"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.
Category: U.N. Convention and Protocol on Refugees
“I’m gone, but my ‘evil spirit’ lives on in the West Wing! They have even ‘one-upped’’ me with a ‘family separation app’ called CBP One! Never has inflicting gratuitous cruelty been so easy!” Attribution: Stephen Miller Monster by Peter Kuper, PoliticalCartoons.com
The Biden proposal has picked up somewhat tepid endorsements from the likes of Trumpsters DHS official Chad Wolf and leading GOP insurrectionist Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH). Tells you all you really need to know about just how cruel and counterproductive these harebrained proposals are!
These are the folks that the Biden administration is pandering to while ignoring and disrespecting experts and asylum advocates who have centuries of collective experience working on asylum and the border. They also have plenty of good ideas for real asylum/human rights/border reforms that will combat cruelty and promote orderly compliance with the rule of law. The Biden Administration just isn’t interested in, or perhaps capable of, “doing the right thing.”
***********************
Here’s the text of my “custom revision” of the standard comment posted on the website:
I am a retired US DOJ attorneywith more than 35 years ofgovernment experience, all of it in the immigration field, mostly in senior positions. I have been involved in immigration and human rights, in the public and private sectors, for five decades
My last 21 years were spent as an EOIR Judge: eight years as an Appellate Immigration Judge on the BIA (six of those years as BIA Chair), and 13 years as an Immigration Judge at the (now legacy) Arlington Immigration Court. I was involved in the enactment of the Refugee Act of 1980 as well as developing implementing regulations and setting precedents thereunder.
I state unequivocally that these unnecessary proposed regulatory changes are a disavowal of more than four decades of U.S. (and international) asylum law as well as a shocking betrayal of the promise by the Biden Administration to stand up for the rights of legal asylum seekers and end the White Nationalist attempt by the Trump Administration to kill asylum without legislation.
The proposed rule is contrary to well-established United States law regarding the right to seek asylum in our country. There is absolutely no basis in law for the proposed “presumption of denial” for those who seek asylum outside a port of entry or who have transited other countries (as most have) without seeking asylum.
Indeed, the Administration’s approach is in direct contravention of the INA, which establishes rigorous criteria for designating “safe third countries” for asylum seekers. Only Canada has met those rigorous criteria to date, and even then only for a very limited class of applicants.
The idea that Mexico or other countries in Central America that asylum seekers customarily transit on the way to our southern border are “safe havens” for asylum seekers is patently absurd and counterfactual! Indeed, all legitimate experts would say that these are some of the most dangerous countries in the world — none with a fairly functioning asylum system.
Individuals are specifically entitled by the RefugeeAct of 1980, as amended, to access our asylum system regardless of how they enter, as has been the law for decades. They should not be forced to seek asylum in transit to the United States, especially not in countries where they may also face harm. The ending of Title 42—itself an illegal policy—should not be used as an excuse to resurrect Trump-era categorical bans on groups of asylum seekers.
As you must be aware, those policies were designed by xenophobic, White Nationalist, restrictionists in the last Administration motivated by a desire to exclude and discriminate against particular ethnic and racial groups. That the Biden Administration would retain and even enhance some of them, while disingenuously claiming to be “saving asylum,” is beyond astounding.
The rule will also cause confusion at ports of entry and cause chaos and exacerbate backlogs in our immigration courts. Even worse, it will aggravate the already unacceptable situation by making it virtually impossible for most asylum seekers to consult with pro bono counsel before their cases are summarily rejected under these flawed regulations.
People who cannot access the CBP One app are at serious risk of being turned away by CBP, even if the rule says otherwise. Additionally, every observer has noted that the number of “available appointments” is woefully inadequate. In many cases, observers have noted that this leads to “automated family separation.” Rather than fixing these problems, these proposed regulations will make things infinitely worse.
Additionally, as was demonstrated by the previous Trump Transit Ban, the rule is likely to create confusion and additional backlogs at the immigration courts as individual judges attempt to apply a complicated, convoluted rule.
Under the law, the U.S. Government has a very straightforward obligation: To provide asylum seekers at the border and elsewhere, regardless of nationality, status, or manner of coming to the U.S., with a fair, timely, opportunity to apply for asylum and other legal protections before an impartial, expert, adjudicator.
The current system clearly does not do that. Indeed,EOIR suffers from an “anti-asylum,” often misogynist “culture,” lacks precedents recognizing recurring asylum situations at the border (particularly those relating to gender-based persecution), and tolerates judges at both levels who lack asylum expertise, are not committed to due process and fundamental fairness for all, and, far from being experts, often make mistakes in applying basic legal standards and properly evaluating evidence of record, as noted in a constant flow of “reversals and rebukes” from Circuit Courts.
We don’t need moremindless“deterrence” gimmicks. Rather, it’s pasttime for the Administration to reestablish a functioning asylum system.
🇺🇸Due Process Forever! The treachery of an Administration that abandons humane values, and fears bold humanitarian actions, never!
Heidi Altman Director of Policy National Immigrant Justice Center PHOTO: fcnl.orgRev. Craig Mousin Ombudsperson Refugee and Forced Migration Studies, Grace School of Applied Diplomacy DePaul University PHOTO: DePaul Website
FEBRUARY 23, 2023 CRAIG B. MOUSIN SEASON 1 EPISODE 34
Lawful Assembly Podcast
Episode 34: Support Humanitarian Asylum Welcome
00:00
|
24:29
Rewind Speed Forward
Info
LAWFUL ASSEMBLY PODCAST
Episode 34: Support Humanitarian Asylum Welcome
FEB 23, 2023 SEASON 1 EPISODE 34
Craig B. Mousin
In this interview, Rev. Craig B. Mousin, an Adjunct Faculty member of DePaul University’s College of Law, Refugee and Forced Migration Studies Program, and the Grace School of Applied Diplomacy interviews Heidi Altman, the Policy Director of the National Immigrant Justice Center (www.immigrantjustice.org). Ms. Altman discusses a proposed rule that will effectively preclude most asylum-seekers from safely and effectively applying for asylum in the United States. She advocates for humanitarian asylum welcome. She previously served as the legal director for the Capital Area Immigrants’ Rights Coalition and was a Teaching Fellow in the immigration clinic at Georgetown University Law School.
ACTION STEPS
1. Invite friends and family to learn how the proposed rule will undermine refugee protection and encourage them to respond to their elected representatives and the Biden administration urging withdrawal of the proposed rule.
2. The Sanctuary Working Group of the Chicago Religious Leadership Network currently serves and advocates alongside newly arrived asylum seekers in the Chicagoland area. There are many impactful ways you can help asylum seekers, from providing sponsorship and temporary housing to covering legal fees and advocating for policy change. Interested individuals, faith communities, or organizations may contact CRLN staff/consultant David Fraccaro at davidfraccaro99@gmail.com to talk about ways to partner together in supporting and protecting our newest neighbors.
Craig Mousin volunteers with the National Immigrant Justice Center. We welcome your inquiries or suggestions for future podcasts. If you would like to ask more questions about our podcasts or comment, email us at: mission.depaul@gmail.com
Thanks, Craig and Heidi for a very interesting and informative session!
T. Swift. Loss of chance to attend her latest concert due to Ticketmaster SNAFU caused immediate bipartisan Congressional outrage and hearings! Loss of chance to plead for life because of DHS CBP One App SNAFU, not so much! Dehumanization of our fellow humans degrades our society. LOS ANGELES – Swift at 2019 iHeartRadio Music Awards on March 14, 2019 in Los Angeles, California. (Photo by Glenn Francis/Pacific Pro Digital Photography) Creative Commons License.
Here are “my takeaways:”
Asylum seekers have a legal right, established by the Refugee Act of 1980 and international conventions, to seek asylum at our border or in the U.S., regardless of status and/or nationality;
The Trump and Biden Administrations have abrogated this right without legislation;
The Trump Administration’s anti-asylum actions and intentional dehumanization of asylum seekers was rooted in White Nationalist nativism;
Despite recognition during the 2020 campaign of the invidious motivation for Trump’s anti-asylum policies, the Biden Administration has retained, or even enhanced, the dehumanization and denial of rights to asylum seekers at the border;
Over the past two Administrations, acceptance of the basic rights and obligations of the U.S. toward asylum seekers, incorporated in the Refugee Act of 1980, has been eliminated or reduced to a superficial “shell” (“asylum in name only,” as some advocates have termed Biden’s latest proposed anti-asylum border policies);
By abandoning the framework set forth in the Refugee Act of 1980, the Trump and Biden Administrations have re-injected the ad hoc approach,disorder, nationality bias, and ideological preferences at the border that the Refugee Act of 1980 was specifically enacted to eliminate;
There is much under-appreciated support for welcoming, fairly treating, and helping refugees and asylum seekers among Americans in communities throughout our nation;
NGOs and experts have dozens of great ideas for restoring and improving the legal right to seek asylum in fair, humane, non-discriminatory ways which they have shared or are happy to share with the Biden Administration;
The Biden Administration to date has shown little if any interest in adopting and implementing better humanitarian solutions for asylum seekers at the border;
Both parties lack leaders with the integrity and courage to stand up for the legal and human rights of asylum seekers;
We must continue to discuss ways to break the cycle of dehumanization, cruelty, and scofflaw treatment of asylum seekers and replace it with enhanced humanitarian procedures and a welcoming culture, in accordance with the Refugee Act of 1980, the U.N. Convention and Protocol, and the very best traditions of our nation of immigrants.
“Any reason to deny, any reason to deny, any reason to deny, any reason to deny, any reason to deny, any reason to deny, any reason to deny . . . .” https://www.flickr.com/photos/rasputin243/ Creative Commons License
Dan Kowalski reports for LexisNexis Immigration Community:
“For decades, the authoritarian regime in Cuba has utilized its police force to intimidate and physically assault political dissidents and peaceful demonstrators throughout the island. Ignacio Balaez Serra, a Cuban immigrant seeking asylum in the United States, maintains he experienced this abuse first-hand after multiple arrests, imprisonments, and beatings by the Cuban police. Serra seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) final order affirming the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of Serra’s application for asylum, withholding of removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), and relief under the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel Inhumane or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (“CAT”) (together, “Application”). The IJ denied Serra’s Application, finding Serra’s testimony “not credible.” In reaching this adverse credibility determination, the IJ cited two inconsistencies between Serra’s hearing testimony and Application. The first purported inconsistency dealt with the timing of Serra’s passage of a kidney stone; specifically, whether he passed it on the day he was beaten by Cuban police or several days thereafter. The second pertained to the number of countries Serra passed through en route to the United States; he listed ten countries in his written Application but later testified that he traveled through “about 11 or 12.” The IJ also reached his adverse credibility determination based on Serra’s perceived non-responsiveness to certain questions. On appeal, the BIA rejected the IJ’s finding that Serra was non-responsive but affirmed the IJ’s adverse credibility determination based on the two inconsistencies alone. After careful review and with the benefit of oral argument, we conclude the record lacks substantial evidence that would allow us to affirm the adverse credibility determination. We therefore reverse and remand. … [T]he IJ perceived two instances of non-responsiveness and two discrepancies in the record, resulting in an adverse credibility determination. The BIA rejected the IJ’s findings of non-responsiveness. Thus, the IJ’s adverse credibility determination hinged only on two purported inconsistencies in the record. But upon consideration of the totality of the circumstances, it is clear these inconsistences are unsupported by reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence—and thus cannot form the basis for an adverse credibility determination. Therefore, we grant Serra’s petition. We further vacate the BIA’s decision and the IJ’s opinion and remand this case to the IJ to rule on Serra’s applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under CAT in accordance with this opinion. In doing so, the IJ must ensure that all relevant factors are considered—and the totality of the circumstances ascertained—before reaching a conclusion as to credibility. PETITION GRANTED, VACATED and REMANDED.”
[Hats off to Marty High and Joshua Carpenter and Jonathan Morton for amici American Immigration Council and Immigration Justice Campaign!]
**************************
Super congrats to NDPA superstar litigators Marty High, Joshua Carpenter, and Jonathan Morton.
This respondent was a unrepresented before the IJ. Thus, we see another example of how EOIR routinely mistreats pro se litigants and why counsel is a due process necessity even in a very straightforward asylum case like this. Obviously, here, the IJ played the role of “co-counsel” to the ICE Assistant Chief Counsel. Yet, AG Garland has intentionally established “dedicated dockets” and bogus “adjudication timelines” that have been shown to reduce opportunities for representation and diminish the chances of success for asylum seekers.
To borrow a memorable phrase used by my late BIA colleague Appellate Judge FredW. Vacca, “this pathetic attempt at an adjudication” by EOIR was actually defended before the Circuit by the DOJ’s OIL. The glaring problems with immigration and asylum adjudication at DOJ begin at EOIR, but by no means end there.
This case isn’t “rocket science,” nor is it legally or factually complicated. It’s a very straightforward asylum grant to somebody persecuted by Cuba, where, in the words of the 11th Circuit, “[f]or decades, the authoritarian regime . . . has utilized its police force to intimidate and physically assault political dissidents and peaceful demonstrators throughout the island!”
I also note the statutory provision on credibility that the IJ completely bolluxed here and the “any reason to deny” BIA then “rubber stamped” (in part, even while noting that some of the IJ’s analysis was wrong) was part of the REAL ID Act, passed in 2005. That’s 15 years before the the IJ hearing in this case! Heck, I used to give training classes for incoming EOIR JLCs where decisions very much like this IJ’s were used as “teaching examples” of how NOT TO APPLY Real ID! EOIR not only isn’t making “progress,” it’s actually stuck in reverse!
Having spent eight years as an Appellate Judge at the BIA and having reviewed thousands of records, I know that when an IJ goofs up one part of the analysis it’s often indicative of an overall careless, flawed analysis that should be viewed with considerable skepticism. Yet, here the IJ’s “clear error,” acknowledged by the BIA, in basically inventing “unresponsiveness” doesn’t appear to have inspired the BIA to critically examine the rest of the adverse credibility ruling below. On the contrary, it appears to have spurred the BIA to find “any other reason to deny” despite the indication that this was an inaccurate and unreliable analysis by an IJ having a bad day.
It also appears from the Circuit’s decision that there might have been interpretation issues before both the IJ and the Asylum Office. That makes the IJ’s “cherry picking” and “excessive focus on insignificant testimonial inconsistencies” particularly egregious.
The 11th Circuit decision here was written by U.S. District Judge Rodolfo A. Ruiz II, SD FL, sitting by designation. Judge Ruiz is a Trump appointee. He was joined on the panel by Judge Jill Pryor (Obama) and Judge Charles R. Wilson (Clinton) of the 11th Circuit. Thus, apparently the abysmal performance of EOIR is one of the few things capable of uniting and creating “bipartisan agreement among Article III Judges!”
Perhaps Senator Gillibrand is right, and she will be able to obtain sufficient bipartisan support for her Article I Immigration Court bill, which would remove this system from the DOJ’s chronic mismanagement. Seehttps://immigrationcourtside.com/2023/02/17/⚖️🗽-teas-coffee- Because the current situation at EOIR, the continuing indifference to injustice, and its damage to human lives and the law is totally unacceptable!
Also, what about the legal and judicial resources consumed on this and similar cases? Wouldn’t it be great if both the USG and the private sector could “redeploy” them to making the immigration justice system work, rather than correcting sophomoric, yet life threatening, errors? (Admittedly, describing the errors made by DOJ attorneys at all three levels here as “sophomoric” could be viewed as a slight to sophomores everywhere.)
Not only is EOIR’s “any reason to deny” system patently unjust, it’s a colossal waste of public resources! “Bureaucracy 101” — “Get it right at the initial level of the system.”
Of course the battle here hasn’t concluded. The remand gives EOIR yet another opportunity to screw up. Given EOIR’s current indifference to quality and fairness, I wouldn’t count on them to “get it right this time around” — even with Judge Ruiz basically providing them with the correct answer!
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.
GW Law Immigration Clinic Director Professor Alberto Benítez & Co-Director Professor Paulina Vera
Professor Alberto Benitez, Director of the GW Law Asylum Clinic reports:
On February 1, 2023 Immigration Clinic client, R-W-, was granted asylum by the Arlington Asylum Office. The interview was June 6, 2022, and we received the approval notice yesterday. R-W- was a women’s rights attorney in Afghanistan. Among her duties, she trained law students to help women access justice using the legal system and was training to become a prosecutor to try cases involving violence against women. When the Taliban entered Kabul, she had to quit her job at the organization she worked at and stop her training program. Because she feared being targeted based on her advocacy and her education, R-W- fled Afghanistan on her third evacuation attempt. The stress of her situation caused her to experience depression, anxiety, and fainting spells, which all required medical attention. Now that R-W- is in the United States, she is feeling better health-wise and is researching law school programs, as she hopes to continue practicing as an attorney. The above is what R-W- wrote in her affidavit in support of her asylum application. R-W can now begin the process of bringing her husband to the USA. He remains in Afghanistan.
Please join me and Professor Vera in congratulating Alex Chen and Julia Addison, who worked on the case.
********************
Great news! Thanks for passing it on, my friend!
This is the essence of why we have asylum laws and the heart of great legal education that teaches “practical scholarship” and real-life problem solving at the “retail level” of our justice system.
Congrats and deep appreciation for all involved. Also grateful that Ms. R-W- is part of our nation and that we can benefit from her courage, skills, and example.
Lindsay Toczylowski Executive Director, Immigrant Defenders “ I always tell the new immigration attorneys at Immigrant Defenders Law Center to never forget just how stacked against our clients the odds are in immigration court.”
I always tell the new immigration attorneys at Immigrant Defenders Law Center to never forget just how stacked against our clients the odds are in immigration court. Today was a classic example.
Went in with a case that we have spent weeks on end prepping for, seeking asylum protection for our client. We extensively argued our case. Govt attorney waived arguments & had no filings for today, last filing they made in case was in 2020. Yet the judge found that despite a finding of past persecution the govt had rebutted the presumption of a well-founded fear of future persecution.
So the govt atty who didn’t make an argument, who didn’t file anything was found to have successfully rebutted our claims. We plan to appeal, but the imbalance of power in an immigration courtroom, even when someone has an attorney, is profound. Without an attorney it is inhumane.
At the end of the hearing the judge excused the ICE attorney so he did not have to stay through the oral decision. So we sat there, with our client wiping tears from his eyes, and received the decision. We took notes on its mistakes. We reserved the right to appeal.
And I felt this pit in my stomach knowing that my client was seeing his life flash before his eyes, knowing this put him in grave danger. And yet the ICE atty, one of the principal ppl responsible for putting him at risk, couldn’t even bother to stay to the end of the hearing.
Picture of the mural that sits across from one of the immigration courts in DTLA, which seems so fitting on today and so many days.
Mural
Grateful to my colleague Alvaro M. Huerta who was an incredible advocate for our client today.
************************
A very sad commentary on the “culture of denial” still prevalent at EOIR and Garland’s failure to address it head on. Seems like the ACC knew how the judge would rule in advance.
I actually remember a long-ago time at the USDOJ when a “win” was “when justice was done” not just “another denial and deportation notched.” As a few “old timers” might remember, I actually incorporated it into my “welcoming speech” to new INS trial counsel when I was the Deputy General Counsel/sometimes Acting GC at the “Legacy INS.” In a GOP Administration, no less!
Times have changed, I guess, to where a Dem Administration and a Dem AG function “below the Reagan line!” Interesting, yet depressing!
The IJ “excusing” the ACC from the oral decision — at least a violation of judicial etiquette, disrespectful, and unprofessional, if not marginally unethical — shows just where things stand in a system run by a former Federal Judge who has forgotten what justice and public service are all about — at least when it comes to those stuck in his dysfunctional and unprofessional “courts!”
I always insisted that both counsel be present for the delivery of an oral decision. If that were impossible, because of time constraints or a legitimate personal emergency, then the obvious solution was to either 1) issue a written decision, or 2) invite the parties to return another day to listen to the oral decision. A third option was to record it “in chambers,” and have a JLC or intern transcribe and edit it for issuance as a written decision. I actually noticed when the INS ACC was working on the files for the next case or “secretly” looking at an i-phone under counsel table while I was dictating the oral decision. While I didn’t mention it, it did “inform” my opinion of them as attorneys.
Unfortunately, I wouldn’t count on Garland’s Trump holdover BIA to correct the egregious injustices on the merits of this case. The appeals system is also “programmed to deny and deport” — just as Sessions and Barr constructed it!
One might have thought that a Dem Administration and a former Federal Judge would be interested in bringing due process, fundamental fairness, and decisional excellence to one of the most important Federal “Court” Systems — one they totally control! Not so! This is most disappointing and enraging, particularly for those practicing in the “skewed against the individual” mess that Garland tolerates and enables!
And, folks, these examples, including the outrageous miscarriage of justice and impartial judging described by Lindsay above, just cover a period since January 27, 2023, a mere 16 days ago — basically just the “tip of Garland’s deadly iceberg of injustice at EOIR!”
While numerous examples of unfairness and unprofessionalism at Garland’s dystopian EOIR have surfaced, they are “just the tip of the iceberg” masking the huge disaster lurking below where Garland and his lieutenants fear to go! Created by Uwe Kils (iceberg) and User:Wiska Bodo (sky). Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0
The unprofessional, disgraceful performance of EOIR described above, and the inexcusable failure to “clean house,” bring in qualified expert judges and professional judicial administrators, and support and institutionalize competent expert judging at EOIR, as represented by Judge Burgie and some others, would be disgraceful in ANY Administration! Coming during a Democratic Administration that RAN ON A PLATFORM of ending xenophobic, extralegal, nativist-motivated abuses directed at asylum seekers (often of color), immigrants, and their courageous, dedicated attorneys is totally unacceptable!
Yet, Senate Dems have failed to haul Garland and his lieutenants before the Senate Judiciary Committee to be confronted by those abused on their watch and to answer for their abject failure to bring due process, fundamental fairness, best practices, and competent, expert judicial decision making to EOIR’s dystopian, dysfunctional, and outrageously unfair “faux courts!”
As Lindsay says, “I always tell the new immigration attorneys at Immigrant Defenders Law Center to never forget just how stacked against our clients the odds are in immigration court.” It does NOT have to be this way!
These are NOT life-tenured Article III judges! They are, as the DOJ is constantly reminding them, “DOJ attorneys.” GOP Administrations have demonstrated time and again the recognition that they have the power to “purge” judges who stand up for immigrants’ rights and due process and to “stack” the Immigration Courts against asylum seekers andimmigrants.
Garland has the power to do the opposite: “unstack” EOIR, bring in qualified judges and administrators who are recognized, respected experts in immigration law, human rights, and due process, and create a “model Federal Judiciary” and a source for future experienced, well-qualified Article III appointments.
In nearly two years of inept and dilatory “administration” of EOIR, Garland has failed to achieve, or indeed even attempt, these essential, long-overdue reforms. Indeed, so poorly has he performed on immigration, human rights, equal justice, and racial equity, that many dedicated immigration practitioners tell me that things are markedly worse now for due process and fair judging at EOIR than at the end of the Trump Administration.See, e.g.,https://immigrationcourtside.com/2022/09/21/-outrage-boils-over-at-merrick-garlands-milleresque-war-on-due-process-at-eoir-his-grotesque-mismanagement-of-immigration-courts-garland-might/, (Quoting Jason “The Asylumist” Dzubow: “But as it turns out, President Biden’s EOIR is far worse than President Trump’s. Indeed, the current level of callousness would make even Stephen Miller blush.”)
As Jason Dzubow would say, “It didn’t have to be this way!” But, sadly, and outrageously, it IS this way! Eventually, that’s something that the Democratic Party will have to answer for! Unfortunately, some of their “victims” are likely to be in their graves by then!☠️⚰️🤮
President Biden often correctly says that our democracy is in peril! Yet, one of the main places where it is most imperiled and disrespected is in HIS OWN Immigration Courts at EOIR. Why hasn’t the President led the “defense of democracy” by cleaning up the mess in his own house? Inexplicable!
BIA panel gets ready to “gun down” — in “cold blood” — another meritorious appeal by immigrant! Court orders are no match for this gang that “shoots from the hip.” PHOTO: Republic Pictures (1957), Public Domain
Dan Kowalski reports from LexisNexis Immigration Community:
“For the second time, petitioner Irma Aguilar-Escoto, a native and citizen of Honduras, asks us to vacate the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA” or the “Board”) rejection of her claim for withholding of removal. When this case was last before us, we vacated the BIA’s prior order and instructed the Board to consider the potentially significant documentary evidence submitted in support of Aguilar’s claim. See Aguilar-Escoto v. Sessions, 874 F.3d 334, 335 (1st Cir. 2017). Today, we conclude that the BIA again failed to properly consider significant documentary evidence. Consequently, we vacate the Board’s removal order and remand for further proceedings.”
[Hats off to Kenyon C. Hall, with whom Jack W. Pirozzolo, Sidley Austin, LLP, Charles G. Roth, National Immigrant Justice Center, and Carlos E. Estrada were on brief, for petitioner!]
*******************
This case is a microcosm of everything that’s wrong about EOIR, a “captive,” denial-biased “court” system operating within the DOJ, an enforcement agency within the Executive Branch, over three different Administrations — two Dem and one GOP! But, there is more to this story!
THE REST OF THE STORY:
In 2013, this respondent appeared before an IJ and presented a well-documented claim for withholding of removal to Honduras based on domestic violence. Among the respondent’s documentation were a psychological report, three police reports, a medical report from Honduras, a protection order from a Honduran court, the respondent’s declaration, and affidavits from family members. In the first flawed decision, in 2014, the IJ denied the claim.
The respondent appealed to the BIA. In another flawed decision, entered in 2016, the BIA denied the appeal. In doing so, the BIA denied an asylum claim that the respondent did not make and ignored key documentary evidence that went to the heart of the respondent’s claim. This suggests that the BIA merely slapped a “form denial” on the case which reflected neither the nature of the case below nor the actual record before them. Immigration practitioners say this type of performance is all too common in the dystopian world of EOIR.
Consequently, the respondent, represented pro bono by NDPA stalwart Carlos E. Estrada, a solo practitioner, sought review in the First Circuit. That petition succeeded! In 2017, the First Circuit vacated the BIA’s erroneous decision and directed the BIA to redo the case, this time considering the material, independent evidence of persecution that the BIA had previously ignored.
At this point, the respondent and her attorney had every reason to believe that their ordeal was over and that justice, and potentially life-saving protection, was “just around the corner.” But, alas, those hopes were dashed!
The BIA botched it again! In 2018, in what appeared to be one of the BIA’s “standard any reason to deny” opinions, the BIA purported to “affirm” the 2014 flawed decision of the IJ. In doing so, “the BIA erred by failing to follow this Court’s [1st Circuit’s] instruction to independently consider on remand the documentary evidence and to determine whether that evidence sufficed to establish past persecution.” Basically a “polite description” of “contempt of court” by the BIA.
Among the problems, the BIA failed to mention or evaluate one of the police reports that went directly to the basis for the BIA’s denial. Indeed, in a rather brutal example example of just how un-seriously the BIA took the court’s order, they erroneously stated that there were only two police reports. Actually, the record contained THREE such reports — since 2013!
Faced with the need for yet a second trip to the First Circuit, pro bono solo practitioner Carlos Estrada was “stretched to his pro bono limits.” Fortunately, the amazing pro bono lawyers at Sidley Austin LLP and National Immigrant Justice Center (“NIJC”) heeded the call and assisted Estrada and his client in their second petition for review.
With help from this “team of experts,” for the second time, the respondent “bested” EOIR and DOJ in the Circuit! While conceding that the BIA had errored in not complying with the court order, OIL, now under the direction of Dem A.G. Merrick Garland, advanced specious “alternative reasons” for upholding the BIA’s second flawed decision. These were emphatically rejected by the First Circuit! That court also noted that the (supposedly “expert”) BIA had applied the wrong legal standard in the case!
A rational person might think that after nearly a decade, this “charade of justice” would finally end, and the respondent would get her long-delayed, thrice-erroneously-denied relief. But, that’s not the way this dysfunctional and disreputable system works (or, in too many cases, doesn’t).
The First Circuit “remanded” the case to EOIR a second time, thus giving the BIA a totally undeserved THIRD CHANCE to improperly deny relief. Who knows if they will, or when they might get around to acting.
But, within Garland’s dystopian system, which lacks quality control, doesn’t require recognized expertise in human rights from its “judges,” and tolerates a BIA dominated by Trump-appointed appellate judges known for their records of hostility to asylum and related forms of protection from persecution and/or torture, a result favorable to the respondent, within her lifetime, is far from guaranteed.
As Attorney Carlos Estrada summed it up to me, “I just couldn’t do it [the second petition for review] pro bono by myself. I’m a solo practitioner. Such a waste of time and effort.”
Indeed, Garland’s failure to institute even minimal standards of due process, fundamental fairness, impartiality, expertise in his EOIR “court” system is unfairly stretching scarce pro bono resources beyond the limits, as well as denying timely, often life-saving or life-determining justice to individuals.
In a fair, functional, professional system, Estrada, Sidley Austin, and NIJC could be helping others in dire need of pro bono assistance. The respondent could have been enjoying for the last decade a “durable” grant of protection from persecution instead of having her life “up in the air” because of defective decision-making at EOIR and ill-advised “defenses” by OIL. The system could be adjudicating new cases and claims, instead of doing the same cases over and over, for a decade, at three levels of our justice system, without getting them right.
If you wonder why Garland’s broken EOIR is running an astounding 2.1 million case backlog, it’s NOT primarily because of the actions of respondents and their lawyers, if any! It has much to do with “Aimless Docket Reshuffling,” in “full swing” under Garland, incredibly poor judicial administration by DOJ/EOIR, poor judging by too many incumbents who lack the necessary expertise and demonstrated commitment to due process and fundamental fairness, poor administrative and judicial practices, inadequate training, and a toxic “culture of denial and disrespect for immigrants’ rights” that has been festering for years!
Do YOU think that sagas like this represent a proper approach to “justice in America at the retail level.” I don’t! But, incidents like this occur on a daily basis at EOIR, even if most escape the public spotlight!
“Out of sight, out of mind!” But, sadly, not so for the individuals whose lives are damaged by this system and their long-suffering attorneys, whose plights continue to be studiously ignored by Garland and his lieutenants. (Has Garland EVER offered to meet with the private, pro bono bar to find out what really is happening in “his” courts and how he might fix it? Not to my knowledge!)
Hats way off to Carlos E. Estrada, Esquire; Kenyon C. Hall, Jack W. Pirozzolo, and the rest of the folks at Sidley Austin, LLP (I note that Sidley generously has provided outstanding pro bono briefing assistance to our “Round Table” in the past); and Charles G. Roth and his team at the National Immigrant Justice Center for this favorable outcome and for insuring that justice is done. Garland and the Dems might not care about justice for persons in the U.S. who happen to be migrants, but YOU do! That, my friends, makes all the difference in human lives and in our nation’s as yet unfulfilled promise of “equal justice for all.”
“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.
Immigration Courts across the U.S. have been randomly rescheduling and advancing cases without regard to attorney availability or whether we have the capacity to complete our cases. The very predictable result of this fiasco is that lawyers are stressed and overworked, our ability to adequately prepare cases has been reduced, and–worst of all–asylum seekers are being deprived of their right to a fair hearing. Besides these obvious consequences, the policy of reshuffling court cases is having other insidious effects that are less visible, but no less damaging. Here, I want to talk about some of the ongoing collateral damage caused by EOIR’s decision to toss aside due process of law in favor of reducing the Immigration Court backlog.
As an initial matter, it’s important to acknowledge that the Immigration Court backlog is huge. There are currently more than 2 million pending cases, which is more than at any time in the history of the Immigration Court system. To address this situation, EOIR (the Executive Office for Immigration Review – the office that oversees our nation’s Immigration Courts) has been working with DHS (the prosecutor) to dismiss low-priority cases, where the non-citizen does not have criminal issues or pose a national security threat. Also, the U.S. government has been doing its best to turn away asylum seekers at the Southern border, which has perhaps slowed the growth of the backlog, but has also (probably) violated our obligations under U.S. and international law.
In addition, EOIR has been hiring new Immigration Judges (“IJs”) at a break neck pace. In the past few years, there has been a dramatic increase in the number of IJs nationwide, though some parts of the country have received more judges than others. In those localities with lots of new IJs, EOIR has been advancing thousands of cases. The goal is to complete cases and reduce the backlog. Why EOIR has failed to coordinate its new schedule with stakeholders, such as respondents and immigration attorneys, I do not know.
What I do know is that EOIR’s efforts have created great hardships for attorneys and respondents (respondents are the non-citizens in Immigration Court). Also, I expect that this whole rescheduling debacle will have long-term effects on the Immigration Courts, as well as on the immigration bar.
The most obvious effect is that lawyers and respondents simply do not have enough time to properly prepare their cases. When a hearing was set for 2025 and then suddenly advanced to a date a few months in the future, it may not be enough time to gather evidence and prepare the case. Also, this is not occurring in a vacuum. Lawyers (like me) are seeing dozens of cases advanced without warning, and so we have to manage all of those, plus our regular case load. So the most immediate consequence of EOIR’s policy is that asylum seekers and other respondents often do not have an opportunity to present their best case.
Perhaps less obviously, lawyers are being forced to turn work away. We can only competently handle so many matters, and when we are being assaulted day-by-day with newly rescheduled cases, we cannot predict our ability to take on a new case. In my office, we have been saying “no” more and more frequently to potential clients. Of course, this also affects existing clients who need additional work. Want to expedite your asylum case? Need a travel document to see a sick relative? I can’t give you a time frame for when we can complete the work, because I do not know what EOIR will throw at me tomorrow.
One option for lawyers is to raise prices. We have not yet done that in my office, but it is under consideration. What we have done is increase the amount of the down payment we require. Why? Because as soon as we enter our name as the lawyer, we take on certain obligations. And since cases now often move very quickly, we need to be sure we get paid. If not, we go out of business. The problem is that many people cannot afford a large down payment or cannot pay the total fee over a shortened (and unpredictable) period of time. The result is that fewer non-citizens will be able to hire lawyers.
Well, there is one caveat–crummy lawyers will continue to take more and more cases, rake in more and more money, and do very little to help their clients. Such lawyers are not concerned about the quality of their work or doing a good job for their clients. They simply want to make money. EOIR’s policy will certainly benefit them, as responsible attorneys will be forced to turn away business, those without scruples will be waiting to take up the slack.
Finally, since EOIR is increasing attorney stress and burnout to untenable levels, I expect we will see lawyers start to leave the profession. I have talked to many colleagues who are ready to go. Some are suffering physical and mental health difficulties due to the impossible work load. Most immigration lawyers are very committed to their clients and have a sense of mission, but it is extremely difficult to work in an environment where you cannot control your own schedule, you cannot do your best for your clients, you cannot fulfill your obligations to your family and friends, and where you are regularly abused and treated with contempt. Long before EOIR started re-arranging our schedules, burnout among immigration lawyers was a serious problem. Today, that problem is exponentially worse, thanks to EOIR’s utter disrespect for the immigration bar. I have little doubt that the long term effect will be to drive good attorneys away from the profession.
For me, the saddest part of this whole mess is that it did not have to be this way. EOIR could have worked with attorneys to advance cases in an orderly manner and to ensure that respondents and their lawyers were protected. But that is not what happened. Instead, EOIR has betrayed its stated mission, “to adjudicate immigration cases by fairly, expeditiously, and uniformly interpreting and administering the Nation’s immigration laws.” Respondents, their attorneys, and the immigration system are all worse off because of it.
***********************
Jason Dzubow The Asylumist
“For me, the saddest part of this whole mess is that it did not have to be this way.” Amen, Jason! Me too! And, I think I speak for most, if not all, of my esteemed colleagues on the Round Table of Former Immigration Judges and BIA Members.”⚔️🛡
In addition to betraying its mission “to adjudicate immigration cases by fairly, expeditiously, and uniformly interpreting and administering the Nation’s immigration laws,” EOIR has trashed its noble once-vision: “Through teamwork and innovation be the world’s best administrative tribunals guaranteeing fairness and due process for all!”
The use of the word “uniformity” in EOIR’s “mission” is an absurdity given the “range” of asylum denials fostered and tolerated by Garland’s dysfunctional system: 0-100%! It’s also understandable, if unforgivable, that EOIR no longer features words like “due process,” “fundamental fairness,” “teamwork,” and “innovation” prominently on its website!
A Dem AG is attacking our American justice system and the legal profession at the “retail level” and causing real, perhaps “irreparable,” damage! What’s wrong with this picture? Everything! What are we going to do about it? Or, more appropriately, what are YOU going to do about it, as my time on the stage, and that of my contemporaries, is winding down?
All of these particularities matter, because once all available options have been exhausted, cases generally end up inside an immigration court before an immigration judge. The administrative snarls that predate a case before it arrives in immigration court are thus a result of policy from the top, for better or worse.
On paper, courts are supposed to be independent bodies. They are supposed to be immune from the political agendas of other government operatives or serve as independent mediators that can rectify previous errors.
But immigration courts are not. As a part of the Justice Department, at the end of the day, they work under the attorney general. While other courts function under a de jure practice of independence, immigration courts are held to the same standard despite not possessing the same protections that allow other judges to carry out their basic job functions. This creates an impossible work environment for immigration judges to fairly adjudicate every case with the attention it deserves. Instead, their measurements of success are based on accomplishing the president’s goals, which are translated into quotas for immigration courts. For example, Biden administration officials touted removing 1.3 million migrants last year.
As the Prospect has previously reported, immigration judges have long pointed out the tenuous environment they must work in.
But later this month, the Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA) will be hearing from the National Association of Immigration Judges (NAIJ) over whether or not their union will be reinstated. The FLRA will now have a majority of Biden appointees.
A dysfunctional immigration system can only start to work with independent courts. But that change can only happen through congressional action. In the meantime, a never-ending crisis at the border can be exploited by one party, as the other expands the needlessly punitive immigration practices of the previous administration.
*******************
Many thanks to prodigious immigration commentator Nolan Rappaport for passing this along to me.
There is consensus among experts that an independent Article I Immigration Court is urgently needed and long overdue. There is also a consensus that the chance of achieving this critical legislative change with a GOP-controlled House is zero. At the same time, we must remember that Dems didn’t exactly give any priority to this essential and far-reaching reform when they had “unified control” over the political branches.
There is also consensus that in the absence of Article I there are things that Garland and the Biden Administration could and should have done administratively that would have drastically improved the due process, expertise, quality, efficiency, “customer service,” and professionalism of EOIR.
Gee whiz, a Harvard Law student figured it out! They haveconstructive suggestions for administrative reforms to change culture, improve training, place docket control in the hands of judges not politicos and bureaucrats, increase independence, improve quality, and insulate IJs from the political whims and enforcement agendas of each Administration. Seehttps://wp.me/p8eeJm-8hE?
But, a Harvard Law grad, long-time Federal Judge, and Supremes’ nominee, and his band of supposedly smart and high-powered political lieutenants couldn’t or wouldn’t get it done for a Dem Administration? Gimmie a break!
A Dem Administration that was supposed to get us beyond the cruelty, White Nationalism, xenophobia, and “malicious incompetence” of the Trump Administration falls flat on its face on a critical and achievable part of immigration reform and racial justice in America! Go figure!
Meanwhile, the cries of pain keep coming from those subjected to Garland’s dystopian “courts!”
Had an “interesting” IH today with this IJ. [IJ] denied my motion to continue the case by email the evening before the 8:30 am hearing, even though I had four IHs scheduled in the same time slot and had filed a motion to continue a month before the hearing. [IJ] refused to grant me a few minutes to speak with OPLA counsel before the hearing to narrow issues, saying that discussion should have already taken place. [IJ] spent an inordinate amount of time on housekeeping issues. [IJ] read a list of “rules.” [IJ] would insist that counsel stand when they spoke. [IJ] would routinely deny motions for webex hearings. [IJ] went through the biographical information excruciatingly slowly, including having the respondent spell the names of all the riders, provide their birth dates, etc.
It was a case where DHS had stipulated to 42b and the only issue would’ve been discretion but the IJ didn’t care. [IJ] told me to let everyone know that [IJ] reads each and every single document submitted in . . . court from back to front and . . . has a lot of questions . . . . [IJ] went on to conduct a full hearing, chastised DHS for stipulating, made a big deal of every little thing, asked irrelevant questions about medicaid forms that [client] may have filled for her children (not included as part of evidence), insinuated that she committed medicaid fraud, and made the ACC change position on each and every issue.
[The IJ] denied the asylum application of a young gay man from El Salvador. This is a first for me, in my 20+ years of asylum practice. We’ve never lost such a case that I can recall.
The facts are pretty typical – the kid lived a life of humiliation and abuse in El Salvador due to his sexual orientation; tried to commit suicide several times; and ultimately left the country when the Mara 18 tried to get him to deliver marijuana for them. Arguably, not a strong case for past persecution, but such cases typically prevail where a judge fairly evaluates a claim of well-founded fear of future persecution and considers the country condition reports and articles about the horrendous human rights abuses against the LGBT community in El Salvador. This didn’t fly with IJ. [IJ] simply said “there is no meaningful evidence in the record to demonstrate that the Respondent would experience harm amounting to persecution in El Salvador” and then went on to say that the client would likely experience more bullying and discrimination, but that doesn’t mean it would be persecution. [IJ] did not mention any country conditions report or article from the record to support his ruling.
[T]he DHS attorney called me directly after the hearing to empathize and tell me that it’s well-known even on their side that this judge is a piece of work and it’s always a good idea to take PD if offered.
[T]his judge is a menace. I don’t know what to do to protect my clients from [IJ] other than prepare strong BIA appeals.
This is the third email I have received to schedule MORE cases. No one will tell me what the goal is. I’ve put them on notice of the health issues this is/has been causing me.
Please tell the higher ups that this practice of overscheduling the private bar is taking a serious toll on practitioners’ health. Medical documentation is below and attached. I’m really not sure why the court has felt the need to overschedule practitioners to this level, but it is really taking a serious toll on everyone. Can someone please shed light on this urgent need to overwhelm the limited number of defense attorneys we have in the area?
Another outstanding Immigration Court practitioner told me that they had left courtroom practice and taken a “research and writing” position because the EOIR courtroom “experience” under Garland was so dehumanizing, demoralizing, stressful, and life consuming!
A different attorney called me with concerns that an IJ’s “over the top” abuse of pro bono counsel would discourage others from taking cases in Immigration Court.
IJ’s wasting time; discouraging negation and stipulation by parties; taking over hearings; abusing continuance discretion; failing to abide by Cardoza & Mogharrabi; showing bias; producing wildly inconsistent anti-immigrant results; showing thin knowledge of law; rudely treating counsel and clients; over-scheduling; abusing power; endangering the health of those appearing before them; driving practitioners to leave the EOIR courtrooms; discouraging pro bono!
Everything that is NOT what a fair, independent, court of law should be is present and allowed, perhaps even encouraged, in Garland’s broken EOIR! Why is this type of grotesque mismanagement, bad judging, unprofessional conduct, and disregard of fundamental due process “business as usual” under a Dem Administration?
This “star chamber” system needs new, expert, progressive, due-process-focused, free from political hackery and inane gimmicks, “kick-ass” management! Garland isn’t getting the job done!
These younger progressives are exactly the “core support” that Dems will need to win future elections! How does “dissing” them with inept leadership and ineffective nativist-derived immigration policies help the cause?
Honestly, what a mess! Garland’s dystopian EOIR is the Democratic Party’s shame!
