"The Voice of the New Due Process Army" ————– Musings on Events in U.S. Immigration Court, Immigration Law, Sports, Music, Politics, and Other Random Topics by Retired United States Immigration Judge (Arlington, Virginia) and former Chairman of the Board of Immigration Appeals Paul Wickham Schmidt and Dr. Alicia Triche, expert brief writer, practical scholar, emeritus Editor-in-Chief of The Green Card (FBA), and 2022 Federal Bar Association Immigration Section Lawyer of the Year. She is a/k/a “Delta Ondine,” a blues-based alt-rock singer-songwriter, who performs regularly in Memphis, where she hosts her own Blues Brunch series, and will soon be recording her first full, professional album. Stay tuned! 🎶 To see our complete professional bios, just click on the link below.
Michigan Stadium, America’s largest, holds 107,601. Garland has added almost that to his EOIR backlog in the first two months of FY 2022. It would take 15 Michigan Stadiums to hold all the folks waiting for hearings in Garland’s dysfunctional and backlogged Immigration Courts. And, that doesn’t include their families, communities, employers, co-workers and others affected by their fates! Michigan Stadium Photo by Andrew Horne, Creative Commons License
Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse
Immigration Courts Now Face Backlog of Over 1.5 Million Cases
According to data updated today by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC) at Syracuse University, the number of pending cases in Immigration Court has now reached 1,559,855 as of the end of November 2021. The high number of pending cases puts additional pressure on Immigration Judges who are tasked with deciding these cases.
The Transactional Research Access Clearinghouse (TRAC) a research organization at Syracuse University created ‘Quick Facts‘ tools to provide a user-friendly way to see the most updated data available on the Immigration Courts. The tools include easy-to-understand data in context and provide quotable descriptions. Many of TRAC’s Immigration Court data tools have also been updated and can be viewed by clicking here.
Additional key takeaways from today’s data release include the following:
Immigration Courts recorded receiving 143,803 new cases so far in FY 2022 as of November 2021. This compares with 43,156 cases that the court completed during this two-month period.
According to court records, only 0.51% of FY 2022 new cases sought deportation orders based on any alleged criminal activity of the immigrant, apart from possible illegal entry.
At the end of November 2021, 1,559,855 active cases were pending before the Immigration Court.
Harris County, TX, has the most residents with pending Immigration Court deportation cases (as of the end of November 2021).
So far this fiscal year (through November 2021), immigration judges have issued removal and voluntary departure orders in 24.0% of completed cases, totaling 10,357 deportation orders.
So far in FY 2022 (through November 2021), immigrants from Guatemala top list of nationalities with largest number ordered deported.
Only 20.7% of immigrants, including unaccompanied children, had an attorney to assist them in Immigration Court cases when a removal order was issued.
Immigration judges have held 4,193 bond hearings so far in FY 2022 (through November 2021). Of these 1,613 were granted bond.
TRAC is self-supporting and depends on foundation grants, individual contributions and subscription fees for the funding needed to obtain, analyze and publish the data we collect on the activities of the US Federal government. To help support TRAC’s ongoing efforts, go to:
David Burnham and Susan B. Long, co-directors
Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse
Syracuse University
601 E. Genesee Street
Syracuse, NY 13202-3117
315-443-3563
trac@syr.edu
https://trac.syr.edu
The Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse is a nonpartisan joint research center of the Whitman School of Management (https://whitman.syr.edu) and the Newhouse School of Public Communications (https://newhouse.syr.edu) at Syracuse University. If you know someone who would like to sign up to receive occasional email announcements and press releases, they may go to https://trac.syr.edu and click on the E-mail Alerts link at the bottom of the page. If you do not wish to receive future email announcements and wish to be removed from our list, please send an email to trac@syr.edu with REMOVE as the subject.
****************
Wow! Garland “jacked up” the backlog by over 100,000 cases in the first two months of of FY 2022! Most impressive! That’s on a torrid pace to exceed 600,000 additional “warehoused” cases annually! At that rate, the Immigration Courts will hit the 2 million mark by the end of August 2022!
That puts the previous “Backlog Kings” Gonzo Apocalypto Sessions and Billy the Bigot Barr to shame!
And, it’s being achieved with more than twice the number of Immigration Judges on board than at the end of the Obama Administration in 2017! After the indolent judicial recruitment and hiring of the Obama era (an incredible average of more than two years to fill a judicial vacancy), the Trump AGs were able to “pack” the Immigration Courts with many judges whose primary qualification appeared to be willingness to grind out removal orders without regard to much besides the DOJ’s virulent anti-immigrant policies, the need to cut corners, and the consistent elevation of expediency over due process and judicial excellence.
One logically might have expected Garland to focus on “unpacking” this mess with an aggressive outreach outreach and new merit-based hiring and recruitment program that sought and valued experience representing individuals in Immigration Court at least as much as government prosecutorial backgrounds. But, not so much.
In particular, the BIA remains “well-packed” with Trump-era appointees, a number of whose appellate judicial credentials were questioned and criticized by immigration and human rights experts! No matter to Garland!
Even “gimmicks” like “dedicated dockets,” phantom, defective “Notices to Appear” (Master @ 9 AM Christmas AM, anyone?)designed to frustrate lawyers and produce in absentia removals, and ramming 80% of unaccompanied minors and others receiving removal orders through the system without lawyers haven’t stemmed the tides of systemic failure!
Truth is, only a distinct minority of recently completed cases resulted in removal or voluntary departure orders (24%). That, combined with the minuscule number of “new filings” that appear to meet the Administration’s highest priorities, criminal activity (0.51%) strongly suggests that the vast majority of pending cases, perhaps as many as 1 million, could be administratively closed, referred to USCIS, “fast-tracked” for relief, or otherwise taken off the docket without adverse effects to either party.
But, despite such pontification, the fact is that the Dems and Garland have completely failed to reform and improve the quality of the one major court system they entirely “own” — the U.S. Immigration Courts. That makes speculation and debate about what could be done to reform and save the credibility of the Article III Courts nothing but feckless idle chatter!
While the DOJ has often pushed the “myth” that backlogs “benefit” immigrants, the truth is quite different. Insurmountable backlogs in Immigration Court, intertwined with Aimless Docket Reshuffling, deny due process to individuals, demoralize and penalize lawyers representing migrants (often serving pro bono or low bono), and cripple our overall justice system.
That’s a national tragedy of epic proportions, unfolding and worsening under Garland and the Dems, the reverberations of which will shake the very foundations of American democracy!
The Trumpsters successfully weaponized the Immigration Courts, without regard to law, institutional integrity, or outside protests and criticism! The Dems appear too timid, disinterested, discombobulated, and lacking in imagination and initiative to fix them while they have a chance! That’s not a good sign for American democracy!
Garland doesn’t worry about the mess at his EOIR. He leaves the worrying to EOIR’s long-suffering, frustrated, and angry “customers!” PHOTO: Wikipedia Commons
Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse
Immigration Court’s Data on Minors Facing Deportation is Too Faulty to Be Trusted
After careful analysis and consideration, TRAC is forced to suspend its publication of data on juveniles facing deportation in Immigration Court due to serious, unresolved deficiencies in the EOIR’s data. TRAC’s analyses indicate that the data used by the Immigration Court for tracking and reporting on juveniles who are facing deportation appear to be seriously flawed to the point that we question whether the agency has the ability to meaningfully and reliably report on juveniles in its caseload.
We wrote to EOIR’s Acting Director Jean King on September 22, 2021 to share TRAC’s findings, request feedback from the agency, and offer to share additional details to support the agency’s efforts to identify and resolve the issues. TRAC did not receive any response to that letter. We wrote to the EOIR again on October 15, 2021, this time to Director David Neal who had subsequently been appointed as EOIR’s permanent director by Attorney General Merrick Garland. We reiterated our initial concerns, but TRAC did not receive a response to that letter either.
TRAC is now regretfully withdrawing its own Juvenile App since EOIR’s data are too flawed to be used. Because these significant data problems arose only at the time EOIR implemented a series of changes in the latter part of 2017 impacting how unaccompanied juveniles were tracked, the results compiled before these changes occurred will be retained online for use in historical research.
The Immigration Court’s failure to respond to or address TRAC’s findings of significant data quality issues regarding minors is particularly concerning given the highly sensitive nature of children facing deportation. This data quality problem on tracking juvenile cases adds to EOIR’s earlier refusal to address data quality issues regarding asylum cases that continue to disappear from the agency’s master database which it relies on to manage its workload. Furthermore, TRAC recently uncovered additional data problems leading EOIR to falsely report its asylum backlog had allegedly declined this past year when in fact the backlog had markedly grown.
Taken individually, each specific issue is significant and noteworthy in its own right. But taken together, these now multiple unresolved data quality issues are compounding upon each other. TRAC has repeatedly offered to work with the EOIR to aid the agency as it seeks an understanding of the problem and a meaningful solution—yet thus far EOIR has continued to ignore its growing data management problems.
The public should be increasingly troubled by the indifference that the Immigration Courts have shown to these issues and should push for improved transparency and accountability.
For further information about the problems in the Court’s juvenile data go to:
David Burnham and Susan B. Long, co-directors
Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse
Syracuse University
601 E. Genesee Street
Syracuse, NY 13202-3117
315-443-3563
trac@syr.edu
https://trac.syr.edu
****************
Bogus data “supporting” false claims! Institutionalized sloppiness! Serious legal mistakes! Wildly inconsistent application of basic legal principles and standards! Chronic mismanagement! Backlogs on steroids! Lack of public responsiveness! Wrong personnel in the wrong jobs!
That’s “Garland’s EOIR!” To put it charitably, it’s a godawful mess and a festering cancer on our entire legal system!
Charles Dickens would have loved writing about EOIR — the modern day reincarnation of the Court of Chancery from Jarndyce v. Jarndyce! Public Realm
EOIR is like something out of a Charles Dickens novel! But, it’s a harsh reality for the immigrants, families, and advocates subjected to this publicly financed hotbed of incompetence, indifference, and ineptness!
Obviously, running EOIR in even a minimally competent level is beyond Garland’s skill set and below his interest level! Stunningly, our Attorney General is unbothered by having legal “work product” that would embarrass any self-respecting L-1 churned out in his name by his “delegees.” Feeding false and misleading information to the public? Just “another day at the office” @ Garland’s EOIR!
Where’s the Congressional oversight? Where’s Article I?
Under the new Biden administration, asylum seekers are seeing greater success rates in securing asylum. While relief grant rates had fallen ever lower during the Trump years to just 29 percent in FY 2020, they rose to 37 percent in FY 2021 under President Biden.
However, with the ongoing partial Court shutdown during the COVID-19 pandemic, there has been a sustained drop in the number of asylum decisions. Even with the greater odds of success, the number of asylum seekers who were granted asylum during FY 2021 was only 8,349 with an additional 402 granted another type of relief in place of asylum. In sheer numbers, this was only about half the number of asylum seekers who had been granted relief during FY 2020, the final year of the Trump administration.
The improved asylum grant rates during FY 2021 began only after the new Biden administration took office at the end of January 2021. Tracking asylum grant rates month-by-month rather than year-by-year, the increase in asylum grant rates under President Biden for the last quarter of FY 2021 (July-September 2021) was even larger: asylum seekers’ success rates climbed to 49 percent. Not only was this much higher than at any period during the Trump years, the asylum success rate was up five percentage points from 44 percent during the last quarter of the Obama administration.
Historically, asylum seekers have had greater success in the Immigration Court for affirmative as compared with defensive asylum cases. At one time, the majority of asylum applications decided by Immigration Judges were affirmative cases referred by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). However, most asylum applications today are considered defensive applications and filed in response to the Department of Homeland Security initiating removal proceedings in Immigration Court.
Asylum seekers who are represented by an attorney – as most are in affirmative asylum cases – have greatly increased odds of winning asylum or other forms of relief from deportation. For all Court decisions in FY 2021, nearly nine out of ten (89%) asylum seekers in affirmative and defensive cases were represented. This was clearly a vital factor in improving overall asylum success rates since in the prior year, FY 2020, representation rates were 80 percent or nine (9) percentage points lower.
Read the full report – the first in a two-part series – to obtain many more details about trends in Immigration Court asylum decisions over the past two decades at:
The impact of gender, age, language, and nationality will be covered in the second report in this two-part series. Readers need not wait to probe these and many more details on asylum decisions using TRAC’s free web query tool — now updated through September 2021 and expanded to cover gender, age, and language details. As before users can also drill in to see how decisions vary geographically, by state, Immigration Court, and hearing location. Go to:
To examine a variety of Immigration Court data, including asylum data, the backlog, MPP, and more now updated through September 2021, use TRAC’s Immigration Court tools here:
TRAC is self-supporting and depends on foundation grants, individual contributions and subscription fees for the funding needed to obtain, analyze and publish the data we collect on the activities of the US Federal government. To help support TRAC’s ongoing efforts, go to:
The Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse is a nonpartisan joint research center of the Whitman School of Management (https://whitman.syr.edu) and the Newhouse School of Public Communications (https://newhouse.syr.edu) at Syracuse University. If you know someone who would like to sign up to receive occasional email announcements and press releases, they may go to https://trac.syr.edu and click on the E-mail Alerts link at the bottom of the page. If you do not wish to receive future email announcements and wish to be removed from our list, please send an email to trac@syr.edu with REMOVE as the subject.
**********************************
Here’s some historical perspective. When the Refugee Act of 1980 was enacted, the INS took the position that the standard of proof for asylum was the same as the “traditional” standard for the pre-existing relief of withholding of deportation. That was a “clear probability,” of persecution, which means “more likely than not.”
Because this was a high standard that had been “over-rigorously applied” to deny almost all withholding cases (refugees from communism — Other Than Chinese — were about the only folks who had any chance of being granted withholding, and that was rare) the asylum grant rate remained very low for the first six years following enactment of the Refugee Act. In 1987, that grant rate was only approximately 11%.
In 1987, the Supreme Court decided INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421 (1987). (As the Acting General Counsel/Deputy General Counsel of INS, I had helped the Solicitor General prepare and articulate the Government’s position. My future Immigration Court friend and colleague, Judge Dana Leigh Marks, then known as Dana Marks Keener, argued for Ms. Cardoza-Fonseca. I sat at counsel’s table with the “SG’s Team” during the oral argument before the Court. Shortly thereafter, I left INS to go into private practice at Jones Day.)
To the surprise of many of us, the Supremes soundly rejected the INS position and ruled in favor of Ms. Cardoza-Fonseca. The Court said that a “well-founded fear” of persecution was intended to be a much more generous standard, significantly less than a probability and including a “10% chance” of persecution.
Thereafter, the BIA issued a precedent implementing the “well founded fear” standard as “significantly less than a probability” — an “objectively reasonable” fear of persecution — in Matter of Mogharrabi,19 I&N Dec. 437 (BIA 1987). Mogharrabi also stood out as one of the very few BIA precedents up to that time actually granting, rather than denying asylum on appeal. (When I returned to Government service in 1995 as Chairman of the BIA, I was a “true believer” in making the as yet “unfulfilled promise of Cardoza and Mogharrabi” a reality! That’s still at the top of my “Due Process Forever Wish List!”)
In the immediate aftermath, while “parroting” the Cardoza and Mogharrabi generous standards, most Immigration Judges and BIA panels appeared to actually continue to apply the more restrictive “probability” or “more likely than not” standard. But, over time, the Circuit Courts of Appeals and sometimes even Board Members (most often in dissent) began “calling out” EOIR Judges for what appeared to be an intentional misapplication of the asylum standard.
A regulation change to provide a “rebuttable presumption of future persecution” arising out of past persecution also helped. That is, once the Article III Courts forced EOIR judges to actually apply, rather than ignore or disingenuously “work around,” the regulatory presumption. See generally, Matter of Chen, 20 I&N Dec. 16 (BIA 1989) (particularly the concurring opinion by Judge Michael J. Heilman) for the “Bush I Era” historical impetus for the past persecution regulations. Ironically, the BIA sometimes had trouble “following up” on the generous teachings of their own Chen precedent.
Additionally, Judge Marks and other trained asylum experts from outside the Government who joined the Immigration Court prior to 2001 began actually applying the correct standard to grant asylum. (By stark contrast, Sessions and Barr “stacked and packed” the BIA with some of the most virulent anti-asylum judges in America while appointing far too many individuals with no immigration or asylum expertise whatsoever to be Immigration Judges at the trial level. The idea was to “build the deportation railroad” 🚂 with the BIA and Immigration Court as “mere whistle stops,” at best.)
Consequently, over time, between 1987 and 2013, there was a slow but steady increase in asylum grant rates as Courts and some Immigration Judges and BIA Members pushed EOIR to finally “live up” to the more generous Cardoza/Mogharrabi standard. A number of those who helped this push for justice for asylum seekers are now members of our “Round Table of Former Immigration Judges!”🛡⚔️
Knightess of the Round Table
The world certainly was a dangerous place for refugees in the years leading up to FY 2012, when asylum grants actually reached their “high water mark” of well over 50%. But, it has gotten even more dangerous over the past decade.
That, until recently, asylum grant rates had steadily declined since FY 2012 while conditions for refugees continued to worsen shows that the EOIR system is largely about politically driven enforcementmanipulation rather than a test of reality or a fair, efficient, competent, and legally sound approach to asylum law.
The modest but welcome rise in asylum approval rates under Biden happened notwithstanding a BIA that continues to churn out unduly and intentionally restrictive precedents and to botch basic asylum decisions on a regular basis! It also occurred under an Attorney General who has largely “looked the other way” and exhibited indifference as the BIA (composed mostly of “holdover” Trump-era appointees or “survivors” of the Trump regime) continues to abuse asylum seekers.
Lawyers and applicants who have kept fighting for their rights in a system designed to railroad and demoralize them deserve much credit for the improved results and for constantly battling to expose the “Garland BIA’s” gross deficiencies to the Article III Circuit Courts. That’s what the “New Due Process Army” is all about!
Just think what the asylum grant rate might look like with a better BIA of independent expert judges who consistently provided positive precedents and guidance on asylum law and consistently enforced them against those Immigration Judges who have improperly and unethically created “Asylum Free Zones” in some jurisdictions!
Think of how many lives could be saved with better judges at the trial, and particularly the appellate, levels of EOIR! Backlogs and unnecessary litigation would also begin to decrease — without bogus and wasteful “enforcement gimmicks” like Garland’s “Dedicated Dockets” designed and implemented from above by disconnected, sometimes clueless, bureaucrats as a toxic example of backlog-building “Aimless Docket Reshuffling!”
Not rocket science! 🚀 Too bad nobody at Garland’s DOJ appears to care much about human lives and taxpayer dollars going down the drain on an unfair, backlogged, and stunningly dysfunctional asylum system at EOIR and on the Southern Border. ☹️
Reuters: The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in a 2-1 ruling said the preliminary injunction issued last year improperly placed ICE’s entire network of detention facilities under the direction of a single federal judge, an error because the plaintiffs failed to show systemic nationwide shortfalls in detainee health protections.
NPR: The Border Patrol recorded nearly 1.7 million migrant apprehensions at the Southern border over the past year — the highest number ever, eclipsing the record set more than two decades ago. But that doesn’t mean it’s the biggest number of individual migrants who’ve illegally crossed from Mexico into the U.S. in a single year. In fact, it’s probably not even close. See also Tired of waiting for asylum in southern Mexico, thousands of migrants march north.
BuzzFeed: The report offers a rare window into the behind-the-scenes dysfunction and confusion surrounding the so-called Remain in Mexico program, which is set to come back.
NYT: More than 160 reports, obtained by Human Rights Watch, reveal details of mistreatment that asylum seekers described experiencing from border officials and while in U.S. custody.
WaPo: A U.S. Customs and Border Protection discipline board found that 60 agents “committed misconduct” by sharing violent and obscene posts in secret Facebook groups but fired only two — far fewer than an internal discipline board had recommended, according to a House Oversight and Reform Committee report released Monday.
Intercept: An internal review of Efraín Romero de la Rosa’s death in ICE custody found almost two dozen policy violations during his stint in detention.
Law360: President Joe Biden hasn’t shied away from using controversial technologies for immigration enforcement, raising concerns that his predecessor’s pet project to build a border wall is being replaced with a “virtual wall” rife with privacy and civil liberties problems.
Newsweek: SLS was previously assigned to build the border wall under the Donald Trump administration, but now it is expected to work with the health department to also offer migrants prescription services and transportation for “safe onward travel.”
Law360: The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday vacated a Third Circuit ruling in a deportation case that barred a Yemeni man from acquiring citizenship through his naturalized but divorced parents, after the Biden administration said the lower court overlooked precedent.
Law360: Advocates of drastically reduced immigration urged the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday to overturn decisions in the Third and Ninth circuits that said migrants who have been detained more than six months should get a bond review hearing.
Law360: A coalition of conservationists and ranchers has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review a Ninth Circuit ruling that the federal government need not subject immigration policies to environmental review, saying it created an “impossible” standard for challenging immigration programs.
Law360: The First Circuit revived a Honduran man’s bid for protection from a deportation order, ruling that immigration authorities saw discrepancies in his testimony that he faced persecution as an HIV-positive gay man where there were none.
AILA: The court held that the petitioners’ convictions under Connecticut General Statute §21a-277(a) were controlled substance offenses and aggravated felony drug trafficking crimes, and that the jurisdictional holding of Banegas Gomez v. Barr remained good law. (Chery v. Garland, 10/15/21)
AILA: Granting the petition for review and remanding, the court held that while the BIA was correct in finding that the petitioner had not suffered political persecution in China, its reasons for rejecting religious persecution were flawed. (Liang v. Att’y Gen., 10/12/21)
AILA: The court abrogated Matter of S-O-G- & F-D-B-, holding that 8 CFR §§1003.10(b) and 1003.1(d)(1)(ii) unambiguously grant IJs and the BIA the general power to terminate removal proceedings. (Chavez Gonzalez v. Garland, 10/20/21)
Law360: The Fifth Circuit on Wednesday asked the federal government to respond to Texas and Louisiana’s petition for the full appellate court to review a panel’s decision allowing the Biden administration’s policy curbing immigration enforcement operations to remain in place.
Law360: The Fifth Circuit refused to freeze the Biden administration’s appeal of a lower court order stopping the federal government from approving new applications under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program while it inks a replacement rule.
LexisNexis: Fraihat v. ICE Maj. – “COVID-19 presents inherent challenges in institutional settings, and it has without question imposed greater risks on persons in custody. But plaintiffs had to demonstrate considerably more than that to warrant the extraordinary, system-wide relief that they sought.
AILA: The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ordered the defendants to commence processing the 9,905 DV-2020 visas as soon as is feasible, and to conclude such processing no later than the end of FY2022, or September 30, 2022. (Gomez, et al. v. Biden, et al., 10/13/21)
Law360: The federal government urged the D.C. Circuit to erase a lower court’s injunction blocking its use of a public health law to expel migrant families, arguing that the lower court interpreted its powers under the authority too narrowly.
Law360: A D.C. federal judge ordered U.S. Customs and Border Protection on Monday to release previously withheld documents related to the government’s 2017 attempt to unmask a Trump administration critic’s Twitter account, while scolding the agency for its “lackluster efforts” to comply with Freedom of Information Act requirements.
Law360: A Michigan federal judge rejected two brothers’ claims that their due process and religious freedom rights were violated when they were denied travel authorization to Mexico for their grandfather’s funeral, saying that they had no recourse against the officials involved.
AILA: DOJ provided a status update to the court, which states that the BIA and NYLAG are in discussions regarding the possibility of posting certain unpublished BIA decisions online, both prospectively and retrospectively. (NYLAG v. BIA, 10/15/21)
Law360: The Pentagon denied foreign-born soldiers’ contention that it was flouting an injunction to process their citizenship requests, telling a Washington, D.C., court that it was complying and close to doubling the number of requests that are processed annually.
AILA: In balancing respondent’s desirability as a permanent resident with social and humane considerations, the IJ found that respondent was entitled to a waiver of removability for fraud or misrepresentation under INA §237(a)(1)(H). Courtesy of Christopher Helt. (Matter of Mohammed, 9/13/21)
AILA: CBP notification of the continuation of travel restrictions limiting non-essential travel from Mexico into the U.S. at land ports of entry through 1/21/22, while also announcing the intent to lift these restrictions for individuals fully vaccinated against COVID-19. (86 FR 58216, 10/21/21)
AILA: DHS notice establishing procedures for individuals covered by Deferred Enforced Departure (DED) for Hong Kong to apply for employment authorization through 2/5/23. (86 FR 58296, 10/21/21)
Suffolk County DA: Newly created Immigrant Affairs unit. The Chief of the unit is Leslie Anderson and Deputy Chief is Imran Ahmed. Their hotline is 631-852-2950 and the dedicated email address is immigrantaffairsDA@suffolkcountyny.gov.
Sadly, more than eight months in, the Biden Administration lacks:
A coherent vision for the border;
A cogent plan to restore the refugee system and the legal asylum system (the poorly conceived “proposed asylum regs” — mostly opposed by our Round Table and other asylum experts — don’t make it);
The tough, courageous, well-informed leadership to make the necessary border enforcement and Immigration Court reforms and to stand up to the entirely predictable, well-organized nativist opposition, led by Stephen “Gauleiter” Miller and his accomplices.
Not a “recipe for success,” in my view!
Another item worthy of note: The pending settlement between NYLAG and EOIR on making unpublished decisions readily accessible to the public could open new avenues for advocates.
BIA panel decisions favorable to respondents are almost never published as precedents by an organization where judicial independence and due process have long taken a back seat to “job preservation” within the DOJ. Politicos @ DOJ are normally much more interested in supporting enforcement and “false deterrence” goals than with enhancing due process, enforcing immigrants’ rights, and achieving racial justice when it comes to immigrants.
TRAC IMMIGRATION just released the first statistical profile of the “Dedicated Asylum Docket” created by AG Garland and his subordinates without any coherent public explanation or plan in mind. Here they are:
Stats wonks can check them out, and do their own analyses. As usual, given the haphazard nature and often questionable reliability of Government immigration statistics, it’s impossible to draw definitive conclusions.
But, here are a few things that jump out for me.
No criteria. How do you set up a program that deals with life or death decision-making without having transparent criteria about who gets placed on it and why? Easy, you work for Merrick Garland’s DOJ!
CBP in charge of dockets. Since there are no known criteria, and EOIR seems to have gone belly-up as usual, CBP, a law enforcement branch of DHS, gets to decide who is on this “Dedicated Docket.” CBP, of course, has a questionable record of competence and many issues including allegations of racism in its ranks swirling around it. It also has no known expertise or competence in establishing court dockets. Plus, letting a law enforcement agency with interests often adverse to asylum applicants, whose parent agency is a party to all Immigration Court proceedings, control dockets raises obvious ethical and conflict of interest issues.
Individuals, families, or cases? In its usual confusing manner, EOIR presents its stats in terms of individuals assigned to a docket. But, most (not necessarily all) “family units” are heard as a single “case.” According to TRAC, 4886 “individuals” on the Dedicated Docket (“DD”) represents 1,700 “family units.” That’s approximately “three individuals per family unit.” So, to get the approximate number of actual cases on a particular judge’s DD, we have to divide by three. Therefore, the number 600 assigned to a particular judge on the DD would actually represent 200 cases that require individual merits hearings. Got that? Confusing? Of course!
Who is Judge Francisco R. Pietro, and why? The short answer is that Judge Pietro is a 2019 appointee of GOP “Acting” AG Matt Whitaker, assigned to the NYC Docket and is too recent to have any “asylum grant/deny” statistics in the TRAC System. Remarkably, not to mention inexplicably, Judge Pietro has been assigned approximately 22% of the current Dedicated Docket (“DD”), or 1086 of the 4886 individuals covered by the report. (The rest of the DD is divided, very unequally, among31 other IJs).
Dividing by 3, per above, the 1086 individuals assigned to Judge P represent about 395 “actual cases.”
Now, EOIR currently demands that it’s “Assembly Line Worker/Judges” complete 700 widgets (aka, cases) per year. It also expects judges assigned to the DD to strive to complete cases in 300 days, that is 10 months.
So, completing 395 asylum cases in 10 months would only leave Judge P another 2 months to complete the other 305 cases necessary for him to make his “quota.” Something has to give here, particularly if Judge P, like the rest of us, wants to take vacations and Federal Holidays off, prepare his cases, and occasionally gets sick. Who knows, he might even need some updated asylum training, although practical aspects like that don’t appear to be part of the equation at today’s “numbers driven” EOIR.
And, let’s not forget that Judge P is a recent appointment. Recent appointees are likely to be less efficient and less inclined to grant asylum than experienced judges, according to some studies.
Therefore, to meet his quotas, keep his bureaucratic “handlers” at DOJ happy, and hang onto his job, Judge P might be left with two choices:
Cut corners big time (a traditional EOIR “built to fail” approach) which means denying lots of due process; or
Reassign part of his docket to other judges, which leads to “Aimless Docket Shuffling” and building backlog.
Theoretically, Judge P could also choose to hear asylum cases with the care required to provide due process and quality decisions, without worrying about targets and quotas. This would be a more plausible option if he were actually an independent judicial official rather than the employee of a political agency.
Also, don’t kid yourself about the “operational consequences” of assigning Judge P and others to a DD! Even assuming that he had zero cases on his docket before being assigned to the DD (highly unlikely), his unavailability for the “general docket” will place extra burdens on his judicial colleagues that will almost certainly promote more Aimless Docket Reshuffling and more backlog. This, of course, will be true for most of the other 31 judges assigned to the DD, to differing degrees, depending on their DD caseload (which ranges from 1 to 712 “individuals” for the “other 31”). “Rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic” like this actually prevents the crew from getting more passengers off in time to save lives.
Where are the lawyers coming from? The good news is that among the “top 10 DD Judges,” (comprising 79% of the DD), four are in NYC (2d Cir.), two in Newark (3d Cir.), one in San Diego (9th Cir.), one in SF (9th Cir.), one in LA (9th Cir.), and one in Boston (1st Cir.). There are active immigration bars, including pro bono bars, in all these locations. More over, none of these Circuits is notorious for systemically mistreating asylum seekers, and one, the 9th Cir., actually has some favorable case law, although probably less so since Trump’s far-right appointees have “rebalanced” that Circuit to the right.
Yet, it’s not clear from this statistical profile, nor has EOIR revealed, what, if any, agreements might be in place with local pro bono groups in these areas to achieve universal representation within a 300 day case-completion target, without disrupting the “regular” dockets. Nor is it shown how many of those 4886 individuals now on the DD already have lawyers. These are big unanswered questions.
Why Ecuador? Individuals from Ecuador make up over 40% of the DD, even though they comprise less than 10% of the “regular” (if there is such a thing) Immigration Court docket. Go figure!
How were these particular IJs and locations selected for the DD? No clue, which is disconcerting.
Other interesting information.
Here’s a chart that I constructed giving profiles of the “Top 10 DD Judges:”
Overall, the majority (7) are recent GOP appointees from 2018-20. Of the seven with established asylum grant rates, two have grant rates significantly above the national average (Ling, Sagerman), two have grant rates significantly below the national average (Aina, Pope), and three (Auh, Sturia, Pressman) are relatively proximate to the national grant rate for the TRAC period (33.3). None sit within Circuits known for particular harshness to asylum seekers. None, to my limited knowledge, as far as stats are available, are members of the notorious “Asylum Deniers Club.”
So, we’ll see how it all plays out. Perhaps, over time, advocates will grow to “love and cherish” these DDs. More likely, they will eventually develop the same inconsistencies, inefficiencies, and maddening quirks that have accompanied almost all prior DOJ/EOIR “artificial gimmicks” intended to “speed up the treadmill” without meaningful advance input from experts of the private bar.
But, to me, it looks like the “same old” mismanaged, misguided, failing and flailing EOIR.
Should we expect better from the Biden Administration? You betcha! Will we get it? Probably not, without lots of litigation and hell-raising!
Substantial research and policymaking have focused on the importance of lawyers in ensuring access to civil justice. But do lawyers matter more in cases decided by certain types of judges than others? Do lawyers matter more in certain political, legal, and organizational contexts than others? We explore these questions by investigating removal proceedings in the United States—a court process in which immigration judges decide whether to admit noncitizens into the United States or deport them. Drawing on over 1.9 million removal proceedings decided between 1998 and 2020, we examine whether the representation effect (the increased probability of a favorable outcome associated with legal representation) depends on judge characteristics and contextual factors. We find that the representation effect is larger among female (than male) judges and among more experienced judges. In addition, the representation effect is larger during Democratic presidential administrations, in immigration courts located in the Ninth Circuit, and in times of increasing caseload. These findings suggest that the representation effect depends on who the judge is and their decisional environment, and that increasing noncitzens’ access to counsel—even of high quality—might be insufficient under current circumstances to ensure fair and consistent outcomes in immigration courts.
Keywords: access to justice, immigration courts, removal proceedings, judicial decisionmaking
Suggested Citation:
Ryo, Emily and Peacock, Ian, Represented But Unequal: The Contingent Effect of Legal Representation in Removal Proceedings (July 13, 2021). Law & Society Review, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3885995
Sessions and Barr appointed over half of the current approximately 550 U.S. Immigration Judges;
Many of those appointed had little or no immigration experience — almost none had actual experience representing asylum seekers or any other migrants in Immigration Court;
With 27 IJ appointments since taking office, AG Garland now has appointed approximately 5% of the Immigration Judiciary;
Only one of Garland’s first 27 appointments has impressive progressive immigration credentials and experience;
The balance of Garland’s appointees to date profile much like Sessions’s and Barr’s — not surprising, because Garland used the same flawed recruiting and selection criteria that Barr had been using;
An Immigration Judge is required to complete 700 cases annually, just too retain his or her job;
Unlike most civil cases in U.S. District Courts, lives and futures are at stake in almost all Immigration Court cases, with the family, communal, economic, and societal effect of each decision often extending far beyond the individual migrant whose life and/or future is at stake.
Members of the NDPA, let AG Garland, VP Harris, and President Biden know that we need a better and more aggressively progressive system for recruiting (virtually “null” right now — “Sir Jeffrey” Chase and I, along with other members of our Round Table, do more “recruiting” among “practical scholars and progressive experts” in the private sector than the Administration!), selecting, training, and retaining Immigration Judges for these life or death determining positions that, in a better functioning and wiser Administration, would be the door to, and training ground for, a better, more diverse, more representative, more progressive Article III Judiciary!
Lack of creative and aggressive recruiting for a better and more diverse expert Immigration Judiciary is a particular sore point! We now have our first immigrant family, African-American, AAPI, female Vice President, Kamala Harris, a talented lawyer! She has an important immigration and human rights portfolio!
So why isn’t she out there aggressively encouraging diverse, well-qualified, progressive “practical scholars and immigration advocates,” many of whom might not have seen themselves as potential Immigration Judges and BIA Members to apply for these critical jobs? Why aren’t the recruiting and selection criteria for IJs and Board Members both more transparent and involving of some outside expert input!
As VP Harris knows, the key to changing the composition of the power structure is for progressives, particularly female progressives of color, to see others like them in these positions to act as role models. It’s going to take aggressive positive actions by individuals like VP Harris, AAG Gupta, and Assistant AG Clarke to “change the face” of the Immigration Judiciary and the power structure for the better!
With the recent hiring of NDPA superstar Professor Cori Alonso Yoder, VP Harris’s alma mater, Howard University Law, now has it’s most high-profile “immigration and human rights presence” ever! Why isn’t VP Harris over there aggressively encouraging Howard Law grads to seek careers in immigration and human rights, eventually aspiring to the the Federal Judiciary, including the Immigration Judiciary? That’s how real change in the power structure happens!
This is becoming a totally inexcusable “blown opportunity” for progressives! Who knows if or when it will come again?
BIA Asylum Panel In Action Albrecht Dürer, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons“Nothing to see here, fellas, just the private dynamics of a personal relationship! Tough noogies, baby! You should have been born a man. It’s your own fault! Ha! Mercy and compassion? Those aren’t in any of our precedents, are they?” Amazing StoriesArtist Unknown, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons“Expert, what expert? We’re the experts! That is, in misogyny, abuse of asylum seekers of color, and specious legal reasoning. And, Garland is letting us get away with it! Whew, for a moment I thought he might have been a ‘real’ judge, but seems he’s just like us. Think I’ll jump for joy! Four more years of unbridled abuse of the most vulnerable and helpless, and I’ll be eligible to retire! Shooting down female asylum seekers for no good reason is like shooting fish in a barrel, just like Jeffy Gonzo and Billy the Bigot taught us! Wonder how many we can kill this year? Happy hunting! But, let’s stay out of the 9th Circuit. It’s dangerous territory. I hear the 5th Circuit loves misogynists and White Nationalists!” https://www.flickr.com/photos/rasputin243/ Creative Commons License
PANEL: Susan P. Graber, M. Margaret McKeown, and Richard A. Paez, Circuit Judges.
OPINION BY: Judge Graber
CONCURRING OPINION: Judge Paez
COUNSEL: Elaine J. Goldenberg (argued), Munger Tolles & Olson LLP, Washington, D.C.; Sara A. McDermott, Munger Tolles & Olson LLP, Los Angeles, California; Richard Caldarone, Julie Carpenter, and Rachel Sheridan, Tahirih Justice Center, Falls Church, Virginia; for Petitioner.
Timothy Bo Stanton (argued), Trial Attorney; Sabatino F. Leo, Senior Litigation Counsel; Office of Immigration
ROGRIGUEZ TORNES V. GARLAND 5
Litigation, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.; for Respondent.
Blaine Bookey, Karen Musalo, Neela Chakravartula, and Anne Peterson, Center for Gender & Refugee Studies, U.C. Hastings College of Law, San Francisco, California, for Amicus Curiae Center for Gender & Refugee Studies.
Betsey Boutelle, DLA Piper LLP (US), San Diego, California; Anthony Todaro, Jeffrey DeGroot, and Lianna Bash, DLA Piper LLP (US), Seattle, Washington; for Amicus Curiae National Immigrant Women’s Advocacy Project.
SUMMARY BY COURT STAFF:
Immigration
The panel granted Maria Rodriguez Tornes’s petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision reversing an immigration judge’s grant of asylum and withholding of removal, and remanded, holding that the evidence compelled the conclusion that Rodriguez established a nexus between her mistreatment in Mexico and her feminist political opinion.
The panel noted that under the Attorney General’s recent decision in Matter of A-B-, 28 I. & N. Dec. 199 (A.G. 2021) (“Matter of A-B- II”), in order to establish the requisite nexus for asylum relief, a protected ground (1) must be a but-for cause of the wrongdoer’s act; and (2) must play more than a minor role—in other words, it cannot be incidental or tangential to another reason for the act. The panel explained that this standard was substantively indistinguishable from this circuit’s precedent. The panel wrote that the fact that an unprotected ground, such as a personal dispute, also constitutes a central reason for persecution does not bar asylum. Rather, if a retributory motive exists alongside a protected motive, an applicant need show only that a protected ground is “one central reason” for his or her persecution.
Observing that this court has held repeatedly that political opinions encompass more than electoral politics or formal
* This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader.
ROGRIGUEZ TORNES V. GARLAND 3
political ideology or action, the panel wrote that it had little doubt that feminism qualifies as a political opinion within the meaning of the relevant statutes. The panel concluded that Rodriguez’s testimony concerning equality between the sexes, her work habits, and her insistence on autonomy compelled the conclusion that she has a feminist political opinion. The panel also held that the record compelled the conclusion that Rodriguez’s political opinion was at least one central reason for her past persecution. The panel explained that some of the worst acts of violence came immediately after Rodriguez asserted her rights as a woman, and that the fact that some incidents of abuse may also have reflected a dysfunctional relationship was beside the point, as Rodriguez did not need to show that her political opinion—rather than interpersonal dynamics—played the sole or predominant role in her abuse. By demonstrating that her political opinion was “one central reason” for her persecution, the panel concluded that Rodriguez likewise established that her political opinion was “a reason” for her persecution for purposes of withholding of removal.
Because in granting relief under the Convention Against Torture the agency necessarily determined that Rodriguez carried her burden to prove the other elements of her claims for asylum and withholding of removal, the panel concluded that Rodriguez’s petition presented a recognized exception to the ordinary remand rule under I.N.S. v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12 (2002) (per curiam). The panel explained that because the agency concluded that Rodriguez met the higher burden of establishing that she is likely to be tortured, she necessarily met the lower burdens for asylum and withholding relief of establishing that she has a well-founded fear, or clear probability, of persecution. Similarly, because the Board determined that the Mexican government would acquiesce to
4 ROGRIGUEZ TORNES V. GARLAND
Rodriguez’s torture, the panel concluded that the Board had necessarily decided that the Mexican government would be unwilling or unable to protect Rodriguez from future persecution. The panel also concluded that because the Board determined that it would be unreasonable for Rodriguez to relocate within Mexico to avoid future torture, she likewise could not relocate to avoid future persecution.
The panel held that Rodriguez was thus eligible for asylum and entitled to withholding of removal, and it remanded for the Attorney General to exercise his discretion whether to grant Rodriguez asylum, and if asylum is not granted, to grant withholding of removal.
Concurring, Judge Paez wrote that in addition to ignoring evidence that Rodriguez was targeted on account of her feminist political opinion, the Board also ignored extensive record evidence from a leading authority on domestic violence that directly rejected the Board’s premise that domestic violence is presumed to be motivated by nothing more than the private dynamics of a “personal relationship.”
CONCURRING OPINION:
PAEZ, Circuit Judge, concurring:
I join Judge Graber’s fine opinion in full. I write separately on a point the court’s opinion does not address. In rejecting Ms. Rodriguez Tornes’s political opinion claim, the BIA suggests that the presence of a “personal relationship” motivation for intimate partner violence implies that there were no intersectional or additional bases for the violence Ms. Rodriguez Tornes experienced. The court’s opinion thoroughly documents the record evidence, which the BIA ignored, demonstrating how Ms. Rodriguez Tornes was targeted for violence by her domestic partners on account of her feminist political opinion. The BIA, however, also ignored extensive record evidence from expert witness Prof. Nancy Lemon, a leading authority on domestic violence, that directly rejects the BIA’s premise that domestic violence is presumed to be motivated by nothing more than the private dynamics of a “personal relationship.”
In contrast to the BIA’s “personal relationship” view of domestic violence,1 Prof. Lemon draws on more than three
1 The BIA cites Matter of A-B-, 27 I&N Dec. 316, 338–39 (A.G. 2018) as the basis for its assumption.
22 ROGRIGUEZ TORNES V. GARLAND
decades of research, writing, legal representation, and lawmaking to explain that “the socially or culturally constructed and defined identities, roles and responsibilities that are assigned to women, as distinct from those assigned to men, are the root of domestic violence.” She analyzes data from the U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics and studies from leading medical and social science publications to highlight “compelling evidence that heterosexual domestic violence is, in significant part, motivated by bias against women and the belief that men are entitled to beat and control women.” Prof. Lemon summarizes cross-cultural studies within the United States and internationally that demonstrate “a correlation between patriarchal norms that support male dominance and violence against women by intimate partners.”
In her report, which the IJ referenced in her decision, Prof. Lemon provides a lengthy examination of social science research exploring how particular behaviors exhibited by male abusers—including emotional abuse, sexual abuse, marital rape, economic abuse, blaming, guilt and using children—are each tied to social belief systems that “men are entitled to dominate and control women because the male sex is considered superior” and operate to “exploit the traditional socially constructed roles, identities, duties and status of women in intimate relationships.” In describing the legal, social, cultural, and political structures that lay the foundations for intimate partner violence, Prof. Lemon explains that “domestic violence is not typically caused by behaviors unique to the victim or by inter-personal dynamics unique to the relationship between the abuser and the abused. . . . Rather, heterosexual male batterers have certain expectations of intimate relationships with regard to which partner will control the relationship and how control will be
ROGRIGUEZ TORNES V. GARLAND 23
exercised. These expectations are premised on a dogmatic adherence to male privilege and rigid, distinct, and unequal roles for women and men.”
The record evidence of Prof. Lemon’s rigorous expert analysis undermines the BIA’s unsubstantiated premise that, unless otherwise shown, domestic violence is a purely private matter. The BIA makes no mention of the record evidence of Prof. Lemon’s expert analysis, let alone the decades of publicly available social science research and public policy that all reject the BIA’s outdated view of domestic violence as a quirk within a “personal relationship.”2 Thus, the BIA’s assertion that domestic violence is presumptively a private matter is not supported by substantial evidence.
2 See e.g., Nina Rabin, At the Border Between Public and Private: U.S. Immigration Policy for Victims of Domestic Violence, 7 Law & Ethics Hum. Rts. 109, 111–12 (2013) (“Fifty years ago, domestic violence was widely understood to be a private matter, and the extent to which it was appropriate for the state to intervene was highly contested. Now, domestic violence shelters, state laws and policies specific to the prosecution of domestic violence crimes, and significant state and federal government support for efforts to eradicate domestic violence are all commonplace. Crucial to bringing about this shift in the state’s role vis-à- vis domestic violence victims has been the acknowledgment of the structural roots of domestic violence. When conceived of as a problem tied to gender subordination and pervasive inequality rather than interpersonal conflict, the violence at issue demands a state response.”); Violence Against Women: Victims of the System, 102d Cong., 63 (1991); Elizabeth M. Schneider, The Violence of Privacy, 23 Conn. L. Rev. 973 (1991); Reva B. Siegel, “The Rule of Love”: Wife Beating As Prerogative and Privacy, 105 Yale L.J. 2117 (1996); Leslye E. Orloff & Janice v. Kaguyutan, Offering A Helping Hand: Legal Protections for Battered Immigrant Women: A History of Legislative Responses, 10 Am. U. J. Gender Soc. Pol’y & L. 95 (2001); see generally Am. Br. of the National Immigrant Women’s Advocacy Project.
*******************
Congrats to all counsel involved for the “good guys.”
Another completely disastrous performance by the BIA!
Bias, sloppiness, legal errors galore, misuse of the appeals process, dissing experts, ignoring evidence, lousy analysis, an ethically questionable remand attempt by OIL, almost every aspect of the unmitigated professional disaster at the BIA and the failed DOJ is on display in this truly terrible parody of justice. These fundamental defects are what has helped generate incredible backlogs that EOIR and DOJ are attempting to cover up and shift blame to the individuals they systematically malign.
This disgraceful muck heap 🤮 won’t be cleaned up by bogus “case processing requirements!” What this system needs is expertise, fairness, due process, quality control, common sense, and human decency — in huge doses! A complete professional makeover!
Among the many good things about the Circuit decision is that it basically limited the impact of the atrociously wrong Sessions “precedent” in Matter of A-B-, even while overlooking the obvious ethical errors in his maliciously biased dicta and the glaring overarching constitutional problem in his improper interference and participation in the quasi-judicial process. This should be Exhibit 1 in why this process needs to be removed from the DOJ, placed in an independent Article I Court, and a new, qualified Appellate Division with real judges — capable of fairly and efficiently adjudicating asylum cases — selected to replace the BIA.
One particularly cruel, senseless, and inane aspect of the BIA’s attempt to “snuff” the respondent’s asylum application: Because of the essentially uncontested CAT grant, she was going to be allowed to remain in the U.S. anyway! So, this was all about illegally depriving an abused refugee woman of color of her ability to get a green card, become eligible for citizenship, and obtain full legal and political rights in our society!
Compare the time and effort expended by the BIA in trying to deprive this woman of her human rights with the carelessness and sloppiness of their legal analysis. That’s what the racist-driven “any reason to deny” culture created by Sessions, Barr, and their toadies at EOIR does to our justice system!
Imagine how much different the “retail level” of American justice would look with real judges and professional administrators, committed to due process, fundamental fairness, and best practices, in charge! Amazingly, that’s what the “EOIR Vision” once was, before the forces of darkness, ignorance, and bias took over the system.
Think of how different the skewed asylum statistics would look if we honored, rather than mocked, our legal obligations to asylum seekers. Think of how many more individuals could fairly and efficiently be welcomed into our country at our borders and abroad in a well functioning system, staffed with professionals, that adhered to the rule of law. Think of how a better, more honest, and more professional Immigration Court could provide positive guidance on how to grant needed protection, rather than gushing forth an endless stream of bogus “how to deny” precedents based on racial and gender bias and specious reasoning.
Professor Nancy Lemon Hastings Law Photo: law.hastings.comProfessor Karen Musalo Director, Center for Gender & Refugee Studies, Hastings LawBlaine Bookey Legal Director Center for Gender & Refugee Studies @ Hastings Law Photo: CGRS website
Obviously, experts like Professor Nancy Lemon, Professor Karen Musalo, and her colleague Blaine Bookey are the types of individuals who should be Appellate Judges at the BIA. The current BIA’s glaring lack of professional competence and its unconscionable abuse of vulnerable asylum seekers, particularly the institutional ignorance and shameless misogyny with which claims by women refugees are treated, has to be one of the darkest and most inexcusable chapters in modern American legal history!
Food for for thought:
How would an unrepresented individual, particularly one in detention or stuck on a street corner in Mexico, be able to prepare, document, and present a case like this to a biased court and then appeal successfully to the Circuit?
How is this system constitutional in any way, shape, or form?
How might the massive investment of resources, time, effort, and expertise in vindicating the legal and human rights of one individual in a broken system be redeployed to promote systemic fairness and efficiency in a court system that actually complied with constitutional due process?
And, we shouldn’t forget that the Biden Administration is still illegally killing off asylum seekers at the border with no due process at all! Cowardly inflicting human misery on the most vulnerable in violation of our Constitution, our laws, and our international obligations has become our “new national pastime!”
We might be averting our eyes from the slaughter now, but history will document and remember what the world’s richest nation did to our fellow humans seeking protection in their hour of direst need! No wonder we must dehumanize “the other” to go on with our daily lives. No wonder that racial and social justice remain elusive, unfulfilled concepts, throughout our society, in today’s “What’s in it for me” atmosphere promoted by many of our politicos!
BIA Asylum Panel In Action Albrecht Dürer, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons“Oh Boy! Three material mistakes in one asylum case! Do you think our superiors in the enforcement bureaucracy will give us extra credit on our ‘move ‘em out without due process quotas?’ Being a Deportation Judge sure is fun!” https://www.flickr.com/photos/rasputin243/ Creative Commons License
Arita-Deras v. Wilkinson, 4th Cir., 03-05-21, Published
PANEL:GREGORY, Chief Judge, and AGEE and KEENAN, Circuit Judges
OPINION BY: Judge Barbara Milano Keenan
KEY QUOTE:
Maria Del Refugio Arita-Deras, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions for review of a final order of removal entered by the Board of Immigration Appeals (the Board).1 The Board affirmed an immigration judge’s (IJ) conclusion that Arita-Deras was not eligible for asylum, withholding of removal, or protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The Board: (1) agreed with the IJ that Arita-Deras failed to support her claims with sufficient corroborating evidence; (2) found that Arita-Deras failed to prove that she suffered from past persecution because she had not been harmed physically; and (3) concluded that Arita-Deras failed to establish a nexus between the alleged persecution and a protected ground.
Upon our review, we conclude that the Board improperly discounted Arita-Deras’ corroborating evidence, applied an incorrect legal standard for determining past persecution, and erred in its nexus determination. Accordingly, we grant Arita-Deras’ petition and remand her case to the Board for further proceedings.
***************************
After eight years of bouncing around the system at various levels THIS “NotQuite Good Enough For Government Work” error-fest is what we get from EOIR! As I keep saying, no wonder they are running a 1.3 million case backlog, clogging the Circuit Courts with incredibly shoddy work, and in many cases sending vulnerable refugees back to death or torture under incorrect fact findings and blatantly wrong legal interpretations!
Again, nothing profound about this claim; just basic legal and analytical errors that often flow from the “think of any reason to deny” culture. EOIR just keeps repeating the same basic mistakes again and again even after being “outed” by the Circuits!
This case illustrates why the unrealistically high asylum denial numbers generated by the biased EOIR system and parroted by DHS should never be trusted. This respondent, appearing initially without a lawyer, was actually coerced by an Immigration Judge into accepting a “final order” of removal with a totally incorrect, inane, mis-statement of the law. “Haste makes waste,” shoddy, corner cutting procedures, judges deficient in asylum legal knowledge, and a stunning lack of commitment to due process and fundamental fairness are a burden to our justice system in addition to being a threat to the lives of individual asylum seekers.
Only when she got a lawyer prior to removal was this respondent able to get her case reopened for a full asylum hearing. Even then, the IJ and the BIA both totally screwed up the analysis and entered incorrect orders. Only because this respondent was fortunate enough to be assisted by one of the premier pro bono groups in America, the CAIR Coalition, was she able to get some semblance of justice on appeal to the Circuit Court!
I’m very proud to say that a member of the “CAIR Team,” Adina Appelbaum, program Director, Immigration Impact Lab, is my former Georgetown ILP student, former Arlington Intern, and a “charter member” of the NDPA! If my memory serves me correctly, she is also a star alum of the CALS Asylum Clinic @ Georgetown Law. No wonder Adina made the Forbes “30 Under 30” list of young Americans leaders! She and others like her in the NDPA are ready to go in and start cleaning up and improving EOIR right now! Judge Garland take note!
Adina Appelbaum Director, Immigration Impact Lab CAIR Coalition PHOTO: “30 Under 30” from Forbes
Despite CAIR’s outstanding efforts, Ms. Arita-Deras still is nowhere near getting the relief to which she should be entitled under a proper application of the law by expert judges committed to due process. Instead, after eight years, she plunges back into EOIR’s 1.3 million case “never never land” where she might once again end up with Immigration Judges at both the trial and appellate level who are not qualified to be hearing asylum cases because they don’t know the law and they are “programmed to deny” to meet their “deportation quotas” in support of ICE Enforcement.
Focus on it folks! This is America; yet individuals on trial for their lives face a prosecutor and a “judge” who are on the same side! And, they are often forced to do it without a lawyer and without even understanding the complex proceedings going on around them! How is this justice? It isn’t! So why is it allowed to continue?
Also, let’s not forget that under the recently departed regime, EOIR falsely claimed that having an attorney didn’t make a difference in success rates for respondents. That’s poppycock! Actually, as the Vera Institute recently documented the success rate for represented respondents is an astounding 10X that of unrepresented individuals. In any functional system, that differential would be more than sufficient to establish a “prima facie” denial of due process any time an asylum seeker (particularly one in detention) is forced to proceed without representation.
Yet, this miscarriage of justice occurs every day in Immigration Courts throughout America! Worse yet, EOIR and DHS have purposely “rigged” the system in various ways to impede and discourage effective representation.
To date, while flagging EOIR for numerous life-threatening errors, the Article IIIs have failed to come to grips with the obvious: The current EOIR system provides neither due process nor fundamental fairness to the individuals coming before these “courts” (that aren’t “courts” at all)!
Acting AG Wilkinson has piled up an impressive string of legal defeats in immigration matters in just a short time on the job. It’s going to be up to Judge Garland to finally make it right. It’s urgent for both our nation and the individuals whose rights are being stomped upon by a broken system on a daily basis!
“Eyore In Distress” Once A Symbol of Fairness, Due Process, & Best Practices, Now Gone “Belly Up”
Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse
Immigrants Facing Deportation Wait Twice as Long in FY 2021 Compared to FY 2020
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
The latest available case-by-case Immigrant Court records show that immigration cases that were completed in the first four months of FY 2021 took nearly twice as long from beginning to end as cases completed in the first four months of FY 2020. Cases that were completed between the beginning of October 2020 and the end of January 2021 took, on average, 859 days compared to 436 days over the same period a year before. The duration was calculated as the number of days between the date the Notice to Appear was issued to the date of completion as recorded in the Immigration Court’s records.
The top ten Immigration Courts with the most case completions thus far in FY 2021 accounted for four out of every ten closures (42%). The Miami Immigration Court was the most active with 2,129 case closures. Completion times at the Miami Immigration Court have increased since November 2020, but were slightly lower than the national average at 832 average days. In November, the Miami court took on average 787 days. The Immigration Court in Los Angeles had the second highest number of case completions with 1,857 case closures, followed closely by San Francisco with 1,849. Baltimore and Dallas were in fourth and fifth place.
The longest disposition times were found in the Atlanta Immigration Court where it took on average 1,577 days to close a case. The Cleveland Immigration Court was close behind, taking an average of 1,573 days. The Arlington Immigration Court was in third place with completion times so far in FY 2021 averaging 1,535 days. Newark and Boston Immigration Courts were in fourth and fifth place. Cases completed by immigration judges in Atlanta, Cleveland, Arlington, and Newark all took, on average, longer than four years.
To examine a variety of Immigration Court data, including asylum data, the backlog, MPP, and more now updated through January 2021, use TRAC’s Immigration Court tools here:
TRAC is self-supporting and depends on foundation grants, individual contributions and subscription fees for the funding needed to obtain, analyze and publish the data we collect on the activities of the US Federal government. To help support TRAC’s ongoing efforts, go to:
The Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse is a nonpartisan joint research center of the Whitman School of Management (https://whitman.syr.edu) and the Newhouse School of Public Communications (https://newhouse.syr.edu) at Syracuse University. If you know someone who would like to sign up to receive occasional email announcements and press releases, they may go to https://trac.syr.edu and click on the E-mail Alerts link at the bottom of the page. If you do not wish to receive future email announcements and wish to be removed from our list, please send an email to trac@syr.edu with REMOVE as the subject.
It’s what happens when you combine White Nationalism, maliciously incompetent management, bad judging, and endless “enforcement-only” gimmicks that tried to cut corners and short-circuit justice — “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” (“ADR”) to the max. What has been absent from this system for years is leadership that understands immigration, views migrants as humans, and is committed to due process, fundamental fairness, and best practices.
Pretty much what AILA pointed out in today’s report (policy brief).
The system can’t improve without better personnel — not necessarily more — just better qualified to get the job done in a fair and timely manner consistent with due process and human dignity!
Trump Era Immigration Kakistocrat Photo: Bennie Thomas, Creative Commons License“Luke Skywalker” A/K/A Professor Lucas Guttentag Yale Law Photo: Duke Law via YouTube
Professor Lucas Guttentag has tracked “every known Trump-era immigration policy from January 2017 through the end of the administration.” There are over 1,000! This “easy to use” tool should be a great resource for policy makers, litigators, legislators, journalists, students, historians and teachers looking to grasp and dismantle Trump’s anti-American, anti-humanity immigration initiatives!
Needless to say, there is a whole section for the EOIR Clown Show/Kakistocracy 🤡🦹🏿♂️ containing 173 separate entries!
Professor Ingrid Eagly UCLA Law PHOTO: TwitterSteven Shafter, Esquire Managing Attorney Esperanza Immigrant Rights Project Los Angeles, CA Photo: Esperanza website
Aaron Reichlin-Melnick Policy Counsel American Immigration Council Photo: TwitterMe
PRESS RELEASE
11 Years of Government Data Reveal That Immigrants Do Show Up for Court
WASHINGTON—A new report released today by the American Immigration Council examines 11 years of government data on the rate at which immigrants appear for hearings in U.S. immigration court. The report, “Measuring In Absentia Removal in Immigration Court,” concludes that an overwhelming 83% of immigrants attend their immigration court hearings, and those who fail to appear in court often did not receive notice or faced hardship in getting to court.
As the new administration of President Joe Biden considers how to reform the immigration system, including the immigration courts, this report reveals how reliance on detention, access to legal representation, and immigration judges’ docket management impact immigrants’ appearance rate.
The report draws on government data from 2,797,437 immigration court removal proceedings held between 2008 to 2018. It documents how individuals who were never detained and those who were released from detention proceeded through court and what obstacles they faced in pursuing their immigration cases.
The report finds that people released from immigration detention and individuals with attorneys overwhelmingly attend their hearings. Data also show that immigration judges have a vital role in maintaining due process. The findings further demonstrate that the creation of an independent structure for the immigration courts would help reduce the prevalence of unwarranted in absentia removal orders and give immigration judges more discretion in managing their dockets and individual case decisions.
The main findings of the report include:
83% of nondetained immigrants with completed or pending removal cases attended all of their hearings.
96% of nondetained immigrants represented by a lawyer attended all of their hearings.
15% of those who were ordered deported because they did not appear in court successfully reopened their cases and had their removal orders rescinded. In some years, as many as 20% of all orders of removal for missing court were later overturned.
Individuals who apply for relief from removal have especially high rates of appearance.
Appearance rates vary strongly based on the immigration court’s location.
The Executive Office for Immigration Review’s method for measuring the rate at which immigrants fail to appear in court presents a limited picture of the frequency of missed court appearances.
“The empirical research presented in this report debunks the myth that immigrants don’t show up for court,” said Ingrid Eagly, professor of Law at UCLA School of Law. “Relying on the government’s own immigration court data, co-author Steven Shafer and I find that, since 2008, 83% of all immigrants in nondetained deportation cases have attended all of their court hearings. In addition, over the 11 years of our study, 96% individuals represented by an attorney attended all of their court hearings.”
“Today’s report verifies what those who have worked in the immigration court system already knew: immigrants overwhelmingly show up in court. We hope that this data finally puts to rest a false narrative about immigrants’ appearance rates that past administrations used to justify restrictive and cruel immigration policies,” said Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, policy counsel at the American Immigration Council. “After previous administrations spent years funding immigration enforcement to address a small set of individuals who miss court, the Biden administration has the opportunity change course. To ensure even higher appearance rates, the new administration should focus on updating immigration court technology, providing better resources to orient immigrants, and working to ensure that all immigrants navigating our removal system are represented by counsel. As Congress debates immigration reform, this report shows that it’s time to revisit harsh and punitive laws that require judges to enter deportation orders for a single missed hearing and which limit the ability of the government to appoint counsel.”
“The findings of this timely report confirm what many of us formerly on the immigration bench have known for years: represented asylum seekers appearing before fair, knowledgeable judges show up for virtually all of their immigration court hearings,” said Paul Wickham Schmidt, former immigration judge and board member for the Board of Immigration Appeals. “The findings refute one of the many ‘big lies’ and ‘bogus narratives’ promoted by the last administration to demean and dehumanize asylum seekers and wrongfully deprive them of their legal and constitutional rights. The Biden administration should pursue changes that would provide immigration judges greater independence and discretion and support the creation of an independent structure for the immigration courts.”
Lies promoted by Government officials and turned into cruel, counterproductive, and biased policies cost lives and undermine our system of justice!
A stunning 96% of represented respondents appear for all hearings! The obvious step for the Biden Administration is to “repurpose” resources squandered by the defeated kakistocracy’s cruel, expensive, ineffective “enforcement gimmicks” like detention in the “New American Gulag,” ludicrous Immigration Judge “dashboards,” walls, bogus protocols, and illegal anti-asylum rules and instead invest in public-private partnerships to achieve universal representation. Building on existing programs, it should be possible to get all respondents represented by trained and competent counsel or accredited representatives.
Notably, Professor Michele Pistone @ Villanova already runs VIISTA, an innovative, first class asylum litigation training program for accredited representatives. Put some Federal grant money into expanding it to meet the need for representation throughout America. These are “obvious steps” ignored by a captive “court system” run by malicious incompetents implementing a White Nationalist agenda.
Professor Michele Pistone Villanova Law
Combined with a restoration of the rule of law at EOIR and rational DHS enforcement priorities, that’s the way to establish manageable Immigration Court dockets compliant with Due Process and fundamental fairness. Create a model court system that will be a source of pride, rather than a national disgrace.
Of course a legislatively-enacted, independent, professionally administered expert Article I Immigration Court is absolutely necessary. But, due process and fundamental fairness can’t wait! Lives and futures, not to mention our national values, are at stake. Judge Garland must end the dysfunction and start making urgently needed improvements @ EOIR immediately!
Removing (former) Director McHenry — who promoted the kakistocracy’s anti-immigrant myths, bogus statistics, and “worst management practices” — is a great start. But, it’s certainly not the end of the urgent changes that must be made to implement Due Process and professional court administration at EOIR. In particular, the current BIA is a due process, human rights, and asylum expertise “disaster zone!”
“[W]e conclude that the BIA abused its discretion by denying E.A.’s motion to reopen. E.A.’s mother’s recent childbirth is a serious medical event, which coupled with E.A.’s minor age, her difficulty obtaining transportation, and her difficulty navigating the immigration system without assistance, constitute “exceptional circumstances” necessitating rescission of the in absentia removal order. … The BIA’s decision was also contrary to law, and therefore an abuse of discretion. … First, the BIA improperly considered E.A.’s age separately, rather than considering age alongside other factors, when determining that she had not shown that exceptional circumstances justified her failure to appear. Second, the BIA erred when it dismissed without adequate explanation E.A.’s evidence that she is eligible for SIJS. Finally, the BIA improperly stated that E.A. was required to present prima facie evidence that she was eligible for immigration relief as part of her motion to reopen. … For the foregoing reasons, we GRANT the petition for review, VACATE the removal order, and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
[Hats way off to Rachel Naggar! Here is a link to the audio of the oral argument.]
“Salim Al Amiri, an Iraqi citizen, seeks relief from removal on the grounds of asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the United Nations Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). He premises his requests for such relief on the harm that he fears that he would be subjected to in Iraq at the hands of members of Iraq’s military or civilian insurgents operating in that country. Al Amiri contends that he has reason to fear he would be subjected to that harm on account of his work as a paid contractor for the United States Army during the war in Iraq, as in that role he educated U.S. soldiers about Iraqi customs and practices as they prepared for their deployment. We vacate and remand the ruling of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying his claims for asylum and withholding of removal, but we deny his petition insofar as it challenges the BIA’s ruling rejecting his CAT claim.”
Think how much better this system would function with expertjudges who treated asylum applicants fairly from the “git go,” granted protection wherever possible in accordance with the the Refugee Act of 1980 and the (more “woke”) Supremes’ precedent in Cardoza-Fonseca, provided clear, positive guidance on how valid claims could be documented and granted, and promoted and consistently applied best practices to achieve efficiency with maximum due process.
At first glance, although the issue is reopening rather than a continuance, E.A.C.A. undercuts McHenry’s nativist, insanely wasteful, and totally dishonest attempt to “raise the bar” for routine continuances for asylum applicants who need time to properly document and prepare their cases.
The “Deny – Deny Program” — deny due process, deny relief — that infects EOIR’s “Star Chambers” (impersonating “courts”) is a huge backlog builder that kills people and screws up Court of Appeals dockets in the process.
Reopening cases that should be reopened, getting to the merits, and getting the many properly grantable asylum cases represented, documented, and prioritized would be a huge step in reducing EOIR’s largely self-created and unnecessary “bogus backlog.”
Ultimately, many of the clearly grantable asylum cases being mishandled and wrongly denied at EOIR, at great waste of time and resources, not to mention unnecessary human trauma, could, with real expert judges at EOIR setting and consistently enforcing the precedents, be granted more efficiently and expeditiously at the Asylum Office and ultimately shifted to a more robust and properly run Refugee Program.
In the longer run, once EOIR is redesigned and rebuilt as a proper court with real, independent, expert judges, it might be appropriate to place the Asylum Offices under judicial supervision, given the grotesque abuses and corrupt, perhaps criminal, mismanagement of the Asylum Offices by USCIS toadies carrying out the regime’s racist, White Nationalist, unconstitutional agenda of hate and waste.
NOTE TO JUDGE GARLAND👨🏻⚖️:Please fix the EOIR mess, Your Honor, before it brings you and the entire US justice system crashing down with it! This is a national emergency, and a damaging national disgrace, NOT a “back burner” issue!
Here’s some additional E.A.C.A. analysis by my good friend and NDPA “warrior queen” 👸🏽Michelle Mendez @ CLINIC!
Michelle Mendez Defending Vulnerable Populations Director Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc. (“CLINIC”)
Subject: CLINIC MTR In Absentia Win at the CA6 on behalf of SIJS-Seeking UC (E. A. C. A. v. Jeffrey Rosen)
Greetings,
Sharing this win, E. A. C. A. v. Jeffrey Rosen, out of the CA6 by my amazing colleague Rachel Naggar who manages our BIA Pro Bono Project. This was an appeal of an IJ (Memphis) denial of an in absentia motion to reopen for a 13-year old unaccompanied child.
Interestingly, after oral argument, OIL filed a motion to remand the case (which Rachel opposed) and the CA6 denied that motion. Seems the CA6 really wanted to issue a decision on the merits and we are grateful for the decision. Here are some highlights from the decision:
SIJS
· “Notably, the IJ’s decision does not mention E.A.’s claims that she was eligible for SIJS.”
· FN 1: “As of the December 2020 Visa Bulletin, visas are available for special immigrants (category EB4) from El Salvador to adjust their status if their priority date is prior to February 2018. If DHS removes E.A. prior to approving her visa, she will be unable to apply for adjustment of status. See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(27)(J).”
Totality of the Circumstances
· “Based on the totality of the circumstances, including E.A. mother’s recent childbirth, E.A.’s young age, E.A.’s mother’s failed attempts to obtain counsel to help change the address of E.A.’s hearing, and E.A.’s inability to travel from New York to Memphis for the hearing, we hold that E.A. established exceptional circumstances.”
· “Under the totality of the circumstances, E.A.’s young age is an important factor in determining whether exceptional circumstances exist.”
Exceptional Circumstances
· “E.A.’s mother’s recent childbirth is a serious medical condition that supports reopening. The statute defining ‘exceptional circumstances’ that justify reopening an immigration proceeding lists the ‘serious illness of the alien, or serious illness or death of the spouse, child, or parent of the alien’ as an example. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(e)(1). Childbirth is a serious medical event that necessitates a recovery period.”
· “Instead of recognizing that childbirth is a serious medical condition, the BIA minimized the seriousness of childbirth and its impact on E.A.’s mother’s ability to bring E.A. to Memphis. […] Recovery from childbirth is exactly the type of circumstance that § 1229a(e)(1) was intended to cover.”
Prima Facie Eligibility
· “Finally, the BIA erred by stating that E.A. was required to prove prima facie eligibility for immigration relief. The BIA’s decision improperly states that E.A. is required to show at this stage prima facie eligibility for relief. The statute governing motions to reopen removal orders entered in absentia provides that the petitioner must ‘demonstrate[] that the failure to appear was because of exceptional circumstances.’ 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(C). In general, we have stated that ‘[a] prima facie showing of eligibility for relief is required in motions to reopen.’ Alizoti, 477 F.3d at 451–52. In the case of a motion to rescind a removal order entered in absentia, however, the BIA has held that ‘an alien is not required to show prejudice in order to rescind an order of deportation” or removal. In re Grijalva-Barrera, 21 I. & N. Dec. 472, 473 n.2 (BIA 1996); see also In re Rivera-Claros, 21 I. & N. Dec. 599, 603 n.1 (BIA 1996). This is consistent with the statute governing motions to rescind removal orders entered in absentia, 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(C), which does not list a showing of prima facie eligibility for relief from removal as a requirement to rescind in absentia removal orders. Rivera-Claros, 21 I. & N. Dec. at 603 n.1; see also Galvez-Vergara v. Gonzales, 484 F.3d 798, 803 n.6 (5th Cir. 2007) (declining ‘to affirm the IJ’s decision on the grounds that [the petitioner] has not shown that he was prejudiced by his counsel’s performance’ because ‘In re Grijalva-Barrera, 21 I. & N. Dec. at 473 n.2, provides that an alien need not demonstrate prejudice for his counsel’s erroneous advice to constitute an ‘exceptional circumstance’ justifying rescission of an in absentia removal order’); Lo v. Ashcroft, 341 F.3d 934, 939 n.6 (9th Cir. 2003) (‘follow[ing] the BIA’s usual practice of not requiring a showing of prejudice’ to rescind an in absentia order of removal). We now join our sister circuits and hold that E.A. is not required to make a prima facie showing of eligibility for relief in order to obtain rescission under 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5) of the in absentia order of removal.”
Thanks to our entire Defending Vulnerable Populations team for supporting Rachel on the briefing, oral argument, and negotiations with OIL.
Gratefully,
Michelle N. Mendez | she/her/ella/elle
Director, Defending Vulnerable Populations Program
Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc. (CLINIC)
**********************
In addition to the “normal” overall White Nationalist, racist agenda that EOIR “management” has carried out under the defeated regime, there was a good deal of misogyny 🤮 involved in the BIA’s gross mishandling of the “pregnancy issue,” as described by the Sixth Circuit. This misogynistic trend can be traced back directly to the unconstitutional and unethical actions of mysogynist White Nationalist AG Jeff Sessions 🤮 🦹🏿♂️🤡in the “Matter of A-B- Abomination.” ☠️⚰️🏴☠️👎🏻
Biased, anti-migrant decision-making in support of bogus enforcement gimmicks and White Nationalist anti-democracy agendas builds backlogs and kills, maims, and tortures “real” people! Migrants are people and persons, not “threats” and “bogus statistics.”
The “dehumanization” and “de-personification” of migrants, with the connivance of the tone-deaf and spineless GOP Supremes’ majority, is a serious, continuing threat to American democracy! It must stop! Justices who won’t treat migrants physically present in the U.S. or at our borders as “persons” under our Constitution — which they clearly are — do not belong on the Supremes! ⚖️🗽🇺🇸
I can also draw the lines connecting George Floyd, institutionalized racial injustice, voter suppression, riots at the Capitol, and the “Dred Scottification” of asylum seekers and other migrants by EOIR!
HINT TO JUDGE GARLAND:Michelle Mendez would be an outstanding choice to lead the “clean up and rebuild” program at EOIR and the BIA once the “Clown Show” 🤡🦹🏿♂️ is removed!🪠🧹 Put experts with practical experience like Rachel Nagger and Christopher Linas onto the bench, on the BIA, the Immigration Courts, and the Article III Judiciary to get the American Justice system functioning again!
The “judicial selection system” for the Immigration Courts and the Article III Judiciary has failed American democracy — big time — over the past four years. Fixing it must be part of your legacy!
The folks who preserved due process and our Constitution in the face of tyranny are mostly “on the outside looking in.” You need to get them “inside Government” — on the bench and in other key policy positions — and empower them to start cleaning up the ungodly mess left by four years of regime kakistocracy🤮☠️🤡⚰️👎🏻. “Same old, same old” (sadly, a tradition of Dem Administrations) won’t get the job done, now any more than it has in the past! New faces for a new start!
And, it starts with better judges @ EOIR, which is entirely under YOUR control!An EOIR that actually fulfills its noble, one-time vision of “Through teamwork and innovation being the world’s best tribunals guaranteeing fairness and due process for all” will be a model for fixing our failing Federal Courts — all the way up to the leaderless and complicit Supremes who failed, particularly in immigration, human rights, voting rights, and racial justice, to effectively and courageously stand up to the Trump-Miller White Nationalist agenda of hate and tyranny!
We are where we are today as a nation, to a large extent, because of the Supremes’ majority’s gross mishandling of the “Muslim Ban” cases which set a sorry standard for complicity and total lack of accountability for unconstitutional actions, racism, dishonesty, cowardly official bullying, and abandonment of ethics by the Executive that has brought our nation to the precipice! Life tenure was actually supposed to protect us from judges who wouldn’t protect our individual rights. In this case, it hasn’t gotten the job done! Better judges for a better America!
🇺🇸⚖️🗽👍🏼Due Process Forever! The EOIR Clown Show🤡🦹🏿♂️ ☠️⚰️Never!
“Eyore In Distress” Once A Symbol of Fairness, Due Process, & Best Practices, Now Gone “Belly Up”“Justice” Star Chamber StyleBIA Asylum Panel In Action Albrecht Dürer, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse
Immigration Court Case Completion Times Jump as Delays Lengthen
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Not surprisingly, Immigration Court closures and delays in hearings for courts that are conducting hearings have drastically reduced the number of completed cases for the first two months of this fiscal year as compared with prior years at the same time.
New cases continue to drastically outpace case completions. In October and November 2020, the Immigration Courts received 29,758 new filings. This is fewer filings than usual, but still almost twice the 15,990 cases they completed.
As a result, the court’s active backlog at the end of November 2020 reached 1,281,586. This is up 18,821 cases in just the last two months. Adding to the court’s workload are not only new filings, but previously closed cases that have been reopened, remanded for reconsideration, or otherwise placed back on the court’s docket.
Disposition times for closed cases have also shot up this year. Cases disposed of in FY 2020 took on average 460 days. During the first two months of FY 2021, the courts disposed of a much smaller number of cases, but the disposition times were much longer at an average of 755 days—or 64 percent longer. The longest disposition times were found in the Cleveland Immigration Court where it took on average 1,617 days.
For the latest disposition times at each Immigration Court read the full report at:
To examine a variety of Immigration Court data, including asylum data, the backlog, MPP, and more now updated through November 2020, use TRAC’s Immigration Court tools here:
TRAC is self-supporting and depends on foundation grants, individual contributions and subscription fees for the funding needed to obtain, analyze and publish the data we collect on the activities of the US Federal government. To help support TRAC’s ongoing efforts, go to:
The Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse is a nonpartisan joint research center of the Whitman School of Management (https://whitman.syr.edu) and the Newhouse School of Public Communications (https://newhouse.syr.edu) at Syracuse University. If you know someone who would like to sign up to receive occasional email announcements and press releases, they may go to https://trac.syr.edu and click on the E-mail Alerts link at the bottom of the page. If you do not wish to receive future email announcements and wish to be removed from our list, please send an email to trac@syr.edu with REMOVE as the subject.
*******************
As mom used to say, “Haste makes waste.” Taking more time to decide cases would be perfectly defensible if it actually produced useful deliberation, thoughtful scholarship, and just and fair results. But, this currently is a system that must limit its intake while it develops the expertise, scholarship, analytical skills, quality control mechanisms, and best practices necessary for judicial efficiency that complies with due process and fundamental fairness (not to mention basic asylum law). That’s a “complete rebuild.”
Then, once that system is running well, it could be methodically and rationally expanded, if actually necessary. But, aimlessly building more assembly lines producing defective products and then ratcheting up the speed will, not surprisingly, produce nothing except more dangerous and defective products.
Not exactly rocket science that a bunch of hacks implementing racist policies, trying to speed up the assembly line, engaging in “Aimless Docket Reshuffling,” eradicating due process, discouraging fairness and deliberation, eliminating their own jurisdiction to control the dockets, and denying everything while mindlessly throwing more resources into a broken beyond belief “(non)system” at war with its own essential employees and those whom it (dis)serves would produce total chaos and dysfunction.Also, throw in lack of best technology and overt disregard for public health and safety.
And, while this is going on, an undisciplined, out of control, and for all practical purposes worse than useless ICE continues to pour new cases into the maelstrom at twice the rate it can get turn them out! As the late NY Met’s Manager Casey Stengel once said, “Can’t anyone here play this game?”
This is an ongoing and increasingly visible unmitigated national disgrace. It’s also an abuse of public funds and a betrayal of the public trust — fundamentals of sound government.
And, it won’t be “swept under the table” in the finest tradition of incoming Administrations. As I’ve said before, the Biden-Harris Administration either fixes EOIR🤡 immediately with some new faces with real expertise, or it “owns” it. And, the current White Nationalism infested atrocity and den of “malicious incompetence” at EOIR🤡 is not something an Administration striving to achieve equal justice and racial reconciliation should want to own!
Due Process Forever!
Hey hey, ho ho, the EOIR Clown Show 🤡 has got to go!
“EOIR Clown Show Must Go” T-Shirt Custom Design Concept
“Eyore In Distress” Once A Symbol of Fairness, Due Process, & Best Practices, Now Gone “Belly Up”“EOIR Clown Show Must Go” T-Shirt Custom Design Concept
I’m going to use a baseball analogy here (with apologies to non-fans): DJ LeMahieu finished this past season as the American League batting champion. Imagine if he were to walk in to negotiate a new contract with the New York Yankees, only to be offered the minimum permissible contract because of his disappointing performance. When a shocked LeMahieu would respond “but I hit .364 last season!,” the Yankees general manager would reply “Not even close.”
The Yankees would explain that they are no longer employing the traditional method of calculating batting average, but have come up with a “better” approach. A confused LeMahieu would note that he had 71 hits in 195 at bats. The Yankees would respond that he appeared at the plate 216 times, if one includes “other” outcomes, such as walks, hit-by-pitch, and sacrifices. LeMahieu would point out that those have not counted in calculating batting average before; the Yankees would respond “Well, now they do.” The Yankees would next point out that LeMahieu had not played in 12 of the team’s games last season, due to injury. The team therefore estimated another 48 plate appearances that the player could have had, and calculated those into his batting average as “non-hits.” Lastly, the team would note that the season was shortened by 102 games due to the pandemic, covering another 408 plate appearances. By the time they were done, the Yankees would conclude that LeMahieu had actually batted .107, certainly not Major League quality hitting.1 The Yankees would add that few if any teams would even be negotiating with a .107 hitter, much less offering them a contract.
The above purely fictitious, imaginary scenario is offered to illustrate EOIR’s very real current approach to its published asylum statistics. The Trump Administration has from day one taken the position that all asylum claims are false in order to justify its inhumane treatment of genuine refugees. However, such a claim is undermined when the Justice Department’s own judges are granting asylum in those very cases. It was therefore up to EOIR to offer the type of “alternative facts” that are a trademark of this administration.
EOIR has for many years published an annual Statistical Yearbook, which has included asylum grant rates nationally for all immigration courts. But recently, EOIR put out a chart entitled “Executive Office for Immigration Review Adjudication Statistics,” and subtitled “Asylum Decision Rates.” The top half of the chart contains a graph that is only slightly less difficult to follow than Rudy Giuliani’s latest election conspiracy theories. Below that is a chart containing asylum grant rates for the years 2008 through 2020.
Interestingly, the grant rates listed on this latest chart (using what I’ll call EOIR’s new “Larger Inclusion Asylum & Refugee Statistics,” or “LIARS” for short) are strikingly different than the numbers in the EOIR Yearbooks:
Year EOIR Statistical Yearbook LIARS Figures
2008 45% granted 23.68% granted
2009 48% 23.92%
2010 51% 25.34%
2011 52% 31.36%
2012 56% 30.55%
2013 53% 24.93%
2014 49% 22.84%
2015 48% 18.70%
2016 43% 15.80%
There is quite a difference between a grant rate of 48 percent or 18.7 percent for 2015. So how were the LIARS figures derived?
Well, in addition to asylum grants and asylum denials (i.e. the only two figures that should matter), the LIARS figures added two more categories to the equation. The first new category is “Other.” A footnote explains (if that’s the correct word) that “Asylum Others have a decision of abandonment, not adjudicated, other, or withdrawn.” The explanation that “other” includes “other” didn’t clear things up for me. Nevertheless, it seems that these were cases that did not involve either a grant or a denial of asylum, and thus shouldn’t be part of the calculation, much like walks, hit by pitch, and sacrifices are not considered in batting average calculations. The reason those outcomes don’t count in baseball is because they are not indicative of the batter’s ability to get a hit, since no opportunity was available. Similarly, an asylum case that did not proceed to an actual decision is not indicative of the merits of the application. For example, an asylum applicant who subsequently became eligible for a faster, easier path to legal status because they married a U.S. citizen or won the visa lottery in no way indicates that their asylum claim wasn’t meritorious.
The second new LIARS category involves cases that were administratively closed. This is the equivalent of games not played in the baseball analogy. A case administratively closed is taken off the docket and not tried; it’s a hearing not held. EOIR is now choosing to consider it as a “non-grant” in itscalculations, thus reducing the grant rate to the same degree as if the hearing was held and asylum was denied. In 2015, the two new categories that shouldn’t have been considered equaled 60.94 percent of the total cases considered by LIARS (comparable to the 102 games not played in 2020 by the Yankees, which constitutes 63 percent of a normal length season). To summarize, the real (Statistical Yearbook) grant rate of 48% in 2015 was derived based on 8,246 asylum grants out of 17,079 total asylum cases decided that year. The LIARS grant rate of 18.70considered 8,076 asylum grants (i.e. 170 less than listed in the 2015 Statistical Yearbook) out of a total of 43,189 cases consisting of grants, denials, other, and administratively closed hearings in which the asylum claim was never heard. I have no idea how LIARS reduced the number of grants in 2015 by 170 cases.
The EOIR Statistical Yearbook contains an additional chart which includes cases in which withholding of removal was granted. In 2015, fifty-five percent of asylum applicants were granted either asylum or withholding of removal. The LIARS figures make no mention of withholding of removal. If grants of that alternative relief were hidden in the “Other: other” category, they would have been counted as cases in which asylum was not granted, which would lower the grant rate in the same way as a denial.
This might all seem like mere pettiness on EOIR’s part, but the administration uses these numbers in press releases (such as its infamous “Myths vs. Facts” sheet which remains posted on EOIR’s website). It also emboldens the administration to claim it is merely “increasing efficiency” in passing new rules to quickly deny and deport asylum seekers by “efficiently” rendering all of them ineligible for relief.2 Such a statement depends on an underlying belief in the illegitimacy of the claims of those being quickly denied and deported, an illegitimacy that seeks support from the doctored numbers. Where the true numbers show a much higher rate of asylum claims granted, how could efficiency be used to justify sending actual refugees home to die?3
I wonder who came up with this new system. As I don’t know the answer, let’s call them “other.” Maybe they can spend the final weeks until January 20 devising a new chart, titled “Who should no longer be a government employee as of January 21, 2021?” To get them started, here are a few easy ones: (1) EOIR Director James McHenry: 100%. (2) Every EOIR manager who enabled him over the past four years: 100%. (3) Other: 100%.
Notes:
The infamous “Mendoza Line,” which denotes a batting average of .200, is usually considered “the offensive threshold below which a player’s presence on a Major League Baseball team cannot be justified,” according to Wikipedia.
The administration’s latest rules, scheduled to take effect on January 10, would make the manipulation of asylum grant rates unnecessary as to future claims, as virtually no one would remain eligible for such relief. One can only hope that courts will block those rules until they can be withdrawn by the Biden administration.
To be clear, no grant rate would everjustify sending even a single refugee to their death in the name of efficiency.
Copyright 2020 Jeffrey S. Chase.All rights reserved.
Reprinted with permission.
***********************
A test of the Biden-Harris Administration’s seriousness about equal justice and restoring human dignity to immigrants will be how quickly the members of the EOIR Kakistocracy, including the BIA, are removed from their positions and replaced by real judges and judicial administrators. That is, “practical scholar-experts” with demonstrated immigration/human rights expertise, applied due process experience, and the guts and integrity to stand up for the rights of individuals who have been unfairly victimized by a vile, White Nationalist, nativist agenda!
ImmigrationProf blogger Ingrid Eagly and Steven Shafer in an op/ed in the Los Angeles Times take on President Trump who “[l]ast week, during the final presidential campaign debate, President Trump renewed a claim he has often made: Migrants with pending court dates rarely show up for their hearings. In response to the charge by his Democratic challenger, former Vice President Joe Biden, that the administration’s treatment of would-be immigrants was inhumane, Trump told debate watchers that the number who`come back’ to immigration court is `less than 1%.’
The government’s data, however, tell a far different story.”
Check out the op/ed and the take down of President.
A new fact sheet by Nina Siulc and Noelle Smart of the Vera Institute of Justice summarizes new evidence showing that most immigrants appear for their immigration court hearings. The report includes data from Vera’s Safety and Fairness for Everyone (SAFE) Initiative that provides free representation through a universal access model of representation. Vera researchers found that 98 percent of SAFE clients released from custody have continued to appear for their court hearings. Read the full report for additional information on related research, including Vera’s ongoing evaluation of the New York Immigrant Family Unity Project (NYIFUP).
I[ngrid] E[agly]
***********************
Thanks, Ingrid and Steven! Our “Round Table” has used your scholarship in amicus briefs to educate Federal Courts at all levels about the realities of Immigration Court.
It’s particularly critical in an era where the politicized and “ethically challenged” DOJ often puts forth largely fictionalization versions of their self-manufactured “immigration emergency” that is actually little more than the outcome of studied ignorance, White Nationalism, “gonzo” enforcement, and maliciously incompetent administration of the Federal immigration bureaucracy.
Attribution: Stephen Miller Monster by Peter Kuper, PoliticalCartoons.com
If we kick out the kakistocracy next week, we could put qualified “practical scholars” like Ingrid and others like her in charge and remake both DHS and the Immigration Courts to actually operate as required by Due Process while also fulfilling legitimate law-enforcement objectives. To state the obvious, neither of these objectives is being realized at present. It’s bad for America and for humanity.
For far too long, the wrong individuals, lacking the necessary expertise in immigration and human rights, and also lacking a firm commitment to equal justice under law, have been “in charge” of the Government’s immigration policy and legal apparatus and appointed to the Federal Courts, at all levels. That’s particularly true at the Supremes where only Justices Sotomayor and (some days) Kagan appear “up to the job.”
We will never end institutionalized racism, achieve equal justice for all, and realize the true human and economic potential of America until we bring our broken immigration and refugee systems and our failing Federal Judicial System into line with our Constitutional and national values. That process must start, but certainly will not end, with this election!
