LIVE IN DC ON FEB 24! — SEE “ROCK STAR” 🎸 IMMIGRATION EXPERT PROFESSOR STEPHEN YALE-LOEHR & HIS “RAMBLIN’ BAND OF EXPERTS” TAKE ON IMMIGRATION POLICY @ THE NATIONAL PRESS CLUB! — ONLY DC Area Performance* — Free, In Person or Online! — Just As Administration Rolls Out Idea Steve Has Championed: Private Refuges Sponsorship!

* In Feb. 2023

Immigration Rocks — Immigration law rocks with “Professor Stevie & His Ramblin’ Band of Experts!”
Public Realm

Immigration Reform: Lessons Learned and a Path Forward

Congress has been unable to enact comprehensive immigration reform for over 30 years.

Employers face an unprecedented shortage of workers.
The Dreamers, long-contributing members of our society, face uncertainty due to litigation questioning the legality of the DACA program.
And border security concerns everyone.

Polls suggest Americans want immigration reform. But the conventional wisdom is that “comprehensive immigration reform” is impossible in a divided Congress.

This conference will explore targeted legislation and other policy changes that could be enacted in 2023, focusing on work visa changes to help alleviate our labor shortages, border security and asylum reforms, and a permanent path forward for Dreamers, farmworkers.

Sponsored by the Cornell Law School Immigration Law and Policy Research Program and cosponsored by the Cornell Migrations Initiative.

While we encourage in-person attendance, the conference will be webcast live from the National Press Club. Mark your calendars now for this important event!

Panelists from the following organizations:

American Action Forum, American Business Immigration Coalition, AmericanHort, Bipartisan Policy Center, Compete America, Cornell Law School, Migration Policy Institute, National Association of Evangelicals, National Immigration Forum, Niskanen Center, Service Employees International Union,

Texas Association of Business, TheDream.US, UnidosUS,

United Farm Workers of America, U.S. Chamber of Commerce

A special thanks to the Charles Koch Foundation for sponsoring this event.

DATE

February 24th, 2023

TIME

8:30 a.m. – 3:00 p.m.

*Reception to follow

LOCATION

National Press Club

529 14th St NW,

Washington, DC

20045

REGISTRATION LINK

MORE INFO

Michelle LoParco at:

k.loparco@cornell.edu

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

The U.S. State Department has just announced an initiative promoted by Steve, his colleague Dr. Janine Prantl, and other experts. See, e.g., https://immigrationcourtside.com/2022/10/17/🗽prantl-yale-loehr-ny-daily-news-private-refugee-sponsorship-an-idea-whose-time-has-come-but-the-biden-administration-has-turned-its-back-on-the-legal-human-rig/

Read the information sheet on the “Welcome Corps” here: https://welcomecorps.org/resources/faqs/.

This is a promising idea. Hope it works! I have to wonder, however, why a coordinated effort like this wasn’t implemented for asylum seekers arriving at the Southern Border?

You can register (free) for the Cornell Conference, where this and other timely topics will be discussed by the experts!

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

01-20-23

⚖️🗽SUPREMES HEAR CASE ON UNNECESSARY DETENTION IN GULAG OF THOSE SEEKING LEGAL PROTECTION FROM PERSECUTION AND TORTUE! — Biden Administration Must End Human Rights Abuses 🏴‍☠️☠️In The “New American Gulag!”

From my friends over at the Legal Aid and Justice Center of Virginia:

Dear Paul,

Today marks a milestone for the Legal Aid Justice Center.

This morning at 10 A.M., the U.S. Supreme Court will begin oral arguments in Pham v. Chavez, LAJC’s first case before the high court in our 54-year history. It is also the last immigration case to be heard by the Supreme Court during Trump’s presidency, a fitting way to cap the past four years of fighting this administration’s harmful policies, which we kicked off with our 2017 lawsuit Aziz v. Trump challenging Trump’s Muslim ban, filed one week after his inauguration.

It is not uncommon for people who have been previously deported to eventually return to the U.S. seeking protection from new threats to their lives or liberty in their home countries. Today’s case is to decide whether immigrants who illegally reenter the United States after a prior deportation and seek an asylum-like form of protection called “withholding of removal” have the right to ask a judge for release from detention while they fight their cases, which routinely take over a year.

This case will affect more than 3,000 people every year nationwide —a number that will likely grow as those who have been turned away at the border through the current administration’s unjust policies return in desperation to seek help once again.

We thank our pro bono co-counsel Paul Hughes, an experienced Supreme Court practitioner arguing the case for us today, and the team at McDermott Will & Emery and the Yale Law School Supreme Court Clinic who assisted with the briefing. Paul has partnered with us on many of our legal challenges to the Trump administration’s immigration policies, dating back to Aziz v. Trump.

This case began in summer 2017 when we won the release of five individuals being held without bond at the Farmville Detention Center. We quickly recognized that the system needed to be reformed. Our subsequent class action lawsuit has beaten back every challenge to date, and no matter the outcome of today’s hearing, has already won the release of more than 100 people from detention.

We hope the highest court in the land will also acknowledge that these immigrants should have the chance to seek freedom.

Angela Ciolfi
Executive Director
Legal Aid Justice Center

Follow Us

DONATE

Legal Aid Justice Center

Charlottesville / Falls Church / Richmond / Petersburg

info@justice4all.org

Having trouble viewing this email? View it in your web browser

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

Many, many thanks to the Legal Aid & Justice Center, pro bono co-counsel Paul Hughes, the team at McDermott Will & Emery, and the Yale Law School Supreme Court Clinic for making this happen. The Round Table 🛡⚔️also filed an amicus brief in this important case:

https://immigrationcourtside.com/category/supreme-court/pham-v-guzman-chavez/

As noted in my previous posting, this case is also a good example of the false and misleading narratives pushed by unethical former Solicitor General and leading “Trump Toady” Noel Francisco in defending the regime’s “crimes against humanity” and racist agenda targeting asylum seekers and other migrants.

In fact, as anybody actually familiar with the Immigration Court system knows, holding bond hearings for 3,000 seekers of protection would not be a major burden on the Immigraton Courts. It’s an example of critical, yet routine, duties that should be performed easily, efficiently, fairly, and frequently by any qualified U.S. Immigration Judge.

What has been a “burden on the system” and a fiscal, due process, and management disaster is the improper “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” engaged in by DOJ politicos and their “maliciously incompetent” toadies at EOIR. This mismanagement and total failure of competent judicial leadership and administration has pushed the backlog to over an astounding 1.1 million cases (with many others likely MIA or lost in space in the EOIR mess).

To accomplish this dysfunctional disaster, EOIR has doubled the number of Immigration Judges. This often involves hiring judicial candidates from prosecutorial backgrounds who lack the human rights and immigration expertise, and in some cases the backbone to comply with their oaths to uphold the Constitution, necessary to restore due process to the system, issue prompt bonds to those seeking protection, establish precedents for expeditious granting of asylum and other protection, and, most of all, hold an out of control DHS enforcement kakistocracy accountable.

Judge Garland👨🏻‍⚖️ take note! As of the date of your confirmation, your name will start appearing on the grossly deficient work product churned out by EOIR and the scofflaw nonsense being presented to the Supremes and other Federal Courts by the SG’s Office and other DOJ lawyers who have forgotten or abandoned their ethical obligations.

I can’t believe that any Federal Judge highly respected enough to be nominated to the Supreme Court by a real President would want his name and legacy tarnished by association with the White Nationalist due process disaster and misuse of public funds currently going on at EOIR.

The “EOIR Clown Show”🤡🦹🏿‍♂️ must go! And, while you’re at it, the SG’s Office and other litigating components who have “carried the water” for a regime out to bury truth and dismember our Constitution and our democratic institutions also are in dire need of a “thorough housecleaning!”🧹🪠

🇺🇸⚖️🗽👍🏼Due Process Forever! The “New American Gulag” ☠️⚰️🤮 Never!

PWS

01-11-21

4TH CIRCUIT PUNCHES ANOTHER HOLE IN TRUMP ADMINISTRATION’S “NEW AMERICAN GULAG” – Those Held For “Asylum Only” Hearings Entitled To Apply For Bond – Chavez v. Hott

CHAVEZ V. HOTT, 4TH, 186086.P

Chavez v. Hott, No. 18-6086, 4^th Cir., 10-10-19, published

PANEL: Floyd, Harris, & Richardson, Circuit Judges

OPINION BY: Judge Pamela Harris

DISSENTIONG OPINION: Judge Richardson

KEY QUOTE FROM THE MAJORITY:

PAMELA HARRIS, Circuit Judge:
The petitioners in this case are a class of noncitizens subject to reinstated removal

orders, which generally are not open to challenge. The petitioners may, however, pursue withholding of removal if they have a reasonable fear of persecution or torture in the countries designated in their removal orders. Availing themselves of that right, these petitioners sought withholding of removal, and they are being detained by the government while they await the outcome of their “withholding-only” proceedings. The question before us is whether they have the right to individualized bond hearings that could lead to their release during those proceedings.

Answering that question requires that we determine the statutory authority under which the government detains noncitizens who seek withholding of removal after a prior removal order has been reinstated. The petitioners argue that their detention is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1226, which authorizes detention “pending a decision on whether the alien is to be removed,” and would allow them to seek release on bond and to make their case before an immigration judge. The government, on the other hand, points to 8 U.S.C. § 1231, which applies “when an alien is ordered removed” – as the petitioners were, the government says, by virtue of their reinstated removal orders – and makes that detention mandatory during a 90-day “removal period.”

The district court granted summary judgment to the petitioners, holding that they are detained under § 1226 because a decision on removal remains “pending” until their withholding-only proceedings are complete. We agree with the district court’s careful

analysis of the relevant statutes and affirm its judgment.

KEY QUOTE FROM DISSENT:

RICHARDSON, Circuit Judge, dissenting:
This case presents a question of statutory interpretation. Are previously removed

aliens, who are subject to a reinstated order of removal from the United States, entitled to a bond hearing when they seek withholding of removal? The answer turns on which provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act governs their detention. Section 1231 applies “when an alien is ordered removed” and provides no right to a bond hearing. On the other hand, § 1226 applies to an alien awaiting “a decision on whether the alien is to be removed” and permits the alien’s release on bond after a hearing. The majority holds that § 1226 controls.

I respectfully dissent. Both the plain language and the structure of the Immigration and Nationality Act compel the conclusion that § 1231, not § 1226, governs the detention of aliens with reinstated orders of removal. Petitioners are thus not entitled to a bond hearing while they seek withholding of removal under their reinstated orders of removal.

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

Great decision! Congratulations to Paul Whitfield Hughes, III, Mayer Brown, LLP who argued the case for the Appellees. Also, congratulations to the Legal Aid and Justice Center and to Mark Stevens, Murray Osorio, LLC, who practiced before me in Arlington, for their role in litigating the case below.

I am particularly proud and gratified by the role played by my former Georgetown Law student, now a full-fledged member of “New Due Process Army,” Rachel Colleen McFarland, who is an attorney with the Legal Aid and Justice Center.

Nice to know that some Article III Appellate Judges are “getting it,” and standing up to the Trump Administration’s abuse.

Not surprisingly, those of us who have seen how the system often doesn’t work know that many of those under so-called “reinstated orders” were railroaded out the first time around without any “Due Process.”

PWS

10-17-19

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

🇺🇸⚖️🗽👍🏼Due Process Forever! The “New American Gulag” ☠️⚰️🤮 Never!

Related posts:

Related posts: