"The Voice of the New Due Process Army" ————– Musings on Events in U.S. Immigration Court, Immigration Law, Sports, and Other Random Topics by Retired United States Immigration Judge (Arlington, Virginia) and former Chairman of the Board of Immigration Appeals Paul Wickham Schmidt. To see my complete professional bio, just click on the link below.
Legal asylum seekers from Central America might have thought that cruelty, illegality, and stupidity went out with the Trump Administration. They were wrong! Now Biden proposes to lawlessly “presume denial” of asylum — with no legal basis — and dump legal asylum seekers of color from his “disfavored nations” back into Mexico, whose asylum system is dysfunctional and where abusive treatment of asylum seekers has been well documented and recognized by a Federal Court! Women suffering from gender-based persecution are particular targets of this Administration’s campaign against humanity! Artist: Monte Wolverton Reproduced under license
Many groups issued immediate statements of outrage and protest at this cruel, lawless, and intellectually dishonest betrayal! I set forth two of them here:
From the American Immigration Council:
PRESS RELEASE
Department of Justice and Department of Homeland Security Release Details of Dangerous New Asylum Transit Ban
WASHINGTON, Feb. 21, 2023—Today, the U.S. Department of Justice and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security released a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) that will implement a new asylum transit ban—one of the most restrictive border control measures to date under any president. The policy will penalize asylum seekers who cross the border irregularly or fail to apply for protection in other nations they transit through on their way to the United States.
As described in the NPRM, the proposed asylum transit ban rule would all but bar asylum for any non-Mexican who crosses the U.S.-Mexico border between ports of entry, unless they had previously applied for—and been denied—asylum in another country before arrival.
Specifically:
The rule would apply to all non-Mexican migrants (except unaccompanied minors) who had not been pre-approved under one of the Biden administration’s parole programs, which are currently open only to certain nationals of 5 countries; pre-register at a port of entry via CBP One or a similar scheduling system (or arrive at a port of entry and demonstrate they could not access the system); or get rejected for asylum in a transit country.
During an asylum seeker’s initial screening interview with an asylum officer, the officer will determine whether the new rule applies to them. If so, they will fail their credible fear screening unless they can demonstrate they were subject to an exception such as a medical emergency, severe human trafficking, or imminent danger—which would “rebut the presumption” of ineligibility.
Migrants subject to the rule, who do not meet the exceptions above, would be held to a higher standard of screening than is typically used for asylum (“reasonable fear”). If a migrant meets that standard, they will be allowed to apply for asylum before an immigration judge—although the text of the proposed regulation is unclear on whether they would actually be eligible to be granted asylum.
Migrants who do not meet the credible or reasonable fear standard can request review of the fear screening process in front of an immigration judge.
Once the regulation is formally published in the Federal Register, the public will have 30 days to comment on the proposal. The administration is legally required to consider and respond to all comments submitted during this period before publishing the final rule, which itself must precede implementing the policy. Given the Biden administration’s expectation that the new rule will be in place for the expiration of the national COVID-19 emergency on May 11, and the potential end of the Title 42 border expulsion policy at that time, the timeline raises substantial concerns that the administration will not fulfill its obligation to seriously consider all comments submitted by the public before the rule is finalized.
Furthermore, the sunset date for the new rule, two years after it becomes effective, is after the end of the current presidential term—making it impossible to guarantee it will not be extended indefinitely.
In 2020, a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals panel blocked the Trump administration’s asylum transit ban from being applied to thousands of asylum seekers who were unlawfully prevented from accessing the U.S. asylum process. The ban was later vacated by the D.C. District Court.
The American Immigration Council was a part of the Al Otro Lado v. Wolf class action lawsuit on behalf of individual asylum seekers and the legal services organization Al Otro Lado (AOL), which challenged the legality of the previous asylum transit ban as applied to asylum seekers who had been turned back at the U.S.-Mexico border.
Jeremy Robbins Executive Director American Immigration Council PHOTO: AIC websitel
The following statement is from Jeremy Robbins, Executive Director, The American Immigration Council:
“President Biden committed to restoring access to asylum while on the campaign trail, but today’s proposal is a clear embrace of Trump-style crackdowns on asylum seekers, many of whom are fleeing from globally recognized oppressive regimes. For over four decades, U.S. law has allowed any person in the United States to apply for asylum no matter how they got here. The new proposed rule would all but destroy that promise, by largely reinstating prior asylum bans that were found to be illegal.
“Not only is the new asylum transit ban illegal and immoral, if put into place as proposed, it would create unnecessary barriers to protection that will put the lives of asylum seekers at risk. While the rule purports to be temporary, the precedent it sets—for this president or future presidents—could easily become permanent.
“For generations, the United States has offered a promise that any person fleeing persecution and harm in their home countries could seek asylum, regardless of how they enter the United States. Today’s actions break from his prior promises and threaten a return to some of the most harmful asylum policies of his predecessor—possibly forever.”
###
For more information, contact:
Brianna Dimas 202-507-7557 bdimas@immcouncil.org
******************************
From the Lutheran Immigration & Refugee Services:
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
February 21, 2022
Contact: Tim Young | tyoung@lirs.org
Washington, D.C. – In preparation for the end of Title 42 asylum restrictions, the Biden administration announced a new proposed rule severely limiting asylum eligibility for those who did not first seek protection in a country they transited through to reach the United States, or who entered without notifying a border agent. The proposed rule will be subject to a 30-day period of public comment before it can take effect.
The new rule mirrors a transit asylum ban first implemented under the Trump administration, which was ultimately struck down by federal judges in multiplecourts. The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) provides that people seeking protection may apply for asylum regardless of manner of entry, and does not require them to have first applied for protection in another country.
Krish O’Mara Vignarajah CEO Lutheran Immigrantion & Refugee Service
In response to the proposed asylum eligibility rule, Krish O’Mara Vignarajah, President and CEO of Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service, said:
“This rule reaches into the dustbin of history to resurrect one of the most harmful and illegal anti-asylum policies of the Trump administration. This transit ban defies decades of humanitarian protections enshrined in U.S. law and international agreements, and flagrantly violates President Biden’s own campaign promises to restore asylum. Requiring persecuted people to first seek protection in countries with no functioning asylum systems themselves is a ludicrous and life-threatening proposal.
While the Biden administration has launched a smartphone app for asylum appointments and expanded a temporary parole option for an extremely limited subset of four nationalities, these measures are no substitute for the legal right to seek asylum, regardless of manner of entry. It is generally the most vulnerable asylum seekers who are least likely to be able to navigate a complex app plagued by technical issues, language barriers, and overwhelming demand. Many families face immediate danger and cannot afford to wait for months on end in their country of persecution. To penalize them for making the lifesaving decision to seek safety at our border flies in the face of core American values.
We urge the Biden administration to reverse course before this misguided rule denies protection to those most in need of it. Officials must recognize that decades of deterrence-based policies have had little to no impact in suppressing migration. Instead, they should focus on managing migration humanely through expanded parole programs, efficient refugee processing in the hemisphere, and an equitably accessible asylum system.”
**************************
Lest anyone believe the absolute BS coming from the Biden Administration that they “had no choice” and that this “wasn’t the choice they wanted,” here’s an article setting forth the many southern border solutions that the Administration ignored or was too incompetent to carry out in their dishonest, immoral pursuit of the anti-asylum “vision” of Stephen Miller and other White Nationalists.
💡💡”There’s many things Biden could do. We published a resource called “Forty-Two Border Solutions That Are Not Title 42.” We could have done 142,” says immigration expert Danilo Zak in The Border Chronicle! The Biden Administration has ignored, failed, or is prepared to shrug off most of them!🤯
Danilo Zak Associate Director of Policy and Advocacy Church World Service PHOTO: The Border Chronicle
Zak was interviewed by Melissa Del Bosque of The Border Chronicle:
There are many changes that the Biden administration and Congress could make to alleviate suffering at the southern border. Immigration policy expert Danilo Zak recently published a report that offers several solutions, from rebuilding the refugee resettlement program to expanding nonimmigrant work visas to more countries in the Western Hemisphere.
Zak, formerly of the National Immigration Forum, is Associate Director of Policy and Advocacy for the nonprofit Church World Service. He spoke with The Border Chronicle about the increase of forcibly displaced people in the Western Hemisphere and the current situation at the border. “For many, there is no line to get into—no ‘right way’ to come to the U.S.,” Zak says.
Melissa Del Bosque Border Reporter PHOTO: Melissadelbosque.com
Notably, better, more robust, use of Refugee Programs established by the Refugee Act of 1980 is among Zak’s “top three.” This is something that I have been “touting” since Biden was elected, but where the Administration has failed to meet the challenge.
And, contrary to what the Administration and others might say, there is nothing unachievable about using refugee programs to deal with emergency humanitarian situations. Also, with respect to cases taking forever to process, no need for that nonsense. It’s a matter of poor bureaucratic execution rather than a defect in the legal authority.
The Refugee Act of 1980 (“RA 80”) is basically a modified version of the “emergency parole, resettle with NGOs, and petition Congress to adjust status” that was used on an ad hoc basis to resettle Indochinese refugees and others on an emergency basis prior to the RA 80. Except, that the criteria, resettlement mechanisms, and adjustment process were all “built in” to the statute. Consequently, although Congress was to be consulted in advance, that process was designed to run smoothly, efficiently, and on an emergency basis if necessary.
While “Congress bashing” is now a favorite pastime of the Executive, Judiciary, and media, in 1980 Congress actually provided a mechanism to regularize the processing of type of refugee flows now facing the U.S. The statutory flexibility and the legal tools to deal with these situations are in RA 80.
A subsequent Congress even added the “expedited removal” and “credible fear” process so that initial asylum screening could be conducted by expert Asylum Officers at or near the border and those “screened out” would be subject to expeditedremoval without full hearings in Immigration Court. Clearly, there was never a need for the Title 42 nonsense for any competent Administration.
Basically, if an Administration can run a large-scale parole program, which the Biden Administration did for Afghanistan and is doing now for Cuba, Nicaragua, Venezuela, and Haiti, it can run a legal refugee program beyond our borders, even in a “country in crisis” if necessary.
The idea that a statutory scheme specifically designed to have the flexibility deal with future mass refugee situations couldn’t be used to deal with the current humanitarian situation in the Western Hemisphere is pure poppycock!
Also unadulterated BS: The Biden Administration’s proposal to make the “end of asylum” at the southern border “temporary,” for two years! In 2025, the Biden Administration might not even be in office. If there is a GOP Administration, you can be sure that the demise of asylum at the border will become permanent, with or without legislation.
Also, what would be an Administration’s rationale for resuming asylum processing at the southern border in two years. Surely, there will be some other “bogus border crisis” cooked up to extend the bars. And, if there is no such crisis, the claim will be that the bars are “working as intended” so what’s the rationale for terminating them.
The argument that complying with the law by fairly processing asylum seekers regardless of race, ethnicity, religion, or manner of arrival, as the law requires, might actually encourage people to apply for protection will always be there — hanging over cowardly politicos afraid of the consequences of granting protection. Fact is, the current Administration has so little belief in our legal system and their own ability to operate within in, and so little concern for the human lives involved, that they are scared to death of failure. That’s not likely to change in two years — or ever!
The ordeal of Farooqi, who covers politics and national news for News One in Pakistan, exemplifies a global epidemic of online harassment whose costs go well beyond the grief and humiliation suffered by its victims. The voices of thousands of women journalists worldwide have been muffled and, in some cases, stolen entirely as they struggle to conduct interviews, attend public events and keep their jobs in the face of relentless online smear campaigns.
Stories that might have been told — or perspectives that might have been shared — stay untold and unshared. The pattern of abuse is remarkably consistent, no matter the continent or country where the journalists operate.
Farooqi says she’s been harassed, stalked and threatened with rape and murder. Faked images of her have appeared repeatedly on pornographic websites and across social media. Some depict her holding a penis in the place of her microphone. Others purport to show her naked or having sex. Similar accounts of abuse are heard from women journalists throughout the world.
. . . .
This article is part of “Story Killers,” a reporting project led by the Paris-based journalism nonprofit Forbidden Stories, which seeks to complete the work of journalists who have been killed. The inspiration for this project, which involves The Washington Post and more than two dozen other news organizations in more than 20 countries, was the 2017 killing of the Indian journalist Gauri Lankesh, a Bangalore editor who was gunned down at a time when she was reporting on Hindu extremism and the rise of online disinformation in her country.
New reporting by Forbidden Stories found that shortly before her slaying, Lankesh was the subject of relentless online attacks on social media platforms in a campaign that depicted her as an enemy of Hinduism. Her final article, “In the Age of False News,” was published after her death.
. . . .
Until news organizations recognize the purpose of harassment campaigns and learn to navigate them appropriately, experts say, women will continue to be forced from the profession and the stories they would have reported will go untold.
“This is about terrifying female journalists into silence and retreat; a way of discrediting and ultimately disappearing critical female voices,” Posetti said. “But it’s not just the journalists whose careers are destroyed who pay the price. If you allow online violence to push female reporters out of your newsroom, countless other voices and stories will be muted in the process.”
“This gender-based violence against women has started to become normal,” Farooqi said. “I talk to counterparts in the U.S., U.K., Russia, Turkey, even in China. Women everywhere, Iran, our neighbor, everywhere, women journalists are complaining of the same thing. It’s become a new weapon to silence and censor women journalists, and it’s not being taken seriously.”
********************
“Not being taken seriously” aptly describes the attitude and actions of the Biden Administration toward some women seeking asylum on the basis of gender-based violence. Certainly, our Government could and should do better at recognizing and prioritizing refugee and asylum status for this vulnerable group.
Yet, even this “slam dunk” case took nearly six months to adjudicate. Seems like it could and should have been granted at the interview in a well-functioning system. Better yet, most Afghan refugees could have been screened overseas and admitted in legal refugee status, thus avoiding the backlogged asylum system and freeing both USG and private bar resources for more difficult cases.
Once, America was in the forefront of setting precedents that protected female refugees. See, e.g., Matter of Kasinga, 21 I&N Dec. 357 (1996) (FGM, opinion by Schmidt, Chair). Now, not so much, despite our nation’s heavy involvement with Afghanistan. Apparently, the “powers that be” are afraid that consistently and aggressively supporting refugee protection for women fleeing Afghanistan and other dangerous countries would “encourage” them to actually seek legal protection here thereby upsetting right-wing nativists and misogynists.
Yet, incredibly, the Biden Administration proposes to send up to 30,000 rejected NON-MEXICAN border arrivals per month to Mexico without fair examination of their potential asylum claims. To date, BIA precedents, regulations, and policy statements have NOT recognized the well-documented, clear and present dangers for journalists, women, and particularly female journalists, in Mexico. Consequently, I’d say that there is about a 100% chance that some female journalists seeking asylum will be illegally returned to death or danger, whether in Mexico or their native countries.
Just can’t make this stuff up. Yet, it’s happening in a Dem Administration!
AG Merrick Garland did vacate former AG Jeff “Gonzo Apocalypto” Sessions’s lawless and misogynistic decision in Matter of A-B-. That action “restored” the BIA’s 2014 precedent decision in Matter of A-R-C-G-, recognizing that gender-based domestic violence could be a basis for granting asylum.
However, the BIA didn’t elaborate on the many forms that gender-based persecution can take, nor did they provide binding guidance to Immigration Judges on how these cases should be handled in accordance with due process, fundamental fairness, and best practices.
Garland and his BIA have failed to follow up with any meaningful guidance or amplification of A-R-C-G- for Immigraton Judges. That’s even though many women fleeing Latin America come from countries where gender-based violence is rampant and the governments make little or no effective efforts to control it — sometimes police and other corrupt officials even join in the abuses.
Consequently, life or death protection for female asylum seekers remains a disgraceful and wholly unacceptable “crap shoot.” Outcomes of well prepared and copiously documented asylum cases often depend more on the attitude of the Immigration Judge or BIA Appellate Judge hearing the case than on the law and facts.
Also, without a knowledgeable lawyer, which the Government does not provide, an applicant has virtually no chance of winning a gender-based protection case in today’s EOIR. Additionally, those in immigration detention or placed on Garland’s “accelerated/dedicated” dockets are known to have particular difficulty obtaining pro bono counsel.
Anti-asylum IJs, some of whom were known for their negative attitudes toward female asylum seekers — many of those who actually “cheered” Sessions’s biased and wrong reversal of hard-won asylum protection for women in EOIR courts — remain on the bench under Garland at both levels.
To their credit, some have changed their posture and now grant at least some gender-based cases. But, others continue to show anti-asylum, anti-female bias and deny applications for specious reasons, misconstrue the law, or just plain use “any reason to deny” these claims, without any fear of consequences or meaningful accountability.
Many advocates and experts would say that female asylum applicants still face “trial by ordeal” in Garland’s “overly Trumpy” EOIR. Despite campaign promises, the Biden Administration has done little to champion the cause of gender-based refugees and asylum seekers — at the Southern Border or elsewhere. Woman Being “Tried By Ordeal” 17th Century Woodcut Public Realm Source: Ancient Origins Website https://www.ancient-origins.net/history/trial-ordeal-life-or-death-method-judgement-004160
Whether or not such egregious errors and non-uniform applications of asylum law get reversed at the BIA again depends on the composition of the BIA “panel” assigned to the case. (Not all “panels” have three Appellate Judges; some are “single member” panels). Significantly, and inexplicably, a group of Trump-holdover BIA Appellate Judges known for their overt hostility to asylum applicants (with denial rates approaching 100%) and their particular hostility to gender-based claims, remains on the BIA under Garland. There, they can “rubber stamp” wrong denials while sometimes even reversing correct grants of protection by Immigration Judges below! Talk about a broken and unfair system!
With an incredible backlog of 2.1 million cases, approximately 800,000 of them asylum cases, wrongly decided EOIR cases can “kick around the system” among the Immigration Courts, the BIA, and the Circuits for years. Sometimes, a decade or more passes without final resolution! Imagine being a pro bono or “low bono” attorney handling one of these cases! You “win” several times, but the case still has no end. And, you’re still “on the hook” for providing free legal services.
It’s no wonder that, like his predecessors over the past two decades, Garland builds EOIR backlog exponentially — without systematically providing justice or instituting long overdue personnel and management changes! It’s also painfully clear that, also like their predecessors, Garland and his political lieutenants have never experienced the waste and frustrations of handling pro bono litigation before the dystopian “courts” they are now running into the ground!
Meanwhile, Biden’s promise and directive that his Administration promulgate regulations containing standards for gender-based asylum cases that would promote fairness and uniformity within his OWN courts and agencies remains unfulfilled — nearing the halfway point of this Administration! Apparently, some politicos within the Administration are more fearful of predictable adverse reactions from right-wing nativists and restrictionists than they are anxious to “do the right thing” by listening to the views of the experts and progressives who helped put them in office in the first place!
Thus, abused women and other refugees and asylum seekers, and their dedicated supporters, many of whom have spent “professional lifetimes” trying to establish the rule of law in these cases, face a difficult conundrum. In America today, neither major political party is willing to stand up for the legal and human rights of refugees, particularly women fleeing gender-based persecution.
As an “interested observer,” it seems to me that something’s “got to give” between so-called “mainstream Dems” and progressive immigration/human rights advocates. The latter have devoted too much time, energy, courage, and expertise to “the cause” to be treated so dismissively and disrespectfully by those they are “propping up.” And, that includes a whole bunch of Biden Administration politicos who were nowhere to be found while immigration advocates were fighting, often successfully and against the odds, on the front lines to save democracy during the “reign of Trump.”
That was a time when immigrants, asylum seekers, people of color, and women were the targets for “Dred Scottification” before the law. I have yet to see the Biden Administration, or the Dem Party as a whole, take a strong “active” stand (rhetoric is pretty useless here, as the Administration keeps demonstrating) against those who would use misapplications of the law, ignoring due process, demonization, and refusal to recognize the humanity of migrants as their primary tool to undermine and ultimately destroy American democracy!
Immigrants, including refugees, are overall a “good story” — indeed the real story of America since its founding. That Dems can’t figure out how to tell, sell,advance, and protect the immigrant experience that touches almost all of us is indeed a national tragedy.
“Just a little unpleasantness, harassment, and even basic suffering,” nothing to worry about, say Garland’s EOIR judges! Too many EOIR judges still operate in an “alternate reality” where legal rules, humanity, logic, and common sense are suspended! Wood engraving by A.F. Pannemaker after B. Castelli. Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license.
In March 2014, Hernandez-Martinez was on his way to work when two men approached him, demanding money and threatening to kill him if he did not pay. Hernandez-Martinez did not know who the men were. The men told him that they knew where he lived and would harm him or his wife if he did not comply. They also instructed him not to go to the police.
Hernandez-Martinez went to the police later that day. Two police officers told Hernandez-Martinez not to be afraid because they would “take matters into their own hands,” and they offered to drive him home. Instead, they delivered him to the men who had threatened him earlier. The men hit Hernandez-Martinez in the face, cut his waist with a knife, burned his right foot with motorcycle exhaust, dragged him, repeated their threats, and beat him senseless. The police appeared to know his assailants and laughed while the men were assaulting him. Hernandez-Martinez recovered consciousness in a hospital, where he stayed for three or four days. When he had sufficiently recovered, he promptly fled to the United States to join his wife and then four- or five- year-old son, who had already made the journey.
. . . .
The IJ’s reasons are not at all clear. She more or less simply stated the elements of a CAT claim and asserted that Hernandez-Martinez did not establish those elements without specifying which elements were found wanting, or why.2 In addressing the asylum claim, the IJ did comment on the severity of harm inflicted on Hernandez-Martinez, stating that the abuse he suffered did not “rise above the level of unpleasantness, harassment, and even basic suffering.” We agree with the government that were this a supportable description of the harm inflicted, it would not support a CAT claim. We disagree, though, that the facts found support such a description. More to the point, as a matter of law we reject the implicit claim that the harm visited upon Hernandez-Martinez was not severe enough to qualify as torture.
. . . .
****************************
It’s actually pretty hard to get a “rise to the level of torture” case wrong as a matter of law! But three levels of Garland’s DOJ managed to pull it off!
EOIR’s “holdover Ashcroft/Sessions/Barr era” deny every CAT claim approach seems to be running into problems in the “real” Federal Courts. Nothing that competent BIA Appellate Judges couldn’t solve. But, don’t hold your breath!
This absurdist CAT “adjudication” and its beyond absurd, unethical defense by OIL (“doesn’t even rise to the level of persecution,“ citing inapposite cases, gimmie a break) falls below minimum legal and professional standards in every conceivable way: at the IJ, the BIA (“summary affirmance”), and OIL!
That nearing the halfway point of the Biden Administration there is no Senate-confirmed Assistant AG running the all-important Civil Division, which supervises OIL, shows just how grossly deficient and indolent Dems’ approach to “justice at Justice” has been — both within the Biden Administration and in the Senate.
This stunningly defective, shallow, basically non-existent “analysis” by this IJ shows an out of control system where judges feel free to enter defective deportation orders in life or death cases without much thought and without fearing any accountability from the BIA. The latter obviously is an “any reason to deny” assembly line where clearly unacceptable performance by IJs is “rubber stamped” so long as the result is “deny and deport!”
What’s happening at Garland’s EOIR is analogous to a patient going into the hospital for knee replacement, getting a lobotomy by mistake, and dying to boot. Yet, the “hospital administrator “ shrugs it off as just “business as usual,” a “minor mistake” — “good enough for surgery” and lets the team of quacks keep operating and killing folks!
Gosh, even lesser legal luminaries like Gonzalez and Mukasey finally “got” that EOIR was totally out of control and off the wall in the aftermath of Ashcroft’s “due process purge” and mal-administration. They actually took some “corrective action,” even if largely ineffectual and mostly cosmetic.
It’s also no accident that a disproportionate amount of EOIR’s bad judging and docket mismanagement is inflicted on migrants of color, particularly those from Latin America and Haiti, and their representatives. Much as the Biden Administration tries to ignore it, there is a clear connection between institutionalized xenophobia and racial bias in our immigration system and the problematic state of racial justice elsewhere in the U.S.
Obviously, there is expert judicial talent on the EOIR bench and in the private sector that could be recruited and elevated to fuel a “due process, great judging, and best practices renaissance” in this dysfunctional, inherently unfair, and grotesquely mal-administered system! But, equal justice and minimal professional standards at EOIR can’t wait! Lives are going down the drain, and wasteful corrections and “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” further cripple this already “rock bottom” system every day.
Garland must finally “swap out the deadwood and under-performers” at the BIA and senior management at EOIR HQ in Falls Church. He needs to bring in the available, proven talent from both Government and the private sector to lead and guide his mockery of a court system back to at least a minimal level of competence, professionalism, and accountability.
It’s well within Garland’s authority to “end this disreputable, deadly ‘clown show’ at EOIR!” Dems both inside and outside Government should be demanding reforms and accountability!
“The DOJ issues a hollow statement condemning FGM. But, when it comes to building on a 27-yr-old precedent to help gender-based refugees, they have been largely indifferent to suffering and the dire need for protection.” PHOTO: Creative Commons 4.0
Dan Kowalski from LexisNexis Immigration Community sent in this recent asylum victory from the Denver Immigration Court:
Hats off to Judge Burgie and Attorney Alexandra Katsiaficas for showing how effective advocacy and good judging can save lives and “move” cases at the “retail level” of EOIR.
This decision is comprehensive, straightforward, understandable, and logical. This is exactly the type of precedent that the BIA should be (but isn’t) issuing and enforcing on a consistent, nationwide basis! Why isn’t EOIR getting the job done under Garland?
While Judge Burgie didn’t cite Matter of A-R-C-G- on asylum based on domestic violence, she did cite a number of my “favorite precedents” from the long-gone but not totally forgotten “Schmidt-Board:” Matter of Kasinga, Matter of O-Z- & I-Z-, Matter of D-V-, and Matter of S-P-, as well as the BIA’s oft-cited but seldom followed “seminal” asylum case Matter of Acosta, which was the starting point for Kasinga and other favorable asylum precedents of the past.
Judge Burgie also cited and followed favorable 10th Circuit precedent. She got the “unwilling or unable to protect,” “internal relocation,” and “nexus” issues correct. She used the regulatory presumption based on past persecution effectively. Significantly, she also included a correct additional analysis of why this case, and others like it, should be granted based on “egregious past persecution” (“Chen grant”) even in the absence of a current well-founded-fear. Most of these cases should be “easy grants” preferably at the Asylum Office, but if not, at EOIR.
Instead, some IJs and many BIA panels “invent” reasons to deny that mock asylum law and distort the reality of conditions for women in the Northern Traingle and elsewhere!
I recently commented elsewhere on the irony of Garland’s DOJ issuing a “pro forma declaration” endorsing “Zero Tolerance for FGM Day,” while doing such a poor overall job of actually protecting those who have suffered that and other forms of gender based persecution. Action over hollow rhetoric, please!
Seems to me EOIR didn’t do a very good job of “building on the saving potential” of Matter of Kasinga, 21 I&N Dec. 357 (BIA 1996), my “landmark” opinion finding that FGM could be a basis for granting asylum. Indeed, after the “Ashcroft purge” removed those of us BIA judges committed to protecting refugees suffering from gender based persecution, the BIA intentionally misconstrued Kasinga and shamefully tried to limit it.
So transparently horrible was this effort that one of Ashcroft’s Bush II successors, AG Mukasey, hardly a voice for progressive jurisprudence and women’s human rights, finally had to intervene to put a stop to the BIA’s deadly nonsense. See Matter of A-T-, 24 I&N Dec. 617 (A.G. 2008). This was only after after blistering criticism of the “post-purge” BIA’s disingenuous approach by some of Judge Mukasey’s “former Article III superiors” on the Second Circuit.SeeBah v. Mukasey, 529 F.3d 99, 124 (2d Cir. 2008) (“The BIA refers, in passing, to the act of female genital mutilation as “reprehensible,” . . . but its entirely dismissive treatment of such claims in these cases belies any sentiment to that effect.” Straub, Circuit Judge concurring).
Judge Staub’s criticism of the BIA’s shallow and disingenuous treatment of too many asylum claims, particularly those based on gender persecution, remains just as true today under Garland as it was then. “Throwaway lines” — basically “boilerplate” —disingenuously expressing sympathy, but then misconstruing facts and law to deny life-saving protection, are no substitute for competent, fair judging at EOIR!
More than a quarter-century after Kasinga, I still don’t see much commitment at DOJ/EOIR to consistently protecting women from gender-based persecution. That being said, some IJs, particularly (but not only) those with expertise gained by representing asylum seekers, like Judge Burgie, are doing a good job of applying Cardoza, Kasinga, A-R-C-G-, D-V-, O-Z-&I-Z-, the regulatory presumption, expert testimony, and an honest reading of country conditions to grant desperately-needed protection in gender-based cases. The BIA, not so much.
Also, while issuing this statement, DOJ is “sitting on” gender based regulations, promised by President Biden on “day 1” to be delivered by the Fall of 2021! Reportedly, there is considerable “Miller Lite” restrictionist opposition within the Administration to treating protection claims for gender-based refugees fairly, generously, and consistently. See, e.g., https://www.cbsnews.com/news/immigration-biden-asylum-limits-us-mexico-border-arrivals/.
Kind of makes me wonder what, if anything, Dems REALLY stand for when the chips are down, human lives are at stake, and courageous, informed, bold leadership is required! GOP White Nationalist nativist bullies are only too happy to express their disdain for the rights and contempt for the humanity of all vulnerable refugees. They specifically target women.
But, when it comes to standing up for the legal and human rights of asylum seekers, most of them already written into our laws, Dems often “hide underneath the table.” That’s particularly true of this Administration’s incredibly poor and spineless approach to asylum at the Southern Border and their failure to address the asylum disaster at EOIR.
And, it’s not that Biden’s morally and legally vapid approach to asylum seekers has won any support from the right, progressives, or independents. Almost everyone is suing or threatening to sue the Administration about some aspect of their hapless, mushy, often self-contradictory handling of asylum. It’s a traditional, perhaps endemic, problem that once elected, Dems have a hard time distinguishing friends from foes. At least on immigration, they spend far too much time catering to the views and bogus criticisms of the latter while ignoring the informed views and experiences of the former.
Judge Burgie is a Barr appointee, but has a diverse background that includes not only service as an EOIR JLC and fraud and abuse prevention counsel, but also time representing and advocating for refugees and asylum seekers. Her asylum grant rate has gone up steadily over three years on the bench and currently stands at approximately 75%, well within the range I’d expect from a competent, expertIJ handling a non-detained docket.
That’s about 2X the national average grant rate of 37.5%. And, the latter is “up” from its artificially suppressed rate under Trump! Better EOIR judges at the “grass roots level” can make a difference and save lives even in the absence of leadership from Falls Church and “Main Justice!”
As this case confirms, there is “substantial judicial potential” on the the EOIR bench, most of it at the trial level. That’s particularly true of some of Garland’s most recent appointments who are widely-recognized and universally-respected asylum experts — “practical scholars” if you will.
But, EOIR still has not reached the “critical mass” of outstanding jurists necessary to “turn this broken system around” in the absence of leadership, positive examples, and operational reforms “from the top!”
That’s why I advocate for “change from below as the way to go” to save some lives and institutionalize fair judging and best practices at EOIR. So, NDPA heroes, keep those applications flowing forupcoming vacancies on the Immigration Bench, at all levels. I want YOU to bring justice to the broken “retail level” of our legal system! See, https://immigrationcourtside.com/2023/01/12/-i-want-you-to-be-a-u-s-immigration-judge/.
Julia Toepfer National Immigrant Justice Center (“NIJC”)
Humane border policies are possible. Here are five solutions.
The United States continues to struggle to create and implement humane border policies that respect domestic and international law and the dignity of people seeking protection. NIJC’s policy experts convened with other experts to suggest five solutions for a humane border policy. Read more about the solutions and see our graphics series.
AUTHOR NIJC Policy Team
The U.S. government and governments around the world are grappling with an increase in the number of people forcibly displaced from their homes by political and social oppression. Despite campaign commitments to restore humanity to immigration policy, the Biden administration has largely continued Trump-era policies at the U.S.-Mexico border. These policies blatantly undermine domestic and international asylum law; result in countless deaths; and create rather than mitigate chaos as people blocked from protection have little choice but to resort to multiple and more dangerous border crossing attempts.
What should the Biden administration be doing to address the humanitarian need at the border? There are other ways to address the situation at the border, leading with empathy and courage in compliance with the Refugee Act of 1980.
The administration can and should: 1) develop and support robust communication and planning between federal, state and local governments, and civil society, so that those arriving migrants in need of additional support can be matched with a destination with capacity to provide services; 2) fully fund and support civil society, including social and legal service providers; 3) create non-custodial, humanitarian reception centers at the border, instead of jailing migrants and asylum seekers; and 4) overhaul the federal immigration budget by moving funds away from detention and enforcement and toward asylum processing and humanitarian needs.
While taking these steps the administration must 5) abide by its obligation to ensure asylum access to those arriving at the United States’ borders and ports. The Refugee Convention, which Congress incorporated into U.S. law, was borne out of the horrors of World War II and the Nazi Genocide. It reminds us of a history we must not repeat, when the United States was among those countries that turned European Jewish refugees away, back to their deaths. Policies developed during the Trump administration, including the Title 42 mass expulsions policy and asylum bans that deny protection on the basis of a person’s manner of entry, stand in blatant violation of this obligation.
Processing large – even unprecedented – numbers of asylum seekers is possible. In the aftermath of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, there was an outpouring of support and political will to welcome Ukrainians forced to flee. In only a five-month period following the invasion, the United States processed and received more than 100,000 Ukrainians. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has tremendous authority and resources at its fingertips; with political will and a reprioritization of funding, the United States absolutely has the means to become a leader in the response to the global refugee crisis and to provide dignity and respect to those arriving at the border in search of safe haven.
************************
Get more details at the above link.
This is exactly the kind of practical, progressive thinking and planning that the Biden Administration should have been ready to “run with” upon taking office. They also needed a different leadership team with the skills, expertise, and guts to put policies like this in place and stick with them.
Instead they have been cowed by nativists and wobbly Dem “faux centerists” into an ill-defined and ineptly led program of “Miller Lite” deterrence lamely leavened with arbitrary stabs at amelioration untethered to a statutory framework! They also needed a much better legal team led by skilled, dedicated litigators with proven ability to defend humanitarian legal policies against predictable scurrilous, but determined, well-financed litigation by White Nationalist advocates designed to block progress and insure that equal justice for all would remain a slogan rather than a reality!
The Biden administration fell into the trap of letting its opponents define the terms of the debate. . . . .
Arranging care for asylum seekers would have been necessary even with a better metric. However, managing the humanitarian flow would have been easier if the Biden administration had allowed those seeking asylum to apply in an orderly, timed fashion at a lawful port of entry.. . . .
. . . .
Members of Congress and others who oppose the Biden administration’s parole program raised no objections to the Trump administration dismantling the U.S. refugee program. They also have not advocated for any other legal way for people escaping oppressive governments to enter America. Without paths to enter lawfully, it is inevitable that more people will cross into the U.S. illegally.
. . . .
Critics of the increase in CBP encounters argue, without much evidence, that individuals would not come to America if U.S. immigration policy were harsher—in other words, if Biden were more like Trump.
Despite what his supporters assert, Trump’s policies did not reduce illegal immigration or discourage people from applying for asylum. Pending asylum cases rose by nearly 300 percent between FY 2016 and FY 2020 (from 163,451 to 614,751), according to Syracuse University’s Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse. Apprehensions at the southwest border (a proxy for illegal entry) rose more than 100 percent between FY 2016 and FY 2019 (from 408,870 to 851,508). Apprehensions fell for several months at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, but by August and September 2020, apprehensions returned to the approximate level of illegal entry for the same months in FY 2019.
Providing individuals with legal ways to work or seek protection in America is the only viable way to reduce illegal immigration. Treating people humanely is not a sign of weakness. Allowing for orderly entry is a smart policy consistent with America’s best tradition as a nation of immigrants and refugees.
******************
I highly recommend reading Stuart’s complete article at the link. Members of the so-called “mainstream media,” whose stories often do not accurately reflect the legal right to apply for asylum at the border, which has been shamefully ignored and/or abridged by both Trump and Biden, would also do well to read Stuart’s accurate description of our needlessly screwed up administration of refugee and asylum laws. Most media articles also fail to accurately distinguish between those (often vainly) seeking just to exercise their legal right to apply for asylum at the border and other individuals who might irregularly cross the border.
The real, oft-ignored, problem here is that the Trump Administration dismantled the legal refugee programs established by the Refugee Act of 1980. Then, they unlawfully “repealed” asylum law at the border. Worse yet, Congress and bad GOP appointed Federal Judges let them get away with this outrageously illegal and highly counterproductive conduct (at least to date).
By the time the Biden Administration took office, the real “solvable” part of the problem at the Southern Border was well defined by experts: The US Government’s intentional violation of laws protecting refugees and legal asylum seekers and guaranteeing the latter fair and timely assessment and adjudication of their claims.
The Biden Administration could and should have “hit the ground running” with an aggressive program (and defense thereof) of restoration of the rule of law for refugees, who could and should have been processed in larger numbers outside the U.S. in Latin America and the Caribbean, combined with a restoration of the rule of law for asylum seekers at the, border, led by a reformed EOIR and USCIS Asylum Office, both staffed with true asylum experts!
Instead, the Biden Administration, after an “initial burst” of promising yet highly ineffective rhetoric (see, e.g., “reforms” of gender-based asylum), gave immigration, human rights, and the interconnected problem of racial justice, low priority. Instead of seeking and employing dynamic, progressive, problem-solving leaders, with new and creative ideas, they relied largely on “bureaucratic retreads” who showed little interest in or affinity for taking the bold, often courageous, actions necessary to address the festering humanitarian crisis at the border!
Too many of these individuals seemed to accept the false GOP nativist proposition that elimination or unduly restrictive applications of asylum law were the best way to “deter” unlawful entries, and that we didn’t want to “encourage” refugees from Latin America or the Caribbean by recognizing the legitimacy of their claims and/or running robust, realistically large “overseas” refugee programs for them.
Moving refugees and asylum seekers into an orderly, functioning, legal process at or away from the border would also allow CBP to focus resources on individuals who are not seeking legal refugee in the U.S. Because of the inaccurate and misleading statistics used to “count” border activity, as accurately described by Stuart in his full article, we actually have little idea how large a “cohort” of individual border arrivals legal asylum seekers represent.
“Mixing apples and oranges” certainly plays directly into the hands of GOP restrictionist/nativists who love to lump them all together under the dehumanizing and intentionally demeaning “false rubric” of “illegals.”There is nothing “illegal” about appearing at the U.S. border and asking for refuge under our domestic laws and international conventions to which we are party!
What is “illegal” is our Government suspending legal processing for asylum, and also, even for those chosen under largely arbitrary criteria for processing, delivering a badly flawed biased process that is neither fair nor timely. Also, mixing those merely seeking a chance to state their legal case for asylum with those seeking entry for other purposes certainly “dilutes” the enforcement resources and effectiveness of CBP in preventing “real” unlawful entries.
Instead, the Biden Administration settled into an inept “Miller Lite” posture of utilizing modified and supposedly “humanized” versions of Trump’s illegal policies. As pointed out by Stuart, the Biden Administration also failed miserably to anticipate and establish a Federally-led and funded program for humane resettlement of asylum seekers.
This played right into the hands of White Nationalist GOP pols like Abbott, DeSantis, Ducey, Paxton, Cruz, Cassidy, Vance, Biggs, McCarthy, Jordan, et.al. At the same time, in one of the dumbest moves in recent political history, they left Democratic leaders in locations victimized by the GOP “bussing stunts” in the lurch and without support, thereby driving an entirely unnecessary “wedge” and “stress point” into the “Democratic coalition.”
There might be no “easy and perfect” solution for managing refugee situations. Refugees and other types of “forced migrants’ have been with us since the beginning of human history. They will continue to exist long after the current crop of nativist politicos and “deterrence-only-focused” bureaucrats are gone.
Yet, with all this historical knowledge, the so-called “Western Democracies” failed miserably in protecting refugees from Hitler’s planned genocide in the years leading up to and including WWII. The 1951 UN Convention and later Protocol were supposedly “never again” responses to that deadly failure.
Yet, today, politicians and leaders who should know better seem determined to ignore the lessons of history and recreate the moral and humanitarian failures of the past. One can only hope that the NDPA and the “new generations” can get by the failures of today and treat refugees fairly, humanely, and in recognition of the substantial benefits that most bring to those nations fortunate enough to be “receiving” countries. The future of our world may depend on it!
BIA Asylum Panel cutting down the backlog by trampling asylum seekers and their legal rights! Guatemalans are a favorite target for Garland’s “Band of Bullies” at EOIR. Albrecht Dürer, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
Dan Kowalski reports for LexisNexis Immigration Community:
CA3 on Guatemala, Law, Facts and Standard of Review: Saban-Cach v. Atty. Gen.
Saban-Cach v. Atty. Gen.
“Based on past experiences, if returned to Guatemala, Selvin Heraldo Saban-Cach fears being persecuted by a local gang because of his identity as an indigenous person. Accordingly, he seeks withholding of removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act and protection from removal under the Convention Against Torture. The Immigration Judge denied his applications and ordered his removal, and the Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed. This petition for review followed. For the reasons that follow, we will grant the petition, vacate the BIA’s decision, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. … Although the BIA need not write an overly detailed explanation of its review of an IJ’s decision, it must provide an adequate explanation of its ruling and afford us an opportunity to review it. Here, the BIA did neither. At times, the IJ’s decision completely conflicts with the record. Yet, for reasons that are not at all apparent, the BIA affirmed the IJ’s decision in its entirety. … The BIA must review the first, factual question for clear error and the second, legal question de novo. In affirming the IJ’s decision of the second question regarding acquiescence, the BIA concluded that it found “no clear error in the [IJ]’s predictive fact-finding.” Accordingly, in addition to not bifurcating the Myrie step-two inquiry, the BIA also erred by applying this heightened standard of review to a legal question. Because of these errors, “we have little insight into the basis for [the BIA’s] determination that the IJ’s opinion ‘clearly reflects that [s]he used the proper “willful blindness” standard in relation to the issue of acquiescence.’” Accordingly, on remand the BIA needs to reassess each question.”
[Hats way off to Stephanie Norton, CSJ Practitioner-in-Residence, Detained Immigrant Project Education, Seton Hall!]
Stephanie Norton CSJ Practitioner-in-Residence, Detained Immigrant Project Education, Seton Hall Law PHOTO: Seton Hall Law website
********************
Congratulations to NDPA star Stephanie Norton! This is yet another example of the great talent “out here” who could replace mal-functioning EOIR judges. Human lives are at stake, this system is dysfunctional, crying out for bold reforms! Wonder how the Dems will try to “spin” their miserable performance at EOIR in 2024?
The IJ’s and BIA’s findings of “no past persecution” in this case rise to the level of absurd! Here’s what happened:
The BIA recognized that gang members had attacked Saban-Cach on multiple occasions and that the worst attack left him unconscious after he was stabbed with a broken glass bottle. However, the BIA agreed with the IJ that, in the aggregate, this abuse did not rise to the level of persecution. The BIA explained that, “because most of the incidents did not involve physical injuries, and because the worst attack did not require him to seek professional medical care for his physical injuries, the applicant did not establish harm rising to the level of past persecution.”
Come on man! No competent, fair minded judge would reach such a totally ridiculous conclusion based on such shallow, specious, and basically “made up reasoning!” Not incidentally, it also directly conflicted with Circuit precedent as well as with the realities of life in Guatemala!
The BIA also ran roughshod over its OWN binding precedent, Matter of O-Z- & I-Z-, 23 I&N Dec. 22 (BIA 1998) (cumulative harm is persecution), which should have made a finding of past persecution a “no brainer” for a panel of competent asylum adjudicators! The sloppy, biased, “any reason to deny” culture at EOIR is a major cause of their out of control backlog. Efforts to deny easily grantable cases, and failure to direct wayward asylum-denying IJs to get it right in the first place, is a drag on our entire justice system — all the way up to the Courts of Appeals!
That’s because EOIR’s “any reason to deny” approach to asylum encourages, and often rewards, frivolous litigating positions by ICE, discourages stipulations and settlements in cases that should easily be granted, and results in OIL taking ethically and legally flawed positions in the Courts of Appeals. For example, in this case the 3rd Circuit characterized parts of OIL’s position as “disingenuous,” “puzzling and disappointing,” and pointedly stated that “[r]egrettably, the government’s response brief doubles down on this inaccuracy.”
So, these are the legal quality and ethical standards set at DOJ by AG Merrick Garland, a former Circuit Judge himself who certainly should be expected to “know better.” Apparently, in his view, due process, fundamental fairness, impartial adjudication, adherence to the law, judicial and legal ethics don’t apply when it’s “only migrants” whose lives are at stake! While this is a common approach from White Nationalist GOP politicos, don’t we deserve better from a Dem Administration that claims to care about racial justice, but whose actions with respect to migrants say otherwise?
The court also blasted EOIR for “ethnocentric” judging and failure to fairly evaluate cases.
We have previously cautioned IJs and the BIA against ethnocentric evaluations of petitioners’ resources. Petitioners primarily come from countries in the poorest and most dangerous regions of the world. Any presumption that they enjoy the same kinds of resources as their adjudicators is shortsighted and unfair. Unless the record supports it, IJs and the BIA should not assume that their own views of appropriate medical care and its ready accessibility make up a universal reality.
Petitioners for relief under the asylum system must be afforded the just hearing that due process and basic fairness demands. The immigration system can only provide a fair and neutral determination of the claims of people from different cultural and economic circumstances if adjudicators diligently avoid unrealistic assumptions about petitioners’ circumstances.
Any competent asylum practitioner would understand what the court is getting at. But, EOIR IJs at both the trial and appellate level make these basic mistakes time after time.
The 3rd Circuit and other courts might claim to find the BIA’s “entire” affirmance of a decision often in “complete conflict” with the record to be inexplicable. But, WE know that it’s because the “deportation assembly line” works on the “principle” of “any reason to deny” and “keep cranking out those final orders of removal.” To Hell with justice, quality, fairness, and the human lives involved!
This disasterous, backlogged, “star chamber system” is neither appropriately staffed nor competently operated to afford individuals “the just hearing that due process and basic fairness demands.” How is this due process and fundamental fairness required by our Constitution?
“Justice” Star Chamber Style. — AG Merrick Garland appears to be blissfully unconcerned about the methods applied by too many of his EOIR “judges,” and his DOJ attorneys who “run interference” for them, to achieve “removal for any reason, at any cost!”
Until a court has the guts to “pull the plug” on EOIR’s ongoing, deadly clown show 🤡, declare it unconstitutional, and require at least minimal due process reforms, these outrages will continue! “Puzzling” about recurring miscarriages of justice at EOIR, as the 3rd Circuit did here, is one thing; acting decisively to enforce the Constitution by stopping the abuse, once and for all, is quite different. Requiring EOIR judges with demonstrated expertise in asylum law, willing to professionally review records, and decide cases of asylum seekers correctly, without “ethnocentrism” or bias, would be a logical starting point! It should be a “no brainer!”
“When you walk into your EOIR ‘courtroom’ and this guy takes the bench, you’re probably in for a BAD day! Isn’t it time to finally END the ‘Clown Show’ in our dystopian Immigration ‘Courts?'” PHOTO: Clown Civertan.jpg, Creative Commons License
On Jan. 5, the Biden administration announced that it planned to issue a regulation “to provide that individuals who circumvent available, established pathways to lawful migration, and also fail to seek protection in a country through which they traveled on their way to the United States, will be subject to a rebuttable presumption of asylum ineligibility in the United States.”
These two reasons to bar people from seeking asylum — for transiting through other countries and for crossing the U.S. border without authorization — have different rationales and historical origins. But both have been marshaled against Central Americans since the late 1980s — severely undermining access to asylum. Doing so endangers people’s lives and breaks U.S. and international law. History reveals the purpose and perils of such bars.
No such bars stopped earlier waves of refugees seeking protection in the United States, especially those coming from Europe. When people who fled the Bolshevik Revolution applied to be considered “bona fide refugees” under a 1934 U.S. law, it did not matter that they had spent several years during the previous decade in Germany, France, China, Argentina, Cuba, Mexico or Canada and then crossed a land border without getting inspected by a U.S. official — as many did — beginning in the mid-1920s. They told immigration officials that conditions in those countries made it hard for them to live and it would be years before they could qualify for an immigration visa to the United States. So, they made their way to the United States on their own — and their mode of entry, and even their use of fraudulent travel documents, did not preclude them from adjusting to permanent status.
. . . .
The Biden administration insists its regulation will be different because it has opened up new legal pathways from transit countries and it will give asylum seekers a chance to prove why they didn’t use one of the legal pathways available to them. But migrants from Guatemala and Honduras lack parole programs that are newly available only to Venezuelans, Nicaraguans, Cubans and Haitians who have passports and sponsors in the United States. Further, parole, discretionary temporary permission to enter and stay in the United States with no path to citizenship, is a far cry from permanent refugee status. Fifteen thousand refugee resettlement slots this year are for all of the Caribbean and Latin America, where over 7 million Venezuelans are displaced. It is hard not to see this rule as an effort to limit access to asylum in the United States specifically for people from northern Central America and to treat today’s forcibly displaced people from the Americas unlike people seeking refuge from elsewhere in the past.
******************
Read Yael’s complete article at the link.
Many of us had believed that the Biden Administration would get beyond the biases, manipulations of law, and implicit or explicit racism of the past to achieve the orderly, legal, timely admission of refugees, including those from Latin America, from abroad and at the border. Unfortunately and outrageously, they haven’t even tried!
Instead, they have turned human rights and border policies into an unholy, largely incomprehensible and arbitrary, mishmash of many of the worst, most ineffective, and invidiously biased policies of the past.
Don’t just complain about the awful mess @ EOIR! Get on the bench and do something about it! Public Domain
Excerpts:
Now, those of you who read my blog immigrationcourtside.com or have heard me speak before, or both, know that I am an outspoken critic of the last four Administrations’ gross mismanagement and misdirection of our Immigration Courts. So, you might well ask why I am here recruiting YOU to become part of a court system that I have consistently lampooned and characterized as dysfunctional, FUBAR, and badly in need of long-overdue reforms.
A better question might be why AG Garland, VP Harris, Deputy AG Lisa Monaco, and Associate AG Vanita Gupta AREN’T here today actively recruiting you to apply to become Immigration Judges in their system. It’s a hugely important court, perhaps the largest in the Federal Government, that cries out for excellence, practical immigration scholarship, and badly needs a much more diverse, representative, and expert judiciary to achieve equal justice for all in America.
The short answer is because I CARE, and THEY DON’T! I have a vision of a model court system unswervingly dedicated to due process, fundamental fairness, great practical scholarship, best judicial practices, fantastic public service, and equal justice for all! THEY DON’T!
After two largely fruitiness and frustrating years of the Biden Administration’s bungling immigration and social justice mis-steps, it’s painfully clear that the needed management, personnel, operational, and expertise reforms needed at EOIR AREN’T going to come from above.
But, if you have been in Immigration Court and thought “Hey, there is a better, more informed, more efficient, more just way to run this railroad, why isn’t it happening,” THIS is YOUR chance to get on board and change the direction of EOIR and the millions of lives and livelihoods that depend on it! See that the next generations of dedicated immigration lawyers won’t face some of the unnecessary and counterproductive roadblocks and bad experiences that you have had to deal with in seeking justice for your clients before EOIR!
. . . .
Not surprisingly, asylum grant rates dropped precipitously during the Trump years. Although they have rebounded some under Biden, they still remain below the 2012 levels. It’s certainly not that conditions have substantially “improved” in major “sending countries.” If anything, conditions are worse in most of those countries than in the years preceding 2012.
So, if the law hasn’t changed substantially and country conditions haven’t improved, what has caused regression in asylum grant rates at EOIR? It comes down to poor judging, accompanied by inadequate training, too much emphasis on “churning the numbers over quality and correctness,” and a BIA that really doesn’t believe much in asylum law and lacks the expertise and commitment to consistently set and apply favorable precedents and end disgraceful inconsistencies and “asylum free zones” that continue to exist.
Some of the most disgraceful, intentional asylum misinterpretations by Sessions and Barr now have been reversed by Garland. Unfortunately, he failed to follow-up to insure that the correct standards are actually applied, particularly to recurring circumstances. It’s one of many reasons that the Biden Administration struggles to re-establish a fair and efficient legal asylum system at the Southern Border — notwithstanding having two years to address the problems!
But, it doesn’t have to be this way! Recently, as I noted earlier, a number of notable “practical scholar experts” have been appointed to the Immigration Judiciary. When such well-qualified jurists reach a “critical mass” in the expanding EOIR, systemic changes and improvements in practices and results will happen.
The “dialogue” among Immigration Judges from government backgrounds and those from the private/NGO sector will improve. Lives will be saved. Life-threatening inconsistencies and wasteful litigation to correct basic mistakes at all levels of EOIR will diminish. The EOIR system will resume movement toward the former noble, but now long abandoned, vision of “through teamwork and innovation, being the world’s best administrative tribunals, guaranteeing fairness and due process for all!”
. . . .
So, warriors of the NDPA, check out USA Jobs, make those applications for EOIR judgeships! Storm the tower from below! Make a difference in the lives of others, stand up for due process and fundamental fairness for all persons, and help save our democracy! Become better judges for a better America! If not YOU, then who?
You can watch my full webinar here:
AILA Webinars shared the following meeting recording with you.
Topic: How to become an EOIR judge
Date: Jan 11, 2023 11:42 AM Eastern Time (US and Canada)
To paraphrase Forrest Gump, Immigration Court is like a box of chocolates; you never know what you’re going to get. Also, some of the chocolate is poison.
For many applicants in Immigration Court, the most important factor in determining success is not the person’s story or the evidence or the quality of their lawyer. It is the judge who is randomly assigned to the case. According to TRAC Immigration, a non-profit that tracks asylum approval rates in Immigration Court, Immigration Judge (“IJ”) approval rates vary widely. For the period 2017 to 2022, asylum approval rates ranged from 0% (a judge in Houston) to 99% (a judge in San Francisco). Of the 635 IJs listed on the TRAC web page, 125 granted asylum in less than 10% of their cases. At the other extreme, nine IJs granted asylum more than 90% of the time.
Based solely on these numbers, there is a 20% chance (1 in 5) that your IJ denies at least 90% of the asylum cases that he adjudicates. That’s pretty frightening. But there is much more to the story, which we will explore below.
If Santa were an IJ, it wouldn’t matter whether you were naughty or nice – he would deport you Ho-Ho-Home.
First, the raw TRAC data does not distinguish between represented and unrepresented applicants, and having a lawyer generally makes a difference. Overall, represented applicants were denied asylum in 64% of cases. Unrepresented applicants were denied asylum more frequently–in 83% of cases. So if your IJ sees many cases where the applicant does not have an attorney, her overall denial rate is likely to be higher than if most of her cases have lawyers. To find this information, go to the TRAC website, click on the judge’s name, and scroll almost to the bottom of the IJ’s individual web page. You will see the percentage of cases before that IJ where the asylum applicant had an attorney. If you see that your judge presides over many unrepresented cases, it probably means that her overall denial rate is higher than would be expected if that IJ saw more cases where the applicant had a lawyer. What does this mean? Basically, if you are before such a judge, and you have an attorney, your odds of success are probably better than the judge’s overall denial rate would suggest. Conversely, if you do not have an attorney, your odds of receiving asylum are probably lower than the judge’s overall denial rate would suggest.
A second big factor that is relevant to each IJ’s denial rate is country of origin. People from certain countries are more likely to be denied, and so if your judge sees many people from those countries, his overall denial rate will be pushed up. You can see country-of-origin information if you click on your judge’s name and scroll to the very bottom of his web page. The countries that have had the highest denial rates over the past two decades are: El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, and Mexico. And so if your IJ has many cases from these countries, his overall denial rate will likely be higher. Meaning that if you are not from one of these countries, your odds of winning asylum are probably better than what your judge’s overall denial rate would suggest.
A third important factor in examining IJ approval rates is the distinction between detained and non-detained asylum applicants. Certain judges have “detained dockets,” meaning that they rule on cases where the applicants are detained. Such people have a much more difficult time winning asylum: Some are barred from asylum due to criminal history or the one-year asylum bar. Others just have a more difficult time preparing their cases because they cannot easily gather evidence while detained. For these reasons, judges who decide many detained cases will generally have a lower overall asylum approval rate. Unfortunately, the TRAC data does not distinguish between detained and non-detained cases, and it is not always easy to know whether an IJ’s record includes detained cases (EOIR has a website that gives some details about each court, including whether that court is located at a detention facility).
While the TRAC data is not perfect (and there is no data on the newest IJs), it is the best source of information we have on Immigration Judge grant rates. Do keep in mind that the numbers only tell part of the story, and it is important to consider the above factors, as well as any other information you can gather from immigration lawyers and asylum applicants about your IJ.
What if you’ve done your research and have concluded that your judge is one of those who denies almost every case she sees? There are a few options.
One: You can go forward with the case and hope for the best. Sometimes a strong case can overcome a judge’s tendency to deny, and after all, even the worst IJs grant cases now and again (except for the 0% guy in Houston).
Two: You can ask for prosecutorial discretion and try to get the case dismissed. Except for cases where the noncitizen has a criminal or security issue, DHS (the prosecutor) is often willing to dismiss. Assuming you can get the case dismissed, you can then re-file for asylum at the Asylum Office (yes, this is a ridiculous waste of resources, but people are now doing it all the time). If you pursue this option, make sure to read the Special Instructions for the form I-589, as you will most likely be required to file your form at the Asylum Vetting Center.
Third: You can move. If you move to a new state (or at least a new jurisdiction within the same state), you can ask the IJ to move your case. Typically, you file a Motion to Change Venue. If the judge agrees, your case will be moved to a different court where you will hopefully land on a better IJ. Judges (and DHS attorneys) do not always agree to allow you change venue, especially if you are close to the date of your Individual Hearing or if you have previously changed venue in the past. And so if you plan to move your case, the sooner you make the move, the better.
Most Immigration Judges will do their best to evaluate the evidence and reach a fair decision. But some IJs seem intent on denying no matter what, and these judges are best avoided, if at all possible. Thanks to TRAC, you can get an idea about whether your IJ is one of these “deniers,” and this will help you decide how best to proceed in your case.
**********************
So, at roughly the “halfway point” of the Biden Administration, one of the “best minds in the business,” Jason Dzubow, is expending his awesome brain-power advising lawyers on “strategies” for avoiding unfair “any reason to deny” Immigration Judges who inhabit about one in five Immigration Courtrooms under Garland!In other words, what steps you have to take to get a “fair hearing” on asylum from an agency whose sole function is SUPPOSED to be providing said “fair hearings” to everyone! See something wrong here?
One of these “strategies:” Request the ICE prosecutor’s agreement to dismissal of the (probably already long-pending) case in Immigration Court and “refile” before the Asylum Office (which also is hugely backlogged). Jason admits “that this is a ridiculous waste of resources, but people are now doing it all the time.”
Wonder why we have huge asylum backlogs? Despite what Trump, Biden, and nativist GOP politicos would have you believe, it has less do with those vainly seeking legal justice at our borders and LOTS to do with inept decisions, dumb actions (some of them downright malicious), and inactions by Congress and Administrations of both parties in the 21st Century.
Garland’s job was to fix this broken, unfair, wasteful, and astoundingly inefficient system. That isn’t “rocket science.” But, it requires dynamic, progressive, due process committed new leadership at EOIR and a major “shakeup” among Immigration Judges, at both the trial and appellate levels, so that those who are “looking for any reason to deny” either are get different jobs or start treating asylum seekers fairly and humanely byfollowing Cardoza, Mogharrabi, Kasinga, and 8 CFR!
Garland hasn’t gotten the job done! And, the applicants and lawyers whose lives and livelihoods are tied up in his beyond dysfunctional system are the ones paying the price for his failure! Also taxpayers see their dollars and resources being poured down the drain at EOIR!
But, they aren’t Garland’s only victims! EOIR’s dysfunction and its failure to provide consistently correct, generous, positive guidance on how to efficiently grant asylum, particularly at the border, drives a whole other series of failures, illegalities, wastefulness, and mis-steps by the Administration.
Much of the nonsense and legally inappropriate gimmicks being rolled out by President Biden himself at the border this week is an insane attempt to avert the dysfunction at EOIR and USCIS by punishing not the inept politicos and bureaucrats responsible (nor political grandstanding GOP demagogues like Abbott & DeSantis), but the victims!
Improperly taking away the legal right to seek asylum at the border and creating more “jury-rigged” faux refugee programs by misusing parole are NOT the answer! Whatever their short-term impact is, in the long run they will fail just like all the other “deterrents” and “asylum work-arounds” unsuccessfully tried by Administrations of both parties over the past two decades.
Indeed, for those of us who have been around immigration law and policy for the last half-century, it bears an uncomfortable resemblance to the “ad hoc, highly politicized, unsatisfactory” approach to refugee situations that was superseded by enactment of the Refugee Act of 1980. How little we learn from the past!
What HASN’T been tried is the obvious:Recognizing and vigorously defending the right to asylum and building a fair and efficient adjudication system run and staffed by human rights experts under the existing authority provided by the Refugee Act of 1980, as amended. Why not build a fair, functional, generous legal asylum system under that Act that would encourage applicants to use it and reward those qualified for doing so with timely legal status (including, of course, authorization to work)?
Existing law already provides for “expedited removal,” without full Immigration Court hearings, of those who fail to establish to a trained USCIS Asylum Officer that they have a “credible fear” of persecution! Draconian as that measure is, and it undoubtedly has resulted in mistakes and injustices to asylum seekers, both the Trump and Biden Administrations have gone even further by wrongfully depriving those fleeing persecution of even this limited statutory right to present their claim to an Asylum Officer! To matters worse, both politicos and so-called “mainstream” media have “normalized” this disgraceful and harmful scofflaw behavior by ignoring the pretextual, racist roots of the Title 42 charade!
In the meantime, given the near total lack of leadership, competence, and courage from above to “do the right thing” and bring the “rule of law” to life, I do have a strong suggestion for NDPA members courageously “fighting in the trenches.” Apply for upcoming Immigration Judge vacancies at EOIR in massive numbers, over and over, until the roadblocks are removed and justice prevails!
As the relative proportion of “expert practical scholars” on the Immigration Bench grows and the “deniers’ club cohort” shrinks, change will emerge “from below” at EOIR, lives will be saved by the thousands, and justice will finally be realized in a system that now tries to resist and twist it! Functionality and “good government” will eventually win out over today’s inexcusable, and preventable, mess!
President Biden’s seemingly chaotic policy toward asylum seekers at the U.S. border is no accident. It’s carefully crafted to minimize political fallout. The administration should keep it simple instead, by following the law and doing the right thing — admitting those who arrive at our borders seeking asylum.
Give voters a chance, Mr. President. The American people value decency. They don’t respect craven and calculated inconsistency.
This week, the Biden administration announced an expansion of a Trump-era policy to turn away individuals fleeing persecution who reach our borders. This began with a pretext of limiting the spread of COVID-19, using a public health law known as Title 42. Now it’s just a sop to people who oppose immigration.
In April 2022, the Biden administration stated its intent to end Title 42. Litigation delayed the termination, but in mid-November, a federal judge ruled the policy unlawful, and ordered it to end by Dec. 21. The Supreme Court has stayed that order until it hears arguments next month.
Now, in a head-spinning turn of events, Biden has announced the expansion of Title 42 to Haitians, Nicaraguans and Cubans — nationalities that had not previously been subject to summary expulsion at the border.
If this were not enough of a contradiction, the administration also plans to resurrect another Trump-era policy which Biden had previously denounced, the “transit ban.” This rule bars from asylum any migrants who do not apply for and receive a denial of asylum from the countries they pass through on their way to the U.S.
This “outsourcing” of our refugee obligations to countries of transit, which a federal court found unlawful when implemented by the Trump administration, is ludicrous on its face. The asylum seekers who arrive at our border pass through countries such as Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala, with human rights conditions as dire as in the migrants’ nations of origin.
To date, the only country with which we legally have such an arrangement is Canada — which makes sense because it has a robust refugee protection system and an admirable human rights record. And even if there are other countries of transit, such as Costa Rica, that have a well-developed framework for the protection of refugees, and solid records on human rights, they are already taking in numbers of asylum seekers that far exceed their capacity.
. . . .
*******************
Read Karen’s full op-ed at the above link.
It’s simply appalling, not to mention disingenuous, for Biden to ignore the advice of experts like Karen, the founder and moving force behind the Center for Gender and Refugee Studies at U.C. Hastings Law. (Karen also argued the landmark Kasinga case before the BIA when I was Chair). Instead, disgracefully, he has turned human rights and immigration policies over to a bunch of spineless, scofflaw politicos and “go along to get along” bureaucrats.
He has multiplied the problem by following and adopting their highly politicized program of “carefully crafted chaos” — which both ignores the law and inflicts irreparable harm, including death, on legal asylum seekers! The “crime” of these victims of Biden’s tone-deafness? Seeking to exercise their legal rights under U.S. and international law to apply for asylum!
Biden and some Dems seem to have forgotten the nationwide, grass roots wave of support for admission of refugees in response to Trump’s despicable “Muslim ban!” As Karen points out, rather than “running from” immigration, refugees, and asylum as issues, Biden and other Dems should be embracing them as part of our heritage as a nation of immigrants and a source of strength and shared prosperity for our future! Refugees and asylees are a key component of our legal immigration system.
Making the necessary progressive, due process and fundamental fairness oriented, reforms to enable our nation to welcome those qualified in a timely, humane, and fair manner should be a top priority! As Karen cogently notes, “doing the right thing,” and doing it really well, “is good politics!”
Biden’s latest immigration nonsense will be attacked by litigators on both sides. Both the ACLU and Stephen Miller’s nativist legal group “America First Legal” have pledged to resist various parts of the new policies in court. The irony here is that Biden’s latest anti-asylum efforts incorporate much of the “Miller White Nationalist agenda” that Biden and other Dems campaigned (and fund-raised) against during the 2020 election!
Biden and his immigration advisors apparently have been overindulging in this stuff lately! It shows in their disturbingly poor performance on asylum, human rights, an “order at the border!”
Karen’s message is the same as mine. “It’s not rocket science!🚀 Migrants have a right to asylum.”🗽 Start with that straightforward truth and everything else falls into place!
Thanks for speaking out so forcefully, articulately, and truthfully, Karen, my friend!
Eleanor Acer Senior Director for Refugee Protection, Human Rights First. She called Biden’s latest border farce “a humanitarian disgrace.” Other experts agree!
From Eleanor Acer @ Human Rights First:
The president described the new approach as one intended to expand opportunities for migrants. But immigration advocates denounced the changes, saying that they included vast new restrictions on the right to claim asylum for people who need to escape their countries.
Eleanor Acer, the director of the refugee protection program at Human Rights First, called the new policies “a humanitarian disgrace” and said the president should not be adding restrictions on people who seek refuge in the United States.
“The Biden administration should be taking steps to restore asylum law at ports of entry,” she said, “not doubling down on cruel and counterproductive policies from the Trump playbook.”
Biden Announces Major Crackdown on Illegal Border Crossings
nytimes.com • 2 min read
*******
From Amy Fischer @ Amnesty International USA:
“Amnesty International USA condemns the Biden Administration’s attack on the human right to seek asylum. Today, the Biden Administration fully reversed course on its stated commitment to human rights and racial justice by once again expanding the use of Title 42, announcing rulemaking on an asylum transit ban, expanding the use of expedited removal, and implementing a new system to require appointments through a mobile app for those desperately seeking safety. While we welcome the expanded humanitarian parole program to provide a pathway for Cubans, Haitians and Nicaraguans to apply for protection without having to make the dangerous journey to the border, that must not come at the expense of the human right to seek asylum. These new policies will undoubtedly have a disparate impact on Black, Brown, and Indigenous people seeking safety. In fact, Amnesty International previously found that the cruel treatment of Haitians under Title 42 subjected Haitian asylum seekers to arbitrary detention and discriminatory and humiliating ill-treatment that amounts to race-based torture. The United States has both a legal and moral obligation to uphold the right to seek asylum, and over the holidays, we once again saw communities mobilize to welcome asylum seekers with dignity. The Biden Administration must reverse course and stop these policies of exclusion, and instead uphold the right to seek asylum and invest in the communities that are stepping up to welcome.”
From Mary Miller Flowers @ Young Center for Immigrant Children’s Rights:
“President Biden’s announcement today is a far cry from the commitments he made on day one to fight for racial justice, immigrant rights, and family protection,” Mary Miller Flowers, the senior policy analyst at the Young Center for Immigrant Children’s Rights, said in a statement.
“The right to asylum should not hinge on your manner of flight from danger or your financial means,” Flowers continued. “Seeking safety is treated as a privilege for a select few, and the Biden Administration’s cherry-picking of who can and cannot access protection proves this.”
From Kate Jastrom @ Center for Gender & Refugee Studies @ Hastings Law:
“Today President Biden proudly touted his commitment to providing legal pathways for asylum seekers and improving conditions at the U.S.-Mexico border. These were empty words,” said Kate Jastram, CGRS Director of Policy & Advocacy. “By expanding its deadly Title 42 policy to Haitians, Cubans, and Nicaraguans, the Biden administration is going far beyond what any court has required it to do. This expansion will put vulnerable refugees in harm’s way and exacerbate violence and chaos in border communities.”
“People fleeing persecution have a legal right to seek asylum at our border under both U.S. and international law, no matter how they get here, no matter who they know, and no matter what documents they hold,” Jastram continued. “Many are forced to escape their homes under threat of death at a moment’s notice, with nothing more than the clothes on their backs. Their rights should never be supplanted by limited and discriminatory parole programs that offer relief only to a lucky few. We are also deeply disturbed that the administration has announced plans to revive and repackage the Trump-era asylum transit ban. President Biden cannot pledge to hold the ‘torch of liberty’ aloft, then turn around and embrace the most inhumane, anti-refugee policies of his predecessor.”
From Maria Daniella Prieshoff @ Tahirih Justice Center:
“This is truly a stain on the record of any administration seeking to uphold the U.S. asylum law and its responsibilities under international law. We must work together to ensure that for #JusticeForImmigrants is truly equal.”
**********
From Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.):
Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), who along with Senate Majority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) has pushed the Biden administration for months to end Title 42, criticized the administration’s plan, saying it goes too far in restricting migrants’ access to the border.
“The Biden Administration’s decision to expand Title 42, a disastrous and inhumane relic of the Trump Administration’s racist immigration agenda, is an affront to restoring rule of law at the border,” Menendez said in a statement. “Ultimately, this use of the parole authority is merely an attempt to replace our asylum laws, and thousands of asylum seekers waiting to present their cases will be hurt as a result.”
From Jonathan Blazer @ ACLU:
The American Civil Liberties Union, which has led the legal battle to stop the expulsions since the Trump administration, criticized Biden for continuing to rely on Title 42, saying expelling migrants will send them into dangerous border cities where some have been kidnapped or killed. “This knee-jerk expansion of Title 42 will put more lives in grave danger,” Jonathan Blazer, the ACLU’s director of border strategies, said in a statement.
From Margaret Cargioli @ Immigrant Defenders Law Center:
Margaret Cargioli, a lawyer with the Immigrant Defenders Law Center, said the program was effectively screening out migrants who lack U.S. connections or money to buy airplane tickets. She said Title 42 was “put in place by a racist and xenophobic administration” bent on stopping immigration, not protecting public health.
“It really does go against the nature of … ‘My life is in danger. I need to get out,’” she said at a Dec. 29 news conference. “And that is what the essence of an asylum seeker is.”
Alas, no surprise to “Courtside” readers! The question is what can and will human rights supporters, progressives, and racial justice advocates DO about the consistent betrayal of humanitarian values values and the rule of law by Dems; not to mention Dems trashing their own campaign promises!
Trump’s nativist racism and Biden’s incompetence have actually moved our nation’s approach to legal refugee and asylum status BACK more than four decades! In place of the international framework put in place by Congress in the Refugee Act of 1980, we now have a hodgepodge of arbitrary, ad hoc, actions by the Biden Administration, relying to an unacceptable (and prima facie illegal) extent on the use of “emergency parole” authority as a partial substitute for legal refugee and asylee admissions!
This favors some non-refugees with “sponsors” over those who meet the accepted international definition of “refugee.” It promotes Executive and political favoritism over the needs of legal refugees. It stands on its head the normal refugee definition requiring an individual to be OUTSIDE their country of nationality to apply.
Congress did give the President extraordinary authority to admit those who otherwise meet the “refugee” definition directly from their native countries in conflict. However, rather than using this legal authority, Biden has chosen to misuse parole to EVADE it.
Even for those Venezuelans, Nicaraguans, Haitians, and Cubans fortunate enough to be chosen for parole, the first three groups will be left in limbo with no clear way of obtaining permanent immigration status after the expiration of their two-year “parole.” This obviously converts them into “political footballs” — particularly if the GOP were to regain the Presidency in 2024!
Paroled Cubans, on the other hand, might qualify for green cards under the “Cuban Adjustment Act of 1966” after one year. This creates yet another arbitrary inconsistency among those similarly situated, based solely on nationality.
The Refugee Act of 1980 creates a screening and adjustment process for those admitted as refugees thereunder, similar to the Cuban Adjustment Act. It also creates a similar process for those refugees granted asylum at the border or in the interior.
But, Biden’s choice NOT to use the existing legal provisions established by the Refugee Act of 1980, recreates exactly the type of disorder, arbitrariness, and uncertainty that the Refugee Act of 1980 was intended to end! And, they did in fact more or less end for nearly four decades, prior to the Trump-initiated fiascos that began in 2017 and which Biden, despite pledges to the contrary, has lacked the competence, expertise, and will to end and restore the rule of law!
If properly staffed with human rights experts and dynamic, visionary “practical scholars” as leaders, our legal refugee and asylum systems could not only be restored, but could also be dramatically improved and made fairer! That’s basically what Biden promised during the 2020 campaign.
Outrageously, once in office those promises have been trashed and, predictably, chaos and incompetence reigns. That’s a deadly combination for asylum seekers patiently waiting for our nation to honor its laws and international obligations!
It shouldn’t be like “waiting for Godot!” But, it is!
“Border Message” By Steve Sack Reproduced under license
Biden’s new immigration plan would restrict illegal border crossings
The measures are likely to draw legal challenges. They would expand rapid expulsion for illegal border crossers but allow more migrants from Cuba, Nicaragua, Haiti and Venezuela.
BY CLEVE R. WOOTSON JR., NICK MIROFF AND MARIA SACCHETTI report for WashPost, January 5, 2023 11:22 AM
President Biden on Thursday will announce new immigration restrictions, including the expansion of programs to remove people quickly without letting them seek asylum, in an attempt to address one of his administration’s most politically vulnerable issues at a time when the nation’s attention is focused on Republican disarray in the U.S. House.
The measures will expand Biden’s use of “parole” authority to allow 30,000 migrants from Cuba, Nicaragua, Haiti and Venezuela to come to the United States each month, as long as a U.S. sponsor applies for them first. But those who attempt to migrate through the region without authorization will risk rapid expulsion to Mexico, as the administration plans to expand its use of the pandemic-era Title 42 public health policy. Mexico has agreed to take back 30,000 border-crossers from those nations each month, U.S. officials told reporters during a briefing Thursday morning.
The measures, which are likely to draw legal challenges from immigration advocacy groups,”will expand and expedite legal pathways for orderly migration and result in new consequences for those who fail to use those legal pathways,” the White House announced.
Biden, who has said he will seek reelection in 2024, is contending with the political and operational fallout of two consecutive years of record numbers of migrants taken into custody at the Mexican border, in part because of his more welcoming policies.
Before taking office, Biden said he wanted an orderly system, not “2 million people on our border.” The number of border apprehensions jumped to 1.7 million during his first year in the White House, however, and soared to nearly 2.4 million in his second year. Biden campaigned on the promise that his administration’s immigration system would be “safe, orderly and humane”; his pivot toward amped up enforcement suggests the White House sees immigration as a 2024 liability.
The administration’s solution is legally thorny and will likely anger immigration advocates and even some Democrats — and will probably do little to silence Biden’s Republican critics.
. . . .
************************
Read the complete story at the link:
Biden’s plan effectively imposes arbitrary geographic and ideological restrictions on those seeking protection — something that Congress specifically intended to eliminate when enactingthe Refugee Act of 1980;
Biden’s plan leaves out asylum seekers and refugees from the Northern Triangle, some of those most in need of protection;
It imposes arbitrary and illegal numerical limits on those who might otherwise seek asylum;
It continues the illegal and expanded use of Title 42 as a border enforcement mechanism having nothing whatsoever to do with public health — a position that the Administration itself has refuted in Federal Court all the way up to the Supremes;
It leaves those “paroled” in limbo with no clear path to legalization in the U.S., other than perhaps eventually applying for asylum in overloaded and often biased system with a backlog of many years;
Any future path to legal status for these parolees would require legislation agreed to by the GOP — not likely to happen — thus making these individuals “bargaining chips” for nativists seeking further restrictions on legal immigration and the right of asylum;
The “mass use” of parole at a rate of 30,000/month appears a direct violation of section 212(d)(5) of the INA, as amended by the Refugee Act of 1980, which specifically intended to end the “mass use” of parole as a substitute for admitting refugees under the legal framework set up by the Refugee Act of 1980, as amended.
Here’s a “spot on” comment by Margaret Cargioli from the Post article:
Margaret Cargioli, a lawyer with the Immigrant Defenders Law Center said the program was effectively screening out migrants who lack U.S. connections or money to buy airplane tickets. She said Title 42 was “put in place by a racist and xenophobic administration” bent on stopping immigration, not protecting public health.
“It really does go against the nature of … ‘My life is in danger. I need to get out,’ ” she said at a Dec. 29 news conference. “And that is what the essence of an asylum seeker is.”
On Title 42, the Supreme Court rules for a partisan agenda
COVID-19 is no reason to shut out migrants. Yet it’s used as a political pretext.
By Erwin Chemerinsky
The Supreme Court’s ruling last week to keep in place a Trump-era immigration order can only be understood as five conservative justices advancing a conservative political agenda, in violation of clear legal rules.
Without giving reasons or any explanation, the court reversed lower court decisions that allowed the Biden administration to lift a restriction that prevents asylum seekers at the border from entering the country, imposed early during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The federal law — referred to as Title 42 — permits the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to prohibit people from coming into the U.S. to avert the spread of a “communicable disease” present in a foreign country.
.. . .
In November, U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan, in Washington, D.C., found that the continued use of Title 42 was “arbitrary and capricious in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act.” He ruled that the expulsion policy was no longer justified based in light of the present state of the pandemic, which includes widely available vaccines, treatments and increased travel in the United States.
Nineteen states with Republican attorneys general, however, oppose that ruling and sought the right to appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. They were not parties to the lawsuit in the District Court and the law generally does not allow parties to get into a case for the first time at the appeals level. On Dec. 16, the federal Court of Appeals, following its well-established law, refused to allow the states to intervene. The states then sought Supreme Court review of that decision.
On Dec. 27, in Arizona vs. Mayorkas, the Supreme Court, in a 5-4 ruling, not only said that it would hear the states’ appeal, but that it would require that the Biden administration continue to use Title 42 to expel migrants.
The court’s action makes no sense for several reasons. Title 42 provides the government authority to close the borders only if a public health crisis involving a communicable disease requires it. No one in the litigation disputes that COVID no longer warrants restrictions on immigration.
. . . .
The states are intervening not because they believe that a continuing public health emergency requires Title 42, but because they want to use it as a pretext to close the borders.
In fact, in another case now pending on the Supreme Court’s docket — on whether the Biden administration’s student loan forgiveness program is justified as a response to the pandemic emergency — 12 of the states in the Title 42 case argued in their brief that “COVID-19 is now irrelevant to nearly all Americans.”
The Supreme Court’s order is senseless for another reason: The only issue before the court is whether the states can intervene in the case. It is not about whether the District Court erred in ending the use of Title 42 to expel migrants. Even if the states were allowed to join the case, they can’t plausibly make the case that COVID concerns still justify immigration expulsions at this point.
. . . .
The five conservative justices based their decision not on the purpose of Title 42, which is to stop the spread of a communicable disease, but on their partisan agreement with conservatives on immigration issues. We should expect better of the court than that.
*********************
Read Dean Chemerinsky’s full article at the link. Having a High Court, with life tenure, where a majority of the Justices enter “senseless orders” — targeting some of the most vulnerable and abused in our society who also happen to be predominantly individuals of color — is in and of itself senseless — from a standpoint of preserving our democracy!
The action of the five GOP Supremes is beyond outrageous! The NDPA CAN turn this gross right-wing minority abuse of our judicial system around!Likely not in my lifetime!
But, you need to keep pushing Dems to pay attention to judicial appointments and start insisting on meaningful professional expertise in immigration and actual experience representing individuals in Immigration Court as a basic requirement to serve as a Justice. Also we need an Article I Immigration Court and NO MORE Attorneys General without proven “grass roots” immigration and human rights experience!
Immigration is “where the action is” on the fight to save American democracy! If tone-deaf and spineless Dem politicos keep “running” from the key issue in American law and society, perhaps it’s time for true liberals, progressives, and constitutional humanitarian realists to “run” from the Dem Party!
This Supreme farce also reinforces the disgraceful failure of Garland and the Dems to reform the “Supreme Court of Immigration” — the BIA — by replacing enforcement-tilted Trump holdovers with practical scholar, expert, progressive judges committed to realizing long-denied due process, fundamental fairness, and the best interpretations of immigration and refugee laws! Dems control an important Federal Appellate body and are too clueless and afraid to do the right thing — even with the rule of law, racial justice, and human lives on the line!
Migrant families have been used in political stunts this year. The governors for Texas and Arizona have sent them on buses to the District to make a statement, and in doing so, have treated people as the problem instead of the country’s immigration system, which doesn’t provide clear paths to citizenship for many. An estimated 11,000 migrants have been bused to the District, and while many have since left the region, hundreds alone remain in local hotels and shelters. Many of those are children.
A donated item dropped off at those hotels in recent days was one that a mom had been hoping to give her daughter — a toy kitchen.
Woods cried as she talked about the impact of that and the many other gifts that were received. The strangers who came together to help the families recognized the system is broken, not people, she said.
“They wanted to support people who have escaped trauma, climate crisis, gang violence and the most inhumane things possible to arrive here,” she said. It didn’t matter that they didn’t speak the same language or share the same experiences as those families, she said. “Everyone wanted to make sure they felt welcomed and had a good Christmas, and that’s the true spirit of Christmas.”
Here’s more on GOP political stunts with vulnerable humans as pawns from today’s WashPost:
Three buses full of migrants arrived at Vice President Harris’s residence in Washington from Texas on Christmas Eve amid bitingly cold weather, a mutual aid group said, the latest in an influx of newcomers sent to the Northeast by Southern states.
About 110 to 130 men, women and children got off the buses outside the Naval Observatory on Saturday night in 18-degree weather after a two-day journey from South Texas, according to the Migrant Solidarity Mutual Aid Network. On the coldest Christmas Eve day on record in the District, some migrants were bundled up in blankets as they were greeted by volunteers who had received word that Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R) had sent the caravan.
Volunteers scrambled to meet the asylum seekers after the buses, which were scheduled to arrive in New York on Christmas Day, were rerouted due to the winter weather. In a hastily arranged welcoming, a church on Capitol Hill agreed to temporarily shelter the group while one of the mutual aid groups, SAMU First Response, arranged 150 breakfasts, lunches and dinners by the restaurant chain Sardis.
“D.C. continues to be welcoming,” the network’s core organizer, Amy Fischer, told The Washington Post. “Whether it’s Christmas Eve, whether it’s freezing cold outside or warm outside, we are always ready to welcome people with open arms and make sure they have a warm reception in this community.”
. . . .
In D.C., the buses had been arriving all week — three from Arizona, another three from Texas — so Tatiana Laborde knew it was going to be an “intense” time. But on Friday, Laborde — who is the managing director of SAMU First Response, one of the agencies along with the mayor’s office and the mutual aid network helping with the migrants — found out about the three rerouted buses. They were scheduled to arrive Sunday morning, Christmas Day.
But then there was another surprise — the buses, from Del Rio, Tex., got in early, parking near the vice president’s Naval Observatory residence on Christmas Eve.
That destination appears to have more political significance than logistical purpose: While other buses have stopped at Union Station, the Naval Observatory is not near any other transportation hubs. The vice president was in D.C. this weekend.
. . . .
************************
While Biden Administration spokesperson Abdullah Hasan claimed that they were “willing to work with anyone,” the reality is quite different. The Biden Administration campaigned on the need to end the abusive, deadly Title 42 charade and restore order and the rule of law at the border. Yet, after two years they have accomplished little of substance in addressing this very predictable and urgent humanitarian situation.
The asylum system at both USCIS and EOIR remains a backlogged mess. Regulatory changes, some enacted over the strong objections of human rights legal experts, have failed to meaningfully improve the system.
The administrative legal precedents governing asylum are still unhelpful, often unrealistically restrictive, and frequently impede efficient granting of relief. Improvements for gender-based asylum seekers — directed in one of Biden’s first Executive Orders — are well over a year “overdue” and appear to have fallen off the “radar screen.”
The refugee system outside the U.S., which could have reduced asylum pressure, remains largely as broken and underutilized as the day Trumpleft office. Leadership and personnel changes at DHS and DOJ that should have been made early on were ignored by the Biden Administration.
Significantly, the Administration has neither taken a leadership role nor developed a coherent plan for the orderly, systematic, and rational resettlement of most asylum seekers away from border communities. This has left vulnerable individuals who are legally entitled to apply for asylum at the mercy of grandstanding GOP nativist governors.
It has also overtaxed and overwhelmed border communities and NGOs in “receiving localities” throughout the U.S. There has been no coordination of essential Immigration Court and Asylum Office notices and scheduling with the actual destinations of asylum seekers and with those available to support and represent them. In other words, the Administration has presided over an inexcusable, and unnecessary, mess!
Regardless of its merits, so-called “comprehensive immigration reform” clearly isn’t on the horizon. That means that it’s up to the elected officials — the Biden Administration — to make the current law work — without resorting to illegal and counterproductive gimmicks like Title 42 and “expedited dockets.” That means cutting the whining and finger pointing and getting to work governing and solving immigration problems!
That takes courage, boldness, expertise, human values, creativity, urgency, and competence — seven areas where the Biden Administration has been sorely lacking when it comes to immigration, human rights, and racial justice!
