"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
Biden will welcome 125,000 refugees to the U.S. in first fiscal year
By Associated Press and Nikki Schwab, Senior U.S. Political Reporter For Dailymail.com at 10:10 PM UTC on 04 February 2021
President Joe Biden announced Thursday his intention to massively increase the cap on annual refugee admissions to the United States
At the State Department, he said he would sign an executive order with the aim of 125,000 refugees coming to the U.S. in his first fiscal year
Refugee admissions fell to a historical low under President Donald Trump, with the current cap sitting at 15,000
President Joe Biden on Thursday announced his intention to massively increase the cap on annual refugee admissions to the United States, which fell to a historical low under Donald Trump.
In line with a campaign promise, Biden said he would set at 125,000 the cap on admissions as part of the country’s refugee resettlement program, against the current 15,000.
‘We offered safe havens for those fleeing violence or persecution’ in previous years, when America’s ‘moral leadership on refugee issues’ encouraged other nations to open their doors as well, Biden said.
‘So today I’m approving an executive order to begin the hard work of restoring our refugee admissions program to help meet the unprecedented global need,’ he added.
‘It’s going to take time to rebuild what has been so badly damaged, but that’s precisely what we’re going to do.’
. . . .
***********
Read the complete article at the link.
One of the most damaging effects of the Trump regime’s cowardly and counterproductive “war on refugees” was the withering and disappearance of the premier “resettlement infrastructure” run by NGOs. It was one of many things that made our refugee program highly efficient.
The cruelty and stupidity of a White Nationalist regime that intentionally “broke” many of the functioning parts of our society while pouring money down the drain on a far right racist agenda simply can’t be overestimated.
Thanks to President Biden for restoring humanity, common sense, and the national interest to our democracy!
Refugees have been a key part our national success. Moreover, as President Biden said in his inaugural address, “leading by example” is essential to foreign policy. If we want other developed nations to participate in resettling refugees, our own robust programs and willingness to help others in need will go a long way toward encouraging and increasing constructive responses to mass migration situations.
That is why the Justice Department must also identify categories of non priority immigration court cases that can be dismissed now. One obvious category is the estimated 460,000 cases — an astounding 37 percent of the current backlog — that involve individuals who could qualify, under current law, for legal status. It makes little sense to waste limited enforcement resources by having immigration prosecutors and judges spend years trying these cases in court, when trained adjudicators at another agency, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, can handle them more efficiently through paper applications.
Another category of cases that should be removed from judges’ dockets are the 200,000 cases that have been pending for more than five years. By definition, these old cases are ones that prosecutors and judges have deemed low priorities.
Biden has noted that the Obama administration “took too long” to begin fixing the nation’s immigration system. His initial steps are a promising indication that he intends to move swiftly to build the fair, humane and functional immigration enforcement system he has promised. To guarantee results, the new president must use his first 100 days to identify and remove the non priority cases bottlenecked in America’s immigration courts.
Greg Chen is senior director of government relations for the American Immigration Lawyers Association. Peter L. Markowitz is a professor of law at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law where he directs the Kathryn O. Greenberg Immigration Justice Clinic.
*****************
Read the full article at the link.
Presto: 1.3 million million docket becomes 640,000. And that’s just the beginning!
Here are some more low-budget, immediate action “No-Brainers:”
Vacate all of the anti-asylum, backlog expanding “precedents” issued by Sessions, Whitaker, Barr, and the BIA over the past four years (immediately returning needed flexibility and some degree of fairness to the system);
Reassign the current BIA and replace with expert judges committed to due process who know how to grant asylum and establish precedents on how “clear grants” can be easily identified, properly documented, and consistently adjudicated (eliminate “refugee roulette” — largely a product of an “any reason to deny culture” combined with defective judicial selection, poor training, and lousy leadership);
Return all asylum cases denied over the past four years to the USCIS Asylum Office for adjudication without all the anti-asylum precedents and dehumanizing policies of the Trump regime;
Work with the private bar and NGOs to increase representation with universal representation as the goal;
Eliminate inane and demeaning “production quotas” for EOIR judges (thus placing the emphasis back on careful decision making, thoughtful analysis, and getting the correct result the first time — also restoring IJs’ ability to schedule and manage dockets).
Realistically, 500 Immigration Judges can complete approximately 250,000 to 300,000 cases annually. A combination of 1) the “Chen-Markowitz plan;” 2) the “Schmidt Addendum;” and 3) the more sensible and realistic enforcement priorities initiative already underway at DHS will have EOIR “operating in real time” (and, significantly, in the national interest) in no time at all — without legislation or busting anyone’s budget!
Of course, these initial steps are just the “tip of the iceberg” of the reforms necessary at EOIR, leading to the fulfillment of the vision of “through teamwork and innovation becoming the world’s best tribunals guaranteeing fairness and due process for all.”Congress must at the earliest opportunity create an independent Article I Immigration Court to institutionalize and preserve these reforms and “best practices.”
But, in the meantime, lives and our national interests are imperiled by the current deadly (and wasteful) dysfunction @ EOIR. There is every reason to fix the system now! And, it’s not “rocket science” — just expertise and common sense.
Which leads me to another obvious point — Members of the NDPA like Chen, Markowitz, Dean Kevin Johnson, Michelle Mendez, Associate Dean Professor Jaya-Ramji Nogales, Professor Phil Schrag, Professor Michele Pistone, up and coming all-star Lauren Wyatt, Judge Dana Marks and other leaders of the NAIJ, experienced due process oriented Immigration Judges like my former BIA colleague Judge Noel Brennan, and many others like them should be in charge of this effort to reform EOIR and create a model court system.
The Biden Administration must apply the same principles to EOIR Reform that they have elsewhere: Get rid of the “middlemen” and “bring in the experts” to run the show! Articles, papers, speeches, TV interviews, encounter groups, studies, and blogs are great — but putting the right folks in the right places to take action to solve problems is much better and more efficient! Put the folks with the answers in charge!
That would not only create a “laboratory of best judicial practices” that could be applied to the floundering Article III Judiciary, but also would provide the Biden Administration with source of well-trained progressive candidates for the Article III Judiciary. Leadership, including “leading by example” is critical in any well-functioning judicial system; it has been sorely lacking at EOIR (and in the Article III Judiciary) over the past four years. As the Biden Administration has already recognized, the only real leadership among the Federal Judiciary has come from “resistors” like Judge Ashley Tabaddor, now at USCIS.
Incidentally, in her current position at USCIS, Judge Tabaddor is perfectly placed to work with EOIR in carrying out the “Chen-Markowitz plan” to get cases of those potentially eligible for residence out of the EOIR backlog and into USCIS where they can be handled more efficiently.
To state the obvious, EOIR needs more “headquarters personnel” like a hole in the head! What you need is a streamlined staff of better-qualified individuals across the board: real judges and professional judicial administrators who will restore due process and get this system functioning again — sooner rather than later.
Consequently, there is no apparent need for additional “counsel” in his office right now. To say the least, this ill-timed “example of the “Continuing Clown Show at EOIR”🤡 has already become a “internet mini-sensation!” At the very least, you should wait until Risch’s replacement arrives and let her or him make the selection.
Undoubtedly, a reformed IJ tenure program (considering not only discipline but also retention of current judges and improved professional training) that is transparent, fair, and effective is a badly needed and long overdue improvement. But, hiring another bureaucrat (on short notice, which is likely to produce a less than “best qualified” candidate) isn’t the answer.
That being said, I’ve already heard from a number of private practitioners who would love to be in charge of “professional responsibility for Immigration Judges.” They have lots of great ideas for improvements and a number of places where they would start the process immediately, if not sooner!
Vanita Gupta Nominee for Associate AG Photo: Brookings Institution, Paul Morigi, Creative Commons LicenseKristin Clarke Nominee for Assistant AG, Civil Rights Photo: NAACP, Creative Commons License
Meet the courageous, dynamic , outspoken, new human-rights-oriented leaders looking to fulfill the Constitution and make “equal justice for all” a reality @ the DOJ and for America.Sam Levine reports for The Guardian.
On her last day at the justice department in 2017, Vanita Gupta considered taking a picture as she left the agency’s headquarters on Pennsylvania Avenue. But she decided against it. Gupta, the outgoing head of the department’s civil rights division, once described as the “crown jewel” of the agency, didn’t really want to remember the moment, she told a reporter who was shadowing her for the day.
Jeff Sessions, then the incoming attorney general, was poised to unwind much of the painstaking progress Gupta, 46, and her colleagues had spent the last four years building. It was no secret that Sessions opposed the kind of court agreements the justice department used to fix unconstitutional policing policies across the country (“dangerous” and an “exercise of raw power” in Sessions’ eyes). Nor were there any illusions that Sessions would try very hard to enforce the Voting Rights Act, already on its last legs after the supreme court gutted a key provision in 2013 (Sessions described the landmark civil rights law as “intrusive”).
Many of those concerns came to pass. Trump’s justice department not only did little to enforce some of the country’s most powerful civil rights protections for minority groups, but in several cases it opposed them. It filed almost no voting rights cases and defended restrictive voting laws, tried to undermine the census, challenged affirmative action policies, sought to roll back protections for LGBTQ+ Americans, and limited the use of consent decrees to curb illegal policing practices. Gupta took a job as the head of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, a coalition of civil rights groups across the country, where she became one of the leading figures pushing back on the Trump administration.
Joining Gupta in that effort was Kristen Clarke, a 47-year-old former justice department lawyer who leads the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, founded in 1963 to help attorneys in private practice enforce civil rights. As her group filed voting rights and anti-discrimination lawsuits across the country over the last few years, Clarke spent hours nearly every election day briefing journalists on reports of incoming voting problems. Reports of long lines, voting machine malfunctions, translator issues – no problem was too small. The monitoring sent a message that civil rights groups would move swiftly against any whiff of voter suppression.
Now, after years of leading the fight for civil rights from outside the justice department, both women are poised to return to its top levels, where they can deploy the unmatchable resources of the federal government. Last month, Joe Biden tapped Gupta to serve as his associate attorney general, the No 3 official at the department, and Clarke to lead the civil rights division. If confirmed by the Senate, Gupta would be the first woman of color to be the associate attorney general; Clarke would be the first Black woman in her role.
“They are both independently legit civil rights champions with a long deep history,” said Justin Levitt, who worked with Gupta at the justice department and knows both women well. “They’re going to make a really spectacular, really powerful team.”
Picking two career civil rights lawyers for two of the top positions at the justice department sends an unmistakable signal that civil rights enforcement will be a top priority for the agency over the next four years. Civil rights leaders said they could not remember a prior administration in which two of the department’s highest positions were filled by civil rights attorneys, especially two such as Clarke and Gupta.
“It’s going to be really important and energizing and exciting to be able to be in conversation and discussion with people who understand the department’s role in civil rights enforcement,” said Sherrilyn Ifill, president and director-counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund (LDF), who has worked closely with both women. “But it’s also going to be exciting, and as a matter of resources, to have the department actually do civil rights enforcement.”
. . . .
********************
Read the rest of these inspiring American profiles 🇺🇸🌟at the link. Don’t you think we need the “Vanita & Kristen” of immigration and human rights to lead the restoration effort at EOIR and the BIA?
Here are the “keys to success:”
Immigrants’ rights are human rights;
Human rights are civil rights;
There can be neither racial justice nor equal justice in America until migrants are not only fully recognized as “persons” under our Constitution, but actually treated as such (as opposed to the active “dehumanization” and “Dred Scottification” of migrants and persons of color by the Trump regime and the GOP majority on the Roberts’ Court);
You can’t possibly “win the game” with the same players who “batted for the White Nationalists” over the past four years.
And, speaking of “Jewel in the Crown.”👑 That’s exactly how many of us in the “Round Table of Former Immigration Judges” 🛡⚔️ once viewed EOIR. The “EOIR Vision” was: “Through teamwork and innovation be the worlds’s best tribunals, guaranteeing fairness and due process for all.”
So, Vanita, and I hope Kristen also, can imagine the anger and determination to fight with which our Round Table viewed the dismemberment of due process and weaponization of the Immigration Courts under Sessions, Whitaker, and Barr. From aspiring to be the “world’s best tribunals” to “Star Chambers” and a grotesque, dysfunctional national disgrace!
On the plus side: Both Gupta and Clarke are the daughters of immigrants. Both have written and advocated for immigrants’ rights as part of their civil rights leadership.
Caution. Obama Attorneys General Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch were “facially aggressive” on protecting voting rights and police reforms. Yet, at the same time they: helped DHS set deportation records; allowed EOIR to spiral toward dysfunction (to a large extent through failure to procure and properly manage resources and an indolent judicial hiring program that was both “closed and non-diverse in nature” and glacial in operation (2 years to fill an average judicial vacancy!)); supported “baby jails,” the “family gulag,” and toddlers representing themselves on asylum cases in Immigration Court; looked the other way as private prisons treated asylum seekers and migrants worse than convicted criminals; and “went along to get along” with the Administration’s misuse of the Immigration Courts as (a highly ineffective) deterrent to applications for asylum.
Sessions, Whitaker, and Barr might have been the “Kings of Aimless Docket Reshuffling” at EOIR that helped produce an astounding 1.3 million case plus “backlog.” But, it started in earnest under the Obama Administration.
That’s what I mean by the “two headed policy:” arguing for voting rights for minorities in one courtroom while simultaneously ignoring the human and civil rights of migrants in the next courtroom. Arguing for the right to vote in one case, while arguing (apparently with a straight face) that toddlers who can’t speak English have no right to legal representation in the next case.
Not only that, but with the Biden Administration apparently looking to rapidly fill upcoming Article III vacancies, the Obama DOJ’s mishandling of the Immigration Courts has deprived President Biden of the chance to draw from a diverse group of younger, progressive Immigration Judges whose practical scholarship, commitment to human rights and due process, courage, and proven ability to function in a “high stress” judicial setting would make them strong candidates for the now-reeling Article III Judiciary.
That’s certainly not to say that there aren’t some potential progressive candidates for the Article III Judiciary among today’s present, and particularly recently “retired,” (some essentially “forced out” at relatively young ages as a “matter of conscience”) Immigration Judges. There are! But, only a fraction of the number there would have been if the Obama Administration had taken the Immigration Courts with proper seriousness.
And, that’s leaving aside the lives that could have been saved and better jurisprudence that could have been “institutionalized” with better, merit-based, judicial selections at EOIR during the Obama Administration!
I sincerely hope that Vanita Gupta and Kristen Clarke can help Judge Garland get the job done at Justice. The “human rights/immigration world” will be cheering for you. Getting some of the folks from the New Due Process Army(“NDPA”) into key positions at EOIR and the rest of the DOJ will be an “early signal” of whether or not “Team Garland gets it.”
Removing McHenry at EOIR was a good start! But, it’s only a small step in what has to be done to make racial justice and immigrant justice a reality at the DOJ. The “brooms and plungers” 🧹🚽 need to come out, and the sweeping and plunging has to be quick and widespread.
On the other hand, there is “no patience for another Obama Administration” out here in the real world. Every day, EOIR and DOJ are killing folks, ruining lives, and abusing the brave and dedicated attorneys of the NDPA! If the rhetoric doesn’t produce short term results and drastic improvements, you can expect the same type of aggressive litigation from the NDPA that stopped the defeated regime from completely destroying the U.S. justice system.
On Jan. 21, minibuses of contractors in hi-viz vests were still bumping along the dirt road they had built for themselves in the high desert village of Campo, California, an hour east of San Diego. Less than 24 hours before, the newly inaugurated President Joe Biden had signed an executive order declaring that “the national emergency declared by Proclamation 9844 … is terminated and that the authorities invoked in that proclamation will no longer be used to construct a wall at the southern border.”
The Trump administration’s border wall project arrived in Campo in early 2020. The area is rugged and rolling, studded with oak trees and sagebrush. It couldn’t be more different from the bustling beaches and boardwalks most people associate with San Diego.
Into this landscape came contractors who were working with dynamite and heavy machinery 24 hours a day, with funding from both the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Defense. The latter money came through the executive order rescinded by Biden, in which Trump had claimed an emergency that even he admitted was not necessary. In 2020, the emergency spending accounted for $676 million in San Diego and El Centro counties.
The borderlands in eastern San Diego County, like every inch of the United States, are the ancestral homelands of Indigenous people. San Diego County has the highest number of reservations in the country, and the Kumeyaay people lived on this land long before the border came. Over the past year, they have been fighting a 30-foot steel wall that tears through the fragile high desert and divides Kumeyaay living north of the wall from their relatives to the south.
From a vantage point on top of a peak in eastern San Diego County, the wall stretches out as a physical manifestation of the brutality and ugliness of Donald Trump’s vision of American greatness. Sagebrush bushes, which survive in a region that can kill you with heat in the summer and cold in the winter, are held back by a rusty barbed wire fence next to a double-wide dirt road which runs alongside the towering steel spine of the wall proper. The wall stands on a deep concrete foundation, backed by the empty brownness of the roadway. No effort has been made aesthetically or ecologically to make this wall belong here. It’s as if the land, plants, and animals have drawn back in revulsion at the intrusion. On the other side of the newly created dead zone, bushes and plants grow right up to the border.
. . . .
Border Patrol agents drive around the area in expensive trucks, on an expensive road, next to a barrier that cost billions of dollars, all to keep the poorest people on the planet from asking us for help. In 2018, I spent time volunteering with a migrant caravan that had arrived in Tijuana and watched U.S. Department of Homeland Security employees launch tear gas over this wall at kids who couldn’t afford shoes.
Passages for the wall have been blasted out of the fragile landscape of California’s desert, causing drainage problems, disrupting migration pathways for the area’s wildlife, and leaving huge piles of rubble. Further east, there are half-finished roads that lead to nowhere, designed to allow contractors to deploy huge machinery against the defenseless landscape. They’re now just even-more-obvious illustrations of the ridiculous nature of the whole project.
Even before the roads run out, there are gaps in the wall. Construction stepped up in the months before the election to allow for Trump to make ever more ridiculous claims about miles of wall built, sometimes this meant harder-to-build areas were skipped or two crews worked on a wall that didn’t quite meet in the middle. It would be funny if it weren’t so ugly and pointless.
. . . .
*******************
Read the complete article at the link.
The unfinished wall is also a monument to:
The failure of the Supremes to stand up for democracy and the rule of law in the face of tyranny “supported” by blatantly bogus “pretexts;” and
The failure of our national values.
With respect to the latter, there is nothing that will bring the world’s greatest and richest “superpower” to its knees more quickly than a ragtag band of desperate unarmed humans yearning to breathe free 🗽and seeking legal protection ⚖️🧑🏽⚖️under our system! How dare they assert their legal rights and their humanity!
A girl peers out from an encampment at the U.S.-Mexico border where she and several hundred people waited to present themselves to U.S. immigration to seek asylum. / Photo by David MaungMolly O’Toole Immigration Reporter LA Times Source: LA Times website
Tuesday’s directives mandate a review, but do not end, the Remain in Mexico policy, which Biden had said he would rescind on his first day in office. Officially termed the Migrant Protection Protocols, or MPP, it has forced roughly 70,000 asylum seekers back to Mexico to wait in some of the world’s most dangerous cities for immigration court hearings in the U.S. that have been largely suspended since the Trump administration effectively closed the border last March, citing COVID-19.
Human Rights First has recorded at least 1,134 public reports of murder, torture, rape and kidnapping against asylum seekers returned to Mexico under MPP. Thousands have given up.
On Jan. 20, the Homeland Security Department announced that no new asylum seekers would be subjected to MPP, telling some 30,000 migrants left in limbo at the border by Trump that they should “remain where they are, pending further official information from government officials.”
Tuesday’s directives, as described by the officials, provide little additional clarity as to how the Biden administration will process those already subjected to MPP, along with thousands of others waiting.
Ensuring that MPP and other cases are processed “humanely” while safeguarding public health amid a pandemic is “fairly complicated,” one senior official said.
“I can’t tell you exactly how long it will take to have an alternative to that policy,” the other senior official said. Those under MPP will “certainly be taken into account because of the length of time they’ve waited and the conditions they are waiting in.”
On Monday, the administration effectively dropped appeals by the Trump administration in lawsuits against MPP and the diversion of billions in federal funds for border barrier construction. The acting Homeland Security head asked the Supreme Court to remove both cases, scheduled for oral arguments later this month, from its docket.
The Biden administration has not yet said what it will do with the effective closure of the border by the Trump administration under Title 42, which Tuesday’s directives do not address. The officials Monday cited ongoing litigation over the policy for the lack of action.
Under Title 42, Trump officials rapidly expelled hundreds of thousands of migrants, including asylum seekers and unaccompanied children, without due process. Whistleblowers at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said the Trump White House pushed the order for political, not public health, reasons.
On Tuesday, Biden also will take steps to restore Obama-era pathways allowing vulnerable groups in Central American to apply for admission to the U.S. from within the region, officials said.
. . . .
*********************
Read the rest of Molly’s detailed analysis of President Biden’s latest executive actions on immigration at the link.
Wonder how many more will be murdered, raped, tortured, kidnapped, robbed, extorted, get sick, or give up while their fate is being studied? Out of sight, (somewhat) out of mind. Just ask the Supremes’ majority! As long as the bodies aren’t on OUR doorsteps and we don’t have to listen to the moans, groans, and screams of the abused.
Five things that could be done immediately, without study:
Vacate all the anti-asylum precedents from the AG and the BIA since 2016;
Assign some Immigration Judges whose “TRAC Record” shows that they understand asylum law and aren’t afraid to grant protection to hear any scheduled MPP cases;
Replace the BIA (or at least create an “MPP Appeals Panel”) with judges who have demonstrated excellence and expertise in asylum law;
Do not go forward with any MPP case involving an unrepresented applicant;
Bar the issuance of “in absentia orders” in MPP cases.
“Floaters — How The World’s Richest Country Responds To Asylum Seekers” EDS NOTE: GRAPHIC CONTENT – The bodies of Salvadoran migrant Oscar Alberto Mart??nez Ram??rez and his nearly 2-year-old daughter Valeria lie on the bank of the Rio Grande in Matamoros, Mexico, Monday, June 24, 2019, after they drowned trying to cross the river to Brownsville, Texas. Martinez’ wife, Tania told Mexican authorities she watched her husband and child disappear in the strong current. (AP Photo/Julia Le Duc)Dumping Asylum Seekers in Honduras Artist: Monte Wolverton Reproduced under license
Last week, 9000 Hondurans were beaten and tear-gassed in Guatemala as they tried to make their way to the U.S. border. More will be coming. The Biden administration just introduced the most comprehensive immigration bill since Ronald Reagan and also hopes to embark on a new strategy for the Northern Triangle of El Salvador, Honduras and Guatemala.
This is undisputedly good news for a region ravaged by two Category 5 hurricanes in 2 weeks and an economy devastated by the Covid pandemic. But, unless that aid directly addresses the rampant corruption that has taken hold in the region, it will not stop thousands of desperate people from fleeing countries that give them little hope to survive much less flourish.
Make no mistake, it is corruption that has stolen hope from the region. Elites steal from school and hospital budgets to fund political campaigns and line pockets. Politicians give family members and supporters coveted government positions that should go to those most qualified. Police are bribed and threatened to look away while drug traffickers and gangs shatter communities.
Until this staggering systemic corruption is dismantled and the education, health and security institutions strengthened, Central Americans have little reason to hope for a future in their own countries.
During his presidential campaign, Joe Biden issued just one policy position for the Western Hemisphere and it was on Central America. In it he proposed a number of worthy initiatives, but one merits special consideration– a Central American anti-corruption commission that operates outside the control of the elites who are most threatened by its existence.
To be successful, this commission must learn from past experiences in Guatemala (CICIG), Honduras (MACCIH) and El Salvador (CICIES). While the first two enjoyed significant success, as soon as U.S. and local political pressure waned even a little, the local elites joined together to expel them.
. . . .
Authors! James D. Nealon is a former U.S. Ambassador to Honduras and Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security. Eric L. Olson is a Wilson Center Global Fellow. Kurt Alan Ver Beek is Co-Founder and President of the Association for a More Just Society – Honduras
********************
Easier said than done. Many of the corrupt governing elites in Central America have close ties to our Government. They aren’t lightly going to let foreign assistance, whether from governments, NGOs, or private agencies go anywhere but their own pockets.
Also, Republicans in Congress have shown no willingness to deal with the overt corruption, grafting, and grafting of the Trump regime.
But the article is spot on about two things. Most Central American migration is driven by political punishment and exploitation of the people by corrupt government elites and those allied with them (gangs, in many instances). Far from being “random violence” or “common crime” as many restrictionists and border bureaucrats claim, it’s simply a variation of classic political, ethnic, and social group persecution. Those fleeing this abuse are refugees. Only by abdicating the law, intentionally skewing it, and too often just overtly violating it (sometimes with the complicity of courts, sometimes in violation of court orders) has our Government been able to avoid granting them the legal protection they deserve.
Second, desperate refugees are going to continue to come as long as they perceive it’s safer here than in their broken home countries or any of the other countries they will have to cross to get there. No walls, prisons, death at the border, violations of domestic and international law, racist rhetoric, illegal deportations, child abuse, misogyny or or other cruel, inhuman, and immoral policies will stop human migration.
We know roughly how many have been illegally returned and imprisoned. We have some “guesstimates” as to how many additional border crossers our failed policies have killed.
But, we have little or no idea how many have taken to heart our message about the falseness of our claim to be a “nation of laws” and the readily apparent bankruptcy of our legal system. Undoubtedly, those who “get it” have or will in the future simply keep crossing the border until they die in process or get to the interior where their chances of melding in and surviving are much better than their chances of getting a asylum or other protections from an EOIR that still appears to be carrying out the Steven Miller White Nationalist agenda.
The “government policies” of actively discouraging and punishing asylum applicants who apply in an orderly way at the border is as insanely stupid as it is cruel and illegal. Actually, allowing individuals to apply for asylum at the border “regardless of status” is a hallmark of the Refugee Act of 1980!
A few thousand desperate refugees who walk here from Central America pose no realistic threat to America or our national security. They merely detract attention from the real threats: armed right wing insurrectionists launching a deadly attack on our Capitol, right wing domestic terrorists energized by Trump, and maskless “magamorons” running around spreading deadly disease.
Process those applying at the border promptly under the appropriate generous legal criteria after giving them access to trained asylum advocates. Admit those who qualify after proper health and security screening. Work with the UNHCR and NGOs on how to handle those who don’t meet refugee criteria. Just aimlessly returning them to danger zones in the middle of a pandemic is obviously a nonstarter. So, we’re going to need smarter people, with real expertise and a humanitarian outlook, working on better solutions. We know lots about what DOESN’T work. Now, we need to come up with what WILL work.
Dumping Asylum Seekers in Honduras Artist: Monte Wolverton Reproduced under license“Floaters — How The World’s Richest Country Responds To Asylum Seekers” EDS NOTE: GRAPHIC CONTENT – The bodies of Salvadoran migrant Oscar Alberto Mart??nez Ram??rez and his nearly 2-year-old daughter Valeria lie on the bank of the Rio Grande in Matamoros, Mexico, Monday, June 24, 2019, after they drowned trying to cross the river to Brownsville, Texas. Martinez’ wife, Tania told Mexican authorities she watched her husband and child disappear in the strong current. (AP Photo/Julia Le Duc)
Here’s the opinion, with no discernible rationale for this unprincipled and irrational action:
Here’s the “death to children” ☠️⚰️ panel: Katsas, Rao, and Walker, Circuit Judges. As long as it’s not THEIR children . . . .
Bad things happen to countries that make child abuse an “official policy” and reward child abusers with lifetime judicial appointments!
The Biden Administration needs to move quickly to get a handle on what’s happening in their name at the border. Also, might want to take a look at the Government lawyers who defend the indefensible in Federal Court.
Better Judges For a Better America! No more child abusers on the Federal Bench!
🇺🇸⚖️🗽Due Process Forever! Child Abusing Circuit Judges🤮, Never!
“The BIA erred in imposing evidentiary requirements of ongoing injury or treatment beyond the sexual assault itself in order to show persecution. Kaur’s credible testimony about the attempted gang rape is sufficient to show persecution. Attempted rape by a gang of men, in broad daylight on a public street, is especially terrorizing because it powerfully demonstrates the perpetrator’s domination, control over the victim and imperviousness to the law. Requiring evidence of additional harms both minimizes the gravity of the sexual assault and demeans the victim. We grant Kaur’s petition for review and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
[Hats off to Douglas Jalaie!]
1st Calls Out Violation Of Regs, Incredibly Stupid Denial Of Reopening For Approved U Visa Petition Beneficiary Waiting For “Number:”
“Eyore In Distress” Once A Symbol of Fairness, Due Process, & Best Practices, Now Gone “Belly Up”
“Petitioner Carlos Antonio Granados Benitez seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA” or “Board”) denial of his motion to reopen his removal proceedings and to remand to the immigration judge (“IJ”) for further consideration in light of the fact that he had been placed on a waiting list by United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) for a U-1 nonimmigrant visa (“U visa”) pursuant to the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act (“VTVPA”), Pub. L. No. 106-386, § 1513(a)(2)(A), (b), 114 Stat. 1464 (2000) (codified as amended at 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(U)). Because we find that the BIA abused its discretion, in that it failed to render a reasoned decision that accords with its own precedent and policies, and it further failed to consider the position of its sister agency Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”), we grant the petition. In so holding we join the views of the Seventh Circuit in Guerra Rocha v. Barr, 951 F.3d 848, 852- 54 (7th Cir. 2020).”
[Hats off to Paige Austin, with whom Philip L. Torrey, Make the Road New York, and the Harvard Law School Crimmigration Clinic were on brief, for petitioner, and Brian D. Straw, Gregory E. Ostfeld, and Greenberg Traurig, LLP on brief for ASISTA Immigration Assistance, Asian Pacific Institute on Gender-Based Violence, National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, National Network to End Domestic Violence, Safe Horizon, and Tahirih Justice Center, amici curiae!]
3rd “Perplexed” By BIA’s Ignorance Of “Equitable Tolling,” Own Authority:
“Hey, guys, ever hear of something called “equitable tolling?” “Nah, is it spelled D-E-N-I-E-D?” “Equitable TROLLING,” I’ve heard of that?”https://www.flickr.com/photos/rasputin243/ Creative Commons License
“Because Nkomo properly raised equitable tolling before the BIA, the BIA erred in failing to consider her request for equitable tolling on the merits. We remand for the Board to do so in the first instance.”
“The BIA’s suggestion that it does not have the authority to make decisions on equitable grounds is perplexing. The BIA has authority to equitably toll the deadline for motions to reopen the precise relief Nkomo sought.”
Demeaning rape victims! ☠️🤮👎🏻 So, what else is new @ EOIR? “Gonzo” Sessions 🦹🏿♂️ set the tone for anti-asylum, racially motivated misogyny in Matter of A-B- and “his judges” have taken it from there! (I repeat my oft-made observation: What kind of “due process” system lets a characters like Sessions, Whitaker, and Barr “own” judges? How would you like to be a woman on trial for her life before a “judge” selected, directed, and “owned” by the likes of these men with clear records of “applied contempt” for equal justice? Sessions, Whitaker, Barr, & Jeffrey Rosen are gone — but their legacy of bias and injustice lives on @ EOIR!)
One of my esteemed Round Table 🛡⚔️ colleagues summed up the latest set of outrageous miscarriages of justice from Falls Church:
All of these decisions demonstrate the degree of careful and detailed analysis that these cases require.And yet the BIA couldn’t keep staff attorneys after McHenry capped them at GS-13 (entry level), and keeps increasing the monthly quotas for BIA staff attorneys.Plus of course the Board Members themselves are now all these types who only review the decisions to make sure they end in the word “dismissed.”
If you were trying to create a recipe for disaster, you couldn’t have planned it better.
I heard the latter comment twice yesterday from immigration/human rights/due process experts on opposite sides of our country who observe and participate in the system at various levels.
To quote Justice Sotomayor’s recent dissent: “This is not justice.”
Historical Footnote:One of my first actions as BIA Chair in 1995 was to establish a “GS-15 Career Ladder” for all Attorney Advisors at the BIA. This made the BIA competitive with the rest of the DOJ.
It allowed us to attract and retain not only “top talent” coming from the “DOJ Honors Program” (how I got my first job at the BIA in 1973), but also outstanding career attorneys who wanted an opportunity to do research, writing, and “applied scholarship” that made a difference in individuals’ lives. Indeed, at various times the BIA has had on its staff former Senior Executives seeking a “change of focus” to a career that allowed them to do the things they liked best about the law.
One of them was a former SES colleague at the “Legacy INS” who found in transferring to a GS-15 BIA Attorney Advisor position a career satisfaction, fulfillment, and sense of meaningful contribution that person had been missing in INS management at that time.
Reducing the top grade for Attorney Advisors is not only professionally and personally demeaning, it also marks the entire organization as “second class” and shows just how stupid and incompetent (and, in recent history, overpaid) EOIR “management” has become! And, as pointed out in my colleague’s comments above, it has not only adversely affected careers but the human lives in the balance on the BIA’s docket.
As I understood my “mission” from then Attorney General Janet Reno in 1995, the BIA was supposed to be about “attracting the best and the brightest judges and supporting them with the best and brightest staff.” Essentially getting it to function like the “12th Circuit” was a description mentioned during my interview process for the Chair job.
Sadly, now, it has become an assembly line of expediency, injustice, shoddy legal work, mindless “corner cutting,” unprofessional behavior, and human misery.
To repeat my colleague’s comment: “If you were trying to create a recipe for disaster, you couldn’t have planned it better.”
All of these cases should have been resolved in the foreign national’s favor without ever getting to the Courts of Appeals! Bad judging, grossly incompetent administration, and lack of qualified, dynamic, judicial leadership from respected “practical scholars” costs lives, produces unacceptable and unfair inconsistencies, and clogs the Article III Courts with unnecessary litigation.
Indeed, the First Circuit’s decision in Granados basically reveals OIL’s “smorgasbord” of bogus arguments to uphold the BIA’s incorrect decision as “without merit” — actually frivolous! There are deep problems @ DOJ resulting from the ongoing corruption and disregard for ethics and professional leadership from the now-departed kakistocracy! They go far beyond the mess at EOIR!
Sure hope that Judge Garland, Vanita Gupta, and their incoming team @ DOJ have a comprehensive plan for replacing the BIA and reforming EOIR! The human beings suffering in this disgracefully inept and abusive “court system” and their courageous, long suffering attorneys are counting on you! Think of it this way: What if YOUR daughter were the rape victim demeaned, dehumanized, and denied justice by EOIR?
Professor Ingrid Eagly UCLA Law PHOTO: TwitterSteven Shafter, Esquire Managing Attorney Esperanza Immigrant Rights Project Los Angeles, CA Photo: Esperanza website
Aaron Reichlin-Melnick Policy Counsel American Immigration Council Photo: TwitterMe
PRESS RELEASE
11 Years of Government Data Reveal That Immigrants Do Show Up for Court
WASHINGTON—A new report released today by the American Immigration Council examines 11 years of government data on the rate at which immigrants appear for hearings in U.S. immigration court. The report, “Measuring In Absentia Removal in Immigration Court,” concludes that an overwhelming 83% of immigrants attend their immigration court hearings, and those who fail to appear in court often did not receive notice or faced hardship in getting to court.
As the new administration of President Joe Biden considers how to reform the immigration system, including the immigration courts, this report reveals how reliance on detention, access to legal representation, and immigration judges’ docket management impact immigrants’ appearance rate.
The report draws on government data from 2,797,437 immigration court removal proceedings held between 2008 to 2018. It documents how individuals who were never detained and those who were released from detention proceeded through court and what obstacles they faced in pursuing their immigration cases.
The report finds that people released from immigration detention and individuals with attorneys overwhelmingly attend their hearings. Data also show that immigration judges have a vital role in maintaining due process. The findings further demonstrate that the creation of an independent structure for the immigration courts would help reduce the prevalence of unwarranted in absentia removal orders and give immigration judges more discretion in managing their dockets and individual case decisions.
The main findings of the report include:
83% of nondetained immigrants with completed or pending removal cases attended all of their hearings.
96% of nondetained immigrants represented by a lawyer attended all of their hearings.
15% of those who were ordered deported because they did not appear in court successfully reopened their cases and had their removal orders rescinded. In some years, as many as 20% of all orders of removal for missing court were later overturned.
Individuals who apply for relief from removal have especially high rates of appearance.
Appearance rates vary strongly based on the immigration court’s location.
The Executive Office for Immigration Review’s method for measuring the rate at which immigrants fail to appear in court presents a limited picture of the frequency of missed court appearances.
“The empirical research presented in this report debunks the myth that immigrants don’t show up for court,” said Ingrid Eagly, professor of Law at UCLA School of Law. “Relying on the government’s own immigration court data, co-author Steven Shafer and I find that, since 2008, 83% of all immigrants in nondetained deportation cases have attended all of their court hearings. In addition, over the 11 years of our study, 96% individuals represented by an attorney attended all of their court hearings.”
“Today’s report verifies what those who have worked in the immigration court system already knew: immigrants overwhelmingly show up in court. We hope that this data finally puts to rest a false narrative about immigrants’ appearance rates that past administrations used to justify restrictive and cruel immigration policies,” said Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, policy counsel at the American Immigration Council. “After previous administrations spent years funding immigration enforcement to address a small set of individuals who miss court, the Biden administration has the opportunity change course. To ensure even higher appearance rates, the new administration should focus on updating immigration court technology, providing better resources to orient immigrants, and working to ensure that all immigrants navigating our removal system are represented by counsel. As Congress debates immigration reform, this report shows that it’s time to revisit harsh and punitive laws that require judges to enter deportation orders for a single missed hearing and which limit the ability of the government to appoint counsel.”
“The findings of this timely report confirm what many of us formerly on the immigration bench have known for years: represented asylum seekers appearing before fair, knowledgeable judges show up for virtually all of their immigration court hearings,” said Paul Wickham Schmidt, former immigration judge and board member for the Board of Immigration Appeals. “The findings refute one of the many ‘big lies’ and ‘bogus narratives’ promoted by the last administration to demean and dehumanize asylum seekers and wrongfully deprive them of their legal and constitutional rights. The Biden administration should pursue changes that would provide immigration judges greater independence and discretion and support the creation of an independent structure for the immigration courts.”
Lies promoted by Government officials and turned into cruel, counterproductive, and biased policies cost lives and undermine our system of justice!
A stunning 96% of represented respondents appear for all hearings! The obvious step for the Biden Administration is to “repurpose” resources squandered by the defeated kakistocracy’s cruel, expensive, ineffective “enforcement gimmicks” like detention in the “New American Gulag,” ludicrous Immigration Judge “dashboards,” walls, bogus protocols, and illegal anti-asylum rules and instead invest in public-private partnerships to achieve universal representation. Building on existing programs, it should be possible to get all respondents represented by trained and competent counsel or accredited representatives.
Notably, Professor Michele Pistone @ Villanova already runs VIISTA, an innovative, first class asylum litigation training program for accredited representatives. Put some Federal grant money into expanding it to meet the need for representation throughout America. These are “obvious steps” ignored by a captive “court system” run by malicious incompetents implementing a White Nationalist agenda.
Professor Michele Pistone Villanova Law
Combined with a restoration of the rule of law at EOIR and rational DHS enforcement priorities, that’s the way to establish manageable Immigration Court dockets compliant with Due Process and fundamental fairness. Create a model court system that will be a source of pride, rather than a national disgrace.
Of course a legislatively-enacted, independent, professionally administered expert Article I Immigration Court is absolutely necessary. But, due process and fundamental fairness can’t wait! Lives and futures, not to mention our national values, are at stake. Judge Garland must end the dysfunction and start making urgently needed improvements @ EOIR immediately!
Removing (former) Director McHenry — who promoted the kakistocracy’s anti-immigrant myths, bogus statistics, and “worst management practices” — is a great start. But, it’s certainly not the end of the urgent changes that must be made to implement Due Process and professional court administration at EOIR. In particular, the current BIA is a due process, human rights, and asylum expertise “disaster zone!”
PANEL: THACKER, RICHARDSON, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.
OPINION BY: JUDGE QUATTLEBAUM
DISSENT: JUDGE RICHARDSON
KEY QUOTE FROM MAJORITY:
Juan Carlos Amaya, a citizen of El Salvador, seeks to avoid deportation to that country, fearing persecution on account of membership in the PSG “former Salvadoran MS-13 members.”1 Appellant’s Br. at 13–16. For that reason, he argued to an immigration judge (“IJ”) that his removal from the United States should be withheld.2 After the IJ denied Amaya’s claims, he appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”). The BIA dismissed Amaya’s appeal, determining that the “former Salvadoran MS-13 members” PSG was “too diffuse” to satisfy the particularity requirement. J.A. 4. Assuming we must afford Chevron deference to the BIA’s decision, our question is whether we think the BIA’s decision is reasonable. Because we do not, we grant the petition in part and remand on this ground.
***************
Great opinion by Judge A. Marvin QUATTLEBAUM! He’s a Trump appointee whom I’ve criticized in the past. But, his analysis is “spot on” in this case!
Perhaps the Federal Courts are finally catching on to the BIA’s disingenuous “scissors approach” to PSG. That’s used to “cut off” all PSG asylum claims no matter how meritorious.
Here’s how it works. They incorrectly find that almost all “particularized” social groups fail the “social distinction” test. But, when you prove “social distinction,” they wrongly characterize the social group as too “amorphous” or “vague” to be particularized. In that manner, the BIA and many IJs can manipulate the law to reject proper “particular social groups” and keep their White Nationalist anti-asylum “handlers” at the DOJ happy, which also helps them retain their positions.
It will be interesting to see how that works out for them if, as many of us have recommended, Judge Garland actually puts some Appellate Judges on the BIA who understand asylum law and start applying it fairly, correctly, and in accordance with due process?
In making EOIR appointments, the Obama Administration generally eschewed the “best and brightest” with expertise representing asylum seekers and applying the UN Convention and the Refugee Act of 1980 in accordance with their humanitarian intent, rather as ways to advance a restrictionist agenda of deterring asylum seekers by wrongfully denying their claims. After all, how many asylum seekers are fortunate enough to have a good lawyer like Abdoul Aziz Konare represent them in their asylum cases? Not very many!
No, the average asylum seeker, many in detention and without adequate access to counsel or research materials, gets railroaded out with gobbledegook like “Chevron deference,” too “amorphous,” not “socially visible” and citations to cases even experienced Federal Judges often don’t correctly understand. So, getting asylum tends to depend not so much on the strength of your claim (many of which should be pretty easily grantable unless the IJ is “programmed to deny” — the norm these days), but on your lawyer, your IJ, and whether you are fortunate enough to have access to a thoughtful Article III judge like Judge Quattlebaum in this case. He took the time to figure out the bogus nature of the DOJ’s standard “BS arguments.”
Unfortunately, many Federal Judges would have just “punted” by accepting the “Chevron deference” argument for a “quick kill” without the need for much thought or analysis. After all, Court of Appeals Judges also like to “keep their dockets moving” and what easier victim to “throw under the bus” than an asylum applicant who is going to be deported to a place where he or she will be too busy fighting to stay alive to reflect on the deteriorating quality and lack of concern for fairness in the U.S. Judicial system.
The Trump kakistocracy actually went a long way toward convincing the world that the once widely admired U.S. Justice system is now little more than a “third world sham” — controlled by nationalist politicos, programmed to reject, deny, dehumanize, and operated largely for the exclusive benefit of the rich white ruling class.
I hope that “Team Garland” will “End the EOIR Clown Show” 🤡 and restore integrity to our system. But, so far, it bumbles along chewing up and spitting out hope, humanity, and lives, while mocking any normal understanding of “justice” on a daily basis. Not something I’d want on my watch!
BIA Asylum Panel In Action Albrecht Dürer, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons“She struggled madly in the torturing Ray” Amazing StoriesArtist Unknown, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
A Parting Shot At Women
As the Trump Administration comes to an end, let’s remember how it began. On the day following the inauguration, millions participated in Women’s Marches around the world. There is sadly no need to list the reasons why women in particular would feel the need to respond in such a way to a Trump presidency.
It was therefore no surprise that Trump’s first Attorney General issued a decision intended to strip protection under our asylum laws from women who are victims of domestic violence. That decision, Matter of A-B-, was so soundly rejected by U.S. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit relied on his reasoning to conclude that Sessions’s decision had been abrogated. The First and Ninth Circuits further rejected Sessions’s view that the particular social group relied upon in A-B- was legally unsound. The Eighth Circuit rejected Sessions’s description of the standard for proving a government’s inability or unwillingness to control an abusive spouse, for example, as requiring evidence that the government condones his actions, or is completely helpless to prevent them.
The administration tried to codify the views expressed in A-B- and in another case, Matter of L-E-A-, by issuing proposed regulation designed to completely rewrite our asylum laws, with the purpose of making it virtually impossible for domestic violence and gang violence victims to qualify for asylum protection. Those rules, which were rushed out with very little time for public comment, were blocked on January 8 by a U.S. District Court judge.
There are at least two important cases presently before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit involving the issues raised in both A-B- and L-E-A-. Had these decisions been issued by, e.g., U.S. District Court judges, the Department of Justice would be representing the government (in the form of the Attorney General), but not the judge who issued the decision below. But as to A-B-, the government attorneys represent an Attorney General acting as judge, and a judge with extraordinary powers. As a result of those powers, the official presently filling the position on an acting basis (who had come to the job a few weeks earlier from the Department of Transportation with absolutely no background in immigration law) was able to unilaterally issue a new decision in the case, in an attempt to shore up issues of concern before the circuits.
So what does the new decision of the recent Deputy Transportation Secretary say? It addresses two issues: the “condone or complete helplessness” language used by Sessions, and the proper test for when persecution can be said to be “on account of” an asylum seeker’s gender, familial relationship, or other group membership.
As to the first issue, the Acting AG now states that Sessions did not change the preexisting legal standard for determining whether a government is unwilling or unable to provide protection. The Acting AG accomplishes this by explaining that “condone” doesn’t actually mean condone, and that “complete helplessness” doesn’t mean complete helplessness.
I’m not sure of the need for what follows on the topic. Perhaps there is an Attorney General Style Guide which advises to never be succinct when there are so many more exciting options available. Besides from sounding overly defensive in explaining why Sessions chose to use terms that sure sounded like they raised the standard in order to supposedly signal that he was doing no such thing, the decision also feels the need to remind us of what that preexisting standard is, in spite of the fact that no one other than perhaps a Deputy Transportation Secretary pretending to be an asylum law scholar is in need of such a recap. Yes, we understand there are no crime-free societies, and the failure to prevent every single crime from occurring is not “unwilling or unable.” No court has ever said that it was. Let’s move on.
The second part of this new A-B- decision addresses a conflict between the views of the Fourth Circuit and the BIA in regard to when a nexus is established. This issue arises in all asylum claims, but the BIA addressed it in a case, Matter of L-E-A-, in which an asylum applicant was threatened by a violent gang because it wished to sell drugs in a store owned by his father. The question was whether the asylum seeker’s fear of harm from the gang was “on account of” his familial relationship to his father.
Our laws recognize that persecution can arise for multiple reasons. A 2005 statute requires a showing that one of the five specific bases for a grant of asylum (i.e. race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion) must form “one central reason” for the harm. The BIA itself has defined this to mean that the reason was more than “incidental, tangential, superficial, or subordinate to another reason.”
In the context of family membership, the Fourth Circuit has repeatedly held that this “one central reason” test is satisfied where the family membership formed the reason why the asylum seeker, and not someone else, was targeted for harm. Using the L-E-A- example, the gang members were obviously motivated most of all by their desire for financial gain from the selling of the drugs in the store. But under the Fourth Circuit’s test, the family relationship would also be “one central reason” for the harm, because had the asylum seeker not been the son of the store owner, he wouldn’t have been the one targeted. This is known as a “but for” test, as in “but for” the familial relationship, the asylum seeker wouldn’t have been the one harmed
In L-E-A-, the BIA recognized the Fourth Circuit’s interpretation in a footnote, but added that the case it was deciding didn’t arise under that court’s jurisdiction. The BIA thus went on to create its own test, requiring evidence of an actual animus towards the family. The BIA provided as an example of its new test the assassination of the Romanov family in 1917 Russia, stating that while there were political reasons for the murders, it would be difficult to say that family membership was not one central reason for their persecution.
I’m going to create my own rule here: when you are proposing a particular legal standard, and the judge asks for an example, and all you can come up with is the Romanov family in 1917 Russia, you’re skating on thin ice. The other thing about legal standards is in order for judges to apply them and appeals courts to review them, they have to be understandable. I’m not a student of Russian history, but it would seem to me that (as the BIA acknowledged), the main motive in assassinating the Romanovs was political. I’m not sure what jumps out in that example as evidence of animus towards the family itself. How would one apply the Romanov test to anyone ever appearing in Immigration Court? By comparison, the Fourth Circuit’s test is a very clear one that is easy to apply and review on appeal.
Of course, this is just my humble opinion. The assistant Transportation czar feels differently. Drawing on his extensive minutes of experience in the complex field of asylum, he concluded: “I believe that the Fourth Circuit’s recent interpretation of ‘one central reason’ is not the best reading of the statutory language.”
I am guessing that by saying this in a precedent decision in the final days of this Administration, Transportation guy is hoping that the Fourth Circuit will feel compelled to accord his opinion Brand X deference. Legal scholar Geoffrey Hoffman has pointed out that no such deference is due, as the requirement that the statute be ambiguous is not satisfied. (Geoffrey’s excellent takedown of this same decision can be found here, and is well worth reading).
But the term in question, “on account of,” is also not one requiring agency expertise, which is of course a main justification for judicial deference. It is instead a legal standard not specific to asylum or immigration law.
For example, last June, the Supreme Court decided Bostock v. Clayton County, a case involving employment discrimination based on sexual orientation or identity. In a 6-3 decision authored by Justice Gorsuch, the Court explained that the statutory term in question, “because of,” carries the same legal meaning as “on account of,” the relevant phrase for asylum purposes. In determining nexus, the Court stated:
It doesn’t matter if other factors besides the plaintiff’s sex contributed to the decision. And it doesn’t matter if the employer treated women as a group the same when compared to men as a group. If the employer intentionally relies in part on an individual employee’s sex when deciding to discharge the employee—put differently, if changing the employee’s sex would have yielded a different choice by the employer—a statutory violation has occurred.
That last sentence – “if changing the employee’s sex would have yielded a different choice by the employer” – is essentially the same “but for” standard applied by the Fourth Circuit in the asylum context. What would give an Acting Attorney General the authority to hold otherwise?
A conservative commentator observed a difference between the discrimination required in Bostock and the persecution required in L-E-A-, stating that discrimination can involve favoring one group without necessarily hating the group being passed over, whereas persecuting someone requires an animus towards them.
However, the BIA recognized nearly 25 years ago that persecution can be found in harm resulting from actions intended to overcome a characteristic of the victim, and that no subjective punitive or malignant intent is required. The BIA acknowledged this in L-E-A-, noting that a punitive intent is not required.
Furthermore, the legislative history of the REAL ID Act (which created the requirement in question) shows that Congress amended the original proposed requirement that the protected ground be “the central motive” for the harm, to the final language requiring that it be “one central reason.”1 While animus would fall under “motive,” “reason” covers the type of causation central to the Fourth Circuit’s “but for” test. The history seems to undermine the former Transportation official’s claim that under the Fourth Circuit’s test, the “one central reason” language would be “mere surplusage.” This is untrue, as that additional language serves to clarify that the reason can be one of many (as opposed to “the” reason), and that the relevant issue is reason and not motive. Perhaps the author required more than three weeks at the Department of Justice to understand this.
I write this on the last full day of the Trump presidency. Let’s hope that all of the decisions issued by this administration will be vacated shortly; that the BIA will soon be comprised of fair and independent immigration law scholars (preferably as part of an independent Article I Immigration Court), and that future posts will document a much more enlightened era of asylum adjudication.
Note:
1. See Deborah Anker, The Law of Asylum in the United States (Thomson Reuters) at § 5:12.See also Ndayshimiye v. Att’y Gen. of U.S., 557 F.3d 124 (3d Cir. 2009) (recounting the legislative history and rejecting a dominance test for determining “one central reason”).
Hon. Jeffrey S. Chase Jeffrey S. Chase Blog Coordinator & Chief Spokesperson, Round Table of Former Immigration Judges
Copyright 2021 Jeffrey S. Chase. All rights reserved.
Republished by permission.
***************
Judge Garland and his team must address systemic failures at the dysfunctional DOJ well beyond the festering, unconstitutional mess @ EOIR (“The Clown Show” 🤡) that requires an immediate “remove and replace.” The ethical failings, bad lawyering, dilatory litigating tactics, anti-American attitudes, racism, misogyny, intellectual dishonesty, coddling of authoritarianism, and complicity in the face of tyranny are in every corner of the disgraced Department.
Withdrawal of every bogus, biased, unconstitutional, racist- motivated “precedent” issued during the Trump regime and turning the proper development and fair interpretation of immigration and asylum laws over to a “new BIA” — consisting of real judges who are widely recognized and respected experts in immigration, human rights, and due process — must be a “day one” priority for Judge Garland and his team.
The Clown Show🤡🦹🏿♂️ that has made mincemeat out of American justice — not to mention legal ethics and human morality — must go! And, the problem goes far beyond the “Falls Church Circus!”🎪🤹
🇺🇸⚖️🗽Due Process Forever! Institutionalized misogyny, 🤮☠️never! No more Jeffrey Rosens @ DOJ —ever!
And, firms like Kirkland & Ellis need to think twice about re-employing a sleazy “empty suit” like Rosen who represents everything that is wrong with American law in the 21st century! Public disgrace should not be mistaken for “public service.”
“Normalizing” political toadies, “senior executives,” government “lawyers,” and other “public officials” who carried the water and willingly (often, as in Rosen’s case, enthusiastically, gratuitously, and totally unnecessarily) advanced the objectives of a White Nationalist, anti-American regime whose disgraceful and toxic rule ended in a violent, unhinged, failed insurrection against our democracy encouraged by a Traitor-President, his supporters, and members of the GOP would be a HUGE, perhaps fatal, mistake!
Make no mistake about it! Brave, determined refugee women like Ms. A-B- and her lawyers (superstars like Professor Karen Musalo and Blaine Bookey of the Center for Gender and Refugee Studies) are the true American heroes 🦸🏻 of the resistance to White Nationalist, racist, xenophobic policies of cruelty, hate, and disparaging of the rule of law. Toadies and traitors like Rosen are the eternal villains!🦹🏿♂️ Picking on refugees on the way out the door is an act of supreme cowardice that will live in infamy!🐓🤮
President-elect Joe Biden will roll out a sweeping overhaul of nation’s immigration laws the day he is inaugurated, including an eight-year pathway to citizenship for immigrants without legal status and an expansion of refugee admissions, along with an enforcement plan that deploys technology to patrol the border.
Biden’s legislative proposal, which will be sent to Congress on Wednesday, also includes a heavy focus on addressing the root causes of migration from Central America, a key part of Biden’s foreign policy portfolio when he served as vice president.
The centerpiece of the plan from Biden and Vice President-elect Kamala D. Harris is the eight-year pathway, which would put millions of qualifying immigrants in a temporary status for five years and then grant them a green card once they meet certain requirements such as a background check and payment of taxes. They would be able to apply for citizenship three years later.
. . . .
The focus on Central America reflects the message that Biden has relayed to senior officials in the region: that he will advocate for policy changes aimed at what drives scores of migrants there to come to the United States illegally to seek safe harbor.
“Ultimately, you cannot solve problems of migration unless you attack the root causes of what causes that migration,” one official said, pointing to the various reasons — from economic to safety — that drive migrants to flee their home countries. “He knows that in particular is the case in Central America.”
Transition officials are aware of recent reports of the increased numbers of migrants at or heading to the border in anticipation of the end of Trump’s presidency, and urged them to stay in their home countries. They emphasized that newly arriving immigrants would not qualify for the legalization program that Biden proposes.
Biden wants to move the refugee and asylum systems “back to a more humane and orderly process,” the official said. But “it’s also been made clear that that isn’t a switch you flip overnight from the 19th to the 20th, especially when you’re working with agencies and processes that have been so gutted by the previous administration.”
Biden hopes to reinstate a program granting minors from Central America temporary legal residence in the United States. The Trump administration terminated the program in August 2017, officials said. The administration also wants to set up a reunification program for Central American relatives of U.S. citizens that would allow those who have been already approved for U.S. residency to be admitted into the country, rather than waiting at home for an opening. The program would be similar to ones that existed for Cubans and Haitians but also were ended by the Trump administration.
The Biden proposal also would put in place a refugee admissions program at multiple processing centers abroad that would better help identify and screen those who would qualify to be admitted as refugees into the United States.
As for border enforcement, the plan calls on the Department of Homeland Security to develop a proposal that uses technology and other similar infrastructure to implement new security measures along the border, both at and between ports of entry. Biden has long vowed not to expand the border wall Trump has marginally extended.
“This is not a wall; this is not taking money from [the Department of Defense],” a transition official said, referring to how Trump helped to finance his wall after pledging Mexico would pay for it. “It’s a very different approach.”
. . . .
**************
Read the complete article at the link.
This is a welcome change from the poorly conceived, often ill-informed approach to immigration by the Obama Administration. It appears that Biden and Harris have actually “listened to the experts” and acted a accordingly.
The concentration on addressing the reality of Central American migration and dealing honestly and constructively with its root causes in a sensible and humane way is also refreshing. Using intelligence and technology to address real border security issues (as opposed to squandering resources on politically manufactured ones) also shows promise.
Julia Edwards Ainsley NBC Correspondent Justice & DHS Outside Justice Dep’t Photo: Victoria Pickering https://www.flickr.com/photos/vpickering/
Many of the latter wereenergized by the Trump/DHS program of White Nationalist racist fear-mongering and intentionally false anti-immigrant, anti-due-process narratives. That’s what “applied malicious incompetence” looks like — DHS and EOIR are two of the most egregious examples in a regime that raised it to an “art form.” It will take an aggressive and far-reaching “house cleaning” to get these agencies that have abandoned the common good and now operate “on the dark side” back on track.
The immediate “knee-jerk opposition” to rational, practical, fact-based immigration reform by notorious White Nationalist racist Sen. Tom Cotton (R-ARK) shows that Team Biden is on the right track to disavow the toxic institutionalized racism and biased policies of the Trump regime and move America along the path to racial justice and realistic, progressive immigration policies that will further the national interest and lead to a better future for all!
It’s a great, if long overdue, start to getting beyond Jim Crow and “Dred Scottification” and saving and enhancing our democracy! But, the proof will be in the results!
Biden, of course, will also face the formidable challenges of dealing with the human carnage left behind by the Trump regime’s disastrous mis-handling of COVID-19, economic inequality, the environment, racial justice, and foreign policy where American “prestige” has plummeted to levels not seen since the days of the Barbary Pirates.
He also must address a failing Federal Justice System that, particularly at its appellate levels, did not effectively stand up to the Trump regime’s unrelenting assault on human decency and American democracy. Indeed, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, a consistently competent and courageous Justice among our failing Supremes, offered this final harsh but true assessment of her GOP colleagues’ malfeasance in a death penalty case: “This is not justice.”https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/not-justice-justice-sonia-sotomayor-offers-fierce-dissent-death-penalty-n1254554
You could say that about almost everything in the departing, defeated White Nationalist regime!
I’ll note for the record that among other things, the Supremes’ tone-deaf majority has been responsible for letting bona fide asylum seekers rot in squalor in camps in Mexico while waiting for non-existent “due process,” and also authorized the imposition of potential death sentences and torture on asylum seekers within our jurisdiction without any whit of due process.
The GOP majority’s disgraceful failure to stand up for voting rights of African Americans, Latinos, and other voters of color has also deepened racial injustice in America and helped usher in a horrible “Jim Crow Revival” pushed, incited, and enabled by the GOP, “The Party of the Failed Insurrection.”
Any competent first-year law student might ask “How could this happen in America?” That’s a question that Roberts and his gang of fellow Trump enablers and apologists will have to answer before the “court of history!”
President-elect Joe Biden will name Katie Tobin as the senior director for transborder security on the National Security Council, according to multiple sources familiar with the appointment.
. . . .
That Tobin would be offered a job that usually prioritizes border security over the plight of asylum seekers or refugees could signal how the Biden administration sees that role. It could mean a Biden White House will emphasize helping the world’s refugees instead of giving them the cold shoulder like the Trump administration did. Personnel, as they say, is policy.
. . . .
*****************
Read Alex’s complete report at the link.
Katie is a friend and one of my “personal heroes.” A true “Renaissance person,” leader, and inspiration to the “new generation” of public policy/good government advocates, she has accomplished so much good in such a short time!
One of the many things I appreciated about about Katie was her willingness to return to Arlington regularly for our “summer brown bag career series” and inspire the upcoming generation of interns and aspiring lawyers to embrace careers in furthering sane, rational, empirically-soundpolicies that melded immigration with human rights, due process, social justice, and public service!
News like this makes me believe that under President Biden, America is finally back on track for a better and brighter future where courage, expertise, humanity, and practical problem solving for the common good will be respected and encouraged. Real leaders like Katie, with so much to offer America, the world, and humanity willpave the way for a better, brighter future for all!
As one mutual friend and colleague said on learning of the appointment, “The new Administration’s best pick yet!” I concur!
Congrats, Katie! You make us all proud and hopeful for America’s future!🇺🇸🗽⚖️👍🏼
fl-undocumented-minors 2 – Judge Denise Slavin, former executive vice president of the National Association of Immigration Judges in an immigration courtrrom in Miami. Mike Stocker, Sun Sentinel — Judge Slavin is a member of the Round Table of Former Immigration JudgesGW Law Immigration Clinic Director Professor Alberto Benítez & Co-Director Paulina VeraDan Kowalski Online Editor of the LexisNexis Immigration Law Community (ILC)MeYilun Cheng Writer PHOTO: Twitter
From “For Undocumented Immigrants, a Shot at Lawful Residency Requires Risking It All” by Yilun Cheng in Borderless Magazine:
. . . .
The risk has become even higher in recent years as the Trump administration filled the immigration court system with hardline judges, according to Paul Schmidt, a former judge at the U.S. Immigration Court in Arlington, Virginia. For years, legal groups have urged the government to hire judges from diverse backgrounds to guarantee fairness in the courts, but the situation has only deteriorated in recent years, Schmidt said.
. . . .
“The Obama administration was just negligent,” Schmidt said, suspecting that former president Barack Obama left dozens of vacant immigration judgeships when he left the White House. “The new administration got a chance to fill those positions with a far-right judiciary.”
. . . .
“It’s very much a law enforcement-oriented and not a due process-oriented judiciary,” Schmidt said. “It’s just a bad time to be an individual with a case in the immigration court right now, with a bunch of unsympathetic judges, political hacks pulling the strings, and inconsistent COVID policies.”
. . . .
*******************
Read Yilun’s full article at the link.
In the article, my friend and Round Table 🛡⚔️ colleague Judge Denise Slavin gives an excellent description of how “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” operates in a bogus “court” system run by political hacks with enforcement (and in the defeated “regime” racist) motivations.
“Ready to try” cases, many of which could be granted or should be closed, are shuffled off to the end of the docket, some without any notice on the day of trial when the respondent, his or her lawyer, and often witnesses who have taken the day from work arrive only to find out that their case has been “orbited” into the “outer space” of the EOIR backlog.
Meanwhile, cases of individuals who haven’t had time to get lawyers or been granted the preparation time required by due process are put at the front of the docket to make denial of their cases easier for “judges” who have been told that they are basically functionaries of DHS enforcement. Sometimes, the very same lawyers who have had their years-old prepared cases arbitrarily reset to oblivion are then improperly pressured and required to go forward with cases they haven’t had a chance to properly prepare or document.
Often, individuals whose cases are improperly “accelerated” recieve inadequate notice, resulting in carelessly issued, illegal “in absentia” orders that could result in improper removal or at least require heroic efforts by lawyers to get the case reopened and restored to the docket. Meanwhile, the bogus “no-show” statistics caused by the Government’s improper actions are used to build an intentionally false narrative that asylum seekers don’t show at their hearings.
The truth, of course, is the exact opposite: When given a chance to get competent representation and when the system is explained to them in understandable terms, asylum seekers show up for the overwhelming majority of their hearings, regardless of the ultimate result of their cases.
As cogently studied and stated by highly-respected “practical scholar” Professor Ingrid Eagly of UCLA Law and her colleague UCLA empirical researcher Steven Shafer, in a recent published study:
Contrary to claims that all immigrants abscond, our data-driven analysis reveals that 88% of all immigrants in immigration court with completed or pending removal cases over the past eleven years attended all of their court hearings. If we limit our analysis to only nondetained cases, we still find a high compliance rate: 83% of all respondents in completed or pending removal cases attended all of their hearings since 2008. Moreover, we reveal that 15% of those who were ordered deported in absentia since 2008 successfully reopened their cases and had their in absentia orders rescinded. Digging deeper, we identify three factors associated with in absentia removal: having a lawyer, applying for relief from removal (such as asylum), and court jurisdiction.
I’d be willing to bet that at least an equal number of individuals with in absentia orders are illegally deported because they aren’t knowledgeable enough to reopen their cases, or their reopening motions are wrongfully denied but they lack to resources to pursue appeals, which often involve prolonged periods of dangerous and abusive detention.
Obviously, an Administration actually interested in solving problems (presumably “Team Garland”) would “can the false narratives and bogus enforcement gimmicks” and concentrate on getting asylum seekers represented and increasing and raising the quality of judicial review of detention decisions. The regime’s immigration kakistocracy, of course, has moved in exactly the opposite direction.
Cooperation and coordination with the private, often pro bono, bar, essential to any well-functioning court system, has become non-existent. In fact, it is actively discouraged by DOJ politicos and their “management toadies” at EOIR, who often have mischaracterized the private bar as “the enemy” or out to “game” the system. Perversely, of course, the exact opposite is true. The regime’s immigration kakistocracy has tried over and over to use illegal methods and bogus narratives to illegally and unconstitutionally “game” the system against legitimate asylum seekers and their hard-working attorneys (actually, the only “players” in this sorry game trying to uphold “good government” and the rule of law.)
As a result, the only way for the private bar to be heard is by suing in the “real” Article III Federal Courts. This has resulted in a string of injunctions and TROs against EOIR and DHS misconduct, illegal regulations, and unlawful policies throughout the country, further adding to the chaos and inconsistencies. It also has clogged the Federal Courts with unnecessary litigation and frivolous, often disingenuous or unethical, “defenses to the indefensible” by DOJ lawyers.
This is how a dysfunctional “court system” that actually is a veneer for out of control enforcement and institutionalized racist xenophobia builds backlog. The corrupt “leaders” of this dysfunctional and unconstitutional mess then blame their victims for the delays caused by gross Government mismanagement. In turn, they use this “bogus scenario” to justify further unconstitutional restrictions of immigrants’ rights, due process, and judicial independence.
It’s a “scam” of the highest order! One that actually harms ☠️ and kills ⚰️ people, harasses lawyers, undermines the rule of law, and wastes taxpayer resources. One that has brought disgrace upon the DOJ and undermines the entire U.S. Justice system🏴☠️. One that Judge Garland and his incoming team at the DOJ must immediately end and totally reform, while holding accountable those responsible for this gross miscarriage of justice, fraud, waste, and abuse.
This is not “normal Government” or a question of “differing philosophies.” It’s outright fraud, intentional illegality, abuse of Government resources, and instititutionalized racism. It must be treated as such by the Biden Administration.
Two distinguished Members of the Round Table of Former Immigration Judges serve on the Commission:
Hon. Ilyce Shugall U.S. Immigraton Judge (Retired) Member, Round Table of Former Immigration JudgesHonorable Lisa Dornell U.S. Immigration Judge (Retired) Member, Round Table of Former Immigration Judges, PHOTO: CNNKnightess of the Round Table
KEY QUOTE FROM REPORT:
The Executive Branch should work with Congress to establish, through legislation, an immigration court system independent of any federal agency, both at the trial and appellate level. In the ABA’s view, any major court system restructure should have the following goals:
2
American Bar Association • Achieving America’s Immigration Promise
(1) Independence – Immigration judges at both the trial and appellate level must be sufficiently independent and adequately resourced to make high-quality, impartial decisions without improper influence, particularly influence that makes judges fear for their job security;
(2) Fairness and perception of fairness – The system must actually be fair, and it must appear fair to all participants;
(3) Professionalism of the immigration judiciary – Immigration judges should be talented and experienced lawyers representing diverse backgrounds; and
(4) Increased efficiency – An immigration system must process immigration cases efficiently without sacrificing quality, particularly in cases where noncitizens are detained.
As the calls for immediate EOIR reform grow, so does the sense of urgency for those vulnerable individuals (and their courageous, badly abused lawyers) caught up in the current unfair, biased, dysfunctional, and disgracefully misdirected and mal-administered Immigration Courts.
Notably, EOIR “management” has continued its unseemly race to implement a racist, White Nationalist, anti-asylum, anti-lawyer agenda right up until the end! Their latest unlawful regulations were immediately and emphatically enjoined by several Federal Courts.
EOIR has totally screwed up the Immigration Courts by piling up an avoidablebacklog that greatly exceeds 1.1 million cases, largely by scheming to deny cases that could be granted, retaining cases that should be closed on their artificially bloated docket, selecting unqualified judges without expertise in immigration, human rights, and due process, and arbitrarily changing priorities and “churning” cases (“Aimless Docket Reshuffling”). They have then had the gutless audacity and intellectual dishonesty to attempt to shift the blame for their gross management and squandering of public resources to their victims: the individuals denied due process and fair hearings and their lawyers!
Additionally, EOIR’s continuing efforts to abuse asylum seekers and their lawyers through illegal and immoral regulations, and DOJ attorneys’ equally unethical “defense of the indefensible,” has continued to waste the time of the Article III Courts. It was obvious that these latest regulations would undermine the incoming Biden Administration’s pledge to reinstate due process and that they were illegal from the “git go!”
This type of arrogantly “in your face Biden, Garland, democracy, and humanity” approach deserves immediate reputation, revocation, and removal of these responsible for the last, disgusting gasps of the “EOIR Clown Show!”🤡 It also demands that some action be taken to deal with the unethical DOJ lawyers 🦹🏿♂️🤮who have continued to “press this mess” before the Federal Courts.
A Federal paycheck does NOT exempt lawyers from ethical codes nor is it a license to clog the courts with a frivolous, invidiously intended civil litigation “strategy” designed to “wear down and exhaust” those private, largely pro bono or low bono, lawyers defending due process and the rights of the most vulnerable among us. In civil litigation, the USG does NOT have either a right or an obligation to defend an illegal racist agenda of invidious actions.
The disgraceful performance of all too many parts of the DOJ over the past four years must never, ever be repeated! This is a real, festering problem that “Team Garland” can’t afford to ignore as it takes the helm at the broken and dysfunctional DOJ that has become an actual threat to our democracy and our system of justice and an overt mockery of legal ethics.
Judge Garland, please end the “EOIR Clown Show!” 🤡🦹🏿♂️☠️🤮👎🏻🧹🪠 NOW!
⚖️🗽🇺🇸👍🏼Due Process Forever. The “EOIR Clown Show,” 🤡🦹🏿♂️🏴☠️Never!
PWS
01-17-21
“EOIR Clown Show Must Go” T-Shirt Custom Design Concept
