"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.
Michelle N. Mendez, ESQ Director of Legal Resources and Training National Immigration Project, National Lawyers Guild PHOTO: NIPNLG
Michelle N. Mendez of NIP/NLG reports:
Today, National Immigration Project alongside our partners at CAIR Coalition and the ACLU of Virginia sued Immigration & Customs Enforcement for refusing to release people detained in Virginia who already won their immigration cases. Read the press release below.
So, how is this type of legal and human abuse acceptable from a Dem Administration that promised good government and to do better than the Trumpsters?
Just to be clear, the chances of a third country volunteering to take a non-national granted CAT relief are very slim. I don’t remember it happening on any case on my docket during my time on the bench in Arlington. Also, were that to happen, the DHS would be obligated to give the respondent an opportunity to seek CAT to that third country, likely a lengthy process.
So, detention in this circumstance doesn’t make sense from a practical, legal, or fiscal standpoint!
“Petitioner Christian Alberto Santos Garcia, a native and citizen of El Salvador, has twice travelled unlawfully into the United States — first in 2012, and again in 2016. In both instances, Garcia fled threats to his life and attacks carried out against him by the 18th Street Gang and the Salvadoran police. After seeking protection from removal before an immigration judge (the “IJ”) in 2016, Garcia was afforded relief — in the form of asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (the “CAT”) — by three separate IJ rulings. On each occasion, the Board of Immigration Appeals (the “BIA”) reversed the IJ rulings. Garcia, for his part, was removed to El Salvador in May 2022, and has awaited further developments in these proceedings from his home country. In this appeal, Garcia challenges and seeks reversal of three rulings made by the BIA — those being: (1) that the “particular social group” relied upon in connection with Garcia’s application for withholding of removal is not legally cognizable; (2) that Garcia was not persecuted in El Salvador on account of his political opinions; and (3) that Garcia failed to establish eligibility for CAT protection. As explained herein, we grant Garcia’s petition for review and reverse the BIA rulings in part, affirm them in part, and vacate them in part. We otherwise remand to the BIA for such further proceedings as may be appropriate.”
“Petitioner Juan Pablo Paucar petitions for review of a January 22, 2021 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision (1) affirming an Immigration Judge’s denial of his application for cancellation of removal and (2) denying his motion to remand. The BIA rejected Paucar’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim, declined to remand for consideration of additional hardship relating to his cancellation application, and declined to remand to await adjudication of his U visa application. Paucar argues that the BIA (1) applied an incorrect standard when reviewing his ineffective assistance of counsel claim, (2) overlooked and mischaracterized his new hardship evidence, and (3) failed to follow precedent when denying his request for remand while awaiting the adjudication of his U visa application. We are persuaded by Paucar’s arguments. Accordingly, we GRANT Paucar’s petition for review, VACATE the BIA’s decision, and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
In Santos-Garcia v. Garland, the BIA’s 6-year quest to wrongfully deny protection to Santos has been thwarted, for now. But, the matter remains far from finally resolved, even though an IJ has now properly granted Santos relief three separate times, only to be wrongly reversed by the BIA on each occasion!
Rather than insuring that individual justice is done, the BIA has acted to promote injustice, create needless delay, and demoralize IJ’s who are getting it right! In the meantime, the respondent has been removed to the country where he has a well-founded fear of persecution to await his fate. This is because the 4th Circuit denied a stay they should routinely have granted in an exercise of truly horrendous judicial misjudgment.
Now, the court majority fecklessly pontificates about the need for timely resolution (you’ve got to be kidding) while hinting, but not requiring, that the “Gang That Can’t Shoot Straight” should return the respondent now. Don’t hold your breath!
Here are three of my favorite quotes from Judge King’s majority opinion in Santos Garcia v. Garland.
Put simply, the BIA declined to “interact seriously” with the record before it in reviewing Garcia’s claim for CAT protection, and its failure in that regard requires a remand.
Should we not expect a supposed “expert tribunal” like the BIA should be to “seriously interact” with the record in life-or-death cases?Why aren’t Dems in Congress and everywhere else “all over Garland like a cheap suit” to stop this kind of judicial misbehavior in his “wholly owned courts?”
In closing, we recognize that Garcia’s removal proceedings have languished before the IJ and the BIA — and now this Court — for more than six years, leaving him in limbo and presently in harm’s way in El Salvador. We are also mindful that Garcia was only 15 years old when he sought to protect his cousin from the 18th Street Gang’s advances, setting off more than a decade of hardship and uncertainty. With that, we emphasize the “strong public interest in bringing [this] litigation to a close . . . promptly.” See Hussain v. Gonzales, 477 F.3d 153, 158 (4th Cir. 2007). And although we do not direct the affirmative award of any relief, we acknowledge the compelling case for protection that Garcia has made. If, on remand, the BIA affirms either the IJ’s award of withholding of removal or the award of CAT relief, the DHS and the Attorney General should swiftly “facilitate [Garcia’s] return to the United States” from El Salvador. See Ramirez v. Sessions, 887 F.3d 693, 706 (4th Cir. 2018) (directing the government to facilitate previously removed petitioner’s return to the United States pursuant to an Immigration and Customs Enforcement Policy Directive). Moreover, if the BIA determines that Garcia’s “presence 24 is necessary for continued administrative removal proceedings” on remand, the authorities should see to his prompt return. Id.
So, after six years bouncing around the system and three separate grants of asylum by an Immigration Judge, the 4th Circuit essentially “begs” the BIA to get it right this time! This is after the court itself curiously denied the respondent’s application for stay notwithstanding the rather obvious risk of irreparable harm (e.g., death, torture) and the equally obvious substance of his timely filed appeal.
What a way to run a “justice system” (or, in this case, not)! Both the Executive and the Judiciary should be totally embarrassed by their gross mishandling of this case! But, I see resolve from neither Branch (nor the ever-absent Legislature) to put an end to this systemic mockery of due process, fundamental fairness, and simple common sense!
Here, discovering the BIA’s error in rejecting Garcia’s proposed social group of “young male family members of his cousin Emily” is no herculean task. Social groups based on family ties have been consistently approved by this Court as providing a sound basis for asylum or withholding of removal applications. See, e.g., Salgado-Sosa, 882 F.3d at 457; Hernandez-Avalos v. Lynch, 784 F.3d 944, 949 (4th Cir. 2015); Cedillos-Cedillos v. Barr, 962 F.3d 817, 824 (4th Cir. 2020). Indeed, our pivotal 2011 decision on the matter — Crespin-Valladares v. Holder — recognized in no uncertain terms that “the family provides a prototypical example of a particular social group.” See 632 F.3d at 125. In tossing out Garcia’s proposed social group in March 2021, however, the BIA largely disregarded our precedent, providing no citation to or discussion of Crespin-Valladares. The BIA instead relied chiefly on its own then-existing precedent, set forth in the Attorney General’s 2019 L-E-A- II decision. As described above, L-E-A- II — which was vacated by the Attorney General in June 2021 and thus “lacks legal force” — “conflicted with [this Court’s] well-established precedent” recognizing families as cognizable social groups. See Perez Vasquez v. Garland, 4 F.4th 213, 227 n.11 (4th Cir. 2021). Surprisingly, the BIA paid little mind to L-E-A- II’s vacatur in its Reconsideration Order of 2022, doubling down on its earlier “particular social group” ruling and again inexplicably declining to apply Crespin-Valladares and its progeny.7
Notably, the “rule of Crespin-Valledares” — my case where the BIA erroneously reversed me — continues to have an impact! A dozen years post-Crespin and the BIA is still getting it wrong! Why are these guys still on the appellate bench, setting negative precedents and ignoring favorable precedents? In a Dem Administration? Seriously!
Michelle N. Mendez, ESQ Director of Legal Resources and Training National Immigration Project, National Lawyers Guild PHOTO: NIPNLG
My friend Michelle Mendez, Director of Legal Resources and Training over at National Immigration Project offered some commentary on the Second Circuit’s decision in Paucar v. Garland.
Congratulations and thank you for your superb work, Lindsay! This case offers so much and seems like the CA2 delivered.
Here are a couple of excerpts from the decision that stood out to me:
“In a January 14, 2020 written decision, the BIA dismissed Paucar’s appeal and denied his motion to reopen and remand. Three months later—after Paucar filed a petition to review the BIA’s decision in this Court—the BIA sua sponte reinstated Paucar’s appeal and motion, noting that it had not “consider[ed] all of the evidence submitted by [Paucar].” Id. at 124.” [Do we know why the BIA sua sponte reinstated the appeal and motion?] LINDSAY NASH RESPONDS: “The BIA only sua sponte reopened the appeal and motion because Paige Austin (co-counsel extraordinaire, copied here) filed a PFR and identified the missing evidence early on, prompting OIL to agree to a remand.”
“Finally, the BIA concluded that remand to await the adjudication of Paucar’s U visa petition was unnecessary because Paucar could request a stay of removal from USCIS.” [Does anyone know what the BIA was referencing here? Later on the decision says DHS and not USCIS so perhaps it is a typo.] LINDSAY NASH RESPONDS: “I think that the reference to USCIS that you flag was a typo and that it should have said DHS.”
“We conclude that the BIA should have applied the Sanchez Sosa factors in considering Paucar’s motion to remand as it pertains to his U visa or explained its reasoning for not doing so. [This is the first time that the CA2 answers the question of whether Sanchez Sosa applies to motions to remand or reopen filed during the pendency of an appeal where the noncitizen did not previously request such a continuance before the IJ].”
There is a great discussion on the BIA improperly applying Coelho (which they love to throw around in correctly) to the prejudice assessment and a paragraph discussing how the CA2 and other courts of appeals view unpublished BIA decisions.
Again, really great work and outcome! Thanks for sharing with all of us, Dan!
For a case distinguishing Coelho and applying a “reasonable likelihood of success” standard to a MTR, see Matter of L-O-G-, 21 I&N Dec. 436 (BIA 1996), written by me! The BIA ignores it or misapplies it in many cases. But, it’s still “good law!” Just another instance in which the BIA evades “older” precedents that could produce favorable outcomes for respondents!
In this case the IJ denied the respondent’s applications and ordered removal in May 2018, five years ago. Nobody contests that the respondent was ineffectively represented at that time.
Through new pro bono counsel, respondent Paucar filed a timely appeal with the BIA. Less than two months following the IJ’s decision, new counsel filed a copiously documented motion to the BIA to remand for a new hearing because of the ineffective representation.
Rather than promptly granting that motion for a new hearing, the BIA set in motion five years of dilatory effort on their part to avoid providing a hearing. Obviously, several new merits hearings could have been completed during the time occupied by the BIA’s anti-immigrant antics!
Along the way, according to the Second Circuit, the BIA “improperly imposed a heightened standard,” “erred by discounting the impact of counsel’s ineffectiveness,” “improperly relied] on the IJ’s tainted findings,” “overlooked and mischaracterized the record evidence,” “erred by overlooking or mischaracterizing evidence,” “overlooked and mischaracterized material evidence,” and failed, without explanation, “to follow its own precedent.” What else could they have screwed up? The file number?
This would be highly unacceptable performance by ANY tribunal, let alone one entrusted with making life or death decisions about human lives and whose decisions in some instances have been unwisely insulated from effective judicial review by Congress. Individuals appearing before EOIR deserve better! American justice deserves better! How long will AG Garland continue to get away with failing to “clean house” at America’s most dysfunctional court system and bring order, due process, fundamental fairness, legal expertise, and judicial professionalism to this long-overlooked, yet absolutely essential, foundation of our entire U.S. justice system!
Wasting time and resources looking for bogus ways to deny that which better, more expert, fairer judges could easily grant his had a huge negative impact on the EOIR backlog and is a driver of legal dysfunction throughout the immigration bureaucracy, and indeed throughout our entire legal system, all the way up to and including the Supremes!
Start by fixing “that within your control!” That’s a simple message that Dems, unfortunately, don’t seem to get when it comes to immigration, human rights, and racial justice in America!
CAUTION: You are about to enter AG Merrick Garland’s “Twilight Zone” — where “judges” operating in a parallel universe make surreal decisions without regard to facts, law, or common sense applicable in this world! The Twilight Zone Billy Mumy 1961.jpg :PHOTO: Public Realm
Another timely report from Dan Kowalski @ LexisNexis:
“Perez-Vasquez is correct that the BIA erred by failing to address key evidence. See Cabrera v. Sessions, 890 F.3d 153, 162 (5th Cir. 2018). Specifically, the BIA did not consider several factors he raised in his motion to reopen as to whether exceptional circumstances prevented his appearance at his removal hearing, including evidence of: (1) Perez’s multiple attempts to contact both the Portland and El Paso immigration courts; (2) the fact that he filed two change of address forms because the El Paso immigration court sent the notice of hearing to the wrong address after he filed his first one; (3) the fact that his hearing was set in El Paso—where his son was detained—as opposed to Portland despite informing officials that he was going to reside in Oregon; (4) his financial constraints in travelling to El Paso with three-days notice. See Matter of S-L-H- & L-B-L-, 28 I. & N. Dec. 318, 321 & n.4 (BIA 2021); see also Magdaleno de Morales v. INS, 116 F.3d 145, 148 (5th Cir. 1997) (considering whether alien attempted to contact the immigration court prior to hearing). Additionally, the BIA failed to address evidence of Perez’s regular check-ins with immigration officials and his diligence in filing a motion to reopen, which tend to show an incentive to appear. See Matter of S-L-H- & L-B-L-, 28 I. & N. Dec. at 321. … Perez-Vasquez’s petition for review is GRANTED in part, DISMISSED in part, and DENIED in part. His case is REMANDED to the BIA for the limited purpose of considering—in light of the totality of the circumstances of his individual case—whether exceptional circumstances prevented his appearance at his removal hearing.”
[Hats off to NIPNLG Director of Legal Resources and Training Michelle N. Méndez!]
Michelle N. Mendez, ESQ Director of Legal Resources and Training National Immigration Project, National Lawyers Guild PHOTO: NIPNLG
**********************
The facts of this case are somewhere out there in the “twilight zone.” Would any other tribunal in America waste two decisions denying an individual a fair hearing in this situation?
But, sadly, it’s what we have come to expect from a failing organization that is more interested in denying the right to be heard than in conducting hearings! Of course, EOIR is building record backlogs with “Aimless Docket Reshuffling,” lousy leadership, bad, often anti-immigrant, jurisprudence, and infinite tolerance for substandard performance within its ranks! Enough!
Congratulation Michelle, my friend, to you and your all-star team over at NIPNLG. Perhaps the worst mistake that Garland has made as AG was not immediately “cleaning house” at EOIR and appointing folks like Michelle and others from the NDPA to fix the system: At long last, bring practical scholarship, creative thinking, “experience in the trenches,” and an unswerving commitment to due process into a dysfunctional organization and “take names and kick tail” of those judges and others who are still “with” the mindless, immoral, counterproductive, and wrong-headed “any reason to deny/courts as a soft deterrent” approach of the former Administration.
The EOIR system needs real, dynamic intellectual leaders and widely-respected, innovative, courageous “practical scholars” like Michelle! A few such folks exist in today’s EOIR. But, they are essentially buried in the “forest of intellectual and moral deadwood” that Garland has not yet cleared out!
We are well into the Biden/Harris Administration; but, bad and poorly qualified judges and weak or inept administrators from the Trump and Obama Administrations (or even Bush II) are still wreaking havoc on American justice and threatening our democracy.
By contrast, if not invited to fix the broken EOIR system “from the inside” Michelle and the other members of the NDPA are going to force change from the outside! You can count on it! They will keep at it until this dysfunctional, unfair, and mal-administered system either reforms or collapses under the weight of its own incompetence, cruelty, inefficiency, and just plain stupidity!
Consistently getting these cases right (an MTR, for Pete’s sake) isn’t “rocket science.” A competent IJ would have taken about 5 minutes or less to mark this “granted” and change venue to Portland. A competent appellate tribunal would have reversed and rocketed it back to the IJ with instructions to “cut the BS.”
But, it continues to be elusive for Garland’s “gang that can’t shoot straight!” This system “coddles” poorly performing judges at both levels!
Meanwhile, they “throw the book” at desperate individuals trying their best to navigate EOIR’s broken, irrational, and intentionally “user unfriendly” parody of a “court system.” It is truly the “Twilight Zone of American Justice!”
Think of it: Four years, three tribunals, at least five Federal Judges, and a bevy of lawyers and clerks have spent time on this case. And, EOIR is no nearer to getting to the merits than the day the NTA was issued! This system needs “practical problem solvers” like Michelle, NOT “stuck in the mud” bureaucrats masquerading as judges, professional judicial leaders, and role models.
Tell Garland it’s time for a better, smarter approach to justice at EOIR! The real talent is out here! What’s he waiting for?
Michelle N. Mendez, ESQ Director of Legal Resources and Training National Immigration Project, National Lawyers Guild PHOTO: NIPNLG
Michelle writes:
Sent: Wednesday, July 6, 2022 7:38 PM
While the facts were definitely bad in this case, I do think the decision provides a helpful framework for a fairly common issue–impeachment leading to adverse credibility– whereas before we did not have a framework and relied on the Federal Rules of Evidence. Through this decision, we now know and can argue that impeachment evidence may contribute to a credibility determination only where the evidence is probative and its admission is not fundamentally unfair, and the witness is given an opportunity to respond to that evidence during the proceedings. It is up to us to enforce these limitations. Furthermore, note a few helpful footnotes. Footnote 3 notes that proceedings were continued after DHS submitted impeachment evidence and both parties were given the opportunity to provide evidence and argument. This is what should happen. Footnote 4 refers to DHS correctly using the evidence as impeachment evidence as opposed to submitting late-filed evidence under the guise of impeachment, which is what usually happens and we must object to. Footnote 5 reminds us tochallenge the IJ’s determination that the border official’s notes are accurate and reliable pursuant to Matter of J-C-H-F-, 27 I&N Dec. 211, 216 (BIA 2018), which is a case we cover during our trial skills trainings. All in all, a bad outcome for this respondent, but a helpful case to the rest of us who want to avoid a similar outcome.
Michelle
N. Méndez | she/her/ella/elle
Director of Legal Resources and Training
National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild
Thanks Michelle, my friend!Please note that Michelle is now Director of Legal Resources & Training at NIPNLG and has provided her new contact information above.
NDPA advocates should also check out these other recent practice advisories from Michelle and her terrific team that transitioned from CLINIC to NIPNLG, two of which were in partnership with ILRC:
Practice Advisory: Understanding and Overcoming Bars to Relief Triggered by a Prior Removal Order (June 29, 2022):
I always offered the respondent a continuance to examine the impeachment evidence. However, few took my offer. I think that was because:
For those in detention, it meant further extending the period of detention;
For those on the always backlogged non-detained docket, continuances often meant months before the hearing could resume.
Instead, most counsel just took my offer of a short recess to examine the evidence and discuss it with the respondent.
As Michelle points out, it will be up to counsel to insure that these rules are enforced. In the “rush to deny for any reason” — still a major “cultural” problem at EOIR that Garland has failed to systemically address — precedents and aspects of precedents favorable to the respondent are too often ignored, glossed over, or distinguished on bogus grounds. It’s up to the NDPA to “hold EOIR Judges’ and ICE ACCs’ feet to the fire” on these points!
Garland had a chance to bring in folks like Michelle and other NDPA superstars to “clean up” EOIR and restore first class scholarship, due process, and fundamental fairness as the mission, but failed to do so. The results of his failure are pretty ugly, especially for those individuals seeking justice in a dysfunctional system where fair, legally correct results are a “crap shoot” 🎲 — at best! It doesn’t have to be that way!
Associate Provost/Co-Director of the Immigration Clinic/Professor of the Practice Laila L. Hlass Tulane Law
Laila, my friend, everywhere I look you’re making news! Here’s Dan Kowalski @ LexisNexis on Layla’s well-deserved Lisa Brodyaga Award from the National Immigration Project:
Laila was a “guest lecturer” in my Refugee Law and Policy class during her time as a Fellow at the CALS Asylum Clinic at Georgetown Law. Since then, I have “returned the favor” by traveling to Tulane Law, both virtually and in person, to speak to Laila’s class and other immigration events. Laila has been recognized for “putting Tulane Law on the map” for innovative practical scholarship in immigration and international human rights and excellence in clinical teaching. No wonder she carries a “string of titles” at Tulane Law!
Laila is also one of many exciting examples of how clinical immigration and human rights professors have not only moved into the “academic mainstream” at major American law schools, but have been recognized as leaders and innovators by the larger academic communities in which they serve. Immigration law teaching has come a long way since the late INS General Counsel Charlie Gordon’s Immigration Law Class at Georgetown was the “only game in town.” (Historical trivia note: My good friend the late BIA Judge Lauri Filppu and I “aced” Charlie’s class in 1974, thus “besting” our then-supervisor at the BIA. That could have been a “career limiting” move. But, we both ended up on the “Schmidt Board” in the 1990s.)
Many congrats, Laila, on an already amazing career with even more achievements and recognition in your future. Thanks for being such a brilliant, inspiring, and dynamic role model for the New Due Process Army!
“Join the ABA Commission on Immigration for a 3-part series on the Mechanics of Immigration Court. This series covers the nuts and bolts of how to practice in immigration court. Part I takes an in depth look at the Master Calendar Hearing and Filing Applications for Relief with Immigration Court. Topics to be covered include reviewing the Notice to Appear, getting your client’s court file, how to prepare for the initial Master Calendar Hearing and what to expect, best practices for appearing via WebEx and Open Voice, and a brief overview of common forms of relief and prosecutorial discretion. This webinar is designed for pro bono attorneys and immigration practitioners who are new to immigration law, or for anyone who wants to brush up on their practical skills.”
****************
PLAYING IN HOME, OFFICE, AND CLASSROOM THEATERS NOW!
RATED G — Suitable & Highly Recommended for All Audiences
Win cases, save lives, achieve racial justice, fulfill the wrongfully withheld promises of the U.S. Constitution, force change into a deadly and dysfunctional system that has been weaponized to “Dred Scottify” the other and degrade humanity!
Make an “above the fray” AG finally pay attention to and address the disgraceful, due-process-denying, wasteful mess in “his wholly-owned parody of a court system.” This is what being a lawyer in 21st Century America is all about!
The video is 1 hour and 15 minutes!
“If you can win a case in this system, everything else in law, indeed in life, will be a walk in the park!” — Paul Wickham Schmidt, ImmigrationCourtside
ICE Releases 8 of 14 Petitioners 24 Hours After RMIAN & Advocates File Lawsuit To Order Release of Medically-Vulnerable People in ICE Custody
In just 24 hours, ICE released 8 of the 14 petitioners in the lawsuit. All 8 are women living with HIV.
April 15, 2020
Denver — After the lawsuit filed by Arnold & Porter, the National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild (NIPNLG), and the Rocky Mountain Immigrant Advocacy Network (RMIAN) for the release of 14 medically-vulnerable people in civil immigration detention at the Aurora ICE Processing Center in Colorado yesterday, ICE officials released 8 of the 14 petitioners within 24 hours.
The 8 people released from immigration detention are all people living with HIV. “RMIAN is elated to see the release of these eight resilient women” says Laura Lunn of the Rocky Mountain Immigrant Advocacy Network. “Yesterday, our clients were trapped in a cage that stripped them of any autonomy over their personal safety and wellbeing. Today, these women are finally able to protect themselves. It is astonishing the difference a day – and a federal lawsuit – makes.”
RMIAN Social Service Project, along with many community organizations, including the American Friends Service Committee, Casa de Paz, the Santa Fe Dreamers Project, and Las Americas, are receiving the women upon release and providing food, housing, and travel assistance. Jordan Garcia, Colorado Program Director of the American Friends Service Committee states, “COVID-19 unmasks how caging people threatens public health. As a society, we cannot treat anyone as expendable. Today we are relieved and heartened that these women were released into the hand of caring community, who can make sure that their needs are taken care of. We hope that more members of our community can be released in the coming days and weeks.”
“This is a great result for many of our clients, but our work is not done” said Tim Macdonald, pro bono counsel at Arnold & Porter. Co-counsel in the case will continue to fight for release of the 6 petitioners who remain detained, all of whom have medical vulnerabilities that make them especially susceptible to serious illness or death should they contract COVID-19. Adrienne Boyd, also of Arnold & Porter, urged, “There is no reason for ICE to continue to detain our remaining clients. Their lives are on the line and they should be released as soon as possible.”
The lawsuit fits into a broader movement of litigation around the country asking federal judges to order release of vulnerable people detained in ICE custody in response to ICE inaction in the midst of the COVID pandemic. Sirine Shebaya, of the National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild, explains, “We are thrilled that our 8 clients have been released after the filing of this lawsuit. But it should not have taken emergency litigation to achieve this outcome. Their quick release shows that ICE is fully capable of releasing people, and is aware of the special vulnerabilities affecting many of those it is currently detaining, but is not taking the actions it should unless compelled to do so. That is the same pattern we are seeing across the country—a refusal to acknowledge the extreme emergency and the immediate need to release persons who are detained so they can safely self-isolate during this difficult time.”
Co-counsel’s emergency filing urges the court to take up the case on an expedited basis, in light of the grave harm that could befall the people detained at any moment.
The lawsuit cites the severe risk the COVID-19 pandemic poses to the health and safety of the petitioners, who all have serious medical vulnerabilities. The ICE detention facility in Aurora, Colorado has failed to put in place CDC-recommended preventive measures, and is unable to provide adequate medical care in the event of an outbreak at the facility.
Detained people do not have personal protective equipment or cleaning supplies other than a generic bath bar and spray solution. Five staff members who work in the facility have tested positive for the virus, and several dorm units in the facility were placed under quarantine. Given the presence of the virus among the facility staff, attorneys say it is reasonable to suspect that detained individuals have already been exposed and that serious illness or death is inevitable for many immigrants and asylum seekers confined in the facility.
The clients included in this group all experience serious health issues, including respiratory illness, diabetes, high blood pressure, heart conditions, cancer, asthma, and otherwise severely compromised immune systems. One petitioner has a history of cancer, is living with only one lung, and has chronic asthma, yet she is unable to control her contact with the outside world given that she is currently detained. Attorneys say coronavirus quarantines have exacerbated the already dire conditions in the ICE facility.
Co-counsel in the case are Timothy Macdonald, Adrienne Boyd, Katie Custer, and Sarah Grey of Arnold & Porter, Sirine Shebaya, Khaled Alrabe, and Amber Qureshi of the National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild, and Laura Lunn of the Rocky Mountain Immigrant Advocacy Network.
——
The case is Codner v. Choate and was filed in federal district court in Denver on April 14, 2020.
Please share this important update with your social networks.
With nearly 1,000 lawyers practicing in 14 offices around the globe, Arnold & Porter serves clients across 40 distinct practice areas. The firm offers 100 years of renowned regulatory expertise, sophisticated litigation and transactional practices, and leading multidisciplinary offerings in the life sciences and financial services industries.
As the current system flounders, wastes resources, and threatens lives, let’s imagine what a better system would look like.
Article I Independent Immigration Court
Appellate Division issues nationwide precedent requiring release of most vulnerable detainees who are not dangerous and can be safely placed in communities consistent with best health guidance;
Immigration Courts use Televideo technology and e-filingto safely hold bond hearings and insure DHS compliance with criteria in individual cases on expedited basis;
Contempt authority available to insure that DHS officials and attorneys comply with legal requirements for release in good faith;
Article III review available for the limited number of individual cases that can’t be resolved by Article I Immigration Court.
John A. Freedman Senior Counsel Arnold & PorterHon. Ilyce Shugall U.S. Immigraton Judge (Retired) Director, Immigrant Legal Defense Program, Justice & Diversity Center of the Bar Assn. of San Francisco.Hon. Jeffrey S. Chase Jeffrey S. Chase Blog Coordinator & Chief Spokesperson, Round Table of Retired Immigration JudgesKnightess of the Round Table
Key Excerpt:
We are in the midst of a nationwide pandemic. From the approach of the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) headquarters, one would never know that. Through a series of chaotic and inconsistent announcements, EOIR —the office that manages the procedural components of the immigration court system on behalf of the United States Department of Justice2—has continued to schedule non-essential proceedings, requiring judges, court staff and security personnel, litigants and case participants, attorneys, witnesses, interpreters, and interested members of the public to come immigration court, exposing them, their families, and their communities to unnecessary risk of COVID-19.
1 In accordance with Local Rule 7(o), no party’s counsel authored this brief in whole or in part, nor did any party or party’s counsel, or any other person other than amici curiae, contribute money that was intended to fund preparing or submitting this brief.
2 See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.0(b) (setting forth the authority of the Director of EOIR).
1
Case 1:20-cv-00852-CJN Document 11-1 Filed 04/09/20 Page 5 of 22
The madness of EOIR s approach is evident in one example, representative of its
approach. Yesterday – April 8 — the immigration court in Elizabeth, New Jersey was open for business as usual. This court is across the Hudson River from New York City, and is near the epicenter of the largest COVID-19 hotspot on the planet, and is in a jurisdiction that has had a mandatory shelter-in-place” order since March 21. Yet EOIR insisted that proceedings continue
yesterday. Until it was learned that two detainees in the courthouse were positive for COVID- 19. Only then did EOIR accede to the obvious, scrambling to order the court to shut the Elizabeth court down. But immigration courts were open in many other jurisdictions yesterday, and are scheduled to be open today and for the foreseeable future.
EOIR’s intransigence defies the practice of numerous federal and state courts, the
recommendations of public health officials, and the orders of dozens of Governors who have ordered all non-essential business be deferred. As Judge Samuel Cole, a spokesperson for the National Association of Immigration Judges warned, everyone is being put at risk.” Close immigration courts? Lawyers and judges push to stop in-person hearings amid coronavirus spread, Fortune (Mar. 26, 2020) (describing how attorneys are wearing swim googles and masks to comply with EOIR orders).
The current EOIR approach manifests this disarray because there was not, and has never been, any meaningful continuity planning by EOIR. EOIR, and therefore the immigration court system itself, has sacrificed due process in favor of rapid removals, leaving the court without any incentive at all to plan to protect the public health or the individuals and participants in the system.
Amici urge the issuance of a temporary restraining order to allow for development of a more comprehensive, systemic, and scientifically sound policy that respects due process and the
2
Case 1:20-cv-00852-CJN Document 11-1 Filed 04/09/20 Page 6 of 22
public health. We offer a framework for what a legally and scientifically sound policy could look like and why a court-ordered pause on all non-essential activities for a short 28-day period could allow for such a policy to emerge in deliberations with stakeholder communities.
Read the entire brief, which contains our proposed solution for how the Immigration Courts could conduct essential operations consistent with health, safety, and due process during this pandemic: Amicus brief_NIPNLG
*********************************
Again, many, many thanks to John Freedman and his group at Arnold & Porter as well as Ilyce & Jeffrey for their leadership.
