RAY OF HOPE? — 3RD CIR FINDS DUE PROCESS REQUIRES JUDICIAL REVIEW OF DHS ATTEMPTED EXPEDITED REMOVAL OF CHILD GRANTED SIJS STATUS — Issues Preliminary Injunction Against DHS Scofflaws! — Osorio-Martinez v. Attorney General

Osorio-Martinez v. Attorney General, No. 17-2159, June 18, 2008, published

PANEL: AMBRO, KRAUSE, and SCIRICA, Circuit Judges

OPINION BY:

KEY QUOTE:

Petitioners, four children of Salvadoran and Honduran origin and their mothers, appear before us for a second time to challenge their expedited orders of removal. In Castro v. United States Department of Homeland Security, 835 F.3d 422

3

(3d Cir. 2016), cert. denied, 137 S. Ct. 1581 (2017), we held that we lacked jurisdiction to review their claims under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and that, while the Suspension Clause of the Constitution would allow an aggrieved party with sufficient ties to the United States to challenge that lack of jurisdiction, the petitioners’ ties were inadequate because their relationship to the United States amounted only to presence in the country for a few hours before their apprehension by immigration officers. Thus, weaffirmed the District Court’s dismissal of their petition.

Now, two years after their initial detention, Petitioners raise what, at first glance, appear to be the same claims. But upon inspection they differ in a critical respect: The children now have been accorded Special Immigrant Juvenile (SIJ) status—a protective classification designed by Congress to safeguard abused, abandoned, or neglected alien children who are able to meet its rigorous eligibility requirements. The protections afforded to children with SIJ status include an array of statutory and regulatory rights and safeguards, such as eligibility for application of adjustment of status to that of lawful permanent residents (LPR), exemption from various grounds of inadmissibility, and robust procedural protections to ensure their status is not revoked without good cause.

Because we conclude that the INA prohibits our review just as it did in Castro, we are now confronted with a matter of first impression among the Courts of Appeals: Does the jurisdiction-stripping provision of the INA operate as an unconstitutional suspension of the writ of habeas corpus as applied to SIJ designees seeking judicial review of orders of expedited removal? We conclude that it does. As we explained in Castro, only aliens who have developed sufficient

4

connections to this country may invoke our Constitution’sprotections. By virtue of satisfying the eligibility criteria for SIJ status and being accorded by Congress the statutory and due process rights that derive from it, Petitioners here, unlike the petitioners in Castro, meet that standard and therefore may enforce their rights under the Suspension Clause. Accordingly, we will reverse the District Court’s denial of Petitioners’request for injunctive relief.1

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

My quick and pointed analysis:

In Castro v. United States Department of Homeland Security, 835 F.3d 422 (3d Cir. 2016), cert. denied, 137 S. Ct. 1581 (2017), this court basically extinguished the Due Process rights of vulnerable asylum seekers in the United States caught up in the clearly, pathetically, and intentionally unfair Expedited Removal System. The court did so by disingenuously running over the statute, international law, and the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, not to mention ordinary human morality.
Think of Castro as a “Modern Day Dred Scott case” and the clueless ivory tower wonks who decided it as mini-versions of the infamous Chief Justice Roger B. Taney.
To reward the Third Circuit for toadying up to Congress and the DHS, the DHS doubled down on their outrageous behavior by stomping on the rights of defenseless children. Even though they themselves had determined these kids should be allowed to remain in the U.S. by approving them for Special Immigrant Juvenile Status, they tried to remove them to a country where “it would not be in the child’s best interest to return.” Cruel and stupid. But, hey, we’re dealing with DHS in the age of Trump and Sessions.
Realizing that they were about to look like fools and also to have the blood of children as well as defenseless women on their hands, this panel of judges wrote 55 pages of fairly impenetrable legal gobbledygook hoping to cover up their mistake in Castro.
What they were really trying to say was pretty simple: The U.S. Government is engaging in outrageously arbitrary and capricious treatment of these children in clear violation of the 5th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and they should knock it off.
But, that doesn’t mean that the court has the courage or backbone to go back and correct Castro. They are just vainly hoping that by firing a limited “warning shot” across the Government’s bow on abuse of SIJS children, they can rein in DHS misconduct. Otherwise, the court might have to accept some responsibility for its own feeble legal reasoning and moral cowardice in Castro.
At least it’s something! And it shows that unlike Trump, Sessions, Nielsen, and the rest of the Administration scofflaws, Article III Judges do at some point have a sense of shame. Just not enough of one to do the right thing all the time.

Many thanks to Roxanne Lea Fantl of Richmond, VA for sending this my way.

PWS

06-23-18

BLOCKBUSTER: ANOTHER SUPREME STOMP! — DOJ /DHS SCOFFLAWS LOSE AGAIN BY 8-1 MARGIN IN PEREIRA V. SESSIONS – Invalidates Hundreds Of Thousands Of “Haste Makes Waste” Notices To Appear – Real Costs To American Justice Of A “Captive” BIA That Functions Like DHS Toady Rather Than Independent Court Becoming Painfully Apparent – Risks In Having Biggest Federal “Court” System Run By Biased & Incompetent Attorney General Now Coming Into Focus!

Pereira v. Sessions, No. 17-459, June 21, 2018

Pereira17-459_1o13

MAJORITY OPINION: Justice Sotomayor for herself and seven others.

CONCURRING OPINION: Justice Kennedy

DISSENTING OPINION: Justice Alito

KEY QUOTE FROM MAJORITY:

Unable to find sure footing in the statutory text, the Government and the dissent pivot away from the plain language and raise a number of practical concerns. These practical considerations are meritless and do not justify departing from the statute’s clear text. See Burrage v.United States, 571 U. S. 204, 218 (2014).

The Government, for its part, argues that the “adminis- trative realities of removal proceedings” render it difficult to guarantee each noncitizen a specific time, date, and place for his removal proceedings. See Brief for Respond- ent 48. That contention rests on the misguided premise that the time-and-place information specified in the notice to appear must be etched in stone. That is incorrect. As noted above, §1229(a)(2) expressly vests the Government with power to change the time or place of a noncitizen’s removal proceedings so long as it provides “written notice . . . specifying . . . the new time or place of the proceedings” and the consequences of failing to appear. See §1229(a)(2); Tr. of Oral Arg. 16–19. Nothing in our decision today inhibits the Government’s ability to exercise that statu- tory authority after it has served a notice to appear specify- ing the time and place of the removal proceedings.

The dissent raises a similar practical concern, which is similarly misplaced. The dissent worries that requiring

Cite as: 585 U. S. ____ (2018) 19

Opinion of the Court

the Government to specify the time and place of removal proceedings, while allowing the Government to change that information, might encourage DHS to provide “arbi- trary dates and times that are likely to confuse and con- found all who receive them.” Post, at 8. The dissent’s argument wrongly assumes that the Government is ut- terly incapable of specifying an accurate date and time on a notice to appear and will instead engage in “arbitrary” behavior. See ibid. The Court does not embrace those unsupported assumptions. As the Government concedes, “a scheduling system previously enabled DHS and the immigration court to coordinate in setting hearing dates in some cases.” Brief for Respondent 50, n. 15; Brief for National Immigrant Justice Center as Amicus Curiae 30– 31. Given today’s advanced software capabilities, it is hard to imagine why DHS and immigration courts could not again work together to schedule hearings before send- ing notices to appear.

Finally, the dissent’s related contention that including a changeable date would “mislead” and “prejudice” nonciti- zens is unfounded. Post, at 8. As already explained, if the Government changes the date of the removal proceedings, it must provide written notice to the noncitizen, §1229(a)(2). This notice requirement mitigates any poten- tial confusion that may arise from altering the hearing date. In reality, it is the dissent’s interpretation of the statute that would “confuse and confound” noncitizens,post, at 8, by authorizing the Government to serve notices that lack any information about the time and place of the removal proceedings.

E

In a last ditch effort to salvage its atextual interpreta- tion, the Government invokes the alleged purpose and legislative history of the stop-time rule. Brief for Re- spondent 37–40. Even for those who consider statutory

20 PEREIRA v. SESSIONS Opinion of the Court

purpose and legislative history, however, neither supports the Government’s atextual position that Congress intended the stop-time rule to apply when a noncitizen has been deprived notice of the time and place of his removal pro- ceedings. By the Government’s own account, Congress enacted the stop-time rule to prevent noncitizens from exploiting administrative delays to “buy time” during which they accumulate periods of continuous presence.Id., at 37–38 (citing H. R. Rep. No. 104–469, pt. 1, p. 122 (1996)). Requiring the Government to furnish time-and- place information in a notice to appear, however, is en- tirely consistent with that objective because, once a proper notice to appear is served, the stop-time rule is triggered, and a noncitizen would be unable to manipulate or delay removal proceedings to “buy time.” At the end of the day, given the clarity of the plain language, we “apply the statute as it is written.” Burrage, 571 U. S., at 218.

IV

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

KEY QUOTE FROM JUSTICE KENNEDY’S CONCURRING OPINION:

In according Chevron deference to the BIA’s interpreta- tion, some Courts of Appeals engaged in cursory analysis of the questions whether, applying the ordinary tools of statutory construction, Congress’ intent could be dis- cerned, 467 U. S., at 843, n. 9, and whether the BIA’s interpretation was reasonable, id., at 845. In Urbina v.Holder, for example, the court stated, without any further elaboration, that “we agree with the BIA that the relevant statutory provision is ambiguous.” 745 F. 3d, at 740. It then deemed reasonable the BIA’s interpretation of the statute, “for the reasons the BIA gave in that case.” Ibid. This analysis suggests an abdication of the Judiciary’s proper role in interpreting federal statutes.

The type of reflexive deference exhibited in some of these cases is troubling. And when deference is applied to other questions of statutory interpretation, such as an agency’s interpretation of the statutory provisions that concern the scope of its own authority, it is more troubling still. See Arlington v. FCC, 569 U. S. 290, 327 (2013) (ROBERTS, C. J., dissenting) (“We do not leave it to the agency to decide when it is in charge”). Given the con- cerns raised by some Members of this Court, see, e.g., id.,at 312–328; Michigan v. EPA, 576 U. S. ___, ___ (2015) (THOMAS, J., concurring); Gutierrez-Brizuela v. Lynch, 834

Cite as: 585 U. S. ____ (2018) 3

KENNEDY, J., concurring

F. 3d 1142, 1149–1158 (CA10 2016) (Gorsuch, J., concur- ring), it seems necessary and appropriate to reconsider, in an appropriate case, the premises that underlie Chevronand how courts have implemented that decision. The proper rules for interpreting statutes and determining agency jurisdiction and substantive agency powers should accord with constitutional separation-of-powers principles and the function and province of the Judiciary. See, e.g.,Arlington, supra, at 312–316 (ROBERTS, C. J., dissenting).

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

I filed an Amicus Brief, with the assistance of Eric Citron, Goldstein & Russell, of in behalf of Mr. Pereira.

PEREIRAVSESSIIONS,SCT,AMICUS17-459 tsac Former BIA Chairman & Immigration Judge Schmidt

Why is this so big:

In invalidates hundreds of thousands of defective Notices to Appear, thus potentially requiring massive “restarts” in an already out of control system.
Even with a more or less hand-picked Supreme Court, immigration reactionaries continue to lose case after case. So, it isn’t “liberal judges.” It’s inane, biased policies and lousy lawyering at the DOJ and DHS which goes back through the Obama and Bush II Administrations. It’s just reached its lowest conceivable level under Sessions. But, I’ll admit that every time I think Sessions can’t sink any lower on the legal and moral scale, he surprises me.
It makes tens of thousands of additional individuals who have now been here for 10 or more years eligible to apply for “Non-LPR Cancellation of Removal” because the “stop time rule” was not properly invoked by the service of the defective NTA in their cases. This could pour tens of thousands of Motions to Reopen and/or Reconsider into an already overwhelmed system.
Virtually every individual from El Salvador, Haiti, and Honduras whose TPS is going to be (bone-headedly) terminated by the Trumpsters will now be able to demand full hearings on Cancellation of Removal in U.S. Immigration Court. Thus, they aren’t going anywhere any time soon.
It illustrates the problems of giving improper “Chevron Deference” to a BIA that no longer functions as an expert tribunal and does not exercise independent judgement. Ever since the “Ashcroft Purge” the BIA has been an “inbred body” specifically structured and staffed to be a “shill” for DHS and the Administration’s enforcement policies. And, under Sessions, the BIA has been completely co-opted by his unethical and highly improper interference in what little was left of its independent decision-making function. “Justice” in today’s Immigration Courts is a total sham!
Chevron, as I have stated many times to my law school class, is a cowardly exercise of “judicial task avoidance” by the Supremes. Congress should eliminate it if the Supremes don’t. Article III Judges should be required to do their Constitutional duties, earn their pay, and decide legal issues de novo, even when that might be controversial, unpopular, or require more critical, analytical thinking than they care to do.
The Pereira debacle is entirely the fault of a totally screwed up and incompetent Executive Immigration function stretching back for nearly two decades. Fixing this problem properly should have been a “no brainer.” The “technology” (which probably could have been developed by a middle schooler sitting in her basement) was there more than a decade ago. But “haste makes waste” corner cutting combined with the assurance that the emasculated and enfeebled BIA would intentionally misread the plain meaning of the statute to screw the respondent and help the DHS produced a totally avoidable administrative nightmare.
“You ain’t seen nothin’ yet.” With White Nationalist xenophobe Sessions demanding that Immigration Judges deny, deny, deny, without hearings if necessary, to achieve their quota of removals without the inconvenience of Due Process and impartiality, cases are going to come rocketing back from the Courts of Appeals by the truckload. The whole system is going to collapse. And don’t anyone let the corrupt and biased Sessions get away with fobbing the blame off on others, as he and the rest of the Trump Regime are wont to do.
Sessions, Trump, Miller, Nielsen, Kelly, Homan and the rest of the scofflaw, White Nationalist, anti-Constitutional crowd might think that the Constitution doesn’t mean what it says. But, foreign nationals in the United States are entitled to fairness and due process. No matter how many corners the Trumpsters cut and how much bias they institutionalize into the already compromised Immigration Courts, they aren’t going to be able to eliminate Due Process.
We need a legitimate, independent, impartial, unbiased, Sessions-free, Due Process focused U.S. Immigration Court. Until that happens, the entire immigration justice system will continue to spiral downward under the immorality and toxic incompetence of Sessions and his cronies.

PWS

06-22-18

HOW TOXIC IS THE ATMOSPHERE AT THE DEPARTMENT OF “JUSTICE” UNDER SCOFFLAW SESSIONS? – Highly Honored Long-Time Career Attorney, In Line for Promotion, Quits After Sessions Tosses Constitution Under the Bus With Politically Motivated Change Of Sides in ACA Litigation!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/senior-justice-dept-lawyer-resigns-after-shift-on-obamacare/2018/06/12/b3001d7c-6e55-11e8-afd5-778aca903bbe_story.html?utm_term=.702fb5e91011

Devlin Barrett & Matt Zapotosky report for the Washington Post:

A senior career Justice Department official has resigned in the wake of the Trump administration’s move to stop defending a key provision of the Affordable Care Act, a departure that highlights internal frustration generated by the decision, according to people familiar with the matter.

Joel McElvain, who has worked at the Justice Department for more than 20 years, submitted his resignation letter Friday, the morning after Attorney General Jeff Sessions notified Congress that the agency will not defend the ACA — the 2010 law known as Obamacare — against lawsuits brought by Republican-led states challenging its requirement that most Americans carry health insurance.

As a presidential candidate, Donald Trump campaigned on the promise of repealing Obamacare, but that effort faltered in Congress. Last year, lawmakers amended the law, nullifying the provision requiring people to carry insurance. That takes effect in 2019.

[Trump administration won’t defend ACA against suit from GOP states]

The Justice Department’s decision last week reversed years of legal work McElvain and the Justice Department had performed on the issue.

McElvain and his team were honored in 2013 with the Attorney General’s Award for exceptional service defending the legislation in court. A Justice Department spokeswoman confirmed his resignation takes effect in early July. McElvain declined to comment.

Those who know McElvain described him as an expert lawyer and a well-liked boss.

“This is the first I’m hearing it, and it’s a gut punch,” said one person who worked with McElvain for years and spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss a sensitive personnel issue. “That will be a very big blow to the morale of the [agency’s] civil division, a really sad day for the Department of Justice and a loss for the country.”

Several colleagues said McElvain was in line to become director of the Justice Department’s federal programs branch, which handles complex government policy questions pending before the courts. It is not known for its politics but for the tenacity with which its lawyers defend the law — any law — passed by Congress.

“Joel is just phenomenal. He’s just such a terrific lawyer and a great person,” said a former Justice Department official who knows McElvain. “ . . . It’s a lot of institutional knowledge and a great deal of experience walking out the door.”

It was previously reported that shortly after the Justice Department reversed itself, McElvain and two other Justice Department lawyers who had been defending the ACA withdrew from a case pending in a Texas court.

. . . .

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

Read the rest of the article at the link.

I suspect that some stressed out U.S. Immigration Judges left this week’s so-called “training” conference (more like a “brainwashing session”) thinking about whether this also would be their future.

Sessions delivered a shockingly lawless and xenophobic lecture in which he abandoned the Due Process role of the Immigration Courts, trashed judicial independence, treated them like junior immigration enforcement officers, encouraged “worst judicial practices,” told them it’s “all about the numbers,” minimized the compelling human plight of asylum seekers, lied about EOIR statistics, and ordered them to follow his rewrite of established asylum law that essentially could make U.S. Immigration Judges members of a “shooting squad” sent out to execute women and children refugees from the Northern Triangle without Due Process.

Some must have also found being a “delegee” of the “Chief Official Child Abuser of the U.S.” at least somewhat troubling. Not a great way to round out a career with the pathetic remains of the once-proud DOJ (now widely regarded as a bastion of White Nationalism, legal incompetence, and overt political bias).

PWS

06-13-18

THE EVER-AMAZING TAL @ CNN GIVES US THE “LOWDOWN” ON SESSIONS’S ALL-OUT PLAN TO DISABLE US PROTECTION LAWS – Pulling Out All The Stops In Attempting To Turn US Legal Protection System Into A “Killing Floor” For Most Vulnerable Refugees! – No Wonder Many U.S. Immigration Judges See Looming Conflict With Oath To Uphold U.S. Constitution & Exercise Independent Judgment Coming At Them with Breakneck Speed!

The massive asylum changes Jeff Sessions tucked into the footnotes

By Tal Kopan, CNN

When Attorney General Jeff Sessions ruled that domestic violence and gang victims are not likely to qualify for asylum in the US, he undercut potentially tens of thousands of claims each year for people seeking protection.

But in a footnote of his ruling, Sessions also telegraphed a desire for more sweeping, immediate reinterpretations of US asylum law that could result in turning people away at the border before they ever see a judge.

Sessions wrote that since “generally” asylum claims on the basis of domestic or gang violence “will not qualify for asylum,” few claims will meet the “credible fear” standard in an initial screening as to whether an immigrant can pursue their claim before a judge. That means asylum seekers may end up being turned back at the border, a major change from current practice.

“When you put it all together, this is his grand scheme to just close any possibility for people seeking protection — legally — to claim that protection that they can under the law,” said Ur Jaddou, a former chief counsel at US Citizenship and Immigration Services now at immigration advocacy group America’s Voice. “He’s looking at every possible way to end it. And he’s done it one after the other.”

The Trump administration has focused on asylum claims — a legal way to stay in the US under domestic and international law — characterizing them as a “loophole” in the system. The problem, they say, is many claims are unsuccessful, but in the meantime as immigrants wait out a lengthy court process, they are allowed to live and work in the US and build lives there, leading some to go into hiding.

More: http://www.cnn.com/2018/06/13/politics/jeff-sessions-asylum-footnotes/index.html

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

I strongly recommend that you go on over to CNN at the link to read Tal’s amazing and incisive analysis of Jeff Sessions’s insidious plan to destroy US protection laws and undermine our entire Constitutional system of justice to further his obscene White Nationalist agenda.

For those of you who read “Courtside” on a regular basis, it’s no secret that I’m a “Charter Member” of the “Tal Kopan Fan Club.” I have total admiration for her amazing work ethic, ability to understand and simplify one of the most complex subjects in US law and politics, and to turn out such tightly written, gobbledygook free copy on a regular basis.

In my view, even for a superstar like Tal, this is one of her “best ever” articles, and one that every American interested in saving lives, preserving our refugee and asylum laws, retaining our Constitutional system of Due Process, and remaining a nation of “values rather than men” in light of a totally unprincipled attack by an Attorney General unqualified for office should read and digest Tal’s analysis!

How disingenuous a scofflaw is Jeff Sessions? As Tal mentions, in FN 8 of Matter of A-B-, Sessions takes aim at the well-established principle of asylum law that “family” is a qualifying “particular social group.”

Now, lets hear what a “real” Article III Court, one not bound to a restrictionist White Nationalist anti-asylum agenda, and where they judges don’t work for Jeff Sessions, has to say about “family” as a particular social group:”

The INA does not expressly define the term “particular social group,” but we have recently considered its meaning. See Lizama v. Holder, 629 F.3d 440 (4th Cir. 2011).⁴ We there concluded that Chevron deference should be accorded to the BIA’s long-standing interpretation of “particular social group” as “a group of persons all of whom share a common, immutable characteristic,” Matter of Acosta, 19 I. & N. Dec. 211, 233 (BIA 1985), overruled on other grounds by Matter of Mogharrabi, 19 I. & N. Dec. 439 (BIA 1987). See Lizama, 629 F.3d at 447. This “immutability” test, first articulated in the BIA’s seminal Acosta case, requires that group members share a characteristic that “the members of the group either cannot change, or should not be required to change because it is fundamental to their individual identities or consciences.” 19 I. & N. Dec. at 233.

The Crespins’ proposed group satisfies this test. Acosta itself identifies “kinship ties” as paradigmatically immutable, see id., and the BIA has since affirmed that family bonds are innate and unchangeable. See In re C-A, 23 I. & N. Dec. 951, 959 (BIA 2006); In re H-, 21 I. & N. Dec. 337, 342 (BIA 1996) (accepting “clan membership” as a particular social

[632 F.3d 125]

group because it was “inextricably linked to family ties”). Accordingly, every circuit to have considered the question has held that family ties can provide a basis for asylum. See Al-Ghorbani v. Holder, 585 F.3d 980, 995 (6th Cir.2009); Ayele v. Holder, 564 F.3d 862, 869 (7th Cir.2009); Jie Lin v. Ashcroft, 377 F.3d 1014, 1028 (9th Cir.2004); Gebremichael v. INS, 10 F.3d 28, 36 (1st Cir.1993). We agree; the family provides “a prototypical example of a `particular social group.'” Sanchez-Trujillo v. INS, 801 F.2d 1571, 1576 (9th Cir. 1986).

The BIA committed legal error by concluding to the contrary. That error flowed from the fact that, as the Government concedes, the BIA’s removal order rejected a group different from that which the Crespins proposed. The BIA concluded that “those who actively oppose gangs in El Salvador by agreeing to be prosecutorial witnesses” does not constitute a cognizable social group. But the Crespins did not so contend. Rather, they maintained, and continue to maintain, that family members of those witnesses constitute such a group. The BIA later essentially admitted this error, acknowledging in its denial of Crespin’s motion to reconsider that it does “not dispute that family membership can give rise to membership in a particular social group under certain circumstances.” The BIA nonetheless affirmed its original order, asserting that the Crespins’ proposed social group was insufficiently “particular[ ]” because “anyone who testified against MS-13, as well as all of their family members, would potentially be included.” Again the BIA inaccurately characterized the Crespins’ proposed social group. Indeed, the Crespins’ proposed group excludes persons who merely testify against MS-13; the Crespins’ group instead encompasses only the relatives of such witnesses, testifying against MS-13, who suffer persecution on account of their family ties. The BIA never explained why this group stretches beyond the bounds of particularity.

Moreover, the precedent on which the BIA relied requires only that “the group have particular and well-defined boundaries” such that it constitutes a “discrete class of persons.” Matter of S-E-G-, 24 I. & N. Dec. 579, 582, 584 (BIA 2008). The family unit—centered here around the relationship between an uncle and his nephew—possesses boundaries that are at least as “particular and well-defined” as other groups whose members have qualified for asylum. See, e.g., Urbina-Mejia v. Holder, 597 F.3d 360, 365-66 (6th Cir.2010) (former gang members); Tapiero de Orejuela v. Gonzales, 423 F.3d 666, 672 (7th Cir.2005) (“the educated, landowning class of cattle farmers”); Safaie v. INS, 25 F.3d 636, 640 (8th Cir.1994) (“Iranian women who advocate women’s rights or who oppose Iranian customs relating to dress and behavior”), superseded by statute on other grounds, Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, Pub.L. No. 104-208, 110 Stat. 3009, as recognized in Rife v. Ashcroft, 374 F.3d 606, 614 (8th Cir.2004).

Finally, the BIA opined that the proposed group lacked the requisite “social visibility” of a particular social group. This was also error.⁵ Indeed, the BIA itself has previously stated that “[s]ocial

[632 F.3d 126]

groups based on innate characteristics such as … family relationship are generally easily recognizable and understood by others to constitute social groups.” In re C-A, 23 I. & N. Dec. at 959. In fact, we can conceive of few groups more readily identifiable than the family. See Sanchez-Trujillo, 801 F.2d at 1576. This holds particularly true for Crespin’s family, given that Crespin and his uncle publicly cooperated with the prosecution of their relative’s murder.

In sum, the BIA’s conclusion that Crespin failed to demonstrate his membership in a “particular social group” was manifestly contrary to law.

Crespin-Valladares v. Holder, 632 F.3d 117, 124-26 (4th Cir. 2011).

Outrageously, Sessions is suggesting taking a position that has been held by the Article III Courts to be “manifestly contrary to law.” Could there be a clearer example of a “scofflaw?”

And, lets not forget the cause for which Sessions is prostituting himself and the law. Contrary to Sessions’s suggestion that these are just ordinary folks seeking a better life, he is actually proposing to summarily remove mostly women and children who face a specific, very real chance of rape, torture, beatings, and death because of their position, gender, and resistance to the forces perpetrating persecution in El Salvador who are closely aligned with or operate largely with impunity from the Government, in fact if not in the mythical version that Sessions portrays.

In plain terms, Jeff Sessions is advocating that we pass a potential “death sentence” on the most vulnerable among us without giving them a fair hearing or actually considering the many ways in which protections laws could be used to save their lives. Even if Sessions were legally correct (which he certainly isn’t) removing basically defenseless individuals to places where they face such a deadly future would be both cowardly and highly immoral.

Finally, as I have pointed out before, the real plan here, which will go into effect almost immediately, is to have USCIS Asylum, Officers and Immigration Judges who now are all considered “partners” in the enforcement mechanism by Sessions, deny almost all “credible fear” claims based on Sessions’s yet untested decision in Matter of A-B-. Therefore, unless the Article III Courts decide to enforce the Due Process Clause of the Constitution, a duty which to date they have fairly consistently shirked in connection with the “credible fear process,” most current and future arrivals will be shipped out without any access to the hearing process at all — in other words, without even a veneer of fairness, impartiality, and Due Process.

Advocates had better get busy with a better plan to get the illegal aspects of the “deportation express” before the Article IIIs. Otherwise, vulnerable women and children are going to be condemned to death and /or torture with no process at all! Think we’re not witnessing the “decline and fall” of our republic. Guess again!

What have we come to as a nation when a corrupt and biased individual like Sessions purports to “speak for America?”

Stand up for Due Process and human values! Oppose Jeff Sessions and his restrictionist agenda!

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

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, “Midnight Writer” Tal reports on the GOP’s “DACA negotiations.”

House DACA deal in final stages: ‘Crossing the Ts’

By: Tal Kopan, CNN

Republican negotiations on a House immigration bill that would fix the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program are in the final stages, key lawmakers said as they left a secretive meeting in the House basement on Wednesday.

Both moderates and conservatives are coming together on an outline of a bill brought on by weeks of negotiations behind closed doors, as leadership brought the two wings of the party together to avert rebellions on both sides.

After a breakthrough agreement on how to proceed Tuesday — and arm twisting by leadership — that cut off moderates’ efforts to buck leadership control of the floor, talks Wednesday centered around hammering out the details of the policy itself.

The progress in negotiations sets the stage for votes on immigration on the House floor next week, which will include a vote on a conservative proposal that is not believed to have the support to pass and a separate compromise being written that will stem from the negotiations currently in progress.

Though the bills’ fates are still unclear and it’s possible neither passes the House — let alone moves in the Senate — the prospect of Republicans having a debate and vote on the political third rail of immigration on the House floor the summer before midterm elections was unthinkable just months ago.

“We’re just doing the cleanup stuff from the negotiations that (Reps) Raul (Labrador) and Carlos (Curbelo) did yesterday,” said conservative Freedom Caucus Chairman Mark Meadows as he left member negotiations Wednesday. “So we’re just trying to dot our I’s and cross our T’s.”

“We’re just about there,” Curbelo said. “I think we’ll definitely see text this week.”

What’s in it

CNN has obtained a draft from a source close to the negotiations of the outline lawmakers are working from to write the bill, which, when described to Curbelo, was confirmed as largely still what they’re working on minus a few “details filled in.” The broader GOP conference was briefed on the toplines of the bill in a Wednesday morning meeting.

More: http://www.cnn.com/2018/06/13/politics/daca-deal-house-immigration/index.html

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

Sounds to me like another wasteful “legislative charade” on the way from the GOP. The only “Dreamer bill” that actually could pass both houses would be one pushed by a bipartisan group of legislators. But, GOP leadership has no interest in such a solution, nor does Trump.

Therefore, I predict that Dreamers will continue to “twist in the wind” while the Federal Courts ruminate about their fate.

PWS

06-13-18

KATIE BENNER @ NYT: SESSIONS USES IMMIGRATION JUDGE “TRAINING” CONFERENCE TO INSTILL FEAR AND UP ALREADY ASTRONOMIC STRESS LEVELS ON IMMIGRATION JUDGES – IMPROPERLY TOUTS “VOLUME” WHILE FAILING TO PROMOTE IMPARTIALITY, FAIRNESS, AND DUE PROCESS!

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/12/us/politics/immigration-judges-jeff-sessions.html

Katie writes:

TYSONS, Va. — As the nation’s immigration judges gathered here for training this week, Attorney General Jeff Sessions had a message: They needed to help “end the lawlessness that now exists in our immigration system.”

But to many of the judges, Mr. Sessions’s hard-line immigration agenda is increasingly standing in the way of their ability to mete out justice.

In interviews, some objected to quotas he imposed on them this spring of 700 cases per year, as well as his ban on a bureaucratic tool they used to reduce their caseloads. Others expressed concern about the impact his zero-tolerance policy on illegal immigration could have on their dockets, and his push for faster rulings. They viewed those together as leaving them at risk of creating a system that sacrifices due process for efficiency.

“Sessions is treating them like immigration officers, not judges,” said Paul Schmidt, a former judge in the immigration courts, which count more than 300 judges in their ranks and another two dozen or so on an immigration appeals board.

Mr. Sessions’s carrying out of his immigration agenda has reignited a long-running debate about the independence of immigration judges, who are part of the Justice Department, not the judicial branch. Some of the judges fear that they could be used to help fulfill the administration’s priorities, endangering their independence.

“The Justice Department is the premier law enforcement agency, but the role of law enforcement is different from that of a neutral court,” said Dana Leigh Marks, the president emeritus of the immigration judges’ union. She said the organization believes the time has come to separate immigration courts from the department.

. . . .

In a speech on Monday at the judges’ conference outside Washington, hosted by the Justice Department, Mr. Sessions asked them to look for inefficiencies to finish cases more quickly.

“We have to be very productive,” he said. “Volume is critical.”

Three judges said they were struck by his emphasis on speed, prosecutions and policy matters without acknowledgment of the need to balance those demands with ensuring due process for immigrants. They said they feared the focus on metrics and closing cases would make it harder to sort through complicated cases and easier to simply deny applications for entry into the United States.

Scores of attendees wore American flag pins in support of “judicial independence and integrity in our courts,” according to a note accompanying the pins.

Dozens of judges who gathered early Monday evening expressed anxiety over their treatment, according to one person present who was not authorized to share the details of the private meeting.

They said they lacked specifics on which cases would count toward their quotas. They pointed to Mr. Sessions’s ban on their use of administrative closure, the tool that effectively allowed them to close cases. And they worried that his zero-tolerance policy on illegal immigration would flood the system with new cases and make it hard for them to decrease the system backlog of about 700,000 cases.

The potential impact of Mr. Sessions’s zero-tolerance policy toward immigration has been of particular concern to judges who are already grappling with a large caseload. “It’s as if local police and prosecutors decided to prosecute every traffic ticket of anyone going 2 miles per hour over the speed limit and filled the court system with those cases,” Mr. Schmidt said.

Judges are also resigning in large numbers, Ms. Marks said, a pattern she expected to continue. As of last year, 39 percent of immigration judges were eligible for retirement, according to a study conducted by the Government Accountability Office. Many immigration judges were sworn in during a wave of hiring in the 1990s.

The Justice Department has said it is on pace to hire 100 more judges this year, and its data shows that the department has never filled every slot. Currently there are 336 judges out of the 484 authorized slots.

In a conference session on Tuesday afternoon with Mr. McHenry, one judge asked if they could delay disciplining judges on the attorney general’s directives about metrics and streamlining the system. The room erupted in applause, but the question went unanswered.

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

Read Katie’s full article at the above link!

Immigration is an incredibly complex area of the law — often compared with the Tax Code. And, it almost certainly has more direct and potentially life-threatening and life-changing effects than does tax law (with due apologies to my tax lawyer colleagues). For better or worse, when they have an opportunity to get together at annual conferences (which aren’t necessarily held annually), most Immigration Judges love to “talk shop.”

Normally, you’d expect to hear things like questions about pending Supreme Court cases, the latest BIA precedent decision, immigration reform legislation, or how to constructively react to some of the criticism dished out by Circuit Courts, as well as sharing “best practices” to achieve fundamental fairness with efficiency.

But, while I was waiting in the lobby to meet my “dinner group” of some former colleagues, the “hall chatter” was all about things like “judicial dashboards,” “production quotas,” “what counts as a completion,” “docket rearrangement without consultation,” “required retraining” (sounded very much like a judicial version of the former Soviet “re-educaton camps”), “stress relief,” “not losing it in court,” “retirement estimates,” and, perhaps most tellingly “how can I remain true to my oath of office and job description without getting harassed, fired, or reassigned?”

Not much room for talk of law, Due Process, best methods and practices, and how to insure that folks, including the unrepresented, get the relief they might be entitled to under the immigration laws.

Appropriate for a judicial conference? Of course not! But, when your “keynote address” is delivered by a totally non-judicial Enforcement Cheerleader in a tone and with content more appropriate to a class of new Border Patrol officers than a group of supposedly independent, senior, quasi-judicial officers of the U.S. Government, that’s what you’re going to get. What must newly appointed U.S. Immigration Judges — some who gave up other good jobs to serve in these positions — have thought?

What made it even worse was the misuse of the judicial conference as a “platform” to release a “personal rewrite” by Sessions (although I suspect some outside group actually drafted it for him or gave him the outline) of established asylum principles in a way that dripped with overt hostility to legitimate asylum seekers, most of them desperate abused women, and was accompanied by unsupported statements about asylum fraud and bogus statistics that could have come right out of a “restrictionist group’s backgrounder.” The message to the judges was very clear — most asylum seekers are fraudsters, so you should cut corners, prejudge cases, look for any reason to deny asylum, preferably at the preliminary stage without wasting time on a full hearing, and crank out those denials to deter folks from fraudulently seeking refuge under our laws — or start looking for a new job!

From a legal, ethical, moral, and intellectual honesty standpoint, the Attorney General’s speech to the Immigration Judges was simply jaw-droppingly inappropriate! How is a quasi-judicial officer sworn to uphold the U.S. Constitution and charged by regulation with “exercising independent judgment” supposed to “negotiate” a system where the “boss” is basically saying “to heck with fairness, respect, and quality — just crank up the volume.”

Contrary to what Sessions said, DHS isn’t EOIR’s “partner.” No, DHS is a party in interest to every adversary proceeding in Immigration Court! They are legally entitled to no better treatment or consideration than any foreign national respondent, even an unrepresented one!

Indeed, the Due Process Clause of our Constitution applies to respondents but not to the DHS! The “founding fathers” weren’t trying to protect the rights of the Government under the Bill of Rights. They were seeking to protect individuals against Govenment overreach and abuses. Jeff Sessions is just the type of overbearing Government official that the founding fathers might have envisioned abusing the power and authority of his office.

“Rumored” assertions by some EOIR management officials that “we don’t care how you decide these cases” are patently absurd! Of course, Jeff Sessions cares about the results! He wants removal orders — fast and by the truckload!

He certainly wasn’t talking about racing through hundreds of thousands of cases to grant 43%-56% of the asylum cases that are decided on the merits, which is what should happen based on past performance had Sessions not reached in to “tilt” the law against asylum seekers and to use detention and family separation to coerce individuals into giving up potentially winnable claims. Anybody who perceived Sessions’s remarks to the judges on Monday as an encouragement to treat asylum applicants fairly, impartially, humanely, respectfully, and to insure that the generous interpretation of well-founded fear set forth by the Supremes in Cardoza-Fonseca was followed would need their head examined!

Even though immigrants, both legal and undocumented, forced and voluntary, built America and are primarily responsible for our success as a nation, I can’t remember ever hearing Jeff Sessions say anything kind or nice about any foreign national! Indeed, it’s hard to think of any public occasion when Sessions addressed immigration without providing some false narrative, ethnic slur, bogus or misleading statistic, denigrating the contributions of immigrants, dehumanizing them, or seeking to drum up xenophobia by touting false links between migrants and crime.

Sessions’s other message to the judges: By the way, folks, this backlog mess that we and our predecessors have created and are now intentionally aggravating by aimlessly reshuffling dockets, cranking up needless detention, poor enforcement policies, lousy management and hiring practices, absurdly inadequate technology, and attempting to use the Immigration Courts as “deterrents” is your fault (along with the respondents and their attorneys) because you don’t work hard enough or smart enough! You’re going to “take the fall” when we aren’t able to stop human migration by using the Immigration Court as an enforcement tool! We’re giving you “mission impossible,” and if you can’t carry it out, you’re not doing your job!

Congress — which is ultimately responsible for this mess — and the Article III Courts who have knowingly and intentionally swept the glaring Due Process deficiencies, stunning ethical conflicts, lack of quality control, and failure to consistently provide fundamental fairness under their “Ivory Tower carpets” for far too long are going to have to step up and put an end to this parody of justice or accept responsibility for the implosion of the Immigration Courts and Constitutional Due Process that are looming on the horizon.

One thing is for certain: You can’t run a Due Process, fundamentally fair court system under Jeff Sessions. He proved that this week — beyond any reasonable doubt! Anybody who doubts that, isn’t being reasonable — or isn’t paying attention!

PWS

06-13-18

MIKE MILLER @ WASHPOST EXPOSES “TURNSTILE JUSTICE” AT BORDER US DISTRICT COURT: US Magistrate Presides Over “Clown Court” Where Traumatized, Bewildered, Migrants Are Coerced Into Pleading Guilty To Crimes Without Understanding The Consequences — Assistant US Attorney “High Fives” Speedy Finish, Turning “Trials” Into A “Sporting Event” — Even The Public Defender Partakes Of The Clown Show By Purporting To Represent 71 Individuals Simultaneously! — Come On, Folks, Whatever Happened To Due Process, Ethics & Professional Responsibility?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/they-just-took-them-frantic-parents-separated-from-their-kids-fill-courts-on-the-border/2018/06/09/e3f5170c-6aa9-11e8-bea7-c8eb28bc52b1_story.html

Miller writes:

MCALLEN, Texas — The words “all rise” were still ringing in the brightly lit South Texas courtroom last week when Peter E. Ormsby slipped unceremoniously into his seat.

“Good morning,” the 62-year-old federal magistrate said as the courtroom filled with the clanking of shackled defendants returning to their wooden benches. “We’re here to take up a number of criminal cases that allege that the defendants violated the immigration laws of the United States.”

Seated in front of Ormsby were 71 disheveled immigrants caught illegally crossing the Rio Grande. The number of defendants has soared amid President Trump’s crackdown on a new surge of border crossers. But the mass hearing was remarkable less for its size than for who it included: parents.

For the first time, federal courtrooms here and across the Southwest are being flooded with distraught mothers and fathers who have been charged with misdemeanor illegal entry and separated from their children — a shift in policy touted by the administration as a way to stop families from trying to reach the United States but decried by critics as traumatizing and inhumane. Last month a Honduran father separated from his wife and 3-year-old son killed himself in a Texas jail cell, The Washington Post reported Saturday.

In McAllen alone, 415 children had been stripped from their parents between May 21 and June 5, according to federal public defenders.

Now, on the morning of June 6, 14 more parents from Central America were facing an agonizing choice with uncertain consequences. They could plead guilty in the hope of speeding up their reunification with their children, but risk damaging their chances of receiving asylum in the United States. Or they could plead innocent and head to trial, a process that could take days or weeks and prolong their separation from their kids.

Seven miles from Mexico and surrounded by brushlands that are home to the border’s busiest smuggling routes, the Bentsen Tower federal courthouse has become one of the anguished epicenters of family separation.

On Wednesday morning, the evidence of that was the tears on the parents’ faces. Many clutched fliers with a phone number they could call to try to get their kids back from the increasingly crowded federal shelters where they are being housed.

. . . .

By day’s end, he would sentence more than 100 people, including 28 parents. Most would receive the lightest punishment possible — time served — before they were handed over to Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

The frenzied pace of the proceedings was no accident. As Moody emerged from court in the afternoon, she and a colleague exchanged a high-five.

“I said I’d get done by 3:20,” the prosecutor said, checking the time to see she was only nine minutes behind schedule.

‘Prosecuting everybody’

Aleman-Bendiks had arrived at the tall, dark glass courthouse shortly after dawn that morning. After preparing for an hour in an office decorated with her diplomas from Rice University and Harvard Law, the 52-year-old federal public defender headed upstairs to the courtroom, where the air smelled like sweat and the 71 immigrants were already seated. She was representing all of them.

“How many of you were traveling with children?” she asked in Spanish. More than a dozen hands shot up.

“How did they separate you?” she said to a Guatemalan woman whose 8-year-old daughter was taken away.

“How long since you saw her?” she asked a Honduran separated from her 6-year-old girl.

“They just took them?” she said to a Salvadoran whose two daughters were gone.

This is what Trump’s zero-tolerance policy looked like to Aleman-Bendiks and scores of other federal public defenders along the border.

. . . .

For Meyers, the challenge is not only logistics but the wrenching stories of families being torn apart. In a conference call with her assistant federal public defenders last month, she said she told them to force judges to confront the issue.

“We think it’s important for the court and everybody to hear what’s happening,” she said.

On May 22, Aleman-Bendiks asked Ormsby in court to pressure the government to provide more information about the fate of families being separated. On May 31, she and her boss, Kyle B. Welch, met with ten officials from ICE, Border Patrol, the Justice Department and the Office of Refugee Resettlement, which cares for the children separated from their parents as well as “unaccompanied minors”who arrived in the United States on their own.

“The idea was to try and give us a sense of what’s happening here,” Aleman-Bendiks said, but the meeting delivered little clear information.

One Border Patrol official did say agents in and around McAllen had a policy of not separating children under 5 from their parents — although that policy does not appear to be in place elsewhere along the border. Children as young as 18 months have been taken from their parents.

On Wednesday, Aleman-Bendiks asked Ormsby to order the government to hand over lists of children separated from their parents so that immigration attorneys could ensure they were reunited.

“My concern is that there are lost children here in the system,” she said. “We are hearing it every day, your honor, and it’s not right.”

Ormsby noted that “children are not within the jurisdiction of this court. These people are here because they have a criminal case here.”

He invited her to prepare a brief on how he could order the government to provide lists. “But on its face,” he added, “it seems questionable to me that the court would have the authority to do that.”

. . . .

But immigration advocates aren’t so sure. “They are now convicted of a crime,” said Leah Chavla of the Women’s Refugee Commission. “Under U.S. law, that could be a bar to them receiving asylum, so they’d have to get a waiver.”

In the end, those complications mattered less to the parents in Ormsby’s courtroom than seeing their kids again. All of them pleaded guilty to illegally crossing the border and were sentenced to time served.

“Obviously, in each of your situations, you committed a crime and so the government was within their rights to pursue that,” the magistrate said. “Whether or not they should exercise their discretion that way is something that is obviously being debated.”

“As someone who has children myself,” he added, “it would be a terrible situation to be separated under those conditions.”

Then the guards put handcuffs back on the parents and led them out of the courtroom, where their future remained as unclear as the location of their children.

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

Read Mike’s complete report at the above link.

As described in Mike Miller’s article, U.S. Magistrate Judge Peter Ormsby appears to preside over a “court” where “justice” for traumatized, obviously bewildered, and coerced migrants is a cross between a sporting event and a bad joke.

The U.S. Supreme Court held that understanding the immigration consequences of a conviction is a critical element in a migrant’s voluntary decision to plead guilty. Many of these migrant defendants obviously wanted to know whether a guilty plea would 1) free them from detention, 2) reunite them with their children, and 3) adversely affect their asylum cases. Neither Judge Ormsby nor anyone else in his courtroom was able to answer accurately. Judge Ormsby had the authority to defer accepting the pleas until the Assistant U.S. Attorney provided the answers. Yet, he did not do so. These guilty pleas appeared to be neither informed nor voluntary. A federal judge therefore should not have accepted them.

No wonder the prosecuting Assistant U.S Attorney “high fived” at the end of this farce. Likewise, the Public Defender’s claim to simultaneously represent 71 non-English-speaking defendants was a remarkable twist on the canons of ethics and professional responsibility.

Would a group of white, middle class, mostly first-time misdemeanor defendants have been treated this way in federal court? I doubt it. Yet, due process applies equally to everyone in the U.S. regardless of status.

PWS

06-10-18

SARAH MACARAEG @ THE GUARDIAN: U.S. BORDER PATROL HAS KILLED 97 CIVILIANS (INCLUDING SOME US CITIZENS) SINCE 2003!

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/may/02/fatal-encounters-97-deaths-point-to-pattern-of-border-agent-violence-across-america

SARAH MACARAEG WRITES IN THE GUARDIAN:

For six long years the family of Jose Antonio Elena Rodriguez have been caught in a legal saga seeking justice for the 16-year-old who was killed by a US border patrol agent who fired 16 times from Arizona into Mexico.

Ending criminal proceedings that have dragged on since 2012, a jury last week cleared agent Lonnie Swartz of second-degree murder and could not agree on a verdict for two lesser charges of manslaughter. The shooting has compelled judges up to the US supreme court to deliberate whether the American government can be sued in civil court for wrongful deaths on Mexican soil – placing the incident, and eight other cross-border fatal shootings, at the center of scrutiny surrounding the use of force by agents in response to allegedly thrown rocks.

However, lesser known are similar shootings which have occurred inside the US. Such as that of Francisco Javier Dominguez Rivera, who was shot and killed “execution-style”, in the language of a wrongful death complaint the government paid $850,000 to settle. An Arizona agent responding to an alert from the National Guard in 2007 alleged Rivera threatened him with a rock.

Ten years later, the Department of Justice settled another wrongful death claim involving a rock-throwing allegation in California for $500,000.

The shootings are only part of a larger litany of Customs and Border Protection agency-related violence inside the US. Encounters have proven deadly for at least 97 people – citizens and non-citizens – since 2003, a count drawn from settlement payment data, court records, use of force logs, incident reports and news articles.

From Maine to Washington state and California to Florida, the deaths stem from all manner of CBP activity. Border agents manning land crossings and a checkpoint have used deadly force, as have agents conducting roving patrols – up to 160 miles inland from the border.

Quick guide

The US border patrol force

Pedestrians were run over by agents. Car chases culminated in crashes. Some have drowned, others died after they were pepper-sprayed, stunned with tasers or beaten.

But the majority of victims died from bullet wounds, including shots in the back. The bullets were fired not only by agents conducting border enforcement operations, but also those acting in a local law enforcement capacity and by agents off-duty, who’ve shot burglary suspects, intimate partners and friends.

Among the incidents, one agent also died following an exchange of gunfire with a family member who was found dead. Another agent was killed by friendly fire. Border agents sustained non-deadly shots in two incidents.

The picture compiled from official documents and news reports is incomplete, but indicates that at least 28 people who died were US citizens. Six children, between the ages of 12 and 16, were among the victims whose ages were disclosed.

The federal government has paid more than $9m to settle a fraction of the incidents thus far. A Customs and Border Protection spokesperson did not comment on those cases but pointed to the agency’s National Use of Force Review Board, which has investigated 30 significant incidents since June 2015. Each of its 17 reports made public have found the use of force to be compliant with agency policy in effect at the time. Local boards also review incidents, but only those that do not result in serious injury or death.

Here, the Guardian looks at eight fatal encounters with CBP agents that happened inside the United States and the larger patterns of incidents to which they relate.

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

Read the complete article at the link.

Of course, there are two sides to every story. Many of the incidents were found to have involved “justified use of force.” Others appeared to be tragic accidents.

Nevertheless, three things are clear from this account: 1) the Border Patrol needs more supervision and accountability for its actions; 2) that’s not going to happen under the “anything goes” attitude of the Trump Administration, any more than it did under the Bush or Obama Administrations, and 3) Congress has once again been AWOL on this issue.

PWS

05-02-18

DACA: SCOFFLAWS TRUMP & SESSIONS OUTED AGAIN — USD Judge John Bates (DC) Finds Administration’s Rationale For Terminating DACA Was Bogus – But, Gives Trumpsters 90 Days To Explain Before Restarting Program! – NAACP v. Trump!

NAACP v. Trump, U.S.D.C., D.D.C., 04-24-18 (Judge John D. Bates)

Read Judge Bates’s 60 page decision invalidating the Trump Administration’s decision to “rescind” DACA and ordering the restart of the program, but delaying the order for 90 days to give the Administration a chance to come up with a legal rationale for recision:

JugeBatesDACA

Key Quote From Judge Bates:

Executive Branch officials possess relatively unconstrained authority to enforce the law against certain violators but not others. Ordinarily, the exercise of that authority is subject to review not in a court of law, but rather in the court of public opinion: members of the public know how their elected officials have used their enforcement powers, and they can hold those officials accountable by speaking out, by petitioning their representatives, or ultimately at the ballot box. When an official claims that the law requires her to exercise her enforcement authority in a certain way, however, she excuses herself from this accountability. Moreover, if her view of the law is incorrect, she may needlessly forego the opportunity to implement appropriate enforcement priorities and also to demonstrate those priorities to the public.

Fortunately, neither Supreme Court nor D.C. Circuit precedent compels such a result. Rather, the cases are clear that courts have the authority to review an agency’s interpretation of the law if it is relied on to justify an enforcement policy, even when that interpretation concerns the lawful scope of the agency’s enforcement discretion. See Chaney, 470 U.S. at 832–33; OSG, 132 F.3d at 812; Crowley, 37 F.3d at 676–77. Under this rule, an official cannot claim that the law ties her hands while at the same time denying the courts’ power to unbind her. She may escape political accountability or judicial review, but not both.

Here, the Department’s decision to rescind DACA was predicated primarily on its legal judgment that the program was unlawful. That legal judgment was virtually unexplained, however, and so it cannot support the agency’s decision. And although the government suggests that DACA’s rescission was also predicated on the Department’s assessment of litigation risk, this consideration is insufficiently distinct from the agency’s legal judgment to alter the reviewability analysis. It was also arbitrary and capricious in its own right, and thus likewise cannot support the agency’s action. For these reasons, DACA’s rescission was unlawful and must be set aside.

For the reasons given above, then, the Court will vacate the Department’s September 5, 2017 decision to rescind the DACA program. The Court will stay its order of vacatur for 90 days, however, to afford DHS an opportunity to better explain its view that DACA is unlawful. The Court will also deny the government’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, its motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ APA claims on reviewability grounds, and its motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ substantive APA claim; grant the government’s motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ procedural APA claim, the NAACP plaintiffs’ RFA claim, and plaintiffs’ information-sharing claim; and defer ruling on the government’s motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ remaining constitutional claims.

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

So, who “won” under Judge Bate’s order? The plaintiffs won a smashing victory on all the significant legal issues. And, Judge Bates appears prepared to not only halt the termination of DACA for those already approved under the program, as other courts have done, but also to order the DHS to resume accepting new applications for those who meet the DACA criteria.

On the flip side, nothing happens for the next 90 days while the DHS searches for a rationale for terminating DACA. I think that’s going to be hard to develop. But, you never know.

This case follows a disturbingly familiar pattern. Trump, Sessions, & Co. institute actions against immigrants based on bias, racism, xenophobia, and campaign promises. They are promptly rejected by the courts as illegal.

Then, the Administration goes “to the drawing board” (they never seriously considered the law in the first place) in an attempt to come up with a legal rationale (usually a fairly obvious pretext) for their original actions.

That’s why it’s so infuriating to hear an intellectually dishonest scofflaw like Jeff Sessions constantly pontificating about a “rule of law” that actually represents only his own distorted and biased view of the law — likely drawn up for him by one of the restrictionist or White Nationalist groups he likes to hang around with.

Of course, even if Judge Bates eventually rules against the Administration, there no doubt will be an appeal to the DC Circuit. But, without a further stay pending appeal (which seems unlikely given the Supreme Court’s declination to give one in other DACA litigation) DACA would be restarted while the case is working its way through the lower courts, perhaps to the Supremes.

The Administration could easily have avoided this mess by agreeing to a “clean” DACA bill. They likely could even have gotten some “Wall” funding and other enforcement enhancements (short of more unneeded agents or more inhumane and unnecessary detention) thrown in with the deal. But, Trump blew the chance.

So now the fate of DACA is likely to be tied up in the Federal Courts for the indefinite future.

PWS

04-24-18

ROBERT BARNES @ WASHPOST: “Trump v. State of Hawaii” Is Actually “Trump v. Trump” — The President’s Constant Barrage Of Un-Presidential Behavior Has Always Been The Real Issue — Will Court Impose Limits Or Wash Its Hands & Let Voters Deal With A President Who Undermines Our Republic? — Most Observers Expect Supremes’ Majority To Punt On Trump’s Biased Agenda!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/in-travel-ban-case-supreme-court-considers-the-president-vs-this-president/2018/04/22/f33f1edc-44cb-11e8-8569-26fda6b404c7_story.html?utm_term=.223d08cb0950

Robert Barnes reports for WashPost:

The Supreme Court’s final oral argument of the term will be one of its most important and potentially far-reaching, an examination of the president’s authority to protect the country by banning some foreigners who seek entry.

But, similar to a debate that has consumed Washington for the past 15 months, a major issue for the court is separating “the president” from “this president.”

The justices on Wednesday will consider President Trump’s third iteration of a travel ban that bars most nationals from a small group of mostly Muslim nations. It is the first time the court has considered the merits of a policy that has consumed the administration since its start, and raises deep questions about the judiciary’s role in national security issues usually left to the political branches.

The first version of the ban was issued just a week after Trump took office, and lower courts have found that it and each reformulated version since exceeded the authority granted by Congress and was motivated by Trump’s prejudice — animus, as courts like to say — toward Muslims.

The state of Hawaii, which is leading the challenge of the ban, told the Supreme Court:

“For over a year, the president campaigned on the pledge, never retracted, that he would ban Muslims from entering the United States.

“And upon taking office, the president issued and reissued, and reissued again, a sweeping and unilateral order that purports to bar over 150 million aliens — the vast majority of them Muslim — from entering the United States.”

Hawaii’s brief, by Washington lawyer Neal K. Katyal, cites not only Trump’s campaign comments, but also his actions as president, including the time he retweeted “three anti-Muslim propaganda videos” from a widely condemned far-right British organization.

This led to a response by the solicitor general of the United States to the justices of the Supreme Court that could have been written only in this era, about this chief executive:

“The president’s retweets do not address the meaning of the proclamation at all.”

Solicitor General Noel J. Francisco urged the court not to get distracted by the president’s bluster — he has said nice things about Muslims, too, the brief states — and to keep its examination on the law.

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

Read Barnes’s full article at the link.

Trump has never shown any actual justification for the “bogus ban.” But, the standard of “facially bona fide and legitimate” is very permissive. As usual, from a legal standpoint, Trump would have done better to have kept his big mouth shut!

PWS

04-24-18

PRO PUBLICA: HOW OUR GOVERNMENT HAS CYNICALLY TURNED WHAT SHOULD BE A GENEROUSLY ADMINISTERED, LIFE-SAVING, PROTECTION-GRANTING ASYLUM SYSTEM INTO A “GAME OF CHANCE” WITH POTENTIALLY FATAL CONSEQUENCES FOR THE HAPLESS & VULNERABLE “PLAYERS!” –Play The “Interactive Version” Of “The Game” Here – See If You Would Survive or Perish Playing “Refugee Roulette!”

https://projects.propublica.org/asylum/#how-asylum-works

Years-long wait lists, bewildering legal arguments, an extended stay in detention — you can experience it all in the Waiting Game, a newsgame that simulates the experience of trying to seek asylum in the United States. The game was created by ProPublica, Playmatics and WNYC. Based on the true stories of real asylum-seekers, this interactive portal allows users to follow in the footsteps of five people fleeing persecution and trying to take refuge in America.

The process can be exhausting and feel arbitrary – and as you’ll find in the game, it involves a lot of waiting. Once asylum-seekers reach America, they must condense complex and often traumatic stories into short, digestible narratives they will tell again and again. Their lives often depend on their ability to convince a judge that they are in danger. Judicial decisions are so inconsistent across the country, success in complicated cases can come down to geography and luck — in New York City only 17 percent of asylum cases are denied in immigration court; in Atlanta, 94 percent are. Increasingly, many asylum-seekers are held in detention for months or even years while going through the system. The immigration detention system costs more than $2 billion per year to maintain.

The Trump administration has tried to reframe the asylum system as a national security threat and a magnet for illegal immigration. Attorney General Jeff Sessions characterizes the American asylum process as “subject to rampant abuse” and “overloaded with fake claims.” He has aimed recent reforms at expediting asylum adjudications to speed up deportations and at making it more difficult for certain groups to qualify for protection, such as Central Americans who claim to fear gender-based violence or gang persecution.

The narrative that the system is overrun with fraud has long been pushed by groups that favor limiting immigration overall. They point to some 37 percent of asylum-seekers who annually miss their immigration hearings as evidence that people without legitimate fears of persecution game the system. They argue that allowing asylum-seekers to obtain work permits while they wait for a decision on their cases — which sometimes takes years — incentivizes baseless claims.

But another picture emerged when ProPublica spoke with more than 20 experts and stakeholders who study and work in the asylum system, including lawyers, immigration judges, historians, policy experts, an asylum officer, a former border patrol agent and a former ICE prosecutor.

When asked about changes to the system they’d like to see, many suggested providing asylum-seekers with better access to lawyers to support due process, expanding the definition of a refugee to cover modern-day conflicts,providing more resources to help the system process claims in a timely manner, and improving judicial independence by moving immigration courts out of the Department of Justice.

Most acknowledged some level of asylum-claim abuse exists. “In any system, of course, there are going to be some bad actors and some weaknesses people seek to exploit,” said Doris Meissner, the former commissioner of the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service from 1993 to 2000.

But they also argued for the importance of protecting and improving a national program that has provided refuge to hundreds of thousands of people. “If you are going to make a mistake in the immigration area, make this mistake,” said Bill Hing, director of the University of San Francisco’s Immigration and Deportation Defense Clinic. “Protect people that may not need protecting, but don’t make the mistake of not protecting people who need it.”

Victor Manjarrez, a former border patrol agent from the 1980s until 2011, said he had seen human smuggling networks exploit the border over the years, but also many people who genuinely needed help.

“We have a system that’s not perfect, but is designed to take refugees. That is the beauty of it,” he said. “It has a lot of issues, but we have something in place that is designed to be compassionate. And that’s why we have such a big political debate about this.”

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

Read the narrative and play the interactive “Waiting Game” at the above link!

Getting refuge often depends on getting the right:

Border Patrol Agent an Asylum Officer to even get into the system;
Lawyer;
Local Immigration Court;
Immigration Judge;
DHS Assistant Chief Counsel;
BIA Panel;
U.S. Court of Appeals jurisdiction;
U.S. Court of Appeals Panel;
Luck.

If something goes wrong anywhere along this line, your case could “go South,” even if it’s very meritorious.

I also agree with Professor Hing that given the UNHCR guidance that asylum applicants ought to be given “the benefit of the doubt,” the generous standard for asylum established by the Supremes in INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca and implemented by the BIA in Matter of Mogharrabi, and the often irreversible nature of wrongful removals to persecution, the system should be designed to “error on the side of the applicant.”

Indeed, one of the things that DHS in my experience does well is detecting and prosecuting systemic asylum fraud. While a few individuals probably do get away with tricking the system, most “professional fraudsters” and their clients eventually are caught and brought to justice, most often in criminal court. Most of these are discovered not by “tough laws” or what happens in Immigration Court, but by more normal criminal investigative techniques: undercover agents, tips from informants, and “disgruntled employees or clients” who “blow the whistle” in return for more lenient treatment for themselves.

Hope YOU get protected, not rejected!

PWS

04-23-18

MULTI-TALENTED TAL @ CNN TAKES US TO THE S. BORDER IN PICTURES & WORDS!

http://www.cnn.com/2018/04/19/politics/secretary-nielsen-dhs-border-fence-wall-immigration/index.html

Snapshots from the US-Mexico border

By Tal Kopan, CNN

Updated 6:55 PM ET, Thu April 19, 2018

Here are Tal’s pictures. For whatever technical reason, you’ll have to go to the original article at the link to get the captions that go with them!

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

Wow! As those of you who read “Courtside” on a regular basis know, I’m a HUGE FAN of Tal’s timely, incisive, concise, and highly accessible reporting. I feature it on a regular basis. I’ve also seen her do a great job on TV and video. But, until now, I didn’t know about her skills as a photojournalist. Tal can do it all!

Also, as my colleague Judge and Super-Blogger Jeffrey Chase pointed out in one of his recent comments on this blog, pictures play an essential role in understanding the immigration saga in America.

Been there, done that in my career. Takes me back to the long past days of riding three wheelers, helicopters, Patrol Cars, looking through infrared night scopes, and even accompanying foot patrol during my days in the “Legacy INS General Counsel’s Office.” (Most often on the border south of San Diego.) We actually took the Trial Attorneys and some of the Assistant U.S. Attorneys prosecuting our cases with us to show them what it was really like at the “ground level.”

Actually doesn’t look all that much different decades later. What is painfully clear is that walls, fences, helicopters, detectors, unrealistically harsh and restrictive laws, and more detention centers (the “New American Gulag”) will never, ever “seal” our borders as some immigration hard-liners insist is possible.

At best, we can control, channel, and regulate the flow of migrants, but not halt it entirely. Human migration was taking place long before the U.S. became a nation, and I daresay that it will continue as long as there are humans left on earth. To think that walls, troops, concentration camps, harsh laws, and prisons are going to halt it completely is a mixture of arrogance and ignorance.

So, rather than pouring more money down the drain on the same “strategies” that have been failing for decades, a “smart” border control policy would involve:

More realistic and generous interpretations of our refugee and asylum laws that should include most of those fleeing for their lives from the Northern Triangle;
A much larger and more “market based” legal immigration system for permanent and temporary migrants that would meet the legitimate needs of U.S. employers and our economy while making it attractive for most prospective workers and employers to use the legal visa system rather than the “black market” of undocumented entry;
A larger and more robust refugee processing program for Northern Triangle refugees so most would be screened and documented outside the U.S.;
Cooperation with the UNHCR and other stable countries in the Western Hemisphere to distribute the flow of long-term and temporary refugees in an equitable manner that will help both the refugees and the receiving countries;
Working with and investing in Mexico and Northern Triangle countries to address and correct the conditions that create migration flows to the Southern Border.
Providing lawyers for asylum applicants who present themselves at the Southern Border so that their claims for protection (which actually go beyond asylum and include protection under the Convention Against Torture) can be fairly, correctly, and efficiently determined in an orderly manner in accordance with Due Process.

No, it’s unlikely to happen in my lifetime. But, I hope that future generations, including the members of the “New Due Process Army,” will find themselves in a position to abandon past mistakes, and develop the smart, wise, generous, humane, realistic, and effective immigration and refugee policies that we need to keep our “nation of immigrants” viable and vitalized for centuries to come. Until then, we’re probably going to have to watch folks repeat variations of the same painful mistakes over and over.

PWS

04-19-18

SUPREME BOMBSHELL: JUSTICE GORSUCH PROVIDES CRITICAL FIFTH VOTE FOR OVERTURNING DEPORTATION STATUTE FOR UNCONSTITUTIONAL VAGUENESS! — Administration Suffers Yet Another Legal Setback, This Time At the High Court! – Sessions v. Dimaya — Get The Full Opinion, Court Syllabus, Key Quotes, & My “Instant Analysis” HERE!

Dimaya–15-1498_1b8e

Sessions v. Dimaya, No. 15–1498, 04-17-18 (5-4 Decision)

Syllabus By Court Staff:

The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) virtually guarantees that any alien convicted of an “aggravated felony” after entering the Unit- ed States will be deported. See 8 U. S. C. §§1227(a)(2)(A)(iii), 1229b(a)(3), (b)(1)(C). An aggravated felony includes “a crime of violence (as defined in [18 U.S.C. §16] . . . ) for which the term of imprisonment [is] at least one year.” §1101(a)(43)(f). Section 16’s definition of a crime of violence is divided into two clauses—often referred to as the elements clause, §16(a), and the residual clause, §16(b). The residual clause, the provision at issue here, defines a “crime of violence” as “any other offense that is a felony and that, by its nature, involves a substantial risk that physical force against the person or property of another may be used in the course of committing the offense.” To decide whether a person’s conviction falls within the scope of that clause, courts apply the categorical approach. This approach has courts ask not whether “the particular facts” underlying a conviction created a substantial risk, Leocal v. Ashcroft, 543 U. S. 1, 7, nor whether the statutory elements of a crime require the creation of such a risk in each and every case, but whether “the ordinary case” of an offense poses the requisite risk, James v. United States, 550 U. S. 192, 208.

Respondent James Dimaya is a lawful permanent resident of the United States with two convictions for first-degree burglary under California law. After his second offense, the Government sought to deport him as an aggravated felon. An Immigration Judge and the Board of Immigration Appeals held that California first-degree bur- glary is a “crime of violence” under §16(b). While Dimaya’s appeal was pending in the Ninth Circuit, this Court held that a similar re-

2

SESSIONS v. DIMAYA Syllabus

sidual clause in the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA)—defining “violent felony” as any felony that “otherwise involves conduct that presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to another,” 18 U. S. C. §924(e)(2)(B)—was unconstitutionally “void for vagueness” under the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. Johnson v. United States, 576 U. S. ___, ___. Relying on Johnson, the Ninth Circuit held that §16(b), as incorporated into the INA, was also unconstitu- tionally vague.

Held: The judgment is affirmed.

803 F. 3d 1110, affirmed.
JUSTICE KAGAN delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to

Parts I, III, IV–B, and V, concluding that §16’s residual clause is un- constitutionally vague. Pp. 6–11, 16–25.

(a) A straightforward application of Johnson effectively resolves this case. Section 16(b) has the same two features as ACCA’s residu- al clause—an ordinary-case requirement and an ill-defined risk threshold—combined in the same constitutionally problematic way. To begin, ACCA’s residual clause created “grave uncertainty about how to estimate the risk posed by a crime” because it “tie[d] the judi- cial assessment of risk” to a speculative hypothesis about the crime’s “ordinary case,” but provided no guidance on how to figure out what that ordinary case was. 576 U. S., at ___. Compounding that uncer- tainty, ACCA’s residual clause layered an imprecise “serious poten- tial risk” standard on top of the requisite “ordinary case” inquiry. The combination of “indeterminacy about how to measure the risk posed by a crime [and] indeterminacy about how much risk it takes for the crime to qualify as a violent felony,” id., at ___, resulted in “more unpredictability and arbitrariness than the Due Process Clause tolerates,” id., at ___. Section 16(b) suffers from those same two flaws. Like ACCA’s residual clause, §16(b) calls for a court to identify a crime’s “ordinary case” in order to measure the crime’s risk but “offers no reliable way” to discern what the ordinary version of any offense looks like. Id., at ___. And its “substantial risk” thresh- old is no more determinate than ACCA’s “serious potential risk” standard. Thus, the same “[t]wo features” that “conspire[d] to make” ACCA’s residual clause unconstitutionally vague also exist in §16(b), with the same result. Id., at ___. Pp. 6–11.

(b) The Government identifies three textual discrepancies between ACCA’s residual clause and §16(b) that it claims make §16(b) easier to apply and thus cure the constitutional infirmity. None, however, relates to the pair of features that Johnson found to produce imper- missible vagueness or otherwise makes the statutory inquiry more determinate. Pp. 16–24.

(1) First, the Government argues that §16(b)’s express require-

Cite as: 584 U. S. ____ (2018) 3

Syllabus

ment (absent from ACCA) that the risk arise from acts taken “in the course of committing the offense,” serves as a “temporal restriction”— in other words, a court applying §16(b) may not “consider risks aris- ing after” the offense’s commission is over. Brief for Petitioner 31. But this is not a meaningful limitation: In the ordinary case of any of- fense, the riskiness of a crime arises from events occurring during its commission, not events occurring later. So with or without the tem- poral language, a court applying the ordinary case approach, whether in §16’s or ACCA’s residual clause, would do the same thing—ask what usually happens when a crime is committed. The phrase “in the course of” makes no difference as to either outcome or clarity and cannot cure the statutory indeterminacy Johnson described.

Second, the Government says that the §16(b) inquiry, which focus- es on the risk of “physical force,” “trains solely” on the conduct typi- cally involved in a crime. Brief for Petitioner 36. In contrast, ACCA’s residual clause asked about the risk of “physical injury,” requiring a second inquiry into a speculative “chain of causation that could possibly result in a victim’s injury.” Ibid. However, this Court has made clear that “physical force” means “force capable of causing physical pain or injury.” Johnson v. United States, 559 U. S. 133, 140. So under §16(b) too, a court must not only identify the conduct typically involved in a crime, but also gauge its potential consequenc- es. Thus, the force/injury distinction does not clarify a court’s analy- sis of whether a crime qualifies as violent.

Third, the Government notes that §16(b) avoids the vagueness of ACCA’s residual clause because it is not preceded by a “confusing list of exemplar crimes.” Brief for Petitioner 38. Those enumerated crimes were in fact too varied to assist this Court in giving ACCA’s residual clause meaning. But to say that they failed to resolve the clause’s vagueness is hardly to say they caused the problem. Pp. 16– 21.

(2) The Government also relies on judicial experience with §16(b), arguing that because it has divided lower courts less often and resulted in only one certiorari grant, it must be clearer than its ACCA counterpart. But in fact, a host of issues respecting §16(b)’s application to specific crimes divide the federal appellate courts. And while this Court has only heard oral arguments in two §16(b) cases, this Court vacated the judgments in a number of other §16(b) cases, remanding them for further consideration in light of ACCA decisions. Pp. 21–24.

JUSTICE KAGAN, joined by JUSTICE GINSBURG, JUSTICE BREYER, and JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR, concluded in Parts II and IV–A:

(a) The Government argues that a more permissive form of the void-for-vagueness doctrine applies than the one Johnson employed

4

SESSIONS v. DIMAYA Syllabus

because the removal of an alien is a civil matter rather than a crimi- nal case. This Court’s precedent forecloses that argument. In Jor- dan v. De George, 341 U. S. 223, the Court considered what vague- ness standard applied in removal cases and concluded that, “in view of the grave nature of deportation,” the most exacting vagueness standard must apply. Id., at 231. Nothing in the ensuing years calls that reasoning into question. This Court has reiterated that deporta- tion is “a particularly severe penalty,” which may be of greater con- cern to a convicted alien than “any potential jail sentence.” Jae Lee v.United States, 582 U. S. ___, ___. Pp. 4–6.

(b) Section 16(b) demands a categorical, ordinary-case approach. For reasons expressed in Johnson, that approach cannot be aban- doned in favor of a conduct-based approach, which asks about the specific way in which a defendant committed a crime. To begin, the Government once again “has not asked [the Court] to abandon the categorical approach in residual-clause cases,” suggesting the fact- based approach is an untenable interpretation of §16(b). 576 U. S., at ___. Moreover, a fact-based approach would generate constitutional questions. In any event, §16(b)’s text demands a categorical ap- proach. This Court’s decisions have consistently understood lan- guage in the residual clauses of both ACCA and §16 to refer to “the statute of conviction, not to the facts of each defendant’s conduct.”Taylor v. United States, 495 U. S. 575, 601. And the words “by its na- ture” in §16(b) even more clearly compel an inquiry into an offense’s normal and characteristic quality—that is, what the offense ordinari- ly entails. Finally, given the daunting difficulties of accurately “re- construct[ing],” often many years later, “the conduct underlying [a] conviction,” the conduct-based approach’s “utter impracticability”— and associated inequities—is as great in §16(b) as in ACCA. John- son, 576 U. S., at ___. Pp. 12–15.

JUSTICE GORSUCH, agreeing that the Immigration and Nationality Act provision at hand is unconstitutionally vague for the reasons identified in Johnson v. United States, 576 U. S. ___, concluded that the void for vagueness doctrine, at least properly conceived, serves as a faithful expression of ancient due process and separation of powers principles the Framers recognized as vital to ordered liberty under the Constitution. The Government’s argument that a less-than-fair- notice standard should apply where (as here) a person faces only civ- il, not criminal, consequences from a statute’s operation is unavail- ing. In the criminal context, the law generally must afford “ordinary people . . . fair notice of the conduct it punishes,” id., at ___, and it is hard to see how the Due Process Clause might often require any less than that in the civil context. Nor is there any good reason to single out civil deportation for assessment under the fair notice standard

Cite as: 584 U. S. ____ (2018) 5

Syllabus

because of the special gravity of its penalty when so many civil laws impose so many similarly severe sanctions. Alternative approaches that do not concede the propriety of the categorical ordinary case analysis are more properly addressed in another case, involving ei- ther the Immigration and Nationality Act or another statute, where the parties have a chance to be heard. Pp. 1–19.

KAGAN, J., announced the judgment of the Court and delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I, III, IV–B, and V, in which GINSBURG, BREYER, SOTOMAYOR, and GORSUCH, JJ., joined, and an opin- ion with respect to Parts II and IV–A, in which GINSBURG, BREYER, and SOTOMAYOR, JJ., joined. GORSUCH, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. ROBERTS, C. J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which KENNEDY, THOMAS, and ALITO, JJ., joined. THOMAS, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which KENNEDY and ALITO, JJ., joined as to Parts I–C–2, II–A–1, and II–B.

Key Quote From Justice Kagan’s Majority (Pt. V):

Johnson tells us how to resolve this case. That decision held that “[t]wo features of [ACCA’s] residual clause con- spire[d] to make it unconstitutionally vague.” 576 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 5). Because the clause had both an ordinary-case requirement and an ill-defined risk thresh- old, it necessarily “devolv[ed] into guesswork and intui- tion,” invited arbitrary enforcement, and failed to provide fair notice. Id., at ___ (slip op., at 8). Section 16(b) possesses the exact same two features. And none of the minor linguistic disparities in the statutes makes any real difference. So just like ACCA’s residual clause, §16(b) “produces more unpredictability and arbitrariness than the Due Process Clause tolerates.” Id., at ___ (slip op., at 6). We accordingly affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.

Key Quote From Justice Gorsuch”s Concurring Opinion:

Vague laws invite arbitrary power. Before the Revolu tion, the crime of treason in English law was so capa ciously construed that the mere expression of disfavored opinions could invite transportation or death. The founders cited the crown’s abuse of “pretended” crimes like this as one of their reasons for revolution. See Declaration of Independence ¶21. Today’s vague laws may not be as invidious, but they can invite the exercise of arbitrary power all the same—by leaving the people in the dark about what the law demands and allowing prosecutors and courts to make it up.

The law before us today is such a law. Before holding a lawful permanent resident alien like James Dimaya sub ject to removal for having committed a crime, the Immi gration and Nationality Act requires a judge to determine that the ordinary case of the alien’s crime of conviction involves a substantial risk that physical force may be used. But what does that mean? Just take the crime at issue in this case, California burglary, which applies to everyone from armed home intruders to door-to-door salesmen peddling shady products. How, on that vast spectrum, is anyone supposed to locate the ordinary case and say whether it includes a substantial risk of physical force? The truth is, no one knows. The law’s silence leaves judges to their intuitions and the people to their fate. In my judgment, the Constitution demands more.

Key Quote From Chief Justice Roberts’s Dissenting Opinion:

The more constrained inquiry required under §16(b)— which asks only whether the offense elements naturally carry with them a risk that the offender will use force in committing the offense—does not itself engender “grave uncertainty about how to estimate the risk posed by a crime.” And the provision’s use of a commonplace sub- stantial risk standard—one not tied to a list of crimes that lack a unifying feature—does not give rise to intolerable “uncertainty about how much risk it takes for a crime to qualify.” That should be enough to reject Dimaya’s facial vagueness challenge.4

Because I would rely on those distinctions to uphold

——————

4 The Court also finds it probative that “a host of issues” respecting §16(b) “divide” the lower courts. Ante, at 22. Yet the Court does little to explain how those alleged conflicts vindicate its particular concern about the provision (namely, the ordinary case inquiry). And as the Government illustrates, many of those divergent results likely can be chalked up to material differences in the state offense statutes at issue. Compare Escudero-Arciniega v. Holder, 702 F. 3d 781, 783–785 (CA5 2012) (per curiam) (reasoning that New Mexico car burglary “requires that the criminal lack authorization to enter the vehicle—a require- ment alone which will most often ensure some force [against property] is used”), with Sareang Ye v. INS, 214 F. 3d 1128, 1134 (CA9 2000) (finding it relevant that California car burglary does not require unlaw- ful or unprivileged entry); see Reply Brief 17–20, and nn. 5–6.

14 SESSIONS v. DIMAYA ROBERTS, C. J., dissenting

§16(b), the Court reproaches me for not giving sufficient weight to a “core insight” of Johnson. Ante, at 10, n. 4; seeante, at 15 (opinion of GORSUCH, J.) (arguing that §16(b) runs afoul of Johnson “to the extent [§16(b)] requires an ‘ordinary case’ analysis”). But the fact that the ACCA residual clause required the ordinary case approach was not itself sufficient to doom the law. We instead took pains to clarify that our opinion should not be read to impart such an absolute rule. See Johnson, 576 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 10). I would adhere to that careful holding and not reflexively extend the decision to a different stat- ute whose reach is, on the whole, far more clear.

The Court does the opposite, and the ramifications of that decision are significant. First, of course, today’s holding invalidates a provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act—part of the definition of “aggravated felony”—on which the Government relies to “ensure that dangerous criminal aliens are removed from the United States.” Brief for United States 54. Contrary to the Court’s back-of-the-envelope assessment, see ante, at 23, n.12, the Government explains that the definition is “critical” for “numerous” immigration provisions. Brief for United States 12.

In addition, §16 serves as the universal definition of “crime of violence” for all of Title 18 of the United States Code. Its language is incorporated into many procedural and substantive provisions of criminal law, including provisions concerning racketeering, money laundering, domestic violence, using a child to commit a violent crime, and distributing information about the making or use of explosives. See 18 U. S. C. §§25(a)(1), 842(p)(2), 1952(a), 1956(c)(7)(B)(ii), 1959(a)(4), 2261(a), 3561(b). Of special concern, §16 is replicated in the definition of “crime of violence” applicable to §924(c), which prohibits using or carrying a firearm “during and in relation to any crime of violence,” or possessing a firearm “in furtherance of any such crime.” §§924(c)(1)(A), (c)(3). Though I express no view on whether §924(c) can be distinguished from the provision we consider here, the Court’s holding calls into question convictions under what the Government warns us is an “oft-prosecuted offense.” Brief for United States 12.

Because Johnson does not compel today’s result, I respectfully dissent.

Key Quote From Justice Thomas’s Dissent:

I agree with THE CHIEF JUSTICE that 18 U. S. C. §16(b), as incorporated by the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), is not unconstitutionally vague. Section 16(b) lacks many of the features that caused this Court to invalidate the residual clause of the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) in Johnson v. United States, 576 U. S. ___ (2015). ACCA’s residual clause—a provision that this Court had applied four times before Johnson—was not unconstitu tionally vague either. See id., at ___ (THOMAS, J., concur ring in judgment) (slip op., at 1); id., at ___–___ (ALITO, J., dissenting) (slip op., at 13–17). But if the Court insists on adhering to Johnson, it should at least take Johnson at its word that the residual clause was vague due to the “‘sum’” of its specific features. Id., at ___ (majority opinion) (slip op., at 10). By ignoring this limitation, the Court jettisonsJohnson’s assurance that its holding would not jeopardize “dozens of federal and state criminal laws.” Id., at ___ (slip op., at 12).

While THE CHIEF JUSTICE persuasively explains why respondent cannot prevail under our precedents, I write separately to make two additional points. First, I continue to doubt that our practice of striking down statutes as unconstitutionally vague is consistent with the original meaning of the Due Process Clause. See id., at ___–___ (opinion of THOMAS, J.) (slip op., at 7–18). Second, if the Court thinks that §16(b) is unconstitutionally vague be cause of the “categorical approach,” see ante, at 6–11, then the Court should abandon that approach—not insist on reading it into statutes and then strike them down. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.

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

Gee whiz, those Trumpsters and GOP Senators who were overflowing with their praise of Justice Gorsuch’s brilliance during his confirmation hearings must be beside themselves now that he joined the “Gang of Four” in striking down a statute in an immigration enforcement case!

I predicted early on that Gorsuch might surprise those on both sides who expected him to be a “complete Trump toady.” Indeed, the case that drove today’s decision in Dimaya, Johnson v. United States, was written by none other than Justice Scalia, one of Justice Gorsuch’s “juridical role models.” At bottom, Dimaya is all about strict adherence to the Constitution and separation of powers, two things that Gorsuch as extolled in past decisions.

No, I don’t think that Justice Gorsuch is likely to team up with Justices Kagan, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor on most future immigration cases. But, I am encouraged that he seems to be going where his legal principles, whether one agrees with them or not, take him, rather than just voting to support the Administration’s hard-line immigration agenda as many had predicted and some had hoped or assumed would happen.

There are other important immigration cases before the Supremes where adherence to the literal language of a statute and skepticism about giving the Executive unbridled power under separation of powers could aid the respondent’s position. So, while this might not be a “normal” majority configuration, it could well be repeated in some future immigration case. Let’s hope so!

Interestingly, I had this issue come up in one of the last cases I wrote before retiring from the Arlington Immigraton Court. I noted that the respondent made a strong argument for unconstitutionality under Johnson v, United States. However, as an Immigration Judge, I had no authority to hold a statute unconstitutional (although, ironically, under today’s convoluted system, the respondent was required to make his constitutional argument before me to “preserve” it for review by the Court of Appeals). So, I merely “noted” the constitutional issue for those higher up the “judicial food chain” and decided the issue on the basis that burglary as defined under the state law in question was not categorically a “crime of violence” under the so-called “categorical approach.”

Two other points worth mentioning:

In this particular case, the Supremes upheld the ruling of the much maligned (particularly by Trump & Sessions) 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, having jurisdiction over California ;
This type of issue is frequently recurring in Immigration Court where many, perhaps the majority, of respondents are unrepresented. How would an unrepresented individual who does not even speak English make the type of sophisticated legal arguments that a) got this case to the Supremes in the first place, and b) persuaded the majority of the Court? Of course, they couldn’t. That’s why much of what is going on in today’s U.S. Immigration Courts is a farce — a clear violation of constitutional Due Process that the Federal Courts have been doing their best to ignore or gloss over for many decades.
As more light is shed on the much misunderstood U.S. Immigration Court system, both Congress and the Article III Courts must come to grips with the procedural, ethical, and fairness inadequacies built into today’s “captive” Immigration Courts and the utter lack of any concern about protecting the legal rights of migrants shown by Jeff Sessions and the rest of the Trump Administration. Shockingly, they have actually pledged to stomp on migrants already unfulfilled rights to fair hearings in the name of a “false efficiency.”
Join the “New Due Process Army” and help stop the continuing abuses of human rights, statutory rights, and constitutional rights of migrants by Sessions and the rest of the “Trump Scofflaws!”

PWS

04-17-18

FORMER NAIJ PRESIDENT JUDGE DANA LEIGH MARKS SPEAKS OUT AGAINST JUDICIAL QUOTAS! — “The measure of a good judge is his or her fairness, not the number of cases he or she can do in a day.” – This Seems Obvious – So Why Is “Gonzo Apocalypto” Sessions Being Allowed to Run Roughshod Over Justice In Our U.S. Immigration Courts?

http://fortune.com/2018/04/09/immigration-judge-quotas-department-of-justice/

Judge Marks writes in Fortune:

Immigration judges are the trial-level judges who make the life-changing decisions of whether or not non-citizens are allowed to remain in the United States. They are facing a virtual mountain of cases: almost 700,000 for about 335 judges in the United States. The work is hard. The law is complicated. The stories people share in court are frequently traumatic and emotions are high because the stakes are so dire. Because these are considered civil cases, people are not provided attorneys and must pay for one, find a volunteer, or represent themselves.

In a move that the Department of Justice claims is intended to reduce this crushing backlog, the DOJ is moving forward with a plan to require judges to meet production quotas and case completion deadlines to be rated as satisfactory in order to keep their jobs. This misguided approach will have the opposite effect.

One cannot measure due process by numbers. The primary job of an immigration judge is to decide each case on its own merits in a fair and impartial way. That is the essence of due process and the oath of office we take. Time metrics simply have no place in that equation. Quality measurements are reasonable, and immigration judge performance should be evaluated, but by judicial standards, which are transparent to the public and expressly prohibit quantitative measures of performance. The imposition of quotas and deadlines forces a judge to choose between providing due process and pushing cases to closure without considering all the necessary evidence.

If quotas and deadlines are applied, judicial time and energy will be diverted to documenting our performance, rather than deciding cases. We become bean-counting employees instead of fair and impartial judges. Our job security will be based on whether or not we meet these unrealistic quotas and our decisions will be subjected to suspicion as to whether any actions we take, such as denying a continuance or excluding a witness, are legally sound or motivated to meet a quota. Under judicial canons of ethics, no judge should hear a case in which he or she has a financial interest. By tying the very livelihood of a judge to how quickly a case is pushed through the system, you have violated the fundamental rule of ensuring an impartial decision maker is presiding over the case.

These measures will undermine the public’s faith in the fairness of our courts, leading to a huge increase in legal challenges that will flood the federal courts. Instead of helping, these doubts will create crippling delays in our already overburdened courts. If history has taught us any lessons, it is that similar attempts to streamline have ultimately resulted in an increase in the backlog of cases.

The unacceptable backlogs at our courts are due to decades of inadequate funding for the courts and politically motivated interference with docket management. The shifting political priorities of various administrations have turned our courts into dog and pony shows for each administration, focusing the court’s scant resources on the cases ‘du jour,’—e.g., children or recent border crossers—instead of cases that were ripe for adjudication.

The solution to the delays that plague our courts is not to scapegoat judges. The solution is two-part: more resources and structural reform. We need even more judges and staff than Congress has provided. Additionally, the immigration courts must be taken out of the Department of Justice, as the mission of an independent and neutral court is incompatible with the role of a law enforcement agency. This latest, misguided decision to impose quotas and performance metrics makes that conclusion clear and highlights the urgent need for structural reform. The measure of a good judge is his or her fairness, not the number of cases he or she can do in a day.

Dana Leigh Marks is president emeritus of the National Association of Immigration Judges and has been a full-time immigration judge in San Francisco since 1987. The views expressed here do not necessarily represent the official position of the United States Department of Justice, the Attorney General, or the Executive Office for Immigration Review. The views represent the author’s personal opinions, which were formed after extensive consultation with the membership of NAIJ.

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

For those of you who don’t know her, my friend and colleague Dana is not just “any” U.S. Immigration Judge. In addition to her outstanding service as a Immigration Judge and as the President of the NAIJ, as a young attorney, then known as Dana Marks Keener, she successfully argued for the respondent in the landmark Supreme Court case INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421 (1987).

That case for the first time established the generous “well-founded fear” standard for asylum seekers over the objections of the U.S. Government which had argued for a higher “more likely than not” standard. Ironically, it is exactly that generous treatment for asylum seekers mandated by the Supreme Court, which has taken more than four decades to come anywhere close to fruition, that Sessions is aiming to unravel with his mean-spirited White Nationalist inspired restrictionist agenda at the DOJ.

Interestingly, I was in Court listening to the oral argument in Cardoza because as the then Acting General Counsel of the “Legacy INS” I had assisted the Solicitor General’s Office in formulating the “losing” arguments in favor of the INS position that day.

Due Process Forever! Jeff Sessions Never! Join the New Due Process Army and stand up against the White Nationalist restrictionist attack on America and our Constitution!

PWS

04-11-18

JULIE HIRSHFIELD DAVIS IN THE NYT: TRUMP’S BOGUS ORDER ON SO-CALLED “CATCH & RELEASE” DOESN’T ACTUALLY DO MUCH BUT COULD BE PRELUDE TO ALL OUT ASSAULT BY OUR ROGUE, SCOFFLAW ADMINISTRATION ON CONSTITUTION AND LAWS LIMITING CIVIL DETENTION & GRANTING A FAIR RIGHT TO APPLY FOR ASYLUM!

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/06/us/politics/trump-immigration-policy.html?smprod=nytcore-ipad&smid=nytcore-ipad-share

Julie Hirshfield Davis reports for the NY Times:

President Trump issued a memorandum on Friday directing his administration to move quickly to bring an end to “catch and release,” the practice by which immigrants presenting themselves at the border without authorization are released from detention while waiting for their cases to be processed.

The directive does not, on its own, toughen immigration policy or take concrete steps to do so; it merely directs officials to report to the president about steps they are taking to “expeditiously end ‘catch and release’ practices.” But it is a symbolic move by Mr. Trump to use his executive action to solve a problem that he has bitterly complained Congress will not.

It also caps a week that began with the president offering tough talk on immigration and ended with his ordering the National Guard to patrol the southwestern border, a move formalized on Friday night when Defense Secretary Jim Mattis signed orders to deploy up to 4,000 troops.

“The safety and security of the American people is the president’s highest priority, and he will keep his promise to protect our country and to ensure that our laws are respected,” Sarah Huckabee Sanders, the White House press secretary, said in a statement announcing the memorandum.

“At the same time, the president continues to call on congressional Democrats to cease their staunch opposition to border security and to stop blocking measures that are vital to the safety and security of the United States,” she added.

The memo appears intended to prod the administration to move more rapidly in cracking down on unauthorized immigrants at the border, a goal laid out in an executive order Mr. Trump issued last year during his first week in office.

The latest directive instructs the Departments of Homeland Security, Defense, Justice and Health and Human Services to report to the president within 45 days on their efforts to ensure that those immigrants are detained, including steps taken to allocate money to build detention facilities near the borders. The agencies must also detail efforts to ensure unauthorized entrants do not “exploit” parole and asylum laws to stay in the United States, including evaluating how they determine whether migrants have “credible fear” of returning to their country of origin — the legal bar that people claiming asylum must meet to avoid prompt removal.

The memo also orders a list of existing facilities, including military sites, that could be used to detain those violating immigration law, and detailed statistics on credible claims of fear and how they have been processed since 2009.

The directive gives officials 75 days to report to Mr. Trump on additional resources or authorities they need to end catch-and-release practices. And within 60 days, it asks the secretaries of state and homeland security to submit a report on actions they are taking against countries that “refuse to expeditiously accept the repatriation of their nationals,” including whether the United States has punished them by refusing to grant visas to their citizens — and if not, why not.

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

The Trump Administration already stands credibly accused in at least one pending court case of violating its legal duty to consider asylum claims by individuals who apply at ports of entry on the Southern Border. Obviously, such legal violations by our Government promote illegal entry as the only way to vindicate statutory rights. Trump’s outrageous creation of a “false crisis” at the Southern Border should prompt the Article III Federal Courts to enjoin the Administration to comply with the asylum law.

Moreover, further attempts to manipulate the “credible fear” criteria against asylum seekers should also lead to Federal Court review and action against the Administration if, as appears likely, it uses biased criteria to deny the legal right of individuals in the U.S. or at the border to apply for asylum.

Moreover, asylum applicants who are “in the United States” whether legally or illegally and are in Removal Proceedings are entitled to an individualized bond consideration (unless they are serious criminals or security risks — the overwhelming number of asylum applicants are neither). Attempts to manipulate bond criteria (which have been undertaken to some extent by the last three Administrations) have almost uniformly been rejected by the Article III Federal Courts.

Therefore, the Administration’s legal options might be limited. However, the Administration arguably might have authority under current law to detain asylum applicants who arrive at ports of entry without providing any rational reasons for doing so. That’s likely to be a hotly contested issue in litigation.

Meanwhile, it’s critically important for those of us who support American values and see through the charade being put on by the Trump Administration to elect only U.S. Senators and Representatives who will “Just Say No” to the Administration’s bogus requests for: 1) more unneeded DHS enforcement personnel; and 2) more unneeded detention space in the “New American Gulag” being created by Trump and his White Nationalist reactionaries.

Harm to the most vulnerable is harm to all of us! Join the New Due Process Army and resist the Trump Administration’s contrived assault on America! Due Process Forever! Trump & Sessions Never!

PWS

04-07-18

BIA WRONG AGAIN – 9TH CIR. VACATES MATTER OF G-G-S-, 26 I&N DEC. 339 (BIA 2014) (“PARTICULARLY SERIOUS CRIME”) — GOMEZ-SANCHEZ V. SESSIONS – As Jeff Sessions Plans To Speed Up The System, Rig Law Against Individuals, & Undermine Due Process, The “REAL” Courts Continue To Highlight Serious Substantive Flaws In Immigration Court System That Sessions Is Attempting To Cover Up!

GGS,9TH14-72506

Gomez-Sanchez v. Sessions, 9th Cir., 04-06-18, Published, vacating Matter of G-G-S-, 26 I&N Dec. 339 (BIA 2014)

COURT STAFF SUMMARY:

The panel granted Guillermo Gomez-Sanchez’s petition for review of the published decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals, Matter of G-G-S-, 26 I. & N. Dec. 339 (BIA 2014), which concluded that Gomez-Sanchez was statutorily ineligible for withholding of removal because he was convicted of a “particularly serious crime” under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(B), and vacated and remanded.

Gomez-Sanchez was convicted of assault with a non- deadly firearm weapon in violation of California Penal Code § 245(a)(1), which the BIA concluded constituted a particularly serious crime that prevented Gomez-Sanchez from being eligible for withholding of removal. In reaching this decision, the BIA held that a petitioner’s mental health could not be considered when addressing whether he had committed a particularly serious crime.

The panel held that Matter of G-G-S- was not entitled to deference under Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. N.R.D.C., Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984). Under step one of Chevron, the panel concluded that Matter of G-G-S-’s blanket rule against considering mental health is contrary to Congress’s clearly expressed intent that the particularly serious crime determination, in cases where a conviction falls outside the only statutorily enumerated per se category of particularly serious crimes, requires a case-by-case analysis. The panel also concluded that, even if Matter of G-G-S- were to survive step one of Chevron, it would fail at step two because the BIA’s interpretation is not reasonable in that the BIA’s two rationales for its broad rule – 1) that the Agency could not reassess a criminal court’s findings, and 2) that mental health is never relevant to the particularly serious crime determination – are unpersuasive and are inconsistent with the law of this Circuit and the BIA’s own decisions.

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

PANEL:

Before: Kim McLane Wardlaw* and Michelle T. Friedland, Circuit Judges, and Janet Bond Arterton,**District Judge.

* This case was submitted to a panel that included Judge Kozinski, who recently retired. Following Judge Kozinski’s retirement, Judge Wardlaw was drawn by lot to replace him. Ninth Circuit General Order 3.2.h. Judge Wardlaw has read the briefs, reviewed the record, and listened to oral argument.

** The Honorable Janet Bond Arterton, United States District Judge for the District of Connecticut, sitting by designation.

OPINION BY:

Judge Janet Bond Arterton

KEY QUOTES:

Against this backdrop, the BIA here announced and applied a blanket rule against considering an individual’s mental health as a factor when deciding whether his or her crime of conviction is particularly serious. Matter of G-G-S-, 26 I. & N. Dec. at 339, 347.4 This decision is contrary to Congress’s clearly expressed intent that the analysis of whether a crime is particularly serious “requires the agency to conduct a case-by-case analysis of convictions falling outside the category established by Congress,” Blandino- Medina, 712 F.3d at 1345, because such categorical rules undermine the ability of the agency to conduct a case-by- case analysis in each case, see Konou, 650 F.3d at 1128; see also Arteaga De Alvarez, 704 F.3d at 740.

. . . .

Here, the Board cited In re N-A-M- approvingly, as if applying it. See Matter of G-G-S-, 26 I. & N. Dec. at 343. However, in reality, its decision to constrain the evidence IJs may consider when making a particularly serious crime determination is at least inconsistent with, if not directly in contradiction with its earlier holding permitting consideration of “all reliable information.” See In Re N-A- M-, 24 I. & N. Dec. at 338, 342. Petitioner’s case makes this inconsistency clear—despite not disputing the reliability of the information Petitioner submitted concerning his mental illness, the Board entirely precluded consideration of that evidence. Given that the Board made no attempt to address the apparent inconsistencies between its earlier rule and the rule at issue here, we find its current interpretation to be unreasonable and thus decline to afford it deference. See Encino Motorcars, LLC v. Navarro, 136 S. Ct. 2117, 2126 (2016) (“[A]n ‘[u]nexplained inconsistency’ in agency policy is ‘a reason for holding an interpretation to be an arbitrary and capricious change from agency practice,’” and thus finding that the interpretation is not entitled to Chevron deference. (quoting Nat’l Cable & Telecommunications Ass’n v. Brand X Internet Servs., 545 U.S. 967, 981 (2005)));see also Marmolejo-Campos v. Holder, 558 F.3d 903, 920 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009) (en banc).

Given the severe repercussions of being found to have committed a particularly serious crime, the risk of precluding relevant evidence that might alter that determination is unreasonable. Furthermore, this risk is readily avoided by permitting the IJ to use his or her discretion in weighing relevant, reliable evidence of mental health rather than categorically barring this evidence in all cases.

For all of these reasons the Board’s interpretation of the INA does not warrant deference under Chevron.

. . . .

We find the Board’s conclusion to be unreasonable because it is inconsistent with its own precedent recognizing the relevance of motivation and intent to the particularly serious crime determination. See Alphonsus, 705 F.3d at 1048 (“The BIA acts arbitrarily when it disregards its own precedents and policies without giving a reasoned explanation for doing so.” (quoting Israel v. I.N.S., 785 F.2d 738, 740 (9th Cir. 1986))). In Matter of L-S-, the Board found significant that an individual convicted of alien smuggling did not intend to harm the victim. 22 I. & N. Dec. 645, 655–56 (BIA 1999). Indeed, the Government concedes that a particularly serious crime analysis permits consideration of an individual’s motivation. See Alphonsus, 705 F.3d at 1048 (finding no intent to harm either the arresting officer or members of the public).

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

The BIA got it wrong in just about every conceivable way, including ignoring and misapplying its own precedents, in trying to reach a result unfavorable to the respondent. Against this backdrop of serious substantive problems (and, frankly, anti-respondent bias) permeating the entire U.S. Immigration Court System, from top to bottom, Sessions outrageously is trying to speed up the system without regard to quality or due process.

Suppose you inherited a factory that was producing defective cars. Would you solve the problem by speeding up the assembly line, forbidding the workers to think about their job functions, and denying them necessary training and equipment. No, that would produce even more defective cars, likely putting your company out of business. So, how is Session’s “just pedal faster” approach to assembly line justice acceptable? Obviously, it isn’t!

Sometimes, it doesn’t take a Government Accountability Office study to ferret out waste, fraud, and abuse. In this case, Jeff Sessions is right out there in public view intentionally and maliciously destroying a key part of the U.S. justice system. Why is Congress standing by and letting him get away with it? Why is the taxpayers’ money being wasted on illegal, illogical, and totally counterproductive actions? Whatever happened to effective oversight?

PWS

04-06-18

Related posts:

Pereira v. Sessions, No. 17-459, June 21, 2018

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

The US border patrol force

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Snapshots from the US-Mexico border

Related posts:

Related posts:

Due Process Forever! Jeff Sessions Never! Join the New Due Process Army and stand up against the White Nationalist restrictionist attack on America and our Constitution!

Related posts:

Harm to the most vulnerable is harm to all of us! Join the New Due Process Army and resist the Trump Administration’s contrived assault on America! Due Process Forever! Trump & Sessions Never!

Related posts:

Related posts: