"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.
Dan Rather American Journalist PHOTO: Creative Courtside
FROM “STEADY” FOR July 1, 2022:
A HARD RIGHT TURN
By Dan Rather and Elliott Kirschner
As the United States Supreme Court wrapped up its spring term today, its marbled halls risked representing the setup to an ironic joke — albeit one not funny but rather cruel, dangerous, and foreboding.
The building is supposed to symbolize stability, fairness, and temperance. Instead, it has become headquarters for a majority group of highly partisan, reactionary players who make clear that they are uninhibited by history, precedent, or the will of the majority of the American people.
Their black robes are meant to convey modesty, humility, and wisdom. Yet this collection of politicians demonstrates the direct opposite.
This Supreme Court term will be remembered as the moment a cynical and anti-democratic movement, decades in the making, reached its zenith, empowered by bad faith and opportunism. Now the cabal lords its power over a broken political system from a perch of increased influence and lack of accountability.
This is power politics by unelected actors, appointed largely by men who lost the popular vote for president. Its path was paved by Mitch McConnell’s Machiavellian exploitation of the deaths of two justices. He was a master of shamelessness with a single purpose — to accomplish via judicial appointment what he could never have achieved through democratic means.
The damage he and his hard-right radicals have wrought touches all aspects of society, from abortion rights to commonsense gun control to the environment to what I believe is an overlooked evisceration of the separation of church and state. What we have are the ruins of what many took for granted as our constitutional rights. And nothing suggests these justices are anywhere near sated.
We have now firmly left behind the realm of the theoretical. This is real, and it will get only more so. For years there were those who warned that Roe wasn’t safe, and neither was anything else, that these justices were licking their chops to devour a modern America and spit out a distorted version of the past. Too many of these prophets were dismissed as hysterical, their fears histrionic and overblown. Surely, they were lectured, precedent matters. Certainly there would have to be some legal basis to rewrite America’s social contract and decades of settled rights.
Wrong.
All of you who spoke up, who tried to get others to pay attention, you deserve an apology.
There can be no hiding from it now. All of this is out in the open. The justices aren’t even trying to obscure what they are doing and where they intend to go. But in their transparent power plays, there are still faint glimmers of hope.
I hear from people who in the past had rarely talked about the court. Now, they are suddenly enraged. Many are focused on how, just today, the justices accepted a case for next year that could allow state legislatures to take a torch to fair elections. How many people in the past got so riled up about an upcoming court docket?
The Supreme Court relies on its reputation, and these days, its reputation for humility, fairness, and wisdom is in tatters. Its rulings increasingly seem to be far outside where most Americans are. Wait until they tackle contraception and the privacy of one’s bedroom.
To all who feel bereft of hope, I offer the lessons of social movements of the past. Perseverance is power. Organizing inspires optimism. Resilience breeds results.
In order to solve a problem, you first have to see it, name it, contend with its truth. That is the stage many are in now. But many others have already been there for a long time. This is a movement that already has leadership. Now it has momentum born from a desire to ensure that America goes forward, toward progress, and true to the Constitution and the will of its people.
“Nexus? What nexus? These “just happen to be” women facing a little “random violence!” Amazing StoriesArtist Unknown, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
With credible testimony and harm that rises to the level of persecution for a woman in El Salvador, who was the victim multiple rapes, on its face, this should have been an easy grant for a competent IJ.
Essentially, this judge argues that harm rising to the level of persecution — multiple rapes — inflicted on a woman in El Salvador, where femicide and misogyny run rampant, has nothing to do with her being a woman. Such a conclusion is unlikely — some experts would say facially absurd!
Indeed, the IJ’s apparent view that multiple rapes had nothing to do with a gender-based protected ground of being a woman would be totally “off the wall” for any experienced asylum adjudicator who truly understood the well-documented nature of violence against women as a widespread form of persecution worldwide!
According to the UN Handbook for Determining Refugee Status, adjudicators should give credible applicants “the benefit of the doubt.” “It is therefore frequently necessary to give the applicant the benefit of the doubt.” (Par. 203). That’s not what this IJ did!
Also, in the remand order, the BIA specifically rejected the IJ’s finding that this gross harm to the respondent was “individualized” and “personalized” and therefore not a basis for an asylum claim — something not mentioned by the IJ in his “certification.”
Counsel for the applicant is well aware of this “better analysis” and could have argued it.But, in his snarky haste to prejudge and deny needed protection, this Houston IJ didn’t even give the parties a chance to participate in his “return to sender” (“certification”) nonsense.
A better functioning expert BIA would have long ago provided precedential guidance granting cases like this — adopting and amplifying the rationale of the IJ in the Honduran case.
Additionally, the BIA remand instructed the IJ to inquire of the DHS as to whether this victim of multiple rapes with no apparent criminal record or other adverse factors was and “enforcement priority” under applicable DHS guidelines — something that the IJ contemptuously and improperly did not do! Indeed,he didn’t seek any input from the parties despite being instructed to do so.
Unquestionably, being an El Salvadoran woman is a) immutable or fundamental to identity; b) highly particularized, and c) socially visible, as recognized by the Salvadoran government and everyone in El Salvador, thereby clearly qualifying as a “particular social group.”
There is also plenty of reliable evidence that El Salvador, like the rest of the Northern and Triangle Governments, is basically a failed state — something publicly admitted by some Administration officials, including Special Envoy to the Northern Triangle Ricardo Zuniga. https://apple.news/A9FpzsjRAQ2OoAyQZzHZm1A (“democracy, the rule of law and the security situation continue to deteriorate”). The Salvadoran government is neither willing nor able to provide a reasonable level of protection to women like this applicant. Indeed, there is likely sufficient evidence for a better BIA to establish a “rebuttable presumption of failure of state protection” in El Salvador and the rest of the Northern Triangle.
Temporary Appellate Immigration Judge Gabe Gonzalez, author of the remand, is one of the better BIA judges. But, his remand could have been even stronger. He could have reversed this IJ and granted asylum on this record. Why “beat around the bush” on grantable cases that are being mishandled by “chronically over-denying IJs” below? At this point, removal of this particular judge from the case would be more than justified. Cases like this certainly raise the legitimate question of why IJs who sit around inventing reasons to deny relief to those in need of protection are on the Immigration Bench in the first place. There are certainly better-qualified judicial choices — many of them located in Texas — who could bring legitimacy, quality, and efficiency to Garland’s dysfunctional courts!
“Bogus lack of nexus” is one of the most overused grounds for improper denials of protection by EOIR judges at all levels. It’s part of the “any reason to deny” approach enabled by EOIR’s current “anti-asylum culture” — one that was overtly encouraged and promoted by the Trump DOJ.
Inexplicably selecting Houston as one of the “test locations” for the new asylum regulations is “built to fail.” Without expert, positive guidance from qualified IJs in Houston (and the BIA) on granting asylum — something that this “denial centered court” simply doesn’t possess — there is every reason to believe that asylum seekers will not receive professional treatment or correct decisions from either the Asylum Office or the Immigration Court in Houston. And, relying on the BIA or, worse yet the “over the top” 5th Circuit,” to guarantee fairness and justice for asylum seekers? That’s a sick joke under current conditions!
8) Poorly reasoned, legally incorrect asylum denials and frivolous actions like the IJ’s “certification” in this case are a major factor in generating a 1.8 million case EOIR backlog and enabling a lawless, non-expert, anti-immigrant “culture of denial” at EOIR. Many grantable asylum cases languish in the backlog, are subjected to “Aimless Docket Reshuffling,” and then are wrongfully denied by poorly performing judges at both levels of EOIR.
9) EOIR suffers from poor leadership, a poorly performing BIA that overall lacks the expertise and courage to grant the large number of deserving asylum cases currently languishing in the EOIR backlog, and to set proper legal standards that will guide Immigration Judges and Asylum Officers in efficiently granting deserving cases at the first level of the system.
10) Garland should remove or reassign the “under-performers” and “non-performers” at EOIR and replace them with qualified experts committed to best practices and “guaranteeing fairness and due process for all” (EOIR’s now long-forgotten and dishonored mission).
11) Lives and the future of democracy are at stake here! America simply can’t afford the “institutionalizednonsense” still rampant at EOIR as illustrated by this case!
12) Also, EOIR’s performance in this cases is inconsistent with almost every sentence of the recent “LA Declaration.” Issuing statements of principle that are directly contradicted by your actual practices is a bad idea!
This has been a bad week for individual rights and particularly the rights and humanity of women in America. Garland can’t fix the out of control, “fringe-right,” Supremes’ majority. But, he can fix EOIR! And, that would be a long overdue and desperately needed first step toward fixing the entire broken and foundering Federal Court system. Start “at the retail level” with what you have the power to fix and work from there!
Most experts view the Biden Administration’s approach to refugees, asylum, human rights, and racial justice in America as disturbingly short-sighted! Mr. Magoo PHOTO: Gord Webster Creative Commons License
From Human Rights First, June 1, 2022:
Human Rights First yesterday submitted a public comment on the Biden administration’s Interim Final Rule that creates a new process for adjudication of some asylum claims.
Under the rule, asylum seekers who are placed in the expedited removal process and who establish a credible fear of persecution may be assessed in an initial full asylum interview with the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Cases not granted by the Asylum Office will be referred to immigration court removal proceedings, as will other asylum cases that are not granted by the Asylum Office.
Courtesy Getty
Asylum seekers and U.S. Customs and Border Protection agents at the US-
Mexico border near Yuma, Arizona.
While Human Rights First welcomes some aspects of the rule, we expressed our concern about unreasonably fast deadlines that would sacrifice fairness, thwart efficiency, and exacerbate backlogs. We also oppose provisions that threaten asylum seekers’ right to a full and fair hearing on their asylum claims.
The rule guts a crucial safeguard in the credible fear process: it provides that the new asylum process will be conducted after subjecting asylum seekers to the fundamentally flawed expedited removal process, which has been shown to return refugees to persecution and death.
In our public comment on the rule and a factsheet on its concerning provisions, we have recommended changes to help asylum seekers receive timely, fair, and accurate adjudications.
********************
The full HRF comment is available at the above link!
As with most Government immigration/civil/human rights programs, a large part of the problem is WHO is making these decisions, WHO is setting precedents, and WHO is overseeing the process and enforcing accountability.
The Biden Administration is still operating EOIR and large portions of the immigration bureaucracy at DHS with Trump-era “holdovers” who were improperly “programmed to deny” asylum.
There is a dearth of positive precedents from the BIA on gender-based asylum and othertypes of common asylum applications at the border that are routinely and wrongfully mishandled and denied.
There are cosmic problems resulting from failure to provide qualified representation of asylum seekers at the border.
Detention continues to be misused as a “deterrent” to legal claims and “punishment” forassertingthem.
Despite “touting” a much larger refugee admissions program beyond the border, the Administration has failed to deliver a robust, realistic, refugee admissions program for Latin America and the Caribbean which would take pressure off the border.
Racism and White Nationalism continue to drivethe Administration’s dramatically inconsistent approach to White refugeesfrom Ukraine compared with refugees of color at the Southern Border.
In plain terms, because of what the Biden Administration hasn’t done over the past 17 months, the new asylum regulations are “programmed for failure.”
“Tough noogies, ladies, suck it up and accept your fate,” say Federal Judges Southwick, Jones, and Oldham of the 5th Cir! Amazing StoriesArtist Unknown, Public domain, via Wikimedia CommonsNo “particular social group” here says 5th Circuit Judge Southwick and his buddies Jones and Oldham. Just a little “good old fashioned trial by ordeal.” 17th Century Woodcut Public Realm Source: Ancient Origins Website https://www.ancient-origins.net/history/trial-ordeal-life-or-death-method-judgement-004160
Toxic Trio of “America’s Worst & Most Cowardly Judges” sticks it to Salvadoran refugee woman who survived domestic violence in country where femicide is rampant and uncontrolled by corrupt and inept government.
Lopez Perez v. Garland, 5th Cir., 06-02-22, published
BEFORE:Edith Jones (Reagan), Andrew Oldham (Trump), and Leslie H. Southwick (Bush II) Circuit Judges
OPINION: Judge Southwick
Lopez-Perez argues here that the IJ erred under Matter of A-R-C-G- by concluding that she had not established a nexus between her persecution and her social group. Further, she argues that the IJ incorrectly decided that the government of El Salvador was willing and able to protect her.2 These issues were identified in her Notice of Appeal and are preserved for our review here.
It is true that the IJ concluded that Lopez-Perez had not demonstrated the requisite nexus and further that she had not shown that the government was unable or unwilling to help her. Although the IJ’s analysis was cursory, we nonetheless conclude that his decision must be upheld because remand would be futile. Jaco, 24 F.4th at 406. The IJ intimated that Lopez-Perez’s proffered social groups — “Salvadoran women in domestic relationships who are unable to leave; or Salvadoran women who are viewed as property by virtue of their position in a domestic relationship” — were cognizable.
2 Lopez-Perez also argues for the first time that we should remand to the IJ for consideration in light of intervening decisions in Matter of A-B-, 27 I. & N. Dec. 316 (Att’y Gen. 2018) and Grace v. Whitaker, 344 F. Supp. 3d 96 (D.D.C. 2018), aff’d in part, rev’d in part sub nom. Grace v. Barr, 965 F.3d 883 (D.C. Cir. 2020). We decline this invitation. In addition to the fact that this argument was not raised in her Notice of Appeal, Matter of A- B- has been overruled, see A-B- III, 28 I. &. N Dec. 307 (Att’y Gen. 2021), and this court specifically rejected Grace in Gonzales-Veliz, 938 F.3d at 233–34. See also Meza Benitez v. Garland, No. 19-60819, 2021 WL 4998678, at *4 (5th Cir. Oct. 27, 2021) (explaining this Circuit’s rejection of Grace).
7
Case: 20-60131 Document: 00516340524 Page: 8 Date Filed: 06/01/2022
No. 20-60131
We have disagreed, holding that circularly defined social groups are not cognizable. See id. at 405; accord Gonzales-Veliz, 938 F.3d at 226. Indeed, the social groups identified in Jaco are nearly identical to those claimed by Lopez- Perez: “Honduran women who are unable to leave their domestic relationships . . . and Honduran women viewed as property because of their position in a familial relationship.” Jaco, 24 F.4th at 399. Because the IJ is bound to follow the law of this circuit on remand, he would be forced to conclude that Lopez-Perez’s social groups were not cognizable, thus ending the analysis. See In re Ramos, 23 I. & N. Dec. 336, 341 (BIA 2002) (noting that the BIA is “unquestionably bound” to follow circuit court rulings).
We DENY the petition for review.
********************************
It’s worthy of note that neither party challenged the propriety of the “particular social group!” So, this panel actually went beyond the issues before them to “stick it to” this abused refugee woman by gratuitously rejecting a well-established formulation of a “particular group” that has been the basis for granting protection in literally thousands of cases going back over two decades. (I note that even before A-R-C-G-, in Arlington the DHS Counsel routinely accepted this formulation of a “PSG” based on the so-called “Martin Memo” from DHS.)
Perhaps, that’s because even this panel acknowledged that the IJ’s “nexus analysis,” the actual ground of denial was “cursory.” In other words, this vulnerable women sought legal protection only to be shafted by poorly qualified Federal Judges at every level — the Immigration Court, the BIA, and the Fifth Circuit!
Here’s what Wade Henderson, then President and CEO of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights had to say about Judge Leslie H. Southwick in opposition to his confirmation:
Given the tremendous impact that federal judges have on civil rights and liberties, and because of the lifetime nature of federal judgeships, no judge should be confirmed unless he or she demonstrates a solid commitment to protecting the rights of all Americans. Because Judge Southwick has failed to meet this burden, we must oppose his confirmation.
Here’s what the progressive group “Suit Up Maine” had to say about Judge Andrew Oldham at the time of his confirmation:
ANDREW OLDHAM: Confirmed by the Senate on July 18, 2018. Collins voted YES; King voted NO. Nominated to be federal judge for the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, Oldham is young, aggressively conservative, and has been involved in controversial litigation that emphasized ideology over the law. Oldham has worked on cases aimed at limiting reproductive rights, challenging the Affordable Care Act, challenging California’s law requiring good cause for concealed carry of firearms, and challenging habeas rights, all of which were ultimately unsuccessful. He defended Texas laws that limited women’s access to abortions that were ultimately determined by the Supreme Court to put “undue burden” on women’s right to choose. His challenge to the Affordable Care Act based on the “Origination Clause” of the Constitution was dismissed by the 5th Circuit for lack of standing. He attempted to barr the use of habeas corpus claims by two plaintiffs, but appeals courts allowed the claims. He also filed an amicus brief on behalf of multiple states (including Maine) using the Second Amendment to challenge a California law requiring good cause for concealed carry of firearms. The 9th Circuit ruled that the Second Amendment does not protect a right to concealed carry of firearms. Additionally, Oldham was involved in challenging the EPA’s greenhouse gas rules under the Clean Air Act, and he defended Texas campaign finance laws that were being challenged by multiple nonprofits and political committees under the First Amendment. His record of unsuccessful attempts to shape the law according to his own conservative ideology suggests that this bias is likely to accompany him to the federal bench.
All these fears, criticisms, and predictions of bias have proved to be all too well-founded in the mal-performance of this “Toxic Trio” of far right ideologues.
“Heard (not Amber) on the street:
“So the one BIA precedent in the past 20 years that actually recognized a PSG as valid isn’t worthy of Chevron deference, but A-B- was?!!”
“No more judicial restraint? Why is DOJ not changing position and or dropping these cases?”
“The 5th Circuit decision claims to direct all IJs in the 5th NOT to apply ARCG. And, most 5th Circuit IJs are high deniers anyway, so they don’t exactly need encouragement.”
“Perhaps better IJs could think of creative ways to work around the 5th’s decision. But, they don’t exist in the 5th Circuit in Garland’s EOIR.”
“It also shows the problems caused by Garland’s failure to “redo” the BIA and the IJ corps on “Day 1.” By now, it’s too late.”
Unqualified, far-right Federal Judges, egged on and supported by Stephen Miller and GOP State AGs, have basically usurped the power of Congress and the Executive to set immigration policies. There is lots of contempt for humanity, racism, misogyny, religious intolerance, and disrespect for true individual liberty driving their vile and illegal agenda.
The Constitutional rights of all Americans and the future of our democracy is at stake here. Will enough folks wake up and resist this takeover before it ‘s too late? TBD!
The need for effective assistance of counsel applies in immigration law just as it does in criminal law. Aliens, many of whom do not speak English and some of whom are detained before their immigration hearings, can be particularly susceptible to the consequences of ineffective lawyers.
Petitioner Arckange Saint Ford paid a lawyer to represent him in removal proceedings, but Saint Ford’s requests for relief from deportation were denied after the lawyer failed to present important and easily available evidence going to the heart of Saint Ford’s claims. Saint Ford retained new counsel, and his new lawyer asked the Board of Immigration Appeals to reopen his case because of his former attorney’s ineffective assistance. The Board declined to do so. Because Saint Ford presents a meritorious ineffective-assistance claim, we will vacate the Board’s decision and remand.
And concurring Judge Ambro had a harsh assessment of the IJ, the BIA, and most of all A.G. Garland, who has been remarkably “tone deaf” about correcting the grotesque expertise and due process problems in his “wholly owned, astoundingly dysfunctional” Immigration “Courts:”
Arckange Saint Ford will get a second shot at canceling the Government’s order of removal—that’s what matters. The majority is remanding because of his former counsel’s deficient performance at Saint Ford’s removal hearing. I agree with that and concur in full.
But former counsel was not the only one who made significant missteps at the hearing. The Immigration Judge did as well. I therefore would have granted Saint Ford’s initial petition for review and remanded on that basis. I write separately to explain these errors in the hope that similar ones will not be made at Saint Ford’s new hearing.
. . . .
Here, though it was reasonable to request Saint Ford corroborate his testimony about the identity and motive of his harassers, the IJ did not tell him what corroboration she needed or give him a chance to present that evidence. There is no indication she engaged in the Abdulai inquiry as required before skipping straight to “hold[ing] the lack of corroboration against [Saint Ford].” Id. (alterations adopted). She went from first to third across the pitcher’s mound. Our Abdulai inquiry is there to ensure these important corners aren’t cut.
**************
What’s wrong with this picture? Going on two decades after the enactment of the REAL ID Act, this IJ gets basic corroboration wrong on a life or death asylum case. Then, she compounds the error by failing to apply a two-decades old circuit precedent. The case sails through the BIA. Then, Garland’s OIL defends the indefensible. “Corner cutting” has become institutionalized, permitted, and even encouraged in today’s broken EOIR!
Meanwhile, it’s left to Circuit Judge Ambro to do the jobs of Garland, his failed BIA, and an IJ badly in need of remedial training! This is an expert tribunal? This is justice? This is due process? Gimmie a break!
This is squarely on Garland! He enables and defends defective, due-process-denying decisions by EOIR. His grotesque failure to appoint and empower a BIA that will end this nonsense and insist on competent legal performance from ALL Immigration Judges in these life or death cases is disgraceful!
Cases like this also “give lie” to the bogus claims that today’s EOIR is comprised of “experts” who can be trusted to remedy due process defects, model best practices, or (perhaps most absurdly) insure that the rights of all respondents, including the unrepresented, are protected. Why is a Dem Administration running a “due process denial machine?” Why is OIL defending the indefensible? Why is Garland still the AG, despite showing little interest and scant skill in creating a due process/fundamental fairness oriented tribunal at the “retail level” of our staggering justice system!
You don’t have to be a “rocket scientist” to trace the disrespect for the Constitutional, statutory, and human rights of migrants, largely individuals of color, to hate crimes, misogyny, curtailment of voting rights, and disrespect for equal justice and racial justice throughout our nation. The stunningly poor performance of the U.S. Immigration Courts under Garland also sets an unfortunate tone for the staggering and highly politicized Federal Court system from bottom to top!
Just think how much better this system would work if Immigration Judges were getting guidance from the BIA to get these correct in the first place.
Also raises additional questions of why: 1) cases like this aren’t precedents; and 2) so-called “Temporary” Appellate Immigration Judges like Judge Gabe Gonzalez are “outperforming” most “permanent” BIA Judges?
There is more helpful, practical guidance in Judge Liebmann’s “two-pager” than in most BIA precedents. So, why isn’t this a precedent?
A.G. Garland overruled Session’s abominable, wrong-headed precedent nearly one year ago. Yet, there has been no further guidance from the BIA on the meaning of the “reinstated A-R-C-G-.” Nor, have the so-called “gender-based regulations” ordered by Biden and referenced by Garland ever seen the light of day.
Meanwhile, there are many cases like this out there in the backlog. Most of them could be granted with proper guidance and supervision from a “Better BIA.” No wonder the backlog continues to grow!
My prediction that the “ascension” (she was a “mere TBM” at the time of this particular decision) of Judge Liebmann to join Judge Saenz on the BIA would be a “breath of fresh air” for practitioners appears to be gaining at least some traction. But, it’s going to take more than two well-qualified judges to pull the BIA out of its current “death spiral.”
No institution welcomes scrutiny. Maintaining internal cohesion and operational focus demands informational boundaries against the rest of the world. This wish deserves respect, but not automatic submission, especially when matters of vast public consequence are at stake.
That’s why news media take it as a duty to ignore organizational secrecy rules — except when disclosure would cause unwarranted harm — and insist that public awareness must outweigh institutional convenience. A document leaked from most any federal agency that upended longstanding policy would unquestionably be legitimate news, even if it was preliminary, even if exposure would gum up a cozy internal process, even if the leak broke agency rules.
But not when it comes to the Supreme Court.
Of all our governmental institutions, it is unique in the awe and deference with which our news media, for all their endless claims to seek truth aggressively, treat it.
To be sure, secrecy has a place in the judicial system. Grand juries, for example, are prosecutorial contrivances where untested evidence is presented and people suspected of wrongdoing have weak adversarial protections. Damaging the innocent by publicizing unrebutted claims is a strong possibility. Secrecy makes sense.
But the issue here is altogether different. The leak was of a 98-page draft opinion with 118 footnotes, not a filched personal email or the secondhand account of an overheard chat. It was deeply researched and carefully composed and was distributed internally nearly three months ago, and it signals a major change in an explosive area of public policy. Publishing it doesn’t endanger national security and puts no innocent lives at risk.
So should the Supreme Court, virtually alone among core public institutions, be entitled to say, “We’ll show it to you when we’re ready for you to see it?”
At best, that exceptionalist claim rests on a carefully nurtured myth of the court as a scholarly sanctuary in which big questions of public purpose are engaged through reflection, historical inquiry and quiet, reasoned debate, a process of ripening that must take place behind the sealed doors of an intellectual greenhouse.
That fiction lost credibility a long time ago, at least for anybody who was paying attention in the year 2000 when the court, with the flimsiest of pretexts, awarded the presidency to the candidate with fewer votes but of the same party as its majority.
Indeed, what standards of accountability govern the court? Its members serve life terms free from disciplinary oversight. To get aboard, nominees routinely lie before Congress — about their personal behavior and their judicial philosophy — rendering the Senate’s authority to approve candidates meaningless. Serving justices are not held to any discernible standard of independence. Their right to rule on matters in which close family have personal stakes, or on which they have clear prior leanings, is completely unregulated.
And then there’s the recent sharp increase in furtive rulings reached off-season without full briefing or oral argument — known as the shadow docket — which has further narrowed the window of public visibility. Last summer the court issued 11 such rulings, up from three in 2016, in a slapdash and opaque workaround beloved of the conservative majority that produces jurisprudence that “every day becomes more unreasoned, inconsistent, and impossible to defend,” as dissenting liberal Justice Elena Kagan said.
Perhaps the Roe leak will inaugurate a new era for the court. Maybe there will be more impertinent reporting that exposes the reasoning, bargaining, trade-offs and personal dynamics that drive constitutional lawmaking at the highest levels. Rather than something to be dreaded, such transparency would leave us all better informed and more fully empowered to play the role the system prescribes for us — to shape our collective future.
Edward Wasserman is professor of journalism and former dean of the Graduate School of Journalism at UC Berkeley.
**************************
Read Wasserman’s full article at the link.
He says, “No institution welcomes scrutiny.” Very true. Any leader or group of leaders who claim the contrary are probably lying.
Scrutiny sometimes brings accountability. And, as our system deteriorates before our eyes, that’s something that has become rare in today’s politics and public life.
Critics were stunned Saturday after Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas scolded Americans for not accepting controversial rulings — after his own wife battled against the results of a legitimate presidential election.
Thomas chided a distraught public in comments Friday at a judicial conference in Atlanta following the leak of a draft Supreme Court opinion that would gut Roe v. Wade and a half-century of the right to an abortion.
He complained that Americans are “addicted” to results they want — while “not living with” rulings they oppose. He warned that the court will not be “bullied” in the face of protest. Declining respect for the law and institutions, Thomas warned, “bodes ill for a free society.”
Thomas detractors were agog. Not only has his wife, Virginia “Ginni” Thomas, refused to “live with” the presidential election, he was the sole Supreme Court justice to vote that former President Donald Trump should not have to release his White House documents to the House committee investigating last year’s insurrection.
Thomas has also repeatedly attempted to rip up legal precedence set by the court.
“The irony is so thick you wonder if it’s maybe a Clarence Thomas impersonator,” former U.S. Attorney Harry Litman said on MSNBC Saturday.
“Among other things, this is a guy who has spent a lifetime trying to take a battering ram to all the Supreme Court major precedents” of law, Litman added. “He’s now saying people don’t respect the law enough. That’s even leaving aside all the controversies he has engendered, as has his wife. It’s just … remarkable.”
. . . .
***************************
Read the full article at the link.
There is no end to the hypocrisy and subversiveness of the Thomas Clan and the far-right.
This from my good friend and Alexandria neighbor Professor Alberto Benitez over at GW Law:
The attached article from the Washington Post reads like the affidavits we prepare and file in support of our clients’ asylum applications. Please read to the end. All respect to Sra. Alvarado, Sr. Osorio, and all the survivors, may the victims rest in peace, and thanks to Ms. Schneider and Mr. Langille.
Kevin Sieff Latin America Correspondent Washington PostNick Miroff Reporter, Washington Post
From the above article by Kevin Sieff & Nick Miroff @ WashPost:
*********************************
Obviously, what’s described elsewhere in the article is really “top notch” law enforcement work from DHS. It also illustrates one of my “continuing themes” of “effective interdisciplinary cooperation in immigration cases.”
The irony is that DHS now spends too much of its law enforcement time trying to “chase down the victims of persecution” and deny them their rights to apply for asylum and their opportunity have their cases fairly evaluated and adjudicated.
What if, if rather than yielding to disgusting political grandstanding by GOP nativists and, sadly, some misguided Dems, who want to misuse Title 42 to end asylum law, the Administration stood up for the rights of refugees and asylum seekers for fair and orderly processing and determination of their claims for protection? What if refugees were encouraged to apply at legal ports of entry and at points outside the U.S. Wouldn’t that leave more time for “real” law enforcement at DHS — at the border and everywhere else?
Interestingly, during the Trump regime, some ICE Special Agents came to the same conclusion. They unsuccessfully “lobbied” then DHS Secretary Nielsen for separation from the “gonzo civil enforcement” that ICE then was carrying out — concentrating on “terrorizing” local ethnic communities. Not surprisingly, this made local enforcement in many areas reluctant to cooperate with ICE on real law enforcement priorities — like that described in this case.
As this article suggests, there has been a real “mixed message” in DHS and DOJ in handling of asylum claims from the Northern Triangle. One arm acknowledges and prosecutes massive acts of persecution that are actually war crimes. Another arm, aided by bad judging at EOIR and poor leadership at DOJ, disingenuously denies that such persecutions took place — sometimes mischaracterizing it as “random violence” — and that violence amounting to persecution on account of a “protected ground,” particularly violence directed at women and children, remains widespread in Latin America today.
Eliana Weinstein research assistant in the department of anesthesiology at Weill Cornell Medicine PHOTO: CornellProfessor Stephen Yale-Loehr Cornell Law
By ELIANA WEINSTEIN and STEPHEN YALE-LOEHR, NEW YORK DAILY NEWS |
Abortion bans have far-reaching consequences. Within the first 30 days of the enactment of the Texas abortion ban last September, the state saw a 60% decline in abortions. Refugees — who are disproportionately represented in southern states along the U.S. border — are among the most endangered groups. These individuals face imminent danger, violence or persecution in their home country.
Due to inherent instability, refugees are especially vulnerable to sex trafficking along the migration journey. The fear of deportation, lack of immigration status, lower educational attainment, inability to speak English and unfamiliarity with U.S. employment protections mark them as targets. Immigrant women make up 80% of sex-trafficked individuals in the United States.
The glaring omission of exceptions for rape or incest under the Texas law is disturbing. An estimated 5% of rapes among victims of reproductive age result in pregnancy, which by one estimate amounts to 32,000 rape-related pregnancies each year in the United States. The six-week mark under the Texas law allows a maximum buffer of two weeks from the time a pregnant woman misses her period, the first sign of pregnancy. In a third of rape-related pregnancy cases, victims do not discover they are pregnant until the second trimester, 13 weeks into the pregnancy.
. . . .
The shadow of the forthcoming Supreme Court decision lies at the intersection of human rights, law, and medicine. Abortion transcends partisan politics, with far-reaching consequences for women, children, healthcare providers, and all tax-paying citizens.
Rather than prioritize the life of an unborn child, our country must consider the lives that will be forever altered by a birth into desperate circumstances. States should enact protections for groups that will be most vulnerable, including victims of assault or rape, sex-trafficked individuals, and refugees. By defending our nation’s most vulnerable, we would see substantial benefits to the nation as a whole.
Weinstein is a research assistant in the department of anesthesiology at Weill Cornell Medicine. Yale-Loehr is an immigration professor at Cornell Law School.
****************************
Read the full op-ed at the link.
But, as some of my NDPA colleagues would say, isn’t cruelty and hurting refugee women of color the point of the far right’s war on abortion?
It’s certainly not about the welfare of children and women for which they care not a fig. See, e.g., vicious attacks on vulnerable LGBTQ kids and their families; end of child tax credits; child separtion; unrepresented kids in Immigration Court; making “White kids feel good” at the expense of their minority classmates; seeking to circumvent protections for unaccompanied minors at the border; disparaging statements calling U.S. citizens “anchor babies,” etc.
Ironically, children of migrant women are considered by the GOP to be “persons” as long as they are in the womb. Once they are born, they become “nonpersons” with few if any rights that Repubs are willing to recognize.
If they could (and that might be next), they would strip kids of undocumented parentage of citizenship. Who says today’s Supremes wouldn’t go along? Having a class of “nonpersons” makes their job easier. No rights, no problems for righty judges and right wing politicos!
GW Law Immigration Clinic Director Professor Alberto Benítez & Co-Director Paulina Vera
“I really do not find enough words to let you know how grateful I am to all of you for your wise and timely guidance at all times and for the dedication and commitment that you assumed from the first moment towards our asylum case.”
Please join me in congratulating Immigration Clinic client T-G and her son F-P, from Venezuela, and their student-attorneys Karoline Núñez, Samuel Thomas, Alexandra Chen, and Jeremy Patton. The clients’ asylum application was filed April 28, 2017, their interview at the Asylum Office was on November 1, 2021, and the grant was issued March 21, 2022. T-G received the grant yesterday.
T-G is a survivor of domestic violence at the hands of her husband. He’d punch T-G, force her to have sexual relations, infected her with a STD, and he blamed her for their daughter’s neurological issues. Their daughter contracted Zika but was unable to receive the appropriate treatment because T-G was not a supporter of the Maduro government. Their daughter died at age 14.
Many congrats to the GW Immigration Clinic and all the GW All-Stars! 🤮⚖️
Let’s get behind the intentional dehumanization and the chronically misleading “numbers” being thrown around by nativists, some so-called “moderate” Dems, and the DHS. Put a “human face” on our nation’s dereliction of legal duty and abandonment of values at out Southern border.
The Faces Of Human Suffering @ Our Border PHOTO: The Guardian
This case is a compelling example of the types of refugees, many women and children and most people of color, who are stuck at our Southern Border as illegal suspension of asylum laws, based on racially- motivated bogus “public health” grounds grinds on. With some legal assistance and a fair and orderly system in place, many of those waiting could qualify for asylum if given a fair chance under the law.
Access to the asylum system, representation, and fair and impartial adjudication are essential to success. Right now, the Biden Administration is denying all three.
Make no mistake, this disingenuous action would kill asylum for good! These guys don’t even have the guts to admit that they are now carrying out Stephen Miller’s xenophobic war on immigrants and refugees of color.
Biden ran on an elimination of Title 42 and restoration of the legal asylum process. If 18 months after the election they lack a “plan,” there is no reason to believe that 60 more days would make a difference. It’s now or never!
60 days would bring us even closer to the mid-terms. If Dems are scared to follow the law now, that’s not going to improve as the midterms get even closer.
You can be sure that once the midterms are past, particularly if Dems get “blown out” as they fear, they will claim that the time “isn’t right” for any immigration “reform” (although, following the law is hardly a real “reform”) in advance of the 2024 election. If the GOP wins in ’24, the effective elimination of legal immigration — with or without legislation — will be finalized.
This has nothing to do with COVID at this point. It never really did. It was always about finding a pretext to close the border and keep it closed — at least to non-White refugees. But, since COVID constantly mutates, there will always be some sort of “COVID emergency” out there for the foreseeable future.
Asylum applicants have NOT been a significant source of COVID.They are far less of a threat to our health, safety, and security than GOP “magamorons” who eschew vaccination and basic public safety precautions. The Biden Administration should have a plan in place to insure that asylum seekers are tested and if necessary vaccinated before admission.
If we have no legal asylum system at the border, no functional refugee system abroad, and no hope for the future, the only way for individuals to seek protection will be by using smugglers to enter illegally and then hoping to “lose themselves” in a burgeoning “extralegal population” throughout out America. Once we abandon any pretext of a legal system for asylum seekers, the border will get further and further out of control. That will add to the GOP’s claims that more and more cruel, draconian, and punitive measures are necessary. But, they won’t stop desperate people from attempting entry until they either succeed or die in the process.
Contrary to the misguided blather of some Dems, there will never be a better time for Dems to support asylum seekers. They are concentrated in border areas, and eager to have their claims heard. Orderly processing and admitting as many as qualify, in a period of artificially reduced migration, would help the economy, raise tax revenues, and address supply chain issues. If not now, when?
Restoring asylum law is a legal requirement, not a “strategy,” “policy,” or “political choice.” If Dems turn their backs on the rule of law, what makes them different from the GOP?
If this divisive nonsense and backsliding on basic constitutional, racial justice, and social justice issues continues, progressive Dems are going to be faced with having to make a decision about the party’s future.
Progressive Dems make up a key part of the party’s core base and a disproportionate amount of the “boots on the ground, grass roots enthusiasm.” Republicans aren’t going to vote for Dems, no matter how xenophobic, hateful, and racist Dems are toward migrants. So-called “independents,” are neither going to fill the Dems coffers nor pound the pavement and work the phone lines to “get out the vote.”
So, arrogant “Title 42 Dems” are assuming that they can “spit on” immigrant justice, racial justice, economic justice, and social justice and that their “core support” among progressives won’t diminish because they will always be preferable to “Trump Republicans.”
All in all, it’s a “big middle finger” to progressives and their social justice agenda. That’s an agenda that Biden actually successfully ran on.
If progressives really believe in a pro immigrant, pro rule of law, racial justice agenda, then they need to stand up to the backsliders and let them know that there will be real consequences of yet another “sellout of immigrants’ rights.” We’ll see whether progressive Dems have more backbone and courage than their “Title 42/Miller Lite wing.”
But, the Post badly missed the larger point — NO refugee can afford to wait, be they White Ukrainians, Black Haitians, Cameroonians, and Congolese, or Latinos from the Northern Triangle, Venezuela, and Nicaragua! Our obligations to asylees are not supposed to be “race-based!”
The U.S. has had a legal refugee and asylum system for more than four decades. During that time, Congress has made several amendments of the law to allow DHS to rapidly process and summarily remove those appearing at the border who, after prompt expert screening by Asylum Officers, cannot establish a “credible fear” of persecution.
Restrictionists and shamefully some so-called moderate Democrats, and sometimes CBP, seem to have conveniently “forgotten” that the law was designed to deal fairly and promptly with so-called “mass migrations” long before the advent of the bogus Title 42 charade.
For some periods during the 40 years since the enactment of the Refugee Act of 1980, the U.S. has run functional refugee and asylum programs. Not “perfect” or perhaps even “optimal,” but “functional.”
They have done this by employing experts, cooperating with NGOs (domestic and international), and building resettlement and support systems spearheaded by NGOs, using Government grants, and promoting teamwork and coordination with states and localities.
It has only been when Administrations of both parties have mindlessly turned away from human rights experts and followed the misguided and tone-deaf gimmicks advocated by nativists and apostles of “enforcement only deterrence” that the legal systems for refugees and asylees, and efficient, humane border enforcement, have fallen into disorder.
While refugee and asylum laws could undoubtedly be improved, contrary to the media blather and nativist grandstanding, we have the basic legal framework to deal with the current refugee and asylum situations at our borders and beyond. The question is whether the Biden Administration and Dems have the will, vision, competence, and willingness to cooperate with human rights experts to fix the mess intentionally created by Trump and return human decency, competence, and the rule of law to our borders! If not now, when?
Katharina Obser Director of Migrants Rights and Justice Women’s Refugee Commission PHOTO: Women’s Refugee Commission website
Yesterday at 2:08 p.m. EDT
An unfinished area of the border wall between the United States and Mexico near Sasabe, Ariz., on Jan. 23. (Salwan Georges/The Washington Post)
With respect, it was breathtaking how much Marc A. Thiessen’s April 13 op-ed, “Biden to turn border crisis into a total catastrophe,” mistook Trump-era “public health” policy for border security, conflated families fleeing for their lives with fentanyl crossing the U.S. border and carelessly suggested that returning to normal asylum processing means Wild West open borders.
Seeking asylum is a right guaranteed under U.S. and international law. Ending Title 42 — a policy that weaponizes public health law to shut down the U.S. asylum system, which has been long decried by public health experts — simply means that people fleeing danger can once again exercise their right to apply for protection. It is policies such as Title 42, rather than the act of seeking asylum itself, that cause harm and catastrophe at our border. Title 42 has artificially inflated apprehension numbers because those expelled are left with no choice but to try again and again to seek safety.
Let’s remember that Poland, a country smaller than the state of New Mexico, just took in 2 million refugees in one month. The United States can certainly ensure a fair and orderly asylum system to welcome people with dignity. It’s the right — and legal — thing to do.
Katharina Obser, Washington
The writer is director of the Migrant Rights and Justice program at the Women’s Refugee Commission.
*******************
Thiessen is chronically wrong, misinformed, and misleading. He’s a righty shill. Why the Post finds it necessary to insult its readers by publishing him is beyond me. But, he’s not the problem here! Merely a “toxic symptom.”
The problem is lack of resolve, planning, and commitment to human rights and the legal rights of refugees and asylum seekers within the Biden Administration and by some misguided Dem politicos. The Administration should be screening, organizing, and “pre-processing” asylum claims in Mexico RIGHT NOW, TODAY, so that there is an orderly, timely process in place BEFORE May 23. An “army” of Asylum Officers and NGO volunteers should be working together NOW to determine what easily grantable applications can be moved to the front of the line and actually granted on May 28 when new regulations go into effect.
From what I’ve read and heard, this isn’t happening. The Administration isn’t taking the necessary and available steps to make the system work at ports of entry and to use that success to establish the system’s credibility among asylum seekers and thereby discourage and “dis-incentivize” dangerous and problematic unauthorized entries between ports of entry.
The best way of “shutting down the Abbotts and the Thiessens of the world” is to get a functioning legal system back in place at the border using available legal tools and new regulations to insure that those entitled to asylum are promptly and favorably processed and admitted and that those not entitled to admission or protection are expeditiously returned.
It can be done! But, NOT the dilatory and confused way the Biden Administration appears to be going about it!
Also, a credible system that provides practical precedents and “real life examples” about who does and who does not qualify for asylum would help combat the misinformation about our legal system spread by smugglers, nativists like Thiessen, and disgracefully, some Dems.
That, in turn, should help individuals in countries in crisis to make better, more informed decisions about whether to seek asylum in the U.S. Also, the Biden Administration needs a robust, realistic refugee program for Latin America and the Caribbean. That would make it unnecessary for those who are refugees to come to the border to apply for asylum.
Katharina, you need to pick up the phone, call your contacts in the Biden Administration, and get them off their tails and laser-focused on solving the problems, before it is too late, rather than “wandering in the wilderness.” Sadly, Thiessen isn’t the only one talking nonsense and spreading misinformation!
Supposedly responsible officials in the Biden Administration, those who have disgracefully dragged their collective feet on lifting the Title 42 charade, restoring the rule of law to asylum, and long overdue due process reforms of the Immigration Courts, are “channeling Thiessen.” That’s as idiotic and counterproductive as it is immoral. It’s also “bad politics” — even if some Dems are too blind and scared to admit it!
Inexcusably, the experts who understand what’s happening at the border, the disastrous human effects, and who have the skills and visionary thinking essential to restore the rule of law at the border are largely “on the outside looking in.” But, Katharina, if you and other leaders of the NGO community can’t get the Biden Administration out of their “perma-funk” and focused on pulling out all the stops to fix the asylum system by May 23, their “planned failure” will become your never-ending problem. Worst of all, vulnerable, innocent humans, who want only to be treated fairly and in accordance with law, will continue to suffer unspeakable fates at the hands of our Government’s ineptitude!
Associate Provost/Co-Director of the Immigration Clinic/Professor of the Practice Laila L. Hlass Tulane Law
Laila, my friend, everywhere I look you’re making news! Here’s Dan Kowalski @ LexisNexis on Layla’s well-deserved Lisa Brodyaga Award from the National Immigration Project:
Laila was a “guest lecturer” in my Refugee Law and Policy class during her time as a Fellow at the CALS Asylum Clinic at Georgetown Law. Since then, I have “returned the favor” by traveling to Tulane Law, both virtually and in person, to speak to Laila’s class and other immigration events. Laila has been recognized for “putting Tulane Law on the map” for innovative practical scholarship in immigration and international human rights and excellence in clinical teaching. No wonder she carries a “string of titles” at Tulane Law!
Laila is also one of many exciting examples of how clinical immigration and human rights professors have not only moved into the “academic mainstream” at major American law schools, but have been recognized as leaders and innovators by the larger academic communities in which they serve. Immigration law teaching has come a long way since the late INS General Counsel Charlie Gordon’s Immigration Law Class at Georgetown was the “only game in town.” (Historical trivia note: My good friend the late BIA Judge Lauri Filppu and I “aced” Charlie’s class in 1974, thus “besting” our then-supervisor at the BIA. That could have been a “career limiting” move. But, we both ended up on the “Schmidt Board” in the 1990s.)
Many congrats, Laila, on an already amazing career with even more achievements and recognition in your future. Thanks for being such a brilliant, inspiring, and dynamic role model for the New Due Process Army!
EOIR Announces Appointment of Mary Cheng as Deputy Director
FALLS CHURCH, VA – The Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) today announced the appointment of Mary Cheng as the agency’s Deputy Director. Judge Cheng has served EOIR since 2009, including as a Deputy Chief Immigration Judge for the past five years.
“Judge Cheng brings a welcome combination of experience and expertise, preparing her for certain success as EOIR’s deputy director,” EOIR Director David L. Neal said. “Her experience on the immigration bench, her expertise as a managing judge, and her appreciation for the view from both counsels’ tables perfectly position her to help lead the agency to a reinvigorated commitment to our mission and to public service.”
As Deputy Director, Judge Cheng will assist Director Neal in supervising and managing all EOIR components, and developing and implementing agency policies and short- and long-term strategies.
Since April 2021, Judge Cheng has served as the Regional Deputy Chief Immigration Judge for the Eastern Region at EOIR. She previously served as a Deputy Chief Immigration Judge from 2017 to 2021, and she was the Acting Principal Deputy Chief Immigration Judge from August 2020 to February 2021. Judge Cheng has also served in the New York Immigration Court both as an Assistant Chief Immigration Judge from 2015 to 2017, and as an Immigration Judge from 2009 to 2015. Before joining EOIR, she served as Assistant Chief Counsel for the Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, from 2002 to 2009; and before that, she practiced immigration law in New York from 2000 to 2002. Judge Cheng received her Bachelor of Arts from New York University and a Juris Doctor from the New York Law School. She is a member of the New York State Bar.
****************
Judge Cheng had a 71.5% asylum grant rate while on the bench in NYC. That makes her an “outlier” (in a good way) among EOIR HQ “honchos” with significant Immigration Court experience.
Judge Cheng spent two years in the private practice ofimmigration law, albeit several decades ago, as well as serving as a JLC at the NY Immigration Court and an ICE prosecutor. So, she has a more “balanced perspective” on the system than many in EOIR.
Interestingly, Judge Cheng’s record on asylum cases is the “inverse” of the nationwide rate, where 2/3 of the asylum cases are denied and many IJs disgracefully reject almost every asylum case coming before them. So, she knows the system is broken, biased, unfair, and unprofessional!
The question is whether she will use her knowledge and skills to stand up for due process and fair treatment of asylum seekers? Or, will she become another in the long line of EOIR “go along to get along bureaucrats” — willing to sacrifice immigrants’ lives for job security and career advancement?
Hopefully, Judge Cheng will implement some “attitude changes” in an agency still far too committed to the Sessions/Barr “culture of denial” and to misusing, abusing, and mismanaging the Immigration Courts as a “deterrent” — carrying out Administration enforcement “priorities” —rather than acting as an independent court system using “enlightened practical scholarship” to guarantee due process and fundamental fairness for the individuals coming before it. EOIR has lost sight of its mission and Garland doesn’t seem interested in or capable of changing that.
As for the “certain success,” predicted by Director Neal, that’s been elusive for some previous Deputy Directors. Three previous Deputies have gone on to become EOIR Director: The late Kevin Rooney, Judge Kevin Ohlson, and the late Juan Osuna. But, “success” in an organization in failure that lacks a dynamic plan for long overdue fundamental personnel, procedural, and structural reforms looks like a tall order. It’s probably“Mission Impossible!”
The only true measure of “success” is whether the community that EOIR is supposed to serve comes to view the courts as fair, humane, and professional. That depends on changing the results of EOIR’s anti-asylum, often anti-immigrant “assembly line” approach to justice and its chronic, backlog-building“Aimless Docket Reshuffling” produced by attempting to please DOJ politicos at the expense of justice. Bureaucratic metrics and bogus DOJ and Administration political goals and agendas are meaningless in the “real world.”
What kind of “short and long-term strategies” will work in a struggling “court” system plagued by a burgeoning 1.8 million case backlog, endemic “Aimless Docket Reshuffling,” an appellate body stuck in reverse, a byzantine “agency management” structure, institutionalized “worst practices,” and too many judges who were the product of a poor selection process and inadequate training? There are some measures that potentially could succeed. But, “Team Garland” has pointedly ignored them with predictably bad consequences.
No one person can change the disastrous trajectory of EOIR. But, someone willing to take risks and give due process and fundamental fairness a chance could make a difference in the lives of the most vulnerable among us. Could Judge Cheng be that person? We’ll see.
