Administrative Closing (“AC”) – Page 8

GONZO’S WORLD: LATEST DUE PROCESS OUTRAGE: ATTACK ON LEGAL RIGHTS PROGRAM IN IMMIGRATION COURT — Dumping On The Most Vulnerable & Those Trying To Help Them Is A Gonzo Specialty! — “This is a blatant attempt by the administration to strip detained immigrants of even the pretense of due-process rights,” said Mary Meg McCarthy, executive director of the National Immigrant Justice Center, one of the organizations that offers the legal services with Vera.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/immigration/justice-dept-to-halt-legal-advice-program-for-immigrants-in-detention/2018/04/10/40b668aa-3cfc-11e8-974f-aacd97698cef_story.html?utm_term=.c604b3ff4532

Maria Sacchetti reports for the Washington Post:

The U.S. immigration courts will temporarily halt a program that offers legal assistance to detained foreign nationals facing deportation while it audits the program’s cost-effectiveness, a federal official said Tuesday.

Officials informed the Vera Institute of Justice that starting this month it will pause the nonprofit’s Legal Orientation Program, which last year held information sessions for 53,000 immigrants in more than a dozen states, including California and Texas.

The federal government will also evaluate Vera’s “help desk,” which offers tips to non-detained immigrants facing deportation proceedings in the Chicago, Miami, New York, Los Angeles and San Antonio courts.

The Executive Office for Immigration Review, which runs the Justice Department’s immigration courts, said the government wants to “conduct efficiency reviews which have not taken place in six years.” An immigration court official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the audit has not been formally announced, said the review will examine the cost-effectiveness of the federally funded programs and whether they duplicate efforts within the court system. He noted, for example, that immigration judges are already required to inform immigrants of their rights before a hearing, including their right to find a lawyer at their own expense.

But advocates said the programs administered by Vera and a network of 18 other nonprofits are a legal lifeline for undocumented immigrants.

“This is a blatant attempt by the administration to strip detained immigrants of even the pretense of due-process rights,” said Mary Meg McCarthy, executive director of the National Immigrant Justice Center, one of the organizations that offers the legal services with Vera.

In a statement, the Vera Institute said a 2012 study by the Justice Department concluded that the program was “a cost-effective and efficient way to promote due process” that saved the government nearly $18 million over one year.

The Trump administration has also clashed with the Vera Institute over whether its subcontractors were informing undocumented immigrant girls in Department of Health and Human Services custody about their right to an abortion. The issue was later resolved.

The Justice Department is ramping up efforts to cut an immigration court backlog of 650,000 cases in half by 2020. Attorney General Jeff Sessions last week imposed production quotas on immigration judges to spur them to clear cases more quickly.

Immigration courts are separate from U.S. criminal courts, where defendants are entitled to a government-appointed lawyer if they cannot pay for their own legal counsel.

The Vera Institute said approximately 8 in 10 detainees in immigration court face a government prosecutor without a lawyer.

The Executive Office for Immigration Review says on its website that it launched the legal-aid program in 2003, during the administration of George W. Bush, to orient immigrants so that court proceedings would move more quickly.

In Vera’s Legal Orientation Program, lawyers and others hold hour-long group information sessions with detainees to explain their rights, how the court process works and their possible defenses to deportation in federal law, such as seeking asylum if they are in fear for their lives. They also meet with detainees individually and refer detainees to free or low-cost lawyers, but do not represent them in court.

“Experience has shown that the LOP has had positive effects on the immigration court process: detained individuals make wiser, more informed, decisions and are more likely to obtain representation; non-profit organizations reach a wider audience of people with minimal resources; and, cases are more likely to be completed faster, resulting in fewer court hearings and less time spent in detention,” the agency’s website says.

The help desk answers questions and provides similar information to immigrants who are not detained but are facing deportation.

Maria Sacchetti covers immigration for The Washington Post. She previously reported for the Boston Globe.

Follow @mariasacchetti

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

The idea expressed by an “anonymous” DOJ official that the brief, often rote “in court” warnings given by Immigration Judges in open court can take the place of a “Know Your Rights” session being conducted in advance, out of court by Vera is preposterous. The “average” initial hearing or “Master Calendar” takes fewer than 10 minutes. My former Arlington Immigration Court colleague Judge Lawrence O. Burman was once “clocked” by a reporter at seven minutes per case, and he is probably more thorough than most Immigration Judges. Moreover, with Immigration Judges being pressured to churn out more final orders of removal faster, required warnings are just one of the aspects of Due Process that are likely to be truncated as Sessions’s “haste makes waste” initiative continues to destroy even the appearance of justice in our U.S. Immigration Courts.

In other words this totally bogus “audit” couldn’t come at a worse time for the beleaguered Immigration Judges of the U.S. Immigration Courts and particularly the often defenseless immigrants who come before them seeking (but far too often not finding) the justice supposedly “guaranteed” to them by our Constitution.

In my long experience, “Know Your Rights” presentations, which often allowed individuals to assess their cases and retain lawyers before their first Immigration Court appearance were one of the best “bang for the buck” programs ever undertaken by EOIR. Immigration Judges relied heavily on them to “keep the line moving” without denying due process.

Sessions methodically is stripping U.S. Immigration Judges of the tools that allow them to do their jobs fairly and efficiently: administrative closing, continuances, ability to control their own court schedules, time and resources to do research and write opinions, and now the assistance of the “Know Your Rights” Programs.

Harm to the most vulnerable among us is harm to all. Jeff “Gonzo Apocalypto” Sessions is a coward who consistently uses bogus narratives and specious reasons to pick on the most vulnerable in our legal system. Join the New Due Process Army and stand up to Gonzo and his anti-American, anti-Constitutional, anti-human agenda! Today, Gonzo is eliminating immigrants’ rights. Tomorrow it will be YOUR RIGHTS. Who will stand up for YOU if you remain silent while the weak and dispossessed are attacked by Gonzo and his ilk!

PWS

04-11-18

ELIZABETH J. (“BETTY”) STEVENS IN “THE FEDERAL LAWYER” (FBA) – Why We Need An Article I Immigration Court Now! — “A close read of the GAO’s report provides a chilling window into a system in chaos.”

http://www.fedbar.org/Publications/The-Federal-Lawyer/Columns/Immigration-Law-Update.aspx?FT=.pdf

Recently, the White House announced that it sought to reduce the current immigration court backlog by requesting appropriations for additional immigration judges and instituting performance metrics for all immigration judges.1 Sen. Claire McCaskill and Reps. Jim Sensenbrenner, Zoe Lofgren, and Trey Gowdy asked the General Accountability Office (GAO) the following questions: 1. What do Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) data indicate about its caseload, including the backlog of cases, and potential contributing factors and effects of the backlog according to stakeholders? 2. How does EOIR manage and oversee immigration court operations, including workforce planning, hiring, and technology utilization? 3. To what extent has EOIR assessed immigration court performance, including analyzing relevant information, such as data on case continuances? 4. What scenarios have been proposed for restructuring EOIR’s immigration court system and what reasons have been offered for or against these proposals?2

A close read of the GAO’s report provides a chilling window into a system in chaos.

. . . .

Moving the immigration courts out of the executive branch
would help alleviate the perception that they are not independent tribunals with DHS and the respondents as equal participants. This would also cure the perception that the immigration courts have become so politicized that decisions change not with the law but with the politics of the current administration. Moreover, due to
the number of immigration judges who are former DHS attorneys and the co-location of some immigration courts with Immigration and Customs Enforcement offices, a broad perception exists that immigration judges and DHS attorneys are working together. This perception leads to significant lapses in perceived due process; for example, individuals don’t appear because they think the system is rigged, don’t appeal a bad decision because they lack resources after the long wait for a merits hearing, or don’t pursue potential relief for which they might be eligible. Plus, such a move would allow DHS the opportunity to appeal the Article I appellate division’s decisions to the circuit courts of appeals—providing those courts with a broader, more balanced view of issues and decisions of the trial-level immigration court.21 EOIR’s FY 2016 Statistics Yearbook indicates that one quarter of the initial cases decided were grants—none of which were ever reviewed by the courts of appeals.22

With a move to an Article I court, both trial level and appellate di- vision judges would have fixed terms of office and tenure protections that would facilitate judicial decisions without fear or favor. (If one believes that current members of the Board of Immigration Appeals are truly independent, one should research the “streamlining” of
the board down to just 11 members.23) Current board members and immigration judges are arguably government attorneys with the same client as DHS attorneys.24 They are subject to case completion goals—with or without express reliance on numerical goals—and may be subject to discipline by the attorney general.25 The currently proposed performance metrics are not new—most have been in place in one form or another since 2002.26

Last but not least, removing the immigration courts from the Department of Justice should speed the courts’ ability to regulate itself. First and foremost, the individual immigration judges would have control over their dockets and not be subject to decisions by headquarters to prioritize case A over case B (and then back again)—or send trial judges off to border courts to handle a few cases when their backlogged dockets have to be re-scheduled.27 The Article I court as a whole would be able to issue rules and regulations without the current byzantine requirements for consultation with a number of different offices and agencies. And, finally, hiring an immigration trial judge would not take two years.28

Other options exist; all have flaws. None of the options will single-handedly fix the backlog. We all have strong opinions about whether our nation’s immigration laws need a complete overhaul or a quick x—and how to go about either or both—but as we look to implement changes in our current immigration system, we must also aspire to lift the immigration courts from “halfway there” not-quite- courts to true Article I courts. 

[Text of Footnotes Omitted]

Elizabeth J. Stevens is
the chair of the Federal
Bar Association’s Immi-
gration Law Section.

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

Read Betty’s highly cogent and incisive full article in The Federal Lawyer at the link! You’ll also be able to get all of Betty’s terrifically informative footnotes.

Betty is not just “any” lawyer. In addition to being the head of the FBA’s highly regarded and very active Immigration Law Section, Betty’s distinguished career in the Department of Justice has touched on all aspects of the Immigration Court practice.

While in law school at George Mason, Betty interned at the Board of Immigration Appeals during my tenure there. When I arrived at the Arlington Immigration Court, Betty was serving as the sole Judicial Law Clerk for all six Immigration Judges.

Betty then began a distinguished career at the Office of Immigration Litigation (“OIL”) where her primary job was to defend the orders of the Board of Immigration Appeals. She had a meteoric rise through the ranks of OIL, culminating in position as a Senior Supervisor and a trainer of newer OIL attorneys.

I well remember Betty shepherding numberous groups from OIL over to the Arlington Court to introduce them to immigration litigation at the “retail level of our justice system.” Since her retirement from Federal Service, Betty has been an energetic, well-informed, and steadfast voice for better legal education of attorneys on both sides practicing immigration law and for Immigration Court and BIA reform.

“Chilling” is exactly the right word to describe the utter chaos in our U.S. Immigration Courts today, as the backlog approaches 700,000 cases with no end in sight. It’s “chilling” to the individual Constitutional rights of all Americans, as well as “chilling” as to the fantastic degree of “malicious incompetence” of the DOJ’s pathetic attempt to administer the Immigration Courts under Jeff Sessions.

Betty is someone who has “looked at life from both sides now!” When Betty Stevens says the system is broken and “in chaos,” you’d better believe it’s true! Thanks again Betty for all you do! It’s an honor and a privilege to work with you on the “Due Process Team.”

PWS

04-01-18

JUDGE STEPHEN REINHARDT 1931-2018 – Stalwart Defender Of US Constitution, Due Process, & Individual Rights Dies At 87 – “Unapologetic Liberal” Jurist Stood On Principle, Unfazed By Grenades Constantly Lobbed His Way By Right Wing & Supremes!

http://enewspaper.latimes.com/infinity/article_share.aspx?guid=92a5fc77-cf2b-4fbf-ac39-2ef3b89812fa

Maura Dolan reports for the LA Times:

By

Judge Stephen Reinhardt, the liberal face of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, died Thursday afternoon, a court spokesman said. He was 87.

The spokesman said Reinhardt died of a heart attack during a visit to a dermatologist in Los Angeles.

“All of us here at the 9th Circuit are shocked and deeply saddened by Judge Reinhardt’s death,” 9th Circuit Chief Judge Sidney R. Thomas said. “We have lost a wonderful colleague and friend.”

Thomas called Reinhardt “deeply principled, fiercely passionate about the law and fearless in his decisions.”

“He will be remembered as one of the giants of the federal bench. He had a great life that ended much too soon,” Thomas said.

Reinhardt, an appointee of former President Carter, was dubbed the “liberal lion” of the federal circuit courts.

His rulings in favor of criminal defendants, minorities and immigrants were often overturned by the more conservative U.S. Supreme Court.

Many lawyers have joked that Reinhardt’s name on a ruling was probably enough to get the attention of the conservatives on the Supreme Court. In 1996, after Reinhardt was reversed several times by the Supreme Court, The Times asked him if he was upset.

“Not in the slightest!” he boomed. “If they want to take away rights, that’s their privilege. But I’m not going to help them do it.”

No matter how many reversals he endured, Reinhardt used the bench to try to help the underdog. Just a few months ago, he called The Times to read a reporter a letter from a woman who had just been released from prison and who wanted to thank him for ruling in her favor.

“He was a giant not just on the 9th Circuit but within the law,” UC Berkeley law school Dean Erwin Chemerinsky said. “He also was a judge with a particular vision of the law, based on enforcing the Constitution to protect people.”

Reinhardt joined another judge in ruling that the words “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance were unconstitutional, a decision that was later overturned.

He wrote a ruling that said laws prohibiting physician-assisted suicide were unconstitutional and another that overturned California’s previous ban on same-sex marriage.

Reinhardt also lamented Supreme Court rulings that limited judges’ ability to overturn convictions and sentences on habeas corpus and complained about the flaws in death penalty cases.

He was among the federal judges who decided that overcrowding in California’s prison system was unconstitutional.

“His view was to decide cases as he believed the law required, not to predict what the Supreme Court would do,” Chemerinsky said. “He was unapologetic about that.”

Conservatives often railed against Reinhardt, calling him lawless. They accused him of never voting to uphold a death sentence. Reinhardt, asked about that, said he was not sure.

He was particularly close to former 9th Circuit Judge Alex Kozinski, considered a conservative with libertarian views. They were dubbed the “odd couple.”

When Kozinski retired under pressure in December in response to sexual harassment allegations, Reinhardt bemoaned the departure. He said he kept a photograph of Kozinski planting a kiss on his cheek in his chambers.

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

Read Dolan’s complete obit on Judge Reinhardt at the above link.

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

My friend and former BIA colleague Judge Lory Diana Rosenberg added this heartfelt tribute:

I am heartbroken to learn of Judge Reinhardt’s dying. Just knowing he was alive and participating in our courts gave me deep hope that justice would prevail, at least in some quarters. I am so fortunate to have known him and to have spent a tiny bit of time with him and his wife at an international meeting years ago. He is a giant among judges. I will miss him.

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

Here’s an excerpt from my favorite Judge Reinhardt concurring opinion in Magna-Ortiz v. Sessions:

The government’s insistence on expelling a good man from the country in which he has lived for the past 28 years deprives his children of their right to be with their father, his wife of her right to be with her husband, and our country of a productive and responsible member of our community. Magana Ortiz, who first entered the United States at 15, is now 43 years old, and during his almost three decades here has raised a family and built a successful life. All of his children, ages 12, 14, and 20, were born in this country and are American citizens, as is his wife. His eldest daughter currently attends the University of Hawaii, and he is paying for her education.

. . .

President Trump has claimed that his immigration policies would target the “bad hombres.” The government’s decision to remove Magana Ortiz shows that even the “good hombres” are not safe.3 Magana Ortiz is by all accounts a pillar of his community and a devoted father and husband. It is difficult to see how the government’s decision to expel him is consistent with the President’s promise of an immigration system with “a lot of heart.” I find no such compassion in the government’s choice to deport Magana Ortiz.

We are unable to prevent Magana Ortiz’s removal, yet it is contrary to the values of this nation and its legal system. Indeed, the government’s decision to remove Magana Ortiz diminishes not only our country but our courts, which are supposedly dedicated to the pursuit of justice. Magana Ortiz and his family are in truth not the only victims. Among the others are judges who, forced to participate in such inhumane acts, suffer a loss of dignity and humanity as well. I concur as a judge, but as a citizen I do not.

2 The family’s right to occupy their home will terminate upon Magana Ortiz’s removal.

3 On January 25, 2017, the President signed a series of executive orders dismantling the system of priorities that had previously guided Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Border Patrol in determining whom to deport. The orders also gave far greater authority to individual agents and officers, who are now removing non-citizens simply because they are here illegally, regardless of whether they have committed any offense. In light of the breadth of these orders and the lack of any apparent limit on agents’ discretion, the undocumented must now choose between going to work, school, hospitals, and even court, and the risk of being seized. See James Queally, ICE Agents Make Arrests at Courthouses, L.A. Times, March 16, 2017.

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

I must say that I had the same feelings as Judge Reinhardt on a number of occasions in my judicial career, although I never expressed them as eloquently as he did.

The wastefulness and futility of spending Government time, money, and authority removing fine people who were making remarkable contributions to our country, our economy, and our society certainly was apparent at the Immigration Court level. That this Administration has cynically chosen to aggravate this inhumane and quite frankly stupid situation rather than to attempt to fix it is most disheartening as is the fact that by placing them and retaining them in power we all become complicit in their bias and injustice! Harm to the most vulnerable among us is harm to all!

You can read the 9th Circuit’s complete decision in Magana Ortiz v. Sessions including Judge Reinhardt’s concurrence at this link:

Magana-Ortiz-9thReinhardt17-16014

PWS

03-30-18

NPR: Sessions Out To Destroy US Immigration Court System — “All the more reason why we need an independent Article I U.S. Immigration Court removed from the political shenanigans and enforcement bias of Sessions and his DOJ!”

https://www.npr.org/2018/03/29/597863489/sessions-want-to-overrule-judges-who-put-deportation-cases-on-hold

Joel Rose reports for NPR:

The Trump administration has been trying to ramp up deportations of immigrants in the country illegally. But one thing has been standing in its way: Immigration judges often put these cases on hold.

Now Attorney General Jeff Sessions is considering overruling the judges.

One practice that is particularly infuriating to Sessions and other immigration hard-liners is called administrative closure. It allows judges to put deportation proceedings on hold indefinitely.

“Basically they have legalized the person who was coming to court, because they were illegally in the country,” Sessions said during a speech in December.

Sessions is using his authority over the immigration court system to review a number of judicial decisions. If he overturns those decisions, thousands of other cases could be affected. In this way, he is expected to end administrative closure, or scale it back.

The attorney general may also limit when judges can grant continuances and who qualifies for asylum in the United States.

This could reshape the nation’s immigration courts, which are overseen by the Justice Department, and make them move faster. Sessions says he is trying to clear a massive backlog of cases that is clogging the docket.

But critics say he is weighing changes that would threaten the due process rights of immigrants, and the integrity of immigration courts.

“What he wants is an immigration court system which is rapid, and leads to lots of deportations,” said Nancy Morawetz, who teaches the Immigrant Rights Clinic at New York University School of Law.

“It’s really just an unprecedented move by the attorney general to change the way the whole system works,” she said.

It’s rare for an attorney general to exercise this power, but Sessions has done it four times in the past three months.

Separately, for the first time, the Justice Department is setting quotas for immigration judges, pushing them to resolve cases quickly in order to meet performance standards.

It’s not just immigration lawyers who are worried about the effect of any changes. The union that represents immigration judges is concerned, too.

“A lot of what they are doing raises very serious concerns about the integrity of the system,” said Judge Ashley Tabaddor, president of the National Association of Immigration Judges, “judges are supposed to be free from these external pressures.”

The attorney general insists he’s trying to make sure that judges are deciding cases “fairly and efficiently.” And says he is trying to clear a backlog of nearly 700,000 cases.

That is in addition to the hundreds of thousands of cases in administrative closure. Nearly 200,000 immigration cases have been put on hold in this way in the past five years alone.

“Far and away, administrative closure was being abused,” said Cheryl David, a former immigration judge who is now a fellow at the Center for Immigration Studies, which advocates for lower levels of immigration.

He says many of those cases should have ended in deportation. “But rather than actually going through that process, the Obama administration simply administratively closed them. And took them off the docket to be forgotten,” he said.

Sessions has chosen to personally review the case of an undocumented immigrant named Reynaldo Castro-Tum who didn’t show up for his removal hearing. The judge wondered whether the man ever got the notice to appear in court and put his deportation proceedings on hold.

In a legal filing in January, Sessions asked whether judges have the authority to order administrative closure and under what circumstances.

Immigration lawyers and judges say there are legitimate reasons to administratively close a case. For instance, some immigrants are waiting for a final decision on visa or green card applications.

There is a backlog for those applications, too. They’re granted by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, which is separate from immigration court. And that can take months, if not years.

Immigration lawyers and judges are worried that undocumented immigrants could be deported in the meantime.

“You know this is not the private sector where you pay extra money and you can get it done in two days,” said Cheryl David, an immigration lawyer in New York.

David represents hundreds of undocumented immigrants who are facing deportation. She often asks judges to put the proceedings on hold.

“It gives our clients some wiggle room to try and move forward on applications,” she said. “These are human beings, they’re not files.”

Immigration lawyers say these changes could affect immigrants across the country.

Brenda DeLeon has applied for a special visa for crime victims who are undocumented. She says her boyfriend beat her up, and she went to the police.

She came to the U.S. illegally from El Salvador in 2015, fleeing gang violence, and settled in North Carolina.

“If I go back, then my life is in danger,” DeLeon said through a translator. “And not only mine, but my children’s lives too.”

For now, a judge has put DeLeon’s deportation case on hold while she waits for an answer on her visa application.

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

Get the full audio version from NPR at the above link.

Haste makes waste! Gimmicks to cut corners, deny due process, and cover up the Administration’s own incompetent and politically driven mal-administration of the Immigration Courts is likely to cause an adverse reaction by the “real courts” — the Article III Courts of Appeals — who ultimately have to “sign off” on the railroading of individuals back to potentially deadly situations.

I also have some comments on this article.

In Castro-Tum, on appeal the BIA panel corrected the Immigration Judge’s error in administratively closing the case. Consequently, there was no valid reason for the Attorney General’s “certification” and using the case for a wide ranging inquiry into administrative closing that was almost completely divorced from the facts of Castro-Tum.
I also question Judge Arthur’s unsupported assertion that “Far and away administrative closing was being abused.”
- According to TRAC Immigration, administrative closing of cases as an exercise of “prosecutorial discretion” by the DHS Assistant Chief Counsel accounted for a mere 6.7% of total administrative closings during the four-year period ending in FY 2015.
- In Arlington where I sat, administrative closing by the Assistant Chief Counsel was a very rigorous process that required the respondent to document good conduct, length of residence, family ties, employment, school records, payment of taxes, community involvement, and other equities and contributions to the U.S. With 10 to 11 million so-called “undocumented” individuals in the U.S., removing such individuals, who were actually contributing to their communities, would have been a complete waste of time and limited resources.
- The largest number of administrative closings in Arlington probably resulted from individuals in Immigration Court who:
  - Had been granted DACA status by USCIS;
  - Had been granted TPS by USCIS;
  - Had approved “U” nonimmigrant visas as “victims of crime,” but were waiting for the allocation of a visa number by the USCIS;
  - Had visa petitions or other applications that could ultimately have qualified them for permanent legal immigration pending adjudication by the USCIS.
- Contrary to Judge Arthur’s claim, the foregoing types of cases either had legitimate claims for relief that could only be granted by or with some action by the USCIS, or, as in the case of TPS and DACA, the individuals were not then removable. Administrative closing of such cases was not an “abuse,” but rather eminently reasonable.
- Moreover, individuals whose applications or petitions ultimately were denied by the USCIS, or who violated the terms under which the case had been closed by failing to appear for a scheduled interview or being picked up for a criminal offense were restored to the Immigration Court’s “active docket” upon motion of the DHS.

There are almost 700,000 cases now on the Immigration Courts’ docket — representing many years of work even if there were no new filings and new judges were added. Moreover, the cases are continuing to be filed in a haphazard manner with neither judgement nor restraint by an irresponsible Administration which is allowing DHS Enforcement to “go Gonzo.” To this existing mess, Sessions and Arthur propose adding hundreds of thousands of previously administratively closed cases, most of which shouldn’t have been on the docket in the first place.

So, if they had their way, we’d be up over one million cases in Immigration Court without any transparent, rational plan for adjudicating them fairly and in conformity with due process at any time in the foreseeable future. Sure sounds like fraud, waste, and abuse of the system by Sessions and DHS to me. All the more reason why we need an independent Article I U.S. Immigration Court removed from the political shenanigans and enforcement bias of Sessions and his DOJ. We need this reform sooner, rather than later!

PWS

03-30-18

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.”

https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/10/politics/sessions-immigration-appeals-decision/index.html

Sessions tests limits of immigration powers with asylum moves
Tal Kopan
By Tal Kopan, CNN
Updated 8:01 AM ET, Sat March 10, 2018

Washington (CNN)The US immigration courts are set up to give the attorney general substantial power to almost single-handedly direct how immigration law is interpreted in this country — and Jeff Sessions is embracing that authority.

Sessions quietly moved this week to adjust the way asylum cases are decided in the immigration courts, an effort that has the potential to test the limits of the attorney general’s power to dictate whether immigrants are allowed to enter and stay in the US and, immigration advocates fear, could make it much harder for would-be asylees to make their cases to stay here.
Sessions used a lesser-known authority this week to refer to himself two decisions from the Board of Immigration Appeals, the appellate level of the immigration courts. Both deal with asylum claims — the right of immigrants who are at the border or in the US to stay based on fear of persecution back home.

In one case, Sessions reached into the Board of Immigration Appeals archives and overturned a ruling from 2014 — a precedent-setting decision that all asylum cases are entitled to a hearing before their claims can be rejected. In the other, Sessions is asking for briefs on an unpublished opinion as to how much the threat of being the victim of a crime can qualify for asylum. The latter has groups puzzled and concerned, as the underlying case remains confidential, per the Justice Department, and thus the potential implications are harder to discern. Experts suspect the interest has to do with whether fear of gang violence — a major issue in Central America — can support asylum claims.
A Justice official would say only on the latter case that the department is considering the issue due to a “lack of clarity” in the court system on the subject. On the former, spokesman Devin O’Malley said the Board of Immigration Appeals’ 2014 holding “added unnecessary cases to the dockets of immigration judges who are working hard to reduce an already large immigration court backlog.”
Tightening asylum
Sessions referring the cases to himself follows other efforts during his tenure to influence the courts, the Justice Department says, in an effort to make them quicker and more efficient. In addition to expanding the number of Board of Immigration Appeals judges and hiring immigration judges at all levels at a rapid clip, the Justice Department has rolled out guidance and policies to try to move cases more quickly through the system, including possible performance measures that have the judges’ union concerned they could be evaluated on the number of closed cases.

“What is he up to? That would be speculation to say, but definitely there have been moves in the name of efficiency that, if not implemented correctly, could jeopardize due process,” said Rená Cutlip-Mason, until last year a Justice Department immigration courts official and now a leader at the Tahirih Justice Center, a nonprofit that supports immigrant women and girls fleeing violence.
“I think it’s important that the courts balance efficiencies with due process, and any efforts that are made, I think, need to be made with that in mind,” she added.
The Board of Immigration Appeals decisions could allow Sessions to make it much harder to seek asylum in the US.
Asylum is a favorite target of immigration hardliners, who argue that because of the years-long backlog to hear cases, immigrants are coached to make asylum claims for what’s billed as a guaranteed free pass to stay in the country illegally.
Advocates, however, say the vast majority of asylum claims are legitimate and that trying to stack the decks against immigrants fleeing dangerous situations is immoral and contrary to international law. Making the process quicker, they argue, makes it harder for asylum seekers — who are often traumatized, unfamiliar with English and US law, and may not have advanced education — to secure legal representation to help make their cases. The immigration courts allow immigrants to have counsel but no legal assistance is provided by the government, unlike in criminal courts.
Reshaping the immigration courts
Beyond asylum, Sessions’ efforts could have far-reaching implications for the entire immigration system, and illustrate the unique nature of the immigration court system, which gives him near singular authority to interpret immigration laws.
Immigration cases are heard outside of the broader federal court system. The immigration courts operate as the trial- or district-level equivalent and the Board of Immigration Appeals serves as the appellate- or circuit court-level. Both are staffed with judges selected by the attorney general, who do not require any third-party confirmation.
How Trump changed the rules to arrest more non-criminal immigrants
How Trump changed the rules to arrest more non-criminal immigrants
In this system, the attorney general him or herself sits at the Supreme Court’s level, with even more authority than the high court to handpick decisions. The attorney general has the authority to refer any Board of Immigration Appeals decision to his or her office for review, and can single-handedly overturn decisions and set interpretations of immigration law that become precedent followed by the immigration courts.
The power is not absolute — immigrants can appeal their cases to the federal circuit courts, and at times those courts and, eventually, the Supreme Court will overrule immigration courts’ or Justice Department decisions. That’s especially true when cases deal with constitutional rights, said former Obama administration Justice Department immigration official Leon Fresco. Fresco added that the federal courts’ deference to the immigration courts’ interpretation of the law has decreased in the past 10 years, though that could change as more of the President’s chosen judges are added to the bench.
But Sessions could be on track to test the limits of his power, and the moves might set up further intense litigation on the subject.
“From what I can see, Sessions is really testing how far those powers really go,” said Cutlip-Mason. “The fact that the attorney general can have this much power is a very interesting way that the system’s been set up.”
Retired immigration Judge Paul Wickham Schmidt, who served for years in federal immigration agencies and the immigration courts, said that to say the immigration courts are full due process is “sort of a bait and switch.” He says despite the presentation of the courts’ decisions externally, the message to immigration judges internally is that they work for the attorney general.
“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.”

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

The idea that the U.S. Immigration Courts can fairly adjudicate asylum cases and provide Due Process to migrants with Jeff Sessions in charge is a bad joke.

America needs an independent Article I Immigration Court.

Harm to the most vulnerable among us is harm to all of us.

PWS

03-11–17

WNYC’S BETH FERTIG FERRETS OUT FOOLISHNESS BEHIND THE SESSIONS/DHS ATTACK ON ADMINISTRATIVE CLOSING AND PROSECUTORIAL DISCRETION – I’m Quoted and Pictured!

https://www.wnyc.org/story/trump-administration-reviewing-thousands-deportation-cases-once-put-pause

Beth reports:

“Last year, a young mother who came to the U.S. illegally from Mexico as a child thought she’d essentially won her fight against deportation.

Twenty-four year old Jenny isn’t eligible for DACA, or Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals. She was in the midst of immigration court proceedings when she told her attorney that she was a victim of domestic violence, which is why WNYC agreed not to use her real name.

In May, Jenny reported her boyfriend to police for allegedly beating and trying to choke her. That action suddenly changed the course of her immigration case.

Jenny was able to apply for what’s called a U visa that would allow her to stay in the U.S. It’s for immigrant victims of crime who cooperate with law enforecement.

The waiting list for a U visa is about three years. But because Jenny met the criteria, and got the Brooklyn District Attorney’s office to sign off on her documents, the immigration judge agreed to put her cause on hold. The legal term for this is administrative closure. The government would no longer seek to deport her while she waited for her special visa.

But a month later, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) asked the same judge to recalender Jenny’s case and put it back on the docket — meaning she’d have to fight against deportation all over again.

The reason? ICE wrote that Jenny’s U visa was “speculative” and “not available within a reasonable period of time.” The agency said three years was too long to wait — even though they’re controlled by another governmental agency, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (both are within the Department of Homeland Security). ICE said she could wait for her U visa while in Mexico.

The agency also noted that Jenny had been convicted of petit larceny when she was 18. Though it’s not considered a crime that could lead to an immigrant’s removal, it brought her to ICE’s attention a few years ago, and her unlawful presence in the U.S. triggered the deportation proceedings.

For Jenny, the about face was extremely upsetting after suffering domestic abuse and moving into a women’s shelter. “I seek help and I’m still kind of being, you know, bullied,” she said.

Her attorney, Kendal Nystedt of the immigrant rights group Make the Road New York, said ICE seemed to mischaracterize immigration law and said its arguments “were also insulting given the humanity of my client.”

The judge apparently agreed. Late last year, in a one page memo, he denied the government’s request and let Jenny remain in the U.S. But data obtained by WNYC shows that Jenny wasn’t the only immigrant who thought they could stay, only to have the government give their case a second look.

In Fiscal Year 2017, ICE asked to recalendar almost 9400 cases that were administratively closed, or put on pause. That’s an increase of almost 74 percent from the year before President Trump took office. In response, it appears immigration judges may be applying more scrutiny to the government’s requests. They granted 85 percent of those motions to put the cases back on their dockets in 2017, compared to 96 percent in 2016.

When asked why the government is revisiting more cases, ICE spokewoman Jennifer Elzea said the agency generally reviews cases that were administratively closed “to see if the basis for prosecutorial discretion is still appropriate.”

But it’s clear this legal strategy also lets the Trump administration try to deport more immigrants. Former immigration judge Andrew Arthur said there’s a good reason. “Under the Obama Administration, administrative closure was treated as a form of amnesty,” he explained.

Arthur is a fellow with the Center for Immigration Studies, a think tank that supports more restrictive immigration policies. Without commenting on Jenny’s situation he said some cases that were administratively closed involved immigrants who may never qualify for whatever benefit they thought they were likely to receive. But he said the previous administration didn’t act because there were “not deemed a priority for removal.”

In other words, he Obama administration had made criminals the top priority for removal, letting too many others remain.

Retired immigration judge Paul Wickham Schmidt

Beth Fertig/WNYC

Another former immigration judge said that Obama era policy made sense, however. Paul Wickham Schmidt granted administrative closures when he worked in the Arlington, Virginia court.

“An example of a type of case that gets closed quite a bit are cases of individuals who have relatives petitioning for them. And there’s a big backlog of petitions,” Schmidt explained. “So rather than continuing the case time after time, sometimes for years, judges were saying ‘look I’m going to take this case off the docket.'”

He said this management strategy was necessary. The immigration courts have a backlog of 670,000 thousand pending cases. “You’re not even going to complete 670,000 cases probably within my lifetime. You’ve got to decide which cases really belong at the front of the line and which cases you’re not going to prioritize,” he said. “Wasting time in immigration court just doesn’t make sense.”

Despite concerns about further burdening an immigration court system that’s already bursting at the seems, Attorney General Jeff Sessions is considering a much more dramatic step than simply seeking to recalendar the 9400 cases that were reviewed last year. He’s looking into recalendaring all cases that were administratively closed – and there are estimates there could 350,000 of them.”

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

Go to the link to hear the audio from WNYC!

Putting cases like “Jenny’s” back on the already overcrowded dockets is cruel, counterproductive, and wasteful of judicial time. She’s established the qualifications for a U visa, for Pete’s sake. There really isn’t any “uncertainty” — if she stays out of trouble with the law, she’ll get a U visa when her number comes up. No reason on earth for her to “occupy space” on the Immigration Court’s docket.

If she were unwise enough to get into legal trouble before then (seldom happens, in my experience), then that would be the time to 1) revoke her U visa approval, and 2) put her back on the docket. With dockets stretching out for years, why would an Immigration Judge do anything other than keep putting a case like Jenny’s at the end of the docket until her “U number” is reached?

Just because somebody is “removable” doesn’t mean that it makes any sense to put them on already overcrowded Immigration Court dockets. That’s particularly true of an individual who meets the requirements for a legal status (albeit one that because of the arcane structure of the Federal Regulations, an Immigration Judge can’t actually grant).

It’s analogous to the local prosecutor jamming a judge’s docket with jaywalking, littering, and unleashed dog cases so that there isn’t time to hear felony rape and robbery cases! No other law enforcement agency in America that I’m aware of operates without any real prosecution priorities the way Sessions and the DHS are trying to do in this Administration.

And, of course, one large class of “Administratively Closed” cases involves those who had their DACA applications approved by USCIS after Removal Proceedings had been initiated. What would be the point of putting such cases “back on the docket” if DACA were actually terminated?

Even the DHS claims that “Dreamer” cases would not be an “enforcement priority.” (Although, during the Trump Administration such claims by DHS have often proved to be “not credible.”) Therefore, it would literally be years before they could be heard. And many of them have strong cases for other forms of immigration relief such as Cancellation of Removal. I want to believe that the fate of the Dreamers will be resolved long before then.

PWS

03-07-18

NEW SCHOLARSHIP FROM PROFESSOR RUTH ELLEN WASEM, LBJ SCHOOL @ UT TAKES ON PROBLEMS OF 21ST CENTURY IMMIGRATION GOVERNANCE — “Immigration is not a program to be administered; rather, it is a phenomenon to be managed.”

Immigration Governance for the Twenty-First

Ruth Ellen Wasem The University of Texas at Austin

6 Journal on Migration and Human Security 97 (2018)

KEY QUOTE:

Even with fragmented governance and strained resources, the US immigration system has enjoyed successes. Each year, approximately one million foreign nationals legally become permanent residents in the United States. In FY 2015 and FY 2016, the Bureau of Consular Affairs issued over 10 million visas each year to foreign nationals coming to the United States as nonimmigrants (i.e., for a temporary purpose and a temporary period of time) and over half a million visas to LPRs (Bureau of Consular Affairs 2017). CBP admitted almost 77 million foreign nationals as nonimmigrant admissions to the United States in FY 2015 (Office of Immigration Statistics 2016). That year, DOL processed 711,820 employer applications for 1,580,778 positions for temporary and permanent labor certifications Immigration Governance for the Twenty-First Century 117 (Office of Foreign Labor Certification 2016). In FY 2015, there were 730,259 LPRs who became US citizens. That same year, the United States admitted 69,920 refugees, and USCIS approved 26,124 asylees. DHS apprehended 462,388 foreign nationals and deported 444,431 foreign nationals in FY 2015. Another 253,509 foreign nationals were denied entry, and 129,122 foreign nationals returned home without a formal order of removal (Office of Immigration Statistics 2016). In FY 2016, EOIR judges received 328,122 cases and completed 273,390, including those of 8,726 foreign nationals who were granted asylum (EOIR 2017). Considerable credit is due to the people carrying out immigration-related responsibilities across the federal government.

Immigration is not a program to be administered; rather, it is a phenomenon to be managed. While there are limits to how much one government can control migration, the building blocks in Figure 3 offer a reasonable set of priorities. Effective immigration governance, coupled with laws and policies that incorporate the national interests, is key to maintaining a robust sovereign nation.

Get the entire article, which I highly recommend, at this link:

Wasem,ImmigrationGovernance21st Century

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

Words of wisdom, to be sure. If only our policy makers had the same degree of understanding.

Today, we operate on an illusion that a few folks sitting in Washington, D.C. can “pull all the strings” to seal borders, override market forces, ignore international conditions and agreements, change behavior in foreign countries, and dominate forces of human migration that have been at work since before all of us were born and will continue long after we’re all gone. It’s a toxic mix of arrogance and ignorance that will leave immigration and refugee policy in tatters for years to come.

I can only hope that there are those out there in the upcoming generations who will bring to the immigration phenomenon practical scholarship, reason, humanity, fairness, and better ideas on management of our laws for the benefit of our country and humanity as a whole.

PWS

03-07-18

HON. LORY DIANA ROSENBERG COMMENTS ON AG’S DECISION IN MATTER OF E-F-H-L-!

Paul (and all) – Here is my preliminary response to your Courtside post, which you may publish:

The AG may be motivated by any number of explanations, as Immigration Courtside thoughtfully suggests. Nevertheless, the AG’s cryptic and unreasoned ruling will predictably engender more litigation and take up more court time than arguably may be saved by denying all asylum seekers access to the due process protections codified in the statute and regulations, and reiterated in numerous currently standing BIA precedents and federal circuit court decisions.

First, he vacated a 4 year old precedent decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals, an action that should not be taken lightly. Cf. Matter of E-F-H-L- 26 I&N Dec. 319 (BIA 2014)(remanding with instructions to honor the guarantee iof a full evidentiary hearing on an asylum claim). The AG contends that “[b]ecause the application for relief which served as the predicate for the evidentiary hearing required by the Board has been withdrawn with prejudice, the Board’s decision is effectively mooted.” Matter of E-F-H-L-, 27 I&N Dec. 226 (A.G. 2018). To the contrary, it is worth noting that, historically, many of the Board’s precedent decisions, which have been rendered moot by federal circuit court reversals or remands, have nonetheless remained in force and served as precedent in all cases other than that of the named respondent.

Assuming the AG’s decision was more than a knee-jerk, irrational, result-oriented response to an IJ’s administrative close order, but a decision fit for an Attorney General, he is expected to have read the Board’s reasoning in reaching the outcome it reached in E-F-H-L- (BIA). The Board plainly recognized the applicability of the statutory provisions that guarantee “a reasonable opportunity to examine the evidence against the alien, to present evidence on the alien’s own behalf, and to cross-examine witnesses presented by the Government.” See section 240(b)(4)(B) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b) (4)(B)(2012)(governing procedures in removal proceedings). In contrast, the AG’s opinion contains no reasoning what so ever and reveals no effort to respect the terms of the statute, much less to distinguish them in any way.

Second, the Board’s decision in E-F-H-L- also cited to governing ”regulations implementing these statutory provisions in the context of asylum and withholding of removal applications,” which provide that,

such applications for relief filed with the Immigration Court will be decided “after an evidentiary hearing to resolve factual issues in dispute,” 8 C.F.R. § 1240.11(c)(3) (2013).

such an evidentiary hearing will entail the respondent “shall be examined under oath on his or her application and may present evidence and witnesses in his or her own behalf,” 8 C.F.R. § 1240.11(c)(3)(iii).

such regulations also apply to applications for withholding or deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (citation omitted).

The Board specifically recognized that “[t]hese regulations clearly give the Immigration Judge ‘the authority . . . to properly control the scope of any evidentiary hearing,’ 8 C.F.R. § 1240.11(c)(3)(ii) . . .” and to discontinue or limit an evidentiary hearing “in the interests of efficiency, including by limiting testimony and focusing issues.” Nonetheless, the Board ruled in E-F-H-L- that, at a minimum, there must be an evidentiary hearing, which includes “an opportunity for the respondent to present evidence and witnesses in his or her own behalf.” See 8 C.F.R. § 1240.11(c)(3). In contrast, the AG’s opinion offers no colorable justification for abrogating these regulations, which remain in force, making his action in vacating the Board’s precedent in E-F-H-L- ultra vires.

Third, the Board’s decision refers to numerous Board precedent decisions standing for the principles elucidated concerning the need for taking oral testimony and for a meaningful evidentiary hearing in adjudicating asylum applications. See e.g., Matter of Fefe, 20 I&N Dec. 116, 118 (BIA 1989); Matter of Mogharrabi, 19 I&N Dec. 439, 445 (BIA 1987); Matter of Interiano-Rosa, 25 I&N Dec. 264, 266 (BIA 2010); cf. Matter of Ruiz, 20 I&N Dec. 91, 93 (BIA 1989) (holding that in absentia proceedings should have been reopened once the alien established reasonable cause for his failure to appear, because he retained the right to present his asylum claim at a full evidentiary hearing, regardless of whether prima facie eligibility for relief had been shown).Matter of C-B-, 25 I&N Dec. 888, 890−91 (BIA 2012);

Matter of A-S-, 21 I&N Dec. 1106 (BIA 1998). No matter what the Attorney General’s vacation of the Board’s E-F-H-L- precedent is read to mean, the AG fails to indicate that any of these other Board precedents governing evidentiary hearings are disturbed or no longer in effect and they remain in force.

What is more, the Board’s decision recognized that numerous federal courts of appeal nationwide have endorsed and upheld the statutory and regulatory promise of a full and fair evidentiary hearing. See e.g., Litvinov v. Holder, 605 F.3d 548, 555−56 (8th Cir. 2010); Hoxha v. Gonzales, 446 F.3d 210, 214, 217−18 (1st Cir. 2006); Arulampalam v. Ashcroft, 353 F.3d 679, 688 (9th Cir. 2003). See also Sankoh v. Mukasey, 539 F.3d 456, 467 (7th Cir. 2008); Islam v. Gonzales, 469 F.3d 53, 55 (2d Cir. 2006); Mekhoukh v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 118, 129 & n.14 (1st Cir. 2004); cf. Oshodi v. Holder, 729 F.3d 883, 889−93 (9th Cir. 2013) (en banc) (holding that an alien’s Fifth Amendment due process right to a full and fair hearing, which includes the opportunity to present evidence and testify on one’s behalf, was violated where the Immigration Judge denied relief solely on an adverse credibility finding after refusing to allow the alien to testify to the contents of his applications). Notably, the AG’s decision vacating E-F-H-L- does not trigger Brand X authority such that the rulings of these federal courts are supplanted or no longer control administrative hearings taking place within the jurisdiction of those courts.

Accordingly, for reasons of statutory, regulatory, and administrative precedential authority, and reasons of federal acquiescence, the AG’s vacation of Matter of E-F-H-L has no impact on the right to an evidentiary hearing on an asylum application. By the AG’s own admission in the case vacated, upon remand, the respondent had withdrawn his asylum application with prejudice in favor of administrative closure to permit an I-130 petition to be adjudicated. Thus, the AG’s ruling vacating E-F-H-L- cannot stand for any principled holding with respect to the right to an evidentiary hearing in asylum cases.

In fact, the IJ’s order of administrative closure of the removal hearing, while allowing USCIS to engage in a timely adjudication of a petition that ultimately might confer lawful status on the respondent, had the mutually beneficial effect of freeing up the court’s time to attend to its heavily backlogged docket. Upon recalendaring in the instant case, the respondent may wish to challenge his previous “withdrawal with prejudice” and seek to re-raise his asylum claim on due process grounds.

Moreover, in light of the AG’s decision, respondents in general would be well-advised to exercise their statutory and regulatory rights to a full evidentiary hearing in their asylum claims, notwithstanding the potential availability of other forms of relief. Likewise, attorneys would be well-advised to consider their obligations in relation to Matter of Lozada, before counseling respondents to withdraw viable applications. The AG’s decision sends a clear message that notwithstanding their best intentions, IJs intentions to fairly resolve removal hearings may be disrupted without notice.

Beyond inefficiently and ineffectively usurping the IJ’s authority to control his or her docket, it is unclear just what the AG intended to accomplish. We are left, perhaps, with much “sound and fury, signifying nothing.” Shakespeare, Macbeth Act 5, scene 5.

IDEAS CONSULTATION and COACHING
Immigration Defense & Expert Advocacy Solutions

Empowering Successful Immigration Lawyers

www.loryrosenberg.com

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

I agree with Lory’s analysis.

Sessions doesn’t do anything without a reason.

We know that:

1) He falsely claims that asylum fraud is a primary contributing factor to the presence of 11 million undocumented individuals. (It isn’t! The vast bulk of the “11 million” were never in the asylum system. I didn’t do the math, but I doubt that there have been anything approaching 11 million asylum applications since the enactment of the “Refuge Act of 1980. While there no doubt have been documented instances of asylum fraud, they would account for only an infinitesimally small portion of the 11 million — mostly law-abiding and productive — undocumented residents trashed by Sessions. Moreover, those engaged in asylum fraud often are eventually exposed and removed and/or jailed).

2) He appears to want to eliminate or severely limit administrative closing which has helped control and rationalize Immigration Court dockets.

3) He wants to dishonestly shift the blame for the backlog from the DOJ which is responsible for “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” over several Administrations to the private bar.

4) He is opposed to prosecutorial discretion and prioritization which are the foundation of all other functioning parts of the U.S. justice system.

5) He has no respect for immigrants (legal or undocumented), our Constitution, the law, or any judge who disagrees with his extreme right-wing xenophobic views.

All of this spells big trouble for the already failing U.S. Immigration Court System and lots of wasteful, additional litigation to vindicate migrants’ statutory and Constitutional rights.

Go New Due Process Army!

PWS

03-07-17

US DISTRICT JUDGE ROGER W. TITUS IN MD REJECTS DACA CHALLENGE — Basically Finds Rescission Dumb But Legal, While Barring DHS From Using DACA Info In Removal Proceedings — Casa de Maryland v. DHS

Casa de Maryland v. DHS, D. MD., 03-05-18, Judge Roger W. Titus

While the Administration and right-leaning media are touting this as a “smashing victory” here’s what District Judge Titus really said:

The original Obama Administration DACA program was an exercise of prosecutorial discretion on which reasonable minds can differ as to its legality.
The Trump Administration had discretion either to continue the DACA program or not as an exercise of prosecutorial discretion.
The decision by the Administration to phase out DACA was subject to judicial review and the plaintiffs had standing to challenge it.
The DHS’s decision to phase out DACA upon receiving an opinion from Attorney General Sessions that it might well be held illegal in a threatened court action was reasonable.
The sometimes ill-advised and inflammatory statements by President Trump were not relevant to the basis for termination of DACA.
Although Judge Titus personally would have chosen a different policy approach from that of the Administration, under Constitutional separation of powers that policy decision was vested in the Executive and Congress, not the Courts, and the Administration had acted reasonably in this case.
The DHS is estopped from using information gathered during the DACA application process against individuals in Removal Proceedings except if “the Government needs to make use of an individual Dreamer’s information for national security or some purpose implicating public safety or public interest, the Government may petition the Court for permission to do so on a case-by-case basis with in camera review.”

Judge Titus’s decision actually more or less undermines the Administration’s frequent claims that DACA was “illegal” and that the Administration had “no choice” but to terminate it. Rather, the court held that legitimate unresolved questions had been raised about the DACA program’s legality and that in the face of those questions the Administration’s choice to proceed with a phased termination rather than trying to defend DACA in court was reasonable.

Additionally, as I had predicted, the court was unwilling to allow DHS to use DACA information against the individuals in Removal Proceedings. While this aspect of the case was :”under the radar” in most reports, it could well be another major practical/legal roadblock to the Administration’s actually removing many DACA recipients even if the injunctions against DACA termination eventually are lifted.

Here’s a “KEY QUOTE” from Judge Titus’s decision:

“The result of this case is not one that this Court would choose if it were a member of a different branch of our government. An overwhelming percentage of Americans support protections for “Dreamers,” yet it is not the province of the judiciary to provide legislative or executive actions when those entrusted with those responsibilities fail to act. As Justice Gorsuch noted during his confirmation hearing, “a judge who likes every outcome he reaches is probably a pretty bad judge, stretching for the policy results he prefers rather than those the law compels.”

This Court does not like the outcome of this case, but is constrained by its constitutionally limited role to the result that it has reached. Hopefully, the Congress and the President will finally get their job done.”

In other words, the decision to rescind DACA was “dumb but legal.” Hardly the ringing endorsement that the Trumpsters claim. What this case actually did is to vindicate their right to make bad policy decisions. Ultimately, the remedy for that type of poor governance is at the ballot box.

Here’s the full decision in Casa de Maryland v. DHS so you can judge for yourself:

JudgeTitusDACAOp

PWS

03-06-18

SESSIONS “GOES DEEP” TO UNDERMINE DUE PROCESS! — Matter of E-F-H-L-, 27 I&N Dec. 226 (A.G. 2018)!

Here is the AG decision:

E-F-H-L-AG

And here’s the original BIA precedent he vacated:

E-F-H-L-2014

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

Sessions, on his own initiative, reaches back four years to vacate the BIA’s precedent decision Matter of E-F-H-L-, 26 I&N Dec. 319 (BIA 2014). That case held that an asylum or withholding applicant is entitled to a full hearing on his or her application. That hearing includes a chance to testify and present evidence to the Immigration Judge. The respondent is not required to present a “prima facie case” for an asylum grant to get a full hearing.

The “original” case had since been closed for I-130 adjudication, after the respondent withdrew his I-589 with prejudice. Sessions ordered that the case be restored to the Immigration Court’s “active” docket and set for a hearing.

Session’s decision was cryptic — without any explanation of why he chose this case and what he hoped to accomplish. However, a number of “preliminary theories” have surfaced, none of them good news for asylum seekers:

Sessions wants to do away with full hearings for asylum seekers and establish some type of “summary dismissal without hearing” process for those who fail to establish a “prima facie case” for asylum or withholding;
Sessions is using this case to attack administrative closing as a prelude to eliminating or severely restricting the Immigration Judges’ authority to administratively close cases in Matter of Castro-Tum;
Sessions wants to send a message to Immigration Judges that every administrative closing will be subject to potential review and reversal from “on high,” with potential “career limiting” consequences for the Judges, thereby discouraging administrative closing;
Sessions wishes to illustrate and eliminate the potential for lawyers to use “weak” asylum claims that they subsequently withdraw to manipulate the system to gain time to apply for other relief;
Sessions wants to establish that an Immigration Judge’s authority upon BIA remand is limited to the “four corners” of the BIA’s remand order and does not allow the respondent to seek or raise other remedies.
All five of the preceding.

PWS

03-06-18

HON. JEFFREY CHASE WITH MORE ANALYSIS OF THE CASTRO-TUM AMICUS BRIEFS!

https://www.jeffreyschase.com/blog/2018/3/4/14-former-ijs-and-bia-members-file-amicus-brief-with-ag

Mar 4 14 Former IJs and BIA Members File Amicus Brief with AG

On February 16, the law firm of Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP filed an amicus curiae (i.e. “friend of the court”) brief on behalf of 14 former immigration judges and BIA board members with Attorney General Jeff Sessions pursuant to his request in Matter of Castro-Tum. In that decision, the Attorney General certified to himself an unpublished decision, in which he requested amicus briefs on the following: (1) whether IJs and the BIA have the authority administratively close cases, and if so, whether the BIA’s precedent decisions “articulate the appropriate standard for administrative closure” (2) If it is determined that IJs lack such authority, should the AG delegate it, or conversely, if the IJs have such authority, should the AG withdraw it; (3) can the purpose of administrative closure be satisfied through other docket management devices; and (4) if the AG determines that IJs and the BIA lack such authority, what should be done with the cases already closed.

As immigration judges and the BIA have exercised their authority to administratively close cases for decades, the AG suddenly raising these questions on his own would seem to signal his intent to do away with this important docket-management tool. As background, the respondent in Castro-Tum is an unrepresented, unaccompanied minor. When he did not appear for a scheduled removal hearing after the immigration court mailed a notice to what it was told was the minor’s address, the DHS attorney requested the immigration judge to order the child removed from the U.S. However, the IJ had questions concerning the reliability of the mailing address that the government provided to the immigration court, and declined to enter the removal order, administratively closing the proceedings instead. The DHS attorney appealed. It should be noted that the appeal did not challenge an immigration judge’s right generally to administratively close cases; the DHS believed that in this particular case, the evidence of record should have required the IJ to enter an order of removal. The BIA agreed with the DHS, and reversed the IJ’s order. It was at that point that the AG inserted himself into the matter by certifying an already-resolved matter to himself and turning it into a challenge to the overall authority to administratively close any case.

Numerous groups filed amicus briefs in this case; they include those that represent unaccompanied children; immigrant rights groups, and academic clinicians. The American Immigration Council (AIC) argued in its brief that AG Sessions’ history of hostility towards noncitizens renders him unfit to decide the issue raised in Castro-Tum. Our group of former IJs and Board members brought a unique perspective to the issue, based on our many years of collective experience managing case dockets and addressing the issues that administrative closure is designed to remedy.

Immigration Judges exist by statute. Therefore, the inherent powers delegated to them (including the power to control their own dockets, and to administratively close cases as a means of exercising such control) come from Congress, and not the Attorney General. As our brief explains, such authority of judges to control their dockets has been recognized by the Supreme Court and lower federal courts. Federal regulations issued by the Department of Justice grant immigration judges the power to “exercise their independent judgment and discretion,” including the ability to “take any action consistent with their authorities under the Act and regulations that is appropriate and necessary for the disposition” of the individual cases appearing before them.

Furthermore, the BIA has set out the proper standard for determining whether a case should be administratively closed or required to proceed. In Matter of Avetisyan, the Board laid out the criteria that may properly be considered in determining whether administrative closure is appropriate. In Matter of W-Y-U-, the Board added that the most important consideration is whether the party opposing administrative closure has provided a persuasive reason for the case to proceed and be resolved on the merits. The immigration judge is required set forth his or her reasons for administrative closure in a decision which may be reviewed on appeal to both the BIA and the federal circuit courts.

The brief additionally points out the inadequacy of other existing tools. In Avetisyan, the immigration judge granted multiple continuances to allow DHS to adjudicate a visa petition filed on behalf of the respondent. However, the petition could not be adjudicated because USCIS (which adjudicates such petitions) was required to keep returning the file to the ICE prosecutor before it could get to the petition because it was needed for the next immigration court hearing (which was only scheduled to check on the status of the visa petition). The file remained in constant orbit, never remaining with USCIS long enough to allow for adjudication of the petition, which in turn would require another continuance. Furthermore, federal regulation specifically requires that immigration proceedings by administratively closed before USCIS will adjudicate certain waivers of inadmissibility. As noted in the brief, DHS defended such administrative closure requirement when its necessity was questioned by a comment on the proposed regulation.

Our group of amici expresses our sincere gratitude to the outstanding attorneys at Akin Gump who provided their pro bono assistance: partner Steven H. Schulman; Andrew Schwerin, the primary drafter; and Martine Cicconi, Mallory Jones, and Chris Chamberlain, who drafted sections of the brief. We also thank Prof. Deborah Anker of Harvard Law School and the staff and students of the Harvard Immigration and Refugee Clinic for its invaluable support and insights. The amici included in our brief were former BIA Chair and Board Member and former Immigration Judge Paul W. Schmidt; former Board Members Cecelia M. Espenoza, Lory D. Rosenberg, Gustavo D. Villageliu, and former Immigration Judges Sarah M. Burr, Bruce J. Einhorn, Noel Ferris, John F. Gossart, Jr., William P. Joyce, Edward Kandler, Carol King, Susan Roy, Polly A. Webber, and myself.

Copyright 2017 Jeffrey S. Chase. All rights reserved.

JEFF CHASE

WHEN EVERYTHING & EVERYBODY IS A PRIORITY, THERE ARE NO PRIORITIES — WHAT “GONZO” IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT IS REALLY ABOUT!

At CNN, the “Amazing Tal” has it all for you:

Happy Friday!
Hope you’re battening down the hatches during this Nor’easter.
You may have already seen, but wanted to send you my latest story this morning, a deep dive into immigration arrests.
Have a great weekend and stay safe!
Tal

http://www.cnn.com/2018/03/02/politics/ice-immigration-deportations/index.html

How Trump changed the rules to arrest more non-criminal immigrants
By Tal Kopan, CNN
A businessman and father from Ohio. An Arizona mother. The Indiana husband of a Trump supporter. They were unassuming members of their community, parents of US citizens and undocumented. And they were deported by the Trump administration.
It’s left many wondering why the US government is arresting and deporting a number of individuals who have often lived in the country for decades, checked in regularly with immigration officials and posed no danger to their community. Many have family members who are American citizens, including school-aged children.
President Donald Trump famously said in a presidential debate that his focus is getting the “bad hombres” and the “bad, bad people” out first to secure the border, but one of his first actions after taking office was an executive order that effectively granted immigration agents the authority to arrest and detain any undocumented immigrant they wanted.
Where the Obama administration focused deportation efforts almost exclusively on criminals and national security threats, as well as immigrants who recently arrived illegally, the Trump administration has also targeted immigrants with what are called final orders of removal — an order from a judge that a person can be deported and has no more appeals left.
In Trump’s first year, US Immigration and Customs Enforcement arrested 109,000 criminals and 46,000 people without criminal records — a 171% increase in the number of non-criminal individuals arrested over 2016.
The Trump administration regularly says its focus is criminals and safety threats, but has also repeatedly made clear that no one in the country illegally will be exempted from enforcement.
“We target criminal aliens, but we’re not going to exempt an entire class of (non)citizens,” Department of Homeland Security spokesman Tyler Houlton told reporters Wednesday.
“All of those in violation of immigration laws may be subject to immigration arrest, detention and, if found removable by final order, removal from the United States,” ICE spokeswoman Sarah Rodriguez added in a statement.
Critics say including people with decades-old final orders of removal as priorities is more about boosting numbers by targeting easily catchable individuals than about public safety threats.
“A final order of removal is absolutely not indicative of a person’s threat to public safety,” said former Obama administration ICE chief and DHS counsel John Sandweg. “You cannot equate convicted criminals with final orders of removal.”
Sandweg said that people with final orders, especially those who are checking in regularly with ICE, are easy to locate and can be immediately deported without much legal recourse. Identifying and locating criminals and gang members takes more investigative work.
There are more than 90,000 people on so-called orders of supervision who check in regularly with ICE officials, according to the agency. And there are more than 1 million who have removal proceedings pending or who have been ordered to leave the country but have not.
As a result of the change in ICE policy, headlines about heart-wrenching cases of deportation separating children from parents or caregivers have been a regular occurrence.
The story of Amer Adi, an Ohio businessman who lived in the US nearly 40 years, and has a wife and four daughters who are all American citizens, drew national media coverage last month. Through a complicated dispute about his first marriage, Adi lost his status and was ordered deported in 2009, but ICE never opted to remove him from the country. His congressman even introduced a bill to protect Adi, saying he was a “pillar” of the community, but last fall, ICE told Adi to prepare to be deported.
At a check-in on January 15, he was taken into custody and not allowed to see his family before being put on a plane back to his home country of Jordan on January 30.
“We shouldn’t spend one penny on low-hanging fruit,” said Sarah Saldana, the most recent director of ICE before Trump’s inauguration. “What we should be spending money is on getting people who are truly a threat to public safety.”

‘ICE fugitives’
The Trump administration has subtly blurred the distinction between criminals and those with final orders of removal, which is a civil, not criminal charge.
ICE has combined “ICE fugitives” — people who have been ordered to leave the country but haven’t yet — with convicted criminals who have pending criminal charges and reinstated final orders of removal, allowing the agency to say 92% of those arrested under Trump had criminal convictions or one of the other factors — when the number with criminal records is closer to 70%.
With an estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants in the US, ICE has typically had resources to arrest and deport only roughly 150,000-250,000 individuals per year — requiring the agency to make choices about who to prioritize to proactively seek out for arrest.
ICE says its mission is carrying out the law and that it “must” deport these individuals.
“The immigration laws of the United States allow an alien to pursue relief from removal; however, once they have exhausted all due process and appeals, they remain subject to a final order of removal from an immigration judge and that order must be carried out,” said Rodriguez. “Failing to carry out final orders of removal would be inconsistent with the entire federal framework of immigration enforcement established by Congress, and undermine the integrity of the US immigration system.”
Administration officials also argue the publicizing of these cases sends a message to would-be border crossers that undocumented immigrants are never safe in the US, even when sympathetic.
“If we don’t fix these loopholes, we’re going to entice others to make that dangerous journey,” ICE Director Tom Homan told the President at a roundtable earlier last month. “So it’s just not about law enforcement, it’s about saving lives.”

Limited resources
But Saldana and other former immigration officials question the prudence of going after that population indiscriminately, saying it diverts resources from more serious security concerns.
If 20 officers are assigned to identify targets with final orders, “those are 20 officers who won’t be out focused on finding gang members or criminals,” said Bo Cooper, a career official who served as general counsel of ICE’s predecessor, the Immigration and Naturalization Service, under Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush.
“When there are a finite amount of resources, choices you make come at the expense of other choices,” Cooper said. “It really is a significant policy choice.”
Sandweg said the Obama administration in 2014 changed its priorities to move away from those with old removal orders in order to give itself more resources to pick up targets from jails, which can be hours away from ICE offices, when they get word that a criminal could be detained on immigration charges.
Sandweg and Cooper noted that other law enforcement agencies also prioritize — the Drug Enforcement Administration doesn’t bother with low-level marijuana possession, but focuses on cartels, Sandweg said — and it’s a part of agency culture.
“Setting enforcement priorities is not micromanagement, that’s what every law enforcement agency does,” agreed Cooper.
As for whether ICE was handcuffed during the Obama era, Saldana said that even in Trump’s executive order, there is room for discretion.
“That’s silly,” Saldana said. “Can you imagine having 11, 12 million in the system? The cost would be extraordinary, so you have to make priorities and work that way. … You can’t sweep everybody into one category. Not everyone is a contributor to society, and not everyone is a criminal.”

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

Homan’s shtick about “saving lives” is as preposterous as it is insulting! The “dangers” of seeking to come to the US actually are well known by those making the journey. Whether they are educated or not, they are smart, brave, resourceful people — the kinds of folks we actually could use more of in America.

What Homan and others (including some of the jurists at all levels hearing these cases and getting the results wrong) fail to recognize is that the dangers of remaining in failed states controlled by gangs and corrupt politicos is much greater than the dangers of the journey and the chance of being returned. That being the case, folks have been coming and will continue to come, no matter how nasty and arbitrary we are and no matter how much we mock our Constitution, our own laws on asylum and protection, and the international standards to which we claim adherence.

Too many of those being returned were denied relief under arcane legal standards even when the judges hearing the cases acknowledged that they had established a likelihood of persecution or death upon return. But, they failed to show a “nexus to a protected ground” or “government acquiescence” as those terms are often intentionally restrictively defined by the BIA and some courts.

I know that I had such cases, and I can’t say as anyone ever understood why I was sending them back to possible severe harm or death. Homan and others like him don’t actually have to pronounce such judgments on other human beings face to face as do U.S. Immigration Judges. Neither do the Appellate Immigration Judges sitting in the “BIA Tower” in Falls Church, VA for that matter!

But, the DHS always has discretion as to whether to execute such an order. How on earth does sending productive members of our society and others who have committed no crimes back to be killed, extorted, raped, or forced to join gangs “save lives.” What total hypocrisy!

Indeed, the only “message” we’re actually sending to such folks is that they might as well join the gangs because their lives don’t matter to us. There will be a reckoning for such attitudes for Homan and others some day, even if its only that the judgement of history and the shame of future generations for their lack of empathy, intellectual honesty, common sense, and humanity!

We can diminish ourselves as a nation, but that won‘t stop human migration!

PWS

03-03-18

“GO POUND SAND” SUPREMES TELL TRUMP & SESSIONS ON DACA – HIGH COURT STIFFARMS DOJ’S FRIVOLOUS TRY TO END RUN LEGAL PROCESS!

https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/26/politics/daca-supreme-court/index.html

Ariane de Vogue and Tal Kopan report for CNN”

“Washington (CNN)The Supreme Court said on Monday that it will stay out of the dispute concerning the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program for now, meaning the Trump administration may not be able to end the program March 5 as planned.

The move will also lessen pressure on Congress to act on a permanent solution for DACA and its roughly 700,000 participants — undocumented immigrants who came to the US as children.

Lawmakers had often cited the March 5 deadline as their own deadline for action. But the Senate failed to advance any bill during a debate earlier this month, and no bipartisan measure has emerged since.

Originally, the Trump administration had terminated DACA but allowed a six-month grace period for anyone with status expiring in that window to renew. After that date, March 5, any DACA recipient whose status expired would no longer be able to receive protections.

Monday’s action by the court, submitted without comment from the justices, is not a ruling on the merits of the DACA program or the Trump administration’s effort to end it.

At issue is a ruling by federal District Judge William Alsup of the US District Court for the Northern District of California, who blocked the plan to end DACA and held that the Trump administration must resume accepting renewal applications. The action means the case will continue going through the lower courts.

Alsup said a nationwide injunction was “appropriate” because “our country has a strong interest in the uniform application of immigration law and policy.”

“Plaintiffs have established injury that reaches beyond the geographical bounds of the Northern District of California. The problem affects every state and territory of the United States,” he wrote.

The 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals has generally allowed nationwide injunctions against the Trump administration actions from lower court judges under this President to stand, meaning the DACA program could be spared a year or more until the Supreme Court could take up the case in next year’s term, given the likely realities of the calendar.

Justice Department spokesman Devin O’Malley said the administration’s appeal to the Supreme Court was an uphill climb, given it came before the 9th Circuit ruled.

“While we were hopeful for a different outcome, the Supreme Court very rarely grants certiorari before judgment, though in our view, it was warranted for the extraordinary injunction requiring the Department of Homeland Security to maintain DACA,” O’Malley said. “We will continue to defend DHS’s lawful authority to wind down DACA in an orderly manner.”

University of Texas professor law and CNN legal analyst Stephen Vladeck said justices normally don’t weigh in at this stage.

“The justices have not granted such a request since 2004, but the government claimed that the urgency of settling the legal status of DACA, and the potential for nationwide confusion, justified such an extraordinary measure,” Vladeck said.”

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

Good news for America on a number of fronts:

DACA immigrants get to keep their status and work authorization for now. While the Administration claimed (disingenuously) that removal of DACA recipients would not be a “priority,” loss of DACA status would mean loss of work authorization (and therefore jobs) for many and loss of in-state tuition eligibility for college for others. Thus, they would have been driven “into the underground.” Honest employers who insisted on following work authorization laws would have been penalized by loss of important, talented workers. Meanwhile, unscrupulous employers willing to overlook lack of work authorization or pay “under the table” at substandard wages would have been empowered by the Administration’s bone-headed actions to exploit Dreamers and U.S. workers alike.
Supremes rebuffed the arrogant Trump/Sessions attitude of entitlement. Whatever their disingenuous explanations might be today, in attempting to circumvent the Courts of Appeals to the Supremes, the Administration basically was touting that the GOP had “bought and paid for” five seats on the Supremes and that they expected their “wholly-owned Justices,” including of course the recently appointed Justice Gorsuch, to deliver on their demand for unprecedented special treatment. By forcing the Administration to follow the rules like everyone else, at least for now, the Supremes maintained some degree of dignity and judicial independence in the context of an Administration that publicly holds itself above the law and states that the only acceptable role of Federal Judges (particularly GOP appointees) is to “rubber stamp” Administration positions.
Litigation in the Courts of Appeals will further expose the absurdity of Session’s “legal position” on DACA. In the DACA litigation, the DOJ is incredibly asking the Federal Courts to invalidate the Executive’s own legal authority to exercise prosecutorial discretion on a consistent and disciplined basis. While courts have acknowledged that there are likely ways in which the Administration could go about terminating DACA, claiming that it is “illegal” isn’t one of them. Session’s bogus claim that an Administration doesn’t have authority to exercise prosecutorial discretion on a widespread basis is both disingenuous and absurd on its face. Obviously, this Administration has already chosen to exercise lots of prosecutorial discretion not to enforce environmental, health care, civil rights, ethics, and other “laws on the books” when it suited their purposes.
If the lower court rulings stand, Trump will have difficulty coming up with a “rational reason” to terminate DACA “on the merits.” Trump himself, as well as other Administration officials and politicos from both parties have widely and publicly praised DACA youth and their contributions to the United States. There is neither a legal nor a rational basis for terminating DACA. While Trump & Sessions might well attempt to do so, those attempts are also likely to be tied up in the Federal Courts for a long time. DACA created “settled expectations” on the part of the recipients, their employers, their schools, and even their U.S. families of continuing ability to, at a minimum, remain, work, and study in the United States, assuming continued “good behavior.” In my long experience in Government, Federal Courts have more often than not been anxious to find ways to protect such “settled expectations.”
Congress was going to “punt” on DACA anyway. I detected little if any interest on the part of GOP “leadership” in the House and Senate to fix DACA on a temporary or permanent basis for now. It’s going to take “regime change” — eventually replacing recalcitrant GOP legislators with Democrats more interested in governing in the public interest, including solving the Dreamer issue on a long-term basis (without otherwise damaging our permanent immigration system or further enabling lawless behavior by DHS). That’s going to take time, just like the litigation. In this case, time is the Dreamer’s and the bulk of America’s friend.

PWS

02-26-18

“GANG OF 14” FORMER IMMIGRATION JUDGES AND BIA APPELLATE IMMIGRATION JUDGES (INCLUDING ME) FILE AMICUS BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF ADMINISTRATIVE CLOSING! – Matter of Castro-Tum

HERE’S “OUR HERO” STEVEN H. SCHULMAN OF AKIN GUMP’S DC OFFICE WHO DID ALL THE “HEAVY LIFTING” OF DRAFTING THE BRIEF:

HERE’S THE “CAST OF CHARACTERS” (A/K/A “GANG OF 14”):

Amici curiae are retired Immigration Judges and former members of the Board of Immigration Appeals, who seek to address the Attorney General’s certified questions regarding administrative closure. Amici were appointed to serve at immigration courts around the United States and with the Board, and at senior positions with the Executive Office of Immigration Review. From their many combined years of service, amici have intimate knowledge of the operation of the immigration courts, including the importance of various procedural mechanisms to maintain efficient dockets. As explained in detail, administrative closure, when used judiciously, is a critical tool for immigration judges in managing their dockets. Without tools like administrative closure, immigration judges would be hampered, unable to set aside those matters that do not yet require court intervention and thus prevented from focusing on the removal cases that demand immediate attention.

In particular, the Honorable Sarah M. Burr served as a U.S. Immigration Judge in New York from 1994 and was appointed as Assistant Chief Immigration Judge in charge of the New York, Fishkill, Ulster, Bedford Hills and Varick Street immigration courts in 2006. She 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 and also as the supervising attorney in its immigration unit. She 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 from 2007 to 2017. He is presently in private practice as an independent consultant on immigration law, and Page 2 of 32 is of counsel to the law firm of DiRaimondo & Masi in New York City. Prior to his appointment, he was a sole practitioner and volunteer staff attorney at Human Rights First. He also was 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 a Visiting Professor of International, Immigration, and Refugee Law at the University of Oxford, England. He is also a contributing op-ed columnist at 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 Executive Office for Immigration Review (“EOIR”) Board of Immigration Appeals from 2000-2003 and in the Office of the General Counsel from 2003-2017 where she served as Senior Associate General Counsel, Privacy Officer, Records Officer and Senior FOIA Counsel. She is presently in private practice as an independent consultant on immigration law, and 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. She has published several articles on Immigration Law. She is a graduate of the University of Utah and the University of Utah S.J. Quinney College of Law. She was recognized as the University of Utah Law School’s Alumna of the Year in 2014 and received the Outstanding Service Award from the Colorado Chapter of the American Immigration Lawyers Page 3 of 32 Association in 1997 and the Distinguished Lawyer in Public Service Award from the Utah State Bar in 1989-1990.

The Honorable Noel Ferris served as an Immigration Judge in New York from 1994 to 2013 and an attorney advisor to the Board from 2013 to 2016, until her retirement. Previously, she served as a Special Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Southern District of New York from 1985 to 1990 and as Chief of the Immigration Unit from 1987 to 1990.

The Honorable John F. Gossart, Jr. served as a U.S. 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. He is also the co-author of the National Immigration Court Practice Manual, which is used by all practitioners throughout the United States in immigration court proceedings. From 1997 to 2016, Judge Gossart was an adjunct professor of law at the University of Baltimore School of Law teaching immigration law, and more recently was an adjunct professor of law at the University of Maryland School of Law also teaching immigration 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. He is also 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. Page 4 of 32

The Honorable William P. Joyce served as an Immigration Judge in Boston, Massachusetts. Subsequent to retiring from the bench, he has been the Managing Partner of Joyce and Associates with 1,500 active immigration cases. Prior to his appointment to the bench, he served as legal counsel to the Chief Immigration Judge. Judge Joyce also served as an Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, and Associate General Counsel for enforcement for INS. He is a graduate of Georgetown School of Foreign Service and Georgetown Law School.

The Honorable Edward Kandler was appointed as an Immigration Judge in October 1998. Prior to his appointment to the Immigration Court in Seattle in June 2004, he served as an Immigration Judge at the Immigration Court in San Francisco from August 2000 to June 2004 and at the Immigration Court in New York City from October 1998 to August 2000. Judge Kandler received a Bachelor of Arts degree in 1971 from California State University at San Francisco, a Master of Arts degree in 1974 from California State University at Hayward, and a Juris Doctorate in 1981 from the University of California at Davis. Judge Kandler served as an assistant U.S. trustee for the Western District of Washington from 1988 to 1998. He worked as an attorney for the law firm of Chinello, Chinello, Shelton & Auchard in Fresno, California, in 1988. From 1983 to 1988, Judge Kandler served as an assistant U.S. attorney in the Eastern District of California. He was also with the San Francisco law firm of Breon, Galgani, Godino from 1981 to 1983. Judge Kandler is a member of the California Bar.

The Honorable Carol King served as an Immigration Judge from 1995 to 2017 in San Francisco and was a temporary Board member for six months between 2010 and 2011. She previously practiced immigration law for ten years, both with the Law Offices of Marc Van Der Page 5 of 32 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 Lory D. Rosenberg served on the Board 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 Immigration Professor 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 Honors Program. She served as Assistant Chief Counsel, National Security Attorney, and Senior Attorney for the DHS Office of Chief Counsel in Newark, NJ, and then became an Immigration Judge, also in Newark. Sue has been in private practice for nearly 5 years, and two years ago, opened her own immigration law firm. Sue is the NJ AILA Chapter Liaison to EOIR, is the Vice Chair of the Immigration Law Section of the NJ State Bar Association, and in 2016 was awarded the Outstanding Prop Bono Attorney of the Year by the NJ Chapter of the Federal Bar Association. Page 6 of 32

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. He authored the landmark decision Matter of Kasinga, 21 I&N Dec. 357 (BIA 1995) extending asylum protection to victims of female genital mutilation. He served as Deputy General Counsel of the former INS from 1978 to 1987, serving as Acting General Counsel from 1986-87 and 1979-81. He was the managing partner of the Washington, D.C. office of Fragomen, DelRey & Bernsen from 1993 to 1995, and practiced business immigration law with the Washington, D.C. office of Jones, Day, Reavis and Pogue from 1987 to 1992, where he was a partner from 1990 to 1992. He 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), which he presently serves as Americas Vice President. He also serves on the Advisory Board of AYUDA, and assists the National Immigrant Justice Center/Heartland Alliance on various projects; and speaks, writes and lectures at various forums throughout the country on immigration law topics. He also created the immigration law blog immigrationcourtside.com.

The Honorable Polly A. Webber served as an Immigration Judge from 1995 to 2016 in San Francisco, with details in facilities in Tacoma, Port Isabel, Boise, Houston, Atlanta, Philadelphia, and Orlando. Previously, she practiced immigration law from 1980 to 1995 in her own private practice in San Jose. She was a national officer in AILA from 1985 to 1991 and served as National President of AILA from 1989 to 1990. She has also taught immigration and nationality law at both Santa Clara University School of Law and Lincoln Law School. Page 7 of 32

The Honorable Gustavo D. Villageliu served as a Board of Immigration Appeals Member from July 1995 to April 2003. He then served as Senior Associate General Counsel for the Executive Office for Immigration Review until he retired in 2011, helping manage FOIA, Privacy and Security as EOIR Records Manager. Before becoming a Board Member, Villageliu was an Immigration Judge in Miami, with both detained and non-detained dockets, as well as the Florida Northern Region Institutional Criminal Alien Hearing Docket 1990-95. Mr. Villageliu was a member of the Iowa, Florida and District of Columbia Bars. He graduated from the University of Iowa College of Law in 1977. After working as a Johnson County Attorney prosecutor intern in Iowa City, Iowa he joined the Board as a staff attorney in January 1978, specializing in war criminal, investor, and criminal alien cases.

HERE’S A SUMMARY OF OUR ARGUMENT:

ARGUMENT………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 7

I. Immigration Judges and the Board have inherent and delegated authority to order administrative closure in a case ……………………………………………………………………………… 7

A. Federal courts have recognized that judges possess an inherent authority to order administrative closure………………………………………………………………………… 8

B. Regulations establishing and governing Immigration Judges ratify their inherent authority to order administrative closure. …………………………………………. 9

II. The Board’s decisions in Matter of Avetisyan, 25 I&N Dec. 688 (BIA 2012), and Matter of W-Y-U-, 27 I&N Dec. 17 (BIA 2017), articulate the appropriate standard for administrative closure……………………………………………………………………….. 13

A. The legal standard set forth in Avetisyan and W-Y-U- gives the Immigration Judge the correct degree of independence in deciding motions for administrative closure. ……………………………………………………………………………… 13

B. The facts and disposition of the case at bar show that the legal standard under Avetisyan and W-Y-U- is working correctly. ………………………………………………… 16

III. Fundamental principles of administrative law hold that the Attorney General cannot change the regulations that grant this authority without proper notice and comment rulemaking. ……………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 18

A. Practical docket management considerations weigh in favor of retaining administrative closure. ……………………………………………………………………………… 19

B. Due process considerations also weigh in favor of retaining administrative closure. …………………………………………………………………………………………………… 21

IV. Options such as continuances, dismissal without prejudice, and termination without prejudice, are suboptimal as compared to administrative closure. …………………………….. 22

V. There is no reason to attach legal consequences to administrative closure. ………………… 25

FINALLY, HERE’S THE COMPLETE BRIEF FOR YOUR INFORMATION AND READING PLEASURE:

Former IJs and Retired BIA Members – FINAL Castro-Tum Brief

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

Thanks again to all retired my colleagues. What a great opportunity to “reunite online” in support of a critically important cause affecting the American Justice System!
Special thanks to Judge Jeffrey Chase for spearheading the effort and getting all of us together!
“Super Special Thanks” to the amazing Steven H. Schulman, Partner at Akin Gump DC and to Akin Gump for donating your valuable time and expertise and making this happen!

PWS

02-17-18

REP. LLOYD DOGGERT (D-TX) SUCCINCTLY EXPLAINS HOW ICE “GONZO ENFORCEMENT” DESTROYS AMERICAN FAMILIES, SPREADS TERROR – AND ICE ALSO LIES! — “We are all made less safe . . . .”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/austin-reveals-how-ice-raids-are-tearing-apart-families/2018/02/14/e953ea68-10cf-11e8-a68c-e9374188170e_story.html?utm_term=.f5a47bbd1b3d

Doggert writes in a letter to the Washington Post:

“Regarding the Feb. 12 front-page article “ICE’s wide net boosts arrests”:

During four days last February, Immigration and Customs Enforcement targeted Austin, apparently in retaliation for Travis County Sheriff Sally Hernandez’s justified refusal to honor some warrantless detainers. Despite claims by ICE that its operation targeted “public safety threats,” most of those arrested had no criminal background and most of those who did committed only relatively minor offenses.

ICE was not straightforward about its operation. Only through Gus Bova’s Texas Observer Freedom of Information Act request did I learn that ICE had apprehended almost three times the number initially disclosed to me. And, of those, many were also law-abiding residents. I still await answers from ICE concerning whether its deceit extended beyond Austin and has continued.

One “dreamer” reported that for weeks following these raids, her parents would leave home only one at a time for fear of leaving their children without any caregiver.

Indiscriminate raids make immigrants fearful of assisting local law enforcement. ” but the Trump administration does not conduct these for safety. Its objective is to instill fear and to intimidate immigrants into leaving. And this is the same treatment that dreamers could receive beginning next month if House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) continues to block a vote to secure their status.

ICE raids on the innocent rip apart families, devastate communities and satisfy only President Trump’s anti-immigrant hysteria.

Lloyd Doggett, Washington

The writer, a Democrat, represents Texas’s
35th District in the House.”

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

“Right on,” Lloyd!

Almost every day, America’s most despised and least trusted police force “earns their chops” with cruel, inhumane, dishonest, and ultimately senseless acts of “Gonzo ” enforcement.

“We can diminish ourselves as a Nation, but it won’t stop human migration!”

PWS

02-15-18

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Harm to the most vulnerable among us is harm to all of us.

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Mar 4 14 Former IJs and BIA Members File Amicus Brief with AG

Related posts:

We can diminish ourselves as a nation, but that won‘t stop human migration!

Related posts:

Related posts:

HERE’S “OUR HERO” STEVEN H. SCHULMAN OF AKIN GUMP’S DC OFFICE WHO DID ALL THE “HEAVY LIFTING” OF DRAFTING THE BRIEF:

HERE’S THE “CAST OF CHARACTERS” (A/K/A “GANG OF 14”):

HERE’S A SUMMARY OF OUR ARGUMENT:

FINALLY, HERE’S THE COMPLETE BRIEF FOR YOUR INFORMATION AND READING PLEASURE:

Related posts:

Related posts: