🏴‍☠️☠️🤮⚰️👎🏻9th BLASTS BILLY THE BIGOT’S BIA’S BLATANTLY BIASED ANTI-ASYLUM ASSAULT — AGAIN — 2 More Losses For Billy’s Illegal “Any Reason To Deny” Program!

 

Dan Kowalski
Dan Kowalski
Online Editor of the LexisNexis Immigration Law Community (ILC)

Dan Kowalski reports from LexisNexis Immgration Community:

Immigration Law

pastedGraphic.pngQ

Daniel M. Kowalski

25 Aug 2020

CA9 on Credibility: Iman v. Barr

Iman v. Barr

“In light of the totality of the circumstances and in the context of the administrative record presented to us, the evidence in this case compels the conclusion that Iman’s testimony was credible. Exercising jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1), we therefore grant the petition and remand to the BIA for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”

[Hats of to Doug Jalaie!]

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

CA9 on Asylum, Motions to Reopen: Aliyev v. Barr

Aliyev v. Barr

“We hold that the BIA abused its discretion by determining that a noncitizen who seeks to reopen an earlier application for relief and attaches that application to the motion has failed to attach the “appropriate application for relief” as required by § 1003.2(c)(1). … We therefore grant the petition and remand.”

[Hats off to Corrine Nikolenko and Michael W. Schoenleber!]

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

None of this is “rocket science.” It’s immigration basics. While these 9th Cir. panels “flag” the steady stream of elementary errors, they continue to beg the real question: Why do they allow it to continue?

Due Process Forever!

PWS

08-25-20

🏴‍☠️☠️🤮⚰️👎KAKISTOCRACY KORNER: SPOTLIGHT ON AMERICA’S MOST DANGEROUS HATE GROUP: THE RNC!

 

Paul,

This past weekend, the Republican National Committee caved to white supremacist and other hate groups by adopting a resolution titled Refuting the Legitimacy of the Southern Poverty Law Center to Identify Hate Groups.

The focus of the resolution is that “the SPLC is a radical organization” that harms conservative organizations and voices through our hate group designations.

This attack on our work is an attempt to excuse the Trump administration’s pattern and practice of working with individuals and organizations that malign entire groups of people — immigrants, Muslims and the LGBTQ community — while promoting policies that undermine their very existence. It comes from the same vein as Trump’s claim that there were “very fine people” on both sides of the 2017 Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville.

Simply put, it’s an audacious attempt by Trump and the GOP to paper over the bigotry and racism that has been allowed to infect their policies.

This resolution comes at a moment when Trump will argue at the Republican National Convention that he will combat hate and bigotry, despite welcoming the support of QAnon. It also comes days after the indictment of Stephen Bannon, reminding us that Bannon was once the White House chief strategist and senior counselor and CEO of Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign. And it comes just after our special investigation shined a light on One America News Network’s Jack Posobiec, a reporter at Trump’s favorite network who is aligned with white supremacy and has used his platform to further hate speech and propaganda.

Trump should sever these ties to hate groups and extremists instead of doubling down through this RNC resolution.

The Trump administration has filled its ranks and consulted with alumni and allies from the Federation for American Immigration Reform, an anti-immigrant hate group that has ties to white supremacist groups and eugenicists. They include Julie KirchnerKris KobachJeff Sessions and, most notably, Stephen Miller.

The Trump administration has worked with hate groups like the Family Research Council (FRC) to roll back LGBTQ rights. FRC was designated an anti-LGBTQ hate group for decades of demonizing LGBTQ people and spreading harmful pseudoscience about them. Over the years, the organization has published books, reports and brochures that have linked being LGBTQ to pedophilia, claimed that LGBTQ people are dangerous to children and claimed that LGBTQ people are promiscuous and violent.

Anti-Muslim groups have also been welcomed into the administration, including the Center for Security Policy (CSP)Fred Fleitz, a longtime staffer, was appointed the executive secretary and chief of staff of the National Security Council. For decades, CSP has peddled absurd accusations that shadowy Muslim Brotherhood operatives have infiltrated all levels of government.

These extremists are seeking a license to continue spreading their bigotry and will do anything to undermine those — like the SPLC, which tracks and monitors hate groups — who expose their extremist views and oppose their attacks on communities. With this resolution, Trump and members of the GOP have shown the extent to which they will carry their water.

This past weekend, the RNC also released a resolution titled Resolution to Conserve History and Combat Prejudice – Christopher Columbus. It’s a remarkably transparent statement that hate and bigotry stem from Black Lives Matter protesters. The RNC and Trump did not denounce organizations that promote antisemitism, Islamophobia, neo-Nazis, anti-LGBTQ sentiment or racism. It only criticized the SPLC for challenging those groups.

Outraged? Here are two ways to take action today:

1.     Sign up for our next Power Hour Virtual Phone Bank on August 27. We’ll be calling likely unregistered voters of color in Georgia to share information on how they can register to vote.

2.    Listen and subscribe to our new podcast, Sounds Like Hate. Episode 2 is about the connections between extremists and the Trump administration.

Onward,

Margaret Huang
SPLC President & CEO

DONATE
Update Preferences | Unsubscribe | Privacy Policy | Contact Us

Was this message forwarded to you? Sign up to receive SPLC updates. Pick up SPLC merchandise from the SPLC store. Make a recurring donation to the SPLC and become a Friend of the Center. Make a donation in someone else’s honor and send them an eCard. Make a planned gift to the SPLC and become a Partner for the Future. Take advantage of corporate matching gift opportunities and find out if your employer will match your donation to the SPLC.

Southern Poverty Law Center
400 Washington Avenue
Montgomery, AL 36104

Copyright 2020

 

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

Pretty much says it all about today’s GOP and the Trump Administration.

·      No platform

·      No values

·      No truth

·      No humanity

·      No decency

·      No America

·      No inclusion

·      The party of “Dred Scottification,” Jim Crow, and White Supremacy

Sure “Sounds Like Hate” to me!

This November, vote like your life and the future of our world depend on it! Because they do!

PWS

08-25-20

 

 

 

SENATORS DEMAND IG INVESTIGATE BIAS, CORRUPTION, GROSS MISMANAGEMENT @ EOIR!

EYORE
“Eyore In Distress”
Once A Symbol of Fairness, Due Process, & Best Practices, Now Gone “Belly Up”
Laura Lynch
Laura Lynch
Senior Policy Counsel
AILA

Laura Lynch @ AILA reports:

FYI – On Friday, August 21st, Democratic members of the Senate Judiciary Committee sent a letter to the GAO requesting an investigation into the politicization of the immigration courts and EOIR’s mismanagement of the immigration courts during the COVID-19 pandemic.

 

Laura A. Lynch, Esq.

Senior Policy Counsel

Direct: 202.507.7627 I Email: llynch@aila.org

 

American Immigration Lawyers Association

Main: 202.507.7600 I Fax: 202.783.7853 I www.aila.org

1331 G Street NW, Suite 300, Washington, DC 20005

 

pastedGraphic.png  pastedGraphic_1.png  pastedGraphic_2.png  pastedGraphic_3.png

 

From: Davidson, Richard (Whitehouse) <Richard_Davidson@whitehouse.senate.gov>
Sent: Friday, August 21, 2020 3:24 PM
To: Davidson, Richard (Whitehouse) <Richard_Davidson@whitehouse.senate.gov>
Subject: Senators Call for GAO Investigation of Trump Politicization of Immigration Courts as COVID-19 Crisis Rages

 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

August 21, 2020

Contact: Rich Davidson

(202) 228-6291 (press office)

 

Senators Call for GAO Investigation of Trump Politicization of Immigration Courts as COVID-19 Crisis Rages

Trump attacks on immigration system raise serious concerns about safety during pandemic

More than 1,000 people in immigration detention have tested positive for COVID-19, and five have died

 

Washington, DC – Today, Senators Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), Dick Durbin (D-IL), and Mazie Hirono (D-HI) led a Senate request to the top congressional watchdog to investigate the practices of the Executive Office of Immigration Review (EOIR) under President Trump, including its management of immigration courts during the current COVID-19 pandemic.  In a letter to the Government Accountability Office (GAO), the senators raise concerns first voiced to the Justice Department in February about mismanagement of the EOIR under Attorney General William Barr, as well as the Trump administration’s regulatory and procedural changes at the Justice Department that have curtailed the independence of immigration courts.  The administration’s mismanagement of and meddling with the immigration courts – done in the name of “efficiency” – are particularly troubling during the COVID-19 pandemic, when an overburdened system can lead to unsafe practices that place individuals at grave risk and jeopardize due process, the senators write to the GAO.

 

“While the Trump administration has justified its incursions into the independence of immigration courts as efficiency measures, legal service providers have explained that EOIR’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic demonstrates how the agency can use seemingly neutral measures to tip the scales of justice against noncitizens,” the senators write.  “In order to defend themselves in immigration court, noncitizens must file motions and other papers in person at physical court locations; obtain counsel; meet with their attorneys; present testimony from family members, employers, and/or expert witnesses; and provide medical records, tax records, and other supporting documents.  Yet COVID-19 makes these actions potentially dangerous.”

 

Joining Whitehouse, Durbin, and Hirono in the request to the GAO are Senators Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Patrick Leahy (D-VT), Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Chris Coons (D-DE), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Cory Booker (D-NJ), and Kamala Harris (D-CA).

 

The senators continue in their letter to GAO, “Immigration courts are now reopening around the country, including in areas that are seeing increases in the number of COVID-19 cases.  Because EOIR does not have consistent policies for when attorneys, let alone translators or witnesses, may appear telephonically or by video, participants often must appear in person or not at all.  Immigration courts have continued to issue in absentia orders of removal for noncitizens who do not appear, even when the likely cause is COVID-19.  Nor has EOIR uniformly extended deadlines or continued cases, despite the difficulty noncitizens face in finding and consulting with counsel, obtaining and filing necessary documents and evidence, or securing the appearance of witnesses.  These difficulties are particularly acute for detained clients, who have limited access to phone calls and attorney visits.  As a result, noncitizens cannot obtain counsel or litigate their cases, and attorneys cannot effectively represent their clients.”

 

The Trump administration’s management of the immigration system has come under close scrutiny during the COVID-19 crisis.  Reports suggest immigrants face a range of unsafe conditions and practices as a result of Trump administration management decisions, including the detention of children using unaccountable private contractors.  More than 1,000 people in immigration detention have tested positive for COVID-19, and five people have died.

 

Full text of the senators’ request is below.  A PDF copy is available here.

 

 

August 21, 2020

The Honorable Gene Dodaro

Comptroller General of the United States

United States Government Accountability Office

441 G Street, NW

Washington, DC  20548

 

Dear Mr. Dodaro:

We are writing to request that the Government Accountability Office (GAO) analyze and audit the Executive Office of Immigration Review’s (EOIR) practices with respect to the hiring, training, and evaluation of immigration judges and staffing of immigration courts, as well as their management of these courts during the current COVID-19 pandemic.  GAO’s insight will help Congress determine if additional legislation is necessary to address these issues, as well as inform appropriations decisions.

In February, we wrote to Attorney General William Barr to express our concern that the Trump administration is undermining the independence of immigration courts.  As outlined in that letter, attached, we are concerned about the mismanagement of EOIR and troubled by regulatory and procedural changes within the Department of Justice (DOJ) that have curtailed the independence of immigration courts.  Although more than six months have passed, we have not received a response from DOJ or EOIR.  Instead, in that time, EOIR has continued to use its administrative powers to put its thumb on the scale of justice.  Most recently, EOIR attempted to buy out all nine career Board of Immigration Appeals judges who had been hired in prior administrations.[1]  When the judges refused, they were reassigned to new roles.[2]

While the Trump administration has justified its incursions into the independence of immigration courts as efficiency measures,[3] legal service providers have explained that EOIR’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic demonstrates how the agency can use seemingly neutral measures to tip the scales of justice against noncitizens.  In order to defend themselves in immigration court, noncitizens must file motions and other papers in person at physical court locations; obtain counsel; meet with their attorneys; present testimony from family members, employers, and/or expert witnesses; and provide medical records, tax records, and other supporting documents.  Yet COVID-19 makes these actions potentially dangerous.  While EOIR initially postponed all hearings for non-detained individuals, proceedings for detained noncitizens continued to move forward unabated.[4]  Immigration courts are now reopening around the country,[5] including in areas that are seeing increases in the number of COVID-19 cases.  Because EOIR does not have consistent policies for when attorneys, let alone translators or witnesses, may appear telephonically or by video,[6] participants often must appear in person or not at all.[7]  Immigration courts have continued to issue in absentia orders of removal for noncitizens who do not appear, even when the likely cause is COVID-19.[8]  Nor has EOIR uniformly extended deadlines or continued cases, despite the difficulty noncitizens face in finding and consulting with counsel, obtaining and filing necessary documents and evidence, or securing the appearance of witnesses.  These difficulties are particularly acute for detained clients, who have limited access to phone calls and attorney visits.[9]  As a result, noncitizens cannot obtain counsel or litigate their cases, and attorneys cannot effectively represent their clients.[10]

EOIR’s facially-neutral policies during the COVID-19 pandemic have raised systemic due process concerns.[11]  Immigration judges, staff, and litigators have also expressed concerns about the health risks to them and the litigants who appear in immigration courts.[12] Given GAO’s prior work on immigration courts,[13] it is uniquely suited to conduct an audit and analysis of EOIR.  We ask GAO to look into the following questions:

  1. What criteria does EOIR use to hire immigration judges and Board of Immigration Appeals judges?  What criteria does EOIR use to determine the number of deputy chief and other management positions for judges, and what criteria does EOIR use to hire for these positions?  To what extent does EOIR assess its immigration judge and Board of Immigration Appeals judge hiring efforts?  What, if any, challenges has EOIR encountered in recruiting and retaining immigration judges and Board of Immigration Appeals judges?  How, if at all, has it addressed them?
  2. How does EOIR determine targets for immigration court and Board of Immigration Appeals case completion time frames and caseloads?
  3. To what extent has EOIR assessed its immigration court and Board of Immigration Appeals staffing needs? What have any such assessments shown?  How do current immigration court staffing levels compare to staffing needs EOIR has identified?
  4. How does EOIR assess immigration and Board of Immigration Appeals judge performance?
  5. To what extent has EOIR assessed immigration judge and Board of Immigration Appeals judge training needs? What have any such assessments shown?
  6. How has EOIR’s use of video teleconferencing changed since GAO last reported on it in 2017?  What, if any, data is EOIR collecting on hearings using video teleconferencing and the effects of that technology on hearing outcomes?
  7. How do EOIR’s practices compare to other administrative courts?
  8. How, if at all, is EOIR addressing the backlog of cases that were postponed in response to the COVID-19 pandemic?

 

  1. How, if at all, has EOIR’s response to COVID-19 affected noncitizens’ ability to locate and meet with counsel, obtain and present evidence in their cases, and appear in court? To what extent have the challenges of COVID-19 impacted the number of in absentia orders issued by immigration courts?

 

Please keep our offices apprised of your review.  Thank you for your attention to this matter.

 

 

###

 

[1] Tanvi Misra, DOJ ‘reassigned’ career members of Board of Immigration Appeals, CQ Roll Call, June 9, 2020, available at https://www.rollcall.com/2020/06/09/doj-reassigned-career-members-of-board-of-immigration-appeals/.

[2] Id.

[3] Jeff Sessions, Attorney General, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Remarks to the Executive Office for Immigration Review Legal Training Program (Jun. 11, 2018), available at https://www.justice.gov/opa/speech/attorney-general-sessions-delivers-remarks-executive-office-immigration-review-legal.

[4] Executive Office for Immigration Review, EOIR Operational Status During Coronavirus Pandemic, https://www.justice.gov/eoir/eoir-operational-status-during-coronavirus-pandemic (last updated Aug. 19, 2020); American Immigration Lawyers Association, “AILA Tracks EOIR’s Historical Operational Status During Coronavirus Pandemic,” https://www.aila.org/eoir-operational-status (last visited Aug. 19, 2020).

[5] American Immigration Lawyers Association, supra note 4.

[6] Id.

[7] Emergency Mot. for a Temporary Restraining Order, Nat’l Imm. Project of the Nat’l Lawyers Guild v. Exec. Office of Imm. Review, No. 1:20-cv-00852-CJN, at 12-18 (D.D.C. Apr. 8, 2020), available at https://www.aila.org/advo-media/press-releases/2020/temporary-restraining-order-requested-to-stop.

[8] Id. at 15-16.

[9] Monique O. Madan, Despite national shortage, immigration lawyers required to bring their own medical gear, Miami Herald, Mar. 22, 2020, https://miamiherald.com/news/local/immigration/artcile241414486.html.

[10] Id. 12-15, 25-26.

[11] Betsy Woodruff Swan, Union: DOJ deportation appeals workers fear overcrowding, Politico, Apr. 23, 2020, https://www.politico.com/news/2020/04/23/doj-union-immigration-deportation-coronavirus-202075 (“That is the feeling the [EOIR] employees have, that [EOIR’s COVID response is] definitely connected to this administration and their desperation to be able to boast about how great they’re doing on their deportation numbers.”).

[12] Nat’l Assoc. of Immigration Judges, Am. Assoc. of Immigration Lawyers, & Am. Fed. Of Gov’t Employees Local 511, Position on the Health and Safety of Immigration Courts During the COVID-19 Pandemic, Mar. 15, 2020, available at https://naij-usa.org/images/uploads/newsroom/2020.03.15.00.pdf.

[13] See, e.g., Gov’t Accountability Office, Immigration Courts: Actions Needed to Reduce Case Backlog and Address Long-Standing Management and Operational Challenges (June 2017).

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

Basically, confirms what AILA, NAIJ, our Round Table, NGOs, and much of the media have been saying for a long time now! Obviously, the Dems lack the power in the Senate to take effective action to eliminate EOIR and replace it with an independent Article I Court, at present. Hopefully, that will be remedied in November.

In the meantime, what’s the excuse of the Article IIIs for continuing to allow this mockery of our Constitution and parody of justice to continue to daily inflict abuse on their fellow humans?

Due Process Forever!

PWS

08-25-20

POLITICS: Q: WHAT’S A SMART REPUBLICAN? — A: A FORMER REPUBLICAN!

 

https://apple.news/ATZFy4dGqRjur6j7a03l5yQ

The North Carolina Republicans Who Are Defecting from Trump

By Peter Slevin

Mike Hawkins, the Republican chairman of the Transylvania County Board of Commissioners, in North Carolina, was on vacation last summer when he saw clips from Donald Trump’s speech to cheering supporters at East Carolina University, in Greenville. Earlier that week, Trump had aimed tweets at four prominent Democratic members of Congress, all women of color, suggesting that they should “go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came.” Never mind that three . . . .

*********

Read the complete article at the link.

The GOP: A fundamentally anti-American party without values or policies that has become a cult of a maliciously incompetent racist.

PWS

08-24-20

BEWARE! — BS BONANZA ON THE WAY — Don’t Be Fooled By The Trump/GOP Liefest About The “Greatest Economy Ever!” — Time To Fire The Maliciously Incompetent Exec!

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/23/opinion/trump-convention-economy.html

Steven Rattner in The NY Times:

. . . .

Job growth in July was less than half the pace of the June increase, and August figures may well show a still smaller increase or — amazingly — no job growth at all. And that’s with only 42 percent of the lost jobs having been recovered so far.

There is evidence that a second wave of layoffs and furloughs is already underway — roughly three out of five workers who had reportedly returned to work have either been let go again or been told they are at risk of being sidelined again.

Much of the damage threatens to become irreversible. According to data collected by Yelp, more than half of business closures that were temporary when the virus outbreak began are now considered permanent. More retailers have gone bankrupt in the first eight months of 2020 than in all of 2008, during the Great Recession. Across all industries, Chapter 11 filings in July surged 52 percent over the same month last year, with no end in sight.

And our economy is in even greater jeopardy because Donald Trump, who proclaims himself the greatest dealmaker in history, can’t make a deal with the Democrats on a much-needed next rescue package.

While the proposals he has tried to bring about by executive action may well be illegal, they are indisputably ludicrous in their construct: A “payroll tax cut” that isn’t a tax cut at all — and even if it were, it would be the wrong way to provide help to the average American. Special unemployment benefits of $300 per week, half the amount lawmakers provided in the first round, the CARES Act. Nothing for schools, nothing for virus testing, nothing for state and local governments.

In the business world, when an employee doesn’t perform, we fire him (although not quite the way Mr. Trump did on “The Apprentice.”)

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

Read the rest of the article at the link!

This November, vote like your life and our nation’s future depend on it! Because they do!

PWS

08-24-20

🏴‍☠️☠️🤮⚰️🆘AMERICA’S SHAME — NATIONAL DISGRACE – SYSTEMIC INSTITUTIONAL FAILURE: From Supremes Who Abandoned Their Key Precedent In Cardoza-Fonseca, To A 5th Cir. Court Of Appeals That Shirked Its Duty To Protect Refugees, To A “Don’t Rock The Boat” BIA That Failed To Enforce Uniformity, To Unqualified & Biased Immigration “Judges” Who Created Illegal, “Asylum-Free Zones,” The U.S. Asylum System Was In Deep Trouble Even Before Trump – Under Trump, It Has Become A “Killing Floor” Programmed To Intentionally Deny & Deport Deserving Refugees To Death, Torture, Or Grotesque Mistreatment, As Indolent, Cloistered Article IIIs, Unwilling To Dig In & Stop The Slaughter Look On!

https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/immigration/story/2020-08-23/who-gets-asylum-even-before-trump-system-was-riddled-with-bias-and-disparities

An asylum seeker’s chances at protection hinge on numerous factors that often seem arbitrary — from location to nationality to individual judge assigned — according to a Union-Tribune analysis of immigration court records
By KATE MORRISSEY,
LAURYN SCHROEDER
AUG. 23, 2020
5 AM
For the world’s most vulnerable, protection in the United States has all but disappeared.
Wait times for asylum seekers at the U.S.-Mexico border that already seemed indefinite now seem impossible. Families struggle to find food and shelter to outlast a pandemic order with no end date.
Those who cross north are sent back to Mexico in a matter of hours — or even put onto planes back to the countries from which they fled — without any opportunity to explain why they came.
In its response to COVID-19, the Trump administration achieved what it long sought, a shutdown of the U.S. asylum system. And with new regulations introduced this summer, the administration has moved to squeeze out any real chance at refuge in case the pandemic order is lifted.
But even before the current president began his campaign against asylum in the United States, people often struggled to win protection — no matter how strong their cases appeared to be.
In its 40-year history, the system has chronically fallen short of its promise of safety.
RETURNED: PART II
The second in an occasional series in which the Union-Tribune explores the asylum system through the eyes of people who experience it firsthand, with drastically different outcomes.
The Trump administration has used statistics about grant rates to justify closing off access to asylum, saying that those who lose their cases are illegitimate asylum seekers.
The facts show a different story: Thousands of people turned away based not on the merits of their cases, but on the capriciousness of a system so riven with inequity that many outcomes seem little more than arbitrary.
A San Diego Union-Tribune analysis of 10 years of court outcomes uncovered many symptoms of the system’s biases — shortcomings that date to the system’s creation.
. . . .

 

***************************
Read the rest of this eye-opening (for those not familiar with this broken, biased, and beyond dysfunctional system) article at the above link.

There can be no excuse for the “horror chamber” that this already broken, battered, and unfair system has devolved into. It will take genuine changes in expertise, attitude, courage, and intellectual integrity across all three branches of Government to get this system functioning in a fair, legal, and constitutional manner consistent with due process and our international obligations.
It also will require much better, more educated, more courageous, more practical, and more intellectually honest judges from the Immigration Courts (which must become independent from the Executive) all the way up to and including the Supremes.

Better judges for a better America! Life tenure means it won’t happen overnight. But, the process needs to begin now for our nation to survive and prosper!

We can’t achieve equal justice for all with so many judges who don’t believe in it, don’t have expertise in and a commitment to human rights, and don’t have the guts to stand up for the legal, constitutional, and human rights of all individuals coming before our justice system. That specifically includes the “most vulnerable among us” – asylum seekers and other of our fellow humans whose humanity and right to live seem to fall below the “radar screen” of the current Supremes’ majority!

Due Process Forever! “Dred Scottification” and complicity, never!

PWS
08-24-20

🖕 BIRDLAND: Wolfman, USCIS “Flip Off” Supremes, Federal Courts, With A “Dumbed Down” Version Of DACA Resumption! 

 

Here’s the USCIS Directive:

From: U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services [mailto:uscis@public.govdelivery.com]
Sent: Monday, August 24, 2020 8:19 AM
To: Dan Kowalski
Subject: USCIS Implements DHS Guidance on DACA

 

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services today provided guidance on how it will implement Acting Secretary of Homeland Security Chad Wolf’s July 28 memorandum regarding the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) policy.

Under USCIS’ implementing guidance, we will reject all initial DACA requests from aliens who have never previously received DACA and return all fees. The rejections will be without prejudice, meaning aliens will be able to reapply should USCIS begin accepting new requests in the future from aliens who never before received DACA. USCIS will continue to accept requests from aliens who had been granted DACA at any time in the past and will also accept requests for advance parole that are properly submitted to the address specified on the Direct Filing Addresses for Form I-131 webpage.

For approvable DACA renewal requests, USCIS will limit grants of deferred action and employment authorization under DACA to no more than one year, but will not rescind any currently valid two-year grants of DACA or associated employment authorization documents (EADs), unless USCIS terminates an alien’s DACA for failure to continue to meet the DACA criteria (see 2012 Memorandum), including failure to warrant a favorable exercise of prosecutorial discretion. USCIS will replace two-year EADs that are lost, stolen or damaged with the same facial two-year validity period assuming the EAD replacement application is otherwise approvable.

USCIS will generally reject requests received more than 150 days before the current grant of DACA expires. DACA recipients should file their renewal request between 150 and 120 days before their current grant of DACA expires.

USCIS will only grant advance parole for travel outside the United States to DACA recipients pursuant to the new guidance, which provides for a determination that parole of the alien is for urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit in keeping with the governing statute. The agency will not rescind any previously granted advance parole documents unless there is another legal reason to do so. However, as has always been the case, parole into the United States is not guaranteed. In all cases, aliens are still subject to immigration inspection at a port-of-entry to determine whether they are eligible to come into the United States.

The determination whether to grant advance parole to an alien is entirely within the discretion of USCIS and must be made on a case-by-case basis. USCIS will review all the factors presented in individual cases before determining whether to approve advance parole for a DACA recipient based on the new guidance. Some examples of circumstances that may warrant approval include, but are not limited to, situations such as:

  • Travel to support the national security interests of the United States;
  • Travel to support U.S. federal law enforcement interests;
  • Travel to obtain life-sustaining medical treatment that is not otherwise available to the alien in the United States; or
  • Travel needed to support the immediate safety, wellbeing or care of an immediate relative, particularly minor children of the alien.

Even if a requestor establishes that their situation meets one of the examples above, USCIS may still deny the request for advance parole in discretion under the totality of the circumstances.

CAUTION: If you travel outside the United States on or after Aug. 15, 2012, without first receiving advance parole, your departure automatically terminates your deferred action under DACA.

Please do not reply to this message.  See our Contact Us page for phone numbers and e-mail addresses.

Notably, the plaintiffs have already filed a contempt motion in the DACA litigation: https://www.lexisnexis.com/legalnewsroom/immigration/b/outsidenews/posts/daca-advocates-file-contempt-motion-against-dhs

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

The actions of Wolfman, his cronies, and the Government lawyers who carry their water are obviously those of lawless individuals who neither fear nor expect accountability. And, why should they? 

After more than three years of unrelenting corruption, bad faith, lies, misrepresentations, and overt illegal and unconstitutional actions motivated by racism and xenophobia, just what “consequences” have Administration officials carrying out the Trump/Miller program of “nullification” and “institutionalized racism” suffered? Not many, that I can see, beyond an inordinate number of lower Federal Court defeats that they ignore or avoid in bad faith. Occasionally, certainly nowhere close to as often as they deserve, the regime receives a relatively mild rebuke from the Supremes. But, for the most part, the resulting orders are largely toothless and merely suggest ways in which they can be avoided or “worked around” without consequences.

We’ll see if this time is different. But, I wouldn’t count on it!

PWS

08-24-20

🏴‍☠️DONALD TRUMP: FAILED FASCIST!  — But, Fascism Doesn’t Doesn’t Have To Be “Successful” On Some “Academic Scale” To Threaten The Downfall Of Our Democracy! — We Ignore Trump’s Fascism At Our Peril!

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/how-fascist-is-president-trump-theres-still-a-formula-for-that/2020/08/21/aa023aca-e2fc-11ea-b69b-64f7b0477ed4_story.html

By John McNeill in WashPost Outlook:

. . . .

So where does Trump’s administration stand as he is nominated for a second term? He earned 47 of a possible 76 Benitos, or 62 percent. He remains the greatest threat to American democracy since the Civil War, but his exercise of power only partly resembles that of real fascists. He still faces checks and balances in Washington. He hasn’t shut down rival parties or uncompliant media.

He has not directed the armed might of the state against citizens on anything like the scale used by Mussolini, let alone Hitler. He does not have his own obedient “squadristi” eager to beat up foes, even if plenty of his followers advocate (and sometimes indulge in) violence against minorities and Trump’s opponents. He has not arranged the murder of prominent political opponents. The cult of violence is integral to fascism but far less central to Trump. He is not ruling like a genuine fascist.

But he has shown pronounced fascistic leanings. In the right circumstances — a crisis he could manage triumphantly, a more sympathetic military — perhaps he would try to extend his rule beyond whatever the voters allow him and convert the United States into a repressive, racist dictatorship. Or perhaps stage phony elections that hand the reins to Ivanka and Jared. At least a few members of Congress would probably support him, just as many parliamentarians voted to give Mussolini and Hitler emergency powers. Those lawmakers did not know at the time just where fascism might lead. We have a clearer idea.

John McNeill is a professor of history at Georgetown University.

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

Read the complete op-ed at the above link.

I get that Trump’s maliciousness is somewhat tempered by his overall incompetence. 

But, with due respect to Professor McNeill, I think he presents a “upper class intellectual” view of Trump’s vileness and danger on the “fascism scale.” His pre-existing privilege have largely shielded him, and likely his family and most of his associates, from the true effects of Trump’s White Nationalist fascism. 

However, I think that African Americans who have had family members and friends killed or seriously harmed by police, only to be mocked, threatened, and disenfranchised by the Prez; children and families separated forever; kids and asylum applicants jailed in life-threatening conditions; refugees and other family members stranded forever abroad; lawyers and advocates who risk their health and safety every day to defend the most vulnerable among us; the ghosts of those who have died of COVID-19 in detention; those with family members needlessly lost to COVID-19; ethnic communities who have been terrorized by DHS and who have seen a sharply diminished ability to seek protection from crimes; Asian Americans who have victimized by hate crimes; those who have lost health insurance coverage, jobs, and shelter; Muslims scapegoated for others’ crimes; transgender youth driven to depression and suicide by government endorsed harassment and denial of basic human rights; and a host of others living below McNeill’s radar screen might disagree with his “failed” analysis.

Also, like many academics and intellectuals shielded by the Ivory Tower, McNeill vastly overestimates the effect of “checks and balances.” In fact, Trump has been able to rule lawlessly, if incompetently, without meaningful participation of Congress and with little effective pushback from the Federal Courts. 

He’s made mincemeat of the few in the Executive Branch with the guts and integrity to oppose him, without engendering meaningful and anything approaching effective reactions from the other two Branches. His own party has publicly and fully turned against American democracy and the rights, well being, and humanity of the rest (e.g., the majority) of us. That’s pretty effective fascism in my book, even considering the less than competent implementation.

It’s a mark of just how ineffectual our system of “checks and balances” has been that we are, as a nation, without a functioning immigration system; without functioning Immigration Courts; without a national plan or rational response to a dangerous pandemic; without a plan to protect our precious franchise or to insure safe, free, and fair elections this fall; with a failing postal system that has been politicized; without a plan to address the threat of global warning and, indeed, doing everything in our power to make it worse!

This is not “failed fascism!” Rather it is a fascist state run by malicious incompetents and headed by a  leader without the attention span, intellectual capacity, or ability to fully develop any intellectual doctrine and implement its full range of destruction. But, that only slightly diminishes his danger to our body politic!

That Trump dares to put forth outrageous ideas like not leaving office following defeat, barring U.S. citizens from re-entering their country, sending police to polling stations, and questioning the citizenship of  Kamala Harris shows just how feckless our democratic institutions have been in the face of tyranny and how misguided it is to understate Trump’s fascism.

With his overtly outrageous program of “Dred Scottification” of “the other” — largely and embarrassingly embraced by a Supremes’ majority — Trump has moved our nation as far away from “equal justice for all” as we have been in the supposed “post-Jim-Crow” era!

To rely on the “beneficial effects” of incompetence on malicious would-be fascism is a fool’s errand that could cost us dearly. Indeed, until it was too late, the leaders of Western Democracies rather consistently overplayed the cartoonish characteristics of Hitler’s and Mussolini’s “pseudo-super-macho” personalities and underplayed the potential destructive capacity of their fascism, whether “failed” or not. The threat is real and this is likely to be our last clear chance as a nation to save our democracy!

This November, vote like your life and the future of the world depend on it! Because they do!

PWS

08-24-20

🏴‍☠️☠️👎🏻🤡🎪🤮KAKISTOCRACY WATCH: How Do You “Dumb Down” An Already Dysfunctional Organization? — Just Ask EOIR! — Latest Ludicrous Regs Proposals Show Why America Would Be Better Off Without Clown Courts Putting On Expanded “Freak Show” Under The Big Top!

EYORE
“Eyore In Distress”
Once A Symbol of Fairness, Due Process, & Best Practices, Now Gone “Belly Up”

Read the “advance copy of proposed regulations” scheduled to be published in the Federal Register on August 26, 2020 here:  https://s3.amazonaws.com/public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2020-18676.pdf

WARNING: Any resemblance to a court of law or part of the justice system contained in the document at the link is purely coincidental.

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

The short-term solution is actually simple: The Article IIIs need to strike this system down as a patently ridiculous denial of 5th Amendment Due Process. All immigration proceedings should be conducted de novo before U.S. Magistrate Judges, with review by District Judges and Circuit Courts, until Congress acts to establish an Immigration Court System that complies with our Constitution!

Due Process Forever!

PWS

08-23-20

JULIA AINSLEY & JACOB SOBOROFF @ NBC NEWS REPORT ON WHITE NATIONALIST WHITE HOUSE: Neo-Nazi Stephen Miller & Cabinet Racists Voted To Abuse Brown Children: “If we don’t enforce this, it is the end of our country as we know it,” Said The New American Gruppenfuhrer!” — “Any moral argument regarding immigration ‘fell on deaf ears’ inside the White House, said one of the officials.”

Julia Edwards Ainsley
Julia Edwards Ainsley
NBC News Correspondent
Jacob Soboroff
Jacob Soboroff
Correspondent
NBC News

https://apple.news/AZFgY4X7BQsaKSITqteCbIg

Trump cabinet officials voted in 2018 White House meeting to separate migrant children, say officials

“If we don’t enforce this, it is the end of our country as we know it,” said Trump adviser Stephen Miller, say officials present at a White House meeting.

by Julia Ainsley and Jacob Soboroff | NBC NEWS

WASHINGTON — In early May 2018, after weeks of phone calls and private meetings, 11 of the president’s most senior advisers were called to the White House Situation Room where they were asked, by a show-of-hands vote, to decide the fate of thousands of migrant parents and their children, according to two officials who were there.

Trump’s senior adviser, Stephen Miller, led the meeting and, according to the two officials, he was angry at what he saw as defiance by Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen.

It had been nearly a month since then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions had launched the Trump administration’s “zero tolerance” policy, announcing that every immigrant who crossed the U.S. border illegally would be prosecuted, including parents with small children. But so far, U.S. border agents had not begun separating parents from their children to put the plan into action, and Miller, the architect of the Trump administration’s crackdown on undocumented immigrants, was furious about the delay.

Those invited included Sessions, Nielsen, Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar and newly installed Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, according to documents obtained by NBC News.

Nielsen told those at the meeting that there were simply not enough resources at DHS, nor at the other agencies that would be involved, to be able to separate parents, prosecute them for crossing the border and return them to their children in a timely manner, according to the two officials who were present. Without a swift process, the children would enter into the custody of Health and Human Services, which was already operating at near capacity.

Two officials involved in the planning of zero tolerance said the Justice Department acknowledged on multiple occasions that U.S. attorneys would not be able to prosecute all parents expeditiously, so sending children to HHS was the most likely outcome.

As Nielsen had said repeatedly to other officials in the weeks leading up to the meeting, according to two former officials, the process could get messy and children could get lost in an already clogged system.

Miller saw the separation of families not as an unfortunate byproduct, but as a tool to deter more immigration. According to three former officials, he had devised plans that would have separated even more children. Miller, with the support of Sessions, advocated for separating all immigrant families, even those going through civil court proceedings, the former officials said.

While “zero tolerance” ultimately separated nearly 3,000 children from their parents, what Miller proposed would have separated an additional 25,000, including those who legally presented themselves at a port of entry seeking asylum, according to Customs and Border Protection data from May and June 2018.

That plan never came to fruition, in large part because DHS officials had argued it would grind the immigration process to a halt. But after Sessions’ announcement that all families entering illegally would be prosecuted, the onus had fallen on DHS to act.

At the meeting, Miller accused anyone opposing zero tolerance of being a lawbreaker and un-American, according to the two officials present.

“If we don’t enforce this, it is the end of our country as we know it,” said Miller, according to the two officials. It was not unusual for Miller to make claims like this, but this time he was adamant that the policy move forward, regardless of arguments about resources and logistics.

No one in the meeting made the case that separating families would be inhumane or immoral, the officials said. Any moral argument regarding immigration “fell on deaf ears” inside the White House, said one of the officials.

“Miller was tired of hearing about logistical problems,” said one of the officials. “It was just, ‘Let’s move forward and staff will figure this out.'”

Frustrated, Miller accused Nielsen of stalling and then demanded a show of hands. Who was in favor of moving forward, he asked?

A sea of hands went up. Nielsen kept hers down. It was clear she had been outvoted, according to the officials.

In the days immediately following the meeting, Nielsen had a conversation with then-CBP Commissioner Kevin McAleenan inside her office at the Ronald Reagan Building, and then signed a memo instructing DHS personnel to prosecute all migrants crossing the border illegally, including parents arriving with their children.

. . . .

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

Read the rest of the report, detailing the full extent of this outrageous, illegal, and immoral conduct by corrupt high-level officials of our Government, at the link. This is what your tax dollars have been used for, while legitimate needs like coronavirus testing, disaster relief (see, Iowa), mail delivery, naturalization services, unemployment relief, etc., go unmet!

So, separated families and children continue to suffer, much of the harm and trauma irreparable and life-defining. This “policy” was so clearly illegal and unconstitutional that DOJ attorneys conceded its unconstitutionality in Federal Court. 

However, in an ethics-free DOJ, those same lawyers falsely claimed that there was no such policy. Rudimentary “due diligence” on their part, required by professional ethics, would have revealed that their representations on behalf of corrupt institutional “clients” were false.

The article also confirms the complicity of Kevin “Big Mac  With Lies” McAleenan in gross, intentional human rights violations. Courtside exposed “Big Mac” long ago! 

While the victims continue to suffer, Miller, Sessions, Nielsen, Big Mac, and other cowards who planned and carried out these “crimes against humanity,” directed at some of the most vulnerable humans in the world, remain at large. Some, like Miller, actually remain on the “public dole.” Likely, so do the DOJ lawyers who unprofessionally defended and helped obscure this misconduct in Federal Court.

It’s also worth examining the role of U.S. Magistrate Judges and U.S. District Judges along the southern border, most of whom turned a blind eye to the transparent racial and political motives, not to mention the grotesque misallocation of public resources, driving Sessions’s “zero tolerance” misdirection of scarce prosecutorial resources from serious felonies to minor immigration prosecutions. 

As I’ve been saying, “Better Federal Judges for a better America!” And, better Federal Judges start with removal of the Trump regime as well as the ousting of “Moscow Mitch” and the GOP from Senate control. 

Will there ever be accountability? Our national soul and future might depend on the answer!

Had enough wanton cruelty, neo-Nazism, corruption, illegality, immorality, cowardice, lies, false narratives, racism, stupidity, and squandering of tax dollars on nativist schemes and gimmicks? Get motivated and take action to get our nation back on track to being that “City upon a Hill” that the rest of the world used to admire and respect!

This November, vote like your life and the very future of humanity depend on it! Because they do!

PWS

08-21-20

😎⚖️👍 COULD THERE BE JUSTICE IN THE WORLD? – White Nationalist Stevie “Scumsack” Bannon Indicted For Allegedly Defrauding Fellow Racists On Border Wall Crowdfunding Scam!  

 

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/steve-bannon-indicted-trump-campaign_n_5f3e7c8ac5b609f4f675a933

 

POLITICS 

  50 minutes ago

Former Trump Strategist Steve Bannon Indicted In ‘Build The Wall’ Scheme

The former Trump campaign executive was arrested Thursday morning. A grand jury said he used donated funds to cover personal expenses.

By Hayley Miller and Ryan J. Reilly

Steve Bannon, a former chief strategist in President Donald Trump’s White House, was arrested on Thursday after a grand jury indicted him on federal charges for allegedly using hundreds of thousands of dollars from an online “We Build The Wall” fundraiser to cover his personal expenses.

Bannon and three others ― Brian Kolfage, Andrew Badolato and Timothy Shea ― were charged in connection with their roles in “defrauding hundreds of thousands of donors in connection with an online crowdfunding campaign known as ‘We Build the Wall’ that raised more than $25 million,” the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York announced Thursday morning.

The four defendants are each charged with one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud and one count of conspiracy to commit money laundering. Each charge carries a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison.

Kolfage, the founder of “We Build the Wall,” had assured donors that all the money would go toward construction of a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border, acting U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York Audrey Strauss said in a statement. But the defendants “secretly schemed to pass hundreds of thousands of dollars to Kolfage, which he used to fund his lavish lifestyle,” she said.

Bannon, 66, received over $1 million from the crowdfunding campaign, which he funneled through a nonprofit that he operates, according to prosecutors. Hundreds of thousands of dollars of that money reportedly went toward his personal expenses.

. . . .

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

Couldn’t happen to more deserving folks! Although, I’ll have to admit to feeling little sympathy for the alleged “victims” who contributed to Bannon & co’s vile, racist symbolism. Maybe it just illustrates the old saying “no honor among thieves!” No honor among White Nationalists either!

The irony: Immigrants, of all types and statuses, are generally law-abiding, despite the false claims and bogus contrary narratives spread by Trump and his followers. Tump’s White Nationalist buddies: not so much!

This November, vote like your life and our nation’s future depend on it. Because they do!

PWS

08-20-20

 

CHANNELING COURTSIDE: Billy The Bigot’s Bias, Lies, & Absurdist “Legal Arguments” Have Tanked The DOJ’s Credibility With U.S. Courts – “The problem with bypassing professionals and norms is that the decisions you make instead are often transparently foolish, or appear rigged to achieve an unprincipled or corrupt result,” says WashPost Op-Ed – So, Why Does Billy B Still Have A Law License? 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/08/18/justice-departments-extreme-legal-arguments-are-costing-it-court/

 

Opinion by

George T. Conway III and

Lawrence S. Robbins

August 18, 2020 at 5:12 p.m. EDT

Lawrence S. Robbins is an appellate and trial lawyer at Robbins Russell. George T. Conway III is a lawyer and an adviser to the Lincoln Project, an anti-Trump super PAC. The writers both submitted friend-of-the-court briefs opposing the government’s motion in the Flynn case.

If there’s one thing you can say about President Trump and his administration, it’s that nothing is regular except the irregular, which has had myriad damaging consequences for the nation. And it’s had particularly adverse consequences for the federal government’s ability to defend itself in court.

The latest example comes in the criminal case against Trump’s first, short-tenured national security adviser, Michael Flynn. He pleaded guilty — not once but twice — to charges that he had lied to FBI agents during an interview about his conversations with senior Russian officials during the presidential transition. Despite Flynn’s admissions of guilt, Attorney General William P. Barr filed a motion asking that the case be dismissed — and supporting Flynn’s effort to have that done without even a hearing before the district judge.

Flynn won before an appeals court panel. But when the full court of appeals heard arguments on Flynn’s petition, the judges couldn’t have seemed more bewildered at the Trump administration’s position. The government argued that the district judge couldn’t inquire into the government’s reasons for seeking dismissal even if he’d seen the prosecutor take a bribe, in open court, in exchange for dismissing the case.

The Trump administration has been saying things like that a lot lately — trying to stretch the law in ways that undermine its remaining credibility. It argued that a sitting president’s accountants and bankers can’t be subpoenaed for his personal records during his term in office by either a state grand jury or, without meeting an impossibly high burden, by Congress. It argued that the president’s close aides can’t be called to testify before a congressional committee investigating presidential misconduct. The least trustworthy administration in decades, if not ever, keeps arguing: “You’ve just got to trust us.”

Lawyers have a phrase for the government’s saying “Trust us.” It’s called the “presumption of regularity.” The presumption of regularity means that courts should presume that government officials acted through a “regular” process: that it carefully vetted its policy and scrupulously examined relevant legal precedents.

 

But, as its name suggests, the presumption of regularity rests on the premise that the government is functioning in a regular way. And the Trump administration is anything but regular. Following the cues of a chief executive who despises what he calls the “deep state,” administration officials have cut corners, displaced career professionals, exiled dissenters and abandoned institutional norms — in short, circumvented the very processes that justify the presumption of regularity in the first place.

 

The chickens have now come home to roost. Whether they say so explicitly or not, courts have been dispensing with the presumption of regularity. The best example: In the litigation over the 2020 Census, the Supreme Court held that Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross’s decision to add a citizenship question to the census form was arbitrary and capricious. The reason? “Altogether,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote, “the evidence does not match the explanation the secretary gave for his decision.” That’s just a polite lawyer’s way of saying Ross lied.

Examples of the administration’s disrespect for regularity are legion, and not just confined to litigated matters. Barr has acted as a virtual one-man band of irregularity: He forced the U.S. attorney in Washington, Jessie K. Liu, out of her job, thereby enabling him to countermand former special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s sentencing recommendation for Roger Stone. And Barr gave a transparently false account of the Mueller report in the week before it was released to the public.

 

. . . .

 

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

Read the rest of the op-ed at the above link.

Perhaps the most disturbing thing is that Billy the Bigot actually “runs” a so-called “court system” — the U.S. Immigration Court — that has life or death authority over some of the most vulnerable individuals in our society, indeed in the world! How this stunning violation of both the Fifth Amendment and fundamental human decency (not to mention basic principles of competent management and good governance) continues to grind humanity into a grisly mess 🤮 of human misery ☠️ in plain sight every day is beyond me!

Almost everything in this “spot on” op-ed echoes “Courtside.” I have consistently criticized the irresponsibility and the gross dereliction of Constitutional duty by a Supremes majority that all too often treats Trump’s patently false, racist, xenophobic, and invidious immigration, refugee, and asylum policies as the actions of a “normal Executive” when Trump is nothing of the sort.

Nor does he even claim to be! He ran on overtly racist and hate-driven policies and has promoted racist tropes and lies about immigrants at every turn. Yet, the Supremes often pretend that there is some “legitimate basis” for clearly illegitimate policies and abrogation of important laws without the involvement of Congress and of Constitutional protections without any reasonable, fact-based justification.

If the “chickens have come home to roost” for the corrupt Trump DOJ, so will they eventually come home to roost for Supremes who have disingenuously and intentionally looked the other way and have enabled, or in some cases even encouraged, Trump’s racist and lie-driven dismantling of American democracy and “Dred Scottification” of “the other.” Life tenure protects the jobs of derelict Federal Judges. But, it won’t protect their reputations from the truth of history.

This November, vote like your life and the future of America depend on it! Because they do!

PWS

08-19-20

THE GIBSON REPORT — 08-17-20 — Compiled By Elizabeth Gibson, Esquire, NY Legal Assistance Group

Elizabeth Gibson
Elizabeth Gibson
Attorney, NY Legal Assistance Group
Publisher of “The Gibson Report”

COVID-19

Note: Policies are rapidly changing, so please verify the latest policies on the relevant government websites and with colleagues on listservs as best you can.

 

New

  • Opening dates for some non-detained courts: Hearings in non-detained cases at courts without an announced date are postponed through, and including, September 4, 2020.
  • New 26 Federal Plaza Standing Order: All  master  calendar  hearings  for  represented  respondents  will  be  conducted  telephonically. The standing order also provides detailed information regarding requesting telephonic individuals or decisions on the papers, including requirements for consent forms waiving the right to appear in person.

 

Closures

 

Guidance:

 

TOP NEWS

 

The Trump Administration Is Preparing To Treat Asylum-Seekers As Security Threats

Buzzfeed: If implemented, the rule would take effect for 90 days and block immigrants who’ve been in Mexico or Canada within the last two weeks from legal protections.

 

Top DHS officials Wolf and Cuccinelli are not legally eligible to serve in their current roles, GAO finds

WaPo: Trump has repeatedly circumvented the Senate confirmation process by installing appointees to interim positions, and then has left them in those roles indefinitely without a formal nomination or the backing of Congress.

 

US immigration services set to furlough two-thirds of its workers after coronavirus stimulus talks fail

USA Today: U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services notified about 13,400 of its 20,000 employees that they would be furloughed Aug. 30 because of budget shortfalls, which the agency hoped Congress would fill in its next relief package before negotiations stalled last week.

 

Judge: Outside experts can visit immigrant detention center

AP: U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema agreed to a request from lawyers of inmates who have filed a lawsuit over conditions to allow a medical expert to conduct an inspection at the private facility in Farmville.

 

A Private Security Company Is Detaining Migrant Children at Hotels

NYT: Under emergency coronavirus orders, the Trump administration is using hotels across the country to hold migrant children and families before expelling them.

 

ICE Guards Have A “Pattern And Practice” Of Sexually Assaulting Immigrants, A Complaint Says

Buzzfeed: The continued sexual harassment and assaults the immigrants allegedly experienced at the hands of ICE officers were detailed in a complaint filed with the El Paso County District Attorney, the US Attorney’s Office for the Western District of Texas, and the Department of Homeland Security’s Office of Inspector General this week. The allegations inside the El Paso Processing Center (EPPC) were first reported by ProPublica.

 

Fear, language barriers hinder immigrant contact-tracing

AP: Contact tracers take pains to reassure patients that nothing will be passed along to immigration officials, that they don’t have to provide Social Security or insurance information, and that their contacts won’t know who shared their names and phone numbers.

 

Apple to Amazon Line Up Against Trump’s Immigrant Visa Ban

Bloomberg: The group asked a court Monday to be allowed to add the industry’s voice to a lawsuit opposing the ban, saying it’s causing “irreparable harm on businesses and the nation’s economy.”

 

Why do Americans think more immigration means more crime?

CSM: There’s a nagging myth that immigration and crime go hand in hand, despite data to the contrary. Our reporters look at why the misperception endures.

 

Dozens of immigrants in Elko area suffer after postal worker accused of intentionally discarding immigration documents

Nevada Ind: A letter dated June 2020 from the Office of the Inspector General addressed to the senator’s office explains an investigation had already been underway and determined that a postal office employee in Salt Lake City had intentionally discarded the missing federal immigration documents.

 

LITIGATION/CASELAW/RULES/MEMOS

 

CA2 Limits Public Charge Injunction to Vermont, Connecticut, and New York

The court limited its injunction on DHS public charge rules to within the Second Circuit (Connecticut, New York, and Vermont). USCIS has not yet issued guidance on how it will implement these differing public charge standards. (Make the Road New York, et al. v. Cuccinelli, et al., 8/12/20) AILA Doc. No. 19101103

 

District Court Suspended Two Asylum Policies After Finding Ken Cuccinelli’s Appointment Violated the Federal Vacancies Reform Act

The government dismissed its appeal of a district court’s ruling that the Trump administration had illegally appointed Ken Cuccinelli to serve as the acting director of USCIS and that two immigration directives issued by him were “invalid.” (L.M.-M., et al., v. Cuccinelli, 8/13/20) AILA Doc. No. 20030335

 

Advocacy Organizations File Lawsuit Challenging New DHS Asylum EAD Rules

Several immigration advocacy organizations filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland challenging two new DHS final rules pertaining to employment authorization documents (EADs) for asylum seekers. (Casa de Maryland, Inc., et al. v. Wolf, et al., 7/21/20) AILA Doc. No. 20081235

 

Class Action Lawsuit Challenges Unconstitutional National Origin Discrimination Against MAVNI-Naturalized Citizens

The plaintiff, a naturalized U.S. citizen who entered the U.S. Army through the Military Accessions Vital to National Interest (MAVNI) Program, filed a class action lawsuit challenging DoD’s allegedly discriminatory MAVNI-based security clearance policies. (Kaden v. Esper, et al., 8/13/20) AILA Doc. No. 20081730

 

BIA Holds Convictions Vacated Under Cal. Penal Code 1473.7 Not Valid for Immigration Purposes

Unpublished BIA decision holds that convictions vacated under Cal. Penal Code 1473.7 are no longer valid for immigration purposes because the statute requires a procedural or substantive defect in underlying criminal proceedings. Special thanks to IRAC. (Matter of C-H-C-, 3/30/20) AILA Doc. No. 20081303

 

BIA Holds Colorado Definition of Marijuana Broader Than Federal Definition

Unpublished BIA decision holds that Colorado’s definition of marijuana is broader than the federal definition because it includes marijuana stalks. Special thanks to IRAC. (Matter of Arellano-Casas, 3/17/20) AILA Doc. No. 20081200

 

BIA Dismisses Charge of Conspiracy to Commit Fraud-Related Aggravated Felony

Unpublished BIA decision finds that respondent was not convicted of an aggravated felony under INA 101(a)(43)(U) where the IJ dismissed the corresponding charge under INA 101(a)(43)(M) because the loss to the victim was less than $10,000. Special thanks to IRAC. (Matter of Gray, 3/6/20) AILA Doc. No. 20081401

 

BIA Dismisses Interlocutory DHS Appeal Challenging Administrative Closure Following Approval of Form I-360

Unpublished BIA decision declines to consider interlocutory DHS appeal challenging administrative closure for respondent with approved Form I-360 to await a current priority date. Special thanks to IRAC. (Matter of D-J-B-F-, 3/20/20) AILA Doc. No. 20081201

 

BIA Rescinds In Absentia Order Where Hearing Notice Omitted Word “Street”

Unpublished BIA decision rescinds in absentia order where the respondent’s attorney was not present when next hearing date was announced and the address listed on the hearing notice omitted the word “street.” Special thanks to IRAC. (Matter of Sayevych, 4/1/20) AILA Doc. No. 20081304

 

BIA Reopens Proceeding Sua Sponte for Respondent Previously Removed from the Country

Unpublished BIA decision reopens proceedings sua sponte following vacatur of conviction underlying sole charge of removability and notwithstanding respondent’s physical removal from United States in 2014. Special thanks to IRAC. (Matter of Garcia-Navarro, 3/16/20) AILA Doc. No. 20081102

 

BIA Holds Georgia Involuntary Manslaughter Not a CIMT

Unpublished BIA decision holds that involuntary manslaughter under Geo. Code Ann. 16-5-3(a) is not a CIMT because it requires only criminal negligence. Special thanks to IRAC. (Matter of Kolubah, 3/11/20) AILA Doc. No. 20081101

 

BIA Finds Exploitation of Elderly Persons in Florida Not an Aggravated Felony Theft Offense

Unpublished BIA decision holds that exploitation of an elderly person under Fla. Stat. 825.103(1) is not an aggravated felony theft offense because it does not include lack of consent as an element. Special thanks to IRAC. (Matter of Joseph, 3/10/20) AILA Doc. No. 20081100

 

CA1 Finds 98-Day Absence from United States Was Not “Brief, Casual, and Innocent” for Purposes of TPS

The court held that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in finding that the rescission of the petitioner’s removal order was incorrect, and that his 98-day absence from the United States barred him from Temporary Protected Status (TPS) relief. (Machado Sigaran v. Barr, 8/5/20) AILA Doc. No. 20081330

 

CA3 Holds IJ Failed to Reconsider Discretionary Denial of Asylum After Sri Lankan Petitioner Was Granted Withholding

Granting the petition for review, the court held that the IJ abused his discretion by failing to reconsider pursuant to 8 CFR §1208.16(e) his discretionary denial of asylum to the Sri Lankan petitioner, who was subsequently granted withholding of removal. (Sathanthrasa v. Att’y Gen., 7/30/20) AILA Doc. No. 20081103

 

CA5 Says Petitioner’s Texas Conviction for Sexual Assault of a Child Was a “Crime of Child Abuse”

The court held that the petitioner’s conviction for sexual assault of a child under Texas Penal Code section 22.011(a)(2) was a categorical match to a “crime of child abuse” as defined by the BIA, rendering him removable under INA §237(a)(2)(E)(i). (Garcia v. Barr, 8/4/20) AILA Doc. No. 20081300

 

CA5 Upholds Denial of Asylum to Albanian Citizen Who Received Death Threats from Members of Socialist Party

The court upheld the denial of asylum to the Albanian petitioner, who had been threatened and attacked by members of his country’s Socialist Party, finding no error in the BIA’s conclusion that the petitioner’s injuries did not amount to past persecution. (Gjetani v. Barr, 7/31/20) AILA Doc. No. 20081104

 

CA6 Holds It Lacks Jurisdiction to Review Motion to Reopen Based on Exceptional Circumstances

The court dismissed the petition for review for lack of jurisdiction, finding that the petitioner—who alleged that confusion about his hearing date constituted an exceptional situation—had failed to administratively exhaust the claims he raised in his petition. (Cuevas-Nuno v. Barr, 8/7/20) AILA Doc. No. 20081301

 

CA6 Says BIA Erred in Denying Iraqi Petitioner’s Motion to Remand to Consider New Evidence

The court held that the BIA erred in denying the Iraqi petitioner’s motion to remand, finding that his new evidence, particularly two 2017 DOS reports on human rights and religious freedom in Iraq, could be significant to his Convention Against Torture (CAT) claim. (Marqus v. Barr, 7/30/20) AILA Doc. No. 20081131

 

CA8 Upholds Deferral of Removal Denial to Iraqi Petitioner with a Criminal Record

Upholding the BIA’s denial of deferral of removal, the court found that the Iraqi petitioner’s argument that he would likely be tortured upon return to Iraq because of his criminal convictions was based on a chain of assumptions and speculation. (Alzawed v. Barr, 7/31/20) AILA Doc. No. 20081133

 

CA8 Finds Petitioner Failed to Show He Would Likely Be Tortured in South Sudan Based on His Membership in an Ethnic Minority

The court held that the BIA had correctly found that petitioner, who was a member of an ethnic minority, must show more than a pattern of general ethnic violence in South Sudan to meet the likelihood of torture requirement under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). (Lasu v. Barr, 7/31/20) AILA Doc. No. 20081132

 

CA8 Finds BIA Did Not Abuse Its Discretion in Denying Motion to Reopen Based on Changed Country Conditions in Somalia

The court held that the BIA did not err in denying the petitioner’s motion to reopen his removal proceedings based on changed conditions in Somalia, finding that al-Shabaab’s activities between 2008 and 2018 did not represent a material increase in violence. (Shire v. Barr, 7/23/20) AILA Doc. No. 20081034

 

CA9 Reaffirms That BIA Must Analyze Cognizability of Particular Social Groups on a Case-by-Case Basis

The court held that the BIA had misapplied Matter of A-B-, as well as past precedent, in concluding that the petitioner’s proposed social group comprised of “indigenous women in Guatemala who are unable to leave their relationship” was not cognizable. (Diaz-Reynoso v. Barr, 8/7/20) AILA Doc. No. 20081430

 

CA9 Denies Qualified Immunity to Montana Judge and Sheriff’s Deputy over Undocumented Immigrant’s Courthouse Arrest

In an action alleging that an undocumented immigrant’s Fourth Amendment rights were violated when he was arrested in a Montana courthouse, the court affirmed the denial of qualified immunity to the defendants, a local judge and sheriff’s deputy. (Reynaga Hernandez v. Skinner, et al., 8/10/20) AILA Doc. No. 20081233

 

CA9 Remands Asylum Claim of Nicaraguan Petitioner Who Suffered Frequent and Severe Abuse by Domestic Partner

Granting the petition for review, the court held that substantial evidence did not support the BIA’s conclusion that petitioner had failed to establish the Nicaraguan government was unable or unwilling to protect her from persecution by her domestic partner. (Davila v. Barr, 8/7/20) AILA Doc. No. 20081431

 

CA9 Says “Obstruction of Justice” Under INA §101(a)(43)(S) Unambiguously Requires a Nexus to Ongoing or Pending Proceedings

Granting the petition for review, the court held that INA §101(a)(43)(S), which describes an aggravated felony offense relating to obstruction of justice, unambiguously requires a nexus to an ongoing or pending proceeding or investigation. (Valenzuela Gallardo v. Barr, 8/6/20) AILA Doc. No. 20081302

 

CA9 Holds That a Conviction for Criminal Stalking in California Is Categorically a CIMT

Denying the petition for review, the court held that the BIA did not err in concluding that the petitioner’s conviction under California Penal Code §646.9(a) for criminal stalking was categorically a crime involving moral turpitude (CIMT). (Orellana v. Barr, 7/28/20) AILA Doc. No. 20081037

 

CA9 Holds That Petitioner’s Oregon Conviction for Manufacture of a Controlled Substance Was an Aggravated Felony

The court held that Oregon Revised Statute §475.992(1)(a), which criminalizes the manufacture or delivery of a controlled substance, is divisible as between its “manufacture” and “delivery” terms, and that a conviction under that statute is an aggravated felony. (Dominguez v. Barr, 7/21/20) AILA Doc. No. 20081036

 

CA10 Finds Petitioner’s Colorado Drug Conviction Did Not Qualify as a Predicate for Removal

The court held that the Colorado statute under which the petitioner was convicted for possessing hydrocodone was broader than its federal counterpart, the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), and that no categorical match existed between the state statute and the CSA. (Johnson v. Barr, 7/31/20) AILA Doc. No. 20081134

 

CA10 Finds It Lacks Jurisdiction to Review BIA’s Discretionary Cancellation-of-Removal Hardship Decision

The court held that, under INA §242(a)(2)(B), it lacked jurisdiction over the petitioner’s claim that the BIA had misapplied its precedent in weighing the level of hardship that the petitioner’s U.S. citizen spouse would face upon his removal. (Galeano-Romero v. Barr, 8/4/20) AILA Doc. No. 20081432

 

USCIS Memo on Settlement Process for Historical Fingerprint Enrollment for Denaturalization Cases

USCIS released a memo in response to a FOIA request outlining the settlement process for Historical Fingerprint Enrollment cases as cases are prepared for denaturalization. Special thanks to Matthew Hoppock. AILA Doc. No. 20081433

 

ICE Issues Guidance on COVID-19

ICE updated its guidance on its response to the COVID-19 pandemic, providing information on how it screens new detainees. ICE notes that it tests all new detainees at ICE-owned facilities for COVID-19, houses all new detainees separately for 14 days after arrival, and monitors their symptoms. AILA Doc. No. 20031658

 

RESOURCES

 

 

EVENTS

 

Note: Check with organizers regarding cancellations/changes

 

ImmProf

 

Monday, August 17, 2020

Sunday, August 16, 2020

Saturday, August 15, 2020

Friday, August 14, 2020

Thursday, August 13, 2020

Wednesday, August 12, 2020

Tuesday, August 11, 2020

Monday, August 10, 2020

 

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

I think it’s interesting that, as Elizabeth reports, respondents still properly win at least some “unpublished” appeals to the BIA. (Practice hint, the amazing Ben Winograd, Esquire, keeps track of  all the BIA’s unpublished cases.  As pointed out by “The Asylumist” Jason Dzubow recently, that’s over 99% of the BIA’s total work product.) Yet, “winners” for respondents among published BIA precedents have come virtually extinct.

I can’t remember offhand the last time I saw a precedent decision where the respondent clearly prevailed that wasn’t then “certified” to the AG for reversal. Heck, the Trump AGs even have “certified” cases that DHS won, just to eradicate some non-dispositive finding that might have been helpful to future respondents.

What if we got rid of political interference in the “quasi-judicial” process by biased AGs? What if we had an expert BIA, well-versed in asylum, human rights, immigration, and constitutional law, that consistently treated respondents fairly on appeal and published the results to promote the granting of deserved relief before Immigration Judges and to instruct attorneys on how to prepare well-documented cases?

Due Process Forever! And, as always, many thanks to Elizabeth!

PWS

08-17-20

🎾 COURTSIDE TAKES THE (TENNIS) COURT WITH JEFFREY S. CHASE 🏆 — Penetrating Analysis By “Resident Pro” Jeff Chase of The Serves, Returns, Volleys, In & Out of Bounds In The “Blanco v. AG” Match, Recently Played On The Court of Appeals (3d Cir.) – It’s Not Wimbledon, But Chase’s Tips Guaranteed to Improve Your Game, or Your Money Back💸!

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

 

https://www.jeffreyschase.com/blog/2020/8/13/follow-the-bouncing-ball-persecution-and-the-shifting-burden-of-proof

Follow the Bouncing Ball: Persecution and the Shifting Burden of Proof

On July 24, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed the BIA as to what constitutes past persecution.  In Blanco v. Att’y Gen., the asylum-seeker had been abducted by police in his native Honduras because he had participated in marches in support of the LIBRE party.  Police officers there detained him for 12 hrs in an abandoned house, where he was subjected to multiple beatings lasting 40 to 60 minutes each.  The police also  threatened to kill him and his family if he continued to participate in LIBRE party marches, and further insulted him with racial slurs.  Learning that other LIBRE supporters had been killed by the police, the petitioner moved from city to city within Honduras over the next 14 months.  However, he received three letters and one phone call during that time threatening that he and his family would be killed if he did not leave the country.

The immigration judge believed the petitioner, but nevertheless denied asylum, finding the harm to have not been severe enough to constitute past persecution.  The B.I.A. agreed, saying that the treatment was “more akin to harassment” than persecution.  The B.I.A. also found that the petitioner had not even established a well-founded fear of future persecution, concluding that there wasn’t a ten percent chance that a mere supporter who had last participated in a demonstration almost 2 years earlier would be persecuted.

The 3d Circuit reversed.  It first quoted the oft-cited phrase that “persecution does not encompass all forms of unfair, unjust, or even unlawful treatment.”  But the court continued that it has found persecution to include “threats to life, confinement, torture, and economic restrictions so severe that they constitute a real threat to life or freedom.”  Of course, the facts described above include multiple threats to life, as well as confinement and torture.  So then how did the Board find what was obviously persecution several times over to be “more akin to harassment?”

As the Third Circuit explained, the BIA and the immigration judge committed three errors.  The first was in finding that the past harm was not severe enough.  But the court noted that persecution does not require severe injury; in fact, it requires no physical injury at all, as evidenced by the fact that a death threat alone may constitute past persecution.  Thus, the court corrected the Board in holding that “physical harm is not dispositive in establishing past persecution.”

The court next corrected the Board’s discrediting of the threats on the ground that it was not “imminent,” citing  the fact that the threat was not carried out in the 14 months until the petitioner’s departure.  The court observed that in order to constitute persecution, a threat must be concrete and menacing, but explained that neither term relates to its immediacy.  Rather, concrete and menacing go to the likelihood of the threatened harm, and excludes threats that are merely “abstract or ideal.”  The court rejected the idea that an asylum-seeker must wait “to see if his would-be executioners would go through with their threats” before qualifying for protection, which “would upend the fundamental humanitarian concerns of asylum law.”

The last error pointed to by the court was the Board’s failure to weigh the various harms cumulatively.  The court distinguished between the Board’s claim to have considered the harm cumulatively, and its actual analysis, which considered the individual instances of harm in isolation.

The court observed that, having shown past persecution, there was a presumption that the petitioner possessed a well-founded fear of persecution, which is what one must prove to merit asylum.  But as both the IJ and the Board erred in their conclusion regarding past persecution, no determination regarding whether ICE had rebutted the regulatory presumption was ever reached.

*     *    *

Although Blanco did not reach the question of what happens following a showing of past persecution, I would like to continue the conversation in order to discuss this point.  I don’t believe that the shifting burden of proof that arises upon a showing of past persecution is properly taught by EOIR in its training.  For that reason, years ago, when I was still with EOIR, I conducted a training in which I tried to clarify the concept by using a tennis analogy.  I will attempt to recreate the lesson here.

Imagine the asylum applicant as serving in a tennis match.  In tennis, only the serve must go into one specific box on the court, as opposed to anywhere on the opponent’s side of the net.  Here, I have marked that service box “past persecution,” as it is only by “serving” into that specific box that the asylum-seeker can create a presumption of well-founded fear, and thus shift the burden of proof to the government.

 

In the above illustration, the respondent has served into the “past persecution” box by establishing facts that constitute past persecution.  This doesn’t require a showing of severe or extreme persecution; any harm rising to the level of what has been found to constitute persecution will suffice.  Examples includes multiple instances of lesser harm that cumulatively rise to the level of persecution (see, e.g. Matter of O-Z- & I-Z-, 22 I&N Dec. 23 (BIA 1998); a concrete and menacing threat (not accompanied by actual physical harm); or persecution in the guise of criminal prosecution or conscription.

Once the respondent establishes past persecution, the ball is then in the DHS’s “court.”  The only way DHS can “return the serve” to the respondent’s side of the net (i.e. shift the burden of proof back to the asylum applicant) is to demonstrate either (1) changed circumstances such that the respondent no longer has a well-founded fear of persecution on account of a protected ground; or (2) that the respondent could reasonably safely relocate to another part of the home country.  If DHS can’t prove either of the above, the respondent has “won the point” of establishing persecution.

Only if DHS succeeds in establishing one of those two points is the ball returned to the respondent.  But just as in tennis, after the serve is returned, the respondent is no longer limited to hitting into the service box only.  The respondent now has a wider court in which to win the point:

Just as there are three boxes on each side of a tennis court (i.e. the two service boxes and the backcourt), the respondent now has three options for meeting the burden of proof.

The two service boxes (closest to the net)  represent the two ways in which one who has suffered past persecution can still merit a grant of “humanitarian asylum” even where there is no longer a basis to fear future persecution.

The first of these is where a humanitarian grant is merited based on the severity of the past persecution.  This is the only time that the severity of the past persecution matters.  (I believe that errors such as those committed in Blanco arise because the immigration judge remembers learning something about the severity of the past persecution, but isn’t quite clear on the context in which it arises.)

This rule is a codification of the BIA’s holding in a 1989 precedent decision, Matter of Chen.  In a concurring opinion in that decision, former Board Member Michael Heilman pointed out that our asylum laws are designed to conform to our international law obligations.  He continued that the source of those obligations, the 1951 Convention, came into effect years after the majority of those refugees it was meant to protect, i.e. those who had suffered past persecution during WW II, were clearly no longer at risk from the same persecutors following the defeat of the Axis powers

From this history, Heilman concluded that “the historical underpinnings of the Convention, from which the Refugee Act of 1980 receives its genesis, would have to be totally ignored if one were inclined to adopt the position that present likelihood of persecution is also required where past persecution has been established.”

The majority of the Board adopted this position only where it deemed the past persecution sufficiently severe, and it was that view that the regulations codified in 1990.

Years later, a second basis for humanitarian asylum was added to the regulations for those who suffered past persecution but had their presumption of well-founded fear rebutted by the government.  This second category (represented by the second service box in the third illustration) applies to those who might reasonably suffer “other serious harm” in their country of origin.  This rule (which became effective in January 2001) looks to whether the asylum applicant might suffer harm as severe as persecution, but unrelated to any specific ground or motive.  Thus, an asylum-seeker who suffered past persecution but whose original basis for asylum has dissipated due to changed conditions may merit a humanitarian grant where their return might give rise to mental anguish, put their health at risk due to the unavailability of necessary medical treatment or medication, or subject them to abject poverty or severe criminal extortion, to provide a few examples.

Lastly, an asylum applicant who no longer has a well-founded fear due to changed conditions in their country of origin may still “win the point” by establishing a different well-founded fear of persecution under the new conditions.

Copyright 2020 Jeffrey S. Chase.  All rights reserved. Reprinted With Permission.

 

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

You’ll have to go to the original at the above link to see all of Jeffrey’s great “tennis court illustrations!”

Reminded me of my own, less than illustrious, career on the tennis court. Here’s the anecdote I shared with Jeffrey:

I loved it, Jeffrey, even though in my life many of my shots and serves “went over the fence.” Indeed, I once ended an inter-fraternity tennis match with a forfeit after hitting all of my opponent’s tennis balls into the Fox River which at that time bordered the LU Tennis Courts in Appleton. It was kind of like a “mercy killing” since I was being totally creamed anyway, and it was a hot day. I found Immigration Court a much more comfortable fit for my skill set.

I also appreciate Jeff’s citation of Matter of O-Z- & I-Z-, 23 I&N Dec. 22 (BIA 1998). I was on that panel, along with my colleagues Judge Lory Rosenberg and Judge Jerry Hurwitz, who wrote the opinion. The record will show that it was one of the few published BIA precedents where the three of us, members of the “Notorious Panel IV,” agreed. Perhaps that’s why it got published. Our colleagues probably figured that any time the three of us were in harmony, it must be an auspicious occasion worth preserving for the future!

In any event, of all of the more than 100 published decisions in which I participated during my tenure on the BIA, O-Z- & I-Z- on the issue of “cumulative harm” proved to be one of the most useful during my tenure at the Arlington Immigration Court. Attorneys on both sides, knowing my tendencies, liked to frame their arguments in many cases in terms of “it is” or “it isn’t” O-Z- & I-Z-.

I think that “cumulative harm” is one of the most important, and these days most overlooked or wrongly ignored, concepts in modern asylum law. It was really one of the keys to favorable resolution of many asylum cases based on “past persecution.” But, that goes back to a time when the law was applied to protect worthy asylum seekers, rather than to reject them, often on specious grounds as happens on today’s “deportation railroad.”

PWS

08-14-20

 

 

 😇🌞🗽⚖️👍🏼“A LIGHT IN THE FOREST” — Michelle Mendez @ CLINIC Shows How Good Pro Bono Lawyering Saves Lives Even When The System Is Rigged Against Justice For Immigrants!

Michelle Mendez
Michelle Mendez
Defending Vulnerable Populations Director
Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc. (“CLINIC”)

Subject: CLINIC BIA Pro Bono Project Recent Victories

 

Friends,

 

BIA and federal circuit court appeals often feel like an uphill battle, a true David and Goliath fight. It can be particularly discouraging right now, during an isolating pandemic, when DHS and DOJ issue new regulations and the BIA and AG publish opinions almost weekly with the purpose of making it more difficult for noncitizens to win their cases. However, CLINIC’s BIA Pro Bono Project continues to fight back and perform miracles—defeating Goliath—thanks to BIA Pro Bono Project Manager Rachel Naggar, BIA Pro Bono Project Legal Specialist Brenda Hernandez, and our many dedicated attorney volunteers. Rachel and Brenda shared with me the project’s awe-inspiring stories of success from this summer and the volunteers who made these victories possible. In turn, I share these success stories with you to offer inspiration to keep fighting for your clients while the Trump administration escalates its attacks on immigrant communities.

 

  • The BIA remanded the case of a Haitian asylum seeker on numerous grounds, including that the IJ did not apply the proper framework for assessing firm resettlement, the IJ mixed up the respondent’s political party when assessing his claim for withholding of removal, and the IJ did not meaningfully consider the respondent’s risk of future persecution. Thank you to Michael Ward of Alston&Bird!
  • The BIA overturned the IJ’s adverse credibility finding against an asylum seeker from Burkina Faso. The BIA also found that the IJ erred in concluding there was no nexus between the harm the respondent suffered and his political opinion, including that the prosecution he endured was actually pretext for persecution. Thank you to Gregory Proctor, Marjorie Sheldon, and Christian Roccotagliata of Kramer, Levin, Naftalis & Frankel!
  • The BIA granted asylum to a Cuban refugee. Contrary to the IJ, the BIA found that the harm suffered by the respondent did cumulatively rise to the level of past persecution and he did have a well-founded fear of persecution. Thank you to Austin Manes and Aaron Frankel of Kramer, Levin, Naftalis & Frankel!
  • The BIA remanded the case of a Cuban asylum seeker because the IJ failed to consider the evidence of past economic persecution along with the physical harm suffered. The BIA also reminded the IJ that where the persecution is committed by the government, it is presumed that internal relocation is not reasonable, and the burden shifts to DHS to demonstrate that it would be reasonable in this case. Thank you to Dean Galaro of Perkins Coie!
  • The BIA reopened the case of a Cuban asylum seeker because he had new evidence of harm and threats against his family that occurred after his final hearing with the immigration judge. Thank you to Astrid Ackerman and Aaron Webman of Kramer, Levin, Naftalis & Frankel!
  • The Ninth Circuit granted the petition for review of a Ghanaian asylum seeker, overturning the IJ’s negative credibility finding and concluding that the Board had failed to adequately consider the country conditions evidence when it denied CAT relief. You can read the full decision here. Thank you to Kari Hong of Boston College Law School!
  • The Third Circuit, in a published decision, granted a Honduran asylum seeker’s petition for review, finding that the IJ and BIA erred in analyzing whether the respondent had suffered past persecution. The Court also found that the IJ failed to conduct the proper analysis regarding the need for evidence in an application for CAT protection. You can read the full decision here. Thank you to Aaron Rabinowitz and Gary Levin of Baker & Hostetler!
  • The Sixth Circuit, in a published decision, granted a Russian asylum seeker’s petition for review, finding that the IJ and BIA erred in concluding that the respondent was not persecuted on account of his political opinions and that his indictment for peacefully protesting under Russian law was a pretext for persecution. You can read the full decision here. Thank you to Brenna Duncan and Andrew Caridas of Perkins Coie!
  • DHS withdrew its appeal of a grant of asylum from Mexico to a Cuban national. DHS conceded to the IJ that the respondent was eligible for asylum from Mexico, but not Cuba because of the Third Country Transit Bar. DHS changed its mind and filed an appeal, which was withdrawn after pro bono counsel filed his brief. Thank you to James Montana of The Law Office of James Montana!
  • The BIA dismissed an appeal by the Department of Homeland Security and upheld a Cuban woman’s grant of asylum. The Board found that the IJ was correct in deeming the respondent eligible for asylum and not subject to the Third Country Transit Bar. Thank you to Aaron Rabinowitz and Jeffrey Lyons of Baker & Hostetler!
  • ICE released a Venezuelan asylum seeker from detention to reunite with her spouse, after tremendous advocacy efforts by her pro bono attorney. Thank you to David Gottlieb!
  • The Ninth Circuit remanded the case of a Honduran victim of domestic violence, at the request of the Department of Justice. The Court ordered the BIA to reconsider whether the respondent had demonstrated that the Honduran government acquiesced in her persecution, whether the respondent is part of a viable particular social group, whether it would have been futile for her to report the harm to local authorities, and whether internal relocation would be reasonable. Thank you to Alicia Chen!
  • A victim of human rights violations by the notorious Eritrean military was granted withholding of removal, after the BIA overturned the IJ’s adverse credibility finding and found that the IJ failed to consider that the country conditions evidence corroborated the respondent’s claim. Thank you to Jonaki Singh and Susan Jacquemot of Kramer, Levin, Naftalis & Frankel!
  • The Ninth Circuit remanded the case of an asylum seeker from Mexico, at the request of the Department of Justice. The Court ordered the BIA to reconsider whether the respondent had been persecuted and sexually assaulted on account of her sexual orientation, and whether the government of Mexico could adequately protect her from future harm. Thank you to Tim Patton of the Appellate Immigration Project!
  • The Fourth Circuit granted the petition for review holding that a conviction under VA 18.2-280(A) is not a removable firearms offense, a result that would not have been possible had Mr. Gordon not continued to fight his case for so many years even despite being deported. You can read the decision here. Thank you to the CAIR Coalition and Ted Howard at Wiley Rein! Thank you also to the National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild for the amicus support!
  • Jose came to the United States in 1985 to live with his father as a permanent resident. He built a life in the United States, becoming a father himself. After a run in with the law, he was placed in removal proceedings and was detained for 19 months. In a 2-1 decision, the Third Circuit found that under the unique circumstances of this case, Jose’s father was deprived of the equal protection of the laws. Jose is a United States citizen, the court declared, and has been since 1985. In the wake of the Supreme Court’s 2016 decision in Sessions v. Morales-Santana, Jose’s case was the first to benefit from this Supreme Court decision. You can read the full decision here. The government petitioned for rehearing, but the full Third Circuit declined to intervene. Ultimately, the government declined to ask the Supreme Court to review the case. For the better part of the last decade, Jose’s life has been filled with uncertainty and stress, but not anymore, which is very important as Jose is expecting his first grandchild. A huge thank you to Nick Curcio who has represented Jose for 7 years!

 

In its 19+ years of operation, the Project has reviewed more than 7,200 cases, pairing attorneys and law school clinics with vulnerable asylum seekers and long-time lawful permanent residents. If you are interested in representing a case through CLINIC’s BIA Pro Bono Project, please complete our volunteer form. If you prefer to show your support for the BIA Pro Bono Project via a monetary donation, please designate “BIA Pro Bono Project” in the “In honor of” field of our donations page.

 

Gratefully and in solidarity,

 

Michelle N. Mendez (she/her/ella/elle)

Director, Defending Vulnerable Populations Program

Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc. (CLINIC)

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

Thanks Michelle, my friend, colleague, and courageous leader of the NDPA.  What a timely, wonderful, practical, “real life” illustration of Jason “The Asylumist” Dzubow’s “praise and call to action for pro bono” that I republished earlier this week! https://immigrationcourtside.com/2020/08/11/lifesaving-101-for-the-ndpa-begins-with-pro-bono-never-has-the-need-been-greater-pro-bonos-finest-hour-in-americas-time-of-darkness-cruelty-inhumanity/

Here’s what our colleague Judge Jeffrey Chase has to say about Michelle and CLINIC:

No surprise, Michelle.  CLINIC is responsible for so much good case law.  And the non-CLINIC successful attorneys probably used CLINIC training or practice advisories.  Congrats to you and all of your outstanding attorneys and support staff, and thanks for all you do!

Even in times of our greatest national darkness and misery, there are plenty of lives that can be saved! Contrary to the “Dred Scottification” — dehumanization of persons in our country — unconscionably pushed by the regime and enabled by many public officials and courts that “should know better,” every person’s life is important!

And, despite the conscious misinterpretation and misapplication of the Fifth Amendment by far too many of those charged with upholding it, every person in the U.S., regardless of race or status, is entitled to due process, fundamental fairness, and to be treated with human dignity.

Think of how much progress we could make if we didn’t have to keep re-litigating all the same issues over and over again, often with differing results! 

What if the “precedents” concentrated on those cases that could be granted, rather than almost exclusively focusing on “roadmaps to denial?” 

What if we promoted and supported great pro bono representation, rather than inhibiting and discouraging it? 

What if meritorious cases were moved to the “head of the line” instead of continuously being “shuffled off to Buffalo” by “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” (“ADR”) thereby languishing in the mindlessly expanding backlog? 

What if Federal Judges at all levels were the “best and the brightest” — selected from among those with demonstrated expertise in immigration, asylum and human rights and impeccable reputations for due process, fundamental fairness, and humanity, rather than being selected for “go along to get along” reputations or allegiance to perverse political ideologies that undermine equal justice for all?

What if our Immigration Court system were administered independently and professionally, rather than as a biased and weaponized tool of DHS enforcement and White Nationalist politicos?

What if our Justice System worked cooperatively with folks like Michelle, Jason, Judge Ashley Tabaddor, and many others with good, creative, practical ideas for institutionalizing “best practices” leading to to “due process with efficiency?”

What if we fairly implemented our refugee, asylum, and protection legal framework to “protect rather than reject?”

What if we consistently treated our fellow beings as humans, rather than as “less than human?”

What if we viewed immigration for what it really is: the foundation of our nation and a continuing source of great strength, pride, and optimism for our country of immigrants, rather than pretending that we live on an island and must “wall off” the rest of the world?

This November, vote like your life and the future of our nation depend on it! Because they do!

PWS

08-14-20