EXPOSING INJUSTICE IN AMERICA: Roundtable’s Judge Ilyce Shugall Speaks Out In LA Times Against EOIR’s Latest Scheme To Dump On Kids & Other Vulnerable Individuals In Immigration Court!

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

https://edition.pagesuite.com/popovers/dynamic_article_popover.aspx?guid=701a3c3e-57e1-4459-b332-658b33df0a30&v=sdk

Ilyce writes:

In immigration court — and forced to go it alone

A new Justice Department directive prohibits volunteers from assisting people who don’t have lawyers in immigration court.

By Ilyce Shugall

TheJustice Department recently issued a policy memo that would limit the access of noncitizens to legal assistance in immigration courts, the latest in a series of attacks on immigrants. As it is, people appearing in immigration court do not have a right to government-appointed counsel. Instead, they have to hire and pay for a private lawyer themselves or be fortunate enough to find a pro bono lawyer.

Because of the huge volume of cases in immigration court, there are simply not enough pro bono lawyers to represent the thousands of adults and children in removal proceedings. To fill this gap, nonprofits like the Justice & Diversity Center of the Bar Assn. of San Francisco, where I work, provide limited-scope legal services by appearing as “friend of the court,” or amicus curiae, in immigration court.

In this role, these volunteers provide free legal information, help noncitizens identify what immigration benefits they may be eligible for, assist in filling out and filing immigration forms and other papers, and help them speak to the judge in open court.

Such assistance is crucial for vulnerable individuals, including unaccompanied children, trafficking and other crime victims and individuals who have serious mental health disabilities. These individuals, who have often gone through severe trauma, are entirely unable to navigate the complex immigration system alone.

By helping them, even in a limited capacity, the friends of the court also help the courts in processing cases. This work is more important now than ever with immigration judges handling more cases in less time under the administration’s new performance quotas.

The new memo, issued by the Justice Department’s Executive Office for Immigration Review, would redefine the role of friends of the court and prohibit anyone in that role from speaking on behalf of unrepresented individuals in open court.

The memo purports to be protecting immigrants from confusion and clarifying that friends of the court cannot play an advocacy role in immigration court. But the new directive was not created to protect immigrants. Volunteers with nonprofit organizations that do this work are already well trained to explain their limited role so that there is no blurring of lines between full-scope legal representation and help from a friend of the court.

The implementation of the memo will harm thousands of unrepresented noncitizens who face deportation every day. It will limit their access to information and assistance. And it will prevent them from having volunteers speak for them in court. Without this option, many won’t be able to ask the court important questions about their cases, articulate their requests, and present claims for immigration relief.

The immigration courts have long valued this kind of volunteer assistance. Nearly 30 years ago, the Bar Assn. of San Francisco started a friend of the court program at the request of the San Francisco Immigration Court. As a former volunteer in that program and then as an immigration judge in that court, I saw how big a difference this work makes for the administration of the court.

The friend-of-the-court volunteer can inform immigrants about their rights, responsibilities, and eligibility for immigration benefits before they speak to the judge. That can make court hearings far more efficient because judges rarely have time to explain the complex process or provide answers to all follow-up questions during a hearing.

The current administration has made every effort to deprive humane aid to people seeking safety in this country. Now it’s senselessly eroding due process for the most vulnerable by clamping down on the assistance they need. This new tactic exacerbates the lack of fairness that is endemic in the immigration court system.

Ilyce Shugall is director of the Immigrant Legal Defense Program at the Justice & Diversity Center of the Bar Assn. of San Francisco.

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

We should all be 1) outraged, and 2) ashamed that this is happening in America, every day, in 2019. Instead, each grotesque new attack by the regime on our humanity and justice system just passes as “another day at the office” in Trump’s America — largely “under the radar screen,” particularly because the hapless victims are often deported. Out of sight, out of mind!

Thanks for speaking out, Ilyce! You are a continuing inspiration to all of us! Just another example of the great work being done by members of our “Roundtable of Former Immigration Judges” and the rest of the “New Due Process Army.”

While, tragically, EOIR as an organization has abandoned its former “Due Process vision” and become a weapon of the repressive White Nationalist regime, those who once served continue to fight for Due Process and fundamental fairness for all.

And, there is the lingering question of whatever happened to the Article III Circuit Courts of Appeals who are supposed to be reviewing the work of the Immigration Courts to insure that they operate in a legal, fair, and Constitutional manner? Seems like too many Article III Appellate Judges have taken a permanent holiday from their responsibilities to insure that justice is done. Maybe all future personal litigation involving Federal Judges and Supreme Court Justices and their families should be required to take place in the Immigration Courts, with the opposing party allowed to select the “judge,” make the rules, and change the results as they please.

Oh, and they also should be required to represent themselves and  be given no understanding of what the issues really are and how they system “works.” Then, maybe we’d see some Court of Appeals Judges getting out of the ivory tower and taking their Constitutional responsibilities seriously!

Due Process Forever.

PWS

12-05-19

THE ROUNDTABLE IN ACTION: HON. ILYCE SHUGALL DELIVERS POWERFUL STATEMENT IN THE LA TIMES ON WHY SHE COULD NO LONGER SERVE AS A JUDGE IN OUR OBSCENELY DISTORTED AND UNFAIR U.S. IMMIGRATON COURT SYSTEM – “But nothing prepared me for the unprecedented, unfair and unworkable policies the Trump administration imposed on the courts and the immigration process.”

https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2019-08-03/immigration-court-judge-asylum-trump-policies

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

By ILYCE SHUGALL

LA Times

AUG. 4, 2019

 

I have been an immigration lawyer dedicated to fairness and due process for immigrants my entire career. In 2015, convinced that my 18 years of experience as an advocate would make me a good immigration judge, I applied for the job.

Most immigration judges are former attorneys from the chief counsel’s office of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, former assistant U.S. attorneys or former attorneys from other federal government agencies. Former advocates are appointed less frequently, but I believed in the importance of having judges from varied backgrounds on the bench and therefore applied.

I made it through the application and vetting process and was appointed to the bench in September 2017. I resigned this March because I could no longer in good conscience work as an immigration judge in the Trump administration.

I knew when I joined the bench that there would be frustrations, as immigration courts are governed by the Justice Department and lack the independence of other courts in the federal judicial system. But nothing prepared me for the unprecedented, unfair and unworkable policies the Trump administration imposed on the courts and the immigration process.

I believed it was my job to ensure that all people who appeared before me understood their rights and had the opportunity to fully present their cases. I found the job fulfilling when I was hearing cases. I enjoyed learning about the lives of people from all over the world and analyzing complex legal issues. It was also heartbreaking. I heard stories of horrific violence, terror and pain. I was moved by the struggles and resolve of those who leave everything behind to seek safety and refuge, those who dedicate their lives to caring for family members, and those who overcome incredible obstacles to make a better future for themselves and their families.

In 2018, Atty. Gen. Jeff Sessions and the director of the Executive Office for Immigration Review, which oversees the immigration courts, began imposing quotas and performance metrics that affected the day-to-day function and independence of the judges. We were notified that all judges were expected to complete 700 cases a year to receive a satisfactory performance review. EOIR also published performance metrics for the judges that established specific timelines for adjudication of cases and motions.

During a conference of immigration judges in June 2018, agency leadership informed us that the quota policy would go into effect in October. Sessions, during his keynote speech at the conference, announced that he would be issuing his decision in the case of Matter of A-B-, which dealt with asylum claims based on domestic violence. His decision to prohibit grants of asylum for victims of domestic violence and persecution perpetrated by other nongovernment actors was announced later that day. I left the conference extremely demoralized.

My colleagues and I felt the impact of the case quotas on our ability to render correct and well-reasoned decisions. My calendar was fully booked with cases through 2021. The judges in San Francisco, where I served, were told we could not schedule any cases in 2022 until our calendars showed that three cases were scheduled every day through the end of 2021.

SPONSORED CONTENT

This meant that the judges were forced to schedule at least two cases in one time slot (there being two slots a day) — regardless of whether it was possible to hear two cases in such a short time frame or whether this would allow a judge to consider fully the merits of each case, which often involved determining life or death issues.

This was the way to push us to complete 700 cases a year. Failure to hit the quota would also result in failing to meet other performance metrics. In August 2018, Sessions also issued a decision limiting continuances of cases in immigration court.

Shortly after we were told to hear three cases a day, we were also told we could not schedule interpreters for two different languages in each of the morning or afternoon sessions. We were told we needed to match languages or pair English-language cases with other languages, though we had no tools to assist us in coordinating languages.

The impact of these administrative policies, while bad on judges’ morale and workloads, was worse for the immigrants appearing at court. The pressure to complete cases made me less patient and less able to uphold the constitutional protections required to properly adjudicate cases.

In addition to these policies, the Trump administration announced several new policy changes to limit the rights of noncitizens to apply for asylum. One was the “Remain in Mexico” policy, which required asylum applicants to stay in Mexico while awaiting their court hearings. Another was the administration’s attempt to eliminate eligibility for asylum for individuals who did not present themselves at a port of entry while simultaneously preventing asylum seekers from being processed at the ports of entry.

In November 2018, the EOIR director issued a memorandum to push through cases of “family units” on a fast track. These cases continue to be docketed and heard on an expedited basis. This policy prevents indigent noncitizens from having adequate time to secure counsel or evidence to support their cases. And it often leads to individuals being ordered removed without a hearing because clerical errors caused hearing notices to be sent to incorrect addresses.

As more policies were issued, it became clear that this administration’s attack on immigrants and the independence and functioning of the immigration courts would only get worse.

As I expected, the attacks continued. Since I resigned, the Department of Homeland Security has expanded expedited removal. Recently, EOIR began using a video to comply with federal regulations requiring that all noncitizens be advised of their rights and responsibilities in court. The video, which replaces in-person interpreters, will inevitably cause confusion and make it far harder for individuals to defend themselves.

Just last week, Atty. Gen. William Barr issued a decision that largely eliminates asylum eligibility for those facing persecution because of family ties. This ruling could affect thousands of legitimate asylum seekers fleeing violence in Mexico and Central American countries, as well as other parts of the world.

I expect the Trump administration’s relentless attacks against immigrants and the immigration system to continue. The way to limit the damage is to establish an independent immigration court that is outside the Justice Department. Until that happens, the immigration courts will be subject to the politics driving the administration rather than the principles of justice immigration judges are sworn to uphold.

Ilyce Shugall is the director of the Immigrant Legal Defense Program at the Justice & Diversity Center of the Bar Assn. of San Francisco.

OPINIONOP-ED

Hon.

MORE FROM THE LOS ANGELES TIMES

 

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

 Well said, Judge Shugall, my friend, colleague, and fellow member of the Roundtable of Former Immigration Judges!

 

Ilyce explains and gives “real life examples” of two concepts that I discuss often at “Courtside:”

 

  • AIMLESS DOCKET RESHUFFLING (“ADR”): Arbitrarily or maliciously moving cases around without actually deciding them to the disadvantage of the respondents, their lawyers, the judges, court staff, and often even ICE counsel (who, as far as I can tell, are never consulted in advance or given meaningful input on major policy changes at DHS, despite probably being the best qualified individuals in the agency to understand the real legal framework and practical implications of various policy decisions imposed “from above”);

  • MALICIOUS INCOMPETENCE (“MI”): Using White Nationalist restrictionist policies, not based on either the law or empirical data, usually irrational and impractical, to limit the ability of migrants to exercise their legal rights, create chaos in the court system, and ultimately to destroy the system and replace it with something even more draconian and more completely unfair.

 

PWS

08-04-19