"The Voice of the New Due Process Army" ————– Musings on Events in U.S. Immigration Court, Immigration Law, Sports, and Other Random Topics by Retired United States Immigration Judge (Arlington, Virginia) and former Chairman of the Board of Immigration Appeals Paul Wickham Schmidt. To see my complete professional bio, just click on the link below.
GARLAND, ATTORNEY GENERAL v. MING DAI CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE NINTH CIRCUIT
No. 19–1155. Argued February 23, 2021—Decided June 1, 2021*
In each of these cases, a foreign national appeared before an immigration judge (IJ) and requested that he not be returned to his country of origin. For Cesar Alcaraz-Enriquez, the IJ first had to determine whether Mr. Alcaraz-Enriquez had committed a disqualifying “partic- ularly serious crime” based on his prior California conviction for “in- flicting corporal injury on a spouse or cohabitant.” See 8 U. S. C. §1231(b)(3)(B)(ii). The IJ considered both the probation report issued at the time of the conviction (which detailed a serious domestic vio- lence incident) and Mr. Alcaraz-Enriquez’s own testimony at the re- moval proceeding (which included an admission that he hit his girl- friend but allegedly did so in defense of his daughter). Relying in part on the version of events in the probation report, the IJ held Mr. Al- caraz-Enriquez ineligible for relief. On appeal, the Bureau of Immi- gration Appeals (BIA) affirmed. In Ming Dai’s case, he testified that he and his family had suffered past persecution by Chinese officials and expected future persecution upon return. But Mr. Dai initially failed to disclose that his wife and daughter had both returned volun- tarily to China since accompanying him to the United States. When confronted, Mr. Dai told the “real story” of why he remained in the United States. The IJ found that Mr. Dai’s testimony undermined his claims and denied relief. On appeal, the BIA affirmed. Mr. Alcaraz- Enriquez and Mr. Dai each sought judicial review, and in each case, the Ninth Circuit noted that neither the IJ nor the BIA made an ex- plicit “adverse credibility determination” under the Immigration Na- tionality Act (INA). §§1158(b)(1)(B)(iii), 1231(b)(3)(C), 1229a(c)(4)(C).
——————
* Together with No. 19–1156, Garland v. Alcaraz-Enriquez, also on cer- tiorari to the same court.
2 GARLAND v. MING DAI Syllabus
Applying its own judge-made rule that a reviewing court must treat the noncitizen’s testimony as credible and true absent an explicit ad- verse credibility determination, the Ninth Circuit granted relief.
Held: The Ninth Circuit’s deemed-true-or-credible rule cannot be recon- ciled with the INA’s terms. Pp. 6–15.
(a) The Ninth Circuit’s rule has no proper place in a reviewing court’s analysis. The INA provides that a reviewing court must accept “administrative findings” as “conclusive unless any reasonable adjudi- cator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” §1252(b)(4)(B). And a reviewing court is “generally not free to impose” additional judge-made procedural requirements on agencies. Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 435 U. S. 519, 524.
Judicial proceedings in cases like these do not constitute “appeals” in which the “rebuttable presumption of credibility on appeal” applies absent an explicit credibility determination. §§1158(b)(1)(B)(iii), 1231(b)(3)(C), 1229a(c)(4)(C). Here, there is only one appeal—from the IJ to the BIA. See §§1158(d)(5)(iii)–(iv). Subsequent judicial review takes place not by appeal, but by means of a “petition for review,” which the INA describes as “the sole and exclusive means for judicial review of an order of removal.” §1252(a)(5). A presumption of credi- bility may arise in some appeals before the BIA, but no such presump- tion applies in antecedent proceedings before an IJ or in subsequent collateral review before a federal court. This makes sense because re- viewing courts do not make credibility determinations, but instead ask only whether any reasonable adjudicator could have found as the agency did. The Ninth Circuit’s rule gets the standard backwards by giving conclusive weight to any testimony that cuts against the agency’s finding. Pp. 6–9.
(b) Mr. Alcaraz-Enriquez and Mr. Dai offer an alternative theory for affirming the Ninth Circuit. Because, they say, they were entitled to a presumption of credibility in their BIA appeals, they are entitled to relief in court because no reasonable adjudicator obliged to presume their credibility could have found against them. Even assuming that there was no explicit adverse credibility determination here, the Ninth Circuit’s reasoning is flawed for at least two reasons. Pp. 10–15.
(1) The presumption of credibility on appeal under the INA is “re- buttable.” And the INA contains no parallel requirement of explicit- ness when it comes to rebutting the presumption on appeal. Reviewing courts, bound by traditional administrative law principles, must “up- hold” even “a decision of less than ideal clarity if the agency’s path may reasonably be discerned.” Bowman Transp., Inc. v. Arkansas-Best Freight System, Inc., 419 U. S. 281, 286. In neither case did the Ninth
Cite as: 593 U. S. ____ (2021) 3 Syllabus
Circuit consider the possibility that the BIA implicitly found the pre- sumption of credibility rebutted. The BIA expressly adopted the IJ’s decision in Mr. Alcaraz-Enriquez’s case, which, in turn, noted that Mr. Alcaraz-Enriquez’s story changed from the time of the probation report to the time of the hearing—a factor the statute specifically identifies as relevant to credibility, see §§1158(b)(1)(B)(iii), 1231(b)(3)(C), 1229a(c)(4)(C). And in Mr. Dai’s case, the BIA also adopted the IJ’s decision, which discussed specific problems with Mr. Dai’s demeanor, candor, and internal inconsistency—an analysis that certainly goes to the presumption of credibility even if the agency didn’t use particular words. See ibid. In each case, the Ninth Circuit should consider whether the BIA in fact found the presumption of credibility overcome. If so, it seems unlikely that the conclusion in either case is one no rea- sonable adjudicator could have reached. Pp. 10–13.
(2) The presumption of credibility applies with respect to credibil- ity but the INA expressly requires the noncitizen to satisfy the trier of fact on credibility, persuasiveness, and the burden of proof. §§1158(b)(1)(B)(ii), 1231(b)(3)(C), 1229a(a)(4)(B). Even if the BIA treats a noncitizen’s testimony as credible, the agency need not find such evidence persuasive or sufficient to meet the burden of proof. Here, the Ninth Circuit erred by treating credibility as dispositive of both persuasiveness and legal sufficiency. Pp 13–15.
884 F. 3d 858 and 727 Fed. Appx. 260, vacated and remanded. GORSUCH, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.
*********************************
Can’t win ‘em all: The Round Table filed an amicus brief on behalf of the respondent in this case. Sadly, on this occasion, we didn’t convince anyone.☹️
Result of Tulsa Race Atrocity, June 1, 1921 “All that was left of his home after the Tulsa race riot” Unknown photographer Public Domain via Wikimedia Commons
As we recognize the 100th anniversary of the “Tulsa Atrocity” and our failure to properly acknowledge it, teach it, condemn the failures of our legal system, and/or hold the perpetrators accountable, this is a course that every American should view!
Dehumanization of “the other,” grotesque minimization and distortion of their achievements and key contributions to our nation’s prosperity and survival, and legal systems that knowingly and intentionally denied legal, constitutional, and human rights to our fellow Americans are a long and dishonorable part of our history, often denied or intentionally whitewashed by those who fear truth. The long struggle against “America’s original sin” involved fierce resistance by African American slaves as well as concerted cooperative efforts between free African Americans and White opponents of slavery. But, there were also tensions, squabbles, false starts, petty “turf wars,” and fundamental disagreements among slavery’sopponents. Shockingly, but not surprisingly, many slaves found that suicide was their only effective form of protest against, and escape from, this vilest of all American institutions.
The struggle against slavery’s toxic legacy and its existence in various forms in modern America continues. And, there is a direct connection with America’s continuing mistreatment of immigrants, particularly people of color and asylum seekers, and the failure of our legal system, even today, to protect them rather than abuse and dehumanize them.
The ongoing struggle is reflected in the Biden Administration’s apparent naive belief that they can effectively address racial injustice in America while continuing to treat asylum seeking migrants, many women, children, and people of color, as “non-persons” or “less than human” under our Constitution and laws. Ending “Dred Scottification of the other” — in all its forms — is key to America’s getting beyond the mistakes, tragedies, and injustices of our past and creating a better future for all persons in America!
FULL DISCLOSURE: Our son William P. Schmidt works for The Great Courses.
A FEW MONTHS BEFORE COVID-19 descended, I spent a week in Dilley, Texas, as a volunteer attorney at the South Texas Family Residential Center, which is essentially a holding center, specifically for women and their children. It’s the last stop before expedited removal and the place where many women and children are sent once they’ve claimed fear of persecution for the purpose of applying for asylum, or for those who have also been apprehended internally.
I was working with asylum seekers at the Mexican border port of entry, where people were held without answers for weeks, even months, while they awaited the next step in their asylum claims: the credible fear interview. If asylum seekers, fleeing persecution in their home countries, declare their fear of returning, they are detained as they await this interview, which will determine whether they can proceed to the next step: appearing before an immigration judge to request asylum. The conversation leads to a proverbial thumbs up or down, a trip to a courtroom or the border they just fled. If an asylum officer determines that their story has objective elements of credible fear, they may proceed to the next legal step. Officers essentially check required elements off a list, including what the specific act of persecution is, if the asylum seeker knows the reason why she’s been persecuted, how many times it happened, if she has sought help to remediate it, and more. In other words, asylum seekers’ lives depend on the hour or so answering questions spent either in a small room or, more likely, over the phone with a government official and interpreter.
Right now, our country again faces a critical point in defining our identity: are we in fact a country founded on freedom and designed to welcome those in need? The Biden administration states that it aims to help asylum seekers, but in order to do so we need to reevaluate how we approach asylum at all levels. That begins with reassessing how we determine credible fear.
During my brief time working in Dilley, I helped women prepare for their credible fear interviews. Many asylum seekers might not understand the process, nor necessarily know which details of their stories determine what the United States has deemed credible fear. Asylum is not a guaranteed right, and attorneys are not permitted to help during the interview; thus, preparation is key.
I spoke with a woman who fled five countries to escape her abusive boyfriend. The man followed her from country to country, raping her and threatening her life in each country. No matter where she fled in South and Central America, he followed her. Her five-year-old son, a product of one of these rapes, held her hand during our conversation in the detention center. I spoke with another woman who was threatened by a well-known drug cartel. Through her tears, she could barely communicate to me that they had already killed her brother, taken her money, patrolled the school where she taught, and routinely policed her town, spitting bullets as easily as words. As I interviewed the women, they cradled their young children, who were also visibly traumatized by what they had experienced in their home countries, by their journeys to the United States, and finally by the process to gain safety on this side of the border.
The credible fear interview places the burden of establishing fear on the applicant and is supposed to be non-adversarial, but given the nature of everything that precedes the interview — the lack of representation during the process, the jail-like location in which it takes place, the asylum officer’s constant questions — it feels adversarial. And this is just the first step. If the officer determines that she does have credible fear, the next step is to present her case to an immigration judge in a proper hearing.
. . . .
******************
Sadly, and completely unnecessarily and inappropriately, there is nobody in a leadership position at DOJ right now with Elizabeth Silver’s practical insights and understanding of our broken asylum system and how it can be fixed! I’ll bet that neither Garland nor anyone on his senior staff has spent a week at Dilley or any comparable site in the “New American Gulag” trying to represent vulnerable asylum seekers in Garland’s “wholly owned star chamber courts.”
Has Garland even taken the time to observe what’s happening in Dilley, Pearsall, Texas (“home of the Big Peanut”); Jena, Louisiana; Lumpkin, Georgia (“where asylum cases go to die”), or any of the other comparable “courts” (that don’t function like “courts” at all)? Has he ever spoken to asylum applicants and their pro bono lawyers trying to negotiate his fatally flawed and intentionally “user unfriendly” system? Has he gone out and hired progressive “practical scholars” to fill in his “blind spots?”
Round Table Judges John Richardson and I have “seen the Peanut” and lived to tell about it! Pictured here in 2015 with then Pearsall JLC B. Atenis Madico.
That says loads about AG Merrick Garland — none of it good! “Ignorance,” “intransigence,” and “good enough for government work” are not acceptable approaches for the Biden Administration! Yet that’s exactly what Garland has “delivered” on immigration, human rights, racial justice, and gender equity during his first three months at “Justice.”
Of course it’s adversarial! Totally, these days!
The White Nationalist racists in the Trump regime like Miller, “Gonzo” Sessions, “Wolfman,” “Cooch Cooch,” and “Billy the Bigot” hated asylum seekers, people of color, and women and “biased out” the system and selection processes accordingly. Heck, in clear violation of the statute, Trump even replaced USCIS Asylum Officers with totally unqualified Border Patrol Agents to insure denial of even the most compelling claims!
Sessions bogusly bellyached about too many individuals passing “credible fear.” To the contrary, this was totally appropriate, given the “super generous” standards that are supposed to be applied at the “access to the system gateway.” The real systemic problem was in the historically poor performance of the Immigration Courts on asylum grants that got immeasurably worse under Sessions and Barr. (And has remained beyond horrible under Garland’s non-existent “leadership!”)
As almost all legitimate human rights experts would confirm, the “high rejection rate” later in Immigration Court results from far, far, far too many unqualified, non-expert, improperly selected, poorly trained, Immigration “Judges” — at both the trial and appellate levels — operating in a “culture of institutionalized racism, misogyny, and default denial” rather than the generous atmosphere and culture required by the Supremes in INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca but never truly implemented at EOIR.
“Herculean” although the task might appear, there are thousands of well-qualified immigration and human rights experts, most of them in the private sector right now, who could solve this problem and establish due process, fundamental fairness, real asylum expertise, and the rule of law in short order. But, Garland and Mayorkas have failed to remove the deadwood and the Trump/Miller holdovers and have not brought in the expert problem solvers to get this currently deadly, defective, illegal, and blatantly unconstitutional system under control. Additionally, qualified, expert Immigration Judges, REAL independent, courageous Federal Judges, not “go along to get along “bureaucratic retreads,” could also train and effectively supervise the Asylum Officer Corps, rather than woodenly and often ignorantly “rubber stamping” defective denials of “credible fear.”
Incredibly, Garland aggravated this festering problem “right off the bat” by improperly hiring 17 new, non-expert, not judicial quality Immigration Judges from flawed recruitments, skewed lists, and bogus recommendations developed by “Billy the Bigot” Barr! What an amazing lack of awareness and “open dissing” of humane progressive values and commitment to quality in Government!
Does this group represent the type of diverse, progressive candidates that President Biden would nominate for Article III Judgeships? OF COURSE NOT! Then, what possible excuse is there for “gifting” them some of the most powerful and important Federal Judgeships — those with probably more “life or death” authority and discretion over individuals than even the Supremes? No excuse whatsoever!
Our asylum system is totally “fixable.” Immediate improvements can be made and noticeable systemic changes could and should be in place before the end of this year! But, not the way that Garland and Mayorkas are going about it! The deadwood needs to go NOW, and be replaced with expert, progressive leadership, judges, and adjudicators!
“Miller Lite” – Garland’s Vision of “Justice @ Justice” for Communities of Color! His indolent and ineffective approach to asylum decision making in Immigration Court is harming and killing vulnerable individuals and bringing our entire justice system into disrepute!
UNITED STATES v. PALOMAR-SANTIAGO CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE NINTH CIRCUIT
No. 20–437. Argued April 27, 2021—Decided May 24, 2021
Respondent Palomar-Santiago, a Mexican national living in the United States, was convicted in California state court of felony DUI in 1988. At the time, lower courts understood that conviction to be an “aggravated felony” subjecting a noncitizen to removal from the United States. 8 U. S. C. §1227(a)(2)(A)(iii). Palomar-Santiago was removed following a hearing before an immigration judge and a waiver of his right to appeal. In 2017, Palomar-Santiago was found in the United States and indicted on one count of unlawful reentry after removal. See §1326(a). The statute criminalizing unlawful reentry provides that a collateral challenge to the underlying deportation order may proceed only if the noncitizen first demonstrates that (1) “any administrative remedies that may have been available” were exhausted, (2) “the opportunity for judicial review” was lacking, and (3) “the entry of the order was fundamentally unfair.” §1326(d). Palomar-Santiago moved to dismiss the indictment on the ground that his prior removal order was invalid in light of the 2004 holding in Leocal v. Ashcroft, 543 U. S. 1, that felony DUI is not an aggravated felony. Following Ninth Circuit precedent, the District Court and Court of Appeals held that Palomar-Santiago was excused from proving the first two requirements of §1326(d) because his felony DUI conviction had not made him removable. The District Court granted the motion to dismiss, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed.
Held: Each of the statutory requirements of §1326(d) is mandatory. Pp. 5–8.
(a) The Ninth Circuit’s interpretation is incompatible with the text of §1326(d), which provides that defendants charged with unlawful reentry “may not” challenge their underlying removal orders “unless” they “demonstrat[e]” each of three conditions. Section 1326(d)’s first
2
UNITED STATES v. PALOMAR-SANTIAGO Syllabus
two requirements are not satisfied just because a noncitizen was re- moved for an offense that should not have rendered him removable. The substantive validity of a removal order is quite distinct from whether the noncitizen exhausted administrative remedies or was deprived of the opportunity for judicial review. P. 5.
(b) Palomar-Santiago’s counterarguments are unpersuasive. First, he contends that further administrative review of a removal order is not “available” for purposes of §1326(a) when a noncitizen will not recognize a substantive basis to challenge an immigration judge’s conclusion that a prior conviction renders the noncitizen removable. The immigration judge’s error on the merits does not excuse the noncitizen’s failure to comply with a mandatory exhaustion requirement if further administrative review, and then judicial review if necessary, could fix that very error. Ross, 578 U. S. 632, distinguished.
Second, Palomar-Santiago contends that §1326(d)’s prerequisites do not apply when a defendant argues that a removal order was substantively invalid. There can be no “challenge” to or “collateral attack” on the validity of substantively flawed orders, he reasons, because such orders are invalid when entered. This position ignores the plain mean- ing of both “challenge” and “collateral attack.”
Lastly, Palomar-Santiago invokes the canon of constitutional avoidance. But this canon “has no application in the absence of statutory ambiguity.” United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers’ Cooperative, 532 U. S. 483, 494. Here, the text of §1326(d) unambiguously fore- closes Palomar-Santiago’s interpretation. Pp. 5–7.
813 Fed. Appx. 282, reversed and remanded.
SOTOMAYOR, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.
***********************
The lesson here for advocates:Exhaust those administrative appeals and judicial review even when your case seems hopeless. Otherwise, your client will be barred from taking advantage of later changes in the case law. After the fact, a “mere showing of fundamental unfairness” is not sufficient! And, you could be charged with malpractice by recommending that appeals and judicial review be waived.
This ought to generate more clogging of the Federal Courts, particularly the way the BIA is deciding cases these days. But, it’s what the Supremes unanimously asked for, so we have to take them at their word!
A fascinating twist on the factual scenario in Niz-Chavez is what to do if your client had an NTA with a so-called “fake date.” The “fake date” problem is one you will remember well if you practice immigration law before EOIR, and it garnered national attention in 2019 when ICE issued these fake dates for thousands of immigrants, many of whom showed up in court only to find that there was nothing on any judge’s docket to indicate they were scheduled for a hearing that day. Reports of fake dates were prevalent in Dallas, Orlando, Miami, Seattle, and I am sure other places as well. See news articles such as this one. In addition, and as a separate matter, there was a well-known so-called “parking date” (November 29) issued on thousands of NTAs and that was also never a “real date” as everyone knew.
There is an interesting theory about why the “fake dates” were issued in the first place: that the government was trying to respond to Pereira v. Sessions itself. Despite its argument in federal court to try to restrict Pereira as much as possible, in practice ICE tacitly was affirming, so the argument goes, that in Pereira the Supreme Court had defined, as we have argued all along, what is and what is not a proper and valid NTA. In an effort to immunize itself from responsibility for defective NTAs without any time or place of hearing, ICE thought it might make sense to input “fake dates” in their NTAs, thus (at least superficially it would seem) immunizing itself from the argument that the NTAs were defective for “lack” of a real date and place. Then the “real date” – according to the argument – could be issued as a follow-up in the form of a notice of hearing by EOIR.
The question now arises whether clients with fake-date NTAs can utilize Pereira and now Niz-Chavez to defeat the “stop-time” effect for cancellation of removal, where such fake NTAs existed, even where there is a subsequent notice of hearing with a “real date” from EOIR. The short answer is “Yes” – and I will discuss in the rest of this article why this should be the case and why it should not come as a surprise for several reasons.
It is arguably a much stronger case for the application of Niz-Chavez because the issuance of a “fake date” that was never intended to be used by EOIR in any way is affirmatively wrong. It is not just mere negligence by leaving “TBA” with a blank date and place of hearing on the NTA. ICE should not be able to hide behind an NTA where the information is filled in on the NTA but the information is patently false and made up or fabricated. Just as an asylum seeker who fabricates a date or other information on their forms cannot benefit from such information in applying for relief before the court, the government should get no benefit either from their incorrect and misleading actions. The counter-argument from the government will be that the NTA was valid “on its face” since it had some “date and place” in the document and therefore (a) stopped time for cancellation purposes and (b) conferred jurisdiction because it was “facially” valid.
This counter-argument is flawed. To embrace such a rationale would exalt form over substance. It also would allow an agency to game the system. It would also defeat the very mechanism that the Supreme Court set out in Pereira and now Niz-Chavez. Respondent should be entitled to reopen their proceedings in all “fake date” cases since a valid NTA was not filed in the immigration court. The only remaining issue will be proof. The respondent and his or her attorney will have to prove there was no hearing that was actually held on that day. If no hearing existed at all, then the stop time rule should not apply and the fake NTA cannot be “cured” by a subsequently issued notice by a different agency, that is EOIR, as per Niz-Chavez.
Finally, in reopening a client’s case it would be helpful if there were a showing of some effort on the part the respondent to check. Proof may be difficult and EOIR FOIA and other investigation will be important. Ideally, the client or the their attorney or both went to court but no hearing was on the docket that day, and there was an effort to check that was documented in some way. If there never was receipt of the NTA at all, whether containing a fake date or not, and an in absentia order was issued, then the question becomes whether jurisdiction could have vested at all in such a case. As I have argued, if the NTA is defective it cannot result in the vesting of jurisdiction. A fake date and place arguably cannot confer jurisdiction, even if the NTA was filed with the court. Since there was no hearing actually scheduled the NTA should be found defective under Pereira and Niz-Chavez.
K[evin] J[ohnson]
********************
Sure sounds to me like ‘affirmative misconduct” by the USG that should stop them from relying on the “fake dates. In the “old days,” INS actually used to settle potential “affirmative misconduct” cases, rather than litigate.
By contrast, today’s DOJ seems perfectly willing shamelessly to defend a wide range of legally and ethically questionable conduct and then “blow off” criticism from the Article III Judiciary. Recently, a frustrated U.S. District Judge referred to Bureau of Prisons officials as “idiots.”
One might have thought that would have spurred some type of apology and corrective action from the DOJ. But, that doesn’t seem to have registered with Garland. He just keeps rolling along with Barr’s “Miller Lite” appointments while dissing advice from progressives who actually helped put him in his current job. About the only thing you can count on from Dems is that when it comes to progressive immigraton reforms and EOIR, they’ll blow it!
Thanks, Geoffrey, for your timely and creative “practical scholarship.” Of course with better leadership, the Biden Administration could solve this problem without protracted litigation that often takes years and produces inconsistent results before the Supremes or Congress can resolve them. In the meantime, lives unnecessarily are ruined and the system becomes more inefficient and unfair.
Garland should appoint progressive practical scholars like Geoffrey to the BIA and senior management at EOIR, OIL, OLP, and the SG’s Office and let them “lead from above” — rather than having to fight bad interpretations and worst practices from the outside.
In this case, the DHS/EOIR “fake date policy” was both fraudulent and unethical. Remember that some folks actually showed up at Immigration Court buildings, often with families in tow, after having traveled hundreds of miles, @ 3:00 AM on Sunday mornings (or on a Federal Holiday or some other bogus date) only to find out that the “joke” was on them.
And, let’s not forget folks, that thanks to the BIA’s permissive attitude (when it comes to the Government, but not with individual rights), under the now “being phased out” “Remain in Mexico Program” (a/k/a “let “em Die In Mexico”), folks basically got NTAs with the equivalent of this: “Maria Gomez, somewhere on some Calle in Tijuana, Mexico.” But, the BIA said that this was basically “good enough for Government work.”
We should also remember that the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause guarantees the individual’s rights against the Government, not the other way around! But, you sure wouldn’t know that from reading BIA and AG precedents issued under the Trump kakistocracy.
Meanwhile, IJs and the BIA under Garland continue to “in absentia” folks for being a few minutes late for a hearing or misreading an NTA in a language they can’t understand. Anybody had a problem with their U.S. Mail lately? We have, in our “upper middle class neighborhood” in Alexandria, VA. Yet, EOIR and some Article IIIs continue to promote the “legal fiction” of a “presumption of proper (and timely) delivery” of notices sent by regular U.S. Mail.
Until, Garland has the backbone to restore ethics and the rule of law at EOIR and the rest of the DOJ, particularly by reassigning or otherwise removing those who “went along to get along” and replacing them with ethical, qualified, experts from the NDPA who will speak truth to power and hold immigration enforcement bureaucrats accountable, our justice system will continue its tailspin!
Judge Garland’s vision of “justice” for immigrants @ Justice:
“Miller Lite” – Garland’s Vision of “Justice @ Justice” for Communities of ColorGone from the West Wing, but he and his EOIR “plants” remain an inspiration for “Dred Scottification” of the other, unconstitutional “judging,” worst practices, and demeaning treatment of human rights experts and due process advocates by the DOJ! Attribution: Stephen Miller Monster by Peter Kuper, PoliticalCartoons.com
Courtside Exclusive
By Paul Wickham Schmidt
May 5, 2021
This just in from a NDPA stalwart in Houston, TX:
Houston we still have a (huge) problem! Luckily we also have some great immigration advocates and members of the due process army.
. . . .
Houston EOIR is still closed for non-detained. They have just built a third immigration court here, “Greenspoint”, with over 30 brand new judges, just collecting dust (although that’s probably a good thing as it would only serve as a deportation mill). If you can believe the absurdity, you have to file a motion for change of venue + a motion to consolidate, to join family members whose cases have been placed in different courts all here in Houston. 🤦♂️🤦♂️
I believe Houston now has the 2nd largest backlog after New York City now, in large part due to the mismanagement by EOIR HQ.
***************
From coast to coast, from the Rio Grande to the Great Lakes, Courtside followers and NDPA warriors are making it clear: Garland’s failure to take due process and racial justice in Immigration Court seriously and his disregard and disrespect for immigration/human rights experts is furthering havoc in the American justice system!
Is it “malicious incompetence” or just plain old incompetence and disregard for the due process rights of “the other” by Garland? Does it make any difference?
What will make a difference is flooding the Article IIIs with litigation challenging this ongoing constitutional nonsense and squandering of taxpayer funds! Overwhelm EOIR with applications for judicial positions and “bore out” the rotten foundations of this system from the inside with the tools of due process, fundamental fairness, and best practices! Also, inundate your Congressional representatives with demands that this blot on American justice be removed from the DOJ forthwith!Write those op-eds and keep informing your local media about the unmitigated, unnecessary, unconscionable, unconstitutional continuing disaster at Garland’s EOIR and how it destroys human lives on a daily basis! Shine the beacon of due process and justice on the dark, secretive, unconstitutional “Star Chambers” Garland operates in the guise of Immigration “Courts.”
Progressives must put an end to Garland’s Star Chamber Style “Justice” @ Justice. Demand REAL courts with independent, progressive, expert judges who have actually represented human beings in Immigration Court! No more “plants,” “insiders,” and “go along to get along” appointments to America’s key human rights and racial justice judiciary. No more bureaucratic incompetence, assembly line justice, anti-immigrant misogynist culture, and “deportation adjudication centers” masquerading as “courts!” Open up this secretive, closed, unjust bureaucracy to the light of justice and the NDPA! Due Process Forever!
NDPA legions, don’t be content to “wander in the wilderness” while clueless politicos and bureaucrats @ Garland’s DOJ destroy your sanity and the lives of the humans you represent! Stand up to institutionalized racism, continuing incompetence, disgraceful misogyny, intransigence, and ongoing “Dred Scottification” of communities of color by the Garland DOJ! End the DOJ’s anti-immigrant culture and disrespect for the defenders of due process and American democracy that goes on Administration after Administration as if your clients’ lives and your professional expertise were “chopped liver!” Enough is enough! Fight back against “Miller Lite Justice!”
My fellow warriors for justice, YOU are again being ignored, shut out, marginalized, abused, looked down upon, dehumanized, insulted, and scorned by yet another Dem Administration that YOU helped put in office! Time to stand up and be heard for YOUR rights, the rights of the people YOU represent, and the future of our Federal Judiciary and our American Democracy!
NO MORE “MILLER LITE @ JUSTICE!” ASK YOURSELVES: WHO WON THE LAST ELECTION? WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO “WIN” IF GARLAND CONTINUES TO RUN THE IMMIGRATION COURTS LIKE STEPHEN MILLER IS STILL IN CHARGE?
I personally don’t make much of Scott’s ability to reason. This is the same man who said in March that “woke supremacy,” whatever that is, “is as bad as white supremacy.” There is no world in which recent efforts at enlightenment can be equated to enslavement, lynching and mass incarceration. None.
It seems to me that the disingenuousness on the question of racism is largely a question of language. The question turns on another question: “What, to you, is America?” Is America the people who now inhabit the land, divorced from its systems and its history? Or, is the meaning of America inclusive of those systems and history?
When people say that America is a racist country, they don’t necessarily mean that all or even most Americans are consciously racist. However, it is important to remember that nearly half the country just voted for a full-on racist in Donald Trump, and they did so by either denying his racism, becoming apologists for it, or applauding it. What do you call a country thus composed?
Historically, however, there is no question that the country was founded by racists and white supremacists, and that much of the early wealth of this country was built on the backs of enslaved Africans, and much of the early expansion came at the expense of the massacre of the land’s Indigenous people and broken treaties with them.
Gathering the dead after the Colfax massacre, published in Harper’s Weekly, May 10, 1873
Eight of the first 10 presidents personally enslaved Africans. In 1856, the chief justice of the United States wrote in the infamous ruling on the Dred Scott case that Black people “had for more than a century before been regarded as beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations; and so far inferior, that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect.”
The country went on to fight a Civil War over whether some states could maintain slavery as they wished. Even some of the people arguing for, and fighting for, an end to slavery had expressed their white supremacist beliefs.
Abraham Lincoln said during his famous debates against Stephen A. Douglas in 1858 that among white people and Black ones “there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I, as much as any other man, am in favor of the superior position being assigned to the white man.”
Some will concede the historical point and insist on the progress point, arguing that was then and this is now, that racism simply doesn’t exist now as it did then. I would agree. American racism has evolved and become less blunt, but it has not become less effective. The knife has simply been sharpened. Now systems do the work that once required the overt actions of masses of individual racists.
. . . .
As Mark Twain once put it: “The difference between the almost right word and the right word is really a large matter. ’Tis the difference between the lightning bug and the lightning.”
Being imprecise or undecided with our language on this subject contributes to the murkiness — and to the myth that the question of whether America is racist is difficult to answer and therefore the subject of genuine debate among honest intellectuals.
Saying that America is racist is not a radical statement. If that requires a longer explanation or definition, so be it. The fact, in the end, is not altered.
***************
Read Blow’s full article at the link.
Four things that are clear to me:
The “history” that most of us in my generation learned in high school was “whitewashed;”
The monumental achievements of non-white Americans, women, and children which allowed this country to exist, prosper, and flourish have consistently been ignored or downplayed;
America still has race issues;
The GOP, in particular, has failed to come to grips with the issue of race in 21st century America (apologists Scott & Graham notwithstanding).
🇺🇸⚖️🗽Due Process For All Persons Under Law, Forever!
Grundoon From Walt Kelly’s “Pogo” SOURCE: Pininterest
Grundoon: A diapered baby groundhog (or “woodchunk” in swamp-speak). An infant toddler, Grundoon speaks only gibberish, represented by strings of random consonants like “Bzfgt”, “ktpv”, “mnpx”, “gpss”, “twzkd”, or “znp”. Eventually, Grundoon learns to say two things: “Bye” and “Bye-bye”. He also has a baby sister, whose full name is Li’l Honey Bunny Ducky Downy Sweetie Chicken Pie Li’l Everlovin’ Jelly Bean. [From the Walt Kelly comic strip “Pogo.”]
In a recent blog post, I discussed the difficulty in establishing asylum based on a political opinion expressed against MS-13. In the specific case discussed, the Board of Immigration Appeals reversed the Immigration Judge’s finding that the asylum-seeker had expressed a political opinion to MS-13 members.1 In reversing the Immigration Judge, the BIA specifically stated as to MS-13 that “the gangs are criminal organizations, and not political or governmental organizations and gang activities are not political in nature.” The BIA has repeatedly expressed this same view (using this or similar boilerplate language) in its decisions denying asylum. In the particular case discussed in my blog post, a split panel of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals could not find enough evidence of record to compel the majority to overturn the BIA’s conclusion.
The BIA is of course a part of the U.S. Department of Justice; its judges are appointed by and employed by the Attorney General. Former Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein was one of the Department officials to make the following point to a class of new Immigration Judges in March 2019:
Immigration judges appointed by the Attorney General and supervised by the Executive Office for Immigration Review are not only judges. First, you are not only judges because you are also employees of the United States Department of Justice. It is a great honor to serve in this Department. In the courtyard just outside the entrance to this Great Hall, high up on the interior wall of the Main Justice building, there is a depiction of the scales of justice and an inscription that reads, “Privilegium Obligatio.” It means that when you accept a privilege, you incur an obligation. In this Department, our duty is in our name. We are the only cabinet agency with a name that articulates a moral value.
Justice is not measured by statistics. Our employees learn from day one that their duty is to gather the facts, seek the truth, apply the law, and respect the policies and principles of the Department of Justice.
The second reason that you are not only judges is that in addition to your adjudicative function – finding facts and applying laws – you are a member of the executive branch. You follow lawful instructions from the Attorney General, and you share a duty to enforce the law.2
The clear message being conveyed is “Don’t get any big ideas of judicial independence and neutrality; you work for ‘Team Justice,’ and you will behave accordingly.” Am I alone in thinking that the motto cited by Rosenstein, “when you accept a privilege, you incur an obligation,” here comes across as a boss reminding new employees where their loyalties lie rather than as a commitment to truth and justice?
As wrong as this message is when conveyed to judges who are supposed to enjoy the independence and neutrality to rule against the Department of Justice and the Attorney General when the facts and law compel such an outcome, let’s examine this view for the consistency of its application as to all DOJ employees. Presumably, the Board’s official stance that MS-13 is not a political organization and that its activities are criminal and not political in nature enjoys the Department’s seal of approval. In fact, other Department of Justice attorneys, working for the Office of Immigration Litigation, defend that view when the BIA”s decisions are reviewed on appeal by the Circuit Courts. I’m not aware of any Attorney General action to certify a BIA decision expressing this view in order to correct the Board’s position on this issue, or even to remand to the Board for further consideration of its position in light of other conflicting views within the Department.
Regarding such conflicting views, I was recently made aware of a criminal indictment drafted by the U.S. Attorneys’ Office in the Eastern District of New York.3 The indictment was filed in December, 2020, while the Trump Administration was still in office. The opening paragraph of the indictment states that MS-13 is a transnational criminal organization engaged in terrorist activity, and that its members use violence “in order to obtain concessions from the government of El Salvador, achieve political goals and retaliate for government actions against MS-13’s members and leaders.” (emphasis added).
The indictment contains a specific section titled “Political Influence in El Salvador.” The indictment states that a unit of MS-13, the Ranfla Nacional, “gained political influence as a result of the violence and intimidation MS-13 exerted on the government and population of El Salvador.” It continued that the organization exercised leverage on the Salvadoran government through its control on the level of violence. The indictment states that in 2012, MS-13 exercised its leverage to negotiate a truce with the ruling FMLN party and its rival 18th Street “to reduce homicides in El Salvador in return for improved prison conditions, benefits and money.” According to the indictment, MS-13 also negotiated a similar agreement with the rival ARENA party, promising to deliver votes in return for benefits. The indictment states that over time, “the Ranfla Nacional continued to negotiate with political parties in El Salvador and use its control of the level of violence to influence the actions of the government in El Salvador.”
The indictment also contains a section explaining the purpose of the Ranfla Nacional. The second specific goal listed is: “Influencing the actions of governments in El Salvador and elsewhere to implement policies favorable to MS-13.”
The attorneys who made the above claims in an indictment filed in Federal District Court are also employees of the U.S. Department of Justice. They are also members of the executive branch, following lawful instructions from the Attorney General, and sharing a duty to enforce the law. In the Second Circuit case I recently discussed, other Department of Justice attorneys in their brief to the court defended the Board’s decision by depicting MS-13 as “an institution that is entirely non-governmental – that is…a group of criminals who, in fact, reject the rules set out by the government.” Noticeably absent from the same brief was any mention that this “rejection of the rules set out by government” includes strategies to pressure said government into undertaking specific actions, as well as its entering into negotiations and ultimately agreements with political parties, the terms of which include MS-13’s delivering votes in return for the parties’ commitment to enacting beneficial policies.
So how can it be that attorneys in one office of the Department of Justice argue that MS-13 as an organization is engaged in exerting political influence to achieve its political goals, and at the same time, another group of attorneys within the same Department of Justice can sign orders sending victims of the same MS-13 to their death by employing a boilerplate sentence that MS-13 is not a political organization and its activities are not political in nature? And that the decisions of that latter group are then defended by a third group of Department attorneys on appeal who make no mention of the conflicting arguments? Let’s remember that, according to Rosenstein, these attorneys were taught from day one that their duties as Department of Justice employees include gathering the facts and seeking the truth.
In 1997, a very different BIA wrote the following in a decision that, although still binding as precedent, seems long forgotten:
immigration enforcement obligations do not consist only of initiating and conducting prompt proceedings that lead to removals at any cost. Rather, as has been said, the government wins when justice is done. In that regard, the handbook for trial attorneys states that “[t]he respondent should be aided in obtaining any procedural rights or benefits required by the statute, regulation and controlling court decision, of the requirements of fairness.” Handbook for Trial Attorneys § 1.3 (1964). See generally Freeport-McMoRan Oil & Gas Co. v. FERC, 962 F.2d 45, 48 (D.C. Cir. 1992)(finding astonishing that counsel for a federal administrative agency denied that the A.B.A. Code of Professional Responsibility holds government lawyers to a higher standard and has obligations that “might sometimes trump the desire to pound an opponent into submission”); Reid v. INS, 949 F.2d 287 (9th Cir. 1991)(noting that government counsel has an interest only in the law being observed, not in victory or defeat).4
This matter deserves the immediate attention of Attorney General Merrick Garland. The ability of asylum seekers to receive a fair review of their claims based on accurate information is a matter of life and death. At this early stage of the Biden Administration, it is critical that the Department send a clear message that the “obligation” mentioned in its motto is to serve an ideal of justice that is independent of the particular politics of those temporally in charge.
Copyright 2021 Jeffrey S. Chase. All rights reserved.
Matter of S-M-J-, 21 I&N Dec. 722, 727 (BIA 1997).
APRIL 29, 2021
Reprinted by permission.
*************
As most outside the nativist world know, the BIA’s position that Northern Triangle gangs aren’t political in nature and action is absurd! For Pete’s sake, these guys negotiate “peace treaties” with governments, control large swaths of territory, manipulate “public death rates” for political gain, aid or punish political candidates and police, collect taxes, control jobs, and have economic policies. Sure sounds like a quasi-governmental, clearly political entity to me. Somewhere, there is a dissent of mine in an old published CAT case saying approximately that.
At least at one point, gangs in El Salvador controlled more jobs than did the Salvadoran Government! No competent, unbiased group of adjudicators (not to mention supposed “experts”) could have reached the BIA’s ridiculous, clearly politicized conclusions!
Sadly, to date, Judge Garland has followed in the footsteps of his dilatory Dem predecessors by destroying lives, promoting injustice, and blowing the Dems’ best chance to build a progressive, due process oriented, human rights advancing judiciary that also would help resolve America’s failure to come to grips with the 1951 U.N. Refugee Convention and its key role in our legal immigration system as well as being a prerequisite to achieving racial justice in America.
Supposedly, these are the goals of the Biden Administration. Unfortunately, Garland, Monaco, and Gupta haven’t gotten the message, although it has been “delivered” time after time by numerous experts and advocates!
A few historical notes:
I was on the en banc BIA that decided Matter of S-M-J-, cited by Jeffrey. It was written by Judge Michael J. Heilman, a fellow Wisconsinite who once had worked for me at the “Legacy INS” General Counsel, following service as a State Department consular officer. That case “originated” on a three-member panel of Heilman, the late Judge Lauri Steven Filppu, and me. It reflects the “government wins when justice is done” message that I had incorporated into INS attorney training years earlier, as well as fealty to UN Handbook standards encouraged by the Supremes in INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, and the “best practices” that bygone BIA was consciously and aggressively advancing.
Former DAG Rod Rosenstein was once a respected career prosecutor who served Administrations of both parties. Then, he “sold out” to the Trump Administration and its neo-fascists. Although that probably should have ended his legal career, he’s currently enjoying life in “big law” while those victims harmed and wronged by the illegal and unethical policies (or, in some cases their survivors) he furthered continue to suffer.
Radical progressive due process reforms @ EOIR, starting with wholesale personnel changes and revocation of restrictionist, racist, misogynist policies and practices is long overdue. Nearly two months into his tenure Judge Garland has yet to demonstrate awareness of the need for immediate, decisive action. Meanwhile the bodies continue to pile up and the “adverse decisions” from the Article IIIs bearing his name and tarnishing his reputation continue to roll in!
Actually, Judge, each wrong decision from the BIA represents a human life ruined, often irrevocably. Is that the type of “impact” on American justice that you intend to leave as your “legacy?”
EOIR HQ, Falls Church, VA (a/k/a “The Tower of Babel”) By Pieter Bruegel The Elder Public Domain
NIZ-CHAVEZ v. GARLAND, ATTORNEY GENERAL CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
No. 19–863. Argued November 9, 2020—Decided April 29, 2021
Nonpermanent resident aliens ordered removed from the United States under federal immigration law may be eligible for discretionary relief if, among other things, they can establish their continuous presence in the country for at least 10 years. 8 U. S. C. §1229b(b)(1). But the so- called stop-time rule included in the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA) provides that the pe- riod of continuous presence “shall be deemed to end . . . when the alien is served a notice to appear” in a removal proceeding under §1229a. §1229b(d)(1). The term “notice to appear” is defined as “written notice . . . specifying” certain information, such as the charges against the al- ien and the time and place at which the removal proceedings will be held. §1229(a)(1). A notice that omits any of this statutorily required information does not trigger the stop-time rule. See Pereira v. Ses- sions, 585 U. S. ___. Here, the government ordered the removal of pe- titioner Agusto Niz-Chavez and sent him a document containing the charges against him. Two months later, it sent a second document, providing Mr. Niz-Chavez with the time and place of his hearing. The government contends that because the two documents collectively specified all statutorily required information for “a notice to appear,” Mr. Niz-Chavez’s continuous presence in the country stopped when he was served with the second document.
Held: A notice to appear sufficient to trigger the IIRIRA’s stop-time rule is a single document containing all the information about an individ- ual’s removal hearing specified in §1229(a)(1). Pp. 4–12.
(a) Section 1229b(d)(1) states that the stop-time rule is triggered by serving “a notice,” and §1229(a)(1) explains that “written notice” is “re- ferred to as a ‘notice to appear.’ ” Congress’s decision to use the indef- inite article “a” suggests it envisioned “a” single notice provided at a
2
NIZ-CHAVEZ v. GARLAND Syllabus
discrete time rather than a series of notices that collectively provide the required information. While the indefinite article “a” can some- times be read to permit multiple installments (such as “a manuscript” delivered over months), that is not true for words like “notice” that can refer to either a countable object (“a notice”) or a noncountable abstrac- tion (“sufficient notice”). The inclusion of an indefinite article suggests Congress used “notice” in its countable sense. More broadly, Congress has used indefinite articles to describe other case-initiating plead- ings—such as an indictment, an information, or a civil complaint, see, e.g., Fed. Rules Crim. Proc. 7(a), (c)(1), (e); Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 3—and none suggest those documents might be delivered by installment. Nor does the Dictionary Act aid the government, as that provision merely tells readers of the U. S. Code to assume “words importing the singular include and apply to several persons, parties, or things.” 1 U. S. C. §1. That provision means only that terms describing a single thing (“a no- tice”) can apply to more than one of that thing (“ten notices”). While it certainly allows the government to send multiple notices to appear to multiple people, it does not mean a notice to appear can consist of mul- tiple documents. Pp. 4–9.
(b) The IIRIRA’s structure and history support requiring the govern- ment to issue a single notice containing all the required information. Two related provisions, §§1229(e)(1) and 1229a(b)(7), both use a defi- nite article with a singular noun (“the notice”) when referring to the government’s charging document—a combination that again suggests a discrete document. Another provision, §1229(a)(2)(A), requires “a written notice” when the government wishes to change an alien’s hear- ing date. The government does not argue that this provision contem- plates providing “the new time or place of the proceedings” and the “consequences . . . of failing . . . to attend such proceedings” in separate documents. Yet the government fails to explain why “a notice to ap- pear” should operate differently. Finally, the predecessor to today’s “notice to appear” required the government to specify the place and time for the alien’s hearing “in the order to show cause or otherwise.” §1252(a)(2)(A). The phrase “or otherwise” has since disappeared, fur- ther suggesting that the required details must be included upfront to invoke the stop-time rule. Indeed, that is how the government itself initially read the statute. The year after Congress adopted IIRIRA, in the preamble to a proposed rule implementing these provisions, the government acknowledged that “the language of the amended Act in- dicat[es] that the time and place of the hearing must be on the Notice to Appear.” 62 Fed. Reg. 449 (1997). Pp. 9–13.
(c) The government claims that not knowing hearing officers’ avail- ability when it initiates removal proceedings makes it difficult to pro-duce compliant notices. It also claims that it makes little sense to re- quire time and place information in a notice to appear when that in- formation may be later changed. Besides, the government stresses, its own administrative regulations have always authorized its current practice. But on the government’s account, it would be free to send a person who is not from this country—someone who may be unfamiliar with English and the habits of American bureaucracies—a series of letters over the course of weeks, months, maybe years, each containing a new morsel of vital information. Congress could reasonably have wished to foreclose that possibility. And ultimately, pleas of adminis- trative inconvenience never “justify departing from the statute’s clear text.” Pereira, 585 U. S., at ___. The modest threshold Congress pro- vided to invoke the stop-time rule is clear from the text and must be complied with here. Pp. 13–16.
789 Fed. Appx. 523, reversed.
GORSUCH, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which THOMAS, BREYER, SOTOMAYOR, KAGAN, and BARRETT, JJ., joined. KAVANAUGH, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and ALITO, J., joined.
*************************
This is the type of case where I had hoped that Justice Gorsuch would “stick to his interpretative guns” by stopping the Government from basically redesigning clear statutory requirements “willy nilly” to suit their own purposes and disadvantage respondents. And, he came through! Big time! I’ve been critical of Justice Gorsuch in the past and am likely to be so again in the future. But, in this case, he did the right thing, and I, for one, am grateful!
Most encouraging, Justice Gorsuch “got” the way that the DHS and EOIR, with the deck already unfairly stacked in their favor, manipulate clear legal requirements for their own nefarious purposes and to the disadvantage of those struggling for justice in an inherently unfair system. There is absolutely no doubt that receiving “piecemeal notice” — incomplete and often sent to incorrect addresses or “personally served” without the proper reading and explanations — works to further disadvantage respondents.
Indeed, illegal, ineffective notices — some setting hearings on “phantom dates” and “imaginary times” — lead directly to an over abundance of “in absentia” orders and consequent illegal removals. Some unrepresented individuals understand how to reopen their hearings for lack of notice — but many are clueless; the Government system strives to keep them that way to “jack up the numbers,” meet “quotas,” and improve stats. Worse yet, Congress sometimes uses the “bogus stats” generated by DOJ and DHS to write legislation, conduct oversight, and establish policy. This is an astoundingly broken, dysfunctional, and intentionally unfair system — a disgrace to our entire justice system and our national conscience each day it is allowed to continue to operate in its abusive ways!
The majority in this case was both very interesting, and at least mildly encouraging, for those of us who believe in due process and fundamental fairness for all persons, including migrants, under law. In addition to Trump appointees Justice Gorsuch and Justice Barrett, another GOP conservative appointee, Justice Thomas, joined Justices Breyer, Kagan, and Sotomayor in the majority!
And, although this case has (incorrectly) seemed “hyper technical” to some Supremes’ watchers unfamiliar with immigration, it will have huge impact — forcing reopening and “redos” in tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, of cases in the already backlogged (1.3 million cases) Immigration Court. That will be the direct result of poor jurisprudence by the BIA, lousy court administration by EOIR, and horrible policy decisions by DHS.
Just another prime example of how “haste makes waste” enforcement gimmicks continue to cause unnecessary chaos in the system. Why not just appoint progressive experts as Immigration Judges and BIA Appellate Judges. Qualified jurists who will understand immigration law, due process, and “get in right” in the first instance? Certainly seems like a reasonable approach. What is Judge Garland waiting for?
This, in turn should add to the already loud cries (from virtually everywhere outside Judge Garland’s universe and the restrictionist right) for sensible, readily available backlog reductions and accelerated movement toward better judges and independence in the Immigration Courts, not to mention better management in the DHS enforcement programs.
Here’s my favorite quote from Justice Gorsuch’s majority opinion:
In the end, though, all this speculation is beside the point. The dissent tries to predict how the government will react to a ruling that requires it to follow the law and then pro- ceeds to assess the resulting “costs” and “benefits.” Post, at 17, 20–21. But that kind of raw consequentialist calcula- tion plays no role in our decision. Instead, when it comes to the policy arguments championed by the parties and the dissent alike, our points are simple: As usual, there are (at least) two sides to the policy questions before us; a rational Congress could reach the policy judgment the statutory text suggests it did; and no amount of policy-talk can overcome a plain statutory command. Our only job today is to give the law’s terms their ordinary meaning and, in that small way, ensure the federal government does not exceed its statutory license. Interpreting the phrase “a notice to ap-pear” to require a single notice—rather than 2 or 20 docu- ments—does just that.
*
At one level, today’s dispute may seem semantic, focused on a single word, a small one at that. But words are how the law constrains power. In this case, the law’s terms en- sure that, when the federal government seeks a procedural advantage against an individual, it will at least supply him with a single and reasonably comprehensive statement of the nature of the proceedings against him. If men must turn square corners when they deal with the government, it cannot be too much to expect the government to turn square corners when it deals with them.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Cir- cuit is
Reversed.
Hon. Jeffrey S. Chase Jeffrey S. Chase Blog Coordinator & Chief Spokesperson, Round Table of Former Immigration Judges
And, here’s some “immediate commentary” by Round Table spokesperson “Sir Jeffrey” Chase:
Victory!This was the case in which our Round Table amicus brief was specifically referenced in oral argument.
Knightess of the Round Table
Congrats to all involves, and Due Process Forever!
U.S. Supreme Court justices on Monday appeared reluctant to let people who have been allowed to stay in the United States on humanitarian grounds apply to become permanent residents if they entered the country illegally.
The justices heard arguments in an appeal by a married couple from El Salvador who were granted so-called Temporary Protected Status of a lower court ruling that barred their applications for permanent residency, also known as a green card, because of their unlawful entry.
The case could affect thousands of immigrants, many of whom have lived in the United States for years. President Joe Biden’s administration opposes the immigrants in the case. The dispute puts Biden, who has sought to reverse many of his Republican predecessor Donald Trump’s hardline immigration policies, at odds with immigration advocacy groups and some of his fellow Democrats. read more
A federal law called the Immigration and Nationality Act generally requires that people seeking to become permanent residents have been “inspected and admitted” into the United States. At issue in the case is whether a grant of Temporary Protected Status, which gives the recipient “lawful status,” satisfies those requirements.
. . . .
Liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor told Justice Department lawyer Michael Huston, “If you’re asking us to find the better reading of the statute, we should go by its terms: Those people have been admitted.”
. . . .
*****************
Read the full article at the link.
Garland helps Biden deliver “tough noogies, go pound sand, your lives don’t matter” message to immigrants like Jose and Sonia and their supporters who might have had the illusion that better times were on the horizon with Biden’s election! Progressives find that when push comes to shove, Biden & Garland can be just as cruel, dumb, and counterproductive as Trump & Miller!
Any hope that advocates might have had of help, sympathy, or understanding for their green-card-qualified clients with decades of residence and citizen family members goes down the tubes early in Dem Administration. Biden-Harris humane rhetoric and promises prove just another illusion for progressives in Administration’s first High Court test!
But for Justice Sotomayor, the thinness of the Justices’ understanding of both immigration law and the human issues involved was alarming, yet basically predictable. What do a bunch of highly privileged, above the fray, judges who have never personally dealt with the stupidity, arbitrariness, and trauma of our immigration system, and never represented clients in Immigration Court, care about shutting hard working American residents, people of color, like Jose and Sonia, out of our system and disenfranchising them for no particular reason. The worst, most racially discriminatory “interpretations” are “available” to those judges, so why not use them? For them, it’s a wooden academic exercise played out with human lives that don’t matter because they are “the other.” Except for Sotomayor, going for the best, most practical, humane interpretation evidently never crossed the minds of these Justices.
As Justice Sotomayor correctly said: “If you’re asking us to find the better reading of the statute, we should go by its terms: Those people have been admitted.”
It’s not rocket science. Just common sense, humanity, and a clear understanding of the effect of legal interpretations on human lives. At the Supreme Court level, most decisions represent a “choice” rather than a “mandate.” That’s where having Justices who neither care to understand nor have to live with the consequences of their decisions really hurts people of color, immigrants, asylum seekers, and others not in the “power structure!” Better judges for a better America!
Meanwhile, advocates and progressives should never underestimate the ability of Dem Administrations to screw up immigration policy.
The panel held that substantial evidence did not support the immigration judge’s determination that Alvarado- Herrera failed to establish a reasonable fear of torture with the consent or acquiescence of a public official, given Alvarado-Herrera’s specific assertions of police complicity in the 18th Street gang’s violent acts. Noting that the asylum officer refused to credit Alvarado-Herrera’s assertions, which were based in part on media reports and common knowledge among Hondurans that it is well known that the police work for the gangs, that the police are allied with the 18th Street gang in particular, and that the police not only allow gang members to harm others but also provide information to gang members to help them find and kill people, the panel wrote that it was unclear what additional evidence the asylum officer expected Alvarado-Herrera to produce at that stage of the proceedings. The panel observed that non-citizens in reinstatement proceedings who express a fear of returning to their home country typically appear for a reasonable fear interview within a short time of their
ALVARADO-HERRERA V. GARLAND 5
apprehension by immigration authorities, and that many, like Alvarado-Herrera, are being held in detention facilities and do not have legal representation. The panel wrote that, as a result, they cannot realistically be expected to produce for the asylum officer’s review the kind of detailed country conditions evidence that would be introduced during a merits hearing before an immigration judge. The panel wrote that such a demand would be inconsistent with the purpose of a reasonable fear interview, which is simply to screen out frivolous claims for relief in as expeditious a manner as possible, and if a non-citizen provides an otherwise credible account concerning his fear of torture, his own statements can supply adequate support for claims about country conditions, at least for purposes of satisfying the ten percent threshold necessary to pass a reasonable fear screening interview. The panel remanded with instructions for the agency to provide Alvarado-Herrera a hearing before an immigration judge only as to the merits of his claim for protection under CAT.
2) 10th Cir. Says IJ Muffed Analysis Of Mexican CAT Claim!
“Maria Torres de Lopez, a native and citizen of Mexico, appeals the denial of her application for deferral of removal under the United Nations Convention Against Torture (CAT). Exercising jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a), we grant the petition for review and remand for further proceedings. … [W]e are compelled to conclude it is more likely than not that El Tigre [of the Sinaloa Cartel] would be aware if Torres de Lopez is removed to Mexico, and that El Tigre and his direct associates would have both sufficient motivation and ability to locate Torres de Lopez anywhere in Mexico. But the evidence does not compel the conclusion that the Juárez or Sinaloa cartels have a sufficient institutional motivation to locate Torres de Lopez anywhere in Mexico. And the questions that remain are ones the IJ did not reach—if El Tigre or his direct associates found Torres de Lopez in Mexico, would they inflict any harm on her, would that harm be severe enough to constitute torture for CAT purposes, and would Mexican public officials instigate, consent to, or acquiesce in such harm? We may not answer those questions in the first instance and remand them to the IJ for initial consideration. … All this brings us to the fourth and fifth steps in the IJ’s framework—if El Tigre or his direct associates find Torres de Lopez, will they harm her and, if so, will the harm amount to torture? … [W]e must remand to the agency to conduct the inquiry into the fourth and fifth steps in the first instance. … We grant the petition for review and remand to the agency for further proceedings consistent with our decision.”
[Hats off to Stephen W. Spurgin!]
**********************
Sadly, “reasonable adjudicator” wouldn’t encompass many of those currently serving in Garland’s holdover corps of Immigration Judges and his “Millerized & Trumpitized”BIA. In particular, the horrible job done by, and the bias against due process for those seeking CAT protection shown by, Attorneys General and the BIA over the past three Administrations is absolutely disgraceful.
Yet, it continues, unabated, today under Judge Garland! It’s basically “Jim Crow Justice” dressed up in a Sunday suit. One could almost imagine a picture of Chief Justice Roger Taney hanging in the BIA’s conference room.
Roger Taney PHOTO: Matthew Brady Public Realm Discredited CJ remains a hero to many Miller/Hamilton/Sessions holdovers at Garland’s DOJ because of his aggressive “Dred Scottification” of the other! One of Stephen Miller’s soul mates, this dude’s life was defined by his unyielding belief that all men aren’t created equal and that only powerful White Guys have a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness! And, that women don’t even exist before the law!
The obvious lack of competence in a “judiciary” regularly attempting to send individuals back to possible torture in violation of due process and the statute should prompt decisive corrective action from those in charge of this dysfunctional system. But, to date, it hasn’t!
Instead, what have Biden, Garland, & Mayorkas done? Continued the illegal practice of returning asylum seekers and others to possible death or torture without any process at all. Then, they have the gall to send their “flackies” out to claim that the “victims” are the “problem” for exercising their legal rights to seek protection, at a time that apparently is “politically inconvenient” for the Biden politicos to offer a system that provides that legally-required protection.
Looks pretty “Stephen Millerish” to me, not to mention “Catch 22!” How dare you cross our border seeking due process and turn yourself in to the Border Patrol when can go to a legal port of entry, present yourself, and be immediately sent back to death with no process at all! Don’t you understand how American “justice” works? Go back to your own countries from where you were forced to flee where, if you live long enough, you can’t apply under our non-existent overseas refugee system. Is that perfectly clear?
The Presidential election was over on Saturday, Nov. 7, 2020! Biden and Harris campaigned on a platform of immigration and human rights reforms that included ending the many illegal, inhumane, and counterproductive policies of Trump/Miller, restoring the rule of law, and re-establishing honesty and human dignity in immigration, asylum, and refugee processing.
Yet, in the 10 weeks between the conclusion of the election and the inauguration, “Team Biden” and those who were under serious consideration for leadership positions in the thoroughly broken and dysfunctional immigration bureaucracy came up with no viable plans to “hit the ground running” with the necessary dramatic, yet achievable, changes. That’s something that I submit hundreds of “practical experts” — all of them in the Democratic camp — could have achieved had they been tapped.
It certainly was no mystery that the border and the mess at DHS, EOIR, OIL, and the SG’s Office would have to be addressed immediately — “day one or day two stuff!” Nor, would it take any deep thinking to recognize that immigration would be the overarching issue connecting social justice, racial justice, economic recovery, court reform, foreign affairs, the environment, and public health.
Nor would it have taken much awareness to recognize that the GOP, who didn’t even bother advancing a platform or constructive ideas during the campaign, would make and “rev up” appeals to hate, fear, racism, White Nationalism, myths, fabrications, distortions, and outright lies about “security threats” (actually threats to “white culture and power”) posed by desperate individuals, many of color, merely seeking legal refuge and fair consideration under our legal system. So, getting the legal asylum and refugee systems functioning again should have been a top priority — simultaneous with COVID relief!
Additionally, there were dozens of smart journalists out there who were “on top” of the Miller/Trump White Nationalist nonsense, and had figured out how to cut through the BS and obfuscation to explain what the law and common sense requires, in understandable terms. Thus, the Biden team even had a “golden opportunity” to put together a group of “immigration/human rights/rule of law flackies” who could both educate insiders and in public run circles around the likes of Fox News, right wing radio, and magamoron White Nationalist nativists like Cruz, Cotton, Hawley, and McCarthy. All it would have taken is competence and courage — two qualities often in short supply in Dem Administrations when immigration, human rights, and due process are at stake.
Yet, nearly three months into the Administration, and a full five months after the election was decided, the Administration’s approach to this key issue can best, and most charitably, be described as “Amateur Night at the Bijou.”
During five months since the election, the Biden Administration has quickly moved to set up a chain of nationwide “recruiting centers” for the their Immigration Courts, immigration bureaucracy, refugee administration, human rights PR groups, and liaison with Hill Dems. Results have been astounding! PHOTO: Thomas Hawk Creative Commons
Most seriously, the Immigration Court and the rule of law remain in shambles — with Judge Garland failing to take the necessary elementary steps to reverse the Trump/Miller DOJ’s misogynist, racially driven assault on the rule of law for asylum seekers of color. This sends an ugly shockwave of failure throughout the Biden-Harris agenda and continues to de-stabilize an already shaky American justice system.
It also “pisses off” the Administration’s would-be friends and supporters while energizing its most vociferous enemies! Additionally, it demoralizes and disrespects those remaining at EOIR, many who have struggled though the last four years trying to hold some portions of the fort while waiting for salvation, potential allies — already on the in side — who will be necessary for the “reclamation project.”
Some have even taken the desperate step of anonymously reaching out to Courtside for help in raising consciousness about the astounding level of injustice, incompetence, and anti-immigration culture that Judge Garland is countenancing at EOIR. They just can’t wrap their heads around it!
As they have pointed out, Sessions, who once (in the distant past, before overt racism came part of the GOP platform) was deemed unfit by his own party for a Federal Judgeship because of his racist record, and his hench-people “hit the ground running” with their White Nationalist misogynistic agenda at EOIR. This was an agenda basically drafted by nativist groups. They moved rapidly and with purpose to remove, force out, disempower, isolate, and/or marginalize anyone at EOIR thought to harbor the heretical belief that asylum seekers, migrants, women of color, and their lawyers were humans or possessed any rights whatsoever. They obliterated any “best practices” — they few things that actually were working at EOIR. They also filled every vacant position with nativist toadies and hacks, packed the Immigration Courts and BIA with more “judges,” even as they were more than doubling the already huge backlog with their “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” and endless due-process- killing, yet fundamentally ineffective, enforcement nobly gimmicks.
Sessions even proudly announced his war on refugee women of color and their lawyers at am “EOIR training session” for “his judges,” drawing stunned silence from many, but also cheers from some “magamoron judges” in the audience. Somehow, over the years, indolent Article III Judges overlooked the obvious lack of ethics in Sessions’s performance as well as the crystal clear lack of Matthews v. Eldridgefundamental due process in a farcical “court” system. A “court parody” where the racist head prosecutor, who also asserted himself as the de facto head of DHS enforcement, urged “his judges” on to inflict ever more rapid and unlawful acts of desecration, dehumanization, and capricious treatment upon those they were supposed to be judging fairly and humanely.
Some of the “survivors” within EOIR expected Judge Garland, once a highly respected Court of Appeals Judge, former Supreme Court nominee, veteran of the DOJ in better times, and relatively recent descendent of immigrants, to put a quick end to the unconstitutional nonsense at EOIR, cast out the “Miller/Hamilton perps,” their many EOIR toadies, and the “go along to get alongs” who had created this disgraceful and dysfunctional mess at what was once supposed to be a “bastion of due process.” They expected Garland to bring in a team of respected “immigration/human rights/due process pros” and to elevate those in the system who had stood tall against the abuses of due process and humanity over the past four years.
Alas, those survivors quickly discovered that Garland is largely oblivious to the ongoing clown show at EOIR, the continuing human carnage it causes on a daily basis, the squandered potential to boost due process and racial justice in America, and the rapid erosion of his support and his image among those who courageously and often successfully fought the “Miller neo-Nazi plan” to dismantle the American justice system.
Vainly, they wait for Garland’s recognition of the heroic role of the National Association of Immigration Judges (“NAIJ”) in maintaining some vestiges of justice and professional training at EOIR and, most important, in publicly exposing, including to Congress, the ongoing fraud, waste and abuse of public trust carried out by the Trump/Miller kakistocracy at EOIR. They are distraught by Garland’s inexplicable failure to condemn “Billy the Bigot’s” totally outrageous actions in frivolously moving to “decertify” the NAIJ as punishment for their exposing his many illegal activities and abuses of honest government at EOIR.
They are absolutely incredulous that a “100 page study,” conducted by those having no real expertise in the Immigraton Court, would be viewed as a substitute for the immediate removal and replacement of dysfunctional personnel and a strong public commentment to root out injustice, racism, and misogyny, reject and repudiate bogus precedents, institute aggressive due process reforms, and promote true quasi-judicial independence at EOIR.
They are particularly puzzled by Garland’s permitting the conducting of idiotic clown shows — misnamed “Town Halls” — throughout the country further insulting and inflaming the long-suffering stakeholders and advertising EOIR’s continuing failure to run like a court and respect the input, expertise, and legitimate needs of those same “stakeholders.” They are baffled when there are so many great “due process role models” out there who could and should be sending the exact opposite message — that “the clown show is over” and the pros are now in charge of restoring justice and sanity @ EOIR!
They can’t fathom how anyone, let alone a former Article III Judge, could believe that judicial dockets across America can be micromanaged by non-judicial bureaucrats in Falls Church and DC who have never successfully managed a docket in their lives, know little about the harsh realities of today’s dysfunctional Immigration “Courts,” and who operate in blissful studied ignorance of the many localized factors that go into successful docket management at all other functioning court systems in America.
And, although it might be below Judge Garland’s “radar screen,” human lives are actually being destroyed and human suffering multiplied while he and his “spear carriers” diddle over how to fix EOIR! To quote some of the Hill Dems yesterday, “This is stupid!”
(Duh, who outside the Biden camp would have failed to predict that yesterday’s idiotic “two-step” on the refugee cap would go over worse than a lead balloon? The Biden immigration “advisors” might think that refugee lives don’t matter, but many Dems living in the real world and on the Hill don’t see it that way!)
Garland has also failed to place competent judicial leadership in charge of EOIR and the BIA and to make it clear that institutional disdain for due process, best practices, and human dignity will no longer be the ”order of the day” in America’s largest, and perhaps most important, Federal Court System. A rather atrocious start for an Administration struggling to put the Trump-Miller scofflaw White Nationalist agenda behind them!
Just how does one “pull that off” with a bunch of Miller cronies, and Sessions/Barr nativist judges (many incompetent to fairly apply and interpret basic asylum, immigration, and due process laws) still dominating the scene in America’s most dysfunctional and dehumanizing “judiciary.” While Judge Garland might have forgotten this during his “above the fray” tenure in the “judicial ivory tower,” leadership, priorities, and symbolism are really important in government! Right now, they are all headed 100 mph in the wrong direction at the DOJ — for no obvious reason!
Garland, supposedly the “people’s” chief lawyer, has also failed to push Mayorkas and the White House for a restoration of the legal asylum system at the border! In 100 days, Mayorkas and Garland could have supplemented the Asylum Officer corps with retirees and private sector refugee/asylum experts and gotten them down to the border to do honest, efficient credible fear screening. Obviously, reopening timely legal screening at legal ports of entry would reduce the incentives for crossing the border elsewhere.
They also could have energized human rights and pro bono NGOs to represent those “screened in.” Garland could have gotten both sitting and retired Immigration Judges with strong records of granting asylum (check TRAC, it’s all set out in plain view) working on these cases, while clearing the dockets of hundreds of thousands of backlogged cases going nowhere in any event. See Greg Chen & Professor Peter Moskowitz.
Garland could have appointed competent Appellate (or even “Appellatte”) Immigration Judges at the BIA (acting, if necessary until final selections can be made) to issue positive precedents on asylum, CAT, withholding, cancellation of removal, adjustment of status, administrative closure, and docket management to stop the endless nonsense and idiotic, justice-killing, enforcement gimmicks and “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” imposed by the Trump/Miller crowd of malicious incompetents.
Secretary Mayorkas and Secretary Becerra could have invoked and energized the now largely dormant refugee resettlement apparatus in the private/NGO sectors to temporarily resettle arriving children and families in a humane, orderly and efficient manner.
Yesterday’s stunning“unforced error” on refugee processing is just the latest example that Biden’s advisors don’t “get” immigration and need to be replaced with experts; experts who understand the fundamentals, believe in the generous, humane, restore the rule of law platform he and Harris ran on, and can explain it in clear, compelling terms. The “right folks” are “out there” — that’s the problem, “out there” instead of inside solving problems and moving the train in the right direction.
It’s not rocket science:
Immigration is good. 98% of Americans are immigrants or descended from immigrants. That immigration has produced some scoundrels, insurrectionists, liars, and ingrates like the Trumps, Cruzes, Cottons, McCarthys, Taylor-Greenes, Millers, Kobachs, etc., of our world doesn’t change that overall equation;
Refugees and asylees (refugees granted status at our border or in the US when our legal system is functioning — it isn’t now) are essential components of legal immigration;
We need and must have significantly more legal immigration, particularly if we want to maintain a robust economy and a dynamic, innovative society, in light of population losses from the pandemic and low birth rates;
Applying the Refugee Act of 1980 in a fair, generous, humane manner that furthers due process of law isn’t “an option” for debate or a matter for more “studies” — there are more than enough of the latter our there anyway. The problem is that the folks who did them and can solve the problems remain on the outside rather than running EOIR! It’s a legal and moral imperative! Garland’s function isn’t coming up with more failed, illegal gimmicks to avoid granting asylum or aid misguided law enforcement, make a few cosmetic changes to appease advocates, or engage in more boneheaded “revolution by evolution” (see Obama Administration) approaches at EOIR! It’s getting our legal asylum system functioning again at EOIR and also at USCIS in a robust, competent manner with real, independent, expert judges and professional judicial administrations who can do the job;
That also means publicly and virtuously standing up for the legal and Constitutional rights of the most vulnerable among us — per MLK Jr. — and having the guts and presence to “take it to” magamorons like Miller, Cruz, Cotton, McCarthy, and other GOP White Nationalist hate mongers who are destroying our nation and poisoning the well of our democracy with their xenophobic myths and “solutions” that actally are “crimes against humanity!” When in power, those folks had no problem publicly advancing and even touting their racist lies and ethnic slurs, as they continue to do! Why is Garland “swallowing the whistle” on rooting out and condemning institutionalized racism, misogyny, dehumanization of the other, incompetence, and scofflaw behavior @ EOIR?
Obviously, those advisors who told Biden to release the “Miller-level” refugee cap yesterday believed in neither the Biden election platform nor the positives of robust legal immigration. They also lacked the knowledge and self-confidence to “sell” an honest, realistic, humane human rights and immigration agenda that is the key to our national future. They also were woefully ignorant about and totally “misplayed” the strong political and public support for refugees and the critical role that immigration and human rights advocates play within the Democratic Party.
Currently, the inability of the Biden Administration to bring competence, positivity, the rule of law, and creative thinking to their immigration/human rights program is weighing down and “sucking much of their air” from the many things they are getting right.
It’s past time to end “Amateur Night at the Bijou” and bring in the pros. Before it’s too late!
🇺🇸⚖️🗽🧑🏽⚖️Due Process Forever! Judge Garland, End the Disgraceful EOIR Clown Show, Now🤡🦹🏿♂️🏴☠️!
6) No, they can’t. Casey would be right home with the gang at EOIR HQ and also @ “Main ‘Justice.’”
If you got 100%, congratulations, you have won the “Amateur Night at the Bijou” competition. Although that makes you over-qualified to become an “Appellatte Immigration Judge” you will receive a free Starbucks coupon redeemable for a latte of your choice, to be issued only tomorrow!
WASHINGTON – Jose Sanchez and Sonia Gonzalez have lived in the United States legally for two decades under a program that lets immigrants from nations enduring natural disasters and armed conflict temporarily avoid returning to their native countries.
But when the New Jersey couple applied for green cards – which would let them remain permanently – they were denied because they initially entered the country illegally.
The Salvadorans sued in 2015 and the Supreme Court will hear their appeal Monday in a case that has drawn little attention in Washington even as it has raised significant questions about the Biden administration’s approach to immigration – not to mention the status of hundreds of thousands of immigrants living in a state of limbo.
. . . .
“Look, this is a no brainer,” said Paul Wickham Schmidt, a Georgetown University law professor and former immigration judge. “Why waste time on it? The administration has indicated they’d like to regularize many [TPS beneficiaries] and…instead they’re defending a gimmick cooked up by Stephen Miller,” Trump’s onetime policy adviser.
. . . .
“Integrate them into our society rather than leaving them in permanent limbo – in theory, that’s what the Biden administration says it wants to do,” said Schmidt, the former immigration judge. “Only here’s their first chance to make it happen and they don’t connect the dots.”
****************
Read John’s complete article at the above link.
Yeah, I know this brain-dead position originated in the Obama Administration. I’d never accuse the Obama Administration of overall having a wise, informed, or consistent approach to immigration. But, the “precedents” at issue here were issued under Trump. SeeMatter of H-G-G-, 27 I. & N. Dec. 617 (AAO 2019); Matter of Padilla Rodriguez, 28 I. & N. Dec. 164 (BIA 2020).
Any time you see folks like Ira Mehlman @ FAIR or Christopher Hajec @ Immigration Reform Law Institute endorsing a position you can bet that there is a link to the cruel, White Nationalist policies of Stephen Miller and his cronies in the Trump Administration. If you had any doubt that the position being taken by the Garland DOJ was stupid policy, Mehlman’s and Hajec’s endorsements, and the organizations they represent, should resolve them.
Ignoring your potential friends and supporters; embracing the “racist right.” Interesting way to get started on what was promised to be a “smarter, kinder, more humane” approach to immigration policy. Can anyone really tell me what Judge Garland is doing over @ DOJ? The once highly regarded jurist who testified before Congress and was only a Mitch McConnell away from a seat on the Supremes seems to have all but disappeared into a bureaucratic fog of incompetence, bad lawyering, and missed opportunities @ the DOJ!
Look, after four years of senselessly, wastefully, and disgracefully trying to dump on long-time, contributing members of our society in TPS, like Jose & Sonia, the Trump Administration (thankfully for America) never removed any of them. The idea that the Biden Administration will do so is absurd.
So these folks are here for the duration. With Congress in deadlock, the most practical, legal, readily available way of getting tens of thousands of hard-working residents like Jose and Sonia fully integrated into our society and on their way to citizenship is simply by following the clear statutory language as other Circuit Courts have done. These are individuals who actually have met all the criteria of our legal immigration system! Most now have families with U.S. citizens. Why on earth would we want to keep those we should welcome in limbo? It’s cruel, counterproductive, and stupid!
For a much more scholarly and nuanced approach to DOJ’s wrong-headed handling of this case, check out this article in Just Security by my friend, renowned immigration expert, former senior executive in the Clinton and Obama Administrations (we actually met while working on the Refugee Act of 1980 in the Carter Administration — back when we were young), emeritus Professor David A. Martin:
I also note with pleasure that counsel of record for Jose and Sonia is Jamie W. Aparisi, who appeared before many times at the Arlington Immigration Court.
All this being said, the Supremes still mightpreserve this couple’s future and save the Garland DOJ from themselves. In past cases, faced with clear statutory language, the Supremes have required the Government to do something radically sensible:follow the law!See, e.g., Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S.Ct. 2105 (2018) (notice to appear).
So, who knows? Justice (not to be confused with the Department of “Justice”) as well as common sense and human decency could again prevail!
TIJUANA—In the weeks after Joe Biden’s inauguration, migrants across the city of Tijuana began to leave the various shelters and apartments where they’d been living in favor of an open-air encampment just north of the city’s center. It’s not a cheerful place; people have little to eat and there’s no running water. But it has a crucial location: It’s right next to the El Chaparral Port of Entry, the nearest legal crossing into the United States. Anticipating that the doors to the U.S. might soon open, they set up at the very foot of the country’s entrance.
In February, Rosemeri, an asylum seeker from El Salvador, says she pitched a tarp next to just two others. By early March, it had grown into a shantytown of more than 1,000 people, and today as many as 2,000 migrants — most of them families with children — brave the elements each day and night. Together, the makeshift community decided on a name for the tent city: La Esperanza, The Hope.
Rosemeri, like most people in the camp, is not a new arrival to Tijuana. She left her home in El Salvador in 2019, fleeing threats against her life from the gang that controls her neighborhood. Her plan was to request asylum in the U.S. But by the time she arrived at the southern border last April, a month into the Covid pandemic, it had been closed indefinitely to asylum seekers by a Trump administration public health order. Since then, she and tens of thousands of others have had no choice but to wait in northern Mexico, shuffling from shelter to shelter for months, hoping for a change in policy.
“We are Salvadorans, Hondurans, Haitians, Cubans, Mexicans, Nicaraguans,” she told me of the residents of La Esperanza. “We are here, all of us, waiting.”
The early months of Biden’s administration have been shadowed by a major increase in immigration, with border agents encountering more than 100,000 people attempting to cross unauthorized in February and more than 170,000 in March, a 15-year high. Critics on the right blame the president’s welcoming rhetoric, saying that after Donald Trump’s hard-line tack toward the border, it’s no wonder migrants are rushing in under supposedly softer leadership. But migrants themselves have a very different view: The issue isn’t Biden extending a hand; it’s that he hasn’t figured out what he wants to do — and has kept the legal pathway closed in the meantime.
Despite promising a new approach, Biden has left the effective asylum ban in place, with few exceptions. Realizing they have no prospect for legal entry into the U.S. anytime soon, many migrants like the ones here, stuck in Tijuana without a safe home to return to, are making the painful decision to try to cross the border outside the proper channels.
“We want to do this the right way,” insists Rosemeri.
The problem for people like her is that there is currently no “right way.” The Biden administration says this is all a work in progress. “We’re in the middle of a global pandemic, and it’s going to take time to rebuild robust asylum processing infrastructure at our borders,” an administration spokesperson told me in an interview last month. The White House did not respond to specific questions for this story.
Republicans in Washington have been saying Biden is too lenient, but people on the ground in Mexico suggest the root of the recent rise in unauthorized border crossings is actually the president’s prolonged maintenance of the most restrictive of his predecessor’s policies: the near-complete cutting off of asylum, a form of legal immigration.
. . . .
********************
Read Jack’s much longer full article at the link. It’s one of the few accurate, insightful pieces of reporting I’ve seen on the “overhyped yet generally mis-understood” human catastrophe at continuing to unfold at our southern border.
The problem starts, but by no means ends, with Judge Garland’s mind-boggling failure to grasp and take steps to end the deadly clown show @ EOIR! You can’t re-establish the rule of law and enforce the Constitution with inept holdover bureaucrats and unqualified Trump-Miller appellate judges in charge of the critical “retail level” of the American justice system!
Get some real, expert judges, competent judicial administrators, and fearless legal leadership, dedicated to human rights, fundamental fairness, and due process for all, into key positions @ EOIR before this system gets any further out of control, creates additional disorder throughout our legal system, and destroys more human lives!
The folks who can start fixing this are out there. Some of them (sitting Immigration Judges like Judge Dana Leigh Marks, Judge Amiena Khan, Judge Noel Brennan, Judge, Janette Allen, Judge Dorothy Harbeck, Judge Mimi Tsankov, and others) are even on the payroll outside the DC area. Many others in the private sector should already have been vetted and on the job solving problems, at least on a temporary basis!
(Let’s start, but not end, “Project Restore Due Process & Asylum Integrity,” with, say, Dean Kevin Johnson, Associate Dean Jaya Ramji-Nogales, Professor Karen Musalo, Michelle Mendez, Professor Ingrid Eagly, Marielena Hincappie, Lauren Wyatt, Professor Phil Schrag, Professor Andy Schoenholtz, Heidi Altman, Professor Debbie Anker, Judge (Ret.) Ilyce Shugall, Judge (Ret.) Rebecca Jamil, Professor Michele Pistone, Claudia Valenzuela, Claudia Cubas, Professor Jill Family, Professor Raquel Aldana, Professor Mary Holper, Liz Gibson, Greg Chen, Professor Peter Moskowitz, Laura Lynch, Dree Collopy, Professor David Baluarte, Professor Maureen Sweeney, Professor Lenni Benson, Eleanor Acer, Adina Appelbaum, Professor Elora Mukherjee, Professor Erin Barbato, Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, Jason “The Asylumist” Dzubow, Professor Alberto Benitez, Professor Paulina Vera, Professor Cori Alonso Yoder, Professor Kari Hong, Professor Denise Gilman, Tess Hellgren, Simon Sandoval-Moshenberg, Professor Laurie Ball Cooper, Associate Dean Jayesh Rashod, Ben Winograd, Associate Dean David Baluarte, and work from there! All of them are head, shoulders, knees, and toes above the current EOIR senior management and Appellate Judges on the BIA.)
Recently, I made these points in speaking to a group of retired lawyers who had no prior background in immigration law. At the end, one of them said: “The fix you described doesn’t sound that difficult. Why hasn’t it happened?” BINGO!
It’s not rocket science! But apparently “above the pay grade” for “Team Biden!”That’s a shame for American justice, any international leadership capability we might still have on this issue, and, most of all, for the vulnerable human beings that Biden, Mayorkas, and Garland have left “twisting in the wind.”
The Biden/Garland Image of Legal Asylum Seekers & Their Supporters” “Twisted by the Wind” By Ron Strathdee
I can assure the Biden folks that continuing the Trump/Miller policies and leaving their “plants and toadies” in place won’t win a single GOP vote — on anything! Truth, facts, the law, and human decency play no role in today’s GOP. You could shoot everyone dead at the border (as opposed to sending them back to Mexico and the Northern Triangle to die) and magamorons like Cruz, Hawley, and Cotton will still claim that you have an “open borders policy.”
However, your lack of positive action on asylum and refugee issues will continue to anger and betray your own supporters and mobilize them to oppose your “tone-deaf” and ineffectual policies, in court, in the media, and in politics. Doesn’t sound like a smart move to me!
Here’s the real irony. Liberal House Dems have invested in a DOA legislative effort (already “shot down” by Speaker Pelosi) to expand the Supremes. Meanwhile, over at the DOJ,Judge Garland is squandering his chance to completely rebuild and refocus the nearly 600 strong (now totally dysfunctional) Immigration Judiciary into something really special (in a good, rather than an evil, way).
That happens to be the most powerful and readily achievable way of creating a progressive, due process oriented, intellectually dominant, expert “model judiciary” that will remake the “retail level” of American justice, save human lives, advance correct practical, sensible applications of the law and the Constitution that will actually save lives, teach “best practices,” promote racial justice, and change the face of American justice for the better.
Better judges for a better America! It starts with the foundational “retail level” of our justice system — the Immigration Courts. Unlike packing the Supremes, it’s realistically achievable with courageous focused leadership (not the current failed group and indifferent leadership from Judge Garland.)
“Personnel is policy” — big time! Too bad for all of us that Judge Garland doesn’t seem to “get it.”
In that, his “grasp of the obvious” seems to be several levels below that of Trump, Miller, the Federalist Society, the Heritage Foundation, and Mitch McConnell. Think what you might, that gang has run circles around Dem politicos for years. Jeff “Gonzo Apocalypto” Sessions and Billy Barr “got” the importance of expanding the BIA and the Immigration Judiciary and “packing” them with many unqualified anti-asylum restrictionists who would do their bidding in undermining and destroying American justice and “Dred Scottifying” the “other,” particularly those of color, with a solid dose of mind-numbing misogyny thrown in.
To date, (with a few exceptions, like removing former Director James McHenry) Garland has failed to remove or transfer these unqualified jurists (and incompetent administrators) and start bringing in better ones, even though he has the available tools to have commenced by now. Indeed, several Miller cronies are still wandering around the Falls Church Tower in key positions, while other members of the Trump Administration’s “Asylum Denial Club” continue to crank out nativist injustice at the BIA. A number are notorious for their overtly hostile attitudes toward female asylum seekers of color and their attorneys. Yet, asylum seekers and their lawyers continue to suffer unjust and unprofessional treatment at EOIR while their abusers continue unabated in Garland’s name!
Aggressively “removing the deadwood” also sends strong messages throughout the system that the “dehumanize, deny, and deport culture” ingrained and actively encouraged at EOIR over the past four year is over!
Meanwhile, over at the broken SG’s Office, Garland is getting ready to defend one of the stupidest, most legally inane, and insanely counterproductive from a policy standpoint positions in recent memory (and that’s saying something given the performance of the Trump SG) in Sanchez v. Mayorkas . The Garland DOJ is actually committing “unforced error” by defending a clearly wrong interpretation of the TPS statute that will unnecessarily screw long-time law-abiding TPS holders, many of them spouses of U.S. citizens, who could otherwise qualify for legal immigration under current law. Shafting the VERY INDIVIDUALS the Biden Administration pledged to help and keeping them in “eternal legal limbo” while unnecessarily outraging their lawyers and potential allies. What sense does that make? If “Team Garland” can’t recognize and pick the “low hanging fruit” in the battle to restore legality and sanity to our immigration system, it’s going to be a long four years.
Professor David Martin, one of the top minds in American law, in any field, and a “vet” of past Dem Administrations, laid out the possible solutions in a crystal clear manner in Just Security. But, apparently when you’re caught up in running “Amateur Night at the Bijou” you can’t be bothered to listen to the experts who have “been there before” and learned from their experiences!
Judge Garland is recruiting folks for his SG’s Office who will continue to make the same wrong-headed arguments on immigration cases that the past two Administrations did. No Immigration or human rights expertise necessary. Check your common sense and humanity at the door. PHOTO: Thomas Hawk Creative Commons
This could be our “last clear chance” to save American democracy! Right now, it’s going to waste! That’s something that should outrage and motivate all of us who believe that “due process for all persons” means exactly what it says!
Is this Judge Merrick Garland’s Vision Of Justice For Refugee Women @ EOIR? If not, what’s he doing about it? Amazing StoriesArtist Unknown, Public domain, via Wikimedia CommonsJamie Gorelick American Lawyer & Public Servant PHOTO: Creative CommonsLayli Miller-Muro Founder & Executive Director, Tahirih Justice Center PHOTO: Creative Commons
Jamie Gorelick is a partner at Wilmer Hale. Layli Miller-Muro is founder and CEO of the Tahirih Justice Center, a nonprofit that serves immigrant survivors of gender-based violence. Both were involved in Fauziya Kassindja’s asylum case in 1996: Gorelick was deputy attorney general during the Clinton administration and Miller-Muro was Kassindja’s student legal counsel, representing her in immigration court and at the Board of Immigration Appeals.
With the issue of migration in the news again, a glaring omission in U.S. asylum law should get more attention: The statute does not name gender as a possible ground for protection.
To be granted asylum in the United States, an applicant must be facing persecution by their government or someone that government cannot or will not control. The applicant must show that the persecution is on account of race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership in “a particular social group.” Persecution on account of gender is not included.
This makes sense when considering that the global treaty that obliges state parties to protect refugees was adopted 70 years ago, in 1951, when the legal rights of women were barely recognized. The treaty — called the Refugee Convention — says that countries have an obligation to protect those who have no choice but to flee or risk death in the face of injustice.
It is unsurprising that the needs of women facing persecution were not considered in 1951. It is also not surprising — though it is disappointing — that Congress wrote this outdated framework into the Refugee Act of 1980.
In the mid-1990s, some light was shined on this problem. Fauziya Kassindja, a 17-year-old from Togo, sought protection both from forced polygamous marriage to a much older man and from female genital mutilation. She was granted asylum after proving that she was a member of a “particular social group” — and thus covered by the Refugee Act. We were both involved in this case, which helped to crack open the door for women to argue that gender-based asylum claims should be granted under the “particular social group” category in the statute.
But progress for women has been slow and painful under a statute that does not explicitly recognize gender-based persecution. It took 14 years for the United States to grant asylum to a Guatemalan woman, Rodi Alvarado, who endured unspeakable brutalization by her husband, a former soldier. Regulations proffered by then-Attorney General Janet Reno in 2000 to protect women under the social-group category were never finalized, leaving women in the lurch. So much variance exists in the likelihood of success from court to court that filing a claim can feel like playing Russian roulette.
. . . .
This situation has been made much worse in recent years. Under Attorney General Jeff Sessions, decades of progress were nearly wiped out by the stroke of a pen. Because the highest immigration court is part of the Justice Department, he was able to single-handedly reverse key legal precedents favorable to women’s claims and issue guidance to judges limiting gender-based asylum. As a result of these changes, the safety of many immigrant women hangs by a thread. The Refugee Act urgently needs to be changed to clearly protect women who would otherwise meet the stringent requirements for asylum.
. . . .
***************************
Read the full op-ed at the link.
The Rest of the Story
I wrote the decision granting asylum in Matter of Kasinga, 21 I&N Dec. 357 (BIA 1996). Jamie Gorelick was the Deputy Attorney General during part of my tenure (1995-2001) as Chair of the BIA. Layli Miller-Muro worked for me as a BIA Attorney-Advisor for a time.
Following Kasinga, some of my colleagues and I put our careers on the line to vindicate the statutory, constitutional, and human rights of refugee women who suffered egregious persecution in the form of domestic violence. One of those cases was Rodi Alvarado (a/k/a “Ms. R-A-“), where we dissented from our majority colleagues’ misguided denial of protection to her following grotesque, clearly gender-based persecution. Matter of R-A-, 22 I&N Dec. 906, 928 (BIA 1999) (Guendelsberger,Board Member, dissenting with Schmidt, Chair, Villageliu, Rosenberg, and Moscato, Board Members). Alvarado had properly been granted asylum by an Immigration Judge, building on Kasinga, before being unjustly stripped of protection by the majority of our colleagues.
The incorrect decision in R-A- was vacated by Attorney General Reno. Finally, after a 14-year struggle, Ms. Alvarado was granted asylum in an unpublished, unappealed decision based largely on the rationale of the dissenters. In the meantime, the “gang of four” dissenters (minus Moscato) had been exiled from the BIA by Attorney General John Ashcroft, assisted by his sidekick, Kris Kobach (the infamous “Ashcroft Purge” @ the BIA).
In 2014, in Matter of A-R-C-G-, 26 I&N Dec. 388 (BIA 2014), the BIA finally recognized domestic violence based on gender as a form of persecution. They did so without acknowledging the pioneering work of the R-A- dissenters 15 years earlier. By this time, domestic violence as a basis for asylum had become so well established that it wasn’t even contested by the DHS (although, curiously, the case was remanded by the BIA for additional findings on issues that were beyond reasonable dispute)!
In the meantime, at the Arlington Immigration Court, my colleagues and I had consistently granted domestic violence asylum cases based on a DHS policy position known as the “Martin Memo,” after former INS General Counsel and later DHS Deputy General Counsel Professor David Martin (who, incidentally, argued the Kasinga case before the BIA in 1996 — famous gender-based asylum expert Professor Karen Musalo argued for Kasinga). Most of those grants were unappealed by DHS. Indeed, many were so compelling and well documented that DHS joined Respondents’ counsel in moving for asylum grants following brief testimony. These cases actually became staples on my “short docket,” promoting efficiency, fairness, and becoming one of the few “working parts” of the Immigration Courts.
Tahirih Justice Center, founded by, Layli Miller-Muro, was counsel in some of these cases and served as an essential resource and inspiration for attorneys preparing domestic violence cases. It also functioned as a training center for some of the “new all-stars” of the New Due Process Army. For a time, the progress in recognizing, documenting, and vindicating the rights and humanity of female asylum seekers, at least in the Arlington Immigration Court, was one of the few shining examples of the courts, DHS, and the private/NGO bar working cooperatively to improve the quality and efficiency of justice in Immigration Court. It should have been a model for all other courts!
Sadly, in 2018, Attorney General Jeff “Gonzo Apocalypto” Sessions, unilaterally intervened and undid two decades of progress for women refugees of color with his grossly incorrect and disingenuous decision in Matter of A-B-, 27 I&N Dec. 316 (BIA 2018), overruling Matter of A-R-C-G- on completely specious grounds while intentionally misconstruing the facts of record. Significantly, Sessions’s intervention was over the objection of DHS, which had expressed continuing agreement with the A-R-C-G- framework for deciding domestic violence cases.
“Hanging by a thread,” as stated by the op-ed, unfortunately vastly understates the war on the legal rights and humanity of asylum-seeking women, particularly targeting women at color, being carried out at EOIR today. This effort is led by a BIA that has long since lost its way, basically “weaponizing” the legal distortions and vicious, openly misogynist dicta set forth by Sessions in Matter of A-B- to dehumanize, degrade, and deport vulnerable refugee women.
In numerous cases, the BIA actually intervenes at ICE’s request to reverse proper grants by courageous and scholarly Immigration Judges below. It’s all about churning out final orders of removal as a deterrent –a vile, disgusting, perverted “philosophy” advanced by Sessions, Barr, and Whitaker, and not yet effectively rejected by Judge Garland.
Judge Merrick B. Garland Official White House Photo Public Realm
Judge Garland is in the job because he is not only an experienced DOJ senior executive, but a long-serving Federal Judge who was admired for his sense of justice. It shouldn’t take an army of “spear-carriers” and subordinates for a true leader of Judge Garland’s experience to seize control of the situation and start getting the “ship of justice” sailing in the right direction. Judge Garland’s political and bureaucratic travails are of no moment to, and pale in comparison with, the additional, unconscionable abuse and “Dred Scottification” being heaped on refugee women and their courageous representatives by his dysfunctional and unconstitutional “star chamber courts.”
“Refugee women get ‘special treatment’ in accordance with the ‘traditional values’ applied to their cases in Judge Garland’s Immigration Courts!”
Woman Being “Tried By Ordeal” 17th Century Woodcut Public Realm Source: Ancient Origins Website https://www.ancient-origins.net/history/trial-ordeal-life-or-death-method-judgement-004160Woman Being “Tried By Ordeal” 17th Century Woodcut Public Realm Source: Ancient Origins Website https://www.ancient-origins.net/history/trial-ordeal-life-or-death-method-judgement-004160
Please, Pick Up The Phone & Your Pen, Judge Garland!
Not rocket science, Judge Garland! All it takes is six calls and a signature to start ending misogyny at EOIR and achieving racial justice in the America.
First three calls: Call Judge Dana Marks (SF), Judge Noel Brennan (NYC), Judge Amiena Khan (Newark) and tell them that they are detailed to the positions of Acting EOIR Director, Acting BIA Chair, and Acting Chief Immigration Judge, respectively. (The first position is vacant and the other two positions are filled by Senior Executives subject to transfer at the AG’s discretion. The current Acting Director already has an SES position to which she could return, or she could be re-installed as the
EOIR General Counsel, a job for which she is well-qualified.)
Fourth call: Call the the head of of the Justice Management Division (JMD). Ask her/him to find suitable DOJ placements for the two current incumbents mentioned above and all current members of the BIA (all of whom are either SES or “Management Officials” subject to transfer at the AG’s discretion) in other DOJ positions at the same pay level where they can do no further damage to our justice system. Ask him/her to arrange for the temporary appointment of former DOJ employees Jamie Gorelick and Layli Miller-Muro as Acting Appellate Judges at the BIA.
Calls five and six: Call Jamie Gorelick and Layli Miller-Muro. Thank them, tell them you agree with their Post op-ed, and ask (or beg) them to come to DOJ on a temporary basis to help Judges Marks, Brennan, and Khan solve the current problems with asylum adjudications and take the necessary actions to get EOIR functioning as a legitimate, independent, due-process-oriented court system. In other words, turn their cogent op-ed into a “real life action plan” for restoring due process, humanity, and common sense to the Immigration Courts, with a focus on the now totally unprofessional, wrong-headed mis-adjudication of asylum cases.
Finally, sign this order:
All precedent decisions issued to EOIR by former Attorneys General Sessions and Barr, and former Acting Attorneys General Whitaker and Wilkinson, and all their pending actions certifying cases to themselves are hereby vacated. All cases shall be returned to the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) for reconsideration. In the reconsideration process, the BIA shall, among other things, honor the letter and spirit of these binding precedents:
INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421 (1987)
Matter of Mogharrabi, 19 I&N Dec. 439 (BIA 1987)
Matter of Kasinga, 21 I&N Dec. 357 (BIA 1996)
In the reconsideration process the BIA shall also be guided by the principle of “through teamwork, innovation, and best practices, become the world’s best tribunals, guaranteeing fairness and due process for all.”
See, it’s not that complicated. By the end of this year, women will get the protection to which they legally are entitled from the Immigration Courts. We all will see dramatic changes that will lead the way toward “equal justice for all’” in America and become a blueprint for the Immigration Courts to fulfill the above-stated principle.
It would also be a far better legacy for Judge Garland to be viewed as the “father of the fair, independent, expert Immigration Courts,” than to be remembered as running the most dysfunctional, unfair, and misogynistic court system in America, his current path. And, as an extra added bonus, Judge Garland, you will have a great start on building a premier source of “battle tested,” due-process-oriented, progressive jurists for future Article III appointments!
It’s a “win-win-win” that you no longer can afford to ignore, Your Honor!
GW Law Immigration Clinic Director Professor Alberto Benítez & Co-Director Paulina Vera
***********************
Thanks to Professors Benitezand Vera for the great work for the NDPA that they are doing and the values they are instilling in their students. Just think what due process could look like in the Immigration Courts if all judges, trial and appellate, reflected those same values!
The concepts are actually very straightforward.
The Attorney General is a litigant before the Immigration Court. He or she can insert themselves in the process if they choose, to represent the Government as a litigant. But, the Attorney General should be treated as any other litigant — at arm’s length.
Individuals appearing before the Immigration Court are entitled to a fair and impartial independent adjudicator. As long as the Attorney General exercises control over the selection of judges, evaluates their performance, and can review and arbitrarily change their decisions, on his or her own whim, the system will remain unconstitutional and fundamentally unfair.
Interesting that law students see so clearly, recognize, and can articulate what Federal Judges, all the way up to the Supremes, legislators, and our Attorney General all fail to acknowledge and act upon. Hope for the future! But without better-qualified legislators, judges, and Executive Branch officials, will our justice system survive long enough to get to the future? Not without some very fundamental changes!
Every day, individuals have their constitutional, statutory, and human rights stomped upon, mocked, and abused by the broken Immigration Courts. Sometimes, Circuit Courts intervene to provide some semblance of justice in individual cases; other times they turn a blind eye to injustice and fundamentally unfair decision-making in the totally dysfunctional Immgration Courts.
But, nobody, but nobody, except members of the NDPA appears to be willing to recognize and act on the overall glaring constitutional and operational defects in the current Immigration “Courts” — that don’t resemble “courts” at all. That’s something that should concern and outrage every American committed to racial justice, equal justice for all, fundamental fairness, and constitutional due process!
EOIR and the U.S. Immigration Courts are an ongoing national disgrace — a festering sore upon democracy!🤮 Every day, they inflict unnecessary pain and suffering on those humans being abused by their fundamental unfairness and institutionalized chaos.!
How many ruined human lives ⚰️ and futures ☠️is it going to take for someone in the “power structure” to wake up and take notice!
