Racism – Page 31 – immigrationcourtside.com

RACIST MAGAMORON RON JOHNSON SHOULD HAVE HEEDED MARK TWAIN: “It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to talk and remove all doubt.”🤮🤡☠️

Ron Johnson Fool — Fool
15th Century
Public Domain

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/ron-johnson-capitol-riot-black-lives-matter_n_604c0313c5b636ed337a71ce

Mary Papenfuss reports for HuffPost:

In an absolutely stunning statement, Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) admitted in a radio interview that he wasn’t frightened by white insurrectionists’ attack on the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6 — but said he would have been “concerned” had they been Black.

Johnson accurately predicted that his racist statement to conservative radio host Joe Pags on Thursday would get him “into trouble.”

The senator noted that he has been criticized for previous remarks that he “never felt threatened” by the attack.

He added: “Now, had the tables been turned, Joe, and this’ll get me in trouble — had the tables been turned, and President Trump won the election, and those were tens of thousands of Black Lives Matter and antifa protesters, I might have been a little concerned.”

. . . .

**************
Read the full article at the link.

Oh Wisconsin, how far you have fallen to inflict this racist idiot on our nation!

PWS

03-14-21

⚖️🗽JENNIFER DOHERTY @ LAW360 ANALYZES JUDGE ILLSTON’S MASSIVE TAKEDOWN OF EOIR’S ANTI-DUE-PROCESS REGULATIONS — I Speak Out On Why Judge Garland Needs To Pull Plug On The EOIR Clown Show 🤡 Sooner, Rather Than Later! — PLUS, BONUS COVERAGE: My “Open Letter” To Judge Garland!

https://www.law360.com/articles/1363797

Here’ what I had to say to Jennifer:

. . ..

Retired Immigration Judge Paul Wickham Schmidt, a former chairman of the Board of Immigration Appeals who was also general counsel to the Immigration and Naturalization Service at the time of the EOIR’s creation, likewise praised Judge Illston’s order in an interview with Law360 Thursday.

Judge Schmidt, a vocal opponent of the Trump administration’s management of the EOIR, characterized the rule as part of a larger effort to discourage immigrants by stacking the courts against them, rather than a good-faith effort to reduce ballooning backlogs.

“When your docket is 1.3 million, it’s not the fact that someone is getting a few extra days in a continuance, it’s the fact that DHS is adding more cases,” he said.

As for whether the DOJ under President Joe Biden would continue defending the rule — as it is for one of the Trump-era asylum rules — Judge Schmidt said it was hard to say. But newly confirmed Attorney General Merrick Garland should prioritize changing the EOIR, as he stated his mission would be to restore nonpartisanship and defense of civil rights as pillars of the department, the judge said.

“If Garland wants to straighten out the Department of Justice, he’s got to straighten out EOIR. EOIR is a living refutation of everything Garland says he stands for,” Judge Schmidt told Law360.

Representatives for the DOJ did not respond to a request for comment Thursday.

The immigrant advocates are represented by Jingni (Jenny) Zhao, Anoop Prasad and Glenn Michael Katon of Asian Americans Advancing Justice — Asian Law Caucus, Seferina Young Berch, Stephen Chang, Naomi Ariel Igra, Michael O McGuinness, Scott T. Nonaka and Irene Inkyu Yang of Sidley Austin LLP, and Judah Ben Lakin and Amalia Margarete Wille of Lakin & Wille LLP.

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

Thankfully, Jennifer is operating “outside the paywall” on this particular article. So, all of you can get full access to her outstanding reporting on this case at the above link.

Dear Judge Garland:

Congratulations again and best wishes on your recent appointment as our Attorney General. I write to beg you, as a former DOJ colleague, Senior Executive, and administrative judge to deal immediately with a festering problem undermining the entire U.S. Justice system that is unfolding right under your nose, whether or not you have had time to focus on it.

A number of the individuals and organizations whose help you will need to fix EOIR and achieve equal justice for all in America are instead having their time and precious resources diverted to defending our justice system and the Constitution from absurdly illegal and obscenely counterproductive decisions and actions now being taken in YOUR NAME, such as the illegal EOIR regulations in this case. Indeed, these regulations and many other travesties still being pursued by EOIR at the behest of the former regime should have been on the chopping block long before you were even sworn in.

Not only are you now squandering Executive Branch and private sector resources that could better be devoted to solving problems, you are also wasting the time and trying the patience of thoughtful Federal Judges like U.S. District Judge Susan Illston. Certainly, as a former highly admired and respected Federal Judge, you know the value of judicial time in our system.

Additionally, failure to take immediate steps to end the dysfunction, disorder, and nonsense still streaming from EOIR on a daily basis is not only destroying vulnerable human lives, but also costing you goodwill with the very NGOs and talented, dedicated, often pro bono advocates whose assistance and support will be absolutely necessary for you to succeed in your stated objectives of returning integrity to the DOJ, eradicating institutionalized racism, and finally, finally achieving long overdue equal justice under law for all in America.

As I told Jennifer, EOIR is a “living contradiction” of everything you said in your confirmation hearing. It’s also a repudiation of the values that I have always seen and respected in you, even if mostly from afar.

I beseech you to “pull the plug” on today’s EOIR and put someone in there who can start getting it back on track: A “Due Process/Human Rights/Immigration Guru,” if you will. In terms to which we both can relate, you must find a judicial leader in the image of our late great colleague from the Carter DOJ, and your former colleague on the D.C. Circuit, Judge Patricia M. Wald. As we both know, she was was brilliant, energetic, yet highly practical, well-organized, and unswervingly committed to realizing social justice on both the national and eventually international stages.

Put someone who can run a real due-process-oriented court system in charge of the EOIR mess and let ‘er rip. You can cement your legacy to American Justice by achieving EOIR’s once noble, now discarded, vision that many of us who once served there established to guide our actions: “Through teamwork and innovation, be the world’s best tribunals guaranteeing fairness and due process for all.”

With my very best wishes for your continued success,

Your former DOJ colleague from decades past,

Paul

🏴‍☠️🤡SLOPPINESS, POOR ANALYSIS, MISCONSTRUING RECORD, CONTEMPT FOR COURTS CONTINUE TO PLAGUE BIA’S DENIAL CULTURE!

Kangaroos — Anybody remember the last time we interpreted the law or facts in favor of a human?
https://www.flickr.com/photos/rasputin243/
Creative Commons License

Here are four more recent screw-ups:

Misinterpreting “Realistic Possibility” — 8th Cir.

https://www.lexisnexis.com/legalnewsroom/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/ca8-on-realistic-probability—lopez-gonzalez-v-wilkinson

CA8 on “Realistic Probability” – Lopez Gonzalez v. Wilkinson

Lopez Gonzalez v. Wilkinson

“The question in this case is whether the categorical approach requires a petitioner seeking cancellation of removal to demonstrate both that the state offense he was convicted of is broader than the federal offense and that there is a realistic probability that the state actually prosecutes people for the conduct that makes the state offense broader than the federal offense. We conclude that it does not. … Because the BIA’s decision relied on a misinterpretation of the realistic probability inquiry, we grant the petition for review, vacate, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”

[Hats off to Jamie Arango!]

2) Wrong Interpretation Of Child Status Protection Act — 2d Cir.

Cuthill v. Blinken

https://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/05b681bb-4767-4cf6-b370-6f0ee77ad5d2/3/doc/19-3138_opn.pdf

D. Chevron Deference

Lastly, the government argues that we should defer to the decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) in Matter of Zamora-Molina, 25 I. & N. Dec. 606, 611 (B.I.A. 2011), in which the BIA adopted the same interpretation as the Department of State. Even assuming, without deciding, that Chevron deference applies when one agency (the Department of State) seeks to rely on the interpretation of another agency (the Department of Justice), we agree with the district court and with the Ninth Circuit that Chevron deference does not apply here because “the intent of Congress is clear.” Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 842 (1984); see also id. at 842–43 (“If the intent of Congress is clear, that is the end of the matter; for the court, as well as the agency, must give effect to the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress.”); Tovar, 882 F.3d at 900 (declining to apply Chevron deference to Zamora-Molina because “traditional tools of statutory construction” and “the irrationality of the result sought by the government” combine to “demonstrate beyond any question that Congress had a clear intent on the question at issue”). As discussed above, the text, structure, and

33

legislative history of the CSPA conclusively show the “unambiguously expressed intent of Congress” to protect beneficiaries like Diaz. Chevron, 467 U.S. at 843.7

3) Ignoring Previous Circuit Ruling On Related Case — 10th Cir.

https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/20/20-9520.pdf

Ni v. Wilkinson, unpublished

After we determined that conditions in China had materially worsened for Christians, Mr. Ni moved again for reopening. Despite our opinion in his wife’s case, the Board of Immigration Appeals concluded

2

again that Mr. Ni had failed to show a material change in country conditions.

This conclusion is unsupportable. Mr. Ni’s evidence of worsening

conditions in China largely mirrored his wife’s evidence, which had led us

to grant her petition for review. Mr. Ni’s evidence was even stronger than

his wife’s because China had recently adopted a regulatory crackdown on

practicing Christians. We thus grant Mr. Ni’s petition for review.

4) Misconstruction Of Record — 1st. Cir.

https://www.lexisnexis.com/legalnewsroom/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/ca1-on-albania-changed-circumstances-lucaj-v-wilkinson

CA1 on Albania, Changed Circumstances: Lucaj v. Wilkinson

Lucaj v. Wilkinson

“To support his case for reopening, Mr. Lucaj submitted an affidavit complaining in particular about two events that occurred after his removal proceeding in 2006: The Socialist party took power in 2013, and then in 2019 the Socialists’ corruption and connections with organized crime deterred the opposition party from even participating in the 2019 elections. Mr. Lucaj provided, among other things, the State Department’s 2018 Human Rights Report on Albania, the Freedom House “Freedom in the World 2018” Report on Albania, and articles from 2018 and 2019 about corruption in Albania and the Socialist Party’s success in recent elections. We do not know whether those submissions show materially worsening conditions for Democratic Party members in Albania, however, because the BIA refused to compare those reports to available evidence of conditions from 2006, claiming that Mr. Lucaj had not “explained how the proffered . . . country condition documentation show[s] qualitatively different conditions from 2006.” Plainly, though, he did so by pointing out the two cited, post-2006 events as evidence of changed conditions. The BIA’s failure to assess whether those changes were sufficient was arbitrary and capricious. … Therefore, we reverse the decision by the BIA and remand Mr. Lucaj’s case so that the BIA can review available evidence to examine whether conditions for members of the Democratic Party in Albania have deteriorated since 2006 and, if so, whether Mr. Lucaj has established a prima facie case for relief.”

[Hats off to Gregory G. Marotta!]

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

America and humanity deserve better from a supposed “expert tribunal” which actually functions more like a “denial factory” without much, if any, “quality control.” No wonder these guys are running an out of control, ever-expanding 1.3 million case backlog!

Denying continuances, not closing cases that belong at USCIS, rushed briefing, IJ’s “certifying” BIA remands to the Director (who should have no judicial role), dismissing applications for failure to fill in irrelevant blanks, raising fees, and a host of other nonsensical proposals that EOIR has had shot down by the Article III Courts recently won’t reduce the backlogs. They actually will make it worse, as have all the other “gimmicks” tried by EOIR to eradicate due process and dehumanize migrants over the past four years!

See, e.g., https://immigrationcourtside.com/2021/03/11/%e2%9a%96%ef%b8%8f%f0%9f%97%bdu-s-district-judge-susan-illston-nd-ca-shreds-enjoins-eoirs-anti-due-process-%e2%98%a0%ef%b8%8f%f0%9f%a4%aemidnight-rules-judge-p/

Who ever heard of lower court judges providing “quality control” for appellate judges, working through a bureaucrat who (at the time the proposal was supposedly “finalized”) had never presided over a case in Immigration Court? And, let’s remember, these are haphazardly selected trial judges, a decidedly non-diverse, non-representative group, whose own qualifications, expertise, judicial temperament, and training have been widely criticized by experts in the field. Few of today’s Immigration Judges and BIA Judges would be “household names” among immigration, human rights, and constitutional law experts and scholars!

See,e.g., https://immigrationcourtside.com/2021/03/08/%f0%9f%8f%b4%e2%80%8d%e2%98%a0%ef%b8%8finside-a-failed-and-unjust-system-reuters-report-explains-how-the-trump-administration-destroyed-due-process-fundamental-fairness-humanity-in-the-u-s-immig/

The current mess is largely the result of Aimless Docket Reshuffling imposed on the Immigration Courts by unqualified politicos at the DOJ and their equally unqualified toadies at EOIR HQ. Also, DHS has more often than not ignored the realities of good docket management and the prudent exercise of prosecutorial discretion. It is not the fault of the vulnerable migrants and their lawyers victimized by this absurdly politicized, biased, and mal-administered system!

Restoration of justice at EOIR will require radical due process oriented changes starting with new, professional leadership from “practical scholars” in immigration and human rights as well as replacing BIA Judges with better qualified jurists selected from the ranks of those “practical scholars.” Quality control, expertise, competence, common sense, and human understanding are all lacking at today’s EOIR!

Judge Garland must “clean house!” Now!

🇺🇸⚖️🗽Due Process Forever!

PWS

03-12-21

⚖️🗽U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE SUSAN ILLSTON (ND CA) SHREDS, ENJOINS EOIR’S ANTI-DUE-PROCESS ☠️🤮“MIDNIGHT RULES” — Judge Praises, Cites Round Table’s 🛡⚔️ Amicus Brief!

EYORE — “Eyore In Distress”
Once A Symbol of Fairness, Due Process, & Best Practices, Now Gone “Belly Up”

https://www.courthousenews.com/judge-likely-to-block-trump-era-changes-to-immigration-court/

Here’s an excerpt from a report by Nichols Iovino @ Courthouse News:

. . . .

The judge added that she found an amicus brief submitted by 37 former immigration law judges particularly illuminating because it helped illustrate some of “real-life consequences” of the rule.

The former immigration judges wrote that the rule “makes it more difficult for applicants and defense counsel to brief relevant issues and present evidence, creates new challenges for immigration judges to consider extraordinary changes in circumstances and to control the timing of their own docket, and severely limits the [Board of Immigration Appeals’] authority to make legally sound decisions and remain an apolitical rung in the immigration system.”

A motion for a preliminary injunction is also pending in separate lawsuit challenging the same Trump-era rule in the District of Columbia.

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

Yesterday, Judge Illston issued a blistering 73-page order enjoining EOIR’S illegal rules: https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.372189/gov.uscourts.cand.372189.59.0.pdf

The case is CENTRO LEGAL DE LA RAZA v. EOIR.

“Sir Jeffrey” Chase reports:

Judge Illston referenced our brief four times throughout the opinion (p.5, n.2, and pp. 39, 52, and 55).

Jeffrey also added:

The brief (drafted by Steven Schulman and his team at Akin Gump) was based on our Round Table’s comments to the proposed regs. [Judge] Ilyce [Shugall] organized and filed the comments, and the drafting committee was made up of [Judges] Ilyce [Shugall], Rebecca [Jamil], Joan [Churchill], Cecelia [Espenoza] and myself.

So proud to be part of this team that is “making a difference for the NDPA,” and more importantly, for the vulnerable human lives at stake in the EOIR Star Chambers. 🏴‍☠️ And thanks so much to Steven Schulman and his pro bono team at Akin Gump for making this happen.

So, here’s my question: Why is the Biden Administration defending this totally illegal, disingenuous, not to mention stupid, attempt by EOIR to deny due process and fundamental fairness while implementing the “worst practices imaginable?”

Judge Garland must get a handle on the awful, festering mess 🤮🤡☠️ at EOIR sooner rather than later!

🇺🇸⚖️🗽Due Process Forever!

PWS

03-11-21

⚖️🗽🇺🇸FINALLY, JUDGE MERICK GARLAND CONFIRMED AS AG ON BIPARTISAN VOTE! — Cotton, Other GOP Sens Fear Qualified AG Will End Corruption, White Nationalism, Institutionalized Racism @ DOJ!

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

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/merrick-garland-attorney-general-confirmed-senate_n_60492399c5b65bed87d7f950

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Senate has confirmed Merrick Garland to be the next U.S. attorney general with a strong bipartisan vote, placing the widely-respected, veteran judge in the post as President Joe Biden has vowed to restore the Justice Department’s reputation for independence.

. . . .

The department’s priorities and messaging are expected to shift drastically in the Biden administration, with a focus more on civil rights issues, criminal justice overhauls and policing policies in the wake of nationwide protests over the death of Black Americans at the hands of law enforcement.

That expected shift prompted some Republicans to oppose Garland’s nomination, including Arkansas Sen. Tom Cotton, who said he believed the judge would be too soft on criminals and immigrants and “empower left wing radicals embedded inside the department.”

At his confirmation hearing, Garland emphasized his commitment to combating racial discrimination in policing, telling senators that said America doesn’t “yet have equal justice.” He also said he’d prioritize confronting the rise in extremist violence and domestic terror threats.

At one point in the hearing, he held back tears when speaking about his grandparents, who fled Russia for the U.S. amid antisemitism and persecution.

“The country took us in, and protected us, and I feel an obligation to the country to pay back, and this is the highest, best use of my own set of skills to pay back,” Garland said. “So I very much want to be the kind of attorney general that you’re saying I could become, and I’ll do my best to become that kind of attorney general.”

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

You can read the full article at the link.

Yeah, how ‘bout all those imaginary “left wing rads” embedded at the DOJ that Cotton has fabricated in the same way he fabricates threats to the U.S. from people of color.

Judge Garland’s real problem will be returning respect for civil rights, voting rights, immigrants’ rights, women’s rights, First Amendment rights, non-right-wing-Christian religious rights, LGBTQ+ rights, and Due Process to a Department that basically abandoned the Constitution and the rule of law to carry out a scofflaw, racially charged far-right agenda under Trump!

🇺🇸🗽⚖️Due Process Forever!

PWS

03-10-21

⚖️🗽🛡RECOGNIZING WOMEN REFUGEES: Professor Karen Musalo @ ImmigrationProf Blog — Don’t Add A “6th Protected Ground” To The Statute; Get Some Better-Qualified Judges 🧑🏽‍⚖️ Who Will Respect & Follow Existing Law To Protect Those Already Covered, But Wrongfully Denied Refuge By Bad Judging & Restrictionist Policies!

https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/immigration/2021/03/guest-post-the-wrong-answer-to-the-right-question-how-to-address-the-failure-of-protection-for-gende.html

By Immigration Prof

Share

The Wrong Answer to the Right Question: How to Address the Failure of Protection for Gender-Based Claims?

By Professor Karen Musalo, Bank of America Professor of International Law, Director of the Center for Gender & Refugee Studies, UC Hastings

In 1996 I was honored to litigate the first case at the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), Matter of Kasinga,[1] that opened the door to protection for women fleeing gender-based harms. To qualify for recognition as a refugee under U.S. law, an individual must establish “persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution” on account of one of five grounds – “race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership in a particular social group.”[2] This definition in the 1980 Refugee Act essentially adopts the standard set forth in the 1951 UN Refugee Convention[3] and its 1967 U.N. Refugee Protocol,[4] which the U.S. ratified in 1968.

The woman seeking asylum in the Kasinga case fled female genital cutting and forced marriage. In a ground-breaking decision, the BIA ruled that cutting was persecution, and it was “on account of” her membership in a gender-defined social group. In so ruling, the BIA was following the guidance that UNHCR has issued over a number of years, noting that the absence of gender as a protected ground should not impede protection for women fleeing persecution, because the particular social group ground encompasses gender-defined groups.[5]

The Kasinga decision was a breakthrough for women, and a highwater mark in U.S. adjudicators following international guidance. It also raised expectations that U.S. law would continue to evolve and extend protection to women fleeing the many forms of gender-based violence to which they are subject. However, that has not been the case, and there have been retreats from protection across administrations, although undoubtedly we witnessed the most dramatic attempts to end protection in gender claims during the Trump administration, which issued extremely limiting Attorney General decisions, such as Matter of A-B- I,[6] and Matter of A-B- II –[7] as well as regulations[8] – currently enjoined[9]—that explicitly rule out gender-based claims.

The Biden administration has committed itself to reviewing the issue of protection for those fleeing gender-based violence.[10] As we consider how to remedy the issue, some argue for a legislative amendment to the refugee definition, adding gender as a sixth ground to the statute’s five protected grounds of race, religion, nationality, political opinion and membership in a particular social group. This is the wrong solution. It would not only repeat the errors of the past (amending the refugee definition in 1996, discussed below), but it would also fail to adequately protect survivors of gender-based violence. At the same time, it would lead to the quite foreseeable consequence of leaving many deserving asylum seekers outside the ambit of refugee protection. It is also likely to signal to other Convention State parties that unless they also add a sixth ground, they could deny protection to women and girls without running afoul of the treaty’s obligations.

In order to prescribe a remedy, one first has to diagnose the illness; in order to understand why the sixth ground solution is wrong, we need to examine what occurred after Kasinga that limited protection in subsequent claims involving women fleeing gender-based persecution. . . . .

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

Read the rest of Karen’s outstanding analysis at the link.

Here’s a question from last summer’s “Jeopardy style” final exam in Immigration Law & Policy @ Georgetown Law:

A: Judge Schmidt’s favorite case.

Q: What is Matter of Kasinga?

Happy to say that everyone got that one right! Of course, I wrote the decision in Matter of Kasinga!

Karen’s bottom line: “We should be working to bring the U.S. into compliance with UNHCR’s social group interpretation, rather than surrendering to its flawed interpretation, by adding a sixth ground.”

The key is better Federal Judges, from the Immigration Courts all the way up to the Supremes: Judges who are “practical scholars” in human rights and applied due process; judges who have represented asylum seekers, particularly women, and understand their plight.

This week, President Biden announced the creation of the White House Gender Policy Council. https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2021/03/08/executive-order-on-establishment-of-the-white-house-gender-policy-council/

That’s a nice gesture. But, as I always say, actions are what really counts. So here are actions that Judge Garland can take immediately as Attorney General to finally fulfill the promise of Matter of Kasinga:

Vacate the atrocious, misogynist, perversion of asylum law (not to mention facts of record) by Sessions in Matter of A-B-;
Appoint some female “practical scholars in human rights” to appellate judgeships on the BIA.

That’s how to really honor Women’s History Month!

To understand the human impact of Sessions’s grotesque misconstruction of asylum law and the relevant facts in Matter of A-B-, check out this video short featuring Karen and others along with Ms. A-B-: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QRQpXRWlQL0

I generally agree with Karen’s concerns about specific gender-based legislation potentially having an unintended negative effect. That is certainly the fate of past unsuccessful attempts to include gender-based asylum in the regulations.

They essentially were “hijacked” by DOJ litigators and enforcement-oriented policy officials looking for ways to facially appease women’s rights groups, while actually proposing to restrict eligibility and make it easier for OIL and the SG’s Office to defend denials of asylum. They also sought to create hyper-technical requirements that would have effectively made it impossible for any unrepresented individual to properly set forth a “cognizable particular social group.”

These, in and of themselves, are reasons for removing the Immigration Courts from the DOJ and creating an independent Article I structure. The “ultimate insult to injury” was when EOIR enthusiastically participated in Stephen Miller’s currently-enjoined attempt to completely write gender-based asylum out of the law. Absurdly, that came at a time when gender-based persecution has become endemic throughout the world!

Not surprisingly, the DOJ, a prosecutorial agency at heart, is most often interested in “litigation strategies” to make it easier for the Government to successfully defend the burgeoning immigration litigation in Federal Court, rather than guaranteeing justice for asylum seekers and other migrants. Quite ironically, what would really reduce the volume of civil immigration litigation is more practical, expert decision making from better qualified Immigration Judges at the “retail level” of the system.

Gimmicks to “game” the Federal Court system against asylum seekers and other migrants by skirting due process and fundamental fairness have actually contributed to, rather than reduced, the amount of civil immigration litigation the Circuits. It has also generated many avoidable “Circuit conflicts” that require attention on Supremes’ limited docket. The failure of the DOJ, the Immigration Courts, and the Federal Courts to recognize and protect the due process rights of asylum seekers and other migrants has directly carried over into the failure of our justice system to achieve equal justice under law for racial minorities.

“Institutionalized racism” is inextricably linked to “Dred Scottification” of migrants of color in the Immigration Courts! The Biden Administration can’t solve the former without addressing the latter!

Bad judging and skewed policies on the “retail level” create multiple problems that adversely affect the entire Federal Justice system. I guarantee that they will not be solved by more restrictionist gimmicks and and unduly narrow and tone-deaf interpretations by judges and policy officials who lack the necessary expertise in immigration and human rights laws and the real-life understanding and perspective of the human consequences of the choices that judges make on a daily basis.

But, I also think that in addition to better judges, it is important to revise the statutory language to make it more explicitly inclusive and clarify that gender-based asylum, family based asylum, and other protected groups are examples, but not limits, of those covered by “particular social group.” Also, the statute should reverse the BIA’s stilted restrictionist interpretations (all too often incorrectly given “deference” by Circuit Courts shirking their duty) of “nexus” as a vehicle to deny asylum rather than an expansive concept that can and should be used to extend life-saving protections where necessary.

Otherwise, as Trump, Sessions, Barr, and Miller demonstrated, needed protection becomes largely a matter of who is appointing the judges at any particular point in time. Protection must and should be more durable — for all refugees including, but not limited, to those seeking gender-based protection!

Better Federal Judges are the beginning, but by no means the end, of what is needed to make due process, fundamental fairness, and genuine refugee protections the hallmarks of American law. They are also required to turn institutionalized racism into equal justice for all persons in America, regardless of race, religion, gender, or other defining personal characteristics.

🇺🇸⚖️🗽Due Process Forever! Asylum Laws Must Protect, Not Reject!🧑🏽‍⚖️🛡

PWS

03-10-21

🏴‍☠️INSIDE A FAILED AND UNJUST SYSTEM: Reuters Report Explains How The Trump Administration Destroyed Due Process, Fundamental Fairness, & Humanity In The U.S. Immigration Courts!

Mica Rosenberg
National Immigration Reporter, Reuters

Four Horsemen — BIA Asylum Panel In Action
Albrecht Dürer, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-immigration-trump-court-special-r/special-report-how-trump-administration-left-indelible-mark-on-u-s-immigration-courts-idUSKBN2B0179

Reade Levinson, Kristina Cooke, & Mica Rosenberg report for Reuters:

(Reuters) – On a rainy September day in 2018, Jeff Sessions, then U.S. attorney general, addressed one of the largest classes of newly hired immigration judges in American history.

“The vast majority of asylum claims are not valid,” he said during a swearing-in ceremony in Falls Church, Virginia, according to his prepared remarks. If judges do their job, he said, “the number of illegal aliens and the number of baseless claims will fall.”

It was a clear message to the incoming class: Most of the immigrants who appear in court do not deserve to remain in the United States.

As U.S. President Joe Biden works to undo many of the restrictive immigration policies enacted by former President Donald Trump, he will confront one of his predecessor’s indelible legacies: the legion of immigration judges Trump’s administration hired.

The administration filled two-thirds of the immigration courts’ 520 lifetime positions with judges who, as a whole, have disproportionately ordered deportation, according to a Reuters analysis of more than 800,000 immigration cases decided over the past 20 years.

Judges hired under Trump ordered immigrants deported in 69% of cases, compared to 58% for judges hired as far back as the administration of President Ronald Reagan. Because hundreds of thousands of immigrants have cases before the court each year, that 11 percentage-point difference translates to tens of thousands more people ordered deported each year. Appeals are rarely successful.

Biden has promised to dramatically expand the courts by doubling the number of immigration judges and other staff. That’s a worthwhile effort, said Stephen Legomsky, a former chief counsel of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services who is now a professor emeritus at Washington University School of Law in St. Louis. “But the challenge is going to be tremendous.”

Although there are no statutory limits on the number of judges who can be hired, expanding the court would be costly and could take years, immigration law experts said.

“The fact that these (Trump-era) judges are already in place inhibits him a great deal,” Legomsky said of Biden.

Stephen Miller, the key architect of Trump’s immigration agenda, told Reuters that the administration had aimed to hire more immigration judges as part of an effort to “create more integrity in the asylum process” and quickly resolve what he termed meritless claims to cut down on a massive backlog.

“Most of the people that are coming unlawfully between ports of entry on the southwest border are not eligible for any recognized form of asylum,” Miller said in an interview. “There should be a very high rejection rate.”

Under U.S. law, immigrants are eligible for asylum only if they can prove they were being persecuted in their home countries on the basis of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group or their political opinions. Miller said many migrants arriving at the border are coming for economic reasons and present fraudulent asylum claims.

Sessions, who as attorney general had the final say in hiring immigration judges, told Reuters that “the problem is not with the Trump judges. The problem was with some of the other judges that seemed to not be able to manage their dockets, or, in many cases, rendered rulings that were not consistent with the law.

The Trump administration’s successors to Sessions, who was forced out in 2018, did not respond to requests for comment.

. . . .

“There has been a significant lack of basic understanding of immigration law and policy with many – not all – but many of the new hires under the Trump administration,” said Susan Roy, an attorney and former immigration judge appointed during the administration of President George W. Bush who has represented immigrants before some new judges.

Reuters spoke with eight other former immigration judges, five of whom served under Trump, who generally echoed her view. Sitting immigration judges are not permitted to speak to the media.

Even for judges with immigration backgrounds, the type of experience they have has been controversial. In 2017, a report commissioned by the Justice Department found a lack of diversity of experience among judges hired, due to an excess of former prosecutors here from Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

. . . .

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

Read the rest of the report at the link.

Hon. Sue Roy is a distinguished member of our Round Table of Former Immigration Judges 🛡⚔️ now in private practice representing asylum seekers and other migrants in Immigration Court.

Hon. Charles Honeyman, quoted elsewhere in the article, is also a member of the Round Table who actually was removed from a case for failing to carry out what he believed to be improper instructions from his “supervisors” who were implementing Sessions’s anti-immigrant policies.

Stephen Legomsky is a former USCIS Senior Executive and esteemed retired Professor who generally is acknowledged as one of American’s leading scholar-experts on immigration and human rights.

Judge Dana Leigh Marks, quoted elsewhere in the article, is a former President of the National Association of Immigration Judges who also successfully argued the landmark Supreme Court case INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, which established the generous well-founded fear standard for asylum.

Sessions and Miller are notorious White Nationalist xenophobes who have neither represented asylum seekers nor been Immigration Judges. Their efforts to eradicate international norms and legal protections for vulnerable asylum seekers, and their particular bias against female asylum seekers, have been widely criticized and panned by human rights experts throughout the world, as well as enjoined or overruled by some U.S. Courts. They were architects of the widely condemned child separation policy and the New American Gulag (“NAG”).

EOIR is the failed DOJ agency that houses the dysfunctional Immigration Courts.

🇺🇸🗽⚖️Due Process Forever!

PWS

03-08-21

⚖️“THERE’S A BIGGER CHALLENGE FACING THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION!” — Broken Immigration Courts 👎🏻⚖️ — It’s Not Just Dumb & Inhumane Rules Imposed By The Trump Regime — It’s A Toxic “Mindset” Among Some EOIR Judges That Mirrors & Reinforces The Dehumanizing Actions Of ICE Enforcement!☠️

https://www.chicagotribune.com/opinion/commentary/ct-opinion-immigration-deportation-biden-20210304-ftq7zit5j5altchueuwm3rjxny-story.html

Stephen Franklin in the Chicago Tribune;

. . . .

The Biden administration has signaled that it would like to narrow arrests and deportations to those persons convicted of national security threats and other serious felonies. That would keep many of those, like the fast-food worker in Indianapolis, from immigrant court.

But there’s a bigger challenge facing the Biden administration.

Can it wipe away rules that have fed into a mindset that seemed to take root nationally among some court and immigration enforcement officials?

The rules were meant to erase an immigrant presence in the U.S. And they came to life far away from the nation’s borders in the daily grind of the immigration courts. For well over two years, I sat in Chicago’s immigration court watching, reporting and wondering how his could be happening.

Day by day I watched as the crowds huddled anxiously in the Chicago court’s major waiting room grew. Judges’ caseloads, as listed on the waiting room walls, eventually doubled for some to as many as 100 a day.

Why?

When Trump took office there were 542,411 deportation cases in the nation’s immigration courts. When he left, the number was 1.29 million. The backlog grew as arrests grew, as more were detained, as bonds went up, and new rules raised new hurdles for immigrants in the courts. The average wait for a case in Chicago’s court was 945 days in 2016, and that grew to 1,014 in 2021, 14% higher than the national average.

The long wait perplexed a judge one day as she scanned her computer looking to schedule a new hearing. The best she could find, she told an Iraqi woman in her 80s, was a date four years down the road. The long delay was not lost on the woman’s lawyer’s face. The woman’s husband was not in court because he was facing brain surgery.

A series of canceled hearings left a middle-age Palestinian’s life dangling in the court for seven years. The long delay left him anxious and panicked about the fate of his family back home, where they faced the threat of violence that had already taken several relatives’ lives. He won asylum but several months later, and before he could bring his family to the U.S., his teenage son was killed, a targeted victim of the violence that had haunted him and his relatives.

I took note after the Trump administration said in August 2019 it would push older cases back in 10 courts across the U.S., including Chicago, so that cases involving newly arrived immigrant families could move more rapidly through the courts. It was a clear warning that the U.S. would deal quickly with immigrants arriving at its borders.

. . . .

**********

Read the complete op-ed at the link.

The solutions are not rocket science. As many of us have suggested they include:

New leadership at EOIR firmly committed to judicial independence, due process, best practices and competent judicial Administration;
New judges at the BIA — “practical experts” in asylum and immigration laws committed to due process, fair application of the law, and humane treatment of individuals;
Slash the docket immediately to manageable levels by removing aged cases that would fit the legalization proposals in the Biden Bill or where relief could be granted by USCIS;
Get recent arrivals represented and decide their cases on a fair, reasonable, timely, predictable schedule (e.g., end “Aimless Docket Reshuffling”);
Establish and implement merit-based criteria for recruitment and retention of judges.

It won’t happen without new personnel and different attitudes. There’s plenty of talent out here to rebuild a high-quality, expert, due-process oriented immigration judiciary. Judge Garland and his team just have to move out those who have created and furthered dysfunction and replace them with better-qualified pros who can get the job done for American justice and the millions of individuals whose lives, hopes, and futures are tied up in the EOIR mess !

Article I is the ultimate solution! But, Judge Garland can start making long overdue changes the day he is sworn in as AG (probably later this week). The only question: Will he?

A Better EOIR For A Better America!🇺🇸It’s not rocket science!🚀

🇺🇸⚖️🗽Due Process Forever!

PWS

03-08-21

LATEST FROM “SIR JEFFREY” 🛡⚔️ — “Determining Political Opinion: Problems and Solutions — Jeffrey S. Chase | Opinions/Analysis on Immigration Law”

https://www.jeffreyschase.com/blog/2021/3/7/determining-political-opinion-problems-and-solutions

JEFFREY S. CHASE | OPINIONS/ANALYSIS ON IMMIGRATION LAW

Blog Archive Press and Interviews Calendar Contact

Determining Political Opinion: Problems and Solutions

Regarding political opinion, the refugee law scholar Atle Grahl-Madsen famously explained that refugee protection “is designed to suit the situation of common [people], not only that of philosophers…The instinctive or spontaneous reaction to usurpation or oppression is [as] equally valid” as the “educated, cultivated, reflected opinion.”1 A recent decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit provides an opportunity to reflect on this premise.

In Zelaya-Moreno v. Wilkinson, a young man was targeted for recruitment by MS-13. On two occasions, Zelaya directly announced to the gang’s members his reason for refusing to join: because gangs were bad for his hometown and country. Both times, the gang members responded by beating him, fracturing his arm the second time. They also threatened to kill him if he continued to refuse to join. The questions raised are whether Zelaya’s instinctive, simply-worded response expressed a political opinion, and if so, did that opinion form part of the reason for the beatings and threat?

The Immigration Judge recognized Zelaya’s statement to the gang to be a political opinion for asylum purposes. However, the IJ wasn’t persuaded from the record that Zelaya’s opinion was why the gang beat him. As expressed by the IJ, the beatings were caused by “Zelaya’s refusal to join the gang, irrespective of the reasons.” It doesn’t seem that the IJ considered whether the gang members imputed a political opinion to the act of refusal per se.

On appeal, the BIA took a far more extreme position, stating that because gangs are not political organizations and their activities are not political in nature, “expressing an opinion against their group is not expressing a political opinion.” This happens to be a position that EOIR and DHS (in defiance of much circuit case law and expert opinion to the contrary) later sought to codify in regulations that fortunately remain enjoined at present.

The Second Circuit in Zelaya-Moreno rejected the Board’s narrow view of political opinion. In fact, the court only last year, in its decision in Hernandez-Chacon v. Barr, recognized the act of resisting rape by members of the very same gang in El Salvador as the expression of a feminist, anti-patriarchy political opinion. Significantly, the victim in that case hadn’t stated any opinion to the gang members; it was only years later in front of the immigration judge that she gave her reason for resisting as “because I have every right to.”

As it has done in other decisions, the Second Circuit emphasized the need for a “complex and contextual factual inquiry” in political opinion determinations. It conducted a survey of cases in which political opinion was found, and of others in which it wasn’t. Unfortunately, the majority upheld the decision that Zelaya had not expressed a political opinion to the MS-13 members, stating that “[s]o far as the record shows, his objection to them is not rooted in any sort of disagreement with the policies they seek to impose nor any ideology they espouse.”

“So far as the record shows” is critical. I haven’t seen the record in this case, but I believe it might serve to demonstrate that while Grahl-Madsen correctly assigned equal validity to the opinions of the commoner and the intellectual, in practice, claims brought by members of the former group often require assistance from the latter in persuading adjudicators of the political nature of their words or actions.

For example, in Hernandez-Chacon, context for the petitioner’s resistance was provided by the affidavit of a lawyer and human rights expert who was able to articulate the patriarchal gender bias in Salvadoran society from which a political opinion could be gleaned from the asylum-seeker’s act of resistance alone. In another decision cited by the court, Alvarez-Lagos v. Barr, the Fourth Circuit was able to rely on the explanation of two experts on Central American gangs that the petitioner’s refusal to comply with extortion demands would be viewed by the gang as “political opposition” and “a form of political disobedience.”

In Zelaya-Moreno, the dissenting judge (in an opinion worth reading) was able to draw a political inference from the facts alone. It seemed that the two judges in the majority required more. But in finding the statements or actions of an applicant alone to be insufficient, is our present system of refugee protection genuinely designed to suit the situation of common people as well as philosophers?

In the view of the dissenting judge, yes. In that judge’s words, Zelaya “sought refuge here after standing up to MS members, refusing their demands that he join them, and informing them that he did not support them and considered them a blight on his native El Salvador. Our asylum laws protect individuals like Zelaya-Moreno who face persecution for such politically courageous stands.”

But in the view of the majority, Zelaya had expressed nothing “more than the generalized statement ‘gangs are bad.’ Thus, we cannot conclude that Zelaya holds a political opinion within the meaning of the statute, and therefore that the BIA erred in concluding that he was not eligible for asylum on this ground.” Would additional documentation providing the complex, contextual analysis the court mentioned earlier in its decision have delivered the two judges in the majority to the place already reached by their dissenting colleague?

The United Nations High Commissioner on Refugees is a good reference source on such issues. In its Guidance Note on Refugee Claims Relating to Victims of Organized Crimes, UNHCR stated at para. 45 that in its view, “political opinion needs to be understood in a broad sense to encompass “any opinion on any matter in which the machinery of State, government, society, or policy may be engaged.” It continued at para. 47 that powerful gangs such as MS-13 may exercise de facto power in certain areas, and their activities and those of certain State agents may be closely intertwined. At para. 50, UNHCR stated that “rejecting a recruitment attempt may convey anti-gang sentiments as clearly as an opinion expressed in a more traditional political manner by, for instance, vocalizing criticism of gangs in public meetings or campaigns.” And at para. 51, UNHCR added that “[p]olitical opinion can also be imputed to the applicant by the gang without the applicant taking any action or making a particular statement him/herself. A refusal to give in to the demands of a gang is viewed by gangs as an act of betrayal, and gangs typically impute anti-gang sentiment to the victim whether or not s/he voices actual gang opposition.”

Had this document been included in the record, would it have been enough to persuade the majority that the BIA had erred in rejecting Zelaya’s claim that he was targeted on account of his political opinion? If so, how many pro se asylum applicants would understand the need to supplement their claims to provide this context, or know what type of document would be sufficient, or how to find it?

The Seventh Circuit had foreseen this problem 15 years ago. In a 2006 decision, Banks v. Gonzales, the court opined that Immigration Court needs its own country experts, who would operate much as vocational experts do in disability hearings before the Social Security Administration’s judges. In my opinion, an alternative approach would be for EOIR to follow the example of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, which maintains National Documentation Packages that are referenced in all cases by adjudicators of refugee claims.

During my time in government, I oversaw the creation of country condition pages on EOIR’s Virtual Law Library, which were built, and continue to be updated, by EOIR’s Law Library staff. However, EOIR did not see fit to make its contents part of the records of hearing in asylum cases. It is for this reason that UNHCR’s Eligibility Guidelines For Assessing International Protection Needs of Asylum Seekers in El Salvador, which contains much of the same language as the Guidance Note quoted above, and which expresses the specific conclusion that “persons perceived by a gang as contravening its rules or resisting its authority may be in need of international refugee protection on the grounds of their (imputed) political opinion,”2 is found on EOIR’s own website on the country page for “El Salvador,” yet wasn’t even considered in Zelaya-Moreno.

Considering the growing number of pro se applicants, the lack of legal resources available to those held in remote detention facilities, and the short time frame to prepare for hearings in certain categories of cases, I can’t see why the EOIR country pages should not be made part of the hearing record here as in Canada. It’s possible that such a policy would have led to a different result in Zelaya.

Furthermore, the BIA hears plenty of cases involving expert opinions supporting the conclusion that those resisting gangs such as MS-13 were harmed on account of their political opinion. Issuing precedent opinions recognizing the context that politicizes statements and actions such as Zelaya’s would result in much greater efficiency, consistency, and fairness in Immigration Court and Asylum Office adjudications.

Realistically, I harbor no illusions that the recent change in administration will bring about such enlightened changes to asylum adjudication anytime soon. But we must still continue to argue for such change. As the dissenting opinion in Zelaya stated in its conclusion: “[w]hile it may be too late for Zelaya-Moreno, the BIA and the Department of Justice can right this wrong for future asylum seekers. I urge them to reconsider their approach to anti-gang political opinion cases to ensure those who stand up to fearsome dangers are welcomed into this country rather than forced back to face torture and death.” As noted above, it wouldn’t take much effort on EOIR’s part to accomplish this.

Notes:

Atle Grahl-Madsen, The Status of Refugees in International Law, 228, 251 (1966) (quoted in Deborah E. Anker, The Law of Asylum in the United States (2020 Ed.) § 5:17, fn. 3.

UNHCR Eligibility Guidelines For Assessing International Protection Needs of Asylum Seekers in El Salvador at 29-30.

Copyright 2021 Jeffrey S. Chase. All rights reserved.

Reprinted with permission.

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

Truly wonderful, Jeffrey! One of your “best ever,” in my view! (And, they are all great, so that’s saying something.)

Imagine what could be achieved at the BIA with real judges, experts in asylum law, thoughtful, practical analysis, intellectual leadership, and inspiration to a fairer future, rather than the current Clown Show 🤡🦹🏿‍♂️ inventing bogus ways to ”get to no!”

As Jeffrey demonstrates, we could choose to protect rather than to reject. There has always been a tendency to do the latter at the DOJ; but, under White Nationalist nativist Jeff Sessions and his successors it has gone “hog wild” — rejection has been falsely portrayed as a “duty” rather than an extremely poor choice and an abdication of moral and legal responsibility!

Today’s BIA is basically incapable of problem solving. Time and again their strained, stilted anti-immigrant, anti-due-process, pro-worst-practices interpretations not only spell doom for those coming before them, but also promote inefficiency and backlogs in an already overwhelmed system. They also send messages of disdain and disrespect for the rights and humanity of people of color that redounds throughout our struggling U.S. Legal System.

I’ll keep saying it: Whatever positive message Judge Garland and his team at DOJ intend to send about racial justice will be fatally undermined as long as “Dred Scottification” and disdain for the due process rights of migrants is the “order of the day” at the one Federal Court System the DOJ runs: The U.S. Immigration Court! As long as EOIR is a “bad joke” the rest of Judge Garland’s reforms will fall flat!

The right judges 🧑🏽‍⚖️ at the BIA could turn this thing around! Remains to be seen if it will happen. But, it’s not rocket science. It just requires putting the right folks in charge, in place, and giving them the support and independence to engage in “creative problem solving.”

Judge Garland should be confirmed next week. And the confirmation hearings for Lisa Monaco (DAG) and Vanita Gupta (AAG) have been scheduled.

Some additional points:

The dissenter in the Second Circuit’s decision in Zelaya-Moreno v. Wilkinson is Judge Rosemary Pooler. Judge Pooler has had a long and distinguished career. Perhaps she would like to cap it off by becoming Chair of the BIA and leading by example;
Shows the importance of experts, which is probably why the BIA has gone out of its way to demean them and encourage IJs to ignore their evidence;
Jeffrey’s analysis supports my “Better BIA for a Better America” 🇺🇸program;
As Justice Sotomayor says: “It is not justice.” That’s my view on today’s EOIR!

Due Process Forever! ⚖️🗽

PWS

03-07-21

🏴‍☠️BIA CONTINUES TO SPEW FORTH ERRORS IN LIFE OR DEATH ☠️ ASYLUM CASES, SAYS 4TH CIR. — “Three-In-One” — Improperly Disregarding Corroborating Evidence; Incorrect Legal Standard On Past Persecution; Wrong Nexus Finding! — Arita-Deras v. Wilkinson

https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/191978.P.pdf

Arita-Deras v. Wilkinson, 4th Cir., 03-05-21, Published

PANEL: GREGORY, Chief Judge, and AGEE and KEENAN, Circuit Judges

OPINION BY: Judge Barbara Milano Keenan

KEY QUOTE:

Maria Del Refugio Arita-Deras, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions for review of a final order of removal entered by the Board of Immigration Appeals (the Board).1 The Board affirmed an immigration judge’s (IJ) conclusion that Arita-Deras was not eligible for asylum, withholding of removal, or protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The Board: (1) agreed with the IJ that Arita-Deras failed to support her claims with sufficient corroborating evidence; (2) found that Arita-Deras failed to prove that she suffered from past persecution because she had not been harmed physically; and (3) concluded that Arita-Deras failed to establish a nexus between the alleged persecution and a protected ground.

Upon our review, we conclude that the Board improperly discounted Arita-Deras’ corroborating evidence, applied an incorrect legal standard for determining past persecution, and erred in its nexus determination. Accordingly, we grant Arita-Deras’ petition and remand her case to the Board for further proceedings.

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

After eight years of bouncing around the system at various levels THIS “Not Quite Good Enough For Government Work” error-fest is what we get from EOIR! As I keep saying, no wonder they are running a 1.3 million case backlog, clogging the Circuit Courts with incredibly shoddy work, and in many cases sending vulnerable refugees back to death or torture under incorrect fact findings and blatantly wrong legal interpretations!

Again, nothing profound about this claim; just basic legal and analytical errors that often flow from the “think of any reason to deny” culture. EOIR just keeps repeating the same basic mistakes again and again even after being “outed” by the Circuits!

This case illustrates why the unrealistically high asylum denial numbers generated by the biased EOIR system and parroted by DHS should never be trusted. This respondent, appearing initially without a lawyer, was actually coerced by an Immigration Judge into accepting a “final order” of removal with a totally incorrect, inane, mis-statement of the law. “Haste makes waste,” shoddy, corner cutting procedures, judges deficient in asylum legal knowledge, and a stunning lack of commitment to due process and fundamental fairness are a burden to our justice system in addition to being a threat to the lives of individual asylum seekers.

Only when she got a lawyer prior to removal was this respondent able to get her case reopened for a full asylum hearing. Even then, the IJ and the BIA both totally screwed up the analysis and entered incorrect orders. Only because this respondent was fortunate enough to be assisted by one of the premier pro bono groups in America, the CAIR Coalition, was she able to get some semblance of justice on appeal to the Circuit Court!

I’m very proud to say that a member of the “CAIR Team,” Adina Appelbaum, program Director, Immigration Impact Lab, is my former Georgetown ILP student, former Arlington Intern, and a “charter member” of the NDPA! If my memory serves me correctly, she is also a star alum of the CALS Asylum Clinic @ Georgetown Law. No wonder Adina made the Forbes “30 Under 30” list of young Americans leaders! She and others like her in the NDPA are ready to go in and start cleaning up and improving EOIR right now! Judge Garland take note!

Despite CAIR’s outstanding efforts, Ms. Arita-Deras still is nowhere near getting the relief to which she should be entitled under a proper application of the law by expert judges committed to due process. Instead, after eight years, she plunges back into EOIR’s 1.3 million case “never never land” where she might once again end up with Immigration Judges at both the trial and appellate level who are not qualified to be hearing asylum cases because they don’t know the law and they are “programmed to deny” to meet their “deportation quotas” in support of ICE Enforcement.

Focus on it folks! This is America; yet individuals on trial for their lives face a prosecutor and a “judge” who are on the same side! And, they are often forced to do it without a lawyer and without even understanding the complex proceedings going on around them! How is this justice? It isn’t! So why is it allowed to continue?

Also, let’s not forget that under the recently departed regime, EOIR falsely claimed that having an attorney didn’t make a difference in success rates for respondents. That’s poppycock! Actually, as the Vera Institute recently documented the success rate for represented respondents is an astounding 10X that of unrepresented individuals. In any functional system, that differential would be more than sufficient to establish a “prima facie” denial of due process any time an asylum seeker (particularly one in detention) is forced to proceed without representation.

🇺🇸⚖️🗽🧑🏽‍⚖️VERA INSTITUTE RECOMMENDS FEDERAL DEFENDER PROGRAM FOR IMMIGRANTS — Widespread Public Support For Representation In Immigration Court!

Yet, this miscarriage of justice occurs every day in Immigration Courts throughout America! Worse yet, EOIR and DHS have purposely “rigged” the system in various ways to impede and discourage effective representation.

To date, while flagging EOIR for numerous life-threatening errors, the Article IIIs have failed to come to grips with the obvious: The current EOIR system provides neither due process nor fundamental fairness to the individuals coming before these “courts” (that aren’t “courts” at all)!

Acting AG Wilkinson has piled up an impressive string of legal defeats in immigration matters in just a short time on the job. It’s going to be up to Judge Garland to finally make it right. It’s urgent for both our nation and the individuals whose rights are being stomped upon by a broken system on a daily basis!

🇺🇸⚖️🗽Due Process Forever! Failed Courts Never!

PWS

03–05-21

“ELECTIONS HAVE CONSEQUENCES” — Biden Administration Ends Trump’s Fruitless Campaign Against States & Cities — Dean Kevin Johnson With A Summary From ImmigrationProf Blog!

Kevin R. Johnson
Dean
UC Davis School of Law

https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/immigration/2021/03/justice-dept-asks-supreme-court-to-dismiss-sanctuary-immigration-suits.html

Elections truly do have consequences. The Biden administration in its early days has removed some high profile immigration cases from the Supreme Court docket, moving in a different direction than the Trump administration. NBC News reports (see also CNN and Bloomberg) that, yesterday, the Justice Department asked the Court to dismiss three lawsuits over the lawfulness of the Trump administration’s efforts to de-fund “sanctuary’ cities.

In brief letters to the Supreme Court, the Justice Department said the cases should be dismissed, indicating that the government will no longer seek to enforce that policy.

Lower courts were divided on the legality of the Trump de-funding policy. The Supreme Court had been deferring action on the appeals while the new administration decided how to handle the cases. The cases are Wilkinson v. San Francisco, 20-666; New York v. Department of Justice, 20-795; and City of New York v. Department of Justice, 20-796.

KJ

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

Thanks for the nice summary and links, Kevin!

The Trump regime waged a four-year unsuccessful war against American local governments who were seeking to protect their ethnic communities from ICE abuses and to encourage community cooperation with police in addressing violent crime in those communities. How did they go about it: By threatening to cut off certain Federal funding for local law enforcement.

If it sounds stupid and wasteful, that’s because it was. It also helped make ICE probably “the most despised law enforcement agency in America.” Again, not an effective strategy for real cooperative law enforcement.

But, despite all his bluster and false claims, Trump never, ever was about “law enforcement.” That was clear even before he sent his “magamorons” out to attack our Capitol. No, it always was about stoking fear, hate, and throwing “red meat” to his base for political purposes.

PWS

03-05-21

🏴‍☠️PERSECUTED IN TWO COUNTRIES, SOMALIAN REFUGEE FEELS FULL BRUNT OF EOIR’S INCOMPETENCE 🤮 — Firm Resettlement, NGA Persecution, Past Persecution, Nexus, Misconstruction Of Regulations, Failure To Apply Circuit Precedent Among The “Comedy Of Errors” Inflicted By Imposters Masquerading As “Expert Judges” 🤡 — Aden v. Wilkinson, 9th Cir.

Aden v. Wilkinson, 9th Cir., 03-04-21, published

https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2021/03/04/17-71313.pdf

PANEL: Before: Richard A. Paez and Johnnie B. Rawlinson,

Circuit Judges, and George H. Wu,** District Judge. Opinion by Judge Paez;

Concurrence by Judge Rawlinson

* The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

** The Honorable George H. Wu, United States District Judge for the Central District of California, sitting by designation.

SUMMARY BY COURT STAFF:

Immigration

Granting Abdi Ali Asis Aden’s petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ dismissal of his appeal of an Immigration Judge’s denial of his applications for asylum and withholding of removal from Somalia, and remanding, the panel held that the Board erred in concluding that Aden did not qualify for an exception to the firm resettlement bar, and that the evidence compelled the conclusion that he suffered past persecution in Somalia on account of a protected ground.

Aden asserted that he suffered persecution in Somalia by members of Al-Shabaab, a militant terrorist organization affiliated with Al-Qaeda and the Islamic State, after his brother refused their orders to shut down his theater showing American and Hindi movies and sports, which Al-Shabaab viewed as “Satanic” movies. The Board concluded that Aden was ineligible for asylum because he was firmly resettled in South Africa, and that he failed to establish that he suffered past persecution in Somalia on account of a protected ground.

The Board noted that Aden presented “ample evidence” of persecution in South Africa, but nonetheless determined that he failed to qualify for the restricted-residence exception to the firm resettlement bar because the persecution he faced was at the hands of private individuals, rather than the South

*** This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader.

ADEN V. WILKINSON 3

African government. The panel concluded that the Board erred in doing do, holding that the restricted-residence exception applies when the country’s authorities are unable or unwilling to protect the applicant from persecution by nongovernment actors.

The panel held that the evidence compelled the conclusion that Aden suffered past persecution in Somalia, where in addition to physically beating Aden, members of Al-Shabaab kept tabs on him by contacting his brother and warned they would kill Aden and his brother if they continued to disobey Al-Shabaab’s command to close their theater. The panel wrote that the chain of events revealed that Al-Shabaab intended to coerce Aden to submit to its new political and religious order, and used offensive strategies— beatings, destruction of property, and death threats—to achieve this goal. Further, the panel explained that continuing political and social turmoil caused by Al- Shabaab provided context for the harm and death threats that Aden experienced, which together with the past harm, compelled the conclusion that he suffered past persecution in Somalia.

The panel held that substantial evidence did not support the Board’s determination that Aden failed to establish that he was targeted on account of a protected ground because Al Shabaab was motived by their own political and religious beliefs, rather than Aden’s. The panel explained that Al- Shabaab’s accusation that the brothers were featuring Islamically forbidden, “Satanic” films provided direct evidence of their political and religious motive, and that even if the brothers did not feature the films out of their own political or religious convictions, Al-Shabaab at the very least imputed those beliefs to them. The panel wrote that the only logical explanation for Al-Shabaab’s treatment of Aden

4 ADEN V. WILKINSON

and his brother was that their actions were subversive to Al- Shabaab’s political and religious doctrine.

The panel remanded for the Board to consider, under the appropriate framework, whether Aden was firmly resettled in South Africa, and to give the government an opportunity to rebut the presumption of future persecution triggered by Aden’s showing of past persecution on account of a protected ground.

Concurring, Judge Rawlinson agreed that the case should be remanded for reconsideration of the firm resettlement issue. Judge Rawlinson noted that despite the fact that the IJ never addressed the issue of whether persecution by private actors may prevent application of the firm resettlement bar, the Board concluded that the firm resettlement bar applied to Aden because he did not introduce any evidence that the South African government imposed any restrictions on his residency such that the restricted-residence exception applied. Judge Rawlinson wrote that the Board’s conclusion was not supported by substantial evidence in the record, as reflected in the IJ’s factual findings. Judge Rawlinson also agreed that the Board erred in concluding that Aden failed to establish a nexus to a protected ground because, based on binding precedent, an applicant such as Aden, who disagrees with Al Shabaab’s view of the proper interpretation of Islam, can establish persecution on account of a protected ground by showing that others in his group persecuted him because they found him insufficiently loyal or authentic to the religious ideal they espouse.

ADEN V. WILKINSON 5

COUNSEL

Emery El Habiby, El Habiby Law Firm, Sun City, Arizona, for Petitioner.

Stephen J. Flynn, Assistant Director; Lynda A. Do, Attorney; Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.; for Respondent.

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

This case has been pending six years! Should have been granted by the IJ. No wonder EOIR is running a 1.3 million backlog! Attempts to turn “easy grants” into bogus denials is killing this system, not to mention the asylum seekers suffering the “triple whammy” of EOIR’S lack of expertise, lousy training, and a “denial culture.”

My good friend, colleague, and former NAIJ President Judge Dana Leigh Marks, who actually is an asylum expert, once told The NY Times that asylum cases are like the death penalty in traffic court. But, I suspect that many folks appearing in traffic court get significantly MORE due process than those on trial for their lives in our broken, biased, and dysfunctional Immigration Courts.

Judge Garland needs to fix this! Sooner, rather than later!

🇺🇸⚖️🗽Due Process Forever!

PWS

03-05-21

⚖️ABOVE THE LAW: Trump Treated Ethics, Legal Norms, & Human Values Like A Joke — The GOP Supremes Laughed With Him, As They Insured His Lack Of Accountability & Actively Undermined Those With The Courage To Stand Up To Tyranny!🤮

Jacqueline Thomsen reports for the National Law Journal:

. . . .

Even with an emoluments lawsuit filed against Trump on his first day in office, four years later nothing came of it. After he left office, the lawsuits were declared moot by the U.S. Supreme Court and dismissed.

The struggle to legally hold Trump to account over the alleged emoluments violations were emblematic of the rest of the lawsuits he faced during his presidency, whether they targeted him individually or his administration.

When lower courts ruled against Trump officials—as they did in suits over border wall construction—his administration would go to the U.S. Supreme Court to get an emergency order that allowed them to continue the challenged action. More often than not, Trump got a ruling in his favor.

“Trump could count on them for anything,” Norm Ornstein, a conservative resident scholar with the American Enterprise Institute, said of Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.

“And certainly that’s the case with Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett,” he added, referring to the three justices Trump appointed to the court.

And the novel legal questions surrounding lawsuits against a sitting president were enough to significantly delay several other challenges against him. House cases dragged out as courts determined whether lawmakers had the ability to sue to enforce subpoenas against the administration, a legal issue that forced similar suits to halt for months.

Despite two impeachments, hundreds of lawsuits against his administration and other litigation targeting him and his businesses, Trump left office relatively legally unscathed. Armed with a litigious past and a grip on his political party, he successfully managed to use the country’s institutions to minimize the blowback and get his way.

. . . .

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

Those with NLJ access (everyone used to get 3 free articles/mo; now it’s down to one) can read the rest of Jacqueline’s article at the link. She’s a great writer. Too bad so much of her work is “hidden behind the wall.”

Lack of accountability for scofflaw behavior, abuse of power, and corruption are hallmarks of third-world dictatorships and authoritarian regimes throughout history.

The Supremes’ enabling started with the Travel Ban cases and continued to the Capitol insurrection, which “the complicit ones” were able to watch unfold from their marble palace across the street.

So, the Supremes, the institution whose most important job is to protect American democracy, democratic institutions, due process, and individual rights when the other two branches fail, wasn’t up to the job! Despite the Supremes’ best efforts to undermine democratic governance, and their active furthering of the GOP’s race-driven voter suppression agenda, 81 million voters bailed us out this time around. But, it’s highly unlikely that American democracy could survive another “Trump-type” authoritarian regime. Don’t expect any help from the Supremes as currently comprised.

⚖️🧑🏽‍⚖️Better judges for a better America!🇺🇸🗽

🇺🇸⚖️🗽Due Process Forever!

PWS

03-04-21

THE GIBSON REPORT — 03-01-21 — Compiled By Elizabeth Gibson, Esquire, NY Legal Assistance Group — FEATURING: Under The EOIR Big Top 🎪 Robed TV Carnival Barkers Hand Out Death Sentences ☠️ With Ignorance, Indolence, Indifference, & Insult To Injury!

COVID-19 & Closures

Note: Policies are rapidly changing, so please verify information with the government and colleagues.

EOIR Status Overview & EOIR Court Status Map/List: Hearings in non-detained cases at courts without an announced date are postponed through, and including, March 19, 2021 (The timing of postponement notices has been inconsistent and it is unclear when the next announcement will be. EOIR announced 3/19 on Wed. 2/10, 2/19 on Mon. 1/25, 2/5 on Mon. 1/11, and 1/22 on Mon. 12/28). There is no announced date for reopening NYC non-detained at this time.

USCIS Office Closings, Including Weather

TOP NEWS

Biden revokes Trump ban on many green card applicants

Reuters: U.S. President Joe Biden on Wednesday revoked a proclamation from his predecessor that blocked many green card applicants from entering the United States.

Biden to allow migrant families separated under Trump to reunite in the U.S.

Politico: ACLU Executive Director Anthony D. Romero was quick to welcome Mayorkas’ announcement, but cautioned that “the devil is in the details and Secretary Mayorkas has to shed all the caveats and qualifications around his announcement and follow through with everything that’s necessary to right the wrong.” See also Lawyers have found the parents of 105 separated migrant children in past month.

Biden to Discuss Border and Other Issues With Mexican President

NYT: The two leaders, who previously talked about ways to stem migration in a call on Jan. 22, just days after Mr. Biden took office, are expected to discuss addressing the root causes of persecution and poverty that force Central American families to flee to the United States.

First migrant facility for children opens under Biden

WaPo: Government officials say the camp is needed because facilities for migrant children have had to cut capacity by nearly half because of the coronavirus pandemic. At the same time, the number of unaccompanied children crossing the border has been inching up, with January reporting the highest total — more than 5,700 apprehensions — for that month in recent years.

Federal judge deals Biden another blow on 100-day deportation ban

Politico: U.S. District Judge Drew Tipton granted a preliminary injunction that blocks the moratorium the Biden administration announced on its first day.

ICE investigators used a private utility database covering millions to pursue immigration violations

WaPo: U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers have tapped a private database containing hundreds of millions of phone, water, electricity and other utility records while pursuing immigration violations, according to public documents uncovered by Georgetown Law researchers and shared with The Washington Post.

The Trump Administration’s Cruelty Haunts Our Virtual Immigration Courts

InTheseTimes: According to the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) — the Justice Department agency that oversees these immigration adjudication centers — nearly 300,000 asylum cases have been heard via videoconference in the past two years.

In The Story Of U.S. Immigration, Black Immigrants Are Often Left Out

NPR: Nana Gyamfi, Executive Director of the Black Alliance for Just Immigration, tells NPR’s Scott Simon about challenges Black immigrants to the U.S. face.

Consumer watchdog sues immigration services company, claiming it preys on detainees

NBC: The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau on Monday filed a lawsuit against Libre by Nexus, claiming the company is preying on immigrants through a bond scam that traps participants into paying expensive fees.

The five biggest omissions in massive Biden immigration bill

Examiner: Protocols for caring for families and children, border wall infrastructure, decriminalizing illegal immigration, immigration courts, employment-based immigration, and private detention facilities were not addressed in either the House or Senate versions of the bill.

LITIGATION/CASELAW/RULES/MEMOS

USCIS Launches Pilot Program to Facilitate Attorney or Representative Remote Participation in an Asylum Interview

USCIS has launched a temporary pilot program to facilitate attorney or representative participation in an asylum interview from a remote location via video or telephone. The pilot program is available only at the Arlington, Boston, Miami, Newark, and Newark/Manhattan Branch asylum offices. AILA Doc. No. 21030131

2nd Circ. Judge Dings Majority’s ‘Uncharitable’ Asylum Ruling

Law360: A fractured Second Circuit panel tossed an El Salvadoran asylum seeker’s appeal, finding that his opposition to gangs was not a political opinion and that he could avoid future beatings, a view the dissenting judge called an “uncharitable” interpretation of the case.

BIA Rules on Special Rule Cancellation of Removal

BIA ruled that an applicant for special rule cancellation of removal under INA §240A(b)(2) based on spousal abuse must demonstrate both that the abuser was their lawful spouse and was either a U.S. citizen or LPR at the time of the abuse. Matter of L-L-P-, 28 I&N Dec. 241 (BIA 2021) AILA Doc. No. 21022432

Justices ‘Baffled,’ ‘Confused’ By Asylum Cases

Law360: A pair of thorny immigration cases “baffled” and “confused” the inquisitive justices of the U.S. Supreme Court Tuesday as they wrestled with when testimony of asylum applicants must be presumed to be credible.

District Court Indefinitely Stops Government from Executing a 100-Day Moratorium on Removals

A district court grants nationwide preliminary injunction to prohibit enforcement and implementation of the 100-day pause on removals as outlined in the 1/20/21 DHS memo. (State of Texas v. USA, et al., 2/23/21) AILA Doc. No. 21012634

Presidential Proclamation Revoking Immigrant Visa Ban

On 2/24/21, President Biden issued Proclamation 10149 revoking Proclamation 10014, section 1 of Proclamation 10052, and section 1 of Proclamation 10131, which suspended immigrant visas due to the 2019 novel Coronavirus outbreak. (86 FR 11847, 3/1/21) AILA Doc. No. 21022490

DOS Provides Update on the Phased Resumption of Routine Visa Services

DOS updates its announcement and FAQs on the phased resumption of visa services following the rescission of Presidential Proclamation 10014, which suspended the entry of certain immigrant visa applicants into the United States. AILA Doc. No. 20071435

DOJ Appeals Ruling Limiting Immigrant Detentions Without a Court Hearing

Documented: Judge Alison Nathan’s Nov. 30 ruling at U.S. District Court in Manhattan was the first to draw a constitutional line on how long an Immigration and Customs Enforcement detainee waits for an initial hearing before a judge.

ICE Can’t Keep Transferred Detainee Out Of Fla. Class Action

Law360: A Florida federal judge ruled Friday that a Mexican citizen can join a class action challenging U.S. Customs and Immigration Enforcement detainee conditions at three South Florida facilities during the COVID-19 pandemic, saying the agency cannot escape jurisdiction by transferring him to a facility across the country.

Council Sues Customs and Border Protection to Release Records of Militarized Raids on Humanitarian Aid Station

AIC: The Council and partners filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit to compel the government to release documentation of three raids on a humanitarian aid station in the deadly desert in Southern Arizona.

HHS Withdrawal of Request for Comment on Proposed Revisions to Forms for Sponsors of Unaccompanied Children

The Department of Health and Human Services published a notice stating that it is no longer pursuing changes to the forms for sponsors of unaccompanied children on which it had requested public comment on 1/5/21 at 86 FR 308, and therefore withdraws its request for comment. (86 FR 11537, 2/25/21) AILA Doc. No. 21022531

DHS Secretary Mayorkas Announces Family Reunification Task Force Principles and Executive Director

DHS: Secretary Mayorkas announced that Michelle Brané will serve as the Task Force’s Executive Director. Most recently, she served as the senior director of the Migrant Rights and Justice program at the Women’s Refugee Commission.

RESOURCES

·         Correction: The ERO ombudsman email that was circulating last week had a typo and should be: EROOmbudsman@ice.dhs.gov.

·         AILA: Policy Brief: Walled Off: How USCIS Has Closed Its Doors on Customers and Strayed from Its Statutory Customer Service Mission

·         AILA: Current Leadership of Major Immigration Agencies

·         AILA: Practice Alert: ICE Interim Guidance on Civil Immigration Enforcement and Removal Priorities

·         AILA: Practice Pointer: Employment Verification During the COVID-19 Outbreak

·         AILA: Summary of the U.S. Citizenship Act

·         AILA: Section-by-Section Summary of the U.S. Citizenship Act

·         AILA: Podcast: Representing a Mentally Ill Client Facing Removal Proceedings

·         AILA: Resource Related to Lawsuit Granting Preliminary Relief for Diversity Visa Applicants

·         ASISTA: New Advisory: Overview of U.S. Citizenship Act of 2021 & Its Impact on Immigrant Survivors

·         Black Immigrants Got Talent

·         CGRS: Children’s Asylum Manual: A Resource for Practitioners

·         CLINIC: Biden Administration Rescinds 2018 USCIS Notice to Appear Guidance

·         CLINIC: Department of State Shifts Human Rights Reports Comparison Charts

·         CMS: New Study about Immigrant Health in New York City

·         CRS: Are Temporary Protected Status Recipients Eligible to Adjust Status?

·         GAO: Actions Are Needed to Address the Cost and Readiness Implications of Continued DOD Support to U.S. Customs and Border Protection

·         ICYMI: Important Policy & ASISTA Updates

·         ILRC: What Every Noncitizen Must Know About Cannabis and Immigration

·         Immigration Mapping: From Hirabayashi to DACA

·         LGBT Adult Immigrants in the United States

·         LSNYC Practice Advisory on continuances: fourth edition of the sample motion

·         USCIS: Resources on U.S. Citizenship for Adult Adoptees

EVENTS

3/2/21 SIJS-based Adjustment of Status before EOIR

3/2/21 Creative Evidentiary Solutions for Asylum Cases

3/3/21 Thinking Beyond Resettlement: Are Complementary Pathways for Refugees the Answer?

3/4/21 TPS Updates

3/4/21 An Immigration Practitioner’s Guide to Ethics

3/5/21 Matter of A-B-: Litigation Update and Strategy Discussion

3/5/21-3/26/21 Webinar Series: Selected Issues in Inadmissibility

3/8/21 How Refugee Protections Fail Migrant Women: Personal is no Longer Political

3/8/21 NYIC: DOJ Recognition & Accreditation

3/10/21 All About DOJ Recognition and Accreditation

3/10/21 A Celebration of Women in Immigration Law

3/10/21 Deported Veterans Symposium

3/12/21 Strategies and Tactics for Successful Immigration Appeals

3/16/21 Representing Immigrants in Family Court

3/16/21 Ethical Issues in Crisis Lawyering: Representation and Advocacy Challenges

3/16/21 Pending Lawsuits: Where Are We Now? Keeping Up with BIG Litigation

3/17/21-3/18/21 Legal Remedies for Immigrant Survivors: Introductory Seminar Series – Part II: Preparing The Case

3/17/21 Incorporating Holistic Services in an Immigration Legal Services Program

3/18/21 CGRS Webinar: Asylum Policy and Litigation Update Under the Biden Administration

3/23/21 Complex Naturalization: How to Get Your Clients to Citizenship

3/23/21 Understanding the Conditional Permanent Residence Petition (Form I-751)

3/24/21 Privacy at Risk: Searches of Electronic Devices at Ports of Entry and Beyond

3/30/21 Public Charge and the Affidavit of Support

3/30/21-5/14/21 Comprehensive Overview of Immigration Law (COIL)

4/5/21 Overview of Immigration Law Training

4/5/21-4/26/21 Webinar Series: Selected Issues in U Nonimmigrant Status

4/15/21 DACA

4/20/21 Hot Topics in Naturalization Adjudications

4/21/21 Working with Domestic Violence Immigrant Survivors: The Intersection of Basic Family Law, Immigration, Benefits, and Housing Issues in California 2021

4/28/21 Community Defense: Legal Service Partnerships with Organizers

5/4/21 Public Charge: Current State of Play

5/6/21 Hot Topics in Asylum Law

5/10/21 All About DOJ Recognition and Accreditation

5/13/21 Marijuana and Immigrants

5/17/21-5/20/21 CLINIC Convening 2021

5/18/21 Ethics in Representing Family Members in U Visa, U AOS/929, and VAWA Cases

5/26/21 Hot Topics in Removal Defense

6/1/21 VAWA Adjustment of Status Fundamentals

6/9/21 Hot topics: Adjudication and Enforcement Trends

6/10/21 Public Charge and Hot Topics in Consular Processing

6/14/21 Taxes at the Border: Understanding the Tax Consequences of Immigration Status

6/15/21 U Visa Hot Topics

6/22/21 Defending Immigration Removal Proceedings 2021

6/30/21 Immigration Update – June 2021

7/22/21 Defending Immigration Removal Proceedings 2021

·         9/23/21 Representing Children in Immigration Matters 2021: Effective Advocacy and Best Practices

ImmProf

Monday, March 1, 2021

·         Join the Deported Veterans Symposium on March 10-12, 2021

·         LGBT Adult Immigrants in the United States

·         Jennifer Lee Koh Joins Pepperdine Law Faculty

·         Democrats Strategizing on Immigration Reform, Piecemeal or the Whole Enchilada?

Sunday, February 28, 2021

·         Year of the Ox’s “Viral” Song Gains Traction Amid Rise in Anti-Asian Violence

·         Brookings Institution: Biden’s Immigration Reset

Saturday, February 27, 2021

·         At the Movies: Minari (2020)

·         Immigration Article of the Day: Freedom of Movement, Migration, and Borders by Jaya Ramji-Nogales & Iris Goldner Lang

Friday, February 26, 2021

·         Vera Institute — A Federal Defender Service for Immigrants Why: We Need a Universal, Zealous, and Person-Centered Model

·         Black Immigrants Got Talent (BIG Talent)

·         At the Movies: The Marksman (2021)

·         Fortress (North) America

·         Immigration Mapping: From Hirabayashi to DACA

·         At the Movies: Alien Terminology and Change the Subject, a 2019 Documentary

·         Immigration Article of the Day: Fee Retrenchment in Immigration Habeas by Seth Katsuya Endo

Thursday, February 25, 2021

·         Big Strides In Reunifying Separated Migrant Familes; Long Ways Still To Go

·         Call For Papers: Forced Migration Review on “Public health and WASH”

·         Immigrant Leaves Maplewood Church After 3½ Years As ICE Decides Not To Deport Him

·         Sister Simone Campbell on Immigration Reform

·         #WeCanWelcome Asylum Seekers: Meet Mirna Linares de Batres

·         Throwback Thursday: My Trials by Judge Paul Grussendorf

·         Immigration Article of the Day: Tried and (Inherently) Prejudiced: Disposing of the Prejudice Requirement for Lack of Counsel in Removal Proceedings by Ayissa Maldonado

Wednesday, February 24, 2021

·         President Biden revokes Trump bans on many green card applicants, temporary foreign workers

·         Court Enjoins Biden Administration’s 100 Day Removal Pause

·         Ahilan Arulanantham joins UCLA School of Law as co-faculty director of the Center for Immigration Law and Policy

·         The five biggest omissions in massive Biden immigration bill

·         Immigration Article of the Day: Capital Controls as Migrant Controls by Shayak Sarkar, California Law Review, Forthcoming

Tuesday, February 23, 2021

·         From ‘aliens’ to ‘noncitizens’ – the Biden administration is proposing to change a legal term to recognize the humanity of non-Americans

·         Congressmember Debbie Leski’s Racist Remarks

·         Teaching Immigration Law: Law School Clinics in the US and UK

·         Immigration Article of the Day: Statelessness as Rhetoric: The Case for Revisioning Statelessness in Our Statist World by Francis Tom Temprosa

Monday, February 22, 2021

·         From the Bookshelves: Migrant Conversions:  Transforming Connections between Peru and South Korea by Erica Vogel

·         Supreme Court News: Court to Review Public Charge Case, Hear Asylum Credibility Oral Arguments Tomorrow

·         USCIS restores citizenship and naturalization test

·         Immigration Lawyers Toolbox®

·         Code Compare on Lexis Nexis

·         Human Rights Watch — US: Take New Approach at Mexico Border

·         In Challenging Times, A Call for African American/Asian American Unity

·         Former Trump senior advisor Stephen Miller slams Biden immigration proposal

·         Immigration Article of the Day: The Political (Mis)representation of Immigrants in Voting by Ming Hsu Chen and Hunter Knapp

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

Check out “Top News #7.” It’s an article by Arvind Dilawar in In These Times about “EOIR’s Black Sites,” 🏴‍☠️ euphemistically known as “Immigration Adjudication Centers” where imposters masquerading as “judges” “process” cases by TV on the deportation assembly line, often without regard to the law, the facts, and the humanity of their victims and the lawyers representing them.

Here’s an excerpt:

Lisa Koop, associate director of legal services for the National Immigrant Justice Center (NIJC), stood with her client in immigration court in September 2019. The client (name withheld for privacy) had escaped violence in Central America and fled to the United States with her young daughter. Here, they were taken into custody by immigration authorities, which landed them in this courtroom, waiting to hear whether they would be granted asylum.

They were initially scheduled with a traditional, in-person immigration judge. But that judge retired and the case was transferred to an “immigration adjudication center.” This new judge video conferenced in. Koop says the judge did not allow an opening statement, was not familiar with relevant precedent and did not ask Koop to address any particularities of the case in the closing argument. The judge ruled that, while the case was “very sad,” it did not meet the criteria for asylum, then wished Koop’s client “good luck” following deportation.

This outrageous mockery of due process, fundamental fairness, and real judicial proceedings is ongoing, in the Department of “Justice” — yes, folks, the Chief Prosecutor of the U.S. maintains his own “wholly owned” “court system” in a nation where justice supposedly is unbiased and impartial — more than five weeks into the Biden Administration.

Last week, we heard a refreshingly emotional expression of personal gratitude and recognition of the essential role of refugee protections from Judge Merrick Garland.

What we haven’t heard to date is a recognition that what will soon be “his” DOJ treats refugees (in this case vulnerable asylum seekers) with disdain and disrespect “revved up” by four years of White Nationalist abuses heaped on them by Judge Garland’s corrupt predecessors as AGs for Trump. We also have yet to hear what Judge Garland plans to do about the deadly and disreputable “EOIR Clown Show” 🤡🦹🏿‍♂️ which will soon be operating under his auspices and which, whether he realizes it or not, will form the the major part of his legacy to American Justice.

Judge Garland should call up folks like Lisa Koop at NIJC, Claudia Valenzuela at American Immigration Council, and their colleagues to get a “real life dose” of what it means to be or represent an asylum seeker in today’s dysfunctional and disreputable Immigration “Courts” that actually are 21st Century Star Chambers.

Star Chamber Justice — “Justice”
Star Chamber
Style

Better yet, he should replace the current EOIR Senior Executives and BIA Appellate Immigration Judges with Koop, Valenzuela, and others like them — “practical experts” in due process, equal justice, immigration, and human rights — who would restore and advance judicial integrity and fairness to a system that has abandoned and trampled upon those fundamental values!

Grim Reaper — G. Reaper Approaches ICE Gulag With “Imbedded Captive Star Chamber” Run By EOIR, For Their “Partner” Reaper
Image: Hernan Fednan, Creative Commons License

As stated at the end of Dilawar’s article: “Asylum-seekers are wrongfully denied asylum, and justice is not served.” Duh!

🇺🇸🗽⚖️Due Process Forever! End the EOIR Clown Show!🤡🦹🏿‍♂️🎪☠️

PWS

03-02-21

☠️👎🏻TWO STEPS FORWARD, ONE STEP BACK: Professor César García Hernández Analyzes Order Extending Ban On Biden’s Deportation Bar — Texas v. USA

Professor César Cuauhtémoc García Hernández
Denver Sturm Law

From: César García Hernández <ccgarciahernandez@gmail.com>

Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2021 1:52 PM

To: IMMPROF (UCLA) (immprof@lists.ucla.edu) <immprof@lists.ucla.edu>

Subject: [immprof] 100-day removal pause enjoined

Colleagues,

Judge Tipton in the Southern District of Texas enjoined the 100-day removal pause. The 105-page order has something for everyone. For the history fans, there are references or citations to John Marshall, Joseph Story, and James Madison. For the federalism aficionados, there’s a description of the three branches of government and an explanation about the relationship between the federal government and the states. For the administrative law scholars and Bluebook fans, the proposition that “ICE is an agency within DHS” is supported by a footnote, a citation, and a parenthetical explanation. And for anyone interested in bilingual education, you’ll note that “regular” students cost Texas one amount and students enrolled in the state’s bilingual program cost another amount.

The order (and my analysis) are available at crimmigration.com.

César

—

César Cuauhtémoc García Hernández
Professor of Law
University of Denver
crimmigration.com

(he/him/his/el)

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

The case name says it all, particularly in light of the past two weeks. Indeed, “Texas v. The People” would be equally fitting. GOP misrule and the vile shenanigans of GOP politicos, like Texas AG Ken Paxton (who also fled the state during the crisis he and his party helped cause) has real life consequences. It kills and harms U.S. citizens of all political persuasions in addition to foreign nationals in our country.

Note that the order does not purport to stop DHS or EOIR from granting stays of removal on a case by case basis.

Notwithstanding the flaws in Judge Tipton’s reasoning, cogently pointed out by Cesar, I wouldn’t put much stock in the chances that the right-wing dominated Fifth Circuit or the Supremes will rein in Tipton and other righty jurists. I predict that GOP jurists oft-expressed grave concerns about the effect of nationwide injunctions will dissipate now that they are being used as a tool to undermine the Biden Administration’s attempts to return rationality and humanity to our justice system.

The deep problems in the Article III Judiciary, aggravated by four years of bad appointments by Trump & Mitch, reinforce the pressing need for immediate Immigration Court reform, starting with replacing the BIA. That is the most pressing task facing the Administration on the judicial front. The EOIR judiciary is one that the Biden Administration has complete authority to fix with better judges. Now, not later!

And, with better judges at EOIR, there will be fewer bad legal decisions thrown into the Article III “lottery.” Moreover, as I continue to point out, it will give the Administration a much-needed pool of diverse, readily identifiable, talented, experienced, progressive, due-process/human rights committed jurists to draw on for Article III appointments. Additionally, it sets the stage for legislation to create an independent Article I U.S. Immigration Court.

Can advocates for racial justice, human rights, and immigrants’ rights finally get the message across to Judge Garland about the urgent need to act decisively? Or, like the Obama Administration, will this turn out to be another golden opportunity for justice squandered?

Unfortunately, I could find little in this week’s confirmation hearings to visibly show that Judge Garland “got” the connection between the refuge that he and his family were so grateful for and the continuing unconscionable mess at EOIR.

Indeed, if Judge Garland and his family showed up at our borders today seeking refuge from persecution, they would unceremoniously have been loaded onto a plane and “orbited” back to the persecution from which they fled without any process at all, let alone “due process of law.” Even if they had gotten a hearing, an EOIR “judge” somewhere along the line would undoubtedly have found a “reason to deny” regardless of the need for protection.

For a good measure, they probably would have been mocked as “criminals, line jumpers, and job stealers” by GOP politicos and their toadies still stashed throughout our broken and compromised immigration bureaucracy. Their lives would have been treated as worthless; their removal to persecution, harm and possible death, just another “statistic” to tout in connection with false claims to having achieved “border security!”

Use the “overseas refugee program?” Probably not. Although Biden has pledged to restart refugee admissions, as a practical matter our once proud and highly efficient refugee processing system is currently in tatters after four years of intentional abuse inflicted by the defeated regime.

Every day that the ongoing problems at EOIR remain unresolved is another day of injustice for refugees and other migrants, as well as another day of frustration and abuse heaped on those attempting to help them achieve justice.

🇺🇸⚖️🗽Due Process Forever!

PWS

02-25-21

Related posts:

Related posts:

Misinterpreting “Realistic Possibility” — 8th Cir.

2) Wrong Interpretation Of Child Status Protection Act — 2d Cir.

3) Ignoring Previous Circuit Ruling On Related Case — 10th Cir.

4) Misconstruction Of Record — 1st. Cir.

🇺🇸⚖️🗽Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

🇺🇸⚖️🗽Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

🇺🇸🗽⚖️Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

🇺🇸⚖️🗽Due Process Forever! Asylum Laws Must Protect, Not Reject!🧑🏽‍⚖️🛡

Related posts:

🇺🇸🗽⚖️Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

A Better EOIR For A Better America!🇺🇸It’s not rocket science!🚀

🇺🇸⚖️🗽Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Due Process Forever! ⚖️🗽

Related posts:

🇺🇸⚖️🗽Due Process Forever! Failed Courts Never!

Related posts:

Related posts:

🇺🇸⚖️🗽Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

🇺🇸⚖️🗽Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

🇺🇸🗽⚖️Due Process Forever! End the EOIR Clown Show!🤡🦹🏿‍♂️🎪☠️

Related posts:

🇺🇸⚖️🗽Due Process Forever!

Related posts: