“APPELLATE LITIGATION IN TODAY’S BROKEN AND BIASED IMMIGRATION COURT SYSTEM: FOUR STEPS TO A WINNING COUNTERATTACK BY THE RELENTLESS ‘NEW DUE PROCESS ARMY’” – Page 3

⚖️🗽 NDPA ALERT‼️ — Attend The EOIR Stakeholder Meeting For Law School Clinics, Thursday, September 21 @ 2 PM EDT — Free Registration Here!

From EOIR:

EOIR to Host National Stakeholder Meeting for Law School Immigration Clinics

SUMMARY: The Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) invites faculty, staff, and students from law school immigration clinics to attend a national stakeholder meeting focused on pro bono advocacy.

EOIR continues to build upon the guidance in EOIR Director Memorandum 22-01, Encouraging and Facilitating Pro Bono Legal Services, and welcomes the public’s input in evaluating our efforts to increase representation in immigration court proceedings. During the meeting, agency leadership will summarize feedback received during its April series of listening sessions, discuss steps EOIR has taken since those meetings, and share ideas for future initiatives as we collaborate to strengthen pro bono representation in immigration courts.

Following that discussion, agency leadership will welcome stakeholder input regarding ways to increase pro bono representation for Dedicated Dockets.

DATE: TIME: LOCATION:

Sept. 21, 2023

2 p.m. – 3 p.m. Eastern Time

Live via Webex – Meeting Registration

All media inquiries should be directed to the Communications and Legislative Affairs Division at pao.eoir@usdoj.gov.

— EOIR —

Here’s the registration link:

https://eoir.webex.com/weblink/register/rde8d6afe67dcef358a29e879af341b65

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

We all know that EOIR is struggling. Unrepresented and under-represented individuals are basically “cannon fodder” for a hopelessly backlogged system where due process, fundamental fairness, and meticulous scholarship are too often afterthoughts, at best.

Insuring that individuals facing this dysfunctional system are well-represented is key to both saving lives and holding EOIR accountable. It also supports those judges at both levels who are fighting to restore due process, fundamental fairness, decisional excellence, and best practices to EOIR.

EOIR is widely known for its lack of transparency. Every nugget of information about the Immigration Court system’s practices, policies, objectives, and operating plans is therefore precious.

Also, giving EOIR honest feedback about some of the “real life” roadblocks and unnecessary challenges (like, for example, endemic Aimless Docket Reshuffling, arbitrary expedited dockets, and courts located inside prisons and other obscure, largely inaccessible, locations) is a critical chance to push back against mindless bureaucracy and suggest effective, practical solutions that enhance, rather than impede, due process.

Unfortunately, few of those shaping EOIR practices have recent experience actually trying to represent pro bono clients in this often “user unfriendly” and unnecessarily chaotic system. (It’s routinely described by experienced practitioners as the “Wild West of American Law.”) This is YOUR chance to learn and to inject a “dose of reality” into an agency that too often operates in a parallel universe.

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

09-19-23

🗽⚖️ BIA CONTINUES TO STRUGGLE WITH STANDARDS — Fortunately, WilmerHale (Tasha H. Bahal), Round Table 🛡️, 1st Cir. There To Straighten Things Out! — Murillo Morocho v. Garland — With Commentary From Hon. “Sir Jeffrey” Chase!

Kangaroos — “We don’t need no stinkin’ standards except how high to jump for DHS enforcement!”
https://www.flickr.com/photos/rasputin243/
Creative Commons License

Dan Kowalski reports for LexisNexis Immigration Community:

http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/22-1881P-01A.pdf

https://www.lexisnexis.com/community/insights/legal/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/ca1-on-cat-standard-of-review-murillo-morocho-v-garland

“Petitioner Darwin Murillo Morocho seeks review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming the denial of his application for deferral of removal to Ecuador under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Murillo Morocho claims that, if returned to Ecuador, it is more likely than not that he would be tortured by the Ecuadorian government itself or by private actors acting with the consent or acquiescence of public officials. Before this court, he argues that the BIA applied the wrong standard of review to the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ’s”) legal conclusions. He further claims that both the BIA and the IJ applied the incorrect legal standard in assessing whether the Ecuadorian government would more likely than not consent or acquiesce in his torture. Finally, he argues that even if the BIA and IJ applied the proper legal standards, the BIA’s decision, which adopts the IJ’s decision, is not supported by substantial evidence and that the IJ erred in not giving him the opportunity to further corroborate his testimony. We agree that the agency1 applied the incorrect legal standard to the “consent or acquiescence” prong of Murillo Morocho’s CAT claim. We therefore grant his petition for review in part, vacate the order of the BIA denying Murillo Morocho CAT relief as to Ecuador, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”

[Hats off to Tasha J. Bahal!]

Tasha J. Bahal
Counsel
WilmerHale

—

Daniel M. Kowalski

Editor-in-Chief

Bender’s Immigration Bulletin (LexisNexis)

cell/text/Signal (512) 826-0323

@dkbib on Twitter

dan@cenizo.com

Free Daily Blog: www.bibdaily.com

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

Many congrats to Tasha and the rest of rest of the wonderful pro bono team over at WilmerHale!

Hon. Jeffrey S. Chase
Jeffrey S. Chase Blog
Coordinator & Chief Spokesperson, Round Table of Former Immigration Judges

Here’s what my Round Table colleague Hon. “Sir Jeffrey” Chase had to say:

Wonderful decision. Wilmer Hale has been doing outstanding work on deportation defense litigation.

H.H., the First Circuit’s recent precedent in which our Round Table filed an amicus brief, featured prominently in this decision.

Once again, the agency took the easy out – i.e. giving lip service to the acquiescence standard, rather than indulging in the in depth analysis required in such claims. Of course, EOIR’s training does not teach otherwise, and the BIA chooses to rubber stamp rather than correct and remand.

The First Circuit actually did the required analysis here. By contrast, it appears that as a “dismissal of a denial” by an IJ, this decision “defaulted” to the BIA’s “any reason to deny” assembly line. I suspect that if this had been a DHS appeal of an IJ grant, it would have received a more detailed, critical analysis. However, as we often see, even that analysis might be devoted to finding a bogus reason to deny.

Despite some improvement in the quality of IJ and BIA appointments under Garland, the lack of dynamic expert “pro due process” leadership and “culture of denial and deterrence” remain debilitating (and potentially life-threatening) problems at EOIR!

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

08-24-23

🇺🇸⚖️🗽🧑‍⚖️ CONGRATULATIONS TO HON. KATHERINE E. (“KATE”) CLARK, NEWLY APPOINTED APPELLATE JUDGE AT THE BIA: Practical Scholar, Legacy Arlington Immigration Court Intern Alum, Former EOIR JLC, Georgetown Law Grad, AYUDA Supervisor, Hill Staffer, Civil Servant, Judge Clark’s Broad Background Appears “Just What The Doctor Ordered” For Failing & Flailing “Supreme Court of Immigration!”😎

Hon. Katherine E. Clark — Honorable Katherine E. Clark
Appellate Immigration Judge & Board Member
U.S. Board of Immigration Appeals
PHOTO: AYUDA website

Here’s the EOIR press release:

https://www.justice.gov/eoir/page/file/1593116/download

EOIR Announces New Appellate Immigration Judge

FALLS CHURCH, VA – The Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) today announced the appointment of Katharine E. Clark as a Board Member of EOIR’s Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA).

The BIA is the highest administrative body for interpreting and applying immigration laws, having nationwide jurisdiction to hear appeals of decisions by adjudicators, including Immigration Judges.

Biographical information follows:

Katharine E. Clark, Appellate Immigration Judge

Attorney General Merrick Garland appointed Katharine E. Clark as an Appellate Immigration Judge in August 2023. Judge Clark earned a Bachelor of Arts, magna cum laude, in 2003 from Brown University and a Juris Doctorate in 2006 from Georgetown University Law Center. From 2022 to 2023, and 2007 to 2018, she served as a senior litigation counsel and trial attorney at the Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, Department of Justice. From 2019 to 2021, she was a managing attorney at Ayuda in Silver Spring, Maryland, where she also handled cases on a pro bono basis. From 2018 to 2019, she was counsel for the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee. From 2006 to 2007, she served as a Judicial Law Clerk at the Boston Immigration Court, entering on duty through the Attorney General’s Honors Program. Judge Clark is a member of the Maryland State Bar and the Pennsylvania State Bar.

— EOIR —

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

Proud to say Judge Clark is a graduate of not only Georgetown Law (where I am an Adjunct), but one of many distinguished alums of the Legacy Arlington Immigraton Court Internship Program, established by my good friend and colleague Retired U.S. Immigraton Judge Mario Christopher Grant. I later inherited the “Mentor Judge” position upon Judge Grant’s retirement. Judge Clark is the first, hopefully of many, of those we mentored to be appointed to the BIA.

I am also a member of the Advisory Board at AYUDA, where Judge Clark worked as a supervisory attorney from 2019-21.

Judge Clark’s experiences give her an exceptionally broad, varied perspective. She has seen the system from the inside, at EOIR, as an NGO advocate assisting those struggling to deal with EOIR’s dysfunction and institutional unfairness, as an OIL attorney defending EOIR’s work, and as a legislative aide attempting to address the system’s many shortcomings.

She is well positioned to help the BIA and EOIR move beyond the flawed decision-making, unrealistic guidance, and backlog-building “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” that has plagued the Immigration Court System over the past two decades. Hopefully she will be a force in returning EOIR to it’s proper (though long-abandoned) vision of: Through teamwork and innovation, becoming the world’s best administrative tribunals, guaranteeing fairness and due process for all!

It’s far away from that now! But, there are some judges at EOIR like Judge Clark qualified and capable of leading a “due process renaissance” at the beleaguered tribunals. Whether and to what extent they will be able to do so remains to be seen.

Congratulations again and good luck to Judge Clark!

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

08-16-23

☠️👎🏼 ANOTHER SUPER-SHODDY PERFORMANCE BY BIA ON CENTRAL AMERICAN ASYLUM OUTED BY 9TH CIR. — Reyes-Corado v. Garland

Four Horsemen — BIA Asylum Panel In Action. It’s hard to ignore the BIA’s violent, deadly, abuse of asylum seekers, particularly those of color. But, somehow, Merrick Garland, Lisa Monaco, Vanita Gupta, Kristen Clarke, and other DOJ officials manage to look the other way, as do Congressional Dems! Too busy fecklessly complaining about Justice Clarence Thomas to look at their own house?
Albrecht Dürer, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2023/08/11/18-70225.pdf

SUMMARY** Immigration

The panel granted a petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ denial of Francisco Reyes-Corado’s motion to reopen removal proceedings based on changed circumstances, and remanded.

The Board denied reopening based, in part, on Reyes- Corado’s failure to include a new application for relief, as required by 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1). The government acknowledged that under Aliyev v. Barr, 971 F.3d 1085 (9th Cir. 2020), the Board erred to the extent it relied on Reyes- Corado’s failure to submit a new asylum application for relief. Here, however, unlike in Aliyev, Reyes-Corado did not include his original asylum application with his motion to reopen. Consistent with the plain text of § 1003.2(c)(1) and various persuasive authorities, the panel held that a motion to reopen that adds new circumstances to a previously considered application need not be accompanied by an application for relief.

The Board also denied reopening after concluding that Reyes-Corado did not establish materially changed country conditions to warrant an exception to the time limitation on his motion to reopen. Reyes-Corado initially sought asylum relief based on threats he received from his uncle’s family members to discourage him from avenging his father’s murder by his uncle’s family. The Board previously concluded that personal retribution, rather than a protected

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

REYES-CORADO V. GARLAND 3

ground, was the central motivation for the threats of harm. In his motion to reopen, Reyes-Corado presented evidence of persistent and intensifying threats.

As an initial matter, the panel explained that the changed circumstances Reyes-Corado presented were entirely outside of his control, and thus were properly understood as changed country conditions, not changed personal circumstances. The panel also held that these changed circumstances were material to Reyes-Corado’s claims for relief because they rebutted the agency’s previous determination that Reyes-Corado had failed to establish the requisite nexus between the harm he feared and his membership in a familial particular social group. The panel explained that the Board’s previous nexus rationale was undermined by the fact that the threats, harassment, and violence persisted despite the lack of any retribution by Reyes-Corado’s family against his uncle’s family for at least fourteen years after Reyes-Corado’s father’s murder, and where multiple additional family members were targeted, including elderly and young family members who would be unlikely to carry out any retribution. Thus, the panel held that the Board abused its discretion in concluding that Reyes-Corado’s evidence was not qualitatively different than the evidence at his original hearing.

The panel also declined to uphold the Board’s determination that Reyes-Corado failed to establish prima facie eligibility for relief because Reyes-Corado’s new evidence likely undermined the Board’s prior nexus finding, and the Board applied the improperly high “one central reason” nexus standard to Reyes-Corado’s withholding of removal claim, rather than the less demanding “a reason” standard.

4 REYES-CORADO V. GARLAND

The panel remanded for the Board to reconsider whether Reyes-Corado established prima facie eligibility for relief and to otherwise reevaluate the motion to reopen in light of the principles set forth in the opinion.

COUNSEL

David A. Schlesinger

(argued), Kai Medeiros, and Paulina

Reyes, Jacobs & Schlesinger LLP, San Diego, California, for Petitioner.

Enitan O. Otunla (argued), Trial Attorney; Bernard A. Joseph, Senior Litigation Counsel; Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney General; Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice; Washington, D.C.; for Respondent.

OPINION

KOH, Circuit Judge:

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

Congrats to David A. Schlesinger & colleagues!

I’ve often discussed EOIR’s all-too-frequent use of bogus nexus determinations – basically turning normal legal rules on causation on their head – to deny protection to bona fide refugees, particularly those from Latin America and Haiti.

There is a growing body of evidence that EOIR is systematically unfair to Central American asylum applicants. But, Garland, his lieutenants, and Congressional Dems have basically looked the other way as this stunning, widespread denial of due process and equal protection under our Constitution continues to unfold in plain view on their watch! Why? Where’s the dynamic, values-based, expert, ethical leadership we should expect from a Dem Administration?

This particular example of substandard “judging” literally reeks of pre-judgement and “endemic any reason to denialism!”

Dems wring their collective hands about Justice Clarence Thomas, who is essentially unaccountable and untouchable! But, they have done little or nothing to address serious competence, bias, and ethical issues festering in a major “life or death” Federal Court System they totally control!

Lots of “talk,” not much “walk” from Dems!

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

08-15-23

⚖️ I DISSENT FROM BIA’S (NON) GUIDANCE ON “UNDER COLOR OF LAW” FOR THOSE WHO SUFFERED TORTURE BY GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS IN MATTER OF J-G-R-, 23 I &N DEC. 733 (BIA 2023)

Star Chamber Justice — Unless you work at Merrick “Garland’s BIA, it would be reasonable to assume that torture by government officials is “under color of law!”

https://www.justice.gov/eoir/page/file/1592801/download

BIA HEADNOTE:

(1) Torturous conduct committed by a public official who is “acting in an official capacity,” meaning acting under color of law, is covered by the regulations implementing the Convention Against Torture, but such conduct by an official who is not acting in an official capacity is not covered. Matter of O-F-A-S-, 28 I&N Dec. 35 (A.G. 2020), followed.

(2) The key consideration in determining if an official’s torturous conduct was undertaken “in an official capacity” for purposes of CAT eligibility is whether the official was able to engage in the conduct because of his or her government position, or whether the official could have done so without connection to the government.

FOR THE RESPONDENT: Ethan R. Horowitz, Esquire, Lawrence, Massachusetts

BEFORE: Board Panel: MALPHRUS, Deputy Chief Appellate Immigration Judge; CREPPY and HUNSUCKER; Appellate Immigration Judges.

MALPHRUS, Deputy Chief Appellate Immigration Judge:

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

SCHMIDT, RETIRED JUDGE OF THE ROUND TABLE, DISSENTING:

I dissent.

A far fairer, more logical, efficient, and uniformity-promoting solution is staring us in the face: An applicant who credibly establishes torture by a public official or officials should be entitled to a rebuttable presumption that the torture was inflicted “under color of law.” The DHS should then be required to establish by a preponderance of evidence that the official was acting in another capacity if it wishes to contest that presumption.

The information and evidence that might overcome a logical presumption that government officials act “under color of law” is much more likely to be available to the DHS than to the applicant. This is particularly true in the many cases where CAT applicants are detained, unrepresented, or both.

This rebuttable presumption would also, as a practical matter, close the gap between our interpretation and the rule in the Ninth Circuit which wisely recognizes no exceptions when torture is inflicted by government officials. See, e.g., Barajas-Romero v. Lynch, 846 F.3d 351, 362 (9th Cir. 2017).

In adjudicating claims from individuals who have already suffered torture at the hands of government officials we must err on the side of protection, not rejection. The panel’s mushy guidance amounts to no practical guidance at all. It will certainly result in conflicting results, increased trial times and backlogs, arbitrary denials, and violations of due process. More backlog-promoting, avoidable Circuit Court remands are sure to follow.

Consequently, I dissent.

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

08-14-23

⚖️☠️ BLOWING THE BASICS! — IJ Misapplies “Under Color Of Law Doctrine” In CAT Case; BIA Affirms; 10th Circuit Reverses, Blowing Away Garland DOJ’s BS “No Jurisdiction” Argument In The Process — “[The IJ’s] interpretation defies logic and the law.” — We Deserve Much Better From Dem AG!

Laura Lunn, Esquire
Director of Advocacy & Litigation
Rocky Mountain Immigrant Advocacy Network (“RMIAN”)
PHOTO: RMIAN

Colorado AILA reports:

From: ColoradoAILA@groups.io <ColoradoAILA@groups.io> on behalf of Aaron Hall via groups.io <aaron=immigrationissues.com@groups.io>
Sent: Tuesday, August 1, 2023 2:29 PM
To: ColoradoAILA@groups.io <ColoradoAILA@groups.io>
Subject: [ColoradoAILA] Arostegui-Maldonado v. Garland

A HUGE congratulations to RMIAN and Laura Lunn on today’s 10^th Circuit win in Arostegui-Maldonado v. Garland. I was lucky enough to be in the court at oral argument to watch Laura expertly navigate tough questions from a difficult panel and today the published decision came out holding (1) that the PFR filed within 30 days of the BIA order affirming the IJ denial of relief in withholding-only proceedings is timely filed and (2) that the IJ and BIA “defied logic and law” in misapplying the under-color-of-law element of the CAT claim, requiring remand.

Incredible work to Laura and all others involved!

Please note that you can contact your attorney and paralegal at their direct phone lines. For all future phone communications, please contact us directly instead of using the main phone number. Our direct phone lines are listed at the bottom of our emails, located in our signature blocks.

Aaron C. Hall

Senior Partner

Pronouns: he/him/his

12203 East Second Avenue

Aurora, CO 80011

Direct: 303.962.6630

www.immigrationissues.com

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

Folks, the IJ’s “reasoning to denial” in this case was beyond totally absurd! It’s an example of the type of judicial misconduct and incompetence that still flourishes in parts of Garland’s “any reason to deny” dysfunctional EOIR!

Russian Roulette — AG Merrick Garland thinks it’s fine to play “roulette” with human lives in his arbitrary, capricious, and dysfunctional EOIR. Those trying to help his victims obtain justice disagree! Is this REALLY the way things ran when Garland was on the D.C. Circuit? If not, why is it “good enough for Immigration Court?”
IMAGE: tvtropes

After more than two years of the Biden Administration under Garland, we still have not seen the type of systemic, merit-based “house cleaning” of biased and incompetent judges and the replacement of deadwood (and worse) at the totally unjust and dysfunctional EOIR that could and should have been a “day one priority” for Garland’s DOJ.

There is simply no excuse for this type of disingenuous, life-threatening performance by both EOIR and OIL under Garland’s deficient leadership! There are literally thousands of qualified experts out here who could have done a better job than the IJ and the BIA in this case!

It’s Garland’s job to get better judges on the EOIR bench — judges who will be fair, impartial, due-process focused, and experts in all facets of immigration and human rights laws! His failure to do his job is undermining our justice system and endangering human lives! How is this “OK?”

In the “real world,” folks who “can’t do their jobs” find themselves “out of a job!” Why is Garland’s DOJ an “exception,” with lives and the future of American justice on the line? Isn’t it past time to “just say no” to continuing to treat the ongoing national disgrace at EOIR as “just an afterthought” in the elitist, disconnected world of Garland’s DOJ, where the human lives being destroyed by DOJ’s failures are treated as “somebody else’s problem?”

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

08-03-23

🤯 INCREDIBLE! — 2d Cir. Schools EOIR On Adverse Credibility — Chen v. Garland

Dan Kowalski reports for LexisNexis Immigration Community:

https://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/58f9e14a-e986-4263-9590-1f525ff8d4f9/2/doc/19-715_opn.pdf

https://www.lexisnexis.com/community/insights/legal/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/ca2-on-credibility-chen-v-garland

“Zhi Bo Chen petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming a decision of an Immigration Judge (IJ) that denied his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture, and ordered him removed from the United States. The IJ’s decision was based, in part, on its finding that Chen was not credible. Because certain reasons for that credibility finding were erroneous, and because we cannot be confident that the IJ would have made the same determination absent those errors, Chen’s petition for review is GRANTED, the BIA’s decision is VACATED, and the case is REMANDED to the BIA for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”

[Hats off to Gary Yerman!]

Gary Yerman, Esquire
Managing Partner
The Yerman Group
NY, NY

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

My favorite quote from the Circuit’s decision by Judge Raymond J. Lohier (Obama appointee): “We conclude that the IJ misidentified part of Chen’s testimony as inconsistent, improperly relied on trivial inconsistencies, and misconstrued as an omission a part of Chen’s testimony that comported with his Form I-589 asylum statement.”

But, even with all these glaring defects, the IJ’s findings were affirmed by the BIA without much, if any, critical analysis. What does this say about EOIR under AG Garland?

Credibility should be “bread and butter” for EOIR Judges and particularly the BIA. But, when the “culture” is “any reason to deny,” bad things happen!

As my Round Table colleague Hon. “Sir Jeffery” Chase commented: “You have to wonder what percentage of all BIA decisions contain significant errors.”

I think that’s a particular concern in unrepresented cases, which are much less likely to reach the Circuits. Additionally, the unduly restrictive legal standard for judicial review means that marginal BIA adverse credibility findings will often get “rubber stamp” affirmances from the Circuits.

Essentially, EOIR often denies the respondent “the benefit of the doubt” in close credibility cases and then the Courts of Appeals give the BIA “the benefit of the doubt.” So, it ends up being a “double whammy” for the respondent!

That’s why it is critical to have individuals effectively represented at the trial level! At each level thereafter, the law skews heavily in favor of the Government!

That also supports the position that “dedicated dockets” and “expedited dockets” that discourage and impede (one could argue intentionally) effective representation and full presentation of all the evidence should be held to be prima facie denials of due process!

It’s also why I argue that it’s so important that exceptionally well qualified experts with experience representing asylum seekers be appointed to these hugely important (yet widely ignored and under-appreciated) EOIR judgeships! Better judges would make the entire EOIR system fairer and more efficient, without sacrificing due process!

That’s also why appellate victories like this by Attorney Gary Yerman are so impressive and telling about the continuing dysfunction at EOIR!

Additionally, given the “loading of the system” against the respondent on credibility, the BIA has to REALLY screw up to get reversed, as they did in this case! That, in turn, raises a fundamental unresolved issue: Why is a Dem Administration running a specialized court system that all too often lacks the expertise and judgement to get “bread and butter” issues like this correct in the first instance?

It’s obvious that a BIA that goofs up cases like this is NOT providing the type of clear, expert guidance to IJs necessary to achieve due process and fundamental fairness on a continuing systemic basis! That should be of huge concern to everyone who values justice in America!

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

08-01-23

⚖️ LAW YOU CAN USE! — 1st Cir. & Hon. “Sir Jeffrey” Chase Combine To Provide Expert Guidance On How To Handle BIA’s Inexpert Treatment Of Experts! 👍🏼

https://www.jeffreyschase.com/blog/2023/7/28/expert-guidance-from-the-first-circuit-2

JEFFREY S. CHASE | OPINIONS/ANALYSIS ON IMMIGRATION LAW

Blog Archive Press and Interviews Calendar Contact

Expert Guidance from the First Circuit

For Immigration Judges, country experts serve as the lens through which a confusing jumble of evidence becomes a clearer picture. No judge can be an expert on all countries; it is therefore by way of the country expert’s testimony that a determination can be made as to whether the asylum seeker’s predicament is a unique or a common one; a dispute is merely personal or possesses a political dimension; the home country’s government is truly likely to provide adequate protection; and why relocating within the country may or may not be reasonable.

However, Immigration Judges are provided remarkably little guidance on how to assess expert testimony. A 2020 decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Castillo v. Barr,1 illustrates the problem. In that case, both the Immigration Judge and the BIA chose to discount the testimony of a qualified country expert because his testimony was not corroborated by other evidence of record. As the Ninth Circuit noted, “If an expert’s opinion could only be relied upon if it were redundant with other evidence in the record, there would be no need for experts.”2 Obviously, this simple, logical rule should have been incorporated in a BIA precedent decision by now.

When attorneys SangYeob Kim and Gilles Bissonnette of the ACLU of New Hampshire brought an appeal involving this issue with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, our Round Table of Former Immigration Judges was most happy to file an amicus brief in the matter. We used the opportunity to inform the court “how IJs and the BIA need, and lack, a clear standard for whether to admit—and how to weigh— expert evidence.”

Although the court issued an unpublished decision (and explained why it was precluded by Supreme Court precedent from establishing the uniform standard that we had requested), I believe the opinion offers wisdom on the topic that Immigration Judges might find useful in spite of its nonbinding nature. The case name is G.P. v. Garland, No. 21-2002 (1st Cir., July 13, 2023).

Rather than review the entire decision, in the hope of increased convenience, I have instead listed the issues raised in the case that are likely to arise in removal proceedings, and then summarized how the First Circuit addressed each issue.

The recency of the expert’s knowledge:

May an Immigration Judge discount an expert’s country knowledge as “stale” due to the passage of time since the expert’s last visit to the country in question or contact with its government’s officials?

In G.P., the court found no support for such approach where: (1) the record contained no evidence of changed conditions over the period of time in question; (2) the expert testified to the lack of significant changes in country conditions over that same time period; (3) such testimony regarding the lack of significant change went unchallenged by ICE, which did not call its own expert or offer other country evidence to the contrary; and (4) the conclusion was not contradicted by the petitioner.

The basis of the expert’s knowledge

Can an expert’s testimony be discounted for lack of firsthand “knowledge, research, or connections” to the country in question?

In G.P., the court pointed to the BIA’s own precedent decision in Matter of J-G-T- in which the Board adopted the Federal Rules of Evidence standard that an expert’s testimony is reliable when it is “`based on sufficient facts or data’ that the expert `has been made aware of or personally observed’ or from sources that `experts in the particular field would reasonably rely on.'”3

In addition to finding that the IJ had overlooked sources of firsthand knowledge, the court in G.P. found further error in the IJ’s failure to either mention or explain why sources that experts in the field would rely on that were mentioned by the expert in his voir dire, which included crime rates, DEA reports, and U.S. Department of State Country Reports, were not sufficient to credit the expert’s testimony.

The expert’s lack of personal knowledge of a specific criminal organization

Can an expert’s testimony be discredited where the expert lacked personal knowledge of the specific criminal organization that the applicant fears?

In G.P., the court found that the IJ erred in discounting the expert’s testimony for this reason. The court again referenced the Board’s statement in J-G-T- quoted above, and cited another BIA precedent, Matter of Vides Casanova, in which the Board held that an expert “need not have personal knowledge of the facts underlying” their opinion.4

Applying the above BIA guidance, the court observed that the expert witness learned specifics about the organization in question from reading the respondent’s affidavit, and importantly, that the facts contained in the respondent’s testimony and later testified to in court “were never challenged by the government or questioned by the IJ, who found G.P. credible.” The court added that “An expert cannot be ‘undermined by his reliance on facts . . . that have not been disputed’” (quoting from the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Castillo, supra at 1284).

The feared persecutors are based outside of the country of expertise

Can an expert’s testimony about a crime group based in the U.S. be discredited where the witness was qualified as an expert on organized crime in the Dominican Republic?

In G.P., although the group in question was based in New England, connected to a cartel based in Sinaloa, Mexico, and “served as a conduit between the Mexican drug cartels and customers in Northern New England,” the group did not fall outside of the witness’s area of expertise (i.e. organized crime in the Dominican Republic) where the expert testified to the Sinaloa Cartel’s strong presence in the Dominican Republic, influence over government officials there, and treatment of government cooperators.” The court therefore found that the IJ’s statement that the expert lacked direct knowledge of the criminal organization “mischaracterizes the evidence as a whole” and was not supported by substantial evidence of record.

Prior statements of the expert

How should a prior statement of the expert that is offered by ICE be treated by the IJ?

In G.P., ICE introduced a quote from the expert’s 2011 book in which he wrote that he “couldn’t honestly say that torture is something deportees [to the Dominican Republic] should expect.”

However, the First Circuit found error in the IJ’s reliance on the quote, because (1) the quote was in the context of an entirely different set of facts and employed a highly narrow definition of torture; (2) the expert was only asked whether he recalled the quote and to provide its context, and not whether he agreed with it; (3) the quote addressed the general risk of torture faced by deported noncitizens, and not the specific risk faced by G.P.; and (4) the IJ failed to explain why the 2011 book deserved significant weight when it was older than other evidence the IJ found to be stale.

Conclusion

Petitioner’s counsel has moved the First Circuit to publish the decision. But regardless of the outcome, counsel may wish to bring the court’s analysis to the attention of Immigration Judges, who in turn may find it highly useful in navigating the treatment of experts in cases before them.

– –

Hats off to SangYeob Kim and Gilles Bissonnette on their outstanding litigation in the First Circuit, which led to this satisfying decision. Our Round Table is most thankful to attorneys Adam Gershenson, Alex Robledo, Angela Dunning, Marc Suskin, Robby L.R. Saldaña, and Greg Merchant of the law firm of Cooley LLP, for their expert drafting of our amicus brief in this case.

Copyright 2023 by Jeffrey S. Chase. All Rights Reserved.

Notes

980 F.3d 1278 (9th Cir. 2020).

Id. at 1284.

Matter of J-G-T-, 28 I&N Dec. 97, 102 (BIA 2020) (quoting Fed. R. Evid. 702(b), 703).

Matter of Vides Casanova, 26 I&N Dec. 494, 499 (BIA 2015). Interestingly, in VIdes Casanova, the country expert had been called by DHS to establish that the respondent was a persecutor of others. Under those circumstances, the BIA in its decision noted that an expert “is permitted to base her opinion on hearsay evidence and need not have personal knowledge of the facts underlying those opinions.”

JULY 28, 2023

Republished with permission

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

The BIA spends far too much time cooking up bogus ways to deny asylum and other forms of protection. This leaves a “vacuum” on providing sound advice and needed guidance for effectively presenting and fairly analyzing the large untapped potential for more grants of protection currently “bouncing around the EOIR backlog” or alternatively being mindlessly rushed through “dedicated deterrence dockets” with neither time for advocates to properly prepare nor opportunity for thoughtful analysis by IJs! It’s a real (totally preventable) “lose-lose” for our justice system and asylum applicants!

Fortunately those from outside EOIR, including Article III Judges, subject matter experts like Judge Sir Jeffrey, and his loyal colleagues in the Round Table 🛡 have stepped in to fill the void. Wouldn’t it be better (and easier) to just aggressively recruit and hire the right expert, experienced, due-process-focused candidates for EOIR judgeships in the first place?

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

07-30-23

⚖️🗽 TRIPLE HEADER! — Cornell Immigration Clinic Wins 3 @ BIA!

Professor Stephen Yale-Loehr reports:

Paul: Thanks to the excellent work of our law students, our Cornell asylum clinic received three BIA remands this spring.  A short summary of each case follows.  A longer summary of each case is attached, as well as redacted versions of the BIA’s decisions. If anyone wants redacted copies of our briefs, have them contact me directly.

Please mention on Immigration Courtside. Thanks, Steve

1: IES is a citizen of Mexico and a former gang member.  The immigration judge (IJ) denied withholding and CAT relief, holding that his conviction in California was a particularly serious crime and that our client did not meet the requirements for CAT relief. For the particularly serious crime argument, our brief argued that the IJ improperly analyzed IES’ offense, ignored credible evidence that the drugs were for personal use, and relied on boilerplate sentencing documents instead. As a result, the IJ failed to analyze IES’s motivation and intent at the time of the offense. We used case law where crimes like sexual contact with a minor (Afridi v. Gonzalez) and strangulation (Flores-Vega v. Barr) were remanded because the facts and circumstances of the offense had not been considered.

For our CAT argument, we focused on 6 IJ errors: 1) the IJ did not consider that his prolonged mental pain would cause future torture (we had psychological evaluation reports and decided to use them for this argument). This is an underutilized argument in CAT claims, so there isn’t much case law. We used the interpretation from an OLC opinion on prolonged mental harm to bolster this argument. 2) The IJ did not consider future torture from gangs and cartels despite an expert saying this risk was at 80%. 3) The IJ did not consider country conditions and did not admit 400 pages into evidence. 4) The IJ mischaracterized his attempts to flee cartels 8 times as “relocation.” 5) The IJ did not think there was police acquiescence even though the police, the local Attorney General, and the judicial police ignored IES’ complaints. 6) The IJ did not aggregate IES’ risk of torture. The BIA remanded.

2: LRG is a citizen of El Salvador who fled to the US in 1989.  While in the US he joined the MS-13 gang. He is in U.S. prison for a criminal conviction. The IJ denied withholding and CAT relief. Our client’s info was part of the November 2022 ICE data leak, but the IJ did not address that concern.

Our brief argued that our client is more likely than not to face torture if removed to El Salvador. We posited several theories under which our client is likely to be tortured: 1) by the Salvadoran government, especially if our client is incarcerated there; 2) by Salvadoran gangs, in or out of prison, with the acquiescence of the Salvadoran government; and/or 3) by Salvadoran anti-gang death squads, with the participation or acquiescence of the Salvadoran government. We argued that our client’s identifying characteristics, including his gang tattoos and criminal history, would subject him to targeting and torture by any of these groups. We also argued that the IJ insufficiently aggregated our client’s risk of torture in El Salvador and that the IJ erred by failing to consider the impact of the ICE data leak on our client.  Finally, we argued that the IJ afforded insufficient weight to the evidence offered by our client. The IJ admitted Dr. Patrick McNamara’s universal expert declaration only as background evidence, rather than for his expert opinions. The BIA remanded.

3: REC is a citizen of El Salvador who fled to the US in 2022.  REC was not a gang member, but his brother was, and was killed by the police.  REC’s family filed a lawsuit against the police for murdering REC’s brother, and the police retaliated against REC.  The IJ denied asylum, withholding, and CAT relief.

On asylum and withholding, we argued that the IJ erred by ignoring the Salvadoran government as a persecutor of REC and by failing to assess the proper particular social group that REC had proposed, based on his membership in his family. On CAT, we argued that the IJ effectively ignored part of REC’s claim by failing to analyze whether the MS gang would be more likely than not to torture him. We further argued that the IJ’s analysis about the Salvadoran government as a torturer of REC was flawed because the IJ herself found that Salvadoran officials “misused their power” when they beat him. We argued that the IJ also erred because she did not aggregate all potential sources of torture, including the government and the MS gang. The BIA remanded.

Stephen Yale-Loehr

Professor of Immigration Law Practice, Cornell Law School

Faculty Director, Immigration Law and Policy Program

Faculty Fellow, Migrations Initiative

Co-director, Asylum Appeals Clinic

Co-Author, Immigration Law & Procedure Treatise

Of Counsel, Miller Mayer

Phone: 607-379-9707

e-mail: SWY1@cornell.edu

Twitter: @syaleloehr

Check out my Green Card Stories book:

http://www.greencardstories.com.

See more of my books at amazon.com/author/stephenyaleloehr

You can access my papers on SSRN at: http://ssrn.com/author=109503

Cornell 1 Cornell 2 Cornell 3 Cornell 4 Cornell 5 Cornell 6

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

Get all the details in the six attachments above!

Thanks, Steve! And, congrats and “hats way off” (as my friend Dan Kowalski would say) to the clinic students involved!

Interesting to contrast the careful work of the clinic with the sloppy, result-oriented work of the IJs in these cases.

