🚂🛤GARLAND’S DEPORTATION RAILROAD KEEPS ROLLIN’ — WITH A LITTLE HELP FROM TWO GOP JUDGES IN 4TH — Mejia-Velasquez v. Garland — After 6 Years, 3 Flawed Tribunals, A Woman Claiming Politically-Motivated Gang Abuse In Honduras Sent Packing Back To Danger & Corruption Without A Merits Hearing!

Train
Dennis Adams, Federal Highway Administration; levels adjustment applied by Hohum
Public domain. — Garland’s Deportation Railway retains most of his predecessors’ engineers, conductors, and crew. It’s often slow, unreliable, erratic, and subject to arbitrary unannounced schedule changes. It continues to bypass “Due Processville” and “Fundamental Fairness City.”

https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/201192.P.pdf

Mejia-Velasquez v. Garland, 4th Cir., 02-16-22, published

PANEL: NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.

OPINION BY: Judge Niemeyer

DISSENT: Judge Motz

KEY QUOTE FROM DISSENT:

Under the current immigration statutes, DHS has good reason to require applicants for relief from removal to submit fingerprints and other biometrics. But before DHS does so, it must first comply with specified notice obligations. Where, as here, DHS fails to do so, I would not fault the applicant. As the Supreme Court explained in Niz-Chavez, “[i]f men must turn square corners when they deal with the government, it cannot be too much to expect the government to turn square corners when it deals with them.” 141 S. Ct. at 1486.

I respectfully dissent.

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

The IJ and the BIA relied on a wrong BIA precedent. The 4th Circuit majority judges recognized its incorrectness, but took OIL’s invitation to fashion another rationale for denying this asylum applicant a hearing on the merits of her life or death claim. While the respondent was represented by counsel, the disputed “warnings” and dialogue relating to the missing biometrics were not translated into Spanish, the only language she understood.

While this case was pending, USCIS finally delivered the long and inexplicably delayed biometrics appointment letter to the respondent. But, that made no difference to a group of judges anxious to railroad her back to Honduras (one of the most dangerous and thoroughly corrupt countries in the hemisphere) without a meaningful chance to be heard.

With a dose of macabre ☠️ irony, the 4th Circuit’s tone-deaf decision came just as the US was requesting extradition of former Honduran President, and Obama and Trump Administrations’ buddy, Juan Orlando Hernández on drug trafficking charges! https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/immigration/2022/02/violence-in-honduras-tied-to-ex-president-now-arrested.html

Of all the Federal Judges who looked at this case over the years, only Judge Motz was interested in providing the respondent a due process hearing on her life-determining claim. The rest evidently were more fixated on creating reasons for NOT hearing her case. With the same amount of judicial and litigation effort, likely less, the respondent probably could have received a due process hearing on the merits of her claim. Additionally, there would have been consequences for the BIA’s defective “good enough for government work” precedent.

Of course, like Garland, none of the exalted judges involved in this disgraceful dereliction of duty have actually represented an asylum applicant in Immigration Court and had to deal with the confusing, convoluted, backlogged, and often notoriously screwed up DHS/EOIR biometrics process. See, e.g., “USCIS Biometrics Appointment Backlog,” https://www.stilt.com/blog/2021/02/biometrics-appointment-backlog/.

I suspect that folks contesting a parking ticket get more consideration in our system than this asylum applicant got from Garland’s unfair and dysfunctional Immigration Courts and the OIL lawyers who defend these mis-handled cases. And, in the world of “refugee roulette,” where human lives are treated like lottery tickets, a different Circuit panel of judges might have joined Judge Motz in getting it right.

The problem starts with EOIR — tribunals that receive deference without earning it through expertise, quality scholarship, and prioritizing due process, fundamental fairness, and best practices. It’s aggravated and multiplied by Garland — an Attorney General indifferent to injustice and the trail of broken lives and dashed hopes left in its wake. And, it’s aided, abetted, and enabled by judges like the panel majority here, who can’t be troubled with the hard work of understanding the consequences of their dilatory approach and demanding fair, competent, and reasonable expert judging from EOIR.

As several of my colleagues have said about the broken, dysfunctional, unfair Immigration Court system, the haphazard review by some Circuit Courts, and the disturbing systemic lack of judicial courage when it comes to fairly applying the Due Process Clause of our Constitution to migrants of color: “The cruelty is the point.”

It’s also worthy of note that the failure of all the Federal Judges, save Judge Motz, to make any meaningful inquiry into the respondent’s clearly expressed fear of return to Honduras appears to violate mandatory requirements for withholding of removal under the INA and international conventions. Perhaps that’s not surprising as Federal Judges have allowed Garland, Mayorkas, and their predecessors to use the transparent pretext of “Title 42” to systemically violate the legal and human rights of refugees at our borders — every day!

It’s also worth putting into context the Biden Administration’s continuing pontification about the human rights of Ughyurs, Afghans, women, and other persecuted minorities, as well as their professed commitment to racial justice in the U.S., which has not been matched by actions. Indeed, the Biden Administration’s actual approach to human rights looks much more like “Miller Lite Time” than it does a courageous, competent, and fair reinstitution of the rule of law!

According to recent reports, many of the Ughyurs and Afghans who were fortunate enough to reach the U.S. and avoid arbitrary “turn backs” at our borders, are now mired in the endless, mindless Mayorkas/Garland bureaucracy that masquerades as an “asylum system” — subject to long waits, missing work authorizations, and sometimes arbitrary and secretive “denials” blasted by human rights advocates. In a functional system these would be the “low hanging fruit” that could rapidly be removed from limbo and given the ability to fully function in our society. But, not in the “Amateur Night at the Bijou” atmosphere fostered by Mayorkas and Garland.

The “strict enforcement” of regulatory requirements on the respondent in this case stands in remarkable contrast with the lackadaisical “good enough for government work” approach of Garland’s BIA and DOJ to the Government’s intentional non-compliance with the statutory requirements for a Notice to Appear (“NTA”). See, e.g., https://immigrationcourtside.com/2022/02/01/%f0%9f%97%bd%e2%9a%96%ef%b8%8fhon-jeffrey-chase-garland-bias-double-standard-strict-compliance-for-respondents-good-enough-for-govern/ Talk about “double standards” at Garland’s DOJ!

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

02-16-22

🗽ATTN NDPA: LAW YOU CAN USE — IN ACTION AND LIVING COLOR! 🎥 — ABA VIDEOS PRESENTS: “Master Calendar — Episode 1 Of Fighting For Truth, Justice, & The American Way In America’s Most Arcane & Dysfunctional ‘Courts’” — Featuring Blockbuster Due Process Superstars 🤩 Of Stage, Screen, & Internet: Stephanie Baez, Denise Gilman, & Michelle Mendez!

🌟 🌟 🌟 🌟 🌟

Stephanie Baez ESQ
Pro Bono Counsel
ABA Commission on Immigration
PHOTO: ABA

🌟 🌟 🌟 🌟 🌟

Denise L.; Gilman — Professor Denise L. Gilman
Clinical Professor, Director Immigration Clinic
UT Austin Law
PHOTO: UTA

🌟 🌟 🌟 🌟 🌟

Michelle N. Mendez, ESQ
Director of Legal Resources and Training
National Immigration Project, National Lawyers Guild
PHOTO: NIPNLG

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=

“Join the ABA Commission on Immigration for a 3-part series on the Mechanics of Immigration Court. This series covers the nuts and bolts of how to practice in immigration court. Part I takes an in depth look at the Master Calendar Hearing and Filing Applications for Relief with Immigration Court. Topics to be covered include reviewing the Notice to Appear, getting your client’s court file, how to prepare for the initial Master Calendar Hearing and what to expect, best practices for appearing via WebEx and Open Voice, and a brief overview of common forms of relief and prosecutorial discretion. This webinar is designed for pro bono attorneys and immigration practitioners who are new to immigration law, or for anyone who wants to brush up on their practical skills.”

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

PLAYING IN HOME, OFFICE, AND CLASSROOM THEATERS NOW!

RATED G — Suitable & Highly Recommended for All Audiences

Win cases, save lives, achieve racial justice, fulfill the wrongfully withheld promises of the U.S. Constitution, force change into a deadly and dysfunctional system that has been weaponized to “Dred Scottify” the other and degrade humanity!

Make an “above the fray” AG finally pay attention to and address the disgraceful, due-process-denying, wasteful mess in “his wholly-owned parody of a court system.” This is what being a lawyer in 21st Century America is all about!

The video is 1 hour and 15 minutes!

“If you can win a case in this system, everything else in law, indeed in life, will be a walk in the park!” — Paul Wickham Schmidt, ImmigrationCourtside

Don’t miss the sequel!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

02-16-22

🔮PROPHETS: MORE THAN SEVEN MONTHS AGO, “SIR JEFFREY”🛡 & I SAID IT WOULD TAKE MORE THAN HOLLOW PROMISES IN AN E.O. TO BRING JUSTICE FOR VICTIMS OF GENDER VIOLENCE! — Sadly, We Were “Right On” As This Timely Lament From CGRS Shows!

Professor Karen Musalo
Director, Center for Gender & Refugee Studies, Hastings Law

Blaine Bookey
Legal Director
Center for Gender & Refugee Studies @ Hastings Law
Photo: CGRS website

The problem is very obvious: The “practical scholars” and widely respected international experts in asylum law who should be drafting gender-based regs and issuing precedents as appellate judges @ EOIR remain “frozen out” by Garland and the Biden Administration. Meanwhile, those who helped carry out the Miller/Sessions misogynistic policies of eradicating asylum protection for women of color not only remain on the bench but still empowered by Garland to issue controlling interpretations of asylum law.

https://cgrs.uchastings.edu/sites/default/files/Deadly%20Inertia%20-%20PSG%20Regs%20Guide_Feb.%202022.pdf

Deadly Inertia: Needless Delay of “Particular Social Group” Regulations Puts Asylum Seekers at Risk

February 10, 2022

On February 2, 2021, President Biden issued an executive order (“EO”) which directed executive branch agencies to review and then take action on numerous aspects of our shattered asylum system.1 Of particular interest to the Center for Gender & Refugee Studies (CGRS), and many asylum seekers, legal experts, and allies, was a provision ordering the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security to conduct a comprehensive examination of whether U.S. treatment of asylum claims based on domestic or gang violence is consistent with international standards, and to propose a joint rule on the meaning of “particular social group,” as that term is derived from international law (emphasis added).2

The deadlines set by the President – August 1, 2021 for the examination of current law on domestic violence and gang claims, and October 30, 2021 for the proposed regulations on particular social group – have come and gone. We are concerned that the administration has offered no indication of its progress on what should be a simple task, given that international law and authoritative international standards on particular social group are clear.3

This reference guide explains why regulations on particular social group are important, why this legal issue has become so contentious, and why there is no good reason for the delay in proposing regulations. We point out that there is a clear path forward for the United States to realign its treatment of asylum claims with established international standards, which is precisely what the EO mandates.

Why are regulations on particular social group important?

While “particular social group” may sound like an arcane topic in the notoriously complex area of asylum law, there is a reason it merited the President’s attention in an EO signed just two weeks after he took office.4 Persecution on the basis of membership in a particular social group is one of only five grounds for refugee status in U.S. and international law and has become the most hotly contested asylum law issue in the United States.

Why has particular social group jurisprudence become so contentious in the United States?

First, the phrase “particular social group” is less intuitively clear than the other grounds for asylum of race, religion, nationality, and political opinion. This ground is understood to reflect a desire on the part of the treaty drafters – and U.S. legislators who incorporated the international refugee definition into our own immigration law – to protect those who don’t fit neatly into the other four categories, and to allow asylum protection to evolve in line with our understanding of human rights. Such refugees might include, for example, women fleeing domestic violence, or LGBTQ+ people persecuted because they do not conform to social norms regarding sexual orientation or gender identity. They might be people fleeing violent retaliation by criminal gangs because they

200 McAllister Street | San Francisco, CA 94102 | http://cgrs.uchastings.edu

reported a crime or testified against a gang member. Or they might simply be related to someone who has defied a gang, and that alone makes them a target.

These people are clearly facing enormous harm, and equally clearly belong to a particular social group under a correct interpretation of the law. 5 But merely belonging to a particular social group does not result in being granted asylum. Only if a person meets all the other elements of the refugee definition, including the heavy burden of showing their group membership is a central reason they will be targeted, will they obtain protection in the United States.

Second, some policymakers and adjudicators fear that if particular social group claims qualify for protection, the “floodgates” will open. The Department of Justice’s Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) established the legal test for particular social group in 1985 in Matter of Acosta (see below).6 But beginning in 2006, the BIA altered the Acosta test by imposing additional requirements that are nearly impossible to meet.7 The result is that with only one exception, no new particular social groups from any country, no matter how defined, have been accepted in a published BIA decision since that time.

But there is no evidence to support the “floodgates” concern. Decades ago, when women who fled female genital cutting/mutilation were first recognized as a particular social group, some people argued that the United States would be inundated with such claims.8 Those fears never materialized. History shows, and the governments of both the United States and Canada acknowledged at the time, that acceptance of social group claims does not lead to a skyrocketing number of applicants.9

Third, asylum law, including the legal interpretation of particular social group, has been politicized. As part of an overtly anti-immigrant agenda, some politicians have seized upon the floodgates myth to promote increasingly restrictive policies and legal interpretations that depart from international standards. Politically oriented interference with asylum law reached new lows under the previous administration, most notably in 2018 when former Attorney General Sessions overruled his own BIA to issue his unconscionable decision in Matter of A-B-.10

Matter of A-B- was so widely reviled and justly condemned that all major Democratic candidates seeking their party’s presidential nomination in the last election promised to reverse the decision. Doing so was part of candidate Biden’s campaign platform.11 As President he made good on this promise by including the legal questions of domestic violence, gang brutality, and particular social group in the February 2021 EO.

Furthermore, and very much to his credit, Attorney General Garland granted CGRS’s request as counsel to vacate Matter of A-B- in June 2021.12 The law now stands as it did before Sessions’ unlawful interference, with the key precedent case Matter of A-R-C-G-13 recognizing a certain defined particular social group that may provide the basis for asylum for some domestic violence survivors.

However, as explained above, the problem goes beyond Sessions’ decision in Matter of A-B- and stretches back at least as far as 2006, when the BIA began to encumber particular social group claims with additional legal hurdles. As correctly noted in the EO, it is necessary to assess whether U.S. law concerning not only domestic and gang violence claims, but all claims based on particular

2

social group, is consistent with international law. Fortunately there is ample international guidance, which is itself largely based on Acosta, on this exact question.

So why the delay in proposing new regulations?

We can think of no good reason for the agencies’ delay in proposing new regulations on particular social group. From the perspective of both binding international law and authoritative international standards, each of which are named as the framework for particular social group regulations in the EO, the legal analysis is not at all complicated.

To begin with, this is not a new area of the law. The Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, the source of the refugee definition in which the phrase appears, was drafted in 1951. Our domestic law followed suit in the 1980 Refugee Act. As noted above, the key BIA precedent case interpreting particular social group, Matter of Acosta, was decided in 1985.14 The UN Refugee Agency’s (UNHCR) guidelines on particular social group, which adopt Matter of Acosta, were issued 20 years ago, in 2002.15

Making the job of proposing regulations even simpler, international guidance is clear. It is critical to note that as an inter-governmental organization, UNHCR routinely takes the concerns of governments, including the United States, into account in crafting its legal advice. UNHCR’s guidelines on particular social group were drafted only after a thorough review of State practice, including U.S. law, and an extensive process of external expert consultations with government officials and judges in their personal capacities, academics, and practitioners.16 The consultations process began with a discussion paper on particular social group drafted by a leading U.S. scholar who had previously served as Immigration and Naturalization Service General Counsel.17

How should the United States interpret particular social group to be consistent with international law?

The United States should adopt the “immutability” standard that the BIA set forth in Matter of Acosta, with an alternative – not additional – test of “social perception” which was initially developed by courts in Australia.18 The Acosta test rests on the existence of immutable or fundamental characteristics such as gender to determine whether there is a particular social group. What must be discarded are the BIA’s extraneous requirements of “particularity” and “social distinction.” They have no basis in international law, are not consistent with international standards, are not compelled by the text of the statute, and are not coherent or internally logical. They have themselves spawned an enormous number of confused and confusing cases, including at the federal courts of appeals level, as judges attempt to apply them to real world cases.19

Key Democratic members of Congress with deep knowledge on refugee issues have taken this position, which is consistent with UNHCR’s views. The Refugee Protection Act of 2019, for example, reflects international guidance in its clarification of particular social group.20 Then-Senator Kamala Harris was one of the bill’s original cosponsors.

Additionally, in response to the EO, U.S. and international legal experts have explained that Matter of Acosta provided a workable test, that the BIA’s additional requirements distorted U.S. law in violation

3

of international standards, and that a return to Acosta would be consistent with international standards and offer an interpretation most faithful to the statutory text.21

Why does it matter?

Lives hang in the balance. Women who have survived domestic violence, and all other asylum applicants who must rely on the particular social group ground, are stuck on a deeply unfair playing field. Existing law, even with the vacatur of Matter of A-B-, gives far too much leeway for judges to say no to valid claims. For people wrongly denied protection, deportation can be a death sentence.22

We are concerned that the delay in proposing particular social group regulations reflects an unwillingness on the part of some key actors within the administration to accept that the United States is bound by international law and should realign itself with international standards. The EO explicitly expresses a mandate to analyze existing law on domestic and gang violence, and to draft new particular social group regulations, in a manner consistent with international standards. Yet it is possible that the administration, out of a flawed political calculus, will backtrack on this commitment as it has on others, notably the promise to restore asylum processing at the border.

To be clear, if this is the case, it is not because there is a principled legal argument against the relevance of international law. It is because a certain political outcome is desired, and the law will be bent to achieve that result. Administration officials should know that advocates will fight relentlessly if the proposed regulations do not in fact follow the EO’s directive to align U.S. law with authoritative international standards.

1 Executive Order on Creating a Comprehensive Regional Framework to Address the Causes of Migration, to Manage Migration Throughout North and Central America, and to Provide Safe and Orderly Processing of Asylum Seekers at the United States Border, Feb. 2, 2021, 86 Fed. Reg. 8267 (Feb. 5, 2021).

3 Instead, on the one-year anniversary of the EO, USCIS Director Ur Jaddou held a virtual briefing on USCIS’s progress on this and three other immigration-related EOs, but provided no substantive details.

4 The EO otherwise encompasses the enormous operational, logistical, foreign policy, development, and other challenges required to create a comprehensive regional framework to address root causes, manage migration throughout North and Central America, and provide safe and orderly processing of asylum seekers at the U.S. border.

5 For example, when Harold Koh, a senior State Department advisor, resigned in October 2021 in protest over the expulsion of Haitian and other asylum seekers, he wrote: “Persons targeted by Haitian gangs could easily have asylum claims as persons with well-founded fears of persecution because of their membership in a ‘particular social group’ for purposes of the Refugee Convention and its implementing statute. Indeed, this is precisely the issue that faces the interagency group on joint DOJ/DHS rulemaking pursuant to President Biden’s February 2, 2021 Executive Order, which directed examination of whether

2 EO, Sec. 4(c) Asylum Eligibility. The Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security shall:

(i) within 180 days of the date of this order, conduct a comprehensive examination of current rules, regulations, precedential decisions, and internal guidelines governing the adjudication of asylum claims and determinations of refugee status to evaluate whether the United States provides protection for those fleeing domestic or gang violence in a manner consistent with international standards; and

(ii) within 270 days of the date of this order, promulgate joint regulations, consistent with applicable law, addressing the circumstances in which a person should be considered a member of a “particular social group,” as that term is used in

8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(42)(A), as derived from the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol.

4

the United States is providing appropriate asylum protection for those fleeing domestic or gang violence in a manner consistent with international standards.’” See https://www.politico.com/f/?id=0000017c-4c4a-dddc-a77e-4ddbf3ae0000.

6 19 I&N Dec. 211 (BIA 1985).

7 Stephen Legomsky and Karen Musalo, Asylum and the Three Little Words that Can Spell Life or Death, Just Security, May 28,

2021, available at: https://www.justsecurity.org/76671/asylum-and-the-three-little-words-that-can-spell-life-or-death/. 8 Matter of Kasinga, 21 I&N Dec. 357 (BIA 1996).

9 Karen Musalo, Protecting Victims of Gendered Persecution: Fear of Floodgates or Call to (Principled) Action?, 14 Va. J. Soc. Pol’y & L. 119, 132-133 (2007), available at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1560&context=faculty_scholarship.

10 27 I&N Dec. 316 (A.G. 2018). The applicant was a domestic violence survivor whose asylum claim based on particular social group had been granted by the BIA.

11 “The Trump Administration has … drastically restrict[ed] access to asylum in the U.S., including … attempting to prevent victims of gang and domestic violence from receiving asylum [.] Biden will end these policies [.]” See https://joebiden.com/immigration/.

12 28 I&N Dec. 307 (A.G. 2021). He also vacated other problematic decisions that touched on particular social group and gender claims. See Matter of L-E-A-, 28 I&N Dec. 304 (A.G. 2021); Matter of A-C-A-A-, 28 I&N Dec. 351 (A.G. 2021).

13 26 I&N Dec. 388 (BIA 2014). 14 19 I&N Dec. 211 (BIA 1985).

15 UNHCR, Guidelines on International Protection No. 2: “Membership of a Particular Social Group” Within the Context of Article 1A(2) of the 1951 Convention and/or its 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, 7 May 2002, HCR/GIP/02/02, available at: https://www.refworld.org/docid/3d36f23f4.html.

16 UNHCR, Global Consultations on International Protection, Update Oct. 2001, available at: https://www.unhcr.org/3b83c8e74.pdf.

17 T. Alexander Aleinikoff, “Protected Characteristics and Social Perceptions: An Analysis of the Meaning of ‘Membership of a Particular Social Group’”, in Refugee Protection in International Law: UNHCR’s Global Consultations on International

Protection (Feller, Türk and Nicholson, eds., 2003), available at: https://www.refworld.org/docid/470a33b30.html.

18 This is the approach recommended by UNHCR, n.15 above.

19 Legomsky and Musalo, Asylum and the Three Little Words that Can Spell Life or Death, n. 7 above, available at: https://www.justsecurity.org/76671/asylum-and-the-three-little-words-that-can-spell-life-or-death/. See also, Sabrineh Ardalan and Deborah Anker, Re-Setting Gender-Based Asylum Law, Harvard Law Review Blog, Dec. 30, 2021, available at: https://blog.harvardlawreview.org/re-setting-gender-based-asylum-law/.

21 Scholars letter to Attorney General Garland and DHS Secretary Mayorkas, June 16, 2021, available at: https://cgrs.uchastings.edu/sites/default/files/2021.06.16_PSG%20Scholars%20Letter.pdf. See also, letter to Attorney General Garland and DHS Secretary Mayorkas, May 27, 2021, signed by 100 legal scholars discussing the “state protection” element of the proposed regulations, available at: https://cgrs.uchastings.edu/sites/default/files/Law%20Scholars%20State%20Protection%20Letter%205.27.21%20%28FINAL%2 9.pdf.

22 When Deportation Is a Death Sentence, Sarah Stillman, The New Yorker, January 8, 2018, available at: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/01/15/when-deportation-is-a-death-sentence.

20 The Refugee Protection Act of 2019, Sec. 101(a)(C)(iii) reads: “the term ‘particular social group’ means, without any additional requirement not listed below, any group whose members—

(I) share—

(aa) a characteristic that is immutable or fundamental to identity, conscience, or the exercise of human rights; or (bb) a past experience or voluntary association that, due to its historical nature, cannot be changed; or

(II) are perceived as a group by society.”

See https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/2936/text?r=4&s=1#toc- idA272A477BC814410AB2FF0E6C99E522F.

5

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

“Sir Jeffrey and Me — “Sir Jeffrey & Me
Nijmegen, The Netherlands 1997
PHOTO: Susan Chase

You can check out what “Sir Jeffrey” and I had to say back in June 2021 here:

https://immigrationcourtside.com/2021/06/22/sir-jeffrey-chase-garlands-first-steps-to-eradicate-misogyny-anti-asylum-bias-eoir-are-totally-insufficient-without-progressive-personnel-changes/

Unfortunately, my commentary then remains largely true today:

Without progressive intervention, this is still headed for failure @ EOIR! A few things to keep in mind.

- Former Attorney General, the late Janet Reno, ordered the same regulations on gender-based asylum to be promulgated more than two decades ago — never happened!
- The proposed regulations that did finally emerge along the way (long after Reno’s departure) were horrible — basically an ignorant mishmash of various OIL litigation positions that would have actually made it easier for IJs to arbitrarily deny asylum (as if they needed any invitation) and easier for OIL to defend such bogus denials.
- There is nobody currently at “Main Justice” or EOIR HQ qualified to draft these regulations! Without long overdue progressive personnel changes the project is almost “guaranteed to fail” – again!
- Any regulations entrusted to the current “Miller Lite Denial Club” @ the BIA ☠️ will almost certainly be twisted out of proportion to deny asylum and punish women refugees, as well as deny due process and mock fundamental fairness. It’s going to take more than regulations to change the “culture of denial” and the “institutionalized anti-due-process corner cutting” @ the BIA and in many Immigration Courts.
- Garland currently is mindlessly operating the “worst of all courts” — a so-called “specialized (not) court” where the expertise, independence, and decisional courage is almost all “on the outside” and sum total of the subject matter expertise and relevant experience of those advocating before his bogus “courts” far exceeds that of the “courts” themselves and of Garland’s own senior team! That’s why the deadly, embarrassing, sophomoric mistakes keep flowing into the Courts of Appeals on a regular basis.
- No regulation can bring decisional integrity and expertise to a body that lacks both!

As the CGRS cogently says at the end of the above posting:

The EO explicitly expresses a mandate to analyze existing law on domestic and gang violence, and to draft new particular social group regulations, in a manner consistent with international standards. Yet it is possible that the administration, out of a flawed political calculus, will backtrack on this commitment as it has on others, notably the promise to restore asylum processing at the border.

To be clear, if this is the case, it is not because there is a principled legal argument against the relevance of international law. It is because a certain political outcome is desired, and the law will be bent to achieve that result. Administration officials should know that advocates will fight relentlessly if the proposed regulations do not in fact follow the EO’s directive to align U.S. law with authoritative international standards.

If you follow some of the abysmal anti-asylum, poorly reasoned, sloppy results still coming out of Garland’s BIA and how they are being mindlessly defended by his OIL, you know that a “principled application” of asylum law to protect rather than arbitrarily reject isn’t in the cards! Also, as I have pointed out, even if there were a well written reg on gender based asylum, you can bet that the “Miller Lite Holdover BIA” would come up with intentionally restrictive interpretations that many of the “Trump-era” IJs still packed into EOIR would happily apply to “get to no.”

You don’t turn a “built and staffed to deny in support of a White Nationalist agenda agency” into a legitimate court system that will insure due process and fair treatment for asylum seekers without replacing judges and bringing in strong courageous progressive leaders.

That’s particularly true at the BIA, where harsh misapplications of asylum law to deny worthy cases has been “baked into the system” for years. And, without positive precedents from expert appellate judges committed to international principles and fair treatment of asylum seekers in the U.S., even a well-drafted reg won’t end “refugee roulette.”

By this point, it should be clear that the Biden Administration’s intertwined commitments to racial justice and immigrant justice were campaign slogans, and not much more. So, it will be up to advocates in the NDPA to continue the “relentless fight” to force an unwilling Administration and a “contentedly dysfunctional” DOJ that sees equal justice and due process as “below the radar screen” to live up to the fundamental promises of American democracy that they actively betray every day!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

02-13-22

🏴‍☠️☠️⚰️GARLAND’S FAILURES LOOM LARGE AS EOIR’S ABUSES OF BLACK REFUGEES EMERGE! 🤮 — Biased, Thinly Qualified “Judges” Fingered In HRF Report On Wrongful Returns To Cameroon Remain On Bench Under Garland — Anti-Asylum BIA & Ineffective Leadership From Trump Era Retained By Garland In EOIR Fiasco!

Kangaroos — What fun, sending Black Cameroonian refugees back to rape, torture, and possible death! We don’t need to know much asylum law or real country conditions here at EOIR. We make it up as we go along. And, Judge Garland just lets us keep on playing “refugee roulette,” our favorite game!
https://www.flickr.com/photos/rasputin243/
Creative Commons License

https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/immigration/2022/02/deported-cameroonian-asylum-seekers-suffer-serious-harm.html

From HRF:

. . . .

Nearly all of the deported people interviewed had fled Cameroon between 2017 and 2020 for reasons linked to the crisis in the Anglophone regions. Human Rights Watch research indicates that many had credible asylum claims, but due process concerns, fact-finding inaccuracies, and other issues contributed to unfair asylum decisions. Lack of impartiality by US immigration judges – who are part of the executive branch, not the independent judiciary – appeared to play a role. Nearly all of the deported Cameroonians interviewed – 35 of 41 – were assigned to judges with asylum denial rates 10 to 30 percentage points higher than the national average.

. . . .

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

The complete report gives a totally damning account of EOIR’s incompetence, ignorance of asylum law, poor decision making, “rigged” assignment of bad judges, and systemic bias directed against asylum seekers, primarily people of color. Although human rights conditions have continued to deteriorate in Cameroon, asylum grant rates have fluctuated dramatically depending on how the political winds at DOJ are blowing.

For example, judges denying asylum because of imaginary “improved conditions” in Cameroon falls within the realm of the absurd. No asylum expert would say that conditions have improved.

Yet, in a catastrophic ethical and legal failure, there is no BIA precedent “calling out” such grotesque errors and serving notice to the judges that it is unacceptable judicial conduct! There are hardly any recent BIA published precedents on granting asylum at all — prima facie evidence of the anti-asylum culture and institutional bias in favor of DHS Enforcement that Sessions and Barr actively cultivated and encouraged!

How bad were things at EOIR? Judges who denied the most asylum cases were actually promoted to the BIA so they could spread their jaundiced views and anti-asylum bias nationwide. See, e.g., https://immigrationcourtside.com/2019/11/01/corrupted-courts-no-stranger-to-improper-politicized-hiring-directed-against-migrants-seeking-justice-the-doj-under-barr-doubles-down-on-biased-ideological-hiring-promot/

Even more outrageously, these same members of the “asylum deniers club” remain in their influential appellate positions under Garland! As inexplicable as it is inexcusable!

The HRF report details the wide range of dishonest devices used by EOIR to cut off valid asylum claims: bogus adverse credibility determinations; unreasonable corroboration requirements; claiming “no nexus” when the causal connection is obvious; failing to put the burden on the DHS in countrywide persecution involving the government or past persecution; bogus findings that the presence of relatives in the country negates persecution; ridiculous findings that severe harm doesn’t “rise to the level of persecution,” failure to listen to favorable evidence or rebuttal; ignoring the limitations on representation and inherent coercion involved in intentionally substandard and health threatening ICE detention, to name just some. While these corrupt methods of denying protection might be “business as usual” at EOIR “denial factories,” they have been condemned by human rights experts and many appellate courts. Yet Garland continues to act as if nothing were amiss in his “star chambers.”

This bench needs to be cleared of incompetence and anti-asylum bias and replaced with experts committed to due process and fair, impartial, and ethical applications of asylum principles. There was nothing stopping Sessions and Barr from “packing” the BIA and the trial courts with unqualified selections perceived to be willing and able to carry out their White Nationalist agenda! Likewise, there is nothing stopping Garland from “unpacking:” “cleaning house,” restoring competence, scholarly excellence, and “due process first” judging to his shattered system!

“It’s not rocket science, but ‘unpacking’ the Immigration Courts appears beyond Garland’s skill set!”
“Unpacking”
Photo by John Keogh
Creative Commons License

All that’s missing are the will and the guts to get the job done! Perhaps that’s not unusual for yet another Dem Administration bumbling its way through immigration policy with no guiding principles, failing to connect the dots to racial justice, betraying promises to supporters, and leaving a trail of broken human lives and bodies of the innocent in its wake. But, it’s unacceptable! Totally!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

02-11-22

⚖️THE GIBSON REPORT — 02-07-22 — Compiled By Elizabeth Gibson Esquire, NY Legal Assistance Group — BONUS: “Ethics On Vacation @ DHS & DOJ”

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

PRACTICE ALERTS

Mandatory E-Filing with EOIR, Starting FRIDAY

EOIR Updates

EOIR: EOIR reminds interested stakeholders that hearings on Feb. 8, 2022, and beyond will proceed as scheduled, subject to local operational and case-specific decisions. Please monitor EOIR’s website for information about the agency’s operations nationwide.

EOIR NYC: In an effort to provide more clarity on operations at each of the NYC immigration courts from Feb. 8 onward, [EOIR] is providing additional guidance. See attached.

EADs Valid Longer

USCIS: In the interest of reducing the burden on both the agency and the public, USCIS has revised its guidelines to state that initial and renewal EADs generally may be issued with a maximum validity period of up to 2 years for asylees and refugees, noncitizens with withholding of deportation or removal, and VAWA self-petitioners; or up to the end of the authorized deferred action or parole period to applicants in these filing categories

NEWS

After review, U.S. maintains border policy of expelling migrants, citing Omicron

CBS: After a recent internal review, the Biden administration decided to maintain a pandemic-era order put in place under former President Donald Trump that authorizes the rapid deportation of migrants from the U.S.-Mexico border, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) told CBS News Thursday.

Bill Aims to Remove US Immigration Courts from Executive Branch

VOA: U.S. House Representative Zoe Lofgren, a Democrat from California who leads the House Subcommittee on Immigration and Citizenship, unveiled the legislation Thursday.

148 Groups Ask Biden To Fund $50M For Migrant Atty Access

Law360: A group of 148 organizations supporting immigrant and civil rights sent a letter to President Joe Biden and congressional leaders urging them to allocate at least $50 million to provide “immediate and dramatic” expansion of legal representation for people facing immigration proceedings.

83,000 Afghans Made It To The US. Now They Need Lawyers

Law360: The arrival in the United States of 83,000 displaced Afghans following the military’s withdrawal from Afghanistan over the summer has put stress on the already overburdened immigration system and created an access to justice crisis that Congress needs to address, attorneys say. See also Additional $1.2 billion in resettlement assistance authorized earlier this week by President Biden.

Internal documents show heated back-and-forth between DeSantis and Biden admin over care of migrant children

CNN: An ongoing feud over President Joe Biden’s immigration policies is escalating in Florida where Gov. Ron DeSantis is threatening to keep long-standing shelters from caring for migrant children, culminating in a heated back and forth unfolding in internal correspondence obtained by CNN.

Feds Pressed To Free Immigrant Detainees As Ill. Ban Kicks In

Law360: Immigrant rights groups urged the Biden administration on Tuesday to release people held in immigration detention in Illinois amid fears that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement will send the detainees out of state as Illinois shuts down its last two detention centers.

Mexican authorities evict Tijuana migrant camp near border

WaPo: About a hundred members of the police, National Guard and army on Sunday evicted 381 migrants, mainly Central Americans and Mexicans, from a makeshift camp they had been staying in for almost a year in Tijuana at the U.S. border crossing.

Robot Dogs Take Another Step Towards Deployment at the Border

DHS: “The southern border can be an inhospitable place for man and beast, and that is exactly why a machine may excel there,” said S&T program manager, Brenda Long. “This S&T-led initiative focuses on Automated Ground Surveillance Vehicles, or what we call ‘AGSVs.’ Essentially, the AGSV program is all about…robot dogs.”

LITIGATION/CASELAW/RULES/MEMOS

BIA Reinstates Removal Proceedings After Finding §2C:35-10(a)(1) of New Jersey Statutes Annotated Is Divisible with Respect to Specific Substance Possessed

AILA: BIA found §2C:35-10(a)(1) of New Jersey Statutes Annotated is divisible and the record of conviction can be reviewed under the modified categorical approach to determine whether the specific substance possessed is a controlled substance under federal law. (Matter of Laguerre, 1/20/22)

BIA Dismisses Appeal After Finding §714.1 of Iowa Code Is Divisible with Regard to Type of Theft

AILA: BIA found Iowa Code §714.1 is divisible with respect to whether a violation of it involved theft by taking without consent or theft by fraud or deceit, permitting use of modified categorical approach to determine whether violation involved aggravated felony theft. (Matter of Koat, 1/27/22)

BIA Rules Respondent’s Conviction for Conspiracy to Commit Wire Fraud Constitutes a Particularly Serious Crime

AILA: BIA found the amount of forfeiture ordered in a criminal proceeding may be considered in determining whether a crime of fraud or deceit resulted in a loss to victim(s) exceeding $10,000, if the amount ordered is sufficiently traceable to the conduct of conviction. (Matter of F-R-A-, 2/3/22)

Unpub. BIA Termination Victory

LexisNexis: Helen Harnett writes: “I thought you might be interested in this BIA decision. The IJ terminated proceedings because the NTA did not contain a time or date.”

CA1 Holds That Irregularities in “Record of Sworn Statement” Lacked Sufficient Indicia of Reliability for Use in Assessing Credibility

AILA: In light of unexplained irregularities in the record, the court vacated the BIA’s denials of withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) and remanded to the agency for further factfinding. (Bonilla v. Garland, 1/12/22)

CA1 Says Conviction in Rhode Island for Driving a Motor Vehicle Without Consent Is Not Categorically a Theft Offense

AILA: The court held that the petitioner’s conviction for driving a motor vehicle without consent of the owner or lessee under Rhode Island General Laws (RIGL) §31-9-1 did not constitute a categorical aggravated felony theft offense. (Da Graca v. Garland, 1/18/22)

CA1 Holds That BIA Properly Applied Heightened Matter of Jean Standard to Petitioner’s Waiver Request

AILA: The court held that the BIA adequately considered the question of extraordinary circumstances called for in Matter of Jean, and found it lacked jurisdiction to consider the relative weight the BIA gave the evidence in denying the inadmissibility waiver. (Peulic v. Garland, 1/11/22)

CA4 Finds That “Prosecution Witnesses” Is Not a PSG

AILA: The court agreed with the BIA that the Honduran petitioner’s proposed particular social group (PSG) of “prosecution witnesses” lacked particularity, and found no error in the BIA’s decision upholding the IJ’s adverse credibility finding as to petitioner. (Herrera-Martinez v. Garland, 1/5/22)

CA4 Finds BIA Abused Its Discretion in Denying Continuance to Petitioner with Pending U Visa Application

AILA: Where the petitioner had a pending U visa application, the court held that the BIA abused its discretion in denying his motion for a continuance, finding that the BIA had departed from precedential opinions in holding that he had failed to show good cause. (Garcia Cabrera v. Garland, 1/6/22)

4th Circ. Revives Guatemalan Asylum Case Over Family Ties

Law360: The Fourth Circuit breathed new life into a Guatemalan migrant’s asylum case, faulting an immigration judge for failing to tie death threats that the man received to his son, who was targeted for gang recruitment.

CA5 Finds Proposed PSG of Honduran Women Unable to Leave Domestic Relationship Was Not Cognizable

AILA: The court concluded that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in holding that the petitioner’s proposed particular social group (PSG)— “Honduran women who are unable to leave their domestic relationships”—was not legally cognizable. (Jaco v. Garland, 10/27/21, amended 1/26/22)

CA5 Finds Petitioner Removable Under INA §237(a)(2)(A)(ii) for Having Been Convicted of Two CIMTs After Admission

AILA: The court concluded that res judicata did not bar the removal proceedings, deadly conduct was categorically a crime involving moral turpitude (CIMT), and petitioner was admitted to the United States when he adjusted to lawful permanent resident (LPR) status. (Diaz Esparza v. Garland, 1/17/22)

CA5 Says Government Rebutted Presumption of Future Persecution Based on Guatemalan Petitioner’s Sexual Orientation and Identity

AILA: The court held that because petitioner, who was homosexual and identified as transgender, had said that she could probably safely relocate in Guatemala, the BIA did not err in finding that the government had rebutted the presumption of future persecution. (Santos-Zacaria v. Garland, 1/10/22)

CA5 Upholds Withholding of Removal Denial to Petitioner with Felony Assault Conviction

AILA: The court affirmed the BIA’s determination that petitioner’s felony assault conviction was a particularly serious crime rendering him ineligible for withholding of removal, because he had failed to show how the alleged errors compelled reversal. (Aviles-Tavera v. Garland, 1/4/22)

CA5 Withdraws Prior Opinion and Issues Substitute Opinion in Parada-Orellana v. Garland

AILA: The court denied the petitioner’s petition for panel rehearing, withdrew its prior panel opinion of 8/6/21, and held that the BIA did not abuse its discretion by applying an incorrect legal standard when it denied petitioner’s motion to reopen. (Parada-Orellana v. Garland, 1/3/22)

CA6 Finds Petitioner Forfeited Ineffective Assistance Claim Because He Failed to Comply with Third Lozada Requirement

AILA: The court held that BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reopen based on ineffective assistance, finding that Matter of Lozada requires more than a statement that the noncitizen is “not interested” in filing a bar complaint.(Guzman-Torralva v. Garland, 1/13/22)

CA7 Upholds Asylum Denial to Christian Chinese Petitioner Who Acknowledged Discrepancies in Her Asylum Application

AILA: The court held that the record supported the IJ’s and BIA’s conclusion that the Chinese Christian petitioner did not meet her burden of establishing her eligibility for asylum given the discrepancies in her testimony and the lack of corroborative evidence. (Dai v. Garland, 1/24/22)

CA7 Says BIA Legally Erred by Considering Arguments That the Government First Raised on Appeal

AILA: The court held that the BIA legally erred by considering arguments that the government did not present to the IJ, and that the BIA engaged in impermissible factfinding on the conditions in Kosovo, rendering its decision to deny remand an abuse of discretion. (Osmani v. Garland, 1/24/22)

CA8 Upholds BIA’s Decision Denying Motion to Reopen Even Though Petitioner Made a Prima Facie Case for Relief

AILA: The court held that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioner’s successive motion to reopen, and that the BIA did not deprive the petitioner of a constitutionally protected liberty interest in declining to reopen proceedings sua sponte. (Urrutia Robles v. Garland, 1/26/22)

CA9 Holds That BIA Sufficiently Complied with Notice Requirements Applicable to a Minor in Immigration Proceedings

AILA: The court rejected the petitioner’s contention that, because she was actually a minor when she was released on her own recognizance without notice of her hearing to a reasonable adult, the notice provided her was inadequate. (Jimenez-Sandoval v. Garland, 1/13/22)

CA9: Panel Nixes Deportation For Missing Court, Cites Faulty Notice

Law360:An Indian man can’t be deported for missing an immigration court date after he received a notice to appear that didn’t specify a date and time, even though that information came in a later notice, the Ninth Circuit has ruled.

CA9 Finds Petitioner’s Conviction for Arson in California Was Not an Aggravated Felony

AILA: The court held that arson in violation of California Penal Code (CPC) §451 was not a categorical match to its federal counterpart, and thus that the petitioner’s conviction under CPC §451(b) was not an aggravated felony that rendered him removable. (Togonon v. Garland, 1/10/22)

CA9 Declines to Rehear Velasquez-Gaspar v. Garland En Banc

AILA: The court issued an order denying the rehearing en banc of  Velasquez-Gaspar v. Garland, in which the court upheld the BIA’s conclusion that the Guatemalan government could have protected the petitioner had she reported her abuse. (Velasquez-Gaspar v. Garland, 1/25/22)

CA11 Finds Petitioner Failed to Prove That Florida’s Cocaine Statute Covers More Substances Than the Federal Statute

AILA: The court held that the petitioner, who had been convicted of cocaine possession under Florida law, had failed to show that Florida’s definition of cocaine covers more than its federal counterpart, and thus upheld the BIA’s denial of cancellation of removal. (Chamu v. Att’y Gen., 1/26/22)

Feds Fight Detention Probe In Migrant Counsel Access Suit

Law360: The U.S. Department of Homeland Security urged a D.C. federal court to halt immigration advocates’ efforts to inspect a large detention center accused of denying detainees access to counsel, calling a probe “particularly intrusive” amid debate over the lawsuit’s viability.

EOIR to Close Fishkill Immigration Court

AILA: EOIR will close the Fishkill Immigration Court due to the closure of the Downstate Correctional Facility in which the court is located. Holding hearings at the location will cease at close of business on February 17, 2022. Pending cases at time of closure will transfer to Ulster Immigration Court.

Form Update: Form I-864, Affidavit of Support Under Section 213A of the INA, Form I-864W, Request for Exemption for Intending Immigrant’s Affidavit of Support, Form I-864EZ, Affidavit of Support Under Section 213A of the Act

USCIS: Starting April 7, 2022, we will only accept the 12/08/21 edition.

Form Update: Form I-824, Application for Action on an Approved Application or Petition

USCIS: Starting April 7, 2022, we will only accept the 12/02/21 edition.

RESOURCES

·         AILA: Practice Alert: Escalating Problems with Virtual Hearings and Contacting the Court

·         AILA: Can They Do It? The Myth of the Tech-Challenged Client

·         AILA: Sleep Debt: A Contributing Factor for Ethics Mishaps

·         AILA: Practice Alert: Local OPLA Guidance on Prosecutorial Discretion

·         AILA: Practice Alert: In-Person Asylum Interviews Return But COVID-19 Precautions Continue

·         AILA: Practice Resource: Fraudulent Document Standard and Matter of O–M–O–

·         AILA: Taking the Measure of Lozada

·         AILA Meeting with the USCIS Refugee, Asylum & International Operations Directorate

·         ASAP: February Updates

·         Asylos

o    The Bahamas: State protection for families of gang members who face persecution by gangs (AME2021-15)

o    Iraq: Situation of divorced, single mothers in Iraqi Kurdistan (MEN2021-19)

o    Hungary: Treatment of Roma Women and State Protection (CIS2021-09)

o    Russia: Domestic Violence (CIS2021-08)

·         CLINIC: Department of Homeland Security (DHS), I-9 and REAL ID Policies

·         CLINIC: COVID & U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)

·         CLINIC: COVID & Department of State

·         CLINIC: COVID & ICE

·         CLINIC: COVID & EOIR

·         MPI: Four Years of Profound Change: Immigration Policy during the Trump Presidency

·         USCIS Statement on the International Day of Zero Tolerance for Female Genital Mutilation

·         USCIS: Overview of myUSCIS for Applicants

EVENTS

2/8/22 EOIR to Host ECAS Information Session

2/8/22 Pandemic-Era Removal Proceedings: Practical Considerations

2/9/22 Updates and Options for Afghan Clients

2/9/22 DACA and Criminal Bars Issues

2/10/22 Request for Fee Waiver & Reduced Fee For Naturalization

2/14/22-2/15/22 2022 Crimes & Immigration Seminar

2/15/22 U Visa Filings and Bona Fide Determination

2/15/22 Anatomy of the USCIS System and Processes: Service Centers and Lockboxes

2/15/22 CGRS MCLE Webinar: Filing a Petition for Review at the Ninth Circuit: Overview of Procedures and Practical Considerations

2/16/22 Acquisition of Citizenship

2/16/22 U Visa Webinar Series: Waiver of Inadmissibility

2/17/22 CGRS MCLE Webinar: Overview of Bars to Fear-of-Return Relief

2/22/22 Filing a Petition for Review at the Ninth Circuit: Overview of Procedures and Practical Considerations

2/23/22 Filing Administrative Claims for Abuse and Misconduct by Immigration Officers

2/24/22-4/7/22 Introduction to Family-Based Immigration Law

2/24/22 CGRS MCLE Webinar: Filing a Petition for Review at the Ninth Circuit: Overview of Procedures and Practical Considerations

2/25/22-2/26/22 Annual New York Asylum & Immigration Conference

2/28/21 ASISTA: Hot Topics in U and VAWA Cases

3/3/22 Before You Meet Your Removal Client: NTA, Form I-213, and DHS Charges

3/4/22-2/25/22 Update From the U.S. Consulate in Ciudad Juarez

3/4/22-2/25/22 Selected Issues in U Nonimmigrant Status

3/11/22 Inaugural Fourth Circuit Asylum Law Conference

3/15/22 Criminal Sentences and Immigration

3/21/22 Comprehensive Overview of Immigration Law (COIL)

3/23/22 Intermediate Intensive VAWA Training

3/28/22-4/14/22 NYIC Overview of Immigration Law Training (Save the Date)

4/6/22 Initial TPS Applications

4/7/22 CGRS MCLE Webinar: Motions Before the Board of Immigration Appeals

4/12/22 Introduction to Bond Proceedings

4/27/22 U Visa RFEs

4/28/22 Motions to Reopen Removal Proceedings

5/4/22 California Pardons and Post-Conviction Relief

5/10/22 Asylum Claims for Young People

5/17/22 Advocating for Prosecutorial Discretion for Clients in Removal Proceedings

5/19/22 Special Immigrant Juvenile Status: Your Client’s I-360 Is Approved, Now What?

5/24/22 Obstacles to TPS Eligibility

6/7/22 Asylum and Employment Authorization

6/8/22 Naturalization for People with Disabilities

ImmProf

Monday, February 7, 2022

·         U.S. Hispanic population continued its geographic spread in the 2010s

Sunday, February 6, 2022

·         Poetry Break: Immigration by Ali Alizadeh

·         Refugee Olympic Team at 2022 Winter Olympics in Beijing?

·         After review, Biden Administration maintains Title 42 border policy of expelling migrants

Saturday, February 5, 2022

·         WaPo Debunks JD Vance Talking Points on Biden & Unlawful Migration

·         NPR Politics Podcast: Democratic Activists Say Biden Has Failed To Deliver On Immigration Promises

Friday, February 4, 2022

·         From the Bookshelves: Joan is Okay by Weike Wang

·         The Toll of MPP (Remain in Mexico Policy) on Children

·         “The Disillusionment of a Young Biden Official” by Jonathan Blitzer for The New Yorker

·         Bill Introduced in Congress to Make Immigration Courts More Independent

·         Shalini Bhargava Ray on “Shadow Sanctions for Immigration Violations” in Lawfare

Thursday, February 3, 2022

·         Border Patrol to Use Robot Dogs

·         DACA Recipients Continue to Contribute

·         Immigration Article of the Day: Restructuring Public Defense After Padilla by Ingrid Eagly, Tali Gires, Rebecca Kutlow & Eliana Navarro Gracian

Wednesday, February 2, 2022

·         New TPS Advocated for Migrants from Honduras, Guatemala, El Salvador, and Nicaragua

·         San Francisco apologizes for history of racism, discrimination against Chinese Americans

·         A Mexican American is the first Latina president of Harvard Law Review

·         From the Bookshelves: Go Back to Where You Came From: And Other Helpful Recommendations on How to Become American by Wajahat Ali

·         MPI Releases Report on Immigration Policy Changes During Trump Administration

·         Covid infections surge in immigration detention facilities

Tuesday, February 1, 2022

·         In Today’s WTF Deportation News

·         DeSantis Plays Politics with the Lives of Migrants

·         Congress, not Biden, should be held accountable for immigration reform

Monday, January 31, 2022

·         WES: Canada’s Enduring Appeal to Prospective Immigrants in the Face of COVID-19

·         Race, Sovereignty, and Immigrant Justice Conference

·         AB 1259 Extends Post-Conviction Relief to Trial Convictions in California That Lack Immigration Advisal

·         From the Bookshelves: No One is Illegal: Fighting Racism and State Violence on the U.S.-Mexico Border by Justin Akers Chacón and Mike Davis

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

Liz’s “Item 4” under “Litigation,” upholding termination for a statutorily defective NTA, inspired the following additional thoughts.

ETHICS ON VACATION @ DHS & DOJ: Apparently a Frivolous DHS Appeal Asking BIA To Publish Intentional Misconstruction of 7th Circuit Law is SOP For Mayorkas, Garland, & Underlings!

By Paul Wickham Schmidt

Courtside Exclusive

Feb. 9, 2022

So, DHS argues on appeal that the BIA should violate, and intentionally and dishonestly, “misconstrue” 7th Circuit precedent. And, for a good measure, publish the result to insure that no IJ in the 7th Circuit gets it right in the future.

BIA Chairman Wetmore, a former OILer who, whatever his shortcomings might be, does recognize the importance of not “overtly dissing” the Article IIIs, correctly says “No.” Perhaps, as suggested by my colleague Hon. “Sir Jeffrey” Chase, Wetmore had in mind that the 7th Circuit previously threatened to hold the Board in contempt for willfully ignoring its orders. See https://immigrationcourtside.com/2020/01/25/contempt-for-courts-7th-cir-blasts-bia-for-misconduct-we-have-never-before-encountered-defiance-of-a-remand-order-and-we-hope-never-to-see-it-again-members-of-the-board-must-count-themse/

Why aren’t there ethical problems with this outrageous, unprofessional DHS appellate argument? Why isn’t this a precedent, as it provides helpful guidance and can be used to prevent future frivolous litigation by DHS? Why is there no accountability for this frivolous appeal, request to publish, and the blatant effort by DHS counsel to “pull the wool over the eyes” of the IJ and the BIA?

The pattern of taking a frivolous appeal, making unethical arguments, and asking the BIA to publish as a precedent shows the arrogant view of ICE that they “have EOIR in their pocket” (certainly consistent with the Sessions/Barr rhetoric) and that there will be neither accountability nor consequences for frivolous and unethical conduct by DHS attorneys! By not publishing the result as a precedent, the BIA leaves it open for other IJs and single Appellate Judge BIA “panels” to get it wrong in the future. It also sends a signal that taking a whack at making misleading arguments for illegal and unethical results has no downside at Mayorkas’s DHS or Garland’s BIA.

Wonder why there are gross inconsistencies and endless backlogs at EOIR? A totally undisciplined, unprofessional system where “anything goes” and “almost anything” will be defended in pursuit of removal orders certainly has something to do with it! It’s simply been building, under Administrations of both parties, since 2001!

The one-sided BIA precedent process — publishing mainly cases favorable to DHS — is no accident either. Pro-DHS rulings can be used by OIL (correctly or incorrectly) to argue for so-called “Chevron deference” or its evil cousin “Brand X” disenfranchisement of Article III Judges.

By contrast, precedents favorable to individuals merely promote due process, fundamental fairness, best practices, consistency, and efficiency. They might also be used to curb misbehavior by IJs and DHS counsel. Nothing very important in the eyes of EOIR’s DOJ political overlords.

GOP AGs, from Ashcroft through Sessions and Barr, have made it clear that precedents favorable to DHS Enforcement are far less likely to be “career threatening” or “career limiting” for their “captive judges.” On the other hand, precedents standing for due process, vindicating migrants’ rights, or curbing “outlier” behavior by IJs and DHS attorneys can be risky. And, perhaps surprisingly, Dem AGs in the 21st Century also have been “A-OK” with that, as Garland demonstrates on a daily basis.

Where are Ur Mendoza Jaddou (yes, she’s at USCIS, not ICE, but she’s “upper management,” knows the issues, and has access to Mayorkas) and Kerry Doyle at DHS? Whatever happened to Lisa Monaco, Vanita Gupta, and Lucas Guttentag at DOJ?

These are the types of “real time” problems that leadership can and should be solving by setting a “no nonsense due process first” tone and bringing in and empowering expert Appellate Judges (“real judges”) and DHS Chief Counsel who will put due process, fundamental fairness, and ethics foremost! But, apparently it’s “below the radar screen” of Biden Administration leadership at DHS and DOJ.

The case for an independent Article I Court has never been stronger! Garland’s lack of leadership and furthering of injustice adds to Chairperson Lofgren’s case for fundamental change and removal of EOIR from DOJ, every day!

Due Process Forever!

PWS

02-09-22

🤯GARLAND, MAYORKAS SLAM-DUNKED BY NGOs ON SEMI-FRIVOLOUS DEFENSE OF TRUMP’S CRUEL, ☠️⚰️ ILLEGAL WORK DENIAL FOR ASYLUM SEEKERS! — AsylumWorks v. Marorkas, D.D.C.😎⚔️⚖️

Joan Hodges Wu
Founder & Executive Director
AsylumWorks — The “lead plaintiff” in this case. Joan is a true NDPA “Warrior Queen.”⚔️👸🏼

Dan Kowalski reports for Lexis/Nexis:

https://www.lexisnexis.com/legalnewsroom/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/court-vacates-two-trump-era-rules-that-denied-work-authorization-to-asylum-seekers

Court Vacates Two Trump-Era Rules That Denied Work Authorization To Asylum Seekers

NIJC, Feb. 8, 2022

“A federal court ruled that two rules issued by the Trump administration restricting — and in some cases eliminating — access to work authorization for asylum seekers were illegally issued and are therefore invalid.

More than a year ago, a group of nearly 20 asylum seekers along with three organizations sued the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) challenging these rules. The individual asylum seekers include transgender women, parents with small children, and children and adults who fled political persecution, gender-based violence, or gang and drug-cartel violence. The rules prevented or delayed their access to a work permit. The organizational plaintiffs — AsylumWorks, the Tahirih Justice Center, and Community Legal Services in East Palo Alto — argued that the rules derailed their missions to provide employment assistance and legal and social services to asylum seekers.

The National Immigrant Justice Center, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, the Center for Gender & Refugee Studies, Kids in Need of Defense, and Tahirih Justice Center provided counsel in the case.

Plaintiffs challenged the substantive provisions that drastically curtailed access to work authorization, and they argued that the rules were invalid because purported Acting DHS Secretary Chad Wolf issued them even though he was not lawfully installed as DHS Secretary. The rules took effect in August 2020 and were partially enjoined by a different court in September 2020, but that decision left many of the rules’ harmful provisions in place. Despite these ongoing harms and despite a change in administration, the government dragged its feet arguing that the rules should remain in place “for the time being” to allow “developing administrative actions” to resolve the case.

The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia refused to entertain these delay requests, and rejected the government’s “interpretative acrobatics” to justify Mr. Wolf’s purported authority to engage in rulemaking. Instead, the court followed numerous other courts around the country and concluded that “Wolf’s ascension to the office of Acting Secretary was unlawful.” The court also rejected the Biden administration’s attempt to ratify one of the rules in question, reasoning that the ratification “did not cure the defects … caused by Wolf’s unlawful tenure as Acting Secretary.”

Reflections from Counsel and Organizational Plaintiffs:

“The ability to earn an income is critical to asylum seekers’ ability to survive in the United States as they pursue protection from persecution,” said Keren Zwick, director of litigation at the National Immigrant Justice Center. “The court’s decision recognizes that the government cannot neglect to fill a cabinet position with a Senate-approved candidate for 665 days and then rely on unvetted, temporary officials to strip asylum seekers of access to a livelihood in the United States.”

“The court got it right,” said Annie Daher, senior staff attorney at the Center for Gender & Refugee Studies. “People seeking asylum should be treated with dignity and fairness as they pursue their legal claims. Access to work permits allows asylum seekers to provide for their families, obtain vital legal representation, and ultimately find safety and security in the United States. Today’s ruling will make a life-saving difference for our plaintiffs and for all people who turn to this country for refuge.”

“Children seeking asylum often need a USCIS-issued ‘employment authorization’ document as their only form of photo ID, to access education and other services critical to their stability and well-being during the asylum process,” said Scott Shuchart, senior director, legal strategy, at Kids in Need of Defense. “The court correctly restored access to these important documents for, potentially, thousands of unaccompanied children who will now have the opportunity to build a more secure life in the United States as they pursue lifesaving protection.”

“The right to work is an essential component of humanitarian protection,” said Joan Hodges-Wu, executive director and founder of AsylumWorks. “Work is not only imperative to economic survival; it also represents a means for asylum seekers to maintain personal dignity and self-respect during the long and protracted legal process. The court took a critical step toward upholding the rights of asylum seekers by vacating illegally-issued rules created to deter individuals and families seeking safety from harm. We applaud the court’s decision and look forward to continuing our work to help asylum seekers prepare for and retain safe, legal, and purposeful employment.”

“This decision restores the critical ability of countless survivors of gender-based violence to work, and thus be independent and provide for their families, while their asylum applications are pending—a process that often takes many years,” said Richard Caldarone, senior litigation counsel at the Tahirih Justice Center. “It also makes clear that the government remains obligated to promptly decide survivors’ requests for work authorization rather than leaving them in bureaucratic limbo for months or years. The decision takes arbitrary and punitive restrictions on work permanently off the books. We applaud the court’s decision and look forward to its immediate implementation.”

“We are thrilled that our motion for summary judgment was granted. This decision will have an enormous impact on our clients and so many other asylum seekers who come to this country seeking safety and justice,” said Christina Dos Santos, the Immigration Program director at Community Legal Services in East Palo Alto. “The Trump-era rules were punitive and cruel to asylum seekers, preventing them from receiving the right to work, potentially for years, as they waited to have their cases heard in our backlogged immigration court system. We have seen first hand how these policies forced asylum-seekers and their families into poverty and destitution. A resolution was urgently needed. We applaud the court’s decision.””

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

Garland’s poor judgement, legally deficient, ethically questionable defenses of illegal and inhumane Trump-era immigration policies continue to astound! Also, the inane maneuvers conducted by Mayorkas, presumably with Garland’s approval, attempting to illegally “ratify” one of these rules is simply disgraceful! Chief Judge Beryl A. Howell strongly and correctly rejected this flailing waste of Government resources in her opinion.

Chief Judge Howell’s decision describes a compendium of some of the most egregious evasions of rules and wasteful attempts to paper them over, by both the Trump and Biden Administrations, that can be imagined. It’s an appalling example of the failure of Biden’s “good government” pledge! Inflicting this utter nonsense on the Federal Courts and on individuals fighting for their lives and rights, and stretching the resources of their pro bono lawyers, is on Garland! It’s inexcusable!

Has Alfred E. Neumann been “reborn” as Judge Merrick Garland?
PHOTO: Wikipedia Commons

Congrats to my good friend Joan, AsylumWorks, the Tahirih Justice Center, and all the other great NGOs who are “taking it to” Garland and and his flailing Justice Department as well as to Mayorkas and his lousy, inept, illegal gimmicks being used to “shore up” grotesquely cruel and unfair Trump policies that Biden & Harris were elected to change! Gotta wonder what Ur Mendoza Jaddou and other folks who were supposed to “just say no” to these disgraceful policies are doing over at DHS!

Here’s what Joan said about the case:

WE WON! 🗽 The court ruled in AsylumWorks’ favor and struck down a series of Trump era rules that significantly delayed – and in many cases outright denied – work permits for asylum seekers.Today, justice prevailed.

🇺🇸Due process Forever!

Best,

—

Joan Hodges-Wu, MA, LGSW

Founder & Executive Director | AsylumWorks

Justice DID indeed prevail! That’s thanks to you, Joan, your fellow NGOs, and some great pro bono lawyers who showed that despite campaign promises, true “justice” for all persons under our Constitution resides elsewhere than at our flawed and failing Department of “Justice” under Garland’s uninspired and often tone deaf “leadership.”

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

02-08-22

⚖️👎🏽🤮☠️HUMAN RIGHTS GROUPS BLAST BIDEN, HARRIS, GARLAND, MAYORKAS FOR ILLEGAL RETURNS TO COLOMBIA, CONTINUATION OF MILLER’S XENOPHOBIC, DEADLY & CORRUPT TITLE 42 ABUSES OF HUMANITY!

https://bit.ly/3upncgP

Letter to Biden/Harris on Expulsions of Venezuelan Asylum Seekers to Colombia

Like14

Tweet

Share

2

RELATED CAMPAIGNS & TOPICS

Refugee Protection

Letter-resource-image-628x365_0-1.jpg

Dear President Biden and Vice President Harris:

We, the undersigned organizations committed to the rights of asylum seekers and refugees, write to express our serious concerns over reports that the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has begun a new practice of using Title 42 to expel Venezuelan migrants to Colombia. We understand that the first two Venezuelan individuals to be expelled under this policy were flown to Colombia on January 27, 2022 and that additional Title 42 expulsion flights to the country are expected to take place on “a regular basis” for Venezuelans who “previously resided” in Colombia. This practice represents a concerning and unacceptable escalation to your administration’s misguided approach to border and migration policy that flouts domestic and international refugee and human rights law. We urge you to cease these and other Title 42 expulsions immediately, to prioritize protection and access to asylum in your regional and domestic migration policies, and to engage asylum and human rights experts as you pursue new policies.

DOWNLOAD

One year into your administration, you have continued the misuse of a xenophobic Trump-era policy that weaponized an obscure provision of Title 42 of the U.S. code to summarily block and expel individuals, often repeatedly, from the U.S. southern border, without providing them the opportunity to seek asylum or the ability to access any protection screening required by law. These new flights to Colombia come amidst troubling reports that your administration placed on hold plans to restart asylum processing at U.S. ports of entry and that high-level officials have resisted ending Trump-era asylum restrictions, including Title 42 expulsions.

Title 42 expulsions have nothing to do with protecting public health and are not necessary to protect the public from the spread of COVID-19. Since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, public health experts, the UN Refugee Agency, and other humanitarian advocates have demonstrated that it is possible to protect public health and ensure access to asylum simultaneously. In fact, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) objected to the use of Title 42 for mass expulsions of migrants and confirmed such expulsions lacked a valid public health basis. Your Chief Medical Advisor Dr. Anthony Fauci has himself stated that immigrants are “absolutely not” driving a COVID-19 outbreak and that expelling migrants is not a solution to an outbreak.

Over the past twelve months, your administration expelled people—often expelling the same person repeatedly—from the U.S. southern border more than one million times. In just the first seven months of your administration, U.S. border officials carried out 704,000 expulsions, a significant increase from the Trump administration’s 400,000 expulsions conducted over ten months. In addition to the new expulsion flights to Colombia, DHS also carries out land expulsions to Mexico and expulsion flights to send individuals and families back to their countries of origin, including Haiti, Guatemala, Honduras, and Brazil. Even though your administration has acknowledged that “Haiti is grappling with a deteriorating political crisis, violence, and a staggering increase in human rights abuses…” – the U.S. has since September 2021, inexplicably chartered nearly 150 flights of almost 16,000 Haitians, including families with infants, back to a country that is unquestionably unsafe without offering them any opportunity to seek protection before expulsion. These expulsions under Title 42 violate the law and risk sending people back to dangerous conditions – sometimes the very ones that caused them to seek safety in the first place.

As you are aware, Venezuela is currently facing a severe economic, political, and humanitarian crisis. Millions of Venezuelans have left the country due to political persecution, a collapse of basic services, food insecurity, and rampant violence. Over 1.7 million Venezuelans are being hosted in Colombia and many have been granted temporary status there and only a small percentage of Venezuelans have sought asylum in the United States; however, Colombia is not safe for all Venezuelan migrants and refugees. Venezuelans, and all other individuals fleeing persecution have the right to seek asylum under U.S. law and to have their claims for protection assessed on a case-by-case basis. Your administration is blatantly violating the law by expelling these people to other countries in the region, such as Colombia, and we are deeply troubled by the informal and opaque arrangements with third countries that facilitate these expulsions. Your administration terminated several such agreements with Central American countries when you came into office, making these new flights especially concerning.

During its first year in office, your administration committed to a comprehensive regional approach to migration, aiming to strengthen asylum systems and refugee resettlement programs in the region and promote “safe, orderly, and humane migration.” Despite this pledge, your administration’s actions suggest that the United States seeks out negotiations with countries throughout Latin America that externalize its borders further south, shifts responsibility to countries already hosting millions of refugees, and impedes people’s ability to seek protection in the United States. Earlier this month, under pressure from your administration, the Mexican government implemented new requirements that Venezuelans obtain a visa to travel to Mexico. According to reports, your administration has also requested that Mexico sign a safe third country agreement, which could effectively block most individuals (except Mexicans) from seeking asylum in the United States.

We urge your administration to abandon efforts to prevent people from seeking asylum through externalized migration controls in the region and to undermine the right of people to seek protection in the United States. As you pursue other regional efforts, it is imperative that your administration operate with increased transparency and engage with asylum and human rights experts about potential efforts such as anticipated regional compacts on migration with other countries in the Americas. While regional protections must be strengthened, these efforts must not and need not come at the expense of existing protection mechanisms and access to asylum at the U.S.-Mexico border, including at ports of entry.

Your administration has the responsibility to uphold U.S. refugee law and treaty obligations. We call on your administration to cease further expulsions of Venezuelan migrants to Colombia, and to immediately end its use of all expulsions under Title 42. Our organizations continue to welcome the opportunity to engage on and inform how to promote a protection centered approach to “safe, orderly, and humane migration,” including restoring access to asylum at the border, including at ports of entry.

DOWNLOAD

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

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

Let’s be clear about the equation:

immigrants’ rights = human rights = civil rights = racial justice = economic stability = common good

By failing miserably on the first, the Administration has found itself flailing and failing on the rest.

Nowhere is this more apparent than at DOJ! Garland has squandered the precious first year in office by NOT cleaning house at EOIR and bringing in practical experts in immigration/human rights/due process to remake and reform the system so that it can deal fairly, timely, and justly with asylum applicants applying at the border and and elsewhere in the U.S., as they are legally entitled to do.

Instead of expertly culling the vast majority of backlogged pending cases which are neither priorities nor viable removal cases at this point, Garland has built the unnecessary, largely self-created backlog at a record pace to more than 1.6 million with no end in sight! Add that to his disgraceful failure to stand up against illegal and immoral policies and clear violations of human rights at the border by his own Administration and you get today’s catastrophic situation.

“Standing tall” for the rule of law (and human decency) is supposed to be the Attorney General’s job. Why are these NGOs being forced to do it for him?

How bad have things gotten at Garland’s DOJ? This has already been a tough week that saw his DOJ attorneys “blow” a plea bargain in a major civil rights case, be excoriated by the 4th Circuit in a published case for a miserably botched performance in what should have been a routine “reasonable fear” case, and have Chairwoman Lofgren introduce her Article 1 bill with a broadside against DOJ’s horrible stewardship over EOIR.

As if to punctuate Chairwoman Lofgren’s critique, Garland topped it off with this gem: a beatdown in a pro se Salvadoran asylum case, which OIL basically failed to “pull” although the BIA decision conflicted with Garland’s own more recent precedent, from a Fourth Circuit panel that included two recent Trump appointees not heretofore known for vigorously defending asylum seekers’ rights! https://www.lexisnexis.com/legalnewsroom/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/pro-se-ca4-psg-remand-luna-deportillo-v-garland

Folks, this is NOT “good government.” Not by a long shot!

There is no more important task — NONE — facing DOJ than pumping some due process and quality back into immigration law and making the long overdue management, personnel, procedural, and legal quality reforms at EOIR.

Yes, that apparently would require Garland to take on some folks at the White House who obviously consider human rights to be a “political strategy,” integrity and courage optional, and live in mortal fear of Stephen Miller and far-right nativists. It would mean taking decisive actions to treat asylum seekers and other migrants (including many individuals of color) as “persons” under our Constitution. It would end the intentional “Dred Scottification of the other.” It would send some Sessions/Barr “plants and holdovers” packing from their current jobs!

Unquestionably, these moves would incite predictable, tiresome, apoplectic reactions by Miller and the GOP White Nationalist cabal on the Hill. They would put Garland “in the spotlight” and interrupt the serenity of his inner sanctum on the 5th floor of the DOJ where he apparently likes to contemplate the world and “things other than due process for immigrants.”

But, taking on folks like that is what good lawyers are supposed to do. As a public lawyer, it’s not just about being somebody’s “mouthpiece” — it’s standing up for the rule of law!

I among many others have said from the outset that Garland won’t be able to sweep the total meltdown at EOIR and in immigration legal positions under the table, much as he obviously would like them to go away! Yes, he inherited an awful mess from his Trump predecessors. But, almost a full year in, that doesn’t absolve him of responsibility for failing to initiate the common sense steps to fix it and to bring in experts who actually know what they are doing and have the guts and backbone to follow through — even when the going gets tough, as it undoubtedly will. The problems at DOJ go far beyond EOIR; but, EOIR must be the starting place for fixing them. There is no more time to lose!

Garland’s failure to institute widely recommended common sense legal reforms — government for the common good — at EOIR undermines our democracy while endangering “real” human lives every day! That’s a toxic legacy that he won’t be able to avoid!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

02-04-22

FOR MOST OF US HISTORY, APPOINTMENTS TO THE SUPREMES WERE ABOUT FINDING A SUITABLE WHITE, CHRISTIAN, MAN, NO MATTER HOW THINLY QUALIFIED — Now That Exceptional Black Women Are About To Get A Long Overdue Shot, The Dishonest Whining From The GOP Right Is All Too Predictable!

Charles M. Blow in The NY Times:

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/30/opinion/supreme-court-nomination-identity-politics.html?referringSource=articleShare

. . . .

Not all of the white men who served on the court were paragons of morality. Not all of them went to college, let alone law school. But they each had the golden ticket: low melanin and high testosterone.

So now, it is fascinating to watch as people work themselves into conniptions about Joe Biden committing to choosing a Supreme Court nominee from a group that has long been overlooked: Black women.

. . . .

I say, look at it another way.

Of the 115 justices who have served on the bench since 1789, 108 — roughly 94 percent — have been white men. Zero percent have been Black women.

Viewed this way, through the long sweep of American history, the United States has some work to do.

There is no legitimate or logical argument against inclusion. Consciously including racial groups can be one of the most effective reparative remedies for centuries of racial exclusion.

Only when we disentangle the concepts of whiteness and maleness from the concept of power can we see the damage the association has done. Only then can we truly accept and celebrate the power of inclusion, diversity and equity. Only then can representative democracy in a pluralistic society begin to live up to its ideals.

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

Read the full article at the link.

Black women historically have made outsized, grossly under-appreciated contributions to America.

I also note that the overall qualifications of Biden’s list of potential nominees exceed those of the Trump McConnell nominees. The latter’s qualifications were largely limited to proven subservience to right wing judicial activism (particularly elimination of a woman’s right to choose and civil rights for individuals of color), indifference to human suffering, compassion, and practicality, combined with support from out of the mainstream, right wing legal organizations like the Federalist Society and the Heritage Foundation. Being White and Christian also didn’t appear to hurt their chances.

The idea that Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett were the two “best qualified lawyers in America” to serve on the High Court is preposterous!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

01-31-22

☠️HE SURVIVED 22 YEARS IN CAL STATE PRISONS — 2 YEARS IN DHS DETENTION “BROKE” HIM, DESPITE WINNING HIS CASE BEFORE AN IJ! — Welcome To America & Biden’s Gulag, Where Asylum Seekers Get Treated Worse Than Convicted Felons!🤮

https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/article/I-ve-done-time-in-12-California-prisons-Yuba-16804293.php

Carlos Sauceda writes in the SF Chron:

In 2017, after serving 22 years in prison for a gang-related murder I committed as a teenager, the California parole board granted me early release due to my rehabilitation and leadership while incarcerated. I was incredibly fortunate to get what I thought would be a second chance at life, and I committed myself to using my freedom to improve the world around me.

But I had to put those plans on hold. Because I was undocumented, I was immediately transferred to Immigration and Customs Enforcement custody at Yuba County Jail. The two years I spent there awaiting a decision on my immigration status were far worse than the over two decades I spent in 12 different prisons serving out my sentence.

Yuba County Jail is the last county jail under contract with the federal government to hold immigrant detainees in California. For the two years I fought my immigration case, I was psychologically, emotionally and physically abused by the Yuba County Sheriff’s Department. Some of the cells I lived in had no drinking water, others did not have working toilets and others had no lights, leaving me and other detainees in the dark all day long. My stress increased and my blood pressure became dangerously high. In 2018, after a year at the jail, I finally won my immigration case. But Department of Homeland Security attorneys appealed the judge’s decision, keeping me separated from my family, fueling my depression and suicidal thoughts. After another year of fighting the appeal, I had to make an impossible choice: Die inside Yuba County Jail or risk imminent death in my native land. After two years of inhumane treatment, I chose the latter. I signed the paperwork for self-deportation and went back to my home country.

My story is just one of thousands playing out in federally contracted county jails and privately operated ICE detention centers across the country. Despite President Biden’s campaign promise to end the use of private prisons for immigration detention, for undocumented people being held at Yuba County Jail, no relief is coming.

Yuba County Jail has a long history of violating national detention standards. From 2010 to 2021, ICE’s own detention office conducted at least eight inspections at the jail and found 171 violations. Among those violations, inspection officials determined that a sergeant, who was involved in two use-of-force incidents at the jail, participated in his own reviews. As a result of the findings, 24 members of Congress wrote a letter to Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas demanding that the department terminate ICE’s contract with Yuba County. At the state level, California legislators passed SB29, forbidding local governments to enter into new detention agreements with ICE. But as The Chronicle’s reporting pointed out, in 2018, the same year SB29 took effect, ICE and Yuba County officials “quietly extended their contract” to 2099.

Why would Yuba County officials establish an indefinite contract with ICE as the rest of the state moves to end the use of its jails by federal immigration authorities? Follow the money. The contract with ICE earns the Yuba County Sheriff’s Department a minimum of just under $24,000 a day, whether or not any detainees are being held in the jail, totaling about $8.66 million per year.

When the pandemic hit, conditions inside the jail worsened. Following an April 2020 class-action lawsuit, court orders led the jail to decrease its detainee population. Thanks to the work of human right advocates and formerly detained undocumented people like myself, and others, the jail went from having 127 detainees in May 2020 to zero in late 2021. For those of us who had fought, staged hunger strikes and protested, both inside and outside the jail, it felt like we were finally seeing the end of immigrant detainment.

But our celebrations were brief. In the two months that the jail had no detainees, the county’s contract with ICE was still in place, earning it an estimated $1.4 million. And in December, ICE transported its first detainee back into the jail. As of this week, three people are now detained there under ICE custody.

The repopulation of the jail by ICE only means we will fight even harder for liberation and the termination of the contract. Over the past year, and despite being thousands of miles away, I found ways to raise my voice. I connected with others who were detained alongside me and who were also deported and encouraged them to join the fight. My wife, along with other mothers, sisters, and family members joined us as well. We hosted Instagram live videos as a space for storytelling. For weeks, I met with congressional offices and shared my story and the story of others, which ultimately led to their support.

At a recent Yuba County Board of Supervisors meeting, newly named Chairman Randy Fletcher said that the claims made in a letter sent by the ACLU to the Yuba County sheriff and Board of Supervisors about the multiple violations and unlawful conditions at the jail were not true. “They make a lot of accusations. … It’s not true. It’s just not true,” he said. But I and the other undocumented people who were detained there know what we suffered through is true. And it needs to stop.

. . . .

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

Read the rest of the story at the link.

Coercion and punishment have long been part of the plan. That’s because the Supremes have fabricated the concept that “civil” imprisonment isn’t “punishment.” Pure balderdash!

Also, how does a jail get paid $1.4 million by taxpayers for nothing? Sounds like a “fleecing of America.”

But, of course, neither Garland nor Mayorkas bother to look into these questionable practices. Rather curious in light of the recommendation of a “select task force of experts” at the end of the Obama Administration that detention contracts (which frequently make establishing accountability for abuses difficult or impossible) be ended and that DHS phase out unnecessary detention.

Lack of accountability for DHS Detention is a chronic problem. So are defective bond procedures by EOIR that several Federal Courts have found unconstitutional, but which Garland continues to defend! Arbitrary bond procedures, weak internal appellate review, and lack of helpful precedents all feed the system.

Also, EOIR’s brushing aside the intentional coercion, lack of access to counsel, absence of resources, inability to prepare and document cases all contribute to the dangerous dysfunction. New, independent, expert, progressive “real judges” at EOIR would not allow Mayorkas and Garland to keep sweeping these abuses under the carpet!

Perhaps that’s why Garland has been content to allow his “courts” to malfunction using a majority of Trump/Miller holdovers and some notorious “go along to get along” bureaucrats as “judges.” Voices of expertise and reason among the IJs, and there are some, are often “silenced,” “neutered,” or “intentionally frustrated” by a BIA stacked with apologists, sometimes flat-out advocates, for DHS Enforcement and anti-immigrant policies.

Meanwhile, journalists, advocates, and those who have experienced “The Gulag” first hand need to keep it in the headlines, continue to litigate vigorously against it, and make a record of the disgraceful gap between what America claims to stand for and what it actually does! And, they would do well to “keep turning up the heat” on Garland’s “star chambers” and on his own lack of accountability for the daily disasters that unfold under his auspices.

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

01-27-22

🏴‍☠️🤮👎🏽⚰️🤯 SCOFFLAW BIA BREAKS RULES, VIOLATES OWN PRECEDENTS, HEMORRHAGES FUNDAMENTAL UNFAIRNESS IN HELPING DHS, 7TH CIR. FINDS IN LATEST REBUKE OF GARLAND’S STAR CHAMBERS — “Culture Of Denial,” Anti-Immigrant Bias Continue Unabated @ Garland’s EOIR!

Star Chamber Justice — At ICE, there’s no need to bother presenting evidence, arguments, or making a record below because we know we can “rack up” victories before our stooges at Garland’s BIA!

Dan Kowalski reports for LexisNexis:

https://www.lexisnexis.com/legalnewsroom/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/ca7-slaps-the-bia-again-osmani-v-garland

CA7 Slaps the BIA Again: Osmani v. Garland

Osmani v. Garland

“In 2019, the Department of Human Services (“DHS”) sought to remove Ilir Osmani, a refugee of the Kosovo War, based on his criminal convictions and crimes of moral turpitude. An Immigration Judge (“IJ”) granted Osmani’s petition for an adjusted status under 8 U.S.C. § 1159(a) and for waiver under 8 U.S.C. § 1159(c). The Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) reversed the IJ’s ruling based on new arguments the government, after failing to take any position before the IJ or to provide any notice to Osmani, raised for the first time on appeal and denied Osmani’s motion to remand for additional factfinding on the conditions in Kosovo. We find the BIA legally erred by considering arguments the government did not present to the IJ, put Osmani on notice of, or develop any record evidence to support. In denying Osmani’s motion to remand, the BIA also abused its discretion by engaging in impermissible factfinding. Accordingly, we grant Osmani’s petition for review and remand to the BIA. … Accordingly, we GRANT the petition for review; VACATE the Board’s decision in this case; and REMAND to the BIA for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”

[Hats way off to pro bono publico counsel Illyana A. Green, Chuck Roth and Matthew E. Price! Query: ICE removed Osmani in 2021…will they bring him back? Listen to the oral argument here.]

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

The outrageous errors, pro-DHS bias, gross incompetence, and lack of judicial qualifications reflected by this BIA decision is absolutely stunning, as is the Biden Administration’s:

Deportation of the respondent while this court challenge to this error-fest was pending (the respondent was removed based on this illegal order in April 2021, well after the Biden Administration took office and a month after Garland was sworn in as Attorney General);
The DOJ’s prima facie unethical defense of the BIA’s denial of due process, failure to follow precedent, clear abuse of discretion, and legally indefensible actions here;
Continuing abuse of scarce pro bono resources and Article III judicial time by not bringing in fair, expert, new, due–process-dedicated BIA judges who would get these right in the first place, set proper precedents, and follow them (rather than avoiding them when they spell victory for the individual);
Also, who at DHS authorized an improper appeal on this record? (Obviously, DHS recognized that given the BIA’s pro-DHS bias, they could “mail it in” before the IJ, take a frivolous appeal, and STILL HAVE THE BIA HAND THEM A TOTALLY UNDESERVED VICTORY!)

Folks, this is a Democratic Administration enabling this pattern of biased, unprofessional, and illegal conduct against immigrants which should bring a smile to Stephen Miller’s face! It’s also unfair and demoralizing to Immigration Judges who take the time to get it right and grant relief only to be arbitrarily and illegally reversed by Garland’s unqualified BIA on appeal!

Garland should have replaced leadership at EOIR and OIL, and also replaced the BIA, on “day one.” Instead, more than a year into a supposedly due-process-oriented Administration, the garbage continues to flow into the Article IIIs from Garland’s EOIR unabated, while the indefensible continues to be defended by OIL, like it’s “business as usual.” This happens because Garland’s message is that “Dred Scottification” of “the other” will be tolerated, defended, and protected at his DOJ.

Why is Garland being allowed to get away with running this system into the ground, ignoring due process, “blowing off” judicial and legal ethics, treating migrants unfairly, and building the unnecessary backlog at record levels?

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

01-25-22

TAL KOPAN @ SF CHRON: NO DUE PROCESS HERE☹️: GARLAND’S DESPICABLE “STAR CHAMBERS” CHEERED “ENGINEERED IN ABSENTIA” DEPORTATION ORDERS — Garland Fails To Provide Justice @ The Border Or In Biased “Courts,” But Inflicts Outrageous “Miller Lite” Anti-Due-Process “Gimmicks” On Vulnerable Migrants!🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮👎🏽👎🏽👎🏽👎🏽👎🏽

Immigration court officials cheered results of fast-tracked deportation orders, emails reveal

WASHINGTON — Last June, the San Francisco Immigration Court quietly tested a new idea: Fast-track the cases of immigrants whose mail wasn’t reaching them. In the trial run, 80% of the immigrants scheduled were ordered deported for not showing up.

Top officials were effusive with praise over the results, emails obtained by The Chronicle show, and rushed to set up more hearings: “Very positive!” emailed one of the top supervising immigration judges overseeing the nation’s hundreds of courts.

The newly uncovered emails reveal that the fast-track docket for immigrants with returned mail, which was first reported by The San Francisco Chronicle last fall, was cheered at the highest levels of the courts and pursued with full awareness that scores of immigrants would likely be ordered deported as a result.

Advocates and attorneys for immigrants raised concerns about the practice as a sort of deportation conveyor belt last year, as many of the lawyer-less immigrants may have no idea they missed a court hearing, much less that they were ordered deported during it, because they didn’t know how to update their address with the court or thought that Immigration and Customs Enforcement would do so on their behalf. The immigration courts are run by the Justice Department, with judges hired and ultimately overseen by the attorney general.

The emails were obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request by a nonprofit watchdog group, American Oversight, prompted by The Chronicle’s reporting. The group shared the records with The Chronicle.

The Department of Justice declined to comment specifically on the emails, noting that removal orders for failing to appear in court are legally valid and that issuing notices with new hearing dates gives unreachable immigrants an opportunity to appear in court and avoid a deportation order.

Chronicle analysis of available data last year found that the practice significantly increased the number of immigrants who were ordered deported for not being present in court, called an “in absentia” removal order. As many as 173 people were given deportation orders because of such proceedings in August and September — a nearly ninefold increase from the 20 similar orders given the previous seven months combined.

More here:

https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/Immigration-court-officials-cheered-results-of-16791798.php

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

For Garland’s “judiciary,” the object appears to be avoiding fair hearings rather than conducting them! Perhaps, that’s understandable (not justifiable) considering how poorly many of his courts’ decisions fare upon judicial review in the Article IIIs.

For his cowardly attacks on migrants and backlog-building mismanagement and misdirection of EOIR, Garland gets “Courtside’s” coveted “Five Puke-Five Thumbs Down Award!” 🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮👎🏽👎🏽👎🏽👎🏽👎🏽

While Garland is failing in his job, his concerted efforts to break apart and “alienate” key segments the Dem coalition that elected Biden is succeeding and should pay great dividends (for the GOP and Trump) in the Fall Midterms! No wonder Garland’s running the system into the ground using “Trump/Miller holdovers.”

Garland and his equally poorly performing lieutenants (Monaco, Gupta, Clarke, Prelogar) are giving us a “Master Class” in “Why Dems Can’t Govern and Blow Elections 101.”

A party that lacks the courage to act on the values it espoused to get elected doesn’t stand for anything at all!🤮👎🏽

Maybe lots of Dems pulled the lever because they wanted more of Gauleiter Stephen Miller’s White Nationalist policies. But, I haven’t heard of any!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

01-20-21

🤮🏴‍☠️☠️⚰️ GARLAND’S “SHAMEFUL RECORD” GETS EVEN WORSE AS HE DEFENDS STEPHEN MILLER’S DEGRADATION OF HUMANITY AT OUR BORDERS!

Biden’s “Shadow Attorney General” speaks through the likeness of Merrick Garland! Attribution: Stephen Miller Monster by Peter Kuper, PoliticalCartoons.com

Priscilla Alvarez reports for CNN:

https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/19/politics/title-42-biden/index.html

. . . .

“Today we heard the same unconvincing arguments from the Biden administration that we’ve been hearing for the last year about this xenophobic and baseless policy, arguments that have already been rejected in federal court. Title 42 unjustly and unnecessarily inflicts harm on families seeking asylum at our border, and we will continue to work tirelessly to ensure that this policy ends once and for all,” said Diana Kearney, senior legal adviser with Oxfam America, in a statement.

In a recently released report, Human Rights First found nearly 9,000 reports of kidnappings and other violent attacks against people who had been expelled to Mexico or blocked from seeking protection in the US.

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

Read Priscilla’s full story on the bottomless depths to which Garland has taken American “justice” and the Department of “Justice” at the link.

I can always count on Garland to illustrate and punctuate my points about his unfitness for the job of achieving racial equality, re-establishing the rule of law, and promoting human rights in America, not to mention his total unsuitability and inability to run a fair, impartial, due-process-oriented court system! He probably would have been right at home with the “GOP Six” on the Supremes.

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

01-20-22

🗽⚖️HUMAN RIGHTS FIRST: BIDEN ADMINISTRATION’S SHAMEFUL 🤮☠️ FIRST YEAR — Biden, Garland, Mayorkas Fail To Enforce Human Rights At The Border Or In The Federal Courts — Garland’s Abject Failure To Bring Progressive Humans Rights Reformers Into EOIR & Resulting Legal & Human Rights Disaster In His Courts A Critical Part Of Bad Governance!

Grim Reaper — A year ago, who would have thought that Biden and Garland share this guy’s vision of “justice” for migrants at the border and at EOIR?
Image: Hernan Fednan, Creative Commons License

Dear Paul:

In this week’s First Page, we focus on the one-year anniversary of the Biden presidency — with a particular focus on policies that impact migrants and asylum seekers.

Our recently published report makes clear that the administration’s continuing use of Trump-era restrictions has led to escalating human rights violations and needless disorder.

We believe that the United States must welcome people seeking refuge with dignity, not deliver them to danger.

REPORTING THE RECORD

On Thursday, Human Rights First released a new report finding that after a year in office, the Biden administration’s continued implementation of Trump-era restrictions is sending to danger thousands of families and individuals who seek asylum protection in the United States.

The data assembled in our report, “A Shameful Record: Biden Administration’s Use of Trump Policies Endangers People Seeking Asylum,” is a damning indictment of the U.S. government’s border policies.

Courtesy Adrees Latif/Reuters

Between January 2019 and January 2022, our research identified more than 10,000 reported kidnappings, rapes, acts of torture, and other grievous acts of violence against migrants and asylum seekers blocked in, returned to, or expelled to Mexico under the U.S. government’s “Remain in Mexico” and “Title 42” policies.

At least 8,705, or 85%, of these attacks occurred during the first year of the Biden presidency.

“President Biden’s first year in office has set a shameful new record on human rights as his administration continues to deliver asylum seekers to danger in Mexico,” said Kennji Kizuka, associate director for refugee protection research at Human Rights First and co-author of the report. “The Biden administration is well aware of the grave harm asylum seekers suffer when sent to Mexico and yet it has continued to use a policy condemned by public health experts, international authorities, civil rights leaders, and even departing members of President Biden’s administration.”

Courtesy ReuterS

Our report makes clear that kidnappings and rapes of returned migrants – including of children – are common.

Cartels and other organized criminal groups in Mexico have turned torturing asylum seekers and extorting their U.S. family members into a new and lucrative illicit enterprise. At least three asylum seekers sent to Mexico by DHS under these policies were murdered.

Equally frightening, our research shows that Mexican police, immigration officers, and other authorities are often complicit in – if not directly responsible for – these attacks.

Courtesy Getty

As the Biden administration restarts the inherently flawed “Remain in Mexico” program in the wake of court rulings, they have already sent asylum seekers from Cuba, Nicaragua, Venezuela, and other countries to “wait” for their day in immigration court in danger in Mexico.

In addition to inflicting grave and systematic suffering, these policies continue to perpetuate disorder, encourage repeat entries, inflate apprehension statistics, cause family separations, and fuel cartels by putting a bullseye on the backs of people seeking U.S. asylum who are blocked in Mexico.

Despite the Biden administration’s earlier efforts to terminate “Remain in Mexico,” when it was ordered by a federal court to re-implement the program, the administration has now chosen to expand its scope.

Today the administration is defending the expulsion policy in federal court, with a hearing in a lawsuit challenging expulsions of families at the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.

HIRING FOR HUMAN RIGHTS

Reports like A Shameful Record are just one element of our critical efforts to defend the dignity of all people.

Human Rights First seeks passionate team members who are interested in legal, communications, development, finance, and innovation work that can change lives, impact policy, and move public opinion.

Please check out our careers page and apply to join us today.

* * * * *

Watch for more news as our work for human rights continues. And please stay in touch on social media:

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

You can read the full version of “A Shameful Record” at the above link.

Not to mention that the extreme lack of expertise, humanity, and quality control in Garland’s wholly-owned Immigration Courts is corroding American justice from the “retail level” up. So unnecessary! So divisive! Such a missed opportunity for Dems to actually govern with values and in the public interest!

Wow! Think of the incredible waste: So much talent, energy, creativity, and manpower that could be working with the Administration to solve problems and make things better for everyone. Instead they are engaged in an all-out war to stop the Biden Administration’s cruel, spineless, and highly ineffective immigration and human rights blunders and, once again, be the last line of defense for American democracy against the Dems’ self-destructive policies and actions.

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

01-2.0-21

🤯🤑PROFILE IN FAILURE: GARLAND’S JUDGES: “AMATEUR NIGHT AT THE BIJOU” WITH AN OVERWHELMING TRUMPIAN INFLUENCE — As Experienced Immigration Judges Leave The Bench To Join The “Round Table,” ⚔️🛡 Garland Fails To Consistently Recruit & Hire Immigration/Human Rights/Due Process/Equal Justice “A-Listers” To Replace Them!

From TRAC:

More Immigration Judges Leaving the Bench

The latest judge-by-judge data from the Immigration Courts indicate that more judges are resigning and retiring. Turnover is the highest since records began in FY 1997 over two decades ago. These results are based on detailed records obtained by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC) at Syracuse University under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) from the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) which administers the Courts.
During FY 2019 a record number of 35 judges left the bench. This is up from the previous record set in FY 2017 when 20 judges left the bench, and 27 judges left in FY 2018. See Figure 1.

. . . .

There has also been an increase in hiring (see Table 1). The combination of elevated hiring plus a record number of judges leaving the bench means more cases are being heard by judges with quite limited experience as immigration judges.
Currently one of every three (32%) judges have only held their position since FY 2019. Half (48%) of the judges serving today were appointed in the last two and a half years. And nearly two-thirds (64%) were appointed since FY 2017[1]. See Figure 2.

. . . .

Thus, record judge turnover means the Court is losing its most experienced judges, judges whose services would be of particular value in helping mentor the large number of new immigration judges now joining the Court’s ranks. Even with mentoring, new judges appointed without any background in the intricacies of immigration law face a very steep learning curve. And without adequate mentoring, there is a heightened risk that some immigrants’ cases could be decided incorrectly.

. . . .

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

Read the complete report, with charts and graphs, at the above link.

It certainly didn’t help that Garland inexcusably wasted dozens of his “first picks” on Barr’s pipeline appointments — a group that contained few, if any, recognizable “practical scholars” in immigration/human rights/due process/equal justice.

This also shows why adding more judges under Garland’s indolent and ineffective “leadership to the bottom” is likely to aggravate, rather than alleviate, the myriad of problems and the uncontrolled mushrooming backlogs in his dysfunctional courts.

Garland’s mind-boggling failure to act on principles and make obvious, long overdue personnel and structural reforms at EOIR threatens to shred the Dem party and endanger the future of American democracy! It also underlines the hollowness of Biden’s pledge to fight for equal justice and voting rights reforms.

Faced with a wholly owned system badly in need of progressive reforms, the Biden Administration has carried on many of the scurrilous traditions of its Trump predecessors (“MillerLite policies”) while shunning and disrespecting the advice, values, and participation of progressives committed to due process and fair treatment of all persons, regardless of race, color, creed, or status.

Better options and plans have been out there since “before the git go.” See, e.g., https://immigrationcourtside.com/2021/02/04/its-not-rocket-science-🚀-greg-chen-professor-peter-markowitz-can-cut-the-immigration-court-backlog-in-half-immediately-with-no-additional-resources-and/

And, of course, it goes without saying that Garland has failed to address the glaring integrity and access problems infecting EOIR data, as outlined in the TRAC report above. With “disappearing records,” “stonewalling party lines,” and institutionalized “lack of transparency,” who really knows what the real size of Garland’s backlog is or what other problems are hidden in his EOIR morass?

It just underlines the need for an independent team of professionals to take over Garland’s broken system, “kick some tail,”and get to the bottom of its many, many, largely self-created and often hidden from the public problems and enduring failures!

Overall, a disappointing and disgraceful first-year performance by an experienced Judge and DOJ vet from whom much, much better was expected and required.

Too bad we didn’t get an Attorney General with the guts to lead and engage on progressive reforms at EOIR! One bright spot, though: Some of the “best ever” judges just leave the bench and call “Sir Jeffrey” Chase to enlist in the Round Table’s battle to advance due process and fundamental fairness! 🛡⚔️ And, they are welcomed with appreciation, respect, friendship, and love — things that few, if any, sitting judges in Garland’s dysfunctional and discombobulated system get!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever! Garland’s “Amateur Night @ The Bijou” Never!

PWS
01-20-21

🤯🆘GARLAND’S MAJOR “ACHIEVEMENT:” BUILD BIGGER IMMIGRATION COURT BACKLOGS FASTER! — “Philly-Sized” Backup Continues To Mushroom! 🍄

Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse

Immigration Court Backlog Now Growing Faster Than Ever, Burying Judges in an Avalanche of Cases

The U.S. Immigration Court system is currently staring up a mountain of pending cases that at the end of December 2021 reached 1,596,193 — the largest in history. If every person with a pending immigration case were gathered together it would be larger than the population of Philadelphia, the sixth largest city in the United States. Previous administrations — all the way back through at least the George W. Bush administration — have failed when they tried to tackle the seemingly intractable problem of the Immigration Court “backlog.”

Yet a disturbing new trend has emerged during the Biden administration that demands attention: since the start of the Biden administration, the growth of the backlog has been accelerating at a breakneck pace.

Quarterly growth in the number of pending Immigration Court cases between October and December 2021 is the largest on record. In just this short period, the backlog increased by almost 140,000 cases. This far exceeds any 3-month increase during the most dramatic period of growth of the Trump administration. These findings suggest that the Immigration Courts are entering a worrying new era of even more crushing caseloads — all the more concerning since no attempt at a solution has yet been able to reverse the avalanche of cases that Immigration Judges now face.

The partial Court shutdown during the COVID-19 pandemic has, of course, contributed to the backlog’s growth. However, the main contributor is the recent deluge of new cases filed by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). If the current pace during the first quarter of FY 2022 of newly arriving Notices to Appear (NTAs) continues, the Court will receive 800,000 new cases — at least 300,000 more than the annual total the Court has ever received during its existence.

For full details, including a review of the history leading to this juncture, read the full report at:

https://trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/675

If you want to be sure to receive a notification whenever updated data become available, sign up at:

https://tracfed.syr.edu/cgi-bin/tracuser.pl?pub=1

Follow us on Twitter at:

https://twitter.com/tracreports

or like us on Facebook:

https://facebook.com/tracreports

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:

https://trac.syr.edu/cgi-bin/sponsor/sponsor.pl

David Burnham and Susan B. Long, co-directors

Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse

Syracuse University Peck Hall

601 E. Genesee Street

Syracuse, NY 13202-3117

315-443-3563

trac@syr.edu

https://trac.syr.edu

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.

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

What’s Garland’s next target: a backlog bigger than Chicago, New York, Los Angeles?

Garland was warned in advance about the extreme dysfunction in his courts and the urgent need to make fixing it one of his highest priorities. Instead of immediately bringing in progressive experts, replacing the BIA, hiring better judges and innovative administrators to address the backlog, attack poor judicial quality, and curb abuse of the system by DHS, Garland has simply failed to take due process, fundamental fairness, and best practices seriously. He has also compounded the disaster by using “proven to fail” enforcement and deterrence gimmicks and retaining poor quality managers and judges packed into the system by Sessions and Barr.

The worse the dysfunction gets under Garland, the harder it will be to convince the “best and brightest” to undertake the challenge of fixing it!

Also, time’s a wasting. The first year of any Administration is the time to get things done. Garland has already squandered that precious time!

This system is totally out of control and crushing the lives and futures of those caught up in it. Sadly, nobody in power in any of the three branches seems interested, motivated, or courageous enough to fix it. That’s bad for our democracy!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

01-18-22

Mejia-Velasquez v. Garland, 4th Cir., 02-16-22, published

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

🌟 🌟 🌟 🌟 🌟

🌟 🌟 🌟 🌟 🌟

🌟 🌟 🌟 🌟 🌟

PLAYING IN HOME, OFFICE, AND CLASSROOM THEATERS NOW!

RATED G — Suitable & Highly Recommended for All Audiences

“If you can win a case in this system, everything else in law, indeed in life, will be a walk in the park!” — Paul Wickham Schmidt, ImmigrationCourtside

Don’t miss the sequel!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Deadly Inertia: Needless Delay of “Particular Social Group” Regulations Puts Asylum Seekers at Risk

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

ETHICS ON VACATION @ DHS & DOJ: Apparently a Frivolous DHS Appeal Asking BIA To Publish Intentional Misconstruction of 7th Circuit Law is SOP For Mayorkas, Garland, & Underlings!

By Paul Wickham Schmidt

Courtside Exclusive

Feb. 9, 2022

Related posts:

Dan Kowalski reports for Lexis/Nexis:

🇺🇸Due process Forever!

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Charles M. Blow in The NY Times:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Carlos Sauceda writes in the SF Chron:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Dan Kowalski reports for LexisNexis:

CA7 Slaps the BIA Again: Osmani v. Garland

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Immigration court officials cheered results of fast-tracked deportation orders, emails reveal

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Priscilla Alvarez reports for CNN:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

From TRAC:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever! Garland’s “Amateur Night @ The Bijou” Never!

Related posts:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts: