"The Voice of the New Due Process Army" ————– Musings on Events in U.S. Immigration Court, Immigration Law, Sports, and Other Random Topics by Retired United States Immigration Judge (Arlington, Virginia) and former Chairman of the Board of Immigration Appeals Paul Wickham Schmidt. To see my complete professional bio, just click on the link below.
Category: Kathryn O. Greenberg Immigration Justice Clinic
“Petitioner Srecko Pesikan argues that the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) erred in concluding that his 2018 Pennsylvania conviction for driving under the influence (“DUI”) of marijuana constituted an offense involving a “controlled substance,” as defined in the federal Controlled Substances Act (“CSA”), thereby rendering him removable under the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a) (“INA”). We agree and will grant his petition for review. … In sum, because the identity of the specific controlled substance is not an element of the Pennsylvania DUI statute, the state statute of conviction is indivisible and cannot serve as the basis for Pesikan’s removal under the INA. … For the foregoing reasons, we will grant Pesikan’s Petition for Review in case number 21-1262 and will reverse the order for removal.”
These are important cases with high stakes! They deserve expert analysis from expert judges.
Eliminating unnecessary Circuit reversals and remands like this would also help address the backlog-building, due-process-denying phenomenon of “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” at EOIR. Avoidable mistakes at the “retail level” are systemically costly to our justice system in more ways than one!
And, remember, that for every EOIR mistake that gets “caught” by the Article IIIs, dozens of these injustices probably go uncorrected! Circuit review is a luxury that isn’t available to most individuals who lose at the BIA level. Even here, Mr. Pesikan would have had no chance at the Circuit except for court-appointed pro bono counsel Stephen A. Fogdall and his team at Dillworth & Paxon, LLP, another luxury unavailable to litigants at the EOIR level.
Moreover, even when Circuit review does take place, the inappropriately deferential standards established by Congress allow (or even require) some Circuit panels to merely sweep glaring injustices under the rug without grappling with the overall constitutional implications of this shoddy, due–process-denying system. Why on earth would “deference” be given or review restricted over the “gang that can’t shoot straight” at EOIR?”
Would you give “deference” to these guys? Theatrical poster from Wikipedia
Imagine: You are living in the United States without documentation. Years ago, you were in danger of deportation but were allowed to stay by the federal government through prosecutorial discretion. Suddenly, you are caught in a surprise mass raid of your community by Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Your family and lawyer bring your case to the Department of Justice’s Board of Immigration Appeals, petitioning board members to recognize that you should be allowed to stay in the U.S. But in as little as 24 hours, ICE has already deported you back to a country where you have not been in years, where you may have no family or friends, where you may even be in danger from the local government or paramilitary forces. The BIA has yet to make a decision about your case—or, perhaps worse, the board has decided that you should not have been deported in the first place. How do you return to your family and your home in the U.S. now?
It is scenarios like this—which affect a portion of the 256,085 peopledeported each year—that a new lawsuit filed against the BIA hopes to avert by bringing transparency to the procedures, timelines, and other aspects of the board’s inner workings. The American Immigration Council, a non-profit that protects immigrants’ rights, and the Kathryn O. Greenberg Immigration Justice Clinic, which represents indigent immigrants facing deportation, brought the suit after the BIA failed to respond to Freedom of Information Act requests about their process for granting stays of removal. Such stays allow non-citizens to avoid deportation before their cases are heard by immigration courts.
Pacific Standard recently interviewed representatives from both the American Immigration Council and Kathryn O. Greenberg Immigration Justice Clinic—Claudia Valenzuela and Rikke Bukh, respectively—about the motivation behind their suit against the BIA, its aims, and its importance.
Was there a specific incident or general trend that inspired you to file suit against the BIA?
Valenzuela: Both the Council and the Clinic have heard via reports, and experienced via clients, that individuals facing speedy deportation were not getting their motions for a stay of removal decided in time to avoid their physical removal. As we outlined in our complaint to the federal district court, this scenario is quite problematic as it is extremely difficult for individuals to fight their immigration cases once deported.
The stay of removal mechanism was intended to serve as a critical, potentially life-saving safeguard, and it should protect many of these people. However, the BIA’s deficient practices surrounding stays have made it ineffective, and the devastating consequences have emerged particularly sharply in the wake of these enforcement actions.
What specific information are you hoping to get out of the BIA?
Valenzuela: We are looking for all policies and procedures regarding stays of deportation filed in conjunction with motions to reopen or reconsider—and in particular how these requests are processed and tracked, timelines for deciding these requests, and how decisions on stays of deportation are communicated to individuals who request them and/or their attorneys. We also requested statistical data on the numbers of stays requested in conjunction with motions to reopen or reconsider, and rates of grants or denials in deciding those motions.
Bukh: We are seeking information that would give us insight into how the BIA makes these decisions, including guidance on adjudicating stay motions and other internal materials, as well as data to show how they make these types of decisions and the impact of current procedures and standards. It is necessary to make this information public so that courts, attorneys, and, most importantly, individuals who do not have representation can meaningfully access and utilize these mechanisms to prevent unlawful deportations.
On what grounds is the BIA refusing to share the information you’re requesting?
Valenzuela: The board claims that its information is protected on law-enforcement and national-security grounds. However, it is our position that the BIA has incorrectly invoked these exemptions.
Bukh: The agency has failed to respond in any substance regarding a significant category of information that we requested. It has also said that it does not track “non-emergency” requests for stays in its system and refused to locate such information in its files because, in its view, it would be “burdensome.”
How do you anticipate the case will proceed? If the BIA prevails, what then?
Bukh: We hope and expect that the court will see the important need for this information and require the agency to produce it expeditiously. However, the agency may recognize that its responses have been deficient and begin producing these records even before a court order. The important thing is that the public has access to this information. If the BIA were to prevail, we would review the basis for a decision and consider next steps from there.
Valenzuela: We are hopeful that the court will agree that the records we have requested are subject to public disclosure and order the BIA to release all records and statistics. Our requests address precisely the type of information that the BIA should make available to the public because it governs procedural due process for individuals in the most dire of circumstances: imminent deportation.
This interview has been edited for length and clarity.
