⚖️👍🏼😎LAW YOU CAN USE: Professor Geoffrey Hoffman Tells Us How To Use Niz-Chavez v. Garland To Fight DHS/EOIR’s “Fake Date NTA” Travesty!

https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/immigration/2021/05/another-twist-on-niz-chavez-by-geoffrey-hoffman.html

Geoffrey writes on ImmigrationProf Blog:

Geoffrey Hoffman previously has blogged about the recent Supreme Court decision in Niz-Chavez v. Garland. Here is the sequel.

Another Twist on Niz-Chavez . . . by Geoffrey Hoffman

A fascinating twist on the factual scenario in Niz-Chavez is what to do if your client had an NTA with a so-called “fake date.” The “fake date” problem is one you will remember well if you practice immigration law before EOIR, and it garnered national attention in 2019 when ICE issued these fake dates for thousands of immigrants, many of whom showed up in court only to find that there was nothing on any judge’s docket to indicate they were scheduled for a hearing that day. Reports of fake dates were prevalent in Dallas, Orlando, Miami, Seattle, and I am sure other places as well. See news articles such as this one. In addition, and as a separate matter, there was a well-known so-called “parking date” (November 29) issued on thousands of NTAs and that was also never a “real date” as everyone knew.

There is an interesting theory about why the “fake dates” were issued in the first place: that the government was trying to respond to Pereira v. Sessions itself. Despite its argument in federal court to try to restrict Pereira as much as possible, in practice ICE tacitly was affirming, so the argument goes, that in Pereira the Supreme Court had defined, as we have argued all along, what is and what is not a proper and valid NTA. In an effort to immunize itself from responsibility for defective NTAs without any time or place of hearing, ICE thought it might make sense to input “fake dates” in their NTAs, thus (at least superficially it would seem) immunizing itself from the argument that the NTAs were defective for “lack” of a real date and place. Then the “real date” – according to the argument – could be issued as a follow-up in the form of a notice of hearing by EOIR.

The question now arises whether clients with fake-date NTAs can utilize Pereira and now Niz-Chavez to defeat the “stop-time” effect for cancellation of removal, where such fake NTAs existed, even where there is a subsequent notice of hearing with a “real date” from EOIR. The short answer is “Yes” – and I will discuss in the rest of this article why this should be the case and why it should not come as a surprise for several reasons.

It is arguably a much stronger case for the application of Niz-Chavez because the issuance of a “fake date” that was never intended to be used by EOIR in any way is affirmatively wrong. It is not just mere negligence by leaving “TBA” with a blank date and place of hearing on the NTA. ICE should not be able to hide behind an NTA where the information is filled in on the NTA but the information is patently false and made up or fabricated. Just as an asylum seeker who fabricates a date or other information on their forms cannot benefit from such information in applying for relief before the court, the government should get no benefit either from their incorrect and misleading actions. The counter-argument from the government will be that the NTA was valid “on its face” since it had some “date and place” in the document and therefore (a) stopped time for cancellation purposes and (b) conferred jurisdiction because it was “facially” valid.

This counter-argument is flawed. To embrace such a rationale would exalt form over substance. It also would allow an agency to game the system. It would also defeat the very mechanism that the Supreme Court set out in Pereira and now Niz-Chavez. Respondent should be entitled to reopen their proceedings in all “fake date” cases since a valid NTA was not filed in the immigration court. The only remaining issue will be proof. The respondent and his or her attorney will have to prove there was no hearing that was actually held on that day. If no hearing existed at all, then the stop time rule should not apply and the fake NTA cannot be “cured” by a subsequently issued notice by a different agency, that is EOIR, as per Niz-Chavez.

Finally, in reopening a client’s case it would be helpful if there were a showing of some effort on the part the respondent to check. Proof may be difficult and EOIR FOIA and other investigation will be important. Ideally, the client or the their attorney or both went to court but no hearing was on the docket that day, and there was an effort to check that was documented in some way. If there never was receipt of the NTA at all, whether containing a fake date or not, and an in absentia order was issued, then the question becomes whether jurisdiction could have vested at all in such a case. As I have argued, if the NTA is defective it cannot result in the vesting of jurisdiction. A fake date and place arguably cannot confer jurisdiction, even if the NTA was filed with the court. Since there was no hearing actually scheduled the NTA should be found defective under Pereira and Niz-Chavez.

K[evin] J[ohnson]

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

Sure sounds to me like ‘affirmative misconduct” by the USG that should stop them from relying on the “fake dates. In the “old days,” INS actually used to settle potential “affirmative misconduct” cases, rather than litigate.

By contrast, today’s DOJ seems perfectly willing shamelessly to defend a wide range of legally and ethically questionable conduct and then “blow off” criticism from the Article III Judiciary. Recently, a frustrated U.S. District Judge referred to Bureau of Prisons officials as “idiots.”

One might have thought that would have spurred some type of apology and corrective action from the DOJ. But, that doesn’t seem to have registered with Garland. He just keeps rolling along with Barr’s “Miller Lite” appointments while dissing advice from progressives who actually helped put him in his current job. About the only thing you can count on from Dems is that when it comes to progressive immigraton reforms and EOIR, they’ll blow it!

Thanks, Geoffrey, for your timely and creative “practical scholarship.” Of course with better leadership, the Biden Administration could solve this problem without protracted litigation that often takes years and produces inconsistent results before the Supremes or Congress can resolve them. In the meantime, lives unnecessarily are ruined and the system becomes more inefficient and unfair.

Garland should appoint progressive practical scholars like Geoffrey to the BIA and senior management at EOIR, OIL, OLP, and the SG’s Office and let them “lead from above” — rather than having to fight bad interpretations and worst practices from the outside.

In this case, the DHS/EOIR “fake date policy” was both fraudulent and unethical. Remember that some folks actually showed up at Immigration Court buildings, often with families in tow, after having traveled hundreds of miles, @ 3:00 AM on Sunday mornings (or on a Federal Holiday or some other bogus date) only to find out that the “joke” was on them.

And, let’s not forget folks, that thanks to the BIA’s permissive attitude (when it comes to the Government, but not with individual rights), under the now “being phased out” “Remain in Mexico Program” (a/k/a “let “em Die In Mexico”), folks basically got NTAs with the equivalent of this: “Maria Gomez, somewhere on some Calle in Tijuana, Mexico.” But, the BIA said that this was basically “good enough for Government work.”

We should also remember that the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause guarantees the individual’s rights against the Government, not the other way around! But, you sure wouldn’t know that from reading BIA and AG precedents issued under the Trump kakistocracy.

Meanwhile, IJs and the BIA under Garland continue to “in absentia” folks for being a few minutes late for a hearing or misreading an NTA in a language they can’t understand. Anybody had a problem with their U.S. Mail lately? We have, in our “upper middle class neighborhood” in Alexandria, VA. Yet, EOIR and some Article IIIs continue to promote the “legal fiction” of a “presumption of proper (and timely) delivery” of notices sent by regular U.S. Mail.

Until, Garland has the backbone to restore ethics and the rule of law at EOIR and the rest of the DOJ, particularly by reassigning or otherwise removing those who “went along to get along” and replacing them with ethical, qualified, experts from the NDPA who will speak truth to power and hold immigration enforcement bureaucrats accountable, our justice system will continue its tailspin!

🇺🇸⚖️🗽🧑🏽‍⚖️Due Process Forever!

PWS

O5-15-21

UNCONFIRMED, BUT “ON THE STREET” — TOTAL INSANITY? — Heard On The “Rumor Mill” — Unconfirmed Reports That Garland Is About To Appoint Trump Tea Party Politico To Top Judicial Post In NYC!

Was this guy

Judge Merrick Garland — Judge Merrick B. Garland
Official White House Photo
Public Realm

Really this guy

Attribution: Stephen Miller Monster by Peter Kuper, PoliticalCartoons.com

In disguise all along?

An anonymous source reports:

As a follow-up to the recent IJ appointments, I thought you might be interested to know that Anna Little is rumored to be the new ACIJ in NYC. I haven’t seen that officially, though, so you would need to confirm before posting about it (and you didn’t hear it from me). I honestly know nothing about her and she might be great, but there’s a little concern given that she was appointed as an IJ by Trump just two years ago, has never worked as an IJ at a NY court, and apparently was a Tea Party political candidate.

https://newjerseyglobe.com/national/report-trump-administration-names-anna-little-nj-tea-party-favorite-as-u-s-immigration-judge/

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

Normally, I’d say that this is far, far too insane to be true, even in a Dem Administration! But, given Garland’s incredibly abysmal performance so far at DOJ, I can’t completely rule it out.

Progressives who helped Biden get his job need to start demanding better from this Administration. If true, and I personally don’t want to believe it, this should call into question Garland’s continued tenure @ Justice!

What kind of “Dem” Administration promotes GOP Tea Partiers as judges over better qualified progressive candidates?

True or not, the fact that this rumor is even out there shows a dramatic loss of confidence by progressive Dems in Garland in an amazingly short amount of time! It’s basically the equivalent of a rumor that Joe Biden intends to name Kevin McCarthy as his Chief of Staff. And, where, oh where, is Vice President Harris as Garland is totally undermining the Administration and grotesquely failing to reverse the course of injustice @ Trump’s broken and corrupt “Justice” Department?

We all know who won the 2020:election. So, why is Stephen Miller apparently still in charge of the DOJ?

🇺🇸⚖️🗽Due Process Forever!

PWS

05-13-21

🏴‍☠️☠️⚰️🆘NO JUSTICE @ JUSTICE! — OUTRAGE OF PROGRESSIVE EXPERTS CONTINUES TO GROW AS GARLAND FAILS TO VACATE SESSIONS/BARR RACIST, MISOGYNIST, ANTI-IMMIGRANT, UNETHICAL, BIASED PRECEDENTS — “Garland’s Star Chambers” Careen Further Out Of Control As AG Dithers While Lives Of Vulnerable Refugee Women Hang in Balance & Pro Bono Advocates Are Forced To Exhaust Resources Fighting Trump DOJ’s Misdeeds That Biden Has Failed To Fix, Despite Promises — “Unforced Errors,” Lack Of Competent Progressive Leadership Continue To Plague Flawed Immigration Agenda @ Justice, Offend Dem Supporters! — Expert Professors Karen Musalo & Stephen Legomsky Call For Immediate Vacating Of Repulsive Matter of A-B- Abomination Before More Lives Of Women Of Color Are Lost!

Professor Karen Musalo
Director, Center for Gender & Refugee Studies, Hastings Law

Stephen Legomsky — Professor Stephen H. Legomsky
Emeritus Professor of Law & Former USG Senior Executive
Washington U. Law
PHOTO: Washington U. Law website

https://thehill.com/opinion/immigration/552539-one-quick-asylum-fix-how-garland-can-help-domestic-violence-survivors

Karen & Steve write in The Hill:

With the stroke of a pen, U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland could restore access to life-saving protection for domestic violence survivors and others caught in the crosshairs of his predecessors’ campaign to exclude refugees. Garland can and should immediately vacate Jeff Sessions’ 2018 decision in the case known as Matter of A-B-, which all but eliminated asylum for people fleeing brutal domestic violence.

On the campaign trail Joe Biden pledged to reverse Matter of A-B- and ensure a fair opportunity for survivors to seek asylum. As president, Biden has issued an executive order directing his Departments of Justice and Homeland Security to review their asylum policies and, by August, determine whether our country protects people fleeing domestic violence in a way that’s consistent with international standards. Following this review, the agencies will issue regulations that bring our treatment of asylum seekers into alignment with our treaty obligations, and with basic principles of humanity and fairness.

But this process will span many months, and when lives are on the line, more immediate action is imperative. Every day Matter of A-B- remains in effect, people are being wrongly denied asylum and delivered into the hands of the very persecutors they’ve fled.

How did we get into this mess? In 2018, then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions personally intervened in the case of Ms. A.B., a Salvadoran woman. He used her case as a vehicle to overrule a landmark Justice Department opinion recognizing domestic violence as a potential basis for asylum. That ruling was the culmination of 15 years of advocacy and extensive consideration by government agencies and refugee law experts.

The impact of Sessions’ decision was immediate and catastrophic. Immigration judges around the country began denying asylum in cases that — pre-Matter of A-B- — should have been relatively straightforward. Though some survivors could still prevail in immigration court, Trump administration attorneys would often appeal these cases to the Justice Department’s appellate tribunal, the Board of Immigration Appeals, and get them overturned.

. . . .

One of the authors — Professor Musalo — represents a victim of Sessions’ attack on survivors: We’ll call her “Cristina” to protect anonymity. Cristina fled Honduras after enduring nearly two decades of domestic violence so severe it once put her in a month-long coma. Cristina was also terrorized by a politically powerful family that murdered multiple siblings and close relatives. When Cristina received a note threatening her with the same fate, she knew she had no choice but to seek asylum.

Cases like Cristina’s have life-or-death stakes, but with Sessions’ ruling intact they are being denied automatically. Though Cristina presented a strong asylum application, in 2020 the Board of Immigration Appeals denied her case, ruling that Matter of A-B- precluded protection. Cristina now faces imminent deportation to Honduras, where she is terrified she’ll be killed.

Merrick Garland can protect survivors like Cristina by simply vacating Sessions’ decision and related asylum rulings from Trump’s Department of Justice. This would at least bring us back to where we were before — not a perfect world, but one where asylum seekers had a fairer shot — while the Justice Department prepares a more humane and legally defensible set of principles to guide future decision-making in asylum cases.

. . . .

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

Woman Tortured — Tortured & abused refugee women’s lives continue to hang in the balance while Judge Garland diddles and runs “Miller Lite Judicial Selection Happy Hour” at failing DOJ!
Amazing StoriesArtist Unknown, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

Read the complete op-ed at the link.

If the current BIA were replaced with competent, expert, progressive, due-process oriented judges tomorrow, as should have happened months ago, this problem could be solved immediately.

I have no doubt that with real asylum experts like Karen as appellate judges at the BIA, Matter of A-B- would rapidly be turned into a blueprint for efficiently granting needed protection to persecuted women. It would also serve as a much needed tool for ending the “asylum free zones” unethically and unprofessionally established by some Immigration Judges throughout the country and starting the long overdue process for removing those unqualified Immigration Judges who are unable or unwilling to fairly grant asylum to qualified applicants and who have created an unacceptable anti-asylum, racist, misogynist culture in some parts of EOIR, in other words the “95% denial club” needs to go! Now!

Disgracefully, that culture was actually encouraged and rewarded by White Nationalist political hacks like Sessions and Barr — folks who never, ever should have had any role in asylum adjudication in America, let alone been permitted to unethically act as “judges” in cases they had “pre-decided” on a mass basis! “Fair and impartial adjudicator,” the core of American constitutional due process, became a sick joke under Sessions and Barr as the Supremes and many Article IIIs disgracefully and spinelessly looked the other way. And, Garland has done nothing to effectively address or reverse this toxic, anti-due-process, racist, misogynist “culture” despite having been told by experts that it was an emergency that could not wait!

Karen and Steve also point out how the BIA disintegrated from a tribunal that was supposed to guarantee fairness and due process for migrants, implement best judicial practices, and protect the most vulnerable from Government overreach into a tool and weapon of DHS enforcement! Yet, 100 days into the Biden Administration, BIA appellate judges who “toadied up” to the Trump regime’s White Nationalist agenda and aided “Dred Scottification” of “the other” by Stephen MIller remain, and experts who should have replaced them remain “on the outside looking in.”

If the Biden Administration and Garland are incapable of putting diverse, qualified progressive experts into a judiciary that they actually control, what are the prospects for progressive transformation of the Article IIIs? That makes this week’s disclosure that Garland mindlessly appointed 17 “Miller Lite” Immigration Judges left over from Barr’s flawed recruitment and scummy tenure instead of properly using these valuable positions to start building a long overdue progressive, expert judiciary at EOIR all the more infuriating and outrageous!

The unmitigated, entirely unnecessary, and potentially solvable due process disaster at EOIR will prevent any meaningful progressive immigraton reforms, whether by legislation or Executive action! It’s also undermines racial justice, threatens the future of American justice, and undermines our democracy every day that it festers away, unaddressed.

Garland must fix this problem starting now! Reassigning the 17 judges who should not have been hired and are still in probation, re-competing their positions under merit criteria that encourage applications from all sources and promote diversity, and cancelling the ridiculous plans for the unneeded, due process denying Richmond Adjudication Center (“Star Chamber”) should be just the start.

Star Chamber Justice — “It’s a long way to Richmond,” as country singer Travis Tritt would say!

“Unit Chief Immigration Judges” are needed like a hole in the head, probably less. They were a bogus idea cooked up by now deposed former Director McHenry to aid in his misguided union busting initiative. What is needed is less bogus judicial supervision (whoever heard of qualified judges needing “supervisors”) and the accompanying time and resource wasting gimmicks, better professional judicial management, and more competent, progressive, independent, expert immigration judges with experience representing asylum applicants and other immigrants in Immigration Courts and judges with NGO and clinical experience who actually know how to manage dockets and solve problems — skills that are in perilously short supply at EOIR.

Garland needs to replace the “gang that can’t shoot straight” @ DOJ and EOIR with some progressive experts and let them start fixing problems and knocking heads of those still stuck in the Sessions/Barr era! Some of us believe that elections should have consequences. Among those is the immediate end of “Miller Lite Justice @ Justice” and the type of promised due process reforms that got Biden and Harris elected in the first place!

“Miller Lite Justice Hour” is over at DOJ — It’s time for Garland to get on the ball and install progressive judges, competent administrators, and long overdue progressive due process reforms at EOIR — America’s worst and most grotesquely dysfunctional “courts,” that don’t operate as courts at all and which daily destroy the lives of refugee women and other migrants!

🇺🇸⚖️🗽🧑🏽‍⚖️Due Process Forever!

PWS

05-09-21

🇺🇸⚖️🗽GARCIA HERNANDEZ, MOSKOWITZ, CHEN, & I RIP GARLAND’S CONTINUATION OF BARR’S HORRIBLE IMMIGRATION JUDGE HIRING PRACTICES 🤮👎🏻 — DOJ’s Lame, Disingenuous Defense Of Garland’s Anti-Diversity, Anti-Immigrant, Anti-Due Process, Expertise-Denying Bogus Judicial Hiring Practices @ EOIR Enrages Progressives, Scholars, Experts, Betrays Biden’s Promises, Threatens To Shatter Dem Coalition! — Report By Rebecca Beitsch @ The Hill!

Rebecca Beitsch
Staff Writer
The Hill
PHOTO: pewtrust.org

https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/552373-biden-fills-immigration-court-with-trump-hires

From Rebecca’s article:

. . . .

The first 17 hires to the court system responsible for determining whether migrants get to remain in the country is filled with former prosecutors and counselors for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) as well as a few picks with little immigration experience.

Almost none have made their career representing migrants in court.

The Thursday announcement from the Department of Justice (DOJ) initially perplexed immigration attorneys, advocates and even some former immigration judges who wondered why the group so closely mirrored the jurists favored by the Trump administration.

. . . .

It’s also a surprising move for a president that has otherwise sought to quickly reverse a number of Trump immigration policies while calling for a more humane response to migration.

“This is a list I would have expected out of Bill Barr or Jeff Sessions, but they’re not the attorney general anymore. Elections are supposed to have consequences,” said Paul Schmidt, now an adjunct professor at Georgetown Law School after 21 years as an immigration judge. That included time serving as the chair of the Board of Immigration Appeals, the highest administrative body dealing with immigration cases.

“No one on that list is among the top 100 asylum authorities in the country, and that’s the kind of people they should be hiring — not prosecutorial re-treads,” he added.

. . . .

DOJ pushed back against criticism that the new judges would contribute to a pattern of rulings that favor government attorneys over immigrants, saying it “takes seriously any claims of unjustified and significant anomalies in adjudicator decision-making and takes steps to evaluate disparities.”

“Note also that the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) continually evaluates its processes and procedures to ensure that immigration cases are adjudicated fairly, impartially and expeditiously and that its immigration judges uniformly interpret and administer U.S. immigration laws,” the spokesperson said.

But Schmidt said diversifying the attorneys on the bench is what will be needed to have a greater impact.

“You need to get some progressive immigration experts into the system who recognize what good asylum claims are who can establish precedent for granting cases and then move those cases through the system,” he said.

“I haven’t seen much evidence to back up their initial claim they want to be fair and just to asylum seekers. It’s just Stephen Miller Lite.”

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

The DOJ’s response is preposterous, further evidence Garland is the wrong person to bring “justice” back to “Justice!” No, and I mean NO, progressive immigration expert in America would call the DOJ’s judicial hiring practices under the Trump Administration fair and merit-based! These lists and the selection process were tainted by the Trump kakistocracy at DOJ. What kind of Attorney General perpetuates this utter nonsense!

Numerous detailed reports have criticized the Trump hiring plan that Garland mindlessly and insultingly furthered! Garland has access to all of these criticisms, most of which were delivered to the Biden Transition Team in one form or another. No excuses for Garland’s atrocious handling of EOIR to date!

The claim that EOIR takes claims of glaring discrepancies “seriously” is equally ridiculous and intellectually dishonest! Current TRAC Immigration data shows asylum grant rates for currently sitting Immigration Judges varying from more than 90% to 1% with a number of Immigration Judges, including several “rewarded” with appointments to the BIA under Barr, denying 98% or 99% of claims. Duh, you don’t need to be a statistician or have an Ivy League law degree to know that there is a skunk 🦨 in these woods!

These are major, unacceptable discrepancies first highlighted by my colleagues Professor Andy Schoenholtz, Professor Phil Schrag, and Professor and now Associate Dean (Temple Law) Jaya Ramji Nogales in their seminal work “Refugee Roulette” written more than a decade ago at Georgetown Law. The system is actually immeasurably worse now than it was then, as Sessions and Barr filled the Immigration Bench and packed the BIA with unqualified judges notorious for their lack of knowledge of asylum law and their anti-asylum bias. In some cases, they combined those shortcomings with allegations of rudeness and unprofessional behavior lodged by the private bar.

The NY Times figured out exactly what is wrong with the Immigration Courts — that they are not really “courts” at all by any normal measure and are operated by individuals who place immigration enforcement above due process and equal justice. Garland is certainly smart enough to have figured out what the NYT Editorial Writers had no difficulty in documenting and describing!

Neither Biden nor Garland would be in their current jobs without the efforts of progressive immigration litigators and scholars over the past four years and the energy and resources they injected into the Biden-Harris campaign when the chips were down! Progressives can’t allow the Biden Administration and Garland to continue to treat them as “chopped liver” while coddling Stephen Miller, Billy Barr, and, outrageously, even “AG for 5 minutes” “Monty Python” Wilkinson’s clearly unjustified and highly inappropriate judicial picks!

These are NOT bureaucratic jobs. “Conditional offers” aren’t “jobs,” particularly when made in the “excepted service” on the eve of or even after a hotly contested election where immigration and human rights were major issues! Immigration Judge positions are important life or death judicial positions in what is now America’s worst and most broken judiciary. In that context, Garland’s inappropriate judicial selections are totally outrageous and set a tone of continuing disrespect and disregard for some of the Democratic Party’s most loyal supporters, their expertise, and the important communities they represent!

Trial By Ordeal — Woman Being “Tried By Ordeal”
17th Century Woodcut
Public Realm
Source: Ancient Origins Website
https://www.ancient-origins.net/history/trial-ordeal-life-or-death-method-judgement-004160

It’s time for the Biden Administration to pay attention to the progressive immigration/human rights/due process bar! Otherwise, perhaps it’s time for progressives to turn their energies and talents to opposing an Administration that neither represents their views nor values their expertise and tireless efforts in support of American democracy and equal justice for all!

I, for one, did not go to the polls last fall to help more “Billy the Bigot” picks off tainted, exclusionary lists, developed in a culture that actively discouraged progressives and minority attorneys from applying, get jobs as Immigration Judges for which there is no way that they are the best candidates available! And, I’ll bet that neither did other members of the NDPA! Enough is enough! End the EOIR Clown Show!☠️🤡 And, if Garland can’t or won’t do that, then Biden needs a new AG before Garland irrevocably splinters the Democratic base with his gross mishandling of EOIR!

Due Process Forever!

PWS

05-09-21

🇺🇸⚖️🗽NY TIMES EDITORIAL MAKES THE CASE FOR ARTICLE I — “It’s hard to imagine a more glaring conflict of interest than the nation’s top law-enforcement agency running a court system in which it regularly appears as a party.” — Garland’s Abject Failure To Fix EOIR, Bring In Experts Highlighted, As Constitutional Due Process, Ethical, Human Rights, Racial Justice, Gender Equity, Diversity, & Management Farce @ EOIR Continues Under His Disgraceful Lack Of Awareness & Failure Of Courageous, Progressive Leadership! — Progressives Can’t Remain Silent, Must “Raise Hell” 👹With Biden Administration About Garland’s Lousy Performance @ EOIR, As He Continues To Stack Immigration “Judiciary” With “Miller Lite Holdovers” 🤮 To The Exclusion of Progressive Experts Who Helped Put Biden Administration In Office!

EYORE — “Eyore In Distress” — Garland’s failure to set tone of due process, human rights, excellence, independence @ EOIR threatens U.S. Justice System — could led to downfall of American democracy!
Once A Symbol of Fairness, Due Process, & Best Practices, Now Gone “Belly Up”

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/08/opinion/sunday/immigration-courts-trump-biden.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage

Because of it’s critical importance and it’s “right on” expose of the most glaring problem in American justice today, this timely editorial is quoted in full:

Immigration Courts Aren’t Real Courts. Time to Change That.

May 8, 2021

Image

By The Editorial Board

The editorial board is a group of opinion journalists whose views are informed by expertise, research, debate and certain longstanding values. It is separate from the newsroom.

President Biden took office with a promise to “restore humanity and American values” to the immigration system. If he’s going to succeed, it will take more than shutting down construction on his predecessor’s border wall. The most formidable obstacle to making the U.S. immigration system more humane and functional is invisible to most Americans: the nation’s broken, overwhelmed immigration court system.

Every day, hundreds of immigration judges slog through thousands of cases, unable to keep up with a crushing backlog that has more than doubled since 2016. Many cases involve complex claims of asylum by those who fear for their safety in their home countries. Most end up in legal limbo, waiting years for even an initial hearing. Some people sit in detention centers for months or longer, despite posing no risk to the public. None have the right to a lawyer, which few could afford anyway.

“The system is failing, there is no doubt about it,” one immigration judge said in 2018. As long as the system is failing, it will be impossible to achieve any broad-based immigration reform — whether proposed by Mr. Biden or anyone else.

The problem with these courts isn’t new, but it became significantly worse under the Trump administration. When he took office in 2017, President Donald Trump inherited a backlog of about 540,000 cases, already a major crisis. The administration could have used numerous means to bring that number down. Instead, Mr. Trump’s team drove it up. By the time he left office in January, the backlog had ballooned to nearly 1.3 million pending cases.

How did that number get so high? Some of the increase was the result of ramped up enforcement of immigration laws, leading to many more arrests and detentions that required court attention. The Trump administration also reopened hundreds of thousands of low-priority cases that had been shelved under President Barack Obama. Finally, Mr. Trump starved the courts of funding and restricted how much control judges had over their own dockets, making the job nearly impossible for those judges who care about providing fair and impartial justice to immigrants.

At the same time, Mr. Trump hired hundreds of new judges, prioritizing ideology over experience, such as by tapping former Immigration and Customs Enforcement prosecutors and others who would help convert the courts into a conveyor belt of deportation. In 2018, then Attorney General Jeff Sessions imposed an annual quota of 700 cases per judge. One judge testified before a House committee last year that Mr. Trump’s system was “a widget factory management model of speed over substance.”

By some measures, the plan worked: In 2020, the immigration courts denied 72 percent of asylum claims, the highest portion ever, and far above the denial rates during the Obama and George W. Bush administrations.

If the goal was to empty the United States of all those asylum seekers, Mr. Trump clearly failed, as evidenced by the huge backlog he left Mr. Biden. But the ease with which he imposed his will on the immigration courts revealed a central structural flaw in the system: They are not actual courts, at least not in the sense that Americans are used to thinking of courts — as neutral arbiters of law, honoring due process and meting out impartial justice. Nor are immigration judges real judges. They are attorneys employed by the Executive Office for Immigration Review, which is housed in the Department of Justice. It’s hard to imagine a more glaring conflict of interest than the nation’s top law-enforcement agency running a court system in which it regularly appears as a party.

The result is that immigration courts and judges operate at the mercy of whoever is sitting in the Oval Office. How much money they get, what cases they focus on — it’s all politics. That didn’t used to be such a problem, because attorneys general rarely got involved in immigration issues. Then Mr. Trump came along and reminded everyone just how much power the head of the executive branch has when it comes to immigration.

The solution is clear: Congress needs to take immigration courts out of the Justice Department and make them independent, similar to other administrative courts that handle bankruptcy, income-tax and veterans’ cases. Immigration judges would then be freed from political influence and be able to run their dockets as they see fit, which could help reduce the backlog and improve the courts’ standing in the public eye. Reform advocates, including the Federal Bar Association, have pushed the idea of a stand-alone immigration court for years without success. The Trump administration made the case for independence that much clearer.

In the meantime, there are shorter-term fixes that could help restore a semblance of impartiality and professionalism to the immigration courts.

First, the system must be properly staffed and funded to deal with its backlog. One way to do that is by hiring more judges, and staff members to support them. Today there are about 550 immigration judges carrying an average of almost 3,000 cases each, which makes it nearly impossible to provide anything like fair and consistent justice. Earlier this week, Attorney General Merrick Garland asked Congress for a 21 percent increase in the court system’s budget. That’s a start, but it doesn’t come close to solving the problem. Even if 600 judges were able to get through 700 cases a year each — as Mr. Sessions ordered them to — it would take years to clear up the existing backlog, and that’s before taking on a single new case.

This is why another important fix is to stop a large number of those cases from being heard in the first place. The Justice Department has the power to immediately remove as many as 700,000 cases from the courts’ calendar, most of them for low-level immigration violations — people who have entered the country illegally, most from Mexico or Central America, or those who have overstayed a visa. Many of these cases are years old, or involve people who are likely to get a green card. Forcing judges to hear cases like these clutters the docket and makes it hard to focus on the small number of more serious cases, like those involving terrorism or national-security threats, or defendants facing aggravated felony charges. At the moment, barely 1 percent of all cases in the system fall into one of these categories.

A thornier problem is how to stamp out the hard-line anti-immigrant culture that spread throughout the Justice Department under Mr. Trump, Mr. Sessions and the former president’s top immigration adviser, Stephen Miller. For instance, a 2019 department newsletter sent to immigration judges included an anti-Semitic reference and a link to VDare, an anti-immigrant group that regularly publishes white nationalists.

One of Mr. Biden’s first steps in office was to reassign the head of the immigration court system, James McHenry, who played a central role in many of Mr. Trump’s initiatives. But it’s generally hard to fire career civil servants, like the many judges and other officials tapped to promote Mr. Trump’s agenda. The Biden administration can reduce their influence by reassigning them, but this is not a long-term fix. While these judges are subject to political pressures, there can be no true judicial process.

If there’s any silver lining here, it is to be found in Mr. Trump’s overreach. The egregiousness of his administration’s approach to immigration may have accelerated efforts to solve the deeper structural rot at the core of the nation’s immigration courts.

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

We know that they aren’t “real courts;” but, they could and should be — progressive, due process oriented, model courts to boot! It will never happen, however, with the tone-deaf way Garland has approached EOIR in his first 60 days!

As progressives, immigration, human rights, women’s rights, due process, and racial justice advocates well know, Garland’s incredibly poor, downright insulting stewardship @ DOJ has already made things worse at EOIR! Every day this “fake” court system — a massive “big middle finger” to the integrity of American justice and a shocking betrayal of those who fought to preserve justice and bring the Biden Administration into power — continues is a “bad day” for equal justice, racial justice, and gender justice in America!

It’s also an inexcusable squandered opportunity for the Biden Administration to “recreate” the broken, biased, lacking in competence “Immigration Judiciary” as an independent progressive judiciary that was promised in rhetoric, but has been mocked in action.

Can any progressive imagine how the Heritage Foundation or the Federalist Society might have reacted if Trump, McConnell, Miller, and the DOJ had treated their recommendations for creating a reactionary far-right judiciary with the callous disregard and total disrespect that Garland has shown for the blueprint set forth by progressives for rapidly reforming the Immigration Judiciary into the model progressive judiciary needed to save American justice (not to mention save the lives of many of the most vulnerable, deserving, and needy among us)?

For Pete’s sake, Garland just gave Stephen Miller, “Billy the Bigot” Barr, and “Monty Python” “deference” on his first 17 totally inappropriate “judicial picks” while telling fighters for due process and human dignity to “go pound sand.” We weren’t even given the courtesy of being informed — Kowalski and I had to “smoke it out” with the help of “DT-21.”

“Courtesy and deference” for Miller, Barr, and “Monty Python;” total disrespect for the NDPA and the humans (“persons” under the Constitution) we represent? Come on, man!

The BIA has “restrictionist judges” going all the way back to the Bush II political travesty supplemented by Miller, Sessions, and Barr. Yet, there is not a single, not one, true progressive practical scholar-immigration/human rights expert among this “Gang of 23” — a group that includes a number of “appellate judges” who distinguished themselves with their overt hostility, to immigrants’ rights, rudeness to attorneys, and denial of nearly 100% of asylum claims coming before them. These are “Garland’s Judges?”

Worse, yet another totally inappropriate “insider appointment” to the BIA by Garland— bypassing the numerous far better qualified “practical scholars” in the private sector — is rumored to be in the offing! NO! This outrageous, tone-deaf performance and disrespect for progressive human rights experts by Garland must stop!

As the editorial correctly suggests, starting to fix EOIR, even in the absence of long overdue congressional action, is not rocket science! The incompetent senior “management” @ EOIR and the entire membership of the BIA can and should be reassigned. Tomorrow!

Experienced, highly competent, scholarly, creative, courageous, progressive judges already on the EOIR bench — like Judge (and former BIA Appellate Judge and DOJ Senior Executive) Noel Brennan (NY), Judge Dana Marks (SF), and Judge Amiena Kahn (NY) — should be detailed to Falls Church HQ to start fixing EOIR and getting the BIA functioning as a real appellate court — focused on due process, high quality scholarship, best practices, and holding ICE accountable for following the law — until more permanent appointments and necessary due process reforms can be made.

In the meantime, competent, progressive, temporary leadership can bring in temporary appellate judges at the BIA with sound records of fair asylum adjudication to end “refugee roulette” and eradicate the disgraceful “asylum free zones” being improperly run by unqualified IJs in some Immigration Courts. Reform of this disgustingly broken system can’t “wait for Godot” any longer!

As Judge Jeffrey Chase cogently stated in Law360, further “permanent” judicial appointments @ EOIR should be frozen pending development of merit-based criteria and active recruitment aimed at creating a more diverse, progressive judiciary. All existing “probationary judges” selected by Barr should have their positions “re-competed” under these merit-based criteria, with avenues of public input built into the permanent selection system.

Progressives, colleagues, members of the Round Table, members of the NDPA, if you’ve had enough of Garland’s lousy, insulting, tone-deaf, indolent, due-process-disparaging performance at EOIR let your voices be heard with the Biden Administration! What is going on at EOIR every day under Garland is not acceptable! The life-threatening, demeaning, totally unnecessary EOIR Clown Show must go! Now!

EOIR Clown Show Must Go T-Shirt — “EOIR Clown Show Must Go” T-Shirt Custom Design Concept — Continues to be in demand under Garland!

Due Process Forever!

PWS

05-09-21

PROFESSOR GEOFFREY HOFFMAN: This Is Progressive Liberalism? — Scofflaw Biden Administration Continues To Use Illegal Trump Subterfuge To Close Borders To Asylum Seekers (Disproportionately People Of Color) As AG Garland Looks The Other Way!

https://www.texasstandard.org/stories/advocates-say-continued-use-of-title-42-to-exclude-most-asylum-seekers-from-the-us-discriminates-against-them/

From the Texas Standard:

The Biden administration’s approach to the border and immigration has been heavily criticized. With Trump-era policies still in place, some advocates object to the way the rules are being enforced right now, specifically a provision known as Title 42.

Geoffrey Hoffman is a clinical professor and director of the immigration clinic at the University of Houston Law Center. Hoffman told Texas Standard that Title 42 authorizes the surgeon general to suspend immigration into the United States on public health grounds. It has been on the books since the 1940s, and though Title 42 has been evoked several times, its use increased significantly during the Trump administration.

“Back in March of 2020, the Trump administration used Title 42 to curtail, basically, entry of almost everyone from the Mexican border coming in to try to seek asylum,” Hoffman said. “And so that was a very, very big impact on those people.”

Hoffman says 600,000 people have been expelled from the country under Title 42.

Immigration advocates say Title 42 is being used as an “end run” around laws allowing asylum-seekers to enter the United States and pursue their claims.

“The issue is really that it’s being used at the land border in Mexico and Canada, and not through other entries. So it’s been seen as being discriminatory, and a racial-justice issue,” Hoffman said.

The Biden administration has continued to use Title 42, carving out an exception for unaccompanied minors who are being allowed into the country to pursue asylum claims. Some immigration advocates say applying Title 42 differently to different populations should be ended.

“You have Title 42 being used, according to immigration advocates, as a pretext,” Hoffman said. “It’s a pretext to prevent people who are otherwise legitimately seeking asylum, preventing them from seeking that relief.”

Hoffman says the United States has an obligation under the nation’s own laws, and under international law, to provide a means by which asylum-seekers can make their claims. Forcing migrants out of the country without a hearing, under Title 42, violates those laws, he says.

If you found the reporting above valuable, please consider making a donation to support it here. Your gift helps pay for everything you find on texasstandard.org and KUT.org. Thanks for donating today.

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

Remember how Jeff “Gonzo Apocalypto” Sessions was never shy about intervening in matters outside his agency jurisdiction, like child separation and DACA, when it fit his White Nationalist political agenda?

But, Judge Garland has not only failed to restore an operating legal asylum system @ EOIR, but also has stood by and watched while DHS daily commits gross violations of international, constitutional, and statutory law — violations that threaten life and safety — under a pretext carried over from the Trumpists.

Significantly, a U.S. District Judge in D.C. recently ruled that:

It is the role of the political branches, and not the courts, to assess the merits of policy measures designed to combat the spread of disease, even during a global pandemic,” she continued. “The question for the Court is a narrow one: Does the Public Health Service Act grant the CDC the legal authority to impose a nationwide eviction moratorium? It does not.

This rationale appears equally applicable to CDC’s legal authority to suspend international conventions, asylum statutes, immigration laws, and constitutional due process on a cosmic scale as pretext for ending our legal asylum system without passing legislation!

https://www.cnn.com/2021/05/05/politics/cdc-moratorium-evictions/index.html

Sure, there are problems at the border. But, the solution is to:

restore legal screening at the ports of entry;
reinstate a fair and robust legal asylum process using more trained Asylum Officers and better Immigration Judges — progressive experts in asylum law (NOT like the “gang of 17” same old, same old “bureaucratic retreads” the tone-deaf Judge Garland just put on the bench);
repeal of the Sessions/Barr anti-asylum precedents and replacing the BIA with judges who are asylum experts;
creating more opportunities for legal immigration for both refugees and needed workers;
enlisting the support of the UNHCR, NGOs, religious organizations, universities, and local governments to aid in the processing, representation, and resettlement of asylum seekers; and
slashing artificial and unnecessary Immigration Court backlogs to allow qualified expert Immigration Judges to adjudicate on a “real time” basis represented asylum cases that can’t quickly be granted at the Asylum Office and to establish some positive precedents in asylum law to govern and guide practitioners, Immigration Judges, and Asylum Officers.

It’s not rocket science. But, it very clearly is beyond the capability of Mayorkas, Garland, and the other folks Biden has put in charge of the Administration’s immigration policies. There are folks out there who can do the job — Professor Hoffman is just one of many.

The responsible positions necessary to reform, restore, and revitalize our nation’s refugee, asylum, and immigration laws are mostly at the sub-cabinet level, not requiring Senate confirmation. EOIR is a prime example of a great opportunity for progressive change being inexplicably squandered by Garland and his clueless lieutenants. What is important, and has been conspicuously absent from Biden immigration policies to date, is some inspired leadership and enlightened personnel choices from Mayorkas, Garland, and Becerra.

For example, Jeff “Gonzo Apocalypto” Sessions had no hesitation about spreading false narratives about asylum seekers, demeaning their humanity, disrespecting their hard-working attorneys, and encouraging “his” judges to deny more cases (particularly those involving women of color), and to elevate productivity, cutting corners, and obedience to his policies over quality, fairness, due process, and protecting the legal rights of asylum seekers and other immigrants from DHS overreach.

But, what inspiring statement has Judge Garland made about the necessity of making adherence to fundamental fairness, due process, best practices, quasi-judicial independence, and humane treatment of all respondents the touchstone of EOIR? What visible appointments of widely respected practical scholars and human rights experts has he made in EOIR management, the Immigration Judiciary, OIL, or elsewhere in the DOJ. NONE! Sometimes silence speaks more loudly than words!

With the pandemic and Trump’s xenophobic illegal attack on our legal immigration system, in the face of a sharply declining birth rate, we have plenty room for more immigrants, be they refugees, family members, or essential workers. As Professor Hoffman and others of us had predicted, the racist attack on our immigration system by Trump, unfortunately largely continued by the Biden Administration, has turned our immigration system over to smugglers, cartels, gangs, and pure chance.

A rational, orderly, humane, and most of all legal and constitutional immigration system would benefit all of us. It’s a shame that those currently in Government can’t or won’t make it happen.

Due Process Forever!

PWS

05-07-21

☠️🤮👎🏻⚰️OUTRAGEOUS “MILLER LITE” JUSTICE! — NO WONDER GARLAND WANTED TO KEEP HIS “JUDICIAL PICKS” SECRET! — It’s A “Two Sharp Sticks In The Eyes” Putdown Of The Human Rights/Immigration Advocacy Community That Helped Boost Biden & Harris To Their Jobs! — Tired Of Being Ignored, Disrespected, & Take For Granted? — Had Enough Of The Consistent Stupidity, Mind-Numbing Ineptitude, & Total Contempt For Constitutional Due Process @ EOIR Under Both The Dems & The GOP?

Every member of the NDPA should be outraged by Garland’s treachery:

https://www.justice.gov/eoir/file/1392116/download

Here’s the latest farcical roster of prosecutors, government attorneys, and non-immigration experts to be inflicted on migrants and their attorneys:

NOTICE

U.S. Department of Justice

Executive Office for Immigration Review

Office of Policy

5107 Leesburg Pike

Falls Church, Virginia 22041

Contact: Communications and Legislative Affairs Division

Phone: 703-305-0289 Fax: 703-605-0365 PAO.EOIR@usdoj.gov @DOJ_EOIR

www.justice.gov/eoir

May 6, 2021

EOIR Announces 17 New Immigration Judges

FALLS CHURCH, VA – The Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) today announced 17 new Immigration Judges (IJs), including one Assistant Chief Immigration Judge (ACIJ) and six Unit Chief Immigration Judges (UCIJs). ACIJs are responsible for overseeing the operations of their assigned immigration courts. In addition to their management responsibilities, they will hear cases. UCIJs serve as IJs in formal judicial hearings conducted via video teleconference and supervise the staff assigned to their virtual courtroom. IJs preside in formal judicial hearings and make decisions that are final unless formally appealed.

After a thorough application process, Attorney General Merrick B. Garland appointed Megan B. Herndon, Wade T. Napier, Tamaira Rivera, David H. Robertson, Elizabeth Crites, Bryan E. DePowell, Nicholle M. Hempel, Kathy J. Lemke, Martinque M. Parker, David M. Paxton, Bryan D. Watson, Kenya L. Wells, and Mark R. Whitworth to their new positions; then-Acting Attorney General Monty Wilkinson appointed Adam Perl to his new position; then-Acting Attorney General Jeffrey A. Rosen appointed William H. McDermott to his new position; and then-Attorney General William P. Barr appointed Elliot M. Kaplan and Jeb T. Terrien to their new positions.

Biographical information follows:

Megan B. Herndon, Assistant Chief Immigration Judge, Richmond Immigration Adjudication Center

Megan B. Herndon was appointed as an Assistant Chief Immigration Judge to begin supervisory immigration court duties and hearing cases in April 2021. Judge Herndon earned a Bachelor of Arts in 1999 from Occidental College and a Juris Doctor in 2002 from the University of San Diego School of Law. From 2020 to 2021, she served as Senior Regulatory Coordinator, Office of Visa Services, Bureau of Consular Affairs, Department of State (DOS), in the District of Columbia. From 2018 to 2020, she served as Deputy Director of Legal Affairs, Office of Visa Services, Bureau of Consular Affairs, DOS. From 2015 to 2018, she served as Chief of the Legislation and Regulations Division, Office of Visa Services, Bureau of Consular Affairs, DOS. From 2013 to 2015, she served as a Section Chief, Immigration Law and Practice Division, Office of the Principal Legal Advisor (OPLA), Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), Department of Homeland Security (DHS), in the District of Columbia and Falls Church, Virginia. From 2009 to 2013, she served as an Appellate Counsel, OPLA, ICE, DHS, in Falls

Communications and Legislative Affairs Division

EOIR Announces 17 New Immigration Judges

Page 2

Church. From 2007 to 2009, she served as an Assistant Chief Counsel, OPLA, ICE, DHS, in San Diego. From 2002 to 2007, she served as an Assistant Chief Counsel, OPLA, ICE, DHS, in Los Angeles, entering on duty through the Attorney General’s Honors Program. Judge Herndon is a member of the District of Columbia Bar and State Bar of California.

Wade T. Napier, Unit Chief Immigration Judge, Richmond Immigration Adjudication Center

Wade T. Napier was appointed as a Unit Chief Immigration Judge to begin supervisory immigration adjudication center duties and hearing cases in April 2021. Judge Napier earned a Bachelor of Science in 2001 from Transylvania University and a Juris Doctor in 2005 from Northern Kentucky University–Salmon P. Chase College of Law. From 2008 to 2021, he served as an Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Kentucky, in Lexington. In 2008, he served as a Staff Attorney for a Trial Court Judge, in Boone County, Kentucky. From 2005 to 2007, he worked in the Claims Litigation Department of Great American Insurance Company, in Cincinnati. Judge Napier is a member of the Kentucky Bar.

Tamaira Rivera, Unit Chief Immigration Judge, Richmond Immigration Adjudication Center

Tamaira Rivera was appointed as a Unit Chief Immigration Judge to begin supervisory immigration adjudication center duties and hearing cases in April 2021. Judge Rivera earned a Bachelor of Science in 1991 from Florida State University, a Juris Doctor in 1995 from California Western School of Law, and a Master of Laws in 2004 from The George Washington University Law School. From 2019 to 2021, she was an Immigration Practitioner with Advantage Immigration PA, in Orlando, Florida. From 2017 to 2019, she served as an Assistant Chief Counsel, Office of the Principal Legal Advisor (OPLA), Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), Department of Homeland Security (DHS), in Orlando. From 2012 to 2017, she served as an Assistant Chief Counsel, OPLA, ICE, DHS, in San Antonio. From 2010 to 2012, she served as an Attorney Advisor and Special Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Air Force, in San Antonio. From 2009 to 2010, she served as a Senior Democracy Fellow, U.S. Agency for International Development, in the District of Columbia. From 2007 to 2009, she was a Senior Associate Attorney and Program Manager with BlueLaw International LLP, in the District of Columbia. From 1996 to 2006, she served as a U.S. Air Force Judge Advocate, in the following locations: Madrid, Spain; Tucson, Arizona; San Antonio; and Okinawa, Japan. Judge Rivera is a member of the District of Columbia Bar and the Florida Bar.

David H. Robertson, Unit Chief Immigration Judge, Richmond Immigration Adjudication Center

David H. Robertson was appointed as a Unit Chief Immigration Judge to begin supervisory immigration adjudication center duties and hearing cases in April 2021. Judge Robertson earned a Bachelor of Science in 1986 from James Madison University, a Juris Doctor in 1989 from the University of Richmond School of Law, and a Master of Laws in 1999 from the Judge Advocate General’s Legal Center and School. From 1990 to 2020, he served as a U.S. Army Judge Advocate in various locations throughout the U.S. and Germany. During that time, from 2010 to 2020, he served as a Military Judge in the following locations: Fort Bliss, Texas; Fort Bragg, North Carolina; Kaiserslautern, Germany; and Fort Stewart, Georgia. While serving as a Military Judge, he also presided over trials in Kuwait and Afghanistan. From 2004 to 2006, he served as a Regional Defense Counsel; from 1999 to 2001, as a Senior Defense Counsel; from 1995 to

Communications and Legislative Affairs Division

EOIR Announces 17 New Immigration Judges

Page 3

1997, as a Prosecutor; and from 1993 to 1995, as a Defense Counsel. From 1995 to 1996, he deployed to Bosnia-Herzegovina, and from 2007 to 2008, he deployed to Kosovo. In 2020, he retired in the rank of Colonel. Judge Robertson is a member of the Virginia State Bar.

Elizabeth Crites, Immigration Judge, Chicago Immigration Court

Elizabeth Crites was appointed as an Immigration Judge to begin hearing cases in April 2021. Judge Crites earned a Bachelor of Arts in 2005 from Ball State University and a Juris Doctor in 2009 from the University of Illinois Chicago John Marshall Law School. From 2016 to 2021, she served as an Assistant Chief Counsel, Office of the Principal Legal Advisor, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Department of Homeland Security, in Chicago. From 2009 to 2016, she was an Associate Attorney with Broyles, Kight & Ricafort PC, in Chicago. Judge Crites is a member of the Illinois State Bar.

Bryan E. DePowell, Immigration Judge, Adelanto Immigration Court

Bryan E. DePowell was appointed as an Immigration Judge to begin hearing cases in April 2021. Judge DePowell earned a Bachelor of Arts in 2007 from the University of Hawai’i at Manoa and a Juris Doctor in 2009 from Widener University Commonwealth Law School. From 2019 to 2021, he served as a Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, Felony Trials Division – Office of Prosecuting Attorney, City and County of Honolulu. From 2018 to 2019, he served as Chief Counsel for the House Minority Research Office, State of Hawai’i, in Honolulu. From 2012 to 2018, he was an Associate Attorney with Crisp and Associates LLC, in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. Judge DePowell is a member of the Hawaii State Bar and the Pennsylvania Bar.

Nicholle M. Hempel, Immigration Judge, Houston – Greenspoint Park Immigration Court

Nicholle M. Hempel was appointed as an Immigration Judge to begin hearing cases in April 2021. Judge Hempel earned a Bachelor of Arts in 1996 from California State University, Fresno and a Juris Doctor in 2000 from Chicago-Kent College of Law. From 2010 to 2021, she served as an Assistant Chief Counsel, Office of the Principal Legal Advisor, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Department of Homeland Security, in Los Angeles. From 2003 to 2010, she served as an Assistant State Attorney with the Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office, in Chicago. From 1998 to 2003, she served as a Law Clerk for the First Municipal District, Circuit Court of Cook County, in Chicago. Judge Hempel is a member of the Illinois State Bar.

Kathy J. Lemke, Immigration Judge, Portland Immigration Court

Kathy J. Lemke was appointed as an Immigration Judge to begin hearing cases in April 2021. Judge Lemke earned a Bachelor of Arts in 1994 from the University of Chicago and a Juris Doctor in 1997 from Arizona State University School of Law. From 2019 to 2020, she served as the City Prosecutor for Phoenix. From 2009 to 2019, she served as an Assistant U.S. Attorney for the District of Arizona, in Phoenix. From 2004 to 2009, she served as an Assistant City Prosecutor for Phoenix. In 2003, she served as a Deputy County Attorney for Pinal County in Florence, Arizona. From 1998 to 2003, she served as a Deputy County Attorney for Maricopa County, in Phoenix. Judge Lemke is a member of the State Bar of Arizona and the District of Columbia Bar.

Communications and Legislative Affairs Division

EOIR Announces 17 New Immigration Judges

Page 4

Martinque M. Parker, Immigration Judge, Houston – Greenspoint Park Immigration Court

Martinque M. Parker was appointed as an Immigration Judge to begin hearing cases in April 2021. Judge Parker earned a Bachelor of Arts in 2005, a Bachelor of Science in 2006 from the University of Georgia, and a Juris Doctor in 2011 from the University of Arkansas at Little Rock William H. Bowen School of Law. From 2017 to 2021, she served as an Assistant Chief Counsel, Office of the Principal Legal Advisor, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Department of Homeland Security, in Lumpkin, Georgia. From 2011 to 2017, she served as a Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, in Little Rock, Arkansas. Judge Parker is a member of the Arkansas Bar and the State Bar of Georgia.

David M. Paxton, Immigration Judge, Houston – Greenspoint Park Immigration Court

David M. Paxton was appointed as an Immigration Judge to begin hearing cases in April 2021. Judge Paxton earned a Bachelor of Science in 1998 from Texas State University, a Master of Business Administration in 2004 from the University of Texas at Austin, and a Juris Doctor in 2009 from Santa Clara University School of Law. From 2015 to 2021, he served as an Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Texas, in McAllen and Corpus Christi. From 2011 to 2015, he served as a Deputy District Attorney for the San Luis Obispo County District Attorney’s Office, in San Luis Obispo, California. From 2010 to 2011, he served as a Special Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Criminal Division of the Northern District of California, in San Jose. From 1997 to 2004, he served as a Systems Engineer for Advanced Micro Devices and Legerity Inc., in Austin, Texas. Judge Paxton is a member of the State Bar of California.

Bryan D. Watson, Immigration Judge, Atlanta – W. Peachtree Street Immigration Court Bryan D. Watson was appointed as an Immigration Judge to begin hearing cases in April 2021. Judge Watson earned a Bachelor of Arts in 1993 from the University of Missouri, a Juris Doctor in 1996 from the University of Missouri, a Master of Arts in 2006 from Air University, and a Master of Science in 2014 from the National Defense University. From 2019 to 2021, he served as the Chief Trial Judge of the U.S. Air Force Trial Judiciary, at Joint Base Andrews, Maryland. From 2017 to 2019, he served as the Commandant of the U.S. Air Force Judge Advocate General’s School, at Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama. From 2014 to 2017, he served as the General Counsel of the White House Military Office, in the District of Columbia. From 1996 to 2021, he served as a U.S. Air Force Active Duty Judge Advocate, in the following locations: Moody Air Force Base, Georgia; Francis E. Warren Air Force Base, Wyoming; Langley Air Force Base, Virginia; Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama; Randolph Air Force Base, Texas; Joint Base Andrews, Maryland; Aviano Air Base, Italy; and the Pentagon, White House, Bolling Air Force Base, and Fort McNair, District of Columbia. He retired from the U.S. Air Force in 2021 as a Colonel. Judge Watson is a member of the State Bar of Georgia and the Missouri Bar.

Kenya L. Wells, Immigration Judge, Houston – Greenspoint Park Immigration Court

Kenya L. Wells was appointed as an Immigration Judge to begin hearing cases in April 2021. Judge Wells earned a Bachelor of Science in 2007 from Texas A&M University and Juris Doctor in 2010 from the University of Texas School of Law. From 2017 to 2021, he served as an Assistant U.S. Attorney with the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia. From 2010 to 2016, he served as an Assistant District Attorney with the New York County District Attorney’s Office, in New York. Judge Wells is a member of the New York State Bar.

Communications and Legislative Affairs Division

EOIR Announces 17 New Immigration Judges

Page 5

Mark R. Whitworth, Immigration Judge, Houston – Greenspoint Park Immigration Court

Mark R. Whitworth was appointed as an Immigration Judge to begin hearing cases in April 2021. Judge Whitworth earned a Bachelor of Journalism in 1985 and a Juris Doctor in 1993, both from the University of Texas at Austin. From 2003 to 2021, he served as an Assistant Chief Counsel, Office of the Principal Legal Advisor, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Department of Homeland Security, in Harlingen, Texas. From 2001 to 2003, he served as an Assistant District Counsel with the former Immigration and Naturalization Service, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Justice, in Harlingen. From 1994 to 2001, he served as an Assistant Attorney General and an Assistant Managing Assistant Attorney General for the Texas Office of the Attorney General, in Harlingen. From 1993 to 1994, he was an Associate Attorney with Roerig, Oliveira and Fisher LLP, in Brownsville, Texas. Judge Whitworth is a member of the State Bar of Texas.

Adam Perl, Immigration Court, New York – Broadway Immigration Court

Adam Perl was appointed as an Immigration Judge to begin hearing cases in April 2021. Judge Perl earned a Bachelor of Arts in 2006 from Florida International University and a Juris Doctor in 2011 from St. Thomas University School of Law. From 2018 to 2021, he served as a Deputy Chief Counsel, Office of the Principal Legal Advisor (OPLA), Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), Department of Homeland Security (DHS), in New York. From 2016 to 2018, he served as an Assistant Chief Counsel, OPLA, ICE, DHS, in Newburgh, New York; from 2014 to 2016, he served as an Assistant Chief Counsel, in New York; and from 2011 to 2014, he served as an Assistant Chief Counsel, in Los Angeles. Judge Perl is a member of the Florida Bar.

William H. McDermott, Immigration Judge, New York – Federal Plaza Immigration Court

William H. McDermott was appointed as an Immigration Judge to begin hearing cases in April 2021. Judge McDermott earned a Bachelor of Arts in 2007 from Long Island University and a Juris Doctor in 2011 from The Catholic University of America Columbus School of Law. From 2019 to 2021, he served as the Deputy State’s Attorney for Wicomico County, Maryland. From 2011 to 2019, he served as an Assistant State’s Attorney, Deputy State’s Attorney, and Ad Interim State’s Attorney, in Worcester County, Maryland. Judge McDermott is a member of the Maryland State Bar.

Elliot M. Kaplan, Unit Chief Immigration Judge, Richmond Immigration Adjudication Center

Elliot M. Kaplan was appointed as a Unit Chief Immigration Judge to begin supervisory immigration adjudication center duties and hearing cases in April 2021. Judge Kaplan earned his Bachelor of Arts in 1998 from Antioch University, a Master of Business Administration in 1982 from Whittier College, and a Juris Doctor in 1982 from Whittier Law School. From 2019 to 2020, he was Of Counsel to Kutak Rock LLP, in Kansas City, Missouri. From 2004 to 2019, he was in private practice, in Kansas City. From 1995 to 2003, he was a Partner and Founder of Daniels & Kaplan PC, in Detroit and Kansas City. From 1991 to 1994, he was Of Counsel to Berman, DeLeve, Kuchan & Chapman LLC, in Kansas City. From 1990 to 1991, he was Of Counsel to DeWitt, Zeldin & Bigus PC, in Kansas City. From 1985 to 1990, he was Of Counsel to Husch, Eppenberger, Donohue, Cornfeld & Jenkins, in Kansas City. From 1983 to 1985, he was Assistant General Counsel and Assistant Secretary of Air One Inc., in St. Louis. Judge Kaplan is a member of the Missouri Bar.

Communications and Legislative Affairs Division

EOIR Announces 17 New Immigration Judges

Page 6

Jeb T. Terrien, Unit Chief Immigration Judge, Richmond Immigration Adjudication Center

Jeb. T. Terrien was appointed as a Unit Chief Immigration Judge to begin supervisory immigration adjudication center duties and hearing cases in April 2021. Judge Terrien earned a Bachelor of Science in 1994 from The University of Virginia and a Juris Doctor in 1997 from Tulane Law School. From 2009 to 2021, he served as a Managing Assistant U.S. Attorney and Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Virginia, in Harrisonburg. During that time, from 2014 to 2015, he served as an Assistant Director, National Advocacy Center, Office of Legal Education, Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys, Department of Justice, in Columbia, South Carolina. From 2004 to 2008, he served as an Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Ohio, in Cincinnati, and the Northern District of West Virginia, in Martinsburg. From 2000 to 2004, he served as a Regional Drug Prosecutor for the Commonwealth of Virginia in Halifax, Charlotte, and Campbell Counties. From 1999 to 2000, he served as an Assistant Attorney General with the Virginia Attorney General’s Office, in Richmond. From 1998 to 1999, he served as an Assistant Commonwealth’s Attorney for the Accomack County Commonwealth’s Attorney’s Office in Accomac, Virginia. Judge Terrien is a member of the Virginia State Bar.

— EOIR —

Communications and Legislative Affairs Division

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

There’s a powerful message here NDPA! Elections DON”T matter, nor does your expertise, dedication, and hard work! Maybe it will be time to act on that message during the next election cycle. Stephen Miller? Judge “MillerLite?” What’s the real difference?

Here are some “early reactions” from the NDPA:

I just looked quickly, but was there only one new IJ coming from private practice? When I looked up the firm, it doesn’t practice immigration law.

I didn’t recognize any names. Shouldn’t the goal be to hire those with a scholarly understanding of immigration law, including at least some who have demonstrated a creative approach to asylum?

My take is why not put new IJ hiring on pause until the agency has figured out how it intends to move forward? EOIR should have their new Chief IJ in place, have revamped the IJ training, have figured out what AG precedents it intends to vacate, etc. Also, the quotas are still in place.

When new IJs with no immigration law background come on board, should they feel they can’t continue a case to study the law or consult with a colleague because they have to complete 4 cases that day to avoid being fired?

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

Ah, Justice from “Miller Lite” Justice @ Justice. What a “poke in they eyes with a sharp stick” to the immigration/human rights bar!

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

Thanks for sharing Judge Schmidt. In addition to the new hires, it’s deeply concerning that AG Garland’s DOJ is expanding its use of secretive and inaccessible immigration adjudication centers- opening a new location in Richmond, Virginia.

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

Of 14 IJs appointed under Biden (Acting AG Wilkinson or AG Garland), 7 have worked for ICE, 5 have been prosecutors of other types, 2 have worked for ICE and been prosecutors, and 2 have worked as immigration defense attorneys (though these two have also worked for ICE).

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

It is completely baffling. Two working theories: 1) EOIR is just so far down Garland’s radar that he just doesn’t care or have time to care; or 2) he has made a political decision to “hang tough” on immigration for the optics and to stave off Rethuglican encroachment in the mid-terms.

Neither theory speaks well of him.

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

I don’t see how dissing the immigration/human rights bar is the key to success for the Dems in the midterms. I personally know lots of NDPA members who “busted tail” and donated lots of time and money to getting Biden & Harris elected. Don’t think that the “elections don’t matter for human rights/immigration/due process/racial justice” is going to “energize the base” for the midterms.

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

I have essentially lost hope that anything will change….

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

I guess this answers the question of whether establishing an independent, progressive, due process focused Immigration Judiciary within the Executive Branch is possible. Obviously, it isn’t! Litigation and Article I appear to be the only solutions.

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

What is that old adage, “the more things change the more they stay the same”???

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

🇺🇸🗽⚖️Due Process Forever! We need to translate Garland’s blatant disrespect, ignorance, and failure to stand up for racial justice, an end to misogyny, and progressive expertise in the Immigration Judiciary into action and resistance to his “Miller Lite” vision for the DOJ!

PWS

05-06-21

🏴‍☠️👎🏻🤮“HOUSTON, WE’VE STILL GOT A PROBLEM!” — A HUGE AND GROWING ONE — Garland’s Failure To Restore “Justice @ Justice” Reverberates Throughout Our Nation!🆘

Judge Garland’s vision of “justice” for immigrants @ Justice:

Courtside Exclusive

By Paul Wickham Schmidt

May 5, 2021

This just in from a NDPA stalwart in Houston, TX:

Houston we still have a (huge) problem! Luckily we also have some great immigration advocates and members of the due process army.

. . . .

Houston EOIR is still closed for non-detained. They have just built a third immigration court here, “Greenspoint”, with over 30 brand new judges, just collecting dust (although that’s probably a good thing as it would only serve as a deportation mill). If you can believe the absurdity, you have to file a motion for change of venue + a motion to consolidate, to join family members whose cases have been placed in different courts all here in Houston. 🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️

I believe Houston now has the 2nd largest backlog after New York City now, in large part due to the mismanagement by EOIR HQ.

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

From coast to coast, from the Rio Grande to the Great Lakes, Courtside followers and NDPA warriors are making it clear: Garland’s failure to take due process and racial justice in Immigration Court seriously and his disregard and disrespect for immigration/human rights experts is furthering havoc in the American justice system!

Is it “malicious incompetence” or just plain old incompetence and disregard for the due process rights of “the other” by Garland? Does it make any difference?

What will make a difference is flooding the Article IIIs with litigation challenging this ongoing constitutional nonsense and squandering of taxpayer funds! Overwhelm EOIR with applications for judicial positions and “bore out” the rotten foundations of this system from the inside with the tools of due process, fundamental fairness, and best practices! Also, inundate your Congressional representatives with demands that this blot on American justice be removed from the DOJ forthwith! Write those op-eds and keep informing your local media about the unmitigated, unnecessary, unconscionable, unconstitutional continuing disaster at Garland’s EOIR and how it destroys human lives on a daily basis! Shine the beacon of due process and justice on the dark, secretive, unconstitutional “Star Chambers” Garland operates in the guise of Immigration “Courts.”

NDPA legions, don’t be content to “wander in the wilderness” while clueless politicos and bureaucrats @ Garland’s DOJ destroy your sanity and the lives of the humans you represent! Stand up to institutionalized racism, continuing incompetence, disgraceful misogyny, intransigence, and ongoing “Dred Scottification” of communities of color by the Garland DOJ! End the DOJ’s anti-immigrant culture and disrespect for the defenders of due process and American democracy that goes on Administration after Administration as if your clients’ lives and your professional expertise were “chopped liver!” Enough is enough! Fight back against “Miller Lite Justice!”

My fellow warriors for justice, YOU are again being ignored, shut out, marginalized, abused, looked down upon, dehumanized, insulted, and scorned by yet another Dem Administration that YOU helped put in office! Time to stand up and be heard for YOUR rights, the rights of the people YOU represent, and the future of our Federal Judiciary and our American Democracy!

NO MORE “MILLER LITE @ JUSTICE!” ASK YOURSELVES: WHO WON THE LAST ELECTION? WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO “WIN” IF GARLAND CONTINUES TO RUN THE IMMIGRATION COURTS LIKE STEPHEN MILLER IS STILL IN CHARGE?

🇺🇸⚖️🗽🧑🏽‍⚖️Due Process Forever!

PWS

05-06-21

DIVIDED 3RD CIR. REJECTS CASTRO-TUM, DEEPENING CIRCUIT SPLIT & INCREASING CHAOS RESULTING FROM GARLAND’S FAILURE TO BRING IN “PRACTICAL EXPERTS” TO FIX BROKEN IMMIGRATION COURT SYSTEM & RESTORE BEST PRACTICES!

https://www.lexisnexis.com/LegalNewsRoom/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/ca3-2-1-says-no-to-castro-tum

Dan Kowalski reports for LexisNexis Immigration Community:

CA3 (2-1) Says “No!” to Castro-Tum

Arcos Sanchez v. Atty. Gen.

“We are fully persuaded that, as discussed in Romero and Meza Morales, the regulations afford IJs and the Board authority to take any action (including administrative closure) as is appropriate and necessary (in the context of each case) for the disposition of such case to resolve questions in a timely and impartial manner consistent with the Act and regulations. After applying the standard tools of interpretation, by considering the text, structure, history, and purpose of 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.10(b) and 1003.1(d)(1)(ii), we hold that the plain language establishes that general administrative closure authority is unambiguously authorized by these regulations. … For the reasons stated above, we conclude that the relevant regulations confer the general authority to administratively close cases to IJs and the Board. We therefore grant the petition for review, vacate the Board’s order, and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.”

[Hats off to Jerard A. Gonzalez!]

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

So, the Third joins the Fourth and the Seventh in rejecting Castro-Tum, while the Sixth (wrongly) upheld it. In the other Circuits, Castro-Tum remains in effect “by default.” I’ve received reports, though, that some IJ’s in the Fourth Circuit simply ignore the Circuit precedent, emboldened by the “in your face contemptuous attitude” inculcated by the Trump Administration. Apparently, they fear their “enforcement boss” — the AG — more than life-tenured Article III judges. And, to date, Garland has done little or nothing to dispel that attitude.

Shortly after the election, many experts pointed out to the incoming Biden Administration the critical importance of “hitting the ground running” on EOIR reform: immediately vacating the Sessions/Barr precedents; ousting incompetents and restrictionists from EOIR “management,” replacing the BIA with expert progressive judges who could issue correct guidance and keep nativist judges in line; slashing artificial backlogs; reinstating the NAIJ; establishing progressive criteria for hiring and retaining judges; re-establishing a legal asylum system, particularly at the border; ending misogynistic attitudes and treatment of women of color; and bringing in nationally recognized immigration/human rights experts to reestablish due process and best practices nationwide.

Garland has basically ignored the experts in favor of an incomprehensible “Stephen Miller Lite” program of continued injustice, disrespecting and ignoring the needs of stakeholders and foreign nationals, and promoting chaos, inconsistency, and inept practices.

For example, without Castro-Tum, the majority of cases languishing in the 1.3 million backlog probably would be prime candidates for administrative closing under the Biden Administration’s own criteria of what constitutes a “priority.” Having differing and uncertain rules from Circuit to Circuit, along with tolerating IJs who feel empowered to ignore Circuit law, is a recipe for further disaster.

So far, 75% of the Circuits to consider the question have rightly rejected Castro-Tum. If this plays out, hundreds of thousands of cases will be subject to redos, reconsideration, and reopening because of Sessions’s poor judgment combined with Garland’s failure to engage with the endemic problems in “his” courts.

Due Process Forever!

PWS

05-05-21

🆘NOT ROCKET 🚀 SCIENCE — EXCEPT WHEN DEMS RUN THE DOJ! — Group Of America’s Leading Legal Experts — “Practical Scholars” — Ask Judge Garland To Immediately Slash Backlogs To Align His Now Dysfunctional, Unjust Immigration Courts With Administration’s Stated Priorities — This Should Have Been “Day 1 Stuff” For Judge G, Who Inexplicably Has Stephen Miller “Plants” and Holdovers In Key Positions In Huge, Broken, “Life Or Death” Federal Court System That Controls The Future Of American Democracy!

Here’s the letter to Judge Garland:

April 30, 2021
The Honorable Merrick B. Garland Attorney General of the United States U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530-0001

RE: U.S. Department of Justice Authority to Remove Non-Priority Cases from the Active Docket of the Nation’s Immigration Courts

To Attorney General Garland:

As immigration law teachers and scholars, we write to express our opinion on the scope of executive branch legal authority for the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) to utilize well-established administrative tools to address the historic backlog of cases pending in immigration courts. Each case in the backlog involves an immigrant, many waiting for years to have a “day in court” to defend against charges of removability or to have an application for relief adjudicated. The Attorney General, through EOIR, has the authority to address the immigration court backlog by rapidly and systemically removing nonpriority cases from the active docket.1

For years, the immigration court docket remained relatively steady, hovering between 100,000 and 200,000 cases.2 During the Obama administration, however, the system began to accumulate a substantial backlog, eventually rising to over 500,000 cases.3 These numbers continued to spike during the Trump administration. Currently, the immigration court backlog sits at 1.3 million cases,4 which Lisa Monaco, President Biden’s nominee for Deputy Attorney General, has acknowledged is a “direct impediment to a fair and effective system.”5 Addressing the immigration court backlog is critical to restoring the integrity of the immigration court system.

As a consequence of the immigration court backlog, the average wait time for respondents’ next immigration court hearing, measured from the time a case entered the immigration court docket, is now over 1,600 days.6 Less than 50% of all cases now pending in the immigration backlog are even set for an individual merits hearing, which means many cases will require subsequent hearings, resulting in additional delay.7 This backlog impedes the proper functioning of the immigration court system and its ability to dispense justice. It also undermines core administrative law values that include but are not limited to consistency, efficiency, public acceptability, and transparency.

The immigration backlog also impacts immigration judges, who face crushing caseloads, now approaching 3,000 cases per judge.8 Such caseloads undermine the ability of immigration judges to reliably and competently complete the complex legal analysis and careful credibility and discretionary determinations that removal cases demand.9 The backlog also harms immigrants, who face years of legal limbo while their cases are pending. This legal limbo can be destabilizing to families and communities and delay immigrants’ access to the legal status many are ultimately granted.
AILA Doc. No. 21050334. (Posted 5/3/21)

The Attorney General has the legal authority to create a more functional and fair immigration court system, using existing tools of discretion and deferred adjudication. Specifically, the EOIR has the authority under regulations to identify and defer the adjudication of nonpriority cases. The EOIR Director has clear authority to defer adjudication of cases pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1003.0(b)(1)(ii). Specifically, the Director has the “power, in his discretion, to set priorities or time frames for the resolution of cases [and] to direct that the adjudication of certain cases be deferred…”10 Further, the Director has the authority to “issue operational instructions on policy” pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1003.0(b)(1). The Attorney General also has broad discretionary authority pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1103(g) to “issue such instructions, . . . delegate such authority, and perform such other acts as the Attorney General determines to be necessary” for the administration of the nation’s immigration courts.11

The use of deferral authority is not merely theoretical. Systemwide deferrals have recently been implemented by EOIR leadership through policy memorandum.12 Deferral acts as a pause in adjudication, akin to the historic use of the status docket, as opposed to a final resolution.13 Indeed, the deferral mechanism can be used as an alternative to the status docket, grounded more firmly in the regulatory scheme, or in tandem, such that deferred cases are placed on the status docket to free up capacity for priority cases. At a future point in time, deferred cases could be recalendared when a determination is made as to the appropriate path to final resolution.14 Based on current agency authority, termination, generally requires a legal deficiency;15 dismissal, generally requires a motion from DHS;16 and administrative closure, is severely constrained.17 However, deferral power remains available as a mechanism that EOIR leadership can independently and immediately deploy at its discretion. Removing nonpriority cases from the immigration courts’ active docket will substantially improve the functioning of the courts and shrink the proverbial haystack, thereby allowing immigration judges to fairly and expeditiously adjudicate priority cases.

Less than one percent of the cases in the EOIR backlog satisfy the Biden administration’s current enforcement priorities.18 Accordingly, consistent with the administration’s own priorities, EOIR could exercise its discretion to defer nonpriority immigration cases. As a first step, EOIR could establish categories of nonpriority cases that can be identified and deferred at a headquarters level without the need for a case-by-case file review.19 This is the path recently recommended by a group of United States Senators and over 150 leading immigration, civil rights, and human rights organizations.20 These Senators and organizations have proposed specific categories of such nonpriority cases that could be systematically identified through existing EOIR data, including: cases that have been pending for more than five years and cases that involve respondents who have potential affirmative pathways to status, such as applications for adjustment of status or new asylum claims, that could be adjudicated by the USCIS.21 These are non-exhaustive examples of the types of nonpriority cases that could be systematically identified and deferred. EOIR should explore these and other similarly identifiable nonpriority categories.

This letter outlines the legal foundation and method by which the Attorney General can restore the fairness and integrity of the nation’s immigration courts. The legal authority, under the existing statutory and regulatory framework, to remove nonpriority cases from the active docket of the immigration courts is clear. Thank you for your attention. For any follow up inquiries, please contact Professor Peter L. Markowitz at peter.marowitz@yu.edu or at 646-592-6537. _____________________________________________________________________________
2
AILA Doc. No. 21050334. (Posted 5/3/21)

1 While this letter focuses on EOIR’s authority to manage the court docket, we do not mean to suggest that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) does not play an important corresponding role in establishing enforcement policies and priorities for the initiation and resolution of proceedings. In fact, DHS has exclusive authority to decide whether to institute proceedings, see Matter of W-Y-U-, 27 I. & N. Dec. 17, 19 (BIA 2017) and, as noted infra note 21, DHS’s discretion to dismiss removal proceedings could also play a critical role in permanently removing nonpriority cases from the immigration court docket.
2 TRAC Immigration, Backlog of Pending Cases in Immigration Courts (data through Feb. 2021), https://trac.syr.edu/phptools/immigration/court_backlog/apprep_backlog.php.
3 Id.
4 Id.
5 The Nomination of the Honorable Lisa Oudens Monaco to be Deputy Attorney General Before the S. Comm. on the Judiciary, 117th Cong. (2021) (statement of Hon. Lisa Oudens Monaco).
6 TRAC Immigration, The State of the Immigration Courts: Trump Leaves Biden 1.3 Million Case Backlog in Immigration Courts (data through Feb. 2021) [hereinafter “TRAC, The State of the Immigration Courts”], https://trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/637/#f1.9.
7 Id.
8 According to EOIR, there are approximately 466 immigration judges nationwide sharing the 1.3 million cases. EOIR, Adjudication Statistics, Immigration Judge (IJ) Hiring (Jan. 2020), https://www.justice.gov/eoir/page/file/1104846/download. However, an unknown number of these judges serve in an administrative capacity and thus do not carry a docket of their own. TRAC Immigration, Crushing Immigration Judge Caseloads and Lengthening Hearing Wait Times (data through Oct. 25, 2019), https://trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/579/. The crushing caseloads are driving many experienced immigration judges to leave EOIR, further exacerbating the backlog. Amulya Shankar, Why US Immigration Judges Are Leaving the Bench In Record Numbers, THE WORLD (July 20, 2020), https://www.pri.org/stories/2020-07-20/why-us- immigration-judges-are-leaving-bench-record-numbers (interview with former Immigration Judge Ashley Tabaddor, then president of the National Association of Immigration Judges).
9 See Quinteros v. Att’y Gen. of United States, 945 F.3d 772, 794 (3d Cir. 2019) (McKee, J. concurring) (acknowledging the “incredible caseload foisted upon [immigration courts]” and how immigration judges being “horrendously overworked” contributes to the denial of fair and impartial hearings); Chavarria-Reyes v. Lynch, 845 F.3d 275, 280 (7th Cir. 2016) (J., Posner dissenting) (noting how “crushing workloads” cause immigration judges to routinely “botch” cases); United States Government Accountability Office, Immigration Courts: Actions Needed to Reduce Case Backlog and Address Long-Standing Management and Operational Challenges 30-1 (June 2017), https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-17-438.pdf (reporting that increased caseloads have prevented immigration judges from “conduct[ing] administrative tasks, such as case-related legal research or staying updated on changes to immigration law”); see also Julia Preston, Deluged Immigration Courts, Where Cases Stall for Years, Begin to Buckle, N.Y. TIMES (Dec. 1, 2016), www.nytimes.com/2016/12/01/us/deluged-immigration-courts-where-cases- stall-for-years-begin-to-buckle.html?_r=0.
10 8 C.F.R. § 1003.0(b)(1)(ii). This management authority can also be exercised by the Chairman of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) and the Chief Immigration Judge. 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.1(a)(2)(i)(C), 1003.9(b)(3) (identifying the similar subordinate authority of the Chairman of the BIA and the Chief Immigration Judge).
11 See also, 8 U.S.C. § 1103(a)(1) (reserving to the Attorney General certain powers related to the “administration and enforcement of . . . laws relating to the immigration and naturalization of aliens”); 6 U.S.C. § 521(“[T]he Executive Office for Immigration Review . . . shall be subject to the direction and regulation of the Attorney General”).
12 See e.g., EOIR, Policy Memorandum: Immigration Court Practices During The Declared National Emergency Concerning the COVID-19 Outbreak, PM 20-10, fn.2 (Mar. 18, 2020), available at https://www.justice.gov/eoir/file/1259226/download (deferring all non-detained cases at the outset of the pandemic for a limited period of time); EOIR, Notice: Executive Office for Immigration Review Operation During Lapse in Government Funding (Oct. 1, 2013), available at https://www.justice.gov/eoir/legacy/2013/10/24/Shutdown09302013.pdf (deferring all non-detained cases during government shutdown).
13 See Memorandum from EOIR Director James R. McHenry III, EOIR Policy for Use of Status Dockets in Immigration Court Proceedings (Aug. 16, 2019), https://www.justice.gov/eoir/page/file/1196336/download (explaining how “[v]arious types of status dockets under different labels have existed at individual immigration
3
AILA Doc. No. 21050334. (Posted 5/3/21)

courts for many years”). While the McHenry Memorandum established historically narrow criteria for use of the status docket, the parameters for such use have been subject to change as a matter of administration policy. Id.
14 Such eventual pathways may include later individualized determinations to administratively close or dismiss cases or to return them to the active docket, once capacity exists, for full adjudication. Notably, while individuals await final resolution, a deferral order, like administrative closure, would neither confer nor disturb respondents’ entitlement to work authorization.
15 Matter of S-O-G- & F-D-B-, 27 I&N Dec. 462, 465-67 (A.G. 2018). But see, e.g., 8 C.F.R. § 214.14(c)(1)(i) (providing for termination pursuant to joint motion for adjudication of a U visa); 8 C.F.R. § 1245.13(l) (providing for termination upon the of adjustment of status to certain Cubans and Nicaraguans); 8 C.F.R. § 1239.2(f) (providing for termination to pursue naturalization in certain circumstances).
16 8 C.F.R. § 239.2(c); 8 C.F.R. § 1239.2(c); see also Matter of S-O-G- & F-D-B-, 27 I&N Dec. at 466.
17 8 C.F.R. § 1003.10(b); see also Matter of Castro-Tum, 27 I. & N. Dec. 271 (A.G. 2018). Ultimately, EOIR should individually evaluate all pending cases to determine whether they meet the administration’s priorities. To achieve this, the Attorney General should also ensure that immigration judges have the ability to prioritize their cases and “exercise their independent judgment and discretion.” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.10(b). Indeed, you were clear in your confirmation hearing that the solution to the immigration court backlog must include “some ability to give to the judges to prioritize their cases.” The Nomination of the Honorable Merrick Brian Garland to be Attorney General of the United States: Day 1 Before the S. Comm. on the Judiciary, 117th Cong. (2021) (statement of Hon. Merrick B. Garland). The primary tool used by immigration judges to remove cases from the active docket has historically been “administrative closure.” However, this authority was recently and imprudently curtailed, such that § 1003.10(b) now divests judges of administrative closure authority. See also Matter of Castro-Tum, supra. You can reaffirm and restore the authority for all immigration judges to administratively close nonpriority cases on a case-by-case basis. We express no opinion herein on the merits of current agency precedent regarding termination or dismissal but note that such precedent is subject to your review and could potentially be expanded in the future.
18 There are currently three enforcement priorities: (1) people suspected of engaging in terrorism or who pose a national security threat; (2) people apprehended at the border after November 1, 2020; and (3) people deemed to be a public safety threat, which includes primarily certain individuals with aggravated felony convictions. Memorandum from ICE Acting Director Tae Johnson, Interim Guidance: Civil Enforcement and Removal Guidance (Feb. 18, 2021), https://www.ice.gov/doclib/news/releases/2021/021821_civil-immigration-enforcement_interim- guidance.pdf. Out of the 1.3 million people with cases pending in immigration court right now: less than 100 have any type of terrorism or national security charge, virtually all had cases initiated before November 1, 2020, and less than 0.01% involve aggravated felony charges. TRAC, The State of the Immigration Courts, supra note 6. There is no publicly available data on the number of cases that would fall within the new narrowed gang-based public safety priority group, but it is doubtful this category would substantially increase the percentage of priority cases since less than 0.01% of all cases involve any type of criminal removal ground.
19 While it is critical that such cases can be systematically identified this does not mean that consideration of individualized circumstances is foreclosed. Notices of intent to defer could permit respondents to lodge objections if they would be prejudiced by deferral and DHS attorneys to object if it believes a respondent’s case is not appropriate for deferral. Indeed, deferral could act to facilitate individualized prosecutorial discretion determinations, if DHS coordinates to consider whether deferred cases are appropriate for dismissal, and if affirmative applications in deferred cases are ultimately processed by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS).
20 Letter from Eight U.S. Senators to Attorney General Garland (Mar. 23, 2021), https://www.aila.org/File/DownloadEmbeddedFile/88403; Letter from 165 Organizations to President Biden (Feb. 1, 2021), https://www.aila.org/advo-media/aila-correspondence/2021/aila-and-partners-send-letter-to-president-biden. 21 For the affirmative pathway to ultimately be realized, in most instances, the removal proceedings will eventually need to be dismissed or terminated. In this regard, DOJ should coordinate its docket review effort with DHS. DHS has the authority to move to dismiss such cases, and immigration judges have the authority to dismiss such cases, because the notice to appear was “improvidently issued” or continuation is “no longer in the best interest of the government.” 8 C.F.R. § 239.2(c) (permitting DHS to move to dismiss any case where the notice to appear was “improvidently issued” or where “continuation is no longer in the best interest of the government” (incorporating grounds enumerated in 8 C.F.R. § 239.2(a))); 8 C.F.R. § 1239.2 (same); see also Matter of S-O-G- & F-D-B-, 27 I. & N. Dec. at 464 (reaffirming DHS authority to move to dismiss on such bases). Indeed, DHS has previously made clear that when relief is “appropriate for adjudication by [US]CIS” DHS attorneys “should consider moving to dismiss proceedings.” Memorandum from William J. Howard, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Principle Legal Advisor, Prosecutorial Discretion, (Oct. 24, 2005), AILA Doc. No. 06050511.
4
AILA Doc. No. 21050334. (Posted 5/3/21)

Cori Alonso-Yoder
Visiting Professor of Law & Director of the Federal Legislation Clinic Georgetown University Law Center
Jojo Annobil Adjunct Professor NYU School of law
Lauren Aronson
Associate Clinical Professor, Director Immigration Law Clinic University of Illinois, Champaign/Urbana
David Baluarte
Associate Dean for Academic Affairs Washington and Lee University School of Law
Jon Bauer
Clinical Professor of Law and Richard D. Tulisano ’69 Scholar in Human Rights University of Connecticut School of Law
David Bedingfield
Visiting Professor Florida State University College of Law Florida State University
Lenni Benson
Distinguish Professor of Immigration and Human Rights Law New York Law School
Kaci Bishop
Clinical Professor of Law
The University of North Carolina School of Law
Linda Bosniak Distinguished Professor Rutgers Law School
Stella Burch Elias
Professor of Law
University of Iowa College of Law
Jason Cade
Associate Dean for Clinical Programs and Experiential Learning J. Alton Hosch Associate Professor of Law
Director, Community Health Law Partnership Clinic
University of Georgia School of Law
5
AILA Doc. No. 21050334. (Posted 5/3/21)

Kristina Campbell
Professor of Law
UDC David A Clarke School of Law
Stacy Caplow Professor of Law Brooklyn Law School
Violeta Chapin
Clinical Professor of Law University of Colorado Law School
Michael Churgin
Raybournee Thompson Centennial Professor in Law University of Texas at Austin
Julie Dahlstrom
Clinical Associate Professor Boston University School of Law
Alina Das
Professor of Clinical Law
New York University School of Law
Ingrid Eagly Professor of Law UCLA School of Law
Bram Elias
Clinical Professor
University of Iowa College of Law
Kate Evans
Clinical Professor of Law
Duke University School of Law
Jill Family
Commonwealth Professor of Law and Government Widener University Commonwealth Law School
Paula Galowitz
Clinical Professor of Law Emerita New York University School of Law
6
AILA Doc. No. 21050334. (Posted 5/3/21)

Denise Gilman
Director, Immigration Clinic University of Texas School of Law
Lindsay Harris
Associate Professor,
Director, Immigration & Human Rights Clinic
University of the District of Columbia David A. Clarke School of Law
Laura Hernandez Professor of Law Baylor Law School
Barbara Hines
Retired Clinical Professor of Law University of Texas School of Law
Geoffrey Hoffman
Director, Immigration Clinic University of Houston Law Center
Alan Hyde Distinguished Professor Rutgers Law School
Anil Kalhan
Professor of Law
Drexel University Kline School of Law
Kathleen Kim
Associate Dean and Professor of Law LMU Loyola Law School, Los Angeles
Jennifer Koh
Visiting Lecturer
University of Washington School of Law
Yoana Kuzmova
Staff Attorney Northeast Justice Center
Eunice Lee
Associate Professor of Law
University of Arizona James E. Rogers College of Law
7
AILA Doc. No. 21050334. (Posted 5/3/21)

Lynn Marcus
Clinical Law Professor
Director, Community Immigration Law Placement Clinic University of Arizona James E. Rogers College of Law
Peter L. Markowitz
Professor of Law
Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law
Fatma Marouf
Professor of Law
Texas A&M School of Law
Amelia McGowan
Adjunct Professor, Immigration Clinic Mississippi College School of Law
M Isabel
Medina Ferris Distinguished Professor of Law Loyola University New Orleans College of Law
Jennifer Moore
Professor of Law and Pamela Minzner Chair in Professionalism University of New Mexico School of Law
Elora Mukherjee
Jerome L. Greene Clinical Professor of Law Director, Immigrants’ Rights Clinic Columbia Law School
Raquel Muñiz Assistant Professor Boston College
Natalie Nanasi
Assistant Professor
SMU Dedman School of Law
Lindsay Nash
Clinical Assistant Professor of Law Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law
Lori Nessel
Professor of Law
Seton Hall University School of Law
8
AILA Doc. No. 21050334. (Posted 5/3/21)

Mauricio Noroña
Clinical Teaching Fellow
Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law
Michael A. Olivas
Wm B. Bates Distinguished Chair (Emeritus) University of Houston Law Center
Maria Pabon
Professor of Law Loyola College of Law
John Palmer
Professor Agregat Interí Universitat Pompeu Fabra
Reena Parikh
Assistant Clinical Professor Boston College Law School
Helen Parsonage
Adjunct Professor of Immigration Law Wake Forest University School of Law
Sarah Plastino
Adjunct Professor of Law
University of Denver, Sturm College of Law
Anam Rahman
Adjunct Professor of Law Georgetown University Law Center
Jaya Ramji-Nogales Professor of Law Temple Law School
Shruti Rana
Assistant Dean & Professor
Hamilton Lugar School of Global & International Studies Indiana University Bloomington
Victor Romero
Professor of Law
Penn State Law, University Park
9
AILA Doc. No. 21050334. (Posted 5/3/21)

Rachel Rosenbloom
Professor of Law
Northeastern University School of Law
Kevin Ruser
Richard and Margaret Larson Professor of Law M.S. Hevelone Professor of Law
Director of Clinical Programs
University of Nebraska College of Law
Mario Russell
Adjunct Professor of Law
St John’s University, School of Law
Faiza Sayed
Visiting Professor of Clinical Law Brooklyn Law School
Andrew Schoenholtz
Professor from Practice Georgetown University Law Center
Erica Schommer
Clinical Professor of Law
St. Mary’s University School of Law
Kim Thuy Seelinger
Visiting Professor
Washington University School of Law
Rebecca Sharpless
Professor of Law
University of Miami School of Law
Anna Shavers
Cline Williams Professor of Citizenship Law Associate Dean for Diversity and Inclusion University of Nebraska College of Law
Gemma Solimene
Clinical Associate Professor of Law Fordham University School of Law
10
AILA Doc. No. 21050334. (Posted 5/3/21)

Jayashri Srikantiah
Associate Dean for Clinical Education Director, Immigrants’ Rights Clinic Stanford Law School
Elissa Steglich
Clinical Professor
University of Texas School of Law
Mark Steiner
Professor of Law
South Texas College of Law Houston
Maureen Sweeney
Law School Professor
University of Maryland Carey School of Law
Margaret Taylor
Professor of Law
Wake Forest University School of Law
Claire Thomas Director, Asylum Clinic New York Law School
David Thronson
Alan S. Zekelman Professor of International Human Rights Law Michigan State University College of Law
Emily Torstveit Ngara
Assistant Clinical Professor of Law Georgia State University College of Law
Enid Trucios-Haynes
Professor of Law
Brandeis School of Law, University of Louisville
Diane Uchimiya
Director of Clinical Programs Creighton University School of Law
Leti Volpp
Robert D. and Leslie Kay Raven Professor of Law in Access to Justice UC Berkeley School of Law
11
AILA Doc. No. 21050334. (Posted 5/3/21)

Shoba Sivaprasad Wadhia
Associate Dean for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion
Samuel Weiss Faculty Scholar and Clinical Professor of Law Penn State Law, University Park
Jonathan Weinberg
Professor of Law and Associate Dean for Research Wayne State University
Anna Welch
Clinical Professor
University of Maine School of Law
Michael Wishnie
William O. Douglas Clinical Professor of Law Yale Law School
Lauris Wren
Clinical Professor of Law
Maurice A. Deane School of Law at Hofstra University
Elliott Young Professor of History Lewis & Clark College
cc: Susan Rice, White House
Esther Olavarria, White House
Tyler Moran, White House
Matt Clapper, DOJ
Margy O’Herron, DOJ
Jean King, EOIR
Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, DHS Angie Kelley, DHS
Kamal Essaheb, DHS
David Shahoulian, DHS
Tom Jawetz, DHS
12
AILA Doc. No. 21050334. (Posted 5/3/21)

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

All the familiar problems that have plagued the DOJ under past Dem Administrations and helped create the due process and human rights disaster in today’s dysfunctional Immigration “Courts,” that aren’t “courts” at all as operated by Judge Garland, are on display here!

First, I know that I’m not the only person who made this or a similar recommendation to the Biden Transition Team. So, 100 days in, why are we still writing letters while those supposedly “in charge” dawdle over common sense “day one stuff” that would dramatically improve the delivery of justice in America?

Second, the “sign on” list here looks like a “who’s who” of the practical experts who should be running EOIR, comprising the entire BIA, and filling vacant Immigration Judge positions! That they are writing letters from the “outside” rather than running the system from “the inside” shows dramatically why Judge Garland is on a course for failure at DOJ — a failure that American democracy can’t afford!

To date, to my knowledge, Judge Garland has made only one Immigraton Judge appointment — a white, male former prosecutor with no prior immigration, human rights, or judicial experience! In other words, same old, same old ignorant devaluing of Immigration Judge positions and the power they hold over human lives and the future of our nation. When will they ever learn?

The irony or ironies — in all of history, there has been only one Attorney General to recognize the true power and potential of the Immigration Judiciary — for good or evil — and act accordingly. Unfortunately, that happened to be White Nationalist, misogynist, xenophobic, racist Jeff “Gonzo Apocalypto” Sessions! Why is he effectively “still in charge” under Judge Garland and an Administration that ran on a platform of fair and just treatment of asylum seekers and other migrants?

Letters are nice — but they are no substitute for action to solve festering problems!

Who REALLY ‘runs” our disgraceful and dysfunctional Immigration “Courts”

This guy?

Or, this guy?

How can you tell?

🇺🇸⚖️🗽🧑🏽‍⚖️Due Process Forever!

PWS

04-04-21

🇺🇸🗽👍🏼PRESSURE FROM HUMANITARIANS WORKS: Biden Finally Keeps Promise To Raise Refugee Cap To 62,500 After Strong Pushback From Earlier Bobble!

https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2021-05-03/biden-lifts-trump-refugee-cap-after-delay-backlash

By MATTHEW LEE AND ZEKE MILLER

ASSOCIATED PRESS

MAY 3, 2021 1:48 PM PT

WASHINGTON —

President Biden is formally lifting the nation’s refugee cap to 62,500 this year, weeks after facing bipartisan blowback for his delay in removing former President Trump’s limit of 15,000.

Biden last month moved to expand the eligibility criteria for resettlements, removing one roadblock to refugees entering the U.S. put in place by Trump, but he had initially stopped short of lifting the annual cap, with aides saying they did not believe it was necessary. But Biden faced sharp pushback for not at least taking the symbolic step of authorizing more refugees to enter the U.S. this year and swiftly reversed course.

Biden, in a statement, said the new limit “erases the historically low number set by the previous administration,” adding that Trump’s cap “did not reflect America’s values as a nation that welcomes and supports refugees.”

“It is important to take this action today to remove any lingering doubt in the minds of refugees around the world who have suffered so much, and who are anxiously waiting for their new lives to begin,” Biden added.

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

So, excruciating, aggressive, very public pressure from progressive humanitarians works with a President who pays attention to facts and actually wants to govern in the public interest.

Maybe the same advocacy groups, interest groups, and legislators need to radically step up the pressure for progressive changes (or at least the end of active oppression) at the Immigration Courts, which are a main impediment to a fair asylum system. Folks, asylum seekers are “refugees” — first and foremost! The failure to recognize that and treat them legally and humanely is beyond disgraceful!

The unmitigated Immigration Court disaster also undermines racial justice in America every single day that “Team Garland” continues with Stephen Miller’s White Nationalist nativist policies and Miller’s restrictionist “judges” in the Immigration Courts!

Judge Garland has been “living in the Ivory Tower” for a long time, obviously too long! But Lisa Monaco and Vanita Gupta actually have had to make a living in the “real world” for the past four years. Somebody in the advocacy community who knows these two needs to pick up the phone and read them the “riot act” on the racist, misogynistic, nativist, anti-due-process, regressive, mismanaged human rights disaster unfolding on their watch every day at EOIR — America’s worst excuse for a “court system!”

Due Process Forever!

PWS

05-03-21

CHARLES M. BLOW @ NYT BEGS TO DIFFER WITH GOP SENs SCOTT & GRAHAM: “However, it is important to remember that nearly half the country just voted for a full-on racist in Donald Trump, and they did so by either denying his racism, becoming apologists for it, or applauding it. What do you call a country thus composed?”

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/02/opinion/america-racism.html?referringSource=articleShare

. . . .

I personally don’t make much of Scott’s ability to reason. This is the same man who said in March that “woke supremacy,” whatever that is, “is as bad as white supremacy.” There is no world in which recent efforts at enlightenment can be equated to enslavement, lynching and mass incarceration. None.

Colfax

It seems to me that the disingenuousness on the question of racism is largely a question of language. The question turns on another question: “What, to you, is America?” Is America the people who now inhabit the land, divorced from its systems and its history? Or, is the meaning of America inclusive of those systems and history?

When people say that America is a racist country, they don’t necessarily mean that all or even most Americans are consciously racist. However, it is important to remember that nearly half the country just voted for a full-on racist in Donald Trump, and they did so by either denying his racism, becoming apologists for it, or applauding it. What do you call a country thus composed?

Historically, however, there is no question that the country was founded by racists and white supremacists, and that much of the early wealth of this country was built on the backs of enslaved Africans, and much of the early expansion came at the expense of the massacre of the land’s Indigenous people and broken treaties with them.

Eight of the first 10 presidents personally enslaved Africans. In 1856, the chief justice of the United States wrote in the infamous ruling on the Dred Scott case that Black people “had for more than a century before been regarded as beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations; and so far inferior, that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect.”

The country went on to fight a Civil War over whether some states could maintain slavery as they wished. Even some of the people arguing for, and fighting for, an end to slavery had expressed their white supremacist beliefs.

Abraham Lincoln said during his famous debates against Stephen A. Douglas in 1858 that among white people and Black ones “there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I, as much as any other man, am in favor of the superior position being assigned to the white man.”

Some will concede the historical point and insist on the progress point, arguing that was then and this is now, that racism simply doesn’t exist now as it did then. I would agree. American racism has evolved and become less blunt, but it has not become less effective. The knife has simply been sharpened. Now systems do the work that once required the overt actions of masses of individual racists.

. . . .

As Mark Twain once put it: “The difference between the almost right word and the right word is really a large matter. ’Tis the difference between the lightning bug and the lightning.”

Being imprecise or undecided with our language on this subject contributes to the murkiness — and to the myth that the question of whether America is racist is difficult to answer and therefore the subject of genuine debate among honest intellectuals.

Saying that America is racist is not a radical statement. If that requires a longer explanation or definition, so be it. The fact, in the end, is not altered.

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

Read Blow’s full article at the link.

Four things that are clear to me:

The “history” that most of us in my generation learned in high school was “whitewashed;”
The monumental achievements of non-white Americans, women, and children which allowed this country to exist, prosper, and flourish have consistently been ignored or downplayed;
America still has race issues;
The GOP, in particular, has failed to come to grips with the issue of race in 21st century America (apologists Scott & Graham notwithstanding).

🇺🇸⚖️🗽Due Process For All Persons Under Law, Forever!

PWS

05-03-21

🏴‍☠️☠️⚰️SCOFFLAW ADMINISTRATION: Biden, Garland, Mayorkas Continue Trump Policies That Fuel Kidnapping Of Asylum Applicants, Aid Smugglers! — Molly O’Toole Reports @ LAT!

Molly O’Toole
Immigration Reporter
LA Times
Source: LA Times website

http://enewspaper.latimes.com/infinity/article_share.aspx?guid=3c4571fa-1131-4b45-8fd5-a1903b21b58f

By Molly O’Toole

WASHINGTON — With shaking hands, Karen Cruz Caceres manages to hit record on the call.

“How many days have you gone without food?” she asks into the phone.

Tani, her younger sister, is heard sobbing. “Help me,” she gets out.

Cruz Caceres assures her: “I am going to pay today. I’ll make another deposit.”

The April 1 call ends abruptly, and Cruz Caceres stops recording.

A week before, Cruz Caceres, a single mother from Honduras who won asylum in Tennessee, had gotten another call that upended her already precarious life: Kidnappers in Nuevo Laredo, Mexico, had abducted her pregnant sister Tani and Tani’s 4-year-old son, and they wanted more than $20,000, according to a video recording of the call and messages reviewed by the Los Angeles Times. The family asked The Times not to use her sister’s last name, for fear of retribution from the kidnappers in Mexico and gangs back home.

Tani, 33, and her son were kidnapped on March 25, Cruz Caceres and lawyers said — just after U.S. authorities expelled them from Texas alongside other mothers and children under a Trump-era pandemic policy known as Title 42, which President Biden has continued.

The unprecedented policy, which relies on an obscure 1944 public health statute to indefinitely close the border to “nonessential” travel, has made migrant children and parents easy prey for the criminal groups waiting just on the other side. Biden’s continued reliance on Title 42 to quickly remove the vast majority of migrants at the southern border without due process contrasts with his pledge to restore “human dignity” to a U.S. immigration system targeted by former President Trump.

“My sister and my nephew were told they were going to kill them and feed them to the dogs,” Cruz Caceres told The Times. “If [U.S. officials] want to deport them back to their country, why don’t they do it now like prior presidents did?” she asked. “Why dump them to try their luck in the most dangerous cities in Mexico, to get abducted by kidnappers?”

The abduction of migrants in northern Mexico and the extortion from U.S. family members isn’t new, lawyers, experts and officials told The Times — what’s new is the reliance on Title 42 to expel thousands of these already vulnerable families, leaving them at the mercy of kidnappers and other criminals.

Since the Trump administration implemented Title 42 in March last year amid a global pandemic, U.S. border officials have carried out more than 630,000 expulsions under the policy, some 240,000 since Biden took office in January, according to a Times analysis of the latest government data.

. . . .

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

Read the rest of Molly’s article at the link.

The Biden Administration ran and took office on a platform of kinder, saner policies that would restore human rights and the rule of law at the border. So far, that promise has been a deadly lie!

Arbitrarily and unlawfully closing legal ports of entry to asylum seekers and abrogating asylum and refugee laws plays directly into the hands of human smugglers and cartels while expanding the extralegal immigration system and the resulting underground of undocumented residents. Many of these individuals could and should have been legally admitted through legal channels if we had a functioning immigration system overseen by fair, impartial, expert Immigration Courts staffed with well-qualified progressive Immigration Judges.

Inevitably and predictably, these gross government failures lead to the type of human tragedy that occurred yesterday when a smuggling boat sank off the California coast, killing at least three and injuring dozens. https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-05-02/boat-capsizes-off-coast-of-point-loma

Naturally, with no legal asylum system in place, and with asylum seekers arbitrarily rejected at legal ports of entry, as described in Molly’s article, desperate individuals will turn to smugglers to achieve refuge. It’s not rocket science; but sadly the human tragedy that illegal, inhumane government policies cause at our border appear to be “out of sight, out of mind” to Judge Garland and other Biden Administration officials. That is, until the dead bodies start to pile up on their doorsteps!

“Floaters” — “Floaters — How The World’s Richest Country Responds To Asylum Seekers”
This appears to be the Garland, Monaco, Gupta view of human rights and the rule of law for asylum seeker! What if we thought of these folks as our fellow human beings, rather than statistics or problems to be “deterred” through illegal, deadly, and ultimately ineffective policies? What if Garland replaced Miller’s nativist “judges” with REAL progressive Immigration Judges who are experts in asylum and due process and have the guts to grant legal protection to eligible migrants in a prompt, fair, and timely manner and to demand that DHS Asylum Officers do likewise? (AP Photo/Julia Le Duc)

🇺🇸⚖️🗽😎🧑🏽‍⚖️👨🏻‍⚖️Due Process Forever!

PWS

05-03-21

EOIR WRONG AGAIN: BIA’s Attempt To Limit Its Own Jurisdiction To Grant Waivers Thwarted By 4th Cir. — Jiminez-Rodriguez v. Garland

https://www.lexisnexis.com/LegalNewsRoom/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/ca4-on-waivers-jimenez-rodriguez-v-garland#

Dan Kowalski reports for LexisNexis Immigration Community:

CA4 on Waivers: Jimenez-Rodriguez v. Garland

Jimenez-Rodriguez v. Garland

“Reading the broad language of §§ 1003.10(b) and 1240.1(a)(1)(iv), we conclude that these regulations give the IJ the Attorney General’s discretionary authority to grant a § 1182(d)(3)(A)(ii) waiver. … [W]e grant the petition, vacate the BIA’s final removal order, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”

[Hats off to Brad Banias!]

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

Seldom has a supposed quasi-judicial tribunal worked as hard as the current BIA to find limits on its ability to solve legal and humanitarian problems. That leaves the work to the Circuits, as in this case.

So, why have EOIR at all? The system clearly is unconstitutional because it lacks fair and impartial adjudicators and even minimally competent administration of due process. If Garland, Monaco, and Gupta have no interest in fixing these glaring problems, then why not just transfer EOIR’s functions to the U.S. District Courts and U.S. Magistrate Judges under the supervision of the Courts of Appeals?

Dems talk big about the need for a more progressive Federal Judiciary to achieve racial justice. But, given the chance actually to create one, they sit on their hands!

Not so the GOP! Restrictionists, nativists, reactionaries and White Nationalists recognize the repressive power of a captive and co-opted Immigration Judiciary and act accordingly. “Act” — that’s the operative word that doesn’t appear to be in the Dem’s vocabulary when it comes to building a better Federal Judiciary for a better America.

Progressives might initially have cheered the appointment of these three to top leadership posts @ the DOJ. But, to date, they have shown no interest in rescinding Stephen Miller’s White Nationalist immigration policies or replacing Miller’s nativist judges with progressive expert judges @ EOIR.

Lisa Monaco
Deputy AG
Official USG Photo, Public Realm

Vanita Gupta
Associate Attorney General
Photo: Brookings Institution, Paul Morigi, Creative Commons License.

Due Process Forever!

PWS

05-02-21

🛡⚔️👍🏼“SIR JEFFREY” CHASE — Garland’s Immigration “Judges” Pull The Ol’ “Bait & Switch” — They Only Are “Judges” When “OIL” Is Trying To Convince Ethically & Legally Challenged Article III Courts To “Defer” To EOIR Decisions — Otherwise, They Are Expected To Act Like DOJ ”Grundoons” Mindlessly Carrying Out The Executive’s Agenda Cloaked In Quasi-Judicial Disguise!

Grundoon
From Walt Kelly’s “Pogo”
SOURCE: Pininterest

Grundoon: A diapered baby groundhog (or “woodchunk” in swamp-speak). An infant toddler, Grundoon speaks only gibberish, represented by strings of random consonants like “Bzfgt”, “ktpv”, “mnpx”, “gpss”, “twzkd”, or “znp”. Eventually, Grundoon learns to say two things: “Bye” and “Bye-bye”. He also has a baby sister, whose full name is Li’l Honey Bunny Ducky Downy Sweetie Chicken Pie Li’l Everlovin’ Jelly Bean. [From the Walt Kelly comic strip “Pogo.”]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pogo_(comic_strip)

https://www.jeffreyschase.com/blog/2021/4/29/the-dojs-contradictions

Contact

The DOJ’s Contradictions

In a recent blog post, I discussed the difficulty in establishing asylum based on a political opinion expressed against MS-13. In the specific case discussed, the Board of Immigration Appeals reversed the Immigration Judge’s finding that the asylum-seeker had expressed a political opinion to MS-13 members.1 In reversing the Immigration Judge, the BIA specifically stated as to MS-13 that “the gangs are criminal organizations, and not political or governmental organizations and gang activities are not political in nature.” The BIA has repeatedly expressed this same view (using this or similar boilerplate language) in its decisions denying asylum. In the particular case discussed in my blog post, a split panel of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals could not find enough evidence of record to compel the majority to overturn the BIA’s conclusion.

The BIA is of course a part of the U.S. Department of Justice; its judges are appointed by and employed by the Attorney General. Former Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein was one of the Department officials to make the following point to a class of new Immigration Judges in March 2019:

Immigration judges appointed by the Attorney General and supervised by the Executive Office for Immigration Review are not only judges. First, you are not only judges because you are also employees of the United States Department of Justice. It is a great honor to serve in this Department. In the courtyard just outside the entrance to this Great Hall, high up on the interior wall of the Main Justice building, there is a depiction of the scales of justice and an inscription that reads, “Privilegium Obligatio.” It means that when you accept a privilege, you incur an obligation. In this Department, our duty is in our name. We are the only cabinet agency with a name that articulates a moral value.

Justice is not measured by statistics. Our employees learn from day one that their duty is to gather the facts, seek the truth, apply the law, and respect the policies and principles of the Department of Justice.

The second reason that you are not only judges is that in addition to your adjudicative function – finding facts and applying laws – you are a member of the executive branch. You follow lawful instructions from the Attorney General, and you share a duty to enforce the law.2

The clear message being conveyed is “Don’t get any big ideas of judicial independence and neutrality; you work for ‘Team Justice,’ and you will behave accordingly.” Am I alone in thinking that the motto cited by Rosenstein, “when you accept a privilege, you incur an obligation,” here comes across as a boss reminding new employees where their loyalties lie rather than as a commitment to truth and justice?

As wrong as this message is when conveyed to judges who are supposed to enjoy the independence and neutrality to rule against the Department of Justice and the Attorney General when the facts and law compel such an outcome, let’s examine this view for the consistency of its application as to all DOJ employees. Presumably, the Board’s official stance that MS-13 is not a political organization and that its activities are criminal and not political in nature enjoys the Department’s seal of approval. In fact, other Department of Justice attorneys, working for the Office of Immigration Litigation, defend that view when the BIA”s decisions are reviewed on appeal by the Circuit Courts. I’m not aware of any Attorney General action to certify a BIA decision expressing this view in order to correct the Board’s position on this issue, or even to remand to the Board for further consideration of its position in light of other conflicting views within the Department.

Regarding such conflicting views, I was recently made aware of a criminal indictment drafted by the U.S. Attorneys’ Office in the Eastern District of New York.3 The indictment was filed in December, 2020, while the Trump Administration was still in office. The opening paragraph of the indictment states that MS-13 is a transnational criminal organization engaged in terrorist activity, and that its members use violence “in order to obtain concessions from the government of El Salvador, achieve political goals and retaliate for government actions against MS-13’s members and leaders.” (emphasis added).

The indictment contains a specific section titled “Political Influence in El Salvador.” The indictment states that a unit of MS-13, the Ranfla Nacional, “gained political influence as a result of the violence and intimidation MS-13 exerted on the government and population of El Salvador.” It continued that the organization exercised leverage on the Salvadoran government through its control on the level of violence. The indictment states that in 2012, MS-13 exercised its leverage to negotiate a truce with the ruling FMLN party and its rival 18th Street “to reduce homicides in El Salvador in return for improved prison conditions, benefits and money.” According to the indictment, MS-13 also negotiated a similar agreement with the rival ARENA party, promising to deliver votes in return for benefits. The indictment states that over time, “the Ranfla Nacional continued to negotiate with political parties in El Salvador and use its control of the level of violence to influence the actions of the government in El Salvador.”

The indictment also contains a section explaining the purpose of the Ranfla Nacional. The second specific goal listed is: “Influencing the actions of governments in El Salvador and elsewhere to implement policies favorable to MS-13.”

The attorneys who made the above claims in an indictment filed in Federal District Court are also employees of the U.S. Department of Justice. They are also members of the executive branch, following lawful instructions from the Attorney General, and sharing a duty to enforce the law. In the Second Circuit case I recently discussed, other Department of Justice attorneys in their brief to the court defended the Board’s decision by depicting MS-13 as “an institution that is entirely non-governmental – that is…a group of criminals who, in fact, reject the rules set out by the government.” Noticeably absent from the same brief was any mention that this “rejection of the rules set out by government” includes strategies to pressure said government into undertaking specific actions, as well as its entering into negotiations and ultimately agreements with political parties, the terms of which include MS-13’s delivering votes in return for the parties’ commitment to enacting beneficial policies.

So how can it be that attorneys in one office of the Department of Justice argue that MS-13 as an organization is engaged in exerting political influence to achieve its political goals, and at the same time, another group of attorneys within the same Department of Justice can sign orders sending victims of the same MS-13 to their death by employing a boilerplate sentence that MS-13 is not a political organization and its activities are not political in nature? And that the decisions of that latter group are then defended by a third group of Department attorneys on appeal who make no mention of the conflicting arguments? Let’s remember that, according to Rosenstein, these attorneys were taught from day one that their duties as Department of Justice employees include gathering the facts and seeking the truth.

In 1997, a very different BIA wrote the following in a decision that, although still binding as precedent, seems long forgotten:

immigration enforcement obligations do not consist only of initiating and conducting prompt proceedings that lead to removals at any cost. Rather, as has been said, the government wins when justice is done. In that regard, the handbook for trial attorneys states that “[t]he respondent should be aided in obtaining any procedural rights or benefits required by the statute, regulation and controlling court decision, of the requirements of fairness.” Handbook for Trial Attorneys § 1.3 (1964). See generally Freeport-McMoRan Oil & Gas Co. v. FERC, 962 F.2d 45, 48 (D.C. Cir. 1992)(finding astonishing that counsel for a federal administrative agency denied that the A.B.A. Code of Professional Responsibility holds government lawyers to a higher standard and has obligations that “might sometimes trump the desire to pound an opponent into submission”); Reid v. INS, 949 F.2d 287 (9th Cir. 1991)(noting that government counsel has an interest only in the law being observed, not in victory or defeat).4

This matter deserves the immediate attention of Attorney General Merrick Garland. The ability of asylum seekers to receive a fair review of their claims based on accurate information is a matter of life and death. At this early stage of the Biden Administration, it is critical that the Department send a clear message that the “obligation” mentioned in its motto is to serve an ideal of justice that is independent of the particular politics of those temporally in charge.

Copyright 2021 Jeffrey S. Chase. All rights reserved.

Notes:

Zelaya-Moreno v. Wilkinson, No. 17-2284, ___ F.3d ___ (2d Cir., Feb. 26, 2021).

https://www.justice.gov/opa/speech/deputy-attorney-general-rod-j-rosenstein-delivers-opening-remarks-investiture-31-newly.

E.D.N.Y. Docket No.: 20-CR-577 (JFB). The Department of Justice’s Press Release can be found here: https://www.justice.gov/usao-edny/pr/ms-13-s-highest-ranking-leaders-charged-terrorism-offenses-united-states.

Matter of S-M-J-, 21 I&N Dec. 722, 727 (BIA 1997).

APRIL 29, 2021

Reprinted by permission.

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

As most outside the nativist world know, the BIA’s position that Northern Triangle gangs aren’t political in nature and action is absurd! For Pete’s sake, these guys negotiate “peace treaties” with governments, control large swaths of territory, manipulate “public death rates” for political gain, aid or punish political candidates and police, collect taxes, control jobs, and have economic policies. Sure sounds like a quasi-governmental, clearly political entity to me. Somewhere, there is a dissent of mine in an old published CAT case saying approximately that.

At least at one point, gangs in El Salvador controlled more jobs than did the Salvadoran Government! No competent, unbiased group of adjudicators (not to mention supposed “experts”) could have reached the BIA’s ridiculous, clearly politicized conclusions!

Sadly, to date, Judge Garland has followed in the footsteps of his dilatory Dem predecessors by destroying lives, promoting injustice, and blowing the Dems’ best chance to build a progressive, due process oriented, human rights advancing judiciary that also would help resolve America’s failure to come to grips with the 1951 U.N. Refugee Convention and its key role in our legal immigration system as well as being a prerequisite to achieving racial justice in America.

Supposedly, these are the goals of the Biden Administration. Unfortunately, Garland, Monaco, and Gupta haven’t gotten the message, although it has been “delivered” time after time by numerous experts and advocates!

A few historical notes:

I was on the en banc BIA that decided Matter of S-M-J-, cited by Jeffrey. It was written by Judge Michael J. Heilman, a fellow Wisconsinite who once had worked for me at the “Legacy INS” General Counsel, following service as a State Department consular officer. That case “originated” on a three-member panel of Heilman, the late Judge Lauri Steven Filppu, and me. It reflects the “government wins when justice is done” message that I had incorporated into INS attorney training years earlier, as well as fealty to UN Handbook standards encouraged by the Supremes in INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, and the “best practices” that bygone BIA was consciously and aggressively advancing.
Former DAG Rod Rosenstein was once a respected career prosecutor who served Administrations of both parties. Then, he “sold out” to the Trump Administration and its neo-fascists. Although that probably should have ended his legal career, he’s currently enjoying life in “big law” while those victims harmed and wronged by the illegal and unethical policies (or, in some cases their survivors) he furthered continue to suffer.

Radical progressive due process reforms @ EOIR, starting with wholesale personnel changes and revocation of restrictionist, racist, misogynist policies and practices is long overdue. Nearly two months into his tenure Judge Garland has yet to demonstrate awareness of the need for immediate, decisive action. Meanwhile the bodies continue to pile up and the “adverse decisions” from the Article IIIs bearing his name and tarnishing his reputation continue to roll in!

Actually, Judge, each wrong decision from the BIA represents a human life ruined, often irrevocably. Is that the type of “impact” on American justice that you intend to leave as your “legacy?”

EOIR HQ, Falls Church, VA (a/k/a “The Tower of Babel”)
By Pieter Bruegel The Elder
Public Domain

🇺🇸⚖️🗽🧑🏽‍⚖️👨🏻‍⚖️Due Process Forever!

PWS

05-01-21

🇺🇸⚖️🗽🧑🏽‍⚖️Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Was this guy

Really this guy

In disguise all along?

An anonymous source reports:

🇺🇸⚖️🗽Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

🇺🇸⚖️🗽🧑🏽‍⚖️Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Because of it’s critical importance and it’s “right on” expose of the most glaring problem in American justice today, this timely editorial is quoted in full:

Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Every member of the NDPA should be outraged by Garland’s treachery:

Here’s the latest farcical roster of prosecutors, government attorneys, and non-immigration experts to be inflicted on migrants and their attorneys:

Here are some “early reactions” from the NDPA:

🇺🇸🗽⚖️Due Process Forever! We need to translate Garland’s blatant disrespect, ignorance, and failure to stand up for racial justice, an end to misogyny, and progressive expertise in the Immigration Judiciary into action and resistance to his “Miller Lite” vision for the DOJ!

Related posts:

Judge Garland’s vision of “justice” for immigrants @ Justice:

Courtside Exclusive

By Paul Wickham Schmidt

May 5, 2021

This just in from a NDPA stalwart in Houston, TX:

🇺🇸⚖️🗽🧑🏽‍⚖️Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Who REALLY ‘runs” our disgraceful and dysfunctional Immigration “Courts”

This guy?

Or, this guy?

How can you tell?

🇺🇸⚖️🗽🧑🏽‍⚖️Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

🇺🇸⚖️🗽Due Process For All Persons Under Law, Forever!

Related posts:

🇺🇸⚖️🗽😎🧑🏽‍⚖️👨🏻‍⚖️Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

🇺🇸⚖️🗽🧑🏽‍⚖️👨🏻‍⚖️Due Process Forever!

Related posts: