Category: Sidley & Austin LLP

🏴‍☠️ AMERICAN OUTLAWS: THE CONTINUING SAGA OF EOIR’S FLAWED DECADE-LONG QUEST TO DENY PROTECTION TO HONDURAN WOMAN — LATEST CHAPTER: BIA Rebuked By 1st Cir. For Not Complying With Court Order!

Outlaws
BIA panel gets ready to “gun down” — in “cold blood” —  another meritorious appeal by immigrant! Court orders are no match for this gang that “shoots from the hip.”
PHOTO: Republic Pictures (1957), Public Domain

Dan Kowalski reports from LexisNexis Immigration Community:

CA1 on Evidence…Round 2! – Aguilar-Escoto II

Aguilar-Escoto II

“For the second time, petitioner Irma Aguilar-Escoto, a native and citizen of Honduras, asks us to vacate the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA” or the “Board”) rejection of her claim for withholding of removal. When this case was last before us, we vacated the BIA’s prior order and instructed the Board to consider the potentially significant documentary evidence submitted in support of Aguilar’s claim. See Aguilar-Escoto v. Sessions, 874 F.3d 334, 335 (1st Cir. 2017). Today, we conclude that the BIA again failed to properly consider significant documentary evidence. Consequently, we vacate the Board’s removal order and remand for further proceedings.”

[Hats off to Kenyon C. Hall, with whom Jack W. Pirozzolo, Sidley Austin, LLP, Charles G. Roth, National Immigrant Justice Center, and Carlos E. Estrada were on brief, for petitioner!]

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

This case is a microcosm of everything that’s wrong about EOIR, a “captive,” denial-biased “court” system operating within the DOJ, an enforcement agency within the Executive Branch, over three different Administrations — two Dem and one GOP! But, there is more to this story!

THE REST OF THE STORY:

In 2013, this respondent appeared before an IJ and presented a well-documented claim for withholding of removal to Honduras based on domestic violence. Among the respondent’s documentation were a psychological report, three police reports, a medical report from Honduras, a protection order from a Honduran court, the respondent’s declaration, and affidavits from family members. In the first flawed decision, in 2014, the IJ denied the claim.

The respondent appealed to the BIA. In another flawed decision, entered in 2016, the BIA denied the appeal. In doing so, the BIA denied an asylum claim that the respondent did not make and ignored key documentary evidence that went to the heart of the respondent’s claim. This suggests that the BIA merely slapped a “form denial” on the case which reflected neither the nature of the case below nor the actual record before them. Immigration practitioners say this type of performance is all too common in the dystopian world of EOIR.

Consequently, the respondent, represented pro bono by NDPA stalwart Carlos E. Estrada, a solo practitioner, sought review in the First Circuit. That petition succeeded! In 2017, the First Circuit vacated the BIA’s erroneous decision and directed the BIA to redo the case, this time considering the material, independent evidence of persecution that the BIA had previously ignored.

At this point, the respondent and her attorney had every reason to believe that their ordeal was over and that justice, and potentially life-saving protection, was “just around the corner.” But, alas, those hopes were dashed!

The BIA botched it again! In 2018, in what appeared to be one of the BIA’s “standard any reason to deny” opinions, the BIA purported to “affirm” the 2014 flawed decision of the IJ. In doing so, “the BIA erred by failing to follow this Court’s [1st Circuit’s] instruction to independently consider on remand the documentary evidence and to determine whether that evidence sufficed to establish past persecution.” Basically a “polite description” of “contempt of court” by the BIA.

Among the problems, the BIA failed to mention or evaluate one of the police reports that went directly to the basis for the BIA’s denial. Indeed, in a rather brutal example example of just how un-seriously the BIA took the court’s order, they erroneously stated that there were only two police reports. Actually, the record contained THREE such reports — since 2013!

Faced with the need for yet a second trip to the First Circuit, pro bono solo practitioner Carlos Estrada was “stretched to his pro bono limits.” Fortunately, the amazing pro bono lawyers at Sidley Austin LLP and National Immigrant Justice Center (“NIJC”) heeded the call and assisted Estrada and his client in their second petition for review.  

With help from this “team of experts,” for the second time, the respondent “bested” EOIR and DOJ in the Circuit! While conceding that the BIA had errored in not complying with the court order, OIL, now under the direction of Dem A.G. Merrick Garland, advanced specious “alternative reasons” for upholding the BIA’s second flawed decision. These were emphatically rejected by the First Circuit! That court also noted that the (supposedly “expert”) BIA had applied the wrong legal standard in the case!

A rational person might think that after nearly a decade, this “charade of justice” would finally end, and the respondent would get her long-delayed, thrice-erroneously-denied relief. But, that’s not the way this dysfunctional and disreputable system works (or, in too many cases, doesn’t).

The First Circuit “remanded” the case to EOIR a second time, thus giving the BIA a totally undeserved THIRD CHANCE to improperly deny relief. Who knows if they will, or when they might get around to acting. 

But, within Garland’s dystopian system, which lacks quality control, doesn’t require recognized expertise in human rights from its “judges,” and tolerates a BIA dominated by Trump-appointed appellate judges known for their records of hostility to asylum and related forms of protection from persecution and/or torture, a result favorable to the respondent, within her lifetime, is far from guaranteed.

As Attorney Carlos Estrada summed it up to me, “I just couldn’t do it [the second petition for review] pro bono by myself.  I’m a solo practitioner.  Such a waste of time and effort.” 

Indeed, Garland’s failure to institute even minimal standards of due process, fundamental fairness, impartiality, expertise in his EOIR “court” system is unfairly stretching scarce pro bono resources beyond the limits, as well as denying timely, often life-saving or life-determining justice to individuals. 

In a fair, functional, professional system, Estrada, Sidley Austin, and NIJC could be helping others in dire need of pro bono assistance. The respondent could have been enjoying for the last decade a “durable” grant of protection from persecution instead of having her life “up in the air” because of defective decision-making at EOIR and ill-advised “defenses” by OIL. The system could be adjudicating new cases and claims, instead of doing the same cases over and over, for a decade, at three levels of our justice system, without getting them right.  

If you wonder why Garland’s broken EOIR is running an astounding 2.1 million case backlog, it’s NOT primarily because of the actions of respondents and their lawyers, if any! It has much to do with “Aimless Docket Reshuffling,” in “full swing” under Garland, incredibly poor judicial administration by DOJ/EOIR, poor judging by too many incumbents who lack the necessary expertise and demonstrated commitment to due process and fundamental fairness, poor administrative and judicial practices, inadequate training, and a toxic “culture of denial and disrespect for immigrants’ rights” that has been festering for years!

Do YOU think that sagas like this represent a proper approach to “justice in America at the retail level.” I don’t! But, incidents like this occur on a daily basis at EOIR, even if most escape the public spotlight! 

“Out of sight, out of mind!” But, sadly, not so for the individuals whose lives are damaged by this system and their long-suffering attorneys, whose plights continue to be studiously ignored by Garland and his lieutenants. (Has Garland EVER offered to meet with the private, pro bono bar to find out what really is happening in “his” courts and how he might fix it? Not to my knowledge!)

Hats way off to Carlos E. Estrada, Esquire; Kenyon C. Hall, Jack W. Pirozzolo, and the rest of the folks at Sidley Austin, LLP (I note that Sidley generously has provided outstanding pro bono briefing assistance to our “Round Table” in the past); and Charles G. Roth and his team at the National Immigrant Justice Center for this favorable outcome and for insuring that justice is done. Garland and the Dems might not care about justice for persons in the U.S. who happen to be migrants, but YOU do! That, my friends, makes all the difference in human lives and in our nation’s as yet unfulfilled promise of “equal justice for all.”

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

02-10-23

Related posts:

  1. ⚖️🗽🧑🏽‍⚖️”MEDLEY OF INJUSTICE” — CIRCUITS CONTINUE TO LOWER HAMMER 🔨 ON BIA: Anti-Asylum Misogyny; Illegal & Incredibly Stupid “Policies;” “Perplexing” Lack Of Legal Knowledge Highlighted In Latest Batch Of Reversals! — “Attempted rape by a gang of men, in broad daylight on a public street, is especially terrorizing because it powerfully demonstrates the perpetrator’s domination, control over the victim and imperviousness to the law. Requiring evidence of additional harms both minimizes the gravity of the sexual assault and demeans the victim.”
  2. ⚖️🧑🏽‍⚖️JUDICIAL REVIEW — C.A. 2 — Brace Of Bad BIA Bobbles On Basics Brings “Culture Of Denial” Into Focus — Justice Will Continue To Be Illusive @ EOIR 👎🏽 Until Garland Steps Up & Replaces His Fatally Flawed BIA With Real Judges Who Are Progressive Practical Scholars In Immigration, Due Process, Human Rights, With A Firm Commitment To Bringing Racial & Gender Equity To Now-Disgraced Immigration Courts!🤮
  3. ⚖️🗽🧑🏽‍⚖️COURTS OF APPEALS CONTINUE TO THROW ROTTEN TOMATOES 🍅 @ BIA’S ANTI-ASYLUM BIAS — Basic Analytical, Legal Errors Continue From Weaponized, Non-Expert “Star Chamber” ☠️ Posing As ”Tribunal!” — Judge Garland Must Fix This Inexcusable, Unnecessary, Systemic Failure Now! — Justice For Persons Of Color & Migrants Can’t “Wait For Godot!”
  4. 😎WIN ONE, LOSE ONE☹️:  9TH CIR. ANNIHILATES MATTER OF ARMENDAREZ-MENDEZ (SUA SPONTE REOPENING), WHILE 11TH  CIR. WOODENLY ENDORSES 👎🏻 MATTER OF L-E-A- (NEXUS)!☠️⚰️

CGRS @ Hastings  🇺🇸⚖️🗽ISSUES STATEMENT ON SUIT TO HALT DYING REGIME’S 👎🏻 “KILL ALL ASYLUM SEEKERS” ⚰️ FINAL REGS — As “Age Of Infamy” 🤮  Draws To Disgusting Close, Questions Remain As To Reversal Of Illegal/Immoral Policies, Accountability For Crimes Against Humanity 🏴‍☠️ By Grauleiter Miller ☠️  & Accomplices! 

Karen Musalo
Professor Karen Musalo
Director, Center for Gender & Refugee Studies, Hastings Law
Blaine Bookey
Blaine Bookey
Legal Director
Center for Gender & Refugee Studies @ Hastings Law
Photo: CGRS website

 

https://cgrs.uchastings.edu/news/groups-challenge-trump-administration-rule-gutting-asylum

Groups Challenge Trump Administration Rule Gutting Asylum

Thursday, December 24, 2020

Four immigrant rights organizations – Pangea Legal Services, Dolores Street Community Services, Inc., Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc. (CLINIC), and Capital Area Immigrants’ Rights Coalition – have requested a temporary restraining order in a lawsuit challenging a sweeping new rule that will eviscerate access to protection for people seeking refuge in the United States. Set to take effect on January 11, 2021, the rule completely transforms the asylum process, severely limiting the availability of asylum and related protections to individuals fleeing persecution or torture. The plaintiff organizations are represented by the Center for Gender & Refugee Studies, the Harvard Immigration and Refugee Clinical Program, and the law firm of Sidley Austin LLP.

“Published in the waning hours of the Trump administration, this rule marks its most far-reaching attempt to end asylum yet, and a death knell to our country’s longstanding commitment to offer safe haven for the persecuted,” said Jamie Crook, Director of Litigation at the Center for Gender & Refugee Studies. “The rule violates our laws, flouts our treaty obligations, and upends decades of legal precedent. If the mammoth rule is permitted to take effect, it will result in people being deported to face persecution, torture, and even death in their home countries.”

The rule deprives asylum seekers of any semblance of due process, imposing many barriers to relief before they even have the opportunity to present their case in immigration court. Among its numerous harmful provisions, the rule allows judges to deny an asylum application without holding a hearing. The rule also establishes 12 new “discretionary” factors that will bar many asylum seekers from life-saving protection. These include a de facto bar to asylum for applicants who pass through another country en route to the United States, effectively codifying and expanding the Trump administration’s third country transit bar, which the courts have already struck down as unlawful.

For those who are able to get their case before a judge, the new rule radically redefines who qualifies as a “refugee,” distorting the law so thoroughly that adjudicators can deny relief to virtually all applicants. The rule explicitly excludes from protection survivors of gender-based violence, children and families targeted by gangs, and people fleeing other abhorrent abuses. It also redefines “persecution” in such a way that judges will be directed to deny asylum even to individuals who have been detained and threatened with death due to their beliefs.

“Despite its enormous scope, the administration rushed this rule through the regulatory process without regard for its life-or-death implications for asylum seekers,” said Sabrineh Ardalan, Director of the Harvard Immigration and Refugee Clinical Program. “The administration chose to brush aside nearly 90,000 public comments raising serious concerns with the proposed rule.”

The plaintiffs in this lawsuit are nonprofit organizations that provide immigration legal services and have previously come together to stop other Trump administration attempts to erect unlawful barriers to asylum. They contend that the new rule will make it far more difficult to assist asylum-seeking clients and cause serious harm to the immigrant communities they serve.

The plaintiffs have asked the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California to issue a permanent nationwide injunction to prevent the rule from taking effect, arguing that the rule violates the Immigration and Nationality Act, the Administrative Procedures Act, the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution, and the United States’ duty under international law not to return people to persecution or torture. On Wednesday the plaintiffs requested a temporary restraining order to immediately halt implementation of the rule while the court considers the case.

The plaintiffs also argue that the rule is procedurally invalid, as it was co-issued by Acting Department of Homeland Security Secretary Chad Wolf, whom multiple courts have declared was unlawfully appointed to his position and lacks the authority to promulgate such a rule.

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

Speeding up executions, killing and torturing the most vulnerable humans, denying COVID relief to desperate Americans, issuing corrupt pardons to murderers, fraudsters, cronies, and dishonest politicos, plotting treason against the USG — that’s how the regime and its sycophants have spent their waning days.

Despite the obvious desire to move on and avoid dealing with the crimes and overt corruption of the defeated regime, it will be difficult for the Biden-Harris Administration to avoid questions of accountability for the worst President, worst regime, and worst major party in U.S. history. Honestly coming to grips with the past is often a prerequisite for a better future. 

⚖️🗽🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

12-27-20

Related posts:

  1. 🏴‍☠️☠️🤮👎🏻IN NYT OP-ED, FORMER TRUMP DOJ ATTORNEY ERICA NEWLAND ADMITS COMPLICITY! — Having Undermined Democratic Institutions, Sold False Narratives To (Too Often Willing) Federal Judges, & Participated In Racist-Inspired “Dred Scottification” (“Dehumanization”) Of the Other Is Actually a BIG Deal! — So Is The Destruction Of Due Process & Fundamental Fairness In The Immigration Courts (Now, “Clown Courts”🤡, or “America’s Star Chambers”☠️) 
  2. ⚖️🗽🧑🏽‍⚖️COURTS OF APPEALS CONTINUE TO THROW ROTTEN TOMATOES 🍅 @ BIA’S ANTI-ASYLUM BIAS — Basic Analytical, Legal Errors Continue From Weaponized, Non-Expert “Star Chamber” ☠️ Posing As ”Tribunal!” — Judge Garland Must Fix This Inexcusable, Unnecessary, Systemic Failure Now! — Justice For Persons Of Color & Migrants Can’t “Wait For Godot!”
  3. 🇺🇸⚖️🗽HON. JEFFREY S. CHASE: UNETHICAL, 🏴‍☠️WHITE NATIONALIST,⚰️ MISOGYNIST 🤮“WAR CRIMINAL” ☠️JEFFREY ROSEN TAKES COWARDLY🐓 PARTING SHOT AT REFUGEE🦸🏻 WOMEN! — DOJ Clean-Out, 🧹🪠🧻Fumigation, & Restaffing With Ethical Attorneys Can’t Begin Soon Enough!
  4. PURE BS 💩 — TRUMP’S “BIG LIE” ABOUT MIGRANT APPEARANCES FOR HEARINGS BOGUS AS $3 BILL 🤮👎🏻— Replacing DHS/EOIR With Rational, Qualified, Fact-Based Governance & Real Judiciary Could Bring Appearance Rate Close To 100%!  — Two Items From ImmigrationProf Blog!

🗽⚖️🇺🇸YAEL SCHACHER @ REFUGEES INTERNATIONAL FILES AMICUS BRIEF ON WHY “REMAIN IN MEXICO” IS A “CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY” — “When I wasn’t visiting border, I was trying to understand how the U.S. government could put in place a policy that seemed the very antithesis of what seeking asylum was supposed to be, as articulated in Refugee Act of 1980.”

Yael Schacher
Yael Schacher
Historian
Senior U.S. Advocate
Refugees International

https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.refugeesinternational.org/reports/2020/11/25/le4a9nihwqnhgcn0q2l5fufa8fah6v&source=gmail-imap&ust=1606928318000000&usg=AOvVaw0Fc_OTkc3MFgBm5dijso0i

. . . .

When I wasn’t visiting border, I was trying to understand how the U.S. government could put in place a policy that seemed the very antithesis of what seeking asylum was supposed to be, as articulated in Refugee Act of 1980. I had spent my time before coming to Refugees International researching the writing and passage of that law and the development of the contemporary asylum system since 1980. The Remain in Mexico policy is unprecedented. The U.S. government claims the authority for it lies in a provision of the 1996 immigration law that allows for the return of certain applicants for admission to contiguous territory to await processing.  I began researching this provision and it became clear that it was not intended to apply to asylum seekers.

In support of a challenge to the Remain in Mexico program in California federal court, Refugees International and I, with attorneys from Sidley Austin LLP, submitted this brief describing why the Refugee Act forbids the program, a reality that the 1996 law does not change. The argument of the brief is that, when the 1980 Refugee Act was enacted, it was intended to establish a uniform process for consideration of asylum claims that would preclude this return to Mexico approach. A lynchpin in the argument is that there were two versions of the asylum provision of the Refugee Act—one proposed by Congresswoman Holtzman and one by Senator Edward Kennedy. Only the House version provided that asylum seekers at a land border be accorded the same ability to seek asylum as those already in the country. When, in conference, Holtzman’s version was accepted, Congress made a conscious choice in pursuit of uniformity in consideration of asylum requests: that the United States would treat asylum seekers at the border the same as it would all others. And the language mandating uniform treatment of asylum seekers in the 1980 Refugee Act was reiterated in the 1996 immigration law.

. . . .

 

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

The case is Immigrant Defenders Law Center v. Wolf, USDC, C.D. CA.

Read Yael’s intro, her outstanding brief prepared by Sidley Austin LLP, and the “Holtzman Papers” at the above link.  Notably, Sidley Austin is one of the great firms that have helped our Round Table with amicus briefs! It’s what happens when you connect the dots among history, research, social justice, and the law. It’s why the Liberal Arts are the wave of a better future and a better Federal Judiciary! It’s all about perspective and problem solving!


Thanks Yael for all that you, Refugees International, and great pro bono lawyers like Sidley Austin do for justice and humanity.

The real problem here: A disgraceful Supremes’ majority 🏴‍☠️ that improperly “greenlighted” this totally illegal, racist-inspired, “crime against humanity,” cooked up by neo-Nazi hate monger Stephen Miller ☠️🤮, after it had properly and timely been enjoined by lower Federal courts. And, a complicit EOIR that consistently fails to provide due process and justice to asylum seekers is a huge part of the problem. 

Unlike the Supremes, the EOIR Clown Show 🤡 can be removed and justice at all levels improved just by a putting the right experts from the NDPA in charge right off the bat.

Democratic Administrations, particularly the Obama Administration, have a history of not getting the job done when it comes to achievable immigration reforms within the bureaucracy. If you don’t want four more years of needless death, disorder, demeaning of humanity, and deterioration of the most important “retail level” of our justice system, let the incoming Biden Administration know: Throw out the EOIR Clown Show and bring in the experts from the NDPA to turn the Immigration Courts into real, independent courts of equal justice and humanity that will be a source of pride, not a deadly and dangerous national embarrassment! 

Contrary to all the mindless “woe is me” suggestions that it will take decades to undo Stephen Miller’s (is he really that much smarter than any Democrat politico?) racist nonsense, EOIR is totally fixable — BUT ONLY WITH THE RIGHT FOLKS FROM THE NDPA IN CHARGE!  

It’s only “mission impossible” if the Biden-Harris Administration approaches EOIR with the same indifference, lack of urgency, and disregard for expertise and leadership at the DOJ that has plagued past Dem Administrations on immigration, human rights, and social justice.

It won’t take decades, nor will it take zillions of taxpayer dollars! With the right folks in leadership positions at EOIR, support for independent problem solving (not mindless micromanagement) from the AG & DOJ, and a completely new BIA selected from the ranks of the NDPA, we will see drastic improvements in the delivery of justice at EOIR by this time next year. And, that will just be the beginning!

No more clueless politicos, go along to get along bureaucrats, toadies, and restrictionist holdovers calling the shots at EOIR, America’s most important, least understood, and “most fixable” court system! No more abuse of migrants and their representatives! No more ridiculous, “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” generating self-created backlogs! No more vile and stupid White Nationalist enforcement gimmicks being passed off as “policies!” No more “Amateur Night at The Bijou” when it comes to administration of the immigrant justice system at the DOJ under Dems!

Get mad!  Get angry! Stop the nonsense! Tell every Democrat in Congress and the Biden Administration to bring in the NDPA experts to fix EOIR! Now! Before more lives are lost and futures ruined! It won’t get done if we don’t speak out and demand to be heard!

This is our time! Don’t let it pass with the wrong people being put in charge — yet again! Don’t be “left at the station” as the train of immigrant justice at Justice pulls out with the best engineers left standing on the platform and the wrong folks at the controls! Some “train wrecks” aren’t survivable! 🚂☠️⚰️

Due Process Forever!

PWS

11-28-20

Related posts:

  1. DEMS NEED TO STOP REPEATING THE BOGUS 🤥 NARRATIVES ABOUT THE (LARGELY SELF-CREATED & OVERBLOWN) “SOUTHERN BORDER CRISIS:” Channeling “Courtside,” Yale Schacher Sets Forth A Plan For Using Experts To Not Only Reinstitute But Drastically Improve Due Process ⚖️🗽🇺🇸 For Asylum Seekers! — It’s NOT Rocket 🚀 Science!
  2. GROSS NATIONAL DISGRACE: “A Fucking Disaster That Is Designed to Fail”: How Trump Wrecked America’s Immigration Courts — Fernanda Echavarri Reports For Mother Jones On How Our Failed Justice System Daily Abuses The Most Vulnerable While Feckless Legislators &   Smugly Complicit Article III Judges Look On & Ignore The Human Carnage They Are Enabling — “ Two days after US immigration officials sent her to Tijuana, she was raped.”
  3. 😰NO HAPPY NEW YEAR FOR FAMILIES IN “THE NEW AMERICAN GULAG”☠️⚰️ — As Kakistocracy Of War Criminals 🤮🏴‍☠️ Departs, Will President Biden Have The Wisdom & Guts To Move Beyond “The Dem Border Alarmists” & Get The Progressive Leaders 🦸🏽‍♂️⚖️ From The NDPA In Place To Bring Due Process & Order To The Border?🗽🇺🇸
  4. HOW “AMERICA’S KILLER COURTS” PROMOTE “CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY” — HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH: TRUMP & HIS WHITE NATIONALIST SYCOPHANTS & TOADIES TOUT LAWLESS POLICIES THAT VIOLATE LEGAL OBLIGATIONS & HELP KILL, RAPE, TORTURE THOSE RETURNED TO EL SALVADOR — Supremes & Article III Judiciary Complicit In Gross Human Rights Violations! 

WHILE SESSIONS “BLOWS OFF” VIEWS OF “OUR GANG” OF RETIRED US IJs & BIA JUDGES, ARTICLE III (“REAL’) COURTS (& EVEN “OIL”) ARE PAYING ATTENTION – J.C. Andre of Sidley Austin Reports That 10th Circuit Has Remanded Matumona v. Sessions On The Issue Of Access To Counsel!

Judge Schmidt –

 

Thank you so much for the flattering post about our work with you all in recent months.

 

On that front, we have two updates for you all.

 

First, please see attached the as-filed versions of all three briefs filed last week in Cantarero-Lagos v. Sessions, CA5 No. 18-60115 (the petitioner’s brief, our amicus brief, and the nonprofit immigration legal services’ amicus brief).  As some of you will see, there were a couple of you whom we could not include as signatories to our brief because we received your joinders too late.  Our apologies for not being able to work those of you in by name, but we had a hard filing deadline of 10 p.m. PST on May 23.  Rest assured, however, that the helpful comments you gave us along the way are reflected in the brief.

 

Second, in case some of you were not yet aware, all of our work two months ago in Matumona v. Sessions, CA10 No. 18-09500, paid off.  On the government’s concession, the Tenth Circuit last week remanded the case to the BIA.  A copy of the remand order also is attached.

 

It’s been a pleasure and an honor to work with you guys so much over the last two months.

 

Hope everyone had a great Memorial Day weekend,

 

jc

 

JEAN-CLAUDE ANDRÉ

SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
+1 213 896 6007
JCAndre@Sidley.com

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

Here’s a copy of the remand order:

2018-05-22_Order Remanding

And, here’s a link to Hon. Jeffrey Chase’s previous blog on the Matumona Amicus effort:

https://wp.me/p8eeJm-2ko

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

The pleasure is all ours, J.C.!  Thanks for everything that you and Katelyn Rowe have done for us and to Sidley Austin for agreeing to undertake this important pro bono project!

Always interesting how folks sometimes give your views more attention after you’re gone.

Sessions is setting a course for disaster in the Article III Courts. If he keeps on interfering with the judicial process and listening to only one side (as he has done all his life), DHS & DOJ are likely to get themselves so tied up in litigation that nobody will be deported as the Immigration Court system disintegrates and the Article IIIs move in to clean up the mess.

My current Immigration Law & Policy students at Georgetown Law seemed surprised to learn that there is a so-called “court system” in America where the Chief Prosecutor appoints the judges, sets the rules, and can change the result of any decision that he doesn’t like.  Sure sounds like something out of a Kafka novel or the Country Report on a Third World dictatorship.

PWS

05-30-18

 

Related posts:

  1. THE LATEST FROM THE HON. JEFFREY CHASE: “Amicus Brief Filed in 10th Cir. Petition for Remotely-Detained Asylum Seeker” — PLUS: A Link To The Actual Brief! — MATUMONA V. SESSIONS, 10th Cir.
  2. HON. JEFFREY CHASE: In-Depth Analysis Of “Our Gang’s” Amicus Brief In Matter of W-Y-C- & H-O-B-
  3. ANOTHER AMICUS OPPORTUNITY FOR RETIRED IMMIGRATION JUDGES AND BIA APPELLATE JUDGES – Join My Friend & Colleague Judge Eliza Klein, Pro Bono Counsel Sidley Austin, The Heartland Alliance, & Me In A 10th Circuit Case Involving Access To Counsel In Immigration Detention (There Isn’t Any, For All Practical Purposes)
  4. THE FURTHER EXPLOITS OF “OUR GANG” – 5th Circuit Grants Oral Argument In Matter of W-Y-C- & H-O-B- (requiring asylum applicants to clearly delineate the PSG before the IJ)!

HON. JEFFREY CHASE: In-Depth Analysis Of “Our Gang’s” Amicus Brief In Matter of W-Y-C- & H-O-B-

https://www.jeffreyschase.com/blog/2018/5/28/amicus-brief-filed-in-w-y-c-h-o-b-appeal

Amicus Brief Filed in W-Y-C- & H-O-B- Appeal

On May 23, an amicus brief was filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on behalf of a group of 13 former immigration judges (including myself) and BIA members in the appeal of the BIA’s precedent decision in Matter of W-Y-C- & H-O-B-.  In that decision, a three-judge panel of the BIA held that an asylum applicant must clearly delineate its proposed particular social group before the immigration judge.  The Board held that the asylum applicant may not alter the social group formulation on appeal to the BIA, citing the “inherently factual nature of the social group analysis.”

Our brief argues that the Board’s reasoning is flawed.  The Board has held that the determination of whether a particular social group is cognizable is a question of law which the Board may review de novo.  Our brief also points out that the Board’s arguments as to why it will generally not consider a new group on appeal overlooks the fact that it has done just that in the past.

One member of our group, former BIA chairperson Paul W. Schmidt, was the author if the Board’s 1996 landmark decision in Matter of Kasinga, the first BIA precedent to grant a gender-based asylum claim.  Two other members of our group, former Board Members Gus Villageliu, and Lory D. Rosenberg,  respectively joined in the majority opinion and wrote a concurring opinion in Kasinga.  As the three pointed out in the drafting process, the particular social group that the Board approved in that case was neither delineated before the IJ nor proposed by either party on appeal.  It was crafted for the first time by the Board itself, in a manner that was consistent with the factual record below and which allowed the Board to grant relief. The three noted that the ability of the Board itself to alter the group’s contours is often necessary to allow an en banc Board to reach consensus.

Our brief also pointed to the Board’s decision in Matter of M-E-V-G- to remand the record where “the respondent’s proposed particular social group has evolved during the pendency of his appeal.”  We also point out how circuit courts have frequently cited to the Board’s decades-long practice of clarifying proposed groups.

Our brief additionally underscores the extreme complexity of particular social group formulation, particularly in light of the highly-criticized additional requirements of particularly and social distinction imposed by the Board in recent years.  We note that group delineations will often be made by pro se respondents, often with a limited mastery of English, sometimes in detained facilities with limited access to counsel or law libraries.

This was the sixth Amicus brief filed by our group.  We are most thankful for the outstanding assistance of attorneys Jean-Claude Andre and Katelyn Rowe of the law firm of Sidley Austin for lending their assistance pro bono for the second time in the drafting of our group’s brief.  We also acknowledge the distinguished counsel for the respondents, led by Fatma Marouf of Texas A&M Law School, Geoff Hoffman of the University of Houston Law Center, and Deborah Anker of Harvard Law School.

The link to our full brief is here:  http://immigrationcourtside.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Cantarero-Amicus-Brief.pdf

The cooperation and assistance of so many brilliant minds and caring hearts is a source of great comfort in these challenging times.

Copyright 2018 Jeffrey S. Chase.  All rights reserved.

 

 

fullsizeoutput_40da.jpeg

Jeffrey S. Chase is an immigration lawyer in New York City.  Jeffrey is a former Immigration Judge, senior legal advisor at the Board of Immigration Appeals, and volunteer staff attorney at Human Rights First.  He is a past recipient of AILA’s annual Pro Bono Award, and previously chaired AILA’s Asylum Reform Task Force.

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

It’s a privilege to be part of a team with Jeffrey and my other colleagues. Unfortunately, however, the all-out assault on Due Process, fundamental fairness, and human decency by Trump & Sessions means that we’re busy all the time.

PWS

05-29-18

Related posts:

  1. ROUND TABLE NEWS:  Getting The Due Process Message Across — 9th Cir. Orders Regime To Respond To Round Table’s Amicus Briefs in Matter of A-B- Challenges!
  2. WITH HELP FROM GIBSON DUNN, “GANG OF 16” RETIRED US IMMIGRATION JUDGES FILES AMICUS BRIEF OPPOSING AG’S INTERFERENCE IN MATTER OF A-B-
  3. HON. JEFFREY CHASE: Speaking Out Against The “Notable Minority” Of U.S. Immigration Judges Who Demonstrated Bias Against Women & Asylum Seekers – “Think about that: some federally appointed immigration judges cheered the fact that women who had been violently raped and beaten in their country can no longer find refuge here, and will be sent back to face more violence, and possibly death. Will there be any consequences for their actions? Were the many outstanding immigration judges who have been proud to grant such cases in the past, who were saddened and sickened by this decision, able to openly jeer or weep or curse this decision? Or would that have been viewed as dangerous?”
  4. HOW “AMERICA’S KILLER COURTS” PROMOTE “CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY” — HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH: TRUMP & HIS WHITE NATIONALIST SYCOPHANTS & TOADIES TOUT LAWLESS POLICIES THAT VIOLATE LEGAL OBLIGATIONS & HELP KILL, RAPE, TORTURE THOSE RETURNED TO EL SALVADOR — Supremes & Article III Judiciary Complicit In Gross Human Rights Violations! 

THE LATEST FROM THE HON. JEFFREY CHASE: “Amicus Brief Filed in 10th Cir. Petition for Remotely-Detained Asylum Seeker” — PLUS: A Link To The Actual Brief! — MATUMONA V. SESSIONS, 10th Cir.

https://www.jeffreyschase.com/blog/2018/3/22/amicus-brief-filed-in-10th-cir-petition-for-remotely-detained-asylum-seeker

Amicus Brief Filed in 10th Cir. Petition for Remotely-Detained Asylum Seeker

An amicus brief was filed yesterday by attorneys at the law firm of Sidley Austin on behalf of an asylum seeker from the Democratic Republic of Congo in the case of Matumona v. Sessions.  Fleeing for his life and seeking asylum in the U.S., the petitioner upon arrival was detained by DHS in the Cibola County Detention Center in New Mexico.

To call Cibola remotely located is truly an understatement.  If you Google Map it, you will see that the detention center is surrounded on the east, south, and west by the stunningly scenic, 263,000 acre El Malpais National Conservation Area.  Moving out a bit further, the map shows reservations of the Zuni, Navajo, and Apache nations, beyond which lies the Sevilleta National Wildlife Refuge, and both the Carson and Santa Fe National Forests.

In fairness, Albuquerque is an hour and a half drive away.  However, that city has a total of 36 attorneys who are members of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, working for 25 offices or organizations.  By comparison, New York City has well over a thousand AILA members (not including many others located in the surrounding suburbs). The problem of representation is compounded by the fact that the petitioner, although detained at Cibola, had his removal hearings in the Immigration Court in Denver, 500 miles away.  The National Immigrant Justice Center was able to identify only 21 attorneys in all of New Mexico and Texas who would be willing to represent detainees at Cibola in their removal proceedings. For those requiring pro bono representation, the options are even fewer. According to the latest figures provided by DHS, there were 689 non-citizens being detained in Cibola, and that was less than the facility’s full capacity.

Therefore, close to none of those detained at Cibola are able to exercise their constitutional right to be represented by an attorney, as assigned counsel at government expense does not exist in immigration proceedings.  A study by the Vera Institute of Justice found a staggering 1,100 percent increase in successful outcomes when universal representation was made available to the detained population at the Varick Street Detention Facility in New York City.  I will note that universal representation was possible there because the Varick Street facility is located in the heart of New York City, within walking distance of a multitude of immigration law offices, law school clinics, and not-for-profit organizations.

Left to represent themselves, asylum seekers detained at Cibola and other similar remote facilities are further hampered in their limited access to phones (which are necessary to contact friends and relatives abroad who might provide evidence to corroborate the asylum claim), and lack of access to the internet (which would allow detainees to research the law and to access and download country condition materials in support of their claims).  Additionally, detention centers tend to have inadequate law libraries. Furthermore, detainees are required to complete their applications, conduct research, and file supporting documents in English, which is incredibly difficult for someone such as the petitioner, whose native language is Lingala. EOIR’s own statistics show that only ten percent of respondents in removal proceedings last year had enough of a command of English to allow them to participate in their proceedings in that language.  As asylum seekers have often suffered torture or other violence, post-traumatic stress disorder and other physical or psychological remnants of their past mistreatment (which might be further exacerbated by their detention) creates an additional obstacle to self-representation. All of this overlooks the fact that U.S. asylum law is highly complex even for educated English-speakers.

The latest amicus brief raises these and other points on behalf of a group of former immigration judges and BIA Board members.  The brief further makes recommendations for practices to be adopted by immigration judges to help mitigate the above-cited obstacles to pro se applicants in pursuing relief. These recommendations include having the immigration judges explain the applicable legal standard (and any bars to relief) to pro se applicants; introducing country condition evidence (as well as making applicants aware of country condition resources available on EOIR’s own Virtual Law Library); and advocating for free, uninterrupted access to telephones for respondents in detention centers.

To my knowledge, our amicus brief filed with the BIA last summer in the U.S. Supreme Courts remand of Negusie v. Holder was the first time that former immigration judges and Board members identified as a group for amicus purposes.  The seven of us who participated in that brief doubled to 14 for the next such brief, filed with the Attorney General last month in Matter of Castro-Tum.  I see it as a positive development that in the short time since these briefs were filed, we have been called upon to provide our experience in expertise in two more cases, one filed last week in the Ninth Circuit on the issue of representation for children in immigration proceedings (C.J.L.G. v. Sessions), and now in this case filed yesterday in the Tenth Circuit.  Hopefully, this outstanding group will continue to contribute to the cause of justice for vulnerable noncitizens in removal proceedings.

And our heartfelt thanks to the dedicated attorneys at Sidley Austin, Jean-Claude Andre and Katelyn Rowe, for drafting the outstanding brief.

Copyright 2018 Jeffrey S. Chase.  All rights reserved.

 

 

fullsizeoutput_40da.jpeg

Jeffrey S. Chase is an immigration lawyer in New York City.  Jeffrey is a former Immigration Judge, senior legal advisor at the Board of Immigration Appeals, and volunteer staff attorney at Human Rights First.  He is a past recipient of AILA’s annual Pro Bono Award, and previously chaired AILA’s Asylum Reform Task Force.

REPRINTED BY PERMISSION

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

HERE’S A COPY OF OUR BRIEF, PREPARED BY THE FABULOUS Jean-Claude André, & Katelyn N. Rowe, Sidley Austin LLP, LOS ANGELES, CA:

Matumona v Sessions Amicus Brief Final

HERE’S THE TABLE OF CONTENTS:

Identity and Interest of Amici Curiae …………………………………1

 

ARGUMENT …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..2

I. Immigrants face significant obstacles to accessing justice when they are held in
remote detention facilities……………………………………………………………………………………….7

II. Immigrants are deprived of access to justice when they have no legal
representation, and Immigration Judges are unable to meaningfully fill this justice gap……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..15

III. Immigration Judges should adopt certain best practices that can better enable
them to develop a proper record in cases involving pro se litigants…………………………….25

CONCLUSION………………………………………………………………………………………………………………30 APPENDIX……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..App. 1

HERE’S THE “CAST OF CHARACTERS:”

The Honorable Steven R. Abrams was appointed as an Immigration Judge in September of 1997. From 1999 to June 2005, Judge Abrams served as the Immigration Judge at the Queens Wackenhut Immigration Court at JFK Airport in Queens. He has worked at the Immigration Courts in New York and Varick Street Detention facility. Prior to becoming an Immigration Judge, he was the Special Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Eastern District of New York in the Criminal Division in charge of immigration. Judge Abrams retired in 2013 and now lectures on immigration in North Carolina.

The Honorable Sarah M. Burr began serving as an Immigration Judge in New York in 1994. She was appointed Assistant Chief Immigration Judge in charge of the New York, Fishkill, Ulster, Bedford Hills, and Varick Street immigration courts in 2006. Judge Burr served in this capacity until January 2011, when she returned to the bench full-time until she retired in 2012. Prior to her appointment, she worked as a staff attorney for the Criminal Defense Division of the Legal Aid Society in its trial and appeals bureaus. She also worked as the supervising attorney in the Legal Aid Society immigration unit. Judge Burr currently serves on the Board of Directors of the Immigrant Justice Corps.

 

The Honorable Jeffrey S. Chase served as an Immigration Judge in New York City from 1995 to 2007 and was an attorney advisor and senior legal advisor at the Board of Immigration Appeals from 2007 to 2017. He is presently in private practice as an independent consultant on immigration law, and is of counsel to the law firm of DiRaimondo & Masi in New York City. Prior to his appointment, he was a solo practitioner and volunteer staff attorney at Human Rights First. He was also the recipient of the American Immigration Lawyers Association’s annual pro bono award in 1994 and chaired AILA’s Asylum Reform Task Force.

The Honorable Bruce J. Einhorn served as a United States Immigration Judge in Los Angeles from 1990 to 2007. He now serves as an Adjunct Professor of Law at Pepperdine University School of Law in Malibu, California, and is a Visiting Professor of International, Immigration, and Refugee Law at the University of Oxford, England. Judge Einhorn is also a contributing op-ed columnist at the D.C.-based The Hill newspaper. He is a member of the Bars of Washington D.C., New York, Pennsylvania, and the Supreme Court of the United States.

The Honorable Cecelia M. Espenoza served as a member of the Board of Immigration Appeals from 2000-2003. She then served in various positions at the Office of the General Counsel for the Executive Office for Immigration Review from 2003-2017, including Senior Associate General Counsel, Privacy Officer, Records Officer, and Senior FOIA Counsel. Judge Espenoza presently works in private practice as an independent consultant on immigration law and is also a member of the World Bank’s Access to Information Appeals Board. Prior to her EOIR appointments, she was a law professor at St. Mary’s University (1997-2000) and the University of Denver College of Law (1990-1997), where she taught Immigration Law and Crimes and supervised students in the Immigration and Criminal Law Clinics. Judge Espenoza is a graduate of the University of Utah and the University of Utah S.J. Quinney College of Law, and in 2014 she was recognized as the University of Utah Law School’s Alumna of the Year. She also received the Outstanding Service Award from the Colorado Chapter of the American Immigration Lawyers Association in 1997 and the Distinguished Lawyer in Public Service Award from the Utah State Bar in 1989-1990. Judge Espenoza has published several articles on Immigration Law.

The Honorable John F. Gossart, Jr. served as an Immigration Judge from 1982 until his retirement in 2013 and is the former president of the National Association of Immigration Judges. At the time of his retirement, he was the third most senior immigration judge in the United States. Judge Gossart was awarded the Attorney General Medal by then Attorney General Eric Holder. From 1975 to 1982, he served in various positions with the former Immigration Naturalization Service, including as general attorney, naturalization attorney, trial attorney, and deputy assistant commissioner for naturalization. From 1997 to 2016, Judge Gossart was an adjunct professor of law and taught immigration law at the University of Baltimore School of Law and more recently at the University of Maryland School of Law. He has been a faculty member of the National Judicial College, and has guest lectured at numerous law schools, the Judicial Institute of Maryland, and the former Maryland Institute for the Continuing Education of Lawyers. Judge Gossart is a past board member of the Immigration Law Section of the Federal Bar Association. Judge Gossart served in the United States Army from 1967 to 1969 and is a veteran of the Vietnam War.

The Honorable Carol King served as an Immigration Judge from 1995 to 2017 in San Francisco and was a temporary member of the Board of Immigration Appeals for six months between 2010 and 2011. Judge King previously practiced immigration law for ten years, both with the Law Offices of Marc Van Der Hout and in her own private practice. She also taught immigration law for five years at Golden Gate University School of Law and is currently on the faculty of the Stanford University Law School Trial Advocacy Program. Judge King now works as a Removal Defense Strategist, advising attorneys and assisting with research and writing related to complex removal defense issues.

The Honorable Eliza Klein served as an Immigration Judge from 1994 to 2015 and presided over immigration cases in Miami, Boston, and Chicago. During her tenure, Judge Klein adjudicated well over 20,000 cases, issuing decisions on removal, asylum applications, and related matters. Judge Klein currently practices immigration law at the Gil Law Group in Aurora, Illinois.

The Honorable Lory D. Rosenberg served on the Board of Immigration Appeals from 1995 to 2002. She then served as Director of the Defending Immigrants Partnership of the National Legal Aid & Defender Association from 2002 until 2004. Prior to her appointment, she worked with the American Immigration Law Foundation from 1991 to 1995. She was also an adjunct professor of law and taught immigration law at American University Washington College of Law from 1997 to 2004. She is the founder of IDEAS Consulting and Coaching, LLC, a consulting service for immigration lawyers, and is the author of Immigration Law and Crimes. She currently works as Senior Advisor for the Immigrant Defenders Law Group.

The Honorable Susan Roy started her legal career as a Staff Attorney at the Board of Immigration Appeals, a position she received through the Attorney General’s Honors Program. She served as Assistant Chief Counsel, National Security Attorney, and Senior Attorney for the Department of Homeland Security Office of Chief Counsel in Newark, New Jersey. She then became an Immigration Judge in Newark, New Jersey. Judge Roy has been in private practice for nearly five years, and two years ago she opened her own immigration law firm. She also currently serves as the New Jersey Chapter Liaison to the Executive Office for Immigration Review for the American Immigration Lawyers Association and the Vice Chair of the Immigration Law Section of the New Jersey State Bar Association. In 2016, Judge Roy was awarded the Outstanding Pro Bono Attorney of the Year by the New Jersey Chapter of the Federal Bar Association.

The Honorable Paul W. Schmidt served as an Immigration Judge from 2003 to 2016 in Arlington, Virginia. He previously served as Chairman of the Board of Immigration Appeals from 1995 to 2001, and as a Board Member from 2001 to 2003. Judge Schmidt authored the landmark decision Matter of Kasinga, 21 I&N Dec. 357 (BIA 1995), which extended asylum protection to victims of female genital mutilation. He served in various positions with the former Immigration Naturalization Service, including Acting General Counsel (1986- 1987, 1979-1981) and Deputy General Counsel (1978-1987). He worked as the managing partner of the Washington, D.C. office of Fragomen, DelRey & Bernsen from 1993 to 1995. He also practiced business immigration law with the Washington, D.C., office of Jones, Day, Reavis and Pogue from 1987 to 1992 and was a partner at the firm from 1990 to 1992. Judge Schmidt served as an adjunct professor of law at George Mason University School of Law in 1989 and at Georgetown University Law Center from 2012 to 2014 and 2017 to present. He was a founding member of the International Association of Refugee Law Judges (IARLJ) and presently serves as Americas Vice President. He also serves on the Advisory Board of AYUDA, a nonprofit that provides direct legal services to immigrant communities in Washington, D.C. and Maryland. Judge Schmidt assists the National Immigrant Justice Center/Heartland Alliance on various projects, as well as writes and lectures on immigration law topics at various forums throughout the country. Judge Schmidt created immigrationcourtside.com, an immigration law blog.

HERE’S A SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT:

Thousands of immigrants are currently detained in detention facilities that are located hours away from the nearest urban areas. See Kyle Kim, Immigrants held in remote ICE facilities struggle to find legal aid before they’re deported, L.A. Times (Sept. 28, 2017), http://www.latimes.com/projects/la-na-access-to- counsel-deportation/ (“About 30% of detained immigrants are held in facilities more than 100 miles from the nearest government-listed legal aid resource.”); Human Rights First, Jails and Jumpsuits: Transforming the U.S. Immigration Detention System—A Two Year Review 44 (2011), https://www.humanrightsfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/pdf/HRF-Jails-and- Jumpsuits-report.pdf (“40 percent of all ICE bed space is currently more than 60 miles from an urban center.”). These immigrants will struggle, and often fail, to retain an attorney who has the time, resources, and relevant expertise to represent them through complex removal proceedings. Even when detained immigrants do secure legal representation, this relationship may be jeopardized by a variety of remote detention conditions: lack of adequate access to telephones in detention facilities; the possibility of being transferred from one detention facility to another; and the difficulty for attorneys to regularly visit remote detention facilities.

For those immigrants that must journey through the labyrinth of immigration court proceedings alone, countless obstacles abound. See Baltazar-Alcazar v. I.N.S., 386 F.3d 940, 948 (9th Cir. 2004) (“[T]he immigration laws have been termed second only to the Internal Revenue Code in complexity. A lawyer is often the only person who could thread the labyrinth.”); Drax v. Reno, 338 F.3d 98, 99 (2d Cir. 2003) (“This case vividly illustrates the labyrinthine character of modern immigration law—a maze of hyper-technical statutes and regulations that engender waste, delay, and confusion for the Government and petitioners alike.”); Lok v. Immigration & Naturalization Serv., 548 F.2d 37, 38 (2d Cir. 1997) (noting that the Immigration and Nationality Act bears a “striking resemblance . . . [to] King Minos’s labyrinth in ancient Crete”). Language barriers will often undermine an immigrant’s ability to effectively represent herself. Although pro se immigrants will receive interpreters during their court hearings, they are still required to complete asylum applications and other court filings in English. In addition, the law libraries at remote detention facilities often have inadequate legal resources that are not up-to-date and/or have not been translated into the immigrant’s native language. These obstacles make it extremely difficult for pro se immigrants to learn about possible claims for relief and determine whether they are even eligible to make such claims. See Chicago Appleseed Fund for Justice, Assembly Line Injustice: Blueprint to Reform America’s Immigration Courts 29 (2009), http://appleseednetwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Assembly-Line- Injustice-Blueprint-to-Reform-Americas-Immigration-Courts1.pdf (“Those immigrants appearing without a lawyer, or ‘pro se,’ often enter the system without any understanding of the process before them, much less of the grounds for relief that may be available to them.”).

Petitioner Adama Heureux Matumona of the Democratic Republic of Congo faced many of these access-to-justice obstacles because he was detained at the Cibola County Detention Center, which is located approximately 300 miles away from some of the nearest pro bono legal services providers and 500 miles away from his immigration court hearings. (AR 20, 432) Mr. Matumona was unable to secure legal representation because he did not have the financial means to pay for a private attorney. (AR 10, 16, 277) Of the three pro bono legal services providers that the Immigration Judge recommended, two did not represent immigrants in Cibola and the third did not have adequate interpretation services to communicate with Mr. Matumona, who is a native Lingala speaker. (AR 250, 252, 432) In addition, Mr. Matumona could not find pro bono counsel on his own because he did not have enough money to pay for the telephone service at Cibola and was not granted free access to telephones at Cibola. (AR 10, 20)

As a pro se litigant, Mr. Matumona’s likelihood of securing relief in his removal proceedings was significantly limited. Despite the fact that Mr. Matumona does not speak English, the Immigration Judge expected him to complete his asylum application and other court filings in English. (AR 303) All the while, Mr. Matumona has endured residual trauma from fleeing his home country out of fear that his community organizing activities would lead to his imprisonment, disappearance, or death by the ruling regime. (AR 339-42) This trauma was further exacerbated by the many months Mr. Matumona has spent in detention, separated from his wife, eight children, and other family members. (AR 324) All of these factors made it more burdensome for Mr. Matumona to build and present his case than if he had been represented by counsel from the beginning.

In amici’s decades of experience, immigrants like Mr. Matumona who lack access to counsel and are held in remote detention facilities will be deprived of a meaningful opportunity to investigate and develop their cases to a degree that is consistent with the requirements of due process. Immigration Judges are limited in their ability to fill this justice gap due to time constraints caused by backlogged dockets and pressure to avoid coaching pro se immigrants because it contravenes their mandate of impartial arbiter. While Immigration Judges can grant continuances to give pro se immigrants additional time to find counsel or collect evidence, this action also has the negative consequences of increasing docket backlog and prolonging an immigrant’s time in detention. In addition, the Executive Office for Immigration Review has cautioned that “an Immigration Judge must carefully consider not just the number of continuances granted, but also the length of such continuances” and “should not routinely or automatically grant continuances absent a showing of good cause or a clear case law basis.” Exec. Office for Immigration Review, Operating Policies and Procedures Memorandum 17-01: Continuances 3 (July 31, 2017), https://www.justice.gov/eoir/file/oppm17- 01/download (“OPPM 17-01: Continuances”). This kind of directive has a chilling effect on Immigration Judges who may be inclined to grant continuances in cases where they believe it is necessary to protect due process. Moreover, there is no guarantee that a continuance will enable a pro se immigrant to secure counsel or obtain needed evidence—especially in light of the other obstacles that detained immigrants face in remote detention facilities. Thus, the combination of remote detention and lack of legal representation not only impedes immigrants’ access to justice, but also overburdens the operation of the immigration system as a whole.

Amici respectfully submit that the Board of Immigration Appeals did not recognize the various access-to-justice barriers that Mr. Matumona faced in presenting his case to the Immigration Judge. Therefore, this Court should grant Mr. Matumona’s Petition for Review, vacate the Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision, and remand his case. In addition, amici request that this Court encourage Immigration Judges to adopt certain best practices, described below in Part III, that will ensure a detailed record is developed in cases with pro se immigrants so that they receive meaningful review of their claims for relief.

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

Thanks again to J.C., Katelyn, Sidley Austin, and my wonderful colleagues who joined in the brief. For better or worse, there is no shortage of opportunities for Amicus involvement in the current climate.

PWS

03-23-18

 

 

 

 

 

Related posts:

  1. RETIRED US IMMIGRATION JUDGES FILE AMICUS BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MINOR RESPONDENT’S RIGHT TO COUNSEL IN 9TH CIRCUIT EN BANC REQUEST – C.J.L.G. v. Sessions, 9th Cir., Filed March 15, 2018 – Read It Here!
  2. TAL @ CNN TELLS ALL ON HOW SESSIONS IS USING HIS AUTHORITY OVER THE SCREWED UP U.S. IMMIGRATION COURTS TO ATTACK DUE PROCESS & TARGET VULNERABLE ASYLUM SEEKERS — One Of My Quotes: “I think due process is under huge attack in the immigration courts. Every once in a while Sessions says something about due process, but his actions say something quite different.”
  3. MICHELLE BRANE @ WOMEN’S REFUGEE COMMISSION — “Why I March!”
  4. HON. JEFFREY CHASE: Speaking Out Against The “Notable Minority” Of U.S. Immigration Judges Who Demonstrated Bias Against Women & Asylum Seekers – “Think about that: some federally appointed immigration judges cheered the fact that women who had been violently raped and beaten in their country can no longer find refuge here, and will be sent back to face more violence, and possibly death. Will there be any consequences for their actions? Were the many outstanding immigration judges who have been proud to grant such cases in the past, who were saddened and sickened by this decision, able to openly jeer or weep or curse this decision? Or would that have been viewed as dangerous?”

ANOTHER AMICUS OPPORTUNITY FOR RETIRED IMMIGRATION JUDGES AND BIA APPELLATE JUDGES – Join My Friend & Colleague Judge Eliza Klein, Pro Bono Counsel Sidley Austin, The Heartland Alliance, & Me In A 10th Circuit Case Involving Access To Counsel In Immigration Detention (There Isn’t Any, For All Practical Purposes)

Judge Klein,

I hope you’re well.  Allow me to introduce you to a team of lawyers from the firm Sidley Austin who are working on an amicus brief on behalf of immigration judges in the 10th Circuit case that I mentioned to you.  As we discussed, the case involves an arriving asylum seeker who was detained in a remote facility with no LOP, and with no realistic access to counsel. And, to complicate matters, at the time of his hearing, there was not meaningful phone access to the jail.  The goal of the brief will be to address, from a judge’s perspective, the challenges of adjudicating such cases where there’s no real option for counsel and also to hopefully address some of the ways in which IJs have had to work around the absence of counsel to develop an adequate record in such cases.

The team from Sidley will get going on drafting, but in the meantime, I think it would be very helpful if you could work with them to reach out to other IJs who you certainly know better than any of us.  We’ve provided Sidley a list of former IJs who have been willing to sign amicus briefs in other contexts, so hopefully that list (and your inside info) will help with the outreach.

Keren Zwick                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  (Pronouns: she/her/ella)

Associate Director of Litigation

National Immigrant Justice Center

A HEARTLAND ALLIANCE Program

208 S. LaSalle Street, Suite 1300, Chicago, IL 60604
T: 312.660.1364 | F: 312.660.1505 | E: kzwick@heartlandalliance.org

www.immigrantjustice.org | Facebook | Twitter

 

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

If you can help out, please respond directly to the attorney drafting the brief Jean-Claude Andre of Sidley Austin: JCAndre@sidley.com

I recently had the honor and pleasure of working with the Sidley Austin litigators on an Amicus Brief in the 6th Circuit case Hamama v. Homan (Due Process for Chaldean Christians). It was great!

PWS

03-01-18

 

 

Related posts:

  1. DUE PROCESS DENIED! — NIJC REPORT FINDS THAT DHS DETENTION IN OBSCURE LOCATIONS DEPRIVES MIGRANTS OF MEANINGFUL ACCESS TO COUNSEL! — This Is What Happens When We Enable The “American Gulag!”
  2. JULIA PRESTON: CHAOS IN COURT! – TRUMP ADMINISTRATION’S MAL-ADMINISTRATION OF IMMIGRATION COURTS RUINS LIVES, FRUSTRATES JUDGES!
  3. TAL @ CNN TELLS ALL ON HOW SESSIONS IS USING HIS AUTHORITY OVER THE SCREWED UP U.S. IMMIGRATION COURTS TO ATTACK DUE PROCESS & TARGET VULNERABLE ASYLUM SEEKERS — One Of My Quotes: “I think due process is under huge attack in the immigration courts. Every once in a while Sessions says something about due process, but his actions say something quite different.”
  4. COMPLICITY HAS COSTS:  Article III Judges’ Association Apparently Worries That Trump, Barr, GOP Toadies Starting To “Treat Them Like Immigration Judges” — Do They Fear Descent To Status Of Mere Refugees, Immigrants, “Dreamers,” Unaccompanied Children, Or Others Treated As “Less Than Persons” By Trump, 5th Cir., 11th Cir., 9th Cir., & The Supremes’ “J.R. Five?” 

FORMER GOVERNMENT IMMIGRATION EXECUTIVES (INCLUDING ME) FILE AMICUS BRIEF IN HAMAMA V. HOMAN IN 6TH CIRCUIT (“The Iraqi Christian Case”)

Here’s a copy of the brief prepared by Michael P. Doss, Esquire, of Sidley & Austin, Chicago IL:

Filed stamped copy of amicus brief

HERE’S THE INTRODUCTION  SETTING FORTH “THE PLAYERS:”

IDENTITY AND INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE

Amici have served in the U.S. Department of Justice and senior positions in the federal agencies charged with enforcement of U.S. immigration laws, and in those capacities have played substantial roles in the development, implementation, and adjudication of federal immigration policy and laws. Amici thus have an interest in this case, and in the just and efficient operation of the U.S. immigration enforcement system.

Mónica Ramírez Almadani served in the U.S. Department of Justice as Counsel to the Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division from 2009 to 2012, and as Deputy Chief of Staff and Senior Counsel to the Deputy Attorney General from 2011 to 2012, during which time she, among other things, advised on immigration

1 Amici submit this brief pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 29(a)(2). The parties have consented to the filing of this brief. Amici further state, pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 29(a)(4)(E), that no counsel for a party authored this brief in whole or in part, and no person other than the amicus curiae or their counsel made a monetary contribution intended to fund the preparation or submission of this brief.

1

Case: 17-2171 Document: 43 Filed: 02/12/2018 Page: 6

policy and litigation and worked closely with the Executive Office of Immigration Review.

Seth Grossman served as Chief of Staff to the General Counsel of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) from 2010 to 2011, as Deputy General Counsel of DHS from 2011 to 2013, and as Counselor to the Secretary of Homeland Security in 2013.

Stephen Legomsky served as Chief Counsel of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services from 2011 to 2013, and as Senior Counselor to the Secretary of Homeland Security in 2015.

Leon Rodriguez served as Director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services from 2013 to 2017.

John Sandweg served as the Acting Director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) in 2013 and 2014, and as the Acting General Counsel of DHS from 2012 to 2013.

Paul Wickham Schmidt served as an Immigration Judge for the U.S. Immigration Court from May 2003 until his retirement from the bench in June 2016. Before his Immigration Judge appointment, Judge Schmidt served as a Board Member and Board Chairman for the Board

of Immigration Appeals, Executive Office for Immigration Review, from 2

Case: 17-2171 Document: 43 Filed: 02/12/2018 Page: 7

1995 until 2003. Judge Schmidt also served as acting General Counsel of the former Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) from 1979 to 1981 and again from 1986 to 1987, and as the Deputy General Counsel of INS from 1978 to 1987.

As former leaders of the nation’s primary immigration agencies and the U.S. Department of Justice, and a former longtime Immigration Judge, amici are familiar with the operation of the United States immigration enforcement system. Amici support the district court’s preliminary injunction order and urge this Court to affirm that decision. Amici focus here on two issues before this Court: (i) first, whether the “motion to reopen” process currently available before our immigration courts provides Petitioners with an “adequate and effective” substitute for habeas relief; and (ii) second, whether the public interest is served by briefly staying enforcement of removal orders regarding these Iraqi nationals so that the immigration courts have a fair opportunity to review their claims.

3

Case: 17-2171 Document: 43 Filed: 02/12/2018 Page: 8

Based on our experience helping to lead the federal agencies charged with enforcement of U.S. immigration laws, we are compelled to conclude that the district court reached the correct conclusion on both these issues. In particular, without the “breathing room” provided by the district court’s temporary stay of removal, our overburdened immigration courts are unable to provide an adequate and effective remedy for Petitioners having valid claims for protection from removal due to the likelihood they face persecution or torture on return to Iraq. In addition, given the clearly established changed circumstances in Iraq, which show that the Petitioners would have an objective well- founded fear of persecution if forced to return, the district court’s order furthers the public interest by affording aliens threatened with persecution on removal to Iraq a meaningful opportunity to have these claims heard. The some-1,400 Iraqi nationals impacted by the district court’s order represent a drop in the bucket compared to those subject to removal each year by immigration authorities, and a temporary stay of their removal to allow immigration courts time to assess their claims will not undermine the United States’ immigration enforcement system.

\

AND, HERE’S AN OUTLINE OF THE ARGUMENT:

ARGUMENT ……………………………………………………………………………….. 5

I.  The District Court Was Correct In Finding That, Under Current Circumstances, The Immigration Courts Do Not Provide Petitioners with Adequate and Effective Alternatives To Habeas Relief…………………….5

A.  The Immigration Courts System ……………………….. 5

B.  Our Immigration Courts Are Overburdened and Underfunded………………………………………………………. 6

C.  Emergency Stay Motions before Our Immigration Courts Do Not Currently Offer Petitioners an Adequate and Effective Alternative Remedy …..10

II. Allowing Petitioners Time to Obtain Review of Their Motions To Reopen Is In the Public Interest and Will Not Unreasonably Interfere with Immigration Enforcement ……………………………………………………………..15

A.  The United States has a Strong Interest In Protecting from Removal Those Petitioners Who Will Face Persecution or Torture in Iraq…………15

B.  The District Court’s Order Will Not Interfere With the United States’ Immigration Enforcement Scheme………………………………………..18

CONCLUSION…………………………………………………………………………… 21

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE…………………………………………….23

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE…………………………………………………….24

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

Many thanks to my “Fellow Amici” and to Michael Doss & his team at Sidley & Austin for a “Super Outstanding Job!” May Due Process prevail!!!!

PWS

02-14-18

 

Related posts:

  1. HOW “AMERICA’S KILLER COURTS” PROMOTE “CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY” — HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH: TRUMP & HIS WHITE NATIONALIST SYCOPHANTS & TOADIES TOUT LAWLESS POLICIES THAT VIOLATE LEGAL OBLIGATIONS & HELP KILL, RAPE, TORTURE THOSE RETURNED TO EL SALVADOR — Supremes & Article III Judiciary Complicit In Gross Human Rights Violations! 
  2. HON. JEFFREY CHASE DISCUSSES ASYLUM BASED ON FEAR OF HONOR KILLINGS!
  3. GONZO’S WORLD: WHAT HAPPENS WHEN A DIVERSE “NATION OF IMMIGRANTS” ANOINTS A COMMITTED XENOPHOBE AS ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER? – Gonzo Is Deconstructing Our System Of Justice, One Day At A Time!
  4. 🏴‍☠️☠️⚰️KAKISTOCRACY WATCH: AILA Blasts Appointment Of Prosecutors Without Judicial Qualifications To Top Judicial Positions in Billy the Bigot’s Weaponized Anti-Due-Process “Court” System — Dysfunction, Bias, Illegitimate Decisions Run Rampant As Congress, Article IIIs Fail to Enforce U.S. Constitution!