"The Voice of the New Due Process Army" ————– Musings on Events in U.S. Immigration Court, Immigration Law, Sports, Music, Politics, and Other Random Topics by Retired United States Immigration Judge (Arlington, Virginia) and former Chairman of the Board of Immigration Appeals Paul Wickham Schmidt and Dr. Alicia Triche, expert brief writer, practical scholar, emeritus Editor-in-Chief of The Green Card (FBA), and 2022 Federal Bar Association Immigration Section Lawyer of the Year. She is a/k/a “Delta Ondine,” a blues-based alt-rock singer-songwriter, who performs regularly in Memphis, where she hosts her own Blues Brunch series, and will soon be recording her first full, professional album. Stay tuned! 🎶 To see our complete professional bios, just click on the link below.
GW Law Immigration Clinic Director Professor Alberto Benítez & Co-Director Professor Paulina Vera
Friends,
My colleague Paulina Vera and I report our 2023 recap and we wish everyone a safe, prosperous, and happy 2024:
Hearings in Immigration Court: 5
Lives saved with grants of asylum: 9
Green cards obtained: 5
New U.S. citizens: 1
Oral arguments before the 4th Circuit: 1
Petitions for writ of certiorari filed at the US Supreme Court: 1
Countries represented: 13
In the spring our student-attorneys and interns wrote a comment to a federal regulation relating to asylum and hosted a public forum at the law school in which they described their comment and in the fall they organized a period products collection and distribution.
“Sir Jeffrey” tells us how to use “the law as a sword” to defend against the BIA’s anti-asylum precedent in M-R-M-S-. Don’t let yourself and your clients be “shredded and trampled” by BIA panels wielding deadly, hyper-technical, counterintuitive, overly restrictive asylum precedents designed to promote and support “any reason to deny!” Albrecht Dürer, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
In 2017, while Matter of L-E-A-1 was pending before the BIA, I attended an immigration law conference at which Professor Jon Bauer posed the following “thought experiment”:
A Nazi official threatens to kill all the Jews in a town unless a Jewish criminal, who has committed several robberies and murders and is suspected to be hiding in the area, is turned over to the authorities or turns himself in.
Is this persecution on account of religion?
The answer is obviously yes. Those in the town find themselves at risk of persecution on account of their religion. It would seem impossible for anyone possessing knowledge of our asylum laws (or just plain common sense) not to understand this.
However, with its decision in Matter of M-R-M-S-,2 the Board of Immigration Appeals has managed to create a test for nexus that would lead to the opposite conclusion.
One reaction to this decision would have involved explaining that the Board’s illogical holding was reached not by error but by design, in furtherance of a restrictionist agenda; asking why the current administration hasn’t changed the makeup of a BIA specifically constructed to do exactly that; bemoaning the fact that regulations that are more than two years overdue could have prevented this; and suggesting that the correct course of action for the Attorney General to take at this point would be to vacate this decision in anticipation of said forthcoming rulemaking.
But such talk would be of no practical help. What those representing asylum applicants and those in government deciding those claims need now is a path to negotiate this latest obstacle and still reach the correct result. I hope that some of what follows will prove helpful, and that it will encourage further thought and conversation on this topic.
Legal Strategies in light of M-R-M-S-
Distinguish your case based on the facts
In M-R-M-S-, the Board chose for its precedent a case surprisingly devoid of facts. The entire factual summary consists of three sentences. A criminal cartel forced the respondents off of their land “because the cartel wanted the land for its own purpose. The cartel killed the lead respondent’s grandson for unknown reasons, although the respondents believe it was related to the cartel’s efforts to obtain their land. The cartel also forced other families off of land in the same area.”
This summary makes no mention of how family membership might have been a factor; it only says the cartel wanted the land for its own unstated purpose. It can be argued that the decision simply establishes that cases asserting mixed motives need to present more than one motive.
Instead, the Board leaped to a much broader and more damaging conclusion that wasn’t even suggested by the above facts, namely, that targeting members of a family for purposes of achieving another non-protected ground renders the family membership “incidental or subordinate,” and thus lacking the nexus required for asylum or withholding of removal protection.
Tip: Distinguish your facts from those in M-R-M-S-.
Emphasize how family or another protected ground played a significant role in the applicant being targeted for persecution. Note that merely mentioning that other family members were also harmed does not in itself establish a nexus on account of family membership.
Tip: Employ the Board’s test in Matter of S-P- when applicable.
In Matter of S-P-,3, the BIA looked at when government prosecution might actually be persecution on account of political opinion. And one of the warning signs it mentioned occurs when the punishment is clearly out of proportion to the conduct in question. So under S-P-’s test, if someone charged with jaywalking is detained at length and beaten by the police, the reasonable conclusion is that the punishment wasn’t actually about the jaywalking.
One can transpose this approach to the particular social group consisting of family by arguing that the same logic applies to gang punishment for failing to pay extortion. Particularly where the amount being sought by the gang or cartel isn’t that much, when the response to the failure to pay is to threaten to severely harm or kill a family member of the target of extortion, a reasonable conclusion under S-P- would be that this isn’t simply about the money. A gang or cartel can seek a financial goal, but at the same time can develop an animosity against a family resistant to its demands.
Moving on, the use of the word “subordinate” in the Board’s most recent holding is of interest, for the following reasons.
The fall and rise of the Board’s “subordination” criteria for nexus
In its first attempt to define the “one central reason” language adopted by Congress in 2005, the BIA in Matter of J-B-N- & S-M-4 recognized in the last paragraph of page 212 of that decision that the standard did not require a central reason to be “dominant” in relation to other reasons for persecution. In fact, in a footnote, the Board further explained: “The problem in classifying one motive as “dominant” or “central” is that it renders all other motives, regardless of their significance to the case, secondary and therefore ultimately irrelevant.”
Yet two pages after rejecting a hierarchical approach to nexus, the Board defined the new standard as a reason that “cannot be incidental, tangential, superficial, or subordinate to another reason for harm.”
The problem with the inclusion of the word “subordinate” is obvious. It means that once an adjudicator finds a reason they consider to be the dominant one, their inquiry is over, and, as the Board itself warned, all other motives become irrelevant.
The Third Circuit, in Ndayshimiye v. Attorney General of U.S.5 rejected the Board’s standard for precisely this reason: its use of the word “subordinate” was found by the court to be no different from the “dominance” test that the Board purported to reject. To quote the Third Circuit:
This plain language indicates that a persecutor may have more than one central motivation for his or her actions; whether one of those central reasons is more or less important than another is irrelevant. The BIA acknowledged this in refusing to define a central reason within the meaning of § 208 as a “dominant” motivation. Id. at 212. The same logic forbids an interpretation that would impose a mirror image of the rejected “dominance” test: the requirement that a protected ground, even if a “central” reason for persecution, not be subordinate to any other reason.
Interestingly, following this rejection of its standard, the BIA reacted by dropping the word “subordinate” from its stated legal standard. For example, in a subsequent (2011) precedent, Matter of N-M-, 6 the Board cited its earlier decision in J-B-N & S-M-, but made no mention of that case’s incidental/tangential/superficial/subordinate language at all. Rather, the Board said:
In cases arising under the REAL ID Act, the “protected ground cannot play a minor role in the alien’s past mistreatment or fears of future mistreatment.” Matter of J-B-N- & S-M-, 24 I&N Dec. at 214. Instead, a [noncitizen] must demonstrate that the persecutor would not have harmed the applicant if the protected trait did not exist.7
The italicized sentence states a “but for” causation standard which we will discuss further below. In fact, it seems to be an identical standard to that employed by the Fourth Circuit, whose approach the Board criticized in M-R-M-S-.
Years later, in the aforementioned Matter of L-E-A- (decided in 2017), the Board amended its earlier language in J-B-N- & S-N- as follows:
The protected trait, in this case membership in the respondent’s father’s family, “cannot play a minor role”—that is, “it cannot be incidental [or] tangential . . . to another reason for harm.”8
Notice how an ellipsis is used to drop the word “subordinate” from the definition. So the Board seemed to understand for quite some time that the legal standard it enunciated could not include a dominance test (although it would then proceed to apply a dominance test in practice, as numerous circuit court reversals have demonstrated)
But now, without explaining the reason for its sudden reversal, the Board has in M-R-M-S- reverted to its original flawed standard. Here’s the quote:
A protected ground that is “incidental, tangential, superficial, or subordinate to another reason for harm” does not satisfy this standard. Matter of J-B-N- & S-M-, 24 I&N Dec. at 214. 9
Furthermore, the Board chose to reassert its dominance requirement in a case in which the facts mention only one reason, and a vague one at that – that “the cartel wanted the land for its own purpose.” A dominance test is meaningless where there is only one reason asserted for the persecution.
But what if the revived dominance test were to be applied to Prof. Bauer’s hypothetical? Presumably, the Board would find the dominant reason for the threatened persecution to be the Nazi authorities’ desire to bring a criminal to justice. The targeting of the suspect’s coreligionists as a means to achieve that primary objective would, under the Board’s test, become “subordinate” to that goal, and would thus render the murdering of the town’s Jews “irrelevant.” Applying the Board’s “logic,” religion would not be one central reason for the murders.
As the above example demonstrates, the Board’s test will lead to truly absurd results. It is therefore not surprising that the Board’s standard is at odds with the approach of most circuits.
The reinstituted dominance test conflicts with most circuit case law
Tip: Argue the inapplicability of M-R-M-S- where it conflicts with prevailing circuit law.
While not exhaustive, the following selection of circuit court case law should provide a basis for arguing that the Board’s standard for determining nexus is inapplicable in many courts located within the jurisdiction of those circuits
Third Circuit
It should certainly be argued in cases arising within the jurisdiction of the Third Circuit that the new decision’s reiteration of the exact legal standard that was rejected in Ndayshimiye (as discussed above) means that M-R-M-S- cannot be followed. The BIA actually recognized the conflict in footnote 6 of its decision, stating:
Although the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit generally agrees with the Board’s interpretation of the “one central reason” standard, it has rejected the requirement that a protected ground not be subordinate to another reason for harm. See Ndayshimiye v. Att’y Gen. of U.S., 557 F.3d 124, 130–31 (3d Cir. 2009).
The Board thus seemed to acknowledge by way of this footnote the inapplicability of its decision in the Third Circuit.
Fourth Circuit
The BIA in M-R-M-S- does not contest that its requirement for nexus is at odds with the long-established “but for” standard employed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
In Hernandez-Avalos v. Lynch,10 the Fourth Circuit explained that even though a gang threatened the petitioner for the purpose of recruiting her son, the applicant was nevertheless targeted “on account of” her family ties because her “relationship to her son is why she, and not another person, was threatened….” The court has repeated the “why she, and not another person” test in other decisions.11
The Fourth Circuit has more recently pointed to an oft-repeated error of the Board in “incorrectly focusing on why the gang targeted Petitioner’s family, rather than on why they targeted Petitioner herself.”12 In another published decision, the Fourth Circuit stated that “‘once the right question is asked’ — that is, why was Petitioner being targeted — the conclusion is quite clear: ‘whatever [the gang]’s motives for targeting [her] family, [Petitioner herself] was targeted because of [her] membership in that family.’”13
The fact that the Board in M-R-M-S- states that it prefers the approach of the Tenth Circuit, which “does not agree with the Fourth Circuit’s approach,”14 does not change the fact that the standard enunciated in the above-captioned Fourth Circuit decisions remains the standard for nexus applicable in Immigration Courts and Asylum Offices located within that circuit’s jurisdiction.
Cases being heard remotely by an IJ located within the Fourth Circuit
A decision of the Fourth Circuit issued last year provides a strong argument for applying that court’s nexus standard in lieu of the M-R-M-S- approach in cases geographically outside of the circuit’s jurisdiction which are heard remotely by Immigration Judges sitting in Virginia, Maryland, or North Carolina.
In Herrera-Alcala v. Garland 15, the Fourth Circuit held that under a plain reading of the statute, jurisdiction is determined by the geographic location of the immigration judge at the time the judge completed the proceedings.
The BIA subsequently issued a conflicting precedential opinion, Matter of Garcia.16 But as the Fourth Circuit’s ruling in Herrera-Alcala was based on its clear reading of the statutory language, the lack of a finding of statutory ambiguity would preclude deference to the Board’s view under either Chevron or Brand X.
In cases in which the Immigration Judge is sitting within the Fourth Circuit while the respondent is appearing in an immigration court elsewhere, the argument should be made that Fourth Circuit case law should apply. Claims constructed using Fourth Circuit precedent should be presented below, as in case the claim is denied by the agency, the applicant will ultimately be able to seek review before the Fourth Circuit.
Cases arising under the jurisdiction of other circuits
Fifth Circuit
Outside of the obvious examples of the Third and Fourth Circuits, be highly aware of the case law of the prevailing circuit regarding nexus. Most circuits have rejected the Board’s approach to some degree. Furthermore, the BIA misrepresented the holdings in some of the circuit decisions it cited in M-R-M-S-, a point that should be brought to the attention of judges or asylum officers.
The Fifth Circuit provides us with an example. In M-R-M-S-, the BIA cited the Fifth Circuit’s decision in Guevara-Fabian v. Garland17 as an example of a court employing an analysis of nexus consistent with its own approach.18 However, the court in Guevara-Fabian simply found that there was substantial evidence that the petitioner was targeted “because she owned a profitable business,” and not due to her family membership. This is quite different from the Board’s holding that being targeted due to one’s family membership is insufficient to establish a nexus where such family-based targeting is used as a means to achieving another non-protected goal.
Furthermore, four days after the issuance of M-R-M-S-, the Fifth Circuit published its decision in Argueta-Hernandez v. Garland.19 The facts in that case did not involve a family-based particular social group, but in addressing the subject of nexus, the court’s opinion rejected the agency’s general approach of rejecting all but the dominant reason for persecution.
Specifically, the Fifth Circuit found that in concluding threats by MS-13 were motivated “by criminal intent, personal vendettas, or monetary gain, which do not establish the required nexus,” the BIA disregarded that the petitioner “needed only to present ‘some particularized connection between the feared persecution’ and the protected ground in which his application for relief relies.” The court then referenced an earlier decision in which it had rejected the Board’s employment of an “either-or” approach to nexus in a mixed motive case, and said that the Board had acted similarly here by suggesting that Argueta was targeted for economic reasons “instead” of for a protected ground.20
So in cases arising in the Fifth Circuit, it should be argued that Guevara-Fabian did not support the Board’s approach in M-R-M-S-, as it was distinguishable on its facts, and that the court’s subsequent rejection in Argueta-Hernandez of the type of dominance approach and “either-or” test employed in M-R-M-S- puts the Board’s view of nexus in conflict with circuit law.
Sixth Circuit
On December 8 (i.e. 7 days after the publication of M-R-M-S-), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit issued its decision in Sebastian-Sebastian v. Garland 21. In that case, the petitioner, who suffered domestic violence at the hands of her husband, and, following his death, at the hands of his mother, claimed persecution on account of particular social groups which included “Guatemalan Chuj [w]omen in domestic relationships who are unable to leave,” and “Guatemalan Chuj [w]omen who are viewed as property by virtue of their positions within a domestic relationship.” But the IJ found, and the Board affirmed, that the abuser acted based on a personal vendetta, and therefore found no nexus to a particular social group.
As the record contained ample evidence that “cultural expectations dictated that a Guatemalan Chuj woman in her position—both viewed as property and unable to leave by virtue of her domestic relationship—must stay with her in-laws and have nowhere else to go,” the Sixth Circuit determined there was “sufficient evidence for the BIA to conclude that Sebastian-Sebastian’s membership in these groups ‘underlay[s] all of [her persecutors’] actions.’”22 The court thus concluded that the Board’s failure to consider whether, in light of the above, the personal motives and particular social group membership were “inextricably intertwined” constituted reversible error.
The Sixth Circuit thus held (post-M-R-M-S-) that even where the primary reason for the persecution is a non-protected one (in this case, personal animosity), the fact that membership in a particular social group put and kept the asylum applicant in harm’s way is sufficient to render it sufficiently intertwined to satisfy the “one central reason” test. I believe a strong argument can be made that applying this approach to a family-based PSG would require a finding that even if the ultimate motive is extortion, if family membership is what put and kept the asylum applicant in harm’s way, there is sufficient nexus.
Seventh Circuit
In Gonzalez Ruano v. Barr,23 the Seventh Circuit explicitly rejected an approach essentially the same to that underlying the Board’s decision in M-R-M-S-. The petitioner suffered persecution by a criminal cartel whose leader viewed the petitioner’s wife as “property” that he sought to “possess.” The petitioner thus argued that his familial relationship to his wife was at least one central reason for his persecution.
On review, the Seventh Circuit specifically rejected the government’s argument that the persecution of the petitioner “was simply a ‘means to an end,’ making [the petitioner]’s relationship to his wife incidental.”24 The court found support in the Fourth Circuit’s decision in Hernandez-Avalos v. Lynch, adopting the Fourth Circuit’s test under which a nexus exists because the petitioner’s “relationship to his wife was the reason he, and not someone else, was targeted.”25
As the Seventh Circuit is in accord with the Fourth Circuit’s test that specifically rejects the Board’s approach to nexus (a conflict readily admitted by the Board in M-R-M-S-), the Board’s nexus standard is necessarily inapplicable in cases in which Seventh Circuit case law applies. It should be emphasized that the Fourth Circuit’s decision in Hernandez-Avalos which the Seventh Circuit positively cites is the specific decision mentioned by the Board in M-R-M-S- as an example of how the Fourth Circuit’s approach differs from its own.26
Eleventh Circuit
The Eleventh Circuit in Perez-Sanchez v. U.S. Att’y Gen.27 also applied a “but for” approach to nexus in a case involving family, determining that the persecutor’s monetary motivation did not render the petitioner’s family membership merely incidental where a criminal cartel targeted the petitioner because his father-in-law owed the cartel money. This is the exact scenario the Board rejected in M-R-M-S-, in which a family member is targeted as a means to a monetary end.
However, exactly as the Fourth Circuit had done in Hernandez-Avalos, the Eleventh Circuit stated that “In Mr. Perez-Sanchez’s case, it is impossible to disentangle his relationship to his father-in-law from the Gulf Cartel’s pecuniary motives: they are two sides of the same coin.” The court concluded that “the family relationship was one central reason, if not the central reason, for the harm.”28
Thus, the M-R-M-S- standard is at odds with Eleventh Circuit case law as well.
Ninth and Second Circuits
The approach of these two circuits relates to the “but-for” standard. The Ninth Circuit applies a “but-for cause” test in determining nexus. As that court recently noted, to satisfy that standard, an asylum applicant “must first show that ‘the persecutor would not have harmed [her] if such motive did not exist,’… that is, but-for cause, see But-for Cause, Black’s Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019) (“The cause without which the event could not have occurred.”).29
Interestingly, in M-R-M-S-, the BIA quoted this but-for cause language from Parussimova without mentioning that the standard was in conflict with its own.30
It should therefore be argued in cases arising in the Ninth Circuit that applying that court’s “but-for cause” test would lead to a quite different result than the standard enunciated in M-R-M-S-.
The Second Circuit’s standard is less clear, but the court seems to view the “one central reason” requirement an even lower bar for establishing nexus than a but-for cause test. In Quituizaca v. Garland,31 the court noted the need to predict future persecution in withholding of removal claims, as opposed to other areas of law that employ a but-for causation test to past actions only. The court noted that where an adverse action has already occurred, there is an implication that “whatever evidence to establish but-for causation or refute it exists too.”
By contrast, the court noted that because of the predictive nature of future persecution in withholding claims, “[a] but-for standard in this context would seemingly require the applicant have insight into the motivations of the hypothetical future persecutor that sufficiently removes any doubt that the persecutor would be motivated by anything else,” adding that “[a]t a minimum, the proof that can be marshalled to rectify past conduct appears to us distinct from that which would be needed to establish a persecutor’s potential future conduct.”
While the Quituizaca decision is not even mentioned in M-R-M-S-, the Board does reference another Second Circuit case, Garcia-Aranda v. Garland,32 but essentially misrepresents that decision’s holding. In Garcia-Aranda, the facts established that although family members had also been harmed, the petitioners were targeted for persecution because of their own perceived wealth. Whether or not they were related to others who suffered harm would not change the outcome. Thus, in Garcia-Aranda, the court did not address, much less reject, the proposition that no nexus is established under a Hernandez-Avalos type of fact pattern.
A quick note regarding the Tenth Circuit
M-R-M-S- arose within the jurisdiction of the Tenth Circuit, and the Board lauded that court’s decision in Orellana-Recinos v. Garland33 as setting forth its preferred standard for nexus.34
It is worth noting that in Orellana-Recinos, “Petitioners did not challenge, or even cite, Matter of L-E-A- in their brief to this court. And at oral argument they cited it as authority. As previously noted, they dispute only the BIA’s factual findings in their case, not the legal framework it applied.”35
What about the standard applied in discrimination cases?
The Supreme Court recently addressed the question of nexus outside of the asylum context in Bostock v. Clayton County,36 a case involving employment discrimination under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The Court explained in Bostock that the statutory term in question, “because of,” carries the same legal meaning as “on account of,” (i.e. the standard used in asylum cases).
The Court continued that the standard requires a court to apply the “simple” and “traditional” “but-for” test. As the Court explained, “a but-for test directs us to change one thing at a time and see if the outcome changes. If it does, we have found a but-for cause.”37
The Court recognized that the “but-for” standard is a “sweeping” one, acknowledging that “[o]ften, events have multiple but-for causes.” The Court further observed that “[w]hen it comes to Title VII, the adoption of the traditional but-for causation standard means a defendant cannot avoid liability just by citing some other factor that contributed to its challenged employment decision.”38
This leads to the following question: if “on account of” is not a term specific to asylum, and if the Supreme Court has told us that there is a simple and traditional test for “on account of” that is none other than the “but-for” test being applied by several circuits as described above, can the BIA simply ignore this in creating its own definition for the term “on account of” applicable to asylum claims? M-R-M-S- makes no mention of Bostock. If the Board doesn’t believe that case to be applicable, why not explain its reasoning for reaching that conclusion?
Tip: There is thus an argument to be made in all jurisdictions that the Supreme Court’s standard in Bostock should be the prevailing one.
I have discussed Bostock and offered my views on its applicability to asylum in more detail here.
Emphasize other BIA precedents
Even in the absence of conflicting circuit or Supreme Court case law, an Immigration Judge or asylum officer is left to sort through the several BIA precedents mentioned above. Matter of S-P- (which has not been overruled) did not conclude that because an asylum applicant faced criminal prosecution, there was nothing further to consider. Instead, the Board in that case set forth a test requiring adjudicators to continue their inquiry, taking into account circumstantial evidence and applying common sense to see if another motive for the persecution might be inferred from the facts of record.
As noted above, Matter of N-M- set out a “but-for” standard that seems identical to the one employed by the Fourth Circuit. And even Matter of L-E-A- dropped the word “subordinate,” and thus the application of the dominance test, from its stated legal standard.
Tip: Note that these other BIA precedents remain binding as precedent.
These other cases should therefore be cited and explained, and the degree to which they conflict with M-R-M-S- should be emphasized. It can be argued that M-R-M-S-’s applicability should be limited to cases in which family members are merely mentioned in passing, without further elucidation from the record as to why family membership might have served as a reason for past or future persecution.
Conclusion
As the above hopefully demonstrates, there are plenty of bases to challenge the Board’s recent decision. In M-R-M-S-, the Board presented an approach to nexus that is at odds with the case law of the majority of circuits. The Board mischaracterized the holdings in a number of circuit court decisions, championed a decision of the Tenth Circuit in which the Board’s standard was conceded and thus not in dispute before that court, and completely ignored the Supreme Court’s analysis of the “on account of” standard without explaining why what the Court termed the traditional standard for nexus was distinguishable in the asylum context.
To reiterate, the proper thing for the Attorney General to do at this point is to certify the decision to himself, and vacate it pending anticipated rulemaking. In the meantime, it is hoped that some of the above points will receive serious consideration from asylum officers, Immigration Judges, ICE attorneys, and federal appellate courts.
Copyright Jeffrey S. Chase 2023. All rights reserved.
Notes:
27 I&N Dec. 40 (BIA 2017).
28 I&N Dec. 757 (BIA 2023).
21 I&N Dec. 486 (BIA 1996).
25 I&N Dec. 208 (BIA 2007).
557 F.3d 124, 129-30 (3rd Cir., 2009).
25 I&N Dec. 526 (BIA 2011).
Id. at 531 (emphasis added).
Matter of L-E-A-, supra at 44.
Matter of M-R-M-S-, supra at 759 (emphasis added).
784 F.3d 944, 950 (4th Cir. 2015).
See, e.g., Alvarez-Lagos v. Barr, 927 F.3d 236, 250 (4th Cir. 2019); Cruz v. Sessions, 853 F.3d 122, 129 (4th Cir. 2017).
Id., slip op. at 16-17 (citing Rivas-Martinez v. I.N.S., 997 F.2d 1143, 1145, 1147-48 (5th Cir. 1993) (remanding to BIA for consideration of mixed motives).
No. 23-3059 (6th Cir. Dec. 8, 2023).
Id., slip op. at 22 (quoting Al-Ghorbani v. Holder, 585 F.3d 980, 998 (6th Cir. 2009).
922 F.3d 346 (7th Cir. 2019).
Id. at 355-56.
Id. at 356.
See M-R-M-S-, supra at 761 (stating that the Tenth Circuit does not agree with the Fourth Circuit’s approach in Hernandez-Avalos, and adding its opinion that the Tenth Circuit’s is the proper approach).
M-R-M-S-, supra at 761 (stating “In our view, the Tenth Circuit’s approach is the proper way to analyze whether membership in a family-based particular social group is one central reason for harm.
Sign up with your email address to receive news and updates.
SIGN UP
We respect your privacy.
Jeffrey S. Chase is an immigration lawyer in New York City. Jeffrey is a former Immigration Judge and Senior Legal Advisor at the Board of Immigration Appeals.He is the founder of the Round Table of Former Immigration Judges, which was awarded AILA’s 2019 Advocacy Award.Jeffrey is also a past recipient of AILA’s Pro Bono Award.He sits on the Board of Directors of the Association of Deportation Defense Attorneys, and Central American Legal Assistance.
Reprinted by permission.
******************************
It’s very satisfying to see Jeffrey’s positive use of Matter of S-P-, a “Schmidt era” precedent in which I joined and which remains good law despite the current BIA’s often ignoring or misapplying it. It’s also a great example of the useful guidance flowing from “positive precedents” — those illustrating and promoting proper asylum grants — as opposed to the overwhelmingly negative tenor of today’s unduly restrictive BIA asylum precedents.
This approach is far more consistent with the Supreme Court’s generous guidance in INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca and the BIA’s own initial implementation of that standard in Matter of Mogharrabi, both of which are routinely ignored at EOIR today. (Indeed, if someone with the exact same facts as Mogharrabi applied today, it’s highly likely that the BIA would invent a host of bogus reasons to send him packing!)It’s also a much more practical approach that can actually “streamline” the granting of more “first instance” cases by the Asylum Office, greater consistency, and lessening the need for petitions for review and “Circuit specific” strategies.
While there is no “silver bullet” that will eliminate overnight a backlog built over years of neglect, active mismanagement, and poor performance at EOIR and DOJ, a new, functional, well-respected BIA of asylum expert judges unswervingly committed to due process, fundamental fairness, and best practices is an absolutely necessary first step toward regaining control over our asylum system without sacrificing the legal rights of asylum seekers. The system can’t start eliminating backlog until it ceases doing those things that build unnecessary backlog in the first place.
In the meantime, this example of “law you can use” from “Sir Jeffrey” promises to be the “gift that keeps on giving” during what is sure to be a difficult upcoming year for refugees, asylum seekers, migrants, and their dedicated attorneys and representatives!
Description Immigrants & Refugees Welcome – Banner on Facade – Pilsen – Chicago – Illinois – USA Date Taken on 18 February 2017, 10:55 Source Immigrants & Refugees Welcome – Banner on Facade – Pilsen – Chicago – Illinois – USA Author Adam Jones from Kelowna, BC, Canada Creative Commons License
Migrants are cut from the same cloth as the rest of us
One of the words I have not heard to describe migrants — but is a more accurate than the negative portrayals — is “families.”
By Letters to the Editor Nov 30, 2023, 5:11pm EST
With the holidays upon us, there will undoubtedly be plenty of work parties, shopping sprees with kids in tow and the ubiquitous family gatherings. The coming months will also challenge us to wear layers of clothes and wrap ourselves and our loved ones in blanket-like coats. I am fortunate to have plenty of gloves, scarves, coats and boots.
Others are less fortunate. The unfortunate ones include the “new arrivals,” most of whom have never experienced a Chicago winter. Since the migrants’ arrival, critics have taken to the airwaves offering their comments about the tents, buses, use of police stations, encroachment on city streets, and, what they believe is the destruction of the city’s social and economic fabric. Descriptions of migrants are also disconcerting: liars, troublemakers, thieves, wayward parents using their kids to manipulate the immigration system and outsiders trying to live off the municipal dough.
One of the words I have not heard but is a more accurate depiction of the new arrivals is families. The buses full of people reflect a multi-generational exit from countries steeped in turmoil and unrest: infants, children, parents, or other caretakers. Describing those who arrive as families could lead us to consider them fully human, more like us. Instead, we use words that create a chasm that places the migrants at an arm’s distance from us, society and our city.
Throughout the next month, love, joy, harmony and peace will be words we will likely hear daily in songs, written in holiday cards and celebrated in plays and movies that bring friends and families together. Some will celebrate the season by remembering the birth of a unique child. Warned to flee to ensure the safety of his wife and newborn child, the family patriarch left for other lands. Wouldn’t it be remarkable if we could see the face of this child in the faces of the children we see coming here? Perhaps we can take the first step by using words that remove the stigma and distance between us and the “new arrivals.” The words? Families, of course.
Esther Nieves, Wicker Park
********************
Yup, contrary to the absolute, hateful, BS from Trump, Johnson, and the rest of the MAGA right, and the disgraceful indifference of too many Dems, most migrants want: 1) security, 2) opportunity, and 3) a better future, particularly for family. That’s what I found over more than 13 years on the trial bench at the Immigration Court. Basically, what all of us want from life!
Migrants deserve fair, humane, dignified treatment from the U.S. and our legal system, regardless of whether they ultimately are able to meet the legal criteria to remain!
As predicted by experts from the “git go,” AG Merrick Garland’s indolent, half-baked approach to his most important responsibility — bringing justice and functionality to his Immigration Courts, has been a disastrous failure endangering our entire democracy! PHOTO: Thomas Hawk Creative Commons Amateur Night
Here’s the latest report from TRAC documenting how former Federal Judge Merrick Garland’s failure to fulfill his most important duty — reforming and fixing the U.S. Immigration Courts, has built backlog at record paces and undermined our democracy:
Here’s the “action plan” that’s been publicly available since July 2023 — “Rethinking The U.S. Immigration Court System” — yet largely, and disastrously ignored by Garland, his lieutenants, and the Biden Administration:
The U.S. immigration courts—and the nation’s immigration enforcement system they support—face
an unprecedented crisis. With a backlog of almost 2 million cases, it often takes years to decide cases. Moreover, the recent growth in the caseload is daunting. In fiscal year (FY) 2022, immigration courts received approximately 708,000 new cases, which is 160,000 more than in any previous year. Such numbers, coupled with the courts’ resource constraints and decision-making processes, ensure that the court system will continue to lose ground.
For asylum cases, which now make up 40 percent
of the caseload, the breakdown is even more dire. Noncitizens wait an average of four years for a hearing on their asylum claims to be scheduled,
and longer for a final decision. Those eligible for protection are thus deprived of receiving it in a timely manner, while those denied asylum are unlikely
to be returned to their countries of origin, having
established family and community ties in the United
States during the intervening years. The combination
of years-long backlogs and unlikely returns lies at the
heart of our broken asylum system. That brokenness contributes to the pull factors driving today’s migration to the U.S.-Mexico border, thereby undermining the integrity of the asylum and immigration adjudicative systems, and immigration enforcement overall.
Many of the factors contributing to the dramatic rise in the courts’ caseload have deep and wide-reaching roots, from long-standing operational challenges in administering the courts to new crises in the Americas that have intensified both humanitarian protection needs and other migration pressures. The scale of these twin challenges has made it more urgent than ever to address them together. In the aftermath of lifting the pandemic-era border expulsion policy known as Title 42 in May 2023, the Biden administration is implementing wide-ranging new border policies and strategies that establish incentives and disincentives linking how migrants enter the United States with their access to the asylum system. But timely, fair decisions are also central to the success of this new regime.
While many other studies have outlined wholesale changes in the immigration court system that only Congress can enact, such legislative action seems unlikely, at least in the near term. Thus, this report calls
for changes that can be made by the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), the agency within the Department of Justice (DOJ) that houses the immigration courts, as it is presently organized. Because the immigration courts are administrative bodies, the executive branch has considerable latitude in determining their policies and procedures. The changes laid out in this report hold great potential to improve the courts’ performance and, in turn, enhance the effectiveness of the U.S. immigration system more broadly.
Some steps in this direction are already being taken. The Biden administration has streamlined certain important policies and procedures at EOIR. Nonetheless, these courts and the Board of Immigration Appeals
2 million
cases in the backlog
About 650
immigration judges nationwide
Less than 500
cases completed per judge in most recent years
1
AT THE BREAKING POINT: RETHINKING THE U.S. IMMIGRATION COURT SYSTEM
(BIA), which reviews appeals from immigration court decisions, fall short of meeting the hallmarks of a well- functioning adjudicatory system: that decisions be accurate, efficiently made, consistent across both judges and jurisdictions, and accepted as fair by the public and the parties in the case.
Related issues of caseload quantity and decision quality have given rise to the difficulties EOIR is confronting. Under the Trump administration, the reopening of thousands of administratively closed cases and increased interior enforcement led to rising court caseloads. And since 2016, increased border crossings have accounted for growing numbers of new cases, many of them involving asylum claims.
Cases are also taking longer to complete. While pandemic-related restrictions played a role in this slowdown, case completion rates had in fact already been declining. In FY 2009, each immigration judge completed about 1,000 cases per year. By FY 2021, the completion rate had decreased to slightly more than 200 cases per year, even as the number of immigration judges grew. Thus, more judges alone are not the answer. Slow hiring, high turnover, and a lack of support staff have resulted in overwhelmed judges whose productivity has decreased as the backlog has grown.
Concerns about the quality of decision-making by immigration courts and the BIA have existed for decades. More than one in five immigration court decisions were appealed to the BIA in FY 2020, and appeals of BIA decisions have inundated the federal courts. Federal court opinions have pointed to errors of statutory interpretation and faulty reasoning when overturning decisions. Policy changes at
the BIA, ever-changing docket priorities from one
administration to the next, and some recent Supreme
Court directives have contributed to the diminished
adjudicative quality. Wide variances in case outcomes among immigration judges at the same court and across different courts around the country further point to quality concerns; for example, the rate at which individual immigration judges denied asylum claims ranged from 1 to 100 percent in FY 2017–22.
EOIR has increasingly turned to technology to manage its dockets, primarily through video-conferencing court proceedings. The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated its use of internet-based hearings. Four important, yet at times competing, considerations are central when evaluating how technology—and particularly video-conferencing tools—are used in immigration proceedings: efficiency, the impact of technical difficulties, security issues, and concerns about due process.
The U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) attorneys who prosecute removal cases also play an important role in the court system. Their use of prosecutorial discretion, along with judges’ docket management tools, help shape which cases flow through the system, and how.
Legal defense representation—or the lack of it—is a critical issue plaguing the immigration court system. Noncitizens in immigration proceedings, which are civil in nature, are not entitled to free legal counsel, as
The rate at which asylum claims are denied varies widely, from
1% with one judge to
100%
with another in FY 2017-22
2
AT THE BREAKING POINT: RETHINKING THE U.S. IMMIGRATION COURT SYSTEM
defendants in criminal proceedings are. But they can face life-changing, and sometimes life-threatening, circumstances when subject to an order of removal from the United States. Studies have repeatedly found that representation in immigration proceedings improves due process and fair outcomes for noncitizens. It also improves efficiency, as represented noncitizens move more quickly through immigration court. Lawyers, accredited representatives, immigration help desks, and legal orientation programs aid some noncitizens through this process. But many more move through complex proceedings pro se (i.e., unrepresented).
Federal funding for representation of noncitizens in removal proceedings is effectively barred. Public funding at the state and local levels has increased the availability of representation for some noncitizens. A large share of representation is provided by nonprofit legal services organizations and pro bono law firm resources. Nonetheless, representation is fragmented and insufficient, given the scale of need.
One element of this system that has seen notable signs of change in recent years has been how border management feeds into the courts’ caseload. The Biden administration began implementing a new
asylum processing rule at the southwest border in June 2022 that aims to ease the growing pressures on immigration courts.1 The rule authorizes asylum officers, who are part of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) in the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), to make the final decision in asylum cases instead of immigration judges. Asylum seekers whose claims are denied by an asylum officer can still appeal the decision, but on an expedited timeline. As such, the rule holds the potential to reduce the growth of the immigration court backlog and shorten adjudication times to months instead of years.
Since lifting the Title 42 expulsion policy, the Biden administration has paused implementation of the asylum rule due to competing demands for asylum officer resources. But returning to the rule, and strengthening EOIR’s functioning overall, will be important for managing the flow of cases into the immigration courts and the courts’ ability to keep pace with them. Doing so depends on the court system using technology better, more strategically exercising discretion in removal proceedings, and increasing access to legal representation so that courts deliver decisions that are both timely and fair.
This report’s analysis of the issues facing the nation’s immigration courts and its recommendations for addressing them reflect research and conversations with a diverse group of stakeholders—legal service providers, immigration lawyers and advocates, current and former immigration judges, BIA members and administrators, academics, and other experts who have administered, practiced before, and studied the immigration court system. The report urges EOIR and DHS, in its role as the agency whose decisions and referrals come before EOIR, to work together to:
Strengthen the immigration court system’s management and efficiency
► Schedule new cases on a “last-in, first-decided” basis. Such a reset to the system, which has proven successful in the past, could bring processing times on new cases down to months, rather than years.
1 This rule draws in part on proposals made in an earlier Migration Policy Institute (MPI) report: Doris Meissner, Faye Hipsman, and T. Alexander Aleinikoff, The U.S. Asylum System in Crisis: Charting a Way Forward (Washington, DC: MPI, 2018).
3
AT THE BREAKING POINT: RETHINKING THE U.S. IMMIGRATION COURT SYSTEM
Because this disadvantages cases that have already been waiting for a long time, it should be treated as a temporary, emergency measure alongside policy and procedural reforms that protect fairness and promote efficiency more broadly. Shifting resources back to adjudicating older cases, as timeliness is established with incoming cases, is essential for shrinking the growth and size of the backlog, which should be among the courts’ highest priorities.
► Terminate cases that do not meet the administration’s prosecutorial guidelines, which focus priorities on felons, security threats, and recent entrants. One approach to this would be to task ICE attorneys with triaging backlog cases to determine which could be fast-tracked for grants of relief or for removal. Such efforts would allow the courts and ICE attorneys to focus on more serious cases, especially those involving criminal charges.
► Centralize case referrals from DHS. Instead of the current practice of having all three DHS immigration agencies (ICE, USCIS, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection) refer cases separately to EOIR, ICE attorneys should initiate all cases. As de facto prosecutors, they are best positioned to determine the legal sufficiency and priority for moving cases the government has an interest in pursuing.
► Establish two tiers of immigration judges—magistrate and merits judges—modeled on existing state and federal court systems where judges and staff are assigned to different roles or dockets so that cases move through the adjudication system efficiently and expeditiously.
► Expand the use of specialized dockets or courts that handle cases involving specific groups of noncitizens or require certain subject matter expertise, such as juveniles, families, reviews of credible fear determinations, cancellation of removal, adjustment of status, and voluntary departure.Restart the asylum officer rule and provide the support needed to implement it
► Establish a dedicated docket for the asylum officer rule’s streamlined appeal proceedings. As the most far-reaching reform the Biden administration has introduced for strengthening management of the asylum and immigration court systems, implementing the rule effectively is key to reducing the pace of caseload growth in the court system and discouraging weak claims.
Upgrade how the courts use technology
► Ensure that technology is used to make immigration courts fairer for everyone involved, such as by holding hearings remotely when parties would be unable to attend an in-person hearing. Special attention should be paid to how the use of technology can affect detained noncitizens and vulnerable populations such as children.
Increase access to legal representation
► Establish a new unit within EOIR devoted to coordinating the agency’s efforts to expand representation. The unit should collaborate with nongovernmental stakeholders to make representation of detained noncitizens a priority and to allow partially accredited representatives— some of whom may be non-lawyers—to appear in immigration court for limited functions.
4
AT THE BREAKING POINT: RETHINKING THE U.S. IMMIGRATION COURT SYSTEM
► Develop new and innovative ways to scale up representation by coordinating with lawyers who take responsibility for specific aspects of cases or non-lawyers who are specially trained and supervised
to do so. Legal service providers should build a multi-stage, collaborative online system that enables representation by lawyers or non-lawyers in specific stages of a case for which they have the requisite expertise (e.g., filing forms, attending bond or master calendar hearings, or seeking relief ). This approach requires creating e-files for cases, with files moving from one representative or provider to another as cases progress, resulting in both expert representation at each stage and greater efficiency in moving cases forward overall.
► Encourage efforts by state and local governments to provide and/or increase funding to support representation, especially given current restrictions on federal funding of representation in most removal cases.
Despite efforts by successive administrations to bring
the immigration court system’s unwieldy caseload
under control and to improve the quality of its
decision-making, the courts remain mired in crisis.
And while many of the most pressing problems have
roots that stretch back decades, they have in recent
years reached a breaking point. The measures
proposed in this report hold the potential to reduce
case volumes, increase the pace of decision-making,
and improve the quality of adjudications. They would
also mitigate migration pull factors that result from
years-long waits for decisions. The deeply interconnected nature of the nation’s immigration court system and its immigration enforcement and asylum systems mean that such efforts to modernize and fully resource the courts are critical to the health of the U.S. immigration system overall.
The deeply interconnected nature of the nation’s immigration court system and its immigration enforcement
and asylum systems mean that such efforts to modernize and fully resource the courts are critical to the health of the U.S. immigration system overall.
BOX 1
About the Rethinking U.S. Immigration Policy Project
This report is part of a multiyear Migration Policy Institute (MPI) project, Rethinking U.S. Immigration Policy. At a time when U.S. immigration realities are changing rapidly, this initiative has been generating a big- picture, evidence-driven vision of the role immigration can and should play in America’s future. It provides research, analysis, and policy ideas and proposals—both administrative and legislative—that reflect these new realities and needs for immigration to better align with U.S. national interests.
The research, analyses, and convenings conducted for MPI’s Rethinking initiative address critical immigration issues, which include economic competitiveness, national security, and changing demographic trends, as well as issues of immigration enforcement and administering the nation’s immigration system.
To learn more about the project and read other reports and policy briefs generated by the Rethinking U.S. Immigration Policy initiative, see bit.ly/RethinkingImmigration.
**************************
Read the full report at the link.
Not the first time I’ve said this, but it’s time for “Amateur Night @ The Bijou” (“A/K/A Merrick Garland’s failed EOIR”) to end! Reassign the EOIR senior management folks who have demonstrated “beyond any reasonable doubt” their inability to provide dynamic, due process with efficiency management and visiononary leadership and to solve pressing problems. (This includes the inability to stand up and “just say no” to bonehead “gimmicks” like Garland’s due-process-denying, quality diminishing, backlog-building, “expedited dockets”).
It’s not an exaggeration to say that the anti-asylum, anti-human rights, anti-reality charade now playing out in Congress is driven in large part by Garland’s three-year failure to do his job by getting functionality and due process focused leadership into EOIR.
Bring in a competent, expert executive team, hand them the MPI Plan, and empower them to move whatever “bureaucratic mountains” need to be moved to get results, including, but not limited to, major personnel changes at the BIA and in Immigration Courts and taking a “hard line” with counterproductive performance by DHS (actually “just a party” before the Immigration Courts, NOT “their bosses!”)
Bring in these experts:
Judge (Retired) Dana Leigh Marks
Professor Stephen Yale-Loehr
Dean Kevin Johnson
Michelle Mendez (NIPNLG)
Professor Michele Pistone
Jason “The Asylumist” Dzubow
Wendy Young (KIND)
Task this “Magnificent Seven” — folks with centuries of practical expertise and creative ideas for actually solving humanitarian problems (rather than making them worse, as per the ongoing travesty on the Hill) — with turning around the EOIR disaster; support and empower them to achieve results and to reject politicized bureaucratic meddling from DOJ and elsewhere! Make the long-unfilled “promise of INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca” — a legitimate, properly generous, practical, efficient asylum and refugee adjudication system that complies with international and domestic law and simple human decency — a reality!
This is about rebuilding America’s most important and consequential court system, NOT running an “government agency!”
This is also the “demand” that Congressional Dems SHOULD be making of the Biden Administration, instead of engaging in disgraceful (non) “bargaining” with GOP nativists that seek an end to asylum and an increase to human suffering and ensure continuing humanitarian disaster at our borders!
Three Lemons By Auguste Renoir (1918} Public Realm The BIA pulls three lemons on an epic judging fail that left a sour taste in the mouths of Fifth Circuit Judges!
Dan Kowalski reports for LexisNexis Immigration Community:
“Although we owe deference to the BIA, that deference is not blind. Here, where the BIA misapplied prevailing case law, disregarded crucial evidence, and failed to adequately support its decisions, we are compelled to grant the petition for review, vacate the immigration court decisions, and remand to BIA for further proceedings.”
[Hats way off to Alison Lo, Jonathan Cooper and Chuck Roth!]
Congrats to this all-star NDPA litigation team. Once again, the expertise and scholarship in asylum and immigration law is on the “outside,” the NDPA, rather than at EOIR where it is so much needed!
Judge Higginbotham is a Reagan appointee. Judge Graves was appointed by Obama. Judge Douglas is a Biden appointee.
Here’s what the “coveted trifecta of bad judging” looks like:
The BIA:
1) misapplied prevailing case law,
2) disregarded crucial evidence, and
3) failed to adequately support its decisions!
My only question is: Did they manage to get the ”A#” right?
Golden nugget: The 5th Circuit recognizes that under the Supremes’ decision in Cardoza-Fonseca:“A ‘reasonable degree’ [for establishing a “well founded fear”] means a ten percent chance.” This “seminal rule” is violated by BIA panels and Immigration Judges across the nation on a daily basis. It is also widely ignored by many Circuit panels.
Unlike the BIA, Judge Higgenbotham carefully and clearly explains how threats other than physical injury can amount to persecution — another “seminal rule” that too many EOIR adjudicators routinely ignore.
By characterizing MS-13’s threats against Argueta-Hernandez and his family as
solely extortion, BIA disregards that he needed only to present “‘some
particularized connection between the feared persecution’” and the
protected ground in which his application for relief relies. . . . Such a rigorous standard would largely render nugatory the Supreme Court’s decision in INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421 (1987).”).
Precisely! Ignoring Cardoza-Fonseca and their own binding precedent in Matter of Mogharrabi is what the BIA does frequently in “manipulating the nexus requirement” to deny meritorious claims to qualified refugees who face real harm! It’s all part of the toxic anti-asylum bias and “any reason to deny culture” that still permeates EOIR under Garland!
The BIA is not allowed to “presume,” as they effectively did in M-R-M-S-, the lack of qualifying motivation in “family based” psg cases and place an undue burden on the respondent to “prove” otherwise.
The panel also reams out the BIA for failure to follow basic rules and precedents requiring a separate CAT analysis.
Unlike the legal gobbldygook, obfuscation, doublespeak, and “canned” language that plagues many BIA opinions, Judge Higginbotham offers a clear, understandable, clinical explanation of asylum law and how it should be applied to what is actually a recurring situation in asylum law!
Reading this very clear opinion, I couldn’t help but feel that it was a panel of “general jurisdiction” Federal Judges from a so-called “conservative Circuit” who understood the complexity and nuances of asylum law, while the BIA Appellate Judges were the “rank amateurs.” This reflects a criticism oft made by my Round Table colleague Hon. “Sir Jeffrey” Chasethat EOIR’s asylum training is grotesquely substandard — far below that readily available in the “private/NGO/academic” sector! What possible excuse could there be for this ongoing travesty at DOJ?
Hon. Jeffrey S. Chase Jeffrey S. Chase Blog Coordinator & Chief Spokesperson, Round Table of Former Immigration Judges. His consistent, outspoken criticism of EOIR’s poor asylum training is proving all too true on a daily basis!
AG Garland continues to show a truly (and disturbingly) remarkable tolerance for poor judicial performance by his subordinates at the BIA. At the same time, he shows little, if any, concern for the deadly devastating impact of that bad judging on human lives and the way it corrodes our entire legal system!
The glaring, life-threatening legal and operational problems at EOIR are solvable. We should all be asking why, after three years in office, a Dem Administration has made such feeble efforts to bring long overdue leadership, substantive, and operational changes to “America’s worst court system?” Well into what was supposed to be a “reform” Administration, EOIR remains a steeped in the “culture of denial and bias against asylum seekers” actively furthered by the Trump Administration and NOT effectively addressed by Garland (although he concededly has made a few improvements)!
Sandra Day O’Connor, the first woman to serve on the Supreme Court, died at age 93, the court announced Friday.
The woman who often referred to herself as FWOTSC (First Woman on the Supreme Court) was a justice for 26 years, serving as the swing vote in cases addressing abortion and affirmative action. (O’Connor, however, hated the term “swing vote,” saying it suggested a person who made their rulings on a whim.) She retired from the court in 2006.
“My appointment just opened the doors, and it was not only in the United States,” O’Connor said in 2012. “It immediately had an effect in other parts of the world, with opportunities for women. It was quite amazing to see.”
. . . .
************
Read the rest of the tribute at the link.
She was a pioneer and a legal giant who put thoughtful judging, fairness, problem solving, and collegiality above ideology. She changed America for the better. Not many judges today can say that!
Interestingly, Justice O’Connor’s story is similar to that of one of my law professors at U.W. Law (1970-73), Hon. Shirley Abrahamson who went on to serve as Chief Justice of the Wisconsin Supreme Court. Despite graduating at the top of her class at Indiana Law, like Justice O’Connor, Chief Justice Abrahamson got no job offers other than as a legal secretary. Like Justice O’Connor, Chief Justice Abrahamson refused to accept the arrogant, misogynistic “verdict” of the then male-dominated legal system “establishment.” Like Justice O’Connor, she fought her way the top of our profession by virtue of her intellectual excellence, performance, and persistance.
While opening doors for many, unfortunately, as she herself acknowledged, Justice O’Connor is also symbolic of a bygone era — one where practical experience and common sense in our judges was valued over ideology. It’s impossible to imagine any candidate for the Supremes being unanimously confirmed by the Senate, as it is that any future Republican President would even consider someone like Justice O’Connor for the job.
Estrella Santos-Zacaria has come a long way from San Pedro Soloma, Guatemala, a village nestled in the Sierra de los Cuchumatanes mountains and known as El Valle del Ensueño, or the Valley of Dreams.
For years, Santos-Zacaria dreamed desperately — of escape.
In 2008, she attempted to immigrate to the U.S., fearing that the violence she had experienced because of her sexual orientation and identity as a transgender woman could get her killed. Since then, she has been deported twice.
But in January, her case made its way to the U.S. Supreme Court. And on May 11, Santos-Zacaria won the right to further challenge her deportation — and the potential to start a new life in the U.S. Other immigrants facing deportation could benefit, as well, because the ruling helps clear a procedural obstacle for noncitizens seeking judicial review of rulings by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), an administrative appellate body within the U.S. Department of Justice.
The Supreme Court’s decision, authored by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, also marks a notable step in its acknowledgment of transgender people. Santos-Zacaria’s chosen name, Estrella, was referenced alongside her former given name, and her proper pronouns were used throughout.
The case was the first initiated by the Southern Poverty Law Center’s Southeast Immigrant Freedom Initiative (SIFI) to reach the U.S. Supreme Court. SIFI provides pro bono legal representation to asylum seekers who are being held at immigrant detention centers in the Deep South.
“What Estrella’s won is the right to keep fighting,” said Peter Isbister, senior lead attorney for SIFI. “And that would not have been possible without her team of volunteer attorneys. Cases and clients like Estrella are why SIFI believes so deeply in having a pro bono program.”
In her case, both the BIA and the 5th Circuit had gone out of the way NOT to meaningfully review life or death mistakes made in the Immigration Court. In doing so, they tossed aside the realities and roadblocks facing those seeking justice in Immigration Court and their representatives (if any, in a glaringly unfair system).
This case shows the critical importance of pro bono immigration assistance. These lower court Federal Judges focused not on constitutionally required due process and fundamental fairness, or on the vulnerable human life at stake, but rather on inventing ways NOT to provide fair hearings in some of the most important, perhaps the most important, cases coming before the Federal Justice system.
Pro bono representation levels the playing field and exposes the poor performance of those whose sole focus should be individual justice, rather than “institutional task avoidance!”
Many thanks to all involved in this effort, particularly Richard Mark and the Pro Bono Team at Gibson Dunn. Will the DOJ go down for the third time on interrelated notice issues before the Supremes? What if the BIA followed the statute and held DHS fully accountable? What if due process, fundamental fairness, and best practices were the mission of EOIR? (Hint, they once were the “noble vision” of EOIR — trashed by Administrations of both parties.)
WASHINGTON — An immigration judge and lawyer told a U.S. Senate Judiciary panel on Wednesday that an independent immigration court would help ease a backlog of more than 2 million pending cases.
Because the immigration court system is an arm of the U.S. Justice Department — the Executive Office for Immigration Review — each presidential administration has set immigration policy, and often those courts are subject to political interference, said Mimi Tsankov, an immigration judge, and Jeremy McKinney, an immigration attorney.
In the immigration court system, judges hold formal court proceedings to determine whether someone who is a noncitizen should be allowed to remain in the United States, or should be deported.
“Every administration has interfered with the courts. This undermines the courts’ integrity, and many of the executive branch’s manipulations of judges and their dockets simply backfire,” said McKinney, the former president of the American Immigration Lawyers Association.
Tsankov, the president of the National Association of Immigration Judges, said in order to alleviate the backlog of immigration court cases, Congress should establish an independent immigration court under Article I of the U.S. Constitution.
. . . .
“An independent board will begin the process of healing this broken system,” she said.
The witnesses also argued that many people going through the immigration system lack legal representation, which can greatly impact their outcome.
The top Republican on the Senate panel, John Cornyn of Texas, argued that most cases are without merit, as opposed to asylum cases, which are based on a credible fear of death or harm. He said that people are “clogging the courts” and are aware the severe backlogs will allow them to stay in the country. Some courts have backlogs until 2027.
Sen. Mazie Hirono, Democrat of Hawaii, pushed back.
“People who have attorneys are 10.5 times more likely to be granted relief,” she said. “So it is when they have attorneys that they can proceed with their asylum claims.”
She added that another issue is that many children who are unaccompanied, even some toddlers, are expected to legally represent themselves.
“There is no guarantee that children will also have a lawyer, and this is alarming because children are some of the most vulnerable people in our immigration system,” she said.
Cornyn said he did not believe that “the taxpayer should be on the hook” for paying for legal fees and representation.
McKinney said that those who have representation and are not detained are five times more likely to gain relief. Immigrants who are detained and have legal representation are 10 times more likely to be granted relief than those who do not have representation.
“The point is that representation ensures due process,” he said. “It also makes the system more efficient when all the parties know the rules and know how to present a case. Cases move faster.”
***********
Read the full article at the above link. You can also check out the full video of the hearing here:
In his opening statement, ranking GOP Sen. Cornyn made it very clear that fixing the Immigration Courts is a nonstarter for the GOP.
Instead of engaging on this critically important initiative, he wasted much of his introduction disingenuously repeating the oft-debunked claim of a connection between asylum seekers and fentanyl smuggling. See, e.g., “Who is sneaking fentanyl across the southern border? Hint: it’s not the migrants,”https://www.npr.org/2023/08/09/1191638114/fentanyl-smuggling-migrants-mexico-border-drugs.
Obviously grasping at straws, in the absence of any empirical support for his nativist “scare scenario,” Cornyn went so far as to suggest — of course without a shred of evidence — that perhaps “go-arounds” were smuggling fentanyl.
This theory appears particularly questionable in light of evidence that most fentanyl is successfully smuggled through ports of entry by U.S. citizens and legal residents. Why would cartels abandon proven successful methods of port of entry smuggling to entrust their cargos to individuals who might not even survive the border crossing and, if apprehended, would certainly be searched? Cornyn had no answer.
What does seem likely is that by concentrating border law enforcement largely on “apprehending” and fruitlessly trying to “deter” those merely seeking to turn themselves in to exercise legal rights, the USG has diverted attention and resources from real law enforcement like an anti-fentanyl strategy. That almost certainly would require undercover infiltration of smuggling rings — dangerous and sophisticated law enforcement operations far removed from “apprehending” folks who WANT to be caught because they were forced to leave their home countries, are unsafe in Mexico, and can’t wait to schedule asylum appointments at ports of entry through the badly flawed and inadequate “CBP One App!” Building a fair and efficient asylum system should even help CBP apprehend more of Sen. Cornyn’s “go arounds!”
But, Cornyn’s misdirection isn’t just a distraction; it’s actually dangerous! As the GOP has shown over and over, if you repeat a lie or myth enough times, folks start to believe it. Witness the demonstrably totally frivolous claims of election interference that drive much of the GOP’s agenda and has become “truth” for their misguided “base.”
A case in point is the outrageous political boondoggle recently carried out by Virginia’s right-wing Governor Glenn Youngkin. In response to Texas Gov. Greg Abbott’s White Nationalist plea, Youngkin wasted two million taxpayer dollars on a bogus detail of the National Guard to the Texas border, ostensibly to “protect Virginians from the scourge of fentanyl.”
What if Youngkin had spent the same amount of money supporting NGOs in Virginia struggling to resettle and represent migrants aimlessly bussed to the DMV by Abbott and DeSantis as part of a political stunt? Community social justice NGOs generally use funds more carefully and efficiently than GOP blowhards like Youngkin and co.
The GOP claim that most asylum claims are frivolous also is misleading. For those who can actually get a merits hearing on asylum at EOIR — often in and of itself no mean feat given the prevalence of “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” — TRAC statistics for FY 2022 show that 46% are granted. Seehttps://trac.syr.edu/whatsnew/email.221129.html#. And, this is in a system that is still heavily tilted against asylum seekers. EOIR still has many “holdover judges” from the Trump years who were hired not because of their expertise, qualifications, or reputations for fairness, but because their backgrounds indicated that they were likely to be unsympathetic to asylum seekers!
Admittedly, the manner in which EOIR keeps asylum statistics can make meaningful analysis difficult. For example, more than half of asylum “dispositions” are listed as “other” — which covers“abandoned, not adjudicated, other, or withdrawn,” a facially, at least partially, circular definition! Seehttps://www.justice.gov/media/1174741/dl?inline.
Moreover, since EOIR procedures generally require that all potential relief be stated at the time of pleading or presumptively be waived, prudence requires that the right to appply for asylum be protected, even if it is unlikely that the case will proceed to the merits on that application.
Also, it’s worth remembering that the Government already has a powerful tool for both identifying and quickly tossing frivolous asylum claims and expeditiously granting clearly meritorious claims to keep them out of the Immigration Court. It’s called the Asylum Office at USCIS! That despite much ballyhooed regulatory changes, DHS has failed to obtain “maximum leverage” from the credible fear/Asylum Office process is not a reason for eschewing EOIR reform!
What we can tell from the available data is that, rather than wasting more money on expensive and ineffective “deterrence gimmicks,” the best “bang for the buck” for the USG would be to invest in representation for asylum seekers and in a better, professionally-managed EOIR with better, independent judges, acknowledged experts in asylum law, who could “keep the lines moving” without denying due process or stomping on individual rights.They could also set helpful precedents for the Asylum Office. That’s what Congress and the Administration should be investing in.
Reforming the Immigration Courts and creating an independent Article I Court should be a high national priority. While no single action can bring “order to the border” overnight, fixing EOIR is an achievable priority that will support the rule of law and dramatically improve the quality and efficiency of justice at the border and throughout the U.S.
As Chairman Padilla (D-CA) said, this should be a bipartisan “no-brainer.” Just don’t look to today’s White-Nationalist-myth-driven GOP for help or rational dialogue on the subject.
Beth Barkley thought she was attending a ceremony for International Day of the Girl on Wednesday. The high school English teacher stood in the library at Cardozo Education Campus as the city’s mayor explained the importance of attaining “educational equity across genders.”
But, in a ceremony focused mostly on her, Barkley learned that she had been named D.C’s 2024 Teacher of the Year.
“This year we have a teacher of the year who serves as a role model not only for her students, but for other teachers across the District,” said D.C. Mayor Muriel E. Bowser (D). “She has gone above and beyond her normal teaching duties to uplift student voices and inspire her students.”
Each year, educators across the city vie for the top honor, which comes with a $7,500 check and the chance to compete for National Teacher of the Year in a contest run by the Council of Chief State School Officers. Barkley, who teaches English and other classes to students who are new to the United States, was met with applause and sparkling pompoms wielded by students.
“This is a huge honor,” she said to the room of teachers, staff members and several of her students. “I have students that are changemakers. My students are leaders. … This is really for and because of them.”
Some folks who should be applying for these jobs tell me they “couldn’t work with such an unfair law.” I say “poppycock.” To a large extent, the law and the unfair results are only as bad as EOIR judges choose make them.
But, it doesn’t have to be that way! For example, you can choose to:
Apply Cardoza-Fonseca, Mogharrabi, Kasinga, A-R-C-G-, and other precedents favorable to applicants fairly and robustly;
Honestly apply the presumption of future persecution set forth in 8 CFR 208.13 and actually put the burden on DHS to rebut it with evidence, not mere conjecture;
Carefully consider the possibility of a discretionary grant of asylum under the regulations (“so-called Chen grant”), even where the government rebuts the presumption of a well-founded fear;
Make realistic, practical, proper credibility determinations based on “the totality of the circumstances and all relevant factors;”
Require only “reasonably available” corroborating evidence;
Actually follow the legal principle that credible testimony, in an of itself, can be enough to grant relief;
Apply the “reasonableness of internal relocation” regulation set forth at 8 CFR 208.13(b)(3) honestly;
Fairly apply the properly generous interpretation of the “well founded fear” standard required by the Supremes in Cardoza and described by the BIA in Mogharrabi to cases where there is no past persecution;
Incorporate the latest scholarship on “country conditions,” rather than “cherry picking” DOS Country Reports looking for ways to deny;
Use the latest body of scholarship on “best interests of the child” in deciding cancellation of removal for non-LPRs;
Schedule cases in a reasonable manner, in consultation with both counsel, to eliminate endemic “aimless docket reshuffling;”
Take measures to promote and facilitate representation of individuals, rather than throwing up roadblocks;
Make ICE counsel do their jobs, rather than doing it for them, particularly in cases where ICE unilaterally declines to appear at the merits hearing;
Use all of your practical skills and knowledge of the law and practice to solve problems and promote efficiency;
Consider all interpretations available to you, not just “defaulting” to the one offered by ICE;
Make careful, analytical, findings of fact, rather than just glossing over facts favorable to the individuals and over-emphasizing or fabricating the facts most favorable to DHS;
Make your “courtroom a classroom” where exceptional scholarship, due process, fundamental fairness, teamwork, practical solutions to human problems, and best practices are promoted and institutionalized.
You might well find, like I did, that being guided by Cardoza and Mogharrabi, sticking to your guns, providing full due process, and faithfully following the law actually leads to grants of relief in the majority of individual hearings. Notably, ICE seldom appealed my grants, and I was rarely reversed by the BIA, no matter who appealed.
I actually did better with my former BIA colleagues as an IJ than I had during my eight years of service on the Board. Indeed, as I sometimes quipped, as an IJ, I finally got that which my colleagues often denied me during my tenure as BIA Chair and an Appellate Judge/BIA Member: deference!
Worried about “life after EOIR!” Yes, there is such a thing!
And, a quick survey of our Round Table of Former Immigration Judges and BIA Members 🛡⚔️would show everything from partners and of counsel in law firms, professors and educators, major NGO supervisors and attorneys, community activists, consultants and coaches, to those, like me, who claim to be “fully retired and just enjoying life.” The Round Table actually has great credibility with the Federal Courts and the media because, unlike sitting judges and their “handlers,” we can actually speak truth to power outside the courtroom!
Whether you serve for a year or the rest of your career, what you learn as an EOIR judge if you pay attention, will give you a “leg up” and otherwise unobtainable practical knowledge of how America’s most important, yet least understood, court system actually works (or not)!
Every week, almost every day in fact, we see in Federal Court reversals and remands to EOIR and reports from practitioners about unpublished successes the fundamental difference that great litigation and equally “great judging” can make in reaching correct results!Making it happen every day, in every court, at the “retail level,” rather than counting on the uncertainties and limitations of Circuit review, will save lives and change the delivery of justice throughout America!
NDPAers, the “EOIR train” is leaving the station. 🚅 As a nation, we can’t afford the “best and the brightest” of today’s legal profession not to be on board! So, get those “many applications” in for those “many jobs” and let’s see if we can fix this “life or death system” from both the inside and the outside! We won’t know if we don’t try!
Joseph Gerald Hebert (Gerry), Voting Rights Attorney of Alexandria, Virginia passed away at the age of 74 on September 7, 2023.
Gerry was born in Worcester, Massachusetts to Joseph Gerald Laurie Hebert and Adeline Agnes Whitehead Hebert on February 13, 1949. A graduate of St. John’s High School in Shrewsbury, Gerry went on to earn his bachelor’s degree from Stonehill College and Juris Doctor from Suffolk University Law School.
A respected Civil Rights and Voting Rights attorney, Gerry worked in the U.S. Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division from 1973 to 1994. While at the DOJ, he won acclaim for his work in school desegregation cases and served as the lead attorney in voting rights and redistricting lawsuits, including several cases decided by the U. S. Supreme Court. Post-DOJ, Gerry spent time in private practice specializing in election law and the Voting Rights Act. His expertise led him to the Campaign Legal Center in 2004, serving as Executive Director until 2018, before retiring from the organization in 2021. During this time, Gerry was also an adjunct professor at Georgetown University Law Center and developed a thriving intern program for CLC. He also taught at University of Virginia, American University, and New York Law School. He was awarded the Wasserstein Fellowship at Harvard Law School and Mentor in Residence at Yale Law School. In 2015, Gerry spearheaded the CLC effort to establish the Voting Rights Institute (VRI), a partnership with the American Constitution Society and Georgetown Law, which created opportunities for law students and graduates to learn how to litigate voting rights cases.
Gerry’s advocacy extended beyond his professional career. He served as PTA president at George Mason Elementary School, where he was a fixture in the hallways for years, his voice on the loudspeaker delivering the morning announcements. He worked particularly hard to ensure that families of color were involved in their children’s education, and that the needs of George Mason Elementary were made known to the School Board.
As ASA soccer coach to many of Alexandria’s youth, Gerry shared his own athletic skills, always ending a weekly practice – at the request of the team – punting the ball straight up in the air, multiple stories high.
A man of strong faith and an enthusiastic choir member, Gerry served the Fairlington United Methodist Church community in many capacities including lay leader.
Gerry worked tirelessly to help Alexandrians in need, volunteering with ALIVE! Inc. since 1986. He dedicated his time and talents, serving as ALIVE’s president, director of development, chair of the furniture program, and Last Saturday food distribution coordinator. Earlier this year, Gerry was awarded Volunteer Alexandria’s 2023 Joan White Grassroots Volunteer Service Award for his commitment to ALIVE!’s mission, specifically for his work to open both of ALIVE!’s beautiful and welcoming food hubs, ensuring that Alexandrians maintained their integrity while receiving food and critical services.
Gerry approached his personal life with the same passion and purpose. He was omnipresent in his children’s lives as he filled the roles of brown bag lunch maker, short order breakfast cook, and overprotective parent. He could be found lifting his grandchildren to top the Christmas tree, eating Oreos and drinking straight from the milk carton in the middle of the night, or dancing in the street with Victoria during a red light at the intersection of Braddock and Russell. He would “give you a nickel” if you could name the artist from the 60’s singing on the radio. He’d send you recipes for the perfect pork chop, articles about the latest threat to justice and democracy, and a heads up about recent sunscreen recalls. He was deeply devoted to playing the guitar, discovering the best deal on good wine, and playing the lottery. He never said goodbye without also holding up his hand to sign “I love you.” He had the timing of a stand-up comedian, all the wisdom of a perfect storyteller, and an unfulfilled desire to travel the world. He was just beginning to discover what retirement was like and between the Rock ‘n Roll cruises he took with Victoria, his long ponytail, and his Bohemian pants, he confirmed his family’s suspicion that he really did dream of being the next great American folk singer. He was a lively wedding dancer, a proficient recaller of sports stats, and even attended MLB professional umpire school. Gerry was an expert magician, the friend you were thankful to call yours, and as far as his family knew, he was “the strongest man in the world.”
Gerry is preceded in death by his mother and father.
Gerry is survived by his wife of 37 years, Victoria, his children, Christy Przystawik (Tom Przystawik), Greta Gordon (Jim Gordon), Brooke Harris (Ben Harris), Josh Hebert, and Marlea Hebert (Anthony DiBerardinis). His brother, Tom Hebert (Maria Hebert), and his 10 grandchildren, Gunter, Annika, Amelie, Harper, Sadie, Bailey, Brighid, Adrian, Tyler, and Abe.
A funeral service will be held on Saturday, September 16, 2023 at Fairlington United Methodist Church.
In lieu of flowers donations can be made in honor of Gerry to The Campaign Legal Center, ALIVE, Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law and Fairlington United Methodist Church (music program).
Published by The Washington Post on Sep. 10, 2023.
***********************
Gerry’s son Josh Hebert is one of our son Will’s closest friends, growing up in Alexandria and attending Alexandria City Public Schools together. Our church, Beverley Hills Community Methodist Church, has been part of ALIVE’s “grass roots” programs to make Alexandria a better place to live for families and individuals of all income levels. I also spoke at Fairlington Methodist on immigration and the need for reform at a public forum that Gerry helped organize.
Gerry was an inspiration and role model for the “new generation” of civil rights attorneys dedicated to making equal justice in America a reality rather than an unfulfilled promise!
Yesterday’s “Courtside” post highlighted the words of Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson that embodied many of Gerry’s life values;
And I am confident that, just like generations of Americans before us, we are up to the challenge. Armed with our history, well-prepared by our past, and secure in the knowledge of what we have been through and where we’re headed, we will triumph in the valiant struggle to promote constitutional values and to obtain freedom and justice for all.
Due Process Forever and deep appreciation to a great American who represented “due process in action” and leaves a vibrant legacy for future generations. A life well-lived indeed!
Dan Rather American Journalist PHOTO: Creative CommonsElliott Kirshner Science Filmmaker & Journalist PHOTO: iBiology CoursesJudge (now Justice) Ketanji Brown Jackson, honoree at the Third Annual Judge James B. Parsons Legacy Dinner, February 24, 2020, University of Chicago Law School. Photographer Lloyd DeGrane. Creative Commons License
Dan Rather and Elliot Kirschner write on Steady on Substack:
September 15, 1963 — 60 years ago today. An act of murderous cowardice in Birmingham, Alabama, shocked a nation. A bomb at the 16th Street Baptist Church placed by Klansmen killed four girls as they attended Sunday school. Many others were wounded.
As Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. would say in eulogy, “These children — unoffending, innocent, and beautiful — were the victims of one of the most vicious and tragic crimes ever perpetrated against humanity.”
Let us pause in remembrance. Please say their names aloud. They deserve our recognition:
Denise McNair, age 11.
Carole Robertson, 14.
Addie Mae Collins, 14.
Cynthia Wesley, 14.
This horrific act is not ancient history. Some of you were of memory age at the time it happened. And it was not an isolated act of violence. Rather, it was part of a bloody, tragic, and unjust campaign of terror that stretches from before our country’s birth into our present age. It is a story of murder, torture, rape, lynching, and the tearing apart of families. It is a story of Jim Crow, redlining, and voter suppression. And now it is a story that powerful forces in our country would like us to forget, or at least sanitize from the unadulterated truth.
And yet, throughout our history, bigotry has not gone unanswered. Women and men of courage and fortitude have reminded us that we should walk a path toward equality and justice. Many have sacrificed greatly in service to our nation’s highest ideals.
This bombing was an act of domestic terrorism meant to stifle a growing Civil Rights Movement. It had the opposite effect. Less than a year later, President Lyndon Johnson signed the groundbreaking Civil Rights Act.
Progress has been made. However, we are reminded in our current age that the forces of white supremacy will never give up their privilege without a fight. We see more acts of racist violence, more denying of reality, more attempts to rewrite history. It is a cynically destructive ploy for power at the expense of our national unity and the truth.
All this was on the mind of Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson this morning, when the first Black woman to serve on the court went to the 16th Street Baptist Church to commemorate the bombing’s anniversary. It was the justice’s first trip to Alabama, but she told those in the pews, “I felt in my spirit that I had to come.”
What she subsequently shared was an acknowledgement of the past and an admonition for our present and our future. We were moved by her words and want to include some of them here, as well as a video of the entire speech, should you wish to watch.
Justice Jackson began by contrasting the story of the Birmingham bombing and her own personal journey.
. . . .
**********************
Read the complete article, including Justice Jackson’s remarks and pictures of the murdered girls, at the link. Don’t let GOP extremists get away with rewriting our history to match their White Nationalist myths! It’s a key part of their scheme to “dumb down” American education and intellectual debate on all levels!
Rae Ann Varona Legal Reporter Law360 PHOTO: Linkedin
Dan Kowalski over at LexisNexis Immigration Community helpfully forwarded the pdf’s of Rae Ann’s article and the three briefs. You can access them here:
Our Round Table, with the help of some of the greatest litigators and law firms out there, continues to provide key support for the NDPA and timely expertise to the Federal Courts and father Executive on all levels!
