"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.
Lindsay Toczylowski Executive Director, Immigrant Defenders “ I always tell the new immigration attorneys at Immigrant Defenders Law Center to never forget just how stacked against our clients the odds are in immigration court.“
Toczylowski is executive director of Immigrant Defenders Law Center, a nonprofit legal organization working along the U.S.-Mexico border and throughout Southern California, and lives in Los Angeles.
The lifting of Title 42 — the policy that shut down the U.S. asylum system for three years — should have been an inflection point leading to a more humane and orderly system for processing asylum seekers. Instead, the Biden administration doubled down on the politics of exclusion, introducing new restrictive measures, including an asylum ban, that keep asylum out of reach for those who need protection the most.
. . . .
When asylum seekers are finally able to ask for protection, they are often met not with compassion but with cruelty. Just days ago in San Ysidro, I saw mothers with children sleeping on dirt while in Customs and Border Protection custody, sharing one port-a-potty for more than 500 people. Good Samaritans handed out supplies because CBP did not provide sufficient food, water or medicine.
. . . .
President Biden has perpetuated these failed deterrence policies despite his campaign promises to restore humanity at our border. The administration has turned its back on asylum seekers. These are real people. They deserve our protection. They deserve to be safe.
. . . .
*******************
Read Lindsay’s complete op-ed at the link.
These cruel, unnecessary, cowardly, and illegal policies are a disgrace to America and an embarrassment to the Democratic Party!
You don’t have to be either an immigration expert or very smart to recognize that desperate individuals trying to turn themselves in to CBP agents at or near the border, to exercise their legal rights to seek protection, are NOT going to be a meaningful source of fentanyl smuggling. That trade is controlled by cartels who basically smuggle product through ports of entry in large quantities disguised as or mingled with legitimate commercial commerce.
Indeed, the preoccupation of CBP with improperly “deterring,” “discouraging,” and “punishing” legal asylum seekers not only empowers cartels, but significantly detracts from actual law enforcement against drug smugglers. And, the millions of dollars being misappropriated and wasted by Junkman and others on bogus National Guard deployments could much better and more appropriately be spent on humanitarian aid, coordinated, orderly resettlement programs for asylum seekers and asylees, and securing them legal representation to aid in the fair and timely processing of asylum claims.
However, the repetition of bogus and deliberately fabricated narratives like the “Junkman’s” latest wasteful stunt creates a “guilt by repetition” syndrome that feeds and enables the racist agenda of today’s GOP as well as the spineless “rollover” response of the Biden Administration, and, sadly, some other so-called Democrats.
Emily Garcia Litigation Reporter Bloomberg Law PHOTO: talkingbiznews.comThis phase of the Inquisition is over. But, torture is still widely practiced worldwide. US Officialdom has shown little enthusiasm for carrying out its mandatory protection responsibilities under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). PHOTO: Public Realm
The Supreme Court recently removed one procedural hurdle for noncitizens seeking humanitarian relief but the high court’s ruling clears up no substantial issues about a law they’ll make their claims under, immigration attorneys say—allowing some relief seekers to be sent back to torturous conditions.
Estrella Santos-Zacaria, a Guatemalan transgender woman, asked for federal review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’s decision denying her protection under the Convention Against Torture. In a unanimous decision, the justices said federal judges can weigh in on BIA’s decisions before discretionary administrative remedies are exhausted. In Santos-Zacaria’s case, her petition may be sent back to BIA for further review but that doesn’t guarantee relief.
While lawyers are hopeful that earlier review by a federal court will facilitate a smoother process for their clients, they express concerns that immigration judges and the BIA too readily dismiss the risk of torture, and say it shouldn’t be so difficult to get humanitarian relief.
CAT protections, including deferral and withholding of removal, allow noncitizens who aren’t eligible for asylum to remain in the US. To receive protection, a noncitizen must show an immigration judge that if they are deported, it’s more likely than not that they will be tortured with government acquiescence or participation. Unlike asylum, protections under the Convention are mandatory and serious criminal convictions can’t disqualify a noncitizen. But protections are especially difficult to win, said Eleni Bakst, a lawyer at the Capital Area Immigrants’ Rights Coalition.
. . . .
Paul Schmidt, a former immigration judge and chairman of the BIA between and 2001, said the process for evaluating claims under the Convention isn’t scientific. There’s no formula to plug in that will tell the odds of someone being tortured. “It’s sort of in the mind of the beholder,” Schmidt said.
. . . .
As an immigration judge, Schmidt said he and other immigration judges relied heavily on country conditions reports published by the US Department of State. Asked if he believed the reports were an adequate representation of a country, Schmidt said “certainly not.”
Bakst said statistics provided by other countries can also be inaccurate. In El Salvador, the government doesn’t allow monitoring bodies into its prisons so data on inmate torture is incomplete.
Pushing back against questionable reports and statistics, immigration advocates are aware that immigration judges and the BIA may dismiss their client’s risk of torture, and their client may be tortured anyway.
Such was the case for Patrick Julney, a client of CAIR Coalition who was denied deferral under the Convention for failure to show that the likelihood of torture was more than 50% and deported to Haiti. Bakst said that “immediately upon his arrival in Haiti, he was imprisoned and tortured.” Julney was denied access to food, water, and medicine.
Estelle McKee, a clinical immigration law professor at Cornell Law School, represented a schizophrenic man from El Salvador who was denied CAT relief. After his deportation, McKee hired a Salvadorean attorney to track down her client.
She said the attorney couldn’t even enter her client’s village because it was gang-controlled.
“I don’t have much hope that he survived,” McKee said.
McKee and other immigration attorneys agree that the Supreme Court’s decision will speed up the humanitarian claims process, though results may vary. Julney’s case was reviewed by the Third Circuit, but his outcome was unchanged.
. . . .
************************
Reads Emily’s full, well-written article at the above link.
A Government colleague once remarked to me that “the U.S. should never have signed the CAT.” Obviously, that private view has permeated and driven USG policy on implementing the CAT, particularly at the DOJ where it was immediately treated as “PNG” because of its lack of exclusionary clauses. Even “bad guys” aren’t supposed to be returned to torture (in terms of legal theory, if not reality).
There is no objective evidence that torture is on the decline worldwide. See, e.g., https://www.amnesty.org/en/what-we-do/torture/. Yet the mandatory protection required by the CAT remains elusive and quite arbitrary within the U.S. legal system.
One of the best examples of how Government officials who should be insuring that the legal protections under CAT are fairly and reasonably applied to achieve the Convention’s purposes are instead promoting an “any reason to deny” culture is former AG John Ashcroft’s precedent decision in Matter of J-F-F-, 23 I&N Dec. 912 (A.G. 2006). There, Ashcroft reversed a CAT grant by the IJ and the BIA to an unrepresented respondent. In the process, Ashcroft established the “enhanced test” that to gain CAT protection, the respondent must “establish that each step in the hypothetical chain of events is more likely than not to happen.”
In other words, this is an official invitation, some might say directive, to IJs to “lengthen the chain of causation until it breaks” (which it inevitably will, in most cases) and protection can be denied.
Moreover, many CAT claims, like this one, involve unrepresented respondents. The chances of an unrepresented respondent understanding the “chain of causation” or what it means to prove “each step is more likely than not to occur” are very slim.
Additionally, even if they did understand, since many of the unrepresented respondents are in detention, they would have little or no realistic chance of obtaining the type of detailed, timely expert testimony and comprehensive documentation, far beyond the DOS Country Reports (which, by the way are only available in English), necessary to overcome Ashcroft’s “de facto presumption of denial” and prove that every step of the “hypothetical chain” is “more likely than not” to happen.
Effectively, every problem mentioned by Emily and expert practitioners in this article is essentially (intentionally) magnified by J-F-F- and other anti-CAT administrative precedents.
CAT relief is mandatory, thus suggesting a high obligation on the part of IJs and other Government officials to insure non-return to torture. Yet, Ashcroft chastises the IJ involved in J-F-F- for essentially insuring that the respondent exercised his legal right to apply for CAT and helping him develop the record. Ashcroft even took the extraordinary step of disqualifying this IJ from any “hypothetical” future proceedings involving this respondent.
At the beginning of the BIA’s quest to interpret CAT (ironically at the same time Bush Administration lawyers at DOJ were secretly searching for legal pretexts to justify torture), I dissented from an unduly restrictive BIA precedent Matter of J-E-, 23 I&N Dec. 291, 304 (BIA 2002), Paul Wickham Schmidt, Board Member, dissenting, joined by Board Members John W. Guendelsberger, Noel Ann Brennan, Cecelia M. Espenoza, and Juan P. Osuna.
There, I stated:
The majority concludes that the extreme mistreatment likely to befall this respondent in Haiti is not “torture,” but merely “cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.” The majority further concludes that conduct defined as “torture” occurs in the Haitian detention system, but is not “likely” for this respondent. In short, the majority goes to great lengths to avoid applying the Convention Against Torture to this respondent.
We are in the early stages of the very difficult and thankless task of construing the Convention. Only time will tell whether the majority’s narrow reading of the torture definition and its highly technical approach to the standard of proof will be the long-term benchmarks for our country’s implementation of this international treaty.
Although I am certainly bound to follow and apply the majority’s constructions in all future cases, I do not believe that the majority adequately carries out the language or the purposes of the Convention and the implementing regulations. Therefore, I fear that we are failing to comply with our international obligations.
I conclude that the respondent is more likely than not to face officially sanctioned torture if returned to Haiti. Therefore, I would grant his application for deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture and the implementing regulations. Consequently, I respectfully dissent.
More than two decades after J-E-, my fears and predictions of officially-sanctioned non-compliance with CAT unfortunately continue to be proved correct.
I also note with pride that our Round Table of Former Immigration Judges ⚔️🛡 filed an amicus brief before the Supremes in Santos-Zacaria supporting the interpretation that eventually prevailed.
PROSECUTORIAL HISTORY: In 897, at the “Cadaver Synod,” Pope Stephen VI appointed himself to prosecute the corpse of his dead predecessor, Pope Formosus. (Spoiler alert: He got a conviction.) In 2023, DHS has decreed that prosecuting cases in person before EOIR is no longer worth their valuable time. PAINTING: Jean-Paul Laurens (1870) —Public Realm
Provided by a veteran immigration practitioner:
DHS No Appear 1DHS No Appear 2
*************************
Notably, the four categories of “mandatory appearance” described by the Deputy Chief Counsel apply to only an infinitesimally small percentage of the roughly 2 million cases currently pending before the Immigration Courts.
Compare this with the treatment of the private bar who experience:
* Aimless reshuffling and rescheduling of their already-prepared cases, often without notice or with inadequate notice of the new hearing date;
* Arbitrary and capricious denials by some Immigration Judges of reasonable motions to continue;
* Possible disciplinary referrals for failure to appear at a scheduled hearing when listed as counsel of record.
Would the DOJ submit a similar missive to U.S. District Court Judges unilaterally announcing that they would only “selectively appear” in criminal and civil cases where the U.S. Government is a party? I doubt it!
So, what’s an Immigration Judge who does not want to perform DHS’s job for them to do? Contempt of court, you say? After all, the IJ’s authority to hold any party or counsel in Immigration Court proceeding in contempt is right there in plain language in the INA. See, INA section 240(b)(1).
Ah, but there is a catch! A big one! Although the contempt provision was added by Congress more than a quarter of century ago, AGs of both parties have steadfastly refused to promulgate the necessary implementing regulations.
Evidently, the theory is that while IJs might be qualified to issue potential death sentences to migrants in Immigration Court, they can’t be trusted to fairly and reasonably use their contempt authority on lawyers who, after all, are mostly U.S. citizens and whose livelihood might be adversely affected. Essentially, the life of a migrant is worth less than a monetary fine for contempt to a U.S. lawyer.
Additionally, there apparently was a special concern about giving IJ’s authority to regulate the conduct of their “fellow Government attorneys” at INS, and later DHS. After all, that would be interfering with another Government agency’s “sacrosanct” authority to regulate and discipline (or not) its own employees.
In many ways, under Garland, the Immigration Courts are losing what limited public respect the might still have possessed and accelerating the move backwards to an “inquisitorial model” to replace the “adversary model” for decison-making. Ironically, this reverses over a half century of efforts by Congress, reformers, and sometimes the Executive itself to make Immigration Courts function as part of the adversary system — in other words, like “real” courts of law.
As one informed expert commenter stated upon learning of this latest development:
As we have all been saying, (1) EOIR doesn’t view itself as part of an ecosystem which also includes ICE, the private bar, non-profits, law school clinics, interpreters, USCIS, etc.; and (2) EOIR is run at it’s upper level by mindless, gutless people suffering from a complete lack of imagination existing in a bubble.
As a practical matter, I assume ICE is strategically choosing not to appear in hearings before IJs who deny everything? If not, it could actually work in your favor. In truth, the UNHCR model doesn’t envision asylum being heard in adversarial hearings; as Paul has articulately stated, it sees asylum as a collaborative effort between adjudicator and asylum seeker.
For a “practical application” of the “collaborative effort” model promoted by the UNHCR, see Matter of S-M-J-, 21 I&N Dec. 722 (BIAS 1997).
Donald M. Kerwin, Senior Research Associate, University of Notre Dame
In forwarding this article, Don says: “The report makes the case that the backlog has nothing to do with the immigration courts and everything to do with systemic, unresolved problems in the broader US immigration system.”
The US immigration court system seeks to “fairly, expeditiously, and uniformly administer and interpret US immigration laws” (DOJ 2022a). It represents the first exposure of many immigrants to due process and the rule of law in the United States, and occupies an integral role in the larger US immigration system. Yet it labors under a massive backlog of pending cases that undermines its core goals and objectives. The backlog reached 1.87 million cases in the first quarter of FY 2023 (Straut-Eppsteiner 2023, 6). This paper attributes the backlog to systemic failures in the broader immigration system that negatively affect the immigration courts, such as:
•
Visa backlogs, United States Citizen and Immigration Services (USCIS) application processing delays, and other bottlenecks in legal immigration processes.
•
The immense disparity in funding between the court system and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) agencies that feed cases into the courts.
•
The failure of Congress to pass broad immigration reform legislation that could ease pressure on the enforcement and court systems.
•
The lack of standard judicial authorities vested in Immigration Judges (IJs), limiting their ability to close cases; pressure parties to “settle” cases; and manage their dockets.
•
The absence of a statute of limitations for civil immigration offenses.
•
Past DHS failures to establish and adhere to enforcement priorities and to exercise prosecutorial discretion (PD) throughout the removal adjudication process, including in initial decisions to prosecute.
•
The location of the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), which oversees US immigration courts, within the nation’s preeminent law enforcement agency, the Department of Justice (DOJ).
•
The misconception of many policymakers that the court system should primarily serve as an adjunct to DHS.
•
A past record of temporary judge reassignments and government shutdowns.
The paper supports a well-resourced and independent immigration court system devoted to producing the right decisions under the law. Following a short introduction, a long section on “Causes and Solutions to the Backlog” examines the multi-faceted causes of the backlog, and offers an integrated, wide-ranging set of recommendations to reverse and ultimately eliminate the backlog. The “Conclusion” summarizes the paper’s topline findings and policy proposals.
*********************************
This is a “treasure trove” of information about systemic failure of our Immigration Courts, for which I am deeply grateful to Don & Evin.
So, is EOIR a symptom or a cause of immigration dysfunction, or a mixture of both?
I’m inclined to believe that notwithstanding the evidence described in the article that EOIR is largely a “victim” of deeper problems in our immigration system, there is a strong case to be made that more principled Attorneys General, more courageous and talented EOIR personnel, and a Democratic Party with democratic values and a spine could have thrust EOIR into a due process and legal expertise leadership role, thereby making the current immigration system operate more fairly, efficiently, and in the public interest.
It’s a shame that we’ll never know the truth. That just leaves commentators and scholars to analyze the carnage and to speculate on “what might have been” or “what could be” in a different political atmosphere.
This is perhaps interesting, even significant, from an historical standpoint. But, the practical effect remains to be seen.
If I could have just one immigration “reform, it would be an Article I EOIR! Without due process, all other reforms and improvements are doomed to failure!
“Dagoberto Luna petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ dismissal of his appeal of an immigration judge’s denial of his motion to rescind an in absentia removal order. Luna contends he received a defective Notice to Appear that renders the in absentia removal order invalid. We agree. We GRANT Luna’s petition, VACATE, and REMAND for further proceedings.”
[Hats off yet again to superlitigator Raed Gonzalez!]
When will they learn, when will they ever learn? The ultra-conservative 5th Circuit pays attention when Raed litigates in behalf of individuals seeking due process and fundamental fairness at EOIR. Why doesn’t Garland?
A bipartisan duo of Hispanic women Tuesday introduced the most robust immigration proposal to date this Congress, a significant collaborationas a new generation of lawmakers pushes for meaningful reform of the nation’s immigration systemafter decades of failed attempts.
For six months, Reps. Maria Elvira Salazar (R-Fla.) and Veronica Escobar (D-Tex.) have been quietly negotiating on key issues where Republican and Democrats have previously sought changes, while leaning on their lived experiences as lawmakers representing border districts with majority Hispanic constituencies.
The result is a roughly 500-page bill called the Dignity Act that, among other things, would provide billions of dollars for border security measures, create pathways to citizenship for some undocumented migrants already in the United States, update the legal immigration process, and establish “humanitarian campuses” on the U.S. border that would process asylum claims in 60 days.. . . . .
Salazar and Escobar were joined at a news conference Tuesday by four original co-sponsors who are all women: Reps. Hillary J. Scholten (D-Mich.), Kathy E. Manning (D-N.C.), Lori Chavez-DeRemer (R-Ore.) and Del. Jenniffer González-Colón (R-Puerto Rico.). Rep. Michael Lawler (N.Y.), a vulnerable Republican representing a Democratic-leaning district, signed onto the measure late Monday and also attended. Rep. Adriano Espaillat (D-N.Y.) also signed on Tuesday.
. . . .
The bill’s introduction comes after House Republicans passed a border security bill this month along party lines; House Republican leaders have said since last year that consideration of a large-scale immigrationoverhaul would not happen until a border security plan had passed the chamber.
Asked whether broad immigration legislation could be considered this year, Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.) appeared to suggest last week that it would not happen until a border security plan is signed into law.
“We’ve got to first start with border security,” he said, before adding that it would mean getting such a bill to the president’s desk. “If we get that done, then you can start talking about the interior problems that exist.”
. . . .
“Nothing is off the table,” Salazar said when asked about the prospects of a discharge petition, a procedural effort that would allow them to bypass the regular pathway for a bill to reach the floor.
Escobar then responded, “All it takes to make this happen is 218 people in the House of Representatives saying that they’re ready for a real solution.”
****************************
Read the complete article at the above link.
The myth that “border security” is unrelated to taking a more practical, humane, and realistic approach to migration generally shows how determined GOP leadership is NOT to address immigration problems in a fair and constructive manner and to “tune out” those interested in a potential bipartisan solution.
For those who don’t already know her, Rep. Hillary Scholten is, to my knowledge, the only EOIR attorney ever elected to Congress and has, therefore, seen how broken and in need of reform our system is at the “grass roots level.” So, her support of this measure is very significant.
Here’s a summary of the bill, known as “The Dignity Act of 2023:”
I haven’t seen the full text of the bill. But, from my perspective, the most disappointing aspect of this effort is the apparent failure to deal with the #1 most “solvable” and long, long overdue aspect of due process and fundamental fairness affecting immigration and the overall U.S. legal system: Creation of an independent, Article I U.S. Immigration Court focused solely on due process, fundamental fairness, and best practices!
Anna Marie Gallagher, Esquire Executive Director CLINIC PHOTO: CLINIC website
Executive Director Opening Plenary Remarks CLINIC Convening 2023
May 17, 2023
Good afternoon, dear friends. My name is Anna Gallagher and I have the honor of leading CLINIC as executive director. It is such a pleasure to be here with you all as we officially begin our first in-person Convening since 2019.
Looking out at the sea of faces in front of me, I am filled with gratitude to finally be able to come together to engage with one another, to listen, learn and gather strength for the work ahead in support of our immigrant brothers and sisters.
Even just being in your presence I feel a sense of renewed hope and energy. I am so looking forward to the next few days, and I am certain that you will be reignited to take on the important work ahead.
In a moment I will welcome our wonderful panel of Affiliate experts, but right now I want to take a moment to recognize this moment we’re facing and my hopes for this year’s CLINIC Convening.
You all, of all people, know that immigrant communities are facing truly unprecedented challenges – and I do not use that word, unprecedented, lightly.
With the lifting of Title 42, and the camps of men, women and children along the border desperate to find welcome on the other side; the proposed USCIS fee increases which threaten to put immigration benefits out of reach for many; the newly announced delays for foreign-born religious workers and special immigrant juveniles; and, perhaps above all, our warming planet and the outbreaks of violence which force many more people to migrate around the world – these are extremely challenging times for migrants in our country and around the world.
Several months ago, the New York Times featured an op-ed that has stuck with me, entitled, “The Rich World Has a Shockingly High Tolerance for Cruelty.”
It was about how rich nations are more willing than ever to let migrants languish at their borders in sub-human conditions rather than create safe pathways for migration or address the conditions causing people to flee.
It was about how the promises that nations made after World War II to respect the dignity and rights of those who are fleeing have been eroded and now, on a practical level, forgotten.
When I read this article, in my mind I was transported back to the time I spent in North Africa several years ago, working with migrants as a representative of Jesuit Refugee Services.
1
I interviewed migrants who had traveled for 18 months or more to try and find safety in these countries bordering Europe. I got to know some of the migrants, who called me “grandma” – a term of endearment, as my hair was grey.
While I was talking to some of them, they showed me their hands, which were scarred with wounds. When I asked them what happened, they said their hands were repeatedly pierced while climbing barbed wire to get through to safety.
Hearing this, my heart broke – as it has many times over the years.
The idea that we are using barbed wire to keep out our fellow human beings is inconceivable, yet true. Our immigrant brothers and sisters stand at our gates, begging for our aid, and we build barbed wire fences that pierce their hands.
Many wealthy nations are founded on a concept of all human beings being equal in dignity, but we do not act like it.
As we gather in Arizona, I know we are all mindful that these kinds of camps that the op-ed author is speaking of are just several hours away on the border. We also know that immigrant communities’ dignity is denied not only in these camps, but all over the country in the various places we’ve come from.
We must be clear, this is not an “other side of the world problem,” it is our problem. It affects all of us, in our integrity as people of faith and conscience, and as a reflection of our society.
And yet today, as I recall that New York Times op-ed, and the sense of frustration and despair I felt while reading it, I feel a surge of hope.
I want you to look around the room. Look at your neighbor to your left and right. YOU are the hope that fills my heart, and YOU are the hope that reignites me in our work.
As we gather here today, I am in a room full of people who DO act like all human beings are equal. Those who spend their precious time – often too much of their time, working long hours – trying to advance the truth that every person is precious, valuable, and deserving of a safe and dignified life.
That’s why being in your presence gives me such hope. I am reminded that the CLINIC network is full of holy people.
That is why our gathering here together, and throughout this week, is so powerful: we are, to borrow the words of Bishop Seitz of El Paso, working to be a “creative counterexample” to the culture of fear and hostility, to be a network that is slowly creating a new culture of solidarity and hospitality.
At CLINIC, we also are bolstered by our faith that we do not do this hard work alone. The spirit of God is inspiring us and pushing us forward, giving us strength and magnifying our efforts, especially when we are overwhelmed by the need in front of us.
2
Our faith also acts as a mirror for us, forcing us to keep evaluating whether we are truly reflecting the gospel truth of God’s concern for all people.
To maintain this faith, and to maintain the energy to be this creative counterexample, we need one another. Our network is sustained through the support, advice, and solidarity we demonstrate to one another.
Throughout the next few days, we will take the time to step back, to reflect on our work and learn and share new strategies, information, and tips for the very practical day-to-day work of supporting immigrant clients and communities.
We know that this practical work – the forms, the bureaucracy, the nitty-gritty details – changes and saves lives. So how well we can do it matters, which is why we gather to learn and grow.
We also gather to enjoy one another – to laugh, share stories, and reconnect with beloved colleagues and friends.
So I also hope that over the next few days you will have some fun!
Thank you for coming here to CLINIC Convening and for your dedication to this work. I am so honored to be alongside all of you this week, and all days.
Now, I am pleased to introduce our panelists for our opening plenary, Preparing for the Lifting of Title 42: Key Insights from our Network. When we decided on “reunited and reignited” for our theme this year, we knew we wanted to do something different for our opening conversation.
This “Network Fireside Chat” will be an opportunity to highlight the work done by our network throughout the United States. During this conversation, you’ll hear how Affiliates in three distinct geographical regions are rising to meet the needs of our immigrant and refugee brothers and sisters – especially during this increased time of uncertainty.
From the Border region, Joel Enriquez-Cazarez will share about the work of Jewish Family Service of San Diego.
As a transit city, Carolina Rivera will share how Catholic Charities of Dallas assists our immigrant brothers and sisters.
And Yer Vang from Catholic Charities Archdiocese of Dubuque will give an interior city perspective of welcome.
Now please join me in welcoming our keynote panelists to the stage…
3
*******************************
Thanks, my friend, for a lifetime of service to due process, fundamental fairness, and social justice, and for speaking out as the “powers that be” and the “powers that wannabe” go into cowardly retreat and hide in fear from the needs and rights of humanity!
Lindsay Toczylowski Executive Director, Immigrant Defenders “ I always tell the new immigration attorneys at Immigrant Defenders Law Center to never forget just how stacked against our clients the odds are in immigration court.“
Lindsay writes on Linkedin:
Barometer of whether an asylum system is functioning is not “keeping the numbers low” at the border. We expected as T42 ended to see a temporary uptick due to pent up demand, but seeing the opposite indicates new deterrence measures are making asylum inaccessible to those who need protection the most.
It is obvious to those of us on-the-ground that despite no “lines” at the ports of entry there are many people here in Tijuana desperate to seek protection in the US, as evidenced by crowd at our Immigrant Defenders Law Center legal clinic today. People want to avail themselves of a safe, fair and orderly system.
This is currently impossible.
There were more than 200 people at the shelter, mostly families with small kids. When we asked whether or not people had been able to register with CBPone, most raised their hands that they had. When we asked whether they had an appt, only four had successfully made one. 4 out of 200.
We encountered excruciating cases like this asylum seeking mom & her daughter w/ severe autism. She asked if there is a special process for ppl like her, given her daughter needs medical attn, but we have to tell her to just keep trying the app. She has been waiting for months.
We continue to encounter cases where asylum seekers are unable to register with CBPone app at all. We finally registered a mom traveling alone w/ 2 babies via one of our atty’s phones, and now she can try for an appt. She has family in Los Angeles area who are waiting for her.
For people suffering from PTSD & other mental health conditions related to the horrors they fled, the constant state of anxiety waiting for an appointment is hell. One of the moms told me that every night she & her daughter cry and pray that it will be the day they can finally get help.
I am immensely proud of our San Diego based cross border team for continuing to show up and keep fighting despite the odds.
*******************************
Well said, Lindsay! Thanks for all you and your colleagues do for due process in America!
Professor Hilary T. Fraser Cornell Law PHOTO: Cornell Law
Cornell Law School Afghanistan Assistance Clinic: Spring 2023 Report
May 15, 2023
By Hilary Fraser, Adjunct Professor
In our third semester offering the Afghan Assistance Clinic to Cornell law students, we saw a change in the type of cases and clients and a change in the kind of students. In our initial semester a year ago, our clinic students had backgrounds in immigration and human rights law. Our clients were all Fulbright recipients recently arrived in the United States, and the cases were rich with evidence of the likelihood of future persecution due to the client’s activism and training with western donor nations in building of democratic institutions.
At the start of this semester, there was some dismay that our clients’ cases seemed not as strong. Most clients were younger, some just freshmen in the United States. “I don’t think she has a case,” one student initially remarked about his client. Our students were also new to client representation, and more tentative about interviewing the clients and gathering facts.
To overcome these challenges, we decided to drill down on the fact that our clients had lived through a year or so of Taliban rule. Hadn’t they actually experienced persecution in the year or more that passed before they were able to escape? Weren’t their escape stories a symbol of their fears? The Taliban’s announcements that floggings and amputations were legitimate punishments; that women could not work, attend high school, leave home without a chaperone or visit parks and gyms; that universities were shuttered, the internet policed, passport offices closed and ‘vice’ and religion fastidiously monitored did not pose just future possibilities of harm, but rather defined the lives our clients had lived.
We also decided to drill down on our interpersonal skills and bring our own humanity into the client-student relationship. We needed to break through our clients’ reticence formed during a dangerous year of living in hiding from the Taliban regime. Nearly all of our clients told us how closely they guarded their plans to apply to school in the United States. Our clients also feared talking with us. Their families did not want to write support letters. We also had clients who came to the United States just before Kabul fell, but still hadn’t filed for asylum. We needed to work with the problem of depression.
Our students overcame these barriers in several ways.
One way our students engaged these reticent clients was through a shared immigration experience. Seven of our 12 class members were immigrants themselves, which helped form a bond of trust and a shared understanding of the vocabulary and process of immigration. Some took our clinic to understand better their parents’ experiences as immigrants to the United States. Some were interested in understanding better their own asylum or other residency applications.
Clever solutions also helped us elicit the clients’ stories. Related clients and clients who were friends and classmates from Afghanistan were represented by students who collaborated (with consent) on evidence and stories. This small-group approach made our process more efficient and our clients more comfortable. Also, we drew upon the experience of two classmates participating in the clinic for the third time, one as a Pro Bono Scholar and one as an indefatigable research assistant who won a public interest award from Cornell this semester. These senior students lent their experience to the class.
Last but not least, we made the Cornell connection. Twelve of our 15 clients this semester are scholars or students at Cornell. Working in person, even working with a shared sense of the environment and terrain of campus, forged relationships of trust. Plus, it just felt good to be helping a “neighbor.”
Our client narratives and legal claims eventually emerged. Political opinion was imputed from parents and from students’ choices of academic fields and universities. Race and religion were the most frequently claimed protected grounds, with Hazara ethnicity and atheism the most common fact patterns. “Westernized” individuals as a particular social group defined the elite group of young students talented enough to make it out of Afghanistan in a year when borders were mostly closed.
As a group, this semester’s clients could be seen as the younger “siblings” of the first groups of our clients. Growing up in a hopeful time of relative ease and opportunity in Afghanistan during occupation, they were free to foster their spirituality, self-expression, and learning. Please meet some of them here below. The client who we originally thought didn’t have a claim turned out to be one of our strongest cases, together with:
· A client who wrote and self-published on Amazon an English-language book on Love and God. A true romantic and humanist with a respect for literature.
· A client who obtained a U.S. visa just in time for her to escape a forced marriage and land in a top mathematics Ph.D. program in the United States.
· A client who grew up hearing the harrowing stories of parents who had suffered beatings and death threats under the Taliban and escaped to Iran, where treatment of Afghans is only slightly less horrific.
· A client who paints human representational art, fearlessly showing female bodies and intimate settings. Their work of 70+ canvases hides in residential attics in Afghanistan.
· A client whose transition to atheism is clearly recalled in a series of private conversations with peers and mentors, two of whom were murdered in honor killings pursuant to a fatwa.
· A client who was part of seminal schools for women and who received a leadership scholarship to attend school in the United States from an American fashion celebrity.
In short, our clinic honored these stories by acknowledging the teller’s experience. We realize that save for our small group of students, no one else other than the USCIS asylum adjudicator will hear these moving tales. Someday, we’d like to transform the stories into spoken-word theater!
This class was dedicated to learning immigration and helping their clients. Almost all this semester’s students will graduate to positions with large law firms. Their commitment to our clinic’s work signals that immigration has become a necessary skill set for both corporate and public interest lawyers.
Overall, we filed 15 asylum cases this semester, representing the collective work of 8 first-time students, 2 second-time students, a Pro Bono scholar, a research assistant, and an adjunct professor. By summer 2023, 30+ Afghan asylum applications filed by our clinic will remain pending, a terrific accomplishment in just 15 months of work.
Other landmarks reached this semester include:
o Our first semester clients received work permits or renewals.
o Two of our second semester clients had asylum interviews.
o All our second semester clients qualified for online work permit applications for the first time.
o We did a presentation for Weill Cornell medical students.
o We heard two presentations from Afghan political analysts.
o An Afghan student group was formed on campus through the work of our clients.
o We helped almost all the Afghans at Cornell who needed us.
o We kept abreast of dynamic changes in asylum practice – both at the border and expansion of parole programs.
o We mentored the law school’s 1L immigration clinic, which filed four other Afghan affirmative asylum applications.
This really hits home for me. I’m fresh off teaching with outstanding colleagues — subject matter experts and experienced civil and criminal litigators working together seamlessly —at the Sharma Crawford Clinic Litigation Trial College in Kansas City, KS. As usual, a large part of the “hands on” experience was coaching students on how to best elicit information from clients — across cultural and language barriers — and then to present their stories in a fashion that will be gripping and compelling to Asylum Officers, Immigration Judges, DHS Assistant Chief Counsel, and would make a great and “reader friendly” record for appellate judges and their clerks, should that step be necessary.
Consequently, I really appreciate the skill set that Hilary is helping her students develop! And, as we emphasized at our Trial College, this isn’t just an Immigration Court skill. No, it’s a “life skill” that folks will use over and over in their professional careers and personal lives!
The skills necessary to practice law these days start at the “retail level” of our justice system — the Immigration Courts. As I tell myGeorgetown Law students, “If you can win one of these cases, everything else in law and life will be a piece of cake!”
Thanks to my long-time friend and Hilary’s colleague, Professor Stephen Yale Loehr, for alerting me to this important achievement.
Eliza C. Klein, a retired immigration judge, said the asylum case backlog “creates a second class of citizens.”Credit…Taylor Glascock for The New York Times
Eliza C. Klein, who left her position as an immigration judge in Chicago in April, said the latest increase in illegal border crossings will strain the understaffed work force as they prioritize migrants who crossed recently.
That will leave some older cases to languish even longer, she said.
“This is a great tragedy because it creates a second class of citizens,” Ms. Klein, who started working as an immigration judge in the Clinton administration, said of those immigrants who have been waiting years for an answer to their case. The oldest case Ms. Klein ever adjudicated had been pending in the court for 35 years, she said.
“It’s a disgrace,” Ms. Klein said. “My perspective, my thought, is that we’re not committed in this country to having a just system.”
While crowds of migrants continued to seek refuge in the United States after the lifting of Title 42, U.S. officials said the border remained relatively orderly. About 10,000 people crossed the border on Thursday, a historically large number, but that dropped significantly to about 6,200 on Friday.
Tens of thousands of migrants continued to wait in makeshift camps on both sides of the border for a chance to request sanctuary in the United States. The administration remained concerned about overcrowding; Border Patrol held more than 24,000 migrants in custody on Friday, well over the agency’s maximum capacity of roughly 20,000 in its detention facilities.
. . . .
Mimi Tsankov, the president of the National Association of Immigration Judges, said that to truly address the backlog, the Biden administration would need to do more than simply hire more judges. She said that the government should increase funding for better technology and bigger legal teams, and that Congress should reform the nation’s immigration laws.
“The immigration courts are failing,” said Samuel B. Cole, the judge association’s executive vice president. “There needs to be broad systemic change.”
. . . . .
Judge Charles Honeyman, who spent 24 years as an immigration judge and retired in 2020, said he came away from his job believing the United States would need to do a better job of deterring fraud while protecting those who would be harmed in their home country.
When handling an asylum case, Mr. Honeyman said he would assess the person’s application and examine the state of their home country by reading reports from the State Department and nonprofits. Many of the applicants lacked attorneys; he believes some cases that he denied might have turned out differently if the migrants had had legal representation.
In trying to root out fraud, he would compare a person’s testimony with the answers they had given to an asylum officer or Border Patrol agent.
. . . .
*******************************
Read the full article at the link.
EOIR ABUSES ASYLUM SEEKERS — The Problem Goes Deeper Than The Number Of Judges: Quality & Culture Matter!
By Paul Wickham Schmidt
U.S. Immigration Judge (Retired)
Courtside Exclusive
May 16, 2023
While the NYT article notes that the majority of asylum cases are eventually denied on the merits, this data is often presented in a misleading way by the Government, and unfortunately, sometimes the media. According to TRAC Immigration, during the period Oct 2000 to April 2023, approximately 43% of asylum seekers who received a merits decision were granted asylum or some other type of relief. Approximately 57% were denied. https://trac.syr.edu/phptools/immigration/asylum/
Even in an overall hostile system, where individuals are often required to proceed without lawyers, and grant/denial rates among Immigration Judges vary by astounding levels (so great as to present prima facie due process issues), asylum seekers succeed on the merits of their claims at a very respectable rate. In a properly staffed and administered system where the focus was on due process and fundamental fairness for individuals, that number would almost certainly be substantially higher.
Moreover, the data suggests that toward the end of the Obama Administration and during the entire Trump Administration, the asylum system was improperly manipulated to increase denials.
I think there are three reasons for the precipitous decline in asylum grant rates, largely unrelated to the merits of the claims. First, Attorneys General Jeff Sessions and Bill Barr overruled some of the leading administrative precedents supporting grants of asylum. In the process, they made it crystal clear that they considered Immigration Judges to be their subordinate employees within the political branch of Government and that denial, deportation, and assistance to their “partners” at DHS Enforcement (actually DHS is a party before EOIR, not a “partner”) were the preferred results at EOIR.
Second, in greatly expanding the number of Immigration Judges, Sessions and Barr appointed almost exclusively from the ranks of prosecutors and government attorneys, even elevating an inordinate number of individuals with no immigration and human rights experience whatsoever. Not only were well-qualified individuals with experience representing individuals in Immigration Court largely passed over and discouraged from applying, but some of the best Immigration Judges quit or retired prematurely as a matter of conscience because of the nakedly anti-immigrant pro enforcement “culture” promoted at EOIR.
Additionally, the nationwide appellate court and precedent setter, the BIA, was expanded and “packed” with some Immigration Judges who denied virtually all of the asylum cases coming before them and had reputations of hostility to the private bar and asylum seekers. Remarkably, Attorney General Garland has done little to address this debilitating situation at the BIA.
Third, since the latter years of the Obama Administration, when a vastly overhyped “border surge” took place, political officials of both parties have improperly “weaponized” EOIR as a “deterrent” to asylum seekers, focusing on expeditious denials of asylum rather than the due process and expert tribunal functions the agency was supposed to serve. The result has been a “culture of denial and deportation” with particular emphasis on finding ways to “say no” to women and individuals of color seeking asylum.
The NYT Article also mentions that asylum merits decisions require a higher standard of proof than “credible fear determinations.” That’s true. But the suggestion that the standards are much higher is misleading. In fact, the standards governing merits grants of asylum before the Asylum Office and EOIR are supposed to be extremely generous.
In the seminal case, INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, the Court said that “well-founded fear” is a generous standard, one that could be satisfied by a 10% chance of persecution. In implementing this holding, the BIA found in Matter of Mogharrabi that asylum could be granted even where the chances of persecution were substantially less than probable.
There is as also a regulation, 8 C.F.R. 208.13, issued under the Bush I Administration, that creates a rebuttable presumption of future persecution based on past persecution.
The problem is that none of these generous and remedial provisions relating to asylum has ever been properly, consistently, and uniformly applied within EOIR. As someone who during my time on the bench took these standards to heart, I found that a substantial majority of merits asylum cases coming before me could and should be granted under a proper application of asylum law.
Consequently, I am skeptical of judges who deny virtually all asylum claims. Likewise, I question the claims by political officials of both parties who pretend, without actual knowledge, that almost all asylum applicants at the border are “mere economic migrants” who deserve to be quickly and summarily removed.
Actually, under some circumstances, severe economic hardships can amount to persecution. Moreover, under the legally required “mixed motive” analysis for asylum, an economic aspect does not automatically obviate other qualifying grounds.
So, at its root, “credible fear” is actually an even more generous application of what is already supposed to be (but often isn’t in reality) a very generous standard for asylum. The alleged “disconnect” between the number of individuals found to have credible fear and the number actually granted asylum on the merits appears to be more a function of defective and overly restrictive decision-making at EOIR than it is of unjustified generosity of Asylum Officers screening for credible fear. It’s also important to remember that at the credible fear stage, individuals haven’t had time to marshal the substantial corroborating evidence eventually required (some would say unrealistically and unreasonably) in formal merits asylum hearings before EOIR.
Finally, just aimlessly increasing the number of Immigration Judges, without solving the systemic legal, logistical, management, quality control, training, and “cultural” problems infecting EOIR creates its own set of new problems.
Recently, a veteran practitioner before EOIR wrote the following:
In about eleven years, our local DMV went from twelve (12) judges in Baltimore and Arlington in 2012 to a hundred (100) judges in 2023 (8 BAL, 18 HYA, 30 WAS, 9 FCIAC, 14 RIAC, 21 STE). That’s an increase of 733.33%. This seismic expansion has resulted in many attorneys being overscheduled for individual hearings, which has an adverse effect on our clients, our ethical obligations, due process, and mental health.
Well-prepared attorneys, many serving pro bono or “low bono,” are absolutely essential to due process and fundamental fairness in Immigration Court, particularly in cases involving asylum and other forms of protection. For EOIR to schedule cases in a manner that does not take into consideration the legitimate needs and capacities of those practicing before their courts is nothing short of malpractice on the part of DOJ leadership.
There is a silver lining here. The EOIR judicial hiring program gives NDPA stars a chance to get on the bench at the retail level level, bring much needed balance and perspective, and to develop the credentials for future Article III judicial appointments. Since change isn’t coming “from the top,” we need to make it happen at the “grass roots level!” Keep those applications coming!
For my colleague Judge “Sir Jeffrey” Chase, Judge Maria Baldini-Potermin is the name that jumps out:
Maria T. Baldini-Potermin, Immigration Judge, Chicago Immigration Court
Maria T. Baldini-Potermin was appointed as an immigration judge to begin hearing cases in May 2023. Judge Baldini-Potermin earned a Bachelor of Arts in 1990 from the University of Dayton and a Juris Doctor in 1997 from the University of Minnesota Law School. From 2008 to 2023, she was the owner and managing attorney at Maria Baldini- Potermin and Associates PC in Chicago. During this time, from 2009 to 2023, she served as the author of “Immigration Trial Handbook,” a book she co-authored from 2008 to 2009. Also, from 2009 to 2021, she served as the update editor for “Immigration Law and Crimes” . From 2009 to 2021, she also served as a member of the board of directors of the National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild, where she served as board chair and interim executive director in 2019. From 2007 to 2008, she was an associate immigration attorney at Gostynska Frakt Ltd., and from 2001 to 2007, at Scott D. Pollock and Associates PC in Chicago. From 1999 to 2001, she served as a National Association of Public Interest Law (NAPIL) Equal Justice Fellow with the Midwest Immigrant Rights Center (now National Immigrant Justice Center) in Chicago. From 1997 to 1999, she served as a NAPIL Equal Justice Fellow with the Immigrant Law Center of Minnesota (Oficina Legal) in Saint Paul, Minnesota. From 1996 to 1997, she served as an immigration law clerk at Guyton Law Office in Saint Paul, Minnesota. From 1994 to 1997, she trained law students at the Asylum Law Project in Minneapolis. From 1992 to 1994, she served as an accredited representative, and from 1991 to 1992, as a paralegal, with the South Texas Pro Bono Asylum Representation Project (ProBAR) in Harlingen, Texas. From 1990 to 1991, she served as a paralegal with the Brownsville Catholic Charities Canada Asylum Project in Brownsville, Texas. Judge Baldini-Potermin is a member of the Illinois State Bar and the Minnesota State Bar. She is admitted to practice before the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Second, Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Circuits, and the Supreme Court of the United States.
For me, it’s Judge Angela Munro whom I worked with on training for the Annual Conference during my time at EOIR:
Angela Munro, Immigration Judge, Boston Immigration Court
Angela Munro was appointed as an immigration judge to begin hearing cases in May 2023. Judge Munro earned a Bachelor of Arts in 2000 from Brown University, a Master of Arts in 2004 from the Fletcher School at Tufts University, and a Juris Doctor in 2008 from Northeastern University School of Law. From 2010 to 2023, she served as an attorney advisor at the Board of Immigration Appeals, EOIR. From 2008 to 2010, she served as a judicial law clerk at the Boston Immigration Court entering on duty through the Attorney General’s Honors Program. Judge Munro is a member of the Massachusetts Bar and the New York State Bar.
Another bio that caught my eye is Judge Hannah B. Kubica who once practiced at Joyce & Associates in Boston with my long-time friend and Round Table colleague Judge Bill Joyce.
Hannah B. Kubica, Immigration Judge, Boston Immigration Court
Hannah B. Kubica was appointed as an immigration judge to begin hearing cases in May 2023. Judge Kubica earned a Bachelor of Arts in 2005 from Vanderbilt University and a Juris Doctor in 2008 from the Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law. From 2016 to 2023, she was in private practice as an associate, and later as a senior associate, at McHaffey & Nice LLC in Boston where she represented noncitizens before EOIR and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security. During her time in private practice, she provided pro bono services at Rian Immigrant Center, formerly the Irish International Immigrant Center. From 2016 to 2011, she was in private practice as an associate at Joyce & Associates PC in Boston. From 2011 to 2008, Judge Kubica was in private practice at GNP Law Firm in the greater Boston area, and at Weir & Partners LLC in Philadelphia. Judge Kubica is a member of the Massachusetts Bar and the Pennsylvania Bar.
********************************
Congrats and good luck to all of the new Judges. Remember: The job is about due process, fundamental fairness, practical scholarship, and best practices, NOT “pleasing your handlers” or making DHS Enforcement happy!
We’re “making progress” in getting more NDPA practical scholars on the ImmigrationBench! But, we need even more to fundamentally change the culture at EOIR and to make due process the overriding mission, as it was supposed to be! So, NDPA’ers, keep those judicial applications coming!
Matter of Morales-Morales, 28 I&N Dec. 714 (BIA 2023)
BIA Headnote:
(1) The Board of Immigration Appeals has authority to accept what are otherwise untimely appeals, and consider them timely, in certain situations because 8 C.F.R. § 1003.38(b) (2022) is a claim-processing rule and not a jurisdictional provision. Matter of Liadov, 23 I&N Dec. 990 (BIA 2006), overruled.
(2) The Board will accept a late-filed appeal where a party can establish that equitable tolling applies, which requires the party to show both diligence in the filing of the notice of appeal and that an extraordinary circumstance prevented timely filing.
FOR THE RESPONDENT: Mario Salgado, Esquire, San Francisco, California
Notably, but perhaps predictably for those who follow the BIA’s generally “respondent/due process unfriendly” jurisprudence, the “good news” that the BIA has belatedly decided to follow the 2d, 5th, and 9th Circuits on equitable tolling is “tempered” by the result in this case — denial of the motion to reconsider and accept the appeal!
Evidently, among its 82,000+ backlog, the BIA was unable to identify a case where correctly applying equitable tolling would actually BENEFIT the respondent, rather than just requiring a different, largely contrived, analysis to “get to no!”This continues a depressing and highly inappropriate long-standing tendency of the BIA to provide negative examples of how to apply potentially remedial rules.
Presumably, after 17 years of the BIA’s wrong-headed precedent Matter of Liadov, everyone understands that the BIA is “programmed to deny.” What’s needed is “reprogramming”to recognize and grant motions based on “equitable tolling.”
It’s also remarkable that the “highest tribunal” of a dysfunctional organization, notorious for losing files; failing to provide timely, correct notice; cancelling hearings without notice on the hearing date; switching Immigration Judges without notice in a system where the identity of the judge is too often “outcome determinative;” and “cutting” DHS and itself almost endless “breaks” and “exceptions” for their sloppy, lazy, and sometimes ethnically questionable practices sees fit to “pontificate” so self-righteously on what’s “due diligence” and “extraordinary circumstances” for the private bar. The “message” is pretty clear: Denial is the “preferred” (or default, or de facto presumed) result!
If either of the foregoing concepts were applied to EOIR and DHS with the same stringency they are to individuals and their representatives, both agencies would have been forced out of business long ago!
This system is totally screwed up! Dems must ask themselves why Garland and his senior leadership have failed to “unscrew it,” and what can be done to deal with their democracy-and-life-threatening indolence and inattention to quality jurisprudence, due process, fundamental fairness, and best practices.
Cinder F. Rella Direct Sharma-Crawford Trial College Johnson County Community College May 5, 2023Trial College Faculty Celebrates Another Day of Teaching Extraordinary Lawyers To Be Strong, Smart, Fearless! May 5, 2023Trial College Grads Produce Happy Endings and Grateful Clients!After just three days of intensive study and engagement at the Sharma Crawford Trial College, immigration litigators actually look and feel different!
******************************
Such an honor and pleasure to be a part of this distinguished and dedicated group.
To quote my faculty colleague Sarah Owings, “The world and the work are less lonely knowing you are all out there!” I think everyone else feels the same way, Sarah, my friend!
Sarah Owings, Esquire Partner Owings MacNorlin Atlanta, GA PHOTO: Firm
Four Central American girls at a tent for U.S. asylum seekers in Reynosa, Mexico. For years now the U.S. has forced asylum applicants to wait in Mexico, often for years and in dangerous conditions. (Shutterstock)
Retire This Dehumanizing Language About Immigrants
Human beings fleeing persecution are not a “flood” or “surge.” And it’s not “illegal” when they cross the border to seek asylum.
Last year, my client Susan called me to discuss her immigration case.
During our conversation she referenced the news that immigrants were being bused from the southern border to cities in the North, often under false promises, only to be left stranded in an unknown city.
In confusion and fear, Susan asked me: “Why do they hate us so much?”
While I couldn’t answer Susan’s question, her underlying concern highlights a startling escalation of public aggression against migrants over the past year.
There seems to be a growing “us” versus “them” mentality towards immigrants. This divisive language serves no purpose other than to divide our country, undermine the legal right to seek asylum in the United States, and cultivate a fear of the most vulnerable.
A clear example is showcased in recent media coverage of northbound migration across the U.S.-Mexico border. Many outlets describe recent migration through the Americas as a “flood,” “influx,” “wave,” or “surge”— language that reinforces the notion that migration is akin to an imminent, uncontrollable, and destructive natural disaster.
Woven into this framing is the near-constant use of the term “illegal” or “unlawful” to describe unauthorized crossings. As an advocate for immigrant survivors of domestic violence, sexual violence, and trafficking, I’m alarmed by the use of this language to describe a migrant’s attempt to survive.
Moreover, it’s often simply incorrect. A noncitizen who has a well-founded fear of persecution in the country from which they’ve fled has a legal right — protected under both U.S. and international law — to enter the United States to seek asylum.
When mainstream media wield the term “illegal” as though it were synonymous with “unauthorized,” they misinform readers and falsely paint asylum seekers as criminals.
Worse still, they encourage politicians who call immigrants themselves “illegals,” a deeply dehumanizing term. And the more dehumanizing language we use, the more likely it is that we will see immigrants as the “other” to justify cruel immigration policies.
We must retire the use of this inflammatory rhetoric, which distracts from real solutions that would actually serve survivors arriving at our borders.
Migrants expelled back to their home countries are at grave risk of severe harm or death at the hands of their persecutors. Those forced to remain in Mexico as they await entry to the United States are increasingly vulnerable to organized crime or abusive and dangerous conditions in detention.
The words we use in everyday discourse mean something — they can spell out life or death for those among us who are most vulnerable to abuse and exploitation. Now more than ever, I’d urge the public and the media to retire the use of sensationalizing, stigmatizing, and misleading imagery and rhetoric surrounding immigration.
Now is the time to apply accuracy and humanity in our depictions of migrants. Let’s not repeat the errors of our past.
***********************
Thanks for speaking up, MDP!
Dehumanization of the “other” has a long ugly history in the U.S., of course going back to enslaved African Americans, Native Americans, and the Chinese Exclusion Laws.
We also see that dehumanizing language has extended from asylum seekers and other migrants to the LGBTQ+ community, Asian Americans, advocates for social justice, homelessness, handicaps, economic disadvantages, women, government officials, political opponents, etc.
“Fear & Loathing” Inept, disingenuous performances on asylum by the White House, DHS, & DOJ have left the Biden Administration grasping at straws and spreading vile nativist myths about asylum seekers at the border. PHOTO: Creative Commons
Deterrence and increased enforcement have proven to be failed approaches that do not change the multiple factors that force so many people to flee their countries and only result in pushing people into more dangerous routes that allow criminal organizations to thrive, resulting in the smuggling, trafficking, extortion, and kidnapping of migrants and others.
After more than two years of bumbling around, in the process squandering their access to the ideas and problem-solving skills of an un-precedented “brain trust” of immigration experts, the Biden Administration appears to be in “full panic mode” as the inevitable lifting of the Title 42 charade slowly approaches. Notably, a Federal Court ordered the Administration to make good on its (already delayed) promise to end Title 42 back in November 2022. But, the Supremes unethically blocked that order — granting a stay that NO ACTUAL PARTY to the litigation requested, in a simply mind-boggling exercise of politicized, unconstitutional interference with the Executive.
Instead of using the time to 1) work with NGOs, 2) hire and train more expert asylum officers, 3) replace the BIA and anti-asylum Immigration Judges with qualified human rights/due process experts, and 4) drastically ramp up the refugee admission system outside the U.S. (not substituting an inadequate and “jury rigged” numerically limited “parole” program for legal refugee and asylum admissions), the Administration frittered away the opportunity with obstructionist/restrictionist nonsense. Now, they are “running scared” from desperate refugees merely seeking to exercise their legal rights that have been illegally and immorally denied to them for years — by successive Administrations.
