PEREIRA V. SESSIONS – Page 2 – immigrationcourtside.com

⚖️🗽WATCH, LISTEN TO PROFESSOR GEOFFREY HOFFMAN OF U. OF HOUSTON LAW DELIVER THE 2021 SKELTON LECTURE: “What Should Immigration Law Become?”

https://youtu.be/GvwuahGzZQ8

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

A few “takeaways” from one of America’s leading “practical scholars:”

Think about a new start with a “clean slate;”
Deportation is “state violence;”
Immigration Courts are constructed to provide Gov. with an unfair advantage;
No rules, no due process, no justice;
Kudos to the NDPA & the Round Table;
Trump Administration spent inordinate effort improperly skewing the law to insure everything is denied and remove equible discretion from IJs;
Good provisions that provided discretion in the past to alleviate hardship and injustice have been eliminated by Congress: suspension of deportation, JRAD, 212(c), 245(i), registry (not repealed but now virtually useless b/c of 1972 cutoff date).

👍🏼🗽Thanks, Geoffrey, and Due Process Forever!

PWS

03-04-21

🛡⚔️⚖️ADVENTURES OF THE ROUND TABLE: Latest Amicus Brief To Supremes Weighs In On “Stop Time Rule” — Niz-Chávez v. Barr — Many Thanks to The Pro Bono Stars @ Gibson Dunn!

Hon. Jeffrey S. Chase
Jeffrey S. Chase Blog
Coordinator & Chief Spokesperson, Round Table of Former Immigration Judges

Niz-Chavez Amicus Brief TO FILE

No. 19-863 IN THE

_______________

AGUSTO NIZ-CHAVEZ,

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent.

_______________

On Writ Of Certiorari

To The United States Court of Appeals For the Sixth Circuit _______________

BRIEF OF THIRTY-THREE FORMER IMMIGRATION JUDGES AND MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS

AS AMICI CURIAE

IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER _______________

RICHARD W. MARK

Counsel of Record

AMER S. AHMED

TIMOTHY SUN

DORAN J. SATANOVE

GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 200 Park Avenue

New York, NY 10166 (212) 351-4000 rmark@gibsondunn.com

Counsel for Amici Curiae

INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE

1

1

Amici curiae are thirty-three former immigration judges and members of the Board of Immigration Ap- peals (“BIA” or “Board”).2

Amici curiae have dedicated their careers to the immigration court system and to upholding the immi gration laws of the United States. Each is intimately familiar with the functioning of immigration courts and is invested in improving the fairness and effi- ciency of the United States immigration scheme. Amici curiae’s extensive experience adjudicating im- migration cases provides a unique perspective on the procedures and practicalities of immigration proceed- ings.

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

The straightforward question this case presents is one of enormous practical significance: Must the ini- tial written notice served on noncitizens to commence their removal proceedings provide—in one docu- ment—the “time and place at which the proceedings will be held” (along with charges and other specified information) in order to satisfy the requirements of 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a), or does the statute allow the govern- ment to cobble together the required elements of a “notice to appear” from multiple documents, issued at different times, some containing misinformation, and

1 All parties have consented to the filing of this brief. Amici state that this brief was not authored in whole or in part by coun- sel for any party, and that no person or entity other than amici or their counsel made a monetary contribution intended to fund the preparation or submission of this brief.

2 The appendix provides a complete list of signatories.

2

none of which alone contains all of the statutorily re- quired information?

Reversing the Sixth Circuit and holding that § 1229(a)’s requirements must be included in a single document will greatly reduce the procedural and bu- reaucratic errors attendant in a two-step process that detrimentally impact thousands of noncitizens law- fully seeking to remain in this country.

I. For noncitizens applying for cancellation of re- moval, service of a valid “notice to appear” under § 1229(a) triggers the so-called “stop-time” rule, which terminates the period of continuous presence required for cancellation eligibility. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1229b(d)(1), 1229b(a)(2), 1229b(b)(1)(A). Separately but relatedly, for noncitizens ordered removed in ab- sentia, whether that “severe” penalty, Pereira v. Ses- sions, 138 S. Ct. 2105, 2111 (2018), is proper depends on whether the notice served on the noncitizen satis- fied the requirements of §1229(a). 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(A). This Court’s decision will thus touch not only those like Petitioner who are seeking cancel- lation of removal, but also those who may not even have been provided sufficient notice to appear for their removal hearings—and potentially severely punished as a result.

II. The Sixth Circuit’s ruling approves a two-step notice process that involves: (i) the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) serving on a noncitizen a putative notice to appear lacking time-and-place in- formation (or, perhaps worse, that includes fake time- and-place information), and (ii) only after that notice to appear is filed and docketed with the immigration court, the immigration court separately sending a “no- tice of hearing” supplying the time-and-place infor- mation to the noncitizen.

3

Under this two-step process an initial notice lack- ing § 1229(a)’s time-and-place information languishes in a proverbial “No Man’s Land” until the notice is filed with an immigration court and entered into the court’s computer systems—a process that can take years. This delay increases the risk of procedural er- rors and lost filings, such as crucial Change of Address forms, which can result in noncitizens never receiving time-and-place information at all—potentially result- ing in wholly unjustified in absentia removal orders.

Sorting through those issues adds to immigration judges’ fact-finding burdens by requiring them to di- vert attention from the merits of a case to investigate collateral issues like whether time-and-place infor- mation was provided in a second document; whether that document was properly served; and whether a fil- ing like a Change of Address form was submitted but ultimately lost in “No Man’s Land.” When coupled with the pressure to complete cases—even if it means churning out in absentia removal orders without fully considering whether the noncitizen received adequate time-and-place notice—the result may be an increase in unwarranted removal orders.

These problems would be ameliorated if the gov- ernment simply provided the actual time-and-place information in a single document as required by § 1229(a).

III. Requiring DHS to work with the Executive Office of Immigration Review (“EOIR”) to obtain time- and-place information before serving a notice to ap- pear—and including such information in that docu- ment, as § 1229(a) and Pereira require—is practical and within the government’s capabilities.

4

A single-step notice process, consistent with this Court’s ruling in Pereira, furthers the due process ax- iom that a party charged to defend against a legal pro- ceeding must receive notice of the time and place of the proceeding and an opportunity to be heard.

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

Read the complete brief, with better formatting, at the link!

Of course we couldn’t have done this without the amazing talent and assistance of Amer S. Ahmed and the rest of the “Pro Bono All-Star Team” 🎖🏆 @ Gibson Dunn! Just another example of the essential contribution of pro bono lawyers to literally saving our legal system that has been featured on “Courtside” this week!

Due Process Forever!

PWS

08-14-20

“PEREIRA II” — SUPREMES TAKE ANOTHER “STOP TIME” IMMIGRATION CASE — Niz-Chavez v. Barr

https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/06/court-grants-immigration-case/

Amy Howe reports for SCOTUS Blog:

Court grants immigration case

This morning the Supreme Court issued orders from the justices’ private conference last week. The court added one new case to its merits docket for the term that begins in October. The justices once again did not act on two groups of high-profile petitions – one involving gun rights and the other involving qualified immunity – that they considered last week.

With the grant in Niz-Chavez v. Barr, the justices added another immigration case to their docket for next term. At issue in the case is the kind of notice that the government must provide to trigger the “stop-time rule,” which stops noncitizens from accruing the time in the United States that they need to become eligible for discretionary relief from deportation. Congress passed the “stop-time rule” to keep noncitizens from taking advantage of lengthy delays in deportation proceedings to continue to accrue time. Under the rule, a noncitizen’s time in the United States, for purposes of relief from deportation, ends when the government sends him a “notice to appear” containing specific information about a scheduled removal proceeding. The question that the justices agreed to decide today is whether all the necessary information must be provided in a single document in order to trigger the stop-time rule, as Agusto Niz-Chavez, who came to the United States from Guatemala in 2005, contends, or whether the government can trigger the rule by providing the information in multiple documents.

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

Our Round Table has filed amicus briefs on this issue in a number of similar cases, although not in this particular case, which originated in the 6th Circuit.

At issue here is the BIA’s precedent in Matter of Mendoza-Hernandez, 27 I. & N. Dec. 520 (BIA 2019). There, in a now-rare en banc decision, the BIA majority basically “flicked off” the Supremes’ decision in Pereira v. INS, 138 S. Ct. 2105 (2018) and allowed the DHS to remedy a defective statutory Notice to Appear (“NTA”) with a later-issued EOIR notice of hearing providing the missing information to “fill in the blanks” from the original defective notice.

In an even more unusual and potentially career-shortening move, six of the BIA’s then 15 Appellate Immigration Judges filed a strongly-worded dissent accusing their majority colleagues of ignoring both the words of the statute and the Court’s Pereira decision. Perhaps not surprisingly, three of the dissenting judges have since retired from the BIA and a fourth, the Vice Chair, was passed over for Acting Chair in a highly unusual personnel move by the DOJ, which controls the BIA. (One of the primary reasons for having a designated “Vice Chair” is to be the “Acting Chair” in the absence of the Chairman.) In their places, Barr has appointed some of the most notorious hard-line asylum denying Immigration Judges in the nation.

The Supremes have thus far tiptoed around the glaring unconstitutionality of a so-called “appellate tribunal” that is appointed, wholly controlled by, and answers to the chief prosecutor, the Attorney General. Not surprisingly, upon discovering the Constitution-nullifying power of a “captive court system,” that is not a court at all under any common understanding of the term, the Administration has leveraged it to the max as a tool for their White Nationalist anti-immigrant agenda. Indeed, all the recent BIA and Attorney General precedents have ruled in favor of the DHS position, even where statutory language, Article III court rulings, prior precedents, and common sense strongly supported the opposite results.

And, many Courts of Appeals have continued to fictionalize that the highly politicized and “weaponized” BIA is an “expert tribunal” entitled to “Chevron deference.” Any true immigration law expert would say that proposition is absurd. Yet, it conveniently furthers the causes of both “judicial task avoidance” and the White Nationalist agenda of the Administration.

Because the BIA now occupies itself not with fair and impartial, expert decision-making, but mostly with keeping the “deportation express” running and insuring that DHS prevails over the legal claims of migrants and asylum seekers to fair and humane treatment under the law, the Supremes are finding themselves in the middle of the “statutory and regulatory nitty gritty” of immigration law that was supposed to be the province of a competent and impartial BIA.

While that has occasionally, as in Pereira, worked to the advantage of individuals seeking justice, for the most part, the Supremes have been willing enforcers of the Administration’s abrogation of immigration laws without Congressional participation and “Dred Scottification” of “the other” in violation of our Constitution, and indeed, in violation of both international conventions and fundamental human decency.

Think of how much better and more efficiently the immigration system could run with a constitutionally-required independent Immigration Court utilizing fair and impartial judges selected on the basis of expertise and reputation for fairness and scholarship rather than commitment to DHS enforcement goals. Think of how much better off our society would be if the Supremes stood up for equal justice for all, rather than enabling a far-right would-be authoritarian scofflaw regime following a racially-biased agenda of dehumanization, degradation, and deportation.

Due Process Forever!

PWS

06-08-20

DUE PROCESS: Round Table ⚔️🛡 Files Amicus Brief in Yanez-Pena v. Barr (5th Cir.) Cert. Petition — Pereira Issue

Richard W. Mark, Esquire
Partner
Gibson Dunn
New York

Amer S. Ahmed, Esquire
Partner
Gibson Dunn
New York

Read the entire brief here:

Yanez-Pena Amicus Brief TO FILE

Here’s the summary from the brief :

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

It is an axiom of due process that a party charged to defend against a legal proceeding must receive notice of the time and place of the proceeding and an opportunity to be heard. This Court’s ruling in Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105 (2018), reflects that axiom in the context of initiating removal proceedings by “notice to appear.”

This petition presents a straightforward question of enormous practical significance that has divided the five courts of appeals to have considered the issue: Must the initial written notice served on noncitizens to commence their removal proceedings provide—in

1 All parties have consented to the filing of this brief. Amici state that this brief was not authored in whole or in part by counsel for any party, and that no person or entity other than amici or their counsel made a monetary contribution intended to fund the preparation or submission of this brief.

2 The appendix provides a complete list of signatories.

2

one document—the “time and place at which the proceedings will be held” (along with charges and other specified information) in order to satisfy the require- ments of 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a), or does the statute allow the government to cobble together the required elements of a “notice to appear” from multiple documents, issued at different times, none of which alone contain all of the statutorily required information?

Resolution of this issue will affect thousands of people in the immigration system. For noncitizens applying for cancellation of removal, service of a valid “notice to appear” triggers the so-called “stop-time” rule, which terminates the period of continuous pres- ence required for cancellation eligibility. For noncitizens ordered removed in absentia, whether that se- vere penalty is proper depends on whether the notice served on the noncitizen satisfied the requirements of § 1229(a).

This Court should grant review to resolve the accelerating circuit split over this issue. The Fifth Circuit, agreeing with the Sixth Circuit, held that a defective “notice to appear” lacking the statutorily required time-and-place information could be “cured” by a subsequent “notice of hearing” containing that information, such that the separate documents considered together become “a notice to appear,” with the stop- time rule being triggered upon later service of the “curative” notice of hearing. See Yanez-Pena v. Barr, 952 F.3d 239 (5th Cir. 2020); Garcia-Romo v. Barr, 940 F.3d 192 (6th Cir. 2019). The Third and Tenth Circuits, based on the plain language of § 1229(a) and this Court’s decision in Pereira, 138 S. Ct. at 2105, have reached the opposite conclusion. See Guadalupe v. Atty. Gen., 951 F.3d 161 (3d Cir. 2020); Banuelos v. Barr, 953 F.3d 1176 (10th Cir. 2020). A divided panel

3

of the Ninth Circuit was in accord with the Third and Tenth Circuits, before that court granted rehearing en banc. See Lopez v. Barr, 925 F.3d 396, 405 (9th Cir. 2019), vacated and reh’g en banc granted, 948 F.3d 989 (9th Cir. 2020).

This Court should bring harmony to federal law by granting certiorari, reversing the Fifth Circuit, and restoring the common-sense interpretation of § 1229(a) as requiring one document that satisfies the statute’s requirements.

I. The question presented affects many thousands of people across the country. As the government told this Court in 2018, “almost 100 percent” of putative notices to appear omit the required time-and-place in- formation. Pereira, 138 S. Ct. at 2111. Hundreds of thousands of notices to appear are served each year; a dispute about validity is embedded in every proceed- ing initiated with a notice that lacks time-and-place information. Indeed, tens of thousands of cancellation applications remain pending, each one requiring an IJ to determine whether the stop-time rule was triggered by § 1229(a) notice. Similarly, tens of thousands of in absentia removal orders are issued every year, each one dependent on whether proceedings began with the noncitizen’s being served a notice to appear that com- plies with § 1229(a).

This case involves the application of § 1229(a) in both the cancellation of removal and in absentia removal contexts, thus presenting an optimal vehicle to address the question presented. See Petition for a Writ of Certiorari (“Pet.”) at 22-24.

II. Deciding the question presented will also pro- mote uniformity in the nation’s immigration laws. Uniformity in this sphere is a foundational principle

4

of American law, with the Constitution explicitly directing Congress “[t]o establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.” U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 4. But there can be no uniform law if basic questions affect- ing the right of an individual to remain in the country get an answer that varies among the circuits. Such a regime would result in divergent outcomes based on geography alone, not the merits of any particular noncitizen’s case.

This unfairness may be exacerbated by the Department of Homeland Security’s (“DHS”) discretion to select the venue for a removal proceeding, and thus the law that governs the case. DHS’s ability to choose the venue, coupled with its ability to transfer detainees wherever it sees fit, opens the door to unfair forum shopping for the circuit law it prefers.

III. Requiring DHS to work with the Executive Office for Immigration Review (“EOIR”) to obtain time-and-place information before serving a notice to appear—and including such information in that document, as § 1229(a) and Pereira require—is practical and will reduce administrative inefficiency and error. Doing so will also achieve the legislative purpose of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigration Responsibility Act (“IIRIRA”), Pub. L. 104-208, Div. C, 110 Stat. 3009-546, of which § 1229(a) was a part, by instituting a “single form of notice” to “simplify procedures for initiating removal proceedings.” H.R. Rep. 104-469(I), 1996 WL 168955 at *159.

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

Many thanks to our GOOD friends Richard W. Mark and Amer S. Ahmed and their team over at the NY Office of Gibson Dunn for their extraordinary pro bono assistance in drafting our brief.

Due Process Forever!👍🏼

PWS

05-12-20

GOOD NEWS IN THE TIME OF THE PLAGUE: 10th Cir. Overrules BIA, Finds Defective Notice To Appear Can’t Later Be “Cured” To Invoke The “Stop Time” Rule For Cancellation of Removal! –Banuelos-Galviz v. Barr

Banuelos-Galviz v. Barr

Banuelos-Galviz v. Barr, 10^th Cir. , 03-25-20, published

PANEL: HOLMES, MATHESON, and BACHARACH, Circuit Judges.

OPINION BY: Judge Bacharach

KEY QUOTE:

Given the unambiguous language of the pertinent statutes, the stop- time rule is not triggered by the combination of an incomplete notice to appear and a notice of hearing. We thus grant the petition for review and remand to the Board for further proceedings.

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

“No ‘Chevron deference’ for you, BIA!” Particularly, where you ignore the clear statutory language as well as the Supreme’s ruling in Pereira. The precedent overruled by the 10^th Circuit is Matter of Mendoza-Hernandez, 27 I. & N. Dec. 520, 529 (BIA 2019) (en banc), a rare (these days) en banc ruling that generated a feisty and correct dissent (also rare following the “Ashcroft purge of ‘03”). But, because of the arcane rules governing the BIA, the overruled precedent in Mendoza-Hernandez will continue to apply everywhere except the 3^rd & 10th Circuits.

Not Rocket Science: Notwithstanding the BIA’s “smokescreens,” and that the Fifth and Sixth Circuits have managed to get it wrong, this is a very straightforward reading of the statute that any first-year law student should get right on an exam. We now have three Circuits that have gotten it right, the 3^rd, 10^th, and 9^th, and two that have bobbled it. But, as noted by the 10^th Circuit, the 9^th Circuit opinion has been vacated pending rehearing en banc. Lopez v. Barr, 925 F.3d 396, 410 (Callahan, J., dissenting), reh’g en banc granted, 948 F.3d 989 (9th Cir. 2020) (Thomas, C.J.).

More “ADR” on the horizon: In any event, the DHS’s choice to serve clearly defective notices combined with the BIA’s “straining to get to deportation” to satisfy their political handlers in the DOJ is continuing to create an awful mess in the Immigration Courts. That, in turn, should continue to “artificially jack up the backlog” and create even more “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” (“ADR”) until it’s finally resolved.

PWS

03-25-20

3RD CIR. TO BIA ON PEREIRA: Tough Noogies, No Chevron Deference For You, Because Your En Banc Precedent Decision In Matter of Mendoza-Hernandez, 27 I&N Dec. 520 (BIA 2019) Is Dead Wrong! — Guadalupe v. U.S. Att’y Gen. — Dissenting BIA Judges Get Some Vindication!

3cirStopTimeopinion

Guadalupe v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 3rd Cir., 02-26-20, published

PANEL: RESTREPO, ROTH and FISHER, Circuit Judges

OPINION BY: Judge ROTH

KEY QUOTE:

It is our interpretation of Pereira that it establishes a bright-line rule:

A putative notice to appear that fails to designate the specific time or place of the noncitizen’s removal proceedings is not a “notice to appear under section 1229(a),” and so does not trigger the stop-time rule.”14

The language is clear. Pereira holds that an NTA shall contain all the information set out in section 1229(a)(1). An NTA which omits the time and date of the hearing is defective. To file an effective NTA, the government cannot, in maybe four days or maybe four months, file a second – and possibly third – Notice with the missing information. And it makes sense to have such a bright-line rule: The ability of the noncitizen to receive and to keep track of the date and place of the hearing, along with the legal basis and cited acts to be addressed at the hearing, is infinitely easier if all that information is contained in a single document – as described in

blanks for time and place” but holding that this deficiency was not of jurisdictional significance); Perez-Sanchez v. United States Att’y Gen., 935 F.3d 1148, 1154 (11th Cir. 2019) (citing Ortiz-Santiago, 924 F.3d at 962) (“Under Pereira, . . . a notice of hearing sent later might be relevant to a harmlessness inquiry, but it does not render the original NTA non- deficient.”).

14 Pereira, 138 S. Ct. at 2113-14.

7

Case: 19-2239

Document: 67 Page: 8 Date Filed: 02/26/2020

15

Moreover, it seems to us to be no great imposition on the government to require it to communicate all that information to the noncitizen in one document. If a notice is sent to the noncitizen with only a portion of the statutorily required information, a valid NTA can easily be sent later which contains all the required information in one document – at such time as the government has gathered all that information together. The complete NTA would then trigger the stop-time rule.

The government argues, however, that the BIA’s

decision in Matter of Mendoza-Hernandez should be given

Chevron16 deference as a reasonable reading of an ambiguous

statute. There, the BIA relied on Pereira’s position that “the

fundamental purpose of notice is to convey essential

information to the alien, such that the notice creates a

reasonable expectation of the alien’s appearance at the removal

proceeding.” 17 The BIA determined that this purpose can be

served just as well by two or more documents as it could by

18

We conclude, however, that Chevron deference is

15 We do note that in Pereira the Court left “for another day whether a putative notice to appear that omits any of the other categories of information enumerated in § 1229(a)(1) triggers the stop-time rule.” 138 S. Ct. at 2113 n. 5.

16 Chevron, U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984).

17 Matter of Mendoza-Hernandez, 27 I. & N. Dec. at 531.

18 Id.

the statute.

one.

8

Case: 19-2239 Document: 67 Page: 9 Date Filed: 02/26/2020

inapplicable here because we are not merely interpreting the

19

whether the Supreme Court’s decision in Pereira forecloses

stop-time rule.

our interpretation of the statute in Orozco-Velasquez.

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

What does it mean:

- In the 3rd Circuit, undocumented individuals who have been continuously physically present in the U.S. for at least 10 years prior to receiving a “Pereira-compliant” Notice to Appear” (“NTA”) are exempt from the “stop time” rule for non-lawful-permanent resident cancellation of removal.
- An “after the fact” Notice of Hearing from EOIR does NOT remedy the “Pereira-defect” in the NTA for purposes of the stop-time rule.
- Those whose cancellation of removal applications were improperly denied, or who were not given a chance to apply, because of the stop-time rule should be able to reopen their cases. This should add to the “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” and jack up the backlog some more, at least within the 3rd Cir.
- The 3rd Circuit covers Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Delaware.
- This mess was largely self-inflicted by DHS & EOIR. They had many chances to remedy the “Pereira problem’ over the years, but chose not to do so.
- Meanwhile, we have a Circuit conflict. The 9th Circuit previously had rejected Mendoza-Hernandez in Lopez v. Barr, https://immigrationcourtside.com/2019/05/28/courts-as-bia-continues-to-squeeze-the-life-out-of-pereira-9th-circuit-finally-pushes-back-why-the-lost-art-of-bia-en-banc-review-dissent-is-so-essential-to-due-process/. However, that case was vacated and rehearing en banc was granted. As noted by the Third Circuit, the Sixth Circuit agreed with the BIA. So, wrong as it is, Mendoza-Hernandez will remain in effect except in the Third Circuit, unless and until other Circuits reject it.
- I would expect the DOJ to find a petition for rehearing in this case, as they did in the Ninth Circuit. That could result in the Third Circuit’s decision being put “on hold.”
- This split will eventually have to be resolved by the Supremes. But, that’s unlikely to happen until next year.
- Congratulations and much appreciation to the six BIA Appellate Immigration Judges, led by former Judge John Guendelsberger, who courageously dissented from the en banc decision in Mendoza-Hernandez:
  - Judge John Guendelsberger, author
  - Judge Charles Adkins-Blanch, Vice Chair
  - Judge Patricia Cole
  - Judge Edward Grant
  - Judge Michael J. Creppy
  - Judge Molly Kendall Clark
  - Perhaps not surprisingly, Judges Guendelsberger, Cole, & Kendall Clark have since retired from the BIA.
- Dissent remains important, if exceedingly rare at today’s BIA, where DOJ politicos and EOIR bureaucrats actively encourage “go along to get along,” pro-regime jurisprudence. Also, en banc decisions are disfavored at today’s BIA.

PWS

02-28-20

HON. JEFFREY S. CHASE: The Latest On The “Pereira Controversy”

https://www.jeffreyschase.com/blog/2019/6/3/latest-pereira-developments

Jun 3 Latest Pereira Developments

I have previously discussed the implications of the Supreme Court’s 2018 decision in Pereira v. Sessions here and here. There are two aspects to the Pereira decision. The first is the narrow issue presented to the Supreme Court, concerning whether the service of a purported charging document (known as a Notice to Appear, or “NTA”) that is defective in its lack of a time and date as required by statute triggers what is known as the “stop-time rule.” That rule prevents a non-citizen from accruing additional continuous residence towards the 10 years needed to be able to apply for a relief known as Cancellation of Removal. If the time was not stopped by the defective NTA, non-citizens continue to accrue time towards the ten-year requirement, eventually allowing many to apply for that additional form of relief that would have otherwise been closed to them. The second aspect of Pereira (and the one discussed in my prior posts, which has captured the imagination of many immigration practitioners) concerns whether the particular language employed by the Supreme Court in holding that no, the defective document does not trigger the stop-time rule because by virtue of its defect, the document isn’t in fact an NTA, can be interpreted to more broadly undermine the legitimacy of every case, past and present, that was initiated by DHS with such a defective document.

In spite of high hopes regarding the second issue (which were raised by the termination of 9,000 removal cases by immigration judges in just the first two months following the Pereira decision), the tide turned with the issuance of decisions to the contrary, first by the BIA in Matter of Bermudez-Cota, and then by decisions from the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Sixth, Ninth, and Second Circuits affirming the BIA’s ruling.

Although a recent decision of the Seventh Circuit also refused to terminate the petitioner’s proceedings, it did so in a unique way that is worth discussing. In Ortiz-Santiago v. Barr, the court disagreed with the view of its sister circuits that Pereira’s holding was limited to the narrow issue of the stop-time rule, and that the NTA’s requirements are satisfied by the two-step process of the service of a defective NTA followed by the immigration court’s mailing of a notice providing the missing information. The Seventh Circuit found that “Pereira is not a one-way, one-day train ticket,” in that its holding has broader implications than merely the stop-time rule. The court rejected as “absurd” the Government’s argument that the NTA referenced in the statute is a different document from the one referenced in the regulations. (It bears noting that the 6th Circuit adopted this argument in footnote 4 of its decision in Santos-Santos v. Barr). The 7th Cir. was also unpersuaded by the two-step compliance approach of the BIA in Bermudez-Cota (which the other three circuits deferred to). The 7th Circuit stated that Bermudez-Cota “brushed too quickly over the Supreme Court’s rationale in Pereira and tracked the dissenting opinion rather than the majority.” The court added that “Congress itself appears to have rejected the two-step approach” when it passed the legislation that created the NTA.

The Seventh Circuit then turned to the issue of what should result from a finding that an NTA did not comply with the statute. Here the decision takes an interesting turn. The court stated that the fact that the regulation states that “jurisdiction vests” upon the service of an NTA isn’t read as “jurisdiction” “in the same sense that complete diversity or the existence of a federal question is for a district court.” Instead, the court interpreted the question of “jurisdiction” in an agency regulation as what it termed a “claim-processing rule,” which the court defined as a rule “that seeks to promote the orderly progress of litigation by requiring that the parties take certain procedural steps at certain specified times.” The court noted that the failure to comply with a claim-processing rule may result in termination of the case, but only if a timely objection is raised. In the absence of such timely objection, the failure to comply “may…be waived or forfeited by the opposing party.” The court turned to the question of whether the lack of such timely objection in the case before it constituted such forfeiture, or (1) whether the fact that doing so at the time would have been futile under existing circuit case law, and (2) the major legal change that the Pereira decision constituted, allowed for the late raising of such objection. The court answered this last question in the negative, concluding that the petitioner could have gleaned even pre-Pereira that a potential problem existed, as portended from the stand-alone position of the Third Circuit’s 2016 decision in Orozco-Velasquez v. Holder, which created the circuit court split that led the matter to eventually be taken up by the Supreme Court in Pereira.

Although the Ortiz-Santiago decision ultimately denied the motion for termination, it created a new road map for analyzing such claims. Most notably, it rejected the BIA’s analysis of the issue in Bermudez-Cota. It is wondered whether another circuit might be persuaded to adopt the reasoning of this decision (which I liken to a ball that looks like it might be a home run before hooking foul at the last moment) but differ on whether the issuance of the Pereira decision would form a legitimate basis for allowing the raising a late objection.

Not content with its ruling on the jurisdictional issue, the BIA returned to the narrower issue in Pereira in a May 1 precedent, Matter of Mendoza-Hernandez and Capula-Cortez, in which the Board held that the two-step rule rejected in Pereira is not only sufficient for broader jurisdictional purposes, but remarkably, is also sufficient to trigger the stop-time rule. The degree of chutzpah involved in reaching a decision directly at odds with the Supreme Court’s holding was so great that a sharply-divided Board made the case its first en banc decision in 10 years, revealing a 9 to 6 split among its permanent judges.

In the current issue of the American Bar Association’s Judges’ Journal, Richard J. Pierce, Jr., a law professor at George Washington University discusses the right of the president to remove officers within the federal government at will. (The article has been reprinted here on the website of my friend and colleague Paul Schmidt). Using the example of immigration judges, Prof. Pierce argues of the need to protect those performing an adjudicatory function from at-will removal “in order to reduce the risk that they will adjudicatory hearings in ways that reflect pro-government bias in violation of due process.” Prof. Pierce cites the present danger under a president and attorney general who have expressed strong anti-immigrant views “and have applied extraordinary pressure on IJs to deny applications for asylum.” Prof. Pierce opines that it is unrealistic to expect all immigration judges to be able to withstand such pressure. I believe that Mendoza-Hernandez is a perfect example of this. If only two of the nine Board Members in the majority ruled as they did out of fear of repercussions from the Attorney General, such pressure effectively changed the outcome of the decision. I feel strongly that this in fact happened.

The Ninth Circuit took only three weeks to reverse the Board’s decision. The circuit court ruled to the contrary that a subsequent hearing notice does not trigger the stop-time rule. The court also held that it owes no deference to the BIA’s interpretation of Supreme Court decisions; that the BIA ignored the plain text of the statute it claimed to be interpreting; and that the BIA relied on case law that could not be reconciled with the Supreme Court’s decision in Pereira. As the BIA will undoubtedly continue to apply its erroneous decision outside of the Ninth Circuit, it is hoped that the other circuits will quickly follow the Ninth Circuit’s lead. Sadly, the majority of the BIA’s judges have signaled that they will not act as neutral arbiters and afford due process. It is left to the circuit courts to provide the necessary correction.

For my recent commentary on the BIA’s Pereira interpretations and the Ninth Circuit’s rough treatment of Hernandez-Mendoza see:COURTS: As BIA Continues To Squeeze The Life Out Of Pereira, 9th Circuit Finally Pushes Back — Why The “Lost Art” Of BIA En Banc Review & Dissent Is So Essential To Due Process & Fundamental Fairness!May 28, 2019

COURTS: As BIA Continues To Squeeze The Life Out Of Pereira, 9th Circuit Finally Pushes Back — Why The “Lost Art” Of BIA En Banc Review & Dissent Is So Essential To Due Process & Fundamental Fairness!

Here are the head notes from two new BIA decisions distinguishing Pereira:

https://www.justice.gov/eoir/page/file/1164976/download

Matter of Lourdes Suyapa PENA-MEJIA, Respondent

27 I&N Dec. 546 (BIA 2019)

Decided May 22, 2019
U.S. Department of Justice Executive Office for Immigration Review Board of Immigration Appeals

Neither rescission of an in absentia order of removal nor termination of the proceedings is required where an alien did not appear at a scheduled hearing after being served with a notice to appear that did not specify the time and place of the initial removal hearing, so long as a subsequent notice of hearing specifying that information was properly sent to the alien. Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105 (2018), distinguished.
FOR RESPONDENT: Daniel A. Meyer, Esquire, Jackson Heights, New York
FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY: Jonathan Graham, Assistant Chief Counsel
BEFORE: Board Panel: GUENDELSBERGER, GRANT, and KENDALL CLARK, Board Members
GRANT, Board Member, with the opinion

https://www.justice.gov/eoir/page/file/1164981/download

Matter of Renata MIRANDA-CORDIERO, Respondent

27 I&B Dec. 551 (BIA 2019)
Decided May 22, 2019
U.S. Department of Justice Executive Office for Immigration Review Board of Immigration Appeals

Pursuant to section 240(b)(5)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(B) (2012), neither rescission of an in absentia order of removal nor termination of the proceedings is required where an alien who was served with a notice to appear that did not specify the time and place of the initial removal hearing failed to provide an address where a notice of hearing could be sent. Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105 (2018), distinguished.
FOR RESPONDENT: Renee LaRosee, Esquire, Elizabeth, New Jersey
BEFORE: Board Panel: GUENDELSBERGER, GRANT, and KENDALL CLARK, Board Members
GRANT, Board Member, with the opinion

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

But here’s some better news from a split 9th Circuit:

Isaias Lorenzo Lopez v. William P. Barr, 9th Cir., 05-22-19, published

15-72406

Before: Dorothy W. Nelson and Consuelo M. Callahan,
Circuit Judges, and Edward R. Korman,* District Judge. Opinion by Judge Korman;
Dissent by Judge Callahan
* The Honorable Edward R. Korman, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation.

SUMMARY BY COURT STAFF:

SUMMARY** Immigration
Granting Isaias Lorenzo Lopez’s petition for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals, the panel held that a Notice to Appear that is defective under Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105 (2018), cannot be cured by a subsequent Notice of Hearing and therefore does not terminate the residence period required for cancellation of removal.
Lorenzo sought cancellation of removal, a form of relief from removal that requires that an applicant must, among other requirements, reside in the United States continuously for seven years after having been admitted in any status. However, under the “stop-time” rule, as relevant here, the service of a Notice to Appear under 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a) terminates an alien’s residence. In Lorenzo’s case, an immigration judge and the BIA found him ineligible for cancellation because his March 2008 Notice to Appear terminated his residence period before he had accrued the requisite seven years.
In Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105 (2018), the Supreme Court held that a Notice to Appear, as defined in 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a), must contain the time and place at which removal proceedings will be held to trigger the stop-time rule. The panel concluded that Lorenzo’s Notice to Appear
** This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader.

LORENZO LOPEZ V. BARR 3
did not terminate his residence because it lacked time-and- place information.
However, because Lorenzo also received a subsequent Notice of Hearing that advised him of the time and place of his proceedings, the Attorney General argued that the Notice of Hearing cured the defective Notice to Appear and triggered the stop-time rule. The Attorney General relied on Popa v. Holder, 571 F.3d 890 (9th Cir. 2009), which held that a Notice to Appear that fails to include the date and time of an alien’s deportation hearing, but that states that a date and time will be set later, is not defective so long as a notice of the hearing is later sent to the alien.
The panel held that a Notice to Appear that is defective under Pereira cannot be cured by a subsequent Notice of Hearing, explaining that the plain language of the statute foreclosed the Attorney General’s argument and that Pereira had effectively overruled Popa.
The panel noted that the BIA reached a conclusion contrary to the panel’s holding in Matter of Mendoza- Hernandez, 27 I. & N. Dec. 520 (BIA 2019) (en banc), where, over a vigorous dissent, a closely divided BIA held that a Notice of Hearing that contains time-and-place information perfects a deficient Notice to Appear and triggers the stop-time rule. However, the panel declined to defer to that conclusion because: (1) the BIA acknowledged that Pereira could be read to reach a different result, and the courts owe no deference to agency interpretations of Supreme Court opinions; (2) the BIA ignored the plain text of the statute; and (3) the BIA relied on cases that cannot be reconciled with Pereira.
Thus, the panel concluded that, because Lorenzo never received a valid Notice to Appear, his residency continued

4 LORENZO LOPEZ V. BARR
beyond 2008 and, accordingly, he has resided in the United States for over seven years and is eligible for cancellation of removal.
Dissenting, Judge Callahan wrote that she does not read Pereira as holding that the notice of the time and place must be provided in a single document. Rather, Judge Callahan reads Pereira as allowing the Department of Homeland Security to cure a deficient notice to appear by subsequently providing a noncitizen with actual notice of the time and place of the removal proceedings, with the result that the stop-time rule is triggered upon the noncitizen’s receipt of the supplemental notice.

**********************************
Significantly, the Ninth Circuit majority recognized the “vigorous” dissent of Judge John Guendelsberger in Matter of Mendoza-Hernandez, 27 I&N Dec. 520 (BIA 2019), which was joined by Vice Chair Adkins-Blanch and Appellate Immigration Judges Cole, Grant, Creppy, & Kendall Clark. The Ninth Circuit essentially adopted the dissenters’ opinion, quoting at length:

The reasoning of the Supreme Court in Pereira . . . leaves little room for doubt that the Court’s decision requires us to follow the plain language of the Act that the DHS must serve a [8 U.S.C. § 1229(a)(1)] “notice to appear” that includes the date, time, and place of hearing in order to trigger the “stop-time” rule. The Court in Pereira repeatedly emphasized the “plain text” of the “stop- time” rule and left no room for agency gap- filling as to whether an Immigration Court can “complete” or “cure” a putative “notice to appear” by subsequent issuance of a “notice of hearing” that would trigger the “stop-time” rule on the date of that event. Quite simply, . . . a “notice of hearing” is not a “notice to appear” and, therefore, it does not satisfy the requirement that the DHS serve a [Section 1229(a)(1)] “notice to appear” that specifies the date and time of hearing, in order to trigger the “stop-time” rule.

16 LORENZO LOPEZ V. BARR
27 I. & N. Dec. at 540–41 (dissenting opinion) (footnote omitted).

Prior to the “Ashcroft Purge, “ completed in 2003, en banc opinions in precedents and “vigorous dissents” were much more frequent at the BIA. I know, because I frequently was among the dissenters, particularly in the latter days of my BIA career.

Well done dissenters! Bravo!

Given the more or less “built in pro-Government bias” of an administrative “court” captive within the DOJ, the dissents often contained important alternative viewpoints that sometimes were more in accordance with the law as later interpreted by the “real” Article III Courts upon judicial review. The en banc process also forced every BIA Appellate Immigration Judge to take a public position on important issues.

In that way, it promoted both transparency and accountability, as well as “putting into play” alternative interpretations and results that the majority otherwise would “blow by.” Accordingly, it also promoted more rigorous analysis by the majority.

Ashcroft basically removed the “gang of dissenters” from the BIA while “dumbing it down” by mandating mostly “single member panels,” discouraging en bancs, and supressing dissents. Since that time, the quality of the BIA decisions has suffered, and the positions of most individual BIA judges on most precedent issues has become a “mystery.” Not surprisingly, the BIA jurisprudence post-Ashcroft has become very one-sided in favor of the DHS.

The “vigorous en banc dissent” in Matter of Mendoza-Hernandez was striking to observers as the first one in recent memory. And, clearly it made a difference. The lack of meaningful dissent at the BIA is one of many things that have degraded due process, judicial independence, and decisional quality at EOIR since the “Ashcroft Purge.” Worse yet, Barr’s ludicrous “proposed regulations” would further “dumb down” the BIA process.

The importance of dissents and transparency in a legitimate judicial system can’t be overstated. That’s why we need an independent, Article I U.S. Immigration Court that does not answer to the Attorney General.

PWS

05-28-19

SPLIT EN BANC BIA MOVES TO LIMIT SUPREME’S PEREIRA RULING: Matter of MENDOZA-HERNANDEZ CAPULA-CORTES 27 I&N Dec. 520 (BIA 2019)

matter_of_mendoza-hernandez_capula-cortes_27_in_dec._520_bia_2019

Matter of MENDOZA-HERNANDEZ CAPULA-CORTES, 27 I&N Dec. 520 (BIA 2019)

HEADNOTE BY BIA STAFF:

A deficient notice to appear that does not include the time and place of an alien’s initial removal hearing is perfected by the subsequent service of a notice of hearing specifying that missing information, which satisfies the notice requirements of section 239(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a) (2012), and triggers the “stop-time” rule of section 240A(d)(1)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(d)(1)(A) (2012). Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105 (2018), distinguished; Matter of Bermudez-Cota, 27 I&N Dec. 441 (BIA 2018), followed.

BIA EN BANC:

MAJORITY OPINION: BIA APPELLATE IMMIGRATION JUDGE GREER, JOINED BY NEAL, Chairman; MALPHRUS, WENDTLAND, MULLANE, MANN, O’CONNOR, LIEBOWITZ, and KELLY, APPELLATE IMMIGRATION JUDGES

DISSENTING OPINION: APPELLATE IMMIGRATION JUDGE GUENDELSBERGER, JOINED BY ADKINS-BLANCH, Vice Chairman; COLE, GRANT, CREPPY, KENDALL CLARK, APPELLATE IMMIGRATION JUDGES

KEY QUOTE FROM DISSENT:

Congress, in section 240A(d)(1)(A) of the Act defined the event that triggers the “stop-time” rule as “service of a notice to appear under section 239(a).” The Court in Pereira, 138 S. Ct. at 2114–15, held that Congress’ reference to “service of a notice to appear under section 239(a),” means a “notice to appear” as defined in section 239(a)(1) of the Act. The Court also held that, “[b]ased on the plain language of the statute, it is clear that to trigger the stop-time rule, the Government must serve a notice to appear that, at the very least, ‘specif[ies]’ the ‘time and place’ of the removal proceedings.” Id. at 2114 (alteration in original) (quoting section 239(a)(1) of the Act). As the Court concluded, “At the end of the day, given the clarity of the plain language, we ‘apply the statute as it is written.’” Id. at 2119–20. The plain language of the Act leaves no room for the majority’s conclusion that a subsequent notice of hearing can cure a notice to appear that fails to specify the time and place of the initial removal hearing.

For these reasons, neither the service of the notice to appear nor the subsequent service of a notice of hearing on the respondents triggered the “stop-time” rule for purposes of cancellation of removal under section 240A of the Act. We therefore respectfully dissent.

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

It’s very unusual these days for the BIA to sit en banc. That means in most precedent cases we only know what the 3–Judge Panel thought and that at least 8 Judges on the en banc BIA agreed to publication (regardless of whether they agreed with the result).

This won”t happen at all under Barr’s new “Dumb Down the BIA Proposal.” The BIA will be diluted into “regional adjudication centers.” Any panel of three “Judges” (actually reduced to the role of DOJ adjudicators working for one of the Administration’s immigration enforcement politicos) could designate a precedent by majority vote. Thus, a two-Judge panel majority could create a precedent over the objection of a dissenting Judge and without dialogue with or approval of their many colleagues. Nice way to run the “railroad.”

Congrats to the six dissenting Judges who stood up for the better view of the law! It might not help your careers in today’s DOJ, but it is encouraging to know there is some internal resistance to Barr’s one-sided “deportation railway.”

If the dissenters are correct, the majority’s view could cause incredible additional disruption, “aimless docket reshuffling,” “do-overs,” and unfairness in an already dysfunctional system. That’s because tens of thousands of cases that would face summary denial for failure to meet the ten-year cutoff under the majority’s view would be entitled to full merits hearings on their cancellation of removal applications under the dissenters’ view.

Once again, lives will be in limbo while the Article III Courts work through all of the legal implications of EOIR’s acquiescence and participation in the DHS’s conscious decision to ignore the “Notice to Appear” requirements set forth by Congress in the INA.

PWS

05-03-19

EFFECTS OF TRUMP SHUTDOWN, “MALICIOUS INCOMPETENCE” CONTINUE TO ROIL U.S. IMMIGRATION COURT SYSTEM, SCREW MIGRANTS WHO FAITHFULLY SHOW UP FOR “FAKE” HEARINGS! – Trump Shut Down USG Over A Bogus “National Immigration Emergency” While Deeming Immigration Courts “Nonessential!” – Would ICE Agents Dare File “Charging Documents” Containing False Information With “Real” U.S. Courts?

https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/31/politics/immigration-court-fake-dates/index.html

By Catherine E. Shoichet, Angela Barajas and Priscilla Alvarez, CNN

Updated 10:15 PM ET, Thu January 31, 2019

Hundreds of people overflow onto the sidewalk in a line snaking around the block outside a U.S. immigration office with numerous courtrooms Thursday, Jan. 31, 2019, in San Francisco. (AP Photo/Eric Risberg)

(CNN)More than 1,000 immigrants showed up at courts across the United States on Thursday for hearings they’d been told were scheduled but didn’t exist, a lawyers’ group said, as the Justice Department struggles with an overloaded immigration court system and the effects of the recently ended partial government shutdown.

Immigration attorneys reported that lines wrapped around the court building in San Francisco, a line stretched for blocks to get into the court in Los Angeles and hundreds of people waited outside the court in Newark, New Jersey.

Thursday’s problems are the latest example of US immigration authorities issuing a large number of inaccurate notices ordering immigrants to appear at hearings that, it later turns out, had never been scheduled.

Lawyers first told CNN last year that they’d observed a wave of what they call “fake dates” pop up. For instance, lawyers reported examples of notices to appear issued for nonexistent dates, such as September 31, and for times of day when courts aren’t open, such as midnight.

“The immigration courts have reached a new crisis point,” said Laura Lynch, senior policy counsel for the American Immigration Lawyers Association. The group said it tracked over 1,000 people showing up in courts Thursday with inaccurate hearing notices.

In Los Angeles, immigrants who had “fake dates” were given paperwork acknowledging they’d appeared at the immigration court, according to attorney Jonathan Vallejo, who provided this redacted copy of one such form.

‘I’m afraid and nervous’

Inside a packed waiting room at the Arlington Immigration Court on Thursday, confused immigrants clutching paperwork asked lawyers for help. Some said they’d driven hours to get to court and had awakened at 3:30 a.m. to arrive on time.

“I’m left with a question mark. I’m wondering, ‘Why?'” said Bigail Alfaro, 39, who’s seeking asylum with her two children. “I’m afraid and nervous.”

RELATED: The government shutdown took its toll on the nation’s immigration courts

As she prepared to head into court for a scheduled hearing, immigration attorney Eileen Blessinger found herself fielding questions and asking court officials to stamp paperwork to provide proof that immigrants had shown up.

“What happened?” one woman asked her.

“You don’t have court, because they made a mistake,” Blessinger said.

At an immigration court in Atlanta, a crowd of around 40 people were turned away, almost one by one, by a Spanish-speaking court employee telling people with notices that their hearings had been “postponed.”

Among those showing up for court were parents with small children, some dressed only with hooded sweatshirts and covering themselves with blankets, with the temperature in Atlanta in the mid-20s.

“They told us they would send us another citation by mail,” said a man named Jose who asked to be identified only by his first name. “But who knows when? And the hard part is they don’t let us know with enough time, enough time to prepare ourselves.”

In Los Angeles, immigration attorney Jonathan Vallejo said he saw 30-40 people ushered into a room where they were told they didn’t have hearings and given forms acknowledging they’d appeared at the court.

“It’s absurd what’s going on,” he said.

RELATED: Trump admin faces two big deadlines on family separation policy

Two lawyers. One court. And their fight against the odds.

Problems were also seen in Dallas, Miami and San Diego, Lynch said.

The Executive Office for Immigration Review, the division of the Justice Department that runs the immigration courts, said the weather and government shutdown were partially to blame.

The office “was unable to proceed with hearings for some respondents who believed they had hearings scheduled,” the Justice Department said in a statement. “In some cases, the cases had been rescheduled to another date, but the lapse in appropriations prevented the immigration courts from issuing new hearing notices far enough in advance of the prior hearing date.”

An ongoing problem

President Donald Trump has repeatedly criticized the nation’s immigration system, specifically taking issue with the practice of releasing immigrants while they await their court dates. To remedy that, his administration has sought to hire more immigration judges in the hopes of unclogging the court.

But that has not happened — there are 409 immigration judges nationwide but nearly 80 vacancies — and the number of cases continues to grow.

For years, the number of pending cases has been slowly creeping up, as more are added to the docket than can be addressed at any given time. There are more than 800,000 cases pending, according to the Syracuse University’s Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse.

Former Attorney General Jeff Sessions also created a quota system that requires judges to clear at least 700 cases a year in order to receive “satisfactory” performance evaluations. Between 2011 and 2016, judges completed 678 cases a year on average.

Judge Ashley Tabaddor, the president of the National Association of Immigration Judges, described judges in Los Angeles coming back this week to boxes filled to the rim with mail that had piled up over the course of the 35-day partial government shutdown.

“What this does is it adds greater delay to the cases. We were shortchanged five or four weeks of time,” Tabaddor told CNN. “Not only were we not able to hear cases that were previously cases that were scheduled, but it’s going to take time to regroup.”

RELATED: US immigration authorities detail so-called return-to-Mexico guidance for migrants

Immigration attorneys say the instances of mistakenly scheduled hearings unfairly burden immigrants and create more pressure on a system that’s already suffering from a crushing backlog.

“Imagine the stress of facing potential deportation,” North Carolina immigration attorney Jeremy McKinney said on Twitter. “You’re told show up in court or be ordered deported in your absence. You drive hundreds of miles & wait in line only to be told the court date was not real. ‘Sorry for the minor logistical errors.’ “

A NOTICE TO APPEAR AT MIDNIGHT (p. 1)

Atlanta immigration attorney Rachel Effron Sharma says this is an example of a notice a client received, ordering the client to report to an immigration court at a time when the court was closed.

View the entire document with DocumentCloud

The US Supreme Court ruled in June that notices to appear — the charging documents that immigration authorities issue to send someone to immigration court who’s accused of being in the United States illegally — must specify the time and place of proceedings in order to be valid.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement spokeswoman Jennifer Elzea said officials have been working to comply with the court’s requirements for notices to appear, but the lapse in funding during the partial government shutdown had delayed those administrative efforts.

“All appropriate parties are working together to solve this issue going forward,” she said.

In its statement Thursday, the Executive Office for Immigration Review said it had issued policy guidance in December and modified its system so the Department of Homeland Security and its components can directly schedule hearings.

The agency said it “does not expect any further recurrence of this type of situation.”

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

Yup, and it happened in the “Bay Area” also:

https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Confusion-erupts-as-dozens-show-up-for-fake-13579045.php

Tatiana Sanchez reports for the SF Chronicle:

One woman pulled her daughter out of school to make it to the courthouse on Montgomery Street. Another caught a ride from Fresno. A teenage girl and her ailing mother waited for hours, clutching documents that summoned the mother to Immigration Court Jan. 31.

But none of them got what they came for and expected: a hearing before a judge.

Dozens of people reported Thursday to hearings previously scheduled by the Department of Homeland Security at the federal San Francisco Immigration Court, only to find the appointments didn’t exist.

Unlimited Digital Access for 99¢

Read more articles like this by subscribing to the San Francisco Chronicle

SUBSCRIBE

Immigration attorneys described similar scenes in Chicago, Atlanta, Virginia, Miami and Texas, where long lines snaked around courthouses for hours.

Federal officials said Thursday’s problems resulted from the government shutdown delaying the process of rescheduling the hearings.

But attorneys representing immigrants called the court dates fake, and said Immigration and Customs Enforcement is sending immigrants notices to appear — charging documents instructing people accused of being in the country illegally to come to court — with court dates it knows are not real.

“Every city in every jurisdiction is doing this, obviously knowing that there really won’t be court on that date,” said Christable Lee, an immigration attorney in San Francisco. “These immigrants are standing with their kids outside with no direction. They’re afraid to stand outside on the sidewalk in front of the courthouse because there could be other immigration authorities there. It’s a really harrowing situation.”

Attorneys say the new practice stems from a U.S. Supreme Court ruling, known as Pereira vs. Sessions that requires notices to appear to include a specific date and time in order to be valid. Previously, immigration authorities could send notices with the date listed as “to be determined.”

A similar situation occurred in several cities nationwide Oct. 31 when dozens of people showed up for court hearings that didn’t exist. Since then, some have reported court dates scheduled on weekends or late at night.

In a prepared statement, ICE denied giving immigrants a fake court date, saying, “Due to the recent partial lapse in government appropriations, the administrative process to resolve this issue was delayed, resulting in an expected overflow of individuals with Notices to Appear listing immigration proceedings on January 31.”

Meanwhile, the Executive Office for Immigration Review, which oversees all immigration courts, said it was “unable to proceed” with hearings for some people who “believed they had hearings scheduled” Thursday.

“In some cases, the cases had been rescheduled to another date, but the lapse in appropriations prevented the immigration courts from issuing new hearing notices far enough in advance of the prior hearing date,” the agency said in a statement. “In other cases, EOIR did not receive the Notice to Appear (NTA) in a timely manner. Immigration proceedings do not commence until the Department of Homeland Security has filed an NTA with an immigration court.”

Attorneys with the American Immigration Lawyers Association said they’ve received more than 1,000 reports of immigrants who had notices to appear in court containing fake dates, though they said it’s extremely difficult to track.

Mothers with small children, families and confused couples clutching manila folders crowded the sidewalk in San Francisco Thursday while others filled nearby coffee shops and restaurants after being told to come back a different day. The news was particularly troubling for immigrants who traveled several hours to get to the courthouse, many relying on relatives and friends for rides.

More than a dozen people waiting outside the courthouse declined to be interviewed but told The Chronicle that staff informed them court wasn’t in session Thursday. Some people who showed up in the morning were asked to come back later in the day, though it’s unclear what happened once they returned.

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

As I’ve reported before on “Courtside,” contrary to the myths promoted by Trump, DOJ, and DHS, migrants generally appear for court when they get valid notice with real hearing dates and actually have the system explained to them (usually by an attorney); ironically, it’s often EOIR (“the lovable donkey”) that “Fails to Appear” (“FTA”) with an assist from their “partners in crime” over at ICE.

Would a “real court” let the “cops” run roughshod over them and their dockets as EOIR permits ICE to do? Would a “real President” shut down the Immigration Courts over a wall that will have NO, I repeat NO, “immediate impact” on migration while forcing tens of thousands of “ready to try removal cases” to the end of dockets that already stretch out four or more years in some locations?

Part of the problem is the continuing failure since the Clinton Administration of the DOJ to implement the statutory contempt of court authority granted to the Immigration Judges by Congress approximately two decades ago! A few contempt of court orders directed at ICE Agents and the ICE Chief Counsel who are failing to control their so-called “clients,” or perhaps at Secretary Nielsen herself, would bring these absurd, illegal, time-wasting practices that actually hurt real human beings and sow chaos in our justice system to a screeching halt!

That’s why an independent Article I Immigration Court is an essential priority in fixing our immigration system, including the procedures both for granting asylum and other relief promptly, fairly, and in accordance with due process, and issuing removal orders for those who don’t qualify. The current system does neither, for reasons largely beyond the control of the Immigration Judges (although some judges at both the trial and appellate level bear responsibility for failing to carry out in a fair and unbiased manner, consistent with due process, the generous, humanitarian statutes for the granting of asylum and implementing the legal mandates for other forms of protection from persecution and torture. That’s why a transparent, merit-based selection and reappointment system, with provision for public input is essential to an Article I system).

News from the “Journalism Carousel:” Star immigration reporter Priscilla Alvarez has moved to CNN from her prior birth over at The Atlantic. Congrats to Priscilla and to CNN!

PWS

02-01-19

TRUMP’S IMMIGRATION POLICY: “MALICIOUS INCOMPETENCE!” — Also, ICE Intentionally Falsifies Court Hearing Dates — Where Is The Accountability?

https://www.truthdig.com/articles/incompetence-plus-malice-add-up-to-trumps-losing-formula-on-immigration/

Bill Boyarsky writes for Truthdig:

From the beginning of Donald Trump’s presidential campaign, the immigration issue has defined his political profile. More than anything else, it has opened a window on his authoritarian mind, his disdain for the truth and for democratic institutions. Such contempt has revealed the dangers of Trumpism to much of a nation governed, often imperfectly, by the law. The way immigrants are locked up in detention centers without trial warns us of the possibility of a police state.

Last week, the president’s braggadocio crumbled in the face of facts and the strategic opposition of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. She clearly saw beyond the façade as she took the measure of her opponent.

Trump’s signature combination of untruthfulness, ignorance and arrogance became evident to the country on Friday when maps appeared on cable television showing planes stacking up at airports, sending passengers into a state of exasperation that transcends partisan politics. Those deficiencies were further exposed when he, while putting an end to the protracted government shutdown, used his concession speech in the White House Rose Garden on Friday to rehash his lying attacks on immigrants.

Trump repeated his call for a wall, arguing that only a wall would stop the drug dealers and other criminals from coming across the southern border. But he pulled back from the “Build the Wall” promises that stirred nationalistic crowds at his rallies. “We do not need 2,000 miles of concrete wall from sea to shiny [sic] sea—we never did,” he said, insisting that he had never proposed one.

On the contrary, as Linda Qiu and Michael Tackett wrote in The New York Times:

Dozens of times during the 2016 campaign, Mr. Trump promised to build a wall along the southwestern border, usually saying it would be 1,000 miles at varying heights and costs. At times the building materials changed. He mentioned concrete, steel and, at one point, even a wall that would have solar panels. But a wall and the unsupported pledge that Mexico would pay for it were foundational elements of his campaign, and Mr. Trump has continued to make similar assertions throughout his presidency.

Except on Friday. Qiu and Tackett also picked up that detail: “ … notable was something Mr. Trump did not say, namely that Mexico would pay for the wall. …”

As he had from the beginning of his presidential campaign, Trump trafficked in falsehoods Friday in the Rose Garden when he described the immigrants trying to cross the border into the United States as dangerous criminals.

Figures from Syracuse University’s Transactional Records Clearinghouse(TRAC), a respected compiler of immigration statistics, refute his claim.

As of June 30, 2018, Immigration and Customs Enforcement had 44,435 immigrants in custody. Of these, four out of five had no criminal record or had committed only a minor offense, such as a traffic violation. Of the remainder, only 16 percent had committed crimes considered serious, which includes selling marijuana, now legal in many states. Of those eventually convicted of a crime, most were for illegal entry into the United States, a misdemeanor.

Another factor to consider is the incompetence of the way Trump administers his anti-immigrant policy. His former Attorney General Jeff Sessions drastically reduced the grounds for immigrants seeking asylum in the United States. Under his plan, dangers posed to immigrants by criminal gangs or domestic violence were no longer accepted as reasons for granting asylum—a devastating legislative blow to those fleeing gang-ridden Central American countries.

Other restrictions on asylum were also imposed. When immigrants present themselves to border officers and ask for sanctuary, they are arrested for illegal entry. They are then placed in detention, awaiting a hearing in immigration court, or are deported, although courts have ordered some released.

Sessions also ordered judges in immigration courts to speed up their hearings and decision-making protocols. He claimed this directive was aimed at reducing the backlog of cases awaiting hearing in immigration court that involve immigrants either in detention or freed through the legal intervention of immigrant advocates.

The backlog, TRAC said, totals 1,098,468—more than double the waiting list in January 2017 when Trump took office. It would take immigration courts more than five years to work their way through the backlog. This explains why so many immigrants are held in detention for years without a trial in onerous conditions, and why those freed from detention are in legal limbo, subject to being stopped, questioned and improperly arrested.

When Trump shut down the government, most immigration hearings were cancelled. That gave the president a lesson in the law of unintended consequences. Rather than carry out his intent—hustling the immigrants out of the country—he has done the opposite and has increased the logjam.

In short, incompetence plus evil intentions have brought the country to this point.

Trump has been able to paper over his incompetence with bluster. The mass media has served as an accomplice. Too many stories focus on his performance. Sometimes, even his critics offer grudging admiration.

The shutdown ripped away the mask. Immigration was the central issue behind Trump’s closure of the federal government. His lies about immigration were exposed, as was his bungling execution of a cruel policy.

Bill Boyarsky

Political Correspondent

Bill Boyarsky is a political correspondent for Truthdig. He is a former lecturer in journalism at the Annenberg School for Communication of the University of Southern California. Boyarsky was city editor of….

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

Meanwhile, over at CBS News, Kate Smith continues her great coverage of the illegal and unethical behavior that has become the norm at DHS and which is enable and tolerated by an enfeebled politically dominated EOIR.

ICE agents told hundreds of immigrants to show up to court on Thursday or risk being deported. But lawyers say many of those hearings won’t happen because the dates ICE provided are fake.

Immigration attorneys in Chicago, Miami, Texas, and Virginia told CBS News their clients or their colleagues’ clients were issued a Notice to Appear (NTA) for hearings scheduled Jan. 31. The attorneys learned the dates weren’t real when they called the courts to confirm. ICE is required to include court dates with court notices, per a Supreme Court decision last summer, but most don’t actually reflect scheduled hearings.

The American Immigration Lawyers Association issued a “practice alert” on Tuesday evening, warning members “the next upcoming date on NTAs that appears to be fake is this Thursday.”

On Wednesday evening, the Executive Office of Immigration Review, the body that oversees all the immigration courts, instructed all attorneys with a January 31 NTA “to confirm the time and date of any hearing.”

“There will be another episode of mass confusion in the immigration courts [Thursday] as a result of the DHS’s decision to issue Notice to Appear with fake immigration court dates,” Brian Casson, a Virginia-based immigration attorney, said in an email to CBS News.

In a statement Thursday morning, an ICE spokesperson said the agency was working with the Department of Justice “regarding the proper issuance of Notices to Appear.” The spokesperson said the government shutdown “delayed” that process, “resulting in an expected overflow of individuals appearing for immigration proceedings today/January 31.”

The fake notices stem from a Supreme Court ruling last summer. Prior to the decision, ICE officials used to send immigrants NTAs with date listed as “TBD” – or “to be determined.” The immigration court would issue the migrant an official hearing notice later, said Casson.

One effect of this: The NTAs could block an immigrant’s eligibility for “cancellation of removal,” a legal residency status granted to some undocumented immigrants after 10 uninterrupted years of living in the U.S. A NTA, even without a hearing date, would interrupt the 10-year “clock,” said Jeremy McKinney, a Charlotte, North Carolina-based immigration attorney, in a telephone interview with CBS News.

A Supreme Court ruling last summer — Pereira v. Sessions — banned the practice, requiring all appearance notices to use actual dates.

However, systems weren’t in place for ICE to see the court’s schedule, so ICE issued fake dates instead. Immigrants were instructed to appear on weekends, midnight, and dates that just didn’t exist, like Sept. 31, multiple attorneys told CBS News.

On October 31, hundreds of immigrants received phony NTAs. They showed up to court for non-existent hearings to find “extraordinarily long lines,” according the recent alert from the immigration lawyers’ organization.

“It was complete dysfunction and confusion,” said McKinney.

The problem became so pervasive that on Dec. 21, the Executive Office of Immigration Review issued a rare policy memo telling ICE agents and DHS that courts would “reject any NTA in which the date or time of the scheduled hearing is facially incorrect.”

Matthew Kriezelman, a Chicago-based immigration attorney, has four clients with hearings scheduled for tomorrow. After checking with the court earlier this week, he found out that two of those appearances weren’t real: administrators had no record of the hearings and told Kriezelman his clients would have to wait until the court itself sent them a hearing date.

Kriezelman’s clients are among the lucky ones; experts estimate less than half of immigrants have legal representation. That means hundreds won’t realize their Jan. 31 hearing date was phony and will show up anyway, said Kriezelman.

The court in Chicago handles all the immigration cases in Wisconsin, Illinois and Indiana, meaning many immigrants could be traveling for hours on Thursday morning for a hearing that doesn’t actually exist, Kriezelman said.

When they show up, nobody will be able to assist — because of the extreme cold weather, the Chicago immigration court is scheduled to be closed on Thursday, Kriezelman said.

Failure to show up to an immigration hearing can result in immediate removal proceeding, making immigrant especially wary when they hear they don’t need to come into court after all, said Kriezelman.

“They feel like someone is screwing with them or playing a terrible joke,” Kriezelman said. “It’s really confusing for a lot of people, especially ones that are unrepresented.”

Read more CBS News immigration coverage: The country’s busiest border crossing will allow 20 people to claim asylum a day. They used to take up to 100

These Central Americans have a second chance at asylum after being “unlawfully” deported. First ICE needs to bring them back

Every congressperson along southern border opposes border wall funding

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

Bill and Kate must be “reading my mind.” Keep on exposing the truth about this cruel, dishonest, and incompetent Administration and all of the “ethics-free minions” who carry out often illegal orders! What goes around, comes around, folks.

Anybody and I mean anybody, could need a fair, impartial, and honest justice system at some point in life. Why are so many folks standing by and letting Trump and his toadies destroy it? Piece by piece, the most important foundations of our democracy are being destroyed right in plain daylight!

Also congrats to my good friend and long-time fellow member of the Beverley Hills Community United Methodist Church family Mike Tackett of the NY Times and his colleague Linda Qiu for their continuing outstanding coverage of the truth about Trump’s disingenuous, wasteful, and cruel immigration policies. You’re making a difference, Mike and Linda! Keep at it!

There was a time when dishonesty and falsely filling out official government documents (known as fraud or willful misrepresentation in some criminal law circles) would get a Government employee fired, prosecuted, or disciplined. Not any more. With our country headed by a grifter “Liar-in-Chief” “anything goes” unless you are a migrant, a minority, or a member of the LGBTQ community. In that case, expect “no mercy.”

Also remember that White Nationalist former AG Jeff “Gonzo Apocalypto” Sessions disingenuously pontificated about “the rule of law,” called DHS “a partner of EOIR,” and referred to immigration attorneys as “dirty lawyers.” He tried to cover up his gross mismanagement and political manipulation of the Immigration Courts by falsely blaming migrants, their attorneys, and the Immigration Judges themselves for the mess he himself, and also to a large extent DHS, caused.

He also spread false narratives about “widespread asylum fraud” and made the demonstrably false claim that asylum applicants were somehow a “major cause” of 11 million (mostly hard-working and law-abiding) “illegals” as he liked to contemptuously call them in his racist lingo. I doubt that there have even been 11 million asylum applicants total since the enactment of the Refugee Act of 1980.

Certainly, the causes for our “extra-legal” immigration system go far beyond alleged asylum fraud (which, in fact, does exist on a much smaller scale and in my experience is generally effectively uncovered, investigated, and aggressively prosecuted by DHS). They are a direct result of outdated and misguided policies that failed to recognize legitimate market forces in creating legal immigration categories and a failure to fully carry out in a good faith manner our humanitarian obligations under the refugee laws and international conventions.

Fact is, even if restrictionists like Sessions won’t admit it, the vast majority of the 11 million undocumented individuals should have been screened and admitted under our legal immigration system. The U.S. Government created the problem; so far, they have lacked the honesty, leadership, and courage to fix it in a fair and humane way that will benefit both our country and the migrants, current and future. Immigrants are America. And, except for our Native American brothers and sisters, we are all immigrants!

That’s why we have the “New Due Process Army!” Enlist today, and help fight the forces of “malicious incompetence” everywhere and for as long as it takes to win the battle and vindicate the Constitutional right of everyone in American to enjoy the benefits of Due Process of law.

PWS

01-31-19

MAJOR VICTORY FOR DHS ON PEREIRA JURISDICTION ISSUE: 9th Approves BIA Precedent In Matter of Bermudez-Cota! — KARINGITHI v WHITAKER

stop time — 9th

Karingithi v. Whitaker, 9th. Cir., 01-28-19, Published

PANEL: M. Margaret McKeown, William A. Fletcher, and Jay S. Bybee, Circuit Judges

OPINION BY: Judge McKeown

COURT STAFF SUMMARY:

The panel denied Serah Karingithi’s petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ denial of relief from removal, holding that a notice to appear that does not specify the time and date of an alien’s initial removal hearing vests an immigration judge with jurisdiction over the removal proceedings, so long as a notice of hearing specifying this information is later sent to the alien in a timely manner.

The Supreme Court recently held in Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105 (2018), that a notice to appear lacking the time and date of the hearing before an immigration judge is insufficient to trigger the stop-time rule for purposes of cancellation of removal relief. In light of Pereira, Karingithi argued that a notice to appear lacking the time and date of the hearing was insufficient to vest jurisdiction with the immigration court.

The panel rejected this argument. The panel noted that Pereira addressed the required contents of a notice to appear in the context of the stop-time rule and the continuous physical presence requirement for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. §§ 1229(a), 1229b, but was not in any way concerned with the immigration court’s jurisdiction. The panel held that Pereira’s narrow ruling does not control the analysis of the immigration court’s jurisdiction because, unlike the stop-time rule, the immigration court’s

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

KARINGITHI V. WHITAKER 3

jurisdiction does not hinge on §1229(a). The panel explained that the issue of immigration court jurisdiction is instead governed by federal immigration regulations, including 8 C.F.R. §§1003.13, 1003.14(a),1003.15(b), which do not require that the charging document include the time and date of the hearing.

The panel noted that its reading of the regulations was consistent with the Board’s recent decision in Matter of Bermudez-Cota, 27 I. & N. Dec. 441 (BIA 2018), which held that “a notice to appear that does not specify the time and place of an alien’s initial removal hearing vests an Immigration Judge with jurisdiction over the removal proceedings . . . so long as a notice of hearing specifying this information is later sent to the alien.” The panel also concluded that the Board’s decision in Bermudez-Cota warranted deference.

Because the charging document in this case satisfied the regulatory requirements, and Karingithi received subsequent timely notices including the time and date of her hearing, the panel held that the immigration judge had jurisdiction over the removal proceedings.

The panel declined to consider Karingithi’s argument, in the alternative, that Pereira renders her eligible for cancellation of removal, because cancellation relief was a new claim that was not part of the present petition for review.

The panel addressed the merits of Karingithi’s petition for review of the denial of asylum and related relief in a contemporaneously filed memorandum disposition.

Here’s another helpful summary from “Our Gang” Member Retired IU.s. Immigration Judge Polly Webber:

Dear Colleagues,

Today a panel of the Ninth Circuit (McKeown, Fletcher and Bybee) denied a PFR of Serah Njoki Karingithi holding that a notice to appear that does not specify the time and date of an alien’s initial removal hearing vests an immigration judge with jurisdiction over the removal proceedings, so long as a notice of hearing specifying this information is later sent to the alien in a timely manner. In so doing, the panel read Pereira narrowly,finding that it addressed the required contents of a notice to appear in the context of the stop-time rule and the continuous physical presence requirement for cancellation of removal, but was not in any way concerned with the immigration court’s jurisdiction. It also noted that its reading of the regulations was consistent with Bermudez-Cota, and it found that that decision warranted deference.

The panel found that the immigration court’s jurisdiction does not hinge on §1229(a). The panel explained that the issue of immigration court jurisdiction is instead governed by federal immigration regulations, including 8 C.F.R. §§1003.13, 1003.14(a),1003.15(b), which do not require that the charging document include the time and date of the hearing.

Serah Njoki Karingithi v. Whittaker, Case No. 16-70885, January 28, 2019.

Long-time SF immigration lawyer, Ruby Lieberman, represented the Petitioner, and Lonny Hoffman, Professor of Law, University of Houston Law Center, filed an Amicus brief. Representing OIL were Greg Mack, Leslie McKay, Terri Scadron and Joseph Hunt.

I assume someone will ask for an en banc hearing.

Polly

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

Thanks, Polly! Sorry there wasn’t “better” news. But, we have to take and publish the bad along with the good.

By the way, congrats to my former Arlington Immigration Court colleague and NAIJ Official, Judge Lawrence Owen “The Burmanator” Burman who “called” this one exactly right when we were walking to the subway after the AILA Holiday Party! Also, as an “early critic” of Bermudez-Cota, I must acknowledge that so far, notwithstanding some “rough sledding” in the District Courts, the BIA’s decision has won deference from the circuits that have considered the question.

PWS

01-29-19

GOV WINS A “BIGGIE:” 6th Cir. Defers To BIA’s Interpretation Of “Pereira Notice” in Matter of Bermudez-Cota — Hernandez-Perez v. Whitaker!

Hernandez-Perez-6th-18a0269p-06

Hernandez-Perez v. Whitaker, 6th Cir., 12-18-18, Published

PANEL: GUY, WHITE, and STRANCH, Circuit Judges

OPINION BY: JUDGE JANE B. STRANCH

KEY QUOTE:

On the other hand, importing Pereira’s holding on the stop-time rule into the jurisdictional context would have unusually broad implications. According to the Government, “almost 100 percent” of NTAs issued during the three years preceding Pereira did not include the time and date of the proceeding. Id. at 2111.

Pereira’s emphatically “narrow” framing, id. at 2110, 2113, counsels in favor of distinguishing between the two contexts. Pereira confronted a specific question: “If the Government serves a noncitizen with a document that is labeled ‘notice to appear,’ but the document fails to specify either the time or place of the removal proceedings, does it trigger the stop-time rule?” Id. at 2110. Hernandez-Perez’s case does not present the same narrow question; no one disputes that he satisfies the ten-year requirement regardless of when the stop- time rule was triggered. We find persuasive the Board’s reasoning that, “[h]ad the Court intended to issue a holding as expansive as the one advanced . . ., presumably it would not have specifically referred to the question before it as being ‘narrow.’” Bermudez-Cota, 27 I. & N. Dec. at 443.

No. 18-3137 Hernandez-Perez v. Whitaker Page 10

Other components of Pereira counsel against applying its NTA rule in the context of jurisdiction. Like the BIA, we find it significant that, in Pereira, “the Court did not purport to invalidate the alien’s underlying removal proceedings or suggest that proceedings should be terminated.” Id.; see also Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 141 (2012) (requiring courts to examine their own jurisdiction even if the parties “have disclaimed or have not presented” theissue). If Pereira’s holding applied to jurisdiction, there also would not have been jurisdiction in in Pereira itself. But the Court took up, decided, and remanded Pereira without even hinting at the possibility of a jurisdictional flaw.

We agree with the Board that Pereira is an imperfect fit in the jurisdictional context and it does not mandate a different conclusion than the one already reached by this court and all our sister circuits. See Herrera-Orozco, 603 F. App’x at 473–74 (collecting cases). We therefore conclude that jurisdiction vests with the immigration court where, as here, the mandatory information about the time of the hearing, see 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a), is provided in a Notice of Hearing issued after the NTA.

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

Points of interest;

The 6th Circuit is the first circuit to rule on Bermudez-Cota;
The court noted that approximately 100% of the cases commenced by ICE over the past three years did not contain the specific notice of date. time and place of hearing set forth in the statute;
Even assuming that Bermudez is upheld, the way in which cases have been processed by DHS and EOIR has made tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of individuals eligible for “Cancellation of Removal;”
What does this say about the management competency of both agencies?
Contrary to the drift of the BIA and the 6th Circuit, initial proper notice of time, place, and date of hearing is critically important;
- Whereas “Notices to Appear” are sometimes served in person, the subsequent “Notice of Hearing” by EOIR never is — this significantly increases the chances for improper “in absentia” hearings based on faulty notice from EOIR;
- Most notices in Immigration Court are served manually by regular U.S. Mail, an incredibly error-fraught process given the state of disorder in the Immigration Courts (which has been mindlessly ramped up under Sessions’s gross mismanagement);
- Thus, failing to provide accurate initial notice actually greatly increases the chances of improper in absentia orders and actual removals if an individual is picked up and can’t figure out how to file a “Motion to Reopen and Rescind” the in absentia order;
- Would you be able to do that?” Would most Article III judges (particularly if operating in a different language, from ICE Detention, with no lawyer)?
Although “winning” on the “big issue,” the DHS actually lost this case; it was remanded because the BIA screwed up in denying the respondent’s Motion to Reopen;
As one of my former colleagues pointed out to me recently, if the BIA is wrong in Bermudez-Cota, it could potentially invalidate not only almost every removal order and pending removal proceeding, but most affirmative grants of relief by Immigration Judges;
- So, maybe this is a case where the practical consequences will shape the legal interpretation;
- But, then, there’s always the issue of retroactivity — could an invalidation of Bermudez be applied “prospectively only” to new and pending proceedings or in some other manner that did not disrupt “settled expectations;”
Historical Trivia: I wrote Matter of L-O-G-, 21 I. & N. Dec. 413, 413 (B.I.A. 1996) (en banc) which was extensively discussed by the 6th Circuit.

PWS

12-18-18

“Bottomless Pinocchios” — A Catalog Of The Liar-in-Chief’s Most Repeated Lies — Not Surprisingly, A Number Of Them Involve Immigration!

🤥🤥🤥🤥🤥🤥🤥🤥🤥🤥🤥🤥🤥🤥🤥🤥🤥🤥🤥🤥🤥🤥🤥🤥🤥

https://www.washingtonpost.com/classic-apps/the-false-claims-that-trump-keeps-repeating/2018/12/09/c2859d36-fc0c-11e8-862a-b6a6f3ce8199_story.html

Glenn Kessler and Joe Fox report for the Washington Post:

The Fact Checker has evaluated false statements President Trump has made repeatedly and analyzed how often he reiterates them. The claims included here – which we’re calling “Bottomless Pinocchios” – are limited to ones that he has repeated 20 times and were rated as Three or Four Pinocchios by the Fact Checker.

The Trump tax cut was the biggest in history

Trump repeated some version of this claim 123 times

Even before President Trump’s tax cut was crafted, he promised it would be the biggest in U.S. history – bigger than Ronald Reagan’s 1981 tax cut. Reagan’s tax cut amounted to 2.9 percent of the gross domestic product and none of the proposals under consideration came close to that level. Yet Trump persisted in this fiction even when the tax cut was eventually crafted to be the equivalent of 0.9 percent of GDP, making it the eighth largest tax cut in 100 years. This continues to be an all-purpose applause line in the president’s rallies. Read more

No, President Trump’s tax cut isn’t the ‘largest ever’

Overstating the size of U.S. trade deficits

Trump repeated some version of this claim 117 times

President Trump frequently overstates the size of trade deficits. But he tips into Four-Pinocchio territory with his repeated use of the word “lost” to describe a trade deficit. (Alternatively, he sometimes says China “made” or “took out” $500 billion.) Countries do not “lose” money on trade deficits. A trade deficit simply means that people in one country are buying more goods from another country than people in the second country are buying from the first country. Trade deficits are also affected by macroeconomic factors, such as currencies, economic growth, and savings and investment rates. Read more

Fact-checking Trump’s tough trade talk

The U.S. economy has never been stronger

Trump repeated some version of this claim 99 times

In June 2018, the president hit upon a new label for the U.S. economy: It was the greatest, the best or the strongest in U.S. history. The president can certainly brag about the state of the economy, but he runs into trouble when he repeatedly makes a play for the history books. By just about any important measure, the economy today is not doing as well as it did under Presidents Dwight D. Eisenhower, Lyndon B. Johnson or Bill Clinton — or Ulysses S. Grant. Read more

Is this the ‘best economy ever’?

Inflating our NATO spending

Trump repeated some version of this claim 87 times

During the presidential election, Trump consistently inflated the U.S. contribution to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Once he became president, his inaccuracy has persisted, but with a twist. He often claims that “billions and billions” of dollars have come into NATO because of his complaints. All that is happening is that members have increased defense spending as a share of their economies — a process that was started before Trump even announced his candidacy. Read more

President Trump’s ongoing misunderstanding of NATO funding

The U.S. has started building the wall

Trump repeated some version of this claim 86 times

President Trump has sought $25 billion to fund his long-promised wall along the southern border. But Congress has not given it to him. There was nearly $1.6 billion included in the appropriations bill he signed early in 2018 for border protection, but the legislative language was specific: None of the funds could be used for Trump’s border wall prototypes. Instead the money was restricted to fencing, and it was generally used for replacement fencing. He also frequently overstates the amount of money he has obtained for the nonexistent wall. Read more

Has construction of Trump’s border wall started?

The U.S. has the loosest immigration laws in the world — thanks to Democrats

Trump repeated some version of this claim 52 times

Trump repeatedly claims that the United States has the loosest immigration laws, but that’s simply not true. In fact, the United States has among the world’s most restrictive laws, placing it 25th among developing nations in welcoming immigrants, according to data from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. The president frequently blames Democrats for the current legal system but that’s wrong, too — much of current immigration policy was decided either under a Republican president or through court cases. Read more

Is there a law that requires families to be separated at the border?

Democrats colluded with Russia during the campaign

Trump repeated some version of this claim 42 times

Throughout the special counsel’s investigation of possible ties between the Trump campaign and Russia, Trump has sought to deflect attention by asserting that the Democrats colluded with Russia. But he has little evidence to make his case, which largely rests on the fact that the firm hired by Democrats to examine Trump’s Russia ties at the same time was working to defend a Russian company in U.S. court. In fact, U.S. intelligence agencies found that Russian entities hacked Democratic leaders’ email during the campaign. Read more

Did Hillary Clinton collude with the Russians to get ‘dirt’ on Trump to feed it to the FBI?

The border wall will stop drug trafficking

Trump repeated some version of this claim 40 times

In demanding a wall on the southern border, Trump has asserted that it would stop the flow of drugs. But the Drug Enforcement Administration says that most illicit drugs enter the United States through legal ports of entry. Traffickers conceal the drugs in hidden compartments within passenger cars or hide them alongside other legal cargo in tractor-trailers and drive the illicit substances right into the United States. Meanwhile, fentanyl, a deadly synthetic opioid, can be easily ordered online, even directly from China. Read more

Will a border wall stop drugs from ‘pouring in?’

U.S. Steel is building many new plants

Trump repeated some version of this claim 37 times

This is one of Trump’s strangest claims. Since he imposed tariffs on steel, the president has repeatedly claimed that U.S. Steel was building new steel plants. Depending on his mood, the number has ranged from six to nine plants. But U.S. Steel made no such announcement. It merely stated that it would restart two blast furnaces at the company’s Granite City Works integrated plant in Illinois — one in March and the other in October, for a total of 800 jobs. The company in August also said it would upgrade a plant in Gary, Ind., but without creating any new jobs. Read more

The U.S. has spent $6 trillion (or more) on Middle East wars

Trump repeated some version of this claim 36 times

Trump started making a version of this claim shortly after taking office, first claiming $6 trillion but then quickly elevating it to $7 trillion. Trump acts as if the money has been spent, but he is referring to a study that included estimates of future obligations through 2056 for veterans’ care. The study combines data for both George W. Bush’s war in Iraq (2003) and the war in Afghanistan (2001), which is in Central/South Asia, not the Middle East. The cost of the combined wars will probably surpass $7 trillion by 2056, when interest on the debt is considered, almost four decades from now. Read more

Has the U.S. spent $7 trillion in the Middle East?

Thousands of MS-13 members have been removed from the country

Trump repeated some version of this claim 33 times

Within six months of becoming president, the president began claiming that his administration had deported thousands of members of the violent MS-13 gang. There had been a crackdown, but the count is in the hundreds. Then, he expanded the claim to say thousands had been deported or imprisoned. But there is nothing that supports these claims. For most of the country, MS-13 is not a threat; the estimated 10,000 members are concentrated in a few Hispanic communities, primarily around Long Island, Los Angeles and the Washington area. Read more

McCain’s vote was the only thing that blocked repeal of the Affordable Care Act

Trump repeated some version of this claim 30 times

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) dramatically refused to advance in the Senate a limited repeal of the Affordable Care Act, but Trump has repeatedly used that vote as his all-purpose excuse for the failure to eliminate the health-care law. This oversimplifies the precarious state of Obamacare repeal at the time. The Senate version of full repeal had failed, with nine “no” votes from Republicans. Even if McCain had supported the “skinny” repeal, lawmakers still would have had to negotiate a compromise agreement and passage was not assured. Read more

Robert S. Mueller III is biased because of conflicts of interest

Trump repeated some version of this claim 30 times

Trump has often misleadingly claimed the “witch hunt” is tainted because of conflicts of interest, such as an unverified (and denied) dispute over golf fees when Mueller was a member of a Trump golf club. Eleven out of 16 attorneys on Mueller’s team have contributed to Democrats, including Clinton and Obama; 13 are registered Democrats. Under federal law, Mueller is not allowed to consider the political leanings of his staff when hiring them, but he took action against a former team member when texts expressing anti-Trump sentiments were discovered. Read more

Fact Check: Do the political preferences of Mueller’s team risk its independence?

Inflating gains from a 2017 trip to Saudi Arabia

Trump repeated some version of this claim 23 times

Trump has repeatedly inflated the gains from his 2017 trip to Saudi Arabia, upping the amount from $350 billion to $450 billion when he came under fire for defending crown prince Mohammed bin Salman. According to the CIA, Mohammed ordered the killing of Washington Post contributing columnist Jamal Khashoggi. The administration, with double-counting, could only document $270 billion in tentative agreements. Separately, Trump inflated the jobs said to be created from the purported investments. Many are in Saudi Arabia, indicating few jobs would be created for Americans. Read more

Fact Check: The Trump administration’s tally of $350 billion-plus in deals with Saudi Arabia

About this story

Source: Washington Post reporting. Reporting by Glenn Kessler, Meg Kelly, Salvador Rizzo, Michelle Ye Hee Leeand Nicole Lewis. Meg Kelly also contributed to this story.

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

More bogus border narratives are unfolding as I’m writing this. Disingenuous CBP officials are manipulating data to tell the Senate that the border is out of control.

What is really happening is that kids and other asylum seekers are basically turning themselves in to be processed and get the hearings to which they are entitled. Why? Because the Trump Administration has purposely slowed down the process at legal Ports of Entry.

Clearly, instead of wasting money on troops and unneeded detention, the Administration should be sending Asylum Officers to the border to complete the screening. Once screened, those with “credible fear” can be matched with lawyers. Represented asylum applicants show up for hearings nearly 100% of the time, thus making prolonged detention unnecessary.

Also, since it now appears that the bulk of the “artificial backlog” in Immigration Court actually was “illegally commenced” though defective notices, those cases could simply be removed from the docket. That would free up U.S. Immmigration Judges to hear asylum cases within a reasonable (6-18 month) time frame.

Where there is a will, there’s a way. Additionally, as I often point out, doing things the right, legal way would likely cost far less than the “publicity stunts” now being conducted by the Administration at the border. But, doing the right thing and making the laws work just isn’t something that Trump and his minions are interested in, as the “Bottomless Pinocchios” related above show!

PWS

12-11-18

🤥🤥🤥🤥🤥🤥🤥🤥🤥🤥🤥🤥🤥🤥🤥🤥🤥🤥🤥🤥🤥🤥🤥🤥🤥

HON. JEFFREY S. CHASE: DHS’S ARROGANT “IN YOUR FACE” APPROACH TO “PEREIRA NOTICE” CASES APPEARS TO BE BACKFIRING WITH ARTICLE IIIs — US District Judge in Nevada Latest To Find That “Pereira Defective NTAs” Gave Immigration Judge No Jurisdiction Over Removal Case!

https://www.jeffreyschase.com/blog/2018/12/8/interpreting-pereira-a-hint-of-things-to-come

I haven’t posted for a while. I’ve been extremely busy, but there was something else: my response to so many recent events has been just pure anger. Although I’ve written the occasional “cry from the heart,” I don’t want this blog to turn into the rantings of an angry old man.

So I resume posting with a case that provides a glimmer of hope (and, hopefully, a hint of things to come?). Last week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, a court generally known for its conservatism, issued an order granting an emergency stay of removal in the case of Manuel Leonidas Duran-Ortega v. U.S. Attorney General. As is common in such types of grants, the three-judge panel issued a decision consisting of two sentences, granting the stay, and further granting the request of interested organizations to allow them to file an amicus (“friend of the court”) brief.

What made this decision noteworthy is that one of the judges on the panel felt the need to write a rather detailed concurring opinion. Among the issues discussed in that opinion is the impact of the Supreme Court’s decision in Pereira v. Sessions (which I wrote about here: https://www.jeffreyschase.com/blog/2018/9/1/the-bia-vs-the-supreme-court) on Mr. Duran-Ortega’s case. As in Pereira, the document filed by DHS with the immigration court in order to commence removal proceedings lacked a time and date of hearing. In her concurring opinion, Judge Beverly B. Martin observed that under federal regulations, jurisdiction vests, and immigration proceedings commence, only when a proper charging document is filed. The document filed in Mr. Duran-Ortega’s case purported to be a legal document called a Notice to Appear. But as Judge Martin noted, “The Supreme Court’s recent decision in Pereira appears to suggest, as Duran-Ortega argues, that self-described “notice to appears” issued without a time or place are not, in fact, notice to appears” within the meaning of the statute.

Judge Martin (a former U.S. Attorney and Georgia state Assistant Attorney General) continued that the Pereira decision “emphasized” that the statute does not say that a Notice to Appear is “complete” when it contains a time and date of the hearing; rather, he quotes the Pereira decision as holding that the law defines that a document called a “Notice to Appear” must specify “at a minimum the time and date of the removal proceeding.” The judge follows that quote with the highlight of her decision: “In other words, just as a block of wood is not a pencil if it lacks some kind of pigmented core to write with, a piece of paper is not a notice to appear absent notification of the time and place of a petitioner’s removal proceeding.”

As this Reuters article reported (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-immigration-terminations/u-s-courts-abruptly-tossed-9000-deportation-cases-heres-why-idUSKCN1MR1HK) enough immigration judges had a similar reading of Pereira to terminate 9,000 removal cases in the two months between the Supreme Court’s decision and the issuance of a contrary ruling by the Board of Immigration Appeals, in which the BIA’s judges, out of fear of then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions, chose appeasement of their boss over their duty to reach fair and independent decisions.

Judge Martin referenced that BIA decision, Matter of Bermudez-Cota, but stated: “This court need not defer to Bermudez-Cota if the agency’s holding is based on an unreasonable interpretation of the statutes and regulations involved, or if its holding is unambiguously foreclosed by the law…In light of Pereira and the various regulations and statutes at issue here, it may well be the case that deference is unwarranted.”

For those readers who are not immigration practitioners, attorneys with ICE (which is part of the Department of Homeland Security) and the Office of Immigration Litigation (“OIL”) (which is part of the Department of Justice, along with the BIA) have been filing briefs opposing motions to terminate under Pereira using language best described as snarky. A recent brief fled by OIL called the argument that proceedings commenced with a document lacking a time and date must be terminated under Pereira “an unnatural, distorted interpretation of the Supreme Court’s opinion,” and a “labored interpretation of Pereira.” A brief recently filed by ICE called the same argument an “overbroad and unsupported expansion of Pereira [which] is unwarranted and ignores the Court’s clear and unmistakable language.”

There is an old adage among lawyers that when the facts don’t favor your client, pound the law; when the law doesn’t favor your client, pound the facts; and when neither the law nor the facts favor your client, pound the table. I find the tone of the government’s briefs as sampled above to be the equivalent of pounding the table. The government is claiming that to interpret the Supreme Court’s language that “a notice that lacks a time and date is not a Notice to Appear” as meaning exactly what it says is an unnatural, distorted interpretation that is labored and ignores the clear language of the Court. The government then counters by claiming that the natural, obvious, clear interpretation is the exact opposite of what Pereira actually says.

So although it is just the view of one judge in one circuit in the context of a concurring opinion, it nevertheless feels very good to see a circuit court judge calling out the BIA, OIL, and DHS on their coordinated nonsense. Three U.S. district courts have already agreed with the private bar’s reading of Pereira, in U.S. v. Virgen Ponce (Eastern District of Washington); in U.S. v. Pedroza-Rocha (Western District of Texas); and just yesterday, in U.S. v. Soto-Mejia (D. Nev.). At this point, this is only cause for cautious optimism. But as an immigration lawyer named Aaron Chenault was articulately quoted as saying in the above Reuters article, for now, Pereira (and its proper interpretation by some judges) has provided “a brief glimmer of hope, like when you are almost drowning and you get one gasp.” Well said.

Copyright 2018 Jeffrey S. Chase. All rights reserved.

REPRINTED WITH PERMISSION

JEFF CHASE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
v.
RAUL SOTO-MEJIA, Defendant.

Case No. 2:18-cr-00150-RFB-NJK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA

December 6, 2018

ORDER

        Before the Court is Mr. Soto-Mejia’s Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 21] the Indictment in this case, for the reasons stated below the Court GRANTS the Motion to Dismiss.

        I. Factual Findings

        Based upon the record, including the joint stipulation of fact submitted by the parties [ECF No. 41], the Court makes the following factual findings. Mr. Soto-Mejia was encountered by immigration officials on February 7, 2018 in California. On that same day, February 7, the Department of Homeland Security issued a Notice to Appear for Removal Proceedings (NTA) against Soto-Mejia. The Notice to Appear stated that Soto-Mejia was to appear before an immigration judge on a date and time “[t]o be set” and at a place “[t]o be determined.” Soto-Mejia was personally served with the Notice to Appear at 10400 Rancho Road in Adelanto, California, 92401. The Notice to Appear contained allegations and provided a potential legal basis for Soto-Mejia’s removal from the United States. The Notice to Appear was filed with the Immigration Court in Adelanto, California on February 12, 2018.

        On February 27, 2018 an order advancing the removal hearing was served on a custodial officer for Soto-Mejia. On February 27, 2018, a letter entitled “Notice of Hearing in Removal Proceedings” addressed to Soto-Mejia at the Adelanto Detention Facility on 10250 Rancho Road

Page 2

in Adelanto, California, 92301 was served on a custodial officer for Soto-Mejia. The letter indicated that a hearing before Immigration Court was scheduled for March 7, 2018 at 1:00 p.m. The Notice of Hearing did not reference the nature or basis of the legal issues or charges for the removal proceedings. The Notice of Hearing also did not reference any particular Notice to Appear.

        On March 7, 2018, the “Order of the Immigration Judge” indicates that Soto-Mejia appeared at the Immigration Court hearing and that he was ordered removed from the United States to Mexico. Soto-Mejia was deported on March 8, 2018. Subsequently, Soto-Mejia was encountered in the United States again and was ordered removed on March 19, 2018. The March 19 Order, as a reinstate of the prior order, derived its authority to order removal from the March 7 Order. The Indictment in this case explicitly references and relies upon the March 7 and March 19 removal orders as a basis for establishing a violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326 by Soto-Mejia.

        II. Legal Standard

        Since a prior order of removal is a predicate element of 8 U.S.C. § 1326, a defendant may collaterally attack the underlying removal order.United States v. Ubaldo-Figueroa, 364 F.3d 1042, 1047 (9th Cir. 2004). To prevail on such a collateral challenge to a deportation order, the individual must demonstrate that (1) he exhausted any administrative remedies he could have used to challenge the order (or is excused from such exhaustion); (2) the deportation proceedings deprived the individual of judicial review (or is excused from seeking judicial review); (3) the entry of the order was fundamentally unfair. 8 U.S.C. 1326(d); Ramos, 623 F.3d at 680.

        A removal order is “fundamentally unfair” if (1) an individual’s due process rights were violated by defects in the underlying proceeding, and (2) the individual suffered prejudice as a result. Ubaldo-Figueroa, 364 F.3d at 1048.

        III. Discussion

        The Defendant argues that this case must be dismissed because his criminal prosecution derives from a defective immigration proceeding in which the immigration court did not have

Page 3

jurisdiction to commence removal proceedings against him because the Notice to Appear initiating the proceeding was defective. He argues that the March 7 Order is thus void as the immigration court did not have jurisdiction to issue an order. He further argues that, as the initial March 7, 2018 deportation order is void, the subsequent reinstatement removal order of March 19, 2018 is also void as it derived its authority from the March 7 Order. Specifically, Soto-Mejia argues that the initial Notice to Appear that issued in his case did not include a time and location for the proceeding. Relying upon the United States Supreme Court’s recent decision in Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S.Ct. 2105 (2018), Soto-Mejia argues that a notice to appear must contain a location and time for a removal hearing in order to create jurisdiction for the immigration court. Id. at 2110. As the Notice to Appear in this case did not contain such information, the immigration court, according to Soto-Mejia, did not have jurisdiction to issue a removal or deportation order.

        The government responds with several arguments. First, the government argues that Soto-Mejia waived his argument regarding jurisdiction—claiming that it is personal rather subject matter jurisdiction which is at issue—by not raising a jurisdictional objection in the immigration proceeding and conceding to the immigration court’s jurisdiction by appearing. Second, the government avers that the immigration court’s jurisdiction is determined by the federal regulations and that the Notice to Appear in this case contained the information it must pursuant to those regulations to vest the immigration court with jurisdiction. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.14(a), 1003.15(b) and (c). Third, the government argues that the holding in Pereia is limited to the cases in which a court must determine the validity of a particular notice to appear as it relates to the triggering of the “stop-time rule.” Id. at 2116. Fourth, the government argues that there is no prejudice to Soto-Mejia as any defect was cured by the Notice of Hearing and Soto-Mejia’s participation in the removal proceedings. The Court rejects all of the government’s arguments.

        A. The Removal Orders of March 7 and March 19 Violated Due Process As the Immigration Court Lacked Subject Matter Jurisdiction

        The Court finds that Supreme Court’s holding in Pereira to be applicable and controlling in this case. First, the Court finds pursuant to the plain language of the regulations that the jurisdiction of the immigration court “vests” only “when a charging document is filed with the

Page 4

Immigration Court.” 8 C.F.R. §1003.14. A “Notice to Appear” is such a “charging document.” Id. at § 1003.13. Relying upon the reasoning of Pereira, this Court finds that the definition of a “Notice to Appear” is controlled by statute and not regulation, as the Supreme Court expressly rejected in Pereira the regulation-based interpretation by the Board of Immigration Appeals in Matter of Camarillo, 25 I. & N. Dec. 644 (2011). Pereira, 138 S. Ct. at 2111-14. And, pursuant to Pereira, a Notice to Appear must include the time and location for the hearing. Id. at 2114-17. As the Notice to Appear in this case failed to include the time and location for the hearing, the immigration court did not have jurisdiction to issue its March 7 deportation order.

        The Court rejects the government’s argument that Soto-Mejia waived his jurisdictional argument by not raising it earlier and by participating in the underlying immigration proceeding. The government’s argument conflates personal jurisdiction with subject matter jurisdiction. Soto-Mejia’s argument is founded upon his assertion that the immigration court lacked subject matter jurisdiction and not personal jurisdiction. Subject matter jurisdiction is a limitation on “federal power” that “cannot be waived” so “a party does not waive the requirement [of subject matter jurisdiction] by failing to challenge jurisdiction early in the proceedings.” Ins. Corp. of Ireland v. Compagnie des Bauxites, 456 U.S. 694, 702-03 (1982). Moreover, the plain language of the regulation establishing the immigration court’s jurisdiction explicitly notes that an immigration court’s authority only “vests” with the filing of a “charging document” and the regulation makes no reference to a waiver exception to this requirement for subject matter jurisdiction. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.14(a).

        The Court also rejects the government’s argument that the holding in Pereira is limited to cases determining the applicability of the stop-time rule. As noted, the Supreme Court’s holding in Pereira was based upon the plain language of the text of 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.13 and 1003.14 and 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a). Pereira, 138 S. Ct. at 2111-13. Section 1003.13 specifies which documents can constitute a “charging document” for immigration proceedings after April 1, 1997. The parties all concede in this case that the only document in this record that is a “charging document” is the Notice to Appear. Id. The Court in Pereira explained that the text of Section 1229(a) lays out the statutory definition of and requirements for a “Notice to Appear” which includes the time and

Page 5

location for the hearing. 138 S. Ct. at 2114. The Supreme Court unambiguously proclaimed: “A putative notice to appear that fails to designate the specific time or place of the noncitizen’s removal proceedings is not a ‘notice to appear under section 1229(a).“‘” Id. at 2113-14 (emphasis added). While the Supreme Court applied this definition to the determination of the applicability of the stop-time rule, the express language of this holding does not suggest any limitation on the Court’s definition of what is and is not a “Notice to Appear” under Section 1229(a) with respect to the requirement for the notice to contain a time and location.

        There is no basis to assume or conclude that the definition of a “Notice to Appear” under Section 1229(a) would be different without reference to the stop-time rule. That is because the fundamental question that the Supreme Court was answering in Pereira is whether a notice must contain the time and location of the hearing to be a “notice to appear” under Section 1229(a). 138 S. Ct. at 2113-17. In answering this foundational question, the Court did not rely upon the stop-time rule to determine the definition of a notice to appear under Section 1229(a). To the contrary, the Court spent considerable time explaining why consideration of the stop-time rule’s “broad reference” to all of the paragraphs of Section 1229(a) did not alter the fact that the essential definition of and requirements for the notice arise in the first paragraph. 138 S. Ct. at 2114 (noting that the “broad reference to §1229(a) is of no consequence, because as even the Government concedes, only paragraph (1) bears on the meaning of a ‘notice to appear'”). This first paragraph requires that the notice contain the time and location for the removal proceeding.

        The Court is also unpersuaded that a defect in a “Notice to Appear” can be ‘cured’ as the government suggests by the filing and/or serving of the Notice of Hearing on Soto-Mejia. That is because such an argument is contrary to the plain text of the regulation, Section 1003.14(a), which unequivocally states that an immigration court’s jurisdiction only “vests” or arises with the filing of a “charging document.” A Notice of Hearing is not one of the “charging documents” referenced in Section 1003.13. A Notice of Hearing cannot therefore commence an immigration proceeding by subsequently providing a time and location for a removal hearing. Consequently, if the immigration court’s jurisdiction never arose because the Notice to Appear was invalid, then there is no proceeding in which a Notice of Hearing could properly be filed. There is nothing to cure.

Page 6

        Moreover, the Court also finds that the Notice of Hearing in this case did not reference a specific Notice to Appear. Indeed, the government conceded and the Court finds that the Notice of Hearing form does not generally, or in this case, reference a prior specific Notice to Appear and it does not contain information about the legal issues or charges which serve as a basis for the removal proceedings. The two documents only common identifying information is the A-file number of the particular person—Soto-Mejia in this case. This means that if an individual had multiple potential charges or legal issues related to his immigration status, the Notice of Hearing could not inform him about which charges were at issue in the upcoming hearing and the Notice of Hearing could be filed months or years after the Notice to Appear. Indeed, this is the very reason that the Supreme Court in Pereira rejected the argument that the “Notice to Appear” did not have to include the time and location of the removal proceeding, because that would defeat the ultimate objective of requiring notice—allowing the person to prepare for the hearing and potentially consult with counsel. 138 S. Ct. at 2114-15. As the Court noted, if there was no requirement for this information “the [g]overnment could serve a document labeled ‘notice to appear’ without listing the time and location of the hearing and then, years down the line, provide that information a day before the removal hearing when it becomes available.” Id. at 2115. Under such an interpretation “a noncitizen theoretically would have had the ‘opportunity to secure counsel,’ but that opportunity will not be meaningful” as the person would not truly have the opportunity to consult with counsel and prepare for the proceeding.” Id. As a Notice of Hearing, like the one here, is not explicitly connected to a particular Notice to Appear and the associated charges, the Court finds that it cannot serve to ‘cure’ a defective Notice to Appear such as in this case.

        B. The Defendant Suffered Prejudice¹

        The Court further finds that the Soto-Mejia suffered prejudice as a result of the defect in the underlying proceeding. Specifically, he was subjected to removal twice based upon the initial

Page 7

March 7 Order which the immigration court did not have jurisdiction to issue. The government’s argument that Soto-Mejia was not prejudiced because he “participated” in the removal proceedings misses the point. It is immaterial if he participated in the proceedings. He suffered prejudice by the issuance of the deportation orders because the immigration court lacked jurisdiction to order his removal on March 7, 2018.

        IV. Conclusion

        For the reasons stated, the Court finds that the March 7 and March 19 deportation orders are void due to the immigration court’s lack of jurisdiction. As these orders are void, the Court finds that the government cannot establish a predicate element—the prior removal or deportation of Soto-Mejia—of the sole offense in the Indictment. The Indictment in this case must therefore be dismissed.

        Accordingly,

        IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED. The Indictment in this case is DISMISSED. The Clerk of Court shall close this case.

        IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, as this Court has no authority to detain Defendant Soto-Mejia pursuant to this case, he is ORDERED IMMEDIATELY RELEASED.

        DATED this 6th day of December, 2018.

        /s/_________

        UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

——–

Footnotes:

        ^1. The Court finds that Soto-Mejia is not required to have exhausted any possible administrative remedies, because (a) the Supreme Court decision in Pereira issued after his March 7, 2018 proceeding and (b) defects as to subject matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time. Compagnie des Bauxites, 456 U.S. at 702-03.

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

Unlike the BIA’s convoluted reasoning in Matter of Bemudez-Cota, 27 I&N Dec. 441 (BIA 2018), Judge Boulware’s analysis is very straightforward and complies with both the statutory language and the Supreme Court decision. What’s not to like about that?

As I’ve pointed out before, Sessions was so busy artificially “jacking up” the backlog and intimidating the Immigration Judges working for him that he never bothered to address the many solvable legal and administrative problems facing the Immigration Courts. That could mean not only more failed criminal prosecutions, but perhaps more significantly, could invalidate the vast majority of the 1.1 million case backlog that Sessions artificially increased with his short-sighted, racially motivated “gonzo” polices and interpretations.

And Whitaker is following in his footsteps by taking issues off the “restrictionist checklist” for screwing asylum seekers and migrants, rather than addressing the real legal and administrative deficiencies that make the Immigration Court a parody of justice in America.

Sadly, I wouldn’t expect any improvement under Barr, whose recent totally revolting “paean to Jeff Sessions” (co-authored with former GOP AGs Meese & Mukasey) projects that until we get “regime change,” justice in America will continue to be reserved for well-to-do straight evangelical White men. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/jeff-sessions-can-look-back-on-a-job-well-done/2018/11/07/527e5830-e2cf-11e8-8f5f-a55347f48762_story.html?utm_term=.aaad2f8e6250

People of color and other vulnerable minorities should continue to beware of the “Department of Injustice.”

Here’s a very compelling article by ACLU Legal Director David Cole on why Bill Barr is likely to be a “Button Down Corporate Version of Jeff Sessions.” https://www.aclu.org/blog/criminal-law-reform/no-relief-william-barr-bad-jeff-sessions-if-not-worse

Darn, perhaps carried away with all the tributes to Bush I, I had hoped for a conservative, law enforcement oriented, but non-racist, non-White-Nationalist approach to immigration. Something like firm, but fair, unbiased, professional, and rationally managed. Guess that just isn’t going to happen under a GOP that has made racist appeals, xenophobia, false narratives, and anti-democracy part of its official agenda. I have a tendency to give everyone the “benefit of the doubt” at least until proven otherwise. I guess I have to alter that when dealing with anyone associated with today’s GOP.

That’s why the New Due Process Army must continue to be America’s bastion against the forces of darkness that threaten us all.

PWS

12-10-18

👍🏼🗽Thanks, Geoffrey, and Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Related posts:

Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Due Process Forever!👍🏼

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Jun 3 Latest Pereira Developments

Related posts:

Well done dissenters! Bravo!

Related posts:

Related posts:

‘I’m afraid and nervous’

An ongoing problem

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

That’s why the New Due Process Army must continue to be America’s bastion against the forces of darkness that threaten us all.

Related posts: