🗽ASYLUM IS OUR LEGAL OBLIGATION, NOT AN “OPTION” OR SOMETHING TO BE “DETERRED” — “For many migrants in peril, waiting in their home countries for a better time to seek asylum in the U.S. is not – nor could ever be – a viable option. . . . ‘I want to live. I want to be somebody. Nobody wants to die.’”

“Floaters” — “Floaters — How The World’s Richest Country Responds To Asylum Seekers” — The Biden Administration’s continuation of the Trump regime’s illegal and deadly anti-asylum policies at the border is totally unacceptable!
EDS NOTE: GRAPHIC CONTENT – The bodies of Salvadoran migrant Oscar Alberto Mart??nez Ram??rez and his nearly 2-year-old daughter Valeria lie on the bank of the Rio Grande in Matamoros, Mexico, Monday, June 24, 2019, after they drowned trying to cross the river to Brownsville, Texas. Martinez’ wife, Tania told Mexican authorities she watched her husband and child disappear in the strong current. (AP Photo/Julia Le Duc)

FROM SPLC:

The message was loud and clear: “Do not come.”

This would be the Biden administration’s initial attempt to deter migrants who fled danger in their home countries from seeking protection in the U.S.

First, President Biden in March discouraged migrants from trekking north to the U.S.-Mexico border to seek asylum. He suggested they stay in their home countries – where many face violence and persecution – as the administration addressed an increase in the number of unaccompanied migrant children crossing the southwestern border.

Then, the administration continued to rely on the contested Trump-era Title 42 order by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to reject migrants at ports of entry and expel those who cross the U.S.-Mexico border without authorization, thereby denying their legal right to seek asylum.

And in June, the administration delivered another warning to would-be asylum seekers from Guatemala: “Do not come,” said Vice President Kamala Harris during a news conference alongside Guatemalan President Alejandro Giammattei. “The United States will continue to enforce our laws and secure our borders. If you come to our border, you will be turned back.”

Sarah Rich, senior supervising attorney with the Southern Poverty Law Center’s Immigrant Justice Project, said the vice president’s comments were strikingly similar to rhetoric employed by the Trump administration.

“Seeking protection from violence and persecution is a fundamental human right, and the right to seek asylum is protected by U.S. and international law,” Rich said. “These remarks fly in the face of the right to seek asylum in the U.S. and indicate a disturbing continuity between the Trump administration and the Biden-Harris administration.”

For many migrants in peril, waiting in their home countries for a better time to seek asylum in the U.S. is not – nor could ever be – a viable option.

“I fled my country because I wanted to survive,” Emiliana Doe, whose name has been changed in this story to protect her identity, told the SPLC in Spanish. “I want to live. I want to be somebody. Nobody wants to die.”

READ MORE

In solidarity,

Your friends at the Southern Poverty Law Center

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

Speak out against the Biden Administration’s continuation of Trump’s illegal, inhumane, anti-asylum policies at the border! Demand that AG Garland replace unqualified “Miller Lite” anti-asylum Immigration Judges, who happily furthered the past regime’s xenophobic, anti-due-process policies, with far better qualified progressive experts! Demand a BIA that will be a courageous leader in granting legal protection and reducing backlogs through best practices and full due process! Demand that Garland stop dragging his feet and finally fulfill the original EOIR vision of “guaranteeing fairness and due process for all.” Demand an Attorney General with the backbone and integrity to tell Biden, Harris, & Mayorkas that their continued abrogation of asylum laws and international obligations, not to mention Constitutional protections, is grossly illegal and must end NOW!

By contrast with Garland’s timid, dilatory, and often apparently indifferent approach to the rule of law for migrants, not to mention human lives, Jeff Sessions had absolutely no problem intervening, without invitation, in any agency’s programs and policies to advance his White Nationalist, nativist, xenophobic mis-interpretations of the law!

🇺🇸⚖️Due Process Forever!

PWS

07-25-21

⚖️9TH CIR.’S PROGRESSIVES TAKE IT ON THE NOSE FROM CONSERVATIVE COLLEAGUES & SUPREMES — Dissent Matters — Immigration Among Key Supremes’ Reversals

https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2021-07-13/with-trump-appointees-9th-circuit-suffers-another-year-of-reversals-at-supreme-court

David G. Savage & Maura Dolan report in the LA Times:

. . . .

“There is still a large cohort of liberal judges” on the 9th Circuit, said Ed Whelan, a conservative legal analyst in Washington, “but there are now many conservative appointees who are vigilant in calling them out.”

In total, 47 judges sit on the 9th Circuit — 24 appointed by Republicans going back to President Nixon, and 23 named by Democrats starting with President Carter.

Many of those judges work part time. Of the full-time jurists, 16 are Democratic and 13 are Republican appointees.

The size of the circuit — the nation’s largest — partly explains why its cases are often subject to Supreme Court review.

“The 9th Circuit is so vastly larger than any other circuit that it is inevitable they are going to take more 9th Circuit cases,” said Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of UC Berkeley’s law school.

Although this year’s 9th Circuit reversal rate was unusually high, the high court in fact overturned 80% of all the cases it reviewed, Chemerinsky noted.

Moreover, only a tiny percentage of appellate decisions are reviewed by the Supreme Court. Typically, the 9th Circuit hands down about 13,000 rulings a year.

Chemerinsky noted the Supreme Court overturned several 9th Circuit cases on immigration and habeas corpus, the legal vehicle for releasing someone from detention. “The 9th Circuit is historically more liberal on immigration and habeas cases,” he said.

Some reversals occurred in cases that were not ideological, however: The high court overturned a 9th Circuit decision by Republican appointees on what constitutes a robocall.

Though the Supreme Court split along ideological lines on property rights, voting rights and conservative donor cases from the 9th Circuit, the justices were unanimous in reversing the 9th Circuit in several immigration cases.

On June 1, they overturned a unique 9th Circuit rule set by the late liberal Judge Stephen Reinhardt. Over nearly 20 years, he had written that the testimony of a person seeking asylum based on a fear of persecution must be “deemed credible” unless an immigration judge made an “explicit” finding that they were not to be believed.

In one of his last opinions, Reinhardt approved of asylum for Ming Dai, a Chinese citizen who arrived in the U.S. on a tourist visa and applied for refugee status for himself and his family. He said they were fleeing China’s forced abortion policy.

Only later did immigration authorities learn that his wife and daughter had returned to China because they had good jobs and schooling there, but the husband had no job to return to.

An immigration judge had set out the full story and denied the asylum application, only to be be reversed in a 2-1 ruling by a 9th Circuit panel. The panel cited Reinhardt’s rule and noted that although evidence emerged casting doubt on Dai’s claims, there had been no “explicit” finding by an immigration judge so his story had to be accepted.

“Over the years, our circuit has manufactured misguided rules regarding the credibility of political asylum seekers,” Senior Judge Stephen S. Trott wrote in dissent. Later, 11 other appellate judges joined dissents arguing for scrapping this rule.

Last fall, Trump administration lawyers cited those dissents and urged the Supreme Court to hear the case. They noted the importance of the 9th Circuit in asylum cases. Because of its liberal reputation, “the 9th Circuit actually entertains more petitions for review than all of the other circuits combined,” the lawyers said.

In overturning the appeals court in a 9-0 ruling, Justice Neil M. Gorsuch began by noting that “at least 12 members of the 9th Circuit have objected to this judge-made rule.”

Justice Sonia Sotomayor delivered another 9-0 ruling holding that an immigrant arrested for an “unlawful entry” after having been deported years ago may not contest the basis of his original deportation. The 9th Circuit had said such a defendant may argue his deportation was “fundamentally unfair,” but “the statute does not permit such an exception,” Sotomayor said in U.S. vs. Palomar-Santiago.

The high court’s furthest-reaching immigration ruling did not originate with the 9th Circuit, but it nonetheless overturned a 9th Circuit decision.

At issue was whether the more than 400,000 immigrants who had been living and working in the U.S. under temporary protected status were eligible for long-term green cards. The Philadelphia-based 3rd Circuit said no, rejecting a green card for a Salvadoran couple who had entered the country illegally in the 1990s and had lived and worked in New Jersey ever since.

The 9th Circuit had taken the opposite view; Trump lawyers cited this split as a reason the high court should take up the New Jersey case. On June 7, Justice Elena Kagan spoke for the high court in ruling that the 3rd Circuit was right and the 9th Circuit wrong. To obtain lawful permanent status, the immigration law first “requires a lawful admission,” she said in Sanchez vs. Majorkas.

The 9th Circuit’s sole affirmance came in a significant case: By a 9-0 vote in NCAA vs. Alston, the justices agreed with the 9th Circuit that college sports authorities could be sued under antitrust laws for conspiring to make billions of dollars while insisting the star athletes go unpaid.

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

Read the complete article at the link.

This confirms the importance of the Biden Administration getting more progressive voices on Federal Courts at all levels, including the Immigration Courts!

First, not all important cases go to the Supremes, and those that do often take years to get there and be resolved. In the meantime, the rulings of BIA and the Circuits are often the “final word.”

Even at the individual Immigration Judge level, only a small minority of cases are appealed. So the difference between progressive expert judges committed to due process, fundamental fairness, and humane practical interpretations and judges appointed because of a belief that they would “go along to get along” with DHS Enforcement is huge — basically life or death for many asylum seekers, other migrants, and their families (often U.S. citizens or LPRs).

Second, even where outvoted, progressive judges can often provide much more cogent, understandable, and practical alternatives to “knee jerk restrictionist/nativist” interpretations. Not only are these “better interpretations” often picked up and successfully argued and expanded by advocates, but they often expose shallow, specious reasoning by restrictionists and serve as “signposts to a better future” even if it sometimes takes years or even decades for the system to catch up. Also, dissents can prompt remedial legislation or needed oversight.

Indeed a number of the “Gang of Five” dissents from the “Schmidt-era BIA,” which basically cost us our jobs, still look very “spot on” decades later — particularly as Circuits continue to expose the intellectual dishonesty and corner-cutting sloppiness of far too many EOIR decisions in “life or death” matters!

Obviously, Trump McConnell and the right-wing activist organizations they parroted and enabled have had an immediate, large-scale, largely negative, effect on American Justice — from the Supremes all the way down to the Immigration Courts. It’s essential that the Biden Administration fight back with courageous, well-qualified, progressive “practical scholars” at all levels of the Federal Judiciary. Judges with the guts and integrity to expose and push back against the stilted, often anti-democracy, far right agenda of too many of the Trump-McConnell appointees.

In this respect, creating a progressive “model judiciary” to supersede the godawful, dysfunctional mess at EOIR should be the “low hanging fruit.” In practical terms, it also will help reduce backlog, raise the level of Immigration Court practice, and hold DHS accountable to the rule of law. It should also be a model for what a better progressive Article III Judiciary could and should look like, all the way up to the Supremes!

🇺🇸🗽🧑🏽‍⚖️Due Process Forever!

PWS

07-19-21

⚖️YET ANOTHER “WAKEUP CALL” FOR JUDGE GARLAND, AS 3RD CIR. CASTIGATES THE “HASTE MAKES WASTE, FORM CHECKER, DEPORTATION ASSEMBLY LINE CULTURE” @ EOIR! — “We cannot allow an IJ or the BIA to dispense with an adequate explanation of a final decision merely to facilitate or accommodate administrative expediency.”

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

https://www.lexisnexis.com/legalnewsroom/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/ca3-on-something-to-review—valarezo-tirado-v-a-g

Dan Kowalski reports for LexisNexis Immigration Community:

CA3 on “Something to Review” – Valarezo-Tirado v. A.G.

Valarezo-Tirado v. A.G.

“We have previously granted a petition for review in which the alleged basis for the BIA’s denial of relief was that “the evidence is insufficient” and “the arguments made by the [government] on appeal . . . are persua[sive]” because we could not “perform meaningful review of [such an] order.” Here, we have even less to work with. … The most fundamental notion of due process must include an opportunity for meaningful judicial review. We reiterate that “judicial review necessarily requires something to review and, if the agency provides only its result without an explanation of the underlying fact finding and analysis, a court is unable to provide judicial review.” The required review is simply not possible when we are provided with nothing more than the kind of one-line checklist that is relied upon here. We cannot allow an IJ or the BIA to dispense with an adequate explanation of a final decision merely to facilitate or accommodate administrative expediency. Since “the [IJ]’s failure of explanation makes it impossible for us to review its rationale, we [will] grant [Valarezo-Tirado’s] petition for review, vacate the [IJ’s] order, and remand the matter to [the IJ] for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.” … A 2019 study found that “on average each [immigration] judge currently has an active pending caseload of over two thousand cases.” Nevertheless, we cannot allow incredibly difficult logistics to give license to IJs to skirt their responsibilities. This includes the obligation to inform the petitioner of the reasons for the IJ’s decision and provide an adequate explanation of the decision that does not require us to parse through the testimony in search of evidence that supports it. A two-sentence recitation on a bullet-point form will rarely, if ever, provide sufficient reasoning for a decision. A decision, such as the one here, that does not refer to record evidence will never suffice. Because, here, the IJ’s decision was not supported by substantial evidence, we will vacate the decision and order and remand to the IJ for proceedings consistent with this opinion.”

[Hats off to pro bono publico counsel Robert D. Helfand and Charles W. Stotter!]

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

Hey, Jeff “Gonzo Apocalypto” Sessions said it: “Volume is critical. It just is.” For him, and then Barr, it was “all about numbers,” never about quality, fairness, or judicial independence!

SESSIONS USES SPEECH TO U.S. IMMIGRATION JUDGES TO SPREAD LIES, MOUNT ALL OUT ATTACK ON US ASYLUM LAW AND INTERNATIONAL PROTECTION LAWS – Targets Most Vulnerable Refugee Women Of Color For Latest Round Of Legal Abuses – Orders Judges To Prejudge Applications In Accordance With His Rewrite Of Law – It’s “Kangaroo Court” – The Only Question Now Is Whether Congress & Article III’s Will Let Him Get Away With Latest Perversion Of Justice @ Justice!

Interestingly, this was a “reasonable fear review” proceeding following “reinstatement” of a removal order. Even before the Trump kakistocracy, Immigration Judges once were told that there was no need for a reasoned decision because their actions were “non-reviewable” by the BIA or the Circuits. Later, in the Obama Administration, as some Circuits took an interest in these cases, judges were encouraged by EOIR HQ to enter brief decisions so that OIL could defend them on appeal, if their “no jurisdiction to review” argument failed.

There is a serious defect in a system that provides no meaningful review or appellate direction in cases with life or death consequences. Obviously, this is a system focused on something other than fairness, scholarship, quality, and justice!

After years of being told (even forced, through bogus “production quotas’) to “cut corners” and “move ‘em out” by their political “handlers” at the DOJ, neither EOIR “management” nor the current BIA is capable of providing the bold leadership, progressive “fair but efficient” scholarship and direction, quality control, and positive precedents and systemic changes necessary to insure that EOIR’s “once and future vision” of “through teamwork and innovation, becoming the world’s best tribunals guaranteeing fairness and due process for ALL” is finally realized. After four years or intentional degradation and movement in exactly the OPPOSITE direction by Sessions, Barr, and their “Miller Lite” cronies and toadies, it’s time for a change!

Obviously, the due-process-denying and demeaning (to both IJs and those seeking justice) “production quotas” and equally bureaucratic and bogus “performance work plans” should already have been revoked by Garland. They could replaced with a meaningful system of appellate supervision and judicial professional responsibility and training modeled on that of “real courts.” For example, check out the system used by the DC Court system to maintain professionalism, provide constructive feedback, and make recommendations for tenure decisions on judges, with both public and peer participation.

As the Third Circuit points out, high volume is not an excuse for sloppy work and denial of due process! The backlog can be slashed and justice restored, and even improved, while maintaining high standards of quality and implementing and enforcing best practices. EOIR indeed could become a “model progressive court system.” But, it’s going to take a new team of progressive judges and qualified progressive Administrators, folks with experience in the “horrors of today’s Immigration (not) Courts” and an unswerving commitment to due process and best practices to get the job done!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

07-16-21

⚖️😎👍🏼DUE PROCESS PROGRESS! — House EOIR Appropriations Bill Contains $50 Million For Representation Of Kids & Families Seeking Asylum!

Kids in court — “This is due process?”
PHOTO: The Daily Beast

From: Jennifer Quigley <QuigleyJ@humanrightsfirst.org>

Subject: Fw: [EXT]-Good news on funding for legal representation!

Date: July 16, 2021 at 9:40:20 AM EDT

To: Asylum Working Group <asylum-working-group@googlegroups.com>

ICYMI

From: Greg Chen <GChen@aila.org>

Sent: Friday, July 16, 2021 9:30 AM

To: amigos@theimmigrationhub.org <amigos@theimmigrationhub.org>

Subject: [EXT]-Good news on funding for legal representation!

Email originates externally.

Greetings colleagues,

Yesterday House Appropriations Committee passed the CJS appropriations bill for FY 2022 for the Justice Department and other agencies. Importantly, the bill includes a historic $50 million for DOJ to pilot legal representation programs for people in removal proceedings. This is a big step for federal funding for legal counsel. Hooray!

Kudos to all the organizations in the working group on legal representation and access to counsel who have been fighting for this.Of course, we don’t have the money yet and will need to protect this language in the House and get comparable language, hopefully even more funding in the Senate. We have collectively been pushing for $200M.

The bill and draft report language are below.Collected resources on legal representation are available here: Ensuring Legal Representation for People Facing Removal. i

Committee-passed bill text on legal representation:

“(29) $50,000,000 for a grant pilot program to provide legal representation to immigrant children and families seeking asylum and other forms of legal protection in the United States;

Committee-passed report language on legal representation:

“Legal Representation Pilot for Immigrant Children and Families.—The Committee provides $50,000,000 for the Department to establish a competitive grant program to qualified non-profit organizations for a pilot program to increase representation for immigrant children and families in civil proceedings. The amount is $35,000,000 above the request and $50,000,000 above the fiscal year 2021 level. The Committee recognizes the compelling need to ensure due process for children and families who seek asylum and who must navigate a complex legal system for processing of asylum claims. The Committee supports coordination with grantees and organizations who offer other types of legal assistance or services to immigrants seeking asylum or other forms of legal protection. As with any new pilot program, the Committee expects the Department to assess this program with metrics that will be scaled appropriately to evaluate how this initial investment could be further enhanced to represent a larger portion of un-represented individuals and the impact that it may have on improving attendance rates and decreasing court costs. Within 90 days of enactment of this Act, the OJP shall brief the Committee on its implementation plan for this pilot.

Gregory Z. Chen, Esq.

Senior Director of Government Relations

Direct: 202-507-7615 I Cell: 202.716-5818 I Email: gchen@aila.org

American Immigration Lawyers Association

Main: 202.507.7600 I Fax: 202.783.7853 I www.aila.org

1331 G Street, NW, Suite 300, Washington, DC 20005

—

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “amigos” group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to amigos+unsubscribe@theimmigrationhub.org.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/theimmigrationhub.org/d/msgid/amigos/BLAPR17MB4146DD8C7890895D5A71BC94CC119%40BLAPR17MB4146.namprd17.prod.outlook.com.

—

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “Asylum Working Group” group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to asylum-working-group+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/asylum-working-group/MN2PR14MB4190DF799A8555389730297FA8119%40MN2PR14MB4190.namprd14.prod.outlook.com.

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

Congrats to all involved! Let’s keep up the momentum until we get universal representation!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

07-16-21

☠️🤮⚰️DUE PROCESS MOCKED: UNDUE POLITICAL INFLUENCE IN IMMIGRATION COURT LEADS TO IMPROPER DENIAL OF LIFE-SAVING PROTECTION TO KIDS! — “Political influence from the executive branch combined with local environmental pressures can affect how immigration judges rule. Most importantly, these influences can lead to some children not receiving asylum when they might otherwise be entitled to it.”

Unaccompanied immigrant minors wait on July 2, 2019 in Los Ebanos, Texas to be transported to a U.S. Border Patrol processing center after entering the U.S. to seek political asylum. John Moore/Getty Images

US immigration judges considering asylum for unaccompanied minors are ‘significantly influenced’ by politics

July 13, 2021 8.30am EDT

Authors

Daniel Braaten Associate professor of Political Science, Texas Lutheran University

Claire Nolasco Braaten Associate Professor, Criminology, Texas A&M-San Antonio

Disclosure statement

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Partners

Texas A&M San Antonio provides funding as a member of The Conversation US.

View all partners

We believe in the free flow of information

Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.

Republish this article

Email

Twitter5

Facebook

LinkedIn

Print

The news over the past months has been saturated with stories about another “surge” of unaccompanied minors crossing the southern border of the U.S.

In March 2021, the number of unaccompanied minors apprehended in the U.S. reached an all-time monthly high of 18,890. This surpassed the previous monthly high of 11,681 in May 2019.

One question not addressed in many of these stories is: How many of these children actually receive asylum and are allowed to stay in the country?

The people who make those decisions are immigration judges. Their decisions are supposed to be based on whether these children have fears of being persecuted in their home countries and whether these fears are realistic.

But our research examining the period from early October 2013 until the end of September 2017 shows that these judges were influenced by factors outside of the case. Political factors such as ideology, political party of the president who appointed them and who was president at the time they decided the case significantly influenced whether these children were allowed to stay in the country.

Aside from political factors, immigration judges are also influenced by local contexts, such as unemployment levels, the number of uninsured children and size of Latino population in the places where they work.

Unaccompanied minors and asylum

Under U.S. law, an unaccompanied minor is a child under 18 years old who does not have lawful immigration status and no parent or legal guardian in the country who can provide care or custody.

Unaccompanied minors cannot be refused entry or removed from the country without legal process because of the 1993 Supreme Court case Reno v. Flores. In 2008, new legislation allowed asylum officers to grant these children asylum at the U.S. border. If the asylum officer denies asylum to the minor, the minor may request asylum before an immigration judge.

Because immigration judges are not appointed under Article III of the Constitution, as federal judges are, they have less independence than those federal judges. According to current Justice Department rules, immigration judges are appointed by the attorney general and they act as his or her delegates.

Political pressure

In order to learn what factors affect the grant of relief to unaccompanied minors, we obtained data on their asylum applications from Oct. 2, 2013 to Sept. 29, 2017, covering over 10,000 cases from 280 different judges in 46 counties and 27 states.

Only 327 of the unaccompanied minors actually received asylum; 2,867 were deported and 455 chose to voluntarily leave.

An additional 6,645 children were allowed to stay in the country. Of those, 3,589 had their case administratively closed, which allows judges to suspend the case indefinitely without hearing and deciding on it. The remaining 3,056 had their case terminated, which means that the case against the child was dismissed.

The fate of unaccompanied minors entering the US

A review of about 10,000 asylum applications for unaccompanied minors from October 2, 2013 to September 29, 2017 found the majority of the minors were allowed to stay (in green), most because a judge either dismissed or indefinitely suspended the case against them. Only 327 were granted asylum.

Bar charts grouped to show significantly more unaccompanied minors were allowed to stay.

2,000 cases

2,867

455

3,589

3,056

327

Removed

Voluntarily Departed

Administrative Closure

Case dismissed

Received asylum

Chart: The Conversation/CC-BY-ND Source: Daniel Braaten and Claire Nolasco Braaten Get the data

We ran a statistical analysis of political factors that may influence immigration judges’ decision: judicial ideology, political party of the appointing president and whether the decision was made before or during the Trump administration.

Following previous research on immigration judge’s ideology, we determined a judge’s ideology by considering their prior work experiences. Based on this research, we determined that some experiences, such as working for immigration agencies, are associated with more conservative views on immigration and asylum issues.

Conversely, work experiences in an immigration or non-immigration-related nonprofit or academia are associated with more liberal views. Our analysis showed that immigration judges with more liberal judicial ideology were more likely to rule in favor of granting asylum to these children.

Judges’ ideology can influence asylum decisions

Immigration judges who are more liberal tended to allow unaccompanied children to stay in the U.S. more often, compared to more conservative judges. Ideology was determined from each judge’s prior work and ranges from 1-11, most conservative to most liberal.

Area chart showing how children allowed to stay rose with more liberal judges.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

0

50

100%

Likelihood unaccompanied minor is allowed to stay

Data from 2013-2017

Chart: The Conversation/CC-BY-ND Source: Daniel Braaten and Claire Nolasco Braaten Get the data

We also found that judges who were appointed by a Democratic attorney general were more likely to rule in favor of the minors.

Political party of attorney general who appointed the judge

Immigration judges appointed by Democrats were more likely to allow unaccompanied minors seeking asylum to stay in the U.S. than those appointed by Republicans.

Bar charts showing judges appointed by Democrats were more like to allow unaccompanied children to stay in the U.S., but GOP-appointed numbers were also above 62%.

Republican

62.9%

Democratic

69.5%

Data from 2013-2017

Chart: The Conversation/CC-BY-ND Source: Daniel Braaten and Claire Nolasco Braaten Get the data

Finally, statistical analysis showed that immigration judges were less likely to grant relief during the eight months of the Trump administration compared to the last three years of the Obama administration.

President at the time the case was decided

Immigration judges were more likely to allow unaccompanied minors seeking asylum to stay in the U.S. during the Obama administration than during the Trump administration.

Trump

54%

Obama

67.7%

Data from 2013-2017

Chart: The Conversation/CC-BY-ND Source: Daniel Braaten and Claire Nolasco Braaten Get the data

Why did politics and judges’ ideology play into their decisions?

We believe it’s because immigration judges are subject to political pressure from the president, indirectly, because they are appointed by the attorney general, who is also a presidential appointee and carries out the president’s policies and wishes.

Local environment

Pressure from the executive branch was not the only factor we concluded had influenced whether these children got to stay in the U.S. or were turned away. Aside from political and ideological values, judges may also have been influenced by their local contexts.

For example, we found that immigration judges in places with more Latinos were more likely to let these children stay. Conversely, immigration judges in states with lots of poor children were less likely to let these children stay than judges in states with relatively fewer poor kids.

Latino population in the county

In counties with larger Latino populations, judges were more likely to allow unaccompanied minors seeking asylum to stay in the U.S. The horizontal axis shows the percentage of the county’s population that is Latino.

20% Latino

40

60

80

0

20

40

60

80

100% likelihood unaccompanied minor is allowed to stay

Data from 2013-2017

Chart: The Conversation/CC-BY-ND Source: Daniel Braaten and Claire Nolasco Braaten Get the data

Asylum decisions can be life-or-death matters. Although immigration judges consider the requirements of asylum law, they are also influenced by nonlegal factors when making decisions.

Political influence from the executive branch combined with local environmental pressures can affect how immigration judges rule. Most importantly, these influences can lead to some children not receiving asylum when they might otherwise be entitled to it.

[The Conversation’s Politics + Society editors pick need-to-know stories. Sign up for Politics Weekly.]

Immigration

Asylum

US Supreme Court

Borders

Donald Trump

Obama administration

Unaccompanied minors

Trump administration

Political influence

President Barack Obama

We need your help

The Conversation is a nonprofit organization working for the public good through fact- and research-based journalism. Nearly half of our budget comes from the support of universities, and higher education budgets are under unprecedented strain. Your gift can help us keep doing our important work and reach more people. Thank you.

Republished under Creative Commons license.

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

Go to this link for the original article with pictures and graphs: https://theconversation.com/us-immigration-judges-considering-asylum-for-unaccompanied-minors-are-significantly-influenced-by-politics-160071

This article confirms two things I have said over and over:

Garland’s failure, to date, to replace the BIA with better qualified progressive judges with expertise gained by representing asylum seekers; plus
His “giveaway” of 17 critical Immigration Judge positions to those selected by “Billy the Bigot” Barr under badly flawed procedures;

will unquestionably cost some children and other refugees their lives. Immigration Judge positions are life or death — we need an Attorney General who treats them that way!

Immigration Judge appointments, particularly those at the appellate (BIA level), need to be treated by Democratic Administrations with the same care, seriousness, and strategy as Article III judicial appointments, perhaps more! Few Article III Judges, including the Supremes, affect more lives and have a bigger impact on America’s future than Immigration Judges.

The last two GOP Administrations “got” the negative power for destruction and dehumanization inherent in a “captive” court system that actively pursues misguided nativist policies and receives only sporadic supervision and attention from the Article IIIs. By contrast, the Obama Administration failed to “mine EOIR’s potential” for progressive due process advancements and building a corps of dynamic, courageous progressive judges.

So far, while perhaps exceeding the passively inept approach of the Obama Administration, the Biden Administration has also failed to achieve the radical, yet logical and obvious, reforms and decisive personnel actions necessary to undo the damage caused by the White Nationalist xenophobia of the Trump kakistocracy.

The Immigration Courts have the potential to become “model progressive courts” that could lead the way to better practices and more constitutionally and legally sound jurisprudence throughout the Federal Judiciary. Whether the Biden Administration grasps and acts boldly on that potential, or squanders it as past Democratic Administrations have done, remains to be seen.

But, that question is far from “academic.” The survival of our democratic republic is likely to depend to a great extent on whether the Biden Administration can bring in the progressive experts who finally will “get EOIR right!”

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

07-16-21

😎👍YES! IN A HUGE WIN FOR DUE PROCESS, EFFICIENCY, JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE, & SANE GOVERNMENT, AG GARLAND OVERRULES SESSIONS’S IDIOTIC MATTER OF CASTRO-TUM PRECEDENT & RESTORES IJs’ AUTHORITY TO ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSE CASES — Matter of Cruz-Valdez, 28 I&N Dec. 326 (A.G. 2021)

Judge Merrick Garland — Atorney General Merrick B. Garland
Official White House Photo
Public Realm

The Attorney General has issued a decision in Matter of Cruz-Valdez, 28 I&N Dec. 326 (A.G. 2021).

(1) Matter of Castro‑Tum, 27 I&N Dec. 271 (A.G. 2018), is overruled in its entirety.

(2) While rulemaking proceeds and except when a court of appeals has held otherwise, immigration judges and the Board should apply the standard for administrative closure set out in Matter of Avetisyan, 25 I&N Dec. 688 (BIA 2012), and Matter of W‑Y‑U‑, 27 I&N Dec. 17 (BIA 2017).

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

Sessions’s Castro-Tum abomination had to be one of the stupidest and most maliciously incompetent aspects of his White Nationalist, anti-asylum, anti-due-process agenda! Not surprisingly, that decision and the illegal attempt to convert it into a regulation have mostly been losers in the Article III Courts.

Hats 🎩 off to Judge Garland for doing the right thing (even if it did take longer than some of us thought it should)! This also ties in perfectly with the recent common sense restoration of enforcement priorities and prosecutorial discretion at ICE by OPLA head John Trasvina! https://immigrationcourtside.com/category/department-of-homeland-security/immigration-customs-enforcement-ice/office-of-principal-legal-adviser-opla/john-d-trasvina/

After four years of virtually unrelenting illegality, mismanagement, and outright idiocy at DHS and DOJ, that has caused “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” and generated ever-mushrooming court backlogs, finally some much-needed and long overdue teamwork and reasonability in restoring to Immigration Judges and the parties the necessary tools for rational, cooperative docket management. Presumably, the hundreds of thousands of cases “waiting in the wings” to be “re-docketed” pursuant to “Sessions’s folly” can now remain administratively closed or be “re-closed” and removed from the EOIR docket!

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

Along those same lines, “Sir Jeffrey” Chase reports some more good news:

More Good News!

Ms. A-B- (i.e. the respondent in Matter of A-B-) was granted asylum yesterday.The BIA granted pursuant to a joint motion from DHS and respondent’s counsel to grant asylum.

It took far too long, but justice prevailed.

Best, Jeff

That’s the type of cooperative action among the parties and EOIR that, if repeated on a larger scale, could restore functionality and some semblance of justice to our broken Immigration Courts!

Also, many congrats to my friend Karen Musalo and her team at the Center for Gender and Refugee Studies at Hastings Law for their outstanding, persistent, and ultimately successful defense of Ms. A-B- against Sessions’s misogynistic “war on asylum seekers of color.”

It’s a telling commentary that finally getting the law back to where it was in 2016, “pre-Sessions,” now seems like a major victory! Just think of what might have been accomplished if all the effort expended on combatting the Trump immigration kakistocracy’s illegality, nonsense, and wasteful gimmicks had instead been devoted to advancing and promoting due process and fundamental fairness for all persons in America!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

07-15-21

⚖️5TH CIRCUIT BELATEDLY “OUTS” IJ AGNELIS REESE (NOW RETIRED) FOR 99.5% ASYLUM DENIAL RECORD — “We find it likely that a ‘reasonable man, were he to know all the circumstances, would harbor doubts about the judge’s impartiality.’” Inexplicably Garland & Co. Let Other “Asylum Deniers Club” Members Continue to Wreak Havoc On Asylum Seekers, Their Lawyers, & The Entire U.S. Justice System!🤮

“Miller Lite” – Garland’s Vision of “Justice @ Justice” for Communities of Color — As asylum seekers and their fearless advocates suffer and the Immigration “Courts” disintegrate, there appears to be no end to “Garland’s Miller-Lite Happy Hour” @ DOJ!

Dan Kowalski Reports for LexisNexis Immigration Community:

https://www.lexisnexis.com/LegalNewsRoom/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/rare-ca5-stay-grant-singh-v-garland#

Rare CA5 Stay Grant: Singh v. Garland

Singh v. Garland

“Daljinder Singh applied for asylum and protection under the Convention Against Torture, claiming that he feared persecution in India based on his membership in the Akali Dal Amritsar (“Mann Party”), a Sikh-dominated political party. The presiding immigration judge (“IJ”) denied his application, finding Singh not credible. The Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissed Singh’s appeal. Singh filed a petition for review and moved for a stay of removal. We granted Singh an emergency stay of removal pending further order. We now grant Singh a stay pending review of his petition. … Singh raises two principal arguments in his petition for review. First, he contends that the IJ’s near total denial rate for asylum applications reflected a bias and violated Singh’s due process rights. Second, he challenges the BIA’s conclusion that the IJ adhered to the procedural safeguards the BIA adopted in Matter of R-K-K-, applicable when an IJ relies on inter-proceeding similarities for an adverse credibility determination. We conclude that Singh has made the requisite showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits of both claims. … The IJ here [Agnelis Reese] denied relief to asylum seekers in 203 of the 204 cases she presided over from 2014 to 2019, a denial rate of 99.5%. … … Given the accounts of multiple witnesses to the attacks on Singh, medical records, images of the attacks on his father, and witness testimony regarding the BJP’s continued pursuit of Singh, Singh has made the requisite showing that the totality of the evidence does not support the IJ’s credibility determination. The appearance of bias painted by the denial of 203 of 204 asylum applications and the IJ’s adverse-credibility determination, informed by her noncompliance with the procedural safeguards of Matter of R-K-K-, are here interlaced. We do not suggest that a high percentage of denials is sufficient to avoid an IJ’s otherwise valid credibility determinations. Indeed, patterns in applicants’ presentations are likely and may necessarily result in a higher denial rate if the shared basis for relief is inadequate. But here, the incredibly high denial rate, when coupled with the IJ’s noncompliance with Matter of R-K-K-, presents a substantial likelihood that Singh will be entitled to relief upon full consideration by a merits panel. … Accordingly, we GRANT Singh’s motion for a stay pending review of his petition.”

[Hats way off to Peter Rogers!]

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

So, if the 5th Circuit and a “reasonable man” could figure out this isn’t “justice,” by any stretch of the imagination, why on earth 1) can’t Garland do likewise, and 2) does he continue to have his lawyers defend this disgraceful nonsense and waste of taxpayer money? Reese has previously been “featured” in Courtside for her “Kafkaesque” approach to “justice” for asylum seekers. Several years ago, I spoke at a Louisiana State Bar CLE event where attorney after attorney shared their “horror stories” about Reese. Yet, she managed to last for more than two decades over four different Administrations, two Democratic and two Republican.

Thankfully for American justice, Judge Reese retired in 2020, after more than two decades of abusing asylum seekers and disgracing the Immigration Courts! But, she was by no means the only unqualified Immigration Judge who helped create disgraceful and illegal “Asylum Free Zones” in Immigration Courtrooms throughout America.

A number of members of the “Asylum Denial Club” remain on the bench @ EOIR. Outrageously, some of them were even “rewarded” with appointments to the BIA by the previous Administration!

Rather than swiftly moving to replace the BiA and then commencing a thorough, long overdue “housecleaning” of unqualified judges and managers at EOIR, Garland, Monaco, Gupta, and Clarke have dawdled as asylum seekers continue to be abused, mistreated, denied due process, and justice mocked at EOIR. A civil rights/racial injustice/due process crisis of gargantuan proportions is going on right under their noses, and they have done very little to acknowledge or address it!

Not to mention that under Garland’s lackadaisical leadership the Immigration Courts continue to build unnecessary backlog at “Trumpian” rates. It’s not like experts haven’t brought the grotesque injustices and defects of EOIR to the attention of the Biden Administration and Garland!

One might ask just what Garland and his top lieutenants are doing to earn their pay? The answer is “not much” to date from a progressive standpoint!

Experts and advocates should be “raising hell” with the Biden Administration about the deficient due process and racial justice leadership at the DOJ! American justice deserves better! Much better!

And, the other Circuit Courts (particularly the 11th Circuit) that have looked the other way at the biased decision-making and other unconstitutional travesties of justice going on in Immigration Court on a regular basis don’t look so good either!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

07-14-21

🏴‍☠️☠️🤮CRUELTY, UNCONSTITUTIONALITY, COVER-UPS, UNACCOUNTABILITY MARKED TRUMP’S IMMIGRATION KAKISTOCRACY — Victims Suffer, “Perps” Walk Free!

Sessions in a cage — Jeff Sessions’ Cage by J.D. Crowe, Alabama Media Group/AL.com
Republished under license

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2021/07/09/trump-separated-families-yuma-2017/

Kevin Sieff reports @ WashPost:

. . . .

Some of the parents separated under the Yuma program still remain apart from their children four years later. Others are missing — lawyers and advocates have been unable to locate them since they were deported alone. The children separated in Yuma in 2017 were as young as 10 months old, according to government data.

The new information shows the difficulty of accounting for aspects of the Trump administration’s immigration policy, an ever-changing series of measures aimed at stopping migrants from crossing the border. Even the impact of family separation — perhaps the most scrutinized U.S. immigration policy of the last half-century — is not fully understood.

[They were one of the first families separated at the border. Two and a half years later, they’re still apart.]

Though the formal period in which the Trump Administration’s “zero tolerance” policy was implemented spanned only April to June 2018, it’s now clear that separations began roughly a year before that along some stretches of the border. More than 5,600 families were separated between mid-2017 and mid-2018, according to the Department of Homeland Security. The Biden administration is investigating whether more previously unregistered separations might have occurred earlier in Trump’s term.

. . . .

The ACLU, which was given access to government data through a court order, has catalogued cases that hint at the policy’s global impact.

In August of 2017, for example, a father from Tajikistan was separated from his 4-year-old daughter. In October of 2017, a mother from Romania was separated from her 6-year-old son. In April of 2018, three siblings from Nigeria — 12, 14 and 16 years old — were separated from their dad. In December 2017, a two year old boy from Brazil was separated from his father.

“We know from the documents provided in the litigation that families separated by the Trump administration came not just from Central America but all over the world,” said Lee Gelernt, the lead attorney on the ACLU’s family separation litigation. “Which will make the process of putting this all back together that much more difficult.”

Maria Sachetti and Nick Miroff contributed to this report.

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

Disturbingly, the harm is irreparable in many cases, the Biden Administration has continued the illegal suspension of asylum laws at the border while also failing to effectively address the continuing unconstitutional mess in Garland’s dysfunctional Immigration “Courts” that aren’t courts at all!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

07-12-21

⚖️🇺🇸BIDEN ADMINISTRATION DOES THE RIGHT THING FOR DEPORTED VETS!

https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/561612-biden-administration-seeks-reversal-for-deported-veterans

Rebecca Beitsch reports for The Hill:

The Biden administration plans to track down veterans who have been deported as part of an effort to provide a pathway to citizenship along with access to Veterans Affairs benefits.

A late Friday announcement from the Department of Homeland Security said the move is part of a broader plan to “avoid future unjust removals” of noncitizen military service members, many of whom are eligible to naturalize due to their military service.

“We are committed to bringing back military service members, veterans, and their immediate family members who were unjustly removed and ensuring they receive the benefits to which they may be entitled,” Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas said in a release.

The effort directs a trio of DHS agencies — U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) — to “review the cases of individuals whose removals failed to live up to our highest values.”

. . . .

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

Read the rest of Rebecca’s report at the link.

A welcome change to be sure!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

07-09-21

🤮🏴‍☠️👎🏽RACE-BASED CHILD ABUSE & SEXUAL ABUSE OF KIDS MUST STOP — Demand An End To Scofflaw Behavior By Our Government!

Crimes Against Humanity — Thomas Cizauskas Crimes against humanity
Creative Commons License — The Biden Administration promised to stop these crimes committed by our Government, but hasn’t.

https://www.newsweek.com/we-fled-honduras-fearing-our-lives-immigration-officers-abused-my-child-opinion-1605760p

Daniel Paz writes in Newsweek:

“Welcome to hell.”

Those were the words I heard from an immigration officer not long after I entered the United States near El Paso, Texas in May 2018. I thought I had just reached safety with Angie, my 7-year-old daughter. I was wrong.

Once we arrived at the border, immigration officers processed me and my daughter at a detention facility, and led us to a crowded cell packed with 50 to 60 other families. It smelled terrible—like urine—and everything was gray. We were so cold. They didn’t even offer us one of the cellophane blankets you see on TV. I had to take my shirt off to wrap it around Angie and keep her warm. I was shivering.

The journey to this point had been excruciatingly painful. Fearing for our lives, we had to make the decision to flee. I had a good life in Honduras. I was a businessman and I owned my own home. I knew it would be hard to leave everything I worked so hard to build behind. Starting a new life in a new country with a different culture wouldn’t be easy. But desperate circumstances called for desperate measures. Hope of reaching a safe place for my family kept me going.

At the detention center, many fathers began hearing rumors that immigration officials were going to take our children away from us. Take them where? Take my daughter? To another cell? A new facility? On the inside I was panicking, but I knew I needed to show strength for my daughter. I needed to be brave and prepare her if the rumors were true. You will contact your grandparents in Ohio, I told Angie.

In the cell, we practiced memorizing their phone numbers, repeating them over and over. To be extra safe, I then wrote the numbers with a ball-point pen on my daughter’s arm, her belly, her foot and on the inside of her jeans hoping she’d have the chance to make a phone call before immigration officials washed off the ink.

Then my nightmare happened. They came to take our children. I witnessed pain, agonizing cries and a deep sense of helplessness. Some of the immigration officers joked as they handcuffed the parents. Others expressed a cruelty I never would have expected. Rather than trying to ease our pain, they were somehow enjoying their power. As if they believed their actions were the right thing to do. I don’t know how anyone believes separating a child from a parent is right.

. . . .

While being transferred to a detention facility for children, an immigration officer sexually abused her. When she fought back, the officer threatened her, saying if she told anyone she would never see her parents again. Then Angie witnessed the same officer sexually abuse two girls who were even younger than her. Angie stayed quiet about the experience even months after we were reunited.

We were reunited after several weeks, though the separation felt eternal. The Angie the U.S. government returned to me is not the same girl they took out of my arms in that detention center. She cannot forget what happened to her. And she wants me to share what happened to her because she is worried the officer who abused her is still an immigration official. We do not know the officer’s name—let alone whether the officer is still working in government.

“What if that officer is still hurting other kids?” Angie asked me.

As a father I want to tell Angie not to worry. That is why I am asking President Joe Biden to act. Reuniting families and making sure they have immigration status in the U.S. is critical—but it is not enough. The government can make a huge difference in the lives of thousands of asylum seekers who are being turned away at the border right now. All asylum seekers should be allowed to seek protection and refuge in the U.S. without fear.

The government must also investigate every allegation of sexual abuse and mistreatment by immigration officers. Those officers must immediately be identified and removed from their positions so they cannot hurt anyone else. President Biden, the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Justice together have the ability to ensure that families like mine can begin to heal.

It is hell to leave your home and risk everything so your child can be safe. It shouldn’t be hell once you have reached what you thought would be a safe haven.

After entering the United States to seek safety, Daniel Paz and his daughter were separated for several weeks. Paz and his family were reunited in 2018 and have since won asylum. He is a committed advocate for other families who have faced similar trauma.

The views expressed in this article are the writer’s own.

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

Who would have thought that nearly six months into the Biden Administration our Government would still be abusing asylum seekers and ignoring the Constitution, mocking the rule of law, and degrading humanity?

So, how is it that Garland, Monaco, Gupta, and Clarke intend to combat racism and unequal justice in America when they have failed to re-establish the rule of law for asylum seekers at the border and continue to run an unjust and grossly mismanaged “court system” @ EOIR filled with too many “Miller Lite” judges?

Tell the Biden Administration and Judge Garland that we need progressive reforms, now! EOIR would be a great starting place!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

07-06-21

🏴‍☠️☠️⚰️👎🏽DOJ DISCONNECT: Garland Hits Pause Button On Trump/Barr 🤮 Kill-Fest, While Operating “Traffic Courts” That Can Impose The Death Penalty ⚰️ Without Due Process Or Impartial Judges!

In the strangely disingenuous world of Judge Garland’s DOJ:

This is unacceptable treatment of convicted felons:

Death Penalty
By Dave Granlund
Reprinted by license

But, this is “A-OK” treatment of those seeking asylum @ EOIR:

Star Chamber Justice — “Justice”
Star Chamber
Style

Pausing the Trump/Barr Federal killing spree makes sense. In addition to Garland’s “due process concerns,” there is the larger problem that the death penalty is unconstitutional under the 8th Amendment.

One would think that AG Garland’s concern for due process would extend to individuals being railroaded through his broken, biased, dysfunctional, due-process-denying Immigration “Courts” (that aren’t courts at all) who often face removal to places where they face abuse, torture, and/or death. Heck, at the border they are illegally removed without any process at all, as Judge Garland and his lieutenants look the other way. They might pretend not to see what’s happening. But, we see it!

Apparently, in Garland’s system due process is only a requirement for convicted felons, not for vulnerable individuals fighting for their lives in a process intentionally skewed against them. His is a system staffed largely with “Miller-Lite judges” selected by his two immediate predecessors who prided themselves on creating a “due process free zone” at EOIR and “partnering” with DHS Enforcement!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever,

PWS

07-05-21

☠️👎🏽BIA GOOFS UP ANOTHER CAT CASE IN 5TH CIR! — 4 Years, 3 BIA Decisions, 2 Circuit Remands, & Back To “Square 1” — What’s Missing? — Only Competence & Justice!

Four Horsemen — Gen. Garland continues to use “Miller Lite Mercenaries” against migrants. “The U.S. constitution states that our judicial system is a ‘separate but equal part’ to our democracy. But immigration courts have nothing to do with that.” — Tea Ivanovic, Immigrant Food
Albrecht Dürer, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

Dan Kowalski reports for LexisNexis Immigration Community:

https://www.lexisnexis.com/LegalNewsRoom/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/unpub-ca5-on-honduras-cat-state-involvement-guity-casildo-v-garland#

Daniel M. Kowalski

1 Jul 2021

torture

cat

Honduras

Unpub. CA5 on Honduras, CAT, State Involvement: Guity Casildo v. Garland

Guity Casildo v. Garland (unpub.)

“[T]he BIA has not addressed the question of the applicability of the color-of-law rule regarding state involvement in torture. … The parties agree that a remand is the best alternative where the BIA has made an unauthorized or inadequately supported factual finding on the likelihood of torture, thereby leaving unresolved whether the IJ failed to apply the rule-of-law theory of state involvement in torture. Accordingly, we conclude that the prudent course is to remand the case to the BIA. … We further order the BIA to remand the case to the IJ for a clear factual finding on the likelihood of torture and for the IJ’s clarification, if necessary, on the question of state involvement in light of the color-of-law rule. … PETITION GRANTED; VACATED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS TO REMAND.”

[Hats off to Matthew Nickson!]

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

Congrats to Matthew Nickson! Getting justice for a migrant in the notoriously pro-Government 5th Cir. is no mean feat! Think of how much easier your job would be if AG Garland hired some “real judges” at EOIR — experts in immigration and human rights who have represented individuals in Immigration Court and who are committed to due process and fundamental fairness above all else!

When you’re out to stick it to Hondurans (actually all Northern Triangle migrants), regardless of facts or law, to please your sleazy White Nationalist political bosses in the Trump regime, bad things are going to happen.

Let’s not forget that the Trump regime entered into a totally corrupt and bogus “Safe Third Country” agreement with Honduras, probably one of the least safe countries in the Hemisphere with no functional asylum system at all. Given this level of overt political fraud by the “bosses,” I doubt that the regime would have appreciated BIA bureaucrats correctly finding that torture with government acquiescence is likely in Honduras.

Sure, these failures were before Garland took over. But, he has made little effort to date to either acknowledge and root out the deep corruption and anti-immigrant weaponization of the Immigration Courts or to address the inadequate “go along to get along judging” that was encouraged at EOIR. In plain terms, respondents did not get, and still do not get, qualified, fair, and impartial judges at EOIR to adjudicate their claims.

You have only to look at the comedy of errors and ineptitude at EOIR in this case “outed” by one of the most pro-Government Circuits in America to see the proof! That’s unconstitutional!

Remand after remand to “get it right” also “jacks backlog.” Just getting a case back on an Immigration Judge’s docket takes time and effort in a non-automated system with no e-filing and traditionally overwhelmed and demoralized staff. Instead of fixing “customer service” @ EOIR, the Trump kakistocracy invested in ludicrous, due-process-destroying “IJ Dashboards” to keep the quotas filled and the unconstitutional “nativist deportation railroad” moving. Yet, Garland, Monaco, Gupta, and Clarke pretend that none of these constitutional and civil rights absurdities, not to mention grotesque management fraud, waste, and abuse, happened!

Don’t stand for any of Garland’s dishonest “expedited dockets” which implicitly blame those seeking justice under law and their courageous lawyers for the ungodly mess he and his lieutenants inherited but have failed to address! And, “dedicated docket for asylum seekers” is just a euphemism for more backlog-building, due-process denying “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” and continuing mismanagement by Garland.

I’ll bet that qualified experts could cut the largely self-inflicted backlog by at least 50% in 90 days without stomping on anyone’s due process rights merely by administratively closing or terminating without prejudice hundreds of thousands of non-priority aged cases. Many of those could better be handled at USCIS.

It shouldn’t be this difficult to get an Administration that ran and got elected on a “reform” and “return to good government” platform to do the right thing here. But, it is! EOIR needs reform, including a new BIA and competent, expert judges who know asylum law, respect due process, and will treat migrants and their attorneys fairly, respectfully, and humanely. It’s not a “big ask!” So why is it “above Garland’s pay grade?”

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

07-02-21

THE EVER-AMAZING NICOLE NAREA @ VOX “GETS IT” — Too Bad The Folks Running Immigration Policy Don’t! — “Knowledge about US deportation and detention policy didn’t have any significant effect on their intentions to migrate. . . . it made them more likely to think outcomes and legal procedures in the American immigration system are unfair.”

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/22451177/biden-border-immigration-enforcement-detention-deportation

Nicole writes @ Vox News:

President Joe Biden has taken some steps toward reversing his predecessor’s legacy of broad, indiscriminate immigration enforcement, including a recent announcement that it will no longer detain immigrants at two locations under scrutiny for alleged abuses.

But Republicans are adamant that increased immigration enforcement be a prerequisite to any broader immigration reform.

“There’ll be no immigration reform until you get control of the border,” Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) told Roll Call last month.

There are now nearly 40 percent more people in immigration detention compared to when Biden first took office, and his administration is continuing to turn away most migrants arriving on the border under pandemic-related restrictions put in place by his predecessor, President Donald Trump, which have led to the expulsions of more than 350,000 people this year alone.

But research shows that the threat of detention and deportation in the US doesn’t dissuade migrants from making the journey to the southern border, especially if they are victims of violence and may be seeking to escape the “devil they know” in their home countries.

“Managing migration at the border, particularly the kind of migration we’re seeing now, from a strictly deterrence, enforcement lens is just not sustainable in the long run and is not having the impact that people think it should have,” Theresa Cardinal Brown, managing director of immigration and cross-border policy at the Bipartisan Policy Center, said. “That’s why we need to rethink our paradigm for how we talk about migration and everything that we do at the border.”

. . . .

Knowledge of US immigration detention, however, did have an unintended effect on survey takers in Ryo’s experiment — it made them more likely to think outcomes and legal procedures in the American immigration system are unfair. That is worrisome, given that perceptions of fairness are significant predictors of people’s willingness to obey the law and cooperate with legal authorities, Ryo said.

“We really ought to be concerned about the extent to which generating these kinds of perceptions of unfairness can backfire in terms of more people disregarding our laws and undertaking that dangerous journey in order to get to our border and try to cross it,” she added.

. . . .

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

First, let me congratulate Nicole on her spectacularly high level reporting and mastery of the English language: Clear, accessible, well-organized, informative, persuasive. Compare Nicole’s prose with the vapid, often misleading nonsense and gibberish spouted by legislators, government officials, bureaucrats, and right wing White Nationalist shills of all types. Just yesterday, Trump and his pathetic “wannabe” Greg Abbott were down at the border spouting their unadulterated, fact-free, racist blather and restrictionist nonsense (when Trump wasn’t rambling on incoherently about the “Big Lie” or himself). I encourage everyone to read Nicole’s full article at the link!

“Enforcement only doesn’t work” has been one of the key “themes” of Courtside since “Day 1.” The answer has also been clear — due process, fundamental fairness, racial equity, practical scholarship leading to durable solutions.

The converse of “enforcement only doesn’t work” is also true: A more realistic, more generous legal immigration system that advances due process and equality while taking advantage of “market factors” that attract and drive migration would also lead to more efficient and effective enforcement. Many, perhaps the majority, of those we are now wasting time and money on cruel and ultimately futile attempts to detain, deter, and remove would actually be a huge benefit to our nation if they were allowed to migrate legally on either a permanent or temporary basis.

I’ve been saying for a long time now that convincing folks that our legal system is basically bogus — falsely promising a fairness and dignified treatment we aren’t delivering — merely serves to drive migrants to enter the “extralegal” or “black market” system that helps support our economy. The real “beneficiaries” of “mindless immigration enforcement” and a dysfunctional legal system are smugglers, cartels, and exploitative employers. Also, obviously, corrupt GOP politicos benefit from having a permanent, disenfranchised, traumatized, largely non-White “black market labor pool” to prop up their economy while serving as an easy target to “whip up” their racist base.

Bad policies, driven by ignorance, myths, bias, cowardice, and racism will continue to produce lousy results — for the migrants and for our nation. Smarter, more courageous, more intellectually honest legislators and public officials are necessary. Whether voters will be wise enough to elect them remains to be seen.

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

07-01-21

🏴‍☠️SUPREMES’ GOP MAJ. SLAMS GULAG DOOR SHUT ON REFUGEES IN “WITHHOLDING ONLY PROCEEDINGS” 👎🏽 — “NO BOND HEARINGS FOR YOU, ALIENS!” — Johnson v. Guzmán Chavez (6-3) — Oh, To Be A “Pipeline Builder” Endowed With Legal & Human Rights That Even Elite GOP Supremes Will Recognize!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-deported-immigrants-penneast-pipeline/2021/06/29/3e83164e-d8dc-11eb-8fb8-aea56b785b00_story.html

This WashPost headline and Post Supreme Court reporter Robert Barnes’s summary say it all!

Supreme Court rules against immigrants claiming safety fears after deportation and for pipeline builders

By Robert Barnes

June 29 at 5:22 PM ET

. . . .

In the immigration case, the court was considering the rights of a relatively small subset of immigrants: those who were deported once before but reentered the United States illegally because they say they faced threats at home.

At issue was a complex federal law that authorizes the government to detain immigrants and which section of it applies to these types of cases.

One piece of the law says, “the alien may receive a bond hearing before an immigration judge” and thus the chance to be free while proceedings continue, Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. wrote for the majority. In the other, the immigrant is considered “removed,” and indefinite detention is warranted.

Alito and his fellow conservative justices said it was the second that applied, and the detainees do not get a bond hearing. The court’s three liberals objected.

The case involved people who an immigration officer found had credible fears of danger or persecution in their home countries. For instance, Rodriguez Zometa said he was threatened with death by the 18th Street Gang when he was removed to his home country of El Salvador.

The question of whether the government could hold the immigrants without a hearing before an immigration judge had divided courts around the country. The case was argued before President Biden took office, and lawyers for the Trump administration told the court immigrants were not entitled to a hearing.

Alito said Congress had good reason to be more restrictive with those who came back into the country after being deported. “Aliens who reentered the country illegally after removal have demonstrated a willingness to violate the terms of a removal order, and they therefore may be less likely to comply with the reinstated order” that they leave, he said.

He was joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil M. Gorsuch, Brett M. Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett.

The court’s liberals, Justices Stephen G. Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, saw it differently and would have affirmed the victory the plaintiffs won at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit in Richmond.

“Why would Congress want to deny a bond hearing to individuals who reasonably fear persecution or torture, and who, as a result, face proceedings that may last for many months or years?” Breyer wrote. “I can find no satisfactory answer to this question.”

The case is Johnson v. Guzman Chavez.

. . . .

Here’s the “full text” of the decision:

19-897_c07d

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

Nice summary, Robert! You can read the rest of Barnes’s report at the link. Indeed, Justice Breyer’s cogent question quoted in the article remains unanswered by the wooden legal gobbledygook in the majority decision, devoid of much understanding of how the dysfunctional Immigration Courts and the DHS “New American Gulag” actually operate and dismissive of what it actually means to be a refugee seeking to exercise legal rights in today’s world.

At issue: The right of non-criminal foreign nationals who have established a “reasonable fear” of persecution or torture if deported to apply for bond pending Immigration Court hearings on the merits of their cases. Getting a bond hearing before an Immigration Judge does not in any way guarantee release; just that the decision to detain or release on bond will be based on the individual facts and circumstances. Individuals released from detention have a much better chance of obtaining counsel and gathering the documentation necessary to win their cases. They are also much less likely to be “coerced” by DHS detention into surrendering viable claims and appeal rights.

Majority’s response: These “aliens” have neither rights nor humanity that any life-tenured GOP-appointed judge is bound to respect.

Alternative: There is a readily available alternative statutory interpretation, adopted by the 4th Circuit and the dissent, that would recognize the human and legal rights of vulnerable refugees seeking legal protection and give them hearings on continuing custody in substandard conditions (in some instances, conditions in the “DHS New American Gulag” fall well below those that would be imposed on convicted felons).

You can’t win ‘em all: The Round Table was one of many organizations filing an amicus brief on behalf of the refugees and in support of the position adopted by the 4th Circuit and the dissent. While we were unsuccessful on this one, at least we are on the “right side of history.”

Creative suggestion: Detainees should incorporate, perhaps as a pipeline company, or better yet a gun rights’ group, so that they would have legal rights and be treated as “persons” (e.g., “humans”) by the Supremes’ GOP majority.

Next steps:

Advocates should prevail on the Biden Administration to change the regulations to give this limited subclass of applicants for protection a chance to seek bond before an Immigration Judge;
Advocates should keep up the pressure on the Biden Administration and Garland to appoint better judges at EOIR: progressive practical experts, who know how to grant legal protection efficiently and fairly and who will establish appropriate legal precedents to help these cases move through the EOIR system on the merits in a timely and fundamentally fair manner consistent with due process. The length of time it takes “Withholding Only” cases to move through the Immigration Courts has lots to do with: unfair, coercive detention practices by DHS; poor judging and bad precedents at EOIR; incompetent “judicial administration” and politicized “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” @ EOIR by DOJ politicos and their EOIR “retainers.”

Long term solution:

Support and vote for progressive legislators who will revise the immigration laws to do away with the unnecessary and wasteful “New American Gulag;”
Vote progressive candidates for President and the Senate: political officials committed to putting better Federal Judges on the bench at all levels — “practical scholars” with real experience representing the most vulnerable in society and who will tirelessly enforce due process, equal protection, human rights, and fundamental fairness for all persons regardless of race, religion, or status; judges who understand and will seriously reflect on the “real life” human consequences of their decisions. Better judges for a better America!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

06-30-21

“DUH” OF THE DAY: GOP WHITE NATIONALIST RACISM & STUPIDITY, BIDEN ADMINISTRATION BUMBLING LEAD TO ONGOING BORDER CHAOS: “For people like Medina, neither restrictive immigration policies nor dangerous journeys through several countries, border walls, or even statements from politicians deter them from seeking to rebuild their lives in the United States.”

https://www.dallasnews.com/news/immigration/2021/06/25/threat-of-death-in-their-homelands-continues-to-push-migrants-toward-us-mexico-border/

Maria Ramos Pacheco reports for the Dallas Morning News:

CIUDAD JUÁREZ, Mexico — While Vice President Kamala Harris said Friday the goal of her trip to El Paso was to understand the “root causes” of the rising influx of migrants from recent months, just across the border Honduran migrant Manuel Medina had a simple explanation for why thousands of people from other countries will continue to try to reach the United States: To stay alive while fleeing countries where their families are threatened by crime and violence.

“I did not leave my country and my wife because I wanted to. [Rising] crime forced me to leave everything; the only thing I want is for my family and me to be safe,” said Medina, 37, who left Honduras in May 2019 after receiving threats from gang members.

Amid a chorus of criticism coming mainly from Republican politicians, Harris made her first trip to the U.S. Southern border flanked by the Secretary of Homeland Security, Alejandro Mayorkas; Sen. Dick Durbin, D- Ill; and El Paso Rep. Verónica Escobar.

Amid a chorus of criticism coming mainly from Republican politicians, Harris made her first trip to the U.S. Southern border flanked by the Secretary of Homeland Security, Alejandro MayorkasSen.

For people like Medina, neither restrictive immigration policies nor dangerous journeys through several countries, border walls, or even statements from politicians deter them from seeking to rebuild their lives in the United States.

Medina has lived for two years in this city’s El Buen Samaritano shelter, managed by a religious organization, along with his 15-year-old son Nahúm Medina. Their asylum petition was initially rejected in 2019 and he stayed in Ciudad Juárez under the Migrants Protection Protocols, waiting for a second chance.

The MPP or “Remain in Mexico” program was created in 2019 by the Trump administration, which forced people seeking asylum to remain in Mexico. As of May, there were 71,002 active cases.

. . . .

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

Read the rest of Maria’s article at the link.

Desperate people do desperate things! Duh!

You’ve heard it before on Courtside:

https://immigrationcourtside.com/2021/06/24/%e2%9a%a0%ef%b8%8f%f0%9f%9a%b8v-p-harris-is-going-to-the-border-she-should-talk-with-the-real-victims-of-her-governments-illegal-wrong-headed-immoral-and-ineffective-border-deterrence-p/

Indeed, since the day of inception in Dec. 2016, Courtside has been very consistent in speaking truth to bigots and misguided inept policy makers:

https://immigrationcourtside.com/2016/12/31/family-detention-raids-expediting-cases-fails-to-deter-scared-central-americans/

Restrictionism, racism, nativism, cruelty, and scofflaw behavior will only continue to make things worse. And, AG Merick Garland, staffing your “courts” with “Miller Lite” holdovers and Trump toadies won’t stop the downward spiral of American justice on your watch!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

06-27-21

FROM SPLC:

🇺🇸⚖️Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

David G. Savage & Maura Dolan report in the LA Times:

🇺🇸🗽🧑🏽‍⚖️Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Dan Kowalski reports for LexisNexis Immigration Community:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Dan Kowalski Reports for LexisNexis Immigration Community:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Kevin Sieff reports @ WashPost:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Rebecca Beitsch reports for The Hill:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Daniel Paz writes in Newsweek:

Tell the Biden Administration and Judge Garland that we need progressive reforms, now! EOIR would be a great starting place!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

In the strangely disingenuous world of Judge Garland’s DOJ:

This is unacceptable treatment of convicted felons:

But, this is “A-OK” treatment of those seeking asylum @ EOIR:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever,

Related posts:

Dan Kowalski reports for LexisNexis Immigration Community:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Nicole writes @ Vox News:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

This WashPost headline and Post Supreme Court reporter Robert Barnes’s summary say it all!

Supreme Court rules against immigrants claiming safety fears after deportation and for pipeline builders

Here’s the “full text” of the decision:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Maria Ramos Pacheco reports for the Dallas Morning News:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts: