Equal Protection – Page 26 – immigrationcourtside.com

🏴‍☠️“ANY REASON TO DENY”🤮 — GARLAND BIA’S BIASED, ANTI-ASYLUM JURISPRUDENCE CONTINUES TO GARNER PUSHBACK FROM ARTICLE III’s — Dem AG Needs To Pay Attention To Assault On Democracy, Rule Of Law Taking Place In HIS Dysfunctional “Courts!” — Garland Reportedly Plans More Backlog-Building, Due-Process-Denying “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” (“ADR”)!

“Lady Injustice” has found a home at Garland’s dysfunctional EOIR!
Public Realm

Here are about a week’s worth of reports from Dan Kowalski at LexisNexis Immigration Community on the continuing disintegration of justice in “Garland’s Courts:”

https://www.lexisnexis.com/LegalNewsRoom/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/ca3-on-credibility-cat-njoka-v-garland

CA3 on Credibility, CAT: Njoka v. Garland

Njoka v. Garland (unpub.)

“[W]e conclude that the Board erred in affirming the IJ’s denial of CAT protection. The Board’s sole justification for that affirmance was the adverse credibility finding. The Board suggested that, under Fifth Circuit precedent, an adverse credibility finding defeats a claim for CAT protection. See Ghotra v. Whitaker, 912 F.3d 284, 289 (5th Cir. 2019). But under the law of this circuit, an adverse credibility finding is “not determinative” of a claim for CAT protection.1 Ibarra Chevez v. Garland, 31 F.4th 279, 288 (4th Cir. 2022); see Camara v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 361, 371 (4th Cir. 2004) (“Because there is no subjective component for granting relief under the CAT, the adverse credibility determination on which the IJ relied to deny [the petitioner’s] asylum claim would not necessarily defeat her CAT claim.”). The Board was thus obliged to also consider Njoka’s independent evidence in the context of his claim for CAT protection.2 See Camara, 378 F.3d at 371-72. Because the Board did not fulfill that duty, we will grant the petition for review in part and remand for the Board to do so.”

[Hats off to Rajan O. Dhungana!]

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

https://www.lexisnexis.com/LegalNewsRoom/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/ca9-on-interpol-red-notice-cat-gonzalez-castillo-v-garland

CA9 on INTERPOL Red Notice, CAT: Gonzalez-Castillo v. Garland

Gonzalez-Castillo v. Garland

“Petitioner Oscar Gonzalez-Castillo was found to be ineligible for withholding of removal by an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) because there were “serious reasons to believe that [he] committed a serious nonpolitical crime” in his home country of El Salvador. 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(B)(iii). The government only presented one piece of evidence supporting application of the serious nonpolitical crime bar, however. It was an INTERPOL Red Notice, described at greater length below. The Red Notice accused Gonzalez-Castillo of committing “strikes” on behalf of the gang MS13, allegedly committed on a date when Gonzalez-Castillo was in the United States rather than in El Salvador, based on the date of entry found by the IJ. We conclude that substantial evidence does not support the IJ’s finding, affirmed by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), that Gonzalez-Castillo is ineligible for withholding of removal based on the serious nonpolitical crime bar. This court has long interpreted “serious reasons to believe,” the standard set by the statute for the serious nonpolitical crime bar, as equivalent to probable cause. In this case, the INTERPOL Red Notice cannot, by itself, establish probable cause. The allocation of the burden of proof in immigration proceedings does not change this outcome. We accordingly grant Gonzalez-Castillo’s petition for review in part and remand to the agency to consider whether Gonzalez-Castillo is eligible for withholding of removal. We also grant the petition as to his claim under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), because the record reflects that the agency failed to consider all of Gonzalez-Castillo’s testimony and statements about the harms he suffered in El Salvador at the hands of state actors, so we remand for more complete consideration of the CAT claim. We are not persuaded, however, by arguments in the petition for review challenging the evaluation of evidence that was discussed or by the argument that that the IJ failed sufficiently to develop the record. We dismiss the petition in part as to his claim for asylum, because the arguments Gonzalez-Castillo raises on appeal with respect to the one-year bar for asylum relief were not exhausted before the BIA.”

[Hats off to Amalia Wille (argued) and Judah Lakin, Attorneys; Nicole Conrad and Joya Manjur, Certified Law Students; University of California, Berkeley School of Law, Berkeley, California; for Petitioner, and John P. Elwood, Kaitlin Konkel, and Sean A. Mirski, Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP, Washington, D.C., for Amicus Curiae Fair Trials Americas!]

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

https://www.lexisnexis.com/LegalNewsRoom/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/ca9-on-credibility-changed-conditions-sikhs-in-india—singh-v-garland

CA9 on Credibility, Changed Conditions (Sikhs in India) – Singh v. Garland

Singh v. Garland

“We have held that the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) may rely on a prior adverse credibility determination to deny a motion to reopen if that earlier finding factually undercuts the petitioner’s new argument. Greenwood v. Garland, 36 F.4th 1232, 1234 (9th Cir. 2022). But that does not mean the BIA can deny a motion to reopen just because that motion touches upon the same claim or subject matter as the previous adverse credibility finding. Here, Rupinder Singh submitted new evidence about religious persecution independent of the prior adverse finding. The BIA thus erred in holding that the earlier adverse credibility finding barred Singh’s motion to reopen. The BIA also erroneously concluded that Singh failed to show that the conditions for Sikhs in India changed qualitatively since his last hearing. Clear evidence shows the contrary. We thus grant the petition and remand.”

[Hats off to Garish Sarin!]

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

https://www.lexisnexis.com/LegalNewsRoom/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/ca1-on-abuse-of-discretion-rivera-medrano-v-garland

CA1 on Abuse of Discretion: Rivera-Medrano v. Garland

Rivera-Medrano v. Garland

“Karen Elizabeth Rivera-Medrano, a citizen and native of El Salvador, has petitioned for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming the denial of her request for withholding of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3) and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.16(c)–1208.18, and denying her motion to remand this case to the immigration judge (“IJ”) based on newly obtained evidence. We conclude that the BIA abused its discretion in denying her motion to remand. Accordingly, we grant the petition for review, vacate, and remand for further proceedings. … The BIA’s oversight is particularly significant here, where the credibility determination rested considerably on minor inconsistencies in what the IJ concluded was an otherwise credible presentation.”

[Hats off to SangYeob Kim, Gilles Bissonnette and Henry Klementowicz!]

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

President Biden is correct that Trump and his MAGA GOP are the biggest threat to American democracy. But, “Dred Scottification,” systemic denial of due process, and racial injustice still running rampant in Immigration “Courts” under a Democratic Administration is right up there as an existential threat!

Additionally, I’ve been getting reports this week from practitioners in various locations that EOIR is embarking on yet another mindless, ill-informed round of “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” — guaranteed to increase backlogs, decrease effective representation, and spew out more unprofessional and unjust results.

Once more, this inane initiative appears to have been undertaken with neither advance input from, nor sufficient notice to, those most affected — respondents and their attorneys! Same old, same old! This must stop!

Enough, already! Why aren’t all the “movers and shakers” of American law lined up in front of Garland’s Office demanding that he end the assault on our Constitution, common sense, good government, and human decency that unfolds every day in the disgracefully dysfunctional parody of a “court” system that is his sole responsibility!

The bar and NGO communities have to fight Garland’s assault on due process and good government with every available tool!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

00-02-22

DAN RATHER & ELLIOT KIRSHNER: TRUMP’S VERSI0N OF A “WEST WING NUDIST CAMP” — CHECK YOUR DECENCY @ THE DOOR, ENTERING AN “ETHICS FREE ZONE!” — “The naked self-interest was so rampant that Trump’s West Wing could be considered a nudist colony where decency was shed instead of clothing.” 🏴‍☠️

Clothing/Ethics Optional in MAGALAND — Ethics Prohibited Beyond This Point! “The naked self-interest was so rampant that Trump’s West Wing could be considered a nudist colony where decency was shed instead of clothing.” CREATIVE COMMONS.

They Knew. They All Knew.

Cowardice, Cynicism, Contempt, Rationalizations

Dan Rather and Elliot Kirschner

6 hr ago

1,403

476

Documents seized from Donald Trump’s Florida home (credit: Department of Justice)

Sometimes we write a lot of words on Steady. Today will be an exception. Because for all that there is to say, for all that needs to be said, for all that an accounting for history requires we say, the general sentiments are quite simple:

They knew. They all knew.

It was clear to anyone who had an ounce of appreciation for what the job of the presidency entails, to anyone who respected the constitutional order of our government, to anyone who worried about the health and safety of this nation, to anyone with a moral compass, to anyone who prizes the common sense of purpose that great leaders can summon, that Donald J. Trump had no business anywhere near the presidency.

Now, as he melts down in the face of a serious criminal investigation, as we see pictures of how he stored classified material and his utter disregard for our nation’s most sensitive secrets, as we are left to wonder what he was up to and what damage was done, we should recognize that we would not be where we are today without his enablers, apologists, and hangers-on.

They heralded his outrageousness in a chorus of sycophancy.
They feted his vileness.
They viciously attacked those who pointed out the obvious, that Trump was mentally, emotionally, intellectually, morally, and constitutionally unfit for his office.

And who are they? They are the Republican politicians, the so-called serious ones who expressed their concerns in private even as they used Trump to achieve their desired tax cuts and judges. They are the members of his administration — senior and junior — who jockeyed to maximize their career benefit at the expense of doing the necessary work for the American people. They are the lawyers who twisted themselves into pretzels to try to legalize his inherent lawlessness. They are the media personalities who saw Trump as a printing press for their accrual of wealth and power. They are the capitalists who put corporate earnings ahead of the well-being of the nation.

While Trump’s voters were primed with a toxic stew of hatred, bigotry, and divisiveness, the small cabal playing the inside game didn’t bother with the MAGA hats. They were too busy trading access for favors. The naked self-interest was so rampant that Trump’s West Wing could be considered a nudist colony where decency was shed instead of clothing.

But make no mistake…

In their cowardice, they knew.
In their cynicism, they knew.
In their contempt, they knew.
In their rationalizations, they knew.
In their acquittals of his conduct, even for impeachment, they knew.

They knew when they could have stopped him — before he became president, and once he was president.

But they didn’t stop him. And with their inaction, they encouraged him.

As the Trump bubble begins to pop, all these people who knew what he was all along will likely scurry like cockroaches when the lights go on. They will make all sorts of excuses for their complicity. They will gaslight, lie, and try to rewrite history. You can already see it in many of their so-called tell-all books. Except what they are telling is only the story they want people to hear. It is not the truth.

The truth is that they don’t dare say what we all know. They knew.

Note: If you are not already a subscriber to our Steady newsletter, please consider doing so. And we always appreciate you sharing our content with others and leaving your thoughts in the comments.

***********************
Throughout history, despots and would-be despots have surrounded themselves with motley crews of sycophants, toadies, and retainers. Trump has excelled at it!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

09-01-22

🤯HASTE MAKES WASTE — DEFENDING IT’S WORSE: IJ’s Due Process Errors During 4-Min. Hearing 11 Years Ago Touch Off 4 Years Of Litigation Ending In Another Crushing Rebuke Of Garland’s DOJ By 4th Cir! — As Judge Wayne Iskra said, “This system is broken!”

U.S. v. Fernandez-Sanchez, 4th Cir., 08-25-22, published

https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/204061.P.pdf

WYNN, Circuit Judge:

Bonifacio Fernandez Sanchez, a Mexican citizen who migrated to the United States

illegally as a minor in 2006, was deported in 2011 following a four-minute removal hearing. During that hearing, the immigration judge neglected to advise Fernandez Sanchez about his eligibility for voluntary departure or inform him of his right to appeal. Then, in his written summary order, the immigration judge indicated that Fernandez Sanchez had waived his right to appeal—even though this was never discussed during the hearing.

In the years since, Fernandez Sanchez has returned to the United States and been deported multiple times. Upon discovering him in the country once again in 2018, the Government opted to arrest and charge him with illegal reentry in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). Fernandez Sanchez moved to dismiss his indictment, arguing that the 2011 deportation order underlying his § 1326 charge was invalid.

The district court agreed, finding that the immigration judge’s failure to advise Fernandez Sanchez regarding his eligibility for voluntary departure rendered his 2011 removal fundamentally unfair. However, while this appeal was pending, we effectively rejected the district court’s reasoning in United States v. Herrera-Pagoada, 14 F.4th 311 (4th Cir. 2021). Fernandez Sanchez nevertheless maintains that the district court’s decision must be affirmed on an alternative basis: that the immigration judge’s denial of his right to appeal also prejudiced him. We agree, and therefore affirm the dismissal of Fernandez Sanchez’s indictment.

. . . .

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

To me, it sounds like the 4th Circuit having “buyer’s remorse” about their questionable decision in United States v. Herrera-Pagoada, There, the court found that an IJ’s erroneous failure to advise a respondent of the availability of pre-hearing voluntary departure (“VD”) was not a constitutional violation because there was no constitutional right to be advised of potential relief from deportation, even though a DOJ regulation required it! Huh?

But, here the court finds that the IJ’s improper failure to advise of the availability of prehearing VD combined with his failure to advise of appeal rights WAS a due process violation. Why? Because, if properly advised, the individual probably would have appealed, been successful, received a remand from the BIA, and then received VD from the IJ, thus avoiding deportation. Huh?

The problem here is that as currently staffed and operated by the Executive, EOIR is one “walking, talking violation of due process.” If Congress won’t solve the problem by enacting a long overdue Article I Immigration Court, then the Article IIIs need to “take the bull by the horns!”

They should place this entire, festering conflict of interest, and hotbed of substandard quasi-judicial performance OUT of the control of the nation’s Chief Prosecutor, the AG. Until Congress acts to establish a constitutionally compliant system, EOIR should be placed under the supervision of an independent, expert “Special Master” qualified to fairly administer one of the nation’s most important, yet totally dysfunctional and highly unfair, court systems!

Interestingly, much of the court’s reasoning is based on the premise that on appeal the BIA would have corrected the IJ’s clear errors. But, as those who follow Federal immigration litigation are aware, the BIA’s “assembly line” appellate review, sensitivity to due process, and willingness to apply precedent favoring the respondent are often as slipshod and driven by undue haste as this 4-minute IJ hearing.

Ironically, the IJ who mishandled this case is generally regarded as one of the “best in the business” — experienced, knowledgeable, fair, and sensitive to the rights of individuals coming before him. So, while this screw-up might be an aberration for this particular IJ, it’s clearly not a systemic rarity.

In the haste makes waste, hopelessly backlogged, “anything goes” “world of EOIR” goofs like this are likely happening every hour of every day that the Immigration Courts are in session. But, since many folks are unrepresented or underrepresented, some mistakes are simply buried or deported.

Indeed, I had my share of 4-minute (or less) “hearings” during 13 years on the bench. Inevitably, I made some mistakes — some were caught, some inevitably weren’t. Hopefully, I learned from the ones brought to my attention. With “Master Calendars” often consisting of upwards of 50 cases in a 3-hour “slot” in a courtroom overflowing with humanity — and the need to provide stressed out interpreters court clerks, counsel, and me with suitable “breaks” — you can do the math!

Once I did a 100 case Televideo Master in Ohio where 1) I had no files; 2) the ICE ACC who had been detailed to the hearing location had no files; and 3) the interpreter spoke a language other than the one of the majority of the respondents on the calendar. Afterwards, I told the then Chief IJ that I had spent the day in “Clown Court!’” 🤡 He was not amused.

To quote my friend and former colleague retired Judge Wayne Iskra: “This system is broken!” “Numbers,” “final orders,” “expediency,” and “productivity” to satisfy bureaucratic enforcement goals or to support Government myths about immigrants drive the EOIR system. Due process, fundamental fairness, compliance with the statute and regulations, and meaningful analysis are not this dysfunctional system’s focus. But, they must be!

Clearly, “dedicated dockets,” regulatory time frames, form orders, remote “Adjudication Centers,” and other “designed to fail” gimmicks tried under Garland are NOT going to solve the chronic quality-control and due process problems plaguing EOIR!

In other words, EOIR as currently constituted and “operated” is a “due process sham!” The 4th Circuit and other Article IIIs need to “dig deeper” into the glaring constitutional and professional quality problems plaguing Garland’s broken Immigration Courts! If neither he nor Congress will solve the problems, somebody must!

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

08-26-22

😰IMMIGRATION 101: SUMMER GRADES POSTED: GARLAND, BIA, & OIL GET “F’s” FROM 1ST (FRENTESCU TEST) & 3RD (CATEGORICAL TEST) CIRS! — Meanwhile, NDPA Litigators Get “A+’s”

Dunce Cap — With lives on the line, the BIA’s performance leaves something to be desired.
PHOTO: Creative Commons

From Dor v. Garland, 1st Cir.

http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/20-1694P-01A.pdf

Given our familiarity with the record at this point, we are prompted to note that it is not at all apparent to us how an application of the Frentescu factors to Dor’s case would lead to a particularly-serious-crime determination. For instance, consider again the June 1 incident — the BIA relied on a police officer’s assessment that Dor had a “large amount” of marijuana on him, but this on-the-scene appraisal by an officer is largely irrelevant to an immigration-law-driven determination that a crime is particularly serious pursuant to the guiding statutes, especially when the actual amount (25 grams, a small amount) is available. See Matter of Castro Rodriguez, 25 I. & N. at 703; Moncrieffe, 569 U.S. at 194 n.7. Consider, too, that while the BIA identified the type of sentence imposed as a Frentescu factor but never mentioned (or weighed) Dor’s sentences, we observe that

– 23 –

Dor received lenient sentences with respect to both offenses (a two-year probation and a one-year suspended sentence that never went into effect since Dor completed a violation-free probation period).

As to Dor’s involvement in trafficking as part of the calculus here, based on the amount in question, and again on the face of this record, this characterization seems ambitious. The May 20 offense officers observed Dor sell “20 bucks[‘ worth]” of marijuana to another individual; the June 1 incident revealed Dor had in his possession a digital scale, a large amount of U.S. currency, and 25 grams of marijuana.

Bottom line: The BIA’s particularly-serious-crime conclusion is devoid of any actual application of the Frentescu factors, and even if we considered it a solid application of the law to Dor’s case, we still do not have a sufficiently rational explanation of the BIA’s particularly-serious-crime conclusion as to Dor’s minor marijuana offenses, and a rational explanation is necessary to ensure Dor was appropriately precluded from obtaining the humanitarian relief he seeks.

DEAN’S LIST: A+‘s go to :

Edward Crane, with whom Philip L. Torrey, Crimmigration Clinic, Harvard Law School, Shaiba Rather, Lena Melillo, and Katie Quigley, Law Student Advocates, Crimmigration Clinic, Harvard Law School, were on brief, for petitioner.

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

From Vurimindi v. AG, 3rd Cir.

https://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/191848p.pdf

In sum, the Government has identified no evidence that supports divisibility. The statute, the case law, and the available state court documents all support the opposite conclusion.11 Because Pennsylvania’s stalking statute is indivisible as to intent, we apply the categorical approach. And under the categorical approach, Section 2709.1(a)(1), which sweeps more broadly than its generic counterpart in the INA, is not a categorical match. Vurimindi’s offense of conviction therefore does not qualify as a removable offense.

DEAN’S LIST: A+‘s go to DLA Piper’s:

Courtney Gilligan Saleski

https://www.dlapiper.com/en/us/people/s/saleski-courtney-gilligan/

and

Rachel A.H. Horton

https://www.dlapiper.com/en/us/people/h/horton-rachel/

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

Interestingly, the BIA’s defective decision in Dor involved improper reliance on police reports. This comes just as a new NIJC report shows how improper reliance by EOIR on police reports means that “racism and inequities in the criminal legal system and policing carry over into the immigration system.” https://default.salsalabs.org/T59538212-844f-4d6d-ade1-0428b5eef400/e9c83407-de3b-4bcf-a318-704cbcd599a2.

The Dor case also presents a familiarly outrageous characteristic of American immigration policy — still going strong in the era of Biden, Harris, and Garland — “Dred Scottification” — that is systemic injustice — directed at Black Haitian refugees. Indeed, Dor is lucky to be in the “system” at all — no matter how biased and poorly functioning. Following in the footsteps of the overtly racist and xenophobic Trump Administration, under Biden more than 25,000 potential Haitian refugees have been arbitrarily returned under Title 42 with no process at all — not even the “veneer of due process” provided by EOIR! See https://www.wola.org/2022/05/weekly-u-s-mexico-border-update-title-42-ruling-family-self-separations-more-drownings-haiti-expulsion-flights/.

The cases described above have been pending for three and six years, respectively. EOIR presents the worst of both worlds: lengthy delays and backlogs without due process and careful expert consideration of the issues involved. Injustice at a high cost, in more ways than one!

After trips to three levels of our broken immigration justice system, countless hours of legal time, and untold trauma and uncertainty for the individuals subjected to this dysfunctional system, these cases remain far from final resolutions. Now they go back into Garland’s incredible nearly two million case backlog!

Sometimes, the BIA uses this as an opportunity to invent a new “bogus theory of denial.” Other times, the files get lost or reassigned. In other words, they are subject to EOIR’s “specialty:” “Aimless Docket Reshuffling!”

Garland doesn’t lose any sleep over it because: 1) not his life on hold, 2) not his time and money being wasted, and 3) he isn’t paying attention! This is unacceptable public service! Plain and simple! And, there appear to be few, if any, real consequences for anybody except the individuals whose lives and futures are at stake and their (often pro bono) lawyers!

How completely “out of touch” is Garland? He has put bogus, “Mickey Mouse” time limits on new asylum adjudications. Doing incompetent and biased adjudications faster isn’t going to solve the problem. It will actually make backlogs worse and more importantly, increase the number of defective asylum denials — already at beyond unacceptable levels.

You can’t fix a broken system by making it “pedal faster!” Why, after all these years, Garland doesn’t understand that “fundamental rule of Goverment bureaucracy” is totally beyond me!

The obvious solution: Put emphasis on getting these cases right at the first instance. That means “canning” the “anti-immigrant default and assembly line process” and getting expert IJs willing to rule in favor of individuals where appropriate and a revamped BIA of expert judges willing to issue precedents favorable to individuals and insure that IJs properly follow them. It also means a BIA who will follow precedent even where it doesn’t produce a “DHS Enforcement-friendly result.”

Additionally, “lose” OIL’s often-dilatory or quasi-frivolous arguments designed to cover up EOIR failures and block justice! (HINT: The Assistant AG, Civil, one of the key sub-cabinet positions at DOJ, and OIL’s “boss,” remains unfilled approaching the halfway point of the Biden Administration.) This system is broken from top to bottom, including the litigation “strategy” that attempts to shield unfair and legally incorrect EOIR decisions from critical substantive review by Article III judges independent from the Executive.

Yes, Garland recently has “pruned” some of the deadwood at EOIR and brought in a few widely-respected expert “real judges.” That’s some progress.

But, he’s barely scratched the surface of the anti-immigrant culture, “haste makes waste” atmosphere, and shoddy decision making at EOIR and the poorly conceived litigation strategies at OIL! In particular, the dysfunctional DOJ immigration bureaucracy glaringly lacks inspired progressive due-process-committed, human-rights-focused, racial-justice-sensitive leadership willing to stand up for individual rights against Government overreach and abuses!

Of course, the “real” solution is to get the Immigration Courts out of DOJ and into an independent Article I structure. But, unfortunately, that isn’t going to happen tomorrow.

In the meantime, there is plenty that Garland could be doing to improve due process and professionalism and to “pave the way” for the eventual transition to Article I. The more dysfunctional Garland makes his system the more difficult and rocky that transition will be.

Garland isn’t getting the job done! Everyone who cares about the future of our nation and the rule of law should be asking why and demanding better from Garland and his “asleep at the switch” lieutenants!

High-powered lawyers like Courtney Saleski, National Co-Chair of DLA’s White Collar Practice, who successfully litigated Vurimindi in the 3rd Circuit have some “juice.” They need to team up with the ABA, FBA, AILA, ACLU, Human Rights First, NIJC, the NAACP, Catholic Conference, HIAS, and other human rights and civil rights groups and “camp on Garland’s doorstep” until he “pulls the plug” on his dysfunctional, unprofessional EOIR and brings in due-process-focused competence! How many resources and human lives can our nation afford to waste on Garland’s EOIR disgrace?

Alfred E. Neumann

Individuals whose lives are subject to systemic injustice and their hard-working, often pro bono, attorneys might “dissent” from Garland’s dilatory approach to long overdue due process reforms and key personnel changes in his stunningly dysfunctional Immigration Courts!
PHOTO: Wikipedia Commons

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

08-24-22

🇺🇸⚖️🗽AN AMERICAN LEGAL HERO LEAVES BEHIND LEGACY OF COURAGE, SCHOLARSHIP, INNOVATION, COMPASSION: A HEARTFELT TRIBUTE TO HON. WILLIAM VAN WYKE BY HON. “SIR JEFFREY” CHASE!

Judge William Van Wyke (D – Aug. 14, 2022)
U.S. Immigration Judge (Ret.)
Member Round Table of Former Immigration Judges
“A True Due Process Visionary”
PHOTO: the world.com

https://www.jeffreyschase.com/blog/2022/8/22/william-van-wyke-2

William Van Wyke

On August 14, the immigration law community lost a true giant. William Van Wyke, a former Immigration Judge, advocate, and scholar unexpectedly passed away.

How does one capture William’s essence? I’m going to attempt to do so through his own words (in bold), taken from both public sources and emails he wrote to his former Immigration Judge colleagues in conversations after his retirement from the bench.

“The fearful and crude ideas get put into practice by reflex; compassionate and thoughtful ones wait around until everyone agrees with them. – William” – April 1, 2021 email.

My first real impression of William came from reading his 1992 article “A New Perspective on ‘Well-Founded Fear,” which appeared in AILA’s conference handbook that year.1 In very simple, easy to understand language, WIlliam turned the existing method of asylum adjudication on its head, using an easy to apply concept that correctly brought the process in line with international law. It was absolutely brilliant. Thirty years later, we are still waiting around for the government agencies overseeing asylum adjudication to agree with it.

Prior to authoring that article, WIlliam had spent nine years pioneering the representation of Central American refugees before the Immigration Courts in Washington and Baltimore, beginning this work when the 1980 Refugee Act was still new.

“’We have a law that was intended to be generous, that, when it is well understood, would cover many cases — many, many more cases — than those that are granted,’ Van Wyke says.” – Quote in Eyder Peralta, “Why A Single Question Decides The Fates Of Central American Migrants,” NPR, Feb. 25, 2016.

In one 1990 case in which his clients were denied asylum, William succeeded in persuading the Immigration Judge to rule that those clients could not be deported to their native El Salvador as long as the civil war continued there. William achieved this result by arguing customary international law, and analogizing a refugee’s flight from war to the customary practice of allowing a ship in distress the right to enter a port without authorization. The Washington Post quoted an immigration law authority who called the decision “one of the most impressive victories ever in an immigration court.” The decision was the subject of a law review article the following year.3

“My own experience is that people with anti-immigrant sentiments, whether in INS, DHS, EOIR or anywhere else, have always cringed at the idea of an IJ giving an unrepresented person sufficient information to make genuinely informed decisions… I remember a talk by Janet Reno at one of our conferences 20 years ago when she mentioned ‘compassion’ 12 times — I counted them. But try to actually be compassionate in specific cases in a legally appropriate and consequential way and you’re accused of overstepping judicial bounds. Didn’t I know that compassion is supposed to be a decoration, not something that actually helps the people before us?” – Email, Sept. 18, 2019

William’s appointment as an Immigration Judge in March, 1995 sent a message of hope to the immigration law community. On the bench, William maintained his methodical, detail-oriented approach. Early in his career on the bench, William reported that the INS trial attorneys had given him the nickname “the Van Wyck Expressway,” a reference to the similarly named NYC roadway that most know from traveling to or from JFK Airport. When William pointed out to one of those INS attorneys that his courtroom actually moved quite slowly, the attorney responded: “So does the Van Wyck Expressway.”

While we were both on the bench, I heard that William had developed a highly unique seating plan for his courtroom, and asked him about it one day. He showed it to me, explaining in detail his deeply thought out reasoning for the placement of every chair in the room. I don’t remember the specifics so many years later, but it was a perfect example of the strong sense of responsibility WIlliam felt towards all who set foot in his courtroom.

That sense of responsibility became even more heightened when WIlliam transferred from the court in New York to what he used to call “plain old York,” meaning the detained immigration court in York, Pennsylvania, located inside of the York County Prison.4

In one case he heard there, a non-citizen sat in jail awaiting approval of a green card petition filed by his U.S. citizen wife that could have saved him from deportation. But approval of visa petitions is not something an immigration judge can do; that power lies with the same government agency that was seeking the non-citizen’s deportation (at the time, that was INS; it is now DHS). After continuing the case multiple times to allow for a decision on the visa petition, WIlliam was repeatedly informed by INS’s attorney that no action had been taken. The INS attorney further refused to inquire as to when a decision might be expected, and insisted that rather than wait, the non-citizen should be ordered deported.

Although at the time such action required the consent of both parties, WIlliam took the bold step of administratively closing the case over the government’s objection, writing a detailed decision explaining the necessity of doing so under the facts presented.

Remarkably, rather than appeal William’s denial to the Board of Immigration Appeals, the INS attorney privately and most improperly contacted the Chief Immigration Judge by phone, who in turn improperly reopened the matter and placed it back on for hearing.

In a decision that should be required reading for all EOIR management, WIlliam fired back at both INS and his own higher-ups, stating that it would be a “manifest injustice” to deport the respondent “simply because INS has not performed its Congressionally-mandated adjudication in a timely fashion.”

Detailing the extensive efforts he had undertaken to get INS to adjudicate the visa petition, WIlliam further noted that “[t]he asymmetry of ordering one party, but asking, begging, pleading and cajoling the other party hearing after hearing without effect, can only diminish the court as an authoritative and independent arbiter in the public’s eyes.”

WIlliam took the INS and the Office of the Chief Immigration Judge to task for their unethical ex parte communication, and the latter’s unauthorized action in response to such conversation:

The Chief Immigration Judge is an administrative and policy officer without appellate or other legal authority to overrule the immigration judge’s procedural decisions in the case, see 8 CFR 3.9, 3.1(b), and ethical rules require the Chief Immigration Judge as well as immigration judges to refrain from taking action in a specific case following an ex parte communication about the case by one of the parties.

William further noted that his “decision to close the case temporarily was not a mere administrative one subject to OCIJ’s general direction, but a legal decision made as an integral part of the adjudicatory process in an individual case.” William cautioned that the private communication, which denied opposing counsel the right to be heard, protected INS from having to defend its position in an appeal to the BIA, thus giving

a procedural and tactical advantage to the INS by demonstrating to respondent, rightly or wrongly, that an INS call to the Office of the Chief Immigration Judge may be enough to undo what the immigration judge does in open court, while encouraging the INS to continue to seek results from the OCIJ privately that it might not be able to get from the BIA publicly.

William concluded:

Unable to establish or enforce the standards of conduct that this judge believes must apply, he will recuse himself from further consideration of the case. In the court’s view, only the OCIJ, which went beyond mere administrative action to direct a particular course of action in this case, is in a position to cure the appearance of impropriety its intervention has produced. The court will therefore refer this case back to the Chief Immigration Judge for whatever action he may deem fit and appropriate.

The extraordinary nature of the matter was reported in an article in the New York Times.5

In retirement, William was a member of our Round Table that filed an amicus brief in an important case in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, Velasco-Lopez v. Decker. The case challenged the practice of requiring a detained non-citizen to themself prove that they would not pose a flight risk or danger to the community in order to warrant their release from detention. In its precedent decision, the circuit court agreed that such burden should be borne by the government, and not the detainee.

I share here part of William’s response to the decision

In this decision, the important starting point is that due process applies to every person in their relation to the power of government. This principle humanizes immigrant “others” and shows that when Big Government (i.e. the kind that wields power in favor of the already rich and already powerful) treads on anyone, everyone’s rights are in jeopardy. The principles relevant in bond decisions –– having ties to our communities and not being a danger to others –– are strong values that most of us honor and share, whether recent immigrants or earlier-generation immigrants, and should make all of us resist limitations on our freedom by the coercive power of jailing people.

I don’t know if they still staple those little yellow cards with red print onto files of jailed immigrants that used to say, “RUSH: detained at government expense.” Years ago when I was at York I wrote to… EOIR General Counsel, to ask if we couldn’t change those cards to be more humane, to say, “RUSH: person deprived of liberty,” or at least more neutral: “person deprived of liberty at government expense.” A change, of course, was “unnecessary” because everyone already knew the immigrants’ hardship, even if our boss’s reminder focused only on the government’s. Maybe they’ll change the cards now to remind adjudicators: “Rush: this person should not be deprived of freedom unless the government quickly decides he/she lacks any community ties AND is dangerous.” I won’t hold my breath, though.

I will conclude by saying that just recently, I set about researching a narrow legal issue that I would imagine most Immigration Judges would resolve in a few pages at most. I came across a decision that William had written on the topic shortly before his retirement from the bench that was exactly what I was looking for. It was 39 pages single spaced, and of course, absolutely brilliant.

On behalf of your fellow judges, and of all who have appeared in Immigration Court, thank you, William, for being you, for never lowering your standards. You restored the hope of so many in the power of law to make a positive difference in people’s lives, and so often showed that there was a way forward when we thought there was none. You are already greatly missed.

Notes:

William Van Wyke, “A New Perspective on Well-Founded Fear,” 1992-93 Immigration & Nationality Handbook(AILA, 1992) at 497.

Carlos Sanchez, “Lawyer’s Persistence Helps Reshape Immigration Law,” Washington Post, March 31, 1991.

Cookson, II, Charles W. “In Re Santos: Extending the Right of Non-Return to Refugees of Civil Wars.” American University International Law Review 7, no. 1 (1991): 145-171.

The York Immigration Court was closed on July 31, 2021.

Eric Schmitt, “Two Judges Do Battle in an Immigration Case,” NYT, June 21, 2001.

978 F.3d 842 (2d Cir. 2020). The author recognized the outstanding representation in this matter by the petitioner’s counsel, Julie Dona (who argued the case) and Aadhithi Padmanabhan of the Legal Aid Society, and to Souvik Saha of Wilmer Hale for his remarkable assistance in drafting our amicus brief.

AUGUST 22, 2022

NEXT

Can Keathley Be Applied More Broadly?

ARCHIVE

Blog | Archive | Press and Interviews | Calendar | Contact

Sign up with your email address to receive news and updates.

SIGN UP

We respect your privacy.

<img src=”https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/593d84191e5b6ca18cb547ee/1576527959952-C9MO449EII0SH3V1X9M7/Screen+Shot+2019-12-16+at+3.24.24+PM.png” alt=”Screen Shot 2019-12-16 at 3.24.24 PM.png” />

Jeffrey S. Chase is an immigration lawyer in New York City. Jeffrey is a former Immigration Judge and Senior Legal Advisor at the Board of Immigration Appeals.He is the founder of the Round Table of Former Immigration Judges, which was awarded AILA’s 2019 Advocacy Award.Jeffrey is also a past recipient of AILA’s Pro Bono Award.He sits on the Board of Directors of the Association of Deportation Defense Attorneys, and Central American Legal Assistance.

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

My first real impression of William came from reading his 1992 article “A New Perspective on ‘Well-Founded Fear,” which appeared in AILA’s conference handbook that year.1 In very simple, easy to understand language, WIlliam turned the existing method of asylum adjudication on its head, using an easy to apply concept that correctly brought the process in line with international law. It was absolutely brilliant. Thirty years later, we are still waiting around for the government agencies overseeing asylum adjudication to agree with it.

. . . .

William spent those years trying to persuade the government of the proper application of the new law. However, INS and the newly created EOIR remained largely mired in the Cold War-influenced view of asylum that preceded the 1980 changes. And under that Cold War approach, Central Americans fleeing pro-U.S. regimes had nearly no chance to obtain asylum

A 1991 Washington Post article documented how this institutional resistance only caused William to be more persistent and creative in his legal approach.2

Kind of says it all about the entrenched, continuing, institutional resistance at EOIR to correct, generous, fair, practical interpretations of asylum law and other immigration and human rights laws! That’s what helps generate uncontrollable backlogs and brings our entire justice system into disrepute! Worst of all, it threatens the lives of those denied justice by its legal misinterpretations and mis-applications of the law!

What does it say about an institution that no longer touts or actively pursues its noble one-time-vision of “through teamwork and innovation, be the world’s best administrative tribunals, guaranteeing fairness and due process for all?” Ironically, William’s life and achievements embody that now-defunct “EOIR vision.” But, nobody in “management” actually acknowledged that during his often-difficult tenure there.

Encouragingly, a number of Garland’s recent judicial appointments are distinguished, expert, widely respected “practical scholars” in the “Van Wyke mold.” Unfortunately, it’s going to take immediate and dramatic changes in moribund, uninspired EOIR leadership and in the “any reason to deny” BIA to overcome the “Cold War mentality,” anti-immigrant bias, assembly line procedures, “institutionalized go along to get alongism,” and unacceptably poor performance of EOIR. Right now, it’s still drag on our entire justice system that puts the future of our nation at risk!

No wonder we already miss William, his outspoken courage, and his wisdom so much. There is a void in our justice system right now where fierce due-process-focused, creative, humane, practical scholars should be leading the way in our institutions of justice!

It’s up to the “new generation” of the NDPA to break down the walls of official resistance by Garland and other short-sighted bureaucrats and politicos who lack the vision to make racial justice, immigrant justice, and equal justice for all realities rather than disingenuous unfulfilled rhetoric! Guys, your lives and those of your descendants might depend on it! So, dial up the pressure on the intransigents, many of them in the Biden Administration you helped to elect and who expect your support and votes again this Fall!

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

08-24-22

💨 FROM THE ROCKIES & THE HIGH PLAINS, THE WINDS OF TRUTH BLOW AWAY THE BS & SHOW HOW GARLAND’S BIA & THEIR SCOFFLAW INTERPRETATIONS HAVE BUILT BACKLOGS — “This petition for review represents the latest chapter in the Government’s ongoing efforts to dig itself out of a hole it placed itself in,” says 10th Cir. in Estrada-Corona v. Garland!

Kangaroos — It’s easy guys, we just do what DHS Enforcement and our political bosses want and we can keep hopping around forever! Backlogs! Ha, the bigger the bigger they get, the more “secure” our jobs!
https://www.flickr.com/photos/rasputin243/
Creative Commons License

Dan Kowalski reports for LexisNexis Immigration Community:

CA10 Stop-Time Victory: Estrada-Cardona v. Garland

Estrada-Cardona v. Garland

“The Attorney General may allow otherwise-removable aliens to remain in the country if, among other things, they have accrued 10 years of continuous physical presence in the United States. We call this form of discretionary relief “cancellation of removal.” Under the statutory “stop-time rule,” the period of continuous physical presence ends (A) when the alien is served with a notice to appear, or (B) when the alien has committed certain criminal offenses. 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(d)(1). Nothing more, nothing less. In the latest installment of “What Triggers the Stop-Time Rule?” the Government asks us to hold that the issuance of a final order of removal is a third, extra-statutory event sufficient to stop the clock. The plain language of the statute supports no such conclusion. Declining to read ambiguity into a statute where none exists, we hold a final order of removal does not stop the accrual of continuous physical presence. … This petition for review represents the latest chapter in the Government’s ongoing efforts to dig itself out of a hole it placed itself in. … After years of statutory short-circuiting, the Government finds itself in the uncomfortable position of being wrong. … Because Congress unambiguously replaced the final-order rule with the stop-time rule, the BIA’s application of the final-order rule was legal error. Petitioner continued to accrue continuous physical presence after the immigration judge issued the order to voluntarily depart. … [W]e hold that because the BIA seems to have considered change-in-the-law equitable tolling arguments before, the BIA abused its discretion in this case by failing to “announce its decision in terms sufficient to enable a reviewing court to perceive that it has heard and thought and not merely reacted.” … We cannot discern why the BIA found no extraordinary circumstance which would warrant equitable tolling, so the BIA abused its discretion. … On remand, the Government is free to argue that Petitioner should not be granted sua sponte reopening or equitable tolling. This opinion is expressly limited to two conclusions. First, the BIA’s application of the final-order rule was legal error. Second, the BIA’s explanations for denying sua sponte reopening and equitable tolling constituted, as a procedural matter, an abuse of discretion. For the reasons stated herein, we GRANT the petition for review and REMAND to the BIA for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.”

[Hats way off to Jennifer M. Smith and Mark Barr!]

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

“For years, if not decades, the Government sent aliens “notices to appear” which failed to include all the information required by § 1229(a)—like the “time and place at which the proceedings will be held.” 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a)(1)(G)(i). For countless aliens, the only obstacle to being eligible for cancellation of removal was the Government’s position that a time-and-place-to-be-set notice to appear still triggers the stop-time rule. In Pereira, the Supreme Court rejected the Government’s atextual interpretation and held a “putative notice to appear that fails to designate the specific time or place of the [alien]’s removal proceedings is not a ‘notice to appear under section 1229(a),’ and so does not trigger the stop-time rule.” 138 S. Ct. at 2113–14. In one fell swoop, the Supreme Court cleared the way for many aliens, like Petitioner, to seek cancellation of removal.

But the Government quickly erected a new hurdle.”

The BIA could and should have prevented this debacle by insisting from the git go that the statute (“the law”) be followed by DHS and EOIR. Instead, at the behest of DHS, and perhaps to prevent tens of thousands of long-term residents who had received statutorily defective notices from seeking relief, the BIA misinterpreted the statute time after time.

The real stupidity here is that the requirement the BIA was pretzeling itself to avoid was hardly “rocket science” or burdensome: Serve a notice containing the actual date, time, and place of the hearing! One might ask what purpose is served by a so-called “Notice to Appear” that doesn’t notify the individual of where and when to appear?

Moreover, when the BIA started issuing their incorrect precedents, DHS and EOIR had a then-existing system — called “interactive scheduling” — that would have complied with the statute. The problem was that the “powers that be” at DOJ, EOIR, and DHS consciously decided NOT to use that system.

The apparent reason was the belief that complying with the law might have interfered with DHS arbitrarily filling the Immigration Courts with large “numbers” of cases to meet various enforcement “priorities” set from “on high.” Rather than doing its job, the BIA chose time and again to “go along to get along” with this nonsense!

Over and over, EOIR lets bogus DHS or Administration “enforcement priorities” or “improperly using the legal system as a deterrent” subvert due process, fundamental fairness, best interpretations, and practical solutions!

And, although Biden and Harris campaigned on a platform of bringing the rule of law and rationality back to immigration, the absurdity and illegality continues under Garland. He even sent OIL in to waste the time of the Article IIIs by mounting essentially frivolous defenses to the BIA’s malfeasance.

Perhaps worst of all, in addition to being denied timely justice, individuals and their lawyers dealing with Garland’s dysfunctional EOIR often are falsely blamed for causing the backlogs that are the primary result of DHS/EOIR incompetence and political meddling by unqualified bureaucrats. The latter don’t understand what really happens in Immigration Court and how to properly, fairly, and efficiently administer such a large and important court system.

The backlogs will continue to grow and the US justice system will crater because of bad immigration decisions generating skyrocketing litigation. Garland must replace the BIA with real expert appellate judges committed to fair, humane, and reasonable interpretations of immigration and human rights laws — without regard to whether those correct interpretations will be “career enhancing” or “career preserving.” In other words, judges who put justice before personal or institutional “survival.” Competent, expert, independent-minded judicial administrators with the guts to keep DOJ and DHS bureaucratic meddlers “at arm’s length” are also required.

Folks who could do the job are out here. But, that’s the problem! They belong in the key judicial judicial and administrative positions at EOIR where they can put any end to the due-process denying, backlog building dysfunction.

EOIR Clown Show Must Go T-Shirt — “EOIR Clown Show Must Go” T-Shirt Custom Design Concept

Everyone committed to the future of American justice should be asking themselves why Garland hasn’t recruited and hired the right “Team Due Process” for EOIR! American justice can’t afford more of Garland’s inept, “go along to get along,” “afraid to say no to DHS enforcement” BIA and the rest of the EOIR “Deadly Clown Show” largely left over from past, failed Administrations!

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

08-20-21

⚖️🗽 RAPPAPORT & STOCK URGE ACTION ON AFGHAN REFUGEES!

Margaret Stock, Esquire
Anchorage, Alaska
PHOTO: Law firm

Nolan sends this summary of his latest on The Hill:

Afghans who helped us deserve better immigration treatment

Nolan Rappaport, opinion contributor

As the Afghan government and military fell to the Taliban after U.S. troops were withdrawn from Afghanistan, the U.S. hastily evacuated American citizens and 76,000 Afghans who had helped the U.S. in its 20-year war against the Taliban.

It is a year later now, and most of the Afghan evacuees still have temporary immigration status, which means that they may be subject to removal when their status expires. This isn’t right. We should be taking better care of them.

It is more than just an obligation to people who put themselves in peril to help the United States.

According to Margaret D. Stock, a retired military officer, “Correcting for this inaction is a matter of national security — in future conflicts, why would anyone risk their lives by serving alongside our soldiers or providing critical translation services if the U.S. can’t keep our promises to them when we depart?”

It wouldn’t be taking this long to meet the needs of the Afghans if our immigration system weren’t overwhelmed to the point of being dysfunctional.

Parole

The evacuees who did not have entry documents had to request humanitarian parole, which permits undocumented migrants to be admitted to the United States temporarily for urgent humanitarian or significant public benefit reasons.

Approximately 70,192 of them were paroled into the United States between July 30, 2021, and Nov. 15, 2021.

Permanent status

Congress has enacted a series of legislative provisions which enable certain Afghan nationals to become lawful permanent residents (LPRs) on the basis of a Special Immigrant Visa (SIV).

Section 1059 of the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal 2006, authorizes giving SIVs to Afghans who worked with the U.S. Armed Forces or under Chief of Mission (COM) authority as a translator or an interpreter for at least a year.

To be eligible for this special immigrant classification, the principal applicant must obtain a favorable written recommendation from the COM or a general or flag officer in the relevant Armed Forces unit.

Afghans who were employed by or on behalf of the U.S. government or the International security Assistance Force in Afghanistan may be eligible for SIV status under section 602(b) of the Afghan Allies Protection Act of 2009.

Roadblock

As of July 18, 2022, there were 74,274 principal applicants in the SIV pipeline. This number does not include spouses and children. And the applications have to be processed by USCIS, which is experiencing a backlog crisis.

Read more at https://thehill.com/opinion/immigration/3605096-afghans-who-helped-us-deserve-better-immigration-treatment/

Published originally on The Hill.

Nolan Rappaport was detailed to the House Judiciary Committee as an Executive Branch Immigration Law Expert for three years. He subsequently served as an immigration counsel for the Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security and Claims for four years. Prior to working on the Judiciary Committee, he wrote decisions for the Board of Immigration Appeals for 20 years. Follow him athttps://www.blogger.com/blog/posts/2306123393080132994

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

Read Nolan’s full op-ed at the link.

When experts like Nolan and Margaret are saying the same thing, everyone should listen and act accordingly!

In addition to fair and equitable treatment for our allies, we must resume and expand fair and humane treatment for all refugees, including, most important, those seeking legal refuge at our borders. Many of them actually come from broken countries where the the U.S. has left a “large footprint,” like Haiti and Latin America.

It is long past time to make the legal requirement set forth in the Refugee Act of 1980 — any individual in the US or arriving at our border may apply for asylum “irrespective of status” — a reality rather than a cruel hoax. Contrary to some disgracefully wrong-headed court decisions, this statutory requirement implicitly requires that opportunity to be in full compliance with due process.

Otherwise, to state the obvious, it’s no opportunity at all — just a legal charade. Unfortunately, that is what much of our broken, dysfunctional, and unjust asylum and refugee systems look like now!

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

08-19-22

🔌👎🏽GARLAND MUST “PULL THE PLUG” ON HIS FAILED APPELLATE COURT — BIA “DEFIES” EVIDENCE TO MOCK DUE PROCESS & DENY ASYLUM, SAYS 3RD CIR! — OGEE v. AG (Ghana)

Read the 3rd Circuit’s (unfortunately) unpublished decision here:

https://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/202423np.pdf

Key quote:

The IJ credited Bimpong’s testimony, and the BIA did not disturb this finding. Yet the BIA concluded that Bimpong’s persecution was a personal land dispute that lacked any nexus to his membership in the Ashanti tribe. In doing so, the BIA deferred to the IJ’s conclusion that “the record is devoid of any evidence indicating that the [Enzema] Tribe targeted the applicant because of membership in the Ashanti Tribe.” AR 97 (emphasis added). That conclusion defies the record, which is replete with evidence that Bimpong’s tribal affiliation was a central reason for his persecution. See, e.g., AR 157, 162-63, 167–68, 185, 596, 598. For example, Bimpong testified that members of

the Enzema “did not want the land that [he] possessed to be owned by non-members of 4

the Enzema tribe,” AR 596, and that he “was a target of persecution because of [an] intertribal dispute between the Enzema tribe and Ashanti tribe.” AR 598.

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

Typical BIA BS prejudged, form denial “boilerplate.” “Devoid of evidence” — gimmie a break! We tried (obviously unsuccessfully) to eliminate this type of non-analytical nonsense several decades ago. It’s indicative of a totally broken system that is unfair and biased against migrants! Why is Garland allowing this continuing systemic injustice?

Demand that Garland replace his inept, unprofessional, unconstitutional, “Trump holdover” BIA with real judges who are experts in immigration, asylum, human rights, and fully committed to due process and fundamental fairness!

To quote my good friend and Round Table 🛡 colleague, Hon. “Sir Jeffrey” Chase:

At the IJ level, the ACIJs have to be charged with determining if the IJ actually doesn’t know the law, or if they are choosing not to follow it. Of course, you need ACIJs who actually know immigration law, which isn’t always the case anymore. If it’s the former, you schedule additional training; if it’s the latter, they may need to suspend or remove the IJ. That should be a priority for the next Chief IJ.

But why isn’t this being caught at the BIA level? They continue to act as a rubber stamp. There have been a few cases just in the past couple of weeks where the errors were really major and apparent.

A BIA that would “rubber stamp” denials without question or meaningful analysis so that OIL could then argue “deference” to railroad refugees and other individuals entitled to relief out of the country is precisely what Barr and Sessions intended to create. In other words, a “parody of justice” that would carry out the White Nationalist restrictionist agenda without giving it any thought. And, it’s no coincidence that this unconstitutional agenda falls hardest on the backs of asylum seekers and other migrants of color. It also serves to reinforce the vile concept that individuals of color in the U.S. are not equal under the law.

The real question here is why Garland hasn’t effectively changed the system by bringing in real judges who are experts in immigration and human rights and who would be fair to all coming before his Immigration Courts regardless of race or status? “Gradual change” is unacceptable when individuals (and their conscientious representatives) are being subjected to deadly quasi-judicial incompetence on a daily basis. Tell Garland you’ve had enough!

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

08-16-22

⚖️NDPA SUPERSTAR BEN WIN-OGRAD WINS A BIGGIE IN 4TH ON IJ CONDUCT — Tinoco Acevedo v. Garland

Dan Kowalski reports for LexisNexis Immigration Community!

CA4 on IJ Conduct: Tinoco Acevedo v. Garland

Tinoco Acevedo v. Garland

“Petitioner Rodolfo Josue Tinoco Acevedo appeals an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming the denial of his application for cancellation of removal. Because the BIA failed to address whether Tinoco Acevedo’s case should be remanded to a new immigration judge (“IJ”) under Matter of Y-S-L-C-, 26 I. & N. Dec. 688 (BIA 2015), we grant Tinoco Acevedo’s petition for review, vacate the order of removal, and remand to the BIA for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. … Rather than opine as to the exact grounds on which the BIA decided that the applicant was entitled to a new hearing before a new IJ in Matter of Y-S-L-C-, we remand for the BIA to interpret its precedent and address Tinoco Acevedo’s argument in the first instance. … we grant Tinoco Acevedo’s petition for review, vacate the order of removal, and remand for the BIA to consider whether Tinoco Acevedo is entitled to a new hearing before a different IJ because the initial IJ’s conduct—both during and following the hearing—failed to satisfy the high standard expected of IJs under Matter of Y-S-L-C-. PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; VACATED AND REMANDED.” [Note: The IJ was Roxanne C. Hladylowycz.]

[Hats off once again to IRAC superlitigator Ben Winograd!]

Daniel M. Kowalski

Editor-in-Chief

Bender’s Immigration Bulletin (LexisNexis)

cell/text/Signal (512) 826-0323

@dkbib on Twitter

dan@cenizo.com

Free Daily Blog: www.bibdaily.com

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

Yet another example of the BIA not being familiar with and applying their own precedents where they could be favorable to the respondent. Any old boilerplate BS will do as long is the result is “dismiss and remove.”

It’s one thing for the BIA to articulate “high standards” for IJ conduct in Matter of Y-S-L-C-. It’s quite another to consistently enforce them where the lives of migrants are at stake!

It was a particularly bad idea for the BIA to spring this haphazard “good enough for government work” approach when Ben Winograd is appellate counsel. Winograd knows the BIA and 4th Circuit precedents better than most BIA judges. And, unlike the latter, he’s willing to stand up for immigrants’ legal rights!

It would be better for Garland and American justice — not to mention those seeking justice in Immigration Court, too often in vain — if brilliant, due-process-oriented “practical scholars” like Ben Winograd replaced the “holdover BIA judges” who aren’t up to the job of “guaranteeing fairness and due process for all.” Remarkably, there was a time in the past when that long disregarded judicial essential was the “vision” of EOIR.

Ironically, the Article III Judges of this 4th Circuit panel (Chief Judge Gregory, Circuit Judges Motz and Wynn) understand the critical requirements for EOIR judging better than AG Garland! That’s a problem (although, concededly, outside the “World of EOIR” Garland has had his best week as AG)!

This opinion was written by Chief Judge Roger Gregory. He continues to be a leader among Article III Judges who take due process and immigrants’ rights seriously! He’s also someone who “gets” the clear connection between immigrant justice (or, in too many cases lack thereof) and racial justice.

With the Chief Immigration Judge position now vacant, Judge Garland has a golden opportunity to appoint a “Judge Gregory clone” to that critical position. See, e.g., https://immigrationcourtside.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=30193&action=edit. That would also be a wise course for Garland to take to replace the current glaringly inadequate leadership at his failing BIA! How about Chief Appellate Immigration Judge/Chairman Ben Winograd?

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

08-13-22

📖COURTSIDE HISTORY: BEYOND THE CHINESE EXCLUSION ACT, RACISM IS AT THE CORE OF U.S. IMMIGRATION POLICY — Professor Andrew S. Rosenberg Interviewed On New Book By Isabela Dias @ Mother Jones!

Isabela Dias
Staff Writer, Immigration & Social Issues
Mother Jones
PHOTO: Twitter

https://apple.news/AOMcfZiMFQ0OSgozcppDcjg

“Undesirable Immigrants: Why Racism Persists in International Migration”

. . . .

In the book, you dispute the assumption that the right to border control and to exclude foreigners is an inherent feature of sovereign states. Instead, you frame it as a “modern consequence of racism.” Why do you see it that way?

The nation-state is a relatively modern invention on the scale of human history. Today, we have this conventional wisdom floating around that it is the natural right and duty of nation-states as sovereign entities to be able to restrict foreigners and have these really hard borders—and that it’s that ability that makes a state what it is. Actually, if you go back in time and look at the international legal thought that emerged from the 15th through the 19th centuries on what it actually means to be a state, the commonly held assumption that people like the late Justice [Antonin] Scalia and others talk about, is actually an invention of the 19th century. In the 16th and 17th centuries, the great thinkers of international legal jurisprudence or of state theory either thought that states had a right or an obligation to be hospitable to foreigners and to allow them free passage into their territory or, at most, it was up for raucous debate. It was only in the 19th century, when immigrant-receiving countries like the United States began receiving a large influx of racially different outsiders like the Chinese, that this presumption that sovereign states have a right and an obligation that can be tied back to their status as sovereign states to restrict outsiders emerged.

People like Texas Governor Greg Abbott seem to invoke that supposed inherent right when they describe migrants at the border as an “invasion.”

Precisely. These types of “declarations of war” are one of the clearest examples of this ideology seeping into public debate, which leads everyday people to create this idea that migrants are undesirable outsiders who are not fit for, or are undeserving of reaping the benefits of living in the United States or participating in our society.

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

Read the complete interview at the link.

The myth of the “undesirable immigrant” — at the heart of the anti-immigrant rabble rousing of Trump, Miller, Bannon, DeSantis, Abbott, Cotton, Hawley, etc. — has deep roots in American racial history.

I’ve said it many times: There will be neither racial justice nor equal justice for all without justice for immigrants (regardless of status). Laws like the Refugee Act of 1980, that very explicitly make arrival status irrelevant to access to a fair legal process, have been intentionally misinterpreted and misapplied by right-wing judges from the Supremes all the way down to the Immigration Courts.

Advocates for civil rights, womens’ rights, LGBTQ+ rights, voting rights, disability rights, and other fundamental rights that have been unlawfully restricted or diminished, usually, but certainly not exclusively, by the right, who continue to ignore the primacy of dealing with the intentional unfair, racially biased treatment of migrants do so at their own peril!

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

08-12-22

⚖️🗽 US JUDGE IN SAN DIEGO EVISCERATES TRUMP’S ILLEGAL AND IMMORAL “TURNBACKS” OF ASYLUM APPLICANTS; MAYORKAS TERMINATES REMAIN IN MEXICO (AGAIN) EVEN AS RED RESTRICTIONIST AGs FILE MORE FRIVOLOUS OBJECTIONS! 🤮

https://drive.google.com/file/d/12R1mt07Z4S7R7xiieRUznueR9DRXrBdq/view?usp=sharing

Al Otro Lado v. Mayorkas

U.S. District Judge Cynthia Bashant minces no words in blasting both the unlawful, cruel, and unconstitutional policy and the Supreme’s toxic decision to look the other way as immigration enforcement runs roughshod over legal, constitutional, and human rights.

In its September 2, 2021 decision, this Court held the right to access the U.S. asylum

process conferred vis a vis § 1158(a)(1) applies extraterritorially to noncitizens who are

arriving at Class A POEs along the U.S.-Mexico border, but who are not yet within the

jurisdiction of the United States, and is of a constitutional dimension. (Op. Granting in

Part and Denying in Part Parties’ Cross-Mots. for Summ. J. (“MSJ Opinion”), ECF No.

742.) It further held that Defendants’ systematic turnbacks of asylum seekers arriving at

Class A POEs (the “Turnback Policy”) amounted to an unlawful withholding by

immigration officials of their mandatory ministerial “inspection and referral duties”

detailed in 8 U.S.C. § 1225 (“§ 1225”), in violation of the Administrative Procedures Act,

5 U.S.C. § 706(1) et seq., and the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause. (MSJ Opinion at

33–34, 37–38); see 8 U.S.C. §§ 1225(a)(3) (mapping out immigration officials’ duty to

inspect asylum seekers), 1225(b)(1)(A)(ii) (mapping out immigration officials’ duty to

refer asylum seekers to the U.S-asylum process).

In casting appropriate equitable relief to rectify the irreparable injury Defendants’

unauthorized and constitutionally violative Turnback Policy has inflicted upon members

of the Plaintiff class,2 this Court ordinarily would be guided by the fundamental principle

that an equitable remedy should be commensurate with the violations it is designed to

vindicate. See Columbus Bd. of Educ. v. Penick, 443 U.S. 449, 465 (1979) (“[It is an]

accepted rule that the remedy imposed by a court of equity should be commensurate with

the violation ascertained.”). Equitable relief should leave no stone unturned: it should

correct entirely the violations it is aimed at vindicating. That cornerstone of Article III

courts’ equitable powers generally is unfaltering, whether the party against whom an

injunction is sought is a private entity, a state actor, or, as here, a federal official. Thus, in

2 Plaintiffs consist of the named Plaintiffs listed in the case caption, along with a certified class

consisting of “all noncitizens who seek or will seek to access the U.S. asylum process by presenting

themselves at a Class A [POE] on the U.S.-Mexico border, and were or will be denied access to the U.S.

asylum process by or at the instruction of [Customs and Border Protection] officials on or after January 1,

2016.” (Class Certification Order at 18, ECF No. 513.) The Court also certified a subclass consisting of

“all noncitizens who were or will be denied access to the U.S. asylum process at a Class A POE on the

U.S.-Mexico border as a result of Defendants’ metering policy on or after January 1, 2016.” (Id.)

– 3 – 17cv2366

the ordinary course of things, this Court would not hesitate to issue broad, programmatic

relief enjoining Defendants from now, or in the future, turning back asylum seekers in the

process of arriving at Class A POEs, absent a valid statutory basis for doing so.

Yet the circumstances with which this Court is presented are not ordinary because

of the extraordinary, intervening decision of the United States Supreme Court in Garland

v. Aleman Gonzalez, 142 S. Ct. 2057 (2022). That decision takes a sledgehammer to the

premise that immigration enforcement agencies are bound to implement their mandatory

ministerial duties prescribed by Congress, including their obligation to inspect and refer

arriving noncitizens for asylum, and that, when immigration enforcement agencies deviate

from those duties, lower courts have authority to issue equitable relief to enjoin the

resulting violations. It does so through unprecedented expansion of a provision of the

Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1989 (“IIRIRA”), 8

U.S.C. § 1252(f)(1) et seq. (“§ 1252(f)(1)”), which for years the Ninth Circuit has

interpreted as placing a relatively narrow limit on injunctive relief. In essence, Aleman

Gonzalez holds that § 1252(f)(1) prohibits lower courts from issuing class-wide injunctions

that “require officials to take actions that (in the Government’s view) are not required” by

certain removal statutes, including § 1225, or “to refrain from actions that (again in the

Government’s view) are allowed” by those same provisions. Id., 142 S. Ct. at 2065.

Federal courts (except for the Supreme Court) now may only issue injunctions enjoining

federal officials’ unauthorized implementation of the removal statutes in the individual

cases of noncitizens against whom removal proceedings have been initiated. See id.

In no uncertain terms, the logical extension of Aleman Gonzalez appears to bestow

immigration enforcement agencies carte blanche to implement immigration enforcement

policies that clearly are unauthorized by the statutes under which they operate because the

Government need only claim authority to implement to immunize itself from the federal

judiciary’s oversight.

With acknowledgment that its decision will further contribute to the human suffering

of asylum seekers enduring squalid and dangerous conditions in Mexican border

– 4 – 17cv2366

communities as they await entry to POEs, this Court finds the shadow of Aleman Gonzalez

inescapable in this case. Even the most narrow, meaningful equitable relief would have

the effect of interfering with the “operation” of § 1225, as that term is construed by the

Aleman Gonzalez Court, and, thus, would clash with § 1252(f)(1)’s remedy bar. Aleman

Gonzalez not only renders uneconomical vindication of Plaintiff class members’

statutorily- and constitutionally-protected right to apply for asylum, those inefficiencies

inevitably will lead to innumerable instances in which Plaintiff class members will be

unable to vindicate their rights at all. Thus, while the majority and dissent in Aleman

Gonzalez hash out their textual disagreements concerning § 1252(f)(1)’s scope in terms of

remedies, make no mistake, Aleman Gonzalez leaves largely unrestrained immigration

enforcement agencies to rapaciously scale back rights. See Tracy A. Thomas, Ubi Jus, Ibi

Remedium: The Fundamental Right to a Remedy Under Due Process, 41 San Diego L.

Rev. 1633, 1634 (2004) (“Disputes over remedies provide a convenient way for dissenters

to resist conformance to legal guarantees. Courts can declare rights, but then default in the

remedy to avoid a politically unpopular result.” (footnote omitted)).

Although it is no substitute for a permanent injunction, class-wide declaratory relief

is both available and warranted here. In lieu of even a circumscribed injunction enjoining

Defendants from again implementing a policy under which they turn back asylum seekers

presenting themselves at POEs along the U.S.-Mexico border, the Court enters a

declaration in accordance with its MSJ Opinion that turning back asylum seekers

constitutes both an unlawful withholding of Defendants’ mandatory ministerial inspection

and referral duties under § 1158 and § 1225 in violation of both the APA and the Fifth

Amendment Due Process Clause. The Court also issues relief as necessary to named

Plaintiff Beatrice Doe.

. . . .

You can read Judge Bashant’s full opinion at the link.

Meanwhile, Secretary Mayorkas exercised the authority recognized by the Supremes in Biden v. Texas to terminate the reprehensible and illegal “Remain in Mexico” (a/k/a “Let ‘Em Die in Mexico”) program engineered by Trump and Miller. Predictably, the same scofflaw, restrictionist “Red AG’s” who had instituted frivolous litigation to block this long overdue action filed more specious objections with the Trump-appointed US District Judge, as advocacy groups like Justice Action Center (“JAC”) pledged to fight the racist right until this vile (and highly ineffective) program is finally ended.

JAC Responds to Official Termination of Remain in Mexico, Attempts by Texas to Delay Wind-Down

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

August 9, 2022

WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a victory for immigrants’ rights movement, the Remain in Mexico program has been officially terminated after court proceedings following the Supreme Court’s ruling in Biden v. Texas on June 30. Below is a statement from Justice Action Center founder and director Karen Tumlin:

“The official end to shameful Remain in Mexico program is a victory for the immigrants’ rights movement and the right to asylum. RMX is a stain on the country’s history, having harmed tens of thousands of people fleeing for their lives since the Trump Administration instituted the unlawful and immoral program in 2019.

“Since the Supreme Court’s ruling affirming the authority of the Biden Administration to end the RMX program, the #SafeNotStranded campaign has called on the President and DHS to implement a swift and humane wind-down, including halting all new enrollments and allowing everyone in RMX to safely pursue their asylum claims in the U.S. Yesterday, DHS stated its wind-down has begun and new people will not be enrolled in the program, and that it would disenroll individuals with upcoming RMX hearings. These are important first steps to finally redress just some of the immense harm inflicted by the program.

“This commitment by DHS, following such a significant SCOTUS victory, illustrates the strength and resilience of the immigrants’ rights movement. But even after a clear loss, Texas is continuing its hateful attempts to keep this deadly program in place for as long as possible: After the District Court rightfully vacated its injunction of the RMX wind-down yesterday, Texas unfortunately—yet unsurprisingly—filed an amended complaint challenging the second DHS memo rescinding RMX, as well as a motion asking the District Court to stay the memo’s effective date.

“But we will not be deterred: advocates will continue to fight back against ongoing red state efforts to continue Trump’s racist and xenophobic agenda and work towards a world where all people fleeing danger can be safe, not stranded.”

# # #

Contact: Tasha Moro; 323-450-7269; tasha.moro@justiceactioncenter.org

Justice Action Center (JAC) is a new nonprofit organization dedicated to fighting for greater justice for immigrant communities by combining litigation and storytelling. JAC is committed to bringing additional litigation resources to address unmet needs, empower clients, and change the corrosive narrative around immigrants in the U.S. Learn more at justiceactioncenter.org and follow us on Twitter, Instagram, and Facebook.

Related:

8/1/22: JAC Responds to Supreme Court’s Certification of Decision on Remain in Mexico; Encourages Swift and Humane Wind-Down of Deadly Program

6/30/22: Justice Action Center Welcomes Positive Supreme Court Decision on Remain in Mexico in Biden v. Texas

3/21/22: #SafeNotStranded Campaign Launches Ahead of April Supreme Court Arguments in Biden v. Texas

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

We should remember that the Trumpest GOP’s insurrectionist war on American democracy and attack on truth and human decency began with overt lies and racist attacks on migrants of color and non-Christians. It has escalated to become an all out assault on our future as a nation of laws and values.

We can’t go back to a time when liberals and progressives viewed immigration as a tangental or secondary issue. It is THE all-encompassing issue now in preserving American democracy from GOP efforts to destabilize and destroy our nation’s fabric from bottom to top!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

08-11-22

🏴‍☠️☠️DANA MILBANK @ WASHPOST: THE JIM CROW GOP WAS AN EXISTENTIAL THREAT TO AMERICAN DEMOCRACY LONG BEFORE TRUMP — Today’s Absurdist & Corrupt GOP Reaction TO DOJ’s Long Overdue Investigation Of Trump’s Treason & Criminality Is The Predictable Result Of Many Years Of Corrupt, Racist, Authoritarianism!

\https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/08/04/dana-milbank-republican-destructionists-book-excerpt/

. . . .

Much has been made of the ensuing polarization in our politics, and it’s true that moderates are a vanishing breed. But the problem isn’t primarily polarization. The problem is that one of our two major political parties has ceased good-faith participation in the democratic process. Of course, there are instances of violence, disinformation, racism and corruption among Democrats and the political left, but the scale isn’t at all comparable. Only one party fomented a bloody insurrection and even after that voted in large numbers (139 House Republicans, a two-thirds majority) to overturn the will of the voters in the 2020 election. Only one party promotes a web of conspiracy theories in place of facts. Only one party is trying to restrict voting and discredit elections. Only one party is stoking fear of minorities and immigrants.

Admittedly, I’m partisan — not for Democrats but for democrats. Republicans have become an authoritarian faction fighting democracy — and there’s a perfectly logical reason for this: Democracy is working against Republicans. In the eight presidential contests since 1988, the GOP candidate has won a majority of the popular vote only once, in 2004. As the United States approaches majority-minority status (the White population, 76 percent of the country in 1990, is now 58 percent and will drop below 50 percent around 2045), Republicans have become the voice of White people, particularly those without college degrees, who fear the loss of their way of life in a multicultural America. White grievance and White fear drive Republican identity more than any other factor — and in turn drive the tribalism and dysfunction in the U.S. political system.

Other factors sped the party’s turn toward nihilism: Concurrent with the rise of Gingrich was the ascent of conservative talk radio, followed by the triumph of Fox News, followed by the advent of social media. Combined, they created a media environment that allows Republican politicians and their voters to seal themselves in an echo chamber of “alternative facts.” Globally, south-to-north migration has ignited nationalist movements around the world and created a new era of autocrats. The disappearance of the Greatest Generation, tempered by war, brought to power a new generation of culture warriors.

Dana Milbank: In the GOP, the paranoid fringe is becoming the establishment

But the biggest cause is race. The parties re-sorted themselves after the epochal changes of the 1960s, which expanded civil rights, voting rights and immigration. Richard Nixon’s “Southern Strategy” began an appeal to White voters alienated by racial progress, and, in the years that followed, a new generation of Republicans took that racist undertone and made it the melody.

It is crucial to understand that Donald Trump didn’t create this noxious environment. He isn’t some hideous, orange Venus emerging from the half-shell. Rather, he is a brilliant opportunist; he saw the direction the Republican Party was taking and the appetites it was stoking. The onetime pro-choice advocate of universal health care reinvented himself to give Republicans what they wanted. Because Trump is merely a reflection of the sickness in the GOP, the problem won’t go away when he does.

. . . .

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

Read the full excerpt from “The Destructionists: The Twenty-Five Year Crack-Up of the Republican Party” by Dana Milbank at the link.

As I noted in yesterday’s post, racially charged lies, myths, knowingly false narratives, and bogus attempts to tie migrants to all the ills of society are a key part of the GOP’s toxic narrative! The continuing campaign of hate and misinformation began with immigrants — but as this article suggests, it won’t end until either the GOP is thrown out of office at all levels or our nation’s constitutional structure and democratic republic are in tatters!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

08-09-22

☠️⚰️🏴‍☠️ TITLE 42 CAUSES DEATH @ THE BORDER: Rachel Monroe @ The New Yorker Sums Up The Jim Crow Cruelty, Stupidity, & Futility Of Title 42 In One Paragraph! — Title 42 “has increased business for smuggling cartels and spurred people to cross in more dangerous places.”

https://apple.news/AX5E8qIWlQYOauANHEV2g3w

. . . .

Between 2015 and 2020, about fifty bodies were recovered each year in Brooks County, according to an S.T.H.R.C. report. Then came Title 42, a policy enacted by the Trump Administration at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic that closed ports of entry and blocked most avenues for asylum claims, ostensibly for public-health reasons. The policy, which is still in place in a modified form, has increased business for smuggling cartels and spurred people to cross in more dangerous places. “Before Title 42, the calls we got used to be, like, eighty-per-cent apprehended, twenty-per-cent missing,” Canales said. “Now it’s flipped—it’s more like twenty-per-cent apprehended, eighty-per-cent missing.” So far this year, there have been nearly seventy recoveries of remains in Brooks County, putting 2022 on track to be the deadliest year on record.

. . . .

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

Read Rachel’s entire report, directly from the border, at the link.

So, before the Trump Administration’s bogus, racist “invocation” of Title 42, 80% of migrants came to the border or were easily apprehended close thereto — most probably because they turned themselves in to seek asylum through the legal system. And, lets not forget, this was with an already badly broken, fundamentally unfair, asylum legal adjudication system intentionally biased and “loaded” against legitimate refugees seeking protection!

Smart, honest public policy would have improved asylum adjudication at USCIS and at EOIR to quickly recognize and grant, with the assistance of NGOs and legal assistance groups, the many cases of legitimate refugees so that they could take their rightful, legal places in our society.

Additionally, by taking refugees seeking legal determinations “out of the equation,” enforcement against those seeking to evade legal processing — certainly a much, much smaller “universe” than is “out there now” — would have been enhanced. Business would have declined for smugglers, as those seeking protection would have been motivated to use a humane, fair, functioning legal system rather than being forced into “do it yourself” refuge!

You don’t have a genius to figure this out — just not be motivated solely by racism like Stephen Miller and his Trump regime cronies! Better qualified — non-Jim Crow righty — Federal Judges would also produce more humane, honest, and rational results.

Additionally, by running a legitimate asylum system, and complementing it with an honest, robust, legal refugee system for Latin America, the Caribbean, and Africa, we would finally have sound data on how many of those seeking to enter at the Southern Border are entitled to immigrate as legal refugees and how many are non-refugees. That’s something on which we now have no reliable information — just myths and anecdotes, many provided by racist restrictionists and nativists with neither expertise in asylum law nor any real interest in the rule of law at the border.

As a result of Title 42, and the unqualified “Jim Crow” Federal Judges, GOP nativist AGs, and their apologists (including some in the media who repeat or republish, without critical examination, GOP racist lies about the border), we now have a deadlier than ever border; the legal immigration system at the border has been functionally abolished and replaced with an underground, extralegal system; the U.S. Government has ceded control of border migration policy to cartels and smugglers; and the job of the Border Patrol — forced to spend time apprehending legal refugees who seek only the protection to which they are legally entitled — has become impossible.

That’s what happens when we let GOP nativist pols, overt racists, and bad, right wing Federal Judges take over the immigration policies that were actually enacted by Congress — a key part of which are legitimate refugee and asylum systems and a fair, functioning, expert Immigration Court. Right now, we have NONE of the foregoing. And, innocent migrants at the border are too often paying the price — with their lives!

Border Death — This is a monument for those who have died attempting to cross the US-Mexican border. Each coffin represents a year and the number of dead. It is a protest against the effects of Operation Guardian. Taken at the Tijuana-San Diego border.
Tomas Castelazo
To comply with the use and licensing terms of this image, the following text must must be included with the image when published in any medium, failure to do so constitutes a violation of the licensing terms and copyright infringement: © Tomas Castelazo, www.tomascastelazo.com / Wikimedia Commons / CC BY-SA 3.0

“Enforcing the law” does NOT mean unfairly, unwisely, and illegally abrogating the legal asylum system and fair adjudications in Immigration Court at the border. It means fixing the legal asylum system including USCIS Asylum Offices. Perhaps most of all, it means reforming and replacing where necessary the broken, dysfunctional, leaderless, and non-expert Immigration Courts and a BIA that continues to misinterpret asylum and protection laws on a daily basis. We need a BIA of real judges with the expertise and guts to establish fair, humane, correct, positive precedents and to rein in or remove from asylum cases those Immigration Judges who are “programmed to reject, not protect!”

I, along with many others, watched the Brittney Griner travesty unfold. I saw the irony. President Biden was rightfully blasting the outrageous “kangaroo court” show trial that passes for justice in Russia. But, at the same time, he, Harris, and Garland are basically running a farcical “Russian style” dysfunctional immigrant “justice” system at EOIR and calling it a “court!”

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever

PWS

08-05-22

🏴‍☠️🤮👎🏽 WHAT’S GARLAND DOING? — LATEST 4TH CIR. REJECTION OF ABSURDIST EOIR ASYLUM DENIAL SHOWS WHY GARLAND MUST “PULL THE PLUG” 🔌 ON THE BIA! — While He’s At It, He Needs To Look At OIL’s Mindless “Defense Of The Clearly Indefensible!” — Why Are American Women Giving Garland A “Free Pass” On Overt, Institutionalized, Racially-Charged, Misogyny @ His DOJ?

Doctor Death — Would you want this guy as your Immigration Judge or BIA “panel?” If not, tell Garland to “pull the plug” on his deadly and incompetent BIA!
Public Domain

https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/201762.P.pdf

Sorto-Guzmán v. Garland, 4th Cir., 08-93-22, published

PANEL: KING and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

OPINION: Judge FLOYD

KEY QUOTE:

In sum, we hold that the IJ’s decision, which the BIA adopted, blatantly ignored our long line of cases establishing that the threat of death alone establishes past persecution. This was legal error, and therefore, an abuse of discretion. See Cordova v. Holder, 759 F.3d 332, 337 (4th Cir. 2014). We hold that Sorto-Guzman has established she was subjected to past persecution in El Salvador.2 She is thereby entitled to the presumption of a well-founded fear of future persecution. Li, 405 F.3d at 176; 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(b)(1). The IJ and the BIA erred in not affording Sorto-Guzman this presumption, which would

2 Sorto-Guzman argues, in the alternative, that the IJ and the BIA erred in finding that she failed to establish a well-founded fear of future persecution. We will not answer that question today. Because we hold that she properly established past persecution, the proper remedy is to remand the case to the BIA to consider the question of whether DHS can rebut the presumption that Sorto-Guzman has a well-founded fear of future persecution.

11

have then shifted the burden to DHS to rebut the presumption. Ngarurih v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 182, 187 (4th Cir. 2004); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1)(i).

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

Sorto-Guzman is a life-long Catholic who regularly attended Catholic services in El Salvador. In December 2015, about five members of the Mara 18 gang accosted Sorto- Guzman in the street as she was leaving church. At the time, she was wearing a crucifix medallion around her neck. The gang members tore the chain from her neck, hit and kicked her, and threatened to kill her if she ever wore it or attended church again. Sorto-Guzman stopped attending church after the attack, fearing the gang and their threats.
A few weeks later in January 2016, a group of Mara 18 gang members—including some of the gang members from the December 2015 assault—stopped Sorto-Guzman, along with her sister and Rivas-Sorto, as she was coming home from a shopping trip. One of the men attempted to sexually assault Sorto-Guzman and had started to forcefully kiss her. He only stopped when her screams caught the attention of a neighbor. The gang members threatened to kill Sorto-Guzman and Rivas-Sorto if Sorto-Guzman did not join the gang and start living with them.
3

On February 13, 2016, some of the gang members from the prior incidents tracked where Sorto-Guzman lived and broke into her house carrying guns. The gang members viciously beat Sorto-Guzman, threatened her life, and robbed her. Sorto-Guzman’s neighbors called the police, but they did not come until several hours after the assault. Sorto-Guzman reported the assault and robbery to the officers who arrived at the scene. She also went to the local police station the next day to report the attack. The police made one attempt to investigate, but Petitioners were not home when the police arrived, and the officers never followed up. The day after, a gang member called Sorto-Guzman, warning her she would regret making the report to the police and that they would soon kill her, her son, and her sister.

Absurdly, an Immigration Judge found that this gross abuse and death threats by a gang with the ability and willingness to carry them out did not amount to “persecution.” Worse yet, on appeal, rather than reversing and directing the judge below to follow the law, the BIA agreed — invoking the outlandish “theory” that the death threats, on top of the savage beating, weren’t so bad because they had never come to “fruition.” In other words, the applicant hadn’t hung around to be killed. Then, to top it off, attorneys from the DOJ’s Office of Immigration Litigation (“OIL”) unethically defended this deadly nonsense before the Fourth Circuit! This is “justice” in Garland’s disgraceful, deadly, and dysfunctional “court” system!

Trial By Ordeal — Garland’s BIA Judges applying the “fruition” test. If she lives, it’s not persecution!
Public Realm
Source: Ancient Origins Website
https://www.ancient-origins.net/history/trial-ordeal-life-or-death-method-judgement-004160

NOT, a “mere mistake.”

EOIR’s performance is this case, particularly the BIA’s absurdist conclusion that, essentially, death threats must result in death to constitute past persecution, is a contemptuous disregard for binding circuit precedent, a demonstration of gross anti-asylum bias, misogyny, and a clear example of judicial incompetence.

Would a heart transplant surgeon who “forgot” to install a new heart or neglected to sew up the patient’s chest be allowed to continue operating? Of course not! So, why is the BIA still allowed to botch life or death cases — the equivalent of open heart surgery?

If Garland allows his “delegees” to perform in this dangerous and unprofessional manner, in his name, what is he doing as Attorney General? This is a farce, not a “court system?” Those responsible need to be held accountable! And, OIL’s unethical defense of this deadly nonsense is indefensible!

Alfred E. Neumann — “What are legal ethics? Not my friends or relatives whose lives as being destroyed by these ‘Kangaroo Courts.’ Just ‘the others’ and their dirty immigration lawyers! So, who cares? Why worry about professionalism, ethics, and due process in Immigration Court?”
PHOTO: Wikipedia Commons

We’ve heard lots lately from Garland about “accountability.” Why doesn’t it apply to his own, wholly owned, totally dysfunctional, legally deficient, contemptuous, unprofessional “court system” that builds astounding, self-created backlogs while causing pain, suffering, and sometimes sending innocents to death?☠️

Additionally, in Kansas this week, women have shown the power of their just demand to be treated as humans, with rights, rather than dehumanized pawns just there to re-populate the world for the men in charge. So, why not unleash the same passion and rightful fury on Garland and his ongoing, illegal, misogynistic treatment of women (primarily women of color) at EOIR!

Woman Tortured — “She struggled madly in the torturing Ray” — AG Garland has failed miserably to engage with the plight of women, mostly those of color, being denied fundamental rights and abused daily by his lawless, anti-immigrant, anti-asylum, misogynistic “holdover” EOIR! Why are women putting up with his bad attitude and dilatory approach to justice? What happened to Lisa Monaco, Vanita Gupta, and Kristen Clarke? Are they “locked in a dark closet” somewhere in Garland’s DOJ?
Amazing StoriesArtist Unknown, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

08-04-22

⚖️ THE GIBSON REPORT — 08-01-22 — Compiled By Elizabeth Gibson, Esquire, Managing Attorney — NIJC — Unpublished 2d Cir. Indigenous Woman Asylum Remand Is A “Dive” Into Why EOIR Is A Dangerous & Unacceptable Drag On Our Justice System! ☠️

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.  

CONTENTS (jump to section)

NEWS

LITIGATION & AGENCY UPDATES

RESOURCES

EVENTS

PRACTICE UPDATES

USCIS Extends COVID-19-related Flexibilities

USCIS: This extends certain COVID-19-related flexibilities through Oct. 23, 2022, to assist applicants, petitioners, and requestors. The reproduced signature flexibility announced in March, 2020, will become permanent policy on July 25, 2022. But DHS To End COVID-19 Temporary Policy for Expired List B Identity Documents.

OPLA Updates Its Prosecutorial Discretion Website

Parolees Can Now File Form I-765 Online

NEWS

DHS Fails to File Paperwork Leading to Large Numbers of Dismissals

TRAC: One out of every six new cases DHS initiates in Immigration Court are now being dismissed because CBP officials are not filing the actual “Notice to Appear” (NTA) with the Court. The latest case-by-case Court records obtained and analyzed by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC) at Syracuse University through a series of Freedom of Information (FOIA) requests show a dramatic increase in these cases.

Fewer Immigrants Face Deportation Based on Criminal-Related Charges in Immigration Court

TRAC: Over the past decade, the number of criminal-related charges listed on Notices to Appear as the basis for deportation has declined dramatically. In 2010, across all Notices to Appear (NTAs) received by the immigration courts that year, ICE listed a total of 57,199 criminal-related grounds for deportation. See also ICE Currently Holds 22,886 Immigrants in Detention, Alternatives to Detention Growth Increases to nearly 300,000.

It Will Now Be Harder For Unaccompanied Immigrant Children To Languish In Government Custody

Buzzfeed: The US reached a settlement Thursday that establishes fingerprinting deadlines for parents and sponsors trying to get unaccompanied immigrant children out of government custody. Under the settlement, which expires in two years, the government has seven days to schedule fingerprinting appointments and 10 days to finish processing them.

ICE is developing new ID card for migrants amid growing arrivals at the border

CNN: The Biden administration is developing a new identification card for migrants to serve as a one-stop shop to access immigration files and, eventually, be accepted by the Transportation Security Administration for travel, according to two Homeland Security officials.

Republican states’ lawsuits derail Biden’s major immigration policy changes

CBS: Officials in Arizona, Missouri, Texas and other GOP-controlled states have convinced federal judges, all but one of whom was appointed by former President Donald Trump, to block or set aside seven major immigration policies enacted or supported by Mr. Biden over the past year.

Climate migration growing but not fully recognized by world

AP: Over the next 30 years, 143 million people are likely to be uprooted by rising seas, drought, searing temperatures and other climate catastrophes, according to the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report published this year.

Washington mayor requests troops to aid with migrant arrivals from Texas and Arizona

Reuters: Washington Mayor Muriel Bowser has requested the deployment of military troops to assist with migrants arriving on buses sent by the Texas and Arizona state governments, according to letters sent by her office to U.S. military and White House officials. See also Migrants Being Sent to NYC From Texas — to the Wrong Places, With No Help, Sources Say.

Immigrant Arrest Targets Left to Officers With Biden Memo Nixed

Bloomberg: Former enforcement officials think most officers will take a measured approach, but some concede the absence of a central policy will cause problems. See also ICE Has Resumed Deporting Unsuspecting Immigrants at Routine Check-Ins.

ICE Suddenly Transfers Dozens of Immigrants Detained in Orange County

Documented: Advocates estimate that ICE moved dozens of individuals at the Orange County Jail in New York on Monday, and sent them to detention centers in Mississippi and elsewhere in New York, without prior notification to families or attorneys about the transfers.

Mexico deports 126 Venezuelan migrants

Reuters: An estimated 6 million Venezuelans have fled economic collapse and insecurity in their home country in recent years, according to United Nations figures. Many have settled in other South American countries but some have traveled north.

LITIGATION & AGENCY UPDATES

Matter of Ortega-Quezada, 28 I&N Dec. 598 (BIA 2022)

BIA: The respondent’s conviction for unlawfully selling or otherwise disposing of a firearm or ammunition in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(d) (2018) does not render him removable as charged under section 237(a)(2)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(C) (2018), because § 922(d) is categorically overbroad and indivisible relative to the definition of a firearms offense.

CA2 Panel Says BIA Had No Basis Denying Guatemalans’ Asylum

Law360: The Second Circuit ordered the Board of Immigration Appeals to revisit an indigenous Guatemalan mother and son’s bids for asylum and deportation relief, saying the agency failed to provide a sufficient premise for affirming an immigration judge’s denial of relief.

CA9, En Banc: First Amendment Trumps INA Sec. 274(a)(1)(A)(vi): U.S. v. Hansen (Alien Smuggling)

LexisNexis: An active judge requested a vote on whether to rehear the matter en banc. The matter failed to receive a majority of votes of the non-recused active judges in favor of en banc consideration.

9th Circ. Says Ignorance Of Law Doesn’t Toll Asylum Deadline

Law360: Not knowing the law isn’t enough to excuse a Guatemalan union worker from missing the deadline to apply for asylum by three years, the Ninth Circuit said when it refused to overturn an immigration panel’s decision that the man’s circumstances weren’t “extraordinary.”

9th Circ. Hands Mexican Woman’s Asylum Bid Back To BIA

Law360: A panel of Ninth Circuit judges granted a petition to review an order rejecting a Mexican woman’s asylum bid Wednesday, saying in an unpublished opinion that the agency was wrong to determine that inconsistencies or omissions in her testimony undercut her credibility as a witness.

DC Circ. Won’t Impose Deadline For Afghan, Iraqi Visas

Law360: The D.C. Circuit has rejected requests from Afghan and Iraqi translators to alter a lower court’s order that granted the federal government an indefinite deadline extension to draft a plan for faster green card processing, ruling that reversing the order wasn’t necessary.

Advance Copy: DHS Notice of Extension and Redesignation of Syria for TPS

AILA: Advance Copy: DHS notice extending the designation of Syria for TPS for 18 months, from 10/1/22 through 3/31/24, and redesignating Syria for TPS for 18 months, effective 10/1/22 through 3/31/24. The notice will be published in the Federal Register on 8/1/22.

USCIS Provides Information on Form I-589 Intake and Processing Delays

AILA: USCIS is experiencing delays in issuing receipts for Form I-589. For purposes of the asylum one-year filing deadline, affirmative asylum interview scheduling priorities, and EAD eligibility, the filing date will still be the date USCIS received the I-589 and not the date it was processed.

Information on Form I-589 Intake and Processing Delays

USCIS: USCIS is currently experiencing delays in issuing receipts for Form I-589, Application for Asylum and for Withholding of Removal. Due to these delays, you may not receive a receipt notice in a timely manner after you properly file your Form I-589.

RESOURCES

AIC: Welcoming and Inclusive State Policies: A Midyear Review of State Legislative Sessions in 2022

AILA: Take Action: Ask the Senate to Support Humane Alternatives to Detention

AILA: Overcoming Secondary Trauma in Immigration Practice

CAIR: National Survey on Pre-Hearing Conferences Memo

CLINIC: Practice Advisory: Adjustment Options for TPS Beneficiaries

DHS OIG: DHS Did Not Adequately or Efficiently Deploy Its Employees to U.S. Military Installations in Support of Operation Allies Welcome

End SIJS Backlog Coalition: Frequently Asked Questions About USCIC’s SIJS Deferred Action Policy

IAN: Remote Legal Support Guide 2022

MPI: The Missing Link: Connecting Eligible Asylees and Asylum Seekers with Benefits and Services

EVENTS

8/2/22 Navigating the Post-Roe Landscape: The Impact of the Dobbs Decision

8/4/22Refugee and Asylee Family Reunification

8/5/22Afghans and Humanitarian Parole: We Have to Do Better

8/5/22-8/12/22NITA-NIPNLG “Advocacy in Immigration Matters” Training

8/10/22Preparing Criminal Waivers of Inadmissibility

8/10/22-8/11/222022 AILA Paralegals Virtual Conference

8/12/22TPS Beneficiaries and Authorized Travel Following the Rescission of Matter of Z-R-Z-C-

8/16/22Comprehensive Overview of Immigration Law (COIL)

8/16/22The Child Status Protection Act: Strategies for Keeping the Family Intact

8/17/22ASISTA Inadmissibility Webinar Series: Crimes Involving Moral Turpitude (CIMT): Impact on Immigrant Survivors

8/23/22Preparing Solid Affidavits of Support: “Show Me the Money!”

8/23/22Comprehensive Overview of Immigration Law (COIL)

8/24/22Seeking Prosecutorial Discretion Post Texas v. United States

8/30/22Naturalization During the Pandemic: “It Was the Best of Times, It Was the Worst of Times”

8/31/22What to Do When You Get a Decision from the Ninth Circuit

9/8/22-9/29/22Webinar Series: Dealing With Denials

9/8/22Post-Conviction Relief: “If I Could Turn Back Time!”

9/8/22Trial Advocacy Skills – Working with Expert Witnesses in Asylum, Withholding of Removal, and Convention Against Torture Claims

9/13/22PLI: Representing Children in Immigration Matters 2022: Effective Advocacy and Best Practices

9/14/22Partial to Full Accreditation Initiative 2022

9/15/22Advanced Mandamus Trends

9/20/22Nonprofit and For-Profit Entity Intersection 2022: Achieving Charitable Goals Through Innovative and Nontraditional Mechanisms

9/21/22Breaking Down the Record in a Ninth Circuit Petition for Review

9/22/22Maximizing Second Chances: Filing Appeals, Motions, and Practicing before the BIA

9/29/22Consular Processing Roundup for Families and Survivors

10/29/224th Annual NIJC 5k for Immigrant Justice

To sign up for additional NIJC newsletters, visit: https://immigrantjustice.org/subscribe.

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

www.immigrantjustice.org | Facebook | Twitter

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

RE: Elizabeth’s “Item #2” under “Litigation” — EOIR, & Garland’s Inexplicable Failure To Fix It, Is What’s Wrong With American Justice!

More than five years ago, an indigenous woman from Guatemala and her disabled son filed “slam dunk” asylum claims. Undoubtedly, “indigenous women in Guatemala” are a “particular social group” — being immutable, particularized, and clearly socially visible within Guatemalan society and beyond. See, e.g., https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-ca6-18-03500/pdf/USCOURTS-ca6-18-03500-0.pdf; https://indianlaw.org/swsn/violations-indigenous-women’s-rights-brazil-guatemala-and-united-states.

The foregoing sources also clearly illustrate that, with or without past persecution, such indigenous women would have a “reasonable fear” of persecution on account of their status under the generous standards for asylum adjudication articulated by the Supremes more than three decades ago in Cardoza-Fonseca and, shortly thereafter, reaffirmed and supposedly implemented by the BIA in Matter of Mogharrabi (a fear can be “objectively reasonable” even if persecution is significant unlikely to occur). Problem is: Both of these binding precedents favoring many, many more asylum grants are widely ignored by policy makers, USCIS, EOIR, and some Article III Courts — with no meaningful consequences!

Additionally, the respondents appear to have had grantable “racial persecution” claims based on indigenous ethnicity. The son, in addition to being a “derivative” on his mother’s application, also had an apparently grantable case based on disability.

In a functioning system, this case would have been quickly granted, the respondents would be integrating into and contributing to our nation with green cards, and they would be well on their way to U.S. citizenship. Indeed, there would be instructive BIA precedents that would prevent DHS from re-litigating what are essentially frivolous oppositions!

But, instead, after more than five years and proceedings at three levels of our justice system, the case remains unresolved. Because of egregious, unforced EOIR errors it is still “bouncing around” the 1.8+ million EOIR backlog, following this remand from the Second Circuit.

Exceptionally poor BIA legal performance, enabling and supporting a debilitating “anti-immigrant/anti-asylum/racially derogatory culture of denial” at EOIR, has led to far, far too many improper asylum denials at the Immigration Judge level and to a dysfunctional system that just keeps on building backlog and producing grotesquely inconsistent, “Refugee Roulette” results! Go to TRAC Immigration and check out the shocking number of sitting IJs with absurd 90% or more “asylum denial rates.”

It also fuels the continuing GOP nativist blather that denies the truth about what is happening at our Southern Border. We are wrongfully denying legal protection and status to many, many qualified refugees — often without any process at all (let alone due process) and with a deeply flawed, biased, and fatally defective process for those who are able to “get into the system.” (Itself, an arbitrary and capricious decision made by lower level enforcement agents rather than experts in asylum adjudication).

The “unpublished” nature of this particular Second Circuit decision might lead one to conclude that the Article IIIs have lost interest in solving the problem, preferring to sweep it under the carpet as this pathetic attempt at a “below the radar screen” unpublished remand does. But, such timid “head in the sand” actions will not restore fairness and order to a system that now conspicuously lacks both! This dangerous, defective, unfair, and unprofessional abuse of our justice system needs to be “publicly called out!”

You can read the full Second Circuit unpublished remand here. https://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/2a5d8920-2ab9-4544-9be6-882ac830fdeb/11/doc/20-212_so.pdf

And, lest you believe this is an “aberration,” here’s yet another “unpublished” example of the BIA’s shoddy and unprofessional work on life or death cases, forwarded to me by “Sir Jeffrey” Chase yesterday! https://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/94e3eaee-b8da-446a-908a-a2f3b5b13ee7/1/doc/20-1319_so.pdf#xml=https://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/94e3eaee-b8da-446a-908a-a2f3b5b13ee7/1/hilite/

“The agency failed to evaluate any of the country conditions evidence relevant to Oliva-Oliva’s CAT claim.” So how is this acceptable professional performance by the BIA? And why is it being “swept under the carpet” by the Second Circuit rather than “trumpeted” as part of a demand that Garland fix his dysfunctional due-process-denying system, NOW?

Contrary to all the fictional “open borders nonsense” being pushed by the nativist right, the key to restoring order at the borders is generous, timely, efficient, professional granting of refuge to those who qualify, either by the Asylum Office or the Refugee Program. This, in turn, absolutely requires supervision, guidance, and review where necessary by an “different” EOIR functioning as a true “expert tribunal.”

That would finally tell us who belongs in the legal protection system and who doesn’t while screening and providing accurate profiles of both groups. The latter essential data is totally lacking under the absurdist, racially motivated, “rejection not protection” program of Trump, much of which has been retained by Biden or forced upon him by unqualified righty Federal Judges. But, we’ll never get there without meaningful, progressive, due-process focused EOIR reform!

There will be no justice at the Southern Border or in America as a whole without radical, long overdue, due process reforms at EOIR!

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

08-03-22

Here are about a week’s worth of reports from Dan Kowalski at LexisNexis Immigration Community on the continuing disintegration of justice in “Garland’s Courts:”

CA3 on Credibility, CAT: Njoka v. Garland

CA9 on INTERPOL Red Notice, CAT: Gonzalez-Castillo v. Garland

CA9 on Credibility, Changed Conditions (Sikhs in India) – Singh v. Garland

CA1 on Abuse of Discretion: Rivera-Medrano v. Garland

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

U.S. v. Fernandez-Sanchez, 4th Cir., 08-25-22, published

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

From Dor v. Garland, 1st Cir.

DEAN’S LIST: A+‘s go to :

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

From Vurimindi v. AG, 3rd Cir.

DEAN’S LIST: A+‘s go to DLA Piper’s:

Courtney Gilligan Saleski

Rachel A.H. Horton

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

William Van Wyke

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Dan Kowalski reports for LexisNexis Immigration Community:

CA10 Stop-Time Victory: Estrada-Cardona v. Garland

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Nolan sends this summary of his latest on The Hill:

Afghans who helped us deserve better immigration treatment

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Key quote:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Dan Kowalski reports for LexisNexis Immigration Community!

CA4 on IJ Conduct: Tinoco Acevedo v. Garland

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

“Undesirable Immigrants: Why Racism Persists in International Migration”

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Al Otro Lado v. Mayorkas

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever

Related posts:

Sorto-Guzmán v. Garland, 4th Cir., 08-93-22, published

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Related posts: