"The Voice of the New Due Process Army" ————– Musings on Events in U.S. Immigration Court, Immigration Law, Sports, Music, Politics, and Other Random Topics by Retired United States Immigration Judge (Arlington, Virginia) and former Chairman of the Board of Immigration Appeals PAUL WICKHAM SCHMIDT and DR. ALICIA TRICHE, expert brief writer, practical scholar, emeritus Editor-in-Chief of The Green Card (FBA), and 2022 Federal Bar Association Immigration Section Lawyer of the Year. She is a/k/a “Delta Ondine,” a blues-based alt-rock singer-songwriter, who performs regularly in Memphis, where she hosts her own Blues Brunch series, and will soon be recording her first full, professional album. Stay tuned! 🎶 To see our complete professional bios, just click on the link below.
WASHINGTON, D.C.(December 23, 2020) — A group of asylum seekers and immigrant services organizations are suing the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), purported Acting Secretary Chad Wolf, and purported Acting DHS General Counsel Chad Mizelle to vacate tworules that have drastically curtailed access to work authorization and identity documentation for people who flee to the United States and apply for asylum protection. The new rules, in effect since August, force asylum seekers to wait years for their cases to move through the backlogged immigration system before they may lawfully earn an income.
“These rules were one cruel part of the Trump administration’s continuous efforts throughout its single term in office to dismantle the United States’ commitment to provide refuge to people fleeing persecution,” said Keren Zwick, litigation director for the National Immigrant Justice Center, which is co-counsel in the case. “These particular rules betray so much of what our country is supposed to value; they try to deter asylum seekers from coming at all and deprive those who make it here of the means to support themselves and their families.”
The rules bar asylum applicants from receiving work permits for at least a year after they file their asylum applications and prevent some individuals from working for the entire duration of their cases — often several years.
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, the Center for Gender & Refugee Studies, and Kids in Need of Defense also are providing co-counsel in the case, representing 14 individuals and three organizational plaintiffs before the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
The individual plaintiffs in the case are asylum seekers, including transgender women and parents with small children, who fled political persecution, gender-based violence, or gang and drug-cartel violence and are prevented under the new rules from receiving work permits. Three organizational plaintiffs — AsylumWorks, Tahirih Justice Center, and Community Legal Services in East Palo Alto — say the new rules threaten to derail their missions to provide employment assistance and legal and social services to asylum seekers. Asylum seekers’ ability to earn an income is critical for them to be able to pursue their legal cases and meet basic needs such as housing and mental and medical healthcare, and to avoid falling victim to human trafficking or other exploitation. Furthermore, in many states, work permits are the only identification documentation asylum seekers receive until they are granted protection.
“This lawsuit is about upholding basic human dignity,” said Joan Hodges-Wu, founder and executive director of AsylumWorks, lead plaintiff in the case. “Asylum seekers are simply looking for a fair shake — the chance to work, pay for their own housing, feed and clothe their families. Our asylum system should be rooted in justice and compassion. Instead, this policy forces future Americans — many of whom have already escaped unspeakable hardship — into further danger and depravity. This is a crisis the Trump Administration is determined to make worse. Denying the right to work for one year means unnecessarily delaying the time before asylum seekers can become productive, tax-paying members of the workforce, and denying our country vital frontline workers willing to risk their lives at this critical time.”
“These rules will force courageous survivors of violence into dangerously precarious living situations, needlessly compounding their suffering. They will also make it significantly more difficult for asylum seekers to afford legal representation, which we know can make a life-saving difference in these cases, and to sustain themselves and their families while they seek protection,” said Annie Daher, staff attorney at the Center for Gender & Refugee Studies, co-counsel in the case. “The rules will undoubtedly result in refugees being wrongly denied asylum and ordered deported to the very dangers they have fled.”
In its comments to the Federal Register, the Trump administration said that governments should take responsibility for individuals who may be harmed by the rule, stating that asylum seekers who may become homeless as a result of the rule changes should “become familiar with the homelessness resources provided by the state where they intend to reside.”
The plaintiffs ask the district court to vacate the proposed rules, arguing the rules violate U.S. laws and that the government did not provide adequate rationale for the harm the rules would cause. The lawsuit also argues that Wolf was not validly serving in that role when the agency issued the rules and Mizelle was no longer validly serving in that role when he signed the rules. Federal courts have already found that Wolf was not lawfully appointed to his position when he enacted other harmful immigration rules, including the administration’s failed attempt to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program.
Additional plaintiffs in the case offered the following statements:
Richard Caldarone, litigation counsel, Tahirih Justice Center: “Instead of allowing those fleeing violence and persecution to live their lives while they pursue relief in the United States, the government has deliberately chosen to condemn survivors and other asylum seekers to lengthy periods of homelessness, food insecurity, and unnecessary poverty. There are many understandable reasons why survivors of violence may wait more than a year to apply for asylum – including the need to heal from trauma or the need to avoid reliving painful memories. Our immigration system must uphold the right for survivors to work while their cases continue, rather than slamming the door shut to safety.”
Misha Seay, Managing Attorney, Community Legal Services in East Palo Alto: “These rules are a cruel attempt at forcing asylum seekers into poverty and homelessness if they choose to move forward with their asylum claims and wait for their day in court, which in some cases may take years. Asylum seekers will be stuck in a catch-22 of being unable to afford an attorney to help them apply for a work permit and seek asylum, and unable to lawfully work and earn a living so that they can afford to hire an attorney,” says Misha Seay, Managing Attorney at Community Legal Services in East Palo Alto. “Our government’s commitment to providing protection to those fleeing persecution cannot be fulfilled if we make their everyday life impossible while they navigate that process.”
###
The National Immigrant Justice Center is a nongovernmental organization dedicated to ensuring human rights protections and access to justice for all immigrants, refugees, and asylum seekers through a unique combination of direct services, policy reform, impact litigation, and public education.
NATIONAL IMMIGRANT JUSTICE CENTER
224 S. Michigan Avenue, Suite 600 | Chicago, Illinois 60604 immigrantjustice.org
********************
Thanks, Joan, my friend and a true hero of the NDPA, for speaking out and taking action to fight the “crimes against humanity” that continue to be committed by the kakistocracy and their baggage handlers on their way out the door!
Under Joan’s dynamic and courageous leadership, AsylumWorks has been providing support and community assistance services to asylum seekers in the D.C. area for several years. She has now expanded her organization’s mission to include impact litigation to protect and enhance the human dignity and the human rights of asylum seekers!
Check out AsylumWorks and their great programs (and contribute to this most worthy cause) at their website here:
Dan Kowalski reports from LexisNexis Immigration Community:
Lawsuits Challenge Massive “End of Asylum” Rule
1. Pangea Legal Services, et al. v. DHS et al. – “[T]he Center for Gender & Refugee Studies, the Harvard Immigration and Refugee Clinical Program, and Sidley Austin LLP filed suit today challenging the mammoth asylum rule in the Northern District of California on behalf of organizational plaintiffs Pangea Legal Services, Dolores Street Community Services, Inc., CLINIC, and CAIR Coalition. The complaint challenges all substantive and procedural merits related issues (it does not challenge the changes to credible fear).” – Blaine Bookey, Legal Director, Center for Gender & Refugee Studies, University of California Hastings College of the Law
2. Human Rights First v. Wolf – “Human Rights First, alongside counsel at Williams & Connolly, filed a lawsuit challenging the Trump administration’s sweeping new anti-refugee regulation, which will gut protections for those seeking asylum and make it virtually impossible for refugees to secure asylum in the United States.
The lawsuit, filed in the United States federal district court in Washington, D.C., asks the court to intervene and stop the government from enforcing the rule, which is scheduled to take effect on January 11, 2021.
“This rule seeks to end asylum in the United States as we know it. Over the past four years, this administration has employed an array of tools in the hope of dismantling the legal protections Congress provided for refugees and asylum seekers,” said Hardy Vieux, Human Rights First’s senior vice president, legal. “Human Rights First is heading back to federal court to dash that hope. And to affirm that Congress sought to protect people fleeing persecution, not demonize them incessantly, even in the waning days of an administration long consumed with denying protection to those most in need of it. This holiday season, and every season, we shall continue to exalt the rule of law.”
Human Rights First v. Wolf et. al. challenges the Department of Homeland Security and Department of Justice’s rule, rammed through in the waning days of the Trump administration. The complaint in Human Rights First v. Wolf et. al. can be found here.
Human Rights First, an organizational plaintiff in the suit, argues that the rule violates the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), the Administrative Procedure Act, international law, and the United States Constitution. In its complaint, Human Rights First argues, “If allowed to stand, the rule will eviscerate the ability of noncitizens fleeing persecution to obtain asylum and related relief in the United States. The United States will instead send refugees back to countries where they face persecution, torture, and possible death—the very outcome Congress expressly designed the INA to avoid.”
The rule, which fundamentally rewrites United States asylum law, will illegally render the majority of asylum seekers ineligible for asylum while tilting every phase of the asylum process in favor of denial and deportation. The rule also upends the procedures for asylum adjudication, further limiting procedural protections for refugees seeking protection in the United States.
The United States government is attempting to make it impossible for our asylum-seeking clients to secure protection. Many of Human Rights First’s clients who have already been granted asylum would, under the rule, be denied protection. One Human Rights First asylum-seeking client stated, “[I]t really disappoints me to learn that the United States, a country [I] have looked up to as a beacon of freedom, is trying to put people like me in harm’s way. I fear for my safety.”
Through this lawsuit, Human Rights First is standing up for the rights of asylum seekers like our clients. Human Rights First’s comments this past summer opposing the draft rule are here.
Human Rights First provides pro bono legal representation for refugees seeking asylum in the United States, in partnership with volunteer lawyers at many of the nation’s leading law firms. Our refugee clients have fled persecution in Cameroon, China, Cuba, El Salvador, Guatemala, Eritrea, Honduras, Iraq, Nicaragua, Syria, Venezuela, and other countries where their lives and freedom are at risk.’
*******************
Thanks to all the NDPA heroes involved in this effort!
Hey hey, ho ho, the EOIR Clown Show 🤡🤮 has got to go!
“EOIR Clown Show Must Go” T-Shirt Custom Design Concept
Michelle Mendez Defending Vulnerable Populations Director Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc. (“CLINIC”)
Michelle Mendez @ CLINIC reports:
Court Grants Class Certification and Amends Preliminary Injunction in USCIS UC Asylum Jurisdiction Litigation
On December 21, 2020, the U.S. District Court in Greenbelt, Maryland granted Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification in J.O.P. v. DHS, No. 19:1944, a lawsuit challenging a May 31, 2019 USCIS policy limiting USCIS asylum jurisdiction over applicants previously determined to be “unaccompanied alien children.” The court certified the following class:
“All individuals nationwide who prior to the effective date of a lawfully promulgated policy prospectively altering the policy set forth in the 2013 Kim Memorandum (1) were determined to be an Unaccompanied Alien Child (“UAC”); and (2) who filed an asylum application that was pending with the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”); and (3) on the date they filed their asylum application with USCIS, were 18 years of age or older, or had a parent or legal guardian in the United States who is available to provide care and physical custody; and (4) for whom USCIS has not adjudicated the individual’s asylum application on the merits.”
Simultaneously, the court granted in part Plaintiffs’ motion to amend the nationwide preliminary injunction to prevent USCIS’s deference to EOIR jurisdictional determinations and to prevent ICE’s advocacy against USCIS initial jurisdiction. The court denied Plaintiffs’ request to amend the preliminary injunction to prevent USCIS from rejecting jurisdiction based on its expansion of the “affirmative act” exception from the 2013 Kim Memo, instead granting Plaintiffs 21 days to amend their complaint to encompass this claim. Please see CLINIC’s litigation webpage for the court’s December 21, 2020 memorandum opinion and order, as well as other case-related documents.
As amended, the preliminary injunction has the following components:
It enjoins USCIS from relying on the 2019 policy for any purpose. USCIS is barred from “rejecting jurisdiction over any asylum application filed by Plaintiffs and members of the class whose applications would have been accepted” under USCIS’s previous policy, articulated in the 2013 Kim Memo.
It enjoins USCIS from deferring to EOIR jurisdictional determinations. USCIS is barred from “deferring to EOIR determinations in assessing jurisdiction over asylum applications filed by Plaintiffs and members of the class.”
It orders USCIS to retract adverse decisions already made. USCIS must “retract any adverse decision rendered on or after June 30, 2019 that is based in whole or in part on any of the actions enjoined and restrained” as described above.
It enjoins ICE from advocating against USCIS initial jurisdiction. Where a class member’s asylum application is pending before USCIS, ICE is barred (both at the IJ and BIA levels) from seeking denials of continuances or other postponements to await adjudication of the I-589 filed with USCIS, seeking EOIR exercise of jurisdiction over an asylum claim where USCIS has initial jurisdiction under the terms of the 2013 Kim Memo, or otherwise taking the position that USCIS lacks initial jurisdiction over the class member’s asylum application.
Counsel for the Plaintiffs will continue to provide updates to practitioners as this litigation progresses. Advocates for clients: (1) who receive adverse decisions dated on or after June 30, 2019 that violate the terms of the amended preliminary injunction; or (2) in whose removal proceedings ICE advocates in violation of the amended preliminary injunction should contact Plaintiffs’ counsel Mary Tanagho Ross, mross@publiccounsel.org, and Kevin DeJong, KDeJong@goodwinlaw.com.
Thank you,
Michelle N. Mendez | she/her/ella/elle
Director, Defending Vulnerable Populations Program
Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc. (CLINIC)
******************
Thanks for another “great news” report, Michelle, my friend!
Finally, at long last, some Article III judges are “calling out” the highly unethical and glaringly unconstitutional “partnership” between ICE enforcement and EOIR to screw asylum seeking kids.
The EOIR White Nationalist agenda 🏴☠️ of limiting legitimate continuances and administrative closing to mindlessly, improperly, and inefficiently proceed in Immigration Court on matters that should be resolved through USCIS adjudication is not only thoroughly corrupt, but also totally counterproductive, as uncontrollably mounting EOIR backlogs and increasing Article III Court interventions have shown.
And, the completely unconstitutional and unethical call early on by corrupt former AG Jeff “Gonzo Apocalypto” Sessions 🤮 for “his wholly owned EOIR judges” to join their “ICE enforcement partners” in racist immigrant bashing initiatives should long ago have been a basis for the Article IIIs to declare this entire ungodly mess in the Immigration Courts to be unconstitutional under the 5th and 14th Amendments.
Thanks to you and other members of the NDPA, Michelle, for all you have done and continue to do to expose corruption, illegality, and wrongdoing in the regime’s sprawling, out of control, immigration kakistocracy! Now, we need you and other members of the NDPA like you on the Federal Bench to short circuit all the BS and get sane, legal, humane policies and “best interpretations and practices” in place “from the git go” and then enforce them on recalcitrant bureaucrats.
Racial Justice in America is, as it must be, one of the top Biden-Harris priorities! 🇺🇸 It can only be achieved if the White Nationalist mess at EOIR and ICE is cleaned up and replaced with experts committed to due process, fundamental fairness, and human rights in charge! There must be new, dynamic, and courageous leadership committed to controlling and reforming the actions of civil servants throughout government who furthered Stephen Miller’s vile racist agenda unlawfully and immorally targeting immigrants of color, their families, and their communities. “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere” (MLK, Jr.).
Time for the NDPA ⚖️🗽🧑🏽⚖️👩⚖️ to replace the EOIR Clown Show🤡!
“Eyore In Distress” Once A Symbol of Fairness, Due Process, & Best Practices, Now Gone “Belly Up”“Justice” Star Chamber StyleBIA Asylum Panel In Action Albrecht Dürer, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse
Immigration Court Case Completion Times Jump as Delays Lengthen
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Not surprisingly, Immigration Court closures and delays in hearings for courts that are conducting hearings have drastically reduced the number of completed cases for the first two months of this fiscal year as compared with prior years at the same time.
New cases continue to drastically outpace case completions. In October and November 2020, the Immigration Courts received 29,758 new filings. This is fewer filings than usual, but still almost twice the 15,990 cases they completed.
As a result, the court’s active backlog at the end of November 2020 reached 1,281,586. This is up 18,821 cases in just the last two months. Adding to the court’s workload are not only new filings, but previously closed cases that have been reopened, remanded for reconsideration, or otherwise placed back on the court’s docket.
Disposition times for closed cases have also shot up this year. Cases disposed of in FY 2020 took on average 460 days. During the first two months of FY 2021, the courts disposed of a much smaller number of cases, but the disposition times were much longer at an average of 755 days—or 64 percent longer. The longest disposition times were found in the Cleveland Immigration Court where it took on average 1,617 days.
For the latest disposition times at each Immigration Court read the full report at:
To examine a variety of Immigration Court data, including asylum data, the backlog, MPP, and more now updated through November 2020, use TRAC’s Immigration Court tools here:
TRAC is self-supporting and depends on foundation grants, individual contributions and subscription fees for the funding needed to obtain, analyze and publish the data we collect on the activities of the US Federal government. To help support TRAC’s ongoing efforts, go to:
The Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse is a nonpartisan joint research center of the Whitman School of Management (https://whitman.syr.edu) and the Newhouse School of Public Communications (https://newhouse.syr.edu) at Syracuse University. If you know someone who would like to sign up to receive occasional email announcements and press releases, they may go to https://trac.syr.edu and click on the E-mail Alerts link at the bottom of the page. If you do not wish to receive future email announcements and wish to be removed from our list, please send an email to trac@syr.edu with REMOVE as the subject.
*******************
As mom used to say, “Haste makes waste.” Taking more time to decide cases would be perfectly defensible if it actually produced useful deliberation, thoughtful scholarship, and just and fair results. But, this currently is a system that must limit its intake while it develops the expertise, scholarship, analytical skills, quality control mechanisms, and best practices necessary for judicial efficiency that complies with due process and fundamental fairness (not to mention basic asylum law). That’s a “complete rebuild.”
Then, once that system is running well, it could be methodically and rationally expanded, if actually necessary. But, aimlessly building more assembly lines producing defective products and then ratcheting up the speed will, not surprisingly, produce nothing except more dangerous and defective products.
Not exactly rocket science that a bunch of hacks implementing racist policies, trying to speed up the assembly line, engaging in “Aimless Docket Reshuffling,” eradicating due process, discouraging fairness and deliberation, eliminating their own jurisdiction to control the dockets, and denying everything while mindlessly throwing more resources into a broken beyond belief “(non)system” at war with its own essential employees and those whom it (dis)serves would produce total chaos and dysfunction.Also, throw in lack of best technology and overt disregard for public health and safety.
And, while this is going on, an undisciplined, out of control, and for all practical purposes worse than useless ICE continues to pour new cases into the maelstrom at twice the rate it can get turn them out! As the late NY Met’s Manager Casey Stengel once said, “Can’t anyone here play this game?”
This is an ongoing and increasingly visible unmitigated national disgrace. It’s also an abuse of public funds and a betrayal of the public trust — fundamentals of sound government.
And, it won’t be “swept under the table” in the finest tradition of incoming Administrations. As I’ve said before, the Biden-Harris Administration either fixes EOIR🤡 immediately with some new faces with real expertise, or it “owns” it. And, the current White Nationalism infested atrocity and den of “malicious incompetence” at EOIR🤡 is not something an Administration striving to achieve equal justice and racial reconciliation should want to own!
Due Process Forever!
Hey hey, ho ho, the EOIR Clown Show 🤡 has got to go!
“EOIR Clown Show Must Go” T-Shirt Custom Design Concept
“Eyore In Distress” Once A Symbol of Fairness, Due Process, & Best Practices, Now Gone “Belly Up”
The Board of Immigration Appeals has issued a decision in Matter of M-A-M-Z-, 28 I&N Dec. 173 (BIA 2020).
(1) Expert testimony is evidence, but only an Immigration Judge makes factual findings.
(2) When the Immigration Judge makes a factual finding that is not consistent with an expert’s opinion, it is important, as the Immigration Judge did here, to explain the reasons behind the factual findings.
PANEL: MULLANE, CREPPY, and LIEBOWITZ, Appellate Immigration Judges
OPINION BY: Judge MULLANE
**********************
So, with the overt politicization and precipitous decline in reliability of DOS Country Reports, expert opinions have become of increasing importance in asylum cases. And, the are many great experts and groups providing alternatives to the skewed DOS reports these days.
So, what’s really needed in NOT more encouragement for IJs, many of whom lack real asylum expertise, to find ways to downgrade or dismiss experts. What is essential, is new guidance: 1) honestly recognizing that this Administration’s anti-asylum and inappropriate ideological agendas have undermined the credibility of DOS reports; and 2) describing ways in which IJs should be using alternatives, like expert testimony and reports, to support grants of protection to applicants who need and deserve them.
Credible applicants are supposed to be given the benefit of the doubt. Today’s EOIR has “made mincemeat” of that principle.
It is time to rethink the evidence so often submitted and relied upon in asylum claims, to dial back the corroboration demands, and to return to a core principle of refugee law – the need to afford asylum seekers the benefit of the doubt. We need a better way to establish asylum eligibility and challenge stereotypes.
Appropriate guidance is not going to happen until the present BIA is replaced by real appellate judges who are experts on asylum law, due precess, fundamental fairness,and who have experience representing asylum seekers in the real world. Hopefully, that long overdue day, is within sight: “Hey hey, ho, the EOIR Clown Show has got to go!
Due Process Forever!
PWS
12-20-20
“EOIR Clown Show Must Go” T-Shirt Custom Design Concept
Alert for Asylum Seekers – Consult with an Immigration Attorney if you Haven’t Filed your Case before January 11, 2020
Over the summer, the U.S. government proposed a set of regulations that will dramatically change asylum law. In response, the public and immigrant advocates submitted close to 90,000 public comments. The Government changed some of the proposed rules, slightly, but the new rules are set to go into effect on January 11, 2021. There will likely be legal challenges (lawsuits) to try to stop the regulations from going into effect. But, it’s always hard to tell what will happen. One of the changes made between July 15, 2020 and December 2020 to the proposed rules is that they will not be retroactive. This means that they will not apply to anyone who has filed their I-589 Application for asylum before January 11, 2021. The Government is saying that the new rules will apply now and despite any legal challenge to any sections that the Government views as simply codifying existing case law. But, it is likely much better for asylum seekers to have their applications filed prior to January 11, 2021. This is especially for people fleeing harm from non-government actors, for asylum seekers fleeing gender-based harm, and for individuals who have spent time in another country before coming to the U.S. If you are seeking asylum, please consult with an immigration attorney as soon as possible. An I-589 asylum application takes hours to properly fill out and you will need to have time to work with an attorney to prepare your application and get it mailed before January 11, 2021. If you are an asylum seeker in need of assistance, please contact Lindsay.harris@udc.edu, Vice-Chair of the American Immigration Lawyers Association’s National Asylum & Refugee Committee and Associate Professor and Director of the Immigration & Human Rights Clinic at the University of the District of Columbia David A. Clarke School of Law.
Lindsay M. Harris (she/her/hers)
Associate Professor of Law
Director, Immigration & Human Rights Clinic
University of the District of Columbia
David A. Clarke school of Law
********************
Thanks Lindsay, my friend!
One of the points that I can’t overemphasize is the importance of getting legal assistance to fully, carefully, and accurately fill out the asylum application (Form I-589).
Variances between the written application and supporting documentation and testimony before the Asylum Office or Immigration Court have always been problematic.
But, under the current White Nationalist restrictionist regime, Asylum Officers and Immigration Judgesare encouraged to “fly speck” asylum applications for any variances, no matter how minor, that can be used to find the applicant “not credible.” While this is both a violation of the statute and the case law in most Circuits, it’s a reality that asylum applicants must deal with.
It’s a particular problem given the hiring of many new Immigration Judges with no expertise in asylum laws, no sympathy for asylum seekers, no experience representing asylum seekers, subject to production quotas that encourage them to use “any reason to deny” an asylum application, and basically imbued with the “propaganda” that most asylum applications are without merit.
My own experience, although now in the past, is that many asylum seekers incorrectly assume that the Form I-589 is just a “rough outline” of the claim and that they will be allowed to fill in blanks, obtain additional documentation, and explain problems in full at a later time. That wasn’t true in the past, and is even less so now.
What and how things are said in the written asylum application can have a determinative effect before both the Asylum Office and the Immigration Court! “First instance denials” by Immigration Judges are very hard to reverse on appeal, particularly when based on “adverse credibility rulings.”
So, preparing the application carefully with assistance from someone who understands exactly how the Immigraton Court system works (or doesn’t) is essential!
Knightess of the Round TableHon. Jeffrey S. “Sir Jeffrey” Chase Jeffrey S. Chase Blog Coordinator & Chief Spokesperson, Round Table of Former Immigration Judges
More great news from Sir Jeffrey:
Hi all: We filed an amicus brief with the Third Circuit last year in a domestic violence withholding and CAT claim from Mexico. The BIA acknowledged that the petitioner was beaten four or five times a month by her abuser; was raped by him several times, and then lost her job as an agro-engineer with a government agency in Mexico after her abuser beat her violently in front of her co-workers, and her employer told her she could not publicly represent the agency with the resulting bruises on her face. The BIA further recognized that her abuser was able to locate her when she tried to relocate within Mexico. And yet withholding was denied on nexus, and CAT denied on government acquiescence grounds.
A number of other groups, including CGRS, filed amicus briefs as well, and OILu moved to remand under favorable terms. Anju Gupta at Rutgers, who represents the petitioner, said that today, the IJ (who was very much made aware of all of the amicus briefs) granted CAT relief.
The email said that the petitioner (who was previously detained at Elizabeth, NJ) is now in Mexico (I’m not clear on the details), but will hopefully be able to return soon based on the grant.
It’s great that we continue to make a positive difference.
Best, Jeff
**********
Wow! What a great holiday present!
What a great group with a great mission of promoting due process, advocating for equal justice, and saving lives! Every member of the Round Table has saved lives by standing up for the human dignity and legal rights of those who came before us in Immigration Court. And, we continue to “fight the good fight,” in every possible way at every level of the justice system!
Manning argues immigration judges must ask questions to develop the record for pro se applicants like Arevalo-Quintero about their PSG affiliations. She isn’t alone in her push for a different standard for pro se immigrants applying for asylum.
In an amicus brief, a group of retired immigration judges and former members of the Board of Immigration Appeals point to a Fifth Circuit opinion that says immigration judges have a duty to “seek clarification” and “ensure that the [PSG] being analyzed is included in his or her decision.”
Immigration judges “must remain neutral, but that does not mean that they are passive bystanders during immigration court hearings,” the brief states. “The regulations require IJs, for example, to explain the factual allegations and charges in ‘non-technical’ language.”
. . . .
*******************
Read Brad’s full article at the link.
Many thanks to my“eagle eyed” friend Deb Sanders for sending this my way.
The Round Table 🛡⚔️ continues to play a positive role. Compare that with the unfailingly negative role of the current “EOIR Clown Show.”🤡🤮
In what hopefully will be a much better world after January 20, 2021, the Round Table could work with a “new EOIR,” led and staffed by real judges from the NDPA, on the practical legal and administrative reforms necessary for EOIR to become a “model court,” usingteamwork and best practices to guarantee fairness and due process for all. That’s actually what the “EOIR vision” was prior to the advent of the Bush II Administration in 2001.
That noble vision could still become a reality, but only if the Biden-Harris Administration evicts the “EOIR Clown Show” 🤡and replaces it with competent experts from the NDPA committed to due process for all. ⚖️🧑🏽⚖️🇺🇸🗽
I am thrilled to report that VIISTA is getting rave reviews. The inaugural class of students is really enjoying the course. They will be finishing Module 1 next week and will start Module 2 (with its focus on immigration law) in January. I am really impressed so far with their work product and the quizzes and other assessments confirm that they are learning what we want them to learn.
Students in the inaugural class come from diverse backgrounds. My current students include a Stanford college senior who aims to work as a paralegal next year, and eventually go to law school. Other students are recent college grads interested in peace and justice/law/social work who want to make an immediate impact for immigrant families. Some students are first-generation immigrants, others are children of immigrants. Some students are retirees or those seeking an encore career, like empty nesters and parents coming back into the workforce. Three PhDs also enrolled in the program. Many are volunteers with immigrant serving organizations.
I am now focused on getting the word out. Attached and linked here is a recent article from the Chronicle of Higher Education and here is a link to an article from the Columbus Dispatch. And here is a link to the website, immigrantadvocate.villanova.edu.
Please help me to spread the word about VIISTA in your networks, including among volunteers with your organizations. You can also let folks know that scholarships are available for the Spring term, which starts on Monday, January 11.
The Scholarships are offered through ADROP, Augustinian Defenders of the Rights of the Poor.
If you have any questions about the process, please feel free to reach out to Lacie Michaelson (cced here). She is the Executive Director of ADROP and took VIISTA herself as a student in the pilot.
Please note that the deadline to apply for a scholarship for Spring of 2021 semester is Monday, December 14th, 2020.
Thanks for helping me to spread the word and identify passionate advocates for immigrant justice who want to become part of the solution.
Warmly,
Michele
Michele R. Pistone
Professor of Law
Villanova University, Charles Widger School of Law
Founding Faculty Director, VIISTA: Villanova Interdisciplinary Immigration Studies Training for Advocates
Over the past four years, what passes for “management” at DOJ and EOIR has wasted millions of dollars, squandered thousands of hours of time, and kept the private bar on a treadmill with a steady stream of moronic, cruel, and inept “enforcement only” gimmicks, each seemingly stupider and more counterproductive than the last, driven by a White Nationalist nativist agenda. The result is a backlog that has exploded to astounding levels, (even with twice as many judges on the bench, many of them with questionable credentials and little if any expertise in immigration and human rights laws) and a totally dysfunctional mess that threatens to topple the entire Federal judicial system.
As those of us who understand immigration know, the key to a successful EOIR is representation! With an adequate supply of good representation, cases get sorted out at the earliest possible levels, claims are properly documented and presented, individuals show up at their hearings at remarkably high rates, and results are much more likely to be fair. Presto, “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” by EOIR shrinks, parties are encouraged to stipulate and get right to the contested issues, results at trial are more likely to be fair, appeals, petitions for review, and remands decrease, and the backlogs go down as the dockets come under control. Moreover, as the Immigration Court litigation experience improves, more practitioners get the “positive vibes” and are willing to undertake pro bono or low bono cases. Best practices developed to achieve fairness on EOIR’s high-volume docket find their way into other parts of the Federal Court system. It’s an all-around winner! Or, at least it should be!
So, any competent, rational, and knowledgeable “management group” at EOIR would make increasing representation “job # 1.” They would work cooperatively and harmoniously with bar groups, NGOs, states, and localities, to increase availability and improve quality of representation. They would eschew unnecessary detention, which inhibits representation, and insure than courts are reasonably and conveniently located in areas where private representation is abundantly available.
Of course, that’s not what the clowns at EOIR have done! Instead, they have gone out of their way to inflict misery on respondents and their representatives. Far from inspiring more folks to undertake cases, we have all seen stories of how the intentional rudeness and abuse inflicted in Immigration Court and the dysfunctional system actually demoralizes lawyers and causes them to leave the field. Their “stories of woe” are hardly encouragingfor others to donate time and effort.
Fortunately, while EOIR was busy ”kneecapping justice,” someone outside the “EOIR twilight zone” was thinking about how to solve the problem! With help from her friends, Michele designed the VIISTA program to train more non-attorney representatives to represent asylum seekers, convinced folks to fund it, recruited initial classes, and has it up and running. (By contrast, after two decades of wasted resources and incompetent meanderings, EOIR is still without a functioning e-filing system. Think that might have helped or saved some lives during the pandemic?)
And the training is not only a bargain (with scholarships available), it is beyond first class in substance and content. Essentially, it’s “what you really need to learn in law school in less than a year.” The curriculum would put to shame any training we received at EOIR, even before the current Clown Show. My Round Table colleague Judge Jeffrey Chase (a/k/a “Sir Jeffrey”) has reviewed the curriculum and agrees.
The solution is painfully obvious to anyone who takes the time to think about it. On January 21, 2021, give the hook to the Clown Show in Falls Church, and bring in the scholar/problem solvers like Michele and her NDPA colleagues to lead the due process revolution that will transform EOIR into a place where teamwork and innovation will produce the world’s best court system guaranteeing fairness and due process for all. That was once the “EOIR vision” before “serial mismanagement” transformed it into the ugly, dysfunctional Star Chamber that confronts us today.
It need not and should not be that way. But, the vision of true due process at EOIR will only be realized if the Biden Administration puts the right people — folks like Michele and others like her from the NDPA — in place immediately upon assuming power.
Let your contacts in the Biden Administration know that you have had more than enough! The EOIR Clown Show must go!
Due Process Forever!
PWS
12-05-20
“EOIR Clown Show Must Go” T-Shirt Custom Design Concept
“Eyore In Distress” Once A Symbol of Fairness, Due Process, & Best Practices, Now Gone “Belly Up”“Justice” Star Chamber StyleMe
Friends, you know, and I know, what is the biggest crisis facing the American justice system today. One that undermines and threatens racial justice, social justice, equality before the law, voting rights, American values, and indeed the very foundations of our democratic institutions and our justice system.
It’s imperative that our incoming Administration and its leaders fully recognize the overwhelming importance and extreme urgency of immediately ending the ongoing, deadly, and dangerous “Clown Show” at EOIR – the Executive Office for Immigration Review.
Under the defeated but not yet departed regime, EOIR has been weaponized by White Nationalist nativists to function as America’s Star Chambers. Once envisioned by its founders, including me, as a potential “jewel in the crown” of American justice, EOIR now has become an ungodly nightmare of anti-due process, anti-immigrant propaganda, bad judges, bogus stats, uncontrollable backlogs, malicious incompetence, stupid regulations, daily doses of irrationality, abuse of private attorneys, and institution of “worst practices.” But, it doesn’t have to be that way! No, not at all!
With courage, bold action, and, most important, the right people in place in leadership and key judicial positions, EOIR can be fixed: sooner, not later. The Immigration Courts can, indeed, through teamwork and innovation become the world’s best courts guaranteeing fairness and due process for all, promoting a model of best practices for the Federal Judiciary as a whole, and providing a trained and ready source of due-process oriented judges with strong immigration, human rights, and equal justice backgrounds for the Article III Judiciary and public policy positions.
EOIR will then be positioned for the essential transition to an Article I independent U.S. Immigration Court when we have the votes.
But, it will require a far more progressive, visionary, and aggressive approach than past Democratic Administrations. We must immediately (and legally) clear out the deadwood and get the problem solvers from the New Due Process Army (“NDPA”) — mostly now in the NGO, clinical, and private sectors, folks like you and your colleagues — in place to fix this horribly broken system.
The constant stream of proposed regulations relating to our immigration laws has led to a continuous call to the public to submit comments to those rules. Individuals and organizations have responded in large numbers, in spite of the short 30 day comment windows this administrative has generally afforded. For those who have questioned the purpose of submitting comments or have wondered if the effort was worth it, I point to the recent decision of U.S. District Court Judge Susan Illston in the Northern District of California in Pangea Legal Services v. DHS granting a temporary restraining order against regulations that classify a wide range of crimes as bars to asylum eligibility.
As background, I would like to point to the explanation of the notice and comment procedures provided by U.S. District Court Judge Timothy J. Kelly last year in CAIR Coalition v. Trump. In that case, the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security attempted to bypass the process by publishing final rules with no opportunity to comment. Judge Kelly (who happens to be a Trump appointee) found that the avoidance of comments invalidated the regulations, explaining that the “procedures are not a mere formality. They are designed (1) to ensure that agency regulations are tested via exposure to diverse public comment; (2) to ensure fairness to affected parties, and (3) to give affected parties an opportunity to develop evidence in the record to support their objections to the rule and thereby enhance the quality of judicial review.”
It is further worth noting that comments become part of the public record, and that the Administrative Procedures Act requires the agency to respond to all significant comments before the regulations can become final.
In accordance with this scheme, a brief comment period was provided as to the regulations covered in Pangea. The proposed rule sought to expand the category of “particularly serious crimes” that Congress has designated as a bar to asylum. Instead of allowing immigration judges to make such determinations on a case-by-case basis, the new rule sought to add a broad range of criminal conduct that the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security originally argued should categorically bar asylum as particularly serious crimes.
Commenters pointed out the flaws with this proposal, not the least of which was some of the offenses are not particularly serious. The crimes include harboring certain noncitizens (even if they are family members), or possessing or using false identity documents (for example, to work and support one’s family). These offenses are a far cry from the type of behavior that would pose such a threat to society as to outweigh the obligation to provide refugee protection. In publishing the final rule, the Departments did acknowledge these concerns raised in the comments. However, as explained above, more than mere acknowledgement was required.
Although Judge Illston found numerous reasons to support the granting of the temporary restraining order, one of those reasons was the Departments’ failure to respond to the above comments as required. As Judge Illston wrote, “when commenters pointed out that the new bars would include minor conduct and conduct that cannot be categorized as particularly serious or even dangerous, the Departments either declined to respond or else relied on their authority under § 1158(b)(2)(C).”
In other words, when the comments received caused the Departments to realize that their claimed justification for the rule under the statute’s “particularly serious crime” provision was problematic, instead of addressing those comments as they were required to do, the agencies instead replied “Particularly serious crimes? Is that what you thought we said? We meant they were similar to particularly serious crimes. Sorry for the confusion; let’s just say the changes fall under section 1158(b)(2)(C) for the sake of clarity.”
That section which the Departments now chose to rely on contains vague language allowing the Attorney General to establish by regulation “additional limitations and exceptions, consistent with this section” under which noncitizens might be ineligible for asylum. The Departments might not have noticed the words “consistent with this section,” which would seem to rule out their disregarding the fact that Congress had allowed only a few narrow statutory limitations to the right to asylum that tend to be consistent with international law. That might explain their reading of the clause as an invitation to impose any limitation on asylum the Departments desired, with no regard to international law obligations.
But besides from the permissibility of the Departments’ interpretation of the clause, Judge Illston categorized their tactics as evasion. The judge wrote that “the Departments initially stated they were relying in part on their authority to designate new offenses as particularly serious crimes. They then disclaimed reliance on that authority but said the new offenses were ‘similar to’ particularly serious crimes… And they declined to address commenters’ concerns that the Rule now bars crimes that do not rise to the level of particularly serious because, according to the Departments, they are not, in fact, designating new particularly serious crimes and any comments to that point ‘are outside the scope of this rulemaking.’”
Much thanks are owed to the lawyers and organizations who litigated and filed supporting briefs in Pangea; they managed to block yet another effort by this administration that sought to undermine the very nature of refugee protection. But thanks are also due to those who took the time and effort to submit comments. Hopefully, this will provide inspiration to continue to submit comments to new regulations still being proposed in these final days before what will hopefully be a return to normalcy, decency, and respect for the rule of law.
Copyright 2020 Jeffrey S. Chase. All rights reserved.
Republished by permission.
***************************
While many Federal Judges have been receptive and stopped illegal (and often immoral) regulations in their tracks, there is one key group of jurists so in the regime’s White Nationalist pocket that they don’t pay any much attention. That is the GOP majority on the Supremes, who have happily treated the Trump/Miller racist agenda of “Dred Scottification” of asylum seekers and other migrants with kid gloves. At the request of an “ethics free” Solicitor General, the majority has used corrupt procedural moves to interfere with the lower courts and advance the regime’s agenda while accepting obvious factually and legally inaccurate “pretexts” to “justify” the regime’s extreme, racist, dehumanizing actions.
Imagine all the positives for America that could be accomplished ifall of the time and resources devoted to blocking an avalanche of illegal regulations and litigating them through the Federal courts were instead devoted to working for the public good. That’s actually what government is supposed to do. But, fascist regimes and their enablers, not so much.
Ultimately, better qualified, more scholarly, human, and humane Justices — judges distinguished for their wisdom, courage, humanity and constructive problem solving abilities rather than adherence to some far-right agenda — on the Supremes will be necessary for a better, more equal, America.
Life tenure means it will be a slow process of getting the right “Supreme Team” in place. But, one that needs to begin somewhere. A remade U.S. Immigration Court seems like a good starting place for building a better Federal Judiciary at all levels, bottom to top!
When I wasn’t visiting border, I was trying to understand how the U.S. government could put in place a policy that seemed the very antithesis of what seeking asylum was supposed to be, as articulated in Refugee Act of 1980. I had spent my time before coming to Refugees International researching the writing and passage of that law and the development of the contemporary asylum system since 1980. The Remain in Mexico policy is unprecedented. The U.S. government claims the authority for it lies in a provision of the 1996 immigration law that allows for the return of certain applicants for admission to contiguous territory to await processing. I began researching this provision and it became clear that it was not intended to apply to asylum seekers.
In support of a challenge to the Remain in Mexico program in California federal court, Refugees International and I, with attorneys from Sidley Austin LLP, submitted this brief describing why the Refugee Act forbids the program, a reality that the 1996 law does not change. The argument of the brief is that, when the 1980 Refugee Act was enacted, it was intended to establish a uniform process for consideration of asylum claims that would preclude this return to Mexico approach. A lynchpin in the argument is that there were two versions of the asylum provision of the Refugee Act—one proposed by Congresswoman Holtzman and one by Senator Edward Kennedy. Only the House version provided that asylum seekers at a land border be accorded the same ability to seek asylum as those already in the country. When, in conference, Holtzman’s version was accepted, Congress made a conscious choice in pursuit of uniformity in consideration of asylum requests: that the United States would treat asylum seekers at the border the same as it would all others. And the language mandating uniform treatment of asylum seekers in the 1980 Refugee Act was reiterated in the 1996 immigration law.
. . . .
*******************
The case is Immigrant Defenders Law Center v. Wolf, USDC, C.D. CA.
Read Yael’s intro, her outstanding brief prepared by Sidley Austin LLP, and the “Holtzman Papers” at the above link.Notably, Sidley Austin is one of the great firms that have helped our Round Table with amicus briefs! It’s what happens when you connect the dots among history, research, social justice, and the law. It’s why the Liberal Arts are the wave of a better future and a better Federal Judiciary! It’s all about perspective and problem solving!
Thanks Yael for all that you, Refugees International, and great pro bono lawyers like Sidley Austin do for justice and humanity.
The real problem here: A disgraceful Supremes’ majority 🏴☠️ that improperly “greenlighted” this totally illegal, racist-inspired, “crime against humanity,” cooked up by neo-Nazi hate monger Stephen Miller ☠️🤮, after it had properly and timely been enjoined by lower Federal courts. And, a complicit EOIR that consistently fails to provide due process and justice to asylum seekers is a huge part of the problem.
Unlike the Supremes, the EOIR Clown Show 🤡 can be removed and justice at all levels improved just by a putting the right experts from the NDPA in charge right off the bat.
Democratic Administrations, particularly the Obama Administration, have a history of not getting the job done when it comes to achievable immigration reforms within the bureaucracy. If you don’t want four more years of needless death, disorder, demeaning of humanity, and deterioration of the most important “retail level” of our justice system, let the incoming Biden Administration know: Throw out the EOIR Clown Show and bring in the experts from the NDPA to turn the Immigration Courts into real, independent courts of equal justice and humanity that will be a source of pride, not a deadly and dangerous national embarrassment!
Contrary to all the mindless “woe is me” suggestions that it will take decades to undo Stephen Miller’s (is he really that much smarter than any Democrat politico?) racist nonsense, EOIR is totally fixable — BUT ONLY WITH THE RIGHT FOLKS FROM THE NDPA IN CHARGE!
It’s only “mission impossible” if the Biden-Harris Administration approaches EOIR with the same indifference, lack of urgency, and disregard for expertise and leadership at the DOJ that has plagued past Dem Administrations on immigration, human rights, and social justice.
It won’t take decades, nor will it take zillions of taxpayer dollars! With the right folks in leadership positions at EOIR, support for independent problem solving (not mindless micromanagement) from the AG & DOJ, and a completely new BIA selected from the ranks of the NDPA, we will see drastic improvements in the delivery of justice at EOIR by this time next year. And, that will just be the beginning!
No more clueless politicos, go along to get along bureaucrats, toadies, and restrictionist holdovers calling the shots at EOIR, America’s most important, least understood, and “most fixable” court system! No more abuse of migrants and their representatives! No more ridiculous, “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” generating self-created backlogs! No more vile and stupid White Nationalist enforcement gimmicks being passed off as “policies!” No more “Amateur Night at The Bijou” when it comes to administration of the immigrant justice system at the DOJ under Dems!
Get mad!Get angry! Stop the nonsense! Tell every Democrat in Congress and the Biden Administration to bring in the NDPA experts to fix EOIR! Now! Before more lives are lost and futures ruined! It won’t get done if we don’t speak out and demand to be heard!
This is our time! Don’t let it pass with the wrong people being put in charge — yet again! Don’t be “left at the station” as the train of immigrant justice at Justice pulls out with the best engineers left standing on the platform and the wrong folks at the controls! Some “train wrecks” aren’t survivable! 🚂☠️⚰️
We at CLINIC read this today. The terrible aspects of this proposed rule include seeking to:
Overrule Arrabally
Require motions to reopen/reconsider to include a statement concerning whether the noncitizen has complied with their duty to surrender for removal. If the noncitizen has not done so, that will be considered a very serious unfavorable discretionary factor.
Disallow reopening based on a pending USCIS application, stating that if a motion to reopen or reconsider is premised upon relief that the immigration judge or the BIA lacks authority to grant, the judge or the BIA may only grant the motion if another agency has first granted the underlying relief. Neither an immigration judge nor the BIA may reopen proceedings due to a pending application for relief with another agency if the judge or the BIA would not have authority to grant the relief in the first instance.
Allow immigration judges and the BIA to not automatically grant a motion to reopen or reconsider that is jointly filed, that is unopposed, or that is deemed unopposed because a response was not timely filed.
Define termination and explains that termination includes both the termination and the dismissal of proceedings, wherever those terms are used in the regulations.
Assess that assertions made in the motions context that are “contradicted, unsupported, conclusory, ambiguous, or otherwise unreliable” do not have to be accepted as true.
Clarify that an adjudicator is not required to accept the legal arguments of either party in a motion to reopen or motion to reconsider as correct.
Codify that assertions made in a filing by counsel, such as a motion to reopen or motion to reconsider, are not evidence and should not be treated as such.
Prohibit the Board or an immigration judge from granting a motion to reopen or reconsider unless the respondent has provided appropriate contact information for further notification or hearing.
Specify that neither an immigration judge nor the BIA may grant a motion to reopen or reconsider for the purpose of terminating or dismissing the proceeding, unless the motion satisfies the standards for both the motion, including the new prima facie requirement of this proposed rule, and the requested termination or dismissal. (citing to S-O-G- & F-D-B-, 27 I&N Dec. 462 (A.G. 2019) (holding that the authority to dismiss or terminate proceedings is constrained by the regulations and is not a “free-floating power”)).
Codify Matter of Lozada requirements and makes clear that “substantial compliance” is insufficient, plus adds additional onerous requirements (e.g. state bar complaint AND a complaint to EOIR disciplinary counsel is required).
Require respondents to first file a stay request with DHS and have DHS deny it before they can file a stay request with EOIR.
A few bright spots:
It mostly gets rid of the departure bar, though it does still contain a withdrawal provision based on a noncitizen’s volitional physical departure from the United States while a motion is pending.
It makes it clearer that you can file an IAC claim based on the ineffective assistance of a notario.
Considers the that new asylum application would be considered filed as of the date the immigration court grants the motion to reopen.
Thank you,
Michelle N. Mendez (she/her/ella/elle)
Director, Defending Vulnerable Populations Program
Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc. (CLINIC)
***********************
Peter Margulies writes:
Apart from the modest bright spots you mention, this is a pernicious rule that would curb noncitizens’ access to precious relief. It’s sobering to see the single-mindedness with which the current administration has attacked the precious remedy of asylum, such as the horrific asylum bars enjoined by ND CA Judge Susan Illston. H/t to profs who signed the amicus in Pangea Leg. Servs. v. DHS on which Shoba Sivaprasad Wadhia of Penn State, Susan Krumplitsch of DLA Piper & I served as co-counsel–we’ll be reaching out again soon for the CA9 round on that case & Nat’l Ass’n of Manufacturers v. DHS (the nonimmigrant visa ban challenge).
Thanks, Michelle and Peter, for the continuing excellence of your work!
But, let’s face it, this problem isn’t going to be solved by commenting and even suing. It will only be solved if, and when, the Biden Administration evicts the dangerous, scofflaw, deadly Clown Show 🤡 @ EOIR HQ, including the entire BIA, and replaces it with folks like you and your NDPA fellow experts and fearless fighters for justice!
I watched this show before, to lesser degrees! Far, far too many times!
Don’t miss the point here, friends! Briefs, comments, law suits, and op-eds are nice. But, without effective total outrage and actual political intervention directed at the incoming “powers that be” in the Biden Administration, it’s going to be be a repeat of 2008!
The deadly EOIR Clown Show happily and arrogantly march on killing folks, distorting the law, and implementing the Miller agenda, giving the middle finger to due process, and we (mostly YOU, since I’m retired) will remain on the outside suffering, risking heath, safety, and sanity, and once again ineffectively bitching and moaning.
Sally Yates as a leading contender for AG is NOT, I repeat NOT, good news. I was on the “inside” at EOIR during the Lynch-Yates debacle.
She never lifted a finger to stop Aimless Docket Reshuffling, Family Detention, children going unrepresented, indefinite detention, incompetent Immigration Court management, biased “judicial” selections that effectively excluded private sector experts, educators, and advocates like YOU, and intentional skewing of the law by the BIA against Central American asylum seekers.
She might have spoken out against private detention of criminals, but not so much when it came to substandard private detention of innocent families with children whose “crime” was seeking asylum through our legal system. Really, how outrageous can it get! Yates helped establish the “New American Gulag” (“NAG”) that Miller & Co. have so gleefully and unlawfully expanded and weaponized!
She and her boss, Lynch, never bothered to “connect the dots” between civil rights and the legal rights and humanity of immigrants and asylum seekers. There can be no “equal justice under law” in America until the rights and humanity of immigrants and asylum seekers are upheld against “Dred Scottification” and intentional “dehumanization.”
For Pete’s sake, folks, during the Obama immigration disaster, holdover GOP right-wing operatives @ EOIR were rewriting the precedents in favor of their restrictionist agenda while YOU and others like you in the NGO and advocacy community were totally shut out, not given the time of day, and forced to spend eight wasted years in “damage control” rather than rolling out a progressive human rights, due process, practical problem solving agenda that would have saved lives (and, perhaps, not incidentally, created more USCs).
I’ve done what I can. I’ve written, I’ve agitated, I’ve given speeches, I’ve spoken to the Transition Team, written to my Democratic legislators, signed comments, amicus briefs, published my “mini essays,” and riled up and tried to inspire every student I can reach for the NDPA.
But, I’m pretty much at my wit’s ends watching the fecklessness and political ineptitude of the immigrant advocacy, human rights, and NGO communities! We were the backbone of the resistance to tyranny over the last four years and a key force in the Biden victory.
If we (YOU) don’t exercise some real political muscle with the incoming Administration NOW, the next four years are going to be just as grim, maddening, deadly, and disastrous for migrants (and their advocates, YOU) as the preceding two decades! We need the experts from the NDPA on the inside, calling the shots, not sitting in the waiting room while lesser talents cluelessly play out the game behind closed doors! Human lives and human dignity depend on the NDPA getting to play and lead!
It’s not rocket science! But, it does involve political will, and some effectively applied political outrage!
When you read about folks like Sally Yates and Jeh Johnson (both complicit in past human rights disasters) getting serious consideration for AG, and read that the Biden DOJ agenda is all about civil rights (what, indeed, are immigrants’,asylum seekers’, and humans’ rights, if not civil rights?) and criminal justice reform (not going to happen as long as “Dred Scottification” of immigrants is allowed to continue) with ZERO mention of ousting the EOIR kakistocracy and radically reforming the Immigration Court into a progressive, due-process, human rights model judiciary of the future (should be JOB #1 @ DOJ), you know that our message is NOT being heard, nor is it being taken seriously, by the “political powers that be” in the incoming Administration!
Get outraged, get mad, speak up, speak out, act up, sue, protest, raise Hell until somebody on the incoming team pays attention to the biggest (entirely fixable, but only with will and the right people) crisis in our failing justice system!
It’s going to take the new faces and better thinking of the NDPA, not the same folks who failed to fix the system in the past and swept life-destroying problems under the carpet, to get the job done!
If nothing else, we owe it to the migrants who have lost their lives, loved ones, and/or seen their futures needlessly trashed by the last three Administrations to stand up for due process, justice, and human dignity for everyone in America!
Dumping Asylum Seekers in Honduras Artist: Monte Wolverton Reproduced under license“Sheltering in Cages” by John Darkow Reproduced under licenseJeff Sessions’ Cage by J.D. Crowe, Alabama Media Group/AL.com Republished under license
CRUELTY TO migrant children, a trademark of the Trump administration’s immigration policy, did not cease when officials reversed course in the face of public outrage two years ago and stopped wrenching toddlers, tweens and teens from their parents — with no plan or process to reunite them. It has continued apace under cover of the pandemic, which the White House has used as an all-purpose pretext for ignoring child-protection laws and diplomatic agreements governing asylum, and, without even a nod to due process, expelling unaccompanied children who cross the border seeking refuge.
A federal judge has now halted that practice even as he acknowledged the administration’s far-reaching powers in the midst of a public health emergency. Those powers are broad, U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan ruled, but do not enable the government to send minors packing without affording them a chance to have their asylum claims heard.
At least 13,000 children have been detained by Border Patrol officers and swiftly thrown out of the country under an emergency decree that has effectively sealed off the southern border to most migrants since the spring. Administration officials justified the measure in the name of protecting the country from a potential influx of migrants carrying the coronavirus — but performed no testing, and provided no data, to substantiate their stance.
Given infection rates in Mexico and Central America, it may be reasonable to assume that some migrants, including unaccompanied minors, might have contracted covid-19. It may also be the case, however, as the ACLU argued in court, that the practice of expelling young migrants actually exposes U.S. border authorities to more risk — in the course of holding them while flights are arranged to their home countries in Central America or elsewhere — than they would otherwise face if the migrants were placed in shelters that have the capacity to adopt social distancing and other precautions. Judge Sullivan, for his part, said the government had asserted its “scientific and technical expertise” to justify its policy of evicting young migrants — but provided none by way of actual evidence.
As it happens, it occurred to at least some administration officials, early on in the pandemic, that migrant children deserved some special consideration. When the policy of suspending asylum was first rolled out, children who crossed the border were exempted. That was quickly reversed, however, with a spokesman saying that minors would be returned to their countries of origin on a “case by case basis.” In the ensuing months, however, virtually all have been expelled.
Anti-trafficking and other laws provide for protections for unaccompanied minors who arrive in this country. The administration has seized on the pandemic to disregard those, along with other long-standing measures and practices that set procedures for migrants seeking refuge here. A more humane approach, in line with American traditions and values, would have established a process for testing and quarantining, at least for migrant children, as they pursued asylum claims. But humane policy is anathema to the Trump administration, and the result is thousands of children who have been subjected to unwarranted hardship and risk.
*********************
Remembers, the victims are largely dead, deported, or still suffering! The “perps” — including the “Perp in Chief,” “Gruppenfuhrer Miller,” Jeff “Gonzo Apocalypto” Sessions, “Wolfman the Illegal,” and “Billy the Bigot” remain at large, even profiting from and bragging about their “crimes against humanity.” This is a “functioning democracy?” No way!
We’ve all been subjected to the disingenuous writings of pundits babbling on about the resilience of American democracy in the face of a fascist president and his corrupt anti-democracy party of cowards and enablers. Hogwash!
Make no mistake about it, American democracy is on the ropes! Basically, we’re watching a corrupt President who lost the election by over 6 million votes and 74 electoral votes engage in systematic frivolous, abusive, baseless litigation intended to destroy our nation, undermine our national security, and disenfranchise voters. It’s a disgusting, overtly racist, dishonest performance that would have any other individual in America and his motley band of unethical lawyers in jail for contempt and conspiracy to obstruct justice! But, Trump and his cronies continue to operate outside the law!
We owe our existence as a nation less to any “structural integrity” and much more to a relatively few courageous, smart, highly motivated members of the resistance: immigration, human rights, and civil rights lawyers; African American women; non-right-wing journalists; Democratic legislators; scientists and medical professionals; a limited number of Federal Judges, mostly at the District Court and Immigration Court levels (and specifically excluding any current BIA Member, EOIR “Manager,” or Supreme Court Justice not named Sotomayor, Kagan, and (sort of) Breyer); courageous DACA kids; and some Federal Career Civil servants not working at ICE or CBP.
The “resilience of American institutions” view is largely that of a privileged minority who haven’t been deported to possible torture or death without any process at all (let alone “due” process), haven’t been illegally separated from beloved family members, aren’t rotting in private prisons (the “New American Gulag”) for the “crime” of seeking justice, aren’t struggling with unemployment or difficulty putting food on the table while Moscow Mitch and his elites focus on confirming unqualified Federal Judges, haven’t had family members shot by the police, haven’t had family members unnecessarily suffer and die because of the worst President in U.S. history’s maliciously incompetent failure to provide leadership and any systematic strategy for controlling a pandemic, and haven’t had to put their lives and professional reputations on the line in a failing Justice system that has enabled grotesque abuses by the likes of Jeff “Gonzo Apocalypto” Sessions, Billy the Bigot Barr, Noel Francisco, and the rest of their band of unethical Government lawyers.
The Biden Administration must do a thorough housecleaning of the corrupt DHS and DOJ bureaucracies that carried out the illegal, immoral, racist, White Nationalist agenda developed by neo-Nazi Stephen Miller and his cowardly gang of brownshirts!
And, as a nation, we need to think carefully about the implications of a life-tenured Supreme Court majority that, since their initial feckless performance on the “Muslim Ban” cases, time and time again failed to forcefully and unanimously stand up for our democracy, human decency, and those defending them in the face of overt, racism and hate driven, Executive tyranny! A Supremes’ majority that has disgracefully and spinelessly embraced the “Dred Scottification” of “the other” (mostly immigrants and those of color). It’s not rocket science! And some of our “elite law schools” seemed to have forgotten to teach “Con Law 101” and “Basic Ethics” to aspiring right wing judges!
It’s less about institutions than it is about the courageous individuals who uphold them! And, our future depends on the Biden-Harris Administration putting these folks “in the game” to insure that an unmitigated disaster like the Trump regime, it’s rampant illegality and inhumanity, and its “malicious incompetence” can never, ever, happen again! And, we must at least start the process of developing a better and more courageous Federal Judiciary for the future!
Due Process Forever! Complicity in the face of tyranny, never!
As this Court has recognized, “when [an] alien appears pro se, it is the IJ’s duty to ‘fully develop the record.’” Agyeman v. INS, 296 F.3d 871, 877 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting Jacinto v. INS, 208 F.3d 725, 733-34 (9th Cir. 2000)). Despite this long-recognized obligation, the record in this case demonstrates that this duty is not always fulfilled; and that the consequence may be unfairness and injustice to the pro se petitioner who is unable to develop the record without guidance and assistance. We respectfully submit that this Court should use this case to provide much-needed guidance to IJs on the scope of their duty to work with pro se respondents to elicit the information necessary to develop the factual record. Based upon our own extensive experience, we are of the view that this can be done efficiently and effectively by conscientious IJs, so long as the rule that they are required to do so is clear.
******************
Thanks so much to out “Team of Pro Bono Heroes” at Sullivan & Cromwell, NY:
Philip L. Graham, Jr.
Amanda Flug Davidoff
Rebecca S. Kadosh
Joseph M. Calder, Jr.
This regime has appointed mostly judges lacking experience representing individuals in Immigration Court and then compounded the problem with:
Mindless “haste makes waste” enforcement gimmicks (often supported by knowingly false or misleading narratives) imposed by political hacks at DOJ and Falls Church;
A BIA lacking expertise and objectivity that instead of focusing on due process for those in Immigration Court, spews forth “blueprints for denial and deportation” without regard for statutory, Constitutional, and human rights;
A system that has elevated “malicious incompetence” and “worst judicial practices” to a “dark art form.”☠️
TIME FOR COURAGEOUS NEW IMMIGRATION LEADERSHIP!
By Paul Wickham Schmidt
It’s time for the “EOIR Clown Show” in Falls Church to go! Bring in competent jurists and administrators from the NDPA: practical scholars and problem solvers with real life skills developed by saving lives from this broken and biased system. Real jurists with expertise in human rights and courage, who will make due process, fundamental fairness, humane values, and “best judicial practices” the only objectives of the Immigration Courts. Jurists who will courageously resist political interference and improper and unethical weaponization of the Immigration Courts by any Administration.
Let the incoming Biden-Administration know that you won’t accept failed “retreads” from the past and “go along to get along” bureaucrats running and comprising what is probably the most important and significant court system in America from an equal justice, social justice, constitutional development, and saving human lives standpoint.
This is the “retail level” of our justice system: Thefoundation upon which the rest of our legal system all the way up to a tone-deaf, flailing, failing, and generally spineless Supremes stands! This is a court system that the Biden Administration can fix without Mitch McConnell!
The members of the NDPA are the ones who have been fighting in the trenches (and at the borders) to save lives, advance social justice, insure equal justice for all, end institutional racism, and preserve our democracy in the face of a tyrannical, unscrupulous, corrupt, racially biased, anti-democracy regime and its enablers! Many have sacrificed careers, health, not to mention financial security in this fight!
Don’t let those who watched from the sidelines, above the day-to-day fray, or were part of the problem swoop in and take control after the battle has been won!
Get mad! Get vocal! Get active! Call everyone you know in the incoming Administration! Demand that the NDPA and its members be given the leadership roles they have earned and deserve in remaking EOIR and reforming a thoroughly corrupt, politicized, and dysfunctional immigration bureaucracy across our Government!
Don’t let the Dems turn their back on achievable reforms and “shut out” the reformers and problem solvers in the advocacy sector (who have “carried the water” for Dems for decades) as has been the case in the past! Don’t let the mistakes and short-sightedness of the past destroy YOUR chances for a better future!
Don’t let timidity, ignorance, indifference, and fear of “rocking the boat” in the name of justice, due process, and human dignity replace “malicious incompetence” in Government!
Due Process Forever! Same old, same old, never! It’s time for real change and reform! It’s YOUR time to shine! Let YOUR voices be heard!
