"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.
“The Cruelty Is The Point” IMAGE: Amazon.comOLAFIMIHAN OSHIN Staff Writer The Hill PHOTO: The HillRebecca Beitsch Staff Writer The Hill PHOTO: pewtrust.org
A federal judge for the second time found the DACA program unlawful, but held back from ordering the deportation of the nearly 600,000 people who remain in the country as “Dreamers.”
The Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, first crafted with a 2012 memo under the Obama administration, was likewise found unlawful by federal District Court Judge Andrew Hanen in a similar ruling in 2021.
“While sympathetic to the predicament of DACA recipients and their families, this Court has expressed its concerns about the legality of the program for some time,” Hanen wrote in the 40-page ruling.
“The solution for these deficiencies lies with the legislature, not the executive or judicial branches. Congress, for any number of reasons, has decided not to pass DACA-like legislation.”
Given earlier challenges to the DACA program’s creation through a memo, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in 2022 underwent formal rulemaking to solidify the basis for the program.
But Hanen found while the government followed the law in undergoing notice and comment rulemaking, the new rule essentially carried the 2012 memo into a formal rule without addressing prior issues criticized by the court.
Last year the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, before remanding the case to Hanen, found broader issues with DACA, saying the policy was inconsistent with immigration processes laid out under the Immigration and Nationality Act.
Hanen pointed to that in his Wednesday ruling, noting that while the record underlying the new rule showed DACA to be beneficial to both recipients and the U.S. “DHS did nothing to change or resolve the substantive problems found by this court or the fifth circuit.The decision earned swift backlash from immigration advocates and spurred familiar calls for Congress to act.
. . . .
The decision earned swift backlash from immigration advocates and spurred familiar calls for Congress to act.
“While expected, today’s court ruling is devastating. It impacts hundreds of thousands of immigrant youth and their loved ones, who have already endured years of uncertainty stemming from politicized attacks on DACA,” Kica Matos, president of the National Immigration Law Center said in a statement.
“Congress has failed to pass a permanent legislative solution, and it is urgent that they act now. We cannot allow court rulings to continue to upend the lives of hundreds of thousands of immigrant youth whose home is here.”
The ruling comes months after a coalition of nine GOP-led states asked Hanen to end the federal program, referring to the program as “unlawful” and “unconstitutional.”
. . . .
**********************
Read the complete article at the link.
Once you get beyond GOP White Nationalist politicos and judges, DACA legislation is widely popular across the political spectrum. Yet, the GOP is happy to defy the common good, and, sadly, Dems are afraid to leverage and elevate DACA to a “Tier One” issue! So, a generation of younger talent that American needs for the future continues to “twist in the wind!” Stupid, cruel, wasteful!
Immigration Court can be a daunting experience even for veteran litigators. For folks like this, alone with no representation, it’s “mission impossible.” Yet Biden A.G. Merrick Garland has done little to fix the systemic “user unfriendliness” and sometimes outright hostility to pro se litigants in his totally dysfunctional “courts in name only!” (“CINOs”). PHOTO: Victoria Pickering, Creative Commons License
Clearly, gimmicks rolled out by Garland and the Biden Administration, including stunts like “dedicated dockets,” “expedited dockets,” “Aimless Docket Reshuffling,” detention courts in the middle of nowhere, unregulated bond procedures, lousy precedents, wasteful litigation against practitioners, proposed regulations irrationally “presuming” denial of asylum, abuse of Title 42, assigning asylum seeker resettlement to GOP nativists like DeSantis and Abbott, and refusal to bring in qualified experts with Immigration Court experience to fix this disasterous system have made the already horrible plight of the unrepresented worse! See, e.g.,https://trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/674/.
With respect to DHS detainees awaiting hearing, a few are subject to so-called “mandatory detention without independent review” as a result of statutes. Others are imprisoned because ICE claims that they are so-called “arriving aliens” (a designation that even some IJs struggle with, but that has huge consequences for a respondent), “likely to abscond,” or ”security risks!”
But, a significant “unstated purpose” of immigration detention, often in substandard conditions, is to coerce detainees into giving up legal rights or waiving appeals and to punish those who stubbornly insist on asserting their rights.
When the almost inevitable “final order of removal” comes, officials in Administrations of both parties believe, without much empirical evidence, that detainees will serve as “bad will ambassadors,” carrying back woeful tales of wonton cruelty and suffering that will “deter” others from darkening the doors of “the world’s most generous nation.”
In spite of this overall “institutionalized hostility,” there is a small, brave cadre of “due process/fundamental fairness heroes” known as the Office of Legal Access Programs, or “OLAP” at EOIR!Forced into “the darkest corners of the EOIR Tower dungeon” during the reign of terror of “Gonzo Apocalypto” Sessions and “Billy the Bigot” Barr, they have finally been released into daylight.
The Dungeon Former A.G. Jeff “Gonzo Apocalypto” Sessions had a special place in the EOIR Falls Church Tower for those trying to assist pro se litigants in Immigration Court. Public Realm
But, make no mistake about it — these courageous folks at OLAP aren’t helping to “drive the train” at EOIR under Biden and Garland, as they certainly should be! No, as was the case before Trump, they are racing down the station platform to catch the train as it departs without them.
How do I know? It’s actually pretty obvious. If Garland & the Administration were actually serious about promoting representation, they would:
Require a positive report from the OLAP before opening any new Immigration Court;
Subject all existing detained “courts” (that aren’t really “courts” at all, within the common understanding of the term) to an OLAP analysis, involving input from the pro bono bar, and close any location where pro bono counsel can’t be made reasonably available to all detainees who want it;
Make part of the IJ hiring process input from the OLAP and the public into the demonstrated commitment of each “finalist” for an Immigration Judge position to working to maximize representation; and
Work with outside programs like Professor Michelle Pistone’s innovative “VIISTA Villanova Program” for training accredited representatives to “streamline and expedite” the Recognition & Accreditation process housed within OLAP.
To my knowledge, none of these obvious “first steps” to address the representation crisis at EOIR have been instituted. Tells us about all we need to know about the real importance of the OLAP in Garland’s galaxy.
Recently, I had the pleasure of meeting with Alicia de La O, her attorneys, and interns at the ABA who are helping the OLAP “staff” the “pro se hotlines” for detainees in immigration proceedings. Of course, they can’t provide “legal advice,” although they can direct pro se litigants to available “self help” materials prepared by OLAP and reliable pro bono NGOs. But, as I pointed out, just being available to speak with isolated detainees, listen sympathetically, and direct them to available resources is a “big deal” from both a human and a practical perspective.
Alicia de la O Senior Attorney/Chief Counsel, ABA Commission on Immigration PHOTO: Linkedin
Remarkably, the amazingly talented, informed, and energetic undergraduate internsworking with the ABA had a far better understanding of the corrosive effect on democracy and America’s future of the mocking of due process, fundamental fairness, racial justice, and human dignity in Immigration Courts than inept and often clueless Biden Administration so-called “immigration policy officials” have acknowledged with their words and deeds. Indeed, one of the undergraduate interns had already completed the VIISTA program. He therefore probably knows more about the Immigration Courts at the “retail level” than some of the clowns Garland has running EOIR!
The energy and commitment of these interns to take on existential challenges that our “leaders” from both parties have shunned, gave me some hope for America’s future. That is, if democracy can survive the overt attacks from the right and its tepid defense by Democrats, by no means an assured outcome.
This opportunity to meet with those working on the front lines of helping the most isolated, vulnerable, and intentionally neglected among us got me thinking about what I might say to a pro se litigant stuck in the “EOIR purgatory,” based on my experience. I note, with some pride, that during my time on the trial bench, almost every pro se individual who wanted to appeal one of my orders was able to file timely with the BIA based on the detailed instructions I gave them at the end of the hearing.
So, as promised, here’s “my list!”
PRO SE CHECKLIST
Judge (Ret.) Paul Wickham Schmidt
March 1, 2023
1) Be careful in filing out the I-589. Everything in the application, including mistakes, omissions, and failure to answer questions can be used AGAINST you at the hearing. Filing a fraudulent application can have severe consequences beyond denial of your case.
2) Do NOT assume that significant omissions or errors in the I-589 can be corrected or explained at the hearing without adverse consequences.
3) If you use a translator, ask that the application be read back to you in FULL for accuracy, before signing. Generally, there is no such thing as an “insignificant error” on an asylum application. All inaccuracies can and will be considered by the IJ in determining whether you are telling the truth.
4) Obtain any relevant documentation supporting the claim and attach to the application. All documents in a foreign language MUST be translated into English. A certificate of accuracy from the translator must also accompany the document. DO NOT expect the court interpreter to translate your documents during the hearing.
5) Understand NEXUS to a “protected ground;” merely claiming or even proving that you will suffer harm upon return is NOT sufficient to win your case; many pro se cases fail on this basis.
6) Any pro se case claiming a “Particular Social Group” will need help in formulating it. Do NOT expect the IJ or ACC to assist in defining a qualifying PSG.
7) Keep a copy of the application and all evidence submitted.
8) Sign your application.
9) Make sure that the original signed copy goes to the Immigration Court and a copy to the ACC.
10) Keep documents submitted by ICE or the Immigration Court.
11) Do NOT rely on your translator, friends, relatives, or “jailhouse lawyers” for advice on filling in the application. NEVER embellish or add incorrect information to your I-589 just because someone else tells you to or says it’s “the only way to win your case.”
12) DO NOT let friends, detention officers, the IJ or anyone else (other than a qualified lawyer working for you) talk you out of pursuing a claim if everything in it is true. You must “tune out chatter” that everybody loses these cases, and therefore you are wasting your time.
13) Do NOT tell the IJ and/or ACC that everything in your application is true and correct if it is not true!
14) If you discover errors in your application before the hearing, ask the IJ at the beginning of the hearing for an opportunity to correct them. Do NOT wait to see if the ACC brings them up.
15) If you will be testifying through an interpreter, ask the IJ for a brief chance to converse with the interpreter before the hearing to make sure you understand each other. If there is any problem, tell the IJ BEFORE the hearing begins.
16) The Immigration Court hearing is a formal, adversary hearing, NOT an “informal interview” like the Asylum Office.
17) Be courteous and polite to the Immigration Judge, the ICE Assistant Chief Counsel, and the interpreter at all times, BUT BE AWARE:
1) The IJ and the ACC are NOT your friends;
2) They do NOT represent your interests;
3) The ACC’s basic job is to urge the IJ to deny your application and enter an order of removal;
4) The IJ is NOT an independent judge. He or she works for the Attorney General a political enforcement official. Some IJs function with a reasonable degree of independence. But, others see themselves largely as assisting the ACC in in denying applications and rapidly turning out removal orders.
5) The interpreter works for the court, NOT you.
18) YOU will be the only person in the courtroom representing your interests.
19) Don’t answer a question that you don’t understand. Ask the IJ to have it repeated. If it is a complicated question, ask the IJ if it can be broken down into distinct parts.
20) If you really don’t know the answer to a question, don’t “guess!” “I don’t know, your honor” is an acceptable answer, if true.
21) If the ACC introduces evidence at the hearing — say a copy of the Asylum Officer’s notes — ask the IJ for a full translation through the interpreter before answering questions.
22) If documents you submitted support your claim, direct the IJs attention to those documents.
23) When it is time for the IJ to deliver an oral decision, make sure that you are allowed to listen through the interpreter.
24) Bring a pencil or pen and a pad of paper to the hearing. Try to take notes on the decision as it is dictated by the IJ.
25) If the decision goes against you, tell the IJ that you want to reserve an appeal and request copies of the appeal forms. You can always withdraw the appeal later, but once an appeal is waived it is difficult, often impossible, to restore it.
26) If the IJ rules in your favor, and the ACC reserves appeal, understand that the order in your favor will have no effect until the appeal is withdrawn or ruled upon by the BIA. For detained individuals, that probably means remaining in detention while the appeal is resolved, which might take months.
27) If you appeal, fill out the forms completely according to instructions and file with the BIA as soon as possible, the same or next day if you can. That is when your memory will be best, and it maximizes the chance of the BIA receiving your appeal on time. Do NOT wait until the last minute to file an appeal.
28) Be SPECIFIC and INCLUSIVE in stating why you think the IJ was wrong. Attach a separate sheet if necessary. Just saying “The Judge got it wrong” or “I disagree with the decision” won’t be enough and might result in the BIA rejecting your appeal without further review.
29) Remember to file the separate fee waiver request form with the Notice of Appeal.
30) Assume that all filing deadlines will be strictly applied and that pro se applicants will NOT be given any breaks or special treatment, despite mailing difficulties and other problems.
31) DON’T count on timely mail delivery. The Notice of Appeal, brief, or any other document is not “filed” with the BIA until they actually receive it. Merely placing it in the mail before the due date will NOT be considered a timely filing if the document arrives late. Mail early!
32) If you are not in detention, use a courier service to deliver filings to the BIA so you have solid evidence of timely filing.
33) If you check the box on the appeal form saying you will file a brief or additional statement, you MUST do so, even if short. Failing to file a brief or written statement after checking that box can be a ground for the BIA to summary dismiss your appeal without considering the merits.
34) Info about the BIA Pro Bono Project.
NOTICE: The ideas above are solely mine. They are not legal advice, and have not been endorsed or approved by any organization or any other person, living or dead, born or unborn.
Carrie Cordero Senior Fellow Center for New American SecurityHeidi Li Feldman Professor of Law Georgetown LawChimene Heitner Professor of Law UC-Hastings Law
ProPublica published an extensive investigative report last week detailing the circumstances surrounding the death of 16-year-old Carlos Gregorio Hernandez Vasquez. The teenager died in Customs and Border Protection detention in May, approximately one week after entering the United States—even though children are not supposed to be held by CBP for more than 72 hours before being transferred to Health and Human Services. Vasquez had boarded a raft on the Rio Grande with dozens of others and was promptly apprehended by U.S. Border Patrol agents after landing in Hidalgo, Texas. He was separated from his adult sister, with whom he had been traveling, and placed in CBP custody, where he apparently developed and then died from the flu.
While Vasquez’s death was reported in the press at the time, the new ProPublica report includes a video appearing to be from the time period before and after Vasquez’s’ death in the CBP cell. (Vasquez’s’ family has since indicated that they had not seen the video and had not consented to its release or distribution.) The video appears to show that—contrary to the Department of Homeland Security’s public explanation last spring when his death was first reported—Vasquez did not receive proper welfare checks during the night, and was found lifeless by his cellmate in the morning. These new circumstances raise grave questions about whether the government and individual CBP officials will face legal consequences for failing to provide him with adequate medical treatment, failing to monitor his deteriorating health, and, potentially, attempting to conceal the actual circumstances of his death.
The ProPublica report explains that there is an open internal DHS Office of Inspector General investigation of the circumstances surrounding the death, following an earlier local law enforcement investigation conducted by the Weslaco Police Department. The police investigation apparently did not result in enforcement action. Meanwhile, the administrative process within DHS is awaiting the outcome of the OIG investigation. It should not go unnoticed that this death occurred during a period of heightened instability in the agency’s leadership ranks. Vasquez’s’ death took place the month after Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen resigned, and during the period when CBP was under the direction of an acting director, John Sanders, since former Kevin McAleenan had been the CBP chief before being elevated to acting secretary. Sanders resigned shortly after the incident and told ProPublica that “I really think the American government failed these people. The government failed people like Carlos,” he said. “I was part of that system at a very high level, and Carlos’ death will follow me for the rest of my life.”
Press reports over the spring spring stated that in addition to the local police and DHS OIG investigation, the FBI also was conducting an investigation. Given the information released by ProPublica, that FBI investigation should include a civil rights investigation for color of law violations (that is, unlawful acts by CBP officials), and obstruction of justice, given the report of potentially falsified logs. Jurisdiction for such investigation would reside with the FBI’s McAllen Resident Agency, San Antonio Division.
The status and outcome of that FBI investigation is important and should not be delayed pending the separate DHS OIG process. The death of a child in federal custody must be subject to greater scrutiny than administrative measures alone. Not only is DHS’s border security, immigration, and law enforcement activity in need of greater internal oversight and accountability mechanisms, but there are certain circumstances where individual accountability is necessary to punish and deter wrongdoing. To be clear, this is a pro–law enforcement and pro-security argument. In order for law enforcement and homeland security professionals to maintain order and effectiveness in carrying out their lawful duties, individual instances of wrongdoing must be subject to meaningful accountability.
There should also be a public accounting of the results of the FBI investigation. As discussed here in the context of family separation, federal law provides that civil rights violations that take place while enforcing the law may also amount to federal crimes under Section 242 of Title 18. According to the ProPublica report, Vasquez had a fever, was administered medication, and then was returned to a holding cell, contrary to medical advice. The cell—visible in the video posted online by ProPublica—was akin to a prison cell, containing, apparently, only what appear to be cement block benches and a toilet area. The report alleges that a CBP officer recorded conducting multiple welfare checks during the night; however, the video shows none, and four hours of the video during which those checks purportedly took place were not provided by CBP to the local police.
We do not have any basis to know why the local police received an incomplete video, but the missing four hours of the video is beyond curious. It is potentially criminal. If efforts were taken to delete or sequester the missing four hours, that would constitute obstruction of justice. If individuals coordinated their efforts to shield that portion of the video from law enforcement investigators, then those individuals have potential legal exposure for conspiracy to obstruct justice.
In addition to the FBI’s criminal and civil rights investigation, there may be civil recourse for Vasquez’s’ family. The U.S. government may be subject to a wrongful death claim on the grounds that CBP agents negligently deprived Vasquez of proper medical care. Such claims are permitted by the Federal Tort Claims Act, which waives sovereign immunity for the U.S. government when its officers commit acts that would give rise to tort claims were they committed by private parties. (We discuss civil liability extensively with respect to family separation in the immigration context more broadly in a forthcoming scholarly article previewed here).
The death of a child in federal custody must be subject to greater scrutiny than administrative measures alone
A private institution with custody of a severely ill child would certainly be vulnerable to tort liability on facts similar to those reported about Vasquez’s’ situation. Before he was transferred to the Weslaco station where he died, Vasquez was seen by a nurse practitioner in McAllen. She administered ibuprofen and Tylenol and ordered Tamiflu. She recommended that Vasquez receive additional medical attention within two hours and that he should be taken to an emergency room if his symptoms persisted or worsened. According to ProPublica’s investigation, Vasquez was not seen again by a health care worker for about 18 hours, when another nurse practitioner, this time at Weslaco, administered Tamiflu but left no record of any other medical treatment or examination. The time lapse between these two medical interventions strongly suggests a breach of the basic duty of care that tort law places upon anybody who has taken physical custody of a child, making it impossible for anybody else to assist him with known medical needs.
*****************************
Official corruption and impunity, normally considered hallmarks of dictatorships and Third World states, have become huge problems in the U.S. under the Trump Administration. An emasculated Congress and feckless, complicit Article III Courts are major contributors to the arrogantly lawless performance of DHS under Trump.
“While expected, today’s court ruling is devastating. It impacts hundreds of thousands of immigrant youth and their loved ones, who have already endured years of uncertainty stemming from politicized attacks on DACA,” Kica Matos, president of the National Immigration Law Center said in a statement.
