"The Voice of the New Due Process Army" ————– Musings on Events in U.S. Immigration Court, Immigration Law, Sports, and Other Random Topics by Retired United States Immigration Judge (Arlington, Virginia) and former Chairman of the Board of Immigration Appeals Paul Wickham Schmidt. To see my complete professional bio, just click on the link below.
Category: “APPELLATE LITIGATION IN TODAY’S BROKEN AND BIASED IMMIGRATION COURT SYSTEM: FOUR STEPS TO A WINNING COUNTERATTACK BY THE RELENTLESS ‘NEW DUE PROCESS ARMY’”
PANEL: Howard, Chief Judge, Kayatta and Barron, Circuit Judges.
OPINION BY: Judge Kayetta
KEY EXCERPTS (Courtesy of Amer S. Ahmed, Esquire, Gibson Dunn, Pro Bono Counsel for the Round Table of Former Immigration Judges as Amici):
[The BIA] added, however, that “[e]ven if [De Pena] had
suffered harm rising to the level of past persecution,” De Pena’s
proposed particular social groups are analogous to those in Matter
of A-R-C-G, 26 I. & N. Dec. 388 (BIA 2014), which the BIA
understood to have been “overruled” by the Attorney General in
Matter of A-B, 27 I. & N. Dec. 316, 319 (A.G. 2018). The BIA read
A-B as “determin[ing] that the particular social group of ‘married
women in Guatemala who are unable to leave their relationship’ did
not meet the legal standards to qualify as a valid particular
social group.”
…
That conclusion poses two questions to be resolved on
this appeal: First, does A-B categorically reject any social group
defined in material part by its members’ “inability to leave” the
relationships in which they are being persecuted; and, second, if
so, is A-B to that extent consistent with the law?
…
Is it reasonable to read the law as supporting such a categorical
rejection of any group defined by its members’ inability to leave
relationships with their abusers? A-B itself cites only fiat to
support its affirmative answer to this question. It presumes that
the inability to leave is always caused by the persecution from
which the noncitizen seeks haven, and it presumes that no type of
persecution can do double duty, both helping to define the
particular social group and providing the harm blocking the pathway
to that haven. These presumptions strike us as arbitrary on at
least two grounds.
….
First, a woman’s inability to leave a relationship may
be the product of forces other than physical abuse. In
Perez-Rabanales v. Sessions, we distinguished a putative group of
women defined by their attempt “to escape systemic and severe
violence” from a group defined as “married women in Guatemala who
are unable to leave their relationship,” describing only the former
as defined by the persecution of its members. 881 F.3d 61, 67
(1st Cir. 2018). In fact, the combination of several cultural,
societal, religious, economic, or other factors may in some cases
explain why a woman is unable to leave a relationship.
…
We therefore do not see any basis other
than arbitrary and unexamined fiat for categorically decreeing
without examination that there are no women in Guatemala who
reasonably feel unable to leave domestic relationships as a result
of forces other than physical abuse. In such cases, physical abuse
might be visited upon women because they are among those unable to
leave, even though such abuse does not define membership in the group
of women who are unable to leave.
…
Second, threatened physical abuse that precludes
departure from a domestic relationship may not always be the same
in type or quality as the physical abuse visited upon a woman
within the relationship. More importantly, we see no logic or
reason behind the assertion that abuse cannot do double duty, both
helping to define the group, and providing the basis for a finding
of persecution. An unfreed slave in first century Rome might well
have been persecuted precisely because he had been enslaved (making
him all the same unable to leave his master). Yet we see no reason
why such a person could not seek asylum merely because the threat
of abuse maintained his enslaved status. As DHS itself once
observed, the “sustained physical abuse of [a] slave undoubtedly
could constitute persecution independently of the condition of
slavery.” Brief of DHS at 34 n.10, Matter of R-A, 23 I. & N. Dec.
694 (A.G. 2005).
For these reasons, we reject as arbitrary and unexamined
the BIA holding in this case that De Pena’s claim necessarily fails
because the groups to which she claims to belong are necessarily
deficient. Rather, the BIA need consider, at least, whether the
proffered groups exist and in fact satisfy the requirements for
constituting a particular social group to which De Pena belongs.
Amer S. Ahmed
GIBSON DUNN
******************************
Read the full opinion at the link above.
While Judge Kayetta does not specifically cite our Round Table’s brief, a number of our arguments are reflected in the opinion. Undoubtedly, with lots of help from Amer and our other superstar friends over at Gibson Dunn, we’re continuing to make a difference and hopefully save some deserving lives of the refugees intentionally screwed by our dysfunctional Immigration Court system under a politicized DOJ.
Knightess of the Round Table
I’ve heard of the bogus rationale used by the BIA in this case reflected in a number of wrongly decided unpublished asylum denials by both the BIA and Immigration Judges. This should make for plenty of remands, slowing down the “Deportation Railroad,” jacking up the backlog, and once again showing the “substantial downside” of idiotic “haste makes waste shenanigans” at EOIR and allowing biased, unqualified White Nationalist hacks like Sessions and Barr improperly to interfere with what are supposed to be fair and impartial adjudications consistent with Due Process and fundamental fairness.
Great as this decision is, it begs the overriding issue: Why is a non-judicial political official, particularly one with as strong a prosecutorial bias as Sessions or Barr, allowed to intervene in a quasi-judicial decision involving an individual and not only reverse the result of that quasi-judicial tribunal, but also claim to set a “precedent” that is binding in other quasi-judicial proceedings? Clearly, neither Ms. De Pena-Paniagua nor any other respondent subject to a final order of removal under this system received the “fair and impartial decision by an unbiased decision-maker” which is a minimum requirement under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
Let’s put it in terms that an Article III Circuit Court Judge should understand. Suppose Jane Q. Public sues the United States in U.S. District Court in Boston and wins a judgment. Unhappy with the result, Attorney General Billy Barr orders the U.S. District Judge to send the case to him for review. He enters a decision reversing the U.S. District Judge and dismissing Public’s claim against the United States. Then, he orders all U.S. District Judges in the District of Massachusetts to follow his decision and threatens to have them removed from their positions or demoted to non-judicial positions if they refuse.
The First Circuit or any other Court of Appeals would be outraged by this result and invalidate it as unconstitutional in a heartbeat! They likely would also find Barr in contempt and refer him to state bar authorities with a recommendation that his law license be revoked or suspended.
Yet this is precisely what happened to Ms. A-B-, Ms. De Pena Paniagua, and thousands of other asylum applicants in Immigration Court. It happens every working day in Immigration Courts throughout the nation. It will continue to happen until Article III Appellate Judges live up to their oaths of fealty to the Constitution and stop the outrageous, life-threatening miscarriages of justice and human dignity going on in our unconstitutional, illegal, fundamentally unfair, and dysfunctional Immigration Courts.
“We must now decide three issues: (1) whether persons who publicly provide assistance to law enforcement against major Salvadoran gangs constitute a cognizable particular social group for purposes of asylum and withholding of removal under the INA, (2) whether Guzman has established that he suffered past persecution on account of anti-gang political opinion imputed to him, and (3) whether the BIA correctly applied the framework we enunciated in Myrie v. Attorney General1 in denying Guzman relief under the CAT. For the reasons that follow, we hold that persons who publicly provide assistance against major Salvadoran gangs do constitute a particular social group, that Guzman has failed to meet his burden to show that imputed anti-gang political opinion was a central reason for the treatment he received, and that the BIA erred in its application of Myrie to Guzman’s application. Accordingly, we will vacate the BIA’s decision and remand this case for further proceedings on Guzman’s petition for relief from removal.”
[Hats off to J. Wesley Earnhardt Troy C. Homesley, III Brian Maida (ARGUED) Cravath, Swaine & Moore!]
***************************
*** I believe that the Third Circuit uses “Attorney General” rather than the name of the particular Attorney General in their immigration citation.
Before: RESTREPO, ROTH and FISHER, Circuit Judges. Opinion by Judge Roth.
Distortion of evidence and law happens all the time in this dysfunctional system now operated to deny basic due process and fundamental fairness to endangered individuals. Frankly, the Judges of the Third Circuit and other Courts of Appeals should be more than just “troubled” by the BIA’s legal incompetence and anti-immigrant decision-making. This isn’t just some “academic exercise.” The lives of innocent individuals are being put at risk by the ongoing fraud at EOIR under Barr!
This one-sided politically and prosecutorially-dominated charade of a “court system” is clearly unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to our Constitution. Not everyone has the ability to appeal to the Circuit Courts and be fortunate enough to get a panel that actually looks critically at the case, rather than just “rubber stamping” the BIA’s decisions or giving them “undue deference” like all too many Article III Judges do. Most asylum seekers aren’t represented by Cravath, Swaine & Moore, one of America’s top law firms.
Indeed, many asylum applicants are forced by the Government to proceed without any counsel and don’t have the foggiest notion of what’s happening in Immigration Court. How would an unrepresented individual or a child challenge the Immigration Judge’s or the BIA’s misapplication of the “three-part test” for “particular social group?” How would they go about raising failure to apply the applicable Circuit precedent in Myrie v. Attorney General?
Even with the best representation, as was present in this case, under pressure from political bosses like Sessions, Whitaker, and Barr, Immigration Judges and BIA Appellate Judges constantly look for “reasons to deny” relief even where the case clearly has merit, as this one does! If against these odds, the respondent “wins,” or achieves something other than an outright “loss,” Barr can merely reach in and change the result to favor DHS Enforcement.
More outrageously, he can make that improper and unethical decision a so-called “precedent” for other cases. How totally unfair can a system get? Is there any other “court system” in America where the prosecutor or the opposing party gets to select the judges, evaluate their performance under criteria that allow for no public input whatsoever, and then change results at both the trial and appellate level? How is this consistent with Due Process or basic judicial ethics, both of which require a “fair, impartial, and unbiased decision-maker.” In the “real world,” the mere “appearance” of impropriety or bias is enough to disqualify a judge from acting. Here “actual (not apparent) bias” is institutionalized and actively promoted!
The ongoing legal, ethical, and Constitutional problems at EOIR are quite obvious. For the Article III Courts to merely “tisk tisk” without requiring that immigration adjudications comply with basic Constitutional, statutory, and ethical requirements is a disservice to the public that continues to demean and undermine the role of the Article III Courts as an independent judiciary.
Due Process Forever! Captive Courts & Complicit Judges, Never!
“Hector Daniel Lopez Ordonez was conscripted into the Guatemalan military when he was 15 years old. As part of the G-2 intelligence unit, Lopez Ordonez was ordered— and repeatedly refused—to torture and kill people. After a particularly horrific incident in which Lopez Ordonez refused to murder a five-month-old baby and threatened to report the G-2’s abuses to human rights organizations, the G-2 confined him to a hole in the ground for ten months. Upon his release, he fled to the United States. Lopez Ordonez now petitions this Court to review an order from the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying his asylum application and ordering his removal to Guatemala. The BIA determined that Lopez Ordonez did not meet the nexus requirement to establish his eligibility for asylum—that is, he did not show past persecution on account of a statutorily protected ground. The record in this case, however, compels us to conclude that Lopez Ordonez has demonstrated that one central reason for his persecution by the Guatemalan military was his political opinion, a protected ground under the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”). Accordingly, we vacate the BIA’s nexus determination and remand for further proceedings.”
“Chief Judge Gregory wrote the opinion, in which Judge Wilkinson and Judge Wynn joined.”
Beneath the smokescreens of the uncontrolled backlog and gross mismanagement at EOIR lies an uglier truth. The BIA is a politically motivated tool of the Trump regime that puts reaching preconceived denials of protection ahead of Due Process and the fair application of asylum law.
This case should have been an easy grant, probably a precedent. By requiring the DHS, the Asylum Office, and Immigration Judges to follow a properly fair and generous interpretation of asylum law that would achieve its overriding purpose of protection, an intellectually honest BIA with actual legal expertise in applying asylum laws would force an end to the racially-driven intentional perversion of asylum laws and Due Process by the Trump regime.
More cases granted at a lower level would discourage the largely frivolous attempts to deny asylum engaged in by the DHS here. It would reduce the backlog by returning asylum and other protection grants to the more appropriate 60%+ levels they were at before first the Obama Administration and now the Trump regime twisted the laws and employed various coercive methods to encourage improper denials to “deter” legitimate refugees from Central America and elsewhere from seeking protection.
With fair access to legal counsel, many more asylum cases could be well-documented and granted either by the USCIS Asylum Office (without going to Immigration Court) or in “short hearings” using party stipulations. The ability to project with consistency favorable outcomes allows and encourages ICE Assistant Chief Counsel to be more selective in the cases that they choose to fully litigate. That encourages the use of stipulations, pre-trial agreements, and prosecutorial discretion that allows almost all other courts in America, save for Immigration Courts, to control dockets without stomping on individual rights.
It would also force all Administrations to establish robust, realistic refugee programs for screening individuals nearer to the Northern Triangle to obviate the need for the journey to the Southern border. Additionally, compliance with the law would pressure our Government to work with the international community to solve the issues causing the refugee flow at their roots, in the refugee-sending countries, rather than misusing the U.S. legal system and abusing civil detention as “deterrents.”
“We hold that the BIA violated due process by relying on undisclosed evidence that Zerezghi and Meskel did not have an opportunity to rebut. In making its initial determination of marriage fraud, the BIA also violated due process by applying too low a standard of proof. On remand, it must establish marriage fraud by at least a preponderance of the evidence before it can deny any subsequent immigration petition based on such a finding.”
Robert Pauw Founding Partner Gibbs, Houston & Pauw Seattle, WA
********************
How totally perverse has the EOIR system become?
Well, the BIA’s sole function is to insure Due Process for individualsand to apply top-flight expertise and scholarship to keep the Immigration Courts, ICE, CBP, and USCIS in line and following the law and best practices.
Instead, the BIA has become a corner-cutting, sloppy, “rubber stamp” on DHS Enforcement and USCIS “enforcement wannabes.” Remember, early on, the Trump regime made it clear that service to the public, i.e., immigrants, their families, and their communities, was no longer “part of the mission” at USCIS. Instead, the mission is to help ICE & CBP institute politically-driven White Nationalist xenophobic enforcement initiatives.
USCIS was created as a separate agency under DHS specifically to allow service to the immigrant community to flourish without the subservience to law enforcement often present and institutionalized at the “Legacy INS.” However, this regime and its toadies in DHS “Management” have seen fit to recreate the very same conflicts of interest and enforcement dominance that USCIS was created to overcome. In most ways, things are far worse than they ever were at the “Legacy INS.” And, let’s remember that USCIS is funded largely by user fees collected from the public on the now largely fictional rationale that they are getting valuable and professionalized services. What a complete mess and abuse of public funding!
Moreover, given the BIA’s lousy performance, rather than assisting the Article III Courts, it now all too often falls to the Article IIIs to keep the BIA in line and do its job for it. But, given the wide disparity in interest levels, expertise, and integrity among the Article IIIs, the results have been spotty.
Some Article III Judges step up and do the job; others sweep the chronic problems under the table and look the other way as rights are trampled and service to the public mocked. And, no Article III to date has been courageous and scholarly enough to take on the real problem: the glaring unconstitutionality under the Due Process Clause of a so-called “court” controlled, staffed, and evaluated by a highly biased prosecutor empowered to reverse individual case outcomes that don’t match his political agenda!
A glimpse of future horrors to come: Emboldened by Article III complicity, and egged on by the White Nationalist nativists, EOIR now outrageously proposes to charge astronomically higher fees for its shabby, biased, and ever deteriorating “work product.” This is a transparent attempt to further restrict access to justice for the most vulnerable among us. Another clear denial of Due Process!
Yes, Congress is responsible. Yes, Congress is largely in failure. But, that doesn’t absolve the Article IIIs of their duty to the Constitution, the rule of law, and human decency. Will they finally wake up, act with some courage, and do their jobs? Or, will they engage in further “judicial task avoidance” until it’s too late for all of us?
Professor Geoffrey Hoffman Immigraton Clinic Director University of Houston Law Center
Geoffrey writeS in ImmigrationProf Blog.
A Stunning Fifth Circuit Asylum Decision: An Analysis of Inestroza-Antonelli v. Barr by Geoffrey Hoffman, Clinical Professor, University of Houston Law Center
I was moved this morning to write about a recent decision from the Fifth Circuit. This is an insightful and sensitive decision from the 2-person panel’s majority, Judges Dennis and King, with Judge Jones dissenting. The April 9th decision is Inestroza-Antonelli v. Barr.
In the very first paragraph, the essence of the decision is announced: “Without addressing the coup, the BIA found that any change in gender based violence was incremental or incidental and not material. Because this conclusion is not supported by the record, we grant the petition and remand.” Id. at 1.
Procedurally, the case involved an in absentia order of removal from 2005. In 2017, the petitioner moved to reopen proceedings outside the 90-day deadline for such motions based on a change in country conditions in Honduras. The petitioner argued that in Honduras since the time of her original removal order there had been “a 263.4 percent increase in violence against women since 2005.” She submitted a trove of documents to support her motion. The Immigration Judge, and Board on appeal denied her motion to reopen.
As recounted in the panel’s decision, there had been a military coup in Honduras in 2009. Specifically, there were several principal changes in the country as a result: “(1) the Gender Unit of the Honduran National Police, established between 2004 and 2005, has been restricted in its operations, and access to the Unit is now limited or nonexistent; (2) the power of the Municipal Offices for Women to address domestic violence has been severely diluted, and officials have been removed from their positions for responding to women’s needs, especially those related to domestic violence; (3) institutional actors have targeted women for violence, including sexual violence, and threatened the legal status of over 5,000 nongovernmental women’s, feminist, and human rights organizations that have opposed the post-coup government’s policies; (4) the rate of homicides of women more than doubled in the year after the coup and has continued to steadily increase, ultimately becoming the second highest cause of death for women of reproductive age; and (5) in 2014, the status of the National Institute for Women was downgraded and other resources for female victims of violence were eliminated….”
The crux of the Immigration Judge’s decision in denying her motion to reopen was that the violence suffered by women in Honduras is an “ongoing problem” and the increase allegedly did not represent a “change in country conditions.” The Board, in its decision, did not even mention the coup, finding instead that the IJ had not clearly erred” because the evidence reflected only an “incremental or incidental,” rather than a “material” change in country conditions.
I would like to point out several noteworthy and instructive aspects of this excellent decision.
First, in analyzing her claim, the Fifth Circuit’s majority noted, as is usual, that the government had introduced “no conflicting evidence.” Indeed, they did not introduce any evidence of country conditions in Honduras at all. Instead, on appeal they “cherry-pick[ed]” excerpts from the evidence introduced by the petitioner. Most typically, the relied on a 2014 Department of State report describing the availability of “domestic violence shelters and municipal women’s offices.”
This first point is important because it accurately describes what is typical of these asylum proceedings. The government often relies on little beyond the State report, and introduces no other evidence of its own. The result sometimes leads to tortured arguments on appeal, nitpicking before the Board, or unfair conclusions before the immigration judge.
It is frustrating sometimes when we litigate these cases and we see parties attempt to shoehorn their conclusions into preconceived molds. This selective reasoning should be called out more often. Many times when confronted with a record that contains a treasure trove of material that is largely favorable to the immigrant, the government is at a loss about how to respond on appeal. Instead of agreeing to a remand, they are faced with defending a sparse record with support for their position. As such, they have to (assuming they do not agree to a remand) cull through the record to find anything to shore up the precarious reasoning in the administrative decisions below.
Second, the majority rejects reliance on a prior case where a petitioner had not presented sufficient evidence of changed country conditions. As astutely pointed out by the majority, it makes no sense to hold that the current petitioner is unable to meet her evidentiary burden merely because a prior petitioner had failed to do so. In the words of the majority, “to hold that Inestroza-Antonelli is precluded from proving that conditions changed as a factual matter during this period simply because a previous petitioner failed to do so would violate the ‘basic premise of preclusion’—i.e., ‘that parties to a prior action are bound and nonparties are not bound.’ Id. at 7 (citing 18A Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller, & Edward H. Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure § 4449 (3d ed. 2019)). It is refreshing to see a panel rely on the famous federal practice and procedure treatise.
Third, the decision does a wonderful job of elucidating the “substantial evidence” standard, which is used so often against the immigrant-petitioner. Here, the majority explains that this standard does not mean that the Court of Appeals reviews the BIA decision to determine whether “there theoretically could have been some unevidenced occurrence that would make its findings correct.” Id. at 5 (emphasis added). Instead, the “substantial evidence” standard just means what it says: whether a party has produced substantial evidence in support of their position. Here, the government – as noted – provided no evidence against the petitioner’s position. In fact, the record “compels” the conclusion that conditions have “significantly changed,” according to the majority.
Fourth, the decision takes to task the BIA’s lack of analysis in its decision, specifically the failure on the part of the agency even to mention the “coup” in Honduras. Instead, there was nothing but a conclusory statement that the Board had “considered [the petitioner’s] arguments.” We have seen, for example, other courts of appeals such as the Seventh Circuit, take to task the BIA in recent months. See Baez-Sanchez v. Barr (7th Cir. 2020) (Easterbrook, J.) . It is a very good sign that circuit courts are making searching inquiries, demanding compliance from the Board and EOIR, and not engaging in mere cursory review.
There was a frustration shown in that, as they noted, the Board evidenced a “complete failure” to address the “uncontroverted evidence” of a clear significant “turning point” in Honduras’ history. The majority characterized this failure as an abuse of discretion by the BIA. On a separate point concerning the Board’s rejection of an argument about her abusive husband’s return to Honduras in 2009, as a changed in country conditions, the majority stopped short of calling that argument’s rejection an “abuse of discretion.” In a footnote, the majority noted several sister circuits that agreed that such a change should be characterized as a change in “personal circumstances.”
The most notable thing about the panel’s 2-1 decision besides its well thought-out reasoning is the lack of any discussion involving Matter of A-B-, 27 I & N Dec. 316 (A.G. 2018), anywhere in either the majority’s or dissent’s decisions. Arguably, A-B- is related and has been used (routinely) by the government to argue against relief for women who are similarly situated. Because this case turned on a denial of a motion to reopen in 2017, and there was no Attorney General’s decision until 2018, there was no occasion for the IJ and, later, the BIA rely on the AG’s A-B- decision. To the extent that AG Sessions in A-B- did not rule out all gender-based violence claims, the more important take away here is this: Matter of A-B- can be overcome and is no prohibition on relief, despite what a number of judges and BIA members may believe, so long as the petitioner can produce substantial evidence in support of his or her claims, as the petitioner did so well here. (Note, since this decision relates to a motion to reopen, the case will now be remanded to the BIA and IJ and the petitioner’s fight will continue on remand.)
Judge Edith Jones in her dissent, while never relying outright on A-B-, still takes affront at the perceived failure to “defer” to the BIA. In a telling passage, she states: “The majority has failed to defer to the BIA, which, hearing no doubt hundreds (or thousands) of cases from Honduras, must be far more familiar with country conditions than judges working from our isolated perch . . . . .” This is a scary position. While it is true the BIA has heard thousands of cases from Honduras, this cannot and should not form the basis for any rationale to blindly “defer” to the Board.
This type of deference and the attempted “rubber-stamping” that it engenders was exactly what Justice Kennedy warned about in his short but biting concurrence in Pereira v. Sessions. To quote Justice Kennedy, the “type of reflexive deference exhibited in some of these cases is troubling…it seems necessary and appropriate to reconsider, in an appropriate case, the premises that underlie Chevron and how courts have implemented that decision.” Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105, 2121 (2018), Kennedy, J., concurring (emphasis added). Justice Kennedy was right. The dissent’s transparent and clearly forthright encapsulation of the arguments in favor of “deference” highlights the dangers inherent in such a position and shows just why Chevron must (and will) be reconsidered.
Geoffrey Hoffman, Clinical Professor, University of Houston Law Center, Immigration Clinic Director
(Individual capacity; Institution for identification only)
KJ
***********************
Judge Jones’s dissent ignores the clear evidence that the BIA is no longer anything approaching an “expert tribunal,” and that it’s jurisprudence has swung sharply in an anti-immigrant, and specifically anti-asylum, direction under Sessions, Whitaker, and Barr.
How long can the Article IIIs keep “papering over” not only the all too often deficient work-product produced by today’s BIA, but, more significantly, the glaring unconstitutionality of a system constructed and run by prosecutors and politicos that purports to function like a “court.” I doubt that Judge Jones would be willing to trust her life to a “court” that was composed and run like EOIR. So, why aren’t other “persons” entitled to the same Constitutional treatment and human dignity that she would expect if their positions were reversed?
In the meantime, I wholeheartedly endorse Geoffrey’s observation that even in the “Age of A-B-,” and in the normally “asylum-unfriendly” Fifth Circuit, great scholarship, persistence, and good lawyering can save lives! We just need more “good lawyers” out there in th NDPA to keep pressing the fight until all of the Article III’s stop “going along to get along” with the charade currently unfolding at EOIR and we also get the “regime change” necessary to establish an Article I Immigration Court that functions like a “real court” rather than a surreal vision of a court.
1) The exceptional and extremely unusual hardship for cancellation of removal is based on a cumulative consideration of all hardship factors, but to the extent that a claim is based on the health of a qualifying relative, an applicant needs to establish that the relative has a serious medical condition and, if he or she is accompanying the applicant to the country of removal, that adequate medical care for the claimed condition is not reasonably available in that country.
(2) The Immigration Judge properly determined that the respondent did not establish eligibility for cancellation of removal because he did not demonstrate that his qualifying relatives will experience hardship, including medical, economic, and emotional hardship, that rises to the level of exceptional and extremely unusual.
PANEL: MALPHRUS, Acting Chairman; CREPPY and CASSIDY, Appellate Immigration Judges
OPINION BY: Judge Garry D. Malphrus, Acting Chairman
María looked for work as a waitress as soon as she arrived. She knocked on the doors of 15 restaurants and was rejected each time. “Right now, no one is hiring workers, they’re firing people,” María said. Under the lockdown, she has had to put her search on hold.
María’s options in Guatemala are limited, particularly since it is not safe for her to go back to her home town. She and her little girl fled Guatemala for the US in late 2018 after the same gang that murdered María’s entire family over a land dispute, including the little girl’s mother, killed María’s partner and shot at María. Last summer, a US immigration judge found María’s account credible but decided her case did not meet the narrow legal standard for asylum. María filed an appeal but could no longer endure being locked up away from her niece. Because she was not the girl’s biological mother, Ice refused to release her from detention to reunite the family. After nearly a year apart, María requested deportation with the hope she and the girl could return together.
“It was notably easier for Ice to concede the bona fides of the relationship between María and her niece when removal to Guatemala was the goal,” said Suzannah Maclay, María’s attorney.
‘It is beyond cruel’: Ice refuses to reunite girl with the only family she has left
María was craving freedom after so long in detention but still finds herself spending her days inside. She wants her niece to go to school and get the education she never got. She feels restless, unable to start building a better life for them both. “I can’t do anything,” she said.
She believes the gang that murdered her family still wants to kill her, and she is always fearful they will discover she is back. She doesn’t want her niece to grow up alone. She tries to give the girl a sense of security, but the truth is hard to hide. “Why did they send us here?” the girl asked her upon arriving in Guatemala. “It’s too dangerous.”
As María and her child focus on day-to-day survival, they are also trying to heal from the trauma of their separation. Sometimes the girl tells María about foster care in New York. The stories are hard to hear. The girl describes getting her hands slapped when she touched things or being scolded in restaurants. “They humiliated her,” María said.
“Mami, I missed you so much,” the girl tells her. “I don’t ever want to be apart again.” María responds with a promise: “This won’t happen again.”
Now, a real appellate court, with qualified judges acting independently, might have used this as an opportunity to direct that Immigration Court hearings in all “non-criminal” cancellation of removal cases be deferred until such time as we can understand what is actually happening in Guatemala and other countries after the worldwide pandemic is brought under control.
After all, the situation is rapidly evolving. Or, I should say devolving! What’s the purpose of holding “trials” on conditions in foreign nations that are likely to change materially on a weekly or even daily basis?
Just look at the difference between the impact of the coronavirus in the United States one month ago and what is happening today. A month ago, folks were strolling the beaches of Florida and our President was basically minimizing the potential impact. Now there are over 10million Americans out of work, three-fourths of the country under “stay at home” orders (except for Immigration Court), with nearly 200,000 reported cases, and “best case” predictions of several hundred thousand deaths!
So, why would any rational person think, like the BIA does, that things will be “hunky dory” for those deported to Guatemala, particularly if they choose to take their U.S.C. children? Why would a poor corrupt country with a limited economy and few resources fare better than the world’s richest nation in weathering this crisis? When hospitals are breaking down all over the U.S., why would health care be readily available to recent returnees in Guatemala? With 10 million out of work here, why would jobs to support a family of five be readily available in Guatemala? The BIA’s decision in this case is as “counterfactual” as it is needlessly cruel!
Looking at it from a factual, legal, public health, or humanitarian viewpoint, the BIA’s timing and decision in this case were totally irresponsible.
We need an independent U.S. Immigration Court with better, more responsible, and more humane judges.
Michelle Mendez Defending Vulnerable Populations Director Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc. (“CLINIC”)
She was a Leader of the NDPA before there was an NDPA! Now Michelle Mendez and her CLINIC Team are giving you “the skinny” on how to combat EOIR’s “Raging War on Due Process!”
Friends,
Wanted to share with you two new CLINIC resources:
An immigration judge may issue an in absentia removal order if the Department of Homeland Security, or DHS, establishes by clear, unequivocal and convincing evidence that the respondent had written notice of the hearing and is removable as charged on the Notice to Appear. There are many reasons why a respondent may fail to appear at a removal hearing, including lack of notice of the hearing, sickness, a breakdown in transportation, limited or no English knowledge, or because the respondent is a child without the help of a responsible adult who can assist them in getting to the hearing. As documented in the report Denied a Day in Court: The Government’s Use of in absentia Removal Orders Against Families Seeking Asylum, CLINIC learned about these reasons firsthand while representing 46 families released from detention and successfully challenging their in absentia removal orders. Perhaps the main factor for failing to appear at scheduled hearings in immigration court is the presence or absence of legal counsel to orient the respondent through the layers of government bureaucracy and the complex immigration system.
On November 18, 2019, CLINIC submitted a Freedom of Information Act, or FOIA, request to the Executive Office for Immigration Review, or EOIR, seeking data on the number of in absentia removal orders issued based on legal representation status. CLINIC requested three sets of in absentia order data: the total number of in absentia removal orders issued since 2008, the number of in absentia orders issued to Unaccompanied Children, or UACs, since 2008, and the number of in absentia orders issued to families classified by EOIR as “Family Unit,” FAMU, cases since November 16, 2018. On March 13, 2020, EOIR responded with a three-tab Excel spreadsheet of raw in absentia removal order data. CLINIC has calculated the in absentia removal order raw data into percentages.
Here are some key takeaways from the data:
Although, according to EOIR statistics, the current overall representation rate is 65 percent for all pending cases, those who are unable to secure representation are at extraordinary risk of receiving in absentia removal orders. 92.6 percent of those with in absentia orders issued in fiscal year, or FY, 2020 were unrepresented.
Although, according to EOIR statistics, the current overall representation rate is 68 percent for all UAC pending cases, UACs who are unable to secure representation are also at extreme risk of receiving in absentia removal orders. 88 percent of those with in absentia orders issued in fiscal year FY2020 were unrepresented.
Since 2008, the percentage of unrepresented respondents with in absentia removal orders has been at least double that of in absentia orders of removal issued to represented respondents.
Since 2008, at least 70.8 percent of UACs who were issued in absentia orders of removal were unrepresented and, so far this fiscal year, the unrepresented rate for UACs who received in absentia orders of removal has been the highest ever, at 88 percent.
The number of in absentia removal orders issued by EOIR to unrepresented respondents in FY2020 surpassed the total number of in absentia orders issued to unrepresented respondents in FY2019 in just the first five and a half months of FY2020.
EOIR has issued more in absentia removal orders in the three and a half combined fiscal years covering the Trump presidency, than it did during the eight combined fiscal years covering the Obama presidency.
Total in absentia removal orders from FY2008 through FY2016 were 246,893. Total in absentia removal orders from FY2017 through FY2020 (through March 13, 2020), were 267,696
EOIR has issued more in absentia removal orders to UACs in the three and a half combined fiscal years covering the Trump presidency, than it did during the eight combined fiscal years covering the Obama presidency.
Total in absentia orders of removal issued to UACs from FY2008 through FY2016 were 20,123. Total in absentia removal orders issued to UACs from FY2017 through FY2020 (through March 13, 2020), were 26,228.
During the date range covered by the data (FY2008 through FY2020 Q2), immigration judges issued the fewest number of in absentia removal orders in FY2012, the year that DHS announced DACA. During FY2012, DHS officially launched the prosecutorial discretion program in November 2011 and reviewed many pending removal proceedings to identify low-priority cases meriting favorable exercises of prosecutorial discretion.
Most immigration courts saw a decrease in in absentia orders of removal for unrepresented noncitizens in FY2012 compared to FY2011.
Unrepresented UACs suffered a huge jump of in absentia removal orders from FY2014 (1,701) to FY2015 (5,836). This hike in in absentias for UACs occurred concurrently with the increase in UACs fleeing El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras, and arriving in neighboring countries and at the U.S.-Mexico border.
89.6 percent of all family units who received an in absentia removal orders from November 16, 2018 to September 30, 2019, were unrepresented.
Of all the immigration courts, the Houston Immigration Court issued the most in absentia removal orders in unrepresented FAMU cases during this period: 4,108 (which translates into 93.8 percent of the total in absentia removal orders issued by this court).
Of all the immigration courts, the Miami Immigration Court issued the second most in absentia removal orders in unrepresented FAMU cases during this period: 3,347 (which translates into 89.5 percent of the total in absentia removal orders issued by this court).
94.2 percent of all family units who received in absentia removal orders from October 1, 2019 to March 13, 2020, were unrepresented.
Of all the immigration courts, the Houston Immigration Court issued the most in absentia removal orders in FAMU cases from October 1, 2019 to March 13, 2020: 4,931 (which translates into 95.62 percent of the total in absentia removal orders issued by this court).
Of all the immigration courts, the Atlanta Immigration Court issued the second most in absentia removal orders in FAMU cases from October 1, 2019 to March 13, 2020: 4,662 (which translates into 98.27 percent of the total in absentia removal orders issued by this court).
Oddly, several immigration courts that oversee only detained dockets, including the Elizabeth Detention Center, recorded in absentia removal orders during the FOIA time period.
In FY2020, immigration judges have issued more in absentia removal orders than any prior year since 2008, and we are only five and a half months into the federal fiscal year.
Of all the immigration courts, the Harlingen Immigration Court has recorded the most unrepresented in absentia removal orders overall in FY2020 so far: 8,357.
Of all the immigration courts, the New York City Federal Plaza Immigration Court has recorded the most represented in absentia removal orders overall in FY2020: 753.
Of all the immigration courts, the Miami Immigration Court has recorded the most unrepresented in absentia removal orders for UACs in FY2020: 430.
Of all the immigration courts, the New York City Federal Plaza Immigration Court has recorded the most represented in absentia removal orders for UACs in FY2020: 73.
Thanks for helping us share these!
Michelle N. Mendez (she/her/ella/elle)
Director, Defending Vulnerable Populations Program
Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc. (CLINIC)
Embracing the Gospel value of welcoming the stranger, CLINIC promotes the dignity and protects the rights of immigrants in partnership with a dedicated network of Catholic and community legal immigration programs.
***********************
Now, it’s hardly “news” that there is a strong positive correlation between legal representation and appearance in Immigration Court. That information came to light way back in the Obama Administration and has consistently been reinforced by data that contradicts the lies about failures to appear put out on a regular basis by regime officials.
Given the clear correlation, the best way to make a fair due process system function would be if the Government worked hand in hand with NGOs, charitable organizations, local bar associations, and others involved in providing pro bono representation to insure that at least all asylum applicants and children are represented before the Immigration Courts. Due Process and fundamental fairness would be served and the in absentia rate would crater. In other words, due process with efficiency, an achievable “win-win!”
Instead, the Trump regime, through both EOIR and DHS, has made a concerted attack on the right to counsel in a transparent attempt to increase the number of in absentia orders and “speed up the deportation railroad” that EOIR now runs as its “one and only mission.”
How does something masquerading as a “court” system conduct a “deportation railway?” It takes lots of complicity and supposedly responsible public officials and citizens intentionally “looking the other way” and studiously ignoring the obvious!
I hope that advocates will be able to use the data provided by CLINIC to expose to the Article III Courts and Congress the rampant fraud, waste, abuse, and just plain “malicious incompetence” of EOIR and DHS (is there really a difference these days? Not apparent to most of us who follow the “Star Chambers” with regularity.).
Remember, moral cowardice and intellectual dishonesty often begin with picking on the most vulnerable and defenseless among us. And what follows is likely to be unspeakably bad, based on history!
Thanks, Michelle, my friend, for all you and CLINIC do.
In the days leading up to the coronavirus shutdown I journeyed into a shadow part of our justice system, a courtroom rarely seen by the public.
Detained immigration court is a place where lawyers aren’t provided for the defense, where judges and prosecutors are on the same team, where guilty is presumed and the all-too-often verdict a different kind of death.
Who are these immigration judges? What exactly is detained court? And how is it able to get away with operating outside of what we might call normal law?
Get ready because you’re about to go there, to see the injustice that isn’t being shut down.
This is American Refugee.
Written, Engineered & Produced: Sam Graber
Music: Rare Medium, Punk Funk Metropolis, New Sound Underground
Recorded: Minneapolis, MN
Original Release: March 2020
***************
Disturbing and infuriating as Sam’s podcast is, I urge everyone to listen, even if you think you know what “really happens” in this godforsaken and deadly “darkest corner of the American ‘justice’ system.”Is this really the way we want to be remembered by generations that follow? As a country with so little collective courage and integrity that we allowed our fellow human beings to be treated this way? Think about it!
Even in this grimmest of worlds, their are true heroes. First and foremost, of course, arethe dedicated attorneys of the New Due Process Army (“NDPA”), many working pro bono or “low bono” to vindicate essential legal, constitutional, and human rights in a system designed to grind them into dust and “dehumanize and demonize the other.”
Sound familiar? It should to anyone who studied Hitler’s rise to power in Germany. By and large, it wasn’t the “Brown Shirts” and the party faithful who enabled his rule. It was judges, lawyers, ministers, priests, businessmen, doctors, corporate moguls, and the average German who “facilitated” his annihilation of millions.
And, it started gradually, with laws stripping Jews of citizenship, property, and all legal rights and judges who enthusiastically enforced them, even against their own former judicial colleagues. Once people aren’t “humans” any more (Hitler liked the term “subhumans”) or “persons” before the law, there is no limit to what can be done, particularly when complicit judges join in the “fun and games.”
Among the other heroes are two “Courtside regulars:” Round TableMemberJudge (Ret.) Ilyce Shugall and NAIJ PresidentJudge A. Ashley Tabaddor.
Hon. Ilyce Shugall U.S. Immigraton Judge (Retired) Director, Immigrant Legal Defense Program, Justice & Diversity Center of the Bar Assn. of San Francisco.Hon. A. Ashley Tabaddor President, National Association of Immigration Judges (“NAIJ”)
At a time when too many with knowledge of the travesty of what’s going on in our “Star Chambers” have chosen to look the other way or “go along to get along,” Ilyce and Ashley have consistently “spoken truth to power” in the face of a regime that often abuses its authority by punishing truth, honesty, and decency. Indeed, Billy Barr’s highly unethical move to “decertify” the NAIJ is a blatant attempt to punish and silence Ashley for revealing the truth.
One minor correction. Sam says that the Immigration Judges and the prosecutors both work for the DOJ. Actually, the prosecutors work for DHS. But, it’s largely a “distinction without difference” because the agenda at both DOJ and DHS is set by Trump, Miller, and the rest of the White Nationalist nativist cabal.
Indeed, former AG Sessions told Immigration Judges they were “partners” with the DHS prosecutors in enforcing immigration laws. So, the observation that in many Immigration Courtrooms migrants, including the unrepresented and children, face “two prosecutors” — the “judge” and the DHS Assistant Chief Counsel is accurate. The podcast relates how in some courts the “judge speaks for the prosecution,” the Assistant Chief Counsel is a “potted plant,” and nobody speaks for justice or the rights of the migrants. What’s missing: The impartial “neutral decisionmaker” required by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution.
Thanks Ashley and Ilyce for all you do! You are true superstars!
As my friend, Professor Ayo Gansallo says on her e-mail profile:
Vote like your rights depend upon it!
“A country is not only what it does…it is also what it tolerates.”
Affirming in part, and vacating and remanding in part, the district court’s preliminary injunction ordering the United States to provide bond hearings to a class of noncitizens who were detained and found to have a credible fear of persecution, the panel affirmed the injunction insofar as it concluded that plaintiffs have a due process right to bond hearings, but remanded for further findings and reconsideration with respect to the particular process due to plaintiffs.
The district court certified a nationwide class of all detained asylum seekers who were subject to expedited removal proceedings, were found to have a credible fear of persecution, but were not provided a bond hearing with a record of hearing within seven days of requesting a hearing. Part A of the district court’s modified preliminary injunction provided: 1) bond hearings must take place within seven days of a class member’s request, or the member must be released; 2) the burden of proof is on the government to show why the
* This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader.
4 PADILLA V. ICE
member should not be released; and 3) the government must produce recordings or verbatim transcripts of the hearings, as well as written decisions. Part B concluded that the class is constitutionally entitled to bond hearings. A motions panel of this court previously denied the government’s request to stay Part B, but granted the stay as to Part A.
The panel concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that plaintiffs were likely to prevail on their due process claim, explaining that immigration detention violates the Due Process Clause unless a special justification outweighs the constitutionally protected interest in avoiding physical restraint. The panel also concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that other processes—seeking parole from detention or filing habeas petitions—were insufficient to satisfy due process. The panel further rejected the government’s suggestion that noncitizens lack any rights under the Due Process Clause, observing the general rule that once a person is standing on U.S. soil—regardless of the legality of entry—he or she is entitled to due process.
The panel next concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in its irreparable harm analysis, noting substandard physical conditions and medical care in detention, lack of access to attorneys and evidence, separation from family, and re-traumatization. The panel also concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the balance of the equities and public interest favors plaintiffs, explaining that the district court weighed: 1) plaintiffs’ deprivation of a fundamental constitutional right and its attendant harms; 2) the fact that it is always in the public interest to prevent constitutional violations; and 3) the
PADILLA V. ICE 5
government’s interest in the efficient administration of immigration law.
As to Part A of the injunction, the panel concluded that the record was insufficient to support the requirement of hearings within seven days, and that the district court made insufficient findings as to the burdens that Part A may impose on immigration courts. The panel also noted that the number of individuals in expedited removal proceedings may have dramatically increased since the entry of the injunction. Thus, the panel remanded to the district court for further factual development of the preliminary injunction factors as to Part A.
The panel also rejected the government’s argument that the district court lacked authority to grant injunction relief under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(f)(1), which provides: “no court (other than the Supreme Court) shall have jurisdiction or authority to enjoin or restrain the operation of the provisions of [8 U.S.C. §§ 1221–1232], other than with respect to the application of such provisions to an individual alien against whom proceedings under such part have been initiated.” Examining the relevant precedent, statutory scheme, and legislative history, the panel concluded that here, where the class is composed of individual noncitizens, each of whom is in removal proceedings and facing an immediate violation of their rights, and where the district court has jurisdiction over each individual member of that class, classwide injunctive relief is consistent with congressional intent.
Finally, the panel concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting the injunction as to the nationwide class. However, the panel directed that, on
6 PADILLA V. ICE
remand, the district court must also revisit the nationwide scope.
Dissenting, Judge Bade wrote that 8 U.S.C. § 1252(f)(1) barred injunctive relief in this case, concluding that the majority’s opinion does not square with the plain text of § 1252(f)(1), is inconsistent with multiple Supreme Court cases, and needlessly creates a circuit split with the Sixth Circuit. Judge Bade further wrote that, even if the district court had jurisdiction to issue injunctive relief, the preliminary injunction is overbroad and exceeds what the constitution demands. Judge Bade would vacate the preliminary injunction and remand for further proceedings with instructions to dismiss the claims for classwide injunctive relief.
PANEL: Sidney R. Thomas, Chief Judge, and Michael Daly Hawkins and Bridget S. Bade, Circuit Judges.
OPNION BY: Chief Judge Sydney R. Thomas
DISSENTING OPINION: Judge Bridget S. Bade
KEY QUOTE FROM MAJORITY OPINION:
The government also suggests that non-citizens lack any rights under the Due Process Clause. As we have discussed, this position is precluded by Zadvydas and its progeny. The government relies on inapposite cases that address the peculiar constitutional status of noncitizens apprehended at a port-of-entry, but permitted to temporarily enter the United States under specific conditions. See, e.g., Shaughnessy v. United States ex rel. Mezei (“Mezei”), 345 U.S. 206, 208–09, 213–15 (1953) (noncitizen excluded while still aboard his ship, but then detained at Ellis Island pending final exclusion proceedings gained no additional procedural rights with respect to removal by virtue of his “temporary transfer from ship to shore” pursuant to a statute that “meticulously specified that such shelter ashore ‘shall not be considered a landing’”); Leng May Ma v. Barber, 357 U.S. 185 (1958) (noncitizen paroled into the United States while waiting for a determination of her admissibility was not “within the United States” “by virtue of her physical presence as a parolee”); Kaplan v. Tod, 267 U.S. 228 (1925) (noncitizen excluded at Ellis Island but detained instead of being deported immediately due to suspension of deportations during World War I “was to be regarded as stopped at the boundary line”).
Indeed, these cases, by carving out exceptions not applicable here, confirm the general rule that once a person is standing on U.S. soil—regardless of the legality of his or her entry—he or she is entitled to due process. See, e.g., Mezei, 345 U.S. at 212 (“[A]liens who have once passed
PADILLA V. ICE 25
through our gates, even illegally, may be expelled only after proceedings conforming to traditional standards of fairness encompassed in due process of law.”); Leng May Ma, 357 U.S. at 187 (explaining that “immigration laws have long made a distinction between those aliens who have come to our shores seeking admission . . . and those who are within the United States after an entry, irrespective of its legality,” and recognizing, “[i]n the latter instance . . . additional rights and privileges not extended to those in the former category who are merely ‘on the threshold of initial entry’” (quoting Mezei, 345 U.S. at 212)); Kwai Fun Wong v. United States, 373 F.3d 952, 973 (9th Cir. 2004) (explaining that “the entry fiction is best seen . . .as a fairly narrow doctrine that primarily determines the procedures that the executive branch must follow before turning an immigrant away” because “[o]therwise, the doctrine would allow any number of abuses to be deemed constitutionally permissible merely by labelling certain ‘persons’ as non-persons”). We thus conclude that the district court did not err in holding that plaintiffs are “persons” protected by the Due Process Clause.
*******************************
First, and foremost, let’s give a big vote of appreciation to the All-Star Team at Wilmer Cutler who represented our Round Table on this:
Alan Schoenfeld and Lori A. Martin, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, New York, New York; Rebecca Arriaga Herche, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Washington, D.C.; Jamil Aslam, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Los Angeles, California; for Amici Curiae Retired Immigration Judges and Board of Immigration Appeals Members.
Alan Schoenfeld Partner Wilmer Cutler, NYLori A. Martin Partner Wilmer Cutler, NYKnightess of the Round Table
This team is it’s own “Special Forces Brigade” of the New Due Process Army (“NDPA”)!
WOW! Persons are “persons” under the Constitution even when they have brown skins and are asylum seekers! How “rad” can you get!What a blow to “business as usual” for the regime and their “Dred Scottification” program of dehumanizing and making non-persons out of migrants and other vulnerable minorities!
Too bad that the Supremes and other Circuit Courts have too often advanced “Dred Scottification,” hiding behind transparently bogus and contrived “national emergencies” and the doctrine of judicial dereliction of duty otherwise known as “Chevron deference.” I guess that’s why the regime has the contempt for both the law and the Article III Courts to press such legally, morally, and Constitutionally “bankrupt” arguments as they did in this case. Never know when you’ll get a “thumbs up” from those who sometimes don’t view oaths of office and their obligations to their fellow humans with enough seriousness!
Significantly, the panel found that “plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their claim that they are constitutionally entitled to individualized bond hearings before a “neutral decisionmaker.” However, in doing so they “papered over” the obvious fact that the constitutional requirement of a “neutral decisionmaker” cannot be fulfilled as long as Billy Barr or other politicos control the Immigration Courts!
Indeed, the panel decision was a strong rebuke of Barr’s atrocious, unethical, scofflaw decision in Matter of M-S-, 27 I&N Dec. 509 (A.G. 2019) purporting to unilaterally change the rules to eliminate bond for those who had passed “credible fear.” Fact is that no individual appearing in today’s Immigration Courts has access to the constitutionally-required “neutral decisionmaker” because Barr retains the ability to simply unilaterally change any result that doesn’t match his White Nationalist nativist agenda and can hire and fire the so-called “judges” at will.
Indeed, under Barr’s totally illegal and professionally insulting “production quotas,” I’m not sure that the “judges” on the “deportation assembly line” even get “production credit” for bond decisions because they aren’t “final orders of removal.” However, denial of bond is actually an important “whistle stop” on the “deportation express.” Those kept in the “New American Gulag” have difficulty finding attorneys and the systematic mistreatment they receive in detention helps to demoralize them and coerce them into giving up claims or waiving appeals.
When are the Article IIIs finally going to stop “beating around the bush” and hold this whole mess to be unconstitutional, as it most clearly is?
In some ways, the panel’s decision reminds me of one of my own long-ago concurring/dissenting opinion in Matter of Joseph, 22 I&N Dec. 799, 810 (BIA 1999) (en banc) (“Joseph II”):
However, I do not share the majority’s view that the proper standard in a mandatory detention case involving a lawful permanent resident alien is that the Service is “substantially unlikely to prevail” on its charge. Matter of Joseph, 22 I&N Dec. 3398, at 10 (BIA 1999). Rather, the standard in a case such as the one before us should be whether the Service has demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of its charge that the respondent is removable because of an aggravated felony.
Mandatory detention of a lawful permanent resident alien is a drastic step that implicates constitutionally-protected liberty interests. Where the lawful permanent resident respondent has made a colorable showing in custody proceedings that he or she is not subject to mandatory detention, the Service should be required to show a likelihood of success on the merits of its charge to continue mandatory detention. To enable the Immigration Judge to make the necessary independent determination in such a case, the Service should provide evidence of the applicable state or federal law under which the respondent was convicted and whatever proof of conviction that is available at the time of the Immigration Judge’s inquiry.
The majority’s enunciated standard of “substantially unlikely to pre-vail” is inappropriately deferential to the Service, the prosecutor in this matter. Requiring the Service to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits of its charge would not unduly burden the Service and would give more appropriate weight to the liberty interests of the lawful permanent res- ident alien. Such a standard also would provide more “genuine life to the regulation that allows for an Immigration Judge’s reexamination of this issue,” as referenced by the majority. Matter of Joseph, supra, at 10.
The Service’s failure to establish a likelihood of success on the merits would not result in the release of a lawful permanent resident who poses a threat to society. Continued custody of such an alien would still be war- ranted under the discretionary criteria for detention.
In conclusion, mandatory detention should not be authorized where the Service has failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits of its charge. Consequently, while I am in complete agreement with the decision to release this lawful permanent resident alien, and I agree fully that the Service is substantially unlikely to prevail on the merits of this aggravated felony charge, I respectfully dissent from the majority’s enunciation of “substantially unlikely to prevail” as the standard to be applied in all future cases involving mandatory detention of lawful permanent resident aliens.
Concern for Due Process and fundamental fairness have intentionally been eradicated in the Immigration “Courts” by Sessions,Whitaker, and Barr. It’s past time for this constitutional mockery to be put out of its misery (and the unending misery it causes for the humans coming before it) once and for all!
As my late BIA colleague Judge Fred W. Vacca once said, albeit in a different context, “It’s time to put an end to this pathetic imitation of an adjudication.” Fred and I didn’t always agree. In fact, we disagreed much of the time. But, he did know when it was finally time to “stop the nonsense,” even when some of our colleagues just kept the system churning long past the point of reason and sanity.
And, folks, that was back in the days when the BIA actually functioned more or less like an “independent appellate court” until the Ashcroft purge of ’03 forever ended that noble vision. Like the rest of the system and those who enable it to keep churning lives as if they were mere water under the bridge, the BIA and the rest of the Immigration “Courts” have now become a national disgrace — a blot on our national conscience. Human beings seeking justice are neither “numbers” to be achieved for “satisfactory ratings,” nor “enforcement problems” to be exterminated without Due Process.
Dehumanization of the “other”and stripping them of legal and human rights is a key part of fascism. It’s what allowed German judges and most of German society to “look the other way” or actively aid in the holocaust. It has no place in our justice system — now or ever!
Due Process Forever! Judicial Complicity in Weaponized Captive “Courts,” That Aren’t Courts At All, Never!
WASHINGTON, DC — The American Immigration Council (Council) and the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) filed a lawsuit Tuesday in federal court to compel the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) Office of Information Policy (OIP) to release records about the Executive Office for Immigration Review’s (EOIR) hiring procedures for appellate immigration judges and Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) Members. The lawsuit seeks to understand current hiring procedures for the BIA—the highest administrative body for interpreting and applying immigration laws—after reports came to light of anti-immigrant bias in the hiring process.
The DOJ—which oversees immigration courts, houses the BIA, and employs immigration judges—has failed to disclose critical information about the hiring policy of appellate immigration judges and BIA Members, who make precedential decisions in the immigration adjudicatory system.
Advocates and policymakers have become concerned that DOJ’s hiring practices for appellate immigration judges and Board Members are improperly influenced by the Trump administration’s anti-immigrant policies. Biased hiring practices for these judges are a concern for the public because these judges can set legal precedent that has the potential to negatively impact thousands of immigrants seeking protection and/or a path to lawful status in the United States.
The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, challenges DOJ’s failure to disclose information in response to a Freedom of Information Act request submitted in October 2019.
“The fairness of the immigration court system depends on the impartiality of judges who are responsible for deciding thousands of cases each year. If appellate judges are not neutral decision-makers, the integrity of our immigration system is compromised,” said Claudia Valenzuela, FOIA senior attorney at the American Immigration Council. “The lack of transparency in this hiring process only serves to undermine public confidence in this system.”
“It’s imperative that the public, policymakers, and stakeholders be provided with the opportunity to review the thus far opaque hiring process at the BIA. Allegations of politicized hiring give rise to the notion that BIA decisions serve the political purposes of the attorney general, rather than adhere to prior case law,” said Laura Lynch, senior policy counsel at the American Immigration Lawyers Association.
The American Immigration Council works to strengthen America by shaping how America thinks about and acts towards immigrants and immigration and by working toward a more fair and just immigration system that opens its doors to those in need of protection and unleashes the energy and skills that immigrants bring. The Council brings together problem solvers and employs four coordinated approaches to advance change—litigation, research, legislative and administrative advocacy, and communications. Follow the latest Council news and information on ImmigrationImpact.com and Twitter @immcouncil.
The American Immigration Lawyers Association is the national association of immigration lawyers established to promote justice, advocate for fair and reasonable immigration law and policy, advance the quality of immigration and nationality law and practice, and enhance the professional development of its members. Follow AILA on Twitter@AILANational.
Cite as AILA Doc. No. 20031937.
Laura A. Lynch, Esq.
Senior Policy Counsel
***************************
The whole idea that a White Nationalist prosecutor and political toady like Billy Barr gets to hire the “judges” for a so-called “appellate tribunal” is as absurd and illogical as it is clearly unconstitutional. The perversion of our humanity and our legal institutions that has allowed this to operate in plain view as if it were “normal” should be a subject for reflection and study. That the Supremes andCongress both took a “dive” on this is beyond question. How they got away with it and continue to do so without any accountability is another story. Hopefully, at some point it will be told in full.
In particular, the anti-asylum bias of the regime has been aggravated by a large dose of anti-Latino racism and misogyny that both Congress and the Article III Courts have enabled and, in the case of the Supremes actively encouraged by rewarding the clearly disingenuous and misleading arguments of Solicitor General Noel Francisco on fabricated “emergencies” and bogus rationales for transparently invidious and irrational actions.
DUE PROCESS FOREVER! CLOWN COURTS 🤡🤡 AND THEIR COMPLICIT ENABLERS, NEVER!
By César Cuauhtémoc García Hernández and Carlos Moctezuma García in The NY Times:
Inside an immigration court in southern Texas this week, a judge asked one of us to stand at the far end of the courtroom and not submit any documents on behalf of a client, perhaps as a health precaution. Inside a nearby federal court, dozens of migrants were being processed for violating federal immigration law. The coronavirus has paused most of our lives. But for migrants, life under a pandemic looks a lot like life before it: suffering because President Trump has an insatiable appetite for imprisoning migrants.
It’s time to shut down immigration prisons.
Across the country, the federal government locks up tens of thousands of people every day who are suspected of violating immigration law. The Border Patrol crams people into holding cells that resemble large kennels. Immigration and Customs Enforcement runs a network of hundreds of prisons — from a county jail north of Boston to an 1,100-bed facility tucked in a southern Texas wildlife refuge. While it’s good that ICE will stop some immigration enforcement, it should release the detainees in its custody. Another government agency, the Marshals Service, holds thousands more who are being prosecuted for violating criminal immigration law.
No matter which agency is in charge, there are only two reasons recognized under U.S. law to confine these people: flight risk or dangerousness. But in this moment, the risks to life and public health that come with imprisoning migrants far outweigh either reason.
Image
A protest against migrant detention centers in Los Angeles last year.
Credit…
Ronen Tivony/SOPA Images — LightRocket, via Getty Images
Decades of research teaches us that crime goes down as the migrant population goes up. On top of that, pilot projects going back decades show that with the right support, migrants almost always do as they are asked. Inside immigration prisons, there are children too young even to tie their shoelaces. Families of asylum seekers hold on to the hope that in the United States, they might find refuge. There are longtime permanent residents with families, careers and homes here. Few have any history of violence. Most have powerful incentives to build lives just as ordinary as the rest of ours.
More than 3,000 medical professionals are calling on Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to release detainees amid the coronavirus pandemic.
In an open letter, the clinicians said the conditions inside detention facilities make it easy for the virus to spread and difficult for those in custody to seek medical attention.
“We strongly recommend that ICE implement community-based alternatives to detention to alleviate the mass overcrowding in detention facilities,” they said. “Individuals and families, particularly the most vulnerable—the elderly, pregnant women, people with serious mental illness, and those at higher risk of complications— should be released while their legal cases are being processed to avoid preventable deaths and mitigate the harm from a COVID-19 outbreak.”
The letter points to the spread of disease public health officials have seen in places like nursing homes, such as Life Care Center in Kirkland, Wash., where more than half of residents have tested positive for the virus and more than 20 percent have died in the past month.
“Considering the extreme risk presented by these conditions in light of the global COVID-19 epidemic, it is impossible to ensure that detainees will be in a ‘safe, secure and humane environment,’ as ICE’s own National Detention Standards state,” the letter added.
Since the start of the outbreak, some have raised concerns about immigration policies.
In February, Rep. Norma Torres (D-Calif.) wrote a letter to the administration’s coronavirus task force and later led a group of Democrats asking them to stop the implementation of the “public charge” rule amid the spread of COVID-19.
On Monday the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed a lawsuit against ICE, calling them to release migrants in civil detention at the Tacoma Northwest Detention Center who are at high risk for serious illness or death if a COVID-19 outbreak spreads to the facility.
. . . .
*******************
Read both of the foregoing articles in their entirety at the respective links.
OK, here’s my prediction:DHS will hold migrants until coronavirus breaks out “big time” in the Gulag and folks start getting sick and dying. At that point, DHS will dump them on the streets to fend for themselves. DHS will disclaim any responsibility, blaming the deaths and public health risks on the victims, their attorneys, judges, asylum laws, “sanctuary cities,” Democrats, and countries that decline to accept deportees.
Politically biased, anti-asylum decision making by “judges” who work for the regime actually kills!
And, we should never forget that the Gulag, the BIA, and many other aspects of this politically biased, irrational, unconstitutional system that threatens human lives and debases humanity only continue to operate because of the fecklessness of Congress and the complicity of Article III Courts.
Due Process Forever! The New American Gulag Never!
PWS
03-19-20
UPDATE: FROM IMMPROF: U.S. Court in Seattle stuffs ACLU’s bid to spring vulnerable migrants from Gulag!
Let’s see. We know conditions are bad in DHS facilities, and 3,000 health professionals say that the Gulag is a “coronavirus trap” waiting to happen. Many localities are releasing nonviolent criminals as a prudent measure to prevent the spread of disease.
But, the judge thinks it’s a great idea to wait and see if the disaster happens and the bodies stack up. By then, of course, it will be too late to stop the spread. But, I guess the judge is very confident that ICE practices “social distancing” and carefully wipes everything down in their Gulags. What could possibly go wrong?
As an incidental point, how would you like to be on the staff of one these high-risk prisons?
Gotta hope the judge is right for everyone’s sake. But, I greatly fear he’s wrong. Dead wrong!
PWS
03-20-20
UPDATE:
From: Matt Adams, Northwest Immigrant Rights Project [mailto:matt@nwirp.org] Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2020 5:10 PM To: Dan Kowalski Subject: NWIRP and ACLU Statement on Court Refusal to Release People at High-Risk of COVID-19
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
NWIRP and ACLU Statement on Court Refusal to Release People at High-Risk of COVID-19
SEATTLE, WA — A federal district court ruled today that it will not immediately release immigrants detained at the Tacoma Northwest Detention Center in Tacoma, Washington, as requested in a lawsuit filed Monday against U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The suit — filed by Northwest Immigrant Rights Project (NWIRP), the American Civil Liberties Union, and the ACLU of Washington — sought the release of people in civil detention who are at high risk for serious illness or death in the event of COVID-19 infection due to their age and / or underlying medical conditions. The court indicated that it would continue to consider the case, particularly as the situation related to COVID-19 rapidly evolves.
Public health experts have repeatedly warned that release of vulnerable people from custody is critical in light of the lack of a vaccine, treatment, or cure for COVID-19 — both for the health and safety of people in detention, as well as for the staff who work at these facilities and the communities they return home to every day. As the healthcare system in the Seattle-area is increasingly overwhelmed with COVID-19 cases, this step is urgent to reducing the toll on its infrastructure.
Matt Adams, legal director for NWIRP, issued the following statement:
“We strongly disagree with ICE’s assertion that the harm is not imminent simply because ICE has not yet publicly confirmed any cases of COVID 19 at the NWDC,” said Matt Adams. “We will continue pushing forward to challenge the detention of our vulnerable clients during this pandemic. I just hope our clients do not succumb to severe illness or death before we can procure their release.”
Eunice Cho, senior staff attorney at the ACLU’s National Prison Project, issued the following statement:
“We will continue to fight for our clients, who face tremendous danger to their health while in detention. Public health officials are in agreement — it is not a matter of if there is a COVID-19 outbreak in immigrant detention centers, but when. ICE should heed their warning. By refusing to immediately release our clients, ICE is jeopardizing their lives and the lives of its staff and their families.”
Northwest Immigrant Rights Project (NWIRP) is a nationally-recognized legal services organization founded in 1984. Each year, NWIRP provides direct legal assistance in immigration matters to over 10,000 low-income people from over 130 countries, speaking over 60 languages and dialects. NWIRP also strives to achieve systemic change to policies and practices affecting immigrants through impact litigation, public policy work, and community education. Visit their website at www.nwirp.org and follow them on Twitter @nwirp.
Before Trump, Arlington was a “model court” where Immigration Judges, with the help of the ICE Chief Counsel and the private bar, developed “best practices” and asylum seekers got a fair shake. In just a few short years under the Trump regime, it has moved steadily in the other direction toward the type of “denial factory” that the Trump regime wants to be the model for all Immigration Courts. Of course, Arlington isn’t close to the 100% denial rate that the regime wants and that is close to realization in some other courts. But, the deterioration of due process and fairness in Arlington is still disheartening.
We should always remember that the unconstitutional “weaponization” of the Immigration Courts is continuing to happen right under the noses of a feckless Congress and Article III Judges who should long ago have ended this abomination. Everyone responsible for this life-threatening mess will have much to answer for in the “Court of History.”
In the meantime, congratulations and appreciationto those judges who keep interpreting and applying asylum law in the generous way dictated by Cardoza-Fonsecaand Mogharrabi. You are heroes in an age that where all too many show cowardice and a willingness to “go along too get along” in the face of great tyranny!
Due Process Forever! Judges Who Won’t Stand Up For Asylum Seekers, Never!
Anger builds over virus dangers in immigration courts
After protests, Trump administration makes late-night move to scale back deportation hearings
Prior to the curtailment announced Tuesday night, a spokeswoman for the DOJ unit said: “EOIR continues to evaluate the information available from public health officials to inform the decisions regarding the operational status of each immigration court. “
However, individual scheduled hearings were not covered by the Sunday announcement nor were those for those in detention. “All other hearings proceeding,” the twitter message that night said.
One immigration judge dismissed the limitation announced Sunday as a “drop in the bucket.”
Immigration court participants complained that they were being notified by late-night Twitter posts rather than a more detailed public announcement of how the risks and benefits were being weighed.
“The immigration courts need to close. Period,” said Jeremy McKinney of the American Immigration Lawyers Association. “Most of these hearings can wait in order to put the safety of the public first….Close the courts for a few weeks until screening and proper testing can be done.”
Closing the immigration courts altogether would create thorny issues, particularly for immigrants who are being held in custody. Such a move would likely trigger legal challenges on due process grounds.
However, immigration lawyers said there are workarounds for many of the issues, including handling bond hearings via written filings and conducting hearings by video or teleconference. Video conferencing is already used to beam detainees into hearings in many courts.
Morning Shift
Get the latest on employment and immigration, every weekday morning — in your inbox.
Still, some of the steps being promoted by lawyers for immigrants could be viewed as undermining aspects of the Trump administration’s aggressive enforcement policies.
Immigrant advocates are urging the administration to “parole” into the U.S. asylum applicants sent back to Mexico under the remain-in-Mexico policy. That would be similar to the prior policy that administration officials derided as “catch and release.”
Several court participants said they found it ironic that immigration courts were largely shuttered during a government shutdown last year when their personnel were deemed non-essential, but the same personnel were told this week they are essential and must report to work despite officials at all levels of government urging Americans to remain home if at all possible.
“What is outrageous is that our non-detained courts were shut down for the government furlough, for political reasons,” said Dana Leigh Marks, a San Francisco immigration judge and former president of the judges’ union. “Yet, here we have a health emergency and no action.”
************************************
Gee, it’s not like there aren’t thousands and thousands of us out here who have been pointing out for years the outrageous unconstitutionality and threat to our country presented by these “captive courts” under the Trump regime! It’s also not that they haven’t already killed folks: certainly their politicized misapplication of asylum and other protection laws have done just that! But, do we really have to have them mindlessly spreading an epidemic to have folks take notice!
We need regime change in November! We also need a re-examination of the composition of our Article III Judiciary, specifically on the Supremes and Courts of Appeals, to determine why so few Federal Appellate Judges have had the guts and integrity to stand up for the Constitution, the rule of law, and human decency in the time of crisis and in the face of patent Executive incompetence and tyranny. The “institutional failures” go well beyond the continuing farce in the Immigration Courts and the inexcusable failure of the regime to be better prepared for crisis.
The Immigration Judge properly determined that the respondent was a flight risk and denied his request for a custody redetermination where, although he had a pending application for asylum, he had no family, employment, or community ties and no probable path to obtain lawful status so as to warrant his release on bond.
OPINION BY:Acting Chairman Judge Garry D. Malphrus
*****************************
In a real court, with fair and impartial judges who follow the law and respect facts, this should have been a “no-brainer.”
The Government’s own statistics show that represented asylum applicants released on bond show up for hearings nearly 100% of the time, regardless of “likely outcome.”https://immigrationcourtside.com/?s=Asylum+Seekers+Appear. The respondent is a represented asylum seeker from Honduras without any criminal record or record of failures to appear. He passed the “credible fear” process. He has friend with whom he can live in the U.S. while pursuing his case. He comes from a country, Honduras, with known horrible conditions that even in this time of intentionally biased administrative anti-asylum “law” produces more than 1,000 asylum grants in Immigration Court annually, according to FY 2019 statistics from EOIR.
His case apparently is based on his status as a gay man in Honduras.According to the U.S. State Department’s 2019 Country Report, this claim has a very good chance of succeeding:
Nevertheless, social discrimination against LGBTI persons persisted, as did physical violence. Local media and LGBTI human rights NGOs reported an increase in the number of killings of LGBTI persons during the year. Impunity for such crimes was a problem, as was the impunity rate for all types of crime. According to the Violence Observatory, of the 317 cases since 2009 of hate crimes and violence against members of the LGBTI population, 92 percent had gone unpunished.
Clearly, he should have been released on a minimal bond, particularly given the potentially health-threatening conditions in DHS detention during the pandemic.
Thus, the BIA’s “no bond” decision in this case was an outrageous misconstruction of the commonly known facts as well as a misapplication of basic bond law. In other words, an “abuse of discretion.” At some point after the justice system resumes functioning, Ihope that a “real” Federal court will “stick it to” this disgracefully disingenuous performance by this BIA panel.
We need “regime change” and an Article I U.S. Immigration Court staffed with fair and impartial judges at all levels, with “real life” expertise, who actually understand and will fairly apply asylum laws.
Due Process Forever! Patently Unfair And Biased Immigration “Courts” Never!
Dahlia Lithwick Legal Reporter SlateHonorable James Dannenberg Retired State Judge Hawaii
Dahlia Lithwick reports for Slate:
James Dannenberg is a retired Hawaii state judge. He sat on the District Court of the 1st Circuit of the state judiciary for 27 years. Before that, he served as the deputy attorney general of Hawaii. He was also an adjunct professor at the University of Hawaii Richardson School of Law, teaching federal jurisdiction for more than a decade. He has appeared on briefs and petitions as part of the most prestigious association of attorneys in the country: the Supreme Court Bar. The lawyers admitted to practice before the high court enjoy preferred seating at arguments and access to the court library, and are deemed members of the legal elite. Above all, the bar stands as a sprawling national signifier that the work of the court, the legitimacy of the institution, and the business of justice is bolstered by tens of thousands of lawyers across the nation.
On Wednesday, Dannenberg tendered a letter of resignation from the Supreme Court Bar to Chief Justice John Roberts. He has been a member of that bar since 1972. In his letter, reprinted in full below, Dannenberg compares the current Supreme Court, with its boundless solicitude for the rights of the wealthy, the privileged, and the comfortable, to the court that ushered in the Lochner era in the early 20th century, a period of profound judicial activism that put a heavy thumb on the scale for big business, banking, and insurance interests, and ruled consistently against child labor, fair wages, and labor regulations.
The Chief Justice of the United States
One First Street, N.E.
Washington, D.C. 20543
March 11, 2020
Dear Chief Justice Roberts:
I hereby resign my membership in the Supreme Court Bar.
This was not an easy decision. I have been a member of the Supreme Court Bar since 1972, far longer than you have, and appeared before the Court, both in person and on briefs, on several occasions as Deputy and First Deputy Attorney General of Hawaii before being appointed as a Hawaii District Court judge in 1986. I have a high regard for the work of the Federal Judiciary and taught the Federal Courts course at the University of Hawaii Richardson School of Law for a decade in the 1980s and 1990s. This due regard spanned the tenures of Chief Justices Warren, Burger, and Rehnquist before your appointment and confirmation in 2005. I have not always agreed with the Court’s decisions, but until recently I have generally seen them as products of mainstream legal reasoning, whether liberal or conservative. The legal conservatism I have respected– that of, for example, Justice Lewis Powell, Alexander Bickel or Paul Bator– at a minimum enshrined the idea of stare decisis and eschewed the idea of radical change in legal doctrine for political ends.
I can no longer say that with any confidence. You are doing far more— and far worse– than “calling balls and strikes.” You are allowing the Court to become an “errand boy” for an administration that has little respect for the rule of law.
The Court, under your leadership and with your votes, has wantonly flouted established precedent. Your “conservative” majority has cynically undermined basic freedoms by hypocritically weaponizing others. The ideas of free speech and religious liberty have been transmogrified to allow officially sanctioned bigotry and discrimination, as well as to elevate the grossest forms of political bribery beyond the ability of the federal government or states to rationally regulate it. More than a score of decisions during your tenure have overturned established precedents—some more than forty years old– and you voted with the majority in most. There is nothing “conservative” about this trend. This is radical “legal activism” at its worst.
Without trying to write a law review article, I believe that the Court majority, under your leadership, has become little more than a result-oriented extension of the right wing of the Republican Party, as vetted by the Federalist Society. Yes, politics has always been a factor in the Court’s history, but not to today’s extent. Even routine rules of statutory construction get subverted or ignored to achieve transparently political goals. The rationales of “textualism” and “originalism” are mere fig leaves masking right wing political goals; sheer casuistry.
Your public pronouncements suggest that you seem concerned about the legitimacy of the Court in today’s polarized environment. We all should be. Yet your actions, despite a few bromides about objectivity, say otherwise.
It is clear to me that your Court is willfully hurtling back to the cruel days of Lochner and even Plessy. The only constitutional freedoms ultimately recognized may soon be limited to those useful to wealthy, Republican, White, straight, Christian, and armed males— and the corporations they control. This is wrong. Period. This is not America.
I predict that your legacy will ultimately be as diminished as that of Chief Justice Melville Fuller, who presided over both Plessy and Lochner. It still could become that of his revered fellow Justice John Harlan the elder, an honest conservative, but I doubt that it will. Feel free to prove me wrong.
The Supreme Court of the United States is respected when it wields authority and not mere power. As has often been said, you are infallible because you are final, but not the other way around.
I no longer have respect for you or your majority, and I have little hope for change. I can’t vote you out of office because you have life tenure, but I can withdraw whatever insignificant support my Bar membership might seem to provide.
Please remove my name from the rolls.
With deepest regret,
James Dannenberg
**********
So true. I’d also compare JR’s subservience to a transparently racist, White Nationalist, authoritarian agenda to White Supremacist darling Chief Justice Roger Taney, author of the Dred Scott decision. Roberts is knowingly enabling the “Dred Scottifing” of Hispanics, African Americans, Muslims, political opponents, the LGBTQ community, journalists, minority voters, and a host of others on the authoritarian regime’s “enemies” list.
At a time when America needs a Chief Justice with the courage and integrity to stand up for our Constitution, the rule of law, and the lives of the most vulnerable among us, we instead get Roberts.
J.R. Is quick to stand up for the rights of corporations, guns, and the Executive. But, when it comes to the rights of individuals — things like due process, human rights, and the right to be treated with human dignity, he’s nowhere to be found.
Only Justice Sotomayor had the guts and intellectual integrity to stand up for the future of humanity, simple human decency, and the rule of law by voting to deny the regime’s fraudulent stay request. Typically, Roberts & Co. didn’t even have the decency and intellectual honesty to provide a rationale for their life-threatening action. A reasoned decision is one of the “minimal requirements for due process” that Roberts and the Supremes’ majority ignore on a regular basis when rolling over for Trump toady Solicitor General Noel Francisco and his transparently fabricated “emergencies.” Francisco is another one whose disingenuous role and disregard for legal ethics in carrying out Trump’s wanton cruelty and human rights abuses should never be forgotten.
The damage caused by Roberts’s failure to lead and protect humanity isn’t legalistic or academic. It’s “real harm” to “real people.”
Let’s get “up close and personal” with what happens to individuals who fled to our country seeking only due process and fair and humane treatment, just to find Roberts’s and his Supremes’ immorality and warped sense of justice.
Here’s what Roberts’s complicity looks like:
The burns from the acid attack Elizabeth endured while she was kidnapped.The acid burned all the way through to the bone in Elizabeth’s left ankle. Courtesy of Elizabeth.Courtesy of Elizabeth Elizabeth’s acid burns.
That’s right folks. Torture, proudly presented to you by Chief Justice John Roberts and the majority of the United States Supreme Court. Who would have thought it could happen here? Like Judge Dannenberg, I spent a lifetime respecting the Supreme Court and even defending their decisions, including ones with which I disagreed. That has ended with the corruption, dishonesty, and inhumanity of the Roberts Court in the Age of Trump. Unworthy of America. Unworthy by of respect.
And here’s some narrative to go with it from Adolfo Flores over at BuzzFeed News:
Elizabeth left her home in Guatemala after being brutally beaten by the father of her daughter. She went to the police who refused to help her despite filing a complaint against him. The beatings in front of her daughter continued. Fearing that one day soon he’d kill her, Elizabeth left with her daughter.
“There’s a reason why there are so many femicides,” Elizabeth said.
The pair arrived near Ciudad Juárez in late July. She got off a bus she took with her daughter that was supposed to take them to Ciudad Juárez and got into what she believed was an Uber. She asked the driver to take her to the bridge that connects the city to El Paso. But as the city lights started to fade and the streets turned to desert and cliffs, Elizabeth realized the driver was taking her away from the city.
For about 12 days she was kept inside a dirty home, occasionally fed old food, and assaulted. Different men touched her genital area and licked her breasts in front of her daughter, according to documents provided by her attorneys. She wasn’t raped, but later had brownish discharge from her vagina she believes was the result of the men hurting her with an object or fingers.
Her attorneys said they believe the men were in the cartel, but don’t know for sure. They threatened to rape her and her daughter if she didn’t provide them with a number to call family for ransom. After days of holding her for ransom that her family couldn’t pay, the men threw chemical acid on her legs that resulted in second-degree burns. Despite closing her eyes and covering her ears, her then-10-year-old daughter could hear her mother’s screams, later telling Elizabeth she would never forget the sound of them.
At one point their kidnappers went outside and her daughter realized they left the door open. Elizabeth was too weak and in too much pain from the acid burns, but her daughter persisted.
“‘I don’t want them to kill us, torture us, or do something worse,'” Elizabeth recalled her daughter saying. “‘I can’t take this anymore, I feel like I’m going to die from sadness.'”
The pair ran from the house and were eventually chased by their kidnappers, armed with large black weapons, Elizabeth said. She fainted from the pain and heat, so her daughter ran ahead and flagged down police officers who called for help. A helicopter arrived shortly after to pick up Elizabeth.
Elizabeth woke up in a hospital and was discharged after seven days despite her left ankle still bleeding and with the bone exposed. Elizabeth said the hospital was overcrowded and didn’t have enough space, but believes she was discharged quickly because she was an immigrant and not a priority for the hospital’s staff.
She was taken to a shelter that was later closed due to bad conditions. At a second shelter, the director and staff helped cure her ankle — which smelled and cause her to fear she would get gangrene — with medication and topical creams because Elizabeth was too scared to venture outside.
In November, Elizabeth had recovered enough to walk, so she went with her daughter to the Arizona border and presented herself to CBP officers to request asylum. She told them about her attack and was taken to a hospital in Tucson to be medically screened. The doctor prescribed her medication to avoid infection. Then CBP sent her back to Ciudad Juárez.
On Jan. 31, Palazzo and other attorneys walked with her to a border crossing and asked that she be allowed to fight her case in the US. She was interviewed on the phone by the asylum officer who later said she failed.
While Elizabeth was in Ciudad Juárez, the shelter operators asked her if she could watch the door while they ran an errand. A shootout occurred shortly after between criminals and police near the shelter. Men who were running from the police ran up to the shelter’s doors and told Elizabeth to let them in. She faced them and refused, but they threatened to come back for revenge before running off.
Last week, a day before Elizabeth was due at a court hearing in El Paso, she was in the streets of Ciudad Juárez when one of her kidnappers approached her and recognized her. Filled with dread, Elizabeth and her daughter quickly made their way to the shelter to hide. Her fear then was that the men would come looking for her there.
The next day, on Friday, she went to her immigration court hearing in El Paso. She joined other immigrants in MPP who present themselves at the border in the predawn hours of the day to be transported to immigration court. Her plan was to ask for another non-refoulement interview, but that same morning, a federal appeals court blocked the Trump administration policy.
For the entire day, attorneys, immigrants, and advocates tried to understand what the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals’ order affirming a 2019 preliminary injunction meant for people stuck in Mexico, but also what would happen to those who had court hearings in the US that day, like Elizabeth. Sending them back would surely violate the judges’ order, some immigration attorneys said.
By Friday night, the 9th Circuit stayed its initial order blocking the Trump administration from enforcing MPP and the policy was allowed to continue. Still, Elizabeth and her daughter remained in CBP custody, and attorneys weren’t sure authorities were going to release her into the US.
She was interviewed three times about her fears of being sent back to Mexico. Her daughter told a US asylum officer about the nightmares she has, how she can’t sleep, and that she had trouble eating. Eventually, Elizabeth was told she passed her interview, was released Monday with an ankle monitor, and sent to reunite with family in Kansas.
Elizabeth was worried about the costs of continuing to receive medical care in the US for her acid burns, but she is determined to start a new chapter in her life.
“I’ve suffered a lot,” she said, “but for the first time in a long time, I feel safe.”
UPDATE
March 7, 2020, at 12:54 a.m.
This post was updated to include the more than 1,000 public reports of rape, torture, kidnapping, and other violence against immigrants sent back to Mexico.
There are lots of Elizabeths out there who have been silenced, some forever, by the likes of Roberts and other “unjust judges.” But, eventually, their stories will be told in all their grim and horrifying detail. At that point, folks like Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, and their enablers will attempt to “rewrite history,” to eschew moral and legal responsibility and shift the blame elsewhere with the “usual BS” like “just following the law,” “calling balls and strikes,” “just following orders.” Those are largely the same pathetic excuses offered by those who advanced the cause of human slavery, created Jim Crow, enabled genocide against Native Americans, and helped Hitler.
One of the most important tasks of the younger generation of the New Due Process Army is to bear witness and insure that J.R. & Co. don’t “get away with murder,” literally. Their job is to insure that the stories of those wronged by enablers of the Trump regime are heard loudly and clearly; to confront the complicit with the judgements of history; to insure that the descendantsof those who “stood small” and failed humanity know who their ancestors “really were” when the chips were down; and to make sure that history never again repeats itself in the form of John Roberts or anyone like him being allowed to hold positions of great trust and public responsibility in our judiciary.
Take a good like at the pictures above of Elizabeth’s legs and ankles. Those aren’t the results of somebody legitimately “just calling balls and strikes.” Roberts has “struck out.” Unfortunately, however, the rules allow him to continue to play the game to the detriment of our nation and human decency and the continued torment of those to whom he has willfully and inexcusably denied justice.
Due Process Forever; The Complicity of John Roberts, Never!