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

07-29-23

👎🏼 EOIR’S 3-DECADE QUEST TO DENY PROTECTION TO COPTIC CHRISTIAN ENDS BADLY IN 3RD CIR. — BIA Applies “Overly Rigorous Standard” & Fails To Recognize A Prima Facie Case For Asylum In Latest Blow To DOJ’s “Asylum Wrecking Crew!” 🏴‍☠️

https://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/212957np.pdf

Gebra v. A.G., 3d Cir, 07-19-23, unpublished (unfortunately)

PANEL: AMBRO, RESTREPO, FUENTES, Circuit Judges

OPINION: JUDGE RESTRO

KEY QUOTE:

i. The BIA applied an overly rigorous standard to the new evidence.

Gebra argues that the BIA applied an “overly rigorous standard” when analyzing the new evidence presented when determining whether he established a new claim. Pet’r Br. 44 (citing Tilija v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 930 F.3d 165 (3d Cir. 2019)). In Tilija, we held that unless the new evidence is inherently unbelievable, it must be taken as true. 930 F.3d at 172; see also Shardar, 503 F.3d at 313 (“Facts presented in the motion to reopen

are ‘accepted as true unless inherently unbelievable.’”) (cleaned up). If the BIA fails to accept new evidence as true, then it applies an “overly rigorous standard.” Tilija, 930 F.3d at 172. Furthermore, not accepting such evidence as true is an abuse of discretion if the petitioner would have established a prima facie case for eligibility with the rejected evidence. Id. (citing Shardar, 503 F.3d at 313).

Here, the BIA did not find that the new evidence was inherently unbelievable but nevertheless refused to accept new evidence, such as Gebra’s medical report after the 2009 attack, as “persuasive” or true because it “provide[d] little specificity or detail with respect to the alleged attack.” JA4; cf. Tilija; 930 F.3d at 172 (finding that where the BIA asked for “more details” and questioned the veracity of the evidence, it impermissibly failed to accept the evidence as true). By requesting that the medical record, on its own,

corroborate that the injuries were caused by “Islamic fanatics,” the BIA imposed an

overly rigorous standard. JA4; Tilija, 930 F.3d at 172. Similarly, the BIA’s conclusion that the report from the Egyptian Union of Human Rights Organization (“EUHRO”) pro- vides “no details” with respect to when, where, how, nor “any other details surrounding the circumstances of the alleged incident,” was an abuse of discretion. JA4; Tilija, 930

11

F.3d at 172. The BIA treated the new evidence with the same “overly vigorous standard” that it applied to the new translation of the 1993 police report that was previously dis- credited.

Having concluded that the BIA held Gebra to an excessively rigorous standard, we next determine whether Gebra established a prima facie case for asylum.

ii. Gebra’s new evidence established a prima facie case for asylum.

Gebra’s new evidence, accepted as true, establishes a prima facie case for asylum. A motion to reopen an asylum case must establish prima facie eligibility for relief. Se- voian v. Ashcroft, 290 F.3d 166, 173, 170–71 (3d Cir. 2002). This standard requires an applicant to produce objective evidence that shows a “reasonable likelihood” that they can establish eligibility for relief. Id. at 173. In this context, to “establish” means that the evidence in favor of asylum outweighs the evidence against. Guo v. Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 556, 564 (3d Cir. 2004), as amended (Dec. 3, 2004). A “reasonable likelihood” merely means showing a realistic chance that the applicant can later establish that asylum should be granted. Id. Prima facie “would lack meaning” if it required that evidence submitted at the prima facie stage conclusively establish eligibility for asylum. Id. Thus, Gebra need only provide objective evidence that shows a reasonable likelihood that he is

entitled to asylum relief. Tilija, 930 F.3d at 172. Specifically, Gebra would need to

demonstrate that he suffered past persecution, or has a well-founded fear of future perse- cution, on account of his religious beliefs. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B) (enumerating reli- gion as a protected ground).

12

Here, Gebra provided objective evidence in the form of medical records and hu- man rights reports regarding his 2009 attack. For example, a December 8, 2009, medical report from Victoria Hospital in Egypt corroborates the statement in his affirmation that, due to the attack, he was “wounded and sent into the Victoria Hospital due to multiple contusions and dermal bleeding on [his] back and different parts of [his] body.” JA167, 175; see Doe v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 956 F.3d 135, 145 (3d Cir. 2020) (holding that a single

beating, “if sufficiently egregious,” may constitute persecution, such as where petitioner was beaten by a mob, causing him to bleed and suffer injuries to his head and back). Ge- bra also included medical reports of the psychological trauma he experienced and therapy sessions he attended as a result of the attacks. Doe, 956 F.3d at 145–46 (“Persecution may be emotional or psychological, as well as physical.”) (citation omitted). Further- more, the December 30, 2009, report from EUHRO stated that they independently “veri- fied” Gebra was “attacked by some [Islamic] fanatics” who thought Gebra was behind demonstrations for the rights of Coptic Christians due to his work as a cameraman for Fa- ther Zacharia Botros, a Coptic Christian priest known for critiquing Islam. JA173.

Taken together, this evidence demonstrates a reasonable likelihood that Gebra could es- tablish he was persecuted due to his religious beliefs.

In sum, the BIA abused its discretion when it did not accept Gebra’s evidence ask true and concluded that he did not establish a new claim for asylum in his third motion to reopen.

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

Let’s apply a tiny bit of common sense here, in contravention of the BIA’s current practices. How likely is it that a guy would pursue asylum claims for 30 years, even after being denied, deported, and actually persecuted in Egypt upon return, if there weren’t some merit in the claim? At least enough to earn him a new hearing! It’s not rocket science to know that Coptic Christians often face persecution in Egypt! Was it really wise to push this clearly flawed (one could say “scofflaw”) denial all the way to the Circuit, thus wasting even more time and further undermining the BIA’s credibility? What are they thinking at Garland’s DOJ?

Think what efficiencies, not to mention due process and fundamental fairness, a BIA of well-qualified judges who were actual experts in asylum law — focused on legal protection, not specious rejection — could bring to our broken asylum system! Why not give due process and justice a chance at DOJ?

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

07-21-23

🗽 BORDER: WashPost’s Maria Sacchetti’s Nuanced Report Is Well Worth A Read: “The perceived success of Biden’s approach depends on which side of the border the migrants are on.” — Right to apply for asylum is a “simple rule” that politicos of both parties lack the will & skill to follow!🤮

https://www.washingtonpost.com/immigration/2023/07/18/border-asylum-us-mexico-biden-legal/

Maria writes:

. . . .

Federal law says anyone fleeing persecution may request asylum once they reach U.S. soil, no matter how they got there. Successive administrations have attempted to restrict that simple rule, however, desperate to reduce record numbers of crossings that have overwhelmed the immigration system, leaving many to live for years in the United States without a decision in their cases.

. . . .

One border, two realities

The perceived success of Biden’s approach depends on which side of the border the migrants are on.

Brownsville, an American city of 200,000 on the other side of the Rio Grande from Matamoros, Mexico, is officially under a state of emergency. But that emergency has dissipated in recent months.

The streets are quiet, thanks to a 70 percent drop in illegal border crossers since the new asylum rule and other Biden policy changes took effect. City workers greet the relatively small number of newcomers released from holding facilities and escort them to a curtained-off parking garage and to the first bus out of town.

In Matamoros, however, migrants trying to navigate the new rules are squeezing into shelters, sharing hotel rooms, curling up in a large camp on the dry riverbank or under pop-up tents at a grimy former gas station.

On a pedestrian bridge one hot morning in late June, Mexican authorities shooed away those who did not have an appointment through the app — including some Mexicans, even though the rule change is not supposed to apply to them.

“Let’s go, please,” one officer said to migrants who gathered at the Matamoros edge of the bridge. “Now.”

Advocates for immigrants say it is unlawful for officials to block migrants from crossing borders in search of protection — and unfair to presume they can easily navigate U.S. asylum law and appointments via smartphone apps. The process of requesting asylum is supposed to be simple, they said, because lives are at stake.

But advocates are powerless to navigate around the new rules until the court case is resolved.

In the sweltering heat one recent day, Christina Asencio, a lawyer with Human Rights First, tried to explain to migrants in the Matamoros camps how the system is supposed to work.

. . . .

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

Read Maria’s full article, one of the more balanced treatments I have encountered, at the link.

A few thoughts:

Even this fine article misses the biggest point: Most asylum seekers want to “do things the right way.” But there has been no “right way” for years because of the unlawful and bogus use of Title 42 by both the Trump and Biden Administrations. It’s still being unlawfully restricted by the arbitrary Biden Administration regulations. Yet, remarkably, asylum seekers are willing to risk their lives waiting in Mexico for an opportunity to apply in an orderly, legal manner under a broken and biased system unfairly “rigged” against them! THAT’S the “real big takeaway” about the reduction in unauthorized border crossings. It’s one that that nobody except experts and advocates are willing to fully acknowledge! Indeed, during the Title 42 charade, an asylum seeker’s only chance of getting into the system was to cross without authorization. Otherwise, they would have been summarily returned without any chance to present their claims.
Some asylum seekers will qualify for protection, some won’t. That’s what the legal, asylum system is supposed to determine — in a fair, expert, and timely manner. That our asylum system has become dysfunctional and ludicrously backlogged lies squarely with poor performance by Congress, the Executive, and the Courts, in many cases “egged on” by right-wing nativists’ myths and distortions. Blaming the victims — asylum seekers — for massive USG failures over decades is totally disingenuous!
Statistically, it’s true that most asylum applicants from the Southern Border do not achieve asylum under our current dysfunctional system. But, the question we should be asking is why aren’t more qualifying, given the horrible conditions in “sending countries” and the generous legal standards — including a presumption of future persecution based on past persecution — that are supposed to apply, but often don’t in practice.
For years, the Executive, through its captive EOIR “courts,” has been unfairly manipulating and intentionally misapplying the law, as well as misreading and ignoring evidence, to achieve unrealistically high asylum denial rates for applicants of color, particularly those arriving at our borders from Latin American and Haiti. See, e.g., https://immigrationcourtside.com/justice-betrayed-the-intentional-mistreatment-of-central-american-asylum-applicants-by-the-executive-office-for-immigration-review/; https://immigrationcourtside.com/appellate-litigation-in-todays-broken-and-biased-immigration-court-system-four-steps-to-a-winning-counterattack-by-the-relentless-new-due-process-army/. This continues to happen, as documented by the unusually large number of rebukes by Article III Courts (even some of the most conservative) of the flawed decision-making coming out of Garland’s broken EOIR. See, e.g., https://immigrationcourtside.com/2023/07/14/🌊-tsunami-of-bad-☠️-bia-decisions-hits-garlands-doj-wrong-on-nexus-4th-2-1-wrong-on-nta-4th-2-1-wrong-on-agfel-8th-wrong-on-past-political-per/.
One of the most egregious EOIR-led anti-asylum “scams” is abuse and misuse of the “nexus” requirement for asylum to send legitimate refugees back into harm’s way. See, e.g., immediately preceding reference. “Persecution” must relate to race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. But, the asylum statute does NOT require that that be the sole or even the primary motivation for the persecution. It just has to be “at least one central reason.” And, usually, persecution is carried out by the persecutor for a variety of reasons. It’s called “mixed motive analysis” and EOIR Judges, particularly at the precedent-setting BIA, routinely ignore or mis-apply it to deny grantable claims.
Harm resulting from things like “work, poverty, natural disaster, and bad governments” does not automatically qualify an individual for asylum. But, contrary to what many suggest, neither do these circumstances preclude asylum. For example, while a “natural disaster” might not make an individual a “refugee” under law, if that individual were forced to live in a known danger zone or denied life-saving assistance at least in part because of religious, ethnic, or political identity, that WOULD qualify. Was the infamous “Kristallnacht” in Nazi Germany systemic persecution of Jews for ethic and religious reasons? Or was it “mere vandalism, random violence, and hooliganism?” I would say clearly the former. But, I can imagine today’s BIA attributing it to the latter, to deny protection to a large group of individuals. I adjudicated thousands of asylum cases as both a trial and an appellate judge during 21 years at EOIR. I found that harm where a “protected ground” was “at least one central reason” was the rule, not the exception as EOIR tries so hard to make it.
Other often “trumped up” methods EOIR uses for denying valid asylum claims include bogus “adverse credibility” findings; unreasonable “corroboration” requirements; fabricated “reasonable internal relocation” opportunities; nonsensical, ahistorical “changed circumstances” conclusions; ignoring or misconstruing expert testimony; “selective reading” or mis-reading of country background reports; coercive detention in substandard conditions; and restricting or limiting access to counsel. If you think this sounds like a national disgrace on “Garland’s watch,” you’re absolutely right!
Undoubtedly, under a properly functioning system, with true expert adjudicators and judges — those whose career experiences demonstrated sound scholarship and understanding of the life-threatening circumstances of asylum seekers and the inherent limitations of both the Asylum office and EOIR — many more asylum cases from those applying at the Southern Border and elsewhere would be granted. So, Government policies based largely on “deterrence” or on the self-fulfilling prophecy that “few will qualify” should be viewed as fatally flawed. Without a better EOIR and an asylum adjudication system run by well-qualified experts, we can’t possibly formulate rational and humane border policies or indeed workable immigration policies at all. Tragically, we’re a long way from that right now!

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

07-19-23

🏴‍☠️👎🏼🤮 JUSTICE’S UNJUST “COURTS!” — Recent Reports Highlight Horribly Failed System —Asylum Free Zones, Unqualified Prosecutor-Judges, Deadly Denials, Blatant Information Imbalance, Dehumanizing Treatment, Poor Access To Counsel, Docket Mayhem, Unrealistic Timelines, Biased Outcomes, Indifference To Human Life, Unaccountability, Among The Myriad Problems Flagged By Those Forced To Deal With Garland’s Ongoing Mockery Of Due Process! — EXTRA! — How Poor Legal Performance @ DOJ Skews The Entire Immigration Debate!

injustice — Injustice
Public Realm
Dems spend lots of time whining about the destruction of the Federal Judiciary by GOP right-wing extremists. However, after two years in charge, they have done little to bring due process, fundamental fairness, and judicial expertise to America’s worst courts — the Immigration Courts — which they totally control!

Austin Kocher, Ph.D.
Research Assistant Professor
TRAC-Syracuse
PHOTO: Syracuse U.

Two items from Professor Austin Kocher on Substack:

Asylum Seeker Killed in Guatemala after Omaha Immigration Judge Ordered Him Deported

Omaha is now the toughest court in the country for asylum seekers, MPI hosts discussion on immigration courts in crisis, interview with an immigration judge, and more.

Asylum Seeker Killed in Guatemala after Omaha Immigration Judge Ordered Him Deported austinkocher.substack.com • 1 min read

https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7086002474968313856?updateEntityUrn=urn%3Ali%3Afs_feedUpdate%3A%28V2%2Curn%3Ali%3Aactivity%3A7086002474968313856%29

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

New Research by AILA Reveals Anatomy of an Asylum Case + Online Event

Even the best attorneys require 50-75 hours over several months to complete an asylum case. The Biden admin’s attempts to speed up asylum cases may be ignoring this reality.

…see more

New Research by AILA Reveals Anatomy of an Asylum Case

https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7086001618898296832?updateEntityUrn=urn:li:fs_feedUpdate:(V2,urn:li:activity:7086001618898296832)

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

And, this from Lauren Iosue, Georgetown Law L-3 on LinkedIn.

Lauren Iosue

View Lauren Iosue’s profile

• 1st

J.D. Candidate at Georgetown University Law Center

3d •

Through my internship at the Florence Immigrant and Refugee Rights Project, I observed master calendar hearings in the detained docket in the Florence Immigration Court. I was back in Florence, Arizona, because the court itself is located within the barbed wire of the detention center. Observing the Florence Immigration Court emphasized how dehumanizing removal proceedings can be for detained immigrants. Master calendar hearings are often immigrants’ first interaction with the Court. To start, a guard brought a group of men in jumpsuits to the courtroom and lined them up. The judge read them their rights and then called them individually to discuss their case. Twice I witnessed the wrong person being brought into court where they sat through proceedings until the guards realized and switched them out for the correct person.

The vast majority of Respondents in removal proceedings are unrepresented. There is a blatant information imbalance in immigration court when the immigrant is unrepresented. Oftentimes, pro se detained immigrants do not have access to the resources represented or released Respondents have during their proceedings. Respondents may not know their legal options unless organizations like the Florence Project can speak to them before their hearing and provide them with pro se information packets or represent them. During the hearing, the men did not even have a pen and paper to take notes. Meanwhile, the immigration judge and government attorney have access to technology and a wealth of experience to pull from to make legal arguments.

This is just one example of many – my colleagues and I also observed translation issues and pushback against some men who wished to continue fighting their case. Above all, I’ll leave with this very simple observation: the judge and guards called each man up by his court docket number before his name. If we are to support and uphold the dignity of all people, we must do so especially in systems that look to strip it from them. Providing immigrants with access to a lawyer, if they’d like one, can ensure that people have access to information that allows them to make informed decisions about their case. The Florence Project is one of the organizations working tirelessly to expand access to representation throughout Arizona, and I hope to continue this work after graduating from Georgetown University Law Center next year. #EJAFellowUpdate | Equal Justice America

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

Congrats to Lauren Iosue, and thanks for becoming a member of the NDPA! 😎 The scary thing: As an L-3, Lauren appears to have more “hands on” Immigration Court experience and a far deeper appreciation of the material, sometimes fatal, flaws in the EOIR system, than Garland and his other “top brass” in the DOJ responsible for operating and overseeing this tragic mess!

Why isn’t “real life” immigration/human rights experience representing individuals in Immigration Court were an absolute requirement for appointment to AG, Deputy AG, Associate AG, Solicitor General, and Assistant AG for Civil (in charge of OIL) in any Dem Administration, at least until such time as the Immigration Courts become an Article I Court removed from the DOJ?

30-years ago, when I was at Jones Day, we were budgeting a minimum of 100 hours of professional time for a pro bono asylum case! That was before the “21st century BIA” added more unnecessary, artificial technicalities to make it more difficult for asylum seekers to win. It’s not “rocket science!” 🚀

Lucy McMillan ESQUIRE
Chief Pro Bono Counsel
Arnold & Porter
Washington, D.C.
PHOTO: A&P

All Garland would have to do is reach back into his “big law” days at Arnold & Porter (“A&P”). He should pick up his cell phone and call Lucy McMillan, the award-winning Chief Pro Bono Counsel @ A&P. Ask Lucy what needs to change to get EOIR functioning as a due-process-focused model court system! Better yet, reassign upper “management” at EOIR, and hire Lucy to clean house and restore competence, efficiency, and excellence to his currently disgracefully-dysfunctional “courts!”

As Austin’s posts and the reports he references show, Garland’s indolent, tone-deaf, mal-administration of the Immigration Courts is a national disgrace that undermines democracy and betrays core values of the Democratic Party! How does he get away with it? Thanks to Austin, AILA, Lauren, and others exposing the ongoing “EOIR charade” in a Dem Administration!

As shown by recent “Courtside” postings about the “Tsunami” 🌊 of Article III “rejections” of lousy BIA decisions, throughout America, many, many more asylum cases could be timely granted with a properly well-qualified, expert BIA setting precedents and forcing judges like those in Omaha to properly and generously apply asylum law or find other jobs! Maximum protection, NOT “maximum rejection,” is the proper and achievable (yet unrealized) objective of asylum laws!

Asylum law, according to the Supremes and even the BIA is supposed to be generously and practically applied — so much so that asylum can and ordinarily should be granted even where the chances are “significantly less” than probable. See Matter of Mogharrabi, 19 I & N Dec. 439, 446 (BIA 1987).

The problem is that the BIA and EOIR have never effectively implemented and followed the Mogharrabi standard. In recent years, particularly during the Trump debacle, they have moved further than ever away from this proper legal standard while still giving it lip service! Clearly, the IJs in Omaha and other “Asylum Free Zones” are operating outside the realm of asylum law with deadly and destructive consequences. Yet, Garland, a former Federal Judge himself, permits it! Why?

The assumption that most asylum seekers who pass credible fear should ultimately lose on the merits is false and based on intentionally overly restrictive mis-interpretations and mis-applications of asylum law! It’s a particular problem with respect to asylum seekers of color from Latin America and Haiti — a definite racial dimension that DOJ and DHS constantly “sweep under the carpet.” Because of the extraordinarily poor leadership from EOIR, DOJ, and DHS, this “fundamental falsehood of inevitable denial” infects the entire asylum debate and materially influences policies.

A dedicated long-time “hands-on” asylum expert, someone who actually met some of the “Abbott/DeSantis busses,” said that over 70% of those arriving from the border had potentially grantable asylum claims. That’s a far cry from the “nobody from the Southern border will qualify” myth that drives asylum policy by both parties and has even been, rather uncritically, “normalized” by the media.

Fixing EOIR is a prerequisite to an informed discussion of immigration and development of humane, rational, realistic immigration policies. That would be laws and policies based on reality, not myths, distortions, and sometimes downright fabrications.

Competent representation is also an essential part of fixing EOIR. There are ways to achieve it that Garland is ignoring and/or inhibiting. See, e.g., VIISTA Villanova. No excuses!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever,

PWS

07-17-23

🏴‍☠️ FOURTH FINDS BIA’S NEXUS ABUSE CONTINUES UNDER GARLAND 🤮 — Dem AG Permits His “Courts” To Engage In Specious “Any Reason To Deny” Misconduct That Artificially Suppresses Asylum Grants! ☠️ — Marvin A.G. v. Garland (published)!

Dan Kowalski reports for LexisNexis Immigration Community:

https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/221499.P.pdf

https://www.lexisnexis.com/community/insights/legal/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/ca4-on-nexus-marvin-a-g-v-garland

“Upon our review, we conclude that the Board abused its discretion by applying an incorrect legal standard in its nexus analysis for the petitioner’s asylum and withholding of removal claims. We also hold with regard to these two claims that the Board abused its discretion by arbitrarily disregarding the petitioner’s testimony about the threat of future persecution. However, we reject the petitioner’s argument that the Board abused its discretion with regard to his CAT claim. The Board provided specific reasons for finding the petitioner’s testimony insufficient to meet his burden of proof, and appropriately evaluated the evidence under the futility exception. We thus grant in part and deny in part the petition for review, vacate in part the Board’s order denying reconsideration, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. … We thus conclude that the IJ erred by applying an incorrect standard in the nexus analysis, and that the Board abused its discretion because it “compounded the [IJ’s] error by failing to recognize it.” Perez Vasquez, 4 F.4th at 223. In addition, both the IJ and the Board failed to address substantively the petitioner’s testimony about the threat of future persecution. … The Board thus applied the incorrect legal standard for the nexus analysis and arbitrarily disregarded relevant evidence. Accordingly, we hold that the Board abused its discretion in denying the petitioner’s motion to reconsider his asylum and withholding of removal claims, and we remand for the agency to “meaningfully consider [the petitioner’s] evidence” under the correct legal standard.”

[Hats off to Eric Suarez!]

Eric Suarez ESQUIRE
Partner
Sanabria & Associates
PHOTO: Firm website

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

EOIR judges and the BIA routinely butcher “mixed motive” cases like this one! This endemic problem at EOIR badly distorts asylum adjudication nationwide, produces false statistics suppressing the significant number of wrongful asylum denials (particularly targeting asylum applicants of color for unfair, unjust adjudications), and refutes the Article III’s disingenuous treatment of the BIA as an “expert tribunal” entitled to Chevron deference. In that way, it seriously undermines the integrity of our entire judicial system!

In this case, counsel specifically pointed our the BIA’s errors in a timely motion to reconsider, only to have it “blown off” with basically fabricated boilerplate BS!

The petitioner appealed the IJ’s decision to the Board. After the Board affirmed the IJ’s conclusions and dismissed the appeal, the petitioner filed a motion to reconsider. The Board denied the motion, concluding that the IJ did not clearly err in its nexus determination, and reiterating the IJ’s conclusion that family membership was “incidental or subordinate” to the other reasons the gang targeted the petitioner, namely, for monetary gain and gang recruitment.

Another of my favorite parts of this decision addresses the BIA’s pronounced tendency to invent specious “non-protected” reasons for the persecution and then dishonestly characterize that at the sole or primary motivations.

The Board’s cursory conclusion that the gang had targeted the petitioner for “monetary gain and gang recruitment” does not remedy the Board’s error. Indeed, we fail to see how family membership necessarily was subordinate to these other motivations when the sole basis the petitioner presented for his fear of future persecution was that the gang would target him due to his relationships with his siblings.

Friends, this is NOT the competent, impartial, professional, expert adjudication that due process and fundamental fairness requires! Nor is it the improvement from Trump’s institutionalized White Nationalist approach to asylum and immigration promised by Biden and Harris during their 2020 campaign! It’s basically a “bait and switch” by Dems! Additionally, it sets a horrible example for Immigration Judges (many of whom lack relevant expertise in asylum law) and Asylum Officers nationwide.

Garland’s has refused to “clean house” and employ solely competent, unbiased, impartial asylum experts as BIA Appellate Immigration Judges, selected on a merit basis from among those possessing the requisite practical asylum expertise, temperament, and widely-acknowledged qualifications for these critically important judgeships.

Garland’s failure to perform his job, in turn, is having a deleterious effect on every aspect of our asylum, protection, and immigration systems and is undermining the entire rule of law. It also promotes false narratives about asylum seekers and inhibits effective representation of this vulnerable and deserving group. It’s wrong; it’s inexcusable, and it’s a “big deal!’

I leave you with this thought from an expert who actually practices before EOIR and understands what competent asylum adjudication should be:

We really do need better judges at the BIA. [Hope that this] decision that will make a dent in their current dysfunction.

Or as my Round Table colleague Hon. “Sir Jeffrey” Chase suggests:

Maybe the Board should read my article on the proper test for nexus:

https://www.jeffreyschase.com/blog/2021/12/21/the-proper-test-for-nexus1

Great idea! But, don’t hold your breath!

SeniorCircuit Judge Barbara Milano Keenan wrote the opinion, in which Judge Thacker and Judge Heytens joined.

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

06-28-23

👎🏼9TH CIR. SAYS “NO CHEVRON DEFERENCE FOR YOU BIA!” — Misinterpretation Of Citizenship Removal Ground “Unmoored,” “Unreasonable,” “Untenable,” “Incoherent!” — (But, Evidently “Good Enough For Government Work” @ Garland’s EOIR!)

Dan Kowalski reports for LexisNexis Immigration Community:

CA9: BIA’s Application of Richmond Untenable, Unmoored, Unreasonable, Incoherent: Ramírez Muñoz v. Garland

June 26, 2023

(1 min read)

Ramírez Muñoz v. Garland

https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2023/06/26/21-70431.pdf

https://www.lexisnexis.com/community/insights/legal/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/ca9-bia-s-application-of-richmond-untenable-unmoored-unreasonable-incoherent-ramirez-munoz-v-garland

“We must decide whether Ramírez’s conduct—lying to local authorities about U.S. citizenship—was for a “purpose or benefit under” a particular law. The BIA, relying on its Richmond decision, concluded that Ramírez lied about his citizenship “for the purpose of avoiding removal proceedings.” See In re Richmond, 26 I. & N. Dec. 779, 788 (B.I.A. 2016) (holding that a “purpose” under a law “includes the avoidance of negative legal consequences— including removal proceedings”). The BIA’s interpretation of § 1182(a)(6)(C)(ii)(I) is untenable. We agree with our sister circuit that “the BIA’s construction of the ‘purpose or benefit’ language [is] . . . ‘unmoored from the purposes and concerns’ of the statute.” Castro v. Att’y Gen., 671 F.3d 356, 370 (3d Cir. 2012) (quoting Judulang v. Holder, 565 U.S. 42, 64 (2011)). … We conclude that Richmond’s construction of “under” is unreasonable and do not afford it any deference. Consequently, we reject Richmond’s derivative holding that “[t]he term ‘purpose’ . . . includes the avoidance of negative legal consequences—including removal proceedings.” … We therefore grant the petition for review and remand to the agency to either grant Ramírez’s application for adjustment of status or explain, consistent with this opinion, why not.”

[Hats way off to Marco A. Jimenez!]

—

Daniel M. Kowalski

Editor-in-Chief

Bender’s Immigration Bulletin (LexisNexis)

cell/text/Signal (512) 826-0323

@dkbib on Twitter

dan@cenizo.com

Free Daily Blog: www.bibdaily.com

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

Trust the BIA under Garland to come up with “teaching examples” of what’s wrong with EOIR!

Just last week we were discussing “Chevron deference” (a/k/a “Article III judicial task avoidance”) in my Immigration Law & Policy class at Georgetown Law. “Unreasonable interpretation” was one of the three ways we discussed for the Article IIIs to avoid giving Chevron deference to the BIA (the other two being “plain meaning” and “not your field of expertise”).

This is a classic (if rather brutal) example of the “unreasonable” exception to Chevron.

One reason why the “21st Century BIA” has become “unmoored” is that it is basically “tethered” to whatever DHS Enforcement wants and what appears to line up with an Administration’s “immigration enforcement agenda.” In other words, the BIA tends to interpret ambiguous statutes with “career preservation” rather than “best interpretations” in mind. That’s generally bad news for individuals seeking due process and fundamental fairness in life or death matters before EOIR!

As I recently pointed out, there is a BIA Appellate Immigration Judge position open for applications until July 5, 2023. See https://immigrationcourtside.com/2023/06/23/🇺🇸⚖️🗽👩🏽⚖️👨🏻⚖️-calling-ndpa-practical-scholars-experts-no/.

That’s a chance for NDPA “practical scholar/experts” to start counteracting what has been a two-decade downward spiral of due process, fundamental fairness, and best practices at this oft-ignored “life or death tribunal” with nationwide jurisdiction.

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

06-27-23

🏴‍☠️ EOIR DENIES DUE PROCESS TO ASYLUM SEEKER, SAYS SLIT 9TH! — Dysfunctional Agency Renowned For “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” Of Scheduled, “Ready to Try” Cases Can’t Spare Time For Same-Day Filing By Newly Retained Counsel In “Life Or Death Matter!” — Arizmendi-Medina v. Garland

https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2023/06/07/21-298.pdfw

KEY QUOTE FROM CIRCUIT JUDGE RONALD LEE GILMAN’S MAJORITY OPINION:

. . . .

Third, the IJ was hardly inconvenienced at all. Arizmendi-Medina’s counsel offered to submit the application while the IJ was still on the bench. Although this might have required the IJ to recall Arizmendi-Medina’s case at the end of the IJ’s docket, this inconvenience was truly minimal. Cf. Jerezano, 169 F.3d at 615 (“While an IJ need not linger in the courtroom awaiting tardy litigants, so long as he is there on other business and the delay is short[,] …it is an abuse of discretion to treat a slightly late appearance as a nonappearance.”). Further, as discussed above, the December 18, 2018 hearing was a Master Calendar hearing, not a merits hearing. This means that the proceedings were ultimately not delayed at all.

And fourth, we consider the total number of continuances previously granted to Arizmendi-Medina. He received two very short continuances (only two weeks each) to find an attorney at the beginning of his immigration proceedings on July 31, 2018 and August 15, 2018. See Cruz Rendon, 603 F.3d at 1106–07, 1110 (finding that two one- month continuances were both “exceedingly short”). The proceedings were then reset at the hearing on August 29, 2018 because Arizmendi-Medina requested, and the IJ granted, a change of venue. The next hearing was scheduled for October 24, 2018 before a new IJ. Although this certainly gave Arizmendi-Medina more time to find an attorney, this delay was primarily due to the change of venue and getting the case calendared in a new court.

Finally, after Arizmendi-Medina was required to proceed pro se and was found removable at the hearing on October 24, 2018, the IJ granted another continuance so that Arizmendi-Medina could continue to look for an attorney and work on his relief application (which was presented to him for the first time at the October 24, 2018 hearing).

20 ARIZMENDI-MEDINA V. GARLAND

Arizmendi-Medina thus received only one continuance after he was found removable and presented with a relief application, and he received zero continuances after he finally secured an attorney. From start to finish, the proceedings against Arizmendi-Medina were delayed for less than five months, with nearly two months of that delay due to the change of venue.

Ultimately, all of the Ahmed factors weigh in favor of finding that the IJ abused his discretion in not granting a continuance so that Arizmendi-Medina’s recently-retained counsel could complete and submit the relief application on December 18, 2018. The abuse is especially apparent given the offer of Arizmendi-Medina’s counsel to submit the application later that same day. Such an abuse by the IJ counsels in favor of finding that Arizmendi-Medina was denied fundamental fairness. See id. at 1110 (finding that the IJ abused her discretion in part because the merits hearing was “less than one month after Cruz Rendon first appeared with counsel,” which contributed to the noncitizen’s difficulty in marshalling evidence in such a short time frame (emphasis in original)). This “prevented [Arizmendi-Medina] from reasonably presenting his case.” See Zetino, 622 F.3d at 1013 (quoting Ibarra-Flores, 439 F.3d 620-21).

. . . .

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

This faux “court” system has lost sight of its sole function: To provide due process hearings to individuals whose lives and futures are on the line!

In this case, the DOJ was obviously willing to spend more time and resources on denying the respondent his day in court than it would have taken to hold a merits asylum hearing! No wonder they have built an astounding, ever-growing 2 million case backlog! Don’t let Garland & company get away with blaming the private bar or respondents (that is, “the victims”) for DOJ’s continuing screw-ups at EOIR!

No real inconvenience or delay to the IJ! Life or death for the respondent! Attorney kept on a treadmill by EOIR’s unreasonable conduct! Who would take cases, particularly pro bono, under this type of tone-deaf “double standard.” (Would Trump-appointed dissenting Judge Danielle J. Forrest, who probably never has represented an individual in Immigration Court, REALLY practice law under these abusive circumstances?)

How many of you out there in “Courtside Land” have arrived on time for a scheduled merits hearing, with respondent and witnesses in tow, only to find out that your case had been “orbited” further out on the docket, with no or inadequate notice? How many have had long-prepared cases arbitrarily shuffled to a future year while having other cases where you were recently retained mindlessly “moved up” on the docket to satisfy EOIR’s latest “priority of the day?” Pretending like “every minute counts” in this hopelessly inefficient and bolloxed system is EOIR’s and DOJ’s way of deflecting attention and shifting the blame for their own, largely self-created failures!

In the “topsy turvy” fantasy world of EOIR, the dockets are overwhelming and totally screwed up! So much, that DHS recently took the unprecedented step of unilaterally declaring that (except for a small subset of “mandatory appearances”) THEY would decide which EOIR cases to staff with an Assistant Chief Counsel. See, https://immigrationcourtside.com/2023/05/31/🤯-wacko-world-of-eoir-dhs-prosecutors-deliver-the-big-middle-finger-bmf-🖕to-garlands-feckless-immigration-courts-unilate/. Implicit in this “in your face” action is the assumption that Immigration Judges will also act as prosecutors in these cases (even though Immigration Judges clearly lack some of the authority of prosecutors, including the exercise of prosecutorial discretion and stipulation to issues or relief).

On the other hand, private attorneys are systemically jerked around by EOIR and subjected to the threat of discipline for even relatively minor transgressions. Talk about an “uneven playing field!” In a system where lack of representation and under-representation are daily threats to due process and fundamental fairness, how does EOIR’s one-sided, anti-attorney, anti-immigrant conduct encourage new generations to chip in their time pro bono or low bono to bridge the ever-present “representation gap?”

In short, it does just the opposite! Some experienced practitioners have “had enough” and reduced or eliminated their Immigration Court presence while others have changed to other areas of practice because of EOIR’s continuing dysfunction under Garland. This should be a “solvable” problem — particularly in a Dem Administration! Why isn’t it?

Why is Garland getting away with this nonsense? How can we “change the playing field” and demand that Garland finally bring the due process reforms and expert judicial and professional, common-sense administrative personnel to America’s worst and most life-threatening courts?

Thanks to attorney Shannon Englert of San Diego for taking on Garland’s dysfunctional DOJ immigration bureaucracy!

Shannon Englert, ESQ Founder DYADlaw Vista, CA PHOTO: Linkedin

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

06-13-23

“`

From EOIR:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Dan Kowalski reports for LexisNexis Immigration Community:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Here’s the EOIR press release:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

BIA HEADNOTE:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Colorado AILA reports:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Dan Kowalski reports for LexisNexis Immigration Community:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Professor Stephen Yale-Loehr reports:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Gebra v. A.G., 3d Cir, 07-19-23, unpublished (unfortunately)

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Maria writes:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Two items from Professor Austin Kocher on Substack:

And, this from Lauren Iosue, Georgetown Law L-3 on LinkedIn.

🇺🇸Due Process Forever,

Related posts:

Dan Kowalski reports for LexisNexis Immigration Community:

Related posts:

Dan Kowalski reports for LexisNexis Immigration Community:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

KEY QUOTE FROM CIRCUIT JUDGE RONALD LEE GILMAN’S MAJORITY OPINION:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts: