"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.
Immigrant Defenders help humanity at the border, treating fellow humans with dignity, respect, kindness. PHOTO: Linkedin
Immigrant Defenders posted this on LinkedIn:
Customs and Border Protection (CBP) continues to inhumanely release asylum seekers onto San Diego streets, often with little more than the clothes on their backs. #TeamImmDef, Lindsay Toczylowski, Margaret Cargioli, Melissa Shepard and Jesús Contreras Barajas, continues to join various non-profit organizations, grassroots groups and community members to receive asylum seekers with respect and help them reach their friends and family members all over the United States. Our dedicated team, in collaboration with our remarkable San Diego-based partners, is tirelessly working to continue to welcome migrants with dignity. We have welcomed more than 8500 asylum seekers in 13 days.
We need all levels of government, local and federal, to provide infrastructure and financial resources to help NGOs welcome with dignity.
If you want to help, please consider donating airline miles to Miles4Migrants. Please see the link in our bio to donate. Or donate directly to ImmDef at Immdef.org/donate.
Scandalously, rather than looking to solve this humanitarian crisis, the GOP seeks to punish victims of Government dereliction of duty and their humanitarian responders for asserting well-established legal rights! Talk about a party of lawlessness! Sadly, it’s no surprise since they owe homage to an insurrectionist “leader” who is a notorious fraudster, con man, and criminal defendant in multiple cases!
While resisting the GOP’s worst racist/nativist nonsense, the Dems’ approach has been largely to avoid talking about immigration and human rights, apparently believing that pretending like they don’t exist will make them go away. But, migration isn’t going away!
While we can to some extent control, channel, and optimize migration, irresponsible “zero tolerance/uber deterrence” policies will do little to stop reality in the long run. It will, however, eventually force more migration underground and cede policy control to smugglers, cartels, and other criminals.
At the same time, obsessing over deterring and deporting those who merely seek refuge and a chance to contribute to America will actually diminish the harder work of focusing on criminals out to turn border disorder and misplaced priorities to their advantage.
Neither party appears to have a realistic plan for the border, and the GOP actively seeks to make things worse!Meanwhile, not for the first time, NGOs, local communities, and compassionate individuals are left to pick up the slack!
Recently, the San Diego County Board showed the potential for bipartisan cooperation on the border.
But, without a more realistic approach from the Feds — currently blocked by the GOP — local efforts are unlikely to succeed. And, that’s an avoidable humanitarian tragedy!
The Afghan man speaks only Farsi, but he wasn’t worried about representing himself in U.S. immigration court. He believed the details of his asylum claim spoke for themselves.
Mohammad was a university professor, teaching human rights courses in Afghanistan before he fled for the United States. Mohammad is also Hazara, an ethnic minority long persecuted in his country, and he said he was receiving death threats under the Taliban, who reimposed their harsh interpretation of Sunni Islam after taking power in 2021.
He crossed the Texas border in April 2022, surrendered to Border Patrol agents and was detained. A year later, a hearing was held via video conference. His words were translated by a court interpreter in another location, and he said he struggled to express himself — including fear for his life since he was injured in a 2016 suicide bombing.
At the conclusion of the nearly three-hour hearing, the judge denied him asylum. Mohammad said he was later shocked to learn that he had waived his right to appeal the decision.
“I feel alone and that the law wasn’t applied,” said Mohammad, who spoke to The Associated Press on condition that only his first name be used, over fears for the safety of his wife and children, who are still in Afghanistan.
. . . .
Hon. Jeffrey S. Chase Jeffrey S. Chase Blog Coordinator & Chief Spokesperson, Round Table of Former Immigration Judges
Former immigration judge Jeffrey Chase, who reviewed the transcript, said he was surprised John-Baptiste waived Mohammad’s right to appeal and that the Board of Immigration Appeals upheld that decision. Case law supports granting protection for people who belong to a group long persecuted in their homelands even if an individual cannot prove specific threats, said Chase, an adviser to the appeals board.
But Andrew Arthur, another former immigration judge, said John-Baptiste ruled properly.
“The respondent knew what he was filing, understood all of the questions that were asked of him at the hearing, understood the decision, and freely waived his right to appeal,” Arthur, a fellow at the Center for Immigration Studies, which advocates for immigration restrictions, said via email.
Chase said the hearing appeared rushed, and he believes the case backlog played a role.
“Immigration judges hear death-penalty cases in traffic-court conditions,” said Chase, quoting a colleague. “This is a perfect example.”
Overall, the 600 immigration judges nationwide denied 63% of asylum cases last year, according to Syracuse University’s Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse. Individual rates vary wildly, from a Houston judge who denied all 105 asylum requests to a San Francisco one denying only 1% of 108 cases.
John-Baptiste, a career prosecutor appointed during the Trump administration’s final months, denied 72% of his 114 cases.
. . . .
*******************
Read Julie’s complete article at the link.
Hazaras are an historically persecuted group in Afghanistan whose already perilous situation has demonstrably worsened under the Taliban. See, e.g., https://www.ushmm.org/genocide-prevention/blog/urgent-action-needed-hazaras-in-afghanistan-under-attack. This case should have been a “slam dunk grant” under a proper application of precedents like Cardoza and Mogharrabi! Additionally, Hazara claims should be routinely grantable under the “pattern or practice of persecution” regulations that EOIR judges are supposed to apply (but seldom do).
No wonder this system builds incredible unnecessary backlogs when it botches the easy grants, wastes time on specious, disingenuous reasons for denial, and allows questionably-qualified judges to run roughshod over due process, the rule of law, and binding precedents.
Here’s additional commentary from “Sir Jeffrey:”
Thankfully, the amazing Steve Schulman at Akin Gump took on Mohamed’s case after his pro se hearing, and Human Rights First provided additional support.
(The Round Table was prepared to file an amicus brief on this one at the Fifth Circuit, but an agreement was reached to reopen the case at the IJ level before briefing was due.)
That the Government agreed to reopen this case basically “says it all” about the absurd result in the original hearing and the bogus “waiver” of appeal.
Mob chatter: “Hey, anyone here know what an ARCG is?” “No clue.” “Some kind of boat?” “Maybe we should ask Noah.” “Don’t bother. The only rule we follow around here is ‘When in doubt, throw ‘em out!’” “Isn’t that what the UN Handbook says, that ‘giving the benefit of the doubt’ means to ‘doubt that any benefit will ever be given?’” “Yup, sounds right to me!” “I don’t understand it. We’re overtly hostile to asylum seekers and their lawyers, we’ve tilted the playing field against them, yet they still come! Why?” “Detain, discourage, deny, deport, deter, that’s our mission!” “Where due process, fundamental fairness, and best practices go to die!” “Precedents? We only follow the ones unfavorable to respondents!” https://www.flickr.com/photos/rasputin243/ Creative Commons License
From: Ted Murphy
Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2023 10:09 AM
To: AILA Philadelphia List
Cc: Kaley Miller-Schaeffer
Subject: 3rd Circuit Precedent – PSG Honduras A-R-C-G-
Importance: High
Friends,
Please see the attached precedent decision from the 3rd Circuit today. While the first 16 pages of the 21 page decision focus on CIMT issues, the final 4 pages are worth reading on PSG similar to A-R-C-G- that the BIA ignored.
Here, on the other hand, the BIA did not adhere to
Matter of A-R-C-G-’s requirement to examine Avila’s PSG
within the context of the specific country conditions in
Honduras. The BIA rejected Avila’s PSG for lack of
particularity without considering evidence in the record about
“widespread and systemic violence” against Honduran women,
“inconsistent legislation implementation, gender
discrimination within the justice system, and lack of access to
services.”109 Evidence in the record, including that “[l]ess than
one in five cases of femicide are investigated,… and the
average rate of impunity for sexual violence and femicide is
approximately 95%,” may have been relevant in examining
whether Avila’s proposed PSG was cognizable.110 Just as the
cultural attitudes toward gender were relevant in Matter of A-
R-C-G-, evidence in the record as to the “machismo culture” in
Honduras may be relevant to assessing whether Avila has a
cognizable PSG.111
Moreover, in Matter of A-R-C-G-, DHS conceded that
the proposed group “married women in Guatemala who are
unable to leave their relationship” was sufficient for a PSG
asylum claim.112 Given the similarity between that social group
and “Honduran women in a domestic relationship where the
male believes that women are to live under male domination,”
we must remand for the BIA to provide clarification as to its
application of Matter of A-R-C-G-, and to determine whether
Avila’s proposed PSG is cognizable in light of the specific
country conditions
.
We must also remand for the BIA to consider whether
Avila demonstrated a well-founded fear of persecution on
account of her PSG. The BIA determined that Avila’s PSG did
not “exist independently” of the harm alleged, as required
under Matter of M-E-V-G-113 and Matter of W-G-R-.114 Matter
of M-E-V-G- cites to this Court’s prior precedent in Lukwago
v. Ashcroft,115 which states that a PSG “must exist
independently of the persecution suffered by the applicant for
asylum.”116 However, Lukwago makes clear that in
determining whether a PSG exists independently of the
persecution suffered, the BIA must consider the PSG in the
context both of “past persecution” and a “well-founded fear of
persecution.”117 Here, the BIA did not consider whether Avila
had demonstrated that she had a well-founded fear of
persecution based on her past experiences of abuse and sexual
violence. Accordingly, we will remand for the BIA to consider,
in addition to whether Avila has suffered past persecution on
account of her PSG, whether she has demonstrated a well-
founded fear of future persecution.
In conclusion, on remand, the BIA should (1) clarify,
given the Government’s concession in Matter of A-R-C-G- that
the proposed group was sufficient for a PSG asylum claim, its
application of Matter of A-R-C-G- to the present case, and
consider Avila’s PSG in the context of evidence presented
about the country conditions in Honduras and (2) provide
guidance in applying both Matter of A-R-C-G- and Matter of
M-E-V-G- with respect to past persecution and a well-founded
fear of future persecution on account of membership in a PSG
Case was argued by Attorney Kaley Miller-Schaeffer.
Once again, the BIA fails to follow its own precedent favorable to the respondent! Yet, in a Dem Administration they get away with mocking the rule of law in life or death cases, in a “court system” that the Dems “own.” Why?
WHO applies precedents and rules can be as important as the precedents and rules themselves! Failure to properly and uniformly apply legal rules that favor asylum seekers has become a chronic problem at EOIR. It’s one that Garland has yet to effectively and comprehensively address!
Many congrats to Kaley Miller-Schaefer and Murphy Law!
Kaley Miller-Schaefer ESQ Partner Murphy Law PHOTO: Linkedin
This brief represents the views of two groups of amici curiae. See Corporate
Disclosure Statement for names of amici curiae. The first group is comprised of thirty-two immigration law scholars and clinical professors. These amici teach immigration law and/or provide clinical instruction in law school clinics that provide representation to asylum seekers and noncitizens seeking relief under 8 U.S.C. § 1231 and 8 U.S.C § 1158. As such, amici are knowledgeable of the particular legal requirements of 8 U.S.C. § 1231 and 8 U.S.C § 1158 and have a special interest in the proper administration and interpretation of the nation’s immigration laws, particularly asylum and withholding of removal.
The second group is comprised of forty-one former immigration judges (“IJs”) and Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) members who have collectively presided over thousands of removal proceedings and have interest in this case based on their many years of dedicated service administering the immigration laws of the United States. Based on this experience, amici believe that withholding of removal
1 Pursuant to Rule 29 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, amici notes that all parties have consented to the filing of this brief.
Furthermore, pursuant to Rule 29 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, amici further certifies that no party’s counsel authored the brief in whole or in part, no party or party’s counsel contributed money that was intended to fund preparation or submission of the brief, and no person, other than amici, their members, or counsel has contributed money intended to fund preparing or submitting the brief.
is the means whereby Congress provided for the United States to meet its international treaty obligation of “nonrefoulement” under Article 33 of the Refugee Convention. Withholding of removal is a vital legal tool upon which IJs rely to ensure that noncitizens appearing before them are not removed to countries for which they have proven it to be more likely than not that they have experienced (or will experience) persecution on account of a protected ground — an extremely high burden to meet. This relief is mandatory where the noncitizen’s burden of proof is met and does not lead to permanent status or derivative status for immediate family members, in contrast to asylum, which is a discretionary form of relief that grants a permanent status and derivative status for immediate family members.
Amici contend that the more lenient “a reason” standard, as applied to the nexus between the protected ground and the persecution for withholding (as opposed to the “at least one central reason” standard for asylum) requires IJs to order withholding in cases where evidence of nexus may be insufficient for a discretionary grant of asylum. Such an interpretation would provide greater protection from violating the international treaty obligation of nonrefoulement. The instant case, where Petitioner is ineligible for asylum but may be protected from severe future persecution by withholding of removal, presents exactly the context in which Congress intended for the lesser “a reason” nexus standard to apply. Addressing this question here provides an opportunity for this Court to affirm Congress’s clear
intent, expressed in the statutory language of 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(C), to establish protection against nonrefoulement for this noncitizen and many others who, for any number of reasons, are ineligible for the discretionary relief of asylum.
AG Merrick Garland thinks it’s fine to play “roulette” with human lives in his arbitrary, capricious, and dysfunctional EOIR. Those trying to help his victims obtain justice disagree! Is this REALLY the way things ran when Garland was on the D.C. Circuit? If not, why is it “good enough for Immigration Court?” IMAGE: tvtropesJennifer Scarborough, Esquire Law Firm of Jennifer Scarborough PLLC Harlingen, TX PHOTO: FirmHamed Aleaziz Staff Writer LA Times
Hamed Aleaziz & Tracy Wilkinson report for the LA Times:
WASHINGTON — Numerous Russians attempting to escape conscription onto the Ukrainian battlefield have made perilous journeys to the United States, trusting in the Biden administration’s declaration that the U.S. would “welcome” those fleeing the war and their forced participation in it.
Instead of winning asylum, however, some of these men have been detained and, in at least one case, deported back to Russia, where they could be thrown into the fight against U.S.-armed Ukraine — into “the meat grinder,” as the U.S. secretary of State recently put it.
The U.S. has deported nearly 190 Russians since the beginning of October 2022, almost three times as many as were removed during the entire prior year.
Some Russian conscripts have refused to board deportation flights, forcing U.S. immigration officers to return them to immigration detention and legal limbo.
Three Russians the U.S. detained and sought to deport told The Times that certain abuse awaited them at home, where draft dodgers are subject to imprisonment or swift dispatch to front lines. The three Russians said they felt bewildered — betrayed, even — bythe U.S. asylum system. The Times is withholding their identities because they fear retribution if they are returned to Russia.
“Death awaits me there if I go back,” said one Russian man in his 20s. He said he was slated to be deported but fainted when immigration officials loaded him onto the plane, which forced them to return him to detention.
Although Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky urged Russians who opposed the war to stay at home and fight to topple Russian President Vladimir Putin, the Biden administration has explicitly encouraged Russians who do not want to fight in Ukraine to seek asylum in the United States.
“There are people out there in Russia who do not want to fight Putin’s war or die for it,” White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said in September. “We believe that, regardless of nationality, they may apply for asylum in the United States and have their claim adjudicated on a case-by-case basis.
“We welcome any folks who are seeking asylum, and they should do that,” she said.
But Russians who have taken the U.S. up on that offer have quickly discovered that seeking asylum is not the same as winning it. The U.S. government’s willingness to help people who flee Russia — even if doing so undermines Russia’s war effort — is limited.
In some cases, the government has argued that being called up to serve in the Russian military is not alone sufficient grounds for asylum. Jennifer Scarborough, the lawyer for the three Russians The Times interviewed, has countered that they qualify for asylum because they did not want to be involved with the war for political reasons and would face unreasonable repercussions for refusing to serve.
“They could be deported back to a regime that is committing gross human rights violations,” she said. “I don’t understand how we are denying Russians at all.”
The number of Russians crossing the southern U.S. border surged in November and December, shortly after Putin, facing massive casualties among his troops, ordered up a fresh army mobilization and drafted up to 300,000 reservists.
Russians crossed the southern border more than 5,000 times in November and nearly 8,000 times in December, a major increase from earlier months.
More than 8 million Ukrainians have fled their homeland since Putin launched his invasion of the former Soviet Republic on Feb. 24, 2022. Their escapes have involved trains and commercial flights and massive assistance, and they have largely been welcomed in other countries.
By contrast, many of those fleeing Russia for the U.S. have used the same difficult and at times treacherous route that disfavored refugees from all over the world use. A flight from Dubai or Istanbul gets them to South America, where they continue on flights, buses and by foot northward, sometimes trekking through jungle, to reach Mexico and the U.S. border.
One man who spoke to The Times was picked up by immigration agents in December near Tecate. The man made the weeks-long journey to the U.S. with his younger brother.
The man fled Russia when his call-up notice arrived.
“Even in childhood, I understood that, for me, America was a symbol of freedom,” he said in a telephone interview from a detention center in Pennsylvania. “And yes, there was a dream to move here one day. Because during your entire life in Russia, it is difficult; you’re discriminated against at every turn.”
“I went through war,” the man said. “I know what this entails. I saw the war. And now they are trying to force me to bring this to Ukraine.”
. . . .
*****************
Read the complete report at the link.
Jenn Scarborough asks the right question. In a functioning protection system, one would expect most cases like this to be granted in short order. However, the BIA generally has restrictive precedents on draft evaders and deserters stemming largely from a desire to deny protection to applicants fleeing civil wars in Central America decades ago. See, e.g., Matter of A-G-, 19 I & N Dec. 502 (BIA 1987).
As “Courtsiders” know, the endemic problem is lack of expert, progressive, dynamic, courageous intellectual leadership in a system now solely controlled and operated by a Dem Administration that often acts more like an “old school GOP” one on immigration and human rights! Administration of both parties live in perpetual fear that making good on promises of fair treatment and legal protection would actually motivate refugees to seek it!
That’s a particular problem at EOIR which should be the legal intellectual leader here! We need practical, scholarly, generous, common sense precedents focusing on what should be easily grantable protection claims!
Instead, we have a leaderless, bureaucratic, non-expert mess, still retaining too many elements of the anti-immigrant, anti-asylum, any reason to deny, go along to get along, court as a “deterrent” system constructed and promoted by the Trump Administration. That has continued to churn out both egregious inconsistencies and backlog-building inefficiencies in critical “life or death” cases!
When I first came across Cochrane International, the company that built the floating barrier deployed in Eagle Pass, Texas, I watched a demonstration the company gave with detached bemusement. I was at a gun range just outside San Antonio. It was 2017, three months after Donald Trump had been sworn in and the last day of that year’s Border Security Expo, the annual gathering of Department of Homeland Security’s top brass and hundreds of companies from the border industry. Among industry insiders, the optimism was high. With Trump’s wall rhetoric at a fever pitch, the money was in the bank.
All around me, all morning, Border Patrol agents were blasting away body-shaped cutouts in a gun competition. My ears were ringing, thanks in part to the concussion grenade I had launched—under the direction of an agent, but with great ineptitude—into an empty field as part of another hands-on demonstration. The first two days of the expo had been in the much-posher San Antonio convention center, where companies displayed their sophisticated camera systems, biometrics, and drones in a large exhibition hall. But here on the gun range we seemed to be on its raw edge.
So when a red truck with a camo-painted trailer showed up and announced its demonstration, it wasn’t too much of a surprise. The blasting bullets still echoed all around as if they would never cease. Two men jumped out of the truck wearing red shirts and khaki pants. They frantically ran around the camo trailer, like mice scurrying around a piece of cheese trying to figure out the proper angle of attack. Then the demo began. One of the men got back in the truck, and as it lurched forward, coiling razor wire began to spill out of its rear end as if it were having a bowel movement. As the truck moved forward, more and more of Cochrane’s Rapid Deployment Barrier spilled out until it extended the length of a football field or more. It was like a microwavable insta-wall, fast-food border enforcement.
Little did I know that six years later, this same company, Cochrane, would give us the floating barrier, with its wrecking ball–sized buoys connected side by side with circular saws. The floating barrier, as the Texas Standard put it, is the “centerpiece of Operation Lone Star,” Texas governor Greg Abbott’s $4.5 billion border enforcement plan. For this barrier, which has now been linked to the deaths of at least two people, the Texas Department of Public Safety awarded Cochrane an $850,000 contract.
. . . . .
When I first saw Cochrane back in 2017 among the ear-ringing gunfire on the last day of the Border Security Expo, I had a feeling I might see them again. No matter how ludicrous the rapid barrier deployment camo truck seemed to me then, there was, indeed, plenty of money to be made.
********************
Money and profit over humanity, common sense, and the rule of law. Read the full article at the link.
BIA Asylum Panel In Action. It’s hard to ignore the BIA’s violent, deadly, abuse of asylum seekers, particularly those of color. But, somehow, Merrick Garland, Lisa Monaco, Vanita Gupta, Kristen Clarke, and other DOJ officials manage to look the other way, as do Congressional Dems! Too busy fecklessly complaining about Justice Clarence Thomas to look at their own house? Albrecht Dürer, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
The panel granted a petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ denial of Francisco Reyes-Corado’s motion to reopen removal proceedings based on changed circumstances, and remanded.
The Board denied reopening based, in part, on Reyes- Corado’s failure to include a new application for relief, as required by 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1). The government acknowledged that under Aliyev v. Barr, 971 F.3d 1085 (9th Cir. 2020), the Board erred to the extent it relied on Reyes- Corado’s failure to submit a new asylum application for relief. Here, however, unlike in Aliyev, Reyes-Corado did not include his original asylum application with his motion to reopen. Consistent with the plain text of § 1003.2(c)(1) and various persuasive authorities, the panel held that a motion to reopen that adds new circumstances to a previously considered application need not be accompanied by an application for relief.
The Board also denied reopening after concluding that Reyes-Corado did not establish materially changed country conditions to warrant an exception to the time limitation on his motion to reopen. Reyes-Corado initially sought asylum relief based on threats he received from his uncle’s family members to discourage him from avenging his father’s murder by his uncle’s family. The Board previously concluded that personal retribution, rather than a protected
** This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader.
REYES-CORADO V. GARLAND 3
ground, was the central motivation for the threats of harm. In his motion to reopen, Reyes-Corado presented evidence of persistent and intensifying threats.
As an initial matter, the panel explained that the changed circumstances Reyes-Corado presented were entirely outside of his control, and thus were properly understood as changed country conditions, not changed personal circumstances. The panel also held that these changed circumstances were material to Reyes-Corado’s claims for relief because they rebutted the agency’s previous determination that Reyes-Corado had failed to establish the requisite nexus between the harm he feared and his membership in a familial particular social group. The panel explained that the Board’s previous nexus rationale was undermined by the fact that the threats, harassment, and violence persisted despite the lack of any retribution by Reyes-Corado’s family against his uncle’s family for at least fourteen years after Reyes-Corado’s father’s murder, and where multiple additional family members were targeted, including elderly and young family members who would be unlikely to carry out any retribution. Thus, the panel held that the Board abused its discretion in concluding that Reyes-Corado’s evidence was not qualitatively different than the evidence at his original hearing.
The panel also declined to uphold the Board’s determination that Reyes-Corado failed to establish prima facie eligibility for relief because Reyes-Corado’s new evidence likely undermined the Board’s prior nexus finding, and the Board applied the improperly high “one central reason” nexus standard to Reyes-Corado’s withholding of removal claim, rather than the less demanding “a reason” standard.
4 REYES-CORADO V. GARLAND
The panel remanded for the Board to reconsider whether Reyes-Corado established prima facie eligibility for relief and to otherwise reevaluate the motion to reopen in light of the principles set forth in the opinion.
COUNSEL
David A. Schlesinger
(argued), Kai Medeiros, and Paulina
Reyes, Jacobs & Schlesinger LLP, San Diego, California, for Petitioner.
Enitan O. Otunla (argued), Trial Attorney; Bernard A. Joseph, Senior Litigation Counsel; Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney General; Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice; Washington, D.C.; for Respondent.
OPINION
KOH, Circuit Judge:
********************************
Congrats to David A. Schlesinger & colleagues!
I’ve often discussed EOIR’s all-too-frequent use of bogus nexus determinations – basically turning normal legal rules on causation on their head – to deny protection to bona fide refugees, particularly those from Latin America and Haiti.
There is a growing body of evidence that EOIR is systematically unfair to Central American asylum applicants. But, Garland, his lieutenants, and Congressional Dems have basically looked the other way as this stunning, widespread denial of due process and equal protection under our Constitution continues to unfold in plain view on their watch! Why? Where’s the dynamic, values-based, expert, ethical leadership we should expect from a Dem Administration?
This particular example of substandard “judging” literally reeks of pre-judgement and “endemic any reason to denialism!”
Dems wring their collective hands about Justice Clarence Thomas, who is essentially unaccountable and untouchable! But, they have done little or nothing to address serious competence, bias, and ethical issues festering in a major “life or death” Federal Court System they totally control!
A HUGE congratulations to RMIAN and Laura Lunn on today’s 10th Circuit win in Arostegui-Maldonado v. Garland. I was lucky enough to be in the court at oral argument to watch Laura expertly navigate tough questions from a difficult panel and today the published decision came out holding (1) that the PFR filed within 30 days of the BIA order affirming the IJ denial of relief in withholding-only proceedings is timely filed and (2) that the IJ and BIA “defied logic and law” in misapplying the under-color-of-law element of the CAT claim, requiring remand.
Incredible work to Laura and all others involved!
Please note that you can contact your attorney and paralegal at their direct phone lines. For all future phone communications, please contact us directly instead of using the main phone number. Our direct phone lines are listed at the bottom of our emails, located in our signature blocks.
Folks, the IJ’s “reasoning to denial” in this case was beyond totally absurd! It’s an example of the type of judicial misconduct and incompetence that still flourishes in parts of Garland’s “any reason to deny” dysfunctional EOIR!
AG Merrick Garland thinks it’s fine to play “roulette” with human lives in his arbitrary, capricious, and dysfunctional EOIR. Those trying to help his victims obtain justice disagree! Is this REALLY the way things ran when Garland was on the D.C. Circuit? If not, why is it “good enough for Immigration Court?” IMAGE: tvtropes
After more than two years of the Biden Administration under Garland, we still have not seen the type of systemic, merit-based “house cleaning” of biased and incompetent judges and the replacement of deadwood (and worse) at the totally unjust and dysfunctional EOIR that could and should have been a “day one priority” for Garland’s DOJ.
There is simply no excuse for this type of disingenuous, life-threatening performance by both EOIR and OIL under Garland’s deficient leadership! There are literally thousands of qualified experts out here who could have done a better job than the IJ and the BIA in this case!
It’s Garland’s job to get better judges on the EOIR bench — judges who will be fair, impartial, due-process focused, and experts in all facets of immigration and human rights laws! His failure to do his job is undermining our justice system and endangering human lives! How is this “OK?”
In the “real world,” folks who “can’t do their jobs” find themselves “out of a job!” Why is Garland’s DOJ an “exception,” with lives and the future of American justice on the line? Isn’t it past time to “just say no” to continuing to treat the ongoing national disgrace at EOIR as “just an afterthought” in the elitist, disconnected world of Garland’s DOJ, where the human lives being destroyed by DOJ’s failures are treated as “somebody else’s problem?”
“Zhi Bo Chen petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming a decision of an Immigration Judge (IJ) that denied his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture, and ordered him removed from the United States. The IJ’s decision was based, in part, on its finding that Chen was not credible. Because certain reasons for that credibility finding were erroneous, and because we cannot be confident that the IJ would have made the same determination absent those errors, Chen’s petition for review is GRANTED, the BIA’s decision is VACATED, and the case is REMANDED to the BIA for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
Gary Yerman, Esquire Managing Partner The Yerman Group NY, NY
*****************************
My favorite quote from the Circuit’s decision by Judge Raymond J. Lohier (Obama appointee): “We conclude that the IJ misidentified part of Chen’s testimony as inconsistent, improperly relied on trivial inconsistencies, and misconstrued as an omission a part of Chen’s testimony that comported with his Form I-589 asylum statement.”
But, even with all these glaring defects, the IJ’s findings were affirmed by the BIA without much, if any, critical analysis. What does this say about EOIR under AG Garland?
Credibility should be “bread and butter” for EOIR Judges and particularly the BIA. But, when the “culture” is “any reason to deny,” bad things happen!
As my Round Table colleague Hon. “Sir Jeffery” Chase commented: “You have to wonder what percentage of all BIA decisions contain significant errors.”
I think that’s a particular concern in unrepresented cases, which are much less likely to reach the Circuits. Additionally, the unduly restrictive legal standard for judicial review means that marginal BIA adverse credibility findings will often get “rubber stamp” affirmances from the Circuits.
Essentially, EOIR often denies the respondent “the benefit of the doubt” in close credibility cases and then the Courts of Appeals give the BIA “the benefit of the doubt.” So, it ends up being a “double whammy” for the respondent!
That’s why it is critical to have individuals effectively represented at the trial level!At each level thereafter, the law skews heavily in favor of the Government!
That also supports the position that “dedicated dockets” and “expedited dockets” that discourage and impede (one could argue intentionally) effective representation and full presentation of all the evidence should be held to be prima facie denials of due process!
It’s also why I argue that it’s so important that exceptionally well qualified experts with experience representing asylum seekers be appointed to these hugely important (yet widely ignored and under-appreciated) EOIR judgeships! Better judges would make the entire EOIR system fairer and more efficient, without sacrificing due process!
That’s also why appellate victories like this by Attorney Gary Yerman are so impressive and telling about the continuing dysfunction at EOIR!
Additionally, given the “loading of the system” against the respondent on credibility, the BIA has to REALLY screw up to get reversed, as they did in this case! That, in turn, raises a fundamental unresolved issue: Why is a Dem Administration running a specialized court system that all too often lacks the expertise and judgement to get “bread and butter” issues like this correct in the first instance?
It’s obvious that a BIA that goofs up cases like this is NOT providing the type of clear, expert guidance to IJs necessary to achieve due process and fundamental fairness on a continuing systemic basis! That should be of huge concern to everyone who values justice in America!
Here’s a report from Hon. “Sir Jeffrey” Chase of the Round Table:
Hi all: As you know, our group filed an amicus brief in East Bay Sanctuary v. Garland, challenging the new rules at the border that would make most of those unable to get an online appointment through an app ineligible to apply for asylum.
District Court Judge Jon Tigar just issued the attached order granting summary judgment to plaintiffs and denying defendants’ motion for summary judgment.
From Judge Tigar’s order:
“Congress granted the agencies authority to impose additional conditions on asylum eligibility, but only those consistent with section 1158…Two of the conditions imposed by the Rule have been previously found to be inconsistent with Section 1158…
The Court concludes that the Rule is contrary to law because it presumes ineligible for asylum noncitizens who enter between ports of entry, using a manner of entry that Congress expressly intended should not affect access to asylum. The Rule is also contrary to law because it presumes ineligible for asylum noncitizens who fail to apply for protection in a transit country, despite Congress’s clear intent that such a factor should only limit access to asylum where the transit country actually presents a safe option.”
The order is stayed for 14 days to allow the government to appeal.
Our group has once again helped make a difference in providing fairness and due process. Congrats to all.
**********************
Congrats to the plaintiffs and to my Round Table colleagues!
This was basically a blowout for the plaintiffs on all issues! The USG argument essentially was that complying with the law would be too difficult and/or politically unpopular. Therefore, they have chosen to violate the law and to use rather transparent pretexts (actually misrepresentations about the bogus “presumption”) to evade it.
Really, folks, how do we have a Dem AG who 1) approves such complete legal nonsense; 2) advances essentially frivolous and disingenuous arguments in an attempt to defend the indefensible; and 3) can’t make the legal system for asylum work in a fair and legal manner at EOIR or DHS?
How immoral and intellectually dishonest are Garland’s arguments. Here’s one of my favorite passages from Judge Tigar’s opinion:
While they wait for an adjudication, applicants for asylum must remain in Mexico, where migrants are generally at heightened risk of violence by both state and non-state actors.
See, e.g., PC 32446–68 (2022 State Department report noting credible reports of gender-based violence against migrants; reports of migrants being tortured by migration authorities; “numerous instances” of armed groups targeting migrants for kidnapping, extortion, and homicide; and that asylum seekers and migrants were vulnerable to forced labor); PC 22839–42 (NGO report documenting violent crimes against 13,480 migrants in Mexico, by both state and non-state actors, between January 2021 and December 2022); PC 76248–87 (table of crimes summarized in preceding report); PC 21752–58 (2022 NGO report discussing gender-based violence in northern Mexico border cities, including against LGBTQI+ and Black migrants); PC 21610–11 (2022 NGO report concerning gender-based violence against Venezuelan women and LGBTIQ+ migrants in southern Mexico).16
16 In addition to these examples, the record is replete with additional documentation of the extraordinary risk of violence many migrants face in Mexico. See, e.g., PC 22129–30 (2023 news report documenting instances of kidnapping of asylum seekers in northern Mexico); PC 23247–50 (2022 news report quoting Chihuahua state police chief stating that “organized criminal gangs are financing their operations through migrant trafficking”); PC 23082 (2023 NGO report discussing treatment of migrants and asylum seekers); PC 20937–43 (2021 NGO report documenting kidnapping and extortion of Venezuelan migrants in Mexico); PC 29740–29744 (2021 NGO report documenting instances of rape, kidnapping, and other violence experienced by migrant women in Mexico); PC 75946–48 (2022 NGO report documenting violence against migrants in Mexico); AR 4881 (2022 NGO report noting that asylum seekers from Central America have been pursued across the border and found in southern Mexico by their persecutors).
Only somebody who avoids the border, has never represented asylum seekers there, and is impervious to facts and reality could make such outlandish arguments in favor of an outrageously deficient and illegal “policy.” Sounds like something out of the “Stephen Miller Playbook!”Why is it coming from a Dem AG?
BIA Asylum Panel In Action — Asylum experts and advocates question the wisdom of the BIA’s “take no prisoners” approach to asylum! Albrecht Dürer, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
Gebra v. A.G., 3d Cir, 07-19-23, unpublished (unfortunately)
PANEL: AMBRO, RESTREPO, FUENTES, Circuit Judges
OPINION: JUDGE RESTRO
KEY QUOTE:
i. The BIA applied an overly rigorous standard to the new evidence.
Gebra argues that the BIA applied an “overly rigorous standard” when analyzing the new evidence presented when determining whether he established a new claim. Pet’r Br. 44 (citing Tilija v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 930 F.3d 165 (3d Cir. 2019)). In Tilija, we held that unless the new evidence is inherently unbelievable, it must be taken as true. 930 F.3d at 172; see also Shardar, 503 F.3d at 313 (“Facts presented in the motion to reopen
are ‘accepted as true unless inherently unbelievable.’”) (cleaned up). If the BIA fails to accept new evidence as true, then it applies an “overly rigorous standard.” Tilija, 930 F.3d at 172. Furthermore, not accepting such evidence as true is an abuse of discretion if the petitioner would have established a prima facie case for eligibility with the rejected evidence. Id. (citing Shardar, 503 F.3d at 313).
Here, the BIA did not find that the new evidence was inherently unbelievable but nevertheless refused to accept new evidence, such as Gebra’s medical report after the 2009 attack, as “persuasive” or true because it “provide[d] little specificity or detail with respect to the alleged attack.” JA4; cf. Tilija; 930 F.3d at 172 (finding that where the BIA asked for “more details” and questioned the veracity of the evidence, it impermissibly failed to accept the evidence as true). By requesting that the medical record, on its own,
corroborate that the injuries were caused by “Islamic fanatics,” the BIA imposed an
overly rigorous standard. JA4; Tilija, 930 F.3d at 172. Similarly, the BIA’s conclusion that the report from the Egyptian Union of Human Rights Organization (“EUHRO”) pro- vides “no details” with respect to when, where, how, nor “any other details surrounding the circumstances of the alleged incident,” was an abuse of discretion. JA4; Tilija, 930
11
F.3d at 172. The BIA treated the new evidence with the same “overly vigorous standard” that it applied to the new translation of the 1993 police report that was previously dis- credited.
Having concluded that the BIA held Gebra to an excessively rigorous standard, we next determine whether Gebra established a prima facie case for asylum.
ii. Gebra’s new evidence established a prima facie case for asylum.
Gebra’s new evidence, accepted as true, establishes a prima facie case for asylum. A motion to reopen an asylum case must establish prima facie eligibility for relief. Se- voian v. Ashcroft, 290 F.3d 166, 173, 170–71 (3d Cir. 2002). This standard requires an applicant to produce objective evidence that shows a “reasonable likelihood” that they can establish eligibility for relief. Id. at 173. In this context, to “establish” means that the evidence in favor of asylum outweighs the evidence against. Guo v. Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 556, 564 (3d Cir. 2004), as amended (Dec. 3, 2004). A “reasonable likelihood” merely means showing a realistic chance that the applicant can later establish that asylum should be granted. Id. Prima facie “would lack meaning” if it required that evidence submitted at the prima facie stage conclusively establish eligibility for asylum. Id. Thus, Gebra need only provide objective evidence that shows a reasonable likelihood that he is
entitled to asylum relief. Tilija, 930 F.3d at 172. Specifically, Gebra would need to
demonstrate that he suffered past persecution, or has a well-founded fear of future perse- cution, on account of his religious beliefs. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B) (enumerating reli- gion as a protected ground).
12
Here, Gebra provided objective evidence in the form of medical records and hu- man rights reports regarding his 2009 attack. For example, a December 8, 2009, medical report from Victoria Hospital in Egypt corroborates the statement in his affirmation that, due to the attack, he was “wounded and sent into the Victoria Hospital due to multiple contusions and dermal bleeding on [his] back and different parts of [his] body.” JA167, 175; see Doe v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 956 F.3d 135, 145 (3d Cir. 2020) (holding that a single
beating, “if sufficiently egregious,” may constitute persecution, such as where petitioner was beaten by a mob, causing him to bleed and suffer injuries to his head and back). Ge- bra also included medical reports of the psychological trauma he experienced and therapy sessions he attended as a result of the attacks. Doe, 956 F.3d at 145–46 (“Persecution may be emotional or psychological, as well as physical.”) (citation omitted). Further- more, the December 30, 2009, report from EUHRO stated that they independently “veri- fied” Gebra was “attacked by some [Islamic] fanatics” who thought Gebra was behind demonstrations for the rights of Coptic Christians due to his work as a cameraman for Fa- ther Zacharia Botros, a Coptic Christian priest known for critiquing Islam. JA173.
Taken together, this evidence demonstrates a reasonable likelihood that Gebra could es- tablish he was persecuted due to his religious beliefs.
In sum, the BIA abused its discretion when it did not accept Gebra’s evidence ask true and concluded that he did not establish a new claim for asylum in his third motion to reopen.
**************************
Let’s apply a tiny bit of common sense here, in contravention of the BIA’s current practices. How likely is it that a guy would pursue asylum claims for 30 years, even after being denied, deported, and actually persecuted in Egypt upon return, if there weren’t some merit in the claim? At least enough to earn him a new hearing! It’s not rocket science to know that Coptic Christians often face persecution in Egypt! Was it really wise to push this clearly flawed (one could say “scofflaw”) denial all the way to the Circuit, thus wasting even more time and further undermining the BIA’s credibility? What are they thinking at Garland’s DOJ?
Think what efficiencies, not to mention due process and fundamental fairness, a BIA of well-qualified judges who were actual experts in asylum law — focused on legal protection, not specious rejection — could bring to our broken asylum system! Why not give due process and justice a chance at DOJ?
Federal law says anyone fleeing persecution may request asylum once they reach U.S. soil, no matter how they got there. Successive administrations have attempted to restrict that simple rule, however, desperate to reduce record numbers of crossings that have overwhelmed the immigration system, leaving many to live for years in the United States without a decision in their cases.
. . . .
One border, two realities
The perceived success of Biden’s approach depends on which side of the border the migrants are on.
Brownsville, an American city of 200,000 on the other side of the Rio Grande from Matamoros, Mexico, is officially under a state of emergency. But that emergency has dissipated in recent months.
The streets are quiet, thanks to a 70 percent drop in illegal border crossers since the new asylum rule and other Biden policy changes took effect. City workers greet the relatively small number of newcomers released from holding facilities and escort them to a curtained-off parking garage and to the first bus out of town.
In Matamoros, however, migrants trying to navigate the new rules are squeezing into shelters, sharing hotel rooms, curling up in a large camp on the dry riverbank or under pop-up tents at a grimy former gas station.
On a pedestrian bridge one hot morning in late June, Mexican authorities shooed away those who did not have an appointment through the app — including some Mexicans, even though the rule change is not supposed to apply to them.
“Let’s go, please,” one officer said to migrants who gathered at the Matamoros edge of the bridge. “Now.”
Advocates for immigrants say it is unlawful for officials to block migrants from crossing borders in search of protection — and unfair to presume they can easily navigate U.S. asylum law and appointments via smartphone apps. The process of requesting asylum is supposed to be simple, they said, because lives are at stake.
But advocates are powerless to navigate around the new rules until the court case is resolved.
In the sweltering heat one recent day, Christina Asencio, a lawyer with Human Rights First, tried to explain to migrants in the Matamoros camps how the system is supposed to work.
. . . .
**************************
Read Maria’s full article, one of the more balanced treatments I have encountered, at the link.
A few thoughts:
Even this fine article misses the biggest point: Most asylum seekers want to “do things the right way.” But there has been no “right way” for years because ofthe unlawful and bogus use of Title 42 by both the Trump and Biden Administrations. It’s still being unlawfully restricted by the arbitrary Biden Administration regulations. Yet, remarkably, asylum seekers are willing to risk their lives waiting in Mexico for an opportunity to apply in an orderly, legal manner under a broken and biased system unfairly “rigged” against them!THAT’S the “real big takeaway” about the reduction in unauthorized border crossings. It’s one that that nobody except experts and advocates are willing to fully acknowledge! Indeed, during the Title 42 charade, an asylum seeker’s only chance of getting into the system was to cross without authorization. Otherwise, they would have been summarily returned without any chance to present their claims.
Some asylum seekers will qualify for protection, some won’t. That’s what the legal, asylum system is supposed to determine — in a fair, expert, and timely manner. That our asylum system has become dysfunctional and ludicrously backlogged lies squarely with poor performance by Congress, the Executive, and the Courts, in many cases “egged on” by right-wing nativists’ myths and distortions. Blaming the victims — asylum seekers — for massive USG failures over decades is totally disingenuous!
Statistically, it’s true that most asylum applicants from the Southern Border do not achieve asylum under our current dysfunctional system. But, the question we should be asking is why aren’t more qualifying, given the horrible conditions in “sending countries” and the generous legal standards — including a presumption of future persecution based on past persecution — that are supposed to apply, but often don’t in practice.
One of the most egregious EOIR-led anti-asylum “scams” is abuse and misuse of the “nexus” requirement for asylum to send legitimate refugees back into harm’s way.See, e.g., immediately preceding reference. “Persecution” must relate to race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. But, the asylum statute does NOT require that that be the sole or even the primary motivation for the persecution. It just has to be “at least one central reason.” And, usually, persecution is carried out by the persecutor for a variety of reasons. It’s called “mixed motive analysis” and EOIR Judges, particularly at the precedent-setting BIA, routinely ignore or mis-apply it to deny grantable claims.
Harm resulting from things like “work, poverty, natural disaster, and bad governments” does not automatically qualify an individual for asylum. But, contrary to what many suggest, neither do these circumstances preclude asylum. For example, while a “natural disaster” might not make an individual a “refugee” under law, if that individual were forced to live in a known danger zone or denied life-saving assistance at least in part because of religious, ethnic, or political identity, that WOULD qualify. Was the infamous “Kristallnacht” in Nazi Germany systemic persecution of Jews for ethic and religious reasons? Or was it “mere vandalism, random violence, and hooliganism?” I would say clearly the former. But, I can imagine today’s BIA attributing it to the latter, to deny protection to a large group of individuals. I adjudicated thousands of asylum cases as both a trial and an appellate judge during 21 years at EOIR. I found that harm where a “protected ground” was “at least one central reason” was the rule, not the exception as EOIR tries so hard to make it.
Other often “trumped up” methods EOIR uses for denying valid asylum claims include bogus “adverse credibility” findings; unreasonable “corroboration” requirements; fabricated “reasonable internal relocation” opportunities; nonsensical, ahistorical “changed circumstances” conclusions; ignoring or misconstruing expert testimony; “selective reading” or mis-reading of country background reports; coercive detention in substandard conditions; and restricting or limiting access to counsel. If you think this sounds like a national disgrace on “Garland’s watch,” you’re absolutely right!
Undoubtedly, under a properly functioning system, with true expert adjudicators and judges — those whose career experiences demonstrated sound scholarship and understanding of the life-threatening circumstances of asylum seekers and the inherent limitations of both the Asylum office and EOIR — many more asylum cases from those applying at the Southern Border and elsewhere would be granted.So, Government policies based largely on “deterrence” or on the self-fulfilling prophecy that “few will qualify” should be viewed as fatally flawed. Without a better EOIR and an asylum adjudication system run by well-qualified experts, we can’t possibly formulate rational and humane border policies or indeed workable immigration policies at all. Tragically, we’re a long way from that right now!
“Petitioner Christian Alberto Santos Garcia, a native and citizen of El Salvador, has twice travelled unlawfully into the United States — first in 2012, and again in 2016. In both instances, Garcia fled threats to his life and attacks carried out against him by the 18th Street Gang and the Salvadoran police. After seeking protection from removal before an immigration judge (the “IJ”) in 2016, Garcia was afforded relief — in the form of asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (the “CAT”) — by three separate IJ rulings. On each occasion, the Board of Immigration Appeals (the “BIA”) reversed the IJ rulings. Garcia, for his part, was removed to El Salvador in May 2022, and has awaited further developments in these proceedings from his home country. In this appeal, Garcia challenges and seeks reversal of three rulings made by the BIA — those being: (1) that the “particular social group” relied upon in connection with Garcia’s application for withholding of removal is not legally cognizable; (2) that Garcia was not persecuted in El Salvador on account of his political opinions; and (3) that Garcia failed to establish eligibility for CAT protection. As explained herein, we grant Garcia’s petition for review and reverse the BIA rulings in part, affirm them in part, and vacate them in part. We otherwise remand to the BIA for such further proceedings as may be appropriate.”
“Petitioner Juan Pablo Paucar petitions for review of a January 22, 2021 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision (1) affirming an Immigration Judge’s denial of his application for cancellation of removal and (2) denying his motion to remand. The BIA rejected Paucar’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim, declined to remand for consideration of additional hardship relating to his cancellation application, and declined to remand to await adjudication of his U visa application. Paucar argues that the BIA (1) applied an incorrect standard when reviewing his ineffective assistance of counsel claim, (2) overlooked and mischaracterized his new hardship evidence, and (3) failed to follow precedent when denying his request for remand while awaiting the adjudication of his U visa application. We are persuaded by Paucar’s arguments. Accordingly, we GRANT Paucar’s petition for review, VACATE the BIA’s decision, and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
In Santos-Garcia v. Garland, the BIA’s 6-year quest to wrongfully deny protection to Santos has been thwarted, for now. But, the matter remains far from finally resolved, even though an IJ has now properly granted Santos relief three separate times, only to be wrongly reversed by the BIA on each occasion!
Rather than insuring that individual justice is done, the BIA has acted to promote injustice, create needless delay, and demoralize IJ’s who are getting it right! In the meantime, the respondent has been removed to the country where he has a well-founded fear of persecution to await his fate. This is because the 4th Circuit denied a stay they should routinely have granted in an exercise of truly horrendous judicial misjudgment.
Now, the court majority fecklessly pontificates about the need for timely resolution (you’ve got to be kidding) while hinting, but not requiring, that the “Gang That Can’t Shoot Straight” should return the respondent now. Don’t hold your breath!
Here are three of my favorite quotes from Judge King’s majority opinion in Santos Garcia v. Garland.
Put simply, the BIA declined to “interact seriously” with the record before it in reviewing Garcia’s claim for CAT protection, and its failure in that regard requires a remand.
Should we not expect a supposed “expert tribunal” like the BIA should be to “seriously interact” with the record in life-or-death cases?Why aren’t Dems in Congress and everywhere else “all over Garland like a cheap suit” to stop this kind of judicial misbehavior in his “wholly owned courts?”
In closing, we recognize that Garcia’s removal proceedings have languished before the IJ and the BIA — and now this Court — for more than six years, leaving him in limbo and presently in harm’s way in El Salvador. We are also mindful that Garcia was only 15 years old when he sought to protect his cousin from the 18th Street Gang’s advances, setting off more than a decade of hardship and uncertainty. With that, we emphasize the “strong public interest in bringing [this] litigation to a close . . . promptly.” See Hussain v. Gonzales, 477 F.3d 153, 158 (4th Cir. 2007). And although we do not direct the affirmative award of any relief, we acknowledge the compelling case for protection that Garcia has made. If, on remand, the BIA affirms either the IJ’s award of withholding of removal or the award of CAT relief, the DHS and the Attorney General should swiftly “facilitate [Garcia’s] return to the United States” from El Salvador. See Ramirez v. Sessions, 887 F.3d 693, 706 (4th Cir. 2018) (directing the government to facilitate previously removed petitioner’s return to the United States pursuant to an Immigration and Customs Enforcement Policy Directive). Moreover, if the BIA determines that Garcia’s “presence 24 is necessary for continued administrative removal proceedings” on remand, the authorities should see to his prompt return. Id.
So, after six years bouncing around the system and three separate grants of asylum by an Immigration Judge, the 4th Circuit essentially “begs” the BIA to get it right this time! This is after the court itself curiously denied the respondent’s application for stay notwithstanding the rather obvious risk of irreparable harm (e.g., death, torture) and the equally obvious substance of his timely filed appeal.
What a way to run a “justice system” (or, in this case, not)! Both the Executive and the Judiciary should be totally embarrassed by their gross mishandling of this case! But, I see resolve from neither Branch (nor the ever-absent Legislature) to put an end to this systemic mockery of due process, fundamental fairness, and simple common sense!
Here, discovering the BIA’s error in rejecting Garcia’s proposed social group of “young male family members of his cousin Emily” is no herculean task. Social groups based on family ties have been consistently approved by this Court as providing a sound basis for asylum or withholding of removal applications. See, e.g., Salgado-Sosa, 882 F.3d at 457; Hernandez-Avalos v. Lynch, 784 F.3d 944, 949 (4th Cir. 2015); Cedillos-Cedillos v. Barr, 962 F.3d 817, 824 (4th Cir. 2020). Indeed, our pivotal 2011 decision on the matter — Crespin-Valladares v. Holder — recognized in no uncertain terms that “the family provides a prototypical example of a particular social group.” See 632 F.3d at 125. In tossing out Garcia’s proposed social group in March 2021, however, the BIA largely disregarded our precedent, providing no citation to or discussion of Crespin-Valladares. The BIA instead relied chiefly on its own then-existing precedent, set forth in the Attorney General’s 2019 L-E-A- II decision. As described above, L-E-A- II — which was vacated by the Attorney General in June 2021 and thus “lacks legal force” — “conflicted with [this Court’s] well-established precedent” recognizing families as cognizable social groups. See Perez Vasquez v. Garland, 4 F.4th 213, 227 n.11 (4th Cir. 2021). Surprisingly, the BIA paid little mind to L-E-A- II’s vacatur in its Reconsideration Order of 2022, doubling down on its earlier “particular social group” ruling and again inexplicably declining to apply Crespin-Valladares and its progeny.7
Notably, the “rule of Crespin-Valledares” — my case where the BIA erroneously reversed me — continues to have an impact! A dozen years post-Crespin and the BIA is still getting it wrong! Why are these guys still on the appellate bench, setting negative precedents and ignoring favorable precedents? In a Dem Administration? Seriously!
Michelle N. Mendez, ESQ Director of Legal Resources and Training National Immigration Project, National Lawyers Guild PHOTO: NIPNLG
My friend Michelle Mendez, Director of Legal Resources and Training over at National Immigration Project offered some commentary on the Second Circuit’s decision in Paucar v. Garland.
Congratulations and thank you for your superb work, Lindsay! This case offers so much and seems like the CA2 delivered.
Here are a couple of excerpts from the decision that stood out to me:
“In a January 14, 2020 written decision, the BIA dismissed Paucar’s appeal and denied his motion to reopen and remand. Three months later—after Paucar filed a petition to review the BIA’s decision in this Court—the BIA sua sponte reinstated Paucar’s appeal and motion, noting that it had not “consider[ed] all of the evidence submitted by [Paucar].” Id. at 124.” [Do we know why the BIA sua sponte reinstated the appeal and motion?] LINDSAY NASH RESPONDS: “The BIA only sua sponte reopened the appeal and motion because Paige Austin (co-counsel extraordinaire, copied here) filed a PFR and identified the missing evidence early on, prompting OIL to agree to a remand.”
“Finally, the BIA concluded that remand to await the adjudication of Paucar’s U visa petition was unnecessary because Paucar could request a stay of removal from USCIS.” [Does anyone know what the BIA was referencing here? Later on the decision says DHS and not USCIS so perhaps it is a typo.] LINDSAY NASH RESPONDS: “I think that the reference to USCIS that you flag was a typo and that it should have said DHS.”
“We conclude that the BIA should have applied the Sanchez Sosa factors in considering Paucar’s motion to remand as it pertains to his U visa or explained its reasoning for not doing so. [This is the first time that the CA2 answers the question of whether Sanchez Sosa applies to motions to remand or reopen filed during the pendency of an appeal where the noncitizen did not previously request such a continuance before the IJ].”
There is a great discussion on the BIA improperly applying Coelho (which they love to throw around in correctly) to the prejudice assessment and a paragraph discussing how the CA2 and other courts of appeals view unpublished BIA decisions.
Again, really great work and outcome! Thanks for sharing with all of us, Dan!
For a case distinguishing Coelho and applying a “reasonable likelihood of success” standard to a MTR, see Matter of L-O-G-, 21 I&N Dec. 436 (BIA 1996), written by me! The BIA ignores it or misapplies it in many cases. But, it’s still “good law!” Just another instance in which the BIA evades “older” precedents that could produce favorable outcomes for respondents!
In this case the IJ denied the respondent’s applications and ordered removal in May 2018, five years ago. Nobody contests that the respondent was ineffectively represented at that time.
Through new pro bono counsel, respondent Paucar filed a timely appeal with the BIA. Less than two months following the IJ’s decision, new counsel filed a copiously documented motion to the BIA to remand for a new hearing because of the ineffective representation.
Rather than promptly granting that motion for a new hearing, the BIA set in motion five years of dilatory effort on their part to avoid providing a hearing. Obviously, several new merits hearings could have been completed during the time occupied by the BIA’s anti-immigrant antics!
Along the way, according to the Second Circuit, the BIA “improperly imposed a heightened standard,” “erred by discounting the impact of counsel’s ineffectiveness,” “improperly relied] on the IJ’s tainted findings,” “overlooked and mischaracterized the record evidence,” “erred by overlooking or mischaracterizing evidence,” “overlooked and mischaracterized material evidence,” and failed, without explanation, “to follow its own precedent.” What else could they have screwed up? The file number?
This would be highly unacceptable performance by ANY tribunal, let alone one entrusted with making life or death decisions about human lives and whose decisions in some instances have been unwisely insulated from effective judicial review by Congress. Individuals appearing before EOIR deserve better! American justice deserves better! How long will AG Garland continue to get away with failing to “clean house” at America’s most dysfunctional court system and bring order, due process, fundamental fairness, legal expertise, and judicial professionalism to this long-overlooked, yet absolutely essential, foundation of our entire U.S. justice system!
Wasting time and resources looking for bogus ways to deny that which better, more expert, fairer judges could easily grant his had a huge negative impact on the EOIR backlog and is a driver of legal dysfunction throughout the immigration bureaucracy, and indeed throughout our entire legal system, all the way up to and including the Supremes!
Start by fixing “that within your control!” That’s a simple message that Dems, unfortunately, don’t seem to get when it comes to immigration, human rights, and racial justice in America!
Good ideas require dynamic, timely implementation. So far, that hasn’t been a strong point for the Biden Administration on immigration and human rights. Public Realm
From Asylum Access & Reuters:
#US is looking to open a resettlement pathway to #refugees in #Mexico who arrived before June 6, 2023.
“The plan under discussion would allow qualifying migrants approved for refugee status to enter via the U.S. refugee resettlement program, which is only available to applicants abroad (…) refugees receive immediate work authorization and government benefits such as housing and employment assistance”
This is a fine idea, albeit one that many experts recommended that the Biden Administration implement in a robust way upon taking office in January 2021.
If properly and generously carried out, it could 1) stop the “endless wait” for refugees stuck in Mexico; 2) relieve border pressure; 3) avoid the backlogs at EOIR and the Asylum Office; 4) admit individuals as refugees with immediate work authorization and a clear part to green cards and citizenship; 5) pave the way for more robust refugee processing elsewhere in the Western Hemisphere; 6) avoid the political stunts of GOP nativist governors; and 7) be much harder for restrictionists to challenge in court.
Past programs similar to this in the Western Hemisphere (with the exceptions of Cubans in the 1960s) have largely failed because they have been too 1) limited, 2) slow, and 3) bureaucratized.
From the Reuters article, it appears to me that the Administration is ready to repeat all three of the foregoing mistakes, assuming the program even gets off the ground at all.
It’s definitely a good idea with promise. But realizing that promise depends on the details of implementation. In this case, they don’t sound promising. Stay tuned!
I’m sure many of you remember a childhood game called “Mother, May I?” An authority figure would say, “Jeff, take two giant steps forward!” But before doing so, the player would have to ask “Mother, may I?” Those two giant steps could only be taken if the response was “Yes, you may.” Otherwise, if the player took the steps, they were out.
If we were to take this game, direct the request and reply through an app called CBPOne, and make the stakes life or death, the result would be something very similar to the Biden Administration’s latest regulations governing asylum at the southern border.
The new rules are at odds with U.S. law. Congress has already authorized asylum seekers to take the necessary steps up to the border. The very first sentence of 8 U.S.C. § 1158 (the U.S. asylum statute) says that any noncitizen “whether or not at a designated port of arrival” and irrespective of their immigration status may apply for asylum.
And yet, not Congress but two Executive Branch agencies have now added a “Mother, May I?” type obstacle for those seeking to do what the law has long permitted. Under the new rules, the asylum seeker must first ask through a glitchy government phone app for specific permission (in the form of an appointment) before striding up to the border. Otherwise, the asylum seeker is simply not eligible for asylum, no matter how serious the danger they face if removed to their country.
How can Executive Branch agencies issue regulations that so directly contradict the statute those agencies are charged with enforcing? That question is the basis of a lawsuit filed by the ACLU, the National Immigrant Justice Center, and the Center for Gender and Refugee Studies in U.S. District Court.1
Our Round Table of Former Immigration Judges filed an amicus brief in support of petitioners’ arguments. We are in good company, as the USCIS asylum officers’ union filed a persuasive amicus brief as well.2 This means that groups representing the views of the only government officials authorized to decide asylum claims in this country (i.e. immigration judges and asylum officers) are united in opposing the new rule.
In our Round Table brief, we specifically take issue with the government’s false labeling of the new bar as merely a “rebuttable presumption” of asylum ineligibility.
Real rebuttable presumptions have long existed in our asylum regulations. For example, there is a rebuttable presumption that someone who has been persecuted in the past for reasons that give rise to an asylum claim may be persecuted again, unless major changes have since taken place in their country. There is also a presumption that one whose persecutor is the government of their country can’t find safety by simply relocating within that same country.
As you’ve probably noticed, there is a logic that flows in each of those examples from the known facts to the presumption. It is logical to assume that someone who was harmed before might be harmed again if conditions remain the same. The government may rebut the presumption by showing a fundamental change of the type that would put those fears to rest. There is a similar logic in concluding that a government’s reach extends throughout the country it governs. Again, the government may rebut that presumption through evidence establishing an exception to this general rule. In both of these examples, the fact established increases the likelihood of the fact presumed.
Now let’s return to the new rule. Say that a person faces brutal persecution on account of their political opinion if returned to their country. How does the fact that they couldn’t or didn’t get an appointment through a phone app in any way create a presumption that they are not in need of humanitarian protection? There can’t be a presumption if the fact established (i.e. that the person didn’t obtain an appointment through the app) is completely unrelated to the fact presumed (i.e. the person is not in need of asylum).
I believe it matters greatly whether the rule is considered a bar or a presumption. It is Congress that decides who may apply for asylum in this country. Thus, a regulation that admittedly creates a new bar to asylum (particularly where that bar is in direct contradiction to Congressional intent) is likely to be rejected as ultra vires by the courts. And in fact, a very similar bar to this one published by the Trump Administration was enjoined for just that reason.3 Agencies cannot usurp Congress’s role by legislating in the guise of rulemaking.
By attempting to disguise the new bar as merely a “rebuttable presumption,” the agencies seek to increase the odds of the ban passing muster this time. That is exactly the Department of Justice’s argument in its response brief: that its new rule is completely different from the prior administration’s “bar,” because according to DOJ, the new rule “does not treat manner of entry as dispositive, but instead creates a rebuttable presumption that can be overcome…”4
So the “Mother, may I?” regs clearly overstep the agencies’ legal authority. But do they create an equal barrier for all asylum seekers? The answer is no. As stated, the rules require one intending to apply for asylum to first obtain an appointment. Of course, there are more asylum seekers than there are available appointments. As mentioned, the government app through which one tries to secure an appointment, CBPOne, is full of glitches. As Prof. Austin Kocher recently noted, those glitches have impacted who gets those appointments:
the initial release of CBP One was accompanied by a variety of tech failures that did not necessarily undermine CBP’s ability to fill up its appointments calendar for asylum seekers but did create barriers to entry for migrants who were less tech savvy, could not access high-speed Internet, were part of larger families, or, either directly or indirectly, migrants who were darker-skinned or Black.5
That last point refers to the app’s problems with facial recognition that have caused it to reject applicants who are not white.6 As a result of these and other reported scheduling inequities, Sen. Edward Markey wrote to DHS back in February urging the agency to cease use of the app, due to its inaccessibility to many intending applicants, adding that “we cannot allow it to create a tiered system that treats asylum seekers differently based on their economic status — including the ability to pay for travel — language, nationality, or race.”.7
Instead of “ditching the app” as the Senator requested, the agencies instead added an exception to the bar if the noncitizen “demonstrates by a preponderance of the evidence that it was not possible to access or use the DHS scheduling system due to language barrier, illiteracy, significant technical failure, or other ongoing and serious obstacle.”8
However, there is a big catch. Pursuant to the rule, this exception is only available to those without an appointment who make their claim at an actual port of entry. But observers at points of entry along the southern border report that “practices by U.S. and Mexican authorities restricted asylum seekers without CBP One appointments from physically reaching U.S. ports of entry to make protection requests.”9 So the exception written into the regs is not available in reality, as one seeking to claim it is restricted from reaching the port of entry where it must be claimed, and is barred from claiming the exception if they cross the border elsewhere.
If you’re wondering how the new system is working out, according to one report, it has resulted in asylum seekers on the Mexican side of the Laredo port of entry being robbed, kidnapped, and held for ransom.10 Another article described how some of those “lucky” enough to have obtained CBPOne appointments at Laredo claimed “that Mexican officials in Nuevo Laredo, across the border from Laredo, Texas, had threatened to hold them and make them miss their scheduled asylum appointments unless they paid them.”11 As a result, CBPOne appointments were temporarily suspended for the Laredo port of entry.
One excluded from asylum under these rules may still seek two types of lesser protections called withholding of removal.12 Oddly, under U.S. law, these alternative protections are much more difficult than asylum to qualify for, yet provide far fewer benefits. Asylum is an actual legal status which extends to the spouse and minor children of the asylee, allows for travel abroad, and puts recipients on a path to permanent residence and then citizenship in this country. By contrast, withholding of removal arises when an individual is ordered deported, and only blocks their deportation to a country in which persecution or torture is likely to occur, but otherwise leaves the recipient in limbo. The protection provides no path to family reunification or permanent status, and no right to travel abroad to visit the family members from whom the recipient is left indefinitely separated.
Nevertheless, withholding of removal does save lives. But not satisfied with simply barring asylum, the new regulations also make these lesser forms of protection far more difficult to access. This is because one must first pass something called a “credible fear interview” in order to even have the right to apply for withholding of removal in this country. As those interviews are conducted within days of the asylum-seeker’s arrival, in custody, often before the applicant has had the opportunity to obtain legal counsel or evidence, and possibly while suffering from the effects of persecution, the credible fear standard was intentionally designed to be a low one. The idea is to allow people who might genuinely be at risk the opportunity to fully develop their cases in a full removal proceeding, while only quickly removing those lacking legitimate claims.
But the new regulations raise the burden of proof by requiring the applicant at this very early stage to demonstrate a “reasonable fear” of persecution, which USCIS describes as the exact same standard required for a grant of asylum – i.e. “well-founded fear.13 Again, the lower credible fear standard being replaced was created solely because it isn’t reasonable to expect someone to prove more under the conditions faced by such recent arrivals. This intended safeguard has thus been completely undermined, as one who might only be a day or two in the country must now present a full-blown asylum claim just to earn the chance to have a hearing.
The new process requires non-lawyers to satisfy a complex legal standard they won’t understand, often without the time to seek legal advice or compile the evidence necessary to meet the heightened burden. I have no doubt that the process will result in genuine refugees being denied protection. And once again, the entire reason for placing applicants at such heightened risk is their not having obtained an appointment on a problematic phone app.
Why does the Biden Administration believe all this is necessary? In a recent column, Jamelle Bouie addressed the vows of some Republican presidential candidates to eliminate the constitutional right to birthright citizenship through executive order.14 In addition to presenting a compelling argument as to why this cannot legally be done, Bouie included in his column a wonderful quote from Frederick Douglass: “The outspread wings of the American Eagle are broad enough to shelter all who are likely to come.”
In case the Biden Administration is wondering if it can champion that same sentiment today, in lieu of its convoluted attempt to ban protection to those deserving of it under our laws, the answer is: “Yes, you may.”
(Much thanks to attorneys Ashley Vinson Crawford and Steven Schulman of the law firm of Akin Gump for representing the group of former Immigration Judges and BIA Members on our amicus brief in East Bay Sanctuary.)
Copyright 2023, Jeffrey S. Chase. All rights reserved.
Notes:
East Bay Sanctuary Covenant v. Biden, No. 18-cv-06810-JST, N.D. Cal. (Filed May 11, 2023).
See Britain Eakin, “Asylum Officers, Ex-Judges Back Suit on Biden Asylum Rule,” Law360, June 8, 2023.
East Bay Sanctuary v. Barr, 964 F.3d 832 (9th Cir. 2020) (holding that the Trump Administration’s asylum bar was inconsistent with our asylum laws).
Defendants’ Reply Brief, East Bay Sanctuary v. Biden, (June 30, 2023) at 8.
Austin Kocher, “Glitches in the Digitization of Asylum: How CBP One Turns Migrants’ Smartphones into Mobile Borders,” mdpi.com, June 20, 2023, https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4698/13/6/149, section 4.
Melissa del Bosque, “Facial Recognition Bias Frustrates Black Asylum Applicants to US,” The Guardian, Feb. 8, 2023,
One form of withholding covers persecution for specified reasons; the other applies to torture.
See Asylum Officer Basic Training Course Lesson Plan, “Reasonable Fear and Torture Determinations,” (USCIS, RAIO, 2017) at 11 (“The ‘reasonable possibility’ standard is the same standard required to establish eligibility for asylum (the ‘well- founded fear’ standard).”)
Jamelle Bouie, “Opinion: What Frederick Douglass Knew That Trump and DeSantis Don’t,” NYT, June 30, 2023.
JULY 5, 2023
***********************
It’s an existential problem for our nation when a Dem Administration claims as “success:” failure to recognize the rights of asylum seekers, intentionally evading asylum law, and endangering the lives of asylum seekers!
Lest anyone think the confusion, unfairness, and disorder caused by the Biden/Harris failure to implement competent, professional, expert leadership on human rights is “overhyped,” here’s an “in person” report from Professor Lenni Benson of NY Law School, founder of Safe Passage Project, and a widely reknowned “practical expert” on asylum and human rights.
Professor Lenni B.Benson Distinguished Chair of Immigration and Human Rights Law New York Law School Founder, Safe Passage Project PHOTO: NYLS website
Sharing an excellent Blog post by retired IJ Jeff Chase on why the CBP One app may be endangering asylum applicants. See below.
Related to the CBP One app was a hearing I observed last Friday, June 30, 2023 in NY City.
A self-represented individual was asked by the IJ “were you admitted or inspected” by the government, the Respondent through a Mandarin interpreter said “Yes, through the CBP app.” The IJ paused. The OPLA attorney was visible on Webex. She was silent.
The IJ said “I will note your statement for the record, I find you removable as charged for not having been inspected or admitted.” [The Respondent had declined an opportunity to find an attorney.]
I am sure CBP will argue that entry under the app is not an inspection or admission and I haven’t looked carefully at the regulations but the issue is there to perhaps be litigated.
The other interesting twist in this particular case was that the government then told the Judge that she could see the Respondent had already completed biometrics and submitted an asylum application, but no application was in either her file nor the Court’s.
The IJ asked, do you have a copy?
The respondent: “On my phone.”
The IJ set a call-up date hearing to have the respondent print out the application and file it with the court in person.
I didn’t get a chance to speak to the Respondent, but I wondered if he had perhaps thought his interview with CBP was his asylum application or if he had filed affirmatively with USCIS.
Just sharing with this community.
Confusion abounds.
“Confusion abounds!” 🤯Why, rather than clarifying and applying the law, would the Administration intentionally create confusion and a host of unnecessary “litigatable issues?”
Why would they create delay by supposedly having applications for asylum “filed” but unavailable electronically to either ICE or EOIR?
Why didn’t the Administration recruit and hire real “practical experts” like Lenni Benson and her colleagues to straighten out the asylum system at the border, restore the rule of law, and reform and repopulate the critically important, currently dysfunctional, Immigration Courts and the BIA with well-qualified progressive judges, merit-selected experts in human rights and practical problem solving?
Pleased to join my friend “Sir Jeffrey” in giving a big “shout out” to our Round Table colleagues and superstar NDPA attorneys Steve Schulman, Ashley Vinson Crawford, and their pro bono team at Akin Gump for representing us on the amicus brief in East Bay Sanctuary!
*********************
Anybody naive enough to believe the “party line” from Administration wonks about “success at the border” should heed this “hot off the presses” report from Mica Rosenberg @ Reuters. It confirms the legal and humanitarian disaster at the border resulting from two plus years of mismanagement of asylum by Mayorkas, Garland, and the rest of the Biden immigration politicos who havefailed to undo the humanitarian and legal mess left behind by White Nationalist Stephen Miller and the rest of the Trumpist scofflaws!
Mica Rosenberg National Immigration Reporter, Reuters
Mica writes:
We examined the impact of the Biden administration’s new asylum regulation at the U.S.-Mexico border after it replaced the COVID-era Title 42 expulsion policy on May 11.
U.S. officials have said the regulation and other Biden immigration policies, that have opened new legal pathways to the US, have dramatically reduced the number of illegal border crossings.
But in the first month of the new policy, Reuters interviews with more than 50 migrants, U.S. and Mexican officials, a review of court records and previously unreported data found:
More than 100,000 migrants waiting in northern Mexico, many trying to snag an appointment on an oversubscribed government run smartphone app; a sharp drop in people passing their initial asylum screenings; more people in detention and tens of thousands of deportations.
My colleagues visited the mile-long migrant camp in Matamoros, across the river from Brownsville, Texas, where conditions are deteriorating, including cases of sexual assault in the camp, and we also spoke to a father who crossed the border but was speedily deported while his family was allowed into the US.
The report at the above link has many photos illustrating both the cruel stupidity of the Biden program and the amazing resilience of those still hoping, against the odds, to have their legal rights respected and protected by the USG.
Thanks, Mica, for “telling it like it is” and penetrating the “bureaucratic smokescreen” thrown up by the Administration to cover its misdeeds and human rights abuses!🤮
