"The Voice of the New Due Process Army" ————– Musings on Events in U.S. Immigration Court, Immigration Law, Sports, and Other Random Topics by Retired United States Immigration Judge (Arlington, Virginia) and former Chairman of the Board of Immigration Appeals Paul Wickham Schmidt. To see my complete professional bio, just click on the link below.
“Eyore In Distress” Once A Symbol of Fairness, Due Process, & Best Practices, Now Gone “Belly Up”“Justice” Star Chamber StyleBIA Asylum Panel In Action Albrecht Dürer, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse
Immigration Court Case Completion Times Jump as Delays Lengthen
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Not surprisingly, Immigration Court closures and delays in hearings for courts that are conducting hearings have drastically reduced the number of completed cases for the first two months of this fiscal year as compared with prior years at the same time.
New cases continue to drastically outpace case completions. In October and November 2020, the Immigration Courts received 29,758 new filings. This is fewer filings than usual, but still almost twice the 15,990 cases they completed.
As a result, the court’s active backlog at the end of November 2020 reached 1,281,586. This is up 18,821 cases in just the last two months. Adding to the court’s workload are not only new filings, but previously closed cases that have been reopened, remanded for reconsideration, or otherwise placed back on the court’s docket.
Disposition times for closed cases have also shot up this year. Cases disposed of in FY 2020 took on average 460 days. During the first two months of FY 2021, the courts disposed of a much smaller number of cases, but the disposition times were much longer at an average of 755 days—or 64 percent longer. The longest disposition times were found in the Cleveland Immigration Court where it took on average 1,617 days.
For the latest disposition times at each Immigration Court read the full report at:
To examine a variety of Immigration Court data, including asylum data, the backlog, MPP, and more now updated through November 2020, use TRAC’s Immigration Court tools here:
TRAC is self-supporting and depends on foundation grants, individual contributions and subscription fees for the funding needed to obtain, analyze and publish the data we collect on the activities of the US Federal government. To help support TRAC’s ongoing efforts, go to:
The Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse is a nonpartisan joint research center of the Whitman School of Management (https://whitman.syr.edu) and the Newhouse School of Public Communications (https://newhouse.syr.edu) at Syracuse University. If you know someone who would like to sign up to receive occasional email announcements and press releases, they may go to https://trac.syr.edu and click on the E-mail Alerts link at the bottom of the page. If you do not wish to receive future email announcements and wish to be removed from our list, please send an email to trac@syr.edu with REMOVE as the subject.
*******************
As mom used to say, “Haste makes waste.” Taking more time to decide cases would be perfectly defensible if it actually produced useful deliberation, thoughtful scholarship, and just and fair results. But, this currently is a system that must limit its intake while it develops the expertise, scholarship, analytical skills, quality control mechanisms, and best practices necessary for judicial efficiency that complies with due process and fundamental fairness (not to mention basic asylum law). That’s a “complete rebuild.”
Then, once that system is running well, it could be methodically and rationally expanded, if actually necessary. But, aimlessly building more assembly lines producing defective products and then ratcheting up the speed will, not surprisingly, produce nothing except more dangerous and defective products.
Not exactly rocket science that a bunch of hacks implementing racist policies, trying to speed up the assembly line, engaging in “Aimless Docket Reshuffling,” eradicating due process, discouraging fairness and deliberation, eliminating their own jurisdiction to control the dockets, and denying everything while mindlessly throwing more resources into a broken beyond belief “(non)system” at war with its own essential employees and those whom it (dis)serves would produce total chaos and dysfunction.Also, throw in lack of best technology and overt disregard for public health and safety.
And, while this is going on, an undisciplined, out of control, and for all practical purposes worse than useless ICE continues to pour new cases into the maelstrom at twice the rate it can get turn them out! As the late NY Met’s Manager Casey Stengel once said, “Can’t anyone here play this game?”
This is an ongoing and increasingly visible unmitigated national disgrace. It’s also an abuse of public funds and a betrayal of the public trust — fundamentals of sound government.
And, it won’t be “swept under the table” in the finest tradition of incoming Administrations. As I’ve said before, the Biden-Harris Administration either fixes EOIR🤡 immediately with some new faces with real expertise, or it “owns” it. And, the current White Nationalism infested atrocity and den of “malicious incompetence” at EOIR🤡 is not something an Administration striving to achieve equal justice and racial reconciliation should want to own!
Due Process Forever!
Hey hey, ho ho, the EOIR Clown Show 🤡 has got to go!
“EOIR Clown Show Must Go” T-Shirt Custom Design Concept
Watching the Trump campaign’s attacks on the election results, I now see what might have happened if, rather than nip and tuck the Trump agenda, responsible Justice Department attorneys had collectively — ethically, lawfully — refused to participate in President Trump’s systematic attacks on our democracy from the beginning. The attacks would have failed.
. . . .
*******************
Read the full op-ed at the link. That’s right Erica. Lack of ethics, morality, and failing to uphold the Constitution and the rule of law have consequences. Helping to “custom design” obvious pretexts for racist and hate inspired policies, for consumption by right-wing judges who only seek “cover” for going along to get along with fascism, is wrong. Duh!
It’s no surprise that the clearly unconstitutional and racially and religiously bigoted “Travel Ban,” willingly embraced by an intellectually dishonest and morally compromised Supremes majority, was first on the list in Erica’s “confession.”
But, don’t expect any apologies from the vast majority of Trumpist lawyer/enablers who violated their oaths of office or from the big time law firms (one where I was formerly a partner) who have granted them undeserved refuge at fat salaries! Nor should we expect large-scale redemption from the legions of Government lawyers in DOJ, DHS, and elsewhere who will assert the “Nuremberg defense” of “just following orders.”But, that doesn’t mean that the rest of us can’t demand some accountability for participation inwhat are essentially “crimes against humanity.”
Erica’s article largely echoes what my friend and colleague Judge Jeffrey Chase, many of our colleagues in the Round Table of Former Immigration Judges, ⚔️🛡 and numerous members of the New Due Process Army (“NDPA”) have been saying throughout this Administration. Indeed, I frequently have noted that the once-respected Solicitor General’s Office and EOIR operated as basically “ethics free zones” under the disgraced “leadership” of Sessions, Whitaker, and Barr.
It’s also why the the Biden-Harris team that takes over at DOJ must:
immediately remove all the current “executives” (and I use that term lightly) at EOIR as well as all members of the BIA and transfer them to positions where they can do no further damage to asylum seekers, migrants, their (often pro bono or low bono) lawyers, or the rest of humanity;
replace them with qualified individuals from the NDPA; and
be circumspect in eventually making retention decisions for Immigration Judges, taking into account public input as to the the degree to which each such judge’s jurisprudence during the Trump kakistocracy continued to reflect adherence to constitutionally required due process and fundamental fairness to migrants, respect for migrants and their representatives, best practices, and interpretations that blunted wherever reasonably possible the impact of the kakistocracy’s xenophobic, racist, White Nationalist policies.
American justice has been ill-served by the DOJ and the Immigration Courts over the past four years. That’s something that must not be swept under the carpet (as is the habit with most incoming Administrations).
The career Civil Service overall, and particularly complicit and often ethics-free government lawyers,failed to put up the necessary resistance to an overtly anti-American regime with an illegal and immoral agenda. Lives were lost or irreparably ruined as a result. That’s a big-time problem that if not addressed and resolved will likely make continuance of our national democratic republic impossible.
⚖️🗽🧑🏽⚖️👍🏼🇺🇸Due Process Forever! Complicity Never☠️🤮🏴☠️👎🏻!
PWS
12-21-20
“EOIR Clown Show Must Go” T-Shirt Custom Design Concept
“Spirit! are they yours?” Scrooge could say no more.
“They are Man’s,” said the Spirit, looking down upon them. “And they cling to me, appealing from their fathers. This boy is Ignorance. This girl is Want. Beware them both, and all of their degree, but most of all beware this boy, for on his brow I see that written which is Doom, unless the writing be erased.”
—A Christmas Carol, Stave III
The Ghost of Grifters Not Yet Past was everywhere over the weekend. In the New York Times, we read about how the Ghost had arranged for a meeting of the political Chronic Ward in the White House. In the Washington Post, we read about how the Ghost had visited his feral children, Ignorance and Want, upon the land by giving them national political leaders who couldn’t pour piss out of a boot if the instructions were on the heel, and, worse, had no desire to learn how, even in the midst of the greatest public health crisis in a century.
While the Times’ account of the Mad Hatter’s seditious tea party is the flashier story, it is the Post’s deep spelunking into the administration*’s brutal (and quite deliberate) mishandling of the pandemic that is more likely to resound in historical memory as the most criminal dereliction of duty in the history of the American presidency. By comparison, Herbert Hoover at the onset of the Great Depression and James Buchanan as the nation slid toward the Civil War were positive pikers in their disregard for the office they held and the country they were chosen to lead.
. . . .
And then there’s the Dauphin Prince, who apparently had some power and almost no respect, possibly because he was marginally less of a fck-up than everyone else was.
. . . .
***************
Read Charlie’s complete article at the link.
The Moron-in-Chief, the Party of Putin, and their rabidly anti-American followers and fellow travelers must have exceeded Vladimir’s wildest expectations.
And, at what a bargain price: no need for huge investments in the military, expensive weapons of mass destruction, complicated spy networks, or even major payment of bribes. Just find enough greedy, selfish, delusional, resentful, racist, dim-witted folks willing to betray our nation. Then, invest modest amounts in misinformation, flattery, fanning White Supremacy, and cyber espionage, and “puff” you’re inside the U.S. security, intelligence, and essential infrastructure system with your traitors and dupes installed throughout government and society. Heck, you own a major political party and didn’t even have to contribute billions to do it!
30 days and counting till the end of the kakistocracy and the return of hope, sanity, and competence to our national government. Let’s just hope that it’s not too late for those of us who still believe in America and for our world that is hurting for rational, far-sighted, values-based leadership!
“Eyore In Distress” Once A Symbol of Fairness, Due Process, & Best Practices, Now Gone “Belly Up”
The Board of Immigration Appeals has issued a decision in Matter of M-A-M-Z-, 28 I&N Dec. 173 (BIA 2020).
(1) Expert testimony is evidence, but only an Immigration Judge makes factual findings.
(2) When the Immigration Judge makes a factual finding that is not consistent with an expert’s opinion, it is important, as the Immigration Judge did here, to explain the reasons behind the factual findings.
PANEL: MULLANE, CREPPY, and LIEBOWITZ, Appellate Immigration Judges
OPINION BY: Judge MULLANE
**********************
So, with the overt politicization and precipitous decline in reliability of DOS Country Reports, expert opinions have become of increasing importance in asylum cases. And, the are many great experts and groups providing alternatives to the skewed DOS reports these days.
So, what’s really needed in NOT more encouragement for IJs, many of whom lack real asylum expertise, to find ways to downgrade or dismiss experts. What is essential, is new guidance: 1) honestly recognizing that this Administration’s anti-asylum and inappropriate ideological agendas have undermined the credibility of DOS reports; and 2) describing ways in which IJs should be using alternatives, like expert testimony and reports, to support grants of protection to applicants who need and deserve them.
Credible applicants are supposed to be given the benefit of the doubt. Today’s EOIR has “made mincemeat” of that principle.
It is time to rethink the evidence so often submitted and relied upon in asylum claims, to dial back the corroboration demands, and to return to a core principle of refugee law – the need to afford asylum seekers the benefit of the doubt. We need a better way to establish asylum eligibility and challenge stereotypes.
Appropriate guidance is not going to happen until the present BIA is replaced by real appellate judges who are experts on asylum law, due precess, fundamental fairness,and who have experience representing asylum seekers in the real world. Hopefully, that long overdue day, is within sight: “Hey hey, ho, the EOIR Clown Show has got to go!
Due Process Forever!
PWS
12-20-20
“EOIR Clown Show Must Go” T-Shirt Custom Design Concept
Hey, you know that massive, scary, very likely Russian hack that reportedly breached multiple U.S. government agencies in what may have been the biggest government hack in history? The one that Trump’s former Homeland Security adviser estimates could have affected 18,000 organizations, including most federal government unclassified networks and a number of Fortune 500 companies? The magnitude of which, he says, cannot be overstated? The same one that Donald Trump has said nothing about? Well, no biggie, but apparently hackers also reportedly accessed the networks of the Energy Department and the National Nuclear Security Administration. Which, as you might have guessed, maintain the country’s nuclear weapons stockpile.
On Thursday, DOE and NNSA officials began coordinating notifications about the breach to their congressional oversight bodies after being briefed by Rocky Campione, the chief information officer at DOE. They found suspicious activity in networks belonging to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), Sandia and Los Alamos national laboratories in New Mexico and Washington, the Office of Secure Transportation at NNSA, and the Richland Field Office of the DOE. The hackers have been able to do more damage at FERC than the other agencies, and officials there have evidence of highly malicious activity, the officials said, but did not elaborate.
The attack on DOE is the clearest sign yet that the hackers were able to access the networks belonging to a core part of the U.S. national security enterprise. The hackers are believed to have gained access to the federal agencies’ networks by compromising the software company SolarWinds, which sells IT management products to hundreds of government and private-sector clients…. NNSA is responsible for managing the nation’s nuclear weapons, and while it gets the least attention, it takes up the vast majority of DOE’s budget. Similarly, the Sandia and Los Alamos National Labs conduct atomic research related to both civil nuclear power and nuclear weapons. The Office of Secure Transportation is tasked with moving enriched uranium and other materials critical for maintaining the nuclear stockpile.
While Joe Biden commented on the issue Thursday, saying “Our adversaries should know that, as president, I will not stand idly by in the face of cyber assaults on our nation,” Trump has remained curiously silent, or at least it would be curious had he not made it explicitly clear the last four years that Vladimir Putin, and really, any of his favorite dictators, can often do whatever they want. (The Russian embassy said on Sunday that it had nothing to do with the hack, though experts believe it almost certainly came from a Russian intelligence agency.)
But hey! There may be an entirely reasonable explanation for why Trump hasn’t bothered to address the issue, and it’s that he’s been extremely busy working on much more important issues. No, not fruitlessly attempting to overturn the results of the 2020 election, though that does take up a decent amount of his time. In this case, it’s something even bigger:
The U.S. Department of Energy on Tuesday finalized a pair of new rules rolling back water efficiency standards on showerheads and other consumer appliances, punctuating President Donald Trump’s long-documented water flow grievances in the final weeks of his administration. The new showerhead rule goes after the two-and-a-half-gallon-per-minute maximum flow rate set by Congress in the 1990s. Under current federal law, each showerhead in a fixture counts toward that limit collectively—but the Energy Department’s new rule means each showerhead individually can reach the limit set by Congress.
The slate of recent changes align with Trump’s larger dismantling of environmental regulations, and, more specifically, his open disdain for poor water flow. Trump claimed late last year that Americans are flushing their toilets “10 times, 15 times, as opposed to once” and are having difficulty washing their hands. “We have a situation where we’re looking very strongly at sinks and showers and other elements of bathrooms where you turn the faucet on—and in areas where there’s tremendous amounts of water, where the water rushes out to sea because you could never handle it, and you don’t get any water,” the president said last December during a roundtable with small business leaders about deregulatory actions. “You turn on the faucet and you don’t get any water. They take a shower and water comes dripping out. Just dripping out, very quietly dripping out,“ the president continued, lowering his voice as he spoke about the drips.
“Today the Trump Administration affirmed its commitment to reducing regulatory burdens and safeguarding consumer choice,” Secretary of Energy Dan Brouillette proudly declared in a statement. “With these rule changes, Americans can choose products that are best suited to meet their individual needs and the needs of their families.” The rollbacks were chastised not only by environmental groups but consumer organizations as well, with Andrew deLaski, executive director of the Appliance Standards Awareness Project, saying, “Changing the rules to address one of President Trump’s pet peeves is simply silly. Thousands of showerhead models on the market today meet the standards that Congress set way back in 1992 and provide a great shower.”
In related news, to date it remains unclear why it takes Trump 15 flushes to clear a toilet.
. . . .
******************
Red the rest of the “Levin Report” at the link.
While Trump has famously been reported not to bother reading his “daily intelligence briefings” (after all, they are pretty boring, related to work, which has never been a priority, and reportedly written in complete sentences, which are not within his comfort zone), we can be sure that Vladimir Putin and his buddies in the Kremlin are reading them.
In the meantime, Putin could not ask for a more outrageously tone-deaf, indolent, performance by the Chief Clown 🤡 , Moscow 🇷🇺 Mitch, the GOP, and their cronies and enablers in the period of total national disorder and decay leading into the swearing in of the first real President America has had in four years on January 20, 2021.
32 days and counting left in the kakistocracy. How many more Americans will needlessly die and suffer before we finally get relief from the deadliest Clown Show 🤡☠️🤮⚰️👎🏻?
“Eyore In Distress” Once A Symbol of Fairness, Due Process, & Best Practices, Now Gone “Belly Up”“Justice” Star Chamber StyleMe
Friends, you know, and I know, what is the biggest crisis facing the American justice system today. One that undermines and threatens racial justice, social justice, equality before the law, voting rights, American values, and indeed the very foundations of our democratic institutions and our justice system.
It’s imperative that our incoming Administration and its leaders fully recognize the overwhelming importance and extreme urgency of immediately ending the ongoing, deadly, and dangerous “Clown Show” at EOIR – the Executive Office for Immigration Review.
Under the defeated but not yet departed regime, EOIR has been weaponized by White Nationalist nativists to function as America’s Star Chambers. Once envisioned by its founders, including me, as a potential “jewel in the crown” of American justice, EOIR now has become an ungodly nightmare of anti-due process, anti-immigrant propaganda, bad judges, bogus stats, uncontrollable backlogs, malicious incompetence, stupid regulations, daily doses of irrationality, abuse of private attorneys, and institution of “worst practices.” But, it doesn’t have to be that way! No, not at all!
With courage, bold action, and, most important, the right people in place in leadership and key judicial positions, EOIR can be fixed: sooner, not later. The Immigration Courts can, indeed, through teamwork and innovation become the world’s best courts guaranteeing fairness and due process for all, promoting a model of best practices for the Federal Judiciary as a whole, and providing a trained and ready source of due-process oriented judges with strong immigration, human rights, and equal justice backgrounds for the Article III Judiciary and public policy positions.
EOIR will then be positioned for the essential transition to an Article I independent U.S. Immigration Court when we have the votes.
But, it will require a far more progressive, visionary, and aggressive approach than past Democratic Administrations. We must immediately (and legally) clear out the deadwood and get the problem solvers from the New Due Process Army (“NDPA”) — mostly now in the NGO, clinical, and private sectors, folks like you and your colleagues — in place to fix this horribly broken system.
“Eyore In Distress” Once A Symbol of Fairness, Due Process, & Best Practices, Now Gone “Belly Up”“Justice” Star Chamber StyleJeff Sessions’ Cage by J.D. Crowe, Alabama Media Group/AL.com Republished under licenseDumping Asylum Seekers in Honduras Artist: Monte Wolverton Reproduced under licenseHon. Paul Grussendorf U.S. Immigration Judge (Ret.) Member, Round Table of Former IJs Author Source: Amazon.com
“Stephen Miller, the self-hating white nationalist who has dictated this administration’s immigration policy from the beginning, was once a staffer for then-Senator Jeff Sessions. Miller subscribes to the ‘white replacement’ or ‘white genocide’ theory that the brown-skinned migrant hordes will replace the superior descendants of Western civilization if not stopped.”
In 2016, after a legal career of 30 years in refugee and asylum protection, including eight years as a federal refugee officer and seven years as an immigration judge, I accepted a position in the Arlington, Virginia asylum office as a Supervisory Asylum Officer. I had tremendous respect for the U.S. asylum program and I knew from experience that most asylum officers choose the job as a humanitarian calling; their ranks include many attorneys and individuals with graduate degrees, with experience in the Peace Corps and other humanitarian backgrounds. And I can affirm that Asylum Officers have the hardest job of any immigration officers in USCIS-United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, due to the complex and ever-changing asylum law, and the nature of the intensive interviews.
The law enforcement side of our immigration system is exercised by ICE — Immigration and Customs Enforcement, a sub-agency of DHS that was created, along with Department of Homeland Security, in 2003 after the tragedy of 9/11. ICE officers are hired from a completely different profile of applicants and receive much less training in the humanitarian aspect of immigration law. The equivalent at the border is CBP — Customs and Border Protection.
The Netflix Series Immigrant Nation, airing in August 2020, exposes how, soon after Trump’s ascendancy to the presidency, he and his nativist cronies put into place a series of executive measures designed to practically eliminate refugee admissions; to curtail and eventually eliminate access to our asylum system; and even to severely reduce lawful migration to the United States. Virtually all of these executive measures are unlawful, in conflict with our nation’s immigration statute and in violation of our international treaty obligations, and even demonstrably harmful to the economic well-being of the U.S. They have all been challenged in court and practically every such executive measure has been deemed unlawful by federal district and appellate courts, yet the anti-immigrant juggernaut sails on. Recently the GAO — Government Accounting Office, an independent body, declared that, according to the Federal Vacancies Reform Act the current Acting Directors of both DHS, Chad Wolf, and USCIS, Ken Cuccinelli, were unlawfully appointed, and presumably every edict that they have issued since their appointments this past year will also be deemed unlawful.
One of the first ignoble acts of the administration’s new appointee to head U.S. Citizen and Immigration Services, Director Lee Cissna, was the removal of this truism from the agency’s mission statement: “America is a Nation of Immigrants.” Why would the head of the agency that receives all applications for visas, both temporary and permanent, and for asylum and refugee protection choose to redact such seemingly innocuous and self-evident verbiage from the agency’s mission statement?
In the same time frame the Department of Housing and Urban Development, headed by Trump’s appointee Ben Carson, removed the words “inclusion” and “free from discrimination” from its mission statement. We’ve seen in history how totalitarian regimes try to control the dialogue within their populace by changing and sanitizing language, including the use of language within federal institutions.
When this White House requested a study to map the net costs of refugees, conducted by the Department of Health and Human Services, and the results showed a net benefit to the economy over a period of ten years of $63 billion, the White House buried the study. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/18/us/politics/refugees-revenue-cost-report-trump.htm
Simultaneously the administration was implementing the so-called Muslim ban against citizens and residents of seven mostly-Muslim countries out of supposedly national security reasons. No one has ever explained why Saudi Arabia, the home of 15 of the 19 9/11 bombers, was not included in the list. (Saudi Arabia is also the home of the Al Qaeda sympathizer who shot up the Naval Air Station at Pensacola,Florida Air Base in December, 2019, killing three sailors and wounding eight.)
In the early days of this administration there was much hype over the “migrant caravans” composed mostly of Central Americans from the “northern triangle” countries, El Salvador, Honduras and Guatemala, that were “invading” our country — the old “barbarian hordes” trope that is a favorite of every totalitarian regime. In fact the numbers of each such “caravan” for the most part would easily fit inside a typical college stadium. (Current demographics demonstrate that even if we admitted all of them as potential workers and residents, the U.S. would still experience labor shortfalls in the near future and they would not supplant the decline of our native-born population.)
In the final months of 2016, I traveled with a group of asylum and refugee officers to San Salvador where we interviewed and vetted minors who were requesting refugee protection because of threats to themselves and their families by the ruthless MS-13 and 18th Street gangs. The children we spoke with or their parents had all received such threats as, “Either you work for us or you and your parents will be dead next week,” or “Give me your daughter or you have two days to leave the country.” And they all knew neighbors or close relatives who had died when such threats were ignored. We felt gratified knowing that we were granting these kids a lifeline of resettlement to the U.S.. I would only hope that any American father or mother, if ever faced with such a choice by a credible threat, would have the courage and means to flee across borders in order to protect their children, just as those parents joining the caravans with their children have chosen to do.
The new administration ordered a halt to such in-country interviews and even the resettlement of the cases we had already approved for travel. Its spokesmen have continuously and falsely characterized such asylum applicants as fraudsters who are gaming the system. The administration’s first morally challenged Attorney General, Jeff Sessions, claimed there was a conspiracy of corrupt attorneys who are manufacturing all of their stories. Believe me, they are not manufactured. All credible international reporters, including our own State Department, rebut the claim that such migrants are merely seeking jobs in the U.S. International reports affirm that some gangs in El Salvador are able to maintain such power and territorial control that they exercise the functioning equivalent of State authority, making it impossible for potential victims to resist their demands.
Sessions even admonished the assembled group of immigration judges at a conference, telling them they must not let their humanitarian impulses interfere with some fictitious mandate to deport as many applicants as possible. (Stephen Miller, the self-hating white nationalist who has dictated this administration’s immigration policy from the beginning, was once a staffer for then-Senator Jeff Sessions. Miller subscribes to the “white replacement” or “white genocide” theory that the brown-skinned migrant hordes will replace the superior descendants of Western civilization if not stopped.)
Jeff Sessions also chose to meddle in the administration of the immigration courts, in such a bungling manner that his mandated reforms achieved the opposite of his goal to reduce backlogs. By restricting the ways in which immigration judges can control their own docket, such as eliminating a judge’s ability to place a case on hold or “administratively close” a case while collateral legal action is ongoing in the migrant’s case, and by taking away ICE trial attorneys’ discretion to agree to grants of compelling cases, backlogs blossomed by the tens of thousands — within the two and a half years of this administration from approximately 500,000 to currently one and a half million.
The Netflix film crew obtained unprecedented access to ICE and CBP operations in the making of their series. I have trained asylum officers at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center at Glencoe, Georgia, featured in the first episode of the Netflix series, and I have supervised asylum officers at the ICE family detention centers in Texas featured in the first episode. And I experienced, along with my colleagues, the devastating effects of the administration’s continuing attempts to deter refugees from coming to our southern border through abuse and cruelty, the so-called family separation policy. It is telling to see how many ICE and CBP officers and supervisors conceded, on camera, that the deterrence of ripping children from their parents’ arms upon arrival at the border is cruel and inhumane and un-American, but they felt compelled to follow the orders because “it’s the law.”
The so-called Zero Tolerance policy that was advanced by retired Marine General Kelly, first DHS Secretary and later White House Chief of Staff, and AG Sessions was a sham from the get-go. An impossible task, launched for public consumption and to create the impression that only by locking up all unlawful border crossers could any order be returned to the enforcement of our laws. The sham is that no law enforcement body in the country, federal or state, has a zero tolerance policy, simply because no one has the resources to detain, charge, prosecute, adjudicate and jail all offenders. (This stark reality is in fact the reason for the plea bargaining system in criminal court). In my career I observed how the U.S. Attorney’s Offices in Washington, D.C., and in San Diego, would, within their discretion, “no-paper” cases they considered too minor or insignificant to prosecute, saving their powder for bigger game. This was also the policy that the Obama Administration, under guidance of then DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano, established as ICE policy, when ICE agents and prosecuting attorneys were advised to let the low-hanging fruit go, such as hard-working but undocumented laborers, and concentrate instead on serious felons for apprehension and removal. The admitted consequences of this administration’s Zero Tolerance policy was to require all migrants be detained and prosecuted. Since children cannot be detained in an adult facility, they were to be separated from their parents, in order to achieve the maximum of trauma and pain upon the children and their parents. The trauma itself was to be a deterrent to future unlawful crossers, by “sending a message” not to come to the U.S. The notorious photos of kids in cages have tarnished our international reputation and provided talking points for terrorists.
Netflix film crews accompanied agents on raids in multiple locations, when the Zero Tolerance policy initially led to mass inland roundups. The cameras recorded agents blatantly lying to targets about who they are and their authority to enter private dwellings and arrest suspects without criminal arrest warrants, clear violations of the Fourth Amendment. We see numerous ICE veterans, and even FODs-Field Office Directors — lamenting the new ‘catch everyone’ policy, knowing from experience that such tactics are inhumane and bound to fail in the long run.
We see a gung-ho ICE public affairs officer trying to convince the Field Office Director of the Charlotte, North Carolina office to lie in a press briefing and indicate that 90% of the migrants detained in a community-wide sweep have criminal records; the FOD twice corrects him that the correct figure is 30–35%, meaning the remaining 70% are harmless field workers, hotel employees, construction workers or single mothers with U.S. citizen children.
Even though political appointees such as DHS Secretary Kirsjten Nielsen and AG Sessions were willing to blatantly lie to Congress about the motivation and consequences of such cruel policies, they were still tossed out by the president when the reality on the ground impaired their ability to achieve deportation numbers sufficient to satisfy the Nativist in Chief. Ultimately it took an even more barbaric policy, the Migrant Protection Protocol (MPP), another unlawful executive order, to force legitimate asylum seekers to remain on the Mexican side of the border while their cases were piling up in the bureaucracy. MPP is Orwellian double-speak, because the migrants, rather than being protected, are being sent into circumstances where they are easy prey for cartels targeting them and are notoriously subject to kidnappings, rapes, robberies and murders. No migrant being forced to wait for months in tents or temporary shelters along the border is safe.
Most disappointing to me as a Supervisory Asylum Officer was how management at the Arlington Asylum office, as soon as the MPP operating instructions came down in early 2019, was so willing to coerce asylum officers into violating their oaths to uphold the Constitution and the laws of the U.S. At an internal meeting with management and the asylum officers, supposedly to hash out the ground rules of this new MPP program, one of my officers complained that he felt both ethically and morally conflicted for the first time in his career, knowing that forcing asylum seekers to wait in Ciudad Juarez, one of the most dangerous cities in the world, was a violation of his oath and his training to offer protection to asylum seekers.
I wondered how our managers could justify to themselves the cruel and unlawful policies they were insisting that their subordinates carry out. Were they hoping that the federal courts would soon overturn the blatantly illegal policy and they would thus be off the hook? Were they thinking that at least they, as a federal officer with some limited power, were better than whoever might replace them if they were to resign? I’m sure that is how many attorneys and jurists, working within totalitarian regimes, justify their collaboration and acceptance of policies that are dehumanizing and deadly. When they were asked by their subordinates for justification they threw up a disingenuous wall of semantics, and when asked what procedures Customs and Border Protection were following in the context of MPP, they were told, “We believe CBP knows how to do their jobs.” Basically, just shut up and do what we tell you to do.
I was one of the first supervisors sent to oversee our officers conducting the new MPP screening interviews at the San Ysidro border crossing south of San Diego. Under the new guidelines the migrant must demonstrate to the asylum officer that it is “more likely than not” that they would meet serious harm if forced to wait for many months in Mexico until returning for an audience in front of an immigration judge, in order to be exempted from the requirement of waiting in Mexico. One of my very conscientious officers decided to refer for protection a young Guatemalan woman who had been held captive in an apartment in Tijuana by her domestic partner and brutalized and assaulted, and then viciously stalked when she fled from the dwelling. She should be allowed to remain in the U.S. pending her court date because it was clearly too dangerous for her to return to where her tormentor could easily locate her. I reviewed the interview notes and consulted with my officer and I agreed that it was a good case for protection. We informed CBP and our chain of command of the decision. The next day I received a call from the Deputy Director of the Arlington Asylum office., Jennifer Rellis. I was told that we had to be very careful with our assessments of the MPP cases because the “front office” had eyes on these cases. I was instructed to overturn our decision and to deny the young woman protection. And I was instructed that, going forward, any time I was inclined to approve any of my officers’ decisions to grant protection, I must first have one of my managers also review and sign off on it. There was no such requirement if we decided to deny protection to an applicant. Thus a presumption was created that we should deny protection in our MPP adjudications, a reversal of all of our training as asylum and refugee officers, and a blatant violation of our own statute and of U.N. refugee guidelines. In the following months this presumption against protection has continued to be enforced.
I wondered how Ms. Rellis could live with herself in so callously stripping me of my discretion to afford protection to legitimate refugees, given her training as a humanitarian lawyer. I’m sure if asked, she would argue we have no choice but to comply, and we can still protect asylum seekers within the limits of this new program. But there was no articulable reason why she would order me to enact an unlawful presumption of ‘not qualified’ where none exists in our asylum statute, regulation, case law, or international refugee law. The fact that such managers, whom we had always believed were motivated by their own humanitarian commitments, would so enthusiastically fall in line with a blatantly unlawful program caused great distress among the ranks of asylum officers. Many of my colleagues sought reassignment to other divisions within USCIS or even left the agency altogether. When I received that phone call I also began making arrangements to leave what had become a compromised agency.
Only months after I departed in June, the much-beloved Director of the Asylum Division was reassigned by the unlawfully appointed Acting USCIS Director Ken Cuccinelli to a management position in an uncontroversial department of USCIS. It was conceded that he had lamented to his asylum officers in an internal e-mail that it was unfortunate that the troops were being asked to adjust to these new policies with no forewarning or opportunity to adequately train.
It is remarkable that American Federation of Government Employees Union Local 1924, the union that represents asylum officers, has submitted “friend-of-the-court” briefs in numerous lawsuits against the administration’s attempts to implement the MPP program and otherwise curtail and dismantle the asylum program; and that Union Local 1924 President Michael Knowles has testified before Congress in opposition to such policies.
Jeff Session’s replacement AG William Barr has shown himself willing to continue the dismantling of our asylum program. He issued an edict that immigration judges would no longer have the discretion to grant bonds to asylum seekers in custody — clearly another attempt to discourage applicants from seeking shelter in the U.S. through the use of cruelty. This is an issue that is especially dear to my heart, as it has always been my principle that no asylum applicant should remain detained a day longer than necessary for routine administrative procedures. In fact, I testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee in 2013, at a time that comprehensive immigration reform was optimistically expected to be passed, in favor of granting immigration judges additional authority to issue bonds. My proposal wound up in the Senate’s draft legislation, which regretfully was never even taken up by the House. (In a meeting with Senator Marco Rubio’s immigration staffer I was assured that “the Senator is behind your proposals 100%.” During his subsequent presidential campaign in 2016 Rubio claimed he had never been in favor of comprehensive immigration reform). Again, several weeks after Barr’s edict against bond, a federal court blocked Barr’s draconian and heartless ban on conditional release from custody of asylum seekers from taking effect.
From the earliest campaign rallies in 2016, Trump has used fear and hatred of others to divide Americans and energize his base. The forefathers of most European Americans gained entry to the U.S. in exactly the same fashion as all those “illegal aliens” at our southern border; by showing up and asking for admission, at Ellis Island, at a time when there were no immigration controls in place other than routine screening for communicable diseases. Today the vast majority of Americans would not qualify for admission if measured against the standards this administration is trying to implement.
I was a refugee officer in the field at the time of the current President’s election. My colleagues and I were already conducting “extreme vetting” on Syrian, Iraqi, Somali, and numerous other populations, in conjunction with security resources of the CIA, FBI, Defense Intelligence Agency and Pentagon, years before this President decided to use fear as a means of control. My last assignment at the Refugee Affairs Division in 2015, before transferring to the asylum program, was to assist in the heightened vetting of all Syrian applicants at headquarters. Ironically, it is demonstrable that, on average, Syrian and Iraqi migrants to the U.S. are among the highest educated migrants in sciences and technology.
Refugee Admissions Decimated
During the last year of the Obama administration, in the context of the worst international refugee crisis since the end of the 2nd World War, the Obama administration asked that the Refugee Affairs Division increase refugee admissions from the already admirable number of 90,000 in fiscal year 2016 to 110,000 for 2017. However, on the heels of the Muslim ban came the new administration’s pronouncement that rather than 110,000, in fiscal year 2017 the program would be suspended for the rest of the year, thus grounding all refugee officers. . In 2018 the admissions was capped at 45,000 refugees, and it was determined that a ceiling of 30,000 admissions would be set for 2019. At a time when the U.S. should have been manning the bulwarks of refugee protection (Germany received a million refugees in 2015, comparable to the U.S. taking in 4 million) the U.S. effectively withdrew from the field, sending the signal that the U.S. no longer considers itself a leader in the world for refugee protection. A ceiling of 18,000 was set for fiscal year 2020, and this amount was only agreed to after push back from the Pentagon in reference to promises we had made to allies and interpreters working with our troops in the field in Irag, Afghanistan and Syria.
In 2018 Director Cissna also made the shocking announcement that USCIS would close all of its overseas offices, passing numerous tasks onto the State Department and domestic offices. The offices, established over a period of decades in such countries as Kenya, Ghana, South Africa, China, South Korea, Thailand, Mexico and Peru, primarily function as facilitators for family unity and refugee operations. Perhaps the first time that a federal bureaucracy has voluntarily given up turf, but in line with the administration’s seeming loathing for family unity.
The Myth of Skilled Migration
When then Chief of Staff General Kelly, formally DHS Secretary, disparagingly pronounced that most Central American migrants are “rural” migrants, as though of less value than presumably better educated “urban” migrants from white European countries, I took personal offense. My grandfather Grussendorf migrated with his family from a rural village in Lower Saxony, Germany at the end of the 19th Century at a time when there were no immigration controls at Ellis Island. He settled in the farming community of Grand Rapids, Minnesota, where he ran a farm and begat five children, one of whom became a high school math teacher; one became a state judge, one opened a nursery in Duluth, and one, my father, became a highly decorated Marine colonel, former company commander at the WWII landings at Saipan, Iwo Jima, and Okinawa. (I was born at Camp Pendleton). The state judge’s children included Cousin Benny Grussendorf who became Speaker of the House in the Alaskan Legislature. My father’s children included a Navy Captain and minister, a Navy enlisted man and transportation professional; a political activist, and an immigration judge. My brother the Navy Captain’s children include an Air Force flight surgeon and base hospital director; a veterinary, and a multi-lingual translator with her own business in France. All of these offspring were imbued with strong “rural” family values. That’s how migration works.
The idea of skilled-based migration, to be administered by a point system involving education, employment background, and language skills, isn’t all that bad in and of itself. Our close alleys Canada, the U.K., Australia and New Zealand all administer a version of this skills-based migration. The problem is the suggestion to eliminate family-based migration, when clearly the vast majority of our nation’s people, including the President’s own family, have benefited from it. The better idea is to double the current admissions level of permanent residents, half to be drawn from a skills-based system. It is the unnaturally low numbers of annual permanent resident admissions that is partly responsible for the log-jam of our immigration system, in today’s world where there is such an interest in immigration to the U.S., and given that our otherwise native-born population is in decline.
We must recognize that the recent surge at our southern border is not some kind of existential challenge to the nation’s existence, as seen in a vacuum, but rather only one component of the world-wide refugee crisis, a symptom of wars and world-wide insecurity. The long-term solution to any refugee crisis is always peace and prosperity in the country/region that is generating the refugees. Only peace and stability in Syria and northern Africa can allay the human waves of refugees into Europe. Only a Marshal-type program for the northern triangle countries, coupled with short term humanitarian protection for those fleeing eminent death, can resolve the crisis at our southern border.
And finally, regarding the present state of the U.S. Immigration Court system under this white nationalist administration, I’d like to quote my friend and colleague, Judge Paul Schmidt:
Once upon a time, there was a court system with a vision: Through teamwork and innovation, one of the world’s best administrative tribunals guaranteeing fairness and due process for all. Two decades later, that vision has become a nightmare. (…)
Today, the U.S. Immigration Court betrays due process, mocks competent administration, and slaps a false veneer of “justice” on a “deportation railroad” designed to evade our solemn Constitutional responsibilities to guarantee due process and equal protection. It seeks to snuff out every existing legal right of migrants. Indeed, it is designed specifically to demean, dehumanize, and mistreat the very individuals whose rights and lives it is charged with protecting.
It cruelly betrays everything our country claims to stand for and baldly perverts our international obligations to protect refugees. In plain terms, the Immigration Court has become an intentionally “hostile environment” for migrants and their attorneys.
As Paul points out, beyond all of the regime’s racism, illegality, and immorality that has already been exposed in the media, the deep corruption, cowardice, and cruelty of those carrying out the program is simply stunning! It’s precisely how authoritarian, anti-democracy, illiberal regimes of the past like Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, and Mao’s China operated.
Inflicting “trauma for deterrence” on vulnerable humans is a “war crime” and a “crime against humanity,” plain and simple — regardless of the unlikelihood that regime’s many “perps” will be brought to justice within their lifetimes.
To those who doubt it, when the pandemic subsides, take a tour of the Holocaust Museum. The disgraceful conduct of the German judiciary and civil service is eerily similar to what Paul describes at DHS and EOIR.
We also must remember that despite being well-aware of the Trump/Miller racist-motivated immigration agenda, and the patent falseness of the legal and factual pretexts cooked up by the regime and its ethically challenged lawyers to provide “thin cover” for illegality and inhumanity, a Supremes’ majority improperly intervened to overrule lower Federal Courts and “greenlight” gratuitous cruelty and abuses of humanity! This process, known as “Dred Scottification” (“dehumanization of the other”) has carried over into the Supremes’ majority’s disgraceful mistreatment of African Americans, Hispanic Americans, and other minorities in our society. It’s one of the key reasons why we have actually moved further away from racial equality and racial harmony in our society since the advent of the far-right judiciary.
Paul also exposes one of the biggest “shams” advanced by the racist right and their congressional supporters: That we must build an Immigration Court capable of deporting everyone in the U.S. without authorization. To state the obvious, this would be a practical impossibility, as well as an economic and social disaster — destabilizing industries and communities throughout the U.S., at a high cost, with no overall benefit.
It’s insane to charge the Immigration Courts with deporting everyone! That inevitably leads to mindlessly and exponentially increasing the number of judges without thinking about the training, support, technology, and wise policies necessary for them to operate successfully, fairly, and efficiently. Moreover, at some point, aimlessly increasing the number of judges without fixing the disgraceful deficiencies in the current system merely adds to the chaos, disorder, and the gross inconsistencies for which the system has become notorious.
Obviously, the system must be fixed before a rational decision can be made on whether or not to expand it. Fixing the current system also lays the important groundwork for the necessary creation of an independent Article I Immigration Court.
No, the answer is to invest in fixing the current system to get it operating, as it originally was intended, as a high quality, modern, efficient court system that guarantees fairness and due process for all.
With approximately 500 Immigration Judges already on board (not, of course, all the best qualified judges to carry out the mission — but that’s a problem for later), the reasonable annual capacity of the system is around 250,000 (500 judges x 500 cases/year) to 300,000. That means that more than one million of the current “deadwood” cases currently being warehoused on the EOIR docket by politicos at EOIR and DHS with no practical plan in place for ever completing them, must be removed and returned to DHS.
That’s actually a job for a new, non-racist, professional DHS. But, given past spotty to downright contemptuous performance by DHS field officials, the Immigration Judges must be given strong authority to, where necessary, close and remove cases even in the face of DHS opposition.
This means, of course, reversing “Gonzo Apocalypto” Sessions’s absurdly wrong decision in Castro-Tum. But, return to the prior status-quo is not enough!The BIA and the Immigration Judges must be empowered to take even more aggressive actions to close cases when necessary to do justice and to force the DHS to respect and comply with docket capacities.
Then, as Paul suggests, like all other law enforcement agencies in the U.S., DHS enforcement must be required to develop strategies and prioritize cases in a manner that will not exceed the 250,000 per year capacity of the Immigration Courts. A large scale legalization program for those already here, a much more robust overseas asylum program, particularly in the Northern Triangle, and more “user friendly” legal programs to bring in needed workers, on either a temporary or permanent basis, would be great starting points to “rationalizing” the immigration system.
We thereby could end “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” as it has been practiced and expanded by DOJ & DHS politicos for the past two decades while taking the pressure off the Immigration Courts to do anything other than their only and only mission: through teamwork and best practices, guaranteeing fairness and due process for all who come before these courts.
The key to making this happen: Immediate disempowerment of the deadly ongoing “Clown Show” 🤡☠️⚰️ in EOIR “management” and at the BIA and replacing them with members of the NDPA: experts in asylum law, due process, practical scholarship, problem solving, and best practices. Then, and only then, will we see the restoration and progressive advancement of due process and humanity in the disgracefully broken U.S. Immigraton Courts. Without immediate EOIR reform, there can and will be no “equal justice for all” in the U.S. justice system! And, that’s bad news for all of us!
“Eyore In Distress” Once A Symbol of Fairness, Due Process, & Best Practices, Now Gone “Belly Up”“Justice” Star Chamber StyleBIA Members: “Hey, let’s celebrate! We just sent a refugee to death for not being able to describe some obscure insignia irrelevant to the case. But, the big thing is we found ‘any reason to deny’ asylum making our handler ‘Billy the Bigot’ happy! He’s out to set new killing records before Jan. 20! Maybe he’ll find us jobs at Breitbart then!” https://www.flickr.com/photos/rasputin243/ Creative Commons LicenseHon. Jeffrey S. Chase Jeffrey S. Chase Blog Coordinator & Chief Spokesperson, Round Table of Former Immigration Judges
On November 24, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued an unpublished decision in Malonda v. Barr. In that case, the asylum-seeker was attacked by armed soldiers when they raided his family’s home in the Democratic Republic of Congo. The soldiers raped and killed three of his sisters, and abducted his father and brother, all due to the father’s membership in an opposition political party.
The Immigration Judge acknowledged the voluminous documentation and detailed testimony in support of the claim. However, asylum was denied because Malonda couldn’t identify the soldiers’ uniforms with absolute certainty, although he stated “they were working for the government, I can say.” And because he did not credit the attackers as working for the government, the judge did not find that the attack was necessarily motivated by the family’s political opinion, but could have simply been an act of random violence not protected under asylum law.
Malonda was not the only recent agency decision to employ this thought pattern. In the BIA’s precedent decision in Matter of O-F-A-S-, an applicant for protection under the Convention Against Torture testified that he was beaten, robbed, and threatened by five men wearing police uniforms bearing the insignia of a government law enforcement agency, who were armed with high-caliber weapons and handcuffs. The Immigration Judge determined that the respondent had not met his burden of establishing that the five were police officers, as the uniforms could have been fake, and criminals also carry weapons. The IJ further noted that the five did not arrive in an official police car, and immediately departed when they heard that a police car was en route in response to the disturbance. Of course, real police officers engaging in extracurricular criminal activity would behave the same way. Nevertheless, the BIA found no clear error on appeal.
In another recent decision presently pending at the Second Circuit, asylum was denied because the applicant was unable to state with certainty from the details of the uniform he wore that one of his persecutors was certainly a police officer, although he believed that he was. The IJ therefore did not conclude that police were involved, instead considering the persecutors to be non-state actors, from whom the respondent hadn’t proven that the police were unwilling or unable to protect him. The BIA affirmed in an unpublished decision. Obviously, a finding that a police officer participated in the persecution of the asylum applicant could well have led to a different finding as to the government’s willingness to protect.
In each of the above cases, the respondent was found to be a credible witness. There are only two types of witnesses in court proceedings: fact (or “lay”) witnesses and experts. Asylum applicants are fact witnesses, describing what they experienced. Although the Federal Rules of Evidence are not binding on immigration judges, they provide the best guidance available, as the Immigration Courts have no such evidentiary rules of their own. Rule 701 of the FRE allows a lay witness to express an opinion provided that it is (1) rationally based on their own perception; (2) helpful to clearly understand the testimony or to determine a fact in issue; and (3) not based on scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge reserved for expert witnesses. In the above cases, the asylum seekers’ opinions that the uniformed, armed attackers were government officials fit clearly within the parameters of Rule 701.
Of course, asylum applicants are not experts on uniforms worn by the various government forces in their home countries. I doubt most country experts who testify in asylum cases would possess such specific expertise. Even if they did, those experts weren’t present to witness the event in question to be able to affirm that the uniform was in fact the official government issue. So what is the solution in cases in which the Immigration Judge harbors doubt regarding the attackers?
The UNHCR Handbook at para. 196 advises that despite all efforts, “there may also be statements that are not susceptible of proof. In such cases, if the applicant’s account appears credible, he should, unless there are good reasons to the contrary, be given the benefit of the doubt.” The following paragraph adds that evidentiary requirements should not be applied too strictly to asylum seekers. But the Handbook sets limits on this practice, adding that “[a]llowance for such possible lack of evidence does not, however, mean that unsupported statements must necessarily be accepted as true if they are inconsistent with the general account put forward by the applicant.”1
It would seem that requiring absolute confirmation of the authenticity of the attacker’s uniform (which psychologists have testified is not one’s focus during a traumatic experience) places an insurmountable burden on asylum applicants. Given the purpose of asylum laws, where an asylum applicant expresses the reasonable opinion that attackers who look and behave like government officials are in fact government officials, in the absence of the type of inconsistencies flagged by the Handbook, the benefit of the doubt should be allowed to carry the day.
Addressing this issue in Malonda, the Second Circuit focused on the fact that the identity issue was tied to the question of political opinion. The court referenced its decision from earlier this year in Hernandez-Chacon v. Barr, in which it cited language from the BIA’s excellent 1996 decision in Matter of S-P- holding that political opinion is established by direct or circumstantial evidence.
The Second Circuit pointed to circumstantial evidence in Malonda’s testimony that the attackers were government soldiers motivated by the family’s political opinion. Such evidence included the facts that Malonda’s home was the only one attacked, and his father was the only resident of the street who was an active opposition party member. Furthermore, the likelihood of the attackers being anti-government rebels was undermined by Malonda’s testimony that the rebels ability to reach his neighborhood was impeded by the presence of state security forces, and that his brother, who was abducted by the attackers, was brought to a camp where he was trained to fight against (rather than for) the rebels.
In a footnote, the court noted that the BIA had added its own insinuation to the contrary by referencing general reports of rebel involvement in “widespread violence and civil strife” in the country. But the Second Circuit pointed out that such general information failed to consider that Malonda’s own region was protected by the government, and “more importantly, does not explain why the rebels would have targeted only Malonda’s house for such violence.”
The Second Circuit’s opinion in Malonda emphasizes the starkly different approaches of the 1996 BIA and its current iteration. In Matter of S-P- (an en banc decision which remains binding precedent on immigration judges and the BIA), the Board noted the difficulty in determining motive where “harm may have been inflicted for reasons related to government intelligence gathering, for political views imputed to the applicant, or for some combination of these reasons.” But the Board emphasized the importance of keeping “in mind the fundamental humanitarian concerns of asylum law,” which are “designed to afford a generous standard for protection in cases of doubt.”2
S-P- also included a reminder that a grant of asylum “is not a judgment about the country involved, but a judgment about the reasonableness of the applicant’s belief that persecution was based on a protected ground.” As the scholar Deborah Anker has emphasized, such reasonableness determinations require “that the adjudicator view the evidence as the applicant – or a reasonable person in his or her circumstances – would and does not simply substitute the adjudicator’s own experience as the vantage point.”3 In its decision in Sotelo-Aquije v. Slattery, the Second Circuit similarly emphasized the importance of vantage point by describing the standard as what a reasonable person would find credible “based on what that person has experienced and witnessed.”
Applying this standard, what reasonable person who had experienced and witnessed what Malonda did would say: “You know, I was pretty certain the attackers were government soldiers punishing us for my father’s political activities. But since you pointed out that I’m not completely certain about the uniforms, I guess I was mistaken. It was probably just a random incident. In which case, I can’t see any reason to fear return?”
Remarkably, that appears to have been the BIA’s approach in Malonda. Its decision lacked any indication of adopting the asylum applicant’s vantage point or applying the benefit of the doubt as described above. And while Matter of S-P- set out a rather complex set of elements for identifying motive through the types of circumstantial evidence pointed to by the Second Circuit, the present BIA pointed instead to whatever generalized information it could find in the record to justify affirming the asylum denial.
Although an unpublished decision involving a pro se petitioner that could easily evade our attention,4 Malonda underscores the need for a uniform application of the principles emphasized in the BIA’s decision in Matter of S-P-, instead of a “uniform” approach based on the ability to identify uniforms.
Notes:
Although not binding, the Supreme Court has recognized that “the Handbook provides significant guidance in construing the Protocol, to which Congress sought to conform [and] has been widely considered useful in giving content to the obligations that the Protocol establishes.” INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421, 439 n. 22 (1987). The BIA reached a similar conclusion in Matter of Acosta, 19 I&N Dec. 211 (BIA 1985) (finding the Handbook to be a useful tool “in construing our obligations under the Protocol”).
The majority opinion in Matter of S-P- was authored by now retired Board Member John Guendelsberger. Three current members of the Round Table of Immigration Judges, Paul W. Schmidt (the BIA Chairperson at the time), Lory D. Rosenberg, and Gustavo Villageliu, joined in Judge Guendelsberger’s opinion.
Deborah E. Anker, Law of Asylum in the United States (2020 Edition) (Thomson Reuters) at 76.
Thanks to attorney Raymond Fasano for bringing this decision to my notice.
Copyright 2020, Jeffrey S. Chase. All rights reserved.
Reprinted With Permission.
***********************
Obviously, the BIA could resume court-like functions, provide scholarly, rational guidance and enforce uniformity for Immigration Judges (too many of whom lack true expertise in asylum laws), help cut backlogs, increase efficiency, and put an end to frivolous litigation by DHS which too often these days seeks to encourage IJs to deny cases where asylum grants clearly are warranted. (There was a time, at least in Arlington, when DHS Counsel actually worked cooperatively with the private bar and the Immigration Judges to promote fairness and use court time wisely on asylum cases. Those days are now long gone as the system has regressed horribly and disgracefully under the maliciously incompetent, White Nationalist, nativist, leadership of the current regime at DHS and DOJ).
But, due process, fundamental fairness, and best practices, can’t and won’t happen until the current “BIA Clown Court” 🤡 is replaced with a new group of expert Appellate Judges ⚖️👨🏻⚖️🧑🏽⚖️ from the NDPA who are “practical scholars” in immigration and human rights laws.
“EOIR Clown Show Must Go” T-Shirt Custom Design Concept
WASHINGTON — Owning a small business in Cameroon selling French products was enough to trap the young man between the English-speaking minority and French-speaking majority government in the warring West African nation.
In July 2019, he was kidnapped by armed rebels, who tortured him for months in the jungle, demanding $10,000 ransom from his family, he said. Then, shortly after they paid, government forces arrested and tortured him for another month — for “financing” the separatists.
But what shocked him most, he said, was that after he escaped through a dozen countries and claimed asylum at the U.S.-Mexico border, American officials detained him for almost a year, then threatened and assaulted him and put him in solitary confinement before deporting him back to Cameroon in late October.
“At that point, it’s like the end of the world,” he said, requesting anonymity because he is in hiding. “It’s a death plane. Even if there was a means to make that plane crash that day, we would’ve done it.”
During President Trump’s last weeks in office, Black and African asylum seekers say, the administration is ramping up deportations using assault and coercion, forcing them back to countries where they face harm, according to interviews with the immigrants, lawyers, lawmakers, advocates and a review of legal complaints by The Times.
Immigrations and Customs Enforcement and Homeland Security headquarters did not respond to requests for comment.
The allegations have shed light on a group of immigrants that has been targeted by the president’s rhetoric and his policies to restrict asylum, but that is often overlooked. Relative to Mexicans and Central Americans, asylum seekers from Africa and the Caribbean make up a small but fast-growing proportion of the more than 16,000immigrants in detention today across the United States, particularly in the for-profit prison archipelago in the American South that has proliferated under Trump.
Despite Trump’s all-out assault on asylum, explicit bias against Black asylum seekers, and border closures under the pretext of the pandemic, some 20,000 Haitians and Africans have journeyed from South America, largely on foot, to claim protection at the U.S.-Mexico border during Trump’s time in office, according to Mexico’s migration statistics.
President-elect Joe Biden has said he will end the use of for-profit immigration detention, reverse many of Trump’s policies that restrict asylum, and reform the U.S. immigration system. But Trump has left his successor with decades-long private-prison contracts; more than 400 executive actions on immigration; a record immigration court backlog of more than 1.2 million cases; and record-high asylum denial rates, reaching around 70% last month.
Since October, lawyers have filed multiple complaints with the Homeland Security Department’s Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties and Inspector General’s Office documenting the cases of at least 14 Cameroonian asylum seekers at four detention facilities in Louisiana and Mississippi who say ICE subjected them to coercion and physical abuse to force their deportations.
The complaints call for investigations and an immediate halt to the deportations, arguing that officials are violating U.S. and international law, including due process rights and the Convention Against Torture.
In that time, more than 100 asylum seekers also have reported ICE using or threatening force to put them on deportation flights, in particular to Haiti and West Africa, according to lawyers and calls received on a national immigration detention hotline run by the nonprofit Freedom for Immigrants.
The Times has interviewed nine asylum seekers, most from Cameroon, others from Haiti or Ethiopia, many of whom requested anonymity for fear of retaliation. Five have been deported in the last month, and three remain detained after ICE attempted to remove them in recent weeks. One Cameroonian was released Monday after roughly 20 months in immigration detention.
They include teachers, law students, mothers, fathers, a 2-year-old boy and a 3-year-old girl, who have fled corrupt governments, political persecution, gang rape, torture by security forces, assassination attempts and arbitrary detention.
For many, deportation from the United States is a death sentence.
“I came to U.S. because I need to save my life because my life is in danger,” said a high school teacher who fled Ethiopia in 2017 after being jailed and beaten for supporting an opposition political party and student protests.
The teacher claimed asylum at the San Ysidro Port of Entry on the California-Mexico border in 2018. But last month, while being held at the Adelanto ICE Processing Facility, after he refused to sign deportation papers, six ICE officers assaulted and forcibly fingerprinted him, he said, then sent him to the medical clinic.
His asylum case had been denied but was pending an appeal. Two days after the assault, he said, officers told him he’d be transferred. Instead, they took him to Los Angeles International Airport and deported him to Ethiopia, where he was immediately rearrested and now awaits a court hearing.
“ICE is something like racist because they are doing excessive force,” the teacher said. “In [a free] country I don’t expect these things.”
Many asylum seekers are well aware of Trump’s disparagement of Black immigrants. And many believe that ICE officials and detention guards share his prejudices.
As Trump leaves office, the “pattern and practice of physical and verbal coercion” by ICE officers and guards to force Black asylum seekers to sign deportation papers is worsening, according to the complaints filed to Homeland Security’s Civil Rights and Civil Liberties and Inspector General’s offices.
Beyond threats, the tactics include shackling the immigrants, stripping them naked, holding them down and choking them, resulting in injuries, according to the complaints. Officials often committed the assaults out of sight of facility cameras, and in several instances filmed the assaults themselves, the complaints state.
Immigration detention is civil, not criminal, and ICE has the discretion to release detainees at any time. Most of the asylum seekers have family in the United States, and all have exercised their right to seek protection under U.S. law — meaning that many are being detained for years even though they have U.S. sponsors and haven’t committed a crime.
Of the deportation flights to West Africa in October and November, at least a dozen on board had pending cases, according to lawyers.
In interviews with The Times, the asylum seekers said they sought protection in the United States because they believed it was the only place where they could be safe and free.
“We believe in freedom and in this country as a country that provides protection for people who are running for their lives — and instead upon arrival, for us to be imprisoned and caged?” said a Haitian mother detained with her husband and 2-year-old son at a Pennsylvania ICE facility.
Police officers in Haiti had targeted her and her husband for their involvement with the political opposition, beating and sexually assaulting her while she was pregnant, according to sworn legal statements. She miscarried before she fled.
Despite many countries shutting their borders amid the COVID-19 pandemic, ICE has recently increased the pace of deportations, including sending a flight to West Africa just days after the Nov. 3 election. In October, there were nearly 500 ICE Air Operations flights, a more than 10% increase since September, according to Witness at the Border. More than 1,300 Haitians were deported, said Guerline Jozef, president of the Haitian Bridge Alliance in California.
In recent years, Cameroonians have increasingly accounted for one of the largest groups of what U.S. officials call “extracontinental” migrants, as the conflict in Cameroon has widened.
One man, going by the initials K.S., said he fled because officials in Cameroon had asked him to work with them to capture Anglophone people. He refused; his wife and three children are from the English-speaking side.
He had been detained at the Imperial Regional Detention Facility east of San Diego for over two years when the final appeal on his asylum claim was denied — making him so depressed that he spent a week under medical observation.
He said the ICE officer assigned to his case advised him to sign paperwork agreeing to be deported. The officer said that if the Cameroonian government didn’t accept ICE’s request to take him back, as was likely, he would be released to his U.S. sponsor after 90 days.
On Oct. 6, after 97 days had passed, six guards stood by as K.S. was ordered to pack up his things to leave.
“I didn’t think about deportation,” he said. “It was the last thought on my mind. They lied to me.”
ICE officers put him on a flight to Louisiana that picked up other Cameroonian deportees and then dropped the group off at the Prairieland Detention Facility in Texas. On Oct. 13, K.S. said, he was cuffed and taken to the airport, where he boarded a flight with about 100 other African migrants.
He watched as ICE officers strapped in three men from their shoulders to their ankles to restrict their movement and covered their heads with bags, then laid them across rows of seats in the plane.
Just as the flight was about to take off, K.S. and three other men were removed and taken back to Prairieland, without explanation.
Three weeks later, on Nov. 11, K.S. was back on a deportation flight with 27 other men. One, who was known to have heart problems, began crying that his chest was burning, K.S. said, an account confirmed to The Times by another passenger.
ICE ultimately removed the man and put him in an ambulance.
In contrast to Central Americans largely fleeing a lethal combination of gang violence, corruption, poverty and climate change, many Haitians and Africans have more traditional asylum claims that, at least in theory, better fit the categories outlined by an outdated U.S. asylum system largely conceived in the post-World War II era: persecution based on race, religion, nationality, political opinion or social group.
Yet Black and African asylum seekers are less likely than other immigrants to be released on parole or bond, or to win their asylum cases — a racial disparity that has worsened under Trump, according to lawyers and government data.
From September 2019 to May 2020, comparing hundreds of release requests from detained Cubans, Venezuelans, Cameroonians and Eritreans, the non-Africans had grant rates roughly twice as high, said Mich Gonzalez, senior staff attorney at the Southern Poverty Law Center. Fewer than 4% of Cameroonian parole requests were granted.
ICE is also increasingly blanket-denying Black immigrants’ release for clearly bogus reasons, said Anne Rios, a supervising attorney in San Diego with the nonprofit Al Otro Lado.
For example, ICE rejected one request by claiming an applicant’s identity hadn’t been established, when the agency had the applicant and his identification documents in its custody, according to parole applications and denials provided by Rios and reviewed by The Times.
U.S. officials have faced more impediments to deporting Haitian and African asylum seekers due to limited diplomatic relationships with their homelands and more complicated deportation logistics exacerbated by coronavirus closures abroad.
But that hasn’t stopped them. The Trump administration has at times put enforcement before its own stated foreign policy, contradicting the State Department and U.S. law barring officials from returning people to harm or death.
Take Cameroon. Last year, the U.S. pulled back some military assistance amid reports of atrocities committed by security forces trained and supplied by the U.S. military for counterterrorism. The State Department travel advisory for Cameroon warns of “crime,” “kidnapping,” “terrorism” and “armed conflict.”
Rather than obtaining valid Cameroonian passports, ICE officials have issued Cameroonian deportees “laissez-passer” travel documents that are invalid, or even signed by individuals in the United States purporting to be Cameroonian officials, according to the October complaint.
. . . .
*********************
Read the rest of the article at the link.
I understand the incoming Biden-Harris Administration’s desire to avoid getting entangled in the muck of the overt corruption, racism, and countless crimes of the outgoing regime.
Nevertheless, I doubt that institutional racism can be eliminated, equal justice under law achieved, and racial harmony realized without dealing in some way with the many crimes against humanity committed in the name of racism, hate, and “Dred Scottification” by the regime and their cronies, toadies, and enablers at DHS, DOJ, DOS, and elsewhere in government.
Also, to state the obvious, the types of cases described by Molly and Andrea could have been rapidly granted at the Asylum Office level in a functioning system. That’s a critical first step in eliminating the largely self-created backlog in the Immigration Courts, ending counterproductive litigation by the Government, and largely “zeroing out” the unnecessary and wasteful “New American Gulag” (“NAG”) of bogus “civil” detention largely abusively applied for illegal punishment and deterrence.
Fair and rational application of immigration laws and sane policies also make for efficient, fiscally responsible government. Compare that with the current kakistocracy which has run up record deficits, created endless backlogs, and left behind far, far more problems than they solved. Indeed, never has a gang of empowered malicious incompetents showed so little ability to recognize, promote, or govern in the common good.
Due Process Forever! Complicity in Crimes Against Humanity, Never!
Dumping Asylum Seekers in Honduras Artist: Monte Wolverton Reproduced under license“Sheltering in Cages” by John Darkow Reproduced under licenseJeff Sessions’ Cage by J.D. Crowe, Alabama Media Group/AL.com Republished under license
CRUELTY TO migrant children, a trademark of the Trump administration’s immigration policy, did not cease when officials reversed course in the face of public outrage two years ago and stopped wrenching toddlers, tweens and teens from their parents — with no plan or process to reunite them. It has continued apace under cover of the pandemic, which the White House has used as an all-purpose pretext for ignoring child-protection laws and diplomatic agreements governing asylum, and, without even a nod to due process, expelling unaccompanied children who cross the border seeking refuge.
A federal judge has now halted that practice even as he acknowledged the administration’s far-reaching powers in the midst of a public health emergency. Those powers are broad, U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan ruled, but do not enable the government to send minors packing without affording them a chance to have their asylum claims heard.
At least 13,000 children have been detained by Border Patrol officers and swiftly thrown out of the country under an emergency decree that has effectively sealed off the southern border to most migrants since the spring. Administration officials justified the measure in the name of protecting the country from a potential influx of migrants carrying the coronavirus — but performed no testing, and provided no data, to substantiate their stance.
Given infection rates in Mexico and Central America, it may be reasonable to assume that some migrants, including unaccompanied minors, might have contracted covid-19. It may also be the case, however, as the ACLU argued in court, that the practice of expelling young migrants actually exposes U.S. border authorities to more risk — in the course of holding them while flights are arranged to their home countries in Central America or elsewhere — than they would otherwise face if the migrants were placed in shelters that have the capacity to adopt social distancing and other precautions. Judge Sullivan, for his part, said the government had asserted its “scientific and technical expertise” to justify its policy of evicting young migrants — but provided none by way of actual evidence.
As it happens, it occurred to at least some administration officials, early on in the pandemic, that migrant children deserved some special consideration. When the policy of suspending asylum was first rolled out, children who crossed the border were exempted. That was quickly reversed, however, with a spokesman saying that minors would be returned to their countries of origin on a “case by case basis.” In the ensuing months, however, virtually all have been expelled.
Anti-trafficking and other laws provide for protections for unaccompanied minors who arrive in this country. The administration has seized on the pandemic to disregard those, along with other long-standing measures and practices that set procedures for migrants seeking refuge here. A more humane approach, in line with American traditions and values, would have established a process for testing and quarantining, at least for migrant children, as they pursued asylum claims. But humane policy is anathema to the Trump administration, and the result is thousands of children who have been subjected to unwarranted hardship and risk.
*********************
Remembers, the victims are largely dead, deported, or still suffering! The “perps” — including the “Perp in Chief,” “Gruppenfuhrer Miller,” Jeff “Gonzo Apocalypto” Sessions, “Wolfman the Illegal,” and “Billy the Bigot” remain at large, even profiting from and bragging about their “crimes against humanity.” This is a “functioning democracy?” No way!
We’ve all been subjected to the disingenuous writings of pundits babbling on about the resilience of American democracy in the face of a fascist president and his corrupt anti-democracy party of cowards and enablers. Hogwash!
Make no mistake about it, American democracy is on the ropes! Basically, we’re watching a corrupt President who lost the election by over 6 million votes and 74 electoral votes engage in systematic frivolous, abusive, baseless litigation intended to destroy our nation, undermine our national security, and disenfranchise voters. It’s a disgusting, overtly racist, dishonest performance that would have any other individual in America and his motley band of unethical lawyers in jail for contempt and conspiracy to obstruct justice! But, Trump and his cronies continue to operate outside the law!
We owe our existence as a nation less to any “structural integrity” and much more to a relatively few courageous, smart, highly motivated members of the resistance: immigration, human rights, and civil rights lawyers; African American women; non-right-wing journalists; Democratic legislators; scientists and medical professionals; a limited number of Federal Judges, mostly at the District Court and Immigration Court levels (and specifically excluding any current BIA Member, EOIR “Manager,” or Supreme Court Justice not named Sotomayor, Kagan, and (sort of) Breyer); courageous DACA kids; and some Federal Career Civil servants not working at ICE or CBP.
The “resilience of American institutions” view is largely that of a privileged minority who haven’t been deported to possible torture or death without any process at all (let alone “due” process), haven’t been illegally separated from beloved family members, aren’t rotting in private prisons (the “New American Gulag”) for the “crime” of seeking justice, aren’t struggling with unemployment or difficulty putting food on the table while Moscow Mitch and his elites focus on confirming unqualified Federal Judges, haven’t had family members shot by the police, haven’t had family members unnecessarily suffer and die because of the worst President in U.S. history’s maliciously incompetent failure to provide leadership and any systematic strategy for controlling a pandemic, and haven’t had to put their lives and professional reputations on the line in a failing Justice system that has enabled grotesque abuses by the likes of Jeff “Gonzo Apocalypto” Sessions, Billy the Bigot Barr, Noel Francisco, and the rest of their band of unethical Government lawyers.
The Biden Administration must do a thorough housecleaning of the corrupt DHS and DOJ bureaucracies that carried out the illegal, immoral, racist, White Nationalist agenda developed by neo-Nazi Stephen Miller and his cowardly gang of brownshirts!
And, as a nation, we need to think carefully about the implications of a life-tenured Supreme Court majority that, since their initial feckless performance on the “Muslim Ban” cases, time and time again failed to forcefully and unanimously stand up for our democracy, human decency, and those defending them in the face of overt, racism and hate driven, Executive tyranny! A Supremes’ majority that has disgracefully and spinelessly embraced the “Dred Scottification” of “the other” (mostly immigrants and those of color). It’s not rocket science! And some of our “elite law schools” seemed to have forgotten to teach “Con Law 101” and “Basic Ethics” to aspiring right wing judges!
It’s less about institutions than it is about the courageous individuals who uphold them! And, our future depends on the Biden-Harris Administration putting these folks “in the game” to insure that an unmitigated disaster like the Trump regime, it’s rampant illegality and inhumanity, and its “malicious incompetence” can never, ever, happen again! And, we must at least start the process of developing a better and more courageous Federal Judiciary for the future!
Due Process Forever! Complicity in the face of tyranny, never!
“Eyore In Distress” Once A Symbol of Fairness, Due Process, & Best Practices, Now Gone “Belly Up”Recent Barr Appointee Prepares to Take Bench Fangusu, CC BY-SA 4.0 <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0>, via Wikimedia Commons“Justice” Star Chamber StyleBIA Asylum Panel In Action Albrecht Dürer, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
Gregory Chen @ Just Security lays bare the unrelenting nightmare @ EOIR:
The Trump administration has subjected America’s courts to extreme politicization and relentless assaults in the past four years. At the highest level, the deeply partisan battle over the Supreme Court confirmation of Justice Amy Coney Barrett transfixed the nation. But an even more radical transformation has been occurring in America’s immigration courts that has gone almost entirely unnoticed yet impacts hundreds of thousands of lives each year.
In a single term, Trump has filled the immigration courts with judges that hew to his anti-immigrant agenda and has implemented policies that severely compromise the integrity of the courts. Strained to the breaking point under a massive backlog of cases and a systemic inability to render consistent, fair decisions, the immigration courts require the urgent attention of the incoming Biden administration.
Most people apprehended by immigration enforcement authorities are removed from the United States without ever seeing a judge. The fortunate few who come before a judge are those seeking asylum or who need humanitarian relief that only an immigration judge can grant. Despite this critical role, these courts have suffered for years from underfunding, understaffing, and deep structural problems such as the fact that, unlike other courts, they operate under the jurisdiction of a prosecutorial agency, the Department of Justice, whose aims and political interests often conflict with the fundamental mission of delivering impartial and fair decisions. In recent years, the Justice Department has exercised its power to the maximal extent, stripping judges of fundamental authorities and rapidly appointing judges, to bend the courts toward political ends.
The intense public debates that accompany the Senate confirmation of Supreme Court nominees stand in sharp contrast to the lack of any public or congressional oversight into the appointments of immigration judges. During his time in office, President Donald Trump has appointed at least 283 out of a total of 520 immigration judges with no more fanfare than a public notice on the court’s website.
The Trump administration has not only chosen the majority of immigration judges but has also stacked the courts with appointees who are biased toward enforcement, have histories of poor judicial conduct, hold anti-immigrant views, or are affiliated with organizations espousing such views. Human Rights First found, for example, that 88 percent of immigration judges appointed in 2018 were former Department of Homeland Security (DHS) employees or attorneys representing the department.
Especially egregious are the appointments of the Chief Immigration Judge, who was previously the chief prosecutor for Immigration and Customs Enforcement and lacked any bench experience; the Chief Appellate Judge, who was a Trump advisor on immigration policy and a former prosecutor; and an immigration judge who worked for the Federation for American Immigration Reform, a known hate group. With the pace of appointments accelerating, it’s likely that even more judges conforming to that mold will be appointed before the administration’s term ends. In each of the most recent fiscal years, the administration has hired progressively more judges: 81 in 2018; 92 in 2019; and 100 in 2020.
Packing the Board of Immigration Appeals
The idea of packing the Supreme Court was heavily debated in the run-up to the election, but court-packing has already occurred on the Board of Immigration Appeals — the immigration appellate body — with the Trump administration’s addition of six new positions that raised the total size of the board from 17 to 23. The two regulations expanding the board were promulgated in rapid succession, each on an expedited basis that afforded no opportunity for public comment.
The expansion of the Board was another brazenly transparent move to fill the bench with judges unsympathetic to those appearing before them. Data from 2019 reveal that six immigration judges whom Attorney General William Barr elevated to serve as Board members had abysmal asylum grant rates — an average of 2.4 percent — that were far below the norm of 29 percent. Two of those judges denied every asylum case that year. In a manner of speaking, these judges never met an asylum seeker they liked.
The next year, Justice Department leadership tried to cull the nine appellate judges appointed by previous administrations by offering them buyout packages if they resigned or retired early. None took the deal, and thereafter, changes were made to their positions to make them more vulnerable to pressure from above and further intimidate them into leaving.
A judicial system that is buffeted so wildly by political waves cannot retain the public’s trust that it will deliver fair decisions. A similar attempt made at the end of the George W. Bush administration resulted in a hiring scandal that rocked the Justice Department. An oversight investigation found its leadership had violated federal law by considering immigration judge candidates’ political and ideological affiliations. Monica Goodling, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales’s White House Liaison, and other department staff had improperly screened candidates based on their political opinions by examining voter registration records and political contributions and asking about political affiliations during interviews. Now, at the request of eleven democratic senators, including Senator and Vice President Elect Kamala Harris, the Government Accountability Office has launched an investigation into the Trump administration’s politicization of the immigration courts.
Political interference with the immigration courts rises to the very top of the Department of Justice. Both Attorneys General Jeff Sessions and Barr vigorously exercised an unusual authority that enables them to overturn and rewrite the Board of Immigration Appeals’ decisions. In a series of opinions, Sessions divested judges of the powers they need to control their dockets, such as the authority to administratively close, continue, or terminate cases that are not suitable or ready for hearing. (Matter of Castro-Tum, 27 I&N Dec. 271 (A.G. 2018); Matter of L-A-B-R-, et al., 27 I&N Dec. 405 (A.G. 2018); Matter of S-O-G- & F-D-B-, 27 I&N Dec. 462 (A.G. 2018).)
. . . .
******************
Read Gregory’s complete article at the link.
Have any doubt that EOIR is a deadly “hack haven?” Here’s an article about a Barr “judicial” appointee with no immigration experience. What’s his “claim to fame?” He’s a controversial state criminal judge from Illinois who “retired” several years after being rated “unqualified” for further judicial service by the Chicago Council of Lawyers (although other groups recommended him.)
According to a recent complaint filed with EOIR by an coalition of an astounding 17 legal services and immigration groups in the San Francisco area:“In unusually aggressive language, the coalition accused Ford of ‘terrorizing the San Francisco immigrant community,’ alleging that he dispensed ‘racist, ableist and hostile treatment of immigrants, attorneys and witnesses.’”
With tons of exceptionally well qualified legal talent out there in the New Due Process Army (“NDPA”) who are experts in immigration and asylum laws and who have demonstrated an unswerving career commitment to scholarship, due process, fundamental fairness, equal justice, professionalism, and treating all humans decently, there is no, that is NO, excuse for tolerating clowns like Ford in perhaps the most important judicial positions in the Federal System. Judges at the “retail level” of our system who decide hundreds of thousands of cases annually and exercise life or death authority over large segments of our population and set the tone and are the foundation for our entire justice system!
Enough of the malicious incompetence, institutionalizedracism, ignorance, intentional rudeness, wanton cruelty, worst practices, disdain for scholarship, dehumanization, destruction of the rule of law, hack hiring, and systemic trampling of human decency and human dignity! EOIR is an ongoing“crime against humanity” perpetrated by the Trump regime under the noses of Congress and the Article III Courts who have undermined their own legitimacy by letting this stunningly unconstitutional travesty continue.
The Biden-Harris Administration must fix EOIR immediately! It’s not rocket science! The talent to do so is ready, willing, and able in the NDPA!
There is no “middle ground” here, and the status quo is legally and morally unacceptable! If they don’t fix it, the incoming Administration will rapidly become a co-conspirator in one of the darkest and most disgraceful episodes in American legal history. One that literally poses an existential threat to the continuation of our nation!
This isn’t a “back burner” issue or a project for “focus groups.” It’s war! And, we’re on the front lines of the monumental battle to save the heart, soul, and future of America and our judicial system! Failure and fiddling around (see, Obama Administration) aren’t options!
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in June that the Trump administration wrongly tried to shut down protections under the Obama-era legislation known as DACA, or Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals. On July 28, Wolf nonetheless suspended DACA pending review.
Homeland Security did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Judge Nicholas Garaufis said court conferences would be held to work out details of his ruling.
He concluded, “Wolf was not lawfully serving as Acting Secretary of Homeland Security under the HSA [Homeland Security Act] when he issued the Wolf Memorandum” that suspended DACA.
Karen Tumlin, a lawyer in the case and director of the Los Angeles-based Justice Action Center, said the ruling means, “the effort in the Wolf memo to gut the DACA program is overturned.”
She said the ruling applies to more than a million people, including more recent applicants and those seeking two-year renewals for protection under DACA.
“This is really a hopeful day for a lot of young people across the country,” Tumlin said.
. . . .
******************
Read the rest of the article at the link.
Congrats to Karen and others who are fighting against the “illegals” in the Trump regime. Ironically, the DACA folks are huge contributors to America’s success😎; the “illegals” in the Trump regime, not so much🤮. Seems like there should be “sanctions” for knowingly and intentionally employing fake “cabinet officials” like Wolfman in violation of law👎🏻!
“Eyore In Distress” Once A Symbol of Fairness, Due Process, & Best Practices, Now Gone “Belly Up”“Justice” Star Chamber StyleMe
FROM THE HEIGHTS OF KASINGA TO THE DEPTHS OF AMERICA’S DEADLY STAR CHAMBERS: Will The Biden Administration Tap The New Due Process Army To Fix EOIR & Save Our Nation?
By Paul Wickham Schmidt
Retired U.S. Immigration Judge
Courtside Exclusive
Nov. 12, 2020
I. INTRODUCTION — ABROGATION OF ASYLUM LAWS IN THE FACE OF EXECUTIVE LAWLESSNESS & RACIAL BIAS IS A NATIONAL DISGRACE
In Matter ofKasinga, I applied the generous well-founded fear standard for asylum established by the Supreme Court in Cardoza-Fonseca to reach a favorable result for a female asylum applicant. It was based on a particular social group of women of the tribe who feared persecution in the form of female genital mutilation, or “FGM.” I sometimes think of this as the “high water mark” of asylum law at the BIA.
Since then, proper, generous application of asylum laws to serve their intended purpose of flexibly, fairly, and consistently extending protection to those facing persecution has been steadily declining. The Trump Administration essentially overruled Cardoza-Fonseca and abolished asylum law without legislative change.
Both Congress and the Court have failed to stand up to this egregious abuse of the law, constitutional due process, and simple human decency that presents a “clear and present danger” to our nation’s continued existence.
Indeed, the performance of the Court in the face of the Administration’s overt assault on asylum has been so woeful as to lead me to wonder whether any of the Justices, other than Justice Sonia Sotomayor, have actually read the Cardoza-Fonseca decision. Certainly, most of them have failed to consistently and courageously carry forth its spirit and to grapple with their legal and moral responsibility for letting a lawless Executive trample the constitutional and human rights, as well as the human dignity, of the most vulnerable among us.
How did we get to this utterly deplorable state of affairs and what can the Biden Administration do to save us? Will they act boldly and courageously or continue the tradition of ignoring abuses directed against asylum seekers and the deleterious effect it has on our society and the rule of law?
I guarantee that racial justice and harmony will continue to elude us as a nation unless and until we come to grips with the ongoing abuses in the Immigration Courts — “courts” that no longer function as such in any manner except the misleading name!
II. BACKGROUND
To understand what has happened since Kasinga, here’s some background. In U.S. asylum law, there generally has been an “inverse relationship” between geography and success. The further your home country is from the U.S., the more generous the treatment is likely to be.
Thus, folks like Kasinga from Togo, or those from Tibet, Ethiopia, China, or Eritrea, with relatively difficult access to our borders, tend to do relatively well. On the other hand, those from Mexico, Haiti, Central America, and South America, who have easier access to our borders, tend to be treated more restrictively.
This reaction has been driven by a hypothesis with limited empirical support, but which has been accepted in some form or another by all Administrations, regardless of party, since the enactment of the Refugee Act of 1980. That is, the belief that human migration patterns are driven primarily by the policies and legal regimes in prosperous so-called “receiving countries” like the U.S.
Thus, generous and humane asylum policies will encourage unwanted flows of asylum seekers across international borders. And, of course, we all know that nothing threatens the national security of the world’s greatest nuclear superpower more than a caravan or flotilla of desperate, unarmed asylum seekers and their families trying to turn themselves in at the border or to the Border Patrol shortly after arrival.
Conversely, restrictive policies including rapid, unfair rejection, border turn-backs, mass detentions, criminal sanctions, family separation, denials of fair hearings, walls, border militarization, and hostile, often racially and religiously charged rhetoric, will cause asylum seekers to “stay put” thus deterring them and reducing the number of applications threatening our national security. In other words, encourage legitimate asylum seekers to “perish in place.” Often, these harsh policies are disingenuously characterized as being, at least partially, “for the benefit of asylum seekers” by discouraging them from undertaking dangerous journeys and paying human smugglers only to be summarily rejected upon arrival.
This “popular hypothesis” largely ignores the effect of conditions in refugee sending countries, including both geopolitical and environmental factors. For example, the current migration flow is affected by the practical difficulties of travel in the time of pandemic and by economic failures and cultural and political changes resulting from unabated climate change, not just by the legal restrictions that might be in place in the U.S. and other far-away countries.
It also factors out the “business narratives” of human smugglers designed to manipulate asylum seekers in ways that maximize profits under a variety of scenarios and to take maximum advantage of mindlessly predictable government “enforcement only” strategies.
Indeed, there is plenty of reason to believe that such policies serve largely to maximize smugglers’ profits, extort more money from desperate asylum seekers, but with little long-term effect on migration patterns. The short-term reduction in traffic, often hastily mischaracterized as “success” by the government, probably reflects in part “market adjustments” as smugglers raise their rates to cover the increased risks and revised planning caused by more of a particular kind of enforcement. That “prices some would-be migrants out of the market,” at least temporarily, and forces others to wait while they accumulate more money to pay smugglers.
It also likely increases the number of asylum seekers who die while attempting the journey. But, there is no real evidence that four decades of various “get tough” and “deterrence policies” — right up until the present — have had or will have a determinative long term effect on extralegal migration to the U.S. It may well, however, encourage more migrants to proceed to the interior of the country and take “do it yourself” refuge in the population, rather than turning themselves in at or near the border to a legal system that has been intentionally rigged against them.
Regardless of its empirically questionable basis, “deterrence theory” has become the primary driving force behind government asylum policies. Thus, the fear of large-scale, out of control “Southern border incursions” by asylum seekers has driven all U.S. Administrations to adopt relatively restrictive interpretations and applications of asylum law with respect to asylum seekers from Central America.
Starting with a so-called “Southern border crisis” in the summer of 2014, the Obama Administration took a number of steps intended to discourage Central American asylum seekers. These included: use of so-called “family detention;” denial of bond; accelerated processing of recently arrived children and adults with children; selecting Immigration Judges largely from the ranks of DHS prosecutors and other Government employees; keeping asylum experts off the BIA; taking outlandish court positions on detention and the right to counsel for unrepresented toddlers in Immigration Court; and dire public warnings as to the dangers of journeying to the U.S. and the likelihood of rejection upon arrival.
These efforts did little to stem the flow of asylum seekers from the Northern Triangle. However, they did result in a wave of “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” (“ADR”) at the Immigration Courts that accelerated the growth of backlogs and the deterioration of morale at EOIR. (Later, Sessions & Barr would “perfect the art of ADR” thereby astronomically increasing backlogs, even with many more judges on the bench, to something approaching 1.5 million known cases, with probably hundreds of thousands more buried in the “maliciously incompetently managed” EOIR (non)system).
Success for Central American asylum applicants thus remained problematic, with more than two of every three applications being rejected. Nevertheless, by 2016, largely through the heroic efforts of pro bono litigation groups, applicants from the so-called “Northern Triangle” – El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala – had achieved a respectable approval rate ranging from approximately 20% to 30%.
Many of these successful claims were based on “particular social groups” composed of battered women and/or children or family groups targeted by violent husbands or boyfriends, gangs, cartels, and other so-called “non-governmental actors” that the Northern Triangle governments clearly were “unwilling or unable to control.”
III. CROSSHAIRS
Upon the ascension of the Trump Administration in 2017, refugee and asylum policies became driven not only by “deterrence theory,” but also by racially, religiously, and politically motivated “institutionalized xenophobia.” The initial target was Muslims who were “zapped” by Trump’s so-called “Muslim ban.” Although initially properly blocked as unconstitutional by lower Federal Courts, the Supreme Court eventually “greenlighted” a slightly watered-down version of the “Muslim ban.”
Next on the hit list were refugees and asylees of color. This put Central American asylum seekers, particularly women and children, directly in the crosshairs.
In something akin to “preliminary bombing,” then Attorney General Jeff Sessions launched a series of false and misleading narratives against asylum seekers and their lawyers directed at an audience consisting of Immigration Judges and BIA Members who worked at EOIR and thus were his subordinates.
Without evidence, Sessions characterized most asylum seekers as fraudulent or mala fide and blamed them as a primary cause for the population of 11 million or so undocumented individuals estimated to be residing in the U.S. He also accused “dirty immigration lawyers” of having “gamed” the asylum system, while charging “his” Immigration Judges with the responsibility of “assisting their partners” at DHS enforcement in stopping asylum fraud and discouraging asylum applications.
IV. THE ATTACK
While not directly tampering with the “well-founded fear” standard for asylum, with Sessions leading the way, the Administration launched a three-pronged attack on asylum seekers.
First, using his power to review BIA precedents, Sessions reversed the prior precedent that had facilitated asylum grants for applicants who had suffered persecution in the form of domestic abuse. In doing so, he characterized them as “mere victims of crime” who should not be recognized as a “particular social group.” While not part of the holding, he also commented to Immigration Judges in his opinion that very few claimants should succeed in establishing asylum eligibility based on domestic violence.
He further imposed bogus “production quotas” on judges with an eye toward speeding up the “deportation railroad.” In other words, Immigration Judges who valued their jobs should start cranking out mass denials of such cases without wasting time on legal analysis or the actual facts.
Later, Sessions’s successor, Attorney General Bill Barr, overruled the BIA precedent recognizing “family” as a particular social group for asylum. He found that the vast majority of family units lacked the required “social distinction” to qualify.
For example, a few prominent families like the Rockefellers, Clintons, or Kardashians might be generally recognized by society. However, ordinary families like the Schmidts would be largely unknown beyond their own limited social circles. Therefore, we would lack the necessary “social distinction” within the larger society to be recognized as a particular social group.
Second, Sessions and Barr attacked the “nexus” requirement that persecution be “on account of” a particular social group or other protected ground. They found that most alleged acts of domestic violence or harm inflicted by abusive spouses, gangs and cartels were “mere criminal acts” or acts of “random violence” not motivated by the victim’s membership in any “particular social group” or any of the other so-called “protected grounds” for asylum. They signaled that Immigration Judges who found “no nexus” would find friendly BIA appellate judges anxious to uphold those findings and thereby retain their jobs.
Third, they launched an attack on the long-established “nongovernmental actor” doctrine. They found that normally, qualifying acts of persecution would have to be carried out by the government or its agents. For non-governmental actions to be attributed to that government, that government would basically have to be helpless to respond.
They found that the Northern Triangle governments officially opposed the criminal acts of gangs, cartels, and abusers and made at least some effort to control them. They deemed the fact that those governments are notoriously corrupt and ineffective in controlling violence to be largely beside the point. After all, they observed, no government including ours offers “perfect protection” to its citizens.
Any effort by the government to control the actor, no matter how predictably or intentionally ineffective or nominal, should be considered sufficient to show that the government was willing and able to protect against the harm. In other words, even the most minimal or nominal opposition should be considered “good enough for government work.”
V. THE UGLY RESULTS
Remarkably, notwithstanding this concerted effort to “zero out” asylum grants, some individuals, even from the Northern Triangle, still succeed. They usually are assisted by experienced pro bono counsel from major human rights NGOs or large law firms — essentially the “New Due Process Army” in action. These are the folks who have saved what is left of American justice and democracy. Often, they must seek review in the independent, Article III Federal Courts to ultimately prevail.
Some Article IIIs are up to the job; many aren’t, lacking both the expertise and the philosophical inclination to actually enforce the constitutional and statutory rights of asylum seekers — “the other,” often people of color. After all, wrongfully deported to death means “out of sight, out of mind.”
However, the Administration’s efforts have had a major impact. Systemwide, the number of asylum cases decided by the Immigration Courts has approximately tripled since 2016 – from approximately 20,000 to over 60,000, multiplying backlogs as other, often older, “ready to try” cases are shuffled off to the end of the dockets, often with little or no notice to the parties.
At the same time, asylum grant rates for the Northern Triangle have fallen to their lowest rate in many years 10% to 15%. Taken together, that means many more asylum denials for Northern Triangle applicants, a major erosion of the generous “well-founded fear” standard for asylum, and a severe deterioration of due process protections in American law. Basically, it’s a collapse of our legal system and an affront to human dignity. The kinds of things you might expect in a “Banana Republic.”
VI. WILL BIDEN FIX EOIR OR REPEAT THE MISTAKES OF THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION?
The intentional destruction of U.S. asylum law and the weaponization of EOIR in support of the White Nationalist agenda have undermined the entire U.S. justice system. It actively encourages both dehumanization (“Dred Scottification”) and institutionalized racism all the way up to a Supreme Court which has improperly enabled large portions of the unlawful and unconstitutional anti-migrant agenda.
The Biden Administration can reverse the festering due process and human rights disaster at EOIR. Unlike improving and reforming the Article III Judiciary, it doesn’t need Mitch McConnell’s input to do so.
Biden can appoint an Attorney General who will recognize the importance of putting immigration/human rights/due process experts in charge of EOIR. He can replace the current BIA with real appellate judges whose qualifications reflect an unswerving commitment to due process, expert application of asylum laws in the generous manner once envisioned by the Supreme Court in Cardoza-Fonseca, implementing “best” practices, judicial efficiency, and judicial independence.
Biden can return human dignity to an improperly weaponized system designed to “Dred Scottify” the other. He can appoint better qualified Immigration Judges through a merit-based system that would encourage and give fair consideration to the many outstanding candidates who have devoted their professional lives to fighting for due process, fundamental fairness, and immigrants’ rights, courageously, throughout America’s darkest times!
That, in turn, will create the necessary conditions to institutionalize the EOIR reforms through the legislative creation of an independent, Article I Immigration Court that will be the “gemstone” of American justice rather than a national disgrace! One that will eventually fulfill the noble, now abandoned, “EOIR Vision” of “through teamwork and innovation being the world’s best tribunals, guaranteeing fairness and due process for all.”
The Obama Administration shortsightedly choose to “freeze out” the true experts in the private advocacy, NGO, academic, clinical teaching, and pro bono communities. The results have been beyond disastrous.
In addition to killing, maiming, and otherwise harming humans entitled to our legal protection, EOIR’s unseemly demise over the past three Administrations has undermined the credibility of every aspect of our justice system all the way to the Supreme Court as well as destroying our international leadership role as a shining example and beacon of hope for others.
The talent in the private sector is out there! They are ready, willing, and very able to turn EOIR from a disaster zone to a model of due process, innovation, best practices, fair, efficient, and practical judging, and creative judicial administration. One that other parts of the U.S. judicial system could emulate.
Will the Biden Administration heed the call, act boldly, and put the “right team” in place to save EOIR? Or will they continue past Democratic Administrations’ short-sighted undervaluation of the importance of providing constitutionally required due process, equal justice, and fundamental fairness to all persons in the U.S. including asylum applicants and other migrants.
I’ve read a number of papers and proposals on how to “fix” immigration and refugee policies. None of them appears to recognize the overriding importance of making EOIR reform “job one.”
For once, why can’t Democrats “think like Republicans?” When John Ashcroft and Kris Kobach and later Jeff Sessions and Stephen Miller set out to kneecap, politicize, and weaponize the U.S. justice system, what was their “starting point?” EOIR, of course!
The Obama Administration’s abject failure to effectively address and reverse the glaring mess at EOIR left by the “Ashcroft reforms” basically set the table for Sessions’s even more invidious plan to weaponize EOIR into a tool for xenophobia and White Nationalist nativism. The problems engendered by allowing the politicization and weaponization of EOIR have crippled the U.S. justice system far beyond immigration and asylum law.
Without a better EOIR, fully empowered to lead the way legally and insure and enforce compliance, all reforms, from DACA, to detention reform, to restoration of refugee and asylum systems will be less effective, more difficult, and less enduring than they should be. Equal justice for all and an end to institutionalized racism cannot be achieved without bold EOIR reform!
It would also take some of the pressure off the Article III Courts. Time and again they are called upon, with disturbingly varying degrees of both willingness and competence in the results, to correct the endless stream of basic legal errors, abuses of due process, and inane, obviously biased and counterproductive policies regularly flowing from EOIR and DOJ. Indeed, unnecessary litigation and frivolous, ethically questionable, often factually inaccurate or intentionally misleading positions advanced by the DOJ in immigration matters now clog virtually all levels of the Article III Federal Courts right up to the docket of the Supreme Court!
So far, what I haven’t seen is a recognition by anyone on the “Biden Team” that the experts in the private bar who have been the primary fighters in the trenches, almost singlehandedly responsible for preserving American justice and saving our democracy from the Trump onslaught, must be placed where they belong: in charge of the effort to rebuild EOIR and those who will be chosen to staff it!
Continue to ignore the New Due Process Army and their ability to right the listing American ship of state at peril! It’s long past time to unleash the “problem solvers” on government and give them the resources and support necessary to use practical scholarship, technology, best practices, and “Con Law/Human Rights 101” to solve the problems!
No “magic list,” stakeholders committees, or consensus-building groups can take the place of putting expert, empowered, practical problem solvers in charge of the machinery. We can’t win the game with the best, most talented, most knowledgeable, most courageous players forever sitting on the bench!
The future of our republic might well depend on whether the Biden-Harris Administration can get beyond the past and take the courageous, far-sighted actions necessary to let EOIR lead the way to a better future of all Americans! We can only hope that they finally see the light. Before it’s too late for all of us!
Due Process Forever! Complicity & Complacency, Never!
What does a Joe Biden Presidency mean for America? An era without a fascist in office, for one thing. But it also means a very important figure will once again enter the White House, whose influence across the country can’t be understated: the Presidential pet.
Joe Biden has two dogs, a rescue named Major and an older German Shepherd named Champ who “loves to talk.” For the past four years not only has Donald Trump not welcomed any good boys into the White House, he has openly voiced his disdain for dogs and pets, using the word “dog” as an insult any chance he gets. Mike Pence might have Marlon Bundo and a few other animals, but Trump thought Pence bringing pets to the White House was, according to a 2017 report from The Hill, “low-class.” And anyway, all those Pence pets are complicit in this administration’s horrific policies, misogyny, and xenophobia, make no mistake.
But Presidential pets are a necessity. From Barack Obama’s beloved Bo and Sunny to FDR’s Fala (a beloved Scottish Terrier who actually starred in a small documentary film about his life as a Presidential pup in 1943), pets in the White House just make sense. I think beyond the usual dogs and cats, White House families should fill that sucker up with as many animals as possible. Don’t forget that President Calvin Coolidge was practically a pet hoarder, ushering in a raccoon, a pygmy hippo, and two lions named “Tax Reduction” and “Budget Bureau.”
Even if we don’t get a hippo once again, I for one am excited to have some dogs back in the White House, gnawing on furniture Abraham Lincoln once sat on, and bringing honor once again to this great nation.
*********************
Major & Champ will bring some much needed class and humanity to America’s first residence, which has conspicuously lacked both since January 20, 2017.
