"The Voice of the New Due Process Army" ————– Musings on Events in U.S. Immigration Court, Immigration Law, Sports, Music, Politics, and Other Random Topics by Retired United States Immigration Judge (Arlington, Virginia) and former Chairman of the Board of Immigration Appeals Paul Wickham Schmidt and Dr. Alicia Triche, expert brief writer, practical scholar, emeritus Editor-in-Chief of The Green Card (FBA), and 2022 Federal Bar Association Immigration Section Lawyer of the Year. She is a/k/a “Delta Ondine,” a blues-based alt-rock singer-songwriter, who performs regularly in Memphis, where she hosts her own Blues Brunch series, and will soon be recording her first full, professional album. Stay tuned! 🎶 To see our complete professional bios, just click on the link below.
BIA Asylum Panel In Action — Asylum experts and advocates question the wisdom of the BIA’s “take no prisoners” approach to asylum! Albrecht Dürer, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
Gebra v. A.G., 3d Cir, 07-19-23, unpublished (unfortunately)
PANEL: AMBRO, RESTREPO, FUENTES, Circuit Judges
OPINION: JUDGE RESTRO
KEY QUOTE:
i. The BIA applied an overly rigorous standard to the new evidence.
Gebra argues that the BIA applied an “overly rigorous standard” when analyzing the new evidence presented when determining whether he established a new claim. Pet’r Br. 44 (citing Tilija v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 930 F.3d 165 (3d Cir. 2019)). In Tilija, we held that unless the new evidence is inherently unbelievable, it must be taken as true. 930 F.3d at 172; see also Shardar, 503 F.3d at 313 (“Facts presented in the motion to reopen
are ‘accepted as true unless inherently unbelievable.’”) (cleaned up). If the BIA fails to accept new evidence as true, then it applies an “overly rigorous standard.” Tilija, 930 F.3d at 172. Furthermore, not accepting such evidence as true is an abuse of discretion if the petitioner would have established a prima facie case for eligibility with the rejected evidence. Id. (citing Shardar, 503 F.3d at 313).
Here, the BIA did not find that the new evidence was inherently unbelievable but nevertheless refused to accept new evidence, such as Gebra’s medical report after the 2009 attack, as “persuasive” or true because it “provide[d] little specificity or detail with respect to the alleged attack.” JA4; cf. Tilija; 930 F.3d at 172 (finding that where the BIA asked for “more details” and questioned the veracity of the evidence, it impermissibly failed to accept the evidence as true). By requesting that the medical record, on its own,
corroborate that the injuries were caused by “Islamic fanatics,” the BIA imposed an
overly rigorous standard. JA4; Tilija, 930 F.3d at 172. Similarly, the BIA’s conclusion that the report from the Egyptian Union of Human Rights Organization (“EUHRO”) pro- vides “no details” with respect to when, where, how, nor “any other details surrounding the circumstances of the alleged incident,” was an abuse of discretion. JA4; Tilija, 930
11
F.3d at 172. The BIA treated the new evidence with the same “overly vigorous standard” that it applied to the new translation of the 1993 police report that was previously dis- credited.
Having concluded that the BIA held Gebra to an excessively rigorous standard, we next determine whether Gebra established a prima facie case for asylum.
ii. Gebra’s new evidence established a prima facie case for asylum.
Gebra’s new evidence, accepted as true, establishes a prima facie case for asylum. A motion to reopen an asylum case must establish prima facie eligibility for relief. Se- voian v. Ashcroft, 290 F.3d 166, 173, 170–71 (3d Cir. 2002). This standard requires an applicant to produce objective evidence that shows a “reasonable likelihood” that they can establish eligibility for relief. Id. at 173. In this context, to “establish” means that the evidence in favor of asylum outweighs the evidence against. Guo v. Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 556, 564 (3d Cir. 2004), as amended (Dec. 3, 2004). A “reasonable likelihood” merely means showing a realistic chance that the applicant can later establish that asylum should be granted. Id. Prima facie “would lack meaning” if it required that evidence submitted at the prima facie stage conclusively establish eligibility for asylum. Id. Thus, Gebra need only provide objective evidence that shows a reasonable likelihood that he is
entitled to asylum relief. Tilija, 930 F.3d at 172. Specifically, Gebra would need to
demonstrate that he suffered past persecution, or has a well-founded fear of future perse- cution, on account of his religious beliefs. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B) (enumerating reli- gion as a protected ground).
12
Here, Gebra provided objective evidence in the form of medical records and hu- man rights reports regarding his 2009 attack. For example, a December 8, 2009, medical report from Victoria Hospital in Egypt corroborates the statement in his affirmation that, due to the attack, he was “wounded and sent into the Victoria Hospital due to multiple contusions and dermal bleeding on [his] back and different parts of [his] body.” JA167, 175; see Doe v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 956 F.3d 135, 145 (3d Cir. 2020) (holding that a single
beating, “if sufficiently egregious,” may constitute persecution, such as where petitioner was beaten by a mob, causing him to bleed and suffer injuries to his head and back). Ge- bra also included medical reports of the psychological trauma he experienced and therapy sessions he attended as a result of the attacks. Doe, 956 F.3d at 145–46 (“Persecution may be emotional or psychological, as well as physical.”) (citation omitted). Further- more, the December 30, 2009, report from EUHRO stated that they independently “veri- fied” Gebra was “attacked by some [Islamic] fanatics” who thought Gebra was behind demonstrations for the rights of Coptic Christians due to his work as a cameraman for Fa- ther Zacharia Botros, a Coptic Christian priest known for critiquing Islam. JA173.
Taken together, this evidence demonstrates a reasonable likelihood that Gebra could es- tablish he was persecuted due to his religious beliefs.
In sum, the BIA abused its discretion when it did not accept Gebra’s evidence ask true and concluded that he did not establish a new claim for asylum in his third motion to reopen.
**************************
Let’s apply a tiny bit of common sense here, in contravention of the BIA’s current practices. How likely is it that a guy would pursue asylum claims for 30 years, even after being denied, deported, and actually persecuted in Egypt upon return, if there weren’t some merit in the claim? At least enough to earn him a new hearing! It’s not rocket science to know that Coptic Christians often face persecution in Egypt! Was it really wise to push this clearly flawed (one could say “scofflaw”) denial all the way to the Circuit, thus wasting even more time and further undermining the BIA’s credibility? What are they thinking at Garland’s DOJ?
Think what efficiencies, not to mention due process and fundamental fairness, a BIA of well-qualified judges who were actual experts in asylum law — focused on legal protection, not specious rejection — could bring to our broken asylum system! Why not give due process and justice a chance at DOJ?
Viridiana Chabolla ’13, who was brought to the U.S. from Mexico at 2 years old, on the day she became a U.S. citizen in 2021. PHOTO: Pamona College Magazine
Carla Maria Guerrero writes in Pomona College Magazine:
There are not a lot of big wins for Viridiana Chabolla ’13 in her line of work. It’s not for a lack of trying, or a lack of sweat and tears. Her commitment has been tested over the years but she remains determined. Chabolla is an attorney working in immigration law. The landscape is grim, she says. It can be heartbreaking. Demoralizing. She’s not just an attorney. She is an immigrant, too, and for most of her life she was undocumented.
In February, the Los Angeles Times wrote a story about one of her recent clients. Leonel Contreras, a U.S. Army veteran, was a legal permanent resident before being deported to Mexico after serving time for a nonviolent crime. Contreras had grown up in the U.S., but after his deportation he worked and lived in Tijuana for at least a decade before the Immigrant Defenders Law Center in Los Angeles took his case and Chabolla helped him return to his family members in California. He became a U.S. citizen earlier this year.
“It’s really nice to wave an American flag at a naturalization ceremony,” says Chabolla, who began working at the Immigrant Defenders Law Center (ImmDef) in October 2021. “Immigration law is so harsh and when it’s not harsh, it’s just not helpful. It’s hard to have a win. When you have those moments, you have to grab on and make them last.”
Chabolla was born in Guanajuato, Mexico. Her mother came to the U.S. to escape a bad relationship and start a new life. A 2-year-old Chabolla and the rest of her mother’s family joined her soon after. Chabolla grew up with her grandparents, aunts and cousins all living close to each other in East Los Angeles. “I’d remember seeing my mom and aunts getting ready for work at ridiculous hours of the day,” she says of the early-morning hubbub. “I remember always being surrounded by people and conversations. There were a lot of disagreements but a lot of love.”
When she was 11, Chabolla met a group of lawyers who worked in East L.A. Although she didn’t know what exactly they did, she recalls thinking that they seemed to hold a lot of power. They seemed to have some kind of authority to help her and others like her—people who were not born in the U.S.
It was during Chabolla’s junior year at Pomona that the Obama administration established an immigration policy that changed her life. Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) allowed certain immigrants who were brought to the U.S. as children to receive a renewable two-year period of deferred action from deportation and also become eligible for a work permit.
For the first time, Chabolla was able to have a job on campus. She saved her first pay stub. It wasn’t much in terms of money, but it was significant for Chabolla.
With DACA, Chabolla’s future seemed a bit brighter. She could now apply for jobs after graduation. Her first work after Pomona was as an organizer with the pro bono legal services nonprofit Public Counsel, a choice that set her on a course for a win of historic proportions.
For four years, Chabolla took down the stories of plaintiffs for cases being handled by Public Counsel. As time passed, she began to feel more empowered to share her immigration status with her director, Mark Rosenbaum, even as the national political landscape was transitioning from an Obama presidency to a Trump one.
“When Trump was elected, I broke down,” she says. She remembers Rosenbaum calling her to tell her she didn’t have to go to work the next day: “Go be with your family, go through your emotions,” he told her.
“We didn’t know what Trump would do first. We just hit the ground running,” says Chabolla, who worked on the defense case for Daniel Ramirez Medina, the first person to have his DACA permit taken away. “With everything going on, we focused on putting out fires. Trump wasn’t taking out DACA in one go just yet. He was creating all of this panic everywhere first.”
Her time at Public Counsel rekindled Chabolla’s original interest in law.
“I kept thinking of the best way I could help others. I loved the idea of gaining new knowledge, and a degree in law would allow me to have a sense of power,” she says. The attorneys at Public Counsel, like her boss Rosenbaum, not only practiced law and led big cases but they also wrote articles and taught university-level courses.
In September of 2017, the Trump administration announced it was officially rescinding DACA. Chabolla had just started at the UC Irvine School of Law. Her initial response was to focus on school and wait.
Then Chabolla got a call from Rosenbaum. “He called me to be a plaintiff in a case against the United States. I felt terrified.”
Chabolla phoned her mother and her family. “If I shared my story, I would have to share their story,” she says. She also was married by then and discussed the possible ramifications with her husband.
Her family was supportive. Chabolla felt compelled to help.
The Public Counsel lawsuit led by Rosenbaum was filed as Garcia v. United States. As it made its way through the higher courts, it was merged with four other cases and ultimately became known as Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California by the time it reached the U.S. Supreme Court.
As a plaintiff in the case, Chabolla shared her story with a lawyer for a written declaration. While she never testified before any judges, she did have to share her immigration story multiple times as the case garnered national media attention.
On June 18, 2020, the Supreme Court delivered its 5-4 decision blocking the Trump administration’s elimination of DACA. Chabolla was in Washington for the hearing. “A few of us got to go inside,” she recalls. “Some DACA students were there, too. And it was really powerful. These justices were hearing arguments on this huge case…but I know maybe for them all cases they hear are huge. But we occupied half the room and that was really powerful and really unusual.”
Chabolla took notes during the hearing. “I remember writing down something that Justice [Sonia] Sotomayor said: ‘This is not about the law; this is about our choice to destroy lives.’
“So much of what Trump did was done without following administrative law,” explains Chabolla about how they “won” this case. “Trump didn’t follow procedure,” she says. “If they had taken their time and done it right, it would have passed. But I remember taking the win.”
Chabolla, who had just recently become a U.S. resident through marriage, remembers feeling relief for the DACA community.
“The DACA victory in the Supreme Court is a testament to the vision, commitment and tireless efforts of many, and Viri’s name would surely be at the top of that list,” says Rosenbaum. “I had the privilege of working with Viri at Public Counsel, first as an organizer…and then to come forward as a plaintiff in Garcia to inspire others to do the same and make the case that our nation needs DACA recipients to build a kinder and more inclusive community for all of us.”
Upon returning home, Chabolla once again focused on school—it was her second-to-last semester at UC Irvine. She spent a year as a graduate legal assistant with the Office of the Attorney General for the California Department of Justice. It was a tough gig for a newly graduated lawyer. After one year, she left for her current job as a staff attorney at ImmDef, a legal services nonprofit with a post-conviction unit that drew her interest. “They take on clients who have criminal convictions like possession of marijuana from 40 years ago with deportation orders—deportation is not a fair punishment for everyone.
“Many of our clients have been living here as legal permanent residents for more than 20 years. Most find out they’re getting deported just when they’re going to be released,” she says. “The statistics show that immigrants commit fewer crimes than the general population and our clients have already served their time—in jail, or prison, they’ve paid their dues and they’ve even paid their fines. Adding deportation is a way of saying ‘I don’t like that you’re an immigrant.’ It’s extra punishment.”
The work is tough. “My supervisor has shared that sometimes we have to redefine what a win is,” says Chabolla. “It makes up partially for the times when we have a clinic and all these people show up thinking they can apply for residency when they actually can’t.”
She says that the immigrants she talks to are so full of hope. They believe that an attorney—like herself—can do it all. “Every situation is different. No lawyer has a miracle cure.
“It’s heartbreaking to know how many people are becoming elders who don’t have a nest egg, who paid taxes into the system but they can’t access Social Security, can’t access Medicare,” Chabolla adds. “It’s something I’ve been thinking a lot about in the past two years: How can I help aside from placing my hopes in a Congress that is more concerned about building borders than dealing with these issues?”
In 2021, Chabolla became a U.S. citizen. The day was bittersweet and laden with guilt. “It was one of those moments where I felt I was further abandoning my undocumented community, but I know that’s not true,” she says. Although her mother recently became a U.S. resident, some of her family remains undocumented.
Chabolla says she’s been able to find some balance as an ally who was once directly impacted by immigration policies. “I’m trying to find a place where I can remain hopeful in my job and be a zealous lawyer and advocate.”
********************************
Congrats and way to go Viri! You have already established yourself as a “New Generation Leader” of the NDPA! Awesome!
For years, the GOP has been mindlessly blocking various versions of DACA, at a great human cost as well as a huge cost to our nation. Dreamers who are able to achieve citizenship, without special help from Congress, and other “New Generation” members of the NDPA must follow the lead of Rep. Hillary Scholten (D-MI) by getting into the “power structure” and forcing long overdue progressive changes.
Thanks to Chief Justice Roberts, the Supremes got this one right, barely 5-4. One vote has made a huge difference in literally hundreds of thousands of lives, and helped to shape American’s future for the better. By contrast, the Trump Administration’s failed attempts to undo this important program was a disgraceful abuse of Government resources! The inability of GOP-controlled states to let this issue go — essentially too keep bullying and threatening some of the most productive and deserving members of our society — is beyond disgusting.
“Lady Injustice” has found a home at Garland’s dysfunctional EOIR! Black Mauritanians and other asylum seekers of color find that the scales of justice are systemically weighted against them when on trial for their lives in AG Garland’s “courts!” Public RealmDanae King Faith & Values & Immigration Reporter Columbus Dispatch
“This data further confirms concerns raised about implicit racial and other bias in credibility determinations in US asylum adjudications,” the report states.
The report notes that Black asylum seekers face different treatment in the immigration system than others, including longer than average detention times, trouble finding accurate and adequate interpreters, different treatment in court, lack of access to counsel, purposefully rushed proceedings, biased judges, wrongful denial of asylum and more.
Lynn Tramonte has seen all those scenarios happen in Ohio.
“In immigration court, it’s almost like you’re guilty until proven innocent and they would rather err on the side of deporting a refugee who was tortured than granting asylum to someone who might be lying,” said Tramonte, director of the Ohio Immigrant Alliance, a group of Ohio immigrants and citizens who work to protect the dignity and rights of all through activism.
Nemecek has also seen judges and government attorneys “team up on (immigrants) and ask all kinds of questions and find them not credible.”
From 2002 to 2022, 713 Mauritanians went before immigration judges in Cleveland, and 443 were denied asylum. Another 28 had another form of relief, such as withholding of removal, and 242 were granted asylum, according to TRAC.
Tramonte wishes judges would do more research on the nations where asylum seekers are coming from.
“They have zero knowledge of documents from other countries or even what it’s like to be tortured,” she said.
A spokesperson for the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) disputed those claims.
. . . .
***********************
Read Danae’s full article at the link!
“Courtside” and others have been raising these issues for a long time! Yet, Garland has neither spoken out nor taken action to “clean up” courts that every expert would say are “broken” and need major changes, including better-qualified judges who have true expertise in asylum and human rights!
Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Kristen Clarke is totally “MIA” on this serious issue and on the racially-driven travesties in DOJ’s “wholly-owned” court system, in immigration detention centers, and at the Southern Border! Associate AG Vanita Gupta, once a civil rights icon, has “vaporized” on perhaps the biggest, potentially solvable, civil rights/racial justice issue facing America! What’s happening here?
I spent years doing Mauritanian asylum cases on the EOIR Ohio Docket (and, to a lesser extent, in the “Legacy” Arlington Immigration Court). Most were clear grants of asylum! Few were appealed by ICE! Almost none were reversed by the BIA! I doubt that conditions have improved materially since then.
Unfortunately, mistreatment of Black Mauritanian asylum seekers by EOIR is nothing new. It has a long and disreputable history going back decades.
In the late 1990’s, my now Round Table colleague Judge Lory Diana Rosenberg and I frequently dissented from wrong-headed denials of Mauritanian asylum claims by our BIA colleagues. See, e.g., Matter of M-D-, 23 I&N Dec. 1180, 1185, 1189 (Schmidt, Chairman, Rosenberg, Board Member dissenting), rev’d sub nom, Diallo v. INS, 232 F.3d 279 (2d Cir. 2000). There, the Circuit, in a decision written by Chief Judge Walker, agreed with many of the points raised by Judge Rosenberg and me in our respective dissents: “[T]he BIA failed to: (1) rule explicitly on the credibility of Diallo’s testimony; (2) explain why it was reasonable in this case to expect additional corroboration; or (3) assess the sufficiency of Diallo’s explanations for the absence of corroborating evidence.”
Judge Rosenberg and I were later “rewarded” by AG John Ashcroft by being “purged” from the BIA, along with a minority of other colleagues who had the temerity to stand up for the legal and human rights of migrants! Folks at EOIR “got the message” that standing up for immigrants’ rights and due process could be “career threatening!”
That, in turn, unleashed a crescendo of sloppy, anti-migrant, dehumanizing decisions emanating from EOIR. Things got so bad so fast that subsequent Bush II AGs Gonzalez and Mukasey were finally forced, under extreme pressure from the Article IIIs, to intervene and put a stop to the most glaring abuses.
But, in fact, the EOIR system never recovered from that debacle. From then on, the BIA has been largely a “captain may I rubber stamp” (credit “Sir Jeffrey” Chase) for DHS Enforcement and each Administration’s political agenda. It’s been a continuous downward spiral, with subsequent AGs either actively encouraging abuses of asylum seekers and other migrants or being “willfully indifferent” to the ongoing legal and human rights disasters on their watches.
It’s interesting how when the “powers that be” ignore abuses, they don’t go away. They just fester and get worse. Garland’s “what me worry” stewardship over EOIR is a classic example.
As for EOIR’s claim that they are providing IJs with “robust” asylum training, in the words of my friend, Kansas City attorney (and former Arlington intern) Andrea Martinez, “I call BS!” The proof is in the results!
My friend and Round Table colleague Judge “Sir Jeffrey” Chase puts it more elegantly:
In stating that the program is “robust” (i.e. fine as is), who among EOIR’s upper-level leadership is enough of an expert in the topic to make that determination? There are actually recent IJ hires with a great deal of expertise in asylum and CAT, but to my knowledge, they are not the ones creating or presenting the trainings.
EOIR’s asylum and CAT training remains insufficient, and the evidence of this can be found in the deluge of Circuit Court reversals, or even from simply reviewing hearing transcripts. Just compare the USCIS Asylum Officer training program with EOIR’s IJ training materials. A particular problem is the failure to properly train new IJs in the case law of the specific circuit in which they sit. Immigration Judges are largely left to their own devices to learn the law properly.
Another example of superior asylum training available “on the market” is that developed by Professor Michele Pistone (a true asylum expert who has taught and inspired generations of attorneys now serving in and out of government) at VIISTA Villanova. I am sure that EOIR could have arranged with Professor Pistone to create a “world class” asylum training program for both new and experienced IJs. Indeed, she would have been a logical choice for Garland to have recruited for a senior position at EOIR.
The talent to fix EOIR exists on the open market. However, EOIR can’t be fixed with the senior management team Garland has put, or in some cases left, in place.
In the meantime, the stunningly poor quality, blatant racial insensitivity, and inept judicial administration Garland tolerates at EOIR will continue to be a millstone around the neck of American Justice and the Democratic Party. To what depths Garland will drag both remains to be seen.
Garland’s dysfunctional and systemically biased Immigration “Courts” are a millstone around the neck for American Justice and Dems! Creative Commons license
Finally, where are progressive human and civil rights stalwarts like Sen. Corey Booker (D-NJ) on this issue? Why haven’t they demanded some accountability from Garland? And, whatever happened to our first African-American Veep Kamala Harris? Does she still exist? What’s more important than racial justice in “life or death courts” wholly controlled by her Dem Administration?
Injustice Public Realm Dems spend lots of time whining about the destruction of the Federal Judiciary by GOP right-wing extremists. However, after two years in charge, they have done little to bring due process, fundamental fairness, and judicial expertise to America’s worst courts — the Immigration Courts — which they totally control!
Austin Kocher, Ph.D. Research Assistant Professor TRAC-Syracuse PHOTO: Syracuse U.
Two items from Professor Austin Kocher on Substack:
Asylum Seeker Killed in Guatemala after Omaha Immigration Judge Ordered Him Deported
Omaha is now the toughest court in the country for asylum seekers, MPI hosts discussion on immigration courts in crisis, interview with an immigration judge, and more.
Asylum Seeker Killed in Guatemala after Omaha Immigration Judge Ordered Him Deported austinkocher.substack.com • 1 min read
New Research by AILA Reveals Anatomy of an Asylum Case + Online Event
Even the best attorneys require 50-75 hours over several months to complete an asylum case. The Biden admin’s attempts to speed up asylum cases may be ignoring this reality.
…see more
New Research by AILA Reveals Anatomy of an Asylum Case
J.D. Candidate at Georgetown University Law Center
3d •
Through my internship at the Florence Immigrant and Refugee Rights Project, I observed master calendar hearings in the detained docket in the Florence Immigration Court. I was back in Florence, Arizona, because the court itself is located within the barbed wire of the detention center. Observing the Florence Immigration Court emphasized how dehumanizing removal proceedings can be for detained immigrants. Master calendar hearings are often immigrants’ first interaction with the Court. To start, a guard brought a group of men in jumpsuits to the courtroom and lined them up. The judge read them their rights and then called them individually to discuss their case. Twice I witnessed the wrong person being brought into court where they sat through proceedings until the guards realized and switched them out for the correct person.
The vast majority of Respondents in removal proceedings are unrepresented. There is a blatant information imbalance in immigration court when the immigrant is unrepresented. Oftentimes, pro se detained immigrants do not have access to the resources represented or released Respondents have during their proceedings. Respondents may not know their legal options unless organizations like the Florence Project can speak to them before their hearing and provide them with pro se information packets or represent them. During the hearing, the men did not even have a pen and paper to take notes. Meanwhile, the immigration judge and government attorney have access to technology and a wealth of experience to pull from to make legal arguments.
This is just one example of many – my colleagues and I also observed translation issues and pushback against some men who wished to continue fighting their case. Above all, I’ll leave with this very simple observation: the judge and guards called each man up by his court docket number before his name. If we are to support and uphold the dignity of all people, we must do so especially in systems that look to strip it from them. Providing immigrants with access to a lawyer, if they’d like one, can ensure that people have access to information that allows them to make informed decisions about their case. The Florence Project is one of the organizations working tirelessly to expand access to representation throughout Arizona, and I hope to continue this work after graduating from Georgetown University Law Center next year. #EJAFellowUpdate | Equal Justice America
********************
Congrats to Lauren Iosue, and thanks for becoming a member of the NDPA! 😎 The scary thing: As an L-3, Lauren appears to have more “hands on” Immigration Court experience and a far deeper appreciation of the material, sometimes fatal, flaws in the EOIR system, than Garland and his other “top brass” in the DOJ responsible for operating and overseeing this tragic mess!
Why isn’t “real life” immigration/human rights experience representing individuals in Immigration Court were an absolute requirement for appointment to AG, Deputy AG, Associate AG, Solicitor General, and Assistant AG for Civil (in charge of OIL) in any Dem Administration, at least until such time as the Immigration Courts become an Article I Court removed from the DOJ?
30-years ago, when I was at Jones Day, we were budgeting a minimum of 100 hours of professional time for a pro bono asylum case! That was before the “21st century BIA” added more unnecessary, artificial technicalities to make it more difficult for asylum seekers to win. It’s not “rocket science!” 🚀
Lucy McMillan ESQUIRE Chief Pro Bono Counsel Arnold & Porter Washington, D.C. PHOTO: A&P
All Garland would have to do is reach back into his “big law” days at Arnold & Porter (“A&P”). He should pick up his cell phone and call Lucy McMillan, the award-winning Chief Pro Bono Counsel @ A&P.Ask Lucy what needs to change to get EOIR functioning as a due-process-focused model court system! Better yet, reassign upper “management” at EOIR, and hire Lucy to clean house and restore competence, efficiency, and excellence to his currently disgracefully-dysfunctional “courts!”
As Austin’s posts and the reports he references show, Garland’s indolent, tone-deaf, mal-administration of the Immigration Courts is a national disgrace that undermines democracy and betrays core values of the Democratic Party! How does he get away with it? Thanks to Austin, AILA, Lauren, and others exposing the ongoing “EOIR charade” in a Dem Administration!
As shown by recent “Courtside” postings about the “Tsunami” 🌊 of Article III “rejections” of lousy BIA decisions, throughout America, many, many more asylum cases could be timely granted with a properly well-qualified, expert BIA setting precedents and forcing judges like those in Omaha to properly and generously apply asylum law or find other jobs!Maximum protection, NOT “maximum rejection,” is the proper and achievable (yet unrealized) objective of asylum laws!
Asylum law, according to the Supremes and even the BIA is supposed to be generously and practically applied — so much so that asylum can and ordinarily should be granted even where the chances are “significantly less” than probable. SeeMatter of Mogharrabi, 19 I & N Dec. 439, 446 (BIA 1987).
The problem is that the BIA and EOIR have never effectively implemented and followed the Mogharrabi standard. In recent years, particularly during the Trump debacle, they have moved further than ever away from this proper legal standard while still giving it lip service! Clearly, the IJs in Omaha and other “Asylum Free Zones” are operating outside the realm of asylum law with deadly and destructive consequences. Yet, Garland, a former Federal Judge himself, permits it! Why?
The assumption that most asylum seekers who pass credible fear should ultimately lose on the merits is false and based on intentionally overly restrictive mis-interpretations and mis-applications of asylum law! It’s a particular problem with respect to asylum seekers of color from Latin America and Haiti — a definite racial dimension that DOJ and DHS constantly “sweep under the carpet.” Because of the extraordinarily poor leadership from EOIR, DOJ, and DHS, this “fundamental falsehood of inevitable denial” infects the entire asylum debate and materially influences policies.
A dedicated long-time “hands-on” asylum expert, someone who actually met some of the “Abbott/DeSantis busses,” said that over 70% of those arriving from the border had potentially grantable asylum claims. That’s a far cry from the “nobody from the Southern border will qualify” myth that drives asylum policy by both parties and has even been, rather uncritically, “normalized” by the media.
Fixing EOIR is a prerequisite to an informed discussion of immigration and development of humane, rational, realistic immigration policies. That would be laws and policies based on reality, not myths, distortions, and sometimes downright fabrications.
Competent representation is also an essential part of fixing EOIR. There are ways to achieve it that Garland is ignoring and/or inhibiting. See, e.g., VIISTA Villanova. No excuses!
Maine Voices: No walls are high enough to keep out people desperate for a safe place
Instead of wasting precious time trying to shut today’s refugees out, we can prepare for them in a way that could benefit all of us.
BY DAN KOLBERTSPECIAL TO THE PRESS HERALD
A young girl jumps rope inside the Portland Expo, home to several hundred asylum seekers. Much of the world’s population will be on the move, trying to survive, as sea levels and temperatures rise. Brianna Soukup/Staff Photographer
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Dan Kolbert has lived in Portland’s West End since 1988. He is a building contractor and an author.
In Central America, where corn was first cultivated over millennia and is still the home of many important seed bases, a drought is entering its second decade. It is possible that agriculture will soon be impossible there, along with many parts of Africa and Asia. Rising sea levels will mean many low-lying islands will disappear, and coastal cities will be forced to retreat or be swamped.
All of this means that much of the world’s population will be on the move, searching for a way to survive. Estimates top 1 billion people by mid-century. Here in Portland, we are already seeing previously unimaginable levels of immigration, with hundreds of recent arrivals sleeping in a sports arena, and housing shortages and rising rents forcing many new and established Mainers into the many homeless encampments dotting the city. And we are just getting started.
There are no walls high enough to keep out people desperate for a safe place for them and their families. So we can either spend the precious time that remains on a futile, and cruel, effort to keep people out, or we can prepare for them in a humane way that could have enormous benefits for all of us, new and old Mainers alike.
The first step is housing, and plenty of it. Multi-family housing in Maine has undergone a sea change in recent years. We can build healthy, functional housing with very low heating and cooling loads for much less than all the mediocre, drafty single-family houses we currently build. Greater Portland is home to much of the most expensive real estate in the state, but imagine if we could have planned development surrounding some other cities, like Bangor or Lewiston. Or even smaller population centers like Skowhegan, Farmington or Rumford. We are a sparsely populated state with an aging population – immigrant families could revitalize many parts of the state. In addition to the workforce we desperately need, they would bring children to boost shrinking school enrollments, new cultures and foods, and new outlooks. And of course it would be a big boost to the economies of parts of the state that haven’t always shared in the boom.
Next is finding work for people. We have already seen many immigrants going into health care, and our aging U.S.-born population will only need more services. Some Africans have taken up farming, helping revitalize that economy. In southern Maine, Central Americans are increasingly showing up in construction, where a 20-year-long labor shortage has created enormous demand. And many people show up with important professional skills, needing only some help with language and certifications to resume careers as doctors, engineers, teachers, administrators, etc. Of course we need to reform the work rules, to allow people to find employment much sooner.
It was disappointing to read of the events in Unity. Imagine using this existing, underutilized infrastructure for temporary housing! How many of these new arrivals might see central Maine as a safe, friendly place to establish their new lives?
I am a new Mainer myself, having only lived here for 35 of my 59 years, but my kids can trace their lineage in Maine and Quebec for over 300 years on their mother’s side. As the son of a refugee from the Nazis, I am perhaps more sympathetic to the plight of today’s refugees than others are, but I hope that we can see this as an opportunity to invest in our state, and to demonstrate basic humanity toward people who just want to live.
***************
You can listen to the audio version at the link!
Dan definitely has the right idea! Seems like what’s needed is 1) leadership, 2) organization to match people and skills to local needs, and 3) some “seed money” to get an affordable housing program going.
Haley Sweatband Edwards Nation Editor Time Magazine PHOTO: Pulitzer
The U.S., though founded by Europeans fleeing persecution, now largely reflects the will of its Chief Executive: subverting decades of asylum law and imposing a policy that separated migrant toddlers from their parents and placed children behind cyclone fencing. Trump floated the possibility of revoking birthright citizenship, characterized migrants as “stone cold criminals” and ordered 5,800 active-duty U.S. troops to reinforce the southern border. Italy refused to allow ships carrying rescued migrants to dock at its ports. Hungary passed laws to criminalize the act of helping undocumented people. Anti-immigrant leaders saw their political power grow in the Czech Republic, Slovenia, Sweden, Germany, Finland, Italy and Hungary, and migration continued to be a factor in the Brexit debate in the U.K.
These political reactions fail to grapple with a hard truth: in the long run, new migration is nearly always a boon to host countries. In acting as entrepreneurs and innovators, and by providing inexpensive labor, immigrants overwhelmingly repay in long-term economic contributions what they use in short-term social services, studies show. But to maximize that future good, governments must act -rationally to establish humane policies and adequately fund an immigration system equipped to handle an influx of newcomers.
The unmitigated human rights and racial justice disasters of the Trump years and the troubling difficulty the Biden Administration has had getting beyond that debacle reinforce the accuracy and inevitability of what Haley and Dan are saying.
The future will belong to those nations that learn how to welcome migrants, treat them humanely, screen and accept many of them in a timely, orderly, minimally bureaucratic manner, and utilize their energy, determination, ingenuity, and life skills to build a better future for all.
The open question is whether the U.S. will be among those successful future powers. Or, will the cruel, unrealistic, racially-driven, restrictionist nativism of the GOP right drive us to continue to waste inordinate resources fruitlessly trying to deny, deter, and prevent the inevitable, thus ultimately forcing us down to second or even third tier status. TBD.
In the meantime, here’s another great article from the PPH about how Mainers have led the fight to protect individual rights and freedoms while advancing American progressive values in contravention of the authoritarian neo-fascism sweeping over some so-called “red” states.
Maine has tacked left as nation lurches right in culture wars
Embracing the state motto – ‘I lead’ – Maine lawmakers led in a different direction, safeguarding and expanding access to abortion and gender-affirming care.
“In sum, the BIA erred in finding that Chicas-Machado was not a refugee under the INA due to a lack of nexus to a protected ground, religion. Chicas-Machado demonstrated past persecution on account of religion, and is therefore entitled to the presumption of a well-founded fear of future persecution. See Qiao Hua Li, 405 F.3d at 176-77. Recognizing the BIA’s error, we grant the petition for review and remand the case for further proceedings. Upon remand, the BIA must determine whether the Government can rebut the presumption of a well-founded fear of future persecution. 8 If the BIA concludes that Chicas-Machado is eligible for asylum on remand, it should reconsider her withholding of removal claim. See Sorto-Guzman, 42 F.4th at 450. We decline to reach all other issues raised on appeal as to her asylum and withholding of removal claims, and direct the BIA to reevaluate those claims following its reconsideration of Chicas-Machado’s asylum application. See Arita-Deras v. Wilkinson, 990 F.3d 350, 361 n.10 (4th Cir. 2021) (declining to reach the merits of withholding of removal appeal after finding error in the BIA’s asylum analysis).”
“This petition raises important questions about proper notice in removal proceedings. Federal immigration law mandates that the government provide a noncitizen with a written notice to appear that contains certain critical details about her removal hearing, including the “time and place” of the proceedings. In a pair of recent decisions, the Supreme Court has clarified that the notice to appear must be a single document containing all statutorily required information. See Niz-Chavez v. Garland, 141 S. Ct. 1474 (2021); Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105 (2018). Petitioners Azucena Aracely Lazo-Gavidia and her minor son were ordered removed in absentia. The immigration judge denied their motion to reopen the removal proceedings and the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissed their appeal. Because Lazo-Gavidia and her son received defective notices to appear, we grant their petition, vacate the Board’s order dismissing their appeal, and remand for further proceedings.”
[Hats off to Glenn Fogle! Listen to the oral argument here.]
“Because an offender can be convicted under Nebraska’s shoplifting statute when he acts with an intent not encompassed by a generic theft offense, we hold that the statute sweeps more broadly than the generic federal offense. Accordingly, the BIA erred in finding that Thok was removable for having committed a theft offense—and, thus, an aggravated felony—based upon his Nebraska shoplifting convictions. … For the foregoing reasons, we grant the petition for review, vacate the BIA’s order, and remand the matter to the BIA for further proceedings consistent with this decision.”
“Mercy Naah, a native of Cameroon, was charged as removable from the United States. She applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. Naah demonstrated that she is unable or unwilling to return to Cameroon because of past persecution on account of her political opinion. Accordingly, we grant her petition for review as to her asylum and withholding of removal claims and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
Hon. “Sir Jeffrey” Chase reports for the Round Table 🛡️⚔️:
5. Experts
Unpublished 1st Cir. Victory [Experts]
[T]o keep it brief, we were on the winning side in an unpublished 1st Cir. decision issued today in which the IJ and BIA wrongly gave little weight to an country expert’s opinion on the risk petitioner faced in a CAT case. Decision attached. The Round Table filed an amicus brief in this one. Another great win for SangYeob Kim, Gilles Bissonnette and the ACLU of New Hampshire!
More to follow. We continue to make a difference!
Best, Jeff
I have just learned that counsel is filing a motion to publish. There is good language regarding the evidentiary weight of one qualified as an expert who testifies credibly. The decision points out that an expert need not have personal knowledge of the facts underlying their opinion, as long as such opinion is based on sufficient facts or data;” that “An expert cannot be “undermined by his reliance on facts . . . that have not been disputed;” and that where an IJ makes factual findings not consistent with the expert’s opinion, it is important for the IJ to explain the reasons behind those findings.
Why do Dems routinely shoot themselves in the foot on immigration while driving a wedge between Dems in power and the immigration/social justice advocates who helped them get there?
In each of the 4th Circuit cases here, our Dem AG aligned himself with restrictionist positions advocated by dissenting Bush II and Trump appointees, while eschewing the far better-reasoned, more practical approaches advocated by expert advocates and adopted by the jurists in the majority who are committed to due process.
As the 4th Circuit majority in Chicas-Machado cogently points out, the BIA’s “excessively narrow reading” of nexus conflicts with both the statutory language and practical considerations regarding the motivation of persecutors (not to mention riding roughshod over existing, binding Circuit precedent). The BIA has a long and troubling history of ignoring “mixed motive” to deny asylum.
Yet, instead of improving under Dems, the BIA’s abuse of nexus to wrongfully disqualify qualified refugees from protection has continued to metastasize under Garland! It’s all part of the anti-immigrant, “any reason to deny” culture at EOIR, promoted by Sessions and Barr and not effectively addressed by Garland.
Happy to see another Round Table victory on use of experts. But, the 1st Circuit should have published this instructive decision. Hopefully, they now will!
As we know, the BIA’s systemic mishandling of experts is a chronic problem, particularly as the BIA intentionally overcomplicates the law, as a “deterrent,” so experts are almost a requirement for success. (Even though it is well-known that many asylum applicants have difficulty just getting competent pro bono lawyers to represent them, let alone the services of “pro bono experts.”). Every example helps expose the BIA’s professional misconduct, for which Garland and his DOJ leadership have shown an unusual and disturbing tolerance.
If you don’t bring an expert, they deny for failure to sustain your B/P! If you do bring an expert, they minimize, misconstrue, or ignore their testimony!
“Catch 22” — the applicant loses either way!
Experts are also important because it’s an area where the Article IIIs’ experience with experts in civil litigation far exceeds the BIA’s. Therefore, they are apt to recognize the BIA’s sharp divergence from the weight and respect ordinarily given to experts in civil litigation. Hence, we have had substantial success with the Circuits in challenging the BIA’s continuing, inappropriately dismissive, treatment of experts.
The BIA routinely uses sloppy, often internally inconsistent, “boilerplate” in their decisions. Yet, they somehow find time to “nitpick” expert testimony looking for every minor or insignificant “omission” or “discrepancy” to discredit the expert! What a disgrace!
Finally, on Naah v. Garland, a special “shout out” to long-time NDPA stalwart and role model Danielle Beach-Oswald on her victory in a Cameroonian political persecution case in the 5th Circuit. As the decision reflects, asylum victories on non-procedural issues are hard to come by in the 5th. Danielle was a “Legacy Arlington Immigration Court regular” during my time on the bench. This just further cements her status as “one of the best in the business!”
Congrats, Danielle, and thanks for all you do!
Think how much better this system would function with a BIA of real subject-matter experts focused on due process and fundamental fairness — rather than helping out their “partners” at DHS enforcement and protecting their careers in the process! And, what if we also had a Dem AG focused on due process for immigrants in “his” courts, rather than being asleep at the switch and complicit in some of the worst, anti immigrant, biased, backlog building “jurisprudence” rolled out by the Federal “justice” system!
What if once in office, Dems actually courageously stood up for the immigrants, advocates, and values they claim to represent during elections?
“Petitioner Christian Alberto Santos Garcia, a native and citizen of El Salvador, has twice travelled unlawfully into the United States — first in 2012, and again in 2016. In both instances, Garcia fled threats to his life and attacks carried out against him by the 18th Street Gang and the Salvadoran police. After seeking protection from removal before an immigration judge (the “IJ”) in 2016, Garcia was afforded relief — in the form of asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (the “CAT”) — by three separate IJ rulings. On each occasion, the Board of Immigration Appeals (the “BIA”) reversed the IJ rulings. Garcia, for his part, was removed to El Salvador in May 2022, and has awaited further developments in these proceedings from his home country. In this appeal, Garcia challenges and seeks reversal of three rulings made by the BIA — those being: (1) that the “particular social group” relied upon in connection with Garcia’s application for withholding of removal is not legally cognizable; (2) that Garcia was not persecuted in El Salvador on account of his political opinions; and (3) that Garcia failed to establish eligibility for CAT protection. As explained herein, we grant Garcia’s petition for review and reverse the BIA rulings in part, affirm them in part, and vacate them in part. We otherwise remand to the BIA for such further proceedings as may be appropriate.”
“Petitioner Juan Pablo Paucar petitions for review of a January 22, 2021 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision (1) affirming an Immigration Judge’s denial of his application for cancellation of removal and (2) denying his motion to remand. The BIA rejected Paucar’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim, declined to remand for consideration of additional hardship relating to his cancellation application, and declined to remand to await adjudication of his U visa application. Paucar argues that the BIA (1) applied an incorrect standard when reviewing his ineffective assistance of counsel claim, (2) overlooked and mischaracterized his new hardship evidence, and (3) failed to follow precedent when denying his request for remand while awaiting the adjudication of his U visa application. We are persuaded by Paucar’s arguments. Accordingly, we GRANT Paucar’s petition for review, VACATE the BIA’s decision, and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
In Santos-Garcia v. Garland, the BIA’s 6-year quest to wrongfully deny protection to Santos has been thwarted, for now. But, the matter remains far from finally resolved, even though an IJ has now properly granted Santos relief three separate times, only to be wrongly reversed by the BIA on each occasion!
Rather than insuring that individual justice is done, the BIA has acted to promote injustice, create needless delay, and demoralize IJ’s who are getting it right! In the meantime, the respondent has been removed to the country where he has a well-founded fear of persecution to await his fate. This is because the 4th Circuit denied a stay they should routinely have granted in an exercise of truly horrendous judicial misjudgment.
Now, the court majority fecklessly pontificates about the need for timely resolution (you’ve got to be kidding) while hinting, but not requiring, that the “Gang That Can’t Shoot Straight” should return the respondent now. Don’t hold your breath!
Here are three of my favorite quotes from Judge King’s majority opinion in Santos Garcia v. Garland.
Put simply, the BIA declined to “interact seriously” with the record before it in reviewing Garcia’s claim for CAT protection, and its failure in that regard requires a remand.
Should we not expect a supposed “expert tribunal” like the BIA should be to “seriously interact” with the record in life-or-death cases?Why aren’t Dems in Congress and everywhere else “all over Garland like a cheap suit” to stop this kind of judicial misbehavior in his “wholly owned courts?”
In closing, we recognize that Garcia’s removal proceedings have languished before the IJ and the BIA — and now this Court — for more than six years, leaving him in limbo and presently in harm’s way in El Salvador. We are also mindful that Garcia was only 15 years old when he sought to protect his cousin from the 18th Street Gang’s advances, setting off more than a decade of hardship and uncertainty. With that, we emphasize the “strong public interest in bringing [this] litigation to a close . . . promptly.” See Hussain v. Gonzales, 477 F.3d 153, 158 (4th Cir. 2007). And although we do not direct the affirmative award of any relief, we acknowledge the compelling case for protection that Garcia has made. If, on remand, the BIA affirms either the IJ’s award of withholding of removal or the award of CAT relief, the DHS and the Attorney General should swiftly “facilitate [Garcia’s] return to the United States” from El Salvador. See Ramirez v. Sessions, 887 F.3d 693, 706 (4th Cir. 2018) (directing the government to facilitate previously removed petitioner’s return to the United States pursuant to an Immigration and Customs Enforcement Policy Directive). Moreover, if the BIA determines that Garcia’s “presence 24 is necessary for continued administrative removal proceedings” on remand, the authorities should see to his prompt return. Id.
So, after six years bouncing around the system and three separate grants of asylum by an Immigration Judge, the 4th Circuit essentially “begs” the BIA to get it right this time! This is after the court itself curiously denied the respondent’s application for stay notwithstanding the rather obvious risk of irreparable harm (e.g., death, torture) and the equally obvious substance of his timely filed appeal.
What a way to run a “justice system” (or, in this case, not)! Both the Executive and the Judiciary should be totally embarrassed by their gross mishandling of this case! But, I see resolve from neither Branch (nor the ever-absent Legislature) to put an end to this systemic mockery of due process, fundamental fairness, and simple common sense!
Here, discovering the BIA’s error in rejecting Garcia’s proposed social group of “young male family members of his cousin Emily” is no herculean task. Social groups based on family ties have been consistently approved by this Court as providing a sound basis for asylum or withholding of removal applications. See, e.g., Salgado-Sosa, 882 F.3d at 457; Hernandez-Avalos v. Lynch, 784 F.3d 944, 949 (4th Cir. 2015); Cedillos-Cedillos v. Barr, 962 F.3d 817, 824 (4th Cir. 2020). Indeed, our pivotal 2011 decision on the matter — Crespin-Valladares v. Holder — recognized in no uncertain terms that “the family provides a prototypical example of a particular social group.” See 632 F.3d at 125. In tossing out Garcia’s proposed social group in March 2021, however, the BIA largely disregarded our precedent, providing no citation to or discussion of Crespin-Valladares. The BIA instead relied chiefly on its own then-existing precedent, set forth in the Attorney General’s 2019 L-E-A- II decision. As described above, L-E-A- II — which was vacated by the Attorney General in June 2021 and thus “lacks legal force” — “conflicted with [this Court’s] well-established precedent” recognizing families as cognizable social groups. See Perez Vasquez v. Garland, 4 F.4th 213, 227 n.11 (4th Cir. 2021). Surprisingly, the BIA paid little mind to L-E-A- II’s vacatur in its Reconsideration Order of 2022, doubling down on its earlier “particular social group” ruling and again inexplicably declining to apply Crespin-Valladares and its progeny.7
Notably, the “rule of Crespin-Valledares” — my case where the BIA erroneously reversed me — continues to have an impact! A dozen years post-Crespin and the BIA is still getting it wrong! Why are these guys still on the appellate bench, setting negative precedents and ignoring favorable precedents? In a Dem Administration? Seriously!
Michelle N. Mendez, ESQ Director of Legal Resources and Training National Immigration Project, National Lawyers Guild PHOTO: NIPNLG
My friend Michelle Mendez, Director of Legal Resources and Training over at National Immigration Project offered some commentary on the Second Circuit’s decision in Paucar v. Garland.
Congratulations and thank you for your superb work, Lindsay! This case offers so much and seems like the CA2 delivered.
Here are a couple of excerpts from the decision that stood out to me:
“In a January 14, 2020 written decision, the BIA dismissed Paucar’s appeal and denied his motion to reopen and remand. Three months later—after Paucar filed a petition to review the BIA’s decision in this Court—the BIA sua sponte reinstated Paucar’s appeal and motion, noting that it had not “consider[ed] all of the evidence submitted by [Paucar].” Id. at 124.” [Do we know why the BIA sua sponte reinstated the appeal and motion?] LINDSAY NASH RESPONDS: “The BIA only sua sponte reopened the appeal and motion because Paige Austin (co-counsel extraordinaire, copied here) filed a PFR and identified the missing evidence early on, prompting OIL to agree to a remand.”
“Finally, the BIA concluded that remand to await the adjudication of Paucar’s U visa petition was unnecessary because Paucar could request a stay of removal from USCIS.” [Does anyone know what the BIA was referencing here? Later on the decision says DHS and not USCIS so perhaps it is a typo.] LINDSAY NASH RESPONDS: “I think that the reference to USCIS that you flag was a typo and that it should have said DHS.”
“We conclude that the BIA should have applied the Sanchez Sosa factors in considering Paucar’s motion to remand as it pertains to his U visa or explained its reasoning for not doing so. [This is the first time that the CA2 answers the question of whether Sanchez Sosa applies to motions to remand or reopen filed during the pendency of an appeal where the noncitizen did not previously request such a continuance before the IJ].”
There is a great discussion on the BIA improperly applying Coelho (which they love to throw around in correctly) to the prejudice assessment and a paragraph discussing how the CA2 and other courts of appeals view unpublished BIA decisions.
Again, really great work and outcome! Thanks for sharing with all of us, Dan!
For a case distinguishing Coelho and applying a “reasonable likelihood of success” standard to a MTR, see Matter of L-O-G-, 21 I&N Dec. 436 (BIA 1996), written by me! The BIA ignores it or misapplies it in many cases. But, it’s still “good law!” Just another instance in which the BIA evades “older” precedents that could produce favorable outcomes for respondents!
In this case the IJ denied the respondent’s applications and ordered removal in May 2018, five years ago. Nobody contests that the respondent was ineffectively represented at that time.
Through new pro bono counsel, respondent Paucar filed a timely appeal with the BIA. Less than two months following the IJ’s decision, new counsel filed a copiously documented motion to the BIA to remand for a new hearing because of the ineffective representation.
Rather than promptly granting that motion for a new hearing, the BIA set in motion five years of dilatory effort on their part to avoid providing a hearing. Obviously, several new merits hearings could have been completed during the time occupied by the BIA’s anti-immigrant antics!
Along the way, according to the Second Circuit, the BIA “improperly imposed a heightened standard,” “erred by discounting the impact of counsel’s ineffectiveness,” “improperly relied] on the IJ’s tainted findings,” “overlooked and mischaracterized the record evidence,” “erred by overlooking or mischaracterizing evidence,” “overlooked and mischaracterized material evidence,” and failed, without explanation, “to follow its own precedent.” What else could they have screwed up? The file number?
This would be highly unacceptable performance by ANY tribunal, let alone one entrusted with making life or death decisions about human lives and whose decisions in some instances have been unwisely insulated from effective judicial review by Congress. Individuals appearing before EOIR deserve better! American justice deserves better! How long will AG Garland continue to get away with failing to “clean house” at America’s most dysfunctional court system and bring order, due process, fundamental fairness, legal expertise, and judicial professionalism to this long-overlooked, yet absolutely essential, foundation of our entire U.S. justice system!
Wasting time and resources looking for bogus ways to deny that which better, more expert, fairer judges could easily grant his had a huge negative impact on the EOIR backlog and is a driver of legal dysfunction throughout the immigration bureaucracy, and indeed throughout our entire legal system, all the way up to and including the Supremes!
Start by fixing “that within your control!” That’s a simple message that Dems, unfortunately, don’t seem to get when it comes to immigration, human rights, and racial justice in America!
Slavery, its wonton cruelty, negative impact on America, and the stories of the enslaved African Americans who persevered can’t ultimately be “swept under the carpet” by GOP white nationalists. IMAGE: Public realm
David W. Blight reviews Rachel Swarns’s new book “The 272” For The NYT:
. . . .
“The 272,” Rachel L. Swarns’s deeply researched and revelatory new book, is the story of the remarkable Mahoney clan and how their lives, nearly a century and a half after Ann Joice’s, intersected with those of Mulledy, McSherry and the Jesuits in one of American slavery’s most withering tragedies. “The 272” is a fascinating meditation on the meaning of slavery and of people converted to property and commodities — assets of wealth and objects of sale. It’s a book that journeys to slavery’s heart of darkness: to the separation of families, the terror of being sold into the vast unknown and of bodies transformed into profits and investments. But it is also the moving human story of some of the people who endured and survived this ordeal, and who have long awaited rediscovery.
Swarns, a contributing writer for The New York Times and a professor of journalism at N.Y.U., is an African American Catholic who was raised on Staten Island. Beginning with an article in The Times in 2016, she revealed the story of the Jesuits as slaveholders and traders, leading to a stunning reckoning by Georgetown University with its past as well as one within the Jesuit order itself. Swarns writes with a keen eye and distinctive voice both about her Black subjects and about the hypocrisy and brutality of their onetime owners. The Jesuits were no monolith of greed and evil, however; Swarns sustains empathy for some who tried, largely unsuccessfully, to protect the enslaved people they had known so closely from the agony of sale that looms over this story.
. . . .
What comes through most effectively is the sorrow and the determination to survive of the enslaved people whom Swarns brings to light through her sleuthing and resonant prose. (Of Ann Joice, Swarns writes, “She would have no wealth, no land and no savings to leave her family, but she still had her story. … The story would be her legacy.”) Swarns also underscores the importance of Georgetown’s ongoing efforts at serious reparations for the deeds of its early leaders. An independent nonprofit, the Georgetown Memory Project, has identified around 6,000 living descendants of the original 272. In turn, the university has offered descendants formal “legacy” status for admission, sought atonement through a highly publicized apology and created a fund that would dedicate $400,000 a year to community projects, including support for health clinics and schools, likely to benefit descendants. Leaders of the Jesuit conference of priests have also vowed to establish a $100 million trust to benefit descendants and promote racial reconciliation.
No single work of history can remedy the vexing issue of repair for slavery in America, but “The 272” advances the conversation and challenges the collective conscience; without knowing this history in its complexity we are left with only raw, uncharted memory.
David W. Blight is the author of the Pulitzer Prize-winning “Frederick Douglass: Prophet of Freedom” and the forthcoming “Yale and Slavery: A History.”
******************************
Read Blight’s full review at the above link.
This is the kind of important, often intentionally buried, history that GOP white nationalists like DeSantis, Trump, and others don’t want read and honestly discussed. But, as with most artificially suppressed works, the truth will out! There are just too many people speaking it these days for even the neo-fascist censors to silence them all.
It also illuminates the heretofore unknown and unheralded stories of enslaved African-Americans like Ann Joice who, against the odds, persevered in a grotesquely unjust and horrible system so that future generations could have a chance at a better life. These are are among the real heroes ofAmerican history who helped make our country what it is today. Their stories deserve to be told and studied.
Full disclosure: I am an Adjunct Professor of Law at Georgetown University Law School.
“The United States’ war in Afghanistan required regional allies willing to aid the effort. One such ally was Shaker Ullah, a Pakistani businessman who sold supplies to coalition forces. This invoked the wrath of the Pakistani Taliban, which demanded exorbitant payments from Ullah under threat of death. Ullah repeatedly refused, and the Taliban attempted to carry out its threat, promising to hunt him until it succeeded. After losing his business, home, and nearly his life, Ullah fled to the United States seeking asylum. The Immigration Judge and Board of Immigration Appeals both recognized that Ullah suffered past persecution entitling him to a presumption that the Taliban would continue to target him if he returned to Pakistan. But they agreed with the government that because Ullah lived in Islamabad (the capital of Pakistan) for a few weeks without the Taliban finding him, he could live in a new area of the country without fear of reprisal. We disagree. Ullah’s brief sojourn to Islamabad—where he never left the house— doesn’t rebut the presumption that a notorious terrorist organization continues to imperil his life. Since the record would compel any reasonable adjudicator to conclude Ullah faces a well-founded threat of future persecution, we grant Ullah’s petition for review, reverse the Board’s denial of Ullah’s preserved claims, and remand with instructions that the agency grant relief.”
[Hats way off to superlitigator Ben Winograd! Listen to the oral argument here.]
“Petitioner Zuowei Chen is a native of China admitted to the United States on a student visa in 2009. Chen now seeks review of a Board of Immigration Appeals order denying his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. If removed to China, Chen fears, he will be persecuted and tortured by Chinese authorities, who in 2008 allegedly imprisoned and violently beat him because of his Christian beliefs and practices. We find there are aspects of the agency’s decision that require clarification before we can meaningfully review Chen’s claims. Accordingly, we vacate the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals and remand for further explanation, consistent with this opinion.”
Notably, and refreshingly, in Ullah, the 4th Circuit took the unusual step of directing the BIA to grant asylum, rather than just remanding for the BIA to screw it up again! In Chen, Trump appointee Circuit Judge Marvin Quattlebaum was part of the unanimous panel! Condemnation of EOIR’s deficient performance is uniting Article III jurists across ideological lines!
The GOP is “out for Garland’s scalp” for all the WRONG reasons! It’s actually Dems who should be demanding an accounting for his inexcusable, miserable, democracy-eroding (non)performance at EOIR!
Garland’s mess at EOIR isn’t “theoretical,” “academic,” or “speculative!” It’s ACTUALLY endangering lives, eroding democracy, and creating unnecessary chaos on a daily basis! His intransigence is also diverting HUGE amounts of resources that could be used to DEFEND American democracy, rather than seeking to hold a tone-deaf Dem Administration accountable!
In the meantime, Dems are fecklessly moaning and groaning about a lawless and ethics-free Supremes. Yet, a Dem Administration is operating a huge, nationwide “court” system presenting these same problems, in spades!♠️
And, the victims of EOIR’s substandard judging are overwhelmingly people of color, literally fighting for their lives in a dysfunctional system that the Biden Administration is unwilling and/or unable to fix. In these cases, the victims were fortunate enough to be represented by two of the “best in the business,” Ben Winograd and Tamara Jezic. But, too many others face this biased and unfair system unrepresented, a situation that Garland not only has failed to remedy, but has made worse in some ways.What “message, does this send, particularly to the younger cohort of “social justice” voters whom the Dems are counting on for the future?
Following the 2020 election, human rights advocates and experts expected and deserved dramatic, long overdue progressive improvements in justice at EOIR. Instead, Garland inexplicably has retained many of the most regressive features of injustice at EOIR, developed and reinforced during the Trump years. Frustration abounds, while justice for the most vulnerable among us suffers under a Dem Administration! Woman Being “Tried By Ordeal” 17th Century Woodcut Public Realm Source: Ancient Origins Website https://www.ancient-origins.net/history/trial-ordeal-life-or-death-method-judgement-004160
How bad is EOIR under Garland? One informed observer put it this way:
BIA staff attorneys are rewarded for the number of signed decisions per month. With the present make-up of the Board, their only incentive is to crank out denials.
Dems love to talk about “change!” The GOP actually achieves it, even though the results are overwhelmingly negative, regressive, and existentially damaging to democracy! Something’s got to give here!
The 2022 Term ended last week but there already are new immigration cases on the Supreme Court’s docket for the 2023 Term.
Law 360 reports that the Supreme Court on the last day of the 2022 Term agreed to review 1) if Board of Immigration Appeals decisions denying cancellation of removal for exceptional hardship are subject to judicial review and 2) consolidated cases on the sufficiency of notice in removal proceedings.
Issue: Whether an agency determination that the statutory standard of “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” is a mixed question of law and fact reviewable under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D), or whether this determination is a discretionary judgment call unreviewable under Section 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) (and not subject to judicial review).
The Court continues to deal with the ripple effects of Pereira v. Sessions (2018), which addressed the sufficiency of notice in removal proceedings.
Issue: Whether the government provides notice “required under” and “in accordance with paragraph (1) or (2) of” 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a) when it serves an initial notice document that does not include the “time and place” of proceedings followed by an additional document containing that information, such that an immigration court must enter a removal order in absentia and deny a noncitizen’s request to rescind that order.
KJ
*******************************
Aleksandra Gontaryuk ESQ Managing Partner AG Law Newark, NJ PHOTO: AG Law
From: Aleksandra Gontaryuk
Sent: Monday, July 3, 2023 4:29 PM
To: AILA New Jersey Chapter Distribution List <newjersey@lists.aila.org>
Subject: Precedential Decision — 3rd Circuit
Hot off the presses. No supplemental notice allowed to cure defective NTA unless there is a change or postponement of time and place in NTA. In this case, my client had a defective NTA, so 3rd Circuit ruled there can be no change or postponement from a defective NTA in the first place when DHS didn’t issue new NTA!! In absentia remanded.
[The case is Madrid-Mancia v. AG, available in full text at the above link.]
Aleksandra N. Gontaryuk, Esq.
AG Law Firm
*******************
Actually, Dems need an AG who WILL WORRY about systematic denials of due process, fundamental fairness, and failure to install best-qualified progressives in the disastrously dysfunctional Immigration Courts! PHOTO: Wikipedia Commons
The notice issue presented by Campos-Chaves and Singh has been to the Supremes, albeit in different forms, twice before recently. The BIA/DOJ position has been emphatically “stuffed” by the Supremes both times! Yet, here we are again with the same backlog-enhancing, due-process-denying nonsense, this time from a Dem AG who was supposed to act like a “real” Federal Judge, not a “stooge” for DHS Enforcement.
The long and short of it is that this third trip to the Supremes on the notice issue was avoidable. That is, if Garland had appointed immigration experts, individuals not afraid to enforce the statute even where it benefits the individual, as it often will if properly and fairly interpreted, to the BIA, long a hotbed of anti-immigrant interpretations of law. Garland continues to enable a system “packed” with anti-immigrant and anti-asylum judges promoted under Trump and largelyretained by Garland. This should outrage all progressives!
Dems continue to fecklessly “wring their hands” about the sharp right turn of the Supremes and the lower Article IIIs and the predictable decimation of individual rights. It all occurred in plain sight and with plenty of advance warning from the GOP as Dems diddled away their chances to stop it.
Dems aren’t going to be able to expand the Supremes, nor are term limits likely to happen. Both would require GOP support, which will not be forthcoming now that they have achieved their long-promised “takeover!” Discussing it is a waste of breath and brain cells. It also diverts attention from the Dems ongoing failure at EOIR.
The Dems best practical chance of reforming the Federal Courts would be to start “at the critical retail level” with what they control and could change tomorrow:The U.S.Immigration Courts housed (however improperly) in the DOJ. Right now they are an embarrassing mess of bad judging, anti-immigrant bias, worst practices, grotesque mismanagement, insurmountable backlogs, and hare-brained gimmicks.
Every day, in this and other forums, we see inspiring examples of the type of extraordinary progressive, creative, courageous legal talent available “in the marketplace.” They are the ones Garland should be recruiting and putting on the EOIR bench at both appellate and trial levels.
We would get an immediate, long overdue, improvement in the quality and efficiency of justice at EOIR. Correct, scholarly precedents would have carry-over into other areas of law and even gain international traction.
And, Dems would be building a “long bench” of “tried and true” candidates for Article III positions in the process! Who knows if and when a chance like this will come again? Yet, Garland and the Dems are squandering it, damaging democracy and humanity in the process! Talk about turning a “win-win” into a “lose-lose!” It’s something that Dem politicos excel at!
Dems failure to institute progressive reforms and bring in expert progressive judges at the court they do control makes the rest of their pronouncements on Federal Court reform meaningless babbling!
Dems “babble on” about Federal Court reform as GOP scores “real life” victories over individual rights and equity. It’s a waste of time, and “task avoidance” by Dems that diverts attention from the major Federal System they own 100% and operate (very badly): The U.S. Immigration Courts @ EOIR! — “Towel of Babel” By Pieter Bruegel The Elder Public Domain
Pay no attention to Dems disingenuous complaints about the Supremes and “Trumpy” lower court judges until they demonstrate the ability and willingness to reform EOIR!
I’m sure many of you remember a childhood game called “Mother, May I?” An authority figure would say, “Jeff, take two giant steps forward!” But before doing so, the player would have to ask “Mother, may I?” Those two giant steps could only be taken if the response was “Yes, you may.” Otherwise, if the player took the steps, they were out.
If we were to take this game, direct the request and reply through an app called CBPOne, and make the stakes life or death, the result would be something very similar to the Biden Administration’s latest regulations governing asylum at the southern border.
The new rules are at odds with U.S. law. Congress has already authorized asylum seekers to take the necessary steps up to the border. The very first sentence of 8 U.S.C. § 1158 (the U.S. asylum statute) says that any noncitizen “whether or not at a designated port of arrival” and irrespective of their immigration status may apply for asylum.
And yet, not Congress but two Executive Branch agencies have now added a “Mother, May I?” type obstacle for those seeking to do what the law has long permitted. Under the new rules, the asylum seeker must first ask through a glitchy government phone app for specific permission (in the form of an appointment) before striding up to the border. Otherwise, the asylum seeker is simply not eligible for asylum, no matter how serious the danger they face if removed to their country.
How can Executive Branch agencies issue regulations that so directly contradict the statute those agencies are charged with enforcing? That question is the basis of a lawsuit filed by the ACLU, the National Immigrant Justice Center, and the Center for Gender and Refugee Studies in U.S. District Court.1
Our Round Table of Former Immigration Judges filed an amicus brief in support of petitioners’ arguments. We are in good company, as the USCIS asylum officers’ union filed a persuasive amicus brief as well.2 This means that groups representing the views of the only government officials authorized to decide asylum claims in this country (i.e. immigration judges and asylum officers) are united in opposing the new rule.
In our Round Table brief, we specifically take issue with the government’s false labeling of the new bar as merely a “rebuttable presumption” of asylum ineligibility.
Real rebuttable presumptions have long existed in our asylum regulations. For example, there is a rebuttable presumption that someone who has been persecuted in the past for reasons that give rise to an asylum claim may be persecuted again, unless major changes have since taken place in their country. There is also a presumption that one whose persecutor is the government of their country can’t find safety by simply relocating within that same country.
As you’ve probably noticed, there is a logic that flows in each of those examples from the known facts to the presumption. It is logical to assume that someone who was harmed before might be harmed again if conditions remain the same. The government may rebut the presumption by showing a fundamental change of the type that would put those fears to rest. There is a similar logic in concluding that a government’s reach extends throughout the country it governs. Again, the government may rebut that presumption through evidence establishing an exception to this general rule. In both of these examples, the fact established increases the likelihood of the fact presumed.
Now let’s return to the new rule. Say that a person faces brutal persecution on account of their political opinion if returned to their country. How does the fact that they couldn’t or didn’t get an appointment through a phone app in any way create a presumption that they are not in need of humanitarian protection? There can’t be a presumption if the fact established (i.e. that the person didn’t obtain an appointment through the app) is completely unrelated to the fact presumed (i.e. the person is not in need of asylum).
I believe it matters greatly whether the rule is considered a bar or a presumption. It is Congress that decides who may apply for asylum in this country. Thus, a regulation that admittedly creates a new bar to asylum (particularly where that bar is in direct contradiction to Congressional intent) is likely to be rejected as ultra vires by the courts. And in fact, a very similar bar to this one published by the Trump Administration was enjoined for just that reason.3 Agencies cannot usurp Congress’s role by legislating in the guise of rulemaking.
By attempting to disguise the new bar as merely a “rebuttable presumption,” the agencies seek to increase the odds of the ban passing muster this time. That is exactly the Department of Justice’s argument in its response brief: that its new rule is completely different from the prior administration’s “bar,” because according to DOJ, the new rule “does not treat manner of entry as dispositive, but instead creates a rebuttable presumption that can be overcome…”4
So the “Mother, may I?” regs clearly overstep the agencies’ legal authority. But do they create an equal barrier for all asylum seekers? The answer is no. As stated, the rules require one intending to apply for asylum to first obtain an appointment. Of course, there are more asylum seekers than there are available appointments. As mentioned, the government app through which one tries to secure an appointment, CBPOne, is full of glitches. As Prof. Austin Kocher recently noted, those glitches have impacted who gets those appointments:
the initial release of CBP One was accompanied by a variety of tech failures that did not necessarily undermine CBP’s ability to fill up its appointments calendar for asylum seekers but did create barriers to entry for migrants who were less tech savvy, could not access high-speed Internet, were part of larger families, or, either directly or indirectly, migrants who were darker-skinned or Black.5
That last point refers to the app’s problems with facial recognition that have caused it to reject applicants who are not white.6 As a result of these and other reported scheduling inequities, Sen. Edward Markey wrote to DHS back in February urging the agency to cease use of the app, due to its inaccessibility to many intending applicants, adding that “we cannot allow it to create a tiered system that treats asylum seekers differently based on their economic status — including the ability to pay for travel — language, nationality, or race.”.7
Instead of “ditching the app” as the Senator requested, the agencies instead added an exception to the bar if the noncitizen “demonstrates by a preponderance of the evidence that it was not possible to access or use the DHS scheduling system due to language barrier, illiteracy, significant technical failure, or other ongoing and serious obstacle.”8
However, there is a big catch. Pursuant to the rule, this exception is only available to those without an appointment who make their claim at an actual port of entry. But observers at points of entry along the southern border report that “practices by U.S. and Mexican authorities restricted asylum seekers without CBP One appointments from physically reaching U.S. ports of entry to make protection requests.”9 So the exception written into the regs is not available in reality, as one seeking to claim it is restricted from reaching the port of entry where it must be claimed, and is barred from claiming the exception if they cross the border elsewhere.
If you’re wondering how the new system is working out, according to one report, it has resulted in asylum seekers on the Mexican side of the Laredo port of entry being robbed, kidnapped, and held for ransom.10 Another article described how some of those “lucky” enough to have obtained CBPOne appointments at Laredo claimed “that Mexican officials in Nuevo Laredo, across the border from Laredo, Texas, had threatened to hold them and make them miss their scheduled asylum appointments unless they paid them.”11 As a result, CBPOne appointments were temporarily suspended for the Laredo port of entry.
One excluded from asylum under these rules may still seek two types of lesser protections called withholding of removal.12 Oddly, under U.S. law, these alternative protections are much more difficult than asylum to qualify for, yet provide far fewer benefits. Asylum is an actual legal status which extends to the spouse and minor children of the asylee, allows for travel abroad, and puts recipients on a path to permanent residence and then citizenship in this country. By contrast, withholding of removal arises when an individual is ordered deported, and only blocks their deportation to a country in which persecution or torture is likely to occur, but otherwise leaves the recipient in limbo. The protection provides no path to family reunification or permanent status, and no right to travel abroad to visit the family members from whom the recipient is left indefinitely separated.
Nevertheless, withholding of removal does save lives. But not satisfied with simply barring asylum, the new regulations also make these lesser forms of protection far more difficult to access. This is because one must first pass something called a “credible fear interview” in order to even have the right to apply for withholding of removal in this country. As those interviews are conducted within days of the asylum-seeker’s arrival, in custody, often before the applicant has had the opportunity to obtain legal counsel or evidence, and possibly while suffering from the effects of persecution, the credible fear standard was intentionally designed to be a low one. The idea is to allow people who might genuinely be at risk the opportunity to fully develop their cases in a full removal proceeding, while only quickly removing those lacking legitimate claims.
But the new regulations raise the burden of proof by requiring the applicant at this very early stage to demonstrate a “reasonable fear” of persecution, which USCIS describes as the exact same standard required for a grant of asylum – i.e. “well-founded fear.13 Again, the lower credible fear standard being replaced was created solely because it isn’t reasonable to expect someone to prove more under the conditions faced by such recent arrivals. This intended safeguard has thus been completely undermined, as one who might only be a day or two in the country must now present a full-blown asylum claim just to earn the chance to have a hearing.
The new process requires non-lawyers to satisfy a complex legal standard they won’t understand, often without the time to seek legal advice or compile the evidence necessary to meet the heightened burden. I have no doubt that the process will result in genuine refugees being denied protection. And once again, the entire reason for placing applicants at such heightened risk is their not having obtained an appointment on a problematic phone app.
Why does the Biden Administration believe all this is necessary? In a recent column, Jamelle Bouie addressed the vows of some Republican presidential candidates to eliminate the constitutional right to birthright citizenship through executive order.14 In addition to presenting a compelling argument as to why this cannot legally be done, Bouie included in his column a wonderful quote from Frederick Douglass: “The outspread wings of the American Eagle are broad enough to shelter all who are likely to come.”
In case the Biden Administration is wondering if it can champion that same sentiment today, in lieu of its convoluted attempt to ban protection to those deserving of it under our laws, the answer is: “Yes, you may.”
(Much thanks to attorneys Ashley Vinson Crawford and Steven Schulman of the law firm of Akin Gump for representing the group of former Immigration Judges and BIA Members on our amicus brief in East Bay Sanctuary.)
Copyright 2023, Jeffrey S. Chase. All rights reserved.
Notes:
East Bay Sanctuary Covenant v. Biden, No. 18-cv-06810-JST, N.D. Cal. (Filed May 11, 2023).
See Britain Eakin, “Asylum Officers, Ex-Judges Back Suit on Biden Asylum Rule,” Law360, June 8, 2023.
East Bay Sanctuary v. Barr, 964 F.3d 832 (9th Cir. 2020) (holding that the Trump Administration’s asylum bar was inconsistent with our asylum laws).
Defendants’ Reply Brief, East Bay Sanctuary v. Biden, (June 30, 2023) at 8.
Austin Kocher, “Glitches in the Digitization of Asylum: How CBP One Turns Migrants’ Smartphones into Mobile Borders,” mdpi.com, June 20, 2023, https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4698/13/6/149, section 4.
Melissa del Bosque, “Facial Recognition Bias Frustrates Black Asylum Applicants to US,” The Guardian, Feb. 8, 2023,
One form of withholding covers persecution for specified reasons; the other applies to torture.
See Asylum Officer Basic Training Course Lesson Plan, “Reasonable Fear and Torture Determinations,” (USCIS, RAIO, 2017) at 11 (“The ‘reasonable possibility’ standard is the same standard required to establish eligibility for asylum (the ‘well- founded fear’ standard).”)
Jamelle Bouie, “Opinion: What Frederick Douglass Knew That Trump and DeSantis Don’t,” NYT, June 30, 2023.
JULY 5, 2023
***********************
It’s an existential problem for our nation when a Dem Administration claims as “success:” failure to recognize the rights of asylum seekers, intentionally evading asylum law, and endangering the lives of asylum seekers!
Lest anyone think the confusion, unfairness, and disorder caused by the Biden/Harris failure to implement competent, professional, expert leadership on human rights is “overhyped,” here’s an “in person” report from Professor Lenni Benson of NY Law School, founder of Safe Passage Project, and a widely reknowned “practical expert” on asylum and human rights.
Professor Lenni B.Benson Distinguished Chair of Immigration and Human Rights Law New York Law School Founder, Safe Passage Project PHOTO: NYLS website
Sharing an excellent Blog post by retired IJ Jeff Chase on why the CBP One app may be endangering asylum applicants. See below.
Related to the CBP One app was a hearing I observed last Friday, June 30, 2023 in NY City.
A self-represented individual was asked by the IJ “were you admitted or inspected” by the government, the Respondent through a Mandarin interpreter said “Yes, through the CBP app.” The IJ paused. The OPLA attorney was visible on Webex. She was silent.
The IJ said “I will note your statement for the record, I find you removable as charged for not having been inspected or admitted.” [The Respondent had declined an opportunity to find an attorney.]
I am sure CBP will argue that entry under the app is not an inspection or admission and I haven’t looked carefully at the regulations but the issue is there to perhaps be litigated.
The other interesting twist in this particular case was that the government then told the Judge that she could see the Respondent had already completed biometrics and submitted an asylum application, but no application was in either her file nor the Court’s.
The IJ asked, do you have a copy?
The respondent: “On my phone.”
The IJ set a call-up date hearing to have the respondent print out the application and file it with the court in person.
I didn’t get a chance to speak to the Respondent, but I wondered if he had perhaps thought his interview with CBP was his asylum application or if he had filed affirmatively with USCIS.
Just sharing with this community.
Confusion abounds.
“Confusion abounds!” 🤯Why, rather than clarifying and applying the law, would the Administration intentionally create confusion and a host of unnecessary “litigatable issues?”
Why would they create delay by supposedly having applications for asylum “filed” but unavailable electronically to either ICE or EOIR?
Why didn’t the Administration recruit and hire real “practical experts” like Lenni Benson and her colleagues to straighten out the asylum system at the border, restore the rule of law, and reform and repopulate the critically important, currently dysfunctional, Immigration Courts and the BIA with well-qualified progressive judges, merit-selected experts in human rights and practical problem solving?
Pleased to join my friend “Sir Jeffrey” in giving a big “shout out” to our Round Table colleagues and superstar NDPA attorneys Steve Schulman, Ashley Vinson Crawford, and their pro bono team at Akin Gump for representing us on the amicus brief in East Bay Sanctuary!
*********************
Anybody naive enough to believe the “party line” from Administration wonks about “success at the border” should heed this “hot off the presses” report from Mica Rosenberg @ Reuters. It confirms the legal and humanitarian disaster at the border resulting from two plus years of mismanagement of asylum by Mayorkas, Garland, and the rest of the Biden immigration politicos who havefailed to undo the humanitarian and legal mess left behind by White Nationalist Stephen Miller and the rest of the Trumpist scofflaws!
Mica Rosenberg National Immigration Reporter, Reuters
Mica writes:
We examined the impact of the Biden administration’s new asylum regulation at the U.S.-Mexico border after it replaced the COVID-era Title 42 expulsion policy on May 11.
U.S. officials have said the regulation and other Biden immigration policies, that have opened new legal pathways to the US, have dramatically reduced the number of illegal border crossings.
But in the first month of the new policy, Reuters interviews with more than 50 migrants, U.S. and Mexican officials, a review of court records and previously unreported data found:
More than 100,000 migrants waiting in northern Mexico, many trying to snag an appointment on an oversubscribed government run smartphone app; a sharp drop in people passing their initial asylum screenings; more people in detention and tens of thousands of deportations.
My colleagues visited the mile-long migrant camp in Matamoros, across the river from Brownsville, Texas, where conditions are deteriorating, including cases of sexual assault in the camp, and we also spoke to a father who crossed the border but was speedily deported while his family was allowed into the US.
The report at the above link has many photos illustrating both the cruel stupidity of the Biden program and the amazing resilience of those still hoping, against the odds, to have their legal rights respected and protected by the USG.
Thanks, Mica, for “telling it like it is” and penetrating the “bureaucratic smokescreen” thrown up by the Administration to cover its misdeeds and human rights abuses!🤮
I love this country dearly, but not without deep sorrow for the mistakes of my own homeland. And so, I criticize it because I want this place to mean freedom for everyone.
On July 4th, I will celebrate with my mixed-immigrant, first-generation family, neighbors, and community. I tell my little one she is an Incan-Viking Warrior (because she is). And that there are places where not everyone is free, including in our own country. But we are working to change that. I try to teach her about refugees and why people flee their homes to come to the United States.
We also talk about family separation. Not long after zero-tolerance began, another child told mine that she “belongs in a cage” after all of us, young and old alike, saw those images. These are the misgivings of small children but also the symptoms of a deeply flawed system and culture. The way the Zero Tolerance Policy desecrated freedom continues to haunt us today.
As the director of CAIR Coalition’s Detained Adult Program, I believe we can help right the path our country is currently on—one that continues to separate families with unrestrained racism and violence. The family separation crisis is ongoing, senseless, and continues to destroy our communities.
The United States has the largest immigration system in the world and is currently detaining approximately 29,000 immigrants, more than 63 percent of whom have no criminal record. In addition, the Biden Administration has deported over four million people, the majority for simple civil immigration violations, including not having the correct paperwork. This should be the least complicated public policy-making decision.
Immigrants’ rights groups need a new platform to stop these inhumane policies. It should be simple:
Stop separating families.
On an annual average, over 1,500 children in the DMV are impacted by a parent’s detention. Over a thousand children put their best forward as they try to move on with their lives without their parents—over a thousand children!
Why policies that harm our own children and communities are allowed to continue is heartbreaking. Our policies must keep families together.
Provide Immigrants in deportation proceedings with government-appointed counsel.
Immigrants in deportation proceedings, including parents, are forced to defend themselves against a government-trained attorney without a right to court-appointed counsel in a language often not their own. This means children become indefinitely separated from their parents simply because the right to a public-defense counsel is not available in immigration court. One solution would be to support the Fairness to Freedom Act and local programs for the right to counsel.
Being a parent is scary enough because there is very little you have control over in this world, but I know I am free to access the institutions in this country to care for, educate, and protect my child, but not everyone does.
As I celebrate this holiday, I will light fireworks and sparklers and do so as a symbolic spark to action for change and family unity. I hope you will join me.
*************************
GW Law Immigration Clinic Director Professor Alberto Benítez & Co-Director Professor Paulina Vera
From Professors Alberto Benitez and Paulina Vera, Co-Directors, GW Law Immigration Clinic:
“Thank you isn’t enough to express how grateful we are.”
On May 22, 2023, V-M- was granted her green card. Her applications were filed on April 18, 2022 and her interview at USCIS was waived. V-M- is the wife of our long-time client, E-K-. The Clinic started representing E-K- in 2009 and helped him obtain asylum, his green card, and then his U.S. citizenship. Once he became a U.S. citizen, he was able to petition for his wife, V-M-, with whom he has two kids, ages 2 and 4. Like E-K-, V-M- is from Cameroon.
Please join me in congratulating Mir Sadra Nabavi and Trisha Kondabala, who both worked on the case.
*******************************
Jay Kuo American Author, Producer, CEO of The Social Edge PHOTO: Facebook
When I was little, my Ba would bring out fireworks for the Fourth of July. He acquired them in places like Maryland, where our family would go summer camping on the state beaches, and brought them across state lines to our little suburban enclave in upstate New York. As soon as it was dark enough out, many of our neighbors would gather, the area kids eager to see what Mr. Kuo had in store that year. Sparklers for sure. Sometimes big noisemakers. And always more than a few showstopper rockets with brilliant flourishes of color. He would hand them out to us to dole out to the other children without a thought to liability.
The 1970s were a crazy time.
Subscribed
It didn’t occur to me until much later that there was some irony here. We were the only Chinese American household in the area. With four kids and a house on the corner of two main streets, our family was the center of activity for Tioga Terrace. And on July 4, Ba would bring the magic, developed centuries ago by people who looked like us, gunpowder mixed carefully with binding and coloring agents, bringing wonder and delight.
I understood we were celebrating the independence of America from the British Crown, and I most clearly remember the bicentennial celebration that took place in 1976. Our schools had focused heavily on American history that year, yet most of my understanding of what had transpired 200 years before still came from watching our Founding Fathers sing about it in the movie 1776.
Musical theatre has always been in my DNA.
In that merry portrayal, the heroes of the revolution were towering figures: debonair, erudite, romantic, able to find gallows humor at the darkest of hours. I remember best the musical number around whether slavery should be condemned in the words of the Declaration. It was a terrifying and bewildering song. What did molasses and rum and Bibles have to do with Roots? And I remember vividly poor Thomas Jefferson, the author of that brilliant document, being called out for still practicing slavery on his property.
“I have already resolved to release my slaves,” said a quietly thoughtful Jefferson.
I sincerely believed that earnest and brave man, who thrilled his colleagues with the playing of his violin, his adoring wife Martha swooning to the tune. He was a noble man, to be admired.
We didn’t learn the real truth about Jefferson, or about any of the Founding Fathers, in class. And it wasn’t taught to me in college either, even though I was a political science major. The first person to challenge my view of our any of the Founders was a Black colleague I met during my RA training, who had brought up that we don’t ever teach real history. She cited the story of Jefferson and Sally Hemings, one of the many slaves he owned—a girl he had raped when she was just 14 years old.
I didn’t want to believe it. The Declaration of Independence, and its famous author, were sacred in my mind. The principles they espoused were of the highest order. And in my mind, July 4th was my favorite holiday, next to Christmas. For one day, Ba was cooler than all the other dads, and at least for that day we were the most popular kids in the neighborhood, even though we were not fully American—at least, that’s how it had always felt.
Once the veil was pierced, however, the truth began to burn holes through my mind. I began to question a great deal of the mythology that had been spoonfed to me, really to all of us. Christopher Columbus, that was a shocker. Manifest Destiny. The Chinese Exclusion Act. The Tulsa Massacre. The internment of Japanese Americans. With each revelation, it was hard not to become deeply and irretrievably cynical about our history and the way our country has always acted toward the most vulnerable in America.
There’s a strange thing that happens when you come out the other end of all that. I began to wonder how they did it. How did people like Frederick Douglass, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and even my own hero George Takei still have anything left of faith and belief in this country, after all it had done to them, their families, their communities?
“We hold these truths to be self-evident.”
That all people are equal. That we all possess “unalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”
Those words were revolutionary in their time. And they indeed spawned a revolution. Despite my great disillusionment, they still inspire and hold true for me today. That’s the power of the enduring promise of America. Not that we will always, or even most of the time, get things right, or that we won’t stumble our way into dark and nearly hopeless chapters of genocide, slavery, internment, and yes, growing Christofascism today.
Loving the promise of America isn’t the same as loving what it has done and still does to break that promise, over and over. But I’ve come to appreciate the high value of maintaining our gaze upon that North Star, the one that still shines for liberation, fairness and equality. That the promise has now endured nearly 250 years speaks to our collective and deep desire for hope, even in the face of broad and dehumanizing injustice and inequity.
The America that our white, propertied, slave-holding male Founders envisioned isn’t what we’ve got today. But that’s because we’ve improved upon that vision. For me, the America of tomorrow is a truly multi-racial, multi-denominational, pluralistic democracy, a place of opportunity and prosperity, with no one left behind. That is the vision that sustains me. It’s the one where my Chinese father could hand out fireworks on July 4 to excited, white kids and seem the most American of all the dads.
We inherited both a sacred promise and a big mess from those who came before, and we’re still working on both. The fact that it is so very hard, and we have so very far still to go, is strong evidence of the incredible value of that promise. This is evidenced in great part by how fiercely others will fight with all they have to keep us from it.
But nothing worth fighting for was ever won without a fight. And in the end, the enemies of our unalienable rights will fail. That is the faith I keep.
Happy Independence Day. Our fight continues.
— Jay
***********************
As Jay says, “the fight continues.” And, the patriots quoted above are on the front lines!
Sad historical footnote: Whatever the “musical version of TJ supposedly ‘resolved,’” the real-life version freed only two enslaved workers in his lifetime and five (including two of his own children) at death. The rest of his enslaved workers and their families were sold upon his death to pay off his monumental debts. Thus, these enslaved African-Americans paid a huge personal price for this “Father of Freedom’s” gross financial mismanagement!
For African Americans, working and being owned by the primary drafter of the Declaration of Independence was a bad deal! No freedom, no pay, and almost all of those he owned at death got sold to pay off the debts he left, resulting in the permanent separation of families! This is the real history of our nation that Trump, DeSantis, and other GOP White Nationalist “snowflakes” don’t want you to hear or learn. IMAGE: Public realm
According to Wikipedia:
Thomas Jefferson, the third president of the United States, owned more than 600 slaves during his adult life. Jefferson freed two slaves while he lived, and five others were freed after his death, including two of his children from his relationship with his slave (and sister-in-law) Sally Hemings. His other two children with Hemings were allowed to escape without pursuit. After his death, the rest of the slaves were sold to pay off his estate’s debts.
Robert Reich Former US Secretary of Labor Professor of Public Policy CAL Berkeley Creative Commons LicenseNaturalization Ceremony USG Official Photo Public Domain
On Saturday, Donald Trump conducted the second formal rally of his campaign — in Pickens, South Carolina, where an estimated 50,000 turned up under the scorching sun to hear him.
There, he advanced his version of patriotism based on White Christian Nationalism.
He began by celebrating the town’s namesake, Francis Pickens, who was governor of South Carolina when it was the first to secede from the Union on the eve of the Civil War. Trump assured the crowd he wouldn’t let “them” change the town’s name.
He commended the Supreme Court for rejecting affirmative action “so someone who has not worked as hard will not take your place.”
He saluted the court’s decision to overrule Roe v. Wade so “radical left Democrats will not kill babies.”
He promised to stop “men competing in women’s sports” and prevent classroom teachers from teaching the “wrong” lessons about sexuality or history.
He condemned foreign governments that “send” over the border “people in jails and insane asylums” and promised to deny entry to “all communists and Marxists.”
And he declared America’s most dangerous opponents not to be Russia, China, or North Korea but “enemies within” America.
Rubbish.
The true meaning of patriotism is the opposite of Trump’s exclusionary White Christian Nationalism.
America’s moral mission has been toward greater inclusion — providing equal rights to women, Black people, immigrants, Native Americans, Latinx, LGBTQ+, Muslim, Jewish, atheist, and agnostic.
True patriots don’t fuel racist, religious, or ethnic divisions. Patriots aren’t homophobic or sexist.
Nor are patriots blind to social injustices — whether ongoing or embedded in American history. They don’t ban books or prevent teaching about the sins of the nation’s past.
True patriots are not uncritically devoted to America. They are devoted instead to the ideals of America — the rule of law, equal justice, voting rights and civil rights, freedom of speech and assembly, freedom from fear, and democracy.
True patriots don’t have to express patriotism in symbolic displays of loyalty like standing for the national anthem and waving the American flag.
They express patriotism in taking a fair share of the burdens of keeping the nation going — sacrificing for the common good.
This means paying taxes in full rather than lobbying for lower taxes or seeking tax loopholes or squirreling away money abroad.
It means refraining from making large political contributions that corrupt American democracy.
It means blowing the whistle on abuses of power even at the risk of losing one’s job.
And volunteering time and energy to improving one’s community and country.
Nor is patriotism found in baseless claims that millions of people vote fraudulently. Or in pushing for laws that make it harder for people to vote based on the Big Lie that the 2020 election was stolen.
Patriotism lies instead in strengthening democracy — defending the right to vote and ensuring more Americans are heard.
Patriots understand that when they serve the public, their responsibility is to maintain and build public trust in the institutions of democracy.
They don’t put loyalty to their political party above their love of America. They don’t support an attempted coup.
They don’t try to hold onto power after voters have chosen not to reelect them. They don’t make money off their offices.
When serving on the Supreme Court, they recuse themselves from cases where they may appear to have a conflict of interest. They don’t disregard precedent to impose their own ideology.
America’s problem is not as described by Trump and his White Christian Nationalism — that the nation is losing its whiteness or dominant religion, that too many foreigners are crossing its borders, that men are competing in women’s sports or teachers are not celebrating the nation’s history.
America’s problem is that too many Americans — including its lawmakers — are failing to understand what patriotism requires.
MEXICAN CARTELS NAME STEPHEN MILLER “BIDEN ADMINISTRATION PERSON OF THE YEAR” FOR HIS CONTINUING DEADLY INFLUENCE ON U.S. BORDER POLICIES! Attribution: Stephen Miller Monster by Peter Kuper, PoliticalCartoons.com
In 2019, the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP).1 What would become known as “remain in Mexico” was the latest in a decades-long effort by successive Republican and Democrat administrations to curb migration by making it increasingly difficult for migrants to enter and stay in the United States.
However, the policies have had numerous unintended consequences, including bolstering criminal organizations along the US-Mexico border. Whereas the smuggling of drugs and weapons used to dominate the cross-border contraband trade, human smuggling has morphed into one of the most lucrative industries for crime groups. It also has made it increasingly dangerous for migrants who face more risks en route and along the US border.
This report aims to highlight the role US policy has played in this transformation, which continues to evolve today. Specifically, it analyzes the ways in which Mexican organized crime groups have become involved in human smuggling as risks rose, prices surged, and migrants began to move through less-traveled corridors. The goal is to inform policymakers who are looking to address irregular migration and combat Mexico’s criminal organizations. We also aim to provide relevant stakeholders with opportunities for positive intervention to mitigate this human suffering by targeting the most violent criminal actors.
The findings are based on two years of desktop and field research across the Mexican states of Baja California, Chihuahua, Coahuila, Sonora, and Tamaulipas, where human smuggling is prominent. It includes dozens of in- person and remote interviews with migrants, asylum seekers, US and Mexican prosecutors, security experts, government officials, religious leaders, and migrant advocates, among others. In addition, we analyzed government data on human smuggling investigations and prosecutions, judicial cases, and previous studies on the topic.
1 US Department of Homeland Security (DHS), “Migrant Protection Protocols,” 24 January 2019.
insightcrime.org 4
Unintended Consequences: How US Immigration Policy Foments Organized Crime on the US-Mexico Border
2
Major Findings
insightcrime.org 5
1. The prevention through deterrence policies used by the US government have created an increasingly lucrative black market for human smuggling. Transnational criminal networks have assumed greater control over the movement of people and replaced the personalized, community-based nature of human smuggling that once existed.
2. The US government’s immigration policies have provided more opportunities for organized criminal groups to victimize migrants. The policies have, most notably, created a bottleneck along the US-Mexico border where northbound migrants are forced to congregate as they determine whether they are eligible to seek asylum and contemplate alternative ways to enter the country. As a result, they have become highly susceptible to extortion and kidnapping. And over time, restrictive immigration policies have expanded the scope of these lucrative, secondary criminal economies.
3. The US government’s immigration policies and the externalization of immigration enforcement to countries like Mexico have expanded the breadth of official corruption. As the US government has increased its reliance on third countries for enforcement and pushed migrants to remain in these countries, officials from these nations have expanded their illegal operations. These include extortion, kidnapping, and human smuggling rackets.
. . . .
*****************************************
Read and listen to the full report at the above link.
In many ways, this detailed report, based on two years of desk and field research, is a “Duh!”It mostly confirms what experts, advocates, and those who truly understand asylum law and border security have been saying for years. Arrogant politicos from both parties have “tuned out the truth” and suggestions for positive changes, for different reasons.
The GOP has no interest in the truth because it conflicts with and undermines their racist false narrative about “open borders” and “replacement theory.” The Dems, by contrast, basically recognize the racist lies behind the GOP “close the border” narrative. But, once in office, Dem “leaders” lack the political and moral courage to stand up for human rights, the rule of law, and to make the refugee, asylum, and legal immigration systems work, at the border, abroad, and in the interior.
In other words, while nominally opposing the GOP’s nativist/racist/alarmist rhetoric (particularly during elections when votes from progressives and ethic communities are needed), Dem leaders basically accept much of the restrictionist premise. That is, that increased regular legal immigration resulting from well-functioning refugee, asylum, and legal immigration systems that comply with existing laws and due process would be politically unpopular and that the Administration lacks the self-confidence and expertise to manage legal immigration, including asylum, in an orderly, professional, and competent manner that ultimately will greatly benefit both our nation and the immigrants.
Thus, experts and advocates find themselves continually isolated in a deadly and frustrating “no-persons’ land!’ They are armed with undeniable truth and the facts to back it up, yet for transcendent reasons, neither party will give them the time of day.
So, those with the answers are stuck in an endless cycle of law suits, toothless protests, letters in opposition, focus groups, op-eds, law review articles, talking heads, and blogs (like this one) none of which offer much hope of a durable solution. And, in the meantime, the cartels are loving every minute of political failure on the part of America!
In recent years, the [GOP’s] blind loyalty to Trump’s radicalism – especially his election lies – has caused it to even challenge the structure of democracy. A sense of national crisis and imminent political extinction, for example, ran through Trump’s rhetoric in the aftermath of the 2020 election, prompting some of his followers to use violence as a way of settling their political grievances on January 6, 2021.
Conservative Supreme Court decisions over the last two years have been especially hard for liberals to accept because they believe that the current majority is ill gotten.
The right’s dominance of the court happened in large part because then-Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell refused to even grant a confirmation hearing to Obama’s final pick for the top bench, Merrick Garland, who now serves as attorney general in the Biden administration. This allowed Trump to name Justice Neil Gorsuch as his first Supreme Court nominee in 2017. But McConnell later turned his back on his own questionable principle that Supreme Court nominees should not be elevated in an election year by rushing through the confirmation of Trump’s final pick, Amy Coney Barrett, in 2020 – which enshrined the current 6-3 conservative majority.
The move not only confirmed Trump’s status as a consequential president whose influence will be felt decades after he left office. It cemented McConnell among the ranks of the most significant Republican Party figures in decades and ensured conservative policies will endure even under Democratic presidencies and congressional majorities.
Recent revelations about questionable ethics practices by some of the conservative justices have further fueled fury about the legitimacy of the court among liberals.
But not all of the court’s recent decisions have infuriated the White House and Democrats. Earlier this week, for instance, liberals were hugely relieved when the court rejected a long-dormant legal theory that held that state courts and other state entities have a limited role in reviewing election rules established by state legislatures when it comes to federal elections. The so-called Independent State Legislature Theory, a favorite of the Trump campaign, had led to fears that Republican state legislatures in some states could simply decide how to allocate electoral votes regardless of results.
Still, the broad trajectory of the court – on issues including gun control, race, business, regulation, climate and many other issues – is firmly to the right.
*****************
It’s no coincidence that the Trumpist far-right assault on democracy began during the 2016 campaign with unprovoked attacks on Mexican migrants and bogus claims about the border and immigration. It was skillfully, if corruptly, followed up with weaponization of the immigration bureaucracy and packing of the Immigration Courts by the likes of Miller, Sessions, Barr, and Cooch.
We have seen the GOP’s assault and dehumanization of migrants carry over into attacks on a wide range of disadvantaged groups in American society including African-Americans, Hispanic-Americans, Asian-Americans, Muslim-Americans, women, the LGBTQ+ community, and many others.
Although the Supremes have held that every “person” in the United States is entitled to due process under law, that concept is ludicrous as applied to the U.S. Immigration Courts, where anti-asylum, anti-immigrant, pro-DHS bias still drives much of the decision making, prosecutors appoint the judges and write the rules, the Government can change results that don’t match its political agenda, and individuals are on trial for their lives without a right to appointed counsel or many times even the ability to fully understand the proceedings against them. Predictably, the overwhelming number of individuals stuck in this abusive system are persons of color, many women and children!
This is “colorblind” American justice? Gimmie a break!
Although Dems acknowledged many of these outrageous defects in the Immigration Courts while campaigning for votes in 2020, once in power, they have shown little inclination to correct this unacceptable situation that undermines our democracy.
In particular, given a chance to reform the Immigration Courts, re-compete on a merit basis judicial positions filled under questionable procedures (at best) during the Trump Administration, bring in competent judicial administrators laser-focused on due process and best practices, and remake the Immigration Courts into a bastion of great progressive judging —driven by due process and equal protection, Garland and the Dems have whiffed. In that way they have largely followed the Obama Administration’s failure to take seriously due process for persons who happen to be in Immigration Court.
The failure of Dems to take immigrant justice seriously, and their inexcusable blown opportunity to reshape the Immigration Courts into a training and proving ground for the best and most qualified candidates for Article III judgeships ties directly into the anti-democracy shift in the Article IIIs and the GOP’s ability to carry out its right-wing agenda through a Supremes majority highly unrepresentative of Americans and our values.
An informed observer might well wonder “If the Dems are unwilling and unable to reform and improve the Federal Courts they do control — and apparently are ashamed of the progressive values they espouse — how will they ever counter the right’s anti-democracy agenda?”
