"The Voice of the New Due Process Army" ————– Musings on Events in U.S. Immigration Court, Immigration Law, Sports, and Other Random Topics by Retired United States Immigration Judge (Arlington, Virginia) and former Chairman of the Board of Immigration Appeals Paul Wickham Schmidt. To see my complete professional bio, just click on the link below.
“Petitioner Christian Alberto Santos Garcia, a native and citizen of El Salvador, has twice travelled unlawfully into the United States — first in 2012, and again in 2016. In both instances, Garcia fled threats to his life and attacks carried out against him by the 18th Street Gang and the Salvadoran police. After seeking protection from removal before an immigration judge (the “IJ”) in 2016, Garcia was afforded relief — in the form of asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (the “CAT”) — by three separate IJ rulings. On each occasion, the Board of Immigration Appeals (the “BIA”) reversed the IJ rulings. Garcia, for his part, was removed to El Salvador in May 2022, and has awaited further developments in these proceedings from his home country. In this appeal, Garcia challenges and seeks reversal of three rulings made by the BIA — those being: (1) that the “particular social group” relied upon in connection with Garcia’s application for withholding of removal is not legally cognizable; (2) that Garcia was not persecuted in El Salvador on account of his political opinions; and (3) that Garcia failed to establish eligibility for CAT protection. As explained herein, we grant Garcia’s petition for review and reverse the BIA rulings in part, affirm them in part, and vacate them in part. We otherwise remand to the BIA for such further proceedings as may be appropriate.”
“Petitioner Juan Pablo Paucar petitions for review of a January 22, 2021 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision (1) affirming an Immigration Judge’s denial of his application for cancellation of removal and (2) denying his motion to remand. The BIA rejected Paucar’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim, declined to remand for consideration of additional hardship relating to his cancellation application, and declined to remand to await adjudication of his U visa application. Paucar argues that the BIA (1) applied an incorrect standard when reviewing his ineffective assistance of counsel claim, (2) overlooked and mischaracterized his new hardship evidence, and (3) failed to follow precedent when denying his request for remand while awaiting the adjudication of his U visa application. We are persuaded by Paucar’s arguments. Accordingly, we GRANT Paucar’s petition for review, VACATE the BIA’s decision, and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
In Santos-Garcia v. Garland, the BIA’s 6-year quest to wrongfully deny protection to Santos has been thwarted, for now. But, the matter remains far from finally resolved, even though an IJ has now properly granted Santos relief three separate times, only to be wrongly reversed by the BIA on each occasion!
Rather than insuring that individual justice is done, the BIA has acted to promote injustice, create needless delay, and demoralize IJ’s who are getting it right! In the meantime, the respondent has been removed to the country where he has a well-founded fear of persecution to await his fate. This is because the 4th Circuit denied a stay they should routinely have granted in an exercise of truly horrendous judicial misjudgment.
Now, the court majority fecklessly pontificates about the need for timely resolution (you’ve got to be kidding) while hinting, but not requiring, that the “Gang That Can’t Shoot Straight” should return the respondent now. Don’t hold your breath!
Here are three of my favorite quotes from Judge King’s majority opinion in Santos Garcia v. Garland.
Put simply, the BIA declined to “interact seriously” with the record before it in reviewing Garcia’s claim for CAT protection, and its failure in that regard requires a remand.
Should we not expect a supposed “expert tribunal” like the BIA should be to “seriously interact” with the record in life-or-death cases?Why aren’t Dems in Congress and everywhere else “all over Garland like a cheap suit” to stop this kind of judicial misbehavior in his “wholly owned courts?”
In closing, we recognize that Garcia’s removal proceedings have languished before the IJ and the BIA — and now this Court — for more than six years, leaving him in limbo and presently in harm’s way in El Salvador. We are also mindful that Garcia was only 15 years old when he sought to protect his cousin from the 18th Street Gang’s advances, setting off more than a decade of hardship and uncertainty. With that, we emphasize the “strong public interest in bringing [this] litigation to a close . . . promptly.” See Hussain v. Gonzales, 477 F.3d 153, 158 (4th Cir. 2007). And although we do not direct the affirmative award of any relief, we acknowledge the compelling case for protection that Garcia has made. If, on remand, the BIA affirms either the IJ’s award of withholding of removal or the award of CAT relief, the DHS and the Attorney General should swiftly “facilitate [Garcia’s] return to the United States” from El Salvador. See Ramirez v. Sessions, 887 F.3d 693, 706 (4th Cir. 2018) (directing the government to facilitate previously removed petitioner’s return to the United States pursuant to an Immigration and Customs Enforcement Policy Directive). Moreover, if the BIA determines that Garcia’s “presence 24 is necessary for continued administrative removal proceedings” on remand, the authorities should see to his prompt return. Id.
So, after six years bouncing around the system and three separate grants of asylum by an Immigration Judge, the 4th Circuit essentially “begs” the BIA to get it right this time! This is after the court itself curiously denied the respondent’s application for stay notwithstanding the rather obvious risk of irreparable harm (e.g., death, torture) and the equally obvious substance of his timely filed appeal.
What a way to run a “justice system” (or, in this case, not)! Both the Executive and the Judiciary should be totally embarrassed by their gross mishandling of this case! But, I see resolve from neither Branch (nor the ever-absent Legislature) to put an end to this systemic mockery of due process, fundamental fairness, and simple common sense!
Here, discovering the BIA’s error in rejecting Garcia’s proposed social group of “young male family members of his cousin Emily” is no herculean task. Social groups based on family ties have been consistently approved by this Court as providing a sound basis for asylum or withholding of removal applications. See, e.g., Salgado-Sosa, 882 F.3d at 457; Hernandez-Avalos v. Lynch, 784 F.3d 944, 949 (4th Cir. 2015); Cedillos-Cedillos v. Barr, 962 F.3d 817, 824 (4th Cir. 2020). Indeed, our pivotal 2011 decision on the matter — Crespin-Valladares v. Holder — recognized in no uncertain terms that “the family provides a prototypical example of a particular social group.” See 632 F.3d at 125. In tossing out Garcia’s proposed social group in March 2021, however, the BIA largely disregarded our precedent, providing no citation to or discussion of Crespin-Valladares. The BIA instead relied chiefly on its own then-existing precedent, set forth in the Attorney General’s 2019 L-E-A- II decision. As described above, L-E-A- II — which was vacated by the Attorney General in June 2021 and thus “lacks legal force” — “conflicted with [this Court’s] well-established precedent” recognizing families as cognizable social groups. See Perez Vasquez v. Garland, 4 F.4th 213, 227 n.11 (4th Cir. 2021). Surprisingly, the BIA paid little mind to L-E-A- II’s vacatur in its Reconsideration Order of 2022, doubling down on its earlier “particular social group” ruling and again inexplicably declining to apply Crespin-Valladares and its progeny.7
Notably, the “rule of Crespin-Valledares” — my case where the BIA erroneously reversed me — continues to have an impact! A dozen years post-Crespin and the BIA is still getting it wrong! Why are these guys still on the appellate bench, setting negative precedents and ignoring favorable precedents? In a Dem Administration? Seriously!
Michelle N. Mendez, ESQ Director of Legal Resources and Training National Immigration Project, National Lawyers Guild PHOTO: NIPNLG
My friend Michelle Mendez, Director of Legal Resources and Training over at National Immigration Project offered some commentary on the Second Circuit’s decision in Paucar v. Garland.
Congratulations and thank you for your superb work, Lindsay! This case offers so much and seems like the CA2 delivered.
Here are a couple of excerpts from the decision that stood out to me:
“In a January 14, 2020 written decision, the BIA dismissed Paucar’s appeal and denied his motion to reopen and remand. Three months later—after Paucar filed a petition to review the BIA’s decision in this Court—the BIA sua sponte reinstated Paucar’s appeal and motion, noting that it had not “consider[ed] all of the evidence submitted by [Paucar].” Id. at 124.” [Do we know why the BIA sua sponte reinstated the appeal and motion?] LINDSAY NASH RESPONDS: “The BIA only sua sponte reopened the appeal and motion because Paige Austin (co-counsel extraordinaire, copied here) filed a PFR and identified the missing evidence early on, prompting OIL to agree to a remand.”
“Finally, the BIA concluded that remand to await the adjudication of Paucar’s U visa petition was unnecessary because Paucar could request a stay of removal from USCIS.” [Does anyone know what the BIA was referencing here? Later on the decision says DHS and not USCIS so perhaps it is a typo.] LINDSAY NASH RESPONDS: “I think that the reference to USCIS that you flag was a typo and that it should have said DHS.”
“We conclude that the BIA should have applied the Sanchez Sosa factors in considering Paucar’s motion to remand as it pertains to his U visa or explained its reasoning for not doing so. [This is the first time that the CA2 answers the question of whether Sanchez Sosa applies to motions to remand or reopen filed during the pendency of an appeal where the noncitizen did not previously request such a continuance before the IJ].”
There is a great discussion on the BIA improperly applying Coelho (which they love to throw around in correctly) to the prejudice assessment and a paragraph discussing how the CA2 and other courts of appeals view unpublished BIA decisions.
Again, really great work and outcome! Thanks for sharing with all of us, Dan!
For a case distinguishing Coelho and applying a “reasonable likelihood of success” standard to a MTR, see Matter of L-O-G-, 21 I&N Dec. 436 (BIA 1996), written by me! The BIA ignores it or misapplies it in many cases. But, it’s still “good law!” Just another instance in which the BIA evades “older” precedents that could produce favorable outcomes for respondents!
In this case the IJ denied the respondent’s applications and ordered removal in May 2018, five years ago. Nobody contests that the respondent was ineffectively represented at that time.
Through new pro bono counsel, respondent Paucar filed a timely appeal with the BIA. Less than two months following the IJ’s decision, new counsel filed a copiously documented motion to the BIA to remand for a new hearing because of the ineffective representation.
Rather than promptly granting that motion for a new hearing, the BIA set in motion five years of dilatory effort on their part to avoid providing a hearing. Obviously, several new merits hearings could have been completed during the time occupied by the BIA’s anti-immigrant antics!
Along the way, according to the Second Circuit, the BIA “improperly imposed a heightened standard,” “erred by discounting the impact of counsel’s ineffectiveness,” “improperly relied] on the IJ’s tainted findings,” “overlooked and mischaracterized the record evidence,” “erred by overlooking or mischaracterizing evidence,” “overlooked and mischaracterized material evidence,” and failed, without explanation, “to follow its own precedent.” What else could they have screwed up? The file number?
This would be highly unacceptable performance by ANY tribunal, let alone one entrusted with making life or death decisions about human lives and whose decisions in some instances have been unwisely insulated from effective judicial review by Congress. Individuals appearing before EOIR deserve better! American justice deserves better! How long will AG Garland continue to get away with failing to “clean house” at America’s most dysfunctional court system and bring order, due process, fundamental fairness, legal expertise, and judicial professionalism to this long-overlooked, yet absolutely essential, foundation of our entire U.S. justice system!
Wasting time and resources looking for bogus ways to deny that which better, more expert, fairer judges could easily grant his had a huge negative impact on the EOIR backlog and is a driver of legal dysfunction throughout the immigration bureaucracy, and indeed throughout our entire legal system, all the way up to and including the Supremes!
Start by fixing “that within your control!” That’s a simple message that Dems, unfortunately, don’t seem to get when it comes to immigration, human rights, and racial justice in America!
I’m sure many of you remember a childhood game called “Mother, May I?” An authority figure would say, “Jeff, take two giant steps forward!” But before doing so, the player would have to ask “Mother, may I?” Those two giant steps could only be taken if the response was “Yes, you may.” Otherwise, if the player took the steps, they were out.
If we were to take this game, direct the request and reply through an app called CBPOne, and make the stakes life or death, the result would be something very similar to the Biden Administration’s latest regulations governing asylum at the southern border.
The new rules are at odds with U.S. law. Congress has already authorized asylum seekers to take the necessary steps up to the border. The very first sentence of 8 U.S.C. § 1158 (the U.S. asylum statute) says that any noncitizen “whether or not at a designated port of arrival” and irrespective of their immigration status may apply for asylum.
And yet, not Congress but two Executive Branch agencies have now added a “Mother, May I?” type obstacle for those seeking to do what the law has long permitted. Under the new rules, the asylum seeker must first ask through a glitchy government phone app for specific permission (in the form of an appointment) before striding up to the border. Otherwise, the asylum seeker is simply not eligible for asylum, no matter how serious the danger they face if removed to their country.
How can Executive Branch agencies issue regulations that so directly contradict the statute those agencies are charged with enforcing? That question is the basis of a lawsuit filed by the ACLU, the National Immigrant Justice Center, and the Center for Gender and Refugee Studies in U.S. District Court.1
Our Round Table of Former Immigration Judges filed an amicus brief in support of petitioners’ arguments. We are in good company, as the USCIS asylum officers’ union filed a persuasive amicus brief as well.2 This means that groups representing the views of the only government officials authorized to decide asylum claims in this country (i.e. immigration judges and asylum officers) are united in opposing the new rule.
In our Round Table brief, we specifically take issue with the government’s false labeling of the new bar as merely a “rebuttable presumption” of asylum ineligibility.
Real rebuttable presumptions have long existed in our asylum regulations. For example, there is a rebuttable presumption that someone who has been persecuted in the past for reasons that give rise to an asylum claim may be persecuted again, unless major changes have since taken place in their country. There is also a presumption that one whose persecutor is the government of their country can’t find safety by simply relocating within that same country.
As you’ve probably noticed, there is a logic that flows in each of those examples from the known facts to the presumption. It is logical to assume that someone who was harmed before might be harmed again if conditions remain the same. The government may rebut the presumption by showing a fundamental change of the type that would put those fears to rest. There is a similar logic in concluding that a government’s reach extends throughout the country it governs. Again, the government may rebut that presumption through evidence establishing an exception to this general rule. In both of these examples, the fact established increases the likelihood of the fact presumed.
Now let’s return to the new rule. Say that a person faces brutal persecution on account of their political opinion if returned to their country. How does the fact that they couldn’t or didn’t get an appointment through a phone app in any way create a presumption that they are not in need of humanitarian protection? There can’t be a presumption if the fact established (i.e. that the person didn’t obtain an appointment through the app) is completely unrelated to the fact presumed (i.e. the person is not in need of asylum).
I believe it matters greatly whether the rule is considered a bar or a presumption. It is Congress that decides who may apply for asylum in this country. Thus, a regulation that admittedly creates a new bar to asylum (particularly where that bar is in direct contradiction to Congressional intent) is likely to be rejected as ultra vires by the courts. And in fact, a very similar bar to this one published by the Trump Administration was enjoined for just that reason.3 Agencies cannot usurp Congress’s role by legislating in the guise of rulemaking.
By attempting to disguise the new bar as merely a “rebuttable presumption,” the agencies seek to increase the odds of the ban passing muster this time. That is exactly the Department of Justice’s argument in its response brief: that its new rule is completely different from the prior administration’s “bar,” because according to DOJ, the new rule “does not treat manner of entry as dispositive, but instead creates a rebuttable presumption that can be overcome…”4
So the “Mother, may I?” regs clearly overstep the agencies’ legal authority. But do they create an equal barrier for all asylum seekers? The answer is no. As stated, the rules require one intending to apply for asylum to first obtain an appointment. Of course, there are more asylum seekers than there are available appointments. As mentioned, the government app through which one tries to secure an appointment, CBPOne, is full of glitches. As Prof. Austin Kocher recently noted, those glitches have impacted who gets those appointments:
the initial release of CBP One was accompanied by a variety of tech failures that did not necessarily undermine CBP’s ability to fill up its appointments calendar for asylum seekers but did create barriers to entry for migrants who were less tech savvy, could not access high-speed Internet, were part of larger families, or, either directly or indirectly, migrants who were darker-skinned or Black.5
That last point refers to the app’s problems with facial recognition that have caused it to reject applicants who are not white.6 As a result of these and other reported scheduling inequities, Sen. Edward Markey wrote to DHS back in February urging the agency to cease use of the app, due to its inaccessibility to many intending applicants, adding that “we cannot allow it to create a tiered system that treats asylum seekers differently based on their economic status — including the ability to pay for travel — language, nationality, or race.”.7
Instead of “ditching the app” as the Senator requested, the agencies instead added an exception to the bar if the noncitizen “demonstrates by a preponderance of the evidence that it was not possible to access or use the DHS scheduling system due to language barrier, illiteracy, significant technical failure, or other ongoing and serious obstacle.”8
However, there is a big catch. Pursuant to the rule, this exception is only available to those without an appointment who make their claim at an actual port of entry. But observers at points of entry along the southern border report that “practices by U.S. and Mexican authorities restricted asylum seekers without CBP One appointments from physically reaching U.S. ports of entry to make protection requests.”9 So the exception written into the regs is not available in reality, as one seeking to claim it is restricted from reaching the port of entry where it must be claimed, and is barred from claiming the exception if they cross the border elsewhere.
If you’re wondering how the new system is working out, according to one report, it has resulted in asylum seekers on the Mexican side of the Laredo port of entry being robbed, kidnapped, and held for ransom.10 Another article described how some of those “lucky” enough to have obtained CBPOne appointments at Laredo claimed “that Mexican officials in Nuevo Laredo, across the border from Laredo, Texas, had threatened to hold them and make them miss their scheduled asylum appointments unless they paid them.”11 As a result, CBPOne appointments were temporarily suspended for the Laredo port of entry.
One excluded from asylum under these rules may still seek two types of lesser protections called withholding of removal.12 Oddly, under U.S. law, these alternative protections are much more difficult than asylum to qualify for, yet provide far fewer benefits. Asylum is an actual legal status which extends to the spouse and minor children of the asylee, allows for travel abroad, and puts recipients on a path to permanent residence and then citizenship in this country. By contrast, withholding of removal arises when an individual is ordered deported, and only blocks their deportation to a country in which persecution or torture is likely to occur, but otherwise leaves the recipient in limbo. The protection provides no path to family reunification or permanent status, and no right to travel abroad to visit the family members from whom the recipient is left indefinitely separated.
Nevertheless, withholding of removal does save lives. But not satisfied with simply barring asylum, the new regulations also make these lesser forms of protection far more difficult to access. This is because one must first pass something called a “credible fear interview” in order to even have the right to apply for withholding of removal in this country. As those interviews are conducted within days of the asylum-seeker’s arrival, in custody, often before the applicant has had the opportunity to obtain legal counsel or evidence, and possibly while suffering from the effects of persecution, the credible fear standard was intentionally designed to be a low one. The idea is to allow people who might genuinely be at risk the opportunity to fully develop their cases in a full removal proceeding, while only quickly removing those lacking legitimate claims.
But the new regulations raise the burden of proof by requiring the applicant at this very early stage to demonstrate a “reasonable fear” of persecution, which USCIS describes as the exact same standard required for a grant of asylum – i.e. “well-founded fear.13 Again, the lower credible fear standard being replaced was created solely because it isn’t reasonable to expect someone to prove more under the conditions faced by such recent arrivals. This intended safeguard has thus been completely undermined, as one who might only be a day or two in the country must now present a full-blown asylum claim just to earn the chance to have a hearing.
The new process requires non-lawyers to satisfy a complex legal standard they won’t understand, often without the time to seek legal advice or compile the evidence necessary to meet the heightened burden. I have no doubt that the process will result in genuine refugees being denied protection. And once again, the entire reason for placing applicants at such heightened risk is their not having obtained an appointment on a problematic phone app.
Why does the Biden Administration believe all this is necessary? In a recent column, Jamelle Bouie addressed the vows of some Republican presidential candidates to eliminate the constitutional right to birthright citizenship through executive order.14 In addition to presenting a compelling argument as to why this cannot legally be done, Bouie included in his column a wonderful quote from Frederick Douglass: “The outspread wings of the American Eagle are broad enough to shelter all who are likely to come.”
In case the Biden Administration is wondering if it can champion that same sentiment today, in lieu of its convoluted attempt to ban protection to those deserving of it under our laws, the answer is: “Yes, you may.”
(Much thanks to attorneys Ashley Vinson Crawford and Steven Schulman of the law firm of Akin Gump for representing the group of former Immigration Judges and BIA Members on our amicus brief in East Bay Sanctuary.)
Copyright 2023, Jeffrey S. Chase. All rights reserved.
Notes:
East Bay Sanctuary Covenant v. Biden, No. 18-cv-06810-JST, N.D. Cal. (Filed May 11, 2023).
See Britain Eakin, “Asylum Officers, Ex-Judges Back Suit on Biden Asylum Rule,” Law360, June 8, 2023.
East Bay Sanctuary v. Barr, 964 F.3d 832 (9th Cir. 2020) (holding that the Trump Administration’s asylum bar was inconsistent with our asylum laws).
Defendants’ Reply Brief, East Bay Sanctuary v. Biden, (June 30, 2023) at 8.
Austin Kocher, “Glitches in the Digitization of Asylum: How CBP One Turns Migrants’ Smartphones into Mobile Borders,” mdpi.com, June 20, 2023, https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4698/13/6/149, section 4.
Melissa del Bosque, “Facial Recognition Bias Frustrates Black Asylum Applicants to US,” The Guardian, Feb. 8, 2023,
One form of withholding covers persecution for specified reasons; the other applies to torture.
See Asylum Officer Basic Training Course Lesson Plan, “Reasonable Fear and Torture Determinations,” (USCIS, RAIO, 2017) at 11 (“The ‘reasonable possibility’ standard is the same standard required to establish eligibility for asylum (the ‘well- founded fear’ standard).”)
Jamelle Bouie, “Opinion: What Frederick Douglass Knew That Trump and DeSantis Don’t,” NYT, June 30, 2023.
JULY 5, 2023
***********************
It’s an existential problem for our nation when a Dem Administration claims as “success:” failure to recognize the rights of asylum seekers, intentionally evading asylum law, and endangering the lives of asylum seekers!
Lest anyone think the confusion, unfairness, and disorder caused by the Biden/Harris failure to implement competent, professional, expert leadership on human rights is “overhyped,” here’s an “in person” report from Professor Lenni Benson of NY Law School, founder of Safe Passage Project, and a widely reknowned “practical expert” on asylum and human rights.
Professor Lenni B.Benson Distinguished Chair of Immigration and Human Rights Law New York Law School Founder, Safe Passage Project PHOTO: NYLS website
Sharing an excellent Blog post by retired IJ Jeff Chase on why the CBP One app may be endangering asylum applicants. See below.
Related to the CBP One app was a hearing I observed last Friday, June 30, 2023 in NY City.
A self-represented individual was asked by the IJ “were you admitted or inspected” by the government, the Respondent through a Mandarin interpreter said “Yes, through the CBP app.” The IJ paused. The OPLA attorney was visible on Webex. She was silent.
The IJ said “I will note your statement for the record, I find you removable as charged for not having been inspected or admitted.” [The Respondent had declined an opportunity to find an attorney.]
I am sure CBP will argue that entry under the app is not an inspection or admission and I haven’t looked carefully at the regulations but the issue is there to perhaps be litigated.
The other interesting twist in this particular case was that the government then told the Judge that she could see the Respondent had already completed biometrics and submitted an asylum application, but no application was in either her file nor the Court’s.
The IJ asked, do you have a copy?
The respondent: “On my phone.”
The IJ set a call-up date hearing to have the respondent print out the application and file it with the court in person.
I didn’t get a chance to speak to the Respondent, but I wondered if he had perhaps thought his interview with CBP was his asylum application or if he had filed affirmatively with USCIS.
Just sharing with this community.
Confusion abounds.
“Confusion abounds!” 🤯Why, rather than clarifying and applying the law, would the Administration intentionally create confusion and a host of unnecessary “litigatable issues?”
Why would they create delay by supposedly having applications for asylum “filed” but unavailable electronically to either ICE or EOIR?
Why didn’t the Administration recruit and hire real “practical experts” like Lenni Benson and her colleagues to straighten out the asylum system at the border, restore the rule of law, and reform and repopulate the critically important, currently dysfunctional, Immigration Courts and the BIA with well-qualified progressive judges, merit-selected experts in human rights and practical problem solving?
Pleased to join my friend “Sir Jeffrey” in giving a big “shout out” to our Round Table colleagues and superstar NDPA attorneys Steve Schulman, Ashley Vinson Crawford, and their pro bono team at Akin Gump for representing us on the amicus brief in East Bay Sanctuary!
*********************
Anybody naive enough to believe the “party line” from Administration wonks about “success at the border” should heed this “hot off the presses” report from Mica Rosenberg @ Reuters. It confirms the legal and humanitarian disaster at the border resulting from two plus years of mismanagement of asylum by Mayorkas, Garland, and the rest of the Biden immigration politicos who havefailed to undo the humanitarian and legal mess left behind by White Nationalist Stephen Miller and the rest of the Trumpist scofflaws!
Mica Rosenberg National Immigration Reporter, Reuters
Mica writes:
We examined the impact of the Biden administration’s new asylum regulation at the U.S.-Mexico border after it replaced the COVID-era Title 42 expulsion policy on May 11.
U.S. officials have said the regulation and other Biden immigration policies, that have opened new legal pathways to the US, have dramatically reduced the number of illegal border crossings.
But in the first month of the new policy, Reuters interviews with more than 50 migrants, U.S. and Mexican officials, a review of court records and previously unreported data found:
More than 100,000 migrants waiting in northern Mexico, many trying to snag an appointment on an oversubscribed government run smartphone app; a sharp drop in people passing their initial asylum screenings; more people in detention and tens of thousands of deportations.
My colleagues visited the mile-long migrant camp in Matamoros, across the river from Brownsville, Texas, where conditions are deteriorating, including cases of sexual assault in the camp, and we also spoke to a father who crossed the border but was speedily deported while his family was allowed into the US.
The report at the above link has many photos illustrating both the cruel stupidity of the Biden program and the amazing resilience of those still hoping, against the odds, to have their legal rights respected and protected by the USG.
Thanks, Mica, for “telling it like it is” and penetrating the “bureaucratic smokescreen” thrown up by the Administration to cover its misdeeds and human rights abuses!🤮
BIA Asylum Panel In Action — Garland, a former Article III Appeals Judge, employs appellate judges who routinely misconstrue asylum law to wrongfully deny legal protection, thus artificially suppressing what should be much higher success rates for asylum seekers in a functional legal system properly applying asylum law! The law and precedents establishing a properly generous application of the well-founded fear standard for asylum are routinely ignored or disingenuously avoided by Garland’s biased anti-asylum “courts!” BIA panels routinely butcher “mixed motive” cases to deny asylum to deserving refugees! Albrecht Dürer, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
Dan Kowalski reports for LexisNexis Immigration Community:
“Upon our review, we conclude that the Board abused its discretion by applying an incorrect legal standard in its nexus analysis for the petitioner’s asylum and withholding of removal claims. We also hold with regard to these two claims that the Board abused its discretion by arbitrarily disregarding the petitioner’s testimony about the threat of future persecution. However, we reject the petitioner’s argument that the Board abused its discretion with regard to his CAT claim. The Board provided specific reasons for finding the petitioner’s testimony insufficient to meet his burden of proof, and appropriately evaluated the evidence under the futility exception. We thus grant in part and deny in part the petition for review, vacate in part the Board’s order denying reconsideration, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. … We thus conclude that the IJ erred by applying an incorrect standard in the nexus analysis, and that the Board abused its discretion because it “compounded the [IJ’s] error by failing to recognize it.” Perez Vasquez, 4 F.4th at 223. In addition, both the IJ and the Board failed to address substantively the petitioner’s testimony about the threat of future persecution. … The Board thus applied the incorrect legal standard for the nexus analysis and arbitrarily disregarded relevant evidence. Accordingly, we hold that the Board abused its discretion in denying the petitioner’s motion to reconsider his asylum and withholding of removal claims, and we remand for the agency to “meaningfully consider [the petitioner’s] evidence” under the correct legal standard.”
Eric Suarez ESQUIRE Partner Sanabria & Associates PHOTO: Firm website
***************************
EOIR judges and the BIA routinely butcher “mixed motive” cases like this one! This endemic problem at EOIR badly distorts asylum adjudication nationwide, produces false statistics suppressing the significant number of wrongful asylum denials (particularly targeting asylum applicants of color for unfair, unjust adjudications), and refutes the Article III’s disingenuous treatment of the BIA as an “expert tribunal” entitled to Chevron deference. In that way, it seriously undermines the integrity of our entire judicial system!
In this case, counsel specifically pointed our the BIA’s errors in a timely motion to reconsider, only to have it “blown off” with basically fabricated boilerplate BS!
The petitioner appealed the IJ’s decision to the Board. After the Board affirmed the IJ’s conclusions and dismissed the appeal, the petitioner filed a motion to reconsider. The Board denied the motion, concluding that the IJ did not clearly err in its nexus determination, and reiterating the IJ’s conclusion that family membership was “incidental or subordinate” to the other reasons the gang targeted the petitioner, namely, for monetary gain and gang recruitment.
Another of my favorite parts of this decision addresses the BIA’s pronounced tendency to invent specious “non-protected” reasons for the persecution and then dishonestly characterize that at the sole or primary motivations.
The Board’s cursory conclusion that the gang had targeted the petitioner for “monetary gain and gang recruitment” does not remedy the Board’s error. Indeed, we fail to see how family membership necessarily was subordinate to these other motivations when the sole basis the petitioner presented for his fear of future persecution was that the gang would target him due to his relationships with his siblings.
Friends, this is NOT the competent, impartial, professional, expert adjudication that due process and fundamental fairness requires! Nor is it the improvement from Trump’s institutionalized White Nationalist approach to asylum and immigration promised by Biden and Harris during their 2020 campaign! It’s basically a “bait and switch” by Dems! Additionally, it sets a horrible example for Immigration Judges (many of whom lack relevant expertise in asylum law) and Asylum Officers nationwide.
Garland’s has refused to “clean house” and employ solely competent, unbiased, impartial asylum experts as BIA Appellate Immigration Judges, selected on a merit basis from among those possessing the requisite practical asylum expertise, temperament, andwidely-acknowledged qualifications for these critically important judgeships.
Garland’s failure to perform his job, in turn, is having a deleterious effect on every aspect of our asylum, protection, and immigration systems and is undermining the entire rule of law. It also promotes false narratives about asylum seekers and inhibits effective representation of this vulnerable and deserving group. It’s wrong; it’s inexcusable, and it’s a “big deal!’
I leave you with this thought from an expert who actually practices before EOIR and understands what competent asylum adjudication should be:
We really do need better judges at the BIA. [Hope that this] decision that will make a dent in their current dysfunction.
Hon. Jeffrey S. Chase Jeffrey S. Chase Blog Coordinator & Chief Spokesperson, Round Table of Former Immigration Judges — Maybe HE should be in charge of selecting and training BIA Appellate Immigration Judges!
Or as my Round Table colleague Hon. “Sir Jeffrey” Chase suggests:
Maybe the Board should read my article on the proper test for nexus:
Holy card ( 1899 ) showing an illustration to the Gospel of Matthew 25, 34-36 – rear side of an obituary. Wolfgang Sauber Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0
Editorial: Sanctuary cities are working just fine, thank you
When Republican Govs. Greg Abbott of Texas and Ron DeSantis of Florida bused and flew migrants to Los Angeles, New York, Washington, D.C., and other so-called “sanctuary cities,” they might have envisioned they were exporting the same chaos as border states have experienced as they grapple with a historic number of migrants. They wanted leaders in these cities to admit they were wrong about their immigrant-friendly policies.
But Abbott and DeSantis are mistaken if they think they are teaching cities with sanctuary polices any lessons with their inhumane political stunts or causing their leaders to rethink their commitment to not treating migrants as criminals.
Those governors and their political allies also seem to be confused about what it means when cities have sanctuary policies. Though policies vary, providing sanctuary means not turning migrants over to federal immigration authorities simply for being in the country illegally. It means treating them like humans in need rather than pawns.
That’s what leaders in Los Angeles, Sacramento and other “sanctuary cities” did as buses and planes dumped dozens of tired and often confused migrants on their doorsteps in recent months. They rallied attention and resources, while religious and other nonprofit organizations stepped up to welcome the migrants with shelter, food and clothes. In some instances, these migrants have even found temporary jobs, illustrating the need for their labor.
Abbott and DeSantis may also not realize that sanctuary policies were designed to help law enforcement keep communities safe. Sanctuary policies were developed because police in many cities such as Los Angeles were frustrated because undocumented immigrants were not reporting crimes or stepping forward as witnesses for fear of deportation.
Critics say these sanctuary cities have laws and policies that shield criminals and obstruct federal immigration policies. But cities with sanctuary policies have lower than average crime rates, higher household incomes and lower poverty rates, according to various studies.
Local authorities did not refuse to cooperate with immigration enforcement, as critics claim. They simply limited the role of local law enforcement in immigration cases, for example, by not using local police to do immigration checks or by not holding an undocumented immigrant in custody for a few extra days to serve federal authorities’ schedules.
Los Angeles is in the midst of transitioning from a “city of sanctuary” to “sanctuary city.” The difference is more than just semantics. The former designation is little more than a statement by city leaders in 2017 that they opposed then-President Trump’s dehumanizing anti-immigrant policies, which included separating young children from their parents. Some of those children have yet to be reunited with their parents years later. Earlier this month, the City Council voted to strengthen the policy by banning city personnel or resources from being used for immigration enforcement.
It’s true that the transports of migrants by the Texas and Florida governors have been inconvenient to cities such as Washington and New York, which have had to scramble to find housing and other resources. But they haven’t done a thing to undermine the foundation on which sanctuary policies were built.
****************************
The money wasted by these GOP nativist neo-fascists could much better be spent on coordinated efforts to help asylum seekers to help themselves and our nation in the process. Obviously, GOP states like Florida and Texas have money toburn.
Also, to the extent that cities “targeted” by these GOP White Nationalist Governors have persevered in the face ofattempts to sow chaos, it has been largely without the coordination, guidance, and leadership of the Biden Administration. Seems like that should be “low hanging fruit” for progressive Democrats to change!
Kids are among the many groups of refugees and asylum seekers ill-served by the Biden Administration’s policies and performance. “World Refugee Day 2023” is a rather grim reminder of America’s failure to live up to its obligations to the world’s most vulnerable!
Creative Commons License
A new Biden administration policy has dramatically lowered the percentage of migrants at the southern border who enter the United States and are allowed to apply for asylum, according to numbers revealed in legal documents obtained by The Times. Without these new limits to asylum, border crossings could overwhelm local towns and resources, a Department of Homeland Security official warned a federal court in a filing this month.
The new asylum policy is the centerpiece of the Biden administration’s border efforts.
Under the new rules, people who cross through a third country on the way to the U.S. and fail to seek protections there are presumed ineligible for asylum. Only people who enter the U.S. without authorization are subject to this new restriction.
The number of single-adult migrants who are able to pass initial screenings at the border has dropped from 83% to 46% under the new policy, the Biden administration said in the court filing. The 83% rate refers to initial asylum screenings between 2014 and 2019; the new data cover the period from May 12, the first full day the new policy was in place, through June 13.
Since the expiration of Title 42 rules that allowed border agents to quickly turn back migrants at the border without offering them access to asylum, the administration has pointed to a drop in border crossings as proof that its policies are working.
But immigrant advocates and legal groups have blasted Biden’s new asylum policy, arguing that it is a repurposed version of a Trump-era effort that made people in similar circumstances ineligible for asylum. (Under Biden’s policy, certain migrants can overcome the presumption that they are ineligible for asylum.) The ACLU and other groups have sought to block the rule in federal court in San Francisco, in front of the same judge who stopped the Trump policy years ago.
The new filing provides the first look at how the Biden administration’s asylum policy is affecting migrants who have ignored the government’s warnings not to cross the border.
“This newly released data confirms that the new asylum restrictions are as harsh as advocates warned,” said Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, policy director at the American Immigration Council. “The data contradicts conservative attacks on the rule for being too lenient. Less than 1 in 10 people subject to the rule have been able to rebut its presumption against asylum eligibility.”
. . . .
*******************
Read Hamed’s full story at the link.
None of the statistics cited in the article actually give a full picture, since the don’t account for 1) families, 2) children, and 3) those processed at ports of entry using the highly controversial “CBP One App.” Nor do they give insights into what happens to those denied access to the asylum adjudication system.
In the article, DHS official Blas Nuñez-Neto babbles on about the wonders of mindless extralegal enforcement as a “deterrent.” In a classic example of disingenuous misdirection, Nuñez-Neto appears to suggest that “success” in implementing asylum laws should be measured in terms of the number of individuals denied access or discouraged from applying.
Actually, success in implementing asylum laws should be measured solely by whether 1) all asylum applicants regardless of status or where they apply are treated fairly and humanely; and 2) those eligible for asylum under a properly generous, protection-focused application of asylum laws are actually granted asylum in a timely manner complying with due process. By those measures, there is zero (O) evidence that the Biden Administration’s approach is “successful.”
Moreover, Nuñez-Neto’s comments and much of the media focus skirt the real issue here. Border apprehensions have decreased because asylum seekers in Northern Mexico appear to be “waiting to see” if the “CBP One App System” at ports of entry actually offers them a fair, viable, orderly way of applying for asylum. In other words, does the Biden Administration’s legal asylum processing system have “street credibility?”
So far, CBP One and DHS appear determined to “flunk” that test; the App continues to be plagued with technical and access glitches, and the numbers of appointments available is grossly inadequate to meet the well-known and largely predictable demand.
If the border lurches out of control in the future, it probably will be not the fault of legal asylum seekers. Rather, it will be caused by poorly-conceived and legally questionable Biden “deterrence policies” and the restrictionist politicians (in both parties, but primarily the GOP) who are “egging them on.”That is, an Administration unable to distinguish its friends from its enemies and unwilling to develop a comprehensive strategy for dealing with the inevitably of refugee flows by creatively and positively using and “leveraging” the ample (if imperfect) existing tools under our legal system.
NEW YORK — On the fourth day of his new life in New York City, Antony Reyes set out from the opulent lobby of Manhattan’s Roosevelt Hotelwith an empty wallet and the address of a juice bar on Broadway possibly offering some work.
Reyes had been staying at the crowded hotel-turned-emergency service center, hunting odd jobs during the day along with other newly arrived Venezuelans who navigated the streets of midtown using “Las Pantallas”— the Screens (a.k.a. Times Square) as a landmark.
“I just want to work,” Reyes said in Spanish. “I didn’t come here to be a burden on anyone.”
Reyes, 23, was among the tens of thousands of migrants who rushed to cross the U.S.-Mexico border ahead of May 11, when the Biden administration lifted the pandemic policy known as Title 42. The largest group were Venezuelans, who have been arriving to the United States in record numbers since 2021.
Unlike previous waves of Latin American immigrants who gravitated to communities where friends and family could receive them, the most recent Venezuelan newcomers tend to lack those networks in the United States. Many have headed straight to New York, whose shelter system guarantees a bed to anyone regardless of immigration status.
City officials say they are housing more than 48,000 migrants across an array of hotels, dormitories and makeshift shelters that now spans 169 emergency sites.
New York has spent $1.2 billion on the relief effort since last summer. The ballooning costs have left Mayor Eric Adams feuding with local leaders upstate over who should take responsibility for the migrants, and he has also called out President Biden, a fellow Democrat, for not sending more aid.
Other U.S. cities are struggling with the influx too. Denver, Philadelphia and Washington — all cities with Democratic mayors — have received migrants bused from Texas as part of a campaign by Republican Gov. Greg Abbott to denounce Biden administration border policies. In Chicago, migrants have slept in police stations while awaiting shelter beds.
Officials in those cities are scrambling to find bed space and clamoring for more federal assistance. But the ad hoc nature of the humanitarian effort raises questions about the ability of New York City and other jurisdictions to receive and resettle so many newcomers.
The flow of Venezuelans crossing the southern border has dropped since the Title 42 policy ended, even as many continue arriving in cities in northern Mexico in hopes of reaching the United States. The Biden administration is tightening border controls and urging Venezuelans and others to apply for legal U.S. entry using a mobile app, while expanding the number of slots available for asylum seekers to make an appointment at an official border crossing.
The number of people requesting appointments, however, far outstrips supply.
The influx of migrants in New York has pushed the city’s total shelter population to 95,000, up from 45,000 when Adams took office in January 2022.
“We have reached a point where the system is buckling,” Anne Williams-Isom, deputy mayor for health and human services, told reporters at a news conference in late May.
. . . .
******************
Read the rest of Nick’s & Joanna’s article at the link.
This Administration has been in office more than two years, with knowledge of the inevitable flow of asylum seekers, particularly from Venezuela and access to some of the best and most innovative human rights experts in the private sector.
Yet, this Administration has failed to 1) put in place an orderly nationwide resettlement system in partnership with the many NGOs and some localities “already in the business;” 2) construct “regional reception centers” to provide food, shelter, representation, and support to asylum seekers during the legal process, as recommended by many experts, and 3)restore functionality and timeliness to the legal asylum systems at USCIS and EOIR by a) cleaning out the “deadwood” (or worse) accumulated during the Trump Administration, and b) hiring experts, not afraid to properly use asylum and other laws to “protect rather than reject” and to replace the anti-asylum culture and legal regimes installed and encouraged at DHS and EOIR under Tump.
Additionally, most Venezuelans can’t be returned anyway, and the Administration’s apparent hope to “orbit” many of them to Mexico, a country far less able to absorb them than than the U.S., is ill-advised at best.
Consequently, updating TPS for Venezuelans and others, thus providing employment authorization and keeping them out of the already dysfunctional asylum system, should have been a “no brainer” for this Administration.
This is a truly miserable absence of creative, practical problems-solving by a group that ran on promises to do better. Given the shortage of affordable housing in NY and other areas, why not “replicate and update” the CCC, WPA, and other public works projects from FDR’s “New Deal?”
Give those arriving individuals with the skill sets opportunities to construct affordable housing for anyone in need, with an chance to live in the finished product as an added incentive! Let migrants be contributors and view their presence as an opportunity to be built upon rather than as a“problem” that can’t be solved.
Not rocket science! 🚀 But, evidently “above the pay grade” for Biden Administration immigration policy wonks!
********************
CONSTITUTION MOCKED BY ALL THREE BRANCHES AS KIDS CONTINUE TO FACE IMMIGRATION COURT ALONE!
GIULIA MCDONNELL NIETO DEL RIO reports for Documented:
The 10-year-old boy sat in a chair that was too big for him and he asked the immigration judge in Spanish if he could speak to the court.
“Please, don’t deport me,” the boy, Dominick Rodriguez-Herrera, pleaded into the microphone. “I want to stay with my brother.”
Immigration News, Curated
Sign up to learn about immigration news from New York and beyond with expert analysis from Documented journalists.
Sign Up for Free
Then he buried his head into his mother’s stomach as they embraced, tears welling in both their eyes. “Don’t cry,” his mother told him softly, with one arm around Dominick, and the other holding her two-month-old son who whined on her shoulder.
The family, from Guatemala, was at the Broadway immigration court in Lower Manhattan last week for an initial hearing in Dominick’s immigration case. Dominick had crossed the U.S.-Mexico border alone in March of 2022, and was designated as an unaccompanied minor.
Dominick’s mother, Nelly Herrera, told Documented the ordeal began when they were both kidnapped in Mexico and separated. She said Dominick escaped their captors and reached the U.S. border. Malnourished and thin from weeks of little food, he managed to squeeze through a wall into California, although she’s not sure where. He was only eight years old, and had no idea where his mother was.
“He doesn’t talk about all that a lot because he says it’s something he doesn’t want to be reminded of anymore,” she said.
After authorities helped Herrera escape her captors in Mexico, she and Dominick were reunited last year. Now, without a lawyer, they are fighting for a chance for Dominick to stay with her in the U.S.
At a time when immigration courts are struggling to manage the high volume of migrants coming to New York City, another section of the system is facing a high volume of deportation cases: those of unaccompanied minors – children who entered the U.S. when they were under the age of 18, without a parent. Many of them show up to court without an attorney, and advocates are concerned that there aren’t enough resources to reach all of them.
“We are definitely seeing an uptick in the numbers,” said Sierra Kraft, executive director of a coalition called the Immigrant Children Advocates Relief Effort (ICARE).
Kraft said she observed the juvenile docket several times this year and found hundreds of children had come to court without legal representation.
“There was a little two year old that was sitting there with a sponsor, and they had no representation and really no idea what to do next. So it’s a real crisis,” Kraft said.
. . . .
At a Senate hearing on the safety of unaccompanied migrant children in Congress last week, Lorie Davidson, Vice President of Children and Family Services at Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service, testified that most unaccompanied children do not have an attorney to represent them.
“I do not know of any other circumstances in which a three-year-old would have to represent themselves in court. It is indefensible,” Davidson said at the hearing.
. . . .
***************************
Read Giulia’s complete article at the link.
Administrations of both parties have employed and disgracefully defended this clearly unconstitutional, due-process-denying process. The “low point” was probably during the Obama Administration when an EOIR Assistant Chief Immigration Judge infamously claimed that he could “teach asylum law to toddlers” — touching off an avalanche of internet satire. See https://www.aclu.org/video/can-toddlers-really-represent-themselves-immigration-court.
But, the Executive has had plenty of help from Congress and the Article III Courts, who both have failed to end this mockery of constitutional due process as well as common sense. It’s hard to imagine a more glaring, depressing example of failure of public officials to take their oaths of office seriously!
On the other hand, NY Immigration Judge Olivia Cassin, mentioned in the full article, is the right person for the job of handling the so-called “juvenile docket” at EOIR. A true expert in immigration and human rights laws, she came to the job several decades ago with deep experience and understanding gained from representing individuals pro bono in Immigration Court.
She is a model of what should be the rule, not the exception, for those sitting on the Immigration Bench at both the trial and appellate levels. Although AG Garland has done somewhat better than his predecessors in “balancing” his appointments, EOIR still skews far too much toward those with only prosecutorial experience or lacking ANY previous immigration and human rights qualifications.
Consequently, poor, inconsistent, and uneven judicial performance remains endemic at EOIR and not sufficiently addressed by Garland in his two plus years in office. Just another reason why Garland’s failing courts are running a 2 million case backlog and are unable to provide the nationwide due process, guidance, leadership, and consistency that EOIR was supposedly created to furnish.
Brilliant, well-qualified, and committed as individuals like Judge Cassin are, they are not going to be able to solve this problem without some help and leadership from above. Sadly, this doesn’t appear got be on the horizon.
****************************
UPHOLDING THE RULE OF LAW & HUMAN DECENCY FOR REFUGEES HAS BEEN LEFT LARGELY TO NGOs IN LIGHT OF THE USG’S SYSTEMIC FAILURE
Jenell Scarborough, Pathway to Citizenship Coordinator at EL CENTRO HISPANO INC, reports on Linkedin on a on a more optimistic note about the activities of those who actually are working to preserve and extend the rule of law and human decency to refugees:
What a way to celebrate World Refugee Day, with a community listening section where we meet community leaders who every day make extraordinary efforts to join forces and serve Immigrants and Refugees. We’re not just hearing from Eva A. Millona Chief, USCIS Office of Citizenship, Partnership and Engagement and the Chief of Foreign Affairs for Foster America. Thanks to Cristina España for keeping us connected with local government agencies and making visible the work of grassroots organizations, where El Centro Hispano works tirelessly. Without a doubt a great night!
***************************
Way to go, Jenell. Encouraging to know that you are taking our legal obligations to refugees seriously, even if too many USG officials in all three branches aren’t! (Eva A. Millona of USCIS, mentioned in the post appears to be a rare exception among those in leadership positions within this Administration).
******************************************
🇺🇸 MAKE EVERY DAY WORLD REFUGEE DAY, & Due Process Forever!
As former immigration judges and former members of the Board, we submit this amicus brief to ask the Northern District of California to strike down the Circumvention of Lawful Pathways Rule, 88 Fed. Reg. 31314 (May 11, 2023). The Rule, which came into effect in the immediate aftermath of Title 42’s sunset and which applies to non-Mexican asylum-seekers at the U.S.-Mexico border, automatically forecloses a migrant’s asylum claim unless the person (i) arrives at an official port of entry having secured an immigration appointment through a complex mobile application, (ii) receives advance permission to travel to the U.S., or (iii) comes to the U.S. after applying for and being denied asylum in a transit country. Absent proof one of these narrow exceptions or a medical or other emergency, asylum-seekers will be unable to seek asylum regardless of whether they have compelling claims to relief.
Immigration judges serve an important role in the Congressionally-mandated process for reviewing the claims of asylum-seekers at or near the U.S.-Mexico border. This decades-old process, known as Expedited Removal, has its own flaws, but it does provide a credible fear review system that provides important protections for those seeking asylum. Specifically, and as explained in more detail below, the Expedited Removal statute requires that asylum-seekers, regardless of how they entered the United States, be interviewed by asylum officers to determine whether they have a credible fear of persecution and therefore can proceed to a full asylum hearing under Section 240 of the INA. The statute further mandates that immigration judges provide de novo review of asylum officers’ negative credible fear determinations, and thus make the final decision about whether an asylum-seeker at the U.S.-Mexico border has shown a credible fear of persecution and will have the opportunity to progress to a full asylum hearing.
The Rule unlawfully undermines this statutory scheme. First, the Rule creates clear bars to asylum for most migrants, disingenuously labeling these as “rebuttable presumptions.” As a result, almost all claims for asylum are pretermitted without the full asylum credible fear interviews required by the statutory Expedited Removal process. Rather, the credible fear interview will be turned into a “reasonable fear” interview to determine whether the migrant can proceed to claim withholding of
removal or protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), lesser forms of relief compared to asylum. Asylum-seekers are thus denied the opportunity to obtain full review of their asylum credible fear claims, including the de novo review by an immigration judge as required by Section 235 of the INA, 8 C.F.R. § 235.3. Instead, asylum-seekers may only seek review from an immigration judge as to the application of the narrow exceptions under the Rule or the lesser claims for relief. Accordingly, the Rule significantly and unlawfully curtails the role of immigration judges in asylum adjudication as set forth in the INA.
Moreover, the idea that the Rule heightens efficiency in the asylum adjudication process is an illusion. When an asylum-seeker is denied the ability to provide a credible fear of persecution, Expedited Removal still requires a review of potentially more complicated claims for withholding of removal and protection under the CAT. Thus, immigration judges on the one hand find their hands tied, unable to review the claims of bona fide asylum-seekers, but on the other hand are required to delve into the standards of withholding and CAT. Thus, the Rule turns a straightforward (and efficient) asylum credible fear review into a three-part analysis: the Rule exceptions, withholding, and CAT.
Finally, by creating exclusions that deny asylum to refugees who appear at the U.S.-Mexico border, the Rule violates U.S. obligations under the 1951 Refugee Convention. Longstanding canons of statutory and regulatory construction require consideration of international law; in this case, the Rule violates both the INA and international law.
. . . .
****************************
Read the complete brief skillfully prepared by our friend Ashley Vinson Crawford and her team at Akin Gump!
Ashley Vinson Crawford, ESQ Partner Akin Gump San Francisco, CA “Honorary Knightess of the Round Table” PHOTO: Akin Gump
Rather than heeding our comments and those of many other experts, the Administration proceeded with its wrong-headed changes, rammed through a farcically truncated “comment period” that showed that process was little but a sham. This is the exact kind of mockery of justice and prejudgement that one might have expected from the Trump Administration. It’s also one of the many things concerning immigration that Biden and Harris “ran against” in 2020 but lacked the will and integrity to achieve in practice.
Notably, we’re not the only group of “concerned experts” weighing in against the Biden Administration’s ill-advised rules. The union representing the USCIS Asylum Officers were among the many expert organizations and individuals filing in support of the plaintiffs in East Bay Santuary. See, e.g., Asylum Officers, Ex-Judges Back Suit On Biden Asylum Rule – Law360.
Among other choice commentary, the Asylum Officers argue that the rule “effectively eliminates asylum” at the southern border! What on earth is a Dem Administration doing betraying due process and the rule of law in favor of the most scurrilous type of nativist anti-asylum pandering — stuff right out of the “Stephen Miller playbook?” Who would have thought that we would get rid of Miller & company in 2020, yet still have to deal with his ghost in a Biden/Harris Administration that clearly and beyond any reasonable doubt has “lost its way” on immigration, human rights, racial justice, and the rule of law?
As Round Table spokesperson “Sir Jeffrey” Chase says, “We are in very good company!” Too bad that the Biden Administration has wandered off course into the morally vacant, disingenuous “never-never land” of anti-asylum, racially-driven nativism! It certainly did not have to be this way had effective, principled, expert leadership taken hold at the beginning.
Lindsay Toczylowski Executive Director, Immigrant Defenders “ I always tell the new immigration attorneys at Immigrant Defenders Law Center to never forget just how stacked against our clients the odds are in immigration court.“
Toczylowski is executive director of Immigrant Defenders Law Center, a nonprofit legal organization working along the U.S.-Mexico border and throughout Southern California, and lives in Los Angeles.
The lifting of Title 42 — the policy that shut down the U.S. asylum system for three years — should have been an inflection point leading to a more humane and orderly system for processing asylum seekers. Instead, the Biden administration doubled down on the politics of exclusion, introducing new restrictive measures, including an asylum ban, that keep asylum out of reach for those who need protection the most.
. . . .
When asylum seekers are finally able to ask for protection, they are often met not with compassion but with cruelty. Just days ago in San Ysidro, I saw mothers with children sleeping on dirt while in Customs and Border Protection custody, sharing one port-a-potty for more than 500 people. Good Samaritans handed out supplies because CBP did not provide sufficient food, water or medicine.
. . . .
President Biden has perpetuated these failed deterrence policies despite his campaign promises to restore humanity at our border. The administration has turned its back on asylum seekers. These are real people. They deserve our protection. They deserve to be safe.
. . . .
*******************
Read Lindsay’s complete op-ed at the link.
These cruel, unnecessary, cowardly, and illegal policies are a disgrace to America and an embarrassment to the Democratic Party!
You don’t have to be either an immigration expert or very smart to recognize that desperate individuals trying to turn themselves in to CBP agents at or near the border, to exercise their legal rights to seek protection, are NOT going to be a meaningful source of fentanyl smuggling. That trade is controlled by cartels who basically smuggle product through ports of entry in large quantities disguised as or mingled with legitimate commercial commerce.
Indeed, the preoccupation of CBP with improperly “deterring,” “discouraging,” and “punishing” legal asylum seekers not only empowers cartels, but significantly detracts from actual law enforcement against drug smugglers. And, the millions of dollars being misappropriated and wasted by Junkman and others on bogus National Guard deployments could much better and more appropriately be spent on humanitarian aid, coordinated, orderly resettlement programs for asylum seekers and asylees, and securing them legal representation to aid in the fair and timely processing of asylum claims.
However, the repetition of bogus and deliberately fabricated narratives like the “Junkman’s” latest wasteful stunt creates a “guilt by repetition” syndrome that feeds and enables the racist agenda of today’s GOP as well as the spineless “rollover” response of the Biden Administration, and, sadly, some other so-called Democrats.
Eliza C. Klein, a retired immigration judge, said the asylum case backlog “creates a second class of citizens.”Credit…Taylor Glascock for The New York Times
Eliza C. Klein, who left her position as an immigration judge in Chicago in April, said the latest increase in illegal border crossings will strain the understaffed work force as they prioritize migrants who crossed recently.
That will leave some older cases to languish even longer, she said.
“This is a great tragedy because it creates a second class of citizens,” Ms. Klein, who started working as an immigration judge in the Clinton administration, said of those immigrants who have been waiting years for an answer to their case. The oldest case Ms. Klein ever adjudicated had been pending in the court for 35 years, she said.
“It’s a disgrace,” Ms. Klein said. “My perspective, my thought, is that we’re not committed in this country to having a just system.”
While crowds of migrants continued to seek refuge in the United States after the lifting of Title 42, U.S. officials said the border remained relatively orderly. About 10,000 people crossed the border on Thursday, a historically large number, but that dropped significantly to about 6,200 on Friday.
Tens of thousands of migrants continued to wait in makeshift camps on both sides of the border for a chance to request sanctuary in the United States. The administration remained concerned about overcrowding; Border Patrol held more than 24,000 migrants in custody on Friday, well over the agency’s maximum capacity of roughly 20,000 in its detention facilities.
. . . .
Mimi Tsankov, the president of the National Association of Immigration Judges, said that to truly address the backlog, the Biden administration would need to do more than simply hire more judges. She said that the government should increase funding for better technology and bigger legal teams, and that Congress should reform the nation’s immigration laws.
“The immigration courts are failing,” said Samuel B. Cole, the judge association’s executive vice president. “There needs to be broad systemic change.”
. . . . .
Judge Charles Honeyman, who spent 24 years as an immigration judge and retired in 2020, said he came away from his job believing the United States would need to do a better job of deterring fraud while protecting those who would be harmed in their home country.
When handling an asylum case, Mr. Honeyman said he would assess the person’s application and examine the state of their home country by reading reports from the State Department and nonprofits. Many of the applicants lacked attorneys; he believes some cases that he denied might have turned out differently if the migrants had had legal representation.
In trying to root out fraud, he would compare a person’s testimony with the answers they had given to an asylum officer or Border Patrol agent.
. . . .
*******************************
Read the full article at the link.
EOIR ABUSES ASYLUM SEEKERS — The Problem Goes Deeper Than The Number Of Judges: Quality & Culture Matter!
By Paul Wickham Schmidt
U.S. Immigration Judge (Retired)
Courtside Exclusive
May 16, 2023
While the NYT article notes that the majority of asylum cases are eventually denied on the merits, this data is often presented in a misleading way by the Government, and unfortunately, sometimes the media. According to TRAC Immigration, during the period Oct 2000 to April 2023, approximately 43% of asylum seekers who received a merits decision were granted asylum or some other type of relief. Approximately 57% were denied. https://trac.syr.edu/phptools/immigration/asylum/
Even in an overall hostile system, where individuals are often required to proceed without lawyers, and grant/denial rates among Immigration Judges vary by astounding levels (so great as to present prima facie due process issues), asylum seekers succeed on the merits of their claims at a very respectable rate. In a properly staffed and administered system where the focus was on due process and fundamental fairness for individuals, that number would almost certainly be substantially higher.
Moreover, the data suggests that toward the end of the Obama Administration and during the entire Trump Administration, the asylum system was improperly manipulated to increase denials.
I think there are three reasons for the precipitous decline in asylum grant rates, largely unrelated to the merits of the claims. First, Attorneys General Jeff Sessions and Bill Barr overruled some of the leading administrative precedents supporting grants of asylum. In the process, they made it crystal clear that they considered Immigration Judges to be their subordinate employees within the political branch of Government and that denial, deportation, and assistance to their “partners” at DHS Enforcement (actually DHS is a party before EOIR, not a “partner”) were the preferred results at EOIR.
Second, in greatly expanding the number of Immigration Judges, Sessions and Barr appointed almost exclusively from the ranks of prosecutors and government attorneys, even elevating an inordinate number of individuals with no immigration and human rights experience whatsoever. Not only were well-qualified individuals with experience representing individuals in Immigration Court largely passed over and discouraged from applying, but some of the best Immigration Judges quit or retired prematurely as a matter of conscience because of the nakedly anti-immigrant pro enforcement “culture” promoted at EOIR.
Additionally, the nationwide appellate court and precedent setter, the BIA, was expanded and “packed” with some Immigration Judges who denied virtually all of the asylum cases coming before them and had reputations of hostility to the private bar and asylum seekers. Remarkably, Attorney General Garland has done little to address this debilitating situation at the BIA.
Third, since the latter years of the Obama Administration, when a vastly overhyped “border surge” took place, political officials of both parties have improperly “weaponized” EOIR as a “deterrent” to asylum seekers, focusing on expeditious denials of asylum rather than the due process and expert tribunal functions the agency was supposed to serve. The result has been a “culture of denial and deportation” with particular emphasis on finding ways to “say no” to women and individuals of color seeking asylum.
The NYT Article also mentions that asylum merits decisions require a higher standard of proof than “credible fear determinations.” That’s true. But the suggestion that the standards are much higher is misleading. In fact, the standards governing merits grants of asylum before the Asylum Office and EOIR are supposed to be extremely generous.
In the seminal case, INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, the Court said that “well-founded fear” is a generous standard, one that could be satisfied by a 10% chance of persecution. In implementing this holding, the BIA found in Matter of Mogharrabi that asylum could be granted even where the chances of persecution were substantially less than probable.
There is as also a regulation, 8 C.F.R. 208.13, issued under the Bush I Administration, that creates a rebuttable presumption of future persecution based on past persecution.
The problem is that none of these generous and remedial provisions relating to asylum has ever been properly, consistently, and uniformly applied within EOIR. As someone who during my time on the bench took these standards to heart, I found that a substantial majority of merits asylum cases coming before me could and should be granted under a proper application of asylum law.
Consequently, I am skeptical of judges who deny virtually all asylum claims. Likewise, I question the claims by political officials of both parties who pretend, without actual knowledge, that almost all asylum applicants at the border are “mere economic migrants” who deserve to be quickly and summarily removed.
Actually, under some circumstances, severe economic hardships can amount to persecution. Moreover, under the legally required “mixed motive” analysis for asylum, an economic aspect does not automatically obviate other qualifying grounds.
So, at its root, “credible fear” is actually an even more generous application of what is already supposed to be (but often isn’t in reality) a very generous standard for asylum. The alleged “disconnect” between the number of individuals found to have credible fear and the number actually granted asylum on the merits appears to be more a function of defective and overly restrictive decision-making at EOIR than it is of unjustified generosity of Asylum Officers screening for credible fear. It’s also important to remember that at the credible fear stage, individuals haven’t had time to marshal the substantial corroborating evidence eventually required (some would say unrealistically and unreasonably) in formal merits asylum hearings before EOIR.
Finally, just aimlessly increasing the number of Immigration Judges, without solving the systemic legal, logistical, management, quality control, training, and “cultural” problems infecting EOIR creates its own set of new problems.
Recently, a veteran practitioner before EOIR wrote the following:
In about eleven years, our local DMV went from twelve (12) judges in Baltimore and Arlington in 2012 to a hundred (100) judges in 2023 (8 BAL, 18 HYA, 30 WAS, 9 FCIAC, 14 RIAC, 21 STE). That’s an increase of 733.33%. This seismic expansion has resulted in many attorneys being overscheduled for individual hearings, which has an adverse effect on our clients, our ethical obligations, due process, and mental health.
Well-prepared attorneys, many serving pro bono or “low bono,” are absolutely essential to due process and fundamental fairness in Immigration Court, particularly in cases involving asylum and other forms of protection. For EOIR to schedule cases in a manner that does not take into consideration the legitimate needs and capacities of those practicing before their courts is nothing short of malpractice on the part of DOJ leadership.
There is a silver lining here. The EOIR judicial hiring program gives NDPA stars a chance to get on the bench at the retail level level, bring much needed balance and perspective, and to develop the credentials for future Article III judicial appointments. Since change isn’t coming “from the top,” we need to make it happen at the “grass roots level!” Keep those applications coming!
Dems control the composition of one of the most consequential Federal Appellate Tribunals, the BIA. Is THIS really the look that they want to project? https://www.flickr.com/photos/rasputin243/ Creative Commons License
Dan Kowalski reports for Lexis Nexis Immigration Community:
CA1 on Changed Country Conditions (Guatemala) – Mendez Esteban v. Garland
“[T]he 2017 report and the testimony from Mendez do not — together or independently — establish that changes in Guatemala have fundamentally altered the specific conditions that gave rise to Mendez’s substantiated claim of political persecution. Accordingly, the BIA’s conclusion that DHS rebutted Mendez’s presumption of well-founded fear is not supported by substantial evidence. We therefore find Mendez statutorily eligible for asylum. … [W]e grant the petition for review as to Mendez’s claims for asylum and withholding of removal. We deny the petition as to Mendez’s claim for CAT protection. We accordingly affirm the denial of Mendez’s CAT claim, vacate the denials of Mendez’s political opinion-based asylum and withholding of removal claims, and remand to the IJ for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
“Appellant Ishmael Kosh petitions us to review the order from the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) that terminated his asylum status and denied his applications for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture. He maintains that the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) improperly sought to terminate his asylum status in asylum-only proceedings because he first entered the United States under the Visa Waiver Program. Per Kosh, that limiting program no longer applies to him, so he is entitled to complete-jurisdiction removal proceedings instead. In such unlimited proceedings, asylees can raise an adjustment-of-status claim as a defense to removal. We conclude that, if Kosh re-entered the country as an asylee without signing a new Visa Waiver Program form limiting his defenses, he is entitled to complete-jurisdiction proceedings. We thus grant his petition for review, vacate the BIA’s decision, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
As many practitioners know, the BIA’s continual bogus “fundamentally changed circumstances” findings for countries where the human rights conditions have remained abysmal for decades, certainly NOT materially improving, and in most cases in the Northern Triangle getting worse, are an endemic problem. Following a finding of past persecution, ICE, not the respondent, bears the burden of proof!
If that burden were honestly and expertly applied, considering individualized fear of harm, ICE would rebut the presumption by a preponderance of the evidence in only a minuscule percentage of cases. Certainly, that was my experience over 21 years on both the trial and appellate benches at EOIR.
Moreover, in this and most other cases of past persecution, even if ICE were able to satisfy its burden of rebutting the presumption of future persecution by a preponderance of the credible evidence, the respondent would be a “slam dunk” for a grant of discretionary asylum on the basis of “other serious harm.” It’s not clear that any of the three judicial entities that considered this case understood and properly applied the “other serious harm” concept.
The BIA’s chronic failure to fulfill its proper role of insuring a fair application of asylum and other protection laws and to provide guidance “shutting down” IJs who routinely manufacture bogus reasons to deny is a systemic denial of due process and failure of judicial professionalism. That it continues to happen under a Dem Administration pledged to restore the rule of law and due process for asylum seekers is astounding, deplorable, and a cause for concern about what today’s Dems really stand for!
This case should have been granted by the IJ years ago. An appeal by ICE on this feeble showing should have been subject to summary dismissal.
That cases like Mendez Esteban are still aimlessly kicking around Garland’s dysfunctional system in an elusive search for justice is a serious indictment of the Biden Administration’s approach to asylum and to achieving long overdue, life-changing, and readily achievable reforms that are within their power without legislative action. It also helps explain why Garland has neither reduced backlogs nor sufficiently improved professionalism, even with many more IJs on the bench.
Practical tips for fighting against bogus “presumption rebuttals” by IJs under 8 CFR 208.13:
Insist that the IJ actually shift the burden to ICE to rebut the presumption of future persecution based on past persecution.
Use the regulatory definition of “reasonably available” internal relocation to fight bogus IJ findings. For example, countries in the Northern Triangle are “postage stamp sized” and plagued by nationwide violence and corruption. The idea of “reasonably available internal location” under all the factors is prima facie absurd! (A “better BIA” would have already pointed this out in a precedent.)
Argue for a discretionary grant of asylum even in the absence of a current well founded fear based on 1) “compelling circumstances” arising out of the past persecution (“Chen grant”), and/or “other serious harm” under the regulations — a much broader concept than persecution that does NOT require nexus to a protected ground.
Knowing and using the law aggressively to assert your client’s rights, making the record, and exhausting all appellate options are the best defenses to biased, anti-asylum, often disconnected from reality denials of life-saving relief to your clients!
BIA Asylum Panel In Action. Garland’s largely “holdover” BIA continues to align itself with Trump’s extreme right, nativist judges, as the progressives and advocates who actually supported Dems in the last two elections are left to stew, along with their dehumanized asylum seeking clients. Albrecht Dürer, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
Dan Kowalski reports for LexisNexis Immigration Community:
“Under the correct analysis, the record here compels a conclusion that Honduran rural landownership in this case is a common fundamental characteristic because Turcios-Flores should not be required to change this aspect of her identity to avoid persecution given the demonstrated importance of landownership to her. Therefore, we remand to the Board for further explanation of whether this group meets the social distinction and particularity requirements as well as the remaining asylum considerations.”
To reach their wrongconclusion that “rural landowners” are not a “particular social group,” the BIA ignored its own precedent. See, e.g., Matter of Acosta, 19 I&N Dec. 211, 233 (BIA 1985), modified on other grounds.
Class warfare and persecution of property owners was at the heart of most Marxist-Leninist Communist dictatorships.
Remarkably, under Garland, the BIA continues to parrot the same biased, restrictionist nonsense spouted by the Trumpist dissenter in this case, Judge Chad A. Readler. He was roundly criticized as unqualified by Democrats and advocates at the time of his nomination. This opposition had lots to do with his biased, anti-immigrant views flowing from his then “boss,” nativist/racist former AG Jeff “Gonzo Apocalypto” Sessions!
For example, it’s worth reviewing the comments of the Alliance for Justice on Reacher’s nomination:
On June 7, 2018, President Trump announced his intention to nominate a Justice Department official, Chad Readler, to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. This announcement was particularly striking for one notable reason: on that very day, Readler had become a leader in the Trump Administration’s fight to destroy the Affordable Care Act and the protections it offers to millions of Americans. Readler, as acting head of the Civil Division, filed a brief to strike down the ACA, including its protections for people with preexisting conditions. If Readler and the Trump Justice Department are successful, the ACA’s protections for tens of millions of people, including cancer patients, people with diabetes, pregnant women, and many other Americans, would be removed.
As the acting head of the Department of Justice Civil Division under Attorney General Jeff Sessions, Readler defended the Trump Administration’s most odious policies, including separating immigrant children from their parents at the border, while claiming that “[e]verything that the Attorney General does that I’ve been involved with he’s . . . being very respectful of precedent and the text of the statute and proper role of agencies.”
His track record is equally atrocious in other respects. He has tried to undermine public education in Ohio; supported the efforts of Betsy DeVos to protect fraudulent for-profit schools; fought to make it harder for persons of color to vote; advanced the Trump Administration’s anti-LGBTQ and anti-reproductive rights agenda; fought to allow tobacco companies to advertise to children, including outside day care centers; sought to undermine the independence of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau; and advocated for executing minors.
Chad Readler’s record of diehard advocacy for right-wing causes suggests he will be anything but an independent, fair-minded jurist. Alliance for Justice strongly opposes Readler’s confirmation.
It’s remarkable and infuriating that once in office, Democrats in the Biden Administration have aligned themselves with the toxic views of extreme, nativist right wing judges whose xenophobic, atrocious views they campaigned against! They have done this in a huge “life or death” Federal Court system that they completely control and have authority to reform without legislation!
“Fear & Loathing” Inept, disingenuous performances on asylum by the White House, DHS, & DOJ have left the Biden Administration grasping at straws and spreading vile nativist myths about asylum seekers at the border. PHOTO: Creative Commons
Deterrence and increased enforcement have proven to be failed approaches that do not change the multiple factors that force so many people to flee their countries and only result in pushing people into more dangerous routes that allow criminal organizations to thrive, resulting in the smuggling, trafficking, extortion, and kidnapping of migrants and others.
After more than two years of bumbling around, in the process squandering their access to the ideas and problem-solving skills of an un-precedented “brain trust” of immigration experts, the Biden Administration appears to be in “full panic mode” as the inevitable lifting of the Title 42 charade slowly approaches. Notably, a Federal Court ordered the Administration to make good on its (already delayed) promise to end Title 42 back in November 2022. But, the Supremes unethically blocked that order — granting a stay that NO ACTUAL PARTY to the litigation requested, in a simply mind-boggling exercise of politicized, unconstitutional interference with the Executive.
Instead of using the time to 1) work with NGOs, 2) hire and train more expert asylum officers, 3) replace the BIA and anti-asylum Immigration Judges with qualified human rights/due process experts, and 4) drastically ramp up the refugee admission system outside the U.S. (not substituting an inadequate and “jury rigged” numerically limited “parole” program for legal refugee and asylum admissions), the Administration frittered away the opportunity with obstructionist/restrictionist nonsense. Now, they are “running scared” from desperate refugees merely seeking to exercise their legal rights that have been illegally and immorally denied to them for years — by successive Administrations.
Pooja Asnani reports from Sanctuary For Families NY:
Hi all,
I wanted to share a recent asylum grant won by my colleagues, Deirdre Stradone, Amalia Chiapperino, and Kelly Becker-Smith, before IJ McKee at the NYC immigration court.
Client is Honduran Garifuna woman who survived DV and gang violence, and, importantly for the grant of asylum, forced sterilization. Below is a quick summary of the case, and I’m highlighting this asylum grant because our team, specifically Deirdre, has been seeing more and more cases of forced sterilization among Central American women.
Respondent is a forty-five-year-old Honduran Garifuna woman who has been the victim of forced sterilization, severe verbal, physical, and sexual violence, robbery and death threats by gang members, and intentional deprivation of law enforcement assistance and medical attention due to her race and gender. Overwhelming evidence affirms the horrific practice of forced sterilization against Garifuna women, as well as the high levels of domestic and gang violence in Honduras that take place with impunity. The evidence shows that government authorities largely fail to respond to complaints of abuse, or when they do respond, fail to do so effectively.
Deirdre has been collaborating with the Mt. Sinai Human Rights program to study the forced sterilization of Central American women, a topic she had encountered over and over again in her asylum cases, with the researchers agreeing that this particular violation of human rights is likely more common than is being research and reported. Deirdre has found several reports and studies conducted regarding indigenous, mainly Garifuna, women living with HIV who have been victims of this practice. As you all probably know, and stemming from the response to China’s one-child policy, forced sterilization is defined in the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) as “per se persecution on account of political opinion.”
I wanted to share this because we’re realizing that that it may be a more wide-spread practice than we initially thought, and often times, clients don’t even realized they have been sterilized when they come to us. We have been asking specific questions about this in our intakes, and often have been sending our clients to get a medical evaluation to determine whether they have been sterilized. Unfortunately, we have had a several clients discover in the course of our representation that they had been sterilized without their consent, and we believe that many other women may have experienced this without realizing.
While we have worked on several cases with similar facts, but interestingly, this is the first asylum case we have had were the IJ (McKee) granted specifically based on the forced sterilization claim (political opinion), and not on the ARCG DV claim.
Our team at Sanctuary is working to put together a training to help issue-spot, discuss common fact patterns, and how to prepare and brief these cases; stay tuned for more details.
CC’ing the team who worked on this case, including Deirdre, if folks have questions.
Thanks,
Pooja
Deirdre Stradone Attorney Sanctuary for Families NYKelly Becker-Smith Attorney Sanctuary for Families NYAmalia Chiapperino Sanctuary for Families NY
********************
Dan Kowalski reports from LexisNexis Immigration Community:
Christina Brown writes: “I wanted to share the attached decision in case it is helpful to others. IJ Burgie granted the asylum claim of an indigenous Guatemalan applicant finding past persecution based on severe economic deprivation (DHS failed to rebut). She also granted based on a pattern and practice of severe economic persecution of indigenous Guatemalans.”
Many congrats and much appreciation to all involved!
Even as the Biden Administration and GOP nativists push their “big myth” that most seeking asylum at the Southern Border are “mere economic migrants” not “true refugees,” these results from those fortunate enough to have expert lawyers, fair Immigration Judges, and reasonable time to prepare, document, and present continue to show the intellectual and moral bankruptcy of the racially-biased restrictionist claims. Indeed, to get to the “any reason to deny” nonsense, which also is often mis-employed by the BIA, one has to intentionally ignore or misconstrue both the real country conditions in the Northern Triangle and the inclusive “at least one central reason” mixed motive language of the INA.
These are NOT “one offs!”No, they are actually recurring situations! A properly functioning, fair, expert BIA, committed to a correct and generous interpretation of asylum laws, would have incorporated these and other recurring “grant” situations into a series of binding precedents. These, in turn, would allow lawyers, Asylum Officers, IJs, and ACCs to recognize and prioritize these cases for “fast track grants.”
That, in turn, would enable many asylum applicants to be timely admitted in legal asylum status, work authorized, and on the way to green cards and naturalization. Significantly, it would also avoid the largely self-created, self-aggravated, ever-growing EOIR backlogs that seem to “drive” the “haste makes waste,” sloppy, “any reason to deny” decision-making that still exists throughout our broken and biased asylum system.
The REAL problem here its that meritorious cases like or similar to these that require expert recognition, proper preparation and documentation, and officials committed to “protection not rejection,” are likely to be summarily rejected and wrongfully pushed back across the border by the “Biden/Miller Lite” procedures and toxic official attitudes toward asylum now being promoted by both the Administration and the GOP.
It’s disturbingly clear that the needed positive changes in the immigration legal system are NOT “coming from the top” in the Biden Administration. Consequently, in addition to recruiting, training, and mentoring ever more members of the NDPA (including non-attorney accredited representatives), to hold the system accountable, it is ESSENTIAL that we get more NDPA “practical experts” on the Immigration Bench to spread and force due process, fundamental fairness, and best interpretations/practices on a resistant system from the “retail level” — the “grass roots” if you will.
That requires that NDPA experts with the qualifications apply for Immigration Judge vacancies en masse! You can’t be selected if you don’t apply! And, without better Federal Judges at all levels not only will injustice continue to prevail for immigrants, but our entire democracy will be imperiled! Better judges for a better America!
Yes, as I have acknowledged in prior posts, EOIR can be a tough place to work. But, human lives and the future of our democracy depend on our changing the system, from “the bottom up” if that’s the only way. This system is too important, with too much at stake, to be left to the whims and false agendas of tone-deaf politicos and inept, “go along to get along” bureaucrats!
Injustice Public Realm Dems spend lots of time whining about the destruction of the Federal Judiciary by GOP right-wing extremists. However, after two years in charge, they have done little to bring due process, fundamental fairness, and judicial expertise to America’s worst courts — the Immigration Courts — which they totally control!
The 5th Circuit didn’t mince any words in its latest (inexplicably) unpublished, 24-page takedown of EOIR’s ridiculous “judicial” failure with lives at stake!
Based on all of the evidence as a whole, and in light of the applicable caselaw, Reyes-Hoyes has made a compelling case of persecution. Nevertheless, we find a remand is necessary because the BIA did not make a determination as to Reyes-Hoyes’s credibility. The BIA did not mention credibility in its decision or express any doubts about the truth of Reyes- Hoyes’s testimony. The IJ did express some doubts about Reyes-Hoyes’s credibility, although he did not explicitly find her uncredible and ultimately stated he was not denying relief “based on a lack of sufficiency of proof.” However, the BIA did not adopt the IJ’s decision and thus did not incorporate any of the doubts the IJ had. “Generally speaking, a court of appeals should remand a case to an agency for decision of a matter that statutes place primarily in agency hands.” I.N.S. v. Orlando Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16 (2002). If Reyes-Hoyes is credible, she has shown persecution, but the credibility determination must be made by the factfinder, not by this court on appeal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Avelar-Olivia v. Barr, 954 F.3d 757, 767 (5th Cir. 2020). Accordingly, the decision of the BIA is vacated in part, and we remand to the BIA for a determination on credibility.
. . . .
In sum, we conclude that, if Reyes-Hoyes is credible, the record compels the conclusion that Reyes-Hoyes suffered harm rising to the level of past persecution, but we remand for the BIA to consider her credibility in the first instance. We also conclude that the record compels the conclusion that safe internal relocation to parts of Guatemala—Mesata and Raul—was not possible. Additionally, we hold that the BIA procedurally erred in the remainder of its analysis concerning whether internal location was reasonable and whether Reyes-Hoyes had shown state action by not meaningfully considering the relevant substantial evidence.
. . . .
**************************
Here is my immediate reaction when Dan Kowalski at LexisNexis sent me the decison:
Wow! This is an EOIR/OIL error fest — replete with misrepresentations and mischaracterizations! Totally sloppy work! Why won’t they publish this? It’s a perfect example of how Garland has failed to get the job done!
And, here’s the reaction from my friend and Round Table Colleague “Sir Jeffrey Eagle Eyes” Chase:
24 pages; very detailed analysis of recurring asylum issues. Should certainly have been published.
BTW, please note footnote 9, an example of the ongoing problem with the government’s online regs continuing to list the enjoined “death to asylum” regs that the previous administration tried to push through. The Fifth Circuit continues to believe that the internal relocation reg was amended effective January 19, 2021. Have cases been decided based on this erroneous belief?
Lest you doubt the “complete FUBARness” of EOIR, check these out:
Worst of all the small and mid-sized agencies ranked;
While the “curve” for “subagencies” has gone up since 2007, EOIR’s score has cratered, plunging dramatically during the Trump years;
EOIR ranked at or near the bottom on key metrics, including, significantly, “leadership style” (some of the “credit” for this abysmal score should go to DOJ, which has failed to provide dynamic, due-process-oriented leadership over the last six years);
GAO study just cited EOIR for a number of management deficiencies including “blowing off” “our [GAO’s] 2017 recommendation to develop a strategic workforce plan to address current and future staffing needs, EOIR hasn’t done so—even though it had a significant and growing backlog of 1.8 million pending cases at the start of FY 2023, more than triple the number that it had in FY 2017.”
The NAIJ continues to raise technology and health and safety defects with EOIR “management;”
Notably, during this period of abject failure, EOIR has found time and resources to waste (and potential “goodwill” to squander) on unneeded nonsense like “IJ Dashboards,” “production quotas,” “expedited dockets,” more layers of bloated headquarters bureaucracy, and, perhaps the biggest boondoggle of all, a totally absurd and duplicative “Office of Policy” for an agency that has demonstrated a disturbing inability to carry out its “core function:” Providing Due Process for all through fair, timely, expert, correct adjudications!
“Eyore In Distress” Once A Symbol of Fairness, Due Process, & Best Practices, Now Gone “Belly Up” — As Dems founder in their commitment to restore justice, could new Immigration Judges from the NDPA — unswervingly committed to due process, fundamental fairness, and best practices — get this poor little fella back on his feet and improve the culture and atmosphere at the “retail level” of EOIR, even in the face of indifference and incompetence from those in charge? Lives and futures — perhaps the future of our democracy — are at stake!
What we really need is a “lean, not mean, due process machine” @ EOIR. Why can’t the Dems deliver? That’s the age-old question among human rights experts!
AILA is pleased to welcome this blog post from long-time AILA member Careen Shannon, Senior Counsel (formerly Partner) at Fragomen, Del Rey, Bernsen & Loewy, LLP, and the Executive Producer of an important new documentary, “Las Abogadas: Attorneys on the Front Lines of the Migrant Crisis.” AILA members in town for the Spring Conference have a chance to see “Las Abogadas” at the Washington, DC International Film Festival on Wednesday, April 26, at 6:00 p.m., with a second show on Friday, April 28, at 8:30 p.m.
When my friend Rebecca Eichler told me that a documentary filmmaker was making a movie about her experience providing legal advice to members of a Central American migrant caravan as it made its way north through Mexico in 2018, I said, “That’s nice.” Later, when film production stalled due to the COVID-19 pandemic, she sent me a link to a trailer and encouraged me to take a look, and I promised to do so. But I was busy managing my remote work for the Fragomen law firm where I was then a partner, and I put all thoughts of the film aside.
Then one day, I watched the trailer, and I was hooked. Here was a story that needed to be told. It wasn’t just about Rebecca, but about tenacious lawyers – mostly women – who were dedicating their lives to defending the rights of asylum seekers, reuniting migrant families torn apart by the Trump administration’s cruel family separation policy, and fighting to uphold the rule of law at a time when the few existing safeguards for migrants seeking refuge from harm were being systematically dismantled.
I reached out to the film’s Director, Victoria Bruce, who I later learned only reluctantly took my call at Rebecca’s urging, since at that point she had run out of steam – and money – and was not sure she had it in her to complete the film. But we had a great conversation, we fed off of each other’s enthusiasm for the subject matter, and by the end of our talk she had invited me to sign on as the film’s Executive Producer.
Two years into the pandemic, I decided to step down as a partner at Fragomen and dedicate myself to ensuring that this important film got made. Fast forward to today, and Las Abogadas: Attorneys on the Front Lines of the Migrant Crisis is making the rounds of film festivals, winning awards, and garnering critical acclaim. Las Abogadas (which means “the women lawyers” in Spanish) follows a group of women immigration attorneys over a multi-year odyssey as the U.S. government under Trump upends every protection for those fleeing from persecution, violence and war. The film’s narrative continues into the first two years of the Biden administration, where great hope gives way to a despair my fellow AILA members undoubtedly share, that nothing fundamental had changed in U.S. immigration policy.
. . . .
*********************
Read the complete article at the link.
“Nothing fundamentally has changed.” Rather than listening to, recruiting, partnering with, and following the advice of those on the “front lines” of defending individual rights, freedoms, and upholding American democracy, the Biden Administration disastrously turned immigration, human rights, and racial justice policies over to a bunch of “wonks” disconnected from the preventable human tragedies and mocking of the rule of law represented by Trump’s xenophobic, White Nationalist agenda.
Today, President Biden announced his candidacy for re-election in 2024. Part of his slogan is “protecting personal freedoms” from the GOP right-wing authoritarian, police state — bedrooms, bathrooms, classrooms, voting booths, more guns, MAGA-maniacs plan to invade and regulate every aspect of your life. But Biden’s miserable performance on immigrants’ rights and his Administration’s tone-deaf “dissing” of those like the heroes of “Las Abogadas,” suggests he will need more than a slogan to energize a critical, too often ignored,“core component” of the Dem base.
He could start by watching “Las Abogadas” along with VP Harris (who “took on” the “immigration portfolio,” and has been MIA since), his politicos, and his campaign staff and heeding the message. Social justice advocates are understandably skeptical about Biden’s promises. He needs actions that advance due process, the rule of law, and humane, robust, orderly processing of refugees and asylum seekers!
As the Trump debacle demonstrated, when immigrants’ rights disappear, all other individual and personal rights in America are in the far-right’s sights! It doesn’t take much imagination (except, perhaps, for some so-called “centrist” Dems) to see how the onslaught of anti-immigrant myths, rhetoric, and legislation by the GOP right has quickly shifted to hate bills targeting gays, transgender, women, Black History, teachers, voters, election officials, rational gun control, heck, even doctors, nurses, and established medical science!
Careen Shannon Senior Counsel (formerly Partner) Fragomen, Del Rey, Bernsen & Loewy, LLP Executive Producer “Las Abogadas: Attorneys on the Front Lines of the Migrant Crisis.” Photo: Think Immigration
Many congrats to Careen Shannon and everyone else involved in this tremendous project!
CAUTION: You are about to enter AG Merrick Garland’s “Twilight Zone” — where judges operating in a parallel universe make surreal decisions without regard to facts, law, or common sense applicable in this world! The Twilight Zone Billy Mumy 1961.jpg :PHOTO: Public Realm
Dan Kowalski reports for LexisNexis Immigration Community:
CA9 on Standard of Review: Umana-Escobar v. Garland
“Josue Umana-Escobar petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) order upholding the immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). He also challenges the BIA’s determinations that defects in the Notice to Appear (“NTA”) did not require termination of his proceedings and that the BIA lacked authority to administratively close his case. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We dismiss the defective NTA claim for lack of jurisdiction and deny the petition as to the CAT claim. We grant the petition and remand as to the administrative closure issue, given the government’s recommendation that we should do so based on an intervening decision by the Attorney General. We also grant the petition and remand as to the asylum and withholding of removal claims because the BIA applied the wrong standard in reviewing the IJ’s determination that the evidence failed to establish the requisite nexus between a protected ground and past or future harm.”
The initial hearing was in 2013, merits hearing in 2017, Circuit remand in 2023. After a decade, a fairly routine asylum case is still unresolved!
This case probably shouldn’t even be in Immigration Court, as it was affected by “Gonzo” Sessions’s wrong-headed, backlog-building, interference with administrative closing, later reversed by Garland, but not until substantial, systemic damage to EOIR had already been caused.
When it’s “any reason to deny, any old boilerplate gets by!”🤬 Bogus “no nexus” findings — often ignoring the “at least one central reason” standard and making mincemeat out of the “mixed motive doctrine” — are a particular EOIR favorite! That’s because they can be rotely used to deny asylum even where the testimony is credible,the harm clearly rises to the level of persecution, is likely to occur, and relocation is unreasonable!
In other words, it allows EOIR to function as part of the “deterrence regime” by sending refugees back to harm or death. What better way of saying “we don’t want you” which has become the mantra of Biden’s “Miller Lite” policy officials!
GOP, Dems, neither are competent to run a court system. That’s why we need an independent Article I court!⚖️
Kids are among the many groups of refugees and asylum seekers ill-served by the Biden Administration’s policies and performance. “World Refugee Day 2023” is a rather grim reminder of America’s failure to live up to its obligations to the world’s most vulnerable!
