Representation – Page 4 – immigrationcourtside.com

🤯 EOIR WANTS YOUR HELP TO “CTA!” — After Unilaterally Foisting “Dedicated Dockets” On Public & Watching Them (Predictably) Fail, EOIR Now Seeks YOUR Help In Making Them Due Process Compliant! — YOUR Chance To Tell EOIR What YOU Think on THURSDAY, OCT. 26! — Check Out My “Four Point Plan” For Reducing EOIR Backlog While Promoting Due Process (The “Long-Ignored Sole Mission of EOIR”)!⚖️🗽😎

EOIR HQ, Falls Church, VA (a/k/a “The Tower of Babel”) — EOIR and their DOJ handlers imposed designed-to-fail “dedicated dockets” on the public over the objections of advocates. Now they need the same experts they “blew off” to help them save their “due-process-denying rocket dockets!”
By Pieter Bruegel The Elder
Public Domain

https://www.justice.gov/d9/2023-10/invite_lswg_national_stakeholder_mtg_for_dd_courts_10172023.pdf

INVITATION

U.S. Department of Justice

Executive Office for Immigration Review

5107 Leesburg Pike

Falls Church, Virginia 22041

Contact: Communications and Legislative Affairs Division Phone: 703-305-0289 PAO.EOIR@usdoj.gov

www.justice.gov/eoir @DOJ_EOIR

Oct. 17, 2023

EOIR to Host National Stakeholder Meeting Seeking to Increase

Pro Bono Representation for Immigration Courts with Dedicated Dockets

SUMMARY: The Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) invites immigration law school clinical communities and pro bono organizations to attend a national stakeholder meeting for an open discussion on how to increase pro bono representation in immigration courts with Dedicated Dockets.

At this meeting, EOIR seeks input and recommendations on how the agency can better encourage and facilitate pro bono advocacy, either in person or remotely, at the following immigration courts with established Dedicated Dockets: Boston, Denver, Detroit, El Paso, Los Angeles – N. Los Angeles Street, Miami, New York – Broadway, New York – Varick, Newark, San Diego, San Francisco, and Seattle. See EOIR’s Policy Memorandum 21-23 for more details on this initiative.

EOIR continues to work to increase the representation rate and the number of practitioners available to represent noncitizens in immigration proceedings. Practitioners who volunteer their time to help those unable to afford counsel are a critical part of that effort.

Please join us for a targeted discussion with the goal of strengthening pro bono representation for the Dedicated Dockets.

DATE: TIME: LOCATION:

Oct. 26, 2023

1 p.m. – 2 p.m. Eastern Time

Live via Webex – Meeting Registration

All media inquiries should be directed to pao.eoir@usdoj.gov.

— EOIR —

Communications and Legislative Affairs Division

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

Studies show that EOIR’s “rocket dockets” (a/k/a “dedicated dockets”) have led to massive due process violations and illegal removals, many based on totally bogus “in absentia” hearings, exactly as experts and advocates had predicted, only to be arrogantly “blown off” by the “powers that be” at DOJ and EOIR. See, e.g., https://immigrationcourtside.com/2022/05/26/☠%EF%B8%8F👎🏽dems-catastrophic-due-process-failure-as-predicted-garlands-dedicated-dockets-are-asylum-free-zones/.

In reality, these ill-conceived and poorly-planned dockets have been “dedicated” to maximizing denials, minimizing due process, impeding effective representation, and developing an unfriendly atmosphere that will discourage asylum seekers from fully exercising their legal rights.

Some DOJ politicos and EOIR bureaucrats must belatedly be worrying about their “legacy,” future employability, or eventually being held accountable for plotting to deny due process to thousands of the most vulnerable humans! As usual, the immigration bureaucracy creates unnecessary problems, then leaves it to the NGO/advocacy community to bail them out!

It’s a deadly, counterproductive, wasteful, frustrating “downward cycle” that needs to stop! Why not “cut out the nonsense” by putting in charge those with the comprehensive knowledge, creative ideas, advanced skills, moral courage, and realistic foresight to solve these problems BEFORE they become self-created “crises?” Those needed leaders and judges are primarily OUTSIDE the USG right now. They need to be brought on board to solve the problems that are demonstrably beyond the ability, will, and skill set of the current immigration bureaucracy at DOJ and DHS!

Here’s my solution:

Replace EOIR senior managers with qualified experts who will work with the private bar and DHS, in ADVANCE, to schedule cases in a rational, efficient, manner that will comply with due process, fundamental fairness, and avoid “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” (“ADR”) — the bane of those practicing before EOIR and major driver of backlogs. (It’s also a significant deterrent to pro bono representation.) See, e.g.,.https://immigrationcourtside.com/2023/10/08/🤯-jason-the-asylumist-dzubow-explores-the-incredible-exploding-asylum-backlog-predictably-eoirs-aimless-docket-reshuffling/. It’s NOT rocket science!🚀
Only those Immigration Judges granting at or above the (already substantially suppressed) national average should be allowed to hear asylum cases.
Reassign those BIA Appellate Judges who are not recognized asylum experts, and replace them with qualified asylum experts committed to providing and enforcing some positive guidance and best practices for asylum adjudication.
Identify and promptly grant the hundreds of thousands of meritorious asylum cases now moldering in the EOIR backlog (many victims of EOIR’s ADR) so that these refugees can get on with their lives and contribute fully to American society and our economy.

Dems have the power to reform EOIR — a huge “Federal Court system” that they exclusively control! Why are they afraid to use that power “to promote justice and resist evil?”

In the meantime, please take advantage of this chance to “enlighten” EOIR bureaucrats about what it’s really like to attempt to provide pro bono representation on “dedicated dockets” while dealing with their ADR on already-prepared cases that could and should have been granted long ago. Hopefully, some members of the media will also tune in to get a dose of the challenges of trying to fight for justice in America’s worst and least-user-friendly “courts!”

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

10-19-23

☠️🤮 DEADLY UNFAIR “COURTS” POTENTIAL “DEATH TRIBUNALS” FOR AFGHAN HAZARA REFUGEES — Hon “Sir Jeffrey” Chase Speaks Out: “Case law supports granting protection for people who belong to a group long persecuted in their homelands even if an individual cannot prove specific threats, said Chase!”

https://apnews.com/article/afghanistan-deportation-taliban-asylum-us-immigration-court-cabf3bcdec9a62b12f08300d1260cd68

Julie Watson reports for AP:

The Afghan man speaks only Farsi, but he wasn’t worried about representing himself in U.S. immigration court. He believed the details of his asylum claim spoke for themselves.

Mohammad was a university professor, teaching human rights courses in Afghanistan before he fled for the United States. Mohammad is also Hazara, an ethnic minority long persecuted in his country, and he said he was receiving death threats under the Taliban, who reimposed their harsh interpretation of Sunni Islam after taking power in 2021.

He crossed the Texas border in April 2022, surrendered to Border Patrol agents and was detained. A year later, a hearing was held via video conference. His words were translated by a court interpreter in another location, and he said he struggled to express himself — including fear for his life since he was injured in a 2016 suicide bombing.

At the conclusion of the nearly three-hour hearing, the judge denied him asylum. Mohammad said he was later shocked to learn that he had waived his right to appeal the decision.

“I feel alone and that the law wasn’t applied,” said Mohammad, who spoke to The Associated Press on condition that only his first name be used, over fears for the safety of his wife and children, who are still in Afghanistan.

. . . .

Hon. Jeffrey S. Chase
Jeffrey S. Chase Blog
Coordinator & Chief Spokesperson, Round Table of Former Immigration Judges

Former immigration judge Jeffrey Chase, who reviewed the transcript, said he was surprised John-Baptiste waived Mohammad’s right to appeal and that the Board of Immigration Appeals upheld that decision. Case law supports granting protection for people who belong to a group long persecuted in their homelands even if an individual cannot prove specific threats, said Chase, an adviser to the appeals board.

But Andrew Arthur, another former immigration judge, said John-Baptiste ruled properly.

“The respondent knew what he was filing, understood all of the questions that were asked of him at the hearing, understood the decision, and freely waived his right to appeal,” Arthur, a fellow at the Center for Immigration Studies, which advocates for immigration restrictions, said via email.

Chase said the hearing appeared rushed, and he believes the case backlog played a role.

“Immigration judges hear death-penalty cases in traffic-court conditions,” said Chase, quoting a colleague. “This is a perfect example.”

Overall, the 600 immigration judges nationwide denied 63% of asylum cases last year, according to Syracuse University’s Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse. Individual rates vary wildly, from a Houston judge who denied all 105 asylum requests to a San Francisco one denying only 1% of 108 cases.

John-Baptiste, a career prosecutor appointed during the Trump administration’s final months, denied 72% of his 114 cases.

. . . .

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

Read Julie’s complete article at the link.

Hazaras are an historically persecuted group in Afghanistan whose already perilous situation has demonstrably worsened under the Taliban. See, e.g., https://www.ushmm.org/genocide-prevention/blog/urgent-action-needed-hazaras-in-afghanistan-under-attack. This case should have been a “slam dunk grant” under a proper application of precedents like Cardoza and Mogharrabi! Additionally, Hazara claims should be routinely grantable under the “pattern or practice of persecution” regulations that EOIR judges are supposed to apply (but seldom do).

No wonder this system builds incredible unnecessary backlogs when it botches the easy grants, wastes time on specious, disingenuous reasons for denial, and allows questionably-qualified judges to run roughshod over due process, the rule of law, and binding precedents.

Here’s additional commentary from “Sir Jeffrey:”

Thankfully, the amazing Steve Schulman at Akin Gump took on Mohamed’s case after his pro se hearing, and Human Rights First provided additional support.

(The Round Table was prepared to file an amicus brief on this one at the Fifth Circuit, but an agreement was reached to reopen the case at the IJ level before briefing was due.)

That the Government agreed to reopen this case basically “says it all” about the absurd result in the original hearing and the bogus “waiver” of appeal.

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

09-29-23

⚖️🗽 NDPA ALERT‼️ — Attend The EOIR Stakeholder Meeting For Law School Clinics, Thursday, September 21 @ 2 PM EDT — Free Registration Here!

From EOIR:

EOIR to Host National Stakeholder Meeting for Law School Immigration Clinics

SUMMARY: The Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) invites faculty, staff, and students from law school immigration clinics to attend a national stakeholder meeting focused on pro bono advocacy.

EOIR continues to build upon the guidance in EOIR Director Memorandum 22-01, Encouraging and Facilitating Pro Bono Legal Services, and welcomes the public’s input in evaluating our efforts to increase representation in immigration court proceedings. During the meeting, agency leadership will summarize feedback received during its April series of listening sessions, discuss steps EOIR has taken since those meetings, and share ideas for future initiatives as we collaborate to strengthen pro bono representation in immigration courts.

Following that discussion, agency leadership will welcome stakeholder input regarding ways to increase pro bono representation for Dedicated Dockets.

DATE: TIME: LOCATION:

Sept. 21, 2023

2 p.m. – 3 p.m. Eastern Time

Live via Webex – Meeting Registration

All media inquiries should be directed to the Communications and Legislative Affairs Division at pao.eoir@usdoj.gov.

— EOIR —

Here’s the registration link:

https://eoir.webex.com/weblink/register/rde8d6afe67dcef358a29e879af341b65

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

We all know that EOIR is struggling. Unrepresented and under-represented individuals are basically “cannon fodder” for a hopelessly backlogged system where due process, fundamental fairness, and meticulous scholarship are too often afterthoughts, at best.

Insuring that individuals facing this dysfunctional system are well-represented is key to both saving lives and holding EOIR accountable. It also supports those judges at both levels who are fighting to restore due process, fundamental fairness, decisional excellence, and best practices to EOIR.

EOIR is widely known for its lack of transparency. Every nugget of information about the Immigration Court system’s practices, policies, objectives, and operating plans is therefore precious.

Also, giving EOIR honest feedback about some of the “real life” roadblocks and unnecessary challenges (like, for example, endemic Aimless Docket Reshuffling, arbitrary expedited dockets, and courts located inside prisons and other obscure, largely inaccessible, locations) is a critical chance to push back against mindless bureaucracy and suggest effective, practical solutions that enhance, rather than impede, due process.

Unfortunately, few of those shaping EOIR practices have recent experience actually trying to represent pro bono clients in this often “user unfriendly” and unnecessarily chaotic system. (It’s routinely described by experienced practitioners as the “Wild West of American Law.”) This is YOUR chance to learn and to inject a “dose of reality” into an agency that too often operates in a parallel universe.

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

09-19-23

🗽⚖️ BIA CONTINUES TO STRUGGLE WITH STANDARDS — Fortunately, WilmerHale (Tasha H. Bahal), Round Table 🛡️, 1st Cir. There To Straighten Things Out! — Murillo Morocho v. Garland — With Commentary From Hon. “Sir Jeffrey” Chase!

Kangaroos — “We don’t need no stinkin’ standards except how high to jump for DHS enforcement!”
https://www.flickr.com/photos/rasputin243/
Creative Commons License

Dan Kowalski reports for LexisNexis Immigration Community:

http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/22-1881P-01A.pdf

https://www.lexisnexis.com/community/insights/legal/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/ca1-on-cat-standard-of-review-murillo-morocho-v-garland

“Petitioner Darwin Murillo Morocho seeks review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming the denial of his application for deferral of removal to Ecuador under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Murillo Morocho claims that, if returned to Ecuador, it is more likely than not that he would be tortured by the Ecuadorian government itself or by private actors acting with the consent or acquiescence of public officials. Before this court, he argues that the BIA applied the wrong standard of review to the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ’s”) legal conclusions. He further claims that both the BIA and the IJ applied the incorrect legal standard in assessing whether the Ecuadorian government would more likely than not consent or acquiesce in his torture. Finally, he argues that even if the BIA and IJ applied the proper legal standards, the BIA’s decision, which adopts the IJ’s decision, is not supported by substantial evidence and that the IJ erred in not giving him the opportunity to further corroborate his testimony. We agree that the agency1 applied the incorrect legal standard to the “consent or acquiescence” prong of Murillo Morocho’s CAT claim. We therefore grant his petition for review in part, vacate the order of the BIA denying Murillo Morocho CAT relief as to Ecuador, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”

[Hats off to Tasha J. Bahal!]

Tasha J. Bahal
Counsel
WilmerHale

—

Daniel M. Kowalski

Editor-in-Chief

Bender’s Immigration Bulletin (LexisNexis)

cell/text/Signal (512) 826-0323

@dkbib on Twitter

dan@cenizo.com

Free Daily Blog: www.bibdaily.com

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

Many congrats to Tasha and the rest of rest of the wonderful pro bono team over at WilmerHale!

Hon. Jeffrey S. Chase
Jeffrey S. Chase Blog
Coordinator & Chief Spokesperson, Round Table of Former Immigration Judges

Here’s what my Round Table colleague Hon. “Sir Jeffrey” Chase had to say:

Wonderful decision. Wilmer Hale has been doing outstanding work on deportation defense litigation.

H.H., the First Circuit’s recent precedent in which our Round Table filed an amicus brief, featured prominently in this decision.

Once again, the agency took the easy out – i.e. giving lip service to the acquiescence standard, rather than indulging in the in depth analysis required in such claims. Of course, EOIR’s training does not teach otherwise, and the BIA chooses to rubber stamp rather than correct and remand.

The First Circuit actually did the required analysis here. By contrast, it appears that as a “dismissal of a denial” by an IJ, this decision “defaulted” to the BIA’s “any reason to deny” assembly line. I suspect that if this had been a DHS appeal of an IJ grant, it would have received a more detailed, critical analysis. However, as we often see, even that analysis might be devoted to finding a bogus reason to deny.

Despite some improvement in the quality of IJ and BIA appointments under Garland, the lack of dynamic expert “pro due process” leadership and “culture of denial and deterrence” remain debilitating (and potentially life-threatening) problems at EOIR!

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

08-24-23

😭A LAWYER’S LAMENT FROM TSUI YEE: “Oh, For The Good Old Days Of Public Service & Positive Personal Contact With The Immigration Bureaucracy!”

Tsui H. Yee, Esquire
Law Offices of Tsui H. Yee, PC
New York, NY
PHOTO: Linkedin

From LinkedIn:

The longer I have been practicing immigration law, the more I long for ‘the good old days.’

I remember being able to call the Vermont Service Center, and being able to speak to an immigration officer to go over issues on a case. These officers were friendly, knowledgeable, and willing to help resolve issues. They were not adversarial or looking for ways to deny your client’s petition or application. In fact, a few of these officers would give me their home phone to call them, because some of them worked from home during the work week.

I remember when NVC was super-efficient, organized and a pleasure to deal with. Yes, there was a time when NVC actually knew what they were doing and were responsive. I went on a tour to visit NVC’s offices in Portsmouth, NH, and the NVC staff who led the tour were completely transparent about their process.

I remember being able to walk into the local USCIS office, and speak to a supervisor in person about a problem. For example, if USCIS denied an application in error, it was possible to convince the supervisor to reopen the denied case with proof that USCIS’ denial was incorrect. This is known as a “Service motion” and if granted, USCIS would not require the motion to reopen / reconsider filing fee because it was their own mistake.

Nowadays, none of the above would be possible. The immigration government agencies have removed themselves almost completely from having to deal with the public, which makes an immigration attorney’s job all that more challenging. Sadly, USCIS and NVC are really out of touch with the hurdles that attorneys and clients face in navigating an extremely complex area of law.

#immigration #USCIS #NVC #governmentaccountability #immigrationlawyer

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

Thanks, Tsui!

Very true and perceptive! Public service seems to be an afterthought these days. The Trump Administration actually took it out of USCIS’s mission statement! And, they squandered funds that were supposed to be spent on timely, professional adjudications and wasted it on a variety of bogus enforcement gimmicks designed to discourage the public from applying for ANY immigration benefit!

The Biden Administration has tried to make some improvements. For example, USCIS just announced a new system for scheduling appointments. But, there is still a long, long way to go!

Some of the comments on Tsui’s post on Linkedin are making me almost nostalgic for my days in the “Legacy INS” in the 1970’s and 80’s. It could be a strange place. (My good friend and colleague Joanna London used to say, “Truth is stranger than fiction. And INS is stranger than truth.”)

But, there definitely were human connections, efforts to solve problems, and institutional/legal knowledge there that seem to be largely missing from today’s DHS and DOJ/EOIR. Certainly, the “INS years” were the formative ones in my legal career.

I know there are some very good folks at DHS and EOIR now. But, they seem to be hidden from the public and largely inaccessible. I learned tons from individuals like Maury Roberts, Charlie Gordon, Louisa Wilson, Sam Bernsen, Ralph Farb, “Iron Mike” Inman, Doris Meissner, Leon Ulman, Dick Scully, James P. “Phil” Morris, Sol Isenstein, Andy Carmichael, Neil Leary, Hugh Brien, Irv Appleman, Charlie McCarthy, Glen Bertness, (fellow Wisconsinite) Roger “Buck” Brandemuehl, “Cousin Bob” Schmidt, et al. Can’t think of many folks of that stature in today’s rather bloated and largely faceless immigration bureaucracy.

During my days in private practice, I remember a Service Center adjudicator calling to tell me we had inadvertently overpaid the filing fee, rather than “rejecting” the application and returning it to us by mail. Another time, an adjudicator called with a request for an additional document, saying the application was so obviously carefully and thoughtfully prepared and indexed that he saw no point in returning it with a “deficiency notice.” Can’t see those types of personal touches, which actually promoted efficiency, happening today.

Even EOIR, which used to be the “human face of American justice” (for better or worse), has now moved largely to televideo hearings, e-filing, and “remote adjudication centers” masquerading as “courts.” There are pros and cons to these moves. Certainly, many of us have been calling for e-filing for years; a number of attorneys I have talked with appreciate the convenience and flexibility provided by televideo hearings. So, it’s a mixed bag.

I will say that having done thousands of both televideo and in person hearings over my years on the bench, I always found in person hearings easier to conduct and more conducive to justice. I also enjoyed and benefitted from consistent professional relationships with the Arlington private bar and the Arlington Chief Counsel’s Office, something that has been largely lost with the advent of adjudication centers removed from the public and the unilateral decision by ICE to only “selectively participate” in Immigration Court litigation. (Just today, “Arlington Court Alum” Nicole Lillibridge Radakovich, now an attorney on the staff of the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center in Brunswick, Georgia (where I used to teach on an occasional basis during my “Legacy INS” days) “reconnected” with me through Linkedin!)

I used to view my “courtroom as a classroom” where we were all learning and improving case-by-case. I wonder if that era has passed at today’s EOIR?

Tsui’s post also reminds me of one of my first published “separate opinions” during my tenure as BIA Chair. Matter of Ponce De Leon, 22 I&N Dec. 154, 159 (BIA 1996, 1997; AG 1997) (Schmidt, Chairman, concurring). It was immediately dubbed “The Chairman’s Lament” by my BIA colleague the late Judge Fred W. Vacca. Turned out to be one of many to follow!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

08-22-23

⚖️👩🏽‍⚖️👨🏻‍⚖️🧑‍⚖️ GARLAND APPOINTS 38 NEW U.S. IMMIGRATION JUDGES — More Prosecutors Than Private/NGO Practitioners; Approximately 70% Have Immigration Experience, By My “Quick & Dirty” Analysis!

FROM EOIR:

https://lnks.gd/l/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiJ9.eyJidWxsZXRpbl9saW5rX2lkIjoxMDAsInVyaSI6ImJwMjpjbGljayIsInVybCI6Imh0dHBzOi8vd3d3Lmp1c3RpY2UuZ292L2VvaXIvcGFnZS9maWxlLzE1OTI4NjYvZG93bmxvYWQiLCJidWxsZXRpbl9pZCI6IjIwMjMwODExLjgxMDE3NjIxIn0.ULrCqsgnirmemmGnS6ggXxbrT28kWH28Ezp2rQdHI4E/s/842922301/br/224124905134-l

NOTICE

U.S. Department of Justice

Executive Office for Immigration Review

Office of Policy

5107 Leesburg Pike

Falls Church, Virginia 22041

Contact: Communications and Legislative Affairs Division Phone: 703-305-0289 PAO.EOIR@usdoj.gov

www.justice.gov/eoir @DOJ_EOIR

Aug. 11, 2023

EOIR Announces 38 New Immigration Judges

FALLS CHURCH, VA – The Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) today announced the appointment of 38 immigration judges to courts in California, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, Ohio, Texas, Utah, and Virginia.

Attorney General Merrick Garland administered the oath of office and delivered remarks during the investiture, which was held today at the Department of Justice’s Great Hall in Washington, D.C.

EOIR continues to expand its immigration judge corps and welcomes qualified candidates from all backgrounds to join the agency. In addition to making a difference through service to our Nation, immigration judges join a diverse and inclusive workforce. Individuals interested in these critical positions are invited to sign up for job alerts that are sent when new opportunities become available.

Immigration judges are career employees, and each one is selected after a thorough and competitive application process. Today, Attorney General Merrick B. Garland officially appointed the following individuals as immigration judges: Sameer Ahmed, Adrian N. Armstrong, Jody L. Barilla, Elanie J. Cintron, Ghunise L. Coaxum, Benjamin Davey, Alberto A. De Puy, Jennifer A. Durkin, Carla I. Espinoza, Zahra Jivani Fenelon, David A. Gardey, Cynthia D. Goodman, Jonathan H. Hall, Tanya L. Hasbrouck, Jacquelyn Jo Joyce, Jennifer M. Kerby, Heather A. Libeu, Kyra S. Lilien, Brandi M. Lohr, Nicole C. Lomartire, Robert K. Lundberg, Margaret R. MacGregor, Kimberly Charon McBride, Justin R. McEwen, Christopher D. McNary, Jane Chace Miller, George R. Najjar, Douglas D. Nelson, Tania T. Nemer, Monica Barba Neumann, Colleen O’Donnell, George D. Pappas, Irma Pérez, Daniel I. Smulow, Elizabeth I.Treacy, Adrián F. Paredes Velasco, ShaSha Xu, and Juliana Zach.

Biographical information for the newly appointed immigration judges follows:

Communications and Legislative Affairs Division

EOIR Announces 38 New Immigration Judges Page 2

Sameer Ahmed, Immigration Judge, Boston Immigration Court

Sameer Ahmed was appointed as an immigration judge to begin hearing cases in August 2023. Judge Ahmed earned a Bachelor of Arts in 2003 from Stanford University, a Master of Science in 2005 from the University of London, a Master of Studies in 2007 from the University of Oxford, and a Juris Doctor in 2009 from Yale Law School. From 2020 to 2023, he was a clinical instructor at the Immigration and Refugee Clinical Program at Harvard Law School. From 2019 to 2020, he was an assistant teaching professor at Northeastern University School of Law. From 2017 to 2019, he was an attorney at the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California. From 2015 to 2017, and previously from 2013 to 2014, he was an attorney at Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP in Boston. From 2014 to 2015, he served as a law clerk for the Honorable Kermit V. Lipez, U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. From 2011 to 2013, he served as a law clerk for the Honorable Patti B. Saris, U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. From 2009 to 2011, he was a Skadden fellow at the Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund in New York, New York. Judge Ahmed is a member of the Massachusetts Bar and the New York State Bar.

Adrian N. Armstrong, Immigration Judge, Elizabeth Immigration Court

Adrian N. Armstrong was appointed as an immigration judge to begin hearing cases in August 2023. Judge Armstrong earned a Bachelor of Science in 1984 from Longwood University and a Juris Doctor in 1990 from Elisabeth Haub School of Law at Pace University. From 2020 to 2023, he served as a judge at the New York State Court of Claims and was designated an acting Supreme Court judge in Bronx County. From 2015 to 2020, he served as a judge at the Mount Vernon City Court and was designated as an acting Family Court judge in Westchester County. From 1993 to 2015, he served as a law clerk at the New York State Office of Court Administration. From 1990 to 1993, he served as assistant district attorney at the Bronx County District Attorney’s Office. Judge Armstrong is a member of the New York State Bar.

Jody L. Barilla, Immigration Judge, Chicago Immigration Court

Jody L. Barilla was appointed as an immigration judge to begin hearing cases in August 2023. Judge Barilla earned a Bachelor of Arts in 1988 from the Ohio State University and a Juris Doctor in 1992 from Cleveland Marshall College of Law. From 2021 to 2023, she served as the court administrator for the Chicago Immigration Court. From 1997 to 2021, she served as a magistrate at the Lorain County Domestic Relations Court in Elyria, Ohio. During this time, from 2013 to 2021, she also served as the court administrator for the Lorain County Domestic Relations Court. From 1992 to 1997, she worked as an associate attorney with the law firm of Smith & Smith Attorneys. Judge Barilla is a member of the Ohio State Bar.

Elanie J. Cintron, Immigration Judge, San Francisco Immigration Court

Elanie J. Cintron was appointed as an immigration judge to begin hearing cases in August 2023. Judge Cintron earned a Bachelor of Science in 2005 from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and a Juris Doctorate in 2013 from the Maurice A. Deane School of Law at Hofstra University. From 2017 to 2023, she served as an assistant chief counsel, Office of the Principal Legal Advisor, U.S. Immigration and

Communications and Legislative Affairs Division

EOIR Announces 38 New Immigration Judges Page 3

Customs Enforcement, Department of Homeland Security, in Denver. From 2014 to 2017, she was an associate attorney with Lichter Immigration in Denver. During this time, she provided pro bono representation through the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) Artesia Pro Bono Project and the AILA CARA Pro Bono Project. Judge Cintron is a member of the Minnesota State Bar.

Ghunise L. Coaxum, Immigration Judge, Atlanta – W. Peachtree Street Immigration Court

Ghunise L. Coaxum was appointed as an immigration judge to begin hearing cases in August 2023. Judge Coaxum earned a Bachelor of Science in 1991 from the University of Florida and a Juris Doctor in 1995 from the University of Florida College of Law (now known as the Frederic G. Levin College of Law). From 2000 to 2023, she was bar counsel at the Florida Bar in Orlando, Florida. From 1998 to 2000, she was a senior attorney with the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate, in Orlando. From 1996 to 1998, she was an assistant public defender with the Office of the Public Defender, 9th Judicial Circuit in Orlando. Judge Coaxum is a member of the Florida Bar.

Benjamin J. Davey, Immigration Judge, Detroit Immigration Court

Benjamin J. Davey was appointed as an immigration judge to begin hearing cases in August 2023. Judge Davey earned a Bachelor of Fine Arts in 2002 from Otterbein University and a Juris Doctorate in 2006 from Cleveland State University College of Law. From 2013 to 2023, he served as a magistrate in the Lorain County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations and Juvenile Division, in Elyria, Ohio. During this time, from 2022 to 2023, he provided pro bono legal services through Catholic Charities, assisting individuals seeking affirmative asylum before U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security. From 2007 to 2013, he served as an assistant prosecuting attorney for Lorain County, Ohio. During this time, from 2011 to 2013, Judge Davey also served as counsel for the Lorain County General Health District. Judge Davey is a member of the Ohio State Bar.

Alberto A. De Puy, Immigration Judge, New Orleans Immigration Court

Alberto A. De Puy was appointed as an immigration judge to begin hearing cases in August 2023. Judge De Puy earned a Bachelor of Arts in 2002 from Louisiana State University, and a Juris Doctor in 2006 from Tulane University Law School. From 2021 to 2023, he served as an administrative law judge for the Louisiana Division of Administrative Law. From 2014 to 2021, he served as an assistant attorney general at the Louisiana Department of Justice, Attorney General’s Office. From 2011 to 2014, he served as a policy advisor at the Louisiana Office of the Governor. From 2007 to 2011, he served as an assistant district attorney at the Calcasieu Parish District Attorney’s Office. From 2006 to 2007, he served as an assistant district attorney at the Orleans Parish District Attorney’s Office. In 2005, he completed a legal internship at the U.S. Mission to the Organization of American States, Department of State. Judge De Puy is a member of the Louisiana State Bar.

Communications and Legislative Affairs Division

EOIR Announces 38 New Immigration Judges Page 4

Jennifer A. Durkin, Immigration Judge, New York – Varick Immigration Court

Jennifer A. Durkin was appointed as an immigration judge to begin hearing cases in August 2023. Judge Durkin earned a Bachelor of Arts in 1992 from the University of Buffalo and a Juris Doctor in 1999 from the University of California Los Angeles School of Law. She has practiced immigration law her entire career. From 2022 to 2023, she was Deputy Attorney-in-Charge of the Immigration Law Unit at the Legal Aid Society in New York. From 2020 to 2022, she was a supervising attorney at the Legal Aid Society on the New York Immigrant Family Unity Project, which represents detained immigrant New Yorkers facing removal. From 2010 to 2020, she was in private practice at Durkin & Puri in New York where she represented noncitizens before EOIR; U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security, and the Department of State. From 2005 to 2010, she was a partner at Yee, Durkin & Puri in New York (known as Yee & Durkin until 2008). From 2003 to 2005, she was an associate at Spar & Bernstein in New York. From 1999 to 2003, she was an associate at the Law Office of Roni P. Deutsch in Encino, California. Judge Durkin is a member of the State Bar of California and the District of Columbia Bar.

Carla I. Espinoza, Immigration Judge, Chicago Immigration Court

Carla I. Espinoza was appointed as an immigration judge to begin hearing cases in August 2023. Judge Espinoza earned a Bachelor of Science in 2009 from the University of Texas at El Paso, and a Juris Doctor and a Certificate in International and Comparative Law in 2012 from DePaul University College of Law. From 2020 to 2023, she was the managing partner, and from 2013 to 2020, she was supervising and managing attorney, for Chicago Immigration Advocates Law Offices. From 2012 to 2013, she served as a supervising attorney with Solis Law Firm PC in Chicago. Judge Espinoza is a member of the Illinois State Bar.

Zahra Jivani Fenelon, Immigration Judge, Houston – Smith Street Immigration Court

Zahra Jivani Fenelon was appointed as an immigration judge to begin hearing cases in August 2023. Judge Jivani Fenelon earned a Bachelor of Science in 2003 from Houston Baptist University and a Juris Doctorate in 2006 from South Texas College of Law. From 2015 to 2023, she served as an assistant U.S. attorney at the U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, where she prosecuted crimes of child exploitation, human trafficking, cybercrime, and white-collar fraud. From 2006 to 2015, she was an assistant district attorney at the Fort Bend County District Attorney’s Office, where she prosecuted felony crimes. Judge Jivani Fenelon is a member of the State Bar of Texas.

David A. Gardey, Immigration Judge, Annandale Immigration Court

David A. Gardey was appointed as an immigration judge to begin hearing cases in August 2023. Judge Gardey earned a Bachelor of Arts in 1990 from Yale University and a Juris Doctor in 1993 from the Notre Dame Law School. From 2005 to 2023, he served as an assistant U.S. attorney (AUSA) with the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Michigan in Detroit, in various capacities, including: special counsel to the U.S. Attorney, chief of the Public Corruption and Civil Rights Unit, and chief of the Drug Task Force Unit. From 2001 to 2005, he served as an AUSA with the U.S. Attorney’s

Communications and Legislative Affairs Division

EOIR Announces 38 New Immigration Judges Page 5

Office for the Southern District of Florida in Miami. From 1997 to 2001, he was a supervisory attorney for Butzel Long PC in Detroit, and from 1995 to 1997, he was an associate with Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP in New York. From 1993 to 1995, he served as a judicial law clerk for the Honorable Paul V. Gadola of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. Judge Gardey is a member of the State Bar of Michigan and the New York State Bar.

Cynthia D. Goodman, Immigration Judge, Fort Worth Immigration Adjudication Center

Cynthia D. Goodman was appointed as an immigration judge to begin hearing cases in August 2023. Judge Goodman earned a Bachelor of Arts in 2003 from the University of North Texas and a Juris Doctor in 2006 from Texas Tech University School of Law. From 2016 to 2023, she served as a pro se staff attorney for the U.S. Court for the Northern District of Texas. From 2013 to 2016, she was a private practice immigration and criminal defense attorney with Stockard, Johnston, Brown LLC in Amarillo, Texas. From 2008 to 2013, she served as an assistant chief counsel, Office of the Principal Legal Advisor, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Department of Homeland Security, in Dallas. During this time, from 2011 to 2013, Judge Goodman served a detail as a special assistant U.S. attorney for the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Dallas. From 2006 to 2008, she served as an assistant county attorney for Potter County, Texas. Judge Goodman is a member of the State Bar of Texas.

Jonathan H. Hall, Immigration Judge, Boston Immigration Court

Jonathan H. Hall was appointed as an immigration judge to begin hearing cases in August 2023. Judge Hall earned a Bachelor of Arts in 2004 from The University of Rhode Island, a Juris Doctor in 2011 from Suffolk University Law School, and a Master of Laws in 2013 from American University Washington College of Law. From 2021 to 2023, he served as an administrative law judge at the District of Columbia Office of Administrative Hearings. From 2016 to 2021, he served as assistant general counsel at the Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia. From 2013 to 2016, he served as assistant attorney general at the Office of the Attorney General for the District of Columbia. Judge Hall is a member of the District of Columbia Bar.

Tanya L. Hasbrouck, Immigration Judge, LaSalle Immigration Court.

Tanya L. Hasbrouck was appointed as an immigration judge to begin hearing cases in August 2023. Judge Hasbrouck earned a Bachelor of Science in 1985 from Montana State University and a Juris Doctor in 1990 from the University of Mississippi School of Law. In 2023, Judge Hasbrouck was an attorney with the Hasbrouck Law Firm in Pascagoula, Mississippi. From 2019 to 2022, she served as a chancery court judge for the 16th Judicial District of Mississippi. From 2012 to 2018, she was with the Hasbrouck Law Firm in Pascagoula, Mississippi. During this time, she also served from 2017 to 2018 as the municipal public defender for the city of Gautier; from 2016 to 2018 as the municipal public defender for the city of Pascagoula; and from 2013 to 2018 as the board attorney for West Jackson County Utility District. From 2004 to 2012, she served as an assistant district attorney for the 19th Judicial District of Mississippi. From 2000 to 2003, she was an associate attorney for Cumbest, Cumbest, Hunter & McCormick in

Communications and Legislative Affairs Division

EOIR Announces 38 New Immigration Judges Page 6

Pascagoula. From 1996 to 1999, she served as an assistant district attorney for the 19th Judicial District of Mississippi. From 1994 to 1996, she served as an assistant public defender for Jackson County, Mississippi. From 1991 to 1994, she served as an associate attorney with Bryant, Colingo, Williams & Clark in Pascagoula. From 1990 to 1991, she served as a judicial law clerk for the Mississippi Supreme Court. Judge Hasbrouck is a member of the Mississippi Bar.

Jacquelyn Jo Joyce, Immigration Judge, Houston – South Gessner Immigration Court

Jacquelyn Jo Joyce was appointed as an immigration judge to begin hearing cases in August 2023. Judge Joyce earned a Bachelor of Arts in 2007 from the Florida State University and a Juris Doctor in 2010 from the University of Florida Levin College of Law. From 2018 to 2023, she served as an assistant chief counsel, Office of the Principal Legal Advisor, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Department of Homeland Security in Pearsall, Texas. From 2015 to 2018, she served as assistant public defender in the Third Judicial Circuit of Florida in Lake City, Florida. From 2010 to 2015, she served as a trial court law clerk for the Third Judicial Circuit of Florida in Live Oak, Florida. Judge Joyce is a member of the Florida Bar.

Jennifer M. Kerby, Immigration Judge, Falls Church Immigration Adjudication Center

Jennifer M. Kerby was appointed as an immigration judge to begin hearing cases in August 2023. Judge Kerby earned a Bachelor of Arts in 1991 from the University of Virginia, a Master of Education in 1995 from the University of Virginia, and a Juris Doctor in 2002 from Georgia State University College of Law. From 2005 to 2023, she served as an attorney advisor at the Board of Immigration Appeals, Executive Office for Immigration Review, U.S. Department of Justice. From 2002 to 2004, she served a two- year appointment as a staff attorney/law clerk with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. Judge Kerby is a member of the State Bar of Georgia and the Virginia State Bar.

Heather A. Libeu, Immigration Judge, Santa Ana Immigration Court

Heather A. Libeu was appointed as an immigration judge to begin hearing cases in August 2023. Judge Libeu earned a Bachelor of Arts in 2004 from Chapman University and a Juris Doctor in 2007 from the University of Southern California Gould School of Law. From 2021 to 2023, she served an assistant chief counsel, Office of the Principal Legal Advisor (OPLA), U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), Department of Homeland Security (DHS), in Santa Ana, California. From 2010 to 2021, she served an assistant chief counsel, OPLA, in Los Angeles. From 2009 to 2010, she served as an associate legal advisor, and from 2007 to 2009, she served as Presidential management fellow, OPLA, in Washington, D.C. Judge Libeu is a member of the State Bar of California.

Kyra S. Lilien, Immigration Judge, San Francisco Immigration Court

Kyra S. Lilien was appointed as an immigration judge to begin hearing cases in August 2023. Judge Lilien earned a Bachelor of Arts in 1996 from Smith College and a Juris

Communications and Legislative Affairs Division

EOIR Announces 38 New Immigration Judges Page 7

Doctor in 2006 from the University of California, Berkeley School of Law. From 2021 to 2023, she was the director of immigration legal services at Jewish Family & Community Services – East Bay in Concord, California. From 2016 to 2021, she served as staff attorney at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. From 2013 to 2016, she served as asylum officer and interim training officer at the San Francisco Asylum Office, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), Department of Homeland Security. From 2010 to 2013, she was the immigration program director at Centro Legal de la Raza in Oakland, California, where she represented noncitizens before EOIR and USCIS. From 2007 to 2010, she was an associate attorney at Kirkland & Ellis LLP in San Francisco, where she handled immigration cases on a pro bono basis. From 2006 to 2007, she was a research fellow on behalf of the University of California, Berkeley, War Crimes Studies Center at the International Criminal Court in The Hague. Judge Lilien is a member of the State Bar of California.

Brandi M. Lohr, Immigration Judge, Buffalo Immigration Court

Brandi M. Lohr was appointed as an immigration judge to begin hearing cases in August 2023. Judge Lohr earned a Bachelor of Arts in 2002 from the State University of New York at Buffalo and a Juris Doctor in 2007 from Duquesne University. From 2010 to 2023, she served as an assistant chief counsel, Office of the Principal Legal Advisor, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Department of Homeland Security (DHS), in Batavia and Buffalo, New York. From 2007 to 2010, she served as a management and program analyst and presidential management fellow, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, DHS, in Buffalo and Washington, D.C. Judge Lohr is a member of the Pennsylvania Bar.

Nicole C. Lomartire, Immigration Judge, Annandale Immigration Court

Nicole C. Lomartire was appointed as an immigration judge to begin hearing cases in August 2023. Judge Lomartire earned a Bachelor of Arts in 1995 from Hofstra University and a Juris Doctor in 2003 from the University of Maryland School of Law. From 2017 to 2023, she served as a deputy chief counsel, and from 2015 to 2017, she served as an assistant chief counsel, Office of the Principal Legal Advisor, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Department of Homeland Security, in Baltimore. From 2004 to 2015, she served as an assistant state’s attorney for the Office of the State’s Attorney for Baltimore City. Judge Lomartire is a member of the Maryland State Bar.

Robert K. Lundberg, Immigration Judge, Annandale Immigration Court

Robert K. Lundberg was appointed as an immigration judge to begin hearing cases in August 2023. Judge Lundberg earned a Bachelor of Arts in 2010 from Arizona State University and a Juris Doctor in 2012 from the Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law. From 2021 to 2023, he served as a trial attorney with the Appellate Court Section, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, U.S. Department of Justice. From 2018 to 2021, he served as an associate counsel with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security (DHS), in Washington, D.C. From 2014 to 2018, he served as an assistant chief counsel, Office of the Principal Legal Advisor, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, DHS, in Florence, Arizona. From 2013 to

Communications and Legislative Affairs Division

EOIR Announces 38 New Immigration Judges Page 8

2014, he practiced civil litigation with the Law Firm of Bert Moll in Chandler, Arizona. Judge Lundberg is a member of the State Bar of Arizona.

Margaret R. MacGregor, Immigration Judge, Port Isabel Immigration Court

Margaret R. MacGregor was appointed as an immigration judge to begin hearing cases in August 2023. Judge MacGregor earned a Bachelor of Arts in 1996 from Georgetown University and a Juris Doctorate in 1999 from the University of Arizona College of

Law. From 2009 to 2023, she was an attorney advisor at the Board of Immigration Appeals, Executive Office for Immigration Review, U.S. Department of Justice. From 2007 to 2009, she was an associate with Berry, Appleman & Leiden, and from 2005 to 2007 with Reina & Associates, both in Dallas. From 2003 to 2005, she was a deputy attorney general representing the Division of Youth and Family Services for the State of New Jersey. From 2002 to 2003, she clerked for the Honorable Vincent J. Grasso, presiding judge of the Family Part, in Ocean County, New Jersey. From 2000 to 2002, she was the senior editor of the Products Liability Law Reporter for the American Association for Justice in Washington, D.C. From 1999 to 2000, she was a staff attorney at the Center for Auto Safety in Washington, D.C. Judge MacGregor is a member of the New Jersey Bar.

Kimberly Charon McBride, Immigration Judge, Annandale Immigration Court

Kimberly Charon McBride was appointed as an immigration judge to begin hearing cases in August 2023. Judge McBride earned a Bachelor of Science in 1990 from the University of Maryland at College Park and a Juris Doctor in 1995 from the University of Baltimore School of Law. From 2010 to 2023, she served as a family magistrate for the Circuit Court for Baltimore City. During this time, she presided over juvenile delinquency and child welfare cases involving complex issues of child abuse and neglect, substance use disorders, domestic and family violence, and mental health. From 2005 to 2010, and previously from 1996 to 2000, she was a solo practitioner, serving as a panel attorney for the Office of the Public Defender (OPD) in Baltimore City, where she represented parents in child welfare and juveniles in delinquency matters. During these years, she also provided representation to parents in divorce, child custody, guardianship, and child support matters. She also provided representation in civil and criminal matters in the Circuit and District Courts of Baltimore City and surrounding counties, including, but not limited to, family law, real estate, employment, personal injury, traffic, workers’ compensation, and bankruptcy. From 2000 to 2005, she served as a senior associate at The Miracle Makers Inc. in Brooklyn, New York. Judge McBride is a member of the Maryland Bar.

Justin R. McEwen, Immigration Judge, Boston Immigration Court

Justin R. McEwen was appointed as an immigration judge to begin hearing cases in August 2023. Judge McEwen earned a Bachelor of Arts in 1999 from Southern Utah University, a Juris Doctor in 2002 from Southern Methodist University Dedman School of Law, and a Master of Laws in Trial Advocacy in 2013 from California Western School of Law. From 2003 to 2023, Judge McEwen served as a Judge Advocate in the U.S. Navy, which culminated in his service as the Circuit Judge for Europe, Africa, and Southwest Asia from 2019 to 2023. During his time as a Judge Advocate, he served as

Communications and Legislative Affairs Division

EOIR Announces 38 New Immigration Judges Page 9

an attorney and judge in the following locations: Washington Navy Yard, Washington D.C.; Fleet Activities Yokosuka, Yokosuka, Japan; Central Criminal Court of Iraq, Bagdad, Iraq; Naval Air Station, Sigonella, Sicily, Italy; Naval Station Newport, Newport, Rhode Island; Naval Station Mayport, Mayport, Florida; and Naval Support Activities, Naples, Naples, Italy. Prior to entering the U.S. Navy in 2002, Judge McEwen clerked for a year at the Texas Sixth Court of Appeals in Texarkana, Texas. Judge McEwen is a member of the State Bar of Texas.

Christopher D. McNary, Immigration Judge, Santa Ana Immigration Court

Christopher D. McNary was appointed as an immigration judge to begin hearing cases in August 2023. Judge McNary earned a Bachelor of Arts in 2008 from the University of San Francisco and a Juris Doctor in 2011 from the University of San Francisco School of Law. From 2018 to 2023, he served as an assistant chief counsel, Office of the Principal Legal Advisor, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Department of Homeland Security (DHS), in Los Angeles. From 2017 to 2018, he served as a senior asylum officer, and from 2013 to 2017, he served as an asylum officer, with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, DHS, in San Francisco. From 2011 to 2013, he served as a staff attorney with East Bay Sanctuary Covenant in Berkeley, California. Judge McNary is a member of the State Bar of California.

Jane Chace Miller, Immigration Judge, Laredo Immigration Court

Jane Chace Miller was appointed as an immigration judge to begin hearing cases in August 2023. Judge Miller earned a Bachelor of Arts in 1984 from Chestnut Hill College and a Juris Doctor in 1987 from Dickinson School of Law. From 2016 to 2023, she served as a Maryland parole commissioner. From 2003 to 2016, she was in private practice, specializing in family law issues and criminal matters. From 2001 to 2016, Judge Miller served as the trust clerk for the Circuit Court for Queen Anne’s County, Centreville, Maryland. From 1998 to 2003, she was in private practice on Maryland’s Eastern Shore, focusing on criminal cases, family law cases, and civil litigation. From 1988 to1997, Judge Miller served as an assistant State’s attorney in Wicomico County, Maryland. Judge Miller is a member of the Maryland State Bar.

George R. Najjar, Immigration Judge, San Diego Immigration Court

George R. Najjar was appointed as an immigration judge to begin hearing cases in August 2023. Judge Najjar earned a Bachelor of Arts in 1983 from the University of California, Berkeley, and a Juris Doctor in 1990 from California Western School of Law. From 1993 to 2023, he was in private practice in San Diego, California. During this time, from 2000 to 2023, he served as a judge pro tempore in the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego, and from 1997 to 2023, he served as an arbitrator for the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority Inc. Judge Najjar is a member of the State Bar of California.

Douglas D. Nelson, Immigration Judge, Salt Lake City Immigration Court

Douglas D. Nelson was appointed as an immigration judge to begin hearing cases in August 2023. Judge Nelson earned his Bachelor of Arts in 1991 from Brigham Young University and a Juris Doctor in 1994 from the University of San Diego School of Law.

Communications and Legislative Affairs Division

EOIR Announces 38 New Immigration Judges Page 10

From 1995 to 2023, he worked as an immigration attorney in private practice for Alejandro O. Campillo APLC and the Law Office of Douglas D. Nelson. During this time, from 2002 to 2004, he served as chair of the Immigration Section for the San Diego County Bar, and from 1996 to 2021, he was liaison between the San Diego chapter of the American Immigration Lawyers Association and numerous Federal immigration agencies. From 1994 to 1995, he was a judicial law clerk at the San Diego Immigration Court, entering on duty through the Attorney General’s Honors Program. Judge Nelson is a member of the State Bar of California.

Tania T. Nemer, Immigration Judge, Cleveland Immigration Court

Tania T. Nemer was appointed as an immigration judge to begin hearing cases in August 2023. Judge Nemer earned a Bachelor of Arts in 2001 from John Carroll University and a Juris Doctor in 2006 from Western Michigan University Thomas M. Cooley Law School. In 2023, she was appointed as a magistrate of the Summit County, Ohio Probate Court where she presided over cases involving guardianships, civil commitments, and estates. From 2020 to 2023, she served as the community outreach prosecutor and assistant prosecutor for the Summit County Prosecutor’s Office. In 2019, she was appointed as a magistrate of the Akron Municipal Court. She also served as the managing immigration attorney at the International Institute of Akron. From 2014 to 2019, she was the senior immigration attorney for Catholic Charities Diocese of Cleveland, Office of Migration and Refugee Services, and she was the lead attorney representing mentally incompetent individuals through the National Qualified Representative Program. From 2008 to 2014, she was of counsel for McGinty, Hilow & Spellacy Co LPA, practicing criminal and immigration law and representing clients before municipal and county courts as well as before EOIR and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security. Judge Nemer is a member of the Ohio State Bar.

Monica Barba Neumann, Immigration Judge, Miami Immigration Court

Monica Barba Neuman was appointed as an immigration judge to begin hearing cases in August 2023. Judge Neumann earned a Bachelor of Science in 2004 from the University of Florida and a Juris Doctor in 2008 from Florida International University College of Law. From 2016 to 2023, she served as an assistant chief counsel, Office of the Principal Legal Advisor, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Department of Homeland Security (DHS), in Miami. From 2015 to 2016, she served as an asylum officer, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), DHS, in Miami. She was in private practice at Monica Barba PA in Miami from 2009 to 2010 and at Grisel Ybarra PA in Miami from 2010 to 2015, representing cases before EOIR, USCIS, state criminal courts, and state family courts. Judge Neumann is a member of the Florida Bar.

Colleen O’Donnell, Immigration Judge, Laredo Immigration Court

Colleen O’Donnell was appointed as an immigration judge to begin hearing cases in August 2023. Judge O’Donnell earned a Bachelor of Arts in 2003 from Miami University (Ohio) and a Juris Doctor in 2006 from Case Western Reserve University School of Law. In 2023, she served as an attorney in the Public Utility Commission of Ohio’s Office of the Federal Energy Advocate. From 2013 to 2023, she served as a trial judge

Communications and Legislative Affairs Division

EOIR Announces 38 New Immigration Judges Page 11

in Ohio’s Franklin County Common Pleas Court, General Division. From 2007 to 2013, she practiced with the law firm of Carpenter Lipps LLP in Columbus, Ohio. Previously, in 2007, she served as a judicial law clerk in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, and from 2006 to 2007, as an assistant attorney general in the Consumer Protection section of the Ohio Attorney General’s Office. Judge O’Donnell is a member of the Ohio State Bar.

George D. Pappas, Immigration Judge, Boston Immigration Court

George D. Pappas was appointed as an immigration Judge to begin hearing cases in August 2023. Judge Pappas earned a Bachelor of Science in 1982 from the London School of Economics and Political Science, University of London, a Bachelor of Laws in 1998 from the University of London), a Master of Laws in 2000 from Widener University School of Law, Widener University, and a Doctor of Philosophy in 2014 from Birkbeck School of Law, University of London. From 2003 to 2023, he was principal attorney at George D. Pappas Esq. PC, practicing immigration, family law, criminal law, and civil litigation. He also provided pro bono legal services to the U.S. Committee for Refugees and Immigrants (Washington, D.C.), Pair Project (Boston), Latin American Coalition (Charlotte, North Carolina), El Centro (Hendersonville, North Carolina), and True Ridge (Hendersonville, North Carolina). Judge Pappas is a member of the North Carolina State Bar and the Massachusetts Bar.

Irma Pérez, Immigration Judge, Santa Ana Immigration Court

Irma Pérez was appointed as an immigration judge to begin hearing cases in August 2023. Judge Pérez earned a Bachelor of Arts in 2004 from Georgetown University and a Juris Doctor in 2011 from the University of California Law San Francisco (formerly University of California Hastings College of the Law). From 2015 to 2023, she was in private practice at the Law Office of Irma Pérez PC in Pasadena, California, practicing before EOIR, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and the Department of State (DOS). From 2012 to 2015, she was an associate with Daniel Shanfield Immigration Defense PC in San Jose, California, representing noncitizens before EOIR, DHS and DOS. Judge Pérez is a member of the State Bar of California.

Daniel I. Smulow, Immigration Judge, Baltimore Immigration Court

Daniel I. Smulow was appointed as an immigration judge in August 2023. Judge Smulow earned a Bachelor of Arts in 1995 from Tufts University and a Juris Doctor in 1998 from Case Western Reserve University School of Law. From 2008 to 2023, he served as trial attorney and senior counsel for national security, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, U.S. Department of Justice. From 2006 to 2008, he served as an associate legal advisor, National Security Law Division, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Department of Homeland Security. From 2004 to 2006, he served as an assistant attorney general in the Massachusetts Attorney General’s Office. From 1998 to 2004, he served as an assistant district attorney in Essex County, Massachusetts. During this time, from 2001 to 2004, he was a lecturer with Boston University School of Law. Judge Smulow is a member of the Massachusetts Bar.

Communications and Legislative Affairs Division

EOIR Announces 38 New Immigration Judges Page 12

Elizabeth I. Treacy, Immigration Judge, Chicago Immigration Court

Elizabeth I. Treacy was appointed as an immigration judge to begin hearing cases in August 2023. Judge Treacy earned her Bachelor of Arts in 2003 from the University of Wisconsin-Madison and a Juris Doctor in 2007 from the University of Georgia Law School. From 2019 to 2023, she served as an assistant U.S. attorney at the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Illinois. From 2010 to 2019, she served as an assistant chief counsel, Office of the Principal Legal Advisor, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Department of Homeland Security, in Chicago. From 2007 to 2010, she was practicing immigration law as an associate attorney at Fragomen, Del Rey, Bernsen & Loewy LLP. Judge Treacy is a member of the Illinois State Bar.

Adrián F. Paredes Velasco, Immigration Judge, El Paso, Texas, Immigration Court

Adrián F. Paredes Velasco was appointed an immigration judge to begin hearing cases in August 2023. Judge Paredes Velasco earned a Bachelor of Arts in 2002 from Lawrence University, a Master of Arts in 2005 from the University of Iowa, and a Juris Doctor in 2011 from Phoenix School of Law. From 2015 to 2023, he served as an assistant chief counsel, Office of the Principal Legal Advisor, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Department of Homeland Security, in El Paso. From 2011 to 2015, he was a legal clerk and attorney at the Lehm Law Group in Phoenix, Arizona. Judge Paredes is a member of the State Bar of Arizona.

ShaSha Xu, Immigration Judge, New York – Broadway Immigration Court

ShaSha Xu was appointed as an immigration judge to begin hearing cases in August 2023. Judge Xu earned a Bachelor of Arts in 2007 from Duke University and a Juris Doctor in 2011 from the Temple University Beasley School of Law. From 2019 to 2023, she served as an assistant chief counsel, Office of the Principal Legal Advisor, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Department of Homeland Security (DHS), in New York. From 2016 to 2019, she served initially as an asylum officer and then as a senior asylum officer, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, DHS, in New Jersey. From 2011 to 2016, she was in private practice at various law firms in New York and Pennsylvania. Judge Xu is a member of the Pennsylvania Bar.

Juliana Zach, Immigration Judge, Boston Immigration Court

Juliana Zach was appointed as an immigration judge to begin hearing cases in August 2023. Judge Zach earned a Bachelor of Law in 1994 from the Universidade Católica de Pernambuco, a Master of Business Administration in 2004 from the Florida Metropolitan University, and a Juris Doctor in 2008 from the Florida Agricultural and Mechanical University. From 2013 to 2023, she worked in private practice at Zach Law Firm LLC specializing in family and criminal litigation in Connecticut, as well as immigration law at the Zach Law Firm LLC. From 2013 to 2020, she also served as an attorney for the Brazilian Consulate General in Hartford, Connecticut. From 2009 to 2011, she served as an assistant state attorney for the felony division at the 18th Judicial Circuit in Sanford, Florida. Judge Zach is a member of the Connecticut Bar and the Florida Bar.

— EOIR —

Communications and Legislative Affairs Division

EOIR Announces 38 New Immigration Judges Page 13

The Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) is an agency within the Department of Justice. EOIR’s mission is to adjudicate immigration cases by fairly, expeditiously, and uniformly interpreting and administering the Nation’s immigration laws. Under delegated authority from the Attorney General, EOIR conducts immigration court proceedings, appellate reviews, and administrative hearings. EOIR is committed to ensuring fairness in all cases it adjudicates.

Communications and Legislative Affairs Division

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

By my “quick analysis,” of the 38 new IJs:

9 primarily private immigration practice/NGO

15 primarily government prosecutors

4 mixed private immigration practice/prosecution backgrounds

10 “other government” backgrounds

26 with significant prior immigration experience

One name that stands out for me:

Judge Jennifer A. Durkin, Varick (NYC) Immigration Court, who has spent her entire career practicing immigration law in the private/NGO sector and most recently served as Deputy Attorney-in Charge of the Immigration Law Unit of the Legal Aid Society in New York.

EOIR-provided bios for Judge Durbin and the other new IJs are reproduced above.

Congratulations to all the new IJs, and remember the most important part of your job on the bench, providing:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

08-13-23

🇺🇸⚖️🗽 GW IMMIGRATION CLINIC STUDENTS SAVE ANOTHER LIFE!😎 — “[He] clicked the trigger of the gun, which made a sound, but did not fire a bullet.”

GW Law Immigration Clinic Director Professor Alberto Benítez & Co-Director Professor Paulina Vera

Professor Alberto Benítez reports:

This past Wednesday, August 2, Immigration Judge (IJ) Dinesh Verma of the Hyattsville Immigration Court granted asylum to Immigration Clinic clients R-R- and her 17-year-old son, D-R-. R-R- and D-R- have been Clinic clients since 2019 and their asylum applications were filed that year with the assistance of the Clinic. Their merits hearing was originally scheduled for 2020, but was postponed until this past Wednesday due to the pandemic. They were represented at their hearing by Immigration Clinic summer intern Brennan Eppinger, a rising 2L.

R-R- and D-R- fled Honduras after R-R- stood up to a gang member who was trying to recruit her son, D-R-, to transport drugs. D-R- was 11 years old at the time. The gang member later broke into their home, put a gun to R-R- ‘s head, asked R-R- if she had ever played Russian roulette, and the quote in the subject line is what happened next. R-R- and D-R- sought safety in the United States shortly after.

Please join me and Professor Vera in congratulating Navil Infante, Alex North, Rachel Kidd and Jasmine Elsmasry, who all worked on the case. IJ Verma is a GW Law alum and was a student in my Immigration Law I class in 1997. Brennan noted this fact on the record but the IJ (who did remember me) and the ICE trial attorney waived any conflict issue.

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

Alberto Manuel Benitez

Professor of Clinical Law

Director, Immigration Clinic

The George Washington University Law School

650 20th Street, NW

Washington, DC 20052

(202) 994-7463

(202) 994-4946 fax

abenitez@law.gwu.edu

THE WORLD IS YOURS…

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

Many congrats to all involved!

Interestingly, I used the “Russian Roulette analogy” yesterday in referring to AG Merrick Garland’s dismissive attitude toward the outrageous inconsistencies and abuses in his EOIR asylum adjudications.

⚖️☠️ BLOWING THE BASICS! — IJ Misapplies “Under Color Of Law Doctrine” In CAT Case; BIA Affirms; 10th Circuit Reverses, Blowing Away Garland DOJ’s BS “No Jurisdiction” Argument In The Process — “[The IJ’s] interpretation defies logic and the law.” — We Deserve Much Better From Dem AG!

This is a wonderful, inspiring result, produced by great student lawyering, a thoughtful IJ, and an ICE ACC with a sense of justice and practicality. It should be the rule, not the exception, in EOIR asylum adjudication! But, sadly, it isn’t!

Has Alfred E. Neumann been “reborn” as Judge Merrick Garland? “Not my friends or relatives whose lives as being destroyed by my ‘Kangaroo Courts.’ Just ‘the others’ and their immigration lawyers, so who cares, why worry about professionalism, ethics, and due process in Immigration Court?”
PHOTO: Wikipedia Commons

I virtually guarantee that if this case had been adjudicated at the border, in detention, and/or on one of Garland’s “expedited/dedicated” dockets, the result would have been unfavorable. And, depending on the circumstances, it’s not even clear that an applicant with this type of very grantable claim would have access to the asylum adjudication system under Biden’s “enjoined but stayed transit rules!” See, e.g., https://twitter.com/Haleaziz (A “temporary win” for the Biden Administration, engineered by two 9th Cir. Dem judicial appointees, is a big loss for humanity and the rule of law, defended only by dissenting Trump appointee, Judge VanDyke, a result that should leave advocates scratching their heads about their place in today’s mushy Dem Party.)

Cases like this illustrate how the EOIR system could be run in a fair, efficient, professional, and properly humane manner! But, they don’t answer the question of why isn’t set up to run that way in every case under Garland!

Also, and quite perversely, the failure of the Biden system to produce fair and equitable results at the border puts a premium on individuals who can avoid border processing and get to the interior (the exact opposite of the result Biden claims to be trying to achieve)!

This is a totally screwed up system being “administered” by a Dem Administration that sorely lacks both courage and a clear vision of how to insure that asylum seekers and other immigrants, particularly those of color, receive due process and justice in America!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

08-04-23

⚖️☠️ BLOWING THE BASICS! — IJ Misapplies “Under Color Of Law Doctrine” In CAT Case; BIA Affirms; 10th Circuit Reverses, Blowing Away Garland DOJ’s BS “No Jurisdiction” Argument In The Process — “[The IJ’s] interpretation defies logic and the law.” — We Deserve Much Better From Dem AG!

Laura Lunn, Esquire
Director of Advocacy & Litigation
Rocky Mountain Immigrant Advocacy Network (“RMIAN”)
PHOTO: RMIAN

Colorado AILA reports:

From: ColoradoAILA@groups.io <ColoradoAILA@groups.io> on behalf of Aaron Hall via groups.io <aaron=immigrationissues.com@groups.io>
Sent: Tuesday, August 1, 2023 2:29 PM
To: ColoradoAILA@groups.io <ColoradoAILA@groups.io>
Subject: [ColoradoAILA] Arostegui-Maldonado v. Garland

A HUGE congratulations to RMIAN and Laura Lunn on today’s 10^th Circuit win in Arostegui-Maldonado v. Garland. I was lucky enough to be in the court at oral argument to watch Laura expertly navigate tough questions from a difficult panel and today the published decision came out holding (1) that the PFR filed within 30 days of the BIA order affirming the IJ denial of relief in withholding-only proceedings is timely filed and (2) that the IJ and BIA “defied logic and law” in misapplying the under-color-of-law element of the CAT claim, requiring remand.

Incredible work to Laura and all others involved!

Please note that you can contact your attorney and paralegal at their direct phone lines. For all future phone communications, please contact us directly instead of using the main phone number. Our direct phone lines are listed at the bottom of our emails, located in our signature blocks.

Aaron C. Hall

Senior Partner

Pronouns: he/him/his

12203 East Second Avenue

Aurora, CO 80011

Direct: 303.962.6630

www.immigrationissues.com

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

Folks, the IJ’s “reasoning to denial” in this case was beyond totally absurd! It’s an example of the type of judicial misconduct and incompetence that still flourishes in parts of Garland’s “any reason to deny” dysfunctional EOIR!

Russian Roulette — AG Merrick Garland thinks it’s fine to play “roulette” with human lives in his arbitrary, capricious, and dysfunctional EOIR. Those trying to help his victims obtain justice disagree! Is this REALLY the way things ran when Garland was on the D.C. Circuit? If not, why is it “good enough for Immigration Court?”
IMAGE: tvtropes

After more than two years of the Biden Administration under Garland, we still have not seen the type of systemic, merit-based “house cleaning” of biased and incompetent judges and the replacement of deadwood (and worse) at the totally unjust and dysfunctional EOIR that could and should have been a “day one priority” for Garland’s DOJ.

There is simply no excuse for this type of disingenuous, life-threatening performance by both EOIR and OIL under Garland’s deficient leadership! There are literally thousands of qualified experts out here who could have done a better job than the IJ and the BIA in this case!

It’s Garland’s job to get better judges on the EOIR bench — judges who will be fair, impartial, due-process focused, and experts in all facets of immigration and human rights laws! His failure to do his job is undermining our justice system and endangering human lives! How is this “OK?”

In the “real world,” folks who “can’t do their jobs” find themselves “out of a job!” Why is Garland’s DOJ an “exception,” with lives and the future of American justice on the line? Isn’t it past time to “just say no” to continuing to treat the ongoing national disgrace at EOIR as “just an afterthought” in the elitist, disconnected world of Garland’s DOJ, where the human lives being destroyed by DOJ’s failures are treated as “somebody else’s problem?”

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

08-03-23

⚖️ LAW YOU CAN USE! — 1st Cir. & Hon. “Sir Jeffrey” Chase Combine To Provide Expert Guidance On How To Handle BIA’s Inexpert Treatment Of Experts! 👍🏼

Star Chamber Justice — Experts find the BIA’s treatment of expert witnesses to be unduly harsh!

https://www.jeffreyschase.com/blog/2023/7/28/expert-guidance-from-the-first-circuit-2

JEFFREY S. CHASE | OPINIONS/ANALYSIS ON IMMIGRATION LAW

Blog Archive Press and Interviews Calendar Contact

Expert Guidance from the First Circuit

For Immigration Judges, country experts serve as the lens through which a confusing jumble of evidence becomes a clearer picture. No judge can be an expert on all countries; it is therefore by way of the country expert’s testimony that a determination can be made as to whether the asylum seeker’s predicament is a unique or a common one; a dispute is merely personal or possesses a political dimension; the home country’s government is truly likely to provide adequate protection; and why relocating within the country may or may not be reasonable.

However, Immigration Judges are provided remarkably little guidance on how to assess expert testimony. A 2020 decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Castillo v. Barr,1 illustrates the problem. In that case, both the Immigration Judge and the BIA chose to discount the testimony of a qualified country expert because his testimony was not corroborated by other evidence of record. As the Ninth Circuit noted, “If an expert’s opinion could only be relied upon if it were redundant with other evidence in the record, there would be no need for experts.”2 Obviously, this simple, logical rule should have been incorporated in a BIA precedent decision by now.

When attorneys SangYeob Kim and Gilles Bissonnette of the ACLU of New Hampshire brought an appeal involving this issue with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, our Round Table of Former Immigration Judges was most happy to file an amicus brief in the matter. We used the opportunity to inform the court “how IJs and the BIA need, and lack, a clear standard for whether to admit—and how to weigh— expert evidence.”

Although the court issued an unpublished decision (and explained why it was precluded by Supreme Court precedent from establishing the uniform standard that we had requested), I believe the opinion offers wisdom on the topic that Immigration Judges might find useful in spite of its nonbinding nature. The case name is G.P. v. Garland, No. 21-2002 (1st Cir., July 13, 2023).

Rather than review the entire decision, in the hope of increased convenience, I have instead listed the issues raised in the case that are likely to arise in removal proceedings, and then summarized how the First Circuit addressed each issue.

The recency of the expert’s knowledge:

May an Immigration Judge discount an expert’s country knowledge as “stale” due to the passage of time since the expert’s last visit to the country in question or contact with its government’s officials?

In G.P., the court found no support for such approach where: (1) the record contained no evidence of changed conditions over the period of time in question; (2) the expert testified to the lack of significant changes in country conditions over that same time period; (3) such testimony regarding the lack of significant change went unchallenged by ICE, which did not call its own expert or offer other country evidence to the contrary; and (4) the conclusion was not contradicted by the petitioner.

The basis of the expert’s knowledge

Can an expert’s testimony be discounted for lack of firsthand “knowledge, research, or connections” to the country in question?

In G.P., the court pointed to the BIA’s own precedent decision in Matter of J-G-T- in which the Board adopted the Federal Rules of Evidence standard that an expert’s testimony is reliable when it is “`based on sufficient facts or data’ that the expert `has been made aware of or personally observed’ or from sources that `experts in the particular field would reasonably rely on.'”3

In addition to finding that the IJ had overlooked sources of firsthand knowledge, the court in G.P. found further error in the IJ’s failure to either mention or explain why sources that experts in the field would rely on that were mentioned by the expert in his voir dire, which included crime rates, DEA reports, and U.S. Department of State Country Reports, were not sufficient to credit the expert’s testimony.

The expert’s lack of personal knowledge of a specific criminal organization

Can an expert’s testimony be discredited where the expert lacked personal knowledge of the specific criminal organization that the applicant fears?

In G.P., the court found that the IJ erred in discounting the expert’s testimony for this reason. The court again referenced the Board’s statement in J-G-T- quoted above, and cited another BIA precedent, Matter of Vides Casanova, in which the Board held that an expert “need not have personal knowledge of the facts underlying” their opinion.4

Applying the above BIA guidance, the court observed that the expert witness learned specifics about the organization in question from reading the respondent’s affidavit, and importantly, that the facts contained in the respondent’s testimony and later testified to in court “were never challenged by the government or questioned by the IJ, who found G.P. credible.” The court added that “An expert cannot be ‘undermined by his reliance on facts . . . that have not been disputed’” (quoting from the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Castillo, supra at 1284).

The feared persecutors are based outside of the country of expertise

Can an expert’s testimony about a crime group based in the U.S. be discredited where the witness was qualified as an expert on organized crime in the Dominican Republic?

In G.P., although the group in question was based in New England, connected to a cartel based in Sinaloa, Mexico, and “served as a conduit between the Mexican drug cartels and customers in Northern New England,” the group did not fall outside of the witness’s area of expertise (i.e. organized crime in the Dominican Republic) where the expert testified to the Sinaloa Cartel’s strong presence in the Dominican Republic, influence over government officials there, and treatment of government cooperators.” The court therefore found that the IJ’s statement that the expert lacked direct knowledge of the criminal organization “mischaracterizes the evidence as a whole” and was not supported by substantial evidence of record.

Prior statements of the expert

How should a prior statement of the expert that is offered by ICE be treated by the IJ?

In G.P., ICE introduced a quote from the expert’s 2011 book in which he wrote that he “couldn’t honestly say that torture is something deportees [to the Dominican Republic] should expect.”

However, the First Circuit found error in the IJ’s reliance on the quote, because (1) the quote was in the context of an entirely different set of facts and employed a highly narrow definition of torture; (2) the expert was only asked whether he recalled the quote and to provide its context, and not whether he agreed with it; (3) the quote addressed the general risk of torture faced by deported noncitizens, and not the specific risk faced by G.P.; and (4) the IJ failed to explain why the 2011 book deserved significant weight when it was older than other evidence the IJ found to be stale.

Conclusion

Petitioner’s counsel has moved the First Circuit to publish the decision. But regardless of the outcome, counsel may wish to bring the court’s analysis to the attention of Immigration Judges, who in turn may find it highly useful in navigating the treatment of experts in cases before them.

– –

Hats off to SangYeob Kim and Gilles Bissonnette on their outstanding litigation in the First Circuit, which led to this satisfying decision. Our Round Table is most thankful to attorneys Adam Gershenson, Alex Robledo, Angela Dunning, Marc Suskin, Robby L.R. Saldaña, and Greg Merchant of the law firm of Cooley LLP, for their expert drafting of our amicus brief in this case.

Copyright 2023 by Jeffrey S. Chase. All Rights Reserved.

Notes

980 F.3d 1278 (9th Cir. 2020).

Id. at 1284.

Matter of J-G-T-, 28 I&N Dec. 97, 102 (BIA 2020) (quoting Fed. R. Evid. 702(b), 703).

Matter of Vides Casanova, 26 I&N Dec. 494, 499 (BIA 2015). Interestingly, in VIdes Casanova, the country expert had been called by DHS to establish that the respondent was a persecutor of others. Under those circumstances, the BIA in its decision noted that an expert “is permitted to base her opinion on hearsay evidence and need not have personal knowledge of the facts underlying those opinions.”

JULY 28, 2023

Republished with permission

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

The BIA spends far too much time cooking up bogus ways to deny asylum and other forms of protection. This leaves a “vacuum” on providing sound advice and needed guidance for effectively presenting and fairly analyzing the large untapped potential for more grants of protection currently “bouncing around the EOIR backlog” or alternatively being mindlessly rushed through “dedicated deterrence dockets” with neither time for advocates to properly prepare nor opportunity for thoughtful analysis by IJs! It’s a real (totally preventable) “lose-lose” for our justice system and asylum applicants!

Fortunately those from outside EOIR, including Article III Judges, subject matter experts like Judge Sir Jeffrey, and his loyal colleagues in the Round Table 🛡 have stepped in to fill the void. Wouldn’t it be better (and easier) to just aggressively recruit and hire the right expert, experienced, due-process-focused candidates for EOIR judgeships in the first place?

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

07-30-23

🇺🇸🗽 INSPIRING AMERICA: Dreamer Viridiana Chabolla “Pays It Forward” — Big Time! — “How can I help aside from placing my hopes in a Congress that is more concerned about building borders than dealing with these issues?”

Viridiana Chabolla ’13, who was brought to the U.S. from Mexico at 2 years old, on the day she became a U.S. citizen in 2021.
PHOTO: Pamona College Magazine

https://magazine.pomona.edu/2023/summer/all-the-way-to-the-supreme-court/

Carla Maria Guerrero writes in Pomona College Magazine:

There are not a lot of big wins for Viridiana Chabolla ’13 in her line of work. It’s not for a lack of trying, or a lack of sweat and tears. Her commitment has been tested over the years but she remains determined. Chabolla is an attorney working in immigration law. The landscape is grim, she says. It can be heartbreaking. Demoralizing. She’s not just an attorney. She is an immigrant, too, and for most of her life she was undocumented.

In February, the Los Angeles Times wrote a story about one of her recent clients. Leonel Contreras, a U.S. Army veteran, was a legal permanent resident before being deported to Mexico after serving time for a nonviolent crime. Contreras had grown up in the U.S., but after his deportation he worked and lived in Tijuana for at least a decade before the Immigrant Defenders Law Center in Los Angeles took his case and Chabolla helped him return to his family members in California. He became a U.S. citizen earlier this year.

“It’s really nice to wave an American flag at a naturalization ceremony,” says Chabolla, who began working at the Immigrant Defenders Law Center (ImmDef) in October 2021. “Immigration law is so harsh and when it’s not harsh, it’s just not helpful. It’s hard to have a win. When you have those moments, you have to grab on and make them last.”

Chabolla was born in Guanajuato, Mexico. Her mother came to the U.S. to escape a bad relationship and start a new life. A 2-year-old Chabolla and the rest of her mother’s family joined her soon after. Chabolla grew up with her grandparents, aunts and cousins all living close to each other in East Los Angeles. “I’d remember seeing my mom and aunts getting ready for work at ridiculous hours of the day,” she says of the early-morning hubbub. “I remember always being surrounded by people and conversations. There were a lot of disagreements but a lot of love.”

When she was 11, Chabolla met a group of lawyers who worked in East L.A. Although she didn’t know what exactly they did, she recalls thinking that they seemed to hold a lot of power. They seemed to have some kind of authority to help her and others like her—people who were not born in the U.S.

It was during Chabolla’s junior year at Pomona that the Obama administration established an immigration policy that changed her life. Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) allowed certain immigrants who were brought to the U.S. as children to receive a renewable two-year period of deferred action from deportation and also become eligible for a work permit.

For the first time, Chabolla was able to have a job on campus. She saved her first pay stub. It wasn’t much in terms of money, but it was significant for Chabolla.

With DACA, Chabolla’s future seemed a bit brighter. She could now apply for jobs after graduation. Her first work after Pomona was as an organizer with the pro bono legal services nonprofit Public Counsel, a choice that set her on a course for a win of historic proportions.

For four years, Chabolla took down the stories of plaintiffs for cases being handled by Public Counsel. As time passed, she began to feel more empowered to share her immigration status with her director, Mark Rosenbaum, even as the national political landscape was transitioning from an Obama presidency to a Trump one.

“When Trump was elected, I broke down,” she says. She remembers Rosenbaum calling her to tell her she didn’t have to go to work the next day: “Go be with your family, go through your emotions,” he told her.

“We didn’t know what Trump would do first. We just hit the ground running,” says Chabolla, who worked on the defense case for Daniel Ramirez Medina, the first person to have his DACA permit taken away. “With everything going on, we focused on putting out fires. Trump wasn’t taking out DACA in one go just yet. He was creating all of this panic everywhere first.”

Her time at Public Counsel rekindled Chabolla’s original interest in law.

“I kept thinking of the best way I could help others. I loved the idea of gaining new knowledge, and a degree in law would allow me to have a sense of power,” she says. The attorneys at Public Counsel, like her boss Rosenbaum, not only practiced law and led big cases but they also wrote articles and taught university-level courses.

In September of 2017, the Trump administration announced it was officially rescinding DACA. Chabolla had just started at the UC Irvine School of Law. Her initial response was to focus on school and wait.

Then Chabolla got a call from Rosenbaum. “He called me to be a plaintiff in a case against the United States. I felt terrified.”

Chabolla phoned her mother and her family. “If I shared my story, I would have to share their story,” she says. She also was married by then and discussed the possible ramifications with her husband.

Her family was supportive. Chabolla felt compelled to help.

The Public Counsel lawsuit led by Rosenbaum was filed as Garcia v. United States. As it made its way through the higher courts, it was merged with four other cases and ultimately became known as Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California by the time it reached the U.S. Supreme Court.

As a plaintiff in the case, Chabolla shared her story with a lawyer for a written declaration. While she never testified before any judges, she did have to share her immigration story multiple times as the case garnered national media attention.

On June 18, 2020, the Supreme Court delivered its 5-4 decision blocking the Trump administration’s elimination of DACA. Chabolla was in Washington for the hearing. “A few of us got to go inside,” she recalls. “Some DACA students were there, too. And it was really powerful. These justices were hearing arguments on this huge case…but I know maybe for them all cases they hear are huge. But we occupied half the room and that was really powerful and really unusual.”

Chabolla took notes during the hearing. “I remember writing down something that Justice [Sonia] Sotomayor said: ‘This is not about the law; this is about our choice to destroy lives.’

“So much of what Trump did was done without following administrative law,” explains Chabolla about how they “won” this case. “Trump didn’t follow procedure,” she says. “If they had taken their time and done it right, it would have passed. But I remember taking the win.”

Chabolla, who had just recently become a U.S. resident through marriage, remembers feeling relief for the DACA community.

“The DACA victory in the Supreme Court is a testament to the vision, commitment and tireless efforts of many, and Viri’s name would surely be at the top of that list,” says Rosenbaum. “I had the privilege of working with Viri at Public Counsel, first as an organizer…and then to come forward as a plaintiff in Garcia to inspire others to do the same and make the case that our nation needs DACA recipients to build a kinder and more inclusive community for all of us.”

Upon returning home, Chabolla once again focused on school—it was her second-to-last semester at UC Irvine. She spent a year as a graduate legal assistant with the Office of the Attorney General for the California Department of Justice. It was a tough gig for a newly graduated lawyer. After one year, she left for her current job as a staff attorney at ImmDef, a legal services nonprofit with a post-conviction unit that drew her interest. “They take on clients who have criminal convictions like possession of marijuana from 40 years ago with deportation orders—deportation is not a fair punishment for everyone.

“Many of our clients have been living here as legal permanent residents for more than 20 years. Most find out they’re getting deported just when they’re going to be released,” she says. “The statistics show that immigrants commit fewer crimes than the general population and our clients have already served their time—in jail, or prison, they’ve paid their dues and they’ve even paid their fines. Adding deportation is a way of saying ‘I don’t like that you’re an immigrant.’ It’s extra punishment.”

The work is tough. “My supervisor has shared that sometimes we have to redefine what a win is,” says Chabolla. “It makes up partially for the times when we have a clinic and all these people show up thinking they can apply for residency when they actually can’t.”

She says that the immigrants she talks to are so full of hope. They believe that an attorney—like herself—can do it all. “Every situation is different. No lawyer has a miracle cure.

“It’s heartbreaking to know how many people are becoming elders who don’t have a nest egg, who paid taxes into the system but they can’t access Social Security, can’t access Medicare,” Chabolla adds. “It’s something I’ve been thinking a lot about in the past two years: How can I help aside from placing my hopes in a Congress that is more concerned about building borders than dealing with these issues?”

In 2021, Chabolla became a U.S. citizen. The day was bittersweet and laden with guilt. “It was one of those moments where I felt I was further abandoning my undocumented community, but I know that’s not true,” she says. Although her mother recently became a U.S. resident, some of her family remains undocumented.

Chabolla says she’s been able to find some balance as an ally who was once directly impacted by immigration policies. “I’m trying to find a place where I can remain hopeful in my job and be a zealous lawyer and advocate.”

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

Congrats and way to go Viri! You have already established yourself as a “New Generation Leader” of the NDPA! Awesome!

For years, the GOP has been mindlessly blocking various versions of DACA, at a great human cost as well as a huge cost to our nation. Dreamers who are able to achieve citizenship, without special help from Congress, and other “New Generation” members of the NDPA must follow the lead of Rep. Hillary Scholten (D-MI) by getting into the “power structure” and forcing long overdue progressive changes.

Thanks to Chief Justice Roberts, the Supremes got this one right, barely 5-4. One vote has made a huge difference in literally hundreds of thousands of lives, and helped to shape American’s future for the better. By contrast, the Trump Administration’s failed attempts to undo this important program was a disgraceful abuse of Government resources! The inability of GOP-controlled states to let this issue go — essentially too keep bullying and threatening some of the most productive and deserving members of our society — is beyond disgusting.

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

07-20-23

🏴‍☠️👎🏼🤮 JUSTICE’S UNJUST “COURTS!” — Recent Reports Highlight Horribly Failed System —Asylum Free Zones, Unqualified Prosecutor-Judges, Deadly Denials, Blatant Information Imbalance, Dehumanizing Treatment, Poor Access To Counsel, Docket Mayhem, Unrealistic Timelines, Biased Outcomes, Indifference To Human Life, Unaccountability, Among The Myriad Problems Flagged By Those Forced To Deal With Garland’s Ongoing Mockery Of Due Process! — EXTRA! — How Poor Legal Performance @ DOJ Skews The Entire Immigration Debate!

injustice — 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!

Austin Kocher, Ph.D.
Research Assistant Professor
TRAC-Syracuse
PHOTO: Syracuse U.

Two items from Professor Austin Kocher on Substack:

Asylum Seeker Killed in Guatemala after Omaha Immigration Judge Ordered Him Deported

Omaha is now the toughest court in the country for asylum seekers, MPI hosts discussion on immigration courts in crisis, interview with an immigration judge, and more.

Asylum Seeker Killed in Guatemala after Omaha Immigration Judge Ordered Him Deported austinkocher.substack.com • 1 min read

https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7086002474968313856?updateEntityUrn=urn%3Ali%3Afs_feedUpdate%3A%28V2%2Curn%3Ali%3Aactivity%3A7086002474968313856%29

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

New Research by AILA Reveals Anatomy of an Asylum Case + Online Event

Even the best attorneys require 50-75 hours over several months to complete an asylum case. The Biden admin’s attempts to speed up asylum cases may be ignoring this reality.

…see more

New Research by AILA Reveals Anatomy of an Asylum Case

https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7086001618898296832?updateEntityUrn=urn:li:fs_feedUpdate:(V2,urn:li:activity:7086001618898296832)

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

And, this from Lauren Iosue, Georgetown Law L-3 on LinkedIn.

Lauren Iosue

View Lauren Iosue’s profile

• 1st

J.D. Candidate at Georgetown University Law Center

3d •

Through my internship at the Florence Immigrant and Refugee Rights Project, I observed master calendar hearings in the detained docket in the Florence Immigration Court. I was back in Florence, Arizona, because the court itself is located within the barbed wire of the detention center. Observing the Florence Immigration Court emphasized how dehumanizing removal proceedings can be for detained immigrants. Master calendar hearings are often immigrants’ first interaction with the Court. To start, a guard brought a group of men in jumpsuits to the courtroom and lined them up. The judge read them their rights and then called them individually to discuss their case. Twice I witnessed the wrong person being brought into court where they sat through proceedings until the guards realized and switched them out for the correct person.

The vast majority of Respondents in removal proceedings are unrepresented. There is a blatant information imbalance in immigration court when the immigrant is unrepresented. Oftentimes, pro se detained immigrants do not have access to the resources represented or released Respondents have during their proceedings. Respondents may not know their legal options unless organizations like the Florence Project can speak to them before their hearing and provide them with pro se information packets or represent them. During the hearing, the men did not even have a pen and paper to take notes. Meanwhile, the immigration judge and government attorney have access to technology and a wealth of experience to pull from to make legal arguments.

This is just one example of many – my colleagues and I also observed translation issues and pushback against some men who wished to continue fighting their case. Above all, I’ll leave with this very simple observation: the judge and guards called each man up by his court docket number before his name. If we are to support and uphold the dignity of all people, we must do so especially in systems that look to strip it from them. Providing immigrants with access to a lawyer, if they’d like one, can ensure that people have access to information that allows them to make informed decisions about their case. The Florence Project is one of the organizations working tirelessly to expand access to representation throughout Arizona, and I hope to continue this work after graduating from Georgetown University Law Center next year. #EJAFellowUpdate | Equal Justice America

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

Congrats to Lauren Iosue, and thanks for becoming a member of the NDPA! 😎 The scary thing: As an L-3, Lauren appears to have more “hands on” Immigration Court experience and a far deeper appreciation of the material, sometimes fatal, flaws in the EOIR system, than Garland and his other “top brass” in the DOJ responsible for operating and overseeing this tragic mess!

Why isn’t “real life” immigration/human rights experience representing individuals in Immigration Court were an absolute requirement for appointment to AG, Deputy AG, Associate AG, Solicitor General, and Assistant AG for Civil (in charge of OIL) in any Dem Administration, at least until such time as the Immigration Courts become an Article I Court removed from the DOJ?

30-years ago, when I was at Jones Day, we were budgeting a minimum of 100 hours of professional time for a pro bono asylum case! That was before the “21st century BIA” added more unnecessary, artificial technicalities to make it more difficult for asylum seekers to win. It’s not “rocket science!” 🚀

Lucy McMillan ESQUIRE
Chief Pro Bono Counsel
Arnold & Porter
Washington, D.C.
PHOTO: A&P

All Garland would have to do is reach back into his “big law” days at Arnold & Porter (“A&P”). He should pick up his cell phone and call Lucy McMillan, the award-winning Chief Pro Bono Counsel @ A&P. Ask Lucy what needs to change to get EOIR functioning as a due-process-focused model court system! Better yet, reassign upper “management” at EOIR, and hire Lucy to clean house and restore competence, efficiency, and excellence to his currently disgracefully-dysfunctional “courts!”

As Austin’s posts and the reports he references show, Garland’s indolent, tone-deaf, mal-administration of the Immigration Courts is a national disgrace that undermines democracy and betrays core values of the Democratic Party! How does he get away with it? Thanks to Austin, AILA, Lauren, and others exposing the ongoing “EOIR charade” in a Dem Administration!

As shown by recent “Courtside” postings about the “Tsunami” 🌊 of Article III “rejections” of lousy BIA decisions, throughout America, many, many more asylum cases could be timely granted with a properly well-qualified, expert BIA setting precedents and forcing judges like those in Omaha to properly and generously apply asylum law or find other jobs! Maximum protection, NOT “maximum rejection,” is the proper and achievable (yet unrealized) objective of asylum laws!

Asylum law, according to the Supremes and even the BIA is supposed to be generously and practically applied — so much so that asylum can and ordinarily should be granted even where the chances are “significantly less” than probable. See Matter of Mogharrabi, 19 I & N Dec. 439, 446 (BIA 1987).

The problem is that the BIA and EOIR have never effectively implemented and followed the Mogharrabi standard. In recent years, particularly during the Trump debacle, they have moved further than ever away from this proper legal standard while still giving it lip service! Clearly, the IJs in Omaha and other “Asylum Free Zones” are operating outside the realm of asylum law with deadly and destructive consequences. Yet, Garland, a former Federal Judge himself, permits it! Why?

The assumption that most asylum seekers who pass credible fear should ultimately lose on the merits is false and based on intentionally overly restrictive mis-interpretations and mis-applications of asylum law! It’s a particular problem with respect to asylum seekers of color from Latin America and Haiti — a definite racial dimension that DOJ and DHS constantly “sweep under the carpet.” Because of the extraordinarily poor leadership from EOIR, DOJ, and DHS, this “fundamental falsehood of inevitable denial” infects the entire asylum debate and materially influences policies.

A dedicated long-time “hands-on” asylum expert, someone who actually met some of the “Abbott/DeSantis busses,” said that over 70% of those arriving from the border had potentially grantable asylum claims. That’s a far cry from the “nobody from the Southern border will qualify” myth that drives asylum policy by both parties and has even been, rather uncritically, “normalized” by the media.

Fixing EOIR is a prerequisite to an informed discussion of immigration and development of humane, rational, realistic immigration policies. That would be laws and policies based on reality, not myths, distortions, and sometimes downright fabrications.

Competent representation is also an essential part of fixing EOIR. There are ways to achieve it that Garland is ignoring and/or inhibiting. See, e.g., VIISTA Villanova. No excuses!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever,

PWS

07-17-23

🤯🏴‍☠️ BIA BLUNDERS BUILD BACKLOG! — 4th Cir. (2-1) & 2d Cir. Continue To Call Out BIA’s Lawless, Anti-Immigrant Behavior In Dem Administration! — PLUS, BONUS COVERAGE — Commentary From Michelle Mendez & Me!😎

“Lady Injustice” has found a home at Garland’s dysfunctional EOIR!
Public Realm

Dan Kowalski reports for LexisNexis Immigration Community:

https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/221463.P.pdf

https://www.lexisnexis.com/community/insights/legal/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/ca4-on-psg-political-opinion-and-cat-santos-garcia-v-garland

“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.”

[Hats way off to pro bono publico counsel Jessica L. Wagner!]

Jessica Wagner
Associate
Gibson Dunn
D.C. Office
PHOTO: Gibson Dunn

Daniel M. Kowalski

Editor-in-Chief

Bender’s Immigration Bulletin (LexisNexis)

cell/text/Signal (512) 826-0323

@dkbib on Twitter

dan@cenizo.com

Free Daily Blog: www.bibdaily.com

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

https://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/05b1e9ea-e5da-493a-8b94-45bc8e3d4757/3/doc/21-6043_opn.pdf

https://www.lexisnexis.com/community/insights/legal/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/ca2-on-iac-prejudice-hardship-continuance-paucar-v-garland

“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.”

[Hats off to Prof. Lindsay Nash and Paige Austin!]

Lindsay Nash
Associate Professor of Law
Co-Director, Kathryn O. Greenberg Immigration Justice Clinic
Cardozo Law
PHOTO: Cardozo Law

Daniel M. Kowalski

Editor-in-Chief

Bender’s Immigration Bulletin (LexisNexis)

cell/text/Signal (512) 826-0323

@dkbib on Twitter

dan@cenizo.com

Free Daily Blog: www.bibdaily.com

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

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 4^thCircuit 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 4^th 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!

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

07-14-24

🇺🇸⚖️👨🏾‍⚖️ PROF. CARL TOBIAS (U. RICHMOND LAW) HAS SOME VERY NICE THINGS TO SAY ABOUT OUTGOING 4TH CIRCUIT CHIEF JUDGE ROGER GREGORY!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/07/09/judge-roger-gregory-tenure-4th-circuit/

Tobias writes in WashPost:

On Saturday, Roger Gregory concluded his tenure as chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit. Judge Gregory has ensured the court expeditiously, inexpensively and fairly decided several thousand appeals annually.

President Bill Clinton nominated Judge Gregory in June 2000, but GOP senators ignored the nomination, so Clinton granted him a recess appointment that December. President George W. Bush nominated Judge Gregory in May 2001, and he won confirmation. Judge Gregory was the court’s initial Black jurist, becoming its first Black chief judge in July 2016.

Gregory ensured efficacious implementation of administrative tasks, notably investitures for new active, and retirements for senior, jurists on the 15-member appeals court, plus the nine districts’ many trial court, magistrate and bankruptcy judges. He facilitated professional development of 150 judges and 1,600 court staff.

Judge Gregory also discharged complex, delicate responsibilities, namely investigating and resolving ethics complaints and claims of discrimination, which involved jurists and court personnel. Other complicated, sensitive duties were maintaining the court’s effective disposition of substantial appeals and collegiality as it transitioned from the most conservative to a more progressive appellate court. A crisis arising in Judge Gregory’s tenure was the coronavirus pandemic. He expeditiously organized the 4th Circuit response, skillfully navigating public health dangers and politicization of remedies for those risks.

Judge Gregory exhibited diligence, wisdom and appreciation, showing respect for history, customs and norms, as well as the 1,750 dedicated public servants who assiduously help the court efficaciously resolve large cases. Individuals across the 4th Circuit are indebted to Judge Gregory for his exceptional administration.

Carl Tobias, Richmond

The writer is the Williams chair in law at the University of Richmond School of Law.

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

Very well-deserved tribute! Thanks for writing it!

The totally dysfunctional U.S. Immigration Courts need leadership like that provided by Judge Gregory. Perhaps, Judge Garland could call Judge Gregory and get him to take over and straighten out EOIR, America’s worst important “court” system. Sadly, to date, Garland has shown little interest in making good on the constitutional guarantee of due process for all persons in the U.S., including immigrants!

Judge Gregory, the first African-American judge on the Circuit, is succeeded by Chief Judge Albert Diaz a 2010 Obama appointee. Judge Diaz becomes the first Hispanic to serve as the Circuit’s Chief Judge!

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

07-10-23

⚖️😎 THE BLUM REPORT: Roberto Covers A “212(c) Redux” In Houston, Highlighting Garland’s Disturbing Failure to “Harvest The Low Hanging Fruit” 🍒 @ EOIR!

Roberto Blum, Esquire, reports from Houston:

Hello Judge, it has been a while since I reported from Houston. Although I have not reported, I have kept reading (and learning from) your writings. So it was a pleasant surprise when I recently came across some BIA decisions and saw your name written on them.

They are Matter of Arreguin, 21 I&N Dec. 38 (BIA 1995) and Matter of Fuentes-Campos, 21 I&N Dec. 905 (BIA 1997).

You see, I was preparing for a individual hearing on the merits, where the client, a 65-year old Mexican national, who has lived in the U.S. since about 1979, and was admitted as a Legal Permanent Resident in 1991, was found to be deportable under INA section 237(a)(2)(b)(i) due to a controlled substance conviction from 1994. His relief: Section 212(c).

The saga started in early January 2012, when he was encountered by ICE, was detained, and placed into removal proceedings. The firm I work for began to represent him at that point. While waiting for his detained merits date, the client suffered a medical condition and was not expected to survive, so ICE released him to family members, essentially so he wouldn’t die in their custody. However, he did not die, he survived, and made a full recovery.

Fast forward to today. Ever since his release, his case got stuck in the “aimless docket reshuffling” that you so often write about. It was not until today, June 28, 2023, that he finally got his day in court for an immigration judge (IJ) to consider his case.

Not knowing whether the assigned IJ or DHS trial attorney (TA) would have any experience with Section 212(c) because this is an old type of relief that is not very common anymore and also due to the hostility often encountered at Houston EOIR, I prepared for the worst case scenario, and feared that the client might not get a fair shake.

Fortunately on the day of trial, I saw an experienced TA was representing the government. Before the IJ went on the record the TA and I discussed the case, and the TA told me that he did not have any issues with the case. I asked if he would stipulate to a grant of relief and he said yes, but warned the IJ might still want to take testimony. The IJ came on the record shortly thereafter, and asked if we had any agreements, at which point I told the IJ that we had an agreement for stipulation to a grant of relief because the evidence submitted was sufficient to carry our burden. The TA confirmed our agreement, and the IJ responded that she had reviewed the record, and also agreed that the client was eligible and deserving of relief because of his long-time physical presence, the conviction was very old, and the client had not had any recent criminal history.

In less than 5 minutes, this case that had been pending over 11 years and 5 months (or about 4,184 days), was resolved by agreement of all parties! The client was stunned and did not even know what happened. He did not expect it to be this fast after waiting so long. The client confided in me that his mother passed away a few days ago in Mexico, and he had been very worried because all of his witnesses (family members) went to Mexico to attend the funeral and were not available to testify on his behalf. I remembered something my grandmother would tell me as a child, that when a close loved one dies, they go to heaven and become your guardian angel, so I thought… just maybe… his mother had been his guardian angel today and whispered in the TA and IJ’s ear before the hearing.

In all seriousness, I ask myself (as this is not the only case I have had that has been pending for over 10 years, only to be resolved by stipulation at the final hearing in less than 5 minutes) how much $$$ is the government spending to fight a case like this for more than a decade–only for it to be resolved in 5 minutes of discussion. (Of course if it had not been resolved favorably, we would have continued litigating the case and appealed to the BIA, something that under current wait times would last another 3 or more years and who knows how much more resources). I imagine that between the IJ and TA’s salary, the court staff, support staff, and even utilities of operating a court, the price tag might be well above $100,000 for a case like this. This is not sustainable.

I asked the client for permission to share the photo we took after the hearing, and if I get the permission I will share it with you.

I am glad the case was resolved favorably by agreement, however, I was ready to use your cases to help defend my client.

DPF!

RB

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

Love this, Roberto! Makes my day! Good precedents, great scholarship, collegiality, good judging, teamwork combining to make the system work in a just and humane manner! Thanks for forwarding and DPF!

Matter of Arreguin, written by the late Judge Fred W. Vacca, was one of the first precedents issued, in Volume 21 of the I&N Dec., during my time as BIA Chair. That Volume also reflected the “new style” of BIA precedent format with the “bound volume” citation and pagination available in the “slip opinion” and the individual author of the majority and separate opinions clearly identified.

Always gratifying to see that the now “old” precedents turned out by the long-gone “Schmidt Board” still have something to say and teach. It was a time when intellectual dialogue and meaningful debate of important issues was encouraged, rather than being discouraged and avoided as has happened in today’s “assembly line culture” at EOIR!

Additionally, Roberto’s report raises a continuing question. What if rather than misusing EOIR as a “deterrent,” and thereby engaging in “Aimless Docket Reshuffling,” Garland and the other “powers that be within the Administration” returned EOIR to its original purpose of insuring due process, fundamental fairness, and best, most efficient judicial practices?

I’m sure there is lots of “low hanging fruit,” 🍒exemplified by this case, that could be prioritized for quick disposition or reassigned to a better-functioning version of USCIS for more efficient completion. Indeed, with guidance and some institutional discipline by a “Better BIA” of true asylum expert Appellate Judges, I’d guess that the majority of the hundreds of thousands of asylum cases pending for more than two years could be granted without full hearings, either at EOIR or a better functioning Asylum Office. Additionally, many of the long-pending “Non-LPR Cancellation Cases” now clogging the EOIR docket could be more efficiently handled by a better functioning and better staffed USCIS.

It appears that nobody with any realistic vision of what the future could and should look like, and an appreciation of both the cosmic importance and great positive potential of a functional EOIR, has paid any attention to 1) the composition of the EOIR backlog, 2) the abundant opportunities for positive resolutions that would benefit everyone, 3) the lack of quality control at today’s EOIR, and 4) the glaring absence of practical problem solving skills among senior EOIR management and the BIA (not to mention DOJ management and leadership in this area, such as it is).

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

06-29-23

⚖️🗽INSPIRING AMERICA: NDPA SUPERSTAR 🌟 & BRILLIANT GEORGETOWN REFUGEE LAW & POLICY ALUM BREANNE PALMER “GETS IT!” — “For me, the line between the so-called ‘Great Replacement Theory,’ the targeting of Black Americans in Buffalo in May 2022, and the deleterious, disproportionate effects of Title 42 on Black asylum seekers couldn’t have been brighter.”

Breanne Justine Palmer, Esquire
Senior Legal Policy Advisor
Democracy Forward
PHOTO: Linkedin

https://www.linkedin.com/posts/breannepalmer_career-retrospective-the-leadership-conference-activity-7074007461837340672-_0EI?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_ios

Breanne writes:

People talk frequently about forward and backward movement in one’s career, but less so about the gift of lateral moves. I have been lucky enough to make at least one facially “lateral” move that drastically changed the scope and reach of my immigration advocacy work: as the first Policy Counsel for Immigration at The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights!

Through the work of incredible jacks-of-all-trades on staff like Rob Randhava, The Leadership Conference has played an integral role in a number of major moments in the immigration space and maintained an Immigration Task Force. The organization wanted to concretize this work by hiring a full-time staffer, and on the heels of my work at the UndocuBlack Network, I felt this role was the right fit. I grew up in a distinctly Jamaican household, visiting our home country most of my childhood summers, but I also sought a sterling education in the Black American experience.

One of my proudest moments at The Leadership Conference was also one of the most complex, challenging moments of my career—trying to connect the dots between seemingly disparate, painful topics to highlight the interconnectivity of our racial justice and immigrant justice movements. For me, the line between the so-called “Great Replacement Theory,” the targeting of Black Americans in Buffalo in May 2022, and the deleterious, disproportionate effects of Title 42 on Black asylum seekers couldn’t have been brighter. I felt The Leadership Conference was perfectly poised to connect those dots in a public way, by co-leading a sign-on letter to the Biden Administration. But I had to make my case with both internal and external partners with care and finesse, drawing on all of my education and experiences to guide me. No community wants to feel as though another community is opportunistically seizing a moment to elevate its interests while riding on the backs of others. I am proud to say that I persuaded a number of skeptics, many of whom were rightfully protective of their communities and civil rights legacies, to see the urgency of drawing these connections for those in power. Through this effort I was reminded that the work of connecting the Black diaspora is arduous, but can bear powerful fruit.

Read the rest on my blog!

https://breannejpalmer.squarespace.com/blog/career-retrospective-the-leadership-conference-on-civil-and-human-rights

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

I’ve said it many times: There will be neither racial justice nor equal justice for all in America without justice for migrants!

Breanne obviously “gets it!” So do leaders like Cory Booker (D-NJ).

Sadly, however, many Democrats, including notable African-American leaders like President Barack Obama, Vice President Kamala Harris, AAG Civil Rights Kristen Clarke, and former AGs Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch don’t! They all blew or are squandering opportunities to make due process and equal justice for asylum seekers and other migrants a reality, rather than a hollow, unfulfilled promise!

In particular, the “intentional tone-deafness” of the Biden Administration on treatment of asylum seekers and other migrants of color has been astounding and shocking! Speaking out for justice for George Floyd and others while denying due process and the very humanity of Blacks and other people of color seeking legal asylum at the Southern Border is totally disingenuous and counterproductive!

Additionally, while there recently have been some improvements in merit-based selections by AG Garland, the U.S. Immigration Courts, including the BIA, are still glaringly unrepresentative of the communities affected by their decisions and the outstanding potential judicial talent that could and should be actively recruited from those communities. An anti-immigrant, pro-enforcement, uber-bureaucratic “culture” at EOIR, which metastasized during the Trump Administration, discouraged many well-qualified experts, advocates, and minorities from competing for positions at EOIR.

The inexplicable failure of Vice President Harris to establish herself as the “front person” to actively encourage and promote service in the Immigration Courts among minorities and women is highly perplexing. Additionally, the failure of the Biden Administration to recognize the potential of the Immigration Courts as a source of exceptionally-well-qualified, diverse, progressive, practical scholars for eventual Article III judicial appointments has been stunning!

Meanwhile, for an “upgrade” of the struggling EOIR, one couldn’t do better than Breanne Palmer: brilliant practical scholar, forceful advocate, courageous, creative innovator, and inspirational role model. As Breanne says on her website:

I try to live by one of Audre Lorde’s creeds:

“I am deliberate and afraid of nothing.”

Sure could use more of that intellectual and moral courage and “leadership by example” on the bench at EOIR! And, as I mentioned yesterday, there are or will be more judicial positions available at EOIR at both the appellate and trial levels. See, e.g., https://wp.me/p8eeJm-8KK.

Thanks Breanne for choosing to use your tremendous skills and abilities to further due process, equal justice for all, and racial justice in America. So proud of you!

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

06-23-23

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Julie Watson reports for AP:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

From EOIR:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Dan Kowalski reports for LexisNexis Immigration Community:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

From LinkedIn:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

FROM EOIR:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Professor Alberto Benítez reports:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Colorado AILA reports:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Carla Maria Guerrero writes in Pomona College Magazine:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Two items from Professor Austin Kocher on Substack:

And, this from Lauren Iosue, Georgetown Law L-3 on LinkedIn.

🇺🇸Due Process Forever,

Related posts:

Dan Kowalski reports for LexisNexis Immigration Community:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Tobias writes in WashPost:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Roberto Blum, Esquire, reports from Houston:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Breanne writes:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts: