"The Voice of the New Due Process Army" ————– Musings on Events in U.S. Immigration Court, Immigration Law, Sports, and Other Random Topics by Retired United States Immigration Judge (Arlington, Virginia) and former Chairman of the Board of Immigration Appeals Paul Wickham Schmidt. To see my complete professional bio, just click on the link below.
Sarah Jessica Parker will NOT be appearing in the Garland/Monaco production of “Sex And The Courthouse!” Photo by Shawn Miller/Library of Congress. Public Domain.
Law360 (February 5, 2024, 6:23 PM EST) — The U.S. Department of Justice will pay $1.2 million to resolve a suit from a former staff assistant who said a California immigration judge routinely subjected her to explicit, lewd comments and once told her he would “make her straight” if they had sex.
By Grace Elletson
This article is “paywalled.” Those with Law360 access can get all the details.
But, the final settlement agreement is public and should give you a picture of what’s happening inside Garland’s often-secretive and dysfunctional “courts.”
On January 22, 2021, two days after President Joe Biden’s inauguration, then SF Chron reporter Tal Kopan ran an extensive, well-documented expose of the widespread sexual harassment problems at EOIR, the home of the U.S. Immigration Courts at the USDOJ. The story was picked up by other publications. Also, it was highlighted in that day’s edition of “Courtside,” along with a strong suggestion for immediate action addressed to incoming AG Judge Merrick Garland and AAG Vanita Gupta (a former, now very former, “civil rights maven”), both of whom had been nominated but not yet confirmed. Seehttps://immigrationcourtside.com/2021/01/22/🇺🇸⚖%EF%B8%8Fnote-to-judge-garland-and-vanita-gupta-misogyny🤮-is-running-rampant-in-the-eoir-courts-soon-to-be-your/.
Tal Kopan, Deputy Washington Bureau Chief for the Boston Globe. As a reporter for the S.F. Chron in 2021, she ripped the covers off massive sexual harassment problems at EOIR.
Lisa Monaco, Deputy AG. In apparent response to Kopan’s expose, Monaco established a committee to look into sexual harassment at EOIR and the rest of DOJ. But, not surprisingly, the recent $1.2 million settlement with a former EOIR female staff member shows that complaints languish, resolutions are opaque, and wronged individuals have to force action by suing in Federal Court! Official USG Photo, Public Realm
It now appears that Monaco’s efforts at reform have been just as lackadaisical as her implementation of Biden’s Executive order on regulations improving the treatment of gender-based claims at EOIR and elsewhere in Government, and her and her boss’s disturbingly inept approach to EOIR reform generally!
Yet, even with clear notice of the festering problems and an opportunity to address them in a way that would “change culture,” it required the institution of a Federal lawsuit by the plaintiff to obtain action and an effective remedy, almost three years after her termination.
After years of overt anti-asylum bias and misogyny from Sessions and Barr, long suffering respondents, practitioners, and many EOIR employees expected a “due process/good government renaissance” under former Federal Judge and Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland. However, despite a few improvements, Garland has “floated above” the chaos and lack of quality control that daily vex and plague those trapped in his dysfunctional, hopelessly backlogged “courts.” PHOTO: Wikipedia Commons
It’s difficult to quantify the actual costs of EOIR mismanagement by Garland and his political lieutenants. After all, how do you put a money value on wrongful deportations, denial of constitutional rights, being subjected to substandard anti-immigrant decision making, bad precedents, “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” (“ADR”) on steroids, poorly trained judges, years stuck in limbo without the relief to which you are entitled, the effect of statistics manipulated to downplay the number of legal refugees stuck in EOIR’s hellish 3 million+ backlog, “courts” intentionally located in obscure inaccessible locations within the “New American Gulag” (“NAG”) run by DHS, and the overall “customer unfriendly” and often intentionally coercive mess to which those who practice before EOIR and those whose fate is in EOIR’s hands are subjected every working day? You can’t!
Nor is the waste of finite USG resources on chronic structural inefficiencies, boneheaded schemes to expedite dockets as “deterrents,” and ill-advised “defenses of the indefensible” in Federal Courts easy to value. But, in this case, we can quantify the cost to taxpayers of Garland’s and Monaco’s poor leadership — $1.2 million!
I wonder how many qualified accredited representatives a real problem solver and due process innovator like Professor Michele Pistone at VIISTA Villanova could train with that kind of money?
The poor leadership of Garland on immigration matters and the lousy performance of EOIR continue to be drags on the Biden Administration and our justice system. It didn’t have to be this way!
No Longer in the Cast: Former Associate AG Vanita Gupta, who left DOJ after three years of “failing to connect the dots” among civil rights, the rule of law, and the glaring violations of human rights and due process taking place at EOIR and the rest of the immigration bureaucracy. Literally, these abuses took place right under her nose, but apparently below her radar screen!
During Gupta’s tenure, the already horrible treatment of asylum seekers and other migrants of color within EOIR and the immigration bureaucracy actually deteriorated in many ways. Gupta is a sad, yet classic, example of what routinely happens to progressives once they are invited into the “halls of power” within the Government: They get co-opted into defending the status quo and the dangerous fiction of “revolution by evolution.” See, e.g., Perry Bacon, Jr., https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/02/06/equity-diversity-inclusion-progressivism-limits/.
Just ask neo-Nazi Stephen Miller how “revolution” really works! He spent every day of his tenure in the Trump Administration single-mindedly working to dehumanize and demonize immigrants, particularly those of color and women, and to strip them of their already overly-limited rights. He paid no attention whatsoever to criticism, naysaying, and resistance from within or without. He took every “defeat” in Federal Court as an invitation to do something even worse and more outrageous.
While Gupta, despite her lofty position and civil right creds, was unable to materially improve the situation of migrants, Miller undid decades of progress on due process, racial justice, gender justice, and good government. Much of the damage he inflicted remains imbedded in the system, at DOJ, DHS, and elsewhere, as do many of those who willingly and enthusiastically assisted him.
The contrast between Gupta’s and Miller’s accomplishments and government “legacies” is a stunning illustration of the difference between Democrats and Republicans when it comes to immigrants’ rights, human rights, and racial justice — the fundamentals of governing. Democrat “political strategists” are belatedly “wondering and wandering” what to do about an “enthusiasm gap” with their core progressive voters who put Biden and Harris in office. The answer is staring them right in the face: Results matter!
Steven A.Honley Director of Music Beverley Hills Community United Methodist Church Alexandria, VA PHOTO: afsa.org
October 23, 2022 Twentieth Sunday after Pentecost 10:00 AM
Scripture Lesson: Matthew 25:31-40
Sermon: “Braving the Wilderness: Holding Hands with Strangers”
When Pastor Deborah asked me to preach today, I was honored as always to accept her gracious invitation. But I have to tell you: This has ended up being one of the most challenging sermons to write that I’ve given in my 28 years at Beverley Hills, for several reasons.
The first challenge stems from the fact that I had never read anything by Brené Brown until now. In fact, I first heard of her just a few months ago, when her name popped up on a Canadian situation comedy, “The Lake,” that I streamed on Amazon Prime.
The next problem: I have never been a fan of self-help books, though I enjoyed reading this one. And I found a lot of Brown’s observations sensible, if sometimes obvious.
The title of this morning’s topic was yet another hurdle. Most of you will probably not be surprised to hear me confess that the very idea of holding hands with strangers gives me the willies. Frankly, I’m not even wild about holding hands with friends! But duty calls.
Finally, it turns me off when authors strive to come across as “spiritual” rather than religious. You won’t find any Bible verses in Braving the Wilderness, and only passing references to Christianity. What I find most frustrating about that approach is that it appears Brené Brown and I have had similar journeys, moving from Southern-fried fundamentalism to a more inclusive faith. So I would have liked to hear more about that!
To be blunt, Braving the Wilderness is only incidentally a book about faith. But as you’ve been hearing—and I hope you’ll hear again today—it still has some useful things to say to us about becoming an even more welcoming faith community. And in that respect, I admire the way Pastor Deborah has adapted Brown’s thoughts for our current sermon series, both by focusing on the themes in various chapters each week and finding Scripture passages to go with them.
All of which brings me to today’s topic, “Holding Hands with Strangers.”
********
In today’s Gospel passage—surely one of the most memorable of our Lord’s parables—Jesus describes two groups of people. The first group, the sheep, have done God’s will by ministering to strangers: feeding the hungry, giving water to the thirsty, clothing the naked, and visiting those who are sick or in prison. The king in the story informs these servants of his pleasure at their virtuous conduct on his behalf, which shocks the sheep. They had literally no idea they’d done anything out of the ordinary, let alone done something for royalty. So they ask: “When did we do that for you?” And he answers: “Inasmuch as you have done it to the least of these, you have done it unto me.”
Matthew does not record what, if anything, they said when the king explains that, but I imagine “O my God, what if I hadn’t done that?” figured pretty prominently in their thoughts.
We didn’t hear the goats’ story read today, but you know how that part of the story goes. They saw the same strangers as the sheep did, but did nothing to help them.
Now, I have a hunch that only some of the goats were callous, intentionally withholding their
assistance from the needy because they regarded them as unworthy. The rest were just preoccupied with their own troubles, or feared they wouldn’t have enough resources for their own families if they gave away food and clothing to mere strangers. Some may genuinely have believed that someone else would take care of feeding the hungry and performing other good works.
Whatever the reasons for each goat’s indifference and apathy, the core issue is that they failed to recognize the people they encountered as people: members of their own community. As Desmond Tutu once observed: “We’re not our brother’s keeper; we’re our brother’s brother.”
Beverley Hills Community United Methodist Church has a long tradition of acting on that understanding. We don’t just write checks, either, valuable as that is. No, many of you are hands-on participants at Carpenter’s Shelter and ALIVE and Casa Chirilagua and many other worthy organizations. You literally hold hands with strangers!
********
Speaking of which: I can’t honestly say I found much of Brown’s chapter on this topic helpful. She devotes a lot of it to the idea of experiencing community at soccer games and rock concerts and funerals, and even goes so far as to talk about “football as religion.”
She doesn’t mean that literally, of course, but she really does seem to believe that the wave of emotion a stadium full of fans feels is not just a momentary rush of adrenaline, but something more profound. Maybe I’d buy that claim if I’d ever felt it for myself, but I haven’t—so I don’t.
Happily, just when I was about to give up on finding any inspiration in this chapter, Brown talks about a concept she calls “common enemy intimacy.” Or, as the old saying goes, “The enemy of my enemy is my friend.”
Brown cites one of my favorite quotes to introduce this section of the chapter: “If you don’t have something nice to say about someone, come sit by me!” That saying, generally attributed to Alice Roosevelt Longworth, expresses something universal. Most of us love to gossip about someone, especially if they’re all high and mighty and could stand to be taken down a few pegs.
But the problem, as Brown notes, is that there is no adhesiveness to such a bond. If all two people have in common is their mutual dislike of a third, then their “friendship” is phony. And as such, it can’t sustain a more meaningful relationship, let alone build community.
From there, common enemy intimacy snowballs into tribalism, which dehumanizes not just individuals but whole groups. And because there is nothing keeping such a group cohesive except fear and hatred, its leaders must keep fueling the fire with ever more polarizing rhetoric that attacks anyone not in the group.
********
Sadly, we see the evidence of the breakdown of community all around us. So what can we do as Christians to bring about reconciliation and healing?
Alas, I have no sweeping answers to that question. But I will offer this recommendation: We should speak out, both as individuals and as a church, against the bullying and abuse so many of our politicians and faith leaders are advocating. And I’m not talking about generic hand-wringing, either. We should be naming names, and making clear that those who invoke God as they persecute sexual minorities and the powerless are not honoring Christ in the process.
Now, some of you are probably thinking, “Wait a minute! What about turning the other cheek? Aren’t we supposed to be peacemakers?”
Yes, of course we are. But I would respectfully point out that our Lord did not mince words when he confronted the religious authorities of his day, who followed the letter of the law but not its spirit.
In Luke 11, Jesus declares: “Now, you Pharisees cleanse the outside of the cup and of the dish, but inside you are full of extortion and wickedness. You fools! Did not he who made the outside make the inside also? … Woe to you Pharisees! For you tithe mint and rue and every herb, and neglect justice and the love of God; those you ought to have done, without neglecting the others. Woe to you Pharisees! For you love the best seat in the synagogues and salutations in the marketplaces. Woe to you! For you are like graves which are not seen, and men walk over them without knowing it.”
Pretty harsh, right? But Jesus was following a long prophetic tradition that stretches all the way back to Moses warning the pharaoh of the dire consequences if he didn’t let the Israelites go. Elijah and Elisha and Isaiah and Jeremiah all denounced the kings of Israel for their failure to rule justly.
Nor did our Lord stop at speaking truth to power. He took matters into his own hands on one memorable occasion, Matthew 21 tells us. Just days before his death, “Jesus entered the temple courts and drove out all who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves. And He declared to them, “It is written: ‘My house will be called a house of prayer.’ But you are making it ‘a den of robbers.’”
I have always detested the saying “Hate the sin, love the sinner.” As a gay man, I’ve heard that a lot over the years, and in practice, what it actually means is: Hate the sin and marginalize the sinner. So let me be clear: I am not advocating that we sink to the level of those who promote so-called “Christian Nationalism,” by declaring them evil and beyond redemption.
But we do have a solemn charge to resist those who are working to flout democratic norms and rend our social fabric, under the pretext of making America a “Christian nation.” Our faith commands us to defend all those whom politicians target and exploit for who they are; for whom they love; for what deity they believe in or don’t; for the color of their skin; for the language they speak; or where they came from. As I John 4 tells us: “If anyone says, ‘I love God,’ and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen. And this commandment we have from him, that he who loves God should love his brother also.”
Back in January, on the first anniversary of the Jan. 6 insurrection, Washington National Cathedral hosted an online conversation between Jon Meachum, the Pulitzer Prize-winning historian and journalist, and the Episcopal Church’s presiding bishop, Michael Curry. If you watched the wedding of Prince Harry and Meghan Markel a few years back, you saw and heard Bishop Curry in action; hold that image in your mind while I share a few excerpts from that dialogue.
Bishop Curry begins his remarks by referencing all the stories about Jesus and his disciples huddled on a boat at night in turbulent waters. There’s no artificial light, just the moon and stars, so we can certainly understand why the men are terrified.
In one of those stories, Peter sees Jesus walking on the water in the midst of the storm. Impetuous as always, he jumps out of the boat and starts walking toward him. Peter’s doing OK until he lets his fear of the storm take his focus off Jesus, at which point he immediately starts sinking. Curry draws this parallel to our situation:
“We must not shift our focus from becoming the true democracy—a multiracial, multiethnic, plural, holistic democracy—which is that shining ‘city on a hill.’ We must not shift from that vision of who we can be by focusing only on the storms that are in our midst, because the storms will consume us. They will consume our perception. And eventually, we’ll believe that’s all there is—lightning, thunder and the roll of the water—instead of the possibility of becoming that city on the hill.
Bishop Curry continues: “It’s midnight in the hour of this democracy. We will determine what we will do with that moment. It’s a moment of decision, and we must decide: Will we be E Pluribus Unum? Will we truly become, from many diverse peoples, one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice—not just for some, but for all?”
The full title of Brené Brown’s book is: Braving the Wilderness: The Quest for True Belonging and the Courage to Stand Alone. Even in a state somewhere between purple and light blue, and a fairly liberal city, it still takes real courage for us to denounce racism and misogyny, homophobia and transphobia, and every other form of bigotry, and to resist those who would enshrine those evils in our laws.
But that is how we can hold hands with strangers, and help them belong. In the process, we will truly live up to the words we recite at the end of each service at Beverley Hills: “Our mission is to welcome all people as they are, to grow together in Christian faith and fellowship, and to share Christ-like love in word and deed.” Amen.
Republished by permission.
**********************
My friend Steven A. Honley is the Director of Music at the Beverley Hills Community Methodist Church in Alexandria, Virginia, A Reconciling Congregation, where my wife Cathy and I are members. He is a retired Foreign Service Officer and former Editor-in-Chief of the Foreign Service Journal (2001-14). Steve is a frequent contributor to the Washington Post’s “Style Invitational,” and a passionate advocate for inclusion and equal justice for all persons in America.
Here’s another timely piece on promoting justice and resisting bigotry in today’s America from the San Francisco Chronicle: ‘We are the real face of America’: Local faith and civil rights leaders call out racism, division https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/We-are-the-real-face-of-America-Local-17529396.php.
The Boston Globe has tappedTal Kopan as deputy bureau chief in its D.C. bureau. Currently, she is a Washington correspondent at the San Francisco Chronicle.
Before that, Kopan served as a political reporter at CNN. She worked as a breaking news reporter and cybersecurity policy reporter at Politico. She was a web producer and contributing writer at Politico Pro and also reported for C-SPAN.
Kopan has a B.A. from the University of Chicago.
********************
Many congrats to Tal — one of the best in the business, with strong “immigration roots!”
No institution welcomes scrutiny. Maintaining internal cohesion and operational focus demands informational boundaries against the rest of the world. This wish deserves respect, but not automatic submission, especially when matters of vast public consequence are at stake.
That’s why news media take it as a duty to ignore organizational secrecy rules — except when disclosure would cause unwarranted harm — and insist that public awareness must outweigh institutional convenience. A document leaked from most any federal agency that upended longstanding policy would unquestionably be legitimate news, even if it was preliminary, even if exposure would gum up a cozy internal process, even if the leak broke agency rules.
But not when it comes to the Supreme Court.
Of all our governmental institutions, it is unique in the awe and deference with which our news media, for all their endless claims to seek truth aggressively, treat it.
To be sure, secrecy has a place in the judicial system. Grand juries, for example, are prosecutorial contrivances where untested evidence is presented and people suspected of wrongdoing have weak adversarial protections. Damaging the innocent by publicizing unrebutted claims is a strong possibility. Secrecy makes sense.
But the issue here is altogether different. The leak was of a 98-page draft opinion with 118 footnotes, not a filched personal email or the secondhand account of an overheard chat. It was deeply researched and carefully composed and was distributed internally nearly three months ago, and it signals a major change in an explosive area of public policy. Publishing it doesn’t endanger national security and puts no innocent lives at risk.
So should the Supreme Court, virtually alone among core public institutions, be entitled to say, “We’ll show it to you when we’re ready for you to see it?”
At best, that exceptionalist claim rests on a carefully nurtured myth of the court as a scholarly sanctuary in which big questions of public purpose are engaged through reflection, historical inquiry and quiet, reasoned debate, a process of ripening that must take place behind the sealed doors of an intellectual greenhouse.
That fiction lost credibility a long time ago, at least for anybody who was paying attention in the year 2000 when the court, with the flimsiest of pretexts, awarded the presidency to the candidate with fewer votes but of the same party as its majority.
Indeed, what standards of accountability govern the court? Its members serve life terms free from disciplinary oversight. To get aboard, nominees routinely lie before Congress — about their personal behavior and their judicial philosophy — rendering the Senate’s authority to approve candidates meaningless. Serving justices are not held to any discernible standard of independence. Their right to rule on matters in which close family have personal stakes, or on which they have clear prior leanings, is completely unregulated.
And then there’s the recent sharp increase in furtive rulings reached off-season without full briefing or oral argument — known as the shadow docket — which has further narrowed the window of public visibility. Last summer the court issued 11 such rulings, up from three in 2016, in a slapdash and opaque workaround beloved of the conservative majority that produces jurisprudence that “every day becomes more unreasoned, inconsistent, and impossible to defend,” as dissenting liberal Justice Elena Kagan said.
Perhaps the Roe leak will inaugurate a new era for the court. Maybe there will be more impertinent reporting that exposes the reasoning, bargaining, trade-offs and personal dynamics that drive constitutional lawmaking at the highest levels. Rather than something to be dreaded, such transparency would leave us all better informed and more fully empowered to play the role the system prescribes for us — to shape our collective future.
Edward Wasserman is professor of journalism and former dean of the Graduate School of Journalism at UC Berkeley.
**************************
Read Wasserman’s full article at the link.
He says, “No institution welcomes scrutiny.” Very true. Any leader or group of leaders who claim the contrary are probably lying.
Scrutiny sometimes brings accountability. And, as our system deteriorates before our eyes, that’s something that has become rare in today’s politics and public life.
When a local security brigade in Nigeria learned Peter Udo and his boyfriend were seen having sex in a hotel room, they seized and beat the couple for six hours and later told Udo he should be put to death.
Udo’s mother used her family savings to enable him to flee the country and he wound up in California, where an immigration judge rejected his plea for asylum and ordered him deported because his description of the events gave a false name for the hotel where he had been captured. That order has now been firmly rejected by a federal appeals court.
The judge and the Board of Immigration Appeals, which upheld the deportation order, failed to give any “reasoned consideration” to the evidence Udo presented, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco said Wednesday in a ruling requiring the board to review his claim that he would be tortured if returned to Nigeria.
That evidence included an “excommunication notice,” signed by leaders of the community’s Council of Traditional Rulers, notifying Udo and his family that anyone engaging in homosexual acts is “subjected to public execution” and that his mother and five other relatives were no longer considered citizens of the community.
“Remarkably, the (Board of Immigration Appeals) did not reference the excommunication notice at all” in its ruling that would have returned Udo to Nigeria, Judge M. Margaret McKeown said in the appeals court’s 3-0 decision, which included a copy of the notice.
Udo’s lawyer, David Casarrubias, said the ruling was a victory for asylum seekers.
“The opinion stands for the proposition that although Congress may enact laws that make it harder for asylum seekers to prevail as a result of minor discrepancies in their applications, there are other international laws like the Convention Against Torture that still have teeth,” Casarrubias said.
. . . . .
**********************
Read the rest of Bob’s article at the link.
*******************************
And things are just as bad on the other side of the country. Here’s what the 1st Circuit had to say about the latest mis-step from Garland’s “Star Chambers” on a life or death CAT matter:
The government does again urge us to construe the BIA as having merely affirmed a finding that it attributed to the IJ
10 For this reason, we need not resolve whether, as Ali contends, the IJ violated 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(3) by failing to consider all relevant evidence through the way the IJ treated the evidence from Harper in her testimony and March 2020 declaration that bears on Ali’s “security forces”-related ground for CAT-based deferral of removal.
– 30 –
regarding whether it was “more likely than not” that Ali would be subject to abuse severe enough to constitute torture rather than a finding that it attributed to the IJ regarding the limited severity of the abuse that Ali had shown that he was likely to suffer. But, as we explained in connection with Ali’s challenge to the BIA’s “other private actors”-related ruling, the IJ did not make that finding either. And, in any event, as we have noted, that is a strained reading of the BIA’s opinion, given that the opinion expressly quotes only from the portion of the relevant regulations that purports to define how severe abuse must be to constitute torture, see 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a)(2) (“Torture is an extreme form of cruel and inhuman treatment . . . .”), rather than a regulation concerning how “likely” it must be that the noncitizen will be subjected to abuse that is severe enough to constitute torture, see, e.g., id. §§ 1208.16(c)(2), (4).11
Finally, the government contends that we still must affirm the BIA’s ruling because, although Harper described violence, “she did not describe the injuries to the Somalis she
11 To the extent that the government means to argue here, too, that the BIA itself considered the Harper evidence in question because of the portion of the BIA’s opinion in which the BIA states, “after considering the risk of torture from all sources in the aggregate,” we cannot agree. That statement concerns only what the BIA determined that the IJ considered in making the finding about the severity of the abuse that Ali would face that the BIA attributed to the IJ. But, as we have explained, the IJ made no such finding.
– 31 –
witnessed being beaten or kicked . . . such that the agency could reasonably conclude she provided insufficient detail to show that such abuse by Somali security forces rose to the level of torture or that Ali was at risk that it likely would rise to the level of torture.” But, the IJ did not find that Ali had failed to meet his burden to show that he would likely be tortured by security forces in Somalia on any such basis. Rather, the IJ rejected his “security forces”-related ground for requesting deferral of removal pursuant to the CAT solely because the IJ found that “Harper indicated that the main motivation” of the security forces who “mean to do the respondent harm” is “they are either too busy to protect themselves and therefore they cannot protect other people” or to “harass people based on cultural differences,” such that they would not be acting “with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity” in visiting any abuse on Ali.
. . . .
*******************************
These are complicated cases. Indeed, the 1st Circuit spent 33 pages analyzing this particular case.
By contrast, a supposedly (but, clearly not) “expert” BIAappears to have taken about 5 minutes to “rubber stamp” the clearly defective denials prepared by staff attorneys in these life or death matters! How is this due process or fundamental fairness? No way!
If this were a law school exam, rather than a life or death “court” case, the BIA’s effort probably would have received a “D-“ or an “F.” Yet, Garland finds this ridiculously deficient level of performance acceptable where “only” the rule of law, constitutional due process, and human lives are at stake!
One might expect this from a GOP AG. But, is this really what human rights advocates and progressives elected Biden to churn out?
I say “No.” This is NOT acceptable performance by the BIA! Nor is it acceptable professional performance by Garland, Monaco, Gupta, Prelogar, and the other members of the “Clueless Crew” supposedly in charge of the DOJ!
⚖️Due process for migrants is due process for all in America!
An immigration judge has blocked the deportation of a Sacramento man to his native Iraq where he would face trial, and likely execution, for a terrorist murder — a murder that, according to a U.S. magistrate, took place while the man was in another country.
Omar Ameen was granted U.S. refugee status in 2014 by immigration officials who said he would face persecution in Iraq. But the U.S. government jailed him in August 2018 while Iraq sought to extradite him on a murder charge.
Last April, U.S. Magistrate Judge Edmund Brennan found that the crime Iraq accused Ameen of committing, the fatal shooting of a police officer in 2014 before his departure for the U.S., had taken place while Ameen was 600 miles away in Turkey, where he had fled from Iraq more than two years earlier.
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement then sought to deport Ameen to Iraq, saying he had lied about his alleged terrorist connections and other subjects, and kept him in custody. But Immigration Judge Tara Naselow-Nahas of Van Nuys (Los Angeles County) ruled last week that Ameen could not be deported to Iraq because he was likely to be jailed and tortured there. She did not dismiss ICE’s claim that Ameen had made false statements, but said she found no evidence of terrorist connections.
. . . .
*******************************
Read the rest of the article at the link.
Immigration Judges make critical life or death decisions every day. Yet the system suffers from gross inconsistencies, huge backlogs, lack of discipline, poor intellectual leadership, an appellate board mired in leftover Trumpism, and an Attorney General who generally has been slow to recognize the importance of Immigration Court reform and a focus on due process, fundamental fairness, expertise, and quality in his “wholly owned” system.
One of the lead attorneys for Mr. Ameen is Round Table stalwart and former Immigration Judge Ilyce Shugall!Congrats to Ilyce and her team!
Hon. Ilyce Shugall U.S. Immigraton Judge (Retired) Member Rounds Table of Former Immigration Judges
For the last year, “Courtside” has been ripping the incredibly poor, timid, stunning lack of vision leadership, expertise, common sense, and morality in the Biden Administration’s failure to restore and expand a robust overseas refugee program and to enforce the rule of law and due process in our asylum system at the border and in the US. Even as I write this, Garland’s failed BIA, with too many Trump restrictionist holdover judges, continues to crank out bad asylum precedents and anti-immigrant legally incorrect appellate decisions and precedents.
DOJ mindlessly continues to advance and defend the indefensible in Federal Court. It’s “Miller Lite” on steroids! Squandering taxpayer money, wasting scarce pro bono resources, and worst of all, endangering human lives!
This guy has to be thrilled with Garland’s approach to human rights, racial justice, and due process @ DOJ! Attribution: Stephen Miller Monster by Peter Kuper, PoliticalCartoons.com
Essential human rights issues like providing definitive, generous, positive guidance to move gender-based asylum cases through the system, correcting “intentionally overly restrictive” and ridiculously hyper-technical, legally wrong, highly impractical applications of supposedly “generous” asylum laws, lack of common sense, expertise, understanding, and humanity remain endemic in Garland’s broken “court” system and the USCIS Asylum Offices which are supposed to be under their legal guidance.
The border effectively remains illegally and irrationally closed to refugees seeking asylum! Absurdly, the decisions as to who lives and who dies are left to the unfettered, unreviewable, “discretion” of Border Patrol Agents who are glaringly unqualified to make them. There aren’t even any known criteria in effect!
Indeed, that’s the precise reason why Congress created Asylum Officers and put them and Immigration Judges into the life or death asylum screening process, only to have Trump abrogate the law as Federal Courts meekly and fecklessly stood by! Hardly America’s finest moment!
There is plenty of irresponsibility to go around! But, dilatory “What Me Worry” AG Merrick Garland and his feckless lieutenants Lisa Monaco, Vanita Gupta, Kristen Clarke, and Liz Prelogar, along with DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, deserve “special censure” for the brewing, unnecessarily out of control humanitarian and equal justice crisis!
Garland’s tone-deaf approach to human rights and the rule of law now threatens the international order and the lives of perhaps millions of refugees and asylum seekers! PHOTO: Wikipedia Commons
The Biden administration’s immigration policy to date has been shambling. It can now do one big thing right: step up, grant humanitarian parole and help resettle Ukrainian refugees.
Catherine Rampell Opinion Columnist Washington Post
Trump’s xenophobic policies had consequences beyond the cruelty inflicted while he was in office. Ultimately, they hobbled our ability to provide aid during a humanitarian catastrophe and thereby protect our own national security interests. Now, Biden must not only respond to the current crisis but also repair our institutions so that we have greater capacity to deal with future ones.
I’m sure traumatized Ukrainians and Russian dissidents being improperly turned back at our border were comforted by the following tone-deaf blather from Mayorkas as reported by Deepa Fernandes in the SF Chron:
Deepa Fernandes Immigration Reporter SF Chronicle PHOTO: SF Chron
On Thursday, Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro N. Mayorkas told reporters that Border Patrol agents were reminded they have some leeway with regard to enforcing Title 42, particularly when it comes to those fleeing the crisis in Ukraine, BuzzFeed News reported.
“This was policy guidance that reminded (border officers) of those individualized determinations and their applicability to Ukrainian nationals as they apply to everyone else,” the online news outlet quoted Mayorkas as telling reporters.
Come on, man! You’ve got to be kidding me!
Belatedly, it appears that the Biden Administration is now “considering” restoring the rule of law at the borders (something they actually promised during the election), according toAlexandra Meeks over at CNN:
ALexandra Meeks Current News Reporter CNN PHOTO: Linkedin
The Biden administration is preparing for the potential of mass migration to the US-Mexico border when a Trump-era pandemic emergency rule ends. The influx is expected because officials are considering the possibility of terminating a public health order known as Title 42, which border authorities have relied on to turn away migrants, sources familiar with the discussions said. Internal documents, first reported by Axios, estimate around 170,000 people may be coming to the US border and some 25,000 migrants are already in shelters in Mexico. The Department of Homeland Security has asked department personnel to volunteer at the Mexico border in response.
But, it’s not clear that they have any real plan in mind. That’s certainly the case in Garland’s dysfunctional, astoundingly backlogged (1.6 million known cases) Immigration “Courts” led by a Trump restrictionist BIA. “Gauleiter” Stephen Miller must evilly chuckle every morning at how Garland has left his “designed for White Nationalism” system largely in place and continuing to shaft and screw asylum seekers on a daily basis.
And, no, 170,000 migrants arriving at the border, not all of whom are seeking asylum, isn’t a “mass migration” emergency! It’s a fairly predictable movement of migrants at a pace that should be well within the capabilities of our nation.
Treat them with respect. Promptly and properly screen them with qualified Asylum Officers. Timely welcome those many who qualify for protection with competent expert Immigration Judges. End the anti-asylum nonsense and move the many grantable asylum, withholding, and CAT cases through the system. Develop humane, orderly responses for those who are rejected. Get in place a new BIA that understands asylum law, due process, and human rights. Empower them to “knock heads” of IJs and Asylum Officers who won’t let go of the White Nationalist “reject, don’t protect” program!”
It’s not “rocket science.” 🚀 Not by a long shot!
No, an “emergency mass migration situation” is 3.2 million refugees fleeing war in Ukraine in three weeks and arriving in allied nations like Poland, Romania, and Moldova who have far fewer resources and ability to respond than the U.S.! These are also nations who legitimately fear that they could be next on Russia’s “hit list.”
And, while the humanitarian crisis is brewing, what’s Garland up to? He beefing up his already-record-setting Immigration Court backlog with “kiddie cases” (0-4 year olds, incredibly) — to the extent anyone can even figure it out, given his notoriously flawed and unprofessional record keeping at EOIR. See, e.g., https://trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/681/.
Garland and his top lieutenants are too busy filling the Immigration Courts with these desperados in the 0-4 age group to worry about restoring due process or treating asylum seekers fairly! PHOTO: Sean Choe, Creative Commons License
Honestly! But, don’t say that “Courtside,” Jeffrey Chase Blog, Dan Kowalski, ImmigrationProf Blog, CGRS, Human Rights First, NIJC, AILA, KIND, NCIJ, ABA, and many other experts didn’t warn against this grotesque failure long ago — often predating the 2020 election!
I understand that “no fly zones” are more complicated than most American pols and media wags think and that there are challenges to waging war from afar without actually declaring war on Russia. But, repairing our refugee, asylum, and immigration systems, and restoring due process to our courts are not in this category of difficulty.
It’s beyond time for the Biden Administration, particularly Mayorkas and Garland, to get the lead out, grow backbones, get rid of the remnants of Trumpism in their ranks— personnel, substance, process — and run a refugee and asylum legal system that serves our and our allies’ needs. One that is values and law based! One that our nation can be proud of, rather than embarrassed before the world! End the Clown Show, in Falls Church and throughout our muddling immigration and (non) human rights bureaucracy!🤡
The Garland/Mayorkas “Plan” for human rights and immigrant justice is proving as deadly as it is dysfunctional. PHOTO: Thomas Hawk Creative Commons Amateur Night
Time’s a wasting and people are dying! ⚰️ Enough of “Amateur Night at the Bijou.”☠️ Nobody’s laughing!🤮
Tal Kopan @ SF Chron reports on latest public miscue:
A California lawyer tweeted what she saw in immigration court. The DOJ demanded she delete it
By Tal Kopan
WASHINGTON — On Feb. 1, attorney Monika Langarica was in a San Diego courtroom watching as the Biden administration resumed hearing cases on a controversial immigration policy that requires migrants to wait in Mexico while they plead their case to enter the U.S. That evening, she wrote a series of tweets describing what she saw.
The next day, she received an email from the Justice Department that shocked her: The administration asked her to delete the tweets. They claimed she violated a policy against making a record of immigration court proceedings and threatened potential criminal penalties if she committed “further violations.”
The Justice Department retracted its request and apologized to Langarica after The Chronicle inquired about the threat, saying further review confirmed she was not tweeting from the courtroom and thus did not violate any policies.
Still, the surprising episode raised several issues, including First Amendment concerns, issues of transparency in the often secretive immigration courts as well as criticisms of the policy at the heart of the dispute.
“It (was) shocking, because we are in our right to observe these proceedings, we are in our right to share with the public what is happening in these court rooms,” Langarica said in an interview before the apology had been issued. Langarica is an attorney with the UCLA Center for Immigration Law and Policy and formerly with the San Diego American Civil Liberties Union.
Why would an agency with failure, problems, and valid criticism “coming out it ears” 👂 be wasting official time monitoring the Twitter accounts of court observers?
Assuming that were some legitimate reason, why wouldn’t the first reaction to Ms. Langarcia’s tweets be “Hey, let’s sit down with you and your friends and figure out how to fix this?”
Instead of having more “flackies” in their bloated bureaucracy to suppress the public trappings of failure and to “massage the message,” why not put the resources into getting better bodies out there to FIX THE MYRIAD OF PROBLEMS crippling the agency and making it a parody of justice? It’s going to take more than a band of public apologists in the PIO to outsmart brilliant, informed investigative reporters like Tal!
It’s little wonder that EOIR doesn’t want light shed on what’s really happening in their “Star Chambers!”
“Scream as loud as you want. Nobody’s going to hear you!”
Reminds me of one of my favorite “EOIR War Stories.” My Arlington colleague Judge Wayne “Tell It Like It Is” Iskra once truthfully said in open court said what most experts and his colleagues privately had been saying for ages: “This system is broken!” Unknown to Judge Iskra, however, a reporter was sitting in the audience and the comment received publicity, the thing that EOIR fears most!
Coming from a former two-time Chief Judge of the U.S. Army Criminal Courts, hardly known as a “bleeding heart liberal,” one would anticipate that Iskra’s blunt assessment might have spurred some immediate corrective action and internal reforms. But, the only action it created at EOIR was basically to tell Iskra to “sit down and shut up.”
As always, EOIR was more concerned about “protecting itself” from a judge speaking truth than dealing with the consequences of that truth. As a result, the system is even more broken now than it was when Iskra had the audacity to “speak truth to power!”
The first three lessons learned from the BIA’s recent decision in Matter of Laparra1 are: (1) the Board knows only one tune; (2) that tune is the “Falls Church Two-Step,” and (3) the tune does not improve with repeated listening.
As background, Congress in 1996 passed a statute creating a document called a Notice to Appear, or “NTA” for short, which is used to commence removal proceedings before the Immigration Court. Congress defined an NTA to require that it include the time and place of the first hearing; the document is, after all, called a “notice to appear.”
However, for many years, the Department of Homeland Security cut a corner by leaving that crucial information out of hundreds of thousands of NTAs. The courts (which are not part of DHS, the entity issuing the NTA) would later send a different document telling the person when and where to appear. That second document might be sent weeks, months, or even years later.
As an aside, in other areas of immigration law, EOIR has applied a literal approach to interpreting statutory terms. An unfortunate example is found in the asylum context, where the BIA felt a strong need to add “particularity” and “social distinction” requirements for particular social group recognition, creating significant obstacles for asylum seekers. Yet the government’s defense of those terms has been based on the argument that every word in the term “particular social group” must be accorded a very literal meaning.
However, when it comes to the term “Notice to Appear,” the Board inexplicably doesn’t seem to think meaning should matter. According to the online version of the Cambridge English Dictionary, “notice” is defined as “(a board, piece of paper, etc. containing) information or instructions.” A “Notice to Appear” would therefore be a piece of paper containing information or instructions about when and where to appear. However, that is exactly the information or instructions that DHS saw fit to leave out of this particular document. The BIA nevertheless long stood firm in its conviction that a document which provides as much information or instruction about an upcoming hearing as a take-out menu from L&B Spumoni Gardens meets the legal definition of a “Notice to Appear.”
Not surprisingly, this government shortcut was successfully challenged by noncitizens wishing to seek a path to legal status in this country called cancellation of removal. One can’t apply for cancellation of removal unless they’ve been present in the U.S. for ten years,2 but once one is served with a Notice to Appear, the accrual of time towards that ten years stops.3 So whether or not what ICE was handing out met the definition of an NTA would determine whether hundreds of thousands of people would be eligible to apply for legal status. In a case called Pereira v. Sessions,4 the Supreme Court resoundingly held that an NTA without the time and place of hearing was not an NTA, and therefore did not stop the noncitizen from accruing time to reach the 10 years of presence necessary to apply for cancellation of removal.
The BIA’s response was to issue a precedent decision, Matter of Mendoza-Hernandez,5 in which it held that in spite of the Supreme Court’s clear view to the contrary, the combination of the non-NTA and a later-sent document that is also not an NTA containing the missing information together form a valid NTA, which stops the noncitizen from continuing to accrue time towards the ten years.
The matter again reached the Supreme Court, where, at oral argument, Justice Gorsuch referred to the case as “Pereira groundhog day,” and actually asked counsel for the government why it was pursuing the case in light of the Court’s 8-1 decision in Pereira.6 In its 2021 decision in that case, Niz-Chavez v. Garland,7 the Court held that an NTA must be a single document containing all of the required information, and that the two-step method endorsed by the Board does not constitute one valid NTA, and thus will not stop the accrual of time.
Although Pereira and Niz-Chavez involved what is known as the “stop-time rule” described above, the question of proper service of an NTA also arises in other contexts. For those who missed their initial removal hearing and were ordered removed as a result, the Supreme Court decisions seemed to offer a new opportunity.
The reason is because the statute provides for in absentia removal orders only where the noncitizen failed to appear for their hearing “after written notice required under paragraph (1) or (2) of section 1229(a) of this title has been provided” to the noncitizen or their lawyer.8 Section 1229(a) is the section of the law that lists the requirements for an NTA to actually be an NTA; it was the specific section interpreted by the Supreme Court in Pereira and Niz-Chavez. Pursuant to those decisions, no one who was issued an NTA lacking a time and place of hearing received proper notice under section 1229(a) of the Act, which specifically requires that the time and place information be provided in a single document. Where notice was not proper, the law allows the filing of a motion to rescind an in absentia order, and further permits the motion to be filed at any time.9
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit addressed this issue of proper notice in a published decision issued in September, Rodriguez v. Garland.10 The decision cited the Supreme Court’s holding in Niz-Chavez, and determined that a single document containing all of the required information (including the time and place) is required in the in absentia context as well. The Fifth Circuit made clear that where the NTA did not contain the time and place, it could not be cured by the mailing of a subsequent notice for in absentia purposes.
Anyone unable to guess the BIA’s response has not been paying attention. The BIA issued Matter of Laparra in order to say that the recipient of an in absentia removal order did in fact receive proper notice pursuant to section 1229(a) even if their NTA lacked a time and place of hearing, as long as the court subsequently sent an entirely different paper days, months, or years later containing the missing information.
How did the BIA believe it could reach this same conclusion yet again in spite of the Supreme Court decisions to the contrary? Please try to follow along as we review the Board’s explanation.
First, the Board emphasized that the statute governing in absentia orders (8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(5)(A)) states that such order may be entered “after written notice required under paragraph (1) or (2) of section 239(a) has been provided.” The Board emphasized the words “written notice,” which it distinguished from “a written notice,” which the Supreme Court interpreted to indicate a single document.11 The Board’s position seems to be seriously undermined by the fact that “written notice under paragraphs (1) or (2) of section 239(a)” is subsequently referred to twice more in the same section of the law as “the written notice.”
The Board employed a novel approach here. It dropped a footnote in which it admitted to the two subsequent mentions of “the written notice.” But the Board then said that it reads those two subsequent uses of “the” as simply referring back to the initial “written notice” (without the definite article).12 And apparently, because they are referring to the first mention of “written notice,” the definite article “the” can just be ignored in those other two usages. Why is that? To explain, the Board cited a Supreme Court decision in a non-immigration case decided in 2015, Yates v. U.S.13
Yates involved a fisherman apprehended at sea with a catch containing a large number of undersized fish. However, by the time the ship reached shore, only fish of legal size remained on board. After a long delay, Yates was charged and convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 1519, prohibiting tampering with a “tangible object” in order to impede a federal investigation.
Fish would meet the dictionary definition of “tangible objects.” However, in a decision authored by the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the Supreme Court employed a canon of statutory interpretation called noscitur a sociis, under which aid in determining a term’s meaning can derive from the meaning of surrounding terms used in the same section of law.14 As the term “tangible object” in 18 U.S.C. § 1519 is preceded by “makes a false entry in any record, document…,” the Court determined that “tangible object” was meant to refer to items containing records or documents. So tampering with an external hard drive would be covered by the statute; tampering with a fish would not.
This approach has been employed by the BIA (using the closely-related concept of ejusdem generis) in its 1985 decision in Matter of Acosta15 to determine that the term “particular social group” should be defined by an immutable characteristic, the same common denominator found in the surrounding terms of race, religion, nationality, and political opinion. It bears noting that what the Board did in Laparra bears no similarity to the manner in which the canon was applied in either the Board’s earlier usage in Acosta or by the Supreme Court in Yates. In Laparra, there was no comparison to the meaning of surrounding terms; instead, the Board seemed to make a random decision to ignore two usages of the definite article. The only similarity I can see to Yates is that what the Board did seems fishy.
However, even if we do as the Board would like and look only at the first usage of “written notice” contained in section 1229(a)(1), there is still a fatal flaw in the remainder of the Board’s argument. As noted above, the statute in that first usage requires not just any written notice, but specifically, written notice under paragraph (1) or (2) of section 1229(a), i.e., the section titled “Notice to appear.” Paragraph (1) of that section begins: “In removal proceedings under section 1229a of this title, written notice (in this section referred to as a “notice to appear”)…” A notice to appear! Paragraph (1) thus clearly refers to a single document, which as the Supreme Court has now told us twice, must contain the time and place of hearing.
Paragraph (2) of that same section says that “in the case of any change or postponement in the time and place of such proceedings,” then a written notice shall be provided specifying the new time and place of the proceeding, and the consequences of a failure to appear.
The meaning of paragraph (2) was by no means a matter of first impression for the Board to interpret in Laparra as it saw fit. In its decision in Pereira, the Supreme Court said:
If anything, paragraph (2) of § 1229(a) actually bolsters the Court’s interpretation of the statute. Paragraph (2) provides that, “in the case of any change or postponement in the time and place of [removal] proceedings,” the Government shall give the noncitizen “written notice . . . specifying . . . the new time or place of the proceedings.” § 1229(a)(2)(A)(i). By allowing for a “change or postponement” of the proceedings to a “new time or place,” paragraph (2) presumes that the Government has already served a “notice to appear under section 1229(a)” that specified a time and place as required by § 1229(a)(1)(G)(i). Otherwise, there would be no time or place to “change or postpon[e].”16
We know that the BIA is well aware of this; the above language from Pereira was specifically quoted in the six-judge dissenting opinion in Matter of Mendoza-Hernandez, under the heading “Plain Language.”17
Also, in its later decision in Niz-Chavez, the Court stated that “the government could have responded to Pereira by issuing notices to appear with all the information §1229(a)(1) requires—and then amending the time or place information if circumstances required it. After all, in the very next statutory subsection, §1229(a)(2), Congress expressly contemplated that possibility.”18
Thus, the Supreme Court left no doubt in its two decisions that paragraph (2) involves a change in the time and place of hearing that was previously included in the NTA, as the statute requires. Paragraph (2) in no way, shape, or form allows ICE to serve the noncitizen with the L&B Spumoni Gardens menu and then have the immigration court send a second paper that provides a time and place for the first time.
Somehow, the Board chose to ignore this clear and obvious reading twice affirmed by the highest court in the land. Instead, it focused on only one word – the “or” in “paragraph (1) or (2) of section 1229(a).”19 The Board then pretended (can we find a more appropriate word than this?) not only that the “or” somehow allowed paragraph (2) to be read as if paragraph (1) didn’t exist, but also as if the words “any change or postponement in the time and place of such proceedings” could somehow be read as “change or postponement? What a poor choice of words! What we really meant to say was, ‘the absolutely very first time and place ever set.’ Wasn’t that obvious? We feel so foolish. Please just interpret this any way you see fit.”
The Board did acknowledge the Fifth Circuit’s contrary view in Rodriguez, but attributed it to that court’s failure to focus on the “paragraph (1) or (2)” language.20 Apparently, in the Board’s view, had the Fifth Circuit also focused on that word “or,” it would have reached the same twisted conclusion as the Board. Perhaps realizing how unrealistic this might seem, the Board quickly pointed out that “[i]n any event, Rodriguez does not apply here because this case arises in the First Circuit.”21
Speaking of other circuits, it bears noting that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit recently stated for the second time in a published decision that the BIA’s analysis was “more akin to the argument of an advocate than the impartial analysis of a quasi-judicial agency.”21 I believe that the same can be said of the Board’s decision in Laparra. It will be interesting to see if this issue reaches the Supreme Court for a third time. If so, one should wonder why the Board might expect a different result.
Notes:
28 I&N Dec. 425 (BIA Jan. 18, 2022).
8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(A).
8 U.S.C. § 1229b(d)(1), often referred to as the “stop-time rule.”
To be clear, the government is capable of providing all required information in a single NTA. EOIR had provided DHS access to schedule Master Calendar hearings through the agency’s Interactive Scheduling System (ISS), which was employed between those agencies until May 2014. And in a memo issued shortly after the Supreme Court’s Pereira decision, then EOIR Director James McHenry stated that EOIR had begun providing hearing dates to DHS in detailed cases, and was working to again provide it access to ISS for scheduling non-detained cases.
Matter of Laparra, supra at 430.
Id. at 436: “The court reasoned that section 240(b)(5)(C)(ii) requires ‘notice’ under ‘section 239(a),’ which Niz-Chavez held must be a single document in the form of a notice to appear. However, the court based this reasoning on a recitation of section 240(b)(5)(C)(ii) that omitted the disjunctive phrase ‘paragraph (1) or (2)’ from the statute and relied solely on a reference to ‘section 239(a).’”
Id.
Nsimba v. Att’y Gen. of U.S., No. 20-3565, ___ F.4th ___ (3d Cir. Dec. 22, 2021) (slip. op. at 10).
Copyright 2022 Jeffrey S. Chase. All rights reserved.
Republished by permission.
*************************
As Jeffrey points out, the legal and practical problems with notice at EOIR and DHS are chronic, well-documented, and consequential! Yet, given a golden opportunity to make a new start while complying with due process and establishing “best practices” Garland has miserably failed!
Instead of appointing a BIA consisting of “practical scholar expert judges” and competent, professional judicial administrators to clean up this awful mess it’s “same old, same old” under Garland’s poor leadership. Indeed, not only has Garland chosen to retain the very folks who created and aggravated the notice problems, he has actually made it worse! How many times do I have to say it: EOIR is supposed to be a “court of law,” not a highly bureaucratic, “headquarters bloated,” “agency” modeled on and “operating” (a term I use lightly with EOIR) like the very worst aspects of the “Legacy INS.” For Pete’s sake, even DHS has done a somewhat better job of automating files than EOIR!
Tal Kopan Washington Reporter, SF Chronicle. She exposes Garland’s mismanagement of EOIR!
At best, these bogus orders require burdensome motions to reopen, rescheduling, and “restarts” that unnecessarily build backlog. They also generate more bogus statistics and false narratives, more endemic problems at EOIR that Garland has ignored or aggravated.
At worst, improper in absentia orders generate improper arrests, detention, and illegal removals of individuals who were clueless about their actual hearing dates!
Having “supervisors and managers” supposedly in charge of operating a fair hearing system engineer and then “cheer” the absence of any hearings at all shows the depths to which EOIR has plunged under Garland’s poor leadership. But, perhaps that shouldn’t surprise us! It comes from an AG who has failed after nearly a year to re-establish a fair hearing system for asylum applicants at the border and who mounts ethically-challenged defenses of Stephen Miller’s complete eradication of asylum at the border based on a bogus, pretextual rationale rejected by almost all migration and public health experts! Why is this acceptable performance from an alleged Democratic Administration?
Judge Merrick B. Garland, U.S. Attorney General Official White House Photo Public Realm. Appointed by a Democrat, he runs the DOJ largely with Trump holdovers, no accountability, and as if Stephen Miller were still looking over his shoulder. The result corrodes the “retail level” of justice in our Immigration Courts and threatens to de-stabilize our entire legal system!
No wonder Garland is building the already incredible 1.6 million case EOIR backlog at a ”new record” pace!
The speculation on Biden’s Supreme Court pick is “sucking all the air out of the room.” But, Garland’s disgraceful failure to counter the Trump AGs’ “packing” of the BIA with unsuitable judges and filling EOIR “senior management” with unqualified individuals who lack the requisite expertise and consistently tilt in favor of DHS Enforcement and against Due Process, fundamental fairness, immigrants’ rights, and best practices will have more immediate corrosive effects on racial justice in America and individual human lives than any court in America outside the Supremes!
And, unlike the Supremes, Garland “owns” all the picks for the “Supreme Court of Immigration!” Rather than standing up for progressive reforms, and giving new progressive judicial talent a chance to shine, he has chosen to enable and empower regressive forces and to frustrate progressive experts, further undermine the rule of law, and thwart best practices!
But, even these somewhat “understated” critics of Garland don’t fully grasp the catastrophic consequences for our entire justice system and our democracy of Garland’s unwillingness and/or inability to prioritize the creation of a progressive due-process/equal-justice-oriented judiciary of experts to replace his regressive, oppressive, deadly, and beyond dysfunctional immigration judiciary at DOJ!
As Jeffrey cogently relates, “same old, same old” failed approaches by “holdover judges” doesn’t “cut it!” Sessions and Barr recognized the cosmic importance of the immigration judiciary and the imperative to “weaponize it for evil” and to use their limited time in office to maximize and further a White Nationalist agenda developed and promoted by Stephen Miller. It’s a pity that Garland has failed to act on the legal and moral imperatives to “mine and realize EOIR’s ‘counter-potential’ for good!”
That potential was memorialized in the long-forgotten “EOIR vision of yore:” “Through teamwork and innovation, be the world’s best administrative tribunals guaranteeing fairness and due process for all!” Remarkably, that “noble due process vision” was once displayed in bold letters on EOIR’s internal website. Now, folks like Garland are too embarrassed and spineless to even admit that such a goal ever existed.
Funny how right-leaning supposed “textualists” and “strict constructionists” have difficulty following clear statutory commands when the result might favor the individual while holding the Government accountable for intentionally violating the law. Also, strange how an Administration that got into office in no small measure by promoting its competence and strong commitment to humane values and equal justice for all, particularly racial justice, continues to fail on all counts! Go figure!
Inside the Gulag In the fine tradition of Josef Stalin, like US Presidents before him, President Biden finds it useful to have a “due process free zone” to stash people of color.
In 2017, after serving 22 years in prison for a gang-related murder I committed as a teenager, the California parole board granted me early release due to my rehabilitation and leadership while incarcerated. I was incredibly fortunate to get what I thought would be a second chance at life, and I committed myself to using my freedom to improve the world around me.
But I had to put those plans on hold. Because I was undocumented, I was immediately transferred to Immigration and Customs Enforcement custody at Yuba County Jail. The two years I spent there awaiting a decision on my immigration status were far worse than the over two decades I spent in 12 different prisons serving out my sentence.
Yuba County Jail is the last county jail under contract with the federal government to hold immigrant detainees in California. For the two years I fought my immigration case, I was psychologically, emotionally and physically abused by the Yuba County Sheriff’s Department. Some of the cells I lived in had no drinking water, others did not have working toilets and others had no lights, leaving me and other detainees in the dark all day long. My stress increased and my blood pressure became dangerously high. In 2018, after a year at the jail, I finally won my immigration case. But Department of Homeland Security attorneys appealed the judge’s decision, keeping me separated from my family, fueling my depression and suicidal thoughts. After another year of fighting the appeal, I had to make an impossible choice: Die inside Yuba County Jail or risk imminent death in my native land. After two years of inhumane treatment, I chose the latter. I signed the paperwork for self-deportation and went back to my home country.
My story is just one of thousands playing out in federally contracted county jails and privately operated ICE detention centers across the country. Despite President Biden’s campaign promise to end the use of private prisons for immigration detention, for undocumented people being held at Yuba County Jail, no relief is coming.
Yuba County Jail has a long history of violating national detention standards. From 2010 to 2021, ICE’s own detention office conducted at least eight inspections at the jail and found 171 violations. Among those violations, inspection officials determined that a sergeant, who was involved in two use-of-force incidents at the jail, participated in his own reviews. As a result of the findings, 24 members of Congress wrote a letter to Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas demanding that the department terminate ICE’s contract with Yuba County. At the state level, California legislators passed SB29, forbidding local governments to enter into new detention agreements with ICE. But as The Chronicle’s reporting pointed out, in 2018, the same year SB29 took effect, ICE and Yuba County officials “quietly extended their contract” to 2099.
Why would Yuba County officials establish an indefinite contract with ICE as the rest of the state moves to end the use of its jails by federal immigration authorities? Follow the money. The contract with ICE earns the Yuba County Sheriff’s Department a minimum of just under $24,000 a day, whether or not any detainees are being held in the jail, totaling about $8.66 million per year.
When the pandemic hit, conditions inside the jail worsened. Following an April 2020 class-action lawsuit, court orders led the jail to decrease its detainee population. Thanks to the work of human right advocates and formerly detained undocumented people like myself, and others, the jail went from having 127 detainees in May 2020 to zero in late 2021. For those of us who had fought, staged hunger strikes and protested, both inside and outside the jail, it felt like we were finally seeing the end of immigrant detainment.
But our celebrations were brief. In the two months that the jail had no detainees, the county’s contract with ICE was still in place, earning it an estimated $1.4 million. And in December, ICE transported its first detainee back into the jail. As of this week, three people are now detained there under ICE custody.
The repopulation of the jail by ICE only means we will fight even harder for liberation and the termination of the contract. Over the past year, and despite being thousands of miles away, I found ways to raise my voice. I connected with others who were detained alongside me and who were also deported and encouraged them to join the fight. My wife, along with other mothers, sisters, and family members joined us as well. We hosted Instagram live videos as a space for storytelling. For weeks, I met with congressional offices and shared my story and the story of others, which ultimately led to their support.
At a recent Yuba County Board of Supervisors meeting, newly named Chairman Randy Fletcher said that the claims made in a letter sent by the ACLU to the Yuba County sheriff and Board of Supervisors about the multiple violations and unlawful conditions at the jail were not true. “They make a lot of accusations. … It’s not true. It’s just not true,” he said. But I and the other undocumented people who were detained there know what we suffered through is true. And it needs to stop.
. . . .
*******************
Read the rest of the story at the link.
Coercion and punishment have long been part of the plan. That’s because the Supremes have fabricated the concept that “civil” imprisonment isn’t “punishment.” Pure balderdash!
Also, how does a jail get paid $1.4 million by taxpayers for nothing? Sounds like a “fleecing of America.”
But, of course, neither Garland nor Mayorkas bother to look into these questionable practices. Rather curious in light of the recommendation of a “select task force of experts” at the end of the Obama Administration that detention contracts (which frequently make establishing accountability for abuses difficult or impossible) be ended and that DHS phase out unnecessary detention.
Lack of accountability for DHS Detention is a chronic problem. So are defective bond procedures by EOIR that several Federal Courts have found unconstitutional, but which Garland continues to defend! Arbitrary bond procedures, weak internal appellate review, and lack of helpful precedents all feed the system.
Also, EOIR’s brushing aside the intentional coercion, lack of access to counsel, absence of resources, inability to prepare and document cases all contribute to the dangerous dysfunction. New, independent, expert, progressive “real judges” at EOIR would not allow Mayorkas and Garland to keep sweeping these abuses under the carpet!
Perhaps that’s why Garland has been content to allow his “courts” to malfunction using a majority of Trump/Miller holdovers and some notorious “go along to get along” bureaucrats as “judges.” Voices of expertise and reason among the IJs, and there are some, are often “silenced,” “neutered,” or “intentionally frustrated” by a BIA stacked with apologists, sometimes flat-out advocates, for DHS Enforcement and anti-immigrant policies.
Meanwhile, journalists, advocates, and those who have experienced “The Gulag” first hand need to keep it in the headlines, continue to litigate vigorously against it, and make a record of the disgraceful gap between what America claims to stand for and what it actually does! And, they would do well to “keep turning up the heat” on Garland’s “star chambers” and on his own lack of accountability for the daily disasters that unfold under his auspices.
WASHINGTON — Last June, the San Francisco Immigration Court quietly tested a new idea: Fast-track the cases of immigrants whose mail wasn’t reaching them. In the trial run, 80% of the immigrants scheduled were ordered deported for not showing up.
Top officials were effusive with praise over the results, emails obtained by The Chronicle show, and rushed to set up more hearings: “Very positive!” emailed one of the top supervising immigration judges overseeing the nation’s hundreds of courts.
The newly uncovered emails reveal that the fast-track docket for immigrants with returned mail, which was first reported by The San Francisco Chronicle last fall, was cheered at the highest levels of the courts and pursued with full awareness that scores of immigrants would likely be ordered deported as a result.
Advocates and attorneys for immigrants raised concerns about the practice as a sort of deportation conveyor belt last year, as many of the lawyer-less immigrants may have no idea they missed a court hearing, much less that they were ordered deported during it, because they didn’t know how to update their address with the court or thought that Immigration and Customs Enforcement would do so on their behalf. The immigration courts are run by the Justice Department, with judges hired and ultimately overseen by the attorney general.
The emails were obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request by a nonprofit watchdog group, American Oversight, prompted by The Chronicle’s reporting. The group shared the records with The Chronicle.
The Department of Justice declined to comment specifically on the emails, noting that removal orders for failing to appear in court are legally valid and that issuing notices with new hearing dates gives unreachable immigrants an opportunity to appear in court and avoid a deportation order.
Chronicle analysis of available data last year found that the practice significantly increased the number of immigrants who were ordered deported for not being present in court, called an “in absentia” removal order. As many as 173 people were given deportation orders because of such proceedings in August and September — a nearly ninefold increase from the 20 similar orders given the previous seven months combined.
This guy doesn’t realize that he could have avoided “justice” in Garland’s Star Chambers by not appearing for his hearing!
For Garland’s “judiciary,” the object appears to be avoiding fair hearings rather than conducting them! Perhaps, that’s understandable (not justifiable) considering how poorly many of his courts’ decisions fare upon judicial review in the Article IIIs.
For his cowardly attacks on migrants and backlog-building mismanagement and misdirection of EOIR, Garland gets “Courtside’s” coveted “Five Puke-Five Thumbs Down Award!” 🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮👎🏽👎🏽👎🏽👎🏽👎🏽
While Garland is failing in his job, his concerted efforts to break apart and “alienate” key segments the Dem coalition that elected Biden is succeeding and should pay great dividends (for the GOP and Trump) in the Fall Midterms! No wonder Garland’s running the system into the ground using “Trump/Miller holdovers.”
Garland and his equally poorly performing lieutenants (Monaco, Gupta, Clarke, Prelogar) are giving us a “Master Class” in “Why Dems Can’t Govern and Blow Elections 101.”
A party that lacks the courage to act on the values it espoused to get elected doesn’t stand for anything at all!🤮👎🏽
Maybe lots of Dems pulled the lever because they wanted more of Gauleiter Stephen Miller’s White Nationalist policies. But, I haven’t heard of any!
Yilun Cheng Immigration Reporter, Columbus Dispatch PHOTO: TwitterAttorneys who complain about misbehaving judges in Merrick Garland’s dysfunctional Immigration “Courts” might well find themselves in uncomfortable positions! Amazing StoriesArtist Unknown, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
In the fall of 2020, “Juan” had trouble falling asleep whenever he thought about his upcoming court appearance in Cleveland, where the only immigration court in Ohio is located.
The 43-year-old father of three from Mexico, who asked to remain anonymous for fear of retaliation, had already gone through three hours-long hearings for his application to obtain permanent residency. He said he was nervous and exhausted when he stepped into the court on Oct. 16, 2020, for his fourth hearing.
Juan expected from experience that he would once again face a series of aggressive questions from Judge Teresa Riley, whose intimidating style almost made him give up on his case altogether, he said.
But it still astounded him when Riley called Mexican immigrants “illegals” while cross-examining his wife about the subcontractors that Juan employed at his construction business.
Citing the experience of six anonymous immigrants, including Juan, the complaint accuses Riley of biases against Latino immigrants, bullying and hostile questioning, a lack of professional competence and other alleged misconducts.
But complainants like complainants like Juan and their attorneys said they have been disappointed that their efforts did not lead to any lasting changes or that there was little transparency in the investigation process.
Riley stopped hearing cases for a few weeks in July and August, but returned shortly after, according to hearing schedules shared with the Dispatch. It is unclear why the judge was absent.
. . . .
Because these complaints rarely generate substantial disciplinary actions and there is a fear of retaliation from the judges, immigration attorneys and their clients often hesitate to report misconducts, said Austin Kocher, a research associate professor at the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse, a research institute at Syracuse University.
“Immigration attorneys don’t file these complaints often enough because they still have to practice in front of these judges,” said Kocher, whose research focuses on immigration policies. “You can’t file a complaint one day against a judge and the next day come in with your client and expect the judge to treat them well. There’s just a real lack of systematic accountability.”
. . . .
Emmanuel Olawale, a Westerville-based immigration attorney, said he has faced this dilemma firsthand. In October 2020, when he received a notice from the Cleveland Immigration Court that the asylum case of one of his clients was denied, he was disturbed by the language that Judge Jonathan Owens used in the decision.
In the asylum application, Olawale’s client, a 22-year-old asylum seeker from Cameroon, said armed officers from that country sexually assaulted her when she was a minor while they were searching for English-speaking dissidents like her family.
In an attempt to establish that the abuse did not happen due to the client’s identity, Owen stated that it is likely that officers raped the teenage girl not because she was a member of the English-speaking minority but because “they wanted to do so and thought that the respondent was a pretty virgin,” according to court documents shared with The Dispatch.
“If someone’s a ‘pretty virgin,’ is that a good reason for them to rape her in any context?” Olawale said. “That statement is misogynistic and very shocking to me.”
Instead of submitting a complaint against Owen, however, the immigration attorney opted to voice his concerns in an appeal, which is currently pending.
“Filing a complaint against the judge is something on the table,” Olawale said. “But it won’t really change anything in my client’s case. There’s also an imbalance of power in the courtroom and the fear of retaliation. I’ll have to weigh my options and consider how bad it is before I stick my neck out there.”
. . . .
Judges are not always made aware of the existence of a complaint in a timely fashion, and there is no transparency or consistency when it comes to sanctions imposed in a particular case, according to Dana Marks, president emerita at the National Association of Immigration Judges who spent 35 years on the bench in San Francisco, California, before retiring in December.
“It’s not consistent because a complaint usually starts out with the person’s immediate supervisor being told,” Marks said. “Some of the supervisors discuss the complaint with the judge immediately and others don’t. There’s a wide spectrum of when judges are notified, how much information they are provided, and whether they are allowed to give their side of the story before decisions are made.”
There is a fine line between judges’ taking a harsh stance on immigration and their exhibiting unprofessional behaviors, said Paul Schmidt, a former immigration judge based in Arlington, Virginia, who retired in 2016. While judges should not be punished for making a good-faith legal decision, using terms like “illegals” seems to be a clear violation of professionalism, he said.
“There are complaints that were made because someone is not happy that they lost a case, and those claims need to be taken with a grain of salt,” Schmidt said. “But at the point where judges are using racially charged terms or demeaning people, then that seems to me that it goes beyond what they should be allowed to do.”
. . . .
The Cleveland Immigration Court, much like the rest of the country, saw dramatic personnel changes during Donald Trump’s presidency.
The court used to have only three judges, all of whom have since left their posts. The Trump administration filled the openings and expanded the size of the bench, appointing 10 judges who currently make up the court. Most of them are former government attorneys, and five used to prosecute immigration cases on behalf of the Department of Homeland Security.
The lack of a transparent complaint process is especially concerning given an influx of new judges, who tend to come from enforcement backgrounds and lack experience on the bench, [Attorney Julie] Nemecek said.
“I think about the hundreds of thousands of immigrants across the country who have been wronged by the misconducts of Trump-appointed judges,” she said. “There are still good judges out there. But we have to address these bad judges.”
. . . .
Yilun Cheng is a Report for America corps member and covers immigration issues for the Dispatch. Your donation to match our RFA grant helps keep her writing stories like this one. Please consider making a tax-deductible donation at https://bit.ly/3fNsGaZ.
ycheng@dispatch.com
@ChengYilun
******************
Read Yulin’s full article at the link.
First, congrats to Yulin Cheng! Last time I published her work, she was an aspiring student journalist.
Now, she’s a Report for America member carrying out her dream and commitment to report truth and hold immigration officials, regardless of party affiliation, accountable for their mockery of the rule of law and shunning of best practices!
So, why might a private practitioner hesitate to file a complaint against an Immigration Judge in Garland’s system still “packed” with a majority of judges hand-selected by White Nationalist nativists Sessions and Barr?
The complaint would go not to an independent, objective panel containing public representation. No, it would be treated as a “supervisory matter” in an agency (not a real “court”) where the ranks of supervisors are still stacked with Barr & Sessions appointees that Garland hasn’t replaced.
Stunningly, the “top judge” in this bizarre, abusive, and dysfunctional system is Chief Immigration Judge Tracy Short — a hard line DHS prosecutor with no prior judicial experience elevated by Barr because of his commitment to the Stephen Miller White Nationalist, anti-asylum, anti-attorney agenda! Remarkably, Garland hasn’t replaced Short with a competent, expert, due-process-oriented “real judge,” notwithstanding unanimous urging from immigration experts that he do so!
Pursue as an alternative a legal appeal to Garland’s BIA? Well, amazingly, that body also remains “packed” with 23 of 24 appellate judges who are holdovers from the Trump Administration. Several of these judges were themselves members of the “90% asylum deniers club” and some were renowned for their disrespect for immigrants (particularly asylum seekers) and their lawyers while on the trial bench.
Look for some binding BIA precedents on improper IJ conduct? Won’t find those either, save for a mild, pre-Trump rebuke of an Atlanta IJ (without identifying the judge) for abusing a juvenile in court.
Then, there’s Garland himself. For heaven’s sake, even Bush crony former AG Alberto Gonzales (“Gonzo I”) finally got so embarrassed by the misbehavior of his IJs that he had to publicly “call off the dogs.”But, from Garland, not a peep or decisive action demanding that his “wholly-owned judges” put due process and fundamental fairness first and treat the individuals coming before them and their lawyers with professionalism, dignity, and respect!
Judge Riley, appointed by Barr in May 2019, without any significant immigration or human rights background, has a TRAC asylum denial rate of 87.7%.
Judge Owens, appointed by Sessions in August 2018, also without any significant immigration or human rights background, has a TRAC asylum denial rate of 94.5%. That’s 58th highest out of 558 Immigration Judges!
The TRAC “national average” for asylum denials by IJs during this period was 67.6%.
So, even in the virulent, officially-sanctioned “anti-asylum era” @ EOIR during the late Obama Administration and the entire Trump Administration, these two judges are “outliers.”
As someone familiar with the Ohio Immigration Bar, there are dozens of much better qualified judicial candidates out there in the private sector. Some of them even applied in the past and were rejected in favor of these judges who, whatever else you might think, no expert would find to be among “best and brightest minds in immigration and human rights,” deserving of elevation to the bench.
All Immigration Judges are “DOJ attorneys,” serving “at the pleasure of the Attorney General” and therefore subject to replacement and/or reassignment at his discretion. Judge Riley was “in probation” until May 20121, so Garland could have terminated her, essentially for any reason, or at least “re-competed” her position under a fair process that would have been open, welcoming to immigration experts in the private sector, and involved private sector input.
Owens and the other Trump-era appointees should also have been required to re-compete for their positions under revised procedures. It’s unlikely either Owens or Riley would have been selected in such a merit-based process.
Of course, Garland has not actively recruited from among better-qualified diverse expert immigration practitioners, established transparent merit-based procedures, or re-competed the disgracefully inadequate selections of his White Nationalist, anti-immigrant predecessors!
Additionally, Garland has failed to address, in any manner whatsoever, the quality control, bad attitude, lack of professionalism, and anti-immigrant bias problems in his dysfunctional Immigration Courts. Poor precedents continue to be issued by his BIA, and sloppy work by his judges at all levels continues to be “outed” by the Article IIIs notwithstanding the substantial (undue) deference given to EOIR decisions by the Article IIIs. Backlog building “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” and “mindless gimmicks” continue to proliferate under Garland’s disconnected leadership.
The disciplinary system remains opaque and highly ineffective. Illegal retaliation by IJs against those filing complaints remains a realistic possibility that actually deters and improperly discourages reporting of misconduct. An ineffective, “rubber-stamp” appellate review process of removal orders by the BIA almost never holds IJs accountable, even for the most egregious legal errors and the grossest misconduct on the bench.
While Circuit Courts point out the deficient performance of EOIR judges on a remarkably frequent basis, one will search in vain for any recent BIA precedent “calling out” inappropriate and biased treatment of respondents and their lawyers in Immigration Court. Likewise, while Jeff Sessions was outspoken in encouraging anti-asylum and anti-lawyer bias among “his judges,” I’m not aware that Garland, in word or deed, has ever insisted that Immigration Judges at all levels give primacy to due process, fundamental fairness, and treat all coming before them with dignity and respect. In other words, Garland has failed to use his “bully pulpit” to demand an end to bullying of the most vulnerable among us in his Immigration Courts.
He also has failed to repudiate the “DHS Enforcement is our partner” statements by Sessions. (Perhaps not surprisingly, since, as noted earlier, Garland employs a DHS prosecutor, Tracy Short, as his “top judge” notwithstanding Short’s glaring unsuitability for the position. And, Garland continues to defend many “Miller Lite” policies in Federal Court.)
Pro-DHS biases, mistreatment of migrants and their attorneys, lack of basic scholarship, and failure of impartial judging continue to run rampant in Garland’s broken system!
Indeed, a full year the SF Chron’sTal Kopan exposed the misconduct by Immigration Judges throughout the nation, the DOJ has taken no known actions despite Deputy AG Lisa Monaco’s “promise to investigate.”
From top to bottom, this broken, unfair, and out of control system needs reform, redirection, integrity, a focus on due process, and decisional excellence. It certainly isn’t coming from Garland and his senior political team at DOJ. So where IS it going to come from?
Chair Lofgren and her Subcommittee need to find out why Garland has failed to address the ongoing disaster in his courts, and what needs to be done to bring due process, fundamental fairness, equal justice, and respect for humanity to the forefront at EOIR, the DOJ, and the rest of our legal system! And, if anyone in the Administration stubbornly claims that the “primary answer” is to randomly throw more judges into this toxic mess, Lofgren should laugh in their face(s)! We need to replace bad judges and reform the existing system into something fair and functional before seeking to expand it, even assuming that expansion is warranted somewhere “down the line.”
As being run by Garland right now, EOIR is an affront to American democracy! That needs to stop!
Sadly, a couple of correct decisions, no matter how welcome, aren’t going to solve the systemic due process deficiencies in Ohio or elsewhere in Garland’s dysfunctional nationwide “Clown Courts.” 🤡
There are some pressing problems in America that Dems and the Biden Administration can’t solve on their own. Garland’s dysfunctional Immigration Courts are NOT one of those!
The Immigration Courts are the biggest most consequential national problem that is totally within the Administration’s power to fix. That Garland has failed to do so should be of existential concern and a cause for unrelenting outrage from all who believe in the future of American democracy!
The nation’s immigration court system is a mess. Rep. Lofgren is teeing up an effort to overhaul it
WASHINGTON — South Bay Rep. Zoe Lofgren will convene a congressional hearing on the immigration courts next week, The Chronicle has learned, likely laying the groundwork for the introduction of her bill to overhaul the troubled system.
The hearing may also provide the first critical look by Congress at how the courts, which are under the control of the Department of Justice, have been running under the Biden administration. Though President Biden came into office pledging to turn the page from his predecessor’s hardline immigration stance, advocates say progress has been slow, especially at the Department of Justice.
…
Lofgren, a San Jose Democrat, chairs the immigration subcommittee of the House Judiciary panel and is a longtime leader on immigration policy in Washington. She has been working on legislation that would make the nation’s immigration courts an independent system. In theory that change, which has been called for by the major pro-immigrant and immigration law organizations, would insulate the courts from the political whims of different administrations, and allow them to function more as a justice system.
Committee staff said Lofgren was still working on the bill and offered no timeline for its introduction, but an informational hearing such as the one scheduled for next week typically serves as a precursor to the unveiling of legislation.
Welcome and long, long, long overdue news! But, is it too little, too late?
Subcommittee Chair Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) is one of the few legislators who understands the full extent of the disaster in Garland’s deadly and broken “courts,” the missed opportunities by Garland to initiate meaningful due-process and practical efficiency reforms, and the debilitating effect of the disorder countenanced by Garland at EOIR on our entire legal system and the future of democracy.
Unlike Garland and his ineffectual lieutenants, the Subcommittee will actually hear from expertswho understand the full legal and human effects of Garland’s complacent and ineffectual leadership.
The hundreds of judges at the roughly 70 immigration courts nationwide decide the fate of immigrants seeking to stay in the U.S., many of whom fear for their lives if they are deported. But the system has long faced criticism for its enormous backlog of more than 1.5 million cases, inconsistency across judges and courts, antiquated bureaucracy and labyrinthine structure that’s difficult for immigrants without lawyers to navigate.
In many ways, the above quote from Tal “says it all.” A year after finally being spurred into action by Tal’s reporting on a well-known, long-festering problem, the DOJ has “studied” without actually taking corrective action. A serious lack of transparency remains a chronic problem!
The “culture” at EOIR remains sick. Those in the EOIR system who survived the Trump disaster without giving in to the anti-immigrant corruption had reasonably expected Garland to embrace common-sense, progressive reforms and root out the White Nationalists opponents of due process. Instead they find themselves abandoned and disheartened by his inept and tone-deaf performance.
Incredibly folks like Barr’s hand-selected, anti-immigrant, “Stephen Miller acolyte” Chief Judge Tracy Short remain in their positions while progressive experts have been totally shut out of EOIR leadership by Garland. Only one “practical expert” has been appointed to the BIA, where she remains hopelessly outnumbered and effectively “marginalized” by the overwhelming number of “Trump Holdovers” who “packed” the BIA during the last Administration.
Progressive experts had given the incoming Biden Administration “practical blueprints” and recommended personnel changes for rooting out the deadwood and the many less-than-qualified judges and officials at EOIR and bringing in a team of outstandingly well-qualified due-process-committed “practical experts” to begin fixing the system — with a sense of urgency and priority. Those actions would have included an entirely new BIA with real expert judges who would by now not only have vacated White Nationalist precedents imposed under the Trump DOJ, but actually have issued proper precedents interpreting the immigration laws that would facilitate and enforce due process, and promote uniformity and efficiency, rather than undermining it.
The backlog could have been slashed by decisive actions removing from hopelessly overcrowded and mismanaged dockets, “low-priority” cases and those many that could better have been resolved initially by USCIS. Poorly performing anti-immigrant judges could be brought under control, “Asylum Free Zones” eliminated, training drastically improved, working automated systems implemented, a merit-based hiring system for judges instituted, affirmative recruiting for diverse expert candidates undertaken, representation increased, and a collaborative relationship with the private bar and ICE counsel established.
Instead, Garland has retained Sessions and Barr “holdovers,” embraced “Aimless Docket Reshuffling,” accepted sloppy, unprofessional work product surfacing in the Article IIIs on an almost a daily basis, treated the immigration advocacy community with indifference and disrespect, used “gimmicks” instead of standing up for due process and immigrants’ rights, argued in favor of upholding some of the worst “Miller Lite” policies left behind by Trump’s White Nationalist advisor, and built more unnecessary backlog at a rate that would make “Gonzo Apocalypto” Sessions and “Billy the Bigot” Barr envious.
In other words, Garland has been a disaster for those committed to due process, racial justice,equal treatment under law,and a diverse, welcoming, stable American democracy.
Given Garland’s failures and disinterest in achieving justice for asylum seekers and other migrants, an Independent Article I Immigration Court free from the inept (Democrats) and toxic (GOP) mismanagement of the DOJ is the answer. But, like the rest of the Dem agenda, it’s hard to see a legislative solution anywhere on the horizon. And, those counting on Garland to finally grow a backbone and start reforming the system are likely to be left “throwing punches in the air.” Again!
Court orders in the class-action lawsuit caused Yuba’s detainee population to steadily decline, from 127 in May 2020 to zero on Oct. 27, 2021, when the last incarcerated noncitizen was released. Activists briefly celebrated and hoped to use the momentum to prevent the jail from accepting future detainees.
But ICE and Yuba County had quietly extended their contract indefinitely in 2018. The contract stipulates that Yuba County receive a minimum of $24,000 a day whether any detainees are in its jail or not. In the two months the jail was without detainees, the federal government paid Yuba County almost $1.4 million.
A report by the team overseeing the jail’s compliance with the court-ordered consent decree found that a “severe breakdown of the Jail’s mental health system” contributed to the suicide last month of a man who had been in the jail for only a few days. It also found that officials had failed to fix previously cited suicide risks, and that there was inadequate medical and mental health staffing and treatment.
“We’ve known for decades that Yuba County Jail has a horrific record of mental and medical care that has unfortunately resulted in tragic deaths and lots of pain for lots of families,” said Laura Duarte Bateman, communications director for the California Collaborative for Immigrant Justice, which organized last month’s protest against Yuba accepting new detainees.
*****************
Read the full article at the link.
Fraud, waste, and abuse. No need for the GAO “hotline” on this one. It’s all hanging out in public view as Mayorkas & Garland bury their respective heads in the sand.
One year in, Biden has been slow to unwind Trump immigration policies
WASHINGTON — As President Biden approaches a year in office, immigration advocates fear he may have learned some lessons from his predecessor, Donald Trump — and not the ones they would have wanted.
Most immigration advocates abhor virtually every policy in the sphere that Trump pursued, but they do give him credit for two things: showing how much change an administration can make quickly, and driving home the power of fully committing to a salient political message. But they fear that instead of using those lessons to enact Biden’s stated objective — a fair, orderly and humane immigration system — the president has borrowed too many of his predecessor’s policies and not enough of the fervor.
Biden has extended Trump’s policy turning away the vast majority of immigrants at the border ostensibly because of COVID. The administration has also, under court order, reinstated and expanded a policy forcing migrants to wait in Mexico for court hearings, despite Biden running against the policy in his campaign. And his Justice Department is defending some of Trump’s policies in court against challenges from immigrant advocates.
Several immigration groups worked together on what became known as the “Big Book,” a collection of more than 500 policy recommendations for the incoming Biden administration. The pro-immigration group Immigration Hub has tracked about 150 that have been implemented so far. Many of those were reversing Trump policies.
“What we don’t have is a White House that’s committed to moving forward on the stated Biden administration agenda in the way that the Trump White House was committed to moving forward on theirs, and as a result, we’re living in a world where a whole lot of those Trump policies are still around,” said Omar Jadwat, director of the Immigrants’ Rights Project with the American Civil Liberties Union.
A White House spokesperson objected to the notion that Biden has not delivered progress on immigration, citing actions in the early days of the administration to roll back some of Trump’s policies, extend protections to young undocumented immigrants who came to the U.S. as children and new protections for migrants whose home countries are in turmoil.
“This administration is committed to working day in and day out to provide relief to immigrants and bring our immigration system into the 21st century,” spokesperson Vedant Patel said.
During the presidential campaign, Biden ran on turning the page from Trump’s hardline immigration policies and talked up a plan to get a pathway to citizenship for the undocumented into law. He also emphasized the importance of letting asylum-seekers make their case to stay in the U.S., and said the Obama administration in which he served made a mistake in waiting too long to enact immigration reforms.
In his early days in office, Biden did introduce policies cheered by immigration advocates, including rescinding Trump’s travel bans and embracing an aggressive legislative strategy to legalize millions of undocumented immigrants through procedural maneuvers that would require only Democratic votes.
But he also kept in place a controversial policy known as Title 42 that essentially closed the southern border to virtually all immigrants. Then in the spring, when border crossings soared to historic levels, the Biden administration doubled down on deterring migration, vexing many advocates who saw that strategy as essentially an embrace of the right’s talking points. Others have pinned their hopes on Vice President Kamala Harris, who forged a strong progressive streak on immigration while serving as California’s senator. She has led administration efforts to improve conditions in Central America, but also adopted deterrence talking points, including urging would-be migrants directly while in Guatemala: “Do not come.”
As Tal and others have observed, the Trump Administration “hit the ground running” on its White Nationalist anti-immigrant agenda, which was a key part of it’s overall anti-democracy, neo-fascist program.
The Biden Administration’s campaign pledges to undo the damage — not so much. In the end, lack of backbone, failure to leverage and use the expert talent available, not acting quickly, and treating values-based campaign promises as “fungible political capital” has left the Administration “wandering in the wilderness” on this key issue. Usually, standing for the right thing, even if risky, is a far better path than aimlessly wobbling around.
