the better!

PWS

08-03-20

🏴‍☠️☠️🤮👎🏻ERROR SUPPLY: EOIR’s Anti-Asylum Bias, Failure To Apply Precedents, Earns Yet Another Rebuke From 3d Cir. — Blanco v. AG

Dan Kowalski reports for LexisNexis Immigration Community:

Immigration Law

Daniel M. Kowalski

25 Jul 2020

persecution

cat

Honduras

asylum

CA3 on Persecution: Blanco v. Atty. Gen.

Blanco v. Atty. Gen.

“Ricardo Javier Blanco, a citizen of Honduras, is a member of Honduras’s Liberty and Refoundation (“LIBRE”) Party, an anti-corruption political party that opposes the current Honduran president. After participating in six political marches, he was abducted by the Honduran police and beaten, on and off, for twelve hours. He was let go but received death threats over the next several months until he fled to the United States. He applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). The Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denied all relief, and the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirmed. Blanco now petitions for review of the agency’s decision, arguing that the BIA and IJ erred in denying his asylum and withholding of removal claims on the basis that his treatment did not rise to the level of persecution. He also argues that it was improper to require him to corroborate his testimony to prove his CAT claim. Because the agency misapplied our precedent when determining whether Blanco had established past persecution, and because it did not follow the three-part inquiry we established in Abdulai v. Ashcroft, 239 F.3d 542, 554 (3d Cir. 2001), before requiring Blanco to corroborate his CAT claim testimony, we will grant the petition, vacate the BIA’s decision, and remand for further proceedings.”

[Hats off to patent lawyers Gary H. Levin and Aaron B. Rabinowitz!]

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

This should have been a “no brainer” asylum grant!

Instead, after two levels of disturbingly unprofessional administrative decision-making, now driven by racism and overt anti-immigrant bias, and one layer of “real court” review, the case is basically back to square one. No wonder this “Deadly Clown Court” ☠️🤡 is running a 1.4 million backlog, and counting!

Think we have the wrong folks on the “Immigration Bench?” You bet! Two smart patent lawyers from Baker Hostetler run legal circles around an IJ, the BIA, and OIL!

Interestingly, a significant number of students in my Georgetown Law Summer Semester Immigration Law & Policy (“ILP”) Class have been patent examiners and/or patent attorneys! They have all been amazing, both in class dialogue and on the final exam. I suspect it has something to do with analytical skills, meticulous research, and attention to detail — always biggies in asylum litigation!

That’s why we must end a “built to fail” system that preys on unrepresented or underrepresented asylum seekers in illegal, intentionally inhumane and coercive, detention settings, where adequate preparation and documentation are impossible and where judges, too often lacking in asylum expertise, humanity, and/or the time to carefully research and deliberate, are pressured to engage in “assembly line denials.”

And, thanks to the racial dehumanization embraced by the Supremes’ majority many refugees, disproportionately those with brown or black skins, are completely denied fair access to the asylum hearing system. They are simply treated by our highest Court like human garbage — sent back to torture or potential death in unsafe foreign countries without any due process at all. So, the systemic failure is not by any means limited to the “Immigration Star Chambers.”

A simple rule of judging that appears “over the heads” of the current Supremes majority: If it wouldn’t be due process for you or your family in a death penalty case, than it’s not due process for any “person.” Not “rocket science.” Just “Con Law 101” with doses of common sense and simple humanity thrown in. So why is it beyond the capabilities of our most powerful judges?

If there is any good news coming out of this mess, it’s that more talented litigators like Gary Levin and Aaron Rabinowitz from firms like Baker Hostetler are becoming involved in immigration and human rights litigation. They often run circles around Billy the Bigot’s ethically-challenged group of captive DOJ lawyers, who can no longer operate independently and ethically, even if they want to.

So, in a better future, after regime change, there are going to be lots of really great sources for better judges out there at all levels of the Federal Judiciary from the eventually independent Immigration Courts, to the U.S. District Courts and Magistrate Judges, to the Courts of Appeals, all the way to the Supremes.

At the latter, we need new and better Justices: Justices who understand immigration and human rights laws and the overriding human interests at stake, who will “lose” the White institutional racial bias and perverted right-wing ideologies that infect our current Court, and who are dedicated to making the vision of folks like Dr. King and Congressman John Lewis for “equal justice under law” and an end to dehumanization of persons of color a reality under our Constitution and within our system of justice!

There is no excuse for the current Supreme Court-enabled travesty unfolding in a biased, broken, and dysfunctional immigration system every day!

Due Process Forever!

This November, vote like our nation’s future existence depends on it! Because it does!

PWS

07-26-20

🤡CLOWN COURT REPORT: “Judging Lite” — Squeezed By A Bigoted AG Who Usurped Their Role While Driving Them To Rubber Stamp More Mindless Denials, The Bigger (Not Better) BIA’s Intellectual Output Shrinks To The Size Of A Pea, According To “The Asylumist,” Jason Dzubow

https://www.asylumist.com/2020/07/15/the-unbearable-lightness-of-bia-ing-ten-year-anniversary-edition/

Way back in 2010, I did a blog post about the Board of Immigration Appeals, where I complained that the Board issues too few decisions and does not provide enough guidance to Immigration Judges. Ten years later, things are no better. In fact, based on the available data, the Board is publishing even fewer decisions these days than it did back in the late aughts. Here, we’ll take a look at the situation in 2010, and then review where things stand now.

Before we get to that, we have to answer a preliminary question: What is the Board of Immigration Appeals? According to the BIA Practice Manual—

The Board of Immigration Appeals is the highest administrative body for interpreting and applying immigration laws. The Board is responsible for applying the immigration and nationality laws uniformly throughout the United States. Accordingly, the Board has been given nationwide jurisdiction to review the orders of Immigration Judges and certain decisions made by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and to provide guidance to the Immigration Judges, DHS, and others, through published decisions. The Board is tasked with resolving the questions before it in a manner that is timely, impartial, and consistent with the Immigration and Nationality Act and regulations, and to provide clear and uniform guidance to Immigration Judges, DHS, and the general public on the proper interpretation and administration of the Immigration and Nationality Act and its implementing regulations.

Having completed their one published decision for the year, some BIA Board Members take a well-earned rest.

In essence, the BIA is supposed to be the Supreme Court of immigration law. But because the Board issues so few published decisions, it is not fulfilling its duties to provide guidance or ensure that laws are applied uniformly throughout the country. This is not a recent problem.

If you look back at the data from a decade ago, you will see that in 2007, the BIA decide a total of 35,394 cases and had 45 published decisions. In 2008, it decided 38,369 cases and published 33 decisions, and in 2009, it decided 33,103 cases and published 34 decisions. This means that for every 1,000 cases the Board decides, it publishes about 1 case. Looked at another way, during 2007, 2008, and 2009, the Board had about 15 Members (judges on the BIA are called Board Members). This means that in its most prolific year (2007), each Board Member would have had to publish three cases. I’m told that publishing a case is a real production, but even so, three cases per year? That seems pretty weak. The not-very-surprising result is that the Board is not providing the guidance that Immigration Judges need, and this contributes to a situation where different adjudicators are interpreting the law in widely inconsistent ways.

Fast forward 10 year and the situation is no better. In FY2016, the Board decided 33,241 cases and in FY2017, it decided 31,820 cases. In each year, the Board published just 27 decisions. In FY2018, the Board decided 29,788 cases and published 38 decisions, and in FY2019, the BIA published 22 decisions (EOIR has not released data about the number of cases adjudicated by the Board in FY2019). Indeed, in 2018 and 2019, the situation is even worse than these numbers suggest. That’s because in 2018, of the 38 published BIA decisions, 15 were actually decided by the Attorney General (meaning only 23 were decided by the BIA). In 2019, the AG published six cases, meaning that the Board itself published a paltry 16 decision, or–given the expanded number of Board Members–less than one published decision per Member.

Let’s digress for one moment to discuss the difference between an Attorney General decision and a BIA decision. The BIA derives its decision-making authority from the Attorney General. This means that the AG has power to decide immigration appeals, but he has given that authority to the specialists on the Board, who presumably know more about immigration law than their boss. However, because decision-making power ultimately comes from the AG, he can “certify” a case to himself and then issue a decision, which has precedential authority over Immigration Judges and over the Board itself. This means that if the Board issues a decision that the AG does not like, he can change it. Prior to the Trump Administration, AGs generally deferred to the Board and rarely certified cases to themselves for decisions. In the last two years of the Obama Administration, for example, the AG issued a total of three published decisions, two in 2015 and one in 2016, as compared to 21 AG decisions in 2018 and 2019 (to be fair, the Trump Administration did not issue any AG decisions in 2017). The main reason for the AG to issue decisions is to more forcefully implement the current Administration’s immigration agenda. Many who work in the field oppose this type of politicization of the immigration law, and organizations such as the National Association of Immigration Judges (the judges’ union) have been pushing for an independent court system.

Aside from politicization of the law, one result of the AG’s more active role in issuing decisions has been to sideline the BIA. I imagine this is not good for morale. Essentially, the “Supreme Court of Immigration Law” has been relegated to deciding unpublished decisions, which contribute little to improving the overall practice of law.

In any event, it has always surprised me how few decisions the BIA publishes. Chapter 1 of the BIA Practice Manual provides: “Decisions selected for publication meet one or more of several criteria, including but not limited to: the resolution of an issue of first impression; alteration, modification, or clarification of an existing rule of law; reaffirmation of an existing rule of law; resolution of a conflict of authority; and discussion of an issue of significant public interest.” Frankly, it is difficult to believe that fewer than one case in one thousand satisfies these criteria. As I wrote in 2010–

Although it might be more work over the short term, if the Board published more frequently, Immigration Judge decisions would become more consistent–creating less work for the BIA over the long term. It would also make life easier for the federal courts of appeals, saving government resources. Finally–and most important from my point of view–it would create more certainty and predictability for immigrants and their families.

All this remains true. But after three years of the Trump Administration appointing Board Members, many of whom are considered hostile to immigrants, perhaps now is not the time to complain about too few published decisions. Maybe. But I still think there exists a desperate need for guidance and consistency, and even the “unfriendly” Board Members are more inclined to follow the law than our current AG. In addition, there are many mundane, non-political issues that simply need deciding (such as this recent BIA decision). Despite the more hostile make-up of the Board, I still believe–as I believed ten years ago–that the BIA should embrace its role as “the highest administrative body for interpreting and applying immigration laws” and publish more decisions.

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

Careful what you ask for, Jason! While you might see some difference between Billy the Bigot and the current BIA, I haven’t been able to find one. When, indeed, was the last time that a respondent “won” a case in a BIA precedent that wasn’t then certified to the AG for reversal?

On the other hand, I do run across some correctly decided “winners” among the eclectic mix of unpublished BIA decisions that comes across my “Courtside e-desk.” Therefore, I go with Mies van der Rohe on this one: the less frequently we hear from the BIA on precedents the more justice there will be for respondents.

That’s particularly true because the famous “BIA Single-Judge Panel” will sometimes issue inconsistent decisions, one of which actually gets it right and favors the respondent. Inevitably, these days, when such “conflicts” go into the precedent making machine, the respondent always loses. Faced with the choice of consistently sentencing respondents to death or saving a few lives now and then, I’d definitely go with the latter.

Actually, I’d argue that the only legitimate purpose of the Immigration Courts, including the BIA, is to save some lives that need saving. If, as Barr seems to think, it’s just a device to insure everyone gets removed and the decisions are “teed up” for OIL to best defend them on review, who needs it? Spend the money on something more useful — like cemetery plots for all the refugees and asylum seekers we wrongfully turn away.

It’s hardly surprising to me that a “maliciously incompetent” (originally your term, I believe) regime that has more than doubled the number of Immigration Judges while tripling the backlog would produce fewer precedents with more BIA judges. With the Trump/Sessions/Barr DOJ/EOIR kakistocracy, more judges clearly produce more backlog and fewer precedents.

There was a time, my friend, in the “ancient past,” more than two decades ago, when a supposedly “too big to function” BIA issued more than fifty (50) precedents in a year. Not only that, but many were hotly contested, “cutting edge” issues that the BIA took on without being “ordered” by the Courts of Appeals or the DOJ to do so.

The vast majority of those decisions were issued by the full en banc BIA with each judge actually recording a vote so they public knew exactly who stood where on each issue. There also were plenty of separate dissenting and concurring opinions.

Lo and behold, some of those dissents in favor of a fairer assessment of credibility, a more faithfully generous interpretation of asylum law, per Cardoza-Fonseca and Mogharrabi, and a better framework for “categorical analysis” of criminal provisions, eventually found favor with the reviewing Courts of Appeals.

When I taught Refugee Law & Policy at Georgetown Law, I used Aleinikoff & Martin, et al, Forced Migration as a text. A remarkable number of the BIA precedents from that particular era found their way into the book. I, of course, had to “get over” the fact that my buddies, Alex and David, had edited out some of my best dissents from the textbook versions. No matter, I insisted that my students read the “full text” so they could see what a “better answer” to the issue might have been! Many of those former students, in turn, have formed the nucleus of the “New Due Process Army!”

Due Process Forever! “BIA Lite,” Never!

PWS

07-22-20

🏴‍☠️☠️⚰️👎🤮KAKISTOCRACY KORNER: Chase, Schmidt Rip Billy The Bigot’s Appointment Of Hate Grouper To Arlington “Bench” – Failed System Drops All Pretenses Of Fairness & Due Process As Feckless Congress & Complicit Article IIIs Flunk Constitutional Duties! –

https://www.law360.com/immigration/articles/1293543/ex-fair-research-director-among-46-new-immigration-judges

Hannah Albarazi
Federal Courts
Reporter
Law360

Ex-FAIR Research Director Among 46 New Immigration Judges

By Hannah Albarazi

. . . .

“It would be impossible for one to receive a fair hearing before Matthew O’Brien,” Jeffrey Chase, a New York City immigration lawyer and former immigration judge, told Law360. Chase said O’Brien has expressed a view of asylum law that is at odds with the controlling circuit case law that he would be tasked with applying from the bench.

Chase said O’Brien has “basically spouted propaganda for an organization openly hostile to immigration.”

His appointment, Chase said, shows that the Trump administration doesn’t want a fair and independent immigration court and is proof that the Executive Office for Immigration Review needs to be taken out of the control of the Department of Justice, an enforcement agency.

The administration “has repeatedly emphasized to classes of new immigration judges that they are above all employees of the attorney general, who does not believe most asylum seekers are deserving of protection,” Chase said.

These appointments could negatively impact the immigration courts for decades, Chase said.

Paul Wickham Schmidt, a retired U.S. immigration judge who chaired the Board of Immigration Appeals in the Clinton administration, also slammed the recent wave of appointments.

“The idea that these are the 46 best qualified individuals in America to discharge these awesome responsibilities in a fair, impartial and expert manner, in furtherance of due process of law and with recognition of the human rights and human dignity of the individuals whose lives are at stake, is beyond preposterous. It’s a fraud on American justice,” Schmidt told Law360.

Schmidt didn’t mince his words about O’Brien’s appointment either.

“As someone who has helped FAIR spread its racially biased, anti-immigrant, and anti-asylum propaganda and false narratives, O’Brien is not qualified to be a fair and impartial quasi-judicial decision maker as required by the due process clause of our Constitution,” Schmidt said.

. . . .

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

Those with Law360 access can read Hannah’s complete article at the link.

The U.S. Justice system, once the envy of free nations throughout the world, is disintegrating before our eyes. If there is no justice for those whose lives are at stake, there will be no justice for any of us in the Trump/Barr Third World kakistocracy.

Due Process Forever! Corrupt & Feckless Institutions Parodying Justice, Never!

PWS

07-21-20

☠️👎DEATH PANEL: Billy The Bigot’s BIA Spends 34-Pages Stomping Every Aspect Of Claim By Victim Of Trump’s MPP — Matter of M-D-C-V-

https://lnks.gd/l/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiJ9.eyJidWxsZXRpbl9saW5rX2lkIjoxMDAsInVyaSI6ImJwMjpjbGljayIsImJ1bGxldGluX2lkIjoiMjAyMDA3MTQuMjQzNjA1MjEiLCJ1cmwiOiJodHRwczovL3d3dy5qdXN0aWNlLmdvdi9lb2lyL3BhZ2UvZmlsZS8xMjkzOTcxL2Rvd25sb2FkIn0.GQ-40i9lJzne69mtiz5FLkL4ucpejz820EUlR2HEV7E/s/842922301/br/81011306761-l

Matter of M-D-C-V-, 28 I&N Dec. 18 (BIA 2020)

BIA HEADNOTE:

Under section 235(b)(2)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(C) (2018), an alien who is arriving on land from a contiguous foreign territory may be returned by the Department of Homeland Security to that country pursuant to the Migrant Protection Protocols, regardless of whether the alien arrives at or between a designated port of entry.

PANEL: Board Panel: MALPHRUS and CREPPY, Appellate Immigration Judges; MORRIS, Temporary Appellate Immigration Judge.

OPINION BY: Judge Malphrus

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

The deny, deny, deny message is very clear!

To keep what the BIA and the Administration are doing to our fellow humans in perspective, however, remember that:

Human Rights Watch studied the cases of more than 200 individuals who were returned to El Salvador by the Administration;
Of these, 138 were killed upon return;
Another 70 were “subjected to sexual violence, torture, and other harm, usually at the hands of gangs, or . . . went missing following their return;”

https://immigrationcourtside.com/2020/02/11/its-1939-white-nationalist-america-is-failing-humanity-again-the-st-louis-replay-history-will-neither-forget-nor-forgive-us-for-wrongfully-sending-refugees-to-thei/

That’s a high kill/abuse rate. But, that’s exactly what human rights criminals like Stephen Miller “get off on.” “Death to the other!”

And, so far, the Supremes have obliged the White Nationalists’ program of “Dred Scottification” as long as it applies to “the others,” primarily persons of color, not deserving in the elitists’ view of being treated as “persons” under the law or as “human beings” under any laws. Eventually, however, posterity will have something to say about Trump, Miller, Roberts, McConnell, Barr, Wolf, Sessions, Pence, Alito and a host of others who have knowingly participated in these intentional degradations of humanity and furthering of White Supremacy!

Due Process Forever!

PWS

07-14-20

🏴‍☠️🤡KAKISTOCRACY KORNER: Experienced Immigration Judges Flee America’s Star Chambers At Record Numbers As Trump Regime’s Malicious Incompetence Triples Backlog With Twice The Number Of Judges On Bench, According To Latest TRAC Report!

🏴‍☠️🤡KAKISTOCRACY KORNER: Experienced Immigration Judges Flee America’s Star Chambers At Record Numbers As Trump Regime’s Malicious Incompetence Triples Backlog With Twice The Number Of Judges On Bench, According To Latest TRAC Report!

Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse

More Immigration Judges Leaving the Bench

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

The latest judge-by-judge data from the Immigration Courts indicate that more judges are resigning and retiring. Turnover is the highest since records began in FY 1997 over two decades ago. These results are based on detailed records obtained by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC) at Syracuse University under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) from the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) which administers the Courts.

During FY 2019 a record number of 35 judges left the bench. This is up from the previous record set in FY 2017 when 20 judges left the bench, and 27 judges left in FY 2018.

With elevated hiring plus the record number of judges leaving the bench more cases are being heard by judges with quite limited experience as immigration judges.

Currently one of every three (32%) judges have only held their position since FY 2019. Half (48%) of the judges serving today were appointed in the last two and a half years. And nearly two-thirds (64%) were appointed since FY 2017.

While the Court is losing many of its most experienced judges, the backlog of cases continues to balloon. It is now almost three times the level when President Trump assumed office.

Update on Disappearing Immigration Court Records

Records continue to disappear in the latest data release for updated court records through the end of June 2020. The report provides the latest statement from EOIR Chief Management Officer Kate Sheehey about this matter.

To read the full report on Immigration Judges leaving the bench as well as the Sheehey statement, go to:

https://trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/617/

TRAC’s free web query tools which track Immigration Court proceedings have also been updated through June 2020. For an index to the full list of TRAC’s immigration tools and their latest update go to:

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.

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

Look folks, I’m not disputing that Susan B. Long and David Burnham of TRAC are smart people. I’m even willing to speculate that they are smarter than most of the folks still in so-called public service (that largely isn’t any more) in all three branches of our failing Government.

But, are they really that much smarter than Supreme Court Justices, Article III Federal Judges, and Legislators who have let this grotesquely unconstitutional, dysfunctional, and deadly Star Chamber masquerading as a “court system” right here on American soil unfold and continue its daily abuses right under their complicit noses? Or, do we have too many individuals in public office lacking both the human decency and moral courage to stand up against institutionalized racism, unnecessarily cruelty, corruption, and pure stupidity, all of which very clearly are prohibited by both the due process and equal protection clauses of our Constitution, not to mention the 13th and 15th Amendments. It’s not rocket science!

Enough with the Congressional and Court-enabled “Dred Scottification” of the other! That’s how we ended up with things like the “Chinese Exclusion Act” and “Jim Crow” and why we have an institutionalized racism problem now.

Instead of standing up for equal justice for all under the Constitution, the Supremes and Congress often have willingly been part of the problem — using the law knowingly and intentionally to undermine constitutionally required equal justice for all and an end to racism. And, we can see those same attitudes today, specifically in the Supremes’ ridiculously wrong, intellectually dishonest, and cowardly decisions “greenlighting” various parts of White Nationalist Stephen Miller’s bogus program of dehumanizing asylum seekers and immigrants of color. This is not acceptable performance from Justices of our highest Court!

We need better, more courageous, and more intellectually honest public officers in all three branches who are willing to stand up for individual rights, human lives, and the common good over bogus right wing legal doctrines and inhumanity cloaked in legal gobbledygook. It won’t happen overnight. But, a better America starts with throwing a totally corrupt, cruel, and maliciously incompetent President and his GOP enablers out of every public office at every level of government this November.

This November, vote like your life depends on it! Because it does!

PWS

07-14-20

This November, vote like your life and the future of America depend on it! Because they do!

Related posts:

Related posts:

Due Process Forever! Complicit Courts Never!

Related posts:

Due Process Forever! The EOIR kakistocracy, never!

Related posts:

Related posts:

Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

This November, vote like your life and the future of our democracy depend on it! Because they do!

Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Due Process Forever!🗽⚖️👩🏻‍⚖️

Related posts:

This November, vote like your life and the future of our nation depend on it! Because they do! We can’t undo the past! But, we can make Trump part of that past and change our future for the better!

Related posts:

Due Process Forever!

This November, vote like our nation’s future existence depends on it! Because it does!

Related posts:

Due Process Forever! “BIA Lite,” Never!

Related posts:

Ex-FAIR Research Director Among 46 New Immigration Judges

Due Process Forever! Corrupt & Feckless Institutions Parodying Justice, Never!

Related posts:

Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

More Immigration Judges Leaving the Bench

Update on Disappearing Immigration Court Records

This November, vote like your life depends on it! Because it does!

Related posts: