🏀🇺🇸⚖️SPORTS/POLITICS/SOCIAL JUSTICE: WNBA Players Help Oust Racist Grifter Loeffler — Rallying Cry Against Totally Unqualified Trumpist “Senator” Was “VOTE WARNOCK”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2021/01/07/wnba-loeffler-warnock-senate-atlanta-dream/

Candace Buckner reports for WashPost:

For the women of the WNBA, the push to expel one of their league’s owners from office — and ultimately help tip the balance of the U.S. Senate — started with two words on a plain black T-shirt.

It was summer. Amid nationwide protests against racial injustice, Sen. Kelly Loeffler (R-Ga.), co-owner of the Atlanta Dream, had sent a letter to the league that denounced its support of the Black Lives Matter movement, parroting President Trump’s rhetoric as she fought to keep her seat.

Loeffler’s embrace of Trumpism had shocked those who had known her as an inclusive boss in a league dominated by Black women. But it appeared to be working: She was leading the crowded race, while one of her opponents, the Rev. Raphael Warnock (D), polled at only 9 percent.

Then WNBA players responded. They rejected Loeffler’s letter. And in early August, players from across the league, including those from her own team, wore shirts that read “VOTE WARNOCK.”

[How politics transformed Kelly Loeffler from hoops junkie to WNBA villain]

In the three days that followed, Warnock’s campaign raised more than $236,000 and added nearly 4,000 followers on Twitter. His support grew from there, catapulting him into a runoff with Loeffler. And on Tuesday, he defeated Loeffler and soon will become the first Black senator from Georgia. Jon Ossoff’s win in a race called Wednesday gave Democrats slim control over the Senate, with Vice President-elect Kamala D. Harris as the tiebreaking vote.

WNBA players, many of whom are overseas with international teams, spent Wednesday celebrating their assist — and wondering what it means for Loeffler’s future in the league.

“It’s a special moment for us because we’re constantly at the forefront of every issue, but we don’t get the respect we deserve,” said Washington Mystics guard Natasha Cloud, who opted out of this past season to focus on social justice causes. “Whether it’s on the court or off the court in our influence. You have a moment like this where you can’t say we didn’t help determine the outcome.”

. . . .

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

Read the rest of the article at the link.

Sports activism matters!

GOP Trumpist traitors like Loeffler and Perdue can be removed from power, one by one! The brave, talented women of the WNBA 🏀🗽🇺🇸represent the kind of inspired, courageous leadership America needs in the future. Compare them with the despicable, GOP-enabled cowards, traitors, and morons who stormed our Capitol.

No more Loefflers — defeat all the GOP traitors, fellow travelers, enablers, and disgusting spineless toadies! The anti-American rot in the GOP goes far beyond the outrageous stupidity, treason, cruelty, overt racism, and criminality of Trump! Trumpism is an ugly malicious disease🤮 that must be defeated, in all it’s vicious and unpatriotic forms🏴‍☠️, for America’s survival!🇺🇸

⚖️🗽🇺🇸👍🏼Due Process Forever! GOP Trumpist traitors ☠️ 🏴‍☠️ never!

PWS

01-08-21

⚖️🗽JUSTICE: BIDEN TO NOMINATE U.S. CIRCUIT JUDGE MERRICK GARLAND 👨🏻‍⚖️ FOR AG — Mandate Will Be to Clean Up Unmitigated Legal, Ethical, Moral, Professional Disaster Left By Corrupt, Scofflaw Predecessors Barr & Sessions!

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/biden-attorney-general-merrick-garland_n_5fcea0d3c5b6636e09279a5b

Ryan J. Reilly reports for HuffPost:

President-elect Joe Biden is reportedly set to name Merrick Garland as his nominee for attorney general. If confirmed, Garland will take over a demoralized Justice Department that has abandoned bedrock principles and priorities, and come under withering attack from President Donald Trump’s administration.

Garland, a former federal prosector who lead the investigation into the Oklahoma City bomber, was nominated to the Supreme Court by former President Barack Obama following Antonin Scalia’s 2016 death. The Republican-controlled Senate refused to hold a hearing on his nomination for months, citing the presidential election. His pending nomination died in early 2017, after 293 days.

Garland will take over a Justice Department that Trump sought to weaponize against his political opponents and use as his personal law firm. Trump has fired or pushed out a number of key department officials, most famously former FBI Director James Comey. Trump appointees have used the Justice Department’s power in an overtly political fashion, even if they’ve resisted Trump’s desire to wield the department’s prosecutorial power as a blunt political weapon.

The nominee will face the challenge of determining how the Justice Department will approach potential criminal investigations into Trump and members of his administration. They will also face the prospect of rebuilding components like the Civil Rights Division, which abandoned key issues like police reform and focused on controversial religious liberty cases and attacks on college affirmative action programs. They’ll also have to deal with the long-term consequences of Trump’s attacks on the FBI, which has gutted Republicans’ confidence in the nation’s premier law enforcement organization. Biden’s nominee may also have to figure out how to combat a rise in right-wing domestic terrorism cases, some of which have been directly inspired by the outgoing president’s rhetoric against his political enemies and Muslims.

In addition, Biden’s nominee will have to deal with the delicate question of how to handle the ongoing tax investigation into the new president’s son, Hunter Biden, which is being led by the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Delaware. The nominee will have to reassure the American public that there won’t be political interference in the probe, perhaps by walling off the investigation. Republicans, the vast majority of whom were unconcerned with Trump’s repeated attempts to improperly interfere in Justice Department matters, might even call for a special counsel to assure the probe’s independence.

Former Attorney General Eric Holder, who had to rebuild the Justice Department after controversies during the George W. Bush administration, told HuffPost that Biden understands that he needs to give the attorney general “the space that he or she needs to restore integrity and the independence” of the Justice Department.

. . . .

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

Reread the rest of the article at the link.

I knew Judge Garland a little bit from the DOJ in the Carter Administration, eons ago. He’s obviously in a totally different class than his sleazy, White Nationalist enabling predecessors in the defeated regime. It should be a welcome breath of professionalism, re-infusion of ethics, and re-establishment of due process, the rule of law, and simple common sense and human decency at the “disaster zone” DOJ.

I just hope that fixing the totally broken and dysfunctional Immigration Courts and restoring fairness, due process, and independence by bringing in immigration and human rights experts from the NDPA is high on his “to do” list! Only time will tell. But, potentially, he appears to be the right person to rebuild and transition the existing EOIR mess into an independent Article I Immigration Court.

Obviously, unlike most of his predecessors, he understands what a “real court” should look like and how it should operate.

With the results from Georgia coming in, today the long-sought objective of Article I seems closer than it has ever been.

⚖️🗽🇺🇸Due Process Forever! Time for Judge Garland 👨🏻‍⚖️ to end the “EOIR Clown Show”🤡!

PWS

01-06-06

⚖️NDPA NEWS: LEADING “PRACTICAL SCHOLARS” UNITE TO CHALLENGE SCOFFLAW ASYLUM REGS THAT ARE NOTHING MORE THAN “CODIFIED CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY” — Here’s Their Brief!

Peter S. Margulies
Professor of Law
Roger Williams University School of Law
Photo: RWU website

From: Wadhia, Shoba Sivaprasad <ssw11@psu.edu>

Sent: Monday, January 04, 2021 1:21 PM

To: immprofslist Professors List <immprof@lists.ucla.edu>; ICLINIC@LIST.MSU.EDU

Cc: Margulies, Peter <pmargulies@rwu.edu>

Subject: [immprof] Amicus Brief on Behalf of Immigration Law Scholars on “Monster” Asylum Rule

Dear Colleagues:

Happy New Year! I hope you are staying well. We are pleased to share an amicus brief filed in the Northern District of California last week challenging the “monster” asylum rule, published as a final rule in December 2020. We are grateful to the immigration law scholars who signed onto this brief. The brief is focused on three aspects of the rule: 1) expansion of discretionary bars in general; 2) discretionary bars on unlawful entry and use of fraudulent documents in particular; and 3) expansion of the firm resettlement bar. The brief argues that these bars conflict with the immigration statute and further that the Departments have failed to provide a reasonable explanation for departing from past statutory interpretation with regard to these bars.

Co-counsel included Loeb & Loeb, Peter Margulies, and myself. We are grateful to the Harvard Immigration and Refugee Clinical Program and other organizations who served as counsel to plaintiffs in this case.

Best wishes, Peter and Shoba

Shoba Sivaprasad Wadhia (she, her)

Associate Dean for Diversity, Equity and Inclusion

Samuel Weiss Faculty Scholar | Clinical Professor of Law

Director, Center for Immigrants’ Rights Clinic |@PSLCt4ImmRights

Penn State Law | University Park

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

Many thanks to Peter, Shoba, Loeb & Loeb, and all the many great minds with courageous hearts ♥️ involved in this effort!

I’ve said it often: It’s time to cut through the BS and bureaucratic bungling that have plagued past Dem Administrations and put progressive practical scholars like Shoba, Peter, and their NDPA expert colleagues in charge of EOIR, the BIA, and the rest of the immigration bureaucracy. It’s also time to end “Amateur Night at the Bijou” 🎭🤹‍♀️and put “pros” like this in charge of developing and implementing Constitutionally compliant, legal, practical, humane immigration and human rights policies that achieve equal justice for all (one of the Biden-Harris Administration’s stated priorities), further the common interest, and finally rationalize and optimize (now “gonzo out of control”) immigration enforcement.

⚖️🗽Due Process Forever! Cut the BS!💩

PWS

01-06-21

“SIR JEFFREY” CHASE ⚔️🛡 KICKS OFF 2021: Misuse of CDC Authority🤮 Part Of The Scofflaw Regime’s White Nationalist Agenda☠️🏴‍☠️ — Why Have the Federal Courts Let Bogus Pretexts “Overrule” Truth & The Rule of Law?🤥

https://www.jeffreyschase.com/blog/2021/1/3/the-next-level-shamelessness-of-the-covid-security-regs

The Next-Level Shamelessness of the COVID Security Regs

On December 23, EOIR and USCIS published final rules designed to brand most people a “security risk,” and thus ineligible for asylum. The rules won’t become effective until January 22 (i.e. after the Biden Administration is in office), so will presumably be pulled back before they hurt anyone other than the reputations and careers of those responsible for their publication. Nevertheless, it seems worthwhile to refute the present administration’s claimed justification for such a rule. First, there will certainly be other bad administrations in our future, and as we’ve seen with the present one, they might look to the past for inspiration.

Furthermore, even without the rule going into effect, individual immigration judges will still be faced with interpreting the clause it invokes on a case-by-case basis. I’m hoping the following analysis will prove useful, as I’m pretty sure it wasn’t covered in the judges’ training.

But most importantly, the assaults of the past four years on facts and reason have taught us the need to constantly reinforce what those presently in charge hope to make us forget: that there are laws passed by Congress; that the Judiciary has created strict rules governing their interpretation, and that executive agencies are not free to simply ignore or reinvent the meaning of those laws to their own liking.

The regulations in question seek to take advantage of the present pandemic to render any asylum seeker who either exhibits symptoms of the virus, has come in contact with it, or has traveled from or through a country or region where the disease is prevalent ineligible for asylum. The administration seeks to justify this by claiming that there are reasonable grounds for regarding the above a danger to the security of the United States.

The “danger to the security of the United States” bar to asylum1 which the new regulations reference derives from Article 33(2) of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, which serves as the international law basis for our asylum laws. That treaty (which is binding on the U.S.) states that the prohibition against returning refugees shall not apply to those “whom there are reasonable grounds for regarding as a danger to the security of the country in which he is, or who, having been convicted by a final judgment of a particularly serious crime, constitutes a danger to the community of that country.”

However, Article 33(2) applies to those who have already been recognized as refugees, and have then committed crimes in the country of refuge, which is not the class to whom the new regulations would apply. The bases for excluding those seeking refugee status for reasons arising prior to their arrival are found under Article 1D through 1F of the 1951 Convention. The prohibitions found there cover three groups: those who are already receiving protection or assistance (Article 1D); those who are not considered to be in need of protection (Article 1E); and those “categories of persons who are not considered to be deserving of international protection (Article 1F).2 Individuals posing a danger to the community fall into the final category.

No ground contained in the 1951 Convention excludes those in need of protection for health-related purposes. To understand why, let’s look closer at the Convention’s use of the word “deserving” as it relates to refugee protection. In 1997, UNHCR published a note providing additional insight into the Article 1F “exclusion grounds.” Explaining that “the idea of an individual ‘not deserving’ protection as a refugee is related to the intrinsic links between ideas of humanity, equity, and the concept of refuge,” the note explains that the primary purpose of the clauses “are to deprive the perpetrators of heinous acts and serious common crimes, of such protection.” The note explains that to do otherwise “would be in direct conflict with national and international law, and would contradict the humanitarian and peaceful nature of the concept of asylum.”

The European Council on Refugees and Exiles covered this same issue in its 2004 position paper on Exclusion from Refugee Status. At page 8, the ECRE stated that the “main aim” of Article 1F was not “to protect the host community from serious criminals,” but rather to preserve the integrity of the international refugee system by preventing it from being used to “shelter serious criminals from justice.” These sources make it extremely clear that the intent was certainly not to exclude someone who might have been exposed to a virus.

In including six exceptions to eligibility in our asylum statute,3 Congress followed the lead of the 1951 Convention, as all six domestic clauses fall within the three categories listed in paragraph 140 of the UNHCR Handbook as listed above. Of the six grounds listed under U.S. law, the last one, regarding persons firmly resettled in another country prior to arrival in the U.S., is covered by the Convention categories of those already receiving assistance or not in need of assistance.

The remaining five exceptions under U.S. law fall within the category of those not considered to be deserving of protection (Article 1F). The statute lists those categories as: (i) persecutors of others; (ii) persons posing a danger to the community of the U.S. by virtue of having been convicted of a particularly serious crime; (iii) persons whom there are serious reasons to believe committed serious nonpolitical crimes prior to their arrival in the U.S.; (iv) persons whom “there are reasonable grounds for regarding…as a danger to the security of the United States,” and (v) persons engaged in terrorist activity.

Agencies may only apply their own interpretation to the term “as a danger to the security of the United States” to the extent such term is ambiguous. But the courts have instructed that in determining whether a statute is in fact ambiguous, traditional tools of construction must be employed, including canons.4 The Supreme Court has recently applied one such canon, ejusdem generis, for this purpose.5 In its decision, the Court explained that “where, as here, a more general term follows more specific terms in a list, the general term is usually understood to ‘ “embrace only objects similar in nature to those objects enumerated by the preceding specific words.”’”6

Former Attorney General Barr himself recently applied the ejusdem generis canon to the term “particular social group,” stating that pursuant to the canon, the term “must be read in conjunction with the terms preceding it, which cabin its reach…rather than as an “omnibus catch-all” for everyone who does not qualify under one of the other grounds for asylum.”7

A very similar canon to ejusdem generis is noscitur a sociis (the “associated words” canon). Whereas ejusdem generis requires a term to be interpreted similarly to more specific terms surrounding it in a list, noscitur a sociis applies the same concept to more specific terms across the same statute.8

In 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(2)(A), the more general term “danger to the security of the United States” is surrounded by the more specific terminology describing the accompanying grounds of asylum ineligibility. When thus “cabined” by the more specific classes of persecutors of others, those convicted of serious crimes, and those engaged in terrorist activities, it is clear that Congress intended a “risk to security” to relate to similar types of criminal activity, and not to health grounds. As the intent of Congress is clear, the term “threat to the security of the United States” is not open to any interpretation the agencies might wish to apply to it. Yet in its published rule, EOIR and USCIS here create the type of “omnibus catch-all” that the Attorney General himself has elsewhere declared to be impermissible.

The rule is further at odds with circuit case law in its application to those who simply “may” pose a risk. The Third Circuit has found the statutory language of the clause in question to unambiguously require that the asylum-seeker pose an actual, rather than merely a possible, threat to national security.9 Even if it were assumed that COVID could somehow fit into the category of security risk, simply having traveled from or through an area where the virus is prevalent doesn’t establish that the individual presents an actual risk.

There is also the issue of the transient nature of the risk. In the same decision referenced above, the Third Circuit relied on the Refugee Act’s legislative history to conclude “that Congress intended to protect refugees to the fullest extent of our Nation’s international obligations,” allowing for exceptions “only in a narrow set of circumstances.”10 This is obviously a correct reading where exclusion can lead to death, rape, or indefinite imprisonment. The other classes deemed undeserving of asylum are defined by more permanent characteristics. In other words, the attribute of being a terrorist, a persecutor, or a serious criminal will not wear off in two weeks time. To the contrary, any risk posed by one exposed to COVID-19 is likely to pass within that same time frame. Wouldn’t the “fullest extent” of our obligations call for simple quarantining for the brief period in question?

These issues were all raised in comments to the proposed regs. And of course, dubious reasons were employed to dismiss these arguments. For example, the agencies acknowledged the need for the danger posed be an actual rather than a merely possible one. But somehow, that requirement was dismissed by the inadequate excuse that the danger posed by a pandemic is “unique.”

The rule stands as one of the final examples of the extremes this administration will go to in order to circumvent our asylum laws and turn away those entitled to avail themselves of our immigration courts in order to determine if they are entitled to protection. As demonstrated here, the degree to which this administration veered from the actual intent of the statute in interpreting the security bar wouldn’t have been much greater if it attempted to deny asylum to those wearing white after Labor Day.11 The law must not be twisted or ignored by executive branch agencies when it conflicts with an administration’s policy objectives.

Notes:

8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(2)(A).

UNHCR Handbook at ❡ 140.

8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(2)(A).

See, e.g., Arangure Jasso v. Whitaker, 911 F.3d 333, 338-39 (6th Cir. 2018).

See Epic Sys. Corp. v. Lewis, 138 S. Ct. 1612, 1625 (2018).

Ibid (citing Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. Adams, 121 S.Ct. 1302, 149 (2001); National Assn. of Mfrs. v. Department of Defense,138 S.Ct. 617, 628–629 (2018)).

Matter of L-E-A-, 27 I&N Dec. 581, 592 (A.G. 2019).

Thanks to Prof. Jaclyn Kelley-Widmer for sharing her expertise on these terms. See Jaclyn Kelley-Widmer and Hillary Rich, “A Step Too Far: Matter of A-B-, Particular Social Group, and Chevron,” 29 Cornell J. of Law and Public Policy 345, 373 (2019).

Yusupov v. Att’y Gen. of U.S., 518 F.3d 185, 201 (3d Cir. 2008).

Id. at 203-204.

If it had done so, EOIR would undoubtedly have defended the move through the traditional, completely acceptable, totally normal method of issuing a “Myths vs. Facts” sheet. The document might contain the following entry: “Myth: EOIR issued a rule banning asylum to anyone wearing any color at any time. Fact: That’s completely absurd! Only those wearing white (which technically might not even be a color) are banned, and even then, only after Labor Day. As Pantone lists 1,867 colors, white consists of .05 percent of all colors one could wear. And that’s only if white is in fact a color. And, again, only after Labor Day.”

Copyright 2021 Jeffrey S. Chase. All rights reserved.

Republished by permission.

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

Jeffrey’s article points out how deeply the corruption and racism of the regime have penetrated into the Federal Bureaucracy, even infecting supposedly “professional and apolitical” agencies like CDC. Fixing this will be a formidable task for the Biden-Harris Administration.

But, there is a larger issue here: Why has the Supremes’ GOP majority “lapped up” the transparent pretexts for unconstitutional actions presented by the regime’s ethics-challenged DOJ lawyers? While an impressive array of U.S. District Court Judges, from both parties, have generally courageously stood tall for the rule of law against White Nationalist abuses, not so the GOP majority of the Supremes!

Let’s go back to the beginning of the regime. After a string of lower Federal Court defeats, “ethics-free” DOJ lawyers massaged and slightly watered down Trump’s “Muslim Ban” and repackaged it as a bogus “national security” measure. But, even as these disingenuous lawyers were advancing this bogus pretext in court, Trump was reassuring his White Nationalist base that this was indeed the “Muslim Ban” he had promised to his supporters.

https://www.cato.org/blog/dozen-times-trump-equated-travel-ban-muslim-ban

Nevertheless, the Supremes’ GOP majority “bought into” the patently (and demonstrably) bogus “national security” pretext, hook, line, and sinker:

Of the Supreme Court’s decision on Muslim ban 3.0, Omar Jadwat, director of the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project, said, “This ruling will go down in history as one of the Supreme Court’s great failures. It repeats the mistakes of the Korematsu decision upholding Japanese-American imprisonment and swallows wholesale government lawyers’ flimsy national security excuse for the ban instead of taking seriously the president’s own explanation for his action.”

“It is ultimately the people of this country who will determine its character and future. The court failed today, and so the public is needed more than ever. We must make it crystal clear to our elected representatives: If you are not taking actions to rescind and dismantle Trump’s Muslim ban, you are not upholding this country’s most basic principles of freedom and equality.”

https://www.aclu-wa.org/pages/timeline-muslim-ban

In doing so, the GOP Supremes’ associated themselves with a long line of racially biased pretexts used by courts to uphold invidious discrimination that violated our Constitution

Internment of Japanese-Americans (but not German-Americans) is about national security.
- Truth: Dehumanize, punish, and dispossess Japanese Americans on the West Coast;
Poll taxes are about raising revenue.
- Truth: Preventing African-Americans from voting;
Literacy tests (“grandfathering” ignorant White guys) are about insuring an informed electorate.
- Truth: Excluding African-American voters;
Separate is equal.
- Truth: Insuring that African-Americans will be educationally disadvantaged;
Voter ID laws are about election integrity.
- Truth: Designed by a primarily White GOP ruling class to suppress African American, Latino, and other minority voters who tend to support Democrats;
Gerrymandering to favor the GOP can be solved through the political process.
- Truth: Gerrymandering is intended by the GOP to rig the political process so that voters of color will never achieve political representation proportional to their numbers.

These are just a few of the obvious examples of how the “legal power structure” has often been on the “wrong side of history.” Sadly, it continues with today’s GOP Supremes’ majority which often embraces obvious pretexts and bogus “right wing legal gobbledygook” to systematically dump on vulnerable minorities and others whose political power and humanity they refuse to recognize.

Finally, to reinforce what Jeffrey and others have said, we have a legal obligation to protect refugees. Article 33 of the Convention to which we are party, now incorporated into the INA, is mandatory, not “optional” or “discretionary.”

As I pointed out before, refugees more often than not arrive in times of international crisis and turmoil. “Tough times” or internal problems (in this case aggravated and magnified by a maliciously incompetent regime) are NOT a legal (not to mention moral) basis for us to jettison our legal obligation to offer them protection.

Had the Supremes courageously and unanimously stood up for the Constitution, rule of law, and simple human decency against the regime’s obvious lies, false narratives, overt racism, religious bigotry, and general disregard for the rule of law (now in full, foul bloom every day), the last four years might have been very different. Lives lost forever could have been saved.

Folks, here we are, two decades into the 21st Century. Yet, we have a highly “un-representative” Supremes’ GOP majority that has willingly promoted the anti-democracy antics of, and carried water for, a patently corrupt White Nationalist regime seeking to “Dred Scottify” tens of millions of persons of color, religious minorities, and those “suspected” of not supporting the GOP.

Even if many would like to, this is not something that can simply be swept under the table (again). Failure of the Supremes majority to stand up for the individual rights and human dignity of all persons in America is something that will haunt us until it is fixed or we disappear as a nation!

Lousy judging has a huge cost for humanity and democracy. We need and deserve better from the highest levels of our privileged, yet too often ineffective and feckless in the face of tyranny, life-tenured judges!

Better Judges for a Better, Fairer America.🇺🇸 Make Equal Justice Under Law ⚖️ A Reality Rather Than an Ongoing, Judicially-Enabled, Charade!

Due Process Forever!⚖️🗽🇺🇸

PWS

01-04-21

ROUND TABLE 🛡⚔️ LEADS THE CHARGE FOR AN INDEPENDENT ARTICLE I U.S. IMMIGRATION COURT!⚖️🗽👩🏻‍⚖‍🤵🏾🇺🇸

Hon. Polly Webber
US Immigration Judge (Ret.)
Member Round Table of Former Immigration Judges
Fiber Artist

Comments of the Round Table of Former Immigration Judges

Submitted to the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration and Citizenship

Regarding the “Real Courts, Real Justice Act.”
January 3, 2021

This statement for the record is submitted by former Immigration Judges and former Appellate Immigration Judges of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). Members of our group were appointed to the bench and served under different administrations of both parties over the past four decades. Drawing on our many years of collective experience, we are intimately familiar with the workings, history, and development of the Immigration Court from the 1980s up to present.

We hereby incorporate our Statement submitted to this Subcommittee on January 29, 2020, for its Hearing on “Courts in Crisis: The State of Judicial Independence and Due Process in U.S. Immigration Courts.” The statement sets forth the many ways in which the lack of safeguards in the Immigration Court system, specifically by positioning it within the Department of Justice, has resulted in extreme overreach by the executive branch over a system that historically has been the purview of Congress through its plenary power.

We applaud the efforts of Congresswoman Lofgren and the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration and Citizenship for undertaking this historic task of creating an independent Immigration Court under Article 1 of the Constitution. Bringing together stakeholders and organizations with the proper expertise and foresight has resulted in a proposal with integrity and purpose, and a realistic possibility of long-needed reform.

The recognition that this Court needed to be independent from executive influence originated within the immigration judge corps as early as 1989. It took decades for the concept to mature to its current endorsement by nearly every important legal and social organization in the field, recognizing the importance of a system built on integrity and independence. Indeed, the creation of an Article 1 Immigration Court is finally a need recognized by the public at large.

The Time is Now

The Subcommittee is in a uniquely advantageous position to introduce this legislation at the inception of this historic session of Congress. There is nearly universal agreement that the whole immigration system needs a major overhaul. Beginning with the Immigration Court reflects a recognition that protection of the most vulnerable population, those appearing before the Court, should be addressed first.

The Round Table urges the Subcommittee to wrap up its due diligence and introduce this bill at the beginning of the new session. It is hoped that by submitting the bill, the Subcommittee will indicate that these issues are on its radar and the continuing executive rampages over the Court will cease.

DHS Rights of Appeal in an Article 1 Court System

Counsel to the Subcommittee specifically asked The Round Table to address whether under an Article 1 scenario the government should have the right to challenge determinations granting relief to immigrants in federal court. This question was presumably presented because under the present configuration, such appeals are disallowed. Our Round Table unanimously believes that given the independence the Court would enjoy under Article 1, both parties should have full right of appeal.

The historical inability of DHS to petition for review from Board grants of relief in part stems from the early days when Immigration Judges were still Special Inquiry Officers and the Court was part of INS, which in turn was part of DOJ. The Attorney General originally delegated only limited decision-making authority to the Board. All complex issues had to be referred to the Attorney General. INS could not appeal decisions made by AG delegates, who all worked for the same agency. Their recourse was to ask the AG to certify the appellate agency decision to himself/herself. The inability of the government to petition for review survived the reorganizations in 1983 and 2003. The difference we are seeking to make is removing the Court from the executive agency trappings. As a stand-alone Court, its parties should enjoy all the rights and duties that fall from that independence.

As INA § 242 is written, Judicial Review is limited to reviews of final orders of removal. Thus, the scope of review would need to be changed to allow the government to challenge grants of relief.

Contact with Questions or Concerns: Polly Webber, pawebber7250@gmail.com

Sincerely,

The Round Table of Former Immigration Judges

Hon. Steven Abrams, Immigration Judge, New York, Varick St., and Queens (N.Y.) Wackenhut Immigration Courts, 1997-2013
Hon. Silvia Arellano, Immigration Judge, Florence and Phoenix, 2010-2019
Hon. Terry A. Bain, Immigration Judge, New York, 1994-2019
Hon. Sarah Burr, Assistant Chief Immigration Judge and Immigration Judge, New York, 1994-2012
Hon. Teofilo Chapa, Immigration Judge, Miami, 1995-2018
Hon. Jeffrey S. Chase, Immigration Judge, New York, 1995-2007 Hon. George T. Chew, Immigration Judge, New York, 1995-2017
Hon. Joan Churchill, Immigration Judge, Arlington, VA 1980-2005
Hon. Lisa Dornell, Immigration Judge, Baltimore, 1995-2019
Hon. Alison Daw, Immigration Judge, Los Angeles and San Francisco, 2006-2018
Hon. Bruce J. Einhorn, Immigration Judge, Los Angeles, 1990-2007
Hon. Noel Ferris, Immigration Judge, New York, 1994-2013
Hon. James R. Fujimoto, Immigration Judge, Chicago, 1990-2019
Hon. Gilbert Gembacz, Immigration Judge, Los Angeles, 1996-2008
Hon. John F. Gossart, Jr., Immigration Judge, Baltimore, 1982-2013
Hon. Paul Grussendorf, Immigration Judge, Philadelphia and San Francisco, 1997-2004
Hon. Miriam Hayward, Immigration Judge, San Francisco, 1997-2018
Hon. Charles Honeyman, Immigration Judge, Philadelphia and New York, 1995-2020
Hon. Rebecca Bowen Jamil, Immigration Judge, San Francisco, 2016-2018
Hon. William P. Joyce, Immigration Judge, Boston, 1996-2002
Hon. Carol King, Immigration Judge, San Francisco, 1995-2017
Hon. Elizabeth A. Lamb, Immigration Judge, New York, 1995-2018
Hon. Donn L. Livingston, Immigration Judge, Denver and New York, 1995-2018
Hon. Margaret McManus, Immigration Judge, New York, 1991-2018
Hon. Charles Pazar, Immigration Judge, Memphis, 1998-2017
Hon. Laura Ramirez, Immigration Judge, San Francisco, 1997-2018
Hon. John W. Richardson, Immigration Judge, Phoenix, 1990-2018
Hon. Lory D. Rosenberg, Appellate Immigration Judge, Board of Immigration Appeals, 1995-2002
Hon. Susan G. Roy, Immigration Judge, Newark, NJ 2008-2010
Hon. Paul W. Schmidt, Chair and Appellate Immigration Judge, Board of Immigration Appeals, and Immigration Judge, Arlington, VA 1995-2016
Hon. Patricia M.B. Sheppard, Immigration Judge, Boston, 1993-2006
Hon. Ilyce S. Shugall, Judge, San Francisco, 2017-2019
Hon. Helen Sichel, Immigration Judge, New York, 1997-2020
Hon. Denise Slavin, Immigration Judge, Miami, Krome, and Baltimore, 1995-2019
Hon. Andrea Hawkins Sloan, Immigration Judge, Portland, 2010-2017
Hon. Gustavo D. Villageliu, Appellate Immigration Judge, BIA, 1995-2003
Hon. Robert D. Vinikoor, Immigration Judge, Chicago, 1984-2017
Hon. Polly A. Webber, Immigration Judge, San Francisco, 1995-2016

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

Centuries of judicial experience represented here! As we say, “The
Time Is Now!”

Many thanks to Judge Polly Webber and her drafting team 🖋 for making this happen in such a timely manner!

Due Process Forever!⚖️🗽👩🏻‍⚖‍🇺🇸👍

PWS

01-03-21

⚖️(IN)JUSTICE IN AMERICA 🇺🇸— Why Justice Amy Coney Barrett & A Whole Bunch Of Other Federal Judges 👨🏻‍⚖️👩‍⚖️Who Have “Tuned Out” Humanity Don’t Belong On The Bench!

https://medium.com/i-taught-the-law/i-argued-a-shooting-death-case-in-front-of-amy-coney-barrett-89b4165f7df2

Dan Canon writes on medium.com:

. . . .

Perhaps you’ve reserved some optimism for the whole “Barrett’s a mom and a Catholic so there must be some compassion there” thing. Sorry, but no. In her confirmation hearings, she spoke about how the George Floyd video was “very, very personal” for her family, and that she and her children “wept together” over what must have been the zillionth police murder in her history as a lawyer and mother. But her mentor, the late Antonin Scalia, seemed to think it was constitutional to put innocent people to death, despite his ultra-Catholicism. There’s no reason to believe that any sort of ideological consistency will prevail simply because of a judge’s familial status or bizarre metaphysical beliefs, and those factors made no apparent difference in Brad’s case.

Here’s where this gets complicated: In saying that being part of this horrendous decision should disqualify a judge from serving on the Supreme Court, by extension, I’m saying that damn near every federal judge is similarly unqualified. Almost none of them believe that cops should be held accountable for killing mentally ill people who call for help. This sort of thinking, in which cops are extended every benefit of every doubt, feasible or unfeasible, is the norm. Barrett didn’t even write the opinion in Brad’s case. It was written by a liberal judge who, like all her colleagues (of whatever political persuasion), was willing to write the police a blank check. That’s how our courts have operated for decades, and even in a post-BLM society, few of those in robes have the intestinal fortitude to do anything different.

So I am unmoved by Justice Barrett’s faith. I am unmoved by her status as a working mother of seven. I am particularly unmoved by her fake expression of sympathy for George Floyd, whose case she had nothing to do with, when she couldn’t spare any for the people who actually appear before her. I’m unmoved because I’ve seen so little compassion for grieving parents like Matt and Gina throughout my career, from any federal judge, let alone the Federalist Society drones who have lately taken over the judiciary. The basic inability to do what’s right for families like the Kings should be disqualifying. Not just for Amy Coney Barrett, but for the whole lot of ‘em.

A version of this originally appeared in LEO Weekly.

WRITTEN BY

Dan Canon

Civil rights lawyer and law prof, writing about the Midwest, the untold horrors of the justice system, and the ongoing battle between the law and humanity.

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

Read Dan’s complete article chronicling the tone-deaf mishandling of the police shooting death of a young man (his clients’ son) suffering from mental health issues.

This echoes what I’ve been saying on Courtside about the need for a “new breed of better, more progressive Federal Judges” who recognize the compelling human side of the law and why the Constitutional requirements of due process, equal protection, and fundamental fairness are there in the first place. They exist to protect individuals from tyranny and government overreach, not to be ignored, watered down, or woodenly distinguished away to protect government abusers from accountability or to further ideological agendas (primarily, but not exclusively those developed by right wingers) out of touch with the most vulnerable levels of humanity they are supposed to be serving.

Life tenure means that Coney Barrett and the rest of her unqualified colleagues will be around for a long time. But, change needs to start somewhere, now!

In my experience, internal pushback, dissent, and constant confrontation of the complicit, complacent, judicial status quo with an aggressive implementation of due process, fundamental fairness, and a commitment to human rights and the best interpretations of the law can over time play a critical role in improving the law, changing results, and perhaps most important, saving lives!⚖️🗽👩‍⚖️🧑🏽‍⚖️👨🏻‍⚖️🇺🇸 That, not the hollow ideological agendas of Coney Barrett and others like her, is what “good judging” is really all about!

Intentional lack of compassion, empathy, and humanity (“Dred Scottification” of the “other”) have been themes of Trump, Miller, Wolf, Sessions, Barr, Rosenstein, Nielsen, Pompeo and the other neo-fascist toadies and moral misfits who have gleefully served the regime over the past four years. But, lack of overall resolve and courage to stand up and uniformly and authoritatively “just say no” to these toxic, anti-American, anti-humanity policies and to hold the “perps” accountable for their systemic lawlessness has plagued the Federal Judiciary, with a feckless and often downright complicit Supremes’ majority “leading” the way.

The current sorry state of our democracy, where GOP demagogues, who falsely swore to uphold our Constitution, openly spread lies, knowingly false narratives, and total BS in an attempt to incite violence, undermine our duly elected incoming President, and destroy democratic institutions, including the courts, is in part a reflection of the sad failure of our life-tenured Federal Judiciary to perform its core Constitutional function. That is, to stand up for the Constitution, the rule of law, and individual law human rights in the face failures by the other two branches of Government to uphold their Constitutional responsibilities.

Compare the (finally) unified position of the judiciary on the frivolous election challenges by Trump and his cronies with the failure to stand up for the legal and human rights of asylum seekers, refugees, immigrants, and migrants from the “git go.” Even now, the Courts have failed to sanction Trump and his lawyers for their unethical behavior in bringing frivolous civil suits, with no supporting evidence, for the specific purpose of undermining a free and fair election and using the legal system to attack the legitimacy of the duly elected President-elect and his incoming Administration. “Corruptly weaponizing the law for improper purposes” is clearly inappropriate and unethical. Yet, folks like Rudy and Sydney Powell retain their law licenses and are free to continue to abuse and undermine the system with frivolous litigation.

Dan points to the “ongoing battle between the law and humanity.” That’s the problem! The law should and must be about defending and advancing humanity in the face of tyranny and injustice. We need judges who stand for human justice. For, as MLK, Jr., said “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere!”

Better judges for a better America! 🇺🇸Not just a slogan; a requirement for our democracy to survive!

⚖️🗽🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

01-03-21

😰NO HAPPY NEW YEAR FOR FAMILIES IN “THE NEW AMERICAN GULAG”☠️⚰️ — As Kakistocracy Of War Criminals 🤮🏴‍☠️ Departs, Will President Biden Have The Wisdom & Guts To Move Beyond “The Dem Border Alarmists” & Get The Progressive Leaders 🦸🏽‍♂️⚖️ From The NDPA In Place To Bring Due Process & Order To The Border?🗽🇺🇸

Trump Dumping Asylum Seekers in Hondiras — Dumping Asylum Seekers in Honduras
Artist: Monte Wolverton
Reproduced under license

Erika Pinheiro, Litigation & Policy Director, Al Otro Lado, speaks at TEDSalon: Border Stories, September 10, 2019 at the TED World Theater, New York, NY Photo: Ryan Lash / TED, Creative Commons License

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jan/01/family-detention-still-exists-immigration-groups-warn-the-fight-is-far-from-over?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

Amanda Holpuch reports from the Gulag for HuffPost:

. . . .

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) bars asylum seekers and refugees from the US under an order called Title 42. People who attempt to cross the border are returned, or expelled, back to Mexico, without an opportunity to test their asylum claims. More than 250,000 migrants processed at the US-Mexico border between March and October were expelled, according to US Customs and Border Protection data.

The situation is dire. Thousands of asylum-seekers are stuck at the border, uncertain when they will be able to file their claims. The camps they wait in are an even greater public health risk that before.

Outside the border, Al Otro Lado has fought for detained migrants to get PPE and medical releases. Prisons are one of the worst possible places to be when there is a contagious disease and deaths in the custody of US immigration authorities have increased dramatically this year. They have also provided supplies to homeless migrants in southern California who have been shut out of public hygiene facilities.

Pinheiro said there will be improvements with Trump out of office, but some of the Biden campaign promises to address asylum issues at the border will be toothless until the CDC order is revoked. It’s a point she plans to make in conversations with the transition team.

A prime concern for advocates about the Biden administration is that it will include some of the same people from Barack Obama’s administration, which had more deportations than any other president and laid the groundwork for some controversial Trump policies.

While it is a worry for Pinheiro, she has hope that the new administration will build something better. “I would hope a lot of those people, and I know for some of them, have been able to reflect on how the systems they built were weaponized by Trump to do things like family separation or detaining children,” she said.

Family separation, which has left 545 children still waiting to be reunited with their parents, was a crucial issue for many voters and Pinheiro hopes that energy translates to other immigration policies.

“How did you feel when your government committed the atrocity of family separation in your name?” Pinheiro said. “The next step is really understanding that similar and sometimes worse atrocities are still being committed in the name of border security and limiting migration.”

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

Read the complete article at the link.

I totally agree with Erika Pinheiro that there is no excuse for the continuing violations of our Constitution, statutes, international obligations, and simple human decency. The regime’s policies are nothing more than “crimes against humanity” thinly disguised as “law enforcement,” “national security,” and “public health” (from a regime whose “malicious incompetence,” cruelty, and callous intentional undermining of medical advice during the pandemic have contributed to the unnecessary deaths of tens of thousands of Americans).

Even more disgracefully, the Supremes and other Federal Courts have failed in their Constitutional duty to stand up to the abusers and hold the regime’s scofflaw “leaders” (to where, one might ask?) accountable. What’s the purpose of life-tenured judges who lack the training, wisdom, ethics, and most of all courage to enforce the legal and human rights of the most vulnerable against lawless, dishonest, and fundamentally cowardly “Executive bullies” hiding behind their official positions? Not much, in my view! There are deep problems in all three branches of our badly compromised and ailing Government!

I have also spoken out on Courtside against the dangers of putting the same failed Dem politicos who thoroughly screwed up immigration policy, and particularly the Immigration Courts, back in charge again. I agree with Erika’s hope that some of them have gained wisdom and perspective in the last four years. But, why rely on the hope that those who failed in the past have suddenly gotten smarter, when there are “better alternatives” out there ready to step in and solve the problems?

Why not put in place some talented new faces from the NDPA with better, more progressive ideas, tons of dynamic energy, and the demonstrated willingness and courage to stand tall against bureaucratic tyranny? Give them a chance to solve the problems! Erika looks like one of those who should be solving problems and implementing better immigration policies “from the inside” in the Biden-Harris Administration!

The “deterrence only paradigm” that has driven our border enforcement policies over the past half century has been a demonstrable failure, both in terms of law enforcement and the unnecessary and unjustifiable human carnage that it has caused. Why keep doing variations on discredited policies and expecting better results?

We know that ugly, racist rhetoric, jailing families and kids in punitive conditions, weaponizing courts as enforcement tools, suspending the rule of law, denying hearings, and even summarily, illegally, and immorally returning asylum seekers to death won’t stop folks from fleeing unbearable conditions in their native countries! They will continue to seek protection in America, even in the face of predictable abuses, life-threatening dangers, and little chance of success in a system intentionally “gamed” to mistreat and reject them while denying their humanity.

Desperate people do desperate things. They will continue to do them even in the face of inhuman abuses inflicted by those whose better fortunes in life have not been accompanied by any particular compassion, understanding of the predicament of others, or recognition of an obligation to abjure the power to bully and torment those less fortunate in favor of addressing their situations in a fair, reasonable, and humane manner.

Human migration is far older than nation states, zero tolerance, baby jails, family incarceration, biased judging, national selfishness disguised as “patriotism,” and border walls. It has outlasted and outflanked all of the vain attempts to artificially suppress it by force and gimmicks. It’s time for some policies that recognize reality, see its benefits, and work with the flow rather than futilely in opposition to it.

It’s past time to look beyond the failures of yesterday to progressive solutions and new leadership committed to solving problems while enhancing justice, respecting human dignity, and enhancing human rights (which, in the end, are all of our rights)!

Due Process Forever!⚖️🗽🇺🇸 Same old, same old never!

Happy New Year!😎👍🏼

PWS

O1-01-21

DEMS NEED TO STOP REPEATING THE BOGUS 🤥 NARRATIVES ABOUT THE (LARGELY SELF-CREATED & OVERBLOWN) “SOUTHERN BORDER CRISIS:” Channeling “Courtside,” Yale Schacher Sets Forth A Plan For Using Experts To Not Only Reinstitute But Drastically Improve Due Process ⚖️🗽🇺🇸 For Asylum Seekers! — It’s NOT Rocket 🚀 Science!

Yael Schacher
Historian
Senior U.S. Advocate
Refugees International

https://www.refugeesinternational.org/reports/2020/12/17/building-better-not-backward-learning-from-the-past-to-design-sound-border-asylum-policy

Introduction

President-elect Biden has promised a broad array of reforms that would impact refugees, asylum seekers, and other forced migrants. He has indicated he will restore Temporary Protected Status, place a moratorium on deportations, and end prolonged detention and for-profit detention centers. These are all crucially important to the safety and security of migrants and their families in the United States and other countries, especially in the Western Hemisphere. President-elect Biden has also promised to end the Trump administration’s policy of making asylum seekers “remain in Mexico” while awaiting hearings in U.S. immigration court.

However, in recent weeks, a flawed and fatalistic view of migration to the U.S. southern border has taken hold in some media accounts and reports. It goes like this: President Trump’s Remain in Mexico (or MPP) policy has created a logistical and humanitarian crisis at the southern U.S. border that, despite President-elect Biden’s promises, will be very difficult to undo. Further, a combination of pull and push factors (especially in the wake of hurricanes in Central America) will lead to increased migration to the southern U.S. border this spring such that President-elect Biden will have little choice but to keep the border sealed under an order from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), as he attempts to deal with COVID-19 in border states and fulfill other immigration policy promises—including uniting families the Trump administration ripped apart two years ago.

There are several problems with this line of argument, many of which are addressed in this report. Most fundamentally, keeping the border sealed and migrants waiting in Mexico will perpetuate serious abuses. Family separations and other violations of human rights, as well as violations of U.S. law, will continue to occur under a Biden administration that does not implement new policies at the border. Recently, MPP and the CDC border closure have exacerbated smuggling and trafficking at the border, as well as other forms of abuse against migrants. For example, the CDC order has led to the repatriation of Nicaraguan dissidents as well as the return of a sexually abused Guatemalan child. It has also led asylum seekers to try to cross undetected in remote desert areas. Further, unwinding MPP and allowing asylum seekers to ask for protection at the border is not only the right thing to do, but also feasible with the proper planning. Indeed, it presents the incoming administration with an opportunity to rethink migration management, especially for those seeking asylum, and to implement a new screening process that is both more humane and more efficient.

President-elect Biden has invoked President Franklin Delano Roosevelt—healer, rebuilder, and practical problem solver—as a model. During World War II, Roosevelt planned and devoted significant resources to resolving the largest displacement crisis the world had ever known. This planning was part of an effort to ensure that what happened in 1939 to the S.S. St. Louis—a ship of asylum-seeking Jews turned away by the United States and other countries—would not occur again.

During his first week in office, President-elect Biden should issue an executive order on border asylum policy that departs dramatically from that which President Trump put forth during his first week. President Biden’s executive order should give asylum seekers access to the border and provide for cooperation with border states and shelters to safely and humanely receive asylum seekers. It should allocate resources to alternatives to detention, including case management, and to improved adjudication of asylum claims in immigration courts, especially through provision of legal services. It should also commit to ending practices associated with expedited removal of asylum seekers that have resulted in abuses, and to the use of parole to unwind MPP. Finally, through revocation of Trump administration decisions, regulations, and policies, as well as through settlement of lawsuits and the withdrawal of appeals to federal courts regarding these policies, the executive order should commit to restoring asylum eligibility to those who have fled persecution but have been denied or prevented from obtaining protection.

In taking such action, President-elect Biden would be fulfilling not only his campaign promises but the commitment he made when he voted for Senate passage of the Refugee Act of 1980. That law, supported by large majorities of both parties, promised to ensure fair access to asylum at the border.

This report shows why it is imperative that the Biden administration do this rather than keep us mired in a policy framework that does not work and that has led to a cycle of crises. It does so by looking back to a momentous time of transition about thirty years ago. With the Cold War ending, the United States had to rethink its assumptions about who merited refugee status. Only a handful of refugee resettlement slots in the U.S. Refugee Program were allotted to Central Americans, and the United States had not yet developed clear procedures for effectively handling asylum seekers at the southwestern border. Rather than acknowledge the forces pushing people northward, U.S. policymakers adopted a paradigm that was focused primarily, if not exclusively, on deterrence. This is a paradigm that we are still in today.

At different points over the past thirty years, humanitarian and constructive policies have tempered the harshness of this paradigm, and such policies have also brought benefits in terms of cost and efficiency. These policies need to be adapted and scaled up. But they also need to be placed within a welcoming framework that does not presume asylum seekers are a threat. Instead of devoting tremendous resources to a futile and rights-violating attempt to block those already on the move, we have to try to better understand the drivers of migration, which, for Central Americans, include corruption, poverty, insecurity, and violence. We must devote resources instead to humanely receiving asylum seekers and adjudicating their claims fairly. We also have to stop assuming that the best place to manage admissions of all Central Americans seeking protection is at the border.

The Deterrence Paradigm

The deterrence paradigm has been implemented repeatedly using the same counterproductive strategies.

. . . .

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

Read the rear of Yael’s article at the link.

👍🏼👍🏼👍🏼👍🏼👍🏼⚖️🗽🇺🇸

Folks like my Round Table 🛡⚔️ colleague Judge Paul Grussendorf and I have been “preaching” for an abandonment of the unlawful, inhumane, incredibly wasteful, and demonstrably ineffective “deterrence paradigm.”

The skill set to establish a lawful, better, humane, efficient asylum system, consistent with our Constitutional, statutory, and international obligations is out there, mainly in the private/NGO/academic communities. I/O/W the “practical scholars, litigators, and advocates” in the NDPA.

It’s a just a question of the incoming Biden/Harris Administration getting beyond the “enforcement only” mentality, personnel, and White Nationalist nativist thinking that currently infects the entire USG immigration bureaucracy, at all levels. Replace the current failed leadership with experts from the NDPA and empower them to work with other experts in the private sector to institute a better system that would be no more costly, likely less, than the current “built to fail” abominations that not only waste resources but destroy human lives and are an ugly stain on our national conscience!

I also appreciate Yael’s recognition of the pressing and compelling need to “end the Clown Show 🤡🦹🏿‍♂️☠️@ EOIR:”

Immigration Court Reform

EOIR policies during the Trump administration have been at odds with principles of due process and judicial independence. These include the imposition of numeric case completion quotas and docket management policies that deprive asylum seekers of procedural protections; appointment of judges who almost exclusively come from prosecutorial backgrounds (especially working at DHS and in law enforcement); promotion to permanent positions on an expanded BIA of judges with asylum denial rates much higher than the national average; and procedures that limit the ability of claimants to effectively appeal their cases. The Biden administration should conduct an urgent review of EOIR hiring practices and immigration court procedures and develop recommendations for regulatory or structural changes consistent with the protection needs of asylum seekers.

The critical “urgent review” should be done by a “Team of Experts from the NDPA” brought in on an immediate temporary basis, if necessary, in accordance with Federal Personnel Rules, to replace the current Senior “Management” @ EOIR as well as the entire BIA. There’s no better way to fix the system than to take over management, restore fairness and order, and get inside the current disastrous mess @ the Clown Show 🤡🦹🏿‍♂️! Importantly, the “Team of Experts” with effective operational control could immediately begin fixing (and conversely stop aggravating and creating) the glaring problems while putting the structure and personnel in place for long-term reforms.

Lives ☠️⚰️ are at stake here! We need ACTION, not merely study and evaluation. “Fixing the system on the fly” may be challenging, but it’s perfectly within the capabilities of the right team of NDPA experts! Dems often prefer study and dialogue to effective actions. As Toby Keith would say: We need “a little less talk and a lot more action.”

(Toby Keith: https://www.google.com/search?q=%22a+little+less+talk+and+a+lot+more+action&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en-us&client=safari)

Due Process Forever! It’s NOT rocket 🚀 science!

PWS

12-30-20

FACT: THE ROUND TABLE 🛡⚔️ HELPS LEAD THE FIGHT AGAINST EOIR CLOWN 🤡🦹🏿‍♂️ SHOW’S “DYING GASP” ASSAULTS 🤮 ON THE MOST VULNERABLE AMONG US! — “Injustice Anywhere Is A Threat To Justice Everywhere!” — Rev. MLK, Jr.

Hon. Ilyce Shugall
U.S. Immigraton Judge (Retired)
Fearless “Knightess of the Round Table🛡⚔️“

Two sets of evil, scofflaw proposed regs at issue here:

MTR EOIR Comments FINAL

Round Table continuance regs comments_FINAL

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

Thanks to our leading “Warrior Queen” Ilyce and her team of knightesses and knights who took the lead on this phase of the never ending battle for “truth, justice, and the American way.”

I trust that it will take more than another pathetic “Alternative Fact Sheet” 🤥 to save the sorry bunch @ “EOIR’s Clown Tower”🤡🦹🏿‍♂️ in Falls Church from accountability for their sycophancy, false narratives, and constant assaults on due process, the rule of law, truth, and human decency. 👎🏻🏴‍☠️☠️⚰️🤮
https://www.justice.gov/eoir/page/file/1161001/download

EYORE — “Eyore In Distress”
Once A Symbol of Fairness, Due Process, & Best Practices, Now Gone “Belly Up”

Star Chamber Justice — “Justice”
Star Chamber
Style

Four Horsemen — BIA Asylum Panel In Action
Albrecht Dürer, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

Indicative and very telling that as justice further deteriorates, backlogs mushroom, productivity drops, public outrage grows, chaos reigns, (already rock bottom) morale plummets, and vulnerable humans suffer, the “malicious incompetents” 🤡🦹🏿‍♂️ at EOIR spend time and public resources on this nonsense!

There will be neither racial justice nor social justice in America without “radical due process reform” that ends forever the disgraceful “Dred Scottification” of “the other” (particularly migrants of color, women, families, and, most disgustingly, children) by the EOIR Clown Courts!🤡🦹🏿‍♂️☠️ To paraphrase Rev. King, “Injustice to one is injustice to all.”

Due Process Forever!⚖️🗽🇺🇸👍🏼 EOIR’s Assault On Asylum Seekers, Never!👎🏻🏴‍☠️

PWS

12-29-20

CGRS @ Hastings 🇺🇸⚖️🗽ISSUES STATEMENT ON SUIT TO HALT DYING REGIME’S 👎🏻 “KILL ALL ASYLUM SEEKERS” ⚰️ FINAL REGS — As “Age Of Infamy” 🤮 Draws To Disgusting Close, Questions Remain As To Reversal Of Illegal/Immoral Policies, Accountability For Crimes Against Humanity 🏴‍☠️ By Grauleiter Miller ☠️ & Accomplices!

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

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

https://cgrs.uchastings.edu/news/groups-challenge-trump-administration-rule-gutting-asylum

Groups Challenge Trump Administration Rule Gutting Asylum

Thursday, December 24, 2020

Four immigrant rights organizations – Pangea Legal Services, Dolores Street Community Services, Inc., Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc. (CLINIC), and Capital Area Immigrants’ Rights Coalition – have requested a temporary restraining order in a lawsuit challenging a sweeping new rule that will eviscerate access to protection for people seeking refuge in the United States. Set to take effect on January 11, 2021, the rule completely transforms the asylum process, severely limiting the availability of asylum and related protections to individuals fleeing persecution or torture. The plaintiff organizations are represented by the Center for Gender & Refugee Studies, the Harvard Immigration and Refugee Clinical Program, and the law firm of Sidley Austin LLP.

“Published in the waning hours of the Trump administration, this rule marks its most far-reaching attempt to end asylum yet, and a death knell to our country’s longstanding commitment to offer safe haven for the persecuted,” said Jamie Crook, Director of Litigation at the Center for Gender & Refugee Studies. “The rule violates our laws, flouts our treaty obligations, and upends decades of legal precedent. If the mammoth rule is permitted to take effect, it will result in people being deported to face persecution, torture, and even death in their home countries.”

The rule deprives asylum seekers of any semblance of due process, imposing many barriers to relief before they even have the opportunity to present their case in immigration court. Among its numerous harmful provisions, the rule allows judges to deny an asylum application without holding a hearing. The rule also establishes 12 new “discretionary” factors that will bar many asylum seekers from life-saving protection. These include a de facto bar to asylum for applicants who pass through another country en route to the United States, effectively codifying and expanding the Trump administration’s third country transit bar, which the courts have already struck down as unlawful.

For those who are able to get their case before a judge, the new rule radically redefines who qualifies as a “refugee,” distorting the law so thoroughly that adjudicators can deny relief to virtually all applicants. The rule explicitly excludes from protection survivors of gender-based violence, children and families targeted by gangs, and people fleeing other abhorrent abuses. It also redefines “persecution” in such a way that judges will be directed to deny asylum even to individuals who have been detained and threatened with death due to their beliefs.

“Despite its enormous scope, the administration rushed this rule through the regulatory process without regard for its life-or-death implications for asylum seekers,” said Sabrineh Ardalan, Director of the Harvard Immigration and Refugee Clinical Program. “The administration chose to brush aside nearly 90,000 public comments raising serious concerns with the proposed rule.”

The plaintiffs in this lawsuit are nonprofit organizations that provide immigration legal services and have previously come together to stop other Trump administration attempts to erect unlawful barriers to asylum. They contend that the new rule will make it far more difficult to assist asylum-seeking clients and cause serious harm to the immigrant communities they serve.

The plaintiffs have asked the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California to issue a permanent nationwide injunction to prevent the rule from taking effect, arguing that the rule violates the Immigration and Nationality Act, the Administrative Procedures Act, the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution, and the United States’ duty under international law not to return people to persecution or torture. On Wednesday the plaintiffs requested a temporary restraining order to immediately halt implementation of the rule while the court considers the case.

The plaintiffs also argue that the rule is procedurally invalid, as it was co-issued by Acting Department of Homeland Security Secretary Chad Wolf, whom multiple courts have declared was unlawfully appointed to his position and lacks the authority to promulgate such a rule.

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

Speeding up executions, killing and torturing the most vulnerable humans, denying COVID relief to desperate Americans, issuing corrupt pardons to murderers, fraudsters, cronies, and dishonest politicos, plotting treason against the USG — that’s how the regime and its sycophants have spent their waning days.

Despite the obvious desire to move on and avoid dealing with the crimes and overt corruption of the defeated regime, it will be difficult for the Biden-Harris Administration to avoid questions of accountability for the worst President, worst regime, and worst major party in U.S. history. Honestly coming to grips with the past is often a prerequisite for a better future.

⚖️🗽🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

12-27-20

⚖️CHRISTMAS 🎄 MESSAGE 2020: The Story & Spirit Of Christ 😇 Require Us To Show Compassion, Mercy, & Treat Refugees Fairly & Humanely, Even In Times Of Our Own Nation’s Difficulties & Trauma — “The Christmas story reminds us of a family struggling under the yoke of an oppressive regime,” Says Rev. Serene Jones👍🏼🗽

Rev. Serene Jones
President
Union Theological Seminary

https://time.com/4155651/christmas-story-refugees/

From Time, Dec. 2015:

As our eyes fall upon the familiar manger scenes scattered throughout our churches and homes this Christmas season, it is hard not to think about the millions of people from that same manger land who are seeking refuge from terror and oppression now 2,000 years later.

Where will they go? Who will give them shelter?

As Oliver Willis with Media Matters tweeted: “if only we had a seasonally appropriate story about middle eastern people seeking refuge being turned away by the heartless.”

This less-than-140-character comment has inspired thousands of words in response, many of them from conservative Christians attacking Willis for committing a grave offense against the Christmas story. “Christmas is about Christ,” they insist, “not Syrian refugees. The holy family was simply returning to Bethlehem for a census.” Factually, these critics are right. But they miss the much larger point of the

The Christmas story is not about a refugee family, but it is about a family seeking refuge. Ordered by an occupying government to travel by foot for days on end so that Caesar Augustus could count the number of people under his order, an expectant mother at the peak of her pregnancy is forced to undergo the single most dangerous experience of a first-century woman’s life not at home, but away in a manger.

It was a fiercely political environment through which they wandered. Why should we pretend like it wasn’t?

. . . .

I believe the Christmas story should open our eyes and our hearts to those most vulnerable in our midst. To those whose only hope is to travel by foot and inflatable raft for days in search of a livable life—many of whom look very much like the Middle Eastern Mary, Jesus’ mother.

. . . .

When Jesus is asked how one inherits eternal life, he responds with the story of the Good Samaritan. The most startling part of the story is that in Jesus’ time Samaritans were perceived similarly to American Muslims today.

Imagine the Pope, when asked how one gets into heaven, answering with a story about a young Muslim from Syria. This is the story Jesus tells.

Jesus tells us to welcome the stranger, to feed the hungry, to go and sell all your possessions and give the money to the poor. Jesus asks that we treat all of humanity with the same love, kindness and generosity that he modeled throughout his life.

The Christmas story reminds us of a family struggling under the yoke of an oppressive regime. Of a God who became human to take on our struggles and strife and to embody divine love, whose light shines on all. As he tells us, whatever we have done for the least among us we have done to him.

As followers of Jesus we are called to welcome the strangers of our time. To return the care shown by the Good Samaritan to today’s marginalized communities. And to open our hearts and our doors to those seeking refuge this Christmas season, whatever their religion.

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

Read the complete article at the link.

Rev. Jones’s words are as true today, even in the middle of a pandemic, as they were in 2015 when she wrote them.

Unfortunately, the sometimes perceptive, occasionally tone deaf, WashPost Editorial Board chose Christmas Day to exhibit the latter quality, basically “buying in” to the myth that 140,000 (or 200,00, or even 1,000,000) refugees seeking asylum at our Southern Border are somehow going to destabilize our nation and throw it into a tailspin. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/biden-needs-to-restore-american-values-to-immigration-policy-without-triggering-a-border-surge/2020/12/24/d1b60100-43d7-11eb-975c-d17b8815a66d_story.html

According to this specious reasoning, that justifies an indefinite extension of the current regime’s cruel, bogus, and illegal refugee bans, including “Let ‘Em Die in Mexico” by the new Administration while it “cautiously figures things out” (something the Obama Administration never managed to do over eight painful years of botched asylum policies). I call BS! In this situation, every day of unnecessary delay in ending the regime’s racist policies endangers human lives and mocks our claim to be a “nation of laws.”

I repeat the words of my Round Table friend & colleague Judge Paul Grussendorf, a man who has first-had experience with refugees at all levels of our system and who, unlike the Editorial Board and the nativists, has “walked the walk and talked the talk:”

In the early days of this administration there was much hype over the “migrant caravans” composed mostly of Central Americans from the “northern triangle” countries, El Salvador, Honduras and Guatemala, that were “invading” our country — the old “barbarian hordes” trope that is a favorite of every totalitarian regime. In fact the numbers of each such “caravan” for the most part would easily fit inside a typical college stadium. (Current demographics demonstrate that even if we admitted all of them as potential workers and residents, the U.S. would still experience labor shortfalls in the near future and they would not supplant the decline of our native-born population.)

Hon. Paul Grussendorf
U.S. Immigration Judge (Ret.)
Member, Round Table of Former IJs
Author
Source: Amazon.com

Judge Grussendorf has forgotten more about asylum and refugee law and practice, and the humanity they serve, than the Editorial Board or the nativist alarmists (“modern day chicken🐥 littles”) they mimic will ever know.

We’ve survived four years of a maliciously incompetent regime that thrives on disorder, lies, corruption, promoting human misery, inequality, racism, and has intentionally sought to undermine our democracy. Refugees actually bring to the table hope, courage, skills, self-sacrifice, values, and the same ideals on which our country was founded. Indeed, “saving ourselves by saving others” was the theme of one of my first post-retirement essays in 2016. https://immigrationcourtside.com/saving-child-migrants-while-saving-ourselves/

We actually have both the legal tools and the professional expertise readily available to treat asylum seekers and other migrants fairly. The last two Administrations have basically either failed to use existing mechanisms properly or, as in the case of the regime, actively worked to disassemble that which works.

Reversing these disgraceful trends isn’t rocket science. We can institute and apply the correct legal standards in a fair and reasonable manner. There are loads of folks out there, many in them in the private or NGO sector, who know how to work with refugees, make fair determinations, resettle those who qualify, and institute humane alternatives for those who don’t fit within our current system. Since the regime trashed our international humanitarian obligations, many trained refugee and humanitarian professionals are more than ready to resume using their skills and expertise in refugee matters that was so stupidly, immorally, and improperly “shelved” by the regime.

It might not happen on January 21, 2021, but it could and should happen within a short time thereafter with the right folks in change and a concerted effort on the part of the Biden-Harris Administration to put them in place where they can solve the problems. Getting our asylum, refugee, and Immigration Court systems functioning needs to be a national priority of the highest order, right after COVID relief and economic help! It’s a critical part of the Biden-Harris Administration’s overriding commitment to racial and social justice!

Not surprisingly, refugee crises and the need for a strong, competent, lawful response seldom, if ever, come upon us in “in the best of times” when we are completely prepared. Refugee crises almost always come to a head during times of war, natural disaster, famine, revolution, or worldwide economic depression and disorder. The UN Refugee Convention sprung from the aftermath of WW II and Cold War, hardly stable times in history.

We can and must make carrying through on our legal and humanitarian obligations to the most vulnerable humans in the world, even in difficult and challenging times, part of our obligation to “show Christ-like love in word and deed” regardless of our religious affiliation, if any.

Christ never asked his followers to do what was easy, profitable, ego-satisfying, or non-threatening — he asked others to follow him in unselfishly taking risk, believing in a better world to come, and “putting it all on the line” for humanity. Those are noble principles that all should be able to agree and act upon.

Merry Christmas, and Due Process Forever!⚖️🗽👍🏼

PWS

12-25-20

🤮NO PEACE ON EARTH GOODWILL TOWARD MEN (WOMEN, OR ESPECIALLY CHILDREN) FROM REGIME OF “BAD SANTAS” 🦹🏿‍♂️🎅🏻— Illegally Separated Families Continue To Suffer Irreparable Trauma, 😰 Volunteer Groups 😇🗽⚖️ Left To Pick Up Pieces — A Reminder That Defeated Regime Has Mocked, Disparaged, & Trashed Christ’s Values & Assaulted Humanity Over Four Christmases!🏴‍☠️🤮☠️⚰️👎🏻

Jacob Soboroff reports for NBC News:

Inside the effort to provide mental health care to migrant families

SHARE THIS –

COPIED

Seneca Family of Agencies provides mental health care to migrant families separated by the Trump administration. NBC News’ Jacob Soboroff reports on the obstacles faced by the nonprofit in locating families.

Dec. 22, 2020

Watch Jacob’s report here.

https://www.nbcnews.com/nightly-news/video/inside-the-effort-to-provide-mental-health-care-to-migrant-families-98295877800

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

Jacob and his terrific NBC News colleague Julia Edwards Ainsley have been at the forefront of exposing the irreparable human carnage and lasting trauma caused by the regime’s unlawful, racist, White Nationalist immigration policies (some of which were unconscionably “greenlighted” by an immoral and irresponsible Supremes GOP majority that views themselves and their rotten to the core, inhumane, right-wing ideology as above the needless human suffering they further and encourage).

The “perps” like,”Gonzo” Sessions, Grauleiter Miller, Kirstjen Nielsen, “Big Mac With Lies” McAleenan, Noel Francisco, Rod Rosenstein, et al, walk free while the victims continue to suffer and others, like the Christ-like folks at Seneca Family of Agencies, are left to pick up the pieces! How is this “justice?”

Our national policies have truly abandoned Christ’s values of self-sacrifice, mercy, generosity in spirit and deed, courage in the face of oppression, human compassion, justice, and assistance for the most vulnerable among us under the perverted and immoral “leadership” of a man and his party without humane values or respect for truth who stand for absolutely nothing that is decent in the world.

As Americans suffer and die from the pandemic he mocked, downplayed, and mishandled; unemployed Americans are dissed and shortchanged by his party of underachieving, out of touch fat cats, liars, cowards, and truth deniers; asylum seekers needlessly suffer in squalid camps in Mexico; refugees scorned, unlawfully and immorally abandoned and abused by the world’s richest country face persecution, torture, despair, and death; and non-criminals rot in DHS’s “New American Gulag,” the immoral Grifter-in-Chief lives it up at taxpayer expense for one last Christmas at his Florida resort; fumes about a fair and square election that he lost big time; savors a rash of holiday executions; delays bipartisan COVID relief; ferments treason against our republic; and pardons a wide range of scumbags, felons, war criminals, family members, cronies, fraudsters, and other totally undeserving characters.

But, there is hope for our world at Christmas: 27 days and counting to the end of the kakistocracy, expulsion of the unqualified con-man and his motley crew of criminals and cronies, and the ascension of a real President and Vice President, Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, to lead us, and perhaps our world, out of the current mess to a kinder, brighter future. That might be the best present of all this Christmas.

Due Process Forever!⚖️🗽👍🏼

PWS🎅🏻🎄😎

12-24-20

⚖️🗽JOAN HODGES WU, 🦸‍♀️😇EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF ASYLUMWORKS, SPEAKS OUT ON NEW SUITS TO PROTECT HUMANITY FROM FURTHER ABUSE BY THE KAKISTOCRACY🤮☠️⚰️🏴‍☠️👎🏻!

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact:

Tara Tidwell Cullen, NIJC, ttidwellcullen@heartlandalliance.org, (312) 833-2967
Asylum Seekers and Service Providers Sue Trump Administration

to Stop Rules that Block Access to Work Permits

WASHINGTON, D.C.(December 23, 2020) — A group of asylum seekers and immigrant services organizations are suing the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), purported Acting Secretary Chad Wolf, and purported Acting DHS General Counsel Chad Mizelle to vacate two rules that have drastically curtailed access to work authorization and identity documentation for people who flee to the United States and apply for asylum protection. The new rules, in effect since August, force asylum seekers to wait years for their cases to move through the backlogged immigration system before they may lawfully earn an income.

“These rules were one cruel part of the Trump administration’s continuous efforts throughout its single term in office to dismantle the United States’ commitment to provide refuge to people fleeing persecution,” said Keren Zwick, litigation director for the National Immigrant Justice Center, which is co-counsel in the case. “These particular rules betray so much of what our country is supposed to value; they try to deter asylum seekers from coming at all and deprive those who make it here of the means to support themselves and their families.”

The rules bar asylum applicants from receiving work permits for at least a year after they file their asylum applications and prevent some individuals from working for the entire duration of their cases — often several years.

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, the Center for Gender & Refugee Studies, and Kids in Need of Defense also are providing co-counsel in the case, representing 14 individuals and three organizational plaintiffs before the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

The individual plaintiffs in the case are asylum seekers, including transgender women and parents with small children, who fled political persecution, gender-based violence, or gang and drug-cartel violence and are prevented under the new rules from receiving work permits. Three organizational plaintiffs — AsylumWorks, Tahirih Justice Center, and Community Legal Services in East Palo Alto — say the new rules threaten to derail their missions to provide employment assistance and legal and social services to asylum seekers. Asylum seekers’ ability to earn an income is critical for them to be able to pursue their legal cases and meet basic needs such as housing and mental and medical healthcare, and to avoid falling victim to human trafficking or other exploitation. Furthermore, in many states, work permits are the only identification documentation asylum seekers receive until they are granted protection.

“This lawsuit is about upholding basic human dignity,” said Joan Hodges-Wu, founder and executive director of AsylumWorks, lead plaintiff in the case. “Asylum seekers are simply looking for a fair shake — the chance to work, pay for their own housing, feed and clothe their families. Our asylum system should be rooted in justice and compassion. Instead, this policy forces future Americans — many of whom have already escaped unspeakable hardship — into further danger and depravity. This is a crisis the Trump Administration is determined to make worse. Denying the right to work for one year means unnecessarily delaying the time before asylum seekers can become productive, tax-paying members of the workforce, and denying our country vital frontline workers willing to risk their lives at this critical time.”

“These rules will force courageous survivors of violence into dangerously precarious living situations, needlessly compounding their suffering. They will also make it significantly more difficult for asylum seekers to afford legal representation, which we know can make a life-saving difference in these cases, and to sustain themselves and their families while they seek protection,” said Annie Daher, staff attorney at the Center for Gender & Refugee Studies, co-counsel in the case. “The rules will undoubtedly result in refugees being wrongly denied asylum and ordered deported to the very dangers they have fled.”

In its comments to the Federal Register, the Trump administration said that governments should take responsibility for individuals who may be harmed by the rule, stating that asylum seekers who may become homeless as a result of the rule changes should “become familiar with the homelessness resources provided by the state where they intend to reside.”

The plaintiffs ask the district court to vacate the proposed rules, arguing the rules violate U.S. laws and that the government did not provide adequate rationale for the harm the rules would cause. The lawsuit also argues that Wolf was not validly serving in that role when the agency issued the rules and Mizelle was no longer validly serving in that role when he signed the rules. Federal courts have already found that Wolf was not lawfully appointed to his position when he enacted other harmful immigration rules, including the administration’s failed attempt to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program.

Additional plaintiffs in the case offered the following statements:

Richard Caldarone, litigation counsel, Tahirih Justice Center: “Instead of allowing those fleeing violence and persecution to live their lives while they pursue relief in the United States, the government has deliberately chosen to condemn survivors and other asylum seekers to lengthy periods of homelessness, food insecurity, and unnecessary poverty. There are many understandable reasons why survivors of violence may wait more than a year to apply for asylum – including the need to heal from trauma or the need to avoid reliving painful memories. Our immigration system must uphold the right for survivors to work while their cases continue, rather than slamming the door shut to safety.”

Misha Seay, Managing Attorney, Community Legal Services in East Palo Alto: “These rules are a cruel attempt at forcing asylum seekers into poverty and homelessness if they choose to move forward with their asylum claims and wait for their day in court, which in some cases may take years. Asylum seekers will be stuck in a catch-22 of being unable to afford an attorney to help them apply for a work permit and seek asylum, and unable to lawfully work and earn a living so that they can afford to hire an attorney,” says Misha Seay, Managing Attorney at Community Legal Services in East Palo Alto. “Our government’s commitment to providing protection to those fleeing persecution cannot be fulfilled if we make their everyday life impossible while they navigate that process.”

###

The National Immigrant Justice Center is a nongovernmental organization dedicated to ensuring human rights protections and access to justice for all immigrants, refugees, and asylum seekers through a unique combination of direct services, policy reform, impact litigation, and public education.

Read this statement on NIJC’s website

NATIONAL IMMIGRANT JUSTICE CENTER
224 S. Michigan Avenue, Suite 600 | Chicago, Illinois 60604
immigrantjustice.org

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

Thanks, Joan, my friend and a true hero of the NDPA, for speaking out and taking action to fight the “crimes against humanity” that continue to be committed by the kakistocracy and their baggage handlers on their way out the door!

Under Joan’s dynamic and courageous leadership, AsylumWorks has been providing support and community assistance services to asylum seekers in the D.C. area for several years. She has now expanded her organization’s mission to include impact litigation to protect and enhance the human dignity and the human rights of asylum seekers!

Check out AsylumWorks and their great programs (and contribute to this most worthy cause) at their website here:

https://asylumworks.org/

Due Process Forever!⚖️🗽🇺🇸

PWS

12-23-20

🏴‍☠️KAKISTOCRACY DEATH ⚰️ WATCH: New NDPA Suits Challenge EOIR/DHS Scheme To Implement Grauleiter Miller’s 🤮☠️ Neo-Nazi “Kill Asylum” Regs In Regime’s Final Days! — The Disrespect For The Rule Of Law & Contempt For Humanity Run Deep At Flailing, Failed Agencies!

https://www.lexisnexis.com/legalnewsroom/immigration/b/outsidenews/posts/lawsuits-challenge-massive-end-of-asylum-rule

Dan Kowalski reports from LexisNexis Immigration Community:

Lawsuits Challenge Massive “End of Asylum” Rule

1. Pangea Legal Services, et al. v. DHS et al. – “[T]he Center for Gender & Refugee Studies, the Harvard Immigration and Refugee Clinical Program, and Sidley Austin LLP filed suit today challenging the mammoth asylum rule in the Northern District of California on behalf of organizational plaintiffs Pangea Legal Services, Dolores Street Community Services, Inc., CLINIC, and CAIR Coalition. The complaint challenges all substantive and procedural merits related issues (it does not challenge the changes to credible fear).” – Blaine Bookey, Legal Director, Center for Gender & Refugee Studies, University of California Hastings College of the Law

2. Human Rights First v. Wolf – “Human Rights First, alongside counsel at Williams & Connolly, filed a lawsuit challenging the Trump administration’s sweeping new anti-refugee regulation, which will gut protections for those seeking asylum and make it virtually impossible for refugees to secure asylum in the United States.

The lawsuit, filed in the United States federal district court in Washington, D.C., asks the court to intervene and stop the government from enforcing the rule, which is scheduled to take effect on January 11, 2021.

“This rule seeks to end asylum in the United States as we know it. Over the past four years, this administration has employed an array of tools in the hope of dismantling the legal protections Congress provided for refugees and asylum seekers,” said Hardy Vieux, Human Rights First’s senior vice president, legal. “Human Rights First is heading back to federal court to dash that hope. And to affirm that Congress sought to protect people fleeing persecution, not demonize them incessantly, even in the waning days of an administration long consumed with denying protection to those most in need of it. This holiday season, and every season, we shall continue to exalt the rule of law.”

Human Rights First v. Wolf et. al. challenges the Department of Homeland Security and Department of Justice’s rule, rammed through in the waning days of the Trump administration. The complaint in Human Rights First v. Wolf et. al. can be found here.

Human Rights First, an organizational plaintiff in the suit, argues that the rule violates the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), the Administrative Procedure Act, international law, and the United States Constitution. In its complaint, Human Rights First argues, “If allowed to stand, the rule will eviscerate the ability of noncitizens fleeing persecution to obtain asylum and related relief in the United States. The United States will instead send refugees back to countries where they face persecution, torture, and possible death—the very outcome Congress expressly designed the INA to avoid.”

The rule, which fundamentally rewrites United States asylum law, will illegally render the majority of asylum seekers ineligible for asylum while tilting every phase of the asylum process in favor of denial and deportation. The rule also upends the procedures for asylum adjudication, further limiting procedural protections for refugees seeking protection in the United States.

The United States government is attempting to make it impossible for our asylum-seeking clients to secure protection. Many of Human Rights First’s clients who have already been granted asylum would, under the rule, be denied protection. One Human Rights First asylum-seeking client stated, “[I]t really disappoints me to learn that the United States, a country [I] have looked up to as a beacon of freedom, is trying to put people like me in harm’s way. I fear for my safety.”

Through this lawsuit, Human Rights First is standing up for the rights of asylum seekers like our clients. Human Rights First’s comments this past summer opposing the draft rule are here.

Human Rights First provides pro bono legal representation for refugees seeking asylum in the United States, in partnership with volunteer lawyers at many of the nation’s leading law firms. Our refugee clients have fled persecution in Cameroon, China, Cuba, El Salvador, Guatemala, Eritrea, Honduras, Iraq, Nicaragua, Syria, Venezuela, and other countries where their lives and freedom are at risk.’

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

Thanks to all the NDPA heroes involved in this effort!

Hey hey, ho ho, the EOIR Clown Show 🤡🤮 has got to go!

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

Due Process Forever!⚖️🗽🧑🏽‍⚖️👩‍⚖️🇺🇸

PWS

12-22-20

WHY EOIR 🤡 MUST GO ** CH. CI — Latest CLINIC Court Victory Over Regime Exposes Unholy (Not To Mention Unconstitutional & Unethical) Alliance Between EOIR & ICE Enforcement To Screw Kids! — The Bottom Is Unfathomably Deep @ The Deadly EOIR Clown Show🤡! — “ICE is barred (both at the IJ and BIA levels) from seeking denials of continuances or other postponements to await adjudication of the I-589 filed with USCIS, seeking EOIR exercise of jurisdiction over an asylum claim where USCIS has initial jurisdiction under the terms of the 2013 Kim Memo, or otherwise taking the position that USCIS lacks initial jurisdiction over the class member’s asylum application.”

Michelle Mendez @ CLINIC reports:

Court Grants Class Certification and Amends Preliminary Injunction in USCIS UC Asylum Jurisdiction Litigation

On December 21, 2020, the U.S. District Court in Greenbelt, Maryland granted Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification in J.O.P. v. DHS, No. 19:1944, a lawsuit challenging a May 31, 2019 USCIS policy limiting USCIS asylum jurisdiction over applicants previously determined to be “unaccompanied alien children.” The court certified the following class:

“All individuals nationwide who prior to the effective date of a lawfully promulgated policy prospectively altering the policy set forth in the 2013 Kim Memorandum (1) were determined to be an Unaccompanied Alien Child (“UAC”); and (2) who filed an asylum application that was pending with the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”); and (3) on the date they filed their asylum application with USCIS, were 18 years of age or older, or had a parent or legal guardian in the United States who is available to provide care and physical custody; and (4) for whom USCIS has not adjudicated the individual’s asylum application on the merits.”

Simultaneously, the court granted in part Plaintiffs’ motion to amend the nationwide preliminary injunction to prevent USCIS’s deference to EOIR jurisdictional determinations and to prevent ICE’s advocacy against USCIS initial jurisdiction. The court denied Plaintiffs’ request to amend the preliminary injunction to prevent USCIS from rejecting jurisdiction based on its expansion of the “affirmative act” exception from the 2013 Kim Memo, instead granting Plaintiffs 21 days to amend their complaint to encompass this claim. Please see CLINIC’s litigation webpage for the court’s December 21, 2020 memorandum opinion and order, as well as other case-related documents.

As amended, the preliminary injunction has the following components:

It enjoins USCIS from relying on the 2019 policy for any purpose. USCIS is barred from “rejecting jurisdiction over any asylum application filed by Plaintiffs and members of the class whose applications would have been accepted” under USCIS’s previous policy, articulated in the 2013 Kim Memo.

It enjoins USCIS from deferring to EOIR jurisdictional determinations. USCIS is barred from “deferring to EOIR determinations in assessing jurisdiction over asylum applications filed by Plaintiffs and members of the class.”

It orders USCIS to retract adverse decisions already made. USCIS must “retract any adverse decision rendered on or after June 30, 2019 that is based in whole or in part on any of the actions enjoined and restrained” as described above.

It enjoins ICE from advocating against USCIS initial jurisdiction. Where a class member’s asylum application is pending before USCIS, ICE is barred (both at the IJ and BIA levels) from seeking denials of continuances or other postponements to await adjudication of the I-589 filed with USCIS, seeking EOIR exercise of jurisdiction over an asylum claim where USCIS has initial jurisdiction under the terms of the 2013 Kim Memo, or otherwise taking the position that USCIS lacks initial jurisdiction over the class member’s asylum application.

Counsel for the Plaintiffs will continue to provide updates to practitioners as this litigation progresses. Advocates for clients: (1) who receive adverse decisions dated on or after June 30, 2019 that violate the terms of the amended preliminary injunction; or (2) in whose removal proceedings ICE advocates in violation of the amended preliminary injunction should contact Plaintiffs’ counsel Mary Tanagho Ross, mross@publiccounsel.org, and Kevin DeJong, KDeJong@goodwinlaw.com.

Thank you,

Michelle N. Mendez | she/her/ella/elle

Director, Defending Vulnerable Populations Program

Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc. (CLINIC)

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

Thanks for another “great news” report, Michelle, my friend!

Finally, at long last, some Article III judges are “calling out” the highly unethical and glaringly unconstitutional “partnership” between ICE enforcement and EOIR to screw asylum seeking kids.

The EOIR White Nationalist agenda 🏴‍☠️ of limiting legitimate continuances and administrative closing to mindlessly, improperly, and inefficiently proceed in Immigration Court on matters that should be resolved through USCIS adjudication is not only thoroughly corrupt, but also totally counterproductive, as uncontrollably mounting EOIR backlogs and increasing Article III Court interventions have shown.

And, the completely unconstitutional and unethical call early on by corrupt former AG Jeff “Gonzo Apocalypto” Sessions 🤮 for “his wholly owned EOIR judges” to join their “ICE enforcement partners” in racist immigrant bashing initiatives should long ago have been a basis for the Article IIIs to declare this entire ungodly mess in the Immigration Courts to be unconstitutional under the 5th and 14th Amendments.

Thanks to you and other members of the NDPA, Michelle, for all you have done and continue to do to expose corruption, illegality, and wrongdoing in the regime’s sprawling, out of control, immigration kakistocracy! Now, we need you and other members of the NDPA like you on the Federal Bench to short circuit all the BS and get sane, legal, humane policies and “best interpretations and practices” in place “from the git go” and then enforce them on recalcitrant bureaucrats.

Racial Justice in America is, as it must be, one of the top Biden-Harris priorities! 🇺🇸 It can only be achieved if the White Nationalist mess at EOIR and ICE is cleaned up and replaced with experts committed to due process, fundamental fairness, and human rights in charge! There must be new, dynamic, and courageous leadership committed to controlling and reforming the actions of civil servants throughout government who furthered Stephen Miller’s vile racist agenda unlawfully and immorally targeting immigrants of color, their families, and their communities. “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere” (MLK, Jr.).

Time for the NDPA ⚖️🗽🧑🏽‍⚖️👩‍⚖️ to replace the EOIR Clown Show🤡!

Due Process Forever!

PWS

12-22-20

⚖️🗽🇺🇸👍🏼Due Process Forever! GOP Trumpist traitors ☠️ 🏴‍☠️ never!

Related posts:

⚖️🗽🇺🇸Due Process Forever! Time for Judge Garland 👨🏻‍⚖️ to end the “EOIR Clown Show”🤡!

Related posts:

⚖️🗽Due Process Forever! Cut the BS!💩

Related posts:

Better Judges for a Better, Fairer America.🇺🇸 Make Equal Justice Under Law ⚖️ A Reality Rather Than an Ongoing, Judicially-Enabled, Charade!

Due Process Forever!⚖️🗽🇺🇸

Related posts:

Due Process Forever!⚖️🗽👩🏻‍⚖‍🇺🇸👍

Related posts:

Civil rights lawyer and law prof, writing about the Midwest, the untold horrors of the justice system, and the ongoing battle between the law and humanity.

Better judges for a better America! 🇺🇸Not just a slogan; a requirement for our democracy to survive!

⚖️🗽🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Due Process Forever!⚖️🗽🇺🇸 Same old, same old never!

Happy New Year!😎👍🏼

Related posts:

Due Process Forever! It’s NOT rocket 🚀 science!

Related posts:

Due Process Forever!⚖️🗽🇺🇸👍🏼 EOIR’s Assault On Asylum Seekers, Never!👎🏻🏴‍☠️

Related posts:

⚖️🗽🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Merry Christmas, and Due Process Forever!⚖️🗽👍🏼

Related posts:

Due Process Forever!⚖️🗽👍🏼

Related posts:

Due Process Forever!⚖️🗽🇺🇸

Related posts:

Hey hey, ho ho, the EOIR Clown Show 🤡🤮 has got to go!

Due Process Forever!⚖️🗽🧑🏽‍⚖️👩‍⚖️🇺🇸

Related posts:

Time for the NDPA ⚖️🗽🧑🏽‍⚖️👩‍⚖️ to replace the EOIR Clown Show🤡!

Due Process Forever!

Related posts: