"The Voice of the New Due Process Army" ————– Musings on Events in U.S. Immigration Court, Immigration Law, Sports, Music, Politics, and Other Random Topics by Retired United States Immigration Judge (Arlington, Virginia) and former Chairman of the Board of Immigration Appeals Paul Wickham Schmidt and Dr. Alicia Triche, expert brief writer, practical scholar, emeritus Editor-in-Chief of The Green Card (FBA), and 2022 Federal Bar Association Immigration Section Lawyer of the Year. She is a/k/a “Delta Ondine,” a blues-based alt-rock singer-songwriter, who performs regularly in Memphis, where she hosts her own Blues Brunch series, and will soon be recording her first full, professional album. Stay tuned! 🎶 To see our complete professional bios, just click on the link below.
“Floaters — How The World’s Richest Country Responds To Asylum Seekers” — Even death won’t deter desperate humans from seeking refuge. But, it’s certainly diminishing us as a nation! 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)
At Mexico’s insistence, the Biden administration has agreed to measures designed to help and protect migrants seeking asylum north of the border, but forced by a recent court edict to wait south of the border as their claims are processed.
Once, it may have been difficult to imagine that Mexico had coaxed Washington to adopt humanitarian and other improvements to benefit asylum seekers. For decades, the United States was a beacon of hope for migrants seeking such protections, including those fleeing abuse and violence in Mexico and points farther south.
The Trump administration turned that equation on its head, devising a policy in 2019 known colloquially as “Remain in Mexico” and formally as the Migrant Protection Protocols. It forced asylum seekers awaiting adjudication of their asylum claims into squalid tent camps south of the border. Fewer than 2 percent of those claims were successful — and President Donald Trump seized on the pandemic to shut down the asylum process altogether, using an obscure public health rule called Title 42.
The painful irony of the Migrant Protection Protocols is that they protected no one. Thousands of migrants forced into tent camps south of the border became targets of rapists, violent gangs and kidnappers demanding ransom.
Mr. Biden ended the MPP upon entering office, though he also retained Title 42 to expel many migrants, especially men traveling alone, without an asylum hearing. But a federal judge ordered the program reinstated, and the Supreme Court let the judge’s order stand for now. Even as the administration presses ahead with a legal fight to terminate the policy, officials were compelled to negotiate its renewal with Mexico.
It’s nice to think that the agreed-upon humanitarian, medical and legal protections will make a real difference to migrants who are returned to Mexico under MPP, which started this month. Some steps may help. They will be offered covid-19 vaccines, and the administration has committed to a six-month limit on adjudicating their asylum claims, which under the previous administration often languished for years.
Migrants who would be particularly vulnerable if returned to Mexico, including minors and those at risk of persecution, will be exempted from the program. And asylum seekers forced to wait in Mexico will be moved away from two spots across the border from the Texas cities of Laredo and Brownsville, which have been especially dangerous for migrants in the past.
Still, it seems like wishful thinking to believe that a written agreement will erase the squalor and peril that previously awaited asylum seekers forced to wait in Mexico. Legal counsel, previously in egregiously short supply, may be even scarcer now; some legal assistance organizations say they won’t cooperate with MPP. And many, if not most, migrants — especially single men apprehended on their own — will continue to be shunted across the border, with no hope of asylum whatsoever under Title 42, just as they have been for the past 20 months.
MPP was a disgrace to the United States; now it is being resurrected. The disgrace will be compounded if the current administration, in coordination with Mexico, fails to ensure muscular protections that ensure that asylum seekers are safe, treated with dignity and receive fair hearings.
********************************
Be assured that innocent folks are dying and will continue to die in Mexico as a result of poorly-qualified right-wing U.S. Judges, feckless politicians, and an Administration that can’t get its act together and “find its spine” on human rights, immigration, and racial justice issues!Failure to recognize the reality of forced migration, create a safe orderly asylum and refugee processing system (as required by law), and rationally expand the categories for legal immigration, will continue to kill, maim, and harm. See,e.g., https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2021/12/09/tractor-trailer-full-migrants-crashes-southern-mexico-killing-least-49/
Also, if we want other countries to help in a constructive way, and to regain our position as a leader among democracies, “leading by example” would be most helpful!
“Hey ladies, not every woman in Guatemala is hanging up there with you (yet), so what’s the problem,” says Circuit Judge Patty Shwartz of the 3rd. Cir.“ “She struggled madly in the torturing Ray” Amazing StoriesArtist Unknown, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
Chavez-Chilel v. Atty. Gen., 3rd Cir., 12-09-21, published
PANEL: SHWARTZ, PORTER, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
OPINION: Judge Patty Shwartz
KEY QUOTE:
Chavez-Chilel’s proposed PSG lacks particularity. “[N]ot every immutable characteristic is sufficiently precise to define a [PSG],” id. at 552, and courts have concluded that a proposed PSG of all women in a particular country “is overbroad[] because no factfinder could reasonably conclude that all [of a country’s] women had a well-founded fear of persecution based solely on their gender,” Safaie v. INS, 25 F.3d 636, 640 (8th Cir. 1994) (addressing Iranian women).8 Reasons to depart from this general rule are not present here. For example, in Hassan v. Gonzales, 484 F.3d 513 (8th Cir. 2007), the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit recognized the PSG of all Somali women because “all Somali females have a well-founded fear of persecution based solely on gender given the prevalence of” female genital mutilation. Id. at 518; see also Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 797–98 (9th Cir. 2005) (same); In re Kasinga, 21 I. & N. Dec. 357, 365–66 (B.I.A. 1996) (recognizing PSG of “young women” in a particular tribe in Togo due to pervasive practice of female
8 In Perdomo v. Holder, 611 F.3d 662, 668–69 (9th Cir. 2010), the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit disagreed with the BIA’s conclusion that “all women in Guatemala” was too broad a group to qualify as a PSG and remanded for further analysis. That case rested on the Ninth Circuit’s two-part definition of a PSG, which recognized any group “united by a voluntary association, including a former association, or by an innate characteristic that is so fundamental to the identities or consciences of its members that members either cannot or should not be required to change it.” Id. at 666 (quotation marks and emphasis omitted). This definition is not consistent with our Court’s three requirements for a PSG, see S.E.R.L., 894 F.3d at 540, so we decline to follow the reasoning in Perdomo.
14
genital mutilation). Here, by contrast, there is no record evidence that all Guatemalan women share a unifying characteristic that results in them being targeted for any form of persecution based solely on their gender. Cf. A.R. 170–73, 182 (Chavez-Chilel’s testimony that she knew of no other women who suffered sexual or domestic violence); A.R. 232 (report explaining that one-third more Guatemalan women experience sexual or domestic violence against them than women in Paraguay). Accordingly, while the size of the group standing alone would not disqualify a group from being a PSG, Cece v. Holder, 733 F.3d 662, 674–75 (7th Cir. 2013), Chavez- Chilel has failed to demonstrate that her proposed PSG is sufficiently particularized. Thus, her alleged fear of persecution based upon membership in such a group does not provide a basis for asylum. Because Chavez-Chilel cannot prove her asylum claim, she cannot meet the higher standard to obtain withholding of removal. See Blanco v. Att’y Gen., 967 F.3d 304, 315 (3d Cir. 2020). As a result, the IJ and BIA correctly denied her request for asylum and withholding of removal.9
This is a seriously flawed analysis. The court conflates psg “particularity” with nexus. Obviously, not every woman in Guatemala need fear persecution for some to be persecuted on that basis!
Suppose a few Jews escaped Nazi persecution. Does that mean Jews weren’t a PSG? Suppose only 10% of Poles were killed by the Nazis because of their ethnicity. Does that mean Poles were not a PSG? Suppose only 40% of Roma in a particular country are exterminated? Does that make Roma not a PSG? What if every Catholic in a particular country doesn’t have the exact same fear of persecution? Does that mean that Catholics don’t have a “well-founded fear”of persecution? Does that mean that Catholicism isn’t “one central reason” for persecution? Of course not, except in the uninformed minds of Judge Shwartz and her panel colleagues!
Obviously “women in Guatemala” is 1) fundamental to identity; 2) particularized (it clearly excludes non-women); and 3) distinct in Guatemalan society (and every other country in the world). Indeed, like family “women” and “men” are among the oldest, most fundamental, readily recognizable “particular social groups” in human existence!
I’m not the only critic of this outrageous misconstruction of asylum law!
Hon. Jeffrey S. Chase Jeffrey S. Chase Blog Coordinator & Chief Spokesperson, Round Table of Former Immigration Judges
“Sir Jeffrey” Chase of the Round Table 🛡⚔️ says:
The court completely misconstrued the standard for determining particularity:
Here, by contrast, there is no record evidence that all Guatemalan women share a unifying characteristic that results in them being targeted for any form of persecution based solely on their gender.
Particularity of course is a clear marker for group inclusion, and does not require evidence that everyone in the group is being targeted for persecution – compare, e.g. family or land owners.
Professor Geoffrey Hoffman Immigraton Clinic Director University of Houston Law Center
Our friend and “practical scholar” colleague, Professor Geoffrey Hoffman of the University of Houston Law Center, adds:
Appears also to ignore the “once central reason” asylum rule in that the court is erroneously say gender must be “sole” reason (page 15, use of word “solely”)
So court got it wrong on 2 counts – not “all” women in Guatemala must be persecuted to form a valid PSG and gender need not be “sole reason” for the persecution.
Another colleague who practices in the 3rd Circuit sums it up succinctly and bluntly: “Awful!”
Dan Kowalski Online Editor of the LexisNexis Immigration Law Community (ILC)
In addition to being legally wrong on a number of points, as pointed out by Dan Kowalski at LexisNexis Immigration Community, the court’s decision is horrible policy:
Note that the IJ DID grant CAT relief, and the government did NOT appeal that grant.
The “good news” is that the CAT grant prevents Ms. Chavez-Calel from being returned to torture and persecution in Guatemala. However, by misapplying asylum law, the court basically places her in an indefinite “limbo status.”
She therefore is deprived of the right to fully integrate into our society by getting a green card and becoming a citizen. The court also strips her of any realistic path to exercising political rights! What sense does manipulating the law to intentionally create disenfranchised subclasses in American society make when better alternatives are available?
To add insult to injury, in this decision the Third Circuit joined other Circuits and the BIA in giving DHS and EOIR a “pass” on their intentional decision not to comply with the INA requirements for issuing a Notice to Appear (“NTA”) to commence removal proceedings.
Obviously, these “ivory towerists” have never experienced the actual mess that occurs when overworked, understaffed Immigration Court clerks manually mail out subsequent notices, by regular U.S. Mail, using addresses haphazardly entered by DHS personnel in the chaos that often exists at the border and upon release from DHS detention.
Perhaps, in their exalted positions, these Article IIIs no longer have to rely on the ever-deteriorating service of the U.S. Postal service. This morning, I delivered a “mini-stack” of mis-delivered U.S. Mail to my next door neighbor. We seem to get mis-delivered mail on a weekly basis. And, I live in a reasonably “upscale” neighborhood, if I do say so myself — one where folks know all the neighbors and take the time to “re-route” misdirected mail. Think there are places America where that doesn’t happen?
What do these judges think “delivery accuracy” is in the communities and situations where most Immigration Court respondents live? Maybe, there was a good reason why Congress required the NTA, which, unlike subsequent EOIR notices, is often served personally, to contain accurate information on the time and place of their hearing.
Maybe, we need Federal Judges who live in the “real world” rather than abstract one they have constructed where the lives of migrants are at issue! Maybe, we need more Federal Judges who have seen and experienced the consequences of “poor and uninformed judging” on immigrant and ethnic communities in the U.S.!
At a time when the Supremes’ righty majority appears to be intent on dismantling half a century of established women’s rights, the Third Circuit’s wrong-headed decision is a further “body blow” to both the humanity and human rights of women throughout the world!
Judge Schwartz is an Obama appointee. Her panel colleagues are GOP appointees. We deserve better from our life-tenured Federal Judiciary! Much, much better!
Free NYSBA asylum training CLE webinar Dec. 13 1-2 pm ET
Are you considering handling your first pro bono asylum case, but unsure of how to proceed? This free one-hour CLE training sponsored by the New York State Bar Association will orient you to the fundamentals of asylum eligibility and procedure, common issues to consider, and mentorship possibilities. Handouts will be provided.
When: Monday December 13, 2021, 1-2 pm ET
Where: online
Speakers: Victoria Neilson (Managing Attorney, Catholic Legal Immigration Network), Rebecca Press (Legal Director, UnLocal, Inc.), and Steve Yale-Loehr (Cornell Law School)
Thanks, Steve, my friend, for passing this on! I’m grateful for all you do to educate, guide, support, and most of all inspire the NDPA in the never-ending fight to force our Government to make due process and fundamental fairness for all persons in America, regardless of race, creed, or status, a reality rather than the cruel farce it is today!
Never has the need for talented pro bono representation in Immigration Court been greater.
And, the Garland DOJ’s indifference to long overdue due process, quality control, personnel, and best practices reforms in the broken and backlogged EOIR system means that the battle to save lives and force change through aggressive litigation is just beginning and ultimately will succeed!
The good news: Given the endemic lack of expertise, discombobulated administration, and disregard for quality at EOIR, the “talent balance” favors the NDPA! Many deserving lives can be saved and at least some degree of accountability forced on Garland’s dysfunctional EOIR through aggressive, well prepared litigation that makes compelling records, advances correct interpretations and applications of the law, and resists and triumphs over the “race to the bottom” that has destroyed and perverted justice in our Immigration Courts.
Sign up today! It will be the “best hour” you spend next week!
LESBOS, Greece (AP) — Pope Francis returned Sunday to the Greek island of Lesbos to offer comfort to migrants at a refugee camp and blast what he said was the indifference and self-interest shown by Europe “that condemns to death those on the fringes.”
“Please, let us stop this shipwreck of civilization!” Francis said at the Mavrovouni camp, a cluster of white U.N. containers on the edge of the sea lined by barbed wire fencing and draped with laundry hanging from lines.
Arriving at the camp, a maskless Francis took his time walking along the barricades, patting children and babies on the head and posing for selfies. He gave a “thumbs up” after he was serenaded by African women singing a song of welcome.
. . . .
“The arrival of the pope here makes us feel blessed because we hope the pope will take us with him because here we suffer,” Kiaku said as she waited in a tent for the pope to arrive.
But no papal transfers were announced this time around, though during the first leg of Francis’ trip in Cyprus, the Vatican announced that 12 migrants who had crossed over from the breakaway Turkish Cypriot north would be relocated to Italy in the coming weeks. Cypriot officials said a total of 50 would eventually be sent.
Francis’ five-day trip to Cyprus and Greece has been dominated by the migrant issue and Francis’ call for European countries to stop building walls, stoking fears and shutting out “those in greater need who knock at our door.”
“I ask every man and woman, all of us, to overcome the paralysis of fear, the indifference that kills, the cynical disregard that nonchalantly condemns to death those on the fringes!” he said. “Let us stop ignoring reality, stop constantly shifting responsibility, stop passing off the issue of migration to others, as if it mattered to no one and was only a pointless burden to be shouldered by somebody else!”
**************
Read the complete report at the link.
Xenophobia, cruelty, racism, and nativist nationalism won’t stop human migration. But, it will cause more unnecessary pain, suffering, death, and wasted lives.
“We conclude that the Board erred in three ways. First, the Board erred in overturning the grant of asylum. The Board decided that Mr. Villegas-Castro had not filed a new application. But if he hadn’t filed a new asylum application, he wouldn’t need to show a material change in circumstances. And with the remand, the immigration judge enjoyed discretion to reconsider the availability of asylum. Second, the Board erred in rejecting the immigration judge’s credibility findings without applying the clear-error standard. The immigration judge concluded that Mr. Villegas-Castro’s conviction had not involved a particularly serious crime. For this conclusion, the immigration judge considered the underlying facts and found Mr. Villegas-Castro’s account credible. The Board disagreed with the immigration judge’s credibility findings but didn’t apply the clear-error standard. By failing to apply that standard, the Board erred. Third, the Board erred in sua sponte deciding that Mr. Villegas-Castro was ineligible for (1) withholding of removal or (2) deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture. The Board reasoned that the immigration judge had already denied withholding of removal under federal law and the Convention. But the Board’s general remand didn’t prevent fresh consideration of Mr. Villegas-Castro’s earlier applications. So the Board erred in sua sponte rejecting the applications for withholding of removal and deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture. We thus grant the petition for judicial review, remanding for the Board to reconsider Mr. Villegas-Castro’s application for asylum, to apply the clear-error standard to the immigration judge’s credibility findings, and to reconsider the applications for withholding of removal and deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture.”
[Hats off to Harry Larson, formerly of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, Chicago, Illinois (Andrew H. Schapiro, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, Chicago, Illinois, and Keren Zwick and Tania Linares Garcia, National Immigrant Justice Center, Chicago, Illinois, with him on the briefs), on behalf of the Petitioner, and Simon A. Steel, DENTONS US LLP, Washington, D.C., and Grace M. Dickson, DENTONS US LLP, Dallas, Texas, filed a brief for Amici Curiae, on behalf of Petitioner!]
**********************
A prime example of the “any reason to deny culture,” that Garland has allowed to continue, at “work” — although it doesn’t appear the BIA actually did any “work” here beyond insuring that the bottom line in the staff attorney’s draft was against the asylum seeker!
As I raised yesterday, how is it that this fatally flawed group continues to get “Chevron deference” from the Article IIIs?
Also, why isn’t every group of legal professionals in America “camped” on Judge Garland’s doorstep @ DOJ demanding meaningful change @ EOIR as the degradation of American justice and demeaning of human lives continue largely unabated?
Honorable Joan Churchill Retired U.S. Immigration Judge Member Round Table of Retired JudgesHon. Paul Grussendorf U.S. Immigration Judge (Ret.) Member, Round Table of Former IJs Author Source: Amazon.comHon. Jeffrey S. Chase Jeffrey S. Chase Blog Coordinator & Chief Spokesperson, Round Table of Former Immigration Judges
American Bar Association International Law Section
Program Spotlight: Refugees and Asylum in the U.S.
&
Review of Domestic Interpretations at Odds with International Guidance
This program will review the differences between the Refugee and Asylum processes (which includes Withholding of Removal) in order to provide clarity to new practitioners about the stark contrasts between the two U.S. refugee programs and to inform on international law compliance.
Topic 1: Contrast and compare Refugees and Asylum law and process, and
Topic 2: Compare U.S. domestic interpretations of the legal criteria of Refugees and Asylum seekers with international law and policy.
Moderator and Chair: Joan Churchill (Former Immigration Judge)
Paul Grussendorf has worked with both the refugee and asylum programs in the United States and abroad. He headed a law school legal clinic at the The George Washington University Law School representing asylum seekers, served as an Immigration Judge handling asylum cases, worked as a Supervisory Asylum Officer with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security Office of Citizenship and Immigration Services [CIS], as a refugee officer with Refugee Affairs Division of USCIS, and as a refugee officer and supervisor with the UNHCR, the UN Refugee Agency.
Topic 2: The Hon. Jeffrey Chase
Jeffrey Chase is a retired Immigration judge for New York City. He has written extensively about the inter relationship of international law sources with the U.S. national law when administering cases involving asylum and refugee applications.
He has a blog entitled Opinions/Analysis on Immigration Law. He coordinates The Round Table of Retired Immigration Judges, an informal group of Retired Immigration Judges from both the trial and appellate level, who weigh in on topics relating to the administration of justice by the Immigration Court. The Round Table files amici briefs, and has issued position papers and testimony on issues affecting due process and the administration of justice by the Immigration Courts.
***************************
Many thanks to my round table friends and colleagues for putting this fantastic free program together and to the ABA International Law Section for sponsoring it!
In 1980, Congress enacted the Refugee Act of 1980 to bring the U.S. into compliance with the U.N. Convention & Protocol on The Status of Refugees, to which we are a signatory through the Protocol.
After some steady progress over the first two decades, today, as a result of actions taken by the last four Administrations since 2001, we are further away than ever from the goal of compliance. Bungling bureaucrats at DHS and DOJ wrongfully view large numbers of refugees and asylees as a “threat” to be “deterred,” rather than as the legal obligation and undeniable assets to our nation that they in truth are.
They fail miserably to fix systemic problems, to properly welcome refugees and asylees, and to adjudicate their claims in a fair and timely manner consistent with due process and racial justice. With stunning tone deafness, they eschew the advice of experts like Judges Churchill, Grussendorf, and Chase in favor of cruel, inept, and “bad faith” gimmicks, like gross misuse of Title 42 to suspend the asylum system indefinitely without Congressional approval.
One only has to look at the evening news to see firsthand what a horrible failure these “Stephen Miller Lite” policies have been and how they ruin lives and trash the reputation of our nation. The failure of the Biden Administration to make good on its campaign promises to migrants and refugees is nothing short of a national disgrace!
The first step in holding Mayorkas, Garland, and the others responsible for this ongoing mess accountable and restoring the rule of law is to understand how the system should and could work.
Then, you will have the tools to sue the hell out of the irresponsible public officials and their bumbling bureaucrats, lobby Congress for better protections for asylum seekers, and generate outraged public opinion until the rule of law, common sense, and human decency are restored to our land! And, we can save some lives that are well worth saving in the process!
Knowledge is power! The Biden Administration’s knowledge of how to implement an efficient, practical, legal, successful asylum system would fit in a thimble with room left over! Get the “upper hand” by listening to these Round Experts!
The BIA’s blunders in trying to help out their “partners” @ DHS Enforcement can sometimes seem almost comical. But, they are no laughing matter to those facing persecution or torture as a result! Why is Garland indifferent to life-threatening injustice in his courts? Amazing StoriesArtist Unknown, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
Given the strength and rigor of the IJ’s underlying opinion, along with the BIA having exceeded its proper scope of review, we will vacate the BIA’s final order of removal and remand with instructions to reinstate the IJ’s opinion.
******************
There is the good, the bad, the ugly, and the absurdly horrible. This latest BIA travesty falls in the latter category.
Not surprisingly, the Circuit opinion quotes liberally from the BIA’s insipid, mealy-mouthed “bureaucratic double-speak” language! To paraphrase my BIA colleague the late Judge Fred Vacca, thank goodness the 3rd Circuit finally put an end to this “pathetic attempt at appellate adjudication.”
Interesting that rather than remanding to give the BIA a chance to deny again on some newly invented specious basis, the court just reinstated the IJ opinion. There should be a message here! But, Garland and his lieutenants aren’t “getting it!”
This case illustrates deep systemic and personnel problems that Garland has failed to address. Instead of summarily dismissing the DHS’s frivolous appeal with a strong warning condemning it, these types of bad BIA decisions contribute to the unnecessary backlog and both encourage and reward frivolous actions by the DHS.
Additionally, reversing, for specious reasons, a well-done and clearly correct IJ decision granting relief, just to carry out the wishes of DHS Enforcement and political bosses, is intended to discourage respondents and their attorneys while unethically steering Immigration Judges toward a “norm of denial.”
Abused women of color from the Northern Triangle have been particular targets of the EOIR’s seriously skewed anti-immigrant adjudications. This makes the Garland DOJ’s claims to be a “champion of racial justice” ring all the more hollow and disingenuous in every context. There will be no racial justice in America without radical EOIR reform!
What ever happened to our first ever woman of color Veep? Hypothesize that one of the BIA Appellate Immigration Judges responsible for this mess had come before the Senate Judiciary Committee for confirmation. Wouldn’t you have had some questions about judicial qualifications? So, why is it OK to continue to employ them in untenured Executive Branch quasi-judicial positions where they exercise life or death power over many of the most vulnerable among us, overwhelmingly persons of color, many women, lots of them unrepresented! Kamala Harris, where are you?
It’s all part of an improper “culture of denial” at EOIR, led and “enforced” by the BIA. Garland has disgracefully failed to come to grips with the “anti-due process” that he fosters every day that the “Miller Lite Holdover BIA” remains in their appellate positions.
For heavens sake, with unnecessary “TV Adjudication Centers” coming out EOIR’s ears, reassign these purveyors of bad law and appellate injustice to those lower “courts” where they can do less cosmic damage and real, better qualified appellate judges can “keep on eye” on them!
I keep thinking (or perhaps hoping) that eventually Circuits will tire of continually redoing the BIA’s sloppy work product and then having the cases come back again, sometimes years later, denied on yet another bogus ground!
On the flip side, Judge Garland seems to have infinite “patience” with well-documented substandard performance and painfully obvious anti-immigrant, pro-DHS bias on the part of his BIA.
Wrongful denial of CAT costs lives and can improperly condemn individuals to gruesome and painful death! This is no way to run a court system! I guess it’s easier to “tolerate” lousy judicial performance when you aren’t the one being unfairly and illegally condemned to torture!
Reuters: The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in a 2-1 ruling said the preliminary injunction issued last year improperly placed ICE’s entire network of detention facilities under the direction of a single federal judge, an error because the plaintiffs failed to show systemic nationwide shortfalls in detainee health protections.
NPR: The Border Patrol recorded nearly 1.7 million migrant apprehensions at the Southern border over the past year — the highest number ever, eclipsing the record set more than two decades ago. But that doesn’t mean it’s the biggest number of individual migrants who’ve illegally crossed from Mexico into the U.S. in a single year. In fact, it’s probably not even close. See also Tired of waiting for asylum in southern Mexico, thousands of migrants march north.
BuzzFeed: The report offers a rare window into the behind-the-scenes dysfunction and confusion surrounding the so-called Remain in Mexico program, which is set to come back.
NYT: More than 160 reports, obtained by Human Rights Watch, reveal details of mistreatment that asylum seekers described experiencing from border officials and while in U.S. custody.
WaPo: A U.S. Customs and Border Protection discipline board found that 60 agents “committed misconduct” by sharing violent and obscene posts in secret Facebook groups but fired only two — far fewer than an internal discipline board had recommended, according to a House Oversight and Reform Committee report released Monday.
Intercept: An internal review of Efraín Romero de la Rosa’s death in ICE custody found almost two dozen policy violations during his stint in detention.
Law360: President Joe Biden hasn’t shied away from using controversial technologies for immigration enforcement, raising concerns that his predecessor’s pet project to build a border wall is being replaced with a “virtual wall” rife with privacy and civil liberties problems.
Newsweek: SLS was previously assigned to build the border wall under the Donald Trump administration, but now it is expected to work with the health department to also offer migrants prescription services and transportation for “safe onward travel.”
Law360: The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday vacated a Third Circuit ruling in a deportation case that barred a Yemeni man from acquiring citizenship through his naturalized but divorced parents, after the Biden administration said the lower court overlooked precedent.
Law360: Advocates of drastically reduced immigration urged the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday to overturn decisions in the Third and Ninth circuits that said migrants who have been detained more than six months should get a bond review hearing.
Law360: A coalition of conservationists and ranchers has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review a Ninth Circuit ruling that the federal government need not subject immigration policies to environmental review, saying it created an “impossible” standard for challenging immigration programs.
Law360: The First Circuit revived a Honduran man’s bid for protection from a deportation order, ruling that immigration authorities saw discrepancies in his testimony that he faced persecution as an HIV-positive gay man where there were none.
AILA: The court held that the petitioners’ convictions under Connecticut General Statute §21a-277(a) were controlled substance offenses and aggravated felony drug trafficking crimes, and that the jurisdictional holding of Banegas Gomez v. Barr remained good law. (Chery v. Garland, 10/15/21)
AILA: Granting the petition for review and remanding, the court held that while the BIA was correct in finding that the petitioner had not suffered political persecution in China, its reasons for rejecting religious persecution were flawed. (Liang v. Att’y Gen., 10/12/21)
AILA: The court abrogated Matter of S-O-G- & F-D-B-, holding that 8 CFR §§1003.10(b) and 1003.1(d)(1)(ii) unambiguously grant IJs and the BIA the general power to terminate removal proceedings. (Chavez Gonzalez v. Garland, 10/20/21)
Law360: The Fifth Circuit on Wednesday asked the federal government to respond to Texas and Louisiana’s petition for the full appellate court to review a panel’s decision allowing the Biden administration’s policy curbing immigration enforcement operations to remain in place.
Law360: The Fifth Circuit refused to freeze the Biden administration’s appeal of a lower court order stopping the federal government from approving new applications under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program while it inks a replacement rule.
LexisNexis: Fraihat v. ICE Maj. – “COVID-19 presents inherent challenges in institutional settings, and it has without question imposed greater risks on persons in custody. But plaintiffs had to demonstrate considerably more than that to warrant the extraordinary, system-wide relief that they sought.
AILA: The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ordered the defendants to commence processing the 9,905 DV-2020 visas as soon as is feasible, and to conclude such processing no later than the end of FY2022, or September 30, 2022. (Gomez, et al. v. Biden, et al., 10/13/21)
Law360: The federal government urged the D.C. Circuit to erase a lower court’s injunction blocking its use of a public health law to expel migrant families, arguing that the lower court interpreted its powers under the authority too narrowly.
Law360: A D.C. federal judge ordered U.S. Customs and Border Protection on Monday to release previously withheld documents related to the government’s 2017 attempt to unmask a Trump administration critic’s Twitter account, while scolding the agency for its “lackluster efforts” to comply with Freedom of Information Act requirements.
Law360: A Michigan federal judge rejected two brothers’ claims that their due process and religious freedom rights were violated when they were denied travel authorization to Mexico for their grandfather’s funeral, saying that they had no recourse against the officials involved.
AILA: DOJ provided a status update to the court, which states that the BIA and NYLAG are in discussions regarding the possibility of posting certain unpublished BIA decisions online, both prospectively and retrospectively. (NYLAG v. BIA, 10/15/21)
Law360: The Pentagon denied foreign-born soldiers’ contention that it was flouting an injunction to process their citizenship requests, telling a Washington, D.C., court that it was complying and close to doubling the number of requests that are processed annually.
AILA: In balancing respondent’s desirability as a permanent resident with social and humane considerations, the IJ found that respondent was entitled to a waiver of removability for fraud or misrepresentation under INA §237(a)(1)(H). Courtesy of Christopher Helt. (Matter of Mohammed, 9/13/21)
AILA: CBP notification of the continuation of travel restrictions limiting non-essential travel from Mexico into the U.S. at land ports of entry through 1/21/22, while also announcing the intent to lift these restrictions for individuals fully vaccinated against COVID-19. (86 FR 58216, 10/21/21)
AILA: DHS notice establishing procedures for individuals covered by Deferred Enforced Departure (DED) for Hong Kong to apply for employment authorization through 2/5/23. (86 FR 58296, 10/21/21)
Suffolk County DA: Newly created Immigrant Affairs unit. The Chief of the unit is Leslie Anderson and Deputy Chief is Imran Ahmed. Their hotline is 631-852-2950 and the dedicated email address is immigrantaffairsDA@suffolkcountyny.gov.
Sadly, more than eight months in, the Biden Administration lacks:
A coherent vision for the border;
A cogent plan to restore the refugee system and the legal asylum system (the poorly conceived “proposed asylum regs” — mostly opposed by our Round Table and other asylum experts — don’t make it);
The tough, courageous, well-informed leadership to make the necessary border enforcement and Immigration Court reforms and to stand up to the entirely predictable, well-organized nativist opposition, led by Stephen “Gauleiter” Miller and his accomplices.
Not a “recipe for success,” in my view!
Another item worthy of note: The pending settlement between NYLAG and EOIR on making unpublished decisions readily accessible to the public could open new avenues for advocates.
BIA panel decisions favorable to respondents are almost never published as precedents by an organization where judicial independence and due process have long taken a back seat to “job preservation” within the DOJ. Politicos @ DOJ are normally much more interested in supporting enforcement and “false deterrence” goals than with enhancing due process, enforcing immigrants’ rights, and achieving racial justice when it comes to immigrants.
They raped women, burned homes and killed dozens of people, including children, chopping up their bodies with machetes and throwing their remains to pigs.The gruesome massacre three years ago, considered the worst in Haiti in decades, was more than the work of rival gangs fighting over territory. It was organized by senior Haitian officials, who provided weapons and vehicles to gang members to punish people in a poor area protesting government corruption, the U.S. Treasury Department announced last year.
Since then, Haiti’s gang members have grown so strong that they rule swaths of the country. The most notorious of them, a former police officer named Jimmy Cherizier, known as Barbecue, fashions himself as a political leader, holding news conferences, leading marches and, this week, even parading around as a replacement for the prime minister in the violent capital.
. . . .
********************
Read the rest of this gruesome, yet telling, report at the link.
Over 21 years on the Immigration Bench as both a trial and appellate judge, I adjudicated thousands of asylum claims. The circumstances described on this article undoubtedly would give rise to many potentially valid asylum and withholding claims, based on actual or implied political opinion and/or family or gender-based “particular social groups” and Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) grants based on torture with government acquiescence or actual connivance!
So, how do Biden, Harris, Mayorkas, and Garland, who to my knowledge have never represented an asylum applicant or adjudicated an individual asylum case among them, “get away” with simply suspending the rule of law, under false pretenses, for those entitled to seek asylum?
Stephen Miller must be on “Cloud Nine” as Biden & Co. carry out his White Nationalist plans to eradicate asylum, particularly when it protects women and people of color! This is even as Miller and his neo-Nazi cohorts (a/k/a “America First Legal”) are gearing up to sue the Biden Administration to block every measure that might aid immigrants, particularly those of color.
He’s delighted with Biden’s abuse of asylum seekers of color! Attribution: Stephen Miller Monster by Peter Kuper, PoliticalCartoons.com
NGOs don’t share the Biden Administration’s vision of what a “safe” Haiti looks like. Neither do kidnapped American missionaries! PHOTO: Marcelo Casal, Jr., Creative Commons License
Angering and alienating your potential allies and supporters to aid the far-right program of your enemies who are determined to do whatever it takes to undermine, discredit, and destroy your Presidency! Obviously, I’m no political expert. But, sure sounds like an incredibly stupid, “designed to fail” strategy to me!
“Mario Rene Lopez Troche (“Lopez Troche”), a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) that affirms the denial of his application for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We vacate and remand. … [T]he record does not reveal the claimed inconsistency between the testimony and the reasonable fear interview as to Lopez Troche’s reporting to police that the BIA identified. The BIA cited to three portions of Lopez Troche’s testimony in support of its determination that the IJ did not clearly err in finding an inconsistency between what Lopez Troche told the asylum officer during his reasonable fear interview and how he testified as to the reporting of past abuse. But, none of those passages supports the BIA’s determination. … Nor is it possible to read either the BIA or the IJ to have inferred from Lopez Troche’s failure to report to the police the specific incidents that he discussed in his testimony that he was asserting in that testimony that did not report any incidents of abuse ever. Neither the IJ’s opinion nor the BIA’s expressly purports to premise its ruling as to adverse credibility on the basis of such inferential reasoning, see Chenery, 318 U.S. at 95, and we do not see what basis there would be for drawing that inference on this record, given that, in his reasonable fear interview, declaration, and testimony, Lopez Troche discussed a series of traumatic physical and sexual assaults that he had experienced that appears to have stretched back to a time when he was eight years old and that thus encompassed many more incidents than those addressed specifically in the portions of his testimony on which the BIA focused. As a result, we must vacate and remand the BIA’s order affirming the denial of Lopez Troche’s request for withholding of removal.”
Law students and attorneys of the NDPA are out there helping refugees every day. Meanwhile, over at Garland’s dysfunctional EOIR, Immigration Judges and BIA Appellate Immigration Judges strain to improperly “diddle the record” to deny relief to asylum seekers! Then, OIL defends them!
Essentially, in this case, the BIA “made it up and misrepresented the record” in an effort to deny asylum for specious reasons! Then, OIL tried to “blow it by” the Circuit!
“[T]he record does not reveal the claimed inconsistency between the testimony and the reasonable fear interview as to Lopez Troche’s reporting to police that the BIA identified.” That’s “judgespeak” for: The BIA invented non-existent “inconsistencies” to unfairly deny asylum. Then, OIL defended that fabrication and denial of due process! What does this say about Garland’s leadership at DOJ?
Whatever happened to legal and judicial ethics? Clearly they were “deep sixed” under Sessions and Barr. But, why is Garland continuing to operate DOJ as an “ethics and quality free zone?”
This is a bad system with the wrong folks in too many judicial and leadership positions and presenting an overwhelming need for robust, bold change in how decisions are made and defended in Circuit Court. So far, Garland has not made the fundamental personnel changes and “quality upgrades” necessary to bring due process and some semblance of expertise and order back to his broken Immigration Courts! Why not?
Why are the kind of individuals who should be Immigration Judges and EOIR judicial leaders, talented lawyers like Elena and Irene, still “on the outside” rather than being actively recruited and brought in to replace those unable to perform judicial, administrative, and litigation duties in a fair, expert manner, that enhances due process? Why is EOIR still operating with a “judiciary” the majority of whom were installed by the Trump regime at Justice to “dehumanize, deport, and deter” without regard for due process? Why is OIL continuing to “defend the indefensible?” Why isn’t Congress asking Garland these questions?
Government lacking in expertise, intellectual honesty, professional ethics, and accountability is “bad government.” That’s true no matter which party holds power!
Cornell Law Students and Professors Assist Afghans at Risk
By Alexandra Eguiluz
October 19, 2021
AddThis Sharing Buttons
Share to Twitter
Share to Facebook
Share to Email
The National Lawyers Guild and the International Refugee Assistance Project chapters at Cornell Law School, along with two professors and over three dozen law students, are volunteering to help Afghans seeking humanitarian parole in the United States. The recent turmoil in Afghanistan caused by the withdrawal of American troops and the takeover of the Taliban has forced many individuals into hiding and fearing for their lives, especially if they helped the U.S. military, government contractors, or Western aid groups.
Law student volunteers, Amy Godshall ’23 (far left), Jason Steuerwald ’23, Ethan Taveras ’23, and Matt Nelson ’23 (far right) preparing to mail the eleven cases they filed during the first week of October.
Humanitarian parole is a rarely used avenue in U.S. immigration law that allows individuals to come to the United States temporarily for urgent humanitarian reasons. The U.S. Embassy in Kabul has been closed, leaving Afghans with no option but to either leave Afghanistan and begin humanitarian procedures in another country or stay in Afghanistan and have a family member or friend in the United States sponsor them. Almost all of the individuals who are receiving legal assistance on their humanitarian parole applications at the Law School are currently in Afghanistan.
Cornell Law students Ethan Taveras ’23, Amy Godshall ’23, Jason Steuerwald ’23, and Victoria (Tori) Staley ’23 are spearheading the project, which involves fifty law students who are volunteering their time and efforts. Aside from gathering paperwork from the families and filing cases, all four law students are also working on training other law student volunteers. Professors Stephen Yale-Loehr, director of the Asylum and Convention Against Torture Clinic, and Beth Lyon, associate dean for experiential education and clinical program director, are volunteering their time to supervise the law students.
“Currently there are about seventy active humanitarian parole cases we’re working on. Jason and Amy just filed a case for eleven people,” said Staley.
Although the project is in its initial stages, the students are facing some challenges, including high application fees ($575 per applicant), gathering evidence from individuals in hiding or separated from their identification documents, compiling all the documentation required for the application, and uncertainty with how long the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services will take to decide on the applications. All these challenges, particularly the last one, are currently leaving Afghan applicants “waiting, without knowing whether they should leave Afghanistan or not,” said Godshall.
Despite these challenges, most of the students have been able to speak directly with the Afghan clients and their sponsors. Some clients or sponsors speak English; in other cases, the students are using the translation feature in WhatsApp. “We hope to file another chunk of cases in the next few weeks,” said Staley.
******************
Thanks, Steve, to you and your students for all they are doing for humanity and American justice!
I must say that for USCIS to charge each refugee $575 for the humanitarian parole application seems rather “Trumpian.”
Hon. Jeffrey S. Chase Jeffrey S. Chase Blog Coordinator & Chief Spokesperson, Round Table of Former Immigration Judges
KEY EXCERPT:
III.E. Limitation on Immigration Judge Review
We strongly oppose the proposal to severely restrict the right of those denied asylum by USCIS to a full de novo merits hearing before an Immigration Judge.Given these significant increases in efficiency mentioned above, the proposed restrictions are unnecessary to reduce the backlog.Regardless, even if EOIR and DHS disagree with this assessment, regulations may neither contradict the Congressional intent of statutes they seek to interpret, nor deny due process in the name of efficiency.Yet the proposed rule would violate both of these principles in the changes they propose to the Immigration Court procedures.
EOIR and DHS claim that the statutory language of 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1), requiring “further consideration of the application for asylum” to those found to have a credible fear of persecution, is ambiguous.In fact, the legislative history of that statute demonstrates that Congress intended for all of those found to possess a credible fear of persecution to be afforded full Immigration Court hearings. At a 1996 hearing on the bill, Senator Alan Simpson (R-WY) assured that “[a] specially trained asylum officer will hear his or her case, and if the [noncitizen] is found to have a ‘credible fear of persecution,’ he or she will be provided a full—full—asylum hearing.”EOIR and DHS are asked to note Sen. Simpson’s repetition of the word “full.”
This same sentiment was echoed by Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT), who stated that those who establish credible fear “get a full hearing without any question,” and Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX), who emphasized that those with a credible fear of persecution “can go through the normal process of establishing their claim.”The regulatory proposal is thus improperly violative of Congressional intent.
As to due process, in a 2013 decision, Oshodi v. Holder, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that limiting an asylum seeker’s testimony to events that were not duplicative of the written application, on the belief that the written record would suffice for deciding veracity, was a violation of the asylum seeker’s due process rights. Yet the proposed regulations seek to codify what according to Oshodi the Constitution specifically forbids.
The court in Oshodi stated that “the importance of live testimony to a credibility determination is well-recognized and longstanding.”Our own experience supports this conclusion.Immigration Judges have long decided cases that were first heard by Asylum Officers. The outcomes of those cases offer strong reason to question the logic of what is now being proposed. EOIR’s Statistical Yearbook for 2016 (the last year such stats were made available) shows that 83% of cases referred by asylum officers were granted asylum that year by Immigration Judges conducting de novo hearings.
Having heard as Immigration Judges many cases referred from the Asylum Office, we believe that the right to a full de novo court hearing, in which attorneys were free to offer documents and briefs, and to present testimony as they saw fit, was the reason for the large disparity in outcomes. The current system itself recognizes this; it is why asylum officers, who need not be attorneys, are limited to granting clearly meritorious cases, and must refer the rest to courts better equipped to delve into the intricacies of a highly complex field of law.
We can vouch from our experience on the bench to the importance of hearing live testimony in reaching the correct decision.We decided many cases in which in-person demeanor observations were instrumental to our credibility findings.Credibility is often a threshold issue in applications for asylum and related relief.In 2005, Congress specifically amended the criteria Immigration Judges may rely on in deciding credibility.While those criteria include their observations of the “demeanor, candor, or responsiveness of the applicant or witness” (observations which cannot be made unless testimony is witnessed), there is no provision in the statute for reaching credibility findings by reviewing an asylum officer’s opinion on the topic.The court in Oshodi cited language in a House conference report on the REAL ID Act of 2005, containing the following quote: “An immigration judge alone is in a position to observe an alien’s tone and demeanor, to explore inconsistencies in testimony, and to apply workable and consistent standards in the evaluation of testimonial evidence. He [or she] is, by virtue of his [or her] acquired skill, uniquely qualified to decide whether an alien’s testimony has about it the ring of truth.”
We can also state from experience that critical “Eureka” moments arise unexpectedly in the course of hearing testimony. A question from counsel, or sometimes from the judge, will elicit an answer that unexpectedly gives rise to a new line of questioning, or even a legal theory of the case. An example is found in last year’s Second Circuit decision in Hernandez-Chacon v. Barr. In that case, the Second Circuit found that a woman’s act of resisting rape by an MS-13 gang member could constitute a political opinion based on one sentence not contained in the written application, and uttered for the first time at the immigration court hearing: when asked why she resisted, the petitioner responded: “Because I had every right to.” From that single sentence, the Second Circuit found that the resistance transcended mere self-protection and took on a political dimension.
Under the proposed rules, the attorney would likely never have been able to ask the question that elicited the critical answer. At asylum office interviews, attorneys are relegated to sitting in the corner and quietly taking notes.Some of us teach trial advocacy skills to immigration attorneys, where we emphasize the importance of attorneys formulating a theory of their case, and then presenting documentary evidence and testimony in a manner best designed to support that theory.During our time on the bench, we looked forward to hearing well-presented claims from competent counsel; good attorneys increased efficiency, and usually led us to reach better decisions.And as former asylum officers have indicated that the concept of imputed political opinion was not available to them as a basis for granting asylum, questioning in support of such theory will not be covered in an asylum office interview.
But under the proposed procedures, attorneys are largely relegated to passive observer status.At asylum office interviews, attorneys are only provided a brief opportunity to speak after the interview has been completed.And in cases referred to the Immigration Court, the new restrictions may prevent attorneys from presenting any testimony at all.
As to the criteria that must be met in order to supplement the record before the Immigration Judge, whether evidence is duplicative or necessary is a fuzzy concept. For example, the law accords greater deference to government sources, such as State Department reports, and at times, Immigration Judges may find other evidence deserving of “little evidentiary weight.” Thus, sometimes duplicative evidence is necessary to persuade a judge who may otherwise not be sufficiently swayed by a single report. But that need might not become apparent until the hearing is concluded, whereas decisions to exclude additional testimony and documentary evidence are made much earlier, at the outset of the proceeding.
******************************
Read our full commentary,, including some parts of the proposal we endorse, here:
Many, many, many thanks to “Sir Jeffrey” Chase for collecting the “sentiments of the group” and preparing these cogent comments under extreme pressure!
U.S. Department of Justice Office of the Attorney General
BEFORE THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(h)(1)(i), I direct the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) to refer this case to me for review of its decision. The Board’s decision in this matter is automatically stayed pending my review. See Matter of Haddam, A.G. Order No. 2380-2001 (Jan. 19, 2001).
*****************************
This terse decision conceals a total, disgraceful mess in our justice system!
Mr. Negusie, the respondent in this case, filed his asylum application before an Immigration Judge in 2004 — 17 years ago!
In 2005, the IJ denied his application because of the so-called “persecutor bar,” but “deferred” his removal to Eritrea under the Convention Against Torture(“CAT”).
The BIA affirmed the IJ’s decision.
In 2007, the 5th Circuit affirmed the BIA.
In 2009, the Supreme Court reversed the BIA, and remanded the case to the BIA under their “Chevron doctrine” of “judicial task avoidance,” Negusie v. Holder, 555 U.S. 511 (2009].
At that time, in separate opinions, five Justices expressed rather definitive views about the substantive legal issue.
Justices Thomas, Scalia, and Alito all clearly believed that there should be no “duress exception” to the persecutor bar.
Justices Stevens and Breyer obviously thought that there was a “duress exception.”
The other four, Chief Justice Roberts, Justices Kennedy, Souter, & Ginsburg, had obviously studied matter, but rather than resolving the issue, chose to “punt” it back to the BIA for their supposed “expert interpretation” — an unusual “vote of confidence” in an administrative body they had just found to have misinterpreted their prior decisions.
“The Interregnum:” For the next nine years, during which both Administrations and BIA membership changed several times, the BIA “ruminated” on the task assigned them by the Supremes. Finally, in 2018, the BIA issued a precedent decision finding a limited “duress defense.”Matter of Negusie, 27 I&N Dec. 347 (BIA 2018). Nevertheless, the BIA found that Negusie didn’t qualify for that limited defense. So, Negusie lost! But, that was hardly the end of the matter within the convoluted world of the DOJ!
Despite the Government’s prevailing in Negusie’s case, four months later, AG Sessions “certified” that decision to himself.
Two years later, in 2020, another AG, Billy Barr, who had succeeded Sessions, reversed the BIA in a precedent, finding that there was no “duress exception,” however limited, to the “persecutor bar.” Matter of Negusie, 28 I&N Dec. 120 (A.G. 2020). Mr.Negusie lost once again, but this time on a different rationale than employed by the BIA!
The case was returned to the BIA for “background checks,” since Mr. Negusie’s removal had been indefinitely “deferred” under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). After Mr.Negusie’s background “cleared,” the BIA apparently entered a final order of removal to Eritrea, but “deferred” execution of that order under CAT.
But, before that review was complete, AG Garland “certified” the last BIA decision (actually Barr’s 2020 precedent) for review, thus “staying” its effect.
Summary: one IJ decision; three trips to the BIA; two trips to the Fifth Circuit; three AG decisions; one trip to the Supremes = no decision on a 2004 application!
In other words, five different tribunals have had this case before them at least nine times over 17 years without finally resolving the issue!
In the meantime, I can tell you from past experience that this issue arises on a regular basis before Immigration Judges. They, in turn, must resolve it as best they can without definitive guidance from higher judicial authorities, sometimes relying on “precedents” that later are vacated or invalidated.
The solution: How about a BIA made up of real judges: true nationally respected experts and “practical scholars” in immigration, human rights, and due process who will provide timely, legally correct guidance at the initial appeal level?
And, if they do happen to get it wrong, how about Supremes that decide the legal issues coming before them, as they are paid to do, rather than aimlessly “orbiting” legal questions back to the lower tribunals that got them wrong in the first place under the highly problematic “Chevron doctrine of high-level judicial task avoidance?”
Also, in the event such reforms were made, how about Attorneys General, who traditionally have particular expertise in neither immigration nor human rights, keeping their “fingers out of the pie” and letting the real experts do the work? (In this respect, while AG Sessions had a long, disgraceful political history of advancing far right, xenophobic, racist, misogynistic tropes, such that his nomination to become a Federal Judge was rejected by his own party, no recognized immigration/human rights expert would classify Sessions as having either legal expertise in the area or proper qualifications to serve in any judicial capacity including a “quasi-judicial” one, particularly in areas where he had previously and consistently shown extreme bias and intellectual dishonesty in his public statements and actions. Nor did AG Barr have any legitimate expertise that would qualify him to participate in quasi-judicial capacity in immigration and human rights cases. While, ordinarily, a Federal Circuit Judge with long service would acquire some immigration experience and perhaps develop expertise, Judge Garland sat on the DC Circuit, which did not regularly review Immigration Court cases, because there is no Immigration Court sitting in D.C.)
One might also ask why the Supremes would remand to a purportedly “expert agency” for statutory interpretation, only to have the process hijacked by politicos?
Finally, multi-raspberries to Congress who let this disgraceful abuse of both taxpayer resources and our justice system go on, in plain sight, for decades without corrective action. America needs an independent Article I Immigration Court, with judges selected on a merit basis, NOW!
Where’s Charles Dickens when we need him? See, e.g., Jarndyce v. Jarndyce.
The treatment of Haitian refugees at the U.S. border last month — some chased by horseback agents, others huddled by the thousands under a bridge — is tragic. For reasons that are less obvious, it is also ironic. Although Americans’ centuries-long debt to the Haitian people is untaught in our schools and unacknowledged in our public discourse, the indomitable spirit of the Haitian people created the United States we know today.
Even the capsule version of Haiti’s successful fight to end slavery and for independence at the turn of the 19th century is riveting. C.L.R. James, the late Trinidadian political leader and historian of the Caribbean, wrote six decades ago:
“In August 1791, after two years of the French Revolution and its repercussions in [Hispaniola], the slaves revolted. The struggle lasted for 12 years. The slaves defeated in turn the local whites and the soldiers of the French monarchy, a Spanish invasion, a British expedition of some 60,000 men, and a French expedition of similar size under Bonaparte’s brother-in-law. The defeat of Bonaparte’s expedition in 1803 resulted in the establishment of the Negro state of Haiti which has lasted to this day.”
It’s one of the most remarkable stories of liberation that we have as a species: the largest revolt of enslaved people in human history, and the only one known to have produced a free state. But even this sweeping account understated the extraordinary role that Haiti’s rebellious enslaved played in world history.
Their success in freeing themselves in the face of the stoutest European hostility imaginable ironically made Haiti the first nation to fulfill the most fundamental values of the Enlightenment: freedom from bondage and racial equality for all. These principles were enshrined in Haiti’s first constitution, in 1804, decades before they were embraced by the United States.
And that was just the beginning.
. . . .
***********************
Read the rest of the article at the link.
How have we repaid the debt? By illegally deporting Haitian asylum seekers to the “kidnapping center of the world” and then disingenuously claiming that it is a “safe” country for returns!
PORT-AU-PRINCE, Haiti — Four days after the August earthquake that devastated the south of Haiti, Walkens Alexandre, a physician, was traveling to treat victims at a hospital when a motorcycle blocked his white Ford Ranger. Two men hopped off, pulled guns, commandeered his truck and hauled him to the outskirts of the capital.
He was held for three days while the kidnappers negotiated by phone with his family. He’d be set free for 30 times his monthly salary. Loved ones pleaded with relatives and friends to contribute to the ransom.
“Now I’m traumatized, fearful of people, and reminded of this every time someone slams a door, or I hear a motorcycle,” said Alexandre, 43. “We don’t feel safe in Haiti. There is always panic, always fear.”
The most troubled nation in the hemisphere is now being held hostage by a surge in kidnappings.
With victims spanning all social classes and ransoms ranging from as little as $100 to six figures, Haiti now holds the tragic title of highest per capita kidnapping rate on Earth. Recorded kidnappings so far this year have spiked sixfold over the same period last year, as criminals nab doctors on their way to work, preachers delivering sermons, entire busloads of people in transit — even police on patrol. So great is the surge that this year, Port-au-Prince is posting more kidnappings in absolute terms than vastly larger Bogotá, Mexico City and São Paulo combined, according to the consulting firm Control Risks.
[Haitian migrants thought Biden would welcome them. Now deported to Haiti, they have one mission: Leave again.]
Locals and foreigners alike are living in fear. The heads of several foreign companies told The Washington Post that the kidnapping wave led them to reassign staffers to remote work in other Caribbean countries, Europe or the United States. Other firms are leaving Haiti altogether.
“Every time you leave your door in Port-au-Prince, it’s like a game of Russian roulette,” said one European executive, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss security. “You don’t know if you’ll be kidnapped that day.”
Maarten Boute, chairman of cellular phone provider Digicel Haiti, said his firm has resorted to moving staff only in armored cars with drivers trained for kidnapping scenarios. Because of the escalating risk, he said, he abandoned his Port-au-Prince home this year to move into a fortified hotel compound.
“Most people who can afford it and have visas have sent their family away, or moved outside the country,” he said. “We are using armed security, armored cars and have patrols that [scout] roads. But we still avoid certain areas, or moving around, as much as we can.”
Saddled with endemic poverty and violence, Haiti is no stranger to kidnapping waves. The country suffered a brutal surge from 2005 until the 2010 earthquake, which killed more than 220,000 people but had the effect of moderating kidnappings. Numbers have climbed steadily in recent years as violent gangs, unchecked by the government, have seized control over key portions of the country.
. . . .
**********************
Read the rest of the report at the link!
This is a “safe country” for removal? “Rounding them up and moving them out” without meaningful inquiry into individual circumstances is “American justice?” Come on, man!
Mayorkas and Garland have obviously spent far too much time at the “Miller Lite Happy Hour” 🤮☠️ and far too little time restoring the rule of law for vulnerable asylum seekers who deserve our protection!👎🏽
“Miller Lite” on Tap @ DOJ & DHS! Maybe Mayorkas & Garland have had “one too many!”
