These two op-eds make compelling cases for the 5th Circuit rivaling the Supremes as the most scofflaw, out of control, and dangerous court in America! But, hey, is there a “dark horse” in this righty “race to the bottom?” 🐴 (Curiously enough, “owned” and “trained” by Biden-Garland Stables!)

First, let’s hear from my friend, NDPA Stalwart, Houston Law Immigration Clinic Director, Professor Geoffrey Hoffman:

CAT a “dead letter” in the Fifth Circuit? I respectfully dissent

 

By Geoffrey A. Hoffman

 

This week a panel of the Fifth Circuit issued Tabora Gutierrez v. Garland, interpreting the Convention Against Torture’s (CAT’s) state action requirement so restrictively that it led the dissenting judge to call CAT a virtual “dead letter” in most cases (in the Fifth Circuit, at least).

 

In this piece, I want to consider this dire prognostication and also think about what it may mean for future practice – at least for those of us in the Fifth Circuit.

 

Two panel members found that petitioner failed a key requirement for relief: that the government in Honduras “consented or acquiesced” to the torture. In dissent, Judge W. Eugene Davis remarked, “I agree with the IJ, the BIA, and the majority that [petitioner] will likely be tortured by MS-13 gang members. . .[but] I read the record to compel a conclusion that the torture will be with the acquiescence of a public official.” According to Judge Davis, the majority raised the bar so high regarding this requirement under CAT that “for most if not all” people CAT will be out of reach, if they are from countries with (merely) corrupt policy or police without the will or courage to protect them from brutal gangs.  While I agree with Judge Davis, the fact is CAT need not be a “dead letter” in the Fifth Circuit.

 

I was moved to comment on another split panel decision previously in the Fifth Circuit in Inestroza-Antonelli v. Barr, see my prior post here, and I am similarly moved to write about this present decision.

 

Significantly, the majority here carefully acknowledges up front that the BIA and IJ below found petitioner “likely to be tortured or killed” if returned to Honduras, and even catalogued the horrible injuries he had already suffered, mentioning “gruesome photos” that are part of the record in the case.

 

Because I think the majority erred, and would agree with most of what the dissenting judge says, let me address three issues where I think the majority got it wrong: (1) what it means for a record to “compel” a different conclusion on appeal; (2) what it means for a government to consent or acquiesce to torture and (3) the notion that Petitioner waived his argument about the correct standard of review merely by failing to bring it up in a motion to reconsider.

 

I address all three of these points below.

 

First, the majority importantly conceded in its opinion that the police “failed to investigate” petitioner’s injuries. However, because the Board and IJ interpreted these “failures” of the police as “better explained” by the fact the petitioner “was unable to disclose the specific identity of any of his attackers” this showed the police did not “willfully ignore” the attacks. The majority reasoned that the “evidence” did not “compel” a contrary conclusion and therefore the IJ’s findings, adopted by the BIA, were considered “conclusive.”

 

I am struck here by the notion that just because the BIA and IJ had inserted their own explanations for the unrebutted record evidence showing lack of any police action that this must have meant (according to the majority) that the appellate court was constrained to accept this explanation and would not disturb the lower tribunal’s interpretation of the evidence.

 

Such a reading of the word “compel” means that judges can have an “out” anytime they want to rubber stamp any decision of the Board, all they have to do is say the explanation offered characterizing the evidence in one way or another was good enough and must not be disturbed. But this is a very troubling proposition.

 

Take, for example, the present case where the supposition on the part of the BIA and IJ was that the petitioner was somehow at fault for not being able to identify his attackers by name. Think about that for a minute…Police are not acquiescing and not at fault and should not be held to have “turned a blind eye” because the victim was unable to identify his attackers.

 

But this does not make sense.

 

Such a blame-the-victim mentality goes against the motivation and underlying rationale behind other federal types of relief immigrants have available, for example, U visas for crime victims, VAWA, T visas, etc., premised in many cases on the victim’s cooperation with law enforcement and their investigation. Just because a victim does not know the exact identities of their attackers does not disqualify them from relief. Would that be a reasonable interpretation for example of the U visa statute and attendant regulations?

 

In addition, let’s consider the use of the “compel” standard for a minute and where it came from exactly. This standard, as acknowledged by the majority, comes from a previous case, Chen v. Gonzales, 470 F.3d 1131, 1134 (5th Cir. 2006), among other cases.  Chen in turn cites 8 USC 1252(b)(4)(B) and emanates from the Supreme Court’s famous decision, INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478 (1992), authored by Justice Scalia.

 

Chen was a case about a Chinese petitioner who converted to Christianity after entry into the U.S. and so her applications did not rely on past persecution but a well-founded fear of future persecution based on religion. The IJ in the former case found that there were “many Christians in China” and that Chen’s claims of future persecution were allegedly “highly speculative.”  The facts of Chen and the current case relating to police inaction in Honduras could not be further apart. Moreover, the Fifth Circuit in Chen was not considering past persecution, as here, but the more difficult to prove “future persecution” and well-founded fear standard.

 

Similarly, Justice Scalia in Elias-Zacarias was concerned about proof supporting a political opinion claim.  In that case, the Supreme Court found that the petitioner could not produce evidence “so compelling” that no reasonable factfinder could fail to find the requisite fear of persecution on account of political opinion.  The “so compelling” language has been used by many courts to deny asylum on many other grounds throughout the past decades and has not been limited to political opinion claims.

 

But the reliance in the present case for the “compel” standard on the statute in question, 8 USC 1252(b) here is misguided. The statute states in pertinent part as follows:  “the administrative findings of fact are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary . . . .”  But the “consent and acquiescence” determination under CAT is not a determination of “administrative facts” but is certainly a mixed question of law and fact.  As such, the entire structure of the “compel” standard should not have been applied but instead de novo review applied.

 

And this brings me to the practice pointer that this case so unfortunately stands for. Although on appeal before the circuit court the issue of standard of review was raised by petitioner, it was rejected by the majority on the theory that he had to have filed a “motion to reconsider” before the Board to preserve the issue for appellate review.

 

This waiver argument has always seemed to me a weak and tenuous one.

 

For example, what if the petitioner (i.e., the respondent before the BIA) argued in his brief to the Board that the correct standard of review was de novo due to the mixed question raised by a very complicated “consent or acquiescence” determination under CAT, and courts have so held, but the BIA decided to just rubber stamp the IJ and refused to overturn the IJ’s finding based on clear error. Wouldn’t that have preserved the issue?  Why is there a need for a litigant to then file a motion to reconsider after  the fact to preserve an issue which had already been preserved?  To make matters worse it appears Mr. Tobora Gutierrez appeared pro se, see page 3 of the Fifth Circuit majority decision, at least initially. The decision does not reveal if he had appellate counsel before the BIA. But if he did not it would be an especially onerous requirement to impose an “after the fact” requirement that a litigant must file a “motion to reconsider” to preserve an issue for appellate review, especially if he is unrepresented.

 

All of that said, the practice take-away here is: (1) everyone must file a very carefully drafted and thorough motion to reconsider on all issues that could be in any way (mis-)interpreted to be subject to waiver so you preserve all issues for review before the circuit courts;  and (2) everyone should read Judge Davis’ cogent and reasoned dissenting opinion, which hopefully will be followed instead of the majority’s strained application of the “compel” standard.   Judge Davis was right: the evidence does compel a different outcome. Judge Davis does a wonderful job also of distinguishing the prior case law in this area and showing how Mr. Tobora Gutierrez’s case is fundamentally different. As he says, “if the egregious facts of this case are not sufficient to support a finding of public-official acquiescence, CAT relief will be a dead-letter to most if not all individuals who live in countries where the police are corrupt or simply do not have the will or courage to protect them from brutal gang attacks.”

 

Judge Davis is right, this is a most troubling decision but not just for the reason he provides.  It is troubling for the further reason that the majority applies the wrong legal standard here, the “compels” standard versus a de novo review. The majority also leaves the door open for “deferred action,” for this sympathetic and horrendous case, although it declines to recommend it. Most importantly, it also leaves the door open for de novo review, in future cases, at least where those litigants are perceived to have preserved the issue. Litigants can do this by filing a motion to reconsider with the BIA, then filing (another, second) petition for review when the motion to reconsider is denied, and then (following the procedure mandated by section 1252) consolidating the two cases.

 

(Institution for identification only)

Geoffrey Hoffman

Clinical Professor, UHLC Immigration Clinic Director

Let’s not forget that Garland’s DOJ defended this grotesque miscarriage of justice. In a grim way, Geoffrey’s “practical scholarship” ties in nicely with Ruth Marcus’s recent op-ed in WashPost on the righto-wacko 5th Circuit’s dangerous assault on American justice:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/08/31/5th-circuit-is-staking-out-claim-be-americas-most-dangerous-court/

Opinion: The 5th Circuit is staking out a claim to be America’s most dangerous court

Opinion by Ruth Marcus

August 31 at 6:37 PM ET

The Supreme Court is, no doubt, the nation’s most powerful court. But the 5th Circuit, the federal appeals court that covers Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas, is staking out a claim to be the most dangerous — the least wedded to respecting precedent or following an orderly judicial process.

The 5th is arguably the most conservative among the country’s dozen appeals courts. It inclined in that direction even before President Donald Trump managed to install six nominees. And they constitute quite a bunch: Stuart Kyle Duncan, who said the Supreme Court’s 2015 ruling establishing a right to same-sex marriage “imperils civic peace” and “raises a question about the legitimacy of the court.” Cory Wilson, who tweeted about Hillary Clinton using the hashtag #CrookedHillary, called the Affordable Care Act “illegitimate” and said he supported overturning Roe v. Wade. James C. Ho, who issued a concurring opinion lamenting the “moral tragedy of abortion.”

How conservative is the court, where 12 of 17 active judges were named by Republican presidents? “As conservative a federal appeals court as any of us have seen in our lifetimes,” says Stephen I. Vladeck, a law professor at the University of Texas, noting that even as the circuit’s conservatives tend toward the extreme end of the spectrum, its liberals aren’t all that liberal.

One measure: During each of the last two Supreme Court terms, with conservative justices firmly in the majority, the high court has reviewed seven cases from the 5th Circuit. It reversed 6 of 7 decisions in the 2019-2020 term and 5 of 7 in 2020-2021.

These included the appeals courts’ rulings striking down the Affordable Care Act and upholding the constitutionality of a Louisiana abortion law, identical to a Texas statute the justices had tossed out several years earlier — another 5th Circuit special reversed by the high court. If you thought the appeals court judges would have learned their lesson the first time, you don’t know the 5th Circuit.

Texas can ban the abortion procedure most commonly used to end second-trimester pregnancies, a federal appeals court ruled on Aug. 18. (Reuters)

The circuit’s latest shenanigans involve, unsurprisingly, abortion, and Texas’s latest attempt to eviscerate abortion rights. This Texas law, which goes into effect Wednesday, is both blatantly unconstitutional (it purports to prohibit abortion once there is a detectable fetal heartbeat, around six weeks into pregnancy) and an audacious effort to evade judicial review (it leaves enforcement of the ban up to private vigilantes, not state officials.)

In this effort to end-run and effectively overturn Roe v. Wade, the 5th Circuit has already proved itself an eager co-conspirator. Texas abortion clinics filed suit in federal court challenging the law and seeking to block it from taking effect. A federal judge had scheduled a hearing on whether to grant such an injunction.

But on Friday a panel of the 5th Circuit — two Trump judges and one Reagan appointee — issued an extraordinary order preventing the district judge from going ahead with the hearing, thus letting the law take effect in the interim — all this even as the appeals court refused to speed up its consideration of the case. In a sign of their desperation, the clinics appealed that action to the Supreme Court, not exactly a friendly venue these days for abortion rights.

. . . .

Read the rest of Ruth’s op-ed at the link.

But, the right-controlled Supremes aren’t going quietly into the night in this competition. The right to a reasoned decision from a fair and impartial decision-maker is fundamental to Constitutional due process — except at the Supremes. The righty majority now employs the “shadow docket” to avoid explanation and accountability for some of it’s most outrageously scofflaw decisions! Many of these have hurt or even killed migrants. David Leonhardt @ NY Times explains:

Rulings without explanations

The Supreme Court opinion allowing Texas to ban nearly all abortions was different from most major rulings by the court.

This one came out shortly before midnight on Wednesday. It consisted of a single paragraph, not signed by the justices who voted for it and lacking the usual detailed explanation of their reasoning. And there had been no oral arguments, during which opposing lawyers could have made their cases and answered questions from the justices.

Instead, the opinion was part of something that has become known as “the shadow docket.” In the shadow docket, the court makes decisions quickly, without the usual written briefings, oral arguments or signed opinions. In recent years, the shadow docket has become a much larger part of the Supreme Court’s work.

Shadow-docket rulings have shaped policy on voting rights, climate change, birth control, Covid-19 restrictions and more. Last month, the justices issued shadow decisions forcing the Biden administration to end its eviction moratorium and to reinstate a Trump administration immigration policy. “The cases affect us at least as much as high-profile cases we devote so much attention to,” Stephen Vladeck, a University of Texas law professor, told me.

Shadow-docket cases are frequently those with urgency — such as a voting case that must be decided in the final weeks before an election. As a result, the justices don’t always have time to solicit briefs, hold oral arguments and spend months grappling with their decision. Doing so can risk irreparable harm to one side in the case.

For these reasons, nobody questions the need for the court to issue some expedited, bare-bones rulings. But many legal experts are worried about how big the shadow docket has grown, including in cases that the Supreme Court could have decided in a more traditional way.

“Shadow docket orders were once a tool the court used to dispense with unremarkable and legally unambiguous matters,” Moira Donegan wrote in The Guardian. “In recent years the court has largely dispensed with any meaningful application of the irreparable harm standard.”

Why the shadow docket has grown

Why have the justices expanded the shadow docket?

In part, it is a response to a newfound willingness by lower courts to issue decisions that apply to the entire country, as my colleague Charlie Savage explains. By acting quickly, the Supreme Court can retain its dominant role.

But there is also a political angle. Shadow-docket cases can let the court act quickly and also shield individual justices from criticism: In the latest abortion case, there is no signed opinion for legal scholars to pick apart, and no single justice is personally associated with the virtual end of legal abortion in Texas. The only reason that the public knows the precise vote — 5 to 4 — is that the four justices in the minority each chose to release a signed dissent.

Critics argue that judges in a democracy owe the public more transparency. “This idea of unexplained, unreasoned court orders seems so contrary to what courts are supposed to be all about,” Nicholas Stephanopoulos, a Harvard law professor, has said. “If courts don’t have to defend their decisions, then they’re just acts of will, of power.”

During a House hearing on the shadow docket in February, members of both parties criticized its growth. “Knowing why the justices selected certain cases, how each of them voted, and their reasoning is indispensable to the public’s trust in the court’s integrity,” Representative Henry Johnson Jr., a Georgia Democrat, said. Representative Louie Gohmert, a Texas Republican, said, “I am a big fan of judges and justices making clear who’s making the decision, and I would welcome reforms that required that.”

The shadow docket also leaves lower-court judges unsure about what exactly the Supreme Court has decided and how to decide similar cases they later hear. “Because the lower-court judges don’t know why the Supreme Court does what it does, they sometimes divide sharply when forced to interpret the court’s nonpronouncements,” writes William Baude, a University of Chicago law professor and former clerk for Chief Justice John Roberts. Baude coined the term “shadow docket.”

Six vs. three

The court’s six Republican-appointed justices are driving the growth of the shadow docket, and it is consistent with their overall approach to the law. They are often (though not always) willing to be aggressive, overturning longstanding precedents, in campaign finance, election law, business regulation and other areas. The shadow docket expands their ability to shape American society.

The three Democratic-appointed justices, for their part, have grown frustrated by the trend. In her dissent this week, Justice Elena Kagan wrote, “The majority’s decision is emblematic of too much of this court’s shadow-docket decision making — which every day becomes more unreasoned, inconsistent and impossible to defend.” In an interview with my colleague Adam Liptak last week, Justice Stephen Breyer said: “I can’t say never decide a shadow-docket thing. … But be careful.”

Roberts also evidently disagrees with the use of the shadow docket in the Texas abortion case. In his dissent, joining the three liberal justices, he said the court could instead have blocked the Texas law while it made its way through the courts. That the court chose another path means that abortion is now all but illegal in the nation’s second-largest state.

The justices are likely to settle the question in a more lasting way next year. They will hear oral arguments this fall in a Mississippi abortion case — the more traditional kind, outside the shadows — and a decision is likely by June.

Read more from David in “The Morning” e-mail from the NYT.

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

Abrogating a treaty, intellectual dishonesty, neutering Federal statutes and regulations, scoffing at Constitutional due process, disregarding decency and human life (at least “life after birth”), AND illegally sending another human back to be tortured to death is indeed a “hard act to follow” and makes the 5th a serious contender. But, remember where this “opportunity to dump on migrants” came from!

Immigration practitioners will tell you never to underestimate the sloppiness, lack of expertise, irresponsibility, disdain for due process, and disregard for human lives that has become institutionalized at Garland’s “Miller Lite” captive appeals “court,” the BIA! And, like the Supremes and unlike the 5th Circuit, the BIA has nationwide jurisdiction and sets national precedents. But, unlike the Supremes, who decide fewer than 100 cases in an average year, the BIA assembly line charms out 20,000 to 30,000 cases annually through its defective processes, and it’s lousy, one-sided, anti-immigrant precedents and reactionary guidance that destroy thousands of lives and futures in Immigration Court every day!

So, when it comes to worst court of today, don’t count out the BIA!

As described by Charlotte Klein and former Acting SG Neal Kaytal @ Vanity Fair, the extremist right GOP is now fulfilling it’s long-promised “gruesome blueprint” to overthrow liberal democracy and perpetuate far-right, minority, authoritarian, in many ways neo-Nazi rule in America. https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2021/09/gruesome-blueprint-texas-assault-on-abortion-rights-could-have-snowball-effect

The “Commanding Generals” of this effort are unprincipled, far-right GOP jurists. Their initial targeted victims are, of course, the usual vulnerable suspects: migrants, asylum seekers, women, voters of color, transgender kids, the poor, union members, etc. But, eventually, all of us who reman true to liberal democratic values will be targeted for some kind of punishment. Immigration “led the way” in the “Dred Scottfication of the other” by the Supremes at the behest of  the Trump kakistocracy. But, don’t think that’s where this heinous resuscitation of one of the worst cases in American jurisprudence will end!

Meanwhile, this latest phase of the assault has unleashed the usual Dem arsenal of feckless weaponry, including:

• Statements of outrage untied to realistic possibilities; 
• Largely meaningless public demonstrations that are “media events” and not much else; 
• Idle threats of reprisals; 
• A barrage of op-eds decrying that the fringe radical right and their relatively unpopular agenda has once again outflanked liberals who represent the views and values of the majority;
• Statements of fact that have no material effect (public support for the complete elimination of abortion, al la Texas, the 5th, and the Supremes holds steady at 8%, while a large majority of Americans favor abortion in some form or another — explain how that has made a difference — also, does anybody really think that these right wingers give a fig that many women will die from illegal abortions and others will be saddled with unwanted children — the only part of human life that creates much compassion or empathy for this righty gang is that which occurs prior to birth);
• Appeals to precedent, fairness, decency, reasonableness, confirmation promises, and respect for the law addressed to a party and its jurists who value none of these things if they get in the way of their authoritarian agenda.

But, Dems, here’s a better idea! For once, why not try a different approach and actually work within what you DO control and CAN change? Something that will showcase the positive attributes of honest, expert, progressive judging while developing best practices and saving lots of  lives in the process. What do you have to lose, Dems? Can actually doing something to combat right-wing control of the judiciary rather than just impotently raging against it produce a worse result than you have already achieved — even when controlling the Executive, House, and Senate? 

There is not much in the immediate future that Biden and the Dems can (and are willing to) do to change the composition and tenor of the Supremes and the 5th Circuit. But Biden and Garland have complete control over the “Miller Lite” BIA and the Immigration Courts!

A new, well-qualified, BIA comprised of progressive expert judges unswervingly committed to scholarship, quality, due process, respect for migrants and their attorneys, and correct results could (and should) be installed by now. But, disgracefully, it isn’t! Progressives need to hold Biden’s and Garland’s feet to the fire until they create the positive change they promised, but have not delivered!

Then, once a new BIA is in place, go to work on re-competing all Immigration Judge jobs on a merit basis, incorporating key progressive values and real-life experiences, and also involving input from practitioners and outside experts in the area. Create a better progressive Federal Immigration Judiciary and let it lead the way to restoring due process, best practices, efficiency, humanity, fundamental fairness, and integrity to our broken immigration system!

Humanity is suffering! Garland must pull the plug 🔌 on the “BIA Clown Show” 🤡 before it kills ⚰️ anyone else! Pull the BIA from the “Most Dangerous Court In America Competition” before they can “win” it. A “win” for the BIA would certainly be a “loss” for America!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever! Bad Judges, Never!  

PWS

09-03-21