"The Voice of the New Due Process Army" ————– Musings on Events in U.S. Immigration Court, Immigration Law, Sports, and Other Random Topics by Retired United States Immigration Judge (Arlington, Virginia) and former Chairman of the Board of Immigration Appeals Paul Wickham Schmidt. To see my complete professional bio, just click on the link below.
Nolan Rappaport Contributor, The HillMargaret Stock, Esquire Anchorage, Alaska PHOTO: Law firm
Nolan sends this summary of his latest on The Hill:
Afghans who helped us deserve better immigration treatment
Nolan Rappaport, opinion contributor
As the Afghan government and military fell to the Taliban after U.S. troops were withdrawn from Afghanistan, the U.S. hastily evacuated American citizens and 76,000 Afghans who had helped the U.S. in its 20-year war against the Taliban.
It is a year later now, and most of the Afghan evacuees still have temporary immigration status, which means that they may be subject to removal when their status expires. This isn’t right. We should be taking better care of them.
It is more than just an obligation to people who put themselves in peril to help the United States.
According to Margaret D. Stock, a retired military officer, “Correcting for this inaction is a matter of national security — in future conflicts, why would anyone risk their lives by serving alongside our soldiers or providing critical translation services if the U.S. can’t keep our promises to them when we depart?”
It wouldn’t be taking this long to meet the needs of the Afghans if our immigration system weren’t overwhelmed to the point of being dysfunctional.
Parole
The evacuees who did not have entry documents had to request humanitarian parole, which permits undocumented migrants to be admitted to the United States temporarily for urgent humanitarian or significant public benefit reasons.
Approximately 70,192 of them were paroled into the United States between July 30, 2021, and Nov. 15, 2021.
Permanent status
Congress has enacted a series of legislative provisions which enable certain Afghan nationals to become lawful permanent residents (LPRs) on the basis of a Special Immigrant Visa (SIV).
To be eligible for this special immigrant classification, the principal applicant must obtain a favorable written recommendation from the COM or a general or flag officer in the relevant Armed Forces unit.
Afghans who were employed by or on behalf of the U.S. government or the International security Assistance Force in Afghanistan may be eligible for SIV status under section 602(b) of the Afghan Allies Protection Act of 2009.
Roadblock
As of July 18, 2022, there were 74,274 principal applicants in the SIV pipeline. This number does not include spouses and children. And the applications have to be processed by USCIS, which is experiencing a backlog crisis.
Nolan Rappaport was detailed to the House Judiciary Committee as an Executive Branch Immigration Law Expert for three years. He subsequently served as an immigration counsel for the Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security and Claims for four years. Prior to working on the Judiciary Committee, he wrote decisions for the Board of Immigration Appeals for 20 years. Follow him athttps://www.blogger.com/blog/posts/2306123393080132994
**************
Read Nolan’s full op-ed at the link.
When experts like Nolan and Margaret are saying the same thing, everyone should listen and act accordingly!
In addition to fair and equitable treatment for our allies, we must resume and expand fair and humane treatment for all refugees, including, most important, those seeking legal refuge at our borders. Many of them actually come from broken countries where the the U.S. has left a “large footprint,” like Haiti and Latin America.
It is long past time to make the legal requirement set forth in the Refugee Act of 1980 — any individual in the US or arriving at our border may apply for asylum “irrespective of status” — a reality rather than a cruel hoax. Contrary to some disgracefully wrong-headed court decisions, this statutory requirement implicitly requires that opportunity to be in full compliance with due process.
Otherwise, to state the obvious, it’s no opportunity at all — just a legal charade. Unfortunately, that is what much of our broken, dysfunctional, and unjust asylum and refugee systems look like now!
What kind of “judges” would “defy” the evidence of record to wrongfully deny asylum? https://www.flickr.com/photos/rasputin243/ Creative Commons License
Read the 3rd Circuit’s (unfortunately) unpublished decision here:
The IJ credited Bimpong’s testimony, and the BIA did not disturb this finding. Yet the BIA concluded that Bimpong’s persecution was a personal land dispute that lacked any nexus to his membership in the Ashanti tribe. In doing so, the BIA deferred to the IJ’s conclusion that “the record is devoid of any evidence indicating that the [Enzema] Tribe targeted the applicant because of membership in the Ashanti Tribe.” AR 97 (emphasis added). That conclusion defies the record, which is replete with evidence that Bimpong’s tribal affiliation was a central reason for his persecution. See, e.g., AR 157, 162-63, 167–68, 185, 596, 598. For example, Bimpong testified that members of
the Enzema “did not want the land that [he] possessed to be owned by non-members of 4
the Enzema tribe,” AR 596, and that he “was a target of persecution because of [an] intertribal dispute between the Enzema tribe and Ashanti tribe.” AR 598.
****************
Typical BIA BS prejudged, form denial “boilerplate.” “Devoid of evidence” — gimmie a break! We tried (obviously unsuccessfully) to eliminate this type of non-analytical nonsense several decades ago. It’s indicative of a totally broken system that is unfair and biased against migrants! Why is Garland allowing this continuing systemic injustice?
Demand that Garland replace his inept, unprofessional, unconstitutional, “Trump holdover” BIA with real judges who are experts in immigration, asylum, human rights, and fully committed to due process and fundamental fairness!
To quote my good friend and Round Table 🛡 colleague, Hon. “Sir Jeffrey” Chase:
At the IJ level, the ACIJs have to be charged with determining if the IJ actually doesn’t know the law, or if they are choosing not to follow it. Of course, you need ACIJs who actually know immigration law, which isn’t always the case anymore. If it’s the former, you schedule additional training; if it’s the latter, they may need to suspend or remove the IJ. That should be a priority for the next Chief IJ.
But why isn’t this being caught at the BIA level? They continue to act as a rubber stamp. There have been a few cases just in the past couple of weeks where the errors were really major and apparent.
A BIA that would “rubber stamp” denials without question or meaningful analysis so that OIL could then argue “deference” to railroad refugees and other individuals entitled to relief out of the country is precisely what Barr and Sessions intended to create. In other words, a “parody of justice” that would carry out the White Nationalist restrictionist agenda without giving it any thought. And, it’s no coincidence that this unconstitutional agenda falls hardest on the backs of asylum seekers and other migrants of color. It also serves to reinforce the vile concept that individuals of color in the U.S. are not equal under the law.
The real question here is why Garland hasn’t effectively changed the system by bringing in real judges who are experts in immigration and human rights and who would be fair to all coming before his Immigration Courts regardless of race or status? “Gradual change” is unacceptable when individuals (and their conscientious representatives) are being subjected to deadly quasi-judicial incompetence on a daily basis. Tell Garland you’ve had enough!
“EOIR Clown Show Must Go” T-Shirt Custom Design Concept
“Petitioner Rodolfo Josue Tinoco Acevedo appeals an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming the denial of his application for cancellation of removal. Because the BIA failed to address whether Tinoco Acevedo’s case should be remanded to a new immigration judge (“IJ”) under Matter of Y-S-L-C-, 26 I. & N. Dec. 688 (BIA 2015), we grant Tinoco Acevedo’s petition for review, vacate the order of removal, and remand to the BIA for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. … Rather than opine as to the exact grounds on which the BIA decided that the applicant was entitled to a new hearing before a new IJ in Matter of Y-S-L-C-, we remand for the BIA to interpret its precedent and address Tinoco Acevedo’s argument in the first instance. … we grant Tinoco Acevedo’s petition for review, vacate the order of removal, and remand for the BIA to consider whether Tinoco Acevedo is entitled to a new hearing before a different IJ because the initial IJ’s conduct—both during and following the hearing—failed to satisfy the high standard expected of IJs under Matter of Y-S-L-C-. PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; VACATED AND REMANDED.” [Note: The IJ was Roxanne C. Hladylowycz.]
[Hats off once again to IRAC superlitigator Ben Winograd!]
Yet another example of the BIA not being familiar with and applying their own precedents where they could be favorable to the respondent. Any old boilerplate BS will do as long is the result is “dismiss and remove.”
It’s one thing for the BIA to articulate “high standards” for IJ conduct in Matter of Y-S-L-C-. It’s quite another to consistently enforce them where the lives of migrants are at stake!
It was a particularly bad idea for the BIA to spring this haphazard “good enough for government work” approach when Ben Winograd is appellate counsel. Winograd knows the BIA and 4th Circuit precedents better than most BIA judges. And, unlike the latter, he’s willing to stand up for immigrants’ legal rights!
It would be better for Garland and American justice — not to mention those seeking justice in Immigration Court, too often in vain — if brilliant, due-process-oriented “practical scholars” like Ben Winograd replaced the “holdover BIA judges” who aren’t up to the job of “guaranteeing fairness and due process for all.” Remarkably, there was a time in the past when that long disregarded judicial essential was the “vision” of EOIR.
Ironically, the Article III Judges of this 4th Circuit panel (Chief Judge Gregory, Circuit Judges Motz and Wynn) understand the critical requirements for EOIR judging better than AG Garland! That’s a problem (although, concededly, outside the “World of EOIR” Garland has had his best week as AG)!
This opinion was written by Chief Judge Roger Gregory. He continues to be a leader among Article III Judges who take due process and immigrants’ rights seriously! He’s also someone who “gets” the clear connection between immigrant justice (or, in too many cases lack thereof) and racial justice.
With the Chief Immigration Judge position now vacant, Judge Garland has a golden opportunity to appoint a “Judge Gregory clone” to that critical position. See, e.g., https://immigrationcourtside.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=30193&action=edit. That would also be a wise course for Garland to take to replace the current glaringly inadequate leadership at his failing BIA! How about Chief Appellate Immigration Judge/Chairman Ben Winograd?
Isabela Dias Staff Writer, Immigration & Social Issues Mother Jones PHOTO: TwitterProfessor Andrew S. Rosenberg Assistant Professor of Political Science U of Florida PHOTO: Website
“Undesirable Immigrants: Why Racism Persists in International Migration”
. . . .
In the book, you dispute the assumption that the right to border control and to exclude foreigners is an inherent feature of sovereign states. Instead, you frame it as a “modern consequence of racism.” Why do you see it that way?
The nation-state is a relatively modern invention on the scale of human history. Today, we have this conventional wisdom floating around that it is the natural right and duty of nation-states as sovereign entities to be able to restrict foreigners and have these really hard borders—and that it’s that ability that makes a state what it is. Actually, if you go back in time and look at the international legal thought that emerged from the 15th through the 19th centuries on what it actually means to be a state, the commonly held assumption that people like the late Justice [Antonin] Scalia and others talk about, is actually an invention of the 19th century. In the 16th and 17th centuries, the great thinkers of international legal jurisprudence or of state theory either thought that states had a right or an obligation to be hospitable to foreigners and to allow them free passage into their territory or, at most, it was up for raucous debate. It was only in the 19th century, when immigrant-receiving countries like the United States began receiving a large influx of racially different outsiders like the Chinese, that this presumption that sovereign states have a right and an obligation that can be tied back to their status as sovereign states to restrict outsiders emerged.
People like Texas Governor Greg Abbott seem to invoke that supposed inherent right when they describe migrants at the border as an “invasion.”
Precisely. These types of “declarations of war” are one of the clearest examples of this ideology seeping into public debate, which leads everyday people to create this idea that migrants are undesirable outsiders who are not fit for, or are undeserving of reaping the benefits of living in the United States or participating in our society.
****************
Read the complete interview at the link.
The myth of the “undesirable immigrant” — at the heart of the anti-immigrant rabble rousing of Trump, Miller, Bannon, DeSantis, Abbott, Cotton, Hawley, etc. — has deep roots in American racial history.
I’ve said it many times: There will be neither racial justice nor equal justice for all without justice for immigrants (regardless of status). Laws like the Refugee Act of 1980, that very explicitly make arrival status irrelevant to access to a fair legal process, have been intentionally misinterpreted and misapplied by right-wing judges from the Supremes all the way down to the Immigration Courts.
Advocates for civil rights, womens’ rights, LGBTQ+ rights, voting rights, disability rights, and other fundamental rights that have been unlawfully restricted or diminished, usually, but certainly not exclusively, by the right, who continue to ignore the primacy of dealing with the intentional unfair, racially biased treatment of migrants do so at their own peril!
U.S. District Judge Cynthia Bashant minces no words in blasting both the unlawful, cruel, and unconstitutional policy and the Supreme’s toxic decision to look the other way as immigration enforcement runs roughshod over legal, constitutional, and human rights.
In its September 2, 2021 decision, this Court held the right to access the U.S. asylum
process conferred vis a vis § 1158(a)(1) applies extraterritorially to noncitizens who are
arriving at Class A POEs along the U.S.-Mexico border, but who are not yet within the
jurisdiction of the United States, and is of a constitutional dimension. (Op. Granting in
Part and Denying in Part Parties’ Cross-Mots. for Summ. J. (“MSJ Opinion”), ECF No.
742.) It further held that Defendants’ systematic turnbacks of asylum seekers arriving at
Class A POEs (the “Turnback Policy”) amounted to an unlawful withholding by
immigration officials of their mandatory ministerial “inspection and referral duties”
detailed in 8 U.S.C. § 1225 (“§ 1225”), in violation of the Administrative Procedures Act,
5 U.S.C. § 706(1) et seq., and the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause. (MSJ Opinion at
33–34, 37–38); see 8 U.S.C. §§ 1225(a)(3) (mapping out immigration officials’ duty to
inspect asylum seekers), 1225(b)(1)(A)(ii) (mapping out immigration officials’ duty to
refer asylum seekers to the U.S-asylum process).
In casting appropriate equitable relief to rectify the irreparable injury Defendants’
unauthorized and constitutionally violative Turnback Policy has inflicted upon members
of the Plaintiff class,2 this Court ordinarily would be guided by the fundamental principle
that an equitable remedy should be commensurate with the violations it is designed to
vindicate. See Columbus Bd. of Educ. v. Penick, 443 U.S. 449, 465 (1979) (“[It is an]
accepted rule that the remedy imposed by a court of equity should be commensurate with
the violation ascertained.”). Equitable relief should leave no stone unturned: it should
correct entirely the violations it is aimed at vindicating. That cornerstone of Article III
courts’ equitable powers generally is unfaltering, whether the party against whom an
injunction is sought is a private entity, a state actor, or, as here, a federal official. Thus, in
2 Plaintiffs consist of the named Plaintiffs listed in the case caption, along with a certified class
consisting of “all noncitizens who seek or will seek to access the U.S. asylum process by presenting
themselves at a Class A [POE] on the U.S.-Mexico border, and were or will be denied access to the U.S.
asylum process by or at the instruction of [Customs and Border Protection] officials on or after January 1,
2016.” (Class Certification Order at 18, ECF No. 513.) The Court also certified a subclass consisting of
“all noncitizens who were or will be denied access to the U.S. asylum process at a Class A POE on the
U.S.-Mexico border as a result of Defendants’ metering policy on or after January 1, 2016.” (Id.)
– 3 – 17cv2366
the ordinary course of things, this Court would not hesitate to issue broad, programmatic
relief enjoining Defendants from now, or in the future, turning back asylum seekers in the
process of arriving at Class A POEs, absent a valid statutory basis for doing so.
Yet the circumstances with which this Court is presented are not ordinary because
of the extraordinary, intervening decision of the United States Supreme Court in Garland
v. Aleman Gonzalez, 142 S. Ct. 2057 (2022). That decision takes a sledgehammer to the
premise that immigration enforcement agencies are bound to implement their mandatory
ministerial duties prescribed by Congress, including their obligation to inspect and refer
arriving noncitizens for asylum, and that, when immigration enforcement agencies deviate
from those duties, lower courts have authority to issue equitable relief to enjoin the
resulting violations. It does so through unprecedented expansion of a provision of the
Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1989 (“IIRIRA”), 8
U.S.C. § 1252(f)(1) et seq. (“§ 1252(f)(1)”), which for years the Ninth Circuit has
interpreted as placing a relatively narrow limit on injunctive relief. In essence, Aleman
Gonzalez holds that § 1252(f)(1) prohibits lower courts from issuing class-wide injunctions
that “require officials to take actions that (in the Government’s view) are not required” by
certain removal statutes, including § 1225, or “to refrain from actions that (again in the
Government’s view) are allowed” by those same provisions. Id., 142 S. Ct. at 2065.
Federal courts (except for the Supreme Court) now may only issue injunctions enjoining
federal officials’ unauthorized implementation of the removal statutes in the individual
cases of noncitizens against whom removal proceedings have been initiated. See id.
In no uncertain terms, the logical extension of Aleman Gonzalez appears to bestow
immigration enforcement agencies carte blanche to implement immigration enforcement
policies that clearly are unauthorized by the statutes under which they operate because the
Government need only claim authority to implement to immunize itself from the federal
judiciary’s oversight.
With acknowledgment that its decision will further contribute to the human suffering
of asylum seekers enduring squalid and dangerous conditions in Mexican border
– 4 – 17cv2366
communities as they await entry to POEs, this Court finds the shadow of Aleman Gonzalez
inescapable in this case. Even the most narrow, meaningful equitable relief would have
the effect of interfering with the “operation” of § 1225, as that term is construed by the
Aleman Gonzalez Court, and, thus, would clash with § 1252(f)(1)’s remedy bar. Aleman
Gonzalez not only renders uneconomical vindication of Plaintiff class members’
statutorily- and constitutionally-protected right to apply for asylum, those inefficiencies
inevitably will lead to innumerable instances in which Plaintiff class members will be
unable to vindicate their rights at all. Thus, while the majority and dissent in Aleman
Gonzalez hash out their textual disagreements concerning § 1252(f)(1)’s scope in terms of
remedies, make no mistake, Aleman Gonzalez leaves largely unrestrained immigration
enforcement agencies to rapaciously scale back rights. See Tracy A. Thomas, Ubi Jus, Ibi
Remedium: The Fundamental Right to a Remedy Under Due Process, 41 San Diego L.
Rev. 1633, 1634 (2004) (“Disputes over remedies provide a convenient way for dissenters
to resist conformance to legal guarantees. Courts can declare rights, but then default in the
remedy to avoid a politically unpopular result.” (footnote omitted)).
Although it is no substitute for a permanent injunction, class-wide declaratory relief
is both available and warranted here. In lieu of even a circumscribed injunction enjoining
Defendants from again implementing a policy under which they turn back asylum seekers
presenting themselves at POEs along the U.S.-Mexico border, the Court enters a
declaration in accordance with its MSJ Opinion that turning back asylum seekers
constitutes both an unlawful withholding of Defendants’ mandatory ministerial inspection
and referral duties under § 1158 and § 1225 in violation of both the APA and the Fifth
Amendment Due Process Clause. The Court also issues relief as necessary to named
Plaintiff Beatrice Doe.
. . . .
You can read Judge Bashant’s full opinion at the link.
Meanwhile, Secretary Mayorkas exercised the authority recognized by the Supremes in Biden v. Texas to terminate the reprehensible and illegal “Remain in Mexico” (a/k/a “Let ‘Em Die in Mexico”) program engineered by Trump and Miller. Predictably, the same scofflaw, restrictionist “Red AG’s” who had instituted frivolous litigation to block this long overdue action filed more specious objections with the Trump-appointed US District Judge, as advocacy groups like Justice Action Center (“JAC”) pledged to fight the racist right until this vile (and highly ineffective) program is finally ended.
JAC Responds to Official Termination of Remain in Mexico, Attempts by Texas to Delay Wind-Down
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
August 9, 2022
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a victory for immigrants’ rights movement, the Remain in Mexico program has been officially terminated after court proceedings following the Supreme Court’s ruling in Biden v. Texas on June 30. Below is a statement from Justice Action Center founder and director Karen Tumlin:
“The official end to shameful Remain in Mexico program is a victory for the immigrants’ rights movement and the right to asylum. RMX is a stain on the country’s history, having harmed tens of thousands of people fleeing for their lives since the Trump Administration instituted the unlawful and immoral program in 2019.
“Since the Supreme Court’s ruling affirming the authority of the Biden Administration to end the RMX program, the #SafeNotStranded campaign has called on the President and DHS to implement a swift and humane wind-down, including halting all new enrollments and allowing everyone in RMX to safely pursue their asylum claims in the U.S. Yesterday, DHS stated its wind-down has begun and new people will not be enrolled in the program, and that it would disenroll individuals with upcoming RMX hearings. These are important first steps to finally redress just some of the immense harm inflicted by the program.
“This commitment by DHS, following such a significant SCOTUS victory, illustrates the strength and resilience of the immigrants’ rights movement. But even after a clear loss, Texas is continuing its hateful attempts to keep this deadly program in place for as long as possible: After the District Court rightfully vacated its injunction of the RMX wind-down yesterday, Texas unfortunately—yet unsurprisingly—filed an amended complaint challenging the second DHS memo rescinding RMX, as well as a motion asking the District Court to stay the memo’s effective date.
“But we will not be deterred: advocates will continue to fight back against ongoing red state efforts to continue Trump’s racist and xenophobic agenda and work towards a world where all people fleeing danger can be safe, not stranded.”
Justice Action Center (JAC) is a new nonprofit organization dedicated to fighting for greater justice for immigrant communities by combining litigation and storytelling. JAC is committed to bringing additional litigation resources to address unmet needs, empower clients, and change the corrosive narrative around immigrants in the U.S. Learn more at justiceactioncenter.org and follow us on Twitter, Instagram, and Facebook.
We should remember that the Trumpest GOP’s insurrectionist war on American democracy and attack on truth and human decency began with overt lies and racist attacks on migrants of color and non-Christians. It has escalated to become an all out assault on our future as a nation of laws and values.
We can’t go back to a time when liberals and progressives viewed immigration as a tangental or secondary issue. It is THE all-encompassing issue now in preserving American democracy from GOP efforts to destabilize and destroy our nation’s fabric from bottom to top!
Much has been made of the ensuing polarization in our politics, and it’s true that moderates are a vanishing breed. But the problem isn’t primarily polarization. The problem is that one of our two major political parties has ceased good-faith participation in the democratic process. Of course, there are instances of violence, disinformation, racism and corruption among Democrats and the political left, but the scale isn’t at all comparable. Only one party fomented a bloody insurrection and even after that voted in large numbers (139 House Republicans, a two-thirds majority) to overturn the will of the voters in the 2020 election. Only one party promotes a web of conspiracy theories in place of facts. Only one party is trying to restrict voting and discredit elections. Only one party is stoking fear of minorities and immigrants.
Admittedly, I’m partisan — not for Democrats but for democrats. Republicans have become an authoritarian faction fighting democracy — and there’s a perfectly logical reason for this: Democracy is working against Republicans. In the eight presidential contests since 1988, the GOP candidate has won a majority of the popular vote only once, in 2004. As the United States approaches majority-minority status (the White population, 76 percent of the country in 1990, is now 58 percent and will drop below 50 percent around 2045), Republicans have become the voice of White people, particularly those without college degrees, who fear the loss of their way of life in a multicultural America. White grievance and White fear drive Republican identity more than any other factor — and in turn drive the tribalism and dysfunction in the U.S. political system.
Other factors sped the party’s turn toward nihilism: Concurrent with the rise of Gingrich was the ascent of conservative talk radio, followed by the triumph of Fox News, followed by the advent of social media. Combined, they created a media environment that allows Republican politicians and their voters to seal themselves in an echo chamber of “alternative facts.” Globally, south-to-north migration has ignited nationalist movements around the world and created a new era of autocrats. The disappearance of the Greatest Generation, tempered by war, brought to power a new generation of culture warriors.
But the biggest cause is race. The parties re-sorted themselves after the epochal changes of the 1960s, which expanded civil rights, voting rights and immigration. Richard Nixon’s “Southern Strategy” began an appeal to White voters alienated by racial progress, and, in the years that followed, a new generation of Republicans took that racist undertone and made it the melody.
It is crucial to understand that Donald Trump didn’t create this noxious environment. He isn’t some hideous, orange Venus emerging from the half-shell. Rather, he is a brilliant opportunist; he saw the direction the Republican Party was taking and the appetites it was stoking. The onetime pro-choice advocate of universal health care reinvented himself to give Republicans what they wanted. Because Trump is merely a reflection of the sickness in the GOP, the problem won’t go away when he does.
As I noted in yesterday’s post, racially charged lies, myths, knowingly false narratives, and bogus attempts to tie migrants to all the ills of society are a key part of the GOP’s toxic narrative! The continuing campaign of hate and misinformation began with immigrants — but as this article suggests, it won’t end until either the GOP is thrown out of office at all levels or our nation’s constitutional structure and democratic republic are in tatters!
Between 2015 and 2020, about fifty bodies were recovered each year in Brooks County, according to an S.T.H.R.C. report. Then came Title 42, a policy enacted by the Trump Administration at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic that closed ports of entry and blocked most avenues for asylum claims, ostensibly for public-health reasons. The policy, which is still in place in a modified form, has increased business for smuggling cartels and spurred people to cross in more dangerous places. “Before Title 42, the calls we got used to be, like, eighty-per-cent apprehended, twenty-per-cent missing,” Canales said. “Now it’s flipped—it’s more like twenty-per-cent apprehended, eighty-per-cent missing.” So far this year, there have been nearly seventy recoveries of remains in Brooks County, putting 2022 on track to be the deadliest year on record.
. . . .
*****************
Read Rachel’s entire report, directly from the border, at the link.
So, before the Trump Administration’s bogus, racist “invocation” of Title 42, 80% of migrants came to the border or were easily apprehended close thereto — most probably because they turned themselves in to seek asylum through the legal system. And, lets not forget, this was with an already badly broken, fundamentally unfair, asylum legal adjudication system intentionally biased and “loaded” against legitimate refugees seeking protection!
Smart, honest public policy would have improved asylum adjudication at USCIS and at EOIR to quickly recognize and grant, with the assistance of NGOs and legal assistance groups, the many cases of legitimate refugees so that they could take their rightful, legal places in our society.
Additionally, by taking refugees seeking legal determinations “out of the equation,” enforcement against those seeking to evade legal processing — certainly a much, much smaller “universe” than is “out there now” — would have been enhanced. Business would have declined for smugglers, as those seeking protection would have been motivated to use a humane, fair, functioning legal system rather than being forced into “do it yourself” refuge!
You don’t have a genius to figure this out — just not be motivated solely by racism like Stephen Miller and his Trump regime cronies! Better qualified — non-Jim Crow righty — Federal Judges would also produce more humane, honest, and rational results.
Additionally, by running a legitimate asylum system, and complementing it with an honest, robust, legal refugee system for Latin America, the Caribbean, and Africa, we would finally have sound data on how many of those seeking to enter at the Southern Border are entitled to immigrate as legal refugees and how many are non-refugees. That’s something on which we now have no reliable information— just myths and anecdotes, many provided by racist restrictionists and nativists with neither expertise in asylum law nor any real interest in the rule of law at the border.
As a result of Title 42, and the unqualified “Jim Crow” Federal Judges, GOP nativist AGs, and their apologists (including some in the media who repeat or republish, without critical examination, GOP racist lies about the border), we now have a deadlier than ever border; the legal immigration system at the border has been functionally abolished and replaced with an underground, extralegal system; the U.S. Government has ceded control of border migration policy to cartels and smugglers; and the job of the Border Patrol — forced to spend time apprehending legal refugees who seek only the protection to which they are legally entitled — has become impossible.
That’s what happens when we let GOP nativist pols, overt racists, and bad, right wing Federal Judges take over the immigration policies that were actually enacted by Congress — a key part of which are legitimate refugee and asylum systems and a fair, functioning, expert Immigration Court. Right now, we have NONE of the foregoing. And, innocent migrants at the border are too often paying the price — with their lives!
“Enforcing the law” does NOT mean unfairly, unwisely, and illegally abrogating the legal asylum system and fair adjudications in Immigration Court at the border. It means fixing the legal asylum system including USCIS Asylum Offices. Perhaps most of all, it means reforming and replacing where necessary the broken, dysfunctional, leaderless, and non-expert Immigration Courts and a BIA that continues to misinterpret asylum and protection laws on a daily basis. We need a BIA of real judges with the expertise and guts to establish fair, humane, correct, positive precedents and to rein in or remove from asylum cases those Immigration Judges who are “programmed to reject, not protect!”
I, along with many others, watched the Brittney Griner travesty unfold. I saw the irony. President Biden was rightfully blasting the outrageous “kangaroo court” show trial that passes for justice in Russia. But, at the same time, he, Harris, and Garland are basically running a farcical “Russian style” dysfunctional immigrant “justice” system at EOIR and calling it a “court!”
Perhaps, in addition to blasting the Griner farce, President Biden, VP Harris, and AG Garland need to take a closer look at the “Russian-style” justice being inflicted on migrants in their wholly-owned Immigration “Courts” — which particularly target women, children, and migrants of color seeking justice under US laws. Indeed, many are still being arbitrarily returned without ANY process at all! Others get “off the wall” denials of their valid claims. Its this REALLY any way for a self-proclaimed “nation of laws” to operate? https://www.flickr.com/photos/rasputin243/ Creative Commons License
Would you want this guy as your Immigration Judge or BIA “panel?” If not, tell Garland to “pull the plug” on his deadly and incompetent BIA! Public Domain
Sorto-Guzmán v. Garland, 4th Cir., 08-93-22, published
PANEL:KING and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.
OPINION: Judge FLOYD
KEY QUOTE:
In sum, we hold that the IJ’s decision, which the BIA adopted, blatantly ignored our long line of cases establishing that the threat of death alone establishes past persecution. This was legal error, and therefore, an abuse of discretion. See Cordova v. Holder, 759 F.3d 332, 337 (4th Cir. 2014). We hold that Sorto-Guzman has established she was subjected to past persecution in El Salvador.2 She is thereby entitled to the presumption of a well-founded fear of future persecution. Li, 405 F.3d at 176; 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(b)(1). The IJ and the BIA erred in not affording Sorto-Guzman this presumption, which would
2 Sorto-Guzman argues, in the alternative, that the IJ and the BIA erred in finding that she failed to establish a well-founded fear of future persecution. We will not answer that question today. Because we hold that she properly established past persecution, the proper remedy is to remand the case to the BIA to consider the question of whether DHS can rebut the presumption that Sorto-Guzman has a well-founded fear of future persecution.
11
have then shifted the burden to DHS to rebut the presumption. Ngarurih v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 182, 187 (4th Cir. 2004); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1)(i).
*************
Sorto-Guzman is a life-long Catholic who regularly attended Catholic services in El Salvador. In December 2015, about five members of the Mara 18 gang accosted Sorto- Guzman in the street as she was leaving church. At the time, she was wearing a crucifix medallion around her neck. The gang members tore the chain from her neck, hit and kicked her, and threatened to kill her if she ever wore it or attended church again. Sorto-Guzman stopped attending church after the attack, fearing the gang and their threats.
A few weeks later in January 2016, a group of Mara 18 gang members—including some of the gang members from the December 2015 assault—stopped Sorto-Guzman, along with her sister and Rivas-Sorto, as she was coming home from a shopping trip. One of the men attempted to sexually assault Sorto-Guzman and had started to forcefully kiss her. He only stopped when her screams caught the attention of a neighbor. The gang members threatened to kill Sorto-Guzman and Rivas-Sorto if Sorto-Guzman did not join the gang and start living with them.
3
On February 13, 2016, some of the gang members from the prior incidents tracked where Sorto-Guzman lived and broke into her house carrying guns. The gang members viciously beat Sorto-Guzman, threatened her life, and robbed her. Sorto-Guzman’s neighbors called the police, but they did not come until several hours after the assault. Sorto-Guzman reported the assault and robbery to the officers who arrived at the scene. She also went to the local police station the next day to report the attack. The police made one attempt to investigate, but Petitioners were not home when the police arrived, and the officers never followed up. The day after, a gang member called Sorto-Guzman, warning her she would regret making the report to the police and that they would soon kill her, her son, and her sister.
Absurdly, an Immigration Judge found that this gross abuse and death threats by a gang with the ability and willingness to carry them out did not amount to “persecution.” Worse yet, on appeal, rather than reversing and directing the judge below to follow the law, the BIA agreed — invoking the outlandish “theory” that the death threats, on top of the savage beating, weren’t so bad because they had never come to “fruition.” In other words, the applicant hadn’t hung around to be killed. Then, to top it off, attorneys from the DOJ’s Office of Immigration Litigation (“OIL”) unethically defended this deadly nonsense before the Fourth Circuit! This is “justice” in Garland’s disgraceful, deadly, and dysfunctional “court” system!
Garland’s BIA Judges applying the “fruition” test. If she lives, it’s not persecution! Public Realm Source: Ancient Origins Website https://www.ancient-origins.net/history/trial-ordeal-life-or-death-method-judgement-004160
NOT, a “mere mistake.”
EOIR’s performance is this case, particularly the BIA’s absurdist conclusion that, essentially, death threats must result in death to constitute past persecution, is a contemptuous disregard for binding circuit precedent, a demonstration of gross anti-asylum bias, misogyny, and a clear example of judicial incompetence.
Would a heart transplant surgeon who “forgot” to install a new heart or neglected to sew up the patient’s chest be allowed to continue operating? Of course not! So, why is the BIA still allowed to botch life or death cases — the equivalent of open heart surgery?
If Garland allows his “delegees” to perform in this dangerous and unprofessional manner, in his name, what is he doing as Attorney General? This is a farce, not a “court system?” Those responsible need to be held accountable! And, OIL’s unethical defense of this deadly nonsense is indefensible!
“What are legal ethics? Not my friends or relatives whose lives as being destroyed by these ‘Kangaroo Courts.’ Just ‘the others’ and their dirty immigration lawyers! So, who cares? Why worry about professionalism, ethics, and due process in Immigration Court?” PHOTO: Wikipedia Commons
We’ve heard lots lately from Garland about “accountability.” Why doesn’t it apply to his own, wholly owned, totally dysfunctional, legally deficient, contemptuous, unprofessional “court system” that builds astounding, self-created backlogs while causing pain, suffering, and sometimes sending innocents to death?☠️
“EOIR Clown Show Must Go” T-Shirt Custom Design Concept
Additionally, in Kansas this week, women have shown the power of their just demand to be treated as humans, with rights, rather than dehumanized pawns just there to re-populate the world for the men in charge. So, why not unleash the same passion and rightful fury on Garland and his ongoing, illegal, misogynistic treatment of women (primarily women of color) at EOIR!
“She struggled madly in the torturing Ray” — AG Garland has failed miserably to engage with the plight of women, mostly those of color, being denied fundamental rights and abused daily by his lawless, anti-immigrant, anti-asylum, misogynistic “holdover” EOIR! Why are women putting up with his bad attitude and dilatory approach to justice? What happened to Lisa Monaco, Vanita Gupta, and Kristen Clarke? Are they “locked in a dark closet” somewhere in Garland’s DOJ? Amazing StoriesArtist Unknown, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
Elizabeth Gibson Managing Attorney National Immigrant Justice Center Publisher of “The Gibson Report”
Weekly Briefing
This briefing is designed as a quick-reference aggregation of developments in immigration law, practice, and policy that you can scan for anything you missed over the last week. The contents of the news, links, and events do not necessarily reflect the position of the National Immigrant Justice Center. If you have items that you would like considered for inclusion, please email them to egibson@heartlandalliance.org.
USCIS: This extends certain COVID-19-related flexibilities through Oct. 23, 2022, to assist applicants, petitioners, and requestors. The reproduced signature flexibility announced in March, 2020, will become permanent policy on July 25, 2022. But DHS To End COVID-19 Temporary Policy for Expired List B Identity Documents.
TRAC: One out of every six new cases DHS initiates in Immigration Court are now being dismissed because CBP officials are not filing the actual “Notice to Appear” (NTA) with the Court. The latest case-by-case Court records obtained and analyzed by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC) at Syracuse University through a series of Freedom of Information (FOIA) requests show a dramatic increase in these cases.
Buzzfeed: The US reached a settlement Thursday that establishes fingerprinting deadlines for parents and sponsors trying to get unaccompanied immigrant children out of government custody. Under the settlement, which expires in two years, the government has seven days to schedule fingerprinting appointments and 10 days to finish processing them.
CNN: The Biden administration is developing a new identification card for migrants to serve as a one-stop shop to access immigration files and, eventually, be accepted by the Transportation Security Administration for travel, according to two Homeland Security officials.
CBS: Officials in Arizona, Missouri, Texas and other GOP-controlled states have convinced federal judges, all but one of whom was appointed by former President Donald Trump, to block or set aside seven major immigration policies enacted or supported by Mr. Biden over the past year.
AP: Over the next 30 years, 143 million people are likely to be uprooted by rising seas, drought, searing temperatures and other climate catastrophes, according to the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report published this year.
Reuters: Washington Mayor Muriel Bowser has requested the deployment of military troops to assist with migrants arriving on buses sent by the Texas and Arizona state governments, according to letters sent by her office to U.S. military and White House officials. See also Migrants Being Sent to NYC From Texas — to the Wrong Places, With No Help, Sources Say.
Documented: Advocates estimate that ICE moved dozens of individuals at the Orange County Jail in New York on Monday, and sent them to detention centers in Mississippi and elsewhere in New York, without prior notification to families or attorneys about the transfers.
Reuters: An estimated 6 million Venezuelans have fled economic collapse and insecurity in their home country in recent years, according to United Nations figures. Many have settled in other South American countries but some have traveled north.
BIA: The respondent’s conviction for unlawfully selling or otherwise disposing of a firearm or ammunition in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(d) (2018) does not render him removable as charged under section 237(a)(2)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(C) (2018), because § 922(d) is categorically overbroad and indivisible relative to the definition of a firearms offense.
Law360: The Second Circuit ordered the Board of Immigration Appeals to revisit an indigenous Guatemalan mother and son’s bids for asylum and deportation relief, saying the agency failed to provide a sufficient premise for affirming an immigration judge’s denial of relief.
LexisNexis: An active judge requested a vote on whether to rehear the matter en banc. The matter failed to receive a majority of votes of the non-recused active judges in favor of en banc consideration.
Law360: Not knowing the law isn’t enough to excuse a Guatemalan union worker from missing the deadline to apply for asylum by three years, the Ninth Circuit said when it refused to overturn an immigration panel’s decision that the man’s circumstances weren’t “extraordinary.”
Law360: A panel of Ninth Circuit judges granted a petition to review an order rejecting a Mexican woman’s asylum bid Wednesday, saying in an unpublished opinion that the agency was wrong to determine that inconsistencies or omissions in her testimony undercut her credibility as a witness.
Law360: The D.C. Circuit has rejected requests from Afghan and Iraqi translators to alter a lower court’s order that granted the federal government an indefinite deadline extension to draft a plan for faster green card processing, ruling that reversing the order wasn’t necessary.
AILA: Advance Copy: DHS notice extending the designation of Syria for TPS for 18 months, from 10/1/22 through 3/31/24, and redesignating Syria for TPS for 18 months, effective 10/1/22 through 3/31/24. The notice will be published in the Federal Register on 8/1/22.
AILA: USCIS is experiencing delays in issuing receipts for Form I-589. For purposes of the asylum one-year filing deadline, affirmative asylum interview scheduling priorities, and EAD eligibility, the filing date will still be the date USCIS received the I-589 and not the date it was processed.
USCIS: USCIS is currently experiencing delays in issuing receipts for Form I-589, Application for Asylum and for Withholding of Removal. Due to these delays, you may not receive a receipt notice in a timely manner after you properly file your Form I-589.
You now can change your email settings or search the archives using the Google Group. If you are receiving this briefing from a third party, you can visit the Google Group and request to be added.
Elizabeth Gibson (Pronouns: she/her/ella)
Managing Attorney for Capacity Building and Mentorship
National Immigrant Justice Center
A HEARTLAND ALLIANCE Program
224 S. Michigan Ave., Suite 600, Chicago, IL 60604
T: (312) 660-1688| F: (312) 660-1688| E: egibson@heartlandalliance.org
The foregoing sources also clearly illustrate that, with or without past persecution, such indigenous women would have a “reasonable fear” of persecution on account of their status under the generous standards for asylum adjudication articulated by the Supremes more than three decades ago in Cardoza-Fonseca and, shortly thereafter, reaffirmed and supposedly implementedby the BIA in Matter of Mogharrabi (a fear can be “objectively reasonable” even if persecution is significant unlikely to occur). Problem is: Both of these binding precedents favoring many, many more asylum grants are widely ignored by policy makers, USCIS, EOIR, and some Article III Courts — with no meaningful consequences!
Additionally, the respondents appear to have had grantable “racial persecution” claims based on indigenous ethnicity. The son, in addition to being a “derivative” on his mother’s application, also had an apparently grantable case based on disability.
In a functioning system, this case would have been quickly granted, the respondents would be integrating into and contributing to our nation with green cards, and they would be well on their way to U.S. citizenship. Indeed, there would be instructive BIA precedents that would prevent DHS from re-litigating what are essentially frivolous oppositions!
But, instead, after more than five years and proceedings at three levels of our justice system, the case remains unresolved. Because of egregious, unforced EOIR errors it is still “bouncing around” the 1.8+ millionEOIR backlog, following this remand from the Second Circuit.
Exceptionally poor BIA legal performance, enabling and supporting a debilitating “anti-immigrant/anti-asylum/racially derogatory culture of denial” at EOIR, has led to far, far too many improper asylum denials at the Immigration Judge level and to a dysfunctional system that just keeps on building backlog and producing grotesquely inconsistent, “Refugee Roulette” results! Go to TRAC Immigration and check out the shocking number of sitting IJs with absurd 90% or more “asylum denial rates.”
It also fuels the continuing GOP nativist blather that denies the truth about what is happening at our Southern Border. We are wrongfully denying legal protection and status to many, many qualified refugees — often without any process at all (let alone due process) and with a deeply flawed, biased, and fatally defective process for those who are able to “get into the system.” (Itself, an arbitrary and capricious decision made by lower level enforcement agents rather than experts in asylum adjudication).
The “unpublished” nature of this particular Second Circuit decision might lead one to conclude that the Article IIIs have lost interest in solving the problem, preferring to sweep it under the carpet as this pathetic attempt at a “below the radar screen” unpublished remand does. But, such timid “head in the sand” actions will not restore fairness and order to a system that now conspicuously lacks both! This dangerous, defective, unfair, and unprofessional abuse of our justice system needs to be “publicly called out!”
“The agency failed to evaluate any of the country conditions evidence relevant to Oliva-Oliva’s CAT claim.” So how is this acceptable professional performance by the BIA? And why is it being “swept under the carpet” by the Second Circuit rather than “trumpeted” as part of a demand that Garland fix his dysfunctional due-process-denying system, NOW?
Contrary to all the fictional “open borders nonsense” being pushed by the nativist right, the key to restoring order at the borders is generous, timely, efficient, professional granting of refuge to those who qualify, either by the Asylum Office or the Refugee Program. This, in turn, absolutely requires supervision, guidance, and review where necessary by an “different” EOIR functioning as a true “expert tribunal.”
That would finally tell us who belongs in the legal protection system and who doesn’t while screening and providing accurate profiles of both groups. The latter essential data is totally lacking under the absurdist, racially motivated, “rejection not protection” program of Trump, much of which has been retained by Biden or forced upon him by unqualified righty Federal Judges. But, we’ll never get there without meaningful, progressive, due-process focused EOIR reform!
There will be no justice at the Southern Border or in America as a whole without radical, long overdue, due process reforms at EOIR!
GOP political hacks and their enabling bad righty Federal Judges have combined to wreak havoc on humanity and trample the Constitution, rule of law, common sense, and simple human decency at our Southern border! Albrecht Dürer, Public domain, via Wikimedia CommonsProfessor Stephen Yale-Loehr Cornell Law
In 2015, a Ghanaian man who goes by the initials M.A. and his gay friend were brutally assaulted by a vigilante group in Accra, Ghana. In Ghana, homosexuality is illegal and carries a prison sentence of up to three years. M.A. was beaten with sticks before escaping through a window. His friend was killed. Fearing the group would find and kill him, he fled to Ecuador and made his way to the U.S. border, where he requested asylum. After being detained for nine months, he was released on bond and lived with a childhood friend in New York while he waited for his case to make it through the legal system.
M.A. clearly faced persecution, but an immigration judge denied his claim. I took M.A.’s appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals in 2016 as part of the Cornell Law School’s asylum appeals clinic. It took M.A. four years to win asylum in America, but at least he was given the chance to apply in the first place.
Since March 2020, approximately 900,000 people — including over 215,000 parents and children — have been denied the ability to request asylum at all. They’re casualties of Title 42, a pandemic-related policy that paused nearly all asylum proceedings at the border. Some people argue the policy is preventing an influx of migrants. In fact, numbers are up despite the policy, and our refusal to process most of them has led to chaotic and dangerous conditions.
The United States has successfully managed ebbs and flows of asylum seekers for decades. There’s a system in place to manage an influx — and regardless of how hard immigration lawyers like me fight for them to stay, many will lose their case and be deported. Even so, we must let people try. It’s not only the right thing to do, it’s also guaranteed under international and domestic law. We signed a 1967 protocol to the U.N. Refugee Convention to protect the rights of refugees, and we have adopted it and codified it into U.S. asylum law. Right now, we’re violating those obligations. The longer we do, the weaker American rule of law looks to our global partners.
We must immediately reinstate due process for asylum seekers. And once this happens, we must work to make the system more equitable and faster.
. . . .
****************************
Read Steve’s complete op-ed in The Hill at the link.
I agree that “we must work to make the system more equitable and faster.” But, the answer can’t be just to hire more Immigration Judges in Garland’s dysfunctional, broken, and anti-asylum-biased “court” system. That would just speed the “deportation assembly line” and lead to even more injustice and grotesque inconsistencies.
According to TRAC, Immigration Judge “asylum denial rates” currently “range” from 5% to 100%. That’s a ridiculous, indefensible variation and a total perversion of the generous standard for granting asylum set forth by the Supremes in Cardoza-Fonseca and adopted by the BIA in Matter of Mogharrabi, but seldom enforced or followed, particularly these days.Why this very obvious, totally solvable problem is still festering going on two years into a Democratic Administration that pledged to solve it is beyond me!
Enough of this nonsense, biased, “amateur night at the Bijou” mal-administration of the Immigration Courts at EOIR by Garland’s DOJ! No wonder folks are still complaining about “Refugee Roulette” more than a decade after it was written by my Georgetown Law colleagues Professors Phil Schrag, Andy Schoenholtz, and Jaya Ramji-Nogales (now an Associate Dean at Temple Law). Why not put one of THEM, or for that matter, Professor Yale-Loehr, in charge of kicking tail and cleaning out the deadwood at EOIR?
This approach to life or death asylum adjudication at EOIR, particularly the BIA, is a killer! PHOTO: Thomas Hawk Creative Commons Amateur Night
At a minimum Garland must:
Remove the holdover “Asylum Deniers Club” from the BIA and replace them with a real judge as Chair and new Appellate Immigration Judges who are widely recognized as “practical experts” with careers that have demonstrated superior scholarship in immigraton and human rights, an unswerving commitment to due process for individuals, and a passion for racial justice in our legal system;
Have the “New BIA” issue useful precedential guidance on how to document and grant valid asylum cases at both the Asylum Office and the Immigration Court, implement best practices, and identify and remove from future asylum adjudication those unqualified Immigration Judges who basically “make up” reasons to deny and can’t or won’t treat applicants fairly; and
Immediately replace with qualified expert judges those Immigration Judges on the “Southern Border docket” who can’t fairly adjudicate asylum cases.
Steve is totally correct about the need for Title 42 to go! But, Garland’s EOIR, particularly the BIA, is just as broken, counterproductive, and out of control as Title 42! In many ways, the illegal abrogation of the rule of law at the Southern Border has somewhat ”hidden” the larger problem that a dysfunctional and incapable EOIR poses for those who do manage to get a hearing!
Without a legitimate, totally reformed and significantly “re-populated” EOIR operating at the “retail level” of our justice system, there will be no rule of law and equal justice under law in America — for anyone!
Tell Garland you have had enough! The deadly and disorderly “EOIR Clown Show” has got to go! Now!
“EOIR Clown Show Must Go” T-Shirt Custom Design Concept
U.S. watchdog says pressure from patent officials affected agency rulings
Blake Brittain July 21, 20224:11 PM EDTLast Updated a day ago
(Reuters) – U.S. Patent and Trademark Office administrators improperly influenced decisions by the office’s patent-eligibility tribunal for years, the U.S. Government Accountability Office said in a preliminary report released Thursday.
The report said two-thirds of judges on the PTO’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board felt pressure from higher-ups at the office to change aspects of their decisions, and that three-quarters of them believed the oversight affected their independence.
Advertisement · Scroll to continue
While the report said management “rarely” influenced decisions on whether to cancel a patent, it said it did affect judges’ rulings on questions like whether to review a patent.
A PTO spokesperson said the report “reflects GAO’s preliminary observations on past practices,” and that current director Kathi Vidal has “prioritized providing clear guidance to the PTAB regarding the director review process” since taking office in April.
Advertisement · Scroll to continue
The U.S. Supreme Court decided last year that the PTO director should be able to review board decisions.
The PTAB allows parties to challenge the validity of patents based on preexisting inventions in “inter partes review” proceedings.
A committee of volunteer judges began peer reviewing decisions in such cases for style and policy consistency and flagging them for potential management review in 2013, the report said. PTAB management began informally pre-reviewing board decisions on important issues and offering suggestions in 2017, and management review became official PTO policy in 2019.
Advertisement · Scroll to continue
Some PTAB judges said their decisions had been affected by fears of negative career consequences for going against the suggestions. One judge said in the report that the review policy’s “very existence creates a preemptive chilling effect,” and that management’s wishes were “at least a factor in all panel deliberations” and “sometimes the dominant factor.”
The report said the internal review policies were not made public until May.
Republican Congressman Darrell Issa of California said during a U.S. House of Representatives subcommittee hearing Thursday that the report of officials influencing PTAB decisions “behind closed doors” was “disturbing.”
Andrei Iancu was appointed PTO director by former President Donald Trump and took charge of the office in 2018. Iancu, now a partner at Irell & Manella, had no comment on the report.
Issa, the subcommittee’s ranking member, and its chairman, Democratic Congressman Hank Johnson of Georgia, called on the GAO last year to investigate the PTO director’s potential influence on PTAB cases.
(NOTE: This story has been updated with comment from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.)
Blake Brittain reports on intellectual property law, including patents, trademarks, copyrights and trade secrets. Reach him at blake.brittain@thomsonreuters.com
***********************
While it might once have seemed like a great idea, after more than a half-century the so-called “Administrative Judiciary” has proved to be a failure. It often delivers watered-down, sloppy, political, expedient, or “agency friendly” decisions with the “window dressing” of due process and real judicial proceedings.
Moreover, contrary to the original purpose, in most cases it is neither truly “expert” not “efficient.” Indeed, the Immigration Courts have built “one of the largest backlogs known to man!” That just leads to more misguided “gimmicks” and pressure to “speed up the quasi-judicial assembly line!” Individual lives and rights are the “big losers.”
To make matters worse, under the “Chevron doctrine” and its “off the wall” progeny “Brand X,” the Article IIIs “cop out” by giving “undue deference” to this deficient product.
It’s time for all Federal Judicial tribunals to be organized under Article III or Article I of the Constitution and for the legal profession and law schools to take a long, critical look at the poor job we now are doing of educating and preparing judges. We need to train and motivate the “best, brightest, and fairest” to think critically, humanely, and practically. Then, encourage them to become judges — out of a sense of public service, furthering the common good, promoting equal justice for all, and a commitment to vindicating individual rights, not some “ideological litmus test” as has a become the recent practice.
Is she the “Debbie Anker of Entertainment?” PHOTO: Mason Poole, CC BY 4.0 <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0>, via Wikimedia Commons
Hon. “Sir Jeffrey” S. Chase writes:
What a beautiful tribute to a true giant and hero. I can’t even begin to state the influence Debbie has had on me. But think of how many NDPA heroes out there are former students of hers, and how many immigration law clinics around the country relied on Debbie’s clinic at Harvard as its model. It’s impossible to overstate her impact.
Clinical Professor Deborah Anker LL.M. ’84, ‘one of the architects of modern refugee law’ and founder of the Harvard Immigration and Refugee Clinical Program, moves to emerita status
By Debbie/HLS Correspondent, July 20, 2022
Credit: Kathleen Dooher
As Harvard Law School Clinical Professor Deborah Anker LL.M. ’84 moves to emerita status, she and her many students and colleagues can reflect on her formidable record of achievement — as a pioneer in the study of refugee and asylum law, the author of the seminal text on the subject, and a tireless advocate for the rights of refugees, particularly women and children. As her former student Molly Linhorst ’16 puts it — quoting a sentiment voiced by many of Anker’s admirers — “She’s the Beyoncé of asylum law.”
“As founding director of the Harvard Immigration and Refugee Clinic, Deborah Anker has played a pivotal role at Harvard Law School, not only by founding our clinic but in helping build our clinical program,” Harvard Law School Dean John F. Manning ’85, the Morgan and Helen Chu Dean and Professor of Law at Harvard Law School. “Her work in the clinic enabled countless clients to enjoy freedom and escape persecution by remaining in the U.S., and she trained and inspired scores of other lawyers to work to those same ends.”
“Debbie wins the prize for tenacity in terms of standing up for refugee rights in America,” says James Hathaway, prominent international refugee law scholar and founding director of Michigan Law’s Program in Refugee and Asylum Law. “Literally nobody has fought the good fight as often as she has done. But she is also an intellectual trailblazer, having, in particular, developed a gender-inclusive understanding of refugee status, and having made the case for the alignment of American understandings of asylum with our international obligations. She truly is a hero.”
Groundbreaking scholarship and litigation
A pioneer in the development of clinical legal education in the immigration field, Anker joined the Harvard Law faculty in the early ’80s, as a lecturer on law and later clinical professor of law in 2008. Along with her colleagues Nancy Kelly and John Wilshire-Carrera, Anker founded the Harvard Immigration and Refugee Clinical Program, or HIRC, which has since become a model for similar clinics nationwide. Her book, “Law of Asylum in the United States,” first published in 1998 under the editorship of former student Paul Lufkin and now updated annually with a cadre of HLS student editors, remains the key authoritative text in the area. She also has authored numerous amicus curiae briefs in major refugee litigation, served as an expert witness before national and international fora, and helped draft national gender refugee guidelines.
Harvard Law Clinical Professor Sabrineh Ardalan ’02, Anker’s former student and the current faculty director of HIRC, credits its significant expansion over the decades to Anker’s “commitment to advocating for immigrants’ rights and dedication to responding to the evolving challenges facing immigrants and refugees in the U.S.”
In addition to the clinical work at Greater Boston Legal Services, overseen by Kelly and Willshire Carrera, “HIRC now includes two clinics, a student practice organization [SPO], and the Harvard Representation Initiative, which serves members of the Harvard community whose immigration status is at risk. In addition to the flagship Immigration and Refugee Advocacy Clinic, there is now a Crimmigration Clinic, led and directed by Phil Torrey, which focuses on cutting-edge appellate and district court advocacy at the intersection of immigration and criminal law. And through the HLS Immigration Project, the student-practice organization, students can hit the ground running with hands-on immigration and refugee advocacy their 1L year,” said Ardalan. “Debbie built a team at HIRC that now supervises over 140 HLS students each year through the two clinics and SPO and in so doing, centered immigration and refugee law as a core component of HLS’s clinical program.”
Credit: Tsar Fedorsky Anker (left) in 2011 with HIRC students Gianna Borotto ’11 and Defne Canset Ozgediz ’11, and Sabrineh Ardalan ’02. Ardalan is Anker’s former student and the current faculty director of HIRC.
Committed to justice from an early age
Raised in New York, Anker graduated magna cum laude from Brandeis University, and went on to earn her J.D. from Northeastern before continuing her legal studies at Harvard. Even before she began formal studies, Anker was invested in the study of and advocacy for human rights. She credits that in large part to her family history and values: Her Jewish grandparents crossed the Atlantic to escape the persecution leading to the Holocaust, and both of her parents were committed public school educators. Her father was a New York City Schools chancellor during desegregation. “The belief in the equality of all people was central to how I was raised,” she said.
“From my family I got deep beliefs and commitment to anti-racism. I have a strong memory of my father telling me about Ralph Bunche, a Nobel Peace Prize recipient, one of the founders of the United Nations, leading actor in the mid-20th-century decolonization process and U.S. civil rights movement, and recipient of the Presidential Medal of Freedom,” said Anker. According to her father, Anker reports, Bunche was discriminated in obtaining housing, and refused membership in a neighboring tennis club in the area of Queens where Anker’s family moved in her early teenage years. “That was something that stuck with me,” she said. Early in her legal career, Anker represented a Black family that had moved into Dorchester during desegregation and was subject to violent attacks; this was one of the cases covered in J. Anthony Lukas’ classic 1985 book, “Common Ground.” “For me personally, a commitment to racial justice was central to my identity,” she says.
Anker credits the late Harvard Law School public interest professor Gary Bellow ’60, founder and former faculty director of Harvard Law School’s clinical programs, with advising, advocating and paving the way for her engagement in clinical education at the law school.
She also credits the ‘extraordinary determination and integrity’ of Lisa Dealy, former assistant dean of clinical education, with whom Anker worked closely, in helping to expand the school’s clinical program.
In 1984, when Anker, along with Kelly and Willshire Carrera founded the Immigration and Refugee Advocacy Clinic, the study of immigration law was still in its infancy, and clinical education was relatively new in legal education.
And, according to Kelly, Anker was writing the law from the beginning. “The article she co-authored on the legislative history of the Refugee Act [and] shaped how that law would be interpreted, with the U.S. Supreme Court citing it in support of an internationalist approach to refugee and asylum law, grounded in our treaty obligations, as signatories to the U.N. Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees,” said Kelly. “She authored some of the first empirical studies of immigration adjudication and co-authored the first study of the expedited removal process for addressing the claims of asylum seekers at the U.S. border.”
According to Willshire Carrera, Anker “believes in bringing the reality of the law as it is experienced by real people into the classroom and into scholarship. We developed an approach of ‘legal change from the bottom up,’ changing ground-level legal institutions, which set the stage for changes at higher levels, including in precedent decisions in the federal courts.” From its earliest years, HIRC worked to bring administrative decision-making out of the shadows, publishing administrative asylum decisions, which were otherwise inaccessible to advocates and researchers.
During these early years, Anker also worked with Hathaway, who developed a structured human rights approach to interpretation of refugee law, an approach HIRC would adopt including in much of its women’s refugee work.
Credit: Kris Snibbe/Harvard Staff Photographer Anker (pictured here in 2014) with (from left) Julina Guo ’14, John Wilshire Carrera, and Nancy Kelly. Wilshire Carrera and Kelly founded the Harvard Immigration and Refugee Clinic with Anker in 1984.
Anker’s background in racial justice led her to work with Haitian refugees beginning in the mid 1980s. “I got to know civil rights lawyer Ira Kurzban, who was leading the charge on behalf of Haitian refugees fleeing a horrible and violent dictatorship, which the U.S. had backed.” Among other work, Kurzban engaged Anker as an expert witness on U.S. asylum law, in challenges he brought based on discriminatory detention and treatment generally of Haitian refugees. She would continue to be called in as an expert, including later in challenges brought by Canadian NGOs in 2005 and 2017 to exclusionary policies of the Canadian government, refusing entry to asylum seekers coming from the U.S. under the Safe Third Country Agreement.
The Canadian Supreme Court will soon issue a ruling on whether the Canadian policy of returning asylum seekers to the U.S. complies with the Canadian Charter and international law. Canadian attorney Andrew Bouwer praised Anker’s work on the Safe Third Country Agreement and says he looks forward to her continued advocacy on these issues. “Professor Anker is a force of nature! Working with her on Canada-US border issues, especially the inhumane Canada-U.S. Safe Third Country Agreement, these past 17 years has been an incredible honor and a highlight of my practice.”
Also in the 1980s, Anker helped found the Boston Committee against Deportation, defending a group of Haitians who were arrested by immigration authorities as they attempted to organize a union at Faneuil Hall market place.
HIRC continued this work with Haitian refugees who fled again during the 1990s after the violent overthrow of Haiti’s first democratically elected president, Jean Bertrand Aristide. HIRC’s early engagement with Haitian refugees led to groundbreaking work on gender asylum. “After President Aristide was deposed, there were security forces who went into women’s houses (the men had mostly fled) and raped them, because they were known, or assumed to be, supporters of Aristide,” explained Anker. “So it was really rape used as punishment based on ‘political opinion,’ one of the grounds of protection in the refugee treaty to which the U.S. is a party.”
Working in conjunction with other groups, HIRC got the administrative Board of Immigration Appeals to recognize that this was a form of what the agency called “grievous harm,” which HIRC argued fit the concept of persecution. “This case, Matter of D.V., was the first administrative gender asylum decision; along with others, we were able to convince the board to publish it as a precedent decision,” said Anker.
Meanwhile, the group traveled to Haiti to collect affidavits; their work ultimately led the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to make the first finding by an international human rights body that rape could constitute torture.
This in turn contributed to greater global awareness of violence against women within a human rights framework. Canadian NGOs and academics took the lead, particularly through the Canadian Immigration and Refugee Board. “The Canadians worked up an amazing series of guidelines, and we [the HIRC] took those and adapted them to American law,” Anker said. “We published these and asked the U.S. government to take our guidelines and issue official government guidelines, based on them — and in fact, they did that.” Later, HIRC led a major amicus effort, drafting a brief to the then-attorney general signed by 187 organizations and individuals, arguing that violence against women in the “domestic” sphere, that is, in the home by sexual intimates, could be the basis for protection. Eventually the attorney general reversed an original denial and the petitioner, represented by the Center for Gender and Refugee Studies, was granted asylum.
(HIRC was) committed to having legal education grounded in actual clients’ experiences of persecution. … We set a precedent that law school clinics are not just a place to do policy work or major litigation, but also a place to engage with clients, to get to know them and to help them articulate their experiences. … I am grateful to the law school for allowing us to advance that approach to legal advocacy and education.
Deborah Ankernone
Personal involvement became key in Anker’s approach to teaching. “We were committed to having legal education grounded in actual clients’ experiences of persecution. Students represented clients and learned to help them tell their stories. We then gave them the time to reflect in class and to write about it. We set a precedent that law school clinics are not just a place to do policy work or major litigation, but also a place to engage with clients, to get to know them, and to help them articulate their experiences,” said Anker. “I am grateful to the law school for allowing us to advance that approach to legal advocacy and education. We now have such a rich and diverse clinical education program at the law school, which has developed in many different directions – client work, policy advocacy, regulatory reform, as well as litigation.”
Anker also points to the clinic’s work with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) to develop general guidelines for international refugee law.
“My perception was that few academics and major practitioners around that time, the mid to late 1990’s, were thinking conceptually about this. Jim Hathaway’s work was a major force in bringing a principled, and importantly structured, human rights approach to interpretation of refugee law,” said Anker. “We got the UNHCR to adopt general guidelines recognizing gender itself as a category of protection within the refugee treaty’s ‘particular social group’ ground. In the amicus work we have done over the years, we have stuck to this approach and increasingly federal courts as well as some administrative decision makers are recognizing that gender itself can be a basis for protection, including in the ground-breaking 2020 First Circuit decision in De Pena-Paniagua v.Barr, which directly adopted language from HIRC’s lead amicus brief.”
HIRC has continued to expand its scope, working in recent years with students who were eligible for DREAM Act protection. Most recently, Anker and the group have worked on climate change and refugee law, pushing for interpretations of the law to account for the large-scale climate-based displacement that is already occurring in Central America and is expected to worsen. “We need to show decision makers and policy makers that displacement is caused by multitudes of factors and a person can qualify for protection if part of the cause is environmental,” said Anker.
“Our work has always been informed by what is happening,” Kelly said. “The gender work came from a sense of, ‘Where are the women in this system? They don’t seem to be represented’. The Haiti work was geared toward what happened to Haitian women after the coup in 1991. That brought the reality home of what was happening to Haitian women, and got that recognized in a legal context that could then be brought back to cases in the US. The two are integrally connected.”
“We pride ourselves on doing work from the ground up,” Willshire Carrera said. “We’ve had a large number of students who have gone on to be major contributors in the development of asylum law in the country. One thing for sure is that the clinic is now very well recognized. So much of that has to do with Debbie.”
Former students pay tribute
Ardalan, who now directs HIRC, acknowledges a significant personal influence. “Debbie has shaped the course of my life. I have learned so much from her advocacy and scholarship, from her empathy in working with clients, from her tremendous care for her students and colleagues, and from her incredible persistence in continuing to fight against injustice no matter what the odds. She has modeled for me how to approach teaching and lawyering with dedication, humility, strength, and compassion.”
Anker’s influence also goes far beyond Harvard Law School. According to Mark Fleming ’97, who studied with her at Harvard Law and is now a partner at WilmerHale, “Debbie’s contribution to how young lawyers thought about immigration law really can’t be overstated. She was the first person I met at HLS who was not only a gifted academic, but devoted to using her knowledge to represent clients. She used her knowledge to manage a significant group of people who were trying to push immigration law in a good direction and to help people who needed it. That was a new thing to me.”
Fleming currently does pro bono work in the immigration field and cites this as an example of Anker’s influence. “One of the more important lessons she taught me is that immigrants who come to our country are thrown into a very complicated system without anybody to help them. She showed me that things immediately change when a lawyer shows up, so a pro bono lawyer can make an enormous difference.” This, he said, goes back to his days at Harvard Law. “As a law student, the opportunity to walk down the street, to what used to be called Cambridge and Somerville Legal Services, had an impact. First of all, it was terrifying, because I had no idea what to do. But also very rewarding, because people in the system are otherwise forced to navigate it by themselves.”
“Debbie’s seminar influenced the way I think about asylum,” said Fatma Marouf ’02, who now directs the Immigration Rights Clinic at Texas A&M University School of Law. “The way she talked about absorbing each person’s story, I never forgot that. She walked us through each element of her incredible text about the law of asylum, and made sure we had a great understanding of it. She helped us connect the cases we were working on with the thinking behind it. And I loved that she really got in an international perspective — not just U.S. asylum law but how the U.K., Canada, Australia might approach it.”
Marouf particularly credits Anker with emphasizing the connection between asylum and human rights law. “When I teach my own clinic I talk about the importance of bringing in a comparative perspective of what asylum should be, versus how it is — and that’s all Debbie’s. I don’t know if I could have gone into immigration law without her, much less fallen in love with teaching.”
Credit: Brooks Kraft
“She built a program at a time when immigration clinics were not found at many law schools,” said David B. Thronson ’94, who went on to teach international human rights law at Michigan State University. “Part of what impressed me from the beginning is that her work is absolutely compelling and consequential; it changes peoples’ lives. You’re talking about people who are going to face persecution in their home countries if they are returned. It’s not an equal fight, the stakes and the consequences are high and their resources are often minimal; the government is always well represented but the migrant seldom is. To find someone with Debbie’s expertise and willingness to take on those issues — and who is also a tremendously human person that you can get to know — makes a huge difference, and it was a really defining law-school experience for me.”
That experience stuck with Thronson through his career. “I got the realization that things could go together; I could be a professor and still make a difference in the real world, representing clients — and hopefully I can do that in a way that lets my students grow and have good experiences. Debbie taught me that those aren’t mutually exclusive things to do.”
Another former student, Rebecca Sharpless ’94, now directs the immigration clinic at the University of Miami School of Law. “Debbie was the single most influential professor during my time at HLS. As I started my first year, I knew that I wanted to be a social justice lawyer, but I didn’t know what kind. Debbie taught me the urgency and importance of working with immigrants. Her work on some of the most difficult issues relating to the protection of refugees has been pathbreaking, but to me she is first and foremost a teacher and mentor. Under her guidance, I argued in immigration court, organized a trip to Miami to help Haitian refugees, and contributed to federal court briefing. Without a doubt, she made me into the immigration lawyer and teacher that I am today.”
Looking back on a lifetime of impact
Anker has been designated a Woman of Justice by the Massachusetts Bar Association, and in 2011 was elected as a fellow to the American Bar Foundation. The HIRC’s Women’s Refugee Project, which spearheaded work on gender asylum, received the American Immigration Lawyers Association’s (AILA) most prestigious “Founders Award.” HIRC also received AILA’s Human rights award for its work in clinical legal education and advocacy on behalf of refugees. Anker has received AILA’s Elmer Fried Excellence in Teaching Award; two awards for gender asylum work from the Federal Bar Association; the Massachusetts Governor’s New American Appreciation Award; and the CARECEN Award from the Central American Refugee Center.
Presenting her with the latter honor, lead attorney Patrick Young called Anker “one of the architects of modern refugee law. She really defined the field from its inception and her essays and her seminal treatise, ‘Law of Asylum in the United States,’ have helped educate and train two generations of asylum lawyers. Without her thoughtful guidance, it is doubtful CARECEN and many other refugee defense programs could have succeeded in protecting the persecuted as effectively as we have.”
In addition to those already mentioned, Anker notes that “HIRC and I are so fortunate to have on staff attorneys Sameer Ahmed, Jason Corral, Tiffany Lieu, Mariam Liberles and Cindy Zapata. HIRC’s staff also includes our head of social work, Liala Buoniconti; paralegal Karina Buruca; Mary Hewey; and Anna Weick, our chief administrator.” Anker credits her faculty assistant, Sophie Jean, as being an incredible resource, organizing work on “Law of Asylum” research with students, among other invaluable assistance. “Not much can be accomplished without her amazing intelligence and commitment, and of course thank you to those who have come and gone like the incomparable Jordana Arias, a force of nature, and all my assistants going way back to wonderful Delona Wilkins.”
In entering emerita status, Anker reflects back with much gratitude at the opportunities she has been given. “I love this community and I love this work. It truly has been an honor. I am so very grateful.”
***************************
Thanks and many congrats, Debbie, my long-time friend, for all you have done for due process, justice, humanity, and the future generations of the “New Due Process Army!” I wholeheartedly concur in the comments of my friend and Round Table colleague “Sir Jeffrey!” Through your intellectual brilliance, moral courage, extraordinary leadership, and ability to teach and inspire others, you have certainly left a permanent mark on the worldwide, eternal quest for justice!
Hon. Jeffrey S. Chase Jeffrey S. Chase Blog Coordinator & Chief Spokesperson, Round Table of Former Immigration Judges
“Sir Jeffrey Chase forwards our Round Table’s latest effort to promote reality, reasonableness, and due process in EOIR’s dysfunctional world:
Amici curiae are 38 former immigration judges (““IJs””) and members of the 2
Board of Immigration Appeals (““BIA””).2
Amici have dedicated their careers to improving the fairness and efficiency of
the United States immigration system, and have an interest in this case based on their combined centuries of experience administering the immigration laws of the United States. Amici collectively have presided over thousands of removal proceedings and thousands of bond hearings in connection with those proceedings, and have adjudicated numerous appeals to the BIA.
In denying Anderson Alphonse’’s (““Mr. Alphonse”” or ““Petitioner””) petition for writ of habeas corpus, the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts (Saylor, J.), relied in part on the premise that it was ““readily foreseeable that proceedings will conclude in the near future”” because Mr. Alphonse’’s appeal to the BIA was ““fully briefed.”” This premise—at best aspirational when made in January 2022—has proven erroneous: nearly six months later, Mr. Alphonse’’s BIA appeal remains undecided. This is, regrettably, unsurprising given the surging caseload in the immigration courts, which now exceeds 1.8 million
1
1Amici state that this brief was not authored in whole or in part by counsel for any
party, and no person or entity other than Amici or their counsel made a monetary contribution to fund the preparation or submission of this brief.
2
2 See the appendix for a complete list of signatories.
pending cases. This crushing backlog—adding significantly to the backlog facing the BIA—-iis extremely relevant to the question of when a removal proceeding is likely to conclude. In fact, it might be the most important factor in this equation. Yet this factor is absent from the First Circuit’’s current analytical framework, opening the door to erroneous suppositions and conclusions based on a cursory review of a removal proceeding’’s posture, such as the one made by the District Court here.
Thus, Amici write to respectfully urge the Court to reassess the impact the backlog of cases facing the immigration courts may have on the ability of courts to accurately forecast when removal proceedings will conclude. Given their extensive experience with the immigration courts and BIA appeal process, Amici are uniquely positioned to provide insight into this narrow, but critical, issue.
The case is Alphonse v. Moniz, currently pending in the 1st Cir. Here’s a complete copy of our brief:
Many thanks to our wonderful pro bono counsel Matthew Levitt and Evan Piercy at MINTZ, LEVIN, COHN, FERRIS, GLOVSKY AND POPEO, P.C.
Although BIA decisions, particularly in non-detained cases, might take many months or even years to decide, the appellant is given only a relatively short period of time to file a brief — 21 days. A single 21 day extension may be requested and is usually granted, although it is common for the appellant not to be notified that the extension has been granted until after the extension period has expired.
Requests for additional or longer extensions are rarely granted. Motions to accept late-filed briefs, even those only a day or two tardy, are often denied. On the other hand, failure to file a timely brief after requesting a briefing schedule is a potential ground for summary dismissal of an appeal regardless of the merits! 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(2)(i)(E).
These rigid procedures might give the false impression that the EOIR system is driven by a sense of urgency in dispensing justice. Additionally, BIA and AG decisions often disingenuously pontificate about the supposedly “critical importance” of finality in immigration decisions. It’s all BS!
As you might note, the only “urgency” at EOIR is the potentially severe consequences imposed on the appealing party, usually the migrant. One the “compressed briefing” is complete, there is no particular assurance that the appeal will be decided on the merits for months, years — or ever! Additionally, the BIA can sometimes make dismissal of an appeal easier by ignoring an untimely brief or even by summarily dismissing an appeal for failure to file a brief without dealing with the merits.
Moreover, the hopelessness of the 1.82 million case EOIR backlog and the “assembly line justice” encouraged by EOIR’s “political masters” at DOJ results in a sloppy, “haste makes waste” approach to “justice.” This, in turn, means wrongful removals or unnecessary “remands” from Circuit Courts.
But, not to worry — there is neither penalty nor accountability for the BIA’s poor performance. Wrongly deported individuals are “out of sight, out of mind” — assuming they are even still alive.
Moreover, court remands actually give the BIA unlimited opportunities to correct their sloppy and unprofessional work, often with the benefit of a more thoughtful analysis from the Circuit Court. Not that such beneficial treatment by the Circuit necessarily means the BIA will get it right on remand. The BIA has been known to get “chewed out” by Circuit Courts for ignoring or “blowing off” their mandates.
“Red flags” 🚩 should be popping up all over the Falls Church horizon — so big that even the often “asleep at the wheel” immigration policy folks at the Biden Administration can see them! But, don’t hold your breath! Our Round Table, however, will continue “speaking truth to power” and revealing the real, awful due process mess at EOIR.
The respondent in this case is ably represented by Associate Dean Mary Holper of Boston College Law and her Immigration Clinic. In a way, this is a classic illustration of why Garland has been unable to fix EOIR. Dean Holper is an accomplished, universally-respected litigator, teacher, writer, practical scholar, and administrator. She is exactly the type of NDPA All-Star/Expert whom Garland should have recruited on “Day 1,” brought in, and empowered to fix EOIR and reinstate and realize its due process mission. Instead, Garland’s EOIR continues to flail and fail while the talent who could fix it are lined up in court against him!
As one more reminder of what we’ve lost, the text of the 1973 Roe v Wade ruling is unlikely to console us. Even so, I recommend downloading the pdf. In the wake of its overturning, this beautifully written document – which reads like a long form essay – is not only interesting in itself but now seems like another sign of how much has changed over the last half century, in this case for the worse.
Drafted by Justice Harry Blackmun, the ruling includes a clear and persuasive summary of the history of abortion law. “At the time of the adoption of our Constitution, and throughout the major portion of the 19th century, a woman enjoyed a substantially broader right to terminate a pregnancy that she does in most States today.” It tracks the centuries-old debate over when life begins, and dismisses the argument that a fetus is a person guaranteed the protections afforded US citizens. Throughout, it strikes us as the careful explication and clarification of a law, of legal precedent, unlike Justice Alito’s ruling in Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health, which seems more like an expression of religious conviction masquerading as an unbiased interpretation of the constitution.
The Roe ruling is not about states’ rights. It’s about power and control | Derecka Purnell
What’s most striking about Roe v Wade – and its difference from the ruling that overturned it – is its eloquence. Blackmun’s lucid, frequently graceful language reflects a commitment to decency and compassion. The judges are clear about the dangers of carrying an unwanted child or a high-risk pregnancy to term. They strive to see the issue from the perspective of those confronting a serious life crisis, and to imagine the devastating outcomes that pregnant women and their families may face.
Advertisement
Support the Guardian and enjoy the app ad-free.
Support the Guardian
“Specific and direct harm medically diagnosable even in early pregnancy may be involved. Maternity, or additional offspring, may force upon the woman a distressful life and future. Psychological harm may be imminent. Mental and physical health may be taxed by childcare. There is also the distress, for all concerned, associated with the unwanted child, and there is the problem of bringing a child into a family already unable, psychologically and otherwise, to care for it.”
The passage I admire most is the one in which Blackmun, at once profound and lyrical, describes the atmosphere surrounding the issue of abortion, the way our opinions are formed, and the pressures that the law must acknowledge and keep in balance.
“We forthwith acknowledge our awareness of the sensitive and emotional nature of the abortion controversy, of the vigorous opposing views, even among physicians, and of the deep and seemingly absolute convictions that the subject inspires. One’s philosophy, one’s experiences, one’s exposure to the raw edges of human existence, one’s religious training, one’s attitudes toward life and family and their values, and the moral standards one establishes and seeks to observe, are all likely to influence and to color one’s thinking and conclusions about abortion. In addition, population growth, poverty, and racial overtones tend to complicate and not to simplify the problem.”
And there it is: a superbly rendered catalogue of the factors that come to mind when we consider the factors that will now determine whom Dobbs will hurt most: poverty, race, and life on the raw edges of human existence – an edge, one might say, on which every decision about abortion is made.
. . . .
****************
Read the rest of Francine’s article at the link.
Let’s face it. The concern for human life of out of touch righty ideologues like Alito ends at birth. After that, the “others” are expendable — particularly if they are women or folks of color!
All their claimed concern about “personhood” ends at delivery — when it can no longer be used to threaten vulnerable pregnant women or medical professionals. After that, the GOP program for kids (whether wanted or not) consists of things like:
Valuing their lives below the “right” of every Tom, Dick, and Harriett in America to own and use military-style assault weapons (something that certainly wasn’t the “original intent” of the drafters of the 2d Amendment);
Cutting education budgets, “dumbing down” public school curriculums, and harassing teachers, school administrators, and school board members;
Imposing work requirements on public assistance without regard to the needs and availability of suitable child care;
Deporting their parents to far away countries without concern for the welfare of children (US citizen and others);
Declaring “war” on vulnerable kids who aren’t heterosexuals;
Opposing provisions that would expand the availability of health insurance to kids;
Spreading misinformation about life-saving vaccines for children;
Falsely denying climate change that threatens the world we will leave to our kids and future generations;
Spreading fear and terror in ethnic communities containing “mixed families” to discourage them from taking advantage of available community services;
Threatening the educational rights of non-citizen children currently guaranteed by Plyler v. Doe (but perhaps not for long, if the Clarence Thomases of the world have their way);
Treating kids in Immigration Court as less than “persons” entitled to full due process (for example, forcing toddlers to “represent themselves” in life or death asylum cases);
Separating families;
Detaining families and children in grossly substandard conditions;
Making it more difficult for people of color to vote and thus exercise their legal and political rights;
Being more concerned about BLM protests than in the loss of young black lives that generated them.
I could go on an on.
One essential starting place and training ground for a “new generation” of Federal Judges who will be committed to humane values, empathy, accurate historical understanding, due process, and equal justice for all is the “retail level” of our justice system — the U.S. Immigration Courts, currently controlled solely by AG Merrick Garland. That’s why Garland’s disturbing failure to instill progressive values and install scholarly progressive judges — the best, brightest, and most courageous — in his now-dysfunctional EOIR system should be of grave concern to advocates of individual choices and anyone who cares about equal justice for all and the future of our nation!
The GOP-dominated Federal Judiciary has become a tool of authoritarians and religious zealots who seek to wipe out established individual rights, reduce humanity, and insert themselves and their out of touch views into every aspect of human existence — ultimately threatening the very future of humanity!
The Dems, by contrast, are the party of individual rights and human freedom. Too bad they haven’t done a better job of selling, and sometimes of following and boldly acting upon, their own stated values!
Hon. Jeffrey S. Chase Jeffrey S. Chase Blog Coordinator & Chief Spokesperson, Round Table of Former Immigration Judges
“Sir Jeffrey” Chase reports:
9th Circuit Decision in U.S. v. Bastide-Hernandez
Hi all:Attached please find the published, en banc decision of the 9th Circuit issued yesterday in U.S. v. Bastide-Hernandez.As expected, the court held that the absence of a date and time of hearing does not deprive the Immigration Court of jurisdiction.
However, please note the concurring opinion of Judge Friedland, stating that although the court held that the issue is not jurisdictional, “there are strong argument for the contrary position,” adding that the Supreme Court may reach a different conclusion.
Judge Friedland also quoted our Round Table’s amicus brief at length, as follows:
“An amicus brief filed by former immigration judges elaborates on why it better serves clarity, efficiency, and due process to include the time and location of the hearing in an NTA in the first instance. As amici explain, incomplete initial notice documents create uncertainty both for noncitizens, who are left in the dark as to when and where a potentially life-changing proceeding will be held, and for immigration judges, who cannot be sure if a case can proceed. Amici also note that the Government’s notice-by- installment practice creates additional fact-finding obligations for immigration judges, who may need to look to multiple documents to determine whether informational gaps in the initial notice have been filled. And amici caution that, because immigration judges are already overburdened and face pressure to complete cases, ambiguities about notice may lead immigration judges to order noncitizens removed when they fail to show up at their hearings, even if the noncitizens never received notice of those hearings at all.”
I think that this lengthy reference demonstrates the importance of our work.
In the words of Ninth Circuit Judge Michelle Friedland (Obama appointee): “[I]t better serves clarity, efficiency, and due process to include the time and location of the hearing in an NTA in the first instance.”
What if we had an EOIR where all judges at the trial and appellate levels and all senior administrators were unswervingly committed to due process, fundamental fairness, and best practices?
Instead, we have a dysfunctional organization where DHS’s wishes, perceived expediency, and keeping the “political bosses” happy (thus providing “job security”) triumphs over the public interest and the cause of justice. Currently, we’re “saddled” with a broken system that sees Immigration Court as a “soft deterrent” rather than a dispenser of justice could actually make our immigration, human rights, and justice system run more smoothly by applying fair procedures and “best interpretations.” That would facilitate the legal admission of many more migrants, while starting to “disempower smugglers,” cut backlog, discourage poor practices at DHS Enforcement, promote consistency, and keep many disputes that should be resolved in favor of respondents out of the Article IIIs!
Better, more reasonable administrative precedents that adhered to the proper interpretations of asylum and protection laws and provided positive guidance on how to apply them to recurring situations would also “leverage” the Asylum Office by allowing many more cases to be granted at the first level. As long as the current lousy BIA precedents prevail, far too many cases will just be denied at the AO level and referred to Immigration Court — making it a colossal waste of time. “So-called streamlining” will only work if it results in significantly more AO grants of protection!
We “win some, lose some.” But, our Round Table’s cause is justice; we’re not going to give up until this system makes the long overdue, radical personnel, procedural, attitude, and “cultural” changes necessary to become the “best that it can be!”
That means fulfilling the Immigration Courts’ once and future vision of “through teamwork and innovation become the world’s best tribunals guaranteeing fairness and due process for all.”
Bonus Coverage:
“Sir Jeffrey’s” skills aren’t confined to the legal arena. Here are some pictures he took from his balcony of last night’s “Super Moon:”
“Super Moon” July 13, 2022 By Hon. Jeffrey S. Chase
