"The Voice of the New Due Process Army" ————– Musings on Events in U.S. Immigration Court, Immigration Law, Sports, Music, Politics, and Other Random Topics by Retired United States Immigration Judge (Arlington, Virginia) and former Chairman of the Board of Immigration Appeals PAUL WICKHAM SCHMIDT and DR. ALICIA TRICHE, expert brief writer, practical scholar, emeritus Editor-in-Chief of The Green Card (FBA), and 2022 Federal Bar Association Immigration Section Lawyer of the Year. She is a/k/a “Delta Ondine,” a blues-based alt-rock singer-songwriter, who performs regularly in Memphis, where she hosts her own Blues Brunch series, and will soon be recording her first full, professional album. Stay tuned! 🎶 To see our complete professional bios, just click on the link below.
Category: FRIDAY ESSAY — FROM MONTICELLO TO TRUMP MILLER SESSIONS AND THE GOP WHITE NATIONALISTS
Led by a notorious insurrectionist, GOP cortège, in full regalia, heads into border battle against I-589-carrying “invaders” determined to exercise their rights under U.S. and international law. “Desperate people of color trying to do things the right way and threatening to invoke legal rights are the single greatest threat today to White Nationalist America,” said one cortège member! “Those seeking to use our laws as they were intended to gain the protection we promised, and then scheming to work hard, pay taxes, provide services, innovate, raise their families, enrich our culture, and contribute to the common good are an existential threat to American exceptionalism,” said one of the beclowned troupe! PHOTO: Public Domain
House Republicans, led by loudest maniac Jim Jordan, had high hopes of stealing some of President Joe Biden’s thunder after his historic surprise trip to Kyiv, Ukraine. “Oh, yeah,” you could hear them squeaking. “We’ll show him.” So in the best tradition of nativist, isolationist know-nothingism, they headed for the southern border to put on a show of hunting for the crisis of the hordes invading “our” country. What they got was … not that.
“As they rumbled along the entry port of San Luis, a dam along the Colorado River and more desolate sections of the U.S. border between Arizona and Mexico, though, their search came up empty,” a reporter on the scene described. “Hours later, immigration officials would spot a group crossing north, but it was long after Congress members had retired for the night.”
This was part of what they’re calling a “field hearing” by the House Judiciary Committee, explaining Jordan’s, ahem, leadership. (Seriously, they need to rethink having this guy as their mascot. Does anyone, could anyone, find this guy compelling?) The “convoy” included “more than a dozen congressional Republicans, a large contingent of staffers and a handful of reporters.” Having turned the trip into some kind of sick safari, the group thwarted their own goal.
“Jordan’s group was told that around 4,000 immigrants cross the U.S. border near Yuma each day, but its conspicuous presence thwarted the expedition’s goal of spotting immigrants attempting an unobtrusive entry.” You don’t say. They did spot a bus parked across the border, however. No one came out of it to make a run for the border.
No Democrats participated in what ranking committee Democrat Jerry Nadler called a “stunt hearing,” though he did say that some Democrats from the committee would go to the border next month to to “hear from the community and government officials on the ground.”
The big convoy also help put the lie to the GOP’s government spending obsession. This is the third trip to the border by some contingent of GOP House members in the new Congress, with Barely Speaker Kevin McCarthy having already gone to try to score points, as well as members of the Energy and Commerce Committee.
The Homeland Security Committee has what they’re calling a “border bootcamp” for Republican freshmen members, and the Oversight Committee has plans to go in the near future, too. That’s one way to stop illegal crossings: Just keep sending down convoys of GOP representatives to play border patrol.
All that’s pretty expensive. The GOP Judiciary Committee alone has requested $262,400 for travel this session. In 2022, with Democrats in charge of the committee, they spent $7,986.
When it comes to actual border policy rather than publicity and preening, they’ve got nothing. Or rather they’ve got an interparty fight, as Gabe Ortiz reported. Their first go at an immigration bill “was so extreme it derailed itself, after so-called moderates refused to sign on.”
********************
If the GOP were really serious about cutting wasteful spending, they could “ground” Jordan and his traveling White Nationalist circus!
Why would a Dem President curry favor for his border policies from an anti-democracy, White Nationalist, election-denying blowhard, eschewing the rule of law, human decency, and the expert advice of many who voted for him in the process? Got me on that one!
“The White House must be really proud of getting endorsements from guys like Jordan and Chad Wolf (a/k/a “Wolfman”),” one human rights wag reportedly quipped!
Democrats! Has there ever been a more frustrating party when it comes to human rights, backbone, and carrying out promises, not to mention using the brainpower and resources available to solve problems, rather than lamely “gimmicking” them? Honestly!🤯
In a (perhaps unexpectedly) shrewd move, House Judiciary Dems took a pass on this GOP clown show. It would be a good idea, however, for Dems to go to the border, without the Ringling Bros, Barnum & Bailey act, observe the human carnage caused by the wrong-headed (not to mention illegal) approach of the last two Administrations, and interact with some of those humans affected, including asylum seekers, local officials, residents, dedicated advocates, and NGO personnel. The latter two have been about the ONLY ones trying to uphold the rule of law and to inject some common sense and much needed humanity into this unnecessarily chaotic situation caused by our Government’s abandoning our legal and moral obligations toward those fleeing persecution — over two Administrations.
Asylum seekers must wait for appointments in U.S. for everyone, or leave some behind.
By Andrea Castillo
WASHINGTON — Inside a tent near the Rio Grande in Matamoros, Mexico, Jeyson woke up before 3 a.m. every day for a month to fill out applications to request asylum for his family of four through a U.S. government mobile app.
The 25-year-old from Venezuela eventually secured appointments for himself and his wife, but the slots filled up so quickly that he couldn’t get two more for their children. They weren’t worried, though — they had heard about families in similar situations being waved through by border officials.
Instead, he said, a U.S. Customs and Border Protection agent told them recently that because each member of the family did not have an appointment, “you two can enter, but not your children.” Jeyson asked The Times to withhold his last name out of fear for his family’s safety.
Now, many families like Jeyson’s have found themselves confronted with a seemingly impossible decision: Wait indefinitely for enough appointments for the whole family, or split up. It is unclear how many migrants have been put in this position.
. . . .
“We already risked it all,” he said. “What can we do? We are hopeful that we can get three appointments. Three, in the end, is less than four.”
Advocates said some parents have decided to leave their children with extended family or friends in order to keep their appointments.
Jeyson said a couple from his encampment did just that, leaving their five children at the border bridge and entering the U.S. after managing to get only two appointments.
Children who are unaccompanied by a parent are exempt from Title 42. Those in the care of adults who are not their legal guardians — even if they are extended family — are separated until a guardian can be properly vetted. Jeyson said he watched as the children walked up to a border agent and were taken into custody.
Felicia Rangel-Samponaro, director of the Sidewalk School, a nonprofit that offers education, medical care and other assistance to migrants in Mexican border towns, has organized sessions with parents at various shelters and encampments in Matamoros and Reynosa to explain what will happen if they send their child across the border unaccompanied.
“We don’t want them to think you cross and then your child crosses and will come back to you a day later,” she said. “We were surrounded by parents who were showing us, one after the other, [who] have an appointment but their child does not.”
Rangel-Samponaro recommended to parents that they cancel their appointments and restart their search. But some parents told her they would separate from their kids anyway.
“Family separation has never stopped,” she said, referencing the Trump administration’s “zero tolerance” border policy that led to thousands of migrant children being taken from their parents. “The only difference here is that CBP One is now doing it instead of the other ways it’s been done since 2018.”
*******************
Read Andrea’s complete article at the link.
Let’s start with one undisputed fact: The number of appointments available on CBP One is pathetically, ridiculously inadequate for the KNOWN number of potential applicants waiting in Mexico! Why would this be after the Administration has had over two years to work on this perhaps challenging, yet very solvable problem?
Unnecessary delay is just another form of “bureaucratic deterrence through incompetence” used by the Trump Administration and, inexcusably, continued under Biden.
Just how bonkers is this DHS-created problem? Dependents are included on a primary asylum seeker’s application. Consequently, in most cases one application covers the entire family.
And, dependents don’t have to “prove” independent eligibility for asylum. Therefore, anything beyond biographical information and perhaps proof of relationship is unnecessary.
There is absolutely no reason for requiring a separate “appointment” for each family member. The current system is “pure harassment and deterrence through bureaucratic incompetence.”
In Immigration Court, a family of five required only ONE asylum hearing slot — NOT FIVE!
Most legal asylum seekers at the border want to “do things the right way” — present themselves to DHS and submit an application. It’s neither profound nor “illegal.”
The BEST way of getting applicants to use the ports of entry is to work with experts and NGOs to establish a user-friendly, generous, timely system that prioritizes the many strong claims and grants them promptly at the Asylum Office rather than feeding them into a backlogged and dysfunctional EOIR.
In other words, if you BUILD a fair, credible, user-friendly legal application system at legal ports of entry, applicants will USE it. That the Trump White Nationalists destroyed our legal, statutory refugee and asylum systems was well-known at the time. Indeed, Biden and Harris campaigned on a pledge fix the system and restore legal asylum!
Instead, the Administration failed to utilize the skills and experience of experts to have a planned fix ready on “day one.” Since then, over more than two years, they have inexplicably ignored expert advice, wasted time, squandered resources, and bobbled through a bewilderingseries of mindless “Stephen Miller Lite deterrence gimmicks,” including “dedicated dockets,” prioritizing the wrong cases, “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” on steroids, a“Miller Lite holdover” BIA known for hostility to asylum seekers, ignoring the need for pro bono representation, failing to train and deploy enough Asylum Officers to the border, and not working with advocates, NGOs, and asylum seekers to prescreen cases, start granting asylum and moving qualified refugees (and their families) through the system and into durable legal status prior to the lifting of Title 42.
The CBP One screwup is just the latest in a string of “unforced errors” by the Biden Administration that abuse asylum seekers without any systemic benefits to anyone — “random acts of cruelty and stupidity!” This app was obviously designed by non-users for use by USG “gatekeepers” without any idea of what its like to be an asylum seeker stuck in Mexico.
Indeed, it appears that the app’s developers have little idea of how the legal asylum system works. Talk about “amateur night at the Bijou!”
Perhaps, the Biden Administration should have used a different method for selecting the so-called “developers” of their failed “CBP One App!” PHOTO: Thomas Hawk Creative Commons Amateur Night
“Family separation” has never stopped; now it has been“automated” — by a Dem Administration that has abandoned humanity and betrayed its campaign promises! Inexcusable!
“I’m gone, but my ‘evil spirit’ lives on in the West Wing! They have even ‘one-upped’’ me with a ‘family separation app’ called CBP One! Never has inflicting gratuitous cruelty been so easy!” Attribution: Stephen Miller Monster by Peter Kuper, PoliticalCartoons.com
The Biden proposal has picked up somewhat tepid endorsements from the likes of Trumpsters DHS official Chad Wolf and leading GOP insurrectionist Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH). Tells you all you really need to know about just how cruel and counterproductive these harebrained proposals are!
These are the folks that the Biden administration is pandering to while ignoring and disrespecting experts and asylum advocates who have centuries of collective experience working on asylum and the border. They also have plenty of good ideas for real asylum/human rights/border reforms that will combat cruelty and promote orderly compliance with the rule of law. The Biden Administration just isn’t interested in, or perhaps capable of, “doing the right thing.”
***********************
Here’s the text of my “custom revision” of the standard comment posted on the website:
I am a retired US DOJ attorneywith more than 35 years ofgovernment experience, all of it in the immigration field, mostly in senior positions. I have been involved in immigration and human rights, in the public and private sectors, for five decades
My last 21 years were spent as an EOIR Judge: eight years as an Appellate Immigration Judge on the BIA (six of those years as BIA Chair), and 13 years as an Immigration Judge at the (now legacy) Arlington Immigration Court. I was involved in the enactment of the Refugee Act of 1980 as well as developing implementing regulations and setting precedents thereunder.
I state unequivocally that these unnecessary proposed regulatory changes are a disavowal of more than four decades of U.S. (and international) asylum law as well as a shocking betrayal of the promise by the Biden Administration to stand up for the rights of legal asylum seekers and end the White Nationalist attempt by the Trump Administration to kill asylum without legislation.
The proposed rule is contrary to well-established United States law regarding the right to seek asylum in our country. There is absolutely no basis in law for the proposed “presumption of denial” for those who seek asylum outside a port of entry or who have transited other countries (as most have) without seeking asylum.
Indeed, the Administration’s approach is in direct contravention of the INA, which establishes rigorous criteria for designating “safe third countries” for asylum seekers. Only Canada has met those rigorous criteria to date, and even then only for a very limited class of applicants.
The idea that Mexico or other countries in Central America that asylum seekers customarily transit on the way to our southern border are “safe havens” for asylum seekers is patently absurd and counterfactual! Indeed, all legitimate experts would say that these are some of the most dangerous countries in the world — none with a fairly functioning asylum system.
Individuals are specifically entitled by the RefugeeAct of 1980, as amended, to access our asylum system regardless of how they enter, as has been the law for decades. They should not be forced to seek asylum in transit to the United States, especially not in countries where they may also face harm. The ending of Title 42—itself an illegal policy—should not be used as an excuse to resurrect Trump-era categorical bans on groups of asylum seekers.
As you must be aware, those policies were designed by xenophobic, White Nationalist, restrictionists in the last Administration motivated by a desire to exclude and discriminate against particular ethnic and racial groups. That the Biden Administration would retain and even enhance some of them, while disingenuously claiming to be “saving asylum,” is beyond astounding.
The rule will also cause confusion at ports of entry and cause chaos and exacerbate backlogs in our immigration courts. Even worse, it will aggravate the already unacceptable situation by making it virtually impossible for most asylum seekers to consult with pro bono counsel before their cases are summarily rejected under these flawed regulations.
People who cannot access the CBP One app are at serious risk of being turned away by CBP, even if the rule says otherwise. Additionally, every observer has noted that the number of “available appointments” is woefully inadequate. In many cases, observers have noted that this leads to “automated family separation.” Rather than fixing these problems, these proposed regulations will make things infinitely worse.
Additionally, as was demonstrated by the previous Trump Transit Ban, the rule is likely to create confusion and additional backlogs at the immigration courts as individual judges attempt to apply a complicated, convoluted rule.
Under the law, the U.S. Government has a very straightforward obligation: To provide asylum seekers at the border and elsewhere, regardless of nationality, status, or manner of coming to the U.S., with a fair, timely, opportunity to apply for asylum and other legal protections before an impartial, expert, adjudicator.
The current system clearly does not do that. Indeed,EOIR suffers from an “anti-asylum,” often misogynist “culture,” lacks precedents recognizing recurring asylum situations at the border (particularly those relating to gender-based persecution), and tolerates judges at both levels who lack asylum expertise, are not committed to due process and fundamental fairness for all, and, far from being experts, often make mistakes in applying basic legal standards and properly evaluating evidence of record, as noted in a constant flow of “reversals and rebukes” from Circuit Courts.
We don’t need moremindless“deterrence” gimmicks. Rather, it’s pasttime for the Administration to reestablish a functioning asylum system.
🇺🇸Due Process Forever! The treachery of an Administration that abandons humane values, and fears bold humanitarian actions, never!
Heidi Altman Director of Policy National Immigrant Justice Center PHOTO: fcnl.orgRev. Craig Mousin Ombudsperson Refugee and Forced Migration Studies, Grace School of Applied Diplomacy DePaul University PHOTO: DePaul Website
FEBRUARY 23, 2023 CRAIG B. MOUSIN SEASON 1 EPISODE 34
Lawful Assembly Podcast
Episode 34: Support Humanitarian Asylum Welcome
00:00
|
24:29
Rewind Speed Forward
Info
LAWFUL ASSEMBLY PODCAST
Episode 34: Support Humanitarian Asylum Welcome
FEB 23, 2023 SEASON 1 EPISODE 34
Craig B. Mousin
In this interview, Rev. Craig B. Mousin, an Adjunct Faculty member of DePaul University’s College of Law, Refugee and Forced Migration Studies Program, and the Grace School of Applied Diplomacy interviews Heidi Altman, the Policy Director of the National Immigrant Justice Center (www.immigrantjustice.org). Ms. Altman discusses a proposed rule that will effectively preclude most asylum-seekers from safely and effectively applying for asylum in the United States. She advocates for humanitarian asylum welcome. She previously served as the legal director for the Capital Area Immigrants’ Rights Coalition and was a Teaching Fellow in the immigration clinic at Georgetown University Law School.
ACTION STEPS
1. Invite friends and family to learn how the proposed rule will undermine refugee protection and encourage them to respond to their elected representatives and the Biden administration urging withdrawal of the proposed rule.
2. The Sanctuary Working Group of the Chicago Religious Leadership Network currently serves and advocates alongside newly arrived asylum seekers in the Chicagoland area. There are many impactful ways you can help asylum seekers, from providing sponsorship and temporary housing to covering legal fees and advocating for policy change. Interested individuals, faith communities, or organizations may contact CRLN staff/consultant David Fraccaro at davidfraccaro99@gmail.com to talk about ways to partner together in supporting and protecting our newest neighbors.
Craig Mousin volunteers with the National Immigrant Justice Center. We welcome your inquiries or suggestions for future podcasts. If you would like to ask more questions about our podcasts or comment, email us at: mission.depaul@gmail.com
Thanks, Craig and Heidi for a very interesting and informative session!
T. Swift. Loss of chance to attend her latest concert due to Ticketmaster SNAFU caused immediate bipartisan Congressional outrage and hearings! Loss of chance to plead for life because of DHS CBP One App SNAFU, not so much! Dehumanization of our fellow humans degrades our society. LOS ANGELES – Swift at 2019 iHeartRadio Music Awards on March 14, 2019 in Los Angeles, California. (Photo by Glenn Francis/Pacific Pro Digital Photography) Creative Commons License.
Here are “my takeaways:”
Asylum seekers have a legal right, established by the Refugee Act of 1980 and international conventions, to seek asylum at our border or in the U.S., regardless of status and/or nationality;
The Trump and Biden Administrations have abrogated this right without legislation;
The Trump Administration’s anti-asylum actions and intentional dehumanization of asylum seekers was rooted in White Nationalist nativism;
Despite recognition during the 2020 campaign of the invidious motivation for Trump’s anti-asylum policies, the Biden Administration has retained, or even enhanced, the dehumanization and denial of rights to asylum seekers at the border;
Over the past two Administrations, acceptance of the basic rights and obligations of the U.S. toward asylum seekers, incorporated in the Refugee Act of 1980, has been eliminated or reduced to a superficial “shell” (“asylum in name only,” as some advocates have termed Biden’s latest proposed anti-asylum border policies);
By abandoning the framework set forth in the Refugee Act of 1980, the Trump and Biden Administrations have re-injected the ad hoc approach,disorder, nationality bias, and ideological preferences at the border that the Refugee Act of 1980 was specifically enacted to eliminate;
There is much under-appreciated support for welcoming, fairly treating, and helping refugees and asylum seekers among Americans in communities throughout our nation;
NGOs and experts have dozens of great ideas for restoring and improving the legal right to seek asylum in fair, humane, non-discriminatory ways which they have shared or are happy to share with the Biden Administration;
The Biden Administration to date has shown little if any interest in adopting and implementing better humanitarian solutions for asylum seekers at the border;
Both parties lack leaders with the integrity and courage to stand up for the legal and human rights of asylum seekers;
We must continue to discuss ways to break the cycle of dehumanization, cruelty, and scofflaw treatment of asylum seekers and replace it with enhanced humanitarian procedures and a welcoming culture, in accordance with the Refugee Act of 1980, the U.N. Convention and Protocol, and the very best traditions of our nation of immigrants.
Legal asylum seekers from Central America might have thought that cruelty, illegality, and stupidity went out with the Trump Administration. They were wrong! Now Biden proposes to lawlessly “presume denial” of asylum — with no legal basis — and dump legal asylum seekers of color from his “disfavored nations” back into Mexico, whose asylum system is dysfunctional and where abusive treatment of asylum seekers has been well documented and recognized by a Federal Court! Women suffering from gender-based persecution are particular targets of this Administration’s campaign against humanity! Artist: Monte Wolverton Reproduced under license
Many groups issued immediate statements of outrage and protest at this cruel, lawless, and intellectually dishonest betrayal! I set forth two of them here:
From the American Immigration Council:
PRESS RELEASE
Department of Justice and Department of Homeland Security Release Details of Dangerous New Asylum Transit Ban
WASHINGTON, Feb. 21, 2023—Today, the U.S. Department of Justice and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security released a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) that will implement a new asylum transit ban—one of the most restrictive border control measures to date under any president. The policy will penalize asylum seekers who cross the border irregularly or fail to apply for protection in other nations they transit through on their way to the United States.
As described in the NPRM, the proposed asylum transit ban rule would all but bar asylum for any non-Mexican who crosses the U.S.-Mexico border between ports of entry, unless they had previously applied for—and been denied—asylum in another country before arrival.
Specifically:
The rule would apply to all non-Mexican migrants (except unaccompanied minors) who had not been pre-approved under one of the Biden administration’s parole programs, which are currently open only to certain nationals of 5 countries; pre-register at a port of entry via CBP One or a similar scheduling system (or arrive at a port of entry and demonstrate they could not access the system); or get rejected for asylum in a transit country.
During an asylum seeker’s initial screening interview with an asylum officer, the officer will determine whether the new rule applies to them. If so, they will fail their credible fear screening unless they can demonstrate they were subject to an exception such as a medical emergency, severe human trafficking, or imminent danger—which would “rebut the presumption” of ineligibility.
Migrants subject to the rule, who do not meet the exceptions above, would be held to a higher standard of screening than is typically used for asylum (“reasonable fear”). If a migrant meets that standard, they will be allowed to apply for asylum before an immigration judge—although the text of the proposed regulation is unclear on whether they would actually be eligible to be granted asylum.
Migrants who do not meet the credible or reasonable fear standard can request review of the fear screening process in front of an immigration judge.
Once the regulation is formally published in the Federal Register, the public will have 30 days to comment on the proposal. The administration is legally required to consider and respond to all comments submitted during this period before publishing the final rule, which itself must precede implementing the policy. Given the Biden administration’s expectation that the new rule will be in place for the expiration of the national COVID-19 emergency on May 11, and the potential end of the Title 42 border expulsion policy at that time, the timeline raises substantial concerns that the administration will not fulfill its obligation to seriously consider all comments submitted by the public before the rule is finalized.
Furthermore, the sunset date for the new rule, two years after it becomes effective, is after the end of the current presidential term—making it impossible to guarantee it will not be extended indefinitely.
In 2020, a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals panel blocked the Trump administration’s asylum transit ban from being applied to thousands of asylum seekers who were unlawfully prevented from accessing the U.S. asylum process. The ban was later vacated by the D.C. District Court.
The American Immigration Council was a part of the Al Otro Lado v. Wolf class action lawsuit on behalf of individual asylum seekers and the legal services organization Al Otro Lado (AOL), which challenged the legality of the previous asylum transit ban as applied to asylum seekers who had been turned back at the U.S.-Mexico border.
Jeremy Robbins Executive Director American Immigration Council PHOTO: AIC websitel
The following statement is from Jeremy Robbins, Executive Director, The American Immigration Council:
“President Biden committed to restoring access to asylum while on the campaign trail, but today’s proposal is a clear embrace of Trump-style crackdowns on asylum seekers, many of whom are fleeing from globally recognized oppressive regimes. For over four decades, U.S. law has allowed any person in the United States to apply for asylum no matter how they got here. The new proposed rule would all but destroy that promise, by largely reinstating prior asylum bans that were found to be illegal.
“Not only is the new asylum transit ban illegal and immoral, if put into place as proposed, it would create unnecessary barriers to protection that will put the lives of asylum seekers at risk. While the rule purports to be temporary, the precedent it sets—for this president or future presidents—could easily become permanent.
“For generations, the United States has offered a promise that any person fleeing persecution and harm in their home countries could seek asylum, regardless of how they enter the United States. Today’s actions break from his prior promises and threaten a return to some of the most harmful asylum policies of his predecessor—possibly forever.”
###
For more information, contact:
Brianna Dimas 202-507-7557 bdimas@immcouncil.org
******************************
From the Lutheran Immigration & Refugee Services:
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
February 21, 2022
Contact: Tim Young | tyoung@lirs.org
Washington, D.C. – In preparation for the end of Title 42 asylum restrictions, the Biden administration announced a new proposed rule severely limiting asylum eligibility for those who did not first seek protection in a country they transited through to reach the United States, or who entered without notifying a border agent. The proposed rule will be subject to a 30-day period of public comment before it can take effect.
The new rule mirrors a transit asylum ban first implemented under the Trump administration, which was ultimately struck down by federal judges in multiplecourts. The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) provides that people seeking protection may apply for asylum regardless of manner of entry, and does not require them to have first applied for protection in another country.
Krish O’Mara Vignarajah CEO Lutheran Immigrantion & Refugee Service
In response to the proposed asylum eligibility rule, Krish O’Mara Vignarajah, President and CEO of Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service, said:
“This rule reaches into the dustbin of history to resurrect one of the most harmful and illegal anti-asylum policies of the Trump administration. This transit ban defies decades of humanitarian protections enshrined in U.S. law and international agreements, and flagrantly violates President Biden’s own campaign promises to restore asylum. Requiring persecuted people to first seek protection in countries with no functioning asylum systems themselves is a ludicrous and life-threatening proposal.
While the Biden administration has launched a smartphone app for asylum appointments and expanded a temporary parole option for an extremely limited subset of four nationalities, these measures are no substitute for the legal right to seek asylum, regardless of manner of entry. It is generally the most vulnerable asylum seekers who are least likely to be able to navigate a complex app plagued by technical issues, language barriers, and overwhelming demand. Many families face immediate danger and cannot afford to wait for months on end in their country of persecution. To penalize them for making the lifesaving decision to seek safety at our border flies in the face of core American values.
We urge the Biden administration to reverse course before this misguided rule denies protection to those most in need of it. Officials must recognize that decades of deterrence-based policies have had little to no impact in suppressing migration. Instead, they should focus on managing migration humanely through expanded parole programs, efficient refugee processing in the hemisphere, and an equitably accessible asylum system.”
**************************
Lest anyone believe the absolute BS coming from the Biden Administration that they “had no choice” and that this “wasn’t the choice they wanted,” here’s an article setting forth the many southern border solutions that the Administration ignored or was too incompetent to carry out in their dishonest, immoral pursuit of the anti-asylum “vision” of Stephen Miller and other White Nationalists.
💡💡”There’s many things Biden could do. We published a resource called “Forty-Two Border Solutions That Are Not Title 42.” We could have done 142,” says immigration expert Danilo Zak in The Border Chronicle! The Biden Administration has ignored, failed, or is prepared to shrug off most of them!🤯
Danilo Zak Associate Director of Policy and Advocacy Church World Service PHOTO: The Border Chronicle
Zak was interviewed by Melissa Del Bosque of The Border Chronicle:
There are many changes that the Biden administration and Congress could make to alleviate suffering at the southern border. Immigration policy expert Danilo Zak recently published a report that offers several solutions, from rebuilding the refugee resettlement program to expanding nonimmigrant work visas to more countries in the Western Hemisphere.
Zak, formerly of the National Immigration Forum, is Associate Director of Policy and Advocacy for the nonprofit Church World Service. He spoke with The Border Chronicle about the increase of forcibly displaced people in the Western Hemisphere and the current situation at the border. “For many, there is no line to get into—no ‘right way’ to come to the U.S.,” Zak says.
Melissa Del Bosque Border Reporter PHOTO: Melissadelbosque.com
Notably, better, more robust, use of Refugee Programs established by the Refugee Act of 1980 is among Zak’s “top three.” This is something that I have been “touting” since Biden was elected, but where the Administration has failed to meet the challenge.
And, contrary to what the Administration and others might say, there is nothing unachievable about using refugee programs to deal with emergency humanitarian situations. Also, with respect to cases taking forever to process, no need for that nonsense. It’s a matter of poor bureaucratic execution rather than a defect in the legal authority.
The Refugee Act of 1980 (“RA 80”) is basically a modified version of the “emergency parole, resettle with NGOs, and petition Congress to adjust status” that was used on an ad hoc basis to resettle Indochinese refugees and others on an emergency basis prior to the RA 80. Except, that the criteria, resettlement mechanisms, and adjustment process were all “built in” to the statute. Consequently, although Congress was to be consulted in advance, that process was designed to run smoothly, efficiently, and on an emergency basis if necessary.
While “Congress bashing” is now a favorite pastime of the Executive, Judiciary, and media, in 1980 Congress actually provided a mechanism to regularize the processing of type of refugee flows now facing the U.S. The statutory flexibility and the legal tools to deal with these situations are in RA 80.
A subsequent Congress even added the “expedited removal” and “credible fear” process so that initial asylum screening could be conducted by expert Asylum Officers at or near the border and those “screened out” would be subject to expeditedremoval without full hearings in Immigration Court. Clearly, there was never a need for the Title 42 nonsense for any competent Administration.
Basically, if an Administration can run a large-scale parole program, which the Biden Administration did for Afghanistan and is doing now for Cuba, Nicaragua, Venezuela, and Haiti, it can run a legal refugee program beyond our borders, even in a “country in crisis” if necessary.
The idea that a statutory scheme specifically designed to have the flexibility deal with future mass refugee situations couldn’t be used to deal with the current humanitarian situation in the Western Hemisphere is pure poppycock!
Also unadulterated BS: The Biden Administration’s proposal to make the “end of asylum” at the southern border “temporary,” for two years! In 2025, the Biden Administration might not even be in office. If there is a GOP Administration, you can be sure that the demise of asylum at the border will become permanent, with or without legislation.
Also, what would be an Administration’s rationale for resuming asylum processing at the southern border in two years. Surely, there will be some other “bogus border crisis” cooked up to extend the bars. And, if there is no such crisis, the claim will be that the bars are “working as intended” so what’s the rationale for terminating them.
The argument that complying with the law by fairly processing asylum seekers regardless of race, ethnicity, religion, or manner of arrival, as the law requires, might actually encourage people to apply for protection will always be there — hanging over cowardly politicos afraid of the consequences of granting protection. Fact is, the current Administration has so little belief in our legal system and their own ability to operate within in, and so little concern for the human lives involved, that they are scared to death of failure. That’s not likely to change in two years — or ever!
Hello friends,
As we move deeper into 2023, you may be, like we are, still
processing 2022 (or 2019, let’s be honest). For immigration, the
new year comes with its own challenges as a divided Congress
makes policy decisions difficult and a shift to the 2024 presidential
race takes hold. Nevertheless, we have to remain hopeful that
progress can still be made. And you can be part of that! To remind
yourself of what happened last year and learn what issues our
government can focus on, check out our special edition of Téa’s
Coffee where she goes to the Senate to meet New York Senator
Kirsten Gillibrand.
We hope you enjoy this issue as much as we do,
-The Immigrant Food Team
Check out the full issue
Several “quick takes” from Tea’s interview with Senator Gillibrand:
She has introduced an “Article I Immigration Court Bill” in the Senate and believes it’s the type of bipartisan initiative that might interest enough GOP legislators to form a “working bipartisan majority.” A similar bill introduced by Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) in the last House received a hearing and was favorably voted out of Committee, but was never taken up by the full House, see, e.g., https://lofgren.house.gov/media/press-releases/house-judiciary-committee-passes-lofgren-s-legislation-reform-us-immigration;
Sen. Gillibrand’s biggest fear for American democracy is “demonization and racism” of which immigrants and asylum seekers are prime targets;
She thinks the “biggest danger” comes from “White supremacist groups” — basically right-wing domestic terrorists.
Both Tea’s 2022 summary and the interview with Sen. Gillibrnd are well worth the watch and can be accessed at links above.
“Social Justice/Business/Courageous Leadership Dynamo”🌪 Tea Ivanovic was recently recognized as one of “Forbes 30 Under 30” by Forbes Magazine and a “Woman Who Means Business” by Washington Business Journal! She is an “NDPA New Generation Super-Star” 🌟 to watch, for sure! And, from a “DMV standpoint,” Tea is a proud Virginia Tech Hokie alum and a former varsity tennis player. Certainly, a person of unlimited talents who has chosen to use them for the public good! You can check out my previous “Courtside profile” of Tea here: https://immigrationcourtside.com/2022/09/10/🇺🇸🗽👍🏼-immigrant-nation-teas-truth-wisdom-americans-views-on-immigrants-and-immigration-are-overwhelmingly-positive/
Judge Sarah B. Yeomans (Sterling Immigration Court) practiced before me in Arlington.
Judge Alysha M. Welsh (Annandale Immigration Court) worked for Round Tabler Judge (Ret.) Bill Joyce and most recently Human Rights First.
Judge Vimala S. Mangoli (Richmond Immigration Adjudication Center) is long-time Catholic Charities attorney.
Judge Jason E. Braun (Annandale Immigration Court) is most recently from Restoration Immigration Legal Aid of Arlington.
Per Round Table’s Hon.”Sir Jeffrey” Chase:
Judge Abby Anna Batko-Taylor, was appointed to the Falls Church Adjudication Center. Abby Anna while with Texas RioGrande Legal Aid won an unpublished, 39-page, unanimous panel decision [on asylum] in the 5th Circuit (attached) that she unsuccessfully moved that court to publish. The Round Table filed an amicus brief in support of the publication request.
While Garland has not made the long overdue systemic and leadership changes necessary to institutionalize due process, fundamental fairness, expert scholarship, and best practices at EOIR, positive change from below can still take place and will improve the quality of justice, one courtroom at a time! See,https://immigrationcourtside.com/2023/01/12/🇺🇸⚖️👨🏽⚖️👩🏽⚖️🗽-i-want-you-to-be-a-u-s-immigration-judge/. Seeing the “ball go in the basket” 🏀 on the “court of justice” ⚖️ inspires others in the NDPA to keep fighting for human rights, fair treatment of asylum seekers, and due process at the retail level of justice!
Full bios of the new Immigration Judges are available at the above link. Congratulations to all!
Lindsay Toczylowski Executive Director, Immigrant Defenders “ I always tell the new immigration attorneys at Immigrant Defenders Law Center to never forget just how stacked against our clients the odds are in immigration court.”
I always tell the new immigration attorneys at Immigrant Defenders Law Center to never forget just how stacked against our clients the odds are in immigration court. Today was a classic example.
Went in with a case that we have spent weeks on end prepping for, seeking asylum protection for our client. We extensively argued our case. Govt attorney waived arguments & had no filings for today, last filing they made in case was in 2020. Yet the judge found that despite a finding of past persecution the govt had rebutted the presumption of a well-founded fear of future persecution.
So the govt atty who didn’t make an argument, who didn’t file anything was found to have successfully rebutted our claims. We plan to appeal, but the imbalance of power in an immigration courtroom, even when someone has an attorney, is profound. Without an attorney it is inhumane.
At the end of the hearing the judge excused the ICE attorney so he did not have to stay through the oral decision. So we sat there, with our client wiping tears from his eyes, and received the decision. We took notes on its mistakes. We reserved the right to appeal.
And I felt this pit in my stomach knowing that my client was seeing his life flash before his eyes, knowing this put him in grave danger. And yet the ICE atty, one of the principal ppl responsible for putting him at risk, couldn’t even bother to stay to the end of the hearing.
Picture of the mural that sits across from one of the immigration courts in DTLA, which seems so fitting on today and so many days.
Mural
Grateful to my colleague Alvaro M. Huerta who was an incredible advocate for our client today.
************************
A very sad commentary on the “culture of denial” still prevalent at EOIR and Garland’s failure to address it head on. Seems like the ACC knew how the judge would rule in advance.
I actually remember a long-ago time at the USDOJ when a “win” was “when justice was done” not just “another denial and deportation notched.” As a few “old timers” might remember, I actually incorporated it into my “welcoming speech” to new INS trial counsel when I was the Deputy General Counsel/sometimes Acting GC at the “Legacy INS.” In a GOP Administration, no less!
Times have changed, I guess, to where a Dem Administration and a Dem AG function “below the Reagan line!” Interesting, yet depressing!
The IJ “excusing” the ACC from the oral decision — at least a violation of judicial etiquette, disrespectful, and unprofessional, if not marginally unethical — shows just where things stand in a system run by a former Federal Judge who has forgotten what justice and public service are all about — at least when it comes to those stuck in his dysfunctional and unprofessional “courts!”
I always insisted that both counsel be present for the delivery of an oral decision. If that were impossible, because of time constraints or a legitimate personal emergency, then the obvious solution was to either 1) issue a written decision, or 2) invite the parties to return another day to listen to the oral decision. A third option was to record it “in chambers,” and have a JLC or intern transcribe and edit it for issuance as a written decision. I actually noticed when the INS ACC was working on the files for the next case or “secretly” looking at an i-phone under counsel table while I was dictating the oral decision. While I didn’t mention it, it did “inform” my opinion of them as attorneys.
Unfortunately, I wouldn’t count on Garland’s Trump holdover BIA to correct the egregious injustices on the merits of this case. The appeals system is also “programmed to deny and deport” — just as Sessions and Barr constructed it!
One might have thought that a Dem Administration and a former Federal Judge would be interested in bringing due process, fundamental fairness, and decisional excellence to one of the most important Federal “Court” Systems — one they totally control! Not so! This is most disappointing and enraging, particularly for those practicing in the “skewed against the individual” mess that Garland tolerates and enables!
And, folks, these examples, including the outrageous miscarriage of justice and impartial judging described by Lindsay above, just cover a period since January 27, 2023, a mere 16 days ago — basically just the “tip of Garland’s deadly iceberg of injustice at EOIR!”
While numerous examples of unfairness and unprofessionalism at Garland’s dystopian EOIR have surfaced, they are “just the tip of the iceberg” masking the huge disaster lurking below where Garland and his lieutenants fear to go! Created by Uwe Kils (iceberg) and User:Wiska Bodo (sky). Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0
The unprofessional, disgraceful performance of EOIR described above, and the inexcusable failure to “clean house,” bring in qualified expert judges and professional judicial administrators, and support and institutionalize competent expert judging at EOIR, as represented by Judge Burgie and some others, would be disgraceful in ANY Administration! Coming during a Democratic Administration that RAN ON A PLATFORM of ending xenophobic, extralegal, nativist-motivated abuses directed at asylum seekers (often of color), immigrants, and their courageous, dedicated attorneys is totally unacceptable!
Yet, Senate Dems have failed to haul Garland and his lieutenants before the Senate Judiciary Committee to be confronted by those abused on their watch and to answer for their abject failure to bring due process, fundamental fairness, best practices, and competent, expert judicial decision making to EOIR’s dystopian, dysfunctional, and outrageously unfair “faux courts!”
As Lindsay says, “I always tell the new immigration attorneys at Immigrant Defenders Law Center to never forget just how stacked against our clients the odds are in immigration court.” It does NOT have to be this way!
These are NOT life-tenured Article III judges! They are, as the DOJ is constantly reminding them, “DOJ attorneys.” GOP Administrations have demonstrated time and again the recognition that they have the power to “purge” judges who stand up for immigrants’ rights and due process and to “stack” the Immigration Courts against asylum seekers andimmigrants.
Garland has the power to do the opposite: “unstack” EOIR, bring in qualified judges and administrators who are recognized, respected experts in immigration law, human rights, and due process, and create a “model Federal Judiciary” and a source for future experienced, well-qualified Article III appointments.
In nearly two years of inept and dilatory “administration” of EOIR, Garland has failed to achieve, or indeed even attempt, these essential, long-overdue reforms. Indeed, so poorly has he performed on immigration, human rights, equal justice, and racial equity, that many dedicated immigration practitioners tell me that things are markedly worse now for due process and fair judging at EOIR than at the end of the Trump Administration.See, e.g.,https://immigrationcourtside.com/2022/09/21/-outrage-boils-over-at-merrick-garlands-milleresque-war-on-due-process-at-eoir-his-grotesque-mismanagement-of-immigration-courts-garland-might/, (Quoting Jason “The Asylumist” Dzubow: “But as it turns out, President Biden’s EOIR is far worse than President Trump’s. Indeed, the current level of callousness would make even Stephen Miller blush.”)
As Jason Dzubow would say, “It didn’t have to be this way!” But, sadly, and outrageously, it IS this way! Eventually, that’s something that the Democratic Party will have to answer for! Unfortunately, some of their “victims” are likely to be in their graves by then!☠️⚰️🤮
President Biden often correctly says that our democracy is in peril! Yet, one of the main places where it is most imperiled and disrespected is in HIS OWN Immigration Courts at EOIR. Why hasn’t the President led the “defense of democracy” by cleaning up the mess in his own house? Inexplicable!
“The DOJ issues a hollow statement condemning FGM. But, when it comes to building on a 27-yr-old precedent to help gender-based refugees, they have been largely indifferent to suffering and the dire need for protection.” PHOTO: Creative Commons 4.0
Dan Kowalski from LexisNexis Immigration Community sent in this recent asylum victory from the Denver Immigration Court:
Hats off to Judge Burgie and Attorney Alexandra Katsiaficas for showing how effective advocacy and good judging can save lives and “move” cases at the “retail level” of EOIR.
This decision is comprehensive, straightforward, understandable, and logical. This is exactly the type of precedent that the BIA should be (but isn’t) issuing and enforcing on a consistent, nationwide basis! Why isn’t EOIR getting the job done under Garland?
While Judge Burgie didn’t cite Matter of A-R-C-G- on asylum based on domestic violence, she did cite a number of my “favorite precedents” from the long-gone but not totally forgotten “Schmidt-Board:” Matter of Kasinga, Matter of O-Z- & I-Z-, Matter of D-V-, and Matter of S-P-, as well as the BIA’s oft-cited but seldom followed “seminal” asylum case Matter of Acosta, which was the starting point for Kasinga and other favorable asylum precedents of the past.
Judge Burgie also cited and followed favorable 10th Circuit precedent. She got the “unwilling or unable to protect,” “internal relocation,” and “nexus” issues correct. She used the regulatory presumption based on past persecution effectively. Significantly, she also included a correct additional analysis of why this case, and others like it, should be granted based on “egregious past persecution” (“Chen grant”) even in the absence of a current well-founded-fear. Most of these cases should be “easy grants” preferably at the Asylum Office, but if not, at EOIR.
Instead, some IJs and many BIA panels “invent” reasons to deny that mock asylum law and distort the reality of conditions for women in the Northern Traingle and elsewhere!
I recently commented elsewhere on the irony of Garland’s DOJ issuing a “pro forma declaration” endorsing “Zero Tolerance for FGM Day,” while doing such a poor overall job of actually protecting those who have suffered that and other forms of gender based persecution. Action over hollow rhetoric, please!
Seems to me EOIR didn’t do a very good job of “building on the saving potential” of Matter of Kasinga, 21 I&N Dec. 357 (BIA 1996), my “landmark” opinion finding that FGM could be a basis for granting asylum. Indeed, after the “Ashcroft purge” removed those of us BIA judges committed to protecting refugees suffering from gender based persecution, the BIA intentionally misconstrued Kasinga and shamefully tried to limit it.
So transparently horrible was this effort that one of Ashcroft’s Bush II successors, AG Mukasey, hardly a voice for progressive jurisprudence and women’s human rights, finally had to intervene to put a stop to the BIA’s deadly nonsense. See Matter of A-T-, 24 I&N Dec. 617 (A.G. 2008). This was only after after blistering criticism of the “post-purge” BIA’s disingenuous approach by some of Judge Mukasey’s “former Article III superiors” on the Second Circuit.SeeBah v. Mukasey, 529 F.3d 99, 124 (2d Cir. 2008) (“The BIA refers, in passing, to the act of female genital mutilation as “reprehensible,” . . . but its entirely dismissive treatment of such claims in these cases belies any sentiment to that effect.” Straub, Circuit Judge concurring).
Judge Staub’s criticism of the BIA’s shallow and disingenuous treatment of too many asylum claims, particularly those based on gender persecution, remains just as true today under Garland as it was then. “Throwaway lines” — basically “boilerplate” —disingenuously expressing sympathy, but then misconstruing facts and law to deny life-saving protection, are no substitute for competent, fair judging at EOIR!
More than a quarter-century after Kasinga, I still don’t see much commitment at DOJ/EOIR to consistently protecting women from gender-based persecution. That being said, some IJs, particularly (but not only) those with expertise gained by representing asylum seekers, like Judge Burgie, are doing a good job of applying Cardoza, Kasinga, A-R-C-G-, D-V-, O-Z-&I-Z-, the regulatory presumption, expert testimony, and an honest reading of country conditions to grant desperately-needed protection in gender-based cases. The BIA, not so much.
Also, while issuing this statement, DOJ is “sitting on” gender based regulations, promised by President Biden on “day 1” to be delivered by the Fall of 2021! Reportedly, there is considerable “Miller Lite” restrictionist opposition within the Administration to treating protection claims for gender-based refugees fairly, generously, and consistently. See, e.g., https://www.cbsnews.com/news/immigration-biden-asylum-limits-us-mexico-border-arrivals/.
Kind of makes me wonder what, if anything, Dems REALLY stand for when the chips are down, human lives are at stake, and courageous, informed, bold leadership is required! GOP White Nationalist nativist bullies are only too happy to express their disdain for the rights and contempt for the humanity of all vulnerable refugees. They specifically target women.
But, when it comes to standing up for the legal and human rights of asylum seekers, most of them already written into our laws, Dems often “hide underneath the table.” That’s particularly true of this Administration’s incredibly poor and spineless approach to asylum at the Southern Border and their failure to address the asylum disaster at EOIR.
And, it’s not that Biden’s morally and legally vapid approach to asylum seekers has won any support from the right, progressives, or independents. Almost everyone is suing or threatening to sue the Administration about some aspect of their hapless, mushy, often self-contradictory handling of asylum. It’s a traditional, perhaps endemic, problem that once elected, Dems have a hard time distinguishing friends from foes. At least on immigration, they spend far too much time catering to the views and bogus criticisms of the latter while ignoring the informed views and experiences of the former.
Judge Burgie is a Barr appointee, but has a diverse background that includes not only service as an EOIR JLC and fraud and abuse prevention counsel, but also time representing and advocating for refugees and asylum seekers. Her asylum grant rate has gone up steadily over three years on the bench and currently stands at approximately 75%, well within the range I’d expect from a competent, expertIJ handling a non-detained docket.
That’s about 2X the national average grant rate of 37.5%. And, the latter is “up” from its artificially suppressed rate under Trump! Better EOIR judges at the “grass roots level” can make a difference and save lives even in the absence of leadership from Falls Church and “Main Justice!”
As this case confirms, there is “substantial judicial potential” on the the EOIR bench, most of it at the trial level. That’s particularly true of some of Garland’s most recent appointments who are widely-recognized and universally-respected asylum experts — “practical scholars” if you will.
But, EOIR still has not reached the “critical mass” of outstanding jurists necessary to “turn this broken system around” in the absence of leadership, positive examples, and operational reforms “from the top!”
That’s why I advocate for “change from below as the way to go” to save some lives and institutionalize fair judging and best practices at EOIR. So, NDPA heroes, keep those applications flowing forupcoming vacancies on the Immigration Bench, at all levels. I want YOU to bring justice to the broken “retail level” of our legal system! See, https://immigrationcourtside.com/2023/01/12/-i-want-you-to-be-a-u-s-immigration-judge/.
Federal and state lawmakers are renewing efforts to shorten the amount of time asylum seekers must wait before they can work and become self-sufficient.
Local officials in communities such as Portland, a destination for waves of people seeking asylum, have called on federal officials for years to reduce the waiting period for work permits, which is a minimum of six months and often much longer. They argue speeding up the process is a way to address workforce shortages as well as reduce the costs of providing financial assistance to asylum seekers who aren’t allowed to support themselves.
But every effort dating to at least to 2015, when Sen. Angus King of Maine submitted a bill to shorten the wait period to 30 days, has failed to gain traction in Congress because the appeals have been caught up in partisan and regional conflicts over immigration reform and border security.
Republican Sen. Susan Collins and Rep. Chellie Pingree, D-1st District, have proposed similar bills in recent years. And both are doing so again this session, while King, an independent, is signing on as a co-sponsor.
. . . .
Despite national polarization over the issue, calls for allowing asylum seekers to work and become self-sufficient are widely supported in Maine by Republicans, Democrats and independents. The fact that Maine has more jobs available than there are workers to fill them is a key reason for the broad support.
Even former Gov. Paul LePage, who opposed efforts to help asylum seekers during his eight years in office, revised his position during the gubernatorial campaign last fall, saying at a debate in Portland that “if asylum seekers are here, and (President) Joe Biden is not going to enforce federal law on immigration … I want to put them to work.”
Collins started pushing for the reform in 2019 and announced on Friday that she introduced a bill with Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, an Arizona independent and former Democrat, that would reduce the waiting period from six months to 30 days for asylum seekers who have gone through preliminary screening. And Pingree plans to reintroduce her bill in the House in the coming weeks.
. . . .
******************
Read the full article at the link.
Gosh, when even former GOP right-wing Gov. Paul LePage is on board, seems like it should be a “no-brainer” for Congress. But, that isn’t the way things work (or don’t) on the Hill these days.
As to requesting a “waiver” of the current 180 day statutory “lock out” provision, there currently doesn’t appear to be any process for that. The statute does state that:“An applicant for asylum is not entitled to employment authorization, but such authorization may be provided under regulation by the Attorney General.”
Therefore, it appears that the Biden Administration could establish a waiver process by regulation if it chose to. I’m not aware of any plans by the Administration to propose such a regulation.
The Administration has addressed immediate work authorization in their recently announced parole program for certain nationals of Venezuela, Nicaragua, Haiti, and Cuba. Individuals approved for this program abroad will be “paroled” into the U.S. for two years with work authorization.
The relief for states like Maine under this parole program is limited, because 1) only nationals of the four specified countries can apply; 2) the program applies prospectively only; 3) it’s uncertain what will happen to parolees after two years (one can imagine that any future GOP Administration would terminate the program, given that GOP politicos are now suing to halt it); and 4) the is no clear path to a green card for these paroled individuals.
To date, the Administration has not “leveraged” other potential legal mechanisms to expedite employment authorization.
One option would be to greatly expand use of the new regulatory authority for USCIS Asylum Officers to grant asylum status to applicants arriving at the border. This would result in immediate admission in an orderly, work-authorized asylum legal status and avoid the current 2.1 million Immigration Court backlog. It also would trigger a statutory process for asylees to apply for green cards after being physically present in the U.S. for one year. Additionally, granting asylum expeditiously at the AO would be available to all asylum applicants, not just those from the four specified nations.
Another option, that could be used in conjunction with the first one, would be to ramp up much more robust and inclusive refugee programs outside the U.S. This could be in the countries in crisis or in third countries. Like asylees, refugees enter the U.S. in a legal status that authorizes them to work immediately. Like asylees, they have access to a statutory provision for obtaining a green card after being physically present in the U.S. for one year. Refugee status is potentially available to refugees from any country where the President finds a “special humanitarian concern” following “consultation” with Congress.
Unfortunately, in my view, the Biden Administration has shown little interest in, nor aptitude for, maximizing the mechanisms available to legally admit refugees, from abroad or as asylum seekers. As pointed out above, doing so also would address the issues in Maine and other states who have welcomed refugees and asylum seekers.
Instead, the Administration has relied on a mishmash of:
Trump-era, nativist, deterrence policies, many with questionable legal basis;
A series of ever-changing, ad hoc, subjective, discretionary “exceptions” to those policies administered without any transparency or accountability;
An ad hoc, nationality specific, parole program divorced from the statutory “refugee” definition, having a much more tenuous legal basis than using the established refugee and asylum admission provisions now in the INA, and certainly leaving the future fate of those “paroled” thereunder “up in the air” and subject to maximum political gamesmanship.
The sum total is to leave too many refugees and asylees, and the individuals and communities in the U.S. trying to help them, “dangling in the air” without the necessary support and humanitarian leadership from the Administration.
Julia Toepfer National Immigrant Justice Center (“NIJC”)
Humane border policies are possible. Here are five solutions.
The United States continues to struggle to create and implement humane border policies that respect domestic and international law and the dignity of people seeking protection. NIJC’s policy experts convened with other experts to suggest five solutions for a humane border policy. Read more about the solutions and see our graphics series.
AUTHOR NIJC Policy Team
The U.S. government and governments around the world are grappling with an increase in the number of people forcibly displaced from their homes by political and social oppression. Despite campaign commitments to restore humanity to immigration policy, the Biden administration has largely continued Trump-era policies at the U.S.-Mexico border. These policies blatantly undermine domestic and international asylum law; result in countless deaths; and create rather than mitigate chaos as people blocked from protection have little choice but to resort to multiple and more dangerous border crossing attempts.
What should the Biden administration be doing to address the humanitarian need at the border? There are other ways to address the situation at the border, leading with empathy and courage in compliance with the Refugee Act of 1980.
The administration can and should: 1) develop and support robust communication and planning between federal, state and local governments, and civil society, so that those arriving migrants in need of additional support can be matched with a destination with capacity to provide services; 2) fully fund and support civil society, including social and legal service providers; 3) create non-custodial, humanitarian reception centers at the border, instead of jailing migrants and asylum seekers; and 4) overhaul the federal immigration budget by moving funds away from detention and enforcement and toward asylum processing and humanitarian needs.
While taking these steps the administration must 5) abide by its obligation to ensure asylum access to those arriving at the United States’ borders and ports. The Refugee Convention, which Congress incorporated into U.S. law, was borne out of the horrors of World War II and the Nazi Genocide. It reminds us of a history we must not repeat, when the United States was among those countries that turned European Jewish refugees away, back to their deaths. Policies developed during the Trump administration, including the Title 42 mass expulsions policy and asylum bans that deny protection on the basis of a person’s manner of entry, stand in blatant violation of this obligation.
Processing large – even unprecedented – numbers of asylum seekers is possible. In the aftermath of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, there was an outpouring of support and political will to welcome Ukrainians forced to flee. In only a five-month period following the invasion, the United States processed and received more than 100,000 Ukrainians. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has tremendous authority and resources at its fingertips; with political will and a reprioritization of funding, the United States absolutely has the means to become a leader in the response to the global refugee crisis and to provide dignity and respect to those arriving at the border in search of safe haven.
************************
Get more details at the above link.
This is exactly the kind of practical, progressive thinking and planning that the Biden Administration should have been ready to “run with” upon taking office. They also needed a different leadership team with the skills, expertise, and guts to put policies like this in place and stick with them.
Instead they have been cowed by nativists and wobbly Dem “faux centerists” into an ill-defined and ineptly led program of “Miller Lite” deterrence lamely leavened with arbitrary stabs at amelioration untethered to a statutory framework! They also needed a much better legal team led by skilled, dedicated litigators with proven ability to defend humanitarian legal policies against predictable scurrilous, but determined, well-financed litigation by White Nationalist advocates designed to block progress and insure that equal justice for all would remain a slogan rather than a reality!
The Biden administration fell into the trap of letting its opponents define the terms of the debate. . . . .
Arranging care for asylum seekers would have been necessary even with a better metric. However, managing the humanitarian flow would have been easier if the Biden administration had allowed those seeking asylum to apply in an orderly, timed fashion at a lawful port of entry.. . . .
. . . .
Members of Congress and others who oppose the Biden administration’s parole program raised no objections to the Trump administration dismantling the U.S. refugee program. They also have not advocated for any other legal way for people escaping oppressive governments to enter America. Without paths to enter lawfully, it is inevitable that more people will cross into the U.S. illegally.
. . . .
Critics of the increase in CBP encounters argue, without much evidence, that individuals would not come to America if U.S. immigration policy were harsher—in other words, if Biden were more like Trump.
Despite what his supporters assert, Trump’s policies did not reduce illegal immigration or discourage people from applying for asylum. Pending asylum cases rose by nearly 300 percent between FY 2016 and FY 2020 (from 163,451 to 614,751), according to Syracuse University’s Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse. Apprehensions at the southwest border (a proxy for illegal entry) rose more than 100 percent between FY 2016 and FY 2019 (from 408,870 to 851,508). Apprehensions fell for several months at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, but by August and September 2020, apprehensions returned to the approximate level of illegal entry for the same months in FY 2019.
Providing individuals with legal ways to work or seek protection in America is the only viable way to reduce illegal immigration. Treating people humanely is not a sign of weakness. Allowing for orderly entry is a smart policy consistent with America’s best tradition as a nation of immigrants and refugees.
******************
I highly recommend reading Stuart’s complete article at the link. Members of the so-called “mainstream media,” whose stories often do not accurately reflect the legal right to apply for asylum at the border, which has been shamefully ignored and/or abridged by both Trump and Biden, would also do well to read Stuart’s accurate description of our needlessly screwed up administration of refugee and asylum laws. Most media articles also fail to accurately distinguish between those (often vainly) seeking just to exercise their legal right to apply for asylum at the border and other individuals who might irregularly cross the border.
The real, oft-ignored, problem here is that the Trump Administration dismantled the legal refugee programs established by the Refugee Act of 1980. Then, they unlawfully “repealed” asylum law at the border. Worse yet, Congress and bad GOP appointed Federal Judges let them get away with this outrageously illegal and highly counterproductive conduct (at least to date).
By the time the Biden Administration took office, the real “solvable” part of the problem at the Southern Border was well defined by experts: The US Government’s intentional violation of laws protecting refugees and legal asylum seekers and guaranteeing the latter fair and timely assessment and adjudication of their claims.
The Biden Administration could and should have “hit the ground running” with an aggressive program (and defense thereof) of restoration of the rule of law for refugees, who could and should have been processed in larger numbers outside the U.S. in Latin America and the Caribbean, combined with a restoration of the rule of law for asylum seekers at the, border, led by a reformed EOIR and USCIS Asylum Office, both staffed with true asylum experts!
Instead, the Biden Administration, after an “initial burst” of promising yet highly ineffective rhetoric (see, e.g., “reforms” of gender-based asylum), gave immigration, human rights, and the interconnected problem of racial justice, low priority. Instead of seeking and employing dynamic, progressive, problem-solving leaders, with new and creative ideas, they relied largely on “bureaucratic retreads” who showed little interest in or affinity for taking the bold, often courageous, actions necessary to address the festering humanitarian crisis at the border!
Too many of these individuals seemed to accept the false GOP nativist proposition that elimination or unduly restrictive applications of asylum law were the best way to “deter” unlawful entries, and that we didn’t want to “encourage” refugees from Latin America or the Caribbean by recognizing the legitimacy of their claims and/or running robust, realistically large “overseas” refugee programs for them.
Moving refugees and asylum seekers into an orderly, functioning, legal process at or away from the border would also allow CBP to focus resources on individuals who are not seeking legal refugee in the U.S. Because of the inaccurate and misleading statistics used to “count” border activity, as accurately described by Stuart in his full article, we actually have little idea how large a “cohort” of individual border arrivals legal asylum seekers represent.
“Mixing apples and oranges” certainly plays directly into the hands of GOP restrictionist/nativists who love to lump them all together under the dehumanizing and intentionally demeaning “false rubric” of “illegals.”There is nothing “illegal” about appearing at the U.S. border and asking for refuge under our domestic laws and international conventions to which we are party!
What is “illegal” is our Government suspending legal processing for asylum, and also, even for those chosen under largely arbitrary criteria for processing, delivering a badly flawed biased process that is neither fair nor timely. Also, mixing those merely seeking a chance to state their legal case for asylum with those seeking entry for other purposes certainly “dilutes” the enforcement resources and effectiveness of CBP in preventing “real” unlawful entries.
Instead, the Biden Administration settled into an inept “Miller Lite” posture of utilizing modified and supposedly “humanized” versions of Trump’s illegal policies. As pointed out by Stuart, the Biden Administration also failed miserably to anticipate and establish a Federally-led and funded program for humane resettlement of asylum seekers.
This played right into the hands of White Nationalist GOP pols like Abbott, DeSantis, Ducey, Paxton, Cruz, Cassidy, Vance, Biggs, McCarthy, Jordan, et.al. At the same time, in one of the dumbest moves in recent political history, they left Democratic leaders in locations victimized by the GOP “bussing stunts” in the lurch and without support, thereby driving an entirely unnecessary “wedge” and “stress point” into the “Democratic coalition.”
There might be no “easy and perfect” solution for managing refugee situations. Refugees and other types of “forced migrants’ have been with us since the beginning of human history. They will continue to exist long after the current crop of nativist politicos and “deterrence-only-focused” bureaucrats are gone.
Yet, with all this historical knowledge, the so-called “Western Democracies” failed miserably in protecting refugees from Hitler’s planned genocide in the years leading up to and including WWII. The 1951 UN Convention and later Protocol were supposedly “never again” responses to that deadly failure.
Yet, today, politicians and leaders who should know better seem determined to ignore the lessons of history and recreate the moral and humanitarian failures of the past. One can only hope that the NDPA and the “new generations” can get by the failures of today and treat refugees fairly, humanely, and in recognition of the substantial benefits that most bring to those nations fortunate enough to be “receiving” countries. The future of our world may depend on it!
Johnathan Chair Political Columnist NY Magazine PHOTO: Facebook
Johnathan Chait @ The Intelligencer:
There is an enduring pattern in American conservatism in which the right first develops a paranoid interpretation of the liberal Establishment, and then reverse engineers its own version of the monster it has imagined. Conservatives convinced themselves that the mainstream media and universities were mere propaganda organs, then created institutions like the Heritage Foundation and Fox News, warped reflections of their own overheated critique. The January 6 insurrection was, of course, in the mind of its participants, a “response” to the imagined vote-fraud conspiracy and its antifa/BLM shock troops.
John Durham’s investigation is a classic episode in this tradition. The American right first convinced itself that Robert Mueller and the deep state, using the cover of dispassionate professionalism, had launched a partisan witch hunt to smear Donald Trump. In response, it created a right-wing mirror image, as fervently partisan and unhinged as they believed their enemies to be.
The New York Times has a deeply reported narrative showing how Durham’s counter-investigation of the Russia probe, cooked up by William Barr at Donald Trump’s urging, was just as abusive, partisan, and unhinged as Trump’s defenders made Mueller out to be.
The purpose of special counsel is to wall off a politically sensitive investigation from the attorney general. But Durham, reports the Times, was working closely with Barr behind closed doors all along. The two Republicans dined and drank together, and came to share Barr’s Fox News–brained beliefs that Trump had been the victim of a conspiracy.
Rather than preventing Barr from meddling in a politicized investigation, this arrangement inverted that purpose and laundered Barr’s involvement through Durham’s putative independence. “At some point, some particularly ill-informed critic of the administration may try to paint Durham as a right-wing hack or Republican loyalist,” wrote National Review’s Jim Geraghty in a fawning profile, singling out the NAACP’s Sherrilyn Ifill for having the temerity to suggest Durham might have been compromised by serving Trump’s ends.
Durham and Barr kept failing to prove the deep-state conspiracy they imagined, but continued to press forward anyway. At one point they seized upon hacked Russian memos that intelligence analysts deemed obviously fake, instead treating them as a valuable intelligence trove, and tried to prove it out, even harassing one of the targets to obtain his emails (which contained nothing incriminating). It weirdly reflected the Trumpist accusation that Robert Mueller had been tricked into pursuing Russian disinformation.
As Durham kept failing to find support for the conspiracy he was pursuing, and which Barr kept floating in public, his deputies chafed at his obsession. Eventually, one of them resigned in protest when he brought charges against Michael Sussmann, a target of the right. As his former lieutenants expected, Durham’s case was defeated in court.
. . . .
*******************
Read the complete article at the link.
Immigration advocates didn’t need a NY Timesinvestigation to tell you that Barr was corrupt! Biased anti-immigrant, anti-asylum “AG precedents;” BIA “Appellate Judges” appointed for their unusually high asylum denial rates and known hostility to migrants and their attorneys; Immigration Judges appointed without expertise in immigration and human rights, overwhelmingly from the ranks of prosecutors; busting the IJ union (“NAIJ”) for speaking out against DOJ’s politicized mismanagement; issuing an EOIR “Fact Sheet” full of lies, misrepresentations, and myths; appointing politicized managers at EOIR without judicial or due process qualifications; taking ethically questionable litigating positions in Federal Court; the list of Barr’s abuses of authority on immigration and human rights goes on and on!
AG Merrick Garland has made a few ameliorative changes. Some of the worst precedents have been overruled; some unqualified political senior executives been removed or reassigned; over time, judicial selection has been shifted to a more balanced, merit-based system that has resulted in the appointment as Immigration Judges of some widely-recognized experts, with experience representing individuals, and a demonstrated commitment to due process for all; “numerical quotas” for IJs have been eliminated. (Curiously, however, Garland “honored” 17 “transition” Barr judicial selections made under badly flawed selection criteria!)
Yet, overall, EOIR remains largely the disaster zone that Barr left behind. Trump-era anti-asylum Appellate Judges continue to dominate the BIA; many Trump-era IJs still misapply basic immigration legal standards and operate “asylum free zones;” management is weak; training is inadequate; dockets are out of control; respondents and their attorneys are treated unprofessionally; quality control is largely nonexistent; wildly inconsistent “refugee roulette” asylum adjudication remains; an enforcement-skewed culture of “any reason to deny and deport” continues to infect EOIR at all levels; “numbers” are emphasized over quality and fairness; and the DOJ’s OIL often defends indefensible EOIR decisions in Federal Court on the apparent rationale that “it’s only migrants’ lives at stake, so who cares!”
Unhappily, the Biden Administration has barely “scratched the surface” of the badly needed and long overdue common sense reforms needed at EOIR and the DOJ to put the Sessions/Barr abuses behind us and move forward! Barr was a bad AG; but, his ghost continues to haunt the DOJ and those seeking equal justice for all!
On Jan. 5, the Biden administration announced that it planned to issue a regulation “to provide that individuals who circumvent available, established pathways to lawful migration, and also fail to seek protection in a country through which they traveled on their way to the United States, will be subject to a rebuttable presumption of asylum ineligibility in the United States.”
These two reasons to bar people from seeking asylum — for transiting through other countries and for crossing the U.S. border without authorization — have different rationales and historical origins. But both have been marshaled against Central Americans since the late 1980s — severely undermining access to asylum. Doing so endangers people’s lives and breaks U.S. and international law. History reveals the purpose and perils of such bars.
No such bars stopped earlier waves of refugees seeking protection in the United States, especially those coming from Europe. When people who fled the Bolshevik Revolution applied to be considered “bona fide refugees” under a 1934 U.S. law, it did not matter that they had spent several years during the previous decade in Germany, France, China, Argentina, Cuba, Mexico or Canada and then crossed a land border without getting inspected by a U.S. official — as many did — beginning in the mid-1920s. They told immigration officials that conditions in those countries made it hard for them to live and it would be years before they could qualify for an immigration visa to the United States. So, they made their way to the United States on their own — and their mode of entry, and even their use of fraudulent travel documents, did not preclude them from adjusting to permanent status.
. . . .
The Biden administration insists its regulation will be different because it has opened up new legal pathways from transit countries and it will give asylum seekers a chance to prove why they didn’t use one of the legal pathways available to them. But migrants from Guatemala and Honduras lack parole programs that are newly available only to Venezuelans, Nicaraguans, Cubans and Haitians who have passports and sponsors in the United States. Further, parole, discretionary temporary permission to enter and stay in the United States with no path to citizenship, is a far cry from permanent refugee status. Fifteen thousand refugee resettlement slots this year are for all of the Caribbean and Latin America, where over 7 million Venezuelans are displaced. It is hard not to see this rule as an effort to limit access to asylum in the United States specifically for people from northern Central America and to treat today’s forcibly displaced people from the Americas unlike people seeking refuge from elsewhere in the past.
******************
Read Yael’s complete article at the link.
Many of us had believed that the Biden Administration would get beyond the biases, manipulations of law, and implicit or explicit racism of the past to achieve the orderly, legal, timely admission of refugees, including those from Latin America, from abroad and at the border. Unfortunately and outrageously, they haven’t even tried!
Instead, they have turned human rights and border policies into an unholy, largely incomprehensible and arbitrary, mishmash of many of the worst, most ineffective, and invidiously biased policies of the past.
Immigration Courts across the U.S. have been randomly rescheduling and advancing cases without regard to attorney availability or whether we have the capacity to complete our cases. The very predictable result of this fiasco is that lawyers are stressed and overworked, our ability to adequately prepare cases has been reduced, and–worst of all–asylum seekers are being deprived of their right to a fair hearing. Besides these obvious consequences, the policy of reshuffling court cases is having other insidious effects that are less visible, but no less damaging. Here, I want to talk about some of the ongoing collateral damage caused by EOIR’s decision to toss aside due process of law in favor of reducing the Immigration Court backlog.
As an initial matter, it’s important to acknowledge that the Immigration Court backlog is huge. There are currently more than 2 million pending cases, which is more than at any time in the history of the Immigration Court system. To address this situation, EOIR (the Executive Office for Immigration Review – the office that oversees our nation’s Immigration Courts) has been working with DHS (the prosecutor) to dismiss low-priority cases, where the non-citizen does not have criminal issues or pose a national security threat. Also, the U.S. government has been doing its best to turn away asylum seekers at the Southern border, which has perhaps slowed the growth of the backlog, but has also (probably) violated our obligations under U.S. and international law.
In addition, EOIR has been hiring new Immigration Judges (“IJs”) at a break neck pace. In the past few years, there has been a dramatic increase in the number of IJs nationwide, though some parts of the country have received more judges than others. In those localities with lots of new IJs, EOIR has been advancing thousands of cases. The goal is to complete cases and reduce the backlog. Why EOIR has failed to coordinate its new schedule with stakeholders, such as respondents and immigration attorneys, I do not know.
What I do know is that EOIR’s efforts have created great hardships for attorneys and respondents (respondents are the non-citizens in Immigration Court). Also, I expect that this whole rescheduling debacle will have long-term effects on the Immigration Courts, as well as on the immigration bar.
The most obvious effect is that lawyers and respondents simply do not have enough time to properly prepare their cases. When a hearing was set for 2025 and then suddenly advanced to a date a few months in the future, it may not be enough time to gather evidence and prepare the case. Also, this is not occurring in a vacuum. Lawyers (like me) are seeing dozens of cases advanced without warning, and so we have to manage all of those, plus our regular case load. So the most immediate consequence of EOIR’s policy is that asylum seekers and other respondents often do not have an opportunity to present their best case.
Perhaps less obviously, lawyers are being forced to turn work away. We can only competently handle so many matters, and when we are being assaulted day-by-day with newly rescheduled cases, we cannot predict our ability to take on a new case. In my office, we have been saying “no” more and more frequently to potential clients. Of course, this also affects existing clients who need additional work. Want to expedite your asylum case? Need a travel document to see a sick relative? I can’t give you a time frame for when we can complete the work, because I do not know what EOIR will throw at me tomorrow.
One option for lawyers is to raise prices. We have not yet done that in my office, but it is under consideration. What we have done is increase the amount of the down payment we require. Why? Because as soon as we enter our name as the lawyer, we take on certain obligations. And since cases now often move very quickly, we need to be sure we get paid. If not, we go out of business. The problem is that many people cannot afford a large down payment or cannot pay the total fee over a shortened (and unpredictable) period of time. The result is that fewer non-citizens will be able to hire lawyers.
Well, there is one caveat–crummy lawyers will continue to take more and more cases, rake in more and more money, and do very little to help their clients. Such lawyers are not concerned about the quality of their work or doing a good job for their clients. They simply want to make money. EOIR’s policy will certainly benefit them, as responsible attorneys will be forced to turn away business, those without scruples will be waiting to take up the slack.
Finally, since EOIR is increasing attorney stress and burnout to untenable levels, I expect we will see lawyers start to leave the profession. I have talked to many colleagues who are ready to go. Some are suffering physical and mental health difficulties due to the impossible work load. Most immigration lawyers are very committed to their clients and have a sense of mission, but it is extremely difficult to work in an environment where you cannot control your own schedule, you cannot do your best for your clients, you cannot fulfill your obligations to your family and friends, and where you are regularly abused and treated with contempt. Long before EOIR started re-arranging our schedules, burnout among immigration lawyers was a serious problem. Today, that problem is exponentially worse, thanks to EOIR’s utter disrespect for the immigration bar. I have little doubt that the long term effect will be to drive good attorneys away from the profession.
For me, the saddest part of this whole mess is that it did not have to be this way. EOIR could have worked with attorneys to advance cases in an orderly manner and to ensure that respondents and their lawyers were protected. But that is not what happened. Instead, EOIR has betrayed its stated mission, “to adjudicate immigration cases by fairly, expeditiously, and uniformly interpreting and administering the Nation’s immigration laws.” Respondents, their attorneys, and the immigration system are all worse off because of it.
***********************
Jason Dzubow The Asylumist
“For me, the saddest part of this whole mess is that it did not have to be this way.” Amen, Jason! Me too! And, I think I speak for most, if not all, of my esteemed colleagues on the Round Table of Former Immigration Judges and BIA Members.”⚔️🛡
In addition to betraying its mission “to adjudicate immigration cases by fairly, expeditiously, and uniformly interpreting and administering the Nation’s immigration laws,” EOIR has trashed its noble once-vision: “Through teamwork and innovation be the world’s best administrative tribunals guaranteeing fairness and due process for all!”
The use of the word “uniformity” in EOIR’s “mission” is an absurdity given the “range” of asylum denials fostered and tolerated by Garland’s dysfunctional system: 0-100%! It’s also understandable, if unforgivable, that EOIR no longer features words like “due process,” “fundamental fairness,” “teamwork,” and “innovation” prominently on its website!
A Dem AG is attacking our American justice system and the legal profession at the “retail level” and causing real, perhaps “irreparable,” damage! What’s wrong with this picture? Everything! What are we going to do about it? Or, more appropriately, what are YOU going to do about it, as my time on the stage, and that of my contemporaries, is winding down?
