Torture – Page 8 – immigrationcourtside.com

🤮 SCOFFLAW WATCH: IN “A-B-III” A.G. GARLAND ORDERED ALL EOIR JUDGES TO APPLY THE BIA’S PRECEDENT MATTER OF A-R-C-G- (PSG/DOMESTIC VIOLENCE) — HIS BIA DIDN’T GET THE WORD, SAYS 3RD CIR — Avila v. Att’y Gen.

Kangaroos — Mob chatter:
“Hey, anyone here know what an ARCG is?”
“No clue.”
“Some kind of boat?”
“Maybe we should ask Noah.”
“Don’t bother. The only rule we follow around here is ‘When in doubt, throw ‘em out!’”
“Isn’t that what the UN Handbook says, that ‘giving the benefit of the doubt’ means to ‘doubt that any benefit will ever be given?’”
“Yup, sounds right to me!”
“I don’t understand it. We’re overtly hostile to asylum seekers and their lawyers, we’ve tilted the playing field against them, yet they still come! Why?”
“Detain, discourage, deny, deport, deter, that’s our mission!”
“Where due process, fundamental fairness, and best practices go to die!”
“Precedents? We only follow the ones unfavorable to respondents!”
https://www.flickr.com/photos/rasputin243/
Creative Commons License

From: Ted Murphy
Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2023 10:09 AM
To: AILA Philadelphia List
Cc: Kaley Miller-Schaeffer
Subject: 3rd Circuit Precedent – PSG Honduras A-R-C-G-
Importance: High

Friends,

Please see the attached precedent decision from the 3^rd Circuit today. While the first 16 pages of the 21 page decision focus on CIMT issues, the final 4 pages are worth reading on PSG similar to A-R-C-G- that the BIA ignored.

Here, on the other hand, the BIA did not adhere to

Matter of A-R-C-G-’s requirement to examine Avila’s PSG

within the context of the specific country conditions in

Honduras. The BIA rejected Avila’s PSG for lack of

particularity without considering evidence in the record about

“widespread and systemic violence” against Honduran women,

“inconsistent legislation implementation, gender

discrimination within the justice system, and lack of access to

services.”109 Evidence in the record, including that “[l]ess than

one in five cases of femicide are investigated,… and the

average rate of impunity for sexual violence and femicide is

approximately 95%,” may have been relevant in examining

whether Avila’s proposed PSG was cognizable.110 Just as the

cultural attitudes toward gender were relevant in Matter of A-

R-C-G-, evidence in the record as to the “machismo culture” in

Honduras may be relevant to assessing whether Avila has a

cognizable PSG.111

Moreover, in Matter of A-R-C-G-, DHS conceded that

the proposed group “married women in Guatemala who are

unable to leave their relationship” was sufficient for a PSG

asylum claim.112 Given the similarity between that social group

and “Honduran women in a domestic relationship where the

male believes that women are to live under male domination,”

we must remand for the BIA to provide clarification as to its

application of Matter of A-R-C-G-, and to determine whether

Avila’s proposed PSG is cognizable in light of the specific

country conditions

.

We must also remand for the BIA to consider whether

Avila demonstrated a well-founded fear of persecution on

account of her PSG. The BIA determined that Avila’s PSG did

not “exist independently” of the harm alleged, as required

under Matter of M-E-V-G-113 and Matter of W-G-R-.114 Matter

of M-E-V-G- cites to this Court’s prior precedent in Lukwago

v. Ashcroft,115 which states that a PSG “must exist

independently of the persecution suffered by the applicant for

asylum.”116 However, Lukwago makes clear that in

determining whether a PSG exists independently of the

persecution suffered, the BIA must consider the PSG in the

context both of “past persecution” and a “well-founded fear of

persecution.”117 Here, the BIA did not consider whether Avila

had demonstrated that she had a well-founded fear of

persecution based on her past experiences of abuse and sexual

violence. Accordingly, we will remand for the BIA to consider,

in addition to whether Avila has suffered past persecution on

account of her PSG, whether she has demonstrated a well-

founded fear of future persecution.

In conclusion, on remand, the BIA should (1) clarify,

given the Government’s concession in Matter of A-R-C-G- that

the proposed group was sufficient for a PSG asylum claim, its

application of Matter of A-R-C-G- to the present case, and

consider Avila’s PSG in the context of evidence presented

about the country conditions in Honduras and (2) provide

guidance in applying both Matter of A-R-C-G- and Matter of

M-E-V-G- with respect to past persecution and a well-founded

fear of future persecution on account of membership in a PSG

Case was argued by Attorney Kaley Miller-Schaeffer.

Best regards,

Ted

Theodore J. Murphy, Esquire

Murphy Law Firm, PC

https://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/221374p.pdf

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

Once again, the BIA fails to follow its own precedent favorable to the respondent! Yet, in a Dem Administration they get away with mocking the rule of law in life or death cases, in a “court system” that the Dems “own.” Why?

WHO applies precedents and rules can be as important as the precedents and rules themselves! Failure to properly and uniformly apply legal rules that favor asylum seekers has become a chronic problem at EOIR. It’s one that Garland has yet to effectively and comprehensively address!

Many congrats to Kaley Miller-Schaefer and Murphy Law!

Kaley MIller-Schaefer ESQ — Kaley Miller-Schaefer ESQ
Partner
Murphy Law
PHOTO: Linkedin

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

09-15-23

🏴‍☠️ 🤯 ABSURDIST SCOFFLAW TEX “GOV” ABBOTT BLOWN AWAY IN ROUND I OF “BUOY BATTLE!” — Texas Federal Judge Rejects Ludicrous “Invasion Defense!”

Priscilla Alvarez reports for CNN:

https://www.cnn.com/2023/09/06/politics/texas-mexico-border-water-barriers-migrants/index.html

CNN —

A federal judge ordered Texas to remove floating barriers in the Rio Grande and barred the state from building new or placing additional buoys in the river, according to a Wednesday court filing, marking a victory for the Biden administration.

Judge David Alan Ezra ordered Texas to take down the barriers by September 15 at its own expense.

The border buoys have been a hot button immigration issue since they were deployed in the Rio Grande as part of Gov. Greg Abbott’s border security initiative known as Operation Lone Star. The Justice Department had sued the state of Texas in July claiming that the buoys were installed unlawfully and asking the judge to force the state to remove them.

In the lawsuit, filed in US District Court in the Western District of Texas, the Justice Department alleged that Texas and Abbott violated the Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act by building a structure in US water without permission from United States Army Corps of Engineers and sought an injunction to bar Texas from building additional barriers in the river. The Republican governor, meanwhile, has argued the buoys are intended to deter migrants from crossing into the state from Mexico.

Texas swiftly appealed the judge’s order.

. . . .

Ezra also found Texas’ self-defense argument – that the barriers have been placed in the face of invasion – “unconvincing.”

. . . .

Ezra also found Texas’ self-defense argument – that the barriers have been placed in the face of invasion – “unconvincing.”

. . . .

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

Read the rest of Priscilla’s report at the link.

Who knows how this will play out in the 5th Circuit and the Supremes, given the composition of those courts. But, at least for a day, Judge Ezra has brought some common sense and the rule of law to bear on out of control grandstanding Texas “Governor” Greg Abbott.

In addition to being cruel and illegal, Abbott’s $140 million buoy boondoggle is predictably a failure from a deterrence standpoint. See, e.g., https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwi-5saEvpiBAxUXpIkEHU1VBwoQFnoECBoQAQ&url=https://www.livemint.com/news/texas-floating-border-wall-fails-to-deter-migrants-11693942981798.html&usg=AOvVaw0TX6bBkO0Fv0MezJLQPJkk&opi=89978449. (Although Abbott and his White Nationalist supporters falsely claim otherwise.) But, as my friends Dan Kowalski and Judge “Sir Jeffrey” Chase often say, effective deterrence isn’t the point — the cruelty and dehumanization is!

We should also remember that the vast majority of those whom Abbott and the nativists bogusly call “invaders” seek only to turn themselves in to U.S. authorities so they can exercise their clear legal rights to apply for asylum — rights that attach regardless of status or manner of entering the U.S. (Rights that also have improperly been diminished and impeded by the Biden Administration’s ill-advised asylum regulations, currently under legal challenge).

If successful (under a legal system intentionally rigged against them), these so-called “invaders” will use their skills and work ethic to expand our economy and help Americans prosper while saving their lives and those of their families. To anybody other than Abbott and other White Nationalists, that sounds like a potential “win-win” that could and should be “leveraged” for everyone’s benefit!

Judge Ezra’s opinion in the aptly-named U.S. v. Abbott can be found here:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172749163/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172749163.50.0.pdf?ftag=YHF4eb9d17

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

09-07-23

⚖️🗽👩🏽‍⚖️👩🏽‍🏫 WITH HELP FROM OUR FRIENDS @ ROPES & GRAY, IMMIGRATION PROFESSORS & ROUND TABLE 🛡️ FILE AMICUS ON WITHHOLDING/NEXUS STANDARD OF PROOF IN 1ST CIR. — Paye v. Garland

Read the full brief here:

Paye [2023.8.25] Amici Brief (Law Profs & IJs & BIA members)

Here’s the “Statement of Interest:”

INTEREST OF THE AMICI CURIAE1

This brief represents the views of two groups of amici curiae. See Corporate

Disclosure Statement for names of amici curiae. The first group is comprised of thirty-two immigration law scholars and clinical professors. These amici teach immigration law and/or provide clinical instruction in law school clinics that provide representation to asylum seekers and noncitizens seeking relief under 8 U.S.C. § 1231 and 8 U.S.C § 1158. As such, amici are knowledgeable of the particular legal requirements of 8 U.S.C. § 1231 and 8 U.S.C § 1158 and have a special interest in the proper administration and interpretation of the nation’s immigration laws, particularly asylum and withholding of removal.

The second group is comprised of forty-one former immigration judges (“IJs”) and Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) members who have collectively presided over thousands of removal proceedings and have interest in this case based on their many years of dedicated service administering the immigration laws of the United States. Based on this experience, amici believe that withholding of removal

1 Pursuant to Rule 29 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, amici notes that all parties have consented to the filing of this brief.

Furthermore, pursuant to Rule 29 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, amici further certifies that no party’s counsel authored the brief in whole or in part, no party or party’s counsel contributed money that was intended to fund preparation or submission of the brief, and no person, other than amici, their members, or counsel has contributed money intended to fund preparing or submitting the brief.

-1-

Case: 23-1426 Document: 00118044713 Page: 13 Date Filed: 08/25/2023 Entry ID: 6587480

is the means whereby Congress provided for the United States to meet its international treaty obligation of “nonrefoulement” under Article 33 of the Refugee Convention. Withholding of removal is a vital legal tool upon which IJs rely to ensure that noncitizens appearing before them are not removed to countries for which they have proven it to be more likely than not that they have experienced (or will experience) persecution on account of a protected ground — an extremely high burden to meet. This relief is mandatory where the noncitizen’s burden of proof is met and does not lead to permanent status or derivative status for immediate family members, in contrast to asylum, which is a discretionary form of relief that grants a permanent status and derivative status for immediate family members.

Amici contend that the more lenient “a reason” standard, as applied to the nexus between the protected ground and the persecution for withholding (as opposed to the “at least one central reason” standard for asylum) requires IJs to order withholding in cases where evidence of nexus may be insufficient for a discretionary grant of asylum. Such an interpretation would provide greater protection from violating the international treaty obligation of nonrefoulement. The instant case, where Petitioner is ineligible for asylum but may be protected from severe future persecution by withholding of removal, presents exactly the context in which Congress intended for the lesser “a reason” nexus standard to apply. Addressing this question here provides an opportunity for this Court to affirm Congress’s clear

-2-

Case: 23-1426 Document: 00118044713 Page: 14 Date Filed: 08/25/2023 Entry ID: 6587480

intent, expressed in the statutory language of 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(C), to establish protection against nonrefoulement for this noncitizen and many others who, for any number of reasons, are ineligible for the discretionary relief of asylum.

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

Many thanks to all involved!

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

08-28-23

🤯 CAT-ASTROPHE: TOM MOSELEY DOWNS OIL, AS 3RD REACTS TO EOIR’S DISDAIN FOR FOLLOWING CIRCUIT PRECEDENT!

Train wreck —
“A heck of a way to run the railway!”
Public Realm

Dan Kowalski reports for LexisNexis Immigration Community:

https://www.lexisnexis.com/community/insights/legal/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/ca3-on-cat-procedural-failures-not-following-instructions-llanes-quintero-v-atty-gen

“On Petition for Review of a Final Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (Agency No. A209-343-065). Immigration Judge: David Cheng. … As for Quinteros’s Convention Against Torture claim, our precedent requires the agency to follow certain steps. Yet neither the judge nor the Board did so. … Here, neither the immigration judge nor the Board followed our instructions. … Those procedural failures infected the agency’s decisions. Neither the immigration judge nor the Board considered a separate death threat and beatings that Quinteros got from gang members. In gauging the likelihood and severity of future harm, the agency should have considered the gang’s death threat too. See Herrera-Reyes v. Att’y Gen., 952 F.3d 101, 112 n.5 (3d Cir. 2020). So we will grant the petition as to Quinteros’s Convention Against Torture claim, vacate the Board’s order, and remand.”

[Hats off to Thomas E. Moseley!]

Thomas E. Moseley ESQ

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

Gee whiz, applying and following Circuit precedent seems like “Immigration Judging 101!” Yet two levels of supposedly “expert” EOIR judges blew it — badly! Fortunately, this respondent was represented by experienced Federal litigator Thomas E. Moseley, who is never afraid to go to the Article IIIs to correct EOIR’s errors.

But, most respondents aren’t so lucky. So, it’s likely that for every defective adjudication “outed” by a Circuit, multiple, potentially deadly or at least life changing, mistakes go uncorrected. Worse yet, some are even “institutionalized!” Seems like a “heck of a way to run the railway,” particularly for a former Article III Judge who was once nominated for the Supremes!

Unforced error after unforced error in life or death cases from Garland’s substandard “courts!” Would brain surgeons 🤯☠️ who kept on screwing up critical operations still be “on staff.” I doubt it! So, why aren’t “DOJ attorneys” carrying out quasi-judicial functions subject to some quality controls? In theory, that’s supposed to be the BIA’s function. But, the BIA has firmly established itself as “part of the problem, NOT the solution!”

Congrats to my long-time friend and former “Legacy INS” colleague Tom Moseley. As a former INS Special Assistant U.S. Attorney in the SDNY (in the time of “Crazy Rudy”) during the “Inman/Schmidt Era” at INS General Counsel, Tom has also seen both sides of the system!

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

08-27-23

🗽⚖️ BIA CONTINUES TO STRUGGLE WITH STANDARDS — Fortunately, WilmerHale (Tasha H. Bahal), Round Table 🛡️, 1st Cir. There To Straighten Things Out! — Murillo Morocho v. Garland — With Commentary From Hon. “Sir Jeffrey” Chase!

Dan Kowalski reports for LexisNexis Immigration Community:

http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/22-1881P-01A.pdf

https://www.lexisnexis.com/community/insights/legal/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/ca1-on-cat-standard-of-review-murillo-morocho-v-garland

“Petitioner Darwin Murillo Morocho seeks review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming the denial of his application for deferral of removal to Ecuador under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Murillo Morocho claims that, if returned to Ecuador, it is more likely than not that he would be tortured by the Ecuadorian government itself or by private actors acting with the consent or acquiescence of public officials. Before this court, he argues that the BIA applied the wrong standard of review to the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ’s”) legal conclusions. He further claims that both the BIA and the IJ applied the incorrect legal standard in assessing whether the Ecuadorian government would more likely than not consent or acquiesce in his torture. Finally, he argues that even if the BIA and IJ applied the proper legal standards, the BIA’s decision, which adopts the IJ’s decision, is not supported by substantial evidence and that the IJ erred in not giving him the opportunity to further corroborate his testimony. We agree that the agency1 applied the incorrect legal standard to the “consent or acquiescence” prong of Murillo Morocho’s CAT claim. We therefore grant his petition for review in part, vacate the order of the BIA denying Murillo Morocho CAT relief as to Ecuador, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”

[Hats off to Tasha J. Bahal!]

Tasha J. Bahal
Counsel
WilmerHale

—

Daniel M. Kowalski

Editor-in-Chief

Bender’s Immigration Bulletin (LexisNexis)

cell/text/Signal (512) 826-0323

@dkbib on Twitter

dan@cenizo.com

Free Daily Blog: www.bibdaily.com

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

Many congrats to Tasha and the rest of rest of the wonderful pro bono team over at WilmerHale!

Hon. Jeffrey S. Chase
Jeffrey S. Chase Blog
Coordinator & Chief Spokesperson, Round Table of Former Immigration Judges

Here’s what my Round Table colleague Hon. “Sir Jeffrey” Chase had to say:

Wonderful decision. Wilmer Hale has been doing outstanding work on deportation defense litigation.

H.H., the First Circuit’s recent precedent in which our Round Table filed an amicus brief, featured prominently in this decision.

Once again, the agency took the easy out – i.e. giving lip service to the acquiescence standard, rather than indulging in the in depth analysis required in such claims. Of course, EOIR’s training does not teach otherwise, and the BIA chooses to rubber stamp rather than correct and remand.

The First Circuit actually did the required analysis here. By contrast, it appears that as a “dismissal of a denial” by an IJ, this decision “defaulted” to the BIA’s “any reason to deny” assembly line. I suspect that if this had been a DHS appeal of an IJ grant, it would have received a more detailed, critical analysis. However, as we often see, even that analysis might be devoted to finding a bogus reason to deny.

Despite some improvement in the quality of IJ and BIA appointments under Garland, the lack of dynamic expert “pro due process” leadership and “culture of denial and deterrence” remain debilitating (and potentially life-threatening) problems at EOIR!

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

08-24-23

🏴‍☠️☠️⚰️ GOP WHITE NATIONALIST THEOCRACY THREATENS AMERICA, STARTING @ BORDER! — “Worthy of Goebbels!” — “[N]othing new. . . . It’s called fascism.” — “America’s Orbans” Undermine Liberal Democracy, Promote Illiberalism!”

https://substack.com/redirect/2/eyJlIjoiaHR0cHM6Ly93d3cudGhlYm9yZGVyY2hyb25pY2xlLmNvbS9wL3RoZS1vcmJhbi1wbGF5Ym9vaz90b2tlbj1leUoxYzJWeVgybGtJam94TURneE5UYzVPVEFzSW5CdmMzUmZhV1FpT2pFek5qTXdOVGt5T1N3aWFXRjBJam94TmpreU56SXlPVEUyTENKbGVIQWlPakUyT1RVek1UUTVNVFlzSW1semN5STZJbkIxWWkwek56TTBNeklpTENKemRXSWlPaUp3YjNOMExYSmxZV04wYVc5dUluMC54MlRnTzJuSXN4NHdXbUN6Uzg5ejVMMHhVUWVYSUlaVGluemlpNnotWUJJIiwicCI6MTM2MzA1OTI5LCJzIjozNzM0MzIsImYiOnRydWUsInUiOjEwODE1Nzk5MCwiaWF0IjoxNjkyNzIyOTE2LCJleHAiOjE2OTUzMTQ5MTYsImlzcyI6InB1Yi0wIiwic3ViIjoibGluay1yZWRpcmVjdCJ9.Rwn0xJ7gMZxpR5nks4NIo58FlfZsCsJm972lF9tcKws?

Melissa Del Bosque writes in the Border Chronicle:

. . . .

While this might seem uniquely cruel, Abbott is closely following the authoritarian playbook of Viktor Orbán, Hungary’s prime minister, and current European thought leader for MAGA Republicans. Donald Trump calls Orbán a friend, and White supremacist Tucker Carlson spent a week covering him for his former show on Fox, later making a “documentary” about Hungary called Hungary vs. Soros: Fight for Civilization. For the last two years, the right-wing Conservative Political Action Conference, founded in the U.S., has held a “Woke Free Zone” conference in Budapest.

Share

By studying Orbán’s crackdown on asylum seekers and its progression over the last several years, you can see exactly where Abbott’s Texas is headed (and DeSantis’s Florida, for that matter).

In a speech in July 2022, Orbán argued that European and non-European people should not mix. Europeans “do not want to become peoples of mixed-race,” he said. After the speech, one of Orbán’s longtime advisers quit in protest. “I don’t know how you didn’t notice that you were presenting a pure Nazi text worthy of Goebbels,” his adviser wrote in her public resignation letter. Orbán’s speech was widely condemned in Europe, and it further alienated him from other Western leaders.

But in Texas, just days after his speech “worthy of Goebbels,” Orbán was welcomed with a standing ovation at the CPAC conference in Dallas, where he touted his “zero migration” and Judeo-Christian nationalism. “The globalists can all go to hell,” he boasted. “I have come to Texas.”

On the same CPAC stage that day, Abbott followed with similar xenophobic talking points. He bragged about Operation Lone Star and encouraged conference-goers to donate to a state-run website to pay for bussing migrants out of Texas. Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick echoed Orbán’s White Christian nationalism: “The framers did not write the Constitution,” he said. “God wrote the Constitution. We are a Christian nation.”

. . . .

Unsurprisingly, Orbán’s cruel tactics against asylum seekers, which have included kidnappings and beatings, do not deter people from coming. They are fleeing wars, after all. But Orbán has used his poisonous populism to solidify his power, just as Abbott and DeSantis are trying to do. It began with asylum seekers in 2015, but now in Hungary there is no independent media or judiciary, and the LGBTQ community and immigrants have become targets for persecution as the prime minister has consolidated his control over the government. Antisemitism is also on the rise.

This is the playbook that MAGA Republicans are following in Texas, Florida, and elsewhere. We already know how it ends. Orbán’s “illiberal democracy,” which is being lionized by Trump, Abbott, and others, is nothing new. In fact, it’s very old. It’s called fascism.

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

Read Melissa’s complete article at the link. Nearly 80 years after the fall of the Nazi regime, Hitler’s hateful, racist, virulently anti-Semitic views are alive and well in today’s GOP. Even in Texas, a Federal Judge had no time for Abbott’s racist/absurdist claim of “invasion.” https://linkst.dallasnews.com/click/32480676.167870/aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZGFsbGFzbmV3cy5jb20vbmV3cy9wb2xpdGljcy8yMDIzLzA4LzIyL2ZlZGVyYWwtanVkZ2UtcmVqZWN0cy10ZXhhcy1taWdyYW50LWludmFzaW9uLWRlZmVuc2UtaW4tZG9qLWxhd3N1aXQtb3Zlci1ib3JkZXItYnVveXMvP3NhaWx0aHJ1X2lkPTYyNjgxMjQyNGY3NTdmNjRiYWUyYWEzMg/626812424f757f64bae2aa32C5a2af025.

This is NOT a “normal” American political party!

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever, White Nationalism, Never!

PWS

08-23-23

🏴‍☠️🤯☠️ INVITE ‘EM TO DEFECT, THEN ARBITRARILY REJECT — Russian Allies Find Broken U.S. Asylum System Akin To Russian Roulette! — “I don’t understand how we are denying Russians at all,” says Jennifer Scarborough, Refugees’ Lawyer!

Jennifer Scarborough, EsquireLaw Firm of Jennifer Scarborough PLLC Harlingen, TX PHOTO: Firm — Jennifer Scarborough, Esquire
Law Firm of Jennifer Scarborough PLLC
Harlingen, TX
PHOTO: Firm

http://enewspaper.latimes.com/infinity/article_share.aspx?guid=df3af6fe-6f28-47f0-a65a-95a9e0272c10

Hamed Aleaziz & Tracy Wilkinson report for the LA Times:

WASHINGTON — Numerous Russians attempting to escape conscription onto the Ukrainian battlefield have made perilous journeys to the United States, trusting in the Biden administration’s declaration that the U.S. would “welcome” those fleeing the war and their forced participation in it.

Instead of winning asylum, however, some of these men have been detained and, in at least one case, deported back to Russia, where they could be thrown into the fight against U.S.-armed Ukraine — into “the meat grinder,” as the U.S. secretary of State recently put it.

The U.S. has deported nearly 190 Russians since the beginning of October 2022, almost three times as many as were removed during the entire prior year.

Some Russian conscripts have refused to board deportation flights, forcing U.S. immigration officers to return them to immigration detention and legal limbo.

Three Russians the U.S. detained and sought to deport told The Times that certain abuse awaited them at home, where draft dodgers are subject to imprisonment or swift dispatch to front lines. The three Russians said they felt bewildered — betrayed, even — bythe U.S. asylum system. The Times is withholding their identities because they fear retribution if they are returned to Russia.

“Death awaits me there if I go back,” said one Russian man in his 20s. He said he was slated to be deported but fainted when immigration officials loaded him onto the plane, which forced them to return him to detention.

Although Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky urged Russians who opposed the war to stay at home and fight to topple Russian President Vladimir Putin, the Biden administration has explicitly encouraged Russians who do not want to fight in Ukraine to seek asylum in the United States.

“There are people out there in Russia who do not want to fight Putin’s war or die for it,” White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said in September. “We believe that, regardless of nationality, they may apply for asylum in the United States and have their claim adjudicated on a case-by-case basis.

“We welcome any folks who are seeking asylum, and they should do that,” she said.

But Russians who have taken the U.S. up on that offer have quickly discovered that seeking asylum is not the same as winning it. The U.S. government’s willingness to help people who flee Russia — even if doing so undermines Russia’s war effort — is limited.

In some cases, the government has argued that being called up to serve in the Russian military is not alone sufficient grounds for asylum. Jennifer Scarborough, the lawyer for the three Russians The Times interviewed, has countered that they qualify for asylum because they did not want to be involved with the war for political reasons and would face unreasonable repercussions for refusing to serve.

“They could be deported back to a regime that is committing gross human rights violations,” she said. “I don’t understand how we are denying Russians at all.”

The number of Russians crossing the southern U.S. border surged in November and December, shortly after Putin, facing massive casualties among his troops, ordered up a fresh army mobilization and drafted up to 300,000 reservists.

Russians crossed the southern border more than 5,000 times in November and nearly 8,000 times in December, a major increase from earlier months.

More than 8 million Ukrainians have fled their homeland since Putin launched his invasion of the former Soviet Republic on Feb. 24, 2022. Their escapes have involved trains and commercial flights and massive assistance, and they have largely been welcomed in other countries.

By contrast, many of those fleeing Russia for the U.S. have used the same difficult and at times treacherous route that disfavored refugees from all over the world use. A flight from Dubai or Istanbul gets them to South America, where they continue on flights, buses and by foot northward, sometimes trekking through jungle, to reach Mexico and the U.S. border.

One man who spoke to The Times was picked up by immigration agents in December near Tecate. The man made the weeks-long journey to the U.S. with his younger brother.

The man fled Russia when his call-up notice arrived.

“Even in childhood, I understood that, for me, America was a symbol of freedom,” he said in a telephone interview from a detention center in Pennsylvania. “And yes, there was a dream to move here one day. Because during your entire life in Russia, it is difficult; you’re discriminated against at every turn.”

“I went through war,” the man said. “I know what this entails. I saw the war. And now they are trying to force me to bring this to Ukraine.”

. . . .

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

Read the complete report at the link.

Jenn Scarborough asks the right question. In a functioning protection system, one would expect most cases like this to be granted in short order. However, the BIA generally has restrictive precedents on draft evaders and deserters stemming largely from a desire to deny protection to applicants fleeing civil wars in Central America decades ago. See, e.g., Matter of A-G-, 19 I & N Dec. 502 (BIA 1987).

As “Courtsiders” know, the endemic problem is lack of expert, progressive, dynamic, courageous intellectual leadership in a system now solely controlled and operated by a Dem Administration that often acts more like an “old school GOP” one on immigration and human rights! Administration of both parties live in perpetual fear that making good on promises of fair treatment and legal protection would actually motivate refugees to seek it!

That’s a particular problem at EOIR which should be the legal intellectual leader here! We need practical, scholarly, generous, common sense precedents focusing on what should be easily grantable protection claims!

Instead, we have a leaderless, bureaucratic, non-expert mess, still retaining too many elements of the anti-immigrant, anti-asylum, any reason to deny, go along to get along, court as a “deterrent” system constructed and promoted by the Trump Administration. That has continued to churn out both egregious inconsistencies and backlog-building inefficiencies in critical “life or death” cases!

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

08-20-23

🏴‍☠️☠️⚰️💰 DECADES OF DEADLY FAILURE FAIL TO DIM PROFITS OF BORDER DETERRENCE GIMMICKS!

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

Todd Miller reports for the BorderChronicle:

https://substack.com/redirect/2/eyJlIjoiaHR0cHM6Ly93d3cudGhlYm9yZGVyY2hyb25pY2xlLmNvbS9wL3RoZS1mbG9hdGluZy1iYXJyaWVyLWFuZC10aGUtYm9yZGVyP3Rva2VuPWV5SjFjMlZ5WDJsa0lqb3hNRGd4TlRjNU9UQXNJbkJ2YzNSZmFXUWlPakV6TmpFMk56RTNNQ3dpYVdGMElqb3hOamt5TXpBNU1EWTBMQ0psZUhBaU9qRTJPVFE1TURFd05qUXNJbWx6Y3lJNkluQjFZaTB6TnpNME16SWlMQ0p6ZFdJaU9pSndiM04wTFhKbFlXTjBhVzl1SW4wLmNJLUJWR0cybVRDTV9oQ3V6NHBybU8ydmdnaFdBdVR5aVhrRDRYVl9GTTQiLCJwIjoxMzYxNjcxNzAsInMiOjM3MzQzMiwiZiI6dHJ1ZSwidSI6MTA4MTU3OTkwLCJpYXQiOjE2OTIzMDkwNjQsImV4cCI6MTY5NDkwMTA2NCwiaXNzIjoicHViLTAiLCJzdWIiOiJsaW5rLXJlZGlyZWN0In0.w-bNM02eUaZHfY7ojKTD4aVI7br24RMUUozCM32pBPs?

When I first came across Cochrane International, the company that built the floating barrier deployed in Eagle Pass, Texas, I watched a demonstration the company gave with detached bemusement. I was at a gun range just outside San Antonio. It was 2017, three months after Donald Trump had been sworn in and the last day of that year’s Border Security Expo, the annual gathering of Department of Homeland Security’s top brass and hundreds of companies from the border industry. Among industry insiders, the optimism was high. With Trump’s wall rhetoric at a fever pitch, the money was in the bank.

All around me, all morning, Border Patrol agents were blasting away body-shaped cutouts in a gun competition. My ears were ringing, thanks in part to the concussion grenade I had launched—under the direction of an agent, but with great ineptitude—into an empty field as part of another hands-on demonstration. The first two days of the expo had been in the much-posher San Antonio convention center, where companies displayed their sophisticated camera systems, biometrics, and drones in a large exhibition hall. But here on the gun range we seemed to be on its raw edge.

So when a red truck with a camo-painted trailer showed up and announced its demonstration, it wasn’t too much of a surprise. The blasting bullets still echoed all around as if they would never cease. Two men jumped out of the truck wearing red shirts and khaki pants. They frantically ran around the camo trailer, like mice scurrying around a piece of cheese trying to figure out the proper angle of attack. Then the demo began. One of the men got back in the truck, and as it lurched forward, coiling razor wire began to spill out of its rear end as if it were having a bowel movement. As the truck moved forward, more and more of Cochrane’s Rapid Deployment Barrier spilled out until it extended the length of a football field or more. It was like a microwavable insta-wall, fast-food border enforcement.

Little did I know that six years later, this same company, Cochrane, would give us the floating barrier, with its wrecking ball–sized buoys connected side by side with circular saws. The floating barrier, as the Texas Standard put it, is the “centerpiece of Operation Lone Star,” Texas governor Greg Abbott’s $4.5 billion border enforcement plan. For this barrier, which has now been linked to the deaths of at least two people, the Texas Department of Public Safety awarded Cochrane an $850,000 contract.

. . . . .

When I first saw Cochrane back in 2017 among the ear-ringing gunfire on the last day of the Border Security Expo, I had a feeling I might see them again. No matter how ludicrous the rapid barrier deployment camo truck seemed to me then, there was, indeed, plenty of money to be made.

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

Money and profit over humanity, common sense, and the rule of law. Read the full article at the link.

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

0-19-23

⚖️ I DISSENT FROM BIA’S (NON) GUIDANCE ON “UNDER COLOR OF LAW” FOR THOSE WHO SUFFERED TORTURE BY GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS IN MATTER OF J-G-R-, 23 I &N DEC. 733 (BIA 2023)

Star Chamber Justice — Unless you work at Merrick “Garland’s BIA, it would be reasonable to assume that torture by government officials is “under color of law!”

https://www.justice.gov/eoir/page/file/1592801/download

BIA HEADNOTE:

(1) Torturous conduct committed by a public official who is “acting in an official capacity,” meaning acting under color of law, is covered by the regulations implementing the Convention Against Torture, but such conduct by an official who is not acting in an official capacity is not covered. Matter of O-F-A-S-, 28 I&N Dec. 35 (A.G. 2020), followed.

(2) The key consideration in determining if an official’s torturous conduct was undertaken “in an official capacity” for purposes of CAT eligibility is whether the official was able to engage in the conduct because of his or her government position, or whether the official could have done so without connection to the government.

FOR THE RESPONDENT: Ethan R. Horowitz, Esquire, Lawrence, Massachusetts

BEFORE: Board Panel: MALPHRUS, Deputy Chief Appellate Immigration Judge; CREPPY and HUNSUCKER; Appellate Immigration Judges.

MALPHRUS, Deputy Chief Appellate Immigration Judge:

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

SCHMIDT, RETIRED JUDGE OF THE ROUND TABLE, DISSENTING:

I dissent.

A far fairer, more logical, efficient, and uniformity-promoting solution is staring us in the face: An applicant who credibly establishes torture by a public official or officials should be entitled to a rebuttable presumption that the torture was inflicted “under color of law.” The DHS should then be required to establish by a preponderance of evidence that the official was acting in another capacity if it wishes to contest that presumption.

The information and evidence that might overcome a logical presumption that government officials act “under color of law” is much more likely to be available to the DHS than to the applicant. This is particularly true in the many cases where CAT applicants are detained, unrepresented, or both.

This rebuttable presumption would also, as a practical matter, close the gap between our interpretation and the rule in the Ninth Circuit which wisely recognizes no exceptions when torture is inflicted by government officials. See, e.g., Barajas-Romero v. Lynch, 846 F.3d 351, 362 (9th Cir. 2017).

In adjudicating claims from individuals who have already suffered torture at the hands of government officials we must err on the side of protection, not rejection. The panel’s mushy guidance amounts to no practical guidance at all. It will certainly result in conflicting results, increased trial times and backlogs, arbitrary denials, and violations of due process. More backlog-promoting, avoidable Circuit Court remands are sure to follow.

Consequently, I dissent.

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

08-14-23

🇺🇸⚖️🗽 ANDREA R. FLORES @ NYT: We Know That “Uber Deterrence” Fails At The Border — Title 42 Debacle Under Trump Proves It: Biden Must Abandon The Restrictionist Remnants & Restore Legality & Integrity To Our Current Refugee & Asylum Systems!

Andrea Flores
Vice President for Immigration Policy and Campaigns at FWD.us.
PHOTO: Linkedin

https://nl.nytimes.com/f/newsletter/H7Demr4HzkuwqSIi_5Cg4g~~/AAAAAQA~/RgRmt1VqP0TpaHR0cHM6Ly93d3cubnl0aW1lcy5jb20vMjAyMy8wOC8xMC9vcGluaW9uL2FzeWx1bS1zZWVrZXJzLWltbWlncmF0aW9uLXJlZm9ybS5odG1sP2NhbXBhaWduX2lkPTM5JmVtYz1lZGl0X3R5XzIwMjMwODEwJmluc3RhbmNlX2lkPTk5NzE5Jm5sPW9waW5pb24tdG9kYXkmcmVnaV9pZD03OTIxMzg4NiZzZWdtZW50X2lkPTE0MTYxOCZ0ZT0xJnVzZXJfaWQ9OGExZjQ3Mzc0MGIyNTNkOGZhNGMyM2IwNjY3MjI3MzdXA255dEIKZNNq0NRk4LcZOlISamVubmluZ3MxMkBhb2wuY29tWAQAAAAD

Andrea writes in a NYT Op-Ed:

U.S. asylum laws were designed to protect people fleeing harm. They were enacted in the decades following the Holocaust to ensure that the United States never again turned away people fleeing persecution. But now, many blame these laws for the chaos and inhumanity at the nation’s southern border.

The biggest blow to America’s commitment to asylum came during the pandemic, when former President Donald Trump invoked Title 42, an emergency measure that allowed border agents to turn away asylum seekers, under the justification of preventing the spread of the virus.

When Title 42 restrictions were lifted in May, President Biden enacted a carrot-and-stick approach aimed at deterring new asylum seekers from traveling by foot to the border. These new measures included a set of legal pathways, including a parole program that allows people from select countries, including Cuba and Haiti, to legally enter the country for at least two years, provided they have a financial sponsor in the United States. Doing so has discouraged would-be migrants from taking a dangerous trek with a smuggler, often through multiple continents.

This approach would have been a great step forward if it wasn’t paired with a counter measure that prohibits some asylum-seekers at the border from applying for protection in the United States. The vast majority of migrants must secure an appointment at an official port of entry, which are difficult to obtain, or else they will be subject to expedited removal if they cannot prove that they sought legal protection in another country along the way.

. . . .

If proponents of a secure border are serious about lowering border crossing numbers and decreasing unauthorized migration, they should support Mr. Biden’s attempts to create new legal pathways. Instead, a coalition of Republican attorneys general is challenging the president’s parole program. In Congress, Senate Republicans are trying to eliminate the same parole authority that allowed Afghans to temporarily resettle in the United States. There have been no challenges to the use of the parole authority to bring Ukrainians to the United States.

These actions reveal that our current fight over the border is not about the number of people trying to come here — it is about which should be allowed to come. American voters may not have strong opinions about the future of the asylum system or the legal pathways being created, but voters of both parties dislike the chaos and human suffering that have subsumed this issue for the past 10 years. Over a million American citizens have signed up to sponsor migrants from Cuba, Haiti, Venezuela and Nicaragua.

At a moment of record global displacement, we can’t keep waiting for Congress to modernize our immigration laws. Safe legal pathways are good for the people who use our immigration system. Mr. Biden has taken some critical steps to give migrants better options, but with no hope of congressional action in the near future, more is needed.

Andrea R. Flores is the vice president for immigration policy and campaigns at FWD.us.

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

Read the complete op-ed at the link.

Much of what Andrea says echoes what I have said over and over on Courtside and has been repeatedly recommended by experts, who are then largely ignored by the Biden Administration.

As I have argued before, the “low hanging fruit” here would be EOIR reform: A new BIA of “practical scholars;” better IJs with proven asylum and human rights experience; ending “Aimless Docket Reshuffling On Steroids” (which drives many poor policy and legal decisions); and getting some dynamic, fearless, expert leadership on human rights and immigration at the DOJ — which is either the driver or the facilitator of many of the problems at the border, depending on how you look at it.

We can also see how Garland’s lackluster performance on immigration affects other areas of justice such as civil rights, women’s rights, and LGBTQ rights, to name a few of the most obvious ones. Nobody at today’s DOJ appears to possess the “big picture” knowledge and experience to “connect the dots” on these critical issues.

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever

PWS

08-10-23

🤯 MAYORKAS & GARLAND ARE WASTING TAXPAYER MONEY DETAINING INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE WON THEIR PROTECTION CASES IN VIRGINIA — CAIR, NIP/NLG, & ACLU Are Suing to Stop This Abuse!

Michelle N. Mendez of NIP/NLG reports:

Today, National Immigration Project alongside our partners at CAIR Coalition and the ACLU of Virginia sued Immigration & Customs Enforcement for refusing to release people detained in Virginia who already won their immigration cases. Read the press release below.

ICE is unlawfully detaining non-citizens who already won their immigration cases nipnlg.org • 5 min read

The Capital Area Immigrants’ Rights (CAIR) Coalition, the Natio

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

So, how is this type of legal and human abuse acceptable from a Dem Administration that promised good government and to do better than the Trumpsters?

Just to be clear, the chances of a third country volunteering to take a non-national granted CAT relief are very slim. I don’t remember it happening on any case on my docket during my time on the bench in Arlington. Also, were that to happen, the DHS would be obligated to give the respondent an opportunity to seek CAT to that third country, likely a lengthy process.

So, detention in this circumstance doesn’t make sense from a practical, legal, or fiscal standpoint!

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

08-06-23

⚖️☠️ BLOWING THE BASICS! — IJ Misapplies “Under Color Of Law Doctrine” In CAT Case; BIA Affirms; 10th Circuit Reverses, Blowing Away Garland DOJ’s BS “No Jurisdiction” Argument In The Process — “[The IJ’s] interpretation defies logic and the law.” — We Deserve Much Better From Dem AG!

Laura Lunn, Esquire
Director of Advocacy & Litigation
Rocky Mountain Immigrant Advocacy Network (“RMIAN”)
PHOTO: RMIAN

Colorado AILA reports:

From: ColoradoAILA@groups.io <ColoradoAILA@groups.io> on behalf of Aaron Hall via groups.io <aaron=immigrationissues.com@groups.io>
Sent: Tuesday, August 1, 2023 2:29 PM
To: ColoradoAILA@groups.io <ColoradoAILA@groups.io>
Subject: [ColoradoAILA] Arostegui-Maldonado v. Garland

A HUGE congratulations to RMIAN and Laura Lunn on today’s 10^th Circuit win in Arostegui-Maldonado v. Garland. I was lucky enough to be in the court at oral argument to watch Laura expertly navigate tough questions from a difficult panel and today the published decision came out holding (1) that the PFR filed within 30 days of the BIA order affirming the IJ denial of relief in withholding-only proceedings is timely filed and (2) that the IJ and BIA “defied logic and law” in misapplying the under-color-of-law element of the CAT claim, requiring remand.

Incredible work to Laura and all others involved!

Please note that you can contact your attorney and paralegal at their direct phone lines. For all future phone communications, please contact us directly instead of using the main phone number. Our direct phone lines are listed at the bottom of our emails, located in our signature blocks.

Aaron C. Hall

Senior Partner

Pronouns: he/him/his

12203 East Second Avenue

Aurora, CO 80011

Direct: 303.962.6630

www.immigrationissues.com

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

Folks, the IJ’s “reasoning to denial” in this case was beyond totally absurd! It’s an example of the type of judicial misconduct and incompetence that still flourishes in parts of Garland’s “any reason to deny” dysfunctional EOIR!

After more than two years of the Biden Administration under Garland, we still have not seen the type of systemic, merit-based “house cleaning” of biased and incompetent judges and the replacement of deadwood (and worse) at the totally unjust and dysfunctional EOIR that could and should have been a “day one priority” for Garland’s DOJ.

There is simply no excuse for this type of disingenuous, life-threatening performance by both EOIR and OIL under Garland’s deficient leadership! There are literally thousands of qualified experts out here who could have done a better job than the IJ and the BIA in this case!

It’s Garland’s job to get better judges on the EOIR bench — judges who will be fair, impartial, due-process focused, and experts in all facets of immigration and human rights laws! His failure to do his job is undermining our justice system and endangering human lives! How is this “OK?”

In the “real world,” folks who “can’t do their jobs” find themselves “out of a job!” Why is Garland’s DOJ an “exception,” with lives and the future of American justice on the line? Isn’t it past time to “just say no” to continuing to treat the ongoing national disgrace at EOIR as “just an afterthought” in the elitist, disconnected world of Garland’s DOJ, where the human lives being destroyed by DOJ’s failures are treated as “somebody else’s problem?”

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

08-03-23

⚖️ LAW YOU CAN USE! — 1st Cir. & Hon. “Sir Jeffrey” Chase Combine To Provide Expert Guidance On How To Handle BIA’s Inexpert Treatment Of Experts! 👍🏼

https://www.jeffreyschase.com/blog/2023/7/28/expert-guidance-from-the-first-circuit-2

JEFFREY S. CHASE | OPINIONS/ANALYSIS ON IMMIGRATION LAW

Blog Archive Press and Interviews Calendar Contact

Expert Guidance from the First Circuit

For Immigration Judges, country experts serve as the lens through which a confusing jumble of evidence becomes a clearer picture. No judge can be an expert on all countries; it is therefore by way of the country expert’s testimony that a determination can be made as to whether the asylum seeker’s predicament is a unique or a common one; a dispute is merely personal or possesses a political dimension; the home country’s government is truly likely to provide adequate protection; and why relocating within the country may or may not be reasonable.

However, Immigration Judges are provided remarkably little guidance on how to assess expert testimony. A 2020 decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Castillo v. Barr,1 illustrates the problem. In that case, both the Immigration Judge and the BIA chose to discount the testimony of a qualified country expert because his testimony was not corroborated by other evidence of record. As the Ninth Circuit noted, “If an expert’s opinion could only be relied upon if it were redundant with other evidence in the record, there would be no need for experts.”2 Obviously, this simple, logical rule should have been incorporated in a BIA precedent decision by now.

When attorneys SangYeob Kim and Gilles Bissonnette of the ACLU of New Hampshire brought an appeal involving this issue with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, our Round Table of Former Immigration Judges was most happy to file an amicus brief in the matter. We used the opportunity to inform the court “how IJs and the BIA need, and lack, a clear standard for whether to admit—and how to weigh— expert evidence.”

Although the court issued an unpublished decision (and explained why it was precluded by Supreme Court precedent from establishing the uniform standard that we had requested), I believe the opinion offers wisdom on the topic that Immigration Judges might find useful in spite of its nonbinding nature. The case name is G.P. v. Garland, No. 21-2002 (1st Cir., July 13, 2023).

Rather than review the entire decision, in the hope of increased convenience, I have instead listed the issues raised in the case that are likely to arise in removal proceedings, and then summarized how the First Circuit addressed each issue.

The recency of the expert’s knowledge:

May an Immigration Judge discount an expert’s country knowledge as “stale” due to the passage of time since the expert’s last visit to the country in question or contact with its government’s officials?

In G.P., the court found no support for such approach where: (1) the record contained no evidence of changed conditions over the period of time in question; (2) the expert testified to the lack of significant changes in country conditions over that same time period; (3) such testimony regarding the lack of significant change went unchallenged by ICE, which did not call its own expert or offer other country evidence to the contrary; and (4) the conclusion was not contradicted by the petitioner.

The basis of the expert’s knowledge

Can an expert’s testimony be discounted for lack of firsthand “knowledge, research, or connections” to the country in question?

In G.P., the court pointed to the BIA’s own precedent decision in Matter of J-G-T- in which the Board adopted the Federal Rules of Evidence standard that an expert’s testimony is reliable when it is “`based on sufficient facts or data’ that the expert `has been made aware of or personally observed’ or from sources that `experts in the particular field would reasonably rely on.'”3

In addition to finding that the IJ had overlooked sources of firsthand knowledge, the court in G.P. found further error in the IJ’s failure to either mention or explain why sources that experts in the field would rely on that were mentioned by the expert in his voir dire, which included crime rates, DEA reports, and U.S. Department of State Country Reports, were not sufficient to credit the expert’s testimony.

The expert’s lack of personal knowledge of a specific criminal organization

Can an expert’s testimony be discredited where the expert lacked personal knowledge of the specific criminal organization that the applicant fears?

In G.P., the court found that the IJ erred in discounting the expert’s testimony for this reason. The court again referenced the Board’s statement in J-G-T- quoted above, and cited another BIA precedent, Matter of Vides Casanova, in which the Board held that an expert “need not have personal knowledge of the facts underlying” their opinion.4

Applying the above BIA guidance, the court observed that the expert witness learned specifics about the organization in question from reading the respondent’s affidavit, and importantly, that the facts contained in the respondent’s testimony and later testified to in court “were never challenged by the government or questioned by the IJ, who found G.P. credible.” The court added that “An expert cannot be ‘undermined by his reliance on facts . . . that have not been disputed’” (quoting from the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Castillo, supra at 1284).

The feared persecutors are based outside of the country of expertise

Can an expert’s testimony about a crime group based in the U.S. be discredited where the witness was qualified as an expert on organized crime in the Dominican Republic?

In G.P., although the group in question was based in New England, connected to a cartel based in Sinaloa, Mexico, and “served as a conduit between the Mexican drug cartels and customers in Northern New England,” the group did not fall outside of the witness’s area of expertise (i.e. organized crime in the Dominican Republic) where the expert testified to the Sinaloa Cartel’s strong presence in the Dominican Republic, influence over government officials there, and treatment of government cooperators.” The court therefore found that the IJ’s statement that the expert lacked direct knowledge of the criminal organization “mischaracterizes the evidence as a whole” and was not supported by substantial evidence of record.

Prior statements of the expert

How should a prior statement of the expert that is offered by ICE be treated by the IJ?

In G.P., ICE introduced a quote from the expert’s 2011 book in which he wrote that he “couldn’t honestly say that torture is something deportees [to the Dominican Republic] should expect.”

However, the First Circuit found error in the IJ’s reliance on the quote, because (1) the quote was in the context of an entirely different set of facts and employed a highly narrow definition of torture; (2) the expert was only asked whether he recalled the quote and to provide its context, and not whether he agreed with it; (3) the quote addressed the general risk of torture faced by deported noncitizens, and not the specific risk faced by G.P.; and (4) the IJ failed to explain why the 2011 book deserved significant weight when it was older than other evidence the IJ found to be stale.

Conclusion

Petitioner’s counsel has moved the First Circuit to publish the decision. But regardless of the outcome, counsel may wish to bring the court’s analysis to the attention of Immigration Judges, who in turn may find it highly useful in navigating the treatment of experts in cases before them.

– –

Hats off to SangYeob Kim and Gilles Bissonnette on their outstanding litigation in the First Circuit, which led to this satisfying decision. Our Round Table is most thankful to attorneys Adam Gershenson, Alex Robledo, Angela Dunning, Marc Suskin, Robby L.R. Saldaña, and Greg Merchant of the law firm of Cooley LLP, for their expert drafting of our amicus brief in this case.

Copyright 2023 by Jeffrey S. Chase. All Rights Reserved.

Notes

980 F.3d 1278 (9th Cir. 2020).

Id. at 1284.

Matter of J-G-T-, 28 I&N Dec. 97, 102 (BIA 2020) (quoting Fed. R. Evid. 702(b), 703).

Matter of Vides Casanova, 26 I&N Dec. 494, 499 (BIA 2015). Interestingly, in VIdes Casanova, the country expert had been called by DHS to establish that the respondent was a persecutor of others. Under those circumstances, the BIA in its decision noted that an expert “is permitted to base her opinion on hearsay evidence and need not have personal knowledge of the facts underlying those opinions.”

JULY 28, 2023

Republished with permission

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

The BIA spends far too much time cooking up bogus ways to deny asylum and other forms of protection. This leaves a “vacuum” on providing sound advice and needed guidance for effectively presenting and fairly analyzing the large untapped potential for more grants of protection currently “bouncing around the EOIR backlog” or alternatively being mindlessly rushed through “dedicated deterrence dockets” with neither time for advocates to properly prepare nor opportunity for thoughtful analysis by IJs! It’s a real (totally preventable) “lose-lose” for our justice system and asylum applicants!

Fortunately those from outside EOIR, including Article III Judges, subject matter experts like Judge Sir Jeffrey, and his loyal colleagues in the Round Table 🛡 have stepped in to fill the void. Wouldn’t it be better (and easier) to just aggressively recruit and hire the right expert, experienced, due-process-focused candidates for EOIR judgeships in the first place?

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

07-30-23

⚖️🗽 TRIPLE HEADER! — Cornell Immigration Clinic Wins 3 @ BIA!

Professor Stephen Yale-Loehr reports:

Paul: Thanks to the excellent work of our law students, our Cornell asylum clinic received three BIA remands this spring.  A short summary of each case follows.  A longer summary of each case is attached, as well as redacted versions of the BIA’s decisions. If anyone wants redacted copies of our briefs, have them contact me directly.

Please mention on Immigration Courtside. Thanks, Steve

1: IES is a citizen of Mexico and a former gang member.  The immigration judge (IJ) denied withholding and CAT relief, holding that his conviction in California was a particularly serious crime and that our client did not meet the requirements for CAT relief. For the particularly serious crime argument, our brief argued that the IJ improperly analyzed IES’ offense, ignored credible evidence that the drugs were for personal use, and relied on boilerplate sentencing documents instead. As a result, the IJ failed to analyze IES’s motivation and intent at the time of the offense. We used case law where crimes like sexual contact with a minor (Afridi v. Gonzalez) and strangulation (Flores-Vega v. Barr) were remanded because the facts and circumstances of the offense had not been considered.

For our CAT argument, we focused on 6 IJ errors: 1) the IJ did not consider that his prolonged mental pain would cause future torture (we had psychological evaluation reports and decided to use them for this argument). This is an underutilized argument in CAT claims, so there isn’t much case law. We used the interpretation from an OLC opinion on prolonged mental harm to bolster this argument. 2) The IJ did not consider future torture from gangs and cartels despite an expert saying this risk was at 80%. 3) The IJ did not consider country conditions and did not admit 400 pages into evidence. 4) The IJ mischaracterized his attempts to flee cartels 8 times as “relocation.” 5) The IJ did not think there was police acquiescence even though the police, the local Attorney General, and the judicial police ignored IES’ complaints. 6) The IJ did not aggregate IES’ risk of torture. The BIA remanded.

2: LRG is a citizen of El Salvador who fled to the US in 1989.  While in the US he joined the MS-13 gang. He is in U.S. prison for a criminal conviction. The IJ denied withholding and CAT relief. Our client’s info was part of the November 2022 ICE data leak, but the IJ did not address that concern.

Our brief argued that our client is more likely than not to face torture if removed to El Salvador. We posited several theories under which our client is likely to be tortured: 1) by the Salvadoran government, especially if our client is incarcerated there; 2) by Salvadoran gangs, in or out of prison, with the acquiescence of the Salvadoran government; and/or 3) by Salvadoran anti-gang death squads, with the participation or acquiescence of the Salvadoran government. We argued that our client’s identifying characteristics, including his gang tattoos and criminal history, would subject him to targeting and torture by any of these groups. We also argued that the IJ insufficiently aggregated our client’s risk of torture in El Salvador and that the IJ erred by failing to consider the impact of the ICE data leak on our client.  Finally, we argued that the IJ afforded insufficient weight to the evidence offered by our client. The IJ admitted Dr. Patrick McNamara’s universal expert declaration only as background evidence, rather than for his expert opinions. The BIA remanded.

3: REC is a citizen of El Salvador who fled to the US in 2022.  REC was not a gang member, but his brother was, and was killed by the police.  REC’s family filed a lawsuit against the police for murdering REC’s brother, and the police retaliated against REC.  The IJ denied asylum, withholding, and CAT relief.

On asylum and withholding, we argued that the IJ erred by ignoring the Salvadoran government as a persecutor of REC and by failing to assess the proper particular social group that REC had proposed, based on his membership in his family. On CAT, we argued that the IJ effectively ignored part of REC’s claim by failing to analyze whether the MS gang would be more likely than not to torture him. We further argued that the IJ’s analysis about the Salvadoran government as a torturer of REC was flawed because the IJ herself found that Salvadoran officials “misused their power” when they beat him. We argued that the IJ also erred because she did not aggregate all potential sources of torture, including the government and the MS gang. The BIA remanded.

Stephen Yale-Loehr

Professor of Immigration Law Practice, Cornell Law School

Faculty Director, Immigration Law and Policy Program

Faculty Fellow, Migrations Initiative

Co-director, Asylum Appeals Clinic

Co-Author, Immigration Law & Procedure Treatise

Of Counsel, Miller Mayer

Phone: 607-379-9707

e-mail: SWY1@cornell.edu

Twitter: @syaleloehr

Check out my Green Card Stories book:

http://www.greencardstories.com.

See more of my books at amazon.com/author/stephenyaleloehr

You can access my papers on SSRN at: http://ssrn.com/author=109503

Cornell 1 Cornell 2 Cornell 3 Cornell 4 Cornell 5 Cornell 6

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

Get all the details in the six attachments above!

Thanks, Steve! And, congrats and “hats way off” (as my friend Dan Kowalski would say) to the clinic students involved!

Interesting to contrast the careful work of the clinic with the sloppy, result-oriented work of the IJs in these cases.

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

07-29-23

🏴‍☠️ ADMINISTRATIONS CHANGE, BUT SCOFFLAW MISTREATMENT OF ASYLUM SEEKERS DOESN’T — US District Judge Jon S. Tigar Blows Away 💨 Biden Administration’s Bogus Asylum Rules — Again! — Round Table 🛡⚔️ Weighs In On Winning Side — Again! — Order Delayed Pending Filing of Appeal, So The Carnage Continues for Now!☠️

EBSC III MSJ order

Here’s a report from Hon. “Sir Jeffrey” Chase of the Round Table:

Hi all: As you know, our group filed an amicus brief in East Bay Sanctuary v. Garland, challenging the new rules at the border that would make most of those unable to get an online appointment through an app ineligible to apply for asylum.

District Court Judge Jon Tigar just issued the attached order granting summary judgment to plaintiffs and denying defendants’ motion for summary judgment.

From Judge Tigar’s order:

“Congress granted the agencies authority to impose additional conditions on asylum eligibility, but only those consistent with section 1158…Two of the conditions imposed by the Rule have been previously found to be inconsistent with Section 1158…

The Court concludes that the Rule is contrary to law because it presumes ineligible for asylum noncitizens who enter between ports of entry, using a manner of entry that Congress expressly intended should not affect access to asylum. The Rule is also contrary to law because it presumes ineligible for asylum noncitizens who fail to apply for protection in a transit country, despite Congress’s clear intent that such a factor should only limit access to asylum where the transit country actually presents a safe option.”

The order is stayed for 14 days to allow the government to appeal.

Our group has once again helped make a difference in providing fairness and due process. Congrats to all.

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

Congrats to the plaintiffs and to my Round Table colleagues!

This was basically a blowout for the plaintiffs on all issues! The USG argument essentially was that complying with the law would be too difficult and/or politically unpopular. Therefore, they have chosen to violate the law and to use rather transparent pretexts (actually misrepresentations about the bogus “presumption”) to evade it.

Really, folks, how do we have a Dem AG who 1) approves such complete legal nonsense; 2) advances essentially frivolous and disingenuous arguments in an attempt to defend the indefensible; and 3) can’t make the legal system for asylum work in a fair and legal manner at EOIR or DHS?

How immoral and intellectually dishonest are Garland’s arguments. Here’s one of my favorite passages from Judge Tigar’s opinion:

While they wait for an adjudication, applicants for asylum must remain in Mexico, where migrants are generally at heightened risk of violence by both state and non-state actors.

See, e.g., PC 32446–68 (2022 State Department report noting credible reports of gender-based violence against migrants; reports of migrants being tortured by migration authorities; “numerous instances” of armed groups targeting migrants for kidnapping, extortion, and homicide; and that asylum seekers and migrants were vulnerable to forced labor); PC 22839–42 (NGO report documenting violent crimes against 13,480 migrants in Mexico, by both state and non-state actors, between January 2021 and December 2022); PC 76248–87 (table of crimes summarized in preceding report); PC 21752–58 (2022 NGO report discussing gender-based violence in northern Mexico border cities, including against LGBTQI+ and Black migrants); PC 21610–11 (2022 NGO report concerning gender-based violence against Venezuelan women and LGBTIQ+ migrants in southern Mexico).16

16 In addition to these examples, the record is replete with additional documentation of the extraordinary risk of violence many migrants face in Mexico. See, e.g., PC 22129–30 (2023 news report documenting instances of kidnapping of asylum seekers in northern Mexico); PC 23247–50 (2022 news report quoting Chihuahua state police chief stating that “organized criminal gangs are financing their operations through migrant trafficking”); PC 23082 (2023 NGO report discussing treatment of migrants and asylum seekers); PC 20937–43 (2021 NGO report documenting kidnapping and extortion of Venezuelan migrants in Mexico); PC 29740–29744 (2021 NGO report documenting instances of rape, kidnapping, and other violence experienced by migrant women in Mexico); PC 75946–48 (2022 NGO report documenting violence against migrants in Mexico); AR 4881 (2022 NGO report noting that asylum seekers from Central America have been pursued across the border and found in southern Mexico by their persecutors).

Only somebody who avoids the border, has never represented asylum seekers there, and is impervious to facts and reality could make such outlandish arguments in favor of an outrageously deficient and illegal “policy.” Sounds like something out of the “Stephen Miller Playbook!” Why is it coming from a Dem AG?

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

07-25-23

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Priscilla Alvarez reports for CNN:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Read the full brief here:

Here’s the “Statement of Interest:”

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Dan Kowalski reports for LexisNexis Immigration Community:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Dan Kowalski reports for LexisNexis Immigration Community:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Melissa Del Bosque writes in the Border Chronicle:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever, White Nationalism, Never!

Related posts:

Hamed Aleaziz & Tracy Wilkinson report for the LA Times:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Todd Miller reports for the BorderChronicle:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

BIA HEADNOTE:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Andrea writes in a NYT Op-Ed:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever

Related posts:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Colorado AILA reports:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Professor Stephen Yale-Loehr reports:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Here’s a report from Hon. “Sir Jeffrey” Chase of the Round Table:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts: