⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⚖️🗽🇺🇸FORMER DEPUTY AG DON AYER, JUDGE MIMI TSANKOV AMONG “HEADLINERS” AT TIMELY UPCOMING NY CITY BAR ASSN. EVENT: “Rule of Law Forum – Preserving the Rule of Law in an Age of Disruption” — Register Now, Right Here!

Honorable Mimi Tsankov
U.S. Immigration Judge
Eastern Region Vice President
National Association of Immigration Judges (“NAIJ”)

Elizabeth Gibson, New Due Process Army Superstar & Editor Publisher Of The Renowned Weekly “Gibson Report” reports:

Hi Everyone,

I want to flag an upcoming NYCBA webinar series on Preserving the Rule of Law in an Age of Disruption. Full disclosure, I’m on the taskforce organizing the event, but I highly recommend it. The speaker list is top-notch.

For immigration practitioners in particular, Session 4 will feature IJ Tsankov, representing NAIJ, and the session will discuss “deteriorations of voting rights, asylum rights and incarceration policies, the militarization of policing and the disparate treatment of minorities by police and prosecutors, and the use of libel litigation to inflict costs on individuals and media outlets who challenge or criticize officeholders.”

It’s free for NYCBA members, $15 for other lawyers, and free for the general public (including law students and fellows). Please circulate widely.

Rule of Law Forum – Preserving the Rule of Law in an Age of Disruption
Session 1: Threats to the Rule of Law in America: A Survey

Tuesday, September 15 | 1:00 p.m. – 4:00 p.m.
Session 2: Checks, Balances and Oversight — the Distribution of Governmental Power and Information

Tuesday, September 22 | 1:00 p.m. – 4:00 p.m.

Session 3: Interference with Judicial Independence and Local Law Enforcement

Thursday, October 8 | 11:00 a.m. -2:00 p.m.
Session 4: Threats to Individual and Societal Rights

Wednesday, October 21 | 1:00 p.m. – 4:00 p.m.
Session 5: Rebuilding the Rule of Law in America: What Can and Should the Legal Profession, Individual Lawyers and Citizens Do?

Wednesday, November 18 | 1:00 p.m. – 4:00 p.m.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact: Eric Friedman
efriedman@nycbar.org

Eli Cohen
ecohen@nycbar.org

New York City Bar Association Announces Five-Part Forum on the Rule of Law

Fall Series to Feature Former Officials, Judges, Scholars and More

New York, August 10, 2020 – The New York City Bar Association has announced a five-part Forum on the Rule of Law, to take place this fall beginning on September 15. (Full schedule and speaker list below.)

The “Rule of Law Forum – Preserving the Rule of Law in an Age of Disruption” will feature panels of respected experts from across the political spectrum – including former government officials, judges and scholars – who will identify current challenges and threats to the rule of law in America, discuss why they matter and propose remedies. Participants will include Nicole Austin-Hillery, Donald Ayer, Mitchell Bernard, Preet Bharara, Robert Cusumano, Hon. Mary McGowan Davis, John Feerick, Charles Fried, Daniel Goldman, Harold Hongju Koh, Errol Louis, Margaret Colgate Love, David McCraw, Barbara McQuade, Dennis Parker, Myrna Perez, Hon. Jed Rakoff; Anthony Romero, Cass Sunstein, Hon. Mimi Tsankov, Joyce Vance, and Cecilia Wang. City Bar President Sheila S. Boston will introduce the series, and Professor Timothy Snyder of Yale University, author of On Tyranny and The Road to Unfreedom, will kick off the opening session with a survey of the “Threats to the Rule of Law in America.”

All sessions will be carried live on Zoom and will be open to the public free of charge ($15 for non-member lawyers):

Session 1: Threats to the Rule of Law in America: A Survey

(Sept 15, 1:00 p.m. – 4:00 p.m.)

Session 2: Checks, Balances and Oversight — the Distribution of Governmental Power and Information

(Sept 22, 1:00 p.m. – 4:00 p.m.)

Session 3: Interference with Judicial Independence and Local Law Enforcement

(October 8, 11:00 a.m. – 2:00 p.m.)

Session 4: Threats to Individual and Societal Rights

(Oct 21, 1:00 p.m. – 4:00 p.m.)

Session 5: Rebuilding the Rule of Law in America: What Can and Should the Legal Profession, Individual Lawyers and Citizens Do?

(Nov 18, 1:00 p.m. – 4:00 p.m.)

“The rule of law is the foundation of our democracy,” said City Bar President Sheila S. Boston. “It’s at the core of our Constitution that sets forth the powers of our government and the rights of our people, and the supremacy of the law in our nation ensures that no one can claim to be above it. The rule of law is what provides for transparency and equity in our society, enables us to confront challenges, foreign or domestic, and protects our security and welfare so that the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness exists for us all.”

The forum is produced by the City Bar’s Task Force on the Rule of Law, which, along with other relevant City Bar Committees, has issued a series of reports and statements relating to inappropriate actions by the Attorney General in a broad range of areas, Presidential dismissal of Inspectors General and interference in criminal and military trials, inappropriate action by the Secretary of State to undermine the International Criminal Court, the need for legislative reform of Presidential emergency powers, a proposal to replace Guantanamo’s military commissions with an Article III court and the improper use of federal security forces to clear peaceful demonstrators in Washington, D.C. and displace local law enforcement in Portland.

“While we hope these individual reports have been useful to our members and the public, they illustrate a broader theme – threats to the Rule of Law itself – that we believe has not received sufficient in-depth attention in either the public or the legal profession,” said Stephen L. Kass, Chair of the Task Force. “Our goal is to create an ongoing and thought-provoking discussion among the legal profession, the academic community and the public about what can and should be done to assure that America remains a nation governed by law even in a time of crisis – or especially in a time of crisis – and to identify the actions necessary for our justice system to promote the impartial, equitable and effective enforcement of those laws.”

In addition to the work of the Task Force on the Rule of Law, the City Bar has been speaking out on rule-of-law issues for decades through its committees on Federal Courts, Government Ethics, Immigration and Nationality Law, and its Task Force on National Security and Rule of Law (the predecessor of the Task Force on the Rule of Law).

Full Schedule:

Rule of Law Forum – Preserving the Rule of Law in an Age of Disruption

Session 1: Threats to the Rule of Law in America: A Survey

Tuesday, September 15 | 1:00 p.m. – 4:00 p.m.

This session will broadly survey recent developments that implicate, and may signal rejection of, traditional Constitutional roles and customary norms of behavior within the national government and each of its branches. Session 1 will also take an inventory of recent challenges to laws and norms involving the impartial administration of justice by law enforcement, prosecutors, the courts and the Executive, as well as threats to individual and societal rights generally and to marginalized communities in particular. Individual speakers will focus on constitutional checks and balances, politicization of the administration of justice, dramatic changes in how governmental agencies ascertain facts and make decisions, and trends in derogation of individual and societal rights, including voting rights and the promise of impartial justice for all.

Introduction: Sheila S. Boston, President, New York City Bar Association

Keynote Speaker: Timothy Snyder, Professor of History, Yale University; author, Tyranny and The Road to Unfreedom

Dennis Parker, Director, National Center for Law and Economic Justice

Cass Sunstein, Professor of Law, Harvard Law School

Joyce Vance, Professor of Law, University of Alabama School of Law; former U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Alabama

Session 2: Checks, Balances and Oversight – the Distribution of Governmental Power and Information

Tuesday, September 22 | 1:00 p.m. – 4:00 p.m.

This session will focus in depth on the rule of law challenges arising out of disruption of traditional “checks and balances” among the branches of the government, the ideas of “independence” and “oversight” among the agencies of government, and the ability of the Congress or Inspectors General and “whistleblowers” to perform their functions in the face of Executive secrecy, limits on Congressional subpoena power, governmental job insecurity and public statements critical of the bureaucratic levers of government.

Keynote Speaker: Donald Ayer, Partner at Jones Day; former U.S. Deputy Attorney General under President George H.W. Bush; former Principal Deputy Solicitor General under Solicitor General Charles Fried.

Moderator: Errol Louis, CNN Political Analyst; Host of NY1’s “Inside City Hall”

Mitchell Bernard, Executive Director, National Resources Defense Council

Preet Bharara, former U .S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York

Daniel Goldman, Counsel to the House Intelligence Committee

Barbara McQuade, Professor of Law, University of Michigan Law School; former U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Michigan

Session 3: Interference with Judicial Independence and Local Law Enforcement
Thursday, October 8 | 11:00 a.m. -2:00 p.m.)

This session will explore the effects of Executive disruption of several distinct justice systems – civil and criminal courts, the immigration court system and local law enforcement. Speakers will explore the implications of Executive interference with investigations and trials, castigation of individual judges and jurors, the deployment of military and/or federal forces in connection with local law enforcement and the issuance of pardons without traditional due diligence for civilian and military crimes.

Keynote Speaker: Charles Fried, Professor of Law at Harvard Law School; former U.S. Solicitor General under President Ronald Reagan

Margaret Colgate Love, Executive Director, Collateral Consequences Resource Center; former U.S. Pardon Attorney

Harold Hongju Koh, Sterling Professor of International Law and former Dean, Yale Law School; former Legal Adviser of the U.S. Department of State

Hon. Jed Rakoff, Senior U.S. District Court Judge, Southern District of New York

Session 4: Threats to Individual and Societal Rights

Wednesday, October 21 | 1:00 p.m. – 4:00 p.m.

This session will survey recent trends that question the role of law and courts in the pursuit of a just and democratic society. Is adherence to the rule of law deteriorating and, if so, is that because of limitations on the ability (or inclination) of citizens and courts to prevent violations of individual rights or, more broadly, the rules governing a functioning democracy? Speakers will discuss the most salient of the deteriorations of voting rights, asylum rights and incarceration policies, the militarization of policing and the disparate treatment of minorities by police and prosecutors, and the use of libel litigation to inflict costs on individuals and media outlets who challenge or criticize officeholders.

Keynote Speaker: Anthony Romero, Executive Director, American Civil Liberties Union

Nicole Austin-Hillary, Executive Director, Human Rights Watch U.S. Program

David McCraw, Senior Vice-President and Deputy General Counsel, New York Times

Myrna Perez, Director, Voting Rights and Elections Program, Brennan Center for Justice

Hon. Mimi Tsankov, Vice President, Eastern Region, National Association of Immigration Judges

Cecilia Wang, Deputy Legal Director and Director of the Center for Democracy, American Civil Liberties Union

Session 5: Rebuilding the Rule of Law in America: What Can and Should the Legal Profession, Individual Lawyers and Citizens Do?

Wednesday, November 18 | 1:00 p.m. – 4:00 p.m.

This session will explore the role of individual lawyers, professional organizations and citizens in protecting the rule of law as a guiding principle in American public life and in restoring the norms and standards by which we may remain a society governed by transparent rules equitably applied. Speakers will discuss the history of efforts by the organized bar to support and sustain impartial justice, the scope of pro bono work by the private bar and the private sector, the ethical standards guiding government officials and the education of the public about the necessity of acting to protect a fair and equitable rule of law. Speakers will draw on their own experience to offer lessons for members of the bar on building on one’s own background and training to promote the rule of law domestically and abroad.

Keynote Speaker: John Feerick, Fordham Law Dean Emeritus and Norris Professor of Law, Fordham Law School

Robert Cusumano, founder and CEO, Legal Horizons Foundation; former Corporate General Counsel

Harold Hongju Koh, Sterling Professor of International Law and former Dean, Yale Law School; former Legal Adviser of the U.S. Department of State

Hon. Mary McGowan Davis, Former New York Supreme Court Justice; Member, UN Committees of Independent Experts in International Humanitarian and Human Rights Law

Interested media please email efriedman@nycbar.org for access to this event.

About the Association

The mission of the New York City Bar Association, which was founded in 1870 and has 25,000 members, is to equip and mobilize a diverse legal profession to practice with excellence, promote reform of the law, and uphold the rule of law and access to justice in support of a fair society and the public interest in our community, our nation, and throughout the world. www.nycbar.org

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

☠️⚠️‼️DISCLAIMER: Of course, the following are just my views, not the views of anyone on the All-Star cast of speakers at this upcoming event, the NYCBA, or anyone else of any importance whatsoever!

Don is my former partner at Jones Day and a long time colleague going back to our days together at a “Better DOJ.” Mimi and I have been friends and colleagues for years in the NAIJ, the FBA, and on the Immigration Court.

Elizabeth is my former student at Georgetown Law, a former intern at the Arlington Immigration Court, a former Judicial Law Clerk at the NY Immigration Court, and a “charter member” and leader of the “New Due Process Army” (“NDPA”). She’s still early in her career, but already establishing herself as one of the “best legal minds” in the business — in immigration, human rights, Constitutional Law, or any any other field. Elizabeth and others like her are indeed “the future of American law and the nation!”

In nearly five decades as a lawyer in the public, private, and academic sectors, I have never seen such a concerted attack on the rule of law and the institutional underpinnings of American democracy as that being carried our by the Trump regime.

Perhaps most shocking and disappointing to me has been the ineffective “pushback” and often outright complicity or encouragement offered to “the scofflaw destroyers” by our supposedly independent Article III Judiciary.

Let’s cut to the chase! The only real role of the Federal Judiciary is to protect our nation from tyranny and overreach from the the other two branches of Government. That’s it in a nutshell! If they can’t do that, they really have no purpose that couldn’t be fulfilled by the State and Local Courts.

In this role, the Article IIIs have failed — miserably! With a “disappearing Congress,” the Article IIIs, starting with the lousy performance of the Supremes, overall have been unwilling effectively to stand up to Trump’s corrupt, overtly racist, divisive, and illegal White Nationalist agenda. An agenda that is destroying our society and mocking the Constitutional guarantees of “equal justice for all.”

I call the regime’s strategy “Dred Scottification” or “dehumanization of the other before the law.” It targets people of color, particularly immigrants and asylum seekers.

Outrageously, rather than emphatically rejecting this clearly unconstitutional “throwback to Jim Crow,” a Supremes’ majority has embraced and furthered it: from the “Muslim Bam;” to illegally letting legitimate asylum applicants rot, be abused, and die in Mexico; to allowing a deadly irrational, racist attack on the health and public benefits of the legal immigrant community; to turning their back on refugees who are are potentially being sentenced to death without any recognizable legal process; to allowing GOP politicos to blatantly suppress Black and Hispanic voting rights for corrupt political gain, the “tone-deaf” and spineless Supremes’ majority has misused its life tenure to clearly install itself on the wrong side of history — with racists and human rights abusers of the past!

We see it playing out every day; it will continue to get worse if we don’t get “regime change.” We need a functional Congress, without Mitch McConnell’s poisonous intransigence, and better Federal Judges, at all levels. Judges who actually believe in equal justice for all under our Constitution and have the guts and intellectual integrity to stand up for it — whether the issue is voting rights, criminal justice, rights of asylum seekers, immigrants’ rights, effective Congressional oversight of the Executive, or putting an end to the “due process parody” going on daily in the “weaponized and politicized” Immigration “Courts” (that are not “courts” at all by any commonly understood meaning of the word).

For example, as American justice implodes, AG Billy Barr and several GOP Supremes have decided that the “real enemy” is “nationwide injunctions” by US District Court Judges. This is nothing short of “legal absurdism” being spouted by folks who are supposed to be functioning as “responsible public officials!”

As those who live in the “real world” of the law, peopled by actual human beings, nationwide injunctions are one of the few effective tools that defenders of our Constitution (many serving pro bono) have to stop life-threatening illegal attacks by the regime on individual rights, particularly in the field of immigration and human rights. Otherwise, the regime’s “violate the law at will and fill the courts with frivolous litigation strategy,” adopted by the DOJ and furthered by the Supremes, would simply bury and overwhelm the defenders of individual rights and the rule of law.

Without nationwide injunctions against illegal Executive actions, by the time the regime’s legal transgressions worked their way to the Supremes, most of the bodies would be dead and buried. ⚰️⚰️Indeed, we see the results of this illegal abrogation of U.S. asylum law and international protections, sans legislation or legitimate rationale, which daily returns legitimate refugees, many women and children, to harm, torture, or death, without any process whatsoever, let alone the “due process” required by the Constitution. ☠️🤮⚰️🏴‍☠️

You might ask yourself what purpose is served by a Supremes’ majority that has encouraged and facilitated this type of deadly “outlaw behavior” that will stain our nation’s soul and reputation forever in the eyes of history? It’s not “rocket science” — really just Con Law 101, common sense, and human decency, which seem to have fled the scene at our highest Court.

The complete breakdown of professional and ethical standards within the Executive, particularly the DOJ, that used to govern positions taken, arguments made, and evidence submitted to Federal Courts also is shocking to those of us who once served in the DOJ. Likewise, the overall failure of the Federal Courts to enforce even minimal standards of professionalism and the duty of “candor to a tribunal” for Government lawyers is surprising and disheartening.

Yes, Federal Judges sometimes “pan” or “wring their hands” about the bogus positions, disingenuous reasoning, and contemptuous actions of agencies and Government lawyers. But, they seldom, if ever, take meaningful corrective action. For Pete’s sake, both “Wolfman” and “Cooch Cooch” have been held by a Federal Judge to have been illegally appointed to their acting positions! Yet every day, these “illegals” continue to mete out injustice, and racist-driven policies on largely defenseless migrants . What kind of judiciary allows this kind of “in your face nonsense” to continue unabated?

This judicial fecklessness hasn’t been lost on folks like Billy Barr, Chad “Wolfman” Wolf, Stephen Miller, “Cooch Cooch,” Mark Morgan, Noel Francisco, and other Trump sycophants who continue to flood the Federal Courts with false narratives, bogus positions, and what many would characterize as “unadulterated BS” without meaningful consequences, other than to stretch the “battle lines” of the pro bono opposition to the breaking point. Indeed, as many fearless immigration and human rights litigators will confirm, it has become the burden of the private, usually pro bono or “low bono,” bar to “fact check” and disprove the false narratives and incomplete or misleading accounts submitted by the DOJ to the Federal Courts.

How does this “misplacing of the burden” further the interests of justice and encourage representation of the most vulnerable in our society? Clearly, it doesn’t, which is the entire point of the DOJ’s destructive and unprofessional “strategy!” Certainly, these are unmistakable signs of widespread systemic breakdown in our Federal justice system.

I urge everyone to attend and learn more about why the rule of law is “on the ropes” in today’s America, what efforts are being made to save and preserve it, and to ponder the consequences of what another four years of a corrupt, scofflaw, White Nationalist regime and complicit Federal Judges could mean for everyone in America and perhaps the world!

Due Process Forever! If you don’t stand up for it, you’ll find yourself living in the “world’s highest-GNP failed state,” governed by a hereditary kakistocracy enabled by feckless “judges” more interested in their life tenure than in YOUR rights under the law!🤮☠️🏴‍☠️👎

Star Chamber Justice

“Due Process of Law”

As Reenvisioned By Trump & Billy Barr

This is what “Dred Scottification” or the “end of the rule of law” as promoted by Trump, Miller, Barr and their cronies, and enabled by a tone-deaf and “insulated from the human suffering they cause” Supremes’ majority looks like:

“Floaters” — “Floaters — How The World’s Richest Country Responds To Asylum Seekers”
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)

PWS

09-03-20

“POPPYCOCK!” — Conservative U.S. District Judge Richard Leon “Zeroes In” On Racist, Disingenuous, BS Presented In Court By Trump Regime To Justify “Crimes Against Humanity” Committed Against Asylum Seekers By USG! — Contrasts With Disingenuous Enabling Of Racist Immigration Agenda By Supremes’ Majority! — As Reported By “Legal Clairvoyant” 🔮 Jacqueline Thomsen @ NLJ!

“POPPYCOCK!” — U.S. District Judge Richard Leon’s Characterization Of Trump Regime’s Defense Of Asylum Seeker Abuse By DHS & Barr’s Unethical & Frivolous Arguments!

Jacqueline Thomsen
Courts Reporter
National Law Journal & Legal Clairvoyant

https://link.law.com/click/21370303.6876//5162eb9334b9b0a8048a6907C27093cdb

Due Process “Legal Eagle” Jacqueline Thompsen reports for the National Law Journal’:

. . . .

The federal immigration law requires that officers who conduct the interviews—in which migrants must show they face at least a 10% chance of persecution due to certain factors in order to be eligible for asylum—receive significant training on handling the applications

In responding to the administration’s claims that the border patrol agents received similar training as asylum officers, Leon wrote, “Poppycock! The training requirements cited in the government’s declaration do not come close to being ‘comparable’ to the training requirements of full asylum officers.”

“To make matters worse, the January MOA precludes any individual CBP agent from conducting credible fear interviews for longer than 180 days, meaning that CBP agents cannot gain the experience necessary to appropriately apply the complex asylum laws and regulations,” the judge added. “These procedures plainly violate Congress’s requirements.”

The Trump administration has administered a widespread crackdown on asylum proceedings, adopting a slew of policies that make it more difficult for migrants fleeing persecution in other countries to obtain protections in the United States.

The ruling comes in a lawsuit filed by attorneys with Tahirih Justice Center and the Constitutional Accountability Center, on behalf of four mothers and their seven children from Honduras, Ecuador and Mexico seeking asylum in the U.S. All of the migrants failed to pass the credible fear assessment conducted by CBP agents, which were upheld by immigration judges.

Leon also found in Monday’s ruling that it “would certainly seem unlikely” that CBP agent interviews of migrants could be considered to be “nonadversarial proceedings with a neutral decision-maker,” as required under federal regulations and guidelines. He noted that border patrol agents are considered law enforcement, and said federal authorities’ statements on measures they have taken to minimize the possibility of the interviews becoming adversarial “hardly seems sufficient.”

Leon wrote the training requirements for those conducting the credible fear assessments “are essential for a functioning asylum process, which is why Congress required them,” describing the legal framework surrounding U.S. immigration, asylum, and other similar processes as “complex, to say the least.”

“After all, an asylum officer who is not adequately trained in the applicable legal requirements is less likely to ask the right questions of an asylum seeker, or for that matter, to gather the facts necessary to make an accurate determination of whether an asylum seeker has a credible fear of persecution,” he continued. “Indeed, the record here contains several examples of the effects of inadequate training: one CBP agent failed to follow up with questions about an asylum-seeking plaintiff’s sexual abuse, and another failed to inquire into another asylum-seeking plaintiffs husband’s murder investigation.”

Leon also found the immigrants in the case would face irreparable harm, if he did not issue a preliminary injunction to block their removal from the U.S.

***********

Why isn’t it an ethical and professional problem for “Billy the Bigot’s” DOJ to make nonsense arguments to a Federal Judge in support of unlawful actions? Private members of the bar arguing “poppycock” in a civil case could well find themselves referred for disciplinary action. Why are Cabinet Officials and their attorneys exempt from normal professional and ethical considerations?

You can read Judge Leon’s clearly written and cogently reasoned 22-page decision in A.B.-B. v. Morgan here: https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.216698/gov.uscourts.dcd.216698.32.0.pdf.

If only more judges at all levels could write with such clarity and in plain English!

The rejection at the “credible fear” stage of the bona fide asylum claims described by Judge Leon is beyond appalling! These are essentially totally and intentionally unqualified and biased U.S. Government employees committing “crimes against humanity” and getting away with it! These aren’t “legal errors.” It’s systemic malfeasance, otherwise known as “malicious incompetence” with a heavy dose of racism and misogyny thrown in for a good measure!

If substantiated during the immigration hearing process that should have taken place, all these applicants should have been “slam dunk” grants of asylum, withholding of removal, and/or relief under the Convention Against Torture in a properly functioning justice system. Instead, but for the efforts of pro bono counsel, they would have been illegally returned to harm, torture, and/or death with no legitimate process at all!

No wonder “Billy the Bigot’s” Immigration Courts are out of control and the borders are a deadly mess when individuals who with proper screening and access to competent counsel should have been quickly legally admitted to the U.S. under protection laws are instead being “rejected” by biased and unqualified Border Patrol Agents impersonating Asylum Officers!

Here’s my favorite quote (among many) from Judge Leon’s decision:

Of course, the Government has a strong interest in the “prompt execution of removal orders.” Nken,556 U.S. at 436. However, the Government and public can have little interest in executing removal orders that are based on statutory violations, League of Women Voters of U.S. v. I,{ewby,838 F.3d l,12 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (“There is generally no public interest in the perpetuation of unlawful agency action.”), especially where those statutory violations may compromise the accuracy of such removal orders. R.I.L.-R. v Johnson, 80 F. Supp. 3d 164, 191 (D.D.C. 2015); Grace, 344 F. Supp. 3d at 14144 Indeed, the public has an interest “in preventing aliens from being wrongfully removed, particularly to countries where they are likely to face substantial harm.” Nken,556 U.S. at 436. As such, the balance of interests here weighs in favor of preliminary injunctive relief.

The last point, “the public has an interest ‘in preventing aliens from being wrongfully removed, particularly to countries where they are likely to face substantial harm,’” Nken,556 U.S. at 436, has basically been ignored by the Supremes’ majority recently in sending refugees to their death or into harm’s way without any semblance of due process, based on various lies, distortions, and racist schemes by the Trump regime intentionally mischaracterizing “national security” and “national emergency.” As Judge Leon would say: “Poppycock!”

Perversely, the Trump regime and the Supremes’ have made execution of illegal removal orders, resulting from racist White Nationalist schemes, a “national priority.” Truly, this is a system broken from the top down in need of immediate repair and injections of intellectually honesty, moral courage, and ethics — something that seems “out of vogue” in all three branches of our failing democracy these days

I recently had a conversation with Jacqueline in which she basically predicted this decision based on her study of the arguments and trends among U.S. District Judges, regardless of philosophy or appointing party, in DC. Nice going Jacqueline! Congrats on your clairvoyance!

Those with NLJ access (anyone can get “three free” per month by registering) can read the complete article at the link.

Judge Leon’s linear, straightforward, and “no BS” treatment of the regime’s absurdist, unethical, and scofflaw legal “defense” of essentially “crimes against humanity” contrasts sharply with the disingenuous and essentially “brain dead” treatment of similar BS by the “JR Five” on the Supremes. There, the patently unconstitutional and illegal (not to mention immoral) agenda of neo-Nazi racist Stephen Miller and the unethical maneuvers of SG Noel Francisco are often wrongfully rewarded. By contrast, the the Supremes’ majority routinely trashes the legal and constitutional rights of vulnerable people of color, particularly asylum seekers, migrants, and voters beneath an avalanche of bogus “Dred Scottification” jurisprudence.

Additionally, Judge Leon is “onto something” that has been swept under the carpet by the Supremes and the Circuit Courts when he questions “whether CBP agents could ever lawfully be given authority to conduct asylum interviews and adjudicate asylum claims, see Compl. ‘]Tfl 108-09, it would certainly seem unlikely under these circumstances. After all, law enforcement officers typically “function as adversaries” whose role is “to investigate criminal activity, to locate and arrest those who violate our laws, and to facilitate the charging and bringing of such persons to trial.” New Jersey v T.L.O.,469 U.S. 325,349 (1985) (Powell, J., concurring).”

Similarly, many of us have argued that Immigration “Judges” who work for uber-enforcer and Trump shill “Billy the Bigot” and have been “repurposed” and “weaponized” into DHS enforcement support staff can not possibly be the “fair and impartial” quasi-judicial adjudicators required by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment!

Better Justices and better Federal Judges for a better America, particularly for people of color and other minorities. It’s actually quite simple and straightforward. It starts with throwing Trump and the GOP out of every political office this Fall.

Then, we need some real Justices and Federal Judges who will stand against systemic racism and enforce equal justice in America! Not, rocket science! Just knowledge of the Constitution, awareness of human rights and immigrants’ rights, a focus on racial justice, courage to speak truth to power, and a demonstrated commitment to human dignity and human decency. One could easily wonder why those haven’t been the minimal requirements for Federal judicial service in the past.

Past is past, particularly for life-tenured judges. But, America can’t afford any more disastrous judicial appointments, at any level, who lack the guts and human decency to stand up to scofflaw, neo-fascist racists like Trump, Miller, and their cronies.

The top to bottom overall failure of the American judiciary to put an end to unconstitutional and unfair racism and “Dred Scottification” of “the other” in our society is aiding and abetting the dark, lawless forces aligned with the regime destabilizing our country and ripping it apart! No more!

Due Process Forever!

PWS

08-31-20

⚖️🧑🏽‍⚖️SOURCE OF RACIAL TENSION & ENDEMIC INEQUALITY 🤮: U.S. COURTS: Nan Aron Of Alliance For Justice Speaks Out On Why We Need Progressive Judges!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-biden-supreme-court/2020/08/28/0f0a8158-e937-11ea-bc79-834454439a44_story.html

By Seung Min Kim in the WashPost:

. . . .

But Democrats all but ignored the Supreme Court in their four-day convention earlier this month, even after the party spent Trump’s first term reckoning with the consequences of Republicans confirming two justices, including a reliably conservative justice who replaced the court’s swing vote.

The contrast worries liberal activists who see it as further evidence that the Democratic Party isn’t paying enough attention to an area where conservatives have made big inroads in recent years: control of the courts.

“The fact that Democrats spent so little to no time discussing the federal bench failed to take into account that their critically important goals for the future will be challenged in the courts,” said Nan Aron, the president of the liberal judicial advocacy group Alliance for Justice.

She added: “It’s a major misstep, given the fact that these 200 judges will make it very difficult, if not impossible in many cases, for the Democrats to accomplish their worthy goals going forward.”

. . . .

************************
Read the full article at the link,

Thanks, Nan, for speaking out! I’ve always been astounded by the Dems’ failure to recognize the importance of getting demonstrated advocates for due process, fundamental fairness, human rights, equal justice under law, and best practices on the Federal Bench.

Heck, look at the Dems beyond disastrous and just plain incompetent approach to the Immigration Bench in the Obama Administration — an administrative court controlled entirely by the Attorney General. Can’t blame Mitch and the GOP for:

- Ridiculously convoluted and entirely unnecessary 2-year hiring process (under former Director Anthony C. Moscato, the Clinton Administration could sometimes do it in a fraction of that time with better, or at least no worse, results);
- Eschewing progressive judicial candidates, including well-qualified underrepresented groups, with scholarly credentials and practical expertise in immigration, asylum, human rights, and due process in favor of an endless stream of largely “insider only, don’t rock the boat” picks;
- Leaving numerous positions unfilled at the end of the Administration for White Nationalist xenophobe Jeff Sessions to fill;
- Ignoring obvious, achievable management reforms like e-filing!

The Trump Administration is teeming with malicious incompetents, particularly in the Immigration-related agencies. Notwithstanding that, they immediately figured out how to expedite Immigration Judge hiring and to load the bench with some of the worst, most unqualified, and biased so-called “judges” in modern American legal history!

In other words, Sessions, Whitaker, and Barr shamelessly and rapidly weaponized the Immigration Courts and made them subservient shills and zealots for DHS enforcement and Stephen Miller’s White Supremacist agenda. And feckless Article III Courts, now also stuffed with Trump judges, have, with a few notable exceptions, looked the other way as the slaughter of Constitutional due process and vulnerable humans (including kids) unfolds. You couldn’t write a worse script for the rule of law and future of humanity!

Democrats pretended that the Immigration Courts existed merely to “go along to get along with the policy flavor of the day.” They did not reinforce due process, fundamental fairness, or view the Immigration Bench as a source of expertise, creativity, progressive legal thinking, or creative legal problem solving. The backlogs grew, morale slid (although admittedly not at the breakneck pace under the Trump regime), and the bodies of those who should have been saved but weren’t started to pile up. Simple reforms — try e-filing, for example — were left unaccomplished!

It wasn’t “malicious incompetence” — just good old fashioned “administrative incompetence.” But the latter paved the way for the former to “go on steroids” during the Trump regime. This isn’t just political malpractice and academic debate! Real people have lost their lives, families, or futures because of the Dems’ diddling approach to justice — including America’s largest and perhaps most significant court system over which they had total control!

It’s actually pretty simple: Better judges (from the Supremes to the Immigration Courts) for a better America! And, time for the immigration/human rights community to wake up, join the NDPA, and demand that the Dems do better next time around!

Due Process Forever! Repeating past mistakes, never!

PWS

08-30-20

🏴‍☠️☠️🤮⚰️⚰️⚰️⚰️⚰️WELCOME TO COLFAX, LA: DEADLY WHITE SUPREMACY DEEPLY ROOTED IN U.S. LEGAL HISTORY: “The Colfax Massacre” Lives On In Roberts’ Court’s Willingness To Sacrifice Constitutional, Statutory, & Human Rights Of People Of Color To The Trump/Miller Nakedly White Supremacist & Clearly Illegal Agenda!

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/28/opinion/black-lives-civil-rights.html?referringSource=articleShare

From The NY Times:

By William Briggs and Jon Krakauer

The authors are writers.

Aug. 28, 2020

. . . .

In March 1876, Bradley and his fellow Supreme Court justices decreed that he was correct in rescinding the convictions of William Cruikshank and the other white defendants, ruling that although the 14th Amendment gave the federal government authority to act against violations of civil rights by state governments, it did not apply to acts of racist violence by private citizens against other citizens. Furthermore, the court ludicrously declared, the prosecution failed to show that crimes against the murdered Black men were committed “on account of their race or color.” All 98 defendants escaped accountability, emboldening white supremacists across the land.

The Cruikshank decision reinforced a grotesque judicial precedent that severely limited the power of the federal government to prosecute violent crimes against the formerly enslaved. Given free rein by the Supreme Court, white supremacists continued their coordinated campaign of terror against Black people, hastening the demise of Reconstruction. By 1877, every Southern state had been “redeemed,” and they would remain under the control of their white redeemers for decades.

By eviscerating crucial protections of the 14th Amendment, the Cruikshank ruling ensured that the most basic constitutional rights of Black citizens would be denied well into the 20th century. The crabbed, inhumane logic of Cruikshank provided legal cover that allowed systemic racism to flourish and denied civil rights to millions of Americans, perpetuating what John Lewis called a “soul-wrenching, existential struggle.”

A straight line can be drawn from Colfax and Cruikshank to the race riots in East St. Louis in 1917 and in Omaha, Chicago and other cities two years later; to the abhorrent crimes committed in the 1921 Tulsa race massacre; to the criminal brutality unleashed on African-Americans in Selma and Birmingham, Ala., in the 1960s; to the present-day instances of police and white nationalist violence in Ferguson, Mo., Charlottesville, Va., and now Kenosha, Wis.; to the shameful, plain-sight attempts to suppress the Black vote in the 2020 elections. Lest we forget that white supremacy and racial injustice are still endemic in America, we need to remember Colfax and the lasting harm it wrought.

William Briggs is an emeritus professor of mathematics at the University of Colorado, Denver, and author of “How America Got Its Guns: A History of Gun Violence in America.” Jon Krakauer is the author of numerous books, including “Into Thin Air” and “Missoula.”

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

Read the full article at the link.

I’ve previously highlighted the Colfax Easter Massacre and the Supremes’ disgusting historical ties to racism, White Supremacy, and the suppression and murder of people of color on Courtside!

https://immigrationcourtside.com/2017/04/16/history-lest-we-forget-the-u-s-justice-system-the-supreme-court-have-sometimes-been-on-the-wrong-side-of-history-justice-remembering-the-easter-sunday-massacre-in-colfax-la-the-racist-su/

It’s an ugly and disturbing story. But, the worst part is that the ugliness is being repeated in the bogus, White Supremacist friendly jurisprudence of the Roberts’ Court’s GOP majority!

Great deference is given to the illegal and overtly racist schemes of Trump, Miller and their cronies. By contrast, short shrift is given to the voting rights of African Americans and Hispanic Americans. The rights and lives of asylum seekers and other migrants are treated as beyond the realm of humanity. Who cares what abuses the scofflaw regime heaps on them. After all, they aren’t really “persons” entitled to exist.

Pulling out a few toenails? Hey, A-OK with the JR Five just as long as it’s not their toenails and their exalted positions protect them from having to hear the screams of the tormented or get blood and gore all over their pristine black robes!🤮⚰️☠️👎🏻

It’s called “Dred Scottification” or “dehumanization of the other.” It has no place in 21st Century America. And, neither do the public officials and complicit Justices and judges who enable rampant racism and inhumanity. The “JR Five” would have felt right at home on the “Cruikshank Court.” They are masters at finding disingenuous legal gobbledygook to avoid protecting the rights and lives of people of color from invidiously Executive tyranny and abuse!

Had enough? If we want equal justice under law in America, we must start by taking back control of our nation at the ballot box. Get enough voters and even the Trump regime and the GOP Supremes won’t be able to suppress the results and keep the majority from exercising political power.

This November, vote like your life, our nation, and the world’s future depend on it! Because they do! And, this may be our last chance to save our sinking Ship of State!

PWS

08-30-20

OUTLAW REGIME/COMPLICIT JUDGES/NATION WITHOUT SOUL: Nicaraguan Gov. Pulled Refugee’s Toenails Out: Trump, Miller, & Wolf, Aided By Roberts, Sent Her Back To For More Torture & Perhaps Death Without Any Process!

Star Chamber Justice — The U.S.Asylum System
As Redesigned By Trump, Miller, Wolfman, & Roberts

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/the_americas/nicaragua-asylum-us-border/2020/08/27/9aaba414-e561-11ea-970a-64c73a1c2392_story.html

Kevin Sieff reports for WashPost:

She was one of the most recognizable activists in Nicaragua, protesting a government that has jailed and killed its opponents. Her photo ran in national newspapers; one called her the “face of the rebellion.” Her video of police firing at student protesters went viral. Her confrontations with the government were cited by the U.S. State Department.

Valeska Alemán, 22, paid a price for that notoriety. She was detained twice. Interrogators pried off her toenails. When she decided to leave the country, the United States seemed a natural destination: The Trump administration has been vocal in its opposition to Nicaragua’s crackdown — and its support of the country’s young protesters.

‘They took my humanity’: Pro-government paramilitaries terrorize Nicaraguan protesters

But by the time Alemán arrived at the U.S. border in July, the administration had launched a pandemic-era policy that sends Nicaraguans directly back to their country without letting them apply for asylum. Seventeen days after crossing into Texas, she was put on a plane back to Managua with more than 100 other Nicaraguans, almost all of them opponents of President Daniel Ortega.

Her backpack was full of documents to show U.S. immigration officials that the government appeared ready to kill her. The officials wouldn’t look at them. When she landed back in Nicaragua, it felt as if she was carrying a ticking bomb, proof that she was trying to flee and accuse the government of abuse.

“I thought, ‘Okay, so they’re going to throw me straight back in jail,’ ” Alemán said. “ ‘I’m going to be tortured all over again.’ ”

Another expelled asylum seeker, Moises Alberto Ortega Valdivia, 38, swallowed five pages of his asylum paperwork, panicked that Nicaraguan police would find it.

Since taking control in 2017, the Trump administration has narrowed the pool of people who qualify for asylum and sent tens of thousands of applicants back to Mexico to await their hearings from squalid tent camps and shelters.

In squalid Mexico tent city, asylum seekers are growing so desperate they’re sending their children over the border alone

During the coronavirus pandemic, the administration has gone further, effectively shutting the asylum system down. Most Central American applicants are simply escorted back to Mexico. But Nicaraguans — including political protesters to whom the United States has given rhetorical support — are flown back to the country they tried to escape.

The administration is using a public health order known as 42 U.S.C. that cites “the danger to the public health” of migrants to justify the asylum system’s closure. Mexico has agreed to accept Salvadorans, Guatemalans and Hondurans. Other nations, such as Cuba and Venezuela, have refused to accept chartered U.S. deportation flights of their own citizens.

The U.S. is putting asylum seekers on planes to Guatemala — often without telling them where they’re going

In the case of Nicaragua, the United States is sending asylum seekers back to a country the State Department describes as violently repressive.

“Throughout Nicaragua, armed and violent uniformed police or civilians in plain clothes acting as police (‘para-police’) continue to target anyone considered to be in opposition to the rule of President Ortega,” the department says in a travel warning. “The government and its affiliated armed groups have been reported to arbitrarily detain pro-democracy protestors, with credible claims of torture and disappearances.”

U.S. Customs and Border Protection did not respond to multiple requests for comment. In a statement, the State Department said it “condemns all forms of political oppression, especially that orchestrated by the corrupt Ortega regime.” But it would not comment on the expulsion of Nicaraguan asylum seekers.

Alemán traveled with a family of Nicaraguan asylum seekers to the Texas border. All were university graduates and students of international affairs. Before they left, they reviewed the asylum laws on a U.S. government website.

. . . .

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

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

Section 208 of the Immigration & Nationality Act says:

Any alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters), irrespective of such alien’s status, may apply for asylum in accordance with this section or, where applicable, section 1225(b) of this title.

Very clear. What happened to refugee Valeska Alemán and other asylum seekers at the hands of the Trump regime was totally illegal (not to mention immoral); essentially a “crime against humanity” for which Trump, Miller, Wolfman, and the other “perps” should be held accountable.

But, this is Trump’s America where a majority of the Roberts’ Court favors White Supremacy, racism, and crimes against humanity over the Constitutional, statutory, and human rights of people of color. It’s called “Dred Scottification.” It’s a national and international disgrace that will stain our nation forever!

Think racial justice and equal justice in America will be achieved without a better Executive, throwing the GOP out of legislative power, and better Federal Judges? Guess again!

Due Process Forever!

PWS

08-28-30

😰👹👺🏴‍☠️☠️⚰️🤮“DARKNESS ON THE EDGE OF TOWN” — Nicole Narea @ Vox With A Glimpse Of Trump’s Second Term: American Apocalypse — Dark, Ugly, Hateful, Violent, Dishonest, Exclusionary, Stupid, Racist, Diminished, Yet Very White & Privileged — Are People Of Color & Their Allies Really Going To Stand By & Watch While Their Past & Our Future As A Strong, Creative, Tolerant, Diverse, Humane Nation Is Written Out Of History By A Racist GOP & Its Totally Wacko Yet Dangerously Evil Cult Leader?

DARKNESS ON THE EDGE OF TOWN

Album version

Music & Lyrics by Bruce Springsteen

Well, they’re still racing out at the Trestles

But that blood it never burned in her veins

Now I hear she’s got a house up in Fairview

And a style she’s trying to maintain

Well, if she wants to see me

You can tell her that I’m easily found

Tell her there’s a spot out ‘neath Abram’s Bridge

And tell her there’s a darkness on the edge of town

There’s a darkness on the edge of town

Well, everybody’s got a secret, Sonny

Something that they just can’t face

Some folks spend their whole lives trying to keep it

They carry it with them every step that they take

Till some day they just cut it loose

Cut it loose or let it drag ’em down

Where no one asks any questions

Or looks too long in your face

In the darkness on the edge of town

In the darkness on the edge of town

Well, now some folks are born into a good life

And other folks get it anyway anyhow

Well, I lost my money and I lost my wife

Them things don’t seem to matter much to me now

Tonight I’ll be on that hill ’cause I can’t stop

I’ll be on that hill with everything I’ve got

Well, lives on the line where dreams are found and lost

I’ll be there on time and I’ll pay the cost

For wanting things that can only be found

In the darkness on the edge of town

In the darkness on the edge of town

——— Source: springsteenlyrics.com, click here for music: https://www.springsteenlyrics.com/lyrics.php?song=darknessontheedgeoftown

Nicole Narea
Immigration Reporter
Vox.com

https://apple.news/AyEIE9zXYSTeZ-TvO2TLZAQ

Nicole writes at Vox:

. . . .

As he seeks a second term, [Trump has] also made it clear that he hasn’t finished. He still wants to end the Obama-era Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program once and for all, drive out the millions of unauthorized immigrants living in the US and curb their political power, enact what he calls “merit-based” immigration reform, and pursue a slew of restrictive immigration regulations.

The US has already seen the harms of Trump’s first-term immigration policies, which could cut deeper if he’s given another four years: Legal immigration is plummeting, stymying growth in the labor force and threatening the US’s ability to attract global talent and recover from the coronavirus-induced recession. The US has abdicated its role as a model for how a powerful country should support the world’s most vulnerable people. And the millions of immigrants already living in the US, regardless of their legal status, have been left uncertain of their fate in the country they have come to call home.

Other concerns — including the coronavirus, racial justice, and unemployment — have recently eclipsed immigration as a top motivating issue for voters. But for Trump, who currently lags former Vice President Joe Biden in the polls, restricting immigration proved a winning message in 2016, and he will likely try to replicate that strategy again.

“It’s the thing he keeps going back to,” Douglas Rivlin, director of communication at the immigrant advocacy group America’s Voice, said. “It is his comfort zone — to go after people of color and turn them into sort of the specter of scary, violent people as a political strategy.”

. . . .

Whether any version of that proposal will get traction would largely depend on the makeup of the next Congress and whether Democrats win a majority in the Senate. Most immigration policy experts aren’t convinced that Trump will see success in negotiating with Democrats, but the political calculus could change if Democrats control both chambers of Congress and need Trump to sign their legislation.

It also depends on Republicans acting as a unified front on immigration. So far, pro-business Republicans aren’t challenging the restrictions and travel bans Trump has imposed during the pandemic, and as the US continues to grapple with its worst economic crisis since the Great Depression and more than a million Americans are out of work, they will likely continue to follow the president’s lead. But in the long term, they might find themselves at philosophical odds with the anti-immigrant wing of the party.

“I think the reality of the economics of immigration and the sort of more ideological agenda are going to come into conflict,” Rivlin said.

But if Trump can overcome those hurdles, the prize would be substantial: the ability the leave his mark on the immigration system beyond a series of executive actions that could be reversed by the next Democrat who assumes office.

“Merit-based immigration reform would be a legacy for him on immigration, more so than a border wall,” the Bipartisan Policy Institute’s Cardinal-Brown said. “That would have impacts on the future of immigration for decades.”

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

Read the rest of Nicole’s gloomy yet (as always) well-written outlook at the link.

Don’t be fooled. In “Trumpspeak” the term “merit-based” means “race-based” (favoring, of course, White guys, preferably rich, English speaking, and prospective GOP toadies). Again, to state the obvious, a “kakistocracy” by definition lacks the ability to recognize and reward true “merit.” That’s why it’s a “kakistocracy,” not a “meritocracy!”

America is a nation of immigrants. To change that, Trump will have to destroy America, which, as this week’s “clown show of hate, fear, loathing, and complete nonsense” (a/k/a “The GOP Convention”) shows, he and his followers are perfectly willing to do.

This perverted “vision” of America also ties in well with the Trump/GOP approach to racism and social justice: Ignore injustice and double down on violence administered by the largely White power structure against communities of color. Kill, maim, blame, punish, jail, intimidate, disenfranchise, and dehumanize the victims rather than looking for cooperative ways to solve the problems. Sow fear, hate, and division to insure that institutionalized racism and White grievance will be indelibly ingrained in America! As these self-inflicted grievances play out, the Trump family and its cronies will use the ensuing chaos as a diversion to loot the Treasury and use what remains of “government” to further their own personal interests, without regard to the common welfare. Nice folks!

It’s doubtful that America as the majority of us have envisioned it can survive another four years of Trump’s corruption, racism, and malicious incompetence. Despite some liberal wishful thinking, our democratic institutions and apparently overrated “checks and balances” are crumbling before our eyes.

The “JR Five” on the Supremes and the GOP Senate already have reached “Penceian levels” (“Pence” rhymes with “incompetence”) of mindless sycophantic subservience to the “Clown Prince” and his entourage. None of them would be able to extract their collective heads from the more than ample Presidential rear to see any daylight during a second term. Trump’s re-election would inevitably convert the “City on The Hill” to a “wealthy universally despised third world kleptocracy.” That’s the real “vision” of Trump and the GOP. (I think that Nicole’s “hypothetical” of a Trump victory and a Dem Senate is the “least likely scenario.”)

This November, vote like your life and the world’s future depend on it! Because they do!

Equal Justice & A Diverse America For All! Trump’s Dark, Evil, Dishonest Vision Of America, Never!

PWS

08-27-20

🏴‍☠️☠️🤮⚰️👎🏻BILLY THE BIGOT GOES BANANAS 🍌 WITH RACIST, ANTI-IMMIGRANT AGENDA @ EOIR AS ARTICLE IIIs TAKE A DIVE ON EQUAL JUSTICE FOR ALL!

EYORE — “Eyore In Distress”
Once A Symbol of Fairness, Due Process, & Best Practices, Now Gone “Belly Up”

Laura Lynch reports from AILA:

DOJ Proposes Regulation to Turn Immigration Appeals into Tool of the Administration’s Anti-Immigrant Agenda

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

August 26, 2020
Contact: George Tzamaras, gtzamaras@aila.org
Tessa Wiseman, twiseman@aila.org

Washington, DC – Today, the Department of Justice (DOJ) published a sweeping proposed rule in the Federal Register that would overhaul Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) processes and remove due process safeguards with an aim of fast-tracking deportations. The public has 30 days to comment on the proposed rule.

AILA’s Senior Policy Counsel, Laura Lynch, stated, “The proposal gives the Director of the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) extraordinary adjudicatory power over appeals, authorizing him to reverse, singlehandedly, BIA decisions at the request of immigration judges. Putting this much power in the hands of an administrator who is not even a judge will give the Trump administration unprecedented ability to manipulate the courts in furtherance of its deportation agenda. The need for independent immigration courts has never been more urgent, or clear. This exemplifies why AILA is calling on Congress to pass legislation creating an immigration court system separate and independent from DOJ.”

AILA’s First Vice President, Jeremy McKinney, added, “The realities of this proposed rule are grim—more power entrusted to a hand-selected bureaucrat, increased pressure for speedy decisions at the cost of due process, and a dismantling of an appeals process vital to a fair day in court. Deeply troubling is the rule’s codification of the prohibition former Attorney General Jeff Sessions tried to impose on judges’ ability to administratively close cases, a fundamental authority judges need to efficiently manage their overloaded dockets. At least two circuit courts have rejected Sessions’ analysis and overturned the decision. The proposed rule is part of a larger effort by the DOJ to exert improper political influence over immigration court decisions and to turn the immigration courts into an enforcement mechanism. It’s a power grab, pure and simple.”

###

The American Immigration Lawyers Association is the national association of immigration lawyers established to promote justice, advocate for fair and reasonable immigration law and policy, advance the quality of immigration and nationality law and practice, and enhance the professional development of its members.

Laura A. Lynch, Esq.

Senior Policy Counsel

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

Thanks, Laura, for all that you and AILA do to fight for equal justice for all and to combat the evil influence of Billy the Bigot and his toadies over at EOIR!

Litigate, litigate, litigate! Force the Article IIIs to confront on a mass basis the human carnage, overt xenophobia, mockery of justice, and racism that they have fostered with their timid and indolent approach to the massive assault on our justice system and human dignity from Billy the Bigot and the White Nationalist regime! Make a record for future generations to see who stepped up, who chickened out, and what kind of individuals hid behind their black robes while humanity suffered and the lives of some of the most vulnerable were unlawfully and unethically destroyed.

There is no excuse for the continued, unconstitutional EOIR abomination! Past time for the Article IIIs to call halt to this perverted charade and transfer all immigration hearings to U.S. Magistrate Judges until Congress and the Executive create a new, independent, constitutionally compliant Immigration Court!

Due Process Forever!

PWS

08-26-20

🏴‍☠️☠️🤮⚰️🆘AMERICA’S SHAME — NATIONAL DISGRACE – SYSTEMIC INSTITUTIONAL FAILURE: From Supremes Who Abandoned Their Key Precedent In Cardoza-Fonseca, To A 5th Cir. Court Of Appeals That Shirked Its Duty To Protect Refugees, To A “Don’t Rock The Boat” BIA That Failed To Enforce Uniformity, To Unqualified & Biased Immigration “Judges” Who Created Illegal, “Asylum-Free Zones,” The U.S. Asylum System Was In Deep Trouble Even Before Trump – Under Trump, It Has Become A “Killing Floor” Programmed To Intentionally Deny & Deport Deserving Refugees To Death, Torture, Or Grotesque Mistreatment, As Indolent, Cloistered Article IIIs, Unwilling To Dig In & Stop The Slaughter Look On!

https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/immigration/story/2020-08-23/who-gets-asylum-even-before-trump-system-was-riddled-with-bias-and-disparities

An asylum seeker’s chances at protection hinge on numerous factors that often seem arbitrary — from location to nationality to individual judge assigned — according to a Union-Tribune analysis of immigration court records
By KATE MORRISSEY,
LAURYN SCHROEDER
AUG. 23, 2020
5 AM
For the world’s most vulnerable, protection in the United States has all but disappeared.
Wait times for asylum seekers at the U.S.-Mexico border that already seemed indefinite now seem impossible. Families struggle to find food and shelter to outlast a pandemic order with no end date.
Those who cross north are sent back to Mexico in a matter of hours — or even put onto planes back to the countries from which they fled — without any opportunity to explain why they came.
In its response to COVID-19, the Trump administration achieved what it long sought, a shutdown of the U.S. asylum system. And with new regulations introduced this summer, the administration has moved to squeeze out any real chance at refuge in case the pandemic order is lifted.
But even before the current president began his campaign against asylum in the United States, people often struggled to win protection — no matter how strong their cases appeared to be.
In its 40-year history, the system has chronically fallen short of its promise of safety.
RETURNED: PART II
The second in an occasional series in which the Union-Tribune explores the asylum system through the eyes of people who experience it firsthand, with drastically different outcomes.
The Trump administration has used statistics about grant rates to justify closing off access to asylum, saying that those who lose their cases are illegitimate asylum seekers.
The facts show a different story: Thousands of people turned away based not on the merits of their cases, but on the capriciousness of a system so riven with inequity that many outcomes seem little more than arbitrary.
A San Diego Union-Tribune analysis of 10 years of court outcomes uncovered many symptoms of the system’s biases — shortcomings that date to the system’s creation.
. . . .

***************************
Read the rest of this eye-opening (for those not familiar with this broken, biased, and beyond dysfunctional system) article at the above link.

There can be no excuse for the “horror chamber” that this already broken, battered, and unfair system has devolved into. It will take genuine changes in expertise, attitude, courage, and intellectual integrity across all three branches of Government to get this system functioning in a fair, legal, and constitutional manner consistent with due process and our international obligations.
It also will require much better, more educated, more courageous, more practical, and more intellectually honest judges from the Immigration Courts (which must become independent from the Executive) all the way up to and including the Supremes.

Better judges for a better America! Life tenure means it won’t happen overnight. But, the process needs to begin now for our nation to survive and prosper!

We can’t achieve equal justice for all with so many judges who don’t believe in it, don’t have expertise in and a commitment to human rights, and don’t have the guts to stand up for the legal, constitutional, and human rights of all individuals coming before our justice system. That specifically includes the “most vulnerable among us” – asylum seekers and other of our fellow humans whose humanity and right to live seem to fall below the “radar screen” of the current Supremes’ majority!

Due Process Forever! “Dred Scottification” and complicity, never!

PWS
08-24-20

CHANNELING COURTSIDE: Billy The Bigot’s Bias, Lies, & Absurdist “Legal Arguments” Have Tanked The DOJ’s Credibility With U.S. Courts – “The problem with bypassing professionals and norms is that the decisions you make instead are often transparently foolish, or appear rigged to achieve an unprincipled or corrupt result,” says WashPost Op-Ed – So, Why Does Billy B Still Have A Law License?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/08/18/justice-departments-extreme-legal-arguments-are-costing-it-court/

Opinion by

George T. Conway III and

Lawrence S. Robbins

August 18, 2020 at 5:12 p.m. EDT

Lawrence S. Robbins is an appellate and trial lawyer at Robbins Russell. George T. Conway III is a lawyer and an adviser to the Lincoln Project, an anti-Trump super PAC. The writers both submitted friend-of-the-court briefs opposing the government’s motion in the Flynn case.

If there’s one thing you can say about President Trump and his administration, it’s that nothing is regular except the irregular, which has had myriad damaging consequences for the nation. And it’s had particularly adverse consequences for the federal government’s ability to defend itself in court.

The latest example comes in the criminal case against Trump’s first, short-tenured national security adviser, Michael Flynn. He pleaded guilty — not once but twice — to charges that he had lied to FBI agents during an interview about his conversations with senior Russian officials during the presidential transition. Despite Flynn’s admissions of guilt, Attorney General William P. Barr filed a motion asking that the case be dismissed — and supporting Flynn’s effort to have that done without even a hearing before the district judge.

Flynn won before an appeals court panel. But when the full court of appeals heard arguments on Flynn’s petition, the judges couldn’t have seemed more bewildered at the Trump administration’s position. The government argued that the district judge couldn’t inquire into the government’s reasons for seeking dismissal even if he’d seen the prosecutor take a bribe, in open court, in exchange for dismissing the case.

The Trump administration has been saying things like that a lot lately — trying to stretch the law in ways that undermine its remaining credibility. It argued that a sitting president’s accountants and bankers can’t be subpoenaed for his personal records during his term in office by either a state grand jury or, without meeting an impossibly high burden, by Congress. It argued that the president’s close aides can’t be called to testify before a congressional committee investigating presidential misconduct. The least trustworthy administration in decades, if not ever, keeps arguing: “You’ve just got to trust us.”

Lawyers have a phrase for the government’s saying “Trust us.” It’s called the “presumption of regularity.” The presumption of regularity means that courts should presume that government officials acted through a “regular” process: that it carefully vetted its policy and scrupulously examined relevant legal precedents.

But, as its name suggests, the presumption of regularity rests on the premise that the government is functioning in a regular way. And the Trump administration is anything but regular. Following the cues of a chief executive who despises what he calls the “deep state,” administration officials have cut corners, displaced career professionals, exiled dissenters and abandoned institutional norms — in short, circumvented the very processes that justify the presumption of regularity in the first place.

The chickens have now come home to roost. Whether they say so explicitly or not, courts have been dispensing with the presumption of regularity. The best example: In the litigation over the 2020 Census, the Supreme Court held that Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross’s decision to add a citizenship question to the census form was arbitrary and capricious. The reason? “Altogether,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote, “the evidence does not match the explanation the secretary gave for his decision.” That’s just a polite lawyer’s way of saying Ross lied.

Examples of the administration’s disrespect for regularity are legion, and not just confined to litigated matters. Barr has acted as a virtual one-man band of irregularity: He forced the U.S. attorney in Washington, Jessie K. Liu, out of her job, thereby enabling him to countermand former special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s sentencing recommendation for Roger Stone. And Barr gave a transparently false account of the Mueller report in the week before it was released to the public.

. . . .

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

Read the rest of the op-ed at the above link.

Perhaps the most disturbing thing is that Billy the Bigot actually “runs” a so-called “court system” — the U.S. Immigration Court — that has life or death authority over some of the most vulnerable individuals in our society, indeed in the world! How this stunning violation of both the Fifth Amendment and fundamental human decency (not to mention basic principles of competent management and good governance) continues to grind humanity into a grisly mess 🤮 of human misery ☠️ in plain sight every day is beyond me!

Almost everything in this “spot on” op-ed echoes “Courtside.” I have consistently criticized the irresponsibility and the gross dereliction of Constitutional duty by a Supremes majority that all too often treats Trump’s patently false, racist, xenophobic, and invidious immigration, refugee, and asylum policies as the actions of a “normal Executive” when Trump is nothing of the sort.

Nor does he even claim to be! He ran on overtly racist and hate-driven policies and has promoted racist tropes and lies about immigrants at every turn. Yet, the Supremes often pretend that there is some “legitimate basis” for clearly illegitimate policies and abrogation of important laws without the involvement of Congress and of Constitutional protections without any reasonable, fact-based justification.

If the “chickens have come home to roost” for the corrupt Trump DOJ, so will they eventually come home to roost for Supremes who have disingenuously and intentionally looked the other way and have enabled, or in some cases even encouraged, Trump’s racist and lie-driven dismantling of American democracy and “Dred Scottification” of “the other.” Life tenure protects the jobs of derelict Federal Judges. But, it won’t protect their reputations from the truth of history.

This November, vote like your life and the future of America depend on it! Because they do!

PWS

08-19-20

‍‍‍🏴‍☠️☠️⚰️🤮KAKISTOCRACY WATCH: BIA Continues To Get Pummeled For Absurdist Anti-Asylum “Jurisprudence” – Are The Article IIIs Finally Catching On? – If So, Why Does The BIA Still Exist? – Jeffrey S. Chase Analyzes Latest BIA Debacle From the 9th Cir. — Akosung v. Barr

https://www.jeffreyschase.com/blog/2020/8/16/9th-cir-to-bia-hiding-in-fear-is-not-reasonable-relocation

JEFFREY S. CHASE | OPINIONS/ANALYSIS ON IMMIGRATION LAW
9th Cir. to BIA: Hiding in Fear is Not Reasonable Relocation
In, Akosung v. Barr a young woman from Cameroon had been sentenced against her will to marry the village chieftain, or Fon, in order to settle a family debt. Not wishing to suffer this fate, she first hid locally. After her family’s assets and funds were seized, their crops were destroyed, and they were barred from attending social activities as punishment, she fled town.
Akosung remained a fugitive in Cameroon for over a year. A relative who harbored her in another city for most of that time asked her to leave out of fear of repercussions. After relocating again, she barely evaded capture. The police declined to get involved. Akosung eventually managed to cross into Nigeria, and from there, made her way to the U.S.
After an Immigration Judge denied asylum, the BIA dismissed Akosung’s appeal on two grounds. First, the Board determined that she had not shown harm on account of her membership in a particular social group consisting of “women resistant to forced marriage proposals.” More surprisingly, the Board concluded that, in spite of the above tale of near capture and narrow escape, Akosung could somehow safely relocate to another part of Cameroon.
Asylum will be denied to one who could reasonably relocate within their country. Where a dispute is so localized that it can be ended with a move to the next street, neighborhood, or town, the law sees no reason for international intervention.
However, federal regulations that are binding on immigration judges, asylum officers, and the BIA, recognize the complexity of determining whether such relocation, if possible, would be considered reasonable. Per the regulation:
(3) Reasonableness of internal relocation. For purposes of determinations under paragraphs (b)(1)(i), (b)(1)(ii), and (b)(2) of this section, adjudicators should consider, but are not limited to considering, whether the applicant would face other serious harm in the place of suggested relocation; any ongoing civil strife within the country; administrative, economic, or judicial infrastructure; geographical limitations; and social and cultural constraints, such as age, gender, health, and social and familial ties. Those factors may, or may not, be relevant, depending on all the circumstances of the case, and are not necessarily determinative of whether it would be reasonable for the applicant to relocate.
That’s quite a lot to consider. And in saying that the listed factors may or may not be relevant or determinative, the judge or asylum officer is being told to dive in deep in analyzing what factors exist, and how much they should matter.
Furthermore, the regulations state that where the persecutor is the government, or where the applicant has already suffered persecution, there is a legal presumption that such internal relocation is not reasonable. It’s not clear from the decision whether the issue was considered, but as the facts state that the applicant’s town was ruled by a council, that it was said council that ordered her marriage to the Fon, and that the police ceded jurisdiction over the matter to the council, a strong argument seems to exist that the persecutor in this case is the government.
Not surprisingly, such a detailed, in depth, thoughtful analysis that cedes so much authority to the immigration judge runs contrary to EOIR Director James McHenry’s goal of assembly line, rubber stamp adjudication. Of course, his agency’s recently proposed regulations aimed at destroying asylum directly attack this rule, and seek to replace it with a much simpler one in which the judges would draw a negative inference from the fact that the asylum seeker had managed to reach the U.S. It’s not clear why reaching the U.S. to seek asylum would demonstrate the reasonableness of remaining in the country in which one is being targeted. Perhaps McHenry seeks to imbue an entirely new meaning to the lyric from Frank Sinatra’s ode to my hometown: “If I can make it there, I’ll make it anywhere?”
In Akosung, the Board treated the regulation as if McHenry’s changes were already in effect. It simply saw that it could easily rubber-stamp the IJ’s denial by checking the “internal relocation” box, and certainly did not bother to undertake the analysis that the actual binding regulation requires.
Fortunately, the Ninth Circuit called foul. Noting that the regulation requires a conclusion that, after considering all of the listed factors, it would be reasonable to expect the applicant to relocate, the court noted that “it hardly seems ‘reasonable to expect’ one facing persecution or torture to become a fugitive and live in hiding.”
The court added some additional statements of the obvious: first, that “‘relocate’ most naturally refers to resettlement or a change of residence, not the unstable situation of one who must always be ready to flee.” And also: “living in hiding does little to establish that a person is able to “avoid future persecution.” To the contrary, it establishes the opposite; hence, the hiding.
The Ninth Circuit also found error in the Board’s social distinction determination. The Board upheld the immigration judge’s questioning of “how anyone in society” would be able to recognize someone “as an individual who has declined a marriage proposal from a fon.”
The court first noted that the statement seemed to erroneously apply the “optical visibility” approach to social distinction (i.e. that the group member should be recognizable on sight to members of society), an approach the Board disavowed in Matter of M-E-V-G-. But the court added that even if the Board here meant that society in Cameroon would not recognize the group as distinct, Akosung’s experience, and that of another woman who she described as being successfully hunted down after also attempting to evade marriage to the Fon, demonstrate otherwise.
The court then quoted Matter of M-E-V-G- as requiring the group to be viewed as distinct “within the society in question,” adding that “the Board should have taken that into account.”
The court did not discuss further how “the society in question” should be defined. And the court’s citation was to page 237 of M-E-V-G-. But as I have noted when lecturing on the topic, the Board on page 243 of the same decision clarified that “persecution limited to a remote region of a country may invite an inquiry into a more limited subset of the country’s society, such as in Matter of Kasinga…where we considered a particular social group within a tribe.”
Later, on page 246 of M-E-V-G-, the Board stated that in Matter of Kasinga, “people in the Tchamba-Kunsuntu tribe” would view members of the particular social group in that case to be “a discrete and distinct group that was set apart in a meaningful and significant way from the rest of society.” The Board then stated its conclusion that the social group in Kasinga “was perceived as socially distinct within the society in question.”
Attorneys should cite to Akosung (along with M-E-V-G-) in arguing that the “society in question” to be considered for social distinction purposes is the society their clients inhabit.
Copyright 2020, Jeffrey S. Chase. All rights reserved. Reprinted With Permission.

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

Wow! Talk about absurdly unfair and totally biased!

For a “real judge” who is committed to due process and understands asylum law, this should have been a 30-minute hearing resulting in a grant of asylum! Instead two levels of EOIR “judges” got this grotesquely wrong in an attempt to deny asylum and return a refugee to harm or death when she clearly is entitled to protection. Because, that’s what their political “handlers” at DOJ and its wholly owned subsidiary EOIR want from their weaponized parody of a “court system.”

These aren’t “legal errors” or “legitimate differences of opinion.” No, they are evidence of “malicious incompetence” – deep intellectual dishonesty and corruption on the part of a fraudulent “tribunals” that under this regime have ceased to serve any legitimate function.

And, that also doesn’t say much good about Article III Courts who see these clear errors time and again, recognize them, yet fail to take the strong, systemic corrective action necessary to stop the BIA’s gross abuses of our legal system and humanity and to hold Billy the Bigot and his subordinate toadies accountable for their misfeasance! That’s a denial of due process by the Article IIIs; it means that only those with the wherewithal to get good representation and pursue appeals beyond EOIR can get anything resembling “justice.” I call that dereliction of duty by the Article IIIs!

Think about this! If folks don’t immediately leave after suffering persecution, then corrupt EOIR adjudicators will sometimes find them not to be in “real danger” or use it as specious “evidence” that the claim isn’t “credible.” But, if they do leave, then that nonsensically shows they could somehow “relocate.”

So in typical EOIR Kangaroo Court fashion, the refugee loses no matter what the facts! I guess that reinforces the “don’t come because we won’t protect you no matter” message that the “New EOIR” is there to deliver! The real issue, however, is why EOIR is still in existence and threatening both our legal system and those seeking justice in America?

Systemic racial injustice in America is no mystery! It’s fueled by Article III Courts that fail to intervene to stop the Trump regime’s racist assault on migrants of all types! Trump, Stephen Miller, “Wolfman” (actually illegally serving at DHS) make no secret of their racist agenda. But, life-tenured Article III Justices and Judges literally keep letting them get away with murder!

Due Process Forever! EOIR’s corrupt “Kangaroo Courts,” never!

PWS

08-17-20

WHITE NATIONALISTS BEWARE: 9th Cir. Fires Warning Shot Across Bow Of Racist Judges, Prosecutors, & Police — No Qualified Immunity For You, Neo-Nazis! — Reynaga Hernandez v. Skinner

https://www.lexisnexis.com/legalnewsroom/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/ca9-on-fourth-amendment-reynaga-hernandez-v-skinner

Dan Kowalski reports for LexisNexis Immigration Community:

Daniel M. Kowalski

11 Aug 2020

Fourth Amendment

CA9 on Fourth Amendment: Reynaga Hernandez v. Skinner

Reynaga Hernandez v. Skinner

“In late 2017, a witness in a courtroom in Billings, Montana, testified that one of the other witnesses, Miguel Reynaga Hernandez (“Reynaga”), was “not a legal citizen.” On the basis of this statement, the Justice of the Peace presiding over the hearing spoke with the local Sheriff’s Office and asked that Reynaga be “picked up.” Deputy Sheriff Derrek Skinner responded to the call. Outside the courtroom, Skinner asked Reynaga for identification and questioned him regarding his immigration status in the United States. Reynaga produced an expired Mexican consular identification card but was unable to provide detailed information regarding his immigration status because he does not speak English fluently. Skinner then placed Reynaga in handcuffs, searched his person, and escorted him to a patrol car outside the courthouse. With Reynaga waiting in the back of the patrol car, Skinner ran a warrants check and, after Reynaga’s record came back clean, asked Immigration and Custom Enforcement (“ICE”) if the agency had any interest in Reynaga. Reynaga was ultimately taken to an ICE facility and remained in custody for three months. Upon his release, Reynaga sued Skinner and Pedro Hernandez, the presiding Justice of the Peace (“Hernandez”), under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violating his Fourth Amendment rights. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the district court denied each defendant qualified immunity and held that Reynaga’s Fourth Amendment rights had been violated. Skinner and Hernandez interlocutorily appeal the court’s denial of qualified immunity. We affirm.”

From NWIRP: “This decision is important as it makes clear that state and local law enforcement officers may be held liable under the civil rights statute if they unlawfully detain community members in order to turn them over to immigration enforcement,” said Matt Adams, legal director for NWIRP. “Police officers—and even local judicial officials—may be held accountable when, instead of serving the community, they take it upon themselves to stop people based on their suspected immigration status, the language they speak, or their ethnicity or the color of their skin.” “The harm that [Judge Hernandez and Deputy Skinner] did to me is hard to explain,” said Mr. Reynaga in reacting to the court of appeals decision. “It’s something that lives in me and in my family now. It’s hard to describe what this harm represents to a person. But I’m very grateful for the work NWIRP has done for me. I’m very happy and proud that now immigrants here in Montana and in other states can know that we also have rights.” Following the court of appeals decision, Mr. Reynaga’s case will return to the district court for further proceedings on the damages he is entitled to in light of the violation of his constitutional rights.”

[Hats way off to Matt Adams (argued), Leila Kang, Aaron Korthuis, and Anne Recinos, Northwest Immigrant Rights Project, Seattle, Washington, and Shahid Haque, Border Crossing Law Firm P.C., Helena, Montana; for Plaintiff-Appellee!]

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

Who knows what the Supremes might do on on this? So far they have been reluctant to enforce the Constitution against racism in law enforcement. Remember, they recently gave the Border Patrol a license to unconstitutionally shoot and kill a Mexican kid across the border in Mexico. And, the Supremes majority has happily found ways to impose possible death sentences on legal asylum seekers of color without any meaningful process at all.

The “JR Five” aren’t particularly creative thinkers —except when it comes to thinking of ways to dehumanize (“Dred Scottify”) persons of color under our Constitution. Then they often are happy to fabricate any rationale to deny due process and equal protection under our laws.

Due Process Forever!

PWS

08-12-20

JEFFREY S. CHASE: 9TH Circuit “Schools” BIA In Asylum Law – But, Will It Really Make Any Difference To “Death Board” In A Regime That Gives The Article IIIs, Congress, & The Law The Big Middle Finger Every Day With No Meaningful Consequences? — Programmed To Deny Asylum At Any Cost, EOIR Under Billy The Bigot Is Largely Undeterred By Judicial Lectures Without Teeth!

https://www.jeffreyschase.com/blog/2020/8/10/9th-cir-sets-bia-straight-on-circularity

9th Cir. Sets BIA Straight on ‘Circularity’

On August 7, the U.S Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit dealt a blow to the Trump Administration’s attacks on domestic violence-based asylum claims. In Diaz-Reynoso v. Barr, the petitioner applied for withholding of removal to Guatemala because she had been persecuted by her domestic partner on account of her membership in the particular social group consisting of “indiginous women in Guatemala who are unable to leave their relationship.”1 An immigration judge found her credible, but denied her applications for relief.

While her appeal was pending before the BIA, then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions issued his decision in Matter of A-B-. The BIA subsequently relied on that decision to reject the Petitioner’s particular social group.

Regarding this sequence of events, it’s important to realize that in 2014, the BIA issued a precedent decision holding that a particular social group consisting of “married women in Guatemala who are unable to leave their relationship” could serve as a basis for asylum. As a result, domestic violence-based asylum claims relied on this BIA-approved formulation as a model over the next four years.

When Sessions vacated the Board’s decision, many asylum claims relying on the prior precedent were already in the pipeline. The BIA could have applied Matter of A-B- only prospectively to cases filed after Sessions’ decision.2 Or if it decided to apply the decision retroactively, it could have remanded the cases that had relied on the law at the time of filing to now allow them to modify their record in response to the superseding decision.

However, the Board did neither of these things. Instead, it denied the pending cases with no individualized analysis, simply dismissing the claim as being too similar to the case that the Attorney General had just disagreed with.

In Diaz-Reynoso, the Ninth Circuit refuted the above approach by affirming the following points that have been raised repeatedly since the issuance of the AG’s decision, but that the BIA has continued to ignore.

First, the court held that Matter of A-B- does not categorically bar the granting of domestic violence-based asylum claims. In the words of the court: “Far from endorsing a categorical bar, the Attorney General emphasized that the BIA must conduct the ‘rigorous analysis’ set forth in the BIA’s precedents.’”

Second, the court affirmed the commonly-held view that much of the AG’s decision in Matter of A-B- is nonbinding dicta. In the words of the Ninth Circuit, the AG offered “some general impressions about asylum and withholding claims based on domestic violence and other private criminal activity.” But the court noted that “despite the general and descriptive observations set forth in the opinion, the Attorney General’s prescriptive instruction is clear: the BIA must conduct the proper particular social group analysis on a case-by-case basis.”

Third, the court held that the particular social group that Sessions rejected in Matter of A-B- was not impermissibly circular.

As the concept of circularity can be confusing, I will offer some explanation. In order to merit asylum, persecution must be on account of a statutory ground: race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. Hypothetically, someone with a fear clearly unrelated to one of the necessary grounds could put forth an argument as follows: “I fear persecution.” “Why?” “Because I’m a member of a particular social group.” “What group?” “People who fear persecution.” “But why do they fear persecution?” “Because of their social group.” “What group?” “People who fear persecution.” And this could go on and on, continuing in the same circle.

In a 2006 precedent decision, Matter of C-A-, the BIA cited to UNHCR guidelines on particular social groups as prohibiting this exact scenario, in which a group is defined exclusively by the harm. The Board repeated the same rule a year later in another precedent, Matter of A-M-E- & J-G-U-, again using the word “exclusively” (although this time without the emphasis).3 However, the BIA in 2014 added language that a particular social group must exist independently of the persecution, without explaining whether this term differed in meaning from the “exclusively defined” prohibition, and if so, to what degree.

In Matter of A-B-, the AG first jumped to the conclusion that the reason an asylum-seeker is “unable to leave the relationship” is due to persecution.4 And following that assumption, he rejected the particular social group as being impermissibly circular.

As stated above, the particular social group in Diaz-Reynoso was “indiginous women in Guatemala who are unable to leave their relationship.” The group was thus defined by the group members’ (1) indiginous status; (2) Guatemalan nationality; (3) gender; and (4) inability to leave their relationship. So the group was clearly not exclusively defined by the persecution.

And yet, as the Ninth Circuit noted, “with almost no analysis, the BIA rejected Diaz-Reynoso’s proposed particular social group because it ‘suffer[ed] from the same circularity problem articulated by the Attorney General in Matter of A-B-.’”

The Ninth Circuit continued: “In the Government’s and dissent’s view, in order to exist independently from the petitioner’s feared harm, a proposed group may not refer to that harm at all. We disagree. The idea that the inclusion of persecution is a sort of poison pill that dooms any group does not withstand scrutiny.”

The court further clarified that a group exists independent of persecution when it “shares an immutable characteristic other than the persecution it suffers.” As noted above, the particular social group here included three such immutable characteristics: indiginous status, nationality, and gender. These serve as what the court termed “narrowing characteristics” independent of any harm.

The court further questioned the logic behind the agency’s restrictive view of circularity: “The purpose of asylum and withholding is to provide relief to people who have been persecuted in foreign lands because of their race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion…The Government and dissent do not explain why a person seeking relief on the basis of membership in a particular social group should be required to omit any mention of threatened persecution.”

One additional point worth mentioning is that the Ninth Circuit looked to UNHCR materials for guidance, noting that the BIA has found UNHCR’s views to be “a useful interpretive aid.”

The Ninth Circuit’s decision should certainly be applauded by asylum advocates. The court joined the First and Sixth Circuits in rejecting the reliance on Matter of A-B- as a basis for swiftly dismissing domestic violence claims.

But this litigation could have been avoided through the BIA properly doing its job. The petitioner in this case endured four years of abuse at the hands of her tormentor. She was forced by him to work without pay in the coffee fields as well as to have sex with him. She was further subjected to weekly beatings, suffering bruises that sometimes lasted for 10 days.

The petitioner actually escaped to the U.S., where she was detained for a month and then deported back to Guatemala. There, she was forced to return to her abuser when he threatened to otherwise kill her and her daughter and harm her mother. Upon return, she was subjected to even worse abuse for another year.

And yet an appellate immigration judge with the BIA saw in this case an opportunity for a quick denial with no analysis, on the grounds that the particular social group that had been valid for four years now contained a few more words than the AG approved of. This sadly demonstrates the present philosophy of the BIA, where the goal of achieving quick dismissals has usurped the need for reasoned analysis and due process.

The petitioner was represented by students and supervising counsel with the Hastings Appellate Project, an advocacy clinic of the University of California – Hastings College of Law. Amicus briefs were filed by the Center for Gender and Refugee Studies, the Round Table of Former Immigration Judges, Harvard Law School’s Immigration and Refugee Clinical Programs, and UNHCR. Special mention is due to Blaine Bookey at CGRS, who so ably argued the case remotely.

The Round Table expresses its gratitude to attorneys Richard W. Mark, Amer S. Ahmed. Grace E. Hart, and Cassarah M. Chu of the law firm of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP for their invaluable assistance.

Notes:

The Petitioner was ineligible to apply for asylum because she was subject to reinstatement of a prior order of removal.

I believe a strong argument can be made that Matter of A-B- more closely resembled a policy announcement (which should be applied prospectively only) than a judicial interpretation of the law that would apply retroactively.

There is actually an exception to this rule, that we need not go into here.

In De Pena Paniagua v. Barr, the First Circuit in April explained that there may be other reasons one could be unable to leave their domestic relationship that are unrelated to persecution.

Copyright 2020 Jeffrey S. Chase. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

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

While the Supremes and other Federal Courts continue to live in their “alternate universe,” most of the rest of us have noticed that the Trump regime is completely unapologetic and undeterred by their frequent defeats in Federal Court. There are no consequences, and therefore no deterrents, for their lies, misrepresentations, unprofessionalism, racist bias, and contempt for the American justice system. Nobody loses a law license, nobody goes to jail, nobody is required to operate under meaningful court supervision. Appalling misconduct and contemptuous behavior is normalized. “Just commit the same abuse again with a slightly different rationale” has become the watchword. The Supremes have shown they will accept any fraudulent rationale from Trump and his toadies as long as it gives them “some cover” for systemic abuses of people of color.

I’d say that Billy Bigot actually treats the Article IIIs almost like he treats the Immigration Courts – as his toady subordinates. And, he pretty much gets away with it! Contempt for Congress and the Courts is the heart of the “Unitary Executive” pushed by Billy and his neo-fascist cronies. And, until the Article IIIs find the collective backbone to “just say no,” the “Unitary Executive” is going to continue to run roughshod over them while our democracy.

Due Process Forever! Complicit Courts Never!

PWS

08-11-20

🏴‍☠️☠️⚰️👎🏻🤮END OF REFUGEE PROGRAMS SIGNALS DEMISE OF AMERICA! — “Our nation has an ethical and legal responsibility to protect those who seek refuge here. Instead, we have expended vast resources on preventing people from entering the country and deporting people who are already here!”

🏴‍☠️☠️🏴‍☠️☠️🏴‍☠️☠️🏴‍☠️☠️⚰️⚰️⚰️⚰️⚰️👎🏻👎🏻👎🏻👎🏻👎🏻

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/refugees-united-states-abandon/2020/08/07/6085e81c-d751-11ea-aff6-220dd3a14741_story.html

U.S. Asylum Officer Jason Marks writes in the WashPost Outlook Section:

. . . .

Collectively, we were told to implement restrictive new policies, expressly designed to deter people from seeking refuge. The Migrant Protection Protocols, for example, resulted in more than 60,000 asylum seekers being sent to Mexico in 2019, after fleeing the extreme brutality of MS-13 and the 18th Street gang in Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador. Left to live in squalor without any protection, they are preyed upon by cartels and gangs as they wait, sometimes months, for an elusive court date before an immigration judge.

[I became an asylum officer to help people. Now I put them back in harm’s way.]

The pandemic put refugees and asylum seekers in even more desperate straits, as the United States paused refugee resettlement. Many already interviewed and accepted for resettlement in the U.S. now live stateless at the margins of cities, towns and villages where they have no rights or legal status, or in overcrowded refugee camps. Around the world, in places including Jordan, Kenya and Bangladesh, refugee camps are bursting at the seams. People there are unable to practice social distancing, and soap and water are limited.

Meanwhile, at our borders, Customs and Border Protection has turned away thousands of vulnerable people since March, without due process. Some applicants showing symptoms of the coronavirus were deported with no regard for safety measures (such as testing), causing outbreaks in the countries from which they had fled. Others languish in crowded detention facilities, even though many of them pose no security threat and Immigration and Customs Enforcement has the discretion to release them. By law, children must be let out after 20 days of incarceration. But rather than release them with their parents, our government has presented these families with an agonizing choice: Either have their children released, indefinitely separated from their parents — or remain locked up together in these facilities, many of which have already witnessed coronavirus outbreaks.

Amid all this, in June, the administration proposed 161 pages of sweeping regulations that would gut asylum and refugee law. Certain provisions, for example, drastically narrow the definitions of persecution and torture; others raise certain burdens of proof to nearly unreachable standards and redefine what constitutes the protected grounds of political opinion and membership in a particular social group. Still others could disqualify applicants if they made a mistake on their tax filings, or took two or more layover flights on their way here. In July, the administration proposed yet another new policy, allowing the United States to deny asylum to applicants if they come from any country with an outbreak of a highly contagious disease. (Public health experts have said this would serve no legitimate public health purpose.) It’s difficult to see how anyone could qualify for protection under this tangle of new rules, once they’re implemented.

Years of tightening restrictions have made it harder to obtain a wide range of legal immigration benefits, causing applications to plummet and, with them, the user fees that fund U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services operations. Now, the pandemic has placed our agency on the brink of bankruptcy, and 70 percent of our workforce faces an indefinite furlough unless Congress intervenes. Without emergency funding, only a skeleton crew will remain to administer America’s immigration services system — resulting in even greater backlogs in the processing of applications for benefits including asylum, green cards, work permits and citizenship.

Our nation has an ethical and legal responsibility to protect those who seek refuge here. Instead, we have expended vast resources on preventing people from entering the country and deporting people who are already here. If the current administration’s policies continue unchecked, there will no longer be a pathway for refugees to have a new beginning in the United States. Even if a different presidential administration tried to change course, I fear that it would take many years to reverse the damage and rebuild our capacity to protect refugees. Many people will lose their lives before then.

In the closing words of his farewell address, President Ronald Reagan described our country as a “shining city upon a hill”: “If there had to be city walls,” he said in 1989, “the walls had doors, and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here.” That is still something most Americans believe in.

[Read more from Outlook:]

[Coronavirus can’t be an excuse to continue President Trump’s assault on asylum seekers]

[Americans are the dangerous, disease-carrying foreigners now]

[During the covid-19 pandemic, immigrant farmworkers are heroes]

[Follow our updates on Facebook and Twitter.]

Jason Marks, an asylum training officer with the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), writes here as a shop steward for Local 1924, American Federation of Government Employees, which represents employees of the USCIS Asylum and Refugee Officer Corps.

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

Read the rest of Jason’s article at the above link.

It’s not rocket science! Misusing, misinterpreting, and misapplying refugee and asylum laws to “reject not protect” is clearly illegal, unconstitutional, and immoral to boot! It’s also, not surprisingly, toxic public policy because it squanders and misdirects resources on efforts to that actually hurt our economy, society, and reputation. In other words, fraud, waste, and abuse on a grand and deadly scale!

So, a career Asylum Officer has more legal knowledge, guts, and human decency than the life-tenured, yet removed from both reality and humanity, Supremes’ majority! What’s wrong with this picture!

75 years after the end of World War II, America has installed a racist, neo-Nazi White Supremacist Government. Go figure!

To make this happen, Trump and his cronies needed both a feckless Congress and Supremes committed to empowering authoritarian racism in the name of Executive authority. He got both!

We have an opportunity, perhaps our last as a nation, to return to a nobler vision of America. But it will require ousting not only the morally corrupt and maliciously incompetent Trump regime but also the equally immoral GOP Senators who have enabled and enthusiastically hastened our national demise. That will give us a start on the longer-term project of better Justices and Federal Judges for a better America.

There is no excuse whatsoever for the cowardly, disingenuous, and immoral failure of the Roberts Court to stand against Trump. Instead, they have embraced the “Dred Scottification” — that is, dehumanization — of refugees, asylum seekers, immigrants, and persons of color. Why is this judicially-enabled retrogression to the “Hay-day of Jim Crow” acceptable in 21st Century America?

This November, vote like your life and the future of our nation and the world depend on it! Because they do!

PWS

08-09-20

🏴‍☠️☠️⚰️👎🏻DEATH IN THE GULAG: DHS Racks Up 17th Detainee Kill Of Fiscal Year — Doubling Previous Year’s Body Count ⚰️ With Months To Go As “DUD” Program Hits High Gear! — Death Either Here Or Upon Return To Danger Without Fair Hearings Is The “Ultimate Deterrent” For America’s White Nationalist Regime!

DUD = “Detain Until Dead”

https://apple.news/AEJpCWSaJQMyWS9vMdp33bQ

Danielle Silva reports for NBC News:

More than twice as many immigrants have died in the custody of Immigration and Customs and Enforcement this fiscal year than last after two detainees died this week. That brought this year’s total to 17, compared with eight deaths last year.

A 72-year-old Canadian man who had tested positive for the coronavirus died in ICE custody on Wednesday night at a Virginia hospital, the agency said Friday in a statement.

James Thomas Hill reported feeling shortness of breath to staff at an ICE detention facility in Farmville, Virginia, on July 10 and was admitted to Centra Southside Community Hospital before being transferred to Lynchburg General Hospital the following day, ICE said.

A COVID-19 test administered by hospital staff came back positive on July 11, the agency said.

Hill entered ICE custody on April 11 following his release from the Rivers Federal Correctional Institute in North Carolina after serving 13 years of a 26-year prison sentence for health care fraud and distributing a controlled substance, according to ICE. An immigration judge had ordered his removal on May 12, ICE said. At the time of his death, Hill was in ICE custody pending his removal to Canada, the agency said.

The agency said it had notified the Department of Homeland Security’s Office of Inspector General, the ICE Office of Professional Responsibility, the Canadian consulate and Hill’s next of kin. His death was first reported by BuzzFeed News.

A 51-year-old Taiwanese man died Wednesday afternoon at a Florida hospital after being a diagnosed with a “massive intercranial hemorrhage,” ICE said in a separate statement Thursday.

Kuan Hui Lee was found unresponsive at the Krome Service Processing Center in Florida on July 31 and taken to the Kendall Regional Medical Center.

. . . .

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

I think this is just the beginning of the true carnage that advocates have been predicting for months. And that doesn’t even count those killed after being “orbited” by DHS in violation of the statute and due process as a complicit Supremes majority egged them on.

The shame of our nation’s intentional dehumanization and mistreatment of asylum seekers and other migrants under the Trump regime won’t be eradicated. What kind of “democracy” runs a “Gulag” for non-criminals where all “sentences” are arbitrary and indefinite and the there is no readily available impartial review of detention by a neutral and detached magistrate? Where Supreme Court Justices worry more about the impact of “nationwide injunctions” and “bogus emergencies” declared by an patently unqualified and invidiously biased Executive than they do about the lives, health, and freedom of individuals whose “crime” is to assert their legal and Constitutional rights?

While the problem starts with a White Nationalist, racist regime and a feckless GOP-controlled Senate under Moscow Mitch, those Federal Judges at all levels who could have put an end to these “crimes against humanity,” but failed to do so, also bear responsibility for the death and destruction of human lives by the regime.

Due Process Forever! Complicit Courts, Never (Again). Better Justices & Judges For A Better America!

PWS

08-08-20

🛡⚔️⚖️🗽😎GOOD NEWS, AS ROUND TABLE BESTS BIA AGAIN: 9th Cir. Zaps BIA’s Denial Of Guatemalan Woman’s Asylum & CAT Cases Involving Matter of A-B-! — Diaz-Reynoso v. Barr

Sontos, 9th 18-72833_Documents

Diaz-Reynoso v. Barr, 9^th Cir., 08-07-20, published

SYNOPSIS BY COURT STAFF:

Immigration

Granting Sontos Diaz-Reynoso’s petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision affirming the denial of her application for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture, and remanding, the panel held that the Board misapplied Matter of A-B-, 27 I. & N. Dec. 316 (A.G. 2018), as well as Board and circuit precedent, in concluding that Diaz-Reynoso’s proposed social group comprised of “indigenous women in Guatemala who are unable to leave their relationship” was not cognizable, and that she failed to establish that the government of Guatemala would acquiesce in any possible torture.

The panel rejected Diaz-Reynoso’s contention that Matter of A-B- was arbitrary and capricious and therefore not entitled to Chevron deference. The panel concluded that, despite the general and descriptive observations set forth in the opinion, Matter of A-B- did not announce a new categorical exception to withholding of removal for victims of domestic violence or other private criminal activity, but rather it reaffirmed the Board’s existing framework for analyzing the cognizability of particular social groups, requiring that such determinations be individualized and conducted on a case-by-case basis.

The panel observed that the Board rejected Diaz- Reynoso’s proposed social group, with almost no analysis,

** This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader.

Case: 18-72833, 08/07/2020, ID: 11780830, DktEntry: 100-1, Page 3 of 76

DIAZ-REYNOSO V. BARR 3

because it “suffered from the same circularity problem articulated by the Attorney General in Matter of A-B-.” The panel explained that in doing so, the Board appeared to misapprehend the scope of Matter of A-B- as forbidding any mention of feared harm within the delineation of a proposed social group. The panel concluded that this was error, explaining that Matter of A-B- did not announce a new rule concerning circularity, but instead merely reiterated the well- established principle that a particular social group must exist independently of the harm asserted. The panel recognized that a proposed social group may be deemed impermissibly circular if, after conducting the proper case-by-case analysis, the Board determines that the group is defined exclusively by the fact that its members have been subjected to harm. The panel explained, however, that a proposed social group is not impermissibly circular merely because the proposed group mentions harm.

The panel concluded that the Board also erred in assuming that domestic violence was the only reason Diaz- Reynoso was unable to leave her relationship, and in failing to conduct the rigorous case-by-case analysis required by Matter of A-B-. The panel therefore remanded Diaz- Reynoso’s withholding of removal claim for the Board to undertake the required analysis applying the correct framework.

Because the Board failed to discuss evidence that Diaz- Reynoso reported her husband’s abuse to authority figures in her village community, and the government conceded remand was warranted, the panel also remanded Diaz-Reynoso’s CAT claim for further consideration.

4 DIAZ-REYNOSO V. BARR

Concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part, Judge Bress agreed with remand of the CAT claim in light of the government’s concession, but disagreed with the majority’s conclusion that the Board misread Matter of A-B- in rejecting Diaz-Reynoso’s proposed social group. In Judge Bress’s view, Matter of A-B- held that a proposed group that incorporates harm within its definition is not a group that exists independently of the harm asserted in an application for asylum or statutory withholding of removal. Judge Bress wrote that substantial evidence supported the Board’s assessment that Diaz-Reynoso’s social group was defined exclusively by the harm suffered, and that the Board correctly applied Matter of A-B-, and the circularity rule, in rejecting Diaz-Reynoso’s proposed social group.

COUNSEL:

Gary A. Watt, Stephen Tollafield, and Tiffany J. Gates, Supervising Counsel; Shandyn H. Pierce and Hilda Kajbaf, Certified Law Students; Hastings Appellate Project, San Francisco, California; for Petitioner.

Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney General; John S. Hogan and Linda S. Wernery, Assistant Directors; Susan Bennett Green, Senior Litigation Counsel; Ashley Martin, Trial Attorney; Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.; for Respondent.

Blaine Bookey, Karen Musalo, Neela Chakravartula, and Anne Peterson, Center for Gender & Refugee Studies, U.S. Hastings College of Law, San Francisco, California, for Amicus Curiae Center for Gender & Refugee Studies.

Richard W. Mark, Amer S. Ahmed, Grace E. Hart, and Cassarah M. Chu, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, New York New York, for Amici Curiae Thirty-Nine Former Immigration Judges and Members of the Board of Immigration Appeals.

Sabrineh Ardalan, Nancy Kelly, John Willshire Carrera, Deborah Anker, and Zachary A. Albun, Attorneys; Rosa Baum, Caya Simonsen, and Ana Sewell, Supervised Law Students; Harvard Immigration and Refugee Clinical Program, Cambridge, Massachusetts; for Amicus Curiae Harvard Immigration and Refugee Clinical Program.

Ana C. Reyes and Alexander J. Kasner, Williams & Connolly LLP, Washington, D.C.; Alice Farmer, United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Washington, D.C.; for Amicus Curiae United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.

PANEL: Ronald M. Gould, Morgan Christen, and Daniel A. Bress, Circuit Judges.

OPINION BY: Judge Cristen

CONCURRING/DISSENTING OPINION: Judge Bress

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

Just another example of how under this regime, EOIR’s perverted efforts to deny and deport, especially targeting female asylum seekers from the Northern Triangle for mistreatment and potential deportation to death, waste time and effort that could, in a wiser more just Administration, be used to reduce dockets and waiting times by ensuring that well-documented, deserving cases like this one are rapidly granted. EOIR’s biased performance also reeks of both anti-Latino racism and misogyny. Here we are, two decades into the 21^st Century with our immigration “justice” system still being driven by invidious factors.

The Supremes’ majority may feign ignorance and or indifference to Trump’s and Miller’s overtly racist immigration agenda. But, those of us working in the field of immigration had it figured out long ago. It’s not rocket science! The Trumpsters make little or no real attempt to hide their scofflaw intent and invidious motives. It has, disgustingly, taken a concerted and disingenuous effort by the Supremes’ majority to sweep these unconstitutional attacks on humanity under the carpet.

That’s why we need “regime change” in both the Executive and the Senate which will lead to the appointment of better judges for a better America. Justices and judges who will ditch the institutionalized racism and misogyny and who will make equal justice for all under our Constitution a reality rather than the cruel hoax and “throwaway line” that it is today under GOP mis-governance.

Many thanks to our good friends and pro bono counsel at Gibson Dunn for the help in drafting our Amicus Brief!

Due Process Forever!

PWS

08-07-20

☠️⚠️‼️DISCLAIMER: Of course, the following are just my views, not the views of anyone on the All-Star cast of speakers at this upcoming event, the NYCBA, or anyone else of any importance whatsoever!

This is what “Dred Scottification” or the “end of the rule of law” as promoted by Trump, Miller, Barr and their cronies, and enabled by a tone-deaf and “insulated from the human suffering they cause” Supremes’ majority looks like:

Related posts:

“POPPYCOCK!” — U.S. District Judge Richard Leon’s Characterization Of Trump Regime’s Defense Of Asylum Seeker Abuse By DHS & Barr’s Unethical & Frivolous Arguments!

Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Due Process Forever! Repeating past mistakes, never!

Related posts:

This November, vote like your life, our nation, and the world’s future depend on it! Because they do! And, this may be our last chance to save our sinking Ship of State!

Related posts:

Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

This November, vote like your life and the world’s future depend on it! Because they do!

Equal Justice & A Diverse America For All! Trump’s Dark, Evil, Dishonest Vision Of America, Never!

Related posts:

Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Due Process Forever! “Dred Scottification” and complicity, never!

Related posts:

This November, vote like your life and the future of America depend on it! Because they do!

Related posts:

Due Process Forever! EOIR’s corrupt “Kangaroo Courts,” never!

Related posts:

Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Due Process Forever! Complicit Courts Never!

Related posts:

This November, vote like your life and the future of our nation and the world depend on it! Because they do!

Related posts:

DUD = “Detain Until Dead”

Due Process Forever! Complicit Courts, Never (Again). Better Justices & Judges For A Better America!

Related posts:

Due Process Forever!

Related posts: