Statistics – Page 6 – immigrationcourtside.com

TRAC IMMIGRATION: Crisis In Immigration Court Representation? — 60% In Immigration Court Live In Rural Counties Where Immigration Lawyers Are Scarce!

Read the complete report here:

https://trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/602/

Here’s an excerpt:

The Hidden Impact of Removal Proceedings on Rural Communities

Although the Immigration Courts with the largest backlogs of cases are located in large cities, the latest Immigration Court records show that when adjusted for population, many rural counties have higher rates of residents in removal proceedings than urban counties. In fact, of the top 100 US counties with the highest rates of residents in removal proceedings, nearly six in ten (59%) are rural. In these communities, residents facing deportation may find themselves in rural “legal deserts[1]” where there are few qualified immigration attorneys, longer travel times to court, and high rates of poverty.

The Immigration Court data used in this report was obtained and analyzed by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC) at Syracuse University in response to its Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests to the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR).

Mapping Pending Immigration Court Cases

TRAC recently mapped the Immigration Court’s current active backlog—over 1.1 million cases—to show the number of residents in each county who are awaiting their day in court. In this follow-on report, TRAC used the same data set to map the proportion of residents (“rate”) with pending immigration cases as a fraction of total residents[2].

When the total number of backlog cases is mapped, urban areas such as Los Angeles, New York City, and Chicago emerge as areas with large numbers of pending cases. This makes sense, because the total number of immigration cases is driven by the geographic concentration of large numbers of people in urban areas. However, when the number of pending immigration cases is mapped relative to county population, a different picture emerges. Many large urban counties are revealed to be more average, while many rural counties are shown to have much higher concentrations of removal cases.

In these rural counties, residents may have a heightened sense that immigration enforcement is impacting their community. This, in fact, would be an entirely rational perception since the odds are indeed greater.

Figure 1 below includes a map of the proportion of residents in each county currently in the backlog (top) and the total number of cases in each county in the backlog (bottom, reprinted from our previous report). The county-level rate is represented as the number per 100,000 residents who are currently in removal proceedings.

Particularly striking is how many counties in Southern California and the New York City-Boston corridor, which are prominent in the map of the number of cases, look more typical once population is taken into account. Also striking is how counties in the Great Plains regions from Southwest Minnesota to western Oklahoma pop off the map as places where higher percentages of the community are facing deportation proceedings today.

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

There is little doubt that DHS Enforcement and their “partners at EOIR” have made an effort to hinder individuals’ Constitutional and statutory right to representation by counsel of their choice. From “Aimless Docket Reshuffling,” to locating so-called “detained courts” in obscure places, to arbitrary denial of continuances, to restricting bonds, to failures to provide notices and giving intentionally “bogus” notices, to rude and unprofessional treatment of attorneys, to trying to get rid of “know your rights” presentations, to skewing the law to change results to favor DHS.

All this leads to a largely “due process free” Deportation Railroad.

Due Process Forever!

PWS

04-10-20

NATION WITHOUT LAWS: With The Supremes’ “J.R. Five” Firmly In His Pocket, Trump Suspends The Constitution, The Rule Of Law, & International Treaties To “Orbit” Asylum Seekers To Who Knows Where! — Contempt For Humanity On Full Display During Time of Plague!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/trump-administration-has-expelled-10000-migrants-at-the-border-during-coronavirus-outbreak/2020/04/09/b177c534-7a7b-11ea-8cec-530b4044a458_story.html

Nick Miroff reports for the WashPost:

The Trump administration has carried out nearly 10,000 summary deportations or “expulsions” since March 21, using emergency public health measures that have given U.S. Customs and Border Protection broad authority to bypass immigration laws, CBP officials said Thursday.

The measures have allowed the agency to quickly turn away most unauthorized migrants — sending them back across the Mexican border. The moves have dramatically slashed the number of detainees held in border stations, where they fear the coronavirus could spread, the officials said. CBP currently has fewer than 100 detainees in custody, down from nearly 20,000 at this time last year during last year’s border crisis, officials said.

[[Under coronavirus immigration measures, U.S. is expelling border-crossers to Mexico in an average of 96 minutes]]

Since the implementation of the rapid expulsions, unlawful border crossings have dropped 56 percent, said acting CBP commissioner Mark Morgan. Morgan also acknowledged that the United States has all but closed its borders to asylum seekers who are fleeing persecution, including those who attempt to enter legally at U.S. ports of entry.

“Those who are undocumented or don’t have documents or authorization are turned away,” Morgan said.

Democratic lawmakers have accused the administration of defying U.S. laws and exceeding the authority of the coronavirus public health order, but Morgan defended the emergency measures as a necessary step to stop the spread of the disease.

“This is not about immigration,” Morgan said. “This is about public health. This is about putting forth aggressive mitigation and containment strategies.”

[[Sign up for our Coronavirus Updates newsletter to track the outbreak. All stories linked in the newsletter are free to access.]]

CBP said the number of migrants detained at the border fell to 33,937 in March, down 7 percent from February. Single adults from Mexico accounted for 70 percent to 75 percent of those taken into custody, and most of the remainder were from Central America’s Northern Triangle countries: Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras.

The Mexican government has agreed to accept the rapid return of migrants from those nations at the border under an agreement reached with the Trump administration last month.

The recent expulsions include children who would otherwise be protected from rapid removal by U.S. anti-trafficking laws. Since the emergency order took effect, the United States has expelled nearly 400 underage migrants, according to the most recent tally by the Reuters news agency. The minors were released into Mexico or boarded onto planes and flown back to Central America without being transferred to the care of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

. . . .

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

Read the rest of Nick’s article at the link.

It’s going to take more than a letter from Sen. Pat Leahy (D-VT) and other Dems to restore the Constitution and the rule of law. Indeed, with the help of J.R. and his Trumpist GOP majority on the Supremes, I would expect that asylum laws, like voting rights, Due Process, and other individual rights will remain a “dead letter” until we get both 1) regime change; and 2) reform in the appointment of Article III Judges.

There is little, if any, data right now to support the view that asylum seekers at the Southern Border have been a significant source for the initial spread of coronavirus in the U.S.; however, their arbitrary removal to other countries might have helped the worldwide spread of the disease.

Moreover, as COVID-19 spreads into the Gulag and the Immigration Courts from the rest of America, infections in those locations could help spread the virus, given the lawyers, Government employees, and contractors exposed at those dangerous locations. Nor were Asian Americans responsible.

We do, however, have some data to show that U.S. citizens and other travelers returning from Europe were inadvertently a source of the virus’s spread in New York, and that Trump’s ineptness and failure to heed early warnings contributed to the spread.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/08/science/new-york-coronavirus-cases-europe-genomes.html?referringSource=articleShare

But, science and truth seldom have any meaning for Trump and his toadies. And, we also know that while Trump often falsely claims “victories” that are either fabricated or largely someone’s else’s, he never takes responsibility for his own many mistakes and shortcomings.

PWS

04-09-20

HON. JEFFREY S. CHASE: Matter of R-A-V-P- (Bond Denial) — Maximo Cruelty, Minimal Rationality, Idiotic Timing! — BONUS: My “Monday Mini-Essay:” “ HOW EOIR’S ‘CAPTIVE COURTS’ INTENTIONALLY DISTORT AND PERVERT JUSTICE — The Shocking Failure Of Congress & The Article IIIs To Stand Up For Justice In America!”

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

https://www.jeffreyschase.com/blog/2020/4/6/bia-lock-them-up

Blog Archive Press and Interviews Calendar Contact

BIA: “Lock Them Up!”

In the words of the Supreme Court, “Freedom from imprisonment – from government custody, detention, or other forms of physical restraint – lies at the heart of the liberty that [the Due Process] Clause protects.”1 While imprisonment usually occurs in the criminal context, courts have allowed detention under our immigration laws, which are civil and (purportedly) non-punitive, only to protect the public from danger or to ensure the noncitizen’s appearance at future hearings.2 Case law thus requires a determination that a detained noncitizen does not present a danger to the public, a risk to national security, or a flight risk in order to be eligible for bond under section 236 of the I&N Act.

The Board of Immigration Appeals has acknowledged the complexity of such determinations. In it’s 2006 decision in Matter of Guerra,3 the Board suggested nine factors that an immigration judge may consider in deciding if bond is warranted. The list included whether the respondent has a fixed U.S. address; the length of residence, employment history, and family ties in this country (and whether such ties might lead to legal status); the respondent’s criminal record, and their record of appearing in court, fleeing prosecution, violating immigration laws, and manner of entry to the U.S. But the Board made clear that an immigration judge has broad discretion in deciding what factors to consider and how much weight to afford each factor.The ultimate test is whether the decision was reasonable.

What makes such a decision reasonable? Given what the Supreme Court has called “an individual’s constitutionally-protected interest in avoiding physical restraint,”4 Guerra’s broad discretion must be interpreted as an acknowledgment of the inadequacy of relying on “one size fits all” presumptions as a basis for overriding such a fundamental constitutional right. In allowing IJs to consider what factors to consider and how to weigh them, Guerra should be read as directing those judges to delve deeply into the question of whether the noncitizen poses a danger or a flight risk. Obviously, all recently-arrived immigrants are not flight risks, and all of those charged with crimes don’t pose a threat to society.As the trier of fact, immigration judges are best able to use their proximity to the respondent, the government, and the evidence and witnesses presented to determine what factors are most indicative of the likelihood that the respondent will see their hearings through to the end and abide by the result, or in the case of criminal history, the likelihood of recidivism.

In considering the continued custody of one with no criminal record, the risk to public safety or national security are generally not factors. And in Matter of R-A-V-P-,5 a case recently decided by the BIA, the immigration judge found that the respondent, an asylum-seeker with no criminal record, presented no risk on either of those counts. However, the immigration judge denied bond on the belief that the respondent was a flight risk, and it was that determination that the BIA was asked to consider on appeal.

How does one determine whether someone detained upon arrival is likely to appear for their hearings? It is obviously more complicated than whether one presents a threat to public safety, in which the nature of the criminal record will often be determinative. In R-A-V-P-, the Board repeated the nine Matter of Guerra factors, and added a tenth: the likelihood that relief will be granted.

As stated above, Guerra made clear that these were suggestions; the immigration judge could consider, ignore, and weigh whatever factors they reasonably found relevant to the inquiry. Furthermore, many of the listed Guerra factors were not applicable to the respondent. Guerra involved a respondent found to pose a danger to others. The nine factors laid out in the decision were not specific to the question of flight risk; clearly, all the listed factors were not meant to apply in all cases. As to the specific case of R-A-V-P-, obviously, someone who was detained since arrival can have no fixed address, length of residence, or employment history in this country. The respondent’s history of appearing for hearings also reveals little where all appearances occurred in detention.And the Guerra factors relating to criminal record and history of fleeing prosecution are inapplicable to a respondent never charged with a crime.

The Board’s decision in R-A-V-P- is very short on details that would provide meaningful context. There is no mention of any evidence presented by DHS to support a flight risk finding. In fact, the absence of any listing of government counsel in the case caption indicates that DHS filed no brief at all on appeal, a point that doesn’t appear to have made a difference in the outcome.6

The few facts that are mentioned in the decision seem to indicate that the respondent sought asylum from Honduras based on his sexual orientation. Not mentioned were the facts that the respondent entered as a youth, and that although he entered the U.S. without inspection, he made no attempt to evade immigration authorities after entry. To the contrary, he immediately sought out such authorities and expressed to them his intention to apply for asylum.These facts would seem quite favorable in considering the Guerra factors of the respondent’s “history of immigration violations,” manner of entry to the U.S., and attempts to “otherwise escape from authorities.”7 And although not mentioned in Guerra, the respondent is also represented by highly competent counsel, a factor that has been demonstrated to significantly increase the likelihood of appearance, and one within the IJ’s broad discretion to consider as weighing in the respondent’s favor.

Regarding the tenth criteria introduced by the Board, i.e., the likelihood of relief being granted, the persecution of LGBTI individuals is well-documented in Honduras, and prominently mentioned in the U.S. Department of State’s country report on human rights practices for that country. The State Department reported an increase in killings of LGBTI persons in Honduras in 2019, and that 92 percent of hate crimes and acts of violence committed against the LGBTI community went unpunished. Such asylum claims are commonly granted by asylum officers, immigration judges, and the BIA.

Yet the Board took a very strange approach to this point. It chose to ignore how such claims actually fare, and instead speak in vague, general terms of how “eligibility for asylum can be difficult to establish,” even for those who were found to have a credible fear of persecution. The Board next noted only that the immigration judge found that the respondent “did not demonstrate a sufficient likelihood that he would be granted asylum,” without itself analyzing whether such conclusion was proper.

In fact, the immigration judge did deny the asylum claim; a separate appeal form that decision remains pending before the BIA. But the Board missed an important point.The question isn’t whether the respondent will be granted asylum; it’s whether his application for asylum will provide enough impetus for him to appear for his hearings relating to such relief. From my experience both as an attorney and an immigration judge, the answer in this case is yes.One with such a claim as the respondent’s who is represented by counsel such as his will almost certainly appear for all his hearings.The author of the Board’s decision, Acting BIA Chair Garry Malphrus, did sit as an immigration judge in a non-detained court for several years before joining the BIA. I’m willing to bet that he had few if any non-appearances on cases such as the respondent’s.

Yet the Board’s was dismissive of the respondent’s asylum claim, which it termed a “limited avenue of relief” not likely to warrant his appearance in court. Its conclusion is strongly at odds with actual experience. Early in my career, I represented asylum seekers who arrived in this country in what was then known as “TRWOV” (transit without visa) status, which meant that the airline they traveled on was responsible for their detention. The airline in question hired private guards to detain the group in a Queens motel.As time passed, the airline calculated that it would be cheaper to let those in their charge escape and pay the fine than to bear the ongoing detention costs. The airline therefore opened the doors and had the guards leave, only to find the asylum seekers waiting in the motel when they returned hours later.None were seeking to abscond; all sought only their day in court.And that was the determinative factor in their rejecting the invitation to flee; none had employment records, community ties, or most of the other factors held out as more important by the BIA in R-A-V-P-. They chose to remain in detention rather than jeopardize their ability to pursue their asylum claims.

My clients in the above example had a good likelihood of being granted asylum. But volunteering in an immigration law clinic three decades later, I see on a weekly basis individuals with much less hope of success nevertheless show up for all of their hearings, because, even in these dark times, they maintain faith that in America, an impartial judge will listen to their claim and provide them with a fair result. In one case, an unrepresented asylum applicant recently released from detention flew across the country for a preliminary master calendar hearing because the immigration judge had not yet ruled on his motion for a change of venue.

So for what reason did the BIA determine that the respondent in R-A-V-P- would behave to the contrary? The Board made much of the fact that an individual who promised to pay for the respondent’s bus ticket and provide him with a place to live (an offer which the Board referred to as “laudable”) was a friend and not a family member of the respondent. But on what basis can it be concluded that living with a cousin rather than a friend increases the chances of his future appearance in court? In the absence of statistics or reports that support such determination, is this fact deserving of such discretionary weight? The Board felt it could rely on this factor simply because it was mentioned in Matter of Guerra. But while that decision requires a finding that the IJ’s conclusion was reasonable, the decision in R-A-V-P- appears to be based more on a hunch than a reasoned conclusion, with the Board referencing seemingly random factors in support of its conclusion without explaining why such factors deserve the weight they were afforded, while ignoring other more relevant factors that would weigh in favor of release.

The respondent has now been detained for well over a year, including the seven months his bond appeal lingered before the Board, a very significant deprivation of liberty. The respondent’s asylum appeal remains to be decided, likely by a different Board Member or panel than that which decided his bond appeal.But now that the majority of the Board has voted to publish the bond denial as a precedent decision, what is the likelihood that any Board member will review that appeal with an unbiased eye?

As a final point, although the drafting of the decision likely began months earlier, the Board nevertheless chose to allow the decision to be published as precedent in the midst of an unprecedented health pandemic that poses a particular threat to those detained in immigration jails. So at a time when health professionals and numerous other groups are pleading for the government to release as many as possible from immigration detention centers, the BIA chose to instead issue a decision that will likely lead to an opposite result.

Notes:

Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 690 (2001).

Ibid; Robert Pauw, Litigating Immigration Cases in Federal Court (4th Ed.) (AILA, 2017) at 418.

24 I&N Dec. 37 (BIA 2006).

Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346, 356 (1997).

27 I&N Dec. 803 (BIA 2020).

Appeals may be summarily dismissed due to the failure to file a brief or to sufficiently state a ground for appeal. However, the BIA does not view an appeal or motion as unopposed where ICE files no brief.

Matter of Guerra, supra at 40.

Copyright 2020 Jeffrey S. Chase. All rights reserved.

APRIL 6, 2020

NEXT

Like “Firing Randomly Into a Crowd”

Repriented with permission.

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

HOW EOIR’S “CAPTIVE COURTS” INTENTIONALLY DISTORT AND PERVERT JUSTICE — The Shocking Failure Of Congress & The Article IIIs To Stand Up For Justice In America!

By Paul Wickham Schmidt

“Courtside” Exclusive

April 6, 2020

Jeffrey and I both get to pretty much the same “bottom line” here. But, as usual, he is more “nuanced” in his approach.

Here’s my earlier, less subtitle, take on this outrageously wrong and unjust precedent by Billy Barr’s wholly-owned subsidiary, the BIA: https://immigrationcourtside.com/2020/04/02/timing-is-everything-during-crisis-bia-makes-time-for-a-little-gratuitous-cruelty-what-could-be-better-during-worldwide-pandemic-humanitarian-disaster-than-an-attempt-to-narrow-the-criteria-for-c/

Certainly, the DOJ’s two-decade program, under Bush, Obama, and now Trump, of systematically excluding from the BIA (and also largely from the Immigration Judiciary, with a more than 9-1 government/private sector hiring ratio) any acknowledged immigration and human rights expertise from those who actually represent and work with asylum applicants is paying huge dividends for Trump’s nativist immigration agenda.

A “captive BIA” well-attuned to “not rocking the boat” and “implementing the Attorney General’s priorities” abandons due process and fundamental fairness for individuals. Instead, they crank out an endless stream of one-sided pro-DHS-enforcement “precedents.”

Led by the Supremes’ “supreme abdication of judicial duties” in Chevron and Brand X, the Courts of Appeals and sometimes the Supremes themselves “defer” to “any old interpretation” by the BIA rather than undertaking the more challenging search for the “best interpretation.” In immigration law, “deference” to the BIA “tilts the playing field” overwhelming in favor of DHS and against individuals and due process.

And, if the BIA occasionally lets the immigrant “win” or at least not outright “lose,” one or two precedents, Sessions, Whitaker, and Barr have shown a frequent willingness to merely step in and change the results. Sometimes, they do this on cases decided years ago, even when DHS doesn’t ask them to. They openly and aggressively are carrying out a predetermined White Nationalist, nativist agenda. Because, they can!

If this sounds like a parody of due process, that’s because it is! But, the Supremes and the rest of the Article IIIs have been studiously looking away while due process, fundamental fairness, and equal protection are trampled in Immigration Court for more than a half-century. Why step up to the plate now?

Although it’s hard to do under Chevron, the BIA does sometimes so clearly ignore the statute or come up with such “off the wall” interpretations that the Article IIIs occasionally have to distinguish Chevron and intervene. In other words, generally screwing immigrants is OK by the Article IIIs; but, at some point looking totally feckless or downright idiotic by rubber stamping the BIA’s most outlandish anti-immigrant rulings is a “no no.” Bad for their reputations, law school speaking tours, and recruitment of the “best and brightest” clerks that the “Supremos” and other Article IIIs enjoy so much.

Another “big advantage” of a captive and fundamentally unfair BIA is that its “perversions of justice” become a “self-fulfilling prophecy.” The respondent in R-A-V-P- should not only have been released on bond, but his asylum case could easily have been granted in a “short hearing” in a system committed to a fair interpretation and application of asylum law. That might have led to the release of others and the more efficient granting of other similar cases. That actually would be an huge step forward in a dysfunctional system running a largely self-inflicted backlog of approximately 1.4 million cases.

Instead, denying meritorious cases creates hugely inflated denial rates. This supports the Trump Administration’s intentionally false narrative that all asylum claims are frivolous or fraudulent.

And, naturally, if the claims are overwhelmingly non-meritorious, who cares if we give asylum applicants any due process or not. Just summarily deny them all and you’ll be right 90% of the time.

That’s probably why Trump has gotten away with his biggest outrage: Simply eliminating the statutory right to apply for asylum at the border by Executive fiat, confident that the Supremes and the Article IIIs will never have the guts to effectively intervene and hold him accountable merely for arbitrarily inflicting potential death sentences on asylum seekers. After all, they are just “aliens,” not really “humans” or “persons” under the warped views of the Roberts’ Court majority! “Dred Scottification in action.”

Also, by denying meritorious claims for asylum seekers already in the U.S., the BIA “sends a message” that asylum seekers shouldn’t bother applying — they can’t and won’t win no matter how meritorious their cases. And, what’s more, the BIA will use the manipulated, improperly inflated “denial rates” to show that there is “little likelihood of success” on the merits of any asylum claim.

Under R-A-V-P–, this virtually guarantees punitive DHS detention, serving as both a punishment for asserting rights and a further deterrent to asserting claims in Immigration Court. Heck, in a “best case scenario” for Trump, COVID-19 will wipe out all detained asylum seekers, thereby eliminating that “problem.”

The system is a farce. But, it is a farce that both Congress and the Article IIIs have enabled.

Asylum seekers and other migrants deserve justice from America. When they will finally get it from a system intentionally rigged against them, and judges and legislators all too often unwilling to acknowledge or recognize their humanity, remains to be seen.

Due Process Forever! Captive Courts Never!

PWS

04-07-20

THE TRUTH IS OUT, THANKS TO MICHELLE MENDEZ @ CLINIC: Practice Pointers on Matter of Castillo-Perez & “Takeaways” From FOIA Trove On In Absentias!

She was a Leader of the NDPA before there was an NDPA! Now Michelle Mendez and her CLINIC Team are giving you “the skinny” on how to combat EOIR’s “Raging War on Due Process!”

Friends,

Wanted to share with you two new CLINIC resources:

Practice Pointer: Matter of Castillo-Perez, 27 I&N Dec. 664 (A.G. 2019)

FOIA Disclosures on In Absentia Removal Numbers Based on Legal Representation

An immigration judge may issue an in absentia removal order if the Department of Homeland Security, or DHS, establishes by clear, unequivocal and convincing evidence that the respondent had written notice of the hearing and is removable as charged on the Notice to Appear. There are many reasons why a respondent may fail to appear at a removal hearing, including lack of notice of the hearing, sickness, a breakdown in transportation, limited or no English knowledge, or because the respondent is a child without the help of a responsible adult who can assist them in getting to the hearing. As documented in the report Denied a Day in Court: The Government’s Use of in absentia Removal Orders Against Families Seeking Asylum, CLINIC learned about these reasons firsthand while representing 46 families released from detention and successfully challenging their in absentia removal orders. Perhaps the main factor for failing to appear at scheduled hearings in immigration court is the presence or absence of legal counsel to orient the respondent through the layers of government bureaucracy and the complex immigration system.

On November 18, 2019, CLINIC submitted a Freedom of Information Act, or FOIA, request to the Executive Office for Immigration Review, or EOIR, seeking data on the number of in absentia removal orders issued based on legal representation status. CLINIC requested three sets of in absentia order data: the total number of in absentia removal orders issued since 2008, the number of in absentia orders issued to Unaccompanied Children, or UACs, since 2008, and the number of in absentia orders issued to families classified by EOIR as “Family Unit,” FAMU, cases since November 16, 2018. On March 13, 2020, EOIR responded with a three-tab Excel spreadsheet of raw in absentia removal order data. CLINIC has calculated the in absentia removal order raw data into percentages.

Here are some key takeaways from the data:

Although, according to EOIR statistics, the current overall representation rate is 65 percent for all pending cases, those who are unable to secure representation are at extraordinary risk of receiving in absentia removal orders. 92.6 percent of those with in absentia orders issued in fiscal year, or FY, 2020 were unrepresented.

Although, according to EOIR statistics, the current overall representation rate is 68 percent for all UAC pending cases, UACs who are unable to secure representation are also at extreme risk of receiving in absentia removal orders. 88 percent of those with in absentia orders issued in fiscal year FY2020 were unrepresented.

Since 2008, the percentage of unrepresented respondents with in absentia removal orders has been at least double that of in absentia orders of removal issued to represented respondents.

Since 2008, at least 70.8 percent of UACs who were issued in absentia orders of removal were unrepresented and, so far this fiscal year, the unrepresented rate for UACs who received in absentia orders of removal has been the highest ever, at 88 percent.

The number of in absentia removal orders issued by EOIR to unrepresented respondents in FY2020 surpassed the total number of in absentia orders issued to unrepresented respondents in FY2019 in just the first five and a half months of FY2020.

EOIR has issued more in absentia removal orders in the three and a half combined fiscal years covering the Trump presidency, than it did during the eight combined fiscal years covering the Obama presidency.

Total in absentia removal orders from FY2008 through FY2016 were 246,893. Total in absentia removal orders from FY2017 through FY2020 (through March 13, 2020), were 267,696

EOIR has issued more in absentia removal orders to UACs in the three and a half combined fiscal years covering the Trump presidency, than it did during the eight combined fiscal years covering the Obama presidency.

Total in absentia orders of removal issued to UACs from FY2008 through FY2016 were 20,123. Total in absentia removal orders issued to UACs from FY2017 through FY2020 (through March 13, 2020), were 26,228.

During the date range covered by the data (FY2008 through FY2020 Q2), immigration judges issued the fewest number of in absentia removal orders in FY2012, the year that DHS announced DACA. During FY2012, DHS officially launched the prosecutorial discretion program in November 2011 and reviewed many pending removal proceedings to identify low-priority cases meriting favorable exercises of prosecutorial discretion.

Most immigration courts saw a decrease in in absentia orders of removal for unrepresented noncitizens in FY2012 compared to FY2011.

Unrepresented UACs suffered a huge jump of in absentia removal orders from FY2014 (1,701) to FY2015 (5,836). This hike in in absentias for UACs occurred concurrently with the increase in UACs fleeing El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras, and arriving in neighboring countries and at the U.S.-Mexico border.

89.6 percent of all family units who received an in absentia removal orders from November 16, 2018 to September 30, 2019, were unrepresented.

Of all the immigration courts, the Houston Immigration Court issued the most in absentia removal orders in unrepresented FAMU cases during this period: 4,108 (which translates into 93.8 percent of the total in absentia removal orders issued by this court).

Of all the immigration courts, the Miami Immigration Court issued the second most in absentia removal orders in unrepresented FAMU cases during this period: 3,347 (which translates into 89.5 percent of the total in absentia removal orders issued by this court).

94.2 percent of all family units who received in absentia removal orders from October 1, 2019 to March 13, 2020, were unrepresented.

Of all the immigration courts, the Houston Immigration Court issued the most in absentia removal orders in FAMU cases from October 1, 2019 to March 13, 2020: 4,931 (which translates into 95.62 percent of the total in absentia removal orders issued by this court).

Of all the immigration courts, the Atlanta Immigration Court issued the second most in absentia removal orders in FAMU cases from October 1, 2019 to March 13, 2020: 4,662 (which translates into 98.27 percent of the total in absentia removal orders issued by this court).

Oddly, several immigration courts that oversee only detained dockets, including the Elizabeth Detention Center, recorded in absentia removal orders during the FOIA time period.

In FY2020, immigration judges have issued more in absentia removal orders than any prior year since 2008, and we are only five and a half months into the federal fiscal year.

Of all the immigration courts, the Harlingen Immigration Court has recorded the most unrepresented in absentia removal orders overall in FY2020 so far: 8,357.

Of all the immigration courts, the New York City Federal Plaza Immigration Court has recorded the most represented in absentia removal orders overall in FY2020: 753.

Of all the immigration courts, the Miami Immigration Court has recorded the most unrepresented in absentia removal orders for UACs in FY2020: 430.

Of all the immigration courts, the New York City Federal Plaza Immigration Court has recorded the most represented in absentia removal orders for UACs in FY2020: 73.

Thanks for helping us share these!

Michelle N. Mendez (she/her/ella/elle)

Director, Defending Vulnerable Populations Program

Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc. (CLINIC)

Embracing the Gospel value of welcoming the stranger, CLINIC promotes the dignity and protects the rights of immigrants in partnership with a dedicated network of Catholic and community legal immigration programs.

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

Now, it’s hardly “news” that there is a strong positive correlation between legal representation and appearance in Immigration Court. That information came to light way back in the Obama Administration and has consistently been reinforced by data that contradicts the lies about failures to appear put out on a regular basis by regime officials.

Given the clear correlation, the best way to make a fair due process system function would be if the Government worked hand in hand with NGOs, charitable organizations, local bar associations, and others involved in providing pro bono representation to insure that at least all asylum applicants and children are represented before the Immigration Courts. Due Process and fundamental fairness would be served and the in absentia rate would crater. In other words, due process with efficiency, an achievable “win-win!”

Instead, the Trump regime, through both EOIR and DHS, has made a concerted attack on the right to counsel in a transparent attempt to increase the number of in absentia orders and “speed up the deportation railroad” that EOIR now runs as its “one and only mission.”

How does something masquerading as a “court” system conduct a “deportation railway?” It takes lots of complicity and supposedly responsible public officials and citizens intentionally “looking the other way” and studiously ignoring the obvious!

I hope that advocates will be able to use the data provided by CLINIC to expose to the Article III Courts and Congress the rampant fraud, waste, abuse, and just plain “malicious incompetence” of EOIR and DHS (is there really a difference these days? Not apparent to most of us who follow the “Star Chambers” with regularity.).

Remember, moral cowardice and intellectual dishonesty often begin with picking on the most vulnerable and defenseless among us. And what follows is likely to be unspeakably bad, based on history!

Thanks, Michelle, my friend, for all you and CLINIC do.

Due Process Forever!

PWS

03-29-20

TRAC: TRUMP REGIME ON PACE TO TRIPLE IMMIGRATION COURT BACKLOG WITH NO PLAN & NO END IN SIGHT — Now @ 1.4 Million Cases & Counting!

From ImmigrationProf Blog:

According to the latest report from TRAC Immigration, just under 100,000 cases were added to the Immigration Court’s backlog since the beginning of FY 2020. A total of 1,122,824 cases are now pending on the court’s active docket as of the end of February 2020. This is up from 542,411 cases when President Trump assumed office. When 320,173 inactive Backlogswpending cases are included, the court’s current backlog now tops 1.4 million cases.

With most non-detained court hearings canceled due to the coronavirus pandemic, the backlog is slated to grow even higher, as TRAC found that it did as a result of the government shutdown in January 2019.

KJ

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

Bets on when they will hit 2 million?

PWS

03-24-20

SORRY, FOLKS, IT AIN’T YOUR DADDY’S ARLINGTON IMMIGRATION COURT ANY MORE: Under The Thumb Of The Trump Regime, Asylum Denial Rate Goes From 29.4% To 51.7%, Even As Worldwide Conditions For Refugees Continue To Deteriorate! — Think This Is “Using Best Practices To Guarantee Fairness & Due Process For All?” Guess Again!

“Courtside” recently received this from an “inherently reliable source:”

Click here to get the latest “asylum denial rates” for Arlington:

ArlingtonCourtasylumdenialrate

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

Before Trump, Arlington was a “model court” where Immigration Judges, with the help of the ICE Chief Counsel and the private bar, developed “best practices” and asylum seekers got a fair shake. In just a few short years under the Trump regime, it has moved steadily in the other direction toward the type of “denial factory” that the Trump regime wants to be the model for all Immigration Courts. Of course, Arlington isn’t close to the 100% denial rate that the regime wants and that is close to realization in some other courts. But, the deterioration of due process and fairness in Arlington is still disheartening.

We should always remember that the unconstitutional “weaponization” of the Immigration Courts is continuing to happen right under the noses of a feckless Congress and Article III Judges who should long ago have ended this abomination. Everyone responsible for this life-threatening mess will have much to answer for in the “Court of History.”

In the meantime, congratulations and appreciation to those judges who keep interpreting and applying asylum law in the generous way dictated by Cardoza-Fonseca and Mogharrabi. You are heroes in an age that where all too many show cowardice and a willingness to “go along too get along” in the face of great tyranny!

Due Process Forever! Judges Who Won’t Stand Up For Asylum Seekers, Never!

PWS

03-19-20

LATEST OUTRAGE FROM FALLS CHURCH: BIA IGNORES FACTS, ABUSES DISCRETION TO DENY BOND TO ASYLUM SEEKER: Matter of R-A-V-P-, 27 I&N Dec. 803 (BIA 2020)

Matter of R-A-V-P-, 27 I&N Dec. 803 (BIA 2020)

https://go.usa.gov/xdzDv

BIA HEADNOTE:

The Immigration Judge properly determined that the respondent was a flight risk and denied his request for a custody redetermination where, although he had a pending application for asylum, he had no family, employment, or community ties and no probable path to obtain lawful status so as to warrant his release on bond.

PANEL: BIA Appellate Immigraton Judges MALPHRUS, Acting Chairman; LIEBOWITZ, Board Member; MORRIS, Temporary Board Member.

OPINION BY: Acting Chairman Judge Garry D. Malphrus

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

In a real court, with fair and impartial judges who follow the law and respect facts, this should have been a “no-brainer.”

The Government’s own statistics show that represented asylum applicants released on bond show up for hearings nearly 100% of the time, regardless of “likely outcome.” https://immigrationcourtside.com/?s=Asylum+Seekers+Appear. The respondent is a represented asylum seeker from Honduras without any criminal record or record of failures to appear. He passed the “credible fear” process. He has friend with whom he can live in the U.S. while pursuing his case. He comes from a country, Honduras, with known horrible conditions that even in this time of intentionally biased administrative anti-asylum “law” produces more than 1,000 asylum grants in Immigration Court annually, according to FY 2019 statistics from EOIR.

His case apparently is based on his status as a gay man in Honduras. According to the U.S. State Department’s 2019 Country Report, this claim has a very good chance of succeeding:

Nevertheless, social discrimination against LGBTI persons persisted, as did physical violence. Local media and LGBTI human rights NGOs reported an increase in the number of killings of LGBTI persons during the year. Impunity for such crimes was a problem, as was the impunity rate for all types of crime. According to the Violence Observatory, of the 317 cases since 2009 of hate crimes and violence against members of the LGBTI population, 92 percent had gone unpunished.

https://www.state.gov/reports/2019-country-reports-on-human-rights-practices/honduras/

Clearly, he should have been released on a minimal bond, particularly given the potentially health-threatening conditions in DHS detention during the pandemic.

Thus, the BIA’s “no bond” decision in this case was an outrageous misconstruction of the commonly known facts as well as a misapplication of basic bond law. In other words, an “abuse of discretion.” At some point after the justice system resumes functioning, I hope that a “real” Federal court will “stick it to” this disgracefully disingenuous performance by this BIA panel.

We need “regime change” and an Article I U.S. Immigration Court staffed with fair and impartial judges at all levels, with “real life” expertise, who actually understand and will fairly apply asylum laws.

Due Process Forever! Patently Unfair And Biased Immigration “Courts” Never!

PWS

03-18-20

NO EXPERTISE NECESSARY! – At The “New EOIR,” Immigration Judges No Longer Need to Demonstrate Immigration Experience – Just a Willingness To Send Migrants to Potential Death, Danger, or Misery Without Due Process or Fundamental Fairness – When Your Job Is To Impose Arbitrary “Death Sentences,” Maybe It’s Easier If You Don’t Understand What You’re Really Doing!

https://thehill.com/opinion/immigration/481152-us-hiring-immigration-judges-who-dont-have-any-immigration-law-experience

Nolan Rappaport writes in The Hill:

. . . .

Hiring judges without immigration law experience

Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas) pointed out that the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) has been hiring as judges lawyers who do not have any immigration law experience.

In fact, the experience requirement in immigration judge vacancy announcements doesn’t even mention immigration law experience:

“Experience: Applicants must have a full seven (7) years of post-bar experience as a licensed attorney preparing for, participating in, and/or appealing formal hearings or trials … Qualifying litigation experience involves cases in which a complaint was filed with a court, or a charging document … was issued by a court, a grand jury, or appropriate military authority…”

EOIR recently swore in 28 new immigration judges, and 11 of them had no immigration law experience.

None.

That’s a problem for justice.

Due process isn’t possible when judges do not fully understand the law — and it takes a long time to learn immigration law. According to the American Bar Association, “To say that immigration law is vast and complex is an understatement.” Rutgers University law professor Elizabeth Hull says that our immigration laws are “second only to the Internal Revenue Code in complexity.”

The concern over judges with no immigration law experience is more than just idealism or theory — the inexperience can impact people’s lives in major ways.

For instance, an otherwise deportable alien may be eligible for lawful permanent resident status if he has been in the United States long enough. 8 USC §1259 permits certain deportable aliens to register for permanent residence if they entered the United States prior to Jan. 1, 1972; have resided in the United States continuously since such entry; have good moral character; and are not ineligible for citizenship.

How many inexperienced immigration judges would know that?

This influx of inexperience may explain why asylum decisions vary so widely from judge-to-judge.

What’s more, these judges might not be able to meet the eligibility standards for an Article 1 court if subject matter expertise is required.

. . . .

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

You can read Nolan’s full article, from which this is excerpted, at the above link. I agree wholeheartedly with this part of Nolan’s conclusion: “EOIR should not be trying to deal with this backlog by hiring more judges if it can’t find judges with adequate immigration law experience.”

Here’s an actual anecdote that I received recently from a Courtside reader:

I had a merits hearing . . . with a new IJ with no immigration background at all. It happened to be an old adjustment which the ICE trial attorney had reviewed and agreed in advance to a grant, pending a few questions. So the ICE TA explained this to the IJ, and I asked the IJ if [he/she] understood the terms involved. And it turned out that the IJ didn’t know what an I-140 is and didn’t know what 245(i) is. [He/She] didn’t say a word; we ran the hearing. The ICE attorney actually had to fill out the IJ’s order for [him/her] to sign; [he/she] had no idea what to write or what boxes to check.

What if it had been a contested hearing?

Yes, indeed, “what if this had been a contested hearing?” I assume that what passes for EOIR/DOJ “new judge training” these days just tells new judges that “when in doubt, kick ‘em out.” Just check the “denied” and “ordered removed” boxes on the form orders. At least this one had a “happy ending.” Many do not!

I’ve heard other anecdotes about newer Immigration Judges totally ignorant about asylum law and afraid to admit it who cited Matter of A-B- as basis for “blanket summary denial” of all gender-based asylum claims from Central America. Other newer judges reportedly are largely unaware of the burden-shifting “regulatory presumption of future persecution” arising out of past persecution.

Others apparently don’t understand the interplay and differing requirements and consequences among asylum, withholding of removal under the Act, CAT withholding, and CAT deferral. “Mixed motive,” a key life or death concept in asylum cases — you’d be lucky to find a handful of Immigration Judges these days who truly understand how it applies. That’s particularly true because the BIA and the Attorney General have recently bent the concept and many of the Circuit precedents interpreting it intentionally out of shape to favor DHS enforcement and discriminate against bona fide asylum applicants.

The generous interpretation of the “well founded fear” standard required by the Supremes in Cardoza-Fonseca and embodied in the BIA’s Matter of Mogharrabi is widely ignored, even mocked in some of today’s enforcement driven, overtly anti-asylum Immigration Courts.

To be fair, I’ve also heard praise from advocates for some of the newer Immigration Judges who seemed eager and willing to be “educated” by both counsel, weren’t afraid to admit their gaps in knowledge and request amplification, and seemed willing carefully to weigh and deliberate all the facts and law to reach a just and well-explained decision; this contrasts with “summary preconceived denial” which is a common complaint among advocates that also includes some judges who have been on the bench for years.

The larger problem here is that too many of the Circuits Courts of Appeals seem to have gone “belly up” on their duty to carefully review what is happening in the Immigration Courts and to insist on the basics of fundamental fairness, due process, and fair and impartial decision-making.

It’s pretty simple: At neither the trial nor appellate levels do today’s Immigration Courts operating under EOIR and DOJ control qualify as “expert tribunals.” It is legally erroneous for Article III Courts to continue to “defer” to decision makers who lack fairness, impartiality, and subject matter expertise.

With human lives, the rule of law, and America’s future at stake here, it’s past time for the Article III’s to stop pretending that is “business as usual” in the warped and distorted “world of immigration under the Trump regime.”

Would any Article III Judge subject his or her life to the circus now ongoing at EOIR. Of course not! Then it’s both legally wrong and morally corrupt for Article IIIs to continue to subject vulnerable migrants to this type of charade and perversion of justice!

Due Process Forever; Complicit Courts Never!

PWS

02-05-20

BUSY KNIGHTS & KNIGHTESSES: The Round Table Speaks Out Again For Due Process & Judicial Independence On The Eve Of House Subcommittee Hearing

Round Table House 12920 hearing

Statement of the Round Table of Former Immigration Judges Submitted to the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration and Citizenship
Hearing on “Courts in Crisis: The State of Judicial Independence and Due Process in U.S. Immigration Courts”
January 29, 2020
This statement for the record is submitted by former Immigration Judges and former Appellate Immigration Judges of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). Members of our group were appointed to the bench and served under different administrations of both parties over the past four decades. Drawing on our many years of collective experience, we are intimately familiar with the workings, history, and development of the immigration court from the 1980s up to present.
The purpose of the immigration courts is to act as a neutral check on executive overreach in the enforcement of our immigration laws. In their detached and learned interpretation of the laws and regulations, Immigration Judges exist to correct overzealous bureaucrats and policy makers when they overstep the bounds of reasonable interpretation and the requirements of due process.
Unfortunately, no Attorney General has ever created an impartial immigration court system because the immigration courts have always been housed inside the U.S. Department of Justice, subject to the nation’s chief enforcement officer, the Attorney General. Due in large part to the efforts of their union, the National Association of Immigration Judges, (NAIJ), the Immigration Judge corps managed to maintain decision making independence even when faced with increased caseloads and political pressures.
We are extremely disturbed by this administration’s systemic and unprecedented efforts to undermine Immigration Judges’ independence and neutrality. Such efforts have proceeded seamlessly through three different Attorneys General. Even Matthew Whitaker, acting as a caretaker and with no prior immigration law background, managed in his brief time in charge to certify two cases to himself, one of which was a decision of the BIA which had denied asylum and created a difficult standard for those seeking asylum based on their family ties, in order to make such standard even more daunting.
The three Attorneys Generals have together abused their certification power to circumvent the intent of Congress by rewriting our nation’s immigration laws. In
1

some of their decisions, the Attorneys General have eliminated precedent decision and then imposed requirements that necessitate much more attorney preparation, longer hearings, and more exacting decisions from the Immigration Judges themselves in order to grant relief where such relief is due. The disingenuous assertion for doing so was that the parties had stipulated to certain facts and findings without evidence, when in fact the parties had done so – as in all judicial settings – because the evidence in support of such facts and findings was overwhelming and there is no need to burden the court system by presenting them in each case. At the same time, the Department of Justice has greatly expedited the hearings of those who are often most vulnerable, while requiring a growing number of asylum-seekers to either wait in Mexico in a state of homelessness, with little access to counsel or ability to be able to gather evidence; or to alternatively be detained in horrific conditions in remote detention facilities, all with little to no access to counsel.1 The administration has increasingly denied observers access to Remain in Mexico hearings.2 In particular, a member of our group was asked to leave a Remain in Mexico hearing where she was observing a case on the spurious claim that her note taking was distracting.3
In addition to cutting off access to the agency’s more controversial classes of hearings, EOIR has also effectively ended the participation of Immigration Judges as speakers in legal conferences and at law schools, including as participants in moot court hearings.4 The judges’ own union, the NAIJ, has served as the sole voice of its members, publicly speaking out against policies that undermine its independence and impartiality, and in advocating for independent Article I court status. In response, the Department of Justice has sought to silence the NAIJ
1 On January 24, 2019, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced the Migration Protection Protocols (MPP), a policy also known as “Remain in Mexico,” which requires individuals seeking asylum at our southern border to remain in Mexico while their U.S. removal proceedings are pending.
2 Adolfo Flores, Immigration “Tent Courts” Aren’t Allowing Full Access To The Public, Attorneys Say, (1/13/2020), https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/adolfoflores/immigration-tent-courts-arent-allowing-full-public-access.
3 The Round Table of Former Immigration Judges, Letter to Director McHenry and Chief Immigration Judge Santoro, (Dec. 10, 2019), https://immigrationcourtside.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/McHenry- letter_letterhead-1.pdf.
4 The Knight First Amendment Institute, Knight Institute Calls on DOJ’s Executive Office for Immigration Review to Suspend Policy Silencing Immigration Judges, (Jan. 6, 2020), https://knightcolumbia.org/content/knight-institute- calls-on-dojs-executive-office-for-immigration-review-to-suspend-policy-silencing-immigration-judges.
2

through a present effort to decertify on the same basis that was rejected previously this union that has been certified since 1979.5
The Attorneys General have also issued decisions stripping Immigration Judges of the judicial tools needed to properly execute their duties. Through precedent decisions by certification, then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions issued binding decisions stripping Immigration Judges of their long-standing ability to administratively close6 or terminate7 cases where appropriate or necessary, or even to continue hearings where due process requires.8
The above actions of Attorneys General, as well as the reshuffling of Immigration Judge dockets to assure that cases are heard based on the political priority of the day as opposed to due process concerns, has resulted in unprecedented, sky- rocketing backlogs.9 The backlog has increased exponentially despite the dramatic increase in Immigration Judge appointments, most of which have favored individuals with enforcement backgrounds. Some have wondered if this is an attempt to implode the Immigration Court system, but whether it is intentional or not, this could be the ultimate effect.
EOIR’s director is not a political appointee, yet he has acted as one by promulgating policies that undermine judicial independence. For example, he has created completion quotas that require Immigration Judges to choose between justice for those who appear before them and their own job security. The vast majority of other administrative judges – including Social Security Judges – are exempted from such quotas by statute, and the Immigration Judges were previously exempted by policy. Immigration Judges are told in their training that they are only DOJ attorneys and as employees of the Attorney General and the Department of Justice, they owe loyalty to the objectives of those they serve. Such quotas damage the public’s confidence in the immigration court system by creating the perception of bias. Even in the law enforcement context, quotas are seen as harmful. For example, most states outlaw such quotas for traffic tickets issued by
5 Eric Katz, The Justice Department says immigration law judges operate as managers, an argument the Federal Labor Relations Authority rejected in 2000, (Aug. 12, 2019), https://www.govexec.com/management/2019/08/ trump-administration-looks-decertify-vocal-federal-employee-union/159112/.
6 Matter of Castro-Tum, 27 I&N Dec. 271 (A.G. 2018)
7 Matter of S-O-G- & F-D-B-, 27 I&N Dec. 462 (A.G. 2018) 8 Matter of L-A-B-R- et. Al., 27 I&N Dec. 405 (A.G. 2018)
9 According to the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC) at Syracuse University the December 2019, backlog was 1,089,696. See, https://trac.syr.edu/phptools/immigration/court_backlog/
3

police officers. Pressuring Immigration Judges to adhere to the views of the enforcement officer and agency that employ them contradicts the Supreme Court’s 1954 ruling to the contrary, in which it held that the BIA must decide cases according to its judges’ “own understanding and conscience,” and not those of the Attorney General.10
EOIR has taken additional actions to undermine the appearance of neutrality so necessary to a court system. The agency posted on its website a press release announcing a “return to the rule of law” based solely on an increase in the number of deportation orders issued by the courts.11 More recently, the agency issued a “Myths vs. Facts” sheet12 falsely claiming that noncitizens as a rule don’t appear for their court hearings (whereas statistics compiled by TRAC indicate an appearance rate over 90%;13 that asylum seekers’ claims lack merit, and that attorneys don’t really impact court outcomes. The members of this honorable committee are asked to try to imagine any other court issuing such a statement concerning those that appear before its judges, and to further imagine what the public response would be. Our Round Table was one of several groups that issued a statement strongly criticizing such action.14
Our group includes a significant number of former Immigration Judges who retired or otherwise left the bench sooner than intended due to the unconscionable policies of the present administration. Two amongst us took the highly unusual step of resigning after only two years on the bench. One of our members made a point of retiring after 28 years on the bench on the day before the oppressive completion quota system went into effect as a statement that he refused to work under such conditions.15
10 Accardi v. Shaughnessy, 347 U.S. 260 (1954).
11 https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/return-rule-law-trump-administration-marked-increase-key-immigration-statistics
12 https://www.justice.gov/eoir/page/file/1161001/download 13 See, https://trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/562/.
14 Round Table of Former Immigration Judges, EOIR “Myth vs. Fact” Memo, (May 13, 2019), https:// www.aila.org/infonet/retired-ijs-and-former-members-of-the-bia-object; See also AILA Policy Brief: Facts About the State of Our Nation’s Immigration Courts, (May 14, 2019), https://www.aila.org/advo-media/aila-policy-briefs/aila- policy-brief-facts-about-the-state-of-our.
15 “Immigration Judges say they’re ;leaving jobs because of Trump policies,” The Hill, Feb. 13, 2019, https:// thehill.com/latino/429940-immigration-judges-say-theyre-leaving-jobs-because-of-trump-policies
4

We acknowledge our former colleagues still on the bench who continue to afford due process and fairness in their decisions. Their increasing difficulty in doing so was illustrated by the highly-publicized case in which an Immigration Judge in Philadelphia, upon receiving a case remanded by the Attorney General, continued the hearing of a minor who did not appear for purposes of ensuring that the youth received proper notice of the hearing, as required by law. EOIR management immediately removed the case from the judge’s docket, along with more than 80 other similar cases. The judge was most improperly chastised by his supervisor. Instead of assigning the case to another judge in the Philadelphia court, EOIR management sent one of its own to Philadelphia for the sole purpose of issuing an in absentia removal order against the youth.16 What message did these actions send to the Immigration Judge corps (in particular, to those recently hired who may be removed without cause within two years of their appointments) about exercising independent judgment? We affirm that such action would have been unthinkable under any prior administration during the four decades in which we served.
Immigration Judges also depend on a fair review of their decision on administrative appeal to the BIA. We are sad to report that the Appellate Immigration Judges on the BIA have abdicated the independent understanding and conscience recognized 66 years ago by the Supreme Court. Last month, a judge sitting on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit stated in a concurring opinion of the court: “it is difficult for me to read this record and conclude that the Board was acting as anything other than an agency focused on ensuring Quinteros’ removal rather than as the neutral and fair tribunal it is expected to be. That criticism is harsh and I do not make it lightly.”17 And on January 23, 2020, a three Judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit suggested holding the BIA’s judges in contempt of court, “with all the consequences that possibility entails.”18 What provoked such reaction was the BIA’s decision to completely ignore a binding order of an Article III court because then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions in a footnote to a certified decision had expressed his disagreement with such decision. The Seventh Circuit stated that the Board’s action “beggar’s belief,” adding that it has “never before encountered defiance of a remand order, and we hope never to see it again.” But as long as the Attorney General holds the power to
16 National Association of Immigration Judges, Judges’ Union Grievance Seeking Redress for the Unwarranted Removal of Cases from IJ, (Aug. 8, 2018), https://www.aila.org/infonet/naij-grievance-redress-removal.
17 Quinteros v. Att’y Gen., No. 18-3750 (3d Cir. Dec. 17, 2019).
18 Baez-Sanchez v. Barr, No. 19-1642 (7th Cir. Jan. 23, 2020). 5

remove them and the Circuit Courts don’t, the BIA will err on the side of job security.
With the BIA acting as the Attorney General’s enforcer, Immigration Judges are increasingly concerned with whether U.S. Immigration Customs Enforcement (ICE) might appeal a grant of relief. One of the requirements specified in the immigration judges’ performance quotas requires that not more than 15 percent of the immigration judges’ decisions can be remanded or reversed on appeal by the BIA.
It is the role of Congress to write the immigration laws and that of the Attorney General to uphold them. This administration has sought to rewrite those laws in defiance of directives of the Supreme Court and the Courts of Appeal which demonstrates that it is time for Congress to remove the responsibility for creating a fair immigration court from the Attorney General. The administration has stymied the efforts of immigration judges to faithfully execute their sworn obligations to accord due process to everyone who appears before them and to decide every case on its own merits after a full and fair consideration of the evidence. Instead, EOIR has imposed unrealistic productivity mandates that place speed above all considerations of fairness.
For all of the above reasons, we hope that Congress will take steps towards removing the immigration courts and BIA from the Department of Justice and establishing an independent Article I Immigration Court. In the meantime, we hope that Congress will use the powers at its disposal to limit undue influence on the Immigration Judges; to protect the NAIJ union from decertification; and to call the BIA to account for its recent outrageous behavior.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide this statement for the record and look forward to engaging as Congress considers reforming the immigration court system.
Contact with questions or concerns: Jeffrey S. Chase, jeffchase99@gmail.com. Sincerely,
Hon. Steven Abrams, Immigration Judge, New York, Varick St., and Queens (N.Y.) Wackenhut Immigration Courts, 1997-2013
Hon. Terry A. Bain, Immigration Judge, New York, 1994-2019
6

Hon. Sarah Burr, Assistant Chief Immigration Judge and Immigration Judge, New York, 1994-2012
Hon. Esmerelda Cabrera, Immigration Judge, New York, Newark, and Elizabeth, NJ, 1994-2005
Hon. Teofilo Chapa, Immigration Judge, Miami, 1995-2018
Hon. Jeffrey S. Chase, Immigration Judge, New York, 1995-2007
Hon. George T. Chew, Immigration Judge, New York, 1995-2017
Hon. Joan Churchill, Immigration Judge, Arlington, VA 1980-2005
Hon. Bruce J. Einhorn, Immigration Judge, Los Angeles, 1990-2007
Hon. Cecelia M. Espenoza, Appellate Immigration Judge, BIA, 2000-2003
Hon. Noel Ferris, Immigration Judge, New York, 1994-2013
Hon. James R. Fujimoto, Immigration Judge, Chicago, 1990-2019
Hon. Jennie L. Giambastiani, Immigration Judge, Chicago, 2002-2019
Hon. John F. Gossart, Jr., Immigration Judge, Baltimore, 1982-2013
Hon. Paul Grussendorf, Immigration Judge, Philadelphia and San Francisco, 1997-2004
Hon. Miriam Hayward, Immigration Judge, San Francisco, 1997-2018
Hon. Charles Honeyman, Immigration Judge, Philadelphia and New York, 1995-2020
Hon. Rebecca Jamil, Immigration Judge, San Francisco, 2016-2018
Hon. William P. Joyce, Immigration Judge, Boston, 1996-2002
Hon. Carol King, Immigration Judge, San Francisco, 1995-2017
Hon. Elizabeth A. Lamb, Immigration Judge, New York, 1995-2018
Hon. Donn L. Livingston, Immigration Judge, Denver and New York, 1995-2018 Hon. Margaret McManus, Immigration Judge, New York, 1991-2018
Hon. Charles Pazar, Immigration Judge, Memphis, 1998-2017
Hon. Laura Ramirez, Immigration Judge, San Francisco, 1997-2018
Hon. John W. Richardson, Immigration Judge, Phoenix, 1990-2018
Hon. Lory D. Rosenberg, Appellate Immigration Judge, Board of Immigration Appeals, 1995-2002
Hon. Susan G. Roy, Immigration Judge, Newark, NJ 2008-2010
Hon. Paul W. Schmidt, Chair and Appellate Immigration Judge, Board of Immigration Appeals, and Immigration Judge, Arlington, VA 1995-2016
Hon. Ilyce S. Shugall, Immigration Judge, San Francisco, 2017-2019
Hon. Denise Slavin, Immigration Judge, Miami, Krome, and Baltimore, 1995-2019
Hon. Andrea Hawkins Sloan, Immigration Judge, Portland, 2010-2017
Hon. Gustavo D. Villageliu, Appellate Immigration Judge, BIA, 1995-2003
Hon. Robert D. Vinikoor, Immigration Judge, Chicago, 1984-2017
Hon. Polly A. Webber, Immigration Judge, San Francisco, 1995-2016
7

Hon. Robert D. Weisel, Assistant Chief Immigration Judge, Immigration Judge, New York 1989-2016
8

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

Hon. Jeffrey S. Chase
Jeffrey S. Chase Blog

Thanks to our “Lead Knight,” Hon. Jeffrey Chase, for all of his work on drafting, revising, and coordinating this huge, important project on short notice (all while continuing to save lives in Immigration Court as a “real” trial lawyer).

Yes, there were “knightesses” (female knights) in history. Joan of Arc is a well known one. Today, they are common (perhaps a majority) among the ranks of our Round Table and certainly among the fiercest and most courageous champions of Due Process as well as role models for all aspiring judges!

Knjightess — Knightess of the Round Table

Due Process Forever!

PWS

01-28-20

MOLLY HENNESSY-FISKE @ LA TIMES: Conscientious Immigration Judges Continue To Jump Ship As Regime Turns Immigration “Courts” Into DHS Deportation Offices, Where Due Process & Humanity Die Under A White Nationalist Agenda

Hon. Charles Honeyman — Honorable Charles Honeyman
Retired U.S. Immigration Judge
Member, Round Table of Former Immigration Judges

https://edition.pagesuite.com/popovers/dynamic_article_popover.aspx?guid=b5c81c57-52fe-4cd7-a092-fc7c8da23f05&v=sdk

HOUSTON — Immigration Judge Charles Honeyman was nearing retirement, but he vowed not to leave while Donald Trump was president and risk being replaced by an ideologue with an anti-immigration agenda.

He pushed back against the administration the best he could. He continued to grant asylum to victims of domestic violence even after the Justice Department said that was not a valid reason to. And he tried to ignore demands to speed through cases without giving them the consideration he believed the law required.

But as the pressure from Washington increased, Honeyman started having stomach pains and thinking, “There are a lot of cases I’m going to have to deny that I’ll feel sick over.”

This month, after 24 years on the bench, the 70-year-old judge called it quits.

Dozens of other judges concerned about their independence have done the same, according to the union that represents them and interviews with several who left.

“We’ve seen stuff which is unprecedented — people leaving the bench soon after they were appointed,” said A. Ashley Tabaddor, an immigration judge in Los Angeles and president of the National Assn. of Immigration Judges union.

“Judges are going to other federal agencies and retiring as soon as possible. They just don’t want to deal with it. It’s become unbearable.”

Especially worrying to many is a quota system that the Trump administration imposed in 2018 requiring each judge to close at least 700 cases annually, monitoring their progress with a dashboard display installed on their computers.

Tabaddor called the system “a factory model” that puts “pressures on the judges to push the cases through.”

Jeffrey Chase, who served as an immigration judge in New York City until 2007, founded a group of former immigration judges in 2017 that has grown to 40 members.

“They say they would have gladly worked another five or 10 years, but they just reached a point under this administration where they can’t,” he said. “It used to be there were pressures, but you were an independent judge left to decide the cases.”

The precise number of judges who have quit under duress is unclear. Kathryn Mattingly, a spokeswoman for the courts, said a total of 45 left their positions in the fiscal year that ended last September, but she declined to provide a breakdown of how many of those were deaths, planned retirements or promotions to the immigration appeals board.

More information may become available Wednesday, when a House judiciary subcommittee is scheduled to hear testimony on the state of judicial independence and due process in the country’s 68 immigration courts.

The Trump administration has been adding new judges faster than old ones are leaving. Between 2016 and last year, the total number of judges climbed from 289 to 442.

That increase as well as the quota system and other measures are part of a broad effort by the Trump administration to reduce a massive backlog that tripled during the Obama presidency and then grew worse as large numbers of Central Americans arrived at the U.S. border.

Last year, the Department of Homeland Security filed 443,000 cases seeking deportations and immigrants made a record 200,000 asylum applications — both records. More than a million cases remain unresolved.

Still, James McHenry, director of the immigration courts, told the Senate Homeland Security committee in November that the new rules have started to turn around a court system that had been hobbled by neglect and inefficiency.

On average, immigration judges met the quota last year while the number of complaints against judges decreased for the second year in a row, he said.

“These results unequivocally prove that immigration judges have the integrity and competence required to resolve cases in the timely and impartial manner that is required by law,” McHenry testified.

But many judges came to see the new guidelines as a way for the Trump administration to carry out its agenda of increasing deportations and denying asylum claims, which the president has asserted are largely fraudulent.

Those judges say it is impossible to work under the new system and still guarantee migrants their due process rights.

“There are many of us who just feel we can’t be part of a system that’s just so fundamentally unfair,” said Ilyce Shugall, who quit her job as an immigration judge in San Francisco last March and now directs the Immigrant Legal Defense Program at the Justice & Diversity Center of the Bar Assn. of San Francisco. “I took an oath to uphold the Constitution.”

The Trump administration was “using the court as a weapon against immigrants,” she said.

Rebecca Jamil, who was also a judge in San Francisco before quitting in 2018, called it a “nearly impossible job.”

She said the judge appointed to replace her left after less than a year.

The judges union has taken up the cause, fighting to end the quota system and make immigration courts independent from the Justice Department.

In response, Justice officials petitioned the Federal Labor Relations Authority last August to decertify the union, arguing judges are managers and therefore not entitled to union protections. The board is expected to issue a decision later this year.

The conflict intensified after the union filed a formal complaint about a Justice Department newsletter that included a link to a white nationalist website that waged anti-Semitic attacks on judges.

Honeyman, who is Jewish, makes no secret of the empathy he felt for the asylum seekers who appeared in his courtroom in Philadelphia and during temporary assignments to courts in Louisiana, New Mexico and Texas.

His grandparents had come from Eastern Europe through New York’s Ellis Island. “I always thought, ‘But for some quirk of the immigration system, I would be on the other side’ ” of the bench, he said.

He granted asylum more often than many other judges. Between 2014 and 2019, immigration judges across the country denied about 60% of asylum claims, according to Syracuse University’s Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse. Honeyman denied 35% of claims in his courtroom.

Reflecting on his career in a speech at his retirement party this month, Honeyman said he had been inspired by the cases he heard, including that of a Central American girl who wrote to thank him for granting her asylum. She had graduated from college and was applying to law school “so that she could give back to the America that had saved her life.”

Honeyman said he decided to leave the bench because of “the escalating attack over the past few years on the very notion that we are a court in any meaningful sense.”

“All of these factors and forces I regret tipped the balance for me,” he said. “It was time for Courtroom 1 at the Philadelphia immigration court to go dark.”

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

The idea that things are “turning around” in a positive way for the beleaguered and weaponized “courts” is, of course, pure regime propaganda. The system, is totally out of control.

The Administration eliminated sensible “prosecutorial discretion” guidelines for DHS that prioritized cases in the manner of all other law enforcement agencies in America. DOJ politicos also stripped Immigration Judges of their well-established authority to manage dockets thorough “administrative closure” and restricted their ability to grant reasonable continuances (likely unconstitutional).

At a time when the world is still producing record numbers of refugees, the regime has artificially suppressed the asylum grant rate by issuing unethical and legally wrong politically generated precedents, blocking access to counsel, using intentionally coercive detention, and pressuring judges to “produce or else” which roughly translates into “deny and deport.” “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” (“ADR”) is the order of the day. This toxic brand of ADR (not to be confused with “alternative disputes resolution”) is an insanely wasteful bureaucratic practice whereby “ready to try cases,” many pending for years, are shuffled off to the end of dockets that are many years out, often without advance notice to the parties, to accommodate Immigration Judge details, reassignments, and other “new priorities of the day.”

So totally out of control and mismanaged is today’s weaponized “court system” that the independent TRAC Immigration at Syracuse University recently estimated that it would take approximately another 400 Immigration Judges, in addition to the approximately 465 already on duty, just for the courts to “break even” on the unrestricted and irresponsible flow of incoming cases from DHS enforcement. https://trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/591/

In other words, to stop creating more backlog. And that would be without further retirements or resignations – something that clearly is not going to happen. Even under those circumstances, the courts would merely be “breaking even.” Eliminating the “backlog” in a fair and legal manner would take additional judges and years, if not generations, if the courts continue to operate as a dysfunctional branch of DOJ dedicated to biased enforcement at the expense of due process, fundamental fairness, and responsible, professional management.

It’s likely that Wednesday‘s House hearings will further document the institutional unfairness and dysfunction of the current “courts” and the urgent, overwhelming need for an independent Article I Immigration court to be established by Congress. But, that reform might not come soon enough for the lives of many of the vulnerable individuals stuck in this “legal hellhole” and the sanity of many of the judges still on the bench.

Due Process Forever!

PWS

01-27-20

AS IMMIGRATION COURT BACKLOGS CONTINUE TO SPIRAL OUT OF CONTROL, TRUMP REGIME TURNS TOWARD PUNISHING MIGRANTS FLEEING LEFT-WING AUTHORITARIAN STATES — Cuban, Venezuelan, Nicaraguan Dissidents Now Squarely In Sights Of Regime’s White Nationalist Enforcement Agenda! — “To put this recent 65,929-case growth in the backlog in perspective, assuming the pace of new filings continues at the existing rate and each judge met their administration-imposed quota of closing 700 cases a year, it would still require the court to hire almost 400 new judges – while stemming resignations and retirements among current judges – to stop the backlog from growing further. And a much larger round of judge hirings than this would be required in order to begin to reduce the backlog.”

Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse

Cubans, Venezuelans, and Nicaraguans Increase in Immigration Court Backlog

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

The fastest growing segments of the Immigration Court backlog are now Cubans, Venezuelans, and Nicaraguans. Between September 2018, when fiscal year 2018 drew to a close, and December 2019, Cubans in the backlog increased by 374 percent, Venezuela increased by 277 percent, and Nicaraguans increased by 190 percent. These rates of increase stand out when compared to the overall growth of 42 percent across all nationalities during this same period.

Despite the many actions by the Trump Administration designed to stem the growth in the Immigration Court backlog, the court’s backlog continues to climb. In just the three-month period from October through December 2019 the backlog has grown by 65,929 new cases. The court ended December 2019 with 1,089,696 in its active backlog.

To put this recent 65,929-case growth in the backlog in perspective, assuming the pace of new filings continues at the existing rate and each judge met their administration-imposed quota of closing 700 cases a year, it would still require the court to hire almost 400 new judges – while stemming resignations and retirements among current judges – to stop the backlog from growing further. And a much larger round of judge hirings than this would be required in order to begin to reduce the backlog.

To read the full report, go to:

https://trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/591/To examine the court’s backlog in more detail, now updated through December 2019, use TRAC’s free backlog app:

https://trac.syr.edu/phptools/immigration/court_backlog/Additional free web query tools which track Immigration Court proceedings have also been updated through December 2019. For an index to the full list of TRAC’s immigration tools and their latest update go to:

https://trac.syr.edu/imm/tools/If you want to be sure to receive notifications whenever updated data become available, sign up at:

https://tracfed.syr.edu/cgi-bin/tracuser.pl?pub=1&list=immFollow us on Twitter at

https://twitter.com/tracreportsor like us on Facebook:

https://facebook.com/tracreportsTRAC 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:

https://trac.syr.edu/cgi-bin/sponsor/sponsor.pl

David Burnham and Susan B. Long, co-directors
Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse
Syracuse University
Suite 360, Newhouse II
Syracuse, NY 13244-2100
315-443-3563
trac@syr.edu
http://trac.syr.edu

The Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse is a nonpartisan joint research center of the Whitman School of Management (http://whitman.syr.edu) and the Newhouse School of Public Communications (http://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 http://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.

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

The awful, unconstitutional mess in our Immigration Courts is a direct result of the regime’s “malicious incompetence” leading to round after round of “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” (“ADR”). Contrary to the regime’s false narratives and distortions these backlogs are NOT primarily the result of either a) systematic use of dilatory tactics by migrants and their attorneys, or b) lack of work ethic on the part of Immigration Judges and court staff.

Those of us “in my age group” can remember when a concerted attack on those fleeing from Communist countries or other leftist dictatorships would have earned more immediate “pushback” from the GOP both from Congress and from those within GOP Administrations.

Indeed, the Reagan Administration famously just stopped enforcing deportation orders against Nicaraguans in South Florida, even if they had been denied asylum, without ever announcing a formal policy of “deferred action.” This eventually led to creation of “Temporary Protected Status” by Congress and the “Nicaraguan and Central American Relief Act” (“NACARA”) to grant lawful permanent resident status to nationals of Nicaragua, El Salvador, and Guatemala, as well as some former Soviet-Bloc nationals who were in the U.S. without status.

As a former Immigraton Judge who saw the many positive effects of NACARA, it was one of the “smartest ever” bipartisan immigration programs enacted by Congress. It gave many deserving and hard-working families a chance to become permanent residents and eventually citizens. At the same time, it was easy to administer — so easy in fact that many asylum cases could be sent from the the Immigration Courts to the Asylum Offices for adjudication under NACARA, thereby freeing time and space on overcrowded court dockets. Moreover, the NACARA program was self-supporting, being financed from the filing fees charged by USCIS.

Basically, it was a win-win for everyone.

Similarly, the Bush I Administration declined to deport Chinese resistors to the “one-child” policy even where they had been denied asylum under the standards then in effect. This eventually led to a bipartisan amendment to the “refugee” definition to include those opposed to “coercive population control.”

A wiser Administration would draw on the many favorable lessons learned from TPS and NACARA to propose a large-scale legalization program to Congress. In the meantime, those with long residence and no serious crimes could be taken off Immigration Court dockets and granted work authorization pending Congressional action.

With dockets thus cleared of those with substantial equities whose removal actually would harm our national interests, the Immigration Courts could once again begin working “in the present tense” on cases of more recent arrivals who have not yet established equities. And it wouldn’t take another 400 Immigration Judges to put non-detained cases on a more reasonable and achievable 6-18 month completion schedule.

As it is, unless and until the Article III courts do their constitutional duty, or we have regime change and an independent Article I Immigration Court, the backlogs and injustices will continue to grow.

Due Process Forever!

PWS

01-22-20

49ERS ARE SUPER, PACK NOT SO MUCH: Green & Gold’s “Magic Season” Ends With Resounding Thud!

By Paul Wickham Schmidt

Exclusive For Courtside Sports

Alexandria, VA, Jan. 20, 2020. All week, Aaron Rodgers and Matt LaFleur promised that Sunday’s NFC Championship game against the San Francisco 49ers at Levi’s Stadium “would not be a repeat” of the Niners 37-8 blowout of the Pack in week 12. They were right. It wasn’t a repeat; it was much worse!

With a ferocious defense and an unstoppable running game, San Fran turned this into a “yawner” with just under a minute to go in the first half by jumping to a 27-0 lead, thus topping their 24-0 halftime margin in November. They toyed with the Pack in a largely meaningless second half, coasting to a 37-20 victory that wasn’t nearly that close. The Pack won the opening coin toss, but that was the last moment that it looked like they might belong on the same field with the boys from the Bay.

49er running back Raheem Mostert, a fine and obviously underrated player, but by no means an NFL “household name,” raced to 220 yards and four touchdown as his team out-gained the inept Pack attack on the ground 285-62. So complete was the domination that quarterback Jimmy Garoppolo, thought to be the “potential weak link” in the Niners’ armor, only had to throw eight passes, completing six of them for 77 yard and zero touchdowns. It didn’t matter.

Meanwhile, the Packer offense under Aaron Rodgers showed little resemblance to the relatively efficient machine that beat the Seattle Seahawks the week before. Fumble, interceptions, sacks, “three and outs,” inability to run, it all came undone.

Indeed, prior to the three largely meaningless touchdowns in the second half against a “relaxed” San Francisco defense that knew they had the game in the bag, the Pack offense looked eerily similar, if not even worse, than their week 12 debacle at Levi’s. But, even a better offensive showing by the Packers would have made little difference against a 49er attack that ran at will against the bewildered and outmanned Packer “D.” Indeed, the only reason that Mostert didn’t run for 300 yards and six touchdowns was because he didn’t have to.

So, for the fifth time in six tries in his otherwise storied career, Rodgers and the Pack came up short in the Conference Championship Game. That inevitably will lead to more criticism of the Packers’ signal caller as being unable to win the “big one,” notwithstanding his triumph in the 2011 Super Bowl. And, unquestionably first year Packer Coach LaFleur was outsmarted at every turn by his friend and former colleague Kyle Shanahan.

However, all is not lost for the Pack. Their 14-4 season, ending one game short of the Super Bowl, is nothing to be ashamed of. Indeed, it far exceeded expectations following last year’s 6-9-1 mark.

While many say that the “talent gap” between Green Bay and Super Bowlers San Francisco and Kansas City is so great that this could have been Rodgers’s “last shot” at his second ring, it’s not necessarily so. There is no better example of that than San Francisco, which last year won only four game and was picked by most to finish behind the Rams, Seahawks, and even the pathetic Cardinals in the NFC West.

The Pack needs to beef up the run defense and add a little speed to the offense during the offseason. But Packers General Manager Brian Gutekunst has shown that he is perfectly willing and able to break from the often limiting “build from the inside” tradition by going into the marketplace and getting the players necessary to fill gaps and improve the team. The addition of the “Smith boys” on defense and their instant impact, as well as the hiring of Lafleur, were great examples of “immediate return on investment.”

Sure, Aaron Rodgers is now in the “autumn” of his great career and probably can no longer legitimately be classified as among the “elite” who have ever played the game. But, he was no slouch this year, and is still very very good. Almost any team not named the Chiefs or the Ravens would drool at the chance to have him at the helm next season.

As for my Super Bowl predictions: It’s hard to pick against the Niners with their powerful running game and overpowering defense. But, after watching the Kansas City offense the last two weeks, it’s difficult to see anyone catching up with quarterback Patrick Mahomes over an entire 60 minutes. So, I’m betting that the next batch of State Farm commercials will feature Mahomes sporting a ring like that worn by his buddy, Aaron Rodgers. Chiefs by 13.

PWS

01-20-20

83% OF AFRICAN AMERICANS SAY TRUMP IS A RACIST: What Planet Has The Other 17% Been Living On? — “He has taken hatred against people of color, in general, from the closet to the front porch.”

https://apple.news/ABd8vQaHZQJm6eDhvbK3j0Q

The WashPost reports:

BY CLEVE R. WOOTSON JR., VANESSA WILLIAMS, DAN BALZ AND SCOTT CLEMENT

President Trump made a stark appeal to black Americans during the 2016 election when he asked, “What have you got to lose?” Three years later, black Americans have rendered their verdict on his presidency with a deeply pessimistic assessment of their place in the United States under a leader seen by an overwhelming majority as racist.

The findings come from a Washington Post-Ipsos poll of African Americans nationwide, which reveals fears about whether their children will have a fair shot to succeed and a belief that white Americans don’t fully appreciate the discrimination that black people experience.

While personally optimistic about their own lives, black Americans today offer a bleaker view about their community as a whole. They also express determination to try to limit Trump to a single term in office.

More than 8 in 10 black Americans say they believe Trump is a racist and that he has made racism a bigger problem in the country. Nine in 10 disapprove of his job performance overall.

The pessimism goes well beyond assessments of the president. A 65 percent majority of African Americans say it is a “bad time” to be a black person in America. That view is widely shared by clear majorities of black adults across income, generational and political lines. By contrast, 77 percent of black Americans say it is a “good time” to be a white person, with a wide majority saying white people don’t understand the discrimination faced by black Americans.

Courtney Tate, 40, an elementary school teacher in Irving, Tex., outside Dallas, said that since Trump was elected, he’s been having more conversations with his co-workers — discussions that are simultaneously enlightening and exhausting — about racial issues he and his students face everyday.

“As a black person, you’ve always seen all the racism, the microaggressions, but as white people they don’t understand this is how things are going for me,” said Tate, who said he is the only black male teacher in his school. “They don’t live those experiences. They don’t live in those neighborhoods. They moved out. It’s so easy to be white and oblivious in this country.”

Francine Cartwright, a 44-year-old mother of three from Moorestown, N.J., said the ascent of Trump has altered the way she thinks about the white people in her life.

“If I’m in a room with white women, I know that 50 percent of them voted for Trump and they believe in his ideas,” said Cartwright, a university researcher. “I look at them and think, ‘How do you see me? What is my humanity to you?’ ”

The president routinely talks about how a steadily growing economy and historically low unemployment have resulted in more African Americans with jobs and the lowest jobless rate for black Americans recorded. Months ago he said, “What I’ve done for African Americans in two-and-a-half years, no president has been able to do anything like it.”

But those factors have not translated positively for the president. A 77 percent majority of black Americans say Trump deserves “only some” or “hardly any” credit for the 5.5 percent unemployment rate among black adults compared with 20 percent who say Trump deserves significant credit.

In follow-up interviews, many said former president Barack Obama deserves more credit for the improvement in the unemployment rate, which declined from a high of 16.8 percent in 2010 to 7.5 percent when he left office.

Others said their personal financial situation is more a product of their own efforts than anything the president has done.

“I don’t think [Trump] has anything to do with unemployment among African Americans,” said Ethel Smith, a 72-year-old nanny who lives in Lithonia, Ga., a suburb of Atlanta. “I’ve always been a working poor person. That’s just who I am.”

Black Americans report little change in their personal financial situations in the past few years, with 19 percent saying it has been getting better and 26 percent saying it has been getting worse. Most, 54 percent, say their financial situation has stayed the same.

A similar 56 percent majority of African Americans rate the national economy as “not so good” or “poor,” contrasting with other surveys that find most Americans overall rate the economy positively, although there are sharp political divides on this question.

Beyond questions about the economy, African Americans see a range of concerns impacting the country overall as well as their own communities.

Just 16 percent of black Americans believe that most black children born in the U.S. today have “a good opportunity to achieve a comfortable standard of living.” A 75 percent majority think most white children have such an opportunity.

More than 8 in 10 say they do not trust police in the United States to treat people of all races equally, and 7 in 10 distrust police in their own community.

Black Americans also widely sense that their experiences with discrimination are underappreciated by white Americans. Just about 2 in 10 say that most white Americans understand the level of discrimination black Americans face in their lives, while nearly 8 in 10 say they do not.

The starkly negative outlook appears to be a turnabout from previous points during both the Obama and George W. Bush presidencies, according to surveys asking related questions. A 2011 Washington Post-Kaiser Family Foundation survey found 73 percent of black women said it was a “good time” to be a black woman in America, while a similar survey in 2006 found 60 percent of black men saying it was a good time to be a black man.

Yet the Post-Ipsos poll also finds that 65 percent of black Americans say they feel optimistic about their own lives most or all of the time. This positive personal outlook crosses age and political groups, and while it peaks among those who are older and with higher incomes, roughly half of black Americans with incomes under $35,000 annually say they feel optimistic about their own lives.

Dana Clark, a father of 11 children in Ontario, Calif., said he tells all of his children that it’s possible to succeed in America, but that they’ll have to work harder than the white children they encounter.

“I tell them we’re going to set this plan up. Whatever you want to do you’re going to be able to do it,” he said. “But it ain’t going to be easy, especially if [you] want to make some money because you’re going to be in a world where they’re not going to expect you to be there. You can get what you want, but you’ve got to work harder, faster and stronger.”

The survey, by The Post and Ipsos, a nonpartisan research firm, is one of the most extensive recent surveys focused on views of the country and President Trump among black Americans, who are often represented by only small samples in customary national polls. It was conducted among 1,088 non-Hispanic black adults, including 900 registered voters, drawn from a large online survey panel recruited through random sampling of U.S. households.

Few black voters responded positively to Trump’s campaign appeal for their votes. Exit polls taken during the 2016 election showed just 8 percent of African Americans supported Trump and 89 percent backed Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton, although black turnout was significantly lower than in 2008 and 2012 for the election and reelection of Obama, the country’s first black president.

In the Post-Ipsos poll, roughly three-quarters of black adults say the things that Trump is doing as president are “bad for African Americans,” while a similar majority says Obama’s actions as president were good.

Kenneth Davis, a truck driver who lives outside Detroit, said that when Trump was elected, co-workers who secretly harbored racist thoughts felt emboldened to publicly express them.

“One gentleman is waving the Confederate flag on the back of his pickup truck,” said Davis, 48, who is a Marine Corps veteran. “He was very brave to say ‘Trump’s president, I’m going to get my window (painted).’ ”

Retired federal prison warden Keith Battle said the political climate has exposed “unresolved racial issues” and that Trump has emboldened white supremacists. Battle, who lives in Wake Forest, N.C., said white supremacists “are not the majority of whites in America, but there is a significant amount still, I’d say 30 percent, and I think they’re just leading the country down a path of, eventually, chaos. They’re feeling jeopardized of losing their white privilege.”

Survey respondents were asked to say how Trump’s presidency has affected them personally or African Americans in general. The responses illuminated the data in the poll.

“Donald Trump has not done anything for the African American people,” said one person.

“He has created an atmosphere of division and overt racism and fear of immigrants unseen in many years,” said another.

A third said, “He has taken hatred against people of color, in general, from the closet to the front porch.”

Others echoed that sentiment, saying that the president has emboldened those with racially prejudiced views and therefore set back race relations for years. “I sense a separation between myself and some of my white associates,” one person wrote.

Trump’s overall approval rating among black Americans stands at 7 percent, with 90 percent disapproving, including 75 percent who disapprove “strongly.”

Similarly large majorities of black men and women disapprove of Trump, as do black Americans across different age, education and income levels. Trump receives somewhat higher marks among self-identified black conservatives, with 25 percent approving of his performance, compared with 5 percent of moderates and 3 percent among liberals.

Few black Americans appear open to supporting Trump’s bid for reelection at this point. He receives between 4 and 5 percent support among black registered voters in head-to-head matchups against eight potential Democratic nominees. But the level of Democratic support depends on who is the party’s nominee, peaking at 82 percent for former vice president Joe Biden and falling to 57 percent for former South Bend, Ind., mayor Pete Buttigieg.

The Post-Ipsos survey was conducted Jan. 2-8, 2020, through Ipsos’s KnowledgePanel, a large online survey panel recruited through random sampling of U.S. households. Overall results have a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3.5 percentage points among the sample of 1,088 black adults overall, and four points among the sample of 900 registered voters.

Emily Guskin contributed to this report.

Cleve R. Wootson Jr. is a national political reporter for The Washington Post, covering the 2020 campaign for president. He previously worked on The Post’s General Assignment team. Before that, he was a reporter for the Charlotte Observer.

Vanessa Williams is a reporter on the National desk.

Dan Balz is chief correspondent at The Washington Post. He has served as the paper’s deputy national editor, political editor, White House correspondent and Southwest correspondent.

Scott Clement is the polling director for The Washington Post, conducting national and local polls about politics, elections and social issues. He began his career with the ABC News Polling Unit and came to The Post in 2011 after conducting surveys with the Pew Research Center’s Religion and Public Life

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

Unfortunately, it’s painfully simple. The GOP is the “21st Century Party of Jim Crow.” Those of us who believe in the 14th Amendment, equal justice, and human decency had better hang together to remove Trump and as many of his GOP toadies as possible from office in 2020.

Otherwise, we’ll all be reliving one of the worst chapters in American history. And that will be tragic for future generations of Americans of all races.

Make America REALLY great by voting Trump and his White Nationalist kakistocracy out of office on every level of our political system. There are enough of us out there in the majority to get the job done this time — if we only hang together and get out the vote everywhere!

PWS

01-17-20

TRAC: EVEN AS REGIME MOVES TO UNLAWFULLY “ZERO OUT” ASYLUM GRANT RATES, HUGE DISPARITIES REMAIN – Two Of Top Five Asylum Deciding Courts – New York & San Francisco – Appear To Be Maintaining Due Process With Substantial Majority of Asylum Cases Being Granted – Many Others Appear To Be “Tanking” Under Regime’s Pressure To Deny & Deport!

Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse

Asylum Decisions Vary Widely Across Judges and Courts – Latest Results

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

TRAC’s judge-by-judge asylum decision reports are now updated through FY 2019. These reports examine 179,848 asylum decisions across 59 immigration courts. A total of 456 individual reports are available on Immigration Judges who made at least 100 decisions from FY 2014 to FY 2019.

To visualize this unique data in an easy-to-understand format, TRAC created an infographic which shows court denial rates, judge denial rates, and sizes of caseload for all judges included in the reports. This depicts the extent to which asylum decisions vary widely across judges and courts. This graphic is available in the report and also as a downloadable PDF file.

The geographic distribution of asylum cases across immigration courts is highly uneven. Just five immigration courts – New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Houston, and Miami – decided half of all asylum cases. Although just over 60 percent of all asylum applications were denied in this period, slightly less than half of applications – just 49 percent – in the top five courts were denied. This is mostly due to the balancing effect of comparably low denial rates in New York (26%) and San Francisco (30%) in contrast to much higher denial rates in Houston (92%) and Miami (86%) and a more moderate denial rate in Los Angeles (71%).

Twelve immigration courts accumulated denial rates above 90%. Atlanta denied over 97 percent of over 2,000 asylum applications, Las Vegas denied 93 percent of its 2,000 applications, and Conroe denied 92 percent of just over 850 applications. In contrast, only seven immigration courts deny less than 50 percent of cases: Newark (49%), Phoenix (48%), Chicago (47%), Boston (42%), Honolulu (31%), San Francisco (30%), and New York (26%).

View the entire report at:

https://trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/590/

For the individual judge-by-judge reports go to:

https://trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/judgereports/

Additional free web query tools which track immigration court proceedings have also been updated through November 2019. For an index to the full list of TRAC’s immigration tools and their latest update go to:

https://trac.syr.edu/imm/tools/

If you want to be sure to receive notifications whenever updated data become available, sign up at:

https://tracfed.syr.edu/cgi-bin/tracuser.pl?pub=1&list=imm

Follow us on Twitter at

https://twitter.com/tracreports

or like us on Facebook:

https://facebook.com/tracreports

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:

https://trac.syr.edu/cgi-bin/sponsor/sponsor.pl

David Burnham and Susan B. Long, co-directors
Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse
Syracuse University
Suite 360, Newhouse II
Syracuse, NY 13244-2100
315-443-3563
trac@syr.edu
http://trac.syr.edu

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

So, this is how a feckless Congress and complicit Article III courts are allowing Due Process to be trampled in America – life or death decisions being made in an arbitrary and capricious manner in a broken, dysfunctional, and clearly unconstitutional system. Wonder how legislators and judges would like it if their lives were being decided by “throwing darts at a board.”

It‘s what passes for “justice” in the “Age of Trump” and the ”Era of Complicity.” But, it’s still an entirely preventable national disgrace! And, a personal disaster for those whose lives are lost or irreparably damaged by U.S. Government misfeasance and malfeasance across the Executive, Legislative, & Judicial Branches!

Due Process Forever; Fecklessness & Complicity In the Face Of Tyranny Never!

PWS

01-13-20

NICOLE NAREA @ VOX NEWS: EXPOSING TRUMP & HIS REGIME’S “BIG LIES” ABOUT ASYLUM SEEKERS: When Not Detained They Appear For 99% Of Hearings, According To Gov’s Own Data!

https://apple.news/A2wm08ZZ6SjCQ5R7OJnipHA

Nicole reports:

Trump says most asylum seekers don’t show up for their court hearings. A new study shows 99% do.

This study contradicts Trump’s rationale for expanding immigration detention.

By Nicole Narea @nicolenarea Jan 10, 2020, 4:50pm EST

Share this story

Share this on Facebook (opens in new window)

Share this on Twitter (opens in new window)

SHARE
All sharing options

Central American immigrant families depart ICE custody, pending future immigration court hearings on June 11, 2018 in McAllen, Texas. John Moore/Getty Images

President Donald Trump has often claimed that the only way to ensure that migrants show up for their court hearings rather than vanish into the US is to keep them in detention or else make sure that they never step foot on American soil in the first place.

But the president’s theory doesn’t hold up: About 99 percent of asylum seekers who were not detained or who were previously released from immigration custody showed up for their hearings over the last year, according to new data from the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC) at Syracuse University, a think tank that tracks data in the immigration courts.

Studies from previous years have also disproven the idea that most migrants will choose to live in the US without authorization rather than see their immigration cases through. But it’s nevertheless central to Trump’s immigration policies, including those that aim to keep migrants in Mexico rather than letting them walk free in the US.

The latest data from TRAC shows that nearly every asylum seeker showed up for their court hearings over the course of 2019. That’s even though the vast majority of asylum seekers — about 4 in 5 — were not detained at all or had been released from US Immigration and Customs Enforcement custody before their court date.

Migrants can end up in immigration court in one of two ways: turning themselves in to immigration agents or getting caught while trying to cross the border without authorization. In both cases, officials will initiate deportation proceedings against them and give them a date to appear in court, where they can ask a judge for asylum and other protections that would allow them to remain in the US with legal status, or else be ordered deported.

On average, immigrants with currently pending cases have been waiting almost two years for their court hearings, and cases take even longer to complete. Under previous administrations, a migrant who came into contact with immigration agents would have typically been released from custody into the US during that waiting period, unless they were found to be likely to flee or a risk to public safety.

But Trump has repeatedly maligned that practice, dubbing it “catch and release,” a concept that predates his presidency but that became a rallying cry during his 2016 campaign. He has falsely claimed that most asylum seekers who are allowed to walk free while their immigration cases are pending will not show up for their court hearings, instead absconding into the US to live as unauthorized immigrants.

In an address last January, Trump asserted that as few as 2 percent of asylum seekers who aren’t in detention show up for their court hearings:

Tell me, what percentage of people come back? Would you say 100 percent? No, you’re a little off. Like, how about 2 percent? And those people, you almost don’t want, because they cannot be very smart… Those two percent are not going to make America great again, that I can tell you.

But data from both TRAC and the Department of Justice clearly refutes Trump’s claim: the rate at which non-detained migrants showed up for their court hearings still far exceeded 2 percent even in the years prior to 2019, in which attendance rates were unusually high. About 75 percent showed up for their hearings in fiscal year 2018, similar to rates over the previous five years.

It’s not clear why migrants skipped out on their hearings at significantly lower rates in 2019, but it’s possible that Trump’s hardline rhetoric on immigration and large-scale immigration raids have discouraged migrants from choosing to live in the US without authorization.

Meanwhile, the rate at which migrants’ asylum claims have been denied has steadily grown over the last seven years from just 42 percent in 2012 to 69 percent in 2019.

Trump has called for the end of “catch and release”

Trump has made efforts to end catch and release, instead keeping migrants in detention or else sending them back to Central America. To do so, he has increased funding for immigration detention, despite Congress’s attempts to rein him in.

Congress had sought to decrease the number of migrants in detention to just over 40,000 in its 2019 appropriations bill. But in August, Trump transferred $271 million in Department of Homeland Security disaster relief funds to ICE to pay for more detention capacity — about 50,000 migrants daily — and temporary immigration courts along the southern border.

Trump has also rolled out a series of policies that allow immigration agents to send migrants back to Mexico and Guatemala.

Under his “Remain in Mexico” policy, officially known as the Migrant Protection Protocols, he has sent about 56,000 migrants back to Mexico to await decisions on their asylum cases in the US. The administration consequently announced that it had ended catch and release for families arriving at the southern border with some limited exceptions, instead sending them all back to Mexico under MPP.

And he’s brokered agreements with the countries in Central America’s “Northern Triangle” region — Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador — that would allow his administration to send migrants back to those countries to seek protection there rather than in the US. Only the agreement with Guatemala is in effect so far, but the agreement with Honduras is weeks away from implementation.

There are comparatively low-cost alternatives to keeping immigrants in detention or sending them abroad, including the now-defunct Obama-era Family Case Management Program. Under that program, which Trump ended in June 2017, families were released and assigned to social workers who aided them in finding attorneys and accommodation and ensured that they showed up for their court hearings.

The program was small in scale, with no more than 1,600 people enrolled at any one time, but appeared to be successful in ensuring that 99 percent of participants showed up for their court appearances and ICE check-ins.

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

Thanks, Nicole, for your your clear, articulate, accessible reporting on perhaps America’s most misunderstood area of public discourse.

Intentionally lying and creating false narratives to dehumanize and denigrate the most vulnerable among us. It doesn’t get much more cowardly and depraved than than that. Yet, as Trump knows, millions in his “cult” will uncritically accept any lie or myth that he and his toadies throw out there.

Falsified “no-show rates” was one of the specialties of “Big Mac With Lies” McAleenan. It’s “not OK” for public officials like “Big Mac” to lie and urge policies to be based on “knowingly false narratives” and White Nationalist myths. And, it’s “not OK” to treat Big Mac, Nielsen, Kelly, Homan and other departed DHS toadies like “regular retired Government Senior Executives.” Their dishonesty, bias, and cowardice in the face of tyranny should never be forgotten.

That’s why honest, nonpartisan statistical analysis like that from TRAC and honest, professional reporting like Nicole’s are so important. So many intentional lies and misrepresentations are out there on the net and flowing from the regime on a regular basis.

One reason for the increase in the already very high rate of appearance for asylum seekers, noted by Nicole, might be the relatively high representation rate for those not in detention. Thanks to the many dedicated members of the New Due Process Army, approximately 85% of non-detained asylum seekers are represented. Represented individuals actually understand the system and the importance of reporting to court in an intentionally confusing and opaque process run by bureaucrats in a way that is often openly hostile to the public and Due Process of law.

Clearly, the expanded “New American Gulag” is based on false premises and lies. What would really work for everyone is reprogramming the time, money, and effort wasted on gross overuse of immigration detention into grants to resettlement agencies and legal aid organizations to insure adequate care, representation, and an understanding of our legal system leading to nearly “100% attendance” in Immigration Court. But, ignoring truth and sound public policy is certainly nothing new for the Trump regime.

Undoubtedly, a fair and impartially administered Immigration Court system would result in more asylum grants. That’s why the White Nationalists driving policy under the Trump regime don’t want it to happen.

PWS

01-11-20

Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Related posts:

HOW EOIR’S “CAPTIVE COURTS” INTENTIONALLY DISTORT AND PERVERT JUSTICE — The Shocking Failure Of Congress & The Article IIIs To Stand Up For Justice In America!

By Paul Wickham Schmidt

“Courtside” Exclusive

April 6, 2020

Due Process Forever! Captive Courts Never!

Related posts:

Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Related posts:

Due Process Forever! Judges Who Won’t Stand Up For Asylum Seekers, Never!

Related posts:

Due Process Forever! Patently Unfair And Biased Immigration “Courts” Never!

Related posts:

Due Process Forever; Complicit Courts Never!

Related posts:

Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Cubans, Venezuelans, and Nicaraguans Increase in Immigration Court Backlog

Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

49ERS ARE SUPER, PACK NOT SO MUCH: Green & Gold’s “Magic Season” Ends With Resounding Thud!

By Paul Wickham Schmidt

Exclusive For Courtside Sports

Related posts:

Related posts:

Due Process Forever; Fecklessness & Complicity In the Face Of Tyranny Never!

Related posts:

Related posts: