"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.
Dan Rather American Journalist PHOTO: Creative Courtside
FROM “STEADY” FOR July 1, 2022:
A HARD RIGHT TURN
By Dan Rather and Elliott Kirschner
As the United States Supreme Court wrapped up its spring term today, its marbled halls risked representing the setup to an ironic joke — albeit one not funny but rather cruel, dangerous, and foreboding.
The building is supposed to symbolize stability, fairness, and temperance. Instead, it has become headquarters for a majority group of highly partisan, reactionary players who make clear that they are uninhibited by history, precedent, or the will of the majority of the American people.
Their black robes are meant to convey modesty, humility, and wisdom. Yet this collection of politicians demonstrates the direct opposite.
This Supreme Court term will be remembered as the moment a cynical and anti-democratic movement, decades in the making, reached its zenith, empowered by bad faith and opportunism. Now the cabal lords its power over a broken political system from a perch of increased influence and lack of accountability.
This is power politics by unelected actors, appointed largely by men who lost the popular vote for president. Its path was paved by Mitch McConnell’s Machiavellian exploitation of the deaths of two justices. He was a master of shamelessness with a single purpose — to accomplish via judicial appointment what he could never have achieved through democratic means.
The damage he and his hard-right radicals have wrought touches all aspects of society, from abortion rights to commonsense gun control to the environment to what I believe is an overlooked evisceration of the separation of church and state. What we have are the ruins of what many took for granted as our constitutional rights. And nothing suggests these justices are anywhere near sated.
We have now firmly left behind the realm of the theoretical. This is real, and it will get only more so. For years there were those who warned that Roe wasn’t safe, and neither was anything else, that these justices were licking their chops to devour a modern America and spit out a distorted version of the past. Too many of these prophets were dismissed as hysterical, their fears histrionic and overblown. Surely, they were lectured, precedent matters. Certainly there would have to be some legal basis to rewrite America’s social contract and decades of settled rights.
Wrong.
All of you who spoke up, who tried to get others to pay attention, you deserve an apology.
There can be no hiding from it now. All of this is out in the open. The justices aren’t even trying to obscure what they are doing and where they intend to go. But in their transparent power plays, there are still faint glimmers of hope.
I hear from people who in the past had rarely talked about the court. Now, they are suddenly enraged. Many are focused on how, just today, the justices accepted a case for next year that could allow state legislatures to take a torch to fair elections. How many people in the past got so riled up about an upcoming court docket?
The Supreme Court relies on its reputation, and these days, its reputation for humility, fairness, and wisdom is in tatters. Its rulings increasingly seem to be far outside where most Americans are. Wait until they tackle contraception and the privacy of one’s bedroom.
To all who feel bereft of hope, I offer the lessons of social movements of the past. Perseverance is power. Organizing inspires optimism. Resilience breeds results.
In order to solve a problem, you first have to see it, name it, contend with its truth. That is the stage many are in now. But many others have already been there for a long time. This is a movement that already has leadership. Now it has momentum born from a desire to ensure that America goes forward, toward progress, and true to the Constitution and the will of its people.
NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Syllabus
BIDEN ET AL. v. TEXAS ET AL.
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 21–954. Argued April 26, 2022—Decided June 30, 2022
In January 2019, the Department of Homeland Security began to implement the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP). Under MPP, certain non-Mexican nationals arriving by land from Mexico were returned to Mexico to await the results of their removal proceedings under section 1229a of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). MPP was implemented pursuant to a provision of the INA that applies to aliens “arriving on land . . . from a foreign territory contiguous to the United States” and provides that the Secretary of Homeland Security “may return the alien to that territory pending a proceeding under section 1229a.” 8 U. S. C. §1225(b)(2)(C). Following a change in Presidential administrations, the Biden administration announced that it would suspend the program, and on June 1, 2021, the Secretary of Homeland Security issued a memorandum officially terminating it.
The States of Texas and Missouri (respondents) brought suit in the Northern District of Texas against the Secretary and others, asserting that the June 1 Memorandum violated the INA and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The District Court entered judgment for respondents. The court first concluded that terminating MPP would violate the INA, reasoning that section 1225 of the INA “provides the government two options” with respect to illegal entrants: mandatory detention pursuant to section 1225(b)(2)(A) or contiguous-territory re- turn pursuant to section 1225(b)(2)(C). 554 F. Supp. 3d 818, 852. Be- cause the Government was unable to meet its mandatory detention obligations under section 1225(b)(2)(A) due to resource constraints, the court reasoned, terminating MPP would necessarily lead to the systemic violation of section 1225 as illegal entrants were released into the United States. Second, the District Court concluded that the June 1 Memorandum was arbitrary and capricious in violation of the APA.
2
BIDEN v. TEXAS Syllabus
The District Court vacated the June 1 Memorandum and remanded to DHS. It also imposed a nationwide injunction ordering the Government to “enforce and implement MPP in good faith until such a time as it has been lawfully rescinded in compliance with the APA and until such a time as the federal government has sufficient detention capacity to detain all aliens subject to mandatory detention under [section 1225] without releasing any aliens because of a lack of detention re- sources.” Id., at 857 (emphasis in original).
While the Government’s appeal was pending, the Secretary released the October 29 Memoranda, which again announced the termination of MPP and explained anew his reasons for doing so. The Government then moved to vacate the injunction on the ground that the October 29 Memoranda had superseded the June 1 Memorandum. But the Court of Appeals denied the motion and instead affirmed the District Court’s judgment in full. With respect to the INA question, the Court of Ap- peals agreed with the District Court’s analysis that terminating the program would violate the INA, concluding that the return policy was mandatory so long as illegal entrants were being released into the United States. The Court of Appeals also held that “[t]he October 29 Memoranda did not constitute a new and separately reviewable ‘final agency action.’ ” 20 F. 4th 928, 951.
Held: The Government’s rescission of MPP did not violate section 1225 of the INA, and the October 29 Memoranda constituted final agency action. Pp. 8–25.
(a) Beginning with jurisdiction, the injunction that the District Court entered in this case violated 8 U. S. C. §1252(f )(1). See Garland v. Aleman Gonzalez, 596 U. S. ___, ___. But section 1252(f )(1) does not deprive this Court of jurisdiction to reach the merits of an appeal even where a lower court enters a form of relief barred by that provision. Section 1252(f )(1) withdraws a district court’s “jurisdiction or authority” to grant a particular form of relief. It does not deprive lower courts of all subject matter jurisdiction over claims brought under sections 1221 through 1232 of the INA.
The text of the provision makes that clear. Section 1252(f )(1) deprives courts of the power to issue a specific category of remedies: those that “enjoin or restrain the operation of ” the relevant sections of the statute. And Congress included that language in a provision whose title—“Limit on injunctive relief ”—makes clear the narrowness of its scope. Moreover, the provision contains a parenthetical that explicitly preserves this Court’s power to enter injunctive relief. If section 1252(f )(1) deprived lower courts of subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate any non-individual claims under sections 1221 through 1232, no such claims could ever arrive at this Court, rendering the specific carveout for Supreme Court injunctive relief nugatory.
Cite as: 597 U. S. ____ (2022) 3 Syllabus
Statutory structure likewise confirms this conclusion. Elsewhere in section 1252, where Congress intended to deny subject matter jurisdiction over a particular class of claims, it did so unambiguously. See, e.g., §1252(a)(2) (entitled “Matters not subject to judicial review”). Finally, this Court previously encountered a virtually identical situation in Nielsen v. Preap, 586 U. S. ___, and proceeded to reach the merits of the suit notwithstanding the District Court’s apparent violation of section 1252(f )(1). Pp. 8–13.
(b) Turning to the merits, section 1225(b)(2)(C) provides: “In the case of an alien . . . who is arriving on land . . . from a foreign territory contiguous to the United States, the [Secretary] may return the alien to that territory pending a proceeding under section 1229a.” Section 1225(b)(2)(C) plainly confers a discretionary authority to return aliens to Mexico. This Court has “repeatedly observed” that “the word ‘may’ clearly connotes discretion.” Opati v. Republic of Sudan, 590 U. S. ___, ___.
Respondents and the Court of Appeals concede that point, but urge an inference from the statutory structure: because section 1225(b)(2)(A) makes detention mandatory, they argue, the otherwise- discretionary return authority in section 1225(b)(2)(C) becomes mandatory when the Secretary violates that mandate. The problem is that the statute does not say anything like that. The statute says “may.” If Congress had intended section 1225(b)(2)(C) to operate as a mandatory cure of any noncompliance with the Government’s detention obligations, it would not have conveyed that intention through an unspoken inference in conflict with the unambiguous, express term “may.” The contiguous-territory return authority in section 1225(b)(2)(C) is discretionary—and remains discretionary notwithstanding any violation of section 1225(b)(2)(A).
The historical context in which section 1225(b)(2)(C) was adopted confirms the plain import of its text. Section 1225(b)(2)(C) was added to the statute more than 90 years after the “shall be detained” language that appears in section 1225(b)(2)(A). And the provision was enacted in response to a BIA decision that had questioned the legality of the contiguous-territory return practice. Moreover, since its enactment, every Presidential administration has interpreted section 1225(b)(2)(C) as purely discretionary, notwithstanding the consistent shortfall of funds to comply with section 1225(b)(2)(A).
The foreign affairs consequences of mandating the exercise of contiguous-territory return likewise confirm that the Court of Appeals erred. Interpreting section 1225(b)(2)(C) as a mandate imposes a significant burden upon the Executive’s ability to conduct diplomatic relations with Mexico, one that Congress likely did not intend section 1225(b)(2)(C) to impose. And finally, the availability of parole as an
4
BIDEN v. TEXAS Syllabus
alternative means of processing applicants for admission, see 8 U. S. C. §1182(d)(5)(A), additionally makes clear that the Court of Ap- peals erred in holding that the INA required the Government to continue implementing MPP. Pp. 13–18.
(c) The Court of Appeals also erred in holding that “[t]he October 29 Memoranda did not constitute a new and separately reviewable ‘final agency action.’ ” 20 F. 4th, at 951. Once the District Court vacated the June 1 Memorandum and remanded to DHS for further consideration, DHS had two options: elaborate on its original reasons for taking action or “ ‘deal with the problem afresh’ by taking new agency action.” Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., 591 U. S. ___, ___. The Secretary selected the second option from Regents: He accepted the District Court’s vacatur and dealt with the problem afresh. The October 29 Memoranda were therefore final agency action for the same reasons that the June 1 Memorandum was final agency action: Both “mark[ed] the ‘consummation’ of the agency’s decisionmaking process” and resulted in “rights and obligations [being] determined.” Bennett v. Spear, 520 U. S. 154, 178.
The various rationales offered by respondents and the Court of Ap- peals in support of the contrary conclusion lack merit. First, the Court of Appeals erred to the extent it understood itself to be reviewing an abstract decision apart from the specific agency actions contained in the June 1 Memorandum and October 29 Memoranda. Second, and relatedly, the October 29 Memoranda were not a mere post hoc rationalization of the June 1 Memorandum. The prohibition on post hoc rationalization applies only when the agency proceeds by the first option from Regents. Here, the Secretary chose the second option from Re- gents and “issue[d] a new rescission bolstered by new reasons absent from the [June 1] Memorandum.” 591 U. S., at ___. Having returned to the drawing table, the Secretary was not subject to the charge of post hoc rationalization.
Third, respondents invoke Department of Commerce v. New York, 588 U. S. ___. But nothing in this record suggests a “significant mis- match between the decision the Secretary made and the rationale he provided.” Id., at ___. Relatedly, the Court of Appeals charged that the Secretary failed to proceed with a sufficiently open mind. But this Court has previously rejected criticisms of agency closemindedness based on an identity between proposed and final agency action. See Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter and Paul Home v. Pennsylvania, 591 U. S. ___, ___. Finally, the Court of Appeals erred to the extent it viewed the Government’s decision to appeal the District Court’s in- junction as relevant to the question of the October 29 Memoranda’s status as final agency action. Nothing prevents an agency from under- taking new agency action while simultaneously appealing an adverse
Cite as: 597 U. S. ____ (2022) 5 Syllabus
judgment against its original action. Pp. 18–25. 20 F. 4th 928, reversed and remanded.
ROBERTS, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BREYER, SOTOMAYOR, KAGAN, and KAVANAUGH, JJ., joined. KAVANAUGH, J., filed a concurring opinion. ALITO, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which THOMAS and GORSUCH, JJ., joined. BARRETT, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which THOMAS, ALITO, and GORSUCH, JJ., joined as to all but the first sentence.
************************
Credit where credit is due. At least in this particular case, Chief Justice Roberts and the much-maligned Justice Kavanaugh probably have saved many lives of already-born humans.
Breyer’s “Last Hurrah.” I think this was Justice Breyer’s last case, fittingly a victory for reasonableness and humanity. As of noon today, he was succeeded by Justice Ketanj Brown Jackson, the first African American female Justice! Good luck to her. I hope she can convince her right-wing colleagues to “do the right thing” on at least a few cases!
Not out of the woods yet? The case now goes back to to the 5th Circuit and a Trumpy USDJ — not the best forum for asylum applicants seeking justice.
Will they do better? Ending the toxic, inhumane, and ineffective “Remain in Mexico Program” is one thing. Replacing it with a viable asylum adjudication system that will actually efficiently grant protection to the many refugees at our border who have been victims of a biased, anti-asylum, non-expert decision-making process is quite another.It starts with tossing the BIA and the many EOIR Judges who aren’t following asylum law and aren’t able to grant asylum and replacing them with real expert judges who can get the job done, positively guide Asylum Officers, and make sure they follow proper legal interpretations. To date, that’s been something that Garland and the Administration have been unwilling and/or unable to do — at least to the extent required to make due process, fundamental fairness, and the rule of law functional at our borders.
Glimmer of hope (maybe)? In her dissent, Justice Amy Coney Barrett went to great lengths to come up with reasons not to take jurisdiction over this “life or death” matter in its current posture. But, unlike the other three dissenters, she stated that she agreed with the majority “on the merits” of the case. That makes it at least possible that there could be as many as six potential votes for fair and humane treatment of asylum applicantsby the Administration if the jurisdictional hurdle can be overcome. No guarantees. But something to think about — particularly in light of Alito’s snarky, White Nationalist nonsense and anti-immigrant myths reflected in his separate dissenting opinion.
Alioto defines “rock bottom” judicial performance. For example, in the first paragraph of his dissent, Alito says this:
In fiscal year 2021, the Border Patrol reported more than 1.7 million encounters with aliens along the Mexican border.1 When it appears that one of these aliens is not admissible, may the Government simply release the alien in this country and hope that the alien will show up for the hearing at which his or her entitlement to remain will be decided?
First he mis-states the law. By no means are all individuals who come to the border or are apprehended in the vicinity thereof entitled to “hearings” on admissibility. All of those without entry documents are subject to summary removal by a DHS Enforcement Agent. Only those who claim a fear of return to their home countries are entitled to an expeditious review of their claims by a (supposedly) well-trained Asylum Officer. Further, only those who establish the necessary “credible fear” of harm (or in some cases a “reasonable fear”) are entitled to have their cases for asylum determined on the merits by either an Asylum Officer or an EOIR Immigration Judge (or both). So, many of those appearing at the border are summarily removed without any hearings at all.
Thousands of those who pass credible fear and are awaiting “merits hearings” are imprisoned in DHS facilities in conditions that probably would fail constitutional scrutiny if applied to convicted felons. Those poor conditions are intended, at least in part, to demoralize and coerce individuals into abandoning claims for protection. They also exponentially decrease the chances of receiving competent pro bono representation and documenting and presenting their cases for life-preserving protection. This is significant, because they too often face EOIR judges with questionable expert judicial qualifications who are essentially “programmed to deny asylum.” Indeed, a “Garland gimmick” for recent arrivals — so-called “expedited dockets” — produced nearly 100% asylum denials as compared with the nationwide rate of 67%. For years, ICE detention centers, many of them operated by private contractors, have been notorious as places “where asylum cases go to die.”
Contrary to the bogus implication of Alito’s statement that one has to “hope” that individuals show up for hearings, many have immigration bonds — some punatively high. When given a chance to obtain qualified representation, and thereby to understand the system and their obligations thereunder, the vast majority of asylum applicants voluntarily appear at their hearings (some many times due to the EOIR practice of “Aimless Docket Reshuffling”), win or lose. And, perhaps not surprisingly, they succeed in winning their cases at rates that are many times higher than those forced to proceed without representation.
Indeed, a government actually interested in making the legal system work, rather than ginning up nativist myths about asylum seekers, would cut the “cruel and inhumane gimmicks” like “Remain in Mexico” and detention in the “New American Gulag” (NAG”) and instead invest in training competent pro bono or “low bono” representatives, temporarily resettling applicants to those jurisdictions with good NGOs and where the Immigration Judges are known to be scholarly and fair in evaluating asylum cases, and replacing poorly qualified Immigration Judges with experts able to competently perform these life or death functions at the “retail level” of our justice system in a fair and efficient matter consistent with due process.
Alito also repeats, apparently for prejudicial dramatic effect, the oft-used but potentially misleading figure of 1.7 million “encounters” by CBP. But, since the legal asylum system at our border was improperly dismantled by the Trump Administration, many of these represent the same individual or individuals, repeatedly encountered and illegally returned without any process whatsoever, who seek only the legal forum to present their claim to authorities to which they are entitled under both domestic and international law. This right has been systematically denied to them by both the Trump and Biden Administrations and by mal-functioning Federal Judges, at all levels, who have failed to uphold the rule of law as it applies to the most vulnerable among us. Additionally, a knowledgeable jurist would take any statistics furnished by the notoriously unreliable DHS with a “grain of salt.”
The lack of understanding of how immigration law operates, the nativist-driven misinterpretations by the Trump Administration embodied in this dissent, and the lack of intellectual integrity in furthering nativist myths and intentional exaggerations to describe a group of individuals who merely seek legal justice under both our laws and international standards is a graphic illustration of who does not belong on our highest Court. If we are really committed to equal justice and fundamental fairness in the American justice system, we should insist that all of those nominated for our Supreme Court demonstrate significant experience representing individual foreign nationals in the Immigration Courts — the “life or death retail level” of our justice system.
Right now, those so-called “courts” are an embarrassing and dysfunctional “parody of justice” to which neither Justice Alito nor any of his colleagues would want to submit their own lives and futures or those of anyone they truly cared about. That’s the very definition of dehumanization and “Dred Scottification of the other” that Justice Alito seems so curiously eager to advance. Perhaps, that’s because he lacks the necessary empathy and perspective to see life from “the other side of the bench” as the rest of humanity does.
I’d like to think that Alito is capable of change and growth. Most, if not all, humans are. After all, he’s appointed for life, so he isn’t going anywhere soon. But, I won’t hold my breath.
Wendy Young President, Kids In Need of Defense (“KIND”)
Dear Paul –
The entire team at Kids In Need of Defense is devastated by the news that at least 46 people were found dead in an abandoned tractor-trailer in Texas and more than a dozen others in the truck, including children, were taken to local hospitals for treatment. While we wait for more details to emerge, we wanted to share the following statement from our President, Wendy Young.
“As rising violence, natural disasters, and other threats force migrants to make impossible choices in their quest to find safety, our nation’s response cannot be to place families and children in further harm by indefinitely closing our borders to people seeking protection and ignoring the dangers they face in their home countries. This most recent tragedy and the disturbing rise in migrant deaths globally underscore the need to create safer pathways to protection for refugees. The Biden Administration should see this heartbreaking tragedy for what it is, a clarion call to abandon deeply flawed and dangerous immigration policies. It must reinstate humane and orderly processing, including reopening official ports of entry, hiring child welfare experts to care for and screen children, and provide fair adjudication of protection claims. It is time for the United States to regain its footing as a leader in the protection of migrant families and children.”
– The KIND Team
****************
The key part of Wendy’s statement: “including reopening official ports of entry, hiring child welfare experts to care for and screen children, and provide fair adjudication of protection claims.”
Denial rates for recent arrivals who manage to get hearings (see, e.g., Garland’s bogus “dedicated dockets,” — actually “dedicated to denial” and nothing else), many of them children and unrepresented, hover around 100%. They are “guided” by a “largely holdover,” anti-asylum BIA that lacks true asylum expertise and issues no positive precedents instructing judges on how to consistently and legally grant asylum. Consequently, there is no “fair adjudication” of asylum claims. That feeds the toxic nativist myth that nobody at the Southern Border is a “legitimate” asylum seeker.
Unless and until Garland tosses the unqualified jurists at EOIR and replaces them with experts committed to due process, fundamental fairness, and correct, generous, practical precedents and proper applications of asylum law, the system will remain in failure. It’s a monumental mistake by the Biden Administration not to fix that which they absolutely control — starting with the Immigration Courts at EOIR.
Refugees will continue to die at the hands of smugglers who were given control of our immigration system by the Trump Administration and remain empowered by Garland’s & Mayorkas’spoor performance combined with biased, White Nationalist, Federal Judges appointed by Trump at all levels of our failing justice system!
Today’s WashPost editorial described how far-right nativists have basically turned our immigration system over to smugglers:
The absence of any workable legal system that would admit migrants systematically, in numbers that would meet the U.S. labor market’s demand, is the original sin of the chaos at the border. That is Congress’s bipartisan failure, a symptom of systemic paralysis for many years. More recently, a public health rule has had the effect of incentivizing unauthorized migrants to make multiple attempts to cross the border. The rule, imposed by the Trump administration, retained for more than a year by the Biden administration, and now frozen in place by Republican judges, allows border authorities to swiftly expel migrants, but with no asylum hearings or criminal consequences for repeated attempts to cross the border. That has been a boon to migrant smuggling networks.
I take issue with the term “bipartisan failure” in the legislative context. It’s true that the Dems inexplicably squandered a golden chance to fix many immigration problems when they had 60 votes in the Senate in Obama’s first two years. But, before and after that time, the failure to achieve realistic, humane, robust legal immigration reform legislation has been on the nativist right of the GOP that now dominates the party. Pretending otherwise is useless and dishonest.
All of these proposals would have made long-overdue, common sense reforms to eliminate hopeless backlogs, benefit our economy, strengthen our legal system, and facilitate better allocation of Government resources. Yet, there has been scant GOP interest in improving the system. The GOP appears to believe that promoting a dysfunctional immigration system, denying human rights, and guaranteeing a large “extralegal population” available as scapegoats and exploitable labor best serves their parochial political interests.
And, speaking of useless and dishonest, here’s Leon Krausze, WashPost Global Opinions Contributor, on how the disingenuous performance of Texas Governor Greg Abbott and Mexican President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador has helped fuel both resurgent Mexican migration and unnecessary deaths at or near the border. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/06/29/san-antonio-migrant-deaths-trailer-mexico-amlo/.
The “good guys” — those committed to due process, fundamental fairness, individual rights, equal justice, scholarship, and human dignity — need to fight back at every level of our political and judicial systems — while they still exist! Because if the GOP has its way, that won’t be for long!🏴☠️
Asylum seekers, with their lives on the line, deserve fair, competent, experienced, nationally-recognized experts in asylum and immigration law as judges at all levels of EOIR, starting with the BIA. Instead, Garland appears to be running a refuge for the guy pictured above. Creative Commons License
Dan Kowalski reports for LexisNexis Immigration Community:
CA2 Rejects Matter of B-R-: Zepeda-Lopez v. Garland
“Petition for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals entered December 14, 2018, dismissing an appeal from the decision of an Immigration Judge denying asylum and the withholding of removal to petitioners, who are dual citizens of Honduras and Nicaragua, and their relatives. The agency denied relief based on Matter of B-R-, where the BIA held that to qualify as a “refugee” under the Immigration and Nationality Act, dual nationals must show persecution in both their countries of nationality. 26 I. & N. Dec. 119, 121 (B.I.A. 2013). The agency determined that while petitioners demonstrated persecution in Honduras, they did not show persecution in Nicaragua, and it concluded that they were not refugees and therefore not eligible for asylum. We grant the petition for review and hold that, to qualify as a “refugee” under the INA, a dual national asylum applicant need only show persecution in any singular country of nationality. PETITION GRANTED, BIA DECISION VACATED, AND CASE REMANDED. … We hold that to be considered a “refugee” under § 1101(a)(42)(A), a dual national need only show persecution in any singular country of nationality. Accordingly, we GRANT the petition for review, VACATE the BIA’s December 14, 2018, decision, and REMAND to the BIA for further proceedings in accordance with the proper legal standard. … [T]he INA unambiguously requires an applicant for asylum to show well-founded fear of persecution in any one country of the applicant’s nationality rather than in all such countries. … As the statutory text unambiguously provides that dual nationals need show persecution only in any singular country of nationality to qualify as a refugee under the INA, we need not defer to the BIA’s interpretation of § 1101(a)(42)(A). In any event, the BIA’s interpretation is unreasonable; Matter of B-R- required dual nationals to show well-founded fear of persecution in both countries of nationality. 26 I. & N. Dec. at 121. Such a reading is manifestly contrary to the text of the INA.”
I once used a similar fact situation as a final exam question in my “Refugee Law & Policy” class at Georgetown Law. It tested whether students could spot and develop a possible “Chevron challenge” to Matter of B-R-! I’m going to give the 2d Circuit an “A” on this one! The BIA gets an “F.”
Prior to B-R-, I had one of these cases in Arlington. I granted based on the plain meaning of the statute. I think the DHS waived appeal.
Bad law/bad policy/bad judging. In Matter of B-R-, the BIA stretched and ignored the statute to find a way to deny asylum to a journalist threatened by the Chavez Government of Venezuela — no “friend” of the U.S! He had little apparent contact with Spain, of which the IJ found he was a dual national, other than that his father was born there.
The respondents in Zepeda-Lopez were found to have suffered persecution in Honduras. They were ordered removed to Nicaragua, a country with a horrible human rights record and whose government has been condemned by the U.S.
Why would a competent BIA ignore the statutory language and misinterpret the law to achieve such highly problematic (one might argue downright dumb) results when a better, legally correct interpretation — merely following the statute (not “rocket science” 🚀) — would have produced more sensible results?
One possible conclusion: The BIA is “preprogrammed” to consider “denial of protection” under a statute designed for protection as the “preferred result.” Consequently, they will manipulate and misconstrue the law (and sometimes facts) to achieve removals that make neither legal nor policy sense.
With lots of better qualified, fair asylum experts out there who could be BIA judges, why is Garland employing the “B-Team” (at best) mostly selected by his predecessors, in these important, non-life-tenured quasi-judicial positions?
America needs a fair, functional, generous, realistic, practicalasylum system. It’s not achievable without a massive and much needed shakeup at the BIA and the trial courts at EOIR!
Bad judging, from the bottom to the very top of our justice system, by those disconnected from both the law and the human consequences of their lousy decisions, is helping to rip our nation apart. Garland has a golden opportunity to fix the “retail level” of our judiciary at EOIR. Why isn’t he getting the job done? Can our nation live with the consequences of his failure?
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.
The 6/10/22 order in Texas v. United States vacating the memo went into effect 6/24/22 and has not been stayed at this time. Regardless of the memo, it is important to continue arguing that prosecutorial discretion is a longstanding executive power and DHS retains the ability to join motions, stipulate to relief, etc. See Practice Alert: Judge Tipton Issues Decision Vacating Mayorkas Enforcement Priorities Memo.
USCIS: Where community levels are high, all federal employees and contractors—as well as visitors two years old or older—must wear a mask inside USCIS offices and physically distance regardless of vaccination status. Check CDC Level for Your Field Office.
Bustle: At a base level, the abortion restrictions detained women face are similar to the ones that low-income women face across the country because of the Hyde Amendment. For more than 40 years, the Hyde Amendment has prevented women on Medicaid from using federally funded insurance to pay for abortions, except in cases of rape, incest, or danger to the mother’s life. The same type of language exists in appropriations bills and healthcare regulations for all facets of the federal government, including the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency.
AP: The Border Patrol paroled more than 207,000 migrants who crossed from Mexico from August through May, including 51,132 in May, a 28% increase from April, according to court records. In the previous seven months, it paroled only 11 migrants.
Guardian: At least 71,000 Ukrainians have entered the US since March, with Joe Biden’s pledge to welcome 100,000 people fleeing the Russian invasion on track to be met over the summer.
Bloomberg: The amendment, which faces a long path to the finish line in the appropriations process, would allow DHS to recapture family and employment-based visas that went unused due to bureaucratic snags, processing delays, and other disruptions since 1992.
AIC: Data analyzed by the Cato Institute shows that since Fiscal Year 2008, USCIS denied about 8% of employer-sponsored immigrants while the average denial rate by consular officers was 63%.
Law360: The Biden administration announced plans to issue a final Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals rule by August and continue its efforts to undo multiple Trump-era regulations. Here are the main immigration highlights from the administration’s regulatory agenda for spring 2022.
WaPo: Critics of the measure say it perpetuates a false scarcity problem at a time when Virginia has a budget surplus, and it demands that lawmakers sacrifice one needy group of students for another.
Forbes: In a new book describing her years during the Trump administration, former Education Secretary Betsy DeVos revealed a plan by Stephen Miller to identify children at school for deportation under the pretext of checking for gang members.
Law360: The Biden administration has agreed to impose new living and sanitary standards on temporary emergency facilities housing hundreds of migrant children to resolve advocates’ claims that it was holding minors in unsafe and unsanitary conditions.
The Advocate: Immigration judges in Louisiana have denied asylum claims at a higher rate than almost any other courts in the nation over the past five years, according to federal data. However, a new federal rule might downsize their role in asylum proceedings.
CNN: The justices are considering whether the Biden administration can terminate a Trump-era border policy known as “Remain in Mexico.” Lower courts have so far blocked Biden from ending the policy.
SCOTUS: The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit for further consideration in light of Matter of B-Z-R-, 28 I&N Dec. 563 (A.G. 2022).
BIA: A respondent who raises an objection to missing time or place information in a notice to appear for the first time in a motion to reopen has forfeited that objection.
Law360: A Dominican man got a new chance to fight his deportation on Tuesday when the Third Circuit ruled that his felony conviction under Pennsylvania’s fleeing and eluding law didn’t necessarily amount to a crime of moral turpitude.
LexisNexis: For years, Petitioner Javier Garza-Flores did not believe he had a valid claim to U.S. citizenship. But now he thinks that he does. And he has presented documentary evidence sufficient to demonstrate, at a minimum, a genuine issue of material fact concerning his claim of U.S. citizenship. That is enough to warrant a factual proceeding before a federal district court to determine his citizenship.
CA7: The Board’s main quibble was with the relevance of that evidence to an Ethiopian citizen, which it assumed Menghistab to be. But that assumption was not warranted on the record that was before the Board. Denying the motion to reopen without a full hearing addressing Menghistab’s citizenship and its materiality to his risk of torture was therefore an abuse of discretion.
Law360: The Ninth Circuit on Friday granted a Salvadoran’s request to have the Board of Immigration Appeals review claims that he would be tortured if sent back to the Central American country, saying the board originally failed to consider all possible risk sources.
Law360: U.S. Customs and Border Protection and Davis Wright Tremaine LLP have settled a Freedom of Information Act suit the firm filed over reports the agency decided Canadian cannabis workers weren’t eligible to enter the U.S., which led to an overturned internal document contradicting officials.
Law360: A Boston federal jury has found a construction company and its owner liable for retaliating against an employee by reporting him to immigration authorities after his on-the-job injury triggered a workplace investigation, awarding $650,000 in damages.
USCIS: A noncitizen who again seeks admission more than 3 or 10 years after the relevant departure or removal, is not inadmissible under INA 212(a)(9)(B) even if the noncitizen returned to the United States, with or without authorization, during the statutory 3-year or 10-year period
CBS: While the suspension of ICE’s arrest prioritization scheme is unlikely to place the country’s estimated 11 million unauthorized immigrants in immediate danger of being arrested, the absence of national standards could lead to inconsistent enforcement actions across the U.S., including arrests of immigrants whom agents were previously instructed not to detain, legal experts said.
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
Attribution: Stephen Miller Monster by Peter Kuper, PoliticalCartoons.com
According to a new book from former Trump Education Secretary Betsy DeVos:
“Over the din of patrons slurping lattes and crunching salads, Miller’s men described a plan to put U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents into schools under the pretext of identifying MS-13 gang members. The plan was, when agents checked students’ citizenship status for the alleged purpose of identifying gang ties, they could identify undocumented students and deport them. Not only was the prospect of this chilling, but it was also patently illegal. Nate and Ebony turned them down cold. But that didn’t stop Stephen Miller from subsequently calling me to get my thoughts on the idea.
For years, the BIA has had standard practice of giving short shrift to potentially valid claims for protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Without meaningful analysis they simply cite John Ashcroft’s infamous “no CAT precedent” in Matter of J-F-F-,23 I&N Dec. 912 (A.G. 2006), requiring that “each link in the chain of torture be proved to be probable.”
Since there is almost always some allegedly “weak link in the chain” that’s an “easy handle” for denial.Also, The IJ and the BIA can “lengthen the chain” or ignore the evidence as necessary to “get to no.” In the process, compelling evidence of likelihood of torture from qualified expert witnesses is either ignored or minimized — again, without much analysis. That’s how the “denial factory” in Falls Church can keep churning out CAT rejections even to countries where torture is rampant and either furthered or willfully ignored by the repressive governments.
At least in the 9th Circuit, the BIA will now have to go “back to the drawing board” for denying CAT and returningindividuals to countries where torture with government participation or acquiescence is likely. The 9th Circuit case rejecting the BIA’s “formula for denial” is Velasquez-Samayoa v. Garland. Here’s a link in addition to the one provided by Elizabeth.https://www.lexisnexis.com/legalnewsroom/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/ca9-on-cat-velasquez-samayoa-v-garland
Louisiana has long been one of a number of EOIR “courts” — these are actually “prison courts” — where “asylum cases go to die.” The deadly combination of bad Immigration Judges, lack of skilled immigration attorneys able to take these cases pro bono, coercive use of detention in out of the way places in substandard conditions, a “denial oriented” BIA stacked by the Trump DOJ and not “unstacked by Garland,” and an indolent, often virulently anti-asylum 5th Circuit add up to potential death sentences for individuals who could gain protection under a system where due process and fundamental fairness were respected and followed.
As the report in The Advocate referenced by Elizabeth shows, Garland has failed to reform and improve this blot on American justice. And, there is little chance that assigning the cases to USCIS Asylum Office in the first instance under new regulations in this intentionally toxic environment is going to promote justice or efficiency.
One might view the wide discrepancy between “positive credible fear findings” and asylum grants in Immigration Court as a sign of a sick and dying EOIR, not lack of merit for the claims. With less detention, more representation, better Immigration Judges, and a new BIA of true asylum experts willing to grant protection rather than “engineer rejection,” I’ll bet that many, perhaps a majority, of the outcomes would be more favorable to applicants.
As noted by Mitch Gonzalez of the SPLC in the article, “dehumanization,” “de-personification,” and “Dred Scottification,” along with cruelty are the objects of what’s going on at EOIR in Louisiana. The “fit” with the Trump/Miller White Nationalist anti-immigrant program is obvious. What’s less obvious is why Garland and the Biden Administration haven’t intervened to make the necessary changes to restore EOIR in Louisiana and elsewhere to at least some semblance of a fair and impartial “court system.”
Nobody should be surprised that the Supreme Court’s conservative justices on Friday jettisoned nearly 50 years of precedent upon precedent in overturning Roe v. Wade. Heck, they didn’t even honor their own precedent articulated 24 hours earlier.
In their opinion Thursday morning forcing New York and other densely populated states to allow more handguns in public, the conservative majority, led by Justice Clarence Thomas, argued that medieval law imposing arms restrictions — specifically, the 1328 Statute of Northampton — “has little bearing on the Second Amendment” because it was “enacted … more than 450 years before the ratification of the Constitution.”
Yet in their ruling Friday morning in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health, setting women’s rights back half a century (and cracking the door to banning same-sex marriage and contraception), the conservative justices, led by Samuel Alito (who was also in the guns majority) and joined by Thomas, argued precisely the opposite. They justified abortion bans by citing, among others, “Henry de Bracton’s 13th-century treatise.” That was written circa 1250 and referred to monsters, duels, burning at the stake — and to women as property, “inferior” to men.
The right-wing majority’s selective application of history reveals the larger fraud in this pair of landmark rulings: Their reasoning is not legal but political, not principled but partisan.
Still, there is a commonality to the rulings. Both decisions foment maximum chaos and were delivered with flagrant disregard for the instability and disorder they will cause.
The high court was meant to be the guarantor of law and order. But the conservative justices, intoxicated by their supermajority, have abandoned their solemn duty to promote stability in the law and are actively spreading real-world disruption.
Worse, this invitation to disorder comes as the nation is trying to restore the rule of law after a coup attempt led by a president who appointed three of the five justices in the abortion majority. The spouse of a fourth — Ginni Thomas, Clarence’s wife — aggressively pushed state legislators and the White House to overthrow the election. Yet Thomas, the senior associate justice, has refused to recuse himself from related cases.
After decades of crocodile tears over imagined “judicial activism,” the conservative supermajority has shed all judicial modesty and embraced radicalism. The liberal justices, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Stephen G. Breyer, wrote in their Dobbs dissent that the majority’s brazen rejection of stare decisis, respect for precedent, “breaches a core rule-of-law principle, designed to promote constancy in the law.”
Even Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., who joined the gun ruling, scolded fellow conservatives for blithely overturning the Roe v. Wade super-precedent. “Surely we should adhere closely to principles of judicial restraint here, where the broader path the court chooses entails repudiating a constitutional right we have not only previously recognized, but also expressly reaffirmed,” Roberts wrote. The majority’s “dramatic and consequential ruling is unnecessary,” he said, “a serious jolt to the legal system” that could have been avoided with a narrower decision that would have been “markedly less unsettling.”
Alito, in his (characteristically) sneering opinion in the abortion case, dismissed Roberts as unprincipled and public opinion as an “extraneous” concern. He likewise dismissed the pain the ruling would cause, writing that “this Court is ill-equipped to assess ‘generalized assertions about the national psyche.’ ” He washed his hands of answering the “empirical question” of “the effect of the abortion right … on the lives of women.”
. . . .
************************
Read the rest of Milbank’s op-ed at the link.
It would be tempting to breathe a “sigh of relief” that while off on their taxpayer-underwritten summer frolic, the “Gang of 6” can’t do any more damage to our Constitution, our nation, our institutions, or humanity. But, unfortunately, that’s not completely true. If and when their party calls on them, they can always go into “emergency session.”
So let’s hope that there will be no further “emergencies” this summer other than the disorder and divisions already caused by their disingenuous political decrees masquerading as (very thinly to tragicomically inept and inconsistent) “jurisprudence.”
Still, those who enjoy their humanity and their rights (other than gun rights)shouldn’t get too complacent. Vacation will end; the Supremes will be back at it in October — looking for more ways to turn back the clock and “Dred Scottify the other,” even though the majority of Americans actually are “some kind of other.” With a little help from their GOP friends, they will disenfranchise and dehumanize one group at a time until rights and political power look largely like they did in 1789 — when free White men of property ruled.
As for CJ Roberts, after years of trying to put a “genial spin” on the mockery of a fair, impartial, and qualified judiciary incubating at his Supremes, he has totally lost control of the far-right extremists appointed by his party and, in some cases, pushed through the process in a highly irregular manner. Hard to have much sympathy there.
Refugee and Forced Migration Studies, Grace School of Applied Diplomacy
Craig Mousin has been the University Ombudsperson at DePaul since 2001. He received a BS from Johns Hopkins University, a JD from the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, and an M Div from Chicago Theological Seminary. He joined the College of Law faculty in 1990, and served as the Executive Director of the Center for Church/State Studies until 2001, Acting Director until 2003, and co-director from 2004–2007. Mousin co-founded and continues to participate in the Center’s Interfaith Family Mediation Program. He has taught in DePaul’s School of Continuing and Professional Studies, the Religious Studies Department, the Grace School of Applied Diplomacy, and the Peace, Justice and Conflict Studies program. He has also taught as an adjunct faculty member at the University of Illinois College of Law and Chicago Theological Seminary .
Prior to DePaul, he began practicing labor law at Seyfarth, Shaw, Fairweather & Geraldson in 1978. In 1984, Mousin founded and directed the Midwest Immigrant Rights Center, a provider of legal assistance to refugees which has since become the National Immigrant Justice Center. He also directed legal services for Travelers & Immigrants Aid between 1986 and 1990. The United Church of Christ ordained him in 1989. At that time, Wellington Avenue U.C.C. called him as an Associate Pastor. He was a founding co-pastor of the DePaul Ecumenica l Gathering (1996-2001). Mousin serves as a Life Trustee of the Chicago Theological Seminary. In addition, he is a member of the Leadership Council of the National Immigrant Justice Center, a member of the Leadership Council of the Marjorie Kovler Center for Survivors of Torture, a former President and member of the Board of the Eco-Justice Collaborative, and a former President and Board member of the Immigration Project of downstate Illinois. Mousin is a current member of the ABA Dispute Resolution Section Ombuds Committee.
Craig writes:
Comment: Paul,
You might be interested in a short interview I did with Chicago FOX news on World Refugee Day. I tied the celebration in with the honoring of Juneteenth. See:
Also, I do not know if you subscribe to my podcast, Lawful Assembly, but my last post tied together censorship of books in public schools with anti-immigrant sentiments. You can listen at:
Today’s WashPost Outlook Section contained a highly relevant article by author Dave Eggers about how far-right zealots — many with no real stake in our public schools — have taken over at local levels and apply extreme censorship — even to books and concepts that have been successfully and routinely taught for years. https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2022/06/24/dave-eggers-book-bans-south-dakota/
In this case, it’s driving experienced teachers who believe in truth, freedom, and individual rights to flee in droves. So, what we’re really seeing is a shocking “dumbing down” of American education, libraries, and public discourse driven by far right fear-mongers seeking to impose their lack of values and intolerance on others.
We have seen this week how far-right activist extremists, from the Supremes to local politicians and school boards, have elevated guns that kill while gutting the individual rights to free speech, equal protection,and fundamental fairness guaranteed by the 1st, 5th, and 14th Amendments.
Justice Clarence Thomas is certainly a horrible jurist. But, in this instance he might be the only honest GOP appointee on the Supremes.
When Thomas says that immigrants’ human rights, gay rights, right to conception, marriage rights and most other meaningful individual rights guaranteed by the Constitution are on the chopping block, progressives had better believe him. Remember how “leaving things to the states” worked out for African Americans and other minorities attempting to exercise their fundamental rights, even after the Civil War and the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments. And, remember all those paeons to precedent and “not to worry” about Roe statements under oath from GOP Supremes’ candidates before they actually took their seats on the Court and started scheming to undo abortion rights for political, not legal, reasons!
“Social Justice Warriors” like Craig have been fighting the good fight for decades. But, at this point, it’s going to depend on the NDPA and other young progressive groups to take on the extremist right at the ballot box and to take back their individual rights — really all of our individual rights.
Otherwise, they will find themselves as a disempowered counterculture, hiding out and trying to keep ahead of Ray Bradbury’s firemen in Fahrenheit 451!
Anti-Asylum Judges In Action! Factual distortions, ignoring evidence, and misapplications of the law are some of the “weapons” wielded by some EOIR judges to stop asylum seekers from getting the life-saving legal protections they deserve! Article III Courts can compound the problem by mis-using “deference” to avoid critical examination of the frequent abuses of humanity and the rule of law inflicted by this parody of a court system. Albrecht Dürer, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
ONE TINY STEP FOR MANKIND: But It’s Going To Take Much More Than Finally Replacing A Few Stunningly Unqualified Judges To Save EOIR!
By Paul Wickham Schmidt
Courtside Exclusive
June 25, 2022
Over the last few weeks the long overdue and essential process of weeding out poorly qualified Immigration Judges — still on “probation” at EOIR — finally got off to a very modest start.
Imagine yourself as a refugee fighting for your life in an asylum system that’s already stacked against you and where the “judges” work for the Attorney General, part of the Executive Branch’s political and law enforcement apparatus.
How would you like your life to be in the hands of (now) former Immigration Judge Matthew O’Brien. He was appointed in 2020 by former AG Bill Barr — a staunch defender of the Trump/Miller White Nationalist, xenophobic, anti-immigrant agenda.
Nativism A “Qualification?”
What made O’Brien supposedly “qualified” to be a “fair and impartial” administrative judge?
Thankfully, O’Brien will pass into history. But, the damage inflicted by the “official policy of child abuse” will adversely affect generations.
Or, perhaps it was O’Brien’s intimate connection with a leading nativist group. Immediately prior to his appointment, he was the “Research” Director for the Federation for American Immigration Reform (“FAIR”) — a group renowned for sloppy to non-existent “research” and presenting racially-motivated myths and fear mongering as “facts.”
As noted by Nowrasteh, that’s not the only example of FAIR providing “bogus research papers” designed to “rev up hate” and demean the contributions of immigrants both documented and undocumented.
The Anti-Defamation League (“ADL”), one of America’s most venerable anti-hate, anti-misinformation groups, founded more than a century ago “To stop the defamation of the Jewish people and to secure justice and fair treatment to all,” had this to say about O’Brien’s former employer:
While the majority of the extreme anti-immigrant sentiment in the U.S. emanates from fringe groups like white supremacists and other nativists, there are a number of well-established anti-immigrant groups such as Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), Center for Immigration Studies (CIS), NumbersUSA and The Remembrance Project which have secured a foothold in mainstream politics, and their members play a major role in promoting divisive, dangerous rhetoric and views that demonize immigrants. A number of these groups have attempted to position themselves as legitimate advocates against “illegal immigration” while using stereotypes, conspiracy theories and outright bigotry to disparage immigrants and hold them responsible for a number of societal ills. A decade ago, most of this bigotry was directed primarily at Latino immigrants, but today, Muslim and Haitian immigrants, among others, are also targeted.
. . . .
There is a distinct anti-immigrant movement in this country, whose roots can be traced back to the 1970s. Groups such as the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) and Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) hope to influence general audiences with somewhat sanitized versions of their anti-immigrant views. In their worldview, non-citizens do not enjoy any status or privilege, and any path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants or refugees is portrayed as a threat to current citizens. Like some other problematic movements, the anti-immigrant movement also has a more extreme wing, which includes border vigilante groups, as well as groups and individuals that seek to demonize immigrants by using racist, sometimes threatening language.
So, perhaps, you say, once actually “on the bench,” Judge O’Brien was able to overcome his biases and knowledge gaps and function as a fair and impartial judicial officer. Nope! Not in the cards!
According to TRAC, O’Brien denied almost every asylum case he heard (96.4% denials). That was, astoundingly, nearly 40% above the average of his colleagues in Arlington and nearly 30% higher than the nationwide asylum denial rate of approximately 67%.
But, to put this in perspective, we have to recognize that this denial rate had already been intentionally and artificially increased by a expanded,”packed,” politicized, “weaponized,” and intentionally “dumbed down” EOIR during the Sessions/Barr era at DOJ. For example, approximately 10 years ago, more than 50% of asylum, cases were being granted annually nationwide, and approximately 75% of the asylum cases in Arlington were granted. See, e.g., https://trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/judge2014/00001WAS/index.html. And, even then, most asylum experts would have said that the nationwide grant rate was too low.
Gaming The System For Denial
It’s not that conditions in “refugee/asylum sending” countries have gotten better over the past decade! Far from it! The refugee situation today is as bad as it has ever been since WWII and getting worse every day.
So, why would legal refugee admissions be plunging to record lows (despite a rather disingenuous “increase in the refugee ceiling” by the Biden Administration) and asylum denials up dramatically over the past decade?
It has little or nothing to do with asylum law or the realities of the worldwide refugee flow, particularly from Latin American and Caribbean countries. No, it has to do with an intentional move, started under Bush II, tolerated or somewhat encouraged in the Obama Administration, but greatly accelerated during the Trump-era, to “kneecap” the legal refugee and asylum processing programs. Indeed, the “near zeroing-out” of refugee and asylum admissions and the illegal replacement of Asylum Officers by totally unqualified CBP Agents by the Trump Administration are two of the most egregious examples.
Ironically, the EOIR backlog tripled. Under the “maliciously incompetent management” of the Trump group at DOJ, more judges actually meant more backlog! How is that giving taxpayers “value” for their money?
Some of the new judges, like O’Brien and some of the Immigration Judges “elevated” to the BIA, were appointed specifically because of their established records of anti-asylum bias, rude treatment of attorneys, and dehumanizing treatment of asylum seekers and other migrants.
“Ignorance And Contempt”
It’s not like O’Brien was just your “garden variety” “conservative jurist.”(I’ve actually worked with many of the latter over the years). No, he was notorious for his lack of scholarship, rudeness, and bias!
Here are a few of the comments he received on “RateYourJudge.com:”
“Rarely grants cases. No knowledge of the law, only there to deny cases. He needs to be removed.”
“Biased judge, hates immigrants and even kids of immigrants.”
“Incompetent.”
“One of the most condescending and self-righteous judges I have had the displeasure to hear. His word choice and tone left absolutely no doubt that he considered the Respondent to be beneath his notice, even to the point of referring to her as “the female Respondent” and to her domestic partner as a “paramour”. I have heard other judges’ oral opinions on very similar sets of facts, and they were accomplished in a fifth of the time with no loss of dignity to anyone.”
“This guy’s ignorance about immigration law and contempt for the people who appear before him is staggering. The way he threatens lawyers is reprehensible. EOIR is a disgrace.”
“Horrible human being with no business being on the bench. Shame on EOIR for allowing him to continue adjudicating cases.”
“Late, abusive, made up his mind before the case even started, frequently interrupted testimony, yelled at immigrants and their lawyer, and refused to listen to anything we said. Ignorant of the law and facts of the case. He should go back to directing hate groups.”
Among the stream of negative comments there were three “positive” comments about O’Brien;
Most of the comments both positive and negative were “anonymous” or apparent user “pseudonyms;”
“RateMyImmigrationJudge” is neither comprehensive nor transparent.
Flunking the “Gold Standard”
So, was O’Brien really as horrible as most experts say? Let’s do another type of “reality check.”
Among the other IJs at the Arlington Immigration Court, two stand out as widely respected expert jurists who have served for decades across Administrations of both parties. Judge John Milo Bryant was first appointed as an Immigration Judge in 1987 under the Reagan Administration. Judge Lawrence Owen Burman was appointed in 1998 under the Clinton Administration. With 66 years of judicial service between them, they would be considered more or less the “gold standard” for well-qualified, subject matter expert, fair and impartial Immigration Judges.
Significantly, according to the last TRAC report, O’Brien’s asylum grant rate of 3,6% wasapproximately 1/15th of Judge Bryant’s and approximately 1/22 of Judge Burman’s. https://trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/judgereports/. Case closed! O’Brien should never have been on a bench where asylum seekers lives were at stake and expertise and fairness are supposed to be job requirements!
“Worse Than O’Brien”
What about now former Arlington Immigration Judge David White who was removed at the same time as O’Brien? Apparently, during his relatively short tenure (appointed by Barr in 2020), White was unable to deny enough asylum to qualify for TRAC’s system (100 decisions minimum).
Yet, he made an indelible impression on those “sentenced” to appear before him. Here are comments from RateMyImmigrtionJudge.com:
“This judge is absolutely terrible. Unfair and biased. He is only here to deny asylum cases regardless of what the person has been through. Completely misstates the facts, doesn’t know the law so goes after credibility (using those misstated facts) as an excuse to say there’s no past persecution. Absolute disgrace.”
“Worst judge ever. The clerks at the Immigration Court told the private bar attorneys that they have NEVER seen this judge approve an asylum case. Not one. They have running bets and jokes about him, but he never grants. He writes the denial during the trial instead of listening to the person testify. He is insulting and rude and not at all compassionate about trauma.”
“This is the worst immigration judge in Arlington, hands down. He’s even worse than O’Brien, and O’Brien is an former hate-group director.”
“Terrible immigration judge. Had his mind made up well before our hearing. Came in with a prewritten denial that misstated the law. Was rude and dismissive about my client’s trauma.”
Wow! Worse than O’Brien. That’s quite an achievement.
GOP Court Packing
Fact is, the overt politicization, “weaponization,” and “dumbing down” of the Immigration Courts goes back nearly two decades to AG John Ashcroft and the Bush II Administration. Ashcroft reduced the size of the BIA as a gimmick to “purge” the supposedly “liberal” judges — those, including me, who voted to uphold the legal rights of migrants against government overreach. In other words, our “transgression” was to stand up for due process and the individual rights of immigrants — actually “our job” as properly defined.
And, the downward spiral has continued. The DOJ Office of Inspector General (“OIG”) actually confirmed some of the Bush II improper Immigration Judge hires. But, they avoided dealing with the “BIA purge” that got the ball rolling downhill at EOIR! The GOP has been much more skillful than Dems in reshaping the Immigration Courts to their liking.
During the Trump Administration, putting clearly unqualified IJs who were some of rudest highest denying in America on the BIA was certainly “packing” and “stacking” EOIR against legitimate asylum seekers. Again, however, the OIG failed to “seal the deal” regarding this outrageous conduct that has undermined our entire justice system, fed uncontrollable backlog, and cost human lives that should and could have been saved.
Trump’s “court packing scheme” was no “small potatoes” matter, even if some in the Biden Administration are willfully blind to the continuing human rights and due process disaster at EOIR.
Removing two of the most glaringly unqualified Barr appointees in Arlington is a very modest step by AG Garland in the right direction. But, it’s going to take more, much more, decisive action to clean out the unqualified and the deadwood, bring in true expertise and judicial quality, and restore even a modicum of legitimacy and integrity at EOIR.
Reactionaries’ Predictably Absurdist Reaction
Meanwhile, even this long overdue, well justified, and all too minimal change at EOIR produced totally absurdist reactions from O’Brien and fellow nativists (including some still “hiding out in plain sight” at DOJ) which were picked up by the Washington Times (of course). Don’t believe a word of it!
The removal of guys like O’Brien and White — who never had any business being placed in “quasi-judicial” positions where they exercised life or death authority over refugees of color whose humanity and legal rights they refused to recognize, is just a beginning. The ethical, competence, and judicial attitude rot at EOIR goes much deeper.
Garland has been dilatory in “cleaning house” at EOIR. Vulnerable individuals who were wrongly rejected rather than properly protected have needlessly suffered, and probably even died, as a result. Poor Immigration Judging and lack of effective, correct, courageous, positive asylum guidance by the BIA has helped fuel a human rights disaster and rule of law collapse at the border!
Perhaps, at long last, Garland has slowly started fixing the unconscionable and unnecessary dysfunction andintentionally ingrained institutional bias at EOIR. But, I’ll believe it when I see it!
Keep Up The Pressure
In the meantime, it’s critical that NDPA members: 1) keep applying for EOIR judgeships; and 2) ratchet up the pressure and demand the removal of all unqualified Immigration Judges and Appellate Immigration Judges who are undermining sound scholarship, due process, fundamental fairness, and human dignity at EOIR!
Human rights matter! Individual rights matter! Immigrants’ rights matter! Good judges matter!
Today, we are surrounded by too many bad judges, at all levels of our justice system, who reject the first three in favor of warped far-right ideologies, dangerous myths, and disregard for human dignity. The existential battle to get good judges into our system has begun. And, Immigration Courts are the primary theater of action!
“Nexus? What nexus? These “just happen to be” women facing a little “random violence!” Amazing StoriesArtist Unknown, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
With credible testimony and harm that rises to the level of persecution for a woman in El Salvador, who was the victim multiple rapes, on its face, this should have been an easy grant for a competent IJ.
Essentially, this judge argues that harm rising to the level of persecution — multiple rapes — inflicted on a woman in El Salvador, where femicide and misogyny run rampant, has nothing to do with her being a woman. Such a conclusion is unlikely — some experts would say facially absurd!
Indeed, the IJ’s apparent view that multiple rapes had nothing to do with a gender-based protected ground of being a woman would be totally “off the wall” for any experienced asylum adjudicator who truly understood the well-documented nature of violence against women as a widespread form of persecution worldwide!
According to the UN Handbook for Determining Refugee Status, adjudicators should give credible applicants “the benefit of the doubt.” “It is therefore frequently necessary to give the applicant the benefit of the doubt.” (Par. 203). That’s not what this IJ did!
Also, in the remand order, the BIA specifically rejected the IJ’s finding that this gross harm to the respondent was “individualized” and “personalized” and therefore not a basis for an asylum claim — something not mentioned by the IJ in his “certification.”
Counsel for the applicant is well aware of this “better analysis” and could have argued it.But, in his snarky haste to prejudge and deny needed protection, this Houston IJ didn’t even give the parties a chance to participate in his “return to sender” (“certification”) nonsense.
A better functioning expert BIA would have long ago provided precedential guidance granting cases like this — adopting and amplifying the rationale of the IJ in the Honduran case.
Additionally, the BIA remand instructed the IJ to inquire of the DHS as to whether this victim of multiple rapes with no apparent criminal record or other adverse factors was and “enforcement priority” under applicable DHS guidelines — something that the IJ contemptuously and improperly did not do! Indeed,he didn’t seek any input from the parties despite being instructed to do so.
Unquestionably, being an El Salvadoran woman is a) immutable or fundamental to identity; b) highly particularized, and c) socially visible, as recognized by the Salvadoran government and everyone in El Salvador, thereby clearly qualifying as a “particular social group.”
There is also plenty of reliable evidence that El Salvador, like the rest of the Northern and Triangle Governments, is basically a failed state — something publicly admitted by some Administration officials, including Special Envoy to the Northern Triangle Ricardo Zuniga. https://apple.news/A9FpzsjRAQ2OoAyQZzHZm1A (“democracy, the rule of law and the security situation continue to deteriorate”). The Salvadoran government is neither willing nor able to provide a reasonable level of protection to women like this applicant. Indeed, there is likely sufficient evidence for a better BIA to establish a “rebuttable presumption of failure of state protection” in El Salvador and the rest of the Northern Triangle.
Temporary Appellate Immigration Judge Gabe Gonzalez, author of the remand, is one of the better BIA judges. But, his remand could have been even stronger. He could have reversed this IJ and granted asylum on this record. Why “beat around the bush” on grantable cases that are being mishandled by “chronically over-denying IJs” below? At this point, removal of this particular judge from the case would be more than justified. Cases like this certainly raise the legitimate question of why IJs who sit around inventing reasons to deny relief to those in need of protection are on the Immigration Bench in the first place. There are certainly better-qualified judicial choices — many of them located in Texas — who could bring legitimacy, quality, and efficiency to Garland’s dysfunctional courts!
“Bogus lack of nexus” is one of the most overused grounds for improper denials of protection by EOIR judges at all levels. It’s part of the “any reason to deny” approach enabled by EOIR’s current “anti-asylum culture” — one that was overtly encouraged and promoted by the Trump DOJ.
Inexplicably selecting Houston as one of the “test locations” for the new asylum regulations is “built to fail.” Without expert, positive guidance from qualified IJs in Houston (and the BIA) on granting asylum — something that this “denial centered court” simply doesn’t possess — there is every reason to believe that asylum seekers will not receive professional treatment or correct decisions from either the Asylum Office or the Immigration Court in Houston. And, relying on the BIA or, worse yet the “over the top” 5th Circuit,” to guarantee fairness and justice for asylum seekers? That’s a sick joke under current conditions!
8) Poorly reasoned, legally incorrect asylum denials and frivolous actions like the IJ’s “certification” in this case are a major factor in generating a 1.8 million case EOIR backlog and enabling a lawless, non-expert, anti-immigrant “culture of denial” at EOIR. Many grantable asylum cases languish in the backlog, are subjected to “Aimless Docket Reshuffling,” and then are wrongfully denied by poorly performing judges at both levels of EOIR.
9) EOIR suffers from poor leadership, a poorly performing BIA that overall lacks the expertise and courage to grant the large number of deserving asylum cases currently languishing in the EOIR backlog, and to set proper legal standards that will guide Immigration Judges and Asylum Officers in efficiently granting deserving cases at the first level of the system.
10) Garland should remove or reassign the “under-performers” and “non-performers” at EOIR and replace them with qualified experts committed to best practices and “guaranteeing fairness and due process for all” (EOIR’s now long-forgotten and dishonored mission).
11) Lives and the future of democracy are at stake here! America simply can’t afford the “institutionalizednonsense” still rampant at EOIR as illustrated by this case!
12) Also, EOIR’s performance in this cases is inconsistent with almost every sentence of the recent “LA Declaration.” Issuing statements of principle that are directly contradicted by your actual practices is a bad idea!
This has been a bad week for individual rights and particularly the rights and humanity of women in America. Garland can’t fix the out of control, “fringe-right,” Supremes’ majority. But, he can fix EOIR! And, that would be a long overdue and desperately needed first step toward fixing the entire broken and foundering Federal Court system. Start “at the retail level” with what you have the power to fix and work from there!
Anna Flagg is The Marshall Project’s senior data reporter.
Julia Preston is a contributing writer at The Marshall Project.
This article was published in partnership with The Marshall Project, a nonprofit news organization covering the U.S. criminal justice system. Sign up for their newsletters, and follow them on Twitter, Instagram and Facebook.
During their harrowing journey from Venezuela to the Texas border, the three Zaragoza children liked to imagine the refuge they would find when they reached the United States, a place where they would finally be free from hunger and police harassment and could simply be kids
Instead, when they reached the border in March, they were detained — dirty with mud from the Rio Grande and shivering with cold — in frigid cinder block cells. They spent sleepless nights on cement floors, packed in with dozens of other children under the glare of white lights, with agents in green uniforms shouting orders.
The siblings were booked by officers who asked questions they didn’t understand and were told to sign documents in English they couldn’t read. Even after their release three days later, they feared the U.S. would never be the haven they had longed for.
Since early 2017, one of every three people held in a Border Patrol facility was a minor, a far bigger share than has been reported before now, according to an analysis by The Marshall Project of previously unpublished official records. Out of almost 2 million people detained by the Border Patrol from February 2017 through June 2021, more than 650,000 were under 18, the analysis showed. More than 220,000 of those children, about one-third, were held for longer than 72 hours, the period established by federal court rulings and an anti-trafficking statute as a limit for border detention of children.
For most young migrants crossing without documents, the first stop in the U.S. is one of some 70 Border Patrol stations along the boundary line. The records reveal that detaining children and teenagers has become a major part of the Border Patrol’s everyday work. The records also show that conditions for minors have not significantly improved under President Joe Biden. While the numbers of kids in Border Patrol custody peaked in 2019 under former President Donald Trump, they rose again when Biden took office and have remained high.
Those numbers could surge to new highs when the Biden administration eventually lifts Title 42, a public health order that border authorities have used for more than two years to swiftly expel most unauthorized border crossers, including many children.
But the Border Patrol has resisted making changes to its facilities and practices to adapt to children, even while officials acknowledge that the conditions young people routinely face are often unsafe.
“A Border Patrol facility is no place for a child,” Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, the nation’s highest immigration official, has repeatedly said. However, even now, as authorities are scrambling to beef up enforcement and expand detention capacity in preparation for a post-Title 42 influx, the Border Patrol’s basic approach to kids remains the same: Just move them out of custody as fast as possible.
Without broader changes, many thousands of kids seeking protection will remain at risk for harsh, demeaning and sometimes dangerous treatment as their first experience of the United States.
. . . .
*************************************************
Read Anna’s and Julia’s complete, disturbing, infuriating report at the link. Unnecessary, immoral, inappropriate, and just plain stupid and evil! Did I mention stupid and evil?
Thanks, in part, to the Trump Administration’s policies of racist child abuse masquerading as “immigration enforcement,” there is a large body of recent, available, accessible empirical data on the devastating effects on children, families, society, and our world’s future of immigration enforcement that targets children, teens, and other vulnerable groups!
The “perps” of these repulsive policies will “check out” at some point in the future. The Biden Administration, which pledged to do better but disgracefully hasn’t delivered, also can’t and should not escape accountability.
The damage they are inflicting on future generations and the ability of our world to harness and utilize in a cooperative fashion the “human capital” needed for our planet’s and humanity’s survival is totally unacceptable! People of intelligence, courage, energy, innovation, and compassion must work together to stop this disgraceful abuse. Those chosen as responsible leaders and officials in the future must represent “our better angels!” 😇
While those of us in the “senior generation” who believe in social justice and a better future for humanity will continue the fight, our “time on the stage” is inexorably winding down. It will be up to the NDPA and the rest of the upcoming generation — in America and elsewhere — to decide what kind of world they want to live in and what they are willing to do, and sometimes sacrifice, to make it happen.
As I have said many times: “We can diminish ourselves as a nation, but it won’t stop human migration!”
It’s past time for a better, more realistic, more human, and “robustly humane” approach to human migration!😎 One that focuses on the long-term welfare of children and society, NOT short-term mythical “enforcement goals” or fears!
“Petitioner Mario Rajib Flores Molina (“Flores Molina”) participated in demonstrations against the ruling regime in his native Nicaragua, where he witnessed the murder of his friend and fellow protester by police and paramilitary members. Thereafter, he was publicly marked as a terrorist, threatened with torture and death by government operatives, and forced to flee his home. Flores Molina, however, was tracked down at his hideaway by armed paramilitary members, and was forced to flee for his life a second time. Flores Molina still was not safe. He was discovered, yet again, assaulted, and threatened with death by a government-aligned group. Flores Molina ultimately fled a third time— from Nicaragua altogether—out of fear for his safety. He eventually presented himself to authorities at the United States border and sought asylum and other relief. When Flores Molina sought asylum, withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) and the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) determined that his past experiences in Nicaragua did not rise to the level of persecution. They also determined that Flores Molina did not establish a well-founded fear of future persecution. The IJ and BIA denied all forms of relief and ordered Flores Molina’s removal to Nicaragua. Flores Molina petitions for review of the BIA’s denial of his appeal of the IJ’s decision, as well as of the BIA’s subsequent denial of his motion to reopen proceedings. Because the record compels a finding that Flores Molina’s past experiences constitute persecution and because the BIA erred in its analysis of the other issues, we grant the first petition and remand for further proceedings. Accordingly, we dismiss the second petition as moot.
[Hats off to Mary-Christine Sungaila (argued) and Joshua R. Ostrer, Buchalter APC, Irvine, California; Paula M. Mitchell, Attorney; Tina Kuang (argued) and Natalie Kalbakian (argued), Certified Law Students, Loyola Law School!]
*******************************
EOIR’s deadly, incorrect approach to sending refugees back to face persecution is legally incorrect, factually erroneous, and morally bankrupt. But, it does have one huge fan. Recently appointed Trump Ninth Circuit Judge Lawrence VanDyke:
In the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), Congress codified the highly deferential substantial evidence test and established what should be our court’s guiding star in the review of immigration decisions: that “administrative findings of fact are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” INA § 242(b)(4)(B) (codified as 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (emphasis added)). Congress later amended the INA by passing the REAL ID Act, further reining in our role and discretion as a reviewing court and stripping federal courts of jurisdiction to hear certain immigration claims. See Nasrallah v. Barr, 140 S. Ct. 1683, 1698 (2020) (Thomas, J., dissenting). Over time, however, this court’s decisions have chipped away at these statutory standards—broadening the scope and standard of our review far beyond the limited and deferential posture that Congress unmistakably set out in the INA. See id.
To properly apply our deferential standard of review, we are supposed to scour the record to answer a single question: could any reasonable adjudicator have agreed with the agency’s result, or does the record as a whole compel a different conclusion? See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992) (explaining that substantial evidence review requires that we review “the record considered as a whole” and reverse the agency only if no reasonable factfinder could agree with its conclusion); see also Prasad v. INS, 47 F.3d 336, 339 (9th Cir. 1995) (describing Elias-Zacarias as “the touchstone” and “definitive statement of ‘substantial evidence’ in the context of . . . factual determinations in asylum cases”). On its face, this is an exceptionally deferential standard of review. But there’s more.
“Scour the record” to defeat asylum claims that should have been granted below, huh?That clearly defective, biased, one-sided approach is “due process and fundamental fairness” for a “person” under our Constitution? Or maybe asylum seekers of color aren’t “persons” to VanDyke and his righty cronies? That’s how VanDyke would like the Constitution applied if his life were at stake?
He’d like to use legal mumbo-jumbo to allow refugees to have their lives ended or threatened by non-expert decision makers making it up as the go along to deny meritorious claims. Under his “standard of review,” judicial review would be no review at all. Just scour the record for any obscure reason to deny asylum or, failing that, just make one up. Doesn’t matter as long as the individual loses and gets removed! That’s pretty much what too many EOIR judges and BIA “panels” (which can be a single judge) are already doing. Why add another layer of intellectual dishonesty, moral corruption, and absence of judicial ethics to the mess?
Mr. Flores-Molina is not buy any means the only one subjected to Judge VanDyke’s loony right-wing legal nonsense.You can “meet” the judge right here:
“The Rude Trump Judge Who’s Writing the Most Bonkers Opinions in America.”
One might legitimately ask why already vulnerable asylum seekers and their courageous lawyers are being subjected to such judicial abuse at all levels of our system. Why doesn’t Garland just appoint “real, expert, fair EOIR Judges” who will do the right thing at the “retail level” without having to enter the “appellate circus” 🤡 that Trump and the GOP have created?
“[T]he BIA upheld an adverse credibility determination that the IJ reached in part based on an inconsistency in Reyes’s story that simply was not an inconsistency. Nor can we say that absent the adverse credibility finding, Reyes’s CAT claim would necessarily fail. We therefore must vacate the BIA’s ruling affirming the IJ’s denial of that claim. … Reyes’s petition for review is granted, the ruling of the BIA is vacated, and we remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
Here’s a key sentence from the preamble to the L.A. Declaration on Migration and Protection:
We are committed to protecting the safety, dignity, human rights, and fundamental freedoms of all migrants, refugees, asylum seekers, and displaced and stateless persons regardless of their migratory status.
So I’d like to know how the following fit within our solemn commitment to “protecting the safety, dignity, human rights, and fundamental freedoms of all migrants, refugees, asylum seekers?”
Falsely finding that systematic assaults, death threats, being driven from your home, and being tracked down after fleeing, carried out by a Nicaraguan Government so repressive that it wasn’t even invited to the L.A. Conference, do not constitute persecution; and
Inventing a bogus inconsistency in an asylum seeker’s testimony and using it to wrongfully deny asylum.
Clearly they don’t! And, this kind of official misconduct goes on somewhere at EOIR on both levels every day! Just ask any experienced asylum practitioner! So, why hasn’t Garland replaced the EOIR judges who are not qualified to be deciding asylum claims with readily available expert talent?
Asylum seekers face systematically unfair treatment by “judges” who serve at Garland’s pleasure. Many of those judges, particularly at the BIA, were appointed or “elevated” by Garland’s openly xenophobic, virulently anti-asylum predecessors during the Trump regime. Yet, inexplicably, they continue to inflict bad decisions and sloppy, legally defective, morally vapid work on the most vulnerable? Why?
What if we had an expert, due-process-oriented Immigration Court that uniformly interpreted asylum law correctly and actually granted much-needed and well-deserved protection? What if asylum seekers didn’t have to enter the “Circuit Court crap shoot” — or deal with bad “no review is judicial review” judges like Judge VanDyke — to get life-saving justice? What if the rule of law and human rights were honored and advanced in Immigration Court rather than being mocked and disparaged? What if Immigration Courts modeled good judicial behavior instead of operating as a shockingly dysfunctional parody of due process, fundamental fairness, and best practices?
Wouldn’t it be better for everyone?
Perhaps there is some modest movement in the right direction. I’ve received reports from at least two Immigration Courts that unqualified Trump-era appointees have been removed over over the past week. That’s a start! But, it will take lots more “removals or reassignments” and a complete “redo” of the mal-functioning BIA to get due process, expertise, fundamental fairness, and best (as opposed to worst) judicial practices back on track at EOIR!
JOHNSON, ACTING DIRECTOR OF U. S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, ET AL. v. ARTEAGA-MARTINEZ
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 19–896. Argued January 11, 2022—Decided June 13, 2022
Respondent Antonio Arteaga-Martinez is a citizen of Mexico who was re- moved in July 2012 and reentered the United States in September 2012. U. S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) issued a warrant for Arteaga-Martinez’s arrest in 2018. ICE reinstated Arte- aga-Martinez’s earlier removal order and detained him pursuant to its authority under the Immigration and Nationality Act. See 8 U. S. C. §1231(a). Arteaga-Martinez applied for withholding of removal under §1231(b)(3), as well as relief under regulations implementing the Con- vention Against Torture, based on his fear that he would be persecuted or tortured if he returned to Mexico. An asylum officer determined he had established a reasonable fear of persecution or torture, and the Department of Homeland Security referred him for withholding-only proceedings before an immigration judge.
After being detained for four months, Arteaga-Martinez filed a peti- tion for a writ of habeas corpus in District Court challenging, on both statutory and constitutional grounds, his continued detention without a bond hearing. The Government conceded that Arteaga-Martinez would be entitled to a bond hearing after six months of detention based on circuit precedent holding that a noncitizen facing prolonged deten- tion under §1231(a)(6) is entitled by statute to a bond hearing before an immigration judge and must be released unless the Government establishes, by clear and convincing evidence, that the noncitizen poses a risk of flight or a danger to the community. The District Court granted relief on Arteaga-Martinez’s statutory claim and ordered the Government to provide Arteaga-Martinez a bond hearing. The Third Circuit summarily affirmed. At the bond hearing, the Immigration
2 JOHNSON v. ARTEAGA-MARTINEZ Syllabus
Judge considered Arteaga-Martinez’s flight risk and dangerousness and ultimately authorized his release pending resolution of his appli- cation for withholding of removal.
Held: Section 1231(a)(6) does not require the Government to provide noncitizens detained for six months with bond hearings in which the Government bears the burden of proving, by clear and convincing evi- dence, that a noncitizen poses a flight risk or a danger to the commu- nity. Pp. 4–10.
(a) Section 1231(a)(6) cannot be read to require the hearing proce- dures imposed below. After the entry of a final order of removal against a noncitizen, the Government generally must secure the noncitizen’s removal during a 90-day removal period, during which the Government “shall” detain the noncitizen. 8 U. S. C. §§1231(a)(1), (2). Beyond the removal period, §1231(a)(6) defines four categories of noncitizens who “may be detained . . . and, if released, shall be subject to [certain] terms of supervision.” There is no plausible construction of the text of §1231(a)(6) that requires the Government to provide bond hearings with the procedures mandated by the Third Circuit. The statute says nothing about bond hearings before immigration judges or burdens of proof, nor does it provide any other indication that such procedures are required. Faithfully applying precedent, the Court cannot discern the bond hearing procedures required below from §1231(a)(6)’s text. Pp. 4–6.
(b) Arteaga-Martinez argues that §1231(a)(6)’s references to flight risk, dangerousness, and terms of supervision, support the relief or- dered below. Similarly, respondents in the companion case, see Gar- land v. Gonzalez, 594 U. S. ___, analogize the text of §1231(a)(6) to that of 8 U. S. C. §1226(a), noting that noncitizens detained under §1226(a) have long received bond hearings at the outset of detention. Assuming without deciding that an express statutory reference to “bond” (as in §1226(a)) might be read to require an initial bond hearing, §1231(a)(6) contains no such reference, and §1231(a)(6)’s oblique reference to terms of supervision does not suffice. The parties agree that the Gov- ernment possesses discretion to provide bond hearings under §1231(a)(6) or otherwise, but this Court cannot say the statute re- quires them.
Finally, Arteaga-Martinez argues that Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U. S. 678, which identified ambiguity in §1231(a)(6)’s permissive language, supports a view that §1231(a)(6) implicitly incorporates the specific bond hearing requirements and procedures imposed by the Court of Appeals. In Zadvydas, this Court construed §1231(a)(6) “in light of the Constitution’s demands” and determined that §1231(a)(6) “does not permit indefinite detention” but instead “limits an alien’s post-re- moval-period detention to a period reasonably necessary to bring about
Cite as: 596 U. S. ____ (2022) 3 Syllabus
that alien’s removal from the United States.” 533 U. S., at 689. The bond hearing requirements articulated by the Third Circuit, however, reach substantially beyond the limitation on detention authority Zadvydas recognized. Zadvydas does not require, and Jennings v. Ro- driguez, 583 U. S. ___, does not permit, the Third Circuit’s application of the canon of constitutional avoidance. Pp. 6–8.
(c) Constitutional challenges to prolonged detention under §1231(a)(6) were not addressed below, in part because those courts read §1231(a)(6) to require a bond hearing. Arteaga-Martinez’s alter- native theory that he is presumptively entitled to release under Zadvydas also was not addressed below. The Court leaves these argu- ments for the lower courts to consider in the first instance. See Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U. S. 709, 718, n. 7. Pp. 8–10.
Reversed and remanded.
SOTOMAYOR, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and THOMAS, ALITO, KAGAN, GORSUCH, KAVANAUGH, and BARRETT, JJ., joined. THOMAS, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which GORSUCH, J., joined as to Part I. BREYER, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part.
***********************************
I suppose the only good news here is:
The Constitutional issue remains viable (but, don’t hold your breath); and
Nobody else joined Thomas’s astounding, anti-historical, anti-
American bogus arguments on stripping immigrants of all due process rights and leaving their fate entirely in the hands of politicos.
Yet, the fact that an individual with views as outrageous, legally and morally wrong, and deeply anti-American as Thomas sits on our highest Court says something is seriously wrong with our justice system and our democracy.
Also outrageously, Thomas called for the overruling of Zadvydas v. Davis, an important case that prevents the Government from subjecting certain deportable, but unremovable, individuals to lifetime “civil imprisonment and punishment” in the “New American Gulag.”
Tyler Mattiace, an Americas division researcher with Human Rights Watch who closely followed the declaration’s drafting process, said that this type of multilateral approach is long overdue to assist “the millions of people all across the continent who have fled their homes either because of violence or persecution or human rights abuses.”
“They often face serious abuses that are many times the result of the fact that government either tries to prevent them from seeking protection or make[s] it difficult for them to obtain legal status or implement enforcement strategies to lead to them taking dangerous migration routes where they suffer abuses,” he said.
He said the declaration is a departure from what’s happening on the ground at the U.S.-Mexico border, where immigration enforcement officials keep expelling asylum seekers under Title 42, a COVID-19-related health measure implemented under former President Trump and maintained by Biden. The measure is tied up in the courts.
“The declaration is a major step forward, but it could be meaningless unless Biden immediately does everything possible to restore access to asylum at the U.S. border and ends other abuses, other anti-immigration policies,” Mattiace continued. “The U.S. also has to stop focusing immigration policy on efforts to outsource immigration enforcement to other governments in the region.”
I like to be optimistic. Nevertheless, color me skeptical on this.
The ultimate success of this type of initiative will depend on courageous, enlightened, bold, dynamic leadership from the U.S. That’s not currently in the cards.
Right now, the U.S. is in violation of various international migration agreements, domestic law, and the Due Process Clause of our Constitution. Our legal asylum, refugee, Immigration Court, and adjudication of legal status systems are a dysfunctional mess. Proposals for necessary, practical reforms have been ignored by the Administration, blocked by Trump Federal Judges, or not gotten off the ground. That’s NOT a “leadership posture” that is going to inspire and persuade other nations.
For example, the much ballyhooed “Asylum Regulation Reforms” are moving forward in a flawed “Beta test mode,” with no leadership, no practical precedents, incompetent judicial review, and a few dumb “in your face” features (like proposing to relocate asylum applicants to cities in Texas, where the EOIR asylum denial rates approach 100%, a move apparently specifically intended to spur xenophobic reactions from Texas Gov. Greg Abbott).
Here’s one of the “key commitments” from the U.S. taken from the above White House “Fact Sheet”:
The United States will commit to resettle 20,000 refugees from the Americas during Fiscal Years 2023 to 2024. This represents a three-fold increase from this year and reflects the Biden Administration’s strong commitment to welcoming refugees. The protection needs are significant in the Western Hemisphere. More than 5 million Venezuelans have been displaced in the Americas, and hundreds of thousands more people from other countries across Latin America and the Caribbean are also displaced [across borders]. As the United States scales up its resettlement operations in the Americas, we call on other governments to do the same.
20,000 over two years? (Or is it 20,000 per year over two years — doesn’t really matter?) Are you kidding me? That wouldn’t begin to address the current situation on the Southern Border. Indeed, it wouldn’t even cover all the individuals already determined to have a “credible fear” of persecution who have been waiting, some for years, for processing under the cruel, illegal, and ineptly administered “Remain in Mexico” program.
As Tyler Mattaice from HRW observes, the problem involves millions of individuals. Yet, we’re talking about accepting a few thousand more as a solution? Not going to cut it!
I’d also be mildly surprised if the U.S. even fulfills this exceptionally modest commitment. Over the past few years, the U.S. hasn’t even filled it’s “historically meager quotas.”And, the once proud U.S. Refugee Program, which relied heavily on NGOs for success, has been shredded — intentionally left in tatters by the Trump regime. If the Biden Administration has been able to rebuild it to the necessary size and operational strength, they have kept it a secret from most of us!
A realistic “low ball” starting number for Western Hemisphere refugees would be more like 100,000 in each of the next two years! Even this well might not be enough.
Moreover, a competent Administration could actually have processed and admitted thousands of qualified refugees waiting in Mexico over the past 18 months, thereby at least beginning to reduce pressure on the border and the asylum adjudication system.
Whether folks want to admit it or not, we are going to experience substantially more immigration from the Americas. It could be mostly legal or mostly extralegal — that’s our choice.
But, no totally bogus Title 42 extension, wall, prison, family separation, cruelty, punitive law, prosecution, militarization of the border, racist rhetoric, “don’t come” message in three languages, or Federalist Society Federal Judge is going to halt the natural flow of human migration. Nor can migration be largely “outsourced” to smaller countries in the Hemisphere.
International cooperation is great! That’s what the 1951 Geneva Refugee Convention and subsequent 1967 Protocol are all about. But, logically, we can expect other countries to “proportionalize” their responses to what they see the U.S. doing.
Realistically, is Colombia going to want to help us resettle Venezuelan refugees waiting at our Southern Border? Don’t count on it!
If you “add up” all of the numbers and commitments from all the countries contained in the “Fact Sheet,” it wouldn’t even come close to solving the current flow at our Southern Border, let alone make a dent in the Hemisphere-wide movement of individuals.
Dealing with the “root causes” of migration is also a great idea, if hardly a new one. Problem is, many of the “sending countries,” Northern Triangle, Haiti, Venezuela, are functionally failed states. Unless someone has a “silver bullet solution” addressing this sad fact — and nobody has one to date — this isn’t going to happen in the short run. It’s a decades if not generations long project. Worthy, to be sure. But not a way of effectively addressing today’s realities and migration pressures.
So, I see the same “aura of unreality” and unwillingness to face the facts hanging over the LA Declaration that has crippled our immigration and human rights policies over the past several decades. And, as refugee situations have continued to get worse, so has the “dream world” inhabited by those countries fortunate to be prosperous and stable enough to be “refugee destinations” become more pronounced and increasingly untethered to reality and humanity.
American Justice takes a grim turn as righty Trump judges take over immigration enforcement! Reaper Image: Hernan Fednan, Creative Commons LicenseCamilo Montoya-Galvez CBS Journalist
Judge voids Biden administration restrictions on immigration arrests and deportations
BY CAMILO MONTOYA-GALVEZ
UPDATED ON: JUNE 11, 2022 / 10:35 AM / CBS NEWS
A federal judge in Texas on Friday granted a request by Republican-led states to throw out Biden administration rules that placed limits on whom federal immigration agents should seek to arrest and deport from the U.S., declaring the directive unlawful.
U.S. District Court Judge Drew Tipton said Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas did not have the authority to issue a September 2021 memo that directed immigration officials to focus on arresting immigrants deemed to threaten public safety or national security and migrants who recently crossed a U.S. border illegally.
Tipton, an appointee of former President Donald Trump, agreed to void Mayorkas’ memo, which was challenged by Republican officials in Texas and Louisiana. But he paused his ruling for seven days to give the Biden administration time to appeal.
Friday’s ruling is the latest setback in federal court for the Biden administration’s immigration agenda, which has faced more than a dozen lawsuits by Texas and other Republican-controlled states.
Federal judges appointed by Mr. Trump have blocked the Biden administration from ending a policy that requires asylum-seekers to wait for their court hearings in Mexico and a pandemic-era measure that allows border officials to quickly expel migrants. Tipton himself halted an 100-day moratorium on deportations during Mr. Biden’s first month in office, as well as an earlier directive that limited immigration arrests.
. . . .
***********************
Read the entire report at the link. Many thanks to Nolan Rappaport, Contributor to The Hill, for sending this my way!
So, righty U.S. District Judges and GOP State AG’s have figured out a way to take over basic immigration enforcement from the Feds. I assume that they will “waive” any claims to immunity from suits against themselves as the inevitable human rights and legal abuses caused by unbridled, uncontrolled, and often irrational and wasteful, DHS Enforcement pile up. These judges and AGs have now become part of the problem. We’ll see how they solve it.
I also find it interesting that righty U.S. District Judges, part of a court system that only just barely manages to keep its head above water because the vast, vast majority of Federal crimes and violations are never fully investigated or prosecuted, have such unbridled enthusiasm for unaccountable, unlimited immigration enforcement.
Part of this right-wing “judicial scam” is to grotesquely exaggerate the “harm” to states and to minimize or ignore the well-documented legal, human rights, and practical problems with “out of control” immigration enforcement that was intentionally used by the Trump regime to “terrorize” ethnic communities. These communities contain “mixed populations” of citizens, legal residents, those living here with legal permission to work, and the undocumented.
I also find it notable that the so-called “plenary power” over immigration appears to have passed from the AWOL Congress and the fumbling Executive, where it historically resided, to the Federal Judiciary, often those serving at the lowest levels —U.S. District Judges, the BIA, and Immigration Judges (although to be fair, the latter two groups are Executive Branch employees operating in a dysfunctional system that often appears to have no rhyme, reason, or defined mission.)
This is an unusual development in the right-wing conservative world of (bogus) “judicial restraint” to be sure. I guess the doctrine of “judicial restraint” is limited to stopping liberal judges from correcting egregious legal mistakes that ruin individual human lives. That’s sure how it looks to me!
The “Tipton Gang” might have a harder time taking over the dysfunctional, out of control, and backlogged Immigration Courts where the results of poor enforcement decisions often go to die in the 1.8 million plus backlog.
The Immigration Courts could prove more of a challenge because Republicans have stuffed the law with various jurisdiction-limiting and jurisdiction-stripping provisions intended to make it difficult or impossible to challenge individual immigration enforcement decisions outside the context of a petition to review a final order of removal in the Courts of Appeals.
Arguing “no jurisdiction/no review” in immigration cases is one thing that DOJ attorneys are very good at and, more often than not, successful.
Otherwise, Garland’s DOJ legal team has been less than stellar at defending changes meant to undo portions of the Trump regime’s misguided, often White Nationalist inspired, anti-immigrant agenda. Perhaps it’s time for the Biden Administration to “reshuffle the deck.” Maybe they should bring in some of the progressive litigation experts who succeeded in blocking some of the worst parts of the Trump-Miller assault on the rule of law and humanity to aggressively defend the job of restoring at least some modicum of due process, fundamental fairness, and rationality to the broken and reeling immigration enforcement system.
OBSERVATION: The Biden Administration has been in office for 17 months. During that time the could have established a realistic, robust refugee program, working with UNHCR and NGOs, to screen and process those waiting in Mexico.
Those who qualified would be admitted in legal status, with permanent work authorization, on their way to green cards and eventual citizenship. No CBP, no Asylum Office Backlogs, no backlogged Immigration Courts, no arbitrary, capricious, wildly inconsistent decisions from EOIR and the 5th Circuit, no expensive and inhumane detention, no ankle bracelets. Those legally admitted would also be eligible immediately for refugee resettlement assistance! America is something like 11 million workers “short” — the answer is staring us in the face!See, e.g., https://www.newsweek.com/us-hits-cap-temporary-work-visas-employers-seek-11-million-workers-1713948
Instead, we get secrecy, fumbling, bumbling, and more “
”gimmicks” guaranteed to stir up litigation and controversy without solving problems, facing reality, and harnessing the great power of human migration.
Also, why on earth would the Administration relocate migrants to Texas — a move guaranteed to generate more racist posturing and pushback from Abbott? Why not work with states, localities, NGOs, religious, and legal aid groups in many localities prepared to welcome immigrants and where their skills could be used in the job market?
It’s also worth noting that the so-called “record numbers” at the border often count the same person over and over — a phenomenon aggravated by arbitrary use of Title 42 to return many individuals without proper legal screening.
