"The Voice of the New Due Process Army" ————– Musings on Events in U.S. Immigration Court, Immigration Law, Sports, Music, Politics, and Other Random Topics by Retired United States Immigration Judge (Arlington, Virginia) and former Chairman of the Board of Immigration Appeals Paul Wickham Schmidt and Dr. Alicia Triche, expert brief writer, practical scholar, emeritus Editor-in-Chief of The Green Card (FBA), and 2022 Federal Bar Association Immigration Section Lawyer of the Year. She is a/k/a “Delta Ondine,” a blues-based alt-rock singer-songwriter, who performs regularly in Memphis, where she hosts her own Blues Brunch series, and will soon be recording her first full, professional album. Stay tuned! 🎶 To see our complete professional bios, just click on the link below.
The question I get asked the most as someone who went from being a Republican to a Democrat is: “What’s the biggest difference between the two parties?”
The answer: Every impulse Democrats have is defensive and every impulse Republicans have is offensive.
A report in the Washington Post this week showed these dynamics at play perfectly between Democrats and Republicans on the House Jan. 6 select committee. As the Post described, Democratic Rep. Stephanie Murphy (Fla.) insisted that the committee focus less on former President Trump and more on the security and intelligence failures that allowed the attack on the Capitol. In response, Republican Vice Chair Liz Cheney (Wyo.) argued that the committee should keep its focus on the former president.
This is the best illustration I have come across that demonstrates how different Republicans and Democrats approach things on a tactical and, I’d say, cellular level.
When Republicans have the reins of power, they do not hesitate to go after the very top. From Barack Obama’s birth certificate to Hillary Clinton’s emails and potentially Hunter Biden’s laptop, the GOP is unapologetic about pursuing witch hunts for political gain.
Democrats, on the other hand, are always pursuing lines of legitimate oversight reluctantly. At times, it feels like they are apologizing for doing the right thing.
I think back to Trump’s first impeachment and the hesitant posture displayed by the Democrats during those proceedings. It was almost as if they were forced into it, regretted that it came to this, and moved as fast as possible to get it over with.
Democrats controlled the House majority but never forced Trump administration officials with firsthand knowledge of the events that were at the center of the impeachment inquiry to testify, such as John Bolton, Mick Mulvaney or Rick Perry, and the Republican-controlled Senate predictably torpedoed any effort to compel them to testify.
History repeated itself during Trump’s second impeachment as firsthand witnesses like Mike Pence, Mark Meadows, Jared Kushner, Ivanka Trump, Rudolph W. Giuliani, etc., were never called to testify. Hillary Clinton, of course, was grilled by the Republican-led Benghazi committee for more than 11 hours.
It’s almost as if Democrats believe there is some prize awaiting them for showing what they would characterize as restraint. There isn’t.
. . . .
*********************
Read the complete article at the link.
This has been obvious in the Dems’ feckless approach to Immigration, and particularly the Immigration Courts, over the years.
Without enacting any significant legislation, the GOP instituted an overtly racist/nativist/restrictionist program. They negated existing laws, scorned the Constitution, abrogated log-standing international agreements, and aggressively and blatantly stacked the Federal Judiciary at all levels with far-right zealots. And they have gotten away with it!
Yet, even after successfully running on programs promising a restoration of the rule of law and the Constitution in immigration and human rights, Dems have been from feckless, to timid, to complicit in the GOP’s vile programs.
The GOP did not hesitate to “stack” the Immigration Court system at all levels with questionably qualified judges who lacked perspective, expertise, and a commitment to due process. The result was a dramatic plunge in the grant rates for asylum seekers, even though conditions in the primary sending countries have continued to worsen dramatically over the years.
No justification for what the GOP did, and no hesitation or self-doubts about doing it! Amid tons of criticism, they just plowed ahead and did it! They “played to the most extreme elements of their base” — nobody else! They weren’t scared to take extreme actions that most polls showed the majority of American’s didn’t favor!
By contrast, the Dems approach to immigration and human rights policy is a complete mess. And, worst of all, the Immigration Courts and EOIR remain largely as the Trump regime left them. Indeed, the backlog is growing at an astounding rate, as Garland flails and fails to bring on board the “best and brightest” judges and intellectual leaders to reform EOIR into the due-process oriented “model judiciary” that it was once intended to be!
Critics were stunned Saturday after Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas scolded Americans for not accepting controversial rulings — after his own wife battled against the results of a legitimate presidential election.
Thomas chided a distraught public in comments Friday at a judicial conference in Atlanta following the leak of a draft Supreme Court opinion that would gut Roe v. Wade and a half-century of the right to an abortion.
He complained that Americans are “addicted” to results they want — while “not living with” rulings they oppose. He warned that the court will not be “bullied” in the face of protest. Declining respect for the law and institutions, Thomas warned, “bodes ill for a free society.”
Thomas detractors were agog. Not only has his wife, Virginia “Ginni” Thomas, refused to “live with” the presidential election, he was the sole Supreme Court justice to vote that former President Donald Trump should not have to release his White House documents to the House committee investigating last year’s insurrection.
Thomas has also repeatedly attempted to rip up legal precedence set by the court.
“The irony is so thick you wonder if it’s maybe a Clarence Thomas impersonator,” former U.S. Attorney Harry Litman said on MSNBC Saturday.
“Among other things, this is a guy who has spent a lifetime trying to take a battering ram to all the Supreme Court major precedents” of law, Litman added. “He’s now saying people don’t respect the law enough. That’s even leaving aside all the controversies he has engendered, as has his wife. It’s just … remarkable.”
. . . .
***************************
Read the full article at the link.
There is no end to the hypocrisy and subversiveness of the Thomas Clan and the far-right.
Let me tell you about some recent events in my office.
We had two cases set for individual hearings this week. Both cases involve noncitizens who have been waiting years for their decisions, both have family members abroad who they hope to bring to the U.S. if their claims are successful, and both have strong cases for asylum.
For the first case, we prepared and submitted evidence earlier in the pandemic, but the case was postponed at the last minute due to Covid. We were hoping that the new date would stick, given that restrictions are easing and the court now has a system to do cases remotely (called Webex). As the date approached, we filed additional evidence and scheduled two practice sessions for the client. We also regularly checked the Immigration Court online portal, which lists our court dates, to be sure the case was still on the docket.
“Your asylum case is cancelled. Again.”
The second case has also been pending for years. The respondent (the noncitizen in court) is from Afghanistan, and such cases are supposedly receiving priority treatment. So at the Master Calendar Hearing, the Immigration Judge (“IJ”) asked us to be sure to talk to DHS prior to the hearing, presumably in the hope that we would come to an agreement about relief. The IJ also scheduled the hearing for a relatively short time slot in anticipation of a possible uncontested hearing. As with the first case, we filed all the evidence and scheduled the practices.
Both respondents had been in touch with their families overseas and both had talked to their relatives about hopefully reuniting soon.
Then – surprise! – we checked the Immigration Court portal and noticed that both cases had disappeared from the docket. Since the portal pages are sometimes screwy, and since court dates are constantly changing, we decided to wait a bit to see whether the dates reappeared. Informing clients about court delays is always fraught, and can even be traumatic for the clients and their families, who have a lot invested in these dates. So it is better not to inform the client until we are sure a date is canceled.
After some hours, we decided to tell the first client. We had a practice session scheduled for that afternoon, and it would waste time to prepare for a hearing that was not going forward. I called the client and informed him, and as I have often experienced before, he was upset and confused. Why had the case been postponed? Was it something about him or his case? Or was it something about the Court? I could at least inform him that we had two cases canceled on the same date (from two different IJs), and so he should understand that the cancellation was not related to him personally. That is obviously cold comfort, but I guess it is better than nothing. I know it was very upsetting for him to receive this news. It was emotionally exhausting for me as well.
For the next two days, this client kept checking the online court system to see whether anything changed. Then – surprise again! – the case re-appeared on the docket for the same old day and time!
I called the court to confirm, and the clerk told me that the case had been removed by accident, and that it was back on! How lucky! The client told me how upset he had been. He hadn’t been able to sleep or eat. He did not even inform his family back home, as he feared they would not understand or would not believe him. We rescheduled the two practice sessions and mentally re-prepared to go forward.
The next day – surprise again again! – I received a message from the court. The case was definitely off. The clerk apologized for the confusion, and told me that the matter would be set for a date in the future. It would be inappropriate for me to publish here the words that came from my mouth after receiving this message, but let’s just say that I was somewhat agitated. I called the clerk and left a message informing the court how harmful this whole process had been to the respondent, how upset he was, and how he had not seen his family members for years. I also mentioned how upsetting the experience had been for me.
I should say that I do not blame the clerk. He is actually very nice and very responsive (he actually called back and said he will try to get us a new date as soon as possible). The problem is “the system” and complaining to the system is about as effective as punching the ocean. No one is ever responsible, and so there is no one who can be held accountable.
As for client number two, at least he did not suffer the on-again, off-again fate of our first client. But he and his family members were also very upset, and given the IJ’s intention of scheduling the hearing quickly because the respondent is Afghan, it is particularly frustrating that a likely approval should be pushed off until who-knows-when.
What now? For both cases, we will wait a bit to see if new dates appear. Maybe they will. If not, we will file motions to advance, and we will try to get earlier dates. All this is more expense and wasted time for the clients, more work for us, and more work for the court, which will have to review our filings. Last year, I wrote about the harm caused by cancelled hearings, and–despite the easing pandemic and the wide-spread availability of Webex–the problem persists. I’ve mentioned just two cases here, but we see this again and again and again. Not in every case, but it’s common enough that we can never be confident that any particular case will go forward, which makes it much more difficult for respondents and attorneys to prepare for court.
While the situation is bleak, I should mention that the news is not all bad. We are still having some successes. For example, over my Spring Break, I litigated a Syrian case (remotely, with very questionable internet, and in what I believe is the first Immigration Court case in the history of Shickshinny, Pennsylvania). Although it was a close case and DHS generally opposed relief, the IJ explained his reasons for granting and DHS agreed not to appeal. And just yesterday, my client from Pakistan received asylum after a contested hearing. DHS did not appeal.
So if we can actually get to a hearing, it is still possible to win. This is the hope we all need to hold on to, but it would be much easier and much fairer if the system had a modicum of respect for the people it purports to serve.
*******************
Thanks, Jason, for your clear and compelling description of the toxic human and systemic effects of Garland’s continuing “ADR” at EOIR!
Contrary to the “nativist false narrative” promoted under Administrations of both parties, those suffering in the inexcusable EOIR backlog are NOT “evading deportation.” Many, probably the majority, are individuals who are eligible to, and should be granted, the ability to remain in the U.S.
This is particularly true of asylum applicants. Even with a system improperly skewed against them, asylum applicants were winning the majority of their EOIR court cases as recently as FY 2012.
Despite worsening conditions since then in almost all “sending countries,” that rate cratered by about 50% during the Trump regime. It’s fairly obvious that the increased denial rates resulted from perversions of the law, ADR, and an intentional “dumbing down” of both the administrative law and EOIR personnel at all levels.
Garland has taken, at best, “baby steps” to improve the Immigration Courts. He’s merely “nibbling at the edges” where radical house cleaning 🧹and progressive reforms ⚖️ were absolutely necessary, recommended by experts, and achievable — at least had Garland “hit the ground running!”
EOIR should long ago have been replaced with an independent Article I Immigration Court based on the principles of fairness, scholarship, timeliness, respect, teamwork, and most of all, an overriding unswerving commitment to due process and best practices. Judges and administrators should be selected competitively, with private bar input, and exclusively on a merit basis from among those who have demonstrated expertise in immigration and human rights.
As long as EOIR inappropriately continues to reside in the U.S. Department of Justice, there should never, NEVER, again be another Attorney General who does not possess significant experience representing individuals in Immigration Court — the fundamental “retail level” of our entire justice system. Garland ‘s failure to “get the job done for due process and equal justice” — not even close — is “Exhibit A” in what happens when the wrong person is appointed to oversee the Immigration Courts!
At a time when America needed enlightened, inspirational, informed, and courageous legal and ethical leadership for the Immigration Courts, Garland has been “MIA!” American justice, at all levels, is paying the heavy price!☹️
Merrick Garland: “What, me worry? I’ve spent my entire law career in the ‘ivory tower.’ What’s ‘aimless docket reshuffling?’ Who cares about asylum seekers?” PHOTO: Wikipedia Commons
GW Law Immigration Clinic Director Professor Alberto Benítez & Co-Director Paulina Vera
“I really do not find enough words to let you know how grateful I am to all of you for your wise and timely guidance at all times and for the dedication and commitment that you assumed from the first moment towards our asylum case.”
Please join me in congratulating Immigration Clinic client T-G and her son F-P, from Venezuela, and their student-attorneys Karoline Núñez, Samuel Thomas, Alexandra Chen, and Jeremy Patton. The clients’ asylum application was filed April 28, 2017, their interview at the Asylum Office was on November 1, 2021, and the grant was issued March 21, 2022. T-G received the grant yesterday.
T-G is a survivor of domestic violence at the hands of her husband. He’d punch T-G, force her to have sexual relations, infected her with a STD, and he blamed her for their daughter’s neurological issues. Their daughter contracted Zika but was unable to receive the appropriate treatment because T-G was not a supporter of the Maduro government. Their daughter died at age 14.
Many congrats to the GW Immigration Clinic and all the GW All-Stars! 🤮⚖️
Let’s get behind the intentional dehumanization and the chronically misleading “numbers” being thrown around by nativists, some so-called “moderate” Dems, and the DHS. Put a “human face” on our nation’s dereliction of legal duty and abandonment of values at out Southern border.
The Faces Of Human Suffering @ Our Border PHOTO: The Guardian
This case is a compelling example of the types of refugees, many women and children and most people of color, who are stuck at our Southern Border as illegal suspension of asylum laws, based on racially- motivated bogus “public health” grounds grinds on. With some legal assistance and a fair and orderly system in place, many of those waiting could qualify for asylum if given a fair chance under the law.
Access to the asylum system, representation, and fair and impartial adjudication are essential to success. Right now, the Biden Administration is denying all three.
Make no mistake, this disingenuous action would kill asylum for good! These guys don’t even have the guts to admit that they are now carrying out Stephen Miller’s xenophobic war on immigrants and refugees of color.
Biden ran on an elimination of Title 42 and restoration of the legal asylum process. If 18 months after the election they lack a “plan,” there is no reason to believe that 60 more days would make a difference. It’s now or never!
60 days would bring us even closer to the mid-terms. If Dems are scared to follow the law now, that’s not going to improve as the midterms get even closer.
You can be sure that once the midterms are past, particularly if Dems get “blown out” as they fear, they will claim that the time “isn’t right” for any immigration “reform” (although, following the law is hardly a real “reform”) in advance of the 2024 election. If the GOP wins in ’24, the effective elimination of legal immigration — with or without legislation — will be finalized.
This has nothing to do with COVID at this point. It never really did. It was always about finding a pretext to close the border and keep it closed — at least to non-White refugees. But, since COVID constantly mutates, there will always be some sort of “COVID emergency” out there for the foreseeable future.
Asylum applicants have NOT been a significant source of COVID.They are far less of a threat to our health, safety, and security than GOP “magamorons” who eschew vaccination and basic public safety precautions. The Biden Administration should have a plan in place to insure that asylum seekers are tested and if necessary vaccinated before admission.
If we have no legal asylum system at the border, no functional refugee system abroad, and no hope for the future, the only way for individuals to seek protection will be by using smugglers to enter illegally and then hoping to “lose themselves” in a burgeoning “extralegal population” throughout out America. Once we abandon any pretext of a legal system for asylum seekers, the border will get further and further out of control. That will add to the GOP’s claims that more and more cruel, draconian, and punitive measures are necessary. But, they won’t stop desperate people from attempting entry until they either succeed or die in the process.
Contrary to the misguided blather of some Dems, there will never be a better time for Dems to support asylum seekers. They are concentrated in border areas, and eager to have their claims heard. Orderly processing and admitting as many as qualify, in a period of artificially reduced migration, would help the economy, raise tax revenues, and address supply chain issues. If not now, when?
Restoring asylum law is a legal requirement, not a “strategy,” “policy,” or “political choice.” If Dems turn their backs on the rule of law, what makes them different from the GOP?
If this divisive nonsense and backsliding on basic constitutional, racial justice, and social justice issues continues, progressive Dems are going to be faced with having to make a decision about the party’s future.
Progressive Dems make up a key part of the party’s core base and a disproportionate amount of the “boots on the ground, grass roots enthusiasm.” Republicans aren’t going to vote for Dems, no matter how xenophobic, hateful, and racist Dems are toward migrants. So-called “independents,” are neither going to fill the Dems coffers nor pound the pavement and work the phone lines to “get out the vote.”
So, arrogant “Title 42 Dems” are assuming that they can “spit on” immigrant justice, racial justice, economic justice, and social justice and that their “core support” among progressives won’t diminish because they will always be preferable to “Trump Republicans.”
All in all, it’s a “big middle finger” to progressives and their social justice agenda. That’s an agenda that Biden actually successfully ran on.
If progressives really believe in a pro immigrant, pro rule of law, racial justice agenda, then they need to stand up to the backsliders and let them know that there will be real consequences of yet another “sellout of immigrants’ rights.” We’ll see whether progressive Dems have more backbone and courage than their “Title 42/Miller Lite wing.”
But, the Post badly missed the larger point — NO refugee can afford to wait, be they White Ukrainians, Black Haitians, Cameroonians, and Congolese, or Latinos from the Northern Triangle, Venezuela, and Nicaragua! Our obligations to asylees are not supposed to be “race-based!”
The U.S. has had a legal refugee and asylum system for more than four decades. During that time, Congress has made several amendments of the law to allow DHS to rapidly process and summarily remove those appearing at the border who, after prompt expert screening by Asylum Officers, cannot establish a “credible fear” of persecution.
Restrictionists and shamefully some so-called moderate Democrats, and sometimes CBP, seem to have conveniently “forgotten” that the law was designed to deal fairly and promptly with so-called “mass migrations” long before the advent of the bogus Title 42 charade.
For some periods during the 40 years since the enactment of the Refugee Act of 1980, the U.S. has run functional refugee and asylum programs. Not “perfect” or perhaps even “optimal,” but “functional.”
They have done this by employing experts, cooperating with NGOs (domestic and international), and building resettlement and support systems spearheaded by NGOs, using Government grants, and promoting teamwork and coordination with states and localities.
It has only been when Administrations of both parties have mindlessly turned away from human rights experts and followed the misguided and tone-deaf gimmicks advocated by nativists and apostles of “enforcement only deterrence” that the legal systems for refugees and asylees, and efficient, humane border enforcement, have fallen into disorder.
While refugee and asylum laws could undoubtedly be improved, contrary to the media blather and nativist grandstanding, we have the basic legal framework to deal with the current refugee and asylum situations at our borders and beyond. The question is whether the Biden Administration and Dems have the will, vision, competence, and willingness to cooperate with human rights experts to fix the mess intentionally created by Trump and return human decency, competence, and the rule of law to our borders! If not now, when?
Secretary Mayorkas Designates Cameroon for Temporary Protected Status for 18 Months
Release Date: April 15, 2022
WASHINGTON— Today, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced the designation of Cameroon for Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for 18 months. Only individuals who are already residing in the United States as of April 14, 2022, will be eligible for TPS.
“The United States recognizes the ongoing armed conflict in Cameroon, and we will provide temporary protection to those in need,” said Secretary Alejandro N. Mayorkas. “Cameroonian nationals currently residing in the U.S. who cannot safely return due to the extreme violence perpetrated by government forces and armed separatists, and a rise in attacks led by Boko Haram, will be able to remain and work in the United States until conditions in their home country improve.”
A country may be designated for TPS when conditions in the country fall into one or more of the three statutory bases for designation: ongoing armed conflict, environmental disaster, or extraordinary and temporary conditions. This designation is based on both ongoing armed conflict and extraordinary and temporary conditions in Cameroon that prevent Cameroonian nationals, and those of no nationality who last habitually resided in Cameroon, from returning to Cameroon safely. The conditions result from the extreme violence between government forces and armed separatists and a significant rise in attacks from Boko Haram, the combination of which has triggered a humanitarian crisis. Extreme violence and the widespread destruction of civilian infrastructure have led to economic instability, food insecurity, and several hundred thousand displaced Cameroonians without access to schools, hospitals, and other critical services.
This marks the first time the Secretary of DHS will permit qualifying nationals of Cameroon to remain temporarily in the United States pursuant to a TPS designation of that country. Individuals eligible for TPS under this designation must have continuously resided in the United States since April 14, 2022. Individuals who attempt to travel to the United States after April 14, 2022 will not be eligible for TPS. Cameroon’s 18-month designation will go into effect on the publication date of the forthcoming Federal Register notice. The Federal Register notice will provide instructions for applying for TPS and an Employment Authorization Document (EAD). TPS applicants must meet all eligibility requirements and undergo security and background checks.
###
******************
According to TRAC, there were 3,191 pending Cameroonian cases in Immigration Court as of March 22, 2022. https://trac.syr.edu/phptools/immigration/court_backlog/. On the basis of my experience, I would guess that most of these are in the mid-Atlantic region.
Cameroonian asylum cases were a “staple” in Arlington over my 13 years on the bench ending on June 30, 2016. For example, in FY 2012, they were approximately 9% of my asylum docket, although that number dwindled between then and my retirement.
The other 1/3 of cases are disposed of in “other” ways. This indicates that with TPS as a tool, almost all of the pending Cameroonian cases at EOIR could be resolved in short order without diminishing anyone’s rights.
That’s a “drop in the bucket” on a 1.8 million case backlog. But, it does suggest that better docket management tools, ones that comply with due process, are available to Immigration Judges and could be built upon for the future with more visionary and due-process-focused leadership at EOIR and DOJ.
Sadly, this profile also confirms that the Biden Administration’s illegal use of Title 42 to return Cameroonians to harm’s way without an opportunity to apply for asylum has been exactly the race-based, grotesque violation of asylum laws, human rights, and human dignity that critics have asserted.
It also graphically demonstrates why real Democrats, core progressive supporters who put Biden and company in office, must aggressively stand up against the disgraceful agitation by a minority of Dem legislators and uninformed, amoral politicos within the Administration to retain the already totally unjustifiable Title 42 blockade!
Continuing violation of domestic and international law through use of Title 42 is NOT, I repeat NOT, an option! Yes, the Administration needs to get a plan in place for an orderly restoration of asylum processing for Cameroonians, Haitians, Latin Americans, Ukrainians, Russians, Afghans, and allother nationalities at our Southern Border.
Fair, humane, advance processing of those seeking asylum at the border NOW is the essential key to avoiding a mess on May 23. Pumping credibility, efficiency, humanity, and proper generosity into the asylum system at the border NOW will reduce the chances of an “immediate backlog” come May 23.
More importantly, showing that our laws can work in a fair, humane, and efficient way will encourage individuals seeking asylum to come to legal ports of entry to apply, rather than seeking more dangerous and difficult irregular entry that does not hold out the same prospects for rapidly obtaining legal status. Why wouldn’t legitimate asylum seekers present themselves at legal ports of entry if we had a fair, functioning, transparent system for processing them?
By eliminating the need and reducing the motivation for legal asylum seekers to attempt irregular entries to obtain refuge, the traffic between ports of entry should be reduced even though of course not eliminated. And the “expedited removal” procedures available under current law to CBP for those apprehended without credible asylum claims while attempting unauthorized entires are perfectly adequate to quickly process removals of those with no legal claim to be here!
Assuming that all or most asylum seekers will attempt unauthorized entries between legal ports will become a dangerous “self-fulfilling prophecy.” Yet, to the extent that the Biden Administration has a plan, it appears to be driven by the misguided notion that all the “action” will be at unauthorized crossing points. See, e.g., https://immigrationimpact.com/2022/04/12/what-is-bidens-plan-to-end-title-42/ (a sad commentary on wobbly, uninformed, unprincipled, pedestrian, un-creative thinking about an important solvable problem if I’ve ever seen one).
That’s only going to happen if the Administration continues to ignore the pressing need for immediate steps to establish the credibility of the asylum system at ports of entry.
The Administration went to considerable trouble to establish a “new” regulatory framework for processing asylum claims at the border (which becomes effective on May 28). I was one of those who pointed out serious flaws in the new system adopted.
One of the main defects is that for integrity, legal guidance, and effective supervision it heavily relies on Garland’s dysfunctional, hopelessly backlogged, and still anti-asylum-tilted Immigration Courts, at least where some of the common types of asylum applications at the border, like those from Northern Triangle countries, are concerned. These “courts that aren’t really courts” have shown a disturbing lack of asylum expertise and little effective commitment to a fair and practical application of asylum laws nationwide. It’s basically still a “denial factory” — just as Sessions and Barr staffed and manipulated it to be. That has spelled disaster in the past and will continue to do so in the future unless it can be “sidestepped” by granting more cases at the border without calling on these “courts.”
There’s where the “new system” has potential to work! One key advantage of the “new system” that many of us applauded is the potential for the USCIS Asylum Office expeditiously to grant many more claims at or near the border, thus entirely avoiding the broken Immigration Courts, prolonged detention, and releasing individuals to the interior without status.
As asylees, refugees can be admitted in a legal, work-authorized status right off the bat. Not only does that eliminate the never-ending debate about appearing for later Immigration Court hearings, but it also helps the economy and resettlement by putting individuals anxious to support themselves and their families directly into the workforce at a time when we need workers in many segments of the economy! It also avoids the current wildly inconsistent, unprincipled, and often defective asylum adjudication that now plagues Garland’s Immigration Courts, particularly in border areas and detention centers.
But, success isn’t going to happen by “magical thinking,”operating in “Stephen Miller’s world,” repeating platitudes about border crises, and reviving the past mistakes of “enforcement/deterrence only regimes.” I call BS! A “border crisis” is what happened in Poland! We’re not even remotely close to that!
It requires the Biden Administration to get the lead out, shut down the “naysayers,” work with NGOs, and get the expertise and manpower in place NOW at ports of entry and in Mexico to achieve success on May 23! But, continuing the illegal Title 42 charade/blockade is not an option that is on the table!
Or maybe Abbott, like many other Republican politicians, simply thinks his voters are stupid.
He might presume that angry voters will see backlogged traffic, empty store shelves and struggling businesses and blame President Biden, even though this latest contribution to supply-chain woes comes courtesy of Abbott’s own policies. If that sounds far-fetched, recall that Abbott and other Republicans have tried to blame Biden for mounting covid infections and deaths, even as these same politicians have deliberately sown distrust in vaccines and undermined or outright barred efforts to increase vaccination and other covid-prevention measures.
If Abbott’s border policy is motivated by the last of these possible explanations — if he’s assuming Texans are too dense to figure out causality here — let’s hope voters will be motivated to prove him wrong.
**********************
Read Catherine’s full article at the link.
As Catherine points out, Texas voters have a golden opportunity to show their “clown prince” 🤡the door this fall. But, I wouldn’t count on it.
Meanwhile Abbott claims to have negotiated “security agreements” with several Mexican Governors thereby “allowing” him to “relax” his unneeded blockade. Exactly what this grandstanding means is opaque. Trucks entering the U.S. are ready checked for drugs and migrants by CBP at the border. Somehow, I doubt that Mexican authorities are going to do a better job than CBP.
Of course, the best way to deal with Abbott’s stunts is for the Biden Administration and NGOs to work together to encourage asylum seekers to present themselves in an orderly manner at legal ports of entry once the “Title 42 Blockade” is lifted. Indeed, as I’ve perviously suggested, there should be a system in place NOW to “prescreen” asylum applications in Mexico and to parole as many as possible of those whose claims pass credible fear and who can be resettled away from the border areas in advance of May 23. That would avoid long lines and confusion.
New regulations that would allow Asylum Officers to outright grant well-documented asylum cases go into effect on May 28. Surely, somebody out there in the “world of rational thinkers and doers” should be able to “leverage” this opportunity to cut through the BS and finalize grants of deserving cases without more bureaucratic red tape. Plan to show that that the new system can work. Start building the necessary credibility and confidence in orderly legal processing among asylum seekers now, rather than hoping that they all die or go away before May 23. They won’t.
That’s just an “expanded version” of what’s already happening for Ukrainian asylum seekers at the border. But, unfortunately, I haven’t seen much hard evidence that either the Administration or the NGOs are planning for “achievable success” rather than “finger pointing failure” on May 23. The real victims here are, as usual, the migrants whose humanity and rights are routinely ignored in the politicization of the border.
Let’s look at what has happened with another Abbott stunt mentioned by Catherine:“Bussing” asylum seekers from the border to downtown DC and dropping them near the headquarters of Fox News, NBC News and C-SPAN. Obviously, Abbott anticipated a “Fox photo op” of bewildered folks wandering the streets, causing traffic jams, and sparking anti-immigrant protests and overreaction by local Dem officials.
But, thanks to local NGOs, the opposite has happened. Volunteers have met the arriving busses, helping those bound for other areas to make the right transportation connections and directing those bound for the DMV area to the appropriate local organizations who can assist them in orderly resettlement.
Most of the migrants who volunteered for the busses expressed gratitude for the free transport. Few appeared to know that they were intended to be part of “Nativist Political Theater.” Both CBP and local NGOs at the Texas border worked to facilitate those seeking transportation to use the busses.
Evidently inadvertently, in this case Abbott’s publicity stunt appears to have “morphed” into a good example of how cooperation among Federal and state authorities, NGOs in different areas, and migrants themselves can work to facilitate orderly processing of migrants once they are in the U.S.
Who knows if this initial success will be temporary or long term. If the latter, it will be interesting to see if Abbott will continue to fund efforts to make the immigration system work rather than to showcase itsanticipated failures. But, in any event, this should be a practical example for the Biden Administration of how public-private partnerships, teamwork, and cooperation can work even across party and ideological lines.
Unfortunately, to date, the Biden Administration’s wobbly approach to immigration and human rights has failed to capitalize on almost every opportunity to show the benefits of an orderly, legally compliant, and humane immigration policy.
Will they finally get this one right? Or, as Catherine has suggested before, will this just be another in a too long line of Biden’s missed opportunities to show that the rule of law and legal immigration work for America?
🇺🇸Due Process Forever!
PWS
04-15-22
UPDATE:
RAMPELL “DUNKS” ON ABBOTT AS TEX GOV FORCED TO RESCIND IDIOTIC STUNT ORDER!
The American Trucking Assn. called the inspections “wholly flawed, redundant and adding considerable weight on an already strained supply chain.”
This stunt, not surprisingly, turned up neither a single smuggled individual nor any drugs. They did turn up some safety violations, actually the only thing Texas officials were legally empowered to inspect for. But, safety problems have been around forever, and Abbott hasn’t given them a second thought as he misallocates state resources on a grotesque scale. See, the bogus “Operation Lone Star.”
The best way to deter human smugglers is to reopen ports of entry to asylum seekers and grant the many worthy applications out there, thereby ending years of manipulating asylum law to deny protection to legally qualified refugees.
While there of course will always be pressure on the border, the many individuals who seek only a fair chance to present their legal claims for asylum through our legal system will no longer be forced to use smugglers to gain “black market” refuge just because the Government has shirked their legal responsibilities!
That ought to make the border safer and CBP’s job at least somewhat easier.
It all depends on whether the border asylum system is credible. So far, no Administration has succeeded in pulling that off.
All have employed various degrees of bias and inhumane detention to “hold down” the number of asylum grants at the border. A legitimate legal asylum system at the border is possible, particularly if accompanied by a robust refugee program beyond the border. But, possible doesn’t mean probable!
He had been in office only two months and there was already a crisis at the southwest border. Thousands of migrant children were jammed into unsanitary Border Patrol stations. Republicans were accusing Mr. Biden of flinging open the borders. And his aides were blaming one another.
Facing his bickering staff in the Oval Office that day in late March 2021, Mr. Biden grew so angry at their attempts to duck responsibility that he erupted.
Who do I need to fire, he demanded, to fix this?
Mr. Biden came into office promising to dismantle what he described as the inhumane immigration policies of President Donald J. Trump. But the episode, recounted by several people who attended or were briefed on the meeting, helps explain why that effort remains incomplete: For much of Mr. Biden’s presidency so far, the White House has been divided by furious debates over how — and whether — to proceed in the face of a surge of migrants crossing the southwest border.
. . . .
****************^
Read the complete article at the link.
Not rocket 🚀 science:
Note to Susan Rice & Ron Klain: There will be no racial justice in America without immigrant justice.
Asylum is the law, NOT a “policy option” or a “strategy.”
The Attorney General has an obligation to insist that the law be followed or to resign.
How on earth could anyone think that the border can be fixed without addressing the extreme dysfunction and Trump White Nationalist bias in the Immigration Courts?
How do you run on a promise to restore asylum at the border without having a plan in hand to do that on Inauguration Day?
Ports of entry “reopened” remarkably quickly for White asylum seekers from Ukraine, using cooperation among the DHS, Mexico, and volunteer groups. So, it’s very “doable.” What’s lacking here appears to be the will and the motivation to treat asylum seekers of color fairly and humanely.
Is the Civil Rights Division of the DOJ on permanent LOA? What does Kristen Clarke, AAG for Civil Rights, do to earn her paycheck? Whatever happened to Associate AG Vanita Gupta, a former civil rights and racial justice maven, who has turned her back on America’s most glaring and serious racial justice problems, at the border and in her Department’s dysfunctional “courts,” and disappeared into the bowls of Garland’s bureaucracy, never to be heard from again?
So, following the law and treating persons of color fairly and humanely at our borders will create “chaos” (it should do nothing of the sort, with competent leadership and personnel) and might be “bad politics” for “moderate Dems.” Gimmie a break!
Why not just consider all asylum applicants to be “constructively White persons” and proceed accordingly?
Why is appeasing GOP White Nationalist nativists, who wouldn’t support Biden no matter what he does at the border, more important to the Administration than keeping promises to supporters who actually worked to put Biden, Harris, and, derivatively, folks like Rice, Klain, Mayorkas, and Garland in office?
Repubs do remember who their key supporters are, and act accordingly, even when those actions are illegal, immoral, counterproductive, and often unpopular. Dems, by contrast, are afraid to follow the law and do the right thing to make good on promises to their supporters!
America actually needs more legal immigrants. Many of them are waiting at the border for justice long delayed. Perhaps, an Administration who can’t see that and turn it into a “win-win” doesn’t deserve to be in office.
Sadie Gurman describes Billy’s new 600-page “tome of discovery” in the WSJ:
. . . .
After the election, Mr. Barr said that Mr. Trump “lost his grip” and that his false claims of voter fraud led to the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol by supporters trying to thwart the certification of Mr. Biden’s November 2020 victory.
“The absurd lengths to which he took his ‘stolen election’ claim led to the rioting on Capitol Hill,” Mr. Barr writes.
***************************
Duh!
Donald J. Trump Famous American Clown (Officially titled “Ass Clown”) Artist: Scott Scheidly Orlando, FL Reproduced by permission
Some GOP judges and super-sleazy state AGs have a very clear vision of the future for refugees of color. Most days, the Biden Administration can’t decide whether they share it or not. EDS NOTE: GRAPHIC CONTENT – The bodies of Salvadoran migrant Oscar Alberto Mart??nez Ram??rez and his nearly 2-year-old daughter Valeria lie on the bank of the Rio Grande in Matamoros, Mexico, Monday, June 24, 2019, after they drowned trying to cross the river to Brownsville, Texas. Martinez’ wife, Tania told Mexican authorities she watched her husband and child disappear in the strong current. (AP Photo/Julia Le Duc)Professor (Emeritus) David A. Martin UVA Law PHOTO: UVA Law
The court’s opinion carries the reader along on what purports to be textual analysis and implacable logic. On closer examination, however, it is a startling exercise in judicial imperialism. The opinion seizes on fragments of statutory text, taken out of context, to construct a presumed congressional intent that would be more to the judges’ liking. It ignores contrary indicators in the wording and the historical development of the key provisions. It makes no attempt to reconcile the supposed strict mandate with the historical fact that Congress went 20 years without really noticing—much less objecting to—the absence of implementation. The court also shows an arrogant disregard for the operational realities of border enforcement, including the sensitivity of diplomatic relations with Mexico that sustain cross-border cooperation—on migration issues as well as other policy priorities.
I can bring some special perspective in analyzing the appeals court’s decision. I have been a scholar and teacher of immigration law for 40 years, and I also was fortunate to hold policy-level positions dealing with immigration in three different departments, under three different Presidents. My years in government gave me close exposure to the operational realities at a level most law professors—and judges—don’t experience. One of those stints consisted of 30 months during the mid-nineties as General Counsel of the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) the period when the key reform bills on which the Fifth Circuit relies were introduced, debated, amended, enacted and implemented.
. . . .
****************
Read David’s complete article at the above link. As usual, my “practical scholar” friend gives you the real legal analysis that should have been applied by the court. Now, here’s my “less nuanced” take on this atrocious and cowardly piece of extreme White Nationalist judicial misfeasance!
Remarkably, in their 117 pages of snarky, wooden legalese, demeaning of humanity, and willfully misrepresenting reality, these life-tenured righty judges (surprise, two Trumpists, one Bush I) give no serious consideration whatsoever to the well-documented, daily, ongoing abuses of the human and legal rights of those fleeing oppression who are subjected to this heinous White Nationalist program! See, e.g., https://www.humanrightsfirst.org/resource/shameful-record-biden-administration-s-use-trump-policies-endangers-people-seeking-asylum
Just how do asylum applicants exercise their statutory “right” to apply for asylum and other protection under U.S. and international law if they are dead, kidnapped, beaten, extorted, raped, threatened, given inadequate notice of hearing, denied their right to legal assistance, prevented from preparing and documenting their cases, and if they are fortunate enough to finally get a hearing, subjected to an anti-asylum, anti-due-process, non-asylum-expert “faux judiciary” run by a prosecutor with a majority of his “holdover judges” appointed or co-opted by his White Nationalist, asylum-hating predecessors? The Fifth Circuit doesn’t bother to explain. That’s probably because historically their failure to stand up for human rights and racial justice for those in need of protection has been part of the problem.
Also, it’s remarkable how righty judges who couldn’t find any reasons to stop the Trump regime from rewriting asylum law out of existence in unprecedented ways, without legislation, and usually without regard to the APA, suddenly take a much different position when it comes to the Biden Administration’s modest efforts to vindicate human rights and restore some semblance of the rule of law. But, that’s actually less surprising than the Biden Administration’s failure to “see the handwriting on the wall” and have a “Plan B” in operation.
Obviously, these three life-tenured right-wing human rights abusers in robes need to spend a few months “detained” in Mexico or in the “New American Gulag!” But, that’s wishful thinking. Not going to happen! These are ivory tower guys with life tenure, fat salaries, and robes who use their positions to pick on the most vulnerable in the world and deprive them of their legal and human rights based on intentional misconstructions of the law, ignorance of reality, and pandering to a rather overly political racist appeal from GOP AGs who are from “the bottom of humanity’s — and our legal profession’s — apple barrel!” Doesn’t get much worse than that!
Nevertheless, it should be clear to both advocates and the Biden Administration that “Remain in Mexico” likely is here to stay! Despite the lack of merits to the Fifth Circuit’s decision, and the Supreme’s granting of the Biden Administration’s cert petition, I wouldn’t hold my breath for relief from either the right-wing Supremes or the feckless Dems in Congress.
Given that the program is likely to be judicially imposed, the Administration and advocates can still get together to make it work in compliance with due process. It’s well within their power and not rocket science:
Appoint a new BIA with appellate judges who are practical scholars in asylum and will establish coherent, correct legal guidance on domestic violence claims, gender based asylum, gang-based claims, nexus, “failure of state protection,” credibility, corroboration, the operation of the presumption of future persecution, the DHS’s burden of rebutting the presumption, “rise to the level,” right to counsel, fair hearings, and other critical areas where the current “Trump holdover” BIA’s guidance has been lacking, inadequate, and/or defective. They can also insure consistency in asylum adjudications, something that has long escaped EOIR.
Get a corps of Immigration Judges with established records and reputations for scholarly expertise, commitment to due-process, practicality, and fairness to asylum seekers to handle these cases.
Work with pro bono and advocacy groups and the UNHCR to insure that every person applying under this program has access to competent representation and adequate opportunities to prepare and document cases. Nolan Rappaport and I have recently written about the “largely untapped potential” of a better “qualified representative” program. Professor Michele Pistone at Villanova Law has done some ground-breaking innovative work on training accredited representatives for asylum cases in Immigration Court. But, like most other long overdue reforms, it appears to have gone over Garland’s distracted head! https://immigrationcourtside.com/2022/02/02/⚖%EF%B8%8F🗽there-will-be-no-supreme-intervention-to-stop-mpp-☹%EF%B8%8F-rappaport-pistone-schmidt-tell-how-the-administration-advocates-c/
Work with the Government of Mexico and the UNHCR to guarantee the health, security, safety, and welfare of those waiting in camps in Mexico.
Then, we’ll finally find out how many of those who have already passed credible fearactually qualify for a grant of asylum under a fair, competent, timely system run by experts with individuals who are well-represented! I’ll bet it’s the majority, not the measly 2% who have received grants under EOIR’s “Stephen Miller Lite” approach!
For example, during 13 years on the trial bench, I found that the majority of those referred to Immigration Court after a positive “credible fear” finding (all of the “Remain in Mexico” applicants fall in that category) qualified for asylum or some other type of protection from removal. And, like my friend and long time-colleague Professor Martin, I’ve been working on asylum issues from enforcement, advocacy, academic, and judicial standpoints, in and out of government, since before there was a Refugee Act of 1980!
So, to me, the “2% asylum grant rate” in Immigration Court for these cases,” particularly in light of some revised intentionally overly restrictive “credible fear” criteria imposed by the Trump regime, appears clearly bogus. Why hasn’t Garland looked into the systemic defects in the EOIR system, as applied to “Remain in Mexico,” that have artificially suppressed the grant rate?
Lack of lawyers, undue hinderances on gathering evidence and presenting cases, poor notice, lack of expertise, inadequate training, and anti-asylum performance by IJs and the BIA, and in some cases kidnapping, assault, rape, extortion, and other well-documented physical harm knowingly inflicted on applicants by placing them in clearly dangerous and unacceptable conditions in Mexico are just the start!
There are lots of creative ways of making our current immigration system work better! You just need the knowledge, motivation, expertise, and guts to make it happen! So, far that’s been lacking at all levels of the Biden Administration, but particularly at Garland’s “brain-dead” DOJ. Gosh, these guys make Stephen Miller look like a “creative genius,” albeit an evil and pathological one! 🤯🤮🏴☠️ Come on, man!
As many of us have pointed out, Garland, Mayorkas, Biden, and Harris could and should have had such a system up and operating by now! Outrageous and disgusting as the conduct of the 5th Circuit has been, it’s hardly unpredictable given past performance. Every day that the Administration continues to waste by not making the necessary changes at EOIR, a court system totally within their control, adds to the human misery and injustice!
So, bottom line: White Nationalist judges get life tenure from the GOP. Meanwhile, back at the ranch of the “Gang That Couldn’t Shoot Straight,” Biden and Garland retain Trump’s White Nationalist appointees and enablers at EOIR and eschew the chance to create a diverse, progressive, expert, practical, due-process-oriented, fundamental-fairness-insistent, racial-justice-committed judiciary to decide life-or-death cases that affect and influence the operation of our entire justice system and our democracy in ways that no other court system in America does! The Administration’s alarming “tone deafness” is blowing perhaps the “last clear chance” to create a “model judiciary!” Sounds like something only a Dem Administration could do. Go figure!
The Dehumanizing Work of Immigration Law is an analysis piece authored by immprof Jennifer M. Chacón (Berkeley) for the Brennan Center for Justice. It was part of a series of articles examining the “punitive excess that has come to define America’s criminal legal system.”
In her article, Chacón acknowledges that “our immigration laws are exceptionally harsh in ways that frequently defy common sense.” She notes that for many migrants “the notion that there is a ‘right way’ to immigrate is just not true.” Moreover, “our country has not always honored its own legal processes when immigrants are doing things ‘the right way.’” And, for those “long-time lawful permanent residents who have contact with the criminal legal system are often denied the chance to do things ‘the right way.’”
“Again and again,” Chacón writes, “notions of the rule of law are invoked to justify the sundering of families and communities that would, in other circumstances, seem unthinkable.”
Jennifer elegantly articulates a theme that echoes what “Sir Jeffrey” Chase and I often say on our respective blogs: It’s all about gratuitous cruelty and intentional dehumanization of “the other” — primarily vulnerable individuals of color!
But, it need not be that way! Undoubtedly, the current legislative framework is outdated, unrealistic, and often self-contradictory. Congress’s failure to address it with bipartisan, humane, common sense, practical reforms that would strengthen and expand our legal immigration system is disgraceful.
But, there are plenty of opportunities even under the current flawed framework for much better interpretations of law; more expansive, uniform, and reasonable exercises of discretion; creation and implementation of best practices; advancements in due process and fundamental fairness; drastic improvements in representation; improved expert judging; rational, targeted, “results-focused” enforcement; promoting accountability; and teamwork and cooperation among the judiciary, DHS, and the private/NGO/academic sectors to improve the delivery of justice and make the “rule of law” something more than the cruel parody it is today.
Historically, as Jennifer points out, courts have often aided, abetted, and sometimes even disgracefully and cowardly encouraged lawless behavior and clear violations of both constitutional and human rights. But, it doesn’t have to be that way in the future!
Folks like Trump, Miller, Sessions, Barr, Wolf, “Cooch,” Hamilton, McHenry, et al spent four years laser-focused on banishing every last ounce of humanity, fairness, truth, enlightenment, kindness, compassion, reasonableness, efficiency, rationality, equity, public service, racial justice, consistently positive use of discretion, practicality, and common sense from our immigration and refugee systems.
Biden and Harris promised dynamic change, improvement, and a return to a values-based approach to immigration. Once in office, however, they have basically “gone Miller Lite” —preferring to blame and criticize the Trump regime without having a ready plan or taking much positive action to bring about dynamic systemic improvements. In fact, as pointed out by Jennifer, Garland and Mayorkas have continued to apply, defend, and to some extent rely on the very vile policies they supposedly disavowed. Talk about disingenuous!
Drastic improvements in the current system are “out there for the taking,” with or without Congressional assistance. But, the will, skill, and guts to make the “rule of law” something other than an intentionally cruel, failed “throw away slogan” appears to be sorely missing from Biden Administration ldeadership!
Maybe, the beginning of Jennifer’s essay “says it all” about the abject failure of Garland and others to “get the job done:”
During his confirmation hearing to be attorney general, when asked about the Trump administration’s policy of separating children from their parents at the U.S.–Mexico border, Merrick Garland repudiated the policy, stating “I can’t imagine anything worse.”
Yet, now that he is confirmed, Attorney General Garland presides over an agency that represents the U.S. government in court arguing every day that parents should be separated from their children, brothers from sisters, grandchildren from grandparents.
Obviously, that’s the problem! Garland actually “can’t imagine” the human impact of government-imposed family separation! Nor can he “imagine” what it’s like to be caught up in his unfair, biased, and broken Immigration “Courts” as a party or a lawyer. The “retail level” of our justice system “passed him by” on his way to his judicial “comfort zone.”
“Justice” Star Chamber Style — “AG Garland ‘can’t imagine’ what it’s like to be caught up in the dysfunctional, abusive, and unfair ‘court system’ that he runs!”
Unless and until we finally get an Attorney General who has either experienced or has the actual imagination necessary to feel the daily horrors and indignity that our unnecessarily broken immigration justice system inflicts on real human beings, American justice and human values will continue to spiral downward! ☠️🤮
And, there will be no true racial justice in America without justice for immigrants!
The thread running through Whitehouse’s spoken essays is that the current 6-3 conservative majority on the court is no accident but the product of special interests and dark money – hundreds of millions of dollars in anonymous hidden spending.
The special interests are able to groom young judges, promote them in advertising campaigns and then try to influence them in legal briefs, all lacking in transparency. The outcome is a dire threat to the climate, reproductive rights and myriad issues that touch people’s everyday lives.
Whitehouse chose his title carefully. “It implies that this is not random,” he says. “This is not just, ‘Oh, we’re conservatives, and so we’re going to appoint conservative thinking judges,’ which is the veneer. They would like to maintain this is just conservatives being conservatives.”
Whitehouse suggests that the model of “agency capture”, when an administrative agency is co-opted to serve the interests of a minor constituency, was applied to the supreme court. “Once you’re over that threshold of indecency, it actually turned out to be a pretty easy target. The other construct to bear in mind is covert operations, because essentially what’s happened is that a bunch of fossil fuel billionaires have run a massive covert operation in and against their own country. And that’s a scheme.”
. . . .
Democrats have been criticised for being complacent as Republicans unspooled their 50-year campaign to capture the courts. Whitehouse agrees. “It’s way late. It’s really embarrassing how we let this dark money crowd steal a march on us.”
He observes: “From a political perspective it never mattered as much to the Democratic base as it did to the Republican base because we did not have the history of Roe versus Wade, Brown versus Board of Education [desegregating public schools] decisions that provoked massive cultural objections on the far right.
“So they got highly motivated and we did not but then once we saw this machinery begin to go in operation to capture the court, we never bothered to call it out either. It’s not just that our base didn’t care as much. It’s that we were sleeping sentries.”
Whitehouse is planning at least three or four more speeches about The Scheme. Like his climate series, he hopes that the message will get through: it is time to wake up.
“I hope there’ll be a more general understanding that what’s going on at the court has a lot less to do with conservatism than it has to do with capture and, with any luck, it might cause a bit of an epiphany with some of the judges that they don’t want to be associated with what they’re actually associated with. And the American public will see it for what it is and give us in politics more opportunities to administer a repair.”
***************************
Read the complete report at the link.
Sen. Whitehouse’s reference to “agency capture” is a perfect descriptor of what has happened at EOIR and in our Immigration Courts. Remade, co-opted, and weaponized by Miller, Sessions, Barr, and Gene Hamilton during the Trump regime, the Immigration Courts now represent a nativist/restrictionist culture, philosophy, and approach to justice, including racial justice, that is far, far out of the legal mainstream.
It’s so far out of the mainstream that even the most conservative circuits and Trump judicial appointees occasionally hand Garland’s poorly performing BIA “its head” on sloppy, poorly reasoned, substandard performance. It’s also light years away from the restoration of the rule of law and humane values promised by Biden and Harris during their 2020 campaign!
“Agency capture” appears to be a “GOP specialty,” that Democrats lack. How many key immigration officials, political or “career,” at DHS and DOJ were “Obama holdovers?” How long did the few who weren’t replaced at the outset last? How much influence did they retain or exercise? Yet, Garland continues to operate the Immigration Courts with largely the same toxic culture and badly flawed personnel he inherited from Sessions and Barr. Nonsensical? Disgraceful? Dumb? You bet!
The situation is aggravated many times over because these aren’t “normal agency decisions.” No, they are essentially life or death decisions in a “traffic court setting” that affect humanity, our future as a nation, and often “dribble over” into discriminatory and biased approaches to minority populations and rights outside the field of immigration!
Another serious aggravating factor is the astoundingly dysfunctional and incompetent “Byzantine Empire Style” agency bureaucracy at EOIR which bears no resemblance to competent, professional court management and administration.
Not surprisingly, the latter are outside the DOJ’s skill set. Shockingly, however, A.G. Garland failed to “recognize the obvious” and to bring in the needed outside professional experts to straighten it out.
Even worse, although he essentially “wholly owns” the broken, anti-due-process immigration “judiciary,” Garland has ignored experts’ calls for replacement of the current precedent-setting BIA with judges who are recognized leaders and role models in due process and human rights in the immigration context.
Nor has he actively recruited and appointed enough experts with NGO, clinical, and other private sector backgrounds to Immigration Judge positions. Further, he has failed to develop and implement a transparent, merit-based judicial selection and retention program to “re-compete” the many “new” IJ positions that were created and maliciously used by Sessions and Barr to “pack” EOIR with anti-asylum bias, often involving judges without expertise or with disturbingly thin due-process/fundamental fairness credentials.
Developing a fair, transparent, merit-based system, with outside input, to weed-out underperforming judges in a competitive process and, where warranted, to replace them with some of the brilliant and high-achieving immigration/human rights potential judicial talent now “out there in the market place” but largely ignored by the Biden Administration should have been high on Garland’s list. The process and criteria by which these life or death judicial positions are filled remains largely a mystery shrouded in opaque bureaucracy and with no input from those who actually have to practice before EOIR or who have been researching and documenting the abject, deadly failures of the current system!
With due respect, I think Senator Whitehorse needs to focus some of his attention and ire on the disgraceful performance of the U.S. Immigration Courts under Garland. Unlike the Article IIIs, this Federal Court system could and should have been majorly reformed, restructured, and vastly improved with a more enlightened, courageous, due-process oriented approach by DOJ.
Why doesn’t Senator Whitehouse call up his former Senate colleague VP Harris, who has done a “disappearing act” on immigration and human rights following her tone-deaf excursion to the Northern Triangle? Is he teaming with Chair Lofgren to introduce the Senate version of her Article I Immigration Court Bill? Some of the foregoing could be even more effective in “raising consciousness” and promoting constructive reform than giving speeches to an empty Senate Chamber!
The result of a reformed U.S. Immigration Court should be a “Model Federal Judiciary” — one laser-focused on fairness, scholarship, timeliness, respect, teamwork, due process, fundamental fairness, and best practices! Indeed, that’s what all Federal Courts should be, but are not right now. Not by a long shot!
The Immigration Courts could and should be a training and development ground for a diverse, high-functioning, practical, due-process-oriented Federal Judiciary all the way up to the Supremes — where failure by right-wing ivory-tower jurists who live “abovethe fray” to understand the reality of our broken Immigration Courts and to courageously vindicate the legal, constitutional, and human rights of abused and vulnerable migrants is literally destroying our republic.
That Garland and the Biden Administration generally are squandering this opportunity is as inexplicable as it is inexcusable! Perhaps Sen. Whitehouse can “light a fire!” 🔥
On the line are millions of futures. Undocumented immigrants who fear being split from their American children and spouses, people facing persecution and death in their countries of origin, or those being sent to countries they haven’t seen in decades are all fighting for fair play and often literally their lives in courts ill-equipped to do them justice.
“Let’s make it absolutely clear: due process is suffering,” said Muzaffar Chishti, a senior fellow at the Migration Policy Institute. “There’s just no way around that.”
Chishti said he sees all the hallmarks of a strong administrative law system suffering in the nation’s immigration courts, which are housed under the Department of Justice in the executive branch of the federal government, not within the judicial branch.
“It is a system in crisis,” he said.
After Trump made hardline anti-immigration policies pivotal to his 2016 presidential campaign, he flooded courts with judges more inclined to order deportations, Reuters reported.
His administration hired so many new immigration judges so hastily that the American Bar Association warned of “under-qualified or potentially biased judges”, many of whom had no immigration experience.
And as officials such as then-attorney general Jeff Sessions made sweeping proclamations that “the vast majority of asylum claims are not valid”, judges simultaneously confronted performance metrics demanding they each race through at least 700 cases a year.
People ranging from asylum seekers forced to wait in Mexico to unaccompanied children crossing the border on foot, to longtime undocumented residents with families stateside end up appearing in court, often without attorneys to help them parse the country’s byzantine laws.
In a process smacking of a zip code lottery, one judge in New York may grant nearly 95% of asylum petitions while colleagues in Atlanta almost universally deny similar requests, creating a patchwork of standards.
. . . .
***************************
Read Alexandra’s full report at the link.
Garland’s stubbornly indolent approach to racial justice and due process at “Justice” endangers the lives of millions of vulnerable humans! PHOTO: Wikipedia Commons
Not news to Courtside readers or the millions whose lives and futures are caught up in Garland’s totally dysfunctional morass! And, that doesn’t even include hundreds of thousands of migrants orbited to danger under bogus “border closure” gimmicks that Garland and his ethically-challenged DOJ continue to defend!
Lips Sewn Shut Public Realm — Biden’s continuation of Trump’s cruel and illegal abrogation of asylum laws at the border, inappropriately defended by Garland’s DOJ, drives desperate people to do desperate things.
Nicole Narea Immigration Reporter Vox.com — Her clear and cogent analysis stands in sharp contrast to the Biden Administration’s often muddled, incoherent, and self-contradictory policies on human rights and racial justice on America.
Migrants stranded in southern Mexico because of US and Mexican border policies are taking increasingly drastic measures to draw attention to their plight. On Tuesday, a dozen migrants staged a protest in which they sewed their lips together and went on a hunger strike.
They are among the thousands staying in what has become known as an “open-air prison” in the city of Tapachula on Mexico’s southern border with Guatemala. Migrants there have struggled to access food and shelter, and have reported being preyed on by government officials.
Facing pressure to find ways to limit the number of migrants requesting entry to the United States, Mexican immigration authorities will not permit the migrants to leave the city unless they have some form of legal immigration status allowing them to move freely through the country, such as asylum. Hundreds tried to escape last month, but were intercepted and detained by Mexican immigration authorities.
. . . .
The US could share the load by resuming processing of migrants at its own borders and allowing them to pursue claims to humanitarian protection, as is their legal right. Instead, it has offloaded its immigration responsibilities onto its neighbor.
****************
As usual, Nicole provides timely, astute, accessible analysis of complex problems. I highly recommend her complete article at the link above.
The Attorney General is supposed to stand up for the rule of law, human rights, and to “just say no” to defending illegal and improper policies. As many of us pointed out during the scofflaw tenures of Sessions and Barr, the AG’s fealty is supposed to be to the Constitution and the laws of the United States, which include treaties that we have ratified and incorporated into our laws. As human rights and legal rights continue to be ignored, deflected, and degraded at our borders and in Immigration “Courts” that don’t operate as “courts” at all in any commonly understood meaning of the term, where is Garland?
Train Dennis Adams, Federal Highway Administration; levels adjustment applied by Hohum Public domain. — Garland’s Deportation Railway retains most of his predecessors’ engineers, conductors, and crew. It’s often slow, unreliable, erratic, and subject to arbitrary unannounced schedule changes. It continues to bypass “Due Processville” and “Fundamental Fairness City.”
Mejia-Velasquez v. Garland, 4th Cir., 02-16-22, published
PANEL: NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.
OPINION BY: Judge Niemeyer
DISSENT: Judge Motz
KEY QUOTE FROM DISSENT:
Under the current immigration statutes, DHS has good reason to require applicants for relief from removal to submit fingerprints and other biometrics. But before DHS does so, it must first comply with specified notice obligations. Where, as here, DHS fails to do so, I would not fault the applicant. As the Supreme Court explained in Niz-Chavez, “[i]f men must turn square corners when they deal with the government, it cannot be too much to expect the government to turn square corners when it deals with them.” 141 S. Ct. at 1486.
I respectfully dissent.
*********************
The IJ and the BIA relied on a wrong BIA precedent. The 4th Circuit majority judges recognized its incorrectness, but took OIL’s invitation to fashion another rationale for denying this asylum applicant a hearing on the merits of her life or death claim. While the respondent was represented by counsel, the disputed “warnings” and dialogue relating to the missing biometrics were not translated into Spanish, the only language she understood.
While this case was pending, USCIS finally delivered the long and inexplicably delayed biometrics appointment letter to the respondent. But, that made no difference to a group of judges anxious to railroad her back to Honduras (one of the most dangerous and thoroughly corrupt countries in the hemisphere) without a meaningful chance to be heard.
Of all the Federal Judges who looked at this case over the years, only Judge Motz was interested in providing the respondent a due process hearing on her life-determining claim. The rest evidently were more fixated on creating reasons for NOT hearing her case. With the same amount of judicial and litigation effort, likely less, the respondent probably could have received a due process hearing on the merits of her claim. Additionally, there would have been consequences for the BIA’s defective “good enough for government work” precedent.
Of course, like Garland, none of the exalted judges involved in this disgraceful dereliction of duty have actually represented an asylum applicant in Immigration Court and had to deal with the confusing, convoluted, backlogged, and often notoriously screwed up DHS/EOIR biometrics process. See, e.g., “USCIS Biometrics Appointment Backlog,” https://www.stilt.com/blog/2021/02/biometrics-appointment-backlog/.
I suspect that folks contesting a parking ticket get more consideration in our system than this asylum applicant got from Garland’s unfair and dysfunctional Immigration Courts and the OIL lawyers who defend these mis-handled cases. And, in the world of “refugee roulette,” where human lives are treated like lottery tickets, a different Circuit panel of judges might have joined Judge Motz in getting it right.
The problem starts with EOIR — tribunals that receive deference without earning it through expertise, quality scholarship, and prioritizing due process, fundamental fairness, and best practices. It’s aggravated and multiplied by Garland — an Attorney General indifferent to injustice and the trail of broken lives and dashed hopes left in its wake. And, it’s aided, abetted, and enabled by judges like the panel majority here, who can’t be troubled with the hard work of understanding the consequences of their dilatory approach and demanding fair, competent, and reasonable expert judging from EOIR.
As several of my colleagues have said about the broken, dysfunctional, unfair Immigration Court system, the haphazard review by some Circuit Courts, and the disturbing systemic lack of judicial courage when it comes to fairly applying the Due Process Clause of our Constitution to migrants of color: “The cruelty is the point.”
It’s also worthy of note that the failure of all the Federal Judges, save Judge Motz, to make any meaningful inquiry into the respondent’s clearly expressed fear of return to Honduras appears to violate mandatory requirements for withholding of removal under the INA and international conventions. Perhaps that’s not surprising as Federal Judges have allowed Garland, Mayorkas, and their predecessors to use the transparent pretext of “Title 42” to systemically violate the legal and human rights of refugees at our borders — every day!
It’s also worth putting into context the Biden Administration’s continuing pontification about the human rights of Ughyurs, Afghans, women, and other persecuted minorities, as well as their professed commitment to racial justice in the U.S., which has not been matched by actions. Indeed, the Biden Administration’s actual approach to human rights looks much more like “Miller Lite Time” than it does a courageous, competent, and fair reinstitution of the rule of law!
According to recent reports, many of the Ughyurs and Afghans who were fortunate enough to reach the U.S. and avoid arbitrary “turn backs” at our borders, are now mired in the endless, mindless Mayorkas/Garland bureaucracy that masquerades as an “asylum system” — subject to long waits, missing work authorizations, and sometimes arbitrary and secretive “denials” blasted by human rights advocates. In a functional system these would be the “low hanging fruit” that could rapidly be removed from limbo and given the ability to fully function in our society. But, not in the “Amateur Night at the Bijou” atmosphere fostered by Mayorkas and Garland.
The first three lessons learned from the BIA’s recent decision in Matter of Laparra1 are: (1) the Board knows only one tune; (2) that tune is the “Falls Church Two-Step,” and (3) the tune does not improve with repeated listening.
As background, Congress in 1996 passed a statute creating a document called a Notice to Appear, or “NTA” for short, which is used to commence removal proceedings before the Immigration Court. Congress defined an NTA to require that it include the time and place of the first hearing; the document is, after all, called a “notice to appear.”
However, for many years, the Department of Homeland Security cut a corner by leaving that crucial information out of hundreds of thousands of NTAs. The courts (which are not part of DHS, the entity issuing the NTA) would later send a different document telling the person when and where to appear. That second document might be sent weeks, months, or even years later.
As an aside, in other areas of immigration law, EOIR has applied a literal approach to interpreting statutory terms. An unfortunate example is found in the asylum context, where the BIA felt a strong need to add “particularity” and “social distinction” requirements for particular social group recognition, creating significant obstacles for asylum seekers. Yet the government’s defense of those terms has been based on the argument that every word in the term “particular social group” must be accorded a very literal meaning.
However, when it comes to the term “Notice to Appear,” the Board inexplicably doesn’t seem to think meaning should matter. According to the online version of the Cambridge English Dictionary, “notice” is defined as “(a board, piece of paper, etc. containing) information or instructions.” A “Notice to Appear” would therefore be a piece of paper containing information or instructions about when and where to appear. However, that is exactly the information or instructions that DHS saw fit to leave out of this particular document. The BIA nevertheless long stood firm in its conviction that a document which provides as much information or instruction about an upcoming hearing as a take-out menu from L&B Spumoni Gardens meets the legal definition of a “Notice to Appear.”
Not surprisingly, this government shortcut was successfully challenged by noncitizens wishing to seek a path to legal status in this country called cancellation of removal. One can’t apply for cancellation of removal unless they’ve been present in the U.S. for ten years,2 but once one is served with a Notice to Appear, the accrual of time towards that ten years stops.3 So whether or not what ICE was handing out met the definition of an NTA would determine whether hundreds of thousands of people would be eligible to apply for legal status. In a case called Pereira v. Sessions,4 the Supreme Court resoundingly held that an NTA without the time and place of hearing was not an NTA, and therefore did not stop the noncitizen from accruing time to reach the 10 years of presence necessary to apply for cancellation of removal.
The BIA’s response was to issue a precedent decision, Matter of Mendoza-Hernandez,5 in which it held that in spite of the Supreme Court’s clear view to the contrary, the combination of the non-NTA and a later-sent document that is also not an NTA containing the missing information together form a valid NTA, which stops the noncitizen from continuing to accrue time towards the ten years.
The matter again reached the Supreme Court, where, at oral argument, Justice Gorsuch referred to the case as “Pereira groundhog day,” and actually asked counsel for the government why it was pursuing the case in light of the Court’s 8-1 decision in Pereira.6 In its 2021 decision in that case, Niz-Chavez v. Garland,7 the Court held that an NTA must be a single document containing all of the required information, and that the two-step method endorsed by the Board does not constitute one valid NTA, and thus will not stop the accrual of time.
Although Pereira and Niz-Chavez involved what is known as the “stop-time rule” described above, the question of proper service of an NTA also arises in other contexts. For those who missed their initial removal hearing and were ordered removed as a result, the Supreme Court decisions seemed to offer a new opportunity.
The reason is because the statute provides for in absentia removal orders only where the noncitizen failed to appear for their hearing “after written notice required under paragraph (1) or (2) of section 1229(a) of this title has been provided” to the noncitizen or their lawyer.8 Section 1229(a) is the section of the law that lists the requirements for an NTA to actually be an NTA; it was the specific section interpreted by the Supreme Court in Pereira and Niz-Chavez. Pursuant to those decisions, no one who was issued an NTA lacking a time and place of hearing received proper notice under section 1229(a) of the Act, which specifically requires that the time and place information be provided in a single document. Where notice was not proper, the law allows the filing of a motion to rescind an in absentia order, and further permits the motion to be filed at any time.9
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit addressed this issue of proper notice in a published decision issued in September, Rodriguez v. Garland.10 The decision cited the Supreme Court’s holding in Niz-Chavez, and determined that a single document containing all of the required information (including the time and place) is required in the in absentia context as well. The Fifth Circuit made clear that where the NTA did not contain the time and place, it could not be cured by the mailing of a subsequent notice for in absentia purposes.
Anyone unable to guess the BIA’s response has not been paying attention. The BIA issued Matter of Laparra in order to say that the recipient of an in absentia removal order did in fact receive proper notice pursuant to section 1229(a) even if their NTA lacked a time and place of hearing, as long as the court subsequently sent an entirely different paper days, months, or years later containing the missing information.
How did the BIA believe it could reach this same conclusion yet again in spite of the Supreme Court decisions to the contrary? Please try to follow along as we review the Board’s explanation.
First, the Board emphasized that the statute governing in absentia orders (8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(5)(A)) states that such order may be entered “after written notice required under paragraph (1) or (2) of section 239(a) has been provided.” The Board emphasized the words “written notice,” which it distinguished from “a written notice,” which the Supreme Court interpreted to indicate a single document.11 The Board’s position seems to be seriously undermined by the fact that “written notice under paragraphs (1) or (2) of section 239(a)” is subsequently referred to twice more in the same section of the law as “the written notice.”
The Board employed a novel approach here. It dropped a footnote in which it admitted to the two subsequent mentions of “the written notice.” But the Board then said that it reads those two subsequent uses of “the” as simply referring back to the initial “written notice” (without the definite article).12 And apparently, because they are referring to the first mention of “written notice,” the definite article “the” can just be ignored in those other two usages. Why is that? To explain, the Board cited a Supreme Court decision in a non-immigration case decided in 2015, Yates v. U.S.13
Yates involved a fisherman apprehended at sea with a catch containing a large number of undersized fish. However, by the time the ship reached shore, only fish of legal size remained on board. After a long delay, Yates was charged and convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 1519, prohibiting tampering with a “tangible object” in order to impede a federal investigation.
Fish would meet the dictionary definition of “tangible objects.” However, in a decision authored by the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the Supreme Court employed a canon of statutory interpretation called noscitur a sociis, under which aid in determining a term’s meaning can derive from the meaning of surrounding terms used in the same section of law.14 As the term “tangible object” in 18 U.S.C. § 1519 is preceded by “makes a false entry in any record, document…,” the Court determined that “tangible object” was meant to refer to items containing records or documents. So tampering with an external hard drive would be covered by the statute; tampering with a fish would not.
This approach has been employed by the BIA (using the closely-related concept of ejusdem generis) in its 1985 decision in Matter of Acosta15 to determine that the term “particular social group” should be defined by an immutable characteristic, the same common denominator found in the surrounding terms of race, religion, nationality, and political opinion. It bears noting that what the Board did in Laparra bears no similarity to the manner in which the canon was applied in either the Board’s earlier usage in Acosta or by the Supreme Court in Yates. In Laparra, there was no comparison to the meaning of surrounding terms; instead, the Board seemed to make a random decision to ignore two usages of the definite article. The only similarity I can see to Yates is that what the Board did seems fishy.
However, even if we do as the Board would like and look only at the first usage of “written notice” contained in section 1229(a)(1), there is still a fatal flaw in the remainder of the Board’s argument. As noted above, the statute in that first usage requires not just any written notice, but specifically, written notice under paragraph (1) or (2) of section 1229(a), i.e., the section titled “Notice to appear.” Paragraph (1) of that section begins: “In removal proceedings under section 1229a of this title, written notice (in this section referred to as a “notice to appear”)…” A notice to appear! Paragraph (1) thus clearly refers to a single document, which as the Supreme Court has now told us twice, must contain the time and place of hearing.
Paragraph (2) of that same section says that “in the case of any change or postponement in the time and place of such proceedings,” then a written notice shall be provided specifying the new time and place of the proceeding, and the consequences of a failure to appear.
The meaning of paragraph (2) was by no means a matter of first impression for the Board to interpret in Laparra as it saw fit. In its decision in Pereira, the Supreme Court said:
If anything, paragraph (2) of § 1229(a) actually bolsters the Court’s interpretation of the statute. Paragraph (2) provides that, “in the case of any change or postponement in the time and place of [removal] proceedings,” the Government shall give the noncitizen “written notice . . . specifying . . . the new time or place of the proceedings.” § 1229(a)(2)(A)(i). By allowing for a “change or postponement” of the proceedings to a “new time or place,” paragraph (2) presumes that the Government has already served a “notice to appear under section 1229(a)” that specified a time and place as required by § 1229(a)(1)(G)(i). Otherwise, there would be no time or place to “change or postpon[e].”16
We know that the BIA is well aware of this; the above language from Pereira was specifically quoted in the six-judge dissenting opinion in Matter of Mendoza-Hernandez, under the heading “Plain Language.”17
Also, in its later decision in Niz-Chavez, the Court stated that “the government could have responded to Pereira by issuing notices to appear with all the information §1229(a)(1) requires—and then amending the time or place information if circumstances required it. After all, in the very next statutory subsection, §1229(a)(2), Congress expressly contemplated that possibility.”18
Thus, the Supreme Court left no doubt in its two decisions that paragraph (2) involves a change in the time and place of hearing that was previously included in the NTA, as the statute requires. Paragraph (2) in no way, shape, or form allows ICE to serve the noncitizen with the L&B Spumoni Gardens menu and then have the immigration court send a second paper that provides a time and place for the first time.
Somehow, the Board chose to ignore this clear and obvious reading twice affirmed by the highest court in the land. Instead, it focused on only one word – the “or” in “paragraph (1) or (2) of section 1229(a).”19 The Board then pretended (can we find a more appropriate word than this?) not only that the “or” somehow allowed paragraph (2) to be read as if paragraph (1) didn’t exist, but also as if the words “any change or postponement in the time and place of such proceedings” could somehow be read as “change or postponement? What a poor choice of words! What we really meant to say was, ‘the absolutely very first time and place ever set.’ Wasn’t that obvious? We feel so foolish. Please just interpret this any way you see fit.”
The Board did acknowledge the Fifth Circuit’s contrary view in Rodriguez, but attributed it to that court’s failure to focus on the “paragraph (1) or (2)” language.20 Apparently, in the Board’s view, had the Fifth Circuit also focused on that word “or,” it would have reached the same twisted conclusion as the Board. Perhaps realizing how unrealistic this might seem, the Board quickly pointed out that “[i]n any event, Rodriguez does not apply here because this case arises in the First Circuit.”21
Speaking of other circuits, it bears noting that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit recently stated for the second time in a published decision that the BIA’s analysis was “more akin to the argument of an advocate than the impartial analysis of a quasi-judicial agency.”21 I believe that the same can be said of the Board’s decision in Laparra. It will be interesting to see if this issue reaches the Supreme Court for a third time. If so, one should wonder why the Board might expect a different result.
Notes:
28 I&N Dec. 425 (BIA Jan. 18, 2022).
8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(A).
8 U.S.C. § 1229b(d)(1), often referred to as the “stop-time rule.”
To be clear, the government is capable of providing all required information in a single NTA. EOIR had provided DHS access to schedule Master Calendar hearings through the agency’s Interactive Scheduling System (ISS), which was employed between those agencies until May 2014. And in a memo issued shortly after the Supreme Court’s Pereira decision, then EOIR Director James McHenry stated that EOIR had begun providing hearing dates to DHS in detailed cases, and was working to again provide it access to ISS for scheduling non-detained cases.
Matter of Laparra, supra at 430.
Id. at 436: “The court reasoned that section 240(b)(5)(C)(ii) requires ‘notice’ under ‘section 239(a),’ which Niz-Chavez held must be a single document in the form of a notice to appear. However, the court based this reasoning on a recitation of section 240(b)(5)(C)(ii) that omitted the disjunctive phrase ‘paragraph (1) or (2)’ from the statute and relied solely on a reference to ‘section 239(a).’”
Id.
Nsimba v. Att’y Gen. of U.S., No. 20-3565, ___ F.4th ___ (3d Cir. Dec. 22, 2021) (slip. op. at 10).
Copyright 2022 Jeffrey S. Chase. All rights reserved.
Republished by permission.
*************************
As Jeffrey points out, the legal and practical problems with notice at EOIR and DHS are chronic, well-documented, and consequential! Yet, given a golden opportunity to make a new start while complying with due process and establishing “best practices” Garland has miserably failed!
Instead of appointing a BIA consisting of “practical scholar expert judges” and competent, professional judicial administrators to clean up this awful mess it’s “same old, same old” under Garland’s poor leadership. Indeed, not only has Garland chosen to retain the very folks who created and aggravated the notice problems, he has actually made it worse! How many times do I have to say it: EOIR is supposed to be a “court of law,” not a highly bureaucratic, “headquarters bloated,” “agency” modeled on and “operating” (a term I use lightly with EOIR) like the very worst aspects of the “Legacy INS.” For Pete’s sake, even DHS has done a somewhat better job of automating files than EOIR!
Tal Kopan Washington Reporter, SF Chronicle. She exposes Garland’s mismanagement of EOIR!
At best, these bogus orders require burdensome motions to reopen, rescheduling, and “restarts” that unnecessarily build backlog. They also generate more bogus statistics and false narratives, more endemic problems at EOIR that Garland has ignored or aggravated.
At worst, improper in absentia orders generate improper arrests, detention, and illegal removals of individuals who were clueless about their actual hearing dates!
Having “supervisors and managers” supposedly in charge of operating a fair hearing system engineer and then “cheer” the absence of any hearings at all shows the depths to which EOIR has plunged under Garland’s poor leadership. But, perhaps that shouldn’t surprise us! It comes from an AG who has failed after nearly a year to re-establish a fair hearing system for asylum applicants at the border and who mounts ethically-challenged defenses of Stephen Miller’s complete eradication of asylum at the border based on a bogus, pretextual rationale rejected by almost all migration and public health experts! Why is this acceptable performance from an alleged Democratic Administration?
Judge Merrick B. Garland, U.S. Attorney General Official White House Photo Public Realm. Appointed by a Democrat, he runs the DOJ largely with Trump holdovers, no accountability, and as if Stephen Miller were still looking over his shoulder. The result corrodes the “retail level” of justice in our Immigration Courts and threatens to de-stabilize our entire legal system!
No wonder Garland is building the already incredible 1.6 million case EOIR backlog at a ”new record” pace!
The speculation on Biden’s Supreme Court pick is “sucking all the air out of the room.” But, Garland’s disgraceful failure to counter the Trump AGs’ “packing” of the BIA with unsuitable judges and filling EOIR “senior management” with unqualified individuals who lack the requisite expertise and consistently tilt in favor of DHS Enforcement and against Due Process, fundamental fairness, immigrants’ rights, and best practices will have more immediate corrosive effects on racial justice in America and individual human lives than any court in America outside the Supremes!
And, unlike the Supremes, Garland “owns” all the picks for the “Supreme Court of Immigration!” Rather than standing up for progressive reforms, and giving new progressive judicial talent a chance to shine, he has chosen to enable and empower regressive forces and to frustrate progressive experts, further undermine the rule of law, and thwart best practices!
But, even these somewhat “understated” critics of Garland don’t fully grasp the catastrophic consequences for our entire justice system and our democracy of Garland’s unwillingness and/or inability to prioritize the creation of a progressive due-process/equal-justice-oriented judiciary of experts to replace his regressive, oppressive, deadly, and beyond dysfunctional immigration judiciary at DOJ!
As Jeffrey cogently relates, “same old, same old” failed approaches by “holdover judges” doesn’t “cut it!” Sessions and Barr recognized the cosmic importance of the immigration judiciary and the imperative to “weaponize it for evil” and to use their limited time in office to maximize and further a White Nationalist agenda developed and promoted by Stephen Miller. It’s a pity that Garland has failed to act on the legal and moral imperatives to “mine and realize EOIR’s ‘counter-potential’ for good!”
That potential was memorialized in the long-forgotten “EOIR vision of yore:” “Through teamwork and innovation, be the world’s best administrative tribunals guaranteeing fairness and due process for all!” Remarkably, that “noble due process vision” was once displayed in bold letters on EOIR’s internal website. Now, folks like Garland are too embarrassed and spineless to even admit that such a goal ever existed.
Funny how right-leaning supposed “textualists” and “strict constructionists” have difficulty following clear statutory commands when the result might favor the individual while holding the Government accountable for intentionally violating the law. Also, strange how an Administration that got into office in no small measure by promoting its competence and strong commitment to humane values and equal justice for all, particularly racial justice, continues to fail on all counts! Go figure!
