⚖️🗽🧑🏽‍⚖️COURTS OF APPEALS CONTINUE TO THROW ROTTEN TOMATOES 🍅 @ BIA’S ANTI-ASYLUM BIAS — Basic Analytical, Legal Errors Continue From Weaponized, Non-Expert “Star Chamber” ☠️ Posing As ”Tribunal!” — Judge Garland Must Fix This Inexcusable, Unnecessary, Systemic Failure Now! — Justice For Persons Of Color & Migrants Can’t “Wait For Godot!”

Two most recent recent rebukes, courtesy of Dan Kowalski at Lexis-Nexis Immigration Community:

https://www.lexisnexis.com/legalnewsroom/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/ca6-on-exceptional-circumstances-e-a-c-a-v-rosen

Immigration Law

Daniel M. Kowalski

12 Jan 2021

motion to reopen

exceptional circumstances

AAO asylum bia ca9 cimt COVID-19 DHS DOL eoir final rule H-1B H-2A H-2B I-9 ICE mehta Ninth Circuit ocaho State Department Supreme Court tps Trump unpublished USCIS visa bulletin

More

CA6 on Exceptional Circumstances:

E.A.C.A. v. Rosen

“[W]e conclude that the BIA abused its discretion by denying E.A.’s motion to reopen. E.A.’s mother’s recent childbirth is a serious medical event, which coupled with E.A.’s minor age, her difficulty obtaining transportation, and her difficulty navigating the immigration system without assistance, constitute “exceptional circumstances” necessitating rescission of the in absentia removal order. … The BIA’s decision was also contrary to law, and therefore an abuse of discretion. … First, the BIA improperly considered E.A.’s age separately, rather than considering age alongside other factors, when determining that she had not shown that exceptional circumstances justified her failure to appear. Second, the BIA erred when it dismissed without adequate explanation E.A.’s evidence that she is eligible for SIJS. Finally, the BIA improperly stated that E.A. was required to present prima facie evidence that she was eligible for immigration relief as part of her motion to reopen. … For the foregoing reasons, we GRANT the petition for review, VACATE the removal order, and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”

[Hats way off to Rachel Naggar! Here is a link to the audio of the oral argument.]

https://www.lexisnexis.com/LegalNewsRoom/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/ca1-on-asylum-u-s-army-contractor-al-amiri-v-rosen

CA1 on Asylum, U.S. Army Contractor: Al Amiri v. Rosen

Al Amiri v. Rosen

“Salim Al Amiri, an Iraqi citizen, seeks relief from removal on the grounds of asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the United Nations Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). He premises his requests for such relief on the harm that he fears that he would be subjected to in Iraq at the hands of members of Iraq’s military or civilian insurgents operating in that country. Al Amiri contends that he has reason to fear he would be subjected to that harm on account of his work as a paid contractor for the United States Army during the war in Iraq, as in that role he educated U.S. soldiers about Iraqi customs and practices as they prepared for their deployment. We vacate and remand the ruling of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying his claims for asylum and withholding of removal, but we deny his petition insofar as it challenges the BIA’s ruling rejecting his CAT claim.”

[Hats off to J. Christopher Llinas!]

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

Congrats to all involved!
Think how much better this system would function with expert judges who treated asylum applicants fairly from the “git go,” granted protection wherever possible in accordance with the the Refugee Act of 1980 and the (more “woke”) Supremes’ precedent in Cardoza-Fonseca, provided clear, positive guidance on how valid claims could be documented and granted, and promoted and consistently applied best practices to achieve efficiency with maximum due process.
At first glance, although the issue is reopening rather than a continuance, E.A.C.A. undercuts McHenry’s nativist, insanely wasteful, and totally dishonest attempt to “raise the bar” for routine continuances for asylum applicants who need time to properly document and prepare their cases.
The “Deny – Deny Program” — deny due process, deny relief — that infects EOIR’s “Star Chambers” (impersonating “courts”) is a huge backlog builder that kills people and screws up Court of Appeals dockets in the process.
Reopening cases that should be reopened, getting to the merits, and getting the many properly grantable asylum cases represented, documented, and prioritized would be a huge step in reducing EOIR’s largely self-created and unnecessary “bogus backlog.”
Ultimately, many of the clearly grantable asylum cases being mishandled and wrongly denied at EOIR, at great waste of time and resources, not to mention unnecessary human trauma, could, with real expert judges at EOIR setting and consistently enforcing the precedents, be granted more efficiently and expeditiously at the Asylum Office and ultimately shifted to a more robust and properly run Refugee Program.
In the longer run, once EOIR is redesigned and rebuilt as a proper court with real, independent, expert judges, it might be appropriate to place the Asylum Offices under judicial supervision, given the grotesque abuses and corrupt, perhaps criminal, mismanagement of the Asylum Offices by USCIS toadies carrying out the regime’s racist, White Nationalist, unconstitutional agenda of hate and waste.
NOTE TO JUDGE GARLAND👨🏻‍⚖️: Please fix the EOIR mess, Your Honor, before it brings you and the entire US justice system crashing down with it! This is a national emergency, and a damaging national disgrace, NOT a “back burner” issue!

Here’s some additional E.A.C.A. analysis by my good friend and NDPA “warrior queen” 👸🏽Michelle Mendez @ CLINIC!

Subject: CLINIC MTR In Absentia Win at the CA6 on behalf of SIJS-Seeking UC (E. A. C. A. v. Jeffrey Rosen)

Greetings,

Sharing this win, E. A. C. A. v. Jeffrey Rosen, out of the CA6 by my amazing colleague Rachel Naggar who manages our BIA Pro Bono Project. This was an appeal of an IJ (Memphis) denial of an in absentia motion to reopen for a 13-year old unaccompanied child.

Interestingly, after oral argument, OIL filed a motion to remand the case (which Rachel opposed) and the CA6 denied that motion. Seems the CA6 really wanted to issue a decision on the merits and we are grateful for the decision. Here are some highlights from the decision:

SIJS

·       “Notably, the IJ’s decision does not mention E.A.’s claims that she was eligible for SIJS.”

·       FN 1: “As of the December 2020 Visa Bulletin, visas are available for special immigrants (category EB4) from El Salvador to adjust their status if their priority date is prior to February 2018. If DHS removes E.A. prior to approving her visa, she will be unable to apply for adjustment of status. See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(27)(J).”

Totality of the Circumstances

·       “Based on the totality of the circumstances, including E.A. mother’s recent childbirth, E.A.’s young age, E.A.’s mother’s failed attempts to obtain counsel to help change the address of E.A.’s hearing, and E.A.’s inability to travel from New York to Memphis for the hearing, we hold that E.A. established exceptional circumstances.”

·       “Under the totality of the circumstances, E.A.’s young age is an important factor in determining whether exceptional circumstances exist.”

Exceptional Circumstances

·       “E.A.’s mother’s recent childbirth is a serious medical condition that supports reopening. The statute defining ‘exceptional circumstances’ that justify reopening an immigration proceeding lists the ‘serious illness of the alien, or serious illness or death of the spouse, child, or parent of the alien’ as an example. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(e)(1). Childbirth is a serious medical event that necessitates a recovery period.”

·       “Instead of recognizing that childbirth is a serious medical condition, the BIA minimized the seriousness of childbirth and its impact on E.A.’s mother’s ability to bring E.A. to Memphis. […] Recovery from childbirth is exactly the type of circumstance that § 1229a(e)(1) was intended to cover.”

Prima Facie Eligibility

·       “Finally, the BIA erred by stating that E.A. was required to prove prima facie eligibility for immigration relief. The BIA’s decision improperly states that E.A. is required to show at this stage prima facie eligibility for relief. The statute governing motions to reopen removal orders entered in absentia provides that the petitioner must ‘demonstrate[] that the failure to appear was because of exceptional circumstances.’ 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(C). In general, we have stated that ‘[a] prima facie showing of eligibility for relief is required in motions to reopen.’ Alizoti, 477 F.3d at 451–52. In the case of a motion to rescind a removal order entered in absentia, however, the BIA has held that ‘an alien is not required to show prejudice in order to rescind an order of deportation” or removal. In re Grijalva-Barrera, 21 I. & N. Dec. 472, 473 n.2 (BIA 1996); see also In re Rivera-Claros, 21 I. & N. Dec. 599, 603 n.1 (BIA 1996). This is consistent with the statute governing motions to rescind removal orders entered in absentia, 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(C), which does not list a showing of prima facie eligibility for relief from removal as a requirement to rescind in absentia removal orders. Rivera-Claros, 21 I. & N. Dec. at 603 n.1; see also Galvez-Vergara v. Gonzales, 484 F.3d 798, 803 n.6 (5th Cir. 2007) (declining ‘to affirm the IJ’s decision on the grounds that [the petitioner] has not shown that he was prejudiced by his counsel’s performance’ because ‘In re Grijalva-Barrera, 21 I. & N. Dec. at 473 n.2, provides that an alien need not demonstrate prejudice for his counsel’s erroneous advice to constitute an ‘exceptional circumstance’ justifying rescission of an in absentia removal order’); Lo v. Ashcroft, 341 F.3d 934, 939 n.6 (9th Cir. 2003) (‘follow[ing] the BIA’s usual practice of not requiring a showing of prejudice’ to rescind an in absentia order of removal). We now join our sister circuits and hold that E.A. is not required to make a prima facie showing of eligibility for relief in order to obtain rescission under 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5) of the in absentia order of removal.”

Thanks to our entire Defending Vulnerable Populations team for supporting Rachel on the briefing, oral argument, and negotiations with OIL.

Gratefully,

Michelle N. Mendez | she/her/ella/elle

Director, Defending Vulnerable Populations Program

Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc. (CLINIC)

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

In addition to the “normal” overall White Nationalist, racist agenda that EOIR “management” has carried out under the defeated regime, there was a good deal of misogyny 🤮 involved in the BIA’s gross mishandling of the “pregnancy issue,” as described by the Sixth Circuit. This misogynistic trend can be traced back directly to the unconstitutional and unethical actions of mysogynist White Nationalist AG Jeff Sessions 🤮 🦹🏿‍♂️🤡in the “Matter of A-B- Abomination.” ☠️⚰️🏴‍☠️👎🏻

Biased, anti-migrant decision-making in support of bogus enforcement gimmicks and White Nationalist anti-democracy agendas builds backlogs and kills, maims, and tortures “real” people! Migrants are people and persons, not “threats” and “bogus statistics.”

The “dehumanization” and “de-personification” of migrants, with the connivance of the tone-deaf and spineless GOP Supremes’ majority, is a serious, continuing threat to American democracy! It must stop! Justices who won’t treat migrants physically present in the U.S. or at our borders as “persons” under our Constitution — which they clearly are — do not belong on the Supremes! ⚖️🗽🇺🇸

I can also draw the lines connecting George Floyd, institutionalized racial injustice, voter suppression, riots at the Capitol, and the “Dred Scottification” of asylum seekers and other migrants by EOIR!

HINT TO JUDGE GARLAND: Michelle Mendez would be an outstanding choice to lead the “clean up and rebuild” program at EOIR and the BIA once the “Clown Show” 🤡🦹🏿‍♂️ is removed!🪠🧹 Put experts with practical experience like Rachel Nagger and Christopher Linas onto the bench, on the BIA, the Immigration Courts, and the Article III Judiciary to get the American Justice system functioning again!

The “judicial selection system” for the Immigration Courts and the Article III Judiciary has failed American democracy — big time — over the past four years. Fixing it must be part of your legacy!

The folks who preserved due process and our Constitution in the face of tyranny are mostly “on the outside looking in.” You need to get them “inside Government” — on the bench and in other key policy positions — and empower them to start cleaning up the ungodly mess left by four years of regime kakistocracy🤮☠️🤡⚰️👎🏻. “Same old, same old” (sadly, a tradition of Dem Administrations) won’t get the job done, now any more than it has in the past! New faces for a new start!

And, it starts with better judges @ EOIR, which is entirely under YOUR control! An EOIR that actually fulfills its noble, one-time vision of “Through teamwork and innovation being the world’s best tribunals guaranteeing fairness and due process for all” will be a model for fixing our failing Federal Courts — all the way up to the leaderless and complicit Supremes who failed, particularly in immigration, human rights, voting rights, and racial justice, to effectively and courageously stand up to the Trump-Miller White Nationalist agenda of hate and tyranny!

We are where we are today as a nation, to a large extent, because of the Supremes’ majority’s gross mishandling of the “Muslim Ban” cases which set a sorry standard for complicity and total lack of accountability for unconstitutional actions, racism, dishonesty, cowardly official bullying, and abandonment of ethics by the Executive that has brought our nation to the precipice! Life tenure was actually supposed to protect us from judges who wouldn’t protect our individual rights. In this case, it hasn’t gotten the job done! Better judges for a better America!

🇺🇸⚖️🗽👍🏼Due Process Forever! The EOIR Clown Show🤡🦹🏿‍♂️ ☠️⚰️Never!

PWS

01-13-21

WHY EOIR 🤡 MUST GO ** CH. CI — Latest CLINIC Court Victory Over Regime Exposes Unholy (Not To Mention Unconstitutional & Unethical) Alliance Between EOIR & ICE Enforcement To Screw Kids! — The Bottom Is Unfathomably Deep @ The Deadly EOIR Clown Show🤡! — “ICE is barred (both at the IJ and BIA levels) from seeking denials of continuances or other postponements to await adjudication of the I-589 filed with USCIS, seeking EOIR exercise of jurisdiction over an asylum claim where USCIS has initial jurisdiction under the terms of the 2013 Kim Memo, or otherwise taking the position that USCIS lacks initial jurisdiction over the class member’s asylum application.”

Michelle Mendez @ CLINIC reports:

Court Grants Class Certification and Amends Preliminary Injunction in USCIS UC Asylum Jurisdiction Litigation

On December 21, 2020, the U.S. District Court in Greenbelt, Maryland granted Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification in J.O.P. v. DHS, No. 19:1944, a lawsuit challenging a May 31, 2019 USCIS policy limiting USCIS asylum jurisdiction over applicants previously determined to be “unaccompanied alien children.” The court certified the following class:

“All individuals nationwide who prior to the effective date of a lawfully promulgated policy prospectively altering the policy set forth in the 2013 Kim Memorandum (1) were determined to be an Unaccompanied Alien Child (“UAC”); and (2) who filed an asylum application that was pending with the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”); and (3) on the date they filed their asylum application with USCIS, were 18 years of age or older, or had a parent or legal guardian in the United States who is available to provide care and physical custody; and (4) for whom USCIS has not adjudicated the individual’s asylum application on the merits.”

Simultaneously, the court granted in part Plaintiffs’ motion to amend the nationwide preliminary injunction to prevent USCIS’s deference to EOIR jurisdictional determinations and to prevent ICE’s advocacy against USCIS initial jurisdiction. The court denied Plaintiffs’ request to amend the preliminary injunction to prevent USCIS from rejecting jurisdiction based on its expansion of the “affirmative act” exception from the 2013 Kim Memo, instead granting Plaintiffs 21 days to amend their complaint to encompass this claim. Please see CLINIC’s litigation webpage for the court’s December 21, 2020 memorandum opinion and order, as well as other case-related documents.

As amended, the preliminary injunction has the following components:

It enjoins USCIS from relying on the 2019 policy for any purpose. USCIS is barred from “rejecting jurisdiction over any asylum application filed by Plaintiffs and members of the class whose applications would have been accepted” under USCIS’s previous policy, articulated in the 2013 Kim Memo.

It enjoins USCIS from deferring to EOIR jurisdictional determinations. USCIS is barred from “deferring to EOIR determinations in assessing jurisdiction over asylum applications filed by Plaintiffs and members of the class.”

It orders USCIS to retract adverse decisions already made. USCIS must “retract any adverse decision rendered on or after June 30, 2019 that is based in whole or in part on any of the actions enjoined and restrained” as described above.

It enjoins ICE from advocating against USCIS initial jurisdiction. Where a class member’s asylum application is pending before USCIS, ICE is barred (both at the IJ and BIA levels) from seeking denials of continuances or other postponements to await adjudication of the I-589 filed with USCIS, seeking EOIR exercise of jurisdiction over an asylum claim where USCIS has initial jurisdiction under the terms of the 2013 Kim Memo, or otherwise taking the position that USCIS lacks initial jurisdiction over the class member’s asylum application.

Counsel for the Plaintiffs will continue to provide updates to practitioners as this litigation progresses. Advocates for clients: (1) who receive adverse decisions dated on or after June 30, 2019 that violate the terms of the amended preliminary injunction; or (2) in whose removal proceedings ICE advocates in violation of the amended preliminary injunction should contact Plaintiffs’ counsel Mary Tanagho Ross, mross@publiccounsel.org, and Kevin DeJong, KDeJong@goodwinlaw.com.

Thank you,

Michelle N. Mendez | she/her/ella/elle

Director, Defending Vulnerable Populations Program

Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc. (CLINIC)

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

Thanks for another “great news” report, Michelle, my friend!

Finally, at long last, some Article III judges are “calling out” the highly unethical and glaringly unconstitutional “partnership” between ICE enforcement and EOIR to screw asylum seeking kids.

The EOIR White Nationalist agenda 🏴‍☠️ of limiting legitimate continuances and administrative closing to mindlessly, improperly, and inefficiently proceed in Immigration Court on matters that should be resolved through USCIS adjudication is not only thoroughly corrupt, but also totally counterproductive, as uncontrollably mounting EOIR backlogs and increasing Article III Court interventions have shown.

And, the completely unconstitutional and unethical call early on by corrupt former AG Jeff “Gonzo Apocalypto” Sessions 🤮 for “his wholly owned EOIR judges” to join their “ICE enforcement partners” in racist immigrant bashing initiatives should long ago have been a basis for the Article IIIs to declare this entire ungodly mess in the Immigration Courts to be unconstitutional under the 5th and 14th Amendments.

Thanks to you and other members of the NDPA, Michelle, for all you have done and continue to do to expose corruption, illegality, and wrongdoing in the regime’s sprawling, out of control, immigration kakistocracy! Now, we need you and other members of the NDPA like you on the Federal Bench to short circuit all the BS and get sane, legal, humane policies and “best interpretations and practices” in place “from the git go” and then enforce them on recalcitrant bureaucrats.

Racial Justice in America is, as it must be, one of the top Biden-Harris priorities! 🇺🇸 It can only be achieved if the White Nationalist mess at EOIR and ICE is cleaned up and replaced with experts committed to due process, fundamental fairness, and human rights in charge! There must be new, dynamic, and courageous leadership committed to controlling and reforming the actions of civil servants throughout government who furthered Stephen Miller’s vile racist agenda unlawfully and immorally targeting immigrants of color, their families, and their communities. “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere” (MLK, Jr.).

Time for the NDPA ⚖️🗽🧑🏽‍⚖️👩‍⚖️ to replace the EOIR Clown Show🤡!

Due Process Forever!

PWS

12-22-20

ON THE MOVE: NDPA SUPERSTAR 🌟 LAURA LYNCH TAPPED TO BECOME SENIOR IMMIGRATION POLICY ATTORNEY FOR NATIONAL IMMIGRATION LAW CENTER (“NILC”)

A graduate of the University of Baltimore Law, Laura has been Senior Policy Counsel at the American Immigration Lawyers Association (“AILA”) National Office in Washington, D.C. for the past four years. In that role, she engaged with Federal agencies, Congress, and designated AILA committees on immigration issues with a focus on interior enforcement, due process, and removal defense. Immigration Court Reform was one of Laura’s key areas of expertise.

Importantly, from my personal standpoint, Laura has been (and will continue to be, I hope), part of the “Informal Strategic Planning Group” for the New Due Process Army (”NDPA”) that includes Dan Kowalski, Michelle Mendez, Debi Sanders, Tess Hellgren, and my Round Table colleagues Judge Jeffrey S. Chase and Judge Ilyce Shugall! Her many contributions to our camaraderie and work in behalf of due process and fundamental fairness have been nothing short of spectacular!

The good news is that, although NILC is headquartered in Los Angeles, Laura will be remaining in Washington, D.C. While she tells me that her “precise portfolio” at NILC is “TBD,” I know we will be hearing much more from our “Due Process Superstar” in the future.

Thanks for all your past contributions and all the best for the future, Laura, from all of your many “admirers and fellow soldiers in the NDPA!”

Due Process Forever!

PWS

11-02-20

LINKEDIN SAVES LIVES: NDPA Superstar Michelle Mendez Of CLINIC With Some Good News On How Litigation Success Has Saved Lives In The Face Of Regime’s Scurrilous White Nationalist Attack On Asylum Laws! — These Are The True Brilliant Minds & Courageous Heroes Of Our Legal System, Carrying On RBG’s Legacy Of Fighting Tirelessly For Equal Justice!

Aimee Mayer Salins
Staff Attorney
Defending Vulnerable Populations
CLINIC
Source: Linkedin

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

Sorry for the small print. But, well worth the read.

Compare the courage and fidelity to due process, fundamental fairness, equal justice for all, and defense of human dignity demonstrated by brilliant lawyers like Michelle Mendez, Aimee Mayer Salins (former BIA JLC), and the terrific CAIR litigators with the warped right wing, anti-constitutional, anti-humanity jurisprudence of Trump’s Supreme Court choice, Judge Amy Coney Barrett:

Faced with two plausible readings of a law, fact, or precedent, Barrett always seems to choose the harsher, stingier interpretation. Can job applicants sue employers whose policies have a disproportionately deleterious impact on older people? Barrett said no. Should courts halt the deportation of an immigrant who faced torture at home? Barrett said no. Should they protect refugees denied asylum on the basis of xenophobic prejudice? Barrett said no. Should they shield prisoners from unjustified violence by correctional officers? Barrett said no. Should minors be allowed to terminate a pregnancy without telling their parents if a judge has found that they’re mature enough to make the decision? Barrett said no. Should women be permitted to obtain an abortion upon discovering a severe fetal abnormality? Barrett said no.

There is no question that, if confirmed, Barrett would cast the fifth vote to either hollow out Roe v. Wade or overturn it altogether. Similarly, there is no doubt that Barrett would dramatically expand the Second Amendment, invalidating gun control measures around the country. It’s quite possible, perhaps even likely, that within a year of her confirmation, Americans will be forbidden from terminating a pregnancy in 21 states—but permitted to purchase assault weapons and carry firearms in public in every state.

https://immigrationcourtside.com/2020/09/21/insult-to-injury🤮☠%EF%B8%8F👎🏻-trump-to-tap-unqualified-cruel-righty-zealot-to-replace-rbg-one-leading-candidate-the-anti-rbg/

In other words, guns yes; human rights and human dignity, no! Some lawyers spend their lives saving lives and advancing humanity; others spend them pursuing and spreading anti-humanitarian, right wing dogmas. Why are commitments to cruelty, inhumanity, and a fundamentally unjust society things to “tout” in a judicial candidate? You need to look inside the deep perversity of the GOP minority who control our nation and are running it into the ground to get the answer.

There are thousands of progressive lawyers, many of them women and minorities, committed to standing up for equal justice for all who are better qualified than Judge Barrett. There is something wrong with a system that elevates the wrong people to the judiciary and other high offices.

It’s time to establish meritocracy and save our democracy. Vote to throw the GOP out of office and end the selection of far-right judges whose reactionary views and lack of empathy for the most vulnerable in society are far outside both the reality of our diverse nation and our future as a vibrant, progressive democracy that will promote equal justice and human rights at home and abroad!

Keep the future Judge Barretts where they belong — on the sidelines and in the margins of our legal system, while those with a better view of the Constitution, the rule of law, and human progress take their rightful places in positions of power and progressive influence in all there branches of our Government.

Judge Barrett parrots great admiration for RBG while aiming to trash her legacy of fairness and equality with a far-right, exclusive, intolerant agenda. In the future, we need Federal Judges who will constantly confront Judge Barrett, her soon-to-be-fellow GOP Supremes, and other righty judges bent on taking us back to the darkest corners of our past. Make them face the truly courageous and enlightened legacy of RBG and others like her. Force the “Barretts of the world” to reckon with their own smugly disingenuous jurisprudence and their lack of commmitment to humanity and true equality before the law for all persons in the U.S.! Constantly confront complicit courts for change!

Better judges for a better, fairer America!

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

PWS

09-27-20

🇺🇸🗽⚖️😎👏🏽👍🏼NDPA IN ACTION: CARECEN, CLINIC & OTHER NGOs SUE “ILLEGAL” COOCH COOCH ON INSANELY STUPID & UNLAWFUL ANTI-TPS POLICY! — CARECEN v. Cuccinelli (a/k/a “The Illegal”)

NDPA Superstar ⭐️ Michelle Mendez 🎖 reports for CLINIC 🏆:

New Legal Challenge: CARECEN v. Cuccinelli

Greetings,

Representing the CARECEN and seven people with Temporary Protected Status, CLINIC, Democracy Forward, Montagut & Sobral PC and Debevoise & Plimpton LLP sued the Trump administration to block a policy issued by an unauthorized federal executive, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services’ Acting Director Ken Cuccinelli. The lawsuit, filed today in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, seeks to stop the Trump administration from denying access to lawful permanent residency to people with TPS who legally qualify for green cards thanks to their U.S. citizen spouse or child. Cuccinelli’s action, couched as a mere “update” to the agency’s policy manual, eliminates the ability for TPS beneficiaries with prior removal orders to apply to adjust status with USCIS even though they departed the United States and returned with USCIS permission. The suit challenges the policy change as unlawful under the Administrative Procedure Act and the Constitution’s Due Process Clause, and because its author, Ken Cuccinelli, was not legally appointed to direct USCIS.

Here is our press release.

Here is the complaint.

Here is a CNN story on this challenge.

When the Trump Administration attacks families, we will hold it accountable, be it for the next few months or the next 4 years.

Michelle N. Mendez (she/her/ella/elle)

Director, Defending Vulnerable Populations Program

Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc. (CLINIC)

Mailing Address: 8757 Georgia Avenue, Suite 850, Silver Spring, MD 20910

Physical Address: University of Baltimore School of Law, 1401 N. Charles St., Baltimore, MD 21201

Website: www.cliniclegal.org

Embracing the Gospel value of welcoming the stranger, CLINIC promotes the dignity and protects the rights of immigrants in partnership with a dedicated network of Catholic and community legal immigration programs.

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

Remember, folks, no human being is illegal. But, Ken “Cooch Cooch” Cuccinelli is an “illegal” serving in a rogue regime!

Many thanks to all of our NDPA fighters who brought this much needed suit!

And, think of the grotesque stupidity, not to mention cruelty and illegality, behind this USCIS “policy.” Those in TPS are part of our community. Many have been here for years, even decades, working, paying taxes, and raising families (including many US citizens). Many are now fully qualified to adjust to “green card” status under existing law, thereby regularizing their status and getting out of “limbo.”

With LPR status, and eventually US citizenship, they can reach their full potential as humans and as members of our society. That’s a “win-win” that helps us move forward and prosper as a nation.

Yet, “Cooch Cooch” and the rest of the maliciously incompetent kakistocracy at DHS stay up nights thinking of ways to “stiff” our friends and neighbors in the TPS community and to keep them from regularizing their status and achieving their full human and economic potential, not to mention traumatizing US citizen family members. Talk about fraud, waste, and abuse in Government!

Incidentally, current TPS holders would all be entitled to full Immigration Court hearings if the regime attempted to expel them by force after ending TPS. Most have strong claims to relief, from cancellation of removal to asylum and other forms of protection.

Many could apply for adjustment of status in Immigration Court and individually litigate no matter what the USCIS “policy.” With a known backlog of approximately 1.5 million cases and perhaps another 500,000 to 1 million “lost in the docket dysfunction at EOIR,” their Immigration Court dates could easily be a decade, or “2.5 Administrations” from now. So, the Cuccinelli policy is basically a way of inflicting some cruelty and racist harassment on TPS’ers eligible to immigrate, without any realistic chance of “enforced removal.” Wow, talk about using a system already FUBAR’ed, to a major extent by this regime, as an illegal “weapon against humanity!”

Where, or where, have the Article IIIs been in taking a strong, unified stand against racism and stupidity (legal term “unreasonable behavior”) by the Trump immigration regime? Cooch Cooch was determined by a Federal Court to be illegally serving at USCIS! Yet, he contemptuously remains in office inflicting illegal harm and suffering on migrants, chewing up legal resources, and insultingly wasting the time of the Federal Courts.

I sort of understand the feckless performance of the Immigration Courts, wholly owned by “Billy the Bigot.” But, what’s the purpose of an independent Article III Judiciary that performs like it’s the “King’s Court” — unwilling or unable to defend our Constitution, humanity, or even their own prerogatives against the tyranny of a dangerous scofflaw moron like Trump?

What’s their excuse for drawing their salaries? The overall systemic failure of the Article III Judiciary, starting with a tone-deaf, racially insensitive, and often eagerly complicit Supreme’s majority, in the face of Trump’s White Nationalist authoritarianism, demands serious national re-examination of the role, qualities, and character we should expect from our Article III Judiciary, assuming that our nation survives the current legal and moral debacle led by Trump and enabled by judges who failed to do their duties!

“When the Trump Administration attacks families, we will hold it accountable, be it for the next few months or the next 4 years.”

That’s the key! With far too many public officials in all three branches spinelessly “tanking” on their constitutional duties to protect our rights and defend humanity from tyranny, the soldiers of the NDPA are among the courageous defenders of democracy and leaders of the long and challenging climb to equal justice and national decency. Support them by throwing the GOP — the anti-American party of bias, hate, lies, racism, institutionalized stupidity, and chaos — out at every level of government!

We’ll never get to equal justice for all with politicos, legislators, judges, and bureaucrats who don’t believe in it! Folks who quote and “honor” MLK, Jr., one day of the year and spend the rest of it trampling on his dreams and trashing his values!

Thanks to my good friend, colleague, and “NDPA General” Michelle and others for standing up to “Cooch the Illegal” and his toxic anti-American, scofflaw efforts to destroy our nation!

Due Process Forever!

PWS

08-27-20

😇🌞🗽⚖️👍🏼“A LIGHT IN THE FOREST” — Michelle Mendez @ CLINIC Shows How Good Pro Bono Lawyering Saves Lives Even When The System Is Rigged Against Justice For Immigrants!

Subject: CLINIC BIA Pro Bono Project Recent Victories

Friends,

BIA and federal circuit court appeals often feel like an uphill battle, a true David and Goliath fight. It can be particularly discouraging right now, during an isolating pandemic, when DHS and DOJ issue new regulations and the BIA and AG publish opinions almost weekly with the purpose of making it more difficult for noncitizens to win their cases. However, CLINIC’s BIA Pro Bono Project continues to fight back and perform miracles—defeating Goliath—thanks to BIA Pro Bono Project Manager Rachel Naggar, BIA Pro Bono Project Legal Specialist Brenda Hernandez, and our many dedicated attorney volunteers. Rachel and Brenda shared with me the project’s awe-inspiring stories of success from this summer and the volunteers who made these victories possible. In turn, I share these success stories with you to offer inspiration to keep fighting for your clients while the Trump administration escalates its attacks on immigrant communities.

The BIA remanded the case of a Haitian asylum seeker on numerous grounds, including that the IJ did not apply the proper framework for assessing firm resettlement, the IJ mixed up the respondent’s political party when assessing his claim for withholding of removal, and the IJ did not meaningfully consider the respondent’s risk of future persecution. Thank you to Michael Ward of Alston&Bird!

The BIA overturned the IJ’s adverse credibility finding against an asylum seeker from Burkina Faso. The BIA also found that the IJ erred in concluding there was no nexus between the harm the respondent suffered and his political opinion, including that the prosecution he endured was actually pretext for persecution. Thank you to Gregory Proctor, Marjorie Sheldon, and Christian Roccotagliata of Kramer, Levin, Naftalis & Frankel!

The BIA granted asylum to a Cuban refugee. Contrary to the IJ, the BIA found that the harm suffered by the respondent did cumulatively rise to the level of past persecution and he did have a well-founded fear of persecution. Thank you to Austin Manes and Aaron Frankel of Kramer, Levin, Naftalis & Frankel!

The BIA remanded the case of a Cuban asylum seeker because the IJ failed to consider the evidence of past economic persecution along with the physical harm suffered. The BIA also reminded the IJ that where the persecution is committed by the government, it is presumed that internal relocation is not reasonable, and the burden shifts to DHS to demonstrate that it would be reasonable in this case. Thank you to Dean Galaro of Perkins Coie!

The BIA reopened the case of a Cuban asylum seeker because he had new evidence of harm and threats against his family that occurred after his final hearing with the immigration judge. Thank you to Astrid Ackerman and Aaron Webman of Kramer, Levin, Naftalis & Frankel!

The Ninth Circuit granted the petition for review of a Ghanaian asylum seeker, overturning the IJ’s negative credibility finding and concluding that the Board had failed to adequately consider the country conditions evidence when it denied CAT relief. You can read the full decision here. Thank you to Kari Hong of Boston College Law School!

The Third Circuit, in a published decision, granted a Honduran asylum seeker’s petition for review, finding that the IJ and BIA erred in analyzing whether the respondent had suffered past persecution. The Court also found that the IJ failed to conduct the proper analysis regarding the need for evidence in an application for CAT protection. You can read the full decision here. Thank you to Aaron Rabinowitz and Gary Levin of Baker & Hostetler!

The Sixth Circuit, in a published decision, granted a Russian asylum seeker’s petition for review, finding that the IJ and BIA erred in concluding that the respondent was not persecuted on account of his political opinions and that his indictment for peacefully protesting under Russian law was a pretext for persecution. You can read the full decision here. Thank you to Brenna Duncan and Andrew Caridas of Perkins Coie!

DHS withdrew its appeal of a grant of asylum from Mexico to a Cuban national. DHS conceded to the IJ that the respondent was eligible for asylum from Mexico, but not Cuba because of the Third Country Transit Bar. DHS changed its mind and filed an appeal, which was withdrawn after pro bono counsel filed his brief. Thank you to James Montana of The Law Office of James Montana!

The BIA dismissed an appeal by the Department of Homeland Security and upheld a Cuban woman’s grant of asylum. The Board found that the IJ was correct in deeming the respondent eligible for asylum and not subject to the Third Country Transit Bar. Thank you to Aaron Rabinowitz and Jeffrey Lyons of Baker & Hostetler!

ICE released a Venezuelan asylum seeker from detention to reunite with her spouse, after tremendous advocacy efforts by her pro bono attorney. Thank you to David Gottlieb!

The Ninth Circuit remanded the case of a Honduran victim of domestic violence, at the request of the Department of Justice. The Court ordered the BIA to reconsider whether the respondent had demonstrated that the Honduran government acquiesced in her persecution, whether the respondent is part of a viable particular social group, whether it would have been futile for her to report the harm to local authorities, and whether internal relocation would be reasonable. Thank you to Alicia Chen!

A victim of human rights violations by the notorious Eritrean military was granted withholding of removal, after the BIA overturned the IJ’s adverse credibility finding and found that the IJ failed to consider that the country conditions evidence corroborated the respondent’s claim. Thank you to Jonaki Singh and Susan Jacquemot of Kramer, Levin, Naftalis & Frankel!

The Ninth Circuit remanded the case of an asylum seeker from Mexico, at the request of the Department of Justice. The Court ordered the BIA to reconsider whether the respondent had been persecuted and sexually assaulted on account of her sexual orientation, and whether the government of Mexico could adequately protect her from future harm. Thank you to Tim Patton of the Appellate Immigration Project!

The Fourth Circuit granted the petition for review holding that a conviction under VA 18.2-280(A) is not a removable firearms offense, a result that would not have been possible had Mr. Gordon not continued to fight his case for so many years even despite being deported. You can read the decision here. Thank you to the CAIR Coalition and Ted Howard at Wiley Rein! Thank you also to the National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild for the amicus support!

Jose came to the United States in 1985 to live with his father as a permanent resident. He built a life in the United States, becoming a father himself. After a run in with the law, he was placed in removal proceedings and was detained for 19 months. In a 2-1 decision, the Third Circuit found that under the unique circumstances of this case, Jose’s father was deprived of the equal protection of the laws. Jose is a United States citizen, the court declared, and has been since 1985. In the wake of the Supreme Court’s 2016 decision in Sessions v. Morales-Santana, Jose’s case was the first to benefit from this Supreme Court decision. You can read the full decision here. The government petitioned for rehearing, but the full Third Circuit declined to intervene. Ultimately, the government declined to ask the Supreme Court to review the case. For the better part of the last decade, Jose’s life has been filled with uncertainty and stress, but not anymore, which is very important as Jose is expecting his first grandchild. A huge thank you to Nick Curcio who has represented Jose for 7 years!

In its 19+ years of operation, the Project has reviewed more than 7,200 cases, pairing attorneys and law school clinics with vulnerable asylum seekers and long-time lawful permanent residents. If you are interested in representing a case through CLINIC’s BIA Pro Bono Project, please complete our volunteer form. If you prefer to show your support for the BIA Pro Bono Project via a monetary donation, please designate “BIA Pro Bono Project” in the “In honor of” field of our donations page.

Gratefully and in solidarity,

Michelle N. Mendez (she/her/ella/elle)

Director, Defending Vulnerable Populations Program

Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc. (CLINIC)

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

Thanks Michelle, my friend, colleague, and courageous leader of the NDPA. What a timely, wonderful, practical, “real life” illustration of Jason “The Asylumist” Dzubow’s “praise and call to action for pro bono” that I republished earlier this week! https://immigrationcourtside.com/2020/08/11/lifesaving-101-for-the-ndpa-begins-with-pro-bono-never-has-the-need-been-greater-pro-bonos-finest-hour-in-americas-time-of-darkness-cruelty-inhumanity/

Here’s what our colleague Judge Jeffrey Chase has to say about Michelle and CLINIC:

No surprise, Michelle. CLINIC is responsible for so much good case law. And the non-CLINIC successful attorneys probably used CLINIC training or practice advisories. Congrats to you and all of your outstanding attorneys and support staff, and thanks for all you do!

Even in times of our greatest national darkness and misery, there are plenty of lives that can be saved! Contrary to the “Dred Scottification” — dehumanization of persons in our country — unconscionably pushed by the regime and enabled by many public officials and courts that “should know better,” every person’s life is important!

And, despite the conscious misinterpretation and misapplication of the Fifth Amendment by far too many of those charged with upholding it, every person in the U.S., regardless of race or status, is entitled to due process, fundamental fairness, and to be treated with human dignity.

Think of how much progress we could make if we didn’t have to keep re-litigating all the same issues over and over again, often with differing results!

What if the “precedents” concentrated on those cases that could be granted, rather than almost exclusively focusing on “roadmaps to denial?”

What if we promoted and supported great pro bono representation, rather than inhibiting and discouraging it?

What if meritorious cases were moved to the “head of the line” instead of continuously being “shuffled off to Buffalo” by “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” (“ADR”) thereby languishing in the mindlessly expanding backlog?

What if Federal Judges at all levels were the “best and the brightest” — selected from among those with demonstrated expertise in immigration, asylum and human rights and impeccable reputations for due process, fundamental fairness, and humanity, rather than being selected for “go along to get along” reputations or allegiance to perverse political ideologies that undermine equal justice for all?

What if our Immigration Court system were administered independently and professionally, rather than as a biased and weaponized tool of DHS enforcement and White Nationalist politicos?

What if our Justice System worked cooperatively with folks like Michelle, Jason, Judge Ashley Tabaddor, and many others with good, creative, practical ideas for institutionalizing “best practices” leading to to “due process with efficiency?”

What if we fairly implemented our refugee, asylum, and protection legal framework to “protect rather than reject?”

What if we consistently treated our fellow beings as humans, rather than as “less than human?”

What if we viewed immigration for what it really is: the foundation of our nation and a continuing source of great strength, pride, and optimism for our country of immigrants, rather than pretending that we live on an island and must “wall off” the rest of the world?

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

PWS

08-14-20

🤡☹️A COURT W/O FRIENDS (THAT ISN’T A “COURT” AT ALL): EOIR Director Adopts Amicus’s Suggested Clarification, Then Shoots Messenger — Matter of Bay Area Legal Services, Inc. (“Bay Area II”)

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

Michelle Mendez responds for CLINIC to McHenry’s latest decision in an e-mail to Dan Kowalski at LexisNexis Immigration Community:

Subject: [immprof] RE: Matter of BAY AREA LEGAL SERVICES, INC., 28 I&N Dec. 16 (DIR 2020)

Dan, thank you for sharing this new decision from EOIR Director McHenry.

This second decision in Matter of BAY AREA LEGAL SERVICES, INC. from EOIR Director McHenry may seem to come out of nowhere so, since the decision is aimed at CLINIC, we would like to provide background.

CLINIC’s network is comprised of approximately 380 immigration legal services organizations many of which have successfully relied on Recognition and Accreditation program to expand their legal services capacity in serving low-income immigrant communities. In support of our network, CLINIC has specifically catered to the needs of Accredited Representatives by, as examples, designing trial skills and legal writing trainings just for them and supporting them on their accreditation applications to EOIR. Given our expertise and interest in the Recognition and Accreditation program, when EOIR Director McHenry issued a call for amicus briefs on Recognition and Accreditation issues, CLINIC submitted a brief and we later learned, via the (first) decision in Matter of BAY AREA LEGAL SERVICES, 27 I&N Dec. 837 (DIR 2020), that we were the sole org to appear as amicus.

Unfortunately, in Matter of BAY AREA LEGAL SERVICES, 27 I&N Dec. 837 (DIR 2020), EOIR Director McHenry’s discussion of the skills needed to attain full accreditations was vague, unclear, and therefore confusing. Footnotes 13 and 14 in the decision appear to fault the applicant for full accreditation status for not practicing before EOIR before being granted full accreditation. At worst, the decision could lead one to infer that accredited representatives had to engage in unauthorized practice of immigration law to get the skills needed for full accreditation. We brought this issue to EOIR Director McHenry’s attention and he entertained our feedback during a phone conversation while disagreeing with our concerns. While the phone call was ultimately unhelpful as to this issue, we were able to discern just how unfamiliar he is with the Recognition and Accreditation program. At one point he stated that it was “totally conceivable that [accredited representatives] have some litigation experience.” It is not totally conceivable and we informed him of this too. After our call we sent EOIR Director McHenry the attached letter. We followed up with EOIR Director McHenry on Tuesday. On Wednesday he responded that “a type of formal response is forthcoming.” On Thursday he issued this second, published decision in which he chastises us for challenging him when we, as mere amicus curiae, have “no authority” to do so. However, you will notice that he also took the opportunity to clarify the very points we told him were vague and problematic. Of course, EOIR Director McHenry did not have to go the published decision route to deal with our concerns, but he preferred to project his power above being collaborative. And we have some concerns that EOIR will use this decision to prevent amici from following up to clear errors in other decisions where the respondent was pro se or the decision addresses in absentia orders. While I am surprised that CLINIC seemingly made him feel threatened, as a respected retired IJ said, it is an “honor to be called out in something like this.”

I am not on the ICLINIC@LIST.MSU.EDU listserv so if someone could forward this email to them, I would be grateful. Thank you.

Michelle N. Mendez (she/her/ella/elle)

Director, Defending Vulnerable Populations Program

Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc. (CLINIC)

Here’s a link to McHenry’s decision in Bay Area II:

https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.justice.gov_eoir_page_file_1291786_download&d=DwMFAw&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=Wq374DTv_PXfIom65XBqoA&m=YJ89kw8K2uqLIw5FdRsilIr3v_T7ai5C3pv9pIngFJM&s=9RKJ0zaLqmRz-W92NyUtHQFB12wC4rz5tVptNEOgYrw&e=

And, here’s a link to the CLINIC letter to McHenry that apparently spurred Bay Area II:

McHenry amend request final

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

So, CLINIC, the sole Amicus, with much more experience in the Recognition & Accreditation Program than McHenry, offers McHenry some helpful suggestions for clarifying his decision. He should have thanked them and issued an amended decision on his own, as “real courts” sometimes do.

Instead, McHenry threw a hissy fit, imagining that his “authority” was being challenged. While making the suggested clarification, he took the occasion unnecessarily and inappropriately to publicly dump on the Amicus who helped him.

Clearly, the act of an arrogant, yet insecure, person who knows he’s “way over his head” in his job. Sound familiar? But, hardly anything we didn’t already know about the awful legal and management mess at EOIR. And, in many ways a microcosm of the multiple disasters and institutional breakdowns sweeping our nation in the Age of the (Not So) Great Imposter.

I was gratified yesterday to hear former Ambassador Susan Rice on Meet the Press “channel Courtside” by referring to Trump’s so-called intelligence advisors as a “Clown Show” 🤡 in connection with the “Putin’s bounty fiasco.” On the other hand, that our national intelligence is in the hands of sycophantic clowns advising the “Chief Clown” is a cause for grave concern.

The involvement of the EOIR Director in any form of case adjudication is highly questionable from an historical and ethical standpoint. Here’s my previous “mini-history” of the Director position from Courtside: https://immigrationcourtside.com/2017/07/06/katherine-m-reilly-named-acting-deputy-director-of-eoir-also-a-mini-history-of-eoir-directors/

Suffice it to say that McHenry’s performance is powerful evidence of the reasons why the Director of EOIR should be abolished, hopefully as part of Article I legislation, and replaced with an “Executive Director,” a purely administrative position with no judicial or “legal policy” functions, and subordinate to and reporting to the Chief Appellate Judge who would replace the BIA Chair. The recent attempts to “reinsert” an improper adjudicative and “policy” role for the Director is yet another example of the gross legal, ethical, and management failures of EOIR under Trump’s DOJ kakistocracy.

Due Process Forever! Clown Courts,🤡 Never!

PWS

07-05-20

🇺🇸😎⚖️🗽👍🏼LAW YOU CAN USE: Michelle Mendez and CLINIC Publish A New Practice Advisory on Opening & Closing Statements in Immigration Court

https://cliniclegal.org/resources/litigation/practice-advisory-opening-statements-and-closing-arguments-immigration-court

Practice Advisory: Opening Statements and Closing Arguments in Immigration Court

Last UpdatedJuly 2, 2020

Topics Litigation Removal Proceedings Appeals

Opening statements and closing arguments can win cases for clients, if the practitioner is able to deliver a performance that is both concise and compelling. This practice advisory offers guidance and tips that will help practitioners deliver concise and compelling opening statements and closing arguments in immigration court.

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

Read more and download this wonderful resource at the link.

Michelle and her team @ CLINIC promise more “great stuff” next week.

Going in Opposite Directions: Ironically, as the Trump DOJ has worked overtime to “dumb down” EOIR, Michelle and many others in the Immigration & Human Rights communities, particularly AILA, other NGOs, Clinical Professors, and pro bono counsel at “Big Law,” have been working even harder to promote “best immigration and legal practices” before all tribunals. And, despite the Supreme’s “willful blindness” to the Constitution, the rule of law, and human dignity as it applies to asylum seekers and migrants, the results are showing elsewhere in the justice system.

It also points to the obvious unconscionably overlooked untapped source for better Federal Judges in the future, from the Supremes to the Immigration Courts: the pro bono and clinical immigration and human rights bars — actually the main fount of courageous opposition to the regime’s concerted attack on our Constitution, our justice system, and our humanity.

If these folks and others like them were on the Supremes, American justice wouldn’t be in shambles and equal justice justice for all under our Constitution would actually be enforced, rather than degraded or intentionally skirted with legal gobbledygook. The lack of both legal and moral leadership from our highest Court in the face of a clearly out of control and unqualified White Nationalist Executive and his toadies is simply astounding, not to mention discouraging.

It’s little wonder that the tensions caused in no small measure by the Court’s systemic failure to stand up for voting rights, civil rights, the rights of other persons of color in the U.S., and to hold abusers at all levels accountable, is now overflowing into the streets. No, an occasional vote for a correct result from Roberts or another member of “The Five” is not going to solve the problem of Constitutional, racial, and moral dereliction of duty by our highest Court.

Almost every day, “real” Article III Lower Courts “out” some aspect of the outrageously biased and unprofessional performance of EOIR and the rest of Trump’s immigration kakistocracy before the courts. Even some GOP and Trump appointed Article III Judges have “had enough” and don’t want their professional reputations and consciences sullied by association with the regime’s unlawful White Nationalist agenda.

Unfortunately, however, the Federal Courts generally have failed to follow through by sanctioning the often unethical and dishonest performance of the regime in court and by shutting down EOIR’s unconstitutional “kangaroo courts,” DHS’s equally unconstitutional “New American Gulag,” and the fraudulent operation of bogus “Safe Third County Agreements,” “Remain in Mexico,” and patiently disingenuous ridiculously overbroad COVID-19 “immigration bars” (which are actually thin cover for Stephen Miller’s preconceived White Nationalist nativist agenda). Moreover, lower Federal Court Judges who courageously stand up against the regime’s unconstitutional agenda and program of “dehumanization” are too often improperly undermined by the Supremes (sometimes without explanations or “short circuiting” the system), thereby “greenlighting” further “crimes against humanity” by an unscrupulous and unethical Executive.

We’re making a permanent record of both the “crimes against humanity” committed by the regime and those public officials, be they so-called “public servants,” feckless legislators, or life-tenured judges who have actively aided, abetted, been complicit, or “gone along to get along” with Trump’s countless lies and abuses. Later judicial “corrections” by a better Court or legislative “fixes” by a real Congress will not reclaim the lives of those shot on the streets by police, infected with COVID-19 in the Gulag, kidnapped and abused by gangs in Mexico while waiting for fake hearings, or “rocketed” back to persecution and torture in the Northern Triangle and elsewhere in violation of U.S. and international laws without any meaningful process at all. Nor will they wipe out the abuses by governments at all levels elected without the full participation of American citizens of color and in poverty whose votes were purposely suppressed or political authority diminished by corrupt GOP pols and their Supreme enablers.

As we can see by the long-overdue historical reckoning coming to Confederates and other racists who actively worked to undermine our Constitution, block equal justice for all, and dehumanize other humans in America, there will be an eventual historical reckoning here, and justice ultimately will be served, even if not in our lifetimes. That’s bad news for Roberts, his right-wing colleagues, and a host of others who have willfully enabled the worst, most abusive, and most clearly lawless presidency in U.S. History, as well as the most overtly racist regime since Woodrow Wilson.

Due Process Forever!

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

JOIN THE NEW DUE PROCESS ARMY (“NDPA”) & BE PART OF THE SOLUTION TO UNEQUAL JUSTICE IN AMERICA!

PWS

07-03-20

THE TRUTH IS OUT, THANKS TO MICHELLE MENDEZ @ CLINIC: Practice Pointers on Matter of Castillo-Perez & “Takeaways” From FOIA Trove On In Absentias!

She was a Leader of the NDPA before there was an NDPA! Now Michelle Mendez and her CLINIC Team are giving you “the skinny” on how to combat EOIR’s “Raging War on Due Process!”

Friends,

Wanted to share with you two new CLINIC resources:

Practice Pointer: Matter of Castillo-Perez, 27 I&N Dec. 664 (A.G. 2019)

FOIA Disclosures on In Absentia Removal Numbers Based on Legal Representation

An immigration judge may issue an in absentia removal order if the Department of Homeland Security, or DHS, establishes by clear, unequivocal and convincing evidence that the respondent had written notice of the hearing and is removable as charged on the Notice to Appear. There are many reasons why a respondent may fail to appear at a removal hearing, including lack of notice of the hearing, sickness, a breakdown in transportation, limited or no English knowledge, or because the respondent is a child without the help of a responsible adult who can assist them in getting to the hearing. As documented in the report Denied a Day in Court: The Government’s Use of in absentia Removal Orders Against Families Seeking Asylum, CLINIC learned about these reasons firsthand while representing 46 families released from detention and successfully challenging their in absentia removal orders. Perhaps the main factor for failing to appear at scheduled hearings in immigration court is the presence or absence of legal counsel to orient the respondent through the layers of government bureaucracy and the complex immigration system.

On November 18, 2019, CLINIC submitted a Freedom of Information Act, or FOIA, request to the Executive Office for Immigration Review, or EOIR, seeking data on the number of in absentia removal orders issued based on legal representation status. CLINIC requested three sets of in absentia order data: the total number of in absentia removal orders issued since 2008, the number of in absentia orders issued to Unaccompanied Children, or UACs, since 2008, and the number of in absentia orders issued to families classified by EOIR as “Family Unit,” FAMU, cases since November 16, 2018. On March 13, 2020, EOIR responded with a three-tab Excel spreadsheet of raw in absentia removal order data. CLINIC has calculated the in absentia removal order raw data into percentages.

Here are some key takeaways from the data:

Although, according to EOIR statistics, the current overall representation rate is 65 percent for all pending cases, those who are unable to secure representation are at extraordinary risk of receiving in absentia removal orders. 92.6 percent of those with in absentia orders issued in fiscal year, or FY, 2020 were unrepresented.

Although, according to EOIR statistics, the current overall representation rate is 68 percent for all UAC pending cases, UACs who are unable to secure representation are also at extreme risk of receiving in absentia removal orders. 88 percent of those with in absentia orders issued in fiscal year FY2020 were unrepresented.

Since 2008, the percentage of unrepresented respondents with in absentia removal orders has been at least double that of in absentia orders of removal issued to represented respondents.

Since 2008, at least 70.8 percent of UACs who were issued in absentia orders of removal were unrepresented and, so far this fiscal year, the unrepresented rate for UACs who received in absentia orders of removal has been the highest ever, at 88 percent.

The number of in absentia removal orders issued by EOIR to unrepresented respondents in FY2020 surpassed the total number of in absentia orders issued to unrepresented respondents in FY2019 in just the first five and a half months of FY2020.

EOIR has issued more in absentia removal orders in the three and a half combined fiscal years covering the Trump presidency, than it did during the eight combined fiscal years covering the Obama presidency.

Total in absentia removal orders from FY2008 through FY2016 were 246,893. Total in absentia removal orders from FY2017 through FY2020 (through March 13, 2020), were 267,696

EOIR has issued more in absentia removal orders to UACs in the three and a half combined fiscal years covering the Trump presidency, than it did during the eight combined fiscal years covering the Obama presidency.

Total in absentia orders of removal issued to UACs from FY2008 through FY2016 were 20,123. Total in absentia removal orders issued to UACs from FY2017 through FY2020 (through March 13, 2020), were 26,228.

During the date range covered by the data (FY2008 through FY2020 Q2), immigration judges issued the fewest number of in absentia removal orders in FY2012, the year that DHS announced DACA. During FY2012, DHS officially launched the prosecutorial discretion program in November 2011 and reviewed many pending removal proceedings to identify low-priority cases meriting favorable exercises of prosecutorial discretion.

Most immigration courts saw a decrease in in absentia orders of removal for unrepresented noncitizens in FY2012 compared to FY2011.

Unrepresented UACs suffered a huge jump of in absentia removal orders from FY2014 (1,701) to FY2015 (5,836). This hike in in absentias for UACs occurred concurrently with the increase in UACs fleeing El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras, and arriving in neighboring countries and at the U.S.-Mexico border.

89.6 percent of all family units who received an in absentia removal orders from November 16, 2018 to September 30, 2019, were unrepresented.

Of all the immigration courts, the Houston Immigration Court issued the most in absentia removal orders in unrepresented FAMU cases during this period: 4,108 (which translates into 93.8 percent of the total in absentia removal orders issued by this court).

Of all the immigration courts, the Miami Immigration Court issued the second most in absentia removal orders in unrepresented FAMU cases during this period: 3,347 (which translates into 89.5 percent of the total in absentia removal orders issued by this court).

94.2 percent of all family units who received in absentia removal orders from October 1, 2019 to March 13, 2020, were unrepresented.

Of all the immigration courts, the Houston Immigration Court issued the most in absentia removal orders in FAMU cases from October 1, 2019 to March 13, 2020: 4,931 (which translates into 95.62 percent of the total in absentia removal orders issued by this court).

Of all the immigration courts, the Atlanta Immigration Court issued the second most in absentia removal orders in FAMU cases from October 1, 2019 to March 13, 2020: 4,662 (which translates into 98.27 percent of the total in absentia removal orders issued by this court).

Oddly, several immigration courts that oversee only detained dockets, including the Elizabeth Detention Center, recorded in absentia removal orders during the FOIA time period.

In FY2020, immigration judges have issued more in absentia removal orders than any prior year since 2008, and we are only five and a half months into the federal fiscal year.

Of all the immigration courts, the Harlingen Immigration Court has recorded the most unrepresented in absentia removal orders overall in FY2020 so far: 8,357.

Of all the immigration courts, the New York City Federal Plaza Immigration Court has recorded the most represented in absentia removal orders overall in FY2020: 753.

Of all the immigration courts, the Miami Immigration Court has recorded the most unrepresented in absentia removal orders for UACs in FY2020: 430.

Of all the immigration courts, the New York City Federal Plaza Immigration Court has recorded the most represented in absentia removal orders for UACs in FY2020: 73.

Thanks for helping us share these!

Michelle N. Mendez (she/her/ella/elle)

Director, Defending Vulnerable Populations Program

Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc. (CLINIC)

Embracing the Gospel value of welcoming the stranger, CLINIC promotes the dignity and protects the rights of immigrants in partnership with a dedicated network of Catholic and community legal immigration programs.

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

Now, it’s hardly “news” that there is a strong positive correlation between legal representation and appearance in Immigration Court. That information came to light way back in the Obama Administration and has consistently been reinforced by data that contradicts the lies about failures to appear put out on a regular basis by regime officials.

Given the clear correlation, the best way to make a fair due process system function would be if the Government worked hand in hand with NGOs, charitable organizations, local bar associations, and others involved in providing pro bono representation to insure that at least all asylum applicants and children are represented before the Immigration Courts. Due Process and fundamental fairness would be served and the in absentia rate would crater. In other words, due process with efficiency, an achievable “win-win!”

Instead, the Trump regime, through both EOIR and DHS, has made a concerted attack on the right to counsel in a transparent attempt to increase the number of in absentia orders and “speed up the deportation railroad” that EOIR now runs as its “one and only mission.”

How does something masquerading as a “court” system conduct a “deportation railway?” It takes lots of complicity and supposedly responsible public officials and citizens intentionally “looking the other way” and studiously ignoring the obvious!

I hope that advocates will be able to use the data provided by CLINIC to expose to the Article III Courts and Congress the rampant fraud, waste, abuse, and just plain “malicious incompetence” of EOIR and DHS (is there really a difference these days? Not apparent to most of us who follow the “Star Chambers” with regularity.).

Remember, moral cowardice and intellectual dishonesty often begin with picking on the most vulnerable and defenseless among us. And what follows is likely to be unspeakably bad, based on history!

Thanks, Michelle, my friend, for all you and CLINIC do.

Due Process Forever!

PWS

03-29-20

LET’S HEAR IT FOR AMERICA’S “TRUE LEGAL HEROES” – “MD Carey School of Law and CLINIC: ‘Keeping Families Together’”

https://www.law.umaryland.edu/News-and-Events/News-Item/Keeping-Families-Together.php?fbclid=IwAR34KEpIXMTmWiT_xaKHHgMVk0qvfG22T3GuuEulLU54nu_A3ov4WH-XCcA

Keeping Families Together

Professor Maureen Sweeney (l) with student attorney Tonya Foley ’21.

Tonya Foley ’21 knew she was meant for a career in immigration law well before applying to law school. Living in Naples, Italy, during the 2015 refugee crisis, the mom of two was deeply impacted by her interactions with people who had risked their lives in rubber boats to find a safe harbor.

So, when picking a law school, one of the most important factors for Foley was a robust immigration clinic. That’s why she chose the University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law.

“I feel strongly about using the privilege of this education to help people,” said Foley. “The immigration system is so complicated that legal representation can make all the difference.”

Foley and her colleagues at the Maryland Carey Law Immigration Clinic, led by Professor Maureen Sweeney, proved that last fall when they won permanent residency for the mother in a family with two teenagers who had never known another home than the United States.

The student attorneys, including Foley, Alba Sanchez Fabelo ’20, and Miles Light ’21, “did an amazing job,” said Sweeney, “gaining the trust of the family, documenting the hardship that would accompany deportation, and convincing the judge to grant residence.”

The case was referred to the Immigration Clinic by Maryland Carey Law alumna Michelle Mendez ’08, director of the Defending Vulnerable Populations program at the Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc. (CLINIC), a national non-profit.

Through three job changes, Mendez had been working the case pro bono since her days as an Equal Justice Works fellow in 2009. That’s when her client was taken away in handcuffs in front of her two young children for a minor traffic violation (later dismissed) in the parking lot of a church where her husband was teaching youth group bible study, and turned directly over to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

Years passed as Mendez fought through multiple denials and appeals to keep her client in the country, finally getting the case reopened in light of new evidence that the mother’s daughter was exhibiting emotional issues—including a crippling fear of police officers—and learning disabilities at school. Arguments before Baltimore Immigration Court were set for November 2019.

“Knowing I could not give this family the time and attention they needed and deserved,” said Mendez, whose current position is travel intensive, “with a heavy heart, I asked Professor Maureen Sweeney if the University of Maryland Carey School of Law Immigration Clinic would take over the case. They were one of the only groups I would trust with it.”

Sweeney agreed and, at the start of the fall semester, the students got to work—meeting weekly with the family, tracking down expert witnesses, gathering evidence, preparing affidavits, and, finally, making their case in court just before Thanksgiving. The students’ preparation and presentation were so thorough and effective that the judge ruled for permanent residency stipulating exceptional hardship for the children if their mother were deported to a region in Central America with insufficient resources to meet the daughter’s special needs.

Foley, who will join Sweeney helping asylum seekers in Tijuana for this year’s Alternative Spring Break, said that working on the case was an incredible experience for her first time in immigration court. “I was honored to be able to help the client and give her family long-term peace and security,” she said. “It’s what I’m here to do.”

Equally thrilled by the result, Mendez is grateful for the clinic’s hard work. “It took more than a decade,” she said, “but we won the greatest prize—we kept a family together.”

All full-time day students at the University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law are guaranteed practical lawyering experience in the school’s many clinics and legal theory and practice classes. Each year, students in the Clinical Law Program provide 75,000 hours of free legal service to poor and other underrepresented populations and communities.

Share this article

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

Thanks so much Michelle, my good friend and colleague in the New Due Process Army, for sharing this inspiring and uplifting story. With so much “negative leadership” out there today and all too many “poor role models” among judges and lawyers who “should know better,” it’s refreshing to know that folks like Professor Maureen Sweeney, Tanya Foley ‘21, Alba Sanchez Fabelo ’20, Miles Light ’21, and you are out there as members of the “New Due Process Army” fighting for all of our legal rights in a system that all too often appears to have abandoned the basics of the rule of law, professional ethics, and human decency.

Saving Lives Makes A Difference; Due Process Forever!

PWS

02-16-20

CONFRONTING THE “AMERICAN STAR CHAMBER” — Innovation Law Lab, SPLC, CLINIC, & Others Force Article III Courts To Face Their Judicial Complicity In Allowing EOIR’s “Asylum Free Zones” & Other Human Rights Atrocities To Operate Under Their Noses

My friend Tess Hellgren, Staff Attorney/Justice Catalyst Legal Fellow @ Innovation Law Lab reports:

Hi all,

As some of you are already aware, I am very pleased to share that Innovation Law Lab and the Southern Poverty Law Center filed a lawsuit this morning challenging the weaponization of the nation’s immigration court system to serve the Trump administration’s anti-immigrant agenda. More information is available below and at http://innovationlawlab.org/faircourts/.

I would like to thank all of you again for participating in our IJ roundtable and sharing your experiences for our report on the immigration court system (you will see a reference to it in our press release below). The insights we gained over the course of that report were vital in helping us identify and understand the problems in the immigration courts under the current administration.

Sincerely,

Tess

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

December 18, 2019

Contact:
Marion Steinfels, marionsteinfels@gmail.com / 202-557-0430

Ramon Valdez, ramon@innovationlawlab.org / 971-238-1804
Immigration Advocates File Major Lawsuit Challenging

Weaponization of the Nation’s Immigration Court System

Advocates Launch Immigration Court Watch App to Ensure

Greater Accountability, Transparency in Courts

WASHINGTON, DC – The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), Innovation Law Lab (Law Lab),  Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center, Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project (ASAP), Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc. (CLINIC) and Santa Fe Dreamers Project (SFDP) have filed a federal lawsuit challenging the weaponization of the nation’s immigration court system to serve the Trump administration’s anti-immigrant agenda.

“Under the leadership of President Trump and the attorney general, the immigration court system has become fixated on the goal of producing deportations, not adjudications,” said Stephen Manning, executive director of Innovation Law Lab. “The system is riddled with policies that undermine the work of legal service providers and set asylum seekers up to lose without a fair hearing of their case.”

The complaint outlines pervasive dysfunction and bias within the immigration court system, including:

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

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

The Enforcement Metrics Policy, implemented last year, which gives judges a personal financial stake in every case they decide and pushes them to deny more cases more quickly.

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

“The immigration courts make life-and-death decisions every day for vulnerable people seeking asylum – people who depend on a functioning court system to protect them from persecution, torture, and death,” said Melissa Crow, senior supervising attorney with the Southern Poverty Law Center’s Immigrant Justice Project. “While prior administrations have turned a blind eye to the dysfunction, the Trump administration has actively weaponized the courts, with devastating results for asylum seekers and the organizations that represent them.”

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of six legal service providers whose work for asylum seekers has been badly impaired as a result of the unjust immigration court system.

“As the political rhetoric surrounding immigrants has become sharper, we’ve noticed a decline in the treatment our clients receive in immigration court,” said Linda Corchado, Director of Legal Services, Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center. “While asylum seekers are entitled to a full and fair hearing, their proceedings are too often rushed, and judges deny our requests for time to properly prepare their cases and collect and translate crucial evidence from across the world.”

In addition to filing on behalf of their own organizations, plaintiffs include Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center, Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project (ASAP), Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc. (CLINIC) and Santa Fe Dreamers Project (SFDP).

The complaint can be viewed here and here: http://innovationlawlab.org/faircourts.

In an effort to ensure greater transparency and accountability in the nation’s immigration courts, Innovation Law Lab also announced the full launch of an Immigration CourtWatch app, which enables court observers to record and upload information on the conduct of immigration judges.

The new tool allows data on immigration judge conduct to be gathered and stored in both individual and aggregate forms. This will provide advocates with valuable information to fight systemic bias and other unlawful court practices. This data can be used to bolster policy recommendations, along with advocacy and legal strategies.

Advocates, attorneys and other court watchers are encouraged to download and access the app available here: http://innovationlawlab.org/courtwatch.

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

###

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

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

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

Hon. Ilyce Shugall
U.S. Immigraton Judge (Retired)
Director, Immigrant Legal Defense Program, Justice & Diversity Center of the Bar Assn. of San Francisco.

And, here’s a statement in support of this much-needed litigation action from my distinguished Round Table colleague Judge (Ret.) Ilyce Shugall:

These were my remarks during the press conference:

I am Ilyce Shugall, a former immigration judge. I became an IJ in 9/2017 and resigned in 3/2019. I was sworn in by then-Chief IJ Mary Beth Keller. She has also resigned. I swore to uphold the constitution at my investiture. When the administration made it impossible to continue to do so, I resigned.

I defended immigrants in immigration court for 18 years before I became an immigration judge, so I understood the inherent problems and limitations on judicial independence in a court system housed inside the Department of Justice, a prosecuting arm of the executive branch. However, as Melissa said, this administration’s policies have entirely eroded what independence and legitimacy remained in the immigration court system.

As an immigration judge, I watched independence being stripped from the judge corps on a regular basis. The attorney general ended administrative closure, taking away a vital docketing tool from the judges, while simultaneously contributing to the court’s ever-growing backlog. The attorney general also significantly limited the judges’ ability to grant continuances. Then, the attorney general and EOIR director implemented performance metrics which required judges complete 700 cases per year and created time limits on the adjudication of cases. And this was only the beginning. These policies have had a drastic impact on those appearing in immigration court, particularly those fleeing horrific violence who have been preventing from effectively presenting their cases.

New policies, memoranda, and regulations are being published regularly by this administration. Each one, an attack on the system, and each one with the goal to eliminate due process and expedite deportations. I hope this lawsuit will eventually lead to a truly independent immigration court system, where judges can uphold their oaths and therefore immigrants receive the due process they are entitled and deserve.

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

Every one of us in America is entitled to Due Process; every day, vulnerable asylum applicants and other migrants are being dehumanized and denied their Due Process rights by an ridiculously unconstitutional Immigration “Court” system operating with the complicity of life tenured Federal Judges, all the way up to the Supremes, who are failing to live up to their oaths of office.

The grotesque, constant, open abuse of the legal and constitutional rights of the most vulnerable among us threatens the rights of each of us, including those individuals responsible for putting the Trump regime in power, maintaining it, and the Article III judges who are failing to stand up to the regime’s unconstitutional cruelty and mocking of our the rule of law. Enough! It’s long past time for the Article IIIs to live up to their responsibilities and stand up for the victims of tyranny!

The case is

LAS AMERICAS IMMIGRANT ADVOCACY CENTER, et. al v. TRUMP (D OR)

Due Process Forever; Complicit Courts Never!

PWS

12-18-19

EOIR DIRECTOR McHENRY CONTINUES ALL OUT ASSAULT ON DUE PROCESS IN IMMIGRATION “COURTS!” – Three Items: 1) CLINIC Practice Advisory On Interference With “Status Dockets;” 2) McHenry Memo Emphasizing Need For Biased, Anti-Immigrant, Assembly Line “Rubber Stamping” Of BIA Appeals; 3) AILA: McHenry & His Malicious Incompetence “Designed to Collapse Board of Immigration Appeals!” — PLUS NDPA “BONUS COVERAGE” — Hon. Lory Diana Rosenberg To The Rescue, With Practical Tips YOU Can Use To Challenge McHenry’s Scofflaw Scheme To Destroy Due Process!

Thanks to Michelle Mendez of CLINIC, one of the co-authors, for passing this along.

https://cliniclegal.org/resources/practice-advisory-status-dockets-immigration-court

On August 16, 2019, the Executive Office for Immigration Review issued a memo limiting the types of cases that an immigration judge may place on a status docket while a noncitizen is waiting for some event to occur that will impact the removal proceedings. The policy may make it more difficult for some respondents to seek immigration relief while in removal proceedings, especially relief before U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. This practice advisory provides background on status dockets, describes the new policy, and provides tips for practitioners with clients whose cases are currently on a status docket or who would otherwise have pursued status docket placement but may now be found ineligible for status docket placement.

Download the Resource

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

PM 19-15 10_1_2019

action to avoid increasing the Board’s backlog—it is critically important to make certain that all appeals are processed in a timely manner.

The Board Chairman is required to establish a case management system to manage the Board’s caseload. 8 C.F.R. 1003.1(e). The Chairman, under the supervision of the Director, is responsible for the success of the case management system. Id. The Director is further authorized, inter alia, “to ensure the efficient disposition of all pending cases, including the power, in his discretion, to set priorities or time frames for the resolution of cases; to direct that the adjudication of certain cases be deferred; to regulate the assignment of adjudicators to cases; and otherwise to manage the docket of matters to be decided by the Board.” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.0(b)(1)(ii).

Although the Board has implemented a case management system pursuant to regulation, that system does not fully provide for clear internal deadlines for all phases of the pre-adjudicatory process.1 Similarly, although the regulations evince a clear directive for prompt processing and disposition by the Board, they do not provide specific deadlines for case processing prior to completion of the appellate record. Moreover, as the Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General has previously noted, the regulatory deadlines for the adjudication of appeals exclude a significant amount of pre-adjudicatory processing time, skewing the Board’s reported achievements of its goals for appeals and impeding the effective management of the appeals process. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Office of the Inspector General, Management of Immigration Cases and Appeals by the Executive Office for Immigration Review (Oct. 2012), https://oig.justice.gov/reports/2012/e1301.pdf.

To ensure the success of the Board’s case management system and to

Michelle Mendez
Defending Vulnerable Populations Director
Catholic Legal Immigration Network

better manage the appeals process so that cases are adjudicated promptly, it is appropriate to clearly state EOIR’s expectations regarding the timely processing of appeals. 2 To that end, it is important to have clear deadlines for the movement of cases throughout the entire appellate process, and not just for the adjudication at the end of the process. Accordingly, EOIR now issues the following guidance regarding the case management system for appellate adjudications by the Board.3

Case Processing

All case appeals are referred to the screening panel for review, and appeals subject to summary dismissal “should be promptly dismissed.” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(e)(1). To ensure prompt initial

1 The pre-adjudicatory process includes, inter alia, screening of notices of appeal, requesting Records of Proceedings (ROPs), ordering transcripts, serving a briefing schedule, and assigning a case for merits review once the record is complete.
2 Although the importance of timely adjudication applies to all types of appeals at the Board, the specific provisions of this PM do not apply to the processing of appeals of decisions involving administrative fines and penalties, decisions on visa petitions, decisions on the exercise of discretion by the Department of Homeland Security pursuant to INA § 212(d)(3), and decisions in practitioner discipline proceedings.

3 For timeframes that are not currently being met, EOIR understands that Board leadership recently changed and that it may take time to adjust Board practices. Nevertheless, the agency is also cognizant that the Board recently hired six new permanent Board members and is also hiring additional support staff. Consequently, EOIR expects that the Board will address inefficiencies in its appellate processing as soon as possible.

2

screening, all cases should be referred to the screening panel within 14 days of the filing of the notice of appeal to determine whether the appeal is subject to summary dismissal. Appeals subject to summary dismissal, particularly appeals subject to summary dismissal under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(2)(i)(G) for being untimely filed, should be dismissed within 30 days of referral to the screening panel.

In any case that has not been summarily dismissed, the Board “shall arrange for the prompt completion of the record of proceedings and transcript, and the issuance of a briefing schedule.” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(e)(3). Thus, to ensure prompt completion of the record for case appeals that have not been summarily dismissed, the Board should order the ROP4 if it was not previously ordered and, if appropriate, request a transcript within 14 days of referral to the screening panel.5 If a case does not require the preparation of a transcript and is not subject to summary dismissal, the Board should set and serve a briefing schedule within 14 days of referral to the screening panel. If a case requires neither the preparation of a transcript nor the service of a briefing schedule—e.g. a motion to reopen filed directly with the Board—the Board should forward the case for merits review within three days of the receipt of the ROP.

Every appeal that requires a transcript should be sent to a vendor for transcription within 14 days of referral to the screening panel. The only exceptions are situations in which there is no vendor with available capacity or if there is no available funding for further transcription.6

Upon receipt of the transcript, the Board should set and serve a briefing schedule within three days if the immigration judge’s decision was rendered in writing. If the immigration judge’s decision was rendered orally, the Board should provide the transcript of the oral decision to the immigration judge within three days of receipt of the transcript. The immigration judge “shall review the transcript and approve the decision within 14 days of receipt, or within seven days after the immigration judge returns to his or her duty station if the immigration judge was on leave or detailed to another location.” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.5(a). The Board should then set and serve a briefing schedule within three days of the immigration judge’s review and approval.

4 It is crucial that immigration courts promptly comply with requests for the ROP by the Board, and the Board may remand a case for recovery of the record if an immigration court does not forward the ROP promptly. The Board should decide whether such a remand is appropriate within 21 days of an immigration court’s failure to forward the ROP following the Board’s request. Such a remand will not be counted against an immigration judge for purposes of evaluating that judge’s performance. The Chairman shall promptly notify the Chief Immigration Judge and the Director of any immigration court that has not complied with a request for the ROP within 21 days of that request.

5 Unless the ROP contains cassette tapes requiring transcription, ordering the ROP and requesting transcription should occur concurrently within 14 days of referral to the screening panel. Transcripts are not normally prepared for the following types of appeals: bond determinations; denials of motions to reopen (including motions to reopen in absentia proceedings); denials of motions to reconsider; and interlocutory appeals. Board of Immigration Appeals Practice Manual, § 4.2(f)(ii).
6 The Chairman is directed to immediately notify the Director and the Assistant Director for the Office of Administration in any situation in which it appears that funding for transcription of all cases relative to vendor capacity is insufficient to meet the goals of this PM. Similarly, the Chairman is directed to notify the Director and the Assistant Director for the Office of Administration of any additional resource needs in order to meet the goals of this PM.

3

“In the interest of fairness and the efficient use of administrative resources, extension requests [of briefing schedules] are not favored.” Board of Immigration Appeals Practice Manual, § 4.7(c)(i). Because extension requests are not favored, they should not be granted as a matter of course, and there is no automatic entitlement to an extension of the briefing schedule by either party. Extension requests filed the same day as a brief is due are particularly disfavored and should be granted only in the most compelling of circumstances.

The case should be forwarded for merits review within three days after the expiration of the briefing schedule or the filing of briefs by both parties, whichever occurs earlier. A single Board member may summarily dismiss an appeal after completion of the record. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(e)(3). An appeal subject to summary dismissal because a party indicated that it would file a brief and failed to do so, 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(2)(i)(E), should be dismissed within 21 days of expiration of the briefing schedule.

The single Board member should determine the appeal on the merits as provided in paragraph 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(e)(4) or (e)(5), unless the Board member determines that the case is appropriate for review and decision by a three-member panel under the standards of 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(e)(6). The single Board member should determine whether the case should be referred to a three-member panel within 14 days of referral of the case for merits review, and the Board should assign the case to a three-member panel within three days of the single Board member’s determination.7 If a case is assigned to a three-member panel, a decision must be made within 180 days of assignment. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(e)(8)(i). If a case is not assigned to a three-member panel, the single Board member shall adjudicate the appeal within 90 days of completion of the record on appeal. Id.

The Chairman may grant an extension of the 90 and 180-day deadlines of up to 60 days in exigent circumstances. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(e)(8)(ii).8 “In rare circumstances,” the Chairman may hold a case or cases and suspend the 90 and 180-day deadlines to await an impending decision by the Supreme Court, a U.S. Court of Appeals, or an en banc Board decision or to await impending Department regulatory amendments. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(e)(8)(iii).9 The Chairman shall provide a monthly report of all cases in which an extension was granted due to exigent circumstances and all cases being held pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(e)(8)(iii).

Any appeal not adjudicated within the regulatory time frames shall be handled in accordance with 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(e)(8)(ii). The Chairman shall provide a monthly report of all cases which have exceeded these time frames.

Overall, absent an exception or unique circumstance provided for by regulation or this PM, no appeal assigned to a single Board member should remain pending for longer than 230 days after

7 A single Board member retains the ability to later decide that a case should be assigned to a three-member panel if circumstances arise that were unknown at the time of the initial determination that such assignment was not warranted.
8 Additionally, the 90 and 180-day deadlines do not apply to cases in which the Board holds an adjudication of the appeal while awaiting the results of identity, law enforcement, or security investigations or examinations. 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.1(d)(6) and (e)(8)(i).

9 As a matter of policy, the Chairman may also defer adjudication of appeals under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(a)(2)(i)(C) to await an impending decision by the Attorney General.

4

filing of the notice to appeal, and no appeal assigned to a three-member panel should remain pending for longer than 335 days after filing the notice of appeal. The Chairman shall track the progress of appellate adjudications and shall provide a monthly report of all cases which exceed those parameters.

Finally, EOIR does not have a policy restricting or prohibiting the use of summary dismissals of appeals, nor does it have a policy restricting or prohibiting the use of affirmances without opinion. Any appeals amenable to those procedures should be adjudicated consistent with the regulatory requirements for them, 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.1(d)(2) and (e)(4), and this PM.

III. Interlocutory Appeals

The regulations do not expressly address interlocutory appeals. “The Board does not normally entertain interlocutory appeals and generally limits interlocutory appeals to instances involving either important jurisdictional questions regarding the administration of the immigration laws or recurring questions in the handling of cases by Immigration Judges.” Board of Immigration Appeals Practice Manual, § 4.14(c).

The Board does not normally issue briefing schedules for interlocutory appeals, nor do most interlocutory appeals require transcription. Board of Immigration Appeals Practice Manual, §§ 4.2(f)(ii), 4.14(e). Consequently, interlocutory appeals are not subject to the same processes as typical case appeals on the merits. Nevertheless, it is the policy of EOIR to adjudicate interlocutory appeals promptly and efficiently.

To that end, interlocutory appeals should be reviewed by the screening panel within 14 days of filing. The screening panel should then either decide the interlocutory appeal within 30 days of filing or forward it for merits review.

Assignment and Performance

Regulations authorize the Chairman to designate a screening panel and other merits panels as appropriate. It is the policy of EOIR that panel assignments shall occur no less frequently than the beginning of each fiscal year.

Finally, “[t]he Chairman shall notify the Director of EOIR and the Attorney General if a Board member consistently fails to meet the assigned deadlines for the disposition of appeals, or otherwise fails to adhere to the standards of the case management system. The Chairman shall also prepare a report assessing the timeliness of the disposition of cases by each Board member on an annual basis.” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(e)(8)(v). Notification pursuant to this regulation should occur no later than 30 days after the Chairman determines that a Board member has failed to meet these standards. The Chairman shall prepare the annual report required by this regulation at the conclusion of each fiscal year.

5

V . Conclusion

In December 2017, Attorney General Sessions provided a list of principles to which EOIR is expected to adhere, including the principle that “[t]he timely and efficient conclusion of cases serves the national interest.” Memorandum to the Executive Office for Immigration Review, Renewing Our Commitment to the Timely and Efficient Adjudication of Immigration Cases to Serve the National Interest (Dec. 6, 2017), https://www.justice.gov/eoir/file/1041196/download. That principle applies to cases at the Board no less than it applies to cases in immigration courts, and EOIR remains committed to ensuring that all immigration cases at both the immigration court and appellate levels are adjudicated efficiently and fairly consistent with due process.

Responsibility for the Board’s case management system and the duty to ensure the efficient disposition of pending cases fall on the Chairman, and Board members themselves are ultimately responsible for the adjudication of individual cases. Accordingly, nothing in this PM is intended to require—or should be construed as requiring—a change in the conditions of employment of any bargaining unit employees at the Board.

The Board maintains a goal developed under the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) of completing 90% of detained appeals within 150 days of filing. The instant PM does not alter that goal, and in all cases, it remains EOIR policy that the Board “shall issue a decision on the merits as soon as practicable, with a priority for cases or custody appeals involving detained aliens.” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(e)(8).

This PM supersedes any prior guidance issued by EOIR regarding the timely processing of cases on appeal.

This PM is not intended to, does not, and may not be relied upon to create, any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person. Further, nothing in this PM should be construed as mandating a particular outcome in any specific case.

Please contact your supervisor if you have any questions. _____________

6

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

New Policy Memo Appears Designed to Collapse Board of Immigration Appeals

AILA Doc. No. 19100307 | Dated October 3, 2019

CONTACT
Belle Woods
bwoods@aila.org
202-507-7675

WASHINGTON, DC – Today, the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) reviewed and analyzed the recent policy memo impacting the workings of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) which serves as the appellate arm of the immigration courts within the Department of Justice (DOJ).

Jeremy McKinney, Second Vice President of AILA noted, “This memo offers significant areas of concern. An earlier rule issued in August describing the reorganization of the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) at DOJ delegates authority from the Attorney General to the EOIR director to adjudicate cases ‘that cannot be completed in a timely fashion.’ As a political appointee and not an immigration judge, the director should not have that power. This memo goes even further and pressures BIA members to speed up adjudications without care for due process. Frankly, this latest memo only underscores the need for an independent immigration court to get these proceedings out from under the thumb of the nation’s prosecutor.”

Benjamin Johnson, AILA Executive Director stated, “The purported reasoning behind this memo is that BIA adjudication rates have stalled. What did they expect the appellate situation would look like when immigration enforcement was ramped up and targeted people with longstanding ties to their communities and potential equities in immigration cases? It was inevitable that the appeals caseload would increase. This memo actually urges BIA adjudicators to dismiss appeals, before a transcript of the original hearing is even reviewed. The result of this policy change will be even more federal court litigation as people seek to get their fair day in court. Everything about this system is incongruent with an independent decision-making body.”

Cite as AILA Doc. No. 19100307.

Laura A. Lynch, Esq.

Senior Policy Counsel

Direct: 202.507.7627 I Email: llynch@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

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

It just keeps getting worse and worse, as Congress and the Article IIIs shirk their duties to intervene and enforce Due Process in our broken and “maliciously incompetently” managed Immigration “Courts.”

As one “Roundtable” member noted, in an amazing public ripoff, the Administration is raising the appeal fees by nearly 1000% so abused immigrants subjected to the EOIR “Kangaroo Court” will now “pay more for less justice!”

But, all is not lost! NDPA Lt. General and Roundtable stalwart Judge Lory D. Rosenberg has put out a timely format (below) for filling out a Notice of Appeal (“NOA”) that will be “McHenryproof” and will also highlight to the Article III Courts of Appeals the stunning denial of Due Process and encouragement of sloppy work, “worst practices,” and corner cutting at EOIR. Let’s see whether being flooded with inferior, biased work product by the BIA will finally spur the Article IIIs to take some long overdue corrective action (as they did during the due process disaster at EOIR that followed the “Ashcroft Purge” at the BIA).

Here’s the form:

IDEAS NOTICE OF APPEAL – ATTACHMENT PAGES (2)

And, here’s Lory:

Lory Rosenberg — Hon. Lory Diana Rosenberg
Senior Advisor
Immigrant Defenders Law Group, PLLC

PWS

10-04-19

YOU ARE NOT ALONE! — MORE LAW YOU CAN USE FROM COURTSIDE: Pro Bono All-Stars Michelle Mendez & Rebecca Scholtz of CLINIC’s Defending Vulnerable Populations Project Proudly Present “A Practitioner’s Guide To Obtaining Release From Immigration Detention!”

HERE’S THE LINK:

A-Guide-to-Obtaining-Release-from-Immigration-Detention

KEY QUOTE:

As the use of immigration detention continues to increase, it is more important than ever that representatives understand the legal framework governing bond proceedings in order to harness that knowledge toward zealous and well-prepared advocacy on behalf of detained respondents. Successful bond representation can make all the difference in whether a respondent is able to secure release and ultimately prevail on the merits of his or her case. Effective representation in bond proceedings also helps to safeguard the due process rights of detained respondents. The authors encourage practitioners to consider pro bono opportunities available in their jurisdiction or remotely, such as through the Immigrant Justice Campaign, which not only help meet a compelling need but can also provide practitioners with experience and mentoring. Given the ever-changing landscape of immigration detention, practitioners are encouraged to remain connected to others doing bond work in order to share information about the latest trends, successful strategies, and best practices. Finally, the authors wish to remind readers that this guide is intended for general educational use only and that practitioners should independently research the law governing their jurisdiction, as this area of law (like many in the immigration field) is complex and frequently changing.

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

Join the New Due Process Army. Fight for the Due Process rights of everyone in America. Allow yourself to be inspired by and learn from the scholarship, dedication, character, and commitment of amazing attorneys, leaders, and role models like Michelle & Rebecca!

Harm to the most vulnerable among us is harm to all! Due Process forever!

PWS

06-05-18

GOV’S CRUEL IN ABSENTIA HOAX EXPOSED – NEW CLINIC/URBAN JUSTICE CENTER REPORT SHOWS HOW DHS & EOIR INTENTIONALLY USE BROKEN SYSTEM TO CONSTRUCT A “KNOWINGLY FALSE NARRATIVE” THAT ASYLUM SEEKERS SHIRK HEARINGS – Actually, Representation & Other Very Achievable Reforms Would Raise Appearance Rate Close To 100% — Trump Administration Doubles Down On Obama’s Dishonest Due Process Travesty!

“I answered them that it was not Roman practice to hand over an accused person before he has faced his accusers and had the opportunity to defend himself against their charge.”

Acts 25: 16

HERE’S THE REPORT:

Denied-a-Day-in-Court

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Starting in the summer of 2014, the United States began experiencing an unprecedented influx of Central American families who were fleeing violence and seeking humanitarian assistance and safety. Most of these families were from El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras. In response, the Obama Administration ordered immigration judges to rapidly adjudicate these cases, often at the cost of

due process. Large numbers of families, unable to obtain legal representation and navigate a complex immigration system, were deported by the federal government, often back to the violence they had fled. Essential to the government’s efforts was the use of in absentia removal orders issued to families upon their missing an immigration court hearing.

In response to the unmet legal needs of this population, the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project
(ASAP) at the Urban Justice Center and the Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc. (CLINIC) began representing families ordered removed in absentia. In almost every case, ASAP and CLINIC successfully challenged the underlying in absentia order and reopened the case. Concurrently, through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, these organizations obtained previously unreleased immigration court data that reveal key metrics regarding legal representation rates and the use of in absentia removals. Client interviews and data from the FOIA together reveal a startling trend—the government ordered the removal of high numbers of unrepresented families through in absentia orders despite many of those families having passed a credible fear interview with an asylum officer.

This report highlights the high rate of unrepresented families, discusses the obstacles families face in attending their hearings, explains how the immigration system fails families seeking asylum, and provides policy recommendations for how the Administration and Congress can address these shortcomings.

The findings in this report are based on an analysis of the FOIA results regarding representation and removal of 29,808 families from July 2014 to November 2016, as well as the results of the 46 cases in which ASAP and CLINIC provided representation. These findings include the following:

• 22,270 asylum applicants, or 75 percent of the 29,808 families who entered the United States between July 2014 and November 2016, did not have legal representation.

• In 24,862 cases, or 83 percent of the 29,808 families, an immigration judge ordered a family removed. Of those ordered removed, in 21,041 cases, or 85 percent, the order was issued in absentia, i.e. the judge entered the order without the presence of a parent in the court room. Thus, immigration judges ordered the families removed without their having presented their claims for asylum or other defenses to removal.

ASAP and CLINIC successfully challenged the in absentia orders of 44 of their 46 clients (96 percent), with either an immigration judge or the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) agreeing to rescind the in absentia order and reopen the case.

Contrary to the narrative that families purposely abscond from immigration court, ASAP and CLINIC’s clients all had legitimate reasons for being unable to attend their hearings, including lack of notice, incorrect government information, serious medical problems, language barriers,
and severe trauma or disabilities. Importantly, ASAP and CLINIC’s clients represented nationals from El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras who had received removal orders from 15 different immigration courts. Most of these families were alerted to their removal orders by prior pro bono counsel who represented them while they were in detention, and who then connected them with ASAP and CLINIC’s services. The other families sought general information about asylum from ASAP and CLINIC, leading them to realize they had missed a hearing. Once families became aware of their in absentia removal orders, they overwhelmingly sought to reopen their cases to seek asylum.

ASAP and CLINIC’s high success rate suggests the federal government is deporting large numbers of families without providing them a fair opportunity to plead their cases in immigration court.While ASAP and CLINIC’s data runs through the end of the Obama Administration, in absentia removal orders continue to be issued in immigration courts throughout the country.In order to limit the deportation of families with strong asylum claims and other avenues for immigration relief, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the Department of Justice (DOJ), and Congress should implement a variety of legislative and administrative changes that would remedy many of the problems identified in this report. These much-needed changes include improving communication between agencies, providing clearer guidance to families, and updating existing immigration court and enforcement practices.

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

This report’s findings certainly match my experience in the Arlington Immigration Court that:

The “no-show” rate for represented asylum seekers was pretty close to 0%.
More than 95% of “in absentia” orders for juveniles eventually were reopened, usually because of defective notice by DHS and/or EOIR.
Almost no unrepresented individuals understood the difference between the “DHS Check-In on Prosperity Avenue” and appearance at the Arlington Immigration Court in Crystal City. Clearly, it had never been explained to them in understandable fashion upon release from custody.

I also have no doubt that the very achievable recommendations for improvements in this report could be accomplished at a fraction of the cost of today’s cruel, ineffective, policies of militarizing the border, building the “New American Gulag,” prosecuting asylum seekers as criminals, and attempting to curtail important legal and Constitutional rights.

PWS

04-20-18

A BIA WIN FOR THE GOOD GUYS! – MICHELLE MENDEZ & HER CLINIC TEAM GET REOPENING FOR ASYLUM APPLICANTS IN ATLANTA! (Submitted By Dan Kowalski at LexisNexis)!

From: Michelle Mendez [mailto:mmendez@cliniclegal.org]
Sent: Monday, February 19, 2018 10:00 AM
To: Artesia OTG <artesiaotg@lists.aila.org>
Subject: [artesiaotg] Good news — the BIA has issued a great unpublished decision on late-filed appeals! (Attached.)

Greetings,

The ASAP team of Swapna Reddy, Dorothy Tegeler, and Liz Willis has done it again. With just a few days before her check-in with Atlanta ICE ERO, a mother reached out to us via our Facebook group. Taylor, Lee & Associates had represented her and accepted an order of removal without fighting her case. Many of us are familiar with this law firm having heard about or helped the families targeted in January 2016 by the Obama Administration who were also represented by this firm in the same manner. By “representation” I mean that the law firm did not defend her against removal before the IJ instead accepting an order of removal in exchange for seeking a stay of removal and promising an EAD.

When we learned her case involved the same “salvo conducto” practice by this law firm and that the mother had not actually consent to this practice, we knew we had to help this mother. But time was not on our side as her imminent check-in with Atlanta ICE EOR was supposed to be her last. After strategically considering our options, we rushed to prepare an untimely BIA appeal….a two-year untimely appeal. We prepared a stay of removal application and recruited a local advocate, Keith Farmer, to attend the Atlanta ICE ERO check-in with her and submit the stay. Keith handled the situation like a professional, and the mother was ultimately never detained at her subsequent check-ins at which Shana Tabak artfully accompanied her.

The BIA accepted the Notice to Appeal and issued a briefing schedule. We followed this with an emergency motion for a stay of removal with the BIA. While the Notice to Appeal was pending and we awaited the briefing schedule, we complied with the Lozada procedures and obtained a psych evaluation of the client thanks to Craig Katz, Elizabeth Singer, and Varsha Subramaniam. We reached out to Trina Realmuto and Kristin Macleod-Ball, who provided strategic advice and an amicus brief in support of our untimely appeal. Katie Shephard provided an invaluable declaration given her work on the cases of the families represented by this law firm and targeted in January 2016 by the Obama Administration who were taken to Dilley. Laura Lichter also pitched in with strategic feedback and sample filings given her tireless work on the January 2016 cases, and her input was essential. And, last but not least, we reached out to Bradley Jenkins andLory Rosenberg for their wisdom, who helped us to frame arguments in the most compelling way.

The BIA dismissed the appeal as untimely instructing us to file a Motion to Reconsider and Remand on the question of timeliness. As was done in five nearly identical cases involving this law firm, we asked the BIA to accept this late-filed appeal on certification, or in the alternative, equitably toll the notice of appeal deadline and remand the case for further proceedings before the Immigration Judge. The BIA decision is attached. Huge thanks to ASAP volunteer law student Mayu Arimoto for her assistance with this briefing. Of course, and as always, thanks to Ben Winograd for his filing assistance with the BIA.

The moral of this story is that defending the rights of immigrants is tough work. We battle inhumane policies, cowardly or openly authoritarian leaders, greedy representatives who fill their coffers with private prison money, negative public opinion, intentional and unintentional media misinformation, notarios/unauthorized practitioners of law, and even other attorneys who abandon their duty to zealously represent their vulnerable clients. But when competent and caring advocates join forces, we can do anything.

Michelle N. Mendez

Training and Legal Support Senior Attorney

Defending Vulnerable Populations Project Manager

Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc. (CLINIC)

Mailing Address: 8757 Georgia Avenue, Suite 850, Silver Spring, MD 20910

Physical Address: OPD, 217 E. Redwood Street, Suite 1020, Baltimore, MD 21202

Cellular Phone: 540.907.1761

Fax Number: 301.565.4824

Email: mmendez@cliniclegal.org

Website: www.cliniclegal.org

Save the date for CLINIC’s 20th annual Convening!

Defending hope and the American Dream

May 30 – June 1, 2018 | Tucson, AZ

cliniclegal.org/convening

Embracing the Gospel value of welcoming the stranger, CLINIC promotes the dignity and protects the rights of immigrants in partnership with a dedicated network of Catholic and community legal immigration programs.

If you want to remove yourself from the list then go to http://www.aila.org/MyAila/Account/Listservs

If you have never logged into www.aila.org then please use the forgot password linkhttp://www.aila.org/MyAila/ForgotPassword to choose a new password.

Enter the email address that you are receiving your listserv emails.

To change your email address go to http://www.aila.org/myaila/account/edit

You can also unsubscribe or make changes at http://www.aila.org/MyAila/Account/Listservs

Other questions? Email listservs@aila.org

HERE’S A COPY OF THE (UNFORTUNATELY UNPUBLISHED) BIA DECISION BY APPELLATE IMMIGRATION JUDGE MOLLY KENDALL CLARK:

Redacted S-H-O BIA Remand

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

Congrats to Michelle and her CLINIC team for winning a great victory for fairness, Due Process, and the New Due Process Army!

This also reminds us that notwithstanding the pressure from the Sessions DOJ to turn the Immigration Courts and the BIA into an “assembly line” churning out more removal orders, every day talented, conscientious, hard-working jurists like Judge Kendall Clark and others like her in the Immigration Court System remain firmly committed to the original “Due Process Mission” and independent decision-making that were supposed to be the sole focus of EOIR (before the “politicos” intervened with their attempts to “game” the system against migrants to achieve DHS enforcement goals).

We need an independent Article I U.S. Immigration Court (including an Appellate Division) so that judges can do their jobs of unbiased, scholarly, independent, Due Process focused decision making without “quotas,” “performance evaluations,” directives from administrators not actively involved in judging, and other improper political interference!

PWS

02-19-18

🇺🇸⚖️🗽👍🏼Due Process Forever! The EOIR Clown Show🤡🦹🏿‍♂️ ☠️⚰️Never!

Related posts:

Time for the NDPA ⚖️🗽🧑🏽‍⚖️👩‍⚖️ to replace the EOIR Clown Show🤡!

Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Thanks for all your past contributions and all the best for the future, Laura, from all of your many “admirers and fellow soldiers in the NDPA!”

Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

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

Related posts:

NDPA Superstar ⭐️ Michelle Mendez 🎖 reports for CLINIC 🏆:

Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

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

Related posts:

Due Process Forever! Clown Courts,🤡 Never!

Related posts:

Due Process Forever!

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

JOIN THE NEW DUE PROCESS ARMY (“NDPA”) & BE PART OF THE SOLUTION TO UNEQUAL JUSTICE IN AMERICA!

Related posts:

Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Saving Lives Makes A Difference; Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Related posts:

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

Related posts:

Related posts:

“I answered them that it was not Roman practice to hand over an accused person before he has faced his accusers and had the opportunity to defend himself against their charge.”

Acts 25: 16

Related posts:

HERE’S A COPY OF THE (UNFORTUNATELY UNPUBLISHED) BIA DECISION BY APPELLATE IMMIGRATION JUDGE MOLLY KENDALL CLARK:

Related posts: